There's an interesting opinion piece today in the New York Times (on line) basically questioning the logic of free-range pork. My guess is that there are many sides to this discussion--but I'm not writing to raise questions about animal ethics. The author cites a study that shows that "scientists have found that free-range pork can be more likely than caged pork to carry dangerous bacteria and parasites"--including salmonella and trichina, the cause of trichinosis. I've looked into it a little and it sounds like cooking past the pink--to well done--kills off these threats. Does anyone know if that's true? If so, then I assume that pulled pork, cooked low and slow to 200 degrees, should be safe, even if free range. I ask because I live in an area with a number of local pig farmers and I sometimes get my butts from them--professionally butchered, in local stores, etc. (Domesticated pork--what we get from the supermarket--is apparently safer.)
Pork science/health question
- Thread starter Nate L
- Start date
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
I'll look, but were studies cited that support the claims of the op-ed writer? I have not seen any that support that (I have seen the opposite, actually) and would be interested to know. (Ethics aside, commercial pork is often fed a diet laced with sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics. Not something I want to consume. If I can find my figures on the percentage of contaminated commercial pork I'll post.)
To answer your question, no, pork does not have to be 'cooked past the pink--to well done' to kill off trichinae. Significantly lower temps work. (See my post here.) As for other pathogens, it depends a bit on the pathogen in question but internal bacterial contamination of intact roasts is quite rare. It is the surfaces that one needs to be most concerned with. Typical cook temps will, over the course of the cook, handle pathogens on the surface. Additionally, if one is smoking, elements of smoke are both bacteriocides and bacteriostats.
To answer your question, no, pork does not have to be 'cooked past the pink--to well done' to kill off trichinae. Significantly lower temps work. (See my post here.) As for other pathogens, it depends a bit on the pathogen in question but internal bacterial contamination of intact roasts is quite rare. It is the surfaces that one needs to be most concerned with. Typical cook temps will, over the course of the cook, handle pathogens on the surface. Additionally, if one is smoking, elements of smoke are both bacteriocides and bacteriostats.
Thanks for your helpful reply. I've seen your posts before and know that you know your stuff. The op-ed piece cites a journal article (I'll try to paste the link below)--but the piece itself is so patronizing and opinionated that it's hard to distinguish the science from the polemic. In fact, while he is surely right to question the naive notion of free-range perfection, this is actually an old argument; he never looks at the subtleties of the ethics; nor does the seem especially interested in the complexities of the science. Anyway, thanks for your response. I'm not sure if this link will work; you can find the piece on-line at the nytimes now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04...on/10mcwilliams.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04...on/10mcwilliams.html
j biesinger
TVWBB Platinum Member
Interesting article.
One thing that may confounding our interpretation of the article is the concept of "free range." In some cases the designation of free range on a label is not necessarily what we might think. for instance, in order for a chicken to be designated free range it only needs to have access to an outside area, and they may never have actually made it outside in their life because they were so crowded that they couldn't make it to the door even if they knew it was there.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Free range is not necessarily natural. And neither is its taste. In fact, free range is like piggy day care, a thoughtfully arranged system designed to meet the needs of consumers who despise industrial agriculture and adore the idea of wildness.
To equate the highly controlled grazing of pigs with wild animals in a state of nature is to insult the essence of nature, domestication and wild pigs. A free-range system is engineered in part to achieve a producer’s market-driven goal: protecting his squealing investments from nature’s most obvious threats while allowing them a modicum of muscle-enhancing movement. Pigs lucky enough to land in this verdant playpen are endowed by the hand of man less with survival skills than with the ability to generate flesh retailing for $12 a pound. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What I bought the other day was pork from pigs that were outside and eating wild forage for more than half the year. during the winter they were fed fortified grains (no hormones, no antibiotics). It tasted better than commercial pork, and was far juicer than enhanced pork (without any enhancement).
If the goal of the article was to trash the idea that artificial labels like "free range" don't inherently guaranty better quality. and that people who blindly chose those labels are misguided, then I can support it. We all need to be better educated about where our food comes from. And all food is somewhat risky, do you want to chose salmonella which can be cooked out or hormones and antibiotics that can't?
One thing that may confounding our interpretation of the article is the concept of "free range." In some cases the designation of free range on a label is not necessarily what we might think. for instance, in order for a chicken to be designated free range it only needs to have access to an outside area, and they may never have actually made it outside in their life because they were so crowded that they couldn't make it to the door even if they knew it was there.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Free range is not necessarily natural. And neither is its taste. In fact, free range is like piggy day care, a thoughtfully arranged system designed to meet the needs of consumers who despise industrial agriculture and adore the idea of wildness.
To equate the highly controlled grazing of pigs with wild animals in a state of nature is to insult the essence of nature, domestication and wild pigs. A free-range system is engineered in part to achieve a producer’s market-driven goal: protecting his squealing investments from nature’s most obvious threats while allowing them a modicum of muscle-enhancing movement. Pigs lucky enough to land in this verdant playpen are endowed by the hand of man less with survival skills than with the ability to generate flesh retailing for $12 a pound. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What I bought the other day was pork from pigs that were outside and eating wild forage for more than half the year. during the winter they were fed fortified grains (no hormones, no antibiotics). It tasted better than commercial pork, and was far juicer than enhanced pork (without any enhancement).
If the goal of the article was to trash the idea that artificial labels like "free range" don't inherently guaranty better quality. and that people who blindly chose those labels are misguided, then I can support it. We all need to be better educated about where our food comes from. And all food is somewhat risky, do you want to chose salmonella which can be cooked out or hormones and antibiotics that can't?
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
An apt question.
There is so much about the article that betrays the misinformation of the author, and the dripping tendentiousness is particularly unnerving but let's take just a few of his points (and trash them), shall we?
" According to the Web site of Legacy Manor, a Maryland farm that raises free-range pigs, it is “the way food used to taste.” Given such superlative enthusiasm, it’s worth wondering how this latest development will play out among the culinary tastemakers."
Well, first 'free-range' encompasses a wide swath. Though one can assume it means the pigs were not raised in the ultra-confined mess of a typical industrial pork operation, there are numerous ways to raise pigs 'free-range'. I would not be all that interested in a piglet pulled of an industrial farm and raised in my yard because commercial pigs are not bred for flavor. They are bread for leanness, unfortunately, consistent growth in a short time, consistent flavor (read: not especially flavorful). Give me a Duroc or a Berkshire pig any day and yes, the meat tastes like the way pork used to taste.
As to the author's 'wondering how this latest development will play out among the culinary tastemakers,' well, I can't see that it would make much differnce at all. We cook pork (and other meats) to make it safe to consume in the first place. So if the results of this (very small and limited) study hold up, so what?
"Free range is not necessarily natural" No, it's not. But less so is confining pigs in warehouses so that the are nearly immobile and feeding them antibiotic-laced feed in order to stem the diseases that occur so readily (and transmit quickly) in such a confined environment.
"In fact, free range is like piggy day care, a thoughtfully arranged system designed to meet the needs of consumers who despise industrial agriculture and adore the idea of wildness." Not necessarily. For many, like me, it is meeting the needs of consumers who dislike the blander, leaner meat of over-hybridized commercial pork. What supermarket pork loin has the deep color and rich flavor of a Berk loin?
"Even if the texture conferred on pork by this choice does lead to improved tenderloin, the enhanced taste must be weighed against the increased health risks." And what, pray, tell, are those? Who's eating pork tartare?
"If we have learned anything from our sustained critique of industrial agriculture, it is that eating well should not require making such calculations." Nonsense. We should be making 'calculations' all the time. Food is not inherently safe--and it never has been. It must be made safe to consume no matter what it is.
"Let’s not forget that animal domestication has not been only about profit. It’s also been about making meat more reliably available, safer to eat and consistently flavored." Yes, 'consistently' flavored -- oh, yay, bland pork and bland chicken is what we've hybridized our way to.
"But it should acknowledge that raising animals indoors, fighting their diseases with medicine and feeding them a carefully monitored diet have long been basic tenets of animal husbandry that allowed a lot more people to eat a lot more pork without getting sick." This is simply false. They have not 'long been tenets' at all. We virtually eliminated trich by controlling and monitoring pigs diets, yes, but this was before industrial production techniques were introduced--by many years. With the advent of 'raising animals indoors', especially in confined, huge commercial operations, we have also seen a marked increase in antibiotic-resistant microbes.
There is so much about the article that betrays the misinformation of the author, and the dripping tendentiousness is particularly unnerving but let's take just a few of his points (and trash them), shall we?
" According to the Web site of Legacy Manor, a Maryland farm that raises free-range pigs, it is “the way food used to taste.” Given such superlative enthusiasm, it’s worth wondering how this latest development will play out among the culinary tastemakers."
Well, first 'free-range' encompasses a wide swath. Though one can assume it means the pigs were not raised in the ultra-confined mess of a typical industrial pork operation, there are numerous ways to raise pigs 'free-range'. I would not be all that interested in a piglet pulled of an industrial farm and raised in my yard because commercial pigs are not bred for flavor. They are bread for leanness, unfortunately, consistent growth in a short time, consistent flavor (read: not especially flavorful). Give me a Duroc or a Berkshire pig any day and yes, the meat tastes like the way pork used to taste.
As to the author's 'wondering how this latest development will play out among the culinary tastemakers,' well, I can't see that it would make much differnce at all. We cook pork (and other meats) to make it safe to consume in the first place. So if the results of this (very small and limited) study hold up, so what?
"Free range is not necessarily natural" No, it's not. But less so is confining pigs in warehouses so that the are nearly immobile and feeding them antibiotic-laced feed in order to stem the diseases that occur so readily (and transmit quickly) in such a confined environment.
"In fact, free range is like piggy day care, a thoughtfully arranged system designed to meet the needs of consumers who despise industrial agriculture and adore the idea of wildness." Not necessarily. For many, like me, it is meeting the needs of consumers who dislike the blander, leaner meat of over-hybridized commercial pork. What supermarket pork loin has the deep color and rich flavor of a Berk loin?
"Even if the texture conferred on pork by this choice does lead to improved tenderloin, the enhanced taste must be weighed against the increased health risks." And what, pray, tell, are those? Who's eating pork tartare?
"If we have learned anything from our sustained critique of industrial agriculture, it is that eating well should not require making such calculations." Nonsense. We should be making 'calculations' all the time. Food is not inherently safe--and it never has been. It must be made safe to consume no matter what it is.
"Let’s not forget that animal domestication has not been only about profit. It’s also been about making meat more reliably available, safer to eat and consistently flavored." Yes, 'consistently' flavored -- oh, yay, bland pork and bland chicken is what we've hybridized our way to.
"But it should acknowledge that raising animals indoors, fighting their diseases with medicine and feeding them a carefully monitored diet have long been basic tenets of animal husbandry that allowed a lot more people to eat a lot more pork without getting sick." This is simply false. They have not 'long been tenets' at all. We virtually eliminated trich by controlling and monitoring pigs diets, yes, but this was before industrial production techniques were introduced--by many years. With the advent of 'raising animals indoors', especially in confined, huge commercial operations, we have also seen a marked increase in antibiotic-resistant microbes.
j biesinger
TVWBB Platinum Member
Kevin, well said.
j biesinger
TVWBB Platinum Member
I figure something like this posted in the NY Times wouldn't go unnoticed. This link nicely explains the op-ed piece that has us confused:
http://food.theatlantic.com/nu...ce-strikes-again.php
http://food.theatlantic.com/nu...ce-strikes-again.php
j biesinger
TVWBB Platinum Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(Thanks for the sleuthing.!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
no sweat. I read this blog through google reader, I just happened to be going through some recent posts and there it was.
Its funny how ultimately the author's point rests on the idea that eating an animal with a healthy immune system that has been exposed to micro-organisms, is worse than eating an animal that is supposedly sterile. Isn't it why industrialized nations have auto-immune diseases, because we are too sterile.
I was reading about a dairy farmer that actually thinks about his soil and the micro-organisms that are in it. The way he figures it is if he can get the foundation of his farm healthy, it will transfer up and he won't have to worry about medicating his herd. revolutionary thinking, or common sense?
no sweat. I read this blog through google reader, I just happened to be going through some recent posts and there it was.
Its funny how ultimately the author's point rests on the idea that eating an animal with a healthy immune system that has been exposed to micro-organisms, is worse than eating an animal that is supposedly sterile. Isn't it why industrialized nations have auto-immune diseases, because we are too sterile.
I was reading about a dairy farmer that actually thinks about his soil and the micro-organisms that are in it. The way he figures it is if he can get the foundation of his farm healthy, it will transfer up and he won't have to worry about medicating his herd. revolutionary thinking, or common sense?