A very good article, just a few points of clarification. The UK is now among the lowest users of antibiotics for farm animals in Europe at 37mg/kg (2017 data). The MRSA discussed in the article is specifically Livestock-Associated MRSA, which is different from the MRSA many people associate with hospital infections. While higher levels of LA-MRSA have been found in stockmen and people near farms, the bacteria rarely colonise the individual and often just exist harmlessly on the skin or mucus membranes for a short time before disappearing again. In the UK, it's not the government that set targets for antibiotic use (other than an initial 50mg/kg target across the board that was met two years early). It was the livestock industry itself under the RUMA-facilitated Targets Task Force. The targets may have been asked for then endorsed by government but the fact they were set by industry, have identified metrics and goals specific to each species, and continue to be owned by industry, is a critical factor in the high level of engagement in delivering them. Lastly, articles focusing on the use of antibiotics in farming and the risk posed to humans often look at this issue in isolation and do not provide any wider context. It is absolutely correct that there is consensus it's better to tackle antibiotic use in animals now. But there is also consensus that in the UK at least, the vast majority of drug resistant infections in humans continue to be derived primarily from use of antibiotics in humans. As the Department of Health said in its last 5-Year AMR Strategy (soon to be updated): “Increasing scientific evidence suggests that the clinical issues with antimicrobial resistance that we face in human medicine are primarily the result of antibiotic use in people, rather than the use of antibiotics in animals. Nevertheless, use of antibiotics in animals (which includes fish, birds, bees and reptiles) is an important factor contributing to the wider pool of resistance which may have long term consequences.”
A very good article, just a
A very good article, just a few points of clarification.
The UK is now among the lowest users of antibiotics for farm animals in Europe at 37mg/kg (2017 data).
The MRSA discussed in the article is specifically Livestock-Associated MRSA, which is different from the MRSA many people associate with hospital infections. While higher levels of LA-MRSA have been found in stockmen and people near farms, the bacteria rarely colonise the individual and often just exist harmlessly on the skin or mucus membranes for a short time before disappearing again.
In the UK, it's not the government that set targets for antibiotic use (other than an initial 50mg/kg target across the board that was met two years early). It was the livestock industry itself under the RUMA-facilitated Targets Task Force. The targets may have been asked for then endorsed by government but the fact they were set by industry, have identified metrics and goals specific to each species, and continue to be owned by industry, is a critical factor in the high level of engagement in delivering them.
Lastly, articles focusing on the use of antibiotics in farming and the risk posed to humans often look at this issue in isolation and do not provide any wider context. It is absolutely correct that there is consensus it's better to tackle antibiotic use in animals now. But there is also consensus that in the UK at least, the vast majority of drug resistant infections in humans continue to be derived primarily from use of antibiotics in humans. As the Department of Health said in its last 5-Year AMR Strategy (soon to be updated): “Increasing scientific evidence suggests that the clinical issues with antimicrobial resistance that we face in human medicine are primarily the result of antibiotic use in people, rather than the use of antibiotics in animals. Nevertheless, use of antibiotics in animals (which includes fish, birds, bees and reptiles) is an important factor contributing to the wider pool of resistance which may have long term consequences.”