Symptoms usually start 6 hours to 6 days after swallowing the bacteria.
That's quite the window of time. Why such a huge discrepancy?
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
115 points (100.0% liked)
News
30947 readers
2362 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Probably a lack of good information - with only a hundred odd cases and not having had much time to get the facts, I'm betting that's a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) and we'll have better info the more time has passed.
Americans cannot trust their government to keep them safe anymore, it's now a free for all.
USA is such a shit country, I was absolutely disgusted seeing the eggs are packaged in styrofoam instead of cardboard!
Americans are ruining their country failing to regulate even the most obvious things, because Americans believe regulation is bad, when most of the time, even bad regulation is better than no regulation.
I'm American and I don't believe any of the things you say I do.
Our politicians sure believe it though
Americans believe <> all Americans.
Some cartons are still cardboard,or thin plastic. I think most of our lumber goes overseas for furniture and flooring production, last I heard, but that was a long time ago.
No reason to use plastic either. Except it's maybe 2 cents cheaper per package.
Using plastic when cardboard is an excellent solution is just pure evil.
Americans believe regulation is bad
Were taught to and continuously are taught to believe regulation is bad.
Let's not glance over how hard it is (& how much money is poured into this) to convince people that are suffering direct consequences of unregulated & deregulated businesses on daily basis how regulation is bad and only further deregulation, that brought on problems in the first place, will help solve them - at not at a single point even presenting the logic why would that ever work, like even theoretically.
(Even their 'golden era' of some 50~80 years ago everyone for deregulation is so nostalgic about was the era brought upon & maintained by high regulation investments supported by higher top-bracket & profit taxes.)
And it's not like regulation is even bad for economy overall (even financially looking), it's just had for the current businesses in power (and even that only for short term gains). So minority's whims rule undisputed over the majority & ecology.
I’m starting to think most Americans are complete idiots of the worst order.
Amen.
And it’s not like regulation is even bad for economy overall
Exactly, regulation is actually beneficial for the economy, because it stimulates fair competition.
A fair government will regulate fairly. A corrupt government will regulate corruptly. Unfortunately it's not within living memory of any Americans to have a non-corrupt government, so they hate all regulation since all regulation they are familiar with is corrupt pork barrel politics and industry protectionism. They are, of course, missing the target. The corruption is the problem, not the idea of regulation on its own.
The more innocent bystanders they kill as a consequence of the rampant corruption of their government, the happier they are because they think it means they're killing the corruption. Meanwhile the corruption is having a great time looting the pockets of the dead and dying.
Oh, yes, that totally too, and with competition better products, faster dev of new tech, and an economy guided by the consumers/citizens instead of megacorps.
But I meant more directly too - people ~~bitch~~ are taught to bitch over bureaucracy, reporting, "costs", etc but all that only affects (very short term speaking) individual companies profit margins, not the economy - extra work being done (idk, measuring and reporting salmonella stats, or making salmonella tests or whatever, and agencies that go over the data) is just anther income that gets reinvested into the same economy (instead of getting wealth consecrated, on average). It's not lost, it's not counterproductive.
Yes regulation help protect people from getting ill having accidents and even dying due to lots of stupid preventable shit too.
And of course that also help the economy despite it's only a secondary effect.
Things like fire regulation, car safety and of course health regulation in food.
These are all things that protect us every day, but most people are completely oblivious about all the ways regulation help. And only focus on the potential bit of extra paperwork, and a bit of extra cost, that they are ignorant about is recouped in benefits to all that outweigh the cost multiple times.
What we need is not less regulation, but better regulation!
Exactly.
"Let's have less regulation so it will be simpler!" – I think having more or less of it is so irrelevant that 'why not more'?
(It doesn't hurt the people, the opposite actually.)
Especially when the talking point (almost the opposite of what you said) "we need less regulation but better regulation" is promoted by individuals looking for deregulation for their personal financial gain regardless of consequence to anyone & anything.
Also let's not forget there is a thin line between regulation & corruption bcs with (regulation) corruption the law framework stops working correctly & gets over-complicated for the sake of it, in some cases such laws even protect specific companies & hurt everybody else.
It's not the lawmakers or the public that makes for complicated laws, it's the companies that want very specific things achieved & at best look for compromises adding complexities to regulation.
But by default I believe that with more "regulation" comes more professionals in the specific field & the larger the work force (and their personal agency & personal responsibilities & normal lives) the harder it is to corrupt. People revolt & people generally want to do their jobs good & for good (evidenced by a myriad of public minimal wage workers doing real important shit with all their power).
Regulation isn't bad, corruption and over reach are.
Example, dumping mercury in the public water supply is bad.
Telling me I can't add sugar to my own water is bad.
Big difference, and the current government will do both
Edit: guys, this isn't a real world analogy , just a simple example to illustrate a stance
Dumping mercury should not be permitted & should be heavily persecuted.
(And basically researched out of industries.)
But you adding sugar to your diet (I'll be overreaching & exaggerating with this to keep your example) can affect or stem from more than your own person.
Individually looking it's your health & your health does affect people around you long-term, including healthcare (again, exaggerating - if everyone is fat we now have to redesign hospitals ... + the long term effect of this being normalised, but this is more related to the next point actually).
However there is also a an economic view - sugar is biologically speaking very precious & rare, so humans having it available at next to no cost is fucking with our evolution-moulded minds (our mind tell us when we had enough of just about anything of strategic nutritional importance other than carbs, especially sugars - there is no limit for sugar bcs "you never know when the supply will run out", no limit apart from the speed of begin able to process it I mean). \But it's also insanely profitable in the industries that use it (sugar beverages, spreads, cereals) so it's everywhere & caused serious health issues.
And there is a bunch of other harmful & easy to produce chemicals that we regulate in various ways ("drugs").
I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to add sugar to your own water (and we are far from that point anyway), just that regulation is such a live & cultural thing that lawmakers & agencies (regulatory or law-advisers) just have to live with the people & adjust on the fly bcs culture & people change significantly over just a few years.
In this sense I'm proud of the actual way of how EU lawmakers are doing things for the vast majority of time - all is very live, open/transparent, & hands on (and ofc "costly", bcs complex problems require adequate solutions, otherwise it is just senseless cost).
First is the research (year/s), then live market consolations & current practices (year/s), then the draft proposal & a new round of even broader market consolations (sometimes literally mandatory, eg in financial industries, to cover like 3/4 of the market) of all stakeholders (year/s), then the regulation frame adoption (EU, country levels, responsible agencies, market leaders, etc), then after it's all live years of market consultations again to get where the problems are (or where there arent & they can scrap/simplify the approach), what new problems & adaptations emerged, then the proposal for legal framework update, then consultations again (anyone can & must be heard), then the adoption of the v2 laws, and after that the cycle repeats for v3 etc.
This is in contrast with things done on a local level that are hastily done & require quick adoption by the industry (as a consumer I think even this is far better than nothing effective being done - if it's stupid I'll just try to vote them out).
I mostly know about EU regulations that are about to affect me (personally or professionally) years in advance and with about 12 month precision (some complex laws get delayed - or even just the live date if the market couldn't get ready by due date with effort to do so).
Telling me I can’t add sugar to my own water is bad.
I'm not sure what real world thing you made this analogy for? But this is a straw man, because nowhere are you told you can't add sugar to your food.
You may be told you shouldn't, because it's unhealthy. But you can still add sugar even to commercially sold food in amounts that by European standards make it actually illegal to call it food. Making it either cake or candy.
American Fruity loops is an example that is illegal to call food in EU because of too much sugar. Apart from a number of additives that are illegal too in EU. You could still sell it in EU, but not as a breakfast cereal.
You should not be unhappy if sugar is regulated in food you purchase. And you definitely can put more on it at home if you really want candy instead of food. Sweetener is a cheap way for the industry to make something taste batter, despite having extremely low quality.
It was a simple analogy for when it would be overreach. Not a real world thing.
How are those egg prices now, Donnie?
Poison the eggs, less demand, price go down... Right? Stable genius move.
If only we had some sort of agency to check if food is safe...
It would also help if we didn't raise chickens in absolutely disgusting conditions
Yeah.
And now imagine the sheer power of this single industry that EU countries are getting pressured directly (lobbyists) and indirectly (literal USA politicians) hard to lower our standards just so they could export their torture chicken carcasses here.
They succeeded in a few other industries but with chickens the standards behind food safety are just the right level of complex (mostly bcs it's not just one agency to put pressure on, and not that the regulatory definitions are complex or anything they do being over the top - I do want industries regulated and have regular monitored reports on various things, that's the only way you know the guidelines are followed).