pasteurized EGGS in shell

[Guest guest]

I've never actually seen pasturized eggs in a store, but mainstream

chefs say we should use them in ceasar salad dressing, tiramisu, and

other recipes that require raw eggs. I just coddle my eggs for this

purpose (pour boiling water over eggs in the shell and let them sit

for a minute.) I don't know if this does ANYTHING, but then again,

I'm dealing with city eggs (albeit organic and " free range " )--if I had

truly fresh eggs I wouldn't worry much.

jessica

[Guest guest]

> I've never actually seen pasturized eggs in a store, but mainstream

> chefs say we should use them in ceasar salad dressing, tiramisu, and

> other recipes that require raw eggs. I just coddle my eggs for this

> purpose (pour boiling water over eggs in the shell and let them sit

> for a minute.) I don't know if this does ANYTHING, but then again,

> I'm dealing with city eggs (albeit organic and " free range " )--if I

had

> truly fresh eggs I wouldn't worry much.

>

> jessica

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hello All: I predict it won't be much longer before

USDA tells farmers they can't legally sell the eggs or the chicken to

consumers. If each farmer deals with this individually many more

farmers will be out of business leaving much less " real " food

available for nourishment. We need to work together with legal costs

shared to prevent this. Dennis Kemnitz

[Guest guest]

The article below was printed today in the Oregonian " FoodDay " section. I

hadn't heard of pasteurized eggs in the shell before. Notice the article

doesn't even hint at nutritional value being changed.

Carolyn

*************************

Pasteurized eggs play it safe

03/12/02

Y ou can dig out your old lemon chiffon pie recipe for Easter or make your own

mayonnaise, add that raw egg to Caesar salad dressing and even eat raw cookie

dough without concern. That is, if you use pasteurized eggs in the shell.

son's Pasteurized Eggs are now available at Trader Joe's in the Portland

area and Eugene. They're sold in the refrigerated case with the other eggs. Why

pasteurized eggs For years, FOODday has avoided recipes using raw eggs and

cautioned readers about how unsafe they are.

Regular fresh eggs may contain a bacterium called salmonella enteritidis that

can cause intestinal infections. The strain develops in chickens and is passed

on to the egg when it's laid. Cooking eggs destroys salmonella. Although the

risk of getting salmonella is relatively small, the infection can be dangerous,

especially for the very young, the elderly and those weakened by illness. Most

healthy people recover from these infections within 4 to 7 days, but they can

lead to severe and even fatal illness. Pasteurizing process son's eggs

undergo the same heating process as milk to destroy harmful bacteria, and are as

safe as pasteurized milk. To pasteurize the eggs, son's uses an all-natural

process that destroys salmonella and any other bacteria present. The raw eggs

are placed in a series of ultraclean warm-water baths. The process kills

bacteria by using precisely controlled times and temperatures. Following a

cooling period, an all-natural, food-grade wax sealant is applied to prevent

further contamination.

The temperature of the yolk must be controlled to stay between 128 and 138.5

degrees F. At lower temperatures the egg is not pasteurized, and at higher

temperatures the albumen (egg white) won't whip properly. The combination of

time and water temperature heats the eggs enough to kill salmonella without

cooking the egg. The entire process takes about an hour. Using the eggs To check

out how well these eggs work, I made homemade mayonnaise and whipped some egg

whites. There are some differences in the way the pasteurized eggs perform.

First, the egg comes out of the shell very quickly. With the first two eggs I

attempted to separate, both the yolk and white fell out before I could separate

them. So crack carefully, and be prepared to capture the egg yolk in half the

shell. The egg whites are slightly opaque, which is normal for them. son's

suggests separating them when they're cold and also whipping the egg whites when

cold. They also suggest adding 1/4 teaspoon cream of tartar to stabilize them

before whipping.

When whipping the pasteurized egg whites, don't give up. I whipped 4 egg whites

with a stand-up Kitchen-Aid mixer, and stiff peaks formed after 10 minutes.

Their volume was 3 cups. I then whipped 4 regular egg whites, and it took just a

a little longer than a minute to get stiff peaks. They measured 4 cups. I

whipped these whites cold also; if they were at room temperature, the volume

would have been greater.

Because of the difference in volume, son's suggests that if your recipe

calls for 3 to 5 egg whites, add 1 additional egg white; if a recipe calls for 6

or 7, add 2 more egg whites.

I also made homemade mayonnaise with the pasteurized egg yolks, and they worked

great. It was firm and stayed that way, and it was delicious.

I scrambled some of the pasteurized eggs and found that there was not a flavor

difference. Shelf life The date on the package was about a month from the day I

bought the eggs. According to son's, the eggs can be used up to 5 to 6

weeks after the date on the carton. Store these eggs in cartons in the

refrigerator. Consumer line If you have questions, call son's Consumer

Line, 800-410-7819, Ext. 260. You can reach FOODday home economist Sharon

Maasdam at 503-221-8591 or by e-mail at sharonmaasdam@....

Suggestions for this column may be sent to Sharon Maasdam, FOODday, The

Oregonian, 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201.

[Guest guest]

>son's eggs

> undergo the same heating process as milk to destroy

> harmful bacteria, and are as safe as pasteurized

> milk.

Oh, that's very comforting, considering virtually all

cases of illness resulting from consuming dairy (since

public health records have been kept in this country)

have been from PASTEURIZED products. (This according

to the research paper presented to the LA County

Supervisors during the debate about allowing raw milk

to be sold there, and not refuted by the opposition.

The chart with the stats can also be found at

realmilk.com.)

I saw these eggs in TJ's last time I was there, and

could only roll my eyes in disgust. Granted, I

wouldn't eat most commercial eggs raw, and since the

eggs from standard battery-cage hens are already

nutritionally deficient it's probably not much worse

to pasteurize them, but how very convenient for the

food processing industry that they can continue to

ignore the problems of factory farming that lead to

dangerous eggs. Just like with milk, they cam go

right on being sloppy and negligent, producing a

tainted, twisted food, if they just apply the magic

wand of pasteurization and make everything okay!

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> >son's eggs

> > undergo the same heating process as milk to destroy

> > harmful bacteria, and are as safe as pasteurized

> > milk.

>

>

> Oh, that's very comforting, considering virtually all

> cases of illness resulting from consuming dairy (since

> public health records have been kept in this country)

> have been from PASTEURIZED products. (This according

> to the research paper presented to the LA County

> Supervisors during the debate about allowing raw milk

> to be sold there, and not refuted by the opposition.

> The chart with the stats can also be found at

> realmilk.com.)

To go on a tangent, I finally put two and two together and observed

that the raw cheeses that I buy are the ones that don't go bad (I

can't get all cheeses raw). The raw cheeses may dry out, but they

don't get moldy. Healthy amounts of good bacteria are the best

defense against the bad -- which is probably why fermentation was

used to store food before refrigeration is available. Once you

pasteurize, your food is vulnerable to any bacteria that may be

roaming your kitchen.

[Guest guest]

It's funny you made the post because I *just* read this article from

2 years ago.

Safety Of Eggs Taking A Beating Again

April 19, 2000

SAN FRANCISCO (San Francisco Chronicle) — The egg, a kitchen

workhorse delivered in one of nature's most ingenious packages, is

getting beaten up again.

Having survived the cholesterol scare of the '90s, the egg is facing

perhaps a tougher foe: President Clinton's Egg Safety Action Plan.

The idea is to eradicate Salmonella enteritidis, a relatively new

strain of the bacteria that first showed up in eggs on the East Coast

during the 1980s and has made hundreds of thousands of people sick.

The plan, details of which are still being finalized, could possibly

lead to wholesale pasteurization of the nation's egg supply - a

change as radical as the campaign to pasteurize milk 80 years ago.

As part of the effort, the government plans to teach America to

rethink how it cooks the 68 billion eggs eaten annually. That means

no more eggs over easy, and changes in recipes for everything from

ice cream and meringue to hollandaise sauce and Caesar salads.

But critics of the president's egg policy say the government is

caught up in a shell game that pits egg farmers against consumer

activists. The fight against Salmonella enteritidis is about five

years too late, they say. The rate of illness from this bacteria has

already dropped and is continuing to do so. Rapidly.

At a federal hearing in Sacramento earlier this month, government

officials said that from 1996 to 1998, the number of Salmonella

enteritidis-related illnesses cases fell by 44 percent, to about

230,000 a year. In the past 15 years, 79 deaths have been attributed

to Salmonella enteritidis

By its own estimates, the government believes that only 1 in 20,000

eggs contains Salmonella enteritidis, which can be killed simply by

cooking eggs so they are no longer runny. Opponents like to point out

that at a rate of five deaths a year, fewer people die from eating

Salmonella enteritidis-tainted eggs than from lightning strikes.

Ralph Ernst, a poultry specialist in the animal sciences department

of University of California at , said: " If you drive to the

store to get eggs, you're taking a much greater risk than eating

those eggs raw. So how much time do you want to spend worrying about

eggs? "

The president's policy and the rush to pasteurize eggs are really

about the politics of food safety, said Hans Reimann, a recently

retired UC professor and one of the nation's top authorities on

egg-related safety and epidemiology.

" What's going on here is sort of a media scare, and regulatory

agencies feel compelled to do something. "

Poultry researchers and farmers say the government is mounting a

major attack on Salmonella enteritidis @because it is a manageable

battle that can be won - despite questions about the actual threat of

salmonella. " The president said he was going to do it, so it will be

done, " Ernst said.

But to Laurie Girand, a Saratoga food activist whose daughter fell

ill in 1996 when she drank unpasteurized Odwalla juice infected with

E coli, arguments like that are industry doublespeak.

" I think of this as a power struggle between business wanting to go

on as usual and the consumers saying you can't make us sick anymore, "

said Girand, who is part of a panel advising the government on its

new egg law. " The truth of the matter is they're bringing biohazards

into the home in the form of an egg. "

Those are fighting words to Petaluma Farms egg man Steve Mahrt. He

said he already goes to great lengths to keep his flock free from

Salmonella enteritidis. And if he is forced to pasteurize all of his

eggs in the shell, he'll be out of business. In-shell pasteurizing

machines just coming on the market cost as much as $1.5 million, a

price he can not afford.

" If they require pasteurization, " he said, " it would be the end of

family egg farms. "

Mahrt and others say the real issue is a society that increasingly

demands the impossible: 100 percent risk-free food.

" We can cook it all to 170 degrees and not touch it, and everything

will taste like an old TV dinner, " he said. " The point is, getting up

in the morning is hazardous. "

Clinton's egg plan calls for reducing the estimated 230,000 cases of

Salmonella enteritidis poisoning by half by 2005 and eliminate them

entirely by 2010.

To do that, the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug

Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

plan to test egg farms for the bacteria. If it's found in chickens or

just in their hen houses, millions of eggs would either be destroyed

or sent for mass pasteurization.

These are expensive propositions that involve either breaking the

eggs and pasteurizing them as a liquid for large-scale food-service

use or using a new and largely unproven technology that would

pasteurize them in the shell.

No matter what, all egg cartons will soon bear cigarette-style

warning labels that read, in part, " Eggs may contain harmful bacteria

known to cause serious illness. " And consumers are already being

advised to cook all eggs until firm.

If these efforts do not reduce illnesses caused by Salmonella

enteritidis-tainted eggs, the day may come when every egg in America

is either irradiated, pasteurized or produced by a vaccinated

chicken. It would mark a wholesale change, reminiscent of time when

pasteurizing milk became the law of the land early in the century.

The process eliminated the cream line and changed the taste of whole

milk.

But eggs and milk are quite different. The shell is a safe protective

package, those opposed to mass pasteurization say, and existing

technology to pasteurize eggs changes their nature. Tests in The

Chronicle's kitchen substantiated those claims and showed the

pasteurized eggs did not perform as well as traditional eggs.

Although no one can say why the rates of Salmonella enteritidis

related infections are dropping, Emilio Esteban, CDC assistant

director for public health, credits two things.

One is that farmers and packers have started voluntary programs to

improve egg-handling practices. Second, health departments

orchestrated a public-education campaign designed to teach restaurant

workers and home cooks how to handle eggs properly to avoid under

cooking or contaminating other food with bacteria.

Salmonella enteritidis is a relative newcomer in the world of food-

borne pathogens, showing up inside eggs in the Northeast in the early

1980s, then spreading to California - particularly Southern

California - in the mid-1990s.

Unlike the other estimated 2,000 commonly occurring strains of

salmonella, some of which live on the shells of eggs and are

controlled through egg washing, Salmonella enteritidis has a peculiar

trait: It lives inside, rather than outside, the egg shell.

No one knows why it cropped up or can make sense of its infection

patterns. In general, deaths attributed to Salmonella enteritidis are

rare.

Since 1985, when the Salmonella enteritidis epidemic began, 79 deaths

have been linked to it - 17 in California. Most cases have been among

the elderly or immune-compromised people in nursing homes or

hospitals who are more susceptible to the effects of salmonella. By

comparison, the Clinton administration estimates that about 9,000

deaths a year are attributed to all types of food poisoning.

The problem with all the estimates is that the numbers get softer the

harder one looks. In fact, no one is sure how many people get sick

from Salmonella enteritidis, in large part because many cases are not

severe enough to get counted.

Most healthy adults who eat a tainted egg probably will not get sick.

If they do, they probably will experience a case of diarrhea or other

flu-like symptoms.

The president's egg plan still has a few more miles to travel before

it becomes law. Based on information gathered at the public hearings

and sent to the USDA, the rules will be polished, cost estimates will

be finalized and a draft will be issued by the end of the year. Final

rules should be in place by 2001.

In the meantime, the government effort to educate cooks about

handling eggs will continue, and state and federal health officials

hope the Salmonella enteritidis rates will keep declining.

But until either all eggs are pasteurized - the nation's first mass-

market brand is due to hit Northern California groceries later this

year - or farmers figure out how to keep Salmonella enteritidis out

of their product, consumers will have to decide just how much of a

risk under-cooked eggs are.

Activist Girand says the solution is to fix the egg and farm

practices, not just to educate the consumer or rely on people who

cook food at restaurants.

For their part, egg farmers say the new regulations will unfairly

burden smaller producers. The basic science behind the new policy is

unsound, they argue. And the bottom line is that the egg itself is a

safe, wholesome part of America's diet.

" It's a perfect food in its own excellent natural container, " said

Mahrt, the Petaluma egg farmer. " Everybody's shooting at it, but it

survived the cholesterol scare - and it can survive this. "

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:23:45 -0800 (PST) Aubin Parrish

<aubinparrish@...> writes:

>son's eggs

> undergo the same heating process as milk to destroy

> harmful bacteria, and are as safe as pasteurized

> milk.

Oh, that's very comforting, considering virtually all

cases of illness resulting from consuming dairy (since

public health records have been kept in this country)

have been from PASTEURIZED products. (This according

to the research paper presented to the LA County

Supervisors during the debate about allowing raw milk

to be sold there, and not refuted by the opposition.

The chart with the stats can also be found at

realmilk.com.)

ME: Despite all the rough and tumble on this site about parasites and raw

foods, the same can be said for raw meats and not just for raw milk, the

disease producing incidents in this country are from

cooked/pasteurized/irradiated foods in nearly all cases. I'll see what

charts and records I can dredge up dealing with this very politically

incorrect reality. They are sitting somewhere in the stacks of books and

files I have here in my office. :-)

Bianca

[Guest guest]

>From: bianca3@...

>ME: Despite all the rough and tumble on this site about parasites and raw

>foods, the same can be said for raw meats and not just for raw milk, the

>disease producing incidents in this country are from

>cooked/pasteurized/irradiated foods in nearly all cases. I'll see what

>charts and records I can dredge up dealing with this very politically

>incorrect reality. They are sitting somewhere in the stacks of books and

>files I have here in my office. :-)

Given that I eat about a pound of raw meat every day, much of it

Safeway-quality, I'm not questioning the safety of raw meat, but is this

really a fair comparison? Probably less than 1% of the meat and dairy

products consumed in the US are consumed raw, so even if cooked and

pasteurized animal products are responsible for a hundred times more illness

than raw animal products, it doesn't necessarily show that raw animal

products are safer.

Keep in mind also that, in the US at least, those who consume raw animal

foods are a highly self-selected bunch. For people like us, who have strong

immune systems due to diets consisting mostly or entirely of raw animal

foods and fresh fruits and vegetables, raw food doesn't seem to prevent much

of a threat, but every time I hear about how the introduction of

pasteurization in some place or another was followed by an immediate and

drastic decline in diseases believed to be caused by bacteria present in raw

milk, I can't help but wonder if the occasional indulgence in steak tatare

or raw milk might present a real danger to those whose immune systems have

been weakened by the questionable foods most people eat these days. For

them, could it be that pasteurization, cooking, and irradiation might not be

such a raw deal(pun intended) after all? Or do outbreaks of disease caused

by heat- or radiation-treated foods more than compensate for the decline in

the diseases caused by raw foods?

Berg

_________________________________________________________________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:28:22 " Berg " <brberg@...> writes:

Given that I eat about a pound of raw meat every day, much of it

Safeway-quality, I'm not questioning the safety of raw meat, but is this

really a fair comparison? Probably less than 1% of the meat and dairy

products consumed in the US are consumed raw, so even if cooked and

pasteurized animal products are responsible for a hundred times more

illness

than raw animal products, it doesn't necessarily show that raw animal

products are safer.

ME: Yikes! You must have not been on the list when we were discussing the

whole parasite/microbe issue!! Some people on this list must have just

had a heart attack upon reading that you consume Safeway quality beef raw

(LOL) :-)

I can't speak off the top of my head in terms of meat cases, but I do

know the milk charts I have seen are adjusted to make up for the absolute

differences in consumption, and compared on a percentage basis. They

really are powerful to see and pretty much end most arguments on the

danger of raw dairy products.

Keep in mind also that, in the US at least, those who consume raw animal

foods are a highly self-selected bunch.

ME: I'm not sure I would categorize people who eat raw animal foods in

that manner. *Most* of the people I know who eat raw fish and raw beef do

so because they like it, not for any overt nutritional purposes. Such

dishes are quite popular in the area that I live. In my travels I have

also noticed that they are popular in other parts of the country as well.

So while I would agree that the folks that populate the primal diet, live

food, and to some extent the native nutrition list are a highly selected

bunch when it comes to raw animal foods, I'm not sure they are the only

bunch or even the most populous bunch.

For people like us, who have strong

immune systems due to diets consisting mostly or entirely of raw animal

foods and fresh fruits and vegetables, raw food doesn't seem to prevent

much

of a threat,

ME: Not sure I agree with your assumptions here relating to the immune

system or the " threat " of raw animal foods but rather than start that

thread again you might want to check out the archives where this was

covered quite a bit of detail.

but every time I hear about how the introduction of

pasteurization in some place or another was followed by an immediate and

drastic decline in diseases believed to be caused by bacteria present in

raw

milk,

ME: I would like to see the latest stories you are referring too or

simply point me in the right direction to look up.

I can't help but wonder if the occasional indulgence in steak tatare

or raw milk might present a real danger to those whose immune systems

have

been weakened by the questionable foods most people eat these days. For

them, could it be that pasteurization, cooking, and irradiation might not

be

such a raw deal(pun intended) after all?

ME: Given that pasteurization and irradiation only serve to weaken the

person who consumes such food I will say that it is always a raw deal.

The problems with pasteurized dairy are legion and are well documented in

a number of places.

I have seen the introduction of one good article of raw animal food

(whether milk or meat) literally change the lives of people who did

absolutely nothing else regarding nutrition. Weston Price writes of such

an experiment in chapter 22 of NAPD. It is quite enlightening.

Bianca

[Guest guest]

Berg wrote:

> Given that I eat about a pound of raw meat every day, much of it

> Safeway-quality, ...

, do you do that for health reasons? Have you benefited from doing that?

If so, please describe.

Roman

----------------------------------------------------

Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today

Only $9.95 per month!

http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum & refcd=PT97

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Roman " <r_rom@...>

> Berg wrote:

>

> > Given that I eat about a pound of raw meat every day, much of it

> > Safeway-quality, ...

>

> , do you do that for health reasons? Have you benefited from doing

that?

> If so, please describe.

What, specifically, are you asking about? Raw meat in general, the quantity,

or the quality?

[Guest guest]

Berg wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: " Roman " <r_rom@...>

> > Berg wrote:

> >

> > > Given that I eat about a pound of raw meat every day, much of it

> > > Safeway-quality, ...

> >

> > , do you do that for health reasons? Have you benefited from doing

> that?

> > If so, please describe.

>

> What, specifically, are you asking about? Raw meat in general, the quantity,

> or the quality?

>

Mostly, raw meat in general and the quantity. If you get good results with the

Safeway meat, I'll infer conclusions from your description.

Roman

----------------------------------------------------

Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today

Only $9.95 per month!

http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum & refcd=PT97