Tag Archives: UK

UK Fear: Brexit Could ‘Force’ Chlorinated Chicken Imports From US

chicken-chlorinated

TheConversation.com

“If and when Brexit happens, the UK may well be obliged to accept chlorinated poultry as part of any separate trade deal with the US. Agricultural exports are a priority for US negotiators – it would be difficult to make an exception for chicken.”

That quote, from a June 3 article in The Guardian, expresses a fear in more than a minority of UK citizens, including the  increasing number favoring generally recognized as safe-type (GRAS) rules being applied in the preparation of material – foodstuffs – intended for human consumption. And beyond that, there is, there as in the US, an increasing move amongst consumers for chickens and chicken products from birds raised in ways closer to what nature intended – without additives in their food, being given adequate room to move and ‘act like a chicken’, to be treated, ethically, like something more than an entity to transform grain into meat. (The same issues arise when cattle-raising is discussed – as they should be.)

Consumers might wonder, given enough information to do so, how the chemical chlorine – generally thought of as a substance for sanitizing swimming pools – could possible have anything to do with the raising or processing of chickens. And why, come to that, it’s use would be acceptable under the GRAS standards.

GRAS defines, in  Food and Drug Administration (FDA) parlance, “any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive, that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excepted from the definition of a food additive.”

The Guardian article focuses on a practice, the washing of chicken with a fluid containing chlorine, that has been banned in the European Union for 22 years. While the practice is being used less and less in the US, it is still legal here.

The National Chicken Council in the United States estimates that chlorine is used in some rinses and sprays in only about 10% of processing plants in the U.S. Most of the chlorine that is used in the industry is used for cleaning and sanitizing processing equipment. However, according to the web site ChickenCheckin.com, “numerous studies and scientific research have confirmed that the use of chlorinated water to chill and clean chicken is safe and effective. Chlorine-washed chicken does not pose any human health concerns and it is not present in the final product.”

Industry practice would suggest it’s perfectly OK for laying chickens – egg producers – to spend the bulk of their lives standing in their own waste. That like most other commonalities of chicken and egg producing is little-known to and less thought-about by American consumers.

It’s worth considering that, while the US has elaborate, well-thought-out, generally ‘reasonable’ rules for how food is procured, processed, transported and stored at the point of sale, the US’s rules aren’t necessarily the ‘best,’ or acceptable to governments – and ultimately the citizens – of other countries.

A decreasing number of American families regularly consume chickens that are home-raised, fed on table scraps, never subject to government inspection, and are tasty as all get out. I often experienced chickens raised that way when I was a kid. Like today’s home-raised chickens, none of them ever got me sick – aside from the occasional belly ache from eating too much.

As recently as a few years ago, I occasionally (very much) enjoyed chickens that were field raised in very small quantities on farms I visited in Southern Virginia. Their taste, and waste/fat-to-meat makeup was ounces-per-pound above store-bought chickens.

One of those farms was Amish-run. It may still be raising and selling its own chickens, but I’ve moved from that area, and on several recent trips through there the ‘dressed chickens’ sign was missing.

Another chicken-raising operation was run by two partners, one of whom had a small farm. The other guy obtained the chicks, and they split the cost of raising them, as well as the modest profits from selling them – straight to customers, via the non-farmer’s home in a nearby city.

Sadly, they found that food (grain) cost too high to justify the small farmer’s investment in time and effort to bring the chicks to a meaty-enough-for-market state.

All their customers were private, bird-or-two at a time ones, and I’m sure others, like me, were sad to see them have to give up on growing the kind of birds that used to be commonplace: Birds that were, to the degree chickens can be, ‘happy as a hen’.

I still had that taste of ‘old fashioned’ chicken in mind when, during half a decade living in England, I was regularly disappointed with the birds one or another supermarket – or local butcher – offered. One reason was the still-common use of fish meal to feed them. Over time, of course, my taste buds ‘settled’ on the taste of local chicken.

But I seriously noticed a taste difference when I returned to the US, in 1976, and resumed eating birds grown in this country. I doubt, but have no idea, if they were chlorine-washed then. Probably not; But over the years – into and through the chlorinated chicken era – the flavor of supermarket birds here has slide down the taste scale. More’s the pity.

Advertisements

We’re In ‘World Meat-Free Week’

 

meat-free_01

People enjoying vegetarian/vegan entrees from around the world: Steamed sourdough dumplings filled with buckwheat groats. Fermented beetroot & wild herbs, with sweet & sour chili sauce. Carrot, savoy cabbage & chickpea coconut milk curry. Basmati rice pilav with cashew nuts. Photo: Greenpeace

Meat-eaters of the world: This isn’t your week.  It’s World Meat-Free Week!

The exclusion (or limiting) of meat from one’s diet is, in fact, a growing trend in the US, the UK, and, undoubtedly, elsewhere.

The reasons, as a recent article in The Guardian put it, “are obvious – meat-eating is cruel, environmentally ruinous (accounting for 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions) and often unhealthy, too – recent studies have found raw meat samples contain increasing amounts of plasticsantibiotics, and even fecal matter.”

All this, The Guardian said, “explains why Quorn is on course to become a billion-dollar business within a decade, and why this is World Meat-Free Week. (And June 11 was World Meat Free Day. Did you know, or participate?)

‘Fake Meat’ Is a Divisive Topic

Many meat-lovers – or carnivores, as my wife calls herself – look down their noses (but not to their mouths, or their health) when the topic of ‘fake meat’ arises. As USA Today put it recently, “It’s a divisive topic, and one that frequently pits vegans against carnivores – pretty needless given it’s just a way of increasing options for the dinner table. It’s not just for vegetarians but anyone wishing to reduce their meat intake given the colossal environmental crisis we find ourselves in.”

tesco_steak

Tesco’s meatless ‘steak’.  (Photo supplied)

How does the public feel about meat alternatives? The website PlantBasedNews.org recently noted that when Britain’s Tesco supermarket chain introduced vegan steaks recently, 40,000 were sold “within days.” Demand for the plant-based product has been “extremely high,” the website noted. Tesco is the world’s first supermarket company beyond Holland to sell this product from Vivera.

And Sainsbury’s, another British supermarket chain, announced earlier this month that it is introducing a range of faux meat items to be presented alongside the real thing in meat cabinets.

The “lookalike” burgers and minced meat making their UK debut in Sainsbury’s on June 27 are made by the Danish manufacturer Naturli’ Foods – a leading developer of plant-based foods since 1988. That company says it has struggled to keep up with demand since their January launch in Denmark.

Line Has “Underlying Meatiness”

The Naturli products are not designed to taste like beef, but have an underlying “meatiness” thanks to the umami flavor of almonds, tomatoes and porcini mushrooms. The burgers contain beets, which helps recreate the color of raw, medium and well-done meat as it cooks, as well as adding a realistic meat “juice” when bitten into.

“Our goal is to contribute to restore the balance between nature and man,” CEO Henrik Lundtold The Guardian. “We’ve developed this product assuming that many people want to eat plants instead of animals, but are afraid of compromising on flavor and maybe even missing out on their favorite dishes such as lasagna or burger patties.”

The range goes on sale after a major study claimed that avoiding meat and dairy products impact on the environment is unforgivably high.

Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet.

Cut Meat/Dairy Consumption, Reduce Farmland Use 83%

The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.

The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other recent research shows 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans. The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.

A 2006 report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization noted that the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.
Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report, said, “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes (metric tons, each amounting to 2,205 pounds, or 1,000 kg) in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.
A new report, reported on in The Guardian on May 30, 2018, declares that the global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector. It provides livelihoods to about 1.3 billion people and contributes about 40 percent to global agricultural output. For many poor farmers in developing countries livestock are also a source of renewable energy and an essential source of organic fertilizer for their crops.
But such rapid growth exacts a steep environmental price, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options. “The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.
When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.
Livestock, this latest report says, now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

Given all that, the idea of plant-based ‘fake’ meat doesn’t sound like such a bad idea, does it?

US-based Beyond Meat has been incredibly successful with its line of plant-based meat alternatives. Its Beyond Burgers, Beyond  Sausage, Beyond Chicken Strips and other products are increasingly making inroads into both supermarkets and the likes of TGI Fridays. Helping their advance are such slogans as it “looks, cooks and satisfies like beef” (on the Beyond Burger) and “looks, sizzles and satisfies like pork” (on its Beyond Sausage trio of Brat Original, Hot Italian and Sweet Italian).

Watch this – meat case – space: This is, no doubt, the beginning of a revolution in that department.

 

Levy on Sugary Soft Drinks Coming to Britain in 2018

sugary_soft_drink

Photo: New Food Magazine

In Great Britain, where childhood obesity has reached crisis proportions, the government has just put forth a plan to tax sugar in both domestically-made and imported soft drinks starting in 2018. The plan was presented to Parliament as part of his annual budget proposal by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, who anticipates the levy will raise as much as £520 million ($740 million) annually. Much of that sum will be dedicated to school sports, he said.

A report on the plan by New Food magazine said this morning (March 22) that those who have been advocating for such a levy are overjoyed, but – as you’d expect – the soft drinks industry considers it “simply absurd” to target “the only category in the food and drink sector which has consistently reduced sugar intake in recent years – down 13.6% since 2012.”

Gavin Partington, Director General of the British Soft Drink said his is “the only category with an ambitious plan for the years ahead – in 2015 we agreed a calorie reduction goal of 20% by 2020.

“By contrast,” he went on, “sugar and calorie intake from all other major take home food categories is increasing – which makes the targeting of soft drinks simply absurd.”

Those on the other side of the issue no doubt think it is equally absurd that, as Mr. Osborne put it, “Five year old children [today] are consuming their body weight in sugar every year, [and] experts predict that within a generation over half of all boys, and 70% of girls could be overweight or obese.”

Indeed, New Food reported, “Public Health England recently revealed that four to 10 year old children consume around 22kg (49 lbs) of sugar a year,” and the Chancellor called that a significant contributor to the childhood obesity crisis.

He said: “One of the biggest contributors to childhood obesity is sugary drinks.

“A can of cola typically has nine teaspoons of sugar in it. Some popular drinks have as many as 13.

“That can be more than double a child’s recommended added sugar intake.”

The plan is to not implement the levy until 2018 to give the industry time to prepare, he noted.

His plan calls for two levy levels –one for total sugar content above 5 grams per 100 ml and a higher band for drinks containing more than 8 grams of sugar per 100 ml.