[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Un...
China doesn't really care about the environment. Their top priority is growth in order to avoid social unrest, and for feeding all the people they need all the food they can get - and if antibiotics makes farming more productive, they'll do it.
The US, on the other hand, has the problem that Big Ag is a powerful lobby. And Trump, given his total lack of understanding on climate and environmental issues, won't do anything to change that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons's_paradox is the same basic idea.
Meat demand as price drops may end up in pet food or 'corn' flakes, but the usage does not really matter. In competitive markets producers tend to make a fixed percentage of sales as profits. Thus, increasing total sales tends to also increase industry profits.
This is how every rich country went through industrialization. Not because they were all immoral, but because they were poor.
The good news is that China is somehow doing this in fast forward. Each Chinese year seems to be 3 years in a regular economy, and their enormous push for solar power is (I hope) just one sign of what's to come.
Percentage-wise?
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/03/fda-livestock-antibiotic...
It's not a particularly aggressive action but it probably clears the 'nothing' bar.
There's really three reasons to use antibiotics in livestock:
1. Growth promotion 2. Prophylaxis 3. Treating disease.
The ban hits #1. #3 really doesn't deserve to be banned - it's a legitimate use of antibiotics in veterinary medicine. #2 is where there's still a problem, because the use of antibiotics as a preventative runs the gamut from a perfectly legitimate veterinary intervention to an egregious misuse of antibiotics depending on the circumstance.
In fact, Denmark has used antibiotics to prevent infections in pig farming[1] up until at least the summer of 2016[2]. As such, some farms have 88% of their pig population infected with MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus)[3], and over 10,000 Danes have been infected with pig-MRSA.[4]
(all sources in Swedish) [1]http://www.expressen.se/gt/darfor-ar-det-danska-griskottet-s... [2] http://www.lantbruk.com/lantbruk/tuffare-regler-kring-antibi... [3] http://www.svt.se/nyheter/danska-bonder-kan-sprida-antibioti... [4] http://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/tusentals-danskar-smittade...
I just don't want anyone thinking MRSA stands for anything it doesn't.
Second, while the European bans are doing good things, it's far from perfect: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2016/10/eu-report... . Use of fluoroquinolones, macrolides and polymixins (including colistin) rose - Europe is weirdly fond of it.
But seriously, antibiotic resistance is a population-wide problem and you personally not eating meat won't protect you against antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Not to mention the idea that red meat specifically causes adverse health effects in most people is an old idea that modern nutrition studies have mostly not shown to be true.
There is plenty of evidence that this approach has worked in other domains to create behavioral changes in large, impersonal organizations.
For so many reasons, we need to end crop subsidies in this country.
The antibiotics counters and interacts in all sorts of ways we don't really understand (similar to how we don't really, really understand how the human gut works), but one of the ways it surely works is to counter problems caused by unsuitable living conditions.
Ending crop subsidies is probably a good idea in most of the world, but it certainly won't solve the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture.
I swear I'm not a shill for big ionophore, but this is something they do in ruminants, they shift the mix away from one that tends to lead to "bloat" when the animals are fed a lot of grain.
1. Growth promotion 2. Prophylactic treatment (what you're suggesting) 3. The treatment of actual disease
Those go from the most to the least problematic - but I was mostly addressing the idea that a decrease in antibiotics would result in more animal products with bacterial contamination. For #1, that's not true, and for #2 it's not linear (infections in animals don't necessarily mean contaminated food products).
When we talk about reducing antibiotic use in livestock, it's usually focused on #1 and putting #2 in the hands of vets (prophylactic treatments when there's actual risk of disease). Rarely do we actually suggest banning #3.
We also need to reduce consumption of meat, and work towards raising it more healthily. It should be common sense that an unstressed animal fed the diet that it's evolved to thrive on would yield better meat (e.g. grass fed beef is objectively superior to cows fattened on corn.)
Of course it is more expensive to do this, but so be it. There are plenty of cheap sources of nutritious proteins; people could be directed to adjust their expectations. Of course, there are many deep pocketed industry resources that would be against such an adjustment, and there's a new deep-pockets friendly administration in charge, so there's little hope of this happening in the near future...
Antibiotic resistance is a problem with a political solution. It just takes coordination and cooperation worldwide to do the right thing instead of chasing short-term profit.
So I guess we'd better hope for a technological solution instead.
Source?
[1] http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v8/n4/pdf/nrmicro2319....
> In hospitals, both modelling and analysis of the correlations between antibiotic resistance and variation in antibiotic use show that alterations in antibiotic use can cause rapid changes (in the order of days to months) in the frequency of resistance. By contrast, when the fitness cost of resistance is the main driving force behind its reversal, the rate of change is expected to be much slower (months to years).
I think what that means is that hospitals are able to create more selective pressure by rotating through different kinds of antibiotics.
Source: http://www.columbia.edu/~gap2118/papers/nature13827.pdf
Correct me if I'm wrong but ones bacteria modified by natural selection they will continue the resistance (genes) in future bacterial generations.
'Use it or loose it' apply to bacteria far more then for example humans.
Evolution doesn't work the way you think it does. Its not an adaption to something to all eternity but adaptation for current surroundings - once the context is changed, the genome will change too.
The process is simple - the first bacteria that ditch the antibiotic resistence gene will multiply more and use more available resources so other bacteria that have that gene gene (witch becomes resource hog since it doesn't contribute to survival any more) will die out.
Antibiotic resistant genes don't just disappear when we stop using antibiotics. They will remain in the gene pool effectively forever at low levels.
After the first time antibiotic resistance is developed, the gene frequency in the bacteria population may drop to nearly zero after it isn't so useful. But it will come back again very quickly with the reintroduction of that antibiotic. The time scale will be much quicker than when the bacteria first developed antibiotic resistance.
Widespread use of antibiotics (especially at low doses) was and is a criminal mistake.
> Widespread use of antibiotics (especially at low doses) was and is a criminal mistake.
This is not only human made thing. Widespread AB use is common in nature. But AB use for growth promotion IS criminal. And AB should be given as last resort not as usual practice. Good nutrition and adequate supplemenation can cover the rest:
- Retynol is epic for mucosal layer protection.
- Vitamin D is great anti-infective agent.
- Vitamin C is awesome prevention and potential cure for helicobacter pylori.
- Many spices are fantastic as ABs.
- Fermented foods such as kefir and stuff like spirulina are great addition.
- High carb diet reduces immunity a lot.
You don't really need ABs every freaking day - its typical that kids have 6 or more tours in a year. My kid is raised with above principles and more and never had an AB even with kindergarten (7 years now).
There were also some other problematic procedures such apendixtomy that influence this or usage of ABs with viral diseses (typial to prevent opportunistic infections) or for disease that it doesn't affect much and even makes the organ worse, such as otitis.
NSAID use is also contributing A LOT to this. People now bring down temperature on 37.5 and if you don't do it on 38 you are considered lunatic. I simply do no do it up until 40.5 (talking about kids, the exact protocol is contextual and depends on age, length etc). The science showed that when you do that, the disease last longer and mortality is proved to be higher on animals. Brain knows perfectly well when to stop it unless it is broken itself (i.e. meningitis).
You are proposing coordination at the national or international level, among many different companies, medical institutions, and governments.
Just getting a ban on the use of antibiotics for non-infection related reasons will be difficult enough.
I certainly can't disagree with that.
They very likely already were in the gene pool before we went on the antibiotics binge. Remember that our antibiotics were discovered in nature. They're used by other species to fight bacteria. Penicillin was used by moulds for unknown millions of years before we coopted it.
Since bacteria multiply within days or even hours, evolution works very fast in them. This is why they develop resistance within a few decades. How fast they would lose the resistance if we stopped is AFAIK not something we can know until we do it and see what happens.
Those antibiotic resistant genes likely weren't in pathogenic bacteria that affect humans though. And by improperly using antibiotics, we've created an environment where those genes cross species boundaries from where they originated.
Seems quite possible that antibiotic resistant genes were in all types of bacteria and the volume thereof responds to selection pressure.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02017169 http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1944394
There are other studies indicating that in the wild plasmid loss is a slow process:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3966108/
And resistance expressed by genes that become part of the core genome of a bacterial species would presumably be much harder to lose.
>. The presence of ascorbate induced a 50-75% decrease in minimal inhibitory concentrations of different antibiotics for resistant strains. When ascorbate is added, formerly subinhibitory concentrations of penicillin or tetracycline have an increased inhibitory effect on resistant strains and even induced the death of 25-93% of the initial population. These results suggest that ascorbate can induce the loss of several plasmids of S. aureus, and that the levels of antibiotic resistance are also affected by the presence of this compound.
Vitamin C saved the day again ! This level requires intervenous treatment tho, something considered frindge science at this moment for lame reasons.
It is very possible that I'm missing something, but that's not how evolution works to my knowledge, adoption of substantially new genetic features is rapid, but refinements or removal of unrelated genetic code is slow if it is not impacted by the substantive mutations.
For more information, see "Long-term phenotypic evolution of bacteria":
This isn't why they put antibiotics in the food; it's because animals that eat bulk antibiotics gain more weight over the short term than animals that don't. Probably by killing off all the gut bacteria (except the antibiotic resistant ones) that might compete for nutrients. The animals are grown quickly then killed.
If an animal is actually sick it's treated differently, or simply destroyed. Even farmers who don't use antibiotics to stimulate growth will treat their sick animals!
BTW the resistant gut bacteria we're talking about are the ones that get people sick like e coli.