Bringing goods from the EU

[selectortone]

Do you think UK farmers are chomping at the bit to start whipping their animals and it was only the EU that could hold back their bloodlust

The legislation was there to prevent the import of meat from countries with poor animal welfare practices. It's not so much the chlorination of chicken but why it is necessary - i.e. low hygiene standards.

 

[Rorschach]

The legislation was there to prevent the import of meat from countries with poor animal welfare practices. It's not so much the chlorination of chicken but why it is necessary - i.e. low hygiene standards.

I guess it depends if that is important to you. Personally I think the US has on balance very high standards of food hygiene (you can't buy Eggs covered in poop for instance) and the washing of chicken could be seen to be a sensible preventative measure rather than simply covering for poor practice (two sides to every story) and it is something we do here but not to meat.
It doesn't worry me, but if it worries you campaign on it to get the laws you want enacted and of course most importantly, don't buy US chicken, if there is no market for it, they won't sell it.

 

[sploo]

Personally I think the US has on balance very high standards of food hygiene (you can't buy Eggs covered in poop for instance) and the washing of chicken could be seen to be a sensible preventative measure rather than simply covering for poor practice (two sides to every story) and it is something we do here but not to meat.

Have a read of the FDA guidelines; lovely bits such as the acceptable percentage of rodent hair in pasta.

US food standards have for decades been greatly influenced by large corporations; i.e. to keep costs down.

Washing of chicken in chemicals could be seen as a preventative measure; but that's not the reason it's there - it's to allow for cutting costs by reducing standards of cleanliness during production.

I guess the pertinent questions are

1. Do we believe the Tories are interested in food welfare (and the welfare of the population in general), or do we believe they'd be more interested in cutting corners in order to increase profit for their mates?
2. Do we believe the general public will take enough interest in what's in their food, and buy good quality produce over reaching for the cheaper item (regardless of the welfare/health standards of that item)?

I think I can be fairly confident of the answers to both of those questions; which is why good legislation is important.

 

[Rorschach]

Ah so it's just political point scoring again.

 

[sploo]

Ah so it's just political point scoring again.

No - it's about reality; the likely outcomes based on history and available evidence.

"Freed" from the shackles of joint regulation, a UK government could reshape rules based on their own political dogma. Politicians from the economic right wing end of the spectrum tend to prefer small government, low taxes, and lower regulation. All of which sound good; except that it does mean reduction in social services, and more freedom for the unscrupulous to act in their own self interest. Given that such (unscrupulous) people exist, it's a pretty sure thing that reduction of regulation (that might allow corner cutting in order to reduce costs) will be welcomed and utilised.

For example; the working time directive doesn't prevent an employee working longer hours, but it prevents a employer from forcing an employee to work longer hours. Why would you seek to remove it unless you wanted to give employers the "freedom" to enforce longer working hours on employees (given that you could currently ask them sign a waiver and work longer hours if required). All part of the same attitude to reducing regulation.

 

[Jelly]

Ultimately that will be down to the consumer. If you buy meat from a supplier with high welfare standards then the farmers won't go out of business.

This underestimates the power of retailers and wholesalers in the food supply chain.

People on the whole will buy whatever is conveniently available to them, and when push comes to shove many if not most will discriminate on price. That you and I care enough to be selective is almost wholly irrelevant to the national trend.

Once one major retailer chooses to break ranks and sell lower welfare standard meat, it will initiate a race to the bottom where others are forced to follow. That will quickly squeeze wholesale prices for British producers (who from the sounds of it won't even have the option to lower standards, so are doubly screwed).

The ultimate outcome will be to force whatever British producers survive to increase prices and sell as a premium product to make up for the demand shortfall; driving up prices for consumers like myself (and yourself) who do care enough to discriminate on welfare/quality.


Net result in the long term:

• less and poorer UK farmers,
• greater proportion of revenue from UK food sales is diverted overseas worsening our already dismal balance of trade,
• prices of high welfare meat will be inflated,
• after an initial price drop the retail prices (but not wholesale prices) of low welfare meat will inevitably stabilise back around the old high welfare prices because that's the level the market can support.

I struggle to see how that would be positive for the UK.

 

[D_W]

Large social benefits don't go away. From the fence in the middle, I see right wingers now in a fight to prevent more. Nobody takes anything significant away, even in the states. The two most favorable changes for seniors have even come under Republican admins. Medicare part d and the Medicare advantage type plan. Why? Because the two parties fight over what they can get their names on. If democrats have a priority and Republicans can sponsor the bill first, it's like stealing someone's lunch money.

 

[Rorschach]

You act like we don't have a democratically elected government that (since Brexit) is even more accountable to the electorate than it has been in probably 30 years.

Don't want chlorinated chicken, don't want reduced regulation on working hours, campaign for it, stand for Parliament yourself or support those who share your views. It's all very well sitting and saying "Oh we can't trust the Tories", well do something about it then. Since the Tories have been in power for 29 out of the last 42 years (and the remaining 13 were Tory-lite Labour) it would seem that in general they are trusted a lot more than their opposing parties.

 

[selectortone]

I guess it depends if that is important to you. Personally I think blah blah blah.......

I was simply pointing out that: "Do you think UK farmers are chomping at the bit to start whipping their animals and it was only the EU that could hold back their bloodlust" was barking up entirely the wrong tree. Nice deflection...

 

[Rorschach]

I was simply pointing out that: "Do you think UK farmers are chomping at the bit to start whipping their animals and it was only the EU that could hold back their bloodlust" was barking up entirely the wrong tree. Nice deflection...

No deflection, I was addressing your point.

 

[MikeJhn]

Just had a case with PayPal declined, the seller provided a Royal Mail tracking No that was false, but showed delivery was achieved, despite the non existence of Customs and Excise information PayPal have upheld on the side of the seller, so moral of the story don't buy anything through PayPal that is outside the UK and expect protection by using them.

 

[sploo]

You act like we don't have a democratically elected government that (since Brexit) is even more accountable to the electorate than it has been in probably 30 years.

How's that working out for you?

You know; given the recent votes in parliament to remove protections on selling off the NHS, reducing worker's rights, etc.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying "the other lot" aren't likely just as scummy in their own ways, but platitudes such as "accountable" are fairly meaningless in the face of what our elected government is actually doing.

 

[sploo]

No deflection, I was addressing your point.

Probably falls neatly under this Appeal to Extremes though.

 

[Jelly]

You act like we don't have a democratically elected government that (since Brexit) is even more accountable to the electorate than it has been in probably 30 years.

Our system of government now effectively selects our rulers via a national popularity contest which is won by a concerted effort over several months to deflect people from looking at each party's failings by demonising the other side.

There is no practical mechanism for us to hold individual politicians to account in a meaningful way; the only time in living memory a UK government been held to account over a policy decision was over the Poll Tax, and that was achieved as a result of a massive campaign of civil disobedience, and some on outright rioting in the streets.

That's pretty dysfunctional really, and we can do better as a society.

campaign for it, stand for Parliament yourself or support those who share your views.

I have previously pointed out that I do a lot of this... My missus actually jokes about the fact that I'll inevitably end up standing for parliament one day, but realistically I simply don't have the means to commit to doing that even if I wanted to.

In any case your point is brought up frequently enough in political conversations to be a trope, and invariably it comes across as someone making a BS deflection by accusing their opponents of failing to take personal responsibility, to derail the thread of discussion and disguise that they're unable to come up with a valid counterargument.

 

[selectortone]

No deflection, I was addressing your point.

My point was that the change in legislation is not aimed at British Farmers as you implied. But of course you know that, you just can't admit it.

 

[Rorschach]

My point was that the change in legislation is not aimed at British Farmers as you implied. But of course you know that, you just can't admit it.

I know that, my original post was a little tongue in cheek of course, I don't actually think the legislation was to stop farmer beating their cattle. When you replied about the nature of the legislation I then addressed that point, that's not deflection, that's just carrying on the conversation.

 

[selectortone]

I know that, my original post was a little tongue in cheek of course, I don't actually think the legislation was to stop farmer beating their cattle. When you replied about the nature of the legislation I then addressed that point, that's not deflection, that's just carrying on the conversation.

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.

 

[Rorschach]

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Are we getting to the point that you are just arguing on principle now? If that's the case then fine, but at least be up front about it otherwise there is no point in any of these conversations.

 

[billw]

Yeah but they are also bringing in legislation allowing meat that is bulk imported and has its final packaging put on in the uk (and this can be jus a cardboad loop) to be marked as british.

That is an absolute outrage if they allow it. There is no way you can import meat and say it's British produce, No way at all. Utterly unethical.

I also feel that consumers are going to kick up a storm as will the media.

 

[ivan]

The USA has poor food hygiene standards, and has almost ten times the rate of food poisoning per 1000 population than the UK. Clorination of chicken won't harm you in the short term, but it hides low standards of poultry husbandry which also require regular use of antibiotics, a use no longer permitted here or in EU. Regular use of antibiotics as growth promoters, to keep low level infection of poorly raised birds at a minimum, is just about the best way to create antibiotic resistant bugs. As we are now close to bug resistance overcoming ALL antibiotics from over use, this affects your future health. You could die from a workshop cut pre antibiotics, and many did. This is just one example; there are other similar stories in the US livestock sector, that we definitely do not want to import, for public health reasons. Just in case you think I am a cuddly animal crusader, think again. I (a retired agronomist) usually buy eggs from caged hens. If the hens were that unhappy they'd go off lay and that affects profit so no one would use cages. "Free range" doesn't mean a wander round the farmyard; more like access to a small prison exercise yard. It certainly does not look like the pictures on the egg box! Animal welfare in the legislation sense relates to the practice of animal husbandry - the scientific techniques of animal production. Albeit that the RSPCA would investigate you for cruelty for too enthusiastically thrashing your stock with a large stick...