logo
Why antibiotics are like fossil fuels

Why antibiotics are like fossil fuels

The Guardian13 hours ago
In 1954, just a few years after the widespread introduction of antibiotics, doctors were already aware of the problem of resistance. Natural selection meant that using these new medicines gave an advantage to the microbes that could survive the assault – and a treatment that worked today could become ineffective tomorrow. A British doctor put the challenge in military terms: 'We may run clean out of effective ammunition. Then how the bacteria and moulds will lord it.'
More than 70 years later, that concern looks prescient. The UN has called antibiotic resistance 'one of the most urgent global health threats'. Researchers estimate that resistance already kills more than a million people a year, with that number forecast to grow. And new antibiotics are not being discovered fast enough; many that are essential today were discovered more than 60 years ago.
The thing to remember is that antibiotics are quite unlike other medicines. Most drugs work by manipulating human biology: paracetamol relieves your headache by dampening the chemical signals of pain; caffeine blocks adenosine receptors and as a result prevents drowsiness taking hold. Antibiotics, meanwhile, target bacteria. And, because bacteria spread between people, the challenge of resistance is social: it's as if every time you took a painkiller for your headache, you increased the chance that somebody else might have to undergo an operation without anaesthetic.
That makes resistance more than simply a technological problem. But like that British doctor in 1954, we still often talk as if it is: we need to invent new 'weapons' to better defend ourselves.
What this framing overlooks is that the extraordinary power of antibiotics is not due to human ingenuity. In fact, the majority of them derive from substances originally made by bacteria and fungi, evolved millions of years ago in a process of microbial competition.
This is where I can't help thinking about another natural resource that helped create the modern world but has also been dangerously overused: fossil fuels. Just as Earth's geological forces turned dead plants from the Carboniferous era into layers of coal and oil that we could burn for energy, so evolution created molecules that scientists in the 20th century were able to recruit to keep us alive.
Both have offered an illusory promise of cheap, miraculous and never-ending power over nature – a promise that is now coming to an end. If we thought of antibiotics as the 'fossil fuels' of modern medicine, might that change how we use them? And could it help us think of ways to make the fight against life-threatening infections more sustainable?
The antibiotic era is less than a century old. Alexander Fleming first noticed the activity of a strange mould against bacteria in 1928, but it wasn't until the late 1930s that the active ingredient – penicillin – was isolated. A daily dose was just 60mg, about the same as a pinch of salt. For several years it was so scarce it was worth more than gold. But after production was scaled up during the second world war, it ended up costing less than the bottle it came in.
This abundance did more than tackle infectious diseases. Just as the energy from fossil fuels transformed society, antibiotics allowed the entire edifice of modern medicine to be built. Consider surgery: cutting people open and breaking the protective barrier of the skin gives bacteria the chance to swarm into the body's internal tissues. Before antibiotics, even the simplest procedures frequently resulted in fatal blood poisoning. After them, so much more became possible: heart surgery, intestinal surgery, transplantation. Then there's cancer: chemotherapy suppresses the immune system, making bacterial infections one of the most widespread complications of treatment.
The effects of antibiotics have rippled out even further: they made factory farming possible, both by reducing disease among animals kept in close quarters, and by increasing their weight through complex effects on metabolism. They're one of the reasons for the huge increase in meat consumption since the 1950s, with all its concomitant welfare and environmental effects.
Despite the crisis of resistance, antibiotics remain cheap compared with other medicines. Partly – as with fossil fuels – this is because the negative consequences of their use (so-called externalities) are not priced in. And like coal, oil and gas, antibiotics lead to pollution. One recent study estimated that 31% of the 40 most used antibiotics worldwide enter rivers. Once they're out there, they increase levels of resistance in environmental bacteria: one study of soil from the Netherlands showed that the incidence of some antibiotic-resistant genes had increased by more than 15 times since the 1970s. Another source of pollution is manufacturing, particularly in countries such as India. In Hyderabad, where factories produce huge amounts of antibiotics for the global market, scientists have found that the wastewater contains levels of some antibiotics that are a million times higher than elsewhere.
Like the climate crisis, antibiotic resistance has laid global inequalities bare. Some high-income countries have taken steps to decrease antibiotic use, but only after benefiting from their abundance in the past. That makes it hard for them to take a moral stand against their use in other places, a dilemma that mirrors the situation faced by post-industrial nations urging developing nations to forgo the economic benefits of cheap energy.
This may be where the similarities end. While we look forward to the day when fossil fuels are phased out completely, that's clearly not the case with antibiotics, which are always going to be part of medicine's 'energy mix'. After all, most deaths from bacterial disease worldwide are due to lack of access to antibiotics, not resistance. What we are going to need to do is make our approach to development and use much more sustainable. Currently, many pharmaceutical companies have abandoned the search for new antibiotics: it's hard to imagine a more perfect anti-capitalist commodity than a product whose value depletes every time you use it.
That means we need alternative models. One proposal is for governments to fund an international institute that develops publicly owned antibiotics, rather than relying on the private sector; another is to incentivise development with generously funded prizes for antibiotic discovery. And to address the issue of overuse, economists have suggested that health authorities could run 'subscription' models that remove the incentive to sell lots of antibiotics. In one pilot scheme in England, two companies are being paid a set amount per year by the NHS, regardless of how much of their product is actually used.
Finally, we have to remember that antibiotics aren't the only game in town. Supporting other, 'renewable' approaches means we get to use the ones we do have for longer. Vaccines are vital to disease prevention – with every meningitis, diphtheria or whooping cough vaccine meaning a potential course of antibiotics forgone. And the 20th century's largest reductions in infectious disease occurred not because of antibiotics, but thanks to better sanitation and public health. (Even in the 2000s, the threat of MRSA was addressed with tried-and-tested methods such as handwashing and cleaning protocols – not new antibiotics.) Given that antibiotics themselves emerged unexpectedly, we should also be investing more in blue-skies research.
Just as we no longer burn coal without a thought for the consequences, the era of carefree antibiotic use is now firmly in the past. In both cases, the idea that there wouldn't be a reckoning was always an illusion. But as with our slow waking up to the reality of the climate crisis, coming to appreciate the limits of our love affair with antibiotics may ultimately be no bad thing.
Liam Shaw is a biologist at the University of Oxford, and author of Dangerous Miracle (Bodley Head).
Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End by Atul Gawande (Profile, £11.99)
Infectious: Pathogens and How We Fight Them by John S Tregoning (Oneworld, £10.99)
Deadly Companions: How Microbes Shaped our History by Dorothy H Crawford (Oxford, £12.49)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Functional beverages' are booming — but is it all hype?
‘Functional beverages' are booming — but is it all hype?

Times

time4 hours ago

  • Times

‘Functional beverages' are booming — but is it all hype?

Before you take that magnesium supplement or sit down to meditate, what if a drink could help you relax? Enter 'functional beverages', drinks that claim to possess additional health benefits beyond those of a standard fizzy drink or fruit juice. Functional drinks are surging in popularity, with supermarkets in Britain seeing sales increase by 24.5 per cent in the past year, according to Worldpanel by Numerator. The market research firm also said that almost 30 per cent of UK households now purchase functional drinks. However, Nichola Ludlam-Raine, a dietician with more than 15 years of clinical experience in the NHS, has warned that she 'wouldn't rely on them [functional drinks] for measurable health benefits'. Ludlam-Raine, who now works privately and is the author of How Not to Eat Ultra-Processed , said: 'Functional drinks containing ingredients like CBD [cannabidiol], lion's mane [a type of mushroom], and ashwagandha [a herb typically used in ayurvedic medicine] are part of a growing wellness trend, but the science isn't as strong as the marketing.'

The Guardian view on regulating cosmetic procedures: rogue operators must be tackled, but aren't the only problem
The Guardian view on regulating cosmetic procedures: rogue operators must be tackled, but aren't the only problem

The Guardian

time5 hours ago

  • The Guardian

The Guardian view on regulating cosmetic procedures: rogue operators must be tackled, but aren't the only problem

The enormous popularity of beauty treatments, including dermatological fillers and Botox injections, is not solely an issue for health regulators. Changing norms and aspirations about appearances, and the way that these are marketed mainly to women and girls, are a cultural and economic phenomenon that requires wider consideration. While attitudes to these procedures and aesthetics vary, many people – including some cosmetic surgeons – are concerned that younger women account for a growing share of a highly lucrative and growing market. The death last year of 33-year-old Alice Webb in Gloucestershire, after a non-surgical Brazilian butt lift, as well as multiple reports of injuries, and the deaths of at least 28 women who have travelled to Turkey for cosmetic treatments, have increased the pressure on ministers to tighten the law. Wes Streeting's announcement of new licence requirements for UK businesses, and tighter regulation of higher-risk treatments, is probably overdue. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute recently warned that untrained people have given cosmetic injections in public toilets and hotels. Altering the law in order to exclude such 'rogue operators' ought to make high streets and the internet – where many clinics advertise – safer. Talking about the risks, as the health secretary has been doing, and holding a consultation on proposed changes, may have the beneficial effect of raising awareness even before changes are introduced. But councils will need resources if they are to be expected to enforce new rules by issuing licences, checking premises and so on. As in many other areas of economic activity, the law on its own is unlikely to be enough. Mechanisms are needed to ensure that businesses comply. It is already illegal to administer Botox or dermal fillers to children in England – although, worryingly, it is still allowed in Wales and Scotland. Mr Streeting's announcement that rules regarding children will be tightened further is particularly welcome. Strenuous efforts should be made to place them off limits for the industry as a whole. The reported preoccupation of some children with anti-ageing products is not healthy and should be discouraged. Mr Streeting did not refer to the cost to the NHS if cosmetic procedures go wrong, when announcing plans to tighten the law. But Karin Smyth, one of his ministers, has raised this. And Prof Sir Stephen Powis, who was NHS England's national medical director until last month, made the same point specifically in relation to butt lifts – the cosmetic procedure with the highest death rate of all. Ministers should expect pushback even though many experts, including plastic surgeons, favour tighter rules. The pro-growth mood of the Treasury means proposals for new regulations are unlikely to be smiled upon there. The more restrictive approach being proposed for England will also do nothing to prevent surgical tourism and could even increase it, if tighter regulation of the domestic industry results in higher prices. The gap in safeguards that allows foreign cosmetic surgery providers to market directly to the public needs to be addressed separately, which the government has begun to recognise. There is no single or instant fix. But by cracking down on cowboy operators, ministers will send a message that appearance-altering injections and other invasive treatments must be treated seriously. They are a different order of activity from applying makeup or painting nails. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Obese to get soups and shakes diet instead of weight-loss jabs
Obese to get soups and shakes diet instead of weight-loss jabs

Times

time6 hours ago

  • Times

Obese to get soups and shakes diet instead of weight-loss jabs

Low-calorie soups and shakes are to be prescribed to thousands of overweight people in Scotland in an attempt to reduce their dependence on expensive weight-loss drugs and provide longer-lasting health benefits. From January, 3,000 patients who have been newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes will be recruited for a clinical trial. About 300,000 Scots live with type 2 diabetes, a condition commonly linked to obesity, in which badly regulated blood sugar levels can increase the risk of heart disease, kidney disease, strokes or nerve conditions. About 10,000 of them are being treated with weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro, with injections costing the NHS £3,000 a year. The estimated annual bill of £30 million is expected to rise as manufacturers raise prices. NHS chiefs believe that not only will the soups and shakes plan be less expensive, it will also bring longer-term health benefits. In the Total Diet Replacement (TDR) plan, to be rolled out over three years, patients who have recently been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and are deemed eligible will be given low-calorie substitutes for their breakfast, lunch and dinner. The replacement meals, containing a maximum of 900 calories a day, will be delivered to patients for between three and five months. • What to do now Mounjaro's hiking its prices, by an obesity expert After this initial period, normal food will be reintroduced, but with guidance given on healthy meals through online consultations and an app. The ambition is for patients to lose up to 10 per cent of their body weight over a year. Doctors are also optimistic that up to 40 per cent of the trial participants will achieve remission from type 2 diabetes within a year. There are fears that the weight lost through injections — which work by suppressing the appetite — may last only as long as the patient is taking the drug. By contrast, the effects of diet changes should prove more long-lasting and cost effective, NHS officials believe. The TDR scheme is set to cost £5.6 million for 3,000 patients, a one-off cost of about £1,866 per person. Doctors hope the plan will help patients to fundamentally alter their diet and lifestyle. A spokesman for the Scottish government said: 'We anticipate that around 35 to 40 per cent will achieve remission from type 2 diabetes at the end of their first year on the programme, with a majority of patients benefiting from a clinically significant average weight loss of 10 per cent.' This would lead to reductions in blood pressure and contribute to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. He added: 'We will measure impact by the number of patients recruited into this programme, the number who achieve remission and the number with clinically significant weight loss.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store