[HN Gopher] The Peking Duck Exception
___________________________________________________________________
The Peking Duck Exception
Author : Cenk
Score : 106 points
Date : 2022-12-05 12:06 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.culinarycrush.biz)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.culinarycrush.biz)
| onethought wrote:
| Nitpick: Peking is not a romanisation, it's the Cantonese word
| for Beijing butchered by English accent.
|
| Likely relating to many early interactions with China occurring
| in the Guangdong region.
| crumpled wrote:
| Kirishima Japan has a regional dish: Chicken Sashimi
|
| Personally, I'm not brave enough.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| I had some chicken sashimi in Japan. It was mildly seared on
| the outside, I guess to kill any bad germs but quite raw in
| most of it and quite tasty too.
|
| I had it in a large restaurant in Kyoto called "Bird"
| brazzy wrote:
| Wait until you hear about Mett:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett
| mlex wrote:
| Had this once in Osaka, definitely had food poisoning the next
| few days.
|
| I mostly blame myself for thinking it would be a good idea. It
| did taste pretty good though.
| bombcar wrote:
| Isn't the key the 350deg F for 60 minutes afterwards?
|
| Doesn't an internal temperature of 160deg F kill everything
| except some weird toxins?
|
| I suspect that most meat left overnight at room temperature and
| then cooked "well done" would be perfectly fine.
| chasil wrote:
| Aminita "death cap" mushrooms are one substance that I know of
| that remains toxic after exposure to high heat over time.
|
| "Amatoxins cannot be destroyed by any conventional cooking
| method, including boiling or baking. Freezing or drying the
| mushrooms also fails to remove any amount of amatoxin..."
|
| https://slate.com/technology/2014/02/most-dangerous-mushroom...
| gspencley wrote:
| > Doesn't an internal temperature of 160deg F kill everything
| except some weird toxins?
|
| It's worth noting that food safety is not limited to living
| micro-organisms but includes everything from physical objects
| (choking on a chicken bone) to the bi-products of micro-
| organisms (such as alcohol or the toxin that causes botulism).
| Although bacteria produces the botulism toxin, the toxin itself
| can't be rid of afterwards through temperature.
| Xamayon wrote:
| In the case of botulism toxin, it's actually the opposite.
| The spores are extremely resistant to temperature, but the
| toxin can be destroyed by boiling at normal temp/pressure
| until all parts have been fully exposed to those temps. Other
| toxins are still an issue though, and many are heat
| resistant, so not a good idea to eat potentially contaminated
| foods.
| gspencley wrote:
| Ah thanks! It's been a few years since I took a food
| handling safety course and I remembered Clostridium
| botulinum being called out as something that "heat won't
| kill" but you're right, it's the spores, not the toxin
| itself.
|
| But yeah, as you also pointed out, bi-products that can
| cause illness are separate issues from "killing living
| organisms that cause illness", and heat is not always the
| magic solution. Heavy metal poisoning is another example of
| something that heat will not take care of.
| thfuran wrote:
| Botulinum toxin is even less heat resistant than that. Five
| minutes at 185 F will take care of it. Though boiling would
| certainly get the job done.
| mecsred wrote:
| The thing that does the damage are the toxins the bacteria
| produce, not usually the bacteria themselves. If you leave the
| food in the danger zone, the bacteria colonies multiply wildly,
| producing whatever metabolic products the entire time. Even if
| you then cook the food and kill the bacteria colony, it won't
| necessarily denature or destroy the toxin. The seems like the
| key part of the recipe to me is actually the antibacterial
| properties of the marinade!
| scotteric wrote:
| It seems that the marinade goes on after the overnight drying
| though. That puzzled me since the bacteria would be free to
| reproduce.
| hammock wrote:
| What bacteria? The skin is treated with boiling water prior
| to drying.
| m3047 wrote:
| This is actually backwards for botulinum. Boiling denatures
| the toxin, but doesn't kill the critter; you need to use a
| higher temperature, e.g. that produced by pressure cooking /
| canning. So I'd be curious what bacteria are being referred
| to.
| hammock wrote:
| What is perplexing about it? Most/all bacteria on the skin is
| sterilized by the boiling water. So the only growth on the bird
| during drying would come from additional bacteria introduced from
| the environment, which would be low levels, and then the bird is
| baked which would kill any of that off. There is very little risk
| of, e.g. botulinum toxins building up either as a result of this
| process. Seems safe if you understand food safety.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Twelve entire hours sounds like plenty of time for bacteria on
| the inside to grow.
| hammock wrote:
| Why would there be bacteria (of material concern) on the
| inside? Where would it come from?
|
| Beef is dry aged for 60 days at 40F and 75+% RH, and no one
| has concerns about a raw center of a dry aged steak. A half-
| day at 70F seems equivalent if not less severe
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| That's inside a single muscle. This is a whole bird where
| the inside has been messed with extensively.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| The animal's intestine. Which is why the cooking safety
| question is more of a question about how the animal was
| slaughtered and butchered.
|
| See comments above about how US meat safety concerns are
| usually a consequence of slaughtering and butchering in the
| most cost effective manner.
| hammock wrote:
| I would think the intestinal bacteria would remain (by
| biological design) in the intestinal parts of the animal,
| at least for 12 hours. No data on this though. You may be
| right
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Oh, I'd imagine they do! Until you rupture and/or
| submerge them, because it's cheaper to process birds that
| way.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Hung at room temperature overnight? Nah, it's typically hung in a
| refrigerated and ventilated cooler (before it's cooked)... Never
| seen a recipe that says it should be hung at room temperature.
|
| Whole article is based on a strawman.
|
| Edit: Even the "evidence" of healthcode violations used in the
| article is of hanging the COOKED duck in the window, not the raw
| duck. Restaurants (yes, even Chinese ones) use a cooler to hang
| the raw duck because the ambient temperature is way too hot.
| ribs wrote:
| When I first tried making it in...1994, I believe, the
| instructions I had from cookbooks didn't say anything about
| refrigeration. Looking briefly on the internet right now, I see
| a mixture. What I know for sure is that I hung it from a
| fixture on my ceiling. I wish I could remember exactly what I
| thought of this at the time.
|
| (It came out great BTW)
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| The food safety in general from my Chinese in-laws gives me panic
| attacks. Mostly related to meat. But they also don't do dumb
| things like we do such as eating raw cilantro from Mexico.
| vehemenz wrote:
| It goes both ways. Americans are way too casual with lunchmeat
| and prepping raw meat and vegetables on the same surfaces.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| I'm curious why you consider this an American thing.
|
| I'm American, and I'm pretty careful about those details.
| athenot wrote:
| What's wrong with raw cilantro from Mexico? Geniune question.
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| Raw cilantro in Mexico may have been washed with raw water
| from Mexico.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm going to rinse it but raw (as in uncooked) cilantro is
| omnipresent in Mexican and Thai cooking in particular.
| [deleted]
| bjterry wrote:
| No one in this thread (nor in the article) has made the obvious
| observation that this means there are a massive variety of
| genuinely safe foods that could be made via currently banned
| practices. You can only get an exception at great cost for foods
| with existing cultural practice. Some real innovations, like the
| initial invention of the Peking duck, are basically prohibited.
| ectopod wrote:
| The science bit says it's safe because the seasoning inhibits
| microbial growth during the drying period, but the recipe at the
| top applies the seasoning after the drying period. Something
| doesn't add up.
| gernb wrote:
| I thought this was going to be about the fact that the
| traditional way of step 2
|
| > 2. Air is pumped into the crevice between the duck's skin and
| meat, allowing the skin to balloon and separate from the meat.
|
| Is to blow the duck up like a balloon with your mouth
|
| https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/687850/Saturday-K...
|
| PS: it doesn't turn me off in the least and I find many food
| safety rules to be ludicrous, protectionism, and counter
| productive.
|
| For example: I find that the requirement to wear gloves while
| preparing food that I see people touching things they would be
| less likely to touch with their bare hands, touching, and then
| continuing to prepare the foods. For me, without gloves I can
| tell when my hands are dirty and wash them but when gloves I feel
| nothing and am therefore less likely to wash. Have no proof that
| this is true for everyone but I'm fairly confident that if I had
| hidden cameras looking for violations I'd find more for people
| using gloves than not.
|
| Also in a similar vain there's sushi
|
| https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/08/22/national/gloves...
|
| There are plenty of other bad food regs
|
| https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/11/americans-r...
|
| https://www.foodandwine.com/lifestyle/why-americans-dont-get...
| Ekaros wrote:
| > 3. The duck is propped up, and boiling water is poured onto its
| skin until the skin tightens.
|
| This is also probably somewhat effective in killing some amount
| of pathogens at least on the outside. Not sure if same is done
| for cavity.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| Wait until the author finds out how prosciutto is made. You take
| the (raw) hind leg of a pig, cover it in salt, and hang it in a
| cool dry place for 9 months to two years. Then you take it down,
| scrape off all the mold, slice it thinly, and enjoy its
| deliciousness. That's right, prosciutto is raw pork that was left
| unrefrigerated for months or years until covered in mold.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Right, so: you take the kind of raw meat that is so thick that
| any contaminants you might get during carving is surface
| contamination, then cover it in a substance that kills any
| bacteria or molds that it comes into contact with, making sure
| to use enough salt to prevent subsequent contamination for as
| long as it takes for the surface to dry and form an
| impenetrable layer, and then we let it age for however long we
| like because it is now physically impossible for surface
| contaminants to make it into the meat anymore.
|
| Which is completely different from leaving wet meat to just
| hang out at room temperature for many hours.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Also, obligatory step with most of these things: smell it. If
| it smells bad, throw that example out.
|
| We survived for a few hundred thousand years without an
| ability to see or quantify microbiology.
|
| Our noses are pretty damn effective.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| That "we" in "we survived" is doing an awful lot of work.
| "We" also survived many rounds of bubonic plague and
| suchlike. Those who didn't, though, presumably don't get to
| count themselves among that "we".
|
| For the purposes of these kinds of conversations, I think I
| might prefer some sober estimates of costs and benefits
| over platitudes.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| The salt inhibits growth. It's no different than curing and
| salting other meats, it's perfectly safe. See also, dry aging,
| it doesn't necessarily sit in a fridge yet it's still safe as
| long as you cut off the pellicles.
| Aunche wrote:
| First of all, the salt kills all the harmful bacteria. I don't
| know how true this is, but it's said that mammal meat is denser
| than poultry meat, bacteria can't grow inside of it (or at
| least have a lot more difficulty growing inside. Duck
| prosciutto is a thing too though, so maybe it's just chicken?
| mc32 wrote:
| Or: https://montagne-hautlanguedoc.com/recettes-de-cuisine-
| tradi... Faisandage.
|
| Also, this is BS: "Peking duck, which also owes its name to a
| romanized name for Beijing"
|
| No, it is no more Romanized than "Beijing"... One is Wade-
| Giles, the other Pinyin Romanization.
| smegsicle wrote:
| beijing is a city in china
|
| the term 'peking duck', much like the more common spelling
| 'beijing', are based on romanizations of the name of the city
| of beijing, china, which is a city, and not a romanized name
| for itself
|
| bringing up the fact that 'beijing' is a different kind of
| romanization is only useful if the audience needs to be
| educated on different kinds of romanizations, which is the
| point of contention between the author of the duck article,
| Preston Landers, and 'mc32', which is four ascii characters,
| and not a person
| vehemenz wrote:
| Use vs. reference.
|
| 'Peking' is a romanized name for Beijing. So is 'Beijing.'
| Had the author said "a romanized name for 'Beijing,'" then
| you would have a had a point. Sure, you could use 'Bei Jing
| ,' but that is unnecessarily confusing.
| mc32 wrote:
| That's my point, they're both "romanizations" One is one
| type, the other another. There have been other
| romanizations as well and in addition there are things like
| bopomo. And, yes, it would make sense to me to say Peking
| is a romanized transliteration of the Chinese character for
| the locale [in the mandarin dialect.]
| vehemenz wrote:
| The author raises the point about 'Peking' because many
| people don't know that it's a romanization of Beijing.
| You are suggesting that the author is incorrect to omit
| the commonly known romanization? Develop the argument.
| zerocrates wrote:
| They just want it to say "an alternative romanization of
| Beijing" or something like that instead. As written it
| sort of implies that "Peking" is the result of
| romanization while "Beijing" is not.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| While I don't think this was intended - there is a
| movement to use place-names as preferred by their
| inhabitants, rather than their "colonial" names.
| Regardless of the historical context or the merits of
| linguistic descriptivism. So for example you have Mumbai
| or Turkiye. So the _implication_ for someone that didn't
| have the context regarding romanization, is that Peking
| is the "colonial" name, now requiring updating to less-
| racist standards.
| ponow wrote:
| Oh, are you the type to slip in a mention of your recent
| bread-run to Paris, keeping the "s" silent?
| jacobr1 wrote:
| Hah, no, I'm the type of person annoyed by such things
| and thus aware of them.
| mc32 wrote:
| Eh, I rather go by whatever a language one is speaking
| calls something:
|
| For example, are you going to write in to Chinese radio
| and news outlets and insist they use English names for
| cities in Anglo north America and Spanish for cities in
| Latin America? They use phonetically semi-close analogues
| for major geographical place names[1].
|
| What about Latin American speakers and their translations
| of US and Canadian cities into Spanish, is that now
| frowned? And who cares about what a despot says a country
| should be called (be they Turkey or Burma)?
|
| Do I have to say Koln instead of Cologne, Roma/Rome,
| Espagna/Spain, Torino/Turin? Or Myanmar instead of Burma?
| But, whait.. what do I do when the locals have a
| dialectal non-official variant?
|
| [1]
|
| Alabama (A La Ba Ma - A la ba ma)
|
| Alaska (A La Si Jia - A la si jia)
|
| Arizona (Ya Li Sang Na - Ya li sang na) [asia, profit,
| mulberry, that]
|
| Arkansas (A Ken Se - A ken se)
|
| California (Jia Li Fu Ni Ya - Jia li fu ni ya)
|
| Colorado (Ke Luo La Duo - Ke luo la duo)
|
| Connecticut (Kang Nie Di Ge - Kang nie di ge) [health,
| nirvana, digger]
|
| Delaware (Te La Hua - Te la hua)
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > They use phonetically semi-close analogues for major
| geographical place names[1].
|
| No, just like everyone else, they use whatever their
| names are without worrying even the slightest bit about
| whether those names are phonetically close to the native
| pronunciation.
|
| I notice you forgot to list San Francisco.
| mc32 wrote:
| Heh, no, I did not, but it's down the list
| alphabetically. I mean, the above stray far enough from
| pronunciation where locals would have a hard time
| understanding without some context (like, I'm going to be
| pronouncing a state name, try and guess which one) that
| it's not necessary to show the pronunciations that have
| no basis in local pronunciation.
|
| But, yeah, I totally agree. Use whatever the language
| you're using at the moment uses. Like I'm going to figure
| out what the "real" pronunciation is for Ex-USSR
| locales...
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| (On the topic of San Francisco, I'm always... bemused...
| by the city's insistence on referring to itself as San
| Fan Shi in its own Chinese documents. https://sf.gov/zh-
| hant/about-this-website )
| [deleted]
| ponow wrote:
| Hilarious. I think the criterion is that you have to
| change your pronunciation if someone claims you have
| power: a kind of punching up / revenge.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| There are plenty of people that will gleefully try to
| correct you if you write Burma rather than Myanmar these
| days. I don't think it is a _good_ trend. But it really
| is a trend.
| onethought wrote:
| Peking is the Cantonese word for Beijing
| gwd wrote:
| NB this works both ways on a lot of things. For instance,
| the Chinese word for "guitar" is Ji Ta ; pronounced "ji ta"
| in Mandarin, but "gat1 taa1" in Cantonese. Similary for
| "Canada" (Jia Na Da ): jia na da in Mandarin, and gaa1 naa4
| daai6 in Cantonese.
|
| It's a weird side-effect of two facts: 1) the British
| interacted a lot more directly with Canton than the rest of
| China 2) Mandarin and Cantonese are "officially" different
| dialects of the same language, so once you define the
| characters in one, you've mostly defined them in the other.
|
| (Some exceptions seem to include "bus" and "taxi", which in
| HK are obviously based on the English words, but Mandarin
| has their own, self-describing names for.)
| odiroot wrote:
| And then you also have Hokkien, Hakka, Teochew. Spending
| some time in Malaysia and Singapore, you can hear all of
| these (plus Malay) mixed into a single English-language
| sentence. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the colonial
| language migrated back with the Brits.
| ajross wrote:
| FWIW: my understanding is that there's a dialect issue at
| work too. The folks providing the pronunciation to a
| transliterator that became "Peking" said the name of the city
| somewhat differently than the people living in Beijing today
| do.
| glxxyz wrote:
| Not really, under the old Wade-Giles romanization system
| the city was transliterated as 'Peking'. Under the newer
| (~65 year old) pinyin system it's transliterated as
| 'Beijing'. The pronunciation in Mandarin never changed,
| just the way that sounds which don't have any exact
| equivalent in our alphabet are represented.
|
| Chang used to be a very common Chinese surname, but Zhang
| is now. It's the same name.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > under the old Wade-Giles romanization system the city
| was transliterated as 'Peking'
|
| Not even close. Under the old Wade-Giles system the name
| of the city is transliterated as 'pei-ching'. That is
| because, as you note, the pronunciation in Mandarin
| didn't change. You seem to be imagining a sound that
| might be interpreted as a K or, alternatively, might be
| interpreted as a J, but there is no such sound.
| glxxyz wrote:
| > You seem to be imagining a sound that might be
| interpreted as a K or, alternatively, might be
| interpreted as a J
|
| No, not at all
| glxxyz wrote:
| Well, at least close-er, yes the 'k' is older than Wade
| Giles, the changes in spelling are still just changes in
| romanizations systems.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| No, that's not correct. The 'k' in Peking is there
| because Peking is not a transcription from Mandarin. The
| change was in what language to use for the name of the
| city, not in what romanization system to use.
| glxxyz wrote:
| I didn't say the k was a romanization, I said it was
| older.
| mc32 wrote:
| Yep, this is the reason. The same reason they use 'q',
| 'c' and 'x' etc., they don't correspond to English, or
| Italian pronunciation of those letters. They are
| "pronunciation keys" and Wade-Giles was the same. Just
| represented differently.
| mc32 wrote:
| Yeah, Peking is much closer to the Cantonese pronunciation
| of the city, however, I think the guys who came up with the
| romanization did live in the north capital city. On the
| other hand Wade-Giles is more prevalent in Singapore, HK
| and Taiwan, for example --though in some instances they are
| starting to follow the pinyin transliteration.
| glxxyz wrote:
| Wade-Giles is more prevalent in places that kept
| Traditional characters, because the mainland switched to
| Simplified and pinyin in the 1950s.
| noefingway wrote:
| Just like good old country ham here in the US. I get one every
| year, been eating it since I was a kid. Dry, crusty, some mold
| on the outside. Clean it off an slice it, or soak it for a
| couple of days then bake it. Either way it's staple here on the
| farm.
| ioblomov wrote:
| Reminds me of an article I came across once about artisanal
| French cheese. The gist was that the French would much rather
| risk potential illness from raw-milk cheese than give up the
| pleasure of eating it.
|
| Growing up in an immigrant family and having lived in Spain a
| spell, I've come to realize Americans are much too paranoid when
| it comes to food safety.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Raw milk cheese is safe after a certain age since the good
| bacteria eliminate the bad bacteria.
| cheeze_whizz wrote:
| That's not true. First of all, as cheese ages all the
| bacteria (and fungi and yeasts) inside it die out because
| they run out of food to eat. You see, they're trapped in a
| solid lump of protein so they have nowhere to go. So they die
| of hunger. That does make the cheese safe to eat so cases of
| food poisoning from hard cheeses that tend to age for more
| than three months, are virtually unheard of.
|
| Second, whether good bacteria will outnumber the "bad"
| depends on how many of each ... goodness value? there were at
| the start. If your raw milk is contaminated with sufficiently
| high numbers of coliform bacteria (E coli and friends) there
| is no amount of bacterial goodness that can make that milk
| good for cheesemaking. Most likely you're looking at "early
| blowing" (literally the cheese blowing up like a rugby ball,
| with a great big fissure in its center, because of gasses
| released by bacteria early in its maturation).
|
| Third, some "good" and "bad" bacteria can coexist quite
| happily with each other simply because they do not consume
| the same resources and so do not compete for them.
|
| Don't have a fourth one for you.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| Wouldn't that also apply to pasteurized cheese? Cultures are
| usually introduced which I would expect to outproduce bad
| bacteria just like with raw-milk cheese.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Yes it does also apply to pasteurized cheese. But
| pasteurized cheese is safe at any age (young ones safe
| because of pasteurization step, older ones because of good
| bacteria). And slightly less flavourful.
| cheeze_whizz wrote:
| My informed opinion as a cheese maniac is that raw or
| pasteurized milk doesn't make any perceptible difference
| in cheese quality. What makes the difference is a) the
| animals' diet (which imparts flavors that don't go away
| with pasteurization), b) the manufacturing process
| (anything made in a factory will be bland, even if it's
| made with raw milk) and c) the aging.
|
| The most important factor by far is aging. There's a
| reason why the French have a special name for the special
| job of aging cheese, "affineur". A good affinage can
| transform the most mediocre cheese into a culinary tour
| de force.
|
| Source: I make cheese and age it myself.
| caycep wrote:
| and yet despite his alarm at aging ducks the author also has
| multiple articles on fermented foods on his site...
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Fermentation specifically sterilizes the food. That's what
| alcohol does.
|
| It's analogous to the process of cooking the duck, not the
| process of hanging it out overnight.
| justincormack wrote:
| Its not related to alcohol. Fermentation is mainly about
| producing acidity that stops harmful bacteria growing (also
| in the absence of oxygen, plus salted).
| [deleted]
| kornhole wrote:
| American education is that everything needs to be sterilized,
| irradiated, and wrapped in plastic. However it does not seem to
| matter how the food was created with growth hormones,
| antibiotics, preservatives, and other questionable ingredients.
|
| Some of this might be due to the influence of big ag on our
| education, media and regulatory systems. These measures
| definitely benefit the big factories and impose excessive
| burdens on the small local farms.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| Americans seem a bit weird about food safety, but also American
| food seems incredibly unsafe.
|
| I remember an American colleague of mine absolutely freaking
| out that I was slicing up chicken without wearing gloves, and
| he was convinced that I'd be dead by morning from some hideous
| chicken-borne disease because of it. Apparently chicken in the
| US really is that dangerous, or something, but I guess someone
| from the US can comment?
| taylodl wrote:
| Industrial-processed chicken really is that dangerous. It's
| the de-feathering. They place the bird in vat of boiling
| water. It loosens the stool so the bird isn't really de-
| feathered in boiling _water_ , it's de-feathered in boiling
| _chicken shit water._ Believe it or not this process works so
| long as you take precautions in how you handle the meat to
| prevent that bacteria from growing.
|
| Having said that, I don't know of anyone who uses gloves when
| handling chicken. Just wash your hands and you'll be fine.
| Then again, this person may have known someone who died from
| a staph infection. As long as you're not handling raw chicken
| while having an open cut on your hands or fingers (gross!)
| then you should be fine. Still, wash up when you're done!
| ponow wrote:
| Umm, it's _boiling_ water, not luke warm water. You can
| boil still pond scum and then drink it. Please floss after.
| bitcurious wrote:
| Let's say you have a big pot of boiling water and you put
| a raw chicken in there. What temperature is the water
| now? What if at the end of this process, your goal is to
| have a raw chicken?
| ponow wrote:
| But the nasty water itself, which was claimed to be the
| source of the problem, is not. It's the rawness of the
| insides of the meat.
| msla wrote:
| > I remember an American colleague of mine absolutely
| freaking out that I was slicing up chicken without wearing
| gloves, and he was convinced that I'd be dead by morning from
| some hideous chicken-borne disease because of it.
|
| Most Americans aren't like that person.
|
| > Apparently chicken in the US really is that dangerous
|
| Not to my knowledge. On the other (ungloved) hand, I don't
| know of any culinary tradition involving eating raw chicken.
| Sunspark wrote:
| I understand that American chicken is not processed under
| sanitary conditions which is why it needs to be chlorine
| dipped to kill the salmonella bacteria.
|
| This was one of the big controversies about Brexit, that they
| would be receiving chlorinated chicken from America when
| previously they were able to enjoy non-chlorinated chicken.
|
| That said, even with salmonella bacteria, just wash your
| hands after preparing it and you'll be fine.
| zdragnar wrote:
| I've never seen anyone wear gloves to cut chicken that wasn't
| working in a commercial kitchen where they required it.
|
| I've been cooking in America for decades and have never once
| had an issue with cooking chicken and not wearing gloves. My
| mother, other the other hand, got an eye infection the day
| after getting a bit of raw liquid in her eye while she was
| cutting chicken a few months ago. A few antibiotics and eye
| drops, and it cleared up.
|
| The only absurd precaution I've seen someone take in the US
| is that my grandmother would overcook pork to the point we
| would joke that it would shatter if you dropped it- however,
| she grew up in times when trichinosis was a very valid
| concern. Nowadays, it is safe to cook less than well done
| (some prefer medium or mid-well) though I don't know anyone
| willing to try it.
| banannaise wrote:
| Medium-rare pork (cooked to 145F instead of 165) is really
| tasty. I've been cooking it that way for a few years now.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| american here, and that seems as weird to me as it does to
| you
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| Good to hear. He was a bit of a weird guy, but this seemed
| like a really deep-seated "everyone knows that..." thing.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| I was amazed in the US grocery shops - plenty of warning
| signs about how eggs are dangerous if not cooked properly
| etc.
|
| Funny thing is that all those signs were next to actually
| healthy food ! Nothing next to the massively processed food
| that make up 90% of the shop.
| zdragnar wrote:
| That's because federal regulations in the US require that
| eggs be washed and refrigerated prior to selling at grocery
| stores. On the one hand, this decreases the risk that the
| egg will get contaminated if someone cooks an unwashed egg,
| but it also means that it no longer has the protective
| coating on the shell that unwashed eggs have.
|
| That said, I don't think there have been egg related deaths
| since a raw egg eating competition years ago.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| I remember hearing that the protective coating on
| unwashed eggs is also where salmonella is most likely to
| come from as a justification for requiring that the eggs
| are washed. I don't know how correct that is but it seems
| to be somewhat commonly believed in the US.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| I've been making historic cocktails with uncooked US eggs
| (either whites or yolks) for the winter season, and have
| yet to get sick. But sample size me and usually with a
| decent amount of ethanol.
| smegsicle wrote:
| any recommendations? i do know that whites and soda make
| for a fun texture
| laurencerowe wrote:
| Chickens in the US are not vaccinated against salmonella as
| they are in Europe. https://medium.com/@westwise/why-hasnt-a-
| vaccine-stopped-sal...
| setr wrote:
| I'm American born & raised, and know of no Americans who are
| concerned about gloves while cooking (though you do need to
| wash anything touching raw meat before moving on). On the
| other hand, Koreans I've seen seem to almost fetishize the
| use of plastics for all manner of cooking which I've never
| understood.
|
| As far as I've seen, all the American sterilization obsession
| is pushed onto the industry, not in the kitchen itself --
| e.g. you cannot find anything "dangerous" in most grocery
| stores / restaurants in the first place. The closest is steak
| and sashimi
| gernb wrote:
| Yes, and In Japan you can eat raw chicken at plenty of
| restaurants
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=%E9%B3%A5%E5%88%BA%E3%81%97&.
| ..
|
| it's good.
| pessimizer wrote:
| _Factbox: Fake olive oil scandal that caused Spain 's worst
| food poisoning epidemic in 1981_
|
| > * About 100,000 individuals were exposed and clinical disease
| occurred in 20,000 people, 10,000 of whom were hospitalized,
| according to Science Direct website. More than 300 victims died
| and many more were left with chronic disease, Science Direct
| said.
|
| > * According to the survivors' organisation Seguimos Viviendo
| more than 5,000 people have died over the years and there are
| 20,000 surviving victims with poor quality of life and
| incurable afflictions.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/fake-olive-oil-scandal-...
|
| edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_oil_syndrome
| [deleted]
| banannaise wrote:
| > I've come to realize Americans are much too paranoid when it
| comes to food safety
|
| On the contrary, Americans come from a culture where food
| purveyors will happily kill you for a quick buck. American food
| safety is highly regulated because the American business model
| makes that necessary.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-05 23:01 UTC)