The deadly cost of America’s greed

A significant health problem that continues to raise heated debates among opinion leaders and health practitioners in the current decade, is the observed increase in antimicrobial resistance in humans. When treatment of an antimicrobial type, such as antibiotics, antivirals, and anthelmintics, is administered to pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi, it is observed that they change genetically. As a result, the antimicrobials that are induced become ineffective, which causes the disease-causing microorganisms to persist in the human body and ultimately cause extended illness, disability, or even death.

Sifferlin posits that by the year 2050, over ten million people will die from antibiotic resistant infections on an annual basis. He notes that antimicrobial resistance increases with time as the genetic structure of the microorganisms change in response to induced treatment. He further argues that major causes of the resistance stem from the inappropriate use of antimicrobials either through misuse where the drugs are administered to individuals for viral infections such as colds and flu or either through non therapeutic use as promoters of growth in food producing animals. His main argument is that in the same manner that misuse of antimicrobials leads to resistance non therapeutic use of the antimicrobials as well leads to a similar effect.

However, critics have advanced heated arguments pointing out that banning antibiotic use in food producing animals will not only hurt the health of animals such as poultry, pigs, and cattle but will as well have an impact on the country’s food security programs. Their arguments, which are based on the proposition that antibiotics help strengthen animals as they grow, have led to division in the schools of thought regarding use of antibiotics is such animals.

Despite the existence of the two schools of thought regarding use of antibiotics in food producing animals, this paper adheres to the latter proposition and advances the argument that the continued use of antibiotics is detrimental to human health and consequently, alternatives to their use should be sought. In order to support this claim, a variety of academic resources is reviewed and scientific evidence brought forward with a view to demonstrate the detrimental effects of antibiotic usage.

In an attempt to justify the claim highlighted in the previous section, the paper considers two approaches. The first approach aims to illustrate, through scientific evidence, how continued use of antibiotics has led to increased resistance to diseases in humans while the second, illustrates the improvement observed in drug resistance in humans following the ban of non therapeutic antibiotics in animals in European countries. By considering the two approaches, the paper aims to show that antibiotic usage in food producing animals eventually leads to detrimental health effects in humans.

The following section begins by elaborating on the different ways scientific evidence has shown, without any reasonable doubt how agricultural antibiotic use is the lead cause of human drug resistance.

Increase in antibiotic resistance due to antibiotic use in food producing animals

In the wake of heated debate regarding antibiotic use in food producing animals, it is important to note that the administration of antibiotics is fundamental to the health of food producing animals as the antibiotics play several roles. First, they help prevent and treat diseases in the animals. For instance, they help prevent diseases in poultry caused by bacteria such as Salmonella and Escherichia Coli as well as help prevent Mastitis in diary animals brought about by Staphylococcus aureus bacteria. Such illnesses, when left untreated, lead to immense losses to the farming industry.

Second, antibiotics also help protect humans against zoonosis and both parasitic and infectious diseases that pose a threat to human life. Individuals working in close contact with food producing animals such as poultry and livestock are often exposed to diverse bacteria that inhabit the given environments. As such, they are prone to the transmission of disease causing microorganisms through either direct contact with the animals, or through contact with the food and water they administer to the animals. By using antibiotics, the individuals are able to avoid the infection brought about by the disease causing microorganisms.

Third, antimicrobials are also important in enhancing the environment especially since food producing animals live in overcrowded spaces. By administering antimicrobials in the different animal environments, for instance, in aquatic environments, they significantly reduce water eutrophication for the given animals. Similarly, they enhance the fermentation of livestock waste which is inhibited by different microorganisms.

However, the use of antibiotics that seems to generate the highest levels of criticism arises from their use in enhancing animal production, that is, administering antibiotics to animals for non therapeutic reasons. According to Hao et al., research conducted in the early 1940s showed that feeding pigs with penicillin induced feeds led to faster growth while the administration of streptomycin in chicks led to stimulated growth in chicks. Similarly, antibiotics such as doxycycline and chlortetracycline have also been seen to bring about enhanced growth in calves, pigs and chicken. The antibiotics are administered to the animals by either adding them to the animals’ feed or water or orally administering the drugs to the animals.

Consequently, practitioners in the farming industry seem to justify the usage of antibiotics for non therapeutic reasons by pointing out that only low doses of the antibiotics are administered on the one hand, and that there is lack of scientific evidence to support the claim that the antimicrobial usage leads to detrimental effects on human life. As a result, this leads to their continued use. However, different researchers have highlighted that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate how continued antibiotic use leads to increase in resistance to antimicrobials.

To begin with, Phillips (28-52) advances the argument that banning the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in food producing animals is justified despite popular notion that the antibiotics are administered at low dosage levels to the animals in addition to the fact that cooking the food products kills most of the infection causing bacteria. In justification of his claim, he notes that E Coli bacteria have grown in resistance to common antibiotics following consumption of food products from animals prone to using antibiotics for non therapeutic reasons.

Collignon (202-204) reiterates Phillips by noting that E Coli bacteria, known to be the lead cause of intestinal infections as well as urinary tract infections, have in recent times been seen to increase their resistance to common antibiotics. He postulates that the drug resistant strains of E Coli being witnessed are mostly acquired through the food humans consume. Further, by basing his proposition on a study conducted by Johnson et al (195-201), he advances the argument that the drug resistant E Coli are obtained from food animals rather than from human strains that contaminate both water and food consumed.

Johnson et al (195-201) undertook a study trying to show that food animals were the cause of the resistant E Coli strains found in humans. In their study, they analyzed 287 E Coli recovered from a large selection of meat products, both from animals that had been exposed to non therapeutic antibiotics and those that hadn’t. Their findings showed that isolates that were drug resistant had characteristics similar to isolates that were obtained from the same types of meat though significantly different from those observed in different kinds of meat.

The direct implication of the finding was that it implied that the resistant isolates from one given type of meat such as poultry resulted directly from antibiotic use in poultry as compared to the introduction of human strains or other animals into the existent poultry flocks or the cross contamination of poultry meat after slaughter. However, critics leveled various arguments against the findings by noting that the researchers only considered the resistance to antibiotics of few strains of bacteria.

A different study conducted by Olorunmola, Kolawole and Lamikanra (1-7) determined to ascertain resistance of E Coli to commonly used antibiotics. The researchers used 137 E Coli isolates, from urinary tract infections cases, which they tested their sensitivity to antibiotics that are in common use as well as their ability to transfer resistance. Their findings showed that the isolates were highly resistant to antibiotic use where percentages ranged from 51.1% to 94.3% apart from the Nitrofurantoin antibiotic that had only 7.3% resistance.

The study further showed that about 36.5% of the E Coli isolates were resistant to ten of the eleven antibiotics employed. They further showed that about 63% of the isolates were able to transfer their resistance capabilities while about 37.2% of multi-resistant isolates were in possession of more than one virulent factors. Their study highlighted that urinary tract infections were becoming more difficult to treat using common antibiotics as a result of the increased resistance by the E Coli bacteria.

As observed from the findings of the researchers in the above section, strains of E Coli bacteria have been seen to develop resistance to commonly used antibiotics rendering them ineffective in treating infections they cause. Johnson et al (195-201) in essence, pointed out that the drug resistant strains observed were arising from continued use of non therapeutic antibiotics in food animals. However, a question that often comes to mind, regards the relationship between use of agricultural antibiotics and how they cause human disease.

To help provide an answer, Chang et al (240-247) conducted a study that attempted to ascertain the association between the use of agricultural antibiotics and the increase in antibiotic resistance observed in humans which brought about prolonged human illness. Their study, which was motivated by the lack of scientific evidence linking the two aspects, highlighted three main ways through which agricultural antibiotic use could lead to human disease.

The first way identified was through direct contact with resistant bacteria at a given animal source where humans became infected by either getting into contact with infected animals or through ingestion of bacteria contaminated food such as meat or water. The second way was through a breach in the barrier of species as a result of sustained transmission in humans of livestock resistant strains while the third way was through horizontal gene transfer where resistant agricultural genes would be introduced into pathogens existing in humans. The study was significant in demonstrating the notion that human disease easily results from antibiotic use in agriculture.

Major health organizations, the most notable being the World Health Organization, have also raised an alarm regarding increased antimicrobial resistance. The World Health Organization posits that the increased antimicrobial resistance is rendering commonly used medicine ineffective thereby enabling infections to persist in the body for longer periods than expected and eventually increasing the risk of transferring diseases to other individuals.

In addition, as the World Health Organization continues to note, increased antimicrobial resistance is not only threatening the capability to treat common infectious diseases, it is also increasing the risk levels associated with medical procedures such as transplantation of organs, chemotherapy cancer treatment, management of diabetes, and major surgeries such as the caesarean section and hip replacement. Consequently, antimicrobial resistance increases healthcare costs and leads to the need for more intensive care in addition to having an adverse effect on the attainment of both millennium development goals and sustainable development goals.

Improvement in drug resistance following ban on use of antibiotics

While the previously discussed school of thought highlighted an increase in antimicrobial resistance following continued use of the non therapeutic antibiotics, this section considers a different school of thought where it emphasizes on demonstrating a improvement in antimicrobial resistance following the ban of non therapeutic antibiotics in most European countries.

Nelson et al. (977-980) highlights that the Campylobacter bacteria had been a major cause of infections the United States leading to about over 1.4 million infections in its citizens. The authors further point out that, with the use of Fluoroquinolones antibiotics such as ciprofloxacin, the bacterium was easily managed in adults. However, over time, it was observed that treatment of the bacteria became challenging as it offered further resistance to the Fluoroquinolones antibiotics. Research conducted identified the use of enrofloxacin, a Fluoroquinolone antibiotic, in poultry enhancement to be the cause of the resistance. Consequently, the withdrawal of the antibiotic by the US Food and Drug administration body brought about increased improvement of treating the Campylobacter bacteria using ciprofloxacin.

Collignon (202-204) further adds that the withdrawal of the antibiotic did not have any subsequent effect on the production of poultry in the United States which implies that avoiding the usage of such non therapeutic antibiotics leads to improved drug performance. Collignon notes further that in Australia, the usage of Fluoroquinolones was not approved yet the country’s food production levels were not affected in any way. Similarly, there are no Fluoroquinolone-resistant isolates of E Coli among Australian produced meat products while at the same time, resistance to Fluoroquinolone antibiotics is seen to be minimal among the Australian people with levels of resistance falling below 5%.

Similar bans of non therapeutic antibiotics effected in most European countries have also brought about an improvement in the treatment of infections using antibiotics as well as reduced resistance to the drugs.

Conclusion

In recent times, there has been an increase in antimicrobial resistance brought about by misuse of antibiotics. An interesting observation seen is that diverse opinion leaders seem to agree on the notion that inappropriate use of antibiotics in humans, for instance, taking medication for viral infections such as colds and flu or overusing the antibiotics has been a major cause of antimicrobial resistance.

However, the same leaders fail to agree on the notion that non therapeutic use of antibiotics has been a cause of increased antimicrobial resistance. Several reasons highlighted for their arguments include the fact that only low doses are administered to the animals and second, through cooking food products such as meat, most of the antimicrobials are eliminated.

The current paper has employed a two sided approach to demonstrate how continued use of non therapeutic antibiotics is leading to increased risks among human beings. The first approach considered the aspect of increased antimicrobial resistance following continued use of non therapeutic antibiotics in animals. As such, it illustrated how diverse E Coli strains from animal food products are increasing their resistance to commonly used antibiotics as well as showing how their transmission capabilities increased despite the inducement of antibiotics.

In the second approach, the paper considered an American case study to show how banning the use of Fluoroquinolone antibiotics in poultry brought about positive change in resistance towards the microorganisms. Further, by considering cases in Australia, it also demonstrated how the ban of the use Fluoroquinolones in food producing animals lowered antimicrobial resistance on the one hand, and improved the effectiveness of antibiotics in treating such cases.

In conclusion, it would be recommended that the non therapeutic use antibiotics in food producing animals be banned and alternatives sought in order to lower risks to human health.

References

Chang, Qiuzhi et al. “Antibiotics In Agriculture And The Risk To Human Health: How Worried Should We Be?” Evolutionary Applications 8.3 (2014): 240-247. Web. 30 Nov. 2017.

Collignon, Peter. “Resistant Escherichia Coli—We Are What We Eat.” Clinical Infectious Diseases 49.2 (2009): 202-204. Web. 30 Nov. 2017.

Hao, Haihong et al. “Benefits And Risks Of Antimicrobial Use In Food-Producing Animals.” Frontiers in Microbiology 5 (2014): n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2017.

Johnson, James R. et al. “Molecular Analysis Of Escherichia Coli from Retail Meats (2002–2004) From The United States National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System.” Clinical Infectious Diseases 49.2 (2009): 195-201. Web. 30 Nov. 2017.

Nelson, J. M. et al. “Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Campylobacter Species And The Withdrawal Of Fluoroquinolones From Use In Poultry: A Public Health Success Story.” Clinical Infectious Diseases 44.7 (2007): 977-980. Web. 1 Dec. 2017.

Olorunmola, Felix Oluwasola, Deboye Oriade Kolawole, and Adebayo Lamikanra. “Antibiotic Resistance And Virulence Properties In Escherichia Coli Strains From Cases Of Urinary Tract Infections.” African Journal of Infectious diseases 7.1 (2013): 1-7. Print.

Phillips, I. “Does The Use Of Antibiotics In Food Animals Pose A Risk To Human Health? A Critical Review Of Published Data.” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 53.1 (2003): 28-52. Web. 30 Nov. 2017.

Sifferlin, Alexandra. “Farm Animals Are Now Resistant to A Last-Resort Antibiotic.” Time. N.p., 2016. Web. 30 Nov. 2017.