Animal Bi-Products Run Rampant with Golden Staph?

How did we come to drink milk from other animals? Who was the first to take bodily secretions from an animal and consume it? Most people wouldn't dream of eating or drinking bodily secretions from even most people they know, much less people they don't know. So, why then would they eat & drink bodily secretions of an animal?

Dr.Kirk herself has labeled us mutants and rightfully so. There is a notion that there are people who are lactose intolerant, but it is truly the other way around. There are a group of people that are lactose tolerant, people who have mutated in order to process lactase. Everybody else is normal & unable to process it properly.

Given that we had to mutate to adjust to this dietary habit, it sparked a question of what all is in milk and how might it affect us?

Bovine mastitis, the clinical terminology, is an udder infection of a cow. Why should this concern you? Because in the milk industry it is commonplace and an infection doesn't stop the milking of that cow.

Just how common are such infections? Well, one study performed by Morreti et al tested the milk of 19 herds in Italy and found 29.7% positive for pathogen microorganisms related to these infections. (Moretti, 2010) Although, in America where living conditions are much worse and the process is much more industrialized, the numbers are slated to be much higher.

The industry shows again that it is more concerned with loss of profits than it is about consumer health nor the welfare of the animals. In a document created by Schroeder there are outlines of a comparison of revenue to be gained/lost as to whether treating the infection is more profitable than it is to let it continue. He found that it costs roughly $200 per cow for infection versus $112 per cow for better control so that the infection doesn't occur. (Schroeder, 2012) Consumer health and animal well being (beyond the means of production) doesn't enter into the equation.

Pus is, of course, one component that follows infection. "Dairy cows are medicated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to stimulate a much higher than normal milk production. This causes severe stress that results in mastitis, an infection of the udders of sick and stressed cows. This infection is, of course, treated with antibiotics, helping to breed more antibiotic resistant organisms. It is literally unbelievable that one liter (a little over a quart) of Californian milk contained 298 million pus cells in 2003, 11 million more pus cells than it contained in 2002." (How Many Pus Cells Are In Your Milk)

Also, of the 29.7% positive results, "4.9 % were positive for yeasts and bacteria, 4.4 % for yeasts and 20.4 % for bacteria. The species of yeasts and bacteria most frequently encountered were Trichosporon capitatum (31.2%), T. beigelii (18.72%) and Candida albicans (12.48%), C. guillermondii (12.48%), C. tropicalis (12.48%); with regard to bacteria were Staphylococcus aureus (34.3%) and S. albo (19.8%)." (Moretti, 2010) Staphylococcus aureus rears its ugly head again, we seemingly can't get away from it in animal bi-products. Again, forms of this known as MRSA (methicillin resistant staphylococcus aerus) and ORSA (methicillin resistant staphylococcus aerus) are increasingly resilient against antibiotics and can often be troublesome in hospitals. Cows given antibiotics to help cure infections are only strengthening these strains of staph.

Given that there are much healthier sources of calcium (pus-free as well, mind you), such as kale, broccoli, and tofu, without the risk of promoting this already resistant staphylococcus aerus, why do people persist? Is casomorphin an active factor in people's affinity for milk? Perhaps a question we'll attempt to address in a future post.


Works Cited

How Many Pus Cells Are In Your Milk. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 27, 2012, from Food Matters: http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/how-many-pus-cells-are-in-your-milk

Moretti, e. a. (2010). Relationship Between Cell Counts in Bovine Milk and the Presence of Mastitis Pathogens. Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series B , 129 - 132.

Schroeder, J. W. (2012). Mastitis Control Programs: Bovine Mastitis and Milking Management. Fargo.

Carbon Monoxide as a Food Additive

How many times have you thought to yourself, "Know what would make this meal perfect? Carbon monoxide!" I'd venture to guess none of you have ever thought that, being that carbon monoxide is odorless, tasteless, and toxic! So, why then does the meat industry inject carbon monoxide in the packaging with meat? Revenue.

Carbon monoxide is FDA approved to be used as both an color additive and a color fixative. The Codex Alimentarius, the international standards set by the World Health Organization, describes color additives as, "an agent that adds or restores color in food", and color fixatives as, "an agent that stabilizes, retains or intensifies color." At least 2/3 of meat (beef, chicken, and fish) is not cut in front of the customer, prepared off-site, and treated with carbon monoxide to retain that fresh appearance. Studies, such as that of Jayasingh et al, are attempting to extend the lifespan of this pigmentation retention upwards of 21 days. (Jayasingh)

So, why is this troubling? Let us first look at the carbon monoxide itself. The deleterious effects of CO occur because CO binds more strongly than oxygen to hemoglobin in red blood cells, impairing oxygen transport to tissues. At a COHb concentration of about 2.5%, individuals with cardiovascular disease display changes in cardiac function and might report chest pain. (American Association of Meat Packers)

Symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning include:

Low Levels of Exposure:

• Headaches
• Dizziness
• Temporary loss of muscle coordination
• Memory Damage
• Vision Damage

High Levels of Exposure:

• Impaired ability of blood to carry oxygen
• Convulsions
• Coma
• Respiratory Failure
• Lowered birth weight
• Nervous system damage in off-spring

Long Term Effects (Both Low/High Levels) of Exposure:

• Heart Disease
• Central Nervous System Damage
• Death

Just how much carbon monoxide is somebody exposed to when eating meat packaged this way? While unable to find the level of carbon monoxide present in the meat itself, there is a presence of 4000 ppm within the package. Cigarette smoke, by comparison, has only 2,600 ppm. (American Association of Meat Packers) These are numbers from AAMP, the American Association of Meat Processors, so there may be a conflict of interest as these are people within the industry wishing to dupe the consumer. The numbers may actually be much higher.

Moving past the dangers of carbon monoxide, there is an inherent risk of a consumer eating spoiled meat, as it looks fresh. Salmonella is a risk unless you've cooked the meat at over 150 degrees farenheit. E. coli is another risk, and while cooking the meat may kill the E. coli bacteria the toxins they release will remain. Bacillus and Clostridium, bear spores. Intense heat deactivates them, but they produce spores that resist freezing and cooking. These spores result in illness. Clostridium spores produce botulism, a major cause of food disease. Staphylococcus bacteria die from cooking, but leave toxins behind as well.

Symptoms of some of these food illnesses include:

• Nausea 
• Vomiting 
• Abdominal Cramping
• Diarrhea
• Headache
• Fever
• Weakness/Fatigue
• Seizures
• Coma
• Kidney Failure
• Intellectual Disability (Long Term)
• Slowness of movement (Long Term)
• Blindness (Long Term)
• Hemiparesis - Inability to move one side of the body
• Death

 As posed within the Internet Journal of Food Safety, several questions remain about this practice:

• What percentage of carbon monoxide used in MAP is absorbed by the packaged meat? 
• Do meats of different animal origins (pork, chicken, beef, lamb, duck, deer, etc.) absorb carbon monoxide differently? If so, why?
• Do different cuts of meat absorb carbon monoxide differently? And if so, why?
• How does cooking (types: frying, baking, roasting, grilling, boiling, barbequing) affect the percentage of carbon monoxide present in cooked meat?
• What percentage of carbon monoxide is transferred to the consumer? 
• What are the possible health effects (short and long term) of consuming carbon monoxide?
• What are the possible molecular and cellular interactions that may result as a consequence of consuming carbon monoxide packaged meat products  (Pattron)

Also, why have other countries such as Japan, those in the European Union, and Canada banned such a practice, but the U.S.A. hasn't?

I'm afraid we must end with more questions than answers this time around.

Works Cited

American Association of Meat Packers. n.d. Web. 19 November 2012.

Jayasingh, et al. Evaluation of carbonmonoxide treatment in modified atmosphere packaging or vacuum packaging to increase color stability of fresh beef. n.d. Web. 19 Novemeber 2012.

Pattron, Deryck Damian. Internet Journal of Food Safety. 2007. Web. 19 November 2012.

Meat Industry: Antibiotics Resistant Bacteria

In the last post we probed into Staphylococcus aureus, touching on how bacteria responsible for bio-films can cause the spread of it and that the same bacteria is becoming more resistant to antibiotics. This begs the question,"Are the antibiotics fed to animals adding to this resistance?" 

There have been a plethora of studies showing that this practice is contributing to resistance in bacteria in general. One study performed by Matthew, et al states, "In some cases, banning the use of growth-promoting antibiotics appears to have resulted in decreases in prevalence of some drug resistant bacteria." (Matthew) The study goes on to show that this, "increases ... animal morbidity and mortality, particularly in young animals ... sometimes resulted in higher use of therapeutic antibiotics, which often come from drug families of greater relevance to human medicine." (Matthew) It's as though the industry doesn't learn its lesson, committed to turning an animal into profit, no matter the cost. They've reduced antibiotic use in the study only to increase antibiotic use that is more pertinent to humans. 

Why should this concern us? Well, while some antibacterial uses are justified, such as the use of such agents within the hospital industry to save lives, its gratuitous use in other realms, such as the meat industry, is making us vulnerable. The resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is prevalent today and bound to only get worse as time continues. An outbreak of germs resistant to powerful antibiotics was apparent when a deadly, drug- resistant form of pneumonia bacteria took its toll on the Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., last year. After infecting 19 people, it took the lives of 7 of them. Afterwards, Fox News reported, "This latest death raises serious questions about the rise of bugs no longer treatable with antibiotics. The emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria has become a recent dilemma in the past few years. A notable example has been the rise of the “staph” germ known as MRSA - methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus – which caused unease after the CDC reported 18,650 American deaths from MRSA in 2005 ... According to infectious disease experts, both MRSA and KPC are results of the same problem – the overuse of antibiotics. Utilized in livestock feed, by medical professionals and by consumers just to treat the common cold, the abundance of antibiotics in our society has prompted evolution to select for the antibiotic-resistant trait." (Grush) 

Meanwhile, it isn't solely Staphylococcus aureus that is threatening us, although the numbers of people needlessly dying from it are staggering, drug resistant forms of salmonella are also becoming more common. A study performed in 1984 on Salmonella newport ominously warns "that antimicrobial-resistant organisms of animal origin cause serious human illness, and emphasizes the need for more prudent use of antimicrobials in both human beings and animals." (Holmberg) 

Salmonella newport

If we've had knowledge of this for roughly 30 years, why do we not heed these warnings? The primary purpose of antibiotics in animal feed is to fatten them faster, yielding greater profits. Every time you purchase meat from most anywhere in the U.S. you vote for an antibiotic resistant bacteria epidemic of which you or a loved one might be the next victim of.


Works Cited


Matthew, et al. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 28 June 2007. Web. Nov 2012.

Grush, Loren. "Deadly 'superbugs' on the Rise: What You Need to Know." Fox News. FOX News Network, 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 05 Nov. 2012. 

Holmberg, et al. Drug-Resistant Salmonella from Animals Fed Antimicrobials. 6 Sep 1984. Web. Nov 2012.

Grapes On Your Meat?

At first glance, you might mistake "Golden Staph" for a coveted apparatus in a J. R. R. Tolkien novel destined to tip the balance between good and evil or a sought after treasure in the next Indiana Jones film before realizing it's not that kind of "staff". Nay, the grandeur of Golden Staph isn't nearly as prominent, it is but a lowly bacterium. Better known to the scientific community as Staphylococcus aureus, this bacterium is known for causing illnesses. It's breadth of known illnesses include skin infections such as pimples, impetigo, boils, cellulitis folliculitis, carbuncles, scalded skin syndrome, and abscesses and continues to span onward to life threatening diseases such as pneumonia, meningitis, osteomyelitis, endocarditis, toxic shock syndrome(TSS), bacteremia, and sepsis.

Mmmmm...  grapes. Err...wait a second! Don't eat those micro-grapes!

While one study performed at the UCLA School of Medicine (performed by A. Cole, et. al) estimates roughly 20% of humans carry Staphylococcus aureus in their nasal fluid, it is also possible to be afflicted with it from your food. The Instituto de Productos Lácteos de Asturias located in Spain claims that,"Biofilms are a common cause of food comtamination with undesirable bacteria." Biofilms are "microbial communities whose architecture includes microorganisms, biotic substances produced by these microorganisms and attached organic and inorganic substances from the environment." (Schlegelová) Gutiérrez et al. aimed to determine the presence of Golden Staph on,"food-contact surfaces in diary, meat, and seafood environments." (Gutiérrez) Their research shows that out of 442 collected samples, approximately 6.1% of them had a presence of S. aureus. The study goes on to state,"Profiles were clustered into 4 groups which were quite related to specific food environments. All isolates harboured some potential virulence factors such as enterotoxin production genes, biofilm forming-associated genes, antibiotic resistance or lysogeny. PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE) fingerprints of bacterial communities co-existing with S. aureus revealed the presence of bacteria either involved in food spoilage or of concern for food safety in all food environments." (Gutiérrez) Most alarmingly, the conclusion they came to was that food industry surfaces could be serving as a "reservoir for S. aureus forming complex communities with undesirable bacteria in multi-species biofilms." (Gutiérrez)

A possible fix is to remove biofilms from the surfaces the food industry is using. However, biofilms pose an obstacle in that bacteria composing the biofilms are becoming increasingly more resistant to sanitation measures and disinfectants.

Drug Resistant Strain of Staphylococcus Aureus

Are these the same resistant bacteria plaguing the healthcare industry? Could the antibiotics fed to the animals being slaughtered be a contributing factor? What will all of this mean for the consumer of these products in the future? Stay tuned and lets explore all of this together.



Works Cited

Cole, et al. Determinants of Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Carriage. 8 Nov 2001. Web. Oct 2012.

Gutiérrez, et al. Incidence of Staphylococcus aureus and analysis of bacterialassociated. 28 Sep 2012. Web. Oct 2012.

Schlegelová, et al. Microbial biofilms in the food industry. Feb 2007. Web. Oct 2012.

Bacteria & The Meat Industry

I've long been perplexed by the things we eat, often wondering who the first to try it was. Cinnamon, for instance, is bark from a tree. Did somebody just wander around aimlessly, gnawing on trees until they discovered cinnamon? How many trees did he or she chew on afterwards in the quest to find more tasty bark? Eggs are another food I must question, as they're the product of the menstruation cycle in a chicken. A woman flushes out unfertilized egg and the uterine lining during her period, and a chicken expels unfertilized eggs during her menstruation that we then eat. When it occurred to me that we are essentially eating chicken periods, it greatly disturbed me. Well, eating animals has become equally disturbing to me, only compounded by the information I've uncovered in regards to the living standards and environments these animals must endure. Bacteria and illness are wide spread problems in today's mass market where factory farms are the status quo. So this begs this question, what are some solutions to the bacteria? Well, apparently, bacteria is a huge issue after the killing of the animal as well.

During my quest to find answers to pre-slaughter bacteria, I stumbled upon a couple of studies looking for new meat preservation techniques. 

The first study suggests maggot meat spray. Appealing idea, right? Hang in there, it gets better! The concept is rather simple. We have no evidence that house fly larvae are afflicted by any serious diseases, yet they thrive on rotting meat. This lends itself to the concept that the flies have strong immune systems, perhaps even equipped with anti-bacterial properties. The study in reference was performed on chilled pork (Wang Y., et al) at the School of Life Sciences located in Guangzhou, China. The abstract states, "the preservation effects of a housefly pupae peptide mixture, nisin, and sodium dehydroacetate (DHA-S) on the number of mesophilic aerobic bacteria (MAB), total volatile basic nitrogen (TVB-N), and pH value of chilled pork were compared." (Wang) After comparison, the abstract reads as follows, "All results showed that a good preservation effect was observed among 3 treatments with the peptide mixture of housefly pupae, nisin, and DHA-S and that there was no significant difference among them. These results indicate that housefly peptide mixture has a great potential as a food preservative."


From a business perspective, this will likely seem a great idea to the industry, so long as they can either hide it from the consumers or get the consumers on board with it, as the abstract advocates that this is a, "low-cost and simple method." (Wang) Given the conditions on these factory farms, it's apparent that it's all about the bottom dollar and not the health of the "product" or the consumer.

From a health perspective, you need not fret either. The housefly pupae, "were washed with 75% ethanol twice, air dried, and homogenized thorooughly using a tissue blender in a 0.2 M acetic acid solution. The homogenate was then centrifuged at 10000 x g for 30 min at 4 °C." The best part of the study states, "After the extraction of the housefly pupae peptide mixture, the remains can be used as a protein for foodstuffs, thereby increasing protein supply." (Wang) Not only will you be eating clean maggot remains, but nutritional maggot remains!

If you can't fathom the idea of munching on maggot remains, maybe a bacteria eating virus is more your style? The good news? This one is already FDA approved! Bacteriophages are viruses which infect bacteria. The bacteriophage which has been approved as a food additive is lytic, which means, "that the phage destroys its host during its life cycle without integrating into the host genome. This type of phage works by attaching itself to a bacterium and injecting its genetic material into the cell. The phage takes over the metabolic machinery of the bacterium, forcing it to produce hundreds of new phages and causing the bacterial cell walls to break open. This process kills the bacterium and releases many new phages, which seek out other bacteria to invade and repeat the cycle." (Bren)

Given the options of eating maggot remains or consuming viruses, I think I'll make some veggie fajitas instead!


Works Cited:

Wang, Y. "Effect of extracted housefly pupae peptide mixture on chilled pork preservation." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1 Aug. 2010. Web. 11 Sept. 2012.

Bren, Linda. "Bacteria-Eating Virus Approved as Food Additive." Bacteria-Eating Virus Approved as Food Additive. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jan.-Feb. 2007. Web. 11 Sept. 2012.