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.