General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe FDA Just Released Scary New Data on Antibiotics And Farms
(I'm not sure if this belongs in a different place - please let me know if it does.)
The FDA Just Released Scary New Data on Antibiotics And Farms - Mother Jones
Back in April 2012, the Food and Drug Administration launched an effort to address a problem that had been festering for decades: the meat industry's habit of feeding livestock daily low does of antibiotics, which keeps animals alive under stressful conditions and may help them grow faster, but also generates bacterial pathogens that can shake off antibiotics, and make people sick.
The FDA approached the task gingerly: It asked the industry to voluntarily wean itself from routine use of "medically important" antibioticsthose that are critical to human medicine, like tetracycline. In addition to the light touch, the agency plan included a massive loophole: that while livestock producers could no longer use antibiotics as a growth promoter, they could use them to "prevent" diseasewhich often means using them in the same way (routinely) at the same rate. How's it working? Last week, the FDA delivered an early look, releasing data for 2013, the year after it rolled out its plan. The results are
scary.
[img][/img]
Note that use of medically important antibiotics actually grew 3 percent in 2013 compared to the previous year, while the industry's reliance on non-medically import drugs, which it's supposed to be shifting to, fell 2 percent. A longer view reveals an even mo4e worisome trend: between 2009 and 2013, use of medically important drugs on farm grew 20 percent. According to Natural Resources Defense Council's Avinash Kar, 70 percent of medically important antibiotics sold in the US go to farms. And the USDA date show that these livestock operations are particularly voracious for the same antibiotics doctors prescribe to people. Farms burn through 9.1 million kilograms of medically important antibiotics vs. 5.5 million kilograms of ones not currently used in human medicine. That means about 62 percent of their total antibiotic use could be be helping generate pathogens that resist the drugs we rely on.
Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/04/meat-industrys-antibiotic-habit-still-voracious
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)such as the flu (eg which would only be affected by anti-virals), and you have the path toward rendering most antibiotics ineffective.
Orrex
(63,243 posts)Even if you took antibiotics every day for the rest of your life, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to one season's use in one herd on one industrial farm.
Cutting back on human intake of antibiotics is like trying to cut pollution by stopping one guy from throwing one cigarette butt in the grass.
handmade34
(22,759 posts)for people to keep hearing... we are destroying ourselves slowly... one of the MANY reasons I do not eat meat...
still_one
(92,479 posts)actually due to the extreme overuse in livestock, and irresponsible doctors misuse of antibiotics, though that is very prevalent overseas, especially in Asia, and South of the border where antibiotics can be obtained without a prescription.
Yes, this is a major issue, and the wonderful experts have allowed this to happen for years, putting the population at risk with antibiotics that become resistant to various infections.
Novara
(5,860 posts)....the pharmaceutical companies are not doing the research. Cancer drugs are more lucrative. So we're mostly stuck with what we've got in terms of antibiotics and we're growing more resistance while superbugs evolve.
We're fucked.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Because self regulating works right? How about passing a law and enforcing it?