Long-Dreaded Superbug Found in Human and Animal in U.S.

[LibertyEagle]

The antibiotic resistance factor MCR, which protects bacteria against the final remaining drugs of last resort, has been found in the United States for the first time—in a person, and separately, in a stored sample taken from a slaughtered pig.


Dr. Beth Bell, director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the CDC has begun working with the researchers and the Pennsylvania Department of Health to understand how the woman came to be carrying the highly resistant bacterium. (Later Thursday, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf confirmed the case, and the CDC joint investigation, in a statement.) The DOD researchers who described her case, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment, provided no other information on her case, except to say that she had not traveled in the previous five months, suggesting she did not pick up the bacterium outside the U.S.


The existence of MCR was reported for the first time just last November, in a report by British and Chinese researchers who said they had found the gene in people, animals and meat in several areas of China. Subsequently it has been found in people, animals or meat in at least 20 countries across the world.

“This shows that we are right on the verge of getting into the territory of routine bacterial infections being untreatable,” Steven Roach, the food safety program director at the Food Animal Concerns Trust, said by phone. “It underscores the failure of both the federal government and Congress, and the industry, to get a grasp of the problem. We can’t continue to drag our feet on taking needed action.”
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/26/colistin-r-9/

YAY! Let's get more and more of our food from Red China!! :rolleyes:

It's all good, right? If China has this bacterium, we all should have it, right? It would be "racist" to believe otherwise. And if Latin America has TB, we should have it too. Hell yeah! Bring it all in, so we can be as much of a shithole as everyplace else. :rolleyes:

[Danke]

The more bugs you get, the stronger you become. I can attest to that

[unknown]

No worries, a federally mandated vaccine from manufacturers who are held harmless will cure us.

[donnay]

No worries, a federally mandated vaccine from manufacturers who are held harmless will cure us.

No doubt.

[cajuncocoa]

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/26/colistin-r-9/

YAY! Let's get more and more of our food from Red China!! :rolleyes:

It's all good, right? If China has this bacterium, we all should have it, right? It would be "racist" to believe otherwise. And if Latin America has TB, we should have it too. Hell yeah! Bring it all in, so we can be as much of a shithole as everyplace else. :rolleyes:
We'll find you a nice little bubble and put you in it, LE. It'll be your own private "border." Would you like that?

[FindLiberty]

Germ Fence?

[Henry Rogue]

“This shows that we are right on the verge of getting into the territory of routine bacterial infections being untreatable,”*

Maybe this is inevitable. I know I contemplated this very thing, nearly 30 years ago.

[presence]

Judge Napolitano Versus Forced Quarantines

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/slideshow/public/static-page/img/Forced%20Quarantine.jpg?itok=XM4skX45




0 Comments (https://mises.org/blog/judge-napolitano-versus-forced-quarantines#disqus_thread)
Tags Health (https://mises.org/topics/health)The Police State (https://mises.org/topics/police-state)
10/30/2014Ryan McMaken (https://mises.org/profile/ryan-mcmaken)
One can make the case that in a thoroughly decentralized and anarchistic society, persons may find themselves in a state of practical near-quarantine because private owners of airlines, airports, lodging facilities, and even communities with private security may refuse entry or passage to persons suspected of being contagious. In such cases, persons would be restricted to places owned by themselves or by those who will agree to allow the person on the premises. Thus, in such a situation, a "quarantine," practically speaking, is less like imprisonment and more like house arrest depending on negotiations with numerous private owners. In modern states, on the other hand, the widespread nature of "public goods" and prohibitions of discrimination by private owners often means that quarantine becomes a function of the central state and often ends up being little better than a jail sentence where the person in question is locked inside some official facility for a period of time.
Thus, quarantines (of a sort) can arise within a totally (or mostly) privatized society, but how they look and are carried out in practical terms can vary significantly.
For an example of the arbitrary, slipshod, and due-process-less way that American governments deal with such issues, we need only look to the case of the nurse in New Jersey (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2808684/This-inhumane-Nurse-returning-West-Africa-kept-quarantine-despite-showing-no-Ebola-symptoms-compares-experience-prison-says-basic-human-rights-violated.html) who was being confined (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/russia-today/returning-ebola-nurse-faced-coercive-quarantine/) in spite of the fact that she had been proven to be Ebola-free. (Note: she has now returned to Maine, where the State of Maine promises to confine her (http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/10/30/judge-napolitano-ebola-quarantine-nurse-kaci-hickox-does-not-have-prove-shes-worthy) although she continues to be symptom-free.) (http://news.yahoo.com/maine-nurse-fights-ebola-quarantine-says-not-bullied-004050831.html)
In the US, travelers are subject to the arbitrary edicts of politicians who can imprison people with the stroke of a pen,with no prior warning, and no due process. As Napolitano explains in this video (http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/10/27/we-don%E2%80%99t-have-group-punishment-america-judge-nap-and-megyn-debate-ebola-quarantines), US governments have known about the Ebola outbreak since March, yet did not warn healthcare workers traveling to west Africa that they could be subject to quarantine upon return. Any responsible government body would have done so. When such persons returned, no steps had been taken (at least not in New Jersey) to administer a quarantine in any way that might be described as humane. As Napolitano notes, when they quarantined the NJ nurse in question, they "put her in a tent in a parking lot" and "gave her a porta potty and a granola bar." It seems the government intended to keep her in these conditions for 21 days.
Moreover, the NJ government detained the woman with no evidence.
Now, in a world of small, radically decentralized, and non-monopolistic governments there is no reason to assume (http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/10/would-president-rothbard-shut-down-flights-to-west-africa/)that it would be easy for someone who fit the nurse's profile to freely travel about the world. She would have to obtain permission to fly through numerous privately-owned airports and small self-governing cities and states. It is likely she would have to jump through many hoops to return home under such conditions, possibly with the use of third parties that would vouch for her health status. At the same time, however, someone traveling to West Africa in such a world would have behaved accordingly and would have made the appropriate arrangements with a return trip in mind. In a world of modern states, however, it becomes impossible to predict what the whims of untouchable politicians may be, and what may lead to one's imprisonment or exclusion from an entire continent (but with no right of exit) based on no evidence.
Napolitano's comments assume the status quo with an existing state, but even in that situation, any decent legal system would demand the use of due process and the presentation of actual evidence. The fact that the governor of NJ could decree the seizure of private citizens without any due process is worrisome to Napolitano, and understandably so.
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com (http://video.foxnews.com)

https://mises.org/blog/judge-napolitano-versus-forced-quarantines


The Terminally Ill and Their Right to Drugs

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/slideshow/public/static-page/img/hospitalbed.jpg?itok=8iZLTPJd




0 Comments (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#disqus_thread)
Tags Free Markets (https://mises.org/topics/free-markets)Health (https://mises.org/topics/health)Interventionism (https://mises.org/austrian-school/interventionism)
07/24/2006Lisa Casanova (https://mises.org/profile/lisa-casanova)In the United States people who need medications to treat illness are dependent on the mercy of Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It serves as a gatekeeper to drug services, deciding which medications will and will not be available to consumers. The FDA demands that developers and manufacturers of drugs furnish data on a drug's efficacy and side effects, which it uses to make its determinations.
Some organizations are demanding a change in the process to permit terminally ill people to gain speedier access to possible cures. Their demands have so far been rebuffed by regulators. Below I argue the case for liberalizing the approval process.
Drug testing for FDA approval usually consists of three phases of trials, with each phase involving larger numbers of patients. In Phase 1, a medication is given to small numbers of healthy individuals who are observed for the development of acute side effects. Phase 2 expands to include the population of patients for which the drug is intended, and may consist of several hundred people. Phase 3, which can involve a thousand or more patients, includes double-blind, placebo-controlled trials which both measure efficacy and monitor for adverse effects. [1] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn1)
After these studies, the FDA still must evaluate the data and deliberate over approval. The entire process can take years. For chronically ill patients, the wait may mean a loss of quality of life or a progression of disability. But for the terminally ill, the time it takes for drugs to wind through this process can mean the difference between life and death.
The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs has sought to change this. The Alliance recently won a court victory in a lawsuit seeking to gain access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients. [2] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn2) In this context, "experimental drugs" means medications that may have only undergone Phase 1 testing. Essentially, this suit seeks permission for terminally ill people to bypass the normal drug approval process of clinical trials and evaluation by the FDA bureaucracy, and the protection this process is supposed to provide.
Bypassing the process will allow them to quickly receive drugs that have only been tested on very small numbers of people. This idea has met with opposition from bioethicists and others who fear that it will have only negative consequences for all patients. However, the arguments they advance are faulty. Allowing terminally ill patients access to experimental drugs is not only beneficial and just to them, but will not have the negative consequences that opponents of the idea fear.
Opposition to allowing terminally ill people to bypass the drug testing and approval process involves three criticisms.
First, that the court decision creates a "right to experimental drugs"; [3] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn3) that is, it creates a positive right that will impose on certain people an obligation to provide other people with experimental medications. [4] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn4)
Second, that giving people access to experimental drugs outside of clinical trials will lessen the incentives for patients to participate in randomized, controlled trials that the FDA uses to determine whether drugs are "safe and effective," its criteria for drug approval. Thus, giving access to drugs outside the clinical trials process will undermine the FDA's ability to evaluate the risks and benefits of drugs and decide which ones deserve approval and which ones do not. [4] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn4) [5] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn5) [6] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn6) [7] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn7)
Third, that very ill patients are desperate, may not be able to rationally evaluate the choices available to them and will tend to pursue any remedy anyone claims will help them regardless of its risks or effectiveness. [4] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn4) [8] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn8) It follows, therefore, that such patients need to be protected from the possible adverse consequences of non-rational decisions they might make as a result. [8] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn8)
All of these criticisms are flawed. For purposes of this argument, I will leave aside the more fundamental question of whether the FDA should even have a role in deciding which drugs are "safe and effective" and should be available to consumers. Although that is an important issue, which has been well argued by others, [9] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn9) [10] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn10) the changes sought in this court case could represent an improvement in the system we have to live under now. If objections to it can be addressed, this kind of incremental change could benefit at least some very ill patients who are now being harmed by the current system, and the change sought by the Abigail Alliance can result in a system that is both more just and more beneficial for all patients.
The "right" to experimental drugs
The first argument against access to experimental drugs for the terminally ill springs from the idea that the court victory by the Abigail Alliance creates a positive right to certain drugs. [3] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn3) [4] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn4)
This is erroneous. The right at issue in the court case, and in this article, is a negative right: the right of a willing drug manufacturer and a willing drug consumer to engage in a voluntary transaction for a medication without interference from a third party, such as the FDA.
It has been suggested that requiring the FDA to allow consumers access to certain untested drugs may create a legal avenue to force insurers to pay for them. [4] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn4) However, this is a defect created by government intervention in the insurance market, not a logical consequence of the right under consideration.
The drug testing process: patients in conflict?
The second major argument is that the drug testing process needs to be a balancing of opposing interests, with the interests of terminally ill patients who immediately want untested drugs balanced against those of less critically ill patients who must wait for drugs to receive FDA approval. [4] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn4) Such approval will not be forthcoming until clinical trials have been completed and the drugs' risks and benefits are defined.
By allowing free access to drugs that have not gone through trials, the argument goes, we undercut the incentives for individuals who want the drugs to participate in trials. This ends up sacrificing the interests of those who will not get access to a drug until it has been further tested. Thus, individuals who might benefit from access to experimental drugs outside of trials benefit at the expense of other patients and society in general, and "The benefit of a few desperate patients would come at a steep cost to the rest of us." [4] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn4) But the assumptions underlying these objections are not necessarily true, and basing the drug approval system on them is unjust.
First, it is doubtful that giving patients access to drugs outside the clinical trial system will undercut the incentives to participate in trials. People have different preferences and tolerances for risk. [9] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn9) Based on risk preferences, patients seeking treatment for a disease can roughly be divided into two groups. One group consists of those who are willing to try untested or barely tested drugs. This may be because they have run out of meaningful therapeutic options (their disease is refractory to treatment with available therapies), or existing therapies don't do enough for their disease to give them the quality of life they desire.
They may also feel that having people who are willing to try untested drugs first is an important part of advancing the knowledge and science of disease therapy. The second group consists of patients who are more risk-averse. These patients do not want to take drugs unless they have been tested and their risks and benefits are defined to some extent (i.e., the drugs have been tested on other human beings first and the outcomes of this testing are known). Although it tends to be overlooked, there may be seriously or terminally ill patients who fall into this second group.
Some people in the first group of patients might want access to drugs that have not gone through the clinical trial system. But since they are willing to tolerate risk from drugs that have unknown effects, they also provide a pool of people who are willing to participate in clinical trials, for their own benefit and the greater benefit of others with the same illnesses, because they are willing to go first.
The only way the clinical trial system breaks down is if every single patient with a given disease wants immediate access to drugs before they have gone through any trials. Unless every patient with a given disease has the exact same level of risk tolerance, this is an unlikely scenario. Instead, the dynamics of the market can meet the needs both of patients who want immediate access to drugs and those who want better-tested drugs.
It's vital to keep in mind that manufacturers of drugs develop and market them because they see an unmet demand for the drug, and thus a possible profit opportunity. Some of that unmet demand and profit opportunity will be among patients who want drugs immediately, and are willing to take the risks involved in being the first to try them. But meeting the demand only of these patients ignores another profit opportunity: the demand created by individuals who want drugs whose risks and benefits have been defined to a greater extent by testing on other individuals. The more risk-averse second group — the individuals hesitant to try drugs that haven't been tested on others first — will still drive the demand for medications that have been rigorously tested in the clinical trial setting.
Even if drug manufacturers were permitted to sell untested medications to patients who wanted them, they would be marketing to the few people willing to take an untested or barely tested drug. It is doubtful that these people will create a market so profitable that drug companies will abandon the profit opportunities presented by drugs that have gone through the clinical trials process, and simply start selling untested drugs directly.
The larger drug market, and hence unexploited profit opportunities, will still be people who want drugs that have been through the clinical trial process. The market will adapt to meet this demand for testing and information, sustaining a system of clinical trials done to meet FDA approval standards. In this way, giving access to experimental drugs outside of trials does not actually undercut the clinical trial-based FDA approval system.
Different populations of patients with different needs and different risk tolerance levels can have both access to untested drugs and tested drugs that come with information gained through clinical trials, without sacrificing one for the other.
There is also a concern that since double blinded, controlled clinical trials are the gold standard for learning about the risks and benefits of new drugs, allowing self-selected individuals to use medications on an individual basis, not as part of any controlled research study, does not provide useful data on the risks or therapeutic effectiveness of a particular medication. [6] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn6)
As explained by Norman C. Fost, a professor of pediatrics and the chair of the ethics committee at the University of Wisconsin Hospital, "There's a strong societal interest in advancing knowledge and having new drugs done in trials first rather than in the marketplace, because otherwise we don't learn anything and we waste not only lots of money but sometimes lives, and there's no advancement so we remain in a state of perpetual ignorance." [6] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn6)
Allowing a group of individuals who self-select to have a drug outside of a research setting may not provide data that is of use to others who desire rigorous, scientific information about risks and therapeutic effectiveness, but calling this a "waste" because we "don't learn anything" treats some individuals as though they are nothing but means to the ends of others.
Essentially, this argument says that a particular individual should not be able to receive a disease therapy that might possibly benefit them, unless their doing so produces data that is of use to other individuals or groups of people. If no data that is useful to other people is produced from an individual's use of the therapy, there is no justification for allowing them to have it.
The consequence of this criterion is that patients who are willing to try a new drug are treated as though they are nothing more than human guinea pigs who only deserve access to disease therapies because they produce information that other people wish to have, and the benefit to the patients themselves is of secondary concern. This use of some individuals as means (research subjects) to ends (risk and effectiveness data) that other individuals choose is an injustice, and treats some people as means to serve the ends of others, rather than as individuals entitled to pursue their own ends, including the end of survival itself.
It's also vital to remember that the FDA does not possess some sort of crystal ball that tells them anything about a drug's safety or effectiveness. There is only one way to obtain this information: to have someone try it first. Saying that a drug "needs more testing" or must be FDA-approved before you're wiling to take it is the same as saying that other people should try it first so you can watch what happens to them (this is essentially what a clinical trial is), and then you will decide if you wish to take it yourself.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that; people have different preferences for information and different levels of risk tolerance. But trying to compel others who want access to experimental drugs to participate in clinical trials, by demanding that a drug be withheld from them until enough data have been produced to satisfy your level of risk tolerance, allows you to use others to satisfy your preference for information — again, to use others as a means to your ends.
Individuals who are not willing to participate in clinical trials do not possess a right to structure the system such that other people can be compelled to do so. Reducing patients' options only to drugs that have gone through the full clinical trial and approval process leaves us with a system where patients are adversaries pitted against one another, where seriously ill patients and possible future patients are in competition with one another, and some individuals' health, well-being, and even their lives are sacrificed for the sake of others. This is unjust and unnecessary when small changes in the system could serve the interests of all patients without denying access to the terminally ill or undermining the clinical trial system.
Paternalism for the Terminally Ill
The third major argument against access to experimental drugs — that of protecting the very ill from their own choices — is a thornier problem because it rests on the same attitude of paternalism that is the entire underlying justification for the FDA. It assumes that certain individuals possess the ability to decide when other individuals are incapable of making good or rational decisions on a subject, and should be able to substitute their own judgment accordingly, forcing the original person to live with the substitute decision-maker's choice.
Note that by "ability to decide" I mean the supposed capability of one person to make a better decision for another person than that person would have made for themselves, not simply to the power Congress has conferred on some people to make other people's decisions for them. The government can give you the ability to make choices for other people. That does not mean that your choices are automatically superior; it simply imposes your own risk preferences on another person. [9] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn9) But the argument for substituting the "more rational" judgment of regulators for the "less rational" judgment of terminally ill patients is flawed.
If we are using the standard of rationality to justify paternalism, we must immediately confront the question of how we judge a patient's ability to decide rationally. Bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel defines "the desire for unproven treatments by a few patients" as "the height of irrationality born of desperation." [4] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn4) The first major problem with this is that individuals make real choices to try untested drugs in the context of clinical trials all the time. If they did not, these trials would not exist!
In the case of Phase I trials, completely healthy people choose to take completely untested drugs with unknown risks. In the case of Phase 2 and 3 trials, the risks may still be poorly understood. Why are these decisions rational and laudable, while demanding to try these same drugs outside a trial is suddenly irrational?
Even if participating in a clinical trial benefits others and taking a drug outside a trial does not, the fact that a particular choice serves the greater good is not in itself evidence that the choice is rational and alternative choices are not. Emanuel's position is also circular: A person who has run out of tested therapeutic options has only high-risk, untested drugs remaining. They are willing to try these high-risk, untested drugs to extend their lives.
This is evidence that they are desperate, which makes them irrational. Therefore, people who have run out of tested drugs should not be allowed to choose risky new drugs, because they are too irrational to appreciate the risk. We know they are too irrational to appreciate the risk because, given the choice, they choose from among the risky drugs that happen to be the only options remaining to them. And so on.
But this assumes that terminal illness and the willingness to assume great risks are themselves prima facie evidence of irrationality. As Alex Tabarrok points out, this is not true. Terminally ill patients are still capable of rational assessment of their alternative choices: "When best practices fail, patients demand innovation. Patients with terminal diseases rationally demand new approaches, despite possible dangers and low odds of success, because they face low costs of experimenting with new therapies." [10] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn10)
So is it possible to assess terminally ill patients' choices at all? Here, we can borrow the central economic insight that all value is subjective. This is usually applied in the context of individuals evaluating economic goods. But we can also apply this insight when we consider how people form valuations of the risks and benefits of disease treatment options: "…both the expected benefit of using a product and the burden of risk bearing are subjectively experienced and knowable only to the individual actor." [9] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn9)
Thus, even the way that different people value the quality of their own lives, the value of a life with or without disability, the value of a risk to their life or health, and the value of a tradeoff between the two, is subjective. The value of those kinds of tradeoffs is not the same for every disease, or even for every individual with the same disease. [10] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn10)
Quoting Tabarrok again, "In reality, all drugs have side effects, and what is safe enough depends on alternatives and personal preferences." [10] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn10) The issue of alternatives is crucial. How much value someone places on the benefits of a drug when balanced against its risks may depend in part on what other therapeutic alternatives are available to them. If someone has a debilitating disease for which no treatments exist, they may choose to take an experimental drug that carries substantial risks of disabling or even fatal side effects.
On the other hand, someone who has an equally debilitating disease for which several treatments are available may deem that same experimental drug too risky. Assume for a moment that the willingness to assume greater risks with less information in the absence of viable treatment alternatives results in choices that are by definition irrational. This suggests that the level of rationality a patient with a given disease can be said to possess depends on how many drugs the FDA has previously approved for that particular disease! Clearly, this is a nonsensical way of assessing rationality, but it follows logically from the way the current drug approval and access system is designed.
If the value of competing therapeutic alternatives for individual patients is subjective, then there is no objective standard an expert can use to determine how other individuals do value or should value their lives and their health. Yet we allow regulators to carry out this kind of valuation for patients all the time, without asking them if the patients themselves want it done for them.
Patient testimony at FDA advisory committee hearings is a good indication of the fact that they do not. FDA advisory panels have heard from patients who want access to drugs with dangerous, even fatal side effects, effects that are well-publicized and that these patients are aware of. [11] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn11) [12] (https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs#fn12) Patients come to such meetings to tell the FDA that they understand not only the risks of drugs, but the damage that will be done to their health and quality of life if they cannot have access to new therapeutic options.
During the public comment period of such a meeting, patient after patient can be heard making the same point: that until you have personally experienced the life-altering force of disabling, chronic, or incurable illness, you cannot understand why people who have would choose the risk-benefit tradeoffs that they do.

https://mises.org/library/terminally-ill-and-their-right-drugs

[presence]

Pork: The Government's Other White Meat

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/slideshow/public/static-page/img/6334.jpg?itok=tI5-X81b




0 Comments (https://mises.org/library/pork-governments-other-white-meat#disqus_thread)
Tags Free Markets (https://mises.org/topics/free-markets)Interventionism (https://mises.org/austrian-school/interventionism)Political Theory (https://mises.org/austrian-school/political-theory)
01/08/2013Karen De Coster (https://mises.org/profile/karen-de-coster)Years ago I began to cease eating pork because I came to despise it, but at the time, I didn't really know why that was the case.
I was turned off by the dry, white, crumbly texture and the inability to cook most pork cuts—with the exception of some ribs or roasts—in such a manner that I could retain the moisture and integrity of taste. The boneless, center-cut pork chops, that were considered to be prime cuts, had become unpalatable.
Most of us have grown up with the old adage, “You have to cook your pork well done or it will make you sick.” Accordingly, growing up eating inherently dry, overcooked, rubberized, white pork brought me much agony as a child. It wasn’t until I was well into my adult years that I discovered that pork was really red, and not white. It was then that I began to understand the depth of the political ploys that had turned traditional pork on its ear in favor of factory-farmed white meat. This “white” meat had become representative of Big Agriculture farming interests and the federalized dietary guidelines that are the result of the politicization of food and nutrition.
Pork, PACs, and PoliticsThe story of pork’s decline involves the usual suspects: mounting government intervention, political mandates, special interest lobbying arms, redistribution of income, and the federal government’s 30+ years of war on dietary fat.
The pork arm of the government, the National Pork Board (http://www.pork.org/), was established in 1985 under the terms of the Pork Act, with the fluff name being the Pork Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act of 1985. The activities of this organization are funded by a mandatory “checkoff” program that forces pork farmers to pay into a fund each time an animal is sold.
The USDA maintains oversight for this program, as well as similar programs in other industries. And while the U.S. congressional body has permitted these forcibly applied taxes to fund mega-marketing budgets in the various food industries, there have been numerous legal challenges to mandatory checkoffs over the years, including within the mushroom, beef, grape, and pork industries.
The beef industry has witnessed varied legal rulings concerning the government tax levied on beef producers to pay for the epic “Beef: It’s What’s For Dinner” campaign that began in 1992. In 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a South Dakota District Court decision that ruled that the mandatory beef checkoff program, like a similar program in the mushroom industry, was “compelled speech” and thus the program was declared unconstitutional. In 2005, this decision was overturned by the Supreme Court with Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, claiming that “government speech” was at issue in this case, and thus was not subject to challenge under the First Amendment.
Though nonconformist cattle ranchers wanted an opt-out for the tax, the Court ruled, with a 6-3 majority, that producers being forced to pay for the funding of government speech do not raise First Amendment concerns. According to the First Amendment Center (http://archive.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=15308), Scalia defended the forced levies by writing:

Citizens may challenge compelled support of private speech, but have no First Amendment right not to fund government speech. That is no less true when the funding is achieved through targeted assessments devoted exclusively to the program to which the assessed citizens object.1 (https://mises.org/library/pork-governments-other-white-meat#footnote1_9jkkzjm)
Likewise, prior to the Supreme Court ruling on the beef checkoff, the pork checkoff had been declared unconstitutional in a federal district court with the decision being affirmed (http://www.marciaoddi.com/indianalawblog/mtarchives/November%20%201,%202003%2006-03%20PM.html) by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The propaganda supporting the levies puts on a spin to give the appearance of benefits for those who are fleeced in order to fund campaigns they don’t want to support. In the fall 2012 issue of Pork Checkoff Report, an article (http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/01e22b62#/01e22b62/20) reviewing an econometrics-based self-evaluation of the pork checkoff program claimed that producers “get back $17.40 of value for every $1 they invest in the pork checkoff.” While these taxes on the pork producers produce in excess of $50 million in booty per year, the subsequent expenditures benefit the largest and most industrialized factory farm machinations, including the giants Smithfield and Tyson.
Back in 2000, the Agriculture Department held a referendum where pork producers voted to terminate the mandatory checkoff program, and this was in spite of millions being poured into the campaign by the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) to maintain the status quo. In mid-January 2001, Dan Glickman, who was the Secretary of Agriculture, released the voting results and he prepared the USDA to move forward with termination of the checkoff program. Immediately, the NPPC and large-industrial pork producers from Michigan successfully applied for a temporary restraining order (http://www.michiganfarmbureau.com/farmnews/transform.php?xml=20010130/hogproducers.xml) to halt the USDA elimination of the plunder program.
Then came Ann Veneman, a Bush appointee from Big Agra with her feet firmly planted in the biotech corporatocracy, who took over as Secretary of Agriculture on January 20th 2001. Immediately, she overturned the results of the referendum, citing a voting technicality. And this is in spite of the fact that both the General Accounting Office and Office of Inspector General had already concluded that Dan Glickman had acted within his statutory authority for holding the referendum, and that the proper voting controls were in place for the referendum.
Most recently, Veneman trots the globe fighting the war on obesity for global organizations and big government while maintaining posts as a Nestle board member (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/a-sweet-move-from-unicef-to-nestle/1/131314.html) and a Director at Alexion Pharmaceuticals (http://www.alxn.com/aboutus/overview/leadership/BoardofDirectors.aspx).
Additionally, the National Pork Board is supported by its underling and foremost political arm, the National Pork Producers Council (http://www.nppc.org/about-us/). The NPPC has a very powerful political lobby, PorkPAC, that, according to its website (http://www.nppc.org/about-us/), “educates and supports candidates at the state and federal levels who support the U.S. pork industry.” In other words, the NPPC uses its monetary influence to drive legislation, regulation, and other political initiatives through its system of buying the favors of politicians to empower and enrich its industry benefactors.
The CAFO CalamityThe CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Organization) concept is an industrial concept. During the 1970s and 1980s, cattle and pigs began to come predominantly from the CAFO system. That time period saw the shift from the family farm to large industrial factory farming.
The confinement model aims at economies of scale—that is, the highest output at the lowest cost. In the meat industry, this model sacrifices food quality and raises ethical concerns in order to maintain desired profit margins. Those who decline to explore the facts of food politics still believe that the mega-industrial food machine is the epitome of the free market. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the United States as well as Europe, there are billions of dollars spent per year in government subsidies to support this model of animal agriculture.
First, the government subsidies artificially lower the cost of feed that saves the industry billions per year. This allows for a large reduction in operating costs. The competitors of these industrial-factory farms are those farmers who choose to farm their animals in diversified, pasture-based systems where they produce their own forage, and without government subsidies.
Additionally, farm bills come with massive incentives to influence investment in the industrial-factory farming system, and this spurs artificial growth. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), a mandatory spending program, doles out financial and technical assistance for agriculture conservation. It’s actually a welfare program for CAFOs because these large-scale operations leave behind a massive trail of environmental and biological destruction: soil erosion and sedimentation, polluted watersheds, and manure and wastewater issues. This impacts the air, water, and land quality. There are also public health consequences from the routine administration of antibiotics that is necessary to keep animals alive within an intensely confined area.
The government contributes to the cost of conservation practices to clean up the mess to sustain profit margins in the industry and keep the industrial farms operable. An EQIP contract can pay up to 90 percent of the costs for planning, design, capital, labor, maintenance, and training for conservation projects. This program was funded to the tune of $1.75 billion for fiscal year 2012. The subsidies are just one reason why this industrial agricultural model has been called unsustainable.
Government policy has created CAFOs, and many years of supplementary government policies serves to maintain their existence. If the industrial-factory model farmers were left to clean up their own mess to sustain operations and pay their own costs, the industry model would be unprofitable. Instead, these streams of subsidies enable low-cost industrial food and healthy profit margins, and this is what the pasture-based farmers are up against.
Why White?While the CAFO system was up and running in high gear, the aggressive marketing campaign titled “Pork. The Other White Meat” made its debut in 1987. This campaign focused on presenting pork as an alternative “lean protein” to help eradicate the public perception of pork as a high-fat meat. Dietary fat had become synonymous with “unhealthy” as varied pop studies were trotted out by the medical establishment linking dietary fat to cardiovascular disease. According to a page from the National Pork Board website (http://www.porkbeinspired.com/towm_promo_heritage_page.aspx), this campaign was aggressively aimed at consumers with the goal being “to increase consumer demand for pork and to dispel pork’s reputation as a fatty protein.” Accordingly, industrial pork became the politically correct alternative to chicken and turkey, neither of which were demonized by the government’s intensifying war on fat.
However, the government’s food pyramid was not founded on science, but rather, it was based in politics and serving special interests. The food pyramid is a purely political animal developed by politicians to serve political ends. It was Senator George McGovern and his Select Senate Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs that gave us these politicized and destructive federal dietary guidelines.
The food politics of the Committee were set in motion as McGovern’s Dietary Goals for the United States were hammered out at the hands of federal politicians and a journalist who wrote the final draft. The guidelines were heavily influenced by lobbying from the food industry foot soldiers who vilified animal fat and won, in spite of the numerous, highly qualified scientists who debunked their political agenda with the power of science. The Dietary Goals for the United States (The McGovern Report) were issued in 1977 (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/pubs/bibs/gen/DGA.pdf), leading to the 1980 publication (http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs1980Guidelines.htm) of Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans, first edition.
Since that time, the government has had a non-scientific lock on dietary-nutritional central planning. The nutrition central planning model has held steadfast on the notion that dietary fat is the enemy, and thus planted the seeds for the low-fat revolution.
As a response to the low-fat craze, the pork industry began utilizing new feeding and breeding techniques. Essentially, the animals have been genetically altered to produce a white, lean, dry meat product to adapt to the political-nutritional health models that were sweeping the mainstream media and consumer consciousness. The pork industry’s website (http://www.porkbeinspired.com/Pork_nutritionFatinPork.aspx) admits to claims that:

Today's pork has 16% less fat and 27% less saturated fat as compared to 1991. Many cuts of pork are now as lean as skinless chicken.
Additionally, the same website page notes that this new pork meets the government’s “guidelines” to earn a declaration of “lean.” The new “lean” meat is produced not only through the production of a leaner animal with reduced fat, but also a reduction of intramuscle fat that cannot be trimmed.
Consequently, modern pork is artificially pale and unexciting, hence the “white” designation. The use of the term “white meat” is a misnomer, however, because the traditional definition of red meat is a meat product that is derived from a mammal, whereas white meat has been defined as being derived from a fowl. A pig is a mammal. Generally, pig meat does produce less saturated fat than that from ruminants such as cows, which have four-compartment stomachs as opposed to the one stomach of a pig.
Still, real pork—that which hasn’t been modified by scientific modifications conforming to political dictates—is red, not white. When these animals are raised within the boundaries of natural farming practices that include rotational grazing, grass-based animal husbandry, and humane handling, the meat takes on a sharp, appealing, red color. The following is a snippet from the website of Melo Farms (http://www.melofarms.com/) of Yale, Michigan, where the proprietors raise Berkshire heritage pigs in a natural environment as an alternative to the industrial CAFO system.

Our pigs are life-lived animals that enjoy pastured land every day. This gives our herd the luxury of playful socialization with each other rather than the isolation of the single-stall pen system favored by the pork industry. Our pigs roam our pasture, run and romp in the field, nestle with each other when sleeping, and move like an army of mini-hippos to play in favorite dig holes. They have a shaded nest in the pasture, free-running clean water, and protection from predators. Their bodies bear no signs of crowding stress such as ear or tail bites. What we don’t have are wire floors, single occupancy stations, or a manure lagoon. Our Berkshire hogs are calm and playful and, of course, full of personality!
Amazingly, it wasn’t until 2011 that the USDA revised its cooking guidelines for pork (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20066034-10391704.html), bringing the guidelines more in line with beef and lamb. Prior to the guideline revisions, food scaremongering techniques had put medium or medium-rare pork in the “unsafe” category, even though it was never disclosed that the hazards of the industrial feedlot system were behind the impetus to keep higher standards for cooking pork. However, chefs and knowledgeable layman who have been cooking and eating pasture-based pork have long been preparing safe pork dishes with the meat in a medium rare state. Meat produced from the pasture-based model is lacking many or all of the risks posed by the industrial model that is rife with safety concerns and is therefore heavily regulated.
Yet the USDA claims that the revision was due to improved methodology in animal feeding and housing, in spite of the fact that the industrial CAFO model is under more scrutiny than ever for its use of intense confinement, pesticides, steroids, hormones, antibiotics, and other unnatural agents.
In early 2011, the National Pork Board announced (http://thegazette.com/2011/03/04/pork-bo-longer-the-other-white-meat-now-well-be-inspired/) that it was replacing the “Other White Meat” slogan with a new mantra to fit with the times: “Pork: Be Inspired.” The pork central planners believe that after twenty-five years of white meat spin they have completed their mission of constructing the “new chicken” for the health conscious, and thus they will take the pork propaganda in a new direction in an attempt to increase consumer consumption of its product. In fact, it’s the same old parched, industrial, white meat with a newfangled promotional spin.

https://mises.org/library/pork-governments-other-white-meat

[Intoxiklown]

The more bugs you get, the stronger you become. I can attest to that

The only problem with that is the more a bug (talking virus) is being passed with people, the more it mutates. The biggest reason certain viruses are best vaccinated against is you take away as many possible incubators for it to evolve to be able bypass, fool, or flat out beat immune systems. This article is a prime example of genetic mutation within virus and bacterium showing learned defense.

I agree with you about building up antibodies, but with our population and global contact, nature is going to catch us sooner or later.

[LibertyEagle]

We'll find you a nice little bubble and put you in it, LE. It'll be your own private "border." Would you like that?

My reply...


Why Are Liberals Called Useful Idiots?

"Useful Idiots" is a pejorative term that was used by the Soviets to describe Soviet
sympathizers in Western countries and in the United States in particular. It is thought that
the Soviet leader Lenin was the first to use the term and it was used by the Soviets for
many years to ridicule misguided Americans who were willing to take the Soviet/Marxist
side against their own country.
https://www.sites.google.com/site/paulroebling/home/why-are-liberals-called-useful-idiots

[kcchiefs6465]

I remember being mocked for not accepting the often repeated narrative regarding the imminent epidemic of Ebola.

[twomp]

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/26/colistin-r-9/

YAY! Let's get more and more of our food from Red China!! :rolleyes:

It's all good, right? If China has this bacterium, we all should have it, right? It would be "racist" to believe otherwise. And if Latin America has TB, we should have it too. Hell yeah! Bring it all in, so we can be as much of a $#@!hole as everyplace else. :rolleyes:

As long as China doesn't stop sending us those awesome smart phones and electronics for reasonable prices.

[Working Poor]

Has the CDC finally found their pandemic? I know they keep hoping for one.

[Intoxiklown]

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/26/colistin-r-9/

YAY! Let's get more and more of our food from Red China!! :rolleyes:

It's all good, right? If China has this bacterium, we all should have it, right? It would be "racist" to believe otherwise. And if Latin America has TB, we should have it too. Hell yeah! Bring it all in, so we can be as much of a shithole as everyplace else. :rolleyes:

I understand your point, but even with complete seclusion at best we'd only delay this type of event from happening here. Unless you're of the mind that could possibly give us more preparation time once observed elsewhere? Speaking to anything of this nature, not just this example.

This woman had a UTI of E. coli which is actually a fairly normal culprit for UTI / bladder / prostate infections. The other is a strain of staph. It's not really all that shocking to me, as I learned when I had a horrible prostate infection that these bugs are getting extremely resistant to antibiotics. My case was made worse by them starting me out on Cipro (which was the standard), only to get worse because they found the strain of staph I had was resistant to Cipro. It's listed on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines due to all the things it is good for, is really not that old of a med, and infections are shrugging it off left and right nowadays. While your point does play a role, the problem is people taking antibiotics for everything, from a cold to a headache.

[presence]

While your point does play a role, the problem is people taking antibiotics for everything, from a cold to a headache.

That doesn't effect white americans sucking down more antibiotic feedstock meat than anyone on the planet.

You have to be either a scuzzy Chinese or South American to harbor superbugs, that's why we need Trump to build a wall.

[Intoxiklown]

That doesn't effect white americans sucking down more antibiotic feedstock meat than anyone on the planet.

You have to be either a scuzzy Chinese or South American to harbor superbugs, that's why we need Trump to build a wall.



LOL

Side note. When I was in the Dominican Republic a couple of years ago, my friends were laughing at my menu choices. They're eating all kinds of seafood (we frequented a small place literally on the beach), and I'm getting simple things like chicken fingers and ribs. But the taste of those meats without all the antibiotics and Lord knows what else chemicals.....it was divine. If I could serve those chicken tenders here, I'd close down every chicken restaraunt within 50 miles of me with the quality.

[LibertyEagle]

I understand your point, but even with complete seclusion at best we'd only delay this type of event from happening here. Unless you're of the mind that could possibly give us more preparation time once observed elsewhere? Speaking to anything of this nature, not just this example.

This woman had a UTI of E. coli which is actually a fairly normal culprit for UTI / bladder / prostate infections. The other is a strain of staph. It's not really all that shocking to me, as I learned when I had a horrible prostate infection that these bugs are getting extremely resistant to antibiotics. My case was made worse by them starting me out on Cipro (which was the standard), only to get worse because they found the strain of staph I had was resistant to Cipro. It's listed on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines due to all the things it is good for, is really not that old of a med, and infections are shrugging it off left and right nowadays. While your point does play a role, the problem is people taking antibiotics for everything, from a cold to a headache.

Uh huh. But, I doubt that is why we have a resurgence of TB, bed bugs, etc. Why would we put ourselves at greater risk? From bringing non-American Ebola patients to the U.S. to treat, to shipping chickens to China for processing and back again, etc. We no longer even check for diseases when someone enters our nation. Remember back in Oct, '15, when 5000 illegal alien children crossed the southern border? Many of whom were sick (including with TB (http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/whistleblowers-warn-illegal-immigrants-spreading-deadly-diseases-in-us/)); medical professionals were ordered (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest.html) not to talk about it. The Obama administration then shipped them all over the country and ordered the states to accept them in their schools.

To be ok with this is crazy.


The hordes of illegal immigrant minors entering the U.S. are bringing serious diseases—including swine flu, dengue fever, possibly Ebola virus and tuberculosis—that present a danger to the American public as well as the Border Patrol agents forced to care for the kids, according to a U.S. Congressman who is also medical doctor.

This has created a “severe and dangerous” crisis, says the Georgia lawmaker, Phil Gingrey. Most of the Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) are coming from Central America and they’re importing infectious diseases considered to be largely eradicated in this country. Additionally, many of the migrants lack basic vaccinations such as those to prevent chicken pox or measles, leaving America’s young children and the elderly particularly susceptible, Gingrey reveals.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/07/illegal-alien-minors-spreading-tb-ebola-dengue-swine-flu/

[presence]

Remember back in Oct, '15, when 5000 illegal alien children crossed the southern border? Many of whom were sick (including with TB (http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/whistleblowers-warn-illegal-immigrants-spreading-deadly-diseases-in-us/));

if we had private property rights this wouldn't be an issue.




medical professionals were ordered (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest.html) not to talk about it.

The Obama administration then shipped them all over the country and

ordered the states to accept them in their schools.

To be ok with this is crazy.

Right there is your issue.

Its not the people crossing the border. Its the big government solutions to people crossing the border.



USA needs a hefty dose of PRIVATE PARTY GTFO.

The path to freedom is repeal of Title VII of 1964 Civil Rights.

[Ronin Truth]

Hit it with that modified polio virus, now being used for cancer treatments.

[Brian4Liberty]

The single biggest cause of superbugs is over prescription of antibiotics. Blame it on the pharma-medical industry, where every visit to the doctor is expected to result in a prescription.

[donnay]

The single biggest cause of superbugs is over prescription of antibiotics. Blame it on the pharma-medical industry, where every visit to the doctor is expected to result in a prescription.

Don't forget the anti-bacterial soaps.

[presence]

The single biggest cause of superbugs is over prescription of antibiotics.


Don't forget the anti-bacterial soaps.

I suspect soap and antibiotic prescriptions are a drop in the bucket in comparison to the TONNAGE of antibiotics routinely used in animal feedstock as a non-medical growth enhancement agent.

[donnay]

I suspect soap and antibiotic prescriptions are a drop in the bucket in comparison to the TONNAGE of antibiotics routinely used in animal feedstock as a non-medical growth enhancement agent.

I am sure it is all of the above.

[presence]

I am sure it is all of the above.

Yeah but this stuff only happens in China and South America, people in the US have much better practices.
That's why we need to add at least 4 more feet to the wall.

[oyarde]

The single biggest cause of superbugs is over prescription of antibiotics. Blame it on the pharma-medical industry, where every visit to the doctor is expected to result in a prescription.

I get my prescriptions at the liquor store . I suggest the 6 yr old 100 Proof Old Grand Dad .

[Brian4Liberty]

I get my prescriptions at the liquor store . I suggest the 6 yr old 100 Proof Old Grand Dad .

Medicine!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hXol5Z_P4c

[Zippyjuan]

Uh huh. But, I doubt that is why we have a resurgence of TB, bed bugs, etc. Why would we put ourselves at greater risk? From bringing non-American Ebola patients to the U.S. to treat, to shipping chickens to China for processing and back again, etc. We no longer even check for diseases when someone enters our nation. Remember back in Oct, '15, when 5000 illegal alien children crossed the southern border? Many of whom were sick (including with TB (http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/whistleblowers-warn-illegal-immigrants-spreading-deadly-diseases-in-us/)); medical professionals were ordered (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest.html) not to talk about it. The Obama administration then shipped them all over the country and ordered the states to accept them in their schools.

To be ok with this is crazy.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/07/illegal-alien-minors-spreading-tb-ebola-dengue-swine-flu/

Surge in TB cases?

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/TuberculosisCases2.png

[ghengis86]

Don't forget the anti-bacterial soaps.

Depends on what's used to kill the bugs. Alcohol-based or other chemicals that physically destroy the microbe (usually cell wall disruption) don't lead to antibiotic "superbugs". The agents that kill the bugs via some cellular metabolism mechanism can select for resistance to those agents (triclosan), but again, not necessarily antibiotic "superbugs". There's a difference between in vivo and ex vivo big killing.

Over prescription of antibiotics is the main culprit. It's amazing how quickly bacteria can adapt.

[Suzanimal]

I get my prescriptions at the liquor store . I suggest the 6 yr old 100 Proof Old Grand Dad .

Franzia works, too. I have a sip just about every day and I've never had a superbug.

[brandon]

The more bugs you get, the stronger you become. I can attest to that

This is why I've been refusing to treat my scabies.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Not again... Every year "bla bla bla superbug"... "bla bla bla birdflu"... "bla bla bla zitka"... "bla bla bla mad cow"...

When is everyone going to wake up to this scare tactic that just gets everyone on the "goonerment will fix it" bandwagon? Sure maybe some here aren't on that bandwagon but these false stories get most of the sheeple on it... and their record of accuracy to these "threats" is 100% fail. Why promote them?

[Zippyjuan]

Was there no major outbreak because the warning was wrong or was it because actions were taken to try to prevent the spread? Or both?