by April McCarthy
March 30, 2015
from PreventDisease Website
April McCarthy is a community journalist playing an active role reporting and analyzing world events to advance our health and eco-friendly initiatives. |
by April McCarthy March 30, 2015 from PreventDisease Website
Infections resistant to antibiotics are kill well over 100,000 people worldwide and independent panel has estimated that global deaths could soar to 10 million a year by 2050 at a cost to the economy of $100 trillion.
Even the FDA has conceded that if we don't phase out
antibiotic use in farm animals, the world may be vulnerable to
killer diseases in the future.
Most of the increase in antibiotic use is expected to be in middle-income countries, but once resistant bacteria appear, they can spread round the world.
The problem is getting worse as people become more prosperous and eat more meat and dairy.
For example, Tim Robinson of the
International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi, Kenya,
and his colleagues calculate that the total biomass of livestock
around the world now outstrips that of people, illustrating the size
of the demand.
Traditionally, livestock foraged for grass or scraps in pastures or alleys, but producers worldwide are increasingly switching to intensive production with animals fed in crowded barns, as is already done in rich countries.
Low doses of antibiotics are routinely added to the
animal feed whether or not they are sick, to make the livestock gain
more weight per gram of food eaten and boost farmers' slender
profits.
Meat from corn-fed cattle is also far more
contaminated with
E. coli bacteria, partly because corn interferes
with ruminant digestion, and partly because the animals are crowded
together in filthy conditions. E. coli levels are much lower in
grass-fed cattle.
To find out, Robinson's team looked at the amount of antibiotics farmers in rich countries feed to their intensively reared livestock. Then they mapped pig, chicken and cattle populations worldwide, noting the proportions that are raised intensively, and how that is predicted to grow over the next decades.
With the help of a computer model they calculated the antibiotics consumption of each country's livestock. China is the worst offender, with its livestock consuming 15,000 tonnes a year, 50 per cent more than the US, the next on the list.
Surprisingly, given the 2006 European Union ban on
antibiotic growth-promoters, Germany is the fourth-highest consumer.
FDA is working to address the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals for production uses, such as to enhance growth or improve feed efficiency.
These drugs are deemed important because they are also used to treat human disease and might not work if the bacteria they target become resistant to the drugs' effects.
Worryingly, China's consumption will double by 2030, along with that of India, Brazil and South Africa.
Consumption will more than double in countries such
as Indonesia, Nigeria and Peru.
The drugs are primarily added to feed, although they are sometimes added to the animals' drinking water.
Bacteria evolve to survive threats to their existence. In both humans and animals, even appropriate therapeutic uses of antibiotics can promote the development of drug resistant bacteria.
When such bacteria enter the food supply, they can be
transferred to the people who eat food from the treated animal.
A
recent study (Lateral
Transfer of Genes and Gene Fragments in Staphylococcus Extends
beyond Mobile Elements) demonstrated that the extent of horizontal gene
transfer among Staphylococcus is
much greater than previously expected - and encompasses genes with
functions beyond antibiotic resistance and virulence, and beyond
genes residing within the mobile genetic elements.
In addition, pathogens may be self-sufficient for
certain nutritional compounds or be able to sequester them.
The guidance document that FDA is issuing on Dec. 11,
2013, which was previously issued in draft form in 2012, lays out
such a strategy and marks the beginning of the formal implementation
period.
Increased public pressure may cause the companies who
grow animals for food to collectively decide that putting extra
weight on feed animals isn't worth the possibility that they are
putting consumers' health at risk.
|