TV chefs are major health hazards

[stovetop]

Oh please.... 

People survived thousands of years of cookery without the benefit of even the germ theory of disease (though did not have anti-biotic fuelled superbugs living in their poultry either, to be fair). The marginal increase in risk to anybody caused by licking a spoon is negligable.

It's sad enough that modern agriculture has turned food products into biohazards. Now do we consumers need to be beaten over the head with the fact that our food supply is noxious and toxic? Sure we do, because it is the case... but cooking on TV is as much about the fantasy that such were not the case as it is about the actual procedure.

Antibiotic crazed agribusiness should have to fund a ubiquitous public service announcement campaign warning of the dangers caused by their practices... The duty and the blame should not be shifted to TV chefs or anybody else. This is called internalizing the externality in economic speak. Time to advocate its adoption more broadly...

This post has been edited by cdh on Jun 25 2004, 11:04 AM

Wow someone is making sense here

stovetop

It is just TV!!

[slkinsey]

I have only heard about this, I've never seen the episode, but is it true that Julia Child, on air, once dropped something she was plating on the counter, scooped it back up on the plate, and said that "if it happens in the kitchen, no one will ever know"?

Yes, I believe it was a whole chicken.

Emeril claimed it was a swordfish, legend says it was a chicken, videotape shows it was a potato pancake. But the quote was right.

The quote is not quite right. According to the good folk at Snopes.com:

A 1997 Los Angeles Times review of Julia Child's biography, Appetite For Life, said:

Julia worked hard in preparation for the shows, always determined to direct her efforts toward the home cook, but on camera she was, as Paul [Child] said, "a natural clown" as much as she was a teacher and chef. She improvised, she joked, she dropped food and utensils. In one of her best-known television episodes, she flipped a potato pancake in the air and, instead of landing in the skillet, it plopped on the table. Julia simply looked straight into the camera and said, "You just scoop it back into the pan. Remember, you are alone in the kitchen and nobody can see you."

Child has admitted time and again to the potato pancake incident but has always firmly maintained she never dropped a chicken, duck, or whatever else the rumor has ascribed to her. Thanks to the power of manufactured memory, fans of the show remain convinced they saw something she has directly and repeatedly denied.

[FistFullaRoux]

I have only heard about this, I've never seen the episode, but is it true that Julia Child, on air, once dropped something she was plating on the counter, scooped it back up on the plate, and said that "if it happens in the kitchen, no one will ever know"?

Yes, I believe it was a whole chicken.

Emeril claimed it was a swordfish, legend says it was a chicken, videotape shows it was a potato pancake. But the quote was right.

The quote is not quite right. According to the good folk at Snopes.com:

A 1997 Los Angeles Times review of Julia Child's biography, Appetite For Life, said:

Julia worked hard in preparation for the shows, always determined to direct her efforts toward the home cook, but on camera she was, as Paul [Child] said, "a natural clown" as much as she was a teacher and chef. She improvised, she joked, she dropped food and utensils. In one of her best-known television episodes, she flipped a potato pancake in the air and, instead of landing in the skillet, it plopped on the table. Julia simply looked straight into the camera and said, "You just scoop it back into the pan. Remember, you are alone in the kitchen and nobody can see you."

Child has admitted time and again to the potato pancake incident but has always firmly maintained she never dropped a chicken, duck, or whatever else the rumor has ascribed to her. Thanks to the power of manufactured memory, fans of the show remain convinced they saw something she has directly and repeatedly denied.

Well, the quote was close...

[greenfield]

People survived thousands of years of cookery without the benefit of even the germ theory of disease (though did not have antibiotic fuelled superbugs living in their poultry either, to be fair).  The marginal increase in risk to anybody caused by licking a spoon is negligable.

Survived is an interesting word. In the last 100 years, life expectancy in the United States has gone from 47 years to over 77 years. (See this PDF from the CDC.) Life expectany in the Roman Empire was 25 years (See this PDF from a lecture on the history of Public Health by Damien Jolley of Deakin University in Australia.) I think it is safe to say that a large part of this increase in life expectancy is due to better sanitation, food handling, and cooking procedures.

As it is, as a society we can still do a bit better in food preparation. Fo example, generally, E. Coli posioning basically means that poop got in the food. This could be due to animal waste being improperly introduced into undercooked or unwashed food, or it could mean that someone didn't wash their hands after leaving the bathroom. If every E. Coli outbreak were reported this way, I'm willing to bet that people would take more action.

As for licking a spoon? If the spoon is returned to the food and the food is not cooked afterwards, I think that is a great way to spread infections or disease from one person to another. Do you really want to french kiss every chef who cooks for you?

Don't get me wrong; I certainly don't have the safest kitchen. But when I cook and bake I try to avoid most cross contamination and cook in a sanitary manner.

[cdh]

Fine research... I'm sure that sanitation, vaccines, anasthesia, subdued Huns, Gauls, Ostrogoths and Visigoths, antibiotics, prenatal care, lead-free pipes, and the fact that garum is out of fashion all contribute to modern longevity.

However you've entirely missed the point- Why should the burden of defusing the biotoxic bombs that agribusiness deploys to every supermarket in the country fall on TV chefs? Whaddaya bet that the chickens that they use on the TV shows are free range, disease free boutique beasts specially raised for the chef? If I were negotiating a media contract for a TV chef, I'd damn well stick that in as a condition of employment... no way I'd want them to have to deal with toxic chicken when there are minimally costlier alternatives that have a significantly lesser chance of infecting them or passers-by with noxious microfauna.

[jgarner53]

I think it is safe to say that a large part of this increase in life expectancy is due to better sanitation, food handling, and cooking procedures.

I'm sure that sanitation, vaccines, anasthesia, subdued Huns, Gauls, Ostrogoths and Visigoths, antibiotics, prenatal care, lead-free pipes, and the fact that garum is out of fashion all contribute to modern longevity.

Not to mention better nutrition in general. If all you eat every day is essentially oatmeal, or rice, or some kind of porridge, you are going to have a nutritional deficit. I'd say that a lack of adequate medical care also fed into the short lifespan.

I'd say that indoor plumbing has to be a HUGE contributor to increased lifespan. I heard once that medieval farmers used human waste as compost , and therefore EVERYTHING had to be boiled (even lettuce! ) When you don't have sh** running down your streets, everything's gonna be just a bit more sanitary.

I will admit that I am more fastidious in my food prep when I know others (guests, friends) will be eating it. But face it, I only have x number of spoons for tasting and don't run my dishwasher every day. I do, however, use a separate cutting board for meat.

[greenfield]

no way I'd want them to have to deal with toxic chicken when there are minimally costlier alternatives that have a significantly lesser chance of infecting them or passers-by with noxious microfauna.

Given the choice between free-range fully organic chicken and factory farmed, heavily medicated chicken, both properly prepared, I would definitely choose the free range chicken. However, given a choice between organic chicken improperly prepared versus farmed chicken prepared safely, I would definitely choose the farmed chicken. Salmonella is no joke from either organic or non-organic chicken.

Factory farming can definitely be responsible for significantly greater health risks than organic farming. (See mad cow disease, improper use of pesticides.) However, some simple culinary techniques, like washing your hands, avoiding cross contamination, and not introducing dirty spoons into cooked food, are fairly simple ways of stopping infections and diseases from spreading regardless of the origins of the original ingredients.

Do you feel more people are directly harmed or killed from the use of "biotoxic bombs" as ingredients or from improper food preparation techniques in the kitchen?

[cdh]

Back to the point of this thread-- What exactly should a TV chef be forced to do repeatedly on camera by way of demonstrating compliance with sanitary standards?

Should there be a closeup of a good 30 second hand scrub every time uncooked poultry appears? How about just a conspicuous donning of latex gloves... <*snap* ... *snap*> like the old standard shot before a TV surgeon goes into the operating room?

Should all food television kitchen sets standardize on a set of colored cutting boards and knives so that the viewers can be assured that the chef is cutting the right item on the right surface with the right knife?

Should there be a monologue about the importance of preventing cross-contamination every time one of these actions takes place?

There won't be much in the way of cooking television produced if these rules are enforced.

The food sanitation problems come from the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in raising animals, and the vile condition factory farmed animals live in. Those actions are directly attributable to a certain industry, and that industry pays for none of the havoc its policies demonstrably wreak. Is that right? Why, exactly, should TV chefs have to cut into their 22 minutes of instruction time to right the wrongs caused by an identifiable party who is not paying for them for that service?

Edited June 28, 2004 by cdh (log)

[Dignan]

As I said earlier, I think this study is just plain silly, so I'm quite satisfied with things as they are. But, perhaps the following measure would satisfy the handwringers: a introductory moron warning at the start of every show. Something like: Warning: Poor sanitary practices can lead to illness and ... DEATH! Oh, and also, knives can cut you and heat will burn you.

For example, the beginning of every New Yankee Workshop has a brief spiel by Norm Abrams, in which he says, and I paraphrase, "Hey, dumbasses out there who still managed to get the TV working. Wear eye protection and read the instructions that came with your tools."

[greenfield]

The food sanitation problems come from the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in raising animals, and the vile condition factory farmed animals live in.

This is incorrect. Bacteria like Salmonella, E. Coli, and Staphylococcus can be found in both factory farmed animals and organic animals. Poor butchering of the animals combined with poor preparation can lead to these bacteria in the final dish.

There are many problems with factory farming. However, organic farming is not a magic solution for all food safety issues.

Of course, I certainly don't want every TV food show to focus on food safety issues any more than I was to watch bread rise. Food safety issues can be boring, especially if it is harped on. I don't think the occasional note on food safety is out of place, just as I don't think occasional notes on where to get ingredients is out of place. I never want to tune in to hear: "Next on the Food Network: Fun Food Safety and Happy Produce on the Anal Retentive Chef!"

[cdh]

Fine. You win. All animals are likely to be full of deadly stuff that can kill me, and always have been and always will be. No changes in agriculture will make any difference. Bacteria that have survived generations of anti-biotic onslaught are no more hardy or infectious than they would have been without that selective factor in their environment.

But food television should not harp on it.

Edited June 29, 2004 by cdh (log)

[foodie52]

I'm not watching these shows for sanitation tips. I'm watching to either pick up some new culinary ideas, or just for entertainment.

But if it were a documentary about a restaurant....now that's another story.

[wrash]

"But if it were a documentary about a restaurant....now that's another story."

Remember the NBC "Reality" series that fizzled earlier this year? Just count the safety violations, food and otherwise. No wonder they had trouble keeping staff and customers. I'm surprised the death rate wasn't higher.

WR

[PoetsGirl]

Back to the point of this thread-- What exactly should a TV chef be forced to do repeatedly on camera by way of demonstrating compliance with sanitary standards?

Should there be a closeup of a good 30 second hand scrub every time uncooked poultry appears? How about just a conspicuous donning of latex gloves... <*snap* ... *snap*> like the old standard shot before a TV surgeon goes into the operating room?

Should all food television kitchen sets standardize on a set of colored cutting boards and knives so that the viewers can be assured that the chef is cutting the right item on the right surface with the right knife?

Should there be a monologue about the importance of preventing cross-contamination every time one of these actions takes place?

There won't be much in the way of cooking television produced if these rules are enforced.

The food sanitation problems come from the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in raising animals, and the vile condition factory farmed animals live in. Those actions are directly attributable to a certain industry, and that industry pays for none of the havoc its policies demonstrably wreak. Is that right? Why, exactly, should TV chefs have to cut into their 22 minutes of instruction time to right the wrongs caused by an identifiable party who is not paying for them for that service?

Oh My!

[WHT]

"Hey, dumbasses out there who still managed to get the TV working. Wear eye protection and read the instructions that came with your tools."

Engraved on the side of my Ruger P-89, "BEFORE USING GUN- Read warnings in instruction manual available free from Sturm Ruger and Co. INC." The part that gets me is they put it on the right side of the slide. Hard place to read it if you fire with your right hand.

[jbonne]

a introductory moron warning at the start of every show.  Something like:  Warning: Poor sanitary practices can lead to illness and ... DEATH!  Oh, and also, knives can cut you and heat will burn you.

in my heart, i thoroughly agree. and it's insane to think Animal Planet should contain warnings that getting cuddly with large reptiles can be dangerous, or that the Speed channel should remind folks they can't drive that way on the road.

sadly, (1) TV chefs are doing things they (sometimes) want people to directly emulate in their own kitchens, and (2) people can be really stupid.

i figure the occasional harangue by any TV chef at the beginning or end of a show about the value of kitchen hygiene seems like it'd be appropriate. maybe once or twice a season.

better yet, they could talk about the specific cleaning and safety requirements for ingredients and techniques they're introducing. informative *and* interesting. "if you decide to try my pork tartare at home ... "

[stovetop]

I'm not watching these shows for sanitation tips. I'm watching to either pick up some new culinary ideas, or just for entertainment.

But if it were a documentary about a restaurant....now that's another story.

I agree totaly with this statement

Tv is not a place to learn about this stuff; if you do not know you think that you pick this up on TV, They only have so much time, how much of the filmed show actualy makes it on TV????

stove

[phaelon56]

Am I the only one who thinks the researchers at the University of Guelph Ontario have way too much time on their hands. I've never really given much thought to kitchen sanitation practices when preparing food at home but just do what common sense dictates. I have never once gotten sick from food I prepared at home (Have also not gotten sick from food prepared elsewhere with the exception of some contaminated raw oysters at a restaurant once many years ago).

Julia simply looked straight into the camera and said, "You just scoop it back into the pan. Remember, you are alone in the kitchen and nobody can see you."

In a restaurant kitchen I believe the phrase used is "Thank goodness there was a clean napkin (or a sheet of paper etc) there when that steak (fish, chicken etc) hit the floor. Throw it back on the broiler for a minute."

[Beto]

This article in the Telegraph asserts that you could get sick if you follow the example set forth by certain celebrity chefs.

Fans of cookery programmes beware: a new study has shown that television chefs are using methods that promise gastronomic delight, but could deliver gastroenteritis.

Researchers who watched 60 hours of food programmes from Britain, the United States and Canada found that for every example of correct food handling, there were 13 food hygiene errors, typically seven per 30-minute show.

[winesonoma]

Seems this was already started on another thread. Food network something. Got a fuzzy fifth after a fun fourth.

[Dignan]

Discussion here.

[stovetop]

So you are saying that if I watch TV; There is lots of shooting and killing and raping, so this stuff will influence me to go out and rape and shoot people, my god why don't we just ban TV, there is nothing good on it, it just teaching us bad habbits, soap operas what about the bad cooking and cleaning habbits they teach us there, I realy think we all need to get a life, if you do not know the basic health skills, are you going to learn it on TV.

There is something very Ironic going on here, it is just TV.

Let us just take it at that.

If you are stupid and make yourself sick because you are following the chef on TV, then it is OK for someone who goes out and kills someone because they saw it on TV.

Where is the logic in all this stupid thinking!!!!!!!!

Is there any logic?????