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: 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.