Skip to main content

Ah, to be in Denmark

March 19, 2012 - The World Health Organization (WHO) announced last week that antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to antibiotics could well put an end to the practice of modern medicine.  Dr. Margaret Chan, WHO's Director-General, told participants at an EU health conference that AMR is exacerbated by three current global conditions: inappropriate use of antibiotics in humans and animals, increasing world travel, and lack of development of new drugs.  Rates of death among patients infected with drug-resistant germs is on the rise.

In 2010, there were 650,000 cases of drug-resistant tuberculosis worldwide.  (If I am remembering correctly, the increase in tuberculosis was first observed in Russian prisons, and in Russian AIDS victims.)  As a result, only an extremely expensive, prolonged battle is capable of curing as many as 50% of these cases.  The drugs used are toxic, and in constant short supply.  Other illnesses are drug resistant as well, in some cases unresponsive to all available treatments.  Hospitals in some locales are the last place anyone would want to go.  They "have become hotbeds for highly resistant pathogens, like MRSA, ESBL, and CPE," according to Chan.

Chan was also quick to praise Denmark's new/old approach to raising farm animals, without the use of antibiotics.  Alert to the possibility of antibiotics resistance, the elimination of antibiotics as growth promoters began in Denmark in the late 1990s.  A WHO international review panel concluded the Danish ban reduced human health risks without harming farm animals or reducing farm incomes.  Industry and government data suggest that livestock production has since increased.  Best of all, AMR has declined.  Prominent organic veterinarian Hubert Karreman has been quoted as saying that animals can be kept healthy through better sanitation, a high forage diet, and exercise.  Antibiotics are unnecessary when an organic regimen is put in place.

Karreman's observations regarding sanitation are particularly relevant, since industrial farms rely upon intensive crowding of farm animals.  The effects of this inhumane treatment have been written about extensively.  Not the least of these is the easy transmission of disease; the proliferation of germs is accelerated by the filthy conditions all too commonly found at industrial farms.  The book The CAFO Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories, describes this problem at length. 

Here in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a partial ban on the use of cephalosporins in farm animals back in January.  While providing the appearance of doing good, the ban would, in fact, accomplish very little, since cephalosporins make up less than one percent of total antibiotics used in American livestock.  (It should be noted here that 80% of all antibiotics in the US are used for growth promotion in farm animals.)  Public health advocates hastened to point out that the token measure would do little in the way of combating the increase in antimicrobial-resistant diseases.  The proposal is therefore meaningless, particularly in light of the fact that the use of cephalosporins is already on the decline in the United States!

Gail Hansen, of the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, said that by ceasing to administer many classes of antibiotics, less powerful bacteria are encouraged to move in to fill the void.  The increase in more powerful bacteria is not inevitable.  She further warned, however, that American farmers must take the elimination of powerful antibiotics as growth promoters very seriously.  Veterinarian Dr. Karreman asserts that when a conventionally farmed herd is converted to organic methods, the farmer's vet bill is typically reduced between 70 and 75 percent.  Since we all know this is ultimately about money, why the delay?  Antibiotics have proven to be a tremendous boon to both humans and animals alike.  It pays to use them only when they are needed to treat illness.


Popular posts from this blog

We Are Still In

June 13, 2017 - Trump's announcement that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Accord on Climate Change has produced a remarkable backlash: hundreds of cities, states, universities and colleges, and businesses in the United States have declared their collective intention to reach the country's 2025 emissions goals, with or without federal leadership. America stepped up to the plate when Trump stated that he was "elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris," to which Pittsburgh's mayor responded "we [Pittsburgh] will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement for our people, our economy and future."

Bill Peduto, mayor of Pittsburgh, is a member of Mayors for 100% Clean Energy, the creation of Sierra Club, to which Michael Bloomberg is a major contributor. Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City and a billionaire philanthropist, is also the United Nations Envoy for Cities and Climate Change.
In a letter written by Bloomberg to…

The SunShot Initiative

In 2007, the amount of solar power installed in the U.S. was 1.1 gigawatts (GW). As of 2017, that amount has increased to 47.1 GW. Enough to power 9.1 million average American homes. If you're thinking "we've still got a long way to go," you'd be right. On the other hand, increasing installed power by 4300% deserves some attention.  How'd we do it?

The Department of Energy played an important role. In 2011, they initiated a program called The SunShot Initiative. They set targets for the years 2020 and 2030, by which times generating solar power would have become more affordable. More affordable on a utility scale, more affordable on a commercial scale, and more affordable on a residential scale. Thus far, they've succeeded in hitting the 2020 goal for utility-scale generation. Needless to mention, they reached that goal three years early. The goals, it should be mentioned, don't take subsidies into account. It's the technology, in the case of util…