Chicken -contaminated with campylobacte.

That said, it's easy enough to do as a vegetarian if you alter your lifestyle to suit, however, people aren't willing to learn, and don't realise what foods they need to eat more of to make up the loss of certain nutrients (like iron, omega 3s and other EFAs, protein, vitamin D, typically are what many vegetarians are lacking on.) However they are easy to overcome if you're willing to learn/put the effort in.

I'm sorry for trolling....you have proved to me you know what you are talking about. It takes work but if it's something you want to do (I.e go vegetarian or even go crazy and go vegan) it's perfectly fine.
 
I'm sorry for trolling....you have proved to me you know what you are talking about. It takes work but if it's something you want to do (I.e go vegetarian or even go crazy and go vegan) it's perfectly fine.

It's okay, people are passionate about things they care about. :)

I still prefer my diet with meat/fish in it though ;)
 
Amazing, I won't even bother. You've cleared it all up for me now, I see the light.

:rolleyes: Get three chickens; one from a factory farm, one from a free range farm and one from somebody who keeps them as pets. They will all have campylobacter on them and you will get sick from any of them unless you pluck and cook them properly.

Obviously if the conditions aren't ideal such as in these factories, the amount of bacteria will change but moving animals that have carried bacteria for as long as they've existed to better conditions and feeding them better doesn't magically get rid of them.
 
Freefaller, was I talking BS in post #74 or did I know a thing..? :p

You don't have to take supplements if you tweak your diet accordingly even without meat/fish sources. It just takes more effort and though and different quantities. Of course it is easier to do that if you can't be bothered, but that seems counter intuitive to me. :)
 
I stopped eating meat over a year ago based on various sources a recent one which I posted, I need my head testing? I think someone needs reading lessons.



Amazing, I won't even bother. You've cleared it all up for me now, I see the light.



Why you hating on me bro?

No, you need it testing because you blindly follow what a news story says and then proclaim that everyone who eats chicken will be far more unhealthy than you lol. Thats called being delusional mate, hence the head testing.
 
Meh, Natural Selection tbh

tumblr_ladmbatLDY1qdgpkgo1_500.png
 
Here is a question then. When shallow frying chicken, do you have utensils for before cooking (as in, unsticking it from the pan when it first goes in), during cooking (as in, not cooked but not raw) and then to get the chicken out of the pan at the end once cooked?

Nope.

Same utensil as once the core is at 75 degrees, the surface will be 95+ so no bacteria can survive transfer. It is once chicken is in hold at above 63 degrees cross contamination can occur.

The biggest risk once the food is cooked is usually Staphylococcus Aureus which is transferred from human carriers, usually unhygenic food servers.
 
The majority of these bacteria's are opportunistic pathogens to humans they are found readily in the environment. They don't just appear from nowhere and infect a human out of spite. They are quite happily sitting around in their own little environment, breeding and bacteria-ing about in large enough numbers. It's only when the opportunity arises and they find themselves in a position to take advantage and breed up a few hundred million descendants in a human gut that they 'become a problem'.

Yes, and surely we should take reasonable step to prevent them being a problem. Because when they do become a problem it is hardly like you can just pop to the GP and get antibiotics is it in quite a few cases.

You are correct that it is all about risk management. Risk from the environmental contamination and the human contamination risk (which is usually more severe). Both of these are legislatively controlled. Food and water hygiene are two of the most strictly regulated industries. We have nothing to worry about. These bugs were here before the dinosaurs and they will be here long after the last human dies. They aren't going anywhere.

That's a rather cavalier attitude. Cancer has been around for ages and will be for ages too shall we ignore that too? Or shall we take sensible risks.
 
Yes, and surely we should take reasonable step to prevent them being a problem. Because when they do become a problem it is hardly like you can just pop to the GP and get antibiotics is it in quite a few cases.

We do more than a reasonable step already. Your food is already tested, treated, again tested, processed and then tested for a final time, before it even gets to your local supermarket. The controls are already in place, accountable under law and are massively successful in limiting and controlling an outbreak. The bacteria that are frequent buzz words in the media (E.coli, Salmonella, Listeria, Pseudomonas, Campylobacter, Vibrio, Staphlococcus, Clostridia, Enterobacter and many many more lovely genus) are all naturally occurring bacteria which are present everywhere! Do you think the food industry would survive if it wasn't already doing everything to limit people getting sick from the food it produces? Add to that your immune system will already be fighting infections from these bugs on a daily basis already!

That's a rather cavalier attitude. Cancer has been around for ages and will be for ages too shall we ignore that too? Or shall we take sensible risks.

I am anything but cavalier. We should not and are not ignoring it. You shouldn't assume that because you have never heard of something no one else has any idea. We should educate ourselves on what the issues actually are; What risk these organisms actually pose (very little if procedure is followed); and not be frightened to question what exactly has gone in to getting you your fresh food and veg weekly.

Using your extreme comparison... Do you worry and think every second of every day on if you have cancer or how you could get cancer? No. Well someone IS worrying about what you are buying from a shop or putting in your mouth even if you aren't. Companies are accountable under law if they do not.
 
I prefer to cook my chicken, hence why I'm still alive. Only person in the house who eats raw chicken is the cat.

But if I'm out at a food establishment that I don't particularly trust, then I'll avoid anything with chicken.
 
We do more than a reasonable step already. Your food is already tested, treated, again tested, processed and then tested for a final time, before it even gets to your local supermarket.

Yes, there are reasonable steps it appears they aren't being adhered to. This is not the first time recently the meat industry has caused serious questions to be asked.

Let's take for example of the usual favourite e.coli 0157 it is not actually everywhere really is it. It is concentrated in very specific locations after very specific events! Now that is especially relevant to what I am challenging here: the flippant oh I am ok attitude some are professing here. Because if you were serving up a load of uncooked burgers then there is a very good chance you and others would be not ok. And if that were the case the outcome could be very severe for some people and it's not like you can just pop to the GP and get antibiotics to cure such a bug is it.

I am anything but cavalier.

Sorry, maybe I misunderstand you but I said quite clearly reasonable precautions I wondered then why you challenged this? You yourself say correct procedure should be followed - I challenged people who said this need not be the case. And no I don't worry about cancer I take sensible precautions same as with food. And people also worry about cancer - such concern for the health of the public is not the sole remit of food and drinks industry.
 
Yes, there are reasonable steps it appears they aren't being adhered to. This is not the first time recently the meat industry has caused serious questions to be asked.

Yes they are. Campylobacter on chickens is nothing new. What this article has essentially done (using a rubbish analogy) is found a knife and gone 'ooooh look this is pointy and sharp and can hurt someone.' Yes it is sharp and pointy... now put it back in the drawer with the rest of the cutlery that is used every day... and there's a knife block sitting on the counter too you should watch out for.

Let's take for example of the usual favourite e.coli 0157 it is not actually everywhere really is it. It is concentrated in very specific locations after very specific events!

Yes it is found commonly in the gut of farm animals. Awareness is a good thing don't get me wrong but education via the news and demestos is unreliable.

Some other headline grabbers...
Meticillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a mutant staph aureus which is readily found on peoples hands and is no more infectious or virrulent than normal Staph aureus.
Clostridia difficile (C.dif) is found in the digestive system of animals and humans.
Salmonella is so common that it is laughable that it is feared so much. Found in the gut is the same family as E.coli. Make up the flora of your gut.

Now that is especially relevant to what I am challenging here: the flippant oh I am ok attitude some are professing here. Because if you were serving up a load of uncooked burgers then there is a very good chance you and others would be not ok. And if that were the case the outcome could be very severe for some people and it's not like you can just pop to the GP and get antibiotics to cure such a bug is it.

Yes but these circumstances are on the end user. Do you want the government to come round and cook your food for you? Restaurants, food vendors, etc are audited and checked by regulatory bodies and have to adhere to standards. The ones you hear about DO NOT adhere and are highlighted, reported on, fined, imprisoned, whatever the law and a jury of their peers see's fit to punish them with.

These bugs can kill yes... but in very rare circumstances. The most they usually do is give you the trots. Had a loose stool recently? That's your body fighting an infection from one of these guys. Were you hospitalised? No.

Basic standards apply. Wash your hands and cook your food. It's nothing to be scared about.

Sorry, maybe I misunderstand you but I said quite clearly reasonable precautions I wondered then why you challenged this? You yourself say correct procedure should be followed - I challenged people who said this need not be the case.

I haven't disagreed with you. But as stated above these bacteria are so common. I can go and swab you, your house, surfaces not even used in food prep or in ablutions and still find these organisms... no matter how hard you clean. Nature finds a way (to paraphrase Jurassic park). Bacteria is in the water vapour in the air... every surface... you have more bacteria in 1 inch of your bowel than there have been human beings on this planet for all of time. You are a walking bacteria culture wrapped in hamburgers, living on a planet of bacteria culture.


Informing the public of an actual outbreak, Linky, Linky, Linky, is great and news. The article in the op is waffle and non-news.

Things to take away:
1. Wash your hands
2. Look at where your food has come from and been kept. Educate and understand the risks.
3. Cook your food thoroughly. Washing is usually unnecessary as it has been washed about 8 times before its got to you... but if it makes you feel better go for it.
4. Clear up after yourself.
5. Don't worry. People get sick... it's nice outside even with the lovely bacteria... have a yeast fermented beverage (yeast is also considered a food spoilage organism)

:D
 
No, you need it testing because you blindly follow what a news story says and then proclaim that everyone who eats chicken will be far more unhealthy than you lol. Thats called being delusional mate, hence the head testing.

Verdict: Umad. :p

:rolleyes: Get three chickens; one from a factory farm, one from a free range farm and one from somebody who keeps them as pets. They will all have campylobacter on them and you will get sick from any of them unless you pluck and cook them properly.

Obviously if the conditions aren't ideal such as in these factories, the amount of bacteria will change but moving animals that have carried bacteria for as long as they've existed to better conditions and feeding them better doesn't magically get rid of them.

I love you, please lets not be like this.
 
Terrible article.

It blames privatisation, low wages, poor holiday and other anti-business rhetoric, and then lobbing against the EU for the "problem" - and then later goes to talking about climate change!

All in all, one fact is presented. 2/3rds of fresh chicken tests positive for this bacteria.

Heres a list of things that need to be mentioned for a decision to be made:
The level of contamination that would be considered dangerous
The % of chicken that reach this level
Historical trends for this level over time
Comparison with other countries.

It would then be considered good practise to give advice on how to prepare chicken so that you don't fall ill.

lolguardian.
 
No it doesn't work.
I think the chap is confused.

What often is done, is you coat your hands in a powder, then wash and then use the light to see if any of the powder remains, it is to demonstrate accurate and correct hand washing technique.

The light doesn't actually show bacteria, it shows a powder that displays under the light.
 
Yes they are.

Strange but the report suggests that protocols were breached and guidelines not followed. But hey it's the Guardian not the best tbh it's always the political angle for them well one political angle.


So actually in this specific case - I was correct and actually the bacteria is not found everywhere in suitable load to cause an infection but as I termed it: "It is concentrated in very specific locations after very specific events!"

These bugs can kill yes... but in very rare circumstances.

Have I said differently? I would also point out that there is marked quantitative difference from when we say moved from fatal cases to cases which necessitate complicated therapy specifically in the example we were discussing where you can use antibiotics to combat the bacterial infection.

Basic standards apply. Wash your hands and cook your food. It's nothing to be scared about.

Which is what I have said - reasonable precautions. Which makes you wonder why you spending so much time challenging my posts - someone you allegedly agree with and yet feel free to not challenge the posts made by people who say that such basic precautions are not required and have some rather strange ideas about the Hygiene hypothesis and how the immune system works.

I can go and swab you, your house, surfaces not even used in food prep or in ablutions and still find these organisms...

So again using the same example you would be able to find e.coli 0157 on or in my house would you in an infective loading dosage with the exception of food? Really. So it would be fair to say the risk factor for that particular bacteria would actually be the food which we both agree should be prepared sensibly with socially clean hands and cooked well.
 
No it doesn't work.
I think the chap is confused.

What often is done, is you coat your hands in a powder, then wash and then use the light to see if any of the powder remains, it is to demonstrate accurate and correct hand washing technique.

The light doesn't actually show bacteria, it shows a powder that displays under the light.



Lol, after my first read through I thought he meant use UV light to sanitise your hands. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom