Jump to content
studiot

Interfering in other people's politics.

Recommended Posts

On 9/19/2020 at 11:22 PM, MigL said:

If the concern is unsafe food handling in the US, the regulations adopted by the EU should reflect that.


The EU is big enough to tell the US to stick their chlorinated chicken where the Sun doesn't shine.

Post Brexit, the UK will be over a barrel and will have to accept pretty much any offer that the US makes.
 

Anyway; Biden wants the Irish American vote (or, at least, doesn't want to upset them) so it's perfectly sensible US politics for presidential candidates to have a clear view on ensuring the future of the GFA.
Since Borris' plan to break international law puts that agreement at risk, it's sensible for  any other country to have a view on it. Most countries would prefer to maintain the GFA.
If you are Mr Putin- or one of his supporters- you might want to sow discord at the boundary of Europe in order to make Russia look good by comparison.
In that case you would want Boris' plan to go ahead.
The same would be true for other rogue states with an interest in undermining international law and cooperation.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2020 at 4:44 PM, John Cuthber said:

"Figures suggest that the percentage of people who fall ill with food poisoning annually is up to ten times higher in the US than the UK."

from
https://www.sustainweb.org/news/feb18_US_foodpoisoning/

And, not to put too fine a point on it; I'm not very concerned about chlorinated chicken; I'm concerned about chlorinated chicken sh1t.

So the concern is getting salmonella from food, and yet you don't want the food to be treated to reduce the risk from salmonella...

In any event, not all US chickens are treated this way, and surely individual transactions can be arranged so that the imported chickens are untreated. AFAIK trade agreements simply define the parameters and regulations of commerce, they aren't the actual commercial transaction. The agreement might allow for chlorine treatment, but does it mandate it? If <UK food conglomerate> wants to import chicken from <US chicken packager>, they can agree to any details not forbidden by the applicable laws. You don't want chlorine treatment? Put it in the contract.

To use an example, it seems to me you could import kosher or halal products, which would demand the products were prepared in accordance with the appropriate procedures, above and beyond any basic trade agreement.

Quote

The EU is big enough to tell the US to stick their chlorinated chicken where the Sun doesn't shine.

I suspect that would make food poisoning worse, not better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

So the concern is getting salmonella from food, and yet you don't want the food to be treated to reduce the risk from salmonella...

The salmonella is in the guts. If they are eviscerasted in an approved, aseptic manner, chlorinating is unnecessary. The need to chlorinate is a symptom of poor handling practices. The only areas that smell of chlorine in a British factory are the exposed work surfaces and floors when they are wiped down.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

So the concern is getting salmonella from food

My concern is getting pizza in lieu of a vegetable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, swansont said:

So the concern is getting salmonella from food

No

The concern is the food production process.

It's so bad in the US that, even though they chlorinate stuff, they still get lots of food poisoning.*

 

5 hours ago, swansont said:

AFAIK trade agreements simply define the parameters and regulations of commerce, they aren't the actual commercial transaction. The agreement might allow for chlorine treatment, but does it mandate it?

And the point is that, as a proxy for banning poor food manufacturing hygiene, we ban chlorination.
But, as a minnow arguing with a shark, we will not be able to do that.


* yes, I know, it's more complex than that- better barbecue weather for example.

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

No

The concern is the food production process.

It's so bad in the US that, even though they chlorinate stuff, they still get lots of food poisoning.*

I have to advise caution in the interpretation of food-borne disease illnesses. Countries have different ways to identify and quantify outbreaks and one cannot easily just look at the raw data. There is also a difference between severity which makes it even trickier.

One way to normalize the data is to calculate disability adjusted life years (DALY), which basically is an estimate of years lost to ill-health or death. From there and using WHO data there is not a vast difference between the North American region (USA, Canada, Cuba, 35 DALY per 100,000 ) vs Western Europe (40-50 DALY per 100,000; I do not have finer grained data on hand).

While there are significant differences in the type of diseases. there is not a huge difference when it comes to Salmonella infections. In fact, it is slightly lower in the NA region (9 vs 12), though it is difficult to disentangle the effects of animal handling, food production, impact of chlorination and the health care system. However, the point is that it the calculated health burden are the totality of all these measures. I.e. it is possible that without chlorination the DALY might increase in the US, which would indicate that Europe is doing something better without the need for it. Or it may not make a difference, indicating that the practice is useless. But the tricky bit is really finding which elements in the whole chain are really protective, especially as certain elements may rely on other part of the whole thing. So as a whole it is not trivial to state whether the whole food chain is safer in Europe vs North America (or even US specifically). Each regulations seem to keep the burden of food-borne diseases somewhat similarly in check, but there are also other benefits when it comes to different approaches in regulating the food chain. But again, I think direct comparisons are difficult, not least because rules and regulations in each region are not necessarily based on best science, but rather a quagmire of heavily politicized historic rules, regulation and practices. With increasing globalization the food supply chain has become even more complex and I have severe doubt that regulations are keeping up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I have to advise caution in the interpretation of food-borne disease illnesses.

So did I
 

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:


* yes, I know, it's more complex than that- better barbecue weather for example.

But I still don't want to eat bleached shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

But I still don't want to eat bleached shit.

And while I know that Chlorination levels are lower in the UK than other countries' water supply, you are still drinking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MigL said:

And while I know that Chlorination levels are lower in the UK than other countries' water supply, you are still drinking it.

The chlorine itself is of little consequence, it is what it is masking, namely unhygenic practices, that is our issue.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The chlorine itself is of little consequence, it is what it is masking, namely unhygenic practices, that is our issue.

Isn't chlorination part of hygienic practices? Sort of like washing your hands after using the bathroom. 

It may be better to clean yourself such that washing your hands afterwards isn't necessary, but it's also possible that it is just two different methods that accomplish the same goal.

(Just playing devil's advocate as I don't know that one is better (hygienically) than the other.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kinda surprised that you all worry about "chlorinated chicken".. I would worry more about "bad GMO"/"improperly done GMO" (there is also "good GMO"/"properly done GMO"), overuse of growth hormones, overuse of antibiotics, overuse of pesticides etc.. In comparison to them "chlorination of meat" is a piece of cake.. "You become what you eat". If you eat genetically modified organism, part of their genes, can be horizontally transferred (HGT) to human genome (less likely), or to microorganisms or viruses in human body (more likely).

https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

"Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used as markers when creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of gene transfer technology that does not involve antibiotic resistance genes is encouraged."

  

There are farms where all animals receive antibiotics in their feed the all day long, even if they are not ill... (example of "bad practice in the food industry").

It is recommended by sellers of the antibiotic industry (quite obviously, because they receive MONEY (ARGH!) for it..)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sensei said:

I'm kinda surprised that you all worry about "chlorinated chicken"

We aren't.
 

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The chlorine itself is of little consequence, it is what it is masking, namely unhygenic practices, that is our issue.

 

On 9/19/2020 at 9:44 PM, John Cuthber said:

And, not to put too fine a point on it; I'm not very concerned about chlorinated chicken; I'm concerned about chlorinated chicken sh1t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sensei said:

I'm kinda surprised that you all worry about "chlorinated chicken".. I would worry more about "bad GMO"/"improperly done GMO" (there is also "good GMO"/"properly done GMO"), overuse of growth hormones, overuse of antibiotics, overuse of pesticides etc.. In comparison to them "chlorination of meat" is a piece of cake.. "You become what you eat". If you eat genetically modified organism, part of their genes, can be horizontally transferred (HGT) to human genome (less likely), or to microorganisms or viruses in human body (more likely).

I'm more worried about a society/trading partner that's happy to feed it's children pizza in lieu of a vegetable, and then blame those children for not being healthy enough. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about elsewhere in the world, but US and EU employ different approaches to the problem of food safety. US primarily tackles it towards the end, while EU tries to maintain hygienic conditions the whole way through. Both approaches have positives and negatives.

I've been in a few discussions on the subject and have to say it is hard for everyone to remain objective. We're all naturally comfortable with our own food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Not sure about elsewhere in the world, but US and EU employ different approaches to the problem of food safety. US primarily tackles it towards the end, while EU tries to maintain hygienic conditions the whole way through. Both approaches have positives and negatives.

I've been in a few discussions on the subject and have to say it is hard for everyone to remain objective. We're all naturally comfortable with our own food.

We're not all healthy though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

My concern is getting pizza in lieu of a vegetable.

 

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We're not all healthy though...

Two words: Vegetable pizza. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Curious layman said:

 

Two words: Vegetable pizza. 😉

Are you funded by the cheese lobby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We're not all healthy though...

Most of our obesity issues are more due to lack of physical activity and portion sizes than anything else IMO.  Food poisoning in general just seems to increase as eating out increases in a society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Endy0816 said:

Most of our obesity issues are more due to lack of physical activity and portion sizes than anything else IMO.

I'm guessing the lobbies worked then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What have you got against pizza, Dim ?
Its the perfect food.

If your objection is harm to animals, milk, for making cheese, is an animal byproduct.
If you are strictly vegan, there is soy or almond milk cheeses made with lemon juice/vinegar instead of rennet.
So a grain pizza crust with tomato sauce, vegetarian cheese, and vegetable toppings can be completely vegan.

And if you're worried about the mushroom pizza toppings being grown in manure-rich soil, don't worry, a chlorine wash will take care of the problem :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Its the perfect food.

Imagine that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I'm guessing the lobbies worked then.

It is all because of money and greediness.. Somebody creates company, investors join in, and want to create and sell as much products as possible. The only matter is increase sales, increase sales, year by year!

..but there is limited quantity of buyers, with limited volume of stomachs..

It cannot go to infinity with limited market capacity..

 

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

Most of our obesity issues are more due to lack of physical activity and portion sizes than anything else IMO.

That is true.

People don't train enough for the amount of calories they eat.

Want to eat pizza for supper (after a heavy lunch!).. ? No problem. Just train enough to burn the extra calories. Or the next day fast.

I always hear excuse: I don't have time for training! People will always find some excuse... Have no time? I am saying: 100 pushups per day, takes 100-200 seconds per day.. You don't have 2-4 minutes per day, but you are smoking.. smoking one cigarette takes more time...

 

BTW, the amount of meat on typical non-vegan pizza is pretty meaningless. Less than 100 grams. So concern must be cheese?

Does vegan cheese have less calories than milk cheese? Debatable:

"Vegan cheese slices contain 35-70 calories per serving, depending on the brand; dairy cheese slices yield approximately 50 calories each. Vegan cheese in block form can contain 40-100 calories per 1-ounce serving, compared to 90 calories from 1 ounce of dairy cheese.Jun 1, 2017"

https://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2008issue3/2008_issue3_vegan_cheese.php

Vegan Mozzarella has pretty much the same amount of calories as normal one:

https://www.google.com/search?q=vegan+mozzarella+calories

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

Food poisoning in general just seems to increase as eating out increases in a society.

After invention of refrigerators amount of food poisoning dropped. In the past prior refrigerators it was much more common. Some butchers were even arrested and sentenced for selling non-edible anymore meat..

But modern food poisoning changed characteristics. Less likely to get salmonella but more likely to get unwanted growth hormone.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:
On 9/19/2020 at 3:44 PM, John Cuthber said:

And, not to put too fine a point on it; I'm not very concerned about chlorinated chicken; I'm concerned about chlorinated chicken sh1t.

Is there really chicken shit on the chicken or do you object to the fact that shit once touched the chicken?

Does the FDA allow shit on chicken that is sold to the public?

I realize there may be some minimal amount of residue, but you also cannot eat a sandwich without eating grasshopper guts, or a salad without some bird shit on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Not sure about elsewhere in the world, but US and EU employ different approaches to the problem of food safety. US primarily tackles it towards the end, while EU tries to maintain hygienic conditions the whole way through. Both approaches have positives and negatives.

That is roughly what I think, too. My biggest worry is if folks try to use the lowest common denominator. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2020 at 9:58 AM, studiot said:

If there is no trade deal, one advantage would be further delay in being stuck with US food and agricultural standards and practices,  I don't wish to adopt.

I'm glad my OP provided you Gentlemen and Ladies with some lively discussion after initial adverse reactions had settled down.

Nowhere did I say that I wished to prevent anyone buying American food and eating it or feeding it to the dogs or whatever.
I said I don't wish to be stuck with it as the only stock on offer in the supermarket.

So the argument should not be "should we allow US food or not" , in my view of course we should.
But only so long as it does not displace other offerings.
It is not so long since my celiac friends could not buy anything in the supermarket.

I don't trust Boris not to "Cry Havoc and let loose the dogs".

Talking of Boris and the other part of this thread.

On 9/17/2020 at 6:09 PM, Endy0816 said:

https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-bill-would-break-international-law-in-a-specific-and-limited-way-minister-says-326041

 

Realistically we've been involved from the outset of the GFA. Pretty sure US is down as a guarantor as well. Would have a long-term negative impact on our reputation if it fails, besides simply wanting peace for the sake of peace

I don't agree.

Ministers have been wrong often enough before and the gutter press even more often.
If only they had adopted my solution to the Irish border question, there would have been no problem or issue whatsoever with either the UK or Eire.
Mrs May could have chosen this path and had a trade deal by now, but insted let this Irish issue break her.

 

The long and the short of it is there is no breach of international or national law.
The situation is that at present the UK has left the EU but has agreed to adhere to all the rules and standards of the EU until at least 31st Dec 2020.
After that the UK can choose to continue to follow some or all or none of these.
The Bill does nothing to change this, merely allows the UK government to choose one of these options after the given date.

The EU want to force the UK to continue with their rules on their terms.

As to the Fish, catch quotas (as currently set by the EU) in UK national waters may be sold on an annual basis.
My relatives in Aberdeen (one of the UK's principal fishing ports) tell me that the EU wish to force the UK to continue this into the indefinite future, as do the Scottish Nationalists.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.