8 ms·

I really hope the EU will not allow this kind of US meat into the EU market...

by brummm 7y ago

antr 7y ago
If the EU doesn't the UK will
- brummm 7y ago
  Good thing they're leaving the EU then...
  - antr 7y ago
    Indeed, and remember to add to that the additional £350 million a week to the NHS. It'll be better than living in Shangri-La
- chriswwweb 7y ago
  You realize how small the UK market actually is? (not just compared to europe)
- jaksawesome 7y ago
  Which is still better than their chicken--look at the frequency of the presence of campylobacter in raw chicken in the UK. It's absurd to think that they're doing anything better.
  - ubercow13 7y ago
    We’re vaccinating our chickens. That seems better - we get to eat raw eggs. We also seem to be doing animal welfare better [1]. It seems that the US has essentially no animal welfare regulation for poultry [2]. [1] https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/ https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/ [2] https://www.britishpoultry.org.uk/identity-cms/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2016-ADAS-EU-US-comparison.pdf https://www.britishpoultry.org.uk/identity-cms/wp-content/up... > In the USA, there are currently no federal regulations to control or safeguard the welfare of animals used in agriculture. An Animal Welfare Act is in place but it applies only to animals kept for non-farming purposes. State laws govern animal welfare in some parts of the country but currently no such legislation applies to poultry in any of the three major poultry-producing states considered here (Georgia, Alabama and Arkansas).
- no1youknowz 7y ago
  > If the EU doesn't the UK will The noises from the UK are that it won't [0]. But in reality let's see. We won't really know what happens until the ink has dried on the trade deal with the US and it has been published. > The UK will not lower food standards to secure a post-Brexit trade deal with the US, the government says. [0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47418505 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47418505
wbazant 7y ago
Well, it's a poverty food, and buying and eating meat seems already pretty gross to me, so people who choose to eat this kind of stuff are probably quite desperate and their choices aren't great. I'm sad for the extra animals that will end up living in even worse conditions (EU laws are a bit more generous when it comes to cage sizes etc. ) but I can totally understand that some people will genuinely prefer the US chlorinated chicken to their local mystery flesh products.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  Well, it's a poverty food I'm not sure what this means. Are you trying to say that poor people shouldn't be allowed to eat?
  - TOGoS 7y ago
    How is pointing out that poor people are unable to afford high quality food saying that they should not eat?
  - dx87 7y ago
    I've seen some people with the attitude that eating any meat is disgusting, no better than roadkill, and that it should only be done by poor people who can't afford to eat completely plant based diets.
  - jfengel 7y ago
    I think they're saying that poor people shouldn't be coerced by a subsidy system to eat food that has to be chemically treated to remove pathogens, and which causes animal suffering which most people would reject if it weren't kept hidden. There are plenty of ways for poor people to eat healthy diets without harming animals. It's a perverse incentive of the system that grows vast quantities of poor-quality corn and soybeans, cycles them through animals (wasting 90% of the calories in the process), and then feeds people the animals. A system that focused more on feeding people grains and pulses would produce more food for less money. The US in particular is wedded to the notion that meat is essential and primary food, and it set up its entire agriculture industry to making that cheap. It does so at a cost of hidden subsidies, poor-quality and disease-ridden meat, and a lot of animal suffering. You don't have to be a PETA nutjob to object to factory farming. A fairer and less abusive system would, indeed, mean that higher-quality meat is available primarily to rich people. But it's a strawman to say that it means that poor people shouldn't eat. They can eat very well as vegetarians, vegans, or even just people who eat meat occasionally rather than three times a day, every single day.
moksly 7y ago
If they do, I hope they make sure that it has to be labelled on the food. They do that with a lot of things, and then it’s really easy not to buy it.
- rjzzleep 7y ago
  That's the whole point of the trade deals though. It wouldn't be labelled properly, since it would be considered unfair competition.
  - chriswwweb 7y ago
    But it would be labelled as chicken coming from the US, this makes it easy enough to avoid!? Already today, I always read on the label to find out from what country the meat I'm about to buy comes, I always prefer local over imported as I think it is something little I can do to reduce unnecessary emissions and would hence anyway not buy meat that comes from another continent, just to get it few cents cheaper It is however often not possible when eating meat at restaurant for example :(
  - xtian 7y ago
    Interesting that so much of the activity of "free market" advocates is centered around reducing access to information.
  - moksly 7y ago
    Things that aren’t labelled properly are illegal in a lot of European countries an the EU doesn’t have power to overrule that. GMO products has pushed this hard over the years because almost no one wants to buy them. Hell in Denmark where I live, half of our super market chains outright refuse to carry things like eggs from cage-hens. So they likely wouldn’t ever offer chemical washed chicken American for sale, and they’ll likely even use it in commercial to tell consumers how much better than their competitors they are.
- EugeneOZ 7y ago
  Unless you're eating in a restaurant.
sneak 7y ago
Why? Do you believe it is harmful? If so, why?
- gambiting 7y ago
  I allows horrendous poultry farming practices, which in the US are "fine" because the meat gets washed afterwards anyway, so who cares chickens are standing in their shit until their own feet dissolve - the end product is fine, right? I'm not a vegetarian, but god I hope the American chicken never enters this market.
- sampo 7y ago
  > Do you believe it is harmful? If so, why? In Europe we believe it's indirectly harmful: Being able to wash germs off meat and eggs allows tolerating more diseases in the farms. If you can't just sanitize diseases off products, you have to keep the farms clean of diseases.
- axlee 7y ago
  The same way living in your own feces but taking a shower before leaving the house does not make you a clean person.
gadders 7y ago
It's just protectionism. It's not like the chicken tastes of bleach. Have you ever eaten food in the US?
- jldugger 7y ago
  I'm not sure we can trust US resident's opinions on taste as long as Hershey's chocolate still exists.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >I'm not sure we can trust US resident's opinions on taste as long as Hershey's chocolate still exists. As an American, I agree with you 100%. Our opinions on taste are utterly worthless. It's not just Hershey's chocolate either (which is already bad enough), it's so many other foods that are commonplace here. Food quality in this country is abysmal. You can get great food here, but it's harder to find and you'll pay dearly for it, but the stuff that regular Americans eat is generally awful.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Hershey’s chocolate is fine, so is American cheese. (You’d be insane to make S’mores or a grilled cheese with anything else, and if you don’t like those things you’re unamerican and should just move to Europe.)
      - joecool1029 7y ago
        I once heard a Belgian say: "There are two kinds of foods: Those that go with chocolate and those that go with cheese" Hershey's chocolate breaks that rule and contains butryic acid. Here's a link explaining why and how that affects the taste: https://www.chemistryworld.com/podcasts/butyric-acid/1017662.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/podcasts/butyric-acid/1017662... EDIT: To be fair I think the butryric acid thing can be overlooked as an acquired taste. Same way that IRN BRU tastes like bubblegum to Americans, even though UK'ers claim it isn't. I still think Hershey's regular milk chocolate works better with peanut butter than any other chocolate I've had. The bigger issues I have with Hershey are the cloying amounts of sugar they keep adding as they knock down the cocoa butter and cacao solids in each of their products to save money. I used to run boxes of UK KitKats down from Canada's duty free stores so that other Americans could see what they were missing out on.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

I really hope the EU will not allow this kind of US meat into the EU market...

by brummm 7y ago

I really hope the EU will not allow this kind of US meat into the EU market...

antr 7y ago

If the EU doesn't the UK will

brummm 7y ago
Good thing they're leaving the EU then...
- antr 7y ago
  Indeed, and remember to add to that the additional £350 million a week to the NHS. It'll be better than living in Shangri-La
chriswwweb 7y ago
You realize how small the UK market actually is? (not just compared to europe)
jaksawesome 7y ago
Which is still better than their chicken--look at the frequency of the presence of campylobacter in raw chicken in the UK. It's absurd to think that they're doing anything better.
- ubercow13 7y ago
  We’re vaccinating our chickens. That seems better - we get to eat raw eggs. We also seem to be doing animal welfare better [1]. It seems that the US has essentially no animal welfare regulation for poultry [2]. [1] https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/ https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/ [2] https://www.britishpoultry.org.uk/identity-cms/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2016-ADAS-EU-US-comparison.pdf https://www.britishpoultry.org.uk/identity-cms/wp-content/up... > In the USA, there are currently no federal regulations to control or safeguard the welfare of animals used in agriculture. An Animal Welfare Act is in place but it applies only to animals kept for non-farming purposes. State laws govern animal welfare in some parts of the country but currently no such legislation applies to poultry in any of the three major poultry-producing states considered here (Georgia, Alabama and Arkansas).
no1youknowz 7y ago
> If the EU doesn't the UK will The noises from the UK are that it won't [0]. But in reality let's see. We won't really know what happens until the ink has dried on the trade deal with the US and it has been published. > The UK will not lower food standards to secure a post-Brexit trade deal with the US, the government says. [0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47418505 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47418505

wbazant 7y ago

Well, it's a poverty food, and buying and eating meat seems already pretty gross to me, so people who choose to eat this kind of stuff are probably quite desperate and their choices aren't great. I'm sad for the extra animals that will end up living in even worse conditions (EU laws are a bit more generous when it comes to cage sizes etc. ) but I can totally understand that some people will genuinely prefer the US chlorinated chicken to their local mystery flesh products.

reaperducer 7y ago
Well, it's a poverty food I'm not sure what this means. Are you trying to say that poor people shouldn't be allowed to eat?
- TOGoS 7y ago
  How is pointing out that poor people are unable to afford high quality food saying that they should not eat?
- dx87 7y ago
  I've seen some people with the attitude that eating any meat is disgusting, no better than roadkill, and that it should only be done by poor people who can't afford to eat completely plant based diets.
- jfengel 7y ago
  I think they're saying that poor people shouldn't be coerced by a subsidy system to eat food that has to be chemically treated to remove pathogens, and which causes animal suffering which most people would reject if it weren't kept hidden. There are plenty of ways for poor people to eat healthy diets without harming animals. It's a perverse incentive of the system that grows vast quantities of poor-quality corn and soybeans, cycles them through animals (wasting 90% of the calories in the process), and then feeds people the animals. A system that focused more on feeding people grains and pulses would produce more food for less money. The US in particular is wedded to the notion that meat is essential and primary food, and it set up its entire agriculture industry to making that cheap. It does so at a cost of hidden subsidies, poor-quality and disease-ridden meat, and a lot of animal suffering. You don't have to be a PETA nutjob to object to factory farming. A fairer and less abusive system would, indeed, mean that higher-quality meat is available primarily to rich people. But it's a strawman to say that it means that poor people shouldn't eat. They can eat very well as vegetarians, vegans, or even just people who eat meat occasionally rather than three times a day, every single day.

moksly 7y ago

If they do, I hope they make sure that it has to be labelled on the food. They do that with a lot of things, and then it’s really easy not to buy it.

rjzzleep 7y ago
That's the whole point of the trade deals though. It wouldn't be labelled properly, since it would be considered unfair competition.
- chriswwweb 7y ago
  But it would be labelled as chicken coming from the US, this makes it easy enough to avoid!? Already today, I always read on the label to find out from what country the meat I'm about to buy comes, I always prefer local over imported as I think it is something little I can do to reduce unnecessary emissions and would hence anyway not buy meat that comes from another continent, just to get it few cents cheaper It is however often not possible when eating meat at restaurant for example :(
- xtian 7y ago
  Interesting that so much of the activity of "free market" advocates is centered around reducing access to information.
- moksly 7y ago
  Things that aren’t labelled properly are illegal in a lot of European countries an the EU doesn’t have power to overrule that. GMO products has pushed this hard over the years because almost no one wants to buy them. Hell in Denmark where I live, half of our super market chains outright refuse to carry things like eggs from cage-hens. So they likely wouldn’t ever offer chemical washed chicken American for sale, and they’ll likely even use it in commercial to tell consumers how much better than their competitors they are.
EugeneOZ 7y ago
Unless you're eating in a restaurant.

sneak 7y ago

Why? Do you believe it is harmful? If so, why?

gambiting 7y ago
I allows horrendous poultry farming practices, which in the US are "fine" because the meat gets washed afterwards anyway, so who cares chickens are standing in their shit until their own feet dissolve - the end product is fine, right? I'm not a vegetarian, but god I hope the American chicken never enters this market.
sampo 7y ago
> Do you believe it is harmful? If so, why? In Europe we believe it's indirectly harmful: Being able to wash germs off meat and eggs allows tolerating more diseases in the farms. If you can't just sanitize diseases off products, you have to keep the farms clean of diseases.
axlee 7y ago
The same way living in your own feces but taking a shower before leaving the house does not make you a clean person.

gadders 7y ago

It's just protectionism. It's not like the chicken tastes of bleach. Have you ever eaten food in the US?

jldugger 7y ago
I'm not sure we can trust US resident's opinions on taste as long as Hershey's chocolate still exists.
- magduf 7y ago
  >I'm not sure we can trust US resident's opinions on taste as long as Hershey's chocolate still exists. As an American, I agree with you 100%. Our opinions on taste are utterly worthless. It's not just Hershey's chocolate either (which is already bad enough), it's so many other foods that are commonplace here. Food quality in this country is abysmal. You can get great food here, but it's harder to find and you'll pay dearly for it, but the stuff that regular Americans eat is generally awful.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Hershey’s chocolate is fine, so is American cheese. (You’d be insane to make S’mores or a grilled cheese with anything else, and if you don’t like those things you’re unamerican and should just move to Europe.)
    - joecool1029 7y ago
      I once heard a Belgian say: "There are two kinds of foods: Those that go with chocolate and those that go with cheese" Hershey's chocolate breaks that rule and contains butryic acid. Here's a link explaining why and how that affects the taste: https://www.chemistryworld.com/podcasts/butyric-acid/1017662.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/podcasts/butyric-acid/1017662... EDIT: To be fair I think the butryric acid thing can be overlooked as an acquired taste. Same way that IRN BRU tastes like bubblegum to Americans, even though UK'ers claim it isn't. I still think Hershey's regular milk chocolate works better with peanut butter than any other chocolate I've had. The bigger issues I have with Hershey are the cloying amounts of sugar they keep adding as they knock down the cocoa butter and cacao solids in each of their products to save money. I used to run boxes of UK KitKats down from Canada's duty free stores so that other Americans could see what they were missing out on.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]