On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:48:22 +0100, "Christophe Bachmann"
> wrote:

>
>"Frogleg" > a écrit

>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:50:05 +0100, "Christophe Bachmann"
>> > wrote:

>> >Let's not forget that conditions of life were quite different then from
>> >now, and that people knew far better what could be held, in what
>> >conditions, and how long.
>>
>> Hmmm. They knew "far better" about the causes and effects of
>> food-borne illness (and death)? I don't think so. Scientists and
>> researchers had a hard time selling the 'germ theory' about the cause
>> and spread of disease -- how could something you can't see hurt you?
>> The world before knowledge of 'germs' was far from germ-free.
>
>Don't make me say what I didn't.
>They knew far better than today what can be held and how long, before
>contamination goes from anecdotic or tolerable to dangerous. They didn't
>know about germs but they knew that one wouldn't come ill after X days but
>most certainly would after Y days and so they could take risks until X-1
>days. Today, and mostly in the US the motto is *no risk* and so nobody
>knows anymore what the limits are because when the first bacteria appear in
>mostly harmless amounts the products are already thrown away.

I disagree on the matter of 'wisdom of the Old Ones.' While chewing
on willow bark for pain and fevers turned out to be a good idea, myth
and superstition were, I believe, far more common. Since much
foodborne illness doesn't strke immediately, but after a delay that
may be days or even weeks, it would take a very clever Old One to
associate, say, hemorrhagic colitis with food eaten 3-4 days
previously. They knew how long to keep food? Yes, in terms of what
point it "went off" -- smelled or tasted funny -- or grew fur.

I agree completely, however, that a 'no risk' attidude is ridiculous.
When risk can be reduced by modest means, it makes sense. Keeping cold
food cold and hot food hot. Hand-washing. My chances of dying from a
medium-rare burger are infinitesimal, but I'd like to keep those short
bouts of "stomach flu" down to a minimum, too. "When in doubt, throw
it out" makes sense to me. I don't take 'sell by' dates as 'eat by',
but I don't keep ground beef in a "cool spot," either. We know a *lot*
more about how to avoid common, even mild, food-related illness, and I
want to take advantage.

In article >,
Frogleg > wrote:

> I disagree on the matter of 'wisdom of the Old Ones.' While chewing
> on willow bark for pain and fevers turned out to be a good idea, myth
> and superstition were, I believe, far more common. Since much
> foodborne illness doesn't strke immediately, but after a delay that
> may be days or even weeks, it would take a very clever Old One to
> associate, say, hemorrhagic colitis with food eaten 3-4 days
> previously.

I'm curious about this. My impression was that the overwhelming bulk of
problems from spoiled food involved food poisoning, with results
observable in hours, not weeks. How common and serious a problem is the
sort of long term effect you describe? How likely is it that techniques
which didn't risk food poisoning would result in a serious risk of such
effects?

--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:57:56 GMT, David Friedman
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Frogleg > wrote:
>
>> much
>> foodborne illness doesn't strke immediately, but after a delay that
>> may be days or even weeks, it would take a very clever Old One to
>> associate, say, hemorrhagic colitis with food eaten 3-4 days
>> previously.
>
>I'm curious about this. My impression was that the overwhelming bulk of
>problems from spoiled food involved food poisoning, with results
>observable in hours, not weeks. How common and serious a problem is the
>sort of long term effect you describe? How likely is it that techniques
>which didn't risk food poisoning would result in a serious risk of such
>effects?

You're asking 2 questions. According to:

http://www.vdacs.state.va.us/foodsafety/poisoning.html

the onset of different types of foodborne illnesses can range from
hours to weeks.

Or rather 1 (above) plus 2a and 2b. 2a: estimates of *mild*
food-related illness vary considerably. That is, thousands (millions,
by some estimates) of cases of "stomach 'flu" or other home-treated
digestive upsets are probably due to food contamination of some sort.
When they're not serious enough to warrant a vist to Dr. or hospital,
they go undiagnosed and do not generally become part of reliable
statistics. 2b: serious and life-threatening cases of e. coli
O157:H7, botulism, salmonella, etc. are rather rare. You're at least
ten thousand times more likely to be killed on the road -- driving,
walking, or cycling.

The real question isn't really "will it kill you?" (answer: only
occasionally), but wouldn't it be nice to reduce the hours and
discomfort of midnight bathroom visits? Not to mention dealing with
others suffering from "nausea, fever, headache, abdominal cramps,
diarrhea, and vomiting"?

In article >, Frogleg
> wrote:

> That is, thousands (millions,
> by some estimates) of cases of "stomach 'flu" or other home-treated
> digestive upsets are probably due to food contamination of some sort.
> When they're not serious enough to warrant a vist to Dr. or hospital,
> they go undiagnosed and do not generally become part of reliable
> statistics. 2b: serious and life-threatening cases of e. coli
> O157:H7, botulism, salmonella, etc. are rather rare.

I agree with all this (what a relief). But ,when travelling, you're
most likely to get ill from posh food. Street food (I'm thinking of
Central Asia and tropical Africa here) tends to be very safe - fried,
not kept for long. Cooked by people with no access to fridges and no
misuse of them. It's the salad or badly re-heated meal in your posh
hotel/restaurant that does for you.
L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

In rec.food.historic I read this message from David Friedman
>:

>In article >,
> Frogleg > wrote:
>
>> I disagree on the matter of 'wisdom of the Old Ones.' While chewing
>> on willow bark for pain and fevers turned out to be a good idea, myth
>> and superstition were, I believe, far more common. Since much
>> foodborne illness doesn't strke immediately, but after a delay that
>> may be days or even weeks, it would take a very clever Old One to
>> associate, say, hemorrhagic colitis with food eaten 3-4 days
>> previously.
>
>I'm curious about this. My impression was that the overwhelming bulk of
>problems from spoiled food involved food poisoning, with results
>observable in hours, not weeks. How common and serious a problem is the
>sort of long term effect you describe? How likely is it that techniques
>which didn't risk food poisoning would result in a serious risk of such
>effects?

Guillan-Barre Syndrome can develop from campylobactor-related
illness. Botulism has a high mortality rate. Salmonella can
trigger arthritis in certain people. This is from memory; there
may be other risks.

Susan Silberstein