Dara Ó Briain on science, quackery, and creationism

November 13, 2017 • 6:15 pm

I’m sure I’ve posted this video at some time in the past, but it must have been long ago, and it’s worth seeing again.( Besides, I just watched it.)

Here Irish comedian Dara Ó Briain defends science against various species of quackery. He reminds me a bit of George Carlin, and I love the “get in the fooking sack” bit, which should become part of every skeptic’s vocabulary.

. . .and here he is on creationism. Note the accurate characterization of evolution by natural selection: “The whole point of evolution is that random things just happened, and the useful ones hung around.”

Britain’s National Health Service about to ban homeopathy

July 23, 2017 • 1:15 pm

Reader Barrie called my attention to an article in The Independent  that offers some good news: Britan’s NHS, based on a 48-page document about items that shouldn’t be prescribed in primary care medicine, seems set to stop prescribing Magic Water, otherwise known as homeopathic medicine.

The motivation for the whole document was to eliminate, as a cost-cutting measure, those prescribed items that were of low clinical effectiveness. So there are many drugs listed, but on page 14 you’ll find this:

Actually, given Prince Charles’s fondness for this quackery (he even uses it own his own farm animals), I’m surprised the expenditure by the NHS is less than £100,000 per year, but it sends an important signal to people that the government health agency sees homeopathy as ineffective. Now I’m sure that patients who want Magic Water can still buy it themselves, but at least doctors can’t prescribe it.

Here’s a tw**t from Simon Enright, the Director of Communications for NHS Britain, laying out some of the conclusions and problems with eliminating homeopathy.

I’m not sure where his seven points come from (they’re not in the big document), but one struck me: “As well as primary care prescribing, there are two homeopathic hospitals affiliated to NHS Trusts in Bristol and at University College London Hospitals (UCLH).”

Seriously—government-funded homeopathic hospitals? I have no idea what they are, but perhaps a British reader can describe them. What kind of treatment do they offer? Is there anything besides Magic Water on tap?

Dr. Bronner’s soap labels vs. defenders of chiropractic

March 6, 2017 • 10:15 am

When I got the latest attempted comment defending chiropractic “medicine” on my website, I had a déjà vu moment, as if I’d seen that kind of language before. And then I remembered—it was on a bottle of Dr. Bronner’s soap!

I don’t know how many people use this wonderful liquid soap, which comes in varieties like lavender, eucalyptus, and peppermint (I prefer the original peppermint), but it smells great and is useful for all kinds of tasks. You can even brush your teeth with it! It was popular in the Sixties, beloved by hippies, but it’s still sold in a lot of places (Trader Joe’s, for instance, which is where I get mine), and it’s not expensive.

The soap was invented by Emanuel Bronner (1908-1997), a German-American Jew who used his products to expound his philosophy: a “Moral ABC” connected to Judaism and world unity. To promulgate his ideas, he crowded the labels of his soaps with all kinds of bizarre and unhinged statements in tiny print, generously larded with exclamation marks. Here’s a sample:


An enlargement of a small bit of the label:


Besides the soap being excellent and nice-smelling, you could spend hours reading the label, and I still remember many of the statements, like “Okay! Okay!” Here’s what a whole label looks like (you won’t be able to read it, but you can see a readable version here).


Although Bronner died in 1997, the soap is still great and the labels still bizarre.

But I digress. Compare the label of those soaps with this comment from “MILCOON” that I got about one of my anti-chiropractic posts, “More chiropractic shenanigans” (it’s reproduced exactly as I got it):

I’ve heard plenty of people say they have had good results from a Chiro!
Yes some chiropractors don’t care about their patients, but NOT ALL of them!!!
Example 1- lady had migraines for well over 12months suffering every couple of weeks with bad migraines doc no answers. Paid for scan privately still no answers!! Few Treatments with chiropractor no complaint of migraine for months and months!
Example 2- lower back pain and sciatica, seeing physio for months no better! 2 treatments with a Chiro already noticed improvement!
And finally about 4 or 5 examples of persons attending appointments at a Chiro when their doctor has not offered any kind of referral to see a specialist and Chiro has said to them you must ask for a scan or a referral for so and so. All have resulted in findings of health problems!!!
1 of which a cancer was discovered! The partner of the person who sadly passed away was supremely grateful because they found out and were able to spend their last days together as DOCTORS couldn’t do anything to save them!!!!
There are good and bad in EVERY single profession and most likely you will hear about the bad!! Chiropractic clearly works for some people! Not every Chiro is good! But not every chiro is bad or a money grabber! As the same with doctors not all of them are good!!! Not all of them genuinely care about their patients either!! Unfortunately it’s the way things are!! It’s life! Chiro works for some but not others! If you want to try it then why not. Instead of going to the doctors that prescribe pills with endless lists of side affects!
You’re suggesting most chiros are “lining their pockets?”
So people have cancer and the pharmaceutical companies make drugs for people with cancer (or other diseases) are these companies reducing the cost of the drugs to help people live and survive???… or are they continuing to line their pockets???.! I remember a few years ago the NHS saying they would have to stop buying a certain cancer drug because they couldn’t afford it! The pharmaceutical companies don’t then offer it at a lower cost because they want to continue to make their BILLIONS!!!!!! Doctors are a pharmaceutical companies dream (money, money, money!)

I swear to Ceiling Cat that this is just like a Dr. Bronner’s label. MILCOON could get a job writing for them. Okay! Okay!

Such are the followers of chiropractic, though I hasten to add that some of them aren’t this unhinged.


UPDATE: This just in: another comment from a chiropractor, who identifies himself as Dr. Christopher Perry. I don’t know what to make of this comment, which seems to both laud and diss his profession. (Poor writing seems to characterize this profession.) Would you want this guy’s hands on your spine? (Note: it’s reproduced exactly as it came in.)

Dr Christopher Perry

As a chiropractor I know that the scientific evidence currently shows the chiropractic is an excellent form of healthcare. As a profession it is nothing more than a healthcare version of used car salesman peddling lemons. The AMA has succeeded in marginalizing chiropractic. As a veteran chiropractor of 30 years once told me the American public is too stupid to understand chiropractic. The AMA and the pharmaceutical industry has one So stick a fork in it chiropractic the fat lady has sung. And if you haven’t noticed everyone is fat

How spinal manipulation could cause a stroke

March 3, 2017 • 8:45 am

After my denunciation by chiropractors and their advocates over the last few days—opprobrium that I welcome—Reader Pliny the in Between, whose website is The Far Corner Cafe, put together a series of drawings showing how spinal manipulation, such as that practiced by chiropractors, could produce a stroke. This, for instance, is what a real doctor, Orac, thinks may have caused the death of model Katie May (read his earlier post on this as well). May, 34, went to a chiropractor for a “neck adjustment” after a fall in 2016 that caused her neck pain; she had a stroke almost immediately after the adjustment, and died three days later.

Click on the screenshots to enlarge each of the five diagrams.






Here is what Orac concludes about Katie May’s death:

If you cringe when you hear the pop during the violent twist given to the neck, you’re not alone. So do I. It is that “high velocity, low amplitude” (HVLA) twist that can injure the intima of the artery, setting up the condition for a stroke. What surprises me is that the risk isn’t much higher than what studies show. The human body is more resilient than one would imagine, and, absent pre-existing atherosclerotic disease, the risk remains low. On the other hand, given that there is no benefit from HVLA chiropractic neck manipulation, the risk-benefit ratio is basically infinity, because the potential benefit is zero. Also, the risk might be small, but, as Katie May shows us, the the consequences of that risk can be catastrophic.

Another aspect I discussed was whether Katie May’s stroke could have been due to the trauma she suffered at her photo shoot a day or two before her first chiropractic manipulation. Now that we know, assuming that TMZ is accurately relaying the results of the coroner’s report, that May had a tear in her left vertebral artery, it’s almost certain that the chiropractor accidentally killed her through neck manipulation. That is what the coroner concluded, that this injury to her vertebral artery occurred during chiropractic neck manipulation.

In the end, there is no longer any reasonable doubt. Katie May’s death was unnecessary and due to her subjecting herself to the quackery that is chiropractic.


Three advocates of chiropractic write in

March 2, 2017 • 10:15 am

I have to say that I’ve gotten more pushback from readers on chiropractic “medicine” than I expected, especially given that there’s no good scientific evidence for its efficacy. If it’s benefited you, ask yourself whether you might have gotten better without treatment (this often happens), or whether some more qualified or experienced person, such as a physical therapist or even a massage therapist, would be a better choice than these undereducated but greedy quacks, who often claim that many diverse illnesses can be cured by manipulating the spine (“subluxation”), and who often try to sell you expensive treatment programs (in advance!) or use useless diagnostic tools like X-rays. Chiropractors are not medical doctors, and no hospital will allow them through the doors—at least no hospital that I know.

I did, however, get some of what I expected: comments from new people vigorously defending chiropractic. There’s no convert quite so vocal as enthusiasts who see their pet woo attacked.  Yesterday I got one comment from a chiropractor who, unfortunately, runs a school for gifted children. And just this morning three comments, all from new people who love chiropractic, wriggled into moderation. I present them below; none of these commenters be posting here again because I simply don’t want to get into arguments with the medical equivalent of flat-earthers.

The comments are below; the first was meant to be put after my post “Quackery of the month: Cincinnati Zoo uses chiropractic on tiger cub, adjusting spine to cure “failure to thrive” and the second two after “A benighted person defends chiropractors.” All spelling and grammar are preserved exactly as presented.

Ava Ronchetti [JAC: if you Google this name, you’ll come up with a chiropractor in Massachusetts]

You my friend, are as ignorant as you are uneducated. First of all, the comprehension of the human biology can be taught to a 3rd grader in the simplest of terms. THE NO SCIENTIFIC DATA bullshit is tiring at best, to explain to a dummy such as yourself…just ask thousands of non biased REALPERSONS, who have actually been to other allied health professionals and were helped. SCIENTIFIC evidence???? Is there SCIENTIFIC un altered data on the drugs that are addicting chronic pain sufferers by the millions. Doctors are taught to pass out drugs like they are candy..Cover up those symptoms your body is screaming at you to repair!! Medical and big Pharma to the rescue.They are killing us by the millions and youre here complaing about a Zoo helping a cub ti thrive by removing nerve interference so its little body can heal in its own..That my ignorant friend, is how Chiropractic works..take all your stuffy “lack of scientific data and sit down…way over there..in the nosebleed seats…

Yes, here’s a person who rejects scientific data for personal anecdotes (neglecting the fact that such anecdotes can be found for any form of quackery), and who makes the frequent claim that doctors are to blame for deaths. Well, yes, they are, sometimes, and do make errors, but they also do stuff like open-heart surgery and cancer treatment that carry substantial risks or constitutes palliative care. And they’re not wedded to quackery. I wonder if Ms. Ronchetti, if diagnosed with a severe infection like appendicitis, or a tumor on her brain, would abjure “Medical and Big Pharma.”

As for doctors killing people by addicting chronic pain sufferers, well, many doctors won’t prescribe the most addictive drugs, many patients don’t follow the regimen (is that the doctors’ fault?) and many peopole get the medication illegally. Should that really be blamed on “Medical and Big Pharma”?

It’s truly sad that the best these people can say about chiropractic is “some people claimed to have been helped” along with “but look! Medicine and Big Pharma kill people too!”.  And their rejection of scientific testing of medical treatment brands them as charlatans, unwilling to accept the best way to actually get evidence for the usefulness of their methods.


David Black

You really do need to do your research. There are nearly a million people who die at the hands of the medical profession every year. I have said many times that organized medicine would kill to have our safety record. Check it out. You might save a few lives.
David Black, Doctor of Chiropractic

Really? I’d save a few lives by referring everybody with a medical problem to a chiropractor? If you do that, pal, you’ll kill a lot more than a million people per year!



Chiropractic is based on neurology. If you don’t understand neurology you won’t be able to vet what comes your way about others options noons. The fact that allopathic Medicine using allopathic model tries to explain a wholistic process is part of the critics problem not to mention he is most likely a paid advocate for strictly the politaical medical establishment. The fact that some of the talented medical practitioners are crossing over from allopathic medicine into the realm of Holistic Mediicine speaks loudly of how ahead the Holistic practices and the profession of chiropractic is ahead of allopathic medicine in terms of Functional Performance. Thier is plenty of science backing the efficacy & safety of the practice of healing & treating health conditions more effectively than procedural/ symptom medicine or with use of drugs. The fact is a balanced system OutPerforms. Chiropractic is about one thing, removing nonproductive Resistance and restoring structural balance. The rest takes care of itself with appropriate Stewardship of Lifestyle. It’s that simple.

I’m not aware of any practicing physicians who have given up real medicine for chiropractic medicine. Maybe there’s one or two, but you’d be an idiot to do that, not just because you’ll lose money, but because you’ll trade a helping profession for a greedy and ineffective profession. (Remember, chiropractors aren’t allowed into hospitals to practice.)

As for the rest of the letter, it’s pretty much gibberish, so you can understand why “James” has succumbed to the blandishments of woo.

A benighted person defends chiropractors

March 1, 2017 • 1:15 pm

Things are getting pretty nasty these days, and I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s the influx of newbies who don’t read Da Roolz.

Lee Dinoff, whose remarks will never see the light of day again on this site, gets at least one shot defending chiropractic quackery. Get a load of this, which Lee tried to add as a comment to my post “Quackery of the month: Cincinnati Zoo uses chiropractic on tiger cub, adjusting spine to cure ‘failure to thrive’“:

[JAC comment]: “I know that some readers say that chiropractic treatment has “helped” them, but the practice has no scientific basis, though …”

[Dinoff’s comment]: I am amazed at the level of ignorance when it come to supposedly highly educated people. Did I understand and read correctly that Chiropractic kills people that is a joke, if any profession has killed more people as a whole then perhaps you should take a good look at the medical as well as the pharmaceutical businesses. Your statements are so foolish and so infintile I question why you are in any position to state the scandalous statements that belched out of your big pie hole You are embarrassing and should never be permitted to voice any opinion but i thank god this is America where even the like of you sir the mentaly unstable have a right to speak there mind.

Well, if you Google the name Lee Dinoff, which he included in his post to be displayed, you’ll find that there’s someone by that name who’s a chiropractor in Georgia! At any rate, I’ll inform Mr. Dinoff when this post goes up, so, readers, say anything you want to him. I have to add, though, that I hope he learns to write.  His grammar and spelling are a discredit to his “profession.”

As for the rest, there are no words.


Quackery of the month: Cincinnati Zoo uses chiropractic on tiger cub, adjusting spine to cure “failure to thrive”

March 1, 2017 • 8:45 am

I know that some readers say that chiropractic treatment has “helped” them, but the practice has no scientific basis, though for a simple one-time back-cracking it may be efficacious. But it’s used to treat general medical conditions, and it’s telling that even Wikipedia says this about the practice of “chiropractic” (my emphasis):

There is no good evidence that chiropractic is effective for the treatment of any medical condition, except perhaps for certain kinds of back pain. Generally, the research carried out into the effectiveness of chiropractic has been of poor quality. Numerous controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results Research published by chiropractors is distinctly biased. For reviews of SM for back pain chiropractic authors tend to have positive conclusions, while others did not show any effectiveness.

There is a wide range of ways to measure treatment outcomes. Chiropractic care, like all medical treatment, benefits from the placebo response [readers: note] It is difficult to construct a trustworthy placebo for clinical trials of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), as experts often disagree about whether a proposed placebo actually has no effect. The efficacy of maintenance care in chiropractic is unknown.

See this paper, which supports that conclusion, even the uselessness of chiropractic for back and neck pain; and see this list of harms purported to be caused by chiropractors. Further, here’s a summary of dangerous procedures used by chiropractors who manipulate the spines of newborn humans.

The idea that adjusting spines can help all kinds of medical conditions, such as the “failure to thrive” of the tiger cub described below, is pure quackery. And it can be dangerous, as we learned recently when model Katie May died of a stroke after a chiropractor adjusted her neck after a fall. (Neck adjustments are particularly dicey because the cervical vertebrae, when manipulated, can damage the spinal cord or arteries.) In May’s case, as Orac concludes at Respectful Insolence, rapid adjustment of her neck caused that stroke. No reputable physician would have done what that chiropractor did. (See here for Orac’s other criticisms of chiropractic “medicine”, which he deems quackery—even for lower back problems.)

Now people who go to chiropractors have only themselves to blame for using a form of “alternative medicine” that, says science, produces no benefits. (And no, I don’t want comments from readers saying how chiropractic helped them. I could just as easily get similar letters from Chinese people who use “alternative medicine” like deer horns, or from Americans who use homeopathic “medicine”.) But animals have no choice. So when I saw this video (which I published recently) of a very young tiger cub at the Cincinnati Zoo getting chiropractic neck adjustment for “failure to thrive,” it made me sick. Also in the video is Thane Maynard, head of the Zoo, touting the quackery:

This chiropractor apparently has no experience with baby tigers, which aren’t the same as humans. (Need I add that the configuration of their spinal cord and brain is horizontal rather than vertical?). Look at the quack adjusting the cervical vertebrae of this thing, and listen to him assert that “there’s a lot of science behind what really happens behind chiropractic adjustment” (WRONG!) and that “if the first vertebra is out of alignment . . . you restore the nerve flow [???] to the rest of the body.” What, exactly, is “nerve flow”?

I am at a loss to know why a reputable zoo would consult a chiropractor with no animal experience to “adjust the neck” of a tiny tiger. Did they ask a vet first? Why not a human physical therapist? And to see Thane Maynard, head of the zoo, buying into this quackery shows that zoo people can buy into quackery as much as do ignorant laypeople.

I sent the email below to the Cincinnati zoo–twice–and asked for a response. Of course I have gotten none. I’d tweet my beef to Thane Maynard himself, but his tweets are “protected”, so I can’t.  Here’s what I submitted on the form used to contact the zoo:

As an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, I want to register my objection to your having used a chiropractor to deal with one of your young tiger cubs, as documented in the YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylIjr1FkBOc

Do you seriously think that a quack adjusting the spine of a baby tiger would help it? What evidence is there that this kind of spinal manipulation, which can be dangerous (it’s killed people) would be efficacious? The chiropractor’s “scientific” explanation of adjusting the first cervical vertebra is totally ludicrous, saying that it’s ‘adjusting the nerve flow to the rest of the body.’

In all likelihood, this tiger would have gotten better by itself, but, at any rate, your publicizing the use of quack medicine for animals will only promote its further use on both animals and humans.

I would like your response about why you used this method in view of the lack of science behind it and the possibility it would endanger the cub.

Jerry Coyne
Professor Emeritus
Dept. Ecology & Evolution
The University of Chicago

Now what do you think the chances are that I’ll get a response? I’m not holding my breath, but I’m also tenacious.

CVS’s non-response about their sale of homeopathic “medicine”

December 20, 2016 • 3:00 pm

This morning I wrote about the Federal Trade Commission’s new requirement that homeopathic “medicines” (i.e., expensive water, sometimes with a bit of something else like ethanol or a non-efficacious substance) be tested for efficacy before they could be sold. I tweeted this finding to both the CVS Pharmacy chain and Whole Foods,  both of whom sell the useless quackery, and CVS saw fit to reply—or rather, to tender a non-reply:


Check out the FDA ‘regulations’ they tout. They require neither testing for safety nor efficacy. In other words, “approved” homeopathic nostrums don’t even have to work, but they can even hurt you! That’s OKAY! All they require is that the drugs be labeled as to content.

Shame on CVS, which did a good thing by banning the sale of tobacco products within the last year or so. But now they peddle “remedies” that not only fail to help, and indeed can’t help given the laws of chemistry, but can hurt people who rely on homeopathic rather than scientific medicines.


With push from Robert De Niro, Tribeca film festival screens Andrew Wakefield’s anti-vaxer movie

March 26, 2016 • 1:30 pm

Get this: a new film about the dangers of vaccination,“Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” has been co-written and directed by none other than Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield, of course, is the discredited doctor whose duplicity and fraud in connecting the MMR vaccine with autism led to his downfall, and to the revocation of his license to practice medicine. Of course none of this is mentioned on the film’s website (I haven’t seen the film, but given that it’s directed by Wakefield, you can imagine what’s in it). As the New York Times notes:

On the festival’s website, the biographical material about Mr. Wakefield does not mention that he was stripped of his license or that his Lancet study was retracted. Rather, it says that the Lancet study “would catapult Wakefield into becoming one of the most controversial figures in the history of medicine.”

Here’s the trailer, which shows what a sham and a fraud this movie is:

Why is De Niro, who doesn’t have a history of loonery, promoting this movie?

On Friday, Robert De Niro, one of the festival’s founders, said in a statement issued through the festival’s publicists that he supported the plan to show the movie next month, although he said he was “not personally endorsing the film,” nor was he against vaccination.

Mr. De Niro’s statement seemed to suggest that this was the first time he has expressed a preference that a particular film be shown at the festival.

“Grace and I have a child with autism,” he wrote, referring to his wife, Grace Hightower De Niro, “and we believe it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined. In the 15 years since the Tribeca Film Festival was founded, I have never asked for a film to be screened or gotten involved in the programming. However this is very personal to me and my family and I want there to be a discussion, which is why we will be screening VAXXED.”

It’s personal! Clearly, De Niro agrees that the investigation of Wakefield, and the multifarious subsequent work showing no connection between vaccination and autism, are irrelevant, for his child is afflicted. I feel for his sorrow about his child, but what De Niro is doing in promoting this film is nothing less than dangerous. He’s spreading the message that vaccination can cause autism, and that the medical establishment has covered this up. And judging by the ratings on the YouTube trailer, people are agreeing.

Screen Shot 2016-03-26 at 7.14.00 PM

You might want to add your own ranking. . . .

EU mandates homeopathy for sick animals on British organic farms

April 25, 2015 • 11:15 am

Since Europe is less soaked in religion than is the U.S., I always think of Across the Pond as a more rational and humane place than my own country. And yet I’m repeatedly disappointed. They may be less religious over there, but they have their own special forms of woo, and one of them is homeopathy. When I lived in France, I was continually amazed at the profusion of homeopathic pharmacies and the number of scientists who dosed themselves with homeopathic water.

And now the Muscles in Brussels, otherwise known as the EU, is indulging in homeopathy to the extent that its administration has become law. Law, that is, as a means of treating sick animals on organic farms. As yesterday’s Torygraph reports:

British organic farmers are being forced to treat their livestock with homeopathic remedies under new European Commission rules branded ‘scientifically illiterate’ by vets.

Although homeopathy has been branded as ‘rubbish’ by the government’s Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies, organic farmers have been told they must try it first under a new EU directive which came into force in January.

The regulation means that animals could be left diseased or in pain for far longer than necessary and organic meat could end up containing higher levels of bacteria, vets have warned.

. . . The directive states that: “it is a general requirement…for production of all organic livestock that (herbal) and homeopathic products… shall be used in preference to chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary treatment or antibiotics.”

. . . The Department for Food and Rural Affairs admitted that organic farmers were bound by the new regulations but said they could resort to other means, such as antibiotics, without losing their ‘organic’ status if homeopathic remedies proved to be ineffective.

And this is the sickest part:

It even emerged that the British government had voted in favour of the new rules.

Yet there’s support for this in other quarters of the UK as well:

The Soil Association, one of the leading bodies certifying organic produce in the UK is broadly supportive of homeopathy.

Natasha Collins-Daniel, the Soil Association’s press officer, stressed that while the use of homeopathic treatments was “not mandatory” to gain an organic certification, it could be effective.

“We have significant collective experience from livestock farmers and vets showing that herbal treatments and homeopathic approaches can help them care for their animals,” she said.

Seriously, EU and UK? What is that about? Are “organic” cows and pigs supposed to be treated with “organic” (i.e., stupid and ineffective) remedies? In the face of overwhelming evidence that homeopathy is quackery, the EU is still ordering British organic farmer to Try Water First. Or maybe they think that what doesn’t work on humans might just work on animals. No matter what, it’s just insane. This follows a story from 2011 that the EU spent €1.8 million for research on the effectiveness of homeopathy on farm animals.

Now let me give a caveat here: the story appears to have originated in the Torygraph, and has been taken from that report by other venues. So there’s a possibility that this is bogus. Stay tuned.

But the stalwart Brits are fighting back:

John Blackwell, President of the British Veterinary Association, said: “We should always use medicines which have a strong science base and homeopathic remedies are not underpinned by any strong science.

“Disease is painful and farmers have an obligation to reduce that pain and not allow their animals to suffer so this regulation is troubling. It may lead to serious animal health and welfare detriment.

“If animals are not treated promptly it could lead to an underlying level of pathogen which could mean that the animal was no longer fit for human consumption.”

I’m hoping this is a mistaken story, for it bespeaks a profound stupidity on the part of the EU and the Soil Association.

h/t: Robin