I'm making a curry for my father's 85th birthday party tomorrow. Not
that that's particularly relevant to the post, but still...

My sister works for a food retailer and is consequently paranoid about
various matters related to food - as, of course, any good food retailer
must be. I'm not sure that quite the same level of paranoia is required
at home though.

My sister is of the opinion that it would be dangerous to re-heat the
curry tomorrow morning, then travel over to her house (a twenty minute
drive) and then heat it again for serving. She's afraid that everybody
will be poisoned if this happens. According to her re-heating the food
twice will be much more dangerous than re-heating it twice.

She might be right, but I'm interested to know exactly what the
mechanism is. If I heat food to boiling point then only bacteria that
survive at higher temparatures will survive, during the cooling period
it may indeed be re-colonised, by bacteria from the air but again this
would be killed by re-heating to boiling (and keeping it there for a few
minutes, of course).

I can see that it is wise usually to keep food refridgerated and only
heat that which is required shortly before the meal, and I'm not
advocating re-heating the same curry many times over several days.
However, I am interested to know just how big the danger of food
poisoning would be from two re-headings tomorrow relative to only one.
Would it truly create a danger of poisoning or is it paranoid to worry
about it?

If there's an URL describing bacterial growth and re-heating food
showing research results I'd be delighted to read that.

--
"You will not ask me what is the point of envy.--You are determined, I
see, to have no curiosity.--You are wise--but _I_ cannot be wise. Emma,
I must tell you what you will not ask, though I may wish it unsaid the
next moment." -- Emma, Jane Austen
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org

"Peter H.M. Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> I'm making a curry for my father's 85th birthday party tomorrow. Not that
> that's particularly relevant to the post, but still...
>
> My sister works for a food retailer and is consequently paranoid about
> various matters related to food - as, of course, any good food retailer
> must be. I'm not sure that quite the same level of paranoia is required at
> home though.
>
> My sister is of the opinion that it would be dangerous to re-heat the
> curry tomorrow morning, then travel over to her house (a twenty minute
> drive) and then heat it again for serving. She's afraid that everybody
> will be poisoned if this happens. According to her re-heating the food
> twice will be much more dangerous than re-heating it twice.
>
> She might be right, but I'm interested to know exactly what the mechanism
> is. If I heat food to boiling point then only bacteria that survive at
> higher temparatures will survive, during the cooling period it may indeed
> be re-colonised, by bacteria from the air but again this would be killed
> by re-heating to boiling (and keeping it there for a few minutes, of
> course).
>
> I can see that it is wise usually to keep food refridgerated and only heat
> that which is required shortly before the meal, and I'm not advocating
> re-heating the same curry many times over several days. However, I am
> interested to know just how big the danger of food poisoning would be from
> two re-headings tomorrow relative to only one. Would it truly create a
> danger of poisoning or is it paranoid to worry about it?
>
> If there's an URL describing bacterial growth and re-heating food showing
> research results I'd be delighted to read that.
>
> --
> "You will not ask me what is the point of envy.--You are determined, I
> see, to have no curiosity.--You are wise--but _I_ cannot be wise. Emma, I
> must tell you what you will not ask, though I may wish it unsaid the next
> moment." -- Emma, Jane Austen
> * TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org


Your Sister is correct

N10

Peter H.M. Brooks NINCOMPOOP wrote:
> I'm making a curry for my father's 85th birthday
>
>
> My sister is of the opinion that it would be dangerous to re-heat the

> curry tomorrow morning, then travel over to her house (a twenty
minute
> drive) and then heat it again for serving. She's afraid that
everybody
> will be poisoned if this happens.
>
> According to her re-heating the food twice will be much more
dangerous than re-heating it twice.

Why do you repeat twice twice?

DUH! DUH!

Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> I'm making a curry for my father's 85th birthday party tomorrow. Not
> that that's particularly relevant to the post, but still...
>
> My sister works for a food retailer and is consequently paranoid about
> various matters related to food - as, of course, any good food retailer
> must be. I'm not sure that quite the same level of paranoia is required
> at home though.
>
> My sister is of the opinion that it would be dangerous to re-heat the
> curry tomorrow morning, then travel over to her house (a twenty minute
> drive) and then heat it again for serving. She's afraid that everybody
> will be poisoned if this happens. According to her re-heating the food
> twice will be much more dangerous than re-heating it twice.
>
> She might be right, but I'm interested to know exactly what the
> mechanism is. If I heat food to boiling point then only bacteria that
> survive at higher temparatures will survive, during the cooling period
> it may indeed be re-colonised, by bacteria from the air but again this
> would be killed by re-heating to boiling (and keeping it there for a few
> minutes, of course).
>
> I can see that it is wise usually to keep food refridgerated and only
> heat that which is required shortly before the meal, and I'm not
> advocating re-heating the same curry many times over several days.
> However, I am interested to know just how big the danger of food
> poisoning would be from two re-headings tomorrow relative to only one.
> Would it truly create a danger of poisoning or is it paranoid to worry
> about it?
>
> If there's an URL describing bacterial growth and re-heating food
> showing research results I'd be delighted to read that.
>

Your sister is a nut.

But... Why don't you take the curry over there cold? That will make
her happy, and it will be less work for you.

Best regards,
Bob

"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:

> I'm making a curry for my father's 85th birthday party tomorrow. Not
> that that's particularly relevant to the post, but still...
>
> My sister works for a food retailer and is consequently paranoid about
> various matters related to food - as, of course, any good food retailer
> must be. I'm not sure that quite the same level of paranoia is required
> at home though.
>
> My sister is of the opinion that it would be dangerous to re-heat the
> curry tomorrow morning, then travel over to her house (a twenty minute
> drive) and then heat it again for serving. She's afraid that everybody
> will be poisoned if this happens. According to her re-heating the food
> twice will be much more dangerous than re-heating it twice.
>
> She might be right, but I'm interested to know exactly what the
> mechanism is. If I heat food to boiling point then only bacteria that
> survive at higher temparatures will survive, during the cooling period
> it may indeed be re-colonised, by bacteria from the air but again this
> would be killed by re-heating to boiling (and keeping it there for a few
> minutes, of course).
>
> I can see that it is wise usually to keep food refridgerated and only
> heat that which is required shortly before the meal, and I'm not
> advocating re-heating the same curry many times over several days.
> However, I am interested to know just how big the danger of food
> poisoning would be from two re-headings tomorrow relative to only one.
> Would it truly create a danger of poisoning or is it paranoid to worry
> about it?

You really have to cook it thoroughly to get rid of bacteria. It's that in
between stage, warm, that allows the bacteria to really flourish, bt warming
it up, letting it cool off a bit for transport, and then re-warming that
keeps the food in the prime temperature range for bacteria that she is
concerned about. She may have a point about the amount of time the food
will spend in that prime science project temperature range without heating
it enough to kill bacteria and destroy it's toxins.

zxcvbob wrote:
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>> I'm making a curry for my father's 85th birthday party tomorrow. Not
>> that that's particularly relevant to the post, but still...
>>
>> My sister works for a food retailer and is consequently paranoid about
>> various matters related to food - as, of course, any good food
>> retailer must be. I'm not sure that quite the same level of paranoia
>> is required at home though.
>>
>> My sister is of the opinion that it would be dangerous to re-heat the
>> curry tomorrow morning, then travel over to her house (a twenty minute
>> drive) and then heat it again for serving. She's afraid that everybody
>> will be poisoned if this happens. According to her re-heating the food
>> twice will be much more dangerous than re-heating it twice.
>>
>> She might be right, but I'm interested to know exactly what the
>> mechanism is. If I heat food to boiling point then only bacteria that
>> survive at higher temparatures will survive, during the cooling period
>> it may indeed be re-colonised, by bacteria from the air but again this
>> would be killed by re-heating to boiling (and keeping it there for a
>> few minutes, of course).
>>
>> I can see that it is wise usually to keep food refridgerated and only
>> heat that which is required shortly before the meal, and I'm not
>> advocating re-heating the same curry many times over several days.
>> However, I am interested to know just how big the danger of food
>> poisoning would be from two re-headings tomorrow relative to only one.
>> Would it truly create a danger of poisoning or is it paranoid to worry
>> about it?
>>
>> If there's an URL describing bacterial growth and re-heating food
>> showing research results I'd be delighted to read that.
>>
>
> Your sister is a nut.
>
> But... Why don't you take the curry over there cold? That will make
> her happy, and it will be less work for you.
>
That is exactly what I am going to do. My question isn't a request to
enable me to change my plans, but to satisfy my curiosity.


--
When we have got to the end of this chapter (but not before) we must
all turn back to the two blank chapters, on the account of which my
honour has lain bleeding this half hour--I stop it, by pulling off one
of my yellow slippers and throwing it with all my violence to the
opposite side of my room, with a declaration at the heel of it-- -
Tristam Shandy Chapter 4.LXXXIV.Laurence Sterne
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org

Sheldon wrote:
> Peter H.M. Brooks NINCOMPOOP wrote:
>
>>According to her re-heating the food twice will be much more
>
> dangerous than re-heating it twice.
>
> Why do you repeat twice twice?
>
I didn't. I repeated twice once. If I'd repeated it twice then there'd
be three 'twices' wouldn't there.

I repeated twice once by mistake. What's your excuse?




--
"Perhaps I intended you to say so, but I meant self-command. You had,
somehow or other, broken bounds yesterday, and run away from your own
management; but to-day you are got back again--and as I cannot be always
with you, it is best to believe your temper under your own command
rather than mine." -- Emma, Jane Austen
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org

Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:

> I'm making a curry for my father's 85th birthday party tomorrow. Not
> that that's particularly relevant to the post, but still...
>
> My sister works for a food retailer and is consequently paranoid about
> various matters related to food - as, of course, any good food retailer
> must be. I'm not sure that quite the same level of paranoia is required
> at home though.

A case where a little knowledge will get a person
in trouble.
Don't you reheat leftovers at home and live to
tell about it? Most everyone does. What your
sister does, I can't imagine? She sounds like a
fruit loop to me.
Goomba

Goomba38 wrote:

> A case where a little knowledge will get a person
> in trouble.
> Don't you reheat leftovers at home and live to
> tell about it? Most everyone does. What your
> sister does, I can't imagine? She sounds like a
> fruit loop to me.
>

The concern was not about reheating the dish. It was about reheating it,
transporting it approx, 20 minutes and then heating it again. This is a
situation where the food would spend longer in the temperature range where
bacteria thrives. I think there is some valid concern there. It really
doesn't take much of that stuff to make a person really sick, and if you have
ever hd a good case of food poisoning it's an experience that you don't ever
want to repeat.

Dave Smith wrote:

> Goomba38 wrote:
>
>
>>A case where a little knowledge will get a person
>>in trouble.
>>Don't you reheat leftovers at home and live to
>>tell about it? Most everyone does. What your
>>sister does, I can't imagine? She sounds like a
>>fruit loop to me.
>>
>
>
> The concern was not about reheating the dish. It was about reheating it,
> transporting it approx, 20 minutes and then heating it again. This is a
> situation where the food would spend longer in the temperature range where
> bacteria thrives. I think there is some valid concern there. It really
> doesn't take much of that stuff to make a person really sick, and if you have
> ever hd a good case of food poisoning it's an experience that you don't ever
> want to repeat.

People bring casseroles and dishes to potlucks all
the time. Transporting them directly from oven to
car to event. Perhaps additional heating on
arrival. A 20 min drive isn't terribly excessive
where I'd start to worry?
Goomba

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>>
>
> The concern was not about reheating the dish. It was about reheating it,
> transporting it approx, 20 minutes and then heating it again. This is a
> situation where the food would spend longer in the temperature range where
> bacteria thrives. I think there is some valid concern there. It really
> doesn't take much of that stuff to make a person really sick, and if you
> have
> ever hd a good case of food poisoning it's an experience that you don't
> ever
> want to repeat.

Depends on how hot you heat it and how well it is insulated. Crank up the
temperature and then put it into a cooler and it will probably be hot enough
to serve an hour later. As long as it remains above 140 it is OK, even if
it drops below, it takes time for anything to happen. You can also heat a
brick or two in the oven, wrap it in paper, then put it in the cooler with
the food. It will keep it warmer for a longer time.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

Goomba38 wrote:

>
> People bring casseroles and dishes to potlucks all
> the time. Transporting them directly from oven to
> car to event. Perhaps additional heating on
> arrival. A 20 min drive isn't terribly excessive
> where I'd start to worry?

That might explain why potluck dinners are one of the leading causes of food
poisoning in the US. It has been enough of a problem that some states have
introduced regulations to deal with churches and other groups who run those types
of functions.

I once ate something in a restaurant that likely started off as leftovers and got
reheated. I am sure that the people in the kitchen thought that they had kept it
properly and had reheated it properly. I got food poisoning from it. I thought i
was going to die. Seriously. I was that sick. It would have been a blessed relief
from the hours that I heaved my guts inside out.

"Goomba38" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Goomba38 wrote:

>> The concern was not about reheating the dish. It was about reheating it,
>> transporting it approx, 20 minutes and then heating it again. This is a
>> situation where the food would spend longer in the temperature range
>> where
>> bacteria thrives. I think there is some valid concern there. It really
>> doesn't take much of that stuff to make a person really sick, and if you
>> have
>> ever hd a good case of food poisoning it's an experience that you don't
>> ever
>> want to repeat.
>
> People bring casseroles and dishes to potlucks all the time. Transporting
> them directly from oven to car to event. Perhaps additional heating on
> arrival. A 20 min drive isn't terribly excessive where I'd start to worry?

Just wrap it up in a few towels and stick it in the oven at the final
destination.
Assuming it is hot when you take it out of the house. Why not reheat the
thing
when you get there if the extra reheating worries you?

nancy

Dave Smith wrote:

> Goomba38 wrote:
>
>
>>People bring casseroles and dishes to potlucks all
>>the time. Transporting them directly from oven to
>>car to event. Perhaps additional heating on
>>arrival. A 20 min drive isn't terribly excessive
>>where I'd start to worry?
>
>
> That might explain why potluck dinners are one of the leading causes of food
> poisoning in the US. It has been enough of a problem that some states have
> introduced regulations to deal with churches and other groups who run those types
> of functions.
>
> I once ate something in a restaurant that likely started off as leftovers and got
> reheated. I am sure that the people in the kitchen thought that they had kept it
> properly and had reheated it properly. I got food poisoning from it. I thought i
> was going to die. Seriously. I was that sick. It would have been a blessed relief
> from the hours that I heaved my guts inside out.

I imagine that experience adds to your caution,
but realistically we don't hear about commonly
occurring bouts of food poisoning from leftovers
handled in the short period you're talking about.
Come down south and see a Sunday church supper. I
certainly don't see much of this being a problem
at the hospital where I work. Yes food poisoning
exists...but not anything like the you seem to
believe common?
Goomba

Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> That is exactly what I am going to do. My question isn't a request to

> enable me to change my plans, but to satisfy my curiosity.
>
>

If it is a contained dish, heating it to boiling should sterilize
anything in there, and it will stay sterile as long as the container is
sealed. You may have some bacterial spores left (Bacilli, for example)
but the dish isn't going to cool enough in 20 minutes for any
significant amount of bacterial growth to occur. Most disease-causing
bacteria that can survive high temps via spores do so through the
production of secondary metabolites, which only are produced in the
later stages of culture growth, anyway.

-L.

In sci.bio.food-science on Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:29:26 -0500 Goomba38
> posted:

>Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> Goomba38 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A case where a little knowledge will get a person
>>>in trouble.
>>>Don't you reheat leftovers at home and live to
>>>tell about it? Most everyone does. What your
>>>sister does, I can't imagine? She sounds like a
>>>fruit loop to me.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The concern was not about reheating the dish. It was about reheating it,
>> transporting it approx, 20 minutes and then heating it again. This is a
>> situation where the food would spend longer in the temperature range where
>> bacteria thrives. I think there is some valid concern there. It really
>> doesn't take much of that stuff to make a person really sick, and if you have
>> ever hd a good case of food poisoning it's an experience that you don't ever
>> want to repeat.
>
>People bring casseroles and dishes to potlucks all
>the time. Transporting them directly from oven to
>car to event. Perhaps additional heating on
>arrival. A 20 min drive isn't terribly excessive
>where I'd start to worry?
>Goomba

None of this describes the original plans of the original poster.

He wasn't going to take the food from the oven where he *cooked* the
food to his sister's, but from the overn where he reheated it. Nor
was he planning to reheat it to a high temp like boiling temperature
in the center of the food. That would just dry it out. People reheat
food until it is about 110 or 120 degrees F in the center, not 200+.

So whether his plan was risky or not, your comparisons are not valid.

Why would he reheat it before leaving home? It seemed pointless to me
but maybe it was so he could eat some of it? If that is the case, the
amount to be eaten can be separated from the rest and heated
separately, then eaten.

As to how many people are poisoned at pot-luck, or how many you've
seen at your hospital, it really doesn't matter. One is too many if
that one is eating at one's own house. Personally, whenever I get
sick, I figure it's another way to lose weight, but for people who are
already sick, or old, or young, it can be very bad.





Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.