SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Vote up (38) down (36)
Jo-Anne McArthur | An inside look at factory farms

Jo-Anne McArthur | An inside look at factory farms

(4:31) Watching chickens die. Photographer Jo-Anne McArthur uses her camera to expose the real conditions inside factory farms. NowThis YT channel

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (248 days ago)

Roasted Chicken , and the crispy skin , Mmmmmmmmmmmm i love it , more Chicken please.

Original comment

Roasted Chicken , and the crispy skin , Mmmmmmmmmmmm i love it , more Chicken please.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Drumbeat (250 days ago)

As it happens I am quite used to chlorinated water too, have beeen drinking for years.

Original comment

As it happens I am quite used to chlorinated water too, have beeen drinking for years.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (252 days ago)

Realise that when you eat a chicken, you're eating an obese diseased animal that has been heavily chlorinated so that it doesn't kill you. Bon appetite.

Original comment

Realise that when you eat a chicken, you're eating an obese diseased animal that has been heavily chlorinated so that it doesn't kill you. Bon appetite.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (251 days ago)

Realise that for most of us it tastes delicious and doesn't kill us.  The end. 

Merci bien.

Original comment

Realise that for most of us it tastes delicious and doesn't kill us.  The end. 

Merci bien.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (251 days ago)

Realise that your delicious diseased chicken doesn't kill you because it is heavily chlorinated. Oh man, my mouth is watering just at the thought.

Original comment

Realise that your delicious diseased chicken doesn't kill you because it is heavily chlorinated. Oh man, my mouth is watering just at the thought.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (250 days ago)

Realise that pretty much everything we eat has been treated with unpleasant chemicals, insecticides etc.  Tasty tasty glyphosate, yum.  Oh man, just makes me want to not eat anything. 

Chlorine, well I also refuse to swim in any public swimming pool, be treated by any dentist or doctor using sterilising chemicals, or drink tap water. 

Chlorine is mass murder.  Pathogen lives matter.  

Original comment

Realise that pretty much everything we eat has been treated with unpleasant chemicals, insecticides etc.  Tasty tasty glyphosate, yum.  Oh man, just makes me want to not eat anything. 

Chlorine, well I also refuse to swim in any public swimming pool, be treated by any dentist or doctor using sterilising chemicals, or drink tap water. 

Chlorine is mass murder.  Pathogen lives matter.  

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (249 days ago)

Just as long as you realise what you're eating, then you're making an informed choice. I'm cool with that. If you want to scrape a pigeon off the pavement and marinate it in Domestos, be my guest.

Original comment

Just as long as you realise what you're eating, then you're making an informed choice. I'm cool with that. If you want to scrape a pigeon off the pavement and marinate it in Domestos, be my guest.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (249 days ago)

Great.  I feel the same.  If you feel high and mighty for eating vegetables caked in (EU approved) carcinogenic glyphosate that destroys the ecosystem and kills the bees, while you whine about a chemical that is in every cup of tea you drink, that's none of my business.  Would you like some Argentinian chlorpyrifos soya milk in your cup of Domestos?  

Original comment

Great.  I feel the same.  If you feel high and mighty for eating vegetables caked in (EU approved) carcinogenic glyphosate that destroys the ecosystem and kills the bees, while you whine about a chemical that is in every cup of tea you drink, that's none of my business.  Would you like some Argentinian chlorpyrifos soya milk in your cup of Domestos?  

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (249 days ago)

I have no problem with chlorine, if used safely. As I understand it, the EU is fine with chlorine (as you say, cleaning veg etc.), but with American chickens, that's a different story. On US farms, no hygiene is practiced until the very end, when the chicken is heavily chlorinated. That is not safe practice and it is borne out in the data. Salmonella deaths per year from US chickens is about 450, in the EU it's about 250. In the UK it's 0. Bear in mind that the EU has a population of about 500 million to 300 million in the US, making the difference even wider.

Realise that when you eat a US chlorinated chicken instead of an EU chicken, you increase your risk of catching salmonella. It's not the chlorine that kills, it's the salmonella.

If as an individual you are happy with that, then fine. You're making an informed choice. But you cannot expect the EU to allow US chickens when they know that it will kill a few hundred extra EU citizens every year.

Original comment

I have no problem with chlorine, if used safely. As I understand it, the EU is fine with chlorine (as you say, cleaning veg etc.), but with American chickens, that's a different story. On US farms, no hygiene is practiced until the very end, when the chicken is heavily chlorinated. That is not safe practice and it is borne out in the data. Salmonella deaths per year from US chickens is about 450, in the EU it's about 250. In the UK it's 0. Bear in mind that the EU has a population of about 500 million to 300 million in the US, making the difference even wider.

Realise that when you eat a US chlorinated chicken instead of an EU chicken, you increase your risk of catching salmonella. It's not the chlorine that kills, it's the salmonella.

If as an individual you are happy with that, then fine. You're making an informed choice. But you cannot expect the EU to allow US chickens when they know that it will kill a few hundred extra EU citizens every year.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (249 days ago)

"Safely"?  Don't decide what is safe according to what has been approved by your favourite bureaucrats.  Chemicals are in everything we eat.  Some happen to be approved by the EU, but that doesn't necessarily make them safe for humans or safe for the environment.  Many chemicals cover up 'weaknesses' in production methods.  You're right, it's not the chlorine that kills us, it's the chlorine that saves us.

450 deaths out of a population of 350 million is less than deaths from bee stings.  It's actually fewer than 450 deaths from salmonella per year in the USA, and certainly not all due to poultry.  Notable outbreaks have occured with peanut butter, cheese, cucumbers, melons, and even coriander.  

We can dress up any food to make it seem unpalatable in order to score political points or suit our bias, but basic food hygiene protocols when cooking with chicken along with thorough cooking, mean that chlorinated chicken is basically safe to eat.  

Original comment

"Safely"?  Don't decide what is safe according to what has been approved by your favourite bureaucrats.  Chemicals are in everything we eat.  Some happen to be approved by the EU, but that doesn't necessarily make them safe for humans or safe for the environment.  Many chemicals cover up 'weaknesses' in production methods.  You're right, it's not the chlorine that kills us, it's the chlorine that saves us.

450 deaths out of a population of 350 million is less than deaths from bee stings.  It's actually fewer than 450 deaths from salmonella per year in the USA, and certainly not all due to poultry.  Notable outbreaks have occured with peanut butter, cheese, cucumbers, melons, and even coriander.  

We can dress up any food to make it seem unpalatable in order to score political points or suit our bias, but basic food hygiene protocols when cooking with chicken along with thorough cooking, mean that chlorinated chicken is basically safe to eat.  

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (247 days ago)

OK, there's a lot to unpack here. Of course there are chemicals in everything we eat, but quantity matters. Even water will kill you if you have too much. That's the very definition of "too much". Every chemical you ingest has a level that at some point becomes too much. Salmonella survives in chlorinated chickens not because US farmers are stingy with their chlorine (chlorine is cheap), but because chicken skin has many folds where the chlorine often doesn't reach. That is why there are more deaths from salmonella in poultry in the US than EU. But it's not just the deaths. Most people who catch salmonella from poultry don't die. According to one study, cases of food poisoning in the US is 10x that in the EU. In the EU, that puts a strain on national health services. In the US it's big profits for big pharma.

And that's the bottom line. US regulations are written to increase profits for big corporations. Haven't you heard, Congress is bought. But the EU is a union. In unions, any single country cannot railroad through a regulation, because it will simply be voted down by the other countries. So regulations written by a union will favour all members. The results are regulations in the US that produce super cheap chickens (that hygiene stuff is expensive) translating into big profits for big farmer. And when Americans fall ill, that's big profits for big pharma. It's a win-win for corporations. But in the EU, the population falling ill puts a strain on national health services, so EU countries are incentived to regulate for a healthier population.

So when you say "Don't decide what is safe according to what has been approved by your favourite bureaucrats." , I ask you, which regulations would you trust? Regulations paid for by the poultry industry, or regulations voted on by 27 countries, all with self interests.

Original comment

OK, there's a lot to unpack here. Of course there are chemicals in everything we eat, but quantity matters. Even water will kill you if you have too much. That's the very definition of "too much". Every chemical you ingest has a level that at some point becomes too much. Salmonella survives in chlorinated chickens not because US farmers are stingy with their chlorine (chlorine is cheap), but because chicken skin has many folds where the chlorine often doesn't reach. That is why there are more deaths from salmonella in poultry in the US than EU. But it's not just the deaths. Most people who catch salmonella from poultry don't die. According to one study, cases of food poisoning in the US is 10x that in the EU. In the EU, that puts a strain on national health services. In the US it's big profits for big pharma.

And that's the bottom line. US regulations are written to increase profits for big corporations. Haven't you heard, Congress is bought. But the EU is a union. In unions, any single country cannot railroad through a regulation, because it will simply be voted down by the other countries. So regulations written by a union will favour all members. The results are regulations in the US that produce super cheap chickens (that hygiene stuff is expensive) translating into big profits for big farmer. And when Americans fall ill, that's big profits for big pharma. It's a win-win for corporations. But in the EU, the population falling ill puts a strain on national health services, so EU countries are incentived to regulate for a healthier population.

So when you say "Don't decide what is safe according to what has been approved by your favourite bureaucrats." , I ask you, which regulations would you trust? Regulations paid for by the poultry industry, or regulations voted on by 27 countries, all with self interests.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (247 days ago)

"Of course there are chemicals in everything we eat, but quantity matters".  The EU have stated that "exposure to chlorite residues arising from treated poultry carcasses would be of no safety concern" so they have no qualms about the quanitities of chlorine that are being used.  The issue isn't about residue or unsafe chemicals - it's supposedly about the lapses in hygiene that the wash might cover up.  Despite your emotivist reference to Domestos, we all know chlorine is fine so let's move on.

Out of interest, why do you think food poisoning leads to any significant profit for Big Pharma, or pressure on national health services?  It's one of the few medical issues for which medicine and medical intervention is rarely sought, so it seems like a weird claim to make.  

What data have you seen regarding salmonella outbreaks?  Do your studies compare like with like?  Do they focus on poultry?  Does it differentiate between poultry bought from 'backyard' suppliers and massive commerical operations?  The data doesn't seem that sophisticated, and the FSA themselves have made that clear.  What data have you seen about chicken consumption in general in the USA (I appreciate it's higher, but by how much?)  Be careful with statistics.

"I ask you, which regulations would you trust?"  Maybe you shouldn't trust regulations alone - dig a little deeper.  Slacker animal welfare etc. means US producers can supply these "super cheap chickens", and as a union the EU has protectionist policies to safeguard its members.  Believe it or not, they may have ulterior motives beyond concern for your health.  

Original comment

"Of course there are chemicals in everything we eat, but quantity matters".  The EU have stated that "exposure to chlorite residues arising from treated poultry carcasses would be of no safety concern" so they have no qualms about the quanitities of chlorine that are being used.  The issue isn't about residue or unsafe chemicals - it's supposedly about the lapses in hygiene that the wash might cover up.  Despite your emotivist reference to Domestos, we all know chlorine is fine so let's move on.

Out of interest, why do you think food poisoning leads to any significant profit for Big Pharma, or pressure on national health services?  It's one of the few medical issues for which medicine and medical intervention is rarely sought, so it seems like a weird claim to make.  

What data have you seen regarding salmonella outbreaks?  Do your studies compare like with like?  Do they focus on poultry?  Does it differentiate between poultry bought from 'backyard' suppliers and massive commerical operations?  The data doesn't seem that sophisticated, and the FSA themselves have made that clear.  What data have you seen about chicken consumption in general in the USA (I appreciate it's higher, but by how much?)  Be careful with statistics.

"I ask you, which regulations would you trust?"  Maybe you shouldn't trust regulations alone - dig a little deeper.  Slacker animal welfare etc. means US producers can supply these "super cheap chickens", and as a union the EU has protectionist policies to safeguard its members.  Believe it or not, they may have ulterior motives beyond concern for your health.  

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (245 days ago)

About the chlorine, I never said the EU objected to the chlorine. It's the salmonella hiding under the wrinkles and wingpits of dead chickens they don't like - the parts the chlorine doesn't reach. Imagine you hadn't washed for 5 years. Do you think spraying yourself with chlorine is going to sterilise deep down your arse crack? Just to be safe I suggest you wash down your delicious diseased chicken with a glass of fresh chlorine. I guarantee you, not even the beefiest salmonella could survive bathing in a stomach acid chlorine mix.

"Out of interest, why do you think food poisoning leads to any significant profit for Big Pharma, or pressure on national health services?" 48 million people get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases each year in the United States. LINK

The point you make about data and stats is a very good one. It's complicated, often contradictory, and there are vested interests purposely pushing misinformation. Neither of us are experts, and we all suffer from confirmation bias - a human condition. That is why, as you suggest, we should "dig a little deeper". After all, the better informed we are, the better our decisions.

So let's dig a little deeper. Here's a thought experiment. Imagine 2 countries, A and B, both of which are run by a government paid for by Big Poultry. But country B is in the EU. The people in country A get what Big Poultry want - the biggest profit possible - which is profit limited only by the maximum acceptable number of poisonings and deaths. That's why US regulations allow a maximum number of rat hairs in paprika. I think this is your position because you think 450 deaths a year is acceptable because bees kill more.

But for country B, it is legally required to follow regulations voted through by all EU countries. Since all EU countries have a national health system, then what they can all agree on is increasing illness in their populations will put an extra strain on their health services - and health services are always stretched due to an ageing population and increasing expectations.

So even if you know nothing about farming practices, and you are not involved in Big Poultry, and you value your health - you'd be stupid to support regulations from country A.

"...the EU has protectionist policies to safeguard its members" It doesn't work like that. You misunderstand what a union is. The EU doesn't tell it's members what to do. It's the members who decide amongst themselves what to do. That's the core difference between a United States of Europe, and the European Union. The President of the EU Ursula von der Leyen has no executive power, unlike POTUS.

"Believe it or not, they may have ulterior motives beyond concern for your health." I do believe EU countries will have ulterior motives, but unless they can persuade other EU countries to come on board, nothing happens. Get it now?

Original comment

About the chlorine, I never said the EU objected to the chlorine. It's the salmonella hiding under the wrinkles and wingpits of dead chickens they don't like - the parts the chlorine doesn't reach. Imagine you hadn't washed for 5 years. Do you think spraying yourself with chlorine is going to sterilise deep down your arse crack? Just to be safe I suggest you wash down your delicious diseased chicken with a glass of fresh chlorine. I guarantee you, not even the beefiest salmonella could survive bathing in a stomach acid chlorine mix.

"Out of interest, why do you think food poisoning leads to any significant profit for Big Pharma, or pressure on national health services?" 48 million people get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases each year in the United States. LINK

The point you make about data and stats is a very good one. It's complicated, often contradictory, and there are vested interests purposely pushing misinformation. Neither of us are experts, and we all suffer from confirmation bias - a human condition. That is why, as you suggest, we should "dig a little deeper". After all, the better informed we are, the better our decisions.

So let's dig a little deeper. Here's a thought experiment. Imagine 2 countries, A and B, both of which are run by a government paid for by Big Poultry. But country B is in the EU. The people in country A get what Big Poultry want - the biggest profit possible - which is profit limited only by the maximum acceptable number of poisonings and deaths. That's why US regulations allow a maximum number of rat hairs in paprika. I think this is your position because you think 450 deaths a year is acceptable because bees kill more.

But for country B, it is legally required to follow regulations voted through by all EU countries. Since all EU countries have a national health system, then what they can all agree on is increasing illness in their populations will put an extra strain on their health services - and health services are always stretched due to an ageing population and increasing expectations.

So even if you know nothing about farming practices, and you are not involved in Big Poultry, and you value your health - you'd be stupid to support regulations from country A.

"...the EU has protectionist policies to safeguard its members" It doesn't work like that. You misunderstand what a union is. The EU doesn't tell it's members what to do. It's the members who decide amongst themselves what to do. That's the core difference between a United States of Europe, and the European Union. The President of the EU Ursula von der Leyen has no executive power, unlike POTUS.

"Believe it or not, they may have ulterior motives beyond concern for your health." I do believe EU countries will have ulterior motives, but unless they can persuade other EU countries to come on board, nothing happens. Get it now?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (244 days ago)

Great, so despite your reference to 'Domestos', you now accept that the levels of chlorine used are safe - that's according to the EU, and just about anyone else.  Progress.

Really interesting stats you pulled out.  Didn't they surprise you?  They surprised me.  Out of a population of 327 million, there were just 23,000 hospitalisations for salmonella.  I expected the figure to be low, but wow.  So bearing in mind the tragically financial aspects of US healthcare, do you think this 23K people results in "big profits for big pharma"?  Perhaps there's collusion and conspiracy.  

If you think by 'digging a little deeper', I meant conducting your own thought experiment exploring the bias of your own mind, you're mistaken.  I meant checking the statistics you are using are comparable and meaningful and as impartial as we could expect.  Comparing salmonella cases from country to country does not work... as I suspect you have now realised.  More progress.  

Trade with countries outside the EU is down to the EU and not individual member states.  The European Commission comes up with an agreement, and usually appeal to NGOs for specialist information.  These NGOs (often funded by the EU) become lobbyists and very powerful.  They then present it to the EU and sometimes legislation can get through with as little as 55% support.  Most importantly, in this type of scenario members are voting on policies that could only benefit trade for them.  Maybe it's a quota on foreign sugar, maybe it's a carbon border tax, maybe it's a ban on palm oil, maybe it's data protection policies that make it nigh-impossible for smaller foreign businesses to handle our data.  EU members are keen, and if it can be dressed up as being ethical rather than economical, even better.  The WTO has even held the EU to account for protectionist policies.  

In summary, if you're naive and your tribal politics dictate 'EU Good, Brexit Bad', you may think the EU is independent and impartial and are trying to protect the health of its citizens.  If you're more realistic, you will probably have already realised that they act to protect the trading interests of its business, and are heavily influenced by lobbyists and big business within the member states.  As a Remain voter, that's not to cynically assume that all EU regulations are thinly veiled protectionist policies - just to point out that the simple fact that something is (or isn't) approved by the EU might not reflect on the product or service itself.  Understand yet?

Original comment

Great, so despite your reference to 'Domestos', you now accept that the levels of chlorine used are safe - that's according to the EU, and just about anyone else.  Progress.

Really interesting stats you pulled out.  Didn't they surprise you?  They surprised me.  Out of a population of 327 million, there were just 23,000 hospitalisations for salmonella.  I expected the figure to be low, but wow.  So bearing in mind the tragically financial aspects of US healthcare, do you think this 23K people results in "big profits for big pharma"?  Perhaps there's collusion and conspiracy.  

If you think by 'digging a little deeper', I meant conducting your own thought experiment exploring the bias of your own mind, you're mistaken.  I meant checking the statistics you are using are comparable and meaningful and as impartial as we could expect.  Comparing salmonella cases from country to country does not work... as I suspect you have now realised.  More progress.  

Trade with countries outside the EU is down to the EU and not individual member states.  The European Commission comes up with an agreement, and usually appeal to NGOs for specialist information.  These NGOs (often funded by the EU) become lobbyists and very powerful.  They then present it to the EU and sometimes legislation can get through with as little as 55% support.  Most importantly, in this type of scenario members are voting on policies that could only benefit trade for them.  Maybe it's a quota on foreign sugar, maybe it's a carbon border tax, maybe it's a ban on palm oil, maybe it's data protection policies that make it nigh-impossible for smaller foreign businesses to handle our data.  EU members are keen, and if it can be dressed up as being ethical rather than economical, even better.  The WTO has even held the EU to account for protectionist policies.  

In summary, if you're naive and your tribal politics dictate 'EU Good, Brexit Bad', you may think the EU is independent and impartial and are trying to protect the health of its citizens.  If you're more realistic, you will probably have already realised that they act to protect the trading interests of its business, and are heavily influenced by lobbyists and big business within the member states.  As a Remain voter, that's not to cynically assume that all EU regulations are thinly veiled protectionist policies - just to point out that the simple fact that something is (or isn't) approved by the EU might not reflect on the product or service itself.  Understand yet?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (240 days ago)

OMG, you're more stupid than the chicken! "Great, so despite your reference to 'Domestos', you now accept that the levels of chlorine used are safe - that's according to the EU, and just about anyone else.  Progress." Doesn't progress feel great? I was here right from the beginning when I wrote: "Realise that when you eat a chicken, you're eating an obese diseased animal that has been heavily chlorinated so that it doesn't kill you." The chlorine SAVES your life by killing the salmonella. Chlorine a is a GOOD thing. Just like Domestos "kills all known germs, dead!", so you're SAFE to eat that pigeon you scraped off the pavement. Domestos is a GOOD thing, and I hear it's delicious. Get it now? Having to explain a joke ruins it. 

By the way, that glass of fresh chlorine - that was also a joke. Don't drink it unless you want to increase Big Pharma's profits.

Which nicely leads on to your question "...do you think this 23K people results in "big profits for big pharma?" You conveniently forgot to mention the 48 million who were not hospitalised.

"...Perhaps there's collusion and conspiracy." Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. You totally missed the point of the thought experiment, which applies to this question, as it does to the EU. I'll try one last time to explain it as simply as I can, and if you don't get it this time, I can't help you. I don't like the smell of my own palms.

In any population, there are those who seek power. That is human nature. People who seek power will gravitate towards positions of power, like in a government or in a corporation. How effectively they can wield their power depends on the system they are in. A union of dictatorships is inherently less corruptible than a single dictatorship because in the union, all dictators have to agree. It's maths.

So when you say: "The European Commission comes up with an agreement..." ( I think you mean 'proposal'), you forget that the Commission itself is made up of representatives from all member countries, and they have to agree on the proposal in the first place. Then the proposal is voted on in the EU Parliament, which is also made up of representatives from each EU country. But when the EU acts abroad, it acts as a single state, ie. in the interest of its members (protectionist) - as you'd expect from any nation like the US or China to do. That's why I would rather trust regulations that come from a union of countries, than from a single country, especially one with the reputation of the US.

A for-profit health industry is very attractive to those seeking wealth and power. If you think your smartphone is too expensive, you can switch brands. But you'll pay anything for medicine that saves your life. People don't go bankrupt because the latest iPhone is too expensive. But they do go bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bill. Not many other industries have this enormous "power" over people's lives. Again, it's the underlying system (a for-profit health system) that is the problem.

If you still don't get it, try taking a lesson in first principles thinking.

Original comment

OMG, you're more stupid than the chicken! "Great, so despite your reference to 'Domestos', you now accept that the levels of chlorine used are safe - that's according to the EU, and just about anyone else.  Progress." Doesn't progress feel great? I was here right from the beginning when I wrote: "Realise that when you eat a chicken, you're eating an obese diseased animal that has been heavily chlorinated so that it doesn't kill you." The chlorine SAVES your life by killing the salmonella. Chlorine a is a GOOD thing. Just like Domestos "kills all known germs, dead!", so you're SAFE to eat that pigeon you scraped off the pavement. Domestos is a GOOD thing, and I hear it's delicious. Get it now? Having to explain a joke ruins it. 

By the way, that glass of fresh chlorine - that was also a joke. Don't drink it unless you want to increase Big Pharma's profits.

Which nicely leads on to your question "...do you think this 23K people results in "big profits for big pharma?" You conveniently forgot to mention the 48 million who were not hospitalised.

"...Perhaps there's collusion and conspiracy." Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. You totally missed the point of the thought experiment, which applies to this question, as it does to the EU. I'll try one last time to explain it as simply as I can, and if you don't get it this time, I can't help you. I don't like the smell of my own palms.

In any population, there are those who seek power. That is human nature. People who seek power will gravitate towards positions of power, like in a government or in a corporation. How effectively they can wield their power depends on the system they are in. A union of dictatorships is inherently less corruptible than a single dictatorship because in the union, all dictators have to agree. It's maths.

So when you say: "The European Commission comes up with an agreement..." ( I think you mean 'proposal'), you forget that the Commission itself is made up of representatives from all member countries, and they have to agree on the proposal in the first place. Then the proposal is voted on in the EU Parliament, which is also made up of representatives from each EU country. But when the EU acts abroad, it acts as a single state, ie. in the interest of its members (protectionist) - as you'd expect from any nation like the US or China to do. That's why I would rather trust regulations that come from a union of countries, than from a single country, especially one with the reputation of the US.

A for-profit health industry is very attractive to those seeking wealth and power. If you think your smartphone is too expensive, you can switch brands. But you'll pay anything for medicine that saves your life. People don't go bankrupt because the latest iPhone is too expensive. But they do go bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bill. Not many other industries have this enormous "power" over people's lives. Again, it's the underlying system (a for-profit health system) that is the problem.

If you still don't get it, try taking a lesson in first principles thinking.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (240 days ago)

Your Domestos joke was a reference to the fact that while Domestos kills germs, we wouldn't want to consume it.  An exaggeration for 'comic' effect, suggesting that chlorine (like Domestos) isn't safe to eat, which is funny because it's wrong.  That's that.

"The 48 million who were not hospitalised" are irrelevant.  We're talking about profits for Big Pharma.  Tell me, when you get food poisoning, what medicine do you take?  48 million people with a cold would lead to more profit.  You're right to be cynical about US healthcare, but don't invent examples of malfeasance to suit your bias.

An agreement isn't a proposal until it's proposed and as you said, "they have to agree on the proposal in the first place".  Anyway, how hard is it for them to agree, and how hard is it for a proposal to be approved by the Council?  If a measure promises less competition from abroad and the possibility of keeping prices high, who opposes?  What about if individual members also have vested interests or if their votes are bought by external influencers?  What about if the EU appeals to lobby groups (including the EFPIA by the way and countless corporations) to present 'impartial' reports?  What about if a lobby group can frame a cynical economic or protectionist argument as a moral or public health argument - does that make it even easier?  What if transparency just so happens to be low when it comes to lobbyists or even the EU council?  In a nutshell, assuming an actual group is less corrupt or more trustworthy simply because conceptually their form might be harder to corrupt, isn't very smart.

You back away from your original point, getting woolier and broader with every comment - soon you'll be talking about abstract capitalism to save you coming up with actual evidence that US chickens are dangerous.  That's your fundamental claim, isn't it?  Your argument seems to have been overwhelmed by a wave of pro-EU titilation.  

I would love to have your simplistic black-and-white view of the world but it isn't like that.  I voted to remain and I believe the EU has more benefits than drawbacks - but I'm not so blinded by tribal politics that I give them a free pass for every piece of legislation they produce.  Don't trust regulations alone, whoever they are from.  Dig deeper.  

But call me stupid again if it makes you feel better.

Original comment

Your Domestos joke was a reference to the fact that while Domestos kills germs, we wouldn't want to consume it.  An exaggeration for 'comic' effect, suggesting that chlorine (like Domestos) isn't safe to eat, which is funny because it's wrong.  That's that.

"The 48 million who were not hospitalised" are irrelevant.  We're talking about profits for Big Pharma.  Tell me, when you get food poisoning, what medicine do you take?  48 million people with a cold would lead to more profit.  You're right to be cynical about US healthcare, but don't invent examples of malfeasance to suit your bias.

An agreement isn't a proposal until it's proposed and as you said, "they have to agree on the proposal in the first place".  Anyway, how hard is it for them to agree, and how hard is it for a proposal to be approved by the Council?  If a measure promises less competition from abroad and the possibility of keeping prices high, who opposes?  What about if individual members also have vested interests or if their votes are bought by external influencers?  What about if the EU appeals to lobby groups (including the EFPIA by the way and countless corporations) to present 'impartial' reports?  What about if a lobby group can frame a cynical economic or protectionist argument as a moral or public health argument - does that make it even easier?  What if transparency just so happens to be low when it comes to lobbyists or even the EU council?  In a nutshell, assuming an actual group is less corrupt or more trustworthy simply because conceptually their form might be harder to corrupt, isn't very smart.

You back away from your original point, getting woolier and broader with every comment - soon you'll be talking about abstract capitalism to save you coming up with actual evidence that US chickens are dangerous.  That's your fundamental claim, isn't it?  Your argument seems to have been overwhelmed by a wave of pro-EU titilation.  

I would love to have your simplistic black-and-white view of the world but it isn't like that.  I voted to remain and I believe the EU has more benefits than drawbacks - but I'm not so blinded by tribal politics that I give them a free pass for every piece of legislation they produce.  Don't trust regulations alone, whoever they are from.  Dig deeper.  

But call me stupid again if it makes you feel better.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (235 days ago)

If you turn out to be PA, I'll drink the Domestos myself.

"You back away from your original point, getting woolier and broader with every comment - soon you'll be talking about abstract capitalism to save you coming up with actual evidence that US chickens are dangerous.  That's your fundamental claim, isn't it?" No. Actually, I was with the photographer in the video. She was exposing the cruel and diseased lives of chickens to put people off eating them. I was trying to put people off by reminding them of chlorinated chicken.

I knew even before seeing this video, that the issue of chlorinated chicken was not the chlorine, but the effectiveness of the whole process - ie the chlorine doesn't kill all the salmonella. I also suspect that most people think it's the chlorine that's the problem - ie there's too much chlorine in the chicken. That's why I worded my comment the way I did: "Realise that when you eat a chicken, you're eating an obese diseased animal that has been heavily chlorinated so that it doesn't kill you. Bon appetite." I was quite proud of that. It is accurate, and for those who believe the chlorine is the problem, they may think again.

But your reply "Realise that for most of us it tastes delicious and doesn't kill us." shows you didn't get it. Oh well.

And yes, my comments were getting broader, but not woolier. When you asked me about where I got my data from, I was thinking the same about you. Your data contradicted mine. I could see what was coming - I find data that fits my world view, you find data that fits your world view, mix in gallons of confirmation bias on both sides, and we go round and round in circles and get nowhere.

I didn't really want to do that, so I tried some first principles thinking. But it seems to be going over your head.

Original comment

If you turn out to be PA, I'll drink the Domestos myself.

"You back away from your original point, getting woolier and broader with every comment - soon you'll be talking about abstract capitalism to save you coming up with actual evidence that US chickens are dangerous.  That's your fundamental claim, isn't it?" No. Actually, I was with the photographer in the video. She was exposing the cruel and diseased lives of chickens to put people off eating them. I was trying to put people off by reminding them of chlorinated chicken.

I knew even before seeing this video, that the issue of chlorinated chicken was not the chlorine, but the effectiveness of the whole process - ie the chlorine doesn't kill all the salmonella. I also suspect that most people think it's the chlorine that's the problem - ie there's too much chlorine in the chicken. That's why I worded my comment the way I did: "Realise that when you eat a chicken, you're eating an obese diseased animal that has been heavily chlorinated so that it doesn't kill you. Bon appetite." I was quite proud of that. It is accurate, and for those who believe the chlorine is the problem, they may think again.

But your reply "Realise that for most of us it tastes delicious and doesn't kill us." shows you didn't get it. Oh well.

And yes, my comments were getting broader, but not woolier. When you asked me about where I got my data from, I was thinking the same about you. Your data contradicted mine. I could see what was coming - I find data that fits my world view, you find data that fits your world view, mix in gallons of confirmation bias on both sides, and we go round and round in circles and get nowhere.

I didn't really want to do that, so I tried some first principles thinking. But it seems to be going over your head.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (234 days ago)

Bingo.  Thanks for the honesty!  I didn't want to muddy the water in a conversation that seemed to be about the dangers of eating US chickens, but yes, I had a hunch that it may be a cover for an animal rights agenda.  You've wasted time.  So do you think US chicken unsafe to eat, or just unethical to produce?  

"I was trying to put people off by reminding them of chlorinated chicken."  More honesty.  I like it.  Originally you pretended that so long as people were making an informed choice, you are cool with that.  You now admit that you actually want to change what other choose to eat by 'reminding' us of something we already know (bearing in mind we're on this page).  

I said "Realise that for most of us it tastes delicious and doesn't kill us."  I think it's you who didn't get it.  I just meant that for most people, neither the chlorine nor the state of the meat is an issue (and sadly not even cruel farm practices), because it tastes delicious and doesn't kill us.  A little theory of mind wouldn't go amiss here.

From my comments, where do you think my bias is?  I lean towards letting people choose what they eat, but I am not pro US poultry, or pro-chlorine wash; I am critical of the US healthcare system; I also voted Remain.  I am not looking for reasons why it's all fine (if anything, I would love to have robust reasons why it's not).  I am just being sceptical about the reasons people claim it's a problem, and trying to dig deeper.  My data didn't contradict yours - I had no data.  I just looked a bit more carefully into yours.  On this subject, it seems that the anti side of the argument usually are anti because of political bias, or animal rights / vegan agendas.  In your case, all of the above.  

It's sweet that when I disagree, you tell yourself it's just because your amazing reasoning skills are going over my head.  I assume you've watched some Musk video which is why FP thinking is suddenly flavour of the month.  My understanding is that FP thinking is most effective as a tool for innovation so not hugely relevant here, but in so far as it could be it's about deconstructing to core universal truths and building outwards.  What are the core universal truths you're using here?  Your thought experiment was founded entirely on assumption, arguing from analogy which I believe is literally the polar opposite of FP thinking.  I think FP thinking itself might be 'over your head' as you put it, but the term sounds impressive so well done on that.

Original comment

Bingo.  Thanks for the honesty!  I didn't want to muddy the water in a conversation that seemed to be about the dangers of eating US chickens, but yes, I had a hunch that it may be a cover for an animal rights agenda.  You've wasted time.  So do you think US chicken unsafe to eat, or just unethical to produce?  

"I was trying to put people off by reminding them of chlorinated chicken."  More honesty.  I like it.  Originally you pretended that so long as people were making an informed choice, you are cool with that.  You now admit that you actually want to change what other choose to eat by 'reminding' us of something we already know (bearing in mind we're on this page).  

I said "Realise that for most of us it tastes delicious and doesn't kill us."  I think it's you who didn't get it.  I just meant that for most people, neither the chlorine nor the state of the meat is an issue (and sadly not even cruel farm practices), because it tastes delicious and doesn't kill us.  A little theory of mind wouldn't go amiss here.

From my comments, where do you think my bias is?  I lean towards letting people choose what they eat, but I am not pro US poultry, or pro-chlorine wash; I am critical of the US healthcare system; I also voted Remain.  I am not looking for reasons why it's all fine (if anything, I would love to have robust reasons why it's not).  I am just being sceptical about the reasons people claim it's a problem, and trying to dig deeper.  My data didn't contradict yours - I had no data.  I just looked a bit more carefully into yours.  On this subject, it seems that the anti side of the argument usually are anti because of political bias, or animal rights / vegan agendas.  In your case, all of the above.  

It's sweet that when I disagree, you tell yourself it's just because your amazing reasoning skills are going over my head.  I assume you've watched some Musk video which is why FP thinking is suddenly flavour of the month.  My understanding is that FP thinking is most effective as a tool for innovation so not hugely relevant here, but in so far as it could be it's about deconstructing to core universal truths and building outwards.  What are the core universal truths you're using here?  Your thought experiment was founded entirely on assumption, arguing from analogy which I believe is literally the polar opposite of FP thinking.  I think FP thinking itself might be 'over your head' as you put it, but the term sounds impressive so well done on that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (227 days ago)

"Originally you pretended that so long as people were making an informed choice, you are cool with that." Yes, except I wasn't pretending anything. I'll try one last time - but with guiding notes so you can easily follow along. 

Realise (I'm informing the reader) that when you eat a chicken, you're eating an obese diseased animal that has been heavily chlorinated so that it doesn't kill you. Bon appetite (it's your choice) .

Nowhere did I say don't eat chicken. Nowhere did I say US chickens are dangerous to eat. I just accurately described the reality. 

"... I had a hunch that it may be a cover for an animal rights agenda" As I've said before, I'm just an observer, and what I observe is disgusting and a disgrace to the human species. It doesn't surprise me you're OK with the extreme cruelty inflicted on industrialised farm animals - after all you're OK with 450 deaths because bees kill more.

"From my comments, where do you think my bias is? Everybody is biased. It's the way our brains work. But in this case, you are either dishonest (you're trying to misrepresent me because I triggered you), or you're still on Ladybird books. I hope I don't have to start drawing pictures.

"My understanding is that FP thinking is most effective as a tool for innovation so not hugely relevant here, but in so far as it could be it's about deconstructing to core universal truths and building outwards.  What are the core universal truths you're using here?" FPT is an extremely versatile thinking tool. You can use the principles of FPT in the same way as you can use the principles of the scientific method when strict adherence is impossible.

The "universal truth" that I'm building on is - a group of countries who have agreed to abide by the rules they all agree on, will pass COMPROMISED rules that benefit ALL the group. A single country will pass rules that benefits itself.

Building on that, it's easy to see why US rules allow rat hairs in paprika, EU rules don't work that way. They don't have maximum levels of shit allowed in your food.

Original comment

"Originally you pretended that so long as people were making an informed choice, you are cool with that." Yes, except I wasn't pretending anything. I'll try one last time - but with guiding notes so you can easily follow along. 

Realise (I'm informing the reader) that when you eat a chicken, you're eating an obese diseased animal that has been heavily chlorinated so that it doesn't kill you. Bon appetite (it's your choice) .

Nowhere did I say don't eat chicken. Nowhere did I say US chickens are dangerous to eat. I just accurately described the reality. 

"... I had a hunch that it may be a cover for an animal rights agenda" As I've said before, I'm just an observer, and what I observe is disgusting and a disgrace to the human species. It doesn't surprise me you're OK with the extreme cruelty inflicted on industrialised farm animals - after all you're OK with 450 deaths because bees kill more.

"From my comments, where do you think my bias is? Everybody is biased. It's the way our brains work. But in this case, you are either dishonest (you're trying to misrepresent me because I triggered you), or you're still on Ladybird books. I hope I don't have to start drawing pictures.

"My understanding is that FP thinking is most effective as a tool for innovation so not hugely relevant here, but in so far as it could be it's about deconstructing to core universal truths and building outwards.  What are the core universal truths you're using here?" FPT is an extremely versatile thinking tool. You can use the principles of FPT in the same way as you can use the principles of the scientific method when strict adherence is impossible.

The "universal truth" that I'm building on is - a group of countries who have agreed to abide by the rules they all agree on, will pass COMPROMISED rules that benefit ALL the group. A single country will pass rules that benefits itself.

Building on that, it's easy to see why US rules allow rat hairs in paprika, EU rules don't work that way. They don't have maximum levels of shit allowed in your food.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (227 days ago)
Latest comment:

"It's your choice".  So generous, but the question is if you are "cool with it" or "trying to put people off".  You say you're wanting to inform the reader about chlorination (odd, as it's hardly a secret.)  But then once you've done that, you do it again, and again.  Then you literally admit you're actually trying to put people off.  Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like you're cool with it.  Dishonesty, or is this another theory of mind issue?  You just can't imagine anyone could think differently if they know the same as you?  

"You're OK with the extreme cruelty inflicted on industrialised farm animals".  Am I?  Oh.  I'm OK with you thinking there's extreme cruelty, and I'm OK with you pretending that eating meat means I'm fine with any cruelty that there is (even though I called it "sad").  I'm not really OK with you pushing your agenda onto others, but nothing new there.

"You're OK with 450 deaths".  Am I?  You don't see the importance of showing a figure in context; e.g 20 billion hotdogs are eaten every year in the USA, and something like 15 children each year die from choking on one.  I don't think we should ban hotdogs or regulate their sale, but that doesn't mean to say I'm OK with 15 children choking.  Not even in your warped 'appeal to emotion' strategy.  

"Nowhere did I say US chickens are dangerous to eat".  Excellent!  "Realise that when you eat a US chlorinated chicken instead of an EU chicken, you increase your risk of catching salmonella."  Do yourself a favour by reading what you've already written - actually never mind, I don't expect consistency from you.  In a nutshell, you agree that US chickens aren't dangerous to eat, they're cheaper, and people should be free to make their own choice.  Great.  So what is your argument?  That some farming methods are cruel?  Hold the press.  

"Everybody is biased".  You missed my question:  Where do you think my bias is?  Bias is usually apparent when people converse, especially to someone with your formidable intellect.  In your black and white world, it feels as if my bias should really be pushing me the opposite way to how I think.  Perhaps I unwisely try to pre-empt my bias, or silence it when presented with new information, whereas you run with it, while telling yourself you're "just an observer".

FP is not about establishing a base assumption in a hypothetical situation or a thought experiment, and then using that as an analogy for a complex real-world situation.  That is the opposite of FP (and Elon would be ashamed of you).  This 'universal truth' of yours is profoundly naive and simplistic, merely a biased prediction of how you think groups behave in a vacuum.  Neither universal nor true.  Do you really think if a vote passes among a group of countries, that vote must therefore benefit ALL of them?  What about if (just for example) only 55% support was required to pass, does it still benefit ALL of them?  Is there also not a chance that countries may vote for one motion isn't in their best interests, in order to secure another which is, or even if they are bought?  Is there a chance that when deciding what's in their 'best interests', members states could act on what would boost their economy or power, rather than what is in the best interests of the wellbeing or health of their population?  Et cetera ad infinitum.  

"EU rules don't work that way. They don't have maximum levels of shit allowed in your food."  No clue.  Look up EC No 1881 / 2006 - not foreign bodies but contaminants, with maximum levels for each.  The EU does work like that - it just hasn't bothered legislating for specific organic foreign bodies where they pose no danger to health yet would be costly to remove.  In fact, the US threshold for these merely sets a mandatory upper prosecution point - cases can be (and are) prosecuted below that.  It just means that unlike the EU, once organic foreign bodies reach a level, the FDA are legally forced to take action.  

Dig deeper, and don't assume so much.  

Original comment
Latest comment:

"It's your choice".  So generous, but the question is if you are "cool with it" or "trying to put people off".  You say you're wanting to inform the reader about chlorination (odd, as it's hardly a secret.)  But then once you've done that, you do it again, and again.  Then you literally admit you're actually trying to put people off.  Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like you're cool with it.  Dishonesty, or is this another theory of mind issue?  You just can't imagine anyone could think differently if they know the same as you?  

"You're OK with the extreme cruelty inflicted on industrialised farm animals".  Am I?  Oh.  I'm OK with you thinking there's extreme cruelty, and I'm OK with you pretending that eating meat means I'm fine with any cruelty that there is (even though I called it "sad").  I'm not really OK with you pushing your agenda onto others, but nothing new there.

"You're OK with 450 deaths".  Am I?  You don't see the importance of showing a figure in context; e.g 20 billion hotdogs are eaten every year in the USA, and something like 15 children each year die from choking on one.  I don't think we should ban hotdogs or regulate their sale, but that doesn't mean to say I'm OK with 15 children choking.  Not even in your warped 'appeal to emotion' strategy.  

"Nowhere did I say US chickens are dangerous to eat".  Excellent!  "Realise that when you eat a US chlorinated chicken instead of an EU chicken, you increase your risk of catching salmonella."  Do yourself a favour by reading what you've already written - actually never mind, I don't expect consistency from you.  In a nutshell, you agree that US chickens aren't dangerous to eat, they're cheaper, and people should be free to make their own choice.  Great.  So what is your argument?  That some farming methods are cruel?  Hold the press.  

"Everybody is biased".  You missed my question:  Where do you think my bias is?  Bias is usually apparent when people converse, especially to someone with your formidable intellect.  In your black and white world, it feels as if my bias should really be pushing me the opposite way to how I think.  Perhaps I unwisely try to pre-empt my bias, or silence it when presented with new information, whereas you run with it, while telling yourself you're "just an observer".

FP is not about establishing a base assumption in a hypothetical situation or a thought experiment, and then using that as an analogy for a complex real-world situation.  That is the opposite of FP (and Elon would be ashamed of you).  This 'universal truth' of yours is profoundly naive and simplistic, merely a biased prediction of how you think groups behave in a vacuum.  Neither universal nor true.  Do you really think if a vote passes among a group of countries, that vote must therefore benefit ALL of them?  What about if (just for example) only 55% support was required to pass, does it still benefit ALL of them?  Is there also not a chance that countries may vote for one motion isn't in their best interests, in order to secure another which is, or even if they are bought?  Is there a chance that when deciding what's in their 'best interests', members states could act on what would boost their economy or power, rather than what is in the best interests of the wellbeing or health of their population?  Et cetera ad infinitum.  

"EU rules don't work that way. They don't have maximum levels of shit allowed in your food."  No clue.  Look up EC No 1881 / 2006 - not foreign bodies but contaminants, with maximum levels for each.  The EU does work like that - it just hasn't bothered legislating for specific organic foreign bodies where they pose no danger to health yet would be costly to remove.  In fact, the US threshold for these merely sets a mandatory upper prosecution point - cases can be (and are) prosecuted below that.  It just means that unlike the EU, once organic foreign bodies reach a level, the FDA are legally forced to take action.  

Dig deeper, and don't assume so much.  

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (239 days ago)

Do americans actualy know how to cook chicken, or anything else for that matter?

Maybe that is why they suffer more from food poisening  :-)

Original comment

Do americans actualy know how to cook chicken, or anything else for that matter?

Maybe that is why they suffer more from food poisening  :-)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Blood on your hands
Blood on your hands
Jo-Anne McArthur | An inside look at factory farms
Jo-Anne McArthur | An inside look at factory farms
NowThis | Longtime Arkansas livestock farmers go vegan
NowThis | Longtime Arkansas livestock farmers go vegan
The rescue of Rusty Diamond
The rescue of Rusty Diamond
Save wild deer
Save wild deer