Theresa May resigns

[John Cuthber]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So who does?

Who does what?

 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Who does what?

Indeed, who's the teacher; my father telling me not to touch fire, or fire telling me to say ouch?

[John Cuthber]

Sorry to drag this up but I just wondered about something

When sold, for human consumption in the US, is chlorinated chicken actually labeled as such?

 

[Curious layman]

Just come across this, maybe something similar in the US.

Under current EU rules, the chlorine wash is classed as a processing aid rather than an ingredient and so wouldn’t have to be declared on the packaging. This means UK consumers would be unlikely to know whether imported US chicken had been through the chlorination process unless it was voluntarily declared.

http://theconversation.com/chlorine-washed-chicken-qanda-food-safety-expert-explains-why-us-poultry-is-banned-in-the-eu-81921

[StringJunky]

It appears not. Site won't let me quote: 

https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2019/09/UK-Government-accused-of-trying-to-lower-food-safety-expectations-after-Brexit

 

[John Cuthber]

No offence intended, but neither of you is well placed to answer the question.

I want  to know if it is currently labeled when sold in the US. (whether in a supermarket or a takeaway or whatever)

[CharonY]

49 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No offence intended, but neither of you is well placed to answer the question.

I want  to know if it is currently labeled when sold in the US. (whether in a supermarket or a takeaway or whatever)

Standard food labels only include additives and ingredients, and as such are not labelled in the US as such, either. There are special provisions, such as the requirement to declared mechanically tenderized meat, but I do not think chlorination falls under that category either (at least I cannot recall ever seen it declared).

[StringJunky]

53 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No offence intended, but neither of you is well placed to answer the question.

I want  to know if it is currently labeled when sold in the US. (whether in a supermarket or a takeaway or whatever)

That article references academics who looked into it. You were obviously trying to cause offence.

 

[CharonY]

47 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That article references academics who looked into it. You were obviously trying to cause offence.

 

There is a line indicating that it is not labelled in the US, since the article was somewhat broad, I can see it being missed easily. I note that the article is somewhat misleading in a few instances. For example, antibiotics are overused in the US as well as UK whereas the article made it seem that it is not an issue in the UK. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

LOL. Apologies for not going back to read this "Theresa May Resigns" thread...but discussion of chlorinated wash for chicken was not what I expected.

Not complaining...I've participated and contributed in taking threads further off topic...

[iNow]

Funny. Brexit happens tomorrow. Good timing.

[StringJunky]

32 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There is a line indicating that it is not labelled in the US, since the article was somewhat broad, I can see it being missed easily. I note that the article is somewhat misleading in a few instances. For example, antibiotics are overused in the US as well as UK whereas the article made it seem that it is not an issue in the UK. 

They are restricted now. 

Quote

Hormonal treatments and antibiotics for cattle
Due to concerns about the potential risk to humans, the use of hormonal growth promoters for livestock is banned in the UK. Antibiotic growth-promoting feed additives have also been phased out - because of concerns about the potential spread of antibiotic resistance.

As a result, if you keep farmed animals there are restrictions on the use of treatments that:

act as beta-agonists
have hormonal actions
reduce production of thyroid hormones
You must prevent meat containing these substances from entering the human - or animal - food chain.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/cattle-health#hormonal-treatments-and-antibiotics-for-cattle

 

[Curious layman]

44 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

LOL. Apologies for not going back to read this "Theresa May Resigns" thread...but discussion of chlorinated wash for chicken was not what I expected.

Not complaining...I've participated and contributed in taking threads further off topic...

This is a strange place to post this isn't it! 🤔

[CharonY]

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

They are restricted now. 

 

They have been for quite a while, actually. EU regulations have phased out the use of antibiotics as a fattening agents for years now. However, as it turns out the first couple of years after the ban, the use was pretty much stable. What happened was that rather than declaring it as a food additive, farmers claimed medical use. Data has shown that over 90% of ABs were mass administered via drinking water rather than individually administered as you would for actual medical reasons. So overall there was little movement in net use. Only in the last few years AB use for meat production has dropped, as consumer increasingly started to buy more expensive meat that was declared not to be treated with ABs (though the labeling can be deceiving, but that is probably another issue).

However, the same trend is seen in the US. Between 2016-17 both UK and US have both dropped AB use in livestock by either 16 or 30% (cannot remember the actual value anymore- but it was significant). I will say that it is possible, if not likely that the per animal use could be higher in the US, but it would be a mistake to just point fingers at US and thereby ignore the tremendous domestic use. A couple of European countries have been doing better, such as Sweden where more AB treatments are carried out on individual animals. Around 2017 there was big push in the EU to end mass medication once and for all, but predictable that push failed. Not sure how things are going forward after Brexit, though.

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

That article references academics who looked into it. You were obviously trying to cause offence.

 

I was obviously trying to get an answer which would be yes or no.

You seem not to realise that I can google academic papers on the subject just as well as you can.

What I was after was the "lived experience" of someone who lives in the US. The site lists you as being in the UK- so you are simply not qualified.

[iNow]

I have never seen such a label anywhere on any chickens, but perhaps they’re not sold where I shop, aren’t required to label them, or something else. For reference, I’d never heard of them until this thread

[zapatos]

And of course different states have different requirements. I've also not seen the labeling but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist elsewhere in the US.

[Phi for All]

Most of our labeling for chicken is misleading marketing anyway, like the claim "No added hormones or steroids". They put this on many packages, but the truth is you aren't allowed to use those things with chickens in the first place. They also use "cage-free", but I'm pretty sure only the layers are ever put in cages. Chickens for meat need room to walk around. Our regs for "free-range" labeling are pretty sloppy too. You can keep chickens in their houses most of the day and then let them outside for a bit and get away with calling them "free-range".

The only chicken I'd trust is organic, since that has more restrictions on what they've been fed. It still doesn't regulate how they're housed though. And from what I've heard, since the law is you have to take the bird down to 34F within an hour of slaughter, most use either a cold water bath (with chlorine) or a blast of cold air. The former adds weight, the latter dries the meat out and lessens weight. None of that shows up on a nutrition label. 

I stopped buying chicken that had obviously been swollen with water a number of years ago. From what I've heard about the water bath process, it's not the chlorine that's the problem, but rather that it's a cheap way to mask cutting corners in production. The US doesn't have as strict regulations regarding how the birds are raised, and probably wouldn't need this step if the birds were better cared for while alive.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Most of our labeling for chicken is misleading marketing anyway, like the claim "No added hormones or steroids". They put this on many packages, but the truth is you aren't allowed to use those things with chickens in the first place. They also use "cage-free", but I'm pretty sure only the layers are ever put in cages. Chickens for meat need room to walk around. Our regs for "free-range" labeling are pretty sloppy too. You can keep chickens in their houses most of the day and then let them outside for a bit and get away with calling them "free-range".

The only chicken I'd trust is organic, since that has more restrictions on what they've been fed. It still doesn't regulate how they're housed though. And from what I've heard, since the law is you have to take the bird down to 34F within an hour of slaughter, most use either a cold water bath (with chlorine) or a blast of cold air. The former adds weight, the latter dries the meat out and lessens weight. None of that shows up on a nutrition label. 

I stopped buying chicken that had obviously been swollen with water a number of years ago. From what I've heard about the water bath process, it's not the chlorine that's the problem, but rather that it's a cheap way to mask cutting corners in production. The US doesn't have as strict regulations regarding how the birds are raised, and probably wouldn't need this step if the birds were better cared for while alive.

This is the EU position.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Most of our labeling for chicken is misleading marketing anyway, like the claim "No added hormones or steroids". They put this on many packages, but the truth is you aren't allowed to use those things with chickens in the first place.

So actually in that case they have to add the disclaimer that it is not allowed in the first place, with the exception for beef. In the US and Canada growth hormones are allowed for beef production, so if they do not add it, they are allowed. One other regulation I have seen (since '14 or '15) is the declaration of mechanical tenderization. 

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This is the EU position.

So is the real fight is about whether the chlorine water bath can be effective against the kinds of contamination one can expect from US chickens, or is it that the conditions in which US chickens are raised are unacceptable no matter how they're cleaned up after slaughter?

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

So is the real fight is about whether the chlorine water bath can be effective against the kinds of contamination one can expect from US chickens, or is it that the conditions in which US chickens are raised are unacceptable no matter how they're cleaned up after slaughter?

There may be a difference between lawmakers and consumers. However, lawmakers and animal welfare groups are about more about the latter. There is also evidence that chlorine baths actually make certain pathogens harder to detect, but dot effectively kill them. I.e. the issue is that the whole meat production line may not be up to EU standards but the chlorine baths can hide this issue.

Perhaps going even more off topic (but then we are very way off Theresa May, I'd think). There are also differences between US and EU regarding labels of antibiotics use. According to the US Dept. of agriculture, animals with an organic label generally are not allowed to be fed antibiotics, though there are exceptions when it comes to poultry. The label "no antibiotics used" can only be used if the animal was never fed antibiotics. However, this is not actually inspected and solely relies on providing "sufficient documentation". In the EU the organic label forbids the use of antibiotics but only as food additive. So the regulation (from what I have read) does not explicitly limit the use for treatment purposes. I have not been buying meat in Germany for a long time, so I am not sure whether there are labels in the EU indicating lack of antibiotics. Maybe some European members could comment?

[StringJunky]

37 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So is the real fight is about whether the chlorine water bath can be effective against the kinds of contamination one can expect from US chickens, or is it that the conditions in which US chickens are raised are unacceptable no matter how they're cleaned up after slaughter?

CharonY covers pretty much what I've read.  It does seem that chlorinating is an excuse for mitigating sloppy practices since the EU sees no reason to do it and they get along just fine not doing it. If US poultry farmers/processors have confidence in their practices, why can't they send their meat over unchlorinated? This is what crosses my mind.

Edited January 31, 2020 by StringJunky

[MigL]

IIRC fast food chains 'bleach' quite a few of their products.
Don't recall where I read it, but McDonald's onions for their burgers are 'bleached', I believe.
As are the reconstituted potatoes that the use, to shape into French fries.

Not sure about the 'water pressure' stripped chicken that they reconstitute into chicken nuggets.

By the way Stringy, did you read the new forum rule that you have to be a member of the EU to participate in this forum ?
( joking, always good to hear from you )
You guys are officially out now.
Do you feel 'liberated' from those continentals now ?

[Huckleberry of Yore]

Reading this made me curious, so I bought a whole chicken.  It's organic and as such cost about twice normal ($17).  It says: "100 % AIR CHILLED, No Retained Water, Including chlorinated water."  I'll look at a cheaper chicken next time.  (I'm in the Midwest US.)