I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it. What's to
stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or any other thing you
might bake. It's scary!

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it. What's
>to stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or any other thing
>you might bake. It's scary!
>

death....

Julie Bove wrote:
> I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it. What's to
> stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or any other thing you
> might bake. It's scary!

As I said about the neighbor when he climbed the fence to get into the
blackberries in nothing but a t-shirt, shorts and sandals--"Evolution in
action."

B/

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it. What's
>to stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or any other thing
>you might bake. It's scary!

Precisely. People do stupid things all the time and then they will try to
find a way to fix the blame on someone other than themselves, like the jar
manufacturer or hey, maybe they can blame it on the oven or the lids. After
all, if some idiot can sue a lawn mower manufacturer because they got their
toes chopped off because they were mowing the lawn in flip-flops, I wouldn't
be at all surprised to see it happen.

Marilyn wrote:
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it. What's
>> to stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or any other thing
>> you might bake. It's scary!
>
> Precisely. People do stupid things all the time and then they will try to
> find a way to fix the blame on someone other than themselves, like the jar
> manufacturer or hey, maybe they can blame it on the oven or the lids. After
> all, if some idiot can sue a lawn mower manufacturer because they got their
> toes chopped off because they were mowing the lawn in flip-flops, I wouldn't
> be at all surprised to see it happen.
>
>
>
Or sue McDonald's because the person spilled hot coffee in their own
crotch while driving. The horror is that the woman won her lawsuit and
got a couple of million for it.

Wonder how much it cost every place with a drive through window to put a
warning on their coffee cups. "Danger-Coffee is Hot." Sheesh!

George Shirley wrote:

> Or sue McDonald's because the person spilled hot coffee in their own
> crotch while driving. The horror is that the woman won her lawsuit and
> got a couple of million for it.
>
> Wonder how much it cost every place with a drive through window to put a
> warning on their coffee cups. "Danger-Coffee is Hot." Sheesh!

Probably not all that much, compared to all they had previously paid out
in *multiple cases*, without changing their policy!
From snopes.com article on tort reform:

"For example, the "woman scalded by hot coffee" suit, which at first
blush looked like the height of frivolity proved to be a perfectly
legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a
string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its
coffee was not just hot, but *dangerously* hot.

The Consumer Attorneys of California provides a good description of this
case: http://caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts "

From that CAOC link:
"Liebeck ... sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused."

"The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds coffee sales."

"The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages."

<snip> death.... <snip>

And possibly a Darwin award...

"Mimi" > wrote in message
...
> <snip> death.... <snip>
>
> And possibly a Darwin award...
>

Oh, I dunno, iffn' they was to pressure can it at 15# for 100 min, or
whatever was needed....but bake it? Nope, prob not a good idear.
Edrena

Brian Mailman > wrote:
> Julie Bove wrote:
> > I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it.
> > What's to stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or any
> > other thing you might bake. It's scary!
>
> As I said about the neighbor when he climbed the fence to get into the
> blackberries in nothing but a t-shirt, shorts and sandals--"Evolution in
> action."

When I was a kid, my Grandmother used to send me out to the blackberry
patch, in season, with a big basket. Uniform of the day was shorts and
sneakers. I'd come back to the house with half a basket of blackberries, a
big grin, distended belly and stained purple from head to foot! They were
sooooooooooooooo good. Grandma and my Mom used to put up a lot of them. Hot
paraffin seal worked fine, since they never lasted 'til next season,
anyhow. ;-)

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
I've known US vets who served as far back as the Spanish American War.
They are all my heroes! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops.
You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! ~Semper Fi~

In article >,
"Julie Bove" > wrote:

> I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it. What's to
> stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or any other thing you
> might bake. It's scary!

And then taking it to a shower or church supper attendees wouldn't have
a clue....
--
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"
-T.S. Eliot

"Isabella Woodhouse" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>
>> I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it. What's
>> to
>> stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or any other thing
>> you
>> might bake. It's scary!
>
> And then taking it to a shower or church supper attendees wouldn't have
> a clue....


Yep. Several years ago they announced at our church that we'd be having a
class in how to make cake in a jar. I was appalled because we had just had
a discussion about it in r.f.p. I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings,
but I didn't want a dangerous practice like this to be perpetuated, so I
took the person in charge aside and gave her printouts from the University
of Utah, an "official" source to dissuade her from doing it. Thankfully,
she listened to me. But I could just see a lot of those ladies being
thrilled to make those cakes, never knowing the dangers lurking.

We want people to learn how to do things. We want people to learn how to
preserve and to enlarge their food storage. And we want them to learn it
the right way, the safe way.

-Marilyn

Marilyn wrote:
> "Isabella Woodhouse" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>>
>>> I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it. What's
>>> to
>>> stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or any other thing
>>> you
>>> might bake. It's scary!
>> And then taking it to a shower or church supper attendees wouldn't have
>> a clue....
>
>
> Yep. Several years ago they announced at our church that we'd be having a
> class in how to make cake in a jar. I was appalled because we had just had
> a discussion about it in r.f.p. I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings,
> but I didn't want a dangerous practice like this to be perpetuated, so I
> took the person in charge aside and gave her printouts from the University
> of Utah, an "official" source to dissuade her from doing it. Thankfully,
> she listened to me. But I could just see a lot of those ladies being
> thrilled to make those cakes, never knowing the dangers lurking.
>
> We want people to learn how to do things. We want people to learn how to
> preserve and to enlarge their food storage. And we want them to learn it
> the right way, the safe way.
>
> -Marilyn
>
>
Well said Marilyn, well said.

George Shirley wrote:
> Or sue McDonald's because the person spilled hot coffee in their own
> crotch while driving. The horror is that the woman won her lawsuit and
> got a couple of million for it.

George it never got to court. McDonalds coffee was sold at 180F, where it
will burn you instantly. When she sued, McDonalds hired a private detective
company to go around and buy coffee at 11 other take out places. They all
sold their coffee at 120F, which is enough to cause discomfort and a burn if
you don't remove it.

McDonalds settled out of court and modified their coffee machines to make
them safe.

> Wonder how much it cost every place with a drive through window to put a
> warning on their coffee cups. "Danger-Coffee is Hot." Sheesh!

There is a difference between being hot, and being dangerously hot, unlike
any other vendor.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

George Shirley wrote:
> Marilyn wrote:
>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it. What's
>>> to stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or any other thing
>>> you might bake. It's scary!
>>
>> Precisely. People do stupid things all the time and then they will try to
>> find a way to fix the blame on someone other than themselves, like the jar
>> manufacturer or hey, maybe they can blame it on the oven or the lids. After
>> all, if some idiot can sue a lawn mower manufacturer because they got their
>> toes chopped off because they were mowing the lawn in flip-flops, I wouldn't
>> be at all surprised to see it happen.
>>
>>
>>
> Or sue McDonald's because the person spilled hot coffee in their own
> crotch while driving. The horror is that the woman won her lawsuit and
> got a couple of million for it.

One of the problems with these kinds of pop myths is that they're
distorted by shortening the issue. Yes, the woman had some liability
for being careless and she was suitable dinged for it in the payout.

But the issue was not this particular woman. McD's had been told
*several* times people had been injured by dangerously hot (as
distinguished from merely hot) coffee and had NOT amended their
procedures so to minimize the danger from their end. The legal term for
this is "foreseeable consequences," such as no, technically it's not
your fault the toddler picked up the gun and shot himself--but you
should have been able to foresee the danger and put the gun out of reach
when the kids were visiting.

The issue is also warrant of usability. Someone should be able to pick
up a cup of coffee know they're not going to be seriously (as opposed to
merely) injured by using it.

It's my understanding the woman was not merely burned, she was quite
seriously burned and required several surgeries, including genital
reconstruction.

B/

Nick Cramer wrote:
> Brian Mailman > wrote:
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>> > I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it.
>> > What's to stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or any
>> > other thing you might bake. It's scary!
>>
>> As I said about the neighbor when he climbed the fence to get into the
>> blackberries in nothing but a t-shirt, shorts and sandals--"Evolution in
>> action."
>
> When I was a kid, my Grandmother used to send me out to the blackberry
> patch, in season, with a big basket. Uniform of the day was shorts and
> sneakers.

These guys are pretty thorny. I call 'em blackberries but they might be
black raspberries.

B/

The Joneses wrote:

> Oh, I dunno, iffn' they was to pressure can it at 15# for 100 min, or
> whatever was needed....but bake it? Nope, prob not a good idear.
> Edrena

OK, I'm gonna don my asbestos shorts here, and respectfully ask some
uneducated questions (hopefully, not stupid ones!)

I'm not a preserver, and admit to not having studied the literature out
there, but have seen the guidelines from Ball, et. al., and here.

Per my understanding, pressure canning consists of packing and closing
jars of things to be preserved, then cooking them (in what amounts to a
pressure cooker) over water at 15 psig (at sea level) for 20 to 100
minutes. The pressure is required to maintain a steam temperature of 240
to 250 F, for the required time.

Have I missed anything, so far?

How then is that inherently *different* from cooking the same items in a
250 F - or hotter - oven for the same period of time? The food is heated
through, temperature is maintained at 250 F or higher; shouldn't that be
equally effective in killing spores?

Please, enlighten me! But not just, "because the bible tells me so"!

Dave

Dave Bell wrote:
> Have I missed anything, so far?
>
> How then is that inherently *different* from cooking the same items in a
> 250 F - or hotter - oven for the same period of time? The food is heated
> through, temperature is maintained at 250 F or higher; shouldn't that be
> equally effective in killing spores?
>
> Please, enlighten me! But not just, "because the bible tells me so"!

In theory yes, you could put a jar in an oven and heat it to 250F and
kill everything in the jar. The problem becomes one of practice.

How do you heat everything in the jar to 250F? I guess you could assume
if your oven really was 250F throughout that sitting the jar in it would
actually sterilize the contents of the jar if you sat it in the oven
long enough that the contents reached that temperature.

Since the jars have to be heated slowly or they will crack, you have to
start from a relatively cold oven. How long does it take YOUR oven to reach
250F? How evenly does it do it? Is the top rack warmer or cooler than the
bottom? If they are, can you place a jar on a rack and it will be the
proper temperature? How tall can such a jar be?

Will a blast of cold air cause the jar to crack? Will it signifcantly reduce
the temperature of the oven or its contents?
Bear in mind that even the warmest room will be cold compared to 250F.

So in order to do it safely, we would have to be sure that a jar placed
in the oven would reach 250F and we could could determine that all of
the contents reached that temperature. Once we did that, we could "oven
can" with a reasonable assurance of saftey.

I GUESS if you took a jar of food, put it in a cold oven and set it to
250F (and knew that it really did reach that temperature), let it cook
until the contents reached a safe temperature, and then turned off the
oven and let it cool, it would work.

The problem is to overcome those variables, which I think are well beyond
the knowledge and equipment of an average home canner.

Sticking it in a pressure canner, bringing the canner up to the correct
pressure (and temperature) and keeping it there is relatively simple.
The only indicator you need is a pressure gauge and the testing has
been done for saftey. Therefore pressure canning is "RELATIVELY" fool
proof while oven canning would be difficult.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> Dave Bell wrote:
>> Have I missed anything, so far?
>>
>> How then is that inherently *different* from cooking the same items in a
>> 250 F - or hotter - oven for the same period of time? The food is heated
>> through, temperature is maintained at 250 F or higher; shouldn't that be
>> equally effective in killing spores?
>>
>> Please, enlighten me! But not just, "because the bible tells me so"!
>
> In theory yes, you could put a jar in an oven and heat it to 250F and
> kill everything in the jar. The problem becomes one of practice.
>
> How do you heat everything in the jar to 250F? I guess you could assume
> if your oven really was 250F throughout that sitting the jar in it would
> actually sterilize the contents of the jar if you sat it in the oven
> long enough that the contents reached that temperature.
>
> Since the jars have to be heated slowly or they will crack, you have to
> start from a relatively cold oven. How long does it take YOUR oven to reach
> 250F? How evenly does it do it? Is the top rack warmer or cooler than the
> bottom? If they are, can you place a jar on a rack and it will be the
> proper temperature? How tall can such a jar be?
>
> Will a blast of cold air cause the jar to crack? Will it signifcantly reduce
> the temperature of the oven or its contents?
> Bear in mind that even the warmest room will be cold compared to 250F.
>
> So in order to do it safely, we would have to be sure that a jar placed
> in the oven would reach 250F and we could could determine that all of
> the contents reached that temperature. Once we did that, we could "oven
> can" with a reasonable assurance of saftey.
>
> I GUESS if you took a jar of food, put it in a cold oven and set it to
> 250F (and knew that it really did reach that temperature), let it cook
> until the contents reached a safe temperature, and then turned off the
> oven and let it cool, it would work.
>
> The problem is to overcome those variables, which I think are well beyond
> the knowledge and equipment of an average home canner.
>
> Sticking it in a pressure canner, bringing the canner up to the correct
> pressure (and temperature) and keeping it there is relatively simple.
> The only indicator you need is a pressure gauge and the testing has
> been done for saftey. Therefore pressure canning is "RELATIVELY" fool
> proof while oven canning would be difficult.
>
> Geoff.

Thanks, Geoff - good answers, and if that is somewhat of a concensus
argument, it makes it pretty clear to me.

It looks like the typical cake-baked-in-a-jar recipe runs 30-35 minutes
at 350 F. I can see several flaws. Principal would be that the center,
remaining moist, probably is nowhere near 250 F. And exposing the jars
even briefly after baking - while installing the lids - could let in
contaminants.

OK, I'll retire quietly!

Dave

Brian Mailman > wrote:
> Nick Cramer wrote:
> > Brian Mailman > wrote:
> >> Julie Bove wrote:
> >> > I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it.
> >> > What's to stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or
> >> > any other thing you might bake. It's scary!
> >>
> >> As I said about the neighbor when he climbed the fence to get into the
> >> blackberries in nothing but a t-shirt, shorts and sandals--"Evolution
> >> in action."
> >
> > When I was a kid, my Grandmother used to send me out to the blackberry
> > patch, in season, with a big basket. Uniform of the day was shorts and
> > sneakers.
>
> These guys are pretty thorny. I call 'em blackberries but they might be
> black raspberries.

Can I send you some Kaffir lime seeds, Brian? Or do you just want me to
send you some leaves? The leaves and rind are used in many Thai recipes.
The thorns are immense!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
I've known US vets who served as far back as the Spanish American War.
They are all my heroes! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops.
You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! ~Semper Fi~

"Isabella Woodhouse" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>
>> I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it. What's
>> to
>> stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or any other thing
>> you
>> might bake. It's scary!
>
> And then taking it to a shower or church supper attendees wouldn't have
> a clue....

Even scarier.

Ok, so far I've read the entire thread and still have a question.
has anyone tried, or tested the idea of putting the cake mix into the
jar and processing it by Hot water bath? I assume the pressure of
pressure canning it would keep the cake from rising and would result
in an inferior product, but what about Hot water bath? Just
wondering. I mean, they do make baked goods in cans, I have some
"boston brown bread" in a can from the grocery so wondering what is
stopping the home canner from doing that? Kitty in pa

Kitty wrote:
> Ok, so far I've read the entire thread and still have a question.
> has anyone tried, or tested the idea of putting the cake mix into the
> jar and processing it by Hot water bath? I assume the pressure of
> pressure canning it would keep the cake from rising and would result
> in an inferior product, but what about Hot water bath? Just
> wondering. I mean, they do make baked goods in cans, I have some
> "boston brown bread" in a can from the grocery so wondering what is
> stopping the home canner from doing that? Kitty in pa
About one million dollars worth of professional equipment mostly. BWB of
a cake would also not be successful due to low acidity of the product.
Why can something that has a short life span anyway? Isn't it just
easier to make a cake from a mix and hand it over to your friend?

"George Shirley" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kitty wrote:
>> Ok, so far I've read the entire thread and still have a question.
>> has anyone tried, or tested the idea of putting the cake mix into the
>> jar and processing it by Hot water bath? I assume the pressure of
>> pressure canning it would keep the cake from rising and would result
>> in an inferior product, but what about Hot water bath? Just
>> wondering. I mean, they do make baked goods in cans, I have some
>> "boston brown bread" in a can from the grocery so wondering what is
>> stopping the home canner from doing that? Kitty in pa
> About one million dollars worth of professional equipment mostly. BWB of a
> cake would also not be successful due to low acidity of the product. Why
> can something that has a short life span anyway? Isn't it just easier to
> make a cake from a mix and hand it over to your friend?

Many of these recipes I've seen say the cake will keep for a year. Looks to
me like most of them are going over to Iraq. I've even seen where they put
parchment over the baked cake and then topped it with a dollop of icing.
This is scary stuff to me.

Dave Bell wrote:
> The Joneses wrote:
>
>> Oh, I dunno, iffn' they was to pressure can it at 15# for 100 min, or
>> whatever was needed....but bake it? Nope, prob not a good idear.
>> Edrena
>
> OK, I'm gonna don my asbestos shorts here, and respectfully ask some
> uneducated questions (hopefully, not stupid ones!)
>
> I'm not a preserver, and admit to not having studied the literature out
> there, but have seen the guidelines from Ball, et. al., and here.
>
> Per my understanding, pressure canning consists of packing and closing
> jars of things to be preserved, then cooking them (in what amounts to a
> pressure cooker) over water at 15 psig (at sea level) for 20 to 100
> minutes. The pressure is required to maintain a steam temperature of 240
> to 250 F, for the required time.
>
> Have I missed anything, so far?
>
> How then is that inherently *different* from cooking the same items in a
> 250 F - or hotter - oven for the same period of time? The food is heated
> through, temperature is maintained at 250 F or higher; shouldn't that be
> equally effective in killing spores?
>
> Please, enlighten me! But not just, "because the bible tells me so"!
>
> Dave



It doesn't heat to 250F until almost all of the moisture is driven off.
You can't really get it past 212° in the middle at atmospheric
pressure no matter what the oven temp is.

Bob

zxcvbob wrote:

> It doesn't heat to 250F until almost all of the moisture is driven off.
> You can't really get it past 212° in the middle at atmospheric pressure
> no matter what the oven temp is.

And when it does get to 250, it really isn't cake any more...
Yep, I got it.

In article >,
(Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:

> George Shirley wrote:
> > Or sue McDonald's because the person spilled hot coffee in their own
> > crotch while driving. The horror is that the woman won her lawsuit and
> > got a couple of million for it.
>
> George it never got to court. McDonalds coffee was sold at 180F, where it
> will burn you instantly. When she sued, McDonalds hired a private detective
> company to go around and buy coffee at 11 other take out places. They all
> sold their coffee at 120F, which is enough to cause discomfort and a burn if
> you don't remove it.
>
> McDonalds settled out of court and modified their coffee machines to make
> them safe.

In the interest of shedding additional light on this urban myth, I will
point out that MacDonalds did not initially just settle "out of court".
Some material facts: The elderly plaintiff experienced third degree
burns (the worst), spent eight days in the hospital, received multiple
skin grafts, and underwent additional treatment over the next two years.
Prior to the incident, the National Burn Center had issued a warning
that restaurants not serve beverages at a temperature over 135F.
Despite that, and the fact that MacDonalds had recorded over 700
instances of children and adults being scalded by their coffee, they did
not reduce to the recommended temperature.

Plaintiff offered to settle for $20,000 but MacDonalds refused and the
product liability (not negligence) case went to court. After plaintiff
won in lower court with a $640,000 award, MacDonald's appealed the
decision but only then agreed to settle out of court. The agreement
included a non-disclosure clause but it is assumed to be considerably
less than $640,000.

> There is a difference between being hot, and being dangerously hot, unlike
> any other vendor.

Indeed. I have heard so many people reference this case as an example
of lawyers-gone-wild or the alleged need for severe tort reform. But
literally 100% of the time, these people had little, if any, accurate
understanding of the facts in the case. They believed the propaganda
that suggested the plaintiff was a dishonest money-grubber out to make a
million on a little scald. As always, it was in the corporate interest
to disseminate such rumors. And, as it often happens, it caused
millions of people to support new, restrictive laws that work mightily
AGAINST the public interest. Like preserving cakes in a jar, too darn
many people are willing to believe just about anything they hear, even
when it works against their own interest.

Isabella
--
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"
-T.S. Eliot

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Bell wrote:
>> Have I missed anything, so far?
>>
>> How then is that inherently *different* from cooking the same items in a
>> 250 F - or hotter - oven for the same period of time?
(clipped for brevity_).
>
> Sticking it in a pressure canner, bringing the canner up to the correct
> pressure (and temperature) and keeping it there is relatively simple.
> The only indicator you need is a pressure gauge and the testing has
> been done for saftey. Therefore pressure canning is "RELATIVELY" fool
> proof while oven canning would be difficult.
>
> Geoff.
>
Great answering, Geoff. I believe the gist of it also is the acid content
and them things not having lids on during the cooking process.
Edrena

"Isabella Woodhouse" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:
>
>> George Shirley wrote:
>> > Or sue McDonald's because the person spilled hot coffee in their own
>> > crotch while driving. The horror is that the woman won her lawsuit and
>> > got a couple of million for it.
>>
>> George it never got to court. McDonalds coffee was sold at 180F, where it
>> will burn you instantly. When she sued, McDonalds hired a private
>> detective
>> company to go around and buy coffee at 11 other take out places. They all
>> sold their coffee at 120F, which is enough to cause discomfort and a burn
>> if
>> you don't remove it.
>>
>> McDonalds settled out of court and modified their coffee machines to make
>> them safe.
>
> In the interest of shedding additional light on this urban myth, I will
> point out that MacDonalds did not initially just settle "out of court".
> Some material facts: The elderly plaintiff experienced third degree
> burns (the worst), spent eight days in the hospital, received multiple
> skin grafts, and underwent additional treatment over the next two years.
> Prior to the incident, the National Burn Center had issued a warning
> that restaurants not serve beverages at a temperature over 135F.
> Despite that, and the fact that MacDonalds had recorded over 700
> instances of children and adults being scalded by their coffee, they did
> not reduce to the recommended temperature.
>
> Plaintiff offered to settle for $20,000 but MacDonalds refused and the
> product liability (not negligence) case went to court. After plaintiff
> won in lower court with a $640,000 award, MacDonald's appealed the
> decision but only then agreed to settle out of court. The agreement
> included a non-disclosure clause but it is assumed to be considerably
> less than $640,000.
>
>> There is a difference between being hot, and being dangerously hot,
>> unlike
>> any other vendor.
>
> Indeed. I have heard so many people reference this case as an example
> of lawyers-gone-wild or the alleged need for severe tort reform. But
> literally 100% of the time, these people had little, if any, accurate
> understanding of the facts in the case. They believed the propaganda
> that suggested the plaintiff was a dishonest money-grubber out to make a
> million on a little scald. As always, it was in the corporate interest
> to disseminate such rumors. And, as it often happens, it caused
> millions of people to support new, restrictive laws that work mightily
> AGAINST the public interest. Like preserving cakes in a jar, too darn
> many people are willing to believe just about anything they hear, even
> when it works against their own interest.
>
> Isabella

Which is why I didn't mention that case, but the one about injury caused
while mowing the lawn in bare feet. I seem to remember that when my brother
was in law school, this was a case that was mentioned when they were
studying torts.

The coffee one was caused by the defendant, in this case McDonald's, having
the temperature higher than reasonable. But there are warnings on lawn
mowers about not wearing open-toed shoes, I believe, while mowing.

Some things have gotten quite ridiculous though when you read the labels on
things like wheat bread that say "allergen alert, contains wheat". There is
a point where people do need to take responsibility for their own stupidity.

-Marilyn

"The Joneses" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dave Bell wrote:
>>> Have I missed anything, so far?
>>>
>>> How then is that inherently *different* from cooking the same items in a
>>> 250 F - or hotter - oven for the same period of time?
> (clipped for brevity_).
>>
>> Sticking it in a pressure canner, bringing the canner up to the correct
>> pressure (and temperature) and keeping it there is relatively simple.
>> The only indicator you need is a pressure gauge and the testing has
>> been done for saftey. Therefore pressure canning is "RELATIVELY" fool
>> proof while oven canning would be difficult.
>>
>> Geoff.
>>
> Great answering, Geoff. I believe the gist of it also is the acid content
> and them things not having lids on during the cooking process.
> Edrena
>

Putting the lids on like this reminds me of when I'm vacuum sealing things.
I have a Tilia Foodsaver and I have vacuum sealed things like prunes that
I've dried in the dehydrator. But I would never consider them canned, even
though they're in Mason jars with lids and the lids are sealed. I know they
won't keep indefinitely. The preservation part occurred when I dehydrated
them, not when I put them in the jars. That's storage method versus
preservation. In the case of the cake in a jar, it's really only been
stored. No preserving ever takes place. The prunes also have a very low
moisture content compared to the cake.

I did send brownies to my daughter when she was at an army training school.
I vacuum sealed them in a bag with the Foodsaver and then got them in the
mail right away. They weren't going overseas though and I'd liken it to
sending cookies. All it did was keep them fresh just a little longer, like
the week it took for her to get them.

I wonder about sending any sort of food item like that to a service member
overseas. Everything has to go through customs, doesn't it? My daughter
wanted to send a package to a fellow service member who was stationed in
Germany. She had an APO address, but because she still had to fill out a
customs declaration form and one of the things it said you shouldn't send is
food. I want to say it was a forbidden item because things like that can
attract insect pests, etc.

-Marilyn

"Brian Mailman" > wrote in message
m...
> George Shirley wrote:
>> Marilyn wrote:
>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I know it's not proper to do this but I got to thinking about it.
>>>> What's to stop some idiot from doing say...casserole in a jar? Or any
>>>> other thing you might bake. It's scary!
>>>
>>> Precisely. People do stupid things all the time and then they will try
>>> to find a way to fix the blame on someone other than themselves, like
>>> the jar manufacturer or hey, maybe they can blame it on the oven or the
>>> lids. After all, if some idiot can sue a lawn mower manufacturer
>>> because they got their toes chopped off because they were mowing the
>>> lawn in flip-flops, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Or sue McDonald's because the person spilled hot coffee in their own
>> crotch while driving. The horror is that the woman won her lawsuit and
>> got a couple of million for it.
>
> One of the problems with these kinds of pop myths is that they're
> distorted by shortening the issue. Yes, the woman had some liability for
> being careless and she was suitable dinged for it in the payout.
>
> But the issue was not this particular woman. McD's had been told
> *several* times people had been injured by dangerously hot (as
> distinguished from merely hot) coffee and had NOT amended their procedures
> so to minimize the danger from their end. The legal term for this is
> "foreseeable consequences," such as no, technically it's not your fault
> the toddler picked up the gun and shot himself--but you should have been
> able to foresee the danger and put the gun out of reach when the kids were
> visiting.
>

I worked for McDonalds back in High School (and I also got started drinking
black coffee then) this was years before that lawsuit. I can attest to the
coffee being too hot. Way, way too hot, as in you put it to your lips and
it would instantly burn them. McDonalds did it that way for a very simple
reason - it saved them money.

When you heat coffee water to scalding temperatures it takes less coffee
to make coffee the same density in a drip coffeemaker. (ie: blackness) The
reason is that the hotter water causes the molecular action in the coffee
grounds to be higher and it drives more coffee oils and such out of the
grounds and into the water for the limited time the water is in contact with
them. It is not a huge savings of coffee but they sell so much of it they
didn't need to save much per pot. This incidentally is why I can't stand
drip coffee and when I make it I use a perker.

The higher heat also drives more of the gross-tasting stuff out of the bean
so the coffee is more bitter and not as good. But during that time McD
didn't give a rat's ass about coffee taste anyway as they used really crappy
coffee.

The other benefit is that it cut down on coffee refills in the dining room
since
the early risers that tend to drift into McDonalds in the early morning and
sit around reading the paper for a few hours have to wait to drink when they
get their cup for it to cool.

Ted

"Marilyn" > wrote in message
...
> "The Joneses" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dave Bell wrote:
>>>> Have I missed anything, so far?
>>>>
>>>> How then is that inherently *different* from cooking the same items in
>>>> a
>>>> 250 F - or hotter - oven for the same period of time?
>> (clipped for brevity_).
>>>
>>> Sticking it in a pressure canner, bringing the canner up to the correct
>>> pressure (and temperature) and keeping it there is relatively simple.
>>> The only indicator you need is a pressure gauge and the testing has
>>> been done for saftey. Therefore pressure canning is "RELATIVELY" fool
>>> proof while oven canning would be difficult.
>>>
>>> Geoff.
>>>
>> Great answering, Geoff. I believe the gist of it also is the acid content
>> and them things not having lids on during the cooking process.
>> Edrena
>>
>
> Putting the lids on like this reminds me of when I'm vacuum sealing
> things. I have a Tilia Foodsaver and I have vacuum sealed things like
> prunes that I've dried in the dehydrator. But I would never consider them
> canned, even though they're in Mason jars with lids and the lids are
> sealed. I know they won't keep indefinitely. The preservation part
> occurred when I dehydrated them, not when I put them in the jars. That's
> storage method versus preservation. In the case of the cake in a jar,
> it's really only been stored. No preserving ever takes place. The prunes
> also have a very low moisture content compared to the cake.
>
> I did send brownies to my daughter when she was at an army training
> school. I vacuum sealed them in a bag with the Foodsaver and then got them
> in the mail right away. They weren't going overseas though and I'd liken
> it to sending cookies. All it did was keep them fresh just a little
> longer, like the week it took for her to get them.
>
> I wonder about sending any sort of food item like that to a service member
> overseas. Everything has to go through customs, doesn't it? My daughter
> wanted to send a package to a fellow service member who was stationed in
> Germany. She had an APO address, but because she still had to fill out a
> customs declaration form and one of the things it said you shouldn't send
> is food. I want to say it was a forbidden item because things like that
> can attract insect pests, etc.
>
> -Marilyn
>
Goddess forbid we should send possibly toxic products to our sojers when the
enemy is sending lethal products their way also.
Edrena

The Joneses wrote:
> "Marilyn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "The Joneses" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Dave Bell wrote:
>>>>> Have I missed anything, so far?
>>>>>
>>>>> How then is that inherently *different* from cooking the same items in
>>>>> a
>>>>> 250 F - or hotter - oven for the same period of time?
>>> (clipped for brevity_).
>>>> Sticking it in a pressure canner, bringing the canner up to the correct
>>>> pressure (and temperature) and keeping it there is relatively simple.
>>>> The only indicator you need is a pressure gauge and the testing has
>>>> been done for saftey. Therefore pressure canning is "RELATIVELY" fool
>>>> proof while oven canning would be difficult.
>>>>
>>>> Geoff.
>>>>
>>> Great answering, Geoff. I believe the gist of it also is the acid content
>>> and them things not having lids on during the cooking process.
>>> Edrena
>>>
>> Putting the lids on like this reminds me of when I'm vacuum sealing
>> things. I have a Tilia Foodsaver and I have vacuum sealed things like
>> prunes that I've dried in the dehydrator. But I would never consider them
>> canned, even though they're in Mason jars with lids and the lids are
>> sealed. I know they won't keep indefinitely. The preservation part
>> occurred when I dehydrated them, not when I put them in the jars. That's
>> storage method versus preservation. In the case of the cake in a jar,
>> it's really only been stored. No preserving ever takes place. The prunes
>> also have a very low moisture content compared to the cake.
>>
>> I did send brownies to my daughter when she was at an army training
>> school. I vacuum sealed them in a bag with the Foodsaver and then got them
>> in the mail right away. They weren't going overseas though and I'd liken
>> it to sending cookies. All it did was keep them fresh just a little
>> longer, like the week it took for her to get them.
>>
>> I wonder about sending any sort of food item like that to a service member
>> overseas. Everything has to go through customs, doesn't it? My daughter
>> wanted to send a package to a fellow service member who was stationed in
>> Germany. She had an APO address, but because she still had to fill out a
>> customs declaration form and one of the things it said you shouldn't send
>> is food. I want to say it was a forbidden item because things like that
>> can attract insect pests, etc.
>>
>> -Marilyn
>>
> Goddess forbid we should send possibly toxic products to our sojers when the
> enemy is sending lethal products their way also.
> Edrena
>
>
My Mom sent me a Christmas box with a tin of cookies in it once upon a
time. My ship was at sea from October through mid-December that year and
when opened - green crumbs were in the tin. No such thing as air
conditioning in military buildings back then. I just told her they were
delicious in my next letter home and had fresh cookies at my lady
friends home that year. Note: we married the following Christmas and now
I have to make the cookies.

<snip> I worked for McDonalds back in High School... <snip>

Mee too!!!

<snip> ...I can attest to the coffee being too hot. <snip>

Yes, it was...took *forever* to cool off...

<snip> This incidentally is why I can't stand drip coffee and when I
make it I use a perker. <snip>

Mee too (again)!!! Makes a wicked good cup...don't care what the
coffee snobs say...I *love* my little Farberware coffee pot.

"Marilyn" > wrote in message
...
> "The Joneses" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dave Bell wrote:
>>>> Have I missed anything, so far?
>>>>
>>>> How then is that inherently *different* from cooking the same items in
>>>> a
>>>> 250 F - or hotter - oven for the same period of time?
>> (clipped for brevity_).
>>>
>>> Sticking it in a pressure canner, bringing the canner up to the correct
>>> pressure (and temperature) and keeping it there is relatively simple.
>>> The only indicator you need is a pressure gauge and the testing has
>>> been done for saftey. Therefore pressure canning is "RELATIVELY" fool
>>> proof while oven canning would be difficult.
>>>
>>> Geoff.
>>>
>> Great answering, Geoff. I believe the gist of it also is the acid content
>> and them things not having lids on during the cooking process.
>> Edrena
>>
>
> Putting the lids on like this reminds me of when I'm vacuum sealing
> things. I have a Tilia Foodsaver and I have vacuum sealed things like
> prunes that I've dried in the dehydrator. But I would never consider them
> canned, even though they're in Mason jars with lids and the lids are
> sealed. I know they won't keep indefinitely. The preservation part
> occurred when I dehydrated them, not when I put them in the jars. That's
> storage method versus preservation. In the case of the cake in a jar,
> it's really only been stored. No preserving ever takes place. The prunes
> also have a very low moisture content compared to the cake.
>
> I did send brownies to my daughter when she was at an army training
> school. I vacuum sealed them in a bag with the Foodsaver and then got them
> in the mail right away. They weren't going overseas though and I'd liken
> it to sending cookies. All it did was keep them fresh just a little
> longer, like the week it took for her to get them.
>
> I wonder about sending any sort of food item like that to a service member
> overseas. Everything has to go through customs, doesn't it? My daughter
> wanted to send a package to a fellow service member who was stationed in
> Germany. She had an APO address, but because she still had to fill out a
> customs declaration form and one of the things it said you shouldn't send
> is food. I want to say it was a forbidden item because things like that
> can attract insect pests, etc.

I used to send cookies to my husband when he was on a ship near South
America. He said they arrived intact. I don't remember having to fill out
any customs papers. I do know he warned me about not sending any chocolate.
Apparently his mom once sent him a chocolate rabbit and it arrived melted.
I quit sending the cookies because the cost of postage was so high. After
that I sent Rice Crispy treats because they were lighter in weight. But
they were not as well received.

I have since learned that the chefs on the ship were very good and there was
no lack of food, desserts or otherwise. They had a soft serve ice cream
machine that was available all the time.

Another thing I learned is not to send things unless you know they are
specifically needed. When my husband was stationed on Staten Island, huge
amounts of donated goods came flocking in. They were only allowed to send
so much stuff overseas. I don't know the particulars of it, but they had
sent all that they could and stuff was still flocking in. They didn't want
it to go to waste, so they distributed it throughout the housing where I
lived. Each person got a big paper grocery bag full of stuff I couldn't
possibly use. Tons of hairspray. Why do they need hairspray in the desert?
I don't use it at all. Some cough drops and hard candy. More things I
don't use, at least not very often. Tons of Carmex. Can't stand the stuff.
Several tubes of toothpaste in flavors and kinds I can't use. I only use
the kind for sensitive teeth. Aspirin and other pain relievers. Never use
those either. And two packs of playing cards. I kept those. I found some
kids to take the candy and threw the rest away. The pills and toothpaste
were about to expire or had expired anyway and I couldn't find anyone that
wanted the rest of it.

I also remember sending packets of Kool-Aid overseas when I was a kid. Our
Sunday school class did that so the soldiers could have better tasting
water. I've since learned from a soldier that putting Kool-Aid in a
canteen rots out the canteen and they can't use it.

So now I know it is pretty silly to go around collecting stuff unless you
know there is a specific need.

In article >,
"Marilyn" > wrote:

> "Isabella Woodhouse" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:
> >
> >> George Shirley wrote:
> >> > Or sue McDonald's because the person spilled hot coffee in their own
> >> > crotch while driving. The horror is that the woman won her lawsuit and
> >> > got a couple of million for it.
> >>
> >> George it never got to court. McDonalds coffee was sold at 180F,
> >> where it will burn you instantly. When she sued, McDonalds hired a
> >> private detective company to go around and buy coffee at 11 other
> >> take out places. They all sold their coffee at 120F, which is
> >> enough to cause discomfort and a burn if you don't remove it.
> >>
> >> McDonalds settled out of court and modified their coffee machines to make
> >> them safe.
> >
> > In the interest of shedding additional light on this urban myth, I will
> > point out that MacDonalds did not initially just settle "out of court".
> > Some material facts: The elderly plaintiff experienced third degree
> > burns (the worst), spent eight days in the hospital, received multiple
> > skin grafts, and underwent additional treatment over the next two years.
> > Prior to the incident, the National Burn Center had issued a warning
> > that restaurants not serve beverages at a temperature over 135F.
> > Despite that, and the fact that MacDonalds had recorded over 700
> > instances of children and adults being scalded by their coffee, they did
> > not reduce to the recommended temperature.
> >
> > Plaintiff offered to settle for $20,000 but MacDonalds refused and the
> > product liability (not negligence) case went to court. After plaintiff
> > won in lower court with a $640,000 award, MacDonald's appealed the
> > decision but only then agreed to settle out of court. The agreement
> > included a non-disclosure clause but it is assumed to be considerably
> > less than $640,000.
> >
> >> There is a difference between being hot, and being dangerously
> >> hot, unlike any other vendor.
> >
> > Indeed. I have heard so many people reference this case as an example
> > of lawyers-gone-wild or the alleged need for severe tort reform. But
> > literally 100% of the time, these people had little, if any, accurate
> > understanding of the facts in the case. They believed the propaganda
> > that suggested the plaintiff was a dishonest money-grubber out to make a
> > million on a little scald. As always, it was in the corporate interest
> > to disseminate such rumors. And, as it often happens, it caused
> > millions of people to support new, restrictive laws that work mightily
> > AGAINST the public interest. Like preserving cakes in a jar, too darn
> > many people are willing to believe just about anything they hear, even
> > when it works against their own interest.
>
> Which is why I didn't mention that case, but the one about injury caused
> while mowing the lawn in bare feet. I seem to remember that when my brother
> was in law school, this was a case that was mentioned when they were
> studying torts.

> The coffee one was caused by the defendant, in this case McDonald's, having
> the temperature higher than reasonable. But there are warnings on lawn
> mowers about not wearing open-toed shoes, I believe, while mowing.

What case are you talking about and, with all due respect, are you
really familiar enough with the details and timeframe to make such
assumptions?

> Some things have gotten quite ridiculous though when you read the labels on
> things like wheat bread that say "allergen alert, contains wheat". There is
> a point where people do need to take responsibility for their own stupidity.

Once again, are you referring to a real case and, if so, would it not
serve a greater purpose to let us all be privy to the same facts? Or is
this merely an hypothetical example? Your reference to wheat and
allergens has me especially curious. What exactly are you implying when
you make reference to responsibility and people's stupidity in such
food-related matters? Have you knowledge of a rash of litigation
related to allergy and autoimmune conditions? I just don't understand
where it is you're going with this.

Isabella
--
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"
-T.S. Eliot

In article >,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote:

> I worked for McDonalds back in High School (and I also got started drinking
> black coffee then) this was years before that lawsuit. I can attest to the
> coffee being too hot. Way, way too hot, as in you put it to your lips and
> it would instantly burn them. McDonalds did it that way for a very simple
> reason - it saved them money.
>
> When you heat coffee water to scalding temperatures it takes less coffee
> to make coffee the same density in a drip coffeemaker. (ie: blackness) The
> reason is that the hotter water causes the molecular action in the coffee
> grounds to be higher and it drives more coffee oils and such out of the
> grounds and into the water for the limited time the water is in contact with
> them. It is not a huge savings of coffee but they sell so much of it they
> didn't need to save much per pot. This incidentally is why I can't stand
> drip coffee and when I make it I use a perker.

I just knew that greed had to be in there somewhere. I often wonder
when and why it was that making a killing replaced earning reasonable
profits.

> The higher heat also drives more of the gross-tasting stuff out of the bean
> so the coffee is more bitter and not as good. But during that time McD
> didn't give a rat's ass about coffee taste anyway as they used really crappy
> coffee.
>
> The other benefit is that it cut down on coffee refills in the dining room
> since
> the early risers that tend to drift into McDonalds in the early morning and
> sit around reading the paper for a few hours have to wait to drink when they
> get their cup for it to cool.
>
> Ted
--
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"
-T.S. Eliot

"Isabella Woodhouse" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Marilyn" > wrote:
>
>> "Isabella Woodhouse" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:
>> >
>> >> George Shirley wrote:
>> >> > Or sue McDonald's because the person spilled hot coffee in their own
>> >> > crotch while driving. The horror is that the woman won her lawsuit
>> >> > and
>> >> > got a couple of million for it.
>> >>
>> >> George it never got to court. McDonalds coffee was sold at 180F,
>> >> where it will burn you instantly. When she sued, McDonalds hired a
>> >> private detective company to go around and buy coffee at 11 other
>> >> take out places. They all sold their coffee at 120F, which is
>> >> enough to cause discomfort and a burn if you don't remove it.
>> >>
>> >> McDonalds settled out of court and modified their coffee machines to
>> >> make
>> >> them safe.
>> >
>> > In the interest of shedding additional light on this urban myth, I will
>> > point out that MacDonalds did not initially just settle "out of court".
>> > Some material facts: The elderly plaintiff experienced third degree
>> > burns (the worst), spent eight days in the hospital, received multiple
>> > skin grafts, and underwent additional treatment over the next two
>> > years.
>> > Prior to the incident, the National Burn Center had issued a warning
>> > that restaurants not serve beverages at a temperature over 135F.
>> > Despite that, and the fact that MacDonalds had recorded over 700
>> > instances of children and adults being scalded by their coffee, they
>> > did
>> > not reduce to the recommended temperature.
>> >
>> > Plaintiff offered to settle for $20,000 but MacDonalds refused and the
>> > product liability (not negligence) case went to court. After plaintiff
>> > won in lower court with a $640,000 award, MacDonald's appealed the
>> > decision but only then agreed to settle out of court. The agreement
>> > included a non-disclosure clause but it is assumed to be considerably
>> > less than $640,000.
>> >
>> >> There is a difference between being hot, and being dangerously
>> >> hot, unlike any other vendor.
>> >
>> > Indeed. I have heard so many people reference this case as an example
>> > of lawyers-gone-wild or the alleged need for severe tort reform. But
>> > literally 100% of the time, these people had little, if any, accurate
>> > understanding of the facts in the case. They believed the propaganda
>> > that suggested the plaintiff was a dishonest money-grubber out to make
>> > a
>> > million on a little scald. As always, it was in the corporate interest
>> > to disseminate such rumors. And, as it often happens, it caused
>> > millions of people to support new, restrictive laws that work mightily
>> > AGAINST the public interest. Like preserving cakes in a jar, too darn
>> > many people are willing to believe just about anything they hear, even
>> > when it works against their own interest.
>>
>> Which is why I didn't mention that case, but the one about injury caused
>> while mowing the lawn in bare feet. I seem to remember that when my
>> brother
>> was in law school, this was a case that was mentioned when they were
>> studying torts.
>
>> The coffee one was caused by the defendant, in this case McDonald's,
>> having
>> the temperature higher than reasonable. But there are warnings on lawn
>> mowers about not wearing open-toed shoes, I believe, while mowing.
>
> What case are you talking about and, with all due respect, are you
> really familiar enough with the details and timeframe to make such
> assumptions?
>
>> Some things have gotten quite ridiculous though when you read the labels
>> on
>> things like wheat bread that say "allergen alert, contains wheat". There
>> is
>> a point where people do need to take responsibility for their own
>> stupidity.
>
> Once again, are you referring to a real case and, if so, would it not
> serve a greater purpose to let us all be privy to the same facts? Or is
> this merely an hypothetical example? Your reference to wheat and
> allergens has me especially curious. What exactly are you implying when
> you make reference to responsibility and people's stupidity in such
> food-related matters? Have you knowledge of a rash of litigation
> related to allergy and autoimmune conditions? I just don't understand
> where it is you're going with this.

Actually, some people can be really stupid when it comes to food. My
daughter is allergic to wheat and I can't believe how many people I've run
across who do not know what all wheat is in. In two different restaurants,
I asked if the pork chops were breaded. They said they were not. To
clarify, I said, "So it's just a plain pork chop with nothing on it?
Because she's allergic to wheat." Then it came out breaded. In one case I
was told it was just flour and in another case "grill seasoning". The
waitresses didn't know that was wheat. People also think she can have white
bread instead of wheat.

I appreciate those warnings on foods. I am allergic to eggs and dairy and I
avoid soy because it messes with my thyroid. Makes it easier for me when I
buy bread for myself to see that statement rather than to read through the
whole list of ingredients and possibly miss something. I once didn't see
the "whey" listed on some whole wheat tortillas because the ingredients were
printed in tan writing on a clear bag.

In article >,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote:

> When you heat coffee water to scalding temperatures it takes less coffee
> to make coffee the same density in a drip coffeemaker. (ie: blackness) The
> reason is that the hotter water causes the molecular action in the coffee
> grounds to be higher and it drives more coffee oils and such out of the
> grounds and into the water for the limited time the water is in contact with
> them. It is not a huge savings of coffee but they sell so much of it they

> Ted

OB Preserving: I wonder if that's the reason you get more juice faster
from heated berries than from cold berries.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.mac.com/barbschaller, Thelma and Louise
On the Road Again - It is Finished

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote:
>
>> When you heat coffee water to scalding temperatures it takes less coffee
>> to make coffee the same density in a drip coffeemaker. (ie: blackness)
>> The
>> reason is that the hotter water causes the molecular action in the coffee
>> grounds to be higher and it drives more coffee oils and such out of the
>> grounds and into the water for the limited time the water is in contact
>> with
>> them. It is not a huge savings of coffee but they sell so much of it
>> they
>
>> Ted
>
> OB Preserving: I wonder if that's the reason you get more juice faster
> from heated berries than from cold berries.

Probably. When juicing citrus, the juice comes out faster if it is at room
temp. or has been plunged from the fridge into some hot water for a bit.
Also helps to smoosh it around on the counter to loosen things up.

In article >,
"Julie Bove" > wrote:

> "Isabella Woodhouse" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Marilyn" > wrote:

> >> Some things have gotten quite ridiculous though when you read the
> >> labels on things like wheat bread that say "allergen alert,
> >> contains wheat". There is a point where people do need to take
> >> responsibility for their own stupidity.
> >
> > Once again, are you referring to a real case and, if so, would it not
> > serve a greater purpose to let us all be privy to the same facts? Or is
> > this merely an hypothetical example? Your reference to wheat and
> > allergens has me especially curious. What exactly are you implying when
> > you make reference to responsibility and people's stupidity in such
> > food-related matters? Have you knowledge of a rash of litigation
> > related to allergy and autoimmune conditions? I just don't understand
> > where it is you're going with this.
>
> Actually, some people can be really stupid when it comes to food.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. But if you read back a bit in this thread,
you will see that Marilyn was discussing instances where she seemed to
feel that people were taking certain matters to court instead of taking
personal responsibility for their own failure to use common sense or
read instructions. So, based on the little bit she said about wheat and
allergens, it seemed like she was maybe blaming people for not reading
labels. But since it was not clear, I asked her to clarify. We can
only await that clarification.

> ...My daughter is allergic to wheat and I can't believe how many
> people I've run across who do not know what all wheat is in. In two
> different restaurants, I asked if the pork chops were breaded. They
> said they were not. To clarify, I said, "So it's just a plain pork
> chop with nothing on it? Because she's allergic to wheat." Then it
> came out breaded. In one case I was told it was just flour and in
> another case "grill seasoning". The waitresses didn't know that was
> wheat. People also think she can have white bread instead of wheat.

I have celiac so, believe me, I am very cognizant that many people, even
restaurant wait-staffers (!), actually know almost nothing about what is
in the food they eat or serve. Each time we eat out, I feel like I'm
playing Russian roulette. Wheat is the main problem for people with
celiac, but barley, rye, spelt, oats, triticale, farro, and a few other
things are also toxic because they all share a certain protein commonly
referred to as gluten.

Despite my requests to the contrary, I've had people bring me salads
with croutons not realizing there is wheat in croutons. And yes, the
white bread versus "wheat" bread is also a very common misconception.
That so many people don't know that white flour has wheat in it simply
boggles the mind. They don't know what's in pasta either. Or that malt
is usually made from barley or that you are not trying to be difficult
when you ask to read a label because there are just so many processed
foods that have some form of 'gluten' in them. Very few restaurants
have scratch kitchens. I can't begin to count the number of places
we've stopped at that had not a single entree on their menu that I could
eat or that expected me to make a meal of dressing-less salad and a dish
of canned applesauce.

> I appreciate those warnings on foods. I am allergic to eggs and dairy and I
> avoid soy because it messes with my thyroid. Makes it easier for me when I
> buy bread for myself to see that statement rather than to read through the
> whole list of ingredients and possibly miss something. I once didn't see
> the "whey" listed on some whole wheat tortillas because the ingredients were
> printed in tan writing on a clear bag.

Though it has improved somewhat over the last year or so, labeling is
still a gigantic problem. While more companies are taking it seriously,
many still do not. I can't even count all the times I've had toxic
reactions from mislabeled and gluten-contaminated foods. And each time
I have a celiac reaction, it increases my likelihood of contracting
intestinal cancer--- a disease many people with celiac contract and die
from before they are ever diagnosed with celiac.

So, at home, I make nearly everything from scratch as a result and we
tend to eat out at restaurants that have scratch kitchens or have a
well-constructed company policy with an in-serviced wait-staff. That so
many people now have celiac and food allergies, and the percentage is
still increasing, is very disturbing.

Isabella
--
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"
-T.S. Eliot