WEDNESDAY 4 MARCH 2020Chlorinated chicken fears are
about animal welfare
Steve Mumby (Letters, Chlorinated chicken flip-flopping, 2 March), like so many
others, does not get it where chlorinated chicken is concerned: it’s not about what
ends up on your plate but the process that got it there.When the process involves dousing in bleach to kill bacteria it’s because the animals have been reared in
such appalling conditions there is a high risk of infections. Rearing animals in poor conditions, concentrated
in large numbers, increases the chance of viral infections arising, including ones that can be transmitted to
people.
So there is a choice between a process that seeks to respect the animal and manage risks from farm to plate
or one that abuses the animal and only manages risk to the ultimate consumer.
I know what my choice is but I do fear we have a government that may take choice away.
Dr K Murphy
Southampton
Steve Mumby suggests he has suffered no ills from consumption of chlorinated chicken and hasn’t detected
a difference.
I understood the objection to said chicken was in terms of animal welfare not consumption.
When it comes to consumption free-range wins every time.
Valerie Morgan Leigh on Sea
Regarding the letter from Steve Mumby concerning chlorinated chicken, I’m tired of explaining to people
that it’s not the fact that the chicken is chlorinated that bothers me but the substandard animal welfare
practices that necessitate the chlorination in the first place.
Jean Foster
Selkirk
Disenfranchised voters
G Barlow (Letters, Dog whistle politics, 2 March) remarks that it would not be too much of a stretch to
associate the first-past-the-post electoral system with risking the tyranny of the ill-informed. It’s a valid
point.