How do you like your steaks

[GhostWriter16]

160 isn't a magical temperature. It's the temperature where many bacteria that cause food borne illnesses become unable to reproduce and start to die. It destroys their cell membranes. That temperature doesn't kill all bacteria, and it doesn't render any food 100% safe. What it is very effective at doing is eliminating most of the common types of the common kinds of bacteria such as Shigella, e. coli, salmonella, and clostridium perfrigens. But it does not kill all kinds. There is a strain of e. coli, for example, that is both thermally tolerant and lethal to humans. But it is very rare. Perhaps most importantly, bacterial infection isn't the only risk at hand from consuming food that has bacteria on it whilst it was cold. Most bacteria produce toxins as they multiply and die, and heat does not deactivate them. This is how botulism kills people, but many common illnesses are caused by toxins as well (like Shigella and bacillus cereus aka "fried rice syndrome"). Bacteria produce these toxins readily between 40 and 140 degrees F; between 140 and 160 they stop reproducing (much like the <40 area, save for the important exception of Listeria) and above 160 they start to die.

However, there are certain illnesses that are not preventable by cooking at all. I've already mentioned toxins produced by bacteria, but there are others: protozoan sources like cryptosporidium parvum (which comes from human feces infecting the water supply of the food you're eating), is unremovable, and fish can carry Ciguatera toxin and scombroid, which causes histamine poisoning.

OK that makes sense.

What are the mathematical odds that you'll catch a disease from eating ground beef cooked at less than 160?

What is the common internal temperature of a medium burger? I have done that in a restaurant and not had a problem, but I'm not sure how safe that was.

 

[Farm Boy]

OK that makes sense.

What are the mathematical odds that you'll catch a disease from eating ground beef cooked at less than 160?

What is the common internal temperature of a medium burger? I have done that in a restaurant and not had a problem, but I'm not sure how safe that was.

No good mathematical odds to give you. It depends so heavily on the preparation of the meat beforehand. It depends so heavily on chance. Food in the US is hilariously safe despite anybody waxing alarmist over the foodie fetish of the hour. That said, even I am not interested at all in tempting fate by eating ground beef that isn't well and thoroughly cooked. Maybe from a high-end restaurant that specializes in that sort of thing, and is good at it, but nowhere else and not if I am personally preparing it

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

OK that makes sense.

What are the mathematical odds that you'll catch a disease from eating ground beef cooked at less than 160?

As Farm Boy noted above [me, but after you obviously], it's not a determined chance of infection, it's random. Perhaps you lose the numbers game and ingest e. coli anyway. It might not even infect you. Some bacteria require large colonies, comparatively, in the body before they can become a problem. Others, like Shigella, might need only a hundred cells to become an infection.

Because the largest determining factor is handling, the spread of diseases is wide. There are meat-type-specific diseases like Norovirus (fish), e. coli (warm-blooded animals)n and clostridium perfrigens (meat, you cannot get this from plants), but others that come from the handling itself and not the meat, like Hepatatis A and Salmonella. Others still depend on the disposition of the handler, like Typhoid Fever; and of course, any handler infected with any food borne illness can pass that on through their improperly handled food. Thence arises the incredible importance of the FDA, to enforce the very strict rules regarding cleanliness and procedure in our eateries and kitchens.

What is the common internal temperature of a medium burger? I have done that in a restaurant and not had a problem, but I'm not sure how safe that was.

The official definition of wellness differs from state to state, but the following can server as a general rule:

125 F - Rare
135 F - Medium Rare
140 -150F - Medium
150-160 F - Medium Well
165 - Well

It should be noted that the top tier of that chart, 165 F, is the necessary internal cooking temperature for poultry and pork to be safe for eating, a point therefore marked by the FDA as being the guaranteed safe cooking temperature for all meats as a general rule. There may be no degree of wellness for them, eat them and you will contract a disease (I did this to myself once on accident: I couldn't tell the innermost part of my chicken breast wasn't cooked entirely, because of all the sauces I had put on it, and got Salmonellosis. It was not fun.). That does not come from handling, that comes from the animal being already infected with the disease.

 

[GhostWriter16]

As Farm Boy noted above [me, but after you obviously], it's not a determined chance of infection, it's random. Perhaps you lose the numbers game and ingest e. coli anyway. It might not even infect you. Some bacteria require large colonies, comparatively, in the body before they can become a problem. Others, like Shigella, might need only a hundred cells to become an infection.

Because the largest determining factor is handling, the spread of diseases is wide. There are meat-type-specific diseases like Norovirus (fish), e. coli (warm-blooded animals)n and clostridium perfrigens (meat, you cannot get this from plants), but others that come from the handling itself and not the meat, like Hepatatis A and Salmonella. Others still depend on the disposition of the handler, like Typhoid Fever; and of course, any handler infected with any food borne illness can pass that on through their improperly handled food. Thence arises the incredible importance of the FDA, to enforce the very strict rules regarding cleanliness and procedure in our eateries and kitchens.

I was more asking what the odds of there BEING E coli in the meat are. Although I do happen to agree with you on the FDA, they're one of the few Federal organizations I actually think we need

The official definition of wellness differs from state to state, but the following can server as a general rule:

125 F - Rare
135 F - Medium Rare
140 -150F - Medium
150-160 F - Medium Well
165 - Well

It should be noted that the top tier of that chart, 165 F, is the necessary internal cooking temperature for poultry and pork to be safe for eating, a point therefore marked by the FDA as being the guaranteed safe cooking temperature for all meats as a general rule. There may be no degree of wellness for them, eat them and you will contract a disease (I did this to myself once on accident: I couldn't tell the innermost part of my chicken breast wasn't cooked entirely, because of all the sauces I had put on it, and got Salmonellosis. It was not fun.). That does not come from handling, that comes from the animal being already infected with the disease.

Hmm... So medium or medium-well burgers would still not objectively be safe it seems, though it seems they would be safer than rare or med. rare. I have heard that in some places you can get pork med. well, is that accurate? (Not that I'd ever play that sort of game You get pork well-done, I've never even questioned that concept)

And just another question to throw in, I know there are some kinds of fish that have to be cooked thoroughly, and others not (I was actually surprised to see you could order Tuna "Rare" in an Outback one time) what are the dangers when it comes to sushi and such things?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I was more asking what the odds of there BEING E coli in the meat are. Although I do happen to agree with you on the FDA, they're one of the few Federal organizations I actually think we need

I understand your question. It's impossible to tell. All I can say is that your chance of getting an e. coli infection increase the lower the temperature gets.

It's worth mentioning that the regulation-mandated holding temperature for hot foods is 140 F, so your medium steak is still going to be within that safe(r) zone. Not to suggest that a rare steak is unsafe, it's merely going to be less safe than a medium steak, is less safe than a well done steak.

Hmm... So medium or medium-well burgers would still not objectively be safe it seems, though it seems they would be safer than rare or med. rare. I have heard that in some places you can get pork med. well, is that accurate? (Not that I'd ever play that sort of game You get pork well-done, I've never even questioned that concept)

I certainly hope no one is foolish enough to serve medium pork. Perhaps it bears resemblance to medium-well steak; pork often has a slightly pinkish hue when slow-cooked, and thus is panned off as "medium well" pork, but serving pork that never rose above 160 degrees should be illegal.

And just another question to throw in, I know there are some kinds of fish that have to be cooked thoroughly, and others not (I was actually surprised to see you could order Tuna "Rare" in an Outback one time) what are the dangers when it comes to sushi and such things?

Most of the dangers that come from fish are in the form of toxins of non-bacterial origin (like scombroid), which no amount of cooking will remove. A rare tuna steak is a great thing, as is salmon.

One of the determining factors, I believe (I'm not quite the expert on seafood as I am on other foods), is whether the fish is white or oily. All of the fish you can eat "rare" that I know of: trout, sardines, anchovies, tuna, and salmon, are oily fish. Shark, on the other hand, which is a whitefish, should be cooked more thoroughly. So it may have something to do with that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No good mathematical odds to give you. It depends so heavily on the preparation of the meat beforehand. It depends so heavily on chance. Food in the US is hilariously safe despite anybody waxing alarmist over the foodie fetish of the hour. That said, even I am not interested at all in tempting fate by eating ground beef that isn't well and thoroughly cooked. Maybe from a high-end restaurant that specializes in that sort of thing, and is good at it, but nowhere else and not if I am personally preparing it

I think that is a clear case of overreaction. I almost always eat my hamburgers medium rare unless I accidentally overcook them, and I have even eaten them uncooked in the middle before when I was too lazy to fire back up the grill. I certainly trust my local supermarket to be able to grind meat without contaminating it.

The biggest issue is that large commercial processors that mostly cater to restaurants and the like in the case of ground meat don't have near enough inspectors anymore. Food from those sort of facilities have become "hilariously" unsafe ever since the FDA budgets were drastically cut. It never used to be any major problem until the past few decades.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I understand your question. It's impossible to tell. All I can say is that your chance of getting an e. coli infection increase the lower the temperature gets.

OK, makes sense.

It's worth mentioning that the regulation-mandated holding temperature for hot foods is 140 F, so your medium steak is still going to be within that safe(r) zone. Not to suggest that a rare steak is unsafe, it's merely going to be less safe than a medium steak, is less safe than a well done steak.

Understood.

I certainly hope no one is foolish enough to serve medium pork. Perhaps it bears resemblance to medium-well steak; pork often has a slightly pinkish hue when slow-cooked, and thus is panned off as "medium well" pork, but serving pork that never rose above 160 degrees should be illegal.

I don't remember where I heard that, but I THINK the state was Florida, and that some restaurants would allow you to order pork medium well, but I heard that second-hand. I've never tried Pork should be fully cooked.

Incidentally, I know a guy who likes his pork rare, though I know he's never getting that in a restaurant. He's not dead yet but who knows

I don't see why it should necessarily be illegal as long as you're made aware of the risks before you do it, but I can see other cans of worms (Pun sort-of intended since you can get a tapeworm) I absolutely object to any legal impediment to getting a medium or medium-rare burger though

Most of the dangers that come from fish are in the form of toxins of non-bacterial origin (like scombroid), which no amount of cooking will remove. A rare tuna steak is a great thing, as is salmon.

OK, so rare fish can be safe? Cool

One of the determining factors, I believe (I'm not quite the expert on seafood as I am on other foods), is whether the fish is white or oily. All of the fish you can eat "rare" that I know of: trout, sardines, anchovies, tuna, and salmon, are oily fish. Shark, on the other hand, which is a whitefish, should be cooked more thoroughly. So it may have something to do with that.

For curiosity, do you happen to be aware of what you're supposed to do with Tilapia?

 

[DroopyTofu]

Partly because of this thread, I ordered a my steak medium. It was wonderful. Except for an area of gristle But I will definitely order it medium from now on.

 

[_random_]

Go for medium-rare next time. It's a natural and worthwhile progression.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Partly because of this thread, I ordered a my steak medium. It was wonderful. Except for an area of gristle :undecided: But I will definitely order it medium from now on.

Tonight we had sirloin marinated in good seasons, cooked somewhere in the rare-mediumrare range (My mom thought it was purple, I made sure I didn't get my steak charred even though my dad was grilling and he likes medium well) and topped with onions. Delicious *Licks lips*

 

[DroopyTofu]

I had to ask, but the waitress said the medium-rare would be bloody. I really would prefer it not be bloody. Maybe some time in the future, but I'm going to try to get used to medium for the time being.

 

[_random_]

It's not actually blood. That waitress knows nothing.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I had to ask, but the waitress said the medium-rare would be bloody. I really would prefer it not be bloody. Maybe some time in the future, but I'm going to try to get used to medium for the time being.

It's not actually blood. That waitress knows nothing.

This. Although I will say that on true rare it definitely APPEARS to be blood, its actually not.

That said, I went down the same progression, starting at "Well-done". That was perhaps the worst blasphemy I've ever committed At least with medium you still have something worth eating, even if the "Moo" is noticeably absent

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

It's not actually blood. That waitress knows nothing.

Well she knew what info he required regarding how his steak would be served, which was the desired information, not a science lesson.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well she knew what info he required regarding how his steak would be served, which was the desired information, not a science lesson.

I'm no culinary expert, but medium-rare should be warm in the center, with some red and some pink, probably about half-red.

I've actually never heard the idea that med-rare has blood in it. I've heard that rare steaks have blood in it (Even though its wrong) but I've never heard that med-rare steak has blood in it.

Medium is generally pink throughout (Or almost throughout) but generally contains minimal to no red depending (I think technically its a "Touch of red" but I've never seen a medium steak have red in it.)

 

[Flying Pig]

Medium steaks should be pink inside but not 'bleed' very much, rare steaks bleed quite a lot, and well-done steaks are barely pink at all.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yeah, its technically water and myoglobin, but it can definitely "look" like blood.

 

[Verarde]

Yeah, its technically water and myoglobin, but it can definitely "look" like blood.

I hate to but that fact has been repeated numerous times in this thread.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well all you want

But as long as you order your steak medium-rare or less, I won't back

 

[kochman]

Olive oil has too low a smoke points to cook steak well. If I'm pan-broiling, I like to use clarified butter, and then spread butter on the steak after I take it out of the pan.

Nonsense.
You can grill it with olive oil and salt to perfect results.
Pan-searing/boiling, yes, olive oil burns up too easily to be effective...

But, I don't pan cook.

If cooked in an oven, the olive oil can still be used... but better for grilling.