Mythbusting Moldy Food

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

Most Food Should Not Be Fuzzy

In yesterday’s newsletter, we asked you for your policy when it comes to mold on food (aside from intentional mold, e.g. blue cheese etc), and the responses were interesting:

  • About 49% said “throw the whole thing away no matter what it is; it is dangerous
  • About 24% said “cut the mold off and eat the rest of whatever it is
  • The remainder were divided equally between “eat it all; keep the immune system on its toes” and “cut the mold off bread, but moldy animal products are dangerous

So what does the science say?

Some molds are safe to eat: True or False?

True! We don’t think this is contentious so we’ll not spend much time on it, but just for the sake of being methodical: foods that are supposed to have mold on, including many kinds of cheese and even some kinds of cured meat (salami is an example; that powdery coating is mold).

We could give a big list of safe and unsafe molds, but that would be a list of names and let’s face it, they don’t introduce themselves by name.

However! The litmus test of “is it safe to eat” is:

Did you acquire it with this mold already in place and exactly as expected and advertised?

  • If so, it is safe to eat (unless you have an allergy or such)
  • If not, it is almost certainly not safe to eat

(more on why, later)

The “sniff test” is a good way to tell if moldy food is bad: True or False?

False. Very false. Because of how the sense of smell works.

You may feel like smell is a way of knowing about something at a distance, but the only way you can smell something is if particles of it are physically connecting with your olfactory receptors inside you. Yes, that has unfortunate implications about bathroom smells, but for now, let’s keep our attention in the kitchen.

If you sniff a moldy item of food, you will now have its mold spores inside your respiratory system. You absolutely do not want them there.

If we cut off the mold, the rest is safe to eat: True or False?

True or False, depending on what it is:

  • Hard vegetables (e.g carrots, cabbage), and hard cheeses (e.g. Gruyère, Gouda) – cut off with an inch margin, and it should be safe
  • Soft vegetables (e.g. tomatoes, and any vegetables that were hard but are now soft after cooking) – discard entirely; it is unsafe
  • Anything elsediscard entirely; it is unsafe

The reason for this is because in the case of the hard products mentioned, the mycelium roots of the mold cannot penetrate far.

In the case of the soft products mentioned, the surface mold is “the tip of the iceberg”, and the mycelium roots, which you will not usually be able to see, will penetrate the rest of it.

Anything else” seems like quite a sweeping statement, but fruits, soft cheeses, yogurt, liquids, jams and jellies, cooked grains and pasta, meats, and yes, bread, are all things where the roots can penetrate deeply and easily. Regardless of you only being able to see a small amount, the whole thing is probably moldy.

The USDA has a handy downloadable factsheet:

Molds On Food: Are They Dangerous?

Eating a little mold is good for the immune system: True or False?

False, generally. There are of course countless types of mold, but not only are many of them pathogenic (mycotoxins), but also, a food that has mold will usually also have pathogenic bacteria along with the mold.

See for example: Occurrence, Toxicity, and Analysis of Major Mycotoxins in Food

Food poisoning will never make you healthier.

But penicillin is safe to eat: True or False?

False, and also penicillin is not the mold on your bread (or other foods).

Penicillin, an antibiotic* molecule, is produced by some species of Penicillium sp., a mold. There are hundreds of known species of Penicillium sp., and most of them are toxic, usually in multiple ways. Take for example:

Penicillium roqueforti PR toxin gene cluster characterization

*it is also not healthy to consume antibiotics unless it is seriously necessary. Antibiotics will wipe out most of your gut’s “good bacteria”, leaving you vulnerable. People have died from C. diff infections for this reason. So obviously, if you really need to take antibiotics, take them as directed, but if not, don’t.

See also: Four Ways Antibiotics Can Kill You

One last thing…

It may be that someone reading this is thinking “I’ve eaten plenty of mold, and I’m fine”. Or perhaps someone you tell about this will say that.

But there are two reasons this logic is flawed:

  • Survivorship bias (like people who smoke and live to 102; we just didn’t hear from the 99.9% of people who smoke and die early)
  • Being unaware of illness is not being absent of illness. Anyone who’s had an alarming diagnosis of something that started a while ago will know this, of course. It’s also possible to be “low-level ill” often and get used to it as a baseline for health. It doesn’t mean it’s not harmful for you.

Stay safe!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • What Causes Your Appendix To Burst?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    And what does it feel like?

    Spoiler: it isn’t fun

    Story time: in April 1961, during the Sixth Soviet Antarctic Expedition, Dr. Leonid Rogozov developed appendicitis while isolated by a blizzard, leaving him with the choice of waiting for help (near certain death) or performing surgery on himself (not an enviable task, but fair chance of survival); he successfully removed his own appendix under local anesthesia and returned to work two weeks later.

    And that’s why it’s now not uncommon to have a prophylactic appendectomy before going there!

    First, let’s bust a myth: the appendix is a small, worm-shaped pouch attached to the large intestine that contains a diverse community of gut microbes; although once considered a useless evolutionary remnant, evidence suggests it evolved independently in many mammals, suggesting it serves some useful functions, such as (at the very least) acting as a non-moving (unlike the rest of the gut) reservoir for beneficial gut bacteria, and/or contributing to beneficial immune responses.

    However. Sometimes the immune responses are not at all beneficial, and appendicitis usually begins when the appendix becomes blocked, often by an appendicolith (hardened feces), or when infections and/or misfiring immune responses cause nearby lymph tissue to swell and seal its opening.

    This gets very dangerous very quickly because the appendix is a closed-ended pouch, meaning blockage causes pressure to build, allowing bacteria to multiply rapidly; as swelling increases, blood flow is reduced, weakening the appendix until it may rupture, releasing bacteria into the abdominal cavity and causing a potentially life-threatening infection.

    How to recognize it: appendicitis typically causes pain that begins near the belly button before moving to the lower right abdomen and becoming more severe, unlike a typical stomach ache.

    Not included in the video, but there’s a useful self-check that you can do too: if you are experiencing a sharp pain in that general area and are worrying if it is appendicitis, then pressing on the appropriately named McBurney’s point is a first-line test for appendicitis. If, after pressing, it hurts a lot more upon removal of pressure (rather than upon application of pressure), this is considered a likely sign of appendicitis. Get thee to a hospital, quickly.

    And if it doesn’t? Still get it checked out at your earliest convenience, of course (better safe than sorry), but you might make an appointment instead of calling an ambulance.

    For more on all of this (apart from that last addition of ours), enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like:

    Women and Minorities Bear the Brunt of Medical Misdiagnosis

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Why do disinfectants only kill 99.9% of germs? Here’s the science

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Have you ever wondered why most disinfectants indicate they kill 99.9% or 99.99% of germs, but never promise to wipe out all of them? Perhaps the thought has crossed your mind mid-way through cleaning your kitchen or bathroom.

    Surely, in a world where science is able to do all sorts of amazing things, someone would have invented a disinfectant that is 100% effective?

    The answer to this conundrum requires understanding a bit of microbiology and a bit of mathematics.

    Davor Geber/Shutterstock

    What is a disinfectant?

    A disinfectant is a substance used to kill or inactivate bacteria, viruses and other microbes on inanimate objects.

    There are literally millions of microbes on surfaces and objects in our domestic environment. While most microbes are not harmful (and some are even good for us) a small proportion can make us sick.

    Although disinfection can include physical interventions such as heat treatment or the use of UV light, typically when we think of disinfectants we are referring to the use of chemicals to kill microbes on surfaces or objects.

    Chemical disinfectants often contain active ingredients such as alcohols, chlorine compounds and hydrogen peroxide which can target vital components of different microbes to kill them.

    Gloved hands spraying and wiping a surface.
    Diseinfectants can contain a range of ingredients. Maridav/Shutterstock

    The maths of microbial elimination

    In the past few years we’ve all become familiar with the concept of exponential growth in the context of the spread of COVID cases.

    This is where numbers grow at an ever-accelerating rate, which can lead to an explosion in the size of something very quickly. For example, if a colony of 100 bacteria doubles every hour, in 24 hours’ time the population of bacteria would be more than 1.5 billion.

    Conversely, the killing or inactivating of microbes follows a logarithmic decay pattern, which is essentially the opposite of exponential growth. Here, while the number of microbes decreases over time, the rate of death becomes slower as the number of microbes becomes smaller.

    For example, if a particular disinfectant kills 90% of bacteria every minute, after one minute, only 10% of the original bacteria will remain. After the next minute, 10% of that remaining 10% (or 1% of the original amount) will remain, and so on.

    Because of this logarithmic decay pattern, it’s not possible to ever claim you can kill 100% of any microbial population. You can only ever scientifically say that you are able to reduce the microbial load by a proportion of the initial population. This is why most disinfectants sold for domestic use indicate they kill 99.9% of germs.

    Other products such as hand sanitisers and disinfectant wipes, which also often purport to kill 99.9% of germs, follow the same principle.

    A tub of cleaning supplies.
    You might have noticed none of the cleaning products in your laundry cupboard kill 100% of germs. Africa Studio/Shutterstock

    Real-world implications

    As with a lot of science, things get a bit more complicated in the real world than they are in the laboratory. There are a number of other factors to consider when assessing how well a disinfectant is likely to remove microbes from a surface.

    One of these factors is the size of the initial microbial population that you’re trying to get rid of. That is, the more contaminated a surface is, the harder the disinfectant needs to work to eliminate the microbes.

    If for example you were to start off with only 100 microbes on a surface or object, and you removed 99.9% of these using a disinfectant, you could have a lot of confidence that you have effectively removed all the microbes from that surface or object (called sterilisation).

    In contrast, if you have a large initial microbial population of hundreds of millions or billions of microbes contaminating a surface, even reducing the microbial load by 99.9% may still mean there are potentially millions of microbes remaining on the surface.

    Time is is a key factor that determines how effectively microbes are killed. So exposing a highly contaminated surface to disinfectant for a longer period is one way to ensure you kill more of the microbial population.

    This is why if you look closely at the labels of many common household disinfectants, they will often suggest that to disinfect you should apply the product then wait a specified time before wiping clean. So always consult the label on the product you’re using.

    A woman cleaning a kitchen counter with a pink cloth.
    Disinfectants won’t necessarily work in your kitchen exactly like they work in a lab. Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    Other factors such as temperature, humidity and the type of surface also influence how well a disinfectant works outside the lab.

    Similarly, microbes in the real world may be either more or less sensitive to disinfection than those used for testing in the lab.

    Disinfectants are one part infection control

    The sensible use of disinfectants plays an important role in our daily lives in reducing our exposure to pathogens (microbes that cause illness). They can therefore reduce our chances of getting sick.

    The fact disinfectants can’t be shown to be 100% effective from a scientific perspective in no way detracts from their importance in infection control. But their use should always be complemented by other infection control practices, such as hand washing, to reduce the risk of infection.

    Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • Figs vs Starfruit – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing figs to starfruit, we picked the figs.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, figs have more fiber and carbs and, for what it’s worth which isn’t much because the numbers are tiny, starfruit has more protein, technically. Still, this one adds up to a first-round win for figs.

    In the category of vitamins, figs have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, B7, and K, while starfruit has more of vitamins B5, B9, C, and E, yielding a 7:4 win to figs here.

    Looking at minerals, figs have more calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while starfruit has more copper and selenium, allowing figs to win this one by a tidy margin as well.

    In other considerations, figs also have more polyphenols, so that’s another point in their favor.

    Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for figs, but by all means do enjoy either or both, as diversity is best!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    What’s Your Plant Diversity Score?

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Dealing With Waking Up In The Night

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small

    ❝I’m now in my sixties and find that I invariably wake up at least once during the night. Is this normal? Even if it is, I would still like, once in a while, to sleep right through like a teenager. How might this be achieved, without pills?❞

    Most people wake up briefly between sleep cycles, and forget doing so. But waking up for more than a brief moment is indeed best avoided. In men of your age, if you’re waking to pee (especially if it’s then not actually that easy to pee), it can be a sign of an enlarged prostate. Which is again a) normal b) not optimal.

    By “without pills” we’ll assume you mean “without sleeping pills”. There are options to treat an enlarged prostate, including well-established supplements. We did a main feature on this:

    Prostate Health: What You Should Know

    If the cause of waking up is something else, then again this is common for everyone as we get older, and again it’s not optimal. But since there are so many possible causes (and thus solutions), it’s more than we can cover in less than a main feature, so we’ll have to revisit this later.

    Meanwhile, take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Edamame vs Green Beans – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing edamame to green beans, we picked the edamame.

    Why?

    It wasn’t close:

    In terms of macros, edamame has more than 5x the protein and nearly 2x the fiber, for approximately the same carbs, winning the first round.

    In the category of vitamins, edamame has more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, and E, while green beans have more of vitamins C and K, giving a compelling 8:2 win to edamame here.

    Looking at minerals, edamame has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while green beans are not higher in any minerals, allowing edamame to sweep this category easily.

    Adding up the sections makes for an overwhelming overall win to edamame, but by all means do enjoy either or both, as diversity is best!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    Why You Can’t Skimp On Amino Acids ← edamame is a good source of all essential amino acids

    Enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Banana vs Goji Berries – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing banana to goji berries, we picked the goji berries.

    Why?

    Both are great! But…

    In terms of macros, goji berries have much more fiber, carbs, and protein, thus making it the most nutrient-dense option, as we might expect from a dried fruit being compared to a non-dried fruit—since the non-dried fruit has water weight that the dried fruit doesn’t, its percentages of other things will be proportionally lower, because the percentages must still add up to 100%, and if 75% is water (as is the case for bananas, compared to goji berries’ 7.5% water), then that only leaves 25% to work with, while goji berries have 92.5% to work with. In short, an easy and expected win for goji berries.

    In the category of vitamins, bananas have more of vitamin B6, while goji berries have more of vitamins A, B1, B3, B5, B9, C, E, and K. A clear win for goji berries.

    When it comes to minerals, bananas are not higher in any minerals, while goji berries have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. Another easy win for goji berries.

    As for polyphenols, you may well imagine that the brightly-colored bitter-tasting berries have more, and you’d be right; you can read more about the exciting phytochemical properties of goji berries in the links below.

    Meanwhile, adding up the sections show a clear overall win for goji berries, but by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    Enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: