Hot dogs are less likely to carry diseases like listeria after being cooked in the microwave.

So a new study was recently published in the Journal of Food Science that will come as music to the ears of frankfurter fans:  Hot dogs may not be as potentially poisoned with food-borne diseases as originally suspected.

As most people know, hot dogs bought in stores come fully cooked.  As such, when re-heating hot dogs, most people are not altogether concerned about how cooked the hot dog is after taking it out of boiling water, off the grill, or out of the microwave.

But too often, people underestimate just how “fully cooked” these frankfurters are when bought, as thousands of people become severely ill from the food-borne diseases these dogs are often dogged with.

According to researchers from the University of Colorado, though, they’re less likely to carry diseases like listeria after given a good nuke in the microwave.

What qualifies as a “good nuke”?  At least 75 seconds, so long as the microwave can generate at least 1,100 watts of power.

But this study shouldn’t serve as a go-ahead, or as a green light to start chowing down on hot dogs.  Not because they’re on the low end of the totem poll for nutritional protein sources, which they are.  And not because they’re loaded with preservatives to sustain shelf-life, which they are.  No, you shouldn’t eat them because they increase your risk for several types of cancers.

Hot dogs are burdened by the same problem almost all  processed meats have:  They’re loaded with sodium nitrites.  Sodium nitrites give cold cuts and meats their salty flavor, but they’re also responsible for increasing the risk for different stomach cancers.  In a study of over 200,000 people, researchers from the University of Hawaii found that people whose diets relied on processed foods like bacon, hot dogs and sausage increased their pancreatic cancer risk by 67 percent.

The study was presented in 2005 to the American Association for Cancer Research.

Any study that demonstrates how to reduce one’s risk for acquiring a food-borne disease I’m all for.  So at the very least, this study provides that.  However, let’s not forget that an absence of food borne diseases doesn’t equate to a reduced risk for long-term diseases like cancer.

As I’ve written in past postings, I highly recommend you avoid processed meat consumption entirely.  An occasional (and I stress occasional) hot dog won’t hurt.  In those rare instances, I recommend you consume extra vitamin C.  The vitamin C will help reduce nitrite’s ability to convert into nitrosamines when they’re absorbed.  It is this conversion into nitrosamines that increases the risk for cancerous tumor formation.

Mark  Twain once said that there are two things no one should ever have to watch:  the making of laws and the making of sausage.  Now you know why he said it.  On the sausage end, at least.

Sources:
Food Production Daily
Natural News

Ground beef is more likely to be infected with food-borne illnesses than whole cuts of beef, research indicates.

While the food on our dinner plates tonight may all have the same destination – our stomachs – how it was packaged before hitting our plates may affect whether or not it arrives to that destination without incident.

As most of you know, I’m not a big meat eater, but I do on occasion eat whole beef products, mainly bison meat and the occasional cut of sirloin or flank steak.  I seldom eat ground beef.

And for good reason, as it turns out.

I say this because according to a recent study released by researchers from Michigan State University, ground beef is more likely to be infected with food-borne illnesses than whole cuts of beef.

They discovered this after intentionally infecting slabs of beef with the same strand of salmonella.  Before doing that, though, the Michigan State researchers took off their collegiate caps and played the role of “butcher,” cutting the beef in one of several ways:  whole muscle, coarsely ground, finely ground, or beef puree.

They then took each cut of beef and lathered them up with a smorgasbord of salmonella toxin, enclosing each piece in tightly sealed containers for 30 second intervals at 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius).

As aforementioned, the whole cuts of beef fared best in resisting salmonella poison, but interestingly, there was no statistically significant degree of difference in the ground cuts of beef resistance to salmonella poisoning.  They all fared poorly.

The researchers really aren’t sure why there’s such a difference between ground beef and whole cuts (in fact they say that the aim of the study was not to explain the difference, only to test to see if there was a difference).  They speculate that it might have something to do with ground beef’s predilection to absorb water more readily than whole cuts.

The study is published in the Journal of Food Science.

Salmonella is one of the more common food-borne diseases.  Approximately 400 people die a year from it (about one percent of the number infected every year), a majority of whom are infected in the summer months.  Symptoms of salmonella poisoning are mainly gastrointestinal, like stomach cramping, bloating, and diarrhea, typically lasting for no more than seven days.

Now, am I calling for a moratorium on ground beef consumption as a result of this study?  No.  That said, the results do jibe with what we typically see when beef products are recalled:  more often than not, it tends to be ground beef than whole cuts.

Just something to keep in mind when next you feel the urge to splurge for a slab of steak, instead of a much safer – and a whole lot healthier – bit of bison.

Sources:
foodproductiondaily.com
innovations-report.de
chicagoreporter.com