On May 30, 9:18 pm, Donald Martinich > wrote:
> In article .com>,
>
>
>
> Nancy2 > wrote:
> > On May 30, 8:19 am, Giusi > wrote:
> > > monrae fordi wrote:
> > > > We get almost raw 'rare steak' to eat and the french eat raw minced beef.
> > > > But we are warned not to undercook pork, since some parasites are not
> > > > killed
> > > > if undercooked.
>
> > > > What i want to ask is what is the situation with Lamb? Sometimes I see
> > > > Lamb
> > > > that is still a bit pink in the middle, is that o.k.? Since to my mind
> > > > it
> > > > seems better a bit undercooked. thanks for advice on whether lamb is
> > > > safe
> > > > to eat in this situation.
>
> > > Absolutely safe and IMO absolutely better.
>
> > > --
> > > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
> > In the U.S., that business about pork is really no longer valid; there
> > haven't been any cases of trichinosis reported for ages (at least
> > that's what I read somewhere). I regularly cook my pork tenderloins
> > only to about 120-130 and then let it rest under foil for about 15
> > minutes.
>
> > Lamb is ALWAYS better when rare. Always. And safe.
>
> > N.
>
> CDC says there are about 12 cases of Trichinellosis a year in recent
> years. With a good percentage of those from wild game.
>
> Rare lamb? Leg, saddle, loin and related cuts are fine when rare. But a
> rare shoulder or shank are far too tough. Rare ribs- way too much fat.
> If you braise or spit roast the tougher cuts they don't dry out that
> much.
>
> D.M.



I always cook my rack of lamb to medium rare, or 135 degrees. The
only time I've cooked lamb well done is when I'm using leftover lamb
roast for shepherd's pie.