Maryn McKenna

Journalist and Author

New York Times takes up “pig MRSA” ST398

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, I know that many of you are very interested in ST 398, the “pig strain” of MSRA that has caused both mild and life-threatening human infections in Europe and has been found in retail meat in Canada and on farms and in farmers here in the Midwest. So I just want to bring to your attention that New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof takes up the topic today, in the first of two promised columns: Our Pigs, Our Food, Our Health.

In today’s piece, he describes an apparent epidemic of skin and soft-tissue infections in a pig-farming area of Indiana that caught the attention of a local family physician, who subsequently died.

What we’d need to know, of course — and may never know, given that the investigation may have ended with the doctor’s death — is what strain of MRSA those local folks had. They may have ST 398, picked up if they worked on farms, or if it migrated out of the farms via groundwater or dust or flies. Or they may have USA300, the human community-associated strain, which in some areas is astonishingly common — a fact that most people don’t appreciate if they have heard only about the invasive child-death cases or the outbreaks in sports teams.

The full archive of posts on MRSA in animals is here and stories only about ST398 are here.

Industrial farming, bacterial spread 2 – or: Flies. Ick.

By Leave a Comment

There’s a brand-new paper in the journal Science of the Total Environment that has some unnerving things to say about the link between very large scale farming, use of antibiotics in food animals, development of resistant organisms, and transmittal out into the larger environment.

Via flies.

Not to be unscientific, but: Ick.

A team from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins (who have done a number of studies on the spread of antibiotic-resistant organisms from farms to the outside world) decided to test the links in a chain of hypothesis that goes like this:

  • Antibiotics are used in large amounts in poultry production.
  • Antibiotic-resistant organisms are produced within the birds.
  • Antibiotic-resistant organisms leave the batteries via poultry litter (“excreta, feathers, spilled feed, bedding material, soil and dead birds“).
  • Poultry litter is stored in open sheds until it can be used as a soil amendment.
  • Flies have unrestricted access to poultry litter.

The tests were: sampling poultry litter from three farms in the Delmarva Peninsula (for non-US readers, that’s a portmanteau word for contiguous areas of the states Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, home to about 600 million chickens each year); trapping flies at 8 locations within 100 meters of farm boundaries; and assaying both litter and flies for the presence of resistant organisms and resistance genes.

And the findings were: Oh, lots and lots. Litter piles at all three farms contained resistant organisms — E. faecium, E. faecalis and our particular interest, Staphylococcus (multiple species, including three strains of S. aureus) — throughout the 120-day study period. All 8 fly traps did as well. All of the litter contained enterococci and staph strains that were resistant to 3 or more antibiotic classes. Seven of the 8 fly traps yielded multi-drug resistant enterococci, and 3 yielded multi-drug resistant staph. The resistance factors identified were for drugs that the FDA classifies as “critically or highly important” to human medicine: “penicillin, tetracyclines, macrolides, lincosamides, aminoglycosides and streptogramins.” Oh, and the fly species captured in the traps had an average range of 2 miles.

Of note, among the isolates discovered was one staphylococcus with high-level resistance to vancomycin.

The authors say:

This study strongly suggests that flies in intensive poultry production areas, such as the Delmarva Peninsula, can disperse antibiotic resistant bacteria in their digestive tracts and on their exterior surfaces. Dispersion of resistant bacteria from poultry farms by flies could contribute to human exposures, although at present it is difficult to quantify the contribution of flies. Flies may also transfer bacteria from fields amended with poultry waste.

The cite is: Graham JP et al., Antibiotic resistant enterococci and staphylococci isolated from flies collected near confined poultry feeding operations, Sci Total Environ (2009), doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.11.056. The ahead-of-print abstract is here.

Industrial farming, bacterial spread – another connection

By Leave a Comment

We’ve talked a lot here about the spread of MRSA ST 398, the “pig strain,” subsequently found in other animals and in retail meats in various countries; and also about the likelihood that antibiotic use in large-scale farming fosters the growth of resistant organisms; and also about the way that resistant bacteria from large-scale industrial farms end up in the larger environment via groundwater and airborne dust. (Use these links to call up all the ST 398 stories and related agriculture and food stories.)

Here’s an emerging story that should illuminate some of the dangers we are discussing. Note, it’s not about MRSA, and it’s not about resistant organisms, but it is an object lesson on how industrial-size farms can spread bacteria through the environment.

Last year, there was an outbreak of an unusual type of E. coli — a strain called O111 — in Oklahoma. There were 341 known cases, 72 hospitalizations, one death. The outbreak centered on a Locust Grove, OK restaurant called the Country Cottage, which used a private well. Here’s the Oklahoma State Department of Health wrap-up of that outbreak; no source for the E. coli was ever identified.

Now comes the Oklahoma Attorney General to say that the source has been identified: Poultry DNA has been found in wells in the area, and the AG contends it is because of the use of poultry litter — manure, feathers, the stuff that falls to the bottom of a chicken house — as fertilizer on local fields.

Now, some cautions: There is no indication in the media reports (I’m looking for a report or release from the AG’s office but haven’t found one) that the particular E. coli strain has been found; that outbreak has burned itself out. And also, the Oklahoma AG has apparently been fighting with the poultry industry and the state of Arkansas for several years over poultry-litter pollution in the Illinois River watershed. The poultry industry, naturally, disagrees that this practice is a health threat.

But if the Oklahoma AG is correct, and there is evidence that poultry manure is putting pathogens into the water supply far from poultry farms, then that would be one more link in the chain of evidence that connects industrial-scale farming, agricultural antibiotic use, development of resistant organisms, presence of those organisms in the environment, and human health effects.

More MRSA, more meat – poultry, this time

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers: Fresh from the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases — posted AOP (electronic publication/ahead of print) this afternoon — comes more news of MRSA ST 398, the “pig strain,” in food animals. This time, it’s chickens, in Belgium.

The authors (from Ghent University and the Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Center in Brussels) took swabs from living chickens — laying hens and broilers — from 24 farms, 50 layers and 75 broilers total; one broiler-raising farm was sampled twice. They found no MRSA in the layers, which is important for reasons I’ll get to in a moment, and ST 398 in 8 broilers. From each chicken, they took two samples, nasal and cloacal, and in the 8 positive chickens, they got 15 MRSA isolations; one cloacal swab was negative. Of the positive chickens, several (I deduce three, but the math is a bit cloudy) were spread across the two visits to the farm that was sampled twice. Since chicken farms are depopulated between batches — yes, just what it sounds like, farms sell/kill all the birds and clean the place — that finding suggests that MRSA is persisting in the environment on that farm.

Important point: This strain was ST 398, which we here have been calling the pig strain from many previous findings, most of them in pigs. However, ST 398 is an identification using a particular technique called MLST (multi-locus sequence typing), which is used for this strain because the standard typing method, PFGE (pulsed-field gel electrophoresis), did not return a readable result when the strain was first identfied back in 2004. (Trivia: That’s why the initial reports of this strain called it NT, for “nontypeable.”) It’s becoming increasingly clear, though, that ST 398 is actually a category, not a single strain. And within that category, today’s research is a new find: a strain with the unusual spa type t1456, which has only been found 10 times in the past three years, in Germany and the Netherlands, not in Belgium. The author suggest that this particular strain may be adapting to poultry in the same manner that the ST 398 we have been talking about (different spa type — sorry, I will have to look it up) has adapted to pigs.

So, as before: Why do we care? We care for two reasons: First, because since this strain is in a food animal, the possibility exists that it could contaminate the chickens’ meat during slaughter and pass to humans. As has happened with some ST 398, the humans could be only colonized, and not become ill. But, second, any increase in colonization is a bad thing: The more strains out there, the greater the chance that they will exchange virulence and resistance factors and become something unpredictable.

Now, about those layers, here’s an interesting factor that the authors call out in their paper: Layers, unlike broilers, do not receive antibiotics. The layers did not carry MRSA. The broilers did. It’s a pretty potent argument, in case anyone needed convincing, of the effect of the selective pressure that antibiotic use in food animals exerts on these strains.

The site is: Persoons D, Van Hoorebeke S, Hermans K, Butaye P, de Kruif A, Haesebrouck F, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in poultry. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 Mar; [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.3201/eid1503.080696

More MRSA in meat, and not just pork

By Leave a Comment

In my excitement over the paper by Tara Smith and team on Friday, I failed to sufficiently emphasize an important new finding. (I included it in my story for ScientificAmerican.com, but it was toward the end.) I feel it deserves a post of its own, so here it is:

The Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority of the Netherlands has found MRSA in 12% of 2,217 samples of meat on sale in the country, including not just pork, but beef, lamb, chicken, turkey and game birds, and 85% of the bacterial isolates were the”pig strain” ST 398.

We have talked before (all posts here) about the potential risk of MRSA in meat, especially ST 398 because it seems to have found a preferred host in pigs. In this study, however, the meat most likely to carry ST 398 was not pork, but turkey, followed by chicken and then by veal, and then by pork.

So what does all this mean? It’s still probably too early to tell: Recall that the first isolations of this bug were in 2004, there have still been only a few papers on it, and this finding by Smith and team is the first identification of the strain in the United States. (Though not in North America, as it was identified in Canada in 2007.) It seems likely that ST 398 may have found a niche in other food animals, and that it contaminates the meat when the animals are slaughtered.

The consensus among the Dutch, though, is that this is an effect of the use of antibiotics in food animals. The romantic image of the Netherlands is as a cute little collection of postage-stamp family farms, but the reality, especially in the southeast of the country, is that they have substantial industrial-sized farms housing thousands of animals on relatively small properties. The only way to grow animals efficiently under such conditions is to keep very close tabs on potential illness, and liberally deploy antibiotics when necessary. (NB, I am not talking here about sub-therapeutic, growth-promoting use, but rather prophylactic antibiotics, given to an entire herd when a certain percentage of the herd shows sign of illness.) Evidence for this, according to the current study’s authors: Meat sold as “biologic” — that’s “organic,” in the US — had a much lower rate of contamination with ST 398.

There are still very few reports of human illness from ST 398, though of those reports, some are quite serious, including wound infections and endocarditis. The concern here, as the researchers interested in it have been saying from the start, is that someone will inadvertently colonize themselves with the organism by touching their eyes or nose while handling meat contaminated with ST 398. Colonization does not necessarily lead to disease, but it does lead to a far greater pool of organism potentially spreading unmonitored through human and animal populations, swapping resistance and virulence factors as it goes.

So, you know what I’m going to say: Wash your hands, wash your hands, wash your hands.

Appearing tonight at SciAm.com

By Leave a Comment

Folks, last summer I told you about the very exciting though disturbing development of ST 398 MRSA — the “untypable” Dutch strain that originated in pigs and spread to humans — being found in pigs in the US for the first time.

But here’s the brand-new second half of that story: It was found in pig handlers as well, on a set of linked farms — a closed production system that takes pigs from birth to just before slaughter — in Iowa and Illinois.

The full study has just been published, in the online Public Library of Science journal PLoS One.

And I have a story describing the research and the background — and the alarming spread of ST 398 in Europe — up tonight at ScientificAmerican.com.

The cite is: Smith, TC, Male, MJ, Harper, AL et al. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Strain ST398 Is Present in Midwestern U.S. Swine and Swine Workers. PLoS ONE 4(1): e4258 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004258

UPDATE: Lead author Tara Smith talks about the paper at her own blog, Aetiology. And for good measure, her Science Blogs sibling (AKA “scibling”) Ed Yong discusses the paper at Not Exactly Rocket Science.

“Pig MRSA” in New York City – via the Dominican Republic?

By Leave a Comment

Folks: Back in October, I broke the news for you of an intriguing poster presentation at the ICAAC meeting. It revealed the discovery of ST 398, the anomalous staph strain found in pigs, pig farmers and health care workers in Europe, in residents of a Dominican-immigrant neighborhood in northern Manhattan, and also in the Dominican Republic.

Because there is so much traffic back and forth between those neighborhoods, the authors theorized that people are providing an “air bridge” for the bacterium — though they were unable to say whether the bug is moving from the Dominican Republic to the United States, or vice versa.

I was unable to link to that presentation at the time, because it was a meeting poster – yes, literally a poster, the authors stand by it to discuss it with anyone who wanders by. However, now it has been published as a paper, in the CDC journal Emerging Infectious Diseases; and because it is a CDC journal, the full text is available free online here.

Just to underline, despite my headline above, the strain found in NYC was not MRSA: It actually is MSSA, drug-sensitive staph. The ST 398 found in Europe, Canada and the American Midwest is MRSA. The authors hypothesize that the NYC strain is at risk of becoming MRSA also.

To see the multiple posts in this blog about MRSA ST 398 and other strains in the food chain, food animals, and pets, go to the labels under the time stamp on this post, and click “animals” or “food.”

The cite for the paper is: Bhat M, Dumortier C, Taylor B, Miller M, Vasquez G, Yunen J, et al. Staphylococcus aureus ST398, New York City and Dominican Republic. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 Feb; [Epub ahead of print]

MRSA in meat in Louisiana: pig meat, human strain

By Leave a Comment

On Nov. 3, I posted on an enterprising group of TV stations in the Pacific Northwest who had retail meat in four states tested for MRSA. I said at the time that it was the first finding of MRSA in meat in the US that I knew of.

Turns out that I was wrong by three days. On Oct. 31, the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology published an electronic version of a study that they will be printing in the paper journal on some future date. Journals do this when a finding is so important or timely that it should see the light immediately, rather than wait through the additional weeks or months of print production.

And this finding is certainly timely. Shuaihua Pu, Feifei Han, and Beilei Ge of the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center have made what appears to be the first scientifically valid identification of MRSA in retail meat in the United States. But — and this is an important point — it is not the swine strain, ST 398, that has been found in meat in Canada and Europe, and in hospital patients in Scotland and the Netherlands, and in pigs in Iowa; and in humans in New York, though that strain was drug-sensitive.

Instead, what the researchers found (in 5 pork and 1 beef samples, out of 120 bought in 30 grocery stores in Baton Rouge, La. over 6 weeks in February-March 2008) was USA300, the dominant community MRSA strain, and USA100, the main hospital-infection strain. In other words, they found meat that had been contaminated during production by an infected or colonized human, not by a pig. As they say:

…the presence of MRSA in meats may pose a potential threat of infection to individuals who handle the food. … (G)reat attention needs to be taken to prevent the introduction of MRSA from human carriers onto the meats they handle and thereby spreading the pathogen.

As we’ve discussed before, the primary danger from MRSA in meat is not that people will take the bug in by mouth (though that is a danger, since S. aureus because of its toxin production can cause severe foodborne illness — and these researchers found, overall, an S. aureus contamination rate of 46% of their pork samples and 20% of their beef samples). Rather, the danger is that people handling the raw meat will be careless in preparing it, and will colonize themselves by touching the meat and then touching their own noses or mucous membranes, leading to a possible future infection. As reader Rhoda pointed out in a comment last week, people could also infect themselves directly, by getting MRSA-laden juice or blood into an abrasion or cut.

So: Be careful in the kitchen, keep meat separate from other foods, wash cutting boards and knives, and (say it with me, now) wash your hands, wash your hands, wash your hands.

The cite for the new paper: Pu, S. et al. Isolation and Characterization of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus from Louisiana Retail Meats. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. doi:10.1128/AEM.01110-08. Epub ahead of print 31 Oct 08.

Housekeeping note: This is the 16th post I’ve written on MRSA in food animals and/or meat. Providing all the links to the previous posts is starting to obstruct the new news. So if you are looking for all those past posts, go to the labels at the end of this post, below the time-stamp, and click on “food.” You should get something that looks like this.

TV stations find MRSA in retail pork in Pacific Northwest

By Leave a Comment

In the comments, Coilin Nunan of the UK’s Soil Association (which published the wonderful 2007 report MRSA in Farm Animals and Meat report) calls attention to a report that I also spotted over the weekend.

A network of TV stations in Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California did a joint report in which they bought 97 packages of ground pork or pork cutlets and sent them to a laboratory for testing. The lab found that three of the packages, all ground pork, contained MRSA.

I believe this is the first time anyone has found (or, perhaps, looked for) MRSA in retail pork in the US. You’ll remember that MRSA ST 398 has been found in meat in Canada and Europe, and in hospital patients in Scotland and the Netherlands, and in pigs in Iowa; and MSSA ST 398 in humans in New York City.

There are some important unanswered questions about this report:

  • We aren’t told the strain. If it’s ST 398, that would be information on the spread of ST 398 in the US. If it’s USA300, on the other hand, it could be contamination from an infected or colonized human, perhaps someone in the preparation chain.
  • We aren’t told the provenance of the pork. Was it bought from a variety of markets, or one chain of supermarkets that might have one regional supplier? Was it organic v. conventional? Small-farm versus feedlot?
  • We can’t draw any broad conclusions from this. I am a poor biostatistician, but to me, this is purely a convenience sample. (If anyone disagrees with me, please weigh in.) In other words, it’s one data point. It says: There is MRSA in these packages of pork — which is an important piece of information — but it doesn’t say: 3% of all US pork contains MRSA.

Also, while the written version of the report that I linked above isn’t bad, overall, it contains one significant error. It says:

This drug-resistant bacteria is already responsible for more deaths in the US than AIDS. What makes MRSA so potentially dangerous is the bacteria can cause sickness just by touching it.

Well, not exactly. The concern with MRSA in meat is that, if you handle it without strict cleanliness, you might become colonized with the bacteria. That is not at all the same as developing a MRSA infection, much less the invasive MRSA the first sentence of that quote refers to. And yes, colonization can lead to infection. But to say that touching MRSA-contaminated meat will inevitably cause an invasive MRSA infection is alarmist.

I’m assuming the stations undertook this because it is sweeps month. (For those who have so far been spared the internals of TV news, “sweeps” are months — usually February, May, July and November — when stations’ audiences are measured to determine market rank and advertising rates. Because it is in the stations’ interest to attract as much audience as possible during those months, sweeps is usually when news stations run big investigative projects.) Interesting that they chose this topic. I think we can take this as an indicator — again, just one data point, but an interesting one — of emerging US concern over MRSA in meat.

Microbes in US meat, but no MRSA

By Leave a Comment

The ICAAC-IDSA meeting has ended, but there are still many abstracts that I have not been through. While I pore over them, though, an interesting paper has just been published that somewhat contradicts earlier research on the presence of MRSA in meat. (Earlier posts are here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

The researchers, from the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, bought ground beef, boneless chicken breasts and pork chops from 10 stores in and around Providence. Two stores offered both conventional and “natural” choices, so they bought both, giving them 36 (=[10+2]x3) samples all told. They cultured for MRSA, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Gram-negative bacteria and E. coli 0157:H7.

And they found… almost nothing. Only one samples grew a resistant microbe, the ESBL Gram-negative Serratia fonticola. A secnd level of testing, however, uncovered four samples carrying S. aureus — but all methicillin-sensitive, not MRSA.

So are we in the clear? Not necessarily. It is, as they say themselves, as small study, in which only a third of the samples were pork, though pigs are the animals most associated with MRSA via the strain ST398. And the presence of S. fonticola is troubling, because it not only causes disease directly (in animals and in humans), but also harbors a plasmid that can transfer resistance to other bacterial strains.

Nevertheless, it is a comforting reminder that, though MRSA has been found in meat, it has not been found everywhere. (Or at least, not in Providence.) Still, we shouldn’t let our personal vigilance lapse. The hypothetical danger from MRSA in meat is not that we’ll swallow it, but rather that we’ll be colonized if we handle the raw meat without being careful enough about kitchen hygiene. So keep raw meat away from other food, wash your cutting boards and counters, and (say it with me, now), wash your hands, wash your hands, wash your hands.

The cite is: Philip A. Chan, Sarah E. Wakeman, Adele Angelone and Leonard A. Mermel, Investigation of multi-drug resistant microbes in retail meats. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.6 (3&4), July-October 2008.