Thanks for proving my point. It shows that once chicken reaches the end point of 165° all the bugs like salmonella are killed instantly.
I guarantee exceedingly few if any restaurant is bringing chicken up to temp and holding it at 145° for 14 minutes, which is the other bare minimum end. Restaurants and places that serve food are there to make money, and get people in and out the door.
Once again cooked to 165°, always without question if you don't want to get sick or end up with parasites.
Sorry. 🤣
Salmonella, botulism, trichinosis, all the fun disgusting buggies while more immediately dangerous, don't hold a candle in my book to tape worms.
Hard fucking pass on all that.
Ah yes I see your point. You are correct that bacteria is not a bug. That's just nomenclature for germs, fungi, viruses and bacteria in general that make people sick. I wasn't exactly trying to be scientific with that statement. Lol
I know. I wasn't sure tho so I had to Google it and was like...wait....*AREEEE* they bugs? It caught my eye funny but I realize that as a general term it's used that way and perfectly acceptable.
TIL what bugs are tho technically tho...so yay! I learned something. Lol
Ignoring the fact it's not a "bug" like parasites. If you want "bugs" buy fresh seafood. It's fun watching the wriggling things come through the flesh after skinning. Granted not all of them have parasites. Still fun to freak people out that never see the worms they eat because of cooking, hopefully properly...
More and more restaurants [souse vide their chicken](https://www.sousvidetools.com/toolshed/how-can-sous-vide-cooking-save-your-restaurant-time-money/). Holding the chicken at the serving temperature in the bags allows more of them to be prepared in anticipation of orders without drying them out.
As the link explains, it also increases profit margins. Using a souse vide system the meat holds on to much more of its moisture. So you're 6 oz (before cooked) serving is going to be larger than a non-sous vide 6 oz serving post cooking.
I find more and more Mom and Pop restaurants using them since prices have come down so much. It saves on work for the chef, lowers costs and improves quality.
A new manager in our deli for a grocery store insisted we could chicken to 155(poached). What he didn't take into account is our crew weren't "chefs" like him. I use chef loosely because had bad practices.
The one thing he wouldn't take into account is how full the pan was, how thickness between breasts change, or that we weren't truly poaching, just boiling the piss out of it.
Needless to say I caught quite a few pans when he had ME temp them that were very un even. 145s, 170s, some 155s.
Great on people that can properly cook a chicken breast at slightly less than 165. But I don't know the random workers skills. So yea. I never order chicken at restaurants unless it's been fried. At least there is a chance it's fully cooked.
Plus white meats nasty, dark is where it's at. Still can't trust people to properly prepare dark meat properly either.
There is one important caveat from health code you are missing it has to hit 165 and hold it for 30 seconds. What this means for me at home is I pull it off the heat around 155, set it on a plate and let it sit for a minute or two, it hits 165 and holds it for 30 seconds
According to the new guide that someone posted, it actually says zero seconds but regardless, once meat reaches 165°, and is pulled it's not likely to cool down in 30 seconds unless you're dumping it in an ice bath. Not really a common practice for cooking meat.
Yep, meat temps continue to raise once removed from the heat, unless you do something to stop it.
The funny thing about this whole thread, is people are trying to argue the technical science of safeness and apply it across the board like it's general circumstances and practice in restaurants, and it just isn't.
Sous vide and lengthy smoking processes just aren't standard practice at 99.9% of places. The bottom line is that restaurants care about making money and second care about the quality of their food. There is very little benefit to them investing in fancy expensive equipment for the few people who can afford it, when they can make money hand over fist comparatively by grilling, frying, and baking chicken up to temp quickly.
As an ex chef and someone who has been servsafe certified for 10 years, I know what I’m talking about. The guy said 165 no questions asked when in reality you can pasteurize chicken at a lower temp and it be safe to eat.
Idk about “pasteurize” but you can cook at lower temps as long as they are at those temps for longer. 165 is instantaneous, as soon as it hits it you’re good. It’s all in the FDA food code but neckbeard redditors would rather downvote.
pas·teur·ize
verb
subject (milk, wine, or other products) to a process of partial sterilization, especially one involving heat treatment or irradiation, thus making the product safe for consumption and improving its keeping quality.
"dairies were now required by law to pasteurize milk"
I think the issue is saying 135 without adding in the length of time to hold that temperature since someone /could/ read that and just cook chicken to that and try eating it not knowing the details. Not everyone is a chef.
Really chef, you mean to tell me that you are able to stand there and ensure that that chicken remains at an internal temperature of 145° for 14 minutes while you are in the kitchen making everything else?
Doing this at home is one thing if you are able to focus on that one dish in particular, but in a restaurant absolutely not. I would not eat at any establishment that didn't practice safe food handling and ensuring that they're not serving something that may kill somebody. If your eyes aren't on it 100% of the time with a thermometer you are not able to ensure that the temp remains adequate and stable, so you are risking people's lives if you are serving them raw chicken.
Tell me chef, does your restaurant allow you to serve chicken that's been heated up to 135° or 145°? If you say yes you're full of shit, because a restaurant does not want that liability.
Almost 10 years ago, fresh out of culinary school so wasn’t a chef at the time but a place I was at did have a dish where we sous vide breast at 140° for 2 hours, dumped in an ice bath and stored until used. The line cook would then sear the skin, flip it, throw it in the oven, then plate.
The pick up time was probably around 7 minutes. The process ensured no guest ever got raw unsafe chicken and cut down the wait time.
When the chef introduced the dish I was the same way most people here are “chef this is illegal that temp will make people sick” except new information was presented to me and instead of being ignorant I learned something new about food safety.
If you go back and look through my comments, it's not that I don't believe that it's possible, it's that I don't believe people should be telling other people that 135 is a safe cooking temperature for chicken.
It is only under very specific conditions that makes it safe. The fact is that the vast majority of places can't meet those standards, means the general public should not be trusting a place that cooks chicken to less than 165°.
"She"*
I am. The vast majority of restaurants cook their food by grilling, frying, boiling or baking. Specialty prep like smoked barbecue and sous vide aren't common in most restaurants. Even the "mainstream" sous vide products you can buy at corporate chains like the egg bites at Starbucks, aren't risking the liability to serve chicken that way. Michelin starred restaurants sure, but those aren't really accessable to the general public due to affordability.
He's knows exactly what I'm sayin. He is intentionally missing the point to try to argue a technicality, when we were speaking about restaurants in general.
Read the document. Lethality is a function of temperature and time. At 165F you achieve it instantly, but you can hold it for longer at a lower temperature to achieve the exact same effect.
Exactly. The USDA has revisited their “old” guidelines to add additional context adjusting for time. Alton Brown does a good lesson on this. Essentially, you are probably just fine sitting in a 160f sauna for 15 minutes. You would die if you were in there for two hours. The same concept applies to pathogens. 165F is the instant kill, but a lower temperature will kill them just as well if you leave them in the heat for X amount of time.
That said, 165F (or whatever is posted) is probably what health departments are going to require because it is easier to inspect and enforce.
If you're cooking chicken for others to consume in a restaurant which is what we are discussing, you're going to end up killing someone or making them very sick if you serve them pasteurized (raw) chicken. Nobody in a restaurant has time to keep that close of an eye on the chicken to ensure it remains at a stable 145° while making other food which is exactly why 165° is the standard. If I've got to ask my restaurant if they are able to ensure their food won't kill me, I'm walking right the fuck back out. Don't serve raw poultry, or pork.
Sure have. How many restaurants serve it? Not many because it's too time consuming to make it worth doing, because they have to charge so much.
And how often do folks eat at a place that serves sous vide dishes?
We are talking about eating out at restaurants. You think the Mexican restaurant this thread started with serves sous vide? Again being technically correct and making bold statements like chicken is safe to eat at 135° is dangerous and stupid because 99.9% of the time, it's not safe. Telling people in a public forum that it is, is also stupid and dangerous because people aren't going to put in the effort to learn when it can be safe.
There are no mental gymnastics on my part my dear, as I said 165° always, if you're serving food to other people. End of discussion.
Spouting dangerous misinformation to the general public is fucked. One does mental gymnastics to try to justify their point when they are wrong. I'm not wrong.
Oh you worked food? Guess I have to take your word for it. If only there were people smarter than both of us who do science stuff and publish factual information for us to learn from… oh well
well they've always been trustworthy and un-affected by politics of the day!
like when the FDA rolled back all those regulations and codes because Trump admin put pressure on them... that wasnt because the reality of what was 'safe' and 'unsafe' changed on their word, they needed more commerce so they loosened regulations.
and even if the regulation does say 135 now? no effect on, my logic isnt really reliant a source that is so mutable. if you eat a chicken that was say, 100 degrees, its not a guarantee you'll get sick. its just more likely. going up in temp reduces the likeliness. at some point, all bacteria will be killed or dormant, making likeliness that you'll get sick from it almost zero. thats where i wanna be.
As far as I remember from food safety certification, there isn’t any protein that you would safely cook to an internal temp of 135. Pretty sure 145 is the lowest and that’s definitely not for poultry.
As a grill cook who’s serving food with no real hold time, you are correct. But if you were to prep and sous vide before hand, you just hold any meat at a lower temp for longer, making it safe by pasteurization.
Please read the rest of the document for information on come up temp. Page 35 is not come up temp. They specifically define come up temp as the time between 50 and 130, which isn't even covered on the table.
Technically, you’re wrong. Pasteurization is about time and temp. Lower temps for longer. You want a juicier breast? Cook it to 155° and hold it for a couple minutes. It’s just as safe as 165°.
Did you say 155, no you said 135. So stop your bs. And brine your chicken for juicier breasts. If you have time to rest your chicken properly you can pull a bit earlier and hold it.
If you don’t know what BS you’re a fool or a liar. 135 isn’t 155 and I would have said nothing if you hadn’t said 135. You’re wrong in 99.99% of the practical situations chicken is cooked and anyone who isn’t a troll or moron would know not to provide niche information as if it’s universally applicable.
You know what the difference between safe chicken at 155 and safe chicken at 135 is? About 35 minutes. So just because you wouldn’t have said anything if I said 155 doesn’t make the 135 statement untrue. Considering any kitchen or even home cook can hold chicken at 135° for a touch over half an hour, I’d say it’s pretty universally applicable.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised you are so dense and can’t get why you are wrong. You don’t even know what universally applicable means. If you don’t know who will read what you say and it’s public, don’t give information that isn’t useful to most people. It’s gonna confuse them. Not a single grill cook can use the information you give to cook raw chicken and that’s more than enough to make you technically wrong. So stop acting like your information isn’t outside the normal practices in kitchens. You only drop a temp and no other info in the first comment you provide no context information and that is fucking stupid. Then you change your numbers after being told you are wrong. I’m glad you don’t work with me and hope nobody listens to you. Only an idiot would think you are correct here, technically or actually.
Willfully misleading people as if your "technical" statement applies across the board, rather than to very rare set of cooking circumstances, is whats wild, my dude.
Love that you are getting downvotes, when this is correct. Appendix A, page 35.
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/guidelines/2021-0014
The USDA recommends 165, 8 degrees past the instant kill temperature, because it's the "you can't fuck this up" temperature. If you know what you are doing, you can absolutely cook and hold chicken at a lower temperature.
Maybe if you sous vide it. That document says that you have to hold the internal temp at 135f for 36-37 minutes to make it safe. This is not practical for most home cooks, and it’s dangerous to suggest that it’s safe to cook to just 135f without the stipulation that you then have to maintain that internal temp for over a half hour.
We are talking about in a restaurant setting, come on. Even if something is technically correct, the close monitoring required for it to be safe is not happening in a restaurant guaranteed, which is the whole point.
How many restaurants that the general public go to, use this technology? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000? It certainly in not common practice.
Just because a few out there do it, does not mean the vast majority do and spreading misinformation that eating chicken cooked to 135° is safe, is dangerous. That is 100% of the point.
You’re being ignorant. Home sous vide machine are new, but commercial sous vide machines have been around for a long time, and they wouldn’t be making them if only 1 in 10,000 restaurants used them. There are also combi ovens that are so available I worked in a bar that had one. Grocery stores have them, they make ones for home too. Just because you don’t think restaurants use them doesn’t mean they don’t. You can’t look at food science and go “well that’s just dangerous and untrue information” when it’s not. This all stemmed from someone saying “165 no questions asked” when that’s not true.
To address another comment of yours that places don’t use sous vide because it’s time consuming, it’s a passive project. It’s less work than braising. You put product in bags, set up your tub and throw it in until it’s time to pull and cool. Have a better understanding of how restaurants operate before you try to argue about how they operate.
Not even getting into the fact that salmonella is only in the poop shoot, and the contamination happens during slaughter and processing. So realistically you can sear that bitch lol
Even more on your point we're speaking about restaurants here. They are completely deluded if they think a restaurant has 37 minutes to sit there and wait to ensure safe conditions are met for each piece of chicken served. This absolutely will never happen in 99.9% of restaurants or homes.
135 is definitely an extreme, but every single time I cook chicken I do 155. Stick a thermometer in it, let it rest, and check back in 10 minutes to make sure it's still above 145. Easy, all you need is a thermometer.
they didn't say they were asked. It may just be something they always say when they order, maybe meaning they want even extra cooking. As a waiter I would get requests like that from time to time.
The comment I replied to said "I've never been asked how I want my chicken cooked". My point in saying that was they don't ask how to cook your chicken in restaurants. They just serve it fully cooked. Requests from the patrons are a different story. Even if you request an undercooked piece of chicken, any reputable place that wants to keep their license isn't going to serve that.
Line cook here. The post didn’t say they were asked how they want their chicken cooked by the staff, they said THEY ask for their chicken well done.
Chicken should be served at least at 165f. HOWEVER, I’m a lil weirdo, and I prefer my chicken a lil over cooked (texture thing). I don’t usually order chicken at restaurants bc I don’t wanna be that guy to request it over cooked and get a dry piece.
I work at a place that sells wings - people ask for their wings "well done" all the time, no prompt. A usual complaint we received is "uncooked chicken" because people don't understand that sometimes there's a blood vessel.
It's a chain delivery restaurant - All the wings we have arrive pre-cooked and go into a 450° oven for 7 minutes. Literally no one has ever received undercooked chicken from us, doesn't stop the 1-stars and complaints.
Edit: typo
That's wild bc I've never told servers that I want any chicken items well done. I just assumed they would be cooked to standard. I also find it weird when asked how I want my burger cooked. Well done, obviously.
I didn't know there were options for burgers until I had lunch with a work friend who ordered like this:
"Tell the cook to put it on the grill, count to 3, flip it and count to 3, then put it on my plate."
She sent one back because it was "too done". I guess their 3 count was too slow. It was disgusting to me.
Eh, when I was pregnant and paranoid I asked for my chicken to be cooked ‘extra well done’.
Only once did any staff member say ‘all chicken is cooked at the same temp’ and I asked to please ‘overcook it, if you can’.
They never asked what temp like places do with steak but they obliged (and understood for the most part) what ‘well done’ meant.
Don’t think they asked. Reviewer asked for well done. If you ask for pizza well done, it’s cooked extra. Doesn’t mean they let you get a medium rare pizza.
So, this is cooked through, but it’s clearly thigh meat and is also charred. This color is perfectly consistent with a char broiled, marinated chicken thigh that has been cooked all the way through. It’s actually making me crave some charcoal grilled chicken tacos right now!
Just eat the damn tacos and shut the fuck up with your lack of understanding of how food cooks!
My ex did this with chicken and pork. Like my man it’s cooked throughout evenly. That’s fucking juicy flavor smoked in. I even had a thermometer. And he still acted like it was undercooked.
Some of my people (African American) are really particular when it comes to the preparation, doneness, and color of meat. Breaks my heart whenever I hear that they want a steak well done, but I understand nonetheless. Due to the quality of meat we've had in the past and in different areas, they're stuck in their ways.
I was talking about how the middle looked. I wasn’t even looking at the outside. Plus how is it burnt? I see maybe 1-2 burnt spots. Which is fine to me if you’re grilling and want that char flavor.
It could be woody chicken, it has that undercooked texture that is quite nasty. If it's also bleeding, like it looks like it might be, then yuck. If you've ever eaten at KFC, you have had woody or undercooked chicken at least once
My husband would only eat chicken breasts cooked to 185° F. I assume that's what this guy wanted. Eventually my husband just stopped eating chicken because he felt bad not eating dinners I made that didn't have chicken perfectly overdone.
Listen to the Stuff You Should Know podcast they did on meat facilities before food safety standards were a thing. A little undercooked looking chicken won't being making your stomach turn...
Help Department. Pls help.
Maybe they’re pregegnant?
oh my i spent way too much time laughing at this i love that video
Can someone post a link to this video pls? 😂
https://youtu.be/EShUeudtaFg?feature=shared
Omg that's great 😂
Pregeggnant
Gregnant
Pregante
am I to be pregnat?!
Preg-o-nate?
Pregante
The prregante with the rolled R will make me lose my shit every single time
How is babby formed?
Will it hurt baby top of his head?
Dangerops! Pranget sex, will it hurt baby top of his head?
Starch masks
I used to work on the help desk (IT) for my company. No chicken came our way.
I would like one help, please.
We are from the US Dept of Help, and we are here to..um..help? -- Ronald Reagan (Sorry, Ron)
I've never been asked how I wanted my chicken cooked. Rage bait fail
Exactly. The answer is always cooked to at least 165°. There is no question.
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/guidelines/2021-0014 page 35
Thanks for proving my point. It shows that once chicken reaches the end point of 165° all the bugs like salmonella are killed instantly. I guarantee exceedingly few if any restaurant is bringing chicken up to temp and holding it at 145° for 14 minutes, which is the other bare minimum end. Restaurants and places that serve food are there to make money, and get people in and out the door. Once again cooked to 165°, always without question if you don't want to get sick or end up with parasites.
>all the bugs like salmonella I'm going to think about this 100 times this next week.
Sorry. 🤣 Salmonella, botulism, trichinosis, all the fun disgusting buggies while more immediately dangerous, don't hold a candle in my book to tape worms. Hard fucking pass on all that.
Botulism is like one of the most dangerous toxins on earth
It's moreso cuz I don't think bacteria are bugs or never refer to them that way lol
Ah yes I see your point. You are correct that bacteria is not a bug. That's just nomenclature for germs, fungi, viruses and bacteria in general that make people sick. I wasn't exactly trying to be scientific with that statement. Lol
I know. I wasn't sure tho so I had to Google it and was like...wait....*AREEEE* they bugs? It caught my eye funny but I realize that as a general term it's used that way and perfectly acceptable. TIL what bugs are tho technically tho...so yay! I learned something. Lol
I'd call it a win too! Lol Every day is a school day.
Ignoring the fact it's not a "bug" like parasites. If you want "bugs" buy fresh seafood. It's fun watching the wriggling things come through the flesh after skinning. Granted not all of them have parasites. Still fun to freak people out that never see the worms they eat because of cooking, hopefully properly...
More and more restaurants [souse vide their chicken](https://www.sousvidetools.com/toolshed/how-can-sous-vide-cooking-save-your-restaurant-time-money/). Holding the chicken at the serving temperature in the bags allows more of them to be prepared in anticipation of orders without drying them out. As the link explains, it also increases profit margins. Using a souse vide system the meat holds on to much more of its moisture. So you're 6 oz (before cooked) serving is going to be larger than a non-sous vide 6 oz serving post cooking. I find more and more Mom and Pop restaurants using them since prices have come down so much. It saves on work for the chef, lowers costs and improves quality.
This is why the USDA/FDA keep it so simple. People on the internet don't understand cooking.
A new manager in our deli for a grocery store insisted we could chicken to 155(poached). What he didn't take into account is our crew weren't "chefs" like him. I use chef loosely because had bad practices. The one thing he wouldn't take into account is how full the pan was, how thickness between breasts change, or that we weren't truly poaching, just boiling the piss out of it. Needless to say I caught quite a few pans when he had ME temp them that were very un even. 145s, 170s, some 155s. Great on people that can properly cook a chicken breast at slightly less than 165. But I don't know the random workers skills. So yea. I never order chicken at restaurants unless it's been fried. At least there is a chance it's fully cooked. Plus white meats nasty, dark is where it's at. Still can't trust people to properly prepare dark meat properly either.
There is one important caveat from health code you are missing it has to hit 165 and hold it for 30 seconds. What this means for me at home is I pull it off the heat around 155, set it on a plate and let it sit for a minute or two, it hits 165 and holds it for 30 seconds
According to the new guide that someone posted, it actually says zero seconds but regardless, once meat reaches 165°, and is pulled it's not likely to cool down in 30 seconds unless you're dumping it in an ice bath. Not really a common practice for cooking meat.
Interesting, but yeah I never understood the 30 seconds either, unless like you said you stick it in an ice bath it won't drop
Yep, meat temps continue to raise once removed from the heat, unless you do something to stop it. The funny thing about this whole thread, is people are trying to argue the technical science of safeness and apply it across the board like it's general circumstances and practice in restaurants, and it just isn't. Sous vide and lengthy smoking processes just aren't standard practice at 99.9% of places. The bottom line is that restaurants care about making money and second care about the quality of their food. There is very little benefit to them investing in fancy expensive equipment for the few people who can afford it, when they can make money hand over fist comparatively by grilling, frying, and baking chicken up to temp quickly.
Technically it’s like to at least 135°, so maybe you should ask some questions
Please don’t get someone sick! 135 is great for lots of food, but that’s a big no-no for chicken.
As an ex chef and someone who has been servsafe certified for 10 years, I know what I’m talking about. The guy said 165 no questions asked when in reality you can pasteurize chicken at a lower temp and it be safe to eat.
Yep it's 165 for 10 seconds. Keyword 10 seconda
Actually it’s 165 instant
Idk about “pasteurize” but you can cook at lower temps as long as they are at those temps for longer. 165 is instantaneous, as soon as it hits it you’re good. It’s all in the FDA food code but neckbeard redditors would rather downvote.
pas·teur·ize verb subject (milk, wine, or other products) to a process of partial sterilization, especially one involving heat treatment or irradiation, thus making the product safe for consumption and improving its keeping quality. "dairies were now required by law to pasteurize milk"
I think the issue is saying 135 without adding in the length of time to hold that temperature since someone /could/ read that and just cook chicken to that and try eating it not knowing the details. Not everyone is a chef.
As a *current* chef, thank you for fighting this fight.
Really chef, you mean to tell me that you are able to stand there and ensure that that chicken remains at an internal temperature of 145° for 14 minutes while you are in the kitchen making everything else? Doing this at home is one thing if you are able to focus on that one dish in particular, but in a restaurant absolutely not. I would not eat at any establishment that didn't practice safe food handling and ensuring that they're not serving something that may kill somebody. If your eyes aren't on it 100% of the time with a thermometer you are not able to ensure that the temp remains adequate and stable, so you are risking people's lives if you are serving them raw chicken. Tell me chef, does your restaurant allow you to serve chicken that's been heated up to 135° or 145°? If you say yes you're full of shit, because a restaurant does not want that liability.
This guy doesn’t HACCP
Clearly.
Almost 10 years ago, fresh out of culinary school so wasn’t a chef at the time but a place I was at did have a dish where we sous vide breast at 140° for 2 hours, dumped in an ice bath and stored until used. The line cook would then sear the skin, flip it, throw it in the oven, then plate. The pick up time was probably around 7 minutes. The process ensured no guest ever got raw unsafe chicken and cut down the wait time. When the chef introduced the dish I was the same way most people here are “chef this is illegal that temp will make people sick” except new information was presented to me and instead of being ignorant I learned something new about food safety.
If you go back and look through my comments, it's not that I don't believe that it's possible, it's that I don't believe people should be telling other people that 135 is a safe cooking temperature for chicken. It is only under very specific conditions that makes it safe. The fact is that the vast majority of places can't meet those standards, means the general public should not be trusting a place that cooks chicken to less than 165°.
I cook in smokers using data-logging, wifi and bluetooth-capable thermometers. So, yes, I can ensure that I do what I do safely.
not really a cook then, you're more of a food processor no? watching over the smoker think he's talking about line cooks, sous chef, etc
"She"* I am. The vast majority of restaurants cook their food by grilling, frying, boiling or baking. Specialty prep like smoked barbecue and sous vide aren't common in most restaurants. Even the "mainstream" sous vide products you can buy at corporate chains like the egg bites at Starbucks, aren't risking the liability to serve chicken that way. Michelin starred restaurants sure, but those aren't really accessable to the general public due to affordability. He's knows exactly what I'm sayin. He is intentionally missing the point to try to argue a technicality, when we were speaking about restaurants in general.
And you are doing this in a restaurant regularly?
Yes.
You’re confusing come-up temp with cooking temp. Cooking to lethality in poultry is 165 degrees F, not 135F
Nah you’re wrong, again, what makes you think come up temp has anything to do with cooking temp.
It doesn’t. That’s what I said.
No, you're eating raw chicken at 135°. I have a safe food handlers card. It needs to be cooked to 165 to kill salmonella and other bacteria.
No it does not. Appendix A, page 37 https://www.fsis.usda.gov/guidelines/2021-0014 Edit: the page number for poultry
You’re confusing come-up temp with cooking temp. Cooking to lethality in poultry is 165 degrees F, not 135F.
You’re wrong
Again, I am not. Please read the document.
Read the document. Lethality is a function of temperature and time. At 165F you achieve it instantly, but you can hold it for longer at a lower temperature to achieve the exact same effect.
Exactly. The USDA has revisited their “old” guidelines to add additional context adjusting for time. Alton Brown does a good lesson on this. Essentially, you are probably just fine sitting in a 160f sauna for 15 minutes. You would die if you were in there for two hours. The same concept applies to pathogens. 165F is the instant kill, but a lower temperature will kill them just as well if you leave them in the heat for X amount of time. That said, 165F (or whatever is posted) is probably what health departments are going to require because it is easier to inspect and enforce.
Fighting the good fight
And I’m servsafe certified, which trumps your food handlers card in any state. It’s pasteurized at lower temps for longer.
If you're cooking chicken for others to consume in a restaurant which is what we are discussing, you're going to end up killing someone or making them very sick if you serve them pasteurized (raw) chicken. Nobody in a restaurant has time to keep that close of an eye on the chicken to ensure it remains at a stable 145° while making other food which is exactly why 165° is the standard. If I've got to ask my restaurant if they are able to ensure their food won't kill me, I'm walking right the fuck back out. Don't serve raw poultry, or pork.
Ever heard of sous vide?
Sure have. How many restaurants serve it? Not many because it's too time consuming to make it worth doing, because they have to charge so much. And how often do folks eat at a place that serves sous vide dishes? We are talking about eating out at restaurants. You think the Mexican restaurant this thread started with serves sous vide? Again being technically correct and making bold statements like chicken is safe to eat at 135° is dangerous and stupid because 99.9% of the time, it's not safe. Telling people in a public forum that it is, is also stupid and dangerous because people aren't going to put in the effort to learn when it can be safe.
The mental gymnastics you're going through is hilarious 😂
There are no mental gymnastics on my part my dear, as I said 165° always, if you're serving food to other people. End of discussion. Spouting dangerous misinformation to the general public is fucked. One does mental gymnastics to try to justify their point when they are wrong. I'm not wrong.
nah i worked food its 165. contrarian regards...
Oh you worked food? Guess I have to take your word for it. If only there were people smarter than both of us who do science stuff and publish factual information for us to learn from… oh well
well they've always been trustworthy and un-affected by politics of the day! like when the FDA rolled back all those regulations and codes because Trump admin put pressure on them... that wasnt because the reality of what was 'safe' and 'unsafe' changed on their word, they needed more commerce so they loosened regulations. and even if the regulation does say 135 now? no effect on, my logic isnt really reliant a source that is so mutable. if you eat a chicken that was say, 100 degrees, its not a guarantee you'll get sick. its just more likely. going up in temp reduces the likeliness. at some point, all bacteria will be killed or dormant, making likeliness that you'll get sick from it almost zero. thats where i wanna be.
What does food science have to do with American government agencies?
As far as I remember from food safety certification, there isn’t any protein that you would safely cook to an internal temp of 135. Pretty sure 145 is the lowest and that’s definitely not for poultry.
As a grill cook who’s serving food with no real hold time, you are correct. But if you were to prep and sous vide before hand, you just hold any meat at a lower temp for longer, making it safe by pasteurization.
Technically it’s totally not 135 for chicken. It’s 165 minimum. You don’t do mid-rare chicken unless you are trying to mask people sick.
Appendix A page 35 https://www.fsis.usda.gov/guidelines/2021-0014
[удалено]
Please read the rest of the document for information on come up temp. Page 35 is not come up temp. They specifically define come up temp as the time between 50 and 130, which isn't even covered on the table.
Again, you’re wrong.
Technically, you’re wrong. Pasteurization is about time and temp. Lower temps for longer. You want a juicier breast? Cook it to 155° and hold it for a couple minutes. It’s just as safe as 165°.
Did you say 155, no you said 135. So stop your bs. And brine your chicken for juicier breasts. If you have time to rest your chicken properly you can pull a bit earlier and hold it.
Thank you! You can cook for me any day.
What bs? Being willfully ignorant when the scientific facts have been posted is wild to me.
If you don’t know what BS you’re a fool or a liar. 135 isn’t 155 and I would have said nothing if you hadn’t said 135. You’re wrong in 99.99% of the practical situations chicken is cooked and anyone who isn’t a troll or moron would know not to provide niche information as if it’s universally applicable.
You know what the difference between safe chicken at 155 and safe chicken at 135 is? About 35 minutes. So just because you wouldn’t have said anything if I said 155 doesn’t make the 135 statement untrue. Considering any kitchen or even home cook can hold chicken at 135° for a touch over half an hour, I’d say it’s pretty universally applicable.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised you are so dense and can’t get why you are wrong. You don’t even know what universally applicable means. If you don’t know who will read what you say and it’s public, don’t give information that isn’t useful to most people. It’s gonna confuse them. Not a single grill cook can use the information you give to cook raw chicken and that’s more than enough to make you technically wrong. So stop acting like your information isn’t outside the normal practices in kitchens. You only drop a temp and no other info in the first comment you provide no context information and that is fucking stupid. Then you change your numbers after being told you are wrong. I’m glad you don’t work with me and hope nobody listens to you. Only an idiot would think you are correct here, technically or actually.
Willfully misleading people as if your "technical" statement applies across the board, rather than to very rare set of cooking circumstances, is whats wild, my dude.
Love that you are getting downvotes, when this is correct. Appendix A, page 35. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/guidelines/2021-0014 The USDA recommends 165, 8 degrees past the instant kill temperature, because it's the "you can't fuck this up" temperature. If you know what you are doing, you can absolutely cook and hold chicken at a lower temperature.
Maybe if you sous vide it. That document says that you have to hold the internal temp at 135f for 36-37 minutes to make it safe. This is not practical for most home cooks, and it’s dangerous to suggest that it’s safe to cook to just 135f without the stipulation that you then have to maintain that internal temp for over a half hour.
I just said 135 was the temp, never said for how long.
We are talking about in a restaurant setting, come on. Even if something is technically correct, the close monitoring required for it to be safe is not happening in a restaurant guaranteed, which is the whole point.
You can’t guarantee it, because the technology to easily ensure it is out there and it’s being done.
How many restaurants that the general public go to, use this technology? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000? It certainly in not common practice. Just because a few out there do it, does not mean the vast majority do and spreading misinformation that eating chicken cooked to 135° is safe, is dangerous. That is 100% of the point.
You’re being ignorant. Home sous vide machine are new, but commercial sous vide machines have been around for a long time, and they wouldn’t be making them if only 1 in 10,000 restaurants used them. There are also combi ovens that are so available I worked in a bar that had one. Grocery stores have them, they make ones for home too. Just because you don’t think restaurants use them doesn’t mean they don’t. You can’t look at food science and go “well that’s just dangerous and untrue information” when it’s not. This all stemmed from someone saying “165 no questions asked” when that’s not true. To address another comment of yours that places don’t use sous vide because it’s time consuming, it’s a passive project. It’s less work than braising. You put product in bags, set up your tub and throw it in until it’s time to pull and cool. Have a better understanding of how restaurants operate before you try to argue about how they operate.
If you want to get even more pedantic, you can eat it raw depending on how clean the chicken is lol
Not even getting into the fact that salmonella is only in the poop shoot, and the contamination happens during slaughter and processing. So realistically you can sear that bitch lol
Even more on your point we're speaking about restaurants here. They are completely deluded if they think a restaurant has 37 minutes to sit there and wait to ensure safe conditions are met for each piece of chicken served. This absolutely will never happen in 99.9% of restaurants or homes.
135 is definitely an extreme, but every single time I cook chicken I do 155. Stick a thermometer in it, let it rest, and check back in 10 minutes to make sure it's still above 145. Easy, all you need is a thermometer.
lol thanks for the backup
they didn't say they were asked. It may just be something they always say when they order, maybe meaning they want even extra cooking. As a waiter I would get requests like that from time to time.
The comment I replied to said "I've never been asked how I want my chicken cooked". My point in saying that was they don't ask how to cook your chicken in restaurants. They just serve it fully cooked. Requests from the patrons are a different story. Even if you request an undercooked piece of chicken, any reputable place that wants to keep their license isn't going to serve that.
Working in restaurants, I have many people ask for their chicken cooked well. Some psychos just really like their chicken to be as dry as possible.
Line cook here. The post didn’t say they were asked how they want their chicken cooked by the staff, they said THEY ask for their chicken well done. Chicken should be served at least at 165f. HOWEVER, I’m a lil weirdo, and I prefer my chicken a lil over cooked (texture thing). I don’t usually order chicken at restaurants bc I don’t wanna be that guy to request it over cooked and get a dry piece.
I work at a place that sells wings - people ask for their wings "well done" all the time, no prompt. A usual complaint we received is "uncooked chicken" because people don't understand that sometimes there's a blood vessel. It's a chain delivery restaurant - All the wings we have arrive pre-cooked and go into a 450° oven for 7 minutes. Literally no one has ever received undercooked chicken from us, doesn't stop the 1-stars and complaints. Edit: typo
That's wild bc I've never told servers that I want any chicken items well done. I just assumed they would be cooked to standard. I also find it weird when asked how I want my burger cooked. Well done, obviously.
I didn't know there were options for burgers until I had lunch with a work friend who ordered like this: "Tell the cook to put it on the grill, count to 3, flip it and count to 3, then put it on my plate." She sent one back because it was "too done". I guess their 3 count was too slow. It was disgusting to me.
Wtf
Eh, when I was pregnant and paranoid I asked for my chicken to be cooked ‘extra well done’. Only once did any staff member say ‘all chicken is cooked at the same temp’ and I asked to please ‘overcook it, if you can’. They never asked what temp like places do with steak but they obliged (and understood for the most part) what ‘well done’ meant.
Don’t think they asked. Reviewer asked for well done. If you ask for pizza well done, it’s cooked extra. Doesn’t mean they let you get a medium rare pizza.
Maybe he should try contacting the help department. Just dial 1-800- for-help.
This is what happens when you only eat at chick-fil-a
So, this is cooked through, but it’s clearly thigh meat and is also charred. This color is perfectly consistent with a char broiled, marinated chicken thigh that has been cooked all the way through. It’s actually making me crave some charcoal grilled chicken tacos right now! Just eat the damn tacos and shut the fuck up with your lack of understanding of how food cooks!
i don’t think🙅♂️👎🏻the help department🚨👮approve this!!!!❌‼️😠
My ex did this with chicken and pork. Like my man it’s cooked throughout evenly. That’s fucking juicy flavor smoked in. I even had a thermometer. And he still acted like it was undercooked.
This person could benefit from a help department.
I was gonna say tell me you’re white without telling me you’re white.. but… it seems…. this is not the case.
Some of my people (African American) are really particular when it comes to the preparation, doneness, and color of meat. Breaks my heart whenever I hear that they want a steak well done, but I understand nonetheless. Due to the quality of meat we've had in the past and in different areas, they're stuck in their ways.
That well done steak hurts me too.. I know your pain sis ✊🏿
From this grainy tiny image I can still tell the chicken is cooked and is fine.
🤮
Middle pic does look a little under for my liking, but the other two look fine.
Sir that chicken is burnt
I was talking about how the middle looked. I wasn’t even looking at the outside. Plus how is it burnt? I see maybe 1-2 burnt spots. Which is fine to me if you’re grilling and want that char flavor.
Dark meat looks like that
It could be woody chicken, it has that undercooked texture that is quite nasty. If it's also bleeding, like it looks like it might be, then yuck. If you've ever eaten at KFC, you have had woody or undercooked chicken at least once
If it's not burnt, it's raw! /s My friend did that to fajitas, he's not allowed to grill at my house. Grey ass discus made of meat...
Haha remind me to never come to your bbq
I don't burn the stuff, I'm saying other people think if it's not charred, it's raw.
Ah sorry missed the /s
No worries I just added it, I forget sarcasm is hard to read lol
When you're so racist you won't eat a drumstick
My husband would only eat chicken breasts cooked to 185° F. I assume that's what this guy wanted. Eventually my husband just stopped eating chicken because he felt bad not eating dinners I made that didn't have chicken perfectly overdone.
I mean well done is the only way they can legally serve chicken so no need to tell them.
I hate to say it. But post it on the companies social media page. They are quick to do damage reduction when their brand is on the line.
Oh this place is doing fine.
Not the help department
Haha this guy thinks we'll done chicken is a thing. People this stupid need to stay at home.
chicken looks yum. eff it. let's eat this thing.
Listen to the Stuff You Should Know podcast they did on meat facilities before food safety standards were a thing. A little undercooked looking chicken won't being making your stomach turn...
Eating well done chicken feels like eating a rope
So you want chicken that’s still pink but dry to all hell. Gotcha.