Slashdot Mirror
New Avenue For MRSA 'Superbug': Pigs
smitty777 writes with news that researchers have discovered another way methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria are developing resistance to antibiotics. According to the study (abstract), the bacteria made the jump to pigs on livestock farms, developed greater resistance through the rounds of antibiotics commonly used to keep the pigs healthy, and then jumped back to humans.
"The important development in the story of ST398 is its move back off the farm into humans, causing first asymptomatic carriage in that original family, and then illnesses in other Dutch residents, and then outbreaks in healthcare settings, and then movement across oceans, and then appearance in retail meat, and then infections in people who had no connection whatsoever to farming—all from an organism with a distinctive agricultural signature. That’s an important evolution, and an illustration once again that, as soon as resistance factors emerge, we really have no idea where they will spread. So it would be a good idea to take actions to keep them from emerging, or at the very least to implement surveillance that would allow us to identify them when they do."
Seriously, why was it considered ok to dump antibiotics into animal feed? It seems like total idiocy from this angle, regardless of the short term benefits.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
We can be meat eaters and still be alarmed about the health and quality of the food supply. Being a vegetarian/vegan has nothing to do with it. There are serious concerns about our grain, vegetable and fruit supplies as well between pesticides, GMOs and processed foods. Quit sticking your nose to the sky and actually look at the whole problem.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
Stick your finger in the mouth and feel the meat ripping teeth.
I half joke that all the hub-bub over the bird-flu research papers being released is unnecessary - all any 'terrorist' has to do to get a 'superbug' is to get involved in any chicken farm. (Or pig farm.)
And no, small-scale farms show no evidence of being any less likely to reduce chances of 'growing' and spreading disease. Keeping a bunch of animals in confinement is asking for it. Period.
Shit, I hit the wrong mod button; Apologies! So , I am commenting on your post, of which I tried to mod 'insightful', and instead, erasing my mod of 'redundant' in the process.
Cheers!
Authoritarian Left : Antibiotics in animal feed increase yields thus benefiting the proletariat.
Authoritarian Right : Antibiotics in animal feed increase yields thus benefiting the shareholders.
Libertarian Left : If the superbug kills you then you can sue the farmer in court.
Libertarian Right : If the superbug kills you then you can sue the pathogen in court.
I blame the animal lovers. Hands off the pigs.
please remind me again how the modern human is 'designed to eat meat', and how 'natural' meat is
Here's a pretty good article on the subject.
pesticides, GMOs and processed foods
Processed foods I'll give you. People really should move back to whole foods, preferably vegetables, in place of highly processed grains and sugars. Pesticides have their place. There's a lot to be said for moving more toward IPM strategies than we currently have, sure, but they are a necessary evil. Heck, even plants produce their own pesticides. They don't make those secondary metabolites for the fun of it. And it's funny that you mention GE crops as a problem in the same sentence as pesticides, considering the effects they've had on pesticide usage. There's plenty of criticisms to make about how people eat and how food is grown. Processed foods are one. Monoculture & lack of biodiversity, over-fertilization & run-off, water scarcity & depleting aquifers, ect. would be much better practices to gripe about, and issues like peak phosphorus, declining agricultural research, and agriculture in the face of climatic issues are also worth considering. Pesticides and especially biotechnology (in and of themselves anyway) are not...not that pesticide use shouldn't be reduced where possible.
The GP actually has a point even though he fails horribly to put it forward in any constructive manner. The argument is that keeping animals for food almost inevitably results in them being more likely to contract diseases due to living in closer proximity to one another. Furthermore, because humans handle these animals frequently, the risk that a new and nasty pathogen can jump from animals to humans increases. While excluding animal products from our food chain would not completely eliminate the risk of infections ( there are bacteria that can attack both plants and animals ) , it would drastically reduce the risk of animal-human transmission, and also reduce the risk of relatively benign pathogens mutating in animal carriers and then jumping back to humans.
This is particularly beneficial for illnesses that are expensive or difficult to treat, because it would probably not be economical to try to eradicate them from farm animals, but if that infection vector was eliminated, one could almost eradicate the disease from human populations by making sure to treat or vaccinate the humans.
An illness that is of particular concern to many researchers is the flu virus. These viruses can infect many livestock animals, such as pigs and birds, and is also very contagious and difficult to treat. We also know that flue viruses have killed very many people in the past. In some cases these have been epidemic outbreaks ( like teh Spanish flu ) , but even the regular seasonal flu kills quite a lot of people every year. Unfortunately many of these outbreaks originate in poorer countries in south east Asia, where poultry is often kept in very poor conditions, and with people living close to the animals. Convincing them to go vegetarian would mildly speaking be "challenging".
That is an outdated thought process that lost all credibility before bell-bottoms did. Humans can synthesize all of our protein requirements as long as we get the basic amino acids. Tofu and quinoa are both complete proteins, and you'll find that most, if not all, vegetarians eat both of those. With a simple mix of rice, bread, and legumes (which you're eating as a vegetarian) you're going to get all your aminos. You don't have to plan it at all nor do you have to "blend" proteins to get them all in one meal. Just don't eat white rice every day, every meal and you'll be fine.
I eat a vegan diet and I'm in the best health of my life. I lead a very active lifestyle -- I bike to work, scuba dive, teach spin classes, and work out regularly. (I'm known as one of the tougher spin instructors.) I go to the doctor about once a year to get a checkup.
I get sick about once a year. It manifests as sniffles and goes away in about a week. Of course, that may be a factor of exercising regularly, having kids that went through daycare, being a Y member, and swimming in the ocean for fun.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Anyone not aware of the risks GMO's are posing on society should really do some reading.
Anyone who bought into the fearmongering and often times outright lies of the anti-GE campaign should do some reading.
The scientists that are developing these seeds and pesticides wont even go near them because there is no long-term research on what risks they could offer 10 or 20 years from now.
Funny, I've spoken with scientists who do just that. I didn't notice them eating any differently than anyone else. I've transformed plants before. I have no problem eating genetically engineered food. I do it all the time.
And there has been long term research (unless you define long term as X+5 so you can always keep moving that goalpost). Darnedest thing is though, what hasn't been done is for someone to propose a plausible mechanism as to why GE crops would be dangerous. We know the genes inserted (cry genes, epsps, bar, nptII, PRSV/CMV coat protein genes) are safe, but for all the cries of 'what might happen' no one has explained what in GE crops allegedly hurts you, how it is produced, its mode of action, ect. I suppose GE crops could kill us all 20 years down the road, but only in the same sense that the smallpox vaccine could do the same thing, or that there could be an invisible heatless dragon in my garage waiting to eat me. After so much study has been done, you can only play the appeal to ignorance card for so long, then the burden of proof shifts to the people believing that to prove it.
Scarey shit.
What's scary is that agriculture is staring down an increasing population, global climate change, increasing energy costs, peak phosphorus, increasing pressure on fresh water resources, evolving pests and pathogens, desertification, deforestation, greater demand for animal protein, and agriculture has to take care l that without expanding the amount of land under the plow, and we've got people having not based in science blanket opposition to what will probably go down as the most significant breakthrough in plant improvement since unraveling Mendelian genetics. Now THAT is scary.
Wash your hands after handling meat, wash all the implements and counter tops that may come into contact with raw meat. Cook the meat well.
Be careful with restaurants; to minimize your chances of exposure, just say no to eating out unless you can't avoid it. Once in a while is OK but several times a week is a good way to pick something up, if not MRSA then hep-C or some other nasty microbe that the waiter carried to your plate from someone else's plate. If you don't see the waiters wash their hands after taking your plates away, then you can bet they didn't wash their hands after taking the previous customer's plates either. When the water boy comes over to refill your glass, hand it to him by the rim, so he's forced to pick it up by the bottom. Use a straw.
And stay out of hospitals. Those places can make you sick. MRSA is one nasty infection that you don't want to get, but there are others as well. Basically it's a rather closed environment full of sick people, and also full of well people carrying the germs from one sick person to another, and your life may depend on how well they washed and sanitized their hands before touching you.
This may seem kind of paranoid, but we live in an increasingly crowded and mobile world where a nasty little microbe in some little corner of the globe can make its way into your soup literally days or hours later.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Sorry, I know scientists who work in that field, and you are full of shit.
Please stop. Just.. stop.
You people either making shit up, or reading something on "Mypersonalechochamber.com" are harming real research. You create bad data which leads to bad policy decisions.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You can actually be a perfectly healthy vegetarian; but you need to be smart and knowledgable about your diet.
Jack la Lane was a vegetarian, and who could probably kick most people ass, and rarely got sick.
He was intelligent about how he ate, and he exercised every day.
Most vegetarians just eat anything as long as it's not meat,and don'r exercise.
Oh, he did start eating meat when he was around 65, or so. There wasn't any other way to get certain fats an elderly person needs. Once again, he was smart about his diet.
I am not a vegetarian, but I would like to see people pull back on meat portions. Cause there is a difference between eating meat, and eating a pound or more of meat a day.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Antibiotics have been used in animal feed for about 50 years ever since the discovery not only as an anti-microbial agent, but also as a growth-promoting agent and improvement in performance...."
The best way to select for antibiotic resistant bugs (on humans or any other animal) is to continually subject them to an antibiotic-filled environment (hospitals and farms). The story of resistant bacteria jumping from host to host, from farm to people vice versa, across the ocean, etc. doesn't seem particularly surprising. There are plenty of examples of bacteria & viruses moving between species. And, with global trade and travel, it's just a matter of time before diseases spread all over.
Antibiotics are like pesticides for the body. There are costs and benefits. Integrated pest management says that you should not prophylactically spray pesticides just in case you might get pests. You need to know whether you have economically damaging levels of the pest. Indiscriminate spraying leads to resistant insect pests or plant pathogens. Likewise, it's not wise to treat any animal with antibiotics without diagnosis of a disease. There might be short term gains but in the long run, you and everyone else loses with resistant pests...
. I lead a very active lifestyle -- I bike to work, scuba dive, teach spin classes, and work out regularly. (I'm known as one of the tougher spin instructors.) I go to the doctor about once a year to get a checkup.
And this is why you are healthy.
I eat a vegan diet
Not this.
Granted your diet likely involves not loading up on potato chips, and twinkies every day... so a "healty diet" is important. But it doesn't need to be "vegan" to be "healthy".
Yeah, that's true too. There are bunches of regulations on how long before harvest you can spray for any given pesticide, and by the time you eat it, the amount left over isn't something I'd worry about. When people complain about pesticides, they rarely take that into consideration (and by rarely I mean I haven't actually seen it happen yet). It's always nice to minimize inputs if you can do so while keeping the output constant (especially if you're a farmer and those sprays are coming out of your bottom line), but unless you're in some country where the oversight is totally crap, the food you get is perfectly safe. I like those 'Dirty Dozen' lists where they compare produce then say which has the most residues without putting it into perspective. It'd be like having a group of world class runners race then calling the ones who come in last slow, even if they're faster than 99.9% of the population.
And that crops grown with pesticides are safer than without is more true than most people realize. Not just ensuring against crop failure due to insect damage, but in the replacement of natural pesticides. Most plants don't want you eating them (with the exception of their fruits of course), so they evolved defense strategies for their leaves, roots, stems, and seeds. When humans started cultivating plants, we also selected for those that tasted better. The reason these plants tasted better was because they had lower levels of chemical defenses, which made them better for consumption, but also put them at greater risk of being attacked by insects and created the need for pesticides. I'd choose a plant without high natural pesticides sprayed with synthetic ones over a plant with high levels of the natural ones any day. It'd be safer, and taste better too. Even now, I'm pretty sure you're still getting more of these natural pesticides than you do residues from produce. Though for most of the people complaining about pesticides, the appeal to nature card circumvents than inconvenient issue.
But anyway, it does grind my nerves that there are so many people who wouldn't know a potato plant from a soybean, yet still go on about all these evil agriculturists with their this and their that and ect. But they've got it all figured out because they watched Food, Inc. Ugh.
and a host of other horrific diseases that have killed millions of people are directly related to the fact that humans eat meat when it is, in fact, not necessary to sustain life.
I'm sorry, but you don't know enough about MRSA, influenza, antibiotics, or disease to be able to make such a claim.
There are people who study medicine and there are people who read books they buy at the supermarket. The two activities aren't even remotely the same thing.
Breakfast served all day!
You're fail to understand what drives some scientists to adhere to the principal of least harm.
If there are possible adverse, irreversible effects of human activity on our ecosystem, and the state of our knowledge is such that we can as a species initiate such effects without understanding how they manifest, then one school of thought is to halt human intervention/activity in those potentially sensitive shared domains.
Your shouting at length to "explain how this harm may come about" when we do not have the technical understanding about how such harms may come about is, despite your education and rational abilities, stupidity in action.
The moral of the story here is there are things we don't know that can cause great irreversible harm and that regulating/preventing activity in certain circumstances can avoid these harms.
blog
The other school of thought looks at the social and political consequences of putting the power to genetically engineer crops in the hands of organisations like Monsanto. I'm in support of research into this area, but the prospect of widespread deployment makes me rather nervous.
Especially when we pump our livestock full of them whether they need it or not. It's a breeding ground for drug-resistant bacteria.
It also makes the species weaker because sick and defective animals don't die off, and instead are used to procreate offspring.
It's not even a political issue. It's just common sense.
Darnedest thing is though, what hasn't been done is for someone to propose a plausible mechanism as to why GE crops would be dangerous. We know the genes inserted (cry genes, epsps, bar, nptII, PRSV/CMV coat protein genes) are safe, but for all the cries of 'what might happen' no one has explained what in GE crops allegedly hurts you, how it is produced, its mode of action, ect.
Actually there is a mechanism. One of the big companies tried to insert a gene into brazil nuts (either BT or herbicide resistance) and found out that it produced an unexpected immune response because of the way the protein was folded. They abandoned the project, and wrote an article about it in the New England Journal of Medicine, which I read. That's the poster child of the anti-GM movement.
I'm not particularly worried about GM food. I eat GM cornflakes every day (as I found out afterwards). I couldn't avoid GM food if I wanted to. And I do get annoyed when I see the truly stupid arguments against GM food by political science majors who never took a biology course.
But give the critics their due. We in the US turned our entire corn and soybean production into GM crops without notifying consumers about it, and without letting them make their own decisions as consumers who supposedly rule this wonderful free market. There was no labeling and food processors weren't even allowed to sell their food as GM-free for years. Monsanto may believe in a lot of things but they certainly don't believe in a free market.
You can't even get GM-free food in this country any more because the GM strains have contaminated everything else, and when the food companies try to sell grains to Europe, where there are restrictive laws, they're forced to go to the international trade commission and ask (or rather demand) that they be allowed to define food with no more than 1%, or 0.1% (or whatever) GM food as GM-free.
You believe in science? The scientific method says that you have to take your hypotheses and beliefs, and subject them to confirmation in the real world. If you believe that GM food is safe, you have to prove it with data. That's not as easy as you make it out to be. It's not enough to feed a hundred mice for 6 months and see if any of them keels over. It's not even enough to feed 300 million Americans GM corn and soybeans for 20 years and see if any of them keels over, as we did. It is actually impossible to prove generically that GM food is safe. You have to take each specific food.
Let's suppose you're really, really smart and you thought really, really hard, and you couldn't think of a plausible mechanism by which GM food can do harm. That doesn't mean there isn't one. Nobody would have thought that inserting a BT gene into brazil nuts would produce an immune reaction, but it happened.
I don't care how smart you are -- you don't understand the human immune system well enough to predict what can go wrong, because nobody understands the human immune system well enough to predict what can go wrong. That's why that contract lab in England injected a half dozen test subjects with a new drug that caused an unexpected autoimmune reaction and caused one kid to lose his fingers a few years ago. I was taught that proteins were all destroyed in the digestive system, but then I saw in the New Scientist that some of them do survive. What can they do?
I went to a meeting where a scientist from the Natural Resourced Defense Fund made the case that GM foods might cause unexpected immune reactions. I thought it was bullshit. Then I found out about the brazil nuts. What other totally unexpected problems could we have? You don't know. They've got a point.
I will stipulate that Jeremy Rifkin is an idiot, and if we listened to him in 1984 we wouldn't have been able to develop T cell growth factor, we wouldn't have developed a test for AIDS, and we wouldn't have developed treatments for AIDS. We wouldn't have sequenced the human genome, we wouldn't have developed imatinib and CML would st
. Darnedest thing is though, what hasn't been done is for someone to propose a plausible mechanism as to why GE crops would be dangerous.
The modified proteins that are created by the GM process (and after digestion) many contain end and side chains that may have some other function in the human body or are not processed correctly. Like the way insecticides mimic hormones or people have allergies to things like peanuts (bizarrely, we never heard of that in the 1970's).
Population may be increasing, but farmland is actually being *taken out of product* due to increased levels of productivity. At least in the USA and Europe. Other parts of the world, farmland and woodland is being overused to the point of biological exhaustion.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
How the hell is this crap modded up? It doesn't just seem paranoid, it is paranoid.
You need to get some help, dude. It's called germophobia. Do you seriously avoid going out to eat because you're that afraid of germs? Hepatitis C?! I'll bet you've got quite the social life!
I'm not saying it doesn't happen and I have absolutely no numbers to back this up, but I have a feeling you're much more likely to get in a serious car accident on the way to the restaurant than you are to get hepatitis C!
I stopped using antibiotic soaps. I avoid them. I always check to make sure that triclosan isn't in any hand soaps I buy. I find these "hand sanitizers" popping up and the people who use them obsessively yet still seem to get sick for months on end every winter just completely absurd.
My body is covered by billions of microbes right now, and there are probably trillions all in all swimming around inside me. I've never felt better and my complexion has never been better.
Your immune system needs to be exposed to germs. Then the next time everyone else is rushing to Walgreens in some OMG BIRD MAN BEAR PIG FLU hysteria for their good little citizen vaccine and still getting sick anyway and being miserable for weeks, then you'll be the one who for some reason only gets sick once a blue moon and maybe for 2 days tops!
Good grief. Undoing a mod to reply because your post is just sheer paranoid lunacy, and I am absolutely sick of seeing paranoid lunacy being passed off as reasonable. It's called diminishing returns and sometimes simply just not knowing why things work and turning to superstition and self-fulfilling prophecies.
I'd agree about hospitals, though, just because of the massive derp of all the hypochondriacs who run to the ER every time they've got the sniffles.
Cheers
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!