80% of the antibiotics we use are given to animals.[1] That seems like a good place to cut back.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/health/use-of-antibiotics-...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/health/use-of-antibiotics-...
It gets much dicier in-hospital when someone has a SIRS response and you need to presumptively treat them for sepsis.
I would be curious to know: of the antibiotic resistance burden that comes from human antibiotic use (specifically in countries where abx are physician-prescribed and not available over the counter), how much of this burden comes from broad treatment of presumed serious infections, and how much comes from treatment of presumed non-serious infections or even postsurgical prophylaxis?
The problem is much more with people who only take partial courses or are non-compliant, because if you don't clear the infection then round 2 is full of the slightly more resistant members of the species.
I believe there are some labs-on-chip that can detect multiple(even thousands) bacteria and/or viruses. I'm not sure if they are in commercial usage.
I'm just pointing out that the antibiotics aren't strictly being used for disease-prevention (hence better hygiene alone might not eliminate their use).
So treating with broad-spec antibiotic prophylaxis increases your healthy-at-slaughter-date yield, especially under cost-optimised industrial feedlots.
More incrementally, (if perhaps still somewhat controversially), normal gut bacteria accounts for some fraction of the energy intake provided by animal feed. By killing them off, it frees up nutrients for the host. Other mechanisms including reduced immune load may also be involved.
Quoting from [1]:
> According to the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH, 2001), antibiotic growth promoters are used to "help growing animals digest their food more efficiently, get maximum benefit from it and allow them to develop into strong and healthy individuals". Although the mechanism underpinning their action is unclear, it is believed that the antibiotics suppress sensitive populations of bacteria in the intestines. It has been estimated that as much as 6 per cent of the net energy in the pig diet could be lost due to microbial fermentation in the intestine (Jensen, 1998). If the microbial population could be better controlled, it is possible that the lost energy could be diverted to growth.
User shabble has some ideas (in a sibling comment to this one), but reading that gives me the impression that this is a little bit of a theoretical concept. It's not. It's very widely practiced, with the explicit intent of "promoting growth".
E.g., a search like [1] calls up a large number of references to it.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+antibiotics+fatten+an...
(just trying to keep the discourse here as balanced as it would be if this discussion was out of HN)
>We [sic] should also fine doctors for...
Why is violence an appropriate response to these non-violent issues?
If people who abuse antibiotics will lead to us having no good antibiotics, then they will inflict extreme violence on the entire human race.
My ex-girlfriend's dad died of an infection, quite possibly a superbug. I was there with her and her mom the second he stopped breathing. Go and be there at the moment of death by infection of someone you know, then tell me how you feel about people who needlessly weaken antibiotics.
I, for one, think we should pass laws that prevent people from doing harmful things to society..
C'mon. Do you really think every food regulation is being watched by military police who will come and beat you up if you break said regulation?
They start with a polite court summons, then send a police officer to your home, and if you don't come quietly they'll physically force you. If you manage to resist that, well now you're resisting arrest so it doesn't even matter what the original summons was for. They'll escalate to tasers, nightsticks, maybe tear gas. You probably need guns on your side to resist past that point, which means the police get their guns out, and they've got more guys and more guns than you. You most likely end up dead, but definitely not resisting anymore. At no point will they say "Gee guys, this is just too much effort, guess we better let him do whatever he wants."
There is implied violence in every government directive. You don't usually see it because almost nobody has the will and the means to push it that far, but it's still there. I think people would do well to remember that when casually calling for things to be made illegal.
That said, I actually agree with the idea of banning antibiotics in agriculture. It's quite important, and a classic market failure/tragedy of the commons situation that you sadly do need government to solve.
The same goes for the requirements for a free market - which involves perfect information on the part of the purchaser. If you withhold information, you've violated the requirements... and if you continue to not comply, the system requires escalation, and libertarianism in particular relies heavily on the courts to fix things post facto, and of course, courts need to be able to enforce their dictates. So not providing perfect information to the market is an act of violence, using these flawed "chain-of-events-that-end-in-foo-are-literally-foo" terms.
The libertarian redefinition of 'violence' really needs to be abandoned.
Also, in this case, the individual dosing livestock with antibiotics is actually harming society, in which case I think it would be okay to physically detain him/her from doing so, rather than just saying "this is just too much effort, guess we better let him do whatever he wants". In most scenarios though, I don't think this would be necessary.
So, we could equally say that there is implied violence in every transaction. (Well, yes sometimes the violence is leased from the government, which will happen if I bring my armed thugs to raid an Apple store. And I'd consider that a good use of the government's resource.)
Edit for clarity.
With such a leap, I can only logically assume you replied to the wrong comment.
Given the pernicious and undemocratic over-representation of rural interests embodied in the structure of the Senate, I don't expect them to go anywhere.
[1] Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act of 2013 -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.1256.IS:/
[2] Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2013 -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:H.R.1150:@@@L
I'm sure the rural interests have the same thing to say about urban interests & the House. Which, really, means things are working as intended.
A system which gives representation to rocks and cows rather than to people is undemocratic. That's not just my opinion man, it's a statement of fact. The House doesn't over-represent urban interests it represents them in the proportion that people of the country live there.
Your post smacks of the fallacy of the golden mean fallacy, which is unfortunately a serious problem in the United States today. There aren't two sides to every issue. Often some people are just wrong.
The debate over firearms is a simple example. Urban voters do not see why rural voters cannot simply depend on the police to maintain law and order. Rural voters on the other hand do not see why urban voters think the police can respond in time. The difference is their context. Urban voters are probably right- in the context of a city.
(I am not arguing about firearms, I just thought the debate was an easy illustrative example of how your context matters)
There aren't two sides to every issue. Often some people are just wrong.
I'm sure you are conveniently always on the side that is right? :)
Unfortunate the only nation who has the power to convince others joining this ban, is one of the worst abusers of antibiotics.
Consumers might have a choice, if they are wealthy enough to afford it. If you are a beef consumer, eat beef from Namibia, where antibiotics for animals are banned, and avoid US or South Africa. Ask you butcher, if he can offer antibiotic free meat.
I'm curious as to just exactly how you think the US is going to convince China, Russia, India, etc to ban antibiotics? The US could obviously afford to do so, as the incremental cost in the price of animal protein (due to smaller yields) could be absorbed by modifications to eating habits or redistribution models (i.e. food stamps).
I'm not sure the same could be said in some of the countries that are much larger and have huge difficulties with food production/distribution already.
Why? The problem isn't giving antibiotics to animals. Antibiotics are useful for animals the same way they are useful for controlling disease in humans. The problem is abuse of antibiotics.
So in short, yes the problem is giving it to animals.
If there is no safe use, then what matters is risk vs. reward, right? There is real utility (reward) to using antibiotics on animals, and I don't see how we can simply blanket rule it out.
If you cut back on keeping them healthy, you're cutting the amount of food available for human consumption.
I recently re-read the fantastic Ishmael[1] which does a fantastic job of explaining the crazy things we've done to increase our food supply in the last 10,000 years.
You are cutting the amount of meat and dairy available for human consumption, not food. Eating animal products is not a terribly efficient way of getting nutrients.
There are better ways of ensuring the supply of food than the abuse of antibiotics in livestock.