[csda] Mercola on FDA Approves a Spray-on Virus to Keep Processed Meats ''Safe'' (fwd)

[Guest guest]

FDA Approves a Spray-on Virus to Keep Processed Meats ''Safe''

http://www.mercola.com/2006/sep/7/fda_approves_a_spray-on_virus_to_keep_processe\

d_meats_safe.htm

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.

<http://news./s/ap/20060819/ap_on_he_me/edible_viruses>

News August 19, 2006

----------

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:

* 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.

* 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).

* 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

<http://www.mercola.com/2006/dec/10/the_dangers_of_processed_meats.htm>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

<http://www.mercola.com/2001/feb/28/pesticides_miscarriage.htm>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:

<http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/30/food_irradiation.htm>FDA Allows

Irradiation for Meat

<http://www.mercola.com/1999/archive/usda_rules_for_organic_meat.htm>USDA

Sets Rules For Organic Meat, Poultry

<http://www.mercola.com/1998/archive/disinfecting_kitchen.htm>Disinfecting

Kitchen Cuts Disease Risk