SO, chlorinated chicken, yes or no? And is that even the right question? As we prepare to leave the EU, what might be the result of any post-EU free trade agreement between the UK and the US?
Economically, not that much actually, according to The Food Programme on Radio 4 on Sunday (repeated Monday). A deal would increase GDP by around 0.16 per cent over the next 15 years according to the UK government's own figures. Politically, though, that's another matter.
And that's where the chlorinated chicken comes in. It has become a symbol of the fears that might arise from any such deal; an eager American market keen to push their chickens on us even though their food standards are different to our own.
The outgoing US Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue (speaking with all the charm of a Bond villain; but maybe that's showing my prejudice) told the programme's presenter Charlotte Smith that some people wanted to pay more for the "sentimentality in their food consumption." US farmers could provide healthy, cheap food for those who didn't or couldn't afford that sentimentality.
The truth is that in the UK we are not self-sufficient in chicken. And while British consumers say food standards are important, they also are driven by price. Only six per cent of chicken sold in the UK are free-range.
Cath Elliston from the food protest movement BiteBack pointed out, any cheap imported US chicken will be used in schools, care homes and hospitals as public sector budgets continue to be squeezed. And it's not just chicken we have to worry about. A US-Canadian deal, she pointed out, saw an influx of high-fructose corn syrup to Canada which contributed to a tripling in obesity rates. Very tasty.
Listen Out For: Sandi Toksvig's Hygge, Radio 4, Wednesday, 6.30pm. New series in which Sandi Toksvig, pictured, talks to various celebs about the Danish way of life.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel