How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
Robertj21a said:
Could you explain why you think that ?
Nope. Not my job to do your research. American food production is lower standard & more technology based. Look it up for yourself if you want, I'm not saying anything that isn't widely accepted unlike the run of the mill drive by poster.Eddie Strohacker said:
Nope. Not my job to do your research. American food production is lower standard & more technology based. Look it up for yourself if you want, I'm not saying anything that isn't widely accepted unlike the run of the mill drive by poster.
Thank you, just the response I'd expected. Clearly, you're unable to provide simple answers to simple questions. Once again, you like to make out you know something that others don't - shame you can never evidence it.
Eddie Strohacker said:
It's agreed then, your previous point about letting the man in the street decide is not quite as you would characterise it. It'll be the man in Washington who decides what goes on supermarket shelves but remember, we're taking back control.
No, it'll be the supermarkets that decide what to stock and the customer who decide whether to buy it.It's amusing how the Remainers started off by complaining that Brexit would lead to the UK being isolated, "pulling up the drawbridge", "squalid xenophobic little Island" etc etc. Completely ignoring that the whole point of Brexit is to ease trade with the world at large.
Now they see a specific example of the possibilities for trade they instantly and unblushingly switch to saying Brexit is wrong for completely the opposite reasons. "We might get the chance to buy horrible foreign chickens, how terrible. Let's rejoin the EU so they can protect us from the big bad world".
I find it hard to believe in a country the size of the USA with it's extremely powerful litigation rules that 'dangerous' food preparation processes would be tolerated. If it caused illness or whatever the vast quantities of consumers would be in the courts claiming millions of dollars compensation.
Eddie Strohacker said:
andymadmak said:
The issue surrounding the chicken is bizarre. The US and the EU have very similar standards of livestock care and handling in place. ,
Simply not true.Can you enlighten me as to your own experience in the sector that makes you so much better qualified than I?
andymadmak said:
Ok, well my 20+ years involvement in the industry counts for nothing then. Neither does my extensive knowledge of US, EU and UK poultry production facilities, systems and methods. My experience as a processing plant assessor for major UK multiples and food manufacturers also doesn't count. The 10 years I spent developing food safety technology, much of it specifically for poultry processing plants world wide, including rhe USA was surely but a dream.
Can you enlighten me as to your own experience in the sector that makes you so much better qualified than I?
Can you enlighten me as to your own experience in the sector that makes you so much better qualified than I?
andymadmak said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
andymadmak said:
The issue surrounding the chicken is bizarre. The US and the EU have very similar standards of livestock care and handling in place. ,
Simply not true.Can you enlighten me as to your own experience in the sector that makes you so much better qualified than I?
Eddie makes the point that US food production is more technology based. Certainly in terms of poultry production that is not the case. Just about all poultry processing plants world wide, of any substantive scale use automated slaughter, including stun, kill, defeather, eviscerate and primary dress. Its simply not economical to do it by hand for chicken meat production.
Much of the technology used for these processes is European, with companies like Stork, Meyn and Baader leading the way.
It gets more complex after that. Many plants world wide still rely on lines of people 'deboning' the chicken. Typically this involves slow moving lines of "cones" onto which the chicken carcase is mounted to allow operators to cut off legs, breasts etc. Wings are usually but not always taken off at the primary stage. The same companies above have invested significant monies in developing automated deboning processes, but in the case of breast meat production in particular the trade off between high yield and excessive bone fragment contamination ( a dangerous foreign body for consumers) means that most lines remaim " manual"
The issue that is in dispute is the use of bactericide washes on chicken carcases, to remove any trace of contamination from the contents of the digestive system that sometimes occurs during the automated slaughter process. Contamination by these materials can lead to significant food safety issues. The US thinks this is best addrssed by the addition of a bactericidal wash. The EU believes that the problem is best addressed by focussing on the proper application of the process. Neither approach is ideal, but in my experience the US approach probably better reflects the reality of production, no matter where you go in the world.
I believe that one of the reasons why the EU was so sensitive on the issue of washing was the emergence of the scandal of tumbling of boneless chicken meat in the 80s and 90s.
Basically, if you put boneless breast meat into a cement mixer ( clean!) with some chemicals ( often just a little salt) plus a volume of water and switch it on, you can make the chicken soak up the water like a sponge. It looks relatively normal ( you have to know what to look for to spot it) but you are essentially selling water for the price per kilo of chicken breast. For some in an industry that frequently worked on single digit % margins, the appeal of selling water as a prime product was too good to miss.
The problem was widespread on the continent ( in particular Holland and Germany) and was not unknown in the UK.
Washing as the Americans do, is too close to tumbling in the minds of some people.
As a general rule, and there are of course exceptions to all rules, US chicken is no more hazardous than UK or EU production. In some key areas ( such as foreign body contamination removal) the US was actually ahead of the EU and the UK.
As I said, storm and teacups
Much of the technology used for these processes is European, with companies like Stork, Meyn and Baader leading the way.
It gets more complex after that. Many plants world wide still rely on lines of people 'deboning' the chicken. Typically this involves slow moving lines of "cones" onto which the chicken carcase is mounted to allow operators to cut off legs, breasts etc. Wings are usually but not always taken off at the primary stage. The same companies above have invested significant monies in developing automated deboning processes, but in the case of breast meat production in particular the trade off between high yield and excessive bone fragment contamination ( a dangerous foreign body for consumers) means that most lines remaim " manual"
The issue that is in dispute is the use of bactericide washes on chicken carcases, to remove any trace of contamination from the contents of the digestive system that sometimes occurs during the automated slaughter process. Contamination by these materials can lead to significant food safety issues. The US thinks this is best addrssed by the addition of a bactericidal wash. The EU believes that the problem is best addressed by focussing on the proper application of the process. Neither approach is ideal, but in my experience the US approach probably better reflects the reality of production, no matter where you go in the world.
I believe that one of the reasons why the EU was so sensitive on the issue of washing was the emergence of the scandal of tumbling of boneless chicken meat in the 80s and 90s.
Basically, if you put boneless breast meat into a cement mixer ( clean!) with some chemicals ( often just a little salt) plus a volume of water and switch it on, you can make the chicken soak up the water like a sponge. It looks relatively normal ( you have to know what to look for to spot it) but you are essentially selling water for the price per kilo of chicken breast. For some in an industry that frequently worked on single digit % margins, the appeal of selling water as a prime product was too good to miss.
The problem was widespread on the continent ( in particular Holland and Germany) and was not unknown in the UK.
Washing as the Americans do, is too close to tumbling in the minds of some people.
As a general rule, and there are of course exceptions to all rules, US chicken is no more hazardous than UK or EU production. In some key areas ( such as foreign body contamination removal) the US was actually ahead of the EU and the UK.
As I said, storm and teacups
andymadmak said:
Eddie makes the point that US food production is more technology based. Certainly in terms of poultry production that is not the case. Just about all poultry processing plants world wide, of any substantive scale use automated slaughter, including stun, kill, defeather, eviscerate and primary dress. Its simply not economical to do it by hand for chicken meat production.
Much of the technology used for these processes is European, with companies like Stork, Meyn and Baader leading the way.
It gets more complex after that. Many plants world wide still rely on lines of people 'deboning' the chicken. Typically this involves slow moving lines of "cones" onto which the chicken carcase is mounted to allow operators to cut off legs, breasts etc. Wings are usually but not always taken off at the primary stage. The same companies above have invested significant monies in developing automated deboning processes, but in the case of breast meat production in particular the trade off between high yield and excessive bone fragment contamination ( a dangerous foreign body for consumers) means that most lines remaim " manual"
The issue that is in dispute is the use of bactericide washes on chicken carcases, to remove any trace of contamination from the contents of the digestive system that sometimes occurs during the automated slaughter process. Contamination by these materials can lead to significant food safety issues. The US thinks this is best addrssed by the addition of a bactericidal wash. The EU believes that the problem is best addressed by focussing on the proper application of the process. Neither approach is ideal, but in my experience the US approach probably better reflects the reality of production, no matter where you go in the world.
I believe that one of the reasons why the EU was so sensitive on the issue of washing was the emergence of the scandal of tumbling of boneless chicken meat in the 80s and 90s.
Basically, if you put boneless breast meat into a cement mixer ( clean!) with some chemicals ( often just a little salt) plus a volume of water and switch it on, you can make the chicken soak up the water like a sponge. It looks relatively normal ( you have to know what to look for to spot it) but you are essentially selling water for the price per kilo of chicken breast. For some in an industry that frequently worked on single digit % margins, the appeal of selling water as a prime product was too good to miss.
The problem was widespread on the continent ( in particular Holland and Germany) and was not unknown in the UK.
Washing as the Americans do, is too close to tumbling in the minds of some people.
As a general rule, and there are of course exceptions to all rules, US chicken is no more hazardous than UK or EU production. In some key areas ( such as foreign body contamination removal) the US was actually ahead of the EU and the UK.
As I said, storm and teacups
Thanks - I guess Eddie knew all that already and is now compiling his own explanation as to where you are wrong.......Much of the technology used for these processes is European, with companies like Stork, Meyn and Baader leading the way.
It gets more complex after that. Many plants world wide still rely on lines of people 'deboning' the chicken. Typically this involves slow moving lines of "cones" onto which the chicken carcase is mounted to allow operators to cut off legs, breasts etc. Wings are usually but not always taken off at the primary stage. The same companies above have invested significant monies in developing automated deboning processes, but in the case of breast meat production in particular the trade off between high yield and excessive bone fragment contamination ( a dangerous foreign body for consumers) means that most lines remaim " manual"
The issue that is in dispute is the use of bactericide washes on chicken carcases, to remove any trace of contamination from the contents of the digestive system that sometimes occurs during the automated slaughter process. Contamination by these materials can lead to significant food safety issues. The US thinks this is best addrssed by the addition of a bactericidal wash. The EU believes that the problem is best addressed by focussing on the proper application of the process. Neither approach is ideal, but in my experience the US approach probably better reflects the reality of production, no matter where you go in the world.
I believe that one of the reasons why the EU was so sensitive on the issue of washing was the emergence of the scandal of tumbling of boneless chicken meat in the 80s and 90s.
Basically, if you put boneless breast meat into a cement mixer ( clean!) with some chemicals ( often just a little salt) plus a volume of water and switch it on, you can make the chicken soak up the water like a sponge. It looks relatively normal ( you have to know what to look for to spot it) but you are essentially selling water for the price per kilo of chicken breast. For some in an industry that frequently worked on single digit % margins, the appeal of selling water as a prime product was too good to miss.
The problem was widespread on the continent ( in particular Holland and Germany) and was not unknown in the UK.
Washing as the Americans do, is too close to tumbling in the minds of some people.
As a general rule, and there are of course exceptions to all rules, US chicken is no more hazardous than UK or EU production. In some key areas ( such as foreign body contamination removal) the US was actually ahead of the EU and the UK.
As I said, storm and teacups
[Except he won't include any facts]
Eddie Strohacker said:
FN2TypeR said:
He says that it's delicious, I wonder if he could tell the difference between chicken cleaned in such a fashion and one that is done via another method?
Thanks for the reminder that round here no effort at humour goes unpunished. Delicious Chlorination chicken is such a beedin' obvious play on words that it proves the wilfully obtuse accusation some of us like to bandy about. Unless you are actually clown shoes stupid in which case I obviously apologise.I notice you replied to that but ignored my original question about how far UK exports to the EU would drop, I notice too since then that you have continued to make baseless comments that you can't back up whilst acting like the end times are near, all apparently proven by your baseless waffle - well played
andymadmak said:
Eddie makes the point that US food production is more technology based. Certainly in terms of poultry production that is not the case. Just about all poultry processing plants world wide, of any substantive scale use automated slaughter, including stun, kill, defeather, eviscerate and primary dress. Its simply not economical to do it by hand for chicken meat production.
Much of the technology used for these processes is European, with companies like Stork, Meyn and Baader leading the way.
It gets more complex after that. Many plants world wide still rely on lines of people 'deboning' the chicken. Typically this involves slow moving lines of "cones" onto which the chicken carcase is mounted to allow operators to cut off legs, breasts etc. Wings are usually but not always taken off at the primary stage. The same companies above have invested significant monies in developing automated deboning processes, but in the case of breast meat production in particular the trade off between high yield and excessive bone fragment contamination ( a dangerous foreign body for consumers) means that most lines remaim " manual"
The issue that is in dispute is the use of bactericide washes on chicken carcases, to remove any trace of contamination from the contents of the digestive system that sometimes occurs during the automated slaughter process. Contamination by these materials can lead to significant food safety issues. The US thinks this is best addrssed by the addition of a bactericidal wash. The EU believes that the problem is best addressed by focussing on the proper application of the process. Neither approach is ideal, but in my experience the US approach probably better reflects the reality of production, no matter where you go in the world.
I believe that one of the reasons why the EU was so sensitive on the issue of washing was the emergence of the scandal of tumbling of boneless chicken meat in the 80s and 90s.
Basically, if you put boneless breast meat into a cement mixer ( clean!) with some chemicals ( often just a little salt) plus a volume of water and switch it on, you can make the chicken soak up the water like a sponge. It looks relatively normal ( you have to know what to look for to spot it) but you are essentially selling water for the price per kilo of chicken breast. For some in an industry that frequently worked on single digit % margins, the appeal of selling water as a prime product was too good to miss.
The problem was widespread on the continent ( in particular Holland and Germany) and was not unknown in the UK.
Washing as the Americans do, is too close to tumbling in the minds of some people.
As a general rule, and there are of course exceptions to all rules, US chicken is no more hazardous than UK or EU production. In some key areas ( such as foreign body contamination removal) the US was actually ahead of the EU and the UK.
As I said, storm and teacups
Good post, nice to see a bit of grown-up information in response to the pantomime "oh no, it isn't". Fascinating insight and on the basis of what you've told us I'm coming round to the idea that the Yanks have the right approach and it's us that are taking unwarranted risks here.Much of the technology used for these processes is European, with companies like Stork, Meyn and Baader leading the way.
It gets more complex after that. Many plants world wide still rely on lines of people 'deboning' the chicken. Typically this involves slow moving lines of "cones" onto which the chicken carcase is mounted to allow operators to cut off legs, breasts etc. Wings are usually but not always taken off at the primary stage. The same companies above have invested significant monies in developing automated deboning processes, but in the case of breast meat production in particular the trade off between high yield and excessive bone fragment contamination ( a dangerous foreign body for consumers) means that most lines remaim " manual"
The issue that is in dispute is the use of bactericide washes on chicken carcases, to remove any trace of contamination from the contents of the digestive system that sometimes occurs during the automated slaughter process. Contamination by these materials can lead to significant food safety issues. The US thinks this is best addrssed by the addition of a bactericidal wash. The EU believes that the problem is best addressed by focussing on the proper application of the process. Neither approach is ideal, but in my experience the US approach probably better reflects the reality of production, no matter where you go in the world.
I believe that one of the reasons why the EU was so sensitive on the issue of washing was the emergence of the scandal of tumbling of boneless chicken meat in the 80s and 90s.
Basically, if you put boneless breast meat into a cement mixer ( clean!) with some chemicals ( often just a little salt) plus a volume of water and switch it on, you can make the chicken soak up the water like a sponge. It looks relatively normal ( you have to know what to look for to spot it) but you are essentially selling water for the price per kilo of chicken breast. For some in an industry that frequently worked on single digit % margins, the appeal of selling water as a prime product was too good to miss.
The problem was widespread on the continent ( in particular Holland and Germany) and was not unknown in the UK.
Washing as the Americans do, is too close to tumbling in the minds of some people.
As a general rule, and there are of course exceptions to all rules, US chicken is no more hazardous than UK or EU production. In some key areas ( such as foreign body contamination removal) the US was actually ahead of the EU and the UK.
As I said, storm and teacups
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff