3 ms·
Ugh no. There is a difference between treating a diagnosed condition with antibiotics and just regularly giving all livestock consistent doses as a preventativ
by colechristensen 1y ago
Ugh no. There is a difference between treating a diagnosed condition with antibiotics and just regularly giving all livestock consistent doses as a preventative.
Drugs aren't just "take it and everything will be improved regardless of the situation". Better to think of them as carefully used poison, good but only when used wisely.
The 1950s vibe of sterilizing everything needs to be done.
- hinkley 1y agoLivestock aren't given low level antibiotics as a prophylactic. They're given as an alternative to growth hormones. Antibiotic consumption gives you bigger cows. That's the ugliest part of this whole thing. We aren't trying to keep animals safe, we are trying to keep the cost of hamburgers down even if it means people dying of incurable infections in hospitals.
- colechristensen 1y ago>Livestock aren't given low level antibiotics as a prophylactic. Yes they are. Sub-theraputic doses are used to increase weight gain, higher doses are also used as a prophylactic.
- skeezyboy 1y agoits the con of the working class. even in the richest country on the planet, most people have to consume sub-par-everything. from the food to the housing to the consumables, its all shit quality, on the cheap, on the dirty.
- colechristensen 1y agoThis is the success of the species, people highlight problems are not the ability to eat enough or even the choice of what's available to eat, but the environmental impact of food production. Truly a "first world problem".