Slashdot Mirror
Viruses the New Condiment
Lip writes to tell us that a new bacteria killing virus has been deemed safe by the FDA as a food additive for ready-to-eat meats. These bacteriophages are designed to kill a common microbe (Listeria monocytogenes bacteria) to which hundreds of
deaths every year have been attributed. From the article: "The viruses are grown in a preparation of the very bacteria they kill, and then purified. The FDA had concerns that the virus preparation potentially could contain toxic residues associated with the bacteria. However, testing did not reveal the presence of such residues, which in small quantities likely wouldn't cause health problems anyway, the FDA said."
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
The federal government classified them as vegetables along with ketchup.
Is it possible for a bacteriophage to mutate and infect human cells?
"They're putting bird flu in our food!"
The press coverage has been woefully bad with respect to explaining that these are not your average run-of-the-mill viruses, but rather are bacteriophages that can only infect bacteria. Expect some mild hysteria over this and some nuts demanding labelling.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Yay, let's trade off a few hundred known deaths with the unknown health effects of this new virus. I suppose food labeling won't be required to show that this is added, because "we're sure there are no negative health effects and wouldn't want you, the idiot consumer (literally) deciding for yourself".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is very cool. I remember the Russians were working on killing bacterial infections in people (Tuberculosis, Leprosy, even Flesh eating disease) with Phages. That was in the 70s. It's about time someone came up with something successful.
By the way these are completely harmless to humans, in fact to all plants and animals. The phage is a very simple virus with a small genome that gets injected into the bacterium and does the standard virus things (hijacks the host's systems to replicate itself a billion times). The cell explodes, releasing billions more phages. These phages have been our tools for a long time in biology, we use them to move genes around, for making libraries of genes, all sorts of neato stuff. There's little we don't know about them, so they're a good candidate for this task. There is no way these can make the leap from infecting bacteria to infecting higher organisms, any more than a plant could suddenly start walking around.
I could think of a few things that are possible, for example if it mutated enough to find our host bacteria a good target then that might cause problems, but again, very doubtful.
Whether histerical or not, whether dangerous or not, I am for TRUTH in labelling. It does not matter whether biotest found out that it is innocuous. It does not matter that FDA thinks genetically modified soja is ok for consumption, or hormone in beef, what matters is that *I* "the consumer" need to know to make a choice. Whether I inform myself to make a correct decision is my choice. But if you take out stuff from the label beause no consummer would buy it out of fear, then you REMOVE the choice, even if it is a dumb choice. And I as a consumer find it a really bad idea. Next you will claim putting a label with a list of ingredient with % is a dumb idea too.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
.. after you've eaten it? Does the virus then die off in your digestive track? How does it die - when it has run out of bacteria to consume??
_Vishal www.squad9.com
Viruses in our food? I think I can see the into the not-so-distant future...
FDA approves the sale of new Hormel vegetarian alternative food
Hormel will begin marketing it's unique new meat alternative this month under the name Soylent Green. "We've been pushing for FDA approval for some time, and we're happy we'll finally be able to offer such a wonderful product to our customers," said PR spokesperson Adele Wright.
When asked about the unusual color, Wright responded, "We were very inspired by Dr. Seuss, and saw the success that Heinz had with their green ketchup. Such a fun looking food will appeal to children, who are notoriously finicky eaters. Soylent Green offers all the benefits of a vegetarian diet, but without missing any of the flavor. Soylent Green has a distinct flavor that we think will be quite popular."
Imitators, however, do not have Hormel concerned. "We keep our secret recipe closely guarded," says Hormel CEO Dr. Hannibal Lector. "We don't anticipate anybody coming up with a knock-off product any time soon."
Most people, though, are probably only interested in the taste. The Star's very own food critic Ken Prescott offers his opinion: "Soylent Green is really just vegetarian spam: it has a funny color, and a taste like nothing else. A lot of people like Spam, and a lot of people hate it. Soylent Green is the same - how it tastes will vary from person to person."
The press coverage has been woefully bad with respect to explaining that these are not your average run-of-the-mill viruses, but rather are bacteriophages that can only infect bacteria. Expect some mild hysteria over this and some nuts demanding labelling.
I was expecting more of a "We can't label this, consumers would freak out if they knew!" reaction from businesses.
Exactly that argument was used to strike down requirements that "GM" (genetically modified) food be labelled. Businesses, with a straight face, told the government regulators that if they required labelling, consumers wouldn't buy their products. God forbid consumers be allowed to make a choice as to whether they want genetically modified foods or not...and if you're afraid they won't choose genetically modified foods- maybe you shouldn't make them.
Most people's fears come from the business world constantly (and consistently) putting profits ahead of public health. Industries whine about reglation, but they brought it upon themselves, as almost every piece of regulation on the books were brought about by someone doing something they shouldn't have- all because it made more profit.
Please help metamoderate.
I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other, but why do they need to leave consumers unaware of whether this is being used? Anything that goes into our food should be clearly labeled as being used in the process. I find it especially hypocritical since FDA claims there is no harm in this. If there is no harm, I see no reason not to specifically state what it is we are buying.
As it stands all this will do is drive more people with means to Whole Foods and the like, (and increase their share price in the process).
Incidentally, once FDA made it mandatory to label products with an amount of "transfat" contained in them, many common foods that used transfats have been reformulated not to do that. Trans-fats are brought into food from margarine/hydrogenated oil, and these are a known health hazard, of course. Interestingly, FDA guidelines leave a lot of wiggle room to manufacturers, allowing products with less then 0.5 gram of trans-far per serving to be labeled as trans-fat free. 0.5 gram of fat is quite a significant amount, especially since it is easy to go just under that by simply stating smaller "serving size". However, even under these half-honest guidelines of disclosure consumers have benefitted from better products. Disclosure is always good.
Yes, irritants cause cancer.
Don't worry. We can trust the people who brought us BSE, growth hormones, high fructose corn syrup and the current obesity epidemic can't we? Ronald loves you.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's a bacteriophage. These things target specific bacteria and it is thought that it is very difficult for bacteria to develope resistance against them. So, they are a much better option and probably less environmentally sensitive that most general antibiotics (to which many bacteria have developed resistance). If you don't know what these phages are you should really visit the Wiki link above (they are really wicked looking and interesting).
It should be 'bacteria-killing virus'. A virus that kills bacteria. The hyphen is important, it differentiates between 'man-eating shark' and 'man eating shark'.
:)
Probably the tenth time I've complained about grammar on slashdot
B
I'm rather ticked off that once again (like with irradiated meat) the food industry thinks that consumers have no right to know what is in what they are eating. (and I think treating meat with radiation and bacteriophages is a good thing. I just think people have a right to know.)
The problem is the food industry and USDA wants the benefits of science without taking any responsibility for educating a population woefully ignorant about science.
The other side of it of course is that treating meat so it can sit on a shelf longer has no real benefit for the consumer (other than not getting sick from spoiled meat) - the meat packers benefit greatly with lower costs, but why shouldn't consumers get some of the benefit in the form of lower prices? Hiding whether it is treated is a way to capture all the benefit for the producers.
Viruses don't have cells. They're basically just genetic material in a protein shell that go off to reprogram other cells. It would be impossible to "infect" another virus.
There are ways other viruses can co-infect a cell and piggy-back onto another virus's replication cycle for it's own use, or even disrupt the other virus's replication because of it. Problem is HIV is a retrovirus, which also means it doesn't actively replicate all the time and can integrate into your own genes. That's why an infected person can survive for years with a very low HIV count and relatively symptom free until the viruses essential reactivates.
Thanks. I admit I get them confused.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
Let's stop giving that drug a bad name. It has its uses, even though it had a terrible past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
"The FDA approved thalidomide in 1998, under a restricted access system, for the treatment of erythema nodosum leprosum associated with leprosy (Hansen's disease). It also was found to be effective for multiple myeloma, and is now standard first line therapy for this disease..."
which there's every reason to believe, there could still be problems with a couple of systems-level effects.
They only kill one strain of bacteria. Will consumers (and meat packers!) get a false sense of security, get sloppy, and wind up with some different strain of bacteria poisoning the meat?
Treating huge amounts of meat with industrial quantities of phages will change the environment for the bacteria. The bacteria have a chance to change their genome every half hour. If they can evolve to be less vulnerable to phage infection then we'll be forcing them to do so. Then we wind up with spoiled meat again.
Irradiation seems better. It will rearrange some molecules, but less than cooking the meat in an oxygen atmosphere. Radiation will kill everything except that weird bacterium that lives in nuclear reactor cooling water.
[ vegan police bulletin ]
...
Just to remind everyone, our ever-increasing orgy of animal slaughter wastes land through feed production, pollutes air and water, and brings much untold suffering to our fellow beings, who themselves are given no political voice. Only when the barbaric practice of factory farming is finally eradicated may we ever call ourselves compassionate as a society.
If you as an individual can reduce your dependency even a little on the products of animal exploitation and slavery, please do. Your every meal will become a testament to life and love, and you will be helping your health, your environment, your animal friends, and your sense of humor.
Meanwhile, be aware of the many threats to health directly caused by the breeding and use of animals.
Oprah: Now see, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let me just ask you this right now Howard. How do you know the cows are ground up and fed back to the other cows?
Howard Lyman: Oh, I've seen it. These are U.S.D.A. statistics, they're not something we're making up.
Oprah: Now doesn't that concern you all a little bit, right here, hearing that?
Audience: Yeah!
Oprah: It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger!
Audience: (Claps loudly and shouts) yeah!
Howard: Ask yourself the question. Today we could do exactly what the English did and cease feeding cows to cows. Why in the world are we not doing that? Why are we skating around this and continuing to do it when everybody sitting here knows that, that would be the safest thing to do, why is it, why is it? Because we have the greedy that are getting the ear of government instead of the needy and that's exactly why we're doing it.
Audience: (applause)
Oprah: We have a lot of questions about this Mad Cow Disease that we'd like to try to get resolved, because we don't want to just alarm you all, but I have to tell you, I'm thinking about the cattle being fed to the cattle and that's pretty upsetting to me...
[ kill no more ]
-- thinkyhead software and media
I consider this a very mixed blessing for the following reasons:
- it substitutes "spray and forget" for good hygiene and quality control for food. Bluntly speaking it provides meat vendors with more leeway to get away with poor quality control, poor hygiene and meat that's too old because it takes away some of the bacteria. Economic pressure being what it is, there will be vendors who will take advantage of this and who will then have a competitive advantage over vendors that *do* pay attention to proper hygiene and quality control
- it proposes to launch an enormously broad application of this bacterium-killing virus when only a select target group (mentioned in the article) needs it. When meat leftovers containing this virus are disposed of, they will spread this virus throughout compost heaps and perhaps even into sewage sludge, providing a great opportunity for billions of bacteria to encounter this virus in great dilution under a variety of conditions. Who is willing to bet that no bacteria will develop immunity? In this closely resembles the same irresponsible attitude that was a the bottom of the American habit to prescribe Penicillin indiscriminately for everything from coughs, colds, to sprained ankles. A habit that led directly to the emergence of the current nasty strains antibiotic-resistant bacteria (MRSA comes to mind).
- there are no safeguards against the emergence of a new strain of Listeria that might develop and that is resistant to this particular virus.
- bacteria live in an ecosystem with competitive pressures. If you remove one bacterium (Listeria) you create an open invitation for any bacterium that isn't targeted by this specific virus. What are the chances that we will be surprised by a newspaper article decrying the death of 100 elderly because they had (sprayed) luncheon meat in which very rare but virus-immune bacteria had developed (and had chance to develop because standards of hygiene went down and the meat was kept out of the fridge for say 24 hours)
In summary I am pessimistic about applying this virus on a grand scale:
- it's a sizeable intervention that isn't really needed, because with proper hygiene and fresh produce you will not have difficulties for ordinary healthy people, and those with a weakened immune system or special vulnerabilities can simply take special care.
- due to its intended broad and indiscriminate application, there are no safeguards whatsoever against this novel anti-bacterial weapon not being blunted by allowing billions of bacteria to encounter in in great dilution, develop immunity, and pass that immunity on to their colleagues (which is a known mechanism in bacteria).
- it only seems to benefit the producers of this virus by creating competitive pressures to use it if your competitor does so too (which is of course their good right, but not necessarily beneficial for society as a whole)
If you don't regularly get contaminated food you shouldn't have to use stuff like this at all.
If it is pretty rare that dangerous bacteria get into your food, why should it be good practice to have viruses added to certain "foods" 100% of the time? Think about it.
This is just like the other stupid idiocy (salmonella etc) which the food industry seems to get away with. Go read this: http://www.cspinet.org/reports/polt.html
Excerpt: "Despite increasing rates of food poisoning from Salmonella and Campylobacter during the 1980s, and continuing high levels today, the poultry industry has maintained processing practices that actually increase the percent of contaminated products. Instead of minimizing the contamination in processing plants, the poultry industry relies on consumers to cook the problem away."
The real problem is not bacteria in food. The real problem is the food industry treating food just like any other "fuel" - if it meets regulations XYZ then it's fit to be consumed. AND the FDA etc allowing them to do so.
With attitudes like that you get practices like feeding feathers to cows - which was stopped because, brilliantly, they feed leftover cows to chickens too, so with the BSE scare, the risk of leftover cows ending up being swept off the floor with the feathers and re-fed to cows was a bit too high to be politically/economically viable.
And then the USA complains when the Japanese refuse their beef or their rice or whatever.
This is just like going to a restaurant and getting crap served to you, but FDA approved crap, with FDA approved viruses squirted on it so that all the dangerous bacteria has been killed, following industry "best practices".
Even if it is legally edible and meets all the regulations, it still leaves a bad taste in your mouth one way or another.
Instead of debating whether the viruses are potentially harmful or not, we should consider whether what's happening in the food industry is harmful or not.
What next? You guys are going to continue eating such industrial output, like it and think it's "wonderful new technology", "Approved by the glorious FDA"? Now that's what I call disgusting. Believe me, what is disgusting is not the viruses or the bacteria, and I'm the sort who eats and likes all sorts of stuff (some of it apparently has appeared on Fear Factor).
that cherry picked US canned tuna for it's studies to show low mercury levels, so I'm a little worried about this. The sheer number of known carcinogens in the American diet worries me. Aspertame, Sodium Nitrate, Potasium Bromate; the list goes on and on. The argument is always either a) you're not getting enough to harm you or b) it's all naturally occuring anyway. Neither idea takes into account that a) if you eat a lot of prepared foods (like most poor Americans) you get way more than most studies allow and b) is it really a good idea to add more of a naturally occuring carcinogen to a diet? Wouldn't that raise your intake above natural limits? I've been gradually trying to clean up my diet, but it's hard. Real hard. Try to buy bread without High Fructose Corn Syrup or Hydrongenated Vegetable oil for less than $4 dollars/loaf, for example. Cheap lunch meats all have Sodium Nitrate, cheap flavoring agents Potasium Bromate, cheap fish is high in Mercury. Fresh vegetables, chicken and ocean fish are _not_ cheap when eaten as much as the fda recommends. At .50 cents a serving, 6 searvings a day 30 days a month that's $180 dollars a month just on vegetables. The average American only gets $100 /month for his food budget in most families (average grocery bill for a family of 4 if $400/month). You can't really live off bread anymore either, over farming has taken a lot of the necessary nutrients out of the soil and then the wheat that made that possible. All and all, I'm appalled and frightened by my food supply, and things like this aren't encouraging.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Moderators, before reading this post or even comprehensing its contents, mark me FLAMEBAIT please and get off with it.
For the interested parties, read on...
What is it nowadays (..) in the US that makes food-safety a non-issue with regards to new technologies ? Often Europe is being seen as "the old world", where we boycot a lot of products from countries 'without reason'. Europe is 'old-fashioned', 'isolates' itself, is perhaps even 'afraid to try new things'. I wonder if this is true and whether we didn't learn anything from our mistakes.
There was a time when heroin was made into a medicine by a medical company in Europe. And there was a time when asbestos was used as a flame retardant, only to be discovered by the US none the less that it was in fact sickening.
It seems that we live in a brave new world now, in which these things are no longer deemed as important. We are back 100 years again, and this new technology (bio-engineering) has taken hold of us. When we finally get bitten by it, and I feel that on the current way there is no escaping this - independent of the above article which could indeed prove to be quite harmless as said..- will we open our eyes again ?
Maybe Europe is old-fashioned, and we should experiment with ourselves more often. Who knows what good it will bring.
Europe is probably too narrow-minded, and boycotting products will only delay the inevitable.
But still, I wonder what will happen if any of these brave new products does turn out to be "faulty". Will it backlash and totally invert current stance towards bio-engineering, negating all the hard and good work that HAS been done in this field - for which there is no denying ?
Perhaps, for the sake of the field of bio-engineering, we should guide the technology along better - give it time to grow up like any living thing in its earliest stage of life. And when we have guided it along, we - Europe - will come to find that it is indeed a brave new world, a world which we should embrace.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Nothing wrong with fishing on Love Canal. The canal was fine, the problem was the (1940s era?) Hooker Chemical dump near Love Canal. That wouldn't have been much of a problem either, if the town hadn't expropriated the old dump site. Hooker Chemical didn't want to sell, but the town forced the issue -- HC put in a proviso that the land never be used for anything. Few years later the town builds a school on it...
;-)
Nothing wrong with thalidomide either, so long as you're not female and pregnant. (If you're male and pregnant you have bigger problems
-- Alastair
And nature just hates it when you anthropomorphize.
And bacteriophages don't go "hungry". They are very simple little critters. If they find the correct host, they attach to it, inject thier DNA and go promptly about making more of themselves. The host bacterium then ruptures, spilling out the viral particles and so it goes.
If there are no more of the specific host (Listeria monocytogenes, which is NOT found in healthy humans), they remain inactive viral particles and just hang around until they are destroyed or manage to find another host.
If you swallowed a bunch of these things, your stomach would likely digest them into component pieces parts (I suppose I could look up the acid sensitivity to these phages, but I'm not going to do so). So by the time they get to your colon where large numbers of bacteria wander about (but remember, NOT Listeria) they would be few and far between.
As for a bacteriophage infecting a eukaryotic cell (even then meanest and newest of slashdotters has made it beyond the single cell limit), there are quite a lot of other things that you should be worrying about first: Near Earth Asteriods, Elvis returning, George Bush staying on. Those sorts of things.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
First of all, I hope to GOD you're being sarcastic.
... well, nearly always! [...]
If you're not, however, I'd like to point out that the GPP is, indeed, correct.
From Dictionary.com
Effect
tr.v. effected, effecting, effects
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect1.
(e.g. "The Senator was afraid that the new policy would effect higher oil prices.")
Also, effect is often seen as a noun, meaning (among other things) a result. For example: "The Senator was afraid that the new policy would have detrimental effects on the oil industry."
On the other hand:
Affect
tr.v. affected, affecting, affects
1. To have an influence on or effect a change in: Inflation affects the buying power of the dollar.
2. To act on the emotions of; touch or move.
3. To attack or infect, as a disease: Rheumatic fever can affect the heart.
(e.g. "The Senator was afraid that the new policy would adversely affect the oil prices, dragging them higher.")
Affect is rarely used as a noun, although it is much more commonly seen as a verb. Affect as a verb: "The man had a strange brand of body language that lent him an odd affect."
If you don't believe me:
Usage note from dictionary.com:
"Usage Note: Affect and effect have no senses in common. As a verb affect is most commonly used in the sense of "to influence" (how smoking affects health). Effect means "to bring about or execute": layoffs designed to effect savings. Thus the sentence These measures may affect savings could imply that the measures may reduce savings that have already been realized, whereas These measures may effect savings implies that the measures will cause new savings to come about."
Usage note from wikipedia.com:
"Do not confuse affect with effect. The former is used to convey the influence over existing ideas, emotions and entities; the latter indicates the manifestation of new or original ideas or entities. For example, "...new governing coalitions during these realigning periods have EFFECTED major changes in governmental institutions" indicates that major changes were made as a result of new governing coalitions, while "...new governing coalitions during these realigning periods have AFFECTED major changes in governmental institutions" indicates that before new governing coalitions, major changes were in place, and that the new governing coalitions had some influence over these existing changes."
Usage note from Write101.com:
"The easiest way to distinguish the two is to remember that affect is a verb (well, nearly always a verb) and effect is a noun
When affect is pronounced [uh FEKT] and accented on the final syllable, it's a verb meaning "to have an influence on."
eg Nothing they did, could affect my decision to go to the beach.
Occasionally, very occasionally, the word is used as a noun (it means a feeling or emotion, as distinguished from thought or action, or a strong feeling having active consequences) and the accent is on the first syllable [AFF ekt]. This is a term that is reserved for psychiatry and psychology:
eg In hysteria, the affect is sometimes entirely dissociated, sometimes transferred to another than the original idea.
Effect is most usually a noun and it means the result of some action or the power to produce a result. The noun is pronounced [uh FEKT] :
eg The effect of the bushfire was clearly visible.
eg The soothing music had an immediate effect on the wild beast.
This can also be a verb and it means to bring into existence, to produce a result (pronounced [ee FEKT]}"
Hopefully, that should convince you.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
Instead of expecting the food industry to do it. Simply create the food security industry and do it yourself. Sell the magazine, I'll buy it, and I think most people here would buy it. Slashdot could test the food privately and release the results to the subscribers of this site. People want to know, and there is plenty of money in that. Let's thank the FDA, the Avian Flu, and MadCow disease for creating the new food security industry.
If you like small government, consider moving to Somalia, a paradise on earth where the burdens of government are lifted off the population's shoulders and they are free to do whatever they like. Too bad the Kowloon walled city has been demolished, looks like there are less havens in this world, but maybe north Georgia is more to your tastes.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem