"Frogleg" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:50:05 +0100, "Christophe Bachmann"
> > wrote:
>
> >Last nights unrefrigerated pasta will not be dubious this evening, and
even
> >the meat sauce if well cooked, stored in as small a jar as possible with
a
> >closed lid (to minimise oxydation and contamination) will hold very well
> >for a day or two out of the fridge, if you have a cool spot to put it
in.
>
> Two points: A "cool spot" may be hard to come by in many
> climates/seasons. Since I was thinking about the era before
> refrigeration, it would also be before air-conditioning, which usually
> isn't used to cool lower than about 70F anyhow. Second, food storage
> guidelines, conservative to be sure, in the US dictate that cooked and
> many raw foods can be kept between 40F and 140F (4C to 60C) for no
> longer than 4 hours to avoid possibly harmful bacterial growth. These
> 'rules' are guidelines for home food storage and requirements for
> restaurants. While my house is quite cold, it's all well above 4C,
> except in the 'fridge.

Please, these rules are very good for professional food care, and I like to
think that any restaurant does take *absolutely no* risk with food safety,
but let me state that these rules are absolutely overkill for most every
normal life situation.

> >Let's not forget that conditions of life were quite different then from
> >now, and that people knew far better what could be held, in what
> >conditions, and how long.
>
> Hmmm. They knew "far better" about the causes and effects of
> food-borne illness (and death)? I don't think so. Scientists and
> researchers had a hard time selling the 'germ theory' about the cause
> and spread of disease -- how could something you can't see hurt you?
> The world before knowledge of 'germs' was far from germ-free.

Don't make me say what I didn't.
They knew far better than today what can be held and how long, before
contamination goes from anecdotic or tolerable to dangerous. They didn't
know about germs but they knew that one wouldn't come ill after X days but
most certainly would after Y days and so they could take risks until X-1
days. Today, and mostly in the US the motto is *no risk* and so nobody
knows anymore what the limits are because when the first bacteria appear in
mostly harmless amounts the products are already thrown away.

Then again I don't say that security is bad, but when you have to take
risks or starve, you will take calculated risks and become good at taking
them, and when you don't have to so much the better.


> > And let's also not forget that these people were
> >raised in conditions of hygiene that were far less stringent than they
are
> >today, and so could far better cope with the slight contamination levels
> >they faced and modern sanitation practices (and they are far more
stringent
> >in the USA than in most of Europe) lowered our tolerance level to these
> >contaminants. (I don't say it's bad.) I just remember that in the 1970s
> >still some things were routinely done to food that would be absolutely
out
> >today.
>
> I agree that over-sanitation/sterilization has gotten way out of hand,
> and also that naturally-acquired immunity from mild exposure to many
> diseases may indeed be beneficial. In fact, as far as I've been able
> to determine, deaths and even serious illness (in the west) from food
> sources is rather rare. However, just because something looks and
> smells OK doesn't mean it isn't growing tiny critters.
> >
> >> We have whole cookbooks of 'leftover' recipes, based on the idea that
> >> Tuesday's roast becomes Thursday's hash, and Sunday's chicken,
> >> Wednesday's chicken salad.
> >>
> >> It must have been *very* hard work to shop for and prepare relatively
> >> 'new' meals each day.
> >
> >Absolutely not, a lot of cooked meals can be kept a few days without
> >refrigeration if you respect these basic rules :
>
> >- If you at all can, use a preservation method, canning, laying
underwater,
> >coating with fat, honey or salt, dessicate... etc.
>
> Yes, this is true of preserving foods. Does not apply to Sunday's
> roast chicken. My (most recent) contention is that it would have been
> a whole lot of *work* to not be able to shove something in the 'fridge
> for a few days (or freezer for a couple of months).

Could apply even to Sunday's leftover chicken ; carve as much meat as you
can from the bones, drop bones in stock-pot, reheat meat quickly and seal
with lard, should keep a few days, but it is far more risky than serve the
cold chicken monday noon, which will do without problem.

Life without a fridge can be a lot of work, but then again, people had to
do it, so they did it. Women mostly didn't work out, rich people often had
a maid, and work was done. Our modern times are very labour-saving and
that's a good thing too.

> >- Store cool and far from drafts
>
> "Far from drafts?" Is this leftover meat sauce or a parekeet? :-)

Drafts can suck up a lot of moisture, and bring in a lot of
micro-organisms, so just like parakeets sensitive food should be kept out
of them, except if you want it dry.

> >- Know well the tolerance of your products, some hold overnight, some
hold
> >a few days and some hold a few weeks.
>
> I certainly keep more things in the 'fridge than strictly necessary.
> Particularly when the ambient temperature is low. However, I don't
> think I'd want to eat a mayonnaise-based salad (tuna, chicken, potato)
> after a day unfrigerated. Pizza? Yes. Pasta with meat sauce? I don't
> think so. In fact, outside of hard sausage, or country salt-cured ham,
> I wouldn't be happy with any meat/fish/poultry thing, cooked or raw,
> that had lingered untimely at room temperature, not matter how
> well-covered.

Ah for a mayonnaise based salad I wholly agree with you, why did I say keep
things separate, pure mayonnaise can keep unrefrigerated quite some time,
potatoes or pasta too, the meat is the most sensitive ingredient. And as I
already stated when you don't have to take risks by all means don't take
them.

> >And most cookbooks before refrigeration give the tolerance of the
finished
> >product, stating how long the product keeps.*
>
> I think I'll lean toward the USDA and CDC rather than Mrs. Beeton. :-)

It seems our positions are not so far apart, I just would like to remember
that there were alternative means of doing things.
Once again, for everybody, play safe, know your limits, and do not take
chances with food, they did what they had to do, we don't have to.

--
Salutations, greetings,
Guiraud Belissen, Chteau du Ciel, Drachenwald
Chris CII, Rennes, France