SC - History of Biblical foods on Food Network

[Michael F. Gunter]

> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:19:41 EDT
> From: CBlackwill at aol.com
> Subject: Re: SC - organ meats and anthelmintics??
> 
> In a message dated 4/24/00 7:51:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, troy at asan.com 
> writes:
> 
> > As far as domestic livestock goes, I don't know, but Anthimus says,
> >  interestingly enough, that bacon is good for nearly all ills, and that a
> >  dose of raw bacon will expel "Stomach and gnawing worms". I wonder if
> >  perhaps eating raw bacon became associated with the expulsion of worms
> >  for another, simpler reason. Not that I necessarily believe that, but
> >  it's an interesting thought, the possibility Anthimus has put the cart
> >  before the hog...  
> 
> How different was medieval bacon from the smoked, sliced stuff you buy in the 
> supermarket today?   Could the curing process have conatained some ingredient 
> which was effective at driving out worms and other parasites?  Or do 
> parasites simply not care for bacon? :)  On the same topic, how prevailent 
> was triconosis in the Middle Ages (or do we have any record)?  It seems that, 
> if it was as much of a problem then as in our time, wouldn't it have been 
> risky to ingest raw bacon?

Perhaps, but then there's all kinds of risky stuff being done in period,
when the basic principle of cause and effect [sometimes] wasn't always
as well understood as it [sometimes] is now. I don't have any
information on period trichinae, but suspect they might come under the
heading of Anthimus' "gnawing worms". My point was that if eating raw
bacon led to the expulsion of worms in the stool, the possibility exists
that it introduced them there in the first place, and that the "cure"
wouldn't necessarily remove them all. Just a thought. 

As for period bacon, differences would be likely to include using
several cuts that we wouldn't automatically associate with bacon today,
such as the chine or loin of smaller pigs, shoulders, jowls, or almost
anything with the possible exception of hams. In England, at least, we
seem to find references to ham, which would be, well, ham, you know, the
hind legs, for the most part, and then there's bacon, which would cover
everything else from the side, when cured. It also appears that bacon
was not always smoked. I wonder, though, what the levels of various
tars, creosote and such, would end up in a heavily cold-smoked piece of
bacon, and if there's any relationship between those chemicals and the
ones in tobacco which repel certain parasites. Bearing in mind, of
course, that the tobacco in this case isn't smoked.  
> 
> Now, don't go thinking I am one of those folks who overcook pork out of fear 
> of triconosis!  I like mine just fine when it's nice and juicy.

I've often written on the wall with a water-soluble magic marker, "140
or bust!" when cooking pork in restaurants or at events. I then make an
announcement, a la Le Menagier, that Germans are famous for liking their
foods overcooked, and that if there are any Germans out in the hall I'll
be happy to put slices of meat on the griddle for ritual incineration.  

Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com