Should we eat chicken ?

[Top_gun]

I will quote that again. It was interesting since the diets were massively varied including some high in saturated fat,others with more meat than the others,some with more alcohol,etc.

Absolutely, but the thread is about whether we should be eating chicken rather than process foods.

Red Tractor Chickens are bred far too quickly compared to the 1950s. So even if you cook the chicken from scratch it will still have a higher level of fat compared to a slow bred one.

Personally I'm not a fan of the Red Tractor scheme and it's really just a marketing tool for British farm food rather than an massive improvement over EU regulations.

[SeriousSam]

You say "not at all" and then proceed to look at things in a simplified manner.


Food Labelling
1. Whilst some food corporations lobbied against food labelling which would adversely affect the image of their product the majority were working against ill thought out and confusing proposals
2. All of the retailers use their own 'pet' system, e.g. Sainsbury's traffic lights, and lobby to have it adopted as standard. Most of which are misleading in some way.
3. The EU made things both better and worse with the E-numbering system which lumps both artificial and natural ingredients together*

* This directly led to blinkered pressure groups forcing retailers to drop the use of xanthan and guar gum (used at low levels plus having no health negatives) and replace them with starches (used at much higher levels with an associated nutritional change). This despite the fact that they promoted only using "kitchen cupboard" ingredients and yet you can buy the gums in their stores and not the more 'industrial' starches.


Poverty / Health
1. The single biggest contributor to generational poverty is being brought up in a single parent family, which is also higher amongst some ethnic communities hence the increased issues. Yet our society tacitly incentives such behaviour through the welfare state.
2. The notion that eating healthily is expensive is a widely spread falsehood. It does however require you to change your eating habits, which you have to "choose" to do.
3. Being poor is a crappy experience so people find ways to escape that feeling, e.g drink and drugs. This also extends to food as eating things that taste nice cheers you up. However, the key differences are that (a) food is not addictive in the same way as drink / drugs, (b) what tastes "nice" is entirely subjective and can be changed with effort


At the end of the day I'm not blindly defending Food companies because I have worked in the industry. As with everything else in the world there are good companies and bad companies. Yet the inescapable fact remains that they are only successful if people buy their products. Now there is a discussion to be had about how they market their products. However, that stands true for every industry and in this respect they are far from being the worst behaved (with a few notable exceptions such as coke et. al.)

Ultimately it comes down to a simple question... do we treat people like adults or children?

The "there there it's not your fault your fat, it's the evil food companies" approach does not help that individual face up to the actual reality that it is their actions which have led them to being fat. We all may have the right to eat what we want, but commensurate with that is accepting the responsibility of facing up to the consequences.


Anyway before I go on far too long (if I haven't already) a couple of final points;

1. One of the biggest complications in terms of food is well meaning but ideologically blinkered pressure groups. Free range eggs for example are a nonsense in this country because of our weather. Organic food is marketed as being more healthy despite evidence to the contrary. People jump up and down about GMO foods despite the fact that we've been eating it (vegetarian cheese) for decades.

2. The primary driver behind large industrial scale farming / food production is not cost but demand. As with so many of the problems we face today the root cause is that there are FAR too many of us.

[Zak33]

Red Tractor Chickens are bred far too quickly compared to the 1950s. So even if you cook the chicken from scratch it will still have a higher level of fat compared to a slow bred one.

Personally I'm not a fan of the Red Tractor scheme and it's really just a marketing tool for British farm food rather than an massive improvement over EU regulations.

fat in a bird (chicken or turkey) helps cook the bird faster and stops it being dry resulting in a better eat

Kelly Bronze turkeys, for example are bred for that exact reason.. the fat marbling in the meat heats up faster and hotter, and the bird cooks better. it eats better and the juices make better gravy.

red tractor is a superb icon and I shop for it to support British Farming.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Absolutely, but the thread is about whether we should be eating chicken rather than process foods.

Red Tractor Chickens are bred far too quickly compared to the 1950s. So even if you cook the chicken from scratch it will still have a higher level of fat compared to a slow bred one.

Personally I'm not a fan of the Red Tractor scheme and it's really just a marketing tool for British farm food rather than an massive improvement over EU regulations.

How much difference does it really make?? Is it like 100 grams of fat extra a day?? I doubt it.

Surely,if the chicken has more fat,you can cut down the need to add more oil,etc or simply just have less chicken per meal.

Its like with curry - it needs oil to fry the spices,etc and looks oily. But the whole point of curries in the sub-continent is to make sure you have an aromatic sauce,where you can use less meat in since it tends to be expensive,and for it to keep longer.

People will tend make other vegetable dishes which make up the bulk of the mean with rice,narn or chapati(or the equivalent).

In many villages people will literally eat rice and curry for launch,breakfast and dinner and they are perfectly healthy especially when you consider the under-developed healthcare systems.

[Top_gun]

You say "not at all" and then proceed to look at things in a simplified manner.

I find this remark patronising and wrong.

YFood Labelling
1. Whilst some food corporations lobbied against food labelling which would adversely affect the image of their product the majority were working against ill thought out and confusing proposals
2. All of the retailers use their own 'pet' system, e.g. Sainsbury's traffic lights, and lobby to have it adopted as standard. Most of which are misleading in some way.
3. The EU made things both better and worse with the E-numbering system which lumps both artificial and natural ingredients together*

I read the food labels from goods at various supermarkets and it's difficult to tell if the nutritional values are based on cooked or raw ingredients. That's no me understanding food labelling it's them not providing the full information in order for me to make a sound decision.

YPoverty / Health
1. The single biggest contributor to generational poverty is being brought up in a single parent family, which is also higher amongst some ethnic communities hence the increased issues. Yet our society tacitly incentives such behaviour through the welfare state.
2. The notion that eating healthily is expensive is a widely spread falsehood. It does however require you to change your eating habits, which you have to "choose" to do.
3. Being poor is a crappy experience so people find ways to escape that feeling, e.g drink and drugs. This also extends to food as eating things that taste nice cheers you up. However, the key differences are that (a) food is not addictive in the same way as drink / drugs, (b) what tastes "nice" is entirely subjective and can be changed with effort

It seems you're bringing your own prejudice of poor people to the table.

1. With regards to single parents, could it be that single parents have less time to cook and so rely more on processed foods?

2. To move from mass produced chicken to free range chicken requires a 50 per cent more expenditure.

3. EU isn't really a labelling scheme.

YAt the end of the day I'm not blindly defending Food companies because I have worked in the industry. As with everything else in the world there are good companies and bad companies. Yet the inescapable fact remains that they are only successful if people buy their products. Now there is a discussion to be had about how they market their products. However, that stands true for every industry and in this respect they are far from being the worst behaved (with a few notable exceptions such as coke et. al.)

What so difficult about getting the food industry to agree with a consistent common standards. Saying there are good and bad companies brings very little to the table.

YUltimately it comes down to a simple question... do we treat people like adults or children?

I suggest we treat people like adults and that means greater transparency in our food.

YThe "there there it's not your fault your fat, it's the evil food companies" approach does not help that individual face up to the actual reality that it is their actions which have led them to being fat. We all may have the right to eat what we want, but commensurate with that is accepting the responsibility of facing up to the consequences.

No doubt everyone choose what to do. You can't blame people for their poor choices if the real issues such as food education and transparency haven't been agreed. Anyone drinking coca cola would have no idea on the amount of sugar is added to it.

[Top_gun]

How much difference does it really make?? Is it like 100 grams of fat extra a day?? I doubt it..

I was watching a Channel 4 documentary on poultry farming over ten years or more. So I can definitely says it's a massive difference for intensive farmed birds over proper free range.

Here's an excerpt from the Guardian:

"For Philip Lymbery, chief executive of Compassion in World Farming, the argument that intensive farming is justified because poorer people need cheap meat or eggs is insulting to those on lower incomes. An intensively reared chicken is three times higher in fat, one third lower in protein, and lower in beneficial omega-3 fatty acids now than it was in the 1970s." [Guardian].

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I was watching a Channel 4 documentary on poultry farming over ten years or more. So I can definitely says it's a massive difference for intensive farmed birds over proper free range.

Here's an excerpt from the Guardian:

"For Philip Lymbery, chief executive of Compassion in World Farming, the argument that intensive farming is justified because poorer people need cheap meat or eggs is insulting to those on lower incomes. An intensively reared chicken is three times higher in fat, one third lower in protein, and lower in beneficial omega-3 fatty acids now than it was in the 1970s." [Guardian].

But in practice unless you are eating a whole chicken,its not really such a big issue - chicken and meat in general was far more expensive in the past according to what my parents said and the country is more populated than ever. The whole point its just easier to cook in such a way you are eating that chicken over more days,ie,smaller portion size.

Eating lots of refined sugar and processed food probably is worse for your health and probably excessive alcohol consumption.

Edit!!

Don't get me wrong - a thinner and harder free range chicken has more flavour,and I would prefer one over an intensively farmed one.

But I think a fattier chicken in a dish you made yourself is probably not going to affect your health as much as drinking a few pints of beer each day followed by a kebab and a plate of chips.

[Top_gun]

But in practice unless you are eating a whole chicken,its not really such a big issue - chicken and meat in general was far more expensive in the past according to what my parents said and the country is more populated than ever.

The Channel 4 documentary did cover the historic price of chicken and the effect of intensive reared chickens in subsequent years. Most people would assume chicken to be leaner than beef but that's not the case with intensive farmed chicken.

[SeriousSam]

1. I was referring to the continued "it's all the greedy corporations fault " narrative. That may not have been your intent, just as I was not being condescending. It is merely how it appears from the tone of your single track arguments.

2. Nutrition follows the "as consumed" principle. Though I agree that not all the labels are clear on this, the rules are freely available on the internet.

3. Ah yes the good old I can't argue with the facts so I'll just play the bigot card tactic.

4. REGULATION (EU) No 1169/2011 which covers mandatory information on food labels and rules as to how it must be presented. So yes it covers "labelling schemes".

5. Oh I don't know every country in the EU playing protectionism to ensure their companies get an edge

6. The only ingredients not labelled are processing aids and those fall under very strict guidelines pertaining to not existing in the final food

7. As I quite clearly stated "I don't blame them"... that doesn't mean they should get a free pass from the consequences of their actions

[Top_gun]

1. I was referring to the continued "it's all the greedy corporations fault " narrative. That may not have been your intent, just as I was not being condescending. It is merely how it appears from the tone of your single track arguments.

Clearly you're in denial that greedy corporations are at fault and perhaps it's repeating again and again. But it's not the only point I've made. If it was me doing that then I would have a warning by now. Please refrain.

2. Nutrition follows the "as consumed" principle. Though I agree that not all the labels are clear on this, the rules are freely available on the internet.

I tend to research ingredients on the net and often there are conflicting/unclear information.

3. Ah yes the good old I can't argue with the facts so I'll just play the bigot card tactic.

Well you have been noted for trumpeting tory policies though sometimes their facts appeared to come from the back of an envelope. Still, you aren't complaining about it. I'm more than happy to question your facts though at the moment they are appearing as your beliefs which is entirely different.

4. REGULATION (EU) No 1169/2011 which covers mandatory information on food labels and rules as to how it must be presented. So yes it covers "labelling schemes".

Okay, but E numbers have been around for many years and your quoted regulation has recently been implemented. I'm now glad they're requiring companies to publish caffeine levels in drinks. Especially as I have a condition triggered by too much caffeine. This would have been useful to me many years ago.

7. As I quite clearly stated "I don't blame them"... that doesn't mean they should get a free pass from the consequences of their actions

I know how difficult it is to get info from the big corporations. I enjoy research stuff as do many other people. So it's high time these corporations have more transparent info on the packaging.

The UK is top of the obesity league for Europe for a reason.

[Zak33]

Should we eat Chicken?

Yes, if it's UK chicken. I believe Red Tractor makes it easy for the opening posted to make a choice. If the Opening Poster is being told that they're full of growth hormones and water, well it's not true if buying uncooked UK chicken. Cooked chicken in products may have water added. It won't be full of Arnie Schwarzenegger muscle booster though.

I believe fat adds to flavour and increases cooking quality and end result.

I don't avoid fatty products. I'm not a fat bloke. I am gutted that a super market can't sell an oily fish product with seeded bread because it won't pass the traffic light standards they've signed up to.

Supermarkets have very high standards, highers often than the large manufacturers who's products line their shelves.
Supermarket X won't use brand Y pickle in their own sandwichs as it contains a chemical they banned from their own products many years ago. But they will allow you to buy it from their shelves, go home and put it in your own "home made and therefore super healthy" sandwich.

Food made on premises and consumed in under 4 hours doesn't need to have a food declaration of the same type as one packaged and displayed for a day or two in a supermarket.
SO Pret and Subway etc get a lot more free reign to fill you full of crap than Sainsbury or Tesco

And while we're at it, will everyone ignore APR, cos it's a pile of crap. Total Amount Payable is where you should be at.

/climbs off soap box

/ goes shooting innocent animals to kill them and eat their carcass

[Top_gun]

Should we eat Chicken?

Yes, if it's UK chicken. I believe Red Tractor makes it easy for the opening posted to make a choice. If the Opening Poster is being told that they're full of growth hormones and water, well it's not true if buying uncooked UK chicken. Cooked chicken in products may have water added. It won't be full of Arnie Schwarzenegger muscle booster though.

I believe fat adds to flavour and increases cooking quality and end result.

Red Tractor still have a number of limitations. For example the number of chickens housed per square metre is about 1 chicken better than the EU directive. Chickens are reared for 39 days until slaughter.

I think the Red Tractor has now been replaced with the Higher Welfare standards which includes more natural light and changes to the habitat.

However, the main flaws of the scheme still remains and this allow a fattier bird. Of course a little fat adds flavour but the question is whether the fat consumed is more than your body needs at the expense of protein.

SO Pret and Subway etc get a lot more free reign to fill you full of crap than Sainsbury or Tesco

Actually I like the crap from Pret and Subway. At least you can see your subway sandwich made in front of you and Pret's uses high quality ingredients.

Pret > Tesco and Sainsburys anyday!!!

[Zak33]

At least you can see your subway sandwich made in front of you and Pret's uses high quality ingredients.

do you think that's true?

do you think that seeing a person make a subway means you can see the ingredients?

Red Tractor is still going strong, it's not been replaced
http://www.redtractor.org.uk/what-we-do/know-your-logos

ref fat in a bird intensely farmed, I'm actually OK with seeing chickens in large barns. Having been to a chicken farm with the barn sides open and watched them spend all day indoors anyway, I was less worried for them being locked in ;-)

Ref Pret quality: a turkey is a big bird. is 2mx2m really enough average ?
(1000 birds per acre)

on the Subway or Pret website .. try to find the ingredient declaration of a pickle.
they don't have to tell you.... anywhere. Because it's less than 4 hours between "making it fresh" (with you watching in Subways case) and you buying it... there's no requirement to show you or tell you. That could have the same chemical in it that Branston uses, that all supermarkets banned in their own product a decade ago.

What's the actual ingredient of a wiltshire cured ham? What was the cure they used? What sort of salt was it soaked in, an for how long? and where did they buy the pig?
Pret use UK Farm Assured pigs... which in all likely hood is a Red Tractor farmer who's a notch above Freedom Foods (RSPCA), which is good enough for you and I. But it's not organic.

they won an aawrd in 2012 for being nice to pigs and didn't win it again from Compassion in world farming. But Waitrose did, Several times over.

Pret is a marketing masterpiece and they're making money from you and selling you things that you don't know the contents of. Sad fact but true story.

I gave up trying to find Subways meat source years ago when they took pork off the menu

my point is... you don't know what's in it, and they don't have to tell you. The nie chap in Pret serves you a scoop of filling in your sandwich and it's not as accurately controlled as a sandwich factory.

I've been in a sandwich factory. a few times. My missus virtually lived in one for a decade. Sam knows a few too. he honestly does.

[Top_gun]

The Red Tractor logos does not have good press.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...n-7697854.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...u-nothing.html

Sainsburys phased out its Red Tractor logo products

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-decision.html

https://www.fginsight.com/news/do-yo...-tractor-18554

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...k-high-welfare

[Zak33]

The Red Tractor logos does not have good press.
[/url]

nor does Top Gun

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/top_gun/

[Top_gun]

Pret is a marketing masterpiece

I've always been adverse to marketing so I can't see how I'm influenced by Pret's marketing masterpiece. Having said that, I haven't been to Pret in a number of years as I prefer the independents with zero marketing budget.

my point is... you don't know what's in it, and they don't have to tell you. The nie chap in Pret serves you a scoop of filling in your sandwich and it's not as accurately controlled as a sandwich factory.

I don't like the bland supermarket sandwiches at all. If it taste crap then does it really what if sandwich factory has an accurately controlled scoop filling? I tend to find Pret sandwiches generously filled compared to the supermarket's where is the filling hunt.