this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
43 points (93.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43780 readers
856 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Salmonella. It's carried in chicken dung, sometimes eggs get a bit of feces on them, so the US washes them to attempt to reduce exposure.
Problem is that without the protective coating, the eggs are more permeable and susceptible to bacterial infection, hence the refrigeration.
So it's a question of whether it's better to reduce bacteria exposure or susceptibility. I am sure there's research out there with numbers indicating one works better than the other, but it's been such a long-standing thing at this point that I don't think Americans would trust unrefrigerated eggs.
Both work for protecting humans. However, I believe vaccination is better overall. It also improves the quality of life of the chickens. Unfortunately, it's also (very slightly) more expensive, so America went the cheap route. The EU mandated to reduce animal cruelty, by vaccination.
The research shows both methods are equally effective at controlling salmonella, afaik