Los Angeles schools are going to
start serving sushi, apparently. Now, while I do enjoy sushi every once in a while--and have even scared friends by going for the wasabi (they thought my tastes were just bland midwestern)--count me as uneasy about this one. To put it mildly, the fact of the matter is that deep frying food, or even
drowning it in grease, can be a great way of making inexpensive foods safe to eat. Given that I'm guessing they're not going to be putting $15/lb fish on the menu, and they're not going to be paying good sushi chefs $30/hour to prepare it, suffice it to say that the prospects for food safety in this particular menu are not especially appetizing.
8 comments:
One of my favorite mommy bloggers (and a long time reader of my blog) was on Fox and Friends debating the folly of this plan. That's where I first heard about it. She thinks it's a waste of money and I agree with her.
I hadn't even considered the food safety angle. You're right about that too, of course. Sounds tasty!
I couldn't miss the food safety angle. My late mother worked in food service for nearly fifty years--I could almost do kitchen inspections for the county with what she taught me.
So puke in honor of this?
What is the food safety problem with vinegared rice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushi
Not much with vinegared rice per se, everything with raw fish prepared incorrectly. In other words, technically the problem is with the "neta".
Good to hear from you again, and hope you're doing well.
But is there any indication that raw fish will be used in these cafeterias? It's a misconception that "sushi contains raw fish." I think in actual practice, it's less likely to have it, than not to. Cooked fish and vegetables are very common neta. And since fresh fish is a relatively expensive product, it's hard to believe it would be school cafeteria fare. It's far more likely the sushi will contain other neta.
My objection here is jumping to the conclusion that raw fish is anywhere in this story, that's all.
Mebbe.....but cold meats are notorious for carrying disease anyways, even if previously cooked. (that's why they recommend pregnant women avoid lunch meats....it's a listeria hazard when you've got a dozen people handling the olive loaf)
Okay, but are you suggesting that schools not serve sandwiches, then? Or have you objected to that in the past?
I just don't see the new level of bad here unless you assume that sushi = raw fish, which it doesn't, and isn't likely to in a school cafeteria setting, and would therefore be a fallacious reason to object to this. That school cafeterias leave a lot to be desired is beyond question, but it's not because sushi, lunchmeat, or the lack thereof.
Oh, now you're getting at me with a greater degree of sophistication regarding the consumption of bait than pertaineth to the average reader! :^)
Seriously, my only response is that what people typically buy at the sushi bar is indeed raw fish, even if the word doesn't specifically refer to that in Japanese.
Inasmuch as a "California Roll" described in the article generally does have raw crab, I'd have to assume that the school district is indeed risking an additional level of difficulty in food preparation for the school lunch.
And I'll admit that for the same reason, supermarket sushi frankly scares me, even though I've yet to hear of problems with it.
(and yeah, I'm the guy who has eaten at food bazaars in third world nations.....inconsistent I am at times!)
Post a Comment