Cocktail Recipes, Spirits, and Local Bars

Undercooked Duck Might Be Just as Risky as Undercooked Chicken

Undercooked Duck Might Be Just as Risky as Undercooked Chicken

It might just be better to cook all poultry the way you cook chicken

Consuming undercooked duck poses the same health risks as undercooked chicken.

Think again before you eat undercooked duck — it could pose the same health risks as undercooked chicken.

Consuming undercooked duck could lead to food poisoning, according to The Guardian. Raw duck is often contaminated with the bacteria campylobacter, which may cause diarrhea, fever, and abdominal pain.

The Food Standards Agency in the U.K. noted that this is not new information, but that there is a common misconception that duck does not need to be cooked all the way through. It may not be safe to even eat duck cooked medium-rare, so treat duck the way you do chicken.

The CDC notes that campylobacter leads to an estimated 1.3 million cases of food poisoning each year, and these incidents are much more common in the summertime.

Much of the research done with campylobacter is associated with chickens. However, The Guardian notes that in 2005, Public Health England found campylobacter in 50 percent of duck meat. The bacteria are found on the skin and breast of the meat. It is recommended that consumers cook the duck until there is no pink and that they be cautious when rinsing poultry at home, because doing so can cause bacteria to spread on kitchen surfaces.


Ask the Chef: Why is it Okay to Serve Rare Duck Breast?

Here's the second installment of our feature Ask the Chef, where we handle your burning questions, the ones that drive you crazy in the kitchen. We've partnered with Matthew Robinson, a chef with not only kitchen experience but product development chops and lots of food science knowledge to boot. His mojo is to inspire people to innovate in the kitchen. You can find him at the Culinary Exchange. Or right here!

This month's question comes from Paula Jacobson, who runs the Cookbook Construction Crew with Sheilah Kaufman. No stranger to the kitchen, Paula's got a question that she has "asked many chefs and never gotten a satisfactory answer. We are always told to cook poultry to 165°F to ensure safety. Why is it okay to eat rare duck breast, which is how it is always served in restaurants? Thank you!

This is an excellent question and the answer is simple. Experts, like folks at the USDA and FDA, say it is not appropriate to cook any poultry to a temperature under 165°F without increasing the risk of foodborne illness and it really isn’t ok to eat rare duck breast for the same reason.

I imagine a conversation about this issue may go something like this:

Person Sitting at Table In Restaurant: <Thinking: Hmmm…I think I will have the duck breast. I love duck breast. So tasty!>

Waiter: Hello and welcome to Chez Mallard. Shall I tell you about our specials or do you already know what you want?

Person Sitting at Table In Restaurant: I will have the duck breast.

Waiter: Excellent choice. How would you like the duck breast to be cooked?

Person Sitting at Table In Restaurant: How does the Chef recommend the duck breast be cooked?

Waiter: The Chef recommends the duck breast be cooked medium rare. The duck breast will be very pink, juicy and very tasty.

Person Sitting at Table In Restaurant: <Thinking skeptically: Hmm, that sounds like it might be undercooked, but this is how the chef recommends it.> Why can this duck breast be undercooked and still be safe to eat?

A) We here at Chez Mallard know the farmer personally and these ducks are raised on a small bucolic farm where gentle westerly breezes push the pathogens off shore and ensure there are no microorganisms that could infect the duck.

B) Only birds that are processed in a military-industrial complex style of mass production environment are in danger of being infected. (continue with answer A) or

C) These ducks were massaged and de-feathered in a hot wax spa-bath so all the pathogens are killed then encased in the wax and literally stripped judiciously from the ducks.

To borrow from another farm animal: Every one of the answers that the well-meaning, but ill-informed waiter gave above is HOGWASH. The fact of the matter is that poultry—duck included—should be cooked to a minimum internal temperature of 165°F, or medium-well on the “how to cook meat“ description scale. Why? Because like other poultry, ducks are susceptible to contamination with salmonella and campylobacter, regardless of whether it comes from a small or big farm or how it was de-feathered. Additionally, if the chefs who cook the duck don’t follow good sanitation procedures (like washing hands or properly sanitizing surfaces), other cross contamination can happen. Cooking to a minimum temperature of 165°F ensures that pathogens are killed and the risk of foodborne illness reduced.

The inability to get satisfactory answers from chefs about this is mildly concerning, but might indicate an interesting conundrum a chef (and maybe a serious home-cook) faces. A chef will always be interested in creating a duck breast that is perfectly delicious, but should they do so knowing that it is not cooked to appropriate temperatures? If chef’s reputation is only as good as the last duck breast served, should a chef ignore his or her food safety responsibility? One only needs to look as far as the Redzepis or Blumenthals of the world to see what difficulties a food safety issue can cause.

Of course, the person sitting at the table certainly has a choice, but an informed choice it should be. Certainly, part of a chef’s professional responsibility is to make sure his or her clientele are aware that undercooking duck to medium-rare or medium might be great for taste, but also comes with certain risks. At a time when chefs have rock-star status and are perceived as being key opinion leaders, if they are not following proper food safety standards, confusion about how food should be cooked appropriately could grow, and result in unfortunate consequences. The situation becomes even more risky when the person sitting at the table is knowingly or unknowingly pregnant, a senior citizen, or part of another high-risk group more susceptible to foodborne illness. Shouldn’t the customer be able to rely on the professionalism and knowledge of the chef and staff and expect full disclosure--i.e., the duck will be most tasty when cooked medium rare or medium, but this means cooking the duck to a lower temperature than is recommended?

While we may not all agree that chefs are ultimately responsible for both taste and food safety, there is one thing that cannot be disputed: Duck should be cooked, like all the other poultry, to a minimum internal temperature of 165∘F to reduce the risk of foodborne illness.

Got a burning question about something kitchen or food related that you just can't figure out? Leave it in the comments! Thanks!


Chicken, Beef, Pork, and Turkey

Thoroughly cooking chicken, poultry products, and meat destroys germs.

Raw and undercooked meat and poultry can make you sick. Most raw poultry contains Campylobacter. It also may contain Salmonella, Clostridium perfringens, and other bacteria. Raw meat may contain Salmonella, E. coli, Yersinia, and other bacteria.

  • You should not wash raw poultry or meat before cooking it, even though some older recipes may call for this step. Washing raw poultry or meat can spread bacteria to other foods, utensils, and surfaces, and does not prevent illness.
  • Thoroughly cook poultry and meat. You can kill bacteria by cooking poultry and meat to a safe internal temperature external icon .
  • Use a cooking thermometer to check the temperature. You can&rsquot tell if meat is properly cooked by looking at its color or juices.
  • Leftovers should be refrigerated at 40°F or colder within 2 hours after preparation. Large cuts of meat, such as roasts or a whole turkey, should be divided into small quantities for refrigeration so they&rsquoll cool quickly enough to prevent bacteria from growing.

Foodborne Germs and Poultry and Meat

Tips for Preparing Chicken, Turkey, and Other Meats


High Fat Content

Foie gras is renowned for its smooth, creamy taste, but that luxury comes with a price. The fat content of fatty goose liver is a startling 86.1 percent because birds store excess fat in their livers. A one-ounce serving of foie gras contains 12 grams of fat and 42 milligrams of cholesterol. To put that in perspective, a 3.5-ounce hamburger at McDonald's contains 9 grams of fat and 25 milligrams of cholesterol.


Cooking Duck Breast: Is Medium Rare Safe?

As with any poultry, there’s always the chance that duck harbors harmful bacteria. But cooking duck is different than cooking chicken and turkey because it’s actually a red meat. As with other red meats, some people prefer to eat duck that’s cooked medium or medium rare so it’s still pink inside.

The official food safety word from the USDA is that duck breast should be cooked to at least 160°F and preferably to 170°F. If you cook a duck breast to 155°F (assuming that carryover cooking will continue to raise the temperature to 160°F as the duck rests), it will be medium well—safe to eat and still a little pink in the center, but perhaps a tad drier than you might like. If you’re pregnant or if you have a compromised immune system, this is the route you should take.

But if you prefer your duck a little pinker, cook it to 135° or 140°F and enjoy a medium-rare to medium duck breast. It isn’t guaranteed safe, but if you like your duck a little more juicy and tender, you might consider the slight risk to be worthwhile.


Pink duck but not pink chicken.

Duck breast in restaurants is often cooked till it is pink. However with chicken we all know it must be fully cooked.

What is the technical reason one bird can be served medium rare but the other well done.

They are both poultry. My understanding is that chicken can lead to salmonella poisoning amongst other bacteria, isn't duck prone to similar issues.

Phatch

Moderator

It's mostly the raising conditions. Ducks tend to be raised in better conditions that don't lead to the high contamination found in chicken.

But there are other considerations. Duck breast is dark meat. You can cook that to 160 and still have a lot of pink even though it has hit food safe temps. Granted, you usually cook duck to somewhat less than that. The same holds true for chicken legs. If they hit 160 at the deepest point, they're safe. But the consumer has been trained to think any pink in chicken or turkey is unsafe so it's not marketable to the consumer.

In American Cookery, James Beard makes the same observation about pink turkey legs, that there's nothing wrong with pink legs.

Michaelga

Depending on cooking technique you will see various levels of pink regardless of what temperature you cook the meat to. ie. smoking etc.

One other thing to understand is that the temperature given by the USDA is the temp at which the bacteria is 'instantly' destroyed.

You can quite safely cook all poultry to a much lower temperature as long as you hold it at that temp for a specific time.

For instance - chicken cooked to 145F must be held at that temp for 8.6 minutes to be pasteurized.

Lower temps with longer times can be achieved but the texture begins to really be challenging for most people.

Raw / barely cooked poultry used to be quite common in Japan as they didn't have the same endemic problems with salmonella - although as demand for meat has increased at the loss of meticulous handling and rearing it has now become a problem.


10 Answers 10

Rare duck meat is safe to eat because it does NOT contain the same risk of Salmonella as does chicken meat.

Primarily because ducks, as mentioned above, have not traditionally been raised in the same squalid conditions as "factory raised" chickens - salmonella is a disease that is primarily transmitted through dirt/dirty unclean conditions.

Now, on the other hand, as more and more ducks are being raised in industrial conditions, they are also becoming more likely to contain strains of Salmonella.

Yes, rare duck breast is safe and the risk is significantly lower, not least because ducks are not factory farmed in the same squalid and obscene conditions that chickens are.

If you thought the broiler chicken industry "squalid" then you are in for one big shock when you find out about the commercial duck industry! Sorry but ponds with ducks waddling around is only for the very few free-range ones. huge dark sheds with only water from nipple-drinkers, eye infections and misery is the norm for commercially reared ducks, so less likely to get salmonella? I really don't think so.

They don't give reasons, but USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) do say that duck meat can remain pink, so long as it has reached an internal temperature of 165 F (74 C) throughout. The same temperature requirement is given for chicken, but with the added note that for cosmetic reasons, people usually cook chicken more.

They also indicate that chicken is susceptible to a wider range of harmful bacteria than duck.

The reason for the salmonella warnings is because of the processing facilities not the chicken houses where the birds are raised. All animals probably have some salmonella as part of their intestinal flora . When you slaughter millions of birds in a given area over scores of years the bacterial portion of the local bio mass increases for obvious reasons . Trying to disinfect the equipment the microbe become resistant to normal solutions. What you end up with is a lot of highly evolved pathogens which are hard to kill. A little carelessness during processing and you have an infected chicken carcass. If you cook it thoroughly no problem and handle it carefully.

In the UK it's now Campylobacter not salmonella that's the main problem in Poultry.

Approx 50% of ducks are infected and 60% of chickens.

The pathogen is low dose and is not just found on the surface so searing won't get rid of it.

Cooking to around +75oC should effectively kill it but the duck won't be pink at that temperature.

It's often considered to be less of a risk than chicken (which most people serve cooked) but in reality that's because less duck is consumed than chicken overall.

from the Vermont dept of Health: Salmonella organisms have been found in the stools of sick and apparently healthy people and animals. Most domestic animals, including ducks, cattle, swine, dogs, cats, pet turtles and chicks have been found to carry and transmit salmonella. The bacteria also has been found in a variety of wild animals. Thorough hand washing after contact with animals is recommended to prevent salmonella transmission. Contaminated water is also a possible source of salmonella infection.

All birds (and reptiles, for that matter) naturally have salmonella in their digestive tract. I'm assuming that the amount must be significantly lower in ducks, or possibly the fact that ducks are "waterproof" may be part of it. If the salmonella-containing dung cannot cling to them as well as it can to chickens maybe less is transferred to the meat after processing?

Just my hypothesis, anyway.

Salmonella is NOT normally found in poultry that is truly free ranged (pastured). Poultry that eat bugs and other "animals" found while foraging do not usually carry Salmonella in their intestinal tract. There appears to be much "myth" presented on this thread regarding Salmonella. The fact is that Salmonella in chickens and eggs was extremely rare before the industrialization of the poultry industry. I would suggest that anyone that travelled out on Long Island NY back in the 1950's know about the smell from the gigantic duck farms that used to be there. Those ducks may very well have carried Salmonella. Raising poultry using proper sanitation and allowing the birds to forage will remove any endemic Salmonella. The problem is so bad in the chicken industry that newly hatched chicks are already infected but two months off pasturing will alleviate the infection. I have been raising organic free range poultry for about 60 years and wouldn't think twice about eating raw eggs from my chickens or ducks. Given clean housing, water, and feed there hardly any threat from Salmonella.

Salmonella is a bacteria only found in the intestinal tract of chickens. No other birds contain this bacteria if they do it is from cross contamination with chicken feces. Also, duck is not poultry, it is fowl. Fowl flies, poultry does not.


Undercooked Duck Might Be Just as Risky as Undercooked Chicken - Recipes

Campylobacter­ spp.–related gastroenteritis in diners at a catering college restaurant was associated with consumption of duck liver pâté. Population genetic analysis indicated that isolates from duck samples were typical of isolates from farmed poultry. Campylobacter spp. contamination of duck liver may present a hazard similar to the increasingly recognized contamination of chicken liver.

Although bacteria in the genus Campylobacter commonly cause gastroenteritis, identified outbreaks are relatively rare. In England and Wales, 21 identified campylobacteriosis outbreaks during 1992–1994 (1) and 50 during 1995–1999 (2) accounted for 0.2% and 0.4% of reported outbreaks of gastroenteritis, respectively. Water and milk were the main sources of Campylobacter spp. outbreaks in the United Kingdom and the United States, although becoming less so (2,3). Poultry consumption and restaurant dining are the most common foodborne illness risks, although many foodstuffs are implicated (2,3). Outbreaks associated with chicken liver pâté or parfait have increased: 14 outbreaks were associated with these items in England and Wales during 2007–2009 compared with 11 during the 15 preceding years (4). There were also large outbreaks in Scotland (5,6). The peer-reviewed literature identifies chicken as the type of poultry liver or refers to poultry without specifying type.

Multilocus sequence typing is increasingly used to identify animal origins of human campylobacteriosis (7). The presence of multiple Campylobacter strains (6) in individual outbreaks linked to chicken liver is consistent with documentation that chickens harbor multiple strains (8), that pâté is prepared from multiple livers (5,6), or both. We describe epidemiologic evidence for a duck liver pâté–associated outbreak and compare sequence types (STs) of isolates with animal and food isolate datasets.

The Study

The outbreak involved a group of 3 persons and a group of 29 persons who ate lunch at a catering college restaurant. A probable case-patient was defined as a restaurant diner with diarrhea onset within 7 days after eating at the restaurant on May 12, 2011. Infections were confirmed by laboratory test results.

Environmental health officers inspected the restaurant kitchen and reviewed food preparation processes on May 17. The lunches had been ordered in advance, and officers recorded the food choices made by each diner. Menu choices and occurrence of illness were verified by face-to-face interviews (22 diners), postal interviews (9 diners), and other diners for 1 diner who had died. When food consumption history differed from the diner’s lunch order, which occurred mainly through sharing of food, consumption history was used. Fisher exact test p-values and odds ratios with CIs were calculated for the association of each menu option with illness. All case-patients reported exposure to pâté. Lower CIs were estimated by using the Cornfield method in Stata 11 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Repeat analysis was restricted to patients with laboratory-confirmed illness and those who were not ill.

Symptomatic patients were requested to provide fecal samples. In addition, a sample of duck liver, not from the batch used to prepare the meals in question, was obtained from the supplier on June 13 and tested for Campylobacter spp. by using 25 g of sample cultured on Campylobacter Blood-Free Selective Agar Base after enrichment in Bolton broth (Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK). Multilocus sequence typing was performed by using standard methods. STs for samples from case-patients and the liver sample were compared with those of published isolates from chickens (mainly sampled in the United Kingdom during 2001–2005) (9,10), farmed ducks (sampled in the United Kingdom, 2007) (11), wild ducks (sampled in the United Kingdom, 2007) (11), and wild geese (sampled in the United Kingdom, 2002–2004) (12) by using a neighbor-joining algorithm and default parameters in MEGA ( www.megasoftware.net/) as described (13).

Figure 1. . Onset dates of diarrheal illness related to a duck liver–associated outbreak of campylobacteriosis among humans, United Kingdom, 2011. Symptoms recorded with or without laboratory confirmation of Campylobacter infection, among persons.

Of the 32 diners, 18 (56%) reported diarrhea: 8 had laboratory-confirmed campylobacteriosis, 6 had samples that were negative for Campylobacter infection, and 4 were not tested (Figure 1). Median duration of illness was 4 days 1 case-patient died. Five case-patients described severe diarrhea (profuse, explosive, uncontrollable, or watery), 5 reported fever or shivering, and 2 reported abdominal pain. Consumption of duck liver pâté was strongly associated with illness. No other positive associations were identified (Table). When analysis was restricted to confirmed cases, campylobacteriosis was strongly associated with pâté (lower CI of odds ratio 5.5 p = 0.001).

Through review of cooking processes, we found that ≈1 kg of duck livers was seared and flambéed in batches without ensuring that adequate internal cooking temperatures were achieved. The seared livers were blended with other ingredients and chilled. No other high-risk ingredients or processes were identified. No illness among staff members was recorded on or immediately preceding May 12. A catering student who made and tasted the pâté became ill on May 16. No food samples remained.

Figure 2. . Comparison of Campylobacter jejuni sequence types (STs) from a duck liver–associated outbreak of campylobacteriosis among humans in the United Kingdom during 2011 (solid squares) with published sequence types of isolates.

Campylobacter isolates were available from 6 of 8 confirmed case-patients and the duck liver. One isolate was positive for C. coli and 5 for C. jejuni. The C. jejuni STs were ST356 (3 cases), ST50, and ST607. These STs are genetically diverse (Figure 2), but each clustered with chicken and farmed duck rather than wild waterfowl isolates. The duck liver isolate, ST5097, clustered with wild waterfowl isolates (Figure 2).

Conclusions

The attack rate of 86% among persons who ate duck liver pâté was similar to rates for outbreaks associated with chicken liver pâté (5,6). Pâté consumption was strongly associated with illness and laboratory-confirmed infection. Diners who did not eat this dish were unaffected. Pan frying of chicken livers is effective for killing internal Campylobacter spp. if the internal temperature reaches 70°C and is sustained for at least 2 minutes and if total cooking time is at least 5 minutes (14). The cooking process for the pâté, as reviewed by environmental health officers, was insufficient to kill bacteria inside the livers. This finding corroborates the epidemiologic evidence.

Aseptic testing of 30 chicken livers showed internal infection in 90% (14) testing of 50 chicken and 50 duck livers identified Campylobacter spp. contamination in 20 and 18, respectively (15). The high level of internal and external contamination in chicken liver in these studies and failure of insufficient cooking to destroy the bacteria in the current outbreak suggest that internal contamination of duck liver also occurs. Undercooked duck liver may therefore present a hazard similar to that presented by undercooked chicken liver. Cooking time should be sufficient to destroy bacteria throughout the liver. Deliberate undercooking was identified in 68% of 25 poultry liver–associated campylobacteriosis outbreaks that occurred during 1992–2009 (4). Outbreaks associated with chicken and duck liver pâté and parfait are being increasingly identified in the United Kingdom and are likely to occur in other countries because the cooking procedures described in the United Kingdom outbreaks are not based on recipes restricted to the United Kingdom. Sporadic cases associated with similar home cooking of poultry liver products are also likely to occur, but such cases will be difficult to identify unless specifically sought.

The diversity of isolates in this outbreak resembles that in an outbreak of campylobacteriosis related to chicken liver pâté (6). As with that outbreak, the diversity in the outbreak in this study could reflect individual livers co-infected with >1 Campylobacter strain, >1 infected liver in the food item, or both. This diversity suggests that bacterial invasion of chicken and duck livers is possible for a wide range of fairly distantly related Campylobacter spp. strains, including those of C. jejuni and C. coli. The clustering of C. jejuni isolates from this outbreak with STs associated with farmed duck and farmed chicken and the genetic separation from wild duck and wild goose isolates (Figure 2) suggests that the farm environment may favor some Campylobacter spp. subtypes sufficiently to overcome natural host associations. An alternative hypothesis is that among a wide range of subtypes infecting ducks, those that are found in other farm animals are more effective at causing human disease. The single Campylobacter isolate from a later, non–outbreak-associated batch of duck liver clustered with isolates from wild waterfowl rather than the outbreak isolates or other isolates from farmed ducks. The limited data on Campylobacter populations in poultry other than chickens restrict our ability to interpret this discrepancy. Further work to characterize the Campylobacter populations of wild and farmed ducks may facilitate more reliable inference.

Dr Abid is a consultant in communicable disease control working in Public Health England. His main research interests are in tuberculosis and outbreak investigation.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the work of the local and regional clinical and public health microbiology laboratories, environmental health officers in Reading Borough Council and West Berkshire Council, and staff in Thames Valley Health Protection Unit in investigating this outbreak.


Food poisoning rise linked to undercooked offal

Chefs and consumers have been told to ensure trendy chicken liver dishes have been properly cooked following a worrying rise in food poisoning linked to hotel and restaurant meals.

People following magazine recipes for the Christmas season have also been warned by government agencies not to leave pink meat in livers or other offal when they prepare pâté or parfait dishes.

The Food Standards Agency(FSA)has had to repeat advice to caterers first issued in July because there has been no drop in outbreaks linked to the campylobacter bug, the commonest cause of intestinal disease.

Data from the Health Protection Agency(HPA) says 11 of 15 food poisoning outbreaks at hotels or restaurants in England and Wales so far this year have been associated with such poultry dishes.

This is well up on previous years. Food poisoning through campylobacter contamination generally has risen significantly in the last four years after reductions in the early part of the decade. There were 57,772 cases confirmed in 2009, and figures indicate that this may rise by about 10% this year. The FSA says an estimated two-thirds of shop-bought chicken is contaminated with the bug.

The food agency estimates there may be five times that number of unreported or unconfirmed cases, with an estimated 15,000 cases resulting in people needing hospital treatment. Symptoms include diarrhoea, vomiting, stomach pains and cramps, fever, and generally feeling unwell. They can take up to 10 days to develop and be caused by poor hygiene as well as improperly cooked food.

Dilys Morgan, head of gastrointestinal, emerging and zoonotic infections at the HPA, said: "It has become apparent that chicken liver pâté and parfait is being served more frequently. The product is also being promoted in Christmas recipes published in magazines and the instructions do not always stress clearly enough how very important it is to ensure that livers are cooked sufficiently to kill the campylobacter. The public and the catering industry need to be aware that undercooking this product, allowing the centre to remain pink, can result in food poisoning."

Morgan added: "Food poisoning is an unpleasant experience for most people but for those with underlying health conditions it can be extremely serious."

The HPA says that of 16 foodborne outbreaks of campylobacter infection in 2010, 15 were associated with catering premises and one with a school. In all 357 people were affected, with nine hospitalised.

Eleven were linked to poultry liver parfait or pâté consumption (ten prepared from chicken livers and one from duck livers). Eight of these were linked to hotels, with four associated with catering at weddings, two to restaurants and one to a club.

The food agency said liver, kidneys and other offal should be handled hygienically to avoid cross-contamination and cooked through until "steaming hot". Centres should reach 70C for two minutes or equivalent times and temperatures, 65C for 10 minutes, 75C for 30 seconds or 80C for six seconds.


While listeria is more commonly caused by contaminated ready-to-eat meats, it can also be caused by undercooked meat, poultry or seafood. The most common symptoms include fever and muscle aches, but listeria could also cause diarrhea and nausea. Pregnant women need to be particularly careful to avoid getting listeria, as it can cause miscarriage or other severe problems, and pregnant women are 20 times more likely to develop listeria than non-pregnant women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Eating raw meat or poultry could also cause trichinosis or toxoplasmosis infections. Trichinosis is caused by a parasite sometimes found in pork, although most pork in the United States no longer contains this parasite, according to an article on the Epicurious.com. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report only 90 cases between 2008 and 2012, compared to 400 cases per year in the 1940s. Toxoplasmosis is caused by a parasite found most often in lamb, pork and venison. Healthy people often don’t experience any symptoms, but those with compromised immune systems may develop flu-like symptoms upon exposure to these parasites.

Based in Massachusetts, Jessica Bruso has been writing since 2008. She holds a master of science degree in food policy and applied nutrition and a bachelor of arts degree in international relations, both from Tufts University.


Watch the video: Thai Sesame Chicken Broccoli Brown Rice, Oatmeal Crusted Wholemeal Toast and Strawberry Orange Sauce (January 2022).