What is chlorinated chicken and will it be sold in the UK after Trump trade deal?
Agriculture is a key part of the new trade deal announced on Thursday by Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump. Tariffs have been reduced on US products, including beef and ethanol, in return for moves that help British cars and steel.
After the deal was announced, government sources insisted imports of hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken, previously described as red lines for the UK in any agreement, would remain illegal.
The agreement on beef provides a tariff-free quota for 13,000 tonnes of US exports, but the government said there would be no drop in food standards as a result of the deal. It also includes access to British beef exports to the US.
Chlorine -washed chicken – a controversial method of cleaning farmed animals to kill bacteria – was a major product being touted as part of the deal.
While evidence suggests the chlorine wash itself is not harmful, critics argue treating chicken with the chemical will allow for poorer hygiene earlier on in the production process.
However, Liz Webster, founder of Save British Farming, told The Independent: 'The British public is rightly appalled by chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef. We are an animal-loving nation that values high standards, and we must not trade them away.'
Chlorinated chicken or chlorine -washed chicken refers to chicken carcasses that have been washed or dipped in water containing chlorine dioxide. This is done to kill organisms that could make you ill, such as E coli, campylobacter and Salmonella.
Is it bad for me?
If you ate a large amount of chlorinated chicken – the equivalent to 5 per cent of your body weight in one day –you could potentially be exposed to harmful levels of the chemical compound known as chlorate, according to the European Commission.
'Long-term exposure to chlorate in food, particularly in drinking water, is a potential health concern for children, especially those with mild or moderate iodine deficiency,' according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
A high intake of chlorate on a single day could be toxic for humans as it can limit the blood's ability to absorb oxygen, leading to kidney failure, while chronic exposure to chlorate can inhibit iodine uptake.
However, there is no proof that eating chlorinated chicken would put health at risk. The EFSA has said that chemical substances in poultry meat are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers.
Is it cleaner than non-chlorinated chicken?
A 2014 report by US non-profit Consumer Reports found that 97 per cent of 300 American chicken breasts tested contained harmful bacteria including Salmonella, campylobacter and E.Coli.
Around half of the chicken breasts tested also contained at least one type of bacteria that was resistant to three or more antibiotics.
In general, you are over seven times more likely to get food poisoning in the US than in the UK, according to data from the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Moreover, a 2018 study from the University of Southampton found chlorine-washing was not totally effective in killing pathogens on fresh vegetables. The research also suggested that chlorinating foods "can make foodborne pathogens undetectable", rather than eliminating them.
Why aren't British farmers allowed to use this technique?
Chlorinated chicken was first banned by the EU in 1997. The EU stipulates that chicken can only be washed in water or substances explicitly approved by the European Commission.
Those who are against chlorine washing claim that, rather than the chlorine itself being the problem, it's what the chlorine is hiding. Treating the carcasses this way can enable lower standards of hygiene and animal welfare – farmers can rely on chemicals to kill off harmful bacteria at the end of the process, rather than maintaining high standards at every stage.
However, Ken Isley from the US Department of Agriculture, said: 'I think the concerns and fear are unfounded. I would stack US food safety and our food safety record against anywhere in the world.'
How can I tell if chicken has been chlorinated?
In the US, chickens are not labelled as having been washed in chlorine.
Some of those lobbying for the UK to accept US imports of chlorine-washed chicken have argued that it should be up to consumers to decide, as long as it's clearly labelled.
However, according to Sustain, an organisation that campaigns for better food and farming, there is currently 'no requirement for food producers to inform UK consumers about whether or not chlorine was used, neither are restaurants nor caterers required to say where their meat is from.'
Unless the limitations of current UK food labelling legislation are addressed, it is hard to see how British consumers would know whether their chicken had been treated with chlorinated water.
The US also regards specific labelling of country of origin as an illegitimate barrier to its exports and pushes to have the practice banned as part of trade agreements it signs with other countries.
Is chlorinated chicken part of a trade deal with the US?
Chlorinated chicken was not included in the trade deal announced by Sir Keir and Mr Trump on Thursday.
Farming leaders welcomed the government's efforts to maintain high standards and secure reciprocal access for beef but raised concerns about the inclusion of bioethanol, a fuel made from crops, in the deal.
According to the most recent significant polling on the subject, which was carried out in 2020, 80 per cent of the British public are against allowing imports of chlorinated chicken, and the same percentage are against permitting chicken products that have been raised with hormones.
Following pressure from the British public, former prime ministers Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak were compelled to rule out compromises on hormone-fed beef and chlorinated chicken in future trade deal negotiations with the US.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
a few seconds ago
- BBC News
Global News Podcast European leaders meet ahead of Trump's summit with Putin
Europe's leaders warn the US against making concessions to Russia, saying that Ukraine's borders must not be changed by force. Donald Trump joins a virtual meeting with his European counterparts ahead of his Friday summit with Vladimir Putin. Also: there have been intense Israeli strikes in Gaza before a planned offensive to take over the territory's main city. The Global News Podcast brings you the breaking news you need to hear, as it happens. Listen for the latest headlines and current affairs from around the world. Politics, economics, climate, business, technology, health – we cover it all with expert analysis and insight. Get the news that matters, delivered twice a day on weekdays and daily at weekends, plus special bonus episodes reacting to urgent breaking stories. Follow or subscribe now and never miss a moment. Get in touch: globalpodcast@
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reeves accused of ‘punishing families' with inheritance tax raid – that still ‘won't fill Labour's blackhole'
Rachel Reeves has been accused of 'coming for your family's future' with a possible inheritance tax raid – but a former Treasury adviser has warned the changes still won't be enough to fill the £50bn black hole. Officials are thought to be looking at scrapping the 'seven-year rule' - which means that no tax is due on any gifts you give if you live for seven years after giving them - to help address the UK's multi-billion-pound shortfall left by Labour U-turns, higher borrowing and sluggish economic growth. It comes just days after the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr) piled pressure on the chancellor to come up with solutions ahead of her budget in the autumn. But Jonathan Portes, a former Treasury adviser and professor of economics and public policy at King's College London who supports the idea of inheritance tax reform, told The Independent such changes would 'certainly not raise tens of billions of pounds, or anything like it'. Tory shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride accused Labour of punishing working families to 'fund their failure', while leading analysts at Hargreaves Lansdown warned Labour may 'come to regret' making detailed changes to inheritance tax as it could hamper efforts to boost economic growth. Inheritance tax is paid when a person's estate is worth more than £325,000 when they die and is seen by many as a form of wealth tax in all but name. Under current UK rules, gifts made more than seven years before a person's death are exempt from inheritance tax. Money given less than three years before is taxed at the full inheritance tax rate of 40 per cent, while gifts given between seven and three years have a 'taper relief' tax, between eight and 32 per cent. While it is understood that no decisions have yet been taken, among the reported measures under consideration is a potential lifetime cap on gifts to limit the amount of money people can donate outside of inheritance tax, as well as reviewing rules around the taper rate, sources told The Guardian, Responding to the reports, Mr Portes said: "Inheritance tax certainly needs reform – it is too easy for very rich people with good tax advice to avoid, and it is welcome HMT [HM Treasury] is looking at this.' "More broadly, we need to tax relatively well-off older people more – whether during their lifetimes and on death. However, IHT reform will certainly not raise tens of billions or anything like it." Hitting out at the prospective measures, Sir Mel said Labour is 'coming for your family's future to fund their failure'. "Those who've worked hard, saved responsibly and hope to leave something behind shouldn't be punished to pay for Labour's economic black hole', he added. Tax experts have also raised alarm over the possible changes. With the government planning to levy inheritance tax on pensions from April 2027, Scott Gallacher, of wealth management firm Rowley Turton, warned that families with two children and an estate over £1m could be leaving more money to the chancellor than to either of their children. "The more children you have, the worse it looks. I recently told one client that, on his death, each of his four children would get just 15 per cent of his pension, while the chancellor would take 40 per cent', he said. Meanwhile, Rob Mansfield, an independent financial advisor at Rootes Wealth Management, said it could put people off from saving into their pensions. 'It's a double whammy if you're over the age of 75, as not only could you pay inheritance tax on the pension at 40 per cent, but the beneficiaries would then pay tax on any withdrawals at their marginal rates. "We need people to save more into their pensions, and taxing people for doing the right thing seems perverse." Former chancellor and businessman Nadhim Zahawi also took aim at the idea telling The Independent it could cause more wealthy individuals to leave the UK. He urged the Treasury to make further spending cuts rather than hiking taxes. 'If the chancellor wants a sure-fire way to endanger Britain's finances further, raising inheritance tax would be top of the list', he said. 'As a businessman, I know that top talent is leaving or staying away because they don't want their life's work stolen by a greedy government that won't wean itself off an addiction to wasting taxpayers' money through excessive spending.' Meanwhile, Sarah Coles, head of personal finance at Hargreaves Lansdown, said reforms 'would need to be balanced against the fact that, at the moment, these gifts allow for money to pass through the generations' - something which brings in taxes such as stamp duty and VAT when the money is spent. 'They also feed more money into the economy and boost economic activity', she said, warning that a change in the rules could 'stymie this flow of cash, which could have an impact on growth.'
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
How Russia's war on Ukraine led to crucial Trump-Putin summit - and why the stakes are so high
Donald Trump is meeting Vladimir Putin in Alaska in what the US president has said may be little more than a 'look see', but in truth may prove an encounter that defines Europe -and global security - for decades. From Trump's perspective, the summit may be part of his drive for a Nobel Peace Prize by ending Putin's war against Ukraine using the 'art of the deal'. Putin, however, is likely to prevail and his agenda is the art of the steal – specifically a massive grab of his neighbour's land. Missing from the meeting is the country most affected – Ukraine itself. Led by Volodymyr Zelensky, it has held out against the Kremlin for 11 years. Trump, Putin, and many others (including parts of the media) seem to think that Ukraine's future can be decided by the two nuclear powers and then presented to Kyiv as a done deal. Europe, the region most affected by what happens in Ukraine, has worked hard to underline that that is neither true nor sensible – while simultaneously keeping the mercurial US president 'on side' when every indication is that he's firmly in Russia 's camp. Here's how things currently stand. How Russia and Ukraine ended up at war in 2022 In 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in return for written guarantees from Russia, the US and the UK to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. Twenty years later, Russia ignored those guarantees and invaded the Crimean Peninsula, claiming the land for itself and the right to protect Russian-speaking people in eastern Ukraine. Putin annexed Crimea illegally, sponsoring 'rebels' and sending troops into eastern Ukraine to capture large areas of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts (provinces). The US, Europe and the UK did nothing to help or protect Ukraine, even banning lethal arms exports to the embattled nation. In 2022, the Russian president went one step further and launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. He was stunned that it stalled and then failed. Limited weapons supplies from the US and UK helped partisans and Ukrainian forces hold the Russians back and then turn them around. Ferocious fighting turned the front lines into a 'meat grinder' conflict of attrition, with the exception of summer 2022, where Ukraine managed to recapture large areas of territory. Three years on and Russia now holds almost all of Luhansk oblast, much of Donetsk, a significant area of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, and all of Crimea. Still fighting determinedly, Ukraine has a toehold inside Russian territory in Kursk and has been conducting punishing attacks deep into Russian territory. In response, Russia has stepped up drone and missile attacks across Ukraine, often launching 500 in a single night. In the Black Sea, Russia's navy has been driven out by Ukraine, which doesn't have a navy to speak of, using special forces and drone attacks. What Russia wants Putin has repeatedly said that there is no nation called 'Ukraine' and that its territory is naturally part of Russia. His imperial ambitions are underpinned by Russia's conquest of much of modern eastern Ukraine by Catherine the Great in the 18th century. But above all, the Russian president is driven by a colonel's Soviet mentality that led to Moscow's attempts to annihilate the Ukrainian language, history and culture. As a condition of a ceasefire of any kind, Russia has demanded that Ukraine withdraw its forces from territories Moscow claims as its own, including the entirety of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts. In a memorandum circulated at the Istanbul talks in March, Russia insisted a 30-day ceasefire would only take effect once Ukraine had fully pulled back from these four regions. Russia also insists that Ukraine formally recognise all of Crimea and the four annexed oblasts as Russian territory in any future peace treaty. This 'international legal recognition' would enshrine Russia's gains, obliging Kyiv to abandon any claim on those lands and to lift sanctions against Russia as part of a comprehensive settlement. Moscow also insists that Ukraine amend its constitution to enshrine permanent neutrality. This means giving up on its constitutionally mandated effort to join Nato. Ukraine must also be left vulnerable, with the banning of third-party foreign military bases from its territory, a ban on Western arms deliveries, and the prohibition of 'neo-Nazi ideology,' which Russia uses to justify a forced 'denazification' of Ukrainian society. Longer term, Putin has demanded that the Russian language should have equal status with Ukrainian as an official language. In return, Ukraine will get no guarantee that Russia's ambitions will stop at the five regions it has already taken as part of a ceasefire. What Trump is trying to achieve The US had been supporting Ukraine but was quick to turn on Zelensky, drop military aid, cut civilian support, weaken intelligence sharing, to swing firmly behind Putin in supporting Russian demands long before talks were even close to starting. Trump's latest pitch is that Ukraine should accept territorial losses. Some kind of a 'land swap' has been mooted, but this is Ukrainian territory for Ukrainian territory. This is ahead of a ceasefire, let alone a long-term peace. This could mean Ukraine would cede the remaining parts of Donetsk that it still controls in exchange for Russia freezing its lines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Trump has also said there would be no US element to any future force to guarantee a longer-term peace deal in Ukraine. The US president has weakened Ukraine by cutting military aid. The US had given about $114bn to Ukraine. That figure is now zero. Trump now insists that Ukraine and its allies purchase weapons from the US. He has also forced a minerals deal on Ukraine that swaps profits from resources for arms. What Ukraine is hoping will happen Constitutionally, Zelensky can make no territorial concessions as part of a ceasefire. He would need a nationwide referendum to do so. He also cannot abandon Ukraine's attempts to join Nato as this has been enshrined in Ukrainian law since 2019. He'd need a referendum to change this. Kyiv demands a full and unconditional ceasefire as the only basis for genuine negotiations and rejects any proposal that would require it to abandon its ambitions. It sees Russian demands that Ukraine become neutral as 'an attack on its sovereignty'. Ukraine also insists on binding security guarantees from its Western partners, covering political, financial, military and diplomatic support. And how does Europe fit into all this? Slow to respond to Russia's invasion, Europe is now by far the biggest donor in terms of weapons, money, and other aid to Ukraine. In total, some €250bn has been pledged by the EU and UK. The European mantra of 'no talks about Ukraine without Ukraine' has been ignored by Trump and Putin. The US is saying only that Zelensky and then European leaders will get a call from Trump after he's finished talking to the Russian president. Europe insists that only Ukraine make decisions on territorial changes, its long-term neutrality and all other sovereign issues. By threatening the viability of Nato itself, Trump has forced Europe into huge increases in military spending towards a target of 5 per cent of GDP. Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and others in Scandinavia are preparing their populations to withstand potential Russian incursions. The most obvious route to 'restoring' the Soviet empire by reclaiming lost influence in Eastern Europe is through the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad in the Baltics, and in Transnistria, a breakaway part of Moldova backed by Russia. Ursula von de Leyen, the EU president summed it up succinctly: 'Putin wants to force Ukraine into accepting the unacceptable, so the task we face is to help Ukraine stand strong, defy Putin's intimidations, and engage in peace talks based on its own conditions'.
