I don't understand, how people, who supposedly must be well educated in biology, allow antibiotics to loose efficiency by feeding them to animals.
For regulators, the incentives might be skewed by lobbying and perhaps corruption.
On the other hand, relying on regulators seems to be fundamentally flawed. Some of the domains that these people are regulating are highly specific, niche, and complex. Where is the government going to get people who are well-versed and experienced in these domains if not the industries being regulated? And, once you are a regulator, from where do you source alternative job opportunities if not the companies you are regulating?
| Unfortunately, this is the way in which
| "market forces" fail us. When all motivations
| ultimately spring forth from ever-higher profits
| and market dominance, how can "doing the right
| thing" for society as a whole win out on a
| consistent basis?
- The people running the company will be selfish and want to minimize the future risks to their offspring/descendents.
- If the company uses a practice that is bad, all of their customers will just boycott / switch to a competitor.
Reality:
- The people running the company may not have any offspring and therefore not much riding on the future.
- Most of these companies all use the same practices, so it makes boycotting hard. Switching to competitors that don't use these practices are more expensive (i.e. organic), and food is something that people need.
- The detriments of certain practices may not be known right away, and stopping them later could lead to lower short-term profits (and maybe not even increased long-term profits, just betterment of society), and Wall Street doesn't like this because all Wall Street is concerned about is numbers going up or down (all other considerations are not considered).
- Most people have issues with long-term thinking. Things that happen slowly over long time-spans don't seem to register.
> Switching to competitors that don't use these practices are more expensive (i.e. organic), and food is something that people need.
I do agree that people see this as an impediment. However, people use this excuse way too often - as a crutch, in my opinion. We (Americans, in my case) spend a pitifully small percentage of our incomes on food: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/01/america-food-...
That's not even getting into whom the largest consumers are. I'll bet that there is a lot of interfacing between companies like McDonald's/KFC/etc where other corporate interests are attempting to push down prices. Then you end up with multiple layers of corporate interests that end up insulating the consumer.
All of this can also be side-stepped (at least in this case) by moving to a vegetarian or vegan diet, but that's a large leap for some people and there are stigmas attached to it by some in society (i.e. 'dirty hippies,' etc).
What's more alarming is that bacteria frequently exchange genetic material between species. Just because the resistance genes have not been discovered in a pathogen does not mean that the gene cannot be easily and instantly transferred from another species, and the chance of that happening is greatly increased if the environment is flooded with resistance genes due to selection by human use of antibiotics.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=horizontal+gene+transfe...