What do you think?

The place for serious discussion, announcements and breaking news about Sydenham
Tim Lund
Posts: 6718
Joined: 13 Mar 2008 18:10
Location: Silverdale

Re: What do you think?

Post by Tim Lund »

marymck wrote:I genuinely don't understand why there are labels on so many things nowadays ... I think those kind of labels account for a lot of waste.
From the Food Standards Agency web site:
Our approach to science

Our framework for science governance sets out what we do to make sure we live up to our principles of being open, transparent and science- and evidence- based.

The Agency ensures that:

policies, decisions and advice are based on the best available scientific evidence and analysis, including independent expert advice
it is open about the scientific evidence and analysis underpinning our decisions, including uncertainties, gaps and assumptions, and how we have used scientific evidence and analysis, and any other factors, in our decision-making and advice
scientific evidence and analysis is informed by input, scrutiny and challenge by experts and other stakeholders
evidence and analysis is available for further use by the science community and other stakeholders
I'm sure in your area of expertise, planning, where excessive regulation is also sometimes criticised, you will be able to point me to a comparable clear statement of everything being founded on evidence.
Last edited by Tim Lund on 28 Aug 2013 15:01, edited 1 time in total.
mosy
Posts: 4111
Joined: 21 Sep 2007 20:28
Location: London

Re: What do you think?

Post by mosy »

@ Eagle: Fully agree. I think the commenter was saying that people seemed to think from TV shows that they "had" to have fancy equipment like TV chefs. For example, "You must have a ricer to make mash". You and I know that's not true. There was a further comment that people who buy ready meals might not even watch the myriad cooking shows, thinking they were for the "middle classes" who have fancy kitchens etc. If that is true, then I guess they won't watch Jamie's new programme either, especially as it's been given a prime viewing hour slot, so presumably intended for armchair critics rather than real people. Hey ho.
mosy
Posts: 4111
Joined: 21 Sep 2007 20:28
Location: London

Re: What do you think?

Post by mosy »

@ marymck: As I understand it, a food can be cooked, left to cool, refrigerated/frozen then reheated once only. This due to how bacteria works (per Food Standard Agency plus an expert in the field.

OK, so how come a fresh bird cannot be reheated (per label)? I had this label and came up with two possible explanations:
1. Mine was pre-stuffed (a duck), so was it something to do with the stuffing? Can't see it myself.
2. People cannot be trusted to put just-cooked food into fridge as soon as cool enough (leaving food out at room temperature is heaven for bacterial growth) together with not being trusted to reheat things thoroughly, right through to the middle and to the correct temperature. There are different temps needed to kill different bugs and few will have a meat thermometer (or know the right temp) to check. Edit: Warming up food causes bugs to multiply alarmingly, imposing a much greater risk than if eaten cold, unless killed off (circle back to correct "killing" temp).

I follow the "only reheat once" rule, but despite extensive searching, could not find a definitive answer to "do not reheat at all". I suspect it's retailers covering their potential liability in case someone gets ill after reheating incorrectly, as (2) above.

HTH
marymck
Posts: 1579
Joined: 9 Feb 2008 16:30
Location: Upper Kirkdale

Re: What do you think?

Post by marymck »

Tim Lund wrote:
marymck wrote:I genuinely don't understand why there are labels on so many things nowadays ... I think those kind of labels account for a lot of waste.
From the Food Standards Agency web site:
Our approach to science

Our framework for science governance sets out what we do to make sure we live up to our principles of being open, transparent and science- and evidence- based.

The Agency ensures that:

policies, decisions and advice are based on the best available scientific evidence and analysis, including independent expert advice
it is open about the scientific evidence and analysis underpinning our decisions, including uncertainties, gaps and assumptions, and how we have used scientific evidence and analysis, and any other factors, in our decision-making and advice
scientific evidence and analysis is informed by input, scrutiny and challenge by experts and other stakeholders
evidence and analysis is available for further use by the science community and other stakeholders
I'm sure in your area of expertise, planning, where excessive regulation is also sometimes criticised, you will be able to point me to a comparable clear statement of everything being founded on evidence.
I don't understand what you're asking me Tim? Do I thi.k there is too much nanny state in some food labelling? Yes. Do I have a graph to prove it? No. Is this thread about town planning? No.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
Annie.
Posts: 2070
Joined: 11 May 2012 17:48

Re: What do you think?

Post by Annie. »

Problem is, a lot of the time "fresh" meat has already been frozen then defrosted,then put into the "chill" cabinets as fresh.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
marymck
Posts: 1579
Joined: 9 Feb 2008 16:30
Location: Upper Kirkdale

Re: What do you think?

Post by marymck »

mosy wrote:@ marymck: As I understand it, a food can be cooked, left to cool, refrigerated/frozen then reheated once only. This due to how bacteria works (per Food Standard Agency plus an expert in the field.

OK, so how come a fresh bird cannot be reheated (per label)? I had this label and came up with two possible explanations:
1. Mine was pre-stuffed (a duck), so was it something to do with the stuffing? Can't see it myself.
2. People cannot be trusted to put just-cooked food into fridge as soon as cool enough (leaving food out at room temperature is heaven for bacterial growth) together with not being trusted to reheat things thoroughly, right through to the middle and to the correct temperature. There are different temps needed to kill different bugs and few will have a meat thermometer (or know the right temp) to check. Edit: Warming up food causes bugs to multiply alarmingly, imposing a much greater risk than if eaten cold, unless killed off (circle back to correct "killing" temp).

I follow the "only reheat once" rule, but despite extensive searching, could not find a definitive answer to "do not reheat at all". I suspect it's retailers covering their potential liability in case someone gets ill after reheating incorrectly, as (2) above.

HTH
Yes I think you're spot on mosy.When I said a chicken lasts me several days, I meant that once I'd cooked it I remove the leftovers from the bone (by which less chance of bacteria), separate it into portions and use one portion per day, freezing those portions I won't use within a couple of days. I always heat it very, very hot, but I don't have a meat thermometer. And I only repeat once. I'm no expert, I just do what my mum did and her mum before her, but i couldn't find any evidence that you can't reheat once. I think it's like the labels that tell you not ti wash raw chicken - the retailers don't trust the customer to be sensible and hygienic. I'm surprised we're still allowed to buy muddy potatoes! Though I do understand most British chicken now has salmonella on the skin, it all comes down to good kitchen hygiene and common sense.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
leenewham
Posts: 5886
Joined: 2 Sep 2007 11:58
Location: SYDENHAM
Contact:

Re: What do you think?

Post by leenewham »

marymck wrote:I genuinely don't understand why there are labels on so many things nowadays telling you not to reheat them. Even fresh chickens (the wrapped ones from supermarkets) often have labels saying once cooked do not reheat. I can't see the problem myself, if it's reheated properly. A roast chicken lasts me several days, usually ending with the last bits in a pie, bulked out with a tin of Campbell's condensed soup, I think those kind of labels account for a lot of waste.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
If it's in plastic packaging it may be that it will leach chemicals into the food or it wont taste as good. Ot it might have been frozen. Many 'fresh' products in the chiller cabinet are previously frozen. Supermarkets sell fresh items for more than frozen because the perception is that frozen is inferior to fresh. That's probably the case with the chicken Mary. You could be paying extra for a previously frozen and now thawed chicken that will go off quicker than a frozen one!
Rachael
Posts: 2455
Joined: 23 Jan 2010 13:42
Location: Sydenham / Forest Hill Intersection

Re: What do you think?

Post by Rachael »

Mary - the rule about not washing raw chicken is VERY important. Almost all the chicken we buy today is contaminated with salmonella, as you noted. All the processing plants are hight contaminated. The latest advice is not to wash raw chicken as this tends to spread these bacteria around the kitchen via your sink. It's not about being careful or hygienic. Washing spreads the bacteria and doesn't kill it on the chicken, so why do it? Likewise, you should not rinse chicken packaging for recycling but put it straight into the bin. The bacteria ARE killed by proper cooking.

The reason why our mothers never had to follow this advice was that the food chain was not so contaminated in their day.
Last edited by Rachael on 28 Aug 2013 16:44, edited 1 time in total.
Tim Lund
Posts: 6718
Joined: 13 Mar 2008 18:10
Location: Silverdale

Re: What do you think?

Post by Tim Lund »

marymck wrote:I don't understand what you're asking me Tim? Do I thi.k there is too much nanny state in some food labelling? Yes. Do I have a graph to prove it? No.
Mary - I'm telling you you are wrong - that we do not live in a nanny state as regards food labeling, and if you could follow evidence, you would be able to understand this.
marymck wrote: Is this thread about town planning? No.
Indeed, but it is worth illustrating the point by your similar inability to put numbers to anything, or bring evidence other than personal opinion, in this other area.
mosy
Posts: 4111
Joined: 21 Sep 2007 20:28
Location: London

Re: What do you think?

Post by mosy »

leenewham wrote:
marymck wrote:I genuinely don't understand why there are labels on so many things nowadays telling you not to reheat them. Even fresh chickens (the wrapped ones from supermarkets) often have labels saying once cooked do not reheat. I can't see the problem myself, if it's reheated properly. A roast chicken lasts me several days, usually ending with the last bits in a pie, bulked out with a tin of Campbell's condensed soup, I think those kind of labels account for a lot of waste.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
If it's in plastic packaging it may be that it will leach chemicals into the food or it wont taste as good. Ot it might have been frozen. Many 'fresh' products in the chiller cabinet are previously frozen. Supermarkets sell fresh items for more than frozen because the perception is that frozen is inferior to fresh. That's probably the case with the chicken Mary. You could be paying extra for a previously frozen and now thawed chicken that will go off quicker than a frozen one!
@ Leenewham: Don't understand your first point that the plastic wrap could contaminate taste as it would have done so at point of removal and first cooking, so not relevant to reheating?
The point made about possibly previously frozen I think is incorrect (or if done, it's shadily on the quiet) since fresh meat is supposed to be kept in a chiller at a neutral temperature of Zero degrees Centigrade, so not frozen but cold enough to put bacteria into stasis (remain inactive). Besides, if it was previously frozen, it would have to show a same-day use-by date, and would not be allowed to show "Freezing instructions" since it's bad news to freeze-thaw-refreeze. However, once cooked, it makes no matter if it first was defrosted or fresh as it becomes a "new" (altered) thing, so starts from "Go" for cooked products.

@Tim Lund: I thought you were saying that the FSA website is impossible to navigate (yo that) and I wouldn't like to try to find the page showing supporting research (claimed to be openly available) for even one, let alone many of the no doubt composite study conclusions put forward. Just shows how wrong I can be :lol:
marymck
Posts: 1579
Joined: 9 Feb 2008 16:30
Location: Upper Kirkdale

Re: What do you think?

Post by marymck »

Tim Lund wrote:
marymck wrote:I don't understand what you're asking me Tim? Do I thi.k there is too much nanny state in some food labelling? Yes. Do I have a graph to prove it? No.
Mary - I'm telling you you are wrong - that we do not live in a nanny state as regards food labeling, and if you could follow evidence, you would be able to understand this.
marymck wrote: Is this thread about town planning? No.
Indeed, but it is worth illustrating the point by your similar inability to put numbers to anything, or bring evidence other than personal opinion, in this other area.
In this, as in so much else, sadly we won't agree Tim. I will continue to wash chicken in my deep Belfast sink and clean the sink and all surrounding area thoroughly when I have done so. The only time I have ever been ill when I have cooked a chicken is when I didn't wash it, because I followed the instructions on the label! The same label that told me not to reheat it once cooked. Not as scientific and statistic led as you'd like, I know Tim. Sorry about that. But the point if my post was that food labelling is over cautious and leads to waste and I stand by that belief even though I don't have the statistics you'd like.

Interesting to learn Lee and Annie about the frozen chickens being sold as fresh. Next time I will check the label, because last time I bought one I'm sure it said it could be frozen (raw) on the day of purchase. This was M&S, where I always rootle around for a really big chicken as part of their meal deals. I don't freeze it raw anyway, only in cooked slices.

If you'd seen the gibbletty unpleasantness that I've removed from machine and chemical cleaned chicken, you'd probably want to wash that out too.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
Rachael
Posts: 2455
Joined: 23 Jan 2010 13:42
Location: Sydenham / Forest Hill Intersection

Re: What do you think?

Post by Rachael »

Mary: washing chicken does not remove salmonella, so the one time you got ill from chicken was not because you didn't wash it. Out of interest, why do you wash chicken? Because it was what you were taught to do? That doesn't mean it's still best practice. Of course, I'm not suggesting that you stop doing what you do, that's of course your choice! You could save yourself some time though as washing it is completely ineffective. http://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/types/
Maria
Posts: 374
Joined: 3 Nov 2010 14:34
Location: Sydenham

Re: What do you think?

Post by Maria »

Tim: I just wonder if you would consider trying to answer people without ever humiliating or patronising them, do you think? I've often thought it but I suppose I always thought the people you were attempting to humiliate, patronise or whatever were all more than able to defend themselves and did not need me to interfere. It's just, you know, some of your writing is rather unpleasant for others to read, that's all, thus my intervention.

Eg quotes from one of your recent posts:
if you could follow evidence, you would be able to understand this.
your similar inability to put numbers to anything, or bring evidence other than personal opinion, in this other area.
Does that not strike you as both rude and child like as arguments go? just a thought....

BTW I really don't want to get into a 10 page argument about this, that's for sure.
Nigel
Posts: 2418
Joined: 22 May 2005 16:12
Location: Laurie Park

Re: What do you think?

Post by Nigel »

Tim
If I didn't know better I'd say you've been eating blue Smarties. There is no yes/no ( sorry, binary ) answer to the question " do we live in a nanny state" . There can only be perceptions and as such the proposition cannot be proved . The absence of statistics really doesn't matter unless we are looking at instances f food poisoning against a similar control group.

I think most of believe food should be labelled to allow informed decisions - the "nannying" comes in the application of labels eg people told to incinerate items because they are one day over sell by . Some of that is from organisations that could be regarded as aparatus of the state like local authorities , schools ,etched so it could be argued that there is a nanny state.

I think what you have shown is how little most of us want their lives mystified by academics and scientists and how mistrusting we arw of much of what you woukd hold up as science . we have been lied to by plenty of very clever men in lab coats - with or without statistics to hand - we mostly want to make common sense decisions based on simple information .
Sell by dates contribute massively ( yes you could weigh it ) to the food thrown away too.
Good evening
Nigel

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
marymck
Posts: 1579
Joined: 9 Feb 2008 16:30
Location: Upper Kirkdale

Re: What do you think?

Post by marymck »

Rachael wrote:Mary: washing chicken does not remove salmonella, so the one time you got ill from chicken was not because you didn't wash it. Out of interest, why do you wash chicken? Because it was what you were taught to do? That doesn't mean it's still best practice. Of course, I'm not suggesting that you stop doing what you do, that's of course your choice! You could save yourself some time though as washing it is completely ineffective. http://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/types/
Hi Rachael, actually I wash it because of all the horrid bits that get left inside mechanically cleaned chickens. And also because I had heard chickens are washed in a chemical solution. Also it's the only food I do wash in the utility room sink, because it's so deep. And I scrub everything down with Milton afterwards.

Probably if I were cooking for young children or the elderly I'd not buy chicken at all. It wouldn't be difficult to give it up. I've not eaten a burger since filming at a NI cattle mart in 1984!

Are those corn fed French chickens as salmonella ridden as British chicken, do you happen to know?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
Rachael
Posts: 2455
Joined: 23 Jan 2010 13:42
Location: Sydenham / Forest Hill Intersection

Re: What do you think?

Post by Rachael »

All I know is that the salmonella gets into the chicken during the processing after it's dead.

Not everyone has a separate sink for washing their chicken, so (to get back to your original point) I still don't think it's right to say that the advice about not washing chicken is over-cautious.

As a side-note, I've been cooking chicken for myself and my family for thirty years and have never washed it because I was never taught to. All hale and hearty. Make of that what you will ;-)
CaptainCarCrash
Posts: 2852
Joined: 23 Jun 2009 20:04
Location: Even further than before

Re: What do you think?

Post by CaptainCarCrash »

Even a cockroach couldn't survive gas mark 6 for a couple of hours, as long as it is cooked properly you don't have to live in a mansion with a scullery.
marymck
Posts: 1579
Joined: 9 Feb 2008 16:30
Location: Upper Kirkdale

Re: What do you think?

Post by marymck »

Rachael wrote:All I know is that the salmonella gets into the chicken during the processing after it's dead.

Not everyone has a separate sink for washing their chicken, so (to get back to your original point) I still don't think it's right to say that the advice about not washing chicken is over-cautious.

As a side-note, I've been cooking chicken for myself and my family for thirty years and have never washed it because I was never taught to. All hale and hearty. Make of that what you will ;-)
Points taken x

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
mosy
Posts: 4111
Joined: 21 Sep 2007 20:28
Location: London

Re: What do you think?

Post by mosy »

Nigel says: "Sell by dates contribute massively ( yes you could weigh it ) to the food thrown away too."

For the avoidance of doubt, Sell By dates were scrapped (so no longer allowed via legislation) as of 15 Sept 2011.

Use By dates are shown on fresh perishable food for a legitimate reason although whether one follows them or risks not is on a person's own head.

@ rod taylor: Tee hee. Cake...Mmm...Cake...
Nigel
Posts: 2418
Joined: 22 May 2005 16:12
Location: Laurie Park

Re: What do you think?

Post by Nigel »

Mosy
Thanks for correction - I did of course mean use by - my points still stand . I realise what those dates are for but in my view people show such risk aversion that it leads to waste .
Good evening
Nigel

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
Post Reply