3 ms·
Because it's a legit study, and posted on a legit site. It's not like this was written by Peta.
by nhangen 16y ago
Because it's a legit study, and posted on a legit site.
It's not like this was written by Peta.
- burgerbrain 16y agoI'm not questioning that there are indeed elevated staph levels on cheap raw meat, I'm simply saying that without data that actually shows that this is a problem, then it is inappropriate to suggest that it is. In other words, I am not questioning the validity of the study at all. I suggest you read my comments a second time.
- jrockway 16y agoI'm simply saying that without data that actually shows that this is a problem, then it is inappropriate to suggest that it is. What data do you need? Say you are flying an airplane. All of the engines fail. Would you say that "without more data that actually shows that this is a problem, it's inappropriate to suggest relighting the engines" and wait until you smash into the ground? No. Because you can anticipate the consequences of the current situation and make changes to prevent something bad happening. Specifically, we're noticing that there are a lot of MRSA strains on meat. So we should probably stop feeding animals antibiotics as frequently. A good way to do this is to raise them somewhere other than in a pool of their own feces, which tends to carry a lot of disease (necessitating the overuse of antibiotics). That's where the article is going. Should we wait for a problem in case there isn't one, or should we try and prevent the problem from occurring in the first place?
- burgerbrain 16y agoIf eating such meat were the equivalent of the engines falling off a plane, then it should be trivial to show the actual harm it is causing.