U.S. Meats Tainted With Bacteria

by Marianne English

Discovery News

Fri Apr 15, 2011

http://news.discovery.com/human/drug-resistant-bacteria-common-in-us-meats-110415.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1

The picture below is staphylococcus aureus also known as staph.

Staph bacteria contaminated nearly half of U.S. meat samples in a recent analysis, with 96 percent of bacteria showing resistance to at least one type of drug. The scientists took meat from five cities and 26 stores. Greater than three fourths of the turkey had staph, chicken and pork had about fourty percent and 37 percent of the beef had staph. the staph in the turkey was resistant to more than three antimicrobials. The scientists also found MRSA. Cooking meals at the right temperature can kill these bacteria. However, you can still get these bacteria from handling uncooked meat. Staph is not included in the list of bacteria that the U.S. inspects for. The authors believe that the overuse of antibiotics has resulted in this.

I think that it is absurd for bacteria like this to be allowed in meat. I can consider myself a carnivore, so this is kind of scary to think that the only thing protecting me from bacteria like staph is the cooking temperature. Farms should stop this overuse of antibiotics because it is leading to these super bacteria.

What is your opinion on this amount of infected meat?

Should this be against the law?

Should the meat industry have to test for staph?

Alarming Increase in flow of water into oceansDue to global warming, accelerated cycle of evaporation, precipitation

By: ScienceDaily (oct. 5, 2010)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101004151700.htm

(increased flow of water in river)

This article is about the increase amount of freshwater in our oceans. This is due to Global Warming, more evaporation, and precipitation. Reasearches have learned that 18% more water fed in oceans in 2006 than 1994. Thats a annual rise of 1.5%. The ice caps are melting faster because of increased temperatures. Evaporation and precipitation cycles have increased because of greenhouse gas-fueled higher temperatures. This accelerated cycle can be very dangerous and cause monsterous storms in areas. The increased amount of rainfall might sound good but its not. The increased rainfall is falling in places that dont need it like the artic. Places like desserts are not seeing any more rainfall and starting to dry out.

This article reminded me alot of what we are doing in class lately. We have been doing many melting and freezing point labs. The increase amount of waterlfow is because of hotter temperatures and evaporation. In class we were able to change a solid to a liquid by increasing the temperature surrounding it. The increase water is a example of our lab. The Ice caps are reaching their melting points and beginning to fall apart.

This article was very surprising to me and opened my eyes. I knew that our climate problem was bad but not this bad. When I first started to read this i thought increased rainfall was good but it turns out not to be. The things humans do are starting to impact our environment. I believe that we should stop using so many gases so we can slow down the precipitation and evaporation cycles. If our waters continues to increase we could see very horrible impacts.

What do you think could be some of the long term impacts the increased waterflow could have?

Do you believe the amount of water flowing in the oceans will slow down?

What could we do to help this water problem?

Title: Ah-Tchoo
By: Starre Vartan
Published by Emagazine
Date: Oct 31 2006
http://www.emagazine.com/archive/3427

This article is basically about the problems of GMO's. In this article, it states that some food with GMO's in them may contain the genes of other organisms. For example, a GMO fruit could contrain the genes from a fish or any organism for that matter. This could cause allergic reactions to people who are allergic to the organism the inserted gene came from. The massive GMO producers say that gene is too small for the human body to react to but scientists say that it is possible to get aa reaction. To stop this, they want to try to follow Europe and have the producers put a label on food telling the buyers that the product is a GMO. Polls state that if these labels were present, 80%-90% of americans would avoid GMO's but the FDA is not looking to do this.

I think that is scary to think that someone could get an allergic reaction to a food that they are not allergic to. I think that they should do more testing to make sure that the gene is small enough to not be noticed by the human body because if it can, it can cause many injuries and deaths. Also, I am sad that the FDA is not even thinking about passing the law to put labels on GMO food like Europe did. I believe that if they did this, it would really help farmers who grow organic food and animals make more money and it would keep the public informed on what they are eating.

This reminded me of the time we created a GMO on our computers in class. It made me realize that the food we eat these days is not all made of the same genes are there have been many upgrades to these foods.

Do you think that we will have labels on food products one day?

If not through labels, how should the FDA inform people the details about GMO's?

Do you think that allergic reactions to GMO foods is a big deal?

GMO Mosquitoes Make Their Mark

Title: "What Could Possibly Go Wrong: Genetically Modified Mosquitoes" by Becky Ferreira, Popular Science posted 1/28/11 http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/what-could-possibly-go-wrong-genetically-modified-mosquitoes

Since conventional methods of mosquito control have begun to fail because of an increased resistance to herbicides, scientists are starting to use genetic modification as a weapon against the pests. Research is being done into this subject by several institutions around the world, including Johns Hopkins University and Oxitec, a British company. The main motivation is to fight the disease malaria, which is carried by the insects and kills millions of people per year.

By altering a gene to make mosquitoes dependent on a substance that they would not be able to find in the wild, scientists hope to shorten their lifespans long enough to drastically affect the population. However, catastrophic side effects would occur if the genes end up being passed into other animals since insects vital to the survival of the ecosystem could die. In addition, the malaria bug has the potential of adapting, rendering the entire GMO strategy useless.

Instead, Joe Conlon, a technical adviser for the American Mosquito Control Association, suggests using non-GMO methods such as larvicide, which kills baby mosquitoes instead of adults. While not as groundbreaking as genetic modification, his solutions would avoid the problems of GMOs entirely.

Generally, I tend to support the use of GMOs because I believe that we humans should utilize our knack for technology and invention in every way possible. However, I do get nervous about the side effects of modifying animals like mosquitoes since we are effectively messing with millions of years of evolution over a very short time. I have experience with computer programming, so I know what it's like to make a small change to the "genetic" code and end up unleashing a chain reaction of unexpected problems. In the end, I think that GMOs would be worth the risks as long as they are put through enough testing to allow the utmost confidence in their stability. Controlling the mosquito population by any effective means would be beneficial to people around the world, and not to mention those in my own backyard!

Do you think GMOs could cure your annoyance toward mosquitoes?

How ethical are the changes we humans are imposing on the genes of our fellow organisms?

What are some postive and negative scenarios that GMOs could create in the future?

Another week, another attempt to shield factory farms from public scrutiny

Check out this article by Tom Laskawy here. Published on March 14, 2011 by Grist

This photo was found on the Florida article
and the caption was "If we just don't look at what's
going on inside factory farms, everything
 will be fine. Right?"

Basically, this article is following up about a bill passed in Florida that makes "it a first-degree felony to photograph a farm without first obtaining written permission from the owner." You can check that out here. The lawmakers in Iowa are now trying to pass a bill that makes it illegal to aquire a job to research it or write about it. While a law like this does not seem as bad as the Florida one (because I mean come on, who bans you from taking pictures?) it does however take a huge toll on journalists and activists. This all started when videos of factory farms and their wrong-doing was released by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society. Big Agriculture is trying to help their cause by saying these videos weren't release right away and that the activists are just trying to get attention. People have reported that the likelihood of the Iowa bill passing is not sure yet due to the Democratic control over there.

In my opinion, these laws are absurd. They wouldn't need to be made if Factory Farms didn't have anything to cover up. I find it crazy to believe that people are now being banned from photographing and videotaping the inside of Factory Farms! If something bad is happening, we should know! we should be able to understand what atrocities are going on behind the walls and the food we eat. My personal connection to all this is that my father owns a seafood restaurant down the shore, and all of the fish we buy is freshly caught and local. I'm afriad people won't be able to get this later on down the line due to GMOs and trying to make fish "better."

What do you think of GMOs?
Do you think we can still have good factory farms?
Do you think these laws should get passed in PA?