Tag food safety

The Occasional Food Post

Our friend Chef Jo found this blog post rebutting several of the accusations in that Australian news story about “meat glue” that I posted a couple of weeks ago. I’m not entirely sold on his counter-argument that nobody is using it to rip off diners just because he couldn’t find proof on the Internet, but I am willing to entertain the idea that the news show behind the story may have been exaggerating for effect, since that’s par for the course with TV journalism. And even this guy, who is a Big Deal molecular gastronomy dude, has to admit there are some issues with using the product in terms of bacteria. Given the viral video effect, it will be interesting to see how long it takes for local TV reporters in the U.S. to pick up on this and start doing their own stories, and what, if any, actual incidents turn up.

I have always preferred serving pork at medium doneness — a little on the pink side — so that the meat is still tender and juicy, not the dry, white, fibrous nasty shit you get when it is cooked all the way done. But Americans have been indoctrinated to think that pork MUST be overcooked due to concerns over disease (namely, trichinosis), and it can be damn near impossible to change people’s minds about that. Never mind the fact that there have basically been NO documented cases of trichinosis due to undercooked pork in this country for DECADES, due largely to the industrialization of pig farming. It’s sort of the culinary equivalent of being afraid that you will fall off the edge of the earth if you sail too far away from shore. Now, at long last, the USDA has abandoned this outdated notion and has changed their recommendations for cooking pork, saying an internal temp of 145° (with a 3-minute hold time) is safe for consumption. Here’s the official announcement and guidelines, if you’re interested.

I am excited that my town is finally getting a farmers’ market this summer. Not that it’s hard to find farmers’ markets around the area, it’s just nice to know that there will be one within walking distance of my house. Like a lot of farmers’ markets these days, the lineup of vendors has branched out to include meat and seafood, baked goods, coffee beans, and other products that aren’t strictly “farm” items, but sic transit gloria mundi as they say. This Atlantic Monthly post talks about a recent study, sponsored by the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, that dispels the notion that it’s more expensive to buy food from farmers’ markets than supermarkets. The researcher found that organic produce in particular was significantly less expensive at farmers’ markets (but, then, note who paid for the research…). I’ll try to remember to post a follow-up to this item once the market gets going and I’ve had a chance to suss it out.

This Slate article by British food writer Fuchsia Dunlop (only in England are children actually named “Fuchsia”) looks at the aversion to cheese in China. Chinese cuisine is largely devoid of dairy products, so the consumption of cheese is a recent affectation borrowed from the West and among the general population cheese is actually reviled. But, as Dunlop writes, it’s not because the Chinese don’t appreciate pungent-smelling food, as she details the extremely popular dish chou doufou (fermented tofu).

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

A Hard-Boiled Eggman

The national story about salmonella being found in millions and millions of eggs never quite got the widespread attention it probably deserved, since the entire country was too busy fighting over the “Ground Zero Mosque”, but it’s not quite gone yet. Last week the Boston Globe ran a story that, frankly, I had been expecting to see long ago in the development of the entire crisis, linking Maine egg-and-poultry producer Jack DeCoster to the egg farms in Iowa where the outbreaks occurred. Anybody who lives or grew up in my little corner of Central Maine knows about DeCoster and his always-less-than-aboveboard business practices (detailed at length in this post at The Atlantic.com), and when the salmonella scare first broke my own immediate expectation was that it would involve his operations. The Globe story tries to explain the tangled web of business connections that have been used to thoroughly obfuscate the exact nature and extent of the involvement, but sometimes all you need is the whiff of sulphur to know there’s a rotten egg.

This Serious Eats post talks about the food safety bill that is presently lingering in the Senate thanks to the Just-Say-No Party, and an addendum from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) that would push the onus of product recall onto food retailers, that is in direct response to this salmonella outbreak

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All You Can (Dare To) Eat

Here’s a factoid that left me a bit stunned when I read it: 70% of all the antibiotics used in the United States are given to livestock. That means that practically every bite of meat consumed by every person in this country has a low-level amount of antibiotic medication in it, which in turn means that we all have some amount of antibiotics coursing through our bodies pretty much 100% of the time. And THAT in turn means that all those germs and bacteria that pass through us inherit more and more immunity to those medications. So, while it’s a sound idea for your pediatrician to no longer be dispensing bubble-gum flavored amoxycillin like it was, er, bubble gum, maybe a better idea is to curb the massive amounts of antibiotics being given to cows, pigs and chickens.

That’s the point behind this piece in the Washington Post by Ezra Klein, which is where I encountered that bit of info. His point is simple: the use of antibiotics in livestock processing is a technique that allows meat producers to cram more and more animals into increasingly unhealthy conditions because they can be drugged heavily enough to curtail the rampant spread of disease that would otherwise kill all the animals and make processing less efficient. It’s not unlike those airplane seats I posted about the other day — sure, you get more bodies per square inch, but those bodies are being pushed to the limit of their endurance. Unlike that design, though, the net result of overuse of antibiotics is animal cruelty and the introduction of unwanted medication into the food supply of the entire nation.

This July post at Foodconsumer.org also looks at the problem. Sure, we don’t want to be getting sick from eating contaminated meat, but the cure is just as bad as the disease, and the problem wouldn’t exist if meat producers were compelled to employ different handling practices with their livestock.

Both articles point out that there is legislation afoot to try to curb some of this. Rep. Louise Slaughter (an unfortunate name given the circumstances) is a Democratic congresswoman from the district that includes Buffalo (!!), Rochester and Niagara Falls, and she is the primary sponsor of H.R. 1549, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009 (PAMTA). Slaughter is herself a former microbiologist with a Master’s Degree in Public Health, so she’s informed on the subject, not just using it for political gain. PAMTA, if enacted, would compel the FDA to re-review the use of all antibiotics in food production and to begin rescinding approvals for use wherever it appears to contribute to antibiotic resistance, particularly in the seven classes of antibiotics routinely used for human medical treatment.

I think you know what I’m going to say next…if you’re the least bit concerned with public health issues related to things like the increase in cases of MRSA in hospitals, food safety, and/or animal cruelty, it’s a no-brainer to support legislation like PAMTA, so if you actually have a functioning brain perhaps you can use it to fill out an electronic “letter” to your congressional representative asking them to do the same. Your congresscritter may or may not have a working brain, but they do indeed keep track of this level of input to help them decide how to vote (as long as they don’t have a pocket full of cash from the meat processing industry). My own House rep is one of the co-sponsors of the bill, so I don’t have to worry about this one, but if yours isn’t on the list of sponsors on the bill (as seen in this PDF), you should gently nudge them.,

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Linkapalooza 03-25-09: Food

chiles

Years ago, I got a reputation at work for being a lover of hot and spicy food. It was somewhat falsely deserved, however. I do indeed enjoy a dish with a little kick to it once in a while, and I am not one to pass up a dish because it is spicy, but I’m not one of those people who feels compelled to slather everything I eat with hot sauce or to engage in competitive throat-burning by always trying to go “one hotter”. That way madness lies. Anyway, you might very well wonder how chile peppers came to grow in such a wide range of concentrations of capsaicin, the chemical that makes peppers hot. This article in the latest Smithsonian Magazine goes with a University of Washington biologist to the wilds of Bolivia, which is the origin point for all the peppers we know today, to look for environmental/evolutionary explanations for capsaicin concentration and comes up with an answer that hadn’t been considered before: capsaicin is a fungicide, and peppers that grow in moister conditions develop more capsaicin to retard molds and other fungi.

The BBC reports that the champagne maker Perrier-Jouet recently held a special event to uncork one of the world’s oldest extant bottle of champagne. The champagne was bottled in 1825, and was one of three bottles remaining from that vintage. To the surprise and delight of the wine tasters on hand, it was still drinkable, if no longer all that bubbly. The remarks of the tasters in the BBC story are tactful and well-considered, to be sure, though I’m not too sure about the ones who professed that the ancient wine was better than a modern bottle. The guests also sampled champagnes from the 1840s and 1870s at the same event.

News From Home — Jonathan Bloom, who writes the Wasted Food blog, reports that he visited St. Joseph’s College in Standish, ME yesterday to observe the college’s effort to reduce food waste in their cafeteria by going trayless. The idea is that if students don’t have trays that they can pile up with lots of food, they will take less and thus waste less by not leaving food uneaten. The program has been in use since 2007, and it sounds like the on-campus students have come to accept it, if not openly embrace it. (Note: I taught as an adjunct at St. Joseph’s College about 15 years ago.) Americans in particular have a very long way to go in terms of recognizing how much food we waste, and a social engineering method like this is relatively painless and effective.

In a similar vein of learning to rethink our food habits, more and more people are beginning to take interest in CSA’s (“Community Supported Agriculture”). Not all of us have a green thumb like Michelle Obama, and many urban dwellers don’t have anyplace to grown their own veggies, so the idea of a CSA is that you pay a share to some folks who ARE working a vegetable garden, and in return they give you some of the produce they harvest. It’s a good system, but, as people who have been on the receiving end will tell you, sometimes you get too much of one thing, or not enough of something else, or you might end up with veggies you don’t normally eat. At Slate today, food write Catherine Price talks about learning how to deal with getting 30 pound of turnips in your CSA box or what to do with kale.

That’s just one of the several “locavorian dilemmas” one might have to learn to face. Another is food safety. Doug Powell, who writes the evocatively-named BarfBlog, points out that there is a tendency to associate locally-grown food with greater food safety, but that in reality locally-produced food products may even pose greater risks of contamination for the very reason we prize them: because they’re fresher and more likely not to contain preservatives, the chance of spoilage either from age or improper storage is greater. Locality is not a guarantee of safety.

While we’re talking about paying attention to what you put in your mouth, did you see this Boston Globe story a few weeks ago about how commercially-produced orange juice is made? It’s an interview with author Alissa Hamilton, who has just published a book called “Squeezed: What You Don’t Know About Orange Juice”, which may do to the orange juice business what “Fast Food Nation” did to McDonald’s. It certainly does make commercial orange juice (yes, even the “pure premium” stuff) sound like just one more crud-laden, over-processed, junk item you can live without.

pepsi-natural

And that brings me to the last link for this post: trying to cash in on the success of Pepsi “Raw” in Europe, Pepsi is planning to roll out three varieties of Pepsi sweetened with good old fashioned cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup. They’re going to call it “Pepsi Natural” here in the U.S.. It’s supposedly available right now in selected markets (Boston is not one of them, unfortunately) and is not intended to be a “limited-edition” product like some of the flavored varieties but instead a permanent addition to the product line. I suppose that means those of us who don’t live in the test markets will have to wait six months or so. It’s also worth noting that this product is NOT the same as the “Kosher-for-Passover” version of Pepsi, due to some of the other ingredients.

This is clearly the thin edge of the wedge in the coming backlash against HFCS. I’m sure you’ve seen the insulting “HFCS is good for you” commercials that have been running since last fall that suggest that just because you’re too stupid to remember why high-fructose corn syrup is bad for you, it must be perfectly OKAY. Cadbury-Schweppes, which owns Snapple, has also announced that they are replacing HFCS in their products with cane/beet sugar. But, as this activist website points out, it’s necessary to keep in mind that too much sugar is just as bad for you as too much HFCS, just in different ways.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Say “Pasteurized Processed Cheese Food!”

American Cheese

If you’re a cheese lover like me, you are well aware that for the last couple of years, the FDA has required all imported cheeses sold in the U.S. to be made from pasteurized milk, even if they have been made for centuries using raw milk to no ill effect. It’s had an impact on the quality of imported cheese that is made by large industrial concerns abroad (which means it has also affected cheese quality in Europe as well). Of course, the real high-end cheesemongers like Formaggio Kitchen in Cambridge and Murray’s in New York, still manage to obtain and sell unpasteurized raw-milk cheeses, openly flaunting the restriction, but if you are accustomed to buying cheese from just about anyone else, you have not had The Real Thing in a while.

Domestically-made cheese has always been subject to the pasteurization rules. That’s not to say you can’t buy artisanal raw-milk cheese made in this country, but any cheese product sold across state lines has to be pasteurized. By and large, this hasn’t been a huge issue for the American consumer, because Americans don’t like “real” cheese. Americans have been acculturated to like bland cheeses, and cheeses that had their origins in stronger-flavored varieties have been engineered to have less flavor.

Via growabrain, here’s an article from American Heritage Magazine which explains how J. L. Kraft basically invented the market for cheese in the United States by convincing Americans that second-grade cheese, cheese blends, and “cheese-like food” were worth eating.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress

Switch to our mobile site