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: 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.