Pregnant women should be told they can safely enjoy runny eggs, almost 30 years after the salmonella crisis, according to a new report.
British eggs with the red "lion" brand carry such a low risk that vulnerable groups like expectant mothers and the elderly can eat them lightly cooked or raw in things like mayonnaise, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) said.
The report by its egg working group, the first since 2001, said lion-branded eggs should be categorised "very low" risk because of "a major reduction in the microbiological risk from salmonella" in British hen eggs in the last 15 years thanks to improved hygiene and storage.
It advised the Food Standards Agency to change its official advice on these eggs but recommends the warning remains in place for imported eggs, UK eggs without the lion and those from birds other than hens.
Fears over salmonella peaked in the late 1980s when two million chickens were slaughtered and pregnant women were told to avoid undercooked eggs.
The ACMSF report said: "The 'very low' risk level means that eggs produced under the Lion code, or produced under demonstrably equivalent comprehensive schemes, can be served raw or lightly cooked to all groups in society, including those that are more vulnerable to infection, in both domestic and commercial settings, including care homes and hospitals.
"The group recommends that the Food Standards Agency considers amending its advice on eggs in the light of the above."
In 1988 Edwina Currie, then a junior health minister, said most egg production in Britain was infected with salmonella. Her comments sparked a public outcry and two weeks later she was forced to resign.
By early 1989 the link between eggs and salmonella poisoning was proved beyond doubt.
An FSA spokeswoman said: "The committee has acknowledged that there has been a major reduction in the risk from salmonella in UK eggs since 2001. This is especially the case for eggs produced under the Lion brand scheme or equivalent schemes. We will await the results of the 12 week consultation on their draft report and then the FSA will consider whether to amend its advice."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here