11–20 of 37 posts
If you were to cut out the alarmist, repetitive fluff you do actually have a problem at the bottom of all this. overused antibiotics (anywhere, on any species) tends to push evolution toward antibiotic resistance. That's bad. That said, from what I read in this article, this bill is also bad.
“Let’s put it simply: would you rather have meat from an animal that was sick during its lifetime or one that was healthy?” This if a false dichotomy. The only thing at risk is profit margin.
Anyway, I'd rather eat meat from animals that had been sick, as opposed to meat contaminated with antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria.
Edit: I wrote "somewhat defensible" because it's my impression that antibiotics serve as low-cost mitigation for overcrowding, poor hygiene, and other deficiencies in livestock management.
Antibiotics kill bacteria. There is nothing specific to our primate subspecies about them, AFAIK.
What on earth are "Human" antibiotics? Antibiotics kill bacteria. There is nothing specific to our primate subspecies about them, AFAIK.
What on earth are "Human" antibiotics? Antibiotics kill bacteria. There is nothing specific to our primate subspecies about them, AFAIK.
The title annoys me. Being "human" antibiotics is irrelevant. They don't kill humans, and they're not human specific. They're just basic antibiotics. If you were to cut out the alarmist, repetitive fluff you do actually have a problem at the bottom of all this. overused antibiotics (anywhere, on any species) tends to push evolution toward antibiotic resistance. That's bad. That said, from what I read in this article,…
I think the issue here is that antibiotics being given to animals were not studied for these scenarios. For instance, how they may impact milk and meat quality. Not to mention that they are given to animals in much less "regulated" way, compared to people.
The title annoys me. Being "human" antibiotics is irrelevant. They don't kill humans, and they're not human specific. They're just basic antibiotics. If you were to cut out the alarmist, repetitive fluff you do actually have a problem at the bottom of all this. overused antibiotics (anywhere, on any species) tends to push evolution toward antibiotic resistance. That's bad. That said, from what I read in this article,…
There's no ambiguity in using antibiotics in livestock management to increase feed efficiency. That's just about the money. It either needs to be illegal, or we need some class torts ;)
What on earth are "Human" antibiotics? Antibiotics kill bacteria. There is nothing specific to our primate subspecies about them, AFAIK.
Simple – antibiotics approved for use to treat human illness. The problem is that when they're used indiscriminately, whether on humans who don't need them, or on livestock, bacteria develop resistance.
EDIT: DISCLAIMER: See a doctor, don't take this as advise ! “You should never give an antibiotic to anybody, human or animal, unless they’re ill,” IIRC that is even wrong ! You shouldn't be using antibiotics unless you have good change to get severely sick or develop (long term, or very bad short term) complications (holes in body due to infection, septicemia, ... )
Honest mistake but you shouldn't give medical opinions on public forums unless you're a licensed medical doctor. You might convince some poor sap to wait until they're septic to see a doctor. As someone that's been on IV antibiotics, I can tell you that there's no fucking around with bacterial infections and only a doctor (an infectious disease specialist) can evaluate the situation properly.
What on earth are "Human" antibiotics? Antibiotics kill bacteria. There is nothing specific to our primate subspecies about them, AFAIK.
What on earth are "Human" antibiotics? Simple – antibiotics approved for use to treat human illness. The problem is that when they're used indiscriminately, whether on humans who don't need them, or on livestock, bacteria develop resistance.