Europe deplores America's 'chlorinated chicken.' How safe is our poultry?

Npr - Apr 15th, 2025

President Trump's recent comments on Europe's reluctance to buy American chicken have reignited a long-standing trade debate. Known as 'chlorinated chicken,' the term refers to the U.S. practice of using chlorine rinses in poultry processing, which the European Union banned in 1997 due to safety concerns. While less than 5% of U.S. facilities still use chlorine, the perception persists, fueled by regulatory differences. The U.K. business secretary reaffirmed that British food standards remain unchanged, reflecting ongoing Brexit-related sensitivities.

The U.S. poultry industry argues that the EU's ban on chemical treatments is unjustified, as most American processors now use organic acids like peracetic acid. However, European regulators see chemical disinfectants as masking inadequate hygiene standards. While both regions strive to prevent foodborne illnesses, their methods differ significantly, with Europe focusing on pre-harvest interventions and the U.S. on post-slaughter treatments. This clash underscores broader cultural and regulatory divides, illustrating a complex transatlantic trade relationship that remains unresolved.

Donald Trump European Union Food Safety Brexit Chlorinated Chicken U.K. Business Secretary Poultry Processing Trade Dispute

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the debate surrounding chlorine-washed chicken and its implications for U.S.-EU trade relations. It accurately presents the historical context and current practices while maintaining a balanced perspective by including multiple viewpoints. However, the piece could benefit from enhanced source transparency and direct citations to support its claims. The topic is timely and of significant public interest, with potential to engage readers and contribute to ongoing discussions about food safety and international trade. Overall, the article is well-written and accessible, though it could improve in areas such as source attribution and transparency to bolster its credibility.

Accuracy

The story provides a generally accurate account of the issues surrounding U.S. poultry processing and the European Union's stance on chlorine-washed chicken. The claim that less than 5% of U.S. poultry facilities use chlorine is supported by the National Chicken Council. The article accurately notes the EU's 1997 ban on chlorine-treated poultry and its rationale. However, the article could benefit from more precise data on current processing practices and rates of foodborne illness, as these are challenging to compare across regions due to differing methodologies. The story accurately reflects the complexity of food safety regulations but should ensure all claims are backed by specific data.

Balance

The article presents multiple perspectives, including those of U.S. poultry industry representatives, European regulators, and consumer advocacy groups. It highlights both the U.S. and EU approaches to food safety, providing a balanced view of the cultural and regulatory differences. However, the piece leans slightly towards defending U.S. practices by emphasizing the safety of chlorine use and the shift towards organic acids. While it mentions European concerns about hygiene, it could further explore these views to provide a more balanced representation.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to explain the complex issue of chlorine-washed chicken and its implications for trade between the U.S. and Europe. It logically presents the historical context, current practices, and differing regulatory approaches. The tone remains neutral, making it accessible to a general audience. However, more detailed explanations or definitions of technical terms like 'pathogen reduction treatments' could enhance understanding.

Source quality

The article references credible sources such as industry experts and regulatory bodies, which lends credibility to its claims. However, it lacks direct citations or links to primary data or studies that support the claims made, such as the specific percentage of facilities using chlorine or detailed statistics on foodborne illness rates. Including more direct references to studies or official reports would enhance source quality and reliability.

Transparency

The article provides some context for the ongoing debate over chlorine-washed chicken but lacks transparency in terms of disclosing the sources of specific statistics and claims. It does not detail the methodology behind the data or provide links to external studies or reports. Greater transparency in how claims are substantiated would improve the reader's ability to assess the story's credibility.