Why Is It Still Legal to Use Human Antibiotics on Farm Animals?(motherboard.vice.com)
motherboard.vice.com
Why Is It Still Legal to Use Human Antibiotics on Farm Animals?
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-is-it-still-legal-to-use-human-antibiotics-on-farm-animals
36 comments
Because large agribusiness doesn't actually care if people become ill and die of things like MRSA as a result.
Any other industry and we'd be calling boycotts.
Get EU meat only ? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-05-1687_en.htm
“Let’s put it simply: would you rather have meat from an animal that was sick during its lifetime or one that was healthy?”
I don't understand why it's a problem that an animal has been sick at some point during its lifetime. People get sick, then if it's a bacterial infection we get antibiotics, then we're fine again (hopefully). Why is this a problem for lifestock?
It would requires veterinarians and proper care of the animals. If you YouTube the animal farming, you'll see heavily overcrowded environments with animals not able to adequately move. This leads to stress, and they will self harm or harm others. So you have massive numbers of open wounds in unsanitary conditions. In order to maintain this factory style farming, we essentially need the antibiotics. Keep in mind turn around time as well. While a human may be on antibiotics after an infection for a few months, this can be the animals entire lifespan, as we dose them with steroids and growth hormones, and eat the artificially ready "babies". To ensure the infection has been adequately destroyed would disrupt production schedules.
This isn't a justification for using them, but if we continue to factory farm animals the way we do, it's a necessity.
This isn't a justification for using them, but if we continue to factory farm animals the way we do, it's a necessity.
And cattle is fed with corn. Which is unnatural for them and they develop ulcers. Antibiotics prevent deadly infections from the ulcers and increase the life span of the cattle.
Because, if properly used, they are useful.
> If you YouTube the animal farming, you'll see heavily overcrowded environments with animals not able to adequately move.
And also wide meadows with three cows. Nobody (in TV, press or internet) is interested in the normal, but the freak are guaranteed to receive big exposure. To make conclusions about a population just seeing its outliers is normally unwise.
> If you YouTube the animal farming, you'll see heavily overcrowded environments with animals not able to adequately move.
And also wide meadows with three cows. Nobody (in TV, press or internet) is interested in the normal, but the freak are guaranteed to receive big exposure. To make conclusions about a population just seeing its outliers is normally unwise.
Of course they're useful, that's not in question. It's whether the damaged caused by creating antibiotic resistant strains, leaving us defenceless against infection is worth the risk.
I was raised on a farm, and live in the prairies. And I've watched as factory farming has slowly displaced every farmer that wasn't lucky enough to have oil on their property. I've milked cows, and goats, and even rubber banded my fair share calves for my buddy who hobby farms (He has the three cows in the field). My uncle still has a dairy farm, but if it weren't for the oil, he wouldn't be able to compete. But I can't show people my experiences with factory farming conditions, so I sent them to youtube instead.
I was raised on a farm, and live in the prairies. And I've watched as factory farming has slowly displaced every farmer that wasn't lucky enough to have oil on their property. I've milked cows, and goats, and even rubber banded my fair share calves for my buddy who hobby farms (He has the three cows in the field). My uncle still has a dairy farm, but if it weren't for the oil, he wouldn't be able to compete. But I can't show people my experiences with factory farming conditions, so I sent them to youtube instead.
We don't eat people so there's not that transmissibility route.
There are two primary use cases for antibiotics in livestock management. One, treating animals with serious bacterial infections, is at least somewhat defensible. The other is purely profit-driven: low-level treatment increases feed efficiency. And long-term low-level treatment effectively selects for antibiotic resistance.
Anyway, I'd rather eat meat from animals that had been sick, as opposed to meat contaminated with antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria.
Edit: I wrote "somewhat defensible" because it's my impression that antibiotics serve as low-cost mitigation for overcrowding, poor hygiene, and other deficiencies in livestock management.
Anyway, I'd rather eat meat from animals that had been sick, as opposed to meat contaminated with antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria.
Edit: I wrote "somewhat defensible" because it's my impression that antibiotics serve as low-cost mitigation for overcrowding, poor hygiene, and other deficiencies in livestock management.
Well ... unless you don't cook the meat.
[deleted]
The title annoys me. Being "human" antibiotics is irrelevant. They don't kill humans, and they're not human specific. They're just basic antibiotics.
If you were to cut out the alarmist, repetitive fluff you do actually have a problem at the bottom of all this. overused antibiotics (anywhere, on any species) tends to push evolution toward antibiotic resistance. That's bad. That said, from what I read in this article, this bill is also bad.
If you were to cut out the alarmist, repetitive fluff you do actually have a problem at the bottom of all this. overused antibiotics (anywhere, on any species) tends to push evolution toward antibiotic resistance. That's bad. That said, from what I read in this article, this bill is also bad.
That's true. But, from a human-centric perspective, what matters most is their ability to fight bacterial infections in humans. It's also true that antibiotics are also used inappropriately in medical practice. Pediatricians tend to prescribe them more-or-less as a placebo, to fend off freaked-out parents. Flu suffers also tend to demand them. But there's always some ambiguity, given risk of secondary bacterial infections.
There's no ambiguity in using antibiotics in livestock management to increase feed efficiency. That's just about the money. It either needs to be illegal, or we need some class torts ;)
There's no ambiguity in using antibiotics in livestock management to increase feed efficiency. That's just about the money. It either needs to be illegal, or we need some class torts ;)
Also from a human-centric perspective: having antibiotics that are frequently used for humans in our food supply chain increases the risk that bacteria resistant to those antibiotics will enter that supply chain, potentially leading to outbreaks of those antibiotic-resistant bactiera. Maintaining a strict distinction between "human antibiotics" and "agricultural antibiotics" mitigates that risk.
I had a coworker tell me that they had the cold and that they're taking an antibiotic for it. We went on a back and forth, with me repeatedly telling him that antibiotics would make him worse, a cold is viral. I think he badgered the doctor into giving him some. What was funny is that everyone in the shop just about had that cold, and he had it longer than most people. But those antibiotics were really helping.
Some years ago, I did develop bacterial pneumonia after a bad cold. So maybe the antibiotic saved my life. But the antibiotic prescription was based on diagnosis and sputum culture, and not just prophylactic. Better yet, now I've been immunized.
Excuse my ignorance, but aren't antibiotics meant for humans, tested on us as well?
I think the issue here is that antibiotics being given to animals were not studied for these scenarios. For instance, how they may impact milk and meat quality. Not to mention that they are given to animals in much less "regulated" way, compared to people.
I think the issue here is that antibiotics being given to animals were not studied for these scenarios. For instance, how they may impact milk and meat quality. Not to mention that they are given to animals in much less "regulated" way, compared to people.
At some point, yes. But that's not the first place they're tested. The first place their tested could simply be a petri dish, as penicillin was. Then it goes up the ranks into mammals more and more similar to us - rats, pigs, monkeys, etc. Usually it's not every step, because there really isn't a big reason to and that can slow development and increase costs of life-saving drugs.
These antibiotics aren't made out of humans or in some way related to humans, but they have a place in human treatment plans. They're the ones we care about, and they're immensely valuable. Calling them "human antibiotics" is a reasonable shorthand for an article.
Their usage should be a lot more restricted than it currently is. Anything that unnecessarily diminishes their value to human treatment should be disallowed. Use on other species, for example; particularly when that enters the human food supply. Treating non-bacterial infections in humans is another.
I think it's pretty hard to overstate the importance of avoiding overuse of antibiotics. You don't even need to imagine modern medicine if antibiotics had never been discovered. More likely than not you wouldn't be alive today.
Their usage should be a lot more restricted than it currently is. Anything that unnecessarily diminishes their value to human treatment should be disallowed. Use on other species, for example; particularly when that enters the human food supply. Treating non-bacterial infections in humans is another.
I think it's pretty hard to overstate the importance of avoiding overuse of antibiotics. You don't even need to imagine modern medicine if antibiotics had never been discovered. More likely than not you wouldn't be alive today.
What on earth are "Human" antibiotics?
Antibiotics kill bacteria. There is nothing specific to our primate subspecies about them, AFAIK.
Antibiotics kill bacteria. There is nothing specific to our primate subspecies about them, AFAIK.
What on earth are "Human" antibiotics?
Simple – antibiotics approved for use to treat human illness. The problem is that when they're used indiscriminately, whether on humans who don't need them, or on livestock, bacteria develop resistance.
Simple – antibiotics approved for use to treat human illness. The problem is that when they're used indiscriminately, whether on humans who don't need them, or on livestock, bacteria develop resistance.
When you use them on livestock you can guarantee they will be used indiscriminately... with the respective consequences.
Part of the indiscriminate use was out of necessity, but it is secondary to the fact that many antibiotics seems to promote growth and improve conversion of feed into weight gains. The exact mechanism is not well understood.
A good example is nitarsone which is an organoarsenic additive commonly found in turkey feed until it was banned earlier this year. AFAIK it has not been approved for human use ever.
A good example is nitarsone which is an organoarsenic additive commonly found in turkey feed until it was banned earlier this year. AFAIK it has not been approved for human use ever.
It may be that antibiotics also "promote growth and improve conversion of feed into weight gains" in humans ;) In retrospect, that's not surprising.
Are there antibiotics not used on humans that can be used on farm animals?
There are plenty of things that kill bacteria. The trick is finding something that doesn't kill everything else.
Remember that this is a Vice article
EDIT: DISCLAIMER: See a doctor, don't take this as advise !
“You should never give an antibiotic to anybody, human or animal, unless they’re ill,”
IIRC that is even wrong !
You shouldn't be using antibiotics unless you have good change to get severely sick or develop (long term, or very bad short term) complications (holes in body due to infection, septicemia, ... )
“You should never give an antibiotic to anybody, human or animal, unless they’re ill,”
IIRC that is even wrong !
You shouldn't be using antibiotics unless you have good change to get severely sick or develop (long term, or very bad short term) complications (holes in body due to infection, septicemia, ... )
Honest mistake but you shouldn't give medical opinions on public forums unless you're a licensed medical doctor. You might convince some poor sap to wait until they're septic to see a doctor.
As someone that's been on IV antibiotics, I can tell you that there's no fucking around with bacterial infections and only a doctor (an infectious disease specialist) can evaluate the situation properly.
As someone that's been on IV antibiotics, I can tell you that there's no fucking around with bacterial infections and only a doctor (an infectious disease specialist) can evaluate the situation properly.
Question: Any bacterial foothold should be considered dangerous ?
No, when you have a bacterial infection, you need antibiotics. You can easily die from a tooth infection, if not treated. The issue is with prescribing antibiotics to viral sufferers because doctors want to get to the he next patient.
"You can easily die from a tooth infection, if not treated." That would fall under the "long term complication", dead is a bit of a big complication to most.
Being dead is the complication of an unmitigated bacterial infection.
A person who is sick is not competent to be deciding on a course of treatment, unless they are, say, Paul Farmer. See a doctor; follow the doctor's advice.
They're better than average, but you have to be willing to question what they say. I know too many people who just trusted the doctor and then had the doctor make some minor slip-up that the patient would have caught. Except "minor" means "well, I guess you're this way for life now. sorry".