A question of safety

[Hopz]

I made a Pot Roast on Friday... it was great. Because it was still hot I left it out to cool before putting it in the fridge.

Woke up Saturday to find it still cooling on the stove top. Forgot to put it away.

For us, the leftover pot roast is almost better than the first serving. We like to make various dishes from the shredded beef.

So, I put the crock pot vessel back into the cooker and ran it for another 2 hours... hopefully killing any "nasties" thet grew over Friday night.

Question.... do you think it safe to eat? Would YOU eat it?

 

[BreezyCooking]

Hmmm. If I had been you, I would have just popped it into the fridge as soon as I found it Saturday morning. Wouldn't have bothered sticking it back into the crockpot to cook at low temps for 2 more hours. I don't have anything scientific to go by, but I would think recooking it at low temps would just make any possible nasties even nastier.

I have left things like this out overnight accidentally & have never become ill from eating them - but I would also not serve them to the very young, very old, or anyone immune system-compromised.

 

[Hopz]

B.C. I should clarify... I cooked it again on HIGH-- actually it was boiling for and hour or so...
In my homebrewing experience... boiling for 20 minutes will kill anything nasty... or so I have been led to believe...
The question remains.

 

[amber]

When in doubt, throw it out. No sense in risking food poisoning. I wouldn't eat it.

 

[jennyema]

Throw it out. If heat were magically able to sanitize tainted food we wouldn't have refigerators. Bacteria is usually killed by heat, but once the bacteria has formed, as it surely did on your meat, it begins to produce toxins not all of which are killed off by heat.

Here is some information from the good folks at the Texas Agricultural Extension Service that should hopefully make you think twice about eating that pot roast. Sorry.

 

[Hopz]

Thanks for the tip, and the reference to the web site.

Curious to note that of the ten "nasties" (technical term...) only one, [SIZE=-1]Listeria monocytogenes, seemed resistant to cooking temperatures.... all the rest were killed off.

I will throw it out, but I ate it anyway yesterday- so far no symptoms....
[/SIZE]

 

[jennyema]

But if you look at the chart, many of the types of bacteria listed produce toxins that are not killed by heat. So while the meat was sitting at room temperature the bacteria was spewing even more dangerous nasties just for you! Even if you recook the meat and destroy the bacteria the toxins that can make you sick are still there.

 

[Hopz]

jenny... I do appreciate your inputs, but look at my logic too.

I cooked at a boiling simmer the pot roast for 6 hours... that would have killed all ten of the listed bacteria. They would not be able to produce toxins.

Then it sat covered for about 8 hours.... previous bacteria dead... no new bacteria allowed to enter the mix... then boiled again for an hour... nothing alive in there to make toxins.

where am I missing the boat here?

 

[BreezyCooking]

Whoa Nelly!!!

First off, do keep in mind that I was one of the posters who would have eaten the pot roast, no problem.

However, that said - your comment that it "sat covered for about 8 hours, previous bacteria dead, no new bacteria allowed to enter" is, unfortunately, completely untrue.

Unless the pot roast was hermetically sealed in a vacuum bag, it just being "covered" means less than nothing as far as barring bacteria from entering. Exactly how large do you think bacteria are - lol!!!!!!!

 

[Andy M.]

jenny... I do appreciate your inputs, but look at my logic too.

I cooked at a boiling simmer the pot roast for 6 hours... that would have killed all ten of the listed bacteria. They would not be able to produce toxins.

Then it sat covered for about 8 hours.... previous bacteria dead... no new bacteria allowed to enter the mix... then boiled again for an hour... nothing alive in there to make toxins.

where am I missing the boat here?

The bacteria create the toxins, then you kill the bacteria. The toxins remain. The fact that no new bacteria were added to the pot (wrong! breezy cooking is right) is immaterial.

You were lucky this time.

 

[Claire]

I would eat it .... but would probably taste hours before serving it to anyone else.

 

[Hopz]

Look everyone, first off I am not trying to be osteperous, nor am I lookng for a fight... I just value logical thinking...

Andy- if you go back to the chart supplied by the scientists as referenced by jenny, you will see that all ten of the bacteria discussed are killed by the normal cookng process. Once they are dead- they do not produce toxins. If they produced toxins before I orignally cooked it, then why don't we all get sick all the time?

In addition, the common sources of these bacteria are poor hygiene, fecal matter etc. Once I cooked the roast I did not handle it, or expose it to anything other than the evironmental air of my house. Then under cover for the time mentioned. While I agree that the pot was not hermetically sealed, it certainly was not open to the air. The chance of enviromental contamination is remote.

If our air was that nasty then why don't we all cook under a laminar flow hood?

I have thrown it out...

 

[Michael in FtW]

Let's try another website, this one is the USDA Safe Food Handling - How Temperatures Affect Food Fact Sheet. This seems to be relevant to the original question since it addresses the question:

"Last night I left cooked roast beef on the counter to cool before refrigerating, but fell asleep and discovered it this morning. I immediately put it in the refrigerator. Since the meat is cooked, shouldn't it be safe to eat?"

I can't help you with your logic - but perhaps I can offer an idea based on the science of Microbiology. Some bacteria produce spores which are not killed at the cooking temp that the bacteria are. Left to sit for a while in an ideal environment of food, moisture, oxygen and a temperature in the "danger zone" (41-140-F) - they hatch and new bacteria begin to grow and multiply. And, in time, some will produce new toxins that may have been originally killed in the initial cooking.

I cooked at a boiling simmer the pot roast for 6 hours

Technically, there is no such thing as a boiling simmer. At sea level (760 mmHg) the boiling point of water is 212-F. Below boiling (starting at about 160-F) is a simmer and unless you are using a pressure cooker, water will never get hotter than 212-F - although turning a pot on high will cause more water to vaproize faster (a fast boil) the temp is the same. In a slow cooker - low temp is 200-F - a simmer just below the boil. Bacteria which might need a temp above 212-F for "instant kill" can be killed by a prolonged exposure to temps below that (I used to have a link to a website with the temps and times but I can't seem to find it now).

In your situation - given the cooking and standing times, and probable potential pathogens in beef - boiling the roast for an hour, after having been cooked and sitting out for 8 hours, before eating possibly rendered it harmless. Something I "might" try for myself under certain economic conditions (probably wouldn't) - but would not want to risk serving to anyone else.

 

[Robo410]

I would have no qualms reheating it and eating it. However, even food refridgerated has a life expectancy, and this pot has lost some of its 9 lives. SO I would use it quickly. I don't generally leave food lying around, and had it been a mayo based salad, I would not try to resurect it. But a pot roast, fully cooked and covered, historically should be fine. In days before the fridge, (and on Amish farms and in parts of Asia and Africa) this kind of pot meal was left covered and reheated the next day, or used for a meat pie filling. Two or three days more, no sir.

However, I don't expect anyone to follow my practices who has not seen first hand what can be safely done with pre-electric methods.

 

[ironchef]

***Keep in mind that this post is not directly responding to anyone (I'll quote you if I am), but it is meant for anyone who is reading this thread and has doubts about the subject being adressed. Being that my profession directly deals with liabilities which can result from the mishandling of food, I just feel that this needs to be said. Admins, delete this post if you feel you need to do so.***

Some people like to play roulette with their health, and some don't. Simple as that. You do what you feel is right and if nothing happens, so be it. But to suggest to others that it is the ok thing to do is irresponsible IMO.

By saying "Well I would eat it..." implies that it's ok to do so, but don't blame me if you get sick. Whether or not one has done or will do something food related and has not suffered any ill-effects from it is irrelevant, especially if that act can or may have a high, or even relatively high probability of someone getting a food-born illness. Anyone browsing the web could find this thread, and for all we know, they could be much more susceptible to listeria or salmonella than the average person.

It's like someone asking a question like, "I just cut up raw chicken and then used the same cutting board without washing it to cut my lettuce for my Caesar salad. Is the lettuce still safe to eat?"

"Sure, I did that last week and nothing happened. I felt fine!"

Yes, the example in this thread is not to this extreme, but the general idea is there. If there's a good risk of any food-borne illness (and keep in mind that different people have different immune systems and/or tolerances to different things), the ONLY good advice is to throw it out.

 

[amber]

***Keep in mind that this post is not directly responding to anyone (I'll quote you if I am), but it is meant for anyone who is reading this thread and has doubts about the subject being adressed. Being that my profession directly deals with liabilities which can result from the mishandling of food, I just feel that this needs to be said. Admins, delete this post if you feel you need to do so.***

Some people like to play roulette with their health, and some don't. Simple as that. You do what you feel is right and if nothing happens, so be it. But to suggest to others that it is the ok thing to do is irresponsible IMO.

By saying "Well I would eat it..." implies that it's ok to do so, but don't blame me if you get sick. Whether or not one has done or will do something food related and has not suffered any ill-effects from it is irrelevant, especially if that act can or may have a high, or even relatively high probability of someone getting a food-born illness. Anyone browsing the web could find this thread, and for all we know, they could be much more susceptible to listeria or salmonella than the average person.

It's like someone asking a question like, "I just cut up raw chicken and then used the same cutting board without washing it to cut my lettuce for my Caesar salad. Is the lettuce still safe to eat?"

"Sure, I did that last week and nothing happened. I felt fine!"

Yes, the example in this thread is not to this extreme, but the general idea is there. If there's a good risk of any food-borne illness (and keep in mind that different people have different immune systems and/or tolerances to different things), the ONLY good advice is to throw it out.

I completely agree with you. As I said, "when it doubt, throw it out". There is no sense in risking food born illnesses.

 

[Michael in FtW]

Don't worry Ironchef - I can't think of a moderator or admin that would delete your post. Sometimes you can dodge the bullet ... but there is a reason for the food safety guidelines.

 

[GB]

It is kind of like wearing your seatbelt. You can live a full life without ever wearing it, but that does not mean it is safe or advisable.

 

[Ripliancum]

I would have eaten it, even without putting back in the crock pot. i'm sure the extra cooking in the crock pot made it even better than the first time around and killed off any bacteria that may have grown on it overnight.

 

[buckytom]

i would say it facts and figures are a fine thing, something to be heeded, but you should know yourself, and who else may eat it.
i believe that i was raised a little less delicately than many people, eating lots of raw meats, fishes, and eggs, so i've found i have a fairly high tolerance to "iffy" foods. the worst i get is a little aggida, or gas.
is that a good thing? well, i'd think so. it shows that my immune and digestive systems are in good health, running on all cylinders.

if you are the same kind of person, then by all means just add a little moisture and reheat the sucker.
if you find you have a less than robust gut, chuck it.

shouldn't everyone be taking their daily antibiotics by now?