Re: Lamb that is undercooked
In article <email@example.com>,
Nancy2 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On May 30, 8:19 am, Giusi <decob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > monrae fordi wrote:
> > > We get almost raw 'rare steak' to eat and the french eat raw minced beef.
> > > But we are warned not to undercook pork, since some parasites are not
> > > killed
> > > if undercooked.
> > > What i want to ask is what is the situation with Lamb? Sometimes I see
> > > Lamb
> > > that is still a bit pink in the middle, is that o.k.? Since to my mind
> > > it
> > > seems better a bit undercooked. thanks for advice on whether lamb is
> > > safe
> > > to eat in this situation.
> > Absolutely safe and IMO absolutely better.
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
> In the U.S., that business about pork is really no longer valid; there
> haven't been any cases of trichinosis reported for ages (at least
> that's what I read somewhere). I regularly cook my pork tenderloins
> only to about 120-130 and then let it rest under foil for about 15
> Lamb is ALWAYS better when rare. Always. And safe.
CDC says there are about 12 cases of Trichinellosis a year in recent
years. With a good percentage of those from wild game.
Rare lamb? Leg, saddle, loin and related cuts are fine when rare. But a
rare shoulder or shank are far too tough. Rare ribs- way too much fat.
If you braise or spit roast the tougher cuts they don't dry out that