Why Is It Still Legal to Use Human Antibiotics on Farm Animals? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Is It Still Legal to Use Human Antibiotics on Farm Animals?

#21

Post by illivah » Sat, Sep 26, 2015, 4:51 AM UTC

alyx wrote: post #16

illivah wrote: post #11

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,…

Excuse my ignorance, but aren't antibiotics meant for humans, tested on us as well? 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.

At some point, yes. But that's not the first place they're tested. The first place their tested could simply be a petri dish, as penicillin was. Then it goes up the ranks into mammals more and more similar to us - rats, pigs, monkeys, etc. Usually it's not every step, because there really isn't a big reason to and that can slow development and increase costs of life-saving drugs.

Re: Why Is It Still Legal to Use Human Antibiotics on Farm Animals?

#22

Post by illivah » Sat, Sep 26, 2015, 4:53 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #17

illivah wrote: post #11

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,…

That's true. But, from a human-centric perspective, what matters most is their ability to fight bacterial infections in humans. It's also true that antibiotics are also used inappropriately in medical practice. Pediatricians tend to prescribe them more-or-less as a placebo, to fend off freaked-out parents. Flu suffers also tend to demand them. But there's always some ambiguity, given risk of secondary bacterial infec…

I had a coworker tell me that they had the cold and that they're taking an antibiotic for it. We went on a back and forth, with me repeatedly telling him that antibiotics would make him worse, a cold is viral. I think he badgered the doctor into giving him some. What was funny is that everyone in the shop just about had that cold, and he had it longer than most people. But those antibiotics were really helping.

Re: Why Is It Still Legal to Use Human Antibiotics on Farm Animals?

#23

Post by illivah » Sat, Sep 26, 2015, 5:00 AM UTC

jfb wrote: post #10

Qantourisc wrote: post #3

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, ... )

A person who is sick is not competent to be deciding on a course of treatment, unless they are, say, Paul Farmer. See a doctor; follow the doctor's advice.

They're better than average, but you have to be willing to question what they say. I know too many people who just trusted the doctor and then had the doctor make some minor slip-up that the patient would have caught. Except "minor" means "well, I guess you're this way for life now. sorry".

Re: Why Is It Still Legal to Use Human Antibiotics on Farm Animals?

#24

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Sep 26, 2015, 5:06 AM UTC

MaysonL wrote: post #18

BurningFrog wrote: post #13

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.

Are there antibiotics not used on humans that can be used on farm animals?

Re: Why Is It Still Legal to Use Human Antibiotics on Farm Animals?

#25

Post by Laforet » Sat, Sep 26, 2015, 5:24 AM UTC

x5n1 wrote: post #20

MaysonL wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When you use them on livestock you can guarantee they will be used indiscriminately... with the respective consequences.

Part of the indiscriminate use was out of necessity, but it is secondary to the fact that many antibiotics seems to promote growth and improve conversion of feed into weight gains. The exact mechanism is not well understood.

A good example is nitarsone which is an organoarsenic additive commonly found in turkey feed until it was banned earlier this year. AFAIK it has not been approved for human use ever.

Re: Why Is It Still Legal to Use Human Antibiotics on Farm Animals?

#26

Post by duskwuff » Sat, Sep 26, 2015, 5:28 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #17

illivah wrote: post #11

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,…

That's true. But, from a human-centric perspective, what matters most is their ability to fight bacterial infections in humans. It's also true that antibiotics are also used inappropriately in medical practice. Pediatricians tend to prescribe them more-or-less as a placebo, to fend off freaked-out parents. Flu suffers also tend to demand them. But there's always some ambiguity, given risk of secondary bacterial infec…

Also from a human-centric perspective: having antibiotics that are frequently used for humans in our food supply chain increases the risk that bacteria resistant to those antibiotics will enter that supply chain, potentially leading to outbreaks of those antibiotic-resistant bactiera. Maintaining a strict distinction between "human antibiotics" and "agricultural antibiotics" mitigates that risk.

Re: Why Is It Still Legal to Use Human Antibiotics on Farm Animals?

#27

Post by mirimir » Sat, Sep 26, 2015, 6:09 AM UTC

illivah wrote: post #22

mirimir wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true. But, from a human-centric perspective, what matters most is their ability to fight bacterial infections in humans. It's also true that antibiotics are also used inappropriately in medical practice. Pediatricians tend to prescribe them more-or-less as a placebo, to fend off freaked-out parents. Flu suffers also tend to demand them. But there's always some ambiguity, given risk of secondary bacterial infec…

I had a coworker tell me that they had the cold and that they're taking an antibiotic for it. We went on a back and forth, with me repeatedly telling him that antibiotics would make him worse, a cold is viral. I think he badgered the doctor into giving him some. What was funny is that everyone in the shop just about had that cold, and he had it longer than most people. But those antibiotics were really helping.

Some years ago, I did develop bacterial pneumonia after a bad cold. So maybe the antibiotic saved my life. But the antibiotic prescription was based on diagnosis and sputum culture, and not just prophylactic. Better yet, now I've been immunized.

Re: Why Is It Still Legal to Use Human Antibiotics on Farm Animals?

#28

Post by mirimir » Sat, Sep 26, 2015, 6:41 AM UTC

Laforet wrote: post #25

x5n1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you use them on livestock you can guarantee they will be used indiscriminately... with the respective consequences.

Part of the indiscriminate use was out of necessity, but it is secondary to the fact that many antibiotics seems to promote growth and improve conversion of feed into weight gains. The exact mechanism is not well understood. A good example is nitarsone which is an organoarsenic additive commonly found in turkey feed until it was banned earlier this year. AFAIK it has not been approved for human use ever.

It may be that antibiotics also "promote growth and improve conversion of feed into weight gains" in humans ;) In retrospect, that's not surprising.

Re: Why Is It Still Legal to Use Human Antibiotics on Farm Animals?

#29

Post by skuhn » Sat, Sep 26, 2015, 7:05 AM UTC

illivah wrote: post #11

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,…

These antibiotics aren't made out of humans or in some way related to humans, but they have a place in human treatment plans. They're the ones we care about, and they're immensely valuable. Calling them "human antibiotics" is a reasonable shorthand for an article.

Their usage should be a lot more restricted than it currently is. Anything that unnecessarily diminishes their value to human treatment should be disallowed. Use on other species, for example; particularly when that enters the human food supply. Treating non-bacterial infections in humans is another.

I think it's pretty hard to overstate the importance of avoiding overuse of antibiotics. You don't even need to imagine modern medicine if antibiotics had never been discovered. More likely than not you wouldn't be alive today.

Re: Why Is It Still Legal to Use Human Antibiotics on Farm Animals?

#30

Post by Qantourisc » Sat, Sep 26, 2015, 9:21 AM UTC

code_sterling wrote: post #6

“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.

Well ... unless you don't cook the meat.