
Antibiotics and Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria in Meat: Not Getting Better - clicks
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/02/narms-adufa-2011/
======
JDDunn9
The difficulty is that you need anti-biotics for modern mass production of
livestock. When you feed cows corn (too acidic for cows) and ground up remains
of other cows (cannibalism is unhealthy), keep them in small pens, living in
their own manure, that is a hotbed for bacteria. That's why they have to give
the meat an ammonia bath in the meat processing plants.

The alternative is to grass feed cows, then they don't get sick very often. Of
course that takes longer and requires ~1 acre of land per head of cattle, and
people don't want to pay ~1.5-2x as much for meat. So we are stuck with the
superbugs.

~~~
ajb
Overuse of antibiotics for farms was banned in the EU without drastic changes
in the price of meat. In fact, even opponents at the time only claimed there
would be a 10% increase: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/234566.stm>

~~~
icegreentea
That 10% may not be accurate.

In any case, the EU actually only banned the use of antibiotics as growth
promoters, but not as 'preventative medicine'. Furthermore, the level of
reporting on actual EU antibiotic use is somewhat spotty - especially given
the multinational nature of it all. At best, the ban on growth promotion
resulted in an ~10% decrease in antibiotic use. The massive scale on which
preventative antibiotic use is applied likely minimized any negative impacts
the removal of growth promotion had on actual growth rates.

[http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2011/a/ant...](http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2011/a/antibiotics_in_animal_farming.pdf)

------
hooande
Farmers feed antiobiotics to their animals because the antibiotics make them
bigger. No one knows exactly why, but farmers know a more valuable pig when
they see one.

This is how capitalism works. If farmers can make more money by giving
antibiotics to pigs, then they are going to do it. They'll argue that they
have to because the farming market is increasingly controlled by a small
number of giant companies, and if one doesn't do everything possible to
increase yield then all of the others will.

Of course the only bacteria left alive will be the ones that are resistant to
the antibiotics. This puts all of us in more danger and over time will cause
more bizarre diseases. But that tradeoff is far into the future and no farming
executive is going to forgo a quarterly bonus to prevent a problem 20 years
from now.

I understand the tradeoffs, too. I thinking recently about how amazing it is
that we all get to eat meat every day. Just hundreds of years ago it was a
rare treat. Even with that said, the idea of overusing a resource in such
precious short supply as antibiotics is very disconcerting.

~~~
rdtsc
One of my deluded friends (who read a little too much Ayn Rand for his own
good), used to say that he wishes the government would stop policing what kind
of food he can buy in the store. Basically FDA should close its doors, and the
better products will inevitably emerge when the free market just does its
thing.

I've heard that from other people in US as well. It seems to be a common motif
in some circles (even those of educated people).

Usually, I just point out that such "utopian" places, with non-existent
regulation exist -- go to any undeveloped country with rampant corruption and
thinly taxed government regulatory agencies, and voila -- heaven, effectively
no regulation whatsoever. Can go to the market and by dog hamburgers disguised
as cow hamburgers. Can buy vegetables that have been sprayed with chemicals
that have been illegal in the West for 50 years now. [Now we all know everyone
shops with their chemo-bio-radio micro laboratory at hand so they can clearly
pick better products, right? Let me stick this hamburger meat in the slot here
and see if a picture of a cow blinks or a picture of a cat blinks...]

~~~
tolmasky
Your argument would be stronger if you didn't have such disrespect for the
people you don't agree with. The argument wouldn't be that everyone would test
foods with handheld chemo whatever's, but rather that private analogs to the
FDA would exist. Think consumer reports for health/nutrition vs product
quality. The thinking is that one of the problems with the FDA is that since
it is a government agency, it reacts to these things slowly and is prone to
corruption. Most people say "I can eat anything on the shelf because the
government has taken the time to make sure its not bad for me, they always go
on and on about the success of the FDA after all". The problem is that
oftentimes there are problems with things even if they are approved. If you
instead had independent agencies doing this, there is a possibility that we
would have a culture that leaned more towards research and discussion (the
same way people ask all the time about which computer to buy). I'm sure you'll
argue that corruption would happen here too, but the idea is that having
multiple agencies, all of which are reasonably legally liable (unlike a
government agency where if they make a mistake its particularly difficult to
punish them), allows competition so its harder to buy out _everyone_ when you
create an interest in an upstart showing how you were wrong in your analysis.
With the FDA, there may be opposing sides (e.g. let's say the "organic" lobby
and the "farmers" lobby that could potentially try to convince the FDA of one
thing or another), but at the end _one_ decision is made.

I am in no way arguing that this point of view is correct, however essentially
calling people with opposing viewpoints idiots doesn't convince anyone of your
side, it makes you appear like you have not actually taken the time to listen
to those arguments, and thus will at best only preach to the choir. Of course
if this was only meant to be a rant, then carry on.

EDIT: This article shows what I was referring to in terms of "binary
decisions": [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/health/use-of-
antibiotics-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/health/use-of-antibiotics-
in-animals-raised-for-food-defies-scrutiny.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

The FDA has been hesitant to tackle this in the past because it feels it
hasn't had sufficient evidence. This is why we perhaps need a gradient instead
of approved/disapproved. With multiple competing agencies, some would be much
more conservative and be willing to speak up sooner. The point I'm trying to
make is that people who disagree with you look at the current situation with
antibiotics and say "see, here we have the FDA and this is _still_ happening".
Whereas you say "See, this is happening and why we need the FDA".

~~~
gnosis
_"The argument wouldn't be that everyone would test foods with handheld chemo
whatever's, but rather that private analogs to the FDA would exist."_

What's stopping these "private analogs to the FDA" from existing now? If the
FDA is doing such a poor job of protecting our food, why isn't private
industry stepping up to the plate?

 _"The point I'm trying to make is that people who disagree with you look at
the current situation with antibiotics and say "see, here we have the FDA and
this is still happening". Whereas you say "See, this is happening and why we
need the FDA"."_

These problems happen because the FDA is too much in bed with the private
industries they're supposed to be regulating. What needs to be done is to make
them more independent from those private industries, and strengthen the FDA,
not to get rid of the FDA and replace them with some pipe dream that only
works in some libertarian utopia.

~~~
tolmasky
_> What's stopping these "private analogs to the FDA" from existing now? If
the FDA is doing such a poor job of protecting our food, why isn't private
industry stepping up to the plate?_

What's stopping them is the fact that there is a much stronger body that
already has an anointed legitimacy. The "market opportunity" for doing this is
gone if the government is already doing it, and on top of that is the final
say on the matter (they after all do get to take things off the market).

 _> These problems happen because the FDA is too much in bed with the private
industries they're supposed to be regulating. What needs to be done is to make
them more independent from those private industries, and strengthen the FDA_

Should we do this before or after we make bank regulators more independent
from the banks? Or before or after we make the military committees in congress
more independent from the military contractors? Are you beginning to see a
pattern here? Go into more or less any government agency that interacts with
industry and you'll find them in bed. Its easy to say things "should" be more
independent, but its hard to actually accomplish it. One reason, again, is
because its hard to hold anyone liable for anything in government (who polices
the police?). After all, its already the case that in theory the FDA, composed
of "non-political" scientists is already supposed to be 100% independent.
_How_ exactly do you propose making them more independent? Mind you, giving
them more power does not make them independent, it just makes their decisions
harder to fight against (which can work against you if for example they rule
against a small company since it is in the interests of a big company). Again,
the "libertarian" point here is that there is no real incentive for them to do
a good job. We have to rely on them wanting to be "good people" and make the
right decision. Because if they make a bad decision, there are no negative
consequences since there is no competition: they certainly wouldn't lose their
right to decide things, whereas making a wrong decision in a private market
could be devastating as no one would trust them anymore.

 _> not to get rid of the FDA and replace them with some pipe dream that only
works in some libertarian utopia._

Please stop referring to these proposals as "pipe dreams" of "utopias", it is
a really shallow straw man. No is arguing that things would be perfect, it is
simply an alternative idea that some people believe would be better, but no
rational person thinks would be completely without issue (just like you think
the current system is better, but _clearly_ has issues as well -- there is no
perfect answer). The most important thing to realize is that by discussing
these opposing viewpoints in a respectful manner, you might actually gain
ideas about how to improve your own system (for example it might give you
inspiration for a way to truly make the FDA independent, which I agree would
be great).

------
clicks
So basically, you have reasons other than ethical ones now to become a
vegetarian.

(Sorry to have opened this can of worms :-).

~~~
shiny
Or you could just eat pastured meat.

~~~
whyenot
I buy much of my meat and eggs now from Hidden Villa in Los Altos Hills.
Selection is very limited, and their prices are 2x-4x the cost of similar
items in a supermarket, but their farm is literally down the street from my
house and their livestock is pastured and well cared for. Money doesn't grow
on trees, I eat a lot less meat than I used to, but I find that I enjoy my
meals a lot more now.

------
DanBC
The UK BBC tv programme "Horizon" had an episode called "Defeating the
superbugs"[1]. (<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ms5c6>)

It had a great clip showing bacteria developing antibiotic resistance. They
became so resistant that the antibiotics had reached the solubility level of
the stuff they were using; they couldn't use more antibiotics because it
wouldn't dissolve.

[1] Yes, the hyperbolic name is unfortunate.

