Viruses the New Condiment 363
Lip writes to tell us that a new bacteria killing virus has been deemed safe by the FDA as a food additive for ready-to-eat meats. These bacteriophages are designed to kill a common microbe (Listeria monocytogenes bacteria) to which hundreds of
deaths every year have been attributed. From the article: "The viruses are grown in a preparation of the very bacteria they kill, and then purified. The FDA had concerns that the virus preparation potentially could contain toxic residues associated with the bacteria. However, testing did not reveal the presence of such residues, which in small quantities likely wouldn't cause health problems anyway, the FDA said."
"Waiter! There's a virus on my steak!" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Waiter! There's a virus on my steak!" (Score:5, Informative)
The reason for this is that antibiotics will kill off your own symbiotic bacteria in addition to the infection they're supposed to cure. However, replacing those same intestianal bacteria is incredibly easy with the right foodstuffs.
Re:"Waiter! There's a virus on my steak!" (Score:4, Insightful)
I just don't think (even if the number is 500/yr in the USA) that the expense is justified.
Having said that, I do agree with you wholeheartedly, that they have the capacity to mutate and this could be breeding another "super bug." I just do not think it is as important as the cost/benefit (ack, I just used marketspeak) issue.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Waiter! There's a virus on my steak!" (Score:4, Informative)
affect vs effect (Score:2, Informative)
You mean affect. The verb effect means "to bring about," which is opposite of what you want it to mean here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Grammar Nazi (Score:5, Informative)
If you're not, however, I'd like to point out that the GPP is, indeed, correct.
From Dictionary.com
Effect
tr.v. effected, effecting, effects
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect1.
(e.g. "The Senator was afraid that the new policy would effect higher oil prices.")
Also, effect is often seen as a noun, meaning (among other things) a result. For example: "The Senator was afraid that the new policy would have detrimental effects on the oil industry."
On the other hand:
Affect
tr.v. affected, affecting, affects
1. To have an influence on or effect a change in: Inflation affects the buying power of the dollar.
2. To act on the emotions of; touch or move.
3. To attack or infect, as a disease: Rheumatic fever can affect the heart.
(e.g. "The Senator was afraid that the new policy would adversely affect the oil prices, dragging them higher.")
Affect is rarely used as a noun, although it is much more commonly seen as a verb. Affect as a verb: "The man had a strange brand of body language that lent him an odd affect."
If you don't believe me:
Usage note from dictionary.com:
"Usage Note: Affect and effect have no senses in common. As a verb affect is most commonly used in the sense of "to influence" (how smoking affects health). Effect means "to bring about or execute": layoffs designed to effect savings. Thus the sentence These measures may affect savings could imply that the measures may reduce savings that have already been realized, whereas These measures may effect savings implies that the measures will cause new savings to come about."
Usage note from wikipedia.com:
"Do not confuse affect with effect. The former is used to convey the influence over existing ideas, emotions and entities; the latter indicates the manifestation of new or original ideas or entities. For example, "...new governing coalitions during these realigning periods have EFFECTED major changes in governmental institutions" indicates that major changes were made as a result of new governing coalitions, while "...new governing coalitions during these realigning periods have AFFECTED major changes in governmental institutions" indicates that before new governing coalitions, major changes were in place, and that the new governing coalitions had some influence over these existing changes."
Usage note from Write101.com:
"The easiest way to distinguish the two is to remember that affect is a verb (well, nearly always a verb) and effect is a noun
When affect is pronounced [uh FEKT] and accented on the final syllable, it's a verb meaning "to have an influence on."
eg Nothing they did, could affect my decision to go to the beach.
Occasionally, very occasionally, the word is used as a noun (it means a feeling or emotion, as distinguished from thought or action, or a strong feeling having active consequences) and the accent is on the first syllable [AFF ekt]. This is a term that is reserved for psychiatry and psychology:
eg In hysteria, the affect is sometimes entirely dissociated, sometimes transferred to another than the original idea.
Effect is most usually a noun and it means the result of some action or the power to produce a result. The noun is pronounced [uh FEKT] :
eg The effect of the bushfire was clearly visible.
eg The soothing music had an immediate effect on the wild beast.
This can also be a verb and it means to bring into existence, to produce a result (pronounced [ee FEKT]}"
Hopefully, that should convince you.
Mmmm..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide [wikipedia.org]
"The FDA approved thalidomide in 1998, under a restricted access system, for the treatment of erythema nodosum leprosum associated with leprosy (Hansen's disease). It also was found to be effective for multiple myeloma, and is now standard first line therapy for this disease..."
Re:Mmmm..... (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing wrong with thalidomide either, so long as you're not female and pregnant. (If you're male and pregnant you have bigger problems
Viruses NOT the New Condiment (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Which is totally ridiculous. Everyone knows that ketchup is a fruit.
KFG
Mutation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Mutation? (Score:5, Informative)
I'd actually think it more likely that the bacteriophages would go after the bacteria living in our digestive system, which would likely cause many of the same problems that a round of antibiotics does - ie, diarhea - but which is also simple to cure by recolonizing your intestines with those same bacteria (no colonizing your colon jokes please). So the cure for the bacteriophage run amok B-movie style would be... yogurt actually.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Presumably sometimes after the first multi-cellular organisms developed.
But you are going about this backwards. A virus doesn't think, it doesn't ask itself: "Can I gain anything by infecting these human cells instead of bacterial cells?" The virus infects the
Re:Mutation? (Score:4, Interesting)
As to ancient viruses jumping species from bacteria to animal cells, what makes you think that humans and modern animals are anything like the first multi-cellural organisms, aside from the obvious point of having more than one cell? So far as I know, immune systems didn't develop until well after organisms became multi-cellular, due to the fact that such systems require specialized dedicated cells evolved to fight infection.
It's much easier to see a disease organism jumping from a single celled organism to a cluster of cells that have only just begun to act as a group, than it is to see a virus that had no prior evolutionary adaptation to immune responses infect a complex organism with an immune system. The "arms race" between animal cells and viruses to develop/survive immune responses accounts for why modern viral infections are capable of surviving an assault by the human immune system, whereas bacteriophages lack those millions of years of adaptation.
I am aware of no examples of bacteriophages jumping species to animals. Presumably they do share a common ancestor with the common cold, but that's likely so far back that using that common ancestor as proof that they could jump to humans is illogical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not nice to fool mother nature (Score:4, Insightful)
And nature just hates it when you anthropomorphize.
And bacteriophages don't go "hungry". They are very simple little critters. If they find the correct host, they attach to it, inject thier DNA and go promptly about making more of themselves. The host bacterium then ruptures, spilling out the viral particles and so it goes.
If there are no more of the specific host (Listeria monocytogenes, which is NOT found in healthy humans), they remain inactive viral particles and just hang around until they are destroyed or manage to find another host.
If you swallowed a bunch of these things, your stomach would likely digest them into component pieces parts (I suppose I could look up the acid sensitivity to these phages, but I'm not going to do so). So by the time they get to your colon where large numbers of bacteria wander about (but remember, NOT Listeria) they would be few and far between.
As for a bacteriophage infecting a eukaryotic cell (even then meanest and newest of slashdotters has made it beyond the single cell limit), there are quite a lot of other things that you should be worrying about first: Near Earth Asteriods, Elvis returning, George Bush staying on. Those sorts of things.
Re:Mutation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
With that in mind, "fresh" isn't guaranteed, and cleanly prepared isn't the consumer's job, its the meat-packing companiy's. It's not like with raw hamburger or chicken where the buyer is going to cook the stuff themselves before eating it.
Given the choice between either irradiating or phage-treating the stuff, or else risk giving their customers food poisoning, which should the pa
Re: (Score:2)
Antibiotics pass through your system, after which the bacteria can recoloniz
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mutation? (Score:5, Funny)
If it does, we'll just come out with some virus-eating bacteria. It's the ciiiiiiircle of liiiife!
Good joke but you give a better idea (Score:2)
Re:Good joke but you give a better idea (Score:4, Informative)
There are ways other viruses can co-infect a cell and piggy-back onto another virus's replication cycle for it's own use, or even disrupt the other virus's replication because of it. Problem is HIV is a retrovirus, which also means it doesn't actively replicate all the time and can integrate into your own genes. That's why an infected person can survive for years with a very low HIV count and relatively symptom free until the viruses essential reactivates.
Re:Mutation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything is 'possible'. However, the odds of this are quite small. Bacteriophages are highly adapted to their hosts - bacteria. This would make it far less likely to occur than for a virus adapted to, say, a mammal to cross over to humans (which happens, but rarely). Furthermore, as TFA states, humans already come into contact with these particular bacteriophages all the time.
However, there is a risk factor, obviously. We would be creating much more interaction between human beings and these bacteriophages (if these sprays become commonplace), which would give them more time to adapt to us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mutation? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, bacteriophages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage) are the smallest syringes in nature, and they actually have proteins that store the energy needed for injection of genetic material through the cellular wall!
Phage therapy is a very real alternative to antibiotics. In fact it is already used with much success: my cousin was treated with phage therapy after a chemical burn complicated by kidney infection (strong antibiotics would have destroyed his kidneys).
Cue John Q Public (Score:5, Insightful)
The press coverage has been woefully bad with respect to explaining that these are not your average run-of-the-mill viruses, but rather are bacteriophages that can only infect bacteria. Expect some mild hysteria over this and some nuts demanding labelling.
truth in labelling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:truth in labelling (Score:5, Insightful)
Should all products which use yeast include the label "Contains fungus"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:truth in labelling (Score:4, Informative)
No, just "yeast" would suffice (and be more precise).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you think if we told the public that any given piece of meat has x billion bacteria on it that it would be useful information to them? Plants too, so none of that herbivore crap.
How about this, your food is inspected
Re: (Score:2)
But sure, putting a label with <insert virus name here> as part of the ingredient listing would only sound fair.
Re:truth in labelling (Score:5, Insightful)
"Warning: Lark's Vomit!" [utwente.nl]
Personally, I think this is a dangerous precedent. Adding a 'phage is not a substitute for having proper food handling standards (and testing) to prevent Listeria contamination in the first place. Listeriosis may be unpleasant for those unfortunate enough to get it (a mere 7.4 people per million), but it acts as a red flag indicating there's a problem that needs to be fixed. Giving people a "magic spray" just encourages them to take shortcuts, leading to more outbreaks of other food contamination. (No doubt the FDA's "solution" is to add more 'phages - didn't they learn anything from the misuse of antibiotics?)
"Ulch - that meat was tainted! You feel deathly sick." - Nethack.
Re:truth in labelling (Score:5, Insightful)
How about just listing the ones that are intentionally added?
LK
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's simple. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:truth in labelling (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you truly have trouble understanding the difference between a substance that was deliberate inserted into the foodstuff and substance that got there by a freak accident and couldn't possibly be included in the list of ingredients since, after all, it's presence was an unforseen accident, or are you simply making a rather pathetic attempt at astroturfing for the meat industry that doesn't want people to be able to discriminate against whatever makes the industry more profits ?
And in the latter case, do you truly want to make your money this way, even when it leads to you, too, being unable to tell what you're actually eating ?
No, it is not. The natural and correct default is that the label includes any and all substances that went into the package. Leaving them out serves no purpose beyond making the people unable to make informed decisions. Which, of course, is exactly what the industry wants: anything that slows the bacterial growth in the meat allows them to be kept on the display longer and handled with lesser care, leading to greater profits. Your proposition is nothing more than an attempt to get around the "truth in advertising" by changing the meaning of "truth".
A lie of omission is still a lie. Selling someone a food that has been purposefully injected with bacteria-killing viruses and neglecting to mention this, when such injections aren't common knowledge, makes you a fraudster and deserves you a long visit in the local jail. Whether or not these viruses are actually good for the customer is completely irrelevant to the matter; that you took the choice out of his hands, and in fact made it so that he never even knew that there was any choice involved, is in itself wrong.
It is very tempting to take the choice out of people's hands "for their own good", but that's the exact same attitude that led to the Prohibition, Comics Code, content filtering in public libraries, dress codes in public schools, and Jack Thompson's crusade against games. It is wrong, it has always been wrong, and it will never stop being wrong, no matter how stupid you think the masses are being.
You are all missing the point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You have to be a nut to want to know what additives are in your food?
Are vegans nuts if they want to know if enzymes from animal sources are added to their food? Are Jews or Muslims nuts because they want to know if pork products are added to their food? What about people who are allergic to peanuts, are they nuts to want to know when their foods are prepared with peanuts? How about people who are allergic to eggs? What about people who a
Cue Bill Z. Businessman (Score:5, Insightful)
The press coverage has been woefully bad with respect to explaining that these are not your average run-of-the-mill viruses, but rather are bacteriophages that can only infect bacteria. Expect some mild hysteria over this and some nuts demanding labelling.
I was expecting more of a "We can't label this, consumers would freak out if they knew!" reaction from businesses.
Exactly that argument was used to strike down requirements that "GM" (genetically modified) food be labelled. Businesses, with a straight face, told the government regulators that if they required labelling, consumers wouldn't buy their products. God forbid consumers be allowed to make a choice as to whether they want genetically modified foods or not...and if you're afraid they won't choose genetically modified foods- maybe you shouldn't make them.
Most people's fears come from the business world constantly (and consistently) putting profits ahead of public health. Industries whine about reglation, but they brought it upon themselves, as almost every piece of regulation on the books were brought about by someone doing something they shouldn't have- all because it made more profit.
Re:Cue Bill Z. Businessman (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cue Bill Z. Businessman (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not the issue.
The issue is: KNOWING WHAT WE ARE BUYING SO WE CAN MAKE INFORMED CHOICES.
That is all. That is the only issue. It is an issue of the freedom to choose, and the knowledge required to make that choice.
I want to know what agricultural practices I am supporting when I buy food. I have my reasons, and in a free country I should be allowed to act on those reasons. I neither know nor care what you, the FDA or Monsanto think of the issue.
Freedom means the freedom to do things that other people think are irrational and ill-advised, so long as doing so does not take away other's freedom.
If you can come up with a single argument as to why I should not be free to know what I am eating I'd like to see it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, ok, these are to some degree different from virusy viruses. However, hysteria aside, this is extremely unpalatable. That's one very damn good reason to expect, or indeed demand, a label for this process.
Seriously, good food does actually grow on trees - there's no legitimate reason (other than squeezing the last cent out of production) for screwing around with it. Me, I'll pay you extra to leave it alone, and I'll probably live
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Irradiating foods (not making them radioactive, but exposing them to radiation) used to be an accepted practice of reducing the microbial load on fruits and vegatables, making them less likely to give you food poisoning. But then people, like the moderator, thought "Irradiation = Nuk-u-lar = glow-in-the-dark = CANCER!" and the practice stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
Known versus unknown (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an issue with a kneejerk reaction to add labeling. Mainly, the vast majority of people don't read the labels. So adding a warning does little. Furthermore, its getting to the point that so many warnings are being put on consumer goodss, that the warnings get lost in a sea of noise. Take a simple electronic device such as a radio, it typically comes with a small booklet full of warnings. Honestly, when was the last time
Re: (Score:2)
Just quit fucking with my food, because nature is "inconvenient" to deal with in maximising profits.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you seriously think anything you eat is "natural"?
Selective breeding in crops and animals have been done for centries to maximise profits. That's not natural
Irrigating land that is normally not suitable for farming. That's not natural.
People just accept what they can understand, and reject anything that they don't comprehend.
Re: (Score:2)
True, however it's rather difficult to selectively cross breed cows with spiders (ie; spider genes - as the Army is doing to produce silk cheaply for body armor), or to selectively cross breed Vegetables with scorpions (or scorpion genes); tomatoes with flounder genes; potatoes with jellyfish genes; etc, but it can be done relatively easily and quickly with genetic engineering techniques. Personally I want the freed
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, irritants cause cancer.
Don't worry. We can trust the people who brought us BSE, growth hormones, high fructose corn syrup and the current obesity epidemic can't we? Ronald loves you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You assume small quantities get ingested (Score:2)
phages (Score:5, Informative)
By the way these are completely harmless to humans, in fact to all plants and animals. The phage is a very simple virus with a small genome that gets injected into the bacterium and does the standard virus things (hijacks the host's systems to replicate itself a billion times). The cell explodes, releasing billions more phages. These phages have been our tools for a long time in biology, we use them to move genes around, for making libraries of genes, all sorts of neato stuff. There's little we don't know about them, so they're a good candidate for this task. There is no way these can make the leap from infecting bacteria to infecting higher organisms, any more than a plant could suddenly start walking around.
I could think of a few things that are possible, for example if it mutated enough to find our host bacteria a good target then that might cause problems, but again, very doubtful.
If the phages themselves are harmless (Score:3, Insightful)
They only kill one strain of bacteria. Will consumers (and meat packers!) get a false sense of security, get sloppy, and wind up with some different strain of bacteria poisoning the meat?
Treating huge amounts of meat with industrial quantities of phages will change the environment for the bacteria. The bacteria have a chance to change their genome every half hour. If they can evolve to be less vulnera
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, bacteriophages are in the food supply. They're everywhere that bacteria are - that includes a lot of them living inside you.
I don't see a reason why this specific bacteriophage would be more likely to turn harmful than the ones already preying on the bacteria you need.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way these can make the leap from infecting bacteria to infecting higher organisms, any more than a plant could suddenly start walking around.
Aren't there useful bacteria that we need? Also, will it be detrimental to any sort of "bacteria ecosystem" that we may need?
I could think of a few things that are possible, for example if it mutated enough to find our host bacteria a good target t
What happens.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The secret ingredient is... (Score:3, Funny)
FDA approves the sale of new Hormel vegetarian alternative food
Hormel will begin marketing it's unique new meat alternative this month under the name Soylent Green. "We've been pushing for FDA approval for some time, and we're happy we'll finally be able to offer such a wonderful product to our customers," said PR spokesperson Adele Wright.
When asked about the unusual color, Wright responded, "We were very inspired by Dr. Seuss, and saw the success that Heinz had with their green ketchup. Such a fun looking food will appeal to children, who are notoriously finicky eaters. Soylent Green offers all the benefits of a vegetarian diet, but without missing any of the flavor. Soylent Green has a distinct flavor that we think will be quite popular."
Imitators, however, do not have Hormel concerned. "We keep our secret recipe closely guarded," says Hormel CEO Dr. Hannibal Lector. "We don't anticipate anybody coming up with a knock-off product any time soon."
Most people, though, are probably only interested in the taste. The Star's very own food critic Ken Prescott offers his opinion: "Soylent Green is really just vegetarian spam: it has a funny color, and a taste like nothing else. A lot of people like Spam, and a lot of people hate it. Soylent Green is the same - how it tastes will vary from person to person."
Disclosure (Score:2, Insightful)
As it stands all this will do is drive more people with means to Whole Foods and the like, (and increase their share price in
Actually it's more than just a virus... (Score:2, Informative)
minor typo... (Score:3, Informative)
Probably the tenth time I've complained about grammar on slashdot
B
Labelling? - Apparently not (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the food industry and USDA wants the benefits of science without taking any responsibility for educating a population woefully ignorant about science.
The other side of it of course is that treating meat so it can sit on a shelf longer has no real benefit for the consumer (other than not getting sick from spoiled meat) - the meat packers benefit greatly with lower costs, but why shouldn't consumers get some of the benefit in the form of lower prices? Hiding whether it is treated is a way to capture all the benefit for the producers.
If the market is competitive (Score:2)
The only objection to labeling that makes sense is that it's hard to know where to stop. Hormone treatments? Antibiotic treatments? Preservatives in the feed? Insects in the packing plant? Trace chemicals in the soil that grew the grass? We all like information, but if there's a health issue the answer isn't to label it but to ban it.
More Shit In The Meat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fewer sick days, more productive workers...
I'm sure the military will feed this to soldiers, so we'll see if it's the next agent orange/desert storm syndrome.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that I believe that some food producers had put a label on their products stating that the food was not irradiated, and the FDA took them to court and told them that they were not allowed to say that - And the FDA won.
--jeffk++
Why Now? (Score:2)
condiments, hah (Score:2)
"58" varieties
But will it kill prions? (Score:3, Informative)
Just to remind everyone, our ever-increasing orgy of animal slaughter wastes land through feed production, pollutes air and water, and brings much untold suffering to our fellow beings, who themselves are given no political voice. Only when the barbaric practice of factory farming is finally eradicated may we ever call ourselves compassionate as a society.
If you as an individual can reduce your dependency even a little on the products of animal exploitation and slavery, please do. Your every meal will become a testament to life and love, and you will be helping your health, your environment, your animal friends, and your sense of humor [bizarro.com].
Meanwhile, be aware of the many threats to health directly caused by the breeding and use of animals.
Oprah: Now see, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let me just ask you this right now Howard. How do you know the cows are ground up and fed back to the other cows?
Howard Lyman: Oh, I've seen it. These are U.S.D.A. statistics, they're not something we're making up.
Oprah: Now doesn't that concern you all a little bit, right here, hearing that?
Audience: Yeah!
Oprah: It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger!
Audience: (Claps loudly and shouts) yeah!
Howard: Ask yourself the question. Today we could do exactly what the English did and cease feeding cows to cows. Why in the world are we not doing that? Why are we skating around this and continuing to do it when everybody sitting here knows that, that would be the safest thing to do, why is it, why is it? Because we have the greedy that are getting the ear of government instead of the needy and that's exactly why we're doing it.
Audience: (applause)
Oprah: We have a lot of questions about this Mad Cow Disease that we'd like to try to get resolved, because we don't want to just alarm you all, but I have to tell you, I'm thinking about the cattle being fed to the cattle and that's pretty upsetting to me...
[ kill no more ] [veganica.com]
But will it kill prions? (video) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, on a related note, please stop trying to put your choices in my mouth, thank you.
Bacteriaphages are everywhere (Score:2)
A mixed blessing (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider this a very mixed blessing for the following reasons:
- it substitutes "spray and forget" for good hygiene and quality control for food. Bluntly speaking it provides meat vendors with more leeway to get away with poor quality control, poor hygiene and meat that's too old because it takes away some of the bacteria. Economic pressure being what it is, there will be vendors who will take advantage of this and who will then have a competitive advantage over vendors that *do* pay attention to proper hygiene and quality control
- it proposes to launch an enormously broad application of this bacterium-killing virus when only a select target group (mentioned in the article) needs it. When meat leftovers containing this virus are disposed of, they will spread this virus throughout compost heaps and perhaps even into sewage sludge, providing a great opportunity for billions of bacteria to encounter this virus in great dilution under a variety of conditions. Who is willing to bet that no bacteria will develop immunity? In this closely resembles the same irresponsible attitude that was a the bottom of the American habit to prescribe Penicillin indiscriminately for everything from coughs, colds, to sprained ankles. A habit that led directly to the emergence of the current nasty strains antibiotic-resistant bacteria (MRSA comes to mind).
- there are no safeguards against the emergence of a new strain of Listeria that might develop and that is resistant to this particular virus.
- bacteria live in an ecosystem with competitive pressures. If you remove one bacterium (Listeria) you create an open invitation for any bacterium that isn't targeted by this specific virus. What are the chances that we will be surprised by a newspaper article decrying the death of 100 elderly because they had (sprayed) luncheon meat in which very rare but virus-immune bacteria had developed (and had chance to develop because standards of hygiene went down and the meat was kept out of the fridge for say 24 hours)
In summary I am pessimistic about applying this virus on a grand scale:
- it's a sizeable intervention that isn't really needed, because with proper hygiene and fresh produce you will not have difficulties for ordinary healthy people, and those with a weakened immune system or special vulnerabilities can simply take special care.
- due to its intended broad and indiscriminate application, there are no safeguards whatsoever against this novel anti-bacterial weapon not being blunted by allowing billions of bacteria to encounter in in great dilution, develop immunity, and pass that immunity on to their colleagues (which is a known mechanism in bacteria).
- it only seems to benefit the producers of this virus by creating competitive pressures to use it if your competitor does so too (which is of course their good right, but not necessarily beneficial for society as a whole)
Re: (Score:2)
Can bacteria develop immunity to a virus (Score:2)
The authors of that webpage note that development of resistance can be countered by changing the phages. This means that whoever produces that Listeria killer would have to keep changing it.
It also states that bacteriophages are extremely bacterium-specific. Therefore I conjecture that we may see a mutant strain, or possibly another bacteria altogether, profit from the ecological niche cre
Hold on! Why should you need this? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is pretty rare that dangerous bacteria get into your food, why should it be good practice to have viruses added to certain "foods" 100% of the time? Think about it.
This is just like the other stupid idiocy (salmonella etc) which the food industry seems to get away with. Go read this: http://www.cspinet.org/reports/polt.html [cspinet.org]
Excerpt: "Despite increasing rates of food poisoning from Salmonella and Campylobacter during the 1980s, and continuing high levels today, the poultry industry has maintained processing practices that actually increase the percent of contaminated products. Instead of minimizing the contamination in processing plants, the poultry industry relies on consumers to cook the problem away."
The real problem is not bacteria in food. The real problem is the food industry treating food just like any other "fuel" - if it meets regulations XYZ then it's fit to be consumed. AND the FDA etc allowing them to do so.
With attitudes like that you get practices like feeding feathers to cows - which was stopped because, brilliantly, they feed leftover cows to chickens too, so with the BSE scare, the risk of leftover cows ending up being swept off the floor with the feathers and re-fed to cows was a bit too high to be politically/economically viable.
And then the USA complains when the Japanese refuse their beef or their rice or whatever.
This is just like going to a restaurant and getting crap served to you, but FDA approved crap, with FDA approved viruses squirted on it so that all the dangerous bacteria has been killed, following industry "best practices".
Even if it is legally edible and meets all the regulations, it still leaves a bad taste in your mouth one way or another.
Instead of debating whether the viruses are potentially harmful or not, we should consider whether what's happening in the food industry is harmful or not.
What next? You guys are going to continue eating such industrial output, like it and think it's "wonderful new technology", "Approved by the glorious FDA"? Now that's what I call disgusting. Believe me, what is disgusting is not the viruses or the bacteria, and I'm the sort who eats and likes all sorts of stuff (some of it apparently has appeared on Fear Factor).
This is the same FDA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, right. So since there's been more than one case of Police corruption, I better be worried whenever they arrest someone.
The sheer number of known carcinogens in the American diet worries me. Aspertame, Sodium Nitrate, Potasium Bromate; the list goes on and on.
Aspartame and Potassium bromate haven't been conclusively shown to be carcinogens. In particular the evidence for aspartame is quite
Rightfully so, Europe could deny these things... (Score:4, Interesting)
For the interested parties, read on...
What is it nowadays (..) in the US that makes food-safety a non-issue with regards to new technologies ? Often Europe is being seen as "the old world", where we boycot a lot of products from countries 'without reason'. Europe is 'old-fashioned', 'isolates' itself, is perhaps even 'afraid to try new things'. I wonder if this is true and whether we didn't learn anything from our mistakes.
There was a time when heroin was made into a medicine [wikipedia.org] by a medical company in Europe. And there was a time when asbestos was used as a flame retardant, only to be discovered by the US none the less that it was in fact sickening. [wikipedia.org]
It seems that we live in a brave new world now, in which these things are no longer deemed as important. We are back 100 years again, and this new technology (bio-engineering) has taken hold of us. When we finally get bitten by it, and I feel that on the current way there is no escaping this - independent of the above article which could indeed prove to be quite harmless as said..- will we open our eyes again ?
Maybe Europe is old-fashioned, and we should experiment with ourselves more often. Who knows what good it will bring.
Europe is probably too narrow-minded, and boycotting products will only delay the inevitable.
But still, I wonder what will happen if any of these brave new products does turn out to be "faulty". Will it backlash and totally invert current stance towards bio-engineering, negating all the hard and good work that HAS been done in this field - for which there is no denying ?
Perhaps, for the sake of the field of bio-engineering, we should guide the technology along better - give it time to grow up like any living thing in its earliest stage of life. And when we have guided it along, we - Europe - will come to find that it is indeed a brave new world, a world which we should embrace.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
so we need some little guys on our side
You know, I think you hit on the slogan they need to sell this to John Q. Stupid.
"These little guys are on *our* side!"
Re: (Score:2)
The viruses are probably safe. Agreed.
Fluoridated water isn't, because in higher dosages, fluorides actually have a weakening effect on bone/tooth strength. And dosage of water taken in isn't very well-controlled - some people might drink half a glass, others may drink eight or ten. Far better to supplement with fluoride supplements of some type or use topical dental fluoride if your MD or dentists seems it n
Re: (Score:2)
In absurdly high doses. In high, but safe, doses, you get teeth mottling first.
Far better to supplement with fluoride supplements of some type or use topical dental fluoride if your MD or dentists seems it necessary.
Leave it up to supplements and dentists and those who need it most don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. So you harm (and fluoridation is not as benign as you state) the many to save the ignorant few? Great.
BTW, this wouldn't be a problem if we had a nationalized health care system like most other developed countries - those who want to see a doctor or dentist would be able to for a nominal (or no) fee. Finance it with a graduated income tax and let the wealthy finance the poor.
-b.