[TelmoMenezes]

We are going in the opposite direction. Currently the US has more lax regulations than the EU. In the EU animals have to be healthy all the way throughout their lives to be sold as food. In the US, you can keep them in miserable conditions and then pump them full of antibiotics before slaughtering.

Politicians are attempting to remove EU regulations against this under the guise of "removal of barriers to trade" with TTIP -- international trade agreements are the tool by which democracies are bypassed in such matters.

[maxerickson]

The US requires a withdrawal period before slaughter:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-...

Select "Can hormones and antibiotics be used in cattle raising?".

I don't think In the US, you can keep them in miserable conditions and then pump them full of antibiotics before slaughtering. reasonably captures that.

[vanilla-almond]

"In the US, you can keep them in miserable conditions and then pump them full of antibiotics before slaughtering."

How do you explain this then? (posted below by legulere)

http://i.imgur.com/9ybmhwE.jpg

[TelmoMenezes]

I can only speculate. For example: how was this data obtained? Is the level of scrutiny equal for all countries or is there some self-reporting going on? All I know is about the differences that exist between regulations and incentives between the EU and the US. This was recently brought to public attention in the EU and there have been some large protests because of the TTIP attempt to "harmonize" practices.

http://capreform.eu/food-safety-in-the-us-eu-ttip-negotiatio...

Do you think this is a lie or being misrepresented in some fashion?

[maxerickson]

Where's it say that antibiotics can't be used medically in livestock in the EU?

I see where it says antibiotics in animal feed – significantly restricted in the EU in 1998 and banned for non-medical use in 2006., but that points to them being allowed for medical purposes (on sick animals, rather than as feed additives).