Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blueangel
In my opinion, the idea of spraying on viruses to prevent listeria is a bit of overkill. Out of the millions of people who eat deli meats on a daily basis, 500 die from listeriosis. Those that die are generally infants, the elderly, pregnant women, and those that have compromised immune systems.
Just as we warn pregnant women not to eat Tuna fish due to mercury, maybe it would make more sense to warn those at risk to heat up the deli meats before eating them (since listeriosis is caused by improperly cooked meat) than to expose millions of people to an unknown factor).. thereby virtually eliminating any chance of these people contracting listeriosis.
And while the FDA has proclaimed these viruses "safe" (Ha! Remember Phen Phen and Vioxx?!!) we do not yet REALLY know how safe they are. And further, we won't know which meats are sprayed. Sorry, but I would rather have the choice.
These whole thing is profit motivated-- not health motivated. Intralytix stands to make a tidy sum on this since they hold the patent on this virus cocktail.
|
If you'd posted this, I could have addressed these points, rather than assuming you were simply decrying this because it's a viral additive.
Your lack of faith in the FDA is oddly similar to your argument against the necessity of the virus - of the huge number of FDA-approved items, very very few have had serious problems. Many of these problems were due to improper use, or narrow time frames for testing (ie long-term effects were never seen). Basically, using the FDA's track record is somewhat specious when discussing whether or not this is a good idea on the whole.
Side note: I don't like Vioxx as your example - one of the most important things to come out of early Vioxx litigation is the sheer number of these cases that involve viable secondary problems (although Merck certainly pooped the bed) . . . not rock-solid cases in the slightest. Anyway.
I actually agree in that I would prefer the meats were noted with whether the 'phages are added - however, the decision to not require this actually makes some sense in that a.) it would create havoc with other foods' labeling (for instance, nearly all corn has some significant genetic modifications - are those noted?) so it may not be the best precedent, and b.) it may indicate, to some, concerns beyond what are warranted (at least, in the eyes of the FDA). Either way, I'd prefer it to be on there, but I can see where it comes from.
As far as the relatively low numbers of people dying, if adding $0.03 to the price of the item for the spray procedure effectively eliminates the problem, I can't really argue against it - 'minimizing' the importance of a problem because of its rarity is a slippery slope to walk, and I'm not really willing to take even the first step. Telling women and the elderly to avoid the meat is a fine step, but that seems like an iffy reason to avoid an available solution (especially if these groups simply want a Dodger Dog every once in a while).
And finally, while I can appreciate your anger toward capitalism and the 'money trail' toward Big Pharma, you might want to turn your ire elsewhere - remember, Intralytix has to actually sell this stuff to the manufacturer. This means there has to be some benefit to the manufacturer . . . I'd guess the actual end of the 'money trail' is in the pockets of those who sue these companies for lysteria. What other benefit to the company could there be?