In a message dated 4/25/2000 7:25:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> first: it's very rarely the inside of the egg, which is the
> dangerous part of the salmonella problem, because it's not the
> bacteria themselves, but the fast built-up of exudates after
> breaking up the egg shell, which might be contaminated. the grade
> of the exterior contamination with dirt/faeces is in the
> responsability of the producer, the built-up of endotoxins isn't.
> that's in the hand of the consumer, the food manufacterer, the
> cooling chain during transport, the caterer and so on..
I think I may be missing something in the translation here, but the last time
I checked, Salmonella was now present IN the egg, not just on the surface. If
it was only on the surface, pasteurizing the contents would not be needed.
Surface treatment of the shell would suffice.
I don't mean to be annoying about this, but once again we are missing the
forest for the trees. I know that this runs counter to "accepted" thinking,
but pathogens are not an inevitable outcome of food production. Farming and
husbandry methods can be conducted in a way that favors or disfavors the
presence of pathogens. In this age of maximum tonnage and financial return on
the farm, we have created an environment that compromises food quality and
encourages the growth of pathogens. The farmers have absolved themselves of
the responsibility of producing quality foods, and have externalized the cost
and responsibility to the consumer for "fixing" poor quality foods.
I fully agree that the consumer should bear some responsibility for consuming
wholesome foods, but not the in the manner currently presented. In a
misguided drive for cheap food, consumers are buying the low cost, poor
quality, contaminated foods and then having to handle them as a biohazard in
order to render them "safe" for eating. But killing or preventing the
propagation of pathogens does not make for wholesome, life sustaining food.
Wholesome foods do not support the growth of pathogens, no more than healthy
people have bacterial infections. We can thank Pasteur for derailing
Bechamp's assertion that bacteria should not be the thing to fear, but the
environment that allows the bacteria to propagate.
The quality and life sustaining propoerties of food can only be GROWN into
the food, not added later by eliminating hazards or adding substances. I
agree that consumers have a responsibility for consuming life sustaining
foods, but this should be expressed by demanding that the farmers produce
life sustaining foods, not by turning their kitchens into a P4 biohazard
facility. There are those who claim that this would increase the cost of food
and price it out of reach of many people. To this I would suggest reading the
works of Pfeiffer. He claimed that truly wholesome food is likely to cost
more at the store, but that less of this food needs to be eaten than
conventionally grown food. He believed that consumers would actually be
further ahead financially, let alone the favorable impact on their health.
Furthermore, if consumers traded their expenditures for disease care that
results from consuming conventionally produced foods, to spending more on
life sustaining foods, I suspect that there would be money left over. For
those who truly live below the "poverty" level, the answer is not to corrupt
the food production system in order to place food within their reach. The
answer is to change our socioeconomic structure so that everyone can exchange
honest effort in return for the basic human needs.
Alan Ismond, P.Eng.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:12 EDT