• foggy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1442·
    12 days ago

    Here is a short that tells of what’s going here. This short is also a reaction, from an independent farmer who farms chickens. I think the creator here, FarmingWhileBeige, offers a lot of good insight into what is bad and not bad in our current farming practices as a level headed not batshit crazy maga person.

      • tpyo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        11 days ago

        I don’t disagree that you removed the short designation from the link, but what’s the difference between the two? It’s the same video with the same aspect ratio and the same obnoxious subtitles one word at a time. My sound is turned off so if there was a difference there it went unnoticed

        • melvisntnormal@feddit.ukEnglish
          14·
          11 days ago

          Speaking for myself here:

          • Shorts loop automatically, something I find annoying
          • Shorts have loads of UI over the video by default; while there is a “clear screen” button in the context menu, it doesn’t persist, and is extra interaction that a normal video doesn’t require
          • It’s easier to scrub through a normal video on mobile; while there is a progress bar at the bottom of a short, you can’t drag up on that bar to get fine-grained seeking

          This is my “old man tells at cloud” moment and I’m okay with that.

        • Duranie@literature.cafeEnglish
          2·
          11 days ago

          FWIW, his subtitles are often edited with substitutions, so if you don’t listen to the audio you’ll occasionally miss out on a punchline or other descriptives. It’s not necessary for his messages that people have to read and listen at the same time, but it’s kind of like Easter eggs lol .

    • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      15·
      12 days ago

      FarmingWhileBeige is highly recommended. He does a lot of good educational (and sassy) videos about different aspects of the farming industry, and has a good catalogue of funny shorts of reacting to stupid TikTokkers in-between. He has the experience and knowledge, and he’d be the first to tell you to stay the fuck away from the industry unless you’re ready to deal with a lot of bullshit.

    • VibeSurgeon@piefed.socialEnglish
      1·
      11 days ago

      Along with this, it’s probably wise to put the sodium numbers into context - the salt used to season your chicken is probably not going to be what’s going to put you over the top when it comes to salt intake. Highly processed foods, sauces and bread is more likely going to be the thing that gets you.

  • Tattorack@lemmy.worldEnglish
    48·
    12 days ago

    Here in Denmark how much water is in the chicken is written on the label of the packaging. It is also required to list what ingredients are used to treat the chicken if anything besides water is used.

  • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.mlEnglish
    26·
    12 days ago

    Also, at least in my area, I believe there is a mislabeling scam going on. At least twice now I have bought boneless skinless chicken thighs from 2 different grocery stores (different chains) and the weight has been like ~15% lower than advertized.

    Like a package of chicken thighs labeled at 3.11lbs (1.4kg) actually weighed roughly 2.67lbs (1.2kg), 14% less. One labeled at 2.49lbs (1.13kg) actually weighed roughly 2.1lbs (0.95kg), 16% less.

    Some of that may be accounted for by the absorbant pad sucking out some of that excess liquid they pump in, but it shouldn’t be so radically different

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.caEnglish
      49·
      12 days ago

      Meat has a water content, and water is lost by evaporation between the packagers and the person who brings it home.
      If you care about this, buy from a butcher who weighs at the time of sale.

      Or, wash your chicken and watch the weight magically increase.

      This is another Tiktok “scandal”.

      • HeyJoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        12 days ago

        It’s not just meat though. And sometimes they are way off to the point it is definitely not within reason. A good one seen was the prepackaged mini hams that are airtight. They were weighed and basically 30% off or more from the label the store slapped on them.

          • HeyJoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            12 days ago

            I have only seen 1 person do it and I am not on tik tok or ever used it before. I guess theres a chance they are lying, but they have gotten several suppliers to admit to issues they reported and were corrected. I would like to think I am good at weeding out fake videos and they just dont seem like it, but there is always a chance.

      • RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        12 days ago

        It’s really not. The weight determines the price and added water raises the cost, you are essentially paying meat prices for water content. In the EU there are strict rules against that. A meat producer has to declare the amount of added water if it’s above 2%. Of course there are companies which fraudulenty go above that without declaring it. My point is, that’s illegal for a reason

      • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.mlEnglish
        21·
        12 days ago

        Yeah, like I said I’m not certain. And I have since seen random people circulating this on various social media, but I noticed it myself first. At 15%, it could just be water loss, but also it could be something more than that. Mainly it’s just an annoyance.

  • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
    23·
    11 days ago

    Ehh, a restaurant would salt it past there anyway. Culinarily, you’d be well within reason to brine fresh chicken.

    Price per pound is pretty bullshit thought, making it cost at the price if meat is BS

  • mechoman444@lemmy.worldEnglish
    234·
    10 days ago

    This is a good example of using technically true facts to imply something that isn’t actually representative.

    Yes, some chicken is sold with an added salt-water solution. That’s not a secret it’s disclosed right on the label. But presenting the maximum legal numbers as if they apply to all supermarket chicken is misleading.

    “Up to 30%” is the ceiling, not the average. Likewise, “up to 500 mg of sodium” describes heavily enhanced products, not ordinary chicken. Plenty of chicken is sold with no added solution at all, and consumers can choose whichever they prefer simply by reading the packaging.

    This post also frames the added solution as though it’s some kind of deceptive adulteration. In reality, it’s added to improve moisture retention and consistency during cooking, and it’s regulated and clearly labeled.

    So the takeaway isn’t “supermarkets are secretly selling watered-down chicken.” The takeaway is much less dramatic: read the label. If you want unenhanced chicken, buy unenhanced chicken. If you don’t mind the added solution, buy the enhanced product. Manufacturing practices are not evidence of a conspiracy just because someone cherry-picked the largest numbers they could find.

    • iglou@programming.devEnglish
      52·
      10 days ago

      The title already says “up to” for both the 30% and the sodium content. If the reader understands anything else, that’s a reading comprehension issue.

      • mechoman444@lemmy.worldEnglish
        33·
        10 days ago

        Don’t be a contrarian for the sake of argument. If your reading comprehension is so good you’d know the title is intentionally sensationalized intentionally using large numbers to make it look and sound like they’re always at the upper limits.

        God. I bet you’re insufferable irl aren’t you?

        • iglou@programming.devEnglish
          22·
          10 days ago

          The literal wording of the title is “up to”. You’re criticizing it for cherry picking when it’s… not.

          If there’s a contrarian here, it’s certainly not me.

          Nice personal attack though!

          • mechoman444@lemmy.worldEnglish
            32·
            10 days ago

            Ya. Having “up to” in the title isn’t some magical phrase that excuses the sensational title. And simply claiming that it does isn’t sufficient.

            YSK: Not all raw chicken is the same some is enhanced with a saltwater solution

            This is an example of a neutral title that doesn’t sensationalize and enhance clicks.

            And you started the personal attacks with reading comprehension shtick. So don’t get offended all of the sudden.

            • iglou@programming.devEnglish
              11·
              10 days ago

              You clearly understood the title, so no, the “reading comprehension” thing wasn’t a dig at you. It was a way to say that you shouldn’t assume the reader is unable to understand the litteral meaning of the title, because that is honestly condescending.

              The title does not misrepresent anything, is not dramatizing the situation either. It doesn’t even say “most” or “a sizeable share” or anything that would imply it’s a massively widespread problem. It uses one of the least dramatic quantifier: “often”. Then it says “up to” because… That is the only way to say it? Are you expecting a title to say “up to, but not necessarily as high as”? It’s a title.

              Your title alternative is, however, actually dramatizing, making it a bigger problem than it is. “Not all is the same, watch out what you’re buying!” Is the emotion it creates in the first part. Then de-dramatizing with “some”.

              The title of this post is as neutral as it can be. It is, literally, stating a fact. The word “up to” is indeed not magical, it is the proper way of indicating an upper bound without dramatizing.

              I am shocked this is even a debate. And english isn’t even my first language.

              Edit: admittedly it could use “sometimes” instead of “often”, or back up with numbers. But that is hardly dramatizing.

              • mechoman444@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                10 days ago

                Okay. I apologize for the personal dig. That was uncalled for, especially since I misread what you were saying. I made assumptions and responded in a way that was unnecessarily hostile.

                The title of the article is clearly engineered to provoke fear. Nobody wants to pay for added salt or for chicken to be “plumped” to increase its saleable weight.

                That’s exactly what the title is implying. It throws around numbers like “up to 30%,” “500 mg,” and “7–10 times” in a way that makes them sound alarming without providing meaningful context.

                In reality, some manufacturers inject a brine solution into chicken to improve juiciness and tenderness while also increasing its weight. That practice is disclosed on the label. Consumers also have plenty of alternatives, especially in the United States, where supermarkets typically carry both enhanced and non-enhanced chicken.

                So yes, I think the title is obviously sensationalized. While the individual facts may contain elements of truth, they’re presented in a way that encourages readers to feel as though they’re being deceived or victimized rather than helping them understand what’s actually happening.

                I dislike headlines like this because they present technically accurate information in a misleading way. They encourage an emotional reaction instead of informing the reader.

                Using qualifiers like “up to” doesn’t make the presentation any less manipulative. It may make the statement legally defensible, but it doesn’t make it an honest or balanced way to communicate the issue.

                I don’t think there’s any significant disagreement between us about the underlying facts. My disagreement is that you’re willing to give this headline a pass, and I don’t think you should. Its purpose isn’t to inform; it’s to provoke.

  • Fmstrat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    181·
    12 days ago

    Look for “air-chilled chicken” to find chicken that doesn’t have this.

    Also some organic brands don’t do this because of the laws around chemical use making chlorine not possible. Brands vary, though.

    Farmers markets are another route.

  • _spiffy@piefed.caEnglish
    17·
    12 days ago

    I’ve seen people getting upset about this. I’m only upset because I have kidney issues and have to watch my sodium and meat really fucks me when it comes to sodium content.

    • happysplinter@lemmy.worldEnglish
      18·
      12 days ago

      Butchers are so rare around me and far more expensive. I would love to be able to afford it as it’s a much more delightful experience and the meat is always so much better.

      • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        51·
        12 days ago

        There’s a butcher shop near my work that also has a fantastic café attached. The meat is all absolutely exquisite looking, but you’re god damned right that its insanely expensive like at least double or triple the price of meat at your typical store. We pretty much only ever buy their in-house pepperoni sticks and even those are around $16 a pound.

      • ryan213@lemmy.caEnglish
        2·
        11 days ago

        I was told they’re not allowed to do that, and based on my experience, it’s been true so far. Maybe it’s just my specific grocer is good?

        • kungen@feddit.nu
          English
          3·
          11 days ago

          Plumping is just injecting saltwater into the meat after it has already been killed. And that’s fine, as neither salt nor water are forbidden in Islam. The only thing that could matter is that it’s clearly labeled on the packaging how much percentage the meat is vs how much saltwater was added, as you’re not supposed to be deceptive.

          But considering some countries generally lax product labeling laws, I assume you could still get a greyzone, where it could be labeled as “halal-slaughtered chickens” - but the actual product wouldn’t pass a stricter control due to undisclosed brine.

          So it’s also likely you have a good grocer, but just know that you can’t automatically trust some halal-stamp if you want to avoid plumping.

          • ryan213@lemmy.caEnglish
            1·
            11 days ago

            Oh, thanks for that explanation. I’ve only been going to same halal grocer since shrinkflation started so that would make sense.

  • A_norny_mousse@piefed.zipEnglish
    131·
    12 days ago

    Here in the EU, I just looked at some packed chicken. It’s marinated, but still: the ingredients say it contains only 87% actual chicken meat, then water, then salt. 13% marinade seems a bit much. It’s not swimming in sauce. Not sure if it’s been plumped too.

    It’s a truism that all sorts of industrially produced & packaged meat shrink when you cook/fry it.

    It would be interesting to know what the leagl situation is around here. I checked wikipedia and it refers only to the USA.