What is chlorinated chicken and will it be sold in the UK after Trump trade deal?

The government has insisted Britain's food standards would not be compromised after the UK and the US agreed on a trade deal to eliminate a series of tariffs.
Agriculture is a key part of the new trade deal announced on Thursday by Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump. Tariffs have been reduced on US products, including beef and ethanol, in return for moves that help British cars and steel.
After the deal was announced, government sources insisted imports of hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken, previously described as red lines for the UK in any agreement, would remain illegal.
The agreement on beef provides a tariff-free quota for 13,000 tonnes of US exports, but the government said there would be no drop in food standards as a result of the deal. It also includes access to British beef exports to the US.
Chlorine -washed chicken – a controversial method of cleaning farmed animals to kill bacteria – was a major product being touted as part of the deal.
While evidence suggests the chlorine wash itself is not harmful, critics argue treating chicken with the chemical will allow for poorer hygiene earlier on in the production process.
However, Liz Webster, founder of Save British Farming, told The Independent: 'The British public is rightly appalled by chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef. We are an animal-loving nation that values high standards, and we must not trade them away.'
Chlorinated chicken or chlorine -washed chicken refers to chicken carcasses that have been washed or dipped in water containing chlorine dioxide. This is done to kill organisms that could make you ill, such as E coli, campylobacter and Salmonella.
Is it bad for me?
If you ate a large amount of chlorinated chicken – the equivalent to 5 per cent of your body weight in one day –you could potentially be exposed to harmful levels of the chemical compound known as chlorate, according to the European Commission.
'Long-term exposure to chlorate in food, particularly in drinking water, is a potential health concern for children, especially those with mild or moderate iodine deficiency,' according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
A high intake of chlorate on a single day could be toxic for humans as it can limit the blood's ability to absorb oxygen, leading to kidney failure, while chronic exposure to chlorate can inhibit iodine uptake.
However, there is no proof that eating chlorinated chicken would put health at risk. The EFSA has said that chemical substances in poultry meat are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers.
Is it cleaner than non-chlorinated chicken?
A 2014 report by US non-profit Consumer Reports found that 97 per cent of 300 American chicken breasts tested contained harmful bacteria including Salmonella, campylobacter and E.Coli.
Around half of the chicken breasts tested also contained at least one type of bacteria that was resistant to three or more antibiotics.
In general, you are over seven times more likely to get food poisoning in the US than in the UK, according to data from the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Moreover, a 2018 study from the University of Southampton found chlorine-washing was not totally effective in killing pathogens on fresh vegetables. The research also suggested that chlorinating foods "can make foodborne pathogens undetectable", rather than eliminating them.
Why aren't British farmers allowed to use this technique?
Chlorinated chicken was first banned by the EU in 1997. The EU stipulates that chicken can only be washed in water or substances explicitly approved by the European Commission.
Those who are against chlorine washing claim that, rather than the chlorine itself being the problem, it's what the chlorine is hiding. Treating the carcasses this way can enable lower standards of hygiene and animal welfare – farmers can rely on chemicals to kill off harmful bacteria at the end of the process, rather than maintaining high standards at every stage.
However, Ken Isley from the US Department of Agriculture, said: 'I think the concerns and fear are unfounded. I would stack US food safety and our food safety record against anywhere in the world.'
How can I tell if chicken has been chlorinated?
In the US, chickens are not labelled as having been washed in chlorine.
Some of those lobbying for the UK to accept US imports of chlorine-washed chicken have argued that it should be up to consumers to decide, as long as it's clearly labelled.
However, according to Sustain, an organisation that campaigns for better food and farming, there is currently 'no requirement for food producers to inform UK consumers about whether or not chlorine was used, neither are restaurants nor caterers required to say where their meat is from.'
Unless the limitations of current UK food labelling legislation are addressed, it is hard to see how British consumers would know whether their chicken had been treated with chlorinated water.
The US also regards specific labelling of country of origin as an illegitimate barrier to its exports and pushes to have the practice banned as part of trade agreements it signs with other countries.
Is chlorinated chicken part of a trade deal with the US?
Chlorinated chicken was not included in the trade deal announced by Sir Keir and Mr Trump on Thursday.
Farming leaders welcomed the government's efforts to maintain high standards and secure reciprocal access for beef but raised concerns about the inclusion of bioethanol, a fuel made from crops, in the deal.
According to the most recent significant polling on the subject, which was carried out in 2020, 80 per cent of the British public are against allowing imports of chlorinated chicken, and the same percentage are against permitting chicken products that have been raised with hormones.
Following pressure from the British public, former prime ministers Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak were compelled to rule out compromises on hormone-fed beef and chlorinated chicken in future trade deal negotiations with the US.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Telegraph

15 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Trump agitates for regime change to ‘make Iran great again'

Donald Trump has appeared to agitate for new leadership in Iran. The US president on Sunday suggested a 'regime change' would take place if its leaders were 'unable to make Iran great again'. His comments came just hours after vice president JD Vance and defence secretary Pete Hegseth stressed that Washington was not seeking to topple the Iranian government following US air strikes on its nuclear facilities this weekend. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change?' Mr Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. Referencing his 'Maga' (Make America Great Again) movement, he added: 'MIGA!!!' Since striking Iran in the early hours of Sunday, Mr Trump has pressed the country not to retaliate and urged it to return to the negotiating table immediately. At a press conference at the Pentagon on Sunday morning, Mr Hegseth declared: 'This mission was not, has not been, about regime change.' 'We don't want a regime change,' Mr Vance said a short time later. 'We do not want to protract this.' He added: 'We want to end the nuclear program, and then we want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here.' Senior US officials have warned that forcing out Iran's government would leave a power vacuum and result in another protracted American war in the Middle East. Danny Danon, Israel's ambassador to the UN, said on Sunday that Israel would like to see regime change in Iran but would not seek to engineer it. 'That's for the Iranian people to decide, not us,' he said. Also on Sunday, John Bolton, Mr Trump's former national security adviser, claimed Iran was 'on the verge' of regime change following the US attacks and said the president would be forced to use 'brutal force' if Tehran retaliated. Mr Trump previously vetoed an Israeli plan to kill Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, American officials revealed last week. In the early hours of Sunday the US launched strikes on Iran, hitting three nuclear bases at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Mr Trump described the action as 'a spectacular military success' that had 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. He said in an earlier Truth Social post: 'We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the 'bomb' right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!) but, as usual, and despite all of the praise and accolades received, this 'lightweight' Congressman is against what was so brilliantly achieved last night.' Israeli officials on Sunday said they believe Iran's heavily-fortified nuclear site at Fordow sustained serious damage from the strikes but had not been completely destroyed. A US official told the New York Times it had been taken 'off the table'. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, issued a more conservative assessment than the president on Sunday. He said Iran's nuclear capabilities had been 'degraded' and 'set back from a technical standpoint', but stopped short of saying they had been outright destroyed. On Sunday, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, claimed Israel was 'close' to wiping out Iran's nuclear programme and ballistic missiles. He vowed not to be dragged into a 'war of attrition with Iran', saying: 'When we achieve our objectives, the fighting will stop.'

Times

24 minutes ago

• Times

Times letters: Britain and the tinderbox in the Middle East

Write to letters@ Sir, Sir Keir Starmer has called on Iran to 'return to the negotiating table' after the US bombed its nuclear sites. But treating Iran as a legitimate negotiating partner while it refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist only reinforces Tehran's rejectionist stance. History provides a clear road map: recognition leads to peace. Of the 164 countries that now recognise Israel, none are engaged in active warfare with it. Egypt's recognition in 1979 ended decades of conflict. Jordan's recognition in 1994 transformed enemies into sometime partners. The Abraham Accords demonstrated that recognition can unlock prosperity and co-operation even without resolving every regional grievance. Regional issues need and deserve resolution but they cannot be resolved in an environment where a significant power actively works towards the destruction of Israel. Negotiations remain preferable to conflict, but Israel needs to be involved in these talks as a recognised sovereign state. Without recognition and meaningful bilateral negotiations between Israel and Iran, the present situation will continue as a zero-sum game, which Israel simply cannot afford to lose. Tony Morcowitz Brighton and Hove Sir, When Sir Keir Starmer announced the Chagos Islands giveaway, he said that surrendering sovereignty was necessary because the UK had to be seen to uphold international law. Now he has gone on to publish statements in support of the US bombing of Iran. He is publicly supporting a flagrant breach of international law forbidding unprovoked attacks on other nations and, indeed, is speaking in defiance of advice from his attorney-general warning that any attack on Iran could be illegal. The government asserted that the international-law principles embodied by the Chagos deal would earn Britain respect in the 'global south', but in light of the UK's support for Israeli-American actions against Iran, all that the rest of the world will now observe is that Britain's commitment to international law is equivocal and inconsistent. Robert Frazer Salford Sir, International events emphasise the paucity of the UK's air defences, in particular the capability to counter attacks by ballistic missiles. Should the situation deteriorate to the extent that we are threatened, this will be critical, with Britain's best anti-missile defence platforms being six Type 45 destroyers, one of which is deployed with HMS Queen Elizabeth. Other Type 45s may or may not be available, with a number in refit, but ship-based systems are insufficient to defend the entire nation. Recent announcements on defence, from the strategic defence review through to promises to raise spending by a few percentage points in future, will do nothing to repair our non-existent integrated air defence. The government needs to act now and procure anti-ballistic systems. Group Captain Michael Norris St Austell, Cornwall Sir, In the raid on RAF Brize Norton (news, Jun 21), one of the engines on the Voyager aircraft was so badly damaged by the red paint sprayed on it by Palestine Action activists that it is said that the tanker is out of action and a new engine will cost £25 million. Surely this is nonsense: our planes are so vulnerable than an enemy would only have to drop paint over them to make them useless in war time? Brian RJ Simpson Gosport, Hants Sir, My father, Michael Beetham, was station commander of RAF Khormaksar in Aden, Yemen, in the mid-1960s, during a period of heightened tensions. As a small boy, I watched as he set off in the evenings to drive around the perimeter fence in his Land Rover. Sometimes he took me with him. He would stop and talk to personnel and inspect fences. He went on to be the longest-serving Chief of the Air Staff since Lord Trenchard, founder of the RAF. I wonder who carries out such checks these days at bases like Brize Norton? Alex Beetham Woodditton, Cambs Sir, There are many reasons why the House of Lords may not survive in its present form. Hubris is certainly one. For unnamed peers to tell The Times that they will use 'black arts' to 'kill off' the assisted dying bill and employ 'every means possible' to prevent it becoming law is hubris of the highest order (news, Jun 21). The Lords can and should seek to improve the bill through its scrutiny. That is indeed its role. But to seek fundamentally to thwart the will of the elected Commons is not. It is not just the future of the bill that will be at stake in this regard. So too will the future of an unelected second chamber. Sir Leigh Lewis Watford Sir, In just three days the concept of laws being based on Judeo-Christian principles has been removed by the House of Commons. Aborting a full-term unborn child will no longer be a criminal offence and assisting someone to kill themselves was approved. MPs have replaced a morality based on respect for life by a culture of death. Neither these changes were in the Labour Party manifesto and the House of Lords should therefore not feel constrained in refusing to endorse them. Nicholas Bennett Minister of health for Wales, 1990-92; Bromley, Kent Sir, I am horrified by the moral ambiguity demonstrated by the government. After endless debate, the third reading of the assisted dying bill has narrowly been passed, a compassionate piece of legislation that will give terminally ill people more control over their lives. By contrast, after only two hours' debate the government has amended abortion regulations to allow women to have a termination at any stage of their pregnancy, without fear of prosecution. The 24-week limit for legal abortion was set to protect viable foetuses. This amendment sanctions the murder of babies capable of leading independent lives. I hope there is sufficient wisdom among the members of the House of Lords to persuade the Commons to rethink the unethical decision they have made. Frances MacDonald Stratford-upon-Avon Sir, The reports that HS2 may now cost £100 billion came in the same week that Nice concluded the known benefits of the new Alzheimer's drugs lecanemab and donanemab do not justify the expense of funding them through the public healthcare system (news, Jun 19; letter, Jun 21). Given that the government is likely to have to make stark choices in its next budget, the choice of either cutting 30 minutes off journey times between London to Birmingham or extending the meaningful lives of thousands of people each year could not be starker. If Rachel Reeves's repeated statements that her decisions reflect the choice of the people are true, then let's ask them directly which they'd rather have. Dr Barry Johnson Sheffield Sir, Settle to Carlisle is now seen as one of the world's greatest railway journeys. However, the line started out in difficulty and there are some interesting comparisons to be made with HS2. The estimate to build the line was £2 million, but the challenges of building a route through the Pennines resulted in the cost and time to completion doubling. The line opened to freight traffic 150 years ago (passengers a year later). The final cost was about £500 million in today's money, and it took five years to build. Admittedly it is only 72 miles long (compared with 120 miles for HS2) and the hundreds of boys employed were paid half a crown (12.5p) per day. The railway today is a magnificent reminder of the vision of the Midland Railway Company, which sponsored it, and the tenacity and ingenuity of those who overcame the challenges of a hostile environment to build it. I wonder if in 150 years HS2 will be as popular — assuming of course that it is completed. Dr Bryan Gray Hunsonby, Cumbria Sir, It is nothing short of insanity that elite rugby union players are about to embark on a tour to Australia with the British & Irish Lions after another very lengthy domestic season, when there is clear evidence showing a dose-response relationship between head impacts and neurodegenerative disease. The longer and more intensely one plays contact or collision sports, the higher the risk of brain damage. The Lions tour — a gruelling and commercially driven tournament — is being promoted as a pinnacle of achievement. Where is the duty of care to players? Where are the safeguards and transparent risk disclosures? Rugby cannot continue to ignore the realities of repeated brain trauma in pursuit of nostalgia and profit. It must start putting welfare above spectacle. Alix Popham Ret'd professional rugby union player; Welsh international, 33 caps; Newport Sir, You report that the late Queen did indeed carry cash, for betting on the races (news, Jun 21). As a young journalist at The Sun in the Eighties I was sent to report on the Derby. The press box was next to the royal box and we all saw Her Majesty dash down to the front to watch a winner triumph. I was designated to ask her: 'Ma'am, did you have a bet on the winning horse?' I leaned over from the box to be faced by the back of Prince Philip, who was chatting to the Queen. My first attempt was ignored and feeling embarrassed and slightly annoyed I tried again. Philip drifted off and so I repeated the question. 'Did I what?' she replied frostily. Red-faced and sweating I stumbled through it again, when she graced me with a beautiful smile and said: 'Oh no, my dear, I never bet!' The next year a barrier was erected between the two boxes so that she would not be approached again. Muriel Freeman (née Burden) South Shields Sir, Car horns don't need to be loud to be effective (letters, Jun 17-21). When I was living in Bath in the early 1970s I drove an MGB, which I had bought from a friend. He had fitted a trio of strident air horns, but I discovered that if I pressed the button very gently the horns would emit a gasping or panting sound. Being very immature at the time I occasionally made this happen while waiting as a pretty girl crossed the road. This sometimes produced an amused response, but not always. One of the recipients of this attention, a particularly pretty girl, subsequently recognised me when we met at a party and she ticked me off for my uncouth behaviour, which I never repeated. In October we will have been married for 50 years. Richard Le Masurier Milford-on-Sea, Hants Sir, My husband was lucky enough to get ten birthday cards from me last year (letters, 18, 19 & 21). After forgetting to buy one for him I simply added 'and Wendy' to the cards he had received from other people. Wendy Rayner Huddersfield Sir, Dominic Sandbrook's article on class and how to define a gentleman (comment, Jun 21) reminded me of an events notice I saw when stationed in the British Army of the Rhine with the King's Own Scottish Borderers in the mid-60s. Those invited to a Minden Day dance were: 'Officers and their Ladies, NCOs and their Wives, and Other Ranks and their Women-Folk.' Bill Wells Wisbech, Cambs Sir, I've always felt rather proud of the fact that the Yiddish word 'mensch' means much the same as 'gentleman' but without any class implications — or gender implications either; a woman can be a mensch too. Or not, as the case may be. Margaret Lesser Bowdon, Greater Manchester Sir, Mark Twain, as is so often the case, hit the nail on the head. A gentleman, he said, is someone who knows how to play the banjo and doesn't. Dr David Bogod Nottingham Write to letters@

The Guardian

29 minutes ago

• The Guardian

US-Iran crisis: what we know so far

US president Donald Trump has brought up the possibility of regime change in Iran following US military strikes against three of its key nuclear enrichment sites over the weekend, even as top members of his administration insisted the US was not seeking to topple the Iranian leadership. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform Truth Social. Vice-president JD Vance had insisted the US was 'not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear programme' while US secretary of state Marco Rubio said that that the US was 'not looking for war in Iran'. The US state department has issued a 'worldwide caution' for Americans, saying the conflict between Israel and Iran could put those travelling or living abroad at an increased security risk. World leaders are now awaiting Iran's response to the US attacks. Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, told France's Emmanuel Macron: 'The Americans must receive a response to their aggression.' Speaking in Istanbul, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araqchi said his country would consider all possible responses. 'The US showed they have no respect for international law. They only understand the language of threat and force,' he said. He later flew to Moscow to discuss 'common threats' with President Vladimir Putin on Monday. Iran's parliament has reportedly approved the closing of the key strait of Hormuz shipping lane. Reuters reported Iran's supreme national security council will make the final decision on the move, which could hamstring global trade by shutting the narrow passage between Iran and Oman. US secretary of state Marco Rubio urged China to advise Tehran against closing the vital trade route, telling Fox News: 'I encourage the Chinese government in Beijing to call them about that, because they heavily depend on the strait of Hormuz for their oil. If they do that, it will be another terrible mistake.' Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel is very close to meeting its goals in Iran of removing the threats of ballistic missiles and the nuclear programme. Speaking to Israeli reporters, he said: 'We won't pursue our actions beyond what is needed to achieve them, but we also won't finish too soon. When the objectives are achieved, then the operation is complete and the fighting will stop.' A social media account associated with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, later said Israel has made a 'grave mistake' and 'must be punished and is being punished'. The UK, France and Germany released a joint statement after the US strikes, calling upon Iran to engage in negotiations leading to agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program. The three countries also urged Iran 'not to take any further action that could destabilise the region', adding: 'We have consistently been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and can no longer pose a threat to regional security.' Iran's health ministry said the US strikes had wounded an unspecified number of people but that none 'showed any signs of radioactive contamination'. 'For years, the ministry of health has set up nuclear emergency units in the nearest medical facilities to nuclear sites,' ministry spokesperson Hossein Kermanpour said on X. Israel said its fighter jets had struck 'dozens' of targets across Iran on Sunday, including a long-range missile site in Yazd in the centre of the country for the first time, Agence France Presse reported. A military statement said that 'approximately 30 IAF [air force] fighter jets struck dozens of military targets throughout Iran' – including 'the 'Imam Hussein' strategic missile command center in the Yazd area, where long-range Khorramshahr missiles were stored'. US secretary of state Marco Rubio said that 'there are no planned military operations right now against Iran.' In a new interview with CBS, Rubio added that 'no one will know for days' whether Iran had moved some of its nuclear materials prior to the strikes. Pete Hegseth, the US secretary of defence, said the impact of the airstrikes was still being assessed, but that the bombing had hit the areas that had been identified in the planning of the operation. Hegseth said: 'The battle damage assessment is ongoing, but our initial assessment as the chairman said is that all of our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike, and had the desired effect.'