Salmonella limit in raw chicken meat
The USDA recently withdrew a rule that established a maximum limit of Salmonella in chicken meat (10 CFU per gram), so that products with a higher Salmonella content could not be marketed (adulterated food).
The draft was published in 2024, and a public comment period was established.
Now, the USDA has withdrawn the draft, allowing chicken meat containing Salmonella to be legally marketed.
Thus, raw chicken meat can reach restaurants and home kitchens, and it is the responsibility of kitchen staff to control this risk (avoid cross-contamination, hygiene, hand washing, temperature of cooking ,etc.).
In the United States, more than one million cases of human salmonellosis are reported, with more than 400 deaths annually.
Is it a good idea not to limit the Salmonella content in raw chicken meat?
I'm kind of mixed on what this rule was intending to do. USDA already enforces recalls for salmonella in poultry at will when it's detected, so adding a numerical limit seemed arbitrary. It also differed from the rule for breaded and stuffed chicken which limits to 1CFU of poultry. Why would they permit 10x the contamination on the parts or whole carcasses?
With this proposal not being implemented, I don't understand how the news agencies are implying that we're less safe. All chicken goes through USDA inspected sites already, and if they catch a salmonella positive they're going to force a recall regardless.
The USDA recently withdrew a rule that established a maximum limit of Salmonella in chicken meat (10 CFU per gram), so that products with a higher Salmonella content could not be marketed (adulterated food).
The draft was published in 2024 and established a public .
Now, the USDA has withdrawn the draft, allowing chicken meat containing Salmonella to be legally marketed.
Thus, raw chicken meat can reach restaurants and home kitchens, and it is the responsibility of kitchen staff to control this risk (avoid cross-contamination, hygiene, hand washing, temperature of cooking ,etc.).
In the United States, more than one million cases of human salmonellosis are reported, with more than 400 deaths annually.
Is it a good idea not to limit the Salmonella content in raw chicken meat?
I think from the farm level, to claim salmonella as an adulterant would have dramatically hurt the poultry industry. Also, I understand the value of Biomapping facilities to see incoming flock reductions, etc... but to give point systems (cat. ratings) based on 'good and bad' serovars seems a bit drawn out... what other organisms do we do that with in the US?
I think the proposed draft was a step in the right direction but we desperately need to modernize our food safety/monitoring programs w/ better multiplex systems. Also, why do we forget about other organisms of interest like Campylobacter
Flocks in the UK are inoculated against Salmonella. Additionally by having controls on presence, it forces a farm to fork approach on hygiene. So I think this rule could have encouraged the right behaviours.
This article does a good job of explaining the regulations in Europe vs the USA. Two different approaches. Like Problemsolved mentioned - the regulation was based upon good thought. However if individuals would cook their chicken properly or not do cross contact - the issue would be eliminated too.
This article does a good job of explaining the regulations in Europe vs the USA. Two different approaches. Like Problemsolved mentioned - the regulation was based upon good thought. However if individuals would cook their chicken properly or not do cross contact - the issue would be eliminated too.
The article is a little sniffy regarding EU rules. But they're right in the precautionary principle holding sway and to my mind, as a former EU member state, it does not compute to add in wet processing into a factory (when water is a fantastic vector and peracetics are very quickly consumed by soil) when there are alternative controls which work at least as well.
A bit of AI searching as infection rates as similar with about 16 per 100k in the EU and 17 per 100k in the US but considering US healthcare vs. EU, I'd suggest risks of under reporting are not equivalent.
The article is a little sniffy regarding EU rules. But they're right in the precautionary principle holding sway and to my mind, as a former EU member state, it does not compute to add in wet processing into a factory (when water is a fantastic vector and peracetics are very quickly consumed by soil) when there are alternative controls which work at least as well.
A bit of AI searching as infection rates as similar with about 16 per 100k in the EU and 17 per 100k in the US but considering US healthcare vs. EU, I'd suggest risks of under reporting are not equivalent.
Foodborne illness is underreported universally. While underreporting may be more pronounced in the US, attributing this solely to healthcare access oversimplifies a complex issue. The EU emphasizes preventive measures and dry processing, whereas the US relies more on antimicrobial interventions at the plant level. Both approaches aim to ensure safety, but comparisons should consider broader systemic differences.
I'm kind of mixed on what this rule was intending to do. USDA already enforces recalls for salmonella in poultry at will when it's detected, so adding a numerical limit seemed arbitrary. It also differed from the rule for breaded and stuffed chicken which limits to 1CFU of poultry. Why would they permit 10x the contamination on the parts or whole carcasses?
With this proposal not being implemented, I don't understand how the news agencies are implying that we're less safe. All chicken goes through USDA inspected sites already, and if they catch a salmonella positive they're going to force a recall regardless.
1. Breaded and Stuffed APPEAR to be cooked (even when just par fried) so the risks to the consumer are higher
2. The raw is just that, RAW, no visual appearance of it being cooked, hence the risk the consumer is lower as the vast majority of people know how to cook chicken
Canada follow below for salmonella in poultry processing AND requires all breaded chicken products to be fully cooked, not just par fried as too many people, A) use the microwave to cook it or B) thought it looked cooked and made assumptions based on that even thought the packaging had to say RAW
While it's true that there are 1 million human cases of salmonellosis in the United States, and although exposure to salmonella doesn't occur solely through the consumption of poultry, the United States has a serious problem with salmonellosis.
In Europe, 77,000 human cases of salmonella were reported in 2023, with a population of 447 million, a rate of 18 cases per 100,000 inhabitants.
If the United States truly has 1 million cases annually out of a population of 340 million, it has a rate of 294 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. 19,000 annual hospitalizations by Salmonella? 400 annual deaths by Salmonella? Bacterial resistance to antibiotics? New serotypes?
It seems that leaving the problem to proper cooking at home may not be enough
I'm kind of mixed on what this rule was intending to do. USDA already enforces recalls for salmonella in poultry at will when it's detected, so adding a numerical limit seemed arbitrary. It also differed from the rule for breaded and stuffed chicken which limits to 1CFU of poultry. Why would they permit 10x the contamination on the parts or whole carcasses?
With this proposal not being implemented, I don't understand how the news agencies are implying that we're less safe. All chicken goes through USDA inspected sites already, and if they catch a salmonella positive they're going to force a recall regardless.
If there is a salmonella positive in raw chicken breast - not a recall. Salmonella in cooked RTE chicken - then a recall.