(cross-post of a thread in !food@slrpnk.net originally posted by someone else)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Of course this approach has its limits. I thought it was clear when I said that this method is to "check if food went bad".

If something like meat has not been cooked, or a dairy product has not been properly pasteurised, or there where unsanitary food production conditions, or not canned properly etc, this method does not apply.

It is definately not a way to check if something is eadible in general. And if you are pregnant or have special diatery needs, you know the specifics of your situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    AFAIK, you can't visually assess whether something's been "properly" pasteurized or canned, and plenty of traditional dishes use un/semi-cooked meats.

    The saying smacks of <90s (if not <50s) in its deceptive simplicity, and assumption that the listener is smart enough to suss out the rare moments it's applicable.

    (aside: definitely*, edible*)

  • source
  • parent