Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Do you think chlorine washed chicken should be allowed for import into Britain? Watch

    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Do you think that the UK/USA free trade deal that will take place after Brexit should allow the import of things such as chlorine washed chicken and genetically modified foods which are banned at the moment?

    Discuss.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Are you clucking out of your mind!? :chicken:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Yes
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Are you clucking out of your mind!? :chicken:
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Yes
    Interesting, how comes?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    There are no adverse food safety implications to washing chicken with chlorine. Even the EU agrees with that statement.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMR2017)
    Interesting, how comes?
    There are no health risks to eating chrlorinated chicken. The only reason the EU banned it is because it could allow firms to get away with pooor hygiene elsewhere out of the belief that the chlorine alone will do the job. It doesn't taste different and they already eat it in the US and Australia with no problems.

    Genetically modified fruit and vegetables are fine as well. They can reduce the costs of production and can be a solution to ending food poverty globally.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    There's nothing actually wrong with. It still tastes the same and there are no health risks. I've had plenty of chicken in the US (chlorine washed) and GM vegetables and fruit and there are no problems imo

    It would be good to trade more with the US now that we are leaving the EU.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    If there are no health risks then I don't see the issue.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing particularly wrong with either

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    There are no health risks to eating chrlorinated chicken. The only reason the EU banned it is because it could allow firms to get away with pooor hygiene elsewhere out of the belief that the chlorine alone will do the job. It doesn't taste different and they already eat it in the US and Australia with no problems.
    In other words, we'd be importing chicken from such poor conditions that they have to wash it in chlorine for it to be hygienic. The chlorine washing may not be a health risk, but it's a symptom of poor hygiene and conditions and we should never lower our standards like that.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Gove has said it will be banned from any UK-US trade deal.

    The man is on a roll....

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...y_to_clipboard
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Gove has said it will be banned from any UK-US trade deal.

    The man is on a roll....

    Gove says chlorinated chicken would be banned under any UK-US trade deal - Politics live

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...y_to_clipboard
    I have to say I'm glad. I'm not particularly fond of trying new American style food if the old one doesn't cause us any harm.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    There's a bigger question around the US-UK trade deal than the single issue of chlorinated chicken, or the associated issues like allowing GM food or animal imports that have involved growth promoters (growth hormones injected to artifically make the animal bigger).

    The real issue is the right of a British government to regulate on what it does and doesn't allow in to the country. And even more so, the right of a British government to require labelling so consumers can decide what they want to eat.

    The problems if the Americans push for similar things to what they were pushing for in the TTIP deal with the EU are that they wanted to lock down areas where they remove the right for a sovereign government to regulate. A democratically elected British government might want to ban a certain ingredient in order to protect public health, but then if that could be seen to threaten the profits of a US firm, the firm could sue the British taxpayer for compensation in a supranational court. That then acts as a constraint on the British government regulating in the first place - because of the risk of litigation, which is part of the idea, it keeps government out of regulating, which is why this type of trade deal has support from people that generally believe in governments staying out of markets.

    Where it gets really sinister is in the US approach to labelling. A lot of free marketeers would take the position that it's not for government to tell us what we can and can't eat, so allow in chlorinated chicken, GM foods and so on but make them clearly labelled so then the consumer can choose what they want, and if consumers don't want to eat those types of things then the ones that can be signalled as chlorine free, GM free etc will sell more and the market will naturally reflect the consumers' preferences. Or you might get chlorine chicken selling at a lower price and non-chlorine chicken selling at a higher price because consumers will pay a premium. Sounds like a well-functioning market. But the US trade negotiators push very hard to limit labelling because they argue it could be 'discriminatory' against US imports - ie they want to remove the right for farmers that produce to higher standards to be able to distinguish their produce.

    This isn't about free trade or making markets work better, it's about skewing the rules in favour of large US agrifood companies who will then be able to dominate the market, and preventing any action against them, either in the market from smaller farmers that want to compete on higher standards, or from governments bringing in any rules on public health/animal welfare/environmental grounds that might threaten their profits.

    Now I have no problem in the idea that a democratically elected government wants to set the rules in its way, and then is accountable for them, and can be voted out of office by a new government that will change the rules. But in this type of trade deal, the UK government would be surrendering a lot of sovereignty and transferring powers away from a British parliament in terms of the right to regulate, to the jurisdiction of a supranational court. The irony is Liam Fox sits on Question Time constantly announcing that the British people voted for Brexit to take back control of our own laws, and get us out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and now he's off talking to the Americans about this type of arrangement.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMR2017)
    I have to say I'm glad. I'm not particularly fond of trying new American style food if the old one doesn't cause us any harm.
    If neither causes any observable harm then you cannot rationally show a preference of one over the other solely with that consideration.
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    There's a bigger question around the US-UK trade deal than the single issue of chlorinated chicken, or the associated issues like allowing GM food or animal imports that have involved growth promoters (growth hormones injected to artifically make the animal bigger).

    The real issue is the right of a British government to regulate on what it does and doesn't allow in to the country. And even more so, the right of a British government to require labelling so consumers can decide what they want to eat.

    The problems if the Americans push for similar things to what they were pushing for in the TTIP deal with the EU are that they wanted to lock down areas where they remove the right for a sovereign government to regulate. A democratically elected British government might want to ban a certain ingredient in order to protect public health, but then if that could be seen to threaten the profits of a US firm, the firm could sue the British taxpayer for compensation in a supranational court. That then acts as a constraint on the British government regulating in the first place - because of the risk of litigation, which is part of the idea, it keeps government out of regulating, which is why this type of trade deal has support from people that generally believe in governments staying out of markets.

    Where it gets really sinister is in the US approach to labelling. A lot of free marketeers would take the position that it's not for government to tell us what we can and can't eat, so allow in chlorinated chicken, GM foods and so on but make them clearly labelled so then the consumer can choose what they want, and if consumers don't want to eat those types of things then the ones that can be signalled as chlorine free, GM free etc will sell more and the market will naturally reflect the consumers' preferences. Or you might get chlorine chicken selling at a lower price and non-chlorine chicken selling at a higher price because consumers will pay a premium. Sounds like a well-functioning market. But the US trade negotiators push very hard to limit labelling because they argue it could be 'discriminatory' against US imports - ie they want to remove the right for farmers that produce to higher standards to be able to distinguish their produce.

    This isn't about free trade or making markets work better, it's about skewing the rules in favour of large US agrifood companies who will then be able to dominate the market, and preventing any action against them, either in the market from smaller farmers that want to compete on higher standards, or from governments bringing in any rules on public health/animal welfare/environmental grounds that might threaten their profits.

    Now I have no problem in the idea that a democratically elected government wants to set the rules in its way, and then is accountable for them, and can be voted out of office by a new government that will change the rules. But in this type of trade deal, the UK government would be surrendering a lot of sovereignty and transferring powers away from a British parliament in terms of the right to regulate, to the jurisdiction of a supranational court. The irony is Liam Fox sits on Question Time constantly announcing that the British people voted for Brexit to take back control of our own laws, and get us out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and now he's off talking to the Americans about this type of arrangement.
    Sure I agree with you that if we want such products in our country, there should be clear labelling, so consumers can choose whether they want to eat chlorine dipped chicken or GM foods.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    This isn't about free trade or making markets work better, it's about skewing the rules in favour of large US agrifood companies who will then be able to dominate the market,
    It is about the globalisation of commerce, taking regulation out of the hands of governments and into the hands of a few large multinationals. Globalisation has already gone too far (with business desires for cheap labour placed higher than the stability of nation states), and must be reined in significantly.

    I suspect the superficially attractive freedoms that have grown over the past decades will be too persuasive for the young generation to resist their temptations, though, and the trend will continue with serious problems, like accommodation, overcrowding and political instability being ignored until it is too late to do anything about them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Are you clucking out of your mind!? :chicken:
    you are scratching around for rep :teehee:
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Possibly. I wouldnt want it myself so it it were clearly labelled, then I wouldnt be worried. i suspect the whole trade deal is more important.

    Deals can be good or bad so lets see if it will be good for both.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Trump wants a Free Trade deal with us. One we can't have at the moment because it can't be agreed between the EU and US after years of discussions.

    That isn't a story. The massive economic implications of that don't trouble the mainstream media. The BBC and Guardian.

    No, the big story is that we might import chlorinated chickens. Or might not. That this will derail any trade deal so we had better rush back to the EU where chlorinated chickens are banned!
    Yet another terrible consequence of Brexit. OK we might get a free trade deal with the biggest economy on earth, but what about chlorinated chickens!

    Am I the only one to see that the media Emperor has no clothes? That these are ridiculous news values? That the Govt itself is reponding to this nonsense too?

    The British media is pathetic.. They make us an international laughing stock.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 30, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.