link管理
链接快照平台
- 输入网页链接，自动生成快照
- 标签化管理网页链接
相关文章推荐
|
严肃的枕头 · 新老显卡通吃 古墓丽影7正式版初体验-搜狐数码天下· 1 月前 · |
|
|
瘦瘦的鸡蛋面 · 在swift语言中实现网络请求至少四百字 ...· 3 月前 · |
|
|
逃课的硬币 · 如何评价《PRODUCE 48》第七期？ - 知乎· 7 月前 · |
|
|
谦逊的红豆 · PEM_write_X509 - ...· 10 月前 · |
|
|
淡定的斑马 · Landscape of histone ...· 1 年前 · |
Experience faster, smoother browsing with built-in features like a free VPN, ad blocker, and AI tools—get the Opera web browser and redefine how you explore the web!
Download for FREE here
Try it for free today.
Hugh Pickens writes
writes
"Medical groups from the American Medical Association to the American Society of Microbiology have appealed to the government and industry for years to restrict the practice of providing
sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics for livestock
, lest critical antibiotics become
useless for human treatments
. Now Tom Laskawy reports that a coalition of environmental groups has decided to sue the Federal Drug Administration to follow its own safety findings and
withdraw approval for most non-therapeutic uses of penicillin and tetracycline
s in animal feed to healthy livestock when it's not medically necessary. 'While this may cause eyerolls among some who look at this as "just another lawsuit," there's something very important going on with the courts and contested science right now,' writes Laskawy. 'As it happens, one of the main roles of a judge is as "finder of fact." In practice, this means that judges determine whether scientific evidence is compelling enough to force government action."'"
Try it for free today.
Of course, I may be biased (says
/me looking at a recent surgical scar and remembering the discussions with my surgeon of antibiotic-resistant postsurgical infections.)
Share
twitter
facebook
by
Nicolas MONNET
( 4727 )
writes:
<
nicoaltiva&gmail,com
>
on Sunday May 29, 2011 @06:13AM (
#36278662
)
Journal
Next, maybe some of our environmental guardians will do something about fracking
> For colds they'd be better off taking a zinc supplement at the onset of the symptoms.
Is it proven this works?
Why do you ask for proof when you yourself peddle dodgy alternative type remedies?
In any case colds are caused by viruses, and nobody who knows what an antibiotic is ever claimed it worked for those.
Why do you accuse me of peddling dodgy treatments? Just google for zinc and cold.
It works better than placebo.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12462910
[bbc.co.uk]
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/for-cold-virus-zinc-may-edge-out-even-chicken-soup/
[nytimes.com]
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Zinc-HealthProfessional/
[nih.gov]
Stick to the pills/lozenges, take them at early onset of symptoms, don't overdose and definitely don't spray your nose with it (or you might damage/lose your sense of smell). May not be a cure, but most subjects would feel better and that's good enough for most people.
AFAIK doctors in some countries are still prescribing antibiotics to those with colds and flu. Despite being told year after year not to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/20/coughs-colds-cures-treatment-antibiotics
[guardian.co.uk]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6526575/GPs-told-to-stop-prescribing-antibiotics-for-coughs-and-colds.html
[telegraph.co.uk]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574995/Stop-giving-antibiotics-for-colds-doctors-told.html
[telegraph.co.uk]
My current guess (not enough proof yet
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20524852
[nih.gov]
RESULTS:
Neither the preintervention rate of MRSA colonization or infection (0.56 cases per 1,000 patient-days [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.49-0.62 cases per 1,000 patient-days]) nor the slope for the rate of MRSA colonization or infection changed significantly after the first intervention. The rate decreased significantly to 0.28 cases per 1,000 patient-days (95% CI, 0.17-0.40 cases per 1,000 patient-days) after the second intervention and to 0.07 cases per 1,000 patient-days (95% CI, 0.06-0.08 cases per 1,000 patient-days) after the third intervention, and the rate remained at a similar level for 8 years. The MRSA bacteremia rate decreased by 80%, whereas the rate of bacteremia due to methicillin-susceptible S. aureus did not change. Eighty-three percent of the MRSA isolates identified were clonally related. All MRSA isolates obtained from healthcare workers were clonally related to those recovered from patients who were in their care.
CONCLUSION:
Our data indicate that long-term control of endemic MRSA is feasible in tertiary care centers. The use of targeted active surveillance for MRSA in patients and healthcare workers in specific wards (identified by means of analysis of clinical epidemiology data) and the use of decolonization were key to the success of the program.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718935 [medscape.com]
March 22, 2010 â" A multifaceted infection control program led to a significant decline in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) cases in Paris-area hospitals with high endemic MRSA rates, according to an article in the March 22 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
There are other superbugs too:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/enemy_pr.html
[wired.com]
It's true that many species of acinetobacter flourish widely in the environment. Thriving colonies have been recovered from soil, cell phones, frozen chicken, wastewater treatment plants, Formica countertops, and even irradiated food
Read the rest of this comment...
Parent
Share
twitter
facebook
The cases are lost in the US for one of two reasons. Either because the smoker should have known the danger (it's been printed on every pack for decades), or because the issues presented have been foreclosed by a combination of past judgements (e.g. the massive every-attorney-general-in-the-country vs every-major-tobacco-company case) and federal legislation.
The cases are not being lost on the merits, but on gating issues.
People can be amazingly adept at "contesting" science they don't like. See: creationism, vaccines causing autism, climate change denial, or (a few decades ago) cigarettes being harmless .
(Emphasis mine.)
I can never understand when people say that. Sure, when people were looking to sue the tobacco companies, it made sensible strategy to claim that they never knew smoking was bad for them, but it's hard to understand why people believed that outside of the case. I mean, my mother was born in the 1930s and was told they were bad for her.
Cigarette companies specifically advertised their brands as being the "healthy choice". They would claim to be endorsed by doctors and dentists the way toothpastes do now. They would claim that the filters made them safer, or that they used "mild" or "light" tobacco. They would get testimonials from famous athletes and opera singers, with the obvious subtext that these people are clearly healthy. Of course, the stars giving the testimonials often didn't actually smoke... but that's no different from most modern celebrity endorsements.
Here's some examples [time.com]. My favorite is the Lucky Strikes claiming endorsement by 20,679 physicians -- no more, no less!
One and only one "scientist" who claimed "vaccines cause autism" in a study published in a peer reviewed journal, and it was determined that he deliberately lied for profit (and is being sued, possibly charged, and kicked out of professional organizations).
"Climate change" is a fact. It happens all the time. Whether it's going up or down and whether human actions are influencing it are under some debate.
You are declaring a contradiction that just doesn't exist. That stupid idiots like you are incapab
"Climate change" is a fact. It happens all the time. Whether it's going up or down and whether human actions are influencing it are under some debate.
You are declaring a contradiction that just doesn't exist. That stupid idiots like you are incapab
The contested part, as best I've been able to determine, is to what degree any of the antibiotic resistant strains is retained in beef flesh, survives cooking, and consumption, to affect humans. Those contesting this don't necessarily look at all possible vectors, such as runoff from pastures and feed lots, and they tend to point out that there is little evidence of any resistant bugs developing in cattle herds to date.
Its largely an economic argument based on cattle losses, but its not at all clear just h
The contested part, as best I've been able to determine, is to what degree any of the antibiotic resistant strains is retained in beef flesh
That's not really contested. Scientist know you can cook food to kill organisms. Most should even be able to tell you why. The problem is how much of the antibiotic properties are retained in an environment where cattle (or other livestock), fed with antibiotic feed, poop and pee. In other words it doesn't matter if the strains in your meat are cooked if the 'environment' is constantly exposed to antibiotics then so are the bacteria that cause infection. Thus, when you get an infection from one of those bacteria, that's been waiting for a cut in your skin, it's already been exposed to the antibiotic. This is known to cause resistance.
The idea that there is any debate over properly cooked food being a vector for resistant bacteria is a straw man.
Whatever is or isn't contested by scientists and researchers, I can confidently say that farmers don't understand the issue: I heard a representative farmers being interviewed on NPR or PBS discussing the routine use of antibiotics for "growth promotin" (the farmer's words) -- he stated that the use of antibiotics in animal feed wasn't a problem because they only used low doses of antibiotics. He seemed to think that the issue was that the antibiotics might get into the food chain, rather than the problem of bugs developing resistance.
Parent
Share
twitter
facebook
The contested part, as best I've been able to determine, is to what degree any of the antibiotic resistant strains is retained in beef flesh
That's not really contested. Scientist know you can cook food to kill organisms.
Well, had you read past the part you quoted, you would see that I addressed these issues. Its important to read the whole post.
And please remember, these are the opinions posted elsewhere that I am reporting, not my own.
Properly cooked food, yes. However, most people do not eat properly cooked food - for instance, rare and medium steaks do not count as properly cooked.
I guess that depends on how you define "properly" cooked. There's a difference between cooked and sterilized you know. Personally i like my steak rare to med.-rare. If you find that it's the most flavorful after 20 minutes in an autoclave, then by all means enjoy.
I support fact finding, it might bring up a few important counterpoints that often get overlooked in popular media articles.
For example:
1. The drugs commonly used for animal feed additives are not the same ones used by people. Frequently they are different classes and often different generations of drugs. Basically, many of these are the drugs whose usefulness in treating humans was either burned through long ago (by human usage) or never established.
2. In European countries where laws similar to this pr
Your counterpoints are not that strong:
1. Bacteria typically develop resistance not to a single antibiotic but to multiple antibiotics. See the post directly before yours.
2. If the only variable you alter is presence/absence of subtherapeutic antibiotics, I could believe that more animals may end up sick and that more important classes of antibiotics are used. However, this would be a pretty fuckwitted thing to do. In the real world, you would want to mitigate the risks associated with the removal of subthe
1. The number one most common anti-microbial in cattle feed is monensin, an ionophore. This entire class of drugs is nearly exclusively used in animals as a coccidiostat (anti-protozoal). (Some antifungal use in humans, I believe.) The reason it's so useful as a feed additive is that it reduces parasitism by a class of organisms that affect the GI tract. GI tract works better and the animal isn't expending energy to fight the organism.
2. In the real world, as you say, reducing stock density puts producers out of business. You are saying we should just not use a tool that prevents disease and improves feed efficiency, then further reduce efficiency by reducing throughput. The viability of this option is questionable. It would be lovely, but it would have to be paid for, either subsidized directly by the government or by an increase cost to the consumer. Increasing the cost to the consumer may not even work, because people will find out very quickly how easy it is to reduce meat consumption if it becomes very expensive. I'm comfortable with reduced meat consumption, and comfortable with large sections of the industry going under to reduce stock density, but let's not pretend that this is an easy sell and an obvious solution. It's a grand-scale industry overhaul.
3. "It's never been shown not to". You realize how unhelpful that phrase is, right? All I would like is for there to be an evaluation of actual risk. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, but a good estimate would be nice. Reasonable evidence of feed antibiotics significantly contributing to the resistance of a human pathogen - or even an economically significant veterinary pathogen - should be explored. After that, it's pretty much a cost/benefit thing.
4. While I admit that other causes of resistance does not mean this one should not be investigated, the scale of human antibiotic abuse is a valid reference point when trying to prioritize resources. It also should be considered for perspective.
5. Listed as a counterpoint because there is a valid economic benefit to the current practice, and changing the status quo should be based on evidence of risk or cost that outweighs benefit. Perhaps it's venal and idiotic to want cheap animal protein, but what are the benefits? I could digress into the benefits of early childhood nutrition on brain development and school performance, but I bet you're familiar with the talking points.
I just want there to be evidence brought forth and thoroughly evaluated. Antibiotics aren't necessarily evil, and abolishing the low-level prophylaxis has actual costs. The kinds of bugs that grow in animals that aren't feed-treated may pose a higher risk to human health, as they are often bacteria that can transmit to humans more easily, and they get treated after the infection is established, bumping up the likelihood of developing resistance.
Personally, I don't eat much meat; I try to find humanely raised stuff when I do. I think improving the quality of life for animals in the agricultural industry should be a goal of responsible consumers. I agree that reducing stock density would both improve quality of life and reduce the rate of infectious disease, and I'm willing to pay more for the meat from those situations. All I want from this discussion is for people to rely more on data and actual, demonstrated risk rather than FUD.
We have 10 casualties in the last 3 days in Germany because of EHEC, a superbug resistant to most antibiotics. About 1000 people are sick, and a handfull in critical condition. Cause: cucumbers contaminated with the strain. Likely contaminated with dung from a farm using antiobiotics as growth enhancer.
Two weeks ago, in The Netherlands, research was published showing that 100% (yes, 100% - every single last sample) of tested chicken meat in supermarkets was contaminated with resistant bacteria. These bacteria are now being found on tomatoes and cucumbers as well - a main ingredient in salads and usually consumed raw (cleaned, but raw). Oh yeah - this was also happening with eco-tomatoes. Apparently contaminated by using the cow dung from a non-biological farm.
It sounds like a pun, but we're in deep shit already. And you know what? If my kid were to die from this, I'd kill every meatfarmer I could find before they could stop me. And the veterinarians as well: only recently they are introducing laws banning vets from also selling antiobiotics. I mean: wtf? These people are supposed to make cows better, right? Not sell as much antibiotics as possible to shore up their income and damn the consequences.
And did you know that it is now standard practice to isolate farmers that enter the hospital? They are so often carriers of resistant strains (and die more of that as well) that they are a healthrisk to everyone.
People are dying already. Only the ones who stand to lose money are denying this - and then only because they thing they won't be affected.
Oh yeah - this was also happening with eco-tomatoes. Apparently contaminated by using the cow dung from a non-biological farm.
Possibly, but not necessarily. Bacteria get around without trucks, after all. For just one example, there are these amazingly efficient biological product dispersion systems called "birds." Directly implicated in at least one widespread episode of salmonella contamination -- of peanut products, as I recall.
The strain currently causing trouble in Germany shows indeed multiple resistances. Interestingly, in the case of EHEC, this is somewhat moot, as antibiotic treatment is not even the best choice. The enterotoxin causing the the haemolytic-uraemic syndrome gets released when you kill the bacteria, so antibiotics can make the symptoms even worse, to the point that you can't use them.
You know, you hit a nerve here. Phage treatment is known and applied successfully in the former USSR for well over 50 years. There was this Horizon episode [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8887931967515748990#] that said it all.
WHY this treatment has been neglected by the so-called first world countries? Oh, you cannot patent a phage that evolves by itself. The horror! Nature provides the cure but, by the gods, we will never use it because it is FREE! This is the road to communism!!
The people behind this outrage should be removed from society for life!
I remember that episode. I got curious after watching it again, seeing as it's so old now. What happened to the people mentioned in the video?
Apparently the "Georgia Research Inc" company changed its name a couple of times and eventually collapsed. The reason was some kind of internal argument over patent rights, so I guess it's not true that phages cannot be patented. Some of them later created another company called Intralytix which is focussing on phages for farm animals instead of humans. Apparently the
While I completely agree, that regulations have to be a lot stronger about hormones, GM products and antibiotics, I would like to see this go a step further: ban factory farming as a practice. It is inhumane, produces an unhealthy product, outbreaks of infections, excessive pollution and unnecessary suffering. I suggest to watch "Food Inc, Meet your Meat, and Earthlings for the non-faint at heart, both of which talk about the subject from different viewpoints.
Not necessarily. Let's assume that what you say is true. $30 for chicken is probably 6x the normal price. So, what would happen if food costs were 6x across the board?
Some US Census data:
Population estimate for 2009 is 307M
Per capita income $21.5k in 1999
Total household income = $6.6T
Recent survey showed about 10% of that is spent on food = $660B. Impact to economy of 6x higher prices is about $3T.
I doubt the US spends $3T annually on cases of hemorrhagic e. coli.
Now, of course that chicken won't really be $30, but the impact to the economy of even a modest food price increase is enormous. So, safety at any cost is a foolish policy. When that infant formula costs more maybe those little babies will get a little less of it - and what is the health impact of that?
I pay $15 for an uber-organic and also locally grown chicken.
Sure, the costs are high but they aren't quite as bad as what some want to claim.
Do you want to know why I will pay that much for a chicken? Someone in the family is seriously allergic to penicillin and tends to have allergic reactions to more industrially grown chickens. There's enough penicillin still in the chicken afterwards to be a problem for some people.
If the bucket averages out at $3 but the medical bills afterwards average out at $30 (because of superbugs, toxicity from avian meds, or whatever), then $30 per bucket with no medical bills afterwards is a save. It doesn't mean that this is the case, what it does mean is that there are cases when $30 for a KFC bucket really IS a win for the consumer, no matter what it feels like at the register.
Jamie Oliver demonstrated by switching a school's menu that a poor diet causes the masses to become brainless. (The improved diet, once accepted, caused exam scores to skyrocket and absence to plumet. After that, both media and schools started taking his views a bit more seriously - except in LA, where he was banned.)
It follows that you've a self-perpetuating cycle. People on heavily-processed, factory-farmed diets will, in general, be too stupid - as a direct result of those diets - to change.
Even more frightening for me is when I see other countries (not US), where it is actually more expensive and "special" to go to one of these "fast food" places.
In Costa Rica you will pay more for an equally portioned MC meal than what you would pay at a family restaurant. I am talking about a nice looking, clean simple local place where they serve fresh-made dishes with vegetarian/healthy options.
Still, 12pm on a Saturday you will see the family restaurant with clients, but MC, KFC, BK and all the crap have
Factory farming (mostly enabled via the production of corn for animal feed at prices far below the actual cost to produce thanks to subsidies) is the reason why Americans can get a hamburger for just $1. Its also one of the biggest reasons why modern Americans are the fattest people in the history of humanity.
Whoa, back up there. Inhumane conditions are bad, that much is clear, and I totally agree that antibiotics are often abused, but factory farm != inhumane conditions Factory farming typically refers to CAFOs, and that has nothing do do with how the animals are raised, but actually just the number. It gets a bad rap, but no small amount of them are just family farms (even some of the big ones) that do, indeed, treat their animals fairly well [iafarmwife.com]. It's like the spinach E. coli outbreak; one jackass lets his cat
I wonder what you mean on "foodie"? Does that refer to persons who realized, that it is really-really important what you eat, and that a lot of sicknesses are the simple outcome of the preference of taste over whatever your body really needs? Deep fried over veggies, coke over good water. Good water. Then I am a foodie.
GMO: I do not think we should get over with this. I want to see a label on everything GMO so I can make a choice of buying or not. That is all.
These farms are not for efficiency. They are for
I am in favor of labeling however I think you will be shocked to find most food produced in the US now has GMO content so it is pretty much moot at this point in time
As far as efficiency, how the heck do you think you get increased profit? It is by increasing efficiency. Economics 101. I can see you have never grasped basic principles of economics.
As far as not using animals as a resource, good luck with that. Every society on this planet does this. Even other animals do it. You are adhering to a concept th
...the rants of the blissfully unaware.
There's plenty of places in the US where the tap water is unfit. It may be due to chemical contamination or just be a biohazard.
You can't just blindly assume that "the government will make you safe". It doesn't always happen that way and blindly assuming it does tends to ensure that it won't. Not enough people will bother to pay any attention or raise a ruckus if necessary.
Can't avoid GMO foods.
Can't avoid stuff made in China.
Hard to avoid WinDOS.
GM foods themselves may not be a bad thing, but companies like Monsanto creating them are pure fucking evil. It's not just the government failing to do their jobs, it's also the bastards creating it and making sure the potentially harmful effects get hidden under a bunch of bullshit whenever possible, among many, many other things. If GM was handled responsibly and the books not cooked then we might wind up with some better crops and better meat in the long run, but when a company like Monsanto lies about their product and fucks people over in horrid ways...well, it makes people pretty averse to GM food.
Parent
Share
twitter
facebook
The ironic thing is that there are tons of non-corporate GMOs out there, but only one (the Rainbow papaya created by the University of Hawaii and Cornell) made it to market. Why? Because the anti-GMO people protested and protested and demanded that regulation be so strict that only multi-million dollar companies can take the time and money to just through the FDA/USDA/EPA's hoops. As a result, horticultural crops (fruits, vegetables, nuts, and herbs & spices) simply don't have the backing to make it
And while it is true that Monsanto is not nearly as open with their data as they should be, they have never hid any dangers under the rug, mostly because there are no known dangers .
Huh? The rBGH related [wikipedia.org] WTVT/Monsanto [wikipedia.org] affair? With the stupefying end of it: FCC policy against falsification (of news) was not a "law, rule, or regulation" ?
More than half a world refuses to import beef/diary from US because of that, but that's simply crazy because "no danger are known", isn't it?
I know the example is not in the GMO topic, but anyway..., can I really trust Monsanto when saying "no known danger"?
Huh? The rBGH related WTVT/Monsanto affair? With the stupefying end of it: FCC policy against falsification (of news) was not a "law, rule, or regulation"?
I confess, I'm in horticulture, not meat production, so that is a bit outside my area, but I don't see how that is any different than business as usual for companies. Which doesn't excuse it of course, but it isn't entirely unexpected, and it isn't grounds to ignore what people who study [psu.edu] it say about it's safety, namely that it is.
More than half a world refuses to import beef/diary from US because of that, but that's simply crazy because "no danger are known", isn't it?
It isn't crazy at all actually. I don't know how if it works the same in hormone treated meat (again, I'm a plant person), but I know with genetically modified crops they are re
There is no problem with the IDEA of genetically modified foods, but the reality of it may not be so innocuous. For example, Japan has been pretty damned opposed to GM foods. Monsanto tried to market GM soybeans in Japan, but Japanese law made Monsanto publish far more material that was accessible to the public than most other countries. As a result, some poking found that Monsanto seriously cooked the results. They claimed a certain protein in their GM soybeans that was NOT present in regular soybeans would break down into harmless compounds when cooked. Sure...when you cooked the beans far hotter and far longer than anyone ever would. The protein itself may be harmless, but they pointed out that there was serious potential for allergic reactions to it in people who would have no problems with regular soybeans. There is a shitload of controversy over Monsanto, and it isn't just due to their filthy business practices. They push this stuff out to market before it has been tested. I think we can agree that if someone wants to make GM foods, they'd damned well better test the living piss out of it before it comes to market and be accurate and honest with the public in regard to the results of that testing.
Parent
Share
twitter
facebook
I'd be really interested in knowing just what that protein was or any additional details if you've got them. The only two proteins inserted into Monsanto's soybeans (presently, there would be an additional pair if they get the omega-3 soybeans approved) are the Cry proteins and EPSP synthase proteins, and I don't think I've ever heard anything about either of those being proven linked to any sort of problem (at least not commonly used Cry proteins anyway). Although, given that this was the same country to
Not possible. Testing everything to the extent you like is not possible. If we were to do what you would like we would spent nearly 100% of our time testing every last product for the next 100years just to get out 1 years worth of product.......
Realistically.. You are the testing. If you eat or use something than you die than than they have a product which failed. Development of this world is proceeding too fast for complete testing of most if not any product.
And on another note, I think that if you want GM foods, go right ahead, but I also think that people should be able to pick and choose whether they have GM foods or not. Consumer choice and all that. Let the public decide. The problem is that assholes like Monsanto have tried pretty damned hard to keep that information away from consumers.
Parent
Share
twitter
facebook
I have no issues with truth in advertising, as long as they don't go nuts with it the way they have with "organic" - whatever that means.
I have similar objections to the USDA prohibiting farmers for doing 100% screening and labeling their meat as salmonella free. Apparently that would make other farms look bad and since all the meat is safe it isn't necessary so why should consumers have that choice?
The USDA is a very good example of regulatory capture. And, I tend to be somebody who is normally moderatel
I go to the organic market every Saturday morning, buy 4 boxes of fruits and vegetables and eat them raw. All week, every day. I eat at a restaurant once in 3 months (and suffer like crap, or just drink a tea) . I only eat flour tortillas and rice-wraps that are not raw, I do not buy packaged food other than that.
I am for labeling 100%. I want to be able to make the choice to accept GMO or not. I would like a vegetarian/vegan and a GMO label on everything, strongly controlled by reliable agencies.
That's fine, so long as you personally pay for that on every package of food sold in the US. I have no interest in seeing my food bill go up even $0.01 per year to fund that sort of wacko agenda.
There's nothing wacko about labeling foods. Would you like to see your food bill go DOWN by $0.01 per year by having the existing labeling of ingredients removed?
Labeling is a good thing. It lets us all make informed choices based on our personal preferences.
It is when you are going down to details that 99.9% of the population cant make any kind of informed decision on. Im not 100% sure that fits this situation but that is the argument the poster is making.
He probably would argue that its about as informative as listing the break downs of every atomic isotope within a food product. Informative... but useless information.
Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to hold it. However you're very wrong:
1. GMOs create monocultures which could severely damage society by allowing for a majority of crop types to be of one kind. If something comes along which the plants have no resistance to and wipes out the majority of crops sold on the planet we're fucked.
2. GMOs are patented. When the GMOs seed and spread to fields which do not have GMOs the owner of the patent can sue the farmer for using a crop which they own the patent for even though it's a derivative created by natural processes. Those lawsuits are detrimental to the farmers and provide the creators of the GMO with unending amounts of cash because everyone has to use their products.
3. GMOs require more and more pesticides because they're built to only germinate when the pesticide is used. I don't care if you're hippy or not, pesticides are just as bad as the hormones and antibiotics we're finding.
---
But hey, if you want to eat tasteless product created solely because it ships well and it requires pesticides to be purchased in order to grow so be it. It's your choice and I support that. However, I'll stick to my non-GMOs knowing that I'm supporting what we've used successfully for 1000s of years prior.
1. GMOs create monocultures which could severely damage society by allowing for a majority of crop types to be of one kind. If something comes along which the plants have no resistance to and wipes out the majority of crops sold on the planet we're fucked.
That one doesn't even make sense. Genetic engineering is a way of improving a plant. Biodiversity is what you grow. What you're saying is like saying conventional breeding creates monoculture because there are more potatoes than oca, more apples than jujubes, more mangoes than lychees, more wheat than tef, more lettuce than chaya, more numeg than rosita de cacao, ect ect ect. There are hundreds of crops that people like you don't know or care about. Genetic engineering didn't banish them, they were out
I can't help but think you're biased. You may have your reasons, but the arguments you put forth may stem from said bias and doesn't really address GP.
i.e.
1. No, GMOs do not create monocultures. Is it possible that a single genetically modified supercucumber sweeps the world because every farmer wants to grow it as it's cheap and resistant and whatnot? Yes, that's a possibility. On the other hand, there might be 20 new supercucumbers genetically engineered. Not all farmers might accept a singular supercucumber (for a variety of reasons). In the event that a singular supercucumber does sweep the world and some supercucumberfungus destroys the world's supply of cucumbers, we might have been sane enough to keep a few 'ordinary' cucumber strains left for just such a scenario.
Regardless of the above scenarios, it's not GM in itself that produces them.
2. You've got me there. Patents on food (and medicine, imho.. probably software too, but I digress) are stupid. But who is to say that if you spent your life combining cucumbers until you get a supercucumber, you can't patent that? In fact - you can; http://www.freepatentsonline.com/PP20666.html [freepatentsonline.com] . So this is not limited to GMO.
You make a second remark here that rather harks back to the first. Here you suggest that e.g. a cucumber that is a derivative of the supercucumber falls under their patents and so forth and so on. If derivatives are made, how does that gel with the whole monoculture argument? Doesn't a monoculture by definition require there to be only a single strain?
Now, yes, I understand that the diversity in the strains is dependent on the number of generations and actual combinatorial and mutation rates and so forth and so on meaning that the second generation is just about as likely to succumb to the supercucumberfungus as as the first generation - but what about 10 generations down? If 'contamination' occurs naturally, then how is a monoculture ever to be established, globally?
3. If they're built to require -more- pesticide, then don't claim the GMO process in and of itself. Blame the engineer who decided that was a brilliant thing to do. Maybe they hold stock in pesticide producing companies or something; otherwise, producing a supercucumber that is not only resistant to regular cucumberfungus but also doesn't require quite so much pesticide as commoncucumber, sounds like a good idea and more likely to take off among farmers (pesticides and all the regulations that come with them aren't cheap).
And finally the bit where I suspect your bias... "tasteless product". I'm not sure if you meant 'morally offensive' when you said 'tasteless', or literally "not being very flavorful". If the former, carry on. If the latter.. well, tastes differ between crops, seasons, years, and persons of course.. but I wouldn't really try the whole "tasteless product" thing, given that - just for example - research has shown that you can genetically modify a tomato to taste better than the run-of-the-mill standard tomato, in part because said standard tomato has been bred to be bigger, have better shelf life, take less nutrition from the soil, etc. (not so successful in terms of 'taste', there).
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n8/abs/nbt1312.html
[nature.com]
Note that the researcher does point out that home-grown tomatoes, or those at the farmer's market, may also taste better. This says nothing of the mass-production tomato in your local grocer's/supermarket/thing, though... regardless of whether the label states GM or not, which was your argument.
I'm not too keen on eating GM stuff myself (mostly due to point 2), but then I do still eat beef and oh boy is that a rotten industry (cornfeed, antibiotics as per the article, etc.). I suppose I could switch to soy-based meat replacement products.. but then I'd just be supporting the deforestation of Brazil's rainforests. Time to grow my own food and stick to chikun?
> 2. You've got me there. Patents on food (and medicine, imho.. probably software too, but I digress) are stupid.
Stop right there. Not owning your own seed is a show stopper. The rest doesn't really matter after that.
Farmers need to be able to be self sufficient rather than being artificially dependent on and at the mercy of one particular corporation.
I am not much of a biologist, but things in nature are usually somewhat logical.
For me it is easy to see, that if you take a completely healthy to eat plant, start modifying it so it withstands all kinds of things it should not do, then start mass-feeding it to people without a long-term study leads to bad things and public opinion. Then there are the corporations who patent these and do not allow farmers to re-sell or re-use their seeds. Combine this maffia with the subsidization of unhealthy products (cor
For me it is easy to see, that if you take a completely healthy to eat plant, start modifying it so it withstands all kinds of things it should not do,
You are a complete wacko. What you just wrote covers all forms of agriculture as practiced over the past 5000 years. Implementing your ideas would leave the world with a food supply capable of supporting less than a few million.
It horrifies me kind of on the same level as the whole Silence of the Lambs scene where what's his name from Goodfellas has the top of his head cut off and a part of his brain fried and served to him.
That's from the sequel, Hannibal . The best part about the "brain scene" is how Hannibal prepares the brain for consumption. In classical cooking, brains are chilled overnight so that they don't fall apart into mush at dinnertime. Hannibal sliced off portions of Krendler's brain and poached them in lemon juice, kinda like shrimp in a ceviche , denaturing the proteins and stiffening the appetizer to make it fit for instant consumption. Here's a quote from that novel, which pertains to the father of the meatpac
I saw a cow on a farm a while ago with that rubber plug during my trail ride (dirt bike, not horse, and in Costa Rica up in the hills ). According to a colleague of mine they are used for medical reasons and other monitoring. He added that it does not hurt the cow, but I do not see how you could cut a window on an animal without that causing pain.....
Well... Just so everybody knows:
Those holes in cows stomachs are usually only in research settings (and generally at universities) and not regular operations on farms. What they're looking at is how well they are digesting the foliage we're feeding them, and if we should give them more or less.
On dairy farms, which is what I'm familiar with, we spend a lot of time and money to make sure our cows are as healthy as possible. In fact, we do this not only for their well being, but because every incentive we hav
I haven't touched meat in 20 years, so I cannot comment on that one.
However it kind of troubles me to see, that my organic veggies generally taste a lot better, but they go bad waaaaay faster. Greens start to look tired after 2 hours outside, while the non-organic one looks fresh (tastes like nothing though) after a day outside.
Meet your meet actually makes a cooking in which a french chef cooks with factory and non-factory produce (meat, poultry, eggs). As a vegan I disagree with any kind of killing, the d
We're running out of antibiotics that there aren't any bugs resistant to, and no new ones are in development because the pharmaceuticals don't see any profit in it.[*] Estimates say it would take a decade to get a new one on the market.
Meanwhile, we use antibiotics so heavily that environmentalists find them in places like rivers and streams, and public water supplies. It has become a pollutant, but one with a particularly insidious effect.
[*] Such is the folly of leaving public health dependent on the profit motive.
1) Universities do research into drug possibilities, using public funds. Patent drug.
2) Once a drug proves to be useful, sell rights to drug to a big pharmacy.
Are universities usually involved? I thought the pharmaceuticals did their own research, and justified the patent-based stranglehold on your health as a necessary means for recouping their research investment.
3) Big Pharmacy runs trials, hiding poor results while prominently publishing good results
Including little things like elevated suicide rates that get "lost" in the reporting [msn.com].
Pharmaceuticals do their own research. They also leverage public basic research results, and they also license compounds from all kinds of places including universities.
So, universities do have a big role in drug discovery. However, universities almost never pay the costs of clinical trials, which is where you spend $50M to find out that the cure for cancer in mice doesn't work in people. Once in a while you spend $100M and figure out that a drug is good. So, even if it is mundane Pharma companies do sp
I'm generally in favor of experimenting with other models. The NIH could fund a royalty free drug start-to-finish - perhaps even outsourcing the work to a pharma company (but retaining patent rights). The NIH could announce bounties for treatments for particular conditions.
Interesting ideas.
However, I'm under no illusions that any of this will be cheap.
Me neither. However, IMO the question we should ask before we ask what it costs is, "What is the value of public health to a Republic?" If the answer is "a lot", then we should be glad to spend a lot on it without complaining.
Well, gist of what you say is true with some major caveats:
1. The bribes are under a lot of scrutiny and are down a bit (along with Pharma profits).
2. I'm not aware of any older drug that you can't buy - in fact most branded companies still sell it even after it is off patent. They just don't market it.
3. No university figures out if a drug is useful. They figure out if some molecule has some activity in some assay, or maybe in animals. To be useful it needs to have good safety and efficacy in humans.
I don't believe for one second that most drugs that come to market are similar in effect to older drugs and come to market simply as a way to preserve the income for pharmaceutical companies.
I don't know about in general, but as I recall it Clariton's successor, with an active ingredient identical to the original except for one relatively small attachment, hit the market right when the patent on the original expired and you could start buying OTS clones. Sure looked like they timed it to keep the big bucks rolling in.
If you want things to change, how about changing the government.
Darn straight. But for medicine I don't think creationists are the problem in this case; it's just that our legislature doesn't want to pass any laws that undercut anyone's profi
Pharmacist here. That happens all the time. I think the drug you are referring to is Xyzal, which is purified enantiomer of Claritin, I believe (I don't have the paperwork in front of me).
The drugs that get something added and re-patented are called designer drugs. These don't prevent the original from going generic. Take Zegerid for instance, it's just omeprazole (Prilosec) with sodium bicarbonate. It went for a couple hundred bucks a month when you could get baking soda and prilosec OTC for under 30/
In the Netherlands, this has also been an issue for some time for exactly the same reasons. However, the lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry, the farming industry and one very large veterinary firm that sells the antibiotics directly to the farmers (giving them as much as they want and making way too much money in the process) seem to have far too much influence in the Hague, which is the seat of the Dutch government. With these rather influential veterinarians arguing that any restrictions placed upon them would be unfair and against EU trade rules, the government is now considering banning all veterinarians from selling their own drugs, forcing their clients to buy directly from normal pharmacies instead. That would be unfortunate, because these pharmacies only have experience with human medicine. Thus there would be the risk of the pharmacies giving or offering (cheaper) alternatives that may not work for dogs, cats, cows, sheep, etc. (apparently, there are plenty of examples of this). This is one of the reasons why vets are also trained as, and usually operate as pharmacists.
Share
twitter
facebook
Denmark (and Sweden and others) have successfully banned antibiotics in farm animals with a good result on human health.
http://www.colby.edu/biology/BI402B/Casewell%20et%20al%202003.pdf
[colby.edu]
Frankly, as a citizen in the US I'd like to see a general ban on doctors selling products of ANY kind, or receiving payments of any kind from the manufacturer of ANY product.
You have vets in the US recommending some kind of food for your pet, and guess what, you can only buy it in vets and only from the vet who cares for your pet. I asked my vet about pet insurance, and they only knew about one kind of insurance, but they said that they had reps from some other company visiting them and they were checking
The USA doesn't grow most of the world's food. Farms in other countries will still use antibiotics irrespective of what the FDA does. The superbugs being developed elsewhere will eventually migrate to every other country. If we are to retain the ability to use the antibiotics we have today, action needs to be taken globally. Not sure how to enforce that, but that's what would have to happen.
It's one of the many government organizations staffed by executives from the companies that they regulate, so that they can facilitate the wishes of the corporations. For example, push through bovine growth hormone without due diligence and then have to reverse the decision years later, after it lead to far more contamination in the milk we drink as well as hideous "mutations" that can only be described as nightmarishly inhumane occurred in the cows themselves.
And, you know, then all the Monsanto evilness .
Every day, virii and bacteria are evolving to become immune to traditional treatment.
With a very few exceptions [1], standard treatment for viral infections is supportive care. Your own immune system is stuck with the job, possibly with a bit of advanced training via vaccines. Fortunately, none of the few post-infection treatments for viral diseases are being abused the way antibiotics are, so it's just the same old evolutionary arms race that's been going on for the last billion years or so.
[1] Notable exception: HAART for HIV. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Ah no... remember zovirax, the stuff that makes herpes simplex go away sooner? Thats basically an antiviral, and doctors are already pretty wary of the abuse of that type of antiviral (which is really a last resort medication) for curing a minor infection one day earlier. Same with anti-cold medication with antivirals. If these patients ever do get a real infection that needs antivirals, they're going to be in trouble much more than other people.