Comment by yeukhon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yeukhon | Hacker News Reader

When I shop, I want oragnic meat. But it remains a myth to me whether one brand is “more organic” than others. Can I trust the simple “organic approved” stamp? What’s in theirs anyway? What about the organic soil in my backyard I use to grow my delicious tomatoes? Free range chicken are completely organic? Not necessary, a misconception. What exactly is “organic”?

Antibacterial resistance is becoming more evident. Beside regulate the use of antibotics (and pesticide) in food source, we should not overlook the overuse of antibotics in medical treatments [1][2][3].

Patients often do not understand what antibotics are for, and they would ask their doctors to prescribe antibotics even when antibotics are absolutely unnecessary. Some doctors will give in because the prescription would avoid confrontation with the patient and therefore will give the patient an illusion he/she is receiving the full treatment.

Antibacterial resistance affects now and our future generations. Look up “antibotic resistance” in Google News and you will find hundreds of news articles over the years.

[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/features/antibioticuse/index.html

[2]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170509121924.h...

[3]: http://www.utswmedicine.org/stories/articles/year-2017/antib...

Simplest (not easiest) personal solution is to not eat meat (or any animal products)

Neither will help you if you for example pick up a resistant strain while for example in hospital.

Yeah, but that's not the point.

What is the point? Is it that not eating meat will significantly reduce likelihood of catching an antibiotic resistant bug? Like I implied I doubt this is true. Or is it that the problem would be greatly reduced if everyone stopped eating meat. I expect this is true but it is not going to happen.

> I expect this is true but it is not going to happen.

What is your point. That we shouldn't do anything, because it is all hopeless?

> Or is it that the problem would be greatly reduced if everyone stopped eating meat. I expect this is true but it is not going to happen.

This is a classic Tragedy of the Commons. No single individual is incentivized to sacrifice for the good of the group as a whole.

But it's not correct to say that "it's not going to happen" - there are many counter-examples. The most notable is the ozone layer depletion problem that has been largely mitigated over the last 3 decades through concerted action among govts, NGOs and with public education. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion:

"The Montreal Protocol is considered the most successful international environmental agreement to date. ... The ozone hole was seen as a "hot issue" and imminent risk as lay people feared severe personal consequences such as skin cancer, cataracts, damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations. ... Americans voluntarily switched away from aerosol sprays, resulting in a 50 percent sales loss even before legislation was enforced."

So yes, at some future point, if govts/NGOs do their part and the average human comes to believe they face imminent personal danger (which we already do but it's hidden), meat production may well become heavily regulated and large numbers of people may switch to vegetarianism.

Bugs and plants can also absorb antibotic substances.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vegetables-contai...

So what? I shouldn't eat anything? I mean yeah, I could try that. But what is your point, that nothing should be done because it's useless to do anything?

You made the comment that a solution is to not eat meat product. Then if vegetables are tainted, then how is not eating meat a solution? The correct solution would be stop misusing antibotics.

Pesticides overuse is also very common and that is the same class of problems, though it doesn't threaten whole humanity like antibiotics do.

So what? I shouldn't eat anything? I mean yeah, I could try that. But what is your point, that nothing should be done because it's useless to do anything?

The GP is simply suggesting that you're selective and biased in the issues you're trying to solve. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing: you have to choose your battles.

But someone else could propose only eating meat to solve the massive use of pesticide. Apart from the possible health issues, he would be as right in his position as you are.

I appreciate your point and I learned something new from it, but I disagree with the last part. By your GP's own admission, pesticide overuse doesn't threaten all of humanity like antibiotic overuse does. So no, they are not "as right as" someone trying to avoid contributing to the antibiotic overuse problem. Not all problems are equally important.

He would be wrong because animals grown for meat also eat vast quantities of of plants, which are of course grown with pesticides. So eating a plant based diet reduces the amount of antibiotics AND pesticides used globally.

Bioaccumulation of pesticides in animal tissue is a serious problem.

I do not think you can ever consume the same amount of pesticides by eating plants if before that you ate nontrivial amounts of chicken, chicken eggs, beef, milk etc. Cow eats several tons of plants in its lifetime. I'm pretty sure human comes no where close. The bioaccumulation happening there is a serious issue.

That stuff is filled with bioaccumulated pesticides.

Considering how damaging it is on soils fauna, I wouldn't be so sure.

Animals grown for meat eat massive amounts of plants grown with pesticides, which also builds up in their tissues, so carnism is a big contributor to this problem as well.

> Can I trust the simple “organic approved” stamp?

I was watching some Canadian CBC Marketplace videos where they show that some sellers just buy factory produced food and then label it as organic/farmer produced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com