[mirimir]

That's true. But, from a human-centric perspective, what matters most is their ability to fight bacterial infections in humans. It's also true that antibiotics are also used inappropriately in medical practice. Pediatricians tend to prescribe them more-or-less as a placebo, to fend off freaked-out parents. Flu suffers also tend to demand them. But there's always some ambiguity, given risk of secondary bacterial infections.

There's no ambiguity in using antibiotics in livestock management to increase feed efficiency. That's just about the money. It either needs to be illegal, or we need some class torts ;)

[duskwuff]

Also from a human-centric perspective: having antibiotics that are frequently used for humans in our food supply chain increases the risk that bacteria resistant to those antibiotics will enter that supply chain, potentially leading to outbreaks of those antibiotic-resistant bactiera. Maintaining a strict distinction between "human antibiotics" and "agricultural antibiotics" mitigates that risk.

[illivah]

I had a coworker tell me that they had the cold and that they're taking an antibiotic for it. We went on a back and forth, with me repeatedly telling him that antibiotics would make him worse, a cold is viral. I think he badgered the doctor into giving him some. What was funny is that everyone in the shop just about had that cold, and he had it longer than most people. But those antibiotics were really helping.

[mirimir]

Some years ago, I did develop bacterial pneumonia after a bad cold. So maybe the antibiotic saved my life. But the antibiotic prescription was based on diagnosis and sputum culture, and not just prophylactic. Better yet, now I've been immunized.