3 ms·
Then don't tax it. Rather than that, stop subsidizing it. Also pass legislation for propely labelling meat from livestock treated with antibiotics, listing the
by petre 9y ago
Then don't tax it. Rather than that, stop subsidizing it. Also pass legislation for propely labelling meat from livestock treated with antibiotics, listing the types of antibiotics used and the trace amounts present in the meat.
- maxerickson 9y agoOstensibly the "withdrawal period" means that there aren't trace amounts present in any meat. In the US, current labeling standards allow farms not using antibiotics to differentiate themselves by stating as much on the label (they must not use antibiotics as a feed additive). https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/6fe3cd56-6809-4239-b7a2-bccb82a30588/RaisingClaims.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/6fe3cd56-6809-4239...
- RightMillennial 9y agoRegarding the antibiotics, that's already the law. Additionally, I have veterinarian friend working for a state government in livestock inspections. She says there are no antibiotics in our meat, and that it hasn't been allowed for years.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoThat is surely true for beef. For chicken and pork, I don’t think that is completely true.