Considering the relief of food regulations, is this any surprising?
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
182 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23088 readers
3548 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I could be wrong, but AFAIK, "no antibiotics" means no prophylactic antibiotic use. It means they don't dose the whole herd when one animal has some sort of bacterial infection, but they will treat that particular animal with antibiotics.
I agree that antibiotics should not be used to try to prevent infection, but I think it is inhumane to withhold antibiotics from animals that actually need them.
As I vaguely recall from an NPR Marketplace story I once heard, once a rancher treats his antibiotics-free cow with antibiotics it is pulled from the herd and sold as antibiotics treated beef. Or at least, that's what they are supposed to do .
Yeah, I was wrong on that. The article did actually make that point near the end. I didn't read that part before I commented.
I didn't read it at all, so you are doing better than I.
20% sounds like a lot though, maybe one treated animal can affect many products
I read more of the article:
There are shortcomings to FSIS’s testing program. The tests performed didn’t distinguish between selective antibiotic use to treat an illness and constant low-dose exposure to antibiotics administered directly into the animals’ feed. While both are prohibited under the labeling program, the excessive, chronic use of antibiotics poses a much more serious risk to public health, contributing to the development of antibiotic resistance.
Seems that the labeling program doesn't actually make the distinction I ~~thought~~ hoped they did.
20% does sound like a lot, but given the nature of the problem they are trying to solve, I'd call it at least a partial win. With 80% testing negative, they clearly aren't adding it to the feed. 20% indicates selective use. I don't know how much lower it could feasibly go.
(I'm not particularly concerned with strict adherence to this specific labeling program. My concern is good animal husbandry, not bureaucracy.)
I am guessing animals who get infections are sold as antibiotic meat, not neglected
And they wonder why Australia won't buy American beef...
Why buy American beef if America is buying our (better) beef
Sign of things to come
From now on .... no American product is reliable or has any truth to it. Anything you buy from America is anyone's guess no matter what the marketing says.
For the past few decades, everyone made fun of Chinese products not being truthful or reliable on anything. In the next few decades, the world will be saying the same things about American products.
They are saying it now.