"Tainted Meat" Headline

Help Support CattleToday:

That is highly suspicous. If half of all meat was tainted with staph bacteria we would have hospitals full of people dieing from staph. Any idea what these folks are talking about?
 
Story sounds like a plant from the organic pushers. Shouldn't be a big deal coming up with some new antibiotics that'll kill the antibiotic resistant staph.
 
well, thank you for saying the "organic pushers"... we're organic, and we think it's what's right, however, like with everything, there are the "Big guys" and the "little guys", and we're little guys... the bug guys everywhere have big agendas, you can relate it to the "big jews", the big time bankers, media magnates, etc, and the "little jews" all over the world who go about their business like everyone else
 
ga.prime":i0ikeuoy said:
Story sounds like a plant from the organic pushers.
Sounds like something that hsus and peta would have their hand in too
 
ga.prime":17pcf6zr said:
Story sounds like a plant from the organic pushers. Shouldn't be a big deal coming up with some new antibiotics that'll kill the antibiotic resistant staph.

It might be a tick easier to lay off the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics, rather than wait for science to fix it. Resistance is everywhere. Nature adapts, whether it's antibiotics, pesticides, or the color of a moth. If we went back to using a 2 inch brush to paint over a blemish instead of painting the whole house, this may not be an issue. I don't think it has anything to do with organic pushers, nor do I think corn is to blame! Organics may not have this concern, but I believe that "normal" producers can help reduce these kinds of things by only using antibiotics when needed, and not as a growth stimulant.
 
IGotMyWings":25a1jnol said:
ga.prime":25a1jnol said:
Story sounds like a plant from the organic pushers. Shouldn't be a big deal coming up with some new antibiotics that'll kill the antibiotic resistant staph.

It might be a tick easier to lay off the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics, rather than wait for science to fix it. Resistance is everywhere. Nature adapts, whether it's antibiotics, pesticides, or the color of a moth. If we went back to using a 2 inch brush to paint over a blemish instead of painting the whole house, this may not be an issue. I don't think it has anything to do with organic pushers, nor do I think corn is to blame! Organics may not have this concern, but I believe that "normal" producers can help reduce these kinds of things by only using antibiotics when needed, and not as a growth stimulant.
Who gets resistant or non-resistant staph from eating meat anyway? Nobody I ever heard of.
 
ga.prime":2lctt2t4 said:
ga.prime":2lctt2t4 said:
Story sounds like a plant from the organic pushers. Shouldn't be a big deal coming up with some new antibiotics that'll kill the antibiotic resistant staph.

It might be a tick easier to lay off the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics, rather than wait for science to fix it. Resistance is everywhere. Nature adapts, whether it's antibiotics, pesticides, or the color of a moth. If we went back to using a 2 inch brush to paint over a blemish instead of painting the whole house, this may not be an issue. I don't think it has anything to do with organic pushers, nor do I think corn is to blame! Organics may not have this concern, but I believe that "normal" producers can help reduce these kinds of things by only using antibiotics when needed, and not as a growth stimulant.
ga.prime":2lctt2t4 said:
Who gets resistant or non-resistant staph from eating meat anyway? Nobody I ever heard of.

It doesn't seem to be epidemic. You are much more likely to get resistant staph in a hospital than from meat.
 
No where in the article does it mention for whom this study was being conducted, and who paid for it.
From a scientific standpoint, it is useless right from the get-go.
The people who conducted the study "presume" that the comtamination originated with the live animals. Excuse me! Since when is any scientific study, of any subject matter, legitimized based on a presumption. They apparently made absolutely no attempt to actually determine the origin of contamination.
As noted by another poster, AB resistant staph is most commonly found in hospitals (and other facilities with high use of disinfectants), why would the people behind this study not make some attemp to rule out processing and handling facilities first as the source of contamination?
Unless, of course, they have an undisclosed agenda............. :bs: :bs:
 
Ohio State University says:

Where do staphylococci come from?
Staphylococci exist in air, dust, sewage, water, milk, and food or on food equipment, environmental surfaces, humans, and animals. Humans and animals are the primary methods of transport. Staphylococci are present in the nasal passages and throats and on the hair and skin of 50 percent or more of healthy individuals. This incidence is even higher for those who associate with or who come in contact with sick individuals and hospital environments.
 

Latest posts

Top