The Grand Nudger Wrote:as are any number of other industriesWell, see, other industries aren’t remotely as responsible for it. It’s indeed hard to estimate what percentage of antibiotics goes to meat industry, but the conservative estimates are that it’s around 70%, and it could be around 90%. OK, you may argue that those statistics take things too simplistically (that most of those antibiotics probably actually goes to chickens and that very few bacteria that attack chickens also attack humans, that most of those antibiotics maybe aren’t actually antibiotics that are used to treat humans…). But unless you have more relevant statistics, we should go with those ones, don’t you think?
The Grand Nudger Wrote:but seeing as how ag is an essential industryNot all agriculture is essential. Growing tomatoes, for example, is far less efficient than growing grain, a lot more resources are spent to get the same amount of usable nutrition. But at least growing tomatoes doesn’t lead to super-bacteria, while producing milk (the way it’s done today) does.
The Grand Nudger Wrote:I'd encourage you to spend some time reviewing extension publications.Well, my perception is that there is relatively little written about fighting super-bacteria. In contrast to that, that there is a lot written about not contributing to this minor problem called global warming. And, to make things worse, the exact policies that make animal agriculture contribute less to global warming generally make us more susceptible to super-bacteria.