The Chlorinated chicken scare story is always promoted by anti Trump (hence on this thread I guess) or anti Brexit.
I am sure there are many food scientists that monitor chicken production who will know the reasons why we do not chlorinate our chicken as a belt and braces measure. They will also look at the health and processing of any imported chickens.
Its pointless trying to get 'facts' on a forum, from posters that already have their made their mind up out according to their politics. (how on earth is that science?)
We have our own food agencies and I have to trust them.
Having a read through the paper itself and it seems to be purely about the safety of the chlorination process itself.
There's nothing in there to do with what happens earlier on in the production line.
They didn't examine that at all.
Your bolded section is purely to do with how any additional washing and cooking AFTER the cholorination process might impact their conculsions when it comes to the overall safety of the chicken AFTEr it's been processed.
Yes, the problem is with restaurants and fast food places according to the information I posted earlier.
A very timely article, just from today
Chlorinated Chicken Not A Food Safety Issue, Says Former Food Standards Agency Head - LBC
Lord Krebs said that nobody was claiming chlorinated chicken is "more dangerous" than chicken processed in other ways, but that the debate should be focussed instead on animal welfare and plant hygiene.
Lord Krebs being the former Chair of the Food Standards Agency.
I've still to see any compelling evidence that the difference between EU and US rates of food poisoning is attributable to contamination at the factory. It seems much more likely to be poor handling at restaurants or elsewhere after leaving the abbatoir.
I’ve always seen the argument rather than from a unsafe point of view, but from a cheaper process that leads to worse animal welfare.
There is also the human factor that although something maybe safe to eat, once we are aware of the process the consumer maybe put of consuming!
e.g. mechanically separated meat
I know some will argue that it’s for the consumer to decide which is a valid argument.
I guess how cheap do we want our meat and how low are we willing to set the animal welfare bar?
I won't be buying it due to Animal Welfare concerns and a nod to the human health aspects even though I believe they (salmonella) have been exaggerated.
That's something I noticed too:
"It's perfectly safe to eat "chlorinated" chicken"
is not the same as
"Chlorinated chicken have no other public health issues"
If chicken is cooked properly then that will kill the harmful bacteria and it will be safe to eat due to the cooking temperature.
Any well done meat will be similar.
Hygiene standards have generally improved,and meats that would previously need to be cooked “well done” are now often eaten “rare” or “medium rare”, such as pork (as are less of a risk)
EDIT:Do read up on cooking pork rare before you do it!
Don't go there...
British Pork is safe to eat rare, but I wouldn't say the same for US Pork :image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7
"Now that the parasite related to trichinosis is virtually eliminated, the risk of trichinosis from U.S. pork is virtually eliminated, too."
Hmm, define virtually please...
I would only cook/eat pork rare if it's come from my local (good) butcher 
Having eaten out many times in the USA including the best chicken wings ever, I'm not particularly concerned.
I wouldn't seek it out, but I wouldn't be concerned about eating it.