How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
skahigh said:
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 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
The mistake you made earlier was not adding to any of your posts "ask me how I know" 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
Burwood said:
Has this thread really descended into a b
h about chicken. Fk me.
It's all Eddie's fault...........I told him not to mention chicken but would he listen? No! And now look where we are now. h about chicken. Fk me.alfie2244 said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
Let's hope it works out for Oxford but don't count your chickens just yet.
Don't mention chickens FFS man 
alfie2244 said:
I can't sit here any longer..Ive got bins to put out and dogs to walk..........I'll just have to read Eddie's detailed replies when I've get back..
I'll do it on his behalfLook pal, you obviously think that you're some sort of high falutin' expert, but I have read the f
king Guardian and they say that chlorine chickens = chickens of doom and they'd never post inappropriate or factually baseless propaganda in an effort to advance their shyster cause, geddit?Eddie Strohacker said:
Murph7355 said:
We also would not, necessarily, be ditching any std for export. Just (maybe) import.
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.IF it happens....
- we get a concession that is agreeable
- the US send over their Chlorination Chicken (liked that one. Raisins and everything)
- Man in the Street decides whether he buys Chlorination Chicken, std Tesco Value or Tesco Finest
- People in Waitrose only see the latter (their base version)
If customers don't buy it, the issue of Chlorination Chicken was a non-issue and we got a concession for nowt.
If customers do buy it, they evidently appreciate it hence we got a viable, desirable import plus a decent concession.
It's not hard.
Meanwhile, the EU's attempt at punishing us gets a further nail in its coffin.
rb26 said:
Murph7355 said:
Because what is "better" for one country may not be for 27 others.
See the FTA deal with Japan for more details. 
jjlynn27 said:
If you have so many advantages; like market size, like desperation of other side for a deal for political reasons, you'd be very incompetent if you don't exploit those.
And it doesn't seem like we're going to.The EU on other hand...see the FTA with Japan. And the USA. China. India. Brazil. Russia. Australia. Indonesia. Saudia Arabia
(Out of the world's top 20 economies the EU has agreements with 4 out of the 13 non-EU/non-EFTA countries....you did use the word "incompetent"?).(The EU is not one market when it comes to actually trading. It's 28, soon to be 27, operating under the same rules).
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
You appear to be know the business Andy.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
Can you expand on:
- whether it is true or not that US chicken is around 21% cheaper than that produced here - the media seems to imply that is related to the use of chlorine enabling efficiencies in production - is the saving real and what drives it?
- is this related to what you describe as the EU believes in "proper application of process" - i.e. what extra activity does farming here have to do to ensure the same safe product without using chlorine? Is the US nor bothering with "proper application of process?"
///ajd said:
You appear to be know the business Andy.
Can you expand on:
- whether it is true or not that US chicken is around 21% cheaper than that produced here - the media seems to imply that is related to the use of chlorine enabling efficiencies in production - is the saving real and what drives it?
- is this related to what you describe as the EU believes in "proper application of process" - i.e. what extra activity does farming here have to do to ensure the same safe product without using chlorine? Is the US nor bothering with "proper application of process?"
Good questions.Can you expand on:
- whether it is true or not that US chicken is around 21% cheaper than that produced here - the media seems to imply that is related to the use of chlorine enabling efficiencies in production - is the saving real and what drives it?
- is this related to what you describe as the EU believes in "proper application of process" - i.e. what extra activity does farming here have to do to ensure the same safe product without using chlorine? Is the US nor bothering with "proper application of process?"
Chicken is a rapid growing cycle. In many cases from egg to slaughter is less than 2 months. Something like 65% of the cost of a chicken is in the feed cost - and the Amaericans are very good at producing vast quantities of high quality feed at low cost. This feeds into the savings, together with the sheer economies of scale that they operate on. Processing facilities literally run tens of thousands of birds per day ( I think one of the largest I saw was something like 20,000 per hour!)
The rearing and transportation regimes are very similar to europe. Most is done in huge sheds, with controlled light, feed regimes and temperature. They work very hard to ensure no contamination from the outside - if you visit a chicken rearing facility you will be very surprised at the biosecurity you will go through just to get jnto the sheds. The sheds are like big barns, with chickens deciding where they will sit, rather than being in cages. There have been concerns about density of shed populations but such is the dynamic in the industry ( its very tightly honed for optimum yields, the bad old days of standing room only have gone!
Transportation crates were another area where yields can be affected. Chickens are literally stuffed into crates, live, for transport to slaughter. Put too many in a crate and its bad for the chicken. Do it too roughly and you get broken bones, bad meat etc. - bruising, bloodspots, bone fragments, all of which affect yield, plus potential damage to the gizzard and crop which can allow digestive materials to contact the meat during the slaughter process Again, no sensible producer on either side of the pond is going to tolerate the losses that these bad practices create.
As I said in my earlier post, the chlorine wash question is a bit of a red herring. Actually in many cases its not chlorine at all, but rather it is Peracetic acid, otherwise known as vitamin K!
The EU takes the view that whilst the washes themselves are safe for use, they would allow a culture of bad practice - too many birds per crate, rough handling at the slaughter house, improper settings on slaughter machinery etc. Personally I don't see the logic in this line of thinking, hence my comment that its maybe due to a knee jerk reaction to the "tumbling" scandal. The US producers do take care, but they also add the extra step of washing. Given the scale and numbers involved, nobody is going to do something without reason, and the US clearly identfied that small as the risk of contamination might be, it was nevertheless worth taking a step to mitigate that risk by way of bactericidal wash.
Sorry, typing on a train is challenging!
Edited to add, if you REALLY want to see some potentially bug infested chicken look no further then free range! Happy chicken she may be, but scratting around in the mud outside will lead to chick ns picking up all sorts of nasties from the environment around them!
Edited by andymadmak on Thursday 27th July 07:36
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?
I'm sure Eddie has a similar level of industry experience with which to back up his own, boldly stated, assertions.
Looking forward to his response.
I eat a lot of chicken. Probably over 1kg if breast weekly. I take care where I buy it and what I'm eating. I agree entirely, just because the US are allowed to send up some anabolic chicken, doesn't mean we have to buy it. I accept many will unwittingly or because it's perhaps cheaper.
Neither do I accept that the US would be using dangerous processes. It's all Michael Moore.
Neither do I accept that the US would be using dangerous processes. It's all Michael Moore.
Burwood said:
I eat a lot of chicken. Probably over 1kg if breast weekly. I take care where I buy it and what I'm eating. I agree entirely, just because the US are allowed to send up some anabolic chicken, doesn't mean we have to buy it. I accept many will unwittingly or because it's perhaps cheaper.
Neither do I accept that the US would be using dangerous processes. It's all Michael Moore.
Exactly! As long as things are properly labelled then the consumer can maker his/her own choice in the matter.Neither do I accept that the US would be using dangerous processes. It's all Michael Moore.
On a practical note I am not sure how much US chicken we would see here anyway. The US, like the UK is largely a breat meat consumer, so tends to produce large quantities of thigh meat that it doesnt know what to do with. This gets exported to asia and elsewhere, where the thigh is often preferred due to its superior taste. Horses for courses, but the US has no need to export their breasts to the Uk!
Anyway, enough about chickens, I have derailed this thread for too long with my ramblings. Lets get back to the doom and gloom!
andymadmak said:
Exactly! As long as things are properly labelled then the consumer can maker his/her own choice in the matter.
On a practical note I am not sure how much US chicken we would see here anyway. The US, like the UK is largely a breat meat consumer, so tends to produce large quantities of thigh meat that it doesnt know what to do with. This gets exported to asia and elsewhere, where the thigh is often preferred due to its superior taste. Horses for courses, but the US has no need to export their breasts to the Uk!
Anyway, enough about chickens, I have derailed this thread for too long with my ramblings. Lets get back to the doom and gloom!
On a practical note I am not sure how much US chicken we would see here anyway. The US, like the UK is largely a breat meat consumer, so tends to produce large quantities of thigh meat that it doesnt know what to do with. This gets exported to asia and elsewhere, where the thigh is often preferred due to its superior taste. Horses for courses, but the US has no need to export their breasts to the Uk!
Anyway, enough about chickens, I have derailed this thread for too long with my ramblings. Lets get back to the doom and gloom!
Burwood said:
I eat a lot of chicken. Probably over 1kg if breast weekly. I take care where I buy it and what I'm eating. I agree entirely, just because the US are allowed to send up some anabolic chicken, doesn't mean we have to buy it. I accept many will unwittingly or because it's perhaps cheaper.
Neither do I accept that the US would be using dangerous processes. It's all Michael Moore.
I don't want to mischaracterise Eddie's position, but as I understand it he's using the chicken example to show how trade deals are bad when they are with trading partners so much bigger than us (hence, better in the EU than negotiating alone). His two points seem to be:Neither do I accept that the US would be using dangerous processes. It's all Michael Moore.
1) The chicken is an example of how much worse another nation's standards can be and a negotiation will get them in via a backdoor, and
2) If we accept a trade deal we'll have to accept those standards wholesale.
I can't really accept either point. In the specific case of chickens, (1) seems to be demonstrably untrue and as far as (2) is concerned, we seem pretty good at exchanging standards 'at the border'. You could look at electrical goods produced in the EU - we have maintained completely incompatible standards in the face of our 27 neighbours going a different way, and our safety standards don't seem to have been hurt by buying dodgy Italian light fittings, despite being part of a free trade area.
But it's a bit hard to understand exactly what he's saying as whenever you disagree with him, he resorts to 'witty' put downs.
Does this mean that, while the Brexit negotiations are going on, we are going to pick over every dot, comma, raised eyebrow and piece of chlorinated chicken until we are finally out of the EU?
Really?
Then I think I will leave you to it.#
Really?
Then I think I will leave you to it.#
- This doesn't mean that I definitely won't come back, but I may not.
Edited by The Mad Monk on Thursday 27th July 09:56
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?
Blimey! You go out for the evening & it all kicks off!!Can you enlighten me as to your own experience in the sector that makes you so much better qualified than I?
Andy, I defer to your experience & fully accept that your knowledge of the industry is vastly superior to mine
I misread your post in the melee of the debate that goes back & forth. In fairness, I had been saying all day that chicken itself is not the issue, rather the overall standards of production are sloppier in America than Europe. At no point did I say chicken produced in the stated is unsafe, yet the accusations pinged back all day long, bringing it up time after time.
As you say, farm to fork isn't perfect and neither is final washing of pathogens - all that I leave to your professional knowledge. The point I was making & still do is that if we rush to an FTA with the states, which is a distinct possibility then a lowering of regulatory standards is a potential outcome. Given Fox & Gove gave polar opposite answers on this question yesterday, I think I'm justified in floating that concept.
If we did do that, then the EU's reaction would certainly be negative, They would view it as a possible backdoor route of proscribed products into the EU via the UK & that leads to complex border issues not least in Ireland & certainly at our ports of entry & exit. That is the problem it creates in doing an FTA deal with the EU & that ultimately hurts consumers.
None of it is insurmountable yet it is an entirely foreseeable outcome that onerous checks on exports become a reality, hindering cross border trade & that's before you get into issues of domestic producers being undercut by cheaper imports or not - hard to tell when two senior ministers disagree in public.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff