The most serious risk to the use of Chloramphenicol is that some people react by developing a condition known as aplastic anemia, which is idiosyncratic (rare, unpredictable, and unrelated to dose) and generally fatal. So you are wrong to assume that such a low dose does not pose a health risk for anyone, even though this condition is rare the reaction is very unpredictable so in that sense everyone is at risk, how can you justify a position of tolerance with this type of known side effect? So you see, a comparison to rape is not really all that unreasonable. The FDA's zero tolerance policy is the only choice. This is the very reason that the use of this antibiotic at any dosage and for any purpose is banned in this country. Undoubtedly the folks at SueBee are not ignorant to these facts, and simply choose to value their profits and business relationships above the value of human life (a position all too common these days in the corporate world). I could not in good conscience be associated with such an organization..........I don't believe that 4 parts per billion poses any health risks for anybody. Would 200 ppb pose a health risk?
Thats great! Cant stop laughing :applause:The analogy that came to mind when I first read the PI article last year was if Bill Allibone found a bag of crack on his doorstep, would he give it back to the local dealer because, technically, it doesn't belong to him?