Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by eeZah7Ux 3434 days ago
Interesting to notice how europe banned antibiotics while China and US are doing nothing about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock

4 comments

The Wiki statement that Europe has banned antibiotics for growth promotion since 2006 may be true legally, but not in practice.

In fact, Denmark has used antibiotics to prevent infections in pig farming[1] up until at least the summer of 2016[2]. As such, some farms have 88% of their pig population infected with MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus)[3], and over 10,000 Danes have been infected with pig-MRSA.[4]

(all sources in Swedish) [1]http://www.expressen.se/gt/darfor-ar-det-danska-griskottet-s... [2] http://www.lantbruk.com/lantbruk/tuffare-regler-kring-antibi... [3] http://www.svt.se/nyheter/danska-bonder-kan-sprida-antibioti... [4] http://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/tusentals-danskar-smittade...

MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus)

I just don't want anyone thinking MRSA stands for anything it doesn't.

What?
Myself included, many people read that to be Multiply Resistant, AKA resistant to most (all?) antibiotics.
That's nice, but incorrect, and I suspect a backcronym formed by not knowing what it stood for...
The US has banned the use of medically important antibiotics as feed additives:

https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/03/fda-livestock-antibiotic...

It's not a particularly aggressive action but it probably clears the 'nothing' bar.

It's the most direct "there is no good reason to use this" ban.

There's really three reasons to use antibiotics in livestock:

1. Growth promotion 2. Prophylaxis 3. Treating disease.

The ban hits #1. #3 really doesn't deserve to be banned - it's a legitimate use of antibiotics in veterinary medicine. #2 is where there's still a problem, because the use of antibiotics as a preventative runs the gamut from a perfectly legitimate veterinary intervention to an egregious misuse of antibiotics depending on the circumstance.

Lobbied for by domestic pharma no doubt.
> while China and US are doing nothing about it

China doesn't really care about the environment. Their top priority is growth in order to avoid social unrest, and for feeding all the people they need all the food they can get - and if antibiotics makes farming more productive, they'll do it.

The US, on the other hand, has the problem that Big Ag is a powerful lobby. And Trump, given his total lack of understanding on climate and environmental issues, won't do anything to change that.

China is in a phase of its development where the environment is not the most important thing. Once they're rich enough they'll put resources on fixing that.

This is how every rich country went through industrialization. Not because they were all immoral, but because they were poor.

The good news is that China is somehow doing this in fast forward. Each Chinese year seems to be 3 years in a regular economy, and their enormous push for solar power is (I hope) just one sign of what's to come.

China uses the most renewable resources of any nation and just committed to 2+ billion expansion of their development. Never wise to be dismissive and generalize an entire country when it is a complex landscape of ideals and practices
Could be because they need to, not because they want to. The air pollution in some of their cities is downright hazardous so they have to do something and it also makes economic sense by now with the falling prices of solar. I don't buy that they are suddenly really interested in sustainability.
Every one that's trying to save the environnement is doing it because we need to.
Some people actually believe in the concepts of sustainability for reasons beyond their own interests.
> China uses the most renewable resources of any nation

Percentage-wise?

I don't think it is Big Ag, because Big Ag would be more than happy to sell a premium product at a higher cost. It's more of a consumer demand thing.
No, you sell more product when the price decreases making the industry more profitable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons's_paradox is the same basic idea.

I think the amount of food they can sell is limited by appetite. The only question is at what price point.
US corn production may have started by feeding people, then animals, then substituting for other food (corn syrup>sugar), then being burned in cars. Which just shows people tend to find ever wider demand for products as they get cheaper.

Meat demand as price drops may end up in pet food or 'corn' flakes, but the usage does not really matter. In competitive markets producers tend to make a fixed percentage of sales as profits. Thus, increasing total sales tends to also increase industry profits.

First, "Europe banned antibiotics" is a massive oversimplification, and ignores that similar steps are being taken in the U.S.

Second, while the European bans are doing good things, it's far from perfect: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2016/10/eu-report... . Use of fluoroquinolones, macrolides and polymixins (including colistin) rose - Europe is weirdly fond of it.