We have been hearing for years that plastic is safer than wood. Jordi Cruz does not agree (and it seems he is right)
Science has spent decades studying what happens with E.colithe Salmonella and company when they touch the wooden, plastic or metal boards that we use in the kitchen. It is an old (and we thought unsolvable) fight, but the famous chef Jordi Cruz has spoken. He said it on TikTokbut since the ways of distributing content on the Internet are capricious, he has also said so in tens of websites. The question is whether what he said makes sense. What does Jordi Cruz defend? In essence, Cruz has commented your prints on three cutting board materials (plastic, metal and wood). Furthermore, it has gotten wet: for him, the best option is wood. As explainedwhile plastic is filled with grooves where bacteria accumulate and metal destroys the edge of the knife, wood has “natural antibacterial and antimicrobial” properties, where bacteria “get between the fibers and end up dying.” The controversy has been enormous, of course. A curious debate. That “clear” comes from the fact that for years it has been said that wood is the material that “accumulates the most bacteria”, in contrast to “non-porous” plastics that can be put in the dishwasher (and can be cleaned more easily). It is logical that seeing a famous chef say that wood is the best has made many put your hands on your head. However, Cruz is not as off track as we might think. What the evidence says. From the very beginning (the pioneering studies by Dean Cliver at the University of Wisconsin in the 90s), research they have been giving us back the same image: There is no evidence that plastic is inherently safer than wood. Appropriate (hard and closed-pore) and well-preserved wood creates a hostile environment for many bacteria. The problem is that. Wooden boards are not only more expensive, but require maintenance. And if we are not going to give it to them, plastic with all its problems is safer. Although not totally sure, of course. That is to say: the most dangerous boards are the old, scratched and poorly washed ones. The material does not matter, what is important is its state of conservation. And then? Some time ago, food safety experts stopped focusing on the material and began to look for strategies that would try to reduce the main risk derived from the tables: cross contamination. A good example of this are the recommendations of the North American USDA. For the Agency, both wood and other “non-porous” surfaces are acceptable for things like meat and chicken. Their main recommendation is another: use a table for raw meats and a different one for ready-to-eat foods (in addition to always cleaning them with hot water and soap; and subjecting them to periodic disinfection). In Europe the recommendation is similar and, in fact, he adds that although there may be more or less appropriate materials depending on the use, “in domestic kitchens the priority is hygiene and not the specific material.” What do the chefs say? What Jordi Cruz says (that a wooden board is best as a “main board”) is a general consensus between chefs and gastronomic influencers. However, it is common to restrict them to chopping cooked vegetables, fruit, bread and produce. On the other hand, also it is common to use plastic with meat and raw fish. Or what is the same, for “dirty uses.” Sometimes we get stuck in absurd debates. And this is a good example: the public debate has dedicated a lot of effort to establishing the idea of ”bad wood/good plastic”, when the important thing is to use several boards, assign them fixed uses and clean (and replace them) when necessary. Image | Garden House | The Anthill In Xataka | To the question of whether ultra-processed foods are as bad as we have been told, science still has no clear answer
