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

CDC Threat Report: ‘We Will Soon Be in a Post-Antibiotic Era’

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 113 posts

Re: CDC Threat Report: ‘We Will Soon Be in a Post-Antibiotic Era’

#11

Post by czottmann »

smackay wrote: post #9
rurounijones wrote: post #7

while post anti-biotic sucks for humans directly. What about post-antibiotic for livestock which forms our food sources. If we can no longer raise as many cattle, pigs, sheep etc. then what are the global implications.

Quite simple: healthier humans and more sustainable agriculture. From Yahoo Answers: it takes 17 kilos of corn, beans, grains, etc, to produce one kilo of beef in feedlot cattle. Having a large proportion of meat in one's diet is not the most efficient use of the available (limited) resources we have.

100% ACK.

Re: CDC Threat Report: ‘We Will Soon Be in a Post-Antibiotic Era’

#12

Post by droopyEyelids »

rurounijones wrote: post #8
ktd wrote: post #6

Terrible, sensationalist title. The actual quote from the article is "If we are not careful, we will soon be in a post-antibiotic era," which paints a very different picture.

Given the fact that the "If we are careful" bit is not going to happen (Without some drastic societal changes around the globe) I think we can pretty much ignore that part of the sentence.

Yep. I'd like to see a detailed analysis of how the future will develop regarding this.

America and most European countries already exercise care with antibiotics. However, South American countries and India etc sell almost all of them OTC where they can be incorporated into folklore style medicine.

Will drug resistant diseases stay within the boarders of the countries that incubate them? Or will the cases that slip across borders be enough to negate any benefit more careful countries cultivate?

Re: CDC Threat Report: ‘We Will Soon Be in a Post-Antibiotic Era’

#13

Post by colmvp »

ktd wrote: post #6

Terrible, sensationalist title. The actual quote from the article is "If we are not careful, we will soon be in a post-antibiotic era," which paints a very different picture.

FWIW, my original title was: "If we are not careful, we will soon be in a post-antibiotic era" and then my title was changed to the sensationalist title.

Re: CDC Threat Report: ‘We Will Soon Be in a Post-Antibiotic Era’

#14

Post by andyjohnson0 »

stingraycharles wrote: post #10
velodrome wrote: post #4

People need stop using antibiotics for everything and use it only when necessary. When Drugs Stop Working-Norway's Answer: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-6014559.html

People aren't the problem; it's the food industry that abuses antibiotics the most. When a pig gets ill, it's way cheaper to give her a dose of antibiotics instead of getting a vet.

Antibiotics are sometimes given to sick animals, but their main use is as growth promoters [1]. Animals that are regularly fed low doses of antibiotics grow faster, meaning that they can be slaughtered earlier and the overall cost of rearing the animal is therefore reduced.

"The effectiveness of synercid, a drug of last resort for the treatment of vancomycin-resistant infections, is threatened because of the use of virginiamycin as a growth promoter in chickens and pigs in the United States. Virginiamycin is chemically related to synercid, and bacteria resistant to the one drug also appear to be resistant to the other." [2]

[1] http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/animalcare/amr...

[2] http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-...

Re: CDC Threat Report: ‘We Will Soon Be in a Post-Antibiotic Era’

#16

Post by rurounijones »

smackay wrote: post #9
rurounijones wrote: post #7

while post anti-biotic sucks for humans directly. What about post-antibiotic for livestock which forms our food sources. If we can no longer raise as many cattle, pigs, sheep etc. then what are the global implications.

Quite simple: healthier humans and more sustainable agriculture. From Yahoo Answers: it takes 17 kilos of corn, beans, grains, etc, to produce one kilo of beef in feedlot cattle. Having a large proportion of meat in one's diet is not the most efficient use of the available (limited) resources we have.

That is the simple answer in a perfect world.

I was more thinking of the political and economic effects, especially if there is a post-antibiotic problem which quickly decimates existing stocks.

Re: CDC Threat Report: ‘We Will Soon Be in a Post-Antibiotic Era’

#17

Post by rurounijones »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #12
rurounijones wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the fact that the "If we are careful" bit is not going to happen (Without some drastic societal changes around the globe) I think we can pretty much ignore that part of the sentence.

Yep. I'd like to see a detailed analysis of how the future will develop regarding this. America and most European countries already exercise care with antibiotics. However, South American countries and India etc sell almost all of them OTC where they can be incorporated into folklore style medicine. Will drug resistant diseases stay within the boarders of the countries that incubate them? Or will the cases that slip…

> America and most European countries already exercise care with antibiotics

Warning: Generalisations ahead

And even in the countries you include as exercising care, we still have a significant number of people who do not finish their antibiotic courses.

Tis a bit of a quandry, people tend not to be altruistic if they cannot observe the effect of their altruism.

Re: CDC Threat Report: ‘We Will Soon Be in a Post-Antibiotic Era’

#18

Post by route66 »

colmvp wrote: post #2

Has there been any research to indicate that antibiotics in livestock gets passed to humans (and if so, to what degree)? I know that there was testimony by Dr. Lance B. Price to the House Committee for greater transparency on "why, how and in what animals these vital drugs are used." http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/file...

As a challenge a Dutch research: http://www.vwa.nl/onderwerpen/risicobeoordelingen/bestand/22...

From the abstract (freely translated): "... guessed is that a third to half of resistance encountered in germs within humans is of agricultural origin."

Important is that not the antibiotics are transferred from animals to humans but the already resistant bacteria.

A short summary is here: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/08/31/Antibiotic-resist...

Re: CDC Threat Report: ‘We Will Soon Be in a Post-Antibiotic Era’

#19

Post by InclinedPlane »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #14
stingraycharles wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't the problem; it's the food industry that abuses antibiotics the most. When a pig gets ill, it's way cheaper to give her a dose of antibiotics instead of getting a vet.

Antibiotics are sometimes given to sick animals, but their main use is as growth promoters [1]. Animals that are regularly fed low doses of antibiotics grow faster, meaning that they can be slaughtered earlier and the overall cost of rearing the animal is therefore reduced. "The effectiveness of synercid, a drug of last resort for the treatment of vancomycin-resistant infections, is threatened because of the use of v…

Many people will point out that the antibiotics given to animals are mostly different from those used on humans. However, as your example points out there are actually only a small number of families of antibiotics each of which share a specific method of attack on bacteria. And bacteria that become resistant to a cheap antibiotic, like virginiamycin, will do so in a way that also renders them resistant to their more expensive cousins that have been reserved for human use.

Re: CDC Threat Report: ‘We Will Soon Be in a Post-Antibiotic Era’

#20

Post by smackay »

rurounijones wrote: post #16
smackay wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite simple: healthier humans and more sustainable agriculture. From Yahoo Answers: it takes 17 kilos of corn, beans, grains, etc, to produce one kilo of beef in feedlot cattle. Having a large proportion of meat in one's diet is not the most efficient use of the available (limited) resources we have.

That is the simple answer in a perfect world. I was more thinking of the political and economic effects, especially if there is a post-antibiotic problem which quickly decimates existing stocks.

Unless there is some kind of apocalypse (rinderpest making it to the USA due to global warming) then the decline in meat production might be (relatively) gradual. The main use of antibiotics in agriculture (AFAIK) is simply to aid fattening animals as they are sick for fewer days of the year and so can put on more weight. Reduce antibiotic use and the market weight of animals will decline and either prices will have to rise or demand will fall as people move to other sources of protein - assuming there are reasonable/viable alternatives.

I'm not sure there will be many political effects - unless of course people are going hungry, however the economic effects might be interesting. If intensive meat production stopped then perhaps there would be more free-range or extensive meat available (certainly at a higher price). Environmentally this might not be a bad thing, for example, the integrated olive/chestnut, goat/pig agriculture we have here in Portugal is pretty good for wildlife. More animals wandering over a wider area would be good for vultures as well (which are in rapid decline globally). Admittedly this is probably a limited scenario but it illustrates that there are desirable alternatives to highly intensive agriculture.

Aside: The economics of meat production seem pretty crazy to me. I can go to my local supermarket and purchase several meals worth of fatty pork for less than the price of a couple of heads of broccoli and and few carrots. Given it takes a lot more resources to produce the pork that suggests that the system we have is seriously out of whack.

Caveat: Off course, we might not be able to carpet the globe in goats to make this all work. It's just not going to be possible (or at least very difficult) to do this with a population well in excess of 10 billion.

Post reply on HN