Next week, Congress will hold hearings on the recent recall of more than half a billion eggs infected with salmonella -- all of them from two factory farms in Iowa.
That recall, though voluntary, was essential: Salmonella can make you very sick, though if treated on time, it is rarely fatal.
But that's not the case for MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), or drug-resistant staff infection. In 2005, U.S. hospitals treated more than 278,000 MRSA cases. Nearly 100,000 people faced life threatening illness and 18,650 died: 50 percent more than the number of AIDS death that year.
This evolving superbug sprang from the overuse of antibiotics -- not only in hospital settings, but also in animal agriculture, which consumes an estimated 70 percent of all antibiotics sold in this country. Most of those drugs are given at low dose to promote animal growth and prevent disease, a practice that encourages the emergence of multi-drug resistant bacteria.
Now MRSA is showing up in random samples of raw pork sold in supermarkets, and to a lesser extent in beef and chicken. Yet these potentially deadly cuts of meat -- unlike the salmonella-tainted eggs -- have never been yanked off the shelves.
Why not? Because no government inspector has ever tested live animals or meat for MRSA.
Fortunately, other people have stepped in where government has failed. A University of Iowa study published last year found that one Midwestern hog factory farm was a nonstop breeding pool for the deadly disease: More than a third of all adult swine and 100 percent of the younger pigs aged 9 and 12 weeks were carriers, as were 64 percent of the workers. A second hog factory had zero MRSA infections.
"Our results show that colonization of swine by MRSA was very common in one of two corporate swine production systems," said lead author Tara Smith, adding that MRSA transmission on hog factories, "could complicate efforts to reduce MRSA transmission statewide and beyond."
The infected herd, incidentally, had twice as many hogs as the uninfected one, and ALL of those little piggies, presumably, went to market.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands, one-in-five human MRSA cases were caused by a "livestock associated" strain of the bug, and one study of 26 Dutch pig farmers found a MRSA rate 760 times greater than among patients admitted to Dutch hospitals.
But what about meat sold in stores? Last year, researchers at Louisiana State University tested samples obtained from Baton Rouge supermarkets and found that 5.5 percent of the pork and 3.3 percent of the beef was positive for MRSA. Five out of the six infected pork samples were "chain-branded meats." Equally unsettling, even more samples tested positive for non-methicillin resistant staph: 20 percent of the beef and a whopping 45.6 percent of the pork.
Eating meat with nonresistant staph can cause food poisoning from "heat-stable" toxins, the paper said, while "the presence of MRSA in meats may pose a potential threat of infection to individuals who handle the food."
Does the "presence of MRSA in meats" come directly from the presence of MRSA in factory farm animals? It would be reasonable to assume so, but surprisingly, the LSU study said that probably wasn't the case.
Most animals are infected with a very specific "livestock associated" strain of MRSA, but the meat samples in the stores were found with human-related MRSA, and not the livestock strain.
And even though pigs can also carry the same human-associated strains of MRSA found in the retail pork, the authors concluded that "humans, not animals, are the likely contamination source. They added that efforts are needed "to prevent the introduction of MRSA from human carriers onto the meats they handle."
Really? Just blame the workers? I'm not so convinced.
To begin with, LSU is part of the "Land Grant University System," which receives millions of dollars for agricultural research from the pro-agribusiness USDA and from agribusiness itself. Moreover, the study was "limited in geographical region, survey period and sample size," the authors said. "Further studies at the farm and retail levels involving larger sample sizes over time are needed."
But looking at it from a human health point of view, does it really matter where the MRSA came from? It's there, and the government is doing nothing to stop it.
So why all the fury over salmonella in eggs, but no recalls of meat with MRSA?
I asked that question of the FDA: They don't regulate meat, they said, I should ask the USDA. I asked the USDA -- repeatedly -- and they never got back to me. Then I wrote to the National Pork Producers Council, and they referred me to a study out of Canada.
The MRSA rates in Canadian retail meat were quite high: 13 percent of the pork chops (nearly 1-in-7) and 6.3 percent of the ground pork was contaminated, along with 5.6 percent of the beef and 1.2 percent of the chicken.
But like the LSU study, this paper also found only human-related bacteria in the meat, and not the livestock associated strain. "If MRSA in meat is a direct reflection of MRSA in food animals, frequent isolation of (livestock-associated) strains would be expected," the Canadian study said.
Again, workers, and not factory farm animals, were likely to blame, this study asserted: "The potential role of slaughterhouse and food-processing personnel, and the food processing environment require consideration."
It was funded in part by the (U.S.) National Pork Board.
Meanwhile, the authors wrote that bacteria counts were generally low, though they added that, "while low levels may be less concerning, they should not be dismissed." The risk from eating contaminated meat was also low, "although it is plausible that ingestion could result in gastrointestinal colonization and the potential for subsequent infection or transmission." Moreover, touching one's nose after handling the meat "could plausibly result in nasal colonization," and contact with skin sores "could potentially result in infection."
MRSA is not always serious. A healthy person can be infected without showing symptoms, which usually appear as small pimple-like bumps that become painful, pus-filled boils. Most cases remain on the skin and respond to treatment. But nastier strains are evolving; they are more invasive, rapidly infect organs, and can induce system-wide sepsis, toxic shock and "flesh-eating" pneumonia.
So why shouldn't contaminated meat be recalled? I wrote again to the pork producers' council for further comment, and here is what I was told:
You have the study, which should answer your questions. And while your questions may be simple, the answers are not. Besides, you have an agenda. I thought your name was familiar; I read your book.
Dave Warner
Director of Communications
National Pork Producers Council
He's right, I do have an agenda. My agenda is that consumers should not have to worry about bringing home any food contaminated with a drug-resistant superbug that could possibly result in system-wide sepsis, toxic shock and flesh-eating pneumonia.
David Kirby is author of "Animal Factory, the Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment." (St. Martin's Press)
Everly Macario, ScD, MS, EdM: Antibiotic Resistance: One Mother's Fight
http://www.eatwild.com/products/indiana.html
The best thing to do is get a deep freezer and buy meat in bulk, then you get it at a cheaper price than you would at the local store and it's actually real meat instead of sick "meat".
Do they really think that as long as it's not illegal and not being tested for, it's OK?
These attitudes are going to work against them. Business as they know it is going to stop, either through regulation or through consumer knowledge that will result in consumers shunning their products in all stages.
I can see it now. The only pork being bought will the labeled "organic and MRSA-free" just like milk is labeled "organic, no BGH".
They only need to look to what is happening with HFCS and BPA to see their future.
But it's expensive. So naturally the average consumer would eat a lot less of it. Which is a good thing. More fruits, vegetables and legumes in the diet is good. We could consume meat and poultry with a lot more moderation, which the more expensive product would initiate.
It would also mean more cooking from scratch, less eating of pre-processed meals, fast food and even some restaurant food. Also not a bad thing.
If the MRSA was found within the musculature of the meat, which would be incredibly surprising, then it would be more concerning, particularly because staphylococcus does not grow intra-muscularly, and finding it there would indicate that MRSA is evolving more than just antibiotic resistance.
However, if the MRSA was found on the surface of the meat, then quite frankly, it's not such a big deal. It is still important to find and prevent the human source of MRSA, but as long as the meat is cooked properly, there shouldn't be that big of a problem. That's why we cook meat in the first place.
This is a very important point that you have neglected (as far as I can tell) to properly address.
Well OF COURSE it matters where the MRSA came from!!! How do you expect this to be prevented, if you don't care how it happened.
That sort of question makes me think you don't want a solution, but rather you just want someone to blame.
The numbers presented are startling and indicate the FDA is still asleep at the switch.
For example, my nephew who I wrote about earlier, contracted a MRSA ST-398 infection, but at three years old, he certainly had never handled raw pork. More likely, he contracted it from a person who had come into contact with an infected pig, or even from a person a dozen times removed from a pig.
We actually did get a visit from an infectious diseases specialist late in our stay at the hospital, but he offered no insight into how my nephew ended up with a MRSA ST-398 infection. He did say that more than half of the MRSA infections that they were seeing coming from outside of the hospital were the same strain my nephew had. It wasn't until months later that I read the Kristof article in the New York Times about pigs transmitting MRSA and realized he was talking about the same strain that my nephew had.
In short, it seems like even though this particular strain was developed by misusing antibiotics in pork production, most people who don't deal directly with pigs probably catch this strain of MRSA from someone who does deal with pigs - even if the transmitter is several times removed from the actual source. For example it goes from a pig to a person to more people and to more people, etc.
For anyone who believes evolution is a myth, the development of resistant strains of bacteria is living proof. Antibiotics should be used like a rifle, ... specific to a bug's specific sensitivity. To treat first with broad spectrum antibiotics is inviting resistance, and to pepper animal feed with antibiotics is, as we see now, an invitation to the evolution and distribution of superbugs and allergies to antibiotics in those of us who eat from that food chain.
Solutions are not altogether clear, ... but the price of what we are doing is very high, and is paid by folks like your nephew.
Now would be a great time for us to begin to address the abuse of antibiotics and hormones in the food supply.
The problem I have with this article and many of these "sky is falling" articles is that they often do not report the ways to prevent or avoid the problem.
With proper handling, food preparation and hygienic treatment many of these things can be avoided or greatly reduced. It is when someone comes into contact with MRSA and has a weak immune system or open wounds (or hair follicles) that this really becomes a problem.
I hope that these articles can impart helpful information in the future about prevention..
I am a vegan for ethical reasons but at the time had no idea there was a link between pork and MRSA - particularly the strain my nephew had (pork is common in my nephew's household). Nicholas Kristof has written a number of pieces for the New York Times about the prevalence of MRSA ST-398 in pigs, pork, and those who live in communities surrounding pig farms and pork-processing facilities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/opinion/12kristof.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Kristof%20MRSA&st=cse
My nephew lives within 50 miles of one of Smithfield's plants. Is there a connection? I have no idea. But is infuriating to see how the pork industry is side-stepping this.
Considering that the infection started where it did, and that staphylococcus normally grows on the skin, it is more likely that the MRSA did NOT come from food.
Why are pigs the source of new strains of antibiotic resistant superbugs like MRSA ST-398? Because they are given so many prophylactic antibiotics. That pretty much seems clear from the article and from common sense. And frankly, we need antibiotics to keep working FOR PEOPLE, which means we need to insist that meat producers, doctors, and patients stop abusing them.
these problems can be linked with the science religion debate
atheists claim to be rational they support science 100%
factory farms may not sound like science maybe it is anti science
thepoint i wanted to make is factory farms violate darwin's law of natural selection [ darwin is the god of atheists ] pigs dont have the benefits of natural sex and choosing their own mate or whaatever pretty messy
so the unfit pigs become more and more
and the fit bugs become more and more
here is where atheists can play the hero support organic agriculture as being in harmony with darwin
and christians them famous pork abstainers can play the hero and support green agriculture in harmony with God's ecology
big hog farms are a big falsifiable about modern agriculture they disprove its value
green agriculture would compost or naturally turn manure into methane gas and compost in biomass generators
those pigs or chickens are analogous to millions of people in a flood zone trying to prevent cholera
they need cedar leaf oil which kills cholera [ and vitamin C ] animals need lots of land to poke around in
exercise a great moneymaking opportunity make exercise equipment for pigs
Further, as with the handling of eggs and the risk of contamination to the food preparer, the same would be true in this case, except that any break in the skin on hands or nails could provide a point of entry and possible infection for the cook. Food preparers should wash hands thoroughly before and after touching the meat they are preparing, as well as the surfaces on which they have prepared them.
While we might not get sick from eating properly cooked roadkill, that is no excuse to allow grossly contaminated meat into the food chain!
Uh...you have to actually ingest staph in order to be exposed to it's toxins...
More importantly, properly cooking meat WILL eliminate the toxins; people get food poisoning from *under cooked* food, not properly cooked food.