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.
The US has a higher rate of food poisoning around 1/6 Americans suffer from some form of food poisoning every year that rate is about 1/10 in the UK. I believe that salmonella from chicken is a larger problem in the US than UK.
Although I do think this whole thing is turning a bit hysterical tbh.
I think the idea is that doing more to combat bacteria at earlier stages of the farming process, raising healthier chickens and having more rigorous safety checks is better for public health than more heavily relying on killing bacteria at the end of the process, as bacteria can spread from farms to humans before the chlorine wash (including to farmers and slaughterhouse workers, who're at increased risk of respiratory diseases for example). There's also the issue of pumping more chemicals into the environment. If we bring cheaper US chlorine-washed chicken into our marketplace, our own farmers will want to be able to use similar farming methods to compete.
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?
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?
If I was a business man selling Chlorine washed chicken if there was no laws about labelling what would stop putting a label on my Chicken saying "100% not chlorine washed". I mean if there are no labelling laws there is nothing to stop me putting whatever I want on the packet. We already have a number of terms like Nutritionist that get exploited for the reason that anybody can use them.
I'm delighted to see the reaction to that Myers article this morning. He's been a hate filled git for years and with a bit of luck the backlash to his latest bout of textual diarrhoea might be the last we'll see of his gooseberry fool in a national paper. Hopefully Ian O Doherty follows him soon enough.
This has followed the same pattern as to what happened earlier this year with The Sun & Kelvin MacKEnzie (article was printed, put online, and then removed) however The Sunday Times have acted much faster in removing it.
Possibly no one at the paper was paying much attention (autopilot mentality). But look, the whole point of these columnists is to wind you up...they're the same irritating, loud-mouth gobshites on every single newspaper. And boy do they get paid exceptionally well, too.
KK wrote:Possibly no one at the paper was paying much attention (autopilot mentality).
You're probably right, but when a holocaust denier submits an article that has a headline "Sorry ladies - equal pay has to be earned" and has the word "Jew" in the text, it might be a good idea to read it properly.
Or to make it easier, just don't employ holocaust denying fuckwits.
I obviously totally disagree with Myers comment, but would add that it should be considered equally offensive to say that Lineker and Evans are only on the high salary because they are white and male (which is the narrative the media have been pushing the last few weeks). If people insist on using identity politics to push an agenda, it has to be consistent.
captain red dog wrote:I obviously totally disagree with Myers comment, but would add that it should be considered equally offensive to say that Lineker and Evans are only on the high salary because they are white and male (which is the narrative the media have been pushing the last few weeks). If people insist on using identity politics to push an agenda, it has to be consistent.