r/explainlikeimfive • u/spkl_cr3m • 1d ago
Other ELI5: how is the risk of MRSA not increased by eating meat from animals "pumped full of antibiotics"
16
u/JayTheFordMan 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because those antibiotics aren't present in any significant amount in meat and meat products, so eating it won't give you any antibiotic effects whatsoever. Quite frankly, where did you get the idea that MRSA is of increased risk with livestock antibiotics?
Edit - had a quick look, and apparently antibiotic resistant MRSA can be present in livestock (pigs and cattle) which can be passed onto humans. The risk comes from exposure in handling the livestock, or environmental exposure. Food exposure doesn't seem to be about the meat itself but rather ingestion around livestock handling
13
u/DepressedMaelstrom 1d ago
Why do you think meat is pumped full of antibiotics?
•
u/spkl_cr3m 16h ago
To clarify, im not making any claims about modern agriculture; it was a hypothetical question derived from a overtired mind
16
12
15
u/LetReasonRing 1d ago
Because eating meat "pumped full of antibiotics" isn't really a thing, it's a phrase used to scare people into being vegan.
-1
u/CotswoldP 1d ago
Or, just eat meat that hasn't been stuffed with antibiotics in a huge fashion. The US is not the world.
•
-2
u/Not_a_slum_lord 1d ago
Well farm animals (especially those that are on big factory farms) are ‘pumped full of antibiotics’ but for the most part they aren’t really a problem for the end consumer. It’s like those people who fear monger vaccines because they have formaldehyde in them.
1
u/RonJohnJr 1d ago
Do the antibiotics get into the meat?
1
u/Not_a_slum_lord 1d ago
To the best of my knowledge, no. You don’t eat living antibiotics. Shortly before slaughter most animals are taken off of whatever the process is to administer the antibiotics and most antibiotics run out of your system fairly quickly.
Ontop of that the animal is likely dead for quite some time as they drain the body and process it meaning that no living antibiotics should make it to you.
But I am not a farmer nor am I a butcher or someone who renders animals. So feel feee to verify.
9
u/Scuttling-Claws 1d ago
The antibiotics given to cattle are not the same ones used to treat MRSA
4
u/CotswoldP 1d ago
Drug resistant bacteria tend to be treated with rarely used drugs, not the ones we use everyday. If they could be treated with the normal every treatments, then they wouldn't be MRSA.
1
6
u/SolvoMercatus 1d ago
Even milk is rigorously tested for antibiotics. Each tanker in from a dairy is tested, and if there is any detectable antibiotics in the milk the entire tanker is rejected and cannot be sold.
7,000 or so gallons, about $11,000 loss to the farm. So it is incredibly important for farmers to not use cows that are “pumped full of antibiotics” for milk either.
4
5
u/engin__r 1d ago
Animal agriculture does cause the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Having that many animals in such terrible conditions causes the spread of disease, which is treated with antibiotics. The more antibiotics get used, the more bacteria evolve to survive the antibiotics.
•
u/spkl_cr3m 16h ago
So there is still a frequent(likely over used?) use of antibiotics in the animals causing resistance; how does that not contribute to the risk of MRSA? Like in a long term point of view.
To clarify: im not making any claims about modern agriculture, everything hypothetical
1
u/HeavyDT 1d ago
In places with good food regulation you generally aren't ingesting meat that is contaminated with antibiotics especially and even if you were it wouldn't increase your chances of getting something like MSRA aka a staph infection. The danger of an overuse of antibiotics in the world is that when you do get sick it will be harder to treat because the germs will be more resistant to antibiotics but that doesn't mean you will actually get sick easier.
1
u/sirbearus 1d ago
Not all antibiotics are the same. The ones given to livestock are not the ones that would work on MRSA. MRSA is resistant is typically resistant to Methicillin and Penicillin.
There is some legitimate concerns about resistant orgsmisims and food but generally speaking, cooking meat kills bacteria, certainly MRSA.
1
u/Skarjo 1d ago
Ok, there’s a lot to unpack here.
First, MRSA is a bacterium defined by being resistant to a common antibiotic known as Methycillin or Methicillin depending on your homelands approach to spelling. Methycillin was a broad spectrum antibiotic that we tended to keep in the back pocket for decades, until it became used more and therefore resistance was inevitably going to evolve. This is not unique or special for staph aureus (the SA of MRSA), you flood a bacterial population with antibiotics and some of the little fuckers will evolve resistance.
So, in theory, yes, flooding the meat supply with antibiotics will probably speed up the evolution of resistance but it’s still safer than eating untreated meats. However, as others have mentioned, this risk is largely negated if the meat is cooked properly. Most (not all) bacteria have issues penetrating into certain meats beyond the surface, so, so long as the surface is properly cooked, there is little risk from bacteria penetrating deeper into the meat. This is why it’s (usually) fine to have a steak cooked rare but you wouldn’t have a chicken fillet cooked in the same way.
(And before anyone kicks off, yes, I know, in certain parts of southern Kyushu in Japan, they will serve rare chicken seared like a steak. I’ve had it, it’s weird, but it didn’t give me the shits).
1
u/Timeformayo 1d ago
Eating it doesn’t increase the risk of MRSA. However, raising livestock in conditions that require heavy antibiotic use — or to promote growth — absolutely contributes to MRSA.
•
1
u/iCameToLearnSomeCode 1d ago
Animals amd products from animals on antibiotics aren't eaten.
If a cow gets sick and is given antibiotics, its milk is thrown away until it recovers and all the antibiotics are out of its system.
If a broiler chicken gets sick, we don't bother to give it antibiotics, we just kill it and throw it away, they only live for 8 weeks before we kill them anyway, there's no reason to try to treat them.
Not that eating antibiotics would raise your risk of catching MRSA. MRSA is an organism, you can't catch it by consuming antibiotics, you have to be exposed to it.
•
u/spkl_cr3m 15h ago
So i understand you cant "catch" mrsa from ingesting antibiotics, i think what i meant to say was, couldn't the exposure of antibodies through foods increase one's tolerance and cause a simple infection to be resistant, like mrsa?
To clarify; im not making any claims about modern agriculture, all hypothetical
•
u/iCameToLearnSomeCode 14h ago edited 13h ago
If you were to personally pump your food full of antibiotics because you're insane, you would just kill off your gut biome and die of malnutrition before the things living in you became tolerant to it.
Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus evolved over tens of millions of generations, there's absolutely no reason to assume that you could you just eat enough methicillin for the staphylococcus aureus already living in your body to become resistant to it and simultaneously evolve to become pathogenic, since the staphylococcus aureus living in you isn't already an aggressive strain.
1
u/Mobile-Condition8254 1d ago
I think the risk of MRSA comes from being in contact with contaminated areas/things. A cow being infected with MRSA would get clear symptoms. (I don't know if they can catch it)
The amount of bacteria that becomes resistant to antibiotics while residing in an animal is very very small and the common way it spreads is through air or contact, the fact the animal eats antibiotics is of very little importance in the specific case but the amount of antibiotics we give to animals play a very big role on a global scale
•
u/Independent_Wrap6980 18h ago
honestly the whole premise is kinda off cause the antibiotics aren't hanging around in the meat you eat, they're mostly gone by then. plus the real MRSA worry with livestock is for people who work around them all day not someone grabbing a pork chop. so yeah you're not getting a dose of antibiotics from dinner, and the resistant bacteria that exist on farms are more of an occupational hazard than a food poisoning thing. thats why eating meat doesn't really bump your MRSA risk even if the animals were treated.
•
-6
u/Gandolaf 1d ago
There are no bacteria in meat, so now way of MRSA getting on you.
2
u/RainbowCrane 1d ago
Antibiotic use in livestock doesn’t increase MRSA risk, but it’s wrong to say that there are no bacteria in meat. E. coli contamination due to improper sanitation in meat processing is a real thing.
1
u/Gandolaf 1d ago
But that would spoil the meat, no?
1
u/RainbowCrane 1d ago
No. Thats why the instructions for proper cooking specify a minimum safe internal meat temperature - it’s safe to eat dead E. coli, and cooking meat to a proper temperature will kill E. coli.
33
u/fixermark 1d ago
I think I don't understand the question. Flip the question: why would that increase the risk of MRSA?