SC - Sauerkraut

[Stefan li Rous]

LrdRas at aol.com wrote:
> 
> So, to be blunt, what is the whole point of this thread? W have read so far an
> urban legend about one improbable death (improbable because of no name or
> anyway to identity the case), the citation of some one being stupid with their
> allergies while eating a dish that should not have been served at a feast in
> the first place and an isolated first hand account of a case of food poisoning
> where the stricken had much more in common than eating one food all together
> (E.g., what did they share in common earlier in the day.)  To top it off none
> of these incidents were traced to undercooked chicken or precooked dishes
> which is what we were talking about originally.

Well, that's why we change our headers, isn't it? Which I did, as did you...

My understanding of the sequence of events is that you made a joke (I think ; 
)   ) about special needs feast diners having their own cooks, Lady Brenna
took you at your word (or so it seemed), and opined that such steps are
unnecessary if proper labelling practices are observed, citing an incident she
had heard about. I countered with what I had heard about what I believe was
the same incident, and now we're trying to explain what this has to do with
fish being served on feast day menus, which is what the original topic was, I
believe. What it has to do with it is nothing, but then, as I say, that's why
we change our headers.

As for the question of whether or not someone actually died from eating
peanuts or their derivatives, it's probably pretty easily chackable,
considering that a death is claimed to have been involved. I do recall hearing
this story several years ago, but it was said at the time to have happened
quite recently. Now, I can't prove that it's true (in my opinion this is like
scripture, whether it's true really isn't the point because it's a learning
opportunity whether true or not). But, my inability to provide the proof of
its truth doesn't mean it is _not_ true, either. It simply means we don't
know. I've been prepared to admit that from the start. 
> 
> Why is there a bizarre tendency for folks to overreact to isolated and
> statistically insignificant events in modern times?  So long as you follow the
> same precautions that you use at home when preparing a feast you will run a
> risk that is no more nor no less of a possibility in poisoning your feasters
> than you would be risking at home feeding your significant other, two year old
> child or best friend.

I can't answer that. I only commented on the fact that even though many, many
head cooks, in my experience, have exercised some pretty shocking hygienic
habits in the kitchens they have run over the years, for whatever reason, I
myself have not met anyone prepared to say, yes, I got food poisoning known to
be attributable to such-and-such an event on such-and-such a day. Statistics
would suggest the liklihood of more such people prepared to  make the claim
(especially after the world-famous feast  of Beef Stock Stored in a Black
Plastic Trash Can Liner, to which trash was accidentally added, then strained
out, egg shells blown out by mouth and stuffed with something else, and a
plethora of other dubious activities). It seemed ironic to me, is all.  
> 
> Also I might add in passing that getting sick after a feast is not necessarily
> attributable to food poisoning.  I have been deathly ill after a feast or two
> and since I was the only one ill, it would have been ludicrous to blame it on
> poor sanitation in the kitchen.  Sometimes our individual constitutions just
> rebel at certain combinations.  That's a fact of life.  I feel that the diner
> has a responsibility to seek immediate medical attention if they are 'ill'
> after a feast.  To babble on to those around them about their 'food poisoning'
> without actual medical testing is not only harmful to the cook's reputation
> but unchivalrous and more than a little dishonorable.

Well, yeah, but I don't think anyone is talking about that.
> 
<Snip>

> Medical testing is a MUST if you are ill after a feast.  The most common type
> of food borne illness is present on anyone's hands at any given moment.  If a
> person at your dining table breaks the bread, it is passed to all at that
> table.  This does not mean it's the cook's fault.  If all are sick at your
> particular table except one (and no one else in the hall is sick), the odds
> are pretty high that that person is the carrier.  Not the cook.

Quite possibly correct. On the other hand, the odds of contracting a
food-borne (or hand-borne) illness from bread contaminated within minutes of
eating it are somewhat less than eating, say, beef stock chock full of
ptomaine _and_ ptomaine toxins from the stuff lying around infected all
afternoon. Another consideration is each potential victim's natural
resistance, which in a healthy person is more likely to enable the person to
shrug off the former rather than the latter circumstances, which would shave
the odds slightly in favor of the cook having a hand (no pun intended) in it.

Adamantius
Østgardr, East
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================