this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
144 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

1330 readers
275 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

Monitor every stock trade Congress and the White House makes

Meme to Explain the GOP "Shepherd Model"

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Members of Congress are being urged to investigate President Donald Trump’s plan to import hundreds of thousands of metric tons of foreign beef in a bid to lower grocery store costs, amid growing frustration from farm-state lawmakers and the nation’s embattled ranchers at the proposal.

Under the plan, the administration would allow up to 300,000 metric tons of lean beef trimmings into the U.S. tariff-free from a still-unspecified source country for a 90-day period beginning September 1—which Trump said would then be sold “at 25 percent below current market prices."

“Congress needs to have an emergency hearing on this,” John Boyd, founder and president of the National Black Farmers Association, said in response to the proposal, which the president said would “reduce prices for Americans while giving space for our Great American Beef Herd to grow again.”

all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Let's play, "Will it kill us or not?"

[–] arotrios@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The answer is yes.

The beef was tainted with the antibiotic chloramphenicol. This is why China rejected it back in March. Note that Argentina itself bans the use of chloramphenicol.

These are the side effects:

Serious and fatal blood dyscrasias (aplastic anemia, hypoplastic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and granulocytopenia) are known to occur after the administration of chloramphenicol.

There have been reports of aplastic anemia attributed to chloramphenicol which later terminated in leukemia.

Blood dyscrasias have occurred after both short-term and prolonged therapy with this drug.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Those side effects are all for intravenous administration, not ingestion.

And before you handwave it away remember that the difference between "life giving beverage" and "drowning" is in how water is administered.

[–] arotrios@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

More detail on side effects below. Note the bolded sentence in the first paragraph. If a fatal side effect can occur from topical use, do you really think it's safe to eat?

The most serious and potentially fatal side effect associated with chloramphenicol is aplastic anemia, a rare condition where the bone marrow fails to produce enough new blood cells. This irreversible condition can occur even after short-term or topical use and may manifest weeks or months after treatment has stopped. Symptoms can include unusual tiredness or weakness, easy bruising, increased risk of infections, and pale skin.

A more common, dose-related, and reversible type of bone marrow suppression can also occur. This suppression typically resolves after the drug is discontinued. Regular blood tests, including complete blood counts, are recommended during treatment to monitor for these changes.

In infants, especially premature babies, chloramphenicol can cause a serious condition known as “Gray Baby Syndrome”. This occurs because young infants have underdeveloped liver enzymes that struggle to metabolize the drug efficiently, leading to its accumulation in the body. Symptoms, which typically appear 2 to 9 days after starting the medication, include vomiting, poor feeding, abdominal distension, hypothermia, irregular respiration, and a distinct ashen-gray skin discoloration. If not promptly addressed by discontinuing the antibiotic, this syndrome can lead to low blood pressure, cardiovascular collapse, and can be fatal.

Less severe, but more common, side effects include gastrointestinal disturbances such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Patients may also experience oral or vaginal thrush due to the disruption of normal bacterial balance. Other reported side effects include headaches, confusion, and peripheral neuropathy, characterized by tingling or numbness in the extremities.

Important Considerations and Administration

Chloramphenicol can be administered orally, intravenously, or topically as eye drops or ointment. Oral administration is well-absorbed, while intravenous injection is often reserved for more serious systemic infections.

Dosage considerations require careful adjustment, particularly in patients with impaired liver or kidney function, as these organs are involved in the drug’s metabolism and excretion. Neonates and children under four years old also require close monitoring and dosage adjustments due to differences in metabolic maturity. Therapeutic plasma levels are generally aimed at 10-20 µg/mL, with levels above 40 µg/mL considered potentially toxic.

Chloramphenicol is contraindicated in newborns, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers. It should also be avoided in individuals with pre-existing bone marrow depression or those with a history of hypersensitivity to the drug. Its use for minor infections, colds, or influenza is not recommended.

Several drug interactions can alter chloramphenicol’s effectiveness or increase its toxicity. It can inhibit the metabolism of drugs like warfarin, phenytoin, and sulfonylureas, potentially leading to increased levels of these medications in the blood. Conversely, drugs such as phenobarbital and rifampicin can decrease chloramphenicol levels. Chloramphenicol can also show antagonistic effects with certain beta-lactam antibiotics, like cephalosporins.

There's a reason it's been banned since the 90s for use in livestock, and the reason is BECAUSE IT CAN KILL PEOPLE if not administered by a medical professional.

My question to you is why would you try to minimize the risk? Do you want people to get sick and die?

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If a fatal side effect can occur from topical use, do you really think it’s safe to eat?

Again - topical use is not ingestion. And this is a case where dose matters as well. The amount you would ingest from meat that has been cooked is going to be very different from the amount you would be applying topically as a medicine.

My question to you is why would you try to minimize the risk? Do you want people to get sick and die?

That's you're reading - not my meaning. You don't get a pass on "factually correct" just because your inaccuracy supports a conclusion you like.

[–] arotrios@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It is your meaning and purpose if you're minimizing a fatal risk, one that every western country, including fucking ARGENTINA where this toxic beef comes from, has laws against.

FOR 30 FUCKING YEARS.

Do you really think you're smarter than the scientific community's consensus for 30 yeas? When someone takes your shitty advice, and dies because of a bad reaction, will you realize what you're saying then?

Hell, would you eat a burger with this crap in it?

Take some goddamn responsibility for your words or STFU.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago

It is your meaning and purpose if you’re minimizing a fatal risk,

And I'm not. I'm saying the data you provided to back up that assertion is wrong and/or bad.

Do you really think you’re smarter than the scientific community’s consensus for 30 yeas?

No - I'm saying the data you've provided to back up that assertion is wrong and/or bad.

Hell, would you eat a burger with this crap in it?

I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying the data you've provided to back up that assertion is wrong and/or bad.

Take some goddamn responsibility for your words or STFU.

Same to you.

[–] ThunderComplex@lemmy.today 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wow, CNN uncharacteristically went there, and I love it

Argentina currently accounts for just over 2% of US beef imports. Under existing rules, it can ship up to 20,000 metric tons a year at a lower tariff rate, with anything above that subject to a 26.4% tariff, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

A White House official told CNN the administration plans to raise that quota to 80,000 metric tons, effectively quadrupling the amount of Argentinian beef with low tariffs that can enter the United States.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

tbf that probably wouldnt change much...majority of the world doesnt consider US meat fit for human consumption in the first place.

i don't know whether that specific antibiotic is banned or not in the US but I would be suprised if it were, US food supply is fucking disgusting mate

[–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 month ago

Any hearing on this issue will turn into one of those creepy Trump ass-kissing roundtables they seem to like doing so much.

[–] opus86@lemmy.today 7 points 1 month ago

The reality TV star isn't good at being president a second time? How did that happen you stupid fucks?

[–] BC_viper@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Its definitely people.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago

Beef? Ugh. Gross.