As both an artist and a food safety book author I feel thoroughly conflicted when it comes to sunny-side up eggs. From an artistic viewpoint, I love the pure simplicity of form of the undercooked egg's yellow mound against the white. Much more attractive than an image of that dull, blurred and flattened well-done fried egg. But from a safety perspective....
The best way to avoid unsafe eggs, is to cook them well. Even if an egg carries a few Salmonella bacteria, they will be killed. No problem. We know that. Of course, that goes for fried eggs as well. Some studies have in fact found that most U.S. cases of food poisoning linked to eggs, have come from eating sunny-side up friend eggs - "The classic American Breakfast" as Land O Lakes calls it (their image is below).
And yes, during the last year, as I was finishing writing the book (which has a chapter on eggs) I became increasingly aware that almost every visual image of a fried egg used by the media is a sunny-side up egg. I am an avid New York Times reader, and while I am impressed with their constant and in-depth coverage of food safety issues, I am horrified that the newspaper is unwittingly promoting what the FDA calls "unsafe eggs."
That goes for some egg producer ads and even the American Egg Board (AEB). Last night I watched a movie I had recorded about a week ago - and guess what, there was an add by the American Egg Board displaying their "Incredible Egg" battle call superimposed over the image of a sunny-side up egg (usually it's a boiled egg). I just checked their website and, with a couple of exceptions, there are plenty of underdone fried eggs there too. These same egg companies, and the AEB are telling us to cook our eggs thoroughly, even if only about one in 10,000 is likely to carry Salmonella. Talk of mixed messages! Go to your frig and take a look at the FDA's Safe Handling Instructions on your egg carton: "To prevent illness from bacteria, keep eggs refrigerated, cook eggs until yolks are firm, and cook foods containing eggs thoroughly."
Visual images are powerful. These visual images we see all over the place are keeping Americans eating sunny-side up eggs. Shame on all those news media and companies who are putting aesthetics above safety!
TSF
Showing posts with label NEW YORK TIMES. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NEW YORK TIMES. Show all posts
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
MARK BITTMAN'S "A FOOD MANIFESTO FOR THE FUTURE."
(FOTO - Courtesy of Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times)
I like Mark Bittman, especially because he is battling convenient ready-to-eat foods, and arguing for home cooking. I also agree with many of his ideas, as expressed in "A Food Manifesto for the Future,"published in the New York Times on February 1, under the "Opinionator" ("Exclusive Online Commentary From The Times").
But that doesn't mean I fully agree with him. Maybe it's because I like realists - and in this case he's presented a manifesto that smacks too much of idealism. Through the centuries, idealism has got us into a lot of trouble politically and every other way. I could go on and on about this, but had better not. It doesn't help in the case of our food either. Let's "get real" as my son used to say. That's the only way we are going to solve our problems.
Down to specifics: while I really like Bittman's emphasis on food safety, it's importance, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) budget problems (their operating budget is pathetic), I don't accept his proposed solutions. What he's essentially saying is "Let's give the FDA more money and get it to take over all the responsibility for food safety [it currently covers 80%], because the USDA is too affected by conflict of interest to care about the consumer. "
It's not that simple. The FDA is outdated in every which way. Yes, more money would help it hire more inspectors and inspect more of our domestic and imported food and food plants. But it's going to take a lot more than an increase in the FDA's operating budget for it to be able to cope effectively - even with its current responsibilities, let alone new ones. At a minimum it needs updated policies, strategies, procedures and information systems, staff re-training, and more.
What are we looking at time-wise - institutional innovation is not fast - let's say at least 10 years. And let's not pretend the FDA doesn't have conflict of interest either (read the book for details), or, imagine that the whole agency (instead of just a tiny slice of it) is focused on "encouraging sane eating."
I hate to say this, but after looking closely at both of these key agencies, my impression is that at present, the USDA/Food Safety and Inspection Service is doing a better job of educating consumers and alerting them faster to problems than is the FDA/Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Sorry Mark.
TSF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


