Why YSK: consuming too much sodium can lead to high blood pressure, increasing the risk of heart disease and stroke. In my country (USA), the average daily sodium intake is over 3,300mg, exceeding the recommended maximum of 2,300mg. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends an even lower maximum of 2,000mg.
Also: with the rising cost of food, being mindful of additives that increase sell weight is important.
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.
Chicken sold in supermarkets in America
I fixed the headline for you
Eat less meat and buy Quality.If still undecided, a temporary job in a meatpack factory will be helpful.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yeah, but it tastes good.
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.
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
The carnist brain is a dumb brain.
Here in the US I avoid Aldi meat for this very reason. Plenty of good products at aldi… But the meat is terrible.
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.
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.
This is done to avoid botulin toxin from being formed. It’s a much, much bigger issue than the sodium intake
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.
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
Thats nitrate salts used in sausages, salami and such. The NaCl used in fresh meats is mostly to add weight and supposedly make it more “juicy”.
Let’s call it 500mg instead of a half gram because big numbers are always scarier.
Every single ingredient panel I’ve seen (per 100g) reports sodium in mg… so seems perfectly reasonable no?
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
I always check the labels for this because I grew up seeing those Foster Farms commercials that would bring this factoid up all the time. Foster Farms does also do this, tho. They just do it with their “cheap” brands that don’t use the “Foster Farms” name.
This is why I don’t buy chicken from costco. Thankfully theres a good provider (Sunrise Farms) from Richmond on the Lower Mainland that makes a frozen skinless, boneless breat that’s cheaper than Costco, cooks to nearly the same size it started as the water content is low, and is semi-local to Vancouver Island.
I bought a cheaper brand of meat than usual earlier this year. It was so wobbly it could have been a pillow in a water bed. Needless to say the cooked meat was salty but otherwise tasteless with a consistency of pre chewed porridge.
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.
I think it’s like that in the whole of Europe.
The practice described by OP exists, but the practice must be disclosed, including any additional retained water by percentage.
Must be nice living in a functioning society.
Sure but you can read European history and find out why. People had to rise up to get this, along with vacations.
You can’t vote away evil since the ones who run things are not elected.
It was also hundreds of years of extremely destructive wars.
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!
Yes. You dont create change by voting.
End it. End it all now, Japan, get revenge. Fucking A.
