5 ms·

> Perdue on Monday defended [...] the technique to disinfect poultry [...], arguing that U.S. farmers now use a chemical called peracetic acid rather than chlor

by mxscho 7y ago

> Perdue on Monday defended [...] the technique to disinfect poultry [...], arguing that U.S. farmers now use a chemical called peracetic acid rather than chlorine: "Peracetic acid ... is a great pathogen reduction treatment. You know what it is? It's vinegar, essentially. To say that's unsafe or not to be used, we don't think there's a basis for that in sound science." I always thought the EU doesn't want this procedure because it effectively allows farmers to take a short cut and cover up bad practices used earlier in the chain. Under this premise, this quote just argues against a straw man for an otherwise meaningless counterargument.

donatj 7y ago
I don't understand the logic. If the end result is unequivocally good, why do the steps along the way matter beyond the "eww" factor?
- the_gastropod 7y ago
  > If the end result is unequivocally good... I think they'd argue "cleanliness" is not the only aspect of what "good" is. The chickens' diets and living conditions affect the quality of the chicken. To say nothing of the animal cruelty angle...
  - noelsusman 7y ago
    Then why focus on the chemical wash and not the actual problem people care about?
    - ivalm 7y ago
      Because the wash hides the actual problems making it harder to detect.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      If they are allowed to use the wash, then they lose an incentive to improve their upstream practices.
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  Poor (cheap) practices earlier in the process (aka life of the chicken) could cause lower quality meat, fewer nutrients, more likelihood for nasty stuff. Washing the germs away doesn't necessarily wash away the effect of that.
- rainwolf 7y ago
  because in Europe, livestock welfare matters more and more
- rising-sky 7y ago
  "The end doesn't always justify the means" the saying goes, therefore for the end to be "unequivocally good", the means has to be taken into consideration. This so called "eww" factor I think is a gross understatement of animal cruelty, other injustices and poor practices
- evgen 7y ago
  Because the purpose of the steps is to hide faults and failures in the process leading up to the final product, and this means that any failure in this process is _likely_ to lead to a bad/unsafe/unhealthy product.
tryptophan 7y ago
>It's vinegar, essentially. Lol. Sure, lets all just drink hydrogen peroxide. It's water, essentially. Peroxides and carboxylic acids(vinegar is an example) are very different things...
- joecool1029 7y ago
  >Sure, lets all just drink hydrogen peroxide. I use hydrogen peroxide to disinfect contact lenses. It neutralizes into water and oxygen in the presence of a catalyst. It would do that over a long enough period when exposed to air. I linked a paper in the thread elsewhere that shows the same decay for the chicken washes. Using peroxide as a lens disinfectant has advantages over other multi-purpose solutions which cause increased corneal staining and are at much higher risk of allergic reactions.
  - atoav 7y ago
    This is about something else. If you are allowed to clean meat that aggressively it usually means what passes as good enough to be sold has a lower standard. Or the other way around: because we in the EU can't use these methods the whole supply chain and quality control has to be much much stricter to deal with this. We can't just dip the thing in chlorine and assume it is clean now.
    - joecool1029 7y ago
      1. Chlorine isn't used anymore, it's dishonest to claim that it is just as it's dishonest to claim peracetic acid is dangerous or ends up in the end product. 2. Well aware of the problems and concerns with the supply chain in the US, but not treating and dealing with salmonella outbreaks would have measurably worse health outcomes. These problems don't get fixed overnight. I'm fine with those problems being attacked but don't spread FUD about what you don't understand.
      - ubercow13 7y ago
        Obviously outbreaks are dealt with here, too.
take_a_breath 7y ago
==It's vinegar, essentially. To say that's unsafe or not to be used, we don't think there's a basis for that in sound science.== Why aren't they just using vinegar if it's the same thing?
- avmich 7y ago
  I think they are not the same thing, not exactly, and the difference is interesting. Hydrogen peroxide is a rather - comparatively - unstable substance, it decomposes to water and oxygen; hydrogen peroxide is a rather strong oxidizer, which defines a lot of its properties. I'd assume double -O- bond in peracetic acid behaves the same - decomposes with release of O and acetic acid (or the anion of the acid). This oxidizing effect likely provides the effect which is desired - the same which chlorine would produce, that is, oxidizing a lot of things in chickens making them safer. I've heard that hydrogen peroxide is used in Europe instead of chlorine in US for water treatment - for example, in swimming pools. I'm not sure why peracetic acid is chosen.
  - zaarn 7y ago
    Not instead, along with chlorine, atleast in swimming pools and general water treatment. Hydrogen Peroxide under UV light can burn a lot of toxins that the chlorine cannot catch, so to speak.
- jshevek 7y ago
  They are not chemically the same thing. Presumably they don't use vinegar because vinegar is less effective. However, the implication is that the chemical they use will break down to vinegar by the time it gets to the consumer.
- ska 7y ago
  Why aren't they just using vinegar if it's the same thing? Because it isn't the same thing, but they want to convey the idea (accurately or not) that it is benign to a general audience.
acqq 7y ago
> peracetic acid ... It's vinegar, essentially. But no, it isn’t essentially: vinegar contains acetic acid: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetic_acid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetic_acid which is a "carboxylic acid" with the following GHS statements: “GHS hazard statements H226, H314 GHS precautionary statements P280, P305+351+338, P310” Vinegar doesn't contain peracetic acid: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peracetic_acid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peracetic_acid which is an "organic peroxide" with the following GHS statements: “GHS hazard statements H226, H242, H302, H312, H314, H332, H400 GHS precautionary statements P210, P220, P233, P234, P240, P241, P242, P243, P260, P261, P264, P270, P271, P273, P280, P301+312, P301+330+331, P302+352, P303+361+353, P304+312, P304+340, P305+351+338, P310, P312, P321”
megous 7y ago
I don't want meat washed in vinegar, bleh. Maybe co-incidentally, that's how some supermarkets used to prolong the shelf life of meat once it started becomming smelly and sticky. Just washed it like that in vinegar, and re-packaged it. Like 20 years ago. Thanks but no thanks.
- hammock 7y ago
  I might try that with meat that has started to go bad in my fridge. Seems like a good way to avoid waste.
  - loopback_device 7y ago
    Not sure if sarcasm or not, but please don't try that. You can use vinegar or other acidic marinades to prolong its edibility, but only before it has started to rot.
    - hammock 7y ago
      Cooking it would still sterilize whatever was rotting it, wouldn't it?
      - loopback_device 7y ago
        Yeah, but that does not necessarily make it edible again. Rotting is basically just all the little critters (bacteria, funghi) around us digesting it, which gradually turns the object in question into their output. That output can be toxic for us humans, and doesn't necessarily break down into digestable substances during cooking. I'm not very knowledgable on the topic and processes, so ymmv, but I wouldn't try it, food poisoning isn't very pleasant.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  ...meat... in vinegar, bleh... Do you really not like chicken adobo? You are the first [non-vegetarian] person I've ever encountered for whom this is the case.
Piezoid 7y ago
The food process relies on the fact that peracetic acid decomposes rather quickly. However, handling the active solution requires great care. It's highly corrosive and toxic. I would mostly be concerned about the sub-products of peracids reacting with foods. I don't know if there is any studies on this subject.
eesmith 7y ago
"sound science" That's warning sign right there. It has a certain interpretation which is different from "good science". Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science#Use_as_corporate_PR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science#Use_as_corporate_... > Theories more favorable to corporate activities are portrayed in words as "sound science." Past examples where "sound science" was used include the research into the toxicity of Alar, which was heavily criticized by antiregulatory advocates, and Herbert Needleman's research into low dose lead poisoning. ... > According to epidemiologist David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety, and Health in the Clinton Administration, the tobacco industry invented the "sound science" movement in the 1980s as part of their campaign against the regulation of second-hand smoke

by mxscho 7y ago

donatj 7y ago

I don't understand the logic. If the end result is unequivocally good, why do the steps along the way matter beyond the "eww" factor?

the_gastropod 7y ago
> If the end result is unequivocally good... I think they'd argue "cleanliness" is not the only aspect of what "good" is. The chickens' diets and living conditions affect the quality of the chicken. To say nothing of the animal cruelty angle...
- noelsusman 7y ago
  Then why focus on the chemical wash and not the actual problem people care about?
  - ivalm 7y ago
    Because the wash hides the actual problems making it harder to detect.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    If they are allowed to use the wash, then they lose an incentive to improve their upstream practices.
edmundsauto 7y ago
Poor (cheap) practices earlier in the process (aka life of the chicken) could cause lower quality meat, fewer nutrients, more likelihood for nasty stuff. Washing the germs away doesn't necessarily wash away the effect of that.
rainwolf 7y ago
because in Europe, livestock welfare matters more and more
rising-sky 7y ago
"The end doesn't always justify the means" the saying goes, therefore for the end to be "unequivocally good", the means has to be taken into consideration. This so called "eww" factor I think is a gross understatement of animal cruelty, other injustices and poor practices
evgen 7y ago
Because the purpose of the steps is to hide faults and failures in the process leading up to the final product, and this means that any failure in this process is _likely_ to lead to a bad/unsafe/unhealthy product.

tryptophan 7y ago

>It's vinegar, essentially. Lol. Sure, lets all just drink hydrogen peroxide. It's water, essentially. Peroxides and carboxylic acids(vinegar is an example) are very different things...

joecool1029 7y ago
>Sure, lets all just drink hydrogen peroxide. I use hydrogen peroxide to disinfect contact lenses. It neutralizes into water and oxygen in the presence of a catalyst. It would do that over a long enough period when exposed to air. I linked a paper in the thread elsewhere that shows the same decay for the chicken washes. Using peroxide as a lens disinfectant has advantages over other multi-purpose solutions which cause increased corneal staining and are at much higher risk of allergic reactions.
- atoav 7y ago
  This is about something else. If you are allowed to clean meat that aggressively it usually means what passes as good enough to be sold has a lower standard. Or the other way around: because we in the EU can't use these methods the whole supply chain and quality control has to be much much stricter to deal with this. We can't just dip the thing in chlorine and assume it is clean now.
  - joecool1029 7y ago
    1. Chlorine isn't used anymore, it's dishonest to claim that it is just as it's dishonest to claim peracetic acid is dangerous or ends up in the end product. 2. Well aware of the problems and concerns with the supply chain in the US, but not treating and dealing with salmonella outbreaks would have measurably worse health outcomes. These problems don't get fixed overnight. I'm fine with those problems being attacked but don't spread FUD about what you don't understand.
    - ubercow13 7y ago
      Obviously outbreaks are dealt with here, too.

take_a_breath 7y ago

==It's vinegar, essentially. To say that's unsafe or not to be used, we don't think there's a basis for that in sound science.== Why aren't they just using vinegar if it's the same thing?

avmich 7y ago
I think they are not the same thing, not exactly, and the difference is interesting. Hydrogen peroxide is a rather - comparatively - unstable substance, it decomposes to water and oxygen; hydrogen peroxide is a rather strong oxidizer, which defines a lot of its properties. I'd assume double -O- bond in peracetic acid behaves the same - decomposes with release of O and acetic acid (or the anion of the acid). This oxidizing effect likely provides the effect which is desired - the same which chlorine would produce, that is, oxidizing a lot of things in chickens making them safer. I've heard that hydrogen peroxide is used in Europe instead of chlorine in US for water treatment - for example, in swimming pools. I'm not sure why peracetic acid is chosen.
- zaarn 7y ago
  Not instead, along with chlorine, atleast in swimming pools and general water treatment. Hydrogen Peroxide under UV light can burn a lot of toxins that the chlorine cannot catch, so to speak.
jshevek 7y ago
They are not chemically the same thing. Presumably they don't use vinegar because vinegar is less effective. However, the implication is that the chemical they use will break down to vinegar by the time it gets to the consumer.
ska 7y ago
Why aren't they just using vinegar if it's the same thing? Because it isn't the same thing, but they want to convey the idea (accurately or not) that it is benign to a general audience.

acqq 7y ago

> peracetic acid ... It's vinegar, essentially. But no, it isn’t essentially: vinegar contains acetic acid: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetic_acid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetic_acid which is a "carboxylic acid" with the following GHS statements: “GHS hazard statements H226, H314 GHS precautionary statements P280, P305+351+338, P310” Vinegar doesn't contain peracetic acid: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peracetic_acid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peracetic_acid which is an "organic peroxide" with the following GHS statements: “GHS hazard statements H226, H242, H302, H312, H314, H332, H400 GHS precautionary statements P210, P220, P233, P234, P240, P241, P242, P243, P260, P261, P264, P270, P271, P273, P280, P301+312, P301+330+331, P302+352, P303+361+353, P304+312, P304+340, P305+351+338, P310, P312, P321”

megous 7y ago

I don't want meat washed in vinegar, bleh. Maybe co-incidentally, that's how some supermarkets used to prolong the shelf life of meat once it started becomming smelly and sticky. Just washed it like that in vinegar, and re-packaged it. Like 20 years ago. Thanks but no thanks.

hammock 7y ago
I might try that with meat that has started to go bad in my fridge. Seems like a good way to avoid waste.
- loopback_device 7y ago
  Not sure if sarcasm or not, but please don't try that. You can use vinegar or other acidic marinades to prolong its edibility, but only before it has started to rot.
  - hammock 7y ago
    Cooking it would still sterilize whatever was rotting it, wouldn't it?
    - loopback_device 7y ago
      Yeah, but that does not necessarily make it edible again. Rotting is basically just all the little critters (bacteria, funghi) around us digesting it, which gradually turns the object in question into their output. That output can be toxic for us humans, and doesn't necessarily break down into digestable substances during cooking. I'm not very knowledgable on the topic and processes, so ymmv, but I wouldn't try it, food poisoning isn't very pleasant.
jessaustin 7y ago
...meat... in vinegar, bleh... Do you really not like chicken adobo? You are the first [non-vegetarian] person I've ever encountered for whom this is the case.

Piezoid 7y ago

The food process relies on the fact that peracetic acid decomposes rather quickly. However, handling the active solution requires great care. It's highly corrosive and toxic. I would mostly be concerned about the sub-products of peracids reacting with foods. I don't know if there is any studies on this subject.

eesmith 7y ago

"sound science" That's warning sign right there. It has a certain interpretation which is different from "good science". Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science#Use_as_corporate_PR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science#Use_as_corporate_... > Theories more favorable to corporate activities are portrayed in words as "sound science." Past examples where "sound science" was used include the research into the toxicity of Alar, which was heavily criticized by antiregulatory advocates, and Herbert Needleman's research into low dose lead poisoning. ... > According to epidemiologist David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety, and Health in the Clinton Administration, the tobacco industry invented the "sound science" movement in the 1980s as part of their campaign against the regulation of second-hand smoke