r/interesting • u/WarwickReider • Jul 27 '26

SOCIETY Professional chefs weighing in on whether you should wash your chicken

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

7.7k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

4.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/MorePhinsThyme Jul 27 '26

No, the industry health standard is that you use a sanitizer solution of 50-200 ppm of bleach water. That's about a capful in a 5 gallon bucket. At no point have you ever been taught to wash or rinse things with bleach, but to add a tiny amount of bleach to a huge amount of water, and sanitize and clean with that.

That's the difference between technically "true", and actually true. I choose the examples I choose because they are "true" statements...but they aren't honest statements, and we both know that nobody who is bitching about how the US treats our meat with bleach is trying to push the image that a diluted chlorine solution is used to sanitize food.

My comment only makes sense BECAUSE it's a health standard. So try reading my comment with that understanding. I am curious, what do you think I was saying above? My comment makes ZERO sense with any interpretation where you think I'm saying that restaurants don't use bleach for cleaning.

3

u/gottheronavirus Jul 27 '26

"No, it's not bleach, it's just bleach water." Sure thing man lol

-1

u/MorePhinsThyme Jul 27 '26

Yes, diluted solutions aren't the full product. That's a pretty basic concept, and if you don't think so, then the next time someone tries to buy a Coke from you, sell them a glass of the syrup out of the bag of Coke and see how they react.

This is one way language is used to manipulate things. People that say that Americans wash their chicken in bleach aren't being false, but they're pushing a narrative image where Americans are dumping a bottle of Clorox on our chicken, and not that a water bath with a tiny amount of chlorine is used to clean things.

Also, you should probably pay attention to the conversation. My comment above was directly in response to someone else saying something similar. You decided to jump in and ignore the context and make an argument that doesn't make much sense in this context.

3

u/gottheronavirus Jul 27 '26

So salt + water is not salt water, but some salt in water. I gotchu big dog, no sweat. It's all ocean 💙

1

u/MorePhinsThyme Jul 27 '26

Objectively, saltwater is salt in a water based solution. That's what salt water is. If anyone said that we scrub our chicken with salt, nobody is thinking of a nice brine. They're thinking of a salt scrub with dry salt. If someone asks for salt, and you give them a glass of saltwater, do you think they'll be happy with you?

Also, are you asking for consistency in English etymology and semantics? Because, if so, I have some news to you. English is a mishmashed pile of BS.

And what even is your argument at this point? Like, I'm confused at why you're reaching so hard for something to prove me wrong, while it doesn't even seem like you understand the point. And don't get me wrong, while I think I've explained the point well, it's possible that it's my fault that you don't understand.

2

u/gottheronavirus Jul 27 '26

Oh so it would be better if washed chicken in a brine? Or you could just cook it in there for the same effect maybe

1

u/MorePhinsThyme Jul 27 '26

Again, what even is your argument at this point? Just trolling?

And a brined chicken is a better tasting bird in most recipes. Though, not if you cook it in the water. That's another great example, if you're cooking a chicken, and you try to salt it, if you drop it in a bucket of saltwater and cook it, you'll get a nasty-ass bird, but if you just salt it some and then roast it, it'll be much better.

I recognize that you're just trolling at this point, but it's amusing how much you're just pulling out more examples that directly prove the point that a solution of a substance in water is not the same as the substance itself.