Just ate undercooked lamb steak.
Am i going to die of salmonella now?
Red meat will be fine(ish) as long as you sear it well and you didn't leave it out too long. Bacteria can't easily penetrate into the flesh, and parasite poisoning cases in north america are at an all-time low
>>7618029
It was still raw inside tbqh
>>7618016
Lamb can be eaten raw.
salmonella is rare and meat is generally sterile on the inside. where meat does give people food poisoning is where it's been stored or handled really unhygienically and then cooked with a method that is low temperature and has other ingredients making contact with the surface of the meat, like undercooked breaded chicken or pots of stew left to cool on the stove. meat is not the most common cause of any common food borne illness btw
>>7618076
>Lamb can be eaten raw
[Citation needed]
>>7618109
anything that isn't physiologically toxic can be eaten raw you pleb
no citation needed
Eat poultry raw and then talk again.
There's literally no way you're not getting salmonella if you do that
>>7618125
not true
and, while my personal experience is completely irrelevant, i have eaten chicken raw on more than one occasion
>>7618125
>There's literally no way you're not getting salmonella if you do that
Why do people believe this?
From a bacterial perspective all meats are equally hospitable. Salmonella can infect any other meat just as easily as it does chicken. Same for all the other foodborne pathogens.
It's really interesting how people swear up and down that eating rare chicken is somehow a death wish while they'll happily eat a rare steak. The risk is the same. See the section on food safety in Moderinst Cuisine; it's towards the end of the first volume.
>>7618125
you can eat poultry raw if it isn't raised in horrific, diseased conditions
>>7618136
that also appears to be cooked on the outside
it could be dragged through shit and you could eat it if you sterilised the outside
>>7618144
>>7618157
that's better
>>7618134
You are wrong though.
>Why do people believe this?
Because we know from decades of research that bird meat and mammalian meat are different when it comes to food safety, because the animals and the processing involved are different. It is not, in fact, safe to eat chicken that has been pasteurized only on the outside.
>>7618144
I guess we should all just stop marinating meat as well since nothing could ever get inside the meat anyway. Oh wait, bird carcasses are in fact marinated in shit in industrial processing, which is precisely the problem.
>>7618199
>I guess we should all just stop marinating meat as well since nothing could ever get inside the meat anyway.
correct, marination is extremely ineffective.
>Oh wait, bird carcasses are in fact marinated in shit in industrial processing
no they aren't. they are brined. and there is no shit in the brine.
>It is not, in fact, safe to eat chicken that has been pasteurized only on the outside.
it is not *necessarily* safe, but it is generally safe.
>>7618016
You're already posting from beyond the grave.
>>7618016
Yes. You might as well an hero so as to save yourself a slow, agonizing death.
>salmonella
>salmon
oh gee I don't know u dumbass
>>7618199
>Because we know from decades of research that bird meat and mammalian meat are different when it comes to food safety,
But that's not true, as the various citations in Modernist Cuisine explain. I don't have the book in front of me (I'm at work) but there are several research papers cited there that find exactly the opposite.
>> It is not, in fact, safe to eat chicken that has been pasteurized only on the outside.
It's no more dangerous than eating beef subjected to the same treatment.
Do a little reasearch and you'll see that the facts state that all meats are of equal risk in this regard. The long-held "Common knowledge" that poultry and pork are somehow more dangerous is really just our cultural preferences showing. We (the west), like rare beef but we don't really care for rare chicken or pork. Somehow that cultural preference has people thinking there is some scientific reason behind it when really there is not. Personally I find that rather fascinating.
>>7618663
>It's no more dangerous than eating beef subjected to the same treatment.
Chicken and beef aren't subjected to the same treatment, that's the point.
>Unlike cattle and hogs, chickens are inconveniently covered in (surprise!) feathers. After they are killed, the birds must be plucked before anything else can be done to them. In order for the plucking machines to work properly, the carcasses are dunked into a large vat of hot water, which relaxes the dermis and allows the feathers to be removed. Unfortunately, skin isn't the only organ the hot bath relaxes: the chickens, which have been killed mere seconds before, leak feces from their now well-relaxed bowels, right into the scald tank. The first bird of the day essentially turns the tank into a large pot of hot fecal soup; subsequent carcasses, usually tens of thousands per day, enrich the fecal contamination exponentially. All birds are submerged in this cauldron of concentrated bacterial broth for several minutes, before they continue down the process line.
>Fresh out of the contaminated scalding tank, after a few seconds at the plucking station, the carcass is mechanically eviscerated. The residual fecal slop still clinging to the skin contaminates the gutting machine, which in turn inoculates the body cavity, splashing fluids and infecting the whole bird from the inside. The carcass is then washed again, usually in another (dirty) communal tank, but by now it is virtually impossible to remove all of the liquified, dilute fecal material from every nook, cranny, scrap, cut and fold of flesh. Some of the bacteria have a reproductive cycle of just a few minutes, so even after a thorough washing, just a few residual bacteria can re-contaminate the carcass in a very short time. (One surviving bacterium, reproducing every ~20 min = 1 million in 2 hr, 1 trillion in 4 hrs.)
The risks aren't inherently greater with chicken, but they are inherent with probably 99.9% of all chicken sold.
>>7619131
>Chicken and beef aren't subjected to the same treatment, that's the point.
it wasn't his point. by 'treatment' he clearly meant pasteurisation on the outside.
