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 86 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 108 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

You weren't supposed to tread on me. 😭

Ranchers deserve to experience absolute ruin for all of the evil they supported when it didn't touch them.

"It's an emergency now!!" He stole nearly 3 billion dollars from the American people, but now he's stealing millions from us. Have the days you voted for you fucking bigot cowards. Ranchers are the real screw worms, because they're parasites suckling off the government teet while they cry about big government. I hope it dries up and you become just like most gen z and millennial without a single sq ft of property or money to your names.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago*

    The fucking farm kids that ended up in my workplace are the worst fucking assholes I've ever met.

    They bitch and moan about the union, refuse to join it, and accuse unions of being too political. They don't trust the government and that's fine. But then they bitch and moan about the new contract. Mother fucker, they shafted us because we're at record low membership and they can get away with murder. As if the union wasn't fighting tooth and nail for a better contract.

    Who do you trust more? The guy with his name on the building or the men and women working alongside you? Turns out, it's the guy with his name on the building.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Hey, he renamed a lake for you, what you complaining about?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 2 months ago

    FellForItAgainAward.gif

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Did these dumb fucks really think trump cared about them?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago
    [–] 27 points 2 months ago

    Yeah, Farmers thought they were included in Trump’s America but they forgot to leave their bribe donation at the door.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago

    Leopards ate my beef.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I found the report!

    We investigated.

    He betrayed you.

    You'd better shut up and take it.

    Suck it losers!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    People in general just don't think enough when they're voting. People in general just don't think enough.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago

    Its ok, they'll magically forget when Trump's socialist "look the other way" bailout bribe comes in before the midterms.

  • source
  • [–] 61 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    You don't have to go full vegan or vegetarian. Reducing beef intake without giving it up is better than nothing. Even swapping to chicken or pork for a meal or two a week will impact your big picture water usage more than you'd think.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago

    I'm like 80% vegan. Still do bacon and eggs on the weekend and sometimes chicken with dinner. Even if everyone in the U.S. only became 50% vegan it would be pretty huge.

    I feel like so many people think it's an "all or nothing" type of thing. Where either you're 100% vegan or you don't even bother with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Who has beef money nowadays anyway?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    This is the way.

    I had steak for the first time in like two years yesterday, it was incredible. It was a whole event, a good time all around

    Then I picked up some produce and now I just started soaking some beans to cook for the week

    A hardliner position is pretty much the least effective method imaginable to win people over. I'm convinced it's enemy action

    You don't need to make people vegetarian, you shouldn't even put a vegan label on things. You just have to normalize not eating meat every meal

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    I've been replacing the minimal amount of ground beef we use with bison because it's good but also because I live with picky motherfuckers who won't eat Morningstar crumbles even though they taste fine to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -31 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    But the others dont cause anyeurisms when replying online, apparently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -31 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Oh im sorry. I meant the 'most' educatarded generation that cant even.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 12 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    The best part is that it's not going to hurt those farmers at all. What it will affect is the quality of beef for the average consumer, since they're probably getting much lower grade or even rejected meat other countries don't want. So still getting faces eaten, but it's not the farmers. If you want an example of very thorough welfare, look at agriculture. Yet they're the loudest shouting.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    How is it not going to hurt those farmers? Is there too much demand?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    For one, there's more than hamburger demand which is what this import is about. Higher grade cuts which from what I understand is what a large part of US beef is used for. But really second is the safety nets for all agriculture from the government. They can fail totally (which again, they won't) and they'll get welfare help. Like the rest of the public should be getting, but apparently would take away from the wealthy and the warhawks is too costly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (21 children)

    You hired representatives that refuse to question or investigate Trump. You'll keep getting fucked until you start voting Democrat.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (20 children)

    You will keep getting fucked until you vote for people who aren't out to fuck you. Democrats are not excluded.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Ok, so nothing in the near term will help at all. Thanks for the input.

    For intelligent people, one thing being better than the other is still better. I don't like the two party system either but it's not going to change by us continuing to refuse to participate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    At the current moment, democrats are the only option to stop what's happening. After the current mess is dealt with, exploring other options are viable again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

    Voting 3rd party right now is like refusing to let the firefighters onto your property while a wildfire burns down the neighborhood.

    “Can’t trust the firefighters! They have ‘fire’ right in the name! Every-time there is a fire the firefighters are there! Coincidence?”

    Meanwhile, republicans are running around with cans full of gas and a box full of matches…

    Edit: Oh and the third party candidate is seemingly promising to build a utopia out of the ashes and saying this fire is very unjust and shouldn’t have happened in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    the third party candidate is seemingly promising to build a utopia out of the ashes and saying this fire is very unjust and shouldn’t have happened in the first place.

    this is precisely what I want from a candidate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Burn all your possessions then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    No, it's pointing out the inherent stupidity and immaturity of your comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    calling me names won't change my preference, but it does expose your own bad faith engagement

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    calling me names won’t change my preference

    How about appealing to common sense?

    A 3rd party candidate cannot, I repeat cannot, win a presidential election.

    So voting for one that's promising a utopia is a pretty bad move since they literally cannot enact any change since they cannot win.

    If you're talking about voting 3rd party in smaller, local elections, more power to you. That way maybe you can help build up a 3rd party so your children or children's children can vote for a 3rd party candidate for president that could actually stand a chance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Democrats aren't going to to shit

    Progressives will, even if they have a D next to their name. We need to take the party infrastructure by force

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

    Well they're the only ones with the power to do anything so if they can't, you might as well give up and kiss America goodbye for the last time. Its maybe your last meaningful vote, might as well take the chance they will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    It's like you didn't even read my words

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Then could you restate my point in your own words for me?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    How is importing this cheap beef supposed to lower the grocery costs for those of us who don't consume beef?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Thats the best part! It wont! Labeling this frankenbeef with a lower price all but guarantees us beef will be left on the shelf, so the grocers will simply mark it up to nominal and pocket the difference. See? Trump cares about the small guy.

    /s for those of the slower mental persuasion

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Well you see, they got rid of the FDA so all the alternative non beef foods (lettuce, eggs, bacon, etc) are poisoned now.

    Also the beef is probably poisoned Argentina beef or possibly even horse meat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Now this is purely theoretical and probably not true in real life, but if people buy more beef because they can afford it, they'll likely buy less of other foodstuffs and the prices of those would go down?

    But in reality, yes, it's only really going to affect the prices of beef and MAYBE other meats (if people were buying e.g pork instead of beef due to cost).

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago
    [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Oh, tainted beef (oh, oh)

    Tainted beef

    Leopards eat my face

    Agribusiness takes my place

    Vote for you though you hurt me so

    Screwworms come and I got to go

    Tainted beef (oh)

    Tainted beef (oh)

    Tainted beef (oh)

    Tainted beef (oh)

    Feed me, baby, tainted beef

    Feed me, baby, tainted beef...

    Apologies to Soft Cell

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago
    [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Lol.

    I hope these welfare queens are hurting bad. I hope it destroys them. To be honest, I'm not sure I trust the food I eat coming from such simpletons.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago
    [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [+] -9 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    Carnists in a crab bucket - desperately fighting to preserve their disgusting privilege while destroying the planet. It's fundamentally unsustainable which is why the pedoprez is pulling this wacky move.

    Carnism <--> Fascism. It's blatant and overwhelming from a veg perspective.

    See also Jordan Peterson's and RFK's meat diet lmao.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Are you claiming we evolved to be fascist?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    I'll claim that, and gladly, although i'm not sure i'd claim eating meat is quite the same as fascism.

    Chimpanzees are awful to each other, is it really that hard to imagine that this evil is natural to us? For us to improve as a species, we have to start taking charge of our own development instead of blindly following our natures. Our selfish nature is what's killing the planet, after all!

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    13 comments in c/politics@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] [S] 24 points 2 months ago (8 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (5 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (4 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (3 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (2 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 2 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Its definitely people.

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago

    Beef? Ugh. Gross.

  • source