POTUS advisors vote for Superbug Czar but go soft on farm antibiotic use

Critics say experts are not doing enough to curb use of drugs in agriculture.

Read the whole story

 

[unimatrix725]

Republic*nts will be all over this. Swearing Obama is overstepping his authority... In general its a good start!

 

[pjcamp]

Anthropogenic drug resistance is clearly a conspiracy by scientists intent on establishing one world socialism and getting rich off of research dollars. The fact that I was cured of my toenail infection last week proves it.

 

[Aelinsaar]

If they don't give a shit about climate change, it seems natural that they don't give a shit about this either.

ars diavoli[/url]":3vvc0kvd]When a Republican president starts unilaterally appointing czars for this-and-that the press will be crying about the abuse of executive power.

It depends on the czar, doesn't it? There's a difference between the "Czar on drugs" and the czar trying to keep us from losing the edge between "oh no, this cut hath slain me!" and today.

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

ars diavoli[/url]":1xzf0t17]When a Republican president starts unilaterally appointing czars for this-and-that the press will be crying about the abuse of executive power.

I was a bit young at the time; did they when Bush appointed his czars?

More on topic: I am glad to see this, I think. A more unified approach to fighting superbugs and antibiotic resistance is a good thing. If they can start data collection, that's a solid first step.

 

[IamBot]

It would be inhumane not to treat sick animals properly

How about humans? It's perfectly fine to deny proper medication to humans, but OMG not to the poor animals. I'm not advocating for inhumane treatment of animals but the balance that's being struck right now boggles the mind.

 

[Oz7]

If I get this straight, it took the 15 person panel one year to figure out that they need a czar to make sure efforts relating to 30% of antibiotic use are not duplicated, while failing to note the elephant in the room responsible for 70% (& growing) of antibiotic use.

This really strikes me as inadequate & "It's a really complicated issue" does not pass muster. If it's bad for doctors and hospitals to do it, then it can't be good for the Ag industry to use 5x as much, now can it?

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

Oz7[/url]":3tfwrozo]If I get this straight, it took the 15 person panel one year to figure out that they need a czar to make sure efforts relating to 30% of antibiotic use are not duplicated, while failing to note the elephant in the room responsible for 70% (& growing) of antibiotic use.

It's a really complicated issue does not pass muster. If it's bad for doctors and hospitals to do it, then it can't be good for the Ag industry to use 5x as much, now can it?

That part is a bit mind-boggling. The announcement was made over a year ago (March 27). They didn't even convene until this week.

 

[HighElf]

The farm lobby has way too much power.

The big elephant in the room is that 70% of antibiotics are used in farm animals at medium doses. This is a recipe for antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Oh, and the farm lobby of course viciously denies basic evolution - why isn't anyone being held accountable? Could it have anything to do with the campaign contributions (bribes) of the farm lobby?

They are totally similar to big tobacco.

 

[Matty]

“It’s a really, really complicated issue,”

Translation: "The drug & farm lobbying groups are throwing a lot of money at us to make this go away."

 

[Kyuu]

Here's the thing: it's not complicated. You make rules that the ag industry has to report their antibiotic use because it's a public health issue. This isn't anything new. Yes, people will cry and deny the problem despite all evidence. But dealing with that kind of thing is kind of the point of this little group, isn't it?

 

[LeftCoastRusty]

No one is talking about not treating sick animals. But the majority of antibiotic use on farms is prophylactic, which most certainly does cause problems with drug resistant drugs....just like it does in humans.

 

[Oldmanalex]

If you want to make a living cell resistant to something, you simply feed it sub lethal doses of the drug for a long time. We do this with cancer cells all of the time. The difference is that with cancer cells, the chances of the cells then infecting humans is pretty low unless you are a Tasmanian Devil hybrid. This is also inherently unfair; how can the individual with a rocket pack and a 63 Chevy compete for Darwin Awards with big Ag?

 

[Neep33]

This is moronic. Pushing doctors to stop giving drugs to HUMANS so that the idiot farmers can keep pumping their animals full of it is beyond stupid.

This kills 23000 people a year. That is almost 8 9/11s a year from this idiocy.

Just have the FDA issue a command saying 'no antibiotics for farm animals' period. I mean come on people. Letting farmers make more money is directly resulting in thousands of us dying a year. This is not rocket science.

Not sure we are going to do about other countries being idiots (see India's massive over the counter use of anti-biotics), but we can at least not be morons in our own country.

 

[Arkle]

LeftCoastRusty[/url]":2utnkqjb]No one is talking about not treating sick animals. But the majority of antibiotic use on farms is prophylactic, which most certainly does cause problems with drug resistant drugs....just like it does in humans.

Prophylactic is not the right word, because you are not preventing disease. Antibiotic use in production animals is done in order to maximize weight gain per day, thereby maximizing the price that the livestock will get at the sale.

Superbugs being created so that Farmer John can (and Corporate Farmer John) can buy two Cadillacs instead of one.

 

[RickRoyLeonPrisZhoraRachael]

I'd like the con-agra and pharma companies to step up (ahem be accountable) and provide all local (affected) municipality water treatment plants funding to upgrade better filtration of medicines in the supply.
"You make the drugs, you clean it up! All of it."
Med students know that the human body can only process up to 500mg of drugs at a time, the rest is filtered out in waste. I would assume pharma knows this too, and turns a blind eye. We know heavy metals are a problem (*see flint, michigan. Do not hear much about effects of tainted river water from Colorado EPA breech), but no one talks about hormones, antidepressants and painkillers in city water supplies.

 

[Wickwick]

“I don’t know how you tell them ‘you’ve just got to come up with this [data],” Apley said.

Simple. You tell them, "provide this data or we'll just make assumptions about how your antibiotics are used and work from there. And you won't like our assumptions."

 

[AustinAllan]

This just goes to show how corrupt our government is. Profits are more important than the public health and even the good guys cannot take on the farm lobby

 

[cburn11]

Oz7[/url]":1ux2xuza]If I get this straight, it took the 15 person panel one year to figure out that they need a czar to make sure efforts relating to 30% of antibiotic use are not duplicated, while failing to note the elephant in the room responsible for 70% (& growing) of antibiotic use.

This really strikes me as inadequate & "It's a really complicated issue" does not pass muster. If it's bad for doctors and hospitals to do it, then it can't be good for the Ag industry to use 5x as much, now can it?

There is a significant amount of opinion contrary to the "fact" stated in the article:

Currently, about 70 percent of antibiotics sold in the US go to food animals. All of those antibiotics are identical or very similar to drugs used in humans, which can lead to cross-overs in which drug resistant bacteria developing and living on farms then spread to people (and vice versa).

Take for example the Animal Health Institute which indicates it is a myth that "Antibiotics used in animals are the cause of major human drug resistant diseases." http://www.ahi.org/issues-advocacy/anim ... tic-myths/

 

[jdale]

Neep33[/url]":2916ulh7]This is moronic. Pushing doctors to stop giving drugs to HUMANS so that the idiot farmers can keep pumping their animals full of it is beyond stupid.

This kills 23000 people a year. That is almost 8 9/11s a year from this idiocy.

Just have the FDA issue a command saying 'no antibiotics for farm animals' period. I mean come on people. Letting farmers make more money is directly resulting in thousands of us dying a year. This is not rocket science.

Not sure we are going to do about other countries being idiots (see India's massive over the counter use of anti-biotics), but we can at least not be morons in our own country.

It's probably not viable to ban all antibiotics for livestock, but it would certainly make sense to restrict the list of what is permissible. For example, colistin was mentioned here as a "last resort" antibiotic. Obviously the antibiotics which are reserved for use as last resorts -- which is to say the ones we most carefully limit the usage of to prevent the development of immunity -- should not be used on livestock.

Mandatory reporting would be a good step forward as well.

 

[cburn11]

jdale[/url]":243le7zp]

Neep33[/url]":243le7zp]This is moronic. Pushing doctors to stop giving drugs to HUMANS so that the idiot farmers can keep pumping their animals full of it is beyond stupid.

This kills 23000 people a year. That is almost 8 9/11s a year from this idiocy.

Just have the FDA issue a command saying 'no antibiotics for farm animals' period. I mean come on people. Letting farmers make more money is directly resulting in thousands of us dying a year. This is not rocket science.

Not sure we are going to do about other countries being idiots (see India's massive over the counter use of anti-biotics), but we can at least not be morons in our own country.

It's probably not viable to ban all antibiotics for livestock, but it would certainly make sense to restrict the list of what is permissible. For example, colistin was mentioned here as a "last resort" antibiotic. Obviously the antibiotics which are reserved for use as last resorts -- which is to say the ones we most carefully limit the usage of to prevent the development of immunity -- should not be used on livestock.

Mandatory reporting would be a good step forward as well.

In a way this is already done by practical necessity in the agricultural industry through "withdrawal periods" for medications given to livestock animals. The withdrawal periods of medicines also used in humans are often on the order of years, meaning that if given to livestock, the livestock cannot be used for "consumption" during the withdrawal period.

 

[Oz7]

cburn11[/url]":2s85nrq6]

Oz7[/url]":2s85nrq6]If I get this straight, it took the 15 person panel one year to figure out that they need a czar to make sure efforts relating to 30% of antibiotic use are not duplicated, while failing to note the elephant in the room responsible for 70% (& growing) of antibiotic use.

This really strikes me as inadequate & "It's a really complicated issue" does not pass muster. If it's bad for doctors and hospitals to do it, then it can't be good for the Ag industry to use 5x as much, now can it?

There is a significant amount of opinion contrary to the "fact" stated in the article:

Currently, about 70 percent of antibiotics sold in the US go to food animals. All of those antibiotics are identical or very similar to drugs used in humans, which can lead to cross-overs in which drug resistant bacteria developing and living on farms then spread to people (and vice versa).

Take for example the Animal Health Institute which indicates it is a myth that "Antibiotics used in animals are the cause of major human drug resistant diseases." http://www.ahi.org/issues-advocacy/anim ... tic-myths/

Uhm... you may want to pick a body with a slightly better hidden conflict of interest. Animal Health Institute seems to be essentially the conglomerate of companies producing the meds that are given to the cattle- their opinion is not exactly a "fair and balanced", is it?

On second thought, I guess it is.

 

[Miles]

about 70 percent of antibiotics sold in the US go to food animals. All of those antibiotics are identical or very similar to drugs used in humans

Not true, ionophores make up a large part of the 'antibiotics' used in livestock and are not like those used in people. I say 'antibiotics' because, as a previous Ars article correctly stated, ionophores aren't antibiotics. On an equivalent measure, humans use significantly more antibiotics than animals do. Most bugs don't cross species.

 

[cburn11]

Oz7[/url]":735r27rl]

cburn11[/url]":735r27rl]

Oz7[/url]":735r27rl]If I get this straight, it took the 15 person panel one year to figure out that they need a czar to make sure efforts relating to 30% of antibiotic use are not duplicated, while failing to note the elephant in the room responsible for 70% (& growing) of antibiotic use.

This really strikes me as inadequate & "It's a really complicated issue" does not pass muster. If it's bad for doctors and hospitals to do it, then it can't be good for the Ag industry to use 5x as much, now can it?

There is a significant amount of opinion contrary to the "fact" stated in the article:

Currently, about 70 percent of antibiotics sold in the US go to food animals. All of those antibiotics are identical or very similar to drugs used in humans, which can lead to cross-overs in which drug resistant bacteria developing and living on farms then spread to people (and vice versa).

Take for example the Animal Health Institute which indicates it is a myth that "Antibiotics used in animals are the cause of major human drug resistant diseases." http://www.ahi.org/issues-advocacy/anim ... tic-myths/

Uhm... you may want to pick a body with a slightly better hidden conflict of interest. Animal Health Institute seems to be essentially the conglomerate of companies producing the meds that are given to the cattle- their opinion is not exactly a "fair and balanced", is it?

On second thought, I guess it is.

You're absolutely right; their counter argument should be summarily dismissed without examining its merits.

 

[Miles]

In fact, the meat industry has largely seemed to ignore them. Between 2009 and 2014, antibiotic use in agriculture increased by 22 percent.

As is typical, you make a simplistic assumption without applying proper thought. You know how they say it's important for people to finish the full course even though they feel better? (To reduce risk of resistant bacteria.) Would the same not apply to livestock? A course of drugs for livestock is usually much shorter than for humans. For some drugs the labelled duration of therapy has been increased. That would contribute to an increase in the quantity used while at the same time reduce the risk of resistant bugs.

Just because "critics" disagree with the panel doesn't mean those critics have a clue what they are talking about.

 

[Miles]

veterinary antibiotics were previously all over-the-counter

That's just plain wrong. Unless by "previously" you mean like 70 years ago or something. Where do people get such ridiculous ideas from?

To the extent newer generation drugs are used on farms, take a look at the pharmaceutical industry. They want to make as much money as they can on new drugs so they stop making the older ones, even though the older ones were quite effective.

 

[Tcee]

IamBot[/url]":2ccys0ew]

It would be inhumane not to treat sick animals properly

How about humans? It's perfectly fine to deny proper medication to humans, but OMG not to the poor animals. I'm not advocating for inhumane treatment of animals but the balance that's being struck right now boggles the mind.

The balance is even off as regards the animals alone. Farms use antibiotics pre-empively, so on animals that aren't even sick. That way they can pack more of them together without epidemics breaking out. This use of antibiotics really can't be seen as treatment and it's definitely not in the animals' interest. Since it's profitable, no one will stop doing this unless you make everyone stop and ensure a level playing field.

 

[Shavano]

ars diavoli[/url]":dqyv3rr3]When a Republican president starts unilaterally appointing czars for this-and-that the press will be crying about the abuse of executive power.

Except they'll be the Abortion Czar and the Bathroom Gender Czar and the Religious Liberty Czar.

 

[Shavano]

Regulate how much antibiotics a farm can buy. If you buy more than would be needed to treat 5% of your herd for an infection, you must have a raging epidemic that endangers nearby farms. You're put under quarantine. No animals in or out for three months. If you exceed 15%, guys from the FDA come to euthanize your herd.

 

[WhataboutmyrightsDMCA]

I think the only members should be the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the NIH. Anyone ekse has major conflicts of interest.

Sadly, I think it's too late.

 

[gijames1225]

In general, the U.S. pollutes it's food considerably more than, say Europe. There's a reason it tales closed door meetings to pass the trade agreements that let U.S. food suppliers sell non-compliant meat to EU member states. Hopefully we can work to get caught up with the rest of the civilized world.

 

[rabish12]

cburn11[/url]":3ocfr6su]

Oz7[/url]":3ocfr6su]

cburn11[/url]":3ocfr6su]

Oz7[/url]":3ocfr6su]If I get this straight, it took the 15 person panel one year to figure out that they need a czar to make sure efforts relating to 30% of antibiotic use are not duplicated, while failing to note the elephant in the room responsible for 70% (& growing) of antibiotic use.

This really strikes me as inadequate & "It's a really complicated issue" does not pass muster. If it's bad for doctors and hospitals to do it, then it can't be good for the Ag industry to use 5x as much, now can it?

There is a significant amount of opinion contrary to the "fact" stated in the article:

Currently, about 70 percent of antibiotics sold in the US go to food animals. All of those antibiotics are identical or very similar to drugs used in humans, which can lead to cross-overs in which drug resistant bacteria developing and living on farms then spread to people (and vice versa).

Take for example the Animal Health Institute which indicates it is a myth that "Antibiotics used in animals are the cause of major human drug resistant diseases." http://www.ahi.org/issues-advocacy/anim ... tic-myths/

Uhm... you may want to pick a body with a slightly better hidden conflict of interest. Animal Health Institute seems to be essentially the conglomerate of companies producing the meds that are given to the cattle- their opinion is not exactly a "fair and balanced", is it?

On second thought, I guess it is.

You're absolutely right; their counter argument should be summarily dismissed without examining its merits.

Well, their counter-argument is to cite the IDSA (well... a specific IDSA FAQ) and call them a reputable source, saying that "review of one reputable source for categorizing the major resistance problems in humans shows that these resistance problems have little or nothing to do with animal use of antibiotics". So I guess the IDSA agrees with... oh wait...

A large and compelling body of scientific evidence demonstrates that antibiotic use in agriculture contributes to the emergence of resistant bacteria and their spread to humans. IDSA is working to eliminate inappropriate uses of antibiotics in food animals and other aspects of agriculture and aquaculture. This includes ending the use of antibiotics for growth promotion, feed efficiency, and routine disease prevention purposes in food animals; requiring prescriptions and veterinary oversight of all antibiotics given to animals; and ensuring that antibiotic use in all animals, similar to human medicine, is carried out under the supervision of a veterinarian.

Huh. Well... at least they left wiggle room, looking at the way they wrote the argument they were responding to:

"Antibiotics used in animals are the cause of major human drug resistant diseases"

Because remember, it can't be a major cause of drug resistant diseases. Either it's the major cause or it has no impact whatsoever, because that's how stuff works.

Long story short: yes, counter-arguments from lobbying groups should be dismissed without examining their merits, especially when we're looking at talking points on a science-related issue. I made an exception here just for you, and it was a waste of a good fifteen minutes of my life.

 

[SixDegrees]

But, without that data, he added, it’s difficult to say how and what should be cut. It would be inhumane not to treat sick animals properly, so this needs to be done carefully, Apley emphasized.

But this is not a legitimate concern, because no one is proposing under-treatment of sick animals. What's being proposed is the reduction/elimination of antibiotics to animals that are NOT sick at all, in order to produce a negligible weight gain, a practice which consumes literally tons of antibiotics in the US livestock industry, and the elimination of "preventative" sub-clinical dosing of livestock use to prevent ulcerative maladies brought about by the appalling, deplorable conditions animals are subjected to in CAFOs that, again, are driven purely by profit rather than medical need or concern over livestock.

 

[Oz7]

rabish12[/url]":3aewsl0p]

cburn11[/url]":3aewsl0p]

Oz7[/url]":3aewsl0p]

cburn11[/url]":3aewsl0p]

Oz7[/url]":3aewsl0p]If I get this straight, it took the 15 person panel one year to figure out that they need a czar to make sure efforts relating to 30% of antibiotic use are not duplicated, while failing to note the elephant in the room responsible for 70% (& growing) of antibiotic use.

This really strikes me as inadequate & "It's a really complicated issue" does not pass muster. If it's bad for doctors and hospitals to do it, then it can't be good for the Ag industry to use 5x as much, now can it?

There is a significant amount of opinion contrary to the "fact" stated in the article:

Currently, about 70 percent of antibiotics sold in the US go to food animals. All of those antibiotics are identical or very similar to drugs used in humans, which can lead to cross-overs in which drug resistant bacteria developing and living on farms then spread to people (and vice versa).

Take for example the Animal Health Institute which indicates it is a myth that "Antibiotics used in animals are the cause of major human drug resistant diseases." http://www.ahi.org/issues-advocacy/anim ... tic-myths/

Uhm... you may want to pick a body with a slightly better hidden conflict of interest. Animal Health Institute seems to be essentially the conglomerate of companies producing the meds that are given to the cattle- their opinion is not exactly a "fair and balanced", is it?

On second thought, I guess it is.

You're absolutely right; their counter argument should be summarily dismissed without examining its merits.

Well, their counter-argument is to cite the IDSA (well... a specific IDSA FAQ) and call them a reputable source, saying that "review of one reputable source for categorizing the major resistance problems in humans shows that these resistance problems have little or nothing to do with animal use of antibiotics". So I guess the IDSA agrees with... oh wait...

A large and compelling body of scientific evidence demonstrates that antibiotic use in agriculture contributes to the emergence of resistant bacteria and their spread to humans. IDSA is working to eliminate inappropriate uses of antibiotics in food animals and other aspects of agriculture and aquaculture. This includes ending the use of antibiotics for growth promotion, feed efficiency, and routine disease prevention purposes in food animals; requiring prescriptions and veterinary oversight of all antibiotics given to animals; and ensuring that antibiotic use in all animals, similar to human medicine, is carried out under the supervision of a veterinarian.

Huh. Well... at least they left wiggle room, looking at the way they wrote the argument they were responding to:

"Antibiotics used in animals are the cause of major human drug resistant diseases"

Because remember, it can't be a major cause of drug resistant diseases. Either it's the major cause or it has no impact whatsoever, because that's how stuff works.

Long story short: yes, counter-arguments from lobbying groups should be dismissed without examining their merits, especially when we're looking at talking points on a science-related issue. I made an exception here just for you, and it was a waste of a good fifteen minutes of my life.

Thank you rabish. I was going to cite other instances where industry made "arguments" such as the oft cited tobacco one, or the more recent NFL saga but your reply is much better.

 

[ip_what]

All of those antibiotics [used in livestock] are identical or very similar to drugs used in humans, which can lead to cross-overs in which drug resistant bacteria developing and living on farms then spread to people (and vice versa).

Eh? I'm pretty sure that's not true (unless your playing very fast and loose with "similar".). It's very likely that antibiotic use in livestock is contributing to drug resistant diseases, but you don't need to oversell it.

 

[rabish12]

ip_what[/url]":133kbzrc]

All of those antibiotics [used in livestock] are identical or very similar to drugs used in humans, which can lead to cross-overs in which drug resistant bacteria developing and living on farms then spread to people (and vice versa).

Eh? I'm pretty sure that's not true (unless your playing very fast and loose with "similar".). It's very likely that antibiotic use in livestock is contributing to drug resistant diseases, but you don't need to oversell it.

I'm not sure it's an oversell. There's only really one meaning of the word "similar" that especially matters here, and it's "attacks bacteria using the same mechanism". At least as far as I understand it, the primary differences between the drugs used in humans and the ones used in animals are in terms of things like potency and quantity rather than in terms of how they operate. I'm not a pharmacologist though, so I could easily be wrong.

 

[eldonyo]

You'd think, in a rational world, that someone would figure out that you wouldn't need a Superbug Czar if you didn't let the commercial farming industry create superbugs in the first place.

 

[rabish12]

eldonyo[/url]":h8ujy84c]You'd think, in a rational world, that someone would figure out that you wouldn't need a Superbug Czar if you didn't let the commercial farming industry create superbugs in the first place.

In a rational world the most powerful voices on the issue of whether or not farmers should be allowed to overuse antibiotics to slightly increase yields at the potential expense of human lives would be scientists and not lobbyists, but that's not the world we live in.

 

[crmarvin42]

All of those antibiotics are identical or very similar to drugs used in humans

Simply not true.

It would be nice if Beth did a little more work understanding the nuances involved if she's going to be doing so many articles about antibiotics:
- Carbadox - a popular antibiotic for us in nursery pigs to prevent post-weaning scours is not covered by the Veterinary Feed Directive rules because it is not approved for use in humans at all and is therefore not important for human medicine
- Ionophores - an entire class of antibiotics not used in human medicine, and which make up ~20% of the antibiotics used in livestock. They have no known connection to human antimicrobial resistance because their mode of action is distinct from all other classes of antibiotics.

Never mind that raw tonnage is a horrible metric, as I've pointed out before (https://meincmagazine.com/civis/viewtopic ... #p30144883). What matters is doses, and as with all drugs, the dose is determined by the weight of the animal being treated.