4 ms·

I have heard of tick bites causing an allergy to beef, and I've heard of people having reactions to meat because of a pre-existing allergy to the antibiotics us

by bryans 12y ago

I have heard of tick bites causing an allergy to beef, and I've heard of people having reactions to meat because of a pre-existing allergy to the antibiotics used during production, but I have never heard of someone becoming allergic to an antibiotic due to consumption. That seems rather improbable, if not entirely impossible. Also, I can't imagine any medical professional claiming to possess the ability of pinpointing an instigator for the development of a penicillin allergy, because the cause is unknown. I hate to be so negatively argumentative, and I especially hate having to defend McDonald's, but I honestly think you are trying to make an association that does not exist based on information that was not factual. Or you're trolling, in which case congratulations are in order for getting me to type all of this.

ScottBurson 12y ago
> I have never heard of someone becoming allergic to an antibiotic due to consumption. It may be rare, but I don't think we can dismiss it just because it's rare. Seems to me the salient question is whether any of the antibiotics that are used on livestock are even related to penicillin. I don't know the answer, but if they're not, that would certainly cast doubt on the claim.
- bryans 12y ago
  When I say improbable, I don't mean that it can happen but is rare. I mean it's improbable (or impossible) for it to ever happen at all, because that's just not how the body works. Allergies aren't developed by ingesting the item responsible for the reaction. The body doesn't see penicillin for the first time and arbitrarily decide to say "screw it, I'm out." If you have a noticeable reaction, it's because your immune system mistakenly (or properly) identifies the ingested substance as harmful and is being overzealous about fighting it. But how your immune system will react to any particular foreign body is already established prior to ingestion. So, could someone develop a more severe reaction after such prolonged exposure and stress being put on their immune system? No doubt. But the over exposure did not create the intolerance, it just temporarily exacerbated it. All that said, I just looked up whether antibiotics from the penicillin family are used in livestock. It seems that regulations require any poisons, drugs or other contaminants with the potential to be passed to the consumer through ingestion, must both be a relatively low dosage and completely out of the animal's system prior to slaughter.
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    > Allergies aren't developed by ingesting the item responsible for the reaction. Aren't they? I had no trouble finding an example to contradict you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergy#Non-food_proteins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergy#Non-food_proteins (first paragraph) In general I'm not aware that we know all the causes of allergies. > It seems that regulations require any poisons, drugs or other contaminants with the potential to be passed to the consumer through ingestion, must both be a relatively low dosage and completely out of the animal's system prior to slaughter. What do you think "completely" means? It doesn't mean zero or even "undetectable"; it means there's some threshold level, anything below which is considered acceptable. If you trust the people who are setting those thresholds, you have a lot more faith in the system than I do.
    - bryans 12y ago
      That paragraph doesn't contradict me. The contrast in percentages is actually showing the true number of people with latex allergies. The allergy presents itself more often in healthcare workers because the prolonged exposure is exacerbating an existing mild allergy. This causes the immune system to produce and maintain a greater amount of the relevant antibodies, at which point a latex allergy test will return positive. The latex itself, however, is not what caused the allergy to develop in the first place. As for the livestock regulations, I completely agree with you. I'm still going to eat steak every day, but I agree nonetheless.
      - ScottBurson 12y ago
        And that couldn't happen in the case of repeated low-level exposure to penicillin? I don't see the difference.
        bryans 12y ago
        It can happen, but increased presence of symptoms is not the same thing as developing an allergy. Exposure does not cause a nonexistent allergy to become existent, it causes a mild allergy to become an aggravated mild allergy. The allergy was already there, it just wasn't presenting noticeably until exacerbated by prolonged exposure.
ronaldx 12y ago
Some allergies are known to be caused or exacerbated by repeated exposure, e.g. tomato allergic contact dermatitis becomes common in people who handle or prepare tomatoes for a living. Although parent's claim is difficult to confirm, it's not impossible.
- bryans 12y ago
  Eczema is the reaction to exposure of a substance for which the immune system is intolerant, but exposure is not the cause of the intolerance. As I explained in more detail in my other comment, over exposure to the tomato may stress the immune system to the point that symptoms become severe, but the tomato is not creating the original intolerance.
sschueller 12y ago
Sorry, my first post was poorly written and I should have spent some more time on it before I hit post. This is an assumption I have which is in no way scientifically proven. I read an article a few years ago about McDonalds drastically reducing the amount of Penicillin used in its cows which lead me to believe that my consumption prior to that may have caused it. I may have just become allergic to Penicillin for no reason but I do find it coincidental.
- akiselev 12y ago
  It wasn't just poorly written, it was pure FUD bullshit. We don't yet know all of the ways that allergies are "activated" but we've yet to record an antibiotic allergy developed from consuming meat. Antibiotics get metabolized by the organism they are given to, they don't get magical protection from oxidation or other chemical processes, and they sure as hell can't survive the insane heat meant to kill all living organism on it when it is cooked (especially at McDonalds).

by bryans 12y ago

ScottBurson 12y ago

> I have never heard of someone becoming allergic to an antibiotic due to consumption. It may be rare, but I don't think we can dismiss it just because it's rare. Seems to me the salient question is whether any of the antibiotics that are used on livestock are even related to penicillin. I don't know the answer, but if they're not, that would certainly cast doubt on the claim.

bryans 12y ago
When I say improbable, I don't mean that it can happen but is rare. I mean it's improbable (or impossible) for it to ever happen at all, because that's just not how the body works. Allergies aren't developed by ingesting the item responsible for the reaction. The body doesn't see penicillin for the first time and arbitrarily decide to say "screw it, I'm out." If you have a noticeable reaction, it's because your immune system mistakenly (or properly) identifies the ingested substance as harmful and is being overzealous about fighting it. But how your immune system will react to any particular foreign body is already established prior to ingestion. So, could someone develop a more severe reaction after such prolonged exposure and stress being put on their immune system? No doubt. But the over exposure did not create the intolerance, it just temporarily exacerbated it. All that said, I just looked up whether antibiotics from the penicillin family are used in livestock. It seems that regulations require any poisons, drugs or other contaminants with the potential to be passed to the consumer through ingestion, must both be a relatively low dosage and completely out of the animal's system prior to slaughter.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  > Allergies aren't developed by ingesting the item responsible for the reaction. Aren't they? I had no trouble finding an example to contradict you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergy#Non-food_proteins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergy#Non-food_proteins (first paragraph) In general I'm not aware that we know all the causes of allergies. > It seems that regulations require any poisons, drugs or other contaminants with the potential to be passed to the consumer through ingestion, must both be a relatively low dosage and completely out of the animal's system prior to slaughter. What do you think "completely" means? It doesn't mean zero or even "undetectable"; it means there's some threshold level, anything below which is considered acceptable. If you trust the people who are setting those thresholds, you have a lot more faith in the system than I do.
  - bryans 12y ago
    That paragraph doesn't contradict me. The contrast in percentages is actually showing the true number of people with latex allergies. The allergy presents itself more often in healthcare workers because the prolonged exposure is exacerbating an existing mild allergy. This causes the immune system to produce and maintain a greater amount of the relevant antibodies, at which point a latex allergy test will return positive. The latex itself, however, is not what caused the allergy to develop in the first place. As for the livestock regulations, I completely agree with you. I'm still going to eat steak every day, but I agree nonetheless.
    - ScottBurson 12y ago
      And that couldn't happen in the case of repeated low-level exposure to penicillin? I don't see the difference.
      - bryans 12y ago
        It can happen, but increased presence of symptoms is not the same thing as developing an allergy. Exposure does not cause a nonexistent allergy to become existent, it causes a mild allergy to become an aggravated mild allergy. The allergy was already there, it just wasn't presenting noticeably until exacerbated by prolonged exposure.

ronaldx 12y ago

Some allergies are known to be caused or exacerbated by repeated exposure, e.g. tomato allergic contact dermatitis becomes common in people who handle or prepare tomatoes for a living. Although parent's claim is difficult to confirm, it's not impossible.

bryans 12y ago
Eczema is the reaction to exposure of a substance for which the immune system is intolerant, but exposure is not the cause of the intolerance. As I explained in more detail in my other comment, over exposure to the tomato may stress the immune system to the point that symptoms become severe, but the tomato is not creating the original intolerance.

sschueller 12y ago

Sorry, my first post was poorly written and I should have spent some more time on it before I hit post. This is an assumption I have which is in no way scientifically proven. I read an article a few years ago about McDonalds drastically reducing the amount of Penicillin used in its cows which lead me to believe that my consumption prior to that may have caused it. I may have just become allergic to Penicillin for no reason but I do find it coincidental.

akiselev 12y ago
It wasn't just poorly written, it was pure FUD bullshit. We don't yet know all of the ways that allergies are "activated" but we've yet to record an antibiotic allergy developed from consuming meat. Antibiotics get metabolized by the organism they are given to, they don't get magical protection from oxidation or other chemical processes, and they sure as hell can't survive the insane heat meant to kill all living organism on it when it is cooked (especially at McDonalds).