Chickens aren't any more prone to salmonella than any other poultry, eg ducks. The reason chicken get salmonella and the reason you're expected to cook it thoroughly to kill off the bacteria is purely down to how chickens are reared and the appalling conditions.
this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
United Kingdom
4083 readers
27 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Go ahead, eat that ham sandwich. You earned it. We evolved to eat meat after all, tight. Besides, one ham sandwich is not gonna save those animals. Eat it and forget about it.
You can stop buying cheap meat today.
Can't afford to, mate
Of course you can if you want to, there are many other things you can eat and you could also still eat meat occasionally but choose higher quality.
Stop blaming individuals for corporations.
It's simply not possible to even just somewhat ethically produce as much meat as we consume. As long as most people meant cheap meat daily, shit like this will happen. The individual is to blame here as much as corporations.
I don´t. Corporations are responsible for what they do in production, just as consumers are responsible for what they choose to buy.
Similar to the 100 corporations making 70% of the carbon emissions. It's like, yeah, the factories sure put out a lot of emissions.....making shit that consumers are brainlessly buying.
If you're an American wondering why the hell anyone would ever buy chicken with visible brown ulcers, don't worry. You might mistakenly assume that US chicken farmers treat their chickens better than UK farmers, because you would never see hock burn in a US supermarket. That doesn't mean our chickens don't get hock burn.
American consumers would never buy something so aesthetically unappealing, so those parts of the chicken are cut away and used for nuggets and the remaining meat is packaged as skinless cuts. Our chickens suffer just as much as their cousins across the pond.
If you had a small PETA logo somewhere on this post, it would receive an entirely different kind of response.
PETA rubs a lot of people the wrong way because they take extreme positions to garner attention. It's hard to take anything they say seriously because of their previous stunts.
They are meant to make you feel uncomfortable because you are doing the wrong thing.
They don't make me feel uncomfortable. They make me feel embarrassed to agree with stupid people when they have a point. They make me frustrated to acknowledge the valid criticisms coming from horrible people of their myopic and childish stunts. They make me sad because they have adopted a losing strategy and their message is garbled by ths sound of them sitting on their own balls.
It's like watching someone stand up to the school bully by climbing on a lunch table and announcing to the school that they have something important to say, and then they take down their pants, stand on their heads, and pee into their own mouths.
Like yeah, we shouldn't let the bully push people around. But also, what the fuck? How does that help?
Sounds like it's a you thing frankly. Is there something you want to tell us about the school dining room?
Oh that? That's just where the bird had painful rashes and lesions from being made to lie, stand, eat, sleep, breed, breathe, and die knee deep in shit. In shit. It's fine to eat.
Just another benefit of the UK being finally free of all those oppressive EU regulations.
This is not a new issue following Brexit. This has been an issue for a long time and was an issue whilst we were still part of the EU judging by this 2005 article.
I had a look into this to see if there is a difference between the welfare standards of broiler chickens between the UK and the EU. Take my findings here with a grain of salt since I'm no expert at skimming through legal documents, but it seems that the welfare standards for broiler chickens are broadly the same between the UK and the EU at the moment.
Both the UK and the EU advise to not have a stocking density over 33kg/m², and both have additional welfare requirements/checks if stocking density exceeds this. Both have similar recommendations for the amount of ammonia, CO2, temperature and humidity levels which is acceptable. In both the UK and the EU the concentration of ammonia should not exceed 20 parts per million.
Sources:
"Red Tractor" Chocolate fireguard
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Kate Parkes, poultry specialist at the RSPCA, told the BBC that hock burn was "a concerning health issue and, sadly, too common in many intensive farm settings".
She added that the risk of hock burn "is significantly higher when birds are poorly managed, genetically selected to grow very fast or reared in overcrowded conditions".
The British Poultry Council, which represents suppliers, processors and farmers, added that "drawing comparison between formal inspection and rigorous procedure versus a shop-shelf experiment has potential to mislead and misinform".
It added that where hock-marking does occur "it is used as an indicator to identify areas for improvement because ours is an industry that operates to science-based standards, prioritises investment in research and development, and keeps pace with innovation".
The BBC requested animal welfare data from 10 leading UK food sellers: Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, Morrisons, Aldi, Co-op, Lidl, Waitrose, Iceland and Ocado.
Andrew Opie, director of food and sustainability at the British Retail Consortium, said: "Our members take their responsibilities to animal welfare very seriously, and expect high standards, independently audited, from all of their suppliers.
The original article contains 1,101 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
This summary is utter garbage. Doesn't even remotely capture the salient points of the article.
Bad bot?
It should be banned, outright, for spamming every goddamn comment section "un-invoked". This is the most important bit, because "hiding" bots via your profile then means you can't see any if you do want one.
If a human does want some bot spam in their inbox, the maker should allow it to send that human some gibberish in their own inbox rather than each comment section.
If you block the bot, you won’t see its comments. I personally find the bot to be useful in most cases.
An ideal case would be where you comment against the post itself, and then a community allowed bot removes your comment and gives you a tldr: in your inbox.
Having bots spam comment sections like this only leads to users saying....
Bad bot?
We'll take the feedback on board 👍