Overuse Of Antibiotics In Factory Farms Leads To Antibiotic Resistance In Farming Communities

[JMJones0424]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/farm-raised-superbugs-find-their-way-into-kids-noses-somehow/

 

This seems to me to be so obvious that I wonder why we in the US aren't demanding regulatory action.  Factory farms place animals in unnaturally close proximity and require massive antibiotic use to prevent significant dead-loss.  This regular antibiotic use ensures that antibiotic resistant strains will develop over time.  Therefore, farming practices that require prophylactic antibiotic treatment due to overcrowding is both inhumane and a threat to human welfare.

 

[Maine farmer]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/farm-raised-superbugs-find-their-way-into-kids-noses-somehow/

 

This seems to me to be so obvious that I wonder why we in the US aren't demanding regulatory action. 

The short answer is,  "cheap food".

[JMJones0424]

Sure, that's the short answer.  Why does this continue to be acceptable?  I would argue that a farmer that must give antibiotics to their livestock because they are managed in a state of over-population is just as detrimental to the welfare of society as the moron that claims that vaccines are dangerous and should be avoided.  Food producers in the US enjoy a regulatory free-pass that is not warranted.

[billvon]

Sure, that's the short answer.  Why does this continue to be acceptable?

Because consumers want cheap beef and investors want short term profits.

 I would argue that a farmer that must give antibiotics to their livestock because they are managed in a state of over-population is just as detrimental to the welfare of society as the moron that claims that vaccines are dangerous and should be avoided.  Food producers in the US enjoy a regulatory free-pass that is not warranted.

 

It's the classic prisoner's dilemma.  Have everyone lose money for a future societal benefit, or have one person make more money and lose the future benefit?

[JMJones0424]

Thank you Captain Obvious.  Consumers want cheap beef.  I can think of no situation where any consumer has ever said, "you know what, I am not paying enough for this commodity, I wish it was more expensive".

 

There exists a clear argument to be made that factory farms demand a cost on their community that is not being recuperated through the "fair market".  Regulation is, in my view, required to correct this market aberration.

 

It is not legal to dump wastes into the water source for a community.  It should likewise be illegal to promote the evolution of antibacterial resistant strains.  If your method of producing cheap beef relies on massive antibiotic usage, then you are a polluter, and regulations should prevent you from profiting while harming the environment.

Edited May 15, 2017 by JMJones0424

[exchemist]

Thank you Captain Obvious.  Consumers want cheap beef.  I can think of no situation where any consumer has ever said, "you know what, I am not paying enough for this commodity, I wish it was more expensive".

 

There exists a clear argument to be made that factory farms demand a cost on their community that is not being recuperated through the "fair market".  Regulation is, in my view, required to correct this market aberration.

 

It is not legal to dump wastes into the water source for a community.  It should likewise be illegal to promote the evolution of antibacterial resistant strains.  If your method of producing cheap beef relies on massive antibiotic usage, then you are a polluter, and regulations should prevent you from profiting while harming the environment.

Surely this is just the same as the vexed question of control of fishing, isn't it?  As you rightly say, parallels can be drawn with pollution control as well. 

 

I am not a fan of the "tragedy of the commons" concept in general, but it does seem to me that where the ill social effects of a pattern of behaviour are not (or not yet) apparent to the individual actors, then a "tragedy of the commons" may well ensue.

 

I agree that antibiotic use should be carefully regulated. In fact I think its use should be regulated in human medicine too. Too many doctors prescribe antibiotics for viral conditions, just to keep the patient happy.

 

If we don't get a grip of this, antibiotics will progressively become useless and we will be in real trouble.  

[Maine farmer]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/farm-raised-superbugs-find-their-way-into-kids-noses-somehow/

 

This seems to me to be so obvious that I wonder why we in the US aren't demanding regulatory action.  Factory farms place animals in unnaturally close proximity and require massive antibiotic use to prevent significant dead-loss.  This regular antibiotic use ensures that antibiotic resistant strains will develop over time.  Therefore, farming practices that require prophylactic antibiotic treatment due to overcrowding is both inhumane and a threat to human welfare.

It isn't just over crowding that can cause a need for antibiotics.  Sanitation plays a large role.  If you have one calf living in filth, it is a less healthy condition than having 5 calves in a clean pen with dry bedding.

 

Because consumers want cheap beef and investors want short term profits.

It's the classic prisoner's dilemma.  Have everyone lose money for a future societal benefit, or have one person make more money and lose the future benefit?

It isn't just the consumer, it is the whole marketing system we have, such as in the U.S. where Wal Mart dictates the prices the producers get for their product.  

 

And don't forget the manufacturers of the antibiotics.  They make good profits.

 

Then we also have the institutions which loan money to the farmers.  If a farmer is struggling to make the loan payments, the bank will most likely "advise" expansion.  If you are struggling to milk 50 cows, increasing to 500 will not make you profitable, but the bank will profit .

[billvon]

Thank you Captain Obvious.  Consumers want cheap beef.  I can think of no situation where any consumer has ever said, "you know what, I am not paying enough for this commodity, I wish it was more expensive".

 

Agreed.

There exists a clear argument to be made that factory farms demand a cost on their community that is not being recuperated through the "fair market".  Regulation is, in my view, required to correct this market aberration.

 

 

Also agreed.  But keep in mind that when you make food more expensive, more people starve - so regulating it has to be done pretty carefully.

 

It is not legal to dump wastes into the water source for a community.  It should likewise be illegal to promote the evolution of antibacterial resistant strains.  If your method of producing cheap beef relies on massive antibiotic usage, then you are a polluter, and regulations should prevent you from profiting while harming the environment.

 

Agreed in theory.  In practice it is very hard to write such regulations, even when they are needed (as in this case.)

[exchemist]

Agreed.

Also agreed.  But keep in mind that when you make food more expensive, more people starve - so regulating it has to be done pretty carefully.

 

Agreed in theory.  In practice it is very hard to write such regulations, even when they are needed (as in this case.)

Is it? For example I could imagine a regime in which antibiotics could only be dispensed for veterinary use by a vet, in response to an outbreak of significant disease at the farm in question. This sort of thing, perhaps: http://www.idsociety.org/Agriculture_Policy/ 

[billvon]

Is it? For example I could imagine a regime in which antibiotics could only be dispensed for veterinary use by a vet, in response to an outbreak of significant disease at the farm in question. This sort of thing, perhaps: http://www.idsociety.org/Agriculture_Policy/ 

So could I.  But to get such a law passed you'd need to overcome massive resistance by factory agriculture, consumer groups and republicans.  And even if you did, there would be significant problems in implementation.  Is a Clemens Food Group vet really going to be able to buck the pressures from his management when his decisions to use antibiotics sparingly are costing the company millions?

[Maine farmer]

So could I.  But to get such a law passed you'd need to overcome massive resistance by factory agriculture, consumer groups and republicans.  And even if you did, there would be significant problems in implementation.  Is a Clemens Food Group vet really going to be able to buck the pressures from his management when his decisions to use antibiotics sparingly are costing the company millions?

Could someone define exactly what constitutes "factory agriculture"?  Does it depend only on the size of the operation, the amounts and types of technology,or the management structure?

 

I have seen some poorly managed small farms where the cows were worse of than those on much larger operations.  Using activity monitors and computer controlled grain feeders, many larger operations can detect illnesses much more quickly and reduce the need for medication.  

[exchemist]

So could I.  But to get such a law passed you'd need to overcome massive resistance by factory agriculture, consumer groups and republicans.  And even if you did, there would be significant problems in implementation.  Is a Clemens Food Group vet really going to be able to buck the pressures from his management when his decisions to use antibiotics sparingly are costing the company millions?

He might well, actually.

 

It's a matter of legislation, culture and public awareness, as it is with safety, for example. I'm sure both you and I have experienced the change in safety culture in large industrial corporations over our working lives.

 

You change the law, you campaign publicly about the ill effects of overuse, with pictures of doe-eyed children dying from untreatable infections, the newspapers catch one or two agribusinesses flouting the law and get them dragged through the dirt, and lo and behold the message starts to get through, you get one or two companies trumpeting their credentials for minimal use of antibiotics, and the tide turns. But you do have to want to do it quite badly. The medical profession would need to lead the charge.  

[JMJones0424]

Could someone define exactly what constitutes "factory agriculture"?  Does it depend only on the size of the operation, the amounts and types of technology,or the management structure

This is a good question.  Factory agriculture, as I have used it in this thread, is the production of market weight animals in such close proximity that prophylactic antibiotic use is required to prevent significant dead loss.  My definition is admittedly fuzzy, but it at least refers to the actual issue at hand.  The problem with factory farms isn't necessarily that of scale, it is the fact that many rely on antibiotic usage in order to prevent dead-loss.