51–60 of 219 posts
EU - ~500 Million people. "In the EU, over 91,000 salmonellosis cases are reported each year." [1]
US. ~330 Million People. "CDC estimates Salmonella bacteria cause about 1.35 million infections, 26,500 hospitalizations, and 420 deaths in the United States every year. Food is the source for most of these illnesses." [2]
1- https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/salmonella 2- https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/index.html
I really hope the EU will not allow this kind of US meat into the EU market...
It's just protectionism. It's not like the chicken tastes of bleach. Have you ever eaten food in the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonellosis_in_the_United_St...
> 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 proce…
>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...
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> 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...
> 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 proce…
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?
> 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 proce…
But no, it isn’t essentially: vinegar contains 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
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”
> 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 proce…
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?
Isn't all chicken "chemical-washed chicken"? Surely, they wash it in water at some point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's a poverty food, and buying and eating meat seems already pretty gross to me, so people who choose to eat this kind of stuff are probably quite desperate and their choices aren't great. I'm sad for the extra animals that will end up living in even worse conditions (EU laws are a bit more generous when it comes to cage sizes etc. ) but I can totally understand that some people will genuinely prefer the US ch…
Well, it's a poverty food I'm not sure what this means. Are you trying to say that poor people shouldn't be allowed to eat?
It's an easy trope to suggest it's cruel to state meat should be less accessible to the poor. But virtually nobody would claim caviar, truffles, or saffron should be ubiquitous foods.
Since a young age I visited egg farms and I can tell you the conditions are far from ideal, they even turn on the lights at 3am to enhance egg production. We're talking about egg farms that are regulated by EU laws. About 12 years ago the EU regulated how many chickens were allowed in a single case (about 8 I believe).
Even with EU regulation it is well known that the amount of antibiotics is simple too much and dangerous, we've law holes like: It is regulated in France but you can cross the border and get it in Spain as they don't control who buys it.
If this gets approved, I demand it to be labeled.