Hacker News Reader

Comment by awolf | Hacker News Reader

>These bacteria are finding ways to get around antibiotics in animals

>"We've actually run out of antibiotics that really keep animals healthy," Price said. "We're finding strains of bacteria in animals that are resistant to so many antibiotics."

How about this novel solution: stop raising animals in a way that requires them to guzzle down tons of antibiotics in order to survive.

I love how this article fails to even mention the possibility that livestock animals do not need to ALWAYS BE SICK. Preposterous.

View on HN

It's slightly more complicated than that.

You see, farmers have discovered that if you feed certain animals antibiotics even when they aren't sick typically the animals will grow faster and bigger. This is great for farmers because more pounds of meat means more cash. But there are some significant negative externalities to operating what is effectively a ginormous petri dish veritably designed to encourage the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Last year the FDA finally made antibiotics in live stock require a prescription [1]. So now you need a complicit vet before you can continuously dose your farm animals with antibiotics.

[1] - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/antibiotics-for-livesto...

I doubt that will be much of a problem. There are a lot of vets out there with huge student loans and dire employment prospects. You could probably find one to write whatever you wanted.

The problem with capitalism is that pure capitalism does not account for social issues, be them human-related or animal-related. Neither does communism.

But people still believe that raw capitalism (or, in cases like North Korea, communism) can succeed.

Awareness seems to be spreading about the negative health implications of our factory-food system as a whole. It's possible that demand will shift. Capitalism will adapt.

I do not believe that the demand will shift, simply as the amount of people depending on cheap food is too high. As better living conditions for the animals result in lower profits, these products simply will not be bought as no one can afford them.

Agriculture in the US is absolutely nothing like "raw capitalism". It is extremely regulated. Farmers are subsidized. It's nothing like "raw capitalism" in several very important ways.

Cash crops, sugar, meat and milk production are extremely regulated and subsidized.

However, the production of many agricultural products like fruits, vegetables and nuts is pretty close to "raw capitalism."

You mean, were the US to implement "raw capitalism", whatever that is, the externalities from antibiotic overuse are going to be priced in correctly? What mechanism do you suggest?

If it were "extremely regulated", then there would not be regular news reports about contaminated meat scandals and stuff like "The Meatrix" would not exist. Simply put, if there are regulations, then they're either just pro forma or not enforced enough.

There are thousands of pages of regulations on federal meat standards. I think your statement would work better if you said, "If it were 'well regulated/sensibly regulated'..."

It's also possible that regulations are confusing, unenforceable, out of date, or addressing symptoms instead of causes.

I don't disagree with you, but I think your comment needed some clarification.

I would rather say that "Big Money" is preventing existing regulations from being enforced.

The biggest issue is, of course, the sequester and the general lack of funding for food inspection - if there were enough food and animal safety inspectors, food scandals would simply not exist because of inspection pressure.

The second issue, tightly connected with the funding issue, is lobbyism. The "food lobby" has only recently lobbied for making recording of animal rights violation a crime...

People are denial about fascism in the USA. Just look at how many pharmaceutical products are approved by the FDA only to be eventually recalled. Of further concern are the pharmaceuticals advertised as having side effects which "may result in death."

How can the FDA allow these products?

On the one hand, yes sometimes bad things get approved in error. On the other hand, pharmaceuticals are already very tightly regulated. Plain old Aspirin wouldn't be approved by the FDA if it were invented today, it's too dangerous by their standards.

What some refer to as "crony capitalism" is more properly labeled "fascism." (Corporate intermingling with government at the expense of the plebiscite) As evidence there's the trend toward appointing people with strong ties to the very entities which they are appointed to regulate. (Can you say "conflict of interest?)

http://www.naturalnews.com/020029_Byron_Richard_Andrew_von_E...

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/02/pharmaceutical-c...

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/case-study-in-corporatoc...

Compare these facts to the recent crackdowns on natural foods.

http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/litigation-FDA.htm

As for "tightly regulated" pharmaceuticals, have you any citations in support of this claim?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2012/10/10/fda-recall...

Fascism is "extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."

I can see how strongly held views might lead one to exaggeration, but I don't think hyperbole lends anyone's position much authority.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Your definition is a new interpretation, and is only one of many forms of fascism.

I'll continue to adhere to the definition which predates the internet, Wikipedia, and the other sources which have chosen to ignore the words of the father of modern fascism. Ergo, The USA is, arguably, the epitome of a fascist nation. I'm not exaggerating at all.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7260.htm

Well, I'll certainly admit we do have a lot of fasces in our government symbology.[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces#Fasces_in_the_United_Sta...

Just to play devil's advocate: sometimes the dangers of a drug aren't evident until many years after exposure. The FDA tries to balance the benefit of the drug with the dangers. Otherwise, many beneficial and lifesaving drugs wouldn't hit the market until decades after the initial trials.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5583878

The recent sequestration doesn't affect anything that led to the current standards. It may affect the regulatory environment going forward, but we're in the current situation independent of it.

I agree that food safety is a concern, but believe the source of the problem lies in the American relationship with food. More, bigger, and cheaper lead to the conditions we see.

... or (and I think this might be a pretty effect) they fail to take into account unforeseen side effects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com