Why American Eggs Would Be Illegal In A British Supermarket, And Vice Versa(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Why American Eggs Would Be Illegal In A British Supermarket, And Vice Versa
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2012/10/25/why-american-eggs-would-be-illegal-in-a-british-supermarket-and-vice-versa/
23 comments
Many replies thought the "amazing" adjective was about the fact that vaccines work at all. Methinks you are a bit knee-jerk against people you even suspect of opposing vaccines.
I thought it referred more to the logistics of getting hundreds of producers coordinated and hundreds of thousands of chickens vaccinated in so short a time. Actually, if they have the data, it would make for fascinating study about epidemiology in vaccinated populations. Some chickens were probably missed, but once the vaccination rate reaches some critical level, the disease doesn't spread the same way.
So, no need to assume the writer is one of the "crazies" and no need to have an OT comment thread about it.
I thought it referred more to the logistics of getting hundreds of producers coordinated and hundreds of thousands of chickens vaccinated in so short a time. Actually, if they have the data, it would make for fascinating study about epidemiology in vaccinated populations. Some chickens were probably missed, but once the vaccination rate reaches some critical level, the disease doesn't spread the same way.
So, no need to assume the writer is one of the "crazies" and no need to have an OT comment thread about it.
> I thought it referred more to the logistics of getting hundreds of producers coordinated and hundreds of thousands of chickens vaccinated in so short a time.
I don't think that interpretation is plausible really. The author mentioned nothing about logistics, scale, time-to-results. I don't see how you can claim that the "amazing" is supposed to refer to something the author didn't mention.
> so short a time
Twelve years?
> no need to assume the writer is one of the "crazies"
Indeed.
> no need to have an OT comment thread
I just made the comment, not the thread. No-one's baying for blood. I'm just saying it's very sloppy and potentially dangerous phrasing.
I don't think that interpretation is plausible really. The author mentioned nothing about logistics, scale, time-to-results. I don't see how you can claim that the "amazing" is supposed to refer to something the author didn't mention.
> so short a time
Twelve years?
> no need to assume the writer is one of the "crazies"
Indeed.
> no need to have an OT comment thread
I just made the comment, not the thread. No-one's baying for blood. I'm just saying it's very sloppy and potentially dangerous phrasing.
Wiping things out full-stop is difficult - look at myxomatosis application in Australia.
"Deadly [to rabbits] disease kills rabbits. It's completely expected, not amazing at all."
And yet, rabbits have regained a significant foothold in Australia, despite myx absolutely decimating the population in the 50s. It's not just about micro-scale effectiveness, it's about effective timing and implementation. Same goes for AIDs meds in Africa, or forest fires.
"Deadly [to rabbits] disease kills rabbits. It's completely expected, not amazing at all."
And yet, rabbits have regained a significant foothold in Australia, despite myx absolutely decimating the population in the 50s. It's not just about micro-scale effectiveness, it's about effective timing and implementation. Same goes for AIDs meds in Africa, or forest fires.
While it feels ridiculous to have an extended discussion about a mostly irrelevant adjective, I too interpret "amazing" as referring to the logistical effort.
Granted this is probably one of those disagreements that falls under "the issues of least importance cause the greatest divides".
Granted this is probably one of those disagreements that falls under "the issues of least importance cause the greatest divides".
> It's completely expected, not amazing at all.
It's amazing because it's the hens being vaccinated. Humans could get the infection from other sources, but apparently by and large don't.
It's amazing because it's the hens being vaccinated. Humans could get the infection from other sources, but apparently by and large don't.
That's hardly amazing; I've known since I was a child that the main source of salmonella was eggs and possibly raw chicken. In fact, I'd have been hard-pressed to name another place you could get it.
If you look at the data [0] on food recalls and safety warnings in the United States, you'll see that the large majority of food-borne salmonella occurs not in meat or eggs but in fruits and vegetables, particularly in ground-hugging varieties like peanuts, lettuces, peppers, and bean sprouts.
This is almost always either because (a) the vegetables are fertilized with manure (organic vegetables, in particular, carry a higher risk of fecal contamination and associated diseases) or because (b) they're processed and packed in contaminated facilities. It is a self-fulfilling irony of the regulatory regime that vegetable-processing plants, which are more likely to be contaminated, are subject to less stringent safety standards than their meat- and poultry-processing counterparts.
0. http://google2.fda.gov/search?site=FDAgov-recalls&client...
This is almost always either because (a) the vegetables are fertilized with manure (organic vegetables, in particular, carry a higher risk of fecal contamination and associated diseases) or because (b) they're processed and packed in contaminated facilities. It is a self-fulfilling irony of the regulatory regime that vegetable-processing plants, which are more likely to be contaminated, are subject to less stringent safety standards than their meat- and poultry-processing counterparts.
0. http://google2.fda.gov/search?site=FDAgov-recalls&client...
Is possible/likely that that is (partially-) chicken manure?
If so, reducing/eradicating endemic chicken salmonella might also remove it from the manure.
If so, reducing/eradicating endemic chicken salmonella might also remove it from the manure.
It's a somewhat common concern with pet reptiles.
[1] http://www.cdc.gov/features/salmonellafrogturtle
[1] http://www.cdc.gov/features/salmonellafrogturtle
I knew a family who had a child very seriously ill with salmonella thanks to a pet turtle. The child survived, the turtle moved on.
Iguanas.
There was a salmonella outbreak linked to peanut butter just months ago. All of the peanut butter at Trader Joe's was recalled.
That's incorrect. Only specific variants of their peanut and almond butters were recalled. That particular manufacturer also provided their product to many other companies.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/food-poisoning/news/201209...
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/food-poisoning/news/201209...
Shrimp
Not to state the obvious, but ...salmon?
The bacteria is named after Dr. Salmon, not related to the fish.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonella#History
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonella#History
True, but you still can get it from salmon (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/smoked-salmon-salmo...).
I think you can use the word "amazing" as a synonym for "dramatic" rather than for "unexpected". For example, I have heard people describe sunsets as amazing.
When addressing a public who largely still links vaccines and autism, they would indeed find it amazing.
To the remaining, thinking public, you're right. It's not amazing at all.
To the remaining, thinking public, you're right. It's not amazing at all.
I would argue that the public doesn't "largely" believe that. The majority of parents get their kids vaccinated.
It is a small fringe of people who believe things like that; just unfortunately these same people are the most likely to catch the disease (and be unable to afford decent treatment).
It is a small fringe of people who believe things like that; just unfortunately these same people are the most likely to catch the disease (and be unable to afford decent treatment).
1 in 5, for that specific linking of vaccines and autism.
Perhaps not a majority, but definitely a "large" number by my reckoning.
http://healthcare.thomsonreuters.com/npr/assets/NPR_report_v...
Perhaps not a majority, but definitely a "large" number by my reckoning.
http://healthcare.thomsonreuters.com/npr/assets/NPR_report_v...
The really unfortunate thing is they can compromise herd immunity, leading to people who can't be vaccinated or even people who WERE vaccinated getting infected.
I would be much more tolerant of the people who are afraid of vaccines, if it wasn't for the risk of them hurting other people with their decisions.
I would be much more tolerant of the people who are afraid of vaccines, if it wasn't for the risk of them hurting other people with their decisions.
And even worse - they can infect (and end up causing the death of) babies who are too young to be vaccinated.
That one fact alone shows how truly reckless people who refuse to get their offspring vaccinated are.
That one fact alone shows how truly reckless people who refuse to get their offspring vaccinated are.
Hah, that's probably the next stop on the crazy train.
"My child ate chicken that was vaccinated, and it gave my child autism!"
On second thought, don't want to give them any ideas...
"My child ate chicken that was vaccinated, and it gave my child autism!"
On second thought, don't want to give them any ideas...
> When addressing a public who largely still links vaccines and autism, they would indeed find it amazing.
If forbes really are addressing those people, it's hardly helpful to describe the fact that vaccines work as "amazing".
It's lending weight to the idea that it's surprising that the vaccine worked.
Even if I was addressing flat-earthers, I still wouldn't call it "amazing" that a round-the-world yacht race ended in the same place that it started.
If forbes really are addressing those people, it's hardly helpful to describe the fact that vaccines work as "amazing".
It's lending weight to the idea that it's surprising that the vaccine worked.
Even if I was addressing flat-earthers, I still wouldn't call it "amazing" that a round-the-world yacht race ended in the same place that it started.
If Forbes wants them as readers, using the term "Amazing" makes sense. If Forbes wants to educate them, I would agree with you wholeheartedly.
Can they now stop vaccinating against salmonella, or are there other reservoirs of the disease?
Salmonella exposure is still possible from other avian sources (dove, pigeon, etc).
It is easy enough for disease to hop continents, and the rest of the world has plenty of salmonella to share with the UK.
But how many live chickens hop continents? Or are there other ways for the disease to renter the chicken population from a non-chicken source?
Of course there are. The faecal matter (e.g. from egg shells, as described in the article) can be transferred onto hands, and from there onto clothing. The person then hops on a plane, flies to UK and goes for a stroll around British countryside, where they come into contact with some chickens.
This is contrived, admittedly, but not implausible. There are other scenarios as well. While they may all seem very unlikely, eventually contamination will occur, given how often people fly back and forth nowadays. If you keep rolling a thousand dice, eventually they will all come up sixes.
This is contrived, admittedly, but not implausible. There are other scenarios as well. While they may all seem very unlikely, eventually contamination will occur, given how often people fly back and forth nowadays. If you keep rolling a thousand dice, eventually they will all come up sixes.
> "If you keep rolling a thousand dice, eventually they will all come up sixes"
A thousand sixes in a single simultaneous roll shouldn't happen in the entire lifetime of the universe. If your system is that safe, you're in pretty good shape. But rolling a thousand dice where you get to set aside each six you get, you should expect to get to all sixes in 30 or 40 rolls.
Whenever you're engineering a system for safety, the key is figuring out how much needs to go wrong for the system to fail, and how many opportunities you'll have for those things to go wrong. Diseases being carried from continent to continent is a fairly normal occurrence; contamination will happen fairly regularly, and the biggest protection against it becoming widespread is herd immunity.
A thousand sixes in a single simultaneous roll shouldn't happen in the entire lifetime of the universe. If your system is that safe, you're in pretty good shape. But rolling a thousand dice where you get to set aside each six you get, you should expect to get to all sixes in 30 or 40 rolls.
Whenever you're engineering a system for safety, the key is figuring out how much needs to go wrong for the system to fail, and how many opportunities you'll have for those things to go wrong. Diseases being carried from continent to continent is a fairly normal occurrence; contamination will happen fairly regularly, and the biggest protection against it becoming widespread is herd immunity.
Yes, true. My thousand dice comment was intended in vein of "if you put a thousand monkeys with typewriters in a room...". I did not mean to imply that the probability of rolling a thousand sixes is similar to the probability of contamination.
I'm assuming pretty much every other egg laying bird has the disease, even many egg laying reptiles (keeping snakes out of the chickens house is never any fun).
> many egg laying reptiles (keeping snakes out of the chickens house is never any fun).
Neither of those things are a problem in the UK.
Neither of those things are a problem in the UK.
There was a big salmonella problem with ducks in the UK many years ago (1930s?) so people switched to eating hens eggs instead. Clearly the problem was much bigger in mass production, as then hens got it. So I think actually most birds do not have it normally.
Salmonella is common with all sorts of reptiles and birds. I'm assuming that it's virtually impossible to isolate chickens from those, so they'd have to keep vaccinating indefinitely.
Would you just look at all of our autistic chickens.
This is generally one of the first things that people who decide to keep hens learn, and is reprinted in nearly every homesteader/farmer magazine ever.
(that said, I'm surprised to find it on the front page of hacker news!)
Where I live in NH lots of small farms and people keep a few hens, and most of the smaller places will mention this to customers.
Eggs from these "home hens" definitely taste different, though I doubt it has to do with washing and much more to do with hen diet.
(And now it's mid noon here, time to go home and make eggs. Far more important than any local food movement, for me, is living within walking distance to work!)
(that said, I'm surprised to find it on the front page of hacker news!)
Where I live in NH lots of small farms and people keep a few hens, and most of the smaller places will mention this to customers.
Eggs from these "home hens" definitely taste different, though I doubt it has to do with washing and much more to do with hen diet.
(And now it's mid noon here, time to go home and make eggs. Far more important than any local food movement, for me, is living within walking distance to work!)
I can totally vouch for having your own hens. I have three, and I'm planning on getting another three this weekend.
- The amount of work is fairly minimal - about as much effort as a pet rabbit - and you get eggs
- When you observe chickens up close, they're surprisingly attractive animals. And not as stupid as you would assume, either
- The eggs really do taste better. I think this is because a) they eat better, and b) they are much, much fresher
- You can feed most of your kitchen scraps to your chickens to recycle your waste. They're omnivores, so eat meat (although officially you're not supposed to feed them it).
- The amount of work is fairly minimal - about as much effort as a pet rabbit - and you get eggs
- When you observe chickens up close, they're surprisingly attractive animals. And not as stupid as you would assume, either
- The eggs really do taste better. I think this is because a) they eat better, and b) they are much, much fresher
- You can feed most of your kitchen scraps to your chickens to recycle your waste. They're omnivores, so eat meat (although officially you're not supposed to feed them it).
> When you observe chickens up close, they're surprisingly attractive animals.
Wow! I kept 20-25 laying hens in yearly batches when I was between the ages of 13 and 18. I found them to be singularly repulsive, all having the same rude, avaricious, gluttonous personality, and all behaving in the most horrible manner possible. I'm not against eating chicken mainly because of this experience.
I also had several pairs of ducks during those years, providing an avian contrast. Ducks have different personalities, aren't nearly as vicious to each other or to their prey, and are generally good sports.
Everything else you say about laying hens is true in my experience. The eggs are indeed much, much better than supermarket eggs.
Wow! I kept 20-25 laying hens in yearly batches when I was between the ages of 13 and 18. I found them to be singularly repulsive, all having the same rude, avaricious, gluttonous personality, and all behaving in the most horrible manner possible. I'm not against eating chicken mainly because of this experience.
I also had several pairs of ducks during those years, providing an avian contrast. Ducks have different personalities, aren't nearly as vicious to each other or to their prey, and are generally good sports.
Everything else you say about laying hens is true in my experience. The eggs are indeed much, much better than supermarket eggs.
Actually, you're both right, you just had different experiences. With 2-6 hens, the flock is more centered around the human, allow themselves to be touched and hand fed, and exhibit recognizable personalities. With 10-20 hens, the flock is more "wild" and establish their own pecking order by being aggressive to each other (and grabbing all the food they can grab before the others). I had a flock of 12 and saw both kinds of behavior, though because we kept the roosters for a while, it tended towards the wild side.
Of course, chicken breeds, coop environment, and owner personality are huge factors in chicken behavior as well.
BTW, this is a great article in that it reveals a little about our industrial food chain. I suppose it's popular here on HN because it has a bit of the "How things work" vibe. There should be articles like this for every type of food sold in stores.
Of course, chicken breeds, coop environment, and owner personality are huge factors in chicken behavior as well.
BTW, this is a great article in that it reveals a little about our industrial food chain. I suppose it's popular here on HN because it has a bit of the "How things work" vibe. There should be articles like this for every type of food sold in stores.
It seems very common with animals and humans alike that we tend to exhibit "mob mentality" when in larger groups. I picture the hens in a large group attacking each other over food to be similar to going out on "Black Friday" after the US Thanksgiving or a company with a broken employee culture. Not exactly the most attractive or positive examples of human nature.
I always picture battery cages as being like a Super Max Federal prison.
Making generalizations from a single style of husbandry is a little like making generalizations about human children based on a single school. A year at many US schools might lead you to believe children are rude, avaricious, and gluttonous, but I don't think that's a fair universal characterization of kids.
A sibling comment mentions flock size as a factor, but there are many factors in chicken personality. Most farmers create scarcity across almost all resources, from food to grooming space, to running and flying room, to pasture time, and so on. Almost any creature, in constant competition for scarce resources amongst her peers, will develop a deplorable personality, sadistic or vindictive.
A sibling comment mentions flock size as a factor, but there are many factors in chicken personality. Most farmers create scarcity across almost all resources, from food to grooming space, to running and flying room, to pasture time, and so on. Almost any creature, in constant competition for scarce resources amongst her peers, will develop a deplorable personality, sadistic or vindictive.
>I'm not against eating chicken mainly because of this experience.
I don't understand your reasoning there. To me, whether it's ok to eat an animal should depend on whether it can experience suffering, not on whether it has a good personality. I mean, is it ok to eat people who are jerks?
I don't understand your reasoning there. To me, whether it's ok to eat an animal should depend on whether it can experience suffering, not on whether it has a good personality. I mean, is it ok to eat people who are jerks?
> is it ok to eat people who are jerks?
Of course not! But there are a few people for whom I wouldn't shed a tear, if they were devoured by a giant chicken.
Of course not! But there are a few people for whom I wouldn't shed a tear, if they were devoured by a giant chicken.
Oooh, not with my current ethics, but interesting thought experiment.
Another interesting though experiment:
A lot of people respond to the "why is it ok to eat these animals" question with, "because chickens/cows/turkeys are dumb." Following that logic, it's ok to eat people with a low enough IQ, or mental handicaps, no?
A lot of people respond to the "why is it ok to eat these animals" question with, "because chickens/cows/turkeys are dumb." Following that logic, it's ok to eat people with a low enough IQ, or mental handicaps, no?
People rationalize, so comments like "something that is dumb is fine to eat" is basically their mind trying to find something to say when they should had said "I do not know".
Maybe surprising (or not), but I find people who farm/hunt/fish to be the more intelligent kind of people when discussing food and ecology. Sure there are people who just want to exploit things for money, but many others do have a understanding for maintain a balance with nature.
One answer I have received to the question about "why is it ok to eat animals", was that the ecology balance in nature would break down if humanity suddenly stopped eating meat. Not only have we forced our self to be part of almost everything, but our actions have cemented us to a central position. Farmers has chased away predators to the point where hunters are needed to maintain balance in many forests. Some lakes are so polluted with nutrients, that you need to maintain fishing just to keep some species from extincting other less common fish species.
This doesn't address however why breeding animals for meat is fine. This is speculation, but some local farmers might say that as long the animal can live a happy life, then why shouldn't we eat them. The farmer job is to maintain a happy flock of chickens/cows/turkeys, and makes sure it stay healthy and in appropriate size. If they do that, then morality should be on their side.
Maybe surprising (or not), but I find people who farm/hunt/fish to be the more intelligent kind of people when discussing food and ecology. Sure there are people who just want to exploit things for money, but many others do have a understanding for maintain a balance with nature.
One answer I have received to the question about "why is it ok to eat animals", was that the ecology balance in nature would break down if humanity suddenly stopped eating meat. Not only have we forced our self to be part of almost everything, but our actions have cemented us to a central position. Farmers has chased away predators to the point where hunters are needed to maintain balance in many forests. Some lakes are so polluted with nutrients, that you need to maintain fishing just to keep some species from extincting other less common fish species.
This doesn't address however why breeding animals for meat is fine. This is speculation, but some local farmers might say that as long the animal can live a happy life, then why shouldn't we eat them. The farmer job is to maintain a happy flock of chickens/cows/turkeys, and makes sure it stay healthy and in appropriate size. If they do that, then morality should be on their side.
In this day and age:
- Have their beaks burned off because they live in crowded conditions where they will attack and main / kill each other.
- Are sorted male from female as chicks, where the males are then immediately killed in bulk. The 'industry standard' way to do this is to put them all in garbage bags to suffocate them, or to toss them all into a wood chipped en masse[1].
[1] Note: Even the chicks sold to people raising chickens in the city go through this process. E.g. in Portland, you can only raise 6 hens on your property. Roosters are not allowed.
maintain a happy flock of chickens/cows/turkeys,
and makes sure it stay healthy and in appropriate
size
- Have their beaks burned off because they live in crowded conditions where they will attack and main / kill each other.
- Are sorted male from female as chicks, where the males are then immediately killed in bulk. The 'industry standard' way to do this is to put them all in garbage bags to suffocate them, or to toss them all into a wood chipped en masse[1].
[1] Note: Even the chicks sold to people raising chickens in the city go through this process. E.g. in Portland, you can only raise 6 hens on your property. Roosters are not allowed.
Industry maybe. Local farmer, heck no. If they do, don't buy from them.
It might be added, that in Europe, farmers get subsidies from the European union, and thus can keep the flock in rather low size and still earn a living on it. It is still a rather small income however, so many local farmers now days only supplement their earning with cows/chicken/eggs/sheep, and their main income comes from something else.
It might be added, that in Europe, farmers get subsidies from the European union, and thus can keep the flock in rather low size and still earn a living on it. It is still a rather small income however, so many local farmers now days only supplement their earning with cows/chicken/eggs/sheep, and their main income comes from something else.
Yes, local farmers. Even small farmers and people who have a flock in their backyard generally get there hens from large-scale facilities that routinely kill the male chicks within hours of hatching (usually in terrible ways).
Bootstrapping is an issue, but then I have no experienced of your scenario in the wild. Small farmers tend to collect/receive hens from other small farmers, often as barter or gifts. Small farmers have a common ground which each other, which is a primary part of personal networks. It was not an uncommon chain of events in my childhood to hear during parties complements of the color of the eggs/feathers/subspecies, and see a trade emerge. Sometimes with a bottle of something expensive changing hand.
Same goes for male chicks. Those that aren't eaten (keeping the flock happy and appropriate sized), are observed closely when they reach mature age. If they don't fit well with the flock, they get bartered with a other farmers with an male from their flock. This was often the first step in handling an fight between two males that fought aggressively over dominance of the flock.
Sure, there will always exist bad apples in the world, and people should try avoid those. In the past, it was a strong asymmetrical information problem for buyers. Hopefully, with more information sharing and systems where buyers can rate sellers, we might get improvements where local suppliers that treat their animals well are encouraged.
Same goes for male chicks. Those that aren't eaten (keeping the flock happy and appropriate sized), are observed closely when they reach mature age. If they don't fit well with the flock, they get bartered with a other farmers with an male from their flock. This was often the first step in handling an fight between two males that fought aggressively over dominance of the flock.
Sure, there will always exist bad apples in the world, and people should try avoid those. In the past, it was a strong asymmetrical information problem for buyers. Hopefully, with more information sharing and systems where buyers can rate sellers, we might get improvements where local suppliers that treat their animals well are encouraged.
There is a certain inescapable problem even with small farms raising layer hens. I know exactly how this plays out large-scale and some idea on a smaller farm.
There are different breeds that are raised as layers and for meat. Layers have been bred to produce more eggs than normal, and meat birds to produce more meat than usual. Layers are not raised for meat. But farmers do need to fertilize and hatch a certain number of eggs to continue to get new generations of layer hens. Somewhere around 50% of those are males. If you're lucky, you can keep 1 rooster for 6 hens, and even that is pushing it. Those numbers just don't work.
I know that many small farmers and families with small flocks already get their hens from large hatcheries. I would like to know what happens to that minority of male chicks that are hatched on small farms though.
There are different breeds that are raised as layers and for meat. Layers have been bred to produce more eggs than normal, and meat birds to produce more meat than usual. Layers are not raised for meat. But farmers do need to fertilize and hatch a certain number of eggs to continue to get new generations of layer hens. Somewhere around 50% of those are males. If you're lucky, you can keep 1 rooster for 6 hens, and even that is pushing it. Those numbers just don't work.
I know that many small farmers and families with small flocks already get their hens from large hatcheries. I would like to know what happens to that minority of male chicks that are hatched on small farms though.
> The 'industry standard' way to do this is to put them all in garbage bags to suffocate them, or to toss them all into a wood chipped en masse[1].
In England the standard way is to gas the chicks. Killing off the males is a problem for dairy cattle too. Cows produce milk to feed their young.
Beak trimming is normally reserved for egg laying birds. (Meat birds are slaughtered for meat before pecking becomes much of a problem).
In England the standard way is to gas the chicks. Killing off the males is a problem for dairy cattle too. Cows produce milk to feed their young.
Beak trimming is normally reserved for egg laying birds. (Meat birds are slaughtered for meat before pecking becomes much of a problem).
| In England the standard way is to gas the chicks
| Killing off the males is a problem for dairy
| cattle too
With veal you get further issues.
Dairy cattle males may not be suitable as commercial veal, like not all sheep breeds are suitable as meat sheep.
If they are suitable, then you've got to deal with either raising them from birth as white veal or, allowing them a bit more freedom in movement and food, as rose veal.
Just to add another animal to the mix, the same problem can be seen in dairy goat herds in countries where goat isn't consumed by the majority of the population.
Dairy cattle males may not be suitable as commercial veal, like not all sheep breeds are suitable as meat sheep.
If they are suitable, then you've got to deal with either raising them from birth as white veal or, allowing them a bit more freedom in movement and food, as rose veal.
Just to add another animal to the mix, the same problem can be seen in dairy goat herds in countries where goat isn't consumed by the majority of the population.
http://infantici.de (NSFL)
Let's get to the softer side of Singer an the utilitarians. "It's alright to eat an animal if they were raised in a healthy and suffering free environment and killed with as minimal pain as possible, essentially giving them a life with more pleasure and less suffering than their life in nature. Plus, you get to eat them."
Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "eat your vegetables".
This is what I'm going to hell for.
This is what I'm going to hell for.
No, because even a highly handicapped person is capable of pieces of higher thought. They have an intact brain, after all. More or less the only way to remove them from the 'human mind' category is if they are completely braindead. In which case, sure it's okay to eat people that are already dead from natural causes.
It's not okay to eat people because cannibal populations develop spongiform encephalopathy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)
So it's ok for the immune population mentioned in that article to eat people?
Well we generally share susceptance to the same diseases and parasites as humans, so it's a bad idea to be eating them.
However, prepared correctly with enough heat, possibly also frozen beforehand (that's what works on pork), I hear humans can actually be quite tasty.
It's seen as a bit of a social faux pas in our society though, so you might want to find a different society first if you'd like to enjoy tasty humans.
However, prepared correctly with enough heat, possibly also frozen beforehand (that's what works on pork), I hear humans can actually be quite tasty.
It's seen as a bit of a social faux pas in our society though, so you might want to find a different society first if you'd like to enjoy tasty humans.
>It's seen as a bit of a social faux pas in our society though, so you might want to find a different society first if you'd like to enjoy tasty humans.
Are you honestly this much of a relativist?
Are you honestly this much of a relativist?
I don't see a problem with eating humans, if you want to and they/their families are okay with it. Killing humans is what is unethical.
Right, killing is what I was talking about. This thread started with someone mentioning the morality of "eating chickens", and I just copied that phrasing.
Well I can't really tell, I've grown up knowing that eating humans is bad. It's just the way it's always been.
I've also grown up knowing that cats and dogs are not for eating. And yet, even just a hundred kilometers away, I hear Italians eat plenty of cats and even consider it normal in some areas.
I've also grown up knowing that cats and dogs are not for eating. And yet, even just a hundred kilometers away, I hear Italians eat plenty of cats and even consider it normal in some areas.
You're witnessing firsthand the stupidity people concoct when they are operating under cognitive dissonance.
Eating people is bad because it creates an environment where you might get eaten yourself.
So it's ok to eat people as long as you only eat people who belong to a group which is different from you in some way?
No. If you eat people that are different, then other groups of people might want to eat you because you are different, so an environment where eating any people is ok creates an environment where you might be eaten yourself.
The argument maratd gives thus is a justification for eating animals that are not smart enough to to look at our behaviour and decide whether or not we're fair based on whether or not we also eat animals.
But it explicitly rules out cannibalism (or eating intelligent aliens).
The argument maratd gives thus is a justification for eating animals that are not smart enough to to look at our behaviour and decide whether or not we're fair based on whether or not we also eat animals.
But it explicitly rules out cannibalism (or eating intelligent aliens).
If I find a homeless person in an alleyway, ask him about his friends and family, and he tells me that no one knows or cares that he's alive, it's ok to eat him, as long as I don't tell anyone about it?
It's ok to eat people, but you won't want to once you've seen what they eat and how they live.
>>To me, whether it's ok to eat an animal should depend on whether it can experience suffering
Oh! When you get infected by a micro organisms do you kill yourself or do you take antibiotics. And what about mosquitoes? Plants?
Besides to survive as a human you have to kill something.
Oh! When you get infected by a micro organisms do you kill yourself or do you take antibiotics. And what about mosquitoes? Plants?
Besides to survive as a human you have to kill something.
Jesus Christ what a dumbshit comment. You quoted him correctly, then failed to apply what you quoted, at all, to the words you wrote. Do you think bacteria suffer?
This is some really terrible generalizing. I've spent a lot of time with a lot of different chickens (hens and roosters). If you spend a fair amount of time with them, you really do see individual personalities strongly emerge. I've known many chickens to learn their names and excitedly come running up when called. I've also known a few who enjoyed being held.
Now, I've also spent some time with ducks and I'm not going to do any sort of contrast like you have. Ducks can be just as pleasant to be around. They can also be horrible to each other. I knew one duck who was prone to getting picked on by his flock mates, who occasionally attempted to drown him.
I've gotta laugh a bit at your use of the word avaricious to describe a chicken. I'm not sure where that could even be coming from. I'm not trying to discount your experience, but it really doesn't seem to me that you spent the time getting to know the animals in any way. And using that as a justification to eat them. Well I've got some coworkers you might be interested in too...
Now, I've also spent some time with ducks and I'm not going to do any sort of contrast like you have. Ducks can be just as pleasant to be around. They can also be horrible to each other. I knew one duck who was prone to getting picked on by his flock mates, who occasionally attempted to drown him.
I've gotta laugh a bit at your use of the word avaricious to describe a chicken. I'm not sure where that could even be coming from. I'm not trying to discount your experience, but it really doesn't seem to me that you spent the time getting to know the animals in any way. And using that as a justification to eat them. Well I've got some coworkers you might be interested in too...
Having kept both ducks and chickens myself, the ducks were a noisy undifferentiated mass of (delicious) hassle. The chickens were fascinating and all had distinct personalities; they were vicious to bugs and occasionally each other, but always friendly with people.
Go figure.
Go figure.
>Wow! I kept 20-25 laying hens in yearly batches when I was between the ages of 13 and 18. I found them to be singularly repulsive, all having the same rude, avaricious, gluttonous personality, and all behaving in the most horrible manner possible.
Get yourself some Silkies. They lay smaller eggs but have a very pleasant disposition.
Get yourself some Silkies. They lay smaller eggs but have a very pleasant disposition.
Different personalities all right. Recall the Ig Nobel Prize-winning observations of mallard necrophilia; https://moeliker.wordpress.com/the-duck/
One of my drakes would commit homosexual rape on the other drake, so I actual found that Ig Nobel article fascinating.
[deleted]
That could just be projection! 8)
I would be careful with feeding chicken to chickens.
Might get you kicked out of a startup for animal cruelty;
if it is led by a Zuckerberg ;) (at least according to The Social Network film)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf-NRQvu1HY
Might get you kicked out of a startup for animal cruelty;
if it is led by a Zuckerberg ;) (at least according to The Social Network film)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf-NRQvu1HY
Oh yes, never chicken to chicken. But we give them fish, ham, bacon etc.
Keeping hens alive is a lot harder than most people would predict however.
I mean it varies from area to area, but foxes killing hens is a stereotype for a reason. Cats will try too as will many other predators depending on area.
You leave that door open one night and expect to return to a garden of feathers...
I mean it varies from area to area, but foxes killing hens is a stereotype for a reason. Cats will try too as will many other predators depending on area.
You leave that door open one night and expect to return to a garden of feathers...
when I lived in Portland, the problem was raccoons. They're a lot like primates - they're smart enough to pry open doors, plus they've also got sharp claws. Even the most experienced chicken keepers eventually lose their flock to raccoons.
Is it hard only because of predators?
I.e. if they're in a sturdily fenced enclosure, are you pretty much free from any risk? Or are other things like cold, diseases, etc. tricky to manage?
I love eggs, and have often thought about having my own chicken... although with my current urban living situation, it would be quite hard :)
I love eggs, and have often thought about having my own chicken... although with my current urban living situation, it would be quite hard :)
We've had reasonably deep snow, and they've been OK (as long as you have more than one so they can keep each other warm).
In terms of diseases, there are some nasty ones like red mites that can suck their blood, but disinfecting the coop takes care of that (and I've never seen any evidence of it). The only thing my chickens have really suffered from is scaley leg, but you can get ointment for that.
I also find they decide to pluck their own feathers out at odd times due to moulting or broodiness.
//edit//Also, for urban chicken keepers: http://www.omlet.co.uk/
In terms of diseases, there are some nasty ones like red mites that can suck their blood, but disinfecting the coop takes care of that (and I've never seen any evidence of it). The only thing my chickens have really suffered from is scaley leg, but you can get ointment for that.
I also find they decide to pluck their own feathers out at odd times due to moulting or broodiness.
//edit//Also, for urban chicken keepers: http://www.omlet.co.uk/
A sturdy fence helps, but it also costs too. The biggest issue is this guy...
http://www.backyardchickens.com/a/raccoon-chicken-predators-...
Racoons are very sharp creatures and can open cages and pens that aren't designed well. If your wire mesh is too large and your chickens stay close to they edge they will lay wait and grab them thru the cage.
http://www.backyardchickens.com/a/raccoon-chicken-predators-...
Racoons are very sharp creatures and can open cages and pens that aren't designed well. If your wire mesh is too large and your chickens stay close to they edge they will lay wait and grab them thru the cage.
A comment on that page led me to read about guard llamas, guard donkeys and mini horses. I hadn't realised llamas could be used as guard animals at all.
http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/sheep/ansc442/semprojs/2002/predat...
- Being that dogs and coyotes are among the greatest predators of sheep, a llama can be very effective in alerting and protecting a flock of sheep against such predators. A good guard llama is very cautious and curious of these predators and will usually charge them, and if the predator does not retreat, kick and stomp them.
- One llama is capable of guarding up to 2,000 sheep in up to 300 acres, and can decrease the amount of predation in a flock up to 100%.
- Also, llamas ... often will protect birthing sheep and will alert producers to sick or hurt sheep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_llama
- Some llamas may herd the animals they are guarding into a tight group or lead them away from danger and to the spot where they may feel the safest.
Quite impressive, what llamas can do.
http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/sheep/ansc442/semprojs/2002/predat...
- Being that dogs and coyotes are among the greatest predators of sheep, a llama can be very effective in alerting and protecting a flock of sheep against such predators. A good guard llama is very cautious and curious of these predators and will usually charge them, and if the predator does not retreat, kick and stomp them.
- One llama is capable of guarding up to 2,000 sheep in up to 300 acres, and can decrease the amount of predation in a flock up to 100%.
- Also, llamas ... often will protect birthing sheep and will alert producers to sick or hurt sheep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_llama
- Some llamas may herd the animals they are guarding into a tight group or lead them away from danger and to the spot where they may feel the safest.
Quite impressive, what llamas can do.
-guard donkeys
On my dads farm one of our goats had babies (kids?), after a few weeks we allowed them to roam the pastures. For some reason the donkey had something against one of the kids and stomped it to death, then proceeded to throw its dead body around like a ragdoll for hours.
I never trusted that donkey again.
On my dads farm one of our goats had babies (kids?), after a few weeks we allowed them to roam the pastures. For some reason the donkey had something against one of the kids and stomped it to death, then proceeded to throw its dead body around like a ragdoll for hours.
I never trusted that donkey again.
We've had chickens killed by animals that dig below the fence and by animals that climb over it and by birds that fly over it. If you cover those areas then yes they won't die, chickens are pretty sturdy. Or you can just buy/breed new chickens, it doesn't happen that often (may depend on your area though). One of the hens laid beautiful light brown eggs with a pattern dark brown dots. Sadly she died to a marten or fox.
Off the top of my head some of the culprits I have caught in the hen house:
* Snakes (sometimes, having a snooze still full of young chickens),
* Eagles,
* water rats,
* wild dogs,
* foxes,
* feral cats,
* neighbour's dogs,
* pigs,
* kids,
* and others I have probably forgotten.
Agree. There was a reason why the outside yard of the hen house had a chicken grill around it, including a chicken grill "roof" for the yard. Even then, foxes and eagles ate more hens than we. The hens really like to sneak out of their yard and hen house.
Did not have any issues with snakes or water rats (Sweden), but we did have a issue with flooding. With water just a hand deep, one or two would sometimes drown (the rest would either sit on the sitting sticks, or roosting).
On a more positive side, I never had any issues with cats (even feral ones from what I remember) or dogs. there are no wild dogs where I lived, but we did operative a store right next to the hen house, and customers dogs (and kids) were often running around.
Did not have any issues with snakes or water rats (Sweden), but we did have a issue with flooding. With water just a hand deep, one or two would sometimes drown (the rest would either sit on the sitting sticks, or roosting).
On a more positive side, I never had any issues with cats (even feral ones from what I remember) or dogs. there are no wild dogs where I lived, but we did operative a store right next to the hen house, and customers dogs (and kids) were often running around.
Chicken grill -> chicken wire.
Well, yes. You can either buy a coop with an attached, enclosed run or a fox-proof electric fence.
Our cat did try and stalk the hens for fun when we first got them, but never attacked them and he was a decent mouser.
Our cat did try and stalk the hens for fun when we first got them, but never attacked them and he was a decent mouser.
That is something I have never been able to understand, everyone I know who keeps chickens either has cats or their neighbours have cats. Why would the cats ignore the chickens?
Because chickens are strong and have sharp beaks, and even if they manage to overpower a chicken it will hurt. As long as the cat has enough food it probably won't try. A large rooster would be able to win a fight with a cat.
Also, cats usually won't go after anything that's willing to face the cat down, even smaller animals like rats. I have both cats and rats and the cats will watch the rats in fascination, and even sniff noses with the rats when I have the door to the cage open, but the rats show no fear to the cats, and will even rush the cage bars if they decide a cat is too much in "their territory" and the cats respect that. This has held true through 8 different rats so far, and like 6 or 7 different cats (mine and various roommates).
In general, to a cat, "runs away" == "prey" and "comes right up to me" == "equal and/or potential threat"
In general, to a cat, "runs away" == "prey" and "comes right up to me" == "equal and/or potential threat"
Partly perception - chickens are taller than cats and with wings spread out they can look quite large.
Partly aggression - chickens are/can be nasty and will attack other animals with sharp beaks. Combine this with the fact that they're flock animals, one cat isn't going up against multiple flying, aggressive, pointy ended foes.
Partly aggression - chickens are/can be nasty and will attack other animals with sharp beaks. Combine this with the fact that they're flock animals, one cat isn't going up against multiple flying, aggressive, pointy ended foes.
> I can totally vouch for having your own hens.
We had 5 in our backyard in urban Oakland. It was a true joy, esp letting them out of their cage into the chicken run at 6:30 AM EVERY DAY.
We had 5 in our backyard in urban Oakland. It was a true joy, esp letting them out of their cage into the chicken run at 6:30 AM EVERY DAY.
I have been growing up with hens next to home and I can confirm they are far from being stupid at all. On the contrary, they are sharp animals who recognize people (if a stranger walks in they would run way from them, but if a familiar face shows up they stay calm) and have distinct personalities. And when you catch them, they become extremely calm and can be touched just like a cat or a dog, and end up liking it in the end.
All the above you said about better eggs and feeding them kitchen scraps is entirely true. Basically they "recycle" almost everything. They eat fruits, vegetables, nuts, bread and all. No waste.
Plus, having hens is like having dinosaurs (direct descendants, apparently: https://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_fr...).
All the above you said about better eggs and feeding them kitchen scraps is entirely true. Basically they "recycle" almost everything. They eat fruits, vegetables, nuts, bread and all. No waste.
Plus, having hens is like having dinosaurs (direct descendants, apparently: https://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_fr...).
Your first paragraph reminded me of an Ignobel-awarded article, "Chickens prefer beautifl humans": http://cogprints.org/5272/1/ghirlanda_jansson_enquist2002.pd...
BTW, I think all birds descend from dinosaurs. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird: "Paleontologists regard birds as the only clade of dinosaurs to have survived the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 Ma (million years) ago."
BTW, I think all birds descend from dinosaurs. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird: "Paleontologists regard birds as the only clade of dinosaurs to have survived the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 Ma (million years) ago."
My city council just had a huge argument about whether people living in the city should be allowed to keep a couple of hens. After a year of wrangling, council ended up voting down a proposal to do a small-scale trial in just two wards where a majority of people supported the initiative.
It was as embarrassing as it was frustrating to see the quality of their debate over the health risks, which the city's public health department confirmed is no greater than the health risk of a pet cat or dog.
It was as embarrassing as it was frustrating to see the quality of their debate over the health risks, which the city's public health department confirmed is no greater than the health risk of a pet cat or dog.
I feel like this story is a great example of how its easy to come up with ad hoc justifications. After you decide to do something, it's quite easy to find evidence for your perpsective and justify standard practice.
At the point that there is such a huge variation in practice, for most of these steps, I can't imagine that they are very significant/important. The two systems are made to sound like there is significant justification for each step, which protects one from the shortfalls of other steps, but I can imagine that a combinatorial approach for each of the requirements would work just as well.
Then again, I don't know anything about hens. Just my thoughts.
At the point that there is such a huge variation in practice, for most of these steps, I can't imagine that they are very significant/important. The two systems are made to sound like there is significant justification for each step, which protects one from the shortfalls of other steps, but I can imagine that a combinatorial approach for each of the requirements would work just as well.
Then again, I don't know anything about hens. Just my thoughts.
> At the point that there is such a huge variation in practice, for most of these steps, I can't imagine that they are very significant/important.
It seems a little premature to jump to that conclusion. The US and Great Britain are entirely different countries with different geography, climate, history, culture, laws, economies, etc.
Farming doesn't exist in a vaccum. It's affected by all of that, so it stands to reason that those things will influence policies and practices.
What I found interesting about the article was that while each system was different, each was internally cohesive. Trying to cherrypick one facet of one country's system and applying to the other would almost invariably make things worse. You have to understand the entire system.
That's an important lesson to keep in mind when we constantly read articles like "Country X does Y and it makes Z B% better so we should too!" We need to always remember that X is doing Y in some context that likely matters deeply.
It seems a little premature to jump to that conclusion. The US and Great Britain are entirely different countries with different geography, climate, history, culture, laws, economies, etc.
Farming doesn't exist in a vaccum. It's affected by all of that, so it stands to reason that those things will influence policies and practices.
What I found interesting about the article was that while each system was different, each was internally cohesive. Trying to cherrypick one facet of one country's system and applying to the other would almost invariably make things worse. You have to understand the entire system.
That's an important lesson to keep in mind when we constantly read articles like "Country X does Y and it makes Z B% better so we should too!" We need to always remember that X is doing Y in some context that likely matters deeply.
Smart comment. It's like each country is an ecosystem, which has evolved procedures that work. Still, each could be informed by the other. Presumably at the annual "International Conference on Egg Hygiene and Fowl Maintenance".
> It seems a little premature to jump to that conclusion. The US and Great Britain are entirely different countries with different geography, climate, history, culture, laws, economies, etc.
I would say that there is also significant intra-country variation. I have a hard time imagining that there isn't some part of the US where conditions are not similar to the UK. At the point that these regulations work for these locales, I don't see compelling evidence that it wouldn't work elsewhere.
My argument isn't that there isn't culture, climate, or a variety of other factors that influence how things are done - rather, at the point that there is variation, but they all generally work, I have a hard time imagining each of them are important.
> What I found interesting about the article was that while each system was different, each was internally cohesive.
Hence the idea that these narratives are contrived. If we look at any system (that works/is real), there is internal consistency. It is very easy to point to any particular aspect of the system, and say that it is crucial/unique/signifantly valid and valuable.
I would say that this argument is very similar to creationism arguments that the universe's constants/parameters are uniquely functional because we are here. I'm not saying it can't be true, but it seems like a logical fallacy to presume that a particular aspect causes the system in place.
I would say that there is also significant intra-country variation. I have a hard time imagining that there isn't some part of the US where conditions are not similar to the UK. At the point that these regulations work for these locales, I don't see compelling evidence that it wouldn't work elsewhere.
My argument isn't that there isn't culture, climate, or a variety of other factors that influence how things are done - rather, at the point that there is variation, but they all generally work, I have a hard time imagining each of them are important.
> What I found interesting about the article was that while each system was different, each was internally cohesive.
Hence the idea that these narratives are contrived. If we look at any system (that works/is real), there is internal consistency. It is very easy to point to any particular aspect of the system, and say that it is crucial/unique/signifantly valid and valuable.
I would say that this argument is very similar to creationism arguments that the universe's constants/parameters are uniquely functional because we are here. I'm not saying it can't be true, but it seems like a logical fallacy to presume that a particular aspect causes the system in place.
U.S. has the FDA so food regulations tend to get applied equally across the country, even if it doesn't make sense.
In other words, each country is approaching a distinct local optimum.
It's also interesting in that even taking such a 'mundane' topic such as the sale of eggs, there can be widely diverging opinions and practices around how they are handled.
Now compare eggs to something more complex and broader in scope like healthcare, taxes, etc and it really makes you wonder how we ever come to agree on anything.
Now compare eggs to something more complex and broader in scope like healthcare, taxes, etc and it really makes you wonder how we ever come to agree on anything.
I guess it's a question of where you draw the line on important. If the FDA required hen vaccination around 100,000 few people would get a fairly serious sometimes lethal disease at the additional cost of around 4 cents an egg. If the FDA did nothing I suspect far more than 100,000 people would get seriously ill.
Are you talking about salmonella?
This article puts the cost at ~0.05 cents per egg ($0.14 per hen, each of which lays dozens of eggs).
This article puts the cost at ~0.05 cents per egg ($0.14 per hen, each of which lays dozens of eggs).
Yes, but we already vaccinate ~25% of hens and you need around 90% to get significant herd immunity going on.
My point was more that your 4 cents per egg was (apparently) wrong by a factor of ~90.
Do you have reason to doubt the $0.14 per hen quoted in the article? I'm interpreting the $0.14 as the incremental cost of vaccinating the birds, is that the wrong interpretation? Is the article flat out wrong?
Do you have reason to doubt the $0.14 per hen quoted in the article? I'm interpreting the $0.14 as the incremental cost of vaccinating the birds, is that the wrong interpretation? Is the article flat out wrong?
Ops, yea. I was thinking about there estimate of the cost of changing the regulation was high not the exponent.
On the contrary, I think it's interesting that two different standard practices evolved in different directions, and that with a scientific look at them, we can understand why they're both effective for different reasons.
Absolutely. You can always come up with some post hoc justification for a regulation, no matter how ill-conceived.
This is one of those obvious to some, and eye opening to others things. I had always wondered why other countries keep their eggs unrefrigerated and we Americans have always been very thoroughly warned about the dangers of room temperature eggs.
I always figured it was a matter of cultural tradition and that eggs weren't really as sensitive as I've been told. I had no idea there was so much process and science behind it.
This kind of fits as a rough analogy for software. Consumers may see eggs in either market as just eggs. Maybe they have a slight different taste, maybe some are kept in a fridge, but they're still plain, simple, safe eggs. Getting to that point of consumption though is a choreography of processes that has no "right way" and is more complex than the average consumer wants or needs to know.
I always figured it was a matter of cultural tradition and that eggs weren't really as sensitive as I've been told. I had no idea there was so much process and science behind it.
This kind of fits as a rough analogy for software. Consumers may see eggs in either market as just eggs. Maybe they have a slight different taste, maybe some are kept in a fridge, but they're still plain, simple, safe eggs. Getting to that point of consumption though is a choreography of processes that has no "right way" and is more complex than the average consumer wants or needs to know.
>Head to an American supermarket on the other hand and eggs are always held in refrigerated units, like milk and cheese and other dairy products.
This applies to Sweden as well. Every supermarket I know of sells the eggs refrigerated (by the dairy products).
This applies to Sweden as well. Every supermarket I know of sells the eggs refrigerated (by the dairy products).
Some do, some don't. The two smaller stores I normally shop at don't, the huge supermarket a bit down the road does.
"guidance set out by the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers recommends supermarkets maintain a temperature of between 66.2F to 69.8F in the winter and between 69.8F and 73.4F in the summer. Room temperature is generally considered to be between 68F to 77F."
Does it drive anybody else a little nuts when newspapers don't either 1) leave the numbers in their original units and put the conversion in parentheses (or vice versa) or 2) round sensibly? It's misleading to suggest that anybody is measuring supermarket temperature to the tenth of a degree Fahrenheit by using so many significant figures.
It would both help people understand the metric system and be a more accurate description of the situation to say that what's actually specified is 20 degC +/- 1 degC in the winter and 22 degC +/- 1 degC in the summer.
Does it drive anybody else a little nuts when newspapers don't either 1) leave the numbers in their original units and put the conversion in parentheses (or vice versa) or 2) round sensibly? It's misleading to suggest that anybody is measuring supermarket temperature to the tenth of a degree Fahrenheit by using so many significant figures.
It would both help people understand the metric system and be a more accurate description of the situation to say that what's actually specified is 20 degC +/- 1 degC in the winter and 22 degC +/- 1 degC in the summer.
Reminds me of body temperature. In the US we're taught that the standard body temperature for a human is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. I don't know about anyone else, but when I was young I thought this was very specific and must mean that a temperature variation of a few tenths of a degree is worth noting. Turns out 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit is just a direct conversion from 37 degrees Celsius.
As a non-American, the sentences are basically unreadable when they don't give the Celsius conversions (actually, in this case, the original values). The only thing I know is that 100F is roughly 37C. I have to get out a conversion tool. Doesn't Forbes have an international audience?
There's plenty of countries who use the imperial system... Liberia and Myanmar!
I don't think the article is accurate. In Sweden, part of the EU, washed eggs are common. I google and find for example this (Swedish): "from 2004 EU labeling rules were changed so it must state if eggs are washed".
More, in Swedish on http://producenter.svenskalantagg.se/tvaettade-/vi-tvaettar-...
More, in Swedish on http://producenter.svenskalantagg.se/tvaettade-/vi-tvaettar-...
Yes. I did some Googling, and here is what I found:
Prior to 2004, the EU rules was that "class A" eggs could not be washed. The only EU country that used egg-washing was Sweden (where about 50% of eggs were washed), and producers who washed them sold them as "class B" eggs.
In 2004, the EU merged class B and class C, and forbid selling class B eggs directly to consumers. This would have banned washed table eggs, so Sweden objected. In response, the European Commission passed a derogation where egg producers who already washed eggs can continue to do so, for 3 years, provided they are authorized by the national food and safety agency, and sold in areas where that agency has jurisdiction (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?mode=dbl&lang=en&...). I.e., Swedish producers can sell washed eggs in Sweden.
In 2005 a safety study was commissioned, which turned out positive: "Taking into account the very low prevalence of Salmonella spp. in Swedish egg production, the risk associated with egg washing using the current system under strict rules is considered to be outweighed by the advantages of egg washing." (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/269.htm)
Apparently 9 Swedish egg packeries and one in the Netherland was granted the exception, which was subsequently extended at least to 2007. I couldn't see any information about the current status, but if Swedish producers still sell the eggs, they probably do it under the same form of exemption.
Prior to 2004, the EU rules was that "class A" eggs could not be washed. The only EU country that used egg-washing was Sweden (where about 50% of eggs were washed), and producers who washed them sold them as "class B" eggs.
In 2004, the EU merged class B and class C, and forbid selling class B eggs directly to consumers. This would have banned washed table eggs, so Sweden objected. In response, the European Commission passed a derogation where egg producers who already washed eggs can continue to do so, for 3 years, provided they are authorized by the national food and safety agency, and sold in areas where that agency has jurisdiction (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?mode=dbl&lang=en&...). I.e., Swedish producers can sell washed eggs in Sweden.
In 2005 a safety study was commissioned, which turned out positive: "Taking into account the very low prevalence of Salmonella spp. in Swedish egg production, the risk associated with egg washing using the current system under strict rules is considered to be outweighed by the advantages of egg washing." (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/269.htm)
Apparently 9 Swedish egg packeries and one in the Netherland was granted the exception, which was subsequently extended at least to 2007. I couldn't see any information about the current status, but if Swedish producers still sell the eggs, they probably do it under the same form of exemption.
There are always going to be exceptions in the EU. That’s just how it is. It would have been nice if the article were a bit more accurate, but the basic story is very true.
And in Denmark the eggs are also refrigerated.
Hate Swedish supermarket eggs. Open the packet and it just is a disappointment. (Grew up on farm with plenty of fresh brown beautiful eggs).
Basics that I've seen when it comes to regulations of these kinds in US vs UK/EU:
In the US, the regulations are primarily to serve the corporate interests (consistent production at scale, distribution over a wide area)
In the UK/EU, the regulations are primarily to protect the citizens, often to the point of impeding business to a degree.
I'd rather see the latter but it goes against pretty much everything we're taught from birth in the US.
In the US, the regulations are primarily to serve the corporate interests (consistent production at scale, distribution over a wide area)
In the UK/EU, the regulations are primarily to protect the citizens, often to the point of impeding business to a degree.
I'd rather see the latter but it goes against pretty much everything we're taught from birth in the US.
There is lots of EU law and regulations to do with making things easier for companies. Consistent naming and measurements (the metric system) as well as standardisation and certification (so that if you can sell in one member state, you can sell in all the others). Making a "single market" (as opposed to 30 different markets) is one goal of the EU.
Didn't mean to make it sound like the EU was anti-business, just meant that given the need for a choice, the EU/UK regulations tend to favor the needs of consumers/citizens over those of a corporation.
In the US, the citizens are basically protected just enough to keep them complacent/prevent lawsuits, but the goal is to let the corp. maximize profit.
In the US, the citizens are basically protected just enough to keep them complacent/prevent lawsuits, but the goal is to let the corp. maximize profit.
Oh, it's complex. I'm just saying there are lots of examples of the EU doing laws that make things easier for businesses.
Yes, but I've not really seen new EU-wide laws that make things easier for business by removing some of the many consumer-rights or worker-rights.
And there are quite a few things that could be done that way to improve the economy.
This is a fascinating look at different systems.
I hope that cooks are frequently washing their hands when preparing food, especially when moving between items that cary a risk of contamination (raw meats, etc) and already prepared items (cooked meats).
Also: egg yolk colours are controlled by feed additives. Farmers can get colour charts and specify the colour of the yolk they want.
I hope that cooks are frequently washing their hands when preparing food, especially when moving between items that cary a risk of contamination (raw meats, etc) and already prepared items (cooked meats).
Also: egg yolk colours are controlled by feed additives. Farmers can get colour charts and specify the colour of the yolk they want.
I assume that the colors are limited to a fairly basic range of yellows, right?
Or can I get blue yolks?
Or can I get blue yolks?
Ha, yes.
(http://www.robotmation.co.jp/keiranycceng.htm)
Range from a very pale yellow to a deep orange colour.
Different countries have different preferences.
EDIT: Here's a Tufte page about Salmon colour charts.
(http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...)
(http://www.robotmation.co.jp/keiranycceng.htm)
Range from a very pale yellow to a deep orange colour.
Different countries have different preferences.
EDIT: Here's a Tufte page about Salmon colour charts.
(http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...)
You can get green.
Blue would be hard since blue + yellow = green.
Blue would be hard since blue + yellow = green.
No, but with the right breed you can get blue shells.
You can get unwashed eggs from farms in most parts of the US. Farm-fresh eggs are much better than supermarket eggs, regardless of whether they're washed.
I listened to an NPR Splendid Table segment [1] where they say that, in a blind taste test, nobody can really differentiate between the taste of farm-fresh eggs versus supermarket. Do you find the experience (colors, community, etc?) of fresh eggs better?
[1] http://www.splendidtable.org/episode/july-17-2010
edit: (Or do you feel that this segment is malarky!)
[1] http://www.splendidtable.org/episode/july-17-2010
edit: (Or do you feel that this segment is malarky!)
I keep hens, and usually can't tell the difference in flavor between store-bought and home-produced. Occasionally the store-bought ones have a stronger sulphur odor, but even that is rare. Others claim they can tell the difference. YMMV
I buy eggs from my farmers market and they do taste better. The yolk color is more vibrant as well. I eat a lot of eggs so I buy from the supermarket often; they're fine but not the same.
Yes. Very much so. A couple of summers ago, we found a woman local to our vacation spot in MI who raises chickens very much the same way my mom raised ours. As corny as it sounds, the first bite nearly brought tears to my eyes, they were so good. Really did taste just like childhood to me. My guess is that "nobody" in the blind taste test had that experience.
My guess is that a sighted test can always distinguish things that a blind one cannot.
I find the free range eggs tasting marginally better than the cheapest Tesco/Asda/Morrisons Value eggs. They have a nicer colour of the yolks and a tiny bit more flavour. But if you ask me, it's definitely not worth a 4x increase in price.
The taste difference might not be worth the price, but to my mind the difference in how the hens are treated more than makes up for it.
I think that both Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall have done programs that have covered how poultry is farmed, but which ever one it was that I watched it definitely left me with the lasting belief that I don't want to eat eggs or chicken that isn't free range.
I think that both Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall have done programs that have covered how poultry is farmed, but which ever one it was that I watched it definitely left me with the lasting belief that I don't want to eat eggs or chicken that isn't free range.
I don't know what a free range egg is. Is that a designation for premium eggs at the market, or your way of saying "eggs we sourced directly from a farm"?
[Following up: the answer appears to be "it's a designation for premium eggs at the supermarket".]
[Following up: the answer appears to be "it's a designation for premium eggs at the supermarket".]
In the UK, 'free-range' is a legal designation, as opposed to battery-farmed. To call eggs or poultry free-range, certain standards must be met - not very high standards, but enough to exclude stacked-cage-based methods. We also have various other marks defined by other bodies: some companies (e.g. Marks & Spencer, a supermarket chain) define an in-house standard, some are defined by charities (e.g. the RSPCA, a bird conservancy), and so on.
I suppose similar things exist in the US?
I suppose similar things exist in the US?
A free range egg is an egg from a chicken that was allowed "free range" of a farm habitat for at least X hours each day (as opposed to being kept in a cage the entire time). A free range chicken usually, but not always, gets better feedstock and usually does not receive antibiotics or hormones.
Organic eggs are by definition free range eggs (in the US at least), but the reverse is not necessarily true.
Organic eggs are by definition free range eggs (in the US at least), but the reverse is not necessarily true.
In the US, there are no legal standards in “free-range” egg production.
It depends on the country but in the UK it basically means the chickens are not caged and have access to an outside area and it puts a limit on how many birds you can have per square metre
I don't know if it's a EU norm but in France eggs are marked with a sequence starting with [0-3]FR, with 0 being the best quality i.e. free range eggs, and 3 meaning battery eggs.
[Following up: the answer appears to be "it's a designation for premium eggs at the supermarket".]
Well, it's a designation as to the conditions in which the chickens are kept.
Well, it's a designation as to the conditions in which the chickens are kept.
It's free range, as opposed to caged way of keeping the hens.
Funnily enough, where I am, you can't buy eggs in a supermarket that aren't free-range or better. Demand for eggs from caged hens just dropped completely, and now you can't get them.
Are you in Europe? This isn't entirely a demand issue as such; the EU has introduced regulations (relating to cage size, treatment etc) which make battery farming of chickens a less attractive proposition for producers, especially for egg production. The production cost difference is now small enough that, given that there _is_ a bit more demand for free-range, it's not really worth it, at least for eggs to be sold commercially.
Or more likely, all farmers increased the size of the cages or connected them with the outside so they can now class them as free range, even though the conditions have not improved that much?
No, "free range" is a classification in Sweden with rules and cages are not allowed in those.
"free range indoors" means large stables, no cages, multiple levels and a maximum of 9 hens per m^2.
"free range indoors and outdoors" is the same as indoors, but with the addition of an outside yard with at least 4m^2 per hen.
Battery cages were banned in 1988, but cages are still allowed. max 13 hens per m^2 and max 16 hens per cage, and there needs to be a nesting area.
So it's not all crap, but the day when we can synthesize food cannot come fast enough.
"free range indoors" means large stables, no cages, multiple levels and a maximum of 9 hens per m^2.
"free range indoors and outdoors" is the same as indoors, but with the addition of an outside yard with at least 4m^2 per hen.
Battery cages were banned in 1988, but cages are still allowed. max 13 hens per m^2 and max 16 hens per cage, and there needs to be a nesting area.
So it's not all crap, but the day when we can synthesize food cannot come fast enough.
Increasing the size of the cages and allowing them outside, is not improving the conditions 'that much'??
No,it's not. "Outside" could mean an equally small space,just outside of building. Sure,it's better,but it's no where near the real "free range" where chickens are just free to go wherever they like. It's more about space that they get rather than whatever they are outside or not.
You cannot be sure that is due to the eggs being free range. Chances are that the cheapest eggs also are less fresh.
I doubt it's malarky.
If you're not an egg person, the difference is probably subtle.
There is an obvious difference in freshness between supermarket eggs and farm eggs. Egg freshness is uncontroversial; as they age, the membrane around the yolk breaks down and the whites thin. Supermarket eggs are usually around 2 weeks old.
There is an obvious difference in color between supermarket and farm eggs; farm eggs have orange yolks and supermarket eggs have yellow yolks. This does make it hard to blind an egg taste test, though. The color difference comes from the feed of the chicken.
Apart from cooking up better, farm eggs taste richer to me, and don't have "off" flavors (a small number of supermarket egg chickens get feed that includes fish meal).
If you're not an egg person, the difference is probably subtle.
There is an obvious difference in freshness between supermarket eggs and farm eggs. Egg freshness is uncontroversial; as they age, the membrane around the yolk breaks down and the whites thin. Supermarket eggs are usually around 2 weeks old.
There is an obvious difference in color between supermarket and farm eggs; farm eggs have orange yolks and supermarket eggs have yellow yolks. This does make it hard to blind an egg taste test, though. The color difference comes from the feed of the chicken.
Apart from cooking up better, farm eggs taste richer to me, and don't have "off" flavors (a small number of supermarket egg chickens get feed that includes fish meal).
How do you peel such fresh eggs? I've found that with fresh eggs the shell sticks and is almost impossible to remove without shredding the egg.
By cooling them off, of course? You boil your eggs for ~6min to get a nice runny yolk, then you take it off the stove, put it under the cold tap for a little while until all the water in the pot is cold, let it sit for a minute, perhaps pour in more cold water if it's gotten lukewarm, and voila, perfect eggs that are easy to peel.
reads rest of comments
What? How can you people not know this? Oh wow, I love these little cultural snippets where you assume that everyone else knows some things you do, because you were taught them as a child. :-D
reads rest of comments
What? How can you people not know this? Oh wow, I love these little cultural snippets where you assume that everyone else knows some things you do, because you were taught them as a child. :-D
You have obviously never actually done this with eggs that are less than a week from laying... The pH of a fresh egg is closer to neutral and this causes the inner membrane to really stick to the shell, even after cooking. After the eggs have been washed and refrigerated for several days the pH edges closer to 9 and the egg is easier to peel (and the cooling trick works.)
Oh. You're probably right. I have to test this!
Hm, eggs here in Sweden are generally washed, but not refrigerated, so it's neither like the situation in the UK nor the US. Interesting.
Hm, eggs here in Sweden are generally washed, but not refrigerated, so it's neither like the situation in the UK nor the US. Interesting.
Hardboiling works best on old eggs, when the membrane between shell and white has started to degrade.
Think of hardboiling eggs as a recipe for getting the most out of old food, much like making french toast with stale bread or fried rice with yesterday's steamed rice.
Think of hardboiling eggs as a recipe for getting the most out of old food, much like making french toast with stale bread or fried rice with yesterday's steamed rice.
Put a teaspoon of baking soda in the water when you cook them. Also, the less pointy part of the egg will have a small bubble in the bottom (the fresher the egg, the smaller the bubble). Tap the rounded edge first, gently, and you should have a small space that you can get a finger into. ETA: try to grab the shell and the inner membrane together.
I heard the bit about baking soda in the water before, could you explain why it helps detaching the shell from the egg?
It's likely that because you're cooking them in a basic (ph, acid vs base, etc) solution that the egg is being changed chemically. Using a harsher base might shed more light on that (though would possibly make it inedible).
> though would possibly make it inedible
Nope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_year_egg#Modern that's with alkaline, and you can use acid to make a pickled egg.
Nope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_year_egg#Modern that's with alkaline, and you can use acid to make a pickled egg.
Looking at it, i'd consider it inedible :) But good to know that stronger bases have been used to do that kind of thing.
Baking soda is alkaline and breaks down proteins especially together with heat.
I don't know any method to peel fresh eggs without shredding them. If you can avoid it, don't peel. Cut the egg in two and empty it with a spoon.
You can try rolling the egg on a hard flat surface applying pressure. The shell cracks into small shards and I find it easier to peel without damaging the egg.
You can also tell a really fresh egg from a supermarket egg by visual inspection of them once they have been cracked on to a flat surface.
//deleted// feeble attempt at ascii art.
An unfresh egg has a flat white, with a dome for the yolk.
A really fresh egg has an extra raised bit just before the yolk. In cross section it has three levels, rather than two.
//deleted// feeble attempt at ascii art.
An unfresh egg has a flat white, with a dome for the yolk.
A really fresh egg has an extra raised bit just before the yolk. In cross section it has three levels, rather than two.
I get what you mean. Funnily enough, my reaction to an egg that doesn't have the dome in the white as well is that it's old and should be discarded. I'd probably fry it, but double-check it, and throw away the box if there were any eggs left in it. I don't think you can buy eggs that aren't really fresh in any supermarket here.
And from reading the article, I get the impression that weeks-old refrigerated eggs are the norm in the US. I had no idea. Yuck. :-)
(I know I'm wrong, refrigerated eggs last a long time, and they're perfectly fine, it's just not what I'm used to or were brought up to.)
And from reading the article, I get the impression that weeks-old refrigerated eggs are the norm in the US. I had no idea. Yuck. :-)
(I know I'm wrong, refrigerated eggs last a long time, and they're perfectly fine, it's just not what I'm used to or were brought up to.)
Even unrefrigerated, fresh eggs last an amazingly long time. They aren't as pretty but are fine to eat.
You can tell with poached eggs. The texture is very different, the fresh eggs hold together, and the older ones tend to waft around and not be nearly as good.
The taste of supermarket eggs and the eggs of my parents' hens is easily distinguished if you eat the eggs the same day or within a couple of days that they were laid. Older eggs have a stronger flavour. The structure is also different. The egg whites of boiled fresh eggs are more firm and crumbly while the egg whites of boiled old eggs are more jelly. When uncooked, old eggs are more liquid and fall apart, while fresh eggs hold together (if you fry a fresh egg in a pan it is generally smaller but thicker, and if you poach a fresh egg it stays together egg instead of becoming a spaghetti). The white of cooked fresh eggs is a little more opaque, and the yellow is generally a little lighter than of supermarket eggs. Fresh eggs are much harder to peel than old eggs because the white sticks to the shell much more.
As home-laid eggs age, they become pretty much identical to supermarket eggs, though there are still some differences: they are not as perfectly identical as supermarket eggs (their sizes, colors and shell thickness vary), and they have a small black dot which is the embryo (which some people don't like -- you can prevent it by only having female chickens like most egg plants).
As home-laid eggs age, they become pretty much identical to supermarket eggs, though there are still some differences: they are not as perfectly identical as supermarket eggs (their sizes, colors and shell thickness vary), and they have a small black dot which is the embryo (which some people don't like -- you can prevent it by only having female chickens like most egg plants).
I'm sure most the taste is determined by the feed, which is mostly a common ground up mixture. 'Yard eggs', where the chicken doesn't not eat a diet of %100 feed can have a different taste and yolk color.
And actual free range eggs from chickens who have been out to eat the grass and bugs are even better than 'free range' chickens who only get feed, not fresh bits.
Our chickens are sometimes in their run (which is roughly 5x bigger than the requirements to call it free range, but is mostly scratched to bare earth), and sometimes out in the yard. When they've been in the yard for a few days, the yolks get a much deeper golden color.
Our chickens are sometimes in their run (which is roughly 5x bigger than the requirements to call it free range, but is mostly scratched to bare earth), and sometimes out in the yard. When they've been in the yard for a few days, the yolks get a much deeper golden color.
The yolk color is from beta carotene. You can do it with a fed chicken as well by fortifying the diet.
Small farms probably aren't deliberately pumping beta carotene into their hens, and battery farms don't fortify their feed to change yolk color. Strikes me as similar to the situation with factory tomatoes, which are gassed to appear ripe.
Sure they do. Read up on research for chicken food - they are careful to add enough beta carotene to give the yolks a good color, and more expensive eggs add extra.
The research for chicken food is amazingly thorough.
The gas on a tomato really does ripen it, it's not just appearance (although that doesn't necessarily help the taste).
You actually don't want to pick a tomato when it's red (ripe), the best is to pick them just at the start of the ripening process (a hint of red), then put them in sunlight to let them finish, the taste and texture is much better because it doesn't get diluted with extra water if you left it on the plant (and also avoids the risk of the skin splitting).
With some plants they bred the ability to self ripen out of them, so ethylene gas is required. But I'm not sure if that was done to tomatoes.
The research for chicken food is amazingly thorough.
The gas on a tomato really does ripen it, it's not just appearance (although that doesn't necessarily help the taste).
You actually don't want to pick a tomato when it's red (ripe), the best is to pick them just at the start of the ripening process (a hint of red), then put them in sunlight to let them finish, the taste and texture is much better because it doesn't get diluted with extra water if you left it on the plant (and also avoids the risk of the skin splitting).
With some plants they bred the ability to self ripen out of them, so ethylene gas is required. But I'm not sure if that was done to tomatoes.
I have never seen a supermarket egg with a dark orange yolk. When we first started getting farm eggs, I worried there was something wrong with them, was how jarring the difference is.
As for tomatoes, yes, that was my point: supermarket tomato color is the product of manipulation. Color is a necessary but insufficient indicator of quality. (I'm not saying there aren't good supermarket tomatoes, if you buy them at a sane time of year).
You suggest that battery farms are boosting beta carotene to alter the color of egg yolks. Ok, I believe you. What I'm saying is that I doubt that the family in Michigan who sells us dirty chicken eggs in the summer is manipulating the beta carotene content of their feed to market their eggs; they don't do anything to market their eggs at all. Whatever they're eating, it's (a) naturally high in beta carotene and (b) sharply different from what battery hens eat.
As for tomatoes, yes, that was my point: supermarket tomato color is the product of manipulation. Color is a necessary but insufficient indicator of quality. (I'm not saying there aren't good supermarket tomatoes, if you buy them at a sane time of year).
You suggest that battery farms are boosting beta carotene to alter the color of egg yolks. Ok, I believe you. What I'm saying is that I doubt that the family in Michigan who sells us dirty chicken eggs in the summer is manipulating the beta carotene content of their feed to market their eggs; they don't do anything to market their eggs at all. Whatever they're eating, it's (a) naturally high in beta carotene and (b) sharply different from what battery hens eat.
They are eating greens like grass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastured_poultry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastured_poultry
Sounds good to me!
This has been my experience as well. Truly free-ranging hens give the best eggs, often almost up to the quality of ducks' eggs. Interestingly I find very little perceptible difference between the eggs of different breeds (once cooked at least), but roasted cocks of different breeds taste vastly different.
1. Why would anyone ship eggs across the pond ?
2. I don't buy "clean" eggs. They look fake. Eggs come out of a hen's butt, deal with it. But then again, I'm neither American nor British (but French).
2. I don't buy "clean" eggs. They look fake. Eggs come out of a hen's butt, deal with it. But then again, I'm neither American nor British (but French).
I don't think they come out of its butt.
[Edit] Fair enough, parent didn't say "anus" "intestine" "digestive tract" or anything more specific. And the "last mile" is a shared pathway. "Butt" works :-)
[Edit] Fair enough, parent didn't say "anus" "intestine" "digestive tract" or anything more specific. And the "last mile" is a shared pathway. "Butt" works :-)
I'm no expert, but don't they just have one opening that does everything? So you could call it the butt...
It's a cloaca: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca
Basically, it's a vent that everything comes out of. (and in, in the rooster -> hen case)
Basically, it's a vent that everything comes out of. (and in, in the rooster -> hen case)
> don't they just have one opening that does everything
Yes, it's called a cloaca: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca
Yes, it's called a cloaca: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca
> 1. Why would anyone ship eggs across the pond ?
It doesn't matter whether anyone does but it does matter a lot that you could, if you wanted, considering the discussions on a free trade agreement between the US and the EU.
It might sound ridiculous but regulatory differences like these are actually the only significant problem that prevents such an agreement, in fact these differences make such an agreement rather unlikely. Any other issues such as taxes are generally considered to be minor, easily solved and therefore practically irrelevant.
It doesn't matter whether anyone does but it does matter a lot that you could, if you wanted, considering the discussions on a free trade agreement between the US and the EU.
It might sound ridiculous but regulatory differences like these are actually the only significant problem that prevents such an agreement, in fact these differences make such an agreement rather unlikely. Any other issues such as taxes are generally considered to be minor, easily solved and therefore practically irrelevant.
> in fact these differences make such an agreement rather unlikely
These are manageable. Some EU countries have derogations on local practices which would be illegal under food safety law; those goods obviously cannot be imported into other EU countries. In practice, this doesn't present a major barrier to generally free trade.
After all, even within the US, there are goods which are legal in some states but not others.
These are manageable. Some EU countries have derogations on local practices which would be illegal under food safety law; those goods obviously cannot be imported into other EU countries. In practice, this doesn't present a major barrier to generally free trade.
After all, even within the US, there are goods which are legal in some states but not others.
If eggs were previously stored ‘up to a year’ (p. 2, § 3), then I wouldn’t be surprised if they were also shipped halfway across the world if there was a sufficient difference in price…
> Why would anyone ship eggs across the pond
Complete conjecture, but I know we (Britain) had a food crisis after the war. We were on rationing for years after the end of the war. Maybe we imported eggs too.
Complete conjecture, but I know we (Britain) had a food crisis after the war. We were on rationing for years after the end of the war. Maybe we imported eggs too.
Cloaca - the opening for everything a chicken needs.
1) People do weird things with food. Seriously, there's huge amounts of bush meat and all kinds of odd stuff found at borders every day.
1) People do weird things with food. Seriously, there's huge amounts of bush meat and all kinds of odd stuff found at borders every day.
Why not? Even milk is often shipped (powdered and then reconstituted) across oceans to gain a bit of price-reduction.
Well, eggs are easily produced everywhere. Shipping it across the world seams hardly cost-efficient and wouldn't do much for better and fresher eggs (especially considering the cost of air-shipping versus sea-shipping).
As a European who watches American TV & films, the one thing that strikes me about American eggs is the colour. They're white! This just looks wrong! Eggs here are a peach/pink colour. White eggs look like fake eggs.
Be careful with the "as a European". Eggs are sparkling white in many European countries.
Americans like white eggs. You can tell which type a hen will produce from the color of its ears. As a european I too find this weird. It's the same thing with bread, they practically bleach it over here.
> Eggs here are a peach/pink colour.
That's just the breed of chicken, not the post processing. You can get eggs in almost any color. Brown, white, and everything in between (peach) are common.
That's just the breed of chicken, not the post processing. You can get eggs in almost any color. Brown, white, and everything in between (peach) are common.
When I was a kid in the UK brown and white eggs were equally common. Now white is much more common but in the past few years you can buy brown and blue and so on in specialist places again.
Your second sentence is a bit strange in my experience, unless you're referring to yourself now living in the US. I have never seen a white egg in a UK supermarket, stall market or cornershop. They are always brown/pink.
Yeah didnt mean to write that. Pale brown is default. Duck eggs are bright white...
The thing that gets me is the volume of eggs you can buy here. In the UK, a typical egg carton contains 6 eggs but you can buy them in packs of 12. Over here I struggle to get eggs in quantities small enough that I can finish them all before they spoil.
The other thing is a general lack of free-range or even what we would call "barn eggs" in the UK.
The other thing is a general lack of free-range or even what we would call "barn eggs" in the UK.
You can generally split a dozen carton and buy 6. Most supermarkets allow this. Your struggles are over.
It's simply because of different breeds of hens.
For some reason, I tend to buy brown eggs.
To summarise the numbers: the American laws result in 0.045% of the population being affect by salmonella related disease, whereas the British laws result in 0.00093%, that's 50 times more illness in the US per capita.
It looks like that's purely because of the salmonella vaccination which is not required by American or British law but which British supermarkets require of their suppliers. Maybe that's easier to do because the UK supermarket space is more concentrated than it is in the US?
You can't really judge how often chicken poo on unwashed eggs has caused illness though, that would probably not result in salmonella, I think.
I feel like there's a lesson for software here. You can have more than one effective system. Each will have its own properties, upsides and downsides, but you can't cherry-pick specific practices within the system and transport them into the other system, or even evaluate them in isolation. What is best practice in one system may be actively harmful in another.
It seems like there should be solid data backing up the EU or US regulations. Is it not possible to accurately calculate how much/often contamination gets inside the egg? Do health records not provide sufficient evidence to determine if cross-pollution by end-users is causing sickness?
Hard to do the experiment, as you need two countries with otherwise identical production practices, where one washes and the other doesn't. For instance, the US and the UK would be a bad example, because egg producers in the UK generally vaccinate for salmonella, while those in the US don't; regulations on things like cage sizes also differ substantially.
You also need identical reporting regimes, which may actually be a greater problem; salmonella is not generally a mandatory reporting thing, and many people infected with it don't go to the doctor with it anyway; if you're a healthy adult it's pretty much just nasty food poisoning.
You also need identical reporting regimes, which may actually be a greater problem; salmonella is not generally a mandatory reporting thing, and many people infected with it don't go to the doctor with it anyway; if you're a healthy adult it's pretty much just nasty food poisoning.
Very informative article. I was expecting the author to finish off on an "Americans are weird and people shouldn't have to worry about refrigerating their eggs" but, instead, he showed why its valid for us to be doing so.
Kinda cool, learned something about eggs today.
Kinda cool, learned something about eggs today.
Nah, you really don't need to refrigerate eggs. They'll last for months without refrigeration.
But if you do that, I guess it's prudent to cook them. (BTW salmonella from home use of eggs is rare. It usually happens in restaurants where they mix a bunch of eggs together.)
But if you do that, I guess it's prudent to cook them. (BTW salmonella from home use of eggs is rare. It usually happens in restaurants where they mix a bunch of eggs together.)
I don't know much about the subject, but does cooking a salmonella infected egg neutralize the bacteria?
It's why cooked eggnog is safe (and delicious).
I'd be interested in knowing how much alcohol you'd have to put in uncooked eggnog to render it safe. The recipe in The Joy of Cooking suggests 4 to 6 cups (a liter to a liter and a half) for 18 servings. That seems like rather a lot from a drinking standpoint, but maybe not that much from a sanitizing standpoint considering that there's also 2 cups (half a liter) of heavy cream and a pound (half a kilo) of sugar.
I'd be interested in knowing how much alcohol you'd have to put in uncooked eggnog to render it safe. The recipe in The Joy of Cooking suggests 4 to 6 cups (a liter to a liter and a half) for 18 servings. That seems like rather a lot from a drinking standpoint, but maybe not that much from a sanitizing standpoint considering that there's also 2 cups (half a liter) of heavy cream and a pound (half a kilo) of sugar.
You can mix the egg and alcohol first, let it stand and kill the bacteria, and only then add the rest of the ingredients.
(I've never made eggnog so not sure if the recipe demands a different order.)
(I've never made eggnog so not sure if the recipe demands a different order.)
Thank you for the light bulb moment. Joy says to do exactly this "to dispel the eggy taste". I suppose that's more appealing than "to kill any bacteria that might make you ill".
For eggnog and other recipes that necessitate raw eggs, one can always use pasteurized eggs. It is easy to DIY if you have an immersion circulator. If not, some stores sell them now.
Rubbing alcohol is typically 80%+, so I'm not surprised if weak beer levels of alcohol are ineffective at sanitation.
Alarmingly enough, that's a liter of /liquor/ the recipe calls for. Ars picked up on the importance of mixing the eggs with it first to have a high concentration of alcohol for sanitation before adding the other stuff.
Wiki suggests that food thoroughly heated to at least 75 degrees will be free of salmonella.
Not as many people cook with a thermometer as should... the big problem is egg whites start to coagulate around 65 or so. Your fried egg is not safe unless its frankly somewhat overcooked. If its runny, you're totally rolling the dice. I do not eat eggs, especially at restaurants, I'm tired of food poisoning (which hardly happens every time, or even occasionally, but since fried eggs are greasy and rubbery and gross and the only thing worse than fried eggs is food poisoning symptoms, I don't mind not eating them anymore). In baked goods I don't mind even though unrisen cookie dough is full of raw egg.
Its too bad because from a technical standpoint I think sous vide "hard boiled" eggs would be very interesting, but not interesting enough to risk food poisoning.
Its too bad because from a technical standpoint I think sous vide "hard boiled" eggs would be very interesting, but not interesting enough to risk food poisoning.
since fried eggs are greasy and rubbery and gross
Either your eggs are terribly cooked, or you have terribly bad eggs, or we have terribly different tastes.
Either your eggs are terribly cooked, or you have terribly bad eggs, or we have terribly different tastes.
Both sound good in theory. And they arebeing applied for decades. Just get the delta of salmonella cases from before and after each solution was implemented and you will be able to measure which is better in practice.
So in short both methods = lower disease.
Let's review the approaches:
- EU relies on natures own mechanism along with responsible farming and vaccination - US relies on energy intensive washing, coating with a chemical spray and constant refrigeration
Hmm...
Let's review the approaches:
- EU relies on natures own mechanism along with responsible farming and vaccination - US relies on energy intensive washing, coating with a chemical spray and constant refrigeration
Hmm...
So in short both methods = lower disease.
But the British method leads to even lower level of salmonella by an order of magnitude.
But the British method leads to even lower level of salmonella by an order of magnitude.
And with lower effort/expense too, it seems.
I'm a new (small) farmer, and I've just begun selling eggs from my small (70 hens) to neighbors, and they're often surprised when they see that the eggs are not refrigerated. I do have conversations a lot about this, and folks are often surprised to learn that the eggs in their grocery store cooler are often 2-3 weeks old already and that the refrigerator is a requirement to keep them edible for so long. Mine will be edible for just as long, and they taste fresher too!
Coincidentally, I was just telling our kids last night how much store-bought eggs and raw chicken skeeves me out. I don't know where these things have been, who has touched them or what they've been fed. We never washed eggs with water (I grew up on a farm), just knocked any big bits off with a soft brush, like the kind you'd use for mushrooms.
Too bad I can't keep some hens...
Too bad I can't keep some hens...
I hate dirty eggs, even when there's just a tiny point of dirt on one in a box! I wish the EU would make egg-washing mandatory, even for purely "aesthetic" reasons :)
Couldn't you just wash the eggs before use?
If the eggs are for baking, they're safe. If they're not going to be cooked that long, I usually wash the eggs exactly before use. That way I remove any dirt before opening the shell, and at a point where removing the egg's cuticle is not an issue any more.
If it really bothers you, you can just rinse them yourself at home?
Enjoyed this, very interesting. The salmonella scandal in the '90s was absolutely huge in Britain. The health minister at the time, Edwina Currie, was forced to resign over it. The tabloids subsequently dubbed her 'Eggwina' and she's never really lived it down.
> she's never really lived it down
And dropped even further after the revelations about her affair with former PM John Major.
mind bleach
And dropped even further after the revelations about her affair with former PM John Major.
mind bleach
This is why laws that cannot prove that they're consistent with physics and formal logic are useless and should not be considered when transacting business.
Which part of which law here isn't consistent with which parts of physics and formal logic?
"Amazingly"? No not really! Vaccination stops disease. It's completely expected, not amazing at all.
edit: Likewise it's not "amazing" that cases of Diptheria, Measles, Polio, etc have been drastically reduced - by 100% in some cases - since widespread vaccination began in the USA (source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/02/19/a-graph... )