3 ms·

A data point on this: post-Brexit the UK Government has been doing their best to agree trade deals with countries around the globe. There is (for obvious reason

by mft_ 2y ago

A data point on this: post-Brexit the UK Government has been doing their best to agree trade deals with countries around the globe. There is (for obvious reasons) significant interest in a trade deal with the United States, but a big fear (often mentioned when this topic crops up) is that the UK would be forced to accept apparently substandard quality US beef as part of the deal.

throwaway48476 2y ago
'substandard' is often trotted out but rarely defined.
- orf 2y ago
  > substandard Below the legal standard.
  - mft_ 2y ago
    …in UK (and EU) I assume?
    - orf 2y ago
      Given the obvious context, that shouldn’t be something that needs clarification.
      - mft_ 2y ago
        Well, since you mention context, the original thread is about listeria in food, and this part of the discussion is about how the US beef cartels are too big to police and so can effectively do what they want. Thus it was plausible that the comment could have been suggesting that beef that is below US legal standards might be sold to the UK. But thanks for your contribution :)
        orf 2y ago
        There’s an implicit assumption that trade deal details usually don’t involve illegal goods. That also doesn’t need to be clarified. The other interpretation would be that you were under the curious assumption that US beef isn’t the lowest quality in all the first-world, and other countries would be happy with the substandard offcuts because even they would exceed local standards?
        mft_ 2y ago
        There's also an implicit assumption that consuming food bought from a country with a regulatory framework for food (say, the US) doesn't usually involve the risk of said food being laced with listeria. The point being, the wbole thread is about the breakdown of food safety in the US to an illegal level, and as such, it wasn't unreasonable to consider that someone's opinion was that a risk of being supplied with US food might involve illegal foods also.
- burkaman 2y ago
  Here it means beneath the UK's current standards for meat: https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/meat-premises-and-slaughter https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/meat-premises-and-...
- krisoft 2y ago
  It is very well defined. I can summarise it in one sentence: "In 1989, the European Communities banned the import of meat that contained artificial beef growth hormones,[a] although they were approved for use in the United States." you can read about it in more depth here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef_hormone_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef_hormone_controversy That is about the beef. There is a different controversy about poultry meat. There the controversy is that under EU law, cold air and water are the only substances that can be used to decontaminate poultry. In the US chlorine rinses are also permitted. In other words artificial beef growth hormones and chlorine rinsed chicken are the two points which is what we mean by 'substandard' in this conversation.
arlort 2y ago
That's not really a data point. People are opposed to it mostly because of fear mongering
nancyminusone 2y ago
[flagged]

by mft_ 2y ago

throwaway48476 2y ago

'substandard' is often trotted out but rarely defined.

orf 2y ago
> substandard Below the legal standard.
- mft_ 2y ago
  …in UK (and EU) I assume?
  - orf 2y ago
    Given the obvious context, that shouldn’t be something that needs clarification.
    - mft_ 2y ago
      Well, since you mention context, the original thread is about listeria in food, and this part of the discussion is about how the US beef cartels are too big to police and so can effectively do what they want. Thus it was plausible that the comment could have been suggesting that beef that is below US legal standards might be sold to the UK. But thanks for your contribution :)
      - orf 2y ago
        There’s an implicit assumption that trade deal details usually don’t involve illegal goods. That also doesn’t need to be clarified. The other interpretation would be that you were under the curious assumption that US beef isn’t the lowest quality in all the first-world, and other countries would be happy with the substandard offcuts because even they would exceed local standards?
        mft_ 2y ago
        There's also an implicit assumption that consuming food bought from a country with a regulatory framework for food (say, the US) doesn't usually involve the risk of said food being laced with listeria. The point being, the wbole thread is about the breakdown of food safety in the US to an illegal level, and as such, it wasn't unreasonable to consider that someone's opinion was that a risk of being supplied with US food might involve illegal foods also.
burkaman 2y ago
Here it means beneath the UK's current standards for meat: https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/meat-premises-and-slaughter https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/meat-premises-and-...
krisoft 2y ago
It is very well defined. I can summarise it in one sentence: "In 1989, the European Communities banned the import of meat that contained artificial beef growth hormones,[a] although they were approved for use in the United States." you can read about it in more depth here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef_hormone_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef_hormone_controversy That is about the beef. There is a different controversy about poultry meat. There the controversy is that under EU law, cold air and water are the only substances that can be used to decontaminate poultry. In the US chlorine rinses are also permitted. In other words artificial beef growth hormones and chlorine rinsed chicken are the two points which is what we mean by 'substandard' in this conversation.

arlort 2y ago

That's not really a data point. People are opposed to it mostly because of fear mongering

nancyminusone 2y ago

[flagged]