Just to be clear, a little googling around about the drugs in question seems to indicate major use of Ceftriaxone (the front line antibiotic for gonorrhea) and its analogues in factory farming.
Zoetis says ceftiofur is safe to use as directed. “The use of ceftiofur continues to be appropriate when used according to the label directions in those animals that are in at-risk situations,” said Scott Brown, vice president of global therapeutics research at Zoetis.
The stakes are especially high because the drug is part of a crucial class of antibiotics called cephalosporins. The class includes ceftriaxone, a drug that’s vital to treating pneumonia, meningitis and salmonella infections in children, according to the FDA. The use of one type of cephalosporin can compromise the effectiveness of others in the same class.
“There is a very clear link between ceftiofur use and ceftriaxone resistance,” said Paul Fey, a professor of microbiology at University of Nebraska Medical Center. “We know that ceftiofur-resistant salmonella are clearly ceftriaxone-resistant.”
So what’s really distressing here to me is that this likely isn’t even from human overuse, and this affects diseases other than just gonorrhea.
Personal Note: This is not meant to single out China for anything, antibiotic use is out of control for farmers all over the planet. This was just one of the first results that came up for “ceftriaxone farming.”
The use of 20 antibiotics was reported, with oxytetracycline, penicillin, amoxicillin, cefoperazone, norfloxacin, ceftriaxone, ofloxacin, cefradine, chloramphenicol and sulfadiazine ranking in the top 10 as reported by 213 (52.7%), 182 (45.1%), 156 (38.6%), 82 (20.3%), 78 (19.3%), 75 (18.6%), 73 (18.1%), 64 (15.8%), 40 (9.9%) and 39 (9.6%) of the 404 surveyed farmers, respectively (Table 13). These antibiotics were the most commonly used ones by the surveyed farmers in pig rearing. The other 10 antibiotics used are also presented in Table 13. We sorted the 20 antibiotics into nine different classes based on their chemical structures. Table 14 presents the nine classes of antibiotics with the class of penicillin ranking the first (mentioned by 338 farmers), followed by tetracyclines (mentioned by 223 farmers).
It’s really distressing how factory farming is making a huge impact on the ability of antibiotics to continue to be effective.
Personal Note: This is not meant to single out China for anything
We should. China and India are the worst culprits when it comes to prophylactic use of antibiotics for livestock (and reportedly humans). The practise is strictly controlled in OECD nations for this exact reason.
This absolutely cracked me up because I’ve actually been in that scenario. Granted, it was more about the can that I didn’t have a means to open than the beans, but still
The big exam comes around, you show up with your pencil and calculator. Nope. Can of beans. Sorry sir, once you’ve sat for the test there’s no leaving. Good luck. 80 college students pounding it against the floor at once.
The headline left out something important from the article and posed a false dichotomy, a minority of harvested crabs are being used to develop medicines, and most of those are released and survive. The vast majority that are killed are being harvested for use as bait in commercial fishing. Seems like that’s the obvious thing to cut back on to save the humans, the crabs, and the birds.
Also, it looks more like climate change is what’s fucking over the spawning of horseshoe crabs. Not blood harvesting. Eggs need a specific temperature to survive.
There sure is a lot of effort currently to distract from the fact that most greenhouse gasses are created from industrial sources & not individual diets.
I agree, but it is important to note that is not the only source and cattle also consumes a lot of horizontal space where forests could be, so that also plays a role. It is never just one thing, but a plethora of intertwined problems.
Realistically, the world’s not going to go vegan. Animal based protein and fats are here to stay. The only way to combat the land usage and emissions associated with cattle and pigs are to develop a viable commercial source for the proteins and fats they provide. Not just plant-based burgers, but lab-grown meat and alternatives to eggs/butter/milk/milk fat/etc.
And until they can compete with the current method of procurement in price, it won’t change.
Also, I do think it’s realistic to get people to eat less meat. Going one or two days without meat, or on days you do have meat just having less, would make a substantial impact. A lot of cultures eat a lot less meat than north american where people seem to expect a whole steak for each meal. Both Asian and Indian food has a lot less meat in each dish, for example.
The mostly meat and potatoes diet is something we can change realistically, I think.
I mean propaganda is a helluva drug. Remember “Got Milk” or “Beef, its whats for dinner” What about the “food pyramid” they teach you in elementary school. all of it is propaganda for industrial producers. so we know it is possible to influence the masses to consume in a certain direction. it just needs to be going in the correct direction. which will take alot of time because how much is already so heavily invested into getting their industry to where it is today.
Which I never said it would. It is nevertheless important to at the bare minimum create some degrowth in that area, and replace as much as possible with alternatives, primarily my point was that you cannot say there is a unique contributor to the climate crisis, and while I agree with the first comment that (paraphrasing them) the most important thing to realise here is that the bourgeoisie class is the main contributor to Co2 emissions, the working class people need to agree to certain changes. Cars need to go, animal based meat needs to be gradually diminished, consumerism must stop, etc. It is not one single issue that causes it.
It’s only partly about the fact that most climate change is caused by the wealthy and corporations, it’s that the wealthy and corporations are trying to control the narrative, to hide their culpability and make sure the changes made won’t affect them. Like coffee shops pushing customers to bring reusable straws instead of giving out free plastic ones (boosting their “green” image while also saving money on straws) instead of putting their to-go beverages in materials that are sustainably produced or recyclable (which probably cost more than the cheap plastic cups and non-recyclable cardboard ones). Individuals can make useful changes, but usually the ones we hear about most often are not the ones that are most productive, they’re the ones that are most convenient for corporations.
In this case, I think it’s more than blame-shifting by corporations, though there’s a hell of a lot of money in designer vegan foods.
I still don’t understand this logic. Every single product made is consumed by an individual or a business in a chain that eventually sells products to individuals.
Industry exists to supply consumption, and the only customer is humans.
but when you dont regulate corporations they will exploit and destroy anything and everything to monopolize and capitalize to the fullest extent. its not that the consumption of meat is bad, from a responsible regenerative agroforestry standpoint raising animals can help your regenerative agriculture system. it is monoculture and monopolization of the industry, pushing out responsible small scale community providers etc. that produce in a more ecologically responsible way. not to negate that populations consuming a lot of meat daily do end up becoming a market for irresponsible producers that “need to keep up with demand” to continually profit.
Meat is in fact bad, you have to grow plants to feed animals and the ratio of feed to meat produced is really really low, around 1:10 If you use those plants to instead directly provide nutrition to humans the ratio is 1:1
Responsible meat production uses orders of magnitude more land, which there simply isn’t enough of if we wanted to replace our current meat consumption levels.
Either we can reduce consumption, keep polluting, or look at some of these alternative technologies like lab grown meat.
• Sample size of 170, which even the researchers admitted was low
• First study done during the lockdowns, which they posited may have had a negative affect as people tried to cope with financial stress, sudden social isolation, and caring for a pet without ever leaving the house. It did, they found.
• Second study taken post-lockdown, unable to compare depression and anxiety as they did not bother measuring those the first time (why not?)
• Trained animals do provide a benefit, actually; friendly obedience and a relaxed personality found in support animals suggested to be a factor but they never measured that either I guess.
• 95% report greater life consistency and a sense of love, so maybe pets are helpful for someone in vital need of emotional support, we don't know.
Overall, I think if they tried really, really hard, and I mean really put their minds to it, they could write a worse headline for such an ambiguous and unhelpful article.
I’d consider a sample size of 170 to be pretty large, if the sample was drawn with perfect randomness from the population. But this one wasn’t, it was self-selected. Also wasn’t a clinical trial, and while they seem to know what they’re doing with setting up the questionnaire, I would assume it would result in larger measurement error, which would need more samples to be able to correct for.
Completely agree with you though - the conclusions that it seems reasonable to draw from this are ‘not much, really’. Seems to disagree with the results of a larger study by many of the same authors, too, which say that companion animals did result in a smaller decline in mental health during lockdown.
Thank you for asking. There's nothing is wrong with it, generally speaking. But it is not an academic or peer reviewed source. It has many editorialized articles.
I generally like the content they produce at least a little bit, but it's not science.
Here's the study, for anyone who wants to read it. It's surprisingly short and open access.
A few things:
The participants took Wasabi supplements once a day for 12 weeks, not just normal Wasabi. In each pill, there was 0.8 mg of the active compound (6-MSITC). Quick googling gave me the following for the level of that compound in actual Wasabi:
Another study determined ~550-556 μg/g of 6-MSITC in wet weight of wasabi root [10] . The present study observed a concentration of 120-150 μg/g wet weight of 6-MSITC in stem and rhizome blend.
In other words, you could actually also get the same amount of 6-MSITC that was in the supplements by eating a few grams of regular wasabi each day, assuming that the processed stuff still has similar levels. The abstract provides a reasonable summary of the study, and of the fact that it agrees largely with some previous science on the subject (although there's not a lot, two studies in small journals):
Cognitive functions decline with age. Declined cognitive functions negatively affect daily behaviors. Previous studies showed the positive effect of spices and herbs on cognition. In this study, we investigated the positive impact of wasabi, which is a traditional Japanese spice, on cognitive functions. The main bioactive compound of wasabi is 6-MSITC (6 methylsulfinyl hexyl isothiocyanate), which has anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory functions. Anti-oxidants and anti-inflammatories have an important role in cognitive health. Therefore, 6-MSITC is expected to have positive effects on cognitive function. Previous studies showed the beneficial effects on cognitive functions in middle-aged adults. However, it is unclear that 6-MSITC has a positive effect on cognitive functions in healthy older adults aged 60 years and over. Here, we investigated whether 12 weeks’ 6-MSITC intervention enhances cognitive performance in older adults using a double-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods: Seventy-two older adults were randomly assigned to 6-MSITC or placebo groups. Participants were asked to take a supplement (6-MSITC or a placebo) for 12 weeks. We checked a wide range of cognitive performances (e.g., executive function, episodic memory, processing speed, working memory, and attention) at the pre- and post-intervention periods. Results: The 6-MSITC group showed a significant improvement in working and episodic memory performances compared to the placebo group. However, we did not find any significant improvements in other cognitive domains. Discussion: This study firstly demonstrates scientific evidence that 6-MSITC may enhance working memory and episodic memory in older adults. We discuss the potential mechanism for improving cognitive functions after 6-MSITC intake.
They tested the study participants once before and once after the 12 weeks of daily wasabi supplements. The participants were not tested for any long term cognitive effects.
As someone else has pointed out here in the comments, the study does list a Wasabi company as one of the sources of funding:
Funding
This study was founded[sic] by KINJIRUSHI Co., Ltd. and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (19H01760, 22H01088).
Conflicts of Interest
This study was supported by KINJIRUSHI Co., Ltd. The funding body had no role in the design of the study, collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data, writing of the manuscript, or the decision to publish the results.
Also, I don't want to poison the well too much, but I feel like I should mention that the editorial board of the journal resigned in 2018 because the publishers "pressured them to accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance". Doesn't mean it's all bad, but it's a very early study and more research should be done.
Sapolsky was raised in an Orthodox Jewish household in Brooklyn, the son of immigrants from the former Soviet Union.
Biology called to him early — by grade school he was writing fan letters to primatologists and lingering in front of the taxidermied gorillas at the American Museum of Natural History — but religion shaped life at home.
That all changed on a single night in his early teens, he says. While grappling with questions of faith and identity, he was struck by an epiphany that kept him awake until dawn and reshaped his future: God is not real, there is no free will, and we primates are pretty much on our own.
Oh, look - another person who has decided what they want the outcome to be, and formulates some kind of argument that results in that outcome.
Huh, interesting but I feel I need to relay that this moisture isn’t walking around with an open wound in the rainforest. It’s various types of specialized concoctions to prevent bacterial growth and provide the building blocks needed for tissue regrowth.
I’ve actually seen the products before, like big bandaids with a gel-like substance instead of the normal cotton pad. Interesting to see that they apparently not only help with less itching but also leads to less scaring and faster healing.
Paper bags are worse, except maybe for microplastics. But they take more resources to create, and aren’t as recyclable as good plastic bags. You can use a canvas bag, but that takes even more resources to create. So you have to use the same canvas bag for years
I agree. However, the most important reason to reduce plastics is because of the health effects of microplastics. Waste is probably the second priority in my mind.
Let’s be real: humanity will never do anything that even slightly inconveniences us. We need to solve our problems with “power”: microplastic-eating bacteria, blocking the sun, creating fresh water from salt water, terraforming another planet, anything but convincing the crowds to stop their shit.
Both is good, but even stopping all plastic today and picking up every piece of trash we can grab with our hands won’t clean up the microplastics that are already in the environment.
What kind of question even is that? Reducing plastic enough and getting rid of the amount that's already in the environment without new technological solutions is nothing but fantasy at this moment.
With how heavily integrated plastics are into EVERYTHING in our society, I think that’s not necessarily the “simpler” approach, even if I agree that it’s vital.
The most ideal situation is if we archieve 100% recycling.
In reality no thing can disappear, both matter and energy just change form. We only need to look at nature for proof that 100% reusing matter and energy is feasible. Even our “waste” wasn’t wasted.
These microbes are yet another key in the puzzle to obtain the next breakthrough. Once we master industrial chains with full conservation of matter and energy the cost of creating things will become negligible.
We do probably want both. Even if we end plastic production completely tomorrow, we need to work out a way to clean up all the plastic we've already dumped all over the world
I agree. We want both. Its like water consumption needs which keep increasing. We want to reduce demand and increase leakage reduction rather than take more water out of the environment. We’re making a mess of this planet because our lives are based on the assumption of eternal growth.
yeah but one of them we can do right now with minimum consequences and the other is provocative with no clear path to viability and no real understanding of the consequences.
We should prob just leave any existing plastic as plastic wherever it lay instead of turning it into CO2. Burying it is a better idea than emitting it.
This doesn’t read like science, but more importantly it is deeply flawed logic:
A person is in a car that is heading off a cliff. While they are naive of this fact, they are content but destined to an untimely demise. They are made aware of the fact and become deeply anxious.
What is causative in this scenario? Ignoring the cliff, we could say that the awareness is at fault for the person’s anxiety. But if the person were better informed about their state and there was no cliff, there would be no anxiety.
A root cause analysis would show that fundamental problem is not that the driver knows where they are going, but the fact that they are headed off a cliff in the first place.
To determine that social media is the root cause of increased teenage mental illness rates, we would need to confirm that social media in a utopian environment still causes mental illness. This is a claim without much evidence, particularly because the more one becomes informed about the world the more the will be exposed to its legitimate problems. What would be more practical, then, is to determine what incidence of mental illness occurs with awareness of these issues where social media is not a factor, and then to evaluate what if any factor remains to be explained by social media. The editorial does not take this approach, but instead appears to attempt a firehose of rationalizations that don’t converge to make a coherent thesis.
Perhaps the editorial author’s book isn’t selling well.
It’s not not social media… But also it’s the parents, which are also affected by how the ruling class treats the entire planet. Oh, and climate change looks like a load of not fun.
uvc doesn’t give you cancer, it can’t penetrate deep enough, and the type of DNA damage it causes immediately kills the cell so it can’t reproduce, cancer is cells that reproduce and don’t die.
At least according to the article, there seems to be some evidence that shorter wavelength UV can’t penetrate deep enough to cause those issues. It gets absorbed by the outer dead skin layer and liquid layer around your eyes.
From what they’re saying, it sounds like the biggest issue now is that UV light creates ozone and smog, which are obviously toxic. And that doesn’t seem to have an obvious solution, in the article they’re basically discussing how much smog is an acceptable trade off
Subjects who received the wasabi treatment saw their episodic memory scores jump an average of 18%, Nouchi said, and scored on average 14% higher than the placebo group overall.
science
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.