FOOD IN HEAT

Put it in a box with ice in the trunk or on the floor (covered well). Jesus. You can't leave food in a hot car and not expect it to be fucked.

>>369215
>It would be locked in my car in the 100 degree weather
5 hours won't make a difference, plus at that temperature it might even be too hot. cooked chicken and rice? no worries at all.

>>369215
Is there any alternative to leaving it in your very hot car, or carrying it with you through the day?
Isn't there another place you could keep it? I guess you probably wouldn't be asking then. Can you park in shade?

>>369257
>cooked chicken and rice? no worries at all.
They're right. It won't be there long enough to worry about spoilage.

>>369215
>bring
Unless you're at school right meow, you want to *take* food to school.

You bring things to where you are
You take things to where you aren't

>>369310
But he will be at the school.

Don't correct people's English if you're an ESL.

>>369215

Yes it does but not that fast. It only becomes relevant when we are talking about DAYS. Chicken is only potentially dangerous when uncooked but as I see it the rice and chicken will be throughly cooked and in that state the dish keeps edible at least for 1-2 days, probably more. Also your body isn't made out of sugar, it can work with a lot more you'd think, survivalist people have eaten old roadkill and still kept healthy.
Also in this day and age of printed on dates people have lost the trust in their senses, if it looks good then smell it, if it smells good then do a taste test, if it then tastes good it IS still good.

File: image.jpg (67KB, 371x853px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 371x853px

>>369215
100 "degrees" is the very worst temperature to be holding food at. If I were actually designing a way to spoil food, that's the temperature I'd hold it at. We're talking food poisoning in a matter of hours.

>>369384
Your advice is dangerous, and you should stop giving it, and people shouldn't listen to you if they don't want food poisoning. You can't smell bacteria, and food that can kill you can look perfectly safe. D'you think all those people on cruise ships just eat obviously spoiled food?

>>369215
OP, get one of those new-fangled lunch bags that you freeze overnight. It'll keep your lunch happy all day, and all you do when you get home is pop the bag back in the freezer.

>>369396
>100 "degrees" is the very worst temperature to be holding food at.
>Your advice is dangerous

Yes you can grow bacteria nicely at any RT and BT about the same rate. A proven fact from biochemistry lab experiments.

Also, men and women have brought a lunchpack with them to work places for thousands of years. No massive death waves of commuting workers due to this before the era of refrigerators.

>>369215
The idea, of course, is to make your lunch from ingredients that aren't already beyond best before. date. Nowadays we have a quite good handle on realizing that, right?

Yeah, it's nice to extend the life of a food pack with pre-freezed cool packs, but please, if you have an access to normal Western World grocery store ingredients then use those and prepare your lunch. We are not seeing a massive waves of people getting sick for bringing their own food to the workplace, regardless of the workplace. I do that all the time myself.

>>369457
For thousands of years, we didn't have cars to keep the food at the absolutely ideal temperature for bacteria.

The idea that people didn't just die is absolutely false. Before the discovery of Penicillin, getting the wrong bacteria in a scratch or contracting a bad stomach bug could kill you.

Regardless of modern medical care, doing what amounts to leaving your lunch in an incubator for four hours each day is a stupid thing to do, particularly when a modern ice pack can be had for less than $10.

>>369463
I genuinely then wonder why me and all of my fellow workers are not dead already. I keep my things in my car because I can lock it up. Then I go making flat asphalt again.

I know No One dying because of their car "incubated" lunch. No One.

>>369463

The only thing I would not eat anymore after 5 hours at 40°C is raw minced meat, but a fully cooked dish, meaning it was once completly rid of bacteria and they will have to start all over again and is through the cooking process a lot less usable for them with proteins denaturated etc., no problem, the time simply isn't enough. Let's say we have a very repruduction friendly bacteria type that can under this surroundings double once per 30 minutes (a very good rate), that means after that time there are just 1000 times more of them than at the beginning when the dish was freshly cooked meaning you can put the starting number in maybe a few 100s. With a normally functioning stomach that still is by far too little for non naturally pathogen ones.
If that was case you could not keep spare parts of what you cooked in the pot on the stove for the next day what I have done countless times.

>>369476
>>369472
>chicken
>rice
>100 degrees
>several hours
Any one of these things is something that should make you think "okay, maybe I'll take a bit more care with this".

All of them together, you could not create a more ideal environment for food poisoning unless you personally shat in it. If you did that in a commercial environment and someone got sick, you would be looking at criminal negligence and possible jail time.

Even if you're absolutely fine 99.9% of the times you do it, that still means you're losing a day's wages to completely preventable food poisoning once every three years. When you're stuck on the toilet instead of at work, think back to this thread.

>>369476
Campylobacter has an infective dose of ~500 cells, and while it is killed at refrigerator temperatures, a few hours at 100 degrees will easily be enough time to grow an infective load from a starting population as small as a single fingerprint.

There's a reason we refrigerate food.

>>369630
I know No One who has died, felt bad or skipped a day because of a Lunch OP described. The only times at work where food was blamed the real reason was a hangover.

>>369630
Honestly what is your agenda here? You feel like some weird variation of a "hypersensitive" character with no actual real practical experience
>you are not showing any real proof to back you up
What is it you are up to? Tell us.

>>369640
>What's your agenda?
It's simple: you're wrong, and you're giving out dangerous advice that might seriously harm someone. You're contradicting every food standards body there is#, and the only evidence you offer that you're right and the USDA is wrong is "welp, I did it and I'm not dead yet".

To correct you is basic social responsibility. I don't want someone's grandma or someone's kid to die because they listened to you.


# https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/danger-zone-40-f-140-f/

>>369630

>chicken

COOKED chicken

Chicken is known as being risky as long as it is raw, then- don't let it come in contact with other foods, throw away all liquids etc.
But cooked chicken is not better or worse than any other food. You don't need to treat it like polonium once it is cooked and potential salmonella were destroyed.

>>369649
So everything is dangerous unless it's You who approves it. Yeah.

That link you provide is just a repeat of this >>369396 picture. No one has died nor been injured because of this only after preparing a lunch from ingredients not beyond best before date.

You are just a demagog. You need to do this, while going out to have a takeout with a pepsi.

>>369654
>But cooked chicken is not better or worse than any other food
Cooked chicken is more dangerous than cooked onions, because cooked onions are made from raw onions, and cooked chicken is made from raw chicken.

Because you can't see bacteria, and they grow so quickly and from such small populations, it's the height of arrogance to just assume "I always cook chicken perfectly every time, and there's no way I'll ever cross-contaminate anything". No-one is infallible, and there's no point in taking every day a risk that can be avoided using a $10 cooler.

You always walk down the stairs just fine, so why not take off the handrail?

>>369655
>That link you provide is just a repeat of this >>369396 picture
You know what the USDA is, right? You think the agency responsible for food safety in the USA is wrong, you'd better have some actual evidence to back it up.

>>369663

If you are not able to tell if your meat is throughly cooked you should stay away from the stove.

>>369666
He should stay away from children as well. However I think he won't.

File: cook-a-steak-blue-rare-medium-welldone-2[1].jpg (93KB, 841x563px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 841x563px

>>369666
I bet you like your steak well-done.

>>369671

B-but what if medium-rare in the few minutes before eating it gets infected by CAMPYLOBACTER??!1

>>369673
Then maybe don't hold it in a sweaty tub at 100°F for five hours.

>>369666
Nice trips

>>369671
Malnourished NEET here.
Can someone explain this image?

>>369682
If you stick a probe in the center of your steak and it's whatever temperature, then when you take your steak out the oven and let it rest on a warm covered plate for five minutes, this is the doneness your steak will be cooked to.

Also if you like your steak cooked further than medium-rare, you are an awful person.

>>369684
But why is well-done bad?
Does the taste change? Does steak even have taste apart from the seasonings?

>>369682

Shows the done-ness at the core themperature of your steak.

Also don't forget ketchup.

>>369687

You can cook your steak whichever way you prefer but well done has no more juices and the consistence is hard, it is much less than what your steak could have been, it's just a waste, you don't get a nice steak to then cook it dead, use some less expensive and fine meat for that.
A steak at that point is a tough shoe sole, at medium it is nice soft squishy and juicy.
The point around this one is really just preference, don't let anyody tell you anything, meduim-rare is a bit too raw for my taste too- just don't cook it well done.

>>369682
A paranoid person will do that in the West.
>beef and pork meat are really not the same regarding the health issues
Also all the taurine and Q10 are destroyed with a well done beef. You'll get selected fats and proteins though. Otherwise pure paranoia regarding meat.

Consider this: The surface of the legit meat is touched by the tools (knife) and hands. The Chinese street kitchen solved this a few thousands of years ago:
>explode cook all the ingredients in a boiling oil, so no one gets any diseases or shit.
Brilliant. You only need relatively fresh ingredients and then cook them in a heat that the surface handling history doesn't matter. Absolutely brilliant.

Also absolutely a way of cooking dictated by an experience.
>this is how you do it
>and your people will be safe from disease
We learned this only around 19th century or so.

>>369687
The taste is mostly eliminated, because the moisture that transports the taste to your tongue and nose is gone, and the mouth-feel is ruined because all the fibers are tough and stuck together.

There are three reasons we cook steak:
- to kill the bacteria on the outside of it - they're not on the inside because the cow's immune system has killed them, but they're on any surface exposed to the air
- to heat the surface to a very high temperature, because seared meat tastes great
- to heat the inside to a moderate temperature, to liberate the juices that make it feel juicy in your mouth and convey the taste to your tongue and nose

Steaks are not like burgers: all the fibers in a steak are intact, and run in a straight line along the shortest edge of it. Burgers are all minced up, and have tiny short fibers that are easy to eat even when they're completely cooked. If you completely cook a steak, then you have these half-inch long fibers that are close to indestructible, and the whole thing is chewy and unpleasant.

>>369687
>Does steak even have taste apart from the seasonings?
Okay, we're going to cook you a nice steak sandwich.

Go to the shop, and get some frying steak. This is nice and cheap, because it's not actually a very good cut of meat, but this doesn't matter, because it's thin as fuck, and just cutting it that thin means all the muscle fibers can only be that long, which makes it way more tender than it otherwise would be.

Also get a tomato, some salad leaves, and a red onion. You could also get a packaged salad if that's cheaper. You'll also need a nice roll, or it's not a sandwich.

Cut your roll in half. Butter it if that's your thing.
Cut up your red onion - peel the thin shitty stuff off the outside, then cut the rooty bit off the bottom. Cut 2-3 nice slices off the bit you exposed. Cut 2-3 nice slices of tomato.
Get a frying pan, heat it until it's hot as fuck, drop some oil in, then slap your steak on. Wash your hands. Leave the steak alone until you see red liquid starting to appear on the surface (this isn't blood, it's muscle juice), then flip it over, count to five, and lift it off the pan and onto the roll. Take the pan off the heat immediately.
Whack your red onion into the pan, and keep moving it around so it fries in the oil and steak juice (depending on how thick your pan is, you might have to turn the heat back on). When the onions are nice (if you're not sure just grab a bit and taste it), pour the whole lot over the steak (which has been resting on your roll whilst you've been frying your onions).
Add your salad and you're done. Every bit of flavour in the steak is now in your sandwich.

>apart from the seasonings?
They're intentionally left out so you can see what the steak tastes like, but usually you'd season it before frying.