i
Lefty, you use a lot of words but you don't make any points. US chicken is as safe as UK/EU chicken. The EU imports chicken from all over the world and some of those nations have lower welfare standards than the US but don't chlorine wash and so salmonella rates are possibly higher. The fact is that it sounds bad and it is a consequence of Brexit so is automatically bad but the outcome is the same. The EU regulations are mostly protectionist and deliver no benefit to the consumer. If chlorine was an expensive process that did nothing than the Americans would have cut it out of the process to save costs. Also, if chlorine wash was a process that was bad for us then the EU would have stopped us using it to wash fruit and veg but as it is perfectly safe and doesn't affect the flavour in any way it is approved.
So what's the problem, other than it is a consequence of Brexit? You could argue that our farmers can't compete on price with the US produced chicken but I seriously doubt that they can produce and export chickens and get them on our shelves for less than the £3 it costs for a whole chicken now anyway but even if they can that means cheaper meat = better for the consumer. Animal welfare concerns are valid but that doesn't seem to be an issue for you.
I used a lot of words but made no points.? Lol.
Ok, so I said 'Haven’t you actually looked at any of the data and reasoning behind the EU and US food standards? It is not primarily about animal welfare it is about what poor animal welfare can result in for the consumer (and those working in the industry), which is the impact on their health. Washing a dead chicken in chlorine does nothing for the health of a dead chicken, does it? So why undertake a costly procedure? It is to try and make the product safe for consumption. It is largely effective, but not as safe as chicken produced to EU standards.'
Those 'words' are not making a clear point?
Do you mean I provided no evidence or reputable sources?
So, a defence commonly used by those defending the US chlorine washing are that the studies that found the chlorine didn't remove the bacteria were only in the lab, not in real world conditions. Well, the University of Southampton conducted a study, published in the American Society for Microbiology on 17 April 2018 and they found that in fact in the real world it did not remove the harmful bacteria, while in the lab it wasn't possible to detect they were still present. So in fact the opposite of the chlorine washing proponents defence.
Here is the link to the article.
https://mbio.asm.org/content/9/2/e00540-18
I'll highlight a few passages.
'IMPORTANCE Many bacteria are known to enter a viable-but-nonculturable (VBNC) state in response to environmental stresses. VBNC cells cannot be detected by standard laboratory culture techniques, presenting a problem for the food industry, which uses these techniques to detect pathogen contaminants.'
'These data emphasize the risk that VBNC food-borne pathogens could pose to public health should they continue to go undetected.'
'Food-borne disease presents a consistent but frequently preventable threat to public health and is responsible for an estimated 2.2 million deaths worldwide annually. In the United Kingdom, it is estimated that each year one million people suffer a food-borne illness, resulting in 500 deaths. In 2010, the bacterial food-borne pathogens Listeria monocytogenes and
Salmonella spp. were responsible for more than half of these deaths following gastrointestinal infection (
5). Another United Kingdom study spanning 17 years determined that in food-borne outbreaks,
Salmonella spp. were responsible for the highest number of disease cases and the greatest proportion of deaths was caused by L. monocytogenes (
6).'
'Fresh produce such as lettuce and spinach provides an effective vehicle for these pathogens, as they are often sold as ready-to-eat foods. As consumer habits are tending toward healthier eating with more fresh produce, the risk of disease outbreaks is increasing (
7). In 2016, an outbreak of L. monocytogenes associated with packaged salads caused 19 cases, each resulting in hospitalization, across nine states in the United States (
8). In the United Kingdom, an outbreak was caused by L. monocytogenes contaminating sandwiches sold at a hospital, affecting five pregnant women (
9). Although
Salmonella species outbreaks are proportionally less severe, they are farther reaching. One produce-associated outbreak of Salmonella enterica serovar Saintpaul resulted in 1,500 disease cases across 43 U.S. states, which hospitalized 21% of those affected and may have caused two deaths (
10). '
'Despite their nonculturability, VBNC food-borne pathogens still pose a risk to consumers. While there is conflicting data on the pathogenicity of VBNC cells, there is evidence for their resuscitation under more favorable conditions, potentially allowing pathogens to cause disease prior to or even following ingestion by humans. Research carried out with L. monocytogenes has found that VBNC cells induced by starvation were avirulent when exposed to human adenocarcinoma cells but were resuscitated when inoculated into embryonated chicken eggs and regained virulence (
11,
12). '
Please note that the study looked at Spinach.
It is also important to acknowledge that proper cooking of chicken does remove these harmful bacteria. So......is it even important?
Well, it's about defense in depth. Yes cooking does kill the bacteria, which is why (in the US) it's legal to sell food meant to be cooked that has tested positive for salmonella. However, if the tests used aren't capable of detecting VBNC pathogens then...
But if you make a mistake, undercook it a bit or don't wash a chopping board enough there is a chance you will get ill. The EU approach it to also try and minimise the amount in raw produce, so if a consumer makes a mistake it's less of a problem.
For example the USFDA recommends all egg products are cooked because there is salmonella in a proportion of the eggs*. In the UK the proportion is so much smaller that runny eggs are safe for pregnant women, infants and the elderly.
* In the Uni of Hampshire study linked above it states 'Research carried out with L. monocytogenes has found that VBNC cells induced by starvation were avirulent when exposed to human adenocarcinoma cells but were resuscitated when inoculated into embryonated chicken eggs and regained virulence (
11,
12).'
Although there is some dispute concerning methodology for like for like comparison, it does seem like you are much more likely to get food poisoning in the US, especially Salmonella.
Conversely, incidences of Campylobactor poisoning is much more prevalent in Europe than the US, most likely due to the chlorine washing process, which must be taken in to account. The EU and UK are looking into other methods of reducing this risk.
https://www.poultryworld.net/Health/Articles/2015/10/Campylobacter-a-European-problem-2700624W/
