Are You Still Eating Chickens?

[weinoo]

Recently, a Costco in South San Francisco had to recall about 40,000 pounds of chicken.

A Bay Area Costco store is recalling almost 40,000 pounds of cooked rotisserie chicken that may be contaminated with salmonella.

Federal officials announced the recall Saturday morning of nearly 9,000 rotisserie chickens and related products such as soup, chicken salad and leg quarters purchased at Costco's South San Francisco store on El Camino Real between Sept. 11 and Sept. 23.

According to Mark Bittman in the Times, we "should all steer clear of at least Foster Farms chicken," and other other brands the company might produce: e.g. Safeway, Ralph's, et.al.

It seems like there are a lot of problems with salmonella and chicken from reading thru the Bittman article.

Should we all stop eating chicken?

[liuzhou]

We aren't all in the USA.

[rotuts]

I may have the date wrong, but I think i read the other day that this specific problem(s) was noted in March or May. one of those

months with and M in it.

our tax dollars at work. got two birds in the refrig soon to spend some time on the Weber ( vertically )

Ill go back to SV for Ck., after those two birds visit the Weber for a lengthy visit.

[Baselerd]

Considering how many cases of salmonella have been reported (278) and how many people are consuming chicken in the US, it seems like it is still more dangerous - statistically speaking - to drive a car.

[weinoo]

We aren't all in the USA.

I'll rephrase it:

Should everyone stop eating Foster Farms' chickens?

[rotuts]

you betcha. and their various pseudonyms.

One Dollar, One Vote.

My Ck. it's from Frank! on Sale !

Edited October 16, 2013 by rotuts (log)

[liuzhou]

I'll rephrase it:

Should everyone stop eating Foster Farms' chickens?

I can't stop eating them. I've never started. Never even heard of them.

[HungryC]

Sounds like the problem was related to precooked rotisserie chicken...the same old problem of mass production spreading foodborne illness. Buy raw ingredients and cook 'em yourself; best way to avoid food pathogens. Don't buy cut up fruit or precooked meats stored in the same cases as raw meats/poultry (some supermarkets merchandise certain items this way, like precooked/prepacked sides snuggled up to the raw ground beef, etc.)

Cooking, the age-old protection against pathogens.

[rotuts]

its hard to say. i was under the impression ( perhaps mistakenly ) thats its also involved contaminated raw chicken from several of the FM's plants.

the idea of classifying Salmonella an adulterant is a good one. but it probably will never take hold for financial profit motives unless

congress sees its seats threatened. that's the issue.

Edited October 16, 2013 by rotuts (log)

[sigma]

The argument Bittman is making is deeply irresponsible, as is the decision to print it. He is proposing, with no scientific background or research, that there is a new, heat resistant, variety of salmonella and for expert testimony he is relying on an ideologically allied congress person who has an undergraduate degree in microbiology. That isn't to say that there are no problems with factory farming, but junk "science" is hardly the best way to deal with a serious issue, and this is not Bittman's first foray into it.

The most reasonable explanation, of course, is undercooking and cross contamination, and not a new strain of salmonella that cannot be killed with heat.

[Mjx]

The argument Bittman is making is deeply irresponsible, as is the decision to print it. He is proposing, with no scientific background or research, that there is a new, heat resistant, variety of salmonella and for expert testimony he is relying on an ideologically allied congress person who has an undergraduate degree in microbiology. That isn't to say that there are no problems with factory farming, but junk "science" is hardly the best way to deal with a serious issue, and this is not Bittman's first foray into it.

The most reasonable explanation, of course, is undercooking and cross contamination, and not a new strain of salmonella that cannot be killed with heat.

Carelessness does seem a likely culprit in many cases of cooked-chicken-borne salmonellosis, but heat-resistant strains of salmonella apparently do exist (e.g. see Propylparaben Sensitizes Heat-Resistant Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Oranienburg to Thermal Inactivation in Liquid Egg Albumen).

[sigma]

That is heat treating at a much lower temperature then we are talking about here and the only issue was time at temperature, not whether is was able to be killed at the indicated temperature, at least as far as I read that, but I too took my last microbiology course in college .

[weinoo]

I don't see any irresponsibility - he's asking what you're gonna do...after presenting some facts.

[Martin Fisher]

I agree, Bittman hasn't got a clue!!!!!

There are a lot of issues in play here....not the least of which is subtherapeutic antibiotic use which leads to antibiotic resistance and creates strains of super pathogens.

Quoting Mr. Bittman...

"Until the Food Safety and Inspection Service (F.S.I.S.) of the Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) can get its act together and start assuring us that chicken is safe, I’d be wary."

Sorry, Mr. Bittman, it isn't possible for any government agency to 'assure' the public of a food's safety, there will always be a risk.

In terms of antibiotic use in livestock, the FDA issued voluntary guidelines last year.

Hopefully some sensible mandatory guidelines will soon follow.

Edited October 16, 2013 by DiggingDogFarm (log)

[Katie Meadow]

I don't eat chicken very often, but when I do I go out of my way to buy high quality kosher chicken or organic. Foster Farms is ubiquitous here in CA supermarkets and I have steered clear of it for years, not that I have based my decision on anything other than intuition and taste. The older I get the less meat and poultry appeal and the fussier I am about where it comes from. By no means am I a fanatic about organic only foods, but I guess my feeling is that if I am going to shop for it, cook it and ingest it I might as well reduce the unknowns and try to maximize the benefits, whether those benefits are from lack of antibiotics or choosing sustainably and humanely produced foods. Unless you are willing to go to the farm and the kill floor to check it out you still won't have any guarantees.

[sigma]

I don't see any irresponsibility - he's asking what you're gonna do...after presenting some facts.

I think it is irresponsible to present a new scientific theory with evidence only from the corroboration of a political hack who got her undergraduate microbiology degree no later than 1953. Furthermore, he is asking us to "assume," we must, he says, that Costco, with whom he has collaborated before, has a rigorous food safety program and that this somehow lays on Foster Farms' door, but with proper handling, all known science says that salmonella will be destroyed at a certain temperature, so we must leap with him to the belief that there is a super temperature resistant strain, and that we should boycott Foster Farms. Occam's razor, and science, tell us otherwise. So yeah, on many levels he is extremely irresponsible here.

[weinoo]

That's your theory...no problem with it.

[sigma]

It's not a theory. I have no theory about chicken or salmonella. I can, however, diagram his argument and see what it forces me to accept in order to get to his conclusion. His forces me to accept that there is some heat resistant salmonella causing these illnesses because, as he says:

We have to assume Costco has a pretty rigorous food safety program. And safe chicken, as we’ve been told ad infinitum, is chicken that’s cooked to 165 degrees Fahrenheit; at that point all the salmonella on it should be dead.

Well, guess what? Costco cooks its chicken to 180 degrees Fahrenheit, a margin of error that the company believes renders the chicken safe. But that didn’t work here. Which means, as far as I can tell, one of four things: the chicken wasn’t cooked to 180 degrees Fahrenheit; or there was some cross-contamination; or there was so much salmonella on the birds that even “proper” cooking couldn’t kill it all (this can happen; 165 degrees Fahrenheit isn’t a magic number); or … maybe there’s now a strain of salmonella that isn’t killed at 165 degrees Fahrenheit.

In the first sentence he has us assume that Costco is pretty rigorous, and thus asks us to discount the ideas that it wasn't cooked properly or that there was cross contamination. How do we know this? Because his conclusion from this point out is that it is on Foster Farms, so we are forced, in order to follow his argument, to discard them as well. That leaves either a whole darn lot of salmonella which just can't be all killed off, which he assures us can happen but there is no evidence anywhere that it can, and that we are dealing with a new strain of salmonella that isn't killed at 165 C, or even, apparently 180 C. Germs certainly evolve, but they rarely evolve in great leaps forward like this. So no, I don't have a theory, I have his theory, and it is an irresponsible one to print.

[dcarch]

The irresponsibility is in the individual who takes any one single source of information from the internet as the ultimate authority, especially issues regarding food safety.

A reporter, possibly a graduate of journalism, will report on a whole range of topics from art to science to economic to politics to ------------. He/she cannot be professionally trained in every field.

American Test Kitchen should not be on air, because few of the principals are trained in the food business?

dcarch

Edited October 16, 2013 by dcarch (log)

[annabelle]

That's not what he's saying, dcarch and you know it.

Bittman often makes specious claims (remember the garlic or herb flavored olive oil debacle?). He isn't a scientist and shouldn't be making scientific claims in areas about which his expertise is lacking. Certainly he has a research assistant who can make sure his claims are valid or is the NYT that strapped for cash?

As for Bittman's bona fides, I have two master's degrees. Neither of them is in journalism. Using this logic, my opinions are twice as valid as Bittman's.

Edited October 16, 2013 by annabelle (log)

[MikeHartnett]

We aren't all in the USA.

I'll rephrase it:

Should everyone stop eating Foster Farms' chickens?

Please don't rephrase. Even those in China clearly understood the question.

And if you're buying good chicken to begin with, you should have no concerns about this situation, in my opinion.

Edited October 16, 2013 by MikeHartnett (log)

[Tri2Cook]

I rarely eat chicken, it's not on my "favorite things" list. I don't dislike it, I just don't get a whole lot of enjoyment out of it either. If, on one of the occasions I do eat chicken, I happen to eat one that, due to being improperly cooked, handled or whatever, is infested with salmonella... then I suppose I'll have to deal with salmonella at that point. I'm not going to spend any time worrying over it though.

[Bill Klapp]

Bravo.

The Times has embarassed itself further this morning by issuing an Editorial Board piece on this, calling for a total waste of money that the U.S. government does not have. A single producer, already singled out with appropriate warnings issued, and a total of 338 cases. The Times seems almost disapointed that there have been no fatalities. There have been single fast-food outlets that have made more people sick. There is no way of knowing how many of the cases resulted from undercooking or improper handling. Inspection of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation, but at the taxpayer's expense, hardly seems the answer...

[gfweb]

The argument Bittman is making is deeply irresponsible, as is the decision to print it. He is proposing, with no scientific background or research, that there is a new, heat resistant, variety of salmonella and for expert testimony he is relying on an ideologically allied congress person who has an undergraduate degree in microbiology. That isn't to say that there are no problems with factory farming, but junk "science" is hardly the best way to deal with a serious issue, and this is not Bittman's first foray into it.

The most reasonable explanation, of course, is undercooking and cross contamination, and not a new strain of salmonella that cannot be killed with heat.

Carelessness does seem a likely culprit in many cases of cooked-chicken-borne salmonellosis, but heat-resistant strains of salmonella apparently do exist (e.g. see Propylparaben Sensitizes Heat-Resistant Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Oranienburg to Thermal Inactivation in Liquid Egg Albumen).

Useful reference! It says that 20 minutes at 56C (roughly 132F) is required to kill this strain. Looks like the SV times (60C x 4 hours) are still OK, but shorter cook times at higher temps (ie traditional methods) might not reach a safe temp in the center of a breast. If the breast was then chopped and put in a salad the surviving bugs could grow enough to cause trouble.

How many bugs does it take to cause infection? I'm not going to look up the research, but I can say with certainty it isn't many...I'd bet fewer than 50. So lets say just 4 bugs survive cooking and have a 20 minute generation time...after 20 minutes you have 8 bugs, after 40 16 bugs, after an hour 32 bugs...by the time the chicken salad makes it to your plate at the church supper there'd be at least hundreds. Now perhaps the acid in the mayo slows them down a bit, but you get the idea.

There are things I won't touch at a pot luck, just for safety reasons, never mind the fact that they look disgusting.

[rotuts]

these and most bacteria that cause illness are very small. it takes a good quality microscope at 1000 x to see them : 10 x 100 x objective.

https://www.google.com/search?q=salmonella+at+1000x&client=firefox-a&hs=8sZ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=JqNiUv7GEZHA4AO0noHIDQ&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1205&bih=1011&dpr=1

there are zillions left if any.