6 ms·

Antibiotic-Resistant 'Superbugs' Creep Into Nation's Food Supply

37 points by bconway 13y ago

mschuster91 13y ago
This is the only thing where I fully support the policy of the Green parties worldwide. Overusing antibiotics and other medicine, just to be able to grow up more animals in the same space, is plain greed and animal cruelty. The state should set a fixed minimum for meat prices (under which no product may be sold) and at the same time impose minimum levels of animal rights (roaming space, food variety, no declawing/tail cutting etc.). I know many will shoot me for advocating state regulation, but the free market most obviously has FAILED here.
- tfb 13y ago
  Agreed 100%. I hope this whole super-bug thing has a silver lining, in that it results in better treatment for animals bred for slaughter.
- aaronblohowiak 13y ago
  .. and also require the same standards of any imported meat.
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  But why buy meat at all? In terms of efficiency and "feeding the world" the cow lags behind quite seriously compared to that other GMO soya
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Beef is a particularly inefficient protein source.
    - mschuster91 13y ago
      The point is the taste and the fact that you can't nutritionally fully replace meat.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I'm talking about the production of beef, not its metabolic efficiency. There are meat products that are much more efficient than beef.
        mschuster91 13y ago
        Agreed, yet it will be difficult, if not outright impossible, to restructure US (and maybe Mexican) agriculture to raise e.g. pigs or chicken instead of cattle; also, each of these animal races carry their own individual risks - bird flu and "cannibalistic picking" (dunno the English term) in birds, and pig flu for pigs. The last food-animal-related health problems I heard of were multiple different bird and pig flu varieties, the last major problem with cattle was BSE/Jakob-Creutzfeld disaster years ago. So I think the cost of perfectly fine, but "preventively killed" animals should be weighed in, too.
      - meepmorp 13y ago
        You can't fully replace meat nutritionally? Any source for this assertion?
        mschuster91 13y ago
        At least not in child nutrition, unfortunately the only usable reference which is not vegan propaganda I could find are in German (http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/gesundessen/tid-21186/vegetarisch-leben-vegan-eignet-sich-nicht-fuer-kinder_aid_595804.html http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/gesundessen/tid-21... and http://www.dge.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1150 http://www.dge.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&#38...). TL;DR: It is extremely difficult to sustain the needs of a child with a pure vegetarian/vegan diet.
        rosser 13y ago
        Anecdata, but I know a woman who's never, in her entire life, not been a vegetarian, and she's probably the healthiest person I've ever met. It's easier than you think.
    - awolf 13y ago
      You get more than just protein from beef. Grass-fed beef, and ruminants in general, contain a wealth of human nutrition. It's not the product, is the producer. The perverse incentives in our meat and farming industries drive production of a vasty inferior product at an unsustainable price.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        What is the mass-market meat product that is more expensive to produce than beef?
        rdl 13y ago
        Farmed carnivorous fish (e.g. tuna)? I've started getting farmed bluefin at the Japanese fishmarket in Berkeley (confusingly called Tokyo Fish Market); it's essentially as good as wild bluefin, and I'll eat it, but is even more inefficient and expensive to produce than beef.
  - awolf 13y ago
    High quality meat is irreplaceable in the optimal human diet.
    - rosser 13y ago
      [citation needed] EDIT: I'm a vegetarian. I'm well aware there are nutrients that are harder to get on purely plant-based diets, but it's far from impossible. I'm getting my Omega 3s (all DHA and EPA, not merely ALA) from algae, and my B-12 from plant sources, too. What am I missing by not killing sentient things for sustenance?
      - lukifer 13y ago
        We have canines for a reason: our evolutionary and digestive history includes meat. I'm sensitive to the moral issues involved, and understand the arguments against eating pigs and cows; however, I think it's reasonably ethical, and biologically optimal, to at least eat fish and eggs. And no matter what, farm animals should be raised humanely (pasture farms, not factory farms).
        rosser 13y ago
        That our evolutionary history includes eating meat is by no means an argument that the nutritional benefits of meat are irreplaceable.
        justin66 13y ago
        Evolution dictates that we live long enough to reproduce and fight off anything that wants to kill our young. There is no reason to assume that it might somehow be a guide to what an "optimal human diet" (silly expression) might be.
    - bickfordb 13y ago
      And cave homes are irreplaceable in optimal human architecture?
- emiliobumachar 13y ago
  Ironic that the broad regulations you're advocating wouldn't address the issue at hand, that you mentioned in the previous paragraph. How about to make it illegal to give antibiotics to animals that are not sick, or making new antibiotics illegal for animal use for a number of years?
pontifier 13y ago
Why don't we have more food irradiation?
- tptacek 13y ago
  Antibiotics probably improve yield throughout the process, not just after processing.
- carbocation 13y ago
  Giving antibiotics to livestock causes them to gain weight. I suspect that this profitable feature is the primary reason that antibiotics are used in cattle. Does anyone in this field have any info to verify or refute?
  - twilde 13y ago
    The primary reason for anti-biotics is due to the fact that the farmers feed their livestock nutritionally devoid but massively cheaper corn - which weakens the overall immune system. Antibiotics are not needed when "organic" measures are put into place and cows are free range and fed better, nutritionally beneficial foods to begin with. But that's costlier, so, not going to happen on a commercial scale, regardless of how inefficient and unsustainable it is to continue.
hownottowrite 13y ago
Original source data: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance/NationalAntimicrobialResistanceMonitoringSystem/UCM334834.pdf http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/A...
colmvp 13y ago
Lance Price is quoted in this article. Here is his testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Health. It's a pretty short read. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Testimony-Price-Health-ADUFA-AGDUFA-2013-4-9.pdf http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/file...
awolf 13y ago
>These bacteria are finding ways to get around antibiotics in animals >"We've actually run out of antibiotics that really keep animals healthy," Price said. "We're finding strains of bacteria in animals that are resistant to so many antibiotics." How about this novel solution: stop raising animals in a way that requires them to guzzle down tons of antibiotics in order to survive. I love how this article fails to even mention the possibility that livestock animals do not need to ALWAYS BE SICK. Preposterous.
- mschuster91 13y ago
  The problem with capitalism is that pure capitalism does not account for social issues, be them human-related or animal-related. Neither does communism. But people still believe that raw capitalism (or, in cases like North Korea, communism) can succeed.
  - awolf 13y ago
    Awareness seems to be spreading about the negative health implications of our factory-food system as a whole. It's possible that demand will shift. Capitalism will adapt.
    - mschuster91 13y ago
      I do not believe that the demand will shift, simply as the amount of people depending on cheap food is too high. As better living conditions for the animals result in lower profits, these products simply will not be bought as no one can afford them.
  - dmm 13y ago
    Agriculture in the US is absolutely nothing like "raw capitalism". It is extremely regulated. Farmers are subsidized. It's nothing like "raw capitalism" in several very important ways.
    - rdouble 13y ago
      Cash crops, sugar, meat and milk production are extremely regulated and subsidized. However, the production of many agricultural products like fruits, vegetables and nuts is pretty close to "raw capitalism."
tomohawk 13y ago
If you've ever had grass fed beef as opposed to the stuff you normally find in the grocery store, you know that the meat is much tastier, and much better for you. For example, grass fed beef is a good source of omega 3s. The problem with most livestock in the US is that it is raised on corn, which is not a nutritious food for them (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_shouldn%27t_cows_eat_corn http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_shouldn%27t_cows_eat_corn). However, it does fatten them up. So, while they are fed this unhealthy diet, they are also fed antibiotics to keep them alive long enough to be sold. You are what you eat. If you want better food and humanely raised livestock, then educate yourself and stop buying the cheap stuff. The USDA regulates antibiotics for animals, while the FDA regulates them for humans. The USDAs job is to promote agriculture, and they do not appear to be as concerned about the kinds of side effects that the FDA is. Two very different missions. It's too bad irradiating food has such negative connotations, as it would be safer than the current approach.

37 points by bconway 13y ago

This is the only thing where I fully support the policy of the Green parties worldwide. Overusing antibiotics and other medicine, just to be able to grow up more animals in the same space, is plain greed and animal cruelty. The state should set a fixed minimum for meat prices (under which no product may be sold) and at the same time impose minimum levels of animal rights (roaming space, food variety, no declawing/tail cutting etc.). I know many will shoot me for advocating state regulation, but the free market most obviously has FAILED here.

tfb 13y ago
Agreed 100%. I hope this whole super-bug thing has a silver lining, in that it results in better treatment for animals bred for slaughter.
aaronblohowiak 13y ago
.. and also require the same standards of any imported meat.
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
But why buy meat at all? In terms of efficiency and "feeding the world" the cow lags behind quite seriously compared to that other GMO soya
- tptacek 13y ago
  Beef is a particularly inefficient protein source.
  - mschuster91 13y ago
    The point is the taste and the fact that you can't nutritionally fully replace meat.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I'm talking about the production of beef, not its metabolic efficiency. There are meat products that are much more efficient than beef.
      - mschuster91 13y ago
        Agreed, yet it will be difficult, if not outright impossible, to restructure US (and maybe Mexican) agriculture to raise e.g. pigs or chicken instead of cattle; also, each of these animal races carry their own individual risks - bird flu and "cannibalistic picking" (dunno the English term) in birds, and pig flu for pigs. The last food-animal-related health problems I heard of were multiple different bird and pig flu varieties, the last major problem with cattle was BSE/Jakob-Creutzfeld disaster years ago. So I think the cost of perfectly fine, but "preventively killed" animals should be weighed in, too.
    - meepmorp 13y ago
      You can't fully replace meat nutritionally? Any source for this assertion?
      - mschuster91 13y ago
        At least not in child nutrition, unfortunately the only usable reference which is not vegan propaganda I could find are in German (http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/gesundessen/tid-21186/vegetarisch-leben-vegan-eignet-sich-nicht-fuer-kinder_aid_595804.html http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/gesundessen/tid-21... and http://www.dge.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1150 http://www.dge.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&#38...). TL;DR: It is extremely difficult to sustain the needs of a child with a pure vegetarian/vegan diet.
        rosser 13y ago
        Anecdata, but I know a woman who's never, in her entire life, not been a vegetarian, and she's probably the healthiest person I've ever met. It's easier than you think.
  - awolf 13y ago
    You get more than just protein from beef. Grass-fed beef, and ruminants in general, contain a wealth of human nutrition. It's not the product, is the producer. The perverse incentives in our meat and farming industries drive production of a vasty inferior product at an unsustainable price.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      What is the mass-market meat product that is more expensive to produce than beef?
      - rdl 13y ago
        Farmed carnivorous fish (e.g. tuna)? I've started getting farmed bluefin at the Japanese fishmarket in Berkeley (confusingly called Tokyo Fish Market); it's essentially as good as wild bluefin, and I'll eat it, but is even more inefficient and expensive to produce than beef.
- awolf 13y ago
  High quality meat is irreplaceable in the optimal human diet.
  - rosser 13y ago
    [citation needed] EDIT: I'm a vegetarian. I'm well aware there are nutrients that are harder to get on purely plant-based diets, but it's far from impossible. I'm getting my Omega 3s (all DHA and EPA, not merely ALA) from algae, and my B-12 from plant sources, too. What am I missing by not killing sentient things for sustenance?
    - lukifer 13y ago
      We have canines for a reason: our evolutionary and digestive history includes meat. I'm sensitive to the moral issues involved, and understand the arguments against eating pigs and cows; however, I think it's reasonably ethical, and biologically optimal, to at least eat fish and eggs. And no matter what, farm animals should be raised humanely (pasture farms, not factory farms).
      - rosser 13y ago
        That our evolutionary history includes eating meat is by no means an argument that the nutritional benefits of meat are irreplaceable.
      - justin66 13y ago
        Evolution dictates that we live long enough to reproduce and fight off anything that wants to kill our young. There is no reason to assume that it might somehow be a guide to what an "optimal human diet" (silly expression) might be.
  - bickfordb 13y ago
    And cave homes are irreplaceable in optimal human architecture?
emiliobumachar 13y ago
Ironic that the broad regulations you're advocating wouldn't address the issue at hand, that you mentioned in the previous paragraph. How about to make it illegal to give antibiotics to animals that are not sick, or making new antibiotics illegal for animal use for a number of years?

pontifier 13y ago

Why don't we have more food irradiation?

tptacek 13y ago
Antibiotics probably improve yield throughout the process, not just after processing.
carbocation 13y ago
Giving antibiotics to livestock causes them to gain weight. I suspect that this profitable feature is the primary reason that antibiotics are used in cattle. Does anyone in this field have any info to verify or refute?
- twilde 13y ago
  The primary reason for anti-biotics is due to the fact that the farmers feed their livestock nutritionally devoid but massively cheaper corn - which weakens the overall immune system. Antibiotics are not needed when "organic" measures are put into place and cows are free range and fed better, nutritionally beneficial foods to begin with. But that's costlier, so, not going to happen on a commercial scale, regardless of how inefficient and unsustainable it is to continue.

hownottowrite 13y ago

Original source data: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance/NationalAntimicrobialResistanceMonitoringSystem/UCM334834.pdf http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/A...

colmvp 13y ago

Lance Price is quoted in this article. Here is his testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Health. It's a pretty short read. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Testimony-Price-Health-ADUFA-AGDUFA-2013-4-9.pdf http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/file...

awolf 13y ago

>These bacteria are finding ways to get around antibiotics in animals >"We've actually run out of antibiotics that really keep animals healthy," Price said. "We're finding strains of bacteria in animals that are resistant to so many antibiotics." How about this novel solution: stop raising animals in a way that requires them to guzzle down tons of antibiotics in order to survive. I love how this article fails to even mention the possibility that livestock animals do not need to ALWAYS BE SICK. Preposterous.

mschuster91 13y ago
The problem with capitalism is that pure capitalism does not account for social issues, be them human-related or animal-related. Neither does communism. But people still believe that raw capitalism (or, in cases like North Korea, communism) can succeed.
- awolf 13y ago
  Awareness seems to be spreading about the negative health implications of our factory-food system as a whole. It's possible that demand will shift. Capitalism will adapt.
  - mschuster91 13y ago
    I do not believe that the demand will shift, simply as the amount of people depending on cheap food is too high. As better living conditions for the animals result in lower profits, these products simply will not be bought as no one can afford them.
- dmm 13y ago
  Agriculture in the US is absolutely nothing like "raw capitalism". It is extremely regulated. Farmers are subsidized. It's nothing like "raw capitalism" in several very important ways.
  - rdouble 13y ago
    Cash crops, sugar, meat and milk production are extremely regulated and subsidized. However, the production of many agricultural products like fruits, vegetables and nuts is pretty close to "raw capitalism."

tomohawk 13y ago

If you've ever had grass fed beef as opposed to the stuff you normally find in the grocery store, you know that the meat is much tastier, and much better for you. For example, grass fed beef is a good source of omega 3s. The problem with most livestock in the US is that it is raised on corn, which is not a nutritious food for them (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_shouldn%27t_cows_eat_corn http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_shouldn%27t_cows_eat_corn). However, it does fatten them up. So, while they are fed this unhealthy diet, they are also fed antibiotics to keep them alive long enough to be sold. You are what you eat. If you want better food and humanely raised livestock, then educate yourself and stop buying the cheap stuff. The USDA regulates antibiotics for animals, while the FDA regulates them for humans. The USDAs job is to promote agriculture, and they do not appear to be as concerned about the kinds of side effects that the FDA is. Two very different missions. It's too bad irradiating food has such negative connotations, as it would be safer than the current approach.