
Multi-drug resistant staph in 1 of 4 supermarket meat samples - shawndumas
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/multi-drug-resistant-staph-in-1-of-4-supermarket-meat-samples.ars
======
xiaoma
I think the bigger concern here isn't the risk of food poisoning from the
meat, it's that we're literally forcing billions of animals to take
antibiotics daily. If that doesn't encourage the evolution of anti-biotic
resistant strains of bacteria, I don't know what would. It's not just bad in
an ethical sense, it's bad in a pragmatic sense, too.

~~~
bryanh
I totally agree, but the problem is that not giving animals those anti-biotics
is bad in a pragmatic sense as well.

For example, let's say you don't give cattle antibiotics anymore. Cattle
destined for production are generally tightly packed, and while nature abhors
a vacuum, nature also punishes high populations with disease. Hence the anti-
biotics.

The next logical step would be to stop packing cattle so tightly. But, you'd
be surprised how much room cattle in a natural setting need (think orders of
magnitude more room).

One of the great triumphs of humanity is how incredibly accessible (good) food
has become. This all goes hand in hand with price reductions. Nowadays,
American's spend about 1/20 of their disposable income on food, back in the
"good old days" (the 20's & 30's) they were spending more like 1/5. [1]

You no doubt raise a valid point, but as usual, the reality is much more
complicated. What is worse, an uptick in deaths by food poisoning or an
increase of 4x in the cost of food cost? Such a decision is beyond me.

[1]
[http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data...](http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/Expenditures_tables/table7.htm)

~~~
xiaoma
From an environmental perspective, a sharp increase in the cost of meat would
be a very, very good thing.

The current system is essentially externalizing majority of the costs to the
ecosystem, allowing consumers to pay far less than the true cost. It's similar
to a power plant that saves money by pumping all of its waste untreated into a
nearby river. The power bill is cheap, but only if one fails to consider the
costs to the community and anyone/anything else using the river.

~~~
xiaoma
<http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html>

<http://www.emagazine.com/archive/142>

<http://inthefray.org/content/view/2407/209/>

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8967601...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89676010)

------
uvdiv
Why not just sterilize it with gamma radiation?

A WHO link I found claims that high-dose irradiation (>10,000 grays) is
substantially safe and will sterilize food, but Wikipedia says this is banned
in the US except for hospitals and NASA:

[http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/fs_management/irr...](http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/fs_management/irradiation/en/)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation#High_dose_appl...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation#High_dose_applications_.28above_10_kGy.29)

~~~
yuhong
Or just abandon factory farming and stop animals from being treated as
production units.

~~~
bryanh
Sorry, but I have a bone to pick with people spouting this type of blanket
rhetoric.

Animals are treated as units of production in developed countries because this
is what is required to provide sustenance at a scale that makes it
economically feasible for hundreds of millions of people to eat better than
ever before in the history of humanity. [1]

Seriously, how many times must we start over every time someone watches Food
Inc.?

[1]
[http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data...](http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/Expenditures_tables/table7.htm)

~~~
yuhong
Treating the animals better would still be better than irradiation.

~~~
bryanh
No one but you is comparing the two.

* One is a moral judgement: Should we subjectively mistreat animals in order for humans to be healthy and prosper?

* The other is a scientific question: Is irradiation a safe and effective food sanitizing method?

Guess which one has dozens and dozens of studies to back it up? OP posted a
few links, but try the CDC's take on it:
<http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/tauxe.htm>

------
danielford
Staphylococcus aureus colonizes the upper respiratory tract in one third of
individuals. It's frequently found as part of the normal flora, and some of
you are more concerned than you really should be.

Yes, many times more antibiotics are used in agriculture than in the health
sector, and this offers further evidence that maybe they shouldn't be.
However, I'm certainly not going to be altering any of my eating habits after
reading this.

------
sudonim
One thing the article left me wondering... what should I do? My bias makes me
think that the cheap supermarket meats have more of this resistant staph than
farmers market or whole foods meat. Is that a fallacy?

~~~
burgerbrain
You should do absolutely nothing (differently from what you have been doing).
We haven't seen mass outbreaks of staph infections (outside of hospitals..),
this article is just standard fear-mongering.

~~~
burgerbrain
Anyone care to enlighten me as to why this isn't just fear mongering, instead
of downvoting me? If there is _actually_ cause for alarm, I'd like to know...

~~~
nhangen
Because it's a legit study, and posted on a legit site.

It's not like this was written by Peta.

~~~
burgerbrain
I'm not questioning that there are indeed elevated staph levels on cheap raw
meat, I'm simply saying that without data that actually shows that this is a
_problem_ , then it is inappropriate to suggest that it is.

In other words, I am not questioning the validity of the study at all. I
suggest you read my comments a second time.

~~~
jrockway
_I'm simply saying that without data that actually shows that this is a
problem, then it is inappropriate to suggest that it is._

What data do you need?

Say you are flying an airplane. All of the engines fail. Would you say that
"without more data that actually shows that this is a problem, it's
inappropriate to suggest relighting the engines" and wait until you smash into
the ground?

No. Because you can anticipate the consequences of the current situation and
make changes to prevent something bad happening.

Specifically, we're noticing that there are a lot of MRSA strains on meat. So
we should probably stop feeding animals antibiotics as frequently. A good way
to do this is to raise them somewhere other than in a pool of their own feces,
which tends to carry a lot of disease (necessitating the overuse of
antibiotics).

That's where the article is going. Should we wait for a problem in case there
isn't one, or should we try and prevent the problem from occurring in the
first place?

~~~
burgerbrain
If eating such meat were the equivalent of the engines falling off a plane,
then it should be trivial to show the actual harm it is causing.

------
bdclimber14
In the past few months I was admitted to the hospital on 2 separate occasions
for staph infections in my leg. I am a 24 year old, active, healthy individual
with no prior health issues. The doctors and infectious disease specialists
are essentially clueless as to what caused such severe staph infections, twice
nonetheless. This article hit close to home and is shocking.

~~~
bdclimber14
I wanted to add that I had MSSA, not the more serious MRSA, but like the
article points out, even the MSSA staph in meat is serious and can cause major
health problems if it is spread to the skin.

~~~
delackner
This is just an idea, but if the b.d. in your name means bouldering climber,
and you go to a climbing gym often, I'd be very careful to wash when you get
home. The hand holds are NEVER washed and just think about how many people are
touching them continuously.

~~~
bdclimber14
Very close, its for black diamond. Based on the positioning of the 2 staph
infections on my leg, I also thought it may have been my harness (which I
disinfected now). Thanks though, it's incredible just how much bacteria is
everywhere you touch.

------
makmanalp
This is very alarming. Although, if this is true and these bacteria are
resistant to most antibiotics we have, and are so common, why aren't we
dropping by the millions already?

Edit: Ah, so they are just a kind that don't harm humans. Thanks.

~~~
dangrossman
> These strains of staph are not the kind that causes food poisoning...

------
canadiancreed
I suddenly have less of a craving for a steak all of a sudden.

------
jaysonelliot
My health is not nearly what it was for the 15+ years I was vegetarian.

Some of that can of course be attributed to age, but then again, I was a heavy
smoker, and used plenty of drugs when I was younger (habits which I have long
since quit), so you'd think it might balance out the age thing.

I don't have a good reason why I haven't gone back to my old meat-free diet -
laziness? Perhaps it's time I reconsidered.

~~~
po
Unfortunately - and I say this as someone who doesn't eat meat - going
vegetarian isn't enough to save you from bacteria. They will sometimes spray
fields with contaminated animal waste which will then end up on your plate if
not properly washed.

Maybe if everyone was vegetarian… The food industry is under a lot of pressure
to cut any corner they can. Antibiotics give a producer an edge. Something
like this really needs to be an industry-wide regulation.

~~~
jaysonelliot
Perhaps if we just went back to pre-1950s levels of meat consumption, there
would be less pressure on the food industry to cut so many corners.

------
nhangen
Good day to be a vegetarian.

~~~
araneae
Fortunately bacteria can be killed by a thorough cooking; fresh vegetables can
be just as bad, if not worse, since staph doesn't cause food poisoning. My
mother's on a neutropenic diet (leukemia) and she's not allowed to eat salad,
but overcooked hamburger is on the menu.

~~~
nhangen
Perhaps, but as far as I know, farmers don't feed antibiotics to vegetables.

Oh, and how does staph not causing food poisoning make vegetables worse?

~~~
evgen
Farmers do water vegetables with water that is not safe to drink, they spray
diluted sewage onto vegetables as a cheap fertilizer, runoff from adjacent
livestock operations flows into cropland, etc. The difference is that meat is
generally cooked before consumption, which kills a lot of bacteria, while many
vegetables are eaten raw. You are probably in more danger of getting food
poisoning from alfalfa sprouts than you are from a t-bone.

(Ok, that was a bit of a cheat. Sprouts of all varieties and leafy greens are
usually the worst when it comes to veggie contamination while undercooked
chicken and ground beef are the worst for meats. I am picking my examples at
two extreme ends of each group to make a point, but hopefully the real point
you will get from this is that there are a lot of factors that go into food
poisoning risk assessment...)

------
vidiviciveni
Is it just me or is the quality of meat degrading more and more. It seems as
if companies keep finding ways to increase profit margins and are able to
produce horrendous meat and literally bleach it until it's "clean" to sell.

~~~
nuxi
It's not just meat, it's food in general. Try for example growing your own
tomatoes and compare the taste to the supermarket ones - light years of
difference.

