The rule is more or less the result of the incident in 1994 where four kids died from eating contaminated burgers at Jack in the Box (wikipedia).

I think there are a couple problems with what you propose. First, by re-writing the rule to consider abattoirs you involve a third level of government (they are federally-inspected, I believe) and getting three levels working together is probably not do-able. Also, after Maple Leaf Foods’ problems with listeria I don’t think the public has much trust in central meat-processing operations. Finally, where safety is concerned I don’t think any level of government wants to create two classes of meat–they want the public to think that it all meets top safety requirements.

Frankly, I can’t think of a fair and practical way to change the rules to get the desired result. Maybe more TPH inspections for the restaurants that opt to serve sub-71C burgers? The best case scenario is probably that at some point this rule is dropped as part of a larger reform of food service regulations. Right now my biggest issue is with the establishments (like the Burger Bar) which claim to pay careful attention to where their meat comes and yet aren’t in on the “secret” of the status quo.

(BTW, nice website. I’ve enjoyed several of your posts.)

I’m sure it was put in place because large scale abattoirs are inspected by the government, yet there is still ground meat with E.Coli being provided to our local grocery stores.

I believe the legislation should be amended to allow abattoirs have that 71 degree requirement waived if the grind procedure is within a small scale (set by legislation) and be regularly inspected just as the normal inspection.

therefore, ground meat providers can have the choice to sell small scale ground meat with the “seal of approval” that would allow restaurants to serve it however they want. OR to still produce large scale grinds (with the same inspection as it is currently done) and maintain their cost efficiency.

It would be a drastic change, and I’m sure a tough sell to have the government start putting this (or something similar) in place. As a burger enthusiast, I would like to see this enacted soon.

I went to burgerbar and got their “kobe” burger, was refused a medium doneness, and it was terrible.

Sheryl: To some extent I wanted to save the regulatory debate for a later post but I guess the comments here can be a starting point.

You’re right that the regulations make no distinction between in-house ground, fresh-ground, and commercial frozen.

The paralysed woman, Stephanie Smith, was infected with e. coli by a highly-processed, frozen hamburger cooked at home (NYT). I don’t advocate cooking these anything less than well-done.

When I started thinking about and searching for an excellent medium-rare burger in Toronto I too thought that on-site grinding should be the line between those who have to cook the meat well-done and those who don’t. After some reading and more consideration I have to disagree. For instance, George Motz’s Hamburger America tells of an old-style pub in New York City (I don’t have my copy here maybe P. J. Clark’s) that serves an excellent burger made from meat that a local butcher grinds daily and delivers by handcart. I don’t have a problem with this at all. In fact, because of more specialised expertise, returns on scale allowing for better equipment, and less chance of cross-contaminating ready-to-serve ingredients I’d rather see five local butchers grinding meat for twenty or thirty Toronto restaurants than all thirty do it themselves.

I suppose we may be talking about the same thing except I think the “safe” category should be extended to include locally-ground, never-frozen beef from two or three whole cuts.

Most of the places that will do a burger to order are places that are grinding their own meat in-house from choice cuts. It makes a huge difference in terms of food safety. As a customer, you can only trust that the restaurant is being honest about when/where the meat was ground, but that’s generally where the difference lies, although I don’t think the law makes that differentiation.

The confusion comes into play when servers are ill-informed. I was once at a restaurant where the server brought my husband a well-done steak (it had been ordered rare) and argued with him about whether the restaurant had to cook it to a certain temperature – it took speaking to a manager to conclude that she was confusing the steak with ground beef.

I’ve also been places where the server will accept an order for a rare burger and will bring it well-done without informing the customers of the rule and giving the option to order something else. Seriously – way to lose your tip.

Conversely, I’ve been to places that deny you specific toppings, too. Not because they were sold out of them either, but because they were the “purity police”. I’ve come across places that won’t give ketchup, others that are mustard nazis, and some mayo naysayers as well.

I put this silly regulation on par with all the nonsense surrounding the raw milk controversy. If you don’t want to eat (or drink it) you don’t have to, but at least let us have the option. Of course, that would mean more restaurants and dives would have to learn how to properly gauge doneness, which is an issue all it’s own.

I say, let them have burgers, any way that they like!