An example from SFGate (a San Francisco local news and entertainment portal), entitled “Report links antibiotics at farms to human deaths”:
“The Centers for Disease Control on Monday confirmed a link between routine use of antibiotics in livestock and growing bacterial resistance that is killing at least 23,000 people a year.”
Other headlines, mostly from websites promoting vegetarian diets and opposing “factory farming,” state emphatically that the CDC has “discovered a link” between the administration of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance:”
“Antibiotics Used to Make Livestock More Profitable May Be Killing Us” – Truth Out
“Farm Antibiotics Linked to Human Deaths: CDC” – NewMaxHealth
I took the time to download and read the actual report (crazy, I know), “Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the US: 2013″. Within the report, there are statements of concern regarding risks of low level antibiotic use on factory farms. The CDC suggests that the practice should be phased out.
However, nowhere in the text does the CDC attribute any of the (estimated) 23,000 yearly deaths from drug resistant infections to livestock farming specifically. The report provides no indication as to what percentage of deaths are due to antibiotic use on farms, nor to any other specific cause.
This is, of course, for good reason. No one really knows.
What I found interesting, was a graphic that illustrates how drug resistant bacteria (and fungi) emerge and infiltrate the human population. In the graphic, there are two possible scenarios:
1) Resistance develops within the human gut, and resistant strains of bacteria spread through institutional environments by way of contact with fecal matter and due to improper cleaning and sterilization procedures.
2) Resistance develops within the animal gut, and drug resistant bacteria enter the human population through improperly cooked meat and through poor management of animal discharge with contaminates vegetable crops which humans eat.
The first scenario, is, of course, an operational problem. Out patient procedures are becoming more common to minimize the possibility of spreading resistant bacteria within institutional environments, but obviously it is impossible to contain every possible pathway at all times.
The second is more interesting, but again, this is also an operational problem. The first pathway, contact with uncooked meat, is a fairly easy problem to solve on an individual level. Cook your burgers or buy your horse sashimi only from places you can trust. Of course, there is no failsafe here.
The problem of discharge management is also an operational one. Farms have to maintain standards to insure that animal waste does not contact, say spinach farms as happened back in 2009.
I cannot say whether antibiotic use is good or bad for raising livestock (having no expertise in the field), though I will take many of colleagues words at face value and assume that it is not necessary and that the potential costs outweigh the benefits. The jury seems to be out on the issue, however.
However, it would appear from the CDC report, that the greater potential for harm comes from operational issues, which should be resolved in any case. Though resistant bacteria are a threat to human health (and potentially detrimental to the long term economic health of the food industry), there are many other threats that follow the exact same transmission pathways. The e. coli outbreak in California spinach in 2009 is a great example.
Though I understand that those who oppose meat eating or factory farming wish to use what I would call a distortion of the fact and the CDC report to further a particular political position, it would seem that those interested in protecting human health would be far better off calling for more stringent standards within the livestock industry.
So, to answer the question in the title: “Is antibiotic use in livestock killing humans?, ” I have the following responses:
1. It is not clear from the CDC report that any of the 23,000 deaths have anything to do with livestock.
2. Assuming that any of the deaths have anything to do with livestock, the problem would appear to have more to do with how food is cooked (dumbass factor) and the poor management of animal waste (both of which also come with other threats to human health).
Now, before anyone accuses me of trying to minimize the problem, it is true that antibiotic resistance is a serious, serious problem. Antibiotics are over prescribed in the United States to humans, and new antibiotics are not being developed (mostly). We’ve run out of options to fight existing bacteria and as long as doctors are willing to hand antibiotics out like candy, the problem will only become more severe.
NOTE: Now, this blog post is not a defense of the livestock industry, nor a call for greater use of antibiotics. In general, however, I take issue with misuse and distortions of data for political aims on any part of the political spectrum. Call it a weakness of mine.
First, there is no such thing as a “Monsanto Protection Act” anymore than there is any such thing as “Obamacare.” This is a term created by the item’s opponents to rile up opposition, rather than foster critical analysis. I think that Liberals should be well aware of the political problems associated with demonizing and reductionist labeling of things they don’t like.
Second, though Presidents can veto any bill that comes across his desk, the veto of appropriations bills are rare, and have often been overridden by Congress in the past. It may be a shock to liberals, but Presidents aren’t kings. Conservatives often don’t seem to understand the three branches of Government. Liberals often appear to understand it even less.
Third, there was hardly “no debate.” A Google search will reveal that discussions of this particular item go back at least to June of 2012 and the “Famer’s Assurance Provision” as it is correctly known is part of another Ag Appropriations bill which passed last year. Anyone who tells you this is new, is either lying, or doesn’t know what they are talking about. (Even Snopes took this on.)
Fourth, there is no evidence (that I’m aware of) that GMO’s, which are already in our food supply, are having deleterious effects on human health or the environment. There have been some studies on mouse models that I know of, but it appears that no one can really agree on what a “GMO” really is. Until we can nail that down, and have more informed discussion of which GMOs are “bad” and which are “good”, I don’t think that screaming about GMO’s is any more productive than poorly informed discussion of complex issues such as climate change.
I’m not trying to suggest that there are no effects of “GMOs” whatever they may be. I am saying that lefties are accepting that there are broad effects without question and are relying on less-than-scientific and politically motivated sources such as Salon and the Huffington Post to inform them. That’s a very, very dangerous position to take.
Fifth, I think we should all know by now that rightists use issues like this to weaken Democratic Presidencies. I was of the opinion that much of the furor over controversial portions of the 2012 NDAA bill was stoked by right wingers hoping for a Achilles heel in the 2012 Obama campaign. When we buy into this type of sensationalist reporting without examining the evidence, we play right into their hands.
Sixth, well, I had a sixth, but lost it. But back to GMO’s: It’s interesting that discussions of GMO’s in Sub-Saharan Africa are opposite of what we hear in the US. People view the American and European opposition to GMOs, some of which have the potential to increase food yield while minimizing inputs, as an infringement on developing countries’ rights of self determination. It’s easy to dismiss their concerns as uninformed. However, people and policy makers in developing countries face competing issues of immediate economic needs and broad environmental concerns. Lots of things seem obvious to us, but then we have most of our basic needs already met.
I mean this not as a defense of the Farmer’s Assurance Provision or anything else having to do with GMO’s (so chill out). The endless (and perhaps deserved) vilification of Monsanto has reached a point where examination of the facts is secondary to screaming like a blithering idiot. To me, this is dangerous. When we reduce ourselves to merely accepting positions without criticism, we allow ourselves to be manipulated by just about anything. Not everyone has the time to read all that is required to create a truly informed and reasoned opinion on all subjects, I realize. Striving toward obtaining as much information as is reasonable, however, and acting critically should be a priority for everyone, however.
Liberals are the smart ones. We can do better.
I’ve written before on the link between unrest in South Africa and the problem of rising food prices. Looking at the plot of the right, it’s not hard to notice the similarities in the series of conflict events post 2005 to food prices as estimated by the FAO’s Food Price Index (FPI).
I began to wonder whether some of the recent rise in conflict events is somehow related to rising food commodity prices. Having found a correlation in South Africa, it’s not out of the realm of possibility.
I calculated the cross correlations between the FPI and conflict events and found that the FPI was predictive of conflict, but that conflict was not predictive of FPI. This was similar to what I found in South Africa.
Plotting the FPI against the number of monthly conflict events, I found something interesting. It appears that the two are mostly unrelated until the FPI reaches a threshold of approximately 200, then the number of monthly events shoots up. It is interesting to note that in other research, 210 was the assumed maximum price that households would absorb before taking to the streets.
I’ve repeatedly written on the problem of stock market speculation in food commodities as a cause for rising volatility in world food prices. I won’t beat this into the ground again. However, results such as these indicate that the problem of rising and volatile food prices is not just an economic problem, but also a problem of human health and welfare.
And I’m still reeling. Tonight, I’ll be giving a haphazard lecture on the problem of rising food prices and the issue of agricultural commodity financialization for NWAEG (New World Agriculture and Ecology Group) here at the University of Michigan.
Mark was kind enough to interview me for the event, vastly overstating its relevance (my talk, the issue is very relevant).
Unfortunately, though, Mark is going to forego to the event to watch comedian and former Republican hopeful, Herman Cain.
You can find the interview here.
Mark’s logic, though, is suspect and I perhaps chided him a bit strongly (Mark is kind, though small and fragile). I am pretty positive that Mark’s father’s emails, given what I know of the other emails, are filled with the same conspiratorial nonsense that seems to fly all over the internet. It was Mark’s response, which I did not read, that bothered me, exclusively blaming climate change and weather events for increasing corn prices around the world at the expense of greater, less publicized issues surrounding food prices.
The prices of this year’s corn will have little to do with corn that is being harvested at present. Next year’s prices may certainly be affected, though to what is extent is up to speculation. News reports are predicting a 10% increase.
Certainly, a 10% increase is bad thing. Poor households will pay 10% more for food than they did last year. If we assume that very poor households in the United States have only $2.00 per day to spend on food (according to Joe Stiglitz’s math), this could be devastating for someone trying to feed multiple kids. I am not disputing this.
However, corn prices have been increasing rapidly for several years. This trend cannot be ignored. The figure above shows that the worldwide prices of corn have been increasing since at least 2002, follow the general pattern of the American economy crashing in 2008, then recovering quickly at present. But after decades of mostly flat prices, this giant spike is noteworthy, and, in my opinion frightening.
Important to my discussion with Mark, this trend has little to do with precipitation in the United States (below), which has actually been increasing over time.We note that global mean temperatures have been increasing for at least the last half century, but also note again that corn prices did not rise uniformly with this increase. (The scale of the corn price graph is 1980 to present. During this time, there was a consistent rise in temperature, where corn prices, outside of some bumps are mostly flat until 2002.)
A spike of 10% next year over this year is a problem. Ignoring the overall trend of price increases (raising the base price that we would use to calculate next years price), is wholly unwise particularly when it is due to forces very much within our control.
I have written before on the problem of the trend toward financialization of commodities, the move from volatile equity based investments, to speculation on high yield, high demand commodities such as ag and mineral products, a practice that was illegal before the early 2000′s. Looking at the NASDAQ index, the evidence is compelling. The price of corn follows the stock market, suggesting that the two are tightly connected. Spikes in the price of gas and oil are also connected with this trend.
According to a UN Conference on Trade and Development report
• “these factors (rising food demand, biofuels, climate change) alone are not sufficient to explain recent commodity price developments; another major factor is the financialization of commodity markets. Its importance has increased significantly since about 2004, as reflected in rising volumes of financial investments in commodity derivatives markets – both at exchanges and over the counter (OTC). This phenomenon is a serious concern, because the activities of financial participants tend to drive commodity prices away from levels justified by market fundamentals, with negative effects both on producers and consumers.”-UNCTAD, 2011
The issue is certainly complex, much more complex than merely looking at one’s dying yard and concluding logically that weather is reducing supply which is raising prices. The reality, that American retirement accounts are gambling on the desperation of poor families in developing countries, is far more frightening, though they’ve long (and happily) gambled on war profits and tobacco.
We can do little to fix the weather. We can, though, fix economic policy to encourage equity in the worldwide price of food, a basic human right in my opinion.
Note: I just noticed that the New York Times ran an ariticle today which focuses on the role of weather on food prices, but fails to make even the smallest mention of the issue of the financialization of food commodities.
Kenya is certainly not cheap for foreigners and one may be under the impression that we pay some extra surcharge on just about everything. In some countries, this is very true. In Kenya, everyone pays the same price for everything.
Take a liter of milk. In the US, a liter of milk (at the time of this writing) is going for approximately $1.13. In Kenya, despite local production, a gallon of milk costs $.87. Turning that milk into cheese will set back an American $9.30 a pound, a Kenyan, a whopping $10.38.
It is worth mentioning that the newspaper here has reported that the price of milk in Kenya has shot up by 40% since the beginning of the year to nearly $1.05.
Shopping in a local hardware revealed that prices for steel nails and roofing is almost the same as the U.S. A kilogram of penny nails here costs about $5.00, just about the same as what I would pay in the states. 2×4′s will run approximately $.30 per foot, again, entirely comparable to what I pay in the States. A gallon of gas here is about $5, still cheaper than Malawi’s $10 but more expensive than the States.To put this in perspective, an average American family pulls more than $44,000 yearly, where a typical Kenya is unemployed and may eek by through farming and informal market activities on a mere $800 a year (assuming GNI as a proxy).
Thus, to a Kenyan, food and housing are both incredible expenses. A Kenyan family likely spends nearly 80% of every penny they earn on food. The remaining 20% goes to school fees, cell phone minutes and transportation.
The trouble, and what may don’t realize, is that all of these things, food, steel and gasoline are commodities that are readily traded on the world market. Thus, prices are pegged to worldwide prices set by larger economies such as the United States and Europe. A Kenyan has to pay the same amount of money for the same products as an American, a Brit or a citizen of Japan.One may argue that this situation may be an unavoidable consequence of a truly global economy, an unfortunate side effect of the free market. Competition on world markets, however, is only part of the equation. The situation is made worse, for example, by US policy which rewards speculation in commodities on Wall Street, a practice that was illegal before 2000. The global market, far from being free, is actually controlled by large global financial players betting on rising prices, prices which they themselves are setting.
Rising food prices barely make a dent in US home budgets, and even if they do, most families can cut things like eating out to adjust. A Kenyan, on the other hand, has nothing to cut when milk goes up an extra dime. People will simply just eat less.