Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Farm Workers Carry Drug-Resistant Staph Despite Partial FDA Antibiotics Ban

Posted by Soulskill on from the that's-awfully-mean-of-them dept.

An anonymous reader writes "New research out of the University of North Carolina now shows factory farm workers actually carry drug-resistant staph. Europe has long ago banned the use of antibiotics in livestock, but the FDA remains behind the curve with a partial ban. Thanks to large industrial farming operations, we all remain continuously at risk as our last line of antibiotics is wasted on animals."

73 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We kinda deserve to get wiped out at this point.

    1. Re:Yea... by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Boy isn't your face going to be red when it actually happens.

  2. PIck Your Hospital? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, if you don't want to get MRSA while in the hospital, you should pick one that does not have many farm hands as patients?

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:PIck Your Hospital? by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nope. I live in a rural area(city of ~30k rural pop ~120k), and my local hospital has had zero issues or outbreaks of MRSA. Though the nearby cities of London and Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge here in Ontario, have all had problems of MRSA. If you don't want to get it, you need to go to a hospital that has good microbiological controls in place.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:PIck Your Hospital? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hard to find staff without staph?

  3. This is kind of fun by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 5, Funny

    Y'know, evolution being the path by which this happened, and americans being unable to blame it because that would aknowledge its existence.

    I guess it will get blamed on socialism, Obama, terrorists er something.

    --
    If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    1. Re:This is kind of fun by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Y'know, evolution being the path by which this happened, and americans being unable to blame it because that would aknowledge its existence

      I suspect the dominant social factor is the fact that the USA lacks the will (or spine) to impose badly needed regulations if they would cut into someone's profits. Especially if that 'someone' is a whole industry.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:This is kind of fun by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      [Edit to add:]

      Letting people die causes less outrage.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:This is kind of fun by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Actually many of those denies will recognize it on a short term, or micro level, such as in this case; but somehow refuse to recognize it on a more macro level. Never heard them give the thought process behind this, other then sound bites.

    4. Re:This is kind of fun by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Contrary to what you might wish to tell yourself, there are essentially no Americans who don't "acknowledge evolution's existence".

      I challenge you to find one who will bat an eye at the statement that bacteria evolve. That would be the meaning of your statement, and your statement is erroneous.

      What is true is that a number of Americans do not believe evolution is -exclusively- causally creditable for human existence. Not really the same issue though, since to claim this (or make further peculiarly-consistent metaphysical inferences) is an untestable and unscientific non-sequitur anyway.

      The wider challenge, though, is that this statement from the summary...

      "...we all remain continuously at risk as our last line of antibiotics is wasted on animals."

      from your apparent worldview, becomes meaningless in its objection to anything being "wasted on animals". There is thereby no distinction scientifically (and hence, from your view, any distinction at all) with the "we".

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    5. Re:This is kind of fun by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      Creationists maintain there is a difference between bacteria, fruit flies, and mice undergoing observable evolution and humans evolving. They call one "microevolution" and the other "macroevolution."

      It's impossible to deny that evolution happens. You can watch it happen, bacteria on antibiotic plates. It is possible to claim that has nothing to do with how humans came to be, all it requires is extreme stupidity and insistence that a holy book is the best way to understand facts.

  4. If you're going to date a farmer... by Burz · · Score: 2

    make sure s/he is organically certified. :)

    1. Re:If you're going to date a farmer... by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Just spray them with lysol when they get home.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:If you're going to date a farmer... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you're going to date a synthetic why pick a farmer?

  5. Re:"behind the curve" by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 4, Funny

    You have no understanding on bacteria, vaccination, or statistics. Please do not voice your uninformed opinion ever again.

    That said, let me explain it to you: bacteria wants to live. Bacteria will evolve to survive in places where it is not welcome. The bacteria are simple organisms, and don't like to waste space in their DNA on stupid shit just for fun. The presence of vaccines in places that they want to live is usually a problem, but they adapt to it. If the vaccines were not there, there would be no evolutionary pressure to evade the vaccines. Understand? Or do I need to break out the image macros, as stupid memes like `curolation =! causashon' is probably a better learning tool for you.

  6. And this is kind of sad by c0lo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sad, because the EU may had imposed the ban for nothing: unless they also impose a quarantine against anything/anyone coming from outside, the drug-resistant staph will get into EU (directly from US or via other routes).

    One wonders: would this staph strain they bred qualify to WMD?

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    1. Re: And this is kind of sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The MRSA strain in the paper was specific to animals. TFA is worth reading.

    2. Re: And this is kind of sad by ericloewe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You seem to be missing the point. Randomly giving animals (or people, but that's harder to control) antibiotics without them needed said antibiotics will eventually create antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

      Your point is a typical "We can't fix everything, so let's fix nothing!" attitude I've seen applied way too often on this website.

      Also, these antibiotics aren't banned. Uncontrolled administration of any antibiotic for non-medical reasons is. What would you suggest we do? Stop using antibiotics and hope not to die because of something that could've been easily treated with antibiotics but wasn't due to a fear that some bacteria will develop a resistance against it?

      It's not a matter of eliminating the problem, it's a matter of controlling it, limiting it to situations where the probabiility of some mutant strain appearing is acceptable compared to death.

    3. Re: And this is kind of sad by crmarvin42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who says we are applying them randomly to livestock? Antibiotics cost money and animal producers have to deal with a boom bust cycle of profitabilitlity that means unnecessary expenses must be cut whenever possible. They are VERY deliberate in their decisions regarding any feed ingredient becuase feed accounts for 60 to 80% of the cost of bringing their prouduct to market. A 5% savings in total feed costs could spell the difference between losing money and making money.

      For an MD, however, the incentives are all stacked in favor of reckless use. Malpractice insurance forces MD's to side on the side of overprescription becuase they don't want to be sued for witholding antibiotics that turn out to have been necessary. Patients come in expecting to be prescribed something, and if they aren't they are more than willing to make another appointment with a doctor who will prescribe them what they want. Currently all of the negatives of antibiotic resistance development can be blamed on Agriculture (even in the EU which is rediculous considering the bans), so why risk malpractice or disgruntled patients to prevent a negative outcome no one will blame you for anyway?

      I believe that use in animals does contribute. I stated as such in my post. However, it is my opinion that the relative impact of animal vs. human prescribing on the resistance problem are orders of magnitude different and banning in livestock will only make marginal improvements at best. That may be good for human medicine, but I believe that a cost-benefit analysis will show that the benefit to human medicine will be far outstriped by the cost to human food security from both a supply and sanitation perspective. I base this opinion not on my own vested interest (I'm responsible for supporting a sales force that sells antibiotic alternatives to livestock producers, so ban is good for me personally), but on attempts I've seen to model antibiotic resistance development.

      Also, at the risk of sounding callous we need to keep in mind that most resistant infections are not fatal. No one said that these farmers with MRSA were dying. Only that they had MRSA present. As long as their immune system is not dramatically compromized they are capable of fighting off MRSA, becuase MRSA is not immune to antibodies, macrophages, or any other part of the acue phase response. They are only resistant to a single supportive therapy that most people don't actually need. That doesn't reduce the importance in the immunocompromized (Very young, elderly, those with other immune compromizing conditions, etc.). But it's not like MRSA is Ebola.

      MRSA isn't even as bad as Salmonella, which can actually make an otherwise healthy person sick, is endogenous to poultry, and can be controlled via antibiotics in poultry feed. By banning sub-theraputic doses of antibiotics in poultry you increase the risk of food-borne salmonella infections which can kill the perfectly healthy among us... Unlike MRSA! This is why the decision to ban should have been based on a holistic cost-benefit analysis instead of the regressive "Precautionary Principle" which is motivated more by irrational fear than evidence.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    4. Re: And this is kind of sad by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Who says we are applying them randomly to livestock?

      Would you have preferred "indiscriminately"?

      Also, at the risk of sounding callous we need to keep in mind that most resistant infections are not fatal.

      Up to a 50% mortality rate in hospitals.
      You're sounding very callous right now.

      No one said that these farmers with MRSA were dying. Only that they had MRSA present. As long as their immune system is not dramatically compromized they are capable of fighting off MRSA, becuase MRSA is not immune to antibodies, macrophages, or any other part of the acue phase response.

      Are you shitting me? This is not a good thing.
      'No one said that these farmers with MRSA were dying. Only that they are walking reservoirs of drug resistant bacteria.'
      'As long as their immune system is not dramatically compromized they are capable of fighting off MRSA and spreading the disease'

      But it's not like MRSA is Ebola.

      I wish MRSA was more like Ebola, I.E. limited to Africa and parts of Asia.
      MRSA has an average mortality rate of 32% and it's everywhere.
      If you catch one of the nastier strains, your chances of surviving are 50/50

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re: And this is kind of sad by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Who says we are applying them randomly to livestock?

      Dr. Glen Morris
      PBS
      FDA
      Union of Concerned Scientists
      CDC
      I got all that from the first few hits on a Google search for "Antibiotics livestock"

      Here are a few quotes from some of the articles:

      Yet the United States continues to use at least 70 percent of its antibiotics on livestock, to shave pennies per pound from the price of pork chops or chicken

      Meat producers have fed growth-promoting antibiotics to food animals for years.

      Millions of pounds of antibiotics are routinely administered at low doses to large numbers of animals living in crowded conditions, not because they are sick, but to speed their growth and prevent possible infections

      Your economic argument explains why they are doing it. It makes them money because the animals are fatter.

    6. Re:And this is kind of sad by turp182 · · Score: 1

      The Europe has had MRSA since 1994 (first case was internal to the Netherlands):

      http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/10/16/drug-resistant-staph-infections-in-europe-could-mark-start-of-a-new-epidemic/

      Just FYI.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    7. Re: And this is kind of sad by pepty · · Score: 1

      You're worried about Salmonellosis? About 30 people die per year from salmonellosis vs about 20,000 from MRSA. If you're still more worried about Salmonella, you should appreciate banning of subtherapeutic antibiotics: anitbiotic resistant Salmonella is becoming increasingly common, including resistance to quinolones and even trimethoprim.

    8. Re: And this is kind of sad by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the average is 83 per year for the US from 1990 to 2006, but your point is a valid one. However, we still allow antibiotics in animal feed in the US so we don't know what the rate would be if we banned them, and Salmonella was only one example of a food borne pathogen currently controlled by antibiotics in feed. There are studies looking at carcass contamination with various microbes with and without antibiotic use in livestock and the data shows increased risk. Furthermore, I was trying to draw attention to the fact that MRSA is not especially virulent among the healthy.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    9. Re: And this is kind of sad by crmarvin42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, because a google search is the equivalent of a critical review, and not a popularity contest subject to clever tricks such as search engine optimizat at all.

      I don't know where this Dr. Morris works within the FDA, but it is not within the center for veterinary medicine (CVM). The group responsible for regulating drugs in animal feed. The officials within CVM are prohibited by law from revoking the approval of a product without sufficient evidence of danger. Studies like the one above don't prove anything, they are all just correllation. And as we all know on /., Correlation is not proof of Causation!

      I have several ideas for trial designs that might show stronger support, one way or the other, but instead of coming up with better designs they keep just repeating the same designs.

      Idea #1: Find two demographically similar communities (preferably both having similar farm populations and production levels), one with a hospital and the other without and look at community MRSA rates. If I'm right, the town with the hospital will have much higher MRSA levels within the community if not, there will be no difference.

      Idea #2: Similar approach, but without hospitals and with farms under opposing antibiotic use rules. In the US there are several university farms that have gone without antibiotics for decades, or a US community could be comparied to an EU community. If I'm wrong, then there would be higher MRSA rates in the community with higher drug use on swine farms. If I'm right there will be no difference.

      I'm willing to conced the point if someone will show me something more rigorous than "We tested a bunch of people in a sub group without any control and found MRSA" because all people have some exposure to both potential sources of MRSA. As I said before, it is in my personal best interest for sub-theraputic antibiotics to be banned becuase I support a sales force that sells allternatives to antibiotics. I'd just like to see the science done right instead of having the decision based on crap correlations.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    10. Re: And this is kind of sad by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      Up to a 50% mortality rate in hospitals. [emphasis added]

      Exactly! In hospitals, populated primarily by the immuno compromized such as the elderly, cancer patients, patients recovering from invasive procedures like surgery. Focusing on hospital data only is a textbook example of sampling bias (literally, it was mention in my stats textbook in grad school).

      Also, how many of them contracted MRSA from the hospital? Banning antibiotics in livestock will do nothing to curtail Hospital acquired MRSA infections.

      What about MRSA rates in the community at large. What percent of people at work today would test positive for MRSA right now? Mortality rate in the hospital is one part of the total virulence of a disease, but it can be a very small part for something that is widespread. Swine flu scared the crap out of everyone becuase those hospitalized by it were so sick, but when they got around to looking at the community at large they found much much higher numbers of people that didn't need to see a doctor or visit a hospital but had been infected by it. In the end it was not that much more virulent than other strains of the flu.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    11. Re:And this is kind of sad by sjames · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, the U.S. only produces Weapons of Massive Freedom!!!

    12. Re: And this is kind of sad by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      Banning antibiotics in livestock isn't supposed to curtail MRSA infections short-term, it's supposed to allow the percentage of Staph which is MR to gradually fall back to acceptable levels. It's well established that when you stop selecting for drug-resistant bacteria, the population resistance falls relatively quickly - drug-resistance mutations typically compromise some functionality, so non-resistant strains can out-compete resistant ones.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    13. Re: And this is kind of sad by rajanala83 · · Score: 3, Informative

      This experiment is already done on a much wider scale . - whit the EU and the US as experimental subjects, so to speak. One banning the use of antibiotics for growth enhancement, and one doesn't. A natural experiment, if you want. And there have been pages upon pages of written summaries, reports, studies, etc on the topic, and comparisons, and what not. There even is a transatlantic study group, TATFAR, and here is a visual summary detailing the EU efforts: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130516a.htm EU legislation on animal nutrition banned the use of antibiotics used for growth promotion in animal feed from January 2006. In 2009 the Panel on Biological Hazards assessed the public health significance of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in animals and foods. It concludes that livestock-associated MRSA represents only a small proportion of all reported MRSA infections in the EU with significant differences between Member States. So the conclusion seems to be that bannin growth enhancing antibiotic use is a crucial step in preventing the rise of resistant microbiota in those conditions, but (of course) not enough to stop the evolution of resistant strains in, for example hospital environments...

    14. Re: And this is kind of sad by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Yes, because a google search is the equivalent of a critical review, and not a popularity contest subject to clever tricks such as search engine optimizat at all.

      I have no idea why you are attacking Google. You asked a question, and I answered by citing Dr. Glen Morris, PBS, the FDA, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the CDC.

      As for the rest of your post: since I only responded to your question about livestock, I have no idea what your subsequent rant is about.

  7. Antibiotics not banned in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Contrary to what it say above, antibiotics are not completely banned in Europe for preemptive use in farm animal production. However, there is a list of approved antibiotics for such uses, and relevance of the antibiotics for human medicine is a factor in the rules.

    Here is a link to the Danish treatment guidelines: http://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/english/SiteCollectionDocuments/25_PDF_word_filer%20til%20download/05kontor/Behandlingsvejledning_2011_engelsk.xls (warning: Excel). In column J there is a ranking of relevance to human medicine.

  8. Re:"behind the curve" by ttucker · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You have no understanding on bacteria, vaccination, or statistics. Please do not voice your uninformed opinion ever again.

    You have no understanding of science! Correlation in fact does not provide sufficient evidence for a causation hypothesis. It is not just a meme. For example, a differential hypothesis might be: industrial farm workers spending more time in the hospital (lets suppose that factory farms are more dangerous than organic ones) could easily explain a higher presence of drug resistant bacteria in the test population. Would it be simple to further demonstrate the hypothesis stating that the MRSA actually came from the livestock? No, it would not... think DNA profiling of the bacterial strains. Is it appropriate to berate someones intelligence for remaining skeptical of an under-supported claim? No, not really.

  9. Re:"behind the curve" by Teun · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The fact the claim of over-indulgence in pre-emptive antibiotics use in cattle is a cause of resistant bacteria strains affecting humans is under-reported in the mainstream US media does not mean it is not supported by reputable scientific studies.

    This has nothing to do with pro EU or anti-US but everything with pro-shady business or anti-consumer.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  10. Re:"behind the curve" by cryptolemur · · Score: 1

    But then you'd have to explain how the drug-resistant bacteria appeared on the hospitals, if it's not due to overuse of drugs. If it is due drugs, then you'd have to explain why it does not apply to factory farms with conditions akin to hospitals.

  11. Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by 12WTF$ · · Score: 2

    It's what's for dinner!

    --
    Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
    1. Re:Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Yaotzin · · Score: 1

      What's for dessert? Vancomycin?

      --
      Error: No error occurred
  12. How sad and ironic... by Bearhouse · · Score: 2, Informative

    To think that farm workers provided a vital clue to eradicating smallpox, when Jenner (and others) noticed that after infection with the less dangerous 'cowpox' they were effectively immune.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner

    Mankind's ability to abuse and abase the scientific gifts of such great men is seemingly limitless.

    1. Re:How sad and ironic... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      This has to be the most mentally confused post I've seen in quite some time.

      First, because a long time ago something happened with farm workers means that today another event has some sort of relevance? I'm not seeing it here.

      Second, cowpox is a virus, antibiotics cure bacterial infections. They weren't developed until the 1930s.

      And this mental vomit is modded up to +4 Informative?!? WTF it has nothing to do with anything.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  13. Re:The web turning out to be a dream by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1, Funny

    My fear: The web turning out to be a dream after all and finding myself back in back-office....blah, blah, blah

    My dream - a Slashdot not over-run by morons.... Hey!, what the fuck, where did everyone go? (and how come I am not on Slashdot anymore? (Oh wait....)

  14. Re:"behind the curve" by evilviper · · Score: 1

    The fact the claim of over-indulgence in pre-emptive antibiotics use in cattle is a cause of resistant bacteria strains affecting humans is under-reported in the mainstream US media does not mean it is not supported by reputable scientific studies.

    Care to point me to one of these studies, because I've never been able to find them. Everything I've found has been very wishy-washy speculation which isn't ever able to connect the dots between animals and humans.

    Quote:

    "Evidence for the transfer of so-called superbugs from animals to humans has been scant, and most evidence shows that pathogens of concern in human populations originated in humans and are maintained there, with rare cases of transference to humans"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance#Role_of_other_animals

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  15. *shrugs* by lightknight · · Score: 1

    So feed the cattle some garlic, or whatever derivative agrees with a ruminant's digestive system. The allistatin in the cloves is an antibiotic, and a broad spectrum one at that.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allistatin

    Now, whether anyone wants to be around cattle after being force fed garlic is another matter...the smell will probably be quite frightful.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
    1. Re:*shrugs* by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Around cattle, garlic might not be the worst smell by a longshot.

    2. Re:*shrugs* by idunham · · Score: 1

      I don't think the smell is that bad-it's not a complaint at Chico State's organic dairy, where they use garlic for that reason.

  16. Re:Vegan by Wonda · · Score: 1

    No, because you just said I'd be a vegan.
    Now if everybody else turned vegan and I did not, the answer would be yes!

  17. Re:"behind the curve" by ericloewe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First of all, don't blindly trust wikipedia.

    Second, drug-resistant bacteria do develop in animals given antibiotics for no real reason (other than the magical, inexplicable enhanced growth == profit margins). Bacteria can be easily transferred from animals to humans. The majority of them is harmless, probably. But, if something nasty does mutate and gains resistance to certain antibiotics, it getting transferred (it will, sooner or later) to humans may be a very big problem.

    To make things worse, bacteria like to share genetic material, which helps (among other things) spread immunities to other bacteria.

    It's not a matter of trying to connect the dots. It is possible. Which means it will probably happen, given enough occurrences.

    Let's assume that you're right. Where do antibiotics go after they leave an organism? A good portion ends up in water supplies, so the antibiotics get further distributed, ending up in humans. Combine small doses of antibiotics with an infection and you have the perfect environment for the development of antibiotic resistance.

    But again, let's assume that won't happen. What's the advantage of using antibiotics for no reason, other than somehow making animals grow faster? A larger profit margin for the owner, perhaps.

    It boils down to the very likely possibility of some drug-resistant bacteria to show up versus someone's profit margin.

  18. As a nurse in a Level I trauma center by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can say most healthcare professionals carry MRSA. Not that MRSA is any more virulent that regular staph, it's only more resistant to some antibiotics. You just need Vanc or some some newer antibiotic to treat it. Many contagions will not harm an otherwise healthy individual.

    1. Re:As a nurse in a Level I trauma center by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      The real drug-resistant bacterial threat is from TDR (totally drug-resistant) Tuberculosis. Two billion people (as in, 2 out of 7 people wordwide) have TB, and TDR TB has been reported in at least India, Iran and Italy. Presumably Indiana is next.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
  19. Corn by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 4, Informative

    Cattle will have impressive weight gains when you feed them (heavily subsidized) corn. Until it starts to kill them, as their digestive system didn't evolve (there's that word again) to process an industrialized grain. But you can stave off that death for a while with heavy doses of antibiotics. Just long enough to get them to the slaughterhouse.

    Bon Appetit.

    1. Re:Corn by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      If you actually knew anything about producing cattle you would know that nobody feeds them significant amounts of corn for any amount of time. It's simply too expensive. Cattle spend the majority of their short lives eating hay, alfalfa, or other roughage. The small amounts of corn that supplement their diet before they go to the feed lot is not enough to harm them even if it was actually toxic. It's no more toxic to them than it is to you. In fact, feeding them too much corn negatively impacts their growth.

      http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/beef/as1238.pdf
      http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/myths/myth-feeding-cattle-corn-is-unnatural.html

      You really think feeding them more corn for the few weeks they are at the feedlot is significant?

  20. Re:"behind the curve" by Dorianny · · Score: 2

    This has nothing to do with pro EU or anti-US but everything with pro-shady business or anti-consumer.

    Business are very good at meeting consumer demands and what consumers want is the cheapest piece of meat you can possibly get. There is plenty of meat raised antibiotic-free available for sale and if the majority of consumers chose to buy that instead of the cheapest cut than you would see business quickly changing their practices to fill consumer demand.

  21. Re:"behind the curve" by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

    The root of the problem is the "modern" use of mono-species CAFOs instead of the more traditional methods of multi-species pastured livestock. Honestly, even if you set out to intentionally breed drug resistant microbes, you really couldn't devise a much better scheme for it than a CAFO. This is doubly sad because CAFOs are far less efficient in terms of fossil fuel inputs, and use just as much land anyway (if you include all the land used to grow the feed grain, etc.).

    The future of livestock production lies in the work of Allan Savory and Joel Salatin. With intensive rotational grazing which mimics the natural behavior of wild herbivores, they achieve impressive yields with minimal infrastructure, NO chemical inputs, NO antibiotics, using only rainfall for water. Furthermore, their methods actually increase the topsoil, rather than depleting it, which has the extra benefit of sequestering massive amounts of CO2.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  22. Re:"behind the curve" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    farm workers aren't the only people that spend more time in hospitals as opposed to other individuals (such as doctors, nurses, etc.). If your hypothesis would be true, farm workers wouldn't be the only group of people with a statistically significant higher percentage of carrying the antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, since it does appear to be only farmers it has to be something that they do that is specific to *only* farmers, which is not that they are present in hospitals more since there are other groups of people that are present in hospitals more as well. Your hypothesis fails after deeper thinking for about 10 seconds. Other groups spend disproportionately more time in hospitals as well (and thats assuming your conjecture that farm workers DO indeed spend more time in hospitals). So, there seems to be no correlation involved with being present in hospitals, therefore, they can most likely be ruled out, or at least put below the other scientifically sound reasoning of antibiotics being overused and creating these bacteria in farm animals (which they have actually shown that these bacteria do indeed breed there). So there *is* a reason to assume its present in farm animals AND there *is* a reason to find the antibiotics there (as its already documented that they use it) as opposed to there being much more controlled circumstances in hospitals where you can expect to find those two things in the hospital BUT you can generally expect to find better controls. I don't know why people are fighting this. It's been shown what the overuse of antibiotics does. That's not in question. So, why shouldn't we be controlling its use, especially when its being used on people/animals that don't need them (overuse isn't only found in farm animals, but its probably the largest misuse in any one industry and is therefore more easily fixed as well).
     
    It's not under-supported. Overuse of antibiotics DOES create antibiotic resistant bacteria. *THAT* is already accepted to be true.

  23. Re:so be a vegetarian by zwarte+piet · · Score: 2

    If people would eat meat once or twice a week and buy organic meat when they do, the problem wouldn't exist either.

  24. Who says they aren't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Who says we are applying them randomly to livestock?"

    Who says we aren't?

    "Antibiotics cost money"

    And minor illnesses reduce the accelerated growth that intensive animal farming is trying to do. Which loses money. Applying selectively takes time and effort and that costs money. Mindlessly mass-vaccinating is simple.

    Your thinking is far far FAR too narrow. Stretch your thinking brain.

    1. Re:Who says they aren't? by pepty · · Score: 2

      There's nothing random about it: the dosage is calculated so as to maximize animal weight at time of slaughter.

    2. Re:Who says they aren't? by crmarvin42 · · Score: 2

      You cannot safely make such a broad generalization here.

      Many farms, in my addmitedly anecdotal experience "most", only use antibiotics in a targeted way becuase of the cost associated with their use. Swine farms routinely administer them via feed or water to nursery pigs, but outside of the first month post-weaning, using is dramatically curtailed. Piglets in first couple of weeks post-weaning are very prone to clinical disease outbreaks (which require much higher antibiotic doses to treat), higher mortalities (as a result of disease challenge normally), and yes slower growth.

      Sub-theraputic antibiotics can help with all three of these, but the growth factor is actually the least important, becuase by the end of the 2nd month post-weaning any differences disappear into the normal variability in animal performance. It is more about keeping more pigs alive and healthy through the stress of weaning than it is about performance. After they've made it through the most difficult period the value proposition for antibiotics is dramatically reduced, which is why sub-theraputic doses are not as common there. Bascially, they are not worth the cost to many farmers later

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  25. No, Vanc is what the staph has for dessert by Marrow · · Score: 1

    At this point, they love the stuff.

  26. who are their biggest customers? by Marrow · · Score: 1

    Is most of the meat going to the meat section of the supermarket, to tacobell and wendys? Or does it just go everywhere.

  27. Re:"behind the curve" by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Well to be fair when you have a feed lot with 1000 head of cattle on it packed in nose to nose like sardines knee deep in their own filth there is a good reason to pump them full of antibiotics. The antibiotics don't make the animals grow faster but enable the conditions to fatten them up quicker. The steroids they give them also help them grow quicker and larger as well.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  28. Re:"behind the curve" by ttucker · · Score: 1

    The fact the claim of over-indulgence in pre-emptive antibiotics use in cattle is a cause of resistant bacteria strains affecting humans is under-reported in the mainstream US media does not mean it is not supported by reputable scientific studies.

    This has nothing to do with pro EU or anti-US but everything with pro-shady business or anti-consumer.

    No, the transfer of antibiotic resistant bacteria from livestock hosts to humans is in fact poorly demonstrated. Most scientists and other humans think it should be true, and so fairly vehemently defend the claim. They are probably right, but the science is weak.

  29. Re:"behind the curve" by Methuseus · · Score: 1

    The problem with this is that it will cut into profits. Even though it's better for all, humans and food animals alike, it will take a lot to make it happen.

    --
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
  30. Re:"behind the curve" by tlambert · · Score: 1

    That said, let me explain it to you: bacteria wants to live. Bacteria will evolve to survive in places where it is not welcome. The bacteria are simple organisms, and don't like to waste space in their DNA on stupid shit just for fun. The presence of vaccines in places that they want to live is usually a problem, but they adapt to it. If the vaccines were not there, there would be no evolutionary pressure to evade the vaccines. Understand? Or do I need to break out the image macros, as stupid memes like `curolation =! causashon' is probably a better learning tool for you.

    I think you need to prove causation in order to claim that what the FDA is doing is wrong and what European regulatory agencies are doing is right. Right now, we have a declaration by the OP of their opinion to that effect, with no supporting evidence.

    I am not arguing that overuse of antibiotics in an organism does not result in drug resistant strains within that organism. However, it is a leap of faith to attribute an increase in drug resistant bacteria within a human population which:

    (A) Works long hours to the point of physical exhaustion, and therefore, reduced immune system effectiveness
    (B) Works in unsanitary conditions
    (C) Works around sharp objects and unfinished construction materials on a daily basis
    (C.1) Has a tendency towards worker-worker blood contact due to cuts, scrapes, and abrasions
    (D) Tends to have common traffic corridors
    (E) Tends to have common areas for food consumption
    (F) Tends to have common sanitary areas, such as showers and locker rooms
    (G) Tends to share common tools or materials due to expense

    I read the study, and did not see these factors being removed from possible bias,

    I would like to see a corresponding study for European factory farm workers.

    Europe does not have the rules, which the OP implies it has, against use of antibiotics; what it does have is a set of rules about *which* antibiotics may be used in this manner, and the antibiotics for livestock and human populations are intended to be, in as much as it is possible for them to be, a non-intersecting set.

    A corresponding European study would, were the OP's hypothesis (which is all it is without evidence at this point) correct, be expected to have a similar profile for infections resistant to the antibiotics used on livestock, and not resistant to the antibiotics used on humans.

    In other words, you'd expect the T(treatable+untreatable) infections to be the same in both populations, IFF a factory far using antibiotics were a prerequisite for development of antibiotic resistant strains, and you'd expect a difference in ratios of T(treatable) and T(untreatable) to be different between the populations.

    Just to be crystal clear about the correct experimental design in this case, you would need to randomly sample a statistically significant portion of the population of individuals with MRSA infections in both populations by culturing the infection in laboratory conditions, rather than simply treating it, and then you would need to compare each culture for antibiotic resistance profile to different antibiotics to see if the European MRSA was predominantly resistant to antibiotic drugs used on livestock, but not on humans.

    Participation in this study would have to imply a treatment protocol change in order to obtain bacterial samples from farm workers presenting with infection.

    I really can't believe you are claiming ignorance on my behalf, when you are unable to cite such a study one way or the other, or to see the (obvious to me) possibility of an experiment that could more or less definitively answer the question on way or the other -- rather than just toting out the same old, tired argument against factory farming in the U.S. while implying at the same time it's no longer practiced in Europe (it is practice there).

    Thanks.

  31. Re:You're saying there isn't any? by Empiric · · Score: 1

    The issue isn't that denying evolution means denying bacteria evolve, though there are many who do, and refuse medication because praying to god will fix it unless he has a Greater Plan for it.

    Let's go with the "back claims with evidence" model here. Show some evidence of these "many" (or even one) who would deny bacteria evolve.

    Are you saying there's only a particular subgroup that makes medically ill-advised choices? I'm not sure what your point is here. Similarly, even if an overwhelming percentage of, say, atheists would say a fellow atheist should get a given treatment regardless of cost, one decides for themselves it is, say, "too expensive", that speaks to the atheist viewpoint?

    And no, it is in no way the case that denying "macro-evolution" denies "micro-evolution". Watch this:

    I deny "macro-evolution".
    I do not deny "micro-evolution".

    Seems the fabric of reality did not split apart with the impossible conjunction of statements.

    Let's tempt fate and try again...

    I deny Mark won the state lottery five times in a row.
    I don't deny Mark won the office hockey pool.

    Still nothing. Interesting.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  32. It's the ultimate in cost shifting by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    Engage in practices which are proven to eventually cause a trillion dollar worldwide public health crisis

    Same practices make you marginally more money.. enough for another yacht for you and 100k a year preschool for each of your lobbyists' children , a bunch of plus 40k a month alimony payments all around...

    No missing step!

    Profit !

    The FDA is cock sucking bitch boy of corporate interest. This is what happens when you vote in people who hate government- they stock the government with people determined to undermine the mission of government.

    It's the revolving door from industry to the government Once you've worked in the government, you should be forbidden from working in industry for a decade. You can live on a "thanks for serving your nation" pension. Anyone who doesn't like the sound of that is the problem in the first place.

  33. Re:"behind the curve" by Zeromous · · Score: 1

    =! != DOES NOT EQUAL

    --
    ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
  34. Re:"behind the curve" by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

    It's not about profit, it's about management and investor laziness. Businesses tend to maximize the profit : effort ratio rather than profit itself.

    Polyculture farms have greater profit margins than industrial monocultures but require a higher degree of planning, coordination and labor. It's easy to see why: similar or enhanced productivity plus reduced or eliminated spending on inputs equals greater profitability. Savings on inputs can also be directly reinvested towards water and labor, increasing productivity further.

    Here's an agroeconomic study (PDF) of profitability and another agricultural study demonstrating the productivity benefits of polyculture and hybrid "mostly organic" type approaches.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  35. Re:It's all bullshit by reve_etrange · · Score: 2
    You're wrong, because you don't understand the methods used. In fact, the linked PLoS ONE article reports the proportion of drug-resistant strains, not just the presence.

    Among 99 ILO and 105 AFLO participants, S. aureus nasal carriage prevalence was 41% and 40%, respectively. Among ILO and AFLO S. aureus carriers, MRSA was detected in 7% (3/41) and 7% (3/42), respectively. Thirty seven percent of 41 ILO versus 19% of 42 AFLO S. aureus-positive participants carried MDRSA. S. aureus clonal complex (CC) 398 was observed only among workers and predominated among ILO (13/34) compared with AFLO (1/35) S. aureus-positive workers. Only ILO workers carried scn-negative MRSA CC398 (2/34) and scn-negative MDRSA CC398 (6/34), and all of these isolates were tetracycline resistant.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  36. Is the science final? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I remember reading an article where they've never really traced a drug-resistant strain as having come from preventative antibiotic use, that the biggest source of resistant strains is people failing to take the full course of their antibiotics.

    The theory espoused was that preventative doses of antibiotics, being below that of clinical treatment, are enough to 'disadvantage' targeted bacteria such that immune systems did most of the heavy lifting, preventing infections from taking hold. But at the same time the lower doses don't trigger the major evolution steps to become immune to the antibiotic, as the evolutionary pressure isn't there.

    It was also mentioned in the study that antibiotic use tended to be stable whether they used antibiotics as a preventative or not - Therapeutic doses are far higher, thus the additional occasional need to actually treat the cattle with full up antibiotic courses to treat actual illness evens out(within error of margin) total average use. It's just in sharp spikes rather than being even.

    All this being said, if you're going to be dosing cattle with antibiotics to help them grow faster, you should probably stick to the older drugs, not 'front line' antibiotics intended for patients with resistant strains.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  37. Re:"behind the curve" by blackest_k · · Score: 1

    If factory farms are more dangerous perhaps its due to the less than ideal living conditions the animals are living in. Overcrowding less than desired sanitary living conditions tend to favour disease in all animals including us.

    I'm sure that can be backed up by someone with more of an inclination to provide citations. What would happen to the american economy if food prices were to substantially rise by 50 , 100% or more?

    It seems from this side of the atlantic that there is a concerted effort by the FDA and related bodies to ensure this doesn't happen. There is commercial pressure towards products with long shelf lives, for ready foods which contain lower quality ingredients. Coming from farming country I know there is produce good enough to be sold fresh good enough to be frozen pickled and then the worst packet soup and baby food.

    Of course it makes economic sense to use the lowest quality ingredients that produce an acceptable product. However being the consumer of these made to a price foods it doesn't taste so good does it.

    Do you really know what you are eating? Do you really want to know?

    The use of antibiotics on farms is because it is the most cost productive option.

    Say we do run out of effective antibiotics there may be massive numbers of deaths mainly the poor and sick and elderly being of generally poorer state of health. If you don't see these as people and individuals that would probably be an economic win too. Less poverty a more productive society and lower crime rates whats not to like and so much more acceptable than genocide.

    --
    Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
  38. Re:"behind the curve" by ttucker · · Score: 1
    I think perhaps you have misunderstood the intention of my reply. It was directed at the post to which it replied, mostly when the guy said:

    Understand? Or do I need to break out the image macros, as stupid memes like `curolation =! causashon' is probably a better learning tool for you. --Pseudonym Authority

    Maybe he was lambasting someone that actually is ignorant, but the argument that he used was wrong and is wrong. Science is not about telling people that they are stupid and to listen to an expert. Scientific thought is about asking annoying questions, and finding answers through observation of physical phenomena.

    The for example differential hypothesis is not my belief about what is happening on farms, I personally think that giving antibiotics to farm animals continuously is probably a bad idea. That said, if the evidence for the first conclusion (farm workers are getting MRSA from livestock) was really that rigorous, there would be a better answer to the second hypothesis (farm workers get MRSA from something else they have in common) than STFU. The best way to public policy action is airtight science, not arm waving and "scientific consensus".

  39. Re:"behind the curve" by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Bacteria can be easily transferred from animals to humans.

    Can be, yes, but NOT easily, and I've seen NO evidence thus far that the antibiotic resistant strains that are plaguing hospitals have been linked to animals.

    So far, all I've seen is assumptions and dogma, and you've provided

    It is possible. Which means it will probably happen, given enough occurrences.

    It's possible, but is it 1 in 10 or 1 in 10billion? It completely changes the risk/reward calculation.

    What's the advantage of using antibiotics for no reason, other than somehow making animals grow faster?

    Keeping animals healthy and disease free is a big benefit. Livestock plagues would be a very bad thing for humans. And it's not just profit margins, you're also talking about less resource usage, and lower food prices for the poor. These are all good things,

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  40. Re:"behind the curve" by ericloewe · · Score: 1

    If animals are not healthy, then antibiotics are being administered as the answer to a specific illness, not randomly. Do you randomly take antibiotics every day? I sure hope not.

  41. Re:"behind the curve" by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Still waiting for any studies linking antibiotic resistant bacteria in humans to livestock...

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant