Well first off, in my field, the life sciences, academic and scientific cites almost never reference specific page numbers. It’s not unheard of, but certainly less than one journal in 50 even allows page numbers in references, much less requires them.
And seriously? It’s impossible to expect someone to put the word “hamburger” into the search bar and read the very first sentence that the word appears in? I had thought that the posters here would be capable of a bit more than that. But fine.
So yea, the CDC does implicate ground meat products as a source of botulism. How the hell anybody overlooked that, when it is the very first hit on the word “hamburger” is beyond me.
I think you’re reading too much into my statement. I was merely presenting what the users of pink slime say in regards to the question of adding it to reduce the level of live bacteria. I don’t think it’s significant other than decreasing the percentage of meat that could be contaminated. Since the problems of E Coli are result of poor procedures in processing, storage, and cooking, I doubt the addition of pink slime makes much difference overall in the end. If I were forced to eat either raw pink slime, or raw hamburger of unknown origin, I’d take the pink slime.
I apologize for not reading your provided cites closely enough but 5 cases over the course of 10 years is really stretching the definition of “notorious”. There’s at least a dozen other ingredients which were far more likely to cause botulism, even according to your own cites.
Are you talking about pathogenic bacteria or all bacteria when you were making your claim? If you were referring to all bacteria then a) yes, none of the cites talk about that but b) it would have been completely irrelevant to the conversation when you brought it up since nobody cares about non-pathogenic bacteria on your meat. if you were talking about pathogenic bacteria, then the EPA guides are what’s relevant.
In any case, the notion that washing meat reduces it’s pathogenic bacteria count is considered sufficiently obvious in the food industry but here’s some cites anyway: cite 1, cite 2, cite 3.
No, it doesn’t work that way. You can’t just barge in demanding cites and then get huffy when others demand the same of you. You’re not providing citations just to me but for everyone else reading this thread too.
[quote]
Total and utter bullshit.
Please provide evidence for this claim.
[quote]
Which part? That people can at home? That people eat decades old canned goods? Or that canned goods are sterile? I assume it’s the latter and this is just a wikipedia cite because I’m tired of digging stuff up for you but here
cite? I have no knowledge of this so I’m genuinely curious.
Which is why randomcanning resources talk about autoclave canning and industrial autoclave canners are widely available on alibaba? An autoclave in the food processing world is is known as pressure canning and it’s required for all low acid canning.
These were 3 of the top 4 links when you google “autoclave canning”. If you’re going to accuse others of being lazy about Google, please have the courtesy of not falling for the same thing yourself.
So you are totally unable to provide any references for the nonsense that you spouted, and totally unwilling to acknowledge that the references that have been provided utterly contradict the nonsense that you are spouting.
That’s good enough for me.
If anyone wants to believe someone who contradicts the CDC, the EPA and the peer reviewed microbiological literature and utterly fails to provide any evidence at all for their outrageous claims, good luck to them. They’re gonna need it.
Canning is in many ways like properly frozen food, it is sterile in the sense that it has been kept in a condition that prevents the growth of bacteria present, which is to say it isn’t actually sterile in the sense that a vial of medical saline is(and once the seal on that is broken it isn’t sterile either!).
One example (I’m sure there are others): Clostridium Perfringens is a common food poisoning pathogen, it’s ubiquitous in the human environment and it forms heat-resistant spores that can survive prolonged boiling.
I emailed my local supermarket about the use of pink slime and they graciously replied;
Dear Mr. George,
"Thank you for contacting Raley’s with your inquiry regarding ‘Pink
Slime’.
Lean finely textured beef trimmings (LFTB) are made of 100% USDA beef
and are considered by the USDA to be a safe source of high-quality
protein. Recently, some news reports have referred to these trimmings
as pink slime. Raley’s does not use ‘LFTB’ in any of our fresh ground
beef products or in our Raley’s Black Angus frozen beef patties because
all of our fresh ground beef comes from sources that are free of ‘LFTB’.
We do sell frozen burger patties that contain ‘LFTB’ but we have made a
decision going forward to discontinue selling those frozen hamburger
patties. We made this decision based on customer desire to buy ground
beef without LFTB."
Me happy
mangeorge
