Scott wrote:
> In article >,
> "Emil" > wrote:
>
> > Why ["starting with pasteurized eggs"] a waste of time and really
not much
> > sense in today's world of food going from one end of the country to
another
> > in 3 days at most.
> > I think that is being too careful.
>
> I'm not sure what you're talking about. What's "not much sense in
sense
> in today's world of food going from one end of the country to another
in
> 3 days at most?"

As you probably understood, Emil is arguing that there is no need for
the eggs to be pasteurized since the eggs sold in the supermarkets are
fresh. As you are probably implying, "fresh", does not mean that the
eggs will be free of salmonella. The following is a quote from the
Georgia Egg Commission which explains both the danger and how miniscule
it is:

"Salmonella enteritidis (S.e.) is the bacteria most commonly associated
with eggs. Scientists estimate that, on average, across the United
States, only 1 of every 20,000 might contain the bacteria, so the
likelihood that an egg might contain S.e. is extremely small (five
one-thousandths of one percent). At this rate, even if you're an
average consumer, you might encounter a contaminated egg once very 84
years!

And, if you keep your egg dish cold (40 degrees or lower) bacteria
growth will be retarded. If you keep the dish hot (140 degrees or
hotter), any bacteria present, will be killed."

It seems to me that there is no need to pasteurize the eggs BUT
everyone has their own risk tollerance. This is probably a good
opportunity for having the good old unpasteurized cheese discussion.