4 ms·

> Americans eat about 150m chickens each week that have been treated with PRTs, and they have come to little harm. Britons worried about these birds should cons

> Americans eat about 150m chickens each week that have been treated with PRTs, and they have come to little harm. Britons worried about these birds should consider that small amounts of disinfection byproducts are already ingested. According to the pro-trade Adam Smith Institute, chlorinated poultry would make up 0.3% to 1% of the disinfection byproducts consumed in the typical daily diet. (Drinking water makes up 99%.) American chickens would also be far cheaper, which would greatly benefit consumers. Moreover, nobody would be obliged to buy chlorinated chickens. “Organic” American chicken is not dressed in PRTs. All in all, chlorinated chicken is a paltry concern compared to what else will be on the negotiating table. My summary: you already eat shit, so shut up and eat some more, it's cheap and anyway it's the least of your worries.

oxfordmale 5y ago
It is not the chlorine that is the problem, it is the fact that chlorine is used to cover up poor hygienic practices. Once treated with chlorine, you can no longer detect salmonella on the surface, however, it could well be present inside the chicken.
- CommanderData 5y ago
  This is very much the concern with everyone I ask here. Farming practices naturally have to be better to control outbreak of disease. Covering up poor hygeine with Chlroine doesn't digest too well among the public.
refurb 5y ago
“Drink shit” would be more accurate with “shit” being tap water apparently?
gruez 5y ago
>My summary: you already eat shit, so shut up and eat some more, it's cheap and anyway it's the least of your worries. On the flip side, why should someone be forced to pay for more expensive farming practices when it only marginally decreases overall exposure? HN readers probably can afford the organic free range chicken breasts at whole foods, but not the median or 25% percentile worker.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Why aren't those workers getting paid enough?
  - newbamboo 5y ago
    Because the value of chicken lives is too great.
  - gruez 5y ago
    Because like it or not, organic free range chicken breasts are a luxury, and producing them take substantially more resources than conventional chicken. I see you're going for the corporate greed/income inequality angle, that's orthogonal to this issue. Those might be important issues to address, but even in an economy with zero inequality, I would want the ability to choose between low-end basic product and high-end luxury product. That's especially the case when the negatives of the low end product are unclear. I don't need sashimi-grade chicken if I'm going to be braising it for 2 hours.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      In my opinion treating another living being with respect is not a luxury, it is a necessity Both workers and chicken
    - cheese_goddess 5y ago
      > I see you're going for the corporate greed/income inequality angle, that's orthogonal to this issue. I disagree! We pay the people who make the food we eat a pittance, we optimise our food production for cheap food rather than wellfare of workers and animals, we cut corners all over the place, but in the end all we manage to do is to make cheap, low-quality food that people only eat because they can't afford anything better... and they can't afford anything better because we pay them a pittance to do work that everyone neeeds done in the first place, like producing the food we eat. There is a cost to producing food and it has to be paid one way or another. By making food cheaper and cheaper by exploiting everyone and everything along the line we only push this cost to where it can't be seen, not eliminate it. And the costs are coming back and biting us in the behind, constantly, in all sorts of ways: environmental destruction, obesity and other diseases, orthorexia, nutritional deficiencies, etc etc. > I don't need sashimi-grade chicken if I'm going to be braising it for 2 hours. With respect, but you don't need to braise supermarket chicken for 2 hours, either. I did it just yesterday, and the supermarket chicken simply disintegrated (I cooked it in my French oven, at medium heat). I'm used to our backyard chicken that has to be cooked for 2 hours, minimal, otherwise it's inedible, and I haven't cooked a supermarket bird for a while. I was going for a casserole but I got ... mush. That's just awful. What they do to those poor birds is horrible and I can't believe it doesn't affect their nutritional value. We'd all be much better if food was more expensive but better quality and a decent day's job paid enough to feed your family anyway. But that can't happen because the whole economy must be shaped like a pyramid, with all the money percolating to the top and all the work at the bottom. Greed and inequality are at the core of how we are forced to eat and what we do to ourselves, the environment and animals, in the process.
Melkman 5y ago
Also what drinking water are they comparing to that gives 99% of the chlorine intake ? In dutch drinking water chlorine is not used at all, neither for primary disinfection nor to maintain a residual disinfectant in the distribution network. Still doesn't mean that small chlorine intake is bad for your health. Does seem however they use chlorine rich drinking water to justify the extra intake from chlorinated chickens. https://dwes.copernicus.org/articles/2/1/2009/dwes-2-1-2009.pdf https://dwes.copernicus.org/articles/2/1/2009/dwes-2-1-2009....

oxfordmale 5y ago

It is not the chlorine that is the problem, it is the fact that chlorine is used to cover up poor hygienic practices. Once treated with chlorine, you can no longer detect salmonella on the surface, however, it could well be present inside the chicken.

CommanderData 5y ago
This is very much the concern with everyone I ask here. Farming practices naturally have to be better to control outbreak of disease. Covering up poor hygeine with Chlroine doesn't digest too well among the public.

refurb 5y ago

“Drink shit” would be more accurate with “shit” being tap water apparently?

gruez 5y ago

>My summary: you already eat shit, so shut up and eat some more, it's cheap and anyway it's the least of your worries. On the flip side, why should someone be forced to pay for more expensive farming practices when it only marginally decreases overall exposure? HN readers probably can afford the organic free range chicken breasts at whole foods, but not the median or 25% percentile worker.

netizen-936824 5y ago
Why aren't those workers getting paid enough?
- newbamboo 5y ago
  Because the value of chicken lives is too great.
- gruez 5y ago
  Because like it or not, organic free range chicken breasts are a luxury, and producing them take substantially more resources than conventional chicken. I see you're going for the corporate greed/income inequality angle, that's orthogonal to this issue. Those might be important issues to address, but even in an economy with zero inequality, I would want the ability to choose between low-end basic product and high-end luxury product. That's especially the case when the negatives of the low end product are unclear. I don't need sashimi-grade chicken if I'm going to be braising it for 2 hours.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    In my opinion treating another living being with respect is not a luxury, it is a necessity Both workers and chicken
  - cheese_goddess 5y ago
    > I see you're going for the corporate greed/income inequality angle, that's orthogonal to this issue. I disagree! We pay the people who make the food we eat a pittance, we optimise our food production for cheap food rather than wellfare of workers and animals, we cut corners all over the place, but in the end all we manage to do is to make cheap, low-quality food that people only eat because they can't afford anything better... and they can't afford anything better because we pay them a pittance to do work that everyone neeeds done in the first place, like producing the food we eat. There is a cost to producing food and it has to be paid one way or another. By making food cheaper and cheaper by exploiting everyone and everything along the line we only push this cost to where it can't be seen, not eliminate it. And the costs are coming back and biting us in the behind, constantly, in all sorts of ways: environmental destruction, obesity and other diseases, orthorexia, nutritional deficiencies, etc etc. > I don't need sashimi-grade chicken if I'm going to be braising it for 2 hours. With respect, but you don't need to braise supermarket chicken for 2 hours, either. I did it just yesterday, and the supermarket chicken simply disintegrated (I cooked it in my French oven, at medium heat). I'm used to our backyard chicken that has to be cooked for 2 hours, minimal, otherwise it's inedible, and I haven't cooked a supermarket bird for a while. I was going for a casserole but I got ... mush. That's just awful. What they do to those poor birds is horrible and I can't believe it doesn't affect their nutritional value. We'd all be much better if food was more expensive but better quality and a decent day's job paid enough to feed your family anyway. But that can't happen because the whole economy must be shaped like a pyramid, with all the money percolating to the top and all the work at the bottom. Greed and inequality are at the core of how we are forced to eat and what we do to ourselves, the environment and animals, in the process.

Melkman 5y ago

Also what drinking water are they comparing to that gives 99% of the chlorine intake ? In dutch drinking water chlorine is not used at all, neither for primary disinfection nor to maintain a residual disinfectant in the distribution network. Still doesn't mean that small chlorine intake is bad for your health. Does seem however they use chlorine rich drinking water to justify the extra intake from chlorinated chickens. https://dwes.copernicus.org/articles/2/1/2009/dwes-2-1-2009.pdf https://dwes.copernicus.org/articles/2/1/2009/dwes-2-1-2009....