FDA Approves a Spray-on Virus to Keep Processed Meats ''Safe''
- From: "vakker" <vakker@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 05:03:21 GMT
FDA Approves a Spray-on Virus to Keep Processed Meats ''Safe''
More madness from the FDA The FDA has approved a mix of six
bacteria-killing viruses designed to be sprayed on ready-to-eat meat and
poultry products. The viruses, called bacteriophages, kill the Listeria
monocytogenes bacterium. This is the first-ever approval of viruses as a
food additive.
Listeria monocytogenes can cause a serious infection called
listeriosis. About 2,500 people in the United States become seriously ill
with listeriosis each year, and 500 die.
Lunch meats are particularly vulnerable to Listeria because they are
generally not cooked or reheated after purchase.
Consumers will not be informed as to whether their meat and poultry
products have been treated with the spray. Intralytix, the company that
produces the virus spray, also plans to seek FDA approval for another
bacteriophage product, this one designed to kill E. coli bacteria.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
This new process substitutes "spray and forget" for good hygiene and
quality control for food. Bluntly speaking it provides meat vendors with
more leeway to get away with poor quality control, poor hygiene and meat
that's too old because it takes away some of the bacteria.
Economic pressure being what it is, there will be vendors who
will take advantage of this and who will then have a competitive advantage
over vendors that *do* pay attention to proper hygiene and quality control
This could be a landmark event as it proposes to launch an
enormously broad application of this bacterium-killing virus when only a
select target group needs it. When meat leftovers containing this virus are
disposed of, they will spread this virus throughout compost heaps and
perhaps even into sewage sludge, providing a great opportunity for billions
of bacteria to encounter this virus in great dilution under a variety of
conditions.
Who is willing to bet that no bacteria will develop immunity?
This strongly resembles the same irresponsible attitude that was at the
bottom of the American habit to prescribe penicillin indiscriminately for
everything from coughs and colds to sprained ankles.
There are no safeguards against the emergence of a new strain of
Listeria that might develop and that is resistant to this particular virus.
Bacteria live in an ecosystem with competitive pressures. If you
remove one bacterium like Listeria, you create an open invitation for any
bacterium that isn't targeted by this specific virus.
What are the chances that we will be surprised by a newspaper
article decrying the death of 100 elderly because they had sprayed luncheon
meat in which very rare but virus-immune bacteria had developed (and had a
chance to develop because standards of hygiene went down and the meat was
kept out of the fridge for say 24 hours).
Applying this virus in the food system simply is not a good idea
as:
a.. It's an enormous intervention that isn't really needed,
because with proper hygiene and fresh produce you will not have difficulties
for ordinary healthy people, and those with a weakened immune system or
special vulnerabilities can simply take special care.
b.. Due to its intended broad and indiscriminate application,
there are no safeguards whatsoever against this novel anti-bacterial weapon
not being blunted by allowing billions of bacteria to encounter it in great
dilution, develop immunity, and pass that immunity on to their colleagues
(which is a known mechanism in bacteria).
c.. Like so many other "innovations" it only seems to benefit
the producers of this virus by creating competitive pressures to use it if
your competitor does so too (which is of course their good right, but not
necessarily beneficial for society as a whole). This "innovation" will make
processed meats an even more dangerous food choice than before.
If you haven't been concerned about processed meats yet, here's
one more reason: At one point, the FDA had concerns this spray-on concoction
might contain some toxic residue from the bacterial mix of sprays. The
agency claims human contact with these residues in small quantities doesn't
cause health problems, but are you willing to bet they won't?
Considering the increasingly experimental and dangerous nature
of so much processed food -- like irradiation and genetic modification as
well as this new spray -- there are many reasons to go organic.
You may have wondered on occasion if organic food is really
better for you. Besides the fact that organic foods are not treated with
sprays, radiation, or genetic modification, organic food differs right from
the start, in the way that it is grown. Where traditional farmers apply
chemical fertilizers to the soil to grow their crops, organic farmers feed
and build soil with natural fertilizer.
Traditional farmers use insecticides to get rid of insects and
disease, while organic farmers use natural methods such as insect predators
and barriers for this purpose. Traditional farmers control weed growth by
applying synthetic herbicides, but organic farmers use crop rotation,
tillage, hand weeding, cover crops and mulches to control weeds.
The result is that conventionally grown food is often tainted
with chemical residues, which can be harmful to humans. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) considers 60 percent of herbicides, 90 percent of
fungicides and 30 percent of insecticides to be carcinogenic.
Pesticides can have many negative influences on health,
including neurotoxicity, disruption of the endocrine system, carcinogenicity
and immune system suppression. Pesticide exposure may also affect male
reproductive function and has been linked to miscarriages in women.
Aside from pesticide contamination, conventional produce tends
to have fewer nutrients than organic produce. On average, conventional
produce has only 83 percent of the nutrients of organic produce. Studies
have found significantly higher levels of nutrients such as vitamin C, iron,
magnesium and phosphorus, and significantly less nitrates (a toxin) in
organic crops.
There is little question that organic foods are superior to
non-organic ones. However, I see many patients who are not eating any
vegetables because they either cannot afford them or they are too difficult
to obtain.
Please understand that it is better to eat non-organic
vegetables than no vegetables at all. In the same vein, it is also important
to realize that fresh non-organic vegetables will be better than wilted and
rotten organic vegetables that are occasionally the only ones available in
smaller organic produce stands.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<>
Related Articles:
FDA Allows Irradiation for Meat
USDA Sets Rules For Organic Meat, Poultry
Disinfecting Kitchen Cuts Disease Risk
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Its not a big surprise
- Next by Date: Natural Health Yellow Pages going international
- Previous by thread: Its not a big surprise
- Next by thread: Natural Health Yellow Pages going international
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
