Yeah, people don’t seem to like the obvious solution.

It was also hundreds of years of extremely destructive wars.

Yes. You dont create change by voting.

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?

The carnist brain is a dumb brain.

https://lemmy.world/c/vegan

Yes, the consumption of rotting flesh is a huge problem. Literally destroying your health and the planet at the same time. Not to mention the torture and murder of animals.

Dude needs a new home for his sea monkeys.

And in the United States.

The practice described by OP exists, but the practice must be disclosed, including any additional retained water by percentage.

NaCl does inhibit botulin bacteria too. Nitrate salts have the neat property of changing the color more into deep red territory, which some people tend to prefer.

Yes, the consumption of rotting flesh is a huge problem

The problem is that botulin toxin is stronger than lead to the power of mercury. The amount big enough to kill you is counted in nanograms. That amount is small enough to appear in meat way before it gives off any symptoms of spoiling

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.

Depends on how much more you pay

this is some fearmongering. unless your diet is nothing but packaged foods, your sodium level is always gonna be under the RDA, and sodium is necessary for your body to function. going low-sodium is more dangerous than going over the RDA for the average person.

going by the knowledge they learned in school makes them dumb though. if they weren't foolish, they'd learn the truth through curiosity but so many doctors i've been to are entirely fucking useless for anything other than running tests.

have anything wrong with you that requires ACTUAL THOUGHT? well, good fucking luck with that one.

most professionals are dumbasses and you'll get better results with google and just doing the shit yourself.

I totally agree. Most doctors are useless specially in the overrun healthcare system we have now

Yeah, but it tastes good.

The RDA is a maximum, not the minimum needed. You will be perfectly healthy on 200-500mg a day. Eat whole grains, meat (or dairy), fruit, and vegetables and you’ll get more than enough

Only if you’re vegan will you likely have to give it some thought, and then it’ll be enough to eat processed meat substitutes or just add a pinch of salt when you’re cooking

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 .

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.

Wholeheartedly disagree. And this is a very common complaint about Aldi. I've had absolutely no issues with their meat literally ever and I've been shopping there for decades.

It is the same here in the states. And it is in fact the case because I'd be the labels on the chickens that I purchase.

Eat less meat and buy Quality.If still undecided, a temporary job in a meatpack factory will be helpful.

Oh ok, I appreciate the answer! I didn't think of those points because I have seen hardly any because I avoid it like the plague. Do you know if removing the designation works for all shorts?

Alright! I appreciate the answer

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

You're not wrong.

I'm pretty sure it does. I remember thinking "of course they would implement it like that" when I first encountered a short as a regular video.

That was for other reasons though, like princes egos and the status quo, before that we had the plague too so I don't think it's relevant to the discussion...

People rising up has been a theme for some time though, and that's what it takes.

Eh, usa!

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.

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?

Chicken sold in supermarkets in America

I fixed the headline for you

Americentrism! You strike again!

That shit is illegal in EU

Here they fill meat with regular water. As long as it's on the label it's allowed. It's still a scam.

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!

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.

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.

Motor oil + violent splashing of wet ingredients into said motor oil. Her whole thing has to be rage bait.

How do you overlook the fact that the chicken has like a hundred nails pounded into it.

I dont know why, or how, but that viscerally feels worse than possible motor oil, because perhaps its only the possibility that the oil is motor oil, while the chicken has the absolute finality of actually looking like a Cenobite.

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.

even then you'd have to somehow avoid basically anything even remotely processed, and stuff like pickles and many many seasoning mixes.. You'd really only ever get too little salt if you have some specific health condition where you need extra salt, and you'll probably notice such because you'll go "hm i want more salt".

Every time I cook with I start out thinking "this is going to be the right amount of food". Then it Shrinks 40% and sits in a pool of juice.

I don't think I've ever had that happen to anything I'd cooked aside from bacon.