sf wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
> > I remember a slow cooker that had a setting called "Automatic". It
> > cooked on high until the thermostat triggered then switched to low.
> > The low then was lower than the hold is now.
>
> Why don't you cook on hold instead of low? Personally, I'd be creeped
> out with lower temperatures. That's probably why I waited so long to
> hop on the slow cooker bandwagon.


Low used to be a power setting. Hold is now a thermostat setting. They
don't map well. I also can't find any way to set my new one to just use
Hold. Hold only seems to be accessible as an end state of programmed runs.

The change in temperatures is because of changing regulation having to do
with food poisoning cases. Maybe I'm lucky on that - I've only had food
poisoning once or twice in my life and never at home. I have no idea if
that's because of dumb luck (probably) or a policy to throw out expired
food (probably) but i used the old style food processors a lot and never
had any issue.

The higher cooking temperature makes the "slow" part of slow cookers not
be all that slow any more. Back when I traveled for work a lot I could
toss a bunch of ingredients from the freezer to the fridge for tomorrow's
meals, toss the ingredients from the fridge into the slow cooker for
today's meal, turn it on low and not worry about how long my working day
was going to be.

Now slow cookers need a Hold setting because they can and do burn food.