If there's one thing social media has taught me, it's to be skeptical of anything that goes viral. One of the most recent articles i've seen going around the facebook/tumblr world is an article, seemingly reposted on a number of different sites, that discusses how strange America is for having to refrigerate their eggs.
If you haven't read these articles, see one version here. To summarize them, eggs can become infected with Salmonella on the outside or the inside. Eggs contain a protective covering, called the cuticle, that can prevent Salmonella penetration into the egg. America washes eggs throughout industrial processing, effectively removing the cuticle, and henceforth, the egg's protection. To avoid proliferation of dangerous amounts of Salmonella, we have to refrigerate eggs. This is all weird because other countries, the article claims, don't wash the eggs, so they retain the cuticle and therefore, don't have place eggs in the fridge. The article goes on to quote reasons why the EU doesn't allow for egg washing or require refrigeration - they want to encourage good animal husbandry, producing clean eggs from the start, as well as reduce condensation on eggs removed from the refrigerator, that may favor bacterial growth.
That all sounds great to me, but I have become skeptical of most naturalistic fallacies (AKA the idea that it's natural so it's good/better than human ingenuity). A few other factors should be thrown into the mix, that I pulled from an earlier review and a newer paper (1,2).
1. The cuticle does cover the outside of the shell, which is quite porous; however, even if the cuticle remains undamaged, 10-20 pores remain unsealed, and it's difficult to quantify their role in contamination
2. This protective cuticle that the article talks so much about is far from a perfect barrier. Yes, an intact, perfect cuticle does serve as a sufficient protective barrier; unfortunately, not all cuticles are equal. Cuticle thickness varies across the egg shell, being entirely absent in some areas. Older studies have shown about 3.5% eggs have no demonstrable cuticle, and 8% have no cuticle on the apex/blunt ends.
3. Older hens lay eggs with thinner, more porous cuticles.
4. Cuticle quality is also effected by laying season, with eggs laid during the end of the laying season having a lower quality cuticle, less able to protect against bacterial penetration.
5. There is variable penetration due to different factors during cuticle drying in the first 24 hours - after this point, cuticle composition (an outer layer rich in proteins, an inner lay rich in minerals) begins to change and increases the permeability of the egg shell.
6. Young eggs don't entirely get a free pass though - their more intact outer cuticle layers serve as rich sources of carbon/nitrogen for growing Pseudomonas bacteria.
In theory, as the trending article presents, cuticles should serve as highly protective barriers. Unfortunately, nature is far from perfect, and all cuticles are not created equally. Infection is still a pretty big issue, given that the FDA reports 142,000 cases of Salmonella per year from eggs (3). In 2012, the EU had 91,034 cases of Salmonella altogether (4) - they don't seem to report how many are from eggs, but do list that eggs are a top contributor of cases. It's difficult to quantify the effects of eggs on the prevalence between the two, due to under reporting of cases, infection due to different foods, strains of Salmonella and cooking methods, and overall population differences. The US seems to focus more on the the Salmonella presence on the outside of the egg, and the EU focuses more on preventing penetration. Both the US and EU methods, according the infection statistics, clearly still leave room for bacterial infection, and neither method appears perfect.
I find this article concerning, not only because they're providing half the story, but also because they're furthering the distrust of science and technology. These journalists are obviously trying to have an article go viral, and individuals shouldn't expect the best, most unbiased reporting from these sites. I get not trusting capitalistic endeavors, but the message within these stories always seems to be that nature created a perfect system and humans ruined it - it's quite a religious sentiment. I hope individuals stop viewing nature as if it was created for humanity, and that any human intervention must be inherently bad because it's not natural. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons to not like the current egg industry, and I think encouraging better animal husbandry, as the articles cite, would be a great place to start. But movements should stick to science, not pseudo-science.
These naturalistic fallacies lead to doubts about climate change, GMOs, evolution, vaccination, and nutrition recommendations - all scientifically backed, well researched concepts that have received an onslaught of attacks from individuals, who quite frankly, have little to no scientific education. The backlash from this distrust obviously varies for each of these, but all have potentially severe consequences.
**Update: After perusing several versions of this article online, many commenters living in European countries have questioned where this information came from because they refrigerate their eggs
1. http://www.aseanfood.info/articles/11019862.pdf
2. http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/11/3026.full
3.http://www.fda.gov/food/resourcesforyou/Consumers/ucm077342.htm
4.http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/140219.htm
If you haven't read these articles, see one version here. To summarize them, eggs can become infected with Salmonella on the outside or the inside. Eggs contain a protective covering, called the cuticle, that can prevent Salmonella penetration into the egg. America washes eggs throughout industrial processing, effectively removing the cuticle, and henceforth, the egg's protection. To avoid proliferation of dangerous amounts of Salmonella, we have to refrigerate eggs. This is all weird because other countries, the article claims, don't wash the eggs, so they retain the cuticle and therefore, don't have place eggs in the fridge. The article goes on to quote reasons why the EU doesn't allow for egg washing or require refrigeration - they want to encourage good animal husbandry, producing clean eggs from the start, as well as reduce condensation on eggs removed from the refrigerator, that may favor bacterial growth.
That all sounds great to me, but I have become skeptical of most naturalistic fallacies (AKA the idea that it's natural so it's good/better than human ingenuity). A few other factors should be thrown into the mix, that I pulled from an earlier review and a newer paper (1,2).
1. The cuticle does cover the outside of the shell, which is quite porous; however, even if the cuticle remains undamaged, 10-20 pores remain unsealed, and it's difficult to quantify their role in contamination
2. This protective cuticle that the article talks so much about is far from a perfect barrier. Yes, an intact, perfect cuticle does serve as a sufficient protective barrier; unfortunately, not all cuticles are equal. Cuticle thickness varies across the egg shell, being entirely absent in some areas. Older studies have shown about 3.5% eggs have no demonstrable cuticle, and 8% have no cuticle on the apex/blunt ends.3. Older hens lay eggs with thinner, more porous cuticles.
4. Cuticle quality is also effected by laying season, with eggs laid during the end of the laying season having a lower quality cuticle, less able to protect against bacterial penetration.
5. There is variable penetration due to different factors during cuticle drying in the first 24 hours - after this point, cuticle composition (an outer layer rich in proteins, an inner lay rich in minerals) begins to change and increases the permeability of the egg shell.
6. Young eggs don't entirely get a free pass though - their more intact outer cuticle layers serve as rich sources of carbon/nitrogen for growing Pseudomonas bacteria.
In theory, as the trending article presents, cuticles should serve as highly protective barriers. Unfortunately, nature is far from perfect, and all cuticles are not created equally. Infection is still a pretty big issue, given that the FDA reports 142,000 cases of Salmonella per year from eggs (3). In 2012, the EU had 91,034 cases of Salmonella altogether (4) - they don't seem to report how many are from eggs, but do list that eggs are a top contributor of cases. It's difficult to quantify the effects of eggs on the prevalence between the two, due to under reporting of cases, infection due to different foods, strains of Salmonella and cooking methods, and overall population differences. The US seems to focus more on the the Salmonella presence on the outside of the egg, and the EU focuses more on preventing penetration. Both the US and EU methods, according the infection statistics, clearly still leave room for bacterial infection, and neither method appears perfect.
I find this article concerning, not only because they're providing half the story, but also because they're furthering the distrust of science and technology. These journalists are obviously trying to have an article go viral, and individuals shouldn't expect the best, most unbiased reporting from these sites. I get not trusting capitalistic endeavors, but the message within these stories always seems to be that nature created a perfect system and humans ruined it - it's quite a religious sentiment. I hope individuals stop viewing nature as if it was created for humanity, and that any human intervention must be inherently bad because it's not natural. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons to not like the current egg industry, and I think encouraging better animal husbandry, as the articles cite, would be a great place to start. But movements should stick to science, not pseudo-science.
These naturalistic fallacies lead to doubts about climate change, GMOs, evolution, vaccination, and nutrition recommendations - all scientifically backed, well researched concepts that have received an onslaught of attacks from individuals, who quite frankly, have little to no scientific education. The backlash from this distrust obviously varies for each of these, but all have potentially severe consequences.
**Update: After perusing several versions of this article online, many commenters living in European countries have questioned where this information came from because they refrigerate their eggs
1. http://www.aseanfood.info/articles/11019862.pdf
2. http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/11/3026.full
3.http://www.fda.gov/food/resourcesforyou/Consumers/ucm077342.htm
4.http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/140219.htm
I read your blog. its simply superb. Useful Information about Bakery Equipments Manufacturers. Thanks for sharing
ReplyDeleteRefrigeration Equipments Manufacturers