Re: Fish antibiotics

The Smithsonian article is interesting.

The article does not say that fish antibiotics are made in different facilities, or under different conditions, or to different standards than those antibiotics made for humans.

Nor have I seen evidence published anywhere else that that is indeed the case. I'd like to see objective evidence that that is indeed the case.

As inexpensive as the specified antibiotics in question are to make, package, and sell, it would beggar my belief that the fish antibiotics are in any way different than what humans consume. It would make little economic sense for the manufacturers to do so.

The Smithsonian article minimizes the importance of the USP lab, which in my mind, raises questions about the knowledge and/or objectivity of the writer. The USP is the world standard for drug potency and purity, and it's lab is used by many other countries besides the USA to assure thier citizens are getting what they think they are getting. The drug manufacturers can choose to pay yearly fees to have a sample of their product certified by USP, but all manufacturers, Rx and OTC must meet USP standards.

The bigger problems, which are appropriately and accurately dealt with in the article, is the inappropriate use of antibiotics for viral infections, use of the wrong antibiotic for the presumed diagnosis, and the steadily worsening problem of bacterial resistance to the antibiotics currently available.

More info about the work of the USP is available on the USP website.

No affiliation to the USP or antibiotic makers or sellers