For those of you that eat pork may find this helpful. I received this as an email today.
“In the culmination to a years-long campaign by pork producers and processors, the latest major push of which began in
2006, USDA announced yesterday (5/24) that it is reducing its recommended cooking temperature for pork muscle cuts to 145° F internal
temperature followed by a three minute rest time before carving or consuming. To the uninitiated, this may seem like just another
change to an innocuous government recommendation but the pork industry believes it is a very big deal indeed as it removes one hurdle to
consumers’ enjoying a better eating experience with pork in general and fresh pork in particular. A copy of the National Pork Board’s new
cooking guidelines appears on page 2. The guide can be downloaded from www.porkbeinspired.com <https://www.porkbeinspired.com> .
Why is this such a big deal? A bit of history is in order.
Pork has always carried a “there’s something in there that you have to killâ€
-
DoubleDogFarm
- Super Green Thumb
- Posts: 6113
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:43 pm
I heard this announced on the radio while I was driving, and almost left my lane. Note that it was at the behest of the Pork Producers Association (or whatever the formal name is) that the USDA made this change. I'm very suspicious and would like to see the science behind this change in recommended internal temperature for cooked pork.
Right now, all the announcement contains is political persuasion. No science.
Cynthia H.
Sunset Zone 17, USDA Zone 9
Right now, all the announcement contains is political persuasion. No science.
Cynthia H.
Sunset Zone 17, USDA Zone 9
-
GomoIsGardening
- Cool Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:27 pm
- Location: Hill Country, TX
Actually if you buy grocery pork, this has been the rule for 10 years.cynthia_h wrote:I heard this announced on the radio while I was driving, and almost left my lane. Note that it was at the behest of the Pork Producers Association (or whatever the formal name is) that the USDA made this change. I'm very suspicious and would like to see the science behind this change in recommended internal temperature for cooked pork.
Right now, all the announcement contains is political persuasion. No science.
Cynthia H.
Sunset Zone 17, USDA Zone 9
My brother loves my pork chops, the thick stuffed and the thin pan fried, because they aren't the dried out junk we had as kids. He's amazed when I make chops or anything pork because it's tender and juicy.
Having been in the restaurant business for years, I only had to get food to 165 and/or keep it at 145 F, to serve it to the masses. I'm here to tell you; chicken improperly handled at those temps will make you worship the porcelain god before pork.
Thanks DoubleDog, for the info!
I think 145 has been a common practice for quite a while, has been authorize by states (?) or another agency (?) and the USDA is just catching up.
I'll have to find that reference.
I smoked ribs, got a nice smoke ring, thinner sections of the meat was all red (as will happen), my Mom wasn't going to eat them because the obviously cooked pork ribs had red on them.
That is how embedded this is in people.
Some will not eat pork till its what I call triple dead.
Dead once by the Butcher.
Dead the second time by cooking to white,
Dead the third time by cooking to leather.
I'll have to find that reference.
I smoked ribs, got a nice smoke ring, thinner sections of the meat was all red (as will happen), my Mom wasn't going to eat them because the obviously cooked pork ribs had red on them.
That is how embedded this is in people.
Some will not eat pork till its what I call triple dead.
Dead once by the Butcher.
Dead the second time by cooking to white,
Dead the third time by cooking to leather.