Hacker News Reader

Comment by Animats | Hacker News Reader

Much of this is an antitrust problem.

The inputs to farming, especially seeds, fertilizer and machinery, are controlled by monopolies and near-monopolies. There have been too many mergers.

On the sell side, there's monopsony or near-monopsony, with very few big buyers.[1] Farmers are caught in the middle, with little pricing power on either side.

There's not much question about this. There are antitrust cases, but with weak penalties and weak enforcement.

[1] https://equitablegrowth.org/competitive-edge-big-ags-monopso...

View on HN

No, much of this is a political issue. America wants food standards that are different from many trading partners; fair enough. But it makes it impossible to export many farm goods as a result. This is outside of the current political climate, and has been going on for ages. It's just coming it a head now.

People outside of the US look down on inferior products like HFCS, bleached chicken, hormones used in beef cattle, prevalence of GM crops, the preventive use of antibiotics in poultry, hen battery cages, and permissive-by-default use of additives.

If at least all those bad farming practices would lead to very affordable food, then one could make an argument for it... but currently the US just does worst of two worlds.

Looks like the healthcare system.

Looks like a pipeline.

Interesting Side Note: bleached/chlorinated chicken

The things which makes this a no go in the EU is ironically not the chlorination per-se, but the fact that chlorination is needed.

Like basically the EU thinks the way the US allows farmers to keep and raise chickens is so bad/unsanitary that chlorinating them isn't sufficient to make them safe for (repeated) consumption.

Which makes sense given that some of the things involved can lead to (non exhaustive list):

- non healthy chemicals _in_ the meat, not just on it

- increase in parasite, bacteria or virus infection _in_ the meat

- increased chance bacteria have some form of antibiotic resistance or other mutations

- not wanting to support "that" level of animal abuse (which is not just illegal but criminal in many EU countries, but also that doesn't mean that EU countries are that much better, they just drew a line on the level of animal abuse they tolerate which is in a different place then the line the US drew, but both are far away from the line animal protection organizations would drew)

> but the fact that chlorination is needed.

You're wrong. The whole point is this: in EU, you cannot chlorinate your chickens. This means that to sell chicken, you need to make sure that your chicken is good to eat without chlorination (by making sure your whole production chain is sanitized up to sufficient level).

In the US you don't need to make sure your production chain is super high sanitation quality because you can chlorinate the chicken afterwards. This means that you don't have to spend money/effort cleaning up your chains, because you can dip them in chlorine after.

From a health perspective there is honestly not that big of a difference. The resulting product in both cases is chicken that's safe to eat.

The real reason for the difference in policy is the incentives that it creates for the meat-producers. In the US there is no incentive to keep sanitation up in the production chains because the chicken will be chlorinated anyway. This actually incentivizes sloppy (cheaper) production methods over ones that are more sanitized but more costly.

On the other hand, in the EU you cannot wash chicken meat, so it needs to be kept clean and sanitized throughout the production process.

>The real reason for the difference in policy is the incentives that it creates for the meat-producers. In the US there is no incentive to keep sanitation up in the production chains because the chicken will be chlorinated anyway. This actually incentivizes sloppy (cheaper) production methods over ones that are more sanitized but more costly.

If there's no actual downsides from the chlorine, what's the issue? In many cities the municipal water source is local river that's polluted, and needs treatment to be drinkable. Part of that process might involve adding chlorine. I'm sure that all of this can be avoided if the water is sourced, at great expense, from a glacier or whatever, but nobody would suggest we should ban chlorinating water, and that allowing chlorinating water would be better because it forces the water source to be clean.

The poor sanitation in American poultry farming can have other negative effects outside the meat being safe. Such unsanitary conditions make dangerous conditions for workers including an elevated risk of novel avian flues and, if ever the chlorination isn't properly executed, the meat is extremely unsafe to eat.

Chlorination is a good idea when you can't control the supply chain (i.e. drawing water through infrastructure that's been compromised) but the better solution (if it's reasonable) is always to fix the supply chain. In the case of a city relying on chlorination vs. bringing clean water in by train the chlorination is a clear winner. When it comes to meat it's a cost issue and the EU made the decision to force that cost onto the producer while the US has made the decision to bear the cost at large.

The point is that it's a technical criteria that allows you to exclude American production from Europe. It's just protectionism.

> The whole point is this: in EU, you cannot chlorinate your chickens.

It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue, really (pun intended).

In the end, it doesn't really matter why things got where they are - what matters is where we want them to go next. And US interests seem to be hell-bent on continuing to wash chickens. So they will continue to be banned from Europe.

You just said the same thing.

There is also an animal welfare aspect to it. Imagine we had super efficient production method that is 100% guaranteed safe for consumption, but it is absolute hell on earth for the animals, then I don’t think we should do it.

The EU doesn't allow chlorination of chicken

> the fact that chlorination is needed

Indeed.

High levels of bacteria are a symptom of poor hygiene and low animal welfare due to conditions which are not permitted in European farms.

If you know the chicken is going to be chlorine washed, then you end up being lax higher up the chain.

There is also a genuine argument to be had as to, for example, whether the practice contributes towards antimicrobial resistance.

> There is also a genuine argument to be had as to, for example, whether the practice contributes towards antimicrobial resistance.

The chlorination is less in question here compared to the extreme overuse of antibiotics in animal farming in America. But it is fair to be skeptical of America's chlorination approach due to the increased danger of animal-human disease crossovers. Poor sanitation can lead to a lot of elevated work risks for employees.

    > bleached chicken

I don't understand this meme that appears whenever US vs "Europe" food/crop standards are discussed.

I Googled for more info, and I found this quote: https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/15/nx...

    > Less than 5% of poultry processing facilities still use chlorine in rinses and sprays, according to the National Chicken Council, an industry group that surveyed its members. (Those that still do use a highly diluted solution at concentrations deemed safe.)

    > Nowadays, the industry mostly uses organic acids to reduce cross contamination, primarily peracetic, or peroxyacetic acid, which is essentially a mixture of vinegar and hydrogen peroxide.

What do European chicken meat plants use to reduce bateria load?

    > prevalence of GM crops

EU grows plenty of GM maize. More will come. Are Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) crops bad?

> What do European chicken meat plants use to reduce bateria load?

I'm sure it's just salt and water.

I don't understand why consumers will pay for a chicken breast which has been injected with salt water. It comes out when you prepare it.

Also some people don't season food with salt (you can add salt at the table if you really need it). Meat with added salt taste very salty to me.

It's also down to vaccination requirements for EU based farms who take far more preventative measures than US ones.

It's why you can eat raw eggs and keep them out of the fridge in the EU/UK but not in the US, because the chickens are vaccination for Salmonella.

Generally, I agree with your post. About "keep them out of the fridge": I thought this is mostly due to wash or not-wash the eggs before packing. I think washing removes a thin layer that makes the eggs last longer, but can be visually less appealing. Please correct me if you know better! Japan also vaccinates heavily for Salmonella, and they eat plenty of raw eggs in their cuisine.

> . I think washing removes a thin layer that makes the eggs last longer, but can be visually less appealing.

European eggs look just fine. The wash we talk about here is chemical, not just cleaning out mess with water.

But yes, this is about wash or not-wash thing. Just that is has nothing to do with visuals.

Japanese egg production is even cleaner, but then consuming raw eggs is commonplace in Japan.

The reason for keeping eggs in a fridge is different (primarily washing vs not washing). This has been discussed a number of times at HN.

Here is an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19815155

> What do European chicken meat plants use to reduce bateria load?

sanitary conditions

That’s really the whole point - EU food standards indicate that the need to use acids to prevent bacteria growth is the problem. The EU system is based on having higher sanitation requirements at all steps from feed to cage to plate.

My understanding was that the meat-packing process in the US involves a butchering method that results in more fecal matter contamination, posing the risk of salmonella, which necessitates the wash. Those bacteria occur naturally, so you can't avoid that without being careful with butchering, which is probably what the EU standards require. But I doubt the big meat conglomerates like Tyson will want any hit to productivity, and they would fight a change every step of the way.

Mechanically separated meat bluntly ruptures the digestive tract and smears the flesh with feces. So they soak the feces and flesh together in a chlorine or acid bath to sanitize it. It's disgusting.

Does EU not use mechanical meat separation for chickens? If not, wouldn't their costs be dramatically higher?

you do know those are industrial food manufacturing outcomes not farming outcomes? Ain't no one bleaching my families chickens, or giving their cattle growth hormones. Americans have been tricked and mislead by marketing and conglomerate, some of which is European.

Down votes by brainwashed wooites.

>inferior products like HFCS, [...] prevalence of GM crops

The others I agree with, but there's no evidence that HFCS or GM crops are bad.

What? On HFCS:

While glucose is used by nearly every cell in the body and has tight regulation by insulin, fructose is largely processed by the liver, where it more easily is converted into fat, triglycerides and uric acid.

Intrinsically this messes with our bodies insulin resistance, for a start, contributing to diabetic issues, as well as increased fatty liver disease, and elevated triglycerides.

It bypasses our body's normal appetite regulation, as fructose also (in addition to insulin) does not stimulate leptin, providing the body with no/less feeling of satiation, and is also less effective at stimulating ghrelin (hunger hormone).

You feel less full, you keep eating, calories and obesity go up.

This is at its worst in liquids, as liquid fructose is absorbed rapidly, and leads to effective weight gain even at small amounts of consumption.

Carrying on from that, contrary to your statement, HFCS has absolutely been linked in multiple studies to increased obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

I can't imagine where you're hearing that there's "no evidence that HFCS is bad" other than those in the production pipeline or their lobbying.

HFCS came about when there was an abundance of corn and nothing to do with it. So when they discovered corn syrup they added corn subsidies and heavily tariffed cane sugar. Ethanol appeared and is a far greater corn sink, so HFCS no longer even serves that purpose.

But the processing industry doesn't want to disappear (money and job losses), so they lobby and the status quo remains. Same with private health care in a cozy position where they act as an unneeded middleman. It's too lucrative to certain people, and they won't willingly give it up.

I still don’t see your evidence of these claims. HFCS is also known as glucose-fructose syrup - it’s not all fructose, either 42% or 55% typically. Glucose and Fructose often go together in your body, so the signal would be there. In your gut, sucrase breaks sucrose (table sugar) into glucose and fructose. In drinks, when sucrose is exposed to CO2 and other acids it turns into fructose and glucose before it hits your gut!

So if you are saying fructose is bad, you are saying table sugar is bad in much the same way and that fruits like apples which are high in fructose would be problematic.

Table sugar is "bad". HFCS is worse.

- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23181629/ - countries with higher HFCS availability had higher T2D prevalence, and the association persisted after adjusting for country-level BMI and other factors.

- https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... - randomized trial in overweight/obese adults comparing diets including HFCS vs comparator sweeteners under structured conditions

> Glucose and Fructose often go together in your body, so the signal would be there. In your gut, sucrase breaks sucrose (table sugar) into glucose and fructose. In drinks, when sucrose is exposed to CO2 and other acids it turns into fructose and glucose before it hits your gut!

Nothing in this contradicts me. But the more fructose versus glucose, the more hepatic processing, and the fewer hormonal signals, leading to increased ingestion.

It's not that one is objectively "bad and only bad", its that our metabolism is not tuned to such a heavy fructose vs glucose ratio.

Nobody also sees your evidence…

>Carrying on from that, contrary to your statement, HFCS has absolutely been linked in multiple studies to increased obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

The question isn't whether HFCS causes those ailments, It's whether it's worse than the alternatives. It's not as if for lack of HFCS, coke will disappear from store shelves and everyone is going to drink water, for instance. Otherwise it makes no sense to call out HFCS specifically. It'd be like hemming and hawing about how unhealthy coke is, but turning a blind eye to pepsi.

>but as of 2022, there is no scientific consensus that fructose or HFCS has any impact on cardiometabolic markers when substituted for sucrose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup#Healt...

> The others I agree with, but there's no evidence that HFCS or GM crops are bad.

That's a clever slight-of-hand.

Sure, GM crops are not intrinsically bad... it's just that they enable the farmer to spray pesticides and herbicides which are very clearly linked to bad outcomes in people who consume the food.

So the only way to ensure you're not eating food sprayed with those things is to choose a non-GM alternative.

>That's a clever slight-of-hand.

>Sure, GM crops are not intrinsically bad... it's just that they enable the farmer to spray pesticides and herbicides which are very clearly linked to bad outcomes in people who consume the food.

You're accusing me of "clever slight-of-hand" when arguably the original offender was the OP. If it's really true that "GM crops are not intrinsically bad", then just say "pesticide ridden crops" or whatever? Isn't it a "clever slight-of-hand" to lump all GM crops together?

> look down on inferior products

I object to the use of "look down on" in this context.

The products listed are inferior products, end of.

"Look down" suggests an expression of contempt. But there is no contempt to be had here, it is a simple fact.

> bad farming practices would lead to very affordable food, then one could make an argument for it.

I ... just... I ....have no words for what I just read there.

Its affordable so its ok .... really ? SERIOUSLY ?

They didn't say "it's affordable so it's okay". They said "if it made it very affordable, then one could make an argument for it". And they're right. If you could reduce poverty by providing food at 1/2 or 1/5th the price of European-quality food, that would absolutely be worth having an argument over. Of course, this isn't actually the case, which is why they then said it's the worst of both worlds - American food manages to be both unhealthy and expensive rather than only one or the other.

If it was that simple farmers in the US could just voluntarily adhere to higher standards. It's not like those things are legally required.

This does make the food much _cheaper_. You can buy food with high quality standards in the US but it is much more expensive. Most people in the US choose the cheaper option.

To a degree, those are also convenient excuses a country uses to protect their own food industries without being overtly protectionist. USA's agriculture industry can readily decimate the leaders in most other markets when they have to compete on price. Between the subsidies, lower standards, and sheer scale, it's practically impossible to compete.

Could America meet those standards and export at a higher profit though? If not, it’s not what’s contributing to their poor financial situation

The existence of monopolies is a political issue, and it is a political problem that must be resolved in order to restore any semblance of a free market in the United States.

Antitrust is a political issue. Or lack of political will issue.

Yes, and they equipment size keeps becoming bigger and more expensive, making it harder to afford for smaller farms. Meanwhile, China is disrupting this by building small and affordable farm equipment for the rest of the world, thus lowering international prices.

Also new technology is helping previously nonviable soil to be useful.

Equipment makers in the US have been hammered by tariffs too, and they even manufacture in the US. Tells you something about how absurd the tariffs (taxes) are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com