[Politics] Safeguards on food standards have been removed.

[maltaseagull]

I really need to think of an equally scathing, ridiculous, insulting term for Labour supporters. Maybe plebs, halfwits, cockroaches, contagion, or plain old simple dirt on my shoe? But then again, I actually don’t feel the need to hate all those with differing political opinion to myself, it reduces those that do to Trump level in my opinion.

I suspect you have been whooshed too

I agree about the name used to describe any Tory by the lefties.


Just a little jest that was so ridiculous, I thought it was obvious. Clearly a fail on my part

 

[CHAPPERS]

So much ignorance in this discussion.

Food standards have not been removed. We have some of the highest food standards in the world. Although, incidentally, not as high as the U.S.

"the Global Food Security Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, for example, rates the US above the UK for “quality and safety” of food."
https://www.ft.com/content/57824bdb-1dfe-40e9-b2ee-b37092b65fb0

The reason that the amendment was rejected is nothing to do with wanting chlorinated chicken. It is illegal in the UK - regardless of this amendment. It has to do with the likelihood that this broad amendment would prevent the importation of food products from developing countries. It's about the possible unintended consequences of this amendment, not the intended consequences of it.

But the suggestion that this was a vote against food standards, or that food standards have been removed or lowered, is a LIE.

Anyone saying that is either ignorant or dishonest, apparently that covers quite a lot of people.

This is like me demanding that you sign a pledge which includes a commitment not to beat your wife. You tell me that there are issues with this pledge and you won't be signing it. I then declare that you have voted to be able to beat your wife.

I always knew you wanted to beat your wife, and now you've gone and proved it.

This is political spin at it's absolute finest.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/10/13/chlorinated-chicken-hormone-beef-trade-deal-brexit/

 

[zefarelly]

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/10/13/chlorinated-chicken-hormone-beef-trade-deal-brexit/

yum yum

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/20...n-of-post-brexit-attack-on-uk-food-standards/

 

[lawros left foot]

Am I led to believe nobody on here buys bags of ready washed salad leaves from the supermarket? Same amount of chlorine used in the wash. Do we not immerse ourselves in chlorine every time we use the swimming pool? I know I do but I shower immediately afterwards, I wash salad leaves before use and wash chicken before use.

The latest advice to commercial caterers from the EHOs is to NOT wash chicken before cooking , as it doesn’t do much good and just spreads the bacteria around.

 

[zefarelly]

The latest advice to commercial caterers from the EHOs is to NOT wash chicken before cooking , as it doesn’t do much good and just spreads the bacteria around.

Which to be honest, an average 10 year old probably knows.

 

[highflyer]

So much ignorance in this discussion.

Food standards have not been removed. We have some of the highest food standards in the world. Although, incidentally, not as high as the U.S.

"the Global Food Security Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, for example, rates the US above the UK for “quality and safety” of food."
https://www.ft.com/content/57824bdb-1dfe-40e9-b2ee-b37092b65fb0

The reason that the amendment was rejected is nothing to do with wanting chlorinated chicken. It is illegal in the UK - regardless of this amendment. It has to do with the likelihood that this broad amendment would prevent the importation of food products from developing countries. It's about the possible unintended consequences of this amendment, not the intended consequences of it.

But the suggestion that this was a vote against food standards, or that food standards have been removed or lowered, is a LIE.

Anyone saying that is either ignorant or dishonest, apparently that covers quite a lot of people.

This is like me demanding that you sign a pledge which includes a commitment not to beat your wife. You tell me that there are issues with this pledge and you won't be signing it. I then declare that you have voted to be able to beat your wife.

I always knew you wanted to beat your wife, and now you've gone and proved it.

This is political spin at it's absolute finest.

This is disingenuous and I suspect deliberately so.

I do not believe for one nanosecond that the Tories voted the amendment down out of concern for the interests of developing countries. This would be so far out of character as to be literally unbelievable.

What we ALL know has happened is this:

1. Food standards were raised as an issue in the wrangling over Brexit and it was recognised that the UK public (whether correctly or not, it matters very little) were concerned about this and it was an issue that could potentially turn people away from a harder Brexit and thus against voting Tory.

2. To mitigate against this, the Brexiteer/Tories promised multiple times, including writing it in their manifesto that maintaining existing food standards would be a non-negotiable when trade talks started

3. Everybody who understood the reality (that without the EU bloc, and desperate for a deal, the UK would be in a hugely weakened position) KNEW that this was always going to be jettisoned, as there was no way (and this was made very clear by the US side) that it could be maintained when a deal was at stake. In other words, the promise was a flat out lie. And a big one at that.

4. This amendment was created to flush that lie out. And it has done exactly that. No way could they ever keep that promise and EVERYONE with any knowledge of trade negotiations knew it

To try and claim that oh no' it's because they care so much about about poor countries' is audacious, I'll give you that. But b*llocks nonetheless.

 

[dingodan]

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/10/13/chlorinated-chicken-hormone-beef-trade-deal-brexit/

Not sure what you think this proves?

First, Greenpeace are a campaigning organization.

Second, their article only states that a) the UK will come under pressure from other nations to allow for certain controversial food products. We know that. b) The UK would face challenges "in upholding the ban" (i.e. the UK are expected to want and try to uphold the existing ban). Finally it states that c) there exists a mechanism which could be used to change the law. No evidence or even suggestion that this is intended to be done. The fact that statutory instruments exist is not in any way evidence that they intend to be or would be used for this purpose.

"The agency is also readying itself for a WTO challenge on hormone-treated beef." - If you intend to get rid of the ban, why ready yourself for the ban to be challenged? You ready yourself for the ban to be challenged at the WTO because you intend to fight to keep the ban, otherwise you could just get rid of it yourself and avoid the WTO challenge completely. For example, you could use a statutory instrument as detailed above. So this infact demonstrates that a) the UK does not intend to use a statutory instrument to get rid of the ban, and b) the UK intends to fight any challenges at the WTO. This proves my point. The UK is fully committed to and intent on keeping the ban on hormone-treated beef.

Doesn't say anything much about welfare, quality and safety process. Does one assume Italy or Portugal doesn't rank or produce any food?

maybe someones wife likes being spanked.

https://www.savills.com/impacts/natural-forces/new-zealand-tops-savills-food-security-index.html

Not sure what you think this proves either.

First Savills is also a campaigning organization.

Second the article details: "Savills Food Security Index". The reason it doesn't mention welfare, quality and safety process is because it's the wrong Food Security Index. It's one created by Savills. The one I mentioned is The Global Food Security Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

You want to refer to this:
https://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/

Not the link you posted.

 

[nicko31]

So much ignorance in this discussion.

We have some of the highest food standards in the world. Although, incidentally, not as high as the U.S.

Who told you that Kellyanne Conway?

 

[dingodan]

This is disingenuous and I suspect deliberately so.

I do not believe for one nanosecond that the Tories voted the amendment down out of concern for the interests of developing countries. This would be so far out of character as to be literally unbelievable.

What we ALL know has happened is this:

1. Food standards were raised as an issue in the wrangling over Brexit and it was recognised that the UK public (whether correctly or not, it matters very little) were concerned about this and it was an issue that could potentially turn people away from a harder Brexit and thus against voting Tory.

2. To mitigate against this, the Brexiteer/Tories promised multiple times, including writing it in their manifesto that maintaining existing food standards would be a non-negotiable when trade talks started

3. Everybody who understood the reality (that without the EU bloc, and desperate for a deal, the UK would be in a hugely weakened position) KNEW that this was always going to be jettisoned, as there was no way (and this was made very clear by the US side) that it could be maintained when a deal was at stake. In other words, the promise was a flat out lie. And a big one at that.

4. This amendment was created to flush that lie out. And it has done exactly that. No way could they ever keep that promise and EVERYONE with any knowledge of trade negotiations knew it

To try and claim that oh no' it's because they care so much about about poor countries' is audacious, I'll give you that. But b*llocks nonetheless.

When I mentioned political spin at it's finest, well this is political spin at it's weakest.

I appreciate you sharing your theory, and implying that I was being deliberately disingenuous in my post.

I never said it was about "caring so much about poor countries". Trading with the developing world is important for those economies, but trade is mutually beneficial by nature.

Please stop assuming that you know other peoples motives, and please try to stick to the facts rather than your personal theories fuelled by your personal political prejudice.

 

[pb21]

You want to refer to this:
https://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/

Not the link you posted.

That link shows the US has a lower food safety score than the UK?

Regardless, the issue is primarily about animal welfare standards, which are generally poorer in the US than the UK.

 

[beorhthelm]

...

4. This amendment was created to flush that lie out. And it has done exactly that. No way could they ever keep that promise and EVERYONE with any knowledge of trade negotiations knew it

To try and claim that oh no' it's because they care so much about about poor countries' is audacious, I'll give you that. But b*llocks nonetheless.

dont buy the poor country angle either. the amendment is to flush something, generates a lot of other lies in the process. its a simple clause to say any trade negotiation must enforce food standards. it doesnt stipulate any food standards, doesnt repeal any standards, or say anything else. yet we are told emphatically that standards have been removed as a consequence. its just petty politics, and little to do with actual standards, otherwise the amendment might have made some new ones.

 

[dingodan]

Who told you that Kellyanne Conway?

The next line of that post...

"the Global Food Security Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, for example, rates the US above the UK for “quality and safety” of food."

 

[Is it PotG?]

The next line of that post...

"the Global Food Security Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, for example, rates the US above the UK for “quality and safety” of food."

Ah come on, be fair.

Let the doom and gloom scaremongers have their 5 minutes.

 

[dingodan]

That link shows the US has a lower food safety score than the UK?

US Food safety score: 89.1

UK Food safety score: 80.9

 

[highflyer]

please try to stick to the facts rather than your personal theories fuelled by your personal political prejudice.

Your attempts to spin this are poor and transparent. Don't be suprised when you are called out.

A lie has been flushed out. That is all that has happened here. It won't make a blind bit of difference
We have this god awful, elitist, immoral, incompetent, corrupt as f*ck, government for four more years. If that makes you happy, then be happy..

 

[KeithDublin]

When I mentioned political spin at it's finest, well this is political spin at it's weakest.

I appreciate you sharing your theory, and implying that I was being deliberately disingenuous in my post.

I never said it was about "caring so much about poor countries". Trading with the developing world is important for those economies, but trade is mutually beneficial by nature.

Please stop assuming that you know other peoples motives, and please try to stick to the facts rather than your personal theories fuelled by your personal political prejudice.

And your views aren't fueled by personal political prejudice?

 

[pb21]

US Food safety score: 89.1

UK Food safety score: 80.9

 

[knocky1]

US Food safety score: 89.1

UK Food safety score: 80.9

The methodology for the score is more than just safety.https://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Home/Methodology

 

[dingodan]

Your attempts to spin this are poor and transparent. Don't be suprised when you are called out.

A lie has been flushed out. That is all that has happened here. It won't make a blind bit of difference
We have this god awful, elitist, immoral, incompetent, corrupt as f*ck, government for four more years. If that makes you happy, then be happy..

There it is.

The government are evil.

The truth be damned.

 

[nicko31]

The next line of that post...

"the Global Food Security Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, for example, rates the US above the UK for “quality and safety” of food."

We're talking about food safety, not food security.

I'd rather not eat chicken that has spent its short life walking through shit, if fact if we get it I won't be eating it.

You only have to look at Americans to understand their food, you are what you eat...