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

    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I would prefer it if we didn't because I've heard that this procedure encourages unhygienic practises in the factory as all bacteria on the chicken will be killed (in theory), but I'm not fully opposed to it either.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meany Pie)
    It is because the standards in which they mass produce chickens is so vile that they must disinfect the meat before it is safe to eat. Tasty

    Their animal welfare standards are ****ing appalling.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    surely ours isn't vile? I'm happy with the chicken I find in the shops so why are we considering bleaching our f***ing chickens?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BTAnonymous)
    surely ours isn't vile? I'm happy with the chicken I find in the shops so why are we considering bleaching our f***ing chickens?
    Ours are much better, but I still don't agree with the intensive systems.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meany Pie)
    Ours are much better, but I still don't agree with the intensive systems.
    Agreed
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If our consumers have such a problem with it and our producers start doing it one of two things will happen: chicken sales will drop and they'll revert to the old way, or people will stop having a problem with it. Attached that is needed is legislation requiring chlorinated chicken to be labeled as such and let the consumers decide what they want.
    Your last point is the key here. I bet most people that are relaxed about chlorinated chicken / GM foods etc assume that at least the UK government will be able to require labelling so that the consumer can make a choice.

    But this is one of the controversial battlegrounds of doing a trade deal with the US: they tend to push against food labelling because they think it will lead to consumers discriminating against their products.

    Because of the way they set up the Investor-State-Dispute-Settlement arrangements, they will likely be able to make public statements like "the trade deal does not restrict a government's ability to regulate and so it will be for the British government to decide whether to bring in labelling or not". And this will be used to 'reassure' people. But the ISDS could well mean that if the British government brings in labelling requirements to label when chicken has been chlorinated, there would be a right for a US exporter who chlorinates their chicken to sue the UK government (ie the UK taxpayer) for compensation for lost profits, if their sales were lower as a result of the labelling. They will say "the trade deal doesn't stop the UK government from bringing in the regulations it wants - but where they can be argued to cause harm to a foreign investor, that investor is able to bring a claim for compensation". So the UK taxpayer would have to pay a heavy bill in order to maintain the labelling, which would likely mean the government wouldn't bring it in in the first place - there might be public pressure to bring it in but the government's lawyers would warn them of the legal action.

    Of course at the time when the trade deal is being negotiated the UK government could insist that there were no such terms like this in the deal, but that might see the US lose interest in offering the UK anything that we want out of the deal, or even doing a trade deal.

    It's not a disaster if we don't have a trade deal with the US. The US is already our biggest single export country market. we export over twice as much there as to our next biggest country (Germany). So we shouldn't be afraid of walking away with no deal.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Your last point is the key here. I bet most people that are relaxed about chlorinated chicken / GM foods etc assume that at least the UK government will be able to require labelling so that the consumer can make a choice.

    But this is one of the controversial battlegrounds of doing a trade deal with the US: they tend to push against food labelling because they think it will lead to consumers discriminating against their products.

    Because of the way they set up the Investor-State-Dispute-Settlement arrangements, they will likely be able to make public statements like "the trade deal does not restrict a government's ability to regulate and so it will be for the British government to decide whether to bring in labelling or not". And this will be used to 'reassure' people. But the ISDS could well mean that if the British government brings in labelling requirements to label when chicken has been chlorinated, there would be a right for a US exporter who chlorinates their chicken to sue the UK government (ie the UK taxpayer) for compensation for lost profits, if their sales were lower as a result of the labelling. They will say "the trade deal doesn't stop the UK government from bringing in the regulations it wants - but where they can be argued to cause harm to a foreign investor, that investor is able to bring a claim for compensation". So the UK taxpayer would have to pay a heavy bill in order to maintain the labelling, which would likely mean the government wouldn't bring it in in the first place - there might be public pressure to bring it in but the government's lawyers would warn them of the legal action.

    Of course at the time when the trade deal is being negotiated the UK government could insist that there were no such terms like this in the deal, but that might see the US lose interest in offering the UK anything that we want out of the deal, or even doing a trade deal.

    It's not a disaster if we don't have a trade deal with the US. The US is already our biggest single export country market. we export over twice as much there as to our next biggest country (Germany). So we shouldn't be afraid of walking away with no deal.
    PRSOM

    It's never been about sovereignty for many right wing Brexiters. They are perfectly happy for a supranational court to be able to rule over our parliament and for corporations to have more power than our govenrment, so long as it means a democratically elected Labour government couldn't renationalise industries and reverse NHS privatisation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    PRSOM

    It's never been about sovereignty for many right wing Brexiters. They are perfectly happy for a supranational court to be able to rule over our parliament and for corporations to have more power than our govenrment, so long as it means a democratically elected Labour government couldn't renationalise industries and reverse NHS privatisation.
    The Brexit movement is an alliance of many interests. Some have a pure ideological position, others have hijacked the bandwagon because they want to further their own agenda.

    The early Eurosceptic movement was more ideological and came from the standpoint of either democracy or nationalism. At the time of the 1975 referendum the "no" movement was led by the left wing of the Labour party, particularly Tony Benn (although the Labour leadership under Harold Wilson, like the Tories, were pro-EEC membership).

    The Bennite argument was basically that EEC membership involved British politicians transferring powers to Brussels that weren't theirs to give away - they were elected by their constituents to exercise powers on behalf of their constituents and were accountable to their constituents, and it was undemocratic for them to delegate those powers to a set of structures that didn't have the direct accountability to UK constituents. After the 1975 referendum resulted in a majority for being in the EEC, you could argue that those powers had been at least given away with the consent of the British people, but when subsequent powers were given away as part of subsequent EU treaties without being supported by a referendum, the question of democratic legitimacy became relevant again.

    The Tories only really became Eurosceptic during the late 1980s/early 1990s when two things became apparent. One - that the EU was starting to use its powers in more interventionist ways (social legislation etc) and two - once Maastricht had been signed and the Euro was going to happen, it became apparent that the vision of the EU elites was to drive closer political integration. It wasn't just the paranoid ranting of anti-Europeans: the EU elites wanted to take the EU in the direction of a federal EU where nation states would have less and less power and more would be centralised. The Tory Eurosceptics essentially saw this from a position of nationalism - Britain had a long history of parliamentary democracy, whereas many EU countries had up till recent decades had some kind of authoritarian control - now the British nation state was under threat by the creeping move towards Eurofederalism as long as we were in it, and we had to leave.

    But for many years these ideological Eurosceptics on the left and right were seen as fringe figures. More recently, energy has been injected in to the Eurosceptic movement by the right-wing pro-deregulation lobby, who see the EU as a restraint because of its social, environmental and health and safety legislation and want to be free from that and also lock deregulation in to the British system through trade deals. This is why they make such a big deal about "independent trade policy" - because they know that the way to get not only the US but also developing countries like China, India who have much lower standards in their own countries, to sign trade deals, will be to offer to lock low regulation into trade deals so it will prevent future (basically Labour) governments from bringing in employment/environmental/product standards/health and safety legislation.

    The part of this that is disingenuous is that this right-wing movement is trying to make a populist appeal by linking the EU to a wealthy "establishment" and arguing that they are on the side of the people, saying immigration has cost jobs etc, but these kind of trade deals will be completely in the interests of large corporations and against the interests of the public who will be less well protected. They will also open up our markets to competition from cheap imports from the US and developing countries - which they will say will lower prices, which is true, but it will lead to job losses in the UK and industries closing. So that will benefit the rich who are not affected by that kind of competition, because they get cheaper prices!

    Developments in the 'gig economy' show where those that are displaced by the new round of 'free trade deals' will end up. As the welfare state has been degraded and it becomes harder to claim unemployment benefit, those who lose their jobs will get pushed towards low paid freelancing through gig economy platforms, where they aren't protected by employment legislation, another way in which the rich will benefit from access to low cost labour.

    The sad thing that people will realise about Brexit in years to come, is that for many of those who are currently in power and paying lip service to 'restoring British sovereignty', Brexit is more about wresting British sovereignty away from a broadly centre-left EU, and then immediately signing it away in trade deals with the US, India and China, that represent a loss of sovereignty that they like - ie a restriction in future Labour governments in the UK from being able to nationalise, protect employment, environment or health and safety law, because those powers have been surrendered in trade deals that lock in a right-wing agenda.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMR2017)
    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.
    i think i will just eat salads

    wait :eek:

    https://www.healthyfood.co.nz/articl...e-and-chlorine
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    i think i will just eat salads
    Leaf it out. You aren't a panda, are you?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    The part of this that is disingenuous is that this right-wing movement is trying to make a populist appeal by linking the EU to a wealthy "establishment" and arguing that they are on the side of the people, saying immigration has cost jobs etc, but these kind of trade deals will be completely in the interests of large corporations and against the interests of the public who will be less well protected. They will also open up our markets to competition from cheap imports from the US and developing countries - which they will say will lower prices, which is true, but it will lead to job losses in the UK and industries closing. So that will benefit the rich who are not affected by that kind of competition, because they get cheaper prices!

    Developments in the 'gig economy' show where those that are displaced by the new round of 'free trade deals' will end up. As the welfare state has been degraded and it becomes harder to claim unemployment benefit, those who lose their jobs will get pushed towards low paid freelancing through gig economy platforms, where they aren't protected by employment legislation, another way in which the rich will benefit from access to low cost labour.

    The sad thing that people will realise about Brexit in years to come, is that for many of those who are currently in power and paying lip service to 'restoring British sovereignty', Brexit is more about wresting British sovereignty away from a broadly centre-left EU, and then immediately signing it away in trade deals with the US, India and China, that represent a loss of sovereignty that they like - ie a restriction in future Labour governments in the UK from being able to nationalise, protect employment, environment or health and safety law, because those powers have been surrendered in trade deals that lock in a right-wing agenda.

    As a Labour voter, why exactly did you vote Leave again?

    I mean you can argue, now there being a real chance of a Corbyn government, a Lexit is actually possible. But without a glass ball Labour looked miles away from power anytime soon and a Leave win was going to result in sovereignty being signed away to multinationals with even less accountability than the EU. Why a labour voter would vote for that I have no idea.

    I couldn't give flying fig about nationalism but in terms of democracy that Leave outcome you just described is a disaster.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    As a Labour voter, why exactly did you vote Leave again?

    I mean you can argue, now there being a real chance of a Corbyn government, a Lexit is actually possible. But without a glass ball Labour looked miles away from power anytime soon and a Leave win was going to result in sovereignty being signed away to multinationals with even less accountability than the EU. Why a labour voter would vote for that I have no idea.

    I couldn't give flying fig about nationalism but in terms of democracy that Leave outcome you just described is a disaster.
    Because I don't like surrendering power to supranational organisations that then increases the distance between those exercising power and the citizens. A lot of people on the left/centre left were generally pro-EU because they see the current EU as being closer to their politics than a Tory government in the UK. But if you surrender power to a supranational authority then what happens when you don't like their politics. The EU enforced much harsher austerity on Greece, Portugal, Ireland etc than even George Osborne did. In Greece you had a democratically elected government that had the complete opposite perspective to the EU but the EU was able to enforce its will over them.

    So I voted Leave on that point of principle.

    Now you can say - I should have thought tactically and realised that it is likely that we were going to end up with supranational constraints anyway, and the choice was a centre-left EU or a hard right ultra deregulated US-UK and countless other trade deals, and so voting Leave was self-defeating. This is more or less the position Yannis Varoufakis, Caroline Lucas etc took. It's a fair argument and if there was a second referendum now, I would vote tactically in that way and vote Remain, to head off the takeover of the right.

    But my view at the time was, I might only get one vote on this in my life, and my principles are basically those that Tony Benn argued in the 1970s, power should be exercised by those who are directly elected by their constituents, and exercised in their interests, rather than being delegated to a higher body without the same democratic constraint.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    . This is more or less the position Yannis Varoufakis, Caroline Lucas etc took. It's a fair argument and if there was a second referendum now, I would vote tactically in that way and vote Remain, to head off the takeover of the right.
    Do you not think Corbyn represents a resistance to the take over of the right then? I would have thought the current political situation in the UK would warrant a more confident Bennite Leave vote.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    I bet most people that are relaxed about chlorinated chicken / GM foods etc assume that at least the UK government will be able to require labelling so that the consumer can make a choice.
    I would be more cynical than that. I would suggest that those who are relaxed about it are those who will benefit financially from it. Those who will end up eating it will be the poorest of society who effectively have no choice about what they eat in therms of providence. This sort of meat will also find its way into undesirable locations like school and hospital canteens and hidden away in processed products like fried chicken and ready meals.

    This has the potential to make the horse meat scandal look like someone dropped a chip. If you genuinely have a choice to eat this sh1t, why would you choose it?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Do you not think Corbyn represents a resistance to the take over of the right then? I would have thought the current political situation in the UK would warrant a more confident Bennite Leave vote.
    He does which is why they have gone from treating him as a figure of fun to now being very fearful. On Conservative Home and the right wing broadsheets you see articles saying the number one task for all conservatives now is to stop Corbyn.

    Corbyn is a danger to the take over of the right for various reasons:

    1. He isn't the type that would be 'pragmatic' and strike a bargain with the right. Other politicians like Blair, Obama etc, were possible to work with because they wouldn't fundamentally change the status quo, they were looking for gradual reform around the edges and not directly lining up to take on vested interests.

    2. The take over of the right relies on a kind of populism that brings the working class on their side. They thought they could outflank Corbyn by appealing to nationalism and anti-immigration, and paint Corbyn as a liberal metropolitan. But in the election, the working class areas swung back towards Labour - one of the criticisms of Corbyn that's coming from the Blairite part of the Labour movement is that although he oversaw a large increase in Labour's vote share, it wasn't that efficient in terms of winning seats as it was mostly about piling up huge wins in traditional Labour areas, rather than attacking swing seats like Blair had done. This is true, but it also has pulled the rug out of the right wing populist movement. It has also removed the prospect of lots of target seats in the north for the Conseratives. It will be interesting to see how much they still have an interest in 'the Northern Powerhouse' if they think all it will do is benefit areas that will be firm Labour and not winnable anyway, we may see a change of emphasis now.

    3. Corbyn is also pro-trade union rights and obviously the right wing are very anti-union, but this also creates a difficult dividing line when the right wing look to make their populist appeal to the 'traditional white working class'....the uncomfortable truth for the right is that the 'white working class' was traditionally heavily unionised, and mass immigration from generally non-unionised workers from the EU has undermined that. But if you block out unskilled and lower skilled migrants and create labour shortages you are going to re-empower the trade unions, and the right will have to take them on. Corbyn will be a figurehead for them.

    4. Whilst the centre-left pro remain media are being heavily critical of Corbyn for not leading a pro-Remain resistance, it rubs out a conservative line of attack on him. Corbyn's voters know that he has never really been keen on the EU and this gives him credibility amongst working class leave areas. The student/youth vote probably wish he was more keen on the EU, but they still like him for other reasons. The right wing press have tried to exploit the "Labour is divided on Brexit" line, but the effectiveness of this is limited when it's not clear that Phillip Hammond and the Tory Cabinet are all on the same place in Brexit.

    5. The right are a bit chastened that their attacks against him haven't worked electorally. The power of the tabloids is gradually lessening as people look more and more to social media and the internet for things that influence them, so the hatchet job they did on him hasn't been as effective as it has on past Labour leaders. There was something on the radio last week with a Tory comms person where they said that they found the attack lines about Corbyn and the IRA, Corbyn and Islamic terrorism, Corbyn is a dangerous Marxist who will take us back to the dark ages and so on registered strongly with people who already had made their minds up that they didn't like Corbyn, but were not effective on people who were leaning towards him, it just made them think there was a smear campaign against him and mistrust the Tories.
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not really worried about chlorine washed chicken. 20 years ago meat produced in this country killed people (over 200 as of 2014) via vcjd/mad cow disease. Prion's are scary...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine...opathy#Britain

    The EU banned the export of British beef between 1996 and 2006. Russia didn't lift the ban until 2012.

    I think modern news gets increasingly trivial by the day, with the latest 'outrage' being chlorine washed chicken...
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kernel_Coder)
    I'm not really worried about chlorine washed chicken. 20 years ago meat produced in this country killed people (over 200 as of 2014) via vcjd/mad cow disease. Prion's are scary...
    I don't understand your argument. Are you suggesting that low animal welfare standards in favour of producing meat as cheaply as possible i.e. similar to when the CJD epidemic struck, is a good thing? Or are you not really worried about it because CJD only killed 200 people?
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I don't understand your argument. Are you suggesting that low animal welfare standards in favour of producing meat as cheaply as possible i.e. similar to when the CJD epidemic struck, is a good thing? Or are you not really worried about it because CJD only killed 200 people?
    Yeah, I can see the confusion.

    CJD was horrible, and I'm saying that chlorine washed meat is a fairly trivial matter compared with something like CJD, so I don't really understand the outrage over chlorine washed meat, because it's no way near as bad as something like CJD.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kernel_Coder)
    Yeah, I can see the confusion.

    CJD was horrible, and I'm saying that chlorine washed meat is a fairly trivial matter compared with something like CJD, so I don't really understand the outrage over chlorine washed meat, because it's no way near as bad as something like CJD.
    You are not comparing like for like. CJD can not be compared to chlorine washed chicken. However, you could compare poor welfare standards like feeding bovine offal to cows with poor welfare standards that result in needing to chlorinate chicken. The former caused CJD. The later is used to cover up and hide all manner of welfare and hygiene sins. No thank you.
 
 
 
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
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    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.