On 5/9/2016 9:53 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> 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.
>

You are correct, they have over-corrected all the temps upward and
likely due to health concerns.

Also, unlike a rice cooker, they do not have good sensors to measure
doneness.

There are, however, slow cookers (Rival) with a probe insert that will
cook to a given temp. and then drop to hold.

That's your best bet yet.