BMJ Publishing Group, for BMJ Case Reports

Authority

Academic

Territories

US, GB, AU, NZ, CA

Primacy

primary

Commercial interest

none

Retrieved

2026-08-22

State

Read and citable

Original document

THE FIRST MEDICAL LITERATURE IN THIS CATALOGUE, AND IT IS HERE BECAUSE THE BEST EVIDENCE ABOUT A BARBECUE ACCESSORY IS A SURGICAL CASE SERIES. Gunasingha, Bozzay, Munoz and Malone, PMID 33692044, retrieved through PubMed Central. The mechanism is stated plainly — `Wire-bristle brushes are mostly used to clean grills, and any bristle that dislodges from the brush body can incorporate in foods subsequently cooked on the grill` — and four patients in this series alone needed an operation. The authors' recommendation is about awareness rather than a ban: `Education as to the dangers of grill wire brushes to clean grills should be provided commercially.` The CDC's own MMWR report on the same hazard is blocked to retrieval and sits in the manual-capture queue; this stands in its place and is a stronger primary record in any case, being the clinicians' own account.

Safety, Technical

• Explicitly not culinary practice: A surgical case series describes injuries, not cooking. Nothing about technique, timing or flavour may be taken from it.

• “Wire-bristle brushes are mostly used to clean grills, and any bristle that dislodges from the brush body can incorporate in foods subsequently cooked on the grill.”

  A surgical case series states that a bristle dislodged from a wire grill brush can be incorporated into food later cooked on that grill.

  All four patients in this series required an operation. That is the population a case series describes — the ones who reached a surgeon — and it says nothing about how often a bristle is swallowed without harm. The record states the mechanism and the documented outcome, and infers no rate.

• “Education as to the dangers of grill wire brushes to clean grills should be provided commercially.”

  The same authors recommend only that the danger of wire grill brushes be communicated commercially, and issue no consumer instruction about inspecting grates, retiring worn brushes or using an alternative.

  This is a record of what the source does not say, and it is held deliberately. Two patients in the series discarded their own wire brushes afterwards, which the paper reports as what those people did rather than as advice. BBQHQ therefore describes the hazard and stops short of an instruction; a source that gave the advice directly is what would let it go further.

• A bristle shed by a wire grill-cleaning brush can be picked up by food later cooked on that grate and swallowed, and documented cases have required surgery. The clinicians reporting them recommend that the danger be communicated commercially and issue no instruction to consumers about inspecting grates or replacing brushes.

If this source changes, these are the claims that need rechecking. That is the point of recording provenance per claim rather than per page.