This would be the same US which became the first country in the world to introduce those warnings on cigarette packages in 1966? The "Surgeon General's Warning"?Haha I am sitting in Edinburgh right now amigo.
Last time I was there was 2009 and that is exactly what I thought.
No I jest.
I am not sure what the issue is on chlorinated chicken, the more worrying thing for me is the fact they say they would change the rhetoric about it. And even more worryingly is that you are saying that is a good thing. Why would you trust big companies changing the rhetoric to sell their products?
Strikes me like the tobacco companies that said smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Were you supportive of that?
Another worrying part is they want to scrap the health safety labels. Do you agree with that? And if so, why?
The narrative around chlorinated chicken certainly does need to be changed.
People still think you'd be ingesting harmful chemicals, when nothing could be further from the truth. For example;
"In 2005 the European Food Safety Authority said that "exposure to chlorite residues arising from treated poultry carcasses would be of no safety concern". Chlorine-rinsed bagged salads are common in the UK and other countries in the EU."
The issue is about the standards which required the chlorine wash, but it's common practice in the US even if the standards are exceptionally high. I'd sooner trust and have fewer health concerns about US chlorinated chicken than the stuff sold on the UK high street.
Why would you sooner trust their standards over ours?
I am sure, not 100% confident, that our standard are regarded as better than theirs.
This would be the same US which became the first country in the world to introduce those warnings on cigarette packages in 1966? The "Surgeon General's Warning"?
they are and we will continue to control our own standards.
What makes an American different to a Briton or a European?Why would you sooner trust their standards over ours?
I am sure, not 100% confident, that our standard are regarded as better than theirs.
No we'd give ours up alongside the sale of the NHS of course.they are and we will continue to control our own standards.
What makes an American different to a Briton or a European?
You're not 100% confident, fine, but i'm not 100% fearful either. I don't distrust American standards anymore than I "trust" the EU's.
I get it, you don't trust companies.And then changed the debate to taking away your freedom by not ‘allowing’ you to smoke
Come on mate. You can’t say that these companies are to be trusted?
I never said anything like that.But you said you would trust them over ours, all I am wondering is why?
I never said i'd "prefer" the standards, I said i'd prefer clean US chlorinated washed chicken over regulation breaching, high street "standard" UK takeaway chicken.But that wasn’t my question. I asked why the poster prefers the US standards over ours
"CHLORINE-WASHED CHICKEN: WHAT IS CHLORINATED CHICKEN? IS CHLORINE-WASHED CHICKEN SAFE TO EAT?
Chlorinated chicken– or chlorine-washed chicken – simply means that chicken was rinsed with chlorinated water; chlorine is not present in the meat. Just as chlorine helps make drinking water safe, it can help remove potentially harmful bacteria from raw chicken.
Although it has been proven safe, most chicken processing plants have moved away from the use of chlorine as a food safety application during the production process. The National Chicken Council in the United States would estimate that chlorine is used in some rinses and sprays in only about 10% of processing plants in the U.S. Most of the chlorine that is used in the industry is used for cleaning and sanitizing processing equipment.
However, numerous studies and scientific research have confirmed that the use of chlorinated water to chill and clean chicken is safe and effective. Chlorine-washed chicken does not pose any human health concerns and it is not present in the final product.
All chicken produced in the United States is closely monitored and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)."
OH MY WORD, WHAT A SCANDAL????!!!!
I get it, you don't trust companies.
At the end of the day I have a choice to accept the product or reject it. If standards are not up to scratch, companies will need to adapt to meet them, or go out of business. That's the same everywhere.
No Government agent is going to forcefeed poison down your throat at the behest of the 'companies'.
But it IS the reason why people still think it has been banned.To be fair, none of that has anything to do with why it was banned by the EU.
I saw a (since deleted) awful tweet aimed at the Chief Rabbi yesterday from someone who called himself a Corbyn supporter and socialist and was proud to be blocked by Rachel Riley (Jewish):
"Just want us all to try remain quiet whilst you murder innocent Palestinians like the Nazi's did to Jews during the Second World War"
The chief Rabbi is South African and of British nationality and this guy has translated a British national Jew to be responsible for the supposed actions of Israel. This tweet in itself is therefore anti-semitic!!
He was however retweeted MANY times by people (Labour members etc) who agreed saying the actions of the Chief Rabbi were all just a smear. Some even said he was in league with his Israeli paymasters.
Yet you say there are no problems.... Lol ok then.
Six meetings 541 page document, sounds like serious discussions to me.He has found a year old trade discussion document from when the previous pm was in charge, waved it around like it’s some smoking gun and made himself look an even bigger tit than he was previously.
Pilger is a tedious bore.
That bloke must be one of the 13% of Jews that may vote Labour.
Change the rhetoric here having the meaning "inform and educate" people about the truth surrounding chlorinated washed chicken?Firstly. You are correct. You do have the choice. Of course you do.
But the document says they will change the rhetoric surrounding these products.
Which is the same as they did with smoking. First it was they never cause cancer, then it was they take away your freedom.
So whilst you have the choice, how can it be argued that taking away control of what information we are given from the companies that are trying to sell us these products is a bad thing?
I am nit sure you are arguing that but if you are please explain it?
They want to strip the health information that products come with. Why? For our benefit?