Re:Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any ot...
by enord on Sunday January 14, 2018 @08:49PM
(#16147847)
The salmon that you eat is not harmful to you (probably less so with antibiotics). The multiresistent bacteria are harmful to everyone. Antibiotics are the shared resource, and the incentives are misaligned precisely because more antibiotics in livestock = cheaper and healthier (in a veterinarian sense) meat, but more resistant bacterial strains that can find a way into the populace.
Re:Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any ot...
by lawlessone on Monday January 15, 2018 @09:14AM
(#16150598)
>Is this a shared resource problem though?
The shared resources is the limited amount we can use an antibiotic before it becomes useless.
Re:Chile’s salmon farms may use more antibiotics than any ot...
by natecavanaugh on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @05:01AM
(#16166767)
That's an interesting angle I hadn't considered. Thank you :)
The problem, as I see it, is one of a questionable food supply or at least a contamination issue, in which case, each person should decide what matters to them, and is how this particular problem is solved in the micro, which in aggregate, does lessen the macro aspect. I'm thinking of cases like cigarettes and alcohol.
However, where this falls apart is that consumers don't always have that info, and even if we slap warnings on things, it doesn't usually help unless there is a very clear line of causality and effect.
For instance, the prop 65 warnings[0], which are essentially useless.
Either way, I do think that individual choice is the first line of defense for issues like this.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1...