[blueangel]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

Fair enough. The reason I didn't comment in detail on my initial post was because I provided a link and wanted to first hear what others had to say.

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 Pfizer certainly pooped the bed) . . . not rock-solid cases in the slightest. Anyway.

I have lack of faith in the FDA because they are politically motivated. (This could be a whole thread by itself.) But briefly, since you seem to have a lot of confidence in this agency.. did you read the survey recently released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)? If not, here are some articles:

in DrugResearcher.com

http://www.drugresearcher.com/news/n...y-vioxx-kertek

and this interesting article in in-Pharmatechnologist.com

http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com...ts-of-interest

and this one from seedmagazine.com

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/200...n_of_disco.php

From the above article, I found this paragraph quite disturbing:
"In 2004, safety officer David Graham--who blew the whistle on Vioxx--testified in the Senate that the agency was unable to keep drugs that officers felt were unsafe off the market. Naturally, FDA officials refuted Graham's testimony, labeling it "inaccurate" and "unscientific."

A point of clarification... it was Merck.. not Pfizer that marketed Vioxx.

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.

I am against genetic manipulation of our crops, and unfortunately, due to cross pollination, it has become virtually impossible to know which are "pure" and which aren't. This lack of labeling (and now the impossibility to accurately label due to "frankenfood") poses a problem for people with food allergies. Again.. this could be a thread in itself.

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).

It's not the cost that concerns me... it's the fact that my choice is being taken away from me. We will not know which foods are sprayed with this virus combination, and which are not.

The other problem is that we really don't know what the long term effects (or short term for that matter) of ingesting this virus cocktail will be. The viruses are grown in a culture with the very bacteria they're meant to kill (Listeria bacteria). The FDA had concerns that the preparation of the virus cocktail could produce residues. It found none in its study. However, the agency says that as long as its used "in accordance with regulations, we have concluded its safe." Again.. do we trust that these viruses will indeed be used "in accordance with regulations?"

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?

I'm all for capitalism, but not at the expense of our health. Going back to Vioxx.. Merck knew about the link between cardiovascular disease and Vioxx, yet it kept it quiet. We all know the end result. Therefore, I *do* have anger towards Big Pharma. I'm all for the drug companies making money, but not at the expense of our health and well being.