Most of us are oblivious to threats caused by our actions when the threats are invisible. Our use of antibiotics is a case in point. When used judiciously, antibiotics save lives and prevent the transmission of deadly diseases, but the therapeutic power of antibiotics is being squandered by their imprudent use in agriculture.
Today, more than half of the antibiotics administered around the world are used in the production of food. Farmers use antimicrobials to treat infections in their livestock. The problem is that they commonly misuse antibiotics either to compensate for poor agricultural practices — such as overcrowding on factory farms, which encourages the spread of disease — or to accelerate growth and reduce production costs.
These practices might appear harmless in isolation, but their aggregate effect is dangerous. As antibiotics enter the environment through the food that people eat or the waste that animals produce, antimicrobial resistance intensifies. This affects human health in troubling ways.
Every day, at hospitals and clinics around the world, patients are given antibiotics for bacterial infections such as tuberculosis, gonorrhea or pneumonia. Others receive antibiotics prophylactically, to prevent bacterial infections during surgery, or when underlying conditions or treatments (such as chemotherapy) compromise their immunity.
Unfortunately, many widely used antibiotics are losing their ability to protect patients and treat disease. Routine misuse of antibiotics in farming is a key reason why.
Not long after the Scottish microbiologist Alexander Fleming discovered a fungus that could kill bacteria, he recognized that overuse of antibiotics would encourage resistance. He warned in 1945: “The thoughtless person playing with penicillin is morally responsible for the death of the man who finally succumbs to infection with the penicillin-resistant organism.”
Widespread misuse of antibiotics in agriculture is one of the most egregious forms of “playing with penicillin.” In 2015, a new antibiotic-resistant bacterium was discovered in Chinese pigs, and then in Chinese patients. Since then, two more variants of the bacterium have been discovered, and the genes that enable these bacteria to resist antibiotics and jump between species — so-called “mobile genetic elements” — have been found on farms and in hospitals around the world. If the reckless use of antibiotics in agriculture continues, the effect on people will be severe.
Fortunately, there is a solution. More than a decade ago, the EU banned antibiotics in agriculture for any purpose other than treating infections. Although the rule is not perfect, it has helped lower antibiotic use. For example, in Denmark, total antibiotic use by pig farmers has decreased, despite a slight increase in antibiotics administered for treating porcine diseases. These gains, however modest, are encouraging — and should encourage further, coordinated action.
Because of the global nature of the threat, only multilateral cooperation — in the form of a new treaty or trade agreements — can ensure that farmers everywhere abide by minimal standards for raising livestock without the unnecessary use of antibiotics.
In December 2015, a study commissioned by the British government and chaired by the economist Jim O’Neill found that the most effective means of changing behaviors would be to cap the use of antibiotics, but allow individual countries to experiment with taxes or restrictions to meet the cap.
Moreover, as I have argued elsewhere, farmers should be required to obtain a prescription before administering medicine to livestock. Although the EU’s ban includes such a provision, waivers and exemptions have watered down the rule.
If a global consensus were reached — for example, through the G20 or the UN General Assembly — countries choosing to tax agricultural antibiotics could use the revenue to help ease the transition to alternative farming practices. Money could also go to fund research on in vitro meat, which would dramatically reduce animal suffering and lower the burden of infectious diseases.
Most important, any new treaty must provide signatories with flexibility to meet the diverse needs of their farmers. The goal of global action should be to incentivize farmers to reduce their antibiotic use, not to mete out punishment.
It is possible to create conditions under which antibiotics are used only to treat sick patients, not healthy animals. Although the world is a long way from that goal, consumer-driven practices in the US and regulations in Europe have demonstrated that farmers will change their approach if encouraged or required to do so.
Still, most of us remain blind to the unintended consequences of our decisions. Unless people voluntarily refrain from consuming factory-farmed meat, we will need governments and multilateral organizations to keep us on the right path.
Jonathan Anomaly is a philosophy professor at the University of San Diego in California.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US