3 ms·

80% of antibiotics produced in the US are used in agriculture. 30 billion pounds just last year. That's half a billion cubic feet, or a pile about 800 feet hig

80% of antibiotics produced in the US are used in agriculture. 30 billion pounds just last year. That's half a billion cubic feet, or a pile about 800 feet high. And while the more or less official definition of "mountain" is 1,000 feet, I don't think it provides much solace that it takes 2 years instead of 1 for America's livestock to consume a literal mountain of antibiotics.

gwt561324 14y ago
80% of the antibiotics used in the US are used in agriculture because they make up 80% of the mass. Dosage is based on weight, and it's purely a question of mass, not a choice between animals or people. I also think your billion is wrong. According the Union of Concerned Scientists, the 30 billion was the cost of the antibiotics, not the weight. The antibiotics weighed 24 million pounds. Besides, what does the total mass have to do with prudent use? If I said we used 100 billion pounds to save people, would you consider that acceptable? You also need to put that number in context. In 2010, American meat companies produced: 26.4 billion pounds of beef 22.5 billion pounds of pork 5.8 billion pounds of turkey 313 million pounds of veal, lamb and mutton 37.2 billion pounds of chicken Finally, there is no clear evidence that the proper use of antibiotics in food animals has ever led to a disease resistant bacteria in humans. Don't you find it much more alarming that your GP will prescribe antibiotics to common visitors just to get them out the door? It's far more likely you're going to die purely because someone next to you won't leave the doctor until they get an antibiotic, regardless of their health status.
- mynewwork 14y ago
  I realize I'm responding to an account created today, which has already posted multiple pro-antibiotic comments, so I understand that gwt561324 likely has a strong vested interest in this and is likely not a regular HN member. But I would like to point out the final paragraph here is pure FUD rhetoric. "Don't you find it much more alarming", "It's far more likely" (with no evidence to support claim). The problem here isn't how frequently antibiotics used in agriculture cause resistance, it's the scale of the problem once they do. Sub-prime mortgage derivatives were traded millions of times without a problem, but once the system broke things got very bad very fast. That's the best analogy I can think of for antibiotic resistance, there is a massive systemic risk, being ignored for short-term profits.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Important correction, checking fda's actual numbers it's only 30 million pounds, not billion. So that's only an 80 foot high pile per year, which is still quite a lot but not as crazy an amount. Regardless, somewhere between 3/4 and 4/5 of antibiotics used in agriculture is used "sub-therapeutically", merely to increase the growth rate of animals and not to treat disease.

gwt561324 14y ago

80% of the antibiotics used in the US are used in agriculture because they make up 80% of the mass. Dosage is based on weight, and it's purely a question of mass, not a choice between animals or people. I also think your billion is wrong. According the Union of Concerned Scientists, the 30 billion was the cost of the antibiotics, not the weight. The antibiotics weighed 24 million pounds. Besides, what does the total mass have to do with prudent use? If I said we used 100 billion pounds to save people, would you consider that acceptable? You also need to put that number in context. In 2010, American meat companies produced: 26.4 billion pounds of beef 22.5 billion pounds of pork 5.8 billion pounds of turkey 313 million pounds of veal, lamb and mutton 37.2 billion pounds of chicken Finally, there is no clear evidence that the proper use of antibiotics in food animals has ever led to a disease resistant bacteria in humans. Don't you find it much more alarming that your GP will prescribe antibiotics to common visitors just to get them out the door? It's far more likely you're going to die purely because someone next to you won't leave the doctor until they get an antibiotic, regardless of their health status.

mynewwork 14y ago
I realize I'm responding to an account created today, which has already posted multiple pro-antibiotic comments, so I understand that gwt561324 likely has a strong vested interest in this and is likely not a regular HN member. But I would like to point out the final paragraph here is pure FUD rhetoric. "Don't you find it much more alarming", "It's far more likely" (with no evidence to support claim). The problem here isn't how frequently antibiotics used in agriculture cause resistance, it's the scale of the problem once they do. Sub-prime mortgage derivatives were traded millions of times without a problem, but once the system broke things got very bad very fast. That's the best analogy I can think of for antibiotic resistance, there is a massive systemic risk, being ignored for short-term profits.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Important correction, checking fda's actual numbers it's only 30 million pounds, not billion. So that's only an 80 foot high pile per year, which is still quite a lot but not as crazy an amount. Regardless, somewhere between 3/4 and 4/5 of antibiotics used in agriculture is used "sub-therapeutically", merely to increase the growth rate of animals and not to treat disease.