Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

oceana.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 187 posts

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#91

Post by enord »

greglindahl wrote: post #56
enord wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you're reading something else out of my analogy than what I tried to say; I was making a point about the effectiveness of the method, not the message as such. Everybody agrees we should drive carefully, and everybody agrees we should not revert to pre-antibiotic treatment of infections. How did we address the former? Through moral admonition and personal prudence? (That was a rhetorical question)

One way we addressed the former was to put up signs that say "Drive Carefully", so apparently your dislike of that technique is not universal. It's called a "nudge", and it has significant (but limited) effect.

I'm not disputing that, but sometimes when we weigh our actions, significant (but limited) alternatives will not cut it, and if the effect is limited enough (and the problem severe enough), even deliberating on them will waste precious time to enact direct and (hopefully) effective action.

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#92

Post by tr0ut »

bastawhiz wrote: post #54
swombat wrote: post #6

Do you feel helpless to stop the problem of antibiotics use in the meat industry? You’re not! Here’s a simple easy trick you can use to reduce its impact on the world: eat less meat. You don’t need meat in 3 meals a day. Reduce it to 1 meal a day and you’ve already reduced your antibiotics impact by 2/3. Cut down to one meat meal a week and that’s a 96% reduction. You’re not powerless. Vote with your wallet and your…

A personal anecdote: I've tried cutting my meat consumption many times in the past, but I ultimately fail to keep up a low-meat diet for the following reasons: - Vegetarian food is really not that tasty in my opinion. (edit: the kind I can reasonably prepare myself) - It's very difficult to eat enough vegetarian food for me to meet my Calorie requirements (I target 3500/day). - Eating a balanced diet of vegetarian fo…

Why are you trying to eat less meat?

P.S. Good luck on a vegetarian diet with a 3500+ caloric intake. You'll be eating all day.

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#93

Post by natecavanaugh »

enord wrote: post #14
swombat wrote: post #6

Do you feel helpless to stop the problem of antibiotics use in the meat industry? You’re not! Here’s a simple easy trick you can use to reduce its impact on the world: eat less meat. You don’t need meat in 3 meals a day. Reduce it to 1 meal a day and you’ve already reduced your antibiotics impact by 2/3. Cut down to one meat meal a week and that’s a 96% reduction. You’re not powerless. Vote with your wallet and your…

When has this attitude _ever_ been the solution to a shared-resource problem? I'm not being snarky, I want to know. It feels like solving traffic mortality by pasting a "drive carefully"-sticker inside the windshield, doing nothing other than establishing who is morally responsible.

Is this a shared resource problem though?

The problem, as I see it, is one of a questionable food supply or at least a contamination issue, in which case, each person should decide what matters to them, and is how this particular problem is solved in the micro, which in aggregate, does lessen the macro aspect. I'm thinking of cases like cigarettes and alcohol.

However, where this falls apart is that consumers don't always have that info, and even if we slap warnings on things, it doesn't usually help unless there is a very clear line of causality and effect.

For instance, the prop 65 warnings[0], which are essentially useless.

Either way, I do think that individual choice is the first line of defense for issues like this.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1...

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#94

Post by greglindahl »

enord wrote: post #91
greglindahl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way we addressed the former was to put up signs that say "Drive Carefully", so apparently your dislike of that technique is not universal. It's called a "nudge", and it has significant (but limited) effect.

I'm not disputing that, but sometimes when we weigh our actions, significant (but limited) alternatives will not cut it, and if the effect is limited enough (and the problem severe enough), even deliberating on them will waste precious time to enact direct and (hopefully) effective action.

Woah, so even debating this issue is wasting precious time? I know this seems to be super-important to you, but for someone who complained about getting short shrift (in another comment), you might try using different language next time.

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#95

Post by enord »

jdietrich wrote: post #65
enord wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When has this attitude _ever_ been the solution to a shared-resource problem? I'm not being snarky, I want to know. It feels like solving traffic mortality by pasting a "drive carefully"-sticker inside the windshield, doing nothing other than establishing who is morally responsible.

Personal choices play a key role in advancing legislative change and facilitating effective enforcement. Legislation and enforcement only played a partial role in reducing the rate of driving while intoxicated. DWI was still normal and socially acceptable for decades after we started banning it. We changed our attitudes, we stigmatized the behaviour, we created new norms, we invented the concept of the "designated dr…

I don't know how you define "scale", but if you do define it to encompass externalities then I agree with you.

My point is that some types of problems are more amenable to personal activism (participation in wars come to mind) while other types of problems (shared-resources/commons) have different effective solutions (taxes, legislation, democracy et. al.)

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#96

Post by swombat »

greglindahl wrote: post #77
supermarine wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed his point. Of course skiing isn't the only sport, but if you love skiing, why snowboard? Of course meat isn't the only food, but it's delicious and a great source of protein. Sure antibiotics are bad for the system as a whole, but why not go after that instead of boycotting altogether?

No, I got his point. Of the people who ski, some would be happy to substitute another winter sport if skiing became less desirable (more expensive or less fashionable). Some would substitute non-winter sports (e.g. go to the California coast instead of Tahoe.) That's the 'substitute goods' that I mentioned. If you really love skiing, you're still a part of that economic theory, you're just the inelastic part. You mig…

To embrace the skiing analogy, I’m Swiss and I love skiing. I’m about to go on a ski trip next week. If I believed that going on occasional ski trips does anywhere near the harm that meat consumption does I would indeed give up skiing.

For similar reasons, I’m not interested in going lion hunting for my holidays. It’s harmful. There are other alternatives. So use the alternatives!

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#97

Post by greglindahl »

swombat wrote: post #96
greglindahl wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I got his point. Of the people who ski, some would be happy to substitute another winter sport if skiing became less desirable (more expensive or less fashionable). Some would substitute non-winter sports (e.g. go to the California coast instead of Tahoe.) That's the 'substitute goods' that I mentioned. If you really love skiing, you're still a part of that economic theory, you're just the inelastic part. You mig…

To embrace the skiing analogy, I’m Swiss and I love skiing. I’m about to go on a ski trip next week. If I believed that going on occasional ski trips does anywhere near the harm that meat consumption does I would indeed give up skiing. For similar reasons, I’m not interested in going lion hunting for my holidays. It’s harmful. There are other alternatives. So use the alternatives!

Thanks, that's exactly what I was getting at! And in your skiing example, it's not the price of skiing that causes you to choose another sport, it's your opinion of skiing. Both price and opinion matter to humans.

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#98

Post by shagie »

i_feel_great wrote: post #23
linkmotif wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you need to invoke concentration camps here, true as it may be in some cases. They use antibiotics to make them grow faster. That’s half the reason.

They grow faster because they are less sick. Antibiotics are not like growth hormones.

I would encourage you to read Antibiotic Growth-Promoters in Food Animals ( http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/AGRIPPA/555_EN.HTM ) (the fao domain is the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) or the introduction of Antimicrobial Growth Promoters Used in Animal Feed: Effects of Less Well Known Antibiotics on Gram-Positive Bacteria ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC153145/ )

The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock also covers it:

> Certain antibiotics, when given in low, sub-therapeutic doses, are known to improve feed conversion efficiency (more output, such as muscle or milk, for a given amount of feed) and/or may promote greater growth, most likely by affecting gut flora.[15] However, any antibiotics deemed medically important to humans by the CDC are illegal to use as growth promoters in the U.S. Only drugs that have no association with human medicine – and therefore no risk to humans – are allowed to be used for this purpose.[5][16] It is also important to note that some drugs listed below are ionophores, which are not antibiotics and do not pose any potential risk to human health.

They are indeed not growth hormones, but they do change the gut bacteria balance and make it easier to extract calories from the feed stock. This has nothing to do with actually being sick or not.

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#99

Post by enord »

greglindahl wrote: post #86
enord wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I think you're giving me short shrift here. I'm not taking the piss on purpose at least, and (since you seem to hold personal responsibility dearly) I really feel it's important to raise the point of whether we are constructively addressing important issues or not. I'm confused about the person who eats less meat non-sequitur. It feels like you're shoving me around a bit there.

The person who got short shrift is the person you initially replied to. They proposed individual virtue, and you used that as an excuse to raise a different point that you like talking about. As for the bus thing, the people responsible for reducing deaths around buses are responsible for actually solving the problem. So I agree that they should not do ineffective things like they did in your story. Meanwhile, a pers…

I'm afraid GP literally stated his proposal as related to the general situation (thread topic), and if not then his post would be a non-sequitur making my reply a non-non-sequitur or just a regular old sequitur.

And yes, I used his proposal of individual virtue as an "excuse" to raise a point about the role and reason of individual virtue in the topic at hand, it's called "having a discussion." Why should I leave virtuous people alone on the internet? Is he some kind of unassailable saint of meat-moderation who must be protected from non-sequiturs and sequiturs alike?

Whose toes are sore here?

Re: Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any other meat industry

#100

Post by greglindahl »

tr0ut wrote: post #92
bastawhiz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A personal anecdote: I've tried cutting my meat consumption many times in the past, but I ultimately fail to keep up a low-meat diet for the following reasons: - Vegetarian food is really not that tasty in my opinion. (edit: the kind I can reasonably prepare myself) - It's very difficult to eat enough vegetarian food for me to meet my Calorie requirements (I target 3500/day). - Eating a balanced diet of vegetarian fo…

Why are you trying to eat less meat? P.S. Good luck on a vegetarian diet with a 3500+ caloric intake. You'll be eating all day.

Vegetarians eat calorie-heavy foods like fats, carbs, and protein, just like everyone else.
Post reply on HN