[Politics] Safeguards on food standards have been removed.

[Palacefinder General]

Don't forget that lots of veggie products are as heavily processed as happy shopper hot dogs and equally loaded with fat salt and sugar

What gets me is the manipulation by manufacturers of the saturates/sugar/salt content labelling on supermarket products - a quick glance and the ‘rainbow’ indicator might look healthy, until you read the small print, where it says ‘per half biscuit’ or ‘per 5 gram serving’ and it’s rarely consistent across similar products. The government pressed for that labelling but it’s totally abused imho.

 

[JetsetJimbo]

Any evidence that there are more deaths in the USA as a result of people eating chicken? I thought not.

And if US chicken is imported here there is no need for you to eat it if you're concerned.

The problem with that second part is that the US routinely and expressly bans country-of-origin labelling when negotiating trade agreements. So there will be no way to tell if you're eating American chicken.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

However, for me, it is a moral issue. I'm proud of the UK's high welfare standards and I hope leaving the EU won't affect that.

Hope is all well and good. But it is hard to imagine maintaining welfare standards getting in the way of the politics of a US Trade Deal. Taking back control.

 

[zefarelly]

What gets me is the manipulation by manufacturers of the saturates/sugar/salt content labelling on supermarket products - a quick glance and the ‘rainbow’ indicator might look healthy, until you read the small print, where it says ‘per half biscuit’ or ‘per 5 gram serving’ and it’s rarely consistent across similar products. The government pressed for that labelling but it’s totally abused imho.

Typically leans toward the manufacturer to make it look good

I have a mental scale in my head and always read the % for sugar/fat etc

I know some stuff less good, It's just striking a balance. beer & wine , chips & croquettes

 

[dingodan]

My conclusion came from a recognition of multiple lies from this shower of bullshitters

The original post in this thread is a quote from Caroline Lucas, in which she implies that we have compromised on our environmental protections, animal welfare or food standards, and thus the promise not to has been broken.

This is...a lie.

That hasn't happened.

Peoples conclusions, if they listen to this debate and get outraged about a "reduction" or a "removal" of any of our standards in any of these areas are being misled. Not by the government, but by it's opponents.

Assuming that you are opposed to lies and BS, how about condeming that lie.

If you are interested in the truth, how about pointing out, or at least acknowledging that absolutely nothing in respect of our environmental protections, animal welfare or food standards has changed as a result of this amendment being voted down.

If you are outraged by what has happened you are either wrongly believing, or knowingly perpetuating, a lie.

For someone who apparently opposes lying you don't seem very consistent.

Maybe you don't oppose lying, maybe you just oppose people of a different political persuasion?

 

[daveinplzen]

The original post in this thread is a quote from Caroline Lucas, in which she implies that we have compromised on our environmental protections, animal welfare or food standards, and thus the promise not to has been broken.

This is...a lie.

That hasn't happened.

Peoples conclusions, if they listen to this debate and get outraged about a "reduction" or a "removal" of any of our standards in any of these areas are being misled. Not by the government, but by it's opponents.

Assuming that you are opposed to lies and BS, how about condeming that lie.

If you are interested in the truth, how about pointing out, or at least acknowledging that absolutely nothing in respect of our environmental protections, animal welfare or food standards has changed as a result of this amendment being voted down.

If you are outraged by what has happened you are either wrongly believing, or knowingly perpetuating, a lie.

For someone who apparently opposes lying you don't seem very consistent.

Maybe you don't oppose lying, maybe you just oppose people of a different political persuasion?

And the purpose of the vote was to keep MPs busy? The lies that have been made by this government, that they have had to pull back from is ridiculous. Defending these liars, even more so.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Any evidence that there are more deaths in the USA as a result of people eating chicken? I thought not.

And if US chicken is imported here there is no need for you to eat it if you're concerned.

Your first point has been answered elsewhere.

Turning to your second point, try to imagine for a moment that you are someone concerned about animal welfare standards generally and in particular in the USA. Because of this you decide to avoid chicken imported from America. Can you tell me how you would do this, given that a large proportion of the meat we consume comes as part of prepared meals, restaurant food and takeaways?

You're hardly going to ask Sharmin down at the Indian where the prime ingredient of your takeaway was reared.

The fact is most of us too much badly nurtured meat already. The need to crack new trade deals to replace some of the ones we've just torn up doesn't seem a good enough reason for eating more.

 

[beorhthelm]

Nope. My point is that the cheaper it is, the more of it you consume. Consuming lots of cheap, deep fried chicken would make you very obese, which is what many Americans are.

my point was chicken is protein, filling and no particularly calorific, not really leading cause of obesity . deepfrying on the other hand is a problem. wider point, obesity is culmination of foods, lack of exercise, lifestyle, modern living (central heating for example), and manipulation of data (threshold is very low). not really a food standards issue.

 

[FatSuperman]

I think supermarkets will be well aware a lot of people won't want to eat shit and will insist on labelling even if the government fail. The greater problem is food processors and the catering sector

Importing crap food harms our health and harms our agri food sector

They might be good citizens on their own labelling standards, but I can assure you that isn't the issue. It will be what happens when cheaper, less healthy / safe - but legal - alternative ingredients are available. The manufacturers, including the supermarkets will race to the bottom (because customer want cheap) and will replace ingredients for these cheap things. The labelling can still be up to date, but how many people notice if the traffic light of death on their favourite packaged lasagne meal goes from amber to red?

The US especially will push for removal of restrictions and tariffs for the bulk of shit they want to sell to us. We will acquiesce and the long term implications will not be noticed for quite a while. Once our obesity and diabetes rate catches theirs, maybe we will realise the shitty decision we made.

 

[dingodan]

And the purpose of the vote was to keep MPs busy?

It's like I said, in my opinion it was for the most part a "do not beat your wife" bill.

It passes, "look, he had to be forced not to beat his wife!", "Thanks to me, his wife is safe!"

It fails, "look, he wants to beat his wife!", "I tried to save his wife, I care about her, he obviously doesn't!"

Unfortunately, this is how politics works today.

If I asked you to commit to not beat your wife, I wouldn't expect you to respond with, "Yes, I promise." I would expect you, rightly, to respond with, "F*ck you."

 

[nicko31]

Nope. My point is that the cheaper it is, the more of it you consume. Consuming lots of cheap, deep fried chicken would make you very obese, which is what many Americans are.

They just have a terrible diet, its been hjacked by big agri business

Take bread over there, its almost impossible to buy without sugar in it. Simple healthy food seems disproportionately expensive.

I don't we realise how lucky we are. In the UK you can buy cheap food and make a simple meal for very little money

 

[Guinness Boy]

my point was chicken is protein, filling and no particularly calorific, not really leading cause of obesity . deepfrying on the other hand is a problem. wider point, obesity is culmination of foods, lack of exercise, lifestyle, modern living (central heating for example), and manipulation of data (threshold is very low). not really a food standards issue.

And it goes on pizza, chicken burgers, KFC, Chinese - and that's mostly the shite stuff.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I don't we realise how lucky we are. In the UK you can buy cheap food and make a simple meal for very little money

At the moment......

 

[Springal]

They just have a terrible diet, its been hjacked by big agri business

Take bread over there, its almost impossible to buy without sugar in it. Simple healthy food seems disproportionately expensive.

I don't we realise how lucky we are. In the UK you can buy cheap food and make a simple meal for very little money

Indeed. Hasn't UK or Irish courts said Subway can't call their 'bread' bread anymore, because the sugar content is to high

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

my point was chicken is protein, filling and no particularly calorific, not really leading cause of obesity . deepfrying on the other hand is a problem. wider point, obesity is culmination of foods, lack of exercise, lifestyle, modern living (central heating for example), and manipulation of data (threshold is very low). not really a food standards issue.

How do you get fat from central heating? And which form of heating is therefore slimming?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Well given nothing has actually changed it's hard to comment on it. We still have the same food and animal welfare standards. In fact the government have already promised that after Brexit the live export will be reviewed .... something the EU have categorically refused to do.

See ... you've now dragged back into an EU debate.

Someone keeps on dragging this back to Brexit, but since you insist

So live exports are going to be reviewed after Brexit. The same as when you wrote

It's a statement of fact that Germany have NOT removed VAT from sanitary products ( and couldn't ), they've just lowered them. Equally, we can't until the end of the year remove VAT for essential service such as gas and electric. I'd also suggest we should remove VAT from internet access - but guess what - we can't while 'members' of the EU.

are all being reviewed after Brexit.

Well, as your Brexit supporting friends take great delight in pointing out, Brexit happened nearly a year ago and not one of these things has been 'reviewed' as of yet

Which is a shame because had any of these things been done in the last year you could have quoted them as the first real bona fide benefit of Brexit

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Any evidence that there are more deaths in the USA as a result of people eating chicken? I thought not.

And if US chicken is imported here there is no need for you to eat it if you're concerned.

Yes

 

[nicko31]

Defending these liars, even more so.

Too late, if you don't defend the liars you might have to come clean with yourself about previous misendeavors. Until these actors leave the stage the show must go on.

 

[Pinkie Brown]

Any evidence that there are more deaths in the USA as a result of people eating chicken? I thought not.

And if US chicken is imported here there is no need for you to eat it if you're concerned.

Yep.

Average 420 deaths from salmonella in the US every year. Population circa 300 mil,

https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/index.html

Latest figures I could locate. Total deaths attributed to Salmonella in the EU and EEC in 2018 - 121. Population circa 470 mil. Notable the huge differential between the UK and the rest of the EU. One bonus of the UK being out the EU will the latters stats improving.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/632291/deaths-caused-by-salmonellosis-confirmed-europe/

 

[portslade seagull]

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.



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.

But that doesn't fit his argument/narrative. Let's keep project fear going