This needs to be done on a global scale and we haven't even made progress on that in the US. How do we start?
The Chinese already recognize the effects on nature, the EU too (and iirc they're already beginning to introduce measures), the biggest problem is and always will be the US because of the huge influence of the farming lobby on US politics (and even if that was not the case, then the grid-lock between D/R where everyone boycotts bills from the other side, just because. Brain-dead US politics.)
"The Chinese resistance cases were down to overuse of antibiotics in agriculture."
That's an interesting way to describe a dictatorship!
At one time in the US there were rivers you could set alight, but that was a long time ago.
Some of these articles are several years old, and from sources I'd classify as more internal than foreign. It is likely that these figures would be conservative.
If this data is approximately correct, I think we could say that 1) China has an outsized effect on the problem of antibiotic resistance (even considering it's large population). 2) The US problem of antibiotic use is mostly an agricultural one (which deserves a lot of attention), and the Chinese overuse of antibiotics is not confined to either human or agricultural use.
I'm sure the chinese leadership is aware of the issue, and given their ability to make changes when something is very important (ie, air pollution during high profile events), the fact that little has been done is telling. It is likely that this simply isn't a high priority issue and thus we are unlikely to see any movement on it anytime soon.
http://china.org.cn/china/2015-07/14/content_36057168.htm http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-07/14/c_134411007.htm http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2103733,00...
Did you see the chart from another poster above? Many European countries like Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy have very high levels of antibiotic usage in agriculture
http://i.imgur.com/9ybmhwE.jpg
I live in Europe, and am well aware of the common belief among many Europeans that we have excellent and high animal welfare standards. But the reality is that animal welfare standards also vary greatly between countries.
That chart above clearly demolishes the view that overuse of antibiotics is a problem principally for non-European countries.
It's not like anyone in Europe or the US is actually suffering from a lack of meat is it?
[He's fine - but we were terrified he might lose the sight in one eye for a while].
Unless you hunt.
And then even if, you'd have a resurgence of people sick and dying from parasites and other stuff you catch from improperly handled meat.
If you can't afford real meat, then you can't afford meat.
Nobody says that people who can't afford a catalytic converter deserve an exemption allowing them to spew more carbon from their cars. This is the same dynamic, but far, far worse.
I think shaming people for buying cheap meat is a terrible strategy that will backfire.
What needs to change are the regulations. When antibiotics are banned from the food supply, the market will discover other ways to regain the efficiencies.
It seems to me that, in every thread, you find a way to dream that more "regulations" will solve all of the social ills of the US and beyond.
The agri-industrial complex is perhaps the clearest example that the powerful among the regulated will find a way to be the regulators. What more needs to happen to clarify this for you?
If the only regulations you can have are ones which benefit big businesses, then no regulations at all might be better. You can't have a political ideology based around the idea that the government is perfectly competent and incorruptible.
Instead another alternative might be to get rid of the FDA entirely so new antibiotics can be developed faster, and we can genetically modify animals to breed them to grow bigger without antibiotics.
Well that only might work, and only in this one specific case. In general regulations can definitely be necessary. But they've proven they can't solve this problem, or at least not until the last minute when it might be too late. And even if we were successful, you can't stop other countries from doing it.
Big-ag is the furthest thing from a free market this side of big pharma. Have you heard of ag-gag laws? Corn subsidies? How about events like this:
http://www.wnem.com/story/26116053/farmers-forced-to-dump-pr...
...which happen all the time all over the country?
Our nation's food supply is controlled by a tiny elite for the most part, and it has completely insulated itself from market effects.
Blaming the every-man for this stuff is a cop out. Corporations are to blame. Real change will only come about through government (semi-likely) or self-regulation within industries (very unlikely).
It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill. It's not some strange economic abstraction, but an easy-to-see, real world example.
I'm very confused by your plan of action... shame the general public until they stop eating meat saturated by antibiotics?
In your plan, how many people will you need to deter in order to make a difference? Will the agricultural industry suddenly stop using antibiotics because a hundered thousand people stop eating at McDonnalds? Two million people?
Will your plan be able to get enough people to stop eating meat so that the agricultural industry notices and stops deforestation or other unethical practices? If they do, will it happen before global warming (caused mostly by the agricultural industry) becomes irreversible?
My comment might read like an excuse to you, but to me your comments read like someone who is very naive to the ways of the world.
> Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard. Ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason.
Indeed, absolving oneself of personal responsibility, especially when direct harm is so apparent, is sad to see. I think it is a form of apathy and not conducive to an actually better world. How can you honestly, "blame the industry" yet the very same day, support it with your money? It's simply hypocrisy.
Now government regulations placed on the agricultural industry are idealistic?
> dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution
I am strongly encouraging the more realistic solution, not dismissing or discounting it. How is expecting an impactful number of people to discontinue antibiotic meat usage more realistic than expecting government to step in?
> absolving oneself of personal responsibility
As I stated above, I personally avoid antibiotic raised meat, but I simply don't think shaming or blaming low income families is the right move here.
I challenge your assertion you avoid antibiotic animal products altogether - an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of antibiotics. If you are serious, consider how purchasing meat, etc. directly leads to "deforestation ... lack of fresh water" without bias. Shaming isn't necessary, just educate yourself and others.
No, it isn't. From wikipedia:
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."
> I challenge your assertion you avoid antibiotic animal products altogether - an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of antibiotics
I'm arguing for government regulation -- I agree that regulating yourself is an impractical and unverifiable way to discourage the use of anitbiotics, as is discontinuing the consumption of meat for the same purpose.
> Shaming isn't necessary
Again, the same thing I'm saying -- glad we could agree with each other.
I understand the general argument about taking a bit of personal responsibility, even if it's basically just symbolic. Rather, it's the absolutism that irritates me. In my opinion, eating less at McDonald's and shopping less at Walmart is about as good as never going to those places.
Besides, if you're really a loving, compassionate, open-minded citizen of the planet, wouldn't it be good to spend some time in these places next to the most downtrodden members of our society?
How about this quote from Ghandi instead:
“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.”
withdrawn original post:
----------
Your position transposed 50 years back in time:
"I'm actually tired of the "blame the general public" argument. Blame industry for this. I'm not going to take the blame for racism every time I discriminate against a person for being non-white, nor am I going to assume blame when I promote a man over a better qualified woman. Unless billions of people change within the next few years (which is so unrealistic that I feel comfortable saying it won't happen) then my individual do-gooder actions will only bring self-satisfaction, not real change. Blaming the every-man for this stuff is a cop out. Corporations are to blame. Real change will only come about through government (semi-likely) or self-regulation within industries (very unlikely)."
edit: replies below are furious that I equated racism with factory meat. This misses the point completely. They are not the same at all. The point is that industry and government follow popular sentiment and not the other way around. Corporations will sell you what you will buy. Stop buying it and they will offer you an alternative.
If you buy an disproportionately polluting product, you are polluting. You can't avoid that by saying 'everyone else is doing it, I have no choice'. When racism was institutionalized, you had a choice to go along with it or not. You had, and have, personal responsibility independent of everyone else.
As Bill Engval says: Evel Knievel couldn't have made that jump.
How about focus on your own ethics instead of SHAMING people for eating for christ's sake.
Even though this is a "hot button topic", I don't think eating meat that you can afford (IE antibiotic raised meat) can possibly be compared to race or gender inequalities.
Eating a factory cheeseburger is akin to racism? Seriously? This is a logic fallacy.
Racism comes from the individual. It stems from stupidity and hatred and is directed against people who don't have the same nationality or skin color as you. Eating an antibiotic laden slab of beef due to lack of finances cannot possibly be placed on the same level as this.
I'll also point out that the only way to real change in gender and race inequalities have come about is through government or self-regulation in industries... the same thing I'm arguing for when it comes to the agricultural industry.
Go ahead and switch to all natural blah blah blah... you can now sleep at night knowing you're no longer part of the problem. But when you wake up in the morning, the problem is still there. You have accomplished nothing. But hey, when the world burns at least you can say "I told you so".
Do you realize that there are several religions that hold this exact tenet? And that it's one of the central tenets of Rastafari?
Maybe these people all live their lives based on a logical fallacy, but I don't think it's so far wrong. Both racism and factory farming come down to disrespect for 'the other.'
> Racism comes from the individual.
Most people who study racism regard it as an institution, separate but related to bigotry, which is a quality of an individual.
> I'll also point out that the only way to real change in gender and race inequalities have come about is through government or self-regulation in industries... the same thing I'm arguing for when it comes to the agricultural industry.
Go propose a talk at any Black Studies department in the country with this as your thesis and let us know how it goes.
A central tenet of rastafari is to abstain from antibiotic raised meat? Can you cite a source on this?
Even if this is true, why do you think that the religious beliefs of this or other religions holds any sort of sway over people who are not in those religions? For example, you do realize that it is a core religious tenet of the Westboro Baptist Church and many other Christian religions that homosexuals will burn in hell, but this doesn't mean it is true... in fact most educated people would argue that hell doesn't even exist.
> Maybe these people all live their lives based on a logical fallacy, but I don't think it's so far wrong
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point then.
> Go propose a talk at any Black Studies department in the country with this as your thesis and let us know how it goes.
So the progress we've made in the United States through laws and regulations regarding race and gender is a lie then? Those laws exist because of special interest groups, protesters etc. sure -- but you do realize that laws surrounding these issues exist now that didn't exist before, don't you?
This is a very foolish argument and I have no more to say on the matter.
It's a very misleading sort of progress. It helps many people believe that we're post-racial and that sexism doesn't happen.
I think that many people have confused "changing minds and hearts" with "forcing the public to accept and integrate". The laws and regulations I'm referring to are about enforcing rights, often times basic human ones.
I actually agree with this statement, however the problem of cheap meat can't be solved with good societal behavior unless its enforced on a global scale starting with the united states and that's simply not going to happen unless it is enforced by regulations placed on the out of control agricultural industry.
shaming individuals (which is what the original parent thread was all about) isn't a good plan -- it won't work.
We are seeing right now a trend towards better farming practices, with large chains like Chipotle going antibiotic-free. They are doing that, in part, because enough individuals made the choice to look for antibiotic-free food. In other words, individuals drove corporations to act.
Individual actions also add up directly, even without influencing corporations. If you eat even a little less of a harm-causing food, that's an actual impact on the market. Less of the product is being bought, and less will (eventually) be produced. It's a small effect, hard to see, but it is definitely there - it has to be.
And even if you think "oh, it rounds off", then yes, maybe they can produce 1,000 or 2,000 but not 1,001, so most likely reducing 1 won't affect production. But that just means that a single individual going from 1,001 to 1,000 will reduce 1,000, and that averages out - the probabilistic effect of an individual remains the same, and again, it has to be, assuming reasonable rational production.
Finally, there are indirect effects: If you eat less of a harmful product, your coworkers, friends, and family might notice. It might lead them to make a similar positive change. Hard to measure, but we do know this is an important factor.
I do agree we shouldn't "blame the general public" in the sense of blame/shame/etc. But at the same time, we can't give up and say we can't do anything, because our individual actions definitely do have an effect. To some extent, we can make things better.