How to Know if an Oyster is Safe to Eat

Like so many things in life, oysters defend themselves against being desirable by being potentially deadly. The maxim used to be that it's safe to eat oysters in any month with an "r" in it -- i.e., September -- April. Well, January has an "r" in it, but after a recent mishap, I got curious: when, exactly, is it safe to eat oysters, when not, and what makes an oyster safe to eat anyway? Here is some information for molluskophiles, molluskophiliacs, and molluskophobes.*
What is an oyster? An oyster is an animal that belongs to one of the groups of bivalve mollusks which live in brackish marine habitats and belongs to the species Ostrea, Crassostrea or Saccostrea. From the human perspective, oysters are used as food or to grow pearls (though the oysters that do the one do not typically also do the other).

From the oysters' point of view, food oysters do not fulfill that office just for humans but also other marine life, which may be one reason oysters live in clusters called beds, some of which form reefs as long as fifty miles, and why they live in shells that they can clamp shut against invaders. As for pearl oysters, they have problems of their own and are not patient with hearing the complaints of the food oysters, and it is reaction to this and other irritations that causes the formation of the pearl. Biologically, oysters are a more complex form of marine life than you think when you find them embedded on shaved ice and bathed in mignonette: they breathe, eat, defecate, and reproduce sexually -- often performing that function solo not in the way you're thinking of but by the fact that some species can and do change sexes during their lifespan.
What is a food oyster? Food oysters belong to the family Ostreidae, or "true" oysters. They are harvested from beds simply: by hand, rake or dredge. The safest food oysters come from commercial beds, where, just as with other food animals raised for that purpose, conditions are professionally monitored and managed. To ensure that you are buying legally farmed and harvested oysters, ask your vendor -- whether fishmonger or grocer (see below) -- to see the shipper's tag. This will tell you if the oysters were harvested from approved waters, and list the names and affiliations of the harvester, processor and shipper.
What about an oyster makes me sick?* If you get sick from oysters, it is either due to allergy or bacteria, and be warned: either presence can manifest unannounced. Allergies first: along with nuts, allergy to shellfish is the most common food allergy. Shellfish allergy is divided into two classes: crustaceans (lobster, crab, shrimp, etc.) and mollusks (oysters, clams, mussels, etc.). Shellfish allergy is primarily due to an individual's reaction to tropomyosin, a protein present in shellfish. As a rule, people are who are allergic to one sort of shellfish are not necessarily allergic to all of them; i.e., if you're allergic to mollusks you may or may not be allergic to crustaceans. Further, the allergy may be individuated: i.e., if you're allergic to mollusks it may be only to raw while cooked is fine, or only to oysters but not to clams. Finally, food allergies ebb and flow as do the tides that feed the oyster beds. So the only way to know if you're a) allergic to shellfish and b) what kinds of shellfish c) prepared how is to d) take your allergist to dinner. Or at least make an appointment with one (an allergist, not a mollusk).
As for bacteria, that is vibrio vulnificus, a rod-shaped bacterium that, unlike most bacteria, tolerates salt, making it a natural inhabitant of the same marine environments that also host oyster beds. In healthy people, eating shellfish that hosts the vibrio vulnificus bacteria can lead to a nasty case of food poisoning that can feature vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain; but in people with compromised immune systems (especially those with chronic liver disease), the bacteria can infect the bloodstream, causing severe and potentially life-threatening reactions. In occurences of both allergic reaction and bacterial contamination, it is crucial to timely seek qualified medical attention.
How about eating oysters in restaurants or buying them at the grocery store? If you're not allergic to them, you should be safe ordering oysters on the half shell in a restaurant as the restaurant should have gotten the oysters from a reputable fishmonger and should be serving them fresh, discarding any that may be "off" (see below). If in doubt, ask to speak with the chef preparing the dish that night and don't order unless you feel sufficiently reassured. Also don't be shy about testing the oysters at table. You will not look any sillier sniffing a fresh oyster before you pop it into your mouth than you will as the thing, once it passes inspection, slithers down your throat while the liquor dribbles down your chin and the hot sauce makes your eyes water. If you're not allergic and if the oysters are cooked, then you should also be fine as the heat will have destroyed the bacteria if there was any to begin with.
At home, it is best to buy fresh oysters the day you plan to consume them. Buy them from a reputable fishmonger, who aside from speaking to the provenance of the oysters can speak to their qualities, a welcome conversation for the home cook. Oysters should be tightly closed but there will inevitably be a few in the pile that are slightly open -- for these, have the fishmonger or grocery store counter staff do the "tap test": upon tapping, any open shells should close. Don't buy oysters that fail the tap test, and don't buy oysters that are bagged together, as it is impossible to tell which are safe and which not. Keep the oysters ice cold on the way home, and store them in open air (still on ice) once there. Though you might think otherwise, it is harmful to submerge them in water, as they still require oxygen and unless you are a marine biologist you cannot reproduce at home the natural environment that allows them to breathe. Test them again (tap tap) before preparing. Do not serve or taste any that smell 'off' (see below).
How do I know if an oyster has gone "off"? Honestly? Common sense. But here are the details: for both restaurant oysters and those you prepare yourself, the oyster should smell clean and briny. The meat should nestle snugly in the shell, though a little professional loosening is acceptable to the diner if not exactly to the oyster. Both shell and meat should be clean white, with a little pink or gray highlighting being acceptable, beneath a glassy sheen. Any oyster whose meat or liquor looks cloudy, brown, gray, blackish or reddish, or which smells brackish, should be discarded.
So what about those months with the "r" in them? There are too many legends as to where this aphorism came from to identify its true source (my favorite holds that it was introduced by Native Americans, which does not account for the fact that coastal tribes who ate shellfish would have been doing so long before being introduced to the Julian calendar via invasion). The more basic truth is that, wherever it came from, the "month with an r" proverb developed because those months coincide with northern hemisphere summer. During those warmest months, a variety of changes occur in marine environments, everything from red tide to spawning. These phenomena would make food oysters less desireable both aesthetically and hygenically during this time. As you're now committed to eating only commercially grown and harvested oysters provided you're not allergic to them to begin with, the maxim doesn't really apply, as the dangerous or unappealing conditions of the months-without-an-r are premanaged for you by harvesters, processors, shippers, fishmongers, chefs and, presumably, the oysters. That said, though this is a point of debate, oysters are at their best during autumn, winter and early spring.
*Note: though the scientific information in this post was gathered from scientific and medical resources, it is not meant to be the advise or treatment of a medical doctor.

Man Sues Over Mouse in His Energy Drink Can

Ok, if this doesn't sound like an April Fool's Day joke, what does? "Man Sues Monster Energy Drinks for Putting a Dead Mouse in His Can."

We didn't want to end up with our, um, tail getting pulled, so we called up Reed Yurchak, who was reported as the attorney in the case, and asked him if it was true.

The short answer is...gross.

It turns out that Yurchak's client, 19-year-old Vitaliy Sulzhik, claims that he purchased a can of the hyper-caffeinated beverage last year from a local supermarket in Des Moines, Washington. (Not Iowa, folks, as has been reported.) Sulzhik was looking to get his Monster buzz on; instead, what he says he ended up with was a mouthful of...mouse.

The rigor mortis-ed rodent had somehow met its end at the bottom of the can. Sulzhik claims that he immediately lost his lunch; he eventually turned the can, mouse and all, over to Yurchak, who sent it to a local lab.
Yurchak says that he's spent almost a year trying to get the makers of Monster to own up to the dirty deed.

"It's one of those situation where you wouldn't want it to have to come to this," Yurchak tells Slashfood. "And it wouldn't have if we'd gotten any sort of response from the company. But they just kept stonewalling."

But the company has responded publicly, pointing out that Yurchak left the opened can unattended in his car, leaving plenty of time for a mouse to crawl into the drink.

The statement reads in part:
Common sense would dictate that if a mouse had been introduced into the can at production (a virtually impossible scenario given modern production technologies) which occurred months prior to Mr. Sulzhik's consumption of the product, the mouse would have deteriorated and the product would not have been drinkable from the very first sip.


The suit Yurchak filed on his client's behalf seeks "reasonable compensation" for the incident, though Yurchak wouldn't elaborate. He says that ever since Sulzhik found himself swigging the Mickey, he's developed a fear of packaged foods.

As he was preparing the lawsuit, Yurchak claims that he was contacted by a woman who said she'd discovered a dead mouse in her can of Monster a few years ago. The "reasonable compensation" she received from the company: a free case of Monster.

If claims like this keep piling up, at the very least it would seem it's time to change Monster's slogan. "Unleash the Beast," indeed.

Are Farm Animals Headed to Rehab?

Whether it was baked chicken or a grilled steak, it's likely that the meat you had for dinner last night contained an array of pharmaceuticals. Alarmed by potential drug resistance in both animals and in humans, on Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration called for more judicious use of antimicrobial drugs in the production of animals raised for food.

Antimicrobial drugs were introduced to industrial farming more than 50 years ago as a way to prevent disease in animals. But the FDA is concerned that many of the drugs have lost their effectiveness due to the development of drug-resistant microbial strains. The government agency wants meat producers to stop using the drugs to boost production and promote growth.

"Limiting the use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals only for assuring animal health. Unfortunately, many operations use antimicrobials to increase production, or to produce larger animals, which contributes to the misuse of the drugs and raises the possibility of antibiotic resistance," FDA officials said in a statement.
"The development of resistance to this important class of drugs, and the resulting loss of their effectiveness as antimicrobial therapies, poses a serious public health threat," the FDA said in the statement.

Not surprisingly, the meat industry is unhappy with the recommendations. The National Pork Producers Council said the FDA guidelines were too much, claiming they would keep the industry from using medications to keep their animals healthy.

"There is no scientific study linking antibiotic food use in food animal production with antibiotic resistance," the council said in a statement of their own.

Scientists at the Union of Concerned Scientists beg to differ. Margaret Mellon, a member of the organization, says the council's claim is "patently untrue."

"There is a mountain of studies linking the use of antibiotics in animals to the evolution of resistant pathogens that cause human disease," she told the Los Angeles Times.

Whatever the case, the brouhaha is all a little premature. The FDA document isn't a regulation or even a proposed regulation. The FDA will open a 60-day comment period on this issue, then decide on what regulations (if any) to impose. In the meantime, if you're concerned about what's in your meat, organic is always an option. It might be pricier, but it comes without the pill bottles.

So Where's The Good Beef? Five Labels For The Humanely Raised

Ever since man made the crossbow, he decided it a necessary evil to kill or raise an animal for food. It's not something most of us think about much since few of us need to do it ourselves. But the more that recalls, seedy reports and gruesome videos surface, like the recent undercover clips at Smithfield Foods, we're reminded that we very much need to be aware of where our meat comes from and how the animals are treated before they become ribs, steaks and drumsticks. Or how chickens are housed and treated while producing the eggs that will become tomorrow's omelet.

That's a lot easier now. There are at least five labels out there letting consumers know which meat comes from humanely raised livestock. And thanks to a new report (.pdf) released this week by Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC), each organization's standards have been categorized in a comparison chart so we know exactly what conditions are factored in to warrant certification for cattle, chickens and pigs. This includes air quality, slaughter method and whether livestock are finished on feedlots. They even specify how many hours a chicken should have darkness (because under fluorescent lights, chickens continue to eat if they think it's day, and factory farms love to fatten chickens in a hurry).

HFAC/Certified Humane and Animal Welfare Approved require the most humane practices and are the most transparent (with no conflicts of interest) of the five labels, which also include USDA/Organic, American Humane Certified and Global Animal Partnership (that is, Whole Foods Market).
Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) is the only humane label that saves livestock from feedlots. An AWA farm can only use antibiotics if an animal is sick (same for HFAC) and must allow for a weaning period of at least 42 days, two weeks more than the other certifications. Length of time of transport to slaughter is also the most humane for an AWA animal: no more than 8 hours.

According to the chart, Whole Foods allows for cattle castration without anesthesia and apparently doesn't care how the animal is slaughtered (neither does USDA/Organic) or if chickens have access to the outside (neither does American Humane Certified).

It's easy to find your nearest AWA-certified farms (or apply for certification) through their Web site where they've also started adding full profiles of each farm, such as Finger Lakes Dexter Creamery. This particular family farm is home to a small herd of dwarf Irish Dexter cows raised for nutty pro-biotic kefir cheese, an American rarity derived from the European tradition of drinking raw kefir milk for its high nutritive qualities.

You can also search for AWA-certified products at your nearest Whole Foods Market, even if their own label doesn't satisfy every conscious carnivore. And for announcements like newly approved farms and market events, follow them on Twitter at @AWAapproved.