|
04 Oct 09 - 02:35 PM (#2738097) Subject: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Stilly River Sage You know, you go along shopping in stores that seem to show good practices when handling food, coolers are the right temperature, out-of-date food is taken out of the coolers and off of the shelves in a timely fashion. You cook your foods the way they're supposed to be cooked, and you make sure your meat is handled well, your hands are washed, and you cook to high enough temperatures. And then you read an article like this and realize you have to start from scratch in thinking again if you want to eat meat at all, what cuts of meat, or how much more you need to do more in the processing yourself. From this very long article, I will excerpt this portion:
Ms. Smith's reaction to the virulent strain of E. coli was extreme, but tracing the story of her burger, through interviews and government and corporate records obtained by The New York Times, shows why eating ground beef is still a gamble. Neither the system meant to make the meat safe, nor the meat itself, is what consumers have been led to believe. Ground beef is usually not simply a chunk of meat run through a grinder. Instead, records and interviews show, a single portion of hamburger meat is often an amalgam of various grades of meat from different parts of cows and even from different slaughterhouses. These cuts of meat are particularly vulnerable to E. coli contamination, food experts and officials say. Despite this, there is no federal requirement for grinders to test their ingredients for the pathogen. The frozen hamburgers that the Smiths ate, which were made by the food giant Cargill, were labeled "American Chef's Selection Angus Beef Patties." Yet confidential grinding logs and other Cargill records show that the hamburgers were made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a plant in Wisconsin. The ingredients came from slaughterhouses in Nebraska, Texas and Uruguay, and from a South Dakota company that processes fatty trimmings and treats them with ammonia to kill bacteria. Using a combination of sources — a practice followed by most large producers of fresh and packaged hamburger — allowed Cargill to spend about 25 percent less than it would have for cuts of whole meat. Those low-grade ingredients are cut from areas of the cow that are more likely to have had contact with feces, which carries E. coli, industry research shows. Yet Cargill, like most meat companies, relies on its suppliers to check for the bacteria and does its own testing only after the ingredients are ground together. The United States Department of Agriculture, which allows grinders to devise their own safety plans, has encouraged them to test ingredients first as a way of increasing the chance of finding contamination. It's as big a crap shoot as it was when Upton Sinclair was writing about meatpackers 100 years ago. You can't keep track of everything going on in the world, you have to make choices when you shop and choose food. I've just pulled out my food grinder that fits on my Kitchenaid mixer, and I'll be grinding my own chopped meat from now on. And probably making my own sausage. In 2009 the USDA is still only SUGGESTING to these companies? I hope this articles gets a few asses kicked, both the companies and the elected representatives who turn a blind eye when they have their hands out for campaign contributions. SRS |
|
04 Oct 09 - 02:52 PM (#2738112) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: GUEST,heric Wow. Check thisarticle: Now, seemingly more intent at make zero-tolerance a reality, USDA yesterday issued notice that it was mandating an increase in the frequency of its in-plant testing for E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef. While this is an improvement, it is but a baby step, since the most frequent testing that will occur under this policy is 4 times per month, and this is only at plants that produce volumes of ground beef greater than 250,000 pounds PER DAY. . . . The one final step that the FSIS needs to take to make this new and much improved approach really work is to eliminate, once and for all, the absurd fiction that a presumptive positive is not a "real" positive test result. Confirmatory testing should be required of all presumptive positive test results. |
|
04 Oct 09 - 02:58 PM (#2738119) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: open mike vegetarians might breathe a sigh of relief, but then there is spinach.. |
|
04 Oct 09 - 04:14 PM (#2738196) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Q (Frank Staplin) In Alberta, we can get good ground beef from meat raised in the region, and ground locally; unless one goes to the boxed frozen stuff which may be from who knows where. We prefer the very low fat extra lean, ground in the market, so usually don't look at boxed meats. We do like the meatballs in one of our local supermarkets, but after the browning, and long cooking with the sauce, they are about as safe as one would want. A temperature of 155 F is recommended for burgers (or just cook well, no pink showing) to kill E. coli. |
|
04 Oct 09 - 04:25 PM (#2738209) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: wysiwyg Venison off the nearest hill, processed here. I always did think the USA was just too big for many of its ambitions to actually work. And there are so many problems with this global economy approach. One's own back yard is often as much as one can handle. ~S~ |
|
04 Oct 09 - 04:48 PM (#2738226) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: GUEST,heric For me, that would be an exclusive diet of possum, coyotes and owl, which is more than I could handle. . . . well, maybe if I ground it with garlic and ginseng. . . . |
|
04 Oct 09 - 05:03 PM (#2738238) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Q (Frank Staplin) Bison is becoming poplar here. It is appearing as boxed ground patties; better cuts are only at the best meat markets. I got one box, but much pepper has been added as a flavoring constituent (My system doesn't like much black pepper) so most of it went to our local coyotes or feral dogs. |
|
04 Oct 09 - 05:04 PM (#2738240) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: GUEST, topsie Those ready-made burgers taste like they're made from artificially flavoured floor-sweepings. If you want a burger that tastes of beef, make it out of beef. SRS's plan to do that is a good idea even without this scare. |
|
04 Oct 09 - 06:37 PM (#2738359) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Rapparee Fortunately, we have TWO old-fashioned, does-it-themselves butcher shops in town. Of course, I rarely eat ground meat anyway (no, not even at McDonald's). I do have some ground bison in the freezer, from a company that raises, kills, butchers, and processes its own. Also some ground pronghorn my wife's cousin shot. When I do use ground beef (or turkey or whatever) I cook it until it's no longer pink inside. (By the way, there are also TWO Jack-In-The-Box here -- probably the safest places in town to get a hamburger if I wanted one.) |
|
04 Oct 09 - 06:40 PM (#2738360) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Richard Bridge If you want to eat meat, why grind it up? Unless you are making spagh bol. I like real meat to be one eighth of an inch of charcoal and an inch of blood! What's the deal on spinach? I like that lots and tend to cook it as little as possible. |
|
04 Oct 09 - 06:51 PM (#2738367) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Stilly River Sage I found several pot roasts on sale here today so stocked up. I would have anyway, for pot roast during the fall and winter, but I'll test grinding one as well. Richard, there are a lot of things we make with ground beef like tacos that I have seen made with roast and shredded beef, but other things like sauces and casseroles it isn't that great an approach. A couple of years ago there was a recall of spinach because of an E. coli contamination from a nearby water treatment plant or something along those lines. Wash it before you use it. I agree, if you can get your meat from a butcher and know where it came from and how they prepared it, you have a better situation. I suppose I could do some research and drive out into the countryside and see if there is a butcher who will sells locally grown and processed beef. SRS |
|
04 Oct 09 - 07:21 PM (#2738389) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Bill H //\\ I guess the old way of grinding your own was best. It was stated in the article that Costco does its own grinding and testing and tht works quite well---unlike what happens with the frozen things in the supermarkets which come from many sources (animals, fillers, etc;) I have a question--hope some one knows the answer. Pork. Does ground pork have the same issues? Forget Kashruth---it is healthier than beef in many respects and, I hope, is free from such risks. Bill Hahn |
|
04 Oct 09 - 08:04 PM (#2738411) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Stilly River Sage I wondered that also, Bill. In particular, sausage. |
|
04 Oct 09 - 09:21 PM (#2738460) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Q (Frank Staplin) All meats handled under less than sanitary conditions have risks. Fruits and vegetables ditto. Two recent recalls involving Listeria contamination of sausage. Sausage and duck recalled in June in New York. Imported Dutch sausage contaminated with Chinese chemicals, etc., etc. In the old days, meats were often heavily spiced (peppered, whatever) to cover up decomposition, but that was more cosmetic than preventive. As emphasized above more than once, a local source that is fresh and that you know something about is safest; also follow safe cooking and cleaning recommendations. |
|
04 Oct 09 - 09:49 PM (#2738492) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Peace Re pork: Pork does not have to be aged as does beef. The whole process of getting pork onto shelves is faster. Also, if stores would clean their grinding equipment properly the whole process of packaging meat would be more sanitary. |
|
04 Oct 09 - 10:13 PM (#2738504) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: bobad The problem there is that most stores no longer grind and package their own meat, most of them get it shipped from industrial sized processing plants and therein lies the problem, in my opinion. Food, especially meat, and industrialization are terms that should not be used together. It is extremely difficult to avoid cross contamination when you have tons of meat passing through complex machinery, evidence the outbreak of listeriosis at the Maple Leaf processing plant a year or so ago. It took them ages and several disassemblies to finally decontaminate the machinery. |
|
04 Oct 09 - 10:20 PM (#2738509) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Peace BINGO. |
|
04 Oct 09 - 10:27 PM (#2738513) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Rapparee In the US, various administrations starting with "Let's Privatize Everything" Reagan (and including the Clinton years) started cutting the number of USDA and FDA food inspectors so that there would be less cost to the government. Now we pay the price for false economy. |
|
05 Oct 09 - 12:41 AM (#2738559) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: maire-aine I also grind my own hamburger (using a 50-yr-old Kitchen Aid with a meat grinder attachment), and I grind my own pork to make breakfast sausage. Unfortunately, round steak is more expensive than ground round in the grocery store, so I don't buy as much of it. These days, with food being such a global commodity, we have to count on a strong inspection system for protection. Nobody I know has the ability to test for contamination. Maryanne |
|
05 Oct 09 - 12:58 AM (#2738565) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Stilly River Sage Reagan's name came up in a discussion of the depreciation of school lunches since the 1980s. Remember his ketchup as a vegetable claim? Q: In the old days, meats were often heavily spiced (peppered, whatever) to cover up decomposition, but that was more cosmetic than preventive. This theory about the use of spice has been debunked. In ancient times spices were so expensive no one would have wasted them on spoiled meat. And meat was generally local, so it would have been killed and cured as needed, is the theory I've heard most recently. This is rather reassuring, actually. I'll have to think about where I heard it, but I think it was on Lynne Rosetto Kasper's The Splendid Table. SRS |
|
05 Oct 09 - 01:11 AM (#2738568) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Peace These days, pepper is used if freshly-killed meat (moose, elk, dear, etc) is going to be left for a few hours. Helps keep flies away thus making the laying of eggs on the meat less likely--thus no or at least fewer maggots. |
|
05 Oct 09 - 09:17 AM (#2738775) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Jeri Vegetables were included in the school lunches so kids didn't have to pay for ketchup if it was a 'vegetable'. Curing meat by drying and/or using smoke (WOOD smoke!), sugar, salt, honey kills bacteria and prevents its growth. Maggots? You got a problem with maggots? They look kinda like little pine nuts or rice grains that move, but I'm sure they have more nutritional value. I couldn't eat them though--I can't eat anything I name. Just prevent raw-to-cooked cross contamination and cook your burgers. (Oh the horror!) Cooking kills E. coli, period. |
|
05 Oct 09 - 12:11 PM (#2738905) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Stilly River Sage Jeri, this isn't really about cooking the meat, it's about the kind of stuff that gets commingled into the grind that is called "hamburger." It ranks up there a close second with the behavior of the packinghouses in 1906 when Upton Sinclair reported on the behavior of management to try to save a buck and make a bigger profit. SRS |
|
05 Oct 09 - 01:10 PM (#2738954) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Lizzie Cornish 1 The world has gone nuts. This ghastly problem is all about making money, and very little else. Who allows them to produce this stuff, let alone sell it to the public? |
|
05 Oct 09 - 01:21 PM (#2738956) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: paula t Someone once told me that E-coli is found on the outside surfaces of meat. It is usually killed at high temperatures. The main problem with ground meat is that it is made up of thousands of tiny surfaces. Therefore, burgers etc. are risky because the centres do not always reach a high temperature for long enough.Don't know how accurate that is, but I certainly don't eat burgers any more!(Lost my appetite for them somehow!) |
|
05 Oct 09 - 04:09 PM (#2739090) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: Q (Frank Staplin) Paulat, a meat thermometer is recommended for use with ground meats, and a temperature of 155 F. I don't eat hamburgers either. I don't know anybody who bothers with the thermometer when broiling hamburger meat. Good ground beef (lean, extra lean, as defined by Canada regulations) is available at better stores here, made up on site from the trimmings of the better cuts. Luckily we don't have to buy the wrapped or packaged meats, but the cost is higher. Made ossobuco last week; I watched the butcher select and cut the veal shanks. One of our favorites. Lovely bone marrow as well as the tender meat, and the leftover bones are a treat for the dogs. |
|
05 Oct 09 - 06:00 PM (#2739171) Subject: RE: BS: NY Times - unsafe ground beef - pls READ From: paula t Hi Q, I haven't seen anyone use a meat thermometer either.Scary eh? |