5 ms·

No, much of this is a political issue. America wants food standards that are different from many trading partners; fair enough. But it makes it impossible to ex

• unglaublich 9mo ago
  People outside of the US look down on inferior products like HFCS, bleached chicken, hormones used in beef cattle, prevalence of GM crops, the preventive use of antibiotics in poultry, hen battery cages, and permissive-by-default use of additives. If at least all those bad farming practices would lead to very affordable food, then one could make an argument for it... but currently the US just does worst of two worlds.
  • bestouff 9mo ago
    Looks like the healthcare system.
    • chanux 9mo ago
      Looks like a pipeline.
  • dathinab 9mo ago
    Interesting Side Note: bleached/chlorinated chicken The things which makes this a no go in the EU is ironically not the chlorination per-se, but the fact that chlorination is needed. Like basically the EU thinks the way the US allows farmers to keep and raise chickens is so bad/unsanitary that chlorinating them isn't sufficient to make them safe for (repeated) consumption. Which makes sense given that some of the things involved can lead to (non exhaustive list): - non healthy chemicals _in_ the meat, not just on it - increase in parasite, bacteria or virus infection _in_ the meat - increased chance bacteria have some form of antibiotic resistance or other mutations - not wanting to support "that" level of animal abuse (which is not just illegal but criminal in many EU countries, but also that doesn't mean that EU countries are that much better, they just drew a line on the level of animal abuse they tolerate which is in a different place then the line the US drew, but both are far away from the line animal protection organizations would drew)
    • legacynl 9mo ago
      > but the fact that chlorination is needed. You're wrong. The whole point is this: in EU, you cannot chlorinate your chickens. This means that to sell chicken, you need to make sure that your chicken is good to eat without chlorination (by making sure your whole production chain is sanitized up to sufficient level). In the US you don't need to make sure your production chain is super high sanitation quality because you can chlorinate the chicken afterwards. This means that you don't have to spend money/effort cleaning up your chains, because you can dip them in chlorine after. From a health perspective there is honestly not that big of a difference. The resulting product in both cases is chicken that's safe to eat. The real reason for the difference in policy is the incentives that it creates for the meat-producers. In the US there is no incentive to keep sanitation up in the production chains because the chicken will be chlorinated anyway. This actually incentivizes sloppy (cheaper) production methods over ones that are more sanitized but more costly. On the other hand, in the EU you cannot wash chicken meat, so it needs to be kept clean and sanitized throughout the production process.
      • gruez 9mo ago
        >The real reason for the difference in policy is the incentives that it creates for the meat-producers. In the US there is no incentive to keep sanitation up in the production chains because the chicken will be chlorinated anyway. This actually incentivizes sloppy (cheaper) production methods over ones that are more sanitized but more costly. If there's no actual downsides from the chlorine, what's the issue? In many cities the municipal water source is local river that's polluted, and needs treatment to be drinkable. Part of that process might involve adding chlorine. I'm sure that all of this can be avoided if the water is sourced, at great expense, from a glacier or whatever, but nobody would suggest we should ban chlorinating water, and that allowing chlorinating water would be better because it forces the water source to be clean.
        • munk-a 9mo ago
          The poor sanitation in American poultry farming can have other negative effects outside the meat being safe. Such unsanitary conditions make dangerous conditions for workers including an elevated risk of novel avian flues and, if ever the chlorination isn't properly executed, the meat is extremely unsafe to eat. Chlorination is a good idea when you can't control the supply chain (i.e. drawing water through infrastructure that's been compromised) but the better solution (if it's reasonable) is always to fix the supply chain. In the case of a city relying on chlorination vs. bringing clean water in by train the chlorination is a clear winner. When it comes to meat it's a cost issue and the EU made the decision to force that cost onto the producer while the US has made the decision to bear the cost at large.
  • throwaway2037 9mo ago
    > bleached chicken I don't understand this meme that appears whenever US vs "Europe" food/crop standards are discussed. I Googled for more info, and I found this quote: https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/15/nx-s1-5364940/chlorinated-chicken-trump-tariffs-uk-eu https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/15/nx... > Less than 5% of poultry processing facilities still use chlorine in rinses and sprays, according to the National Chicken Council, an industry group that surveyed its members. (Those that still do use a highly diluted solution at concentrations deemed safe.) > Nowadays, the industry mostly uses organic acids to reduce cross contamination, primarily peracetic, or peroxyacetic acid, which is essentially a mixture of vinegar and hydrogen peroxide. What do European chicken meat plants use to reduce bateria load? > prevalence of GM crops EU grows plenty of GM maize. More will come. Are Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) crops bad?
    • wojciii 9mo ago
      > What do European chicken meat plants use to reduce bateria load? I'm sure it's just salt and water. I don't understand why consumers will pay for a chicken breast which has been injected with salt water. It comes out when you prepare it. Also some people don't season food with salt (you can add salt at the table if you really need it). Meat with added salt taste very salty to me.
      • jansper39 9mo ago
        It's also down to vaccination requirements for EU based farms who take far more preventative measures than US ones. It's why you can eat raw eggs and keep them out of the fridge in the EU/UK but not in the US, because the chickens are vaccination for Salmonella.
        • throwaway2037 9mo ago
          Generally, I agree with your post. About "keep them out of the fridge": I thought this is mostly due to wash or not-wash the eggs before packing. I think washing removes a thin layer that makes the eggs last longer, but can be visually less appealing. Please correct me if you know better! Japan also vaccinates heavily for Salmonella, and they eat plenty of raw eggs in their cuisine.
  • spacecadet 9mo ago
    you do know those are industrial food manufacturing outcomes not farming outcomes? Ain't no one bleaching my families chickens, or giving their cattle growth hormones. Americans have been tricked and mislead by marketing and conglomerate, some of which is European.
    • spacecadet 9mo ago
      Down votes by brainwashed wooites.
  • gruez 9mo ago
    >inferior products like HFCS, [...] prevalence of GM crops The others I agree with, but there's no evidence that HFCS or GM crops are bad.
    • FireBeyond 9mo ago
      What? On HFCS: While glucose is used by nearly every cell in the body and has tight regulation by insulin, fructose is largely processed by the liver, where it more easily is converted into fat, triglycerides and uric acid. Intrinsically this messes with our bodies insulin resistance, for a start, contributing to diabetic issues, as well as increased fatty liver disease, and elevated triglycerides. It bypasses our body's normal appetite regulation, as fructose also (in addition to insulin) does not stimulate leptin, providing the body with no/less feeling of satiation, and is also less effective at stimulating ghrelin (hunger hormone). You feel less full, you keep eating, calories and obesity go up. This is at its worst in liquids, as liquid fructose is absorbed rapidly, and leads to effective weight gain even at small amounts of consumption. Carrying on from that, contrary to your statement, HFCS has absolutely been linked in multiple studies to increased obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. I can't imagine where you're hearing that there's "no evidence that HFCS is bad" other than those in the production pipeline or their lobbying.
      • BearOso 9mo ago
        HFCS came about when there was an abundance of corn and nothing to do with it. So when they discovered corn syrup they added corn subsidies and heavily tariffed cane sugar. Ethanol appeared and is a far greater corn sink, so HFCS no longer even serves that purpose. But the processing industry doesn't want to disappear (money and job losses), so they lobby and the status quo remains. Same with private health care in a cozy position where they act as an unneeded middleman. It's too lucrative to certain people, and they won't willingly give it up.
      • twobitshifter 9mo ago
        I still don’t see your evidence of these claims. HFCS is also known as glucose-fructose syrup - it’s not all fructose, either 42% or 55% typically. Glucose and Fructose often go together in your body, so the signal would be there. In your gut, sucrase breaks sucrose (table sugar) into glucose and fructose. In drinks, when sucrose is exposed to CO2 and other acids it turns into fructose and glucose before it hits your gut! So if you are saying fructose is bad, you are saying table sugar is bad in much the same way and that fruits like apples which are high in fructose would be problematic.
  • traceroute66 9mo ago
    > look down on inferior products I object to the use of "look down on" in this context. The products listed are inferior products, end of. "Look down" suggests an expression of contempt. But there is no contempt to be had here, it is a simple fact. > bad farming practices would lead to very affordable food, then one could make an argument for it. I ... just... I ....have no words for what I just read there. Its affordable so its ok .... really ? SERIOUSLY ?
    • anonymous908213 9mo ago
      They didn't say "it's affordable so it's okay". They said "if it made it very affordable, then one could make an argument for it". And they're right. If you could reduce poverty by providing food at 1/2 or 1/5th the price of European-quality food, that would absolutely be worth having an argument over. Of course, this isn't actually the case, which is why they then said it's the worst of both worlds - American food manages to be both unhealthy and expensive rather than only one or the other.
  • HWR_14 9mo ago
    If it was that simple farmers in the US could just voluntarily adhere to higher standards. It's not like those things are legally required.
  • sutterd 9mo ago
    This does make the food much _cheaper_. You can buy food with high quality standards in the US but it is much more expensive. Most people in the US choose the cheaper option.
  • mywittyname 9mo ago
    To a degree, those are also convenient excuses a country uses to protect their own food industries without being overtly protectionist. USA's agriculture industry can readily decimate the leaders in most other markets when they have to compete on price. Between the subsidies, lower standards, and sheer scale, it's practically impossible to compete.
• conductr 9mo ago
  Could America meet those standards and export at a higher profit though? If not, it’s not what’s contributing to their poor financial situation
• wilkommen 9mo ago
  The existence of monopolies is a political issue, and it is a political problem that must be resolved in order to restore any semblance of a free market in the United States.
• 0hw0t 9mo ago
  Antitrust is a political issue. Or lack of political will issue.