This is why the Free World needs to take a time-out

[Aimless]

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...cs-sold-in-us/

"Farm Animals Get 80 Percent of Antibiotics Sold in U.S."


Bring on the 17 billion earthlings

[Aimless]

This is how Lewkowski and his ilk kill people with hamburger-money

[Dreadnaught]

Sort of an interesting dilemma though -- we need the animals after all. For the sake of antibiotic resistance we may as well consider them human.

Maybe the solution is to restrict anti-biotics (because we know a lot of this is because of regulations in the first place). But set up a subsidized insurance fund so farmers don't face financial ruin by not giving their livestock insane amounts of anti-biotics.

[Aimless]

Sort of an interesting dilemma though -- we need the animals after all. For the sake of antibiotic resistance we may as well consider them human.

Yes we NEED the animals in order to have even more cheap hamburgers and chicken nuggets to throw away

Maybe the solution is to restrict anti-biotics (because we know a lot of this is because of regulations in the first place). But set up a subsidized insurance fund so farmers don't face financial ruin by not giving their livestock insane amounts of anti-biotics.

Farmers SHOULD be faced with a healthy dose of ruin, all of them, across the board. What is the point of letting them grow fat and wealthy off of a broken system??!




Of course, just how much of this usage significantly influences humans remains to be seen

[Dreadnaught]

I wouldn't be surprised if it has a pretty significant impact over the long term.

While I generally don't support farm subsidies, I do recognize that some elements of food production should be assisted in very limited ways to ensure stable food prices.

[Aimless]

a worthy goal but i can't help but wonder where we'd be today if we'd spent those subsidies on biotech and on a much better food transport system using fusion-powered pneumatic tube networks. Kidding, but you know what I mean. Food shouldn't be reliant on oil or on antibiotics

[Enoch the Red]

a worthy goal but i can't help but wonder where we'd be today if we'd spent those subsidies on biotech and on a much better food transport system using fusion-powered pneumatic tube networks. Kidding, but you know what I mean. Food shouldn't be reliant on oil or on antibiotics

What should food production be reliant on?

[Aimless]

largely on actual demand minus mcdonald's and regulated carefully through taxes on burps and poops in order to encourage people to use poop-based electricity and fertiliser

[Aimless]

PS. welcome to twf beer's in the fridge and the nuts're all over the board, god help them if the board is struck by a meteorite before they can colonise the great beyond

[GGT]

Sort of an interesting dilemma though -- we need the animals after all. For the sake of antibiotic resistance we may as well consider them human.

Or at least part of the human life cycle and hierarchy of needs, and part of our planet.

Maybe the solution is to restrict anti-biotics (*because we know a lot of this is because of regulations in the first place*). But set up a subsidized insurance fund so farmers don't face financial ruin by not giving their livestock insane amounts of anti-biotics.

*You mean like health and safety regulations for our food supply, so we know chickens don't pass salmonella in eggs, beef doesn't have mad cow disease, pork isn't filled with worms? Or do you mean this kind of veterinary regulation:

Case Study No. 3

An 8,000-head, continuous-flow nursery with multiple sources of pigs exhibited a barking cough 10 days post-arrival. There was a high percentage of gaunt, fallout pigs. New sets of pigs entered this facility on a weekly basis. Pigs originated from multiple sow herds that had the same genetic source and were vaccinated identically.

Necropsy lesions, though, were quite different from the previous case study, as Bordetella bronchiseptica, Pasteurella multocida, strep and HPS were identified.

Multiple antibiotic injections and oral medications were utilized with poor results. Death loss typically ranged from 5-10%. Finishers continued to demonstrate high death loss and culls.

The primary difference between Case Study No. 2 and No. 3 was the presence of multiple sources in the latter. While trying to maintain similar sow herd immunity at each site, the variation in secondary organisms was different on each farm. SIV immunity may also have varied from farm to farm, resulting in different levels of maternal antibodies.

This system has quit mixing sources and is now filling nurseries with single-source pigs. Early indications are that these efforts will dramatically improve efforts to control SIV.

http://nationalhogfarmer.com/marketi...causes-issues/

[GGT]

From OP:

(One major drug category used in animals, ionophores, do not have a direct human analog. But use of them on farms is still a concern, because resistance factors can move freely between species of bacteria. That’s a discussion for another day.)

Counter from the pork industry:

FDA Report Does Not Show That U.S. Producers Overuse Antibiotics
Dec 16, 2010 12:01 PM

Despite charges by proponents in favor of a ban on antibiotics in food animal production, a government report issued last Friday does not show America’s livestock and poultry producers use massive amounts of antibiotics.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) report includes data on sales of all antibiotics intended for use in farm animals. In 2009, 28.7 million pounds of antimicrobial drugs were sold; nearly 29% of that amount was ionophores, compounds which are not used in human medicine.

Livestock industry opponents are pushing the theory that antibiotic use in food animals leads to an increase in antibiotic resistance in humans, meaning their use in livestock production must be restricted. Several groups back current legislation to ban the use of antibiotics in livestock and poultry that prevent or control diseases, feed conversion and promote weight gain.

“Pork producers use antibiotics responsibly, under the direction of a veterinarian, to protect public health and the health of their animals and to produce safe food,” says Howard Hill, DVM, member of the board of directors of the National Pork Producers Council. “The FDA report does not show that livestock producers overuse antibiotics, and it doesn’t show that they are being irresponsible. It simply shows that 28.7 million pounds of antibiotics were sold in the United States.”

Randal Singer, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Minnesota, has studied antibiotic uses and antibiotic resistance for 12 years and says, “all uses of antibiotics improve animal health, and these improvements in animal health can substantially improve human health.”

The FDA report was required under the 2008 Animal Drug User Fee Act. It did not include data on the quantities of drugs used to treat sick animals, to prevent or control diseases and to improve feed efficiency and weight gain.

“Despite the fact that the FDA report lacks the data, Hill says, “several groups continue to peddle junk science on the percentage of antibiotics used for ‘non-therapeutic’ reasons, which include prevention and control of diseases, and to make comparisons of antibiotics used in food animals with those used in humans.”

More information about antibiotic use in pork production can be found at www.factsaboutpork.org.

http://nationalhogfarmer.com/health-...216/index.html



There are hundreds of studies on antibiotic use dating back more than a decade, linked under the Health tab, and that's just for hogs. While we'd all like less antibiotics (or hormones) in our food supply, it's not like the industry has ignored the dilemma. Maybe our FDA needs to work together better with our USDA?

[Lebanese Dragon]

Prices should be determined by demand and supply - McDonald's lol

[Lewkowski]

You can take my chicken nuggets when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

[']['ear]

Sort of an interesting dilemma though -- we need the animals after all. For the sake of antibiotic resistance we may as well consider them human.

1) Surprisingly, meat was available from animals before the advent of antibiotics!
2) I wouldn't mind if livestock were treated medically as humans (though human antibiotic use is often inappropriate as well, a separate issue not as pressing as the livestock issue). But the paradigm is different: Virtually ALL livestock is fed antibiotics continuously.
3) There is the weird and AFAIK unexplained phenomenon that livestock put on more mass when treated with antibiotics in their feed. The best model I've seen is messing with gut flora causing weight gain (also implicated in humans). But this is a second price advantage from the industry. A subsidy, basically.

Maybe the solution is to restrict anti-biotics (because we know a lot of this is because of regulations in the first place).

I'm unclear what you mean. "A lot of this is because of regulations?" Which regulations are inducing the use of antibiotics in feed? The problem is that regulation has been blocked by the strong agribusiness lobby. Public health MDs have been pushing for this regulation for decades, since the problem is based on obvious principles, with tons of clinical support. Though it's a lot like global warming, eh? Very old and well-established principle (greenhouse gases vs. selective pressure), strong predicted phenomenon subsequently observed, strong correlative evidence, but "oops, you can't prove it, can you?" Add a well-funded industry lobbying group willing to lie through its teeth and fund message-tailored pseudo-science and scare campaigns, and no politicians from states with substantial livestock will favor regulation of antibiotics.

But set up a subsidized insurance fund so farmers don't face financial ruin by not giving their livestock insane amounts of anti-biotics.

Why? Forbid antibiotics outside of standard medical application to livestock (think cats and dogs, not constitutive dosing). Monitor to prevent abuses. Level playing field.

Essentially this is like the farm bill, except that the farm bill is harmful interventionism, while the antibiotic issue is lack of intervention.

From OP:




Counter from the pork industry:



http://nationalhogfarmer.com/health-...216/index.html



There are hundreds of studies on antibiotic use dating back more than a decade, linked under the Health tab, and that's just for hogs. While we'd all like less antibiotics (or hormones) in our food supply, it's not like the industry has ignored the dilemma. Maybe our FDA needs to work together better with our USDA?

This is a particularly egregious lie campaign.

You can take my chicken nuggets when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

Your government-funded chicken McNuggets? Maybe we should call them McFarmBillnuggets?

[Nessus]

You can take my chicken nuggets when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

Keep sucking that government teat, Socialist scum-bag

[Aimless]

You can take my chicken nuggets when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

That may be sooner than you think if your mcnuggets continues to breed antibiotic-resistant bactera

[GGT]

.....Forbid antibiotics outside of standard medical application to livestock (think cats and dogs, not constitutive dosing). Monitor to prevent abuses. Level playing field.

Isn't that what (at least pig) farmers are doing? Did you read any of those studies?

Essentially this is like the farm bill, except that the farm bill is harmful interventionism, while the antibiotic issue is lack of intervention.

Remember when avian flu, then swine flu was in the news? Veterinarian medicine and livestock science follows everything from genetic engineering to hybrid feed, they probably do more "testing" and studies for animal medicine than are done for people. (Animals don't have the ethical considerations that humans do) Our doctors can be thanked for over-using antibiotics in humans that caused resistant strains to evolve.

This is a particularly egregious lie campaign.

Which 'this' do you mean?

[']['ear]

Isn't that what (at least pig) farmers are doing? Did you read any of those studies?

I'm sorry, did you link to studies? I didn't see any.

But I know enough about FDA studies of human pharmaceuticals and the astonishing conflicts of interest on review panels to be highly skeptical of an FDA study. Also, your hog farmer slink says that the data isn't there from the FDA study, so I'm skeptical that it really says anything supporting livestockers. I've also run across pieces in the journals Nature and Science in the past few years estimating the proportion of antibiotic resistance that comes from livestock versus humans, and those studies are that the large majority is livestock. This notion also fits with the scientific principles at hand, which are that we are running an über-bug breeding program that could hardly create more dangerous bacteria if we specifically designed it to do so. You do realize that there is vast bacteriological experience in Microbiology departments and biotech companiesacross the US? These folks have frequently bred bugs, and antibiotics are an astonishingly strong selective agent.

The upshot is that from a scientific point of view, it is almost impossible that our current livestock antibiotic practices are anything but catastrophic.

Remember when avian flu, then swine flu was in the news? Veterinarian medicine and livestock science follows everything from genetic engineering to hybrid feed, they probably do more "testing" and studies for animal medicine than are done for people. (Animals don't have the ethical considerations that humans do)

Not clear to me what you're getting at here. Viruses are not bacteria. And no, the research into pathogens from animals is a tiny fraction of total pathogen research. Public health has always been the poor stepchild in biomedical research funding, much to my chagrin. I'd gladly OK a 10% cut in my NIH grant and those of everybody else to have that money funneled into public health research. BTW, that would be a HUGE budget increase for them (I don't know the numbers offhand, but their slice of the pie is tiny).

Our doctors can be thanked for over-using antibiotics in humans that caused resistant strains to evolve.

Sure, I don't mean to underestimate the human angle; prescribing practices are reprehensible. Bugs from humans in human hospitals is, naturally, going to have a much larger impact proportionately. But IIRC the studies were showing 70-80% of antibiotic restistent bugs originating with livestock. Given that livestock are so much further removed from a hospital than other pateints in a hospital, it is stunning that the percentage is even close to that high. Why? Because even when abused, humans will have infrequent short courses of antibiotics. In contrast, livestock get lifelong antibiotic courses, and then have their carcasses shredded. Again, this is an accelerated superbug master race breeding program. Since bugs can cycle as fast as 20 minutes, we're talking a breeding program longer than existence of the human race, generation-wise.

Which 'this' do you mean?

The disinformation program of the livestock industry, as exemplified by your linked hog farmer article. I can't really see any difference from the campaign successfully waged by the tobacco industry from the 40s onward, including fake science, lobbying payola and spinorama articles like the one you linked to.

[Catgrrl]

Am I missing something here? What if farmers did not use antibiotics, and people find out that the animals they are eating are disease ridden? Not too palatable, eh? PETA would raise even more hell that the animals aren't being treated for illnesses! It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Also, considering that meds are delivered in a volume/weight ratio, it makes sense that a cow is getting more of an antibiotic than a human. Thus, they would be administering much more to livestock than humans anyway when you consider that.

And, it seems our livestock gets better healthcare (strictly on giving meds level) than your average Joe, who probably can't get to the doctor to get those meds. (I know I m oversimplifying here)


I don't know how this translates when it comes to consumption of meat, but many of those antibiotics state that livestock must finish their dose 30 days prior to being taken to slaughter. Whether or not that is just an arbitrary rule or it means anything at all, I have no idea.

[Catgrrl]

Hmm, I guess I should have read the responses. The continuous feeding of antibiotics is different than the more concentrated ones I was referring to, used when an animal falls ill. I don't know anything about the antibiotics added into feed, so my previous post is probably voided.

[']['ear]

Hmm, I guess I should have read the responses. The continuous feeding of antibiotics is different than the more concentrated ones I was referring to, used when an animal falls ill. I don't know anything about the antibiotics added into feed, so my previous post is probably voided.

Yeah, continuous is the problem. I have no issues with livestock being dosed in response to, say, an infected cut. Problem is twofold:
1) It is more expensive for a vet to treat individuals selectively, since they need to be IDed, and the vet needs to come out. Instead, they just blanket feed them antibiotics their whole lives.
2) There is this weird phenomenon that livestock beef up more (LOL) when fed antibiotics. Not clear why this is, but it is NOT a decrease in incidental infections. The best theory is that gut flora are restricted, and this coincidentally causes better nutrient absorption.

{Aside: There is a burgeoning field in human medicine looking at gut flora, and evidence that flora balance affects things like obesity. An obvious implication is that human antibiotic use can also cause some weird indirect effects, like fatter/skinnier. Hypothetical at this point, but an interesting new field.}

So you can see why farmer want to do it. Problem is they are killing people. MRSA alone takes out 10000 people per year, and most of that is due to livestock.

[GGT]

I'm sorry, did you link to studies? I didn't see any.

There are hundreds of studies on antibiotic use dating back more than a decade, linked under the Health tab, and that's just for hogs. While we'd all like less antibiotics (or hormones) in our food supply, it's not like the industry has ignored the dilemma. Maybe our FDA needs to work together better with our USDA?

Here's what comes up under Health & Disease > Antibiotics:

http://nationalhogfarmer.com/searchr...otics&x=10&y=6

Of course I didn't read all 551 of them but I don't think they're all from FDA....

There were other titles of interest under Health, like testing manure fields and water sheds for Ab shedding.

But I know enough about FDA studies of human pharmaceuticals and the astonishing conflicts of interest on review panels to be highly skeptical of an FDA study. Also, your hog farmer slink says that the data isn't there from the FDA study, so I'm skeptical that it really says anything supporting livestockers.

I've also run across pieces in the journals Nature and Science in the past few years estimating the proportion of antibiotic resistance that comes from livestock versus humans, and those studies are that the large majority is livestock. This notion also fits with the scientific principles at hand, which are that we are running an über-bug breeding program that could hardly create more dangerous bacteria if we specifically designed it to do so. You do realize that there is vast bacteriological experience in Microbiology departments and biotech companiesacross the US? These folks have frequently bred bugs, and antibiotics are an astonishingly strong selective agent.

And there are Veterinary Medicine Schools, agricultural-focused universities (like Purdue) concerned with science, too. Not everything is controlled by the Big Ag farm corporations.

The upshot is that from a scientific point of view, it is almost impossible that our current livestock antibiotic practices are anything but catastrophic.

I'm not prepared to lay more blame on farmers or vets than anyone else. Seems to me it's all from a mind-set that sprouted with progress in general. Americans have a habit of short-term thinking, picking what's fast/easy/cheap. Plus an old faith in medicine or science that turned us into "take a pill" people.

Not clear to me what you're getting at here. Viruses are not bacteria. And no, the research into pathogens from animals is a tiny fraction of total pathogen research. Public health has always been the poor stepchild in biomedical research funding, much to my chagrin. I'd gladly OK a 10% cut in my NIH grant and those of everybody else to have that money funneled into public health research. BTW, that would be a HUGE budget increase for them (I don't know the numbers offhand, but their slice of the pie is tiny).

Just that when avian and swine flu were in the news, we were treated to lots of news stories and links to various global studies (viral and bacterial), and we had threads discussing them. And to remember that lots of discoveries and treatments that benefit humans began in Vet Med, like IVF.

Sure, I don't mean to underestimate the human angle; prescribing practices are reprehensible. Bugs from humans in human hospitals is, naturally, going to have a much larger impact proportionately. But IIRC the studies were showing 70-80% of antibiotic restistent bugs originating with livestock. Given that livestock are so much further removed from a hospital than other pateints in a hospital, it is stunning that the percentage is even close to that high. Why? Because even when abused, humans will have infrequent short courses of antibiotics. In contrast, livestock get lifelong antibiotic courses, and then have their carcasses shredded. Again, this is an accelerated superbug master race breeding program. Since bugs can cycle as fast as 20 minutes, we're talking a breeding program longer than existence of the human race, generation-wise.

IIRC there are lots of studies showing most human contagions start in the animal population, from flu to HIV. I've also read that farming and animal husbandry is tending more toward "natural" and chemical-free, less cramming of pen animals (that lead to disease), less pesticides in feed, etc. Both as reaction to consumer desire for healthier meats, and a return to older farming techniques that are cheaper in the end.

The disinformation program of the livestock industry, as exemplified by your linked hog farmer article. I can't really see any difference from the campaign successfully waged by the tobacco industry from the 40s onward, including fake science, lobbying payola and spinorama articles like the one you linked to.

Ah. I don't follow the whole farming-food industry to comment on who's pushing fake science more than the other. Just happen to read more hog stuff because I have a friend at Hormel, my sister lives downstream from a family pig farm (and don't forget I'm from Indiana).

I'm not a trusting fan of Big Agribusiness, but I also hesitate to lump ALL farmers and ALL animal foods in one group. We now have popular milk and cheese products that proudly label themselves as hormone and antibiotic-free. We have free-range chicken, organic eggs, beef and pork raised without hormones or antibiotics.....the whole natural-organic food / local food is more than a temporary trend. We have options and they're becoming mainstream.

[']['ear]

Here's what comes up under Health & Disease > Antibiotics:

http://nationalhogfarmer.com/searchr...otics&x=10&y=6

Of course I didn't read all 551 of them but I don't think they're all from FDA....

There were other titles of interest under Health, like testing manure fields and water sheds for Ab shedding.

If I were you, I'd stick to stuff like this:
Nature Reviews Microbiology 8, 836 (December 2010) | doi:10.1038/nrmicro2484

Standing up to antimicrobial resistance
Top of page
Abstract

Recent outbreaks involving multidrug-resistant bacteria have prompted governments to alter the regulations governing antibiotic sales. By combining the new regulations with calls for new drug development and dispensing regimes, can antibiotic resistance be managed?

The WHO has declared antibiotic resistance to be one of the three greatest threats to human health. Two examples show that the numbers involved are staggering: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is responsible for 100,000 infections in the United States annually, leading to nearly 20,000 deaths, and multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis affects over 500,000 individuals worldwide.

Indeed, widespread antibiotic use provides a potent selective force for antibiotic-resistant bacteria and is therefore often blamed for the rise of resistance. The medical community has long been aware that stemming the rise of resistant bacteria requires prudent use of antibiotics, and during the past year several governments have also shown an increased awareness by implementing, or planning to implement, regulations that limit access to antibiotics. The spread of the New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-resistance gene in Enterobacteriaceae in India and its rapid dissemination to the United Kingdom led the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to introduce new rules aimed at stopping the sale of antibiotics without a prescription. In Brazil, new regulations from the National Health Alert Agency (or Anvisa) that similarly require a prescription for the sale of antibiotics were prompted by an outbreak of drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae that has killed more than 40 people this year.

several governments have ... shown an increased awareness by implementing, or planning to implement, regulations that limit access to antibiotics

Furthermore, the US Food and Drug Administration is readying guidelines to restrict the use of antibiotics in livestock to the treatment of infections. In the United States, antibiotics are given to livestock even in the absence of infection, as prophylaxis and to promote growth, and 70% of the antibiotics used annually are consumed by farm animals. The new guidelines, which are due to be released early next year, are opposed by the food industry, which claims that there is no evidence to link the use of antibiotics in farm animals with antibiotic resistance in human pathogens. However, those who oppose the use of antibiotics in farm animals feel that the guidelines, which will be voluntary, do not go far enough. Many US hospitals will not wait for the guidelines; by the summer of 2010, 300 hospitals had switched to serving meat from antibiotic-free animals to prevent the potential transfer of antibiotic-resistance genes to patients. The use of antibiotics in farm animals is an issue that could be resolved by the Atlantic Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance, an organization founded in 2009 that aims to bring together the relevant authorities and promote understanding of antimicrobial-resistance programmes. It is due to report in the spring of 2011, with the hope that a closer working relationship can be forged between the United States and Europe to reduce the spread of resistance.

To target organisms that have already acquired resistance, new drugs need to be developed. This year has seen two important calls for increased antimicrobial drug discovery. In the United Kingdom, the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy announced its 'Urgent Need' initiative to regenerate antibacterial drug discovery, and in the United States the Infectious Disease Society of America has released its '10 by 2020' programme, which calls for the development of ten new antibiotics by 2020. The market for antimicrobials is expected to be US$40.3 billion in 2015, providing an incentive to continue the development of new drugs. When new drugs are launched, strict dispensing guidelines must be implemented to decrease the appearance of resistance. One example is the antimalarial drug artemisinin. In 2006, the makers of artemisinin agreed to phase out artemisinin monotherapy, following the recommendation of the WHO. Artemisinin is now sold only as part of a combination therapy, greatly decreasing the odds that artemisinin resistance will arise.

Antibiotic resistance will always be a problem because bacteria continuously find ways to avoid the effects of antimicrobial drugs. Although the current situation is far from good, international recognition of the problem and the political will to address the free dispensing of antibiotics, combined with improved prescription strategies, will hopefully slow the spread of resistance. Increased interest in the development of new antimicrobials could lead to new drugs that would reach the market before the end of the decade. So, the problem will not go away, but could we see a time when we can at least manage antimicrobial resistance?http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journa...micro2484.html

If you want me to go through the artful language in the hog famers bit, I will. But I consider it a waste of time, since the article you linked to is 100% grade A industry spin.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the FDA. They have a history of profound industry conflicts of interest on their review panels.

And there are Veterinary Medicine Schools, agricultural-focused universities (like Purdue) concerned with science, too. Not everything is controlled by the Big Ag farm corporations.

Of course not. BUT, veterinary schools are notorious for being in bed with Big Ag more than any other university units. Many receive major grants from Big Ag, and some are even named for Big Ag. I'd want to see a given investigator's funding history, and that's probably true for Vet more than any other academic unit. Though I will say that many Botany departments are similarly compromised. Pretty much have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis, and that's a ton of work. So I tend to view it all with skepticism until I can tease out hidden agendas.

I'm not prepared to lay more blame on farmers or vets than anyone else. Seems to me it's all from a mind-set that sprouted with progress in general. Americans have a habit of short-term thinking, picking what's fast/easy/cheap. Plus an old faith in medicine or science that turned us into "take a pill" people.

100% agreed.

Just that when avian and swine flu were in the news, we were treated to lots of news stories and links to various global studies (viral and bacterial), and we had threads discussing them.

Still, I'd be extremely careful conflating viral and bacterial issues wrt animals. The questions are only distantly related. I seriously would not even bring up one in the context of the other.

And to remember that lots of discoveries and treatments that benefit humans began in Vet Med, like IVF.

Actually, not so much. IVF is an elective procedure. Like face lifting, does it really benefit people that much? It's a lifestyle procedure, not an essential procedure. I see that as an important distinction.

This is not to belittle vet-originating techniques. But generally speaking there are very different goals between the two. Hell, there is a vast gulf between large animal and small animal vet research and teaching. They are utterly different, though sharing some commonalities.

IIRC there are lots of studies showing most human contagions start in the animal population, from flu to HIV.

Absolutely, and I didn't say otherwise. But here are the problems with talking about the two in the same breath:
1) The stupendous majority of animal viruses cannot make the leap to humans (or other vertebrates). Very few do. Contrary to what you implied, the people studying this are not of a vet background, but mostly virologists. Some of them are non-human virologists, but virologists, not vets or related disciplines. There is a small group of veterinary virologists, but they overwhelmingly tend to study veterinary-specific viruses (FIV, FeLeuk, parvo, etc.) Not many straddling this gap.
2) AFAIK there has never been a case of viral restistance crossing to humans. Central to this debate, no?
3) In contrast, most bacteria that grow in one organism can be opportunistic in another. The same bacterium that present in a bird with pneumonia is present in a human with pneumonia. Consequently, antibiotic resistance in a non-human is automatically and always relevant to human health in a way that viruses cannot be.
4) Bacteria are profoundly promiscuous in transferring resistance factors (plasmids, but no need to go into it). Consequently, breeding super non-pathogenic bugs is effectively breeding breeding super pathogenic bugs. And get antibiotic non-pathogenic E. coli in your gut can kill you if you happen to get a non-resistant pathogen, because the pathogen can easily steal the resistance from the non-pathogen. That's extraordinarily dangerous. The death rate proves me right.

I've also read that farming and animal husbandry is tending more toward "natural" and chemical-free, less cramming of pen animals (that lead to disease), less pesticides in feed, etc.

Tending but nowhere even close to predominant. It is still a boutique niche in the market, mostly for the more wealthy 10% or so. Few people routinely buy those meats.

Both as reaction to consumer desire for healthier meats, and a return to older farming techniques that are cheaper in the end.

Again, the market won't drive this much further. Just like with health codes, and almost all other public health measures, suppliers can count on the public being a) ignorant about the issue because it is too technical, and b) not knowing where their meat is coming from. Consequently, unless mandated it won't happen except in the wealthy/very educated class. And frankly that's not enough, since the bug can get into hospitals through one group and nail the other group. You're still very much threatened even if you eat appropriately.

Ah. I don't follow the whole farming-food industry to comment on who's pushing fake science more than the other. Just happen to read more hog stuff because I have a friend at Hormel, my sister lives downstream from a family pig farm (and don't forget I'm from Indiana).

Your sister should worry. then again, people like me who like to go to the beach should worry, since almost all beaches in the gulf and southeast coast are heavily contaminated with pig shit.

I'm not a trusting fan of Big Agribusiness, but I also hesitate to lump ALL farmers and ALL animal foods in one group.

Obviously I'm speaking generally and not targeting hippie free range yadda yadda.

We now have popular milk and cheese products that proudly label themselves as hormone and antibiotic-free. We have free-range chicken, organic eggs, beef and pork raised without hormones or antibiotics.....the whole natural-organic food / local food is more than a temporary trend. We have options and they're becoming mainstream.

Equally obviously we're talking a) a tiny fraction of the market, and b) while it's nice, it's not eliminating or even putting much of a dent into our extraordinary superbug breeding program. Kudos for the folks who do it voluntarily. It's nowhere near enough. And btw this was a common editorial and paper subject in journals back when I started grad school. Like tobacco was, this is an issue that has been stalled by Big Ag for decades.

[GGT]

If I were you, I'd stick to stuff like this:
Nature Reviews Microbiology 8, 836 (December 2010)

If you want me to go through the artful language in the hog famers bit, I will. But I consider it a waste of time, since the article you linked to is 100% grade A industry spin.

Nah, just remember to keep an open mind about your fellow scientists that study and work in another industry, that involves animal diseases and pharmaceuticals. They also have lofty goals for bio-medical research and humankind.

Antibiotic-resistance and bacterial mutation surely popped up in our food-animal population before it appeared in the human population. Vet Med and farmers probably noticed long before human Pediatricians did, and I'm guessing they started studying it long before FDA or AMA even had a clue. From those simple-minded hog farmers, note the date:

Understanding Prudent Use Of Antimicrobials
Apr 30, 1999 12:00 PM, John T. Waddell, DVM

Antimicrobial resistance in animal agriculture concerned mainly veterinarians and producers. That changed when the link was made between the resistance in animal and human pathogens.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the FDA. They have a history of profound industry conflicts of interest on their review panels.

That's why I think our FDA, USDA and other federal agencies need to start coordinating with each other better. Those 'conflicts of interest' might end up with a good result once they admit their common goal.

Of course not. BUT, veterinary schools are notorious for being in bed with Big Ag more than any other university units. Many receive major grants from Big Ag, and some are even named for Big Ag. I'd want to see a given investigator's funding history, and that's probably true for Vet more than any other academic unit. Though I will say that many Botany departments are similarly compromised. Pretty much have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis, and that's a ton of work. So I tend to view it all with skepticism until I can tease out hidden agendas.

Well, our human medical schools are also known to be funded by grants from Big Pharma and Big Insurance and.....if we're gonna get into funding then it's a big fucking mess, innit?

My assumption is that LESS money finds its way to agriculture or vet science, compared to human studies, so it's possible their science is "more pure" or "less compromised" than most would admit. Historically people would fund Human Medical Research before funding Animal Medical Research, ironically ignoring the connections b/w animal and human (until those damn lib'rul groups got into things )

100% agreed.

Still, I'd be extremely careful conflating viral and bacterial issues wrt animals. The questions are only distantly related. I seriously would not even bring up one in the context of the other.

Maybe they're not as distant as we like to think? Immunology and Epidemiology are complicated things, but every lay person knows when a body's resistance is compromised, a common cold virus can lead to bacterial pneumonia.

Actually, not so much. IVF is an elective procedure. Like face lifting, does it really benefit people that much? It's a lifestyle procedure, not an essential procedure. I see that as an important distinction.

Vets have been doing selective genetic IVF much longer than human docs have. Things they were doing decades ago helped perfect what we do now for human birth control, genetic propagation and surgeries/medication in general. Everything human begins in understanding our lower mammals; dissection, autopsy, genetics, nutrition, pharmaceuticals....organ transplants and IVF. Don't discount animal scientists just because you don't like Big Ag. That was my only point, really.

This is not to belittle vet-originating techniques. But generally speaking there are very different goals between the two. Hell, there is a vast gulf between large animal and small animal vet research and teaching. They are utterly different, though sharing some commonalities.

I don't know any veterinarian origination in science that isn't ultimately tied to the betterment of mankind. All Creatures Great and Small.

Absolutely, and I didn't say otherwise. But here are the problems with talking about the two in the same breath:
1) The stupendous majority of animal viruses cannot make the leap to humans (or other vertebrates). Very few do. Contrary to what you implied, the people studying this are not of a vet background, but mostly virologists. Some of them are non-human virologists, but virologists, not vets or related disciplines. There is a small group of veterinary virologists, but they overwhelmingly tend to study veterinary-specific viruses (FIV, FeLeuk, parvo, etc.) Not many straddling this gap.
2) AFAIK there has never been a case of viral restistance crossing to humans. Central to this debate, no?

What are you asking or saying? I'm not a virologist, bacteriologist, immunologist, or epidemiologist. I know you're a PhD in something related to.....genetics? (Sorry, I don't really know what your role in academia is, but I know it's up there. ) Malaria and Sickle Cell are one disease and gene mutation that connect humans to non-human vectors. Is that what you meant?

3) In contrast, most bacteria that grow in one organism can be opportunistic in another. The same bacterium that present in a bird with pneumonia is present in a human with pneumonia. Consequently, antibiotic resistance in a non-human is automatically and always relevant to human health in a way that viruses cannot be.
4) Bacteria are profoundly promiscuous in transferring resistance factors (plasmids, but no need to go into it). Consequently, breeding super non-pathogenic bugs is effectively breeding breeding super pathogenic bugs. And get antibiotic non-pathogenic E. coli in your gut can kill you if you happen to get a non-resistant pathogen, because the pathogen can easily steal the resistance from the non-pathogen. That's extraordinarily dangerous. The death rate proves me right.

You're getting over my head a bit here. All mammals carry their own 'normal pathogens'. Avian, bovine and porcine 'normal' can cause diseases in humans, like Lyme Disease from deer tics, or mycoplasm in bat poop, histoplasmosis, toxoplasmosis, or......what's your point here again? I vaccinate my cats for feline leukemia, but not because it might "jump" to my kids.

Tending but nowhere even close to predominant. It is still a boutique niche in the market, mostly for the more wealthy 10% or so. Few people routinely buy those meats.

I dunno about that.....my grocery store isn't like a Whole Foods, but they carry Laura's Lean Beef, and it's competitively priced.

Again, the market won't drive this much further. Just like with health codes, and almost all other public health measures, suppliers can count on the public being a) ignorant about the issue because it is too technical, and b) not knowing where their meat is coming from. Consequently, unless mandated it won't happen except in the wealthy/very educated class. And frankly that's not enough, since the bug can get into hospitals through one group and nail the other group. You're still very much threatened even if you eat appropriately.

It's a global market now. Many places in the EU have banned animal antibiotics (and irradiated foods, but that's another tangent) and US producers know damn well they have to appeal to the whole world when selling their food.

Your sister should worry. then again, people like me who like to go to the beach should worry, since almost all beaches in the gulf and southeast coast are heavily contaminated with pig shit.

Obviously I'm speaking generally and not targeting hippie free range yadda yadda.

She does worry. Not just because of hog antibiotics, but because she's on well water. In fact, I'd say we should ALL worry about contamination of our drinking water. Studies have shown that humans contaminate water sources as much/if not more than farms. I remember reading that after holidays the west coast tested water and found high levels of ingredients found in cookies (vanilla, cinnamon, ginger). Along with plenty of anti-psychotics, barbiturates, and antibiotics. That's human contamination, obviously.

Equally obviously we're talking a) a tiny fraction of the market, and b) while it's nice, it's not eliminating or even putting much of a dent into our extraordinary superbug breeding program. Kudos for the folks who do it voluntarily. It's nowhere near enough. And btw this was a common editorial and paper subject in journals back when I started grad school. Like tobacco was, this is an issue that has been stalled by Big Ag for decades.

IMO Big Ag croneyism will be exposed first, because people tend to focus on food and their dinner table before they move onto Activism for their medicine cabinet. Too many lib'rul groups watching and demanding transparency. They're the same groups that should be thanked for following and questioning Hormonal therapies (in animal food as well as human medicine).....IMO added hormones could potentially have much more negative impact than antibiotics, because it's related to cancers.

[RandBlade]

Why the McDonald's hate? It's so juvenile.

Abolish farm subsidies, keep medicine.

[Nessus]

Why the McDonald's hate? It's so juvenile.

Which corporations do grown-ups dislike, then

[Aimless]

I love mcdonald's, I just don't think cheaper bigmacs are worth dead grandmothers.

In Texas grandma-killing is a popular sport so it's different for some people I guess

[RandBlade]

Which corporations do grown-ups dislike, then

I can't think of any, such dislike is childish.

[Nessus]

How so?

[RandBlade]

I don't like you, you're a poopy head and you smell funny