We are going in the opposite direction. Currently the US has more lax regulations than the EU. In the EU animals have to be healthy all the way throughout their lives to be sold as food. In the US, you can keep them in miserable conditions and then pump them full of antibiotics before slaughtering.
Politicians are attempting to remove EU regulations against this under the guise of "removal of barriers to trade" with TTIP -- international trade agreements are the tool by which democracies are bypassed in such matters.
Select "Can hormones and antibiotics be used in cattle raising?".
I don't think In the US, you can keep them in miserable conditions and then pump them full of antibiotics before slaughtering. reasonably captures that.
I can only speculate. For example: how was this data obtained? Is the level of scrutiny equal for all countries or is there some self-reporting going on? All I know is about the differences that exist between regulations and incentives between the EU and the US. This was recently brought to public attention in the EU and there have been some large protests because of the TTIP attempt to "harmonize" practices.
Where's it say that antibiotics can't be used medically in livestock in the EU?
I see where it says antibiotics in animal feed – significantly restricted in the EU in 1998 and banned for non-medical use in 2006., but that points to them being allowed for medical purposes (on sick animals, rather than as feed additives).
It's not only the living conditions that is promoting the use of antibiotics in agriculture. The use of antibiotics in agriculture is so high due to the idea of "growth promoters". Animals given long term antibiotics actually grow quicker, and therefore become profitable faster than animals not given background levels of antibiotics. The problem with this activity is that low levels of antibiotics selects for resistance as we have seen.
In addition, drugs are given "label use" directions for particular species (ie. ovine, swine, equine) but only for major economical species. For example, the farmer might have a bottle of long acting penicillin that says give horse X mg/kg of body weight. However, this farmer might be giving these drugs to sheep and the maker of the antibiotic doesn't have label use instructions for sheep. This results in what's called "extra label drug use" and the farmer has to basically guess at what dose to give. Too high could be harmful to the animal (toxicity, clearance rate etc), too low and you promote resistance.
People like to blame antibiotic resistance on farms, but human populations with high rates of infection and transmission who aren't good at taking the full course of (or any) drugs are a more immediate problem. Increasing rates of drug-resistant tuberculosis and STDs aren't due to farm animals.
The best evidence today actually says that you don't need to finish your course [0]. Not that you are wrong in the human consumption aspect. but finishing courses could strengthen resistance and spread of resistant organisms by creating a selective pressure in the organism (the human) to only have bacterial colonization from those that are resistant
While that's interesting I don't think it's "best evidence".
Unfortunately our mechanisms for determining best evidence are woefully slow, complex, and expensive. Systematic reviews, for instance. Either this process needs to be improved (an excellent candidate for AI) or a nearly-as-good surrogate needs to be supported by policy makers.
The systematic review and meta-analyses processes involve reading screeds of text and data; organising it; analysing it; weighing it against measures of quality; and conducting (often counter-intuitive) statistical procedures.
This is the sort of thing that takes humans a loooooong time and is prone to error. A domain-specific AI would surely excel at tasks like this.
> Increasing rates of drug-resistant tuberculosis and STDs aren't due to farm animals.
Do you have any evidence for that or is it just how you think adaptation transmission works; and do you have evidence that - if the former holds - these examples are representative of the general case?
Amen. Animal agriculture (innocuously referred to as "agriculture" in the article) has to be the single biggest contributor to the existence of these superbugs.
Possibly. Agriculture uses about 50% of the world's supply of antibiotics. The rest goes to humans. That's a lot, but even without it, there are enough humans on antibiotics to breed resistant strains. Many people take low doses of antibiotics every day for certain conditions like acne.
I think a factor of importance is how much selective pressure there is that could lead to their creation. The sporadic and fairly arbitrary use in humans doesn't create a selective pressure strong enough to create these superbugs in meaningful amounts and have them survive.
When used en masse in large, concentrated populations, you're statistically much more likely to bring these superbugs into existence, and have them survive. After all, an infected human is fairly isolated. But Stick an infected chicken in a hen and you've got some trouble on your hands.
From what I've read the evidence isn't all that strong between use of antibiotics in livestock and resistance in humans.
Remember a lot of the antibiotics used in livestocks aren't even approved for use in humans. Or they were used in humans a long time ago, but no longer are.
I doubt it. I recall reading an article about antibiotic resistance in Denmark. They were nearly able to wipe it out completely by changing the way antibiotics were prescribed to people.
They don't even need as much antibiotics in today's extreme farms. It's just that you earn more money if you give the animals antibiotics: You don't have to monitor them and then give them antibiotics and they will even grow faster.
Well the current problematic situation of animals is relatively well contained to the Western sphere (US, EU, maybe China).
The Chinese already recognize the effects on nature, the EU too (and iirc they're already beginning to introduce measures), the biggest problem is and always will be the US because of the huge influence of the farming lobby on US politics (and even if that was not the case, then the grid-lock between D/R where everyone boycotts bills from the other side, just because. Brain-dead US politics.)
"the biggest problem is and always will be the US"
Did you see the chart from another poster above? Many European countries like Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy have very high levels of antibiotic usage in agriculture
I live in Europe, and am well aware of the common belief among many Europeans that we have excellent and high animal welfare standards. But the reality is that animal welfare standards also vary greatly between countries.
That chart above clearly demolishes the view that overuse of antibiotics is a problem principally for non-European countries.
A number of sources I've found indicate that (see links below for sources):
1) China consumes about 50% of the total global antibiotic production (roughly half for agriculture and half for human use).
2) Per capita human consumption of antibiotics is on the order of 10 times greater in China compared to the US.
Some of these articles are several years old, and from sources I'd classify as more internal than foreign. It is likely that these figures would be conservative.
If this data is approximately correct, I think we could say that 1) China has an outsized effect on the problem of antibiotic resistance (even considering it's large population). 2) The US problem of antibiotic use is mostly an agricultural one (which deserves a lot of attention), and the Chinese overuse of antibiotics is not confined to either human or agricultural use.
I'm sure the chinese leadership is aware of the issue, and given their ability to make changes when something is very important (ie, air pollution during high profile events), the fact that little has been done is telling. It is likely that this simply isn't a high priority issue and thus we are unlikely to see any movement on it anytime soon.
When you can't breathe your concern about the environment goes up markedly. The reason you don't see as much concern in the US is we've already tackled the obvious, major problems.
At one time in the US there were rivers you could set alight, but that was a long time ago.
regulations through government. remove agricultural lobbyists from washington. raise awareness and turn it into a hot button topic that people in the US government have to address. fine the hell out of agricultural companies who have ruined our planet and stop putting the onus on individuals.
I'm actually tired of the "blame the general public" argument. Blame the agricultural industry for this. I'm not going to take the blame for deforestation or lack of fresh water every time I eat a cheesburger, nor am I going to assume blame for pollution when I drive my car. Unless billions of people change within the next few years (which is so unrealistic that I feel comfortable saying it won't happen) then my individual do-gooder actions will only bring self-satisfaction, not real change.
Blaming the every-man for this stuff is a cop out. Corporations are to blame. Real change will only come about through government (semi-likely) or self-regulation within industries (very unlikely).
I understand the hopeless feeling of "what can one person do." But the individual actions of individuals do add up.
We are seeing right now a trend towards better farming practices, with large chains like Chipotle going antibiotic-free. They are doing that, in part, because enough individuals made the choice to look for antibiotic-free food. In other words, individuals drove corporations to act.
Individual actions also add up directly, even without influencing corporations. If you eat even a little less of a harm-causing food, that's an actual impact on the market. Less of the product is being bought, and less will (eventually) be produced. It's a small effect, hard to see, but it is definitely there - it has to be.
And even if you think "oh, it rounds off", then yes, maybe they can produce 1,000 or 2,000 but not 1,001, so most likely reducing 1 won't affect production. But that just means that a single individual going from 1,001 to 1,000 will reduce 1,000, and that averages out - the probabilistic effect of an individual remains the same, and again, it has to be, assuming reasonable rational production.
Finally, there are indirect effects: If you eat less of a harmful product, your coworkers, friends, and family might notice. It might lead them to make a similar positive change. Hard to measure, but we do know this is an important factor.
I do agree we shouldn't "blame the general public" in the sense of blame/shame/etc. But at the same time, we can't give up and say we can't do anything, because our individual actions definitely do have an effect. To some extent, we can make things better.
final edit: I withdraw the comment below since the analogy is too inflammatory and I certainly don't intend to accuse the parent poster of racism. That's not cool or helpful. I'll leave it up so the replies make sense.
How about this quote from Ghandi instead:
“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.”
withdrawn original post:
----------
Your position transposed 50 years back in time:
"I'm actually tired of the "blame the general public" argument. Blame industry for this. I'm not going to take the blame for racism every time I discriminate against a person for being non-white, nor am I going to assume blame when I promote a man over a better qualified woman. Unless billions of people change within the next few years (which is so unrealistic that I feel comfortable saying it won't happen) then my individual do-gooder actions will only bring self-satisfaction, not real change.
Blaming the every-man for this stuff is a cop out. Corporations are to blame. Real change will only come about through government (semi-likely) or self-regulation within industries (very unlikely)."
edit: replies below are furious that I equated racism with factory meat. This misses the point completely. They are not the same at all. The point is that industry and government follow popular sentiment and not the other way around. Corporations will sell you what you will buy. Stop buying it and they will offer you an alternative.
If you buy an disproportionately polluting product, you are polluting. You can't avoid that by saying 'everyone else is doing it, I have no choice'. When racism was institutionalized, you had a choice to go along with it or not. You had, and have, personal responsibility independent of everyone else.
I'd like to preface this response by making it clear that I personally avoid eating animals that were raised on antibiotics, however the argument that the onus must be placed on the individual is absolutely ridiculous.
Even though this is a "hot button topic", I don't think eating meat that you can afford (IE antibiotic raised meat) can possibly be compared to race or gender inequalities.
Eating a factory cheeseburger is akin to racism? Seriously? This is a logic fallacy.
Racism comes from the individual. It stems from stupidity and hatred and is directed against people who don't have the same nationality or skin color as you. Eating an antibiotic laden slab of beef due to lack of finances cannot possibly be placed on the same level as this.
I'll also point out that the only way to real change in gender and race inequalities have come about is through government or self-regulation in industries... the same thing I'm arguing for when it comes to the agricultural industry.
Go ahead and switch to all natural blah blah blah... you can now sleep at night knowing you're no longer part of the problem. But when you wake up in the morning, the problem is still there. You have accomplished nothing. But hey, when the world burns at least you can say "I told you so".
> Eating a factory cheeseburger is akin to racism? Seriously? This is a logic fallacy.
Do you realize that there are several religions that hold this exact tenet? And that it's one of the central tenets of Rastafari?
Maybe these people all live their lives based on a logical fallacy, but I don't think it's so far wrong. Both racism and factory farming come down to disrespect for 'the other.'
> Racism comes from the individual.
Most people who study racism regard it as an institution, separate but related to bigotry, which is a quality of an individual.
> I'll also point out that the only way to real change in gender and race inequalities have come about is through government or self-regulation in industries... the same thing I'm arguing for when it comes to the agricultural industry.
Go propose a talk at any Black Studies department in the country with this as your thesis and let us know how it goes.
> personal responsibility is the basis of good society-wide behaviour
I actually agree with this statement, however the problem of cheap meat can't be solved with good societal behavior unless its enforced on a global scale starting with the united states and that's simply not going to happen unless it is enforced by regulations placed on the out of control agricultural industry.
shaming individuals (which is what the original parent thread was all about) isn't a good plan -- it won't work.
Please explain how a direct action (racism/sexism/discrimination) is even somewhat close to the indirection required for "eating a cheesburger => deforestation"?
As Bill Engval says: Evel Knievel couldn't have made that jump.
How about focus on your own ethics instead of SHAMING people for eating for christ's sake.
Be the change you want to see in the world. Hopefully it will catch on. Certainly I think that giving up on a cause sends a powerful message that hope is lost.
I don't mean to discount your worldview, because I think that you are correct in your basic assessment (massive change is required, not just you), but this comment reads like a giant excuse.
It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill. It's not some strange economic abstraction, but an easy-to-see, real world example.
> It's plain to see that eating a factory cheeseburger does indeed cause this ill
I'm very confused by your plan of action... shame the general public until they stop eating meat saturated by antibiotics?
In your plan, how many people will you need to deter in order to make a difference? Will the agricultural industry suddenly stop using antibiotics because a hundered thousand people stop eating at McDonnalds? Two million people?
Will your plan be able to get enough people to stop eating meat so that the agricultural industry notices and stops deforestation or other unethical practices? If they do, will it happen before global warming (caused mostly by the agricultural industry) becomes irreversible?
My comment might read like an excuse to you, but to me your comments read like someone who is very naive to the ways of the world.
Perhaps it is you who is naive to the so-called nirvana logical fallacy?
> Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard. Ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason.
Indeed, absolving oneself of personal responsibility, especially when direct harm is so apparent, is sad to see. I think it is a form of apathy and not conducive to an actually better world. How can you honestly, "blame the industry" yet the very same day, support it with your money? It's simply hypocrisy.
When people try this kind of thing on me (frequently it happens if I mention that I shop at Walmart on occasion), I just ask if they own any mutual funds (including pension funds). If they don't, I ask if they pay taxes. If they don't, I ask if they ever give money to someone who might own mutual funds or pay taxes. If they don't, I ask if they ever give money to homeless people.
I understand the general argument about taking a bit of personal responsibility, even if it's basically just symbolic. Rather, it's the absolutism that irritates me. In my opinion, eating less at McDonald's and shopping less at Walmart is about as good as never going to those places.
Besides, if you're really a loving, compassionate, open-minded citizen of the planet, wouldn't it be good to spend some time in these places next to the most downtrodden members of our society?
Having had my son suffer from an antibiotic resistant eye infection, if its a choice between low cost meat and useful antibiotics I'll go for the latter every time.
It's not like anyone in Europe or the US is actually suffering from a lack of meat is it?
[He's fine - but we were terrified he might lose the sight in one eye for a while].
If you can't afford real meat, then you can't afford meat.
Nobody says that people who can't afford a catalytic converter deserve an exemption allowing them to spew more carbon from their cars. This is the same dynamic, but far, far worse.
I see the isomorphism between catalytic converters and animal protein, but there's a pretty big difference between requiring people to pay more for cars and telling them they can't buy chicken at Aldi anymore.
I think shaming people for buying cheap meat is a terrible strategy that will backfire.
What needs to change are the regulations. When antibiotics are banned from the food supply, the market will discover other ways to regain the efficiencies.
Actually I think subsidies, rather than regulations, would be a better strategy. The government subsidises lots of industries to ease the cost of transition to more expensive production methods or to wean them off environmentally destructive practices, or even just to promote growth and take advantage of export opportunities. Subsidising meat production would be a fantastic idea. Pity we have governments the world over that believe they need to "earn tax revenue" before they can spend!
It seems to me that, in every thread, you find a way to dream that more "regulations" will solve all of the social ills of the US and beyond.
The agri-industrial complex is perhaps the clearest example that the powerful among the regulated will find a way to be the regulators. What more needs to happen to clarify this for you?
I agree! The best way to have someone stop doing something is to shame them publicly and paint them as a bad person. It really motivates the person to change and doesn't cause them to become more resistant to doing what you want.
That would reduce the profits of companies with large numbers of lobbyists.
Edit: and even if we did it in the West, China obviously doesn't care about making the inhabitants of its major cities huff heavy metals and coal dust so why would they care about this?
Amen. Similar to climate change in the sense that the world's worst offenders need to be on-board to resolve the problem and as a result, all other countries will cop out by blaming and scapegoating those countries
Politicians are attempting to remove EU regulations against this under the guise of "removal of barriers to trade" with TTIP -- international trade agreements are the tool by which democracies are bypassed in such matters.