There is a constant drumbeat of warnings about food to avoid, for
example raw eggs and oysters, meat which has not been cooked to near
destruction, fish which may contain mercury and so on. Yet the odd
thing is that nowhere have I found a warning against pre-ground meat
although in the stories one reads it often seems to be ecoli infected
hamburger which is being recalled.

I've looked (not too diligently, I admit) for stats on the subject but
they seem rather thin on the ground and often are agenda driven, for
example linking an increase in genetically modified foods to an
increase in the incidence of food poisoning. But overall the problem
seems to be quite minor, with about 5,000 deaths annually in the US,
compared to about 40,000 road deaths (with presumably an even larger
number of serious injuries).

So I've decided to maintain the practices of a lifetime and continue to
eat eggs, beef and seafood all the way from raw to well done, but to
continue to cook chicken and pork to the recommended minimum
temperatures. And to be sure to fasten my seat belt.

"Anthony" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> There is a constant drumbeat of warnings about food to avoid, for
> example raw eggs and oysters, meat which has not been cooked to near
> destruction, fish which may contain mercury and so on. Yet the odd
> thing is that nowhere have I found a warning against pre-ground meat
> although in the stories one reads it often seems to be ecoli infected
> hamburger which is being recalled.
>
> I've looked (not too diligently, I admit) for stats on the subject but
> they seem rather thin on the ground and often are agenda driven, for
> example linking an increase in genetically modified foods to an
> increase in the incidence of food poisoning. But overall the problem
> seems to be quite minor, with about 5,000 deaths annually in the US,
> compared to about 40,000 road deaths (with presumably an even larger
> number of serious injuries).
>
> So I've decided to maintain the practices of a lifetime and continue to
> eat eggs, beef and seafood all the way from raw to well done, but to
> continue to cook chicken and pork to the recommended minimum
> temperatures. And to be sure to fasten my seat belt.
>


Stats will tell you how often it happens, but they don't tell you why.
Common sense (and news stories) will explain it. With ground meat, there's
more surface area exposed to contaminants. The germs are usually present on
processing & packing machinery. As the meat is ground, the germs are
thoroughly mixed in. If you don't cook your burgers completely, they won't
heat up enough inside to kill all the germs. The same germs won't penetrate
a steak or a pork chop, unless it's been sitting around so long that
appearance or smell would hopefully alert you to the fact that it's not
worth eating.

Anthony wrote:
> There is a constant drumbeat of warnings about food to avoid, for
> example raw eggs and oysters, meat which has not been cooked to near
> destruction, fish which may contain mercury and so on. Yet the odd
> thing is that nowhere have I found a warning against pre-ground meat
> although in the stories one reads it often seems to be ecoli infected
> hamburger which is being recalled.
>
> I've looked (not too diligently, I admit) for stats on the subject but
> they seem rather thin on the ground and often are agenda driven, for
> example linking an increase in genetically modified foods to an
> increase in the incidence of food poisoning. But overall the problem
> seems to be quite minor, with about 5,000 deaths annually in the US,
> compared to about 40,000 road deaths (with presumably an even larger
> number of serious injuries).
>
> So I've decided to maintain the practices of a lifetime and continue to
> eat eggs, beef and seafood all the way from raw to well done, but to
> continue to cook chicken and pork to the recommended minimum
> temperatures. And to be sure to fasten my seat belt.

I'm with you on every point except the pork part. You don't have to
cook pork to death these days. Now, I don't like it rare, but medium
to medium well can be nice. The concern used to be trichinosis, but I
don't think that's an issue anymore. I've eaten raw beef 1000+ times,
and have never noticed ill effects. I nearly always make eggs lightly
basted. The goal is getting the white 100% hard, while leaving the
yolk as runny as possible. Using jumbo size eggs helps.

--Bryan

In article .com>,
says...
> I've looked (not too diligently, I admit) for stats on the subject but
> they seem rather thin on the ground and often are agenda driven, for
> example linking an increase in genetically modified foods to an
> increase in the incidence of food poisoning. But overall the problem
> seems to be quite minor, with about 5,000 deaths annually in the US,
> compared to about 40,000 road deaths (with presumably an even larger
> number of serious injuries).
>
> So I've decided to maintain the practices of a lifetime and continue to
> eat eggs, beef and seafood all the way from raw to well done, but to
> continue to cook chicken and pork to the recommended minimum
> temperatures. And to be sure to fasten my seat belt.
>
>

You can probably lighten up on the pork. Most recommended minimum temps
are much higher than needed for safety. Trichinella infestation is very
rare due to modern pork production methods, and in any event it is
killed by cooking to 138 degrees for 10 min. Cooking pork to 165 as is
often recommended is a sure way to ruin it.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

In article >,
says...
> Stats will tell you how often it happens, but they don't tell you why.
> Common sense (and news stories) will explain it. With ground meat, there's
> more surface area exposed to contaminants. The germs are usually present on
> processing & packing machinery. As the meat is ground, the germs are
> thoroughly mixed in. If you don't cook your burgers completely, they won't
> heat up enough inside to kill all the germs. The same germs won't penetrate
> a steak or a pork chop, unless it's been sitting around so long that
> appearance or smell would hopefully alert you to the fact that it's not
> worth eating.
>
>

You make the argument for grinding your own meat.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>> Stats will tell you how often it happens, but they don't tell you why.
>> Common sense (and news stories) will explain it. With ground meat,
>> there's
>> more surface area exposed to contaminants. The germs are usually present
>> on
>> processing & packing machinery. As the meat is ground, the germs are
>> thoroughly mixed in. If you don't cook your burgers completely, they
>> won't
>> heat up enough inside to kill all the germs. The same germs won't
>> penetrate
>> a steak or a pork chop, unless it's been sitting around so long that
>> appearance or smell would hopefully alert you to the fact that it's not
>> worth eating.
>>
>>
>
> You make the argument for grinding your own meat.
> Peter Aitken


Well, that would be one way of dealing with it. I wonder, though, if some
people would be incapable of understanding how much equipment cleanup would
be needed, and end up creating more risk than if they'd just bought a box of
frozen hamburger patties.

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
:

> Well, that would be one way of dealing with it. I wonder, though, if
> some people would be incapable of understanding how much equipment
> cleanup would be needed, and end up creating more risk than if they'd
> just bought a box of frozen hamburger patties.


Who buys frozen hamburger patties, or fresh, without understanding the
bacteria risk of each if undercooked? Don't worry about other people being
incapable, they're not your concern. If you caa clean a frying pan, you can
certainly clean a meat grinder (counter top or mixer attachment) just as
easily.

That was the dumbest post I've read in ages.

Andy

"Andy" <q> wrote in message ...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Well, that would be one way of dealing with it. I wonder, though, if
>> some people would be incapable of understanding how much equipment
>> cleanup would be needed, and end up creating more risk than if they'd
>> just bought a box of frozen hamburger patties.
>
>
> Who buys frozen hamburger patties, or fresh, without understanding the
> bacteria risk of each if undercooked? Don't worry about other people being
> incapable, they're not your concern. If you caa clean a frying pan, you
> can
> certainly clean a meat grinder (counter top or mixer attachment) just as
> easily.
>
> That was the dumbest post I've read in ages.
>
> Andy

You apparently have a very limited realm of experience with different types
of people. Let's address your comments into pieces, to help you.

1) Who doesn't understand the risk? People who seem to live in caves, and
are pathetically unaware of what you and I have seen a million times in the
news. Do you ever wonder how there could be anyone in this country who opens
mysterious e-mail attachments?

2) I can imagine almost any mechanical device. I should've been an inventor.
But, try as I might, I can't imagine a meat grinder whose parts are as
easily accessible as the two sides of a frying pan.

>
> You make the argument for grinding your own meat.
>
Grinding your own has some big advantages over store bought ground meats,
but that in itself will not guarantee safety if cooked rare. The center
under cooked (rare) portion of a patty, can only be as germ free as the
uncooked outsides of the piece of meat is before grinding. And when you buy
a piece of meat to be ground, you are again trusting in the butcher/merchant
to handle it properly. Also, such meat is easily contaminated if you are not
careful with it in your kitchen.

All that said, I eat um rare all the time. Also eat lots of oysters, and I
love a good Caesar salad made the original way, with a raw egg. Living on
the wild side eh?

Larry TO

"LT" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
>>
>> You make the argument for grinding your own meat.
>>
> Grinding your own has some big advantages over store bought ground meats,
> but that in itself will not guarantee safety if cooked rare. The center
> under cooked (rare) portion of a patty, can only be as germ free as the
> uncooked outsides of the piece of meat is before grinding. And when you
> buy
> a piece of meat to be ground, you are again trusting in the
> butcher/merchant
> to handle it properly. Also, such meat is easily contaminated if you are
> not
> careful with it in your kitchen.
>
> All that said, I eat um rare all the time. Also eat lots of oysters, and I
> love a good Caesar salad made the original way, with a raw egg. Living on
> the wild side eh?
>
> Larry TO
>
>


It also depends on your age and your health in general. Salmonella doesn't
usually kill healthy people, but sometimes....ya know. So, you weigh the
risks based on your situation. If it turns out you were wrong, you sue the
store that sold you the meat grinder. :-)

Peter A wrote:
>
> You can probably lighten up on the pork. Most recommended minimum temps
> are much higher than needed for safety. Trichinella infestation is very
> rare due to modern pork production methods, and in any event it is
> killed by cooking to 138 degrees for 10 min. Cooking pork to 165 as is
> often recommended is a sure way to ruin it.
>
I agree. As a matter of habit, but also because I somehow don't like
it rarer, (altho' I'm a big fan of raw and rare beef), I use 140 for
pork, but 160+ for chicken breast.

Anthony wrote:
> Peter A wrote:
> >
> > You can probably lighten up on the pork. Most recommended minimum temps
> > are much higher than needed for safety. Trichinella infestation is very
> > rare due to modern pork production methods, and in any event it is
> > killed by cooking to 138 degrees for 10 min. Cooking pork to 165 as is
> > often recommended is a sure way to ruin it.
> >
> I agree. As a matter of habit, but also because I somehow don't like
> it rarer, (altho' I'm a big fan of raw and rare beef), I use 140 for
> pork, but 160+ for chicken breast.

That seems right to me for pork chops and roasts. Sausage though, I
cook very done. Tell you what I adore, Johnsonville Hot'n Spicy
bratwursts, cooked over a hickory fire.

--Bryan

> >
> > You can probably lighten up on the pork. Most recommended minimum temps
> > are much higher than needed for safety. Trichinella infestation is very
> > rare due to modern pork production methods, and in any event it is
> > killed by cooking to 138 degrees for 10 min. Cooking pork to 165 as is
> > often recommended is a sure way to ruin it.
> >
> I agree. As a matter of habit, but also because I somehow don't like
> it rarer, (altho' I'm a big fan of raw and rare beef), I use 140 for
> pork, but 160+ for chicken breast.

Yep, I'm the same way. Having had pork well done since I was just a wee lad,
it's just ingrained in me that that is how it is supposed to be, and I like
it that way. Not dry like a piece of wood, but done.

Larry T
>

Anthony wrote:

> There is a constant drumbeat of warnings about food to avoid, for
> example raw eggs and oysters, meat which has not been cooked to near
> destruction, fish which may contain mercury and so on. Yet the odd
> thing is that nowhere have I found a warning against pre-ground meat
> although in the stories one reads it often seems to be ecoli infected
> hamburger which is being recalled.

Where have you been? All I hear about is ground beef. Lots of
restaurants won't serve hamburgers less done than medium.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> > There is a constant drumbeat of warnings about food to avoid, for
> > example raw eggs and oysters, meat which has not been cooked to near
> > destruction, fish which may contain mercury and so on. Yet the odd
> > thing is that nowhere have I found a warning against pre-ground meat
> > although in the stories one reads it often seems to be ecoli infected
> > hamburger which is being recalled.
>
> Where have you been? All I hear about is ground beef. Lots of
> restaurants won't serve hamburgers less done than medium.
>
I wouldn't patronize such restaurants.
>
> Brian
>
--Bryan

In article >,
"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:

> "Anthony" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > There is a constant drumbeat of warnings about food to avoid, for
> > example raw eggs and oysters, meat which has not been cooked to near
> > destruction, fish which may contain mercury and so on. Yet the odd
> > thing is that nowhere have I found a warning against pre-ground meat
> > although in the stories one reads it often seems to be ecoli infected
> > hamburger which is being recalled.
> >
> > I've looked (not too diligently, I admit) for stats on the subject but
> > they seem rather thin on the ground and often are agenda driven, for
> > example linking an increase in genetically modified foods to an
> > increase in the incidence of food poisoning. But overall the problem
> > seems to be quite minor, with about 5,000 deaths annually in the US,
> > compared to about 40,000 road deaths (with presumably an even larger
> > number of serious injuries).
> >
> > So I've decided to maintain the practices of a lifetime and continue to
> > eat eggs, beef and seafood all the way from raw to well done, but to
> > continue to cook chicken and pork to the recommended minimum
> > temperatures. And to be sure to fasten my seat belt.
> >
>
>
> Stats will tell you how often it happens, but they don't tell you why.
> Common sense (and news stories) will explain it. With ground meat, there's
> more surface area exposed to contaminants. The germs are usually present on
> processing & packing machinery. As the meat is ground, the germs are
> thoroughly mixed in. If you don't cook your burgers completely, they won't
> heat up enough inside to kill all the germs. The same germs won't penetrate
> a steak or a pork chop, unless it's been sitting around so long that
> appearance or smell would hopefully alert you to the fact that it's not
> worth eating.

Many grocery stores do not grind their own meat anymore. Much of it
comes pre-ground from large meat processing plants. Body parts from
hundreds of animals may be represented in one package of hamburger. If
parts from one or two animals were contaminated, the germs get mixed
into the whole batch. The real shame in this is that the skankiest
ground meat will be formed and frozen for sale to institutions like
schools. None of this lets the cook off the hook. If a facility or a
home cook does not handle food properly, the bacteria will feel free to
be fruitful and multiply.

When I was teaching intro nutrition for two years, I made a big deal
about food safety. A large number of students of traditional age are
utterly clueless about the topic. The food safety classes nicely
dovetailed with the chapter in Fast Food Nation (a required text at the
community college) about the Jack in the Box E coli 0157:H7 outbreak.

Cindy

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

>"Andy" <q> wrote in message ...
>
>
>>"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Well, that would be one way of dealing with it. I wonder, though, if
>>>some people would be incapable of understanding how much equipment
>>>cleanup would be needed, and end up creating more risk than if they'd
>>>just bought a box of frozen hamburger patties.
>>>
>>>
>>Who buys frozen hamburger patties, or fresh, without understanding the
>>bacteria risk of each if undercooked? Don't worry about other people being
>>incapable, they're not your concern. If you caa clean a frying pan, you
>>can
>>certainly clean a meat grinder (counter top or mixer attachment) just as
>>easily.
>>
>>That was the dumbest post I've read in ages.
>>
>>Andy
>>
>>
>
>You apparently have a very limited realm of experience with different types
>of people. Let's address your comments into pieces, to help you.
>
>1) Who doesn't understand the risk? People who seem to live in caves, and
>are pathetically unaware of what you and I have seen a million times in the
>news. Do you ever wonder how there could be anyone in this country who opens
>mysterious e-mail attachments?
>
>2) I can imagine almost any mechanical device. I should've been an inventor.
>But, try as I might, I can't imagine a meat grinder whose parts are as
>easily accessible as the two sides of a frying pan.
>
>
>
>
Try imagining two large knives. The classic way of mincing meat is to
put it on a board and whack it with two knives, like playing drums.

Christine

"Old Mother Ashby" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>>"Andy" <q> wrote in message ...
>>
>>>"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, that would be one way of dealing with it. I wonder, though, if
>>>>some people would be incapable of understanding how much equipment
>>>>cleanup would be needed, and end up creating more risk than if they'd
>>>>just bought a box of frozen hamburger patties.
>>>>
>>>Who buys frozen hamburger patties, or fresh, without understanding the
>>>bacteria risk of each if undercooked? Don't worry about other people
>>>being
>>>incapable, they're not your concern. If you caa clean a frying pan, you
>>>can
>>>certainly clean a meat grinder (counter top or mixer attachment) just as
>>>easily.
>>>
>>>That was the dumbest post I've read in ages.
>>>
>>>Andy
>>>
>>
>>You apparently have a very limited realm of experience with different
>>types of people. Let's address your comments into pieces, to help you.
>>
>>1) Who doesn't understand the risk? People who seem to live in caves, and
>>are pathetically unaware of what you and I have seen a million times in
>>the news. Do you ever wonder how there could be anyone in this country who
>>opens mysterious e-mail attachments?
>>
>>2) I can imagine almost any mechanical device. I should've been an
>>inventor. But, try as I might, I can't imagine a meat grinder whose parts
>>are as easily accessible as the two sides of a frying pan.
>>
>>
> Try imagining two large knives. The classic way of mincing meat is to put
> it on a board and whack it with two knives, like playing drums.
>
> Christine

That's nice, but Andy said "meat grinder", not two large knives.

"Cindy Fuller" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>
>
> Many grocery stores do not grind their own meat anymore. Much of it
> comes pre-ground from large meat processing plants. Body parts from
> hundreds of animals may be represented in one package of hamburger. If
> parts from one or two animals were contaminated, the germs get mixed
> into the whole batch. The real shame in this is that the skankiest
> ground meat will be formed and frozen for sale to institutions like
> schools. None of this lets the cook off the hook. If a facility or a
> home cook does not handle food properly, the bacteria will feel free to
> be fruitful and multiply.
>
> When I was teaching intro nutrition for two years, I made a big deal
> about food safety. A large number of students of traditional age are
> utterly clueless about the topic. The food safety classes nicely
> dovetailed with the chapter in Fast Food Nation (a required text at the
> community college) about the Jack in the Box E coli 0157:H7 outbreak.
>

Food safety is one thing, paranoia is another. Somewhere between the
clueless and the paranoid are the people who use reasonable safety without
living in either squalor or a hermetically sealed bubble. Restaurants and
other institutions need to enforce stricter policies because a mistake can
sicken a whole lot more people. And if the regs for those institutions are
set high enough, a small mistake won't actually sicken anyone. And they have
to assume there will be mistakes considering the skills of the employees at
many of these places.

I don't know a whole lot of people who follow restaurant health codes at
home.

By the way, what age is "traditional age"?

Donna

"D.Currie" > wrote in message
...

> Food safety is one thing, paranoia is another. Somewhere between the
> clueless and the paranoid are the people who use reasonable safety without
> living in either squalor or a hermetically sealed bubble. Restaurants and
> other institutions need to enforce stricter policies because a mistake can
> sicken a whole lot more people. And if the regs for those institutions are
> set high enough, a small mistake won't actually sicken anyone. And they
> have to assume there will be mistakes considering the skills of the
> employees at many of these places.
>
> I don't know a whole lot of people who follow restaurant health codes at
> home.
>
> By the way, what age is "traditional age"?
>
> Donna
>

If you lived here, I'd bring you flowers. Common sense is intensely sexy.

Food Snob wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > There is a constant drumbeat of warnings about food to avoid, for
> > example raw eggs and oysters, meat which has not been cooked to near
> > destruction, fish which may contain mercury and so on. Yet the odd
> > thing is that nowhere have I found a warning against pre-ground meat
> > although in the stories one reads it often seems to be ecoli infected
> > hamburger which is being recalled.
> >
> > I've looked (not too diligently, I admit) for stats on the subject but
> > they seem rather thin on the ground and often are agenda driven, for
> > example linking an increase in genetically modified foods to an
> > increase in the incidence of food poisoning. But overall the problem
> > seems to be quite minor, with about 5,000 deaths annually in the US,
> > compared to about 40,000 road deaths (with presumably an even larger
> > number of serious injuries).
> >
> > So I've decided to maintain the practices of a lifetime and continue to
> > eat eggs, beef and seafood all the way from raw to well done, but to
> > continue to cook chicken and pork to the recommended minimum
> > temperatures. And to be sure to fasten my seat belt.
>
> I'm with you on every point except the pork part. You don't have to
> cook pork to death these days. Now, I don't like it rare, but medium
> to medium well can be nice. The concern used to be trichinosis, but I
> don't think that's an issue anymore. I've eaten raw beef 1000+ times,
> and have never noticed ill effects. I nearly always make eggs lightly
> basted. The goal is getting the white 100% hard, while leaving the
> yolk as runny as possible. Using jumbo size eggs helps.
>
> --Bryan

The raw egg thing is pretty much overblown too. The United Egg
Producers estimate that about 1 in 20,000 eggs sold in the US are
contaminated by salmonella. I haven't done the math, but I think I
would have to eat an awful lot of eggs to have a likelyhood of
encountering two such eggs in my lifetime. In any event, it sounds like
pretty good odds.

BTW, I think I cook my eggs the same way. As soon as the white is done,
I'll flip the egg just to "seal" the top side and serve. Oh...I flip
'em hard so the yolk breaks in the pan. And nothing but jumbos. Three
jumbos and a pork belly is a balanced breakfast.

b.

wrote in news:1147968356.093397.304300
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

> BTW, I think I cook my eggs the same way. As soon as the white is done,
> I'll flip the egg just to "seal" the top side and serve. Oh...I flip
> 'em hard so the yolk breaks in the pan. And nothing but jumbos. Three
> jumbos and a pork belly is a balanced breakfast.
>
> b.


I used to eat like that! With buttered toast and melted cheese and
haskbrowns and a glass of whole milk!

Andy

Craig Welch wrote:
> On 15 May 2006 11:56:10 -0700, "Food Snob" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Where have you been? All I hear about is ground beef. Lots of
> >> restaurants won't serve hamburgers less done than medium.
> >>
> >I wouldn't patronize such restaurants.
>
> He doesn't really mean 'restaurants'. McDonalds, for example, is not
> a 'restaurant'.

This place http://www.ocharleys.com/ purports to be a "restaurant."
I imagine some of the trash cooks who post here would like the place.
>
> --
> Craig

--Bryan

"Food Snob" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Craig Welch wrote:
>> On 15 May 2006 11:56:10 -0700, "Food Snob" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Where have you been? All I hear about is ground beef. Lots of
>> >> restaurants won't serve hamburgers less done than medium.
>> >>
>> >I wouldn't patronize such restaurants.
>>
>> He doesn't really mean 'restaurants'. McDonalds, for example, is not
>> a 'restaurant'.
>
> This place http://www.ocharleys.com/ purports to be a "restaurant."
> I imagine some of the trash cooks who post here would like the place.
>>
>> --
>> Craig
>
> --Bryan
>

Looks like Appleby's, repackaged.

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...
> "D.Currie" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Food safety is one thing, paranoia is another. Somewhere between the
>> clueless and the paranoid are the people who use reasonable safety
>> without living in either squalor or a hermetically sealed bubble.
>> Restaurants and other institutions need to enforce stricter policies
>> because a mistake can sicken a whole lot more people. And if the regs for
>> those institutions are set high enough, a small mistake won't actually
>> sicken anyone. And they have to assume there will be mistakes considering
>> the skills of the employees at many of these places.
>>
>> I don't know a whole lot of people who follow restaurant health codes at
>> home.
>>
>> By the way, what age is "traditional age"?
>>
>> Donna
>>
>
> If you lived here, I'd bring you flowers. Common sense is intensely sexy.
>

aw, shucks <blushing>

Donna

wrote:
> Food Snob wrote:
> > Anthony wrote:
> > > There is a constant drumbeat of warnings about food to avoid, for
> > > example raw eggs and oysters, meat which has not been cooked to near
> > > destruction, fish which may contain mercury and so on. Yet the odd
> > > thing is that nowhere have I found a warning against pre-ground meat
> > > although in the stories one reads it often seems to be ecoli infected
> > > hamburger which is being recalled.
> > >
> > > I've looked (not too diligently, I admit) for stats on the subject but
> > > they seem rather thin on the ground and often are agenda driven, for
> > > example linking an increase in genetically modified foods to an
> > > increase in the incidence of food poisoning. But overall the problem
> > > seems to be quite minor, with about 5,000 deaths annually in the US,
> > > compared to about 40,000 road deaths (with presumably an even larger
> > > number of serious injuries).
> > >
> > > So I've decided to maintain the practices of a lifetime and continue to
> > > eat eggs, beef and seafood all the way from raw to well done, but to
> > > continue to cook chicken and pork to the recommended minimum
> > > temperatures. And to be sure to fasten my seat belt.
> >
> > I'm with you on every point except the pork part. You don't have to
> > cook pork to death these days. Now, I don't like it rare, but medium
> > to medium well can be nice. The concern used to be trichinosis, but I
> > don't think that's an issue anymore. I've eaten raw beef 1000+ times,
> > and have never noticed ill effects. I nearly always make eggs lightly
> > basted. The goal is getting the white 100% hard, while leaving the
> > yolk as runny as possible. Using jumbo size eggs helps.
> >
> > --Bryan
>
> The raw egg thing is pretty much overblown too. The United Egg
> Producers estimate that about 1 in 20,000 eggs sold in the US are
> contaminated by salmonella. I haven't done the math, but I think I
> would have to eat an awful lot of eggs to have a likelyhood of
> encountering two such eggs in my lifetime. In any event, it sounds like
> pretty good odds.

I never fear raw egg, but like many, I find unhardened albumens really
icky. My 4 YO does too, and I never coached him in that regard. If
there is any runny white, he rejects the eggs as undercooked, or as he
puts it, "Not done enough."
>
> BTW, I think I cook my eggs the same way. As soon as the white is done,
> I'll flip the egg just to "seal" the top side and serve. Oh...I flip
> 'em hard so the yolk breaks in the pan. And nothing but jumbos. Three
> jumbos and a pork belly is a balanced breakfast.

A low/controlled carber, eh? I agree, but not about breaking the
yolks. The "goal" I mentioned. I'm not great at achieving it,
therefore I'm barely even a good cook, certainly not a great one,
because I so often fail the egg test.
>
> b.

--Bryan

D.Currie wrote:
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "D.Currie" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> Food safety is one thing, paranoia is another. Somewhere between the
> >> clueless and the paranoid are the people who use reasonable safety
> >> without living in either squalor or a hermetically sealed bubble.
> >> Restaurants and other institutions need to enforce stricter policies
> >> because a mistake can sicken a whole lot more people. And if the regs for
> >> those institutions are set high enough, a small mistake won't actually
> >> sicken anyone. And they have to assume there will be mistakes considering
> >> the skills of the employees at many of these places.
> >>
> >> I don't know a whole lot of people who follow restaurant health codes at
> >> home.
> >>
> >> By the way, what age is "traditional age"?

I think he means 18-24, the college age of those who attend straight
out of high school..
> >>
> >> Donna
> >>
> >
> > If you lived here, I'd bring you flowers. Common sense is intensely sexy.
> >
Smart in all its forms is sexy.
>
> aw, shucks <blushing>

He was admiring the intelligence behind your post. Feeling
complimented is a nice sensation. I agree, except I only bring flowers
to my wife
>
> Donna

--Bryan

"Food Snob" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> D.Currie wrote:
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "D.Currie" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> Food safety is one thing, paranoia is another. Somewhere between the
>> >> clueless and the paranoid are the people who use reasonable safety
>> >> without living in either squalor or a hermetically sealed bubble.
>> >> Restaurants and other institutions need to enforce stricter policies
>> >> because a mistake can sicken a whole lot more people. And if the regs
>> >> for
>> >> those institutions are set high enough, a small mistake won't actually
>> >> sicken anyone. And they have to assume there will be mistakes
>> >> considering
>> >> the skills of the employees at many of these places.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know a whole lot of people who follow restaurant health codes
>> >> at
>> >> home.
>> >>
>> >> By the way, what age is "traditional age"?
>
> I think he means 18-24, the college age of those who attend straight
> out of high school..


Ah. People of that age are clueless about a lot of things relating to
everyday life. In high school, parents generally take care of most needs,
and college isn't exactly "real life."


>> >>
>> >> Donna
>> >>
>> >
>> > If you lived here, I'd bring you flowers. Common sense is intensely
>> > sexy.
>> >
> Smart in all its forms is sexy.
>>
>> aw, shucks <blushing>
>
> He was admiring the intelligence behind your post. Feeling
> complimented is a nice sensation. I agree, except I only bring flowers
> to my wife


Nice that you bring flowers. I'll just take the compliments and save them up
for when I do something stupid.

Donna

wrote:
>
> The raw egg thing is pretty much overblown too. The United Egg
> Producers estimate that about 1 in 20,000 eggs sold in the US are
> contaminated by salmonella. I haven't done the math, but I think I
> would have to eat an awful lot of eggs to have a likelyhood of
> encountering two such eggs in my lifetime. In any event, it sounds like
> pretty good odds.
>
> BTW, I think I cook my eggs the same way. As soon as the white is done,
> I'll flip the egg just to "seal" the top side and serve. Oh...I flip
> 'em hard so the yolk breaks in the pan. And nothing but jumbos. Three
> jumbos and a pork belly is a balanced breakfast.
>
> b.

I agree, I have an egg over easy for breakfast (unbroken yolk) but with
smoked salmon. Omega 3 whatnots doncha know.

> wrote:

>The raw egg thing is pretty much overblown too. The United Egg
>Producers estimate that about 1 in 20,000 eggs sold in the US are
>contaminated by salmonella.

I'm guessing that's the percentage of eggs internally contaminated,
and they're not counting bacteria on the surface of the egg.

Either that or it's a completely fasle statistic.

Steve

Food Snob wrote:

> A low/controlled carber, eh? I agree, but not about breaking the
> yolks. The "goal" I mentioned. I'm not great at achieving it,
> therefore I'm barely even a good cook, certainly not a great one,
> because I so often fail the egg test.


Are you referring to the ability to keep the yolk runny while getting
the white part done?

If so, I have a technique you can try. I know that it isn't the way the
good cooks do it, but it works great for me. And that's what counts.

I break open the eggs into the bowl. Then separate a lot of the white
into the fry pan and fry it first. Once it is done, then I pour the
yolks with the remaining egg white into the pan. It takes less time to
cook the rest of the white, and the already cooked part is keeping the
yolks from cooking too fast.

I pop my bread in the toaster when I start the yolks, and it all comes
out perfect.

" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Food Snob wrote:
>
>> A low/controlled carber, eh? I agree, but not about breaking the
>> yolks. The "goal" I mentioned. I'm not great at achieving it,
>> therefore I'm barely even a good cook, certainly not a great one,
>> because I so often fail the egg test.
>
>
> Are you referring to the ability to keep the yolk runny while getting
> the white part done?
>
> If so, I have a technique you can try. I know that it isn't the way the
> good cooks do it, but it works great for me. And that's what counts.
>
> I break open the eggs into the bowl. Then separate a lot of the white
> into the fry pan and fry it first. Once it is done, then I pour the
> yolks with the remaining egg white into the pan. It takes less time to
> cook the rest of the white, and the already cooked part is keeping the
> yolks from cooking too fast.
>
> I pop my bread in the toaster when I start the yolks, and it all comes
> out perfect.


A three miute egg was always a cinch, but hot to handle but that's as
good as it gets, over toast. No extra fat.

Now I'm a hard-boiled, no yolk egg man!

Andy