Jump to content


Welcome to the eG Forums!

These forums are a service of the Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to advancement of the culinary arts. Anyone can read the forums, however if you would like to participate in active discussions please join the Society.

Photo

Close to 70% of U.S. pork unsafe?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 thock

thock
  • participating member
  • 291 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:47 PM

I saw this, today. http://www.forbes.co...r-reports-says/

I'm not sure how cooking affects Y. enterocolitica. I know that for the longest time, U.S. consumers were warned to cook pork to an almost inedible doneness in the interests of safety, but it was my understanding that was to deal with the possibility of trichinosis.

Any thoughts?
Tracy
Lenexa, KS, USA

#2 Anna N

Anna N
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 6,417 posts
  • Location:Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:36 PM

I saw this, today. http://www.forbes.co...r-reports-says/

I'm not sure how cooking affects Y. enterocolitica. I know that for the longest time, U.S. consumers were warned to cook pork to an almost inedible doneness in the interests of safety, but it was my understanding that was to deal with the possibility of trichinosis.

Any thoughts?


http://www.andersonc...care-consumers/
Anna Nielsen aka "Anna N"

"It either works fine or not, but what the heck. This is bread, not birth control." Susan of Wild Yeast blog
Our 2012 (Kerry Beal and me) Blog
My 2004 eG Blog

#3 patrickamory

patrickamory
  • participating member
  • 1,581 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:02 PM

Wha'? Forbes and Consumer Reports on one side, Anderson Cooper with the National Pork Producers' Council on the other?

Something doesn't add up, though I agree 198 is not a significant sample size.

#4 Ashen

Ashen
  • participating member
  • 500 posts
  • Location:Ontario , Canada

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:47 PM

I wonder who the so called experts were that estimate 100,000 per year? could the writer of the article have possibly not read this same statement well enough

this is from the CDC website
"Y. enterocolitica is a relatively infrequent cause of diarrhea and abdominal pain. Based on data from the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet), which measures the burden and sources of specific diseases over time, approximately one culture-confirmed Y. enterocolitica infection per 100,000 persons occurs each year. Children are infected more often than adults, and the infection is more common in the winter."

to put that in context. that is only a little over 3000 per year not that 100,000 per year the quoted article stated.
"Why is the rum always gone?"
Captain Jack Sparrow

#5 thock

thock
  • participating member
  • 291 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:21 AM

Yes, 198 is not a significant sample size. It appears that there is probably less to this than it seems, at first glance.

Still, I do think that antibiotics have the potential to be overused. Not only in meat production, but also in treating human illnesses, and that can lead to antibiotic-resistant strains of almost any bacterial source of infection.

IMNSHO, it would be good to avoid using antibiotics prophylactically, and to have some sort of waiting period after treatment for an illness before an animal is slaughtered and used for food. This would avoid actively infectious meat from being brought to market, and would reduce the chances that antibiotics would linger in meat used for food.

Unfortunately, I don't think this is practical in mass-production scenarios.

I'm with you on the sides lining up the way they do. It's a bit odd. I am skeptical that the National Pork Producers Council has anything but their members' bottom line as their primary concern.

I wouldn't want to encourage NO antibiotic use, just prudent antibiotic use, with guidelines to ensure that one, animals become healthy, and two, antibiotic residuals don't exist in meat.
Tracy
Lenexa, KS, USA

#6 gfweb

gfweb
  • participating member
  • 3,801 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:58 AM

Contamination and antibiotic use are two separate and essentially unrelated issues.

Antibiotics are given as "growth enhancers" ...the swine do better on antibiotics. Antibiotic use would not change the rate of contamination which is the result of butchering/handling procedures.

Edited by gfweb, 10 December 2012 - 12:00 PM.


#7 annabelle

annabelle
  • participating member
  • 1,957 posts
  • Location:Grand Lake o' the Cherokees, Oklahoma

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:53 AM

Exactly. Beat me to it, g.

#8 rotuts

rotuts
  • participating member
  • 5,699 posts
  • Location:Boston MA

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:00 AM

unless the antibiotics select a resistant strain of bacteria in the animals (probably) gut.

#9 gfweb

gfweb
  • participating member
  • 3,801 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 03:07 PM

Even then a resistant strain, while bad in principle, isn't more likely to contaminate meat than a sensitive one.

#10 Baselerd

Baselerd
  • participating member
  • 460 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 11 December 2012 - 03:36 PM

Fear mongering from a news agency, who'd have thought?

#11 rotuts

rotuts
  • participating member
  • 5,699 posts
  • Location:Boston MA

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:13 PM

unless you eat it.

#12 thock

thock
  • participating member
  • 291 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:25 PM

Contamination and antibiotic use are two separate and essentially unrelated issues.

Antibiotics are given as "growth enhancers" ...the swine do better on antibiotics. Antibiotic use would not change the rate of contamination which is the result of butchering/handling procedures.


You're right, it has no effect on contamination, however, it CAN have an effect on resistance effects due to consumption of antibiotic residuals in meat. And no, they didn't say they found antibiotics in the meat they tested, but it is a consideration for me.
Tracy
Lenexa, KS, USA