Vegetarian Discussion: Raw Chicken Dirtier Than Ever, Report Says

Raw Chicken Dirtier Than Ever, Report Says
Posts: 68

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)

Pearl
2006-12-05 17:08:18 EST
Raw chicken dirtier than ever, report says

By Bill Hendrick
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/05/06

Chicken isn't sushi. It's not to be eaten raw. Or medium well. Or chewy
or pink. Ever.

That's what experts stressed Monday after Consumer Reports magazine
published what it described as a "stunning" study asserting that raw
broilers sold nationwide are a lot dirtier than in the past, harboring large
amounts of campylobacter or salmonella bacteria that can make people
sick, usually with diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever lasting two to
five days.

Consumer Reports said its analysis of broilers revealed that 83 percent of
the chicken tested harbored the two leading bacterial causes of foodborne
disease, a major increase from 2003, when it reported finding that 49
percent tested positive for one or both pathogens.

The magazine said major chicken producers had "stabilized the incidence
of salmonella, but spiral-shaped campylobacter has wriggled onto more
chickens than ever." Though the U.S. Department of Agriculture tests
chickens for salmonella, "it has not set a standard for campylobacter" but
should, the magazine said.

Salmonella and campylobacter are bacteria that can cause symptoms similar
to food poisoning, endangering people with impaired immune systems. In
some cases, diarrhea can be so severe that patients require hospitalization.

Michael P. Doyle, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University
of Georgia, said proper cooking, strict handwashing and other measures
can kill the bacteria.

The magazine said 49 percent of the chicken tested was found to be
infected when it last studied the issue in 2003. It said the increase was
probably related to increased resistance to antibiotics.

Doyle said the higher counts may be the result of the "discontinuance of
the use of antimicrobials in poultry production." He said chickens naturally
carry the bacteria in their intestinal tracts.

Spokespersons for Publix and Kroger said they have rigorous rules in place
to make sure leaky packages of raw chicken are not sold.

Richard Lobb, spokesman for the National Chicken Council in Washington,
said premium brands chicken packers like Tyson and Perdue make sure
packages are wrapped and sealed to prevent leaks.

Georgia Agriculture Commissioner Tommy Irvin said contamination, to him,
is a nonissue because "I don't know of anybody who eats raw chicken" and
that he "wouldn't think about putting my teeth into a piece of chicken unless
it's well done."

In some cultures, however, chicken is eaten raw, said Joe Truex,
chef-owner of Repast restaurant in Midtown."I eat it raw in Japan," he
said. "It's a lot more accepted there. But they don't produce on a larger
scale. They can put more care into what they are doing. I couldn't do it
here."

All chicken at his restaurant, he said, is cooked to an interior temperature
of 165 degrees.

Bacteria in poultry has long been a problem. After dropping for several
years, the incidence of salmonella as a foodborne illness from chicken is
increasing, Consumer Reports said.

Bacterial contamination in poultry is so common that the U.S. Department
of Agriculture last year began advising consumers not to wash poultry
before cooking to reduce the risk of splashing germs around their kitchens
and contaminating other foods.

Consumer Reports said chickens labeled as organic or raised without
antibiotics and costing $3 to $5 per pound were more likely to harbor
salmonella than conventionally produced broilers that cost about $1 per
pound. It also said most bacteria it tested from chicken showed resistance
to one or more antibiotics, including some fed to speed growth of the fowl
and those prescribed to humans to treat infections.

"The findings suggest that some people who are sickened by chicken might
need to try several antibiotics before finding one that works," Consumer
Reports said.

The magazine said it tested 525 fresh, whole broilers bought at
supermarkets, mass merchandisers, gourmet shops and natural food
stores in 23 states last spring. Tests including four leading brands,
Foster Farms, Perdue, Pilgrim's Pride and Tyson.

Both salmonella and campylobacter can cause intestinal distress.
Campylobacter also can lead to meningitis, arthritis and Guillain-Barre
syndrome, a neurological disorder, Consumer Reports said. The U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said as many as 40 percent
of the cases of Guillain-Barre in this country may be triggered by
campylobacter infection. In 2004, poultry was involved in 24 percent of
outbreaks in which a single product was identified, up from 20 percent
in 1998, Consumer Reports said.

HOW TO AVOID CONTAMINATION

> Wash hands thoroughly after handling raw chicken.

> Don't put cooked chicken or any meat back on the same plate that had
been used for the food when raw.

> After touching raw chicken, don't toss salad before washing hands, and
don't cut it with the same knife used on raw chicken.

> Clean boards used to cut raw chicken.

Source: Georgia Agriculture Department

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2006/12/05/meshchicken1205a.html


Better yet, by far, for you, animals, and the environment:

GO VEGAN.





Peter Bowditch
2006-12-05 20:59:23 EST
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>Raw chicken dirtier than ever, report says
>
>By Bill Hendrick
>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>Published on: 12/05/06
>
>Chicken isn't sushi. It's not to be eaten raw. Or medium well. Or chewy
>or pink. Ever.
>
>That's what experts stressed Monday after Consumer Reports magazine
>published what it described as a "stunning" study asserting that raw
>broilers sold nationwide are a lot dirtier than in the past, harboring large
>amounts of campylobacter or salmonella bacteria that can make people
>sick, usually with diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever lasting two to
>five days.
>
>Consumer Reports said its analysis of broilers

There is a reason for calling them "broilers". It's because they
aren't supposed to be eaten raw.

Is it a slow news day? Why are we hearing about something which
everyone has known about for years? Decades. Centuries.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Gem
2006-12-06 01:10:19 EST
Peter Bowditch wrote:
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
>
>>Raw chicken dirtier than ever, report says
>>
>>By Bill Hendrick
>>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>>Published on: 12/05/06
>>
>>Chicken isn't sushi. It's not to be eaten raw. Or medium well. Or chewy
>>or pink. Ever.
>>
>>That's what experts stressed Monday after Consumer Reports magazine
>>published what it described as a "stunning" study asserting that raw
>>broilers sold nationwide are a lot dirtier than in the past, harboring large
>>amounts of campylobacter or salmonella bacteria that can make people
>>sick, usually with diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever lasting two to
>>five days.
>>
>>Consumer Reports said its analysis of broilers
>
>
> There is a reason for calling them "broilers". It's because they
> aren't supposed to be eaten raw.
>
> Is it a slow news day? Why are we hearing about something which
> everyone has known about for years? Decades. Centuries.

Well, it's on TV news too. You snipped a few items that make it current.

"... 83 percent of the chicken tested harbored the two leading bacterial
causes of foodborne disease, a major increase from 2003, when it reported
finding that 49 percent tested positive for one or both pathogens."

"... was probably related to increased resistance to antibiotics."

"... may be the result of the "discontinuance of the use of antimicrobials
in poultry production.""

"After dropping for several years, the incidence of salmonella as a
foodborne illness from chicken is increasing"

"It also said most bacteria it tested from chicken showed resistance to one
or more antibiotics, including some fed to speed growth of the fowl and
those prescribed to humans to treat infections."

Peter Bowditch
2006-12-06 01:35:53 EST
Gem <param@slotmail.com> wrote:

>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Raw chicken dirtier than ever, report says
>>>
>>>By Bill Hendrick
>>>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>>>Published on: 12/05/06
>>>
>>>Chicken isn't sushi. It's not to be eaten raw. Or medium well. Or chewy
>>>or pink. Ever.
>>>
>>>That's what experts stressed Monday after Consumer Reports magazine
>>>published what it described as a "stunning" study asserting that raw
>>>broilers sold nationwide are a lot dirtier than in the past, harboring large
>>>amounts of campylobacter or salmonella bacteria that can make people
>>>sick, usually with diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever lasting two to
>>>five days.
>>>
>>>Consumer Reports said its analysis of broilers
>>
>>
>> There is a reason for calling them "broilers". It's because they
>> aren't supposed to be eaten raw.
>>
>> Is it a slow news day? Why are we hearing about something which
>> everyone has known about for years? Decades. Centuries.
>
>Well, it's on TV news too. You snipped a few items that make it current.
>
>"... 83 percent of the chicken tested harbored the two leading bacterial
>causes of foodborne disease, a major increase from 2003, when it reported
>finding that 49 percent tested positive for one or both pathogens."
>
>"... was probably related to increased resistance to antibiotics."
>
>"... may be the result of the "discontinuance of the use of antimicrobials
>in poultry production.""
>
>"After dropping for several years, the incidence of salmonella as a
>foodborne illness from chicken is increasing"
>
>"It also said most bacteria it tested from chicken showed resistance to one
>or more antibiotics, including some fed to speed growth of the fowl and
>those prescribed to humans to treat infections."

As I said, it must have been a slow news day. Do you know anyone who
eats raw chicken?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Gem
2006-12-06 03:56:38 EST
Peter Bowditch wrote:
> Gem <param@slotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>
>>>"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Raw chicken dirtier than ever, report says
>>>>
>>>>By Bill Hendrick
>>>>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>>>>Published on: 12/05/06
>>>>
>>>>Chicken isn't sushi. It's not to be eaten raw. Or medium well. Or chewy
>>>>or pink. Ever.
>>>>
>>>>That's what experts stressed Monday after Consumer Reports magazine
>>>>published what it described as a "stunning" study asserting that raw
>>>>broilers sold nationwide are a lot dirtier than in the past, harboring large
>>>>amounts of campylobacter or salmonella bacteria that can make people
>>>>sick, usually with diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever lasting two to
>>>>five days.
>>>>
>>>>Consumer Reports said its analysis of broilers
>>>
>>>
>>>There is a reason for calling them "broilers". It's because they
>>>aren't supposed to be eaten raw.
>>>
>>>Is it a slow news day? Why are we hearing about something which
>>>everyone has known about for years? Decades. Centuries.
>>
>>Well, it's on TV news too. You snipped a few items that make it current.
>>
>>"... 83 percent of the chicken tested harbored the two leading bacterial
>>causes of foodborne disease, a major increase from 2003, when it reported
>>finding that 49 percent tested positive for one or both pathogens."
>>
>>"... was probably related to increased resistance to antibiotics."
>>
>>"... may be the result of the "discontinuance of the use of antimicrobials
>>in poultry production.""
>>
>>"After dropping for several years, the incidence of salmonella as a
>>foodborne illness from chicken is increasing"
>>
>>"It also said most bacteria it tested from chicken showed resistance to one
>>or more antibiotics, including some fed to speed growth of the fowl and
>>those prescribed to humans to treat infections."
>
>
> As I said, it must have been a slow news day. Do you know anyone who
> eats raw chicken?

"Bacterial contamination in poultry is so common that the U.S. Department
of Agriculture last year began advising consumers not to wash poultry
before cooking to reduce the risk of splashing germs around their kitchens
and contaminating other foods."

But it still needs to be handled somehow. I'd recommend a full Hazmat suit.

Peter Bowditch
2006-12-06 05:29:39 EST
Gem <param@slotmail.com> wrote:

>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>> Gem <param@slotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>
>>>>"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Raw chicken dirtier than ever, report says
>>>>>
>>>>>By Bill Hendrick
>>>>>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>>>>>Published on: 12/05/06
>>>>>
>>>>>Chicken isn't sushi. It's not to be eaten raw. Or medium well. Or chewy
>>>>>or pink. Ever.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's what experts stressed Monday after Consumer Reports magazine
>>>>>published what it described as a "stunning" study asserting that raw
>>>>>broilers sold nationwide are a lot dirtier than in the past, harboring large
>>>>>amounts of campylobacter or salmonella bacteria that can make people
>>>>>sick, usually with diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever lasting two to
>>>>>five days.
>>>>>
>>>>>Consumer Reports said its analysis of broilers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There is a reason for calling them "broilers". It's because they
>>>>aren't supposed to be eaten raw.
>>>>
>>>>Is it a slow news day? Why are we hearing about something which
>>>>everyone has known about for years? Decades. Centuries.
>>>
>>>Well, it's on TV news too. You snipped a few items that make it current.
>>>
>>>"... 83 percent of the chicken tested harbored the two leading bacterial
>>>causes of foodborne disease, a major increase from 2003, when it reported
>>>finding that 49 percent tested positive for one or both pathogens."
>>>
>>>"... was probably related to increased resistance to antibiotics."
>>>
>>>"... may be the result of the "discontinuance of the use of antimicrobials
>>>in poultry production.""
>>>
>>>"After dropping for several years, the incidence of salmonella as a
>>>foodborne illness from chicken is increasing"
>>>
>>>"It also said most bacteria it tested from chicken showed resistance to one
>>>or more antibiotics, including some fed to speed growth of the fowl and
>>>those prescribed to humans to treat infections."
>>
>>
>> As I said, it must have been a slow news day. Do you know anyone who
>> eats raw chicken?
>
>"Bacterial contamination in poultry is so common that the U.S. Department
>of Agriculture last year began advising consumers not to wash poultry
>before cooking to reduce the risk of splashing germs around their kitchens
>and contaminating other foods."
>
>But it still needs to be handled somehow. I'd recommend a full Hazmat suit.

Help me here. It has been common knowledge for a very long time that
raw chicken harbours bacteria. Any cook with even a smidgen of
competence knows not to touch any food that is not about to be cooked
with any implement or surface which has been in contact with raw
chicken unless that implement of surface has been cleaned.

What I want to know is why anyone thinks that the fact that raw
chicken is dangerous is news.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Pearl
2006-12-06 08:37:25 EST
"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message news:dn5dn255877p6tlu7dverc685cphnd3dmf@4ax.com...
> Gem <param@slotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Peter Bowditch wrote:
> >> Gem <param@slotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Raw chicken dirtier than ever, report says
> >>>>>
> >>>>>By Bill Hendrick
> >>>>>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
> >>>>>Published on: 12/05/06
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Chicken isn't sushi. It's not to be eaten raw. Or medium well. Or chewy
> >>>>>or pink. Ever.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That's what experts stressed Monday after Consumer Reports magazine
> >>>>>published what it described as a "stunning" study asserting that raw
> >>>>>broilers sold nationwide are a lot dirtier than in the past, harboring large
> >>>>>amounts of campylobacter or salmonella bacteria that can make people
> >>>>>sick, usually with diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever lasting two to
> >>>>>five days.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Consumer Reports said its analysis of broilers
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>There is a reason for calling them "broilers". It's because they
> >>>>aren't supposed to be eaten raw.
> >>>>
> >>>>Is it a slow news day? Why are we hearing about something which
> >>>>everyone has known about for years? Decades. Centuries.
> >>>
> >>>Well, it's on TV news too. You snipped a few items that make it current.
> >>>
> >>>"... 83 percent of the chicken tested harbored the two leading bacterial
> >>>causes of foodborne disease, a major increase from 2003, when it reported
> >>>finding that 49 percent tested positive for one or both pathogens."
> >>>
> >>>"... was probably related to increased resistance to antibiotics."
> >>>
> >>>"... may be the result of the "discontinuance of the use of antimicrobials
> >>>in poultry production.""
> >>>
> >>>"After dropping for several years, the incidence of salmonella as a
> >>>foodborne illness from chicken is increasing"
> >>>
> >>>"It also said most bacteria it tested from chicken showed resistance to one
> >>>or more antibiotics, including some fed to speed growth of the fowl and
> >>>those prescribed to humans to treat infections."
> >>
> >>
> >> As I said, it must have been a slow news day. Do you know anyone who
> >> eats raw chicken?
> >
> >"Bacterial contamination in poultry is so common that the U.S. Department
> >of Agriculture last year began advising consumers not to wash poultry
> >before cooking to reduce the risk of splashing germs around their kitchens
> >and contaminating other foods."
> >
> >But it still needs to be handled somehow. I'd recommend a full Hazmat suit.

:) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FlashSuit.jpg
"What did you do with the salt, Fred?"

> Help me here. It has been common knowledge for a very long time that
> raw chicken harbours bacteria. Any cook with even a smidgen of
> competence knows not to touch any food that is not about to be cooked
> with any implement or surface which has been in contact with raw
> chicken unless that implement of surface has been cleaned.
>
> What I want to know is why anyone thinks that the fact that raw
> chicken is dangerous is news.

"After dropping for several years, the incidence of salmonella as a
foodborne illness from chicken is increasing, Consumer Reports said."

"In 2004, poultry was involved in 24 percent of outbreaks in which a
single product was identified, up from 20 percent in 1998, Consumer
Reports said."

It may be news to some, or maybe some have become negligent or are
"splashing germs around their kitchens and contaminating other foods".

So this updated information is a timely reminder, don't you think?





Mark Probert
2006-12-06 09:35:40 EST
Gem wrote:
> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>> Gem <param@slotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>
>>>> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Raw chicken dirtier than ever, report says
>>>>>
>>>>> By Bill Hendrick
>>>>> The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>>>>> Published on: 12/05/06
>>>>>
>>>>> Chicken isn't sushi. It's not to be eaten raw. Or medium well. Or
>>>>> chewy
>>>>> or pink. Ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what experts stressed Monday after Consumer Reports magazine
>>>>> published what it described as a "stunning" study asserting that raw
>>>>> broilers sold nationwide are a lot dirtier than in the past,
>>>>> harboring large
>>>>> amounts of campylobacter or salmonella bacteria that can make people
>>>>> sick, usually with diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever lasting two to
>>>>> five days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consumer Reports said its analysis of broilers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a reason for calling them "broilers". It's because they
>>>> aren't supposed to be eaten raw.
>>>>
>>>> Is it a slow news day? Why are we hearing about something which
>>>> everyone has known about for years? Decades. Centuries.
>>>
>>> Well, it's on TV news too. You snipped a few items that make it current.
>>>
>>> "... 83 percent of the chicken tested harbored the two leading
>>> bacterial causes of foodborne disease, a major increase from 2003,
>>> when it reported finding that 49 percent tested positive for one or
>>> both pathogens."
>>>
>>> "... was probably related to increased resistance to antibiotics."
>>>
>>> "... may be the result of the "discontinuance of the use of
>>> antimicrobials in poultry production.""
>>>
>>> "After dropping for several years, the incidence of salmonella as a
>>> foodborne illness from chicken is increasing"
>>>
>>> "It also said most bacteria it tested from chicken showed resistance
>>> to one or more antibiotics, including some fed to speed growth of the
>>> fowl and those prescribed to humans to treat infections."
>>
>>
>> As I said, it must have been a slow news day. Do you know anyone who
>> eats raw chicken?
>
> "Bacterial contamination in poultry is so common that the U.S.
> Department of Agriculture last year began advising consumers not to wash
> poultry before cooking to reduce the risk of splashing germs around
> their kitchens and contaminating other foods."
>
> But it still needs to be handled somehow. I'd recommend a full Hazmat suit.

See:

www.hazmatyourfarmanimals.com for various quality hazmat suits for
chickens.




Pierre J. Proudhon
2006-12-06 10:14:30 EST
In article <1a8cn2l7f830pj1itn748tdrcn8g4ijn4t@4ax.com>,
Peter Bowditch <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> >Raw chicken dirtier than ever, report says
> >
> >By Bill Hendrick
> >The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
> >Published on: 12/05/06
> >
> >Chicken isn't sushi. It's not to be eaten raw. Or medium well. Or chewy
> >or pink. Ever.
> >
> >That's what experts stressed Monday after Consumer Reports magazine
> >published what it described as a "stunning" study asserting that raw
> >broilers sold nationwide are a lot dirtier than in the past, harboring large
> >amounts of campylobacter or salmonella bacteria that can make people
> >sick, usually with diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever lasting two to
> >five days.
> >
> >Consumer Reports said its analysis of broilers
>
> There is a reason for calling them "broilers". It's because they
> aren't supposed to be eaten raw.
>
> Is it a slow news day? Why are we hearing about something which
> everyone has known about for years? Decades. Centuries.

HA! If I mixed my feces in your ground beef would you still cook it and
eat it?

HA HA!

Pierre J. Proudhon
2006-12-06 10:15:58 EST
In article <dn5dn255877p6tlu7dverc685cphnd3dmf@4ax.com>,
Peter Bowditch <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

> Gem <param@slotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Peter Bowditch wrote:
> >> Gem <param@slotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Peter Bowditch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Raw chicken dirtier than ever, report says
> >>>>>
> >>>>>By Bill Hendrick
> >>>>>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
> >>>>>Published on: 12/05/06
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Chicken isn't sushi. It's not to be eaten raw. Or medium well. Or chewy
> >>>>>or pink. Ever.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That's what experts stressed Monday after Consumer Reports magazine
> >>>>>published what it described as a "stunning" study asserting that raw
> >>>>>broilers sold nationwide are a lot dirtier than in the past, harboring
> >>>>>large
> >>>>>amounts of campylobacter or salmonella bacteria that can make people
> >>>>>sick, usually with diarrhea, abdominal cramps and fever lasting two to
> >>>>>five days.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Consumer Reports said its analysis of broilers
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>There is a reason for calling them "broilers". It's because they
> >>>>aren't supposed to be eaten raw.
> >>>>
> >>>>Is it a slow news day? Why are we hearing about something which
> >>>>everyone has known about for years? Decades. Centuries.
> >>>
> >>>Well, it's on TV news too. You snipped a few items that make it current.
> >>>
> >>>"... 83 percent of the chicken tested harbored the two leading bacterial
> >>>causes of foodborne disease, a major increase from 2003, when it reported
> >>>finding that 49 percent tested positive for one or both pathogens."
> >>>
> >>>"... was probably related to increased resistance to antibiotics."
> >>>
> >>>"... may be the result of the "discontinuance of the use of antimicrobials
> >>>in poultry production.""
> >>>
> >>>"After dropping for several years, the incidence of salmonella as a
> >>>foodborne illness from chicken is increasing"
> >>>
> >>>"It also said most bacteria it tested from chicken showed resistance to
> >>>one
> >>>or more antibiotics, including some fed to speed growth of the fowl and
> >>>those prescribed to humans to treat infections."
> >>
> >>
> >> As I said, it must have been a slow news day. Do you know anyone who
> >> eats raw chicken?
> >
> >"Bacterial contamination in poultry is so common that the U.S. Department
> >of Agriculture last year began advising consumers not to wash poultry
> >before cooking to reduce the risk of splashing germs around their kitchens
> >and contaminating other foods."
> >
> >But it still needs to be handled somehow. I'd recommend a full Hazmat suit.
>
> Help me here. It has been common knowledge for a very long time that
> raw chicken harbours bacteria. Any cook with even a smidgen of
> competence knows not to touch any food that is not about to be cooked
> with any implement or surface which has been in contact with raw
> chicken unless that implement of surface has been cleaned.

Chicken, silly man, has been getting dirtier. That was the point of teh
study.

>
> What I want to know is why anyone thinks that the fact that raw
> chicken is dangerous is news.

Can I still put my feces in your ground beef?
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron