UK Milk Supply Contains New MRSA Strain

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Milk Supply Contains New MRSA Strain

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday December 26, 2012 @06:49AM from the don't-have-a-cow dept.

Tests on milk from several different farms across the U.K. have turned up evidence for a new strain of MRSA — bacteria which have evolved resistance to common antibiotics. As long as the milk is properly pasteurized, it poses no threat to consumers, but anyone working directly with the animals bears a small risk of infection. According to The Independent, "The disclosure comes amid growing concern over the use of modern antibiotics on British farms, driven by price pressure imposed by the big supermarket chains. Intensive farming with thousands of animals raised in cramped conditions means infections spread faster and the need for antibiotics is consequently greater. Three classes of antibiotics rated as 'critically important to human medicine' by the World Health Organization – cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones and macrolides – have increased in use in the animal population by eightfold in the last decade."

179 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Nothing to worry about by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-12-26 07:00 · Score: 4, Funny

They just need to be sure they regularly dose their cows with the right antibiotic...

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:Nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  I find the complete lack of humor on this website disturbing. Are all you nerds really that blind to a joke?
2. Re:Nothing to worry about by houghi · 2012-12-26 07:16 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  So now we must read the article AND the summary?
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
3. Re:Nothing to worry about by joocemann · 2012-12-26 07:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Stop using methicillin and the resistance will go away. Microbiology 101.
  It takes less than 10 divisions for the microbe not producing resistance to take over since it has a fitness advantage of not needing to invest energy in resistance.
  If they were to employ scientists not partially, but fully, in this issue, we would have it solved by now. The prblem is that the long term answers by scientists would reduce short term gains desired by business.
  Alas, pursuit of capital over what is right will again shoot us in the foot. The market has no long term plans or goals. Regulation and intervention with science is the only way now.
4. Re:Nothing to worry about by mcgrew · 2012-12-26 07:36 · Score: 2
  
  That was my first response when I saw his stupid comment, then it occurred to me he's trying vainly to be funny.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
5. Re:Nothing to worry about by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-12-26 07:39 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  If they were to employ scientists not partially, but fully, in this issue, we would have it solved by now. The prblem is that the long term answers by scientists would reduce short term gains desired by business.
  This.
  I cringe every time I hear people accusing scientists of scaremongering for the money. The big money in all the controversial areas is on the anti-science side, without exception.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
6. Re:Nothing to worry about by ColdWetDog · 2012-12-26 08:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Settle down you two. You do realize that the term 'scientists' is broadly encompassing? People that work for the evil industry. People whose moral compass shines brightly through the evil fog of the world (that's IT, no more caffeine this morning).
  They don't live under volcanoes and play with obese felines. Well, most of them anyway.
  First of all, bacterial resistance genes turn out to me much more complex than previously thought. Many resistance genes have evolved on cassettes which have the ability to evolve irrespective of the host bacterial genome. So they are selected to hang around, even in the absence of the initial selection factor.
  Further, these cassettes can be transmitted to OTHER bacteria even without antibiotic selection and annoyingly enough, tend to get lumped together into multiple antibiotic resistant bacteria. So, we've let the cat out of the bag - it was inevitable although we managed to make it a bigger problem faster than need be.
  TL;DR antibiotic resistance is going to be around a long time whether or not we use the antibiotics. Scientists aren't all greedy douchebags. There are more things in heaven and earth, dear Slashdotters, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
7. Re:Nothing to worry about by flayzernax · 2012-12-26 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  You both pointed out something I always assumed the people telling them to use antibiotics were, u know, pushing an agenda.
  I guess they could have gotten sound advice and ignored it because they would have to cull some of the herd and loose productivity.
8. Re:Nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  We reap what we sow.
  Captcha: desire
9. Re:Nothing to worry about by icebike · 2012-12-26 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  he's trying vainly to be funny.
  Apparently the mods disagree with you.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
10. Re:Nothing to worry about by goombah99 · 2012-12-26 09:47 · Score: 2
  
  Stop using methicillin and the resistance will go away. Microbiology 101.
  It takes less than 10 divisions for the microbe not producing resistance to take over since it has a fitness advantage of not needing to invest energy in resistance.
  Un fortunately that is not true. Now it is true that for some types of drug resistance that can happen. But in general some types of resistance, like for example eflux pumps, are so generic and cover so many function in the bug that they mechanism won't go away just because one drug is removed.
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
11. Re:Nothing to worry about by joocemann · 2012-12-26 09:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  They reject the casette when the selecting factor is removed. Fyi.
12. Re:Nothing to worry about by TapeCutter · 2012-12-26 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's much cheaper to give every cow a regular dose of antibiotics than it is to identify and treat infected individuals. No need for an agenda here, the long term problems have been well known for decades, it's just another example of the invisible hand fist fucking society for short term gains.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
13. Re:Nothing to worry about by CanadianRealist · 2012-12-26 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  And they eject the casette when the right button is pushed.
14. Re:Nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  One drug, yes, but...efflux pumps are "expensive". If antibiotics were used sanely, they wouldn't be a problem. The constant exposure to low doses in animal feed costs far more in human morbidity and mortality that the farmers save, and should've been banned decades ago.
15. Re:Nothing to worry about by geekoid · 2012-12-26 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  Except there has been no recorded case of a resistant strain being developed due to antibiotics used on cows. ALL of them started in humans, and mostly becasue people don't finish there antibiotic regime.
  But hey, it'[s easy to use a myth to pin the blame on some one else. right?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
16. Re:Nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  That only works if the resistance requires energy. If its simply a structural difference that comes at no extra effort it will not be selected out. And even if it is, small,numbers will still continue to exist which will take over in a host dosed with the antibiotic,
17. Re:Nothing to worry about by smpoole7 · 2012-12-26 14:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  > no recorded case of a resistant strain being developed due to antibiotics used on cows
  http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/21/147190101/how-using-antibiotics-in-animal-feed-creates-superbugs
  Please note that I found that in a quick Google search. In this case, an antibiotic-susceptible organism jumped into pigs, became methicillin resistant. OK, that's not cows, but that shows me that the concern is based in real science.
  Bacteria don't care where they live, as long as it's a suitable environment. In any such environment, if regularly exposed to antibiotics, they could develop resistance. This is true in food animals, humans, or petri dishes in the laboratory.
  For you to make that assertion, I can only assume that either you are (a) uninformed or (b) a shill for Big Pharma, who make megatons of money off dumping antibiotics into the food chain.
  
  --
  Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
18. Re:Nothing to worry about by smpoole7 · 2012-12-26 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  > We reap what we sow.
  Granted. So why don't we insist that those who did the sowing get the first fruits of the harvest?
  In other words: make the management of these food factories eat and drink these foodstuffs before they are shipped off to the market.
  Problem solved in a matter of DAYS. :)
  
  --
  Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
19. Re:Nothing to worry about by FirephoxRising · 2012-12-26 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, the three critical classes should be banned for ant use except for human use when the more common ones have failed. Let's keep our big guns armed!
20. Re:Nothing to worry about by guises · 2012-12-26 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to have misinterpreted what parent and GP were saying - they were pointing out that scientists are not, in general, greedy douchbags.
  
  This is in opposition to certain interest groups who try to paint them as such: climate deniers, agro businesses, etc.
21. Re:Nothing to worry about by dywolf · 2012-12-27 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  because big pharma cares enough to hire shills to astroturf on /.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
22. Re:Nothing to worry about by mcgrew · 2012-12-27 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't the first time and won't be the last. The mods must have had some really good weed yesterday.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
23. Re:Nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  Feed the cows OIL of OREGANO, and Colloidal Silver That ought to take care of the virii, bacteria, parasites. Put your resistant strain into some OIL of OREGANO and lets see you fuckin political fascist scientists!
24. Re:Nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  Bacteria don't care where they live, as long as it's a suitable environment.
  That statement made my morning. Although, in a way you are right, I hope we don't hurt their feelings...
25. Re:Nothing to worry about by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-12-27 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'm really puzzled as to how you managed to read my post and get the exact opposite of what I was saying out of it.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
26. Re:Nothing to worry about by lonecrow · 2012-12-27 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily. The resistance could be passive, not require energy, and not impact survival in the absence of methicillin.
And this is how the world will end.... by NeutronCowboy · 2012-12-26 07:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

With an ever increasing pressure to drop prices so that the numbers in the next quarter (or, for the long-term corporate leaders, next 2 years) are met. Screw the fact that we're raising a whole class of nasty bugs that will enable us to relive the glory of pre-penicillin times, when something as simple as a cut meant possible amputation of the affected limb.
Antibiotic resistance is probably one of the worst things we're facing down in the coming century or so, right next to AGC. Both have the ability to have a tremendous negative impact on our lives, and both are a long time off - in other words, they are things no politician or corporate owner will want to touch while they're still working.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
1. Re:And this is how the world will end.... by benjfowler · 2012-12-26 07:10 · Score: 2
  
  Karma's a bitch.
  When the superbugs become immune to everything, the richarses will be just as screwed as us, and it'll probably serve them right.
2. Re:And this is how the world will end.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  If it gets that bad, we will probably end up going the route of the Quarians where we will always use sealed full-body suits. Unfortunate but we will survive.
3. Re:And this is how the world will end.... by icebike · 2012-12-26 08:16 · Score: 2
  
  Antibiotic resistance is probably one of the worst things we're facing down in the coming century or so,
  This is true, and finding MRSA in the wild brings this much closer be becoming a far more universal problem.
  The playing field is vastly different than in the pre-penicillin days when the only hope of finding a "cure" was an exhaustive search to find a compound that would kill the bugs. The very name MRSA stems from resistance to penicillin type drugs. Now with rapid DNA sequencing we can not only identify MRSA much faster, but we _should_ also be able to find additional ways to kill it, including some physical means against which there is no way of developing resistance.
  I suspect the way forward will be in designer drugs rather than the happening upon something that works being found on moldy toast.
  DNA sequencing has also shown that there is many more than one form of MRSA.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
4. Re:And this is how the world will end.... by dgatwood · 2012-12-26 09:22 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, you can develop resistance to what you call "physical means", too, up to a point. Just look at the rise of triclosan resistance since the proliferation of antibacterial soap. There are even reports of some UV-resistant bacteria out there.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
5. Re:And this is how the world will end.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  Which, in turn, will ensure that significant economic resources will be invested in the finding of a workable solution.
  Perhaps we will invent something even better than antibiotics?
6. Re:And this is how the world will end.... by NeutronCowboy · 2012-12-26 13:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Even if we assume that the market forces are able to work in Adam Smith's idealized way, market forces have to obey the laws of physics. Math is also a bitch to work around.
  In other words, the free market is not a silver bullet even in the best-case scenario. In the worst-case scenario, it is a botched free market that will prevent us from finding a workable solution. And we are far closer to a botched free market than a perfect free market. Draw your own conclusions.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
7. Re:And this is how the world will end.... by sootman · 2012-12-26 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  What's AGC? Wikipedia was no help. Just want to make sure I know all the things I should be freaking out about. :-)
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
8. Re:And this is how the world will end.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 21:27 · Score: 0
  
  AGC = automatic gain control. When the cows are further away the mooing automatically becomes louder to compensate.
9. Re:And this is how the world will end.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  What is AGC?
10. Re:And this is how the world will end.... by rambilly · 2012-12-27 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  What is AGC? Now I'm not anonymous
  
  --
  ACM3
Growth promotors by benjfowler · 2012-12-26 07:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Big agribusiness preemptively pumping their animals full of antibiotics to kill off their gut flora as "growth promotors", which packing them in like sardines, to make a quick buck -- a hack to make the animals bigger and more productive, but also to compensate for the filth and squalor the beknighted creatures are kept in...
What could _possibly_ go wrong?
1. Re:Growth promotors by Belial6 · 2012-12-26 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  And yet few want to talk about the root problem here. Too many humans. If we had 1/10 of the human population on earth, there would be far less need to cram animals together, and thus less need for the antibiotics in farming.
2. Re:Growth promotors by jamstar7 · 2012-12-26 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  And yet few want to talk about the root problem here. Too many humans. If we had 1/10 of the human population on earth, there would be far less need to cram animals together, and thus less need for the antibiotics in farming.
  What do you expect from people who refuse to believe in the facts of natural selection? The MRSA strain hitting the UK's milk supply is proof positive of natural selection.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
3. Re:Growth promotors by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  And yet few want to talk about the root problem here. Too many humans.
  No. Feeding, clothing, and sheltering "too many" humans might be a problem. Those humans themselves are not "the root problem".
4. Re:Growth promotors by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  And yet few want to talk about the root problem here. Too many humans.
  Every time I hear someone utter this type of rhetoric I can't help but to think they are suicidal or homicidal maniacs.
  Pound for pound the Earth can, and has, sustained a much larger mammalian population than your "unworthy of life" humans.
5. Re:Growth promotors by alen · 2012-12-26 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Do you want to be killed first?
  For the good if the planet?
6. Re:Growth promotors by na1led · 2012-12-26 07:35 · Score: 2
  
  We can blame it on BRAINS then.
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
7. Re:Growth promotors by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  In that case shouldn't it be happening in America?
8. Re:Growth promotors by s0nicfreak · 2012-12-26 07:38 · Score: 2
  
  That would be valid if eating these animals was necessary for humans to survive. It isn't. We could stop cramming so many animals together, eat less (or no) meat, and still survive.
9. Re:Growth promotors by obarel · 2012-12-26 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  No thanks, just not have children if that's OK with you. Do the same and within 100 years all those problems will go away.
10. Re:Growth promotors by s0nicfreak · 2012-12-26 07:41 · Score: 2
  
  How is humans drinking milk past infancy - not to mention cow's milk - in any way natural? This is not natural selection, it is a problem that humans created, that we knew for a long time would happen, but said "Who cares if it will cause problems for others later, as long as I can have what I want right now?"
  
  Natural selection would be if we didn't make so much food and then only the people that can survive on less food survived.
11. Re:Growth promotors by na1led · 2012-12-26 07:51 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If we all stopped eating meat. We all would be much healthier, have lots more food for everyone, and population would increase another 3x because of it.
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
12. Re:Growth promotors by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:55 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Pound for pound the Earth can, and has, sustained a much larger mammalian population than your "unworthy of life" humans
  No doubt it has, and the planet has probably supported a larger biomass in the form of reptiles at other points in its history.
  But hey, don't you see, the problem with the current human 'infestation' is that it has, by and large, put itself beyond the normal 'control mechanisms' the ecosystem of the planet has evolved to deal with the uncontrolled dominance of a single species.
  We don't take the hint, we try and heal our sick, feed our starving, keep our old living beyond their 'useful' lifespans, wipe out diseases that 'threaten' us, we don't know nor accept that that all these things (disease, famine, senescence) are there for our (as a species) own good, and we should accept all these things as being an inevitable part of the great circle of life, etc. etc.
  We're buggers that way for ignoring shit like this, and long may we remain doing so...at least, until the next big bloody asteroid comes a callin'.
13. Re:Growth promotors by dkleinsc · 2012-12-26 07:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  He's a /. geek: Chances are good that there's not much risk of him having children.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
14. Re:Growth promotors by ColdWetDog · 2012-12-26 08:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And yet few want to talk about the root problem here. Too many humans.
  Every time I hear someone utter this type of rhetoric I can't help but to think they are suicidal or homicidal maniacs.
  Pound for pound the Earth can, and has, sustained a much larger mammalian population than your "unworthy of life" humans.
  Homo industrialis has a much bigger environmental footprint that any dinosaur, whale or large mammal created. That said, other animals and plants have significantly changed the environment in the past to the detriment of some organisms and advantage of others. Shit happens.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
15. Re:Growth promotors by erroneus · 2012-12-26 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  And would you like to talk about the problem?
  The problem isn't in the first world... not THAT problem anyway. The birth rates in the US and other first world countries are on the decline. We work longer and have fewer children. The third world countries, on the other hand, can't ship their children to us fast enough. And in those countries, they keep having children they can't feed. All those "feed the children" charities aren't paying for television ads for no reason are they?
  So we have a problem alright. We have uneven progress and development across this planet. We have 1st and 3rd worlds... the Morlocks and the Eloi. We in the first world are to become the Morlocks if we could just get rid of that annoying middle class. And the Eloi are those who live in the 3rd world and/or in poverty within the first world. There can't be equality because that would upset the balance after all right?
16. Re:Growth promotors by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  The Earth can sustain a much larger population of humans, but that doesn't mean it will be good for the humans. Don't expect the Western way of living to be possible if the population on Earth keeps growing. China already has had problems with their population, even though their standard of living is much lower, but at least they are trying to solve the problem. India is soon in bigger trouble.
17. Re:Growth promotors by larry+bagina · 2012-12-26 08:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The same thing is happening in the US (not MRSA in milk specifically, but antibiotics are a standard part of cow chow)
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
18. Re:Growth promotors by SternisheFan · 2012-12-26 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."
  And the beat goes on.
19. Re:Growth promotors by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  It is, but you're not allowed to find out, and thanks to Oprah and mad cow disease, if you did find out you'd be sued into silence if you dared to speak out.
20. Re:Growth promotors by hamburger+lady · 2012-12-26 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  even if we had 1/10th the population, we'd still cram animals together in these conditions.
  the real root problem here isn't as much 'too many humans' as it is 'just plain ol humanity'. we do this stuff to animals because as a people we really don't give a shit and we save money. two things that when added together make an unstoppable force for destruction.
  
  --
  
  ---
  Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
21. Re:Growth promotors by hamburger+lady · 2012-12-26 09:11 · Score: 2
  
  humans drinking cow's milk may not be natural, but by that end cooking food isn't natural either. no other creature does it.
  
  --
  
  ---
  Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
22. Re:Growth promotors by s0nicfreak · 2012-12-26 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, but that doesn't contradict what I said. And anyway, there is still plenty of food that humans can naturally process without cooking it first. Although I suppose that if all the ovens in the world stopped working tomorrow, there would be some natural selection happening from people that can't process things that don't need to be cooked, and people too stupid to eat something that doesn't need to be cooked, but that has nothing to do with what I asked.
23. Re:Growth promotors by rsmith-mac · 2012-12-26 10:46 · Score: 2
  
  And we'd be all the more miserable for it. Meat is delicious. And it doesn't hurt that it's an excellent source of protein, too (even well-trained vegans still find this bit challenging at times).
24. Re:Growth promotors by Belial6 · 2012-12-26 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Your use of the word 'natural' is a marketing term, and has no bearing on the discussion of 'natural selection'.
25. Re:Growth promotors by Belial6 · 2012-12-26 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Your splitting hair to try and rephrase the same point.
26. Re:Growth promotors by Belial6 · 2012-12-26 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  There is nothing suicidal or homicidal about recognizing that an environment has surpassed it's capacity to support a particular species. I like humans. I just recognize that there are limits to the environment they can live in. On a smaller scale, I make the same judgement on my home. It is great having 4 people in my 4 bedroom house. When friends have been in need, we have had 7 people in my 4 bedroom house and everything was still fine. If it gets to the point that I have 327 people in my 4 bedroom house, you can be sure that I will say that the number of humans has exceeded the capacity of my home to support them.
  
  I don't say we have too many humans because I don't think humans are worthy. I say we have too many of any animal tends to lead to catastrophic problems with far more suffering than if the population didn't exceed capacity to begin with. Humans biggest asset is our ability to think. We ignore this asset in regards to population at our own peril.
27. Re:Growth promotors by Belial6 · 2012-12-26 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  That is a point that many miss. What really is more important quantity of human life or quality?
28. Re:Growth promotors by Belial6 · 2012-12-26 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  It would be sad if that was really the only way you could think of to reduce the human population.
29. Re:Growth promotors by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  Its natural now for Europeans some African groups and peoples in the middle east as we have developed the genetics to allow us to tolerate cow milk.
30. Re:Growth promotors by geekoid · 2012-12-26 12:55 · Score: 2
  
  You implied that it's not natural and therefor wrong. Which is stupid.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
31. Re:Growth promotors by geekoid · 2012-12-26 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  But we don't have too many humans. You can put us all in texas and it would have the same population density as new york.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
32. Re:Growth promotors by smpoole7 · 2012-12-26 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  > If we had 1/10 of the human population on earth
  May I assume that you would volunteer to be one of those who die in order to decrease the surplus population?
  (Echoes of Scrooge .. .. )
  
  --
  Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
33. Re:Growth promotors by Belial6 · 2012-12-26 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  And where are you going to get the fresh water for all of those people in Texas? There is more to carrying capacity than physical space.
34. Re:Growth promotors by Belial6 · 2012-12-26 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  I certainly hope that you are trolling. It would be truly sad if you were not smart enough to figure out how our population could be reduced without executions.
35. Re:Growth promotors by smpoole7 · 2012-12-26 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  No, not trolling, just making a morbid joke. But after I posted it, and having re-read it, it wasn't in very good taste. My apologies.
  
  --
  Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
36. Re:Growth promotors by Belial6 · 2012-12-26 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  No offense taken. It's just sad that an awful lot of people are not joking when they say it.
37. Re:Growth promotors by dunkelfalke · 2012-12-26 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  actually it is natural selection at work there. being able to digest milk in adult age raised the survival rate (as in additional nutrition source) so european population is genetically predisposed with continuous lactase production.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
38. Re:Growth promotors by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 00:09 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit on all points.
39. Re:Growth promotors by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  That is a point that many miss. What really is more important quantity of human life or quality?
  As a human with certainly lower quality of life then yours, I say: quantity, meaning, I would not agree (to put it mildly) for me or my offspring to be killed or sterilized.
  What every human being on Earth wants is: let it not be much worse then it already is, even if it won't be better ever. Anything else we gain, regarding quality of our lives, is a bonus. But, somebody has to offer us that bonus. Don't blame people from developing Third World for all of the sudden buying cars, fridges, washing machines and AC appliances. They wouldn't, if none made them the offer! Once again, someone who is very well off, is changing the world to make a profit. It is like selling whiskey and rifles to ... er, Native Americans, and then blaming them for being violent drunken bunch that ought to be kept in reservations.
40. Re:Growth promotors by hamburger+lady · 2012-12-27 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  and don't get me started on the fact that we're the only species that wears clothes.
  
  --
  
  ---
  Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
41. Re:Growth promotors by dywolf · 2012-12-27 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  agriculture isnt natural
  animal husbandry isnt natural
  lets all go back to hunting and killing and gathering our own food, eating it raw or dirty freshly dug up frmt he ground.
  ya lets go back to that.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
42. Re:Growth promotors by dywolf · 2012-12-27 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  cooking (and by extension pasteurization) dramatically expanded the list of things we can safely eat and reduced deaths from even things that seem innocuous.
  In your proposed world: Fresh vegetables..yummy...do they need cooked? Depends...did some infected animal crap or slobber on them? You want to take that chance?
  You're an idiot for even suggesting we roll back thousands of years of human progress and return to the age of random death for unexplained reasons cause of tainted food.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
43. Re:Growth promotors by dywolf · 2012-12-27 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  We are meat eaters (technically omnivores, but that by definition includes a portion of meat). Get over it. Animal protien is still the only one stop shop for -all- amino acids in one easy meal. yes we have learned over time that we can mix and match foods, but that took years of science and agriculture. do we need meat at every meal? no, but neither do we need fruits or grains at every meal to get all the good stuff from them either.
  Stopping everyone from eating meat is silly. Nor would we all be healthier (you're healthier with some than totally without), nor would there be more food for everyone, and population density would still be more related to cultural norms than to food (re: first world+shrinking populations despite tons of food vs 3rd-world and ever booming levels despite lack of food)
  TL:DR: Ignorant
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
44. Re:Growth promotors by na1led · 2012-12-27 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Meat is not healthy for you, and never was. Meat contaminates very easily, and most of the meat you buy today has been processed so much, it's not even real meat anymore. It's a known fact, vegetarian diet is much healthier and better for you!
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
45. Re:Growth promotors by s0nicfreak · 2012-12-28 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  You're projecting.
46. Re:Growth promotors by s0nicfreak · 2012-12-28 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  That's because other species are covered with feathers or fur, and keep their genitals safely tucked inside somewhere until needed...
47. Re:Growth promotors by s0nicfreak · 2012-12-28 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  But that's not NATURAL selection - that is selection based on an UNNATURAL occurrence (humans starting to keep cows and taking the milk from them). Just like it's not natural selection when a person survives because they can shoot other animals with a gun. Humans removed the natural element of natural selection and are now breeding in UNDESIRABLE traits that are (or will) hindering survival rather than helping.
  
  And even people of European decent will stop producing lactase if they stop consuming lactose for long enough - it's just that lactose is in so many of their products nowadays that they never stop.
48. Re:Growth promotors by hamburger+lady · 2012-12-28 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  plenty of species out there without fur or feathers.
  sounds like you're strainin' to do a little explainin'.
  
  --
  
  ---
  Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
Pharma will try but no promises.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

...I'm a pharma researcher at we have active programs trying to create next generation antibiotics, but the simple fact is evolution works. Eventually things will become resistant. These kinds of practices HAVE to stop because, frankly, it's getting harder to come up with new antibiotics. We have some new ideas, new biology is being uncovered, and different routes to attacking bugs are being explored. But the fact is that there will be fewer and fewer new classes of antibiotics rolling out. Pay the higher price for milk so that when you get strep throat you don't die from it. This clearly penny-wise pound-foolish thinking. A politician would do well to stand in the way of these practices under the guise of making sure that being able to protect our citizens and children from the ravages of infection wasn't just a "really nice period of humanity during the 20th and early 21st century before everything was resistant to everything." Think about someone sawing your kids leg off and then decide if milk is worth a buck / gallon more to you.
1. Re:Pharma will try but no promises.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Such a platform will not get votes. I agree with you that it should get votes, and that this practice should stop, but that is not how humans operate. We won't get in front of this problem. We will wait until the next plague actually hits us before we start regulating this practice.
  I am not happy about it either....but most people don't take seriously any doomsaying that comes from scientists.
2. Re:Pharma will try but no promises.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  If you're willing to bet AGAINST the money system, I think you're in for a nasty surprise.
  The money system will create disaster upon disaster, and then make us pay to save us from them.
  The same that happened to third world countries and american natives, will happen to us. Karma is OUR bitch.
  Captcha: material
3. Re:Pharma will try but no promises.... by mcelrath · 2012-12-26 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you would know... Why is research insisting on "broad spectrum" antibiotics: single compounds that kill many bugs, rather than making antibiotic cocktails? If there is a probability of developing a resistance P, then a cocktail containing two antibiotics should have a probability P^2. Is it something sickening to do with patents? Or is there a good scientific reason?
  
  --
  1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
4. Re:Pharma will try but no promises.... by plover · 2012-12-26 11:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Broad-spectrum == economical solution.
  If each type of bacterial pathogen responded only to a narrow spectrum antibiotic, then when you got sick from a bacterial infection the lab would have to assay your blood to figure out which of the millions of bacteria in your system were actually causing the problem, then get you the right medicine. And the moment one of the pathogens mutates, the antibiotic would have less of an effect on it. So add up the expense of the lab work, the delays in treatment that would cause, the stock of custom pharmaceuticals that every pharmacy would have to carry, and it turns out that broad spectrum antibiotics are a whole lot cheaper and overall more effective.
  Or to follow on to your suggestion of cocktails, what makes you suppose that any one cocktail wouldn't act exactly as a broad spectrum antibiotic? If a cocktail reduces the probability to P^2, (P^2)>0 is still true, so resistance is still possible.
  The problems of resistance are not caused because the antibiotics are broad spectrum, but primarily by the proliferation of under-dosed environments. If you're going to use an antibiotic, it has to be present in a sufficient dose for an appropriate duration to actually kill all of the pathogens. A too-small dose, or a course of treatment that is ended early for any reason, will leave you with some bacteria that survived due to a low-level of resistance. Their offspring will thrive, and some of them will go on to offer higher resistance if your antibiotic treatment resumes.
  If you're going to give it to cows, it should be done in response to a specific pathogen, and they should be given the full dose and course of treatment. Their waste should be kept away from other animals that might pick up the infection. But recognizing an infection in a cow, then isolating and treating it is expensive, so it doesn't get done as a first choice.
  
  --
  John
5. Re:Pharma will try but no promises.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's a melange of issues. Cocktails do exist and can be prescribed when there appears to be a heterogenous infection. However, there are several factors at work: If you treat with only one drug the likelihood of multi-drug resistance goes down. People are allergic to some drugs and you often don't know that someone has a penicillin allergy until you give them penicillin, but allergies to all the other drug classes have been observed. Thus, you're putting the patient at risk giving them many at once. Then there's cost (hey the supermarkets have a lobby, and so does the insurance industry). Broad spectrum is desirable because you don't necessarily have to test for the type of infection and can get the patient started immediately. Have you had a sinus infection? Did you know what the bacteria was? Would you have wanted a sinus swab and waited 2-3 days for lab results and then gotten a scrip? For a sinus infection you might be able to wait, but hey what's that spreading lesion on your leg? There's also the market...if we make a drug specifically for this strain of this bug, you'll never make back what it cost to even run the FDA-mandated clinical trial. And each one would have it's own spectrum of side effects. This stuff is really hard. The ~$1billion / drug to bring it from concept to market isn't done wastefully...it really costs that, and most of it's the clinical work.
6. Re:Pharma will try but no promises.... by geekoid · 2012-12-26 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  They don't. Some do. There is a lot of research is specific bugs.
  Why do you think it's only one or the other?
  "then a cocktail containing two antibiotics should have a probability P^2
  no. Not even close.
  Not only is it economically good, it can be scientifically good becasue often one bug follows another, and it's better for the patient if it is stopped before it becomes a physical issue.
  The largest contributor to resistance strain is people not finishing there antibiotic regime, or not taking proper care of the medicine.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Obligatory XKCD by SD+NFN+STM · 2012-12-26 07:18 · Score: 3

Obligatory XKCD. It seems that Randall Munroe is the Nostradamus of our time, having predicted all future events in his humorous comic strip:
http://xkcd.com/1147/
Everybody should just get their milk... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:19 · Score: 0

From Hillary Swank.
Seriously, listen to your all-powerful leader, Stewie the First.
No. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 07:32 · Score: 1

A rise in population density is what drove us to become farmers, which in turn gave us all the technological innovations we know and love today. Who is to say that the problems created by even greater population density will not give us the nudge we need to make even more amazing technologies?
Synthetic milk, and/or a means of keeping cows clean without the antibiotics, both spring to mind.
And, be that as it may, if you want to reduce the world's population all you need to do is find a means of providing a high, luxurious quality of living for everyone (seeing as how luxury has proven to be the best form of birth control).
1. Re:No. by Belial6 · 2012-12-26 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  True, many things in nature are double edged swords. We can keep our fingers crossed that we can gain luxury before the really bad ways of reducing population happen.
I blame it on BRAINS! by na1led · 2012-12-26 07:38 · Score: 1

Whether your brain fails to understand the problem, or is the cause of the problem.

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
What with milk prices? by Tagged_84 · 2012-12-26 07:48 · Score: 1

In Australia we also have unsustainable pressure from our 2 supermarket overlords driving down diary farmers to at-cost or loss prices. Our milk is at $1 a litre now, you pay more for bottled water! Are the rest of the world's supermarkets pushing down milk prices? I wonder if the cookie industry will take notice and capitalize on this free flowing milk...
Nerds and humor by mynameiskhan · 2012-12-26 07:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Obviously you have forgotten the meaning of a 'nerd'. Many are xkcd resistant strains.
Drop Milk by assertation · 2012-12-26 07:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

Just stop using cow's milk.
60% of the global population can't digest milk once they become adults.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-08-30-lactose-intolerance_N.htm
Health researchers at Harvard have even come out and said cows milk isn't a necessary part of a healthy diet, it is something that is TOLERATED in a healthy diet if people don't get too much:
http://beforewisdom.com/blog/milkandbones/experts-lose-the-cows-milk/
Some dairy foods can have as much or more cholesterol and saturated fat as meat.
There are substitute milks made out of almonds, rice, hemp or soy in many supermarkets now. You can use those or fortified orange juice to get plenty of calcium without the digestive stress or the many health, digestive issues of cows milk
1. Re:Drop Milk by ByteSlicer · 2012-12-26 08:33 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  60% of the global population can't digest milk once they become adults.
  No, 60% of the global population can't fully digest milk sugar (lactose), which only constitutes 5% of milk by weight.
  Of those people, many tolerate the undigested lactose to varying degrees, tied to geographical distribution of certain genes.
  The other components of milk (water, protein, fat, calcium) can be digested normally.
2. Re:Drop Milk by assertation · 2012-12-26 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  What is the point of your post? Undigestable cow's milk sugar is still an integral part of milk for most of the world's adult population?
  Why drink something that will give you digestive discomfort, take special pills to drink it or drink a processed version of it when there is no need?
3. Re:Drop Milk by swb · 2012-12-26 08:41 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  It always cracks me up to see someone up on their soap box about some health or nutrition issue and then start throwing "saturated fat" and "cholesterol".
  You know that saturated fat and dietary cholesterol aren't bad for us, don't you? That the conventional wisdom on obesity and cardiovascular health relative to saturated fat and cholesterol is junk science?
4. Re:Drop Milk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  Is "The China Study" still relevant? Colin Cambell (the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University) made a strong argument in that book that casin in milk is detrimental to the human body. The milk industry has us believing milk does the body good The opposite may be true. I personally stay away from the stuff.
5. Re:Drop Milk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  No, 60% of the global population can't fully digest milk sugar (lactose), which only constitutes 5% of milk by weight.
  
  What is the point of your post?
  Would you understand the point if your employer stated giving you only 5% of your salary and explaining that the part you received is still an integral part of your compensation?
  Intentional equivocation is the most pervasive of lies. Besides, if you can digest lactose this is a non sequitur. Pass the cheese and crackers.
6. Re:Drop Milk by steelfood · 2012-12-26 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Nuts and soy are common allergens. Hemp, well, nobody's going to fall for that one.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
7. Re:Drop Milk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Oh?
  If milk was in the traditional diet of anyone but us Whites, you wouldn't be so quick to say it should be dropped. Protect everyone else, but fuck us, right?
  Milk is perfectly natural and healthy (for people with the gene to digest it, i.e. mostly Whites), and has evidently been part of our diet for thousands of years.
8. Re:Drop Milk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  Your nutrition information is clearly way out of date. The idea that 'saturated' fats are bad for you and cause heart attacks has been completely given up, by everyone. Go read even people who repeated the canard for decades, like Andrew Weil: the attempt to prove it failed, oh and some of the most highly saturated fast, like coconut oil, are among the healthiest. Score one more for the scientists getting it completely wrong. (Then read about Vitamin K2, which was discovered by a dentist, btw.)
9. Re:Drop Milk by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-12-26 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  So? The people of Great Britain are generally NOT part of the 60% you talk about.
  And the digestion issue you are talking about is mostly a problem dealing with lactose, which can be handled in a variety of ways.
  The fact is that your argument is a non-sequiter in the context of this article.
10. Re:Drop Milk by geekoid · 2012-12-26 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, look at that, before wisdom takes an quote out of contexts it and spins it .. imagine my surprise~
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
11. Re:Drop Milk by ByteSlicer · 2012-12-26 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  My point was that what you said was a hyperbole, just like the title of the article you linked. You made it appear that 60% of the world population can't drink milk, which is simply not true.
  Adults keep producing lactase (the enzyme that breaks down lactose), but at lower levels than at infancy. This doesn't automatically cause lactose intolerance. Some people still produce high enough lactase levels, others can tolerate higher levels of undigested lactose.
  Most of the discomfort occurs when certain bacteria break down the lactose and produce gases and raise the acidity in the bowels. There is a lot of variation in the strains of bacteria people carry, and the sensitivity they have for the activities of the bacteria. Another important factor is how much lactose was consumed.
  In short: some people cannot process lactose but have no problems tolerating it, some have brief bouts of gases but don't even notice, some have some discomfort, some have serious discomfort. All of these are within that 60% figure you gave. But a large part of them have no problem drinking milk, certainly not in low quantities.
12. Re:Drop Milk by guises · 2012-12-27 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  Man, it always cracks me up to see someone get up on a soap box about some health or nutrition issue and make declarations about "saturated fat" and "cholesterol" like they know what they're talking about.
  
  You know that saturated fat and dietary cholesterol are really bad for us, don't you? You know that declaring research that you don't agree with to be "junk" is bad science, right?
  
  From the American Heart Association:
  
  "There is overwhelming evidence that reductions in saturated fat, dietary cholesterol, and weight offer the most effective dietary strategies for reducing total cholesterol, LDL-C levels, and cardiovascular risk. Decreases in saturated fat should come at the expense of total fat because there is no biological requirement for saturated fat."
  
  I'm making an assumption that is perhaps unfair, but people who start declaring things about fat being good for you are usually Atkins initiates so:
  
  "[High protein] diets are generally associated with higher intakes of total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol because the protein is provided mainly by animal sources. In high-protein diets, weight loss is initially high due to fluid loss related to reduced carbohydrate intake, overall caloric restriction, and ketosis-induced appetite suppression. Beneficial effects on blood lipids and insulin resistance are due to the weight loss, not to the change in caloric composition."
  
  And just for good measure:
  
  "The greatest impact on lowering total and LDL cholesterol is derived from reduced intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol as well as weight reduction in obese persons."
  
  But here I am doing the same thing. The important thing to realize is that science reporting is terrible and that especially applies to health reporting, and double especially to reporting on diet. Half of all science reporting is health related, because people just gobble that stuff up and it doesn't matter how tenuous their conclusions are. It's gotten so bad that you can pretty well guarantee that any time you feel that you can make a declaration about some revelation in diet or behavior, you have been duped. You still need to exercise and eat your vegetables. This has always been, and it always will be.
13. Re:Drop Milk by dywolf · 2012-12-27 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  This anti-milk stuff is silly. Milk is healthy and a simple easy source of calcium for the majority of people, no specially modifed foods required. Milk is a simple easy source of food for a great many people. And milk is absolutely essential in a large number of hte foods we eat cause of this little thing called "cooking" which is really just chemistry, and the milk plays an integral part.
  So get off you're soapbox and cut the hyperbull; just watch where you step, you were spewing manure from your face.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
14. Re:Drop Milk by dywolf · 2012-12-27 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  And yet you can do all the "right things" and still die within the margin of error of the "average lifespan". all that stress, all that effort, all that self denial, and for what? And others do all the wrong things and still live into their 90s. The stats are all over the place even once you take out the obvious stuff like smoking and eating nothing but bacon. My grandfather has had 5 heart attacks (1 minor, 2nd resulted in a shunt and pacemaker) surgery, he's nearly 90 and still going strong; turned out the 3 most recent (each over 10 years ago) were caused by having hte wrong medicine after getting a pacemaker. After switching, his health returned. even hsi pacemaker wasnt so much because he -had- to have it, but to even out the blood pressure changes as he got older (ie, his system would restore balance slower with a bit of exertion)
  Face it. We got an expiration date. And the more we learn about it, the more it seems to be tied to genetics than to anything else.
  Outside of not rolling around in carcinogens and eating Lardo 9000, it more and more seems to come down to your own personal mix of genetics.
  As medicine gets better, we keep chipping away at the limit, pushing it further and further back. But the end is still there waiting for us, and most of us still cluster around a fairly steady value for a given level of medical care.
  So pass me the bacon and ranch cheeseburger pizza. I'm gonna enjoy life and leave it on my terms, rather than stress out for the next 40 years trying to eeke out a few extra days.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
15. Re:Drop Milk by jouassou · 2012-12-27 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Just stop using cow's milk.
  60% of the global population can't digest milk once they become adults.
  Perhaps we should ban other foods that people don't tolerate as well, such as wheats, oats, barley, corn, almonds, cashew nuts, hazelnuts, brazil nuts, soy beans, sesame seeds and sunflower seeds? Or perhaps we'll just let the lactose-tolerant keep their milk?
16. Re:Drop Milk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Unless, of course, you have an allergy to MILK PROTEIN.
17. Re:Drop Milk by ByteSlicer · 2012-12-27 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  So 60% of the world population has a milk allergy now? I don't think so...
Got Bacteria? by fredrated · 2012-12-26 07:54 · Score: 1

Ummm good....
But But But... by fredrated · 2012-12-26 07:57 · Score: 2

What about the Free Market?
Tell me again why "organic is overrated"? by erroneus · 2012-12-26 07:58 · Score: 1

I think, and have always thought, that the natural way of cultivating foods for human consumption is better. The business people strive to reduce loss and to increase production. But they forget to ask questions which has less to do with money such as environmental costs or anything to do with "long term" effects of short term gains.
Of course, as long as "everyone" is doing it, no one is responsible and of course if a few hold back from those practices, they will be swallowed up by those who do in the short term.
Welcome to the system.
The government regulators exist to prevent these types of systemic problems. What's that? Bought and paid for you say? Hrm... didn't see that one coming.
1. Re:Tell me again why "organic is overrated"? by erroneus · 2012-12-26 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  I am the blessed forcus of a severely obsessive and uncontrolled mind. Even before the topic was responded to by people interested in it, we are flooded with commentary in MY HONOR!
  You know, with mental illness as the sub-topic of the recent violent incident involving children the same age as my youngest son, news organizations are looking for the next great related story. Only recently, a newspaper had taken to "creating news" by publishing an interactive map of registered gun owners which stirred up both hostile and smug responses depending on which side of the polarizing issue a person may be. But the dialogue is also moving into the direction of mental health and how we can detect protential problems.
  Here, for example, we have a particular individual (or set of individuals?) who go(es) out of his way to leave an enormous trail of evidence behind which to study and investigate. And since I am one of the focuses, I have already been contacted by parties interested in this angle of the story. I hope my interviews provide are useful insight into the problem at hand.
2. Re:Tell me again why "organic is overrated"? by geekoid · 2012-12-26 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  Becasue organic produces less yield and kills people.
  You note that pasteurization kills this. As we have known, organic milk is a huge risk. I could go on with numbers and figures and facts, and studies, but you probably wouldn't understand them, so I will sum up:
  A) Shit flows down hill.
  B) the udder is under the ass.
  Wow, I love that sentence.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
3. Re:Tell me again why "organic is overrated"? by erroneus · 2012-12-26 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  I completely understand what you mean.
  We know how to handle the basic problems of food handling and processing. The problem is when we go too far beyond that. We challenge the forces of nature itself and when we do, we invariably lose.
  We wash food, we pasteurize milk and cheese. Those are good to do. What's not good to do is drug our sources of food. It is well known that the over use of antibiotics breeds stronger bugs. Despite this knowledge they persist in the practice.
4. Re:Tell me again why "organic is overrated"? by will_die · 2012-12-26 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  FYI,
  Organic labeled milk is usually more pasturized and processed than non-organic labeled milk. The reason is that it is purchased less often so it has to have a longer self life than normal milk.
Just add a little Ammonia to the milk by na1led · 2012-12-26 08:44 · Score: 1

they already do it to meat. What's the harm, right?

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
1. Re:Just add a little Ammonia to the milk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  or bleach to make your milk whiter than write. X ___ X
2. Re:Just add a little Ammonia to the milk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  they already do it to meat. What's the harm, right?
  Too complicated. Just salt it, like meat!
customers are responsible by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:50 · Score: 1

Every supermarket has also 'greener' products with better conditions for the animals. Nobody is forcing customers to buy intensive farming products. Just buy greener products and intensive farming will diminish.
1. Re:customers are responsible by dywolf · 2012-12-27 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Greener doesnt automatically mean better conditions for the animals. Nor does "buying green" mean intensive farming will diminish. The "green" products require even more land, use even more resources, and cost more to consumers. And for what? So you dont feel guilty? So you can say no antibiotics were used on your cow?
  Overuse of AB's is and can be bad, but one reason they started using them generally instead of waiting for an animal to get sick first is it costs a lot to fix a sick cow. It's very labor intensive, its not garunteed to work, and across a spread of a few hundred to thousand cows, that's a lot of potentially sick cows, especially if it spreads to the whole herd, as it easily might. The potential is there to lose a quarter of your herd, or even worse, the entire herd. Using antibiotics proactively instead of reactively caused an increase in the quality and number of animals they could bring to market and sell; fewer animals were relegated to "dog food use only", and there was less chance of losing a significant portion of your herd to sickness or uncertaintity.
  You clearly have little actual knowledge of the food supply chain or why things are done how they are done.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
2. Re:customers are responsible by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  "Just buy greener products and intensive farming will diminish."
  The spirit of what you say is correct, the facts not so much.
  Take Monsanto, shit blows into neighbors farm, now they file lawsuits that that farmer is stealing their copyrighted shit. The only way the MONSANTO farm goes away is when the law says so. Meanwhile they get to fuck the small farms in the ass.
  Finally the word "GREEN" fuck green. People ain't buying solar panels to go green, they're buying them to cut their bills and go off grid and get the fuck away from this currently corrupted system of oath breaking pieces of shit who are determined to wipe the US Constitution, Destroy the Monetary system, and Start Civil war.
Re:ummm uncommon antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:53 · Score: 0

It is far easier to cook a piece of meat sufficiently to kill germs than to cook your salad/fruits.
Humans aren't supposed to drink cows' milk... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 08:55 · Score: 0

... but I'm sure the brainwashed 'intellectuals' at Slashdot will insist that I'm wrong, won't think it through, and convince themselves that they're 'normal'.
After all, 'everybody else is doing it', right? So it MUST be right!
Why don't you go up to a pregnant cow, lie down and suck milk out of her udders with your mouth? Why not? Because you're not supposed to, that's why, but because you've been told 'by society' that it's normal, and your parents told you it's 'normal', you do it, and even defend it, because you would literally rather die than THINK, or change. How pathetic.
Would you like some milk with your pus? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:02 · Score: 0

Gross...
Obvious solution. by fahrbot-bot · 2012-12-26 09:10 · Score: 1

As long as the milk is properly pasteurized, it poses no threat to consumers, but anyone working directly with the animals bears a small risk of infection.

Pasteurize the cows.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Mmmm.. Milk! by BeerAndLoathing · 2012-12-26 09:12 · Score: 1

Where's your MRSA mustache?
Re:ummm uncommon antibiotics by icebike · 2012-12-26 09:14 · Score: 4, Funny

It is far easier to cook a piece of meat sufficiently to kill germs than to cook your salad/fruits.
Not to mention your left arm, once it gets infected.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Overlords by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:22 · Score: 0

the overlords want us to drink milk because Lactose is metabolised into Galactose which can be used to induce a model of senescence. Thats right, Lactose->Galactose causes aging at a cellular level.
They also want us to eat lots of monounsaturated vegetable oil because, for one reason, they become saturated by halogens which significantly increases the body burden of said halogens (bromine and fluorine are the culprits), theyre also enzyme inhibitors and goitrogens.
There is a war on the endocrine systems, and thyroid.
antibiotics are part of the business model by faustoc4 · 2012-12-26 09:39 · Score: 1

It's not only the "cramped conditions" (sic) that produce infections, also the corn they are fed and the Posilac (TM) hormone they get injected produce more infections. Also antibiotics promote growth, so they are given to healthy animals as well.
Lies. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 09:41 · Score: 0

Evolution is a lie. This article is nothing more than atheist fear mongering.
Easier said than done by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 11:04 · Score: 1

If you stop consuming milk and cheese, you become permanently lactose-intolerant before too long. Where I live (America) most restaurants put cheese on most everything, so it is hard to go out anywhere with your friends if you can't eat that. Also, the favorite food for many social gatherings is pizza.
So, giving it up means suffering some degree of social friction. Whenever you go out with the group, suddenly there are several places the group can't go, and wherever you all DO go you are always the one asking whether there is cheese or butter in everything and eventually just ordering a salad. It sucks to be that guy.
If you figure out a way to make everybody else stop consuming milk, so that most of my options at most restaurants are devoid of milk products, then I will fall in line and give it up too. Until then, I have enough other quirks serving as social barriers to introduce yet another one.
And I like cheese.
huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 11:20 · Score: 0

Here in Colorado, all the major supermarkets (not just the "health food" stores) carry hemp milk.
Its flavor is unique, but good.
Non-Sequitur by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 11:31 · Score: 0

Huh? So, the solution to farmers raising cows in an unsanitary manner and pumping them full of antibiotics is to give up milk altogether? That's a little extreme, isn't it?
And who cares if 60% of people can't digest lactose, the other 40% can. Not everything situation needs a single one-size-fits-all solution.
Plus, almond, soy, and rice "milk" taste ok, but not like milk and milk tastes good.
corporate crimes against humanity by cas2000 · 2012-12-26 12:32 · Score: 1

This is what is wrong with corporations (and is also the fundamental flaw in american style libertarianism aka anarcho-capitalism) - the greedy bastards simply DO NOT GIVE A FUCK about the consequences of their actions, they just want a short-term boost to profits, no matter the cost to others.
They're not the ones who are going to be paying for it when people lose their limbs or organs or die horribly from MRSA, so it does not matter in the slightest.
We need a corporate death penalty for crimes like this - i.e. complete nationalisation when found guilty, and subject the now state-owned corp. to a charter requiring them to act solely as a non-profit in the public interest (so that the services/products they supplied are still supplied and especially so that the low-level employees don't suddenly find themselves unemployed); with all current and future copyrights and patents instantly and automatically public-domain, and with all existing contracts subject to immediate re-negotiation to align with the public-good and anti-exploitative rules of the new charter.
also criminal charges with enormous fines and long jail sentences for execs and board who knew (or had a duty to know but somehow conveniently didn't or can't remember) or authorised or perpetrated criminal behaviour.
in short - make the consequences of behaving like sociopathic arseholes utterly terrifying to the bastards. Nothing else will make them act even remotely civilised.
so, for now then .. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 13:07 · Score: 0

so, for now then .. i'm going to be drinking powdered milk when i make a cup of tea..
all this, and shit weather. damn. i wish i lived in another better country.
This is just a matter of using protective measures by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-26 13:23 · Score: 0

As long as the milk is properly pasteurized, it poses no threat to consumers, but anyone working directly with the animals bears a small risk of infection.
So that means that ranchers should start using condoms when screwing the cows, to avoid contracting the deadly illness, right?
fluoroquinolones for cattle by manu0601 · 2012-12-26 15:29 · Score: 1

Well, if they give fluoroquinolones to cattle, we can be confident it will be unefective on most bacteria soon, and therefore that it will not be prescribed anymore. Given the toxicity of the thing (it destroy tendons), that is a good news.
Farm farming by HHealthy · 2012-12-27 13:41 · Score: 1

This is pretty serious. We usually need to take care to switch medicines as bacteria adapt to it through natural selection. Not even bacteria, but also viruses, you know like HIV. A good and big counterattack against this resistant *%$^%$ is medicine alternation. If you preselect the "adapted clones" already in the farm you are seriously exposed. I know, the factory stuff will be very carefull but it is always very difficult to avoid accidents... For funding, research and peer finding please refer to the non-profit Aging Portfolio.
We understand you're a blackmailer Jorge Bastida by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 03:54 · Score: 0

Read it yourself, and erroneus' libel before it http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928 since he tried hiding it by a downmod last time it was posted here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3339513&cid=42399343 and his name is Jorge Bastida.
john b wilcox/erroneus = expert on food by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 13:08 · Score: 0

Since being publicly obese like you is embarassing. Erroneus/john b wilcox: When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, and spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.
john b wilcox/erroneus = uncontrolled eater by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 13:33 · Score: 0

Erroneus/john b wilcox: When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, and spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.
john b wilcox/erroneus, let's talk about yours by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 13:35 · Score: 0

Erroneus/john b wilcox: When you eat is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, n' spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.
We think ya eat too much john b wilcox/erroneus by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-28 13:37 · Score: 0

Erroneus/john b wilcox: When you eat, is your dish a wheelbarrow, your fork a pitchfork, n' spoon a shovel or what http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3345911&cid=42414637 ? Does your bed use chevy truck coil springs and struts to hold your fat ass off the floor too? Hahahaha. No wonder you said this "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 you disgustingly fat hog.