Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 139 total)
  • Chlorinated Chicken – what's the big deal ?
  • slowoldman
    Full Member

    I suggest we just eat stuff from decent local farms

    Which is where my butcher sources his supplies. Of course it’s impossible to completely avoid the odd bit of mass produced meat I imagine, but it should be kept to an absolute minimum. Reduce meat consumption overall but buy good quality when you do eat it.

    codybrennan
    Free Member

    To answer you seriously, Andy, I must say: its actually a good question. I’ve eaten (presumably- I don’t know for sure) chlorine-washed chicken in the US, as have you, and we’re still here.

    Technically, the meat will be “safe” to eat- and by that we mean free of pathogens, mainly campylobacter. Fair dos. But there’s much more to it than just eating a piece of food that won’t kill you.

    So….and you’ll probably have read this already I suspect, but anyway-

    “For years, in the US, instead of preventing that chickens get infected with pathogens during all stages of rearing and slaughter, the poultry industry has resorted to chemicals to eliminate bacteria at the end of the meat production chain. In other words, chemical washes aim to make up for inadequate hygiene on farms and abattoirs.

    In contrast, the EU has chosen another strategy to fight meat-borne bacteria. The philosophy of the ‘farm to fork’ approach is essentially based on the wise proverb prevention is better than cure.

    The farm to fork approach requires a series of steps all along the production chain to ensure food sold to consumers ultimately is safe. In the case of poultry, hygiene stipulations at farm level include the use of dedicated clothing and footwear by farm workers to avoid bringing bacteria into poultry houses. This must be complemented with proper transportation conditions as well as hygienic slaughtering and processing practices.

    EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, recognises that ‘’(the) public health benefits of controlling [zoonotic pathogens] in primary broiler production are expected to be greater than control later in the chain as the bacteria may also spread from farms to humans by other pathways than broiler meat”.

    Fighting bacteria at each step of animal farming is more efficient, as it prevents contamination in all forms of transmission. Take the example of the food-poisoning inducing bacteria campylobacter. Handling, preparation and consumption of chicken meat may only account for 20% to 30% of human cases of the disease caused by this pathogen. By contrast, 50% to 80% of cases may be attributed to the live chicken “reservoir”, even though the transmission pathways are not yet well understood.

    This is why we believe the European approach to meat safety is more efficient in protecting public health.

    What is more, as long as good hygienic practices are complied with and food safety management systems (HACCP) are well managed by food business operators – as required by EU law – there should be no need for additional treatments of meat.

    Essentially, what we are concerned about is not just the chemical itself, but rather the risk that these treatments will be seen as the “easy fix” to clean up dirty meat. Let’s be clear – no chemical rinse will ever remove all bacteria from meat heavily contaminated as a result of poor hygiene.

    It is also important to bear in mind the slaughterhouse workers among whom the risk of respiratory diseases after inhaling poultry chemicals could increase.

    Then we have the risk related to the emission of chemicals into the environment via poultry plant’s effluence.

    European countries have taken the lead in raising healthier poultry. Of course, there is room for improvement, as the fight against meat-borne illnesses is not won yet[1]. But the EU has chosen an approach which is scientifically sound, has proven its efficacy provided it is properly applied and – most importantly – achieves its goal without the use of chemicals. We should not and cannot sacrifice public health levels and consumer protections in exchange for negotiating advantages in TTIP.

    At the end of the day, it’s also important to take into account what consumers want. Consumer research in European countries such as the UK[2], Finland[3] and Denmark[4] show the overwhelming majority of consumers have no appetite for chicken washed in chemicals.

    We are told not to worry as the future TTIP deal will not make the slightest reference to chicken or chlorination. Of course it won’t. And it does not even have to. Just like lactic acid rinses on beef, poultry washes approval by the EU could just be one of these “confidence building” steps in a bid to secure a trade deal. And yet we will continue to hear it is totally unrelated to TTIP.

    From a consumer point of view there is no added-value or justification to throwing our approach overboard and paving the way for chemically treated poultry to enter our market. I can imagine it is hard for trade negotiators (and some business lobbyists) to accept, but let’s just acknowledge that the EU and US see this issue differently. Transatlantic trade should not be a pretext for dismantling practices which fortify public safety in Europe.”

    What is wrong with chlorinated chicken

    As well as that, there’s the fact that animals produced for meat without the use of end-stage chemical washing are in fact better treated. I’ll dig out the report I read recently on intensive chicken farming in the US and post it here.

    BTW- do you listen to The Archers? Well worth a tune-in now if you want to catch up on the pros and cons of intensive vs non-intensive farming.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    it’s impossible to completely avoid the odd bit of mass produced meat

    Dont eat meat ?

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    GrahamS
    Full Member

    Dont eat meat ?

    Now you’re just being silly.

    enfht
    Free Member

    Please nobody mention Welsh lamb and semen.

    codybrennan
    Free Member

    ….oh, and incidentally, if the recent deal with China is anything to go by, we could end up with Chinese-sourced meat instead of US. The US doesn’t need Chinese chicken, but agreed to it to get American beef on Chinese tables.

    If you’re not worried about American chicken, you should be worried about Chinese. China has a long and storied history of a poisoned food chain. America would have to inspect every shipment to be sure, and thats never going to happen.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/05/12/528139468/chinese-chicken-is-headed-to-america-but-its-really-all-about-beef

    “…he questions the Chinese government’s ability to enforce food-safety standards, given its poor track record.

    That record includes rat meat being sold as lamb, oil recovered from drainage ditches in gutters being sold as cooking oil, and baby formula contaminated with melamine that sickened hundreds of thousands of babies and killed six. In 2014, a Shanghai food-processing factory that supplied international restaurant brands including McDonald’s and KFC was caught selling stale meat, repackaged with new expiration dates.”

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    @Graham thanks for that, so maybe I’ll stop then.

    @cody yes I had read that and I understand why the Europe and the UK don’t want to take the US approach here but it seems to me the only reason for banning it being imported is economic protectionism (Drac see there is my point, the EFSA says its safe to eat but its banned anyway). No time for the Archers these days but I am a country boy at heart (used to do farm jobs when I was younger). China is a whole other ball game agreed

    So far I see that the main reason for not eating it is it sounds bad, fair enough.

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    So you missed or ignored the whole bit about hygiene down the chain being better than hoping some bleach makes it safe for consumption?

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    @Graham thanks for that, so maybe I’ll stop then.

    Not that it would help anyway, as there is probably more chlorine in your domestic water than in the chicken 😉

    Drac
    Full Member

    However, in 2008, the Council of Europe rejected a European Commission proposal to allow the use of antimicrobial chicken rinses containing chlorine, which it said can, “lead to the formation of chloroorganic compounds, several of which are persistent, bioaccumulable or carcinogenic”. In other words the compounds can cause cancer, are hard to get rid of and have a tendency to build up over time when repeatedly absorbed by living in organisms.

    I’ll stick with the EU recommendations thanks.

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    It’s just a step backwards, the need for chlorinated chicken is purely due to poorer standards.

    If the chickens were raised and slaughtered in a better way there’s no need to sanitize the finished product with a disinfectant.

    I’d rather move forward than backwards.

    I appreciate there is a certain irony, being a meat eater, but i don’t see why standards should be lowered, raising standards should be the only option, if not for safety, then for livestock welfare.

    tomd
    Free Member

    What Drac said.

    It’s now proven that processed meats are carcinogenic. So mince, sausage, your finest iberico ham and turkey twizzlers etc. We’re not sure why.

    Could it be because the meat comes into contact with disinfectants during processing? It’s definitely one likely hypothesis.

    Shove your chlorinated chicken. I’m not going to wait for the government to work out in 2047 that it was a really bad idea. See BSE, asbestos, thalidomide, horse meat, smoking circa 1950 etc for where this is likely to head. Our children will laugh at us for some of the stuff we produced and ate.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Jam, if we can import meat produced to lower standards this will undercut the UK produced stuff. Our farmers won’t be able to compete unless we lower our own standards.

    frankconway
    Full Member

    I try to buy local and organic where possible; the fact that this has been introduced by politicos so early speaks volumes about what the cousins want – access to a new market for poultry products which will drive down uk standards.
    I will definitely have eaten it in the states but, given a choice, not for me – thanks.
    As many earlier posts have stated, it’s a lower quality product and will undercut uk producers.
    After chicken, what ‘adulterated’ food will come next?
    I have just dry fried some locally produced beef fillets – no noxious/toxic emissions from the meat; long may it continue.
    US restaurants – upto and including fine dining – focus on ‘the experience’ aka I need you to tip extravagantly; which is a distraction from the average quality of the food being served.
    The only significant exceptions to this can be grouped under ‘….ethnic, back street, look dodgy but worth investigating’.
    I’m sure Don will now sweat this for everything he can – supporting US farmers blah bah…….
    My advice – read the label; check country of origin; be very careful about what you ingest.
    Interesting to note that Liam Fox & Michael Gove have diametrically opposed views…………

    colournoise
    Full Member

    Steroid/Growth Hormone injected beef main course to follow your chlorinated chicken starter?

    duckman
    Full Member

    Junkyard – lazarus
    it’s impossible to completely avoid the odd bit of mass produced meat

    Dont eat meat ?
    POSTED 7 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

    Yup; I was reading this thread and the steps they go to stop people shitting themselves to death on dodgy chicken and feeling quite pleased this has little or no impact on me.

    DrJ
    Full Member

    Consumer choice? Not really –

    Derivatives of GM maize and soya are in thousands of processed foods in the US. American consumers’ demands to see them labelled have been quashed by lobbying from big biotech companies, notably Monsanto. In the US, the only way to avoid eating GM ingredients is to buy organic food to cook at home and never eat out.

    If the UK were obliged to accept chlorine chicken and acid-washed meat from the US, this would not need to be flagged up on product packaging because these washes and sprays would count as “processing aids”, which don’t need to be labelled.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/29/britain-us-trade-deal-gm-food-eu-rules

    coolhandluke
    Free Member

    If they let chlorinated chicken in, I still have the option to avoid it and buy something that I consider to be better.

    Just the same was I opt not to buy crap parts for my bike

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    If they let chlorinated chicken in, I still have the option to avoid it and buy something that I consider to be better.

    How would you know if it was being served to you?
    It’s still not a good reason to allow something like that in. It’s bad practice and a lower standard than anything from the UK. It puts downward pressure on price and UK standards.

    DrJ
    Full Member

    If they let chlorinated chicken in, I still have the option to avoid it and buy something that I consider to be better.

    As per the article I posted – it wouldn’t be labelled so you wouldn’t be able to make an informed choice.

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    DrJ well the labelling legislation could be easily changed, would they not already label the meat as “source US” ? That would seem enough to let people decide.

    Drac so I get that point about carcinogens but we are not banning ham, sausages or bacon are we ? Also its aell known 6 Eastern European EU members fail to meet EU regulations for Pork prodiction but they are still allowed to sell it anonymously within the EU (note was previously sold cheap to Russia with EU turning a blind eye but they are sanctions now)

    Molgrips this is my view, its protectionism. I would much rather see animal husbandry legislation lead to the end of £3 supermarket chickens than ban chlorine washing

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    but have you read the rest of the long explanation as to how it’s masking very bad practices to rearing and handling animals and being used to clean up all of the serious mistakes in the chain before packing.
    How would you make something that has cut massive corners compared to UK standards compare? Would it not have a seriously adverse impact on the UK chicken farming industry?

    You would not have any obligation to name a source in any kind of served chicken dish would you?

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    DrJ well the labelling legislation could be easily changed,

    No it couldn’t. How long have processed food producers and supermarkets resisted having to label sugar, fat, etc contents on food labels. And they still can’t agree on a standardi. So, no, and you probably know this already, labelling legislation won’t be easily changes at all.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    and what this really shows is that when you are the junior partner in a negotiation you have to beg for the scraps at the table if you want a deal. Amazing isn’t it.

    Agroculture is such an important industry for a nation, with climate pressures and uncertainty maintaining good quality food supply is imperitive. Accepting crap that will pressure local markets that operate to a much higher standard and undercut and undermine pricing and business models is a stupid idea. Agricuture needs protecting.

    trailwagger
    Free Member

    Can someone explain to me, if chicken is so full of deadly stuff, and has to be cooked to within an inch of its life so that you dont die from eating it, why is it then ok to wash your hands/knifes/chopping boards in warm water and fairy liquid?

    Serious question.

    craigxxl
    Free Member

    Up until the beginning of this year the majority of the chicken imported into the EU was from Brazil. The Brazilian meat scandal makes chlorine washed chicken insignificant. The EU legislation did nothing to prevent this or to enforce it’s own standards with regards to meat imports. Only after a Brazilian police probe into their largest meat producers, probably after a tip off when someone didn’t get a big enough bribe, only then was action taken. The EU legislation protected no one just like it didn’t with the horse meat and tumbled chicken scandals.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-22/brazil-tainted-meat-scandal-leaves-the-world-hungry-for-chicken
    http://uk.businessinsider.com/brazil-spoiled-rotten-meat-bribery-scandal-economic-recover-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    If they let chlorinated chicken in, I still have the option to avoid it and buy something that I consider to better

    Phew! It’ll just be poor people that have to buy it. That’s a relief.

    (Assuming you never eat chicken in restaurants or buy chicken sandwiches or nuggets or pies…)

    I would much rather see animal husbandry legislation lead to the end of £3 supermarket chickens than ban chlorine washing

    I’d like to see improvements in animal welfare too, but to do that you really need to be part of a large trade block with agreed animal welfare standards (something like the EU for example) otherwise your own farmers following high standards are undercut by cheaper low welfare standard produce.

    globalti
    Free Member

    FFS you drink dilute chlorine every time you drink tap water. And they aren’t even using chlorine any more, they use peracetic acid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peracetic_acid

    Drac
    Full Member

    Yes we do but you’ve missed the point.

    selkirkbear
    Free Member

    It used to be common practice to wash poultry, and some shellfish, in chlorinated water in the UK so anyone who has eaten poultry pre-2005 will already have eaten chlorinated chicken.

    It was more about maintaining shelf life by preventing spoilage than consumer safety. I can remember being at a turkey processors where they used to use 100ppm chlorine at the start of December, to make sure they lasted to Christmas, and reducing the concentration through the month to the normal 50ppm.

    elzorillo
    Free Member

    You’re probably eating a hell of a lot worse on a night out.

    I’ve witnessed personally.. condemned meat, unfit for human consumption sold to the local curry houses.. ducks caught by the local junkies (even dead rotting ones) sold to the Chinese takeaway next door to me.

    I wouldnt worry too much about a bit of chlorine.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    I wouldnt worry too much about a bit of chlorine.

    Try reading the thread, the chlorine is used to clean up all the crap accumulated during the process from hatching to packing.
    That is the major issue.

    Drac
    Full Member

    I’m not convinced you’re describing a typical takeaway, I’m also curious how you have all this evidence but let the place stay open.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Molgrips this is my view, its protectionism.

    It’s about protecting standads.

    And in any case – protectionism has a role, especially in food, where you need to protect strategic industries.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    And animal welfare standards are also “protectionism” since they aim to prevent cheaper poor-welfare imports entering the market.

    elzorillo
    Free Member

    I’m not convinced you’re describing a typical takeaway, I’m also curious how you have all this evidence but let the place stay open.

    Thought I made myself pretty clear but…

    A good friend who supplied them the meat did 7 years in prison for it.. He was supplying a LOT of Indian restaurants. His crime was big news at the time.. The authorities didnt seem interested in the restaurants who were selling it on, just the big guys shifting the large quantities.

    The Chinese takeaway was next door to me and I would see it. They would even buy dead ducklings.

    DrJ
    Full Member

    A lot of people here seem to have missed the point, even though it has been explained several times. The chances of Joe Public understanding that a “Made in the USA” label means “from unsanitary chickens in humanely raises and washes in chlorine ” would appear slim.

    slowoldman
    Full Member

    Dont eat meat ?

    But we are discussing eating meat.

    It’s just a step backwards, the need for chlorinated chicken is purely due to poorer standards.

    My main issue would be it’s likely to be crap quality meat. I’m pretty sure the free range ones I but aren’t chlorinated now and won’t be in the future.

    Please nobody mention Welsh lamb and semen.

    Just leave the rectum on the side of your plate.

    binners
    Full Member

    Let Alan explain….

    [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqieXSLOslo[/video]

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    Some very interesting posts and in particular the Brazilian chicken story which I wasn’t aware of. My views on the EU are well known here, incompetant at a staggering level. I can see no real reason the US chicken is banned other than protectionism. There was a programme on French TV about appalling standards of animal welfare raising ducks in Eastern Europe which are slaughtered then shipped to France for final processing and tinned where they are labeled as “made in France”. The EU can turn a very very blind eye when it chooses.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 139 total)

The topic ‘Chlorinated Chicken – what's the big deal ?’ is closed to new replies.

Members Notice New deal added to Members Discounts