"In India, at least five animal pharmaceutical companies are openly advertising products containing colistin as growth promoters.
One of these companies, Venky’s, is also a major poultry producer. Apart from selling animal medicines and creating its own chicken meals, it supplies meat directly and indirectly to fast food chains in India such as KFC, McDonald’s, Pizza Hut and Domino’s."
"McDonald’s, KFC, Pizza Hut and Domino’s said the chicken they sourced from Venky’s is not raised on growth-promoting antibiotics and their suppliers follow their policies controlling their use of antibiotics.
McDonald’s has pledged to phase out the use of critically important antibiotics by 2018 for markets including the EU and the U.S. — with an extra year for phasing out colistin in Europe.
KFC has made a similar promise about its U.S. supply chains. They have promised to do the same in India, but without giving any timeframe.
Jubilant FoodWorks (which owns Domino’s) has set a date, of 2019, to start phasing out the drugs."
From Venky's wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_H_Group):
"In December 2010, the group launched Venky's Xprs, a fast food restaurant specializing in chicken. The first outlet opened in Pune, India."
Here's an article about it (if you can fight past the popup ads):
Consider how many of these steps involve cell growth and or tissue damage that needs to be repaired:
TLDR; Low dose antibiotics don't eliminate infections, but by reducing their growth the immune system puts far less effort into defense.
Also, this is why if your doctor prescribes a course of antibiotics you should always complete the entire course, even if you feel fine. Stopping the antibiotics early can select for resistant strains.
Some people are claiming this is not supported by evidence: http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3418.full
Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15311274
If you get 5 day subscription stop on day 3, then take the rest next week that's bad.
I'm glad for all the research into causes of antibiotic resistance, and if medicine comes up with a better way to treat infections and minimize resistance, I'm all for it.
Fascinating stuff. People can read more about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_structure_prediction
This is a common experience in combinatorics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorics ).
Similar things happen when beginner programmers (like me!) try to solve chess by recursing/looping through possible moves (there are about 10^123 separate paths, if duplicate configurations are merged together), or brute-force a cryptographic hash/key (2^k possibilities for keys of length k; keys of length 2048 and above are common).
The "standard big number" that gets thrown around when pop-sci articles talk about this stuff is the number of atoms in the observable universe, which is estimated at around 10^80. It irks me that this is used so much for comparison, since combinations of things are so overwhelmingly larger than collections of things that it feels like a category error to compare them.
After all, "the number of atoms in the observable universe" isn't a particularly intuitive quantity; unlike, say, "football field" as a unit of length or "bag of sugar" as a unit of mass/weight (UK media loves to use the latter; since a bag of sugar is 1kg, it shows off both their laziness and lack of faith in their audience...).
Also, picking "the number of atoms in the universe" is really trying hard; yet these combinatorial numbers (protein foldings, chess positions, etc.) are actually small, everyday examples! People have no problems (either conceptually or practically) with playing board games, choosing passwords, etc. despite these large numbers lurking in there.
The "atoms in the universe" number would be a hopeless comparison if we really tried to make a big combinatorial number. For example, "the number of binary sequences that can be represented by all the world's computer storage"; a quick Google search estimates the world's data storage as 295 exabytes, so that makes this number around 256^(295 * 10^18)
I think this is the core of the issue. "Atoms in the universe" is only such a relatively 'small' number if you assume that the way they're arranged is unimportant.
2^2048 is so astronomically large a number it has no universe sized meaning, its likely way way more than any discrete chunking you can do of stuff in the whole universe.
Something like 2^128 or 2^256 are more common 'brute' force type numbers, which would correspond to trying every key in a symmetric cipher like AES or a public key signature in ECDSA
2^256 is similarly quite large, but we can practically estimate this to be about the number of atoms in tens of thousands of galaxies.
Whether or not people understand, believe the concerns are overblown or believe that we'll always be one step ahead, or will only stop when things get really bad, amounts to the same thing; misuse of anti-biotics.
It's a very human behavior to prefer a pound of cure to an ounce of prevention. It's magnified when you won't be responsible for the cure or the cost of it yourself. It's a weight that will be borne by all of society.
There is also other growth promotion due to antibiotics.
abstract: Antibiotics administered in low doses have been widely used as growth promoters in the agricultural industry since the 1950s, yet the mechanisms for this effect are unclear. Because antimicrobial agents of different classes and varying activity are effective across several vertebrate species, we proposed that such subtherapeutic administration alters the population structure of the gut microbiome as well as its metabolic capabilities. We generated a model of adiposity by giving subtherapeutic antibiotic therapy to young mice and evaluated changes in the composition and capabilities of the gut microbiome. Administration of subtherapeutic antibiotic therapy increased adiposity in young mice and increased hormone levels related to metabolism. We observed substantial taxonomic changes in the microbiome, changes in copies of key genes involved in the metabolism of carbohydrates to short-chain fatty acids, increases in colonic short-chain fatty acid levels, and alterations in the regulation of hepatic metabolism of lipids and cholesterol. In this model, we demonstrate the alteration of early-life murine metabolic homeostasis through antibiotic manipulation.
There's a big reason that people breed animals to be obese. I grew up on a sheep and chicken farm. And to be honest, a lot of people would not eat those animals. They are lean, and gamey. Not like anything you would buy in any store.
Personally, I love it, and it makes me sad that I can't buy anything like it in NYC. Not even stuff that claims to be cage-free or organic or whatever. You just can't get that stuff here.
But it has a lot less fat than what you buy in the store. Fat is basically flavor for chefs. Whether it's butter or animal fat or vegetable oil, fat is where it's at.
The more obese an animal is, the better it's going to taste when you cut it up and cook it. That's just an unfortunate truth. When there's a market for something, people find a way to produce it.
The market is for massive amounts of white meats with a lot of fat you can render. That's what people buy, so that's what people sell.
Funny you mention this, as recently I accidentally bought an older chicken at the store (a younger one half the size was the same price).
It probably would've worked for coq au vin, but roasting it was a bit of a mistake - meat was quite tough, although I turned it into an okay salad
Took me a few seconds to remember where I knew that name from. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39872280
They are also running one of English soccer's most historic clubs into the ground.
Though I wonder what the long/short term effects of consuming such poultry would be.
All in the name of profit.
And specifically, information about organic labeling for livestock (one requirement of which is no antibiotics): https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%2...
Not that our (Norwegian) farmed fish industry is much better.
In any case, this has a negative impact on the whole world if a new bacteria that is resistant grows from these farms, that's why I was suggesting the big guns.
does that mean you consume eggs and cow's milk?
"Colistin is considered a drug of last resort in human medicine" but also "It has been used in Europe for decades to treat intestinal infections in farm animals, although in the UK, it has only more recently been used to treat infections in animals"
The Guardian article paints a picture of developing countries irresposibly using colistin for animals, but I dont think that is the full story here.
This is grossly irresponsible. People will die over it.
> [You] can indeed extract tramadol from the stated species – there’s no doubt about it. You can extract three of its major metabolites, too – its three major mammalian metabolites. That’s because, as it turns out, tramadol is given extensively to cattle (!) in the region, so much of it that the parent drug and its metabolites have soaked into the soil enough for the African peach/pincushion tree to have taken it up into its roots.
It becomes hard to trust those selling organic stuff (milk, vegetables or chicken) as they are practically willing to supply as much quantity as one wants to procure.
Even vegetables sold in India are dangerous .
Decidedly false. The milk vendors add chemicals such as boric acid and paint thinners. Extremely harmful to the health.
"Water, most common adulterant
Water turned out to be the most common adulterant in milk. It reduces the nutritional value of milk."
Only 8%? Well, then it's all fine then. Nothing to worry about at all.
(I don't really agree with either viewpoint I'm just trying to explain the argument)
Bioaccumulation of harmful substances as we rise through the food chain is a known issue.
Using our best antibiotics to produce 60 billion chickens per year is a state financed suicide and not at all a free market mechanism.
What I don't understand is how the unregulated shipment of of a antibiotic from one country (where it is controlled) for a chicken industry in another country (one of whom was actually bought by pharma company in India) to increase profits of both private companies is "state financed suicide and not at all a free market mechanism". It sounds exactly like laissez faire capitalism exploitation due to bypass of state regulation.
I'm sure you'd rather your romaine not come with a free side of E. coli.
If the majority of the food supply is tainted, your choices from within it doesn't affect the rest.
and the reference
which refers to the human active hormones/steroids that are put in Inidan vegetables in a similar effort to marginally improve their yield with unknown, but probable systemic and ecological effects. The point being that unregulated food markets of any sort will lead to unhealthy and societally damaging "externalities" even in the predominantly vegetarian India.
And that's not an Indian (or Chinese) only problem - pumping up livestock with antibiotics is common practice. I wonder when I won't go to a doctor to get antibiotics, but to the next butcher...
I rarely eat meat and stopped eating Sushi because of this. It's very hard to find out where your food comes from in restaurants.
I'd rather have some kind of regulation at that point rather than, say, media shaming - the former is more likely to result in a process that looks at evidence when deciding if enforcement is needed, versus hysteria.
I think there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in the views of many (not all) libertarians, and they don't want to acknowledge China and India are pretty much perfect cases of true or extreme versions of that system (more due to the inability to enforce regulations than lack of regulations themselves).
High standards are only really enforceable through high socialized systems, like those in the US, EU, AU, Singapore, Japan, etc. You need to have national standards to guarantee food safety, water safety (bottled water is less safe than tap water in developed nations with municipal water regulation, and cost way less or is free), minimum standards for health, doctor certifications (vs quacks selling snake oil), et cetera.
(but since I can't resist)
Of course libertarians consider self-interest in their thinking about a free society. Your key term is "get away with" and it points to the problems with regulatory agencies.
When a government body has placed its seal of approval on a product, it does two things:
a) Causes many consumers to trust the benefits / safety of the product, since the government said it's ok. (And they never lie to us, right?)
b) Gives the corporation wiggle room within the certification, potentially changing the product for the worse while maintaining its approval.
But if you take a step back, the limited-liability corporation is a fiction of the state in the first place. Hiding behind a "corporate person" could be a huge factor in bad behavior, enabled by state action. After the financial crisis in 2008, many lamented the fact that none of the bankers went to jail (although some corporations were heavily fined).
Perhaps limited liability is the problem. If members of corporations were on the hook personally for injury to consumers, they might behave better?
Sure, put the people in corporations personally liable without any government agency inspecting.
You're going to a society ten times more litigious than the US. People with no economic recourse to sue will get the short stick of things.
Your proposition is beyond ridiculous, and that's what merits attacks on the profound naivete of libertarian approaches.
I'd generalize to the "profound naivete of utopian approaches"
I think the same applies to libertarianism, it sounds good and clean but in reality human systems are like humans, messy chaotic and fickle.
I think when it comes to regulation of a company you need the carrot and the stick, the carrot is "good PR and been seen to be a good corporate citizen that treats staff well results in betters sales" and the stick is "If you break the law their will be consequences and these are the laws".
The problem with western markets (at least in my country (the UK)) is that we've moved away from the stick towards the US model of laissez-fair capitalism.
Of course people then make the argument "Well the US model can't be that broken, it's the number one economy in the world" without considering the last century historically.
The US is a massive economy but it also didn't get trashed in two world wars that nearly bankrupted it and was ideally placed to capitalize on them, it had all the advantages of the late industrial revolution/western civilization and vast amounts of resources.
It would have been hard for it's economy not to succeed.
> People with no economic recourse to sue will get the short stick of things.
How is that different than now?
> Your proposition is beyond ridiculous
Say you, without providing any proposition of your own.
Probably because some libertarians always have the generic comment of taxation is theft. When I ask them who should pay for the military I don't get a reply back.
It's funny, because they like to rag on communists who say exactly the same thing. Two sides of a utopian dream coin.
So I don't really see how your criticism against Libertarianism applies here because governments are letting it happen right now. It's only you, and what appears to be a minority of individuals, that cares about it. If it were a majority, then Democracy would be fixing it right now, right?
And, to answer your actual question: I can't answer it for every single person out there. That's how non-government solutions look like. Each individual voting, acting and caring about each specific problem in his or her own way. Libertarianism is the ultimate form of Democracy in that regard.
This is the root problem I believe. Poverty and stupidity. So in my imaginary libertarian world, people are rich and smart enough(because they learned to think and act for themselves) to avoid companies, who do practice things like that. And therefore those companies would go bankrupt.
(oh and for more direct harmful actions like pollution water/air, allmost all Libertarians would agree to direct action against)
These laws and institutions to enforce them do not exist in india, that's the problem
They do in the EU, and this doesn't happen.
Markets are economic systems that separate people into amoral atoms that have no mechanism to turn moral agreement into general behaviour. Even if I agreed something should happen, my isolation from others makes my individual actions a form of charity and an injury to myself.
If one company refrains from pollutants, it is "donating" profits to a moral cause not persuasive to other businesses. Yet if all-at-once agreed, no business is making a loss with respect to another.
I cannot really imagine what place libertarians really want to live in. They seem to think morality is an individual action radically isolable from cooperation with others. It isnt. The attempt to make it one creates markets for murder, rape, etc. as natural concequences of people's moral isolation.
Given the amount of industry resistance to any and all changes in labelling regulations I think both sides are well aware of this.
Anyway, what I see right now is, more and more food companies in germany are voluntarily adding in more and more transparency about the production chain. Because people are more conscious about it and more likely to buy things, which seems more ethical than the alternative.
And if they cheat, well, there are still things like investigative journalism and whistleblowing .. so most companies would not dare, I believe.
Morality is allways individual action, as we are all individuals.
Also if we individuals decide to form a group, for example for insurance and help those in need.
"If one company refrains from pollutants, it is "donating" profits to a moral cause not persuasive to other businesses"
Unless it openly adverts about this practice amd people who do care, are therefore willing to spend more money on this company.
This is happening a lot right now with organic food and other things (sure, some might only do it, for themselve - better food quality, but not all and even those still feel better, as they know they also help biodiversity and a enjoyable landscape)
edit: and those laws don't exist there, because people don't care there. Laws are just another way of expressing the will of people. I just prefer laws to be the last way and not the standard.
Our emotions, ideas, etc. are not.
When a crowd at a football game emotes, they all emote together.. inevitably and causally functioning as a coherent whole. Because the individuals cannot chose their reactions, they react the same way. They adopt a purpose, agency, goals and emotional structure that is only rationally intelligble when applied to the whole group.
Morality is founded in this inevitable common reaction to circumstances which binds people together under common purpose. Isolating people destroys their ability to act acording to their moral desires... you impair yourself to be how you would wish to be.
That's to say nothing of the mere collective action problems involved in any system of "mere individuals" whose cooperation cannot be guaranteed.
NB. incidentally, (nearly?) all human success is founded in coherent group action. The individual is a stupid useless distractable ape. Only in concert with a common-purpose-with-others do we succeed.
This is, after all, what a "business" is.
Definitely not. Only if I feel part of the group, I feel and emote with the group.
But if I think football(or soccer) is stupid and the crowd full of stinking alcoholics, then you won't find me cheering with the group. I experienced both. But that's also why you won't find me near a stadium.
But with society in a bigger context, it is not so easy to choose.
No you arent. You're an ape. You arent chosing anything you feel, including this rebelliousness which may have its origins in fear of unpredictable group emoting.
I have that fear too, I am equally mistrusful of groups and of authority.
But that mechanism is merely a feedback cycle into group emotional regulation. Your fear is just another tool of group cohesion.
We are fundamentally a social species it is core to the construction of our psychology. Your dissent isnt lonefulness, in which you wouldnt even be commenting here.. your impetus to involve yourself with others is your group drive. Even if, internally, this seems "rebellious" -- rebellion is a mode of group interaction.
I am just turned off by most mainstream group's, which actually look to me that the main thing that is holding them together, is either force or alcohol.
But those who do likes that, I don't mind. I am just into different groups.
What you mean by individualism is actually a form of group dynamic.
> is either force or alcohol.
In fact it is neither. It is the very same thing that provides you with impetus to comment here.
You say I am a individualistic lonewolf, because I don't like common groups that much and don't feel part of them, but rather be part of other groups to which I feel connected and therefore then also feel with that group?
How does that add up.
"> is either force or alcohol.
In fact it is neither. It is the very same thing that provides you with impetus to comment here."
And no, when I refer to a common school group for example, it is a group bound together by force - they all have to go to school and don't have much say which class etc.
And when I refer to common drunk people on mainstream festivals who are friends as long as they are drunk, then they are bound mainly by alcohol, even though it does satisfy some social needs for them.
And yes, next to intellectual curiosity, I also read and comment here because of the HN community, to which I feel connected. Did I ever said otherwise?
(oh and by the way, wolves are also very social beeings and the lone wolf hunting is a very rare thing)
History has shown that absent any regulation and enforcement, if buyers want "organic" labels on their food, sellers will put "organic" labels on food regardless of what the food contains. Antibiotics and hormones? Pesticides? Those things are organic, under some definitions of the word.
And no antibiotics (unless sickness), no pesticides, etc.. Very clear defined. Also no genetically engineered food, even though I would not mind those.
Basically everybody can make up their label, yes, but it has only meaning and value, if I trust that organization. And I do trust both the EU as well as Demeter. If there would be a new label, I would investigate if it is worth anything.
...regardless of the fact that the product in question has no wheat component to it at all.
We are all individuals, but we're also very much social animals, and morality is a social matter. You're not born into the world knowing right from wrong, you learn it from others. When individuals make moral choices, they do so in a social context.
But sure morality is in social context, but still I choose to act moraly or not. That was my point.
And I can also choose a different morality from the mainstream.
The option to care for animals/nature for example is something quite new (or very old). And it changed, because people decided to care about it.
And there are still many who have the old codex, that we as man can do whatever we want to lower lifeforms. (to which some include humans of different color/class/gender)
A lot of nice things are theoretically possible when everyone behaves. Too bad the real world doesn't work that way.
Does anyone have an answer to this question?
> libertarian answer
Property rights in the land, air, and water.
Libertarian approach would be simply adopt to the new situation, as I realistically see many people just don't care or believe.
So I would (and do) still try to act as ethical as possible and go all for green technologies, but I doubt it can be forced up on people and do much good in the end, if people are not convinced of it.
Forcing developing nations to adopt the policies of the wealthy creates an understandable tension and incentive for cheating the regs.
Libertarianism is simply a political framework which we can use to see and interpret the world. It can be combined with other frameworks to help us reach even deeper levels of understand (or perhaps not).
The right-libertarian could argue that the best solution is a competitive marketplace that will fuel hyper-economic growth, and accelerate the rate at which we develop technologies that allow us to ween off of fossil fuels.
A left-libertarian, maybe someone with a strong civil libertarian persuasion, could argue that the non-aggression principle is being violated by the emissions of greenhouse gasses. They would then establish an "emissions rights" framework, and perhaps a marketplace to address the issue.
Or ween of dependence on climate. All these green arguments start from a false premise that human interference is the only threat to the stability of our ecosystem, ignoring extinction events and natural catastrophes that we know can be as impactful as global warming (and more). Instead of being conservative and hoping for the best if we stop burning stuff we should be discussing how to deal with a more volatile climate in general.
It is actually one of the most popular lifestyle opinions people share online and in real life, aside from proselytizing things generally recognized as religions, and has been for probably a couple of decades.
(Meant to reply to this a couple of days ago, but Yarn on my tablet seems unable.)
A lot of studies are showing the largest factor in heart disease and obesity is not fat, but carbohydrates (specifically starches and sugars, not dietary fiber or sugar alcohols).
A lot of people today still think Adkins died of heart disease because of a (later rededicated) Reuters article with bad information (he was old, slipped on a piece of ice and bused his skull). I wonder had the Adkins diet movement not died off, if we'd see a significant reduction in obesity today.
It might be difficult to eat vegan, but it's much more difficult to eat low carb. Look carefully at everything in your pantry.
It's pretty clear you have a bias/agenda considering how easily refutable that statement is 
Huh? What about environmental impact and ethical concerns?
What source do you use for your beliefs on what causes heart disease? What you are saying contradicts the CDC.
Harvard indicates that low carb high fat has protective effects, but not if you get the fat from meat.
Atkins was mostly displaced by other low-carb diet fads, so probably not.
> It might be difficult to eat vegan, but it's much more difficult to eat low carb.
Expensive, because cheap stables tend to be carb-heavy, but not actually all that difficult.
For me, the antibiotics situation had only sub-conscious influence; the concrete, formulated reasoning was more like this: Before becoming completely vegetarian, I started preferring big animals like beef and pork over chicken because their amount of meat per animal killed is higher. Then I stopped eating beef because of its climate implications. Finally someone told me pigs are actually quite intelligent so even though it's just few animals per kg of meat, their ethical weight weighed more heavy again. Luckily at this point it was not a big step anymore and pretty easy to stop eating meat altogether.
Edit: I'm vegan, for some of the above reasons, but also for other reasons.
When morality and responsibility is moved away from the individual, the unscrupulous rise up to dominate the market.
Europe isn't as rosy either as it is often painted. The supermarkets (near duopoly), would sell anything at any price as long as they can get away with it.
In a place where the climate is unfavorable to the freshness of meat, and (just like in the USA) the big producers have strong incentives to sell you crap, how do you know the animal you're going to eat is healthy? Observe it alive!
Probably not a foolproof method, but better than you're getting at Whole Foods.
IIRC the general advice when buying meat in less-developed countries, especially if you look touristy, is to make sure you see it killed in front of you.
Also, it's going to be a lot more difficult for a street-side vendor to cheat you compared to a behemoth like Whole Foods with deep pockets, the latest and greatest preservatives etc at its disposal to make meat look healthy, and a large, existing customer base that implicitly trusts its products.
With Whole Foods you have whatever trust you want to put in Amazon not over-squeezing the margins on the chicken-supply chain, plus the warm fuzzy "I can afford Whole Foods" feeling.
In aggregate I think food regulations work pretty well in the US but I think the people I saw buying those chickens were making more informed choices than I would even at a Whole Foods or equivalent "Big Organic" outfit.
- Who is producing and selling this antibiotics, in a scale of hundreds of tons?
- Is it produced in India or another country?
"Colistin is manufactured by two companies in India but the country is also importing at least 150 tonnes of the drug each year."
They appear to have found some customs documents, that's all. Googling, some article says "China was estimated to be using 8000 tonnes of colistin per year of the global production of 12 000 tonnes" a few years ago. So it would not be surprising if this import were only 10 percent.
Also: TFA says "There are currently no regulations that would prevent such export to the UK on hygiene terms, except for those agreed under the EU. Any regulations to be negotiated after Brexit might not"
while the article linked says "the UK uses less than a tonne a year of colistin in agriculture."
So it's not banned now, it seems!
Antibiotic resistant diseases claimed around 700,000 lives in 2014 according to the CDC. Animal feed is unproven to be contributing factor, and only a partial one if so.
The problem is that factory farmed animals usually eat grain which could be used to feed humans. Even if only 10% of their feed is suitable for human consumption, it's still a net loss of food, because meat is an extremely inefficient source of calories.
Note: It's easy to counter ridiculous arguments, and derail an entire conversation in the process.
In the 90s in Ethiopia there was a famine caused by drought, lack of development and especially over-population. Affluent countries gave tonnes of food aid and reduced the size of the catastrophe.
Soon afterwards, the population of Ethiopia exploded. As a collective they had learnt nothing about the danger of over-population.
In India, there's also a lack of social awareness about the impact humans have on the environment - but the issue isn't famine. Rather, the huge population is bolstered by developments such as modern farming techniques that produce food of dubious quality.
Generally, humans (in the third world in particular) are like most species in that their populations increase to the limit of what development and the environment supports. Sudden environmental changes and rapid, careless development bring suffering to many of the extra millions that exist.
And when suffering occurs, never does anyone of influence say that perhaps humans should stop breeding like rabbits and that perhaps a catastrophe is nature's way of telling us that.
Instead, with every catastrophe we hear pontificating about how terrible it is, and often foreign entities will rush to give aid and thereby reinforce the irresponsible collective behaviour of the societies that are suffering.
Does that sound heartless? It's not quite so heartless as how suffering individuals are treated by their own societies. When a society is mal-developed and contains hundreds of millions, the suffering of an individual is negligible to the whole. In these circumstances it is likely that only mass suffering will cause reflection and change.
Suffering societies need to learn from tragedies and take collective responsibility by reducing their population numbers and valuing the lives of their members.
The good news is that the birth rate has been falling down for the last 30 years in India.
Antibacterial resistance is becoming more evident. Beside regulate the use of antibotics (and pesticide) in food source, we should not overlook the overuse of antibotics in medical treatments .
Patients often do not understand what antibotics are for, and they would ask their doctors to prescribe antibotics even when antibotics are absolutely unnecessary. Some doctors will give in because the prescription would avoid confrontation with the patient and therefore will give the patient an illusion he/she is receiving the full treatment.
Antibacterial resistance affects now and our future generations. Look up “antibotic resistance” in Google News and you will find hundreds of news articles over the years.
But someone else could propose only eating meat to solve the massive use of pesticide. Apart from the possible health issues, he would be as right in his position as you are.
I do not think you can ever consume the same amount of pesticides by eating plants if before that you ate nontrivial amounts of chicken, chicken eggs, beef, milk etc. Cow eats several tons of plants in its lifetime. I'm pretty sure human comes no where close. The bioaccumulation happening there is a serious issue.
That stuff is filled with bioaccumulated pesticides.
This is a classic Tragedy of the Commons. No single individual is incentivized to sacrifice for the good of the group as a whole.
But it's not correct to say that "it's not going to happen" - there are many counter-examples. The most notable is the ozone layer depletion problem that has been largely mitigated over the last 3 decades through concerted action among govts, NGOs and with public education. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion:
"The Montreal Protocol is considered the most successful international environmental agreement to date. ... The ozone hole was seen as a "hot issue" and imminent risk as lay people feared severe personal consequences such as skin cancer, cataracts, damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations. ... Americans voluntarily switched away from aerosol sprays, resulting in a 50 percent sales loss even before legislation was enforced."
So yes, at some future point, if govts/NGOs do their part and the average human comes to believe they face imminent personal danger (which we already do but it's hidden), meat production may well become heavily regulated and large numbers of people may switch to vegetarianism.
What is your point. That we shouldn't do anything, because it is all hopeless?
I was watching some Canadian CBC Marketplace videos where they show that some sellers just buy factory produced food and then label it as organic/farmer produced.
"One of these companies, Venky’s, is also a major poultry producer. Apart from selling animal medicines and creating its own chicken meals, it supplies meat directly and indirectly to fast food chains in India such as KFC, McDonald’s, Pizza Hut and Domino’s."