|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Trichinosis.
|WikiProject Medicine / Dermatology||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|Wikipedia CD Selection|
1 in 6? 1 in 25? Not likely
This article states:
"For instance, in 1930, 1 out of every 6 persons in the U.S. had trichinosis; then by 1970 this incidence rate had decreased to 1 out every 25."
There is no way in hell that this is correct. According to the CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/00001752.htm , "In the period 1977-1981, the average number of reported cases per year was 137." So the number of cases per year dropped from tens of thousands per year to less than 180, in less than a decade? No, it didn't. According to the CDC, <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000404.htm> "Nevertheless, the reported incidence of trichinosis has declined in the United States from 300 to 400 cases annually in the late 1940s to about 100-150 cases per year (3)." I do not know who added these absurd "1 in 6" and "1 in 25" claims to the article, but I am removing them. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
According to the source -- Markell and Voge's Parasitology, the 1 of 6 figure was described as a rough estimate, seeing as there was likely inaccurate reporting in the 1930s, especially when the disease is relatively unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK, there are no known cases of trichinosis being spread by cannibalism. I know the person who made that addition, and I know that she knows of no such cases. It simply seemed logical to her. Is that misleading? Should we remove it? -User:Homo_Stannous
I guess it is kinda pointless to say if there aren't any known cases of it happening.
- The risk of trichinosis is the historical basis for the halal and kosher prohibitions on eating pork.
As far as I know there is no historical account of the basis for the dietary laws, and this must be speculation.
Prevention: Drying, Smoking, and Curing
Marked sentence "Curing (salting), drying, smoking, or microwaving meat does not consistently kill infective worms." in Prevention section as [verification needed]. Lacking reference, this claim seems to be strictly opinion. The word "consistently" is highly subject to interpretation. There is evidence that at least some of the methods mentioned are acceptable practice. See: USDA regulations PART 318—ENTRY INTO OFFICIAL ESTABLISHMENTS; REINSPECTION AND PREPARATION OF PRODUCTS § 318.10 Prescribed treatment of pork and products containing pork to destroy trichinae. Recommend removal of this sentence barring addition of justifying references. --TRosenbaum 15:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Added references and explained CDC recommendations (likely intended to discourage amateur processing of pork using these methods) vs USDA regulations for commercial food processors (apparently under carefully controlled conditions, drying and curing can be effective in inactivating trichina). Don't try this at home kids. --TRosenbaum 16:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Prevention: Cooking temperature
Where does the recommendation to cook pork to 170 Fahrenheit come from? The FDA Food regulations, Title 9, section 318.10 say that 144 degrees Fahrenheit are sufficient to kill trichinosis parasites and larvae. Conceivably this only applies to trichinosis in pork, not in wild meat. Still, encouraging cooks to produce 170 degree pork roasts results in a lot of over-dry shoe leather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone cares, but the Swedish government agency "Smittskyddsinstitutet" recommends that meat from wild board and bear be heated to 68 deg C (154 deg fahrenheit) to kill the larvae (source: http://www.smittskyddsinstitutet.se/sjukdomar/trikinos/ ). --Avl (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't get a very clear message about cooking commercial pork. Since it is rare in commercially raised pork, why worry? I am sure pork tastes better a bit pink, like other meat, though I haven't tried it yet. I would guess that the saturated fat content and calories are vastly bigger health issues? It would even seem likely that less done meat is more nutritious and less carcinogenic than well done meat. According to a Physics Today article on heat transfer in cooking, meat is often not done exactly as desired, so home remedies are poor substitutes for control of commercial meat. For wild game, cooking till hot is clearly necessary. David R. Ingham (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Why is the phrase "the few cases" tagged as weasel words in "The few cases in the United States are mostly the result of eating undercooked game, bear meat, or home reared pigs" in the introduction? The article later provides a reference saying that there are around 12 cases per annum and stating this cause. Why is the tag there? Does someone dispute that 12 in 300 million is a few? It appears to be a misapplication of the tag, but I'm not an expert Wiki lawyer.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Article overplays frequency and severity of symptoms in most cases
Can a person get Trichinosis from eating smoked cured ham that hasn't been cooked? How much of it does one have to eat? How many days after eating it would a person see symptoms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
home raised pigs?
Where is the citation that supports the statement that any of the cases of trichinosis reported in the United States are confirmed to be from home raised pigs? My question is regarding the statement in the first paragraph which was earlier tagged for "weasel words" (whatever that means). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have seen a few cooking programmes on the Food Network that advocated "rare" pork---pink. Are they asking for trouble? The person suggested that the risk of Trichinosis is so low nowadays that people should cook pork only slightly just as they might do with rare beef. I have never been a fan of rare beef, when it comes down to it. My father said that there was a time when beef tapeworm was a problem, but I know nothing about that. Frankly, I am not much of a meat-eater nowadays, but I prefer my meat to be fully cooked, not pink and leaking blood. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just for the record, meat sold commercially almost never contains any blood. The fluid that leaks from rare meat is mostly water; the color is due to myoglobin. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- And the fact that there are only about 12 cases per year in the US, mostly from game meat, should answer your question. There's essentially no risk of trichinosis from commercially purchased meat in the US. Mnudelman (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cite error: The named reference
twowas invoked but never defined (see the help page).