The Politics Thread 3.0

Our best bits.
User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:21 pm

Preezy wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Preezy wrote:So long as the chicken is clean when it reaches the shelf/plate I'm not really that fussed about what goes on beforehand. I'm already eating a foodstuff that's arrived on my fork from a long journey of industrial-scale pain and suffering, so I can't exactly get my back up about what the thing is washed in to make it edible.


It's not about what it's washed in. It's about the reason for washing it.

But again, so long as it's edible at the end of it, do I care? No I do not care. I've got 5 kids to feed (chlorinated chicken to) man.


Then enjoy your rancid, salmonella infected chicken.

Most of us don't want that though.

User avatar
Grumpy David
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Cubeamania

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Grumpy David » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:40 pm

Hexx wrote:Think you've missed the point.

The issue isn't "Chlorine Chicken" is bad in itself - but that the Chlorine Wash is used to "cleanse" the chicken at the end of the process, and make up for much more lax health and safety precautions at other stages in the process.


Wouldn't just cooking it kill any bacteria? No one is eating raw chicken.

I thought the harm was repeated small doses of chlorine build up and cause problems in the body in long run hence the question about long term study into it.

So chlorine washing allows farmers to avoid vaccinating or whatever prevention methods are used across Europe which costs more than just dunking chickens into chlorine baths. So presumably disease/food poisoning occurs more frequently in the USA than in the UK?

Moggy wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:As long as it's labelled as such, I have no problem with it being an option. If the British people don't want it, they'll vote with their wallet and buy British/non American chicken.


Which is fine for the wealthy and the comfortably off.

Poor people will end up with no choice.

Plus you are assuming it will have to be labelled in the supermarkets.

And that restaurants/fast food places will have to inform you.

Above all though, why the hell would you be willing to support rules being relaxed to allow worse products?


Poor people have no choice today surely? If they can't afford battery farmed chicken then they can't buy chicken in the first place?

However if chlorine chicken was available, it presumably would be cheaper than battery farmed chicken.

I would assume if regulations didn't force businesses to label food correctly that the free market would. Restaurants would boast that the proudly don't offer chlorine chicken, shoppers in supermarkets would demand the supermarkets to label it. You're assuming that it wouldn't be labelled but I think it's more likely it would be.

I'm generally of the opinion that people should be free to choose what they do to themselves, chlorine chicken is far less harmful than smoking or alcohol but I wouldn't ban either. I actually support all drugs being legalised, taxed and regulated, compared to drugs, a cheaper way of getting meat to the consumer is fairly trivial.

I also support GM food which I've never seen the worry about. It seems the best way to feed the 7 billion people in the world. Why wouldn't we want crops being resistant to drought and other harsh growing conditions that African farmers have to deal with currently?

User avatar
Karl
Seyana!
Seyana!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Karl » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:44 pm

Grumpy David wrote:I would assume if regulations didn't force businesses to label food correctly that the free market would. Restaurants would boast that the proudly don't offer chlorine chicken, shoppers in supermarkets would demand the supermarkets to label it. You're assuming that it wouldn't be labelled but I think it's more likely it would be.


Then we may as well have regulations to make it as clear as possible for the consumer, right? After all, companies might be embarrassed into labeling their goods but without actual standards they could try to be obtuse or vague or slip things past us.

I'm more than willing to pay some tiny amount in 'economic inefficiency' to make sure a neutral third-party has some oversight when it comes to food labelling and safety.

User avatar
Grumpy David
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Cubeamania

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Grumpy David » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:53 pm

Karl wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:I would assume if regulations didn't force businesses to label food correctly that the free market would. Restaurants would boast that the proudly don't offer chlorine chicken, shoppers in supermarkets would demand the supermarkets to label it. You're assuming that it wouldn't be labelled but I think it's more likely it would be.


Then we may as well have regulations to make it as clear as possible for the consumer, right? After all, companies might be embarrassed into labeling their goods but without actual standards they could try to be obtuse or vague or slip things past us.

I'm more than willing to pay some tiny amount in 'economic inefficiency' to make sure a neutral third-party has some oversight when it comes to food labelling and safety.


I have no problem with British Food Standards Agency requiring clear labelling on things we eat. We already have labels on food showing nutritional value, horseburger or beefburger, free range, organics, suitable for vegetarians, halal, I've no problem adding in "Chlorine washed".

I suspect people would just boycott chlorine washed chicken anyway like people have boycotted attempts to sell GM food.

User avatar
Sleighamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Sleighamorph » Wed Jul 26, 2017 7:02 pm

If people are going to boycott it anyway then why bother going to the expense of allowing it in the first place?

Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Wed Jul 26, 2017 7:19 pm

Just saw this on Facebook :lol:

Image

User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by BID0 » Wed Jul 26, 2017 7:38 pm

grumpydavid sure seems to know a lot about the health risks of chlorine chicken compared to things like smoking

User avatar
Dinoric
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: RE: Re: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Dinoric » Wed Jul 26, 2017 7:57 pm

Karl wrote:I find the idea of chlorine-washed chicken a bit gross - Why does it have to be chlorine-washed? What was on it beforehand that required that? :dread: - but I would rather eat 10 chlorine-washed chickens every day until I die of chlorine poisoning than go vegan.
You could always just become a vegetarian instead.

User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:02 pm

Grumpy David wrote:Poor people have no choice today surely? If they can't afford battery farmed chicken then they can't buy chicken in the first place?


That's not a reason to drop current standards.

However if chlorine chicken was available, it presumably would be cheaper than battery farmed chicken.


Probably.

I would assume if regulations didn't force businesses to label food correctly that the free market would. Restaurants would boast that the proudly don't offer chlorine chicken, shoppers in supermarkets would demand the supermarkets to label it. You're assuming that it wouldn't be labelled but I think it's more likely it would be.


Your absolute trust in the free market is terrifying.

If they can get away with selling it without telling people then they absolutely will. Sure some will proudly boast "chlorine free" but most will either not mention it or find a loophole ("oh when we said chlorine free we meant we didn't use any chlorine in the UK....").

I'm generally of the opinion that people should be free to choose what they do to themselves, chlorine chicken is far less harmful than smoking or alcohol but I wouldn't ban either. I actually support all drugs being legalised, taxed and regulated, compared to drugs, a cheaper way of getting meat to the consumer is fairly trivial.


Drugs/alcohol/smoking are completely different. The argument there is about legalising a product. The argument with the chicken is about basic food safety standards.

Would you support the legalisation of drugs that were cut with talcum powder?

I also support GM food which I've never seen the worry about. It seems the best way to feed the 7 billion people in the world. Why wouldn't we want crops being resistant to drought and other harsh growing conditions that African farmers have to deal with currently?


GM is a completely different argument. I am not against GM foods on health grounds, I am against companies owning a patent and selling seeds to poor farmers that have to be repurchased on an annual basis as they deliberately don't produce seeds on their own.

Feeding Africa is great, screwing them over is not.

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by captain red dog » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:01 pm

You would likely also get chlorine chicken hidden in stuff like microwave meals, packaged sandwiches, pies/pasties etc. Sure, if it's legislated that chlorine chicken must be clearly marked then I have no issue with it as it will be easy to avoid, but in my experience that won't happen as you never know if the egg ingredients in food were free range or battery etc.

User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:30 pm

captain red dog wrote:You would likely also get chlorine chicken hidden in stuff like microwave meals, packaged sandwiches, pies/pasties etc. Sure, if it's legislated that chlorine chicken must be clearly marked then I have no issue with it as it will be easy to avoid, but in my experience that won't happen as you never know if the egg ingredients in food were free range or battery etc.


Labelling legislation always works, that why we never end up with horse meat labelled as beef....oh wait. :slol:

User avatar
Eighthours
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Eighthours » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:32 pm

Karl wrote:I find the idea of chlorine-washed chicken a bit gross - Why does it have to be chlorine-washed? What was on it beforehand that required that? :dread: - but I would rather eat 10 chlorine-washed chickens every day until I die of chlorine poisoning than go vegan.


For sure!

User avatar
Harry Ellis
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Harry Ellis » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:39 pm

Preezy wrote:But again, so long as it's edible at the end of it, do I care? No I do not care. I've got 5 kids to feed (chlorinated chicken to) man.

Image

One man should not have this much power in this game. Luckily I'm not an ordinary man.
Image Image
"economically unviable"
-Oblomov Boblomov
User avatar
Winckle
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Liverpool

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Winckle » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:09 am

The government has dropped its manifesto pledge for free breakfasts for school children. I am sure the media will take them to task for this. :simper:

User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Squinty » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:23 am

Winckle wrote:The government has dropped its manifesto pledge for free breakfasts for school children. I am sure the media will take them to task for this. :simper:


I guess austerity is well and truly over, eh lads?

Eh?

User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by KK » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:25 am

It's because means tested lunches was also scrapped, so this just returns everything to the status quo (rocking all over the world...).

Image
User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Squinty » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:28 am

KK wrote:It's because means tested lunches was also scrapped, so this just returns everything to the status quo (rocking all over the world...).


I just read the article. All is well with the world. Another embarrassing U-turn.

I should learn to read or not message before 10am.

User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Skarjo » Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:02 am

While I'm not in favour of dropping any kind of safety standard in general, and that libertarian race-to-the-bottom market sorcery is not a good model for addressing standards, I do think there's a case to be made to look at whether the US does have any significant health and safety concerns that the ban on chlorine washing saves us from.

Is there any actual evidence that the US chicken is actually any less safe?

Blue Eyes wrote:No wonder I'm eating my balls instead of sweets.

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
Eighthours
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Eighthours » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:24 pm

Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of the policy to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars from 2040, I really hate the kind of two-faced shite that Guido is reporting on today:

The UK government’s ban on petrol and diesel car sales from 2040 caused many to jump on the electric-powered outrage bus this week. Let’s start with London mayor Sadiq Khan, who instantly panned the policy as soon as it was announced:

“A half-hearted commitment from Government simply isn’t good enough… The commitment to phase out sales of new diesel cars is welcome, but Londoners suffering right now simply can’t afford to wait until 2040.”

He’s changed his tune. Khan lavished praised on the French government when it instituted the same policy earlier this month:

“I welcome the strong leadership the French government has shown by making the decision to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040. This radical step shames the timid and insufficient response of our own government to the health threat posed by poor air quality.”

Shameless from Sadiq.

Meanwhile, environmental lawyers ClientEarth called the UK government’s move a “diversionary tactic”:

“The 2040 diesel and petrol ban, while important is a diversionary tactic and doesn’t deal with the public health emergency caused by illegally polluted air, now.”

Hmm. Doesn’t quite tally with the views of ClientEarth CEO James Thornton, who – like Khan – warmly embraced the French government when it enacted the very same policy:

“This is a huge statement of intent from the French government and an example of how we’re likely to see exponential change in the coming years as governments grapple with the necessary changes we have to make for air quality and our climate… These moves should be heeded by other governments and industry, who need to act to protect us from air pollution in our towns and cities and help mitigate climate change.”

It’s brilliant when the French do it, a “diversion” when the British do it…

The most egregious example comes from Greenpeace. The environmentalist ultras condemned the UK government’s ban as “headline-grabbing” and “redundant“, saying:

“5 things the government doesn’t want you to know about their headline-grabbing petrol and diesel ban… It could be far too late — and end up redundant…”
But when the French instituted the same ban, Greenpeace criticised the UK government for “stalling” and not introducing it sooner:

“The move away from fossil fuel powered cars towards electric is inevitable, and picking up speed fast. First Volvo, now France, yet the UK government is still stalling.”

Plus ça change…


https://order-order.com/2017/07/27/petr ... h-british/

User avatar
Eighthours
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Eighthours » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:28 pm

Skarjo wrote:While I'm not in favour of dropping any kind of safety standard in general, and that libertarian race-to-the-bottom market sorcery is not a good model for addressing standards, I do think there's a case to be made to look at whether the US does have any significant health and safety concerns that the ban on chlorine washing saves us from.

Is there any actual evidence that the US chicken is actually any less safe?


Yes, I'd like to see the evidence too. I definitely don't want chlorine-washed chicken personally, but would like to know if there is any basis for the hysteria.

Also, given the pretty tiny cost of a roast chicken when compared to other meat, I don't quite see how US imports could make an impact, price-wise. Everyone can still buy their '2kg+' normal chicken for £6 from Tesco.


Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests