SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The large and expanding use of antimicrobials in livestock, a consequence of growing global demand for animal protein, is of considerable concern in light of the threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Use of antimicrobials in animals has been linked to drug-resistant infections in animals (1) and humans (2). In September 2016, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly recognized the inappropriate use of antimicrobials in animals as a leading cause of rising AMR. In September 2018, the interagency group established by the UN Secretary General will report on progress in the global response to AMR, including antimicrobial consumption in animals. We provide a baseline to monitor efforts to reduce antimicrobial use and assess how three global policies might curb antimicrobial consumption in food animal production: (i) enforcing global regulations to cap antimicrobial use, (ii) adherence to nutritional guidelines leading to reduced meat consumption, and (iii) imposing a global user fee on veterinary antimicrobial use.
Good thing we've moved on to eating insects.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday October 01 2017, @07:04PM (13 children)
This would be the right approach, if we were serious about solving the problem:
1. Find out the total cost for treating antibiotic-resistant diseases each year. Extrapolate from that trend the cost of treating antibiotic-resistant diseases next year.
2. Find out the total quantity of animal and human antibiotics used each year. Extrapolate from that trend the total quantity used next year.
3. Divide the total cost from step 1 by the total quantity from step 2. Establish a tax of that amount.
4. The money from the taxes gets divvied up between the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers proportionally to the number of people they insure.
All this would create a financial incentive for farmers to not use the stuff unless they actually need it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Sunday October 01 2017, @08:33PM (1 child)
They should do this kind of thing with veggies, etc: tax the hell out of crap processed food and use those tax revenues to make veggies/organic foods cheaper.
And tax the hell out of pop and crap foods to subsidize the Canadian healthcare system: bugs me to no end when you see heavily obese people loading up shopping carts with cans and six packs of pop and crap 'ding dongs', etc, when they can barely walk and can't breath well. Why should my taxes pay for their healthcare when THEY don't care about their OWN health.
JUST sayin'.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @03:42AM
There is a sportsball and ding dongs culture in Canada? If it is even happening there we need to consider there is something natural that makes people like this type of thing. Perhaps they are stuck in "winter is coming" mode all the time. In that case the problem is to get them out of that mode. I think the real issue is lack of info about basic human physiology, which leads to impotent theories about what is going on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @10:21PM (1 child)
I like your reasoned solution. But what it looks like we are getting instead is a stupid switcheroo -- for years we've heard about antibiotics (in animal feed and other excessive uses) and all of a sudden, now it's antimicrobials? Is there any difference or is this just a new word to distract the discussion?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @04:53AM
Antimicrobial substances kill at least one type of microbe, while antibacterial substances kill bacteria. Just because something is an antimicrobial, that doesn't mean it is an antibiotic. For example, Nitazoxanide will cure your Giardia, but won't do anything beyond placebo for your Staph infection.
(Score: 2) by leftover on Sunday October 01 2017, @10:41PM (5 children)
Antibiotics/antimicrobials in feed are not being used to treat diseases per se. For some reason (that I think is still not known) it makes the animals grow more quickly. Unless farmers can get a higher price for using no-antibiotic feed, they are at a competitive disadvantage to do so. Find a solution to this and their use of antibiotics will cease immediately.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday October 02 2017, @12:55AM (2 children)
Perhaps the reason is unknown because there is very little evidence that it does promote growth. It looks like another con from the pharma industry.
(Score: 2) by leftover on Monday October 02 2017, @03:23AM (1 child)
Wow. If true, that will deserve a lynch mob of historic proportions.
From a broader perspective this would be yet another example of corporate bullshit being paraded around as "science". Farmers will be seriously pissed at being misled and they already have pitchforks.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @05:18AM
I farm and trust me, they get way bigger, way faster. Last time I checked my non-AM to my neighbors AM-fed, he gets 5 days or so off maturity and some of his birds are literally so large they have difficulty walking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @05:04AM
Antimicrobial use alters the gut flora in many species, which causes animals to digest food differently. Now, many of them have been banned and you are having a harder time finding vets that will prescribe them (without some, ahem, persuasion). Of course, it is now getting to the point where non-lot farmers are actually getting higher prices for more humane treatment. The bigger buyers have vertically integrated (and don't really buy on open market) and the smaller buyers really feel the push for antibiotic free and a lesser bit for free-range or cage-free birds.
HOWEVER, not all of them have been banned. Plus, farmers are now transitioning to either broader spectrum antimicrobial substances, or off-label from friendly vets, or prescription from a vet properly persuaded to see how sick your animals are. That way they can still get the benefit, but still get the coveted "no antibiotics" label.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @04:26PM
yes, they feed low dose antibiotics to food animals to make them grow faster. see the 42 day wonder [freefromharm.org]. they need to be sued for every illness and death due to drug resistant bacteria. make them stop their disgusting stupidity.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Monday October 02 2017, @12:04PM (2 children)
Antibiotics are actually mainly used to increase meat production, as the microbes "steal" less of the food taken in. Therefore "need" has to be read in terms of the balance sheet. In this sense your proposal of financial incentives makes at lot of sense: the consumer would pay more for meat in return for less resistance. The effect on the rest of the economy would be neutral. Only action point left: tell the consumer.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 02 2017, @12:25PM (1 child)
You don't need to. That's the beauty of it - the price of meat would go up, so consumers would change their behavior accordingly.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Monday October 02 2017, @12:54PM
I am not so sure. I tried to make the point that changing antibiotics policy would be neutral to the meat industry (if we ignore the antibiotics industry for the moment). In this view, the meat industry should be open to restrictions on antibiotics use. Even stronger: they would probably benefit financially as a scarcer good tends to allow to improve margins (the oil industry is more profitable when oil prices are high). Yet, there is no such move from them: more expensive meat is unpopular.