There are some things, you just want to break your head and don’t understand what is going on. The recent incidents of "no milk resistance" are all examples. I suffer from a number of questions and have no definite answers. I can only open the wings of "reveal" and use logic to draw a few simple conclusions:

　　The so-called "none "Anti-milk" refers to milk that does not contain antibiotics, as opposed to "anti-milk", that is, milk that contains antibiotics. Cows are prone to mastitis when changing seasons every year. During treatment, antibiotics are injected directly into the breasts of cows. Penicillin, streptomycin, etc., cause milk squeezed out after a certain period of time to contain residual antibiotics.

　　 First, companies such as Bright Dairy have marked "no antibiotics" on the product packaging, and no anti-milk products have attracted public attention. Soon, on May 6, the Ministry of Health, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine and other six departments jointly issued the "Announcement of the Ministry of Health on Strengthening the Management of Fresh Milk Antibiotic Residues", stopping the labeling of "no anti-milk". "No anti-milk" is a good thing, why not let it be publicized? The reason is "unscientific and unrealistic".

　　Why is it “unscientific and unrealistic”? Because according to the Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Milk Quality and Safety, the sale of raw milk produced by dairy animals during the drug use period and drug withdrawal period is prohibited. In theory, qualified milk should have no "resistance". But in fact, are there any antibiotics for commercially available milk? I don’t know, it’s hard to say, because the national standard for raw milk does not have antibiotic limits. Without regulations, there is no testing; without testing, there is no accurate answer. However, this situation is comparable to that. I teach the seven-year "Clinical Nutrition" (optional). The test requirement is "no plagiarism is allowed", but the form of the test is "open book". The result can be imagined. Students always plagiarize during exams. On the one hand, it is required to avoid anti-milk, on the other hand, it does not stipulate standards, do not test, and do not check what would be the result?

　　 In addition, in the actual operation of the dairy industry, there are indeed "with anti-milk", "No anti-milk" two kinds, the price of anti-milk powder will be cheaper, the difference between the two is about 500 yuan / ton. Why is there "anti-milk powder" that can be sold publicly? The possible reason is that: "Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Milk Quality and Safety" only stipulate that "fresh milk" produced by dairy animals during the drug use period and drug withdrawal period is prohibited from being sold, and it They are made into milk powder. The problem is that many liquid milks (such as reconstituted milk) are made of milk powder or added with milk powder, then the liquid milk produced with "with anti-milk powder" will naturally be "with anti-milk".

　　 So, can it be understood that non-anti-milk is "unscientific and unrealistic" to mislead consumers because it is actually difficult to achieve "non-anti-milk"-or, to be more straightforward Okay-many products are "anti-milk"?

　　If this is established, Wang Dingmian, executive director of the China Dairy Association and vice chairman of the Guangdong Dairy Association, in the Southern Metropolis Daily A paragraph of speech will not make us feel confused: "The production and processing technology does not guarantee that the milk is 100% free of antibiotics, and even more is the illegal addition of "anti-resistant agent" β-lactam in milk. Enzymes make antibiotics difficult to detect and become a false''no anti-milk''".

　　 The logic is a bit chaotic. The general conclusion is: "No anti-milk", no matter whether you are true "no anti-milk" or false "no anti-milk", you should not promote it; , You don’t need to say anything, sell it quietly.