
Antibiotic-Resistant 'Superbugs' Creep Into Nation's Food Supply - bconway
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100653575
======
awolf
>These bacteria are finding ways to get around antibiotics in animals

>"We've actually run out of antibiotics that really keep animals healthy,"
Price said. "We're finding strains of bacteria in animals that are resistant
to so many antibiotics."

How about this novel solution: stop raising animals in a way that requires
them to guzzle down tons of antibiotics in order to survive.

I love how this article fails to even mention the _possibility_ that livestock
animals do not need to ALWAYS BE SICK. Preposterous.

~~~
mschuster91
The problem with capitalism is that pure capitalism does not account for
social issues, be them human-related or animal-related. Neither does
communism.

But people still believe that raw capitalism (or, in cases like North Korea,
communism) can succeed.

~~~
dmm
Agriculture in the US is absolutely nothing like "raw capitalism". It is
extremely regulated. Farmers are subsidized. It's nothing like "raw
capitalism" in several very important ways.

~~~
mschuster91
If it were "extremely regulated", then there would not be regular news reports
about contaminated meat scandals and stuff like "The Meatrix" would not exist.
Simply put, if there are regulations, then they're either just pro forma or
not enforced enough.

~~~
monkeyspaw
There are thousands of pages of regulations on federal meat standards. I think
your statement would work better if you said, "If it were 'well
regulated/sensibly regulated'..."

It's also possible that regulations are confusing, unenforceable, out of date,
or addressing symptoms instead of causes.

I don't disagree with you, but I think your comment needed some clarification.

~~~
mschuster91
I would rather say that "Big Money" is preventing existing regulations from
being enforced.

The biggest issue is, of course, the sequester and the general lack of funding
for food inspection - if there were enough food and animal safety inspectors,
food scandals would simply not exist because of inspection pressure.

The second issue, tightly connected with the funding issue, is lobbyism. The
"food lobby" has only recently lobbied for making recording of animal rights
violation a crime...

~~~
D9u
People are denial about fascism in the USA. Just look at how many
pharmaceutical products are approved by the FDA only to be eventually
recalled. Of further concern are the pharmaceuticals advertised as having side
effects which "may result in death."

How can the FDA allow these products?

~~~
monkeyspaw
Just to play devil's advocate: sometimes the dangers of a drug aren't evident
until many years after exposure. The FDA tries to balance the benefit of the
drug with the dangers. Otherwise, many beneficial and lifesaving drugs
wouldn't hit the market until decades after the initial trials.

~~~
D9u
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5583878>

------
mschuster91
This is the only thing where I fully support the policy of the Green parties
worldwide.

Overusing antibiotics and other medicine, just to be able to grow up more
animals in the same space, is plain greed and animal cruelty.

The state should set a fixed minimum for meat prices (under which no product
may be sold) and at the same time impose minimum levels of animal rights
(roaming space, food variety, no declawing/tail cutting etc.). I know many
will shoot me for advocating state regulation, but the free market most
obviously has FAILED here.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
But why buy meat at all? In terms of efficiency and "feeding the world" the
cow lags behind quite seriously compared to that other GMO soya

~~~
awolf
High quality meat is irreplaceable in the optimal human diet.

~~~
rosser
[citation needed]

EDIT: I'm a vegetarian. I'm well aware there are nutrients that are harder to
get on purely plant-based diets, but it's far from impossible. I'm getting my
Omega 3s (all DHA and EPA, not merely ALA) from algae, and my B-12 from plant
sources, too.

What am I missing by not killing sentient things for sustenance?

~~~
lukifer
We have canines for a reason: our evolutionary and digestive history includes
meat.

I'm sensitive to the moral issues involved, and understand the arguments
against eating pigs and cows; however, I think it's reasonably ethical, and
biologically optimal, to at least eat fish and eggs. And no matter what, farm
animals should be raised humanely (pasture farms, not factory farms).

~~~
justin66
Evolution dictates that we live long enough to reproduce and fight off
anything that wants to kill our young. There is no reason to assume that it
might somehow be a guide to what an "optimal human diet" (silly expression)
might be.

------
colmvp
Lance Price is quoted in this article.

Here is his testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Health. It's a pretty short read.

[http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/file...](http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Testimony-
Price-Health-ADUFA-AGDUFA-2013-4-9.pdf)

------
tomohawk
If you've ever had grass fed beef as opposed to the stuff you normally find in
the grocery store, you know that the meat is much tastier, and much better for
you. For example, grass fed beef is a good source of omega 3s.

The problem with most livestock in the US is that it is raised on corn, which
is not a nutritious food for them
(<http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_shouldn%27t_cows_eat_corn>).

However, it does fatten them up. So, while they are fed this unhealthy diet,
they are also fed antibiotics to keep them alive long enough to be sold.

You are what you eat. If you want better food and humanely raised livestock,
then educate yourself and stop buying the cheap stuff.

The USDA regulates antibiotics for animals, while the FDA regulates them for
humans. The USDAs job is to promote agriculture, and they do not appear to be
as concerned about the kinds of side effects that the FDA is. Two very
different missions.

It's too bad irradiating food has such negative connotations, as it would be
safer than the current approach.

------
hownottowrite
Original source data:

[http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/A...](http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance/NationalAntimicrobialResistanceMonitoringSystem/UCM334834.pdf)

------
pontifier
Why don't we have more food irradiation?

~~~
carbocation
Giving antibiotics to livestock causes them to gain weight. I suspect that
this profitable feature is the primary reason that antibiotics are used in
cattle. Does anyone in this field have any info to verify or refute?

~~~
twilde
The primary reason for anti-biotics is due to the fact that the farmers feed
their livestock nutritionally devoid but massively cheaper corn - which
weakens the overall immune system. Antibiotics are not needed when "organic"
measures are put into place and cows are free range and fed better,
nutritionally beneficial foods to begin with. But that's costlier, so, not
going to happen on a commercial scale, regardless of how inefficient and
unsustainable it is to continue.

