Americans might be consuming an unsuspected and potentially harmful chemical present in a common grocery staple, chicken. This concern arises from the standard procedure used in the United States to prepare chicken for market.

In the journey from farm to supermarket, chicken is often chilled in large tanks filled with cold water treated with chlorine. This method aims to eliminate harmful bacteria such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, and E.coli. However, during this process, the meat can absorb some of the chemicals meant to purify it.

While chlorine rinses, which may also include chlorine alternatives and organic acids, are employed, they are not foolproof in combating food-borne illnesses. These methods do not completely sanitize the chicken, leaving room for potential risks.

In contrast, the European Union and the United Kingdom have banned the use of chlorine baths. Instead, these regions have opted for alternative methods like air chilling using cold air or, occasionally, nontoxic acid sprays, ensuring safer meat preparation.

In the United States, the USDA regulates this process and considers the chlorinated chill a crucial step in delivering a safe, consumable product. The USDA deems this practice both safe and effective, allowing chlorine rinses and sprays at concentrations ranging from 18 to 30 parts per million (PPM), with chill tanks permitted to reach up to 50 PPM to control pathogens.

The primary concern among public health bodies and experts is not only that chlorine residue poses risk to humans, but that it masks poor hygiene practices elsewhere in the process, as well as poor animal welfare guarantees at farms that allow for the spread of pathogens that may survive the chlorine process, which does not sterilize chicken.

Paul Saladino, a health influencer and former psychiatrist, warns Americans about chlorine-processed chicken. He recommends that consumers look for an ‘air-chilled’ label on chicken packaging, as this indicates the chicken was not washed in a chlorine bath. 

Air chilling is the standard in the EU not only for its ability to mitigate potential chemical residues but also its stronger, purer flavor, crispier skin and tender meat, as it avoids water absorption.

A standard chilling method for chicken sold in grocery stores involves submerging cleaned chicken in chlorinated water, a practice some experts warn may leave chemical residues in the meat (stock)

Saladino said: ‘Even organic chicken can be dunked in a chlorine bath and have up to 12 percent retained water from the chilling process, which means unless your chicken says it’s air-chilled, it is full of chemicals and chlorine that are absorbed in the chicken when it’s chilled.’

Still, the public health threat due to chlorine residue on chicken may not be as extreme as warned, according to experts. 

Edmund McCormick, a food Science and formulation consultant who focuses on microbial risk reduction with Cape Crystal Brands, told the Daily Mail that most mainstream risk assessments deem this is a minimal health threat. 

He said that when chlorine hits organic material on the chicken, like bacteria, it binds to it and neutralizes it. 

By the time the chicken is rinsed and packaged, the reactive chlorine has mostly been used up in this reaction, leaving very little on the meat itself.

Less than five percent of poultry processing facilities still use chlorine in rinses and sprays, according to the National Chicken Council, an industry group that surveyed its members.

Toxicity warnings should be taken with a grain of salt, based on a series of studies on the subject. Researchers tested whether drinking chlorinated water harms the immune system. 

Multiple studies fed mice and rats water with chlorine levels far higher than any used in food processing for months.

Air chilling is the norm in the EU for a few key advantages. It prevents chemical residues, enhances flavor and improves texture by avoiding water absorption, which results in tender meat and crispier skin

They found no negative effects on immune organs, cell function, or antibody production, even at extreme doses. The only change was that animals drank less of the highly chlorinated water, leading to mild dehydration effects, not toxicity. 

Additionally, although some people who are highly sensitive to chlorine could notice minor irritation, this is very unlikely because the chlorine concentration is extremely small—lower than what’s found in a swimming pool. 

Estimates suggest that adults would need to eat five percent of their body weight in chlorinated chicken each day to be at risk of negative health effects, like chemical toxicity or organ stress, from poultry alone. This is an amount far beyond anything a person could or would ever realistically eat.

While chlorine is used to kill dangerous, life-threatening bacteria, a chlorine bath is not a foolproof way to protect consumers from foodborne illness. 

Chlorine washes reduce but do not sterilize chicken. Some pathogens, like Campylobacter, can form biofilms or hide in feather follicles, potentially surviving the wash.

Consumers might develop a false sense of security and mishandle the meat, including by not cooking it thoroughly or allowing for cross-contamination in the kitchen.

In Europe, the primary strategy focuses on preventing pathogens in living animals through farm-level measures like vaccination and specialized feed. 

Chlorine baths, shown after the chickens were removed from the chemical rinse in massive storage containers, are used to kill off bacteria that cause food-borne illnesses, but they are not foolproof. Those baths may not kill off all bacteria, as chlorine does not sterilize the chicken

In contrast, the US system emphasizes methods to eliminate contaminants only after slaughter. 

European health authorities argue that a chlorine bath is a band-aid that covers up flaws up and down the processing line, the entirety of which should be made as safe as possible.

McCormick said: ‘A chlorine or an equivalent rinse is able to reduce surface microbial load but unable to reliably “fix” upstream failures such as a high incoming pathogen burden, fecal contamination events, insufficient scald or defeather control, poor evisceration control or systemic farm-level disease pressure.

‘In other words: Antimicrobial dips are more a last stand-in for a multi-hurdle system, not a replacement for clean birds in, clean birds out.’