Yes, and? Whoever said anything about where most cases come from?
Most shootings in the US are not related to crack cocaine deal. But if I said that crack cocaine dealers are notorious for shootings, I would hardly be wrong,m now would I?
Seriously? How did you do your research? Because you clearly didn’t even use something as basic as the CDC search function, or evenGoogle
And I mean *utterly *and *completely * and *dangerously *wrong.
Canning is *not *a sterilising process. It is not intended to be. It was never intended to be. Virtually all canned foods contain bacteria. Around 50% of canned foods contain potentially pathogenic bacteria. Food is canned in a factory, not a sterile environment.
All that canning seeks to do is prevent the *growth *of spoilage bacteria. There are various additives and treatments that can retard the growth of spoilage organisms to almost nothing, but I have never heard of a canned product that claims to *contain *no bacteria.
It will raise the pH of the hamburger where it contacts or absorbs the pink slime. It will help in the reduction of bacteria throughout the meat. It won’t eliminate bacteria from hamburger. There are claims that hamburger containing pink slime is safer than without, but I’m not jumping into that messy argument.
I think it is safe to assume everything on Earth has some bacteria on or in it, and true sterile conditions are not capable of being maintained outside a lab(even if you momentarily sterilize something it will be contaminated again shortly) and certainly not in a kitchen. I mean just the act of opening the can is going to introduce bacteria that will cause spoilage in 12-24 hours at room temp, it doesn’t matter whether the food is sterile or not to begin with.
Someone should tell the OP about the billions of bacteria living in his intestinal tract right now.
I imagine that there are a lot of non-porous rocks that have no bacteria in them. Being molten lava at the time that you are sealed from the environment kinda guarantees that.
Now the outsides on the other hand…
a.) Does “ground beef” reasonably imply only that which a consumer perceives as “meat” and exclude other portions of the cow? (The fact that I loves me some pho, other beef tendon preparations, and ox tail soup, is immaterial; I know what I am eating.) Certainly if it is labelled as “ground sirloin” it is no longer accurate.
b.) If a product has been treated in manner to assure food safety by reducing live bacterial counts be it by pasteurization, irradiation, or exposure to ammonium hydroxide gas, does such need to be included on labelling? What if only a small fraction of the product was treated in such a manner?
The nature of industrial meat processing. The risk from bacterial contamination from the meat of a single cow butchered using usual procedures is non-zero but small, be it eating a steak, a roast, or ground beef ground from some appropriate portion of the cow. Industrially processed ground beef however pools together the beef from many many cows and that also pools the risk, magnifying it. Once some pathogenic bacteria mixes in it grows in the whole batch.
A bunch of asides, like how safe tap water is, and how sterile and how safe (not the same question) canned food products are.
Whew. I thought for a second you were providing actual cites, but I’m relieved upon inspection to find that your record is intact.
You cannot simply type botulism hamburger into Google and expect to get answers that say that botulism is found in hamburger. What you are far more likely to get are general articles on food poisoning that include E. coli, which is found in hamburger. And that’s exactly what you find in the specific good sources that come up in the search, like PDR Health and the California Poison Action Line. I won’t bother to give links, but I checked a number of links to other state sites, books, and health organizations. Every single one I checked had the E. coli connection. Not one mentioned hamburger as a source for botulism. Even the most scholarly article that appears, Foodborne Botulism in the United States, 1990–2000 uncovers exactly one case of suspected type A botulinum toxin case in hamburger. One is more than none, but it is one out of 160 cases.
The CDC search function points to that same scholarly article. Did you read it or just look at the title?
Blake, you are a valuable resource on a wide variety of subjects. But when you are being challenged you need to provide something better than “trust me.” It’s not beneath you to provide a good cite, and even to quote from it rather than making people go through an entire paper. What you did here doesn’t rise anywhere near the level of quality we deserve. Shalmanese may have been wrong on some claims and those needed correction. On the other hand, one claim was correct and was properly backed up by a cite better than your entire Google page. On balance, which of your posts was more productive?
The OP is, and has been, well aware of beneficial (and not so beneficial" bacteria all over and inside his awsome body. The OP wonders (casually) where grude dude got such an idea because aquired his vast knowledge mostly by asking questions like the simple one in th OP.
The OP is also well aware of the general lack of sterility (generally a good thing), MRSA, private bacteria, and lots of other neat things that have evolved with us.
But the OP is annoyed by sneaky meat factories and other little glitches in life.
The OP also loves cows.
No, but if I had thought it through I would have realized that my little buddies give their all for me and would thus wind up leaving through the old poop chute.
So about 7.5% of the solids is dead bacteria. that’s a lot.
I read somewhere that when a couple start living together they take some time to adjust to each other’s personal bacteria.
I always thought that canned food was precooked so as to sterilize it. Guess that explains why they always have so much salt in them (I thought it was for taste). Well, not all canned food has a lot of salt in it or other ingredients that might be preservatives (a lack of oxygen wouldn’t prevent anaerobic bacteria, such as botulinum, from growing).
(your actual flesh isn’t made up of bacteria; “in your body” refers to the digestive tract mainly, plus those on your skin and other surfaces)
Also, referring to the OP, there is no reason why dead bacteria need to be monitored; also, even if there are some live E. coli or other potentially harmful bacteria (not all E. coli is harmful, you have it in your body), it always tells you to cook any meat product that hasn’t been cooked already (I’d be much more concerned about vegetables and other foods that can be eaten raw; of course, raw meat can contaminate surfaces used to prepare other food that isn’t cooked). Keeping the meat frozen until use also stops any bacteria from growing, so I don’t see why even some live bacteria is a big deal, as long as you properly handle and cook it (the chemicals used in meats that don’t have to be frozen concern me more).
Just for those following at home, there is still Ciguatera. It is not the dead bacteria which are a problem, but the toxins the live bacteria have produced which are difficult to destroy and make their way through the food chain. Even cooking is no protection in this case.
Again, I asked the question in reference to the linked page. They treat the scraps to kill the bacteria, so it’s a given that there are killed (a medical term)bacteria in the GB. I wasn’t aware that the USDA allowed addingkilled bacteria to food.
I just bought a pound of hamburger today at the market to make gringo tacos (carnitas is way too much trouble) for supper on Wednesday night. I hope there’s no pink slime in it. The butcher guy said “Hell No”, and gave me an “ack” look. Could be lying, I guess.
I did do an extensive google search and I clearly paid more attention than you did. Your own goddamn cite says that there’s been 1 botulism case from ground beef chili (which I classify under improperly canned since it’s impossible to determine where the botulism came from) and 1 case from roast beef. Every link in the google search refers to e.coli contamination of ground beef which is a well known problem. You’re wrong, admit it. There’s not a single case of botulism in the US in the last 20 years that can be definitively linked to ground beef and your own cite proves that.
The EPA drinking water regulations for most microorganisms is zero. I’m not really interested in finding a cite that says meat surfaces can have a higher bacterial load, that’s treated as obvious by the food safety code. Food safety is specifically concerned with what happens with the meat/water mixture that results in washing meat because of the risk of bacterial contamination. Logically, this must mean that washing removes bacteria from the meat and places it in the leftover water. Given that the meat remains the same mass and that there’s not enough time for bacteria to grow appreciably during washing, this must mean meat has less bacteria after washing than before.
Let me amend my statement for clarification, there exists many canned goods for which you can be * guaranteed* have a zero bacterial count in them. Bacteria grow at an exponential rate, if the exponent is less than 1, as in the case of highly salted foods like sardines, then it is safe to leave a small amount of bacteria and to assume the food will be eaten before the bacteria grow to dangerous levels.
For foods in which the exponent is much greater than 1, the only way mathematically for it to remain safe is for the initial bacteria count to be 0. Indeed, we have stories of people opening up canned goods after 30, 50, 100 years and finding them still edible. At the same time, it’s often obvious when you open an improperly canned good since it will be bulging or smell awful and the difference is literally the difference between an initial bacterial count of 0 or 1.
Do you have a cite for 50% of all canned goods containing pathogenic bacteria? Industrially, food may be canned with additives and treatments but people have been home canning for hundreds of years without any of that and regularly eating cans that were decades old (grandma’s pickles that nobody touched until she died). It’s impossible that this practice could have occurred unless cans were completely sterile.
Also, sterilization is not that goddamn hard. Yes, there’s some exotic buggies that are hard to kill like extremophiles, spores, prions and the like. But for the most part, we assume they just aren’t around where we are and ignore them. For the most part, boiling water is enough to sterilize something and an autoclave is enough to sterilize against some of the slightly rarer creatures.
Try reading the fucking references given. Don’t make me do all your leg work for you and spoon feed you the facts. If you can’t search using Google, and you can’t search the CDC website, at the very least search the fucking document that I provide for you before making such asinine comments.
Well, fuck me! The CDC not only says outright that botulism cases involve involves ground meats such as sausage and pate, it actually specifically says that hamburger was involved.
But apparently, according to Exapno Mapcase, this isn’t a cite that hamburger is known to be the cause of botulism cases. Because, you know, the CDC wouldn’t count as a reputable source on the causes of foodborne fucking diseases.
It’s amazing the degree of willful ignorance on a site like this. People who can’t do basic Google search, can’t search the most obvious resource on disease sources and who won;t even type the appropriate word into the Acrobat search box when someone else does the search and links them directly the the appropriate fucking document.
There’s a reason that academic and scientific cites reference specific page numbers and also use actual quotes. It’s not only for the convenience of the reader, but it specifically identifies the data or language that you think supports your argument. Absent that, analyzing an argument can become a game of catching a bar of wet soap.
Really? so it doesn’t mention hamburger or sausage huh.
Damn hey. Then where the hell am I quoting this from?
Nope. No mention of hamburger there.
You are absolutely right when you claim that hamburger is never a source of botulism. THE CDC clearly has it wrong. :rolleyes:
So a reference from the CDC which says that sausage and hamburger were implicated in multiple cases of botulinum poisoning is not evidence that ground beef is implicated in botulism in the US.
Ah no, it does not. It never even implies such a thing. In fact it states quote clearly that, aside form a few indicative or pathogenic species such as coliforms, everyhting else somes under HPC, and since “HPC has no health effects; it is an analytic method used to measure the variety of bacteria that are common in water” and there is no limit on them whatosever.
So once again, you are utterly wrong.
So I am still waiting for this evidence that there are fewer bacteria in water than on meat.
In other words, like everything else that you have said here, it wa scomepletely and uttelry wrong and without basis.
Like your claim that hamburger is never reposnsible for botulism when the CDC says that it is,
And your claim that the EPA regulation for most microorganisms is zero, when the EPA itself says that it only sets limits for a handful of microbes, and there is no limit at all for the vast majority.
And you claim that canned foods are always sterile, when tevery food microbioogist says that hey are not.
Everything you have said so far in this thread has been utterly wrong. Some it has been directly contradcited by the premier scientists in the field. Some if has been contradicted by your own freakin’ sources.
Good grief. This is the forum for factual answers. Can you at least make an effort?
So, Acsenraymakes the statement that there are no foods without bacteria. You contradict that by explicitly stating that “Properly canned foods have no bacteria in them”. And when you are called you post this babble this nonsense about “clarifying”.
No, yo were simply promulgating ignorance when you claimed that canned foods contained no bacteria.
Once you show that you can and/or will read the references and interpret them correctly, sure.
To do that, you will need to concede that the CDC does indeed implicate hamburger in botulism cases, and that you were utterly wrong when you said that it did not.
And you will need to concede that the EPA only limits pathogens and indicators. The EPA does not any limit on HPA, which includes most mircrobes, and that you were utterly wrong when you claimed that the EPA limit on most microbes was zero.
Because those facts are quite clearly presented in the references given, one of them that you yourself provided and totally misrepesented. If you can’t understand and accurately interpret the references given so far, there is little point wasting my time providing any more.
Total and utter bullshit.
Please provide evidence for this claim.
Utter nonsense. Both extremophiles and sporogenic bacteria are ubiquitous. They are on your skin, in your hair, in the water supply in the dust and soil and on the walls almost every building on earth.
Do you have any microbiological training at all? Because I am not seeing any evidence of any at all.
Oh good go. No it is not.
And no cannery that I have ever heard of uses a fucking autoclave. Which is why all fucking canned foods contain bacteria.
