• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

SpurMeUp said:
The lab studies that link these chemicals to cancer are not worth heeding? Publications such as the times are also falling for conspiracy? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-food-standards-differ-between-the-uk-and-us-8f9w5cwtt

They or you are wrong. Who would I back? [emoji4]

It’s only our kids who’ll be eating this stuff, is it worth playing fast and lose, or better to stick to the highest of global food standards? 95% of the Uk population disagree with you and think we should maintain our standards according to a which study.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
Yes, the Times has fallen for nonsense - it happens all the time. Remember when the entire UK press believed vaccines cause autism?

Chlorine sounds very scary to a layman, but you'll ingest far more of it from tap water than you will from chlorinated chicken.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
Standards of animal welfare sounds like a consumer choice, rather than something that should be enforced by a supranational entity.

Do you have any evidence that meat in the US is less safe than elsewhere? For example, EU chicken has roughly 10x the level of salmonella when compared to US chicken - mainly because we don't chlorine wash our chicken.
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence re: salmonella? It depends on your source. I have seen sources such as "Sustain" and "Which" suggesting the opposite. It is very difficult to compare safety like for like tbh. So for example number of cases of foodborne illness is far higher in the US than the UK, but is that corrected for population difference etc.

Animal welfare is not just a consumer choice thing, it should be the basis of any civilised society. It has an effect on food safety and standards see BSE, see campylobacter levels in chickens that are stressed.

So I am not sure I really get your point about Supranational authority. It was sensible in a free trade bloc that every member applied the same standards. Chlorination to hide a multitude of sins in the rearing of animals is not good for health or sustainable farming practices.
 
Last edited:
Robspur12 said:
Do you have evidence re: salmonella? It depends on your source. I have seen sources such as "Sustain" and "Which" suggesting the opposite. It is very difficult to compare safety like for like tbh. So for example number of cases of foodborne illness is far higher in the US than the UK, but is that corrected for population difference etc.
Click to expand...
https://www.who.int/foodsafety/foodborne_disease/ferg/en/

The US is at least equivalent, and often better than the EU average in almost every measurement. That takes into account all US chicken, not just chlorine washed. The following article shows that chlorine washing reduces salmonella prevalence from 14% to 2%:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw2EW7KP6c2dWxVmsijkwGAi

Robspur12 said:
Animal welfare is not just a consumer choice thing, it should be the basis of any civilised society. It has an effect on food safety and standards see BSE, see campylobacter levels in chickens that are stressed.
Click to expand...
We really don't need to worry about BSE - another example to add to vaccines/autism, COVID-19, chlorinated chicken etc. where the public and press get in a flap and echo chamber themselves into macarons.

If animal safety isn't a consumer option, why do I have the option at supermarkets to pay more for all kinds of produce from foodstock that has been treated differently? From eggs to chicken to beef, it's all consumer choice.

Robspur12 said:
So I am not sure I really get your point about Supranational authority. It was sensible in a free trade bloc that every member applied the same standards.
Click to expand...
That's the communist view of free trade.

Applying the same standards across the board is the very worst way to trade (if you care about the consumer). I probably won't buy US food because it's not very good but I'm fortunate enough not to have to. I would absolutely want the option if I wasn't though.

Robspur12 said:
Chlorination to hide a multitude of sins in the rearing of animals is not good for health or sustainable farming practices.
Click to expand...
Yet the end result is the same. Let people choose what they want, we're not children and the state doesn't always know best.
 
I've been inside RSPCA/Red Tractor/DEFRA approved farms. I have friends and acquaintances that have done the same worldwide and exposed their practices and conditions. Taking away the morality side of things, it's why I would never feed my children the flesh and secretions of other animals.
 
It's also worth adding that Canadian chickens can also be chlorine washed, but nobody seems to care about that much.
 
Diamond Lights said:
Brexit bonus, we can't sell raw sausages to EU anymore

Brexit: UK sausage makers face EU export ban https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55479354
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
Did you read the second half of the article? Apparently it's only us that sells them fresh anyway.

And someone who actually sells them for a living seems to think it's a good opportunity.

If you keep reading the journalists that want to make every tiny, irrelevant change seem like something huge, you'll get a very one-sided view.
 
scaramanga said:
Did you read the second half of the article? Apparently it's only us that sells them fresh anyway.

And someone who actually sells them for a living seems to think it's a good opportunity.

If you keep reading the journalists that want to make every tiny, irrelevant change seem like something huge, you'll get a very one-sided view.
Click to expand...

How about a glass eel salesman in UK who now won't sell as much? To be honest he voted for brexit so all I can say is hahahahahaha

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/sky-news-brexit-regret-6873634


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Diamond Lights said:
How about a glass eel salesman in UK who now won't sell as much? To be honest he voted for brexit so all I can say is hahahahahaha

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/sky-news-brexit-regret-6873634


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
I'm not sure he understands just how simple it is to import and export. Customers will not be put off by some paperwork if what he sells is good enough or cheap enough.

That's where the govt needs to do its part and reduce taxes/cost of emplyment.
 
scaramanga said:
https://www.who.int/foodsafety/foodborne_disease/ferg/en/

The US is at least equivalent, and often better than the EU average in almost every measurement. That takes into account all US chicken, not just chlorine washed. The following article shows that chlorine washing reduces salmonella prevalence from 14% to 2%:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw2EW7KP6c2dWxVmsijkwGAi


We really don't need to worry about BSE - another example to add to vaccines/autism, COVID-19, chlorinated chicken etc. where the public and press get in a flap and echo chamber themselves into my tits.

If animal safety isn't a consumer option, why do I have the option at supermarkets to pay more for all kinds of produce from foodstock that has been treated differently? From eggs to chicken to beef, it's all consumer choice.


That's the communist view of free trade.

Applying the same standards across the board is the very worst way to trade (if you care about the consumer). I probably won't buy US food because it's not very good but I'm fortunate enough not to have to. I would absolutely want the option if I wasn't though.


Yet the end result is the same. Let people choose what they want, we're not children and the state doesn't always know best.
Click to expand...
Was about to start writing a reply but then thought life is too short and my wife is already annoyed about how much time I am spending on the forum. Suffice to say we can argue over data, I can produce data refuting yours but in the end from my POV, I think it is preferable to base any safety system on effective controls at each stage of the process than rely on one catch all control at the end that does not fail to safe.
 
A question for the “sovereignty” lot. What do you make of the shift of power clauses in this deal from parliament to the government?
 
We finaaaally leave the EU and the Spurs game is canceled. Coincidence?

@Baleforce Its not about rational thinking or logic, as Marky pointed out so well, it's all about 'up your Delors'!
 
Baleforce said:
The ERG, ladies and gentlemen.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1344331912802930690
Click to expand...
He's being deliberately obtuse, I suspect - that or his carer makes the phone do the Twitter thing for him.

The EU is no longer the deciding party as to what does and doesn't break rules. We can now choose not to conform to some rules and pay a tariff for it (for the small part of our market that can be applied to).

Those are very real and absolutely vital differences between this deal and EU assimilation.
 
scaramanga said:
He's being deliberately obtuse, I suspect - that or his carer makes the phone do the Twitter thing for him.

The EU is no longer the deciding party as to what does and doesn't break rules. We can now choose not to conform to some rules and pay a tariff for it (for the small part of our market that can be applied to).

Those are very real and absolutely vital differences between this deal and EU assimilation.
Click to expand...
It is one treaty though (at the EU insistence) so breaking some rules in one sector does not mean that tariffs or sanctions will only be applied to that sector. If upon review one side, EU or indeed the UK, decides there have been too many breaches it will trigger a review of that part of the treaty and the whole thing could be pulled. Basically, no deal is still not entirely gone in the worst-case scenario. There are a few steps before that option though, including recouping of subsidies, arbitration, tariffs or suspension of sections of the deal. The ECJ is out of the picture more or less but there are other enforcement bodies. It looks to me after the first round of media analysis that the UK is still very much entangled in the EU's web.

I wish that this whole thing was consigned to history but it is quite the opposite. The fallout analysis and ongoing UK/EU discussions will drop below the fold but it will simmer away for years and years. It is good though that a deal of some sort was reached, for that I am thankful. It is something to build on.
 
Rorschach said:
It is one treaty though (at the EU insistence) so breaking some rules in one sector does not mean that tariffs or sanctions will only be applied to that sector. If upon review one side, EU or indeed the UK, decides there have been too many breaches it will trigger a review of that part of the treaty and the whole thing could be pulled. Basically, no deal is still not entirely gone in the worst-case scenario. There are a few steps before that option though, including recouping of subsidies, arbitration, tariffs or suspension of sections of the deal. The ECJ is out of the picture more or less but there are other enforcement bodies. It looks to me after the first round of media analysis that the UK is still very much entangled in the EU's web.

I wish that this whole thing was consigned to history but it is quite the opposite. The fallout analysis and ongoing UK/EU discussions will drop below the fold but it will simmer away for years and years. It is good though that a deal of some sort was reached, for that I am thankful. It is something to build on.
Click to expand...
I meant the small part of our trade that is with the EU.

There won't be any space for the punitive nonsense we've seen before because of the third party arbitration. A third party view of what is a genuine cost cut and what is a targeted attempt at undercutting the EU will be very different to that of the EU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back