Yum, Yum! FDA Approves Virus for lunchmeats

[blueangel]

The FDA has done it again. This time, they've given the thumbs up for food companies to spray bacteria-killing viruses on lunchmeat. Ewww.

Read about it here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/21/fda_viruses/

[tunatartare]

This once again reaffirms my decision to buy organic whenever possible.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by blueangel

The FDA has done it again. This time, they've given the thumbs up for food companies to spray bacteria-killing viruses on lunchmeat. Ewww.

Read about it here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/21/fda_viruses/

If this is even moderately worrisome to you, you should probably stop purchasing any agricultural product (even those grown without pesticides).

Or take a science class.

[AlphaFrog]

I don't know why, but this reminds me of the George Carlin bit when he talks about cancer. He said if he gets it, he wants more then one kind, os they'll all fight eachother.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by blueangel

The FDA has done it again. This time, they've given the thumbs up for food companies to spray bacteria-killing viruses on lunchmeat. Ewww.

So I guess it would also gross you out to know that bacteriophages (the "bacteria-killing viruses") already live in your digestive tract?

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

So I guess it would also gross you out to know that bacteriophages (the "bacteria-killing viruses") already live in your digestive tract?

LOL but that reminds me of when people would make fun of me for not wanting any of my food to touch other food on my plate by saying, "It all gets mixed together in your stomach anyway!" I mean, you can't TASTE food you've already eaten.

For reals, there's a difference between eating something and having it in your body -- you wouldn't, for example, eat poo. That said, I don't see the point of being bothered about what's put in crappy processed food. Lunchmeat? Ew.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

That said, I don't see the point of being bothered about what's put in crappy processed food. Lunchmeat? Ew.

LOL. Quite true. Why worry about what's put on it when it has no flavor to begin with.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

For reals, there's a difference between eating something and having it in your body -- you wouldn't, for example, eat poo. That said, I don't see the point of being bothered about what's put in crappy processed food. Lunchmeat? Ew.

Agreed, partially.

Honestly, you probably have millions of viruses in/on/near your body at any given time - they get a bad rap for things like "sickness" or "cancer", but it's just a type of organism, and not necessarily a bad thing.

The majority of cutting-edge gene therapy research focuses on viral delivery, for instance - we're really going to have to get used to viruses used in this sort of fashion . . . and not make absolutely silly thread titles like "YUM YUM VIRUS FOOD"

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Agreed, partially.

Honestly, you probably have millions of viruses in/on/near your body at any given time - they get a bad rap for things like "sickness" or "cancer", but it's just a type of organism, and not necessarily a bad thing.

The majority of cutting-edge gene therapy research focuses on viral delivery, for instance - we're really going to have to get used to viruses used in this sort of fashion . . . and not make absolutely silly thread titles like "YUM YUM VIRUS FOOD"

First: the title of the thread was: "Yum, Yum! FDA Approves Virus for lunchmeats", not "Yum Yum Virus Food."

Second: suggesting I "take a science class" really wasn't very nice. Please do not insult my intelligence or education.

Now.. let's try to discuss this without personal attacks, shall we?

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.

[KSig RC]

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?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by blueangel

Those that die are generally infants, the elderly, pregnant women, and those that have compromised immune systems.

Point of clarification. The pregnant women don't die (well, I suppose they could, but it would be the same odds for a not-pregnant woman)...their unborn child does.

[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.

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Point of clarification. The pregnant women don't die (well, I suppose they could, but it would be the same odds for a not-pregnant woman)...their unborn child does.

Good point.

But, it needs to be pointed out that according to the CDC, the risk of contracting Listeria is 20 times greater in a pregnant woman than a non pregnant woman.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by blueangel

Good point.

But, it needs to be pointed out that according to the CDC, the risk of contracting Listeria is 20 times greater in a pregnant woman than a non pregnant woman.

That would be why many pregnant women are told to either thoroughly heat lunchmeats and/or hotdogs or avoid them alltogether.

It's another one of those things where you have to weigh benefits vs. risk and make the decision for yourself.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

No worries, I'm glad we've gotten more in-depth, regardless.

Originally Posted by blueangel

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

Ha - bad brainfart, but I think you can probably guess what I had been researching all day . . . whoops.

Also, I'm going to cut the FDA part out - I don't really have a ton of faith in the FDA, but apparently I have more than you . . . I don't discredit or disagree with the links you've posted, I just don't agree with the ways in which they are relevant to the conversation.

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

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.

Again, I actually agree with the labeling part (in an ideal world), but I can see two viable reasons why they would NOT be labeled (from the FDA's standpoint), and little to suggest any other reason.

Originally Posted by blueangel

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?"

The former is a legit concern, and a (probably necessary) flaw in the entire FDA system - there is no chance for discovering long-term problems.

The latter point (re: "in accordance with regulations") seems like a specious argument - you could very easily make this same argument against any sort of human vaccine, or really any perishable food product. Do you trust that any sort of inactive virus injected into your body will be developed according to regulations? Do you trust that milk is kept properly cool? How about the meat department's handling of poultry? While I see your concern, I think it's something that is too broad and requires too much cynicism for my blood. It sucks that this kind of trust is required, but that's 100% the "purchaser's bargain" with manufacturers, and it is self-regulated by the marketplace (if not the government).

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

This is what I meant by "pooped the bed" - Merck's documentation of the problem was meant to ensure that any litigation would be quashed by the age-old "The government approved it!" line . . . one which no longer works for GenX/Y jurors (trust me on this, no time to cite but I have a paper currently up for review). However, the incidence of the link in their research compared with the number of cases filed are not even close to similar - and the first few big victories have been on the back of deaths from people who used the drug for a year, 18 months, sometimes less. This is a massive hijack, but I think there's a happy medium where we can rail Big Pharma for the legitimate wrongs they've done, but not buy into the hype machine created around lawsuits and plaintiffs' attorneys that accuses some of worse than has really happened.

Once again, the meat companies have to buy this product - there has to be a reason why they would purchase this. I think that's important to keep in mind.