7 ms·

80% of the antibiotics we use are given to animals.[1] That seems like a good place to cut back. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/health/use-of-antibiotic

80% of the antibiotics we use are given to animals.[1] That seems like a good place to cut back. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/health/use-of-antibiotics-in-animals-raised-for-food-defies-scrutiny.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/health/use-of-antibiotics-...

route66 13y ago
And not to cure diseases: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/industrial-agriculture/prescription-for-trouble.html http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-... (slow site warning)
stcredzero 13y ago
In Denmark, they prevent infections in chicken houses by thoroughly cleaning them, then using techniques developed for clean rooms to prevent infections. In the US, we let them wade in their own filth and pump them full of antibiotics. We should just make it flat out illegal to use antibiotics across entire herds of livestock. We should also fine doctors for prescribing antibiotics to patients with a viral infection and no sign of bacteria in their systems, unless they are severely immune compromised.
- carbocation 13y ago
  As you can imagine, doctors initially got into trouble with this because there is no test that you can use in clinic that says "this patient just has a viral infection". Nevertheless, there are clinical criteria that we can use to come to the same conclusion, and the tide changed years ago with regards to inappropriate antibiotic use for routine viral illnesses. It gets much dicier in-hospital when someone has a SIRS response and you need to presumptively treat them for sepsis. I would be curious to know: of the antibiotic resistance burden that comes from human antibiotic use (specifically in countries where abx are physician-prescribed and not available over the counter), how much of this burden comes from broad treatment of presumed serious infections, and how much comes from treatment of presumed non-serious infections or even postsurgical prophylaxis?
  - XorNot 13y ago
    Resistance is a funny thing: there's nothing specifically wrong with going nuts with the antibiotics provided everything gets dead. The problem is much more with people who only take partial courses or are non-compliant, because if you don't clear the infection then round 2 is full of the slightly more resistant members of the species.
    - carbocation 13y ago
      Sure, but my question is about epidemiology. Rather than assuming that most resistance comes from "bad"/noncompliant/non-adherent/choose-your-euphemism patients, it would be interesting to know what the current burden of resistance can actually be attributed to (separating out resistance due to livestock antibiosis, countries where people can just buy antibiotics over the counter, etc).
    - MaysonL 13y ago
      There's also, of course, all the antibiotics that go into sewers.
  - hershel 13y ago
    >>there is no test that you can use in clinic that says "this patient just has a viral infection" I believe there are some labs-on-chip that can detect multiple(even thousands) bacteria and/or viruses. I'm not sure if they are in commercial usage.
- rodw 13y ago
  The function of antibiotics in agriculture isn't to prevent infection (or at least, not primarily to prevent infection) but to fatten the animals up for slaughter.
  - dylandrop 13y ago
    I still don't think that justifies the use of them.
    - rodw 13y ago
      Nor do I. I'm just pointing out that the antibiotics aren't strictly being used for disease-prevention (hence better hygiene alone might not eliminate their use).
  - aestra 13y ago
    How exactly does antibiotics fatten animals up for slaughter?
    - shabble 13y ago
      The obvious answer is: You can't profitably slaughter diseased animals (at least for human consumption, with various complex exemptions that massively reduce value) So treating with broad-spec antibiotic prophylaxis increases your healthy-at-slaughter-date yield, especially under cost-optimised industrial feedlots. More incrementally, (if perhaps still somewhat controversially), normal gut bacteria accounts for some fraction of the energy intake provided by animal feed. By killing them off, it frees up nutrients for the host. Other mechanisms including reduced immune load may also be involved. Quoting from [1]: > According to the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH, 2001), antibiotic growth promoters are used to "help growing animals digest their food more efficiently, get maximum benefit from it and allow them to develop into strong and healthy individuals". Although the mechanism underpinning their action is unclear, it is believed that the antibiotics suppress sensitive populations of bacteria in the intestines. It has been estimated that as much as 6 per cent of the net energy in the pig diet could be lost due to microbial fermentation in the intestine (Jensen, 1998). If the microbial population could be better controlled, it is possible that the lost energy could be diverted to growth. [1] http://www.fao.org/docrep/article/agrippa/555_en.htm http://www.fao.org/docrep/article/agrippa/555_en.htm
- ataggart 13y ago
  >We [sic] should just make it flat out illegal to... >We [sic] should also fine doctors for... Why is violence an appropriate response to these non-violent issues?
  - kintamanimatt 13y ago
    That's not violence. They're not being beaten with a crowbar.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      It's the threat thereof that persuades compliance. If you try hard enough to do & keep doing something illegal, there is no limit which the state is unwilling to go to in coercing compliance.
      - kintamanimatt 13y ago
        Nobody's gonna beat a vet with a rubber hose because they gave a cow antibiotics.
        meepmorp 13y ago
        It's your basic (American, right-) libertarian argument against the state doing anything that limits business. I think its application in a case like this nicely encapsulates the flaws in the philosophy, or at least the ability of its adherents to apply it sensibly. Edit for clarity.
        kintamanimatt 13y ago
        What? How did you make that leap from "nobody's gonna beat a vet with a rubber hose" to assuming I'm a hardcore libertarian? I'm for the reduction of antibiotics through government regulation. I think business should be restricted when it comes to doing harm to society. With such a leap, I can only logically assume you replied to the wrong comment.
- gcb0 13y ago
  But then the chicken breast price increase will be passed to the consumers! keep the government out of my money! (just trying to keep the discourse here as balanced as it would be if this discussion was out of HN)
kephra 13y ago
Antibiotics in animal farms should be banned world wide. Unfortunate the only nation who has the power to convince others joining this ban, is one of the worst abusers of antibiotics. Consumers might have a choice, if they are wealthy enough to afford it. If you are a beef consumer, eat beef from Namibia, where antibiotics for animals are banned, and avoid US or South Africa. Ask you butcher, if he can offer antibiotic free meat.
- djrogers 13y ago
  Unfortunate the only nation who has the power to convince others joining this ban, is one of the worst abusers of antibiotics. I'm curious as to just exactly how you think the US is going to convince China, Russia, India, etc to ban antibiotics? The US could obviously afford to do so, as the incremental cost in the price of animal protein (due to smaller yields) could be absorbed by modifications to eating habits or redistribution models (i.e. food stamps). I'm not sure the same could be said in some of the countries that are much larger and have huge difficulties with food production/distribution already.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Antibiotics in animal farms should be banned world wide. Why? The problem isn't giving antibiotics to animals. Antibiotics are useful for animals the same way they are useful for controlling disease in humans. The problem is abuse of antibiotics.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Antibiotics are routinely included in animal feed as a prophylactic.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Yes, I know.
  - evanmoran 13y ago
    The issue is any antibiotic that could be used to cure humans should be used for nothing but curing humans. Every use of it rolls the dice that the bacteria will evolve an immunity to that drug. There isn't any "safe" use. Bacteria will eventually evolve and we can only reduce the amount of evolutionary pressure being applied. So in short, yes the problem is giving it to animals.
grecy 13y ago
Of course, they're given to animals to keep them healthy enough so we can eat them. If you cut back on keeping them healthy, you're cutting the amount of food available for human consumption. I recently re-read the fantastic Ishmael[1] which does a fantastic job of explaining the crazy things we've done to increase our food supply in the last 10,000 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_%28novel%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_%28novel%29
- konstruktor 13y ago
  > If you cut back on keeping them healthy, you're cutting the amount of food available for human consumption. You are cutting the amount of meat and dairy available for human consumption, not food. Eating animal products is not a terribly efficient way of getting nutrients.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  > If you cut back on keeping them healthy, you're cutting the amount of food available for human consumption. There are better ways of ensuring the supply of food than the abuse of antibiotics in livestock.
- evanmoran 13y ago
  Choosing between vegetarianism and pandemic isn't a hard choice=).
  - evacuationdrill 13y ago
    But I'm glad we don't have to make it.
bradleyjg 13y ago
There's a bill introduced in the Senate that would restrict antibiotics that are approved in humans from being used in agricultural in a prophylactic way.[1] A similar bill has been introduced in the House[2] by Rep. Louise Slaughter who has degrees in microbiology and public health. Given the pernicious and undemocratic over-representation of rural interests embodied in the structure of the Senate, I don't expect them to go anywhere. [1] Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act of 2013 -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.1256.IS:/ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.1256.IS:/ [2] Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2013 -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:H.R.1150:@@@L http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:H.R.1150:@@@L
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Given the pernicious and undemocratic over-representation of rural interests embodied in the structure of the Senate, I don't expect them to go anywhere. I'm sure the rural interests have the same thing to say about urban interests & the House. Which, really, means things are working as intended.
  - bradleyjg 13y ago
    As intended is rather irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's a good system. Unless you think that the so-called founding fathers were infallible? A system which gives representation to rocks and cows rather than to people is undemocratic. That's not just my opinion man, it's a statement of fact. The House doesn't over-represent urban interests it represents them in the proportion that people of the country live there. Your post smacks of the fallacy of the golden mean fallacy, which is unfortunately a serious problem in the United States today. There aren't two sides to every issue. Often some people are just wrong.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Of course it is undemocratic. This country wasn't built to be a perfect democracy. Allowing urban voters to dictate policy affecting rural voters under the name of democracy just because there are more urban voters could turn out to be a very bad idea, because urban voters are not necessarily well-informed on issues that apply to rural America. This in turn be bad for everyone, as the urban voters depend on rural America to produce food. The debate over firearms is a simple example. Urban voters do not see why rural voters cannot simply depend on the police to maintain law and order. Rural voters on the other hand do not see why urban voters think the police can respond in time. The difference is their context. Urban voters are probably right- in the context of a city. (I am not arguing about firearms, I just thought the debate was an easy illustrative example of how your context matters) There aren't two sides to every issue. Often some people are just wrong. I'm sure you are conveniently always on the side that is right? :)

route66 13y ago

And not to cure diseases: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/industrial-agriculture/prescription-for-trouble.html http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-... (slow site warning)

stcredzero 13y ago

In Denmark, they prevent infections in chicken houses by thoroughly cleaning them, then using techniques developed for clean rooms to prevent infections. In the US, we let them wade in their own filth and pump them full of antibiotics. We should just make it flat out illegal to use antibiotics across entire herds of livestock. We should also fine doctors for prescribing antibiotics to patients with a viral infection and no sign of bacteria in their systems, unless they are severely immune compromised.

carbocation 13y ago
As you can imagine, doctors initially got into trouble with this because there is no test that you can use in clinic that says "this patient just has a viral infection". Nevertheless, there are clinical criteria that we can use to come to the same conclusion, and the tide changed years ago with regards to inappropriate antibiotic use for routine viral illnesses. It gets much dicier in-hospital when someone has a SIRS response and you need to presumptively treat them for sepsis. I would be curious to know: of the antibiotic resistance burden that comes from human antibiotic use (specifically in countries where abx are physician-prescribed and not available over the counter), how much of this burden comes from broad treatment of presumed serious infections, and how much comes from treatment of presumed non-serious infections or even postsurgical prophylaxis?
- XorNot 13y ago
  Resistance is a funny thing: there's nothing specifically wrong with going nuts with the antibiotics provided everything gets dead. The problem is much more with people who only take partial courses or are non-compliant, because if you don't clear the infection then round 2 is full of the slightly more resistant members of the species.
  - carbocation 13y ago
    Sure, but my question is about epidemiology. Rather than assuming that most resistance comes from "bad"/noncompliant/non-adherent/choose-your-euphemism patients, it would be interesting to know what the current burden of resistance can actually be attributed to (separating out resistance due to livestock antibiosis, countries where people can just buy antibiotics over the counter, etc).
  - MaysonL 13y ago
    There's also, of course, all the antibiotics that go into sewers.
- hershel 13y ago
  >>there is no test that you can use in clinic that says "this patient just has a viral infection" I believe there are some labs-on-chip that can detect multiple(even thousands) bacteria and/or viruses. I'm not sure if they are in commercial usage.
rodw 13y ago
The function of antibiotics in agriculture isn't to prevent infection (or at least, not primarily to prevent infection) but to fatten the animals up for slaughter.
- dylandrop 13y ago
  I still don't think that justifies the use of them.
  - rodw 13y ago
    Nor do I. I'm just pointing out that the antibiotics aren't strictly being used for disease-prevention (hence better hygiene alone might not eliminate their use).
- aestra 13y ago
  How exactly does antibiotics fatten animals up for slaughter?
  - shabble 13y ago
    The obvious answer is: You can't profitably slaughter diseased animals (at least for human consumption, with various complex exemptions that massively reduce value) So treating with broad-spec antibiotic prophylaxis increases your healthy-at-slaughter-date yield, especially under cost-optimised industrial feedlots. More incrementally, (if perhaps still somewhat controversially), normal gut bacteria accounts for some fraction of the energy intake provided by animal feed. By killing them off, it frees up nutrients for the host. Other mechanisms including reduced immune load may also be involved. Quoting from [1]: > According to the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH, 2001), antibiotic growth promoters are used to "help growing animals digest their food more efficiently, get maximum benefit from it and allow them to develop into strong and healthy individuals". Although the mechanism underpinning their action is unclear, it is believed that the antibiotics suppress sensitive populations of bacteria in the intestines. It has been estimated that as much as 6 per cent of the net energy in the pig diet could be lost due to microbial fermentation in the intestine (Jensen, 1998). If the microbial population could be better controlled, it is possible that the lost energy could be diverted to growth. [1] http://www.fao.org/docrep/article/agrippa/555_en.htm http://www.fao.org/docrep/article/agrippa/555_en.htm
ataggart 13y ago
>We [sic] should just make it flat out illegal to... >We [sic] should also fine doctors for... Why is violence an appropriate response to these non-violent issues?
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  That's not violence. They're not being beaten with a crowbar.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    It's the threat thereof that persuades compliance. If you try hard enough to do & keep doing something illegal, there is no limit which the state is unwilling to go to in coercing compliance.
    - kintamanimatt 13y ago
      Nobody's gonna beat a vet with a rubber hose because they gave a cow antibiotics.
      - meepmorp 13y ago
        It's your basic (American, right-) libertarian argument against the state doing anything that limits business. I think its application in a case like this nicely encapsulates the flaws in the philosophy, or at least the ability of its adherents to apply it sensibly. Edit for clarity.
        kintamanimatt 13y ago
        What? How did you make that leap from "nobody's gonna beat a vet with a rubber hose" to assuming I'm a hardcore libertarian? I'm for the reduction of antibiotics through government regulation. I think business should be restricted when it comes to doing harm to society. With such a leap, I can only logically assume you replied to the wrong comment.
gcb0 13y ago
But then the chicken breast price increase will be passed to the consumers! keep the government out of my money! (just trying to keep the discourse here as balanced as it would be if this discussion was out of HN)

kephra 13y ago

Antibiotics in animal farms should be banned world wide. Unfortunate the only nation who has the power to convince others joining this ban, is one of the worst abusers of antibiotics. Consumers might have a choice, if they are wealthy enough to afford it. If you are a beef consumer, eat beef from Namibia, where antibiotics for animals are banned, and avoid US or South Africa. Ask you butcher, if he can offer antibiotic free meat.

djrogers 13y ago
Unfortunate the only nation who has the power to convince others joining this ban, is one of the worst abusers of antibiotics. I'm curious as to just exactly how you think the US is going to convince China, Russia, India, etc to ban antibiotics? The US could obviously afford to do so, as the incremental cost in the price of animal protein (due to smaller yields) could be absorbed by modifications to eating habits or redistribution models (i.e. food stamps). I'm not sure the same could be said in some of the countries that are much larger and have huge difficulties with food production/distribution already.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Antibiotics in animal farms should be banned world wide. Why? The problem isn't giving antibiotics to animals. Antibiotics are useful for animals the same way they are useful for controlling disease in humans. The problem is abuse of antibiotics.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Antibiotics are routinely included in animal feed as a prophylactic.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Yes, I know.
- evanmoran 13y ago
  The issue is any antibiotic that could be used to cure humans should be used for nothing but curing humans. Every use of it rolls the dice that the bacteria will evolve an immunity to that drug. There isn't any "safe" use. Bacteria will eventually evolve and we can only reduce the amount of evolutionary pressure being applied. So in short, yes the problem is giving it to animals.

grecy 13y ago

Of course, they're given to animals to keep them healthy enough so we can eat them. If you cut back on keeping them healthy, you're cutting the amount of food available for human consumption. I recently re-read the fantastic Ishmael[1] which does a fantastic job of explaining the crazy things we've done to increase our food supply in the last 10,000 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_%28novel%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_%28novel%29

konstruktor 13y ago
> If you cut back on keeping them healthy, you're cutting the amount of food available for human consumption. You are cutting the amount of meat and dairy available for human consumption, not food. Eating animal products is not a terribly efficient way of getting nutrients.
stcredzero 13y ago
> If you cut back on keeping them healthy, you're cutting the amount of food available for human consumption. There are better ways of ensuring the supply of food than the abuse of antibiotics in livestock.
evanmoran 13y ago
Choosing between vegetarianism and pandemic isn't a hard choice=).
- evacuationdrill 13y ago
  But I'm glad we don't have to make it.

bradleyjg 13y ago

There's a bill introduced in the Senate that would restrict antibiotics that are approved in humans from being used in agricultural in a prophylactic way.[1] A similar bill has been introduced in the House[2] by Rep. Louise Slaughter who has degrees in microbiology and public health. Given the pernicious and undemocratic over-representation of rural interests embodied in the structure of the Senate, I don't expect them to go anywhere. [1] Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act of 2013 -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.1256.IS:/ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.1256.IS:/ [2] Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2013 -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:H.R.1150:@@@L http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:H.R.1150:@@@L

sliverstorm 13y ago
Given the pernicious and undemocratic over-representation of rural interests embodied in the structure of the Senate, I don't expect them to go anywhere. I'm sure the rural interests have the same thing to say about urban interests & the House. Which, really, means things are working as intended.
- bradleyjg 13y ago
  As intended is rather irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's a good system. Unless you think that the so-called founding fathers were infallible? A system which gives representation to rocks and cows rather than to people is undemocratic. That's not just my opinion man, it's a statement of fact. The House doesn't over-represent urban interests it represents them in the proportion that people of the country live there. Your post smacks of the fallacy of the golden mean fallacy, which is unfortunately a serious problem in the United States today. There aren't two sides to every issue. Often some people are just wrong.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Of course it is undemocratic. This country wasn't built to be a perfect democracy. Allowing urban voters to dictate policy affecting rural voters under the name of democracy just because there are more urban voters could turn out to be a very bad idea, because urban voters are not necessarily well-informed on issues that apply to rural America. This in turn be bad for everyone, as the urban voters depend on rural America to produce food. The debate over firearms is a simple example. Urban voters do not see why rural voters cannot simply depend on the police to maintain law and order. Rural voters on the other hand do not see why urban voters think the police can respond in time. The difference is their context. Urban voters are probably right- in the context of a city. (I am not arguing about firearms, I just thought the debate was an easy illustrative example of how your context matters) There aren't two sides to every issue. Often some people are just wrong. I'm sure you are conveniently always on the side that is right? :)