Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
You've missed the point...
If both methods reduce the same results (as above) , let's not add another nasty chemical into the mix.
|
They DON'T yield the same results. That was the very reason for the ban. The bad abattoirs could reach the final required hygiene standards by using a chlorinated wash. The ban was supposedly intended to make it so that they couldn't reach those standards and would therefore have to clean up their act instead. The safer option would've been to reduce the acceptable post-wash standard so they couldn't meet that. But either the chlorinated wash process is so good that it wasn't possible to reduce the standard or it was aimed at shutting other countries, eg the US, out of the EU.
UK POST-wash
Quote:
|
About 50% of the chicken sold in the UK carries the bacteria.
|
US PRE-wash(of whatever sort)
Quote:
|
In a study colleagues and I conducted involving the US commercial broiler production system, we found Campylobacter in 45% of flocks and on 93% of farms. [4] Interestingly, we also found a substantial variation in Campylobacter prevalence, with some houses and farms consistently producing Campylobacter-free or Campylobacter-positive flocks over multiple production cycles.
|