Hello All!

According to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...enthal-illness

the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has risen to 400.
It is still denied that low temperature sous-vide cooking is responsible
but I wonder if such dishes will start disappearing from the menues of
Chef Blumenthal's rivals in Napa and Spain?

I haven't and won't eat at the Fat Duck but a meal there seems more like
an adventure than food.

--


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On 2009-03-06, James Silverton > wrote:

> the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has risen to 400.




> It is still denied that low temperature sous-vide cooking is responsible
> but I wonder if such dishes will start disappearing from the menues of
> Chef Blumenthal's rivals in Napa and Spain?

"bacteria can grow in food in the absence of oxygen and produce the deadly
botulinum toxin, so sous-vide cooking must be performed under carefully
controlled conditions to avoid botulism poisoning.[3] To help with food
safety and taste, relatively expensive water-bath machines (thermal
immersion circulators) are used to circulate precisely heated water.
Differences of even one degree can affect the finished product."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sous-vide

"...even one degree....". Hence the insane prices for the equipment. In my
mind, it's a cooking method akin to cleaning car parts with gasoline in a closed
garage or eating fugu. You pays yer money and takes yer chances.

nb



>
> I haven't and won't eat at the Fat Duck but a meal there seems more like
> an adventure than food.
>

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:10:54 GMT, James Silverton wrote:

> Hello All!
>
> According to
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...enthal-illness
>
> the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has risen to 400.
> It is still denied that low temperature sous-vide cooking is responsible
> but I wonder if such dishes will start disappearing from the menues of
> Chef Blumenthal's rivals in Napa and Spain?
>
> I haven't and won't eat at the Fat Duck but a meal there seems more like
> an adventure than food.

*four hundred* cases? and he 'voluntarily' shut the place down? sounds
like they need more jack-booted government thugs over there in england.

your pal,
blake

James Silverton wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> According to
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...enthal-illness
>
> the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has risen to 400.
> It is still denied that low temperature sous-vide cooking is responsible
> but I wonder if such dishes will start disappearing from the menues of
> Chef Blumenthal's rivals in Napa and Spain?

There's no mention of sous vide in that article, or any article tied to
Blumenthal and food poisoning in the Google News index.

But don't let that keep from presenting pure speculation as fact. I'm
sure he has used sous-vide, but there's nothing to indicate that 400
diners all had dishes cooked via sous-vide.

Ever thought about being a reporter?

Buck wrote on Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:21:05 -0600:

> James Silverton wrote:
>> Hello All!
>>
>> According to
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...enthal-illness
>>
>> the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has
>> risen to 400. It is still denied that low temperature
>> sous-vide cooking is responsible but I wonder if such dishes will
>> start disappearing from the menues of Chef Blumenthal's rivals in
>> Napa and Spain?

> There's no mention of sous vide in that article, or any
> article tied to Blumenthal and food poisoning in the Google
> News index.

> But don't let that keep from presenting pure speculation as
> fact. I'm sure he has used sous-vide, but there's nothing to indicate
> that 400 diners all had dishes cooked via sous-vide.

Ever thought about being a reporter?

Is your name Blumenthal, perhaps? He is known to use the risky sous-vide
method and that is the most likely source of the problem. Try this for a
reference:
http://www.eurolec-instruments.com/S...20Cooking.html

I think the Fat Duck meets the modern definition of an adventu
"Something damned uncomfortable happening to someone else thousands of
miles away".

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
> Hello All!
>
> According to
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...enthal-illness
>
> the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has risen to 400. It
> is still denied that low temperature sous-vide cooking is responsible


When you cook sous vide, as I understand it, the temperature of that being
cooked rises very slowly through that critical temp.. when there is a risk
of
infection to its final temp. This is different in almost all meats. Paging
through Thomas Keller's recently published cookbook, "Under Pressure". it
appears that you would cook a chicken breast at 156F to get it to a final
temp. of 155F! I'm sure that takes a long, long time. If you wanted to do
something like this at home, why couldn't you increase your water
temperature to 180F-200F so the temp. of the chicken breast would pass
through the dangerous temps. more quickly. I'd try it with beef first.

Ed

Theron wrote on Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:18:13 -0800:


> "James Silverton" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Hello All!
>>
>> According to
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...enthal-illness
>>
>> the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has
>> risen to 400. It is still denied that low temperature
>> sous-vide cooking is responsible

> When you cook sous vide, as I understand it, the temperature
> of that being cooked rises very slowly through that critical temp..
> when there is a risk of
> infection to its final temp. This is different in almost all
> meats. Paging through Thomas Keller's recently published
> cookbook, "Under Pressure". it appears that you would cook a
> chicken breast at 156F to get it to a final temp. of 155F! I'm
> sure that takes a long, long time. If you wanted to do
> something like this at home, why couldn't you increase your
> water temperature to 180F-200F so the temp. of the chicken
> breast would pass through the dangerous temps. more quickly.
> I'd try it with beef first.

Didn't Pasteur establish that a quick raising of the temperature to 180F
was necessary to kill the bacteria? After that, you could seal the food
and cook at lower temperatures but that is not what seems to be done. If
you hold the food at well below the pasteurization temperature and
bacteria are present, they could grow.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
> Theron wrote on Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:18:13 -0800:
>
>
>> "James Silverton" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>> Hello All!
>>>
>>> According to
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...enthal-illness
>>>
>>> the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has
>>> risen to 400. It is still denied that low temperature
>>> sous-vide cooking is responsible
>
>> When you cook sous vide, as I understand it, the temperature
>> of that being cooked rises very slowly through that critical temp.. when
>> there is a risk of
>> infection to its final temp. This is different in almost all
>> meats. Paging through Thomas Keller's recently published
>> cookbook, "Under Pressure". it appears that you would cook a
>> chicken breast at 156F to get it to a final temp. of 155F! I'm
>> sure that takes a long, long time. If you wanted to do
>> something like this at home, why couldn't you increase your
>> water temperature to 180F-200F so the temp. of the chicken
>> breast would pass through the dangerous temps. more quickly.
>> I'd try it with beef first.
>
> Didn't Pasteur establish that a quick raising of the temperature to 180F
> was necessary to kill the bacteria? After that, you could seal the food
> and cook at lower temperatures but that is not what seems to be done. If
> you hold the food at well below the pasteurization temperature and
> bacteria are present, they could grow.
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
Did you mean cooking the outside of the meat quickly to a "safe"
temperature, and then bringing the meat interior up to a safe temperature at
a slower rate?

Hugh

Hugh wrote on Sat, 7 Mar 2009 11:15:13 -0800:


> "James Silverton" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Theron wrote on Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:18:13 -0800:
>>
>>> "James Silverton" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>> Hello All!
>>>>
>>>> According to
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...enthal-illness
>>>>
>>>> the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has
>>>> risen to 400. It is still denied that low temperature
>>>> sous-vide cooking is responsible
>>
>>> When you cook sous vide, as I understand it, the temperature
>>> of that being cooked rises very slowly through that
>>> critical temp.. when there is a risk of infection to its
>>> final temp. This is different in almost all meats. Paging
>>> through Thomas Keller's recently published cookbook, "Under
>>> Pressure". it appears that you would cook a chicken breast
>>> at 156F to get it to a final temp. of 155F! I'm sure that
>>> takes a long, long time. If you wanted to do something like this at
>>> home, why couldn't you increase your water
>>> temperature to 180F-200F so the temp. of the chicken breast would
>>> pass through the dangerous temps. more quickly. I'd
>>> try it with beef first.
>>
>> Didn't Pasteur establish that a quick raising of the
>> temperature to 180F was necessary to kill the bacteria? After
>> that, you could seal the food and cook at lower temperatures but that
>> is not what seems to be done. If you hold the food
>> at well below the pasteurization temperature and bacteria are
>> present, they could grow.
>>
>> James Silverton
>> Potomac, Maryland
>>
> Did you mean cooking the outside of the meat quickly to a
> "safe" temperature, and then bringing the meat interior up to a safe
> temperature at a slower rate?

The bacteria are usually on the outside, so an oven at more than 110C or
225F will kill them. (I know that those temperatures are well above the
boiling point of water and the Pasteurization temperature of about 85C
or 185F but ovens are not all that accurate). It's not a guarantee but
it seems to work.

You could probably safely sous-vide slow-cook if you immersed the sealed
bag in boiling water for a short time, then cooled off before cooking.
There have been a number of salmonella poisonings traced to bean sprouts
and blanching them for salads is almost always the safe thing to do and
does not ruin their texture. For bean sprouts, the timing is easily
achieved by dropping them into boiling water and removing when the water
boils again, sieving and cooling off in cold water. I always blanch bean
sprouts even for stir-frying.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
> Hugh wrote on Sat, 7 Mar 2009 11:15:13 -0800:
>
>
>> "James Silverton" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>> Theron wrote on Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:18:13 -0800:
>>>
>>>> "James Silverton" > wrote in
>>>> message ...
>>>>> Hello All!
>>>>>
>>>>> According to
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...enthal-illness
>>>>>
>>>>> the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has
>>>>> risen to 400. It is still denied that low temperature
>>>>> sous-vide cooking is responsible
>>>
>>>> When you cook sous vide, as I understand it, the temperature
>>>> of that being cooked rises very slowly through that
>>>> critical temp.. when there is a risk of infection to its
>>>> final temp. This is different in almost all meats. Paging
>>>> through Thomas Keller's recently published cookbook, "Under Pressure".
>>>> it appears that you would cook a chicken breast
>>>> at 156F to get it to a final temp. of 155F! I'm sure that
>>>> takes a long, long time. If you wanted to do something like this at
>>>> home, why couldn't you increase your water
>>>> temperature to 180F-200F so the temp. of the chicken breast would pass
>>>> through the dangerous temps. more quickly. I'd
>>>> try it with beef first.
>>>
>>> Didn't Pasteur establish that a quick raising of the
>>> temperature to 180F was necessary to kill the bacteria? After
>>> that, you could seal the food and cook at lower temperatures but that is
>>> not what seems to be done. If you hold the food
>>> at well below the pasteurization temperature and bacteria are
>>> present, they could grow.
>>>
>>> James Silverton
>>> Potomac, Maryland
>>>
>> Did you mean cooking the outside of the meat quickly to a
>> "safe" temperature, and then bringing the meat interior up to a safe
>> temperature at a slower rate?
>
> The bacteria are usually on the outside, so an oven at more than 110C or
> 225F will kill them. (I know that those temperatures are well above the
> boiling point of water and the Pasteurization temperature of about 85C or
> 185F but ovens are not all that accurate). It's not a guarantee but it
> seems to work.
>
> You could probably safely sous-vide slow-cook if you immersed the sealed
> bag in boiling water for a short time, then cooled off before cooking.
> There have been a number of salmonella poisonings traced to bean sprouts
> and blanching them for salads is almost always the safe thing to do and
> does not ruin their texture. For bean sprouts, the timing is easily
> achieved by dropping them into boiling water and removing when the water
> boils again, sieving and cooling off in cold water. I always blanch bean
> sprouts even for stir-frying.
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
>
I'd like to try "sous vide" with bottom round. I'd sear the meat thoroughly
first and cool it as you suggest.
Then in a sealed "sous vide" bag, I'd cook it submerged at a lowish[180-190]
temp. quite a long time, as you must,
to the "almost fall apart" stage. I'm not quite sure what the end point,
hours, or internal temp. that should be.

I recently seared an eye of round, as above, and roasted it at an oven temp.
of 225F to an internal temp. of 120F, and then
let it rise to 135F in a warming oven. The meat was moist and tasty.

Hugh

On Mar 6, 3:28*pm, "James Silverton" >
wrote:
> *Theron *wrote *on Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:18:13 -0800:
>
>
>
> > "James Silverton" > wrote in
> > t...
> >> Hello All!
>
> >> According to
> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...enthal-illness
>
> >> the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has
> >> risen to 400. It is still denied that low temperature
> >> sous-vide cooking is responsible
> > When you cook sous vide, as I understand it, the temperature
> > of that *being cooked rises very slowly through that critical temp..
> > when there is a risk of
> > infection to its final temp. This is different in almost all
> > meats. Paging through Thomas Keller's recently published
> > cookbook, "Under Pressure". it appears that you would cook a
> > chicken breast at 156F to get it to a final temp. of 155F! I'm
> > sure that takes a long, long time. If you wanted to do
> > something like this at home, why couldn't you increase your
> > water temperature to 180F-200F so the temp. of the chicken
> > breast would pass through the dangerous temps. more quickly.
> > I'd try it with beef first.
>
> Didn't Pasteur establish that a quick raising of the temperature to 180F
> was necessary to kill the bacteria? After that, you could seal the food
> and cook at lower temperatures but that is not what seems to be done. If
> you hold the food at well below the pasteurization temperature and
> bacteria are present, they could grow.
>
> --
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

I believe pasteurization is now widely thought of as temperature +
time, such that it will occur at some combination of the two.
Certainly high temperatures + short time will do it, but so too will
longer times + lower temperatures. For instance, you might pasteurize
meat at 130F for 112 minutes, or do the same at 158F for 8 minutes.
(See the tables at http://amath.colorado.edu/~baldwind/sous-vide.html
). From what I understand, few common pathogens can survive at
temperatures in excess of 125F for any length of time.

Also, sous vide cooking seems to pose no risk for those people who
cook and immediately eat the product. It's more problematic when the
goal is longer-term storage after cooking. The NYC restaurant issues
revolved around this risk, that the restaurant might cook, say, a bit
of salmon three or four days before service, during which time
pathogens would grow. For this reason, NYC health officials asked
restaurants to develop standards for sous vide cooking.

In article >,
"Theron" > wrote:

>
> "James Silverton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hello All!
> >
> > According to
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...enthal-illness
> >
> > the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has risen to 400. It
> > is still denied that low temperature sous-vide cooking is responsible
>
>
> When you cook sous vide, as I understand it, the temperature of that being
> cooked rises very slowly through that critical temp.. when there is a risk
> of
> infection to its final temp. This is different in almost all meats. Paging
> through Thomas Keller's recently published cookbook, "Under Pressure". it
> appears that you would cook a chicken breast at 156F to get it to a final
> temp. of 155F! I'm sure that takes a long, long time. If you wanted to do
> something like this at home, why couldn't you increase your water
> temperature to 180F-200F so the temp. of the chicken breast would pass
> through the dangerous temps. more quickly.

You *can* do that. It's called "poaching." The idea with sous vide is
that the entire piece ends up at the desired temperature--not the outside
hotter than the inside. That's what's different about it.

I haven't heard of problems with sous vide that have been reported in
a news outlet. I did a Google News search on "sous vide illness"
and "sous vide poisoning" and didn't find anything. Does anyone have
a citation?

Mike Beede


Mike Beede

"Mike Beede" > wrote in message ...
| In article >,
| "Theron" > wrote:
|
| >
| > "James Silverton" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > > Hello All!
| > >
| > > According to
| > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...enthal-illness
| > >
| > > the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has risen to 400. It
| > > is still denied that low temperature sous-vide cooking is responsible
| >
| >
| > When you cook sous vide, as I understand it, the temperature of that being
| > cooked rises very slowly through that critical temp.. when there is a risk
| > of
| > infection to its final temp. This is different in almost all meats. Paging
| > through Thomas Keller's recently published cookbook, "Under Pressure". it
| > appears that you would cook a chicken breast at 156F to get it to a final
| > temp. of 155F! I'm sure that takes a long, long time. If you wanted to do
| > something like this at home, why couldn't you increase your water
| > temperature to 180F-200F so the temp. of the chicken breast would pass
| > through the dangerous temps. more quickly.
|
| You *can* do that. It's called "poaching." The idea with sous vide is
| that the entire piece ends up at the desired temperature--not the outside
| hotter than the inside. That's what's different about it.
|
| I haven't heard of problems with sous vide that have been reported in
| a news outlet. I did a Google News search on "sous vide illness"
| and "sous vide poisoning" and didn't find anything. Does anyone have
| a citation?

How about the New York City difficulties?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/di...3sousvide.html

pavane

In article >,
"pavane" > wrote:

>
> "Mike Beede" > wrote in message ...
> | In article >,
> | "Theron" > wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > "James Silverton" > wrote in message
> | > ...
> | > > Hello All!
> | > >
> | > > According to
> | > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...enthal-illness
> | > >
> | > > the number of food poisoning cases at "The Fat Duck" has risen to 400. It
> | > > is still denied that low temperature sous-vide cooking is responsible
> | >
> | >
> | > When you cook sous vide, as I understand it, the temperature of that being
> | > cooked rises very slowly through that critical temp.. when there is a risk
> | > of
> | > infection to its final temp. This is different in almost all meats. Paging
> | > through Thomas Keller's recently published cookbook, "Under Pressure". it
> | > appears that you would cook a chicken breast at 156F to get it to a final
> | > temp. of 155F! I'm sure that takes a long, long time. If you wanted to do
> | > something like this at home, why couldn't you increase your water
> | > temperature to 180F-200F so the temp. of the chicken breast would pass
> | > through the dangerous temps. more quickly.
> |
> | You *can* do that. It's called "poaching." The idea with sous vide is
> | that the entire piece ends up at the desired temperature--not the outside
> | hotter than the inside. That's what's different about it.
> |
> | I haven't heard of problems with sous vide that have been reported in
> | a news outlet. I did a Google News search on "sous vide illness"
> | and "sous vide poisoning" and didn't find anything. Does anyone have
> | a citation?
>
> How about the New York City difficulties?:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/di...3sousvide.html

Thanks, I hadn't seen that article. However, it doesn't report any
problems traced to sous vide except the bureaucratic one that the City
requires some paperwork in place if you want to use it. It *does*
say that you can have problems if you do it wrong, but that's no
surprise--you can have problems with poaching if you do it wrong too.

Mike Beede

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 20:08:34 -0400, pavane wrote:

> "Mike Beede" > wrote in message ...
>| In article >,
>| "Theron" > wrote:
>|
>|>
>|> When you cook sous vide, as I understand it, the temperature of that being
>|> cooked rises very slowly through that critical temp.. when there is a risk
>|> of
>|> infection to its final temp. This is different in almost all meats. Paging
>|> through Thomas Keller's recently published cookbook, "Under Pressure". it
>|> appears that you would cook a chicken breast at 156F to get it to a final
>|> temp. of 155F! I'm sure that takes a long, long time. If you wanted to do
>|> something like this at home, why couldn't you increase your water
>|> temperature to 180F-200F so the temp. of the chicken breast would pass
>|> through the dangerous temps. more quickly.
>|
>| You *can* do that. It's called "poaching." The idea with sous vide is
>| that the entire piece ends up at the desired temperature--not the outside
>| hotter than the inside. That's what's different about it.
>|
>| I haven't heard of problems with sous vide that have been reported in
>| a news outlet. I did a Google News search on "sous vide illness"
>| and "sous vide poisoning" and didn't find anything. Does anyone have
>| a citation?
>
> How about the New York City difficulties?:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/di...3sousvide.html
>
> pavane

from the article:

On a surprise visit on Friday, inspectors found mouse droppings, improperly
refrigerated ham and a fly floating in a bottle of Maker¢s Mark bourbon,
among other violations.

hmm...musta been a bar-fly. but i thought they went for the rail liquors.

your pal,
blake