to CDC.

The confirmed or suspected source of infection was available for 67 (80%) cases. Of those patients for whom the source of infection was suspected or known, 22 (33%) patients attributed their illnesses to pork products, and 45 (67%) patients attributed their illnesses to nonpork products (Table 3). Among the 22 patients reporting consumption of pork products, 10 (45%) obtained meat from a commercial source (six from supermarkets, two from butcher shops, and two from restaurants), six (27%) consumed wild boar (from hunting), one (5%) consumed home-raised swine, and five (23%) consumed an unspecified pork product from an unknown source. Information on the manner in which the pork meat was cooked was available for 39 cases; 21 (54%) of the 39 patients reported eating raw or undercooked meat. Among the 45 patients reporting consumption of nonpork products, 41 (91%) consumed bear meat, two (4%) consumed deer meat, and two (4%) consumed ground beef (Table 3). Information on the manner in which the nonpork product was cooked was available for 12 cases. Three (25%) of the 12 patients reported eating raw or undercooked meat.


I'll continue to cook mine to an internal temp of 165 F. Thanks. Given the anti-regulatory (anti-recall/anti-inspection) pressures combining with hiring and USDA funding freezes, I'd say consumer/gourmet beware.

... means your chances of trichinellosis is effectively nil.

Trichinella is killed at 137F. Cooking to 145F with a 3 minute hold time drops your risk from approaching infinitely small to something far less. You have a far greater chance of getting salmonellosis from runny egg yolks which is also an infinitesimally small risk and neither is it something I'm concerned about and neither is the USDA which always errs on the side of caution.

Commercial pork is absolutely untrue. Even USDA is currently fighting with producers over this issue as they are pushing for “self-inspection”. They point to bear meat and other sources, yet commercial pork continues to account for a significant proportion of confirmed cases.

Uneven cooking iand failure to accurately measure internal temp using meat thermometer is why 165 has long been recommended.

Feel freel to do as you please.

I have seen what trichinella can do

The USDA recommendation of 145F center temp and a rest of 3 minutes reduces your risk to something you no longer have to worry about.

If you still have a concern beyond what the USDA is telling you, then it's far better to increase the rest time vs turning an increasingly expensive cut of meat into boot leather. Milk can be pasteurized at 63C or 96C with the exact same pathogen reduction. The difference is time.

and ACTUALLY BELIEVE industry has totally eliminated it/ controlled it, or that USDA inspections are enough to remove all risk and thus cooking thoroughly is no longer an issue are VERY FOOLISH.

The chances of you getting trichinosis from commercial pork products is far less than drowning in your bathtub or being struck by lightning. It's not as if there isn't a plethora of science behind it.

Meanwhile in terms of food safety the new USDA recommendation of 145F held for 3 minutes achieves virtually the exact same level of pasteurization as the old standard of 165F for zero hold time. All the new standard really does is reflect what professional and serious amateur chefs have known for decades, which is pasteurization is a function of temperature AND time.

under Trump. THAT is a given... Be fool-hardy if you want, but to eat undercooked pork is JUST THAT>

And, no, it was not voluntary action from industry. It was ENFORCED INSPECTION and CULLING by GOVERNMENT that controlled trichinella infection in the pork industry. NOT voluntary industry anything.

If you want to continue to call me foolish, I'm just going to point out your obvious lack of understanding of how food safety works.

By the way... foolhardy is not a NOUN. It is an adjective describing action. Fool was not used. I did not insult you as you are trying to do me.

So how do you not understand the relationship of temperature and time as it relates to pasteurization and why do you conflate sterilization and pasteurization? Both of these things are very basic food safety concepts.

properly. While I agree that an internal temperature of 145 F will kill the parasite, CDC has confirmed human cases occurring from contaminated pork where only the ends were fully cooked (and thus would have possibly reached a described temp of 145) but not the center of the ham or pork roast. I never used the term sterilization or pasteurization in my prior discussion as I am discussing control versus eradication of trichinella parasites in livestock and thus in the market place as it impacts risk and thus continued need for proper cooking of pork to kill any parasites that might get through the inspection process. Industry was required to stop feeding potentially contaminated garbage in the 1980s, but only after battles, to clean up rat-infested hog operations and to enter into HAACP (Hazard and Critical Control Points) analysis of production facilities. That went a long way to reducing the numbers and percentages of infected hogs, but it is not zero. The industry balked at every stage and still does.

Bacterial food poisoning is an important separate subject, but not the focus of my prior posts and I am not taking time to add that to the discussion tonight. I am speaking only to the issue of Trichinella.

And yes, really.

This article and the USDA aren't talking about someone who isn't using a meat thermometer. If you are talking about not using a meat thermometer you are talking about something else. This article and the USDA are talking about minimum internal temperatures. If you are talking about lower minimum internal temperatures, you are talking about something else.

If you are discussing the "need for proper cooking of pork to kill any parasites that might get through the inspection process" then you are discussing pasteurization whether you use the term or not because that's exactly what pasteurization is.

If you (finally) agree a minimum internal temperature of 145F will kill the parasite, why are you describing this as "undercooked"? Is this not an indication of someone who doesn't understand pasteurization?

Pork known to be infected with trichinella larvae is rendered safe at 140F for zero seconds of hold time and isn't "undercooked". Pork cooked at 145F with 3 minutes of hold time provides for a significant safety margin which is virtually identical to pork cooked to 165F for zero seconds. Is alleging otherwise also not an indication of someone who doesn't understand pasteurization?

false statements to me is not only disingenuous but contemptuous. I have no interest in further discussion for that reason alone. I'm sure you can amuse yourself by continuing to argue with yourself.

I don't like the texture (or flavor) of lean pork - especially cooked less well done. Give me greasy crispy pork chop over a "juicy" medium slab of lean any day!

I would raise them myself but I can't even seem to butcher extra roosters anymore. Sigh.

When done in a low temp smoker (say 250 degrees) a finished loin should have a great smoke ring and a beautiful rosy blush at the center. If you like test it with a whole boneless loin cut in half and use a dry rub of your choice on one and marinade the other (I use mojo criollo) overnight. On my dry rub half I stabbed quite a bit and put finely chopped garlic in the cuts. Anyhow I was delighted that pork could be so juicy and flavorful and I found the older the guest, the more likely they were to try the dry rub with less blush at the center and the younger folks took a leap of faith to test the marinaded half with juice still running at the center....YMMV

So no smoke ring unless I add charcoal or curing salts, which I don't at least for pork loin.

Slow cooking pork provides an even greater safety factor against pathogens because pasteurization relies on time and temperature. You can even stop at 137F center temp, provided you can hold that temperature for an extended period of time, say 20-30 minutes and get a result that's just as safe as 165F. The problem is most people aren't going to like the mouth feel of pork cooked to 137F.

using wood pellets-usually hickory or mesquite. I won't claim a deep ring but I do get around 1/4 to 1/2 inch depending on God knows what but always have some visible...137 you say??? Tempting...

Morton tender quick is the most used by home BBQers. The longer you keep it on, the deeper the smoke ring becomes.

The thing about it is the smoke ring means nothing in terms of how good the meat actually tastes. It's nothing more than a visual some people have come to expect, but doesn't indicate quality.

If you're going to try 137F, you'd best have a thermometer with a current NIST calibration as there's a fine line where culturing ends and pasteurization starts. Personally I like 145F as the texture of the meat is perfect for my tastes.