Hacker News Reader

Comment by mxscho | Hacker News Reader

> Perdue on Monday defended [...] the technique to disinfect poultry [...], arguing that U.S. farmers now use a chemical called peracetic acid rather than chlorine: "Peracetic acid ... is a great pathogen reduction treatment. You know what it is? It's vinegar, essentially. To say that's unsafe or not to be used, we don't think there's a basis for that in sound science."

I always thought the EU doesn't want this procedure because it effectively allows farmers to take a short cut and cover up bad practices used earlier in the chain. Under this premise, this quote just argues against a straw man for an otherwise meaningless counterargument.

View on HN

>It's vinegar, essentially.

Lol. Sure, lets all just drink hydrogen peroxide. It's water, essentially.

Peroxides and carboxylic acids(vinegar is an example) are very different things...

>Sure, lets all just drink hydrogen peroxide.

I use hydrogen peroxide to disinfect contact lenses. It neutralizes into water and oxygen in the presence of a catalyst. It would do that over a long enough period when exposed to air. I linked a paper in the thread elsewhere that shows the same decay for the chicken washes.

Using peroxide as a lens disinfectant has advantages over other multi-purpose solutions which cause increased corneal staining and are at much higher risk of allergic reactions.

This is about something else. If you are allowed to clean meat that aggressively it usually means what passes as good enough to be sold has a lower standard. Or the other way around: because we in the EU can't use these methods the whole supply chain and quality control has to be much much stricter to deal with this. We can't just dip the thing in chlorine and assume it is clean now.

1. Chlorine isn't used anymore, it's dishonest to claim that it is just as it's dishonest to claim peracetic acid is dangerous or ends up in the end product.

2. Well aware of the problems and concerns with the supply chain in the US, but not treating and dealing with salmonella outbreaks would have measurably worse health outcomes. These problems don't get fixed overnight. I'm fine with those problems being attacked but don't spread FUD about what you don't understand.

Obviously outbreaks are dealt with here, too.

1. No, chlorine is still widely used on processed poultry in the U.S. The latest data from the National Chicken Council suggests that it's used in around 10% of chicken processing facilities. This is not a small amount of chicken.

2. There is no evidence that the absence of antimicrobial treatment of chicken carcasses yields "measurably worse health outcomes", as you say. Data collected by USDA and the UK's Food Standards Agency use different criteria for their respective streams, and thus can't offer definitive conclusions, but there don't appear to be large differences in contamination between the American and British systems.

@atoav's comment accurately conveys the official position of EU and UK trade and food safety agencies. I see nothing here to indicate that you have any better understanding of the topic than @atoav.

>1. No, chlorine is still widely used on processed poultry in the U.S. The latest data from the National Chicken Council suggests that it's used in around 10% of chicken processing facilities. This is not a small amount of chicken.

Seems it is still used, I was under the prior understanding that farms were phasing it out as it's far more corrosive and incurs a larger maintenance cost. I can't find anything more on the topic other than that industry page claiming about 10% from 2015.

> 2. There is no evidence that the absence of antimicrobial treatment of chicken carcasses yields "measurably worse health outcomes", as you say.

I have been consistent in claiming that the US supply chain has issues EU/UK don't appear to have. Increased salmonella concentrations are absolutely a health risk and these treatments show large measurable reductions on the level of surface salmonella. There's more than a few studies published in recent years covering outcomes on on chlorine, lactic acid, peracetic acid, SBS, and other rinses. I've never claimed that it's a magic bullet, only that all the data says 'it helps'.

Tell me more about contacts and corneal staining. This comment is the first I've heard about it.

So the thing you need to know is there's 2 categories of soft contacts that are currently on the market. Hydrogels and Silicone Hydrogels (SiHy). The latter are newer and have become much more common as they are in theory healthier for the eye (they allow more oxygen to pass through). There's some drawbacks though in that the material isn't inherently wettable because silicone is hydrophobic by nature. This means it's a bit more complex to formulate a material and there's some quirks to it, notably it's usually stiffer. This might affect how solutions interact with the surface.

Corneal staining is basically scratching of the outer part of your eye. It is usually asymptomatic but can result in a burning sensation. It was found that the surface of SiHy is affected by what material is used to clean them. This link includes some research and plenty of linked studies: https://contactlensupdate.com/2013/08/14/what-do-we-know-abo... I had a better link that compared various products on the market but I'm unable to find it as this time.

Interesting. That link seems to say they aren't even really confident what staining is, it could just be the fluorescin dye binding to the eye. My friend wears Night & Day (SiHy) and rarely takes them out at night, replaces them maybe every 1-2 months. Mostly no issues or burning, although he did get a corneal ulcer one time, and he has seen increased neovascularization.

Correct, by no means am I claiming it's dangerous to use standard MPS, but I understand the mechanism of action with hydrogen peroxide better and it seems extremely effective. I wear Cooper Biofinity's and rarely take them out, aside from a minor abrasion that caused me not to be able to wear contacts for a month a couple years ago, they've been drama-free.

However, peroxide solution does have some big drawbacks. The better two-stage systems where you add a neutralizing solution to the peroxide when you're about to put the lenses back in I haven't been able to find in the US, and this is the safest gold standard (as you're leaving max disinfection power until right before you get them in your eyes). All that's sold are 1-step systems with a catalyst disk/ring at the bottom of a special case.

While I haven't had issues with the catalyst wearing off of the Clear Care cases, some of the other brands seem to not work as well and if the lens case is left in a sub-60F room, it will not neutralize in time. Honestly, this wasn't something on their documentation and if I wanted to be a pain about it I could probably put a consumer safety claim in. Putting un-neutralized peroxide solution in your eyes is a pretty traumatizing experience, worse than hot sauce. I don't recommend it!

EDIT: I'm not an optometrist/opthamologist, but I'll tell you how I got the background on this stuff: I did a project with some dude on IRC that was like the human bat, he had severe photophobia. We studied quite a bit about the characteristics of various contact lens technologies in preparation for our project. He wanted to acquire tinted contacts and vary the % of opacity. (I'm aware J&J is selling transitions contacts now and unsure of their efficacy but at the time the only options were extremely expensive traditional hydrogels.)

Long story short: We downloaded a bunch of patents and he built a small lab and dyed his own hydrogels using their patented processes. It was a neat and very illegal project, but he got his own sun contacts so he didn't have to live in his cave anymore and I got a ton of semi-useless knowledge.

Yes, the claim is untrue on its face: peracids and acids are chemically different and have different properties. PR flaks shouldn't be lying to the public, and I don't want to minimize that.

On the other hand, peracetic acid is something I would accept as a chemical treatment without qualms, while chlorine compounds would squick me out. It actually will break down into vinegar when it oxidizes something, and on the surface of raw meat, this process will be completed by the time a consumer gets it.

Noone is suggesting ingesting vinegar, or peroxide, or chlorine, or paracetic acid.

But they do all breakdown fairly safely (peroxide becomes water iirc) and don't warrant the hysteria they're being given.

==It's vinegar, essentially. To say that's unsafe or not to be used, we don't think there's a basis for that in sound science.==

Why aren't they just using vinegar if it's the same thing?

I think they are not the same thing, not exactly, and the difference is interesting.

Hydrogen peroxide is a rather - comparatively - unstable substance, it decomposes to water and oxygen; hydrogen peroxide is a rather strong oxidizer, which defines a lot of its properties.

I'd assume double -O- bond in peracetic acid behaves the same - decomposes with release of O and acetic acid (or the anion of the acid). This oxidizing effect likely provides the effect which is desired - the same which chlorine would produce, that is, oxidizing a lot of things in chickens making them safer.

I've heard that hydrogen peroxide is used in Europe instead of chlorine in US for water treatment - for example, in swimming pools. I'm not sure why peracetic acid is chosen.

Not instead, along with chlorine, atleast in swimming pools and general water treatment.

Hydrogen Peroxide under UV light can burn a lot of toxins that the chlorine cannot catch, so to speak.

They are not chemically the same thing. Presumably they don't use vinegar because vinegar is less effective. However, the implication is that the chemical they use will break down to vinegar by the time it gets to the consumer.

  Why aren't they just using vinegar if it's the same thing?

Because it isn't the same thing, but they want to convey the idea (accurately or not) that it is benign to a general audience.

I don't want meat washed in vinegar, bleh. Maybe co-incidentally, that's how some supermarkets used to prolong the shelf life of meat once it started becomming smelly and sticky. Just washed it like that in vinegar, and re-packaged it. Like 20 years ago. Thanks but no thanks.

I might try that with meat that has started to go bad in my fridge. Seems like a good way to avoid waste.

Not sure if sarcasm or not, but please don't try that. You can use vinegar or other acidic marinades to prolong its edibility, but only before it has started to rot.

Cooking it would still sterilize whatever was rotting it, wouldn't it?

Yeah, but that does not necessarily make it edible again. Rotting is basically just all the little critters (bacteria, funghi) around us digesting it, which gradually turns the object in question into their output. That output can be toxic for us humans, and doesn't necessarily break down into digestable substances during cooking. I'm not very knowledgable on the topic and processes, so ymmv, but I wouldn't try it, food poisoning isn't very pleasant.

...meat... in vinegar, bleh...

Do you really not like chicken adobo? You are the first [non-vegetarian] person I've ever encountered for whom this is the case.

Never tried. I like chicken that can taste good baked with just a bit of salt on top.

Usually it's a checiken not produced like this: https://youtu.be/RV-rO2-Rwz4?t=63 that taste like nothing without seasoning or marinade.

"sound science"

That's warning sign right there. It has a certain interpretation which is different from "good science". Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science#Use_as_corporate_...

> Theories more favorable to corporate activities are portrayed in words as "sound science." Past examples where "sound science" was used include the research into the toxicity of Alar, which was heavily criticized by antiregulatory advocates, and Herbert Needleman's research into low dose lead poisoning. ...

> According to epidemiologist David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety, and Health in the Clinton Administration, the tobacco industry invented the "sound science" movement in the 1980s as part of their campaign against the regulation of second-hand smoke

> peracetic acid ... It's vinegar, essentially.

But no, it isn’t essentially: vinegar contains acetic acid:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetic_acid

which is a "carboxylic acid" with the following GHS statements:

“GHS hazard statements H226, H314

GHS precautionary statements P280, P305+351+338, P310”

Vinegar doesn't contain peracetic acid:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peracetic_acid

which is an "organic peroxide" with the following GHS statements:

“GHS hazard statements H226, H242, H302, H312, H314, H332, H400

GHS precautionary statements P210, P220, P233, P234, P240, P241, P242, P243, P260, P261, P264, P270, P271, P273, P280, P301+312, P301+330+331, P302+352, P303+361+353, P304+312, P304+340, P305+351+338, P310, P312, P321”

The food process relies on the fact that peracetic acid decomposes rather quickly. However, handling the active solution requires great care. It's highly corrosive and toxic.

I would mostly be concerned about the sub-products of peracids reacting with foods. I don't know if there is any studies on this subject.

I don't understand the logic. If the end result is unequivocally good, why do the steps along the way matter beyond the "eww" factor?

> If the end result is unequivocally good...

I think they'd argue "cleanliness" is not the only aspect of what "good" is. The chickens' diets and living conditions affect the quality of the chicken. To say nothing of the animal cruelty angle...

Then why focus on the chemical wash and not the actual problem people care about?

Because the wash hides the actual problems making it harder to detect.

If they are allowed to use the wash, then they lose an incentive to improve their upstream practices.

Poor (cheap) practices earlier in the process (aka life of the chicken) could cause lower quality meat, fewer nutrients, more likelihood for nasty stuff. Washing the germs away doesn't necessarily wash away the effect of that.

because in Europe, livestock welfare matters more and more

"The end doesn't always justify the means" the saying goes, therefore for the end to be "unequivocally good", the means has to be taken into consideration. This so called "eww" factor I think is a gross understatement of animal cruelty, other injustices and poor practices

Because the purpose of the steps is to hide faults and failures in the process leading up to the final product, and this means that any failure in this process is _likely_ to lead to a bad/unsafe/unhealthy product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com