73% of antibiotics globally are used for livestock production, not for human use, and yet we tend to only hear about how humans need to cut back. How about we require ranchers to decrease their animal density so they don't need to use so many antibiotics?
Starting June 11, 2023, all currently available over-the-counter antibiotics for livestock will be available only as prescription medications. This new rule will impact all livestock species. Over-the-counter antibiotics are moving to prescription only to provide more veterinary oversight. Similar to the Veterinary Feed Directive, placing antibiotics under the supervision of veterinarians should result in more judicious use and less antibiotic resistance.
This change includes but is not limited to the following: Penicillin, Oxytetracycline, Sulfa antibiotics and Mastitis tubes. Some medications are not considered crucial for human medicine and will remain over-the-counter. This includes the following: Ionophores including Rumensin and Bovatec, Parasiticides, such as Ivermectin, Oral pre/pro/postbiotics, and topical non-antibiotic treatments.
Livestock producers must have a valid Veterinary-Client-Patient Relationship (VCPR) in place before they can be prescribed antibiotics by a veterinarian. A VCPR is a working relationship between a veterinarian (veterinary clinic) and a client. Ideally, a VCPR is a documented agreement between both parties that includes a dedicated visit to the animal location(s) the client operates. This visit and documentation must occur at least once every year to maintain the VCPR.
The issue isn't so much antibiotics given to sick animals to make them well, it's the fact that adding a constant low dose of antibiotics to animal feed allows those animals to more efficiently convert feed into tasty, tasty muscle mass.
> Antibiotics are chemotherapeutic agents used for the clinical management of infectious diseases in humans, plants and animals. However a sizeable fraction of antibiotics produced every year all over the world is used for non-therapeutic purposes. In US alone, about 24.6 million pounds of antibiotics are used in animal agriculture annually and a substantial portion of this is used as growth promoters and not for the treatment of infections...
Evidences available in the literature speak volumes on the beneficial effects obtained from antibiotics used as a feed additive. Pigs supplemented with antibiotics in their feed require 10–15% less feed to achieve a desired level of growth.
Adding a constant stream of antibiotics to animal feed to promote faster growth has been common practice since the 1940's.
I've seen some theories tossed around to explain the mechanism, but there is no consensus, aside from the fact that it does work.
Unfortunately, it's also led to us having human disease that no longer responds well to antibiotics that are safe to use in humans.
For instance, with Extensively Drug Resistant Tuberculosis:
> Second-line drugs are more toxic than the standard anti-TB regimen and can cause a range of serious side-effects including hepatitis, depression, hallucinations, and deafness. Patients are often hospitalized for long periods, in isolation. In addition, second-line drugs are extremely expensive compared with the cost of drugs for standard TB treatment.
This is progress but still drastically short of EU regs where livestock/poultry are subject to stricter vaccination requirements. For example, vaccination for salmonella.
In the US, poultry industry and federal/state governments have spent endless effort "programming" people to think that it's their responsibility if they get sick because the meat or eggs they purchased were contaminated and they didn't take enough preventative steps (like cooking it to the point of it being nearly inedible.)
Most US poultry is rinsed in chlorinated water, eggs are washed as well (which ends up destroying the egg's natural coating, so they have to be refrigerated) and so on.
If you vaccinate the entire flock, none of them end up with salmonella.
Not washing the eggs means the outside might have some chicken crap on it, but A) you wash that off before breaking the egg, and B) you're cooking anything the eggshells come into contact with.
People in the US also think they need to refrigerate eggs.
I personally want zero medicine, chemicals or vaccines in my food. It’s frankly gross.
Further, it is your fault if you eat bad meat. We have a responsibility for our own bodies and what we put in them. The fact people can sue is why they wash with bleach.
> People in the US also think they need to refrigerate eggs.
Eggs in the US are washed (by law) before sale, which removes their natural protective coating, therefore requiring they be refrigerated. In other places eggs are sold unwashed and can be left out.
Take a step back and think about what you just said...
"Washing them, removes the protective coating, requiring refrigeration"
Right, so why do they require refrigeration, if they are sanitized?
Further, if they're not sanitized, you can leave them out? What exactly is that protective coating and how does it somehow make the eggs less safe to sanitize them?
US eggs are fine to leave out, they just lose some moisture. That's also true of the ones which are unwashed btw, but washed eggs degrade faster. Both unwashed and washed are better refrigerated.
This study was focused on the US egg export market, so they were looking at moisture loss, which affects how "fresh" an egg looks and tastes, but they did not look at the rate that eggs go bad. Egg exporters don't sell rotten eggs -- that's the consumer's problem -- so that fell outside the scope of the study.
The theory is that sanitizing process makes the shell more permeable, which makes it easier for random bacteria in the environment to infect the egg; thus it risks going rotten faster. Refrigeration slows down the growth of these microbes, thus counteracting the increase in permability.
As I understand it, washing reduces the presence of salmonella on the outside of the egg (which is less of a concern in Europe where vaccination against it is more common). It’s a tradeoff though, as it makes the egg more permeable and therefore susceptible to other spoilage microbes, since the eggs don’t stay in a sterile environment after being washed.
People in the US also think they need to refrigerate eggs
Only folks that care about food safety. Refrigeration is sometimes cultural: Folks in Norway usually refrigerate eggs, even though they look unwashed, but eggs sit on a shelf at stores in Sweden.
I personally want zero medicine, chemicals or vaccines in my food. It’s frankly gross.
So don't eat. Everything has chemicals. You probably don't want to eat sick animals (that's what medicine is for) and vaccines help make sure your food is safer - especially for salmonella. Or produce all of your own food. Good luck grinding wheat, canning and avoiding botulism, feeding animals (or farming even more), and not dying when food runs out.
Further, it is your fault if you eat bad meat. We have a responsibility for our own bodies and what we put in them. The fact people can sue is why they wash with bleach.
This is a horrible misunderstanding of what you have control over. You can handle all meat properly and still get sick: Unvaccinated chickens tend to have salmonella, for example, and it can make you sick. You simply can't see whether or not the spinach you are eating is contaminated by animal droppings either. You don't - and never will - have control over everything you put in your body.
They don't wash with bleach because people can sue: They wash with bleach because they aren't taking other measures to make sure your eggs are safer and because some cultures will reject food if it has little bits of poop and feathers on the shell.
As someone who operates a farm, it’s BS. What this really attempts to do, is force me to hire some licensed person to tell me what I already know. Worse, vets are overloaded and there are shortages.
So I have to pay $500 to get some vet to come out in 1-2 days, to tell me what I already know. In that time, my cattle can die, it can spread all costing me more and benefiting no one. Further, because I can only sell a head for $750-2000 this basically wipes out any potential profit.
This is basically just helping the big players who keep a vet on staff or in a high concentrated area. Most of the small farms in my area are just going to get screwed.
Finally, I’m curious how much evidence there is animals use of antibiotics impact humans. Most diseases don’t spread from animal to human, so I don’t suspect it’s all that impactful. On the other hand, it could be to reduce animal-to-animal diseases. That would make sense.
All that being said, to be honest, I think this is an effort to limit the things we saw during Covid. Basically, people realized they could get any drugs for animals cheap and easy. It’s screwing up the medical system, making it as cheap as drugs in the rest of the world.
Actually, what it's attempting to do is prevent antibiotic being used as growth promoters. If they were only used on animals that are sick it would not be a problem. As it is, it's a serious problem as the sibling comment points out.
But, the net effect is what you say. What other solutions are there? Tax them so other uses aren't economic, perhaps?
> Finally, I’m curious how much evidence there is animals use of antibiotics impact humans.
There's a ton, and it all points to antibiotic overuse in agriculture as the main culprit.
Antibiotics and their metabolites don't just stay in animals, they exist in their waste and percolate throughout the environment, water supply, etc, causing antibiotic resistance in bacteria in the environment.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is mainly from misuse in humans and animals, and disease spread between the two, along with ineffective waste treatment and the leaching of antibiotics into the environment[1]. About 80% of antibiotics sold in the US are used in agriculture[2], where they are given to animals not to treat infections, but to prevent them and to stimulate growth.
Here are some diagrams from the CDC[3][4], and some articles[5][6][7] from the CDC.
> Most diseases don’t spread from animal to human, so I don’t suspect it’s all that impactful.
Over 60% of infectious diseases in humans are spread from animals, and 75% of new diseases in humans are spread from animals[3].
I presume there is a chance the harm can be undone. As antibiotics are less used, the few resistant bacteria will compete with the many non resistant bacteria and hopefully go extinct.
Extinction is unlikely, unless having resistance comes at a very high cost to the organism. I would not necessarily assume this is the case, though. These are genes that may have already existed in a subset of these bacteria, just as random genetic variation, and then we came along and selectively bred the ones with a natural resistance to our antibiotics.
Think of it like the black death in humans. When this disease suddenly made the jump to humans, some people had naturally higher resistance and some had lower resistance, all just due to random genetic variation. The disease spared people who were more resistant and killed people who were less resistant, and now humans today carry genes that protect us from this disease, even though we have not had another black plague for hundreds of years. Even if we eradicated the disease entirely, we will probably still carry resistance for thousands of years. It's just a part of our genetic makeup now.
Back to bacteria, even if antibiotic resistance does come at a high cost to the organism and there is selective pressure against it in the absence of antibiotics, it is still very unlikely that we can get back to the way it was when antiobiotics were new. Once a deleterious trait appears in a population, it has a way of sticking around (e.g., see numerous deadly genetic diseases carried by humans).
Basically, the cat is out of the bag. We need to drastically reduce our use of modern antibiotics to buy ourselves time to develop new antibiotics--and we need to keep the new antibiotics very tightly controlled.
But my point is that if you cease to apply a selective pressure, suddenly the organism that were suppressed by this selective pressure thrive. Whereas in the case of the back death the pressure didn't disappear, we just developed a resistance (if that's the case).
Assuming the data is accurate, it would seem antibiotic use (not sure how that compares with antimicrobials in general) is not particularly low compare to other countries.
> The top 5 consumers in 2020 were China, Brazil, India, USA, and Australia
But also:
> In contrast, Australia now also appears among the top 5 –however, in the absence of any public report of AMU since 2010 [29], usage for Australia was obtained through extrapolation, as with other countries that do not report data. Therefore, predictions may not accurately reflect the current country efforts to reduce AMU.
So it's not clear if the data actually is accurate (and the paper really is about how accurate data is missing for many countries).
> yet we tend to only hear about how humans need to cut back
There's also financial reasons to do so, with livestock the financial reasons are likely reversed.
Beside that, anti-biotics also have side effects that can make you more sick, their use is not just unnecessary but counter productive. Some of the side effects can be serious and long term, like changing your gut bacteria.
I agree with you on high density confinement livestock production. But is there evidence of antibiotic resistant strains in animals causing issues for humans?
Much of modern medicine depends on antibiotics. The above resources give clear and compelling evidence that overuse of antibiotics in livestock is associated with increases in drug-resistant infections in humans.
There are a number of bacteria that have made the jump from animals to people so creating a huge breeding pool for very antibiotic resistant bacteria that have generated human viruses in the past seems like a poor choice.
Same for water. We are told to have shorter showers while farmers use most of the water for inefficient practices to grow unsuitable plants for the region.
How much does livestock eating antibiotics really affect the problem of resistant bacteria infecting humans?
Farmers don't use antibiotics for fun. It increases meat production by 5-10%. So expect meat prices to go up by about that amount if the practice gets banned.
> How much does livestock eating antibiotics really affect the problem of resistant bacteria infecting humans?
Bacteria transfer genes from one species to another, so an innovative new genetic mutation that allows one kind of bacteria to shrug off antibiotics more effectively won't stay only in that species of bacteria or only on that farm.
> Horizontal gene transfer is the movement of genetic information between organisms, a process that includes the spread of antibiotic resistance genes among bacteria, fueling pathogen evolution.
>How about we require ranchers to decrease their animal density so they don't need to use so many antibiotics?
That would massively drive up meat prices and anger voting consumers who won't be able to afford meant anymore, and also anger voting meat producers who will go bankrupt from slumping sales and have to lay off workers, all of which who will direct their anger at the politicians who restricted the use of antibiotics in animal farms. So not gonna happen politically.
Consumers have to either accept higher meat prices (not gonna happen), or accept that we're too many consumers on the planet for everyone to be fed with organically grown meat (also not gonna happen), so we just kick the can down the road and sweep the dirt under the rug until the titanic hits the iceberg and there's no way forward anymore.
Here in the rich EU countries we have some rules and regulations on meat production, but enforcement is very lax and it's an open secret that those certification seals of approval are basically worthless as animals are still caged together crowded in their own filth, with massively infected open wounds full of puss, and pumped full of antibiotics just to stay alive long enough to become burgers. You should Google those images if you want to become vegan but lack the motivation.
It's a political tragedy of the commons that's found in a lot of other areas in our lives/society which we know for a fact are wrong and are harming us (or others from less fortunate parts of the world), but we still stick to them because they're very profitable industries generating $$$ and jobs, and they're such a tight part of our daily lives, they're nearly impossible to undo today, like all the pollution from car dependence, microplastics, the cheap cocoa and coffee industries driven by slave labor, etc.
See the dead body spaghetti episode from Rick and Morty, it's pretty good satire on our collective hypocrisy on this topic.
We know those are all bad, but we choose to look the other way and not do anything about it because we love our lifestyles with cheap car traveling, cheap shipping, cheap meat, cheap coffee, cheap clothing, etc. and all the associated profits.
I’d rather pay a bit more for meat than be forced down the path of questionable meat-substitutes. Maybe meat has been unsustainably cheap for a long time?
I am quite far from the vegan ideology, but still willing to recognize that there is something untenable about our current relationship with livestock.
Fake meat has a higher chance IMO because appear to be starting to approach regular meat levels. I fairly frequently see beyond/impossible meat on sale for $3-4/lb which is roughly the price of 85% ground beef around me.
It would be great if fake meat would be able to drop demand for real meat, leading to less need for factory farming. But if that happens, it's very far in the future.
This post is the perfect example of what (former US President) Obama calls a "false choice": Either cheap meat stuffed with antibiotics, or expensive meat with few-to-no antibiotics. There are other choices we can make in our society that are not 100% driven by economics.
Recall that the US (and many other highly industrialised, wealthy countries) had filthy environments in the 1960s. Then, the world awoke to environmentalism and a huge number of regulations were passed to clean-up. Few people are asking to go back to the pre-1960s environment. And, yes, following these new environmental rules is not cheap. It would be much cheaper to produce chemicals (and whatever else) if manufacturers could pollute like the 1950s.
>There are other choices we can make in our society that are not 100% driven by economics Then, the world awoke to environmentalism and a huge number of regulations were passed to clean-up
You're forgetting the massive off-shoring of dirty environmentally damaging manufacturing and mining that has moved from the wealthy countries to Asia and Africa, and allowed said rich countries to become 'clean' while still having access to cheap stuff and not be economically affected by the move to green.
It's a trick that doesn't work as well with organic farming.
I don't buy meat from anywhere you can give healthy livestock antibiotics, period. It's really easy (obviously in case you live in such a country you'd be forced to not buy meat or buy imported, which is more expensive and worse for the environment).
Not sure about the definitions about prophylaxis and metaphylaxis but I was under the impression any systemic use of antibiotic use in healthy animals was outlawed e.g. in the EU.
There may be local regulations or labellings to (e.g. some organic labeling means no antibiotic and so on). But as a first rule I just try to avoid meat from "bad" countries. E.g. we get quite a lot of imported Brazilian beef in stores and I know it's terrible both for deforestation and antibiotics so I avoid that completely. Some interesting differences in the map is e.g. between Australia And NZ.
There's some devil in the details, of course, are the antimicrobials used in animals the same as those used in humans? ie. Does increasing resistance in animals to X product result in resistance to Y product as used in humans?
Sheep are pretty easy keepers. They need less hands-on care than many other livestock (other than shearing, which produces wool that can be sold), they don't require shelter, they don't require strong fences, they don't require high-quality feed, etc.
There can also be other forces at play. For example, we have just transitioned from la Nina (which brings high rainfall to this part of the world) to el Nino (which brings drought), so a lot of farmers will be downsizing their flocks.
Changes in wool prices can also affect lamb prices.
Luckily for me I can just avoid buying imported from bad countries like Brazil. All imported from good countries AND all local meat is ok (because I live in one of the good areas on the map). If I did live in (say) Poland, it would be harder and more expensive, but I'm sure it would be possible to avoid buying domestic, and it wouldn't necessarily be that much less sustainable. At least not compared to buying things imported from a different continent.
> In January 2022, the routine use of antibiotics was banned in the EU, and preventative use was restricted to exceptional treatments of individual animals
EU law is pretty strict about labelling meat coming from the EU/outside the EU so that could be one way.
"most men would rather die young than stop eating meat"
Seriously, you're going to phrase it like that? How about this, I enjoy a balanced diet and if that is going to kill me young then so be it. If I was scared of dying
I would be much more worried about the coat of plastic dust that lines the entire planet, including vegetables being grown and the grass/feed that animals eat, and the fact that I'm extremely likely to die of cancer due to plastics everywhere, metal particles everywhere, chemicals everywhere... if the meat doesn't get me first.
What if it wasn’t about you dying? What if it was to make the world better?
What amount of suffering in the world would cause you to even consider the option of eating less meat? Is it something you’re willing to contemplate? Not just animal suffering either. Think of the complicated web of problems that come out of people eating too much meat. The antibiotic use discussed in this thread. The methane byproduct discussed in countless others. The inhumane conditions of most butchers (for workers! Let’s forget the animals still).
It’s okay if none of that bothers you. We’re only human. I’m a former vegan, I’ve likely considered it all more than strictly necessary. I don’t think anyone _has_ to be anything. But for what it’s worth it _could_ be about more than an individual’s health.
"What if it wasn’t about you dying? What if it was to make the world better?"
That would be a different discussion, with a different answer. I was only replying to the comment above mine.
Yes... animals produce waste & suffer from infections...
Inhumane conditions exist in the minority in every industry.
You're claiming most butchers/abattoirs have inhumane conditions in an industry that I'm certain you've never worked in.
You're a former vegan but I see that you're still brain-washed by the material that you were hand fed.
It is not a different discussion. Here is the context of the line you quoted line I believe you were replying to.
that would require people cut back on meat consumption
You chose to only quote the
Would rather die part.
I’m simply asking you consider something beyond the meals you want to partake in.
You’re absolutely correct- I never have worked in that industry. My family has worked the chicken industry in Georgia and South Carolina. I’ve seen the result of that labor first-hand. If that brain washed me then so be it. That labor is inhumane. It is hardly the only inhumane labor that we rely on.
The thing is I believe you’re capable of seeing more than your comment lets on. I wasn’t hand-fed some propaganda and I don’t think you were either. It’s a weird world out here.
https://www.nrdc.org/resources/us-livestock-industries-persi...