I don’t tend to eat much fish, but in the supermarket earlier I saw some smoked salmon which didn’t need cooking, and some salmon fillets which did. They looked the same really - both ‘raw’. I decided to buy some of the fillet. It was nice, but a very different flavour from when I’ve tried smoked salmon in the past. The cooked fillet was quite chicken-y with a slight earthy/fishy taste, whereas smoked salmon has a very strong fish flavour.
Why do they taste so different? And why is smoked salmon safe to eat without cooking when other smoked fish do need cooking?
It’s salmon, you can eat that thing raw if you like, like beef too, just that with salmon you have to fully freeze it once to kill potential parasite worms.
Safe is a spectrum, I suppose. I eat rare beef and runny eggs, but there’s always a safety warning at the bottom of the menu. Still, the level of “safe” is a function of both temperature and time, at least according to the USDA.
Runny eggs are normal eggs I think, who boils them to the full hardness?
I mean sure it’s raw beef, bacteria will love it but as long as it’s fresh and well handled it can totally be eaten raw, unlike pork or chicken for example. I don’t mean rare, I mean raw, fully uncooked. Steak Tartar or carpaccio for example, two absolutely delicious meals.
According to my experience most people do like their eggs hardboiled. Personally I hate it, but I always have to specify and then I get hardboiled anyway.
Your and my threshold for acceptable risk seems to be similar. But we’re taking a risk. If you graph that risk, it lowers predictably based on time cooked, and the rate at which it lowers increases at higher temperatures. That was my only point, and I’m not sure if you’re disagreeing or just providing anecdotes and your preferences.
Even those can be eaten raw in the right circumstances. Just ask a German for Mettbrötchen