Peter wrote:

> Your hunch is backed up by science. The people who are most fearful of
> germs and poisoning are the people who are most ignorant of the subject.
> Now if you do not know the subject and want to be safe, then it makes
> perfect sense to follow the recs of the "food safety experts," but the
> fact is that they don't know the science either, and just parrot what
> they have been taught. They go way overboard in recommending procedures
> that go far beyond what is needed for safety. The idea is that it is
> better for someone to boil longer than needed, or cool sooner than
> needed, than to risk the chance that someone will not follow
> instructions properly and have a problem. This started after WWII when
> home canning was encouraged as part of the war effort, and there were
> quite a few poisonings. The result was guidelines that went way beyond
> what was needed. Sort of like recommending that for safe driving you
> have to be in a car with 4 inch armor and 100 airbags.


If you go all the way back to the original post, the OP mentioned that
quickly-cooled stocks TASTED better than slowly-cooked stocks. The
slowly-cooled stocks were called "sour."

The discussion then morphed into what it's become, but it was originally a
discussion about taste, not about health risks.

Bob