Chicken, salmonella, Costco, politics

[evergene]

All text below was excerpted from Should You Eat Chicken?
By MARK BITTMAN
Published in The New York Times, October 15, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/opinion/bittman-should-you-eat-chicken.html?pagewanted=1&pagewanted=all

In recent weeks, salmonella on chicken has officially sickened more
than 300 people (the Centers for Disease Control says there are 25
illnesses for every one reported, so maybe 7,500) and hospitalized
more than 40 percent of them, in part because antibiotics aren�t
working.

...the chicken from the processors in question � Foster Farms � is
still being shipped into the market [and] still being sold.

...Costco pulled nearly 9,000 rotisserie chickens from a store south
of San Francisco last week, after finding contamination -- this is
after cooking, mind you -- with a strain of salmonella Heidelberg,
which is virulent, nasty and resistant to some commonly used
antibiotics.

In sum: 1. There�s salmonella on chicken (some of which, by the way,
is labeled "organic"). 2. It�s making many people sick, and some
antibiotics aren�t working. 3. Production continues in the plants
linked to the outbreak. 4. Despite warnings by many federal agencies
...the U.S.D.A. has done nothing to get these chickens out of the
marketplace. 5. Even Costco can�t seem to make these chickens safe to
eat.

We have to assume Costco has a pretty rigorous food safety program.
And safe chicken, as we�ve been told ad infinitum, is chicken that�s
cooked to 165 degrees Fahrenheit; at that point all the salmonella on
it should be dead.

Well, guess what? Costco cooks its chicken to 180 degrees Fahrenheit,
a margin of error that the company believes renders the chicken safe.
But that didn�t work here. Which means, as far as I can tell, one of
four things: the chicken wasn�t cooked to 180 degrees Fahrenheit; or
there was some cross-contamination; or there was so much salmonella on
the birds that even "proper" cooking couldn�t kill it all (this can
happen; 165 degrees Fahrenheit isn�t a magic number); or... maybe
there�s now a strain of salmonella that isn�t killed at 165 degrees
Fahrenheit.

To its credit, Costco pulled the rotisserie chicken from its shelves,
as did a couple of other retailers. (To its debit, Costco left raw
Foster Farms chicken on the shelves, once again transferring the
burden of safety to the consumer, even though the store must have
known that it couldn�t guarantee that cooking the chicken would render
it safe.) Foster Farms has not recalled a single piece of chicken,
although it�s arguable that this same contamination has been going on
for months. And F.S.I.S. (Food Safety and Inspection Service)
officially has no power to do so.

The agency could, however, remove its inspectors from the three
suspect plants, which would close them, and last week it threatened to
do just that. Three days later, Foster Farms "submitted and
implemented immediate substantive changes to their slaughter and
processing to allow for continued operations." What�s that mean? "We
cannot tell you what their interventions are, because that�s a
proprietary issue," said Daniel Englejohn, deputy assistant
administrator at F.S.I.S....

[Steve Pope]

evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:

>In recent weeks, salmonella on chicken has officially sickened more
>than 300 people (the Centers for Disease Control says there are 25
>illnesses for every one reported, so maybe 7,500) and hospitalized
>more than 40 percent of them, in part because antibiotics aren�t
>working.

>...the chicken from the processors in question � Foster Farms � is
>still being shipped into the market [and] still being sold.

This is because the genus _Salmonella_ now sits at a higher trophic
level than the genus _Homo_ .

Steve

[Ciccio]

spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote in news:l3mhqa$vg7$1@blue-
new.rahul.net:

Homo in the food chain causing serious illness. Man, don't let those wing
nuts, in the so-called religious right, hear that.

That aside, I did read that Salmonella is particularly common among
homosexual me. It's amazing that the wing nuts, in the so-called religious
right, missed ascribing that to the wrath of God. That, however, does raise
the question of certain habits male homosexuals have that are not shared by
heterosexual males or, for that matter, heterosexual and homosexual
females.

Ciccio

[evergene]

Ciccio wrote:

>That aside, I did read that Salmonella is particularly common among
>homosexual me.

This is one of the better typos I've seen.

[Ciccio]

evergene <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote in
news:tmb069tlbgqr2hs8e...@4ax.com:

Well OK, if you want it corrected...homosexual MEN.

Ciccio

[sf]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:58:11 +0000 (UTC), Ciccio
<franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

> That aside, I did read that Salmonella is particularly common among
> homosexual me. It's amazing that the wing nuts, in the so-called religious
> right, missed ascribing that to the wrath of God. That, however, does raise
> the question of certain habits male homosexuals have that are not shared by
> heterosexual males or, for that matter, heterosexual and homosexual
> females.

Maybe it's because salmonella was a much bigger problem in the
right-wing-nut, bible belted, kissin' cousin, gun totin' South long
before it was a big problem out here in the god forsaken West.
Therefore, if salmonella is god punishing our evil ways... well, you
know what they say about casting the first stone.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

[Steve Pope]

sf <sf.u...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Maybe it's because salmonella was a much bigger problem in the
>right-wing-nut, bible belted, kissin' cousin, gun totin' South long
>before it was a big problem out here in the god forsaken West.

You left out antibiotic-swillin' .


Steve

[Ciccio]

sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote in
news:58i069p3o99odn5d0...@4ax.com:

> Maybe it's because salmonella was a much bigger problem in the
> right-wing-nut, bible belted, kissin' cousin, gun totin' South long
> before it was a big problem out here in the god forsaken West.
> Therefore, if salmonella is god punishing our evil ways... well, you
> know what they say about casting the first stone.

A question on an exam at the University of Arkansas Law School:
"If a a man and woman get married in Arkansas then move to California then
get a divorce in California are they still legally brother and sister?"
Discuss...

Ciccio

[evergene]

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Chicken-recall-grows-at-South-S-F-store-4905338.php

Chicken recall grows at South S.F. store

(10-17) 18:19 PDT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO -- Federal monitors have more
than doubled the number of chicken products recalled from a Costco
store in South San Francisco store because of possible salmonella
contamination, officials said Thursday.

The recall includes 13,455 Kirkland Signature Foster Farms rotisserie
chickens and 638 items of Kirkland Farms rotisserie products,
including chicken soup, chicken leg quarters and chicken salad.

On Saturday, officials ordered the recall of 9,043 chicken products
sold at the Costco store at 1600 El Camino Real.

The recalled items were sold from Sept. 24 through Tuesday, according
to the Federal Food and Safety Inspection Service.

The initial recall was prompted by an investigation into an outbreak
of salmonella Heidelberg illness that has been tied to three Foster
Farms plants in the Central Valley.

Salmonella typically causes fever and intestinal problems. No new
illnesses have been associated with the products recalled Thursday.

The strain of salmonella identified with the Foster Farms chicken is
particularly virulent and resistant to multiple antibiotics, officials
said. More than 300 people have been sickened in the outbreak.

[sf]

Okay, you made me laugh out loud!

[Pico Rico]

"Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
news:1n7nyj36...@sqwertz.com...

> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:10:09 -0700, evergene wrote:
>
>> ...Costco pulled nearly 9,000 rotisserie chickens from a store south
>> of San Francisco last week, after finding contamination -- this is
>> after cooking, mind you --
>

> I don't see how this can be right. Costco doesn't have 9,000 chicken
> cooked and ready to go. They are most certainly pre-seasoned/injected
> at the factory rather than by Costco, but I have seen raw chickens on
> the rotisserie at Costco so I'm sure they don't come in pre-cooked.
>
> The rotisserie cooking itself would have killed off any salmonella.
> It's easier to kill then the USDA would have you believe with their
> temperature guides.
>
> -sw

they recalled chickens that had been sold over a 13 day period, I believe.
That would be 700 chickens a day. Less, of course, the chickens still in
the store and its warehouse.

But only ONE Costco purchaser claimed any illness. This is not a Costco
problem, it is a supplier problem, and poor cooking/handling by the home
cooks who bought the chickens that were not cooked by Costco.

[Steve Pope]

Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:10:09 -0700, evergene wrote:

>> ...Costco pulled nearly 9,000 rotisserie chickens from a store south
>> of San Francisco last week, after finding contamination -- this is
>> after cooking, mind you --

>I don't see how this can be right. Costco doesn't have 9,000 chicken
>cooked and ready to go.

Don't tell this to their insurance underwriter.


Steve

[spamtr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:10:09 AM UTC-7, evergene wrote:
> All text below was excerpted from Should You Eat Chicken?
>
> By MARK BITTMAN
>
> Published in The New York Times, October 15, 2013
>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/opinion/bittman-should-you-eat-chicken.html?pagewanted=1&pagewanted=all
>
>
>
> In recent weeks, salmonella on chicken has officially sickened more
>
> than 300 people (the Centers for Disease Control says there are 25
>
> illnesses for every one reported, so maybe 7,500) and hospitalized
>

> more than 40 percent of them, in part because antibiotics aren�t
>
> working.
>
>
>
> ...the chicken from the processors in question � Foster Farms � is

>
> still being shipped into the market [and] still being sold.
>
>
>
> ...Costco pulled nearly 9,000 rotisserie chickens from a store south
>
> of San Francisco last week, after finding contamination -- this is
>
> after cooking, mind you -- with a strain of salmonella Heidelberg,
>
> which is virulent, nasty and resistant to some commonly used
>
> antibiotics.
>
>
>

> In sum: 1. There�s salmonella on chicken (some of which, by the way,
>
> is labeled "organic"). 2. It�s making many people sick, and some
>
> antibiotics aren�t working. 3. Production continues in the plants

>
> linked to the outbreak. 4. Despite warnings by many federal agencies
>
> ...the U.S.D.A. has done nothing to get these chickens out of the
>

> marketplace. 5. Even Costco can�t seem to make these chickens safe to

>
> eat.
>
>
>
> We have to assume Costco has a pretty rigorous food safety program.
>

> And safe chicken, as we�ve been told ad infinitum, is chicken that�s

>
> cooked to 165 degrees Fahrenheit; at that point all the salmonella on
>
> it should be dead.
>
>
>
> Well, guess what? Costco cooks its chicken to 180 degrees Fahrenheit,
>
> a margin of error that the company believes renders the chicken safe.
>

> But that didn�t work here. Which means, as far as I can tell, one of
>
> four things: the chicken wasn�t cooked to 180 degrees Fahrenheit; or

>
> there was some cross-contamination; or there was so much salmonella on
>

> the birds that even "proper" cooking couldn�t kill it all (this can
>
> happen; 165 degrees Fahrenheit isn�t a magic number); or... maybe
>
> there�s now a strain of salmonella that isn�t killed at 165 degrees

>
> Fahrenheit.
>
>
>
> To its credit, Costco pulled the rotisserie chicken from its shelves,
>
> as did a couple of other retailers. (To its debit, Costco left raw
>
> Foster Farms chicken on the shelves, once again transferring the
>
> burden of safety to the consumer, even though the store must have
>

> known that it couldn�t guarantee that cooking the chicken would render

>
> it safe.) Foster Farms has not recalled a single piece of chicken,
>

> although it�s arguable that this same contamination has been going on

>
> for months. And F.S.I.S. (Food Safety and Inspection Service)
>
> officially has no power to do so.
>
>
>
> The agency could, however, remove its inspectors from the three
>
> suspect plants, which would close them, and last week it threatened to
>
> do just that. Three days later, Foster Farms "submitted and
>
> implemented immediate substantive changes to their slaughter and
>

> processing to allow for continued operations." What�s that mean? "We
>
> cannot tell you what their interventions are, because that�s a

[spamtr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:10:09 AM UTC-7, evergene wrote:

> All text below was excerpted from Should You Eat Chicken?
>
> By MARK BITTMAN
>
> Published in The New York Times, October 15, 2013
>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/opinion/bittman-should-you-eat-chicken.html?pagewanted=1&pagewanted=all
>
>
>
> In recent weeks, salmonella on chicken has officially sickened more
>
> than 300 people

Literally millions of Californians have eaten FF chicken since the
outbreak was first noticed in May. Let us say 10% of Californians have
eaten FF chicken at least once since then.

So the sickness run rate is 300/3,000,000, or one in a thousand.

> To its credit, Costco pulled the rotisserie chicken from its shelves,
> as did a couple of other retailers. (To its debit, Costco left raw
> Foster Farms chicken on the shelves, once again transferring the
> burden of safety to the consumer, even though the store must have

> known that it couldn�t guarantee that cooking the chicken would render

> it safe.) Foster Farms has not recalled a single piece of chicken,

> although it�s arguable that this same contamination has been going on

> for months. And F.S.I.S. (Food Safety and Inspection Service)
> officially has no power to do so.
>

A problem that has affected relatively few people, despite existing for
months, doesn't sound like an emergency, or a catastrophe, to me.

> The agency could, however, remove its inspectors from the three
> suspect plants, which would close them, and last week it threatened to
> do just that. Three days later, Foster Farms "submitted an

> implemented immediate substantive changes to their slaughter and

> processing to allow for continued operations." What�s that mean? "We
> cannot tell you what their interventions are, because that�s a

> proprietary issue," said Daniel Englejohn, deputy assistant
> administrator at F.S.I.S....

A process improvement that would cut down on salmonella contamination
would be a valuable trade secret.

[evergene]

Pico Rico wrote:

>But only ONE Costco purchaser claimed any illness. This is not a Costco
>problem, it is a supplier problem, and poor cooking/handling by the home
>cooks who bought the chickens that were not cooked by Costco.

It's a Costco problem if cross-contamination took place at the Costco
store.

See http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/heidelberg-10-13/
"Among the 252 ill persons reported in California, state and local
health officials identified at least 25 ill persons as part of a
cluster of illness. The ill persons consumed food purchased from the
same Costco store location in South San Francisco in the week before
they became sick."

[Ciccio]

Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in
news:1n7nyj36...@sqwertz.com:

> The rotisserie cooking itself would have killed off any salmonella.
> It's easier to kill then the USDA would have you believe with their
> temperature guides.

Hmmm. I can accept the recommendations made by the experts at the USDA or
your bare assertion. I make an effort to avoid falling victim to argumentum
ab auctoritate. I am, however, going to accept the USDA's recommendation
instead of what you say. That's especially so in making a decisions that
can injure the health of me and mine...thank you very much.

Ciccio

[Tim May]

On 2013-10-21 04:20:35 +0000, Sqwertz said:

> You are free to look up the temperatures at which salmonella is killed
> yourself. Or you can get all cocky. I see you've made your choice
> already.

I took from the article the (unspoken, as this might be considered
libelous) conclusion that the bird sellers had failed to meet the
salmonella-killing temperature rather than that they had actually
discovered some amazing new variant of salmonella that 180 F would not
kill.

But, being that we live in the age of New Journalism, the article
confused the issue. Or finessed it, on corporate instruction.

Of course, if people run shrieking away from rotissirie chicken in
general ("Not even 185 F is enough!!"), then the corporate minders may
choose to assign blame to some vendors and cooks rather than to Science.


--
Tim May

[Ciccio]

Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in
news:1belrlva2f0bz$.d...@sqwertz.com:

> Subject: Re: Chicken, salmonella, Costco, politics
> From: Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost>
> Newsgroups: ba.food

>
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 20:56:15 +0000 (UTC), Ciccio wrote:
>

> You are free to look up the temperatures at which salmonella is killed
> yourself.

I did and I read the USDA guidelines before you posted.

> Or you can get all cocky. I see you've made your choice
> already.

You are the one being cocky. You are the one displaying hubris by asserting
that the USDA is incorrect with only you say-so to support that.

Ciccio

[Julian Macassey]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:46:56 -0500, Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
>
> I'm sure those Costco ovens are programmed to cook them to death and
> there's probably no way to bypass that feature easily. Costco is very
> big on food safety. Who else in the industry uses hair and beard nets
> to serve you a hot dog and soda?

I don't think human hair will kill anyone. All theatre for
the customers.

Just as in the past decade everyone and their brother -
including toll bridge cashiers - wear surgical gloves. Cootie
alert!

[Pico Rico]

"Ciccio" <franc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA260661927...@78.46.70.116...

The USDA guidelines are to heat the product up to a temperature that will
kill pathogens in one second or so. I prefer to cook food to a lower
temperature, but hold it there for a time sufficient to kill pathogens.

[Ciccio]

Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in
news:1qje15rs...@sqwertz.com:

> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:02:12 +0000 (UTC), Ciccio wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in
>> news:1belrlva2f0bz$.d...@sqwertz.com:
>>
>>> Subject: Re: Chicken, salmonella, Costco, politics
>>> From: Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost>
>>> Newsgroups: ba.food
>>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 20:56:15 +0000 (UTC), Ciccio wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in
>>>> news:1n7nyj36...@sqwertz.com:
>>>>
>>>>> The rotisserie cooking itself would have killed off any salmonella.
>>>>> It's easier to kill then the USDA would have you believe with their
>>>>> temperature guides.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. I can accept the recommendations made by the experts at the
>>>> USDA or your bare assertion. I make an effort to avoid falling
victim
>>>> to argumentum ab auctoritate. I am, however, going to accept the
>>>> USDA's recommendation instead of what you say. That's especially so
>>>> in making a decisions that can injure the health of me and
>>>> mine...thank you very much.
>>>
>>> You are free to look up the temperatures at which salmonella is
killed
>>> yourself.
>>
>> I did and I read the USDA guidelines before you posted.
>

> Then you would have seen that I was right.

Oh, so now you're changing your tune and say that you agree with the USDA
guidelines.

> But rather avoid mentioning that and continue to imply that I am wrong.

You've changed your position and now agree with the USDA guidelines. So,
you, yourself, imply that you were wrong. Of course, that doesn't make
correct your previous erroneous statement. Maybe next time don't be so
cocky.

Ciccio

[Ciccio]

"Pico Rico" <Pico...@nonospam.com> wrote in
news:l43oco$658$1...@news.mixmin.net:

> The USDA guidelines are to heat the product up to a temperature that
> will kill pathogens in one second or so. I prefer to cook food to a
> lower temperature, but hold it there for a time sufficient to kill
> pathogens.

For example...?

Ciccio

[Pico Rico]

"Ciccio" <franc...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA26136A94...@78.46.70.116...

www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM252447.pdf? see table A-3

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/9ab2e062-7ac8-49b7-aea1-f070048a113a/RTE_Poultry_Tables.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

[Tim May]

I remember when my dentist and his assistants wore extensive mask/glove
get-ups.

This has eased in recent years. Maybe they saw it as mostly unnecessary.

Or maybe gay cancer just killed off enough.

--
Tim May

[Ciccio]

"Pico Rico" <Pico...@nonospam.com> wrote in

news:l46bim$qsi$1...@news.mixmin.net:

Just a few seconds difference. So no real benefit disregarding the USDA
recommended temperature and cooking the food at a lower temperature.

Ciccio

[Pico Rico]

"Ciccio" <franc...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA262BE2678...@78.46.70.116...

the benefit is in cooking the food to a lower temperature and thus having a
better end product. You can safely do so if the time/temp combination is
satisfied.

so, for example, instead of cooking turkey to 165 degrees for less than ten
seconds, you can cook it to 155 degrees and make sure it stays at 155
degrees for 1.2 minutes. Or 150 degrees for 3.7 minutes.

You can eat 165 degree turkey if you wish, but I choose not to, and am
completely safe in doing so.

[Ciccio]

"Pico Rico" <Pico...@nonospam.com> wrote in

news:l49ul9$h6d$1...@news.mixmin.net:

>
> "Ciccio" <franc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA262BE2678...@78.46.70.116...
>> "Pico Rico" <Pico...@nonospam.com> wrote in
>> news:l46bim$qsi$1...@news.mixmin.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "Ciccio" <franc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA26136A94...@78.46.70.116...
>>>> "Pico Rico" <Pico...@nonospam.com> wrote in
>>>> news:l43oco$658$1...@news.mixmin.net:
>>>>
>>>>> The USDA guidelines are to heat the product up to a temperature
>>>>> that will kill pathogens in one second or so. I prefer to cook
>>>>> food to a lower temperature, but hold it there for a time
>>>>> sufficient to kill pathogens.
>>>>
>>>> For example...?
>>>>
>>>> Ciccio
>>>
>>> www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM252447.pdf? see
>>> table A-3
>>>
>>> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/9ab2e062-7ac8-49b7-aea1-f070
>>> 04 8a113a/RTE_Poultry_Tables.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
>>
>> Just a few seconds difference. So no real benefit disregarding the
>> USDA recommended temperature and cooking the food at a lower
>> temperature.
>>
>> Ciccio
>
> the benefit is in cooking the food to a lower temperature and thus
> having a better end product.

The flavor of the end product is no different from just a few seconds
difference in cooking. If, however, the cook's timing with his stopwatch
is off then that can result in a poisonous end product. So, if you're the
only one who is going to eat your end product then OK. If, however,
others will consume it, then you would be very irresponsible by putting
the health of others at risk.

Ciccio

[Pico Rico]

"Ciccio" <franc...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA26333738...@78.46.70.116...

again, you are missing the point. The product will be different due to the
difference in TEMPERATURE you are cooking it to. And you don't have to use a
stop watch - if you need to cook it to 155 degrees for 1.2 minutes, you can
hold it at 155 for several minutes or many minutes. You will be sure to
have met the time requirement, and you have not overcooked the meat to am
unnecessary high temperature.

[evergene]

Pico Rico wrote:
[...]

>again, you are missing the point. The product will be different due to the
>difference in TEMPERATURE you are cooking it to. And you don't have to use a
>stop watch - if you need to cook it to 155 degrees for 1.2 minutes, you can
>hold it at 155 for several minutes or many minutes. You will be sure to
>have met the time requirement, and you have not overcooked the meat to am
>unnecessary high temperature.

What cooking method(s) do you use to maintain the lower temp - sous
vide? Would you, e.g., roast a chicken at 160F and let it stay in the
oven for many hours?

I've read that you can cook an egg using the sous vide method, keep
the egg at, say, 145F for hours, and the yolk will remain soft.

[Pico Rico]

"evergene" <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote in message
news:q3bi69h9k2l3qaerv...@4ax.com...

I can do Sous Vide, but it is a bit of a PITA for small quantities. You can
also pasteurize eggs with a sous vide setup.

You can just watch when your item hits the temp, turn down the oven (if you
wish), and wait the required amount of time.

[Ciccio]

"Pico Rico" <Pico...@nonospam.com> wrote in

news:l4b772$ibm$1...@news.mixmin.net:

> And you don't have to use a stop watch - if you need to cook it to 155
> degrees for 1.2 minutes, you can hold it at 155 for several minutes or
> many minutes.

And the difference in the flavor of chicken cooked at 155 or cooked at 160
degrees is zero. Underestimating the time, however, can cause somebody to
become very ill. That cost-benefit is not worth the risk.

> again, you are missing the point.

I got the point. Cook at a temperature below which will assuredly kill
pathogens, but do it for X seconds at a lower temperature to kill them. And
if you underestimate X seconds then somebody gets poisoned. Thus you go
through all that risky calculating for an end product with no diff in
flavor.

Sure, when it comes to the hobby of cooking we all have idiosyncracies that
have no impact on flavor. For example, it was drilled into me all my life
by elders in my family, when making polenta it must be stirred only, and
only, in one direction. If, however, I stir it in two directions nobody who
eats it gets ill. So, be very careful with your idiosyncracy if you serve
your cooked meat to others.


Ciccio

[Pico Rico]

"Ciccio" <franc...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA263698438...@78.46.70.116...

> "Pico Rico" <Pico...@nonospam.com> wrote in
> news:l4b772$ibm$1...@news.mixmin.net:
>
>> And you don't have to use a stop watch - if you need to cook it to 155
>> degrees for 1.2 minutes, you can hold it at 155 for several minutes or
>> many minutes.
>
> And the difference in the flavor of chicken cooked at 155 or cooked at 160
> degrees is zero. Underestimating the time, however, can cause somebody to
> become very ill. That cost-benefit is not worth the risk.
>
>> again, you are missing the point.
>
> I got the point. Cook at a temperature below which will assuredly kill
> pathogens, but do it for X seconds at a lower temperature to kill them.
> And
> if you underestimate X seconds then somebody gets poisoned. Thus you go
> through all that risky calculating for an end product with no diff in
> flavor.

I don't think that is correct. Either way you are cooking at a temp that
will assuredly kill pathogens (at least to a significant logarithmic level),
and either way you are holding that temp for the required time. I find
that lower temps provide better end result, and I rotinely hold them for
MUCH longer than the required time. It is not hard to avoid
"underestimating" the time required.

>
> Sure, when it comes to the hobby of cooking we all have idiosyncracies
> that
> have no impact on flavor.

Again, I think you miss the point. Cooking to a lower temperature DOES
impact the flavor and texture.

For example, it was drilled into me all my life
> by elders in my family, when making polenta it must be stirred only, and
> only, in one direction.

I never heard that one. Was it food related, or superstition related?

[Helpful person]

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:45:52 PM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:
>
> I don't think that is correct. Either way you are cooking at a temp that
> will assuredly kill pathogens (at least to a significant logarithmic level),
> and either way you are holding that temp for the required time.

Don't worry, he just doesn't understand. (Let's not start discussing the safety of sous vide.)

http://www.richardfisher.com

[Ciccio]

"Pico Rico" <Pico...@nonospam.com> wrote in

news:l4bmcf$9f9$1...@news.mixmin.net:

> I don't think that is correct. Either way you are cooking at a temp
> that will assuredly kill pathogens (at least to a significant
> logarithmic level), and either way you are holding that temp for the
> required time.

And if the timing is wrong somebody gets poisoned. If you're the only
one, then fine because your food, your rules. If, however, you're feeding
others the chicken you cook, you shouldn't be messing around like that.

> Again, I think you miss the point. Cooking to a lower temperature
> DOES impact the flavor and texture.

Chicken at 155 or 160 chicken has no discernable impact on the flavor and
texture. Certainly, not worth the risk of poisoning somebody.

[stirring polenta in one direction]

> I never heard that one. Was it food related, or superstition related?

Either/and/or, it depends who is asserting it should be done. Myself, I
broke with that tradition decades ago. To make the basic polenta I put
the polenta and water in a baking dish, just a quick stir and let it sit
while it cooks in the oven for about an hour, with another quick stir
about 15 or so minutes before it's done. I'm sure my late elders roll in
their graves whenever I do that. Likewise when I make my egg-white
frittatas (ae).

Though because my polenta dinners are renowned amongst my family and
friends, for their benefit I do pay homage to tradition when I have them
over. When I make the basic polenta I go through the ritual of using a
copper polenta pot and the labor-intensive constantly stirring in one
direction. Then as part of a joke/tradition, I keep everybody out of the
kitchen while I finish the "capolavoro"(masterpiece) to keep the recipe
secret. Heh. Thus they will be miss me when I die because the recipe dies
with me.

Ciccio

[Pico Rico]

"Helpful person" <rrl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6c2f326c-1ac8-4598...@googlegroups.com...

at this point I think he is just screwing with us.

[Ciccio]

Helpful person <rrl...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:6c2f326c-1ac8-4598...@googlegroups.com:

You apparently are one of those who asserts that if a person disagrees with
him, then the person doesn't "understand." Of course, I understand why
Pico says he does it. I, however, disagree with him and, apparently, you,
that it should be done.

Ciccio

[Ciccio]

"Pico Rico" <Pico...@nonospam.com> wrote in

news:l4eh80$13o$1...@news.mixmin.net:

I am thinking that about you as I find it very hard to believe that
somebody would cook chicken the way you advocate and drastically increase
the risk of poisoning a person.

Ciccio

[Pico Rico]

"Ciccio" <franc...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA2648AACC2...@78.46.70.116...

that means you don't understand.

[Ciccio]

"Pico Rico" <Pico...@nonospam.com> wrote in

news:l4emc4$8rp$1...@news.mixmin.net:

> that means you don't understand.

And that comment of yours means you know I "understand" and that you're
probably screwing with me. I'm not falling for it anymore. Nobody could
really be reckless with the health of others just to get a De minimis, if
even that, difference from chicken cooked at 160 instead of 165.

Ciccio

[Pico Rico]

"Ciccio" <franc...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA264B89D5A...@78.46.70.116...

it is much more relevant re turkey than chicken.