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."

35 of 179 comments (clear)

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 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.
2. 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.
3. 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!
4. 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.
5. 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!
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
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 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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/
7. 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!
8. 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.
9. 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!
10. 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).
11. 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
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 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
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/
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 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.
But But But... by fredrated · 2012-12-26 07:57 · Score: 2

What about the Free Market?
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.