Antibiotics in Our Food Supply

When someone goes to the hospital with a bacterial infection, they are prescribed antibiotics to treat the illness. After they are finished with the prescription, they are not prescribed more antibiotics until they become ill with another bacterial infection. An antibiotic is an agent that either kills or inhibits the growth of a microorganism. Sometimes the antibiotic kills the “good” bacteria, or with the more exposure to an antibiotic, the bacteria become resistant to it. Antibiotics have been around since the 40’s with the discovery of penicillin. Throughout the years, many new antibiotics have been discovered and their use has increased dramatically.

Other than human use, antibiotics are widely used in the farm industry. Antibiotics are added to the animal feed and drinking water for cattle, hogs, and poultry to help them gain weight or to gain weight with less feed. Since the excessive use of antimicrobial drugs causes resistance, it is highly recommended to only use the drugs when medically necessary. In the case of giving antibiotics to animals, they are administered to them when they do not have a bacterial infection present.

Some farmers give their animals antibiotics continuously, while others give them in cycles. It is estimated that every year 15-17 million pounds of antibiotics are administered to animals in the food industry. The controversy is how safe is it really to give animals antibiotics that are meant for human use. After they develop resistances to bacteria, humans then consume that meat. If the meat is contaminated, the ill person may or may not respond to treatment.

Many people believe that antibiotic resistant bacteria are one of the growing health concerns in the world. Places in Europe and Canada have completely outlawed the use of antibiotics for feed animals. Like many other problems in this world, the use of antibiotics in animals and the growing prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria have not officially been linked, but there is growing evidence that there could be. "There is no evidence that antibiotic resistance is not a problem, but there is insufficient evidence as to how big a problem it is," says Dr. Margaret Mellon, with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The FDA is proposing the use of certain antibiotics on animals become illegal, but the meat industry is fighting back. They argue that there is not enough conclusive evidence to suggest that antibiotic use is hazardous. With the use of antibiotics, an animal can gain as much as 3% more weight than they would without it. They also argue that it is in fact the people that are causing the higher rate of resistant bacteria because of the over prescribing of antibiotics by the health care industry, and the misuse of the antibiotics. They also imply that if antibiotics are removed from the animals, there would be an outbreak of disease within the population.

While it hasn’t been proven that the use of antibiotics in animals causes more antibiotic resistant bacteria, it is not beneficial to the animals or the human population to give animals antibiotics when it is not medically needed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/overview.html

http://thefern.org/2013/05/whats-causing-the-rise-in-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria/

http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm378100.htm

Autism and Vaccinations

Growing up I remember multiple occurrences of receiving my yearly immunizations. Even though the doctors visit was rather unpleasant, I always understood there was a reason they were sticking me with a huge needle multiple times. My mother said it would help me stay healthy, so why would I think otherwise? Recently, however, the controversial link between autism and vaccinations has become more common in the news. Many celebrities speak out about their choice to not vaccinate their children, and advocate for others to do the same. While it is the parent’s right to choose whether or not they want to vaccinate their children, sometimes they are not aware of the implications their children will face or how they could be harming others.

Autism is a disease that is somewhat a mystery. The causes, prevention, and detection are still being researched, and a lot of money is being detected in the hopes of more knowledge and answers. Recent estimates from the CDC have said that 1 in 68 children in the United States born in 2002 have an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). According to the National Institute of Mental Health, ASD is described by

- Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts;

- Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities;

- Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (typically recognized in the first two years of life); and,

- Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.

Children in the US receive many different vaccines around the age of two, and the symptoms of ASD are coincidentally detected around the same age. Some parents and others made the connection between vaccines and ASD. Many people are concerned with the controversial ingredient thimerosal. Thimerosal is a mercury-based chemical that was once used in the manufacturing of vaccines to extend the shelf life, but has since been removed since 2001. While this chemical was removed from the production of vaccines, the prevalence of ASD has continued to rise. This could be due to many different reasons, such as better detection and diagnosis to environmental factors.

The court decision in 2009 related to vaccines caused research to shift towards different causes of ASD. There are studies being conducted about the relationship between autism and certain environmental toxins, specifically some that are found in California, genome, autoimmune diseases, and brain abnormalities. It may be years or even decades before there is a definitive answer for the cause of autism, but research efforts are still being conducted and more theories for the cause are being examined every day.

The more common disease outbreaks can be attributed to the anti-vaccine movement in North America. Herd immunity is a term that relates to a portion of the population that has been vaccinated and develops immunity and in turn they protect those who have not been vaccinated. There was a journal that was published years ago trying to prove that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination was not safe to use. Many people discontinued the use of the vaccination, and in turn the prevalence of measles has tripled in the United States in 2013. As long as parents continue to not vaccinate their children, the rate of diseases that have not been a problem in the United States for decades will continue to rise.

Research will continue, and theories will be devised on the true causes of autism, but until then parents should continue to vaccinate their children to protect them and everyone around them. If not, the rate of disease will continue to increase in the United States, and perhaps all around the world.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/Index.html

http://autism.lovetoknow.com/Latest_Trends_in_Autism_Research

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/measles-outbreak-in-north-america-blamed-on-anti-vaccine-movement/

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/autism-spectrum-disorders-asd/index.shtml

Genetically Modified Organisms

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material is altered using genetic engineering techniques. Organisms that can be genetically modified include bacteria, yeast, insects, fish, plants, and mammals. Crops are commonly genetically modified to resist pests and herbicides and have an increased nutritional value. Crops can be genetically modified to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate, fight damage causing viruses, and to produce the insecticide Bt toxin. Genetically modified organisms are starting to gain a lot of scrutiny, and the effects of them on our environment and bodies are a continuing debate.

There are many different theories about how genetically modified organisms affect our bodies. Some believe that GMOs can cause asthma, Alzheimer’s, cancer, food allergies, and gastrointestinal problems to name a few. However, all of these are just theories because only one human feeding study on the effects of GM food has been performed. This study showed that the modified material present in GMO soy crops transfers into the DNA of bacteria which allows it to live and continue to function in our intestines. One of the most prominent outcomes of consuming GM crops is “leaky gut syndrome”. This is where the intestinal lining becomes inflamed, and the microvilli that line the intestines become impaired. Microvilli are responsible for absorbing nutrients and producing enzymes for digestion and absorption.

There is also a potential link between GMOs and food allergies. GM crops produce proteins that have never been present before. This new protein could induce allergic reactions in some people. In reference to the human feeding study involving soy crops, the bacteria is still present in the gut even after soy consumption has ceased.  That means that someone could still be exposed to the risks years after they consume the GM soy. The BBC documentary, “Genetically Modified Foods in America”, linked gastrointestinal problems and food allergies together. When someone is affected by leaky gut syndrome, the food they consume then leaves the intestines and enters the blood stream. The body recognizes the food in the bloodstream, and produces an antigen in the blood. This antigen then causes an allergic reaction when the food enters the body again.

While we may be years away from knowing the true effects of GMOs on our bodies, there are definitive measures everyone can take to avoid the consequences. Overall, GMOs have not been proven safe, and their health risks have not been sufficiently researched. As consumers, we have a right to know what we are purchasing and eating. In the United States, it is not required to label products that include GMOs. However, 50 other countries have restrictions or bans on GMOs. It is important to advocate and support the passing of legislation to make it required that companies have to label a product that contains a GMO.

GMOs are everywhere, but it is possible to avoid them.  A “Non GMO Project” seal certifies that the product does not contain any ingredients that are GMO derivatives. The main staple crops are corn, soybeans, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and yellow squash. It is possible to not consume products that do not contain these ingredients. The best way to avoid GMOs is to stay informed, and follow the research that will only continue for many years to come.

http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engineered-food-alters-our-digestive-systems/

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/Genetically-Engineered-Foods-May-Cause-Rising-Food-Allergies-Genetically-Engineered-Soybeans-May-2007

http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/tips-for-avoiding-gmos.html

Tyrone Hayes

On Monday March 24^th, Ohio University Kennedy Lecture Series hosted American biologist Tyrone Hayes. He graduated from Harvard University, and is a professor at University of California- Berkeley. He spoke about his experiences with an agribusiness called Syngenta, and how his life completely changed after he performed research for them.

Syngenta, which is considered to be one of the largest agribusinesses in the world, specialized chemicals company that markets seeds and pesticides. The company is based out of Switzerland. They approached Hayes to conduct research on a chemical called Atrazine. Atrazine is a pesticide that is used on over half of the corn crops in the United States, but is outlawed in Europe. Hayes found that the chemical caused sexual abnormalities in frogs, and could potentially cause the same abnormalities in humans. Unfortunately, these were not the results that Syngenta was looking for, and they refused to allow him to publish his research.

While he did part ways with the company, he continued to research the health effects of atrazine in frogs. His research is extensive, but some of the most prominent results are that male frogs exposed to atrazine had inhibited growth of voice boxes, testes as well as ovaries, and lower fertility rates.

He has also explored the possible effects that this chemical has on humans. Atrazine can be found in low levels in the drinking water, because of natural water run off from crop production. Many agricultural workers are also exposed to atrazine through working on the crops. A great number of these workers are male Latinos. Hayes is interested in the link between prostate cancer and mammary tumors to those who are exposed to atrazine. It has also been found that there is an increased rate of birth defects when pregnant women are exposed to atrazine.

Hayes briefly covered the link between atrazine and aromatase. Aromatase is responsible for the synthesis of estrogen. Atrazine increases the level of aromatase that can be found in the body. While Letrozole is a drug given to breast cancer patients to lower the amount of estrogen found in the body. It is concerning how atrazine can affect the levels of estrogen found in the body, and how it may be the cause of some of the issues related to estrogen levels in the body.

One of the things that Hayes spoke about that stood out to me was how atrazine cannot only affect a species, but the future generations that aren’t even exposed to atrazine. It brings light to the question about genetics. Our genetics play a key role in what diseases we may develop in our lives, but how much of that can be attributed to true genetics or substances in our environments that we are exposed to or even what our grandparents were exposed to.

The most concerning aspect of Hayes’s talk was the measures Syngenta was taking to cover up his results. They were plotting to discredit him and his work, listening in on his phone calls, reading his emails, and threatening his family. It is scary that we live in a world where the dangers of a chemical are hidden solely for monetary purposes. If atrazine were not applied to corn crops, there would be a 6% decline in production, which would cause roughly a two billion dollar loss. Hopefully in the coming years, more research will be completed, and major agribusinesses like Syngenta and Monsanto will be forced to shut down. Until then, humans and animals alike will continue to be exposed to the harmful affects of these chemicals in our environment.

A Valuable Reputation

Silencing the Scientist

Imagine a staple crop like rice has the potential to cure an ailing disease that millions of people face every year. By eating this genetically modified rice, you are getting your nutritional needs for vitamin A, which can in turn help reduce the risk of effects from not getting enough of this nutrient. Vitamin A deficiency affects vision, which can cause night blindness or even complete blindness. Younger populations are at the most risk. It seems a little too good to be true right? When it comes to genetically modified foods, when does the risk outweigh the benefits?

The golden rice is visually different than any other type of rice. It has the yellow color that shows the presence of beta-carotene. One bowl of golden rice can supply a child with at least 60% of their daily-recommended intake of vitamin A. Some people are cautious of the true benefits of consuming this type of rice, because it was discovered through biotechnology. While this rice seems like it is a great solution for a problem that affects millions of people each year, some people argue that genetically modified foods are not driven to help people, but driven to gain a profit.

This can be true for many different government and private company decisions that have been made in the past and present. In the past, when nuclear technologies became more popular, it was believed that people approached risk first with rational thought and considering all information before making a decision. If you provide the people with all the information, it will alter their perception of the risk. Many years later, the research stated that even if you provide someone with all of the information they need to make a decision, this still won’t quiet their irrational fears. This methodology comes from Paul Slovic, where he “examines the particular heuristics and biases people invent to interpret the amount of risk in their environment”. He surveys different social and cultural factors that lead to risk evaluation.

One of the more controversial issues in our country today is the debate about hydraulic fracturing, or as it is more popularly known, fracking. Fracking involves using a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals deep into shale formations to crack and release oil to be brought to ground level. The benefits of fracking are highly economic, while the negative impacts range from contaminating aquifers to air pollution. In this situation do the benefits outweigh the risks?

It has been considered why people’s perception of risk of nuclear fallouts are much greater than automobile accidents, which have caused much more deaths than the former. It could perhaps be linked to media coverage in the news. Car accidents happen every day, but rarely appear in national news. When there is a disease outbreak, natural disaster, or a shooting, they are covered by the news in depth. The media greatly influences what we perceive to be a risk, and can determine how we react to many different situations. With the continuing changes on our planet, it is important now more than ever to promote public policy, and provide education to improve the public's reactions.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/07/173611461/in-a-grain-of-golden-rice-a-world-of-controversy-over-gmo-foods

http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2013/01/16/how-do-we-perceive-risk-paul-slovics-landmark-analysis-2/

http://www.psandman.com/col/fracking.htm