

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Underscoring the value of collaboration, experts from around the world on Monday unveiled what they described as the first "truly global study" of pharmaceutical drugs contaminating rivers, which has "deleterious effects on ecological and human health."
"I hope the study will lead to projects that support and expand sewage treatment where it is needed the most."
The historic analysis, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, involved 127 authors from 86 institutions. They examined surface water samples from 1,052 sites in 104 countries--including 36 that had never been monitored before-- across all continents for 61 different active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs).
Sample sites ranged from an Indigenous community in Venezuela where modern medicine is not used to highly populated urban areas such as Delhi, London, and New York City. Researchers also gathered samples from regions with political instability, including Baghdad, Nablus in the Palestinian West Bank, and Cameroon's capital, Yaounde.
The United States was the "most extensively studied" nation, with samples collected at 81 locations along 29 rivers across Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New York, and Texas. Samples were also taken in every European Union member state except Malta, which the paper explains "was not included due to the country's lack of rivers."
The paper notes that all four contaminants detected on every continent--caffeine, nicotine, acetaminophen or paracetamol, and cotinine--are "considered either lifestyle compounds or over-the-counter APIs." Another 14 APIs, including various antidepressants and antihistamines, were found on all continents except Antarctica.
"Concentrations of at least one API at 25.7% of the sampling sites were greater than concentrations considered safe for aquatic organisms, or which are of concern in terms of selection for antimicrobial resistance," the study states. "Therefore, pharmaceutical pollution poses a global threat to environmental and human health, as well as to delivery of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals."
The Guardian's Damian Carrington reported that "the APIs end up in rivers after being taken by people and livestock and then excreted into the sewer system or directly into the environment, though some may also leak from pharmaceutical factories."
Lead author John Wilkinson of the University of York told Carrington that "the World Health Organization and U.N. and other organizations say antimicrobial resistance is the single greatest threat to humanity--it's a next pandemic."
"In 19% of all of the sites we monitored, the concentrations of [antibiotics] exceeded the levels that we'd expect to encourage bacteria to develop resistance," he said.
With the exceptions of Iceland and the Yanomami Village in Venezuela, "at least one API was detected in all of our study campaigns," the paper reveals. The highest concentrations were documented in Lahore, Pakistan; La Paz, Bolivia; and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Overall, the most polluted samples came from African and Asian countries, the experts found. The most contaminated samples from Europe, North America, and Oceania were from Madrid, Spain; San Jose, Costa Rica; and Adelaide, Australia, respectively.
"While the majority of previous studies have monitored active pharmaceutical ingredients in rivers, these studies have often excluded many countries, have measured only a select few pharmaceuticals, and used different analytical methods," co-author Anna Sobek of Stockholm University said in a statement. "This means that it is difficult to make direct comparisons between studies and, hence, assess the scale of pharmaceutical pollution across the globe."
Though she emphasized that the study confirms the issue is global in nature, Sobek noted that "in general, the rivers with the highest level of pharmaceutical pollution were found in low- to medium-income countries where there are no adequate water treatment facilities and where high emissions from the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals are found."
"The findings of this study remind us that the medicines we buy in pharmacies can have a big impact on the environment of the countries they are manufactured in," Sobek said.
"Since we clearly show that access to sewage treatment facilities significantly improves water quality," she added, "I hope the study will lead to projects that support and expand sewage treatment where it is needed the most."
Wilkinson told Carrington that "we know good sewage connectivity and wastewater treatment is the key to minimizing, though not necessarily eliminating, pharmaceutical concentrations," but it "is extremely expensive as there's a lot of infrastructure involved."
In a statement, Wilkinson said the research project "is an excellent example of how the global scientific community can come together to tackle large-scale environmental issues."
The paper highlights that the authors' approach "could be applied to other APIs and other classes of pollutants, such as personal care products, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, pesticides, and metals," as well as "expanded to other environmental media, such as sediments, soils, and biota."
"As we move toward 2030, the new paradigm in environmental monitoring must involve a global, inclusive, and interconnected effort," the study concludes. "Only through global collaboration will we be able to generate the monitoring data required to make informed decisions on mitigation approaches required to reduce the environmental impacts of chemicals."
When the history of COVID-19 is written, will we finally name our obsession with eating animals as the original sin that led to a catastrophe of such profound consequence?
Will we have learned from the lesson of the Wuhan "wet market"--where COVID-19 is thought to have originated--that cramming wild animals into meat markets is dangerous? Will we have added to that lesson the one about the H1N1 swine flu of 2009 that originated in an intensive pig confinement operation in North Carolina? Will we have also added both these lessons to the H5N1 bird flu lesson in 1997, in which yet another deadly disease evidently originated in animal farms? Will we have factored in the tens of millions of illnesses each year that come from bacteria-contaminated meat? And will we have finally concluded that confining billions of animals annually into potentially lethal pandemic- and bacteria-breeding grounds didn't add up to anything good?
When we have carefully compared the number of people who died in the U.S. in April, 2020, not only from COVID-19 but also from heart disease, will we notice that the numbers were similar, but one disease--COVID-19--led us to shutter our economy and spend trillions of tax dollars to prevent more deaths, while the other--heart disease, largely preventable through reducing or eliminating our excessive consumption of meat and dairy--had been exacerbated through tax-subsidized animal agribusiness?
Will we wonder why meat sales surged during the pandemic? Will we have mourned the employees in slaughterhouses who died after hundreds were infected in crowded, dangerous conditions that left no room for safe distancing, as well as mourned those who died after being exposed to these COVID-19-infected people?
Will we have also mourned the pigs themselves, the abuse of whom was so torturous that anyone treating a dog or cat the way we treat pigs (as well as lambs, cows, calves, chickens, and turkeys) would have been guilty of a crime?
When we remember the 50th anniversary of Earth Day that occurred during the pandemic, will we notice how little mention was made of our animal-based diets, which were largely responsible for rainforest destruction, water pollution, and aquifer depletion, as well as a huge contributor to climate change?
Will we still disdain vegans, who are so often disliked in our society?
Perhaps something different will have transpired by the time the pandemic history is written. Maybe we will have finally decided to change our food systems and dietary habits in order to protect ourselves from future pandemics and preventable diseases, as well as reduce the rate of runaway global warming. Maybe we will have resolved to put an end to the animal cruelty that future generations will be utterly appalled by.
When our children ask us the question, "How could you have been so foolish, selfish, and cruel?" perhaps we'll honestly admit that for too long we cared more about temporarily pleasing our tastebuds than about their future. And then we'll quickly add that we finally changed our systems, and it turned out not to be so hard to do.
We'll describe how even the biggest meat companies began producing plant-based proteins that tasted identical to animal flesh, while other companies produced clean meat by growing animal cells, obviating the slaughter of animals and the use of antibiotics in farming, which had caused antibiotic resistance that gravely threatened human health.
We'll tell them that we finally transformed the political systems that had enabled animal agribusiness to influence legislation for so long, and we put an end to subsidizing the foods that were killing us and harming our planet.
We'll point to the sustainable food systems we created that nourished billions of people safely, and which simultaneously helped protect other species' habitats, stemmed the rate of extinction, and slowed the warming of the planet.
We'll remind them of what, by then, they would already know well - that our educational system had shifted to ensure that they learned how to be solutionaries who could bring their good minds and big hearts to bear on solving real-world problems in ways that enabled all to thrive.
We'll be able to tell our children that COVID-19 made us finally change what we put in our mouths to nourish ourselves, and our children will thank us.
Bolstering concerns about the "continuing threat" that so-called superbugs pose to human health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report Wednesday that found antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States.
"Stop referring to a coming post-antibiotic era--it's already here."
--CDC Director Robert R. Redfield
"That means, on average, someone in the United States gets an antibiotic-resistant infection every 11 seconds and every 15 minutes someone dies," the CDC said in a statement announcing the report, Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019 (pdf).
"When Clostridioides difficile, a bacterium which is not typically resistant but can cause deadly diarrhea and is associated with antibiotic use, is added to these," the statement continued, "the U.S. toll of all the threats in the report exceeds three million infections and 48,000 deaths."
The new release follows the CDC's 2013 AR Threats report (pdf). Since the first report, CDC Director Dr. Robert R. Redfield told reporters Wednesday, "we've reduced the number of deaths from antibiotic-resistance by 18% overall and by nearly 30% in hospitals alone." However, the 2019 report says that "CDC is concerned about rising resistant infections in the community."
"This is a problem that ultimately affects all of us... It literally has the potential to affect every person on the planet."
--Michael Craig, CDC
"This is a problem that ultimately affects all of us," Michael Craig, a CDC senior adviser on antibiotic resistance, told CNN. "It literally has the potential to affect every person on the planet."
The new report also says that "the emergence and spread of new forms of resistance continues to alarm CDC experts," noting that "antibiotic-resistant germs can share their resistance genes with other germs and can make them untreatable." Craig described the interplay as "essentially crowdsourcing."
The CDC classified carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Clostridioides difficile as urgent threats in 2013 and added two more with this year's report: drug-resistant Candida auris and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter. The new report lists 18 antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi sorted into three categories: urgent, serious, and concerning.
Reporting on the CDC's findings Wednesday, CNN shared the story of Peggy Lillis, "a healthy, vibrant 56-year-old teacher in Brooklyn, who woke up one morning 10 years ago with severe diarrhea."
Her son Christian Lillis said that "being a kindergarten teacher, she just assumed that she caught something from one of the kids or maybe she had food poisoning. She did not think it was a serious threat. None of us did."

According to CNN:
Five days later, Peggy was so sick she could barely move.
Doctors immediately admitted Peggy to the intensive care unit. She had Clostridioides difficile, or C. diff, one of the urgent threats on the CDC's list.
Peggy's kidneys were starting to fail, and she was going into septic shock.
The hospital gave Peggy an antibiotic called vancomycin, both intravenously and by enema. But she died the next day--less than a week after becoming ill.
"The doctors at the hospital where she was treated--they did everything they could for her," Christian said. "But bacteria are evolving at a rate that we are not keeping up with."
Christian says they'll never know exactly where or when his mother picked up the C. diff bacteria.
Redfield, in the report's foreward, outlined four actions the United States "must" take to address antibiotic resistance:
Redfield told reporters Wednesday that "antibiotic resistance remains a significant enemy and we need to ensure our interventions are effective and monitored through the programs we institute. We must remain vigilant."
Through the CDC's AR Solutions Initiative, he said, "we will continue to invest in our country's public health infrastructure and in states essential programs such as the antibiotic-resistant lab network and by more than 500 local AR experts who will rapidly detect and prevent the spread of antibiotic-resistant germs."
The CDC collaborates with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, other federal partners, data analysts, healthcare providers, and veterinarians to improve antibiotic use. The agency also works with private industry to improve food safety, medical devices, and surveillance capabilities, and supplies drug and diagnostic test developers with samples of resistant germs from the CDC's AR Isolate Bank so they can undercover new drugs and treatments.
"We've invested $110 million dollars in researchers who are studying prevention strategies... and we will support these kinds of important discoveries," said Redfield. "Our nation's health departments, protecting us on the front lines, need even stronger lab capacity and specialized technologies, more boots on the ground to stop the spread of bacteria and fungi, and tailored interventions to improve the antibiotics that are used in humans, animals, and in the environment."
"The global community needs more innovation, new treatment options, reliable diagnostics, and better data that will help protect people and animals," Redfield added. "And our detection, prevention, and innovation strategies that have proven effective in the United States should be scaled up worldwide, where appropriate."
In April, as Common Dreams reported, the U.N. Interagency Coordination Group (IACG) on Antimicrobial Resistance warned that globally, superbugs could kill 10 million people per year by 2050 without urgent action. Already, according to that report, 700,000 people around the world die annually from drug-resistant infections.