Wayne Fugitt wrote: > Evening Marshall, > ( I am aware that neither you nor any one person made all the > statements below. ) > > >I'll take my CS. I had salmonella once before CS... picked up in a > >restaurant. Nasty. > > Did you eat raw eggs in the restaurant? > > >>>Raw eggs are a good source of salmonella. I would certainly take CS if I > >>>choose to eat them raw. > > Over your lifetime, how many people have you known that had > salmonella, and how many of them got it from eggs?
I don't think I know of anyone who has not had salmonella. In fact I got it within the last week from some fish i ate at O'Charley's restaurant. I don't know about eggs, I just remember reading in some magazine, I think it was Consumer Reports, that their tests showed that about 1 in 50 eggs were contaminated with salmonella. > > > I realize that it is a small percent of the people who eat raw > eggs. Likely about .001 of 1 percent, or less. I have been eating raw > eggs for a few years now, so, I may be due the salmonella at any time. > > >>>It is the egg shells that are the source of salmonella. Just wash the > eggs first then you have nothing to worry about. > > I know all this is good advice, if one is the worrying type. Maybe > I need to get it once, then I would be the worrying type. You have never had food poisoning? If so then you are indeed rare. > > > Two things keep me from worrying about this issue. Supposedly, > only one egg in 30,000 will have salmonella. According to the article I read it was closer to 1 in 50. Where do you get that figure? The cdc indicates 1 in 10,000 for internally contaminated eggs for the Northeast. Externally contaminated rate is much higher. > The second thing is that a healthy body, digestive system, > adequate HCL, Enzymes, and Saliva, should kill salmonella before it even > makes one sick. Yes and no. Small amounts of it it can take care of. However if it has been multiplying for a while in a dish (or an egg), then the dish ends up with ptomaine, which is very toxic, and the immune system does not handle that well at all. > > > Often I think most of this is "hearsay evidence", including the > statements I made. The magazine article was based on research I am sure. They quoted rates for different company's eggs if I remember right. I am pretty sure it was the same article that said that the law need to be changed on how expired eggs are handled. Apparently they are sent back to the distributor, who reboxes them, and puts a new expiration date on them, then ships them back out again. That article I am certain was in Consumer reports a year or so ago. Marshall Check the cdc for more information. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/salment_g.htm Egg-associated salmonellosis is an important public health problem in the United States and several European countries. A bacterium, Salmonella enteritidis, can be inside perfectly normal-appearing eggs, and if the eggs are eaten raw or undercooked, the bacterium can cause illness. During the 1980s, illness related to contaminated eggs occurred most frequently in the northeastern United States, but now illness caused by S. enteritidis is increasing in other parts of the country as well. Consumers should be aware of the disease and learn how to minimize the chances of becoming ill.
