# Canning Homemade Soup - Debate



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

*NOTE: So as not to get the original thread sidetracked so far that we totally lose the original intent and answers to that thread, I'm going to open this thread and move those 'debated' issues here.

Although I don't usually allow debating on canning issues, there is some very valid questions and thoughts, so I'll allow it to continue. Just please be respectful. 
Thanks!
Karen*

Barley is considered a grain and thickener in soups. It is not a safe thing to add to homecanned soups. The ph is too high and it changes the acid level, plus it adds to the density of the soup. 
As you know, the cream, butter, oil, and thickners are not safe things, but she admits she knows it, but is willing to take the risk. 
I would add them upon opening the soup to heat them up. Just make the base, like the chowder base in the Ball Blue Book.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Lucy, with all due respect, acidity level has absolutely no impact on the safety of PC foods. PC relies solely on thermal destruction of pathogens, not hostile environment (extreme acidity or alkalinity) as BWB partially does.

The acidity level of a food is only important in determining whether one can BWB because the acidic environment is hostile to pathogens, or whether one should PC because the neutral/slightly alkaline environment could be conducive to some pathogens that are not sufficiently destroyed at boiling point (namely, C. botulinum) and need to be superheated with the application of steam pressure.

Now, density and uniformity can play a factor in thermal kill because you must be reasonably assured that every portion of the food in the jar reaches adequate temperatures to achieve thermal destruction of pathogens (240F). Thickeners and fats *can* affect heat penetration rates at lower processing times, and often the penetration rates are too complex to calculate because of the variables involved in individual ingredients from different sources, different recipes and different cooking/canning environments... thus, the caution to avoid thickeners and fats in home canning is valid. 

However, just because something *can* cause a problem doesn't mean that it *will* cause a problem, just that a problem has been identified, and the variables make testing too complex. In which case, one must use the best information available to make their own judgments.

In my case, several of my recipes will not have the same taste or texture with the omission and later addition of ingredients. For those recipes, I take precautions to make them as safe as possible for canning without sacrificing the dish. I have no other option to preserve these foods, so I do my best to understand the science to do so with reasonable safety.


----------



## Just Cliff (Nov 27, 2008)

I can our own vegetable soup and chili. Niether would ever be in a book for canning.


----------



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

ph does make a difference in pressure canning, otherwise we would not know how long it takes to process that particular food. Processing time in a PC is not just based upon the density. It is also based on the ph of each food. It is a combination of factors. 

There is nothing wrong with canning your own soups, per se, as long as the guidelines are met if a person wants to be sure they are 100% safe to eat. That is one area in which we can be a bit creative, is with soups.


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

Humor an old man and tell me why Campbells can can noodle soup but I can't


----------



## Kazahleenah (Nov 3, 2004)

TNHermit said:


> Humor an old man and tell me why Campbells can can noodle soup but I can't


In a word..?

Chemicals.


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

Kazahleenah said:


> In a word..?
> 
> Chemicals.


I can get chemicals 

But i can make those soups and freeze them right?


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Lucy, I've looked through every single canning book I have and all over the internet and I can't find any source that says PH has anything to do with other than to determine whether the food is to be water bathed or pressure canned. Do you have a source?


----------



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

Besides, ever really wonder what is in the noodles in the cans ? I don't eat that store canned stuff. Easy to toss in some noodles when heating the soup . 
I wish I had more time to work on food stuff at home. I would make homemade noodles and freeze them. They hardly take any time to cook. I have frozen them a few times, but I never seem to get around to making them any more.

Plus, we only have a little $100 or so canner, they have multi million dollar equipment. If we could afford a factory, we could can our own, too.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

The only thing I'm finding is that the only reason you shouldn't add things like noodles, rice, barley, etc. is because:
1. It changes the 'density' of the product; which is ok if you're able to calculate how much more time you will need for processing.

2. The final product usually turns out unsatisfactory because of becoming either over-cooked or breaking down in storage.​
Not a thing about about PH. If that were an issue, it seems like it would be mentioned. It's kind of an important thing to leave out of the equation; which also leads me to believe that, although it may have a very very minor value, it isn't enough of a factor to interfer.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Science geeks and avid home canners who would like to understand the what and why of safe food preservation can read the FDA's findings on  factors that influence microbial growth. It contains the factors that must be present to support (or inhibit) pathogenic microbes commonly a concern in food; as well as the ranges of those factors present in many common foods.

Also, FDA's analysis of microbial hazards identifies the common pathogens of concern in each particular food group.

And, finally, FDA's findings on the effect of preservation technology and microbial inactivation in food. Although this portion of the Safe Practices report contains information more focused toward industrial/commercial technologies that are not available to the home canner, the evaluation techniques for each method are interesting.

Armed with this knowledge, you will be better prepared to evaluate your own preservation methods for safety.


----------



## Aseries (Feb 24, 2011)

People always say "Multi Million dollar equipment" easy answer to spew out. But will someone instead of spewing out lack of facts, for once get some facts on what the supposed industry is required to do.

Like for instance, I'm sure there is some law stating what Campbells soup is required to do in order to safely produce a can of soup. I'm sure the government or what ever food agency doesnt just say "Multi million dollar equipment" and "chemicals" because I know we can aquire all those same chemicals. I also know not all the equipment costs millions of dollars nor is required...

They say there is always two sides to every story, so can someone explain to me why is it Campbells can make cream of what ever soup. Is it MSG, or is it some other chemical. Noodles, maybe they found the right noodle. Maybe even though some things are considered a thickener in soups, they dont act as thickeners, or they arent thick enough.

I hear about things that cannot be canned at all, yet commercial canneries do it. My fav is vegetables, and doing some research in canning vegetables, and talking to a canning facility. Apparently, they use the same equipment only they have a conveyor belt moving all there cans, we have a pot. So someone explain to me, whats the difference besides using the same cliche "Million dollar equipment" and "chemicals"....

I also know of products that are additive and preservative free, that are made buy hand and none of those products are allowed to be made in the ball blue book. But these people do it. I'm currently in the process of trying to get a tour of there facility. Why because I know they dont have millions of dollars, but they do have regulations. 

I hear this argument about nope you cannot can things all the time. Now I want to hear, ok if Campbells can do it, whats there regulations. What exactly is it that allows them to do it. I bet your going to find out, alot of it just might be possible at home, and alot already is. I will admit some I wouldnt want anyway, because I dont like MSG, or what ever crap is in it.

But what is the commercial cannery adding to canned bacon, or cream of what ever, or canned cheese or canned bread that isnt supposed to kill us. I'm trying to contact that company in australia to ask them just that about canned bacon, whats the anti botulism agent they are using. Because bacon isnt a thickener, its subject to the right temps, the same way my roast is. It still contains fat like my canned ground beef, and it still has air in the jar like everything I can. So why is it I cannot Pressure can bacon but I can pressure can a whole chicken breast stuffed in a can...

I'm all for telling people things are dangerous, but I also want to hear the other side of the story. Whats the FDA's analysis on what commercial canners can and cannot do. If you can quote the FDA or who ever it is on what home canners can do, how about quoting what Campbells can and cannot do...

What does what ever agency say is required when Cambells decides to put rice, noodles or meat in soups... I think it would make interesting reading..

thanks and no disrespect to anyone intended... You all have wonderful comments and ideas...


----------



## Macybaby (Jun 16, 2006)

Did a search on Commercial canning - lots of interesting reading. but it really does seem like the difference is a commercial canner has to register and fully test their recipes and methods to PROVE the microbes are killed. And if they do that, then the FDA approves that method/recipe. What home canners are missing is the ability to TEST and prove the required temperature has been reached, and the microbes are killed. Campbells KNOWS their method works, us home canners are guessing. They may use special formulated oils or shortening that works, but what we have at home might not . . .

Usually the problem is that a lot of people simply don't follow recipes exact enough for any agency to put their seal of approval on something - mostly because they don't want the liability associated with it. Our society is way to quick to sue even if someone does something completely against common sense and gets hurt as a result. And people are real quick to demand the government put in controls to protect us against our own stupidity.

here are just a couple that I found interesting - the second talks a lot about PH and canning. 

some county in MO

OK U


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Thanks for the links MacyBaby. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21 (CFR 21), Chapter 1, Volume 2, Subchapter B, Parts 100-169 which covers processing regulations of Food for Human Consumption is a very interesting read for anyone really into food production, even if they aren't planning to become a commercial processor.

"Tested and Passed" doesn't necessarily mean something is 100% safe all the time (numerous recalls are proof enough of that). Even with testing, most methods are still guessing that the end result will be safe... it's just a more educated guess. Testing just adds weight to "reasonably assured", which is really important when you produce and distribute a gajillion units of processed foods from goods you've acquired from a gajillion different producers, any of which could have unacceptable risk practices.

However, the absence of testing does not mean that something is 100% unsafe either... it's just untested. One can utilize all available safety data, formulate an educated recipe and process using that data, and create a product that they can be reasonably assured is safe with or without testing. An educated "guess" isn't as inherently risky as simply flying by the seat of your pants.

I mean, really, how many people test their water every single time they drink it -- or are they reasonably assured that the method used to process it is adequately safe (whether that is boiling, irradiation, chlorination, etc).

BTW - an educated guess is a hypothesis, from which you develop a theory... since the USDA guidelines are based on theoretical research and testing, you can use theirs to reach your own conclusions. YAY for Scientific Method!!


----------



## Tirzah (May 19, 2006)

Show mercy on this canning beginner 

I have looked into getting a pressure canner so I can use MY OWN recipes for soups, stews, chilis, and marinara sauce. I was under the impression that I HAD TO use recipes that came with the canner or in the Ball Blue Book.

Am I correct in understanding that I CAN use my own recipes as long as the following ingredients aren't added:

~Beans, grains or pastas
~Any dairy, ie: milk, cream, butter, cheese, etc.

The recipes I would LOVE to can have sausage chicken, beef and pork in them (not all at once ).

Can someone point me in the right direction and advise me? I would greatly appreciate it!


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

{moving my own post from the other thread here where it belongs}

Aseries, the FDA report I linked to above has a lot of the information that forms the basis of the regulations, plus references to specific regulations and food safety codes. 

the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has provided guidelines for product parameters in its Food Standards and Labeling Policy. There are also numerous links to policies, regulations and reports in the Wikipedia Article on Food Safety. Please keep in mind that these are all targeted to commercial/industrial/retail food safety, not specifically for private, home-processed foods. The USDA has extrapolated the data from this research in an attempt to provide home-processors with safe _guidelines_.

In most cases, a commercial producer can create a safe shelf-stable product through the application of multiple microbial inhibitors, not just a single one. With the except of a very select few technologies (HHP & UHP, irradiation, etc) most of the inhibiting techniques do not require multi-million dollar equipment and could be applied by the home-processor once understood. The most limiting factor is the lack of appropriate and affordable testing for home-processed foods... but understanding the function of inhibiting technologies and their combination (as researched and reported by professional agencies and businesses) can provide a home-processor with a reasonable degree of assurance that their food is safe irrespective of whether a recipe or method is officially recommended in the published guidelines.

Disclaimer: You should have confidence in your ability to understand and apply the scientific principles of microbial inhibition; and complete understanding and adherence to established food hygiene and handling practices before attempting any recipe or method that is not recommended.

Just a few examples of combination inhibition technologies used in the products that you question in your post. All of these are reasonably available to the home producer (except some of the modified foodstuffs possibly). It's the recipe that's key to preserving taste and texture while providing microbial safety, not the actual canning process (which is just normal pressure canning at +1 atmosphere -- not HHP or UHP at multiple atmospheres)

Canned bacon = nitrates/nitrites (preservative), salt (lower water activity), cold smoking (antimicrobial), pressure canning (thermal inhibition, reduced oxygen), and hermetic storage (protection from re-contamination, water, and oxygen).
*Note: bacon does not need to be canned to be shelf-stable, packing in salt or thorough drying has the same result, you then only need to protect it against surface mold growth (wrapping).

Canned butter and cheese= salt, cultures (microbial competition), hermetic storage **Note that salted butter and hard cheeses don't need to be canned to be shelf-stable (microbial safe) at room temperature, canning protects against mold growth and oxidation/separation of fats (rancidity) -- waxing does the same

Campbell's Cream Of... = MSG or (preservative), salt, pressure canning, hermetic storage, modified foodstuffs (altered inhibitory or processing properties)

Campbell's (low acid) and (starch) OR Cambpell's Creamy/Cheesey... = sodium benzoate/MSG/BHT (preservative), salt, sugar, pressure canning, hermetic storage, modified foodstuffs

So, you could do all these things at home as well as long as you understand the factors that need addressing based on your recipe's risk factors and how to address them, can get (or want to use) any special ingredients, and can be reasonably assured that your pressure canning process is adequate to achieve thermal inhibition and hermetically seal your container.

BTW - most of the multi-million dollar equipment in those commercial factories covers the increased scale of the operation -- they have fridges, freezers, and pressure canners just like us only way bigger. The bulk of budget is normally spent to ensure safe handling, preparation and storage of the massive amounts of foods they use in production, not in the actual canning itself. In a large-scale operation there are exponentially more opportunities for contamination and re-contamination of the foods during each stage of production than normally exist in your hygienic kitchen producing small-scale batches. Not to mention the overall pathogen load one can be expected to encounter in those two radically different environments. I have a pretty good idea what the pathogen load is in my garden/barn, in my produce, and in my kitchen.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Tirzah said:


> Show mercy on this canning beginner
> 
> I have looked into getting a pressure canner so I can use MY OWN recipes for soups, stews, chilis, and marinara sauce. I was under the impression that I HAD TO use recipes that came with the canner or in the Ball Blue Book.
> 
> ...


Well....

The unsanctioned answer is "Yes", as long as you process the dish for an adequate time for the ingredients that you have in the recipe. The adequate processing times can be derived from the available data of a similar recipe and/or the processing times for any substituted ingredient. 

For instance, say you have a recipe that calls for 1/2c of McWidget, and the resulting soup should be processed 50 minutes at 10/11 psi in pints. You want to substitute 1/2c of WalDoodles for the McWidgets. There are standard guidelines for processing WalDoodle and McWidgets by themselves, and you notice that WalDoodles normally require the same amount of processing as McWidgets for the same quantities. You also have a completely different WalDoodle soup recipe that processes for the same amount of time. All is goodness, you're reasonably safe making the substitution without changes.

Had your research uncovered that WalDoodles normally require 10 more minutes than McWidgets, or that you have to add 1/2t of salt to process WalDoodles, then you'd have to adjust the McWidget Soup recipe (add salt) and/or processing time (add 10 mins) in order to be reasonably assured that the substitution would be safe.

Please note that you must be extremely careful making any substitutions in any recipe that will be boiling water bath (BWB) canned. Changing the ingredients or amount of an ingredient, can affect acidity level which renders the food unsafe to BWB. You have two options in that case, 1) either increase the acidity level with vinegar, lemon juice, or ascorbic acid tablets; or 2) pressure can (PC) the dish based on the recommendations of a similar recipe or the guidelines for the most risky food in the recipe (which is normally meats or very low acid veggies).

Again, this is NOT the official stance, and this is NOT an approach tested and approved by the USDA. The above guide is simply logic-based methodology.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Aseries, with regards to noodles in commercially canned soups... my own experiments with canning pasta have yielded 3 methods with acceptable post-processing textures:

1. For plain, dried pastas that are thin (like fettucini), adding them to the bottom of the jar uncooked before pouring in your hot soup/sauce keeps them from turning to mush during PC processing.

2. For plain, dried pastas that are thick (like macaroni or rotini), parboiling, re-dehydrating, and adding them to the bottom of the jar dry before pouring in your hot soup/sauce keeps them from turning to mush during PC processing. (they're still a little hard if they aren't parboiled first)

3. For stuffed or fresh pastas (like ravioli or tortellini), parboiling, dehydrating, and adding them to the bottom of the jar dry before pouring in your hot soup/sauce keeps them from turning to mush during PC processing. (they're complete mush if you don't dehydrate them first)

I can't vouch for the safety of these methods because I don't have a pathology lab in my kitchen to test them; but my ravioli with meat sauce (processed by the chili and stew guidelines) is palatable, the texture is reasonably decent (no worse than Chef Boyardee in any case), and it hasn't failed to seal, spoiled in storage or sickened me so far.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Another interesting read from FSIS - Principles of Thermal Processing

all sorts of good info like the difference between Thermal Death Time (TDT) of a micro-organism and "Minimum Health" (F0) values, and a whole bunch of other factors used to determine _minimum_ safe processing times (including why F0 can sometimes be less than TDT)


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Karen said:


> 2. The final product usually turns out unsatisfactory because of becoming either over-cooked or breaking down in storage.


Whenever I have tried to can pastas, rice, etc, this is the issue. It just gets too mushy and doesn't taste right due to a mush texture. 

However, my Grandma, and my dad too, always canned everything in a hot water bath canner. Her chicken and dumplings were wonderful. Of course you aren't supposed to can meats in a HWB canner, but I've eaten them dozens of times, and never gotten ill. I use to open jars and eat them right out of the jar grease and all when I was a kid, and I am now a grandma myself, so obviously I didn't die from it. So, just from my experience, I would say the pressure is what kills the texture of pasta and rice dishes.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

PlicketyCat said:


> 1. For plain, dried pastas that are thin (like fettucini), adding them to the bottom of the jar uncooked before pouring in your hot soup/sauce keeps them from turning to mush during PC processing.


Now that is brilliant. I am going to try that with some chicken and rice next time I start to make it. I would probably have to soak the rice first? or would you just put it in dry?

I use white rice for arroz con pollo, not brown.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

I use to be the world's most persnickety canner, but as I've gotten older I'm finding that all the information we have today is from governmental sources; none of which has had actual controlled studies to back it up. Even the instructors that get their 'certification' in home canning are not experts in the long run. They've just been taught the same thing we've all been. In other words, it's all theory! Just because something 'could' cause you to get sick or die doesn't mean it will. 

In looking at information, documentation, and independent non-governmental studies from sources such as the CDC, medical sources, etc., I'm finding is the lack of cleanliness, cross contamination, cutting the timing of the canning too short, and inferior product -- not the method of canning or what we're canning, is what makes people sick.


----------



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

Here is a link to a new video. You can view this by clicking on the "read only" button. 
It does say that processing time is based on acidity ( ph levels) as well as other things. If doesn't matter or differentiate whether it is a low acid or high acid food. 
It says factors influincing processing times, and acidity is one of the factors. 

I am not sure if this is in book form or not. I have a DVD and notebook presentation just like what is online. My boss ordered it for me. 
I think you can use your printer and print out a copy of the slides. 

http://extension.usu.edu/utah/htm/fcs/food-preservation-canning/canning-101

The way I see it those other agencies functions are not necessarily set up to do independent testing on those subjects. Each agency will only do what they are paid to be able to do. 
I would not do any research on motor oils. So, I cannot expect them to research home food preservation related things. Even mt own doctor sends me to different ones for specific things. Sends me to a rhumatologist for some, a nephrologist for kidney related issues. 
Sure, all the things you mentioned are also included in what is taught in food preservation, as far as cleanliness, cross contamination, using bad produce to start with, not processing for the proper time or method. I teach a segment on basic food microbiology. Some of those things are also included in the Canning Basics lesson. Those things are taught. 
I don't think that the basic microbiology is theory. It is based on facts. I have information from CDC that states how many people approx. per year are hospitilized for food borne illnesses.
Each year in the USA approx. 367,000,000 get food borne illness. 325,000 are hospitilized, and 5,000 die.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

It specifically says in that slide show that PH is used to determine the processing method (WB vs. PC); no other factors regarding PH. It even has a chart showing that nothing can't be canned due to PH. Everything can be canned!


----------



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

You asked for something online or in a book. I found one. I also have one from a website called "Miss Vickies". 

" Why Do Some Foods Take Longer To Process? " 

She also has a heading about how acidity determines processing times. 

http://missvickie.com/canning/Canning Times.htm

I do understand, there are not independent studies. Then, those that are, may or may not be accurate. Things like studies from drug companies, the tobacco industry. They are swayed to their point of view. Plus, it depends upon who you listen to. You can get conflicting infomation on most anything. Diabetics are sold products containing all kinds of artificial sweeteners and told they are good and healthy. Then, you read other things that say those artificial sweeteners are killing us. Same sweetener, different view points. All sort of depends upon what risk you want to take in using them or not. Most things in life are like that. 

Here is a link to the CDC and food related safety issues :

http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Exactly my point!


----------



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

It all depends upon how you see it. I do not see it as breaking it down at first. It says it is based on ph that determines processing times. Then, it is in 2 catagories. BWB and pressure canning. Both are based on ph level to start with. 
We can agree to disagree, can't we ? You may like one flavor of ice cream and think it is the best, I can like another. We all decide in the end for ourselves. 

I don't see how anyone can get another agency to test things. Just isn't out there.
All I can do is my best as a fellow food preserver is to at least be active in helping people learn. At least they will have food in their cabinets to feed their families. That is one of my major goals, to help feed the people. Too many children are going hungry for no reason. I am really, truly, dedicated to help teach people how to do this and not cost them a bunch of money, to help them have food that they know where it came from, have a sense of pride in preparing and storing their own foods, all of those kinds of things. 
I am passing things along to those individuals and they are doing the same. It is a growing project. I think we are far more productive if we all just do a little bit to help folks out live in a better way. To me this is the bottom line. Get the food to the people in a manner that we can to feed them. 
So, if any of you want to help, maybe contact a church, or other places and donate items that can be used. I know I could sure use extra jars, lids, rings, sugar, pectin, even copy paper to print out recipes , to help these people have food on their tables. 
We may all be one person, but if we all do something, it can and will help. I have a low income elderly lady coming to stay with me for a week so I can help her can food for her and her grandkids. We CAN all make a difference. 
I want to encourge all of you do to the same. Let's make it a goal to help others with what we know, no matter what differences we may have.


----------



## oneokie (Aug 14, 2009)

Lucy said:


> It is based on facts. I have information from CDC that states how many people approx. per year are hospitilized for food borne illnesses.
> Each year in the USA approx. 367,000,000 get food borne illness. 325,000 are hospitilized, and 5,000 die.


It would be interesting to see some of the data used by CDC to arrive at those numbers. 

Do they break it down to food borne illness from home canning verses food borne illness that is the result of eating in commercial food establishments?

Or do they break their numbers down to show if the food borne illness came from fresh, raw, contaminated food products?

Or just lump all cases together?


----------



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

Why not contact them and see ?


----------



## derm (Aug 6, 2009)

Tirzah said:


> Show mercy on this canning beginner
> 
> I have looked into getting a pressure canner so I can use MY OWN recipes for soups, stews, chilis, and marinara sauce. I was under the impression that I HAD TO use recipes that came with the canner or in the Ball Blue Book.
> 
> ...




While I dont can flour, pasta or such. You can use beans, the Ball book is full of bean recipes. One of my favorite things to use.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

mekasmom said:


> Now that is brilliant. I am going to try that with some chicken and rice next time I start to make it. I would probably have to soak the rice first? or would you just put it in dry?
> 
> I use white rice for arroz con pollo, not brown.


If it's whole/raw rice, not "minute", I'd probably parboil it to "just barely tender" and re-dehydrate it like I did with the macaroni. 

Rice takes a while to cook and it soaks up a lot of liquid when it cooks, so you might end up with hard rice in the jar with no soup broth (or a busted jar). Parboiling it would begin softening it and allow it to plump up first; then re-dehydrating it would (hopefully) preserve the texture during processing. 

You might be able to just add "minute" rice dry to the bottom of the jar since it's already partially cooked, but you might still run into issues with it soaking up all the water.

Worth a few experiments at least  Let us know if you try it... and if I can any rice soon, I'll let you know my results.


----------



## oneokie (Aug 14, 2009)

Lucy said:


> Here is a link to the CDC and food related safety issues :
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/


After reading the information on that site, it appears that the vast majority of the food borne illnesses were not caused by home canned food.



Lucy said:


> Why not contact them and see ?


No comment.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Lucy said:


> It is based on facts. I have information from CDC that states how many people approx. per year are hospitilized for food borne illnesses.
> Each year in the USA approx. 367,000,000 get food borne illness. 325,000 are hospitilized, and 5,000 die.


Your information is correct in that it relates to ALL types of foods (including tainted, recalled, samenilla, cross contamination, etc.); HOWEVER, relating to home canned foods, here's the figures:

Only 1 person died in 8 years of reporting:
2009 - 3 
2008 - 14 all from the same 4 cases of home canned green bean/carrot mix - one death.
2007 - none
2006 - 2 
2005 - none
2004 - none
2003 - none
2002 - none
2001 - none


----------



## Vickie44 (Jul 27, 2010)

My sister had a case of botulism , not from home canned food, but the same type there is concern about . She almost died, it was awful and painful and took a long time to recover and certainly is worth being cautious about . I would not want to be responsible for doing that to someone!


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Lucy said:


> It all depends upon how you see it. I do not see it as breaking it down at first. It says it is based on ph that determines processing times. Then, it is in 2 catagories. BWB and pressure canning. Both are based on ph level to start with.


That is correct; however, you were saying that PH has more to do with it than that.



Lucy said:


> I don't see how anyone can get another agency to test things. Just isn't out there.


Which again is my point. It's only the USDA saying all this. No independent laboratories, no university studies that aren't USDA funded -- nothing. So doesn't that say something when even doctors and scientist won't back up that information? But of course we all know the government can be trusted to do the best for us. LOL! :runforhills:



Lucy said:


> All I can do is my best as a fellow food preserver is to at least be active in helping people learn. At least they will have food in their cabinets to feed their families. That is one of my major goals, to help feed the people. Too many children are going hungry for no reason. I am really, truly, dedicated to help teach people how to do this and not cost them a bunch of money, to help them have food that they know where it came from, have a sense of pride in preparing and storing their own foods, all of those kinds of things.
> I am passing things along to those individuals and they are doing the same. It is a growing project. I think we are far more productive if we all just do a little bit to help folks out live in a better way. To me this is the bottom line. Get the food to the people in a manner that we can to feed them.
> So, if any of you want to help, maybe contact a church, or other places and donate items that can be used. I know I could sure use extra jars, lids, rings, sugar, pectin, even copy paper to print out recipes , to help these people have food on their tables.
> We may all be one person, but if we all do something, it can and will help. I have a low income elderly lady coming to stay with me for a week so I can help her can food for her and her grandkids. We CAN all make a difference.
> I want to encourage all of you do to the same. Let's make it a goal to help others with what we know, no matter what differences we may have.


I sincerely doubt you would find a one of us that disagrees with that. 

It's being the 'canning police' and the constant negativity, corrections, and disrespect to other's way of doing other than the way you've been taught, is where the objection is (despite requests not do so). Plus the constant insinuating that you are an expert; which you are far from nor are the people who taught you or printed much of the material you repeat (see my previous sticky on that topic).

I apologize to everyone for my tone. I just get tired of it day after day. :Bawling: It's just that many have pointed out that alternative methods are not harmful and that the government's information is biased and untested; therefore, alternative views should also be considered and respected.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

PlicketyCat said:


> If it's whole/raw rice, not "minute", I'd probably parboil it to "just barely tender" and re-dehydrate it like I did with the macaroni.
> 
> Rice takes a while to cook and it soaks up a lot of liquid when it cooks, so you might end up with hard rice in the jar with no soup broth (or a busted jar). Parboiling it would begin softening it and allow it to plump up first; then re-dehydrating it would (hopefully) preserve the texture during processing.
> 
> ...


I think you're probably right. Rice on it's own (especially white rice) can't be too bad since (properly packaged) it has a shelf life of 30+ years! It doesn't seem reasonable it could cause sickness in a cooked and sealed jar where meat doesn't even go bad. :shrug:


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

oneokie said:


> It would be interesting to see some of the data used by CDC to arrive at those numbers.
> 
> Do they break it down to food borne illness from home canning verses food borne illness that is the result of eating in commercial food establishments?
> 
> ...


oneokie - I did manage to find one report pertaining specifically to home processed botulism for the period between 1970-1980 -- http://www.fcs.uga.edu/pubs/current/intro.htm

It breaks out # outbreaks, cases and deaths; and breaks downs the # of cases reported by food type.

However, it does not breakdown # of deaths by food type, or indicate in any way what processes were used in the home canning (BWB or PC) and includes data for preservation methods not specifically canning. There is no discussion whatsoever about other factors that may be pertinent -- inappropriate handling/storage, poor kitchen hygiene, seal failure, post-processing re-contamination, improper cooking, etc.

In my research, any report that contains big numbers includes commercial and home-processed unless it specifically says it doesn't. Any report that contains big numbers includes all food types - not just canned food - unless it specifically says it doesn't.

After reviewing the CDC reports of foodbourne illness outbreaks, it appears the vast majority of reported cases are traced back to fresh whole foods improperly handled and stored by the customer, prepared foods at public eating establishments, and foods contaminated at the commercial processing facility.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Karen said:


> I think you're probably right. Rice on it's own (especially white rice) can't be too bad since (properly packaged) it has a shelf life of 30+ years! It doesn't seem reasonable it could cause sickness in a cooked and sealed jar where meat doesn't even go bad. :shrug:


I dry-can dry white rice in sterile jars with oxygen absorbers all the time -- no water activty = microbial inhibition, no oxygen = no oxidation 

Rice in a cooked recipe may extend the processing time, just to make sure that every particle reaches TDT, which a jar processed for meat would.


----------



## oneokie (Aug 14, 2009)

PlicketyCat said:


> After reviewing the CDC reports of foodbourne illness outbreaks, it appears the vast majority of reported cases are traced back to fresh whole foods improperly handled and stored by the customer, prepared foods at public eating establishments, and foods contaminated at the commercial processing facility.


Exactly.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

How pH can affect _recommended_ processing time in Pressure Canned recipes:

As mentioned above, TDT and F0 values are not always the same. The recommended times (F0) are the _minimum_ times a food can be processed to achieve "Public Safety" limits. There are a number of factors that contribute to the minimum processing times... and pH is one of them.

However, pH does not affect TDT -- the temperature and duration required to kill or inhibit the organism. It can affect F0 because the resulting pH in the processed jar may or may not be inhospitable to the regrowth of any C. botulinum spores that may not have been killed during processing (they're one of the most heat-resistant bacterias). 

What this means is that they've determined that you can process the jars LESS than TDT because the acidity in the jar _should_ keep it safe _after_ processing. 

But, if you simply process the jar to TDT, you're good irrespective of pH.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Karen said:


> Your information is correct in that it relates to ALL types of foods (including tainted, recalled, samenilla, cross contamination, etc.); HOWEVER, relating to home canned foods, here's the figures:
> 
> Only 1 person died in 8 years of reporting:
> 2009 - 3
> ...


Did they happen to mention whether that was PC or BWB?


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Karen said:


> It's only the USDA saying all this. No independent laboratories, no university studies that aren't USDA funded -- nothing. So doesn't that say something when even doctors and scientist won't back up that information? But of course we all know the government can be trusted to do the best for us. LOL! :runforhills:
> 
> ....
> 
> the government's information is biased and untested; therefore, alternative views should also be considered and respected.


CDC, FDC & USDA are all extremely biased... they have an agenda and have no impetus to consider any methods that contradicts their assumptions. Their research and data may be perfectly valid, but the assumption that their analysis/conclusion is always correct or that theirs is the only way to be safe is a fallacy. One should be much more concerned with achieving the safety limits they've determined through true scientific testing rather than strictly adhering to the one method they've come up with.

Here's my personal experience with food poisoning that perfectly illustrates my point...

I'm deathly ill, sitting in the ER, literally exploding from both exits. I had started feeling ill about 16 hours prior to finally deciding it had gotten bad enough to go to the hospital.

The nurse takes me back and starts going through the CDC foodbourne illness questionairre.

The very first question is "Have you consumed any raw milk or raw milk products?"

Yes. Immediate assumption is that it's something bad in the milk. They go send someone to get my milk and my artisan cheese for testing. I'm left sitting in the ER... but at least they've hooked me up to IV fluids.

Several hours later, my milk and cheese are clean. These are the exact units I've been consuming, so they can't argue.

The next question "Have you consumed any home-canned foods?"

Yes. Cycle-Rinse-Repeat. At least they've moved me to a real room now.

Several hours later, my home-canned food is clean... but they still are convinced that this is the culprit and I've simply eaten the one offending jar in my cupboard. Since I didn't see any signs of any spoilage in any of the jars of my own stuff, they assume it Botulism and start treatment.

I do not get better. Hmmmmmm... maybe not botulism then.

Here's an idea!! Let's take some blood, vomitus, urine and stool samples and see what's in them :smack (nearly 2 days later)

Turns out it was Shigella... which I got from eating a fresh contaminated salad at the deli down the street from work. 6 other cases were reported at other hospitals in the area linked back to the same restaurant.

Oddly, "did you eat any fresh salad" was way down on the bottom of the list of questions.

So, I suffered nearly 3 days longer than I needed to because 1) the questionnaire is biased against raw milk and home canning (despite the low incidence of these being causation), 2) medical professionals trusted the assumptions in the questionnaire, 3) no one tested ME to see what might be the problem, they went after the usual suspects first.


----------



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

Sorry that happened. Thanks for sharing your story with us.

Here is todays post on the lady I know of with current botulism. I don't know the exact date she got sick. The blog started in March , but it was sometime the first part of the year :

Weaning : 
They are furthering the weaning process by turning the ventilator off for 15 minutes at a time each day. Then they will gradually increase the amount of time it's turned off each day and let her build up endurance and strength. 

They did this a couple times when she was at Vibra, but they had it turned off for longer stretches of time which was a little too aggressive for her at the time.

************
I don't know if the CDC is aware of this and keeping track or not.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

My main issue is that their warnings are not logical. By logical, I mean that they get you all freaked out about things with the lowest incidence instead of starting with the things that have the highest incidence. Working against probability is not sound logic or science... what happened toOccam's Razor?

IMO, this has gone beyond responsible caution and entered into fear mongering. Why is C. botulinum in home canning such an effective bogeyman? Because it can't be easily detected at home and because it is potentially lethal, even to a healthy person. It's the perfect fear mechanism -- a proven killer you can't see coming. The government (or any entity really) couldn't ask for a better player in the game of fear-based control.

The single most important development in Food Safety was, and continues to be, *sanitation/hygiene*. The success of preserved foods, even using the most primitive of methods in less than ideal conditions, is *greatly* improved with the implementation of very simple sanitary practices.

Education is the second most important. Knowing what risks exist, the probabilities of that risk, and how to mitigate them gives you a massive advantage.

Going through extreme measures to mitigate a risk that does not exist, or is highly improbable, in your particular application is wasteful. Not doing it all because of a risk that does not exist or is highly improbable is throwing the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Lucy said:


> Why not contact them and see ?


It is considered poor form in debate to deflect a challenge to your argument or quoted source by telling the challenger to ask the source or research the issue themselves. Doing so completely undermines your argument and damages your credibility.

Either fully understand the information you are using in your argument (including the basis of the data) before you use it, or admit that you do not know the answer to a challenge.

The burden to provide appropriate support of statements made in a debate is on the claimant. If a claimant cannot appropriately support their argument and answer challenges, then their argument is weak. If the claimant cannot find supporting information to clarify or corroborate a statement or source that is challenged, then the basis of their argument is weak.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

A few relatively inexpensive tools to improve home canning/processing safety by verifying conditions that kill or inhibit the pathogen or toxin of concern:

high temperature thermometer - verify that the contents have reached adequate temperature 
pH/ORP meter - verify the acidity and oxygen reduction potential of the contents are within acceptable/optimal ranges (pH only is sufficient, and less expensive)
salt water hydrometer - verify the salinity of brines are within acceptable ranges
syrup density hydrometer - verify the concentration of sugar in syrups is within acceptable ranges


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

Wow, quite a thread....thanks to all posters for their input.

Funny, I just go by the item in the jar that takes the longest processing times. I positively DO NOT EVER cut short vent or processing times be even five seconds. Every surface is kept spotlessly clean, and those few people that want to learn at my side, start out by rolling their eyes at my insistence. By the time they read the first chapter or two in Putting Food By while the first batch is in (and I watch the gauges constantly) they are thankful I am so anal about it.

I will not consume any food prepared by anyone who does not adhere to safety methods....period, end story. Not one person has ever gotten even a tummy ache from my home canned items-and I put up easily 6 or 700 jars a year. Jams, jellies, sauces, relishes, veggies, meats, fruits-you name it. I am all to aware that my own family bears the risks too.

As soon as some one can figure out how to can broccoli so it's edible, I am SO SO on it, lol!


----------



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

PlicketyCat said:


> It is considered poor form in debate to deflect a challenge to your argument or quoted source by telling the challenger to ask the source or research the issue themselves. Doing so completely undermines your argument and damages your credibility.
> 
> Either fully understand the information you are using in your argument (including the basis of the data) before you use it, or admit that you do not know the answer to a challenge.
> 
> The burden to provide appropriate support of statements made in a debate is on the claimant. If a claimant cannot appropriately support their argument and answer challenges, then their argument is weak. If the claimant cannot find supporting information to clarify or corroborate a statement or source that is challenged, then the basis of their argument is weak.


Sheesh, I didn't know this was a formal debate with rules ! 
I didn't even start this thread. Karen did under my name.

I know, broccoli gets really strong. I know a lot of people like it dehydrated. I just freeze it or eat it fresh.


----------



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

Tirzah said:


> Show mercy on this canning beginner
> 
> I have looked into getting a pressure canner so I can use MY OWN recipes for soups, stews, chilis, and marinara sauce. I was under the impression that I HAD TO use recipes that came with the canner or in the Ball Blue Book.
> 
> ...


http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/soups.html

Tizrah, to answer your question, beans are fine. If you mean dried ones, then they just need to be fully rehydrated first.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Lucy said:


> Sheesh, I didn't know this was a formal debate with rules !
> I didn't even start this thread. Karen did under my name.
> 
> I know, broccoli gets really strong. I know a lot of people like it dehydrated. I just freeze it or eat it fresh.


I'm not speaking just about this thread, rather in general about all threads. 

BTW, I didn't start the thread under your name. The reason my words appear in your thread is because I wasn't able to start a thread and then move the other responses over into it. The forum auto sorts by date/time, so my initial explaination of what the thread was about would have ended up in the middle of thread instead of as the first post. So to avoid that, I just posted a message in the first post that transferred over, which just happened to be your post numerically. I was trying to not confuse people, but maybe did any way. :smack


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

PlicketyCat said:


> Did they happen to mention whether that was PC or BWB?


Interestingly enough, there is no information other than it came from home canned foods. It also does not state what the problem stemmed from. 

So it's even possible the problem wasn't from WB vs. PC, rather in the manner they were prepared for canning. Who knows the condition of the food prior to canning it, the cleanliness involved, etc. 

In fact, it could even end up that all these cases came from simply not checking the jar to be sure they were properly sealed before consuming it.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Lucy said:


> Tizrah, to answer your question, beans are fine. If you mean dried ones, then they just need to be fully rehydrated first.


The beans only need to be soaked in water overnight like you would do for using any dried type of beans. They do not need to be cooked.


----------



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

I guess some really thought it a real debate... it was not what I thought.
I felt thrown into the middle of something I had no control over with PlicketyCat wanting to follow some rules. I have never been in debate club or anything remotely like that. I have no further interest to look up the stats from CDC , so figured if the other person wanted to due to their interest , they could persue that part on their own. Then, all of a sudden I am supposed to show burden of proof like in a court ?? 

My intent is only to talk with fellow preservers, perhaps help some one, like Tirzah, who has questions as a new canner. I like your name, btw. 

Tirzah (Hebrew: &#1514;&#1512;&#1510;&#1492;&#8206 is a Hebrew word meaning "she is my delight." In the Bible it is the name of a woman, one of the daughters of Zelophehad.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Back to the commercially canned foods question, I'm wondering if it's because commercially canned foods can be processed at higher temperatures than we could achieve in our home canners?

Another question I'm wondering about is why steam canning (in place of water bath) is considered unsafe. Since steam is hotter than boiling water, you'd almost think it would be the other way around.


----------



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

If steam is under pressure it is hotter than boiling water. Otherwise, it isn't hotter. 

A steam canner does not heat using pressure and cannot increase the temperature above the boiling point of water. In fact, there are concerns about the even distribution of heat and the amount of heat produced by a steam canner. 

Atmospheric steam canners result in significantly lower product temperatures at the beginning and end of the scheduled process when compared to water-bath canning.

Another concern is about the steam burning the person. Since you have to lift the dome lid up over the jars, a lot of steam comes out toward you. There is no way to tip it away to get it up over the jars.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

It's not necessarily a formal debate with rules, just trying to explain why some folks might be giving you a hard time when your posts parrot official rhetoric. Food safety is a very important topic, and the CDC/FDA/USDA has done/funded some really good research into microbiology and food pathology, but too many of the claims they make (that you are repeating) are based purely on biased theoretical research and unsubstantiated by practical research or empirical evidence. 

Stating "My method is the best or only method that is safe. We have proof because we tested it." when yours is the only method you've tested and your method hasn't been subjected to independent testing processes is just plain bad science and a HUGE chasm in logic. That's why many of us object to the "thou shall/shall not" rules put forth by the USDA.

Provide us with the parameters pathogens require to grow to dangerous levels. Provide us with those parameters in the foods we eat. Provide us with information and examples on how to alter those parameters to inhibit pathogen growth so our food is safe. Heck, even give us some ready-made recipes and directions that you've come up with and tested so we don't have to think about it. But don't tell us what we *must* or *must not* do without some really concrete evidence that can be defended beyond reasonable doubt. If you can't give a solid and direct reason "why", don't presume to tell us "how".

(BTW - not picking on you personally, Lucy. I have the same issue with any government or agency, or their representatives, who take liberties with the interpretation of valid data and then tell me what to do without the irrefutable proof to back it up.)


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Karen said:


> Back to the commercially canned foods question, I'm wondering if it's because commercially canned foods can be processed at higher temperatures than we could achieve in our home canners?


Not conventionally -- most conventional canning facilities use the same pressurized temperature increases that we do at home. We can get higher heat in our canners at home if we wanted to simply by increasing the PSI. However, increasing the heat above 240F won't really sterilize your food any better (dead is dead), it just reduces your processing time because you reach kill temps faster.

Good info about boiling, altitude, temp and pressure from Miss Vickie

Now, there are some new "flash" heat treatments (HHP & UHP) that jump up to 2 or more atmospheres of pressure (more than we can safely do at home), so can achieve higher temps and MUCH shorter times to sterilization... that's why we've started getting stuff like shelf-stable liquid milk in boxes.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Lucy said:


> If steam is under pressure it is hotter than boiling water. Otherwise, it isn't hotter.


If *water* (liquid or gas -- i.e. steam) is under pressure the temperature at which it will boil is higher than 212F/100C, or whatever temperature is boiling point given your altitude.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Some more information about independent testing conducted on the efficacy of steam canning: http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/newsletter/No__002.pdf

Net result of findings -- SC just as effective as BWB for high acid foods, same temps reached, same processing times. The risk of steam burns is mitigated by waiting 2-3 minutes after removing from heat before opening the lid, and lifting it up while tilting it away from yourself.

I've used steam canners before, and never had any difficulty tilting the lid away from myself with quarts or smaller. Perhaps if someone was using 1/2 gallon jars this might be an issue. I didn't experience any noticeable increase in burn risk with SC over BWB or PC.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Lucy said:


> If steam is under pressure it is hotter than boiling water. Otherwise, it isn't hotter.
> 
> A steam canner does not heat using pressure and cannot increase the temperature above the boiling point of water. In fact, there are concerns about the even distribution of heat and the amount of heat produced by a steam canner.


That's not correct. All steam is hotter than water because, in it's vapor state, it's molecules change due to the vibration of energy (kinetic energy) changes - the molecules actually become further apart and produces more heat "energy". If is isn't hotter than water, it can't be steam. In fact, a steam burn is worst than a boiling water burn because of its energy state. That's why I don't understand the problem with steam canning.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

PlicketyCat said:


> Some more information about independent testing conducted on the efficacy of steam canning: http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/newsletter/No__002.pdf
> 
> Net result of findings -- SC just as effective as BWB for high acid foods, same temps reached, same processing times. The risk of steam burns is mitigated by waiting 2-3 minutes after removing from heat before opening the lid, and lifting it up while tilting it away from yourself.
> 
> I've used steam canners before, and never had any difficulty tilting the lid away from myself with quarts or smaller. Perhaps if someone was using 1/2 gallon jars this might be an issue. I didn't experience any noticeable increase in burn risk with SC over BWB or PC.


*Very* interesting article. It's also interesting that, despite the better and more practical method of testing used by the University of California, the USDA still says it's unsafe (although they have not conducted their own studies) and, Utah State University reversed it's conclusion _after_ the USDA said it's unsafe. Unsafe because "steam canners do not heat foods in the _same manner _as boiling-water canners". Well duh!!! Ya think!


It also points out the only real concern is because of 'timing' issues (in question, _*but not disputed*_) of processing the food for the same length of time you would in a water bath canner. So in other words, steam canning is perfectly safe as long as the contents reach the same temperature as they would in WB canning, which it being able to obtain is not disputed by the USDA! The only lack of the USDA's approval is timing of processing. Seems the USDA proved it is safe, despite insisting it isn't.

Thanks, PlicketyCat, great find! This is what I've been looking for. Not info to prove my point, but that shows sound, logical basic study and true facts showing both sides of the issue and why the conclusions were drawn as they were.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Lucy said:


> In fact, there are concerns about the even distribution of heat and the amount of heat produced by a steam canner.
> 
> Atmospheric steam canners result in significantly lower product temperatures at the beginning and end of the scheduled process when compared to water-bath canning.


Notice that in that article, this was not a concern by either the university study nor the USDA. Neither even bring it up as an issue or even a concern. It's things like that is what have me so concerned about the info being distributed by the USDA. They are 'brainwashing' their representives and telling them things that either never happened, or they manipulate to make it sound worst.



Lucy said:


> Another concern is about the steam burning the person. Since you have to lift the dome lid up over the jars, a lot of steam comes out toward you. There is no way to tip it away to get it up over the jars.


According to that article there is, and the USDA knows it. Plus, all one would have to do is 'vent' the lid with a butter knife or simular to release the steam. No different than we do before opening a pressure canner.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

I would recomend that all new canners follow the Blue Ball Book. There is no way I would risk my family because of a discusion on a forum. I understand some of the posters have been canning forever, and because of that they they have a better handle on what they are doing.
It would be better to take this year and learn the basics.
Be safe, and take care of your family.

I've been canning for about 10 years and I don't can any carbs in my jars except potatoes.
I use left over rice ect. when I heat up the jars of food to thicken it.
The same with beans. But that is more about economy. The lids are getting expensive.
I use the soup recipe to can what ever vegetables I harvest that day that are under 40 minutes on the PC. If i can the veggies the same time as the meat to make the soup, the veggies are mushed. I can the meat in a seperate jar or use fresh. For us (4 people) I heat 3 quarts veggies and 1 pint of meat. That feeds us dinner and 2 people lunch. If I add noodles it will go a bit farther. But I would never can noodles. Why take up room in the jars, when they take up so little room dry. Again lids are expensive.
And another problem is the spices go flat in the jar, so you may as well use fresh ones as you use the food.


----------



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

Utah still says they agree with the USDA guidelines and don't recommend using them. No one seems to have the finances to do more testing on foods right now. 

That is why I was surprised we got some grant money for the low income project. We are also supposed to get a facility set up with a kitchen with a couple stoves so we can teach food preservation without renting a kitchen someplace. 
I know of a food bank down south of us that just got a place set up like that. They use the donated food bank food and teach low income people there. At least they are sending money for something. 

I think if there were some longer processing times developed, then the steam canner could work for high acid fruits and jams. 

It is my understanding both are the same temp, the boiling water and steam, but it is the force of the steam that is higher, that makes it seem hotter. It just has more energy behind it . Not the actual temperature.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

SquashNut said:


> I would recomend that all new canners follow the Blue Ball Book. There is no way I would risk my family because of a discusion on a forum. I understand some of the posters have been canning forever, and because of that they they have a better handle on what they are doing.
> It would be better to take this year and learn the basics.
> Be safe, and take care of your family.


I agree. New canners and anyone uncomfortable with their ability to apply the published data to modify a recipe should definitely stick with the approved recipes until they are comfortable. 

I just see a lot of people who are discouraged from even trying to can because the rules are overwhelming and the lack of approved recipes similar to their own. If giving them information that shows that they can modify a recipe once they understand the basics helps encourage people to start canning (or preserving in any manner), then I'm all for it.



SquashNut said:


> But I would never can noodles. Why take up room in the jars, when they take up so little room dry.


So no additional preparation is required. Not just for noodles specifically, but there are times when you must eat and you do not have the means or time available to futz around with additional cooking steps (or cooking at all).


----------



## judylou (Jun 19, 2009)

> (or cooking at all)


That's the part that concerns me the most. Many shortcomings, mis-interpretations, modifications, and even what may be unsafe short-cuts can be overcome with adequate cooking after opening the jars and before consuming. But what if one can't or chooses not to do that cooking or doesn't so it sufficiently? Where then is the safety if it wasn't in the original recipe/processing?

I am reminded of my grand kids whose idea of "cooking" is zapping something in the mircowave for 2 mins. That wouldn't make an unsafely canned jar of food safe to consume.

And I have to ask because I honestly don't understand, why the fact that the research and the guidelines are government-agency sourced or government department funded, they are invalid? Or at best something to be referenced only when they support your personal opinion and denounced when they don't. That isn't logical.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Lucy said:


> Utah still says they agree with the USDA guidelines and don't recommend using them.


How many people argue with the person who pays them? :hrm: 

The objection is that the studies conducted did not use the exact food prep steps that the USDA recommended. Not whether or not the foods reached safe processing temp in the established times. The tests did prove, scientifically, that the internal temperature of the food, at center of can (the same method used by commercial testing), reached and maintained thermal kill temperatures nearly identically (i.e. statistically insignificant)to BWB, and well within established safety ranges. This proved, scientifically, that adequate heat penetration to achieve "commercial sterility" is accomplished with steam as with boiling water with no changes in processing times.



Lucy said:


> It is my understanding both are the same temp, the boiling water and steam, but it is the force of the steam that is higher, that makes it seem hotter. It just has more energy behind it . Not the actual temperature.


You're correct. Steam is marginally (a teeny teeny bit) hotter in actual temperature right at the vaporization point directly above the water, but for all intents and purposes, steam and liquid water are the same temperature at the same pressures.

The concern is whether steam had the ability to achieve appropriate heat penetration in vapor state, which was proven to be the case within the same time periods as BWB. There has been no evidence to date in any industry that indicates immersion in steam produces any significant difference in temperature or heat penetration than immersion in boiling water for like units.

As you mention, steam has a high energy state. The high energy state increases heat penetration potential, as Karen noted with steam burns happening much faster than boiling burn. So, the argument that steam immersion might not penetrate the jar for adequate safety in the same time as boiling water, makes no logical sense... even if the method of heat transfer (conduction, convection, etc) were different between liquid and vapor states. 

What is seems like, to a skeptical person, is that they haven't tested it and they don't know. Rather than just admit that, they came up with a plausible reason why it could be bad (their theory) so they could continue to warn against it without evidence (an unproven theory). So this is a specious argument -- one that sounds plausible at first but is actually fallacious and ignores all unfavorable evidence.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

As I've mentioned before, food safety is a real concern and one where I totally agree it is better to err on the side of caution in most circumstances as long as you are aware that is what you're doing. However, it is irresponsible for any entity or authority to misrepresent that cautious position as proven fact. 

If you know that the recommendations are erring on the side of caution because of a theory based on some scientific data, and you have access to that data as well, you can make a more informed decision. Armed with this knowledge, you can make better decisions based on your conditions and personal risk comfort zone. 

It's the government's job to make decisions that affect inter- and intra-state commerce and public safety. They have to worry about the whole country and all the millions of variables that entails, so erring on the side of extreme caution makes total sense. You only have to worry about your kitchen, so erring on the side of that level of caution may be excessive and unwarranted.

Remember that these are only home canning _guidelines_ -- the government doesn't yet have the right or power to regulate non-commercial food processing by private citizens for personal consumption. (and this is the heart of the raw milk "share" issue as we speak)


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

judylou said:


> That's the part that concerns me the most. Many shortcomings, mis-interpretations, modifications, and even what may be unsafe short-cuts can be overcome with adequate cooking after opening the jars and before consuming. But what if one can't or chooses not to do that cooking or doesn't so it sufficiently? Where then is the safety if it wasn't in the original recipe/processing?


There are two things to remember 1) even following the recommendations exactly does not 100% guarantee that the food is safety, 2) the likelihood of having an infectious/toxic dose of any pathogen in a food processed at home in a pressure canner for 15 minutes or longer is _extremely low_ if you have a hygienic kitchen and follow basic sanitary food practices. The great majority of pathogens that could remain after that amount of processing would show obvious signs of spoilage (either by themselves or by spoilage organisms that survive in the same conditions). The one of primary concern is C. botulinum because the spores are heat-resistant and intoxication of the food is not obvious.

It is widely accepted that processing at 121.1Â°C/250Â°F for 3 minutes achieves minimum botulism cook and results in canned food that is safe from a public health standpoint, and that any temp/time combination that is equivalent to this is also acceptable. A PC @ 10psi (sea level-1000ft) is at least 114.4Â°C/238Â°F, and based on the scientific equivalency formula, thermal sterilization occurs in 12-13 minutes once the heat fully penetrates the food and jar. Heat penetration values for common foods are known and tested, unfortunately this data is not made readily accessible to the average home-processor :flame:

More info: Food Sterilization by Heat



judylou said:


> And I have to ask because I honestly don't understand, why the fact that the research and the guidelines are government-agency sourced or government department funded, they are invalid? Or at best something to be referenced only when they support your personal opinion and denounced when they don't. That isn't logical.


The majority of research they have done is valid. However, not all of their guidelines are proven, not even by their own research. There are a great many guidelines that exist because they haven't tested the food/recipe/method, and so have no proof one way or the other whether it is safe or could be made safe; but chose to recommend against it based on their lack of data, and often refuse to accept any other valid data to the contrary.

Supporting my opinion or desire is irrelevant... having the proof to back up the claims being made is relevant.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

It's the reason the USDA always says something is either 'recommended' or 'not recommended'. It doesn't mean you can't, it just means they don't know! 

Judylou, as a wife and mother, I'm _always_ concerned about the safety of what I feed my family or others. It's just that, logically, I can't trust information from a source that doesn't tell the whole story, or inflates the danger factor beyond what would be neccessary -- when they don't even know. They go beyond telling people to be 'cautious', rather they make 'requirements' that have no basis for. 

Plus, the USDA has done very few scientifically based studies. Most of which where done generations ago, yet they are constantly updating the requirements based on 'theory', not on proof. 

Plus the USDA does have a higher agenda than home food processing. Their main function nowadays has been for the commercial industry. That's their main focus now. Again, making 'requirements' they can't back up in order to keep us dependant on big business. 

I just find it ironic that anyone could possibly trust a governmental agency that can't even keep us safe from commercial foods that they _are able to oversee_ and test, to tell us what is possible in our kitchens when they don't even know themselves what is safe or unsafe. :huh:


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

It does appear that many recommendations that were once made in the interest of public safety, back in the days before accurate scientific research had been conducted and information so easy to disseminate, has recently morphed into the interest of commercial business.

The majority of new recommendations are based on information related to the commercial scale and distribution model. In a large scale, distributed system the risk of failure is exponentially increased because the points of failure are increased and the ramifications of a failure are increased. The risk of contamination in the production and distribution chain of a large scale processing facility is several orders of magnitude higher than in a home kitchen (or even a small scale local processing facility). Trying to apply the safety measures from one to other is, most often, excessive and unwarranted... they are not the same beast at all, they barely even resemble one another.

We'll flip it over for a second... How many of you taste something you're cooking at home? Maybe even put a spoon that has _been in your mouth_ back into the pot for a second or third taste? Do you think twice about it? Does it set off any safety alarm bells? For most folks, being honest, I'd venture to say this is something that occurs all the time without concern... but you certainly wouldn't want someone in a restaurant or processing plant to do the same thing.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

Food allergies and home canning... since we're already talking about safety 

I'm wondering how many folks label their home-processed soups/etc with allergy warnings? At least for the really common things that might not be evident looking at the jar or in the name?

I recently had a house guest, allergic to mushrooms, who had to fend for himself in our pantry one night when we were stuck in town. The majority of our food is canned, a lot of it by myself. He could have chosen any of the commercial foods, but was really interested in sampling my pasta sauce. Luckily, I had labeled that there were mushrooms in my meat sauce, so he could chose something else (the garden marinara in this case). Neither my husband nor I are allergic to mushrooms, but I put it on the label since it's a fairly common food allergen and someone else might eat it who didn't know what went into my recipe (and I or DH might not remember). I have to do this for peanuts so DH can grab the right jar of chutney


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

What I think of when I hear/see the letters USDA, CDC, FDA, and other such entities is "I'm from the government, and not only am I here to help you whether you want it or not, I'm also completely convinced I know more than you and you'd better darn well not forget it!"


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

"It's complicated, better let us do it for you." 

I resent the assumption that I'm too stupid and incompetent to use the same _basic_ algebra, chemistry, biology, and physics they use.

:umno:


----------



## Tirzah (May 19, 2006)

Thank you everyone for your insight! It is much appreciated and now I have a starting point  (I have to chuckle when typing out 'starting point' my finger missed the 'o' and I typed starting 'pint'  )

This thread is a big help! Thank you!

Lucy,

Thank you! It is actually my dog's name  When we got her as a rescue pup her name was 'Ursa' like Ursa Major ,Ursa Minor. Well, we didn't care too much for it so I was praying one morning asking the Lord to give me a name suitable for her and He told me Tirzah and she certainly is a delight  (and took to her name immediately)


----------



## Lucy (May 15, 2006)

Tirzah, cute story about your dog. 
Best wishes on your canning journey. 
Today I made 6 half pints of raspberry syrup and the same of strawberry. The strawberry is not even processed yet. In the canner right now. Yumm !!! I am going to eat the fruit of my labors.


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

I have a question about the policy change of this forum. What standards are now to be the accepted standards for food preservation? Thus far it is apparent that USDA and County Extension recommendations are no longer accepted. Ball Blue Book bases just about everything on official USDA recommendations. All such recommendations have been tested for decades and accepted by millions on home canners. Has HT now become so big as to supersede all of the above? If the USDA says that a certain method is not safe, and someone here says that it is just because the USDA that is isn't, you can bet you sweet bibby what my next step will be!

Martin


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

I don't think any of us are disputing the safety of what the USDA says _is safe_. The USDA and Ball recommended methods are absolutely the best place _to start_ when determining a safe method of preservation. 

What we're disputing are the things that the USDA doesn't recommend being automatically unsafe. The USDA doesn't recommend a great many things because they _haven't tested them_,* not* because they know them to be unsafe.


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

How does one find out if the USDA or Alltrista have or have not tested the preservation methods of certain foods?

Martin


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

judylou said:


> I disagree. The beauty of the forum here is to be able to read and/or post input about the various methods.
> 
> The "regulator thinkers" may not be comfortable with the new atmosphere that has developed in recent discussions in this forum. After all, for too long, the general public has been too sheltered from valuable information. Removing that shelter is a new feeling for many people.
> 
> I think you're forgetting that each of us are responsible for doing our due diligence. If we make a poor choice, we have to deal with the consequences. I, for one, do not want to expect the moderators or the forum to censor the many varying views that I learn from - yours included.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

judylou said:


> I hope this helps but I hope you don't mind if I also add that while each individual recipe isn't necessarily tested (as in the salsa research) *it is considered acceptable in the scientific community to extrapolate from one set of results to another recipe*.
> 
> For example, if the lab tested recipe contains sufficient bacterial growth after 60 days and even more after 90 days to be considered unsafe to consume then it is scientifically acceptable to say that similar recipes using the same levels of ingredients will also contain similar levels of bacterial growth and therefore be unsafe. I know this may seem obvious but some like to imply that since their recipe wasn't individually tested it must be safe to use.


JudyLou, this is exactly what most of us are saying and doing with regards to recipe alteration and substitutions. Why is it acceptable for the "scientific community" to make these extrapolations and not our community?

In your example, you provide an "unsafe" scenario; but does the same not hold equally true for a "safe" scenario? That if a recipe remained safe to consume it would be scientifically acceptable to say that similar recipes using the same levels of ingredients would be similarly safe? 

I, for one, do not assume my recipe is safe just because it hasn't been individually tested; but I don't assume it's unsafe either. I do my research and due diligence first. If I find that a recommendation against something is based on lack of research, not research that has proven it unsafe, then I try to figure out what the concerns are and research that. What hypothetical concern exists? What prior research instigated the caution? Is there data available to confirm the cautions anywhere (i.e. private/public, commercial/scientific, in any field of study)? Maybe others don't go this deep into research, but I do.

You may feel that you and others who support the USDA recommendations to the letter are singled out and vilified on this forum. However, many of us who use the recommendations and research as a starting point and go from there also feel singled out and vilified by you for even suggesting that the government guidelines are not the end-all-be-all.

In the end, there are those who are more comfortable never stepping outside the boundaries the authorities give them; and there are those who are not comfortable accepting boundaries without question no matter who gives them. Neither are evil or divine... they just approach life differently.


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

What is it that many of you find objectionable to simply canning within the current USDA guidelines?

I've canned on my own for 30+ years and helped before that and while I've encountered recipes that weren't to my taste, I've simply marked through those and found an alternative approved recipe for the item(s) I wished to can. NCFHFP is one of the few .gov programs I actually use and benefit from. Seems rather a waste to me to not utilize it?

BTW, sincere question, it may sound snarky, but that isn't at all the intent.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Paquebot said:


> you can bet you sweet bibby what my next step will be!
> 
> Martin


 I think everyone is responsible for their own lives, and how they choose to do things. And everyone is allowed to have their own opinions, and even post them on forums. That's the thing about the democratic nations........ freedom of speech and all. In life there really are no exact absolutes about this. It's really all theory. What the gov considered acceptable 25 yrs ago, they swear will kill you now. What I consider acceptable, you might not. That's the beauty of information and experience. It's ever changing and growing.
Everyone is responsible for their own lives, their own choices in canning. If you don't like the way one person does it, then you do it another. But if they don't think your way is perfect then they certainly have the right to do it their way too. And not only do it, but post about it and you have the same right too.
I personally will do things the way I learned to do things from my family, and the way I have done things for many decades. I don't care at all what the gov or the ball book or anyone else thinks about it. I KNOW from years of experience that it doesn't kill people because my family is all alive, and have eaten these things for generations. The only food poisoning I ever saw in any of the family came from a Chinese restaurant buffet, and Lord knows, it was not pretty. Believe me, we would recognize food poisoning if it ever visited the house. LOL.


----------



## PlicketyCat (Jul 14, 2010)

In my case, it's the limited recipes available. For plain ingredients, their instructions are great, and I follow them.

However, many of the approved recipes are not to my taste or contain ingredients that I or my husband are allergic to, and I am told I am "not allowed" to modify them or make substitutions.

Many of the foods we enjoy have no USDA approved recipes at all because they haven't been tested or are uncommon. I have recipes for these foods that are approved by food safety authorities in other countries, but am told I'm "not allowed" to can them because they aren't USDA tested and approved.

Now, in some cases, I have found/been provided with a non-vague reason why the substitution or food is recommended against by the USDA so I can make adjustments to my recipe to meet those safety concerns. For example, I changed the pH... so I PC, add time, or add acid (whichever is appropriate).

Unfortunately, I've gotten some reasons that are completely vague and/or make no scientific sense (defy physics, chemistry or biology). Further researching usually uncovers these are made up reasons to explain the recommendation when the real reason is that it is simply untested, therefore the USDA can't endorse them (yet).

I use NCFHFP a lot, and they provide some really good information. I appreciate all the testing and research they have done because it allows me to apply their accepted formulas and data to my recipes. They've told me what the concern is, what factors affect it, and what things can be done to address it... I don't necessarily need them to hold my hand through the process.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Although I allowed this one debate, it's gotten way off topic and argumentative. Debating (not arguing) a single issue (this particular issue of this one thread) is one thing, not respecting the forum by abiding with the forum rules and personal attacks is another. I'm locking the thread since it's gone too far.


----------

