Would you eat a chicken that died through sickness, or injury?

Pics
Those who hunt and eat what they kill have no means of assessing whether what they kill carries a disease unless the animal looks obviously sick.
We tend to assume that the chicken we buy is disease free and trust various legislation to ensure that drugs used in the rearing of food for human consumption are safe.
History shows that our confidence in disease and chemical free food is unfounded. As science discovers more about the possible effects on humans of the techniques used to provide us with food through intensive farming methods the long term health consequences to humans is being called into question. This is after all one of the factors that drives backyard chicken keeping; it's not just the appalling conditions food animals are kept in, it's reasonable doubt about the effects of the way they are fed and the drugs used to try to prevent diseases spreading through a flock that may comprise thousand of chickens.
Other creatures and other cultures do not have the same view regarding what is fit for consumption. Travel through Asia and Africa and you can see in the markets cuts of meat hanging around the stalls covered in flies. Local people eat this without any apparent ill effects in the majority of cases.
So I can't help wondering if it's our perception of the condition of our food rather than hard evidence of it's health effects that determine what we will and won't eat.
There is also a view that by over sanitizing our food supply we are in fact laying ourselves open to possibly fatal consequences from pathogens that other cultures with less stringent sanitation might cause a mildly upset stomach. A bit like the chickens defense to coccididiosis, they build an immunity over time.
An example of how perception rather than reality influences peoples food choices comes up on BYC from time to time from people mentioning that their friends, or whatever won't eat the free range eggs they offer.
I tend to believe it's peoples perception rather than a realistic assessment of risk that influences whether or not they would eat a chicken that died from an injury or old age with regard to the health aspect.
The emotional response to finding it impossible to eat a creature you have become fond of I find more understandable. I do have problems with this, but on the other hand if I was really hungry I would suggest to those people around me that they kept moving.:lol:
 
A point about pathogens.
Every year some new strain of an existing pathogen is discovered.
It's the pathogens ability to mutate rapidly that makes it particularly dangerous.
What is safe to eat today isn't necessarily going to be safe at some point in the future.
In order to be risk free one would have to stop eating. We have to eat so we make a risk assessment rather than indulging in knee jerk reactions to every possible risk.
With regard to eating dead, elderly or sick chickens there is always a risk. One needs to apply some intelligence to making a risk assessment.
Here is an example of what was considered safe turning out to not be quite so safe after all. Thousands of infected cattle were eaten by humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy
 
There's paranoia, and reasonable caution, and food safety. Also news, misinformation, and the disconnect in the USA between actual food production and the supermarket. Most people here shop at the market, and have no idea where that meat or whatever comes from, or how it's produced.
Overall we do pretty well in the USA related to food safety, compared to many other places!
There's actually no real way to count the number of food related illnesses anywhere, because only people who visit a doctor get counted, at best.
Mary
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom