
When We Lose Antibiotics, Here's Everything Else We'll Lose Too - jcklnruns
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/11/end-abx/
======
kephra
> Without the drugs that keep livestock healthy in concentrated agriculture,
> we’d lose the ability to raise them that way.

Antibiotics for industrial animal farms are one of the reasons bacteria
develop multiple resistances. One should ban antibiotics for animals world
wide. Unfortunate this wont happen, till its to late.

"The sheep look up" holds still true.

~~~
grecy
While I tend to agree with you, the problem is we'll then have a lot less
livestock to eat, and there will be a global food shortage.

The house of cards is stacked very, very high.

~~~
rosser
If even some of the land that was freed up by a fall-off in livestock
production was instead used to grow plants, we'd actually have a food surplus,
and a significant one.

EDIT: "even some of"

~~~
colechristensen
Many places which are unsuitable to crop production can be used for livestock
production with very wide grazing.

Most livestock production is done in hyper-concentrated confinement operations
which take up negligible land space. For the wellbeing of the animals, the
quality of the environment surrounding these sites, and the quality of the
meat -- these confinement operations should be done away with. The space,
though, is irrelevant.

Eliminating livestock production increases food availability because the feed-
conversion-ratio is between 4 and 40 (how many pounds of feed turn into 1
pound of cow,pig,chicken, etc).

It is certainly not about space.

~~~
geoka9
What about the space required to grow food for livestock?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Livestock can utilize food sources that we can't (pigs are the greatest food
recyclers ever created), and they can graze in wastelands that we otherwise
find difficult to make productive.

India is primarily vegetarian ONLY because they have lots of land in which to
grow things. Most other regions do not have so much grow-worthy land, and
require a mix of farming and livestock to sustain their populations.

~~~
maxerickson
The U.S. devotes 80 million acres to corn production, corn that is mostly used
as animal feed:

[http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/background.aspx](http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/background.aspx)

(ethanol has shifted that mostly some, yay!)

~~~
randomdata
That doesn't mean those 80 million acres are able to grow food humans can eat
though. Not every year.

For instance, on my farm, while our soil and climate is quite good for growing
beans of many varieties, which are great for human consumption, you still need
to maintain a rotation to maintain a viable farm. We've had to push cereals
out of some of our land because it simply won't grow on their soils. That
basically leaves corn as our only real rotation option.

To add to that, corn is essentially worthless right now. Its market price is
below what it costs to grow. I'd rather grow something I can make money from,
but I don't know what that is. You just have to roll the dice and hope the
price improves before you have to sell it.

As an interesting aside, a neighbour of mine actually did try growing beans
year after year, but he soon found himself out of business completely when
disease started running rampant and his yields dropped to nothing. It was kind
of sad to watch, and frightening to think what could be if we lose the animal
markets.

~~~
maxerickson
We can eat corn! I certainly don't want to shift my diet over to consume so
much of it (I do realize that the quality of the harvest varies and different
varieties, etc., but we can eat it).

Mostly, this thread seems a bit wishy-washy on how we feed livestock in the
U.S...

~~~
randomdata
True, but not 80 million acres worth, and only after heavy processing like
turning it into HFCS. The corn we grow is not the stuff you eat on the cob.

~~~
maxerickson
Well, I like corn bread. And corn tortillas. I don't mind corn flakes. I don't
like corn dogs. There's lots of ways to utilize field corn for human
consumption.

But sure, it's unlikely humans would keep growing that much corn if it wasn't
going to ethanol or livestock.

~~~
randomdata
Fair enough, but still a drop in the bucket compared to what is being grown.
You said yourself that the vast majority was consumed by other animals.

 _> But sure, it's unlikely humans would keep growing that much corn if it
wasn't going to ethanol or livestock._

Which is likely, and in line with what I was suggesting earlier. However,
unless some unforeseen markets open up, that means leaving the land fallow
every few years rather than growing corn, not growing more food for humans.

That is where I was going with my original post. If we stopped growing corn
completely, that doesn't necessarily mean we gain 80 million acres to grow
something else, you just lose the meat out of the nation's diet, putting more
pressure on the land that is already growing other foods.

I'm not saying it is impossible to see such a transition through, but our
agriculture system grew up with animals being a large part of it. To stop that
over a short period of time would be a _huge_ transition, and I could see it
being an incredibly painful time for farmers and consumers alike. It won't
simply be a matter of stopping the consumption of animals and starting to eat
a vegetarian diet like small groups of people are able to do today.

------
ChuckMcM
Of the many topics that seem to capture the attention most readily, tales of
the apocalypse to come are perhaps the most compelling.

For reasons I don't completely fathom, people gravitate toward stories of
impending doom much more readily than stories of impending happiness. History
shows that 'good' unexpected things happen just as frequently as 'bad'
unexpected things happen, and consequently we get a lot of change but not
necessarily all bad change or all good change.

Still you can write a blog post that the economy is near the breaking point,
our civilization is mere moments away from collapse, or that some calamity is
on the verge of wiping us out, and get all the page views you can monetize.

~~~
sliverstorm
Perhaps people want to know about impending doom in the faint hope they can do
something about it, while they don't read about impending happiness because-
well, who wants to prevent happiness?

Also, articles about impending happiness can wind up making you _un_ happy.
Just think of all the "Cancer cured! (in mice)" articles, as well as product
vaporware.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I think that is an excellent insight. Basically people are more invested in
'stopping' doom than they are in 'starting' happiness. A number of interesting
behaviors fall out of that using a strict action selection type mechanism.

------
clinton_sf
I suspect this problem will self-correct. It's not that we've run out of
choices: it's partially that pharmaceutical companies had the narrow view that
developing new antibiotic drugs is less profitable than developing drugs for
chronic illness (e.g., to control cholesterol); once catastrophe hits due to
bacteria being resistant to all current drugs, it will be extremely profitable
to work on this class of drugs again. Take a look at this interview with Dr.
John Rex M.D., (V.P., Clinical Research, AstraZeneca) [1]

"Dr. JOHN REX: If you need an antibiotic, you need it only briefly. Indeed,
that’s the— that’s the correct way to use an antibiotic. You use it only
briefly.

And from an economic standpoint of a developer, that means you’re not— you’re
not getting the return on the investment you’ve made because you’ve spent
between $600 million and a billion dollars to bring that new antibiotic to
market."

[1] [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-
techn...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-
technology/hunting-the-nightmare-bacteria/transcript-51/)

~~~
ProblemFactory
Most things in the world _eventually_ self-correct. But before that happens,
many people will be hurt and die in the process.

For example, we could do away with CDC, FDA and building codes, and rely on
Yelp customer reviews of drugs, restaurants and electrical contractors.
_Eventually_ the ones that kill people should get bad reviews and go out of
business - but this won't help the first victims and their relatives.

~~~
acchow
Intriguing to think about. But what will probably happen is the lack of
controls will allow for higher profits - the companies that kill people will
have way more money to pay off Yelp to censor bad reviews.

~~~
dd36
The companies would pay to post fake reviews.

Oh wait. They already do that!

Deceptive marketing thresholds and punishments would have to be much higher.

------
ck2
Holy hell, antibiotics are used on fruit?

To be honest I was a bit smug because I don't eat meat.

So much for that. Wow we are in trouble.

~~~
spurgu
Me too, but apparently it's true. At least for the US.

"Antibiotics can also be found in vegetables and fruits. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture funded a study to test this. Scientists took manure from
animals that were given antibiotics. They grew different plants in the manure
and then tested its leaves. What they found was alarming:

1\. The antibiotic was present in fruits, vegetables as well as the vegetable
leaves.

2\. The amount of antibiotic in the plant was directly related to the amount
in the soil.

3\. The plants absorbed antibiotics in the soil as it grew.

4\. Crops that grow underground might absorb even more antibiotics from the
soil. Examples of such crops include potatoes, radishes, and carrots."

[http://www.consumer-health.com/services/cons_take66.php](http://www.consumer-
health.com/services/cons_take66.php)

~~~
refurb
And how much was in the fruit? This reminds me of the "there are prescription
drugs in our drinking water" alarmism. Are they in there? Sure, are present in
an amount that is biologically active? No. We're talking picograms of drugs.

------
estebank
I see a lot of people here dismissing this as a non-problem because it
wouldn't be of apocalyptic proportions. I don't think anybody with two brain
cells to rub together would say losing antibiotics would be an extinction
event, that's not the point. The point is that infections will likely become
the number one killer, it already is number two[1].

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate)

------
300bps
_When We Lose Antibiotics, Here’s Everything Else We’ll Lose Too_

Well I guess all hope is lost then. The title isn't, "If We Lose Antibiotics"
after all.

So why bring it up at all? There are no (ahem) prescriptions for fixing the
problem in the article. Just a clear, terrifying outline of most of the bad
things that are going to happen. And a plug for her book that presumably has
the cure? I read the Amazon reviews of the book (currently 25) and there isn't
much of a mention of what the purpose of reading the book is. In fact the main
purpose of reading the book based on the reviews I read is that it is supposed
to scare the bejesus out of you. Again, to what purpose?

Should I be advocating against livestock use of antibiotics? Should I be
advocating for tighter control of prescribing antibiotics?

This could be the scariest thing in the world but honestly it seems more like
sensationalist journalism and an attempt to sell a book than a call to serious
action.

~~~
andyjohnson0
You admit that the problem is real and serious, but then ask what is the point
of raising the issue, and accuse the author of sensationalism? Really?

Read the last three paragraphs of the article. The point of it and book (which
was published almost three years ago) is to raise awareness of the issue. We
are so close to the edge here that "scaring the bejesus" out of people might
now be worth a try, since nothing else seems to be changing our behaviour?

~~~
300bps
You seem to be so caught up in this issue that you just aren't listening. Here
is my point spelled out again:

There are two parts to a legitimate campaign to fix this. Educate people on
the problem and educate people on the solution. Why does this article only
focus on the problem and then have an advertisement for her book?

~~~
andyjohnson0
_" Why does this article only focus on the problem"_

Because we already know what the solution is and it is described in numerous
articles, books, papers and reports published over several decades. If you
want to know what you should be advocating then read them. Please don't just
say "So why bring it up at all?"

This article is just about the consequences of failure to adopt a solution.
There is no requirement that _every_ work on antibiotic resistance has to
adopt the problem/solution structure that you require.

~~~
300bps
So the important thing is not to educate people on the solutions. The
important thing is apparently to scare people. If they want to find solutions
then they have to find them on their own by reading "numerous articles, books,
papers and reports published over several decades". Is it a coincidence that
scaring people sells books and offering solutions only helps to fix the
problem? I wonder what the motives of people who write books like this truly
is?

What a load of nonsense. I find it hard to believe you are serious.

------
Houshalter
Aren't drug resistant bacteria weaker though? Like reproducing slower,
spreading less, being more likely to be defeated by your own immune system?

Also antibiotics would still be good against most bacteria since only some
have evolved antibiotic resistance. I know they can sometimes spread to other
species of bacteria, but they still would be at a disadvantage outside of
places that use antibiotics. If you just got cut or something with random
bacteria in it wouldn't you probably be ok?

~~~
has2k1
On the whole, drug resistant bacteria will likely remain as capable in other
characteristics. Due to the complex nature of DNA (specifically gene
functions), genetic codes tends to be multipurpose. When select for any one
attribute (e.g drug resistance) you could potentially affect zero or more
other attributes. You just won't know which ones (based on today's bio-
genetics understanding). So there is no reason to expect drug resistant
bacteria to be weaker.

You are right bacteria have proven very cable at appropriating useful DNA from
across the species. Also, we can reasonably expect drug resistant bacteria to
spread just like other bacteria spreads (i.e varied methods and levels of
difficulty). Among the factors that affect the spread of bacteria is the
mobility of the host. If a host dies in timely fashion the bacteria spreads
less and if they linger around longer the opportunity to spread increases.
Like other infectious pathogens, this is mainly species dependent. When a
multitude of antibiotic resistant bacteria spread around sufficiently are a
common stay in the ether then they become part of the random bacteria that
would likely infect if you just got a cut.

------
batbomb
> If we really lost antibiotics to advancing drug resistance — and trust me,
> we’re not far off

When did journalists become biomedical experts? I don't want to read a story
about a serious subject that says "trust me".

~~~
clinton_sf
For what it's worth, journalists can and do talk to subject experts. Whether
they quote their sources in a casual non-scientific article for Wired magazine
is another thing.

For more info (e.g., of a journalist talking to doctors and such), take a look
at: [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hunting-the-
nightmar...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hunting-the-nightmare-
bacteria/)

~~~
refurb
The recent data I've seen suggests that level of multi-drug resistant
infections has actually leveled off or dropped slightly.

Is it a problem? Yes. Are we close to the end? No.

~~~
dd36
Watch that PBS Fromtline episode on antibiotic resistance.

------
FollowSteph3
Nothing we do on the human scale compares to the routine use of antibiotics on
the agricultural scale, especially when it comes to animals...

------
smegel
Are we really going to care that heart surgery is no longer viable when deadly
pandemics are spreading around the world killing percentiles of the
population?

------
josefresco
If you're interested on antibiotics there's a good Frontline piece on "gram
negatives".

[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/10/frontline-
asks-h...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/10/frontline-asks-has-the-
age-of-antibiotics-come-to-an-end.html)

Their point was that it's not "when" we reach this point ... we already have.

------
jkbyc
There is a nice simulation game where the goal is to kill all of humanity by
evolving a disease:

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.miniclip.p...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.miniclip.plagueinc)

You can learn a thing or two about the problem space just by playing the game.

------
nlvd
Is this happening actually a bad thing? With vast over population about to
occur, it seems like this might be a natural solution to a difficult problem.
If all the sick people start dying again as would have originally happened
things like plagues/wars will be considerably more devastating.

~~~
mnarayan01
Are you seriously asking whether people dying earlier is a bad thing?

~~~
nlvd
Yes.

------
kornork
I would love to know the current status of using viruses (bacteriophages) to
replace antibiotics.

[http://www.technologyreview.com/news/409905/using-viruses-
to...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/409905/using-viruses-to-kill-
bacteria/)

------
pgreenwood
There's considerable promise in phage therapies as an alternative to
antibiotics. And they may well not suffer the same problems of resistance
since phages are targeted to specific bacteria.

~~~
dd36
Why would that prevent evolution any differently?

~~~
pgreenwood
Bacterial antibiotic resistance increases with exposure to the antibiotic.
With targeted treatment there is less exposure for a given clinical effect.
Therefore lower resistance.

------
sn0v
Unfortunately, by the time there are enough regulations regarding the use of
antibiotics (for livestock and agriculture) worldwide, it might just be too
late.

------
wil421
This article is talking as if all bacteria would suddenly become resistant to
everything. I doubt it would be so sudden are more of a gradual decline.

------
encephalogram
Mass hysteria and fear mongering, in the name of book sales. Blah, blah, blah.
I'm not worried. I believe engineering can solve whatever microbiology and
pharmaceuticals can't. But in the spirit of the article...

FLEE! FLEE FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

------
jotm
Well, I've yet to use antibiotics, and I hope I never have to. The only time
I've been given some was after a minor surgery.

------
phryk
> Tattoos.

This triggered my FUD detector.

------
riggins
bring on the cricket protein powder

