Sorry I really can't but here is my opinion on the subject and am really not up to the challenge of searching for data....I do hope you will find the information you want and will share it with the group here.......my opinion though, why take the risk of being that one person..or here is a story that I have told on this board before,...the whole family gathers mushrooms and eats them...everyone gets sick, but the 9 month old baby dies....

When it comes to proper canning procedures, I look at it as practicing good cleanliness and procedures to protect my family as much as possible.

I guess my concern is that every year, the guidelines get stricter, eliminating more procedures and foods from the lists "allowed", but if no more or less people get sick or die as a result of the choice, what was the point in the time, effort, limitation and increased fear? Is the point to allow Bell to sell new canning books?

The telecom industry measures risk (or uptime) in "nines." One nine is 90%, two is 99%, three is 99.9% - Bell (the phone company, not the canning company) aims for four nines, or about 1 hour of down time for your telephone per year. The next level, five nines, would be about 5 minutes of downtime per year. The cost justification of building the infrastructure to go from four to five nines isn't worth it - not only are you likely to not be using your telephone during that 55 minutes anyway, but the successive cost to add each level of nine is exponentially larger. This is sensible risk assessment - if they aimed for 100% uptime, your phone bill could be thousands of times larger than it is now to pay for the effort. By aiming at a realistic, instead of ideal goal, costs are managed and more opportunity is created - even though there is an infinitesimal risk of the phone being unavailable exactly when someone in your house has a heart attack.

The "why" you asked about is related to that - increasing the risk allows you to increase the reward. More varieties of food could be preserved, kept longer, with less energy required to store them. If the result of everyone changing to "more risky" behavior resulted in there still being just one death per year, then I'd say it would be a net improvement.

Of course, you'd still be free to take as little risk as you'd like - I just want to find useful tools to define the actual level of risk we're talking about, so I can decide what procedures to take - without going all the way to the other end of the spectrum and playing Russian roulette.

In general, I think there is a significant lack of calculated risk taking in the world. Not wild, random risks, but truly calculated ones. If canning could be more free, with no measurable increase in risk, I see that to be of considerable value.

Actual data would be very difficult to compile. Because of all the variables and locations home canning has. People can get sick, but if its not severe, they may never be counted into any database. It would ba almost like trying to find out home many car accidents happen every second of every day. Car accidents can vary in description from a scrape to a total. Botlism isn't too common here, but every case usually is tracable only so far, so we can't ever know what the whole result is. Home canning isn't a 50/50 proposition if the basic safety precautions are taken.

queuetue,

You raise an issue that I find very interesting and have pondered (both to myself and in discussions here over the years). Like you, I was moved (some time after I started cannign) to look up the botulism statistics (but for Canada, where I live), and like you, I found the missing link to be any info on how much canning went on, thus making the actual level of risk impossible to judge.

I too find it frustrating that the USDA guidelines become stricter every year, without necessarily any evidence that people were getting sick because of the previous year's guidelines.

Also, sometimes the guidelines are changed NOT because of any risk in the product but because of a perceived quality issue.

The Food Canada guidelines sometimes differ very slightly from the USDA ones, and the practices in the UK seem to be slightly different (for example, it's standard not to bother actually processing jams and jellies, but just to put hot fruit into sterile, hot jars & invert), which further leads one to wonder---are the more stringent guidelines necessary?

The standard on which the guidelnes seem to be based is one of zero risk---things are changed not because people are necessarily getting sick, but because it can't be demonstrated for sure that nobody MIGHT. (When the health department of Toronto, where I live, tried to apply this standard to restaurants a few years ago, it became clear that every sushi place in town would have had to be closed, and the backlash pretty soon changed their minds.)

Some of the conversations here have turned kind of heated, I should warn you! And I know many people feel, as ruthie put it, "Why risk being the one person who gets sick?" And I think about other risks we take. Why risk an auto accident, ever? Well, because the alternative is not to ever drive anywhere (or even cross a street), and we'd have to give up more than we're willing to for that level of certain safety. So with canning, if my homemade salsa recipe is SO amazingly good, it might be worth SOME risk to can it even if it hasn't been tested; not very MUCH risk, but maybe a small amount, if the alternative is that I won't bother to can at all, and will eat only more expensive, less tasty, commercial goods (which are NOT 100% risk free, of course) because I don't like the recipes that are tested. Would I risk maybe 1 in a million chance of botulism? 1 in a billion? 1 in 10 billion?

I have no answer, but will throw out a few thoghts, since I've pondered similar questions to yours:

-- Remember that the USDA and BBB guidelines are NOT "regulations," at leas for a home canner---they are GUIDELINES, and you are free to NOT follow any that you wish. There actually is no canning police who will break down your door if you don't BWB your jams, or even if you open-kettle-can tomatoes with no added lemon juice and a shorter-than-recommended processing time. Or, heck, if you can butter (which some websites I've seen suggest some folks indeed do).

-- I find that the degree of risk (whatever it is) that I'm willing to take myself is higher than that I'm willing to impose on anyone else---in other words, I'd probably be a lot more free and easy, having read a lot and knowing a BIT about what lies behind the risks (while not claiming food science expertise), with canning if I ate it all myself. I feel pretty confidend that the chances of serious problems are VERY low, and if I forget to add lemon juice to one jar, or take it out too soon, etc., I would not at ALL worry about eating it. BUT because I give away a lot of my canning, I do find it nice to be able to tell people that I have followed all the current most stringent recommendations, so that I don't have to ask THEM to make any decisions based on info about levels of risk that the may not have.

-- As I can more and more, I actually find myself less interested in straying from the recommended procedures, because there is still so much I can do and stay within them, and for other things, I tend to find alternatives. (E.g., things I might have wanted to can that are not "allowed," I learn how to freeze, etc.) And there is something, at least for me, SO horrific about even the IDEA of an activity meant to be nurturing and healthful and generous having even a chance of actually causing harm to those I share it with, that even if the chance is miniscule, I don't like the thought.

All that said, however, I do think your point is a good one.

A discussion here about whether people would eat canned goods given them by someone else whose degree of care in following modern recommendations was unknown, I've said before and will repeat now that I would do it in a heartbeat. I am pretty sure I take a greater risk when I eat a hamburger at someone else's place --- every time you go to a barbecue, do you quiz the chef on where the meat came from, how it was stored, how long it's been out of the fridge, what the temp of the BBQ is, etc.? Every time you get in someone else's car, do you ask what their driving record is like, how their car's safety equipment measured up in the Consumer Reports tests, etc.? If not, it seems odd to me to apply that level of risk aversion to canned goods.

And above all, I welcome the discussion and look forward to seeing any more info you come up with. I thinkt his forum should be open for any and all discussions and opinions about canning.

Good luck, and thanks for this thread!

Zabby

I have no idea on the data I have never heard of anyone around here dying from canned goods I don't take food safety all to seriously BUT I feel very strongly that you need to know the rules before you should break them

If I were to get sick or die from my one stupidity there is no one to blame if say I kill my Mom or someone close to me I shared a canned product with I wouldn't feel to good about myself

That said you can more than likly blame the socity we live in and the lawers that control it for the rule changes

An interesting point about steam canners. The companies that advertise and sell them make the statement that they cannot be used for low acid foods, which is obvious to me, but maybe not to others. They still sell them, and I still love using mine for jellies and pickles only.

just how much of the canning rules that are published is alarmist,

I think they paint with a wide brush giving themselves a big safety margin. Over cautious might be a better characterization.

The guidelines and recipies seem to have changed when the torch was passed from one government agency to another. If past documentation was lacking then an old accepted procedure was dropped. In some cases a new more idiot proof approach was recommended.

how much is bureaucrats needing to justify their jobs

I would be surprised if there were any jobs to protect. I doubt there are any full time scientists working on the home canning guidelines. I rarely see updates or new recipies. I believe home canning is of low government priority and is probably not well funded.

Zeuspaul

Zeuspaul,
Shame on you for tempering my tirade! :)

Your point about priority and funding is a good one - One of my original questions was about testing for organisms at home. I wonder if a good protocol for this was developed, how interested, capable and rigorous the canning community would be in forming our own set of guidelines, with less view to potential liability and more consideration to actual use and effect.

I can't find it this evening, but I read the N.I.H. report on one botulism outbreak that sickened half a dozen folks, a group of people picking wild mushrooms and canning them in olive oil, and I could so easily picture someone trying to imitate something they'd eaten in 'the old country' with no idea what the folks in "the old country" had actually done to make it safe to eat - maybe even used different mushrooms.

Oopsy!

My grandmother was a mushroom picker. In her better days, she would take trips out into woods and could tell poisonous from non poisonous, by touching a part of it to her tongue. Don't recall the sensation she was looking for, but it was something she learned as a kid and raised in Poland. Obviously even not being in oil, mushrooms can carry botulism, as some years back, a commercially canned product was pulled store from shelves, because their processing wasn't hot enough to kill the botulism. Then there was the outbreak of salmonella some years back, traced to ice cream. It seems that the ice cream maker had trucks that delivered the dairy to their plant, but before that, the trucks carried eggs. The egg residue was not removed well, so the dairy was an ideal culture just ripe for the salmonella poisoning. It affected several states in the midwest.

In the past 20 years, there have been super viruses and no new means to kill them with antibiotics. Every year, a new antibiotic has to be developed to keep ahead if the virus strains that become resistant. Same is true with insect pests. A spray today, will do very little 10 years from now, unless its very powerful and attacks physically as opposed to biologically. Super rats resistant to the rat killers too..

how many foods have botulism in them naturally?
......
One of my original questions was about testing for organisms

I don't think testing for botulism would be of much benefit. I believe the processing guidelines address the low acid conditions in which botulism grows or killing it outright. High acid is for preventing growth. Pressure canning with the resultant higher temperatures is used for killing.

I doubt testing recipies involves testing for botulism. They most likely test ph and processing times required to reach killing temperatures.

Zeuspaul

I don't want to distract from the discussion because it is interesting but while we are on the subject though can I ask here, who is willing to take the risk or would you be if the recipe taste you felt was worth it as some one mentioned. I think canning it would change the taste anyway but just out of curiosity?

Like Ruthie, I can never understand the desire to take the risk. Is it just to do it faster? No regard for quality issues? Just a stubborn desire to avoid change? To gain some sort of perceived convenience? Is the goal to prove the USDA/NCHFP are just wrong? Sort of a finger pointing nah-nah-na-na at a government agency? Or is it trying to prove we know more than someone trained in food science?

Why would anyone want to justify canning the way Grandma did just to prove a point when the risk, even it is was only 1 in 500,000 is so pointless? Grandma didn't know some of her practices were unsafe in her day so she can't be faulted but if she HAD known, as we do now, do we really believe she would have continued the unsafe practices?

And it isn't as if the new guidelines are some sort of great imposition. Most changes are minimal requiring us to only change a bit. There are no massive prohibitions included. And they do stipulate that they are "guidelines". No canning police are going to come calling if you choose to ignore them. But what percentage of fatal illness would one decide justifies sticking to the guidelines? 1 in 5, 1 in 50, 1 in 500?

But yes, NCHFP has studied canning practices and published the results along with their many other online publications which includes a History of Canning Practices, A Critical Review of Current Publications and Research, a long list of technical bulletins and scientific publications, etc. all available under the Publications link on their website.

And yes, there are full time food scientists doing testing and all are listed on the NCHFP website. See list of names and contacts Dr. Elizabeth Andress is one who has posted here.

But as with most things, the degree of risk all depends on what "changes" or rules you choose to ignore. Botulism is not the only risk of course but it is the most lethal. And botulism is a natural soil organism present in all soil and NCHFP also publishes a list of the most bot-prone foods (corn, green beans, garlic, onions, etc.) so if you elected to add olive oil to a recipe containing garlic, onions, and green beans or to BWB corn the risk would increase substantially.

But the easiest way to get all the details on the changes and the research/reasons behind them is to take one of the certified extension canning courses. Wife and I have taken several over the years and found them to be exceptionally informative. Folks in the class ask all these "why?" questions and the instructor, if he/she doesn't have it right at hand, will willingly pull all the documentation together for you. If all else fails, take the online course offered free of charge by NCHFP. Not as much behind the scenes info but still well worth the time.

Dave

The bottom line is that I would be devastated if something I canned made someone sick or - HORRORS - killed them! I can't see a botulism spore. There is no color or taste or smell of it. I trust that it is there. I am not a scientist. Someone else has had to make the rules to elimiate them - BWB, pressure canning, more lemon juice against mold and lysteria, salmonela, the new "rules" or "guidelines" are there for a purpose. Let them justify their jobs all they want. I just want to know that I gave/sold someone a nice jar of pickled cucumbers and onions, or fig jam, and that they enjoyed it and did not get sick. I wear a seat belt - it is the law. Why? Because some scientst, smarter than I am, figured that it would save my life in the event of an accident. I have to trust that he got paid for his knowledge. I do the same for those who eat/buy my jam.
Admonishments:
***Keep unopnened in pantry out of sunlight and in a cool environment. Refrigerate after opening. Don't dip your buttered knife into it. Consume and enjoy within 6 months after opening." If they don't follow the "rules" I can't keep them well. It goes the same way with the published guidelines. They can't keep me well if I don't follow the rules. Yes, I question them, but I don't have enough information as to the possibility of my being killed in an accident if I don't wear my seatbelt every time I drive either. It is a matter of trust - either that or getting a PhD in Food Science so that I have all the answers.

Nancy

Interesting topic. I guess following the USDA recommendations adds so little time to my process, I really don't spend much effort contemplating the topic. It's a little like putting on your seatbelt in the car....takes a second, and *could* prevent further injury, so why not just do it.

Zeuspaul, they actually do test for botulism. That is how they determined that the methods for canning pumpkin butter were unsafe.

I follow the USDA guidelines for all safety issues and if I alter a recipe, I carefully consider the ratios of acidic/nonacidic ingredients as well as other factors. Most times I just find it easier to follow the original recipe and alter it after canning. If it were just me, I might take the risk. But there is my son to consider and the rest of my family that enjoys my canning.

I wish though, that they would offer a way that you could pay to have a recipe tested. I'd be in line as soon as I gathered the money.

Kim

I wish though, that they would offer a way that you could pay to have a recipe tested. I'd be in line as soon as I gathered the money.

Good idea. I would check a box on my income tax to direct funds to home canning and I am sure many others would too. I would even donate additional funds if the option were provided. A million people donating a couple of bucks would probably buy us a half dozen new recipies per year which is about six more than we get now.

Zeuspaul

Per NCHFP on the testing of your recipes:

7. If you want to explore private testing of your recipe for canning, it most likely will require an investment through private companies. You could contact your local Cooperative Extension office to see IF they have names of testing companies in your state, and/or if they could contact the Food Science Department at their state land-grant university to obtain help. You can find your local Extension office contact information by going to this page, and choosing your state name out of the drop-down box under item number 2, Find Your Local Extension Office.

In the US most every state has at least 1 land-grant university and it is worth checking with them to see if they will do the testing for you. Ours is more than willing to use the test projects for students.

EMSL (linked below) has 27 labs scattered across the country that will do testing for all sorts of things. Cost depends on the degree and numbers of tests you want.

Dave

Here is a link that might be useful: EMSL Food Testing Labs

Another consideration is that botulism toxin is destroyed by heating for 185F/85ºC for five minutes, or boiling for a few minutes. Eg if you're canning tomato sauces that will be used in recipes that require cooking with the canned stuff, vs eating it straight out of the jar like pickles, or fruits, or jams/jellies.

So theoretically, a can of pumpkin butter that was going to be used to bake a pumpkin pie would be safe where as eating a pint of pumpkin butter straight out of the jar with a spoon would be riskier.

Queuetue,

An interesting topic, and one I often thought of raising here but my flack jacket was in the cleaners. But since you brought it up....

Since the botulism toxin is well known to be one of the most potent poisons in existence, fear tends to generate speculation and assumptions that are often off base. I have seen such scare statements on the Internet to the effect that "one touch (or taste) and you're dead", or "inhaling the mist from opening a contaminated jar will kill you". Fact is botulism poisoning is a rare disease, and the survival rate is over 95%. Mind you, no one wants to be one of the statistics, but it is important that we understand the risks in their proper perspective.

Because of the potential for botulism poisoning to be widespread through commercial distribution of contaminated batches, medical facilities are required to report instances of botulism to the CDC. The CDC published a report titled "Foodborne Botulism in the United States, 19902000" containing this data for a 10 year period, and the results are very interesting.

You can read it here: (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no9/03-0745.htm).

The report shows that in this 10 year period, 70 cases of botulism from home canned foods were reported, for an average of 7 cases per year. The largest offender was asparagus with 14 cases, followed by beets (6), tuna (4), olives (4), garlic in oil (4), and peppers (4). These are cases, not deaths; the fatality rate was about 4%.

As a salsa canner for over 30 years, I find the data for tomato cases most interesting. With over a million home canners in the US (estimated), and tomatoes being the number one crop with home gardeners, one would expect a high number of cases from tomato products. This report, however, shows only one case of botulism poisoning from home canned tomato products in the ten year period, and that was for tomato juice, not salsa or sauce. If one adds together one case in 10 years with a 4% fatality rate, this data predicts a fatality rate from home canned tomato products of one death every 250 years!

Yes I know, "what if I am that one case?", and "why should I take any risk?" It's the same logic as "someone has to win the zillion dollar lottery", but it discounts probability. Fact is we take risk every day. Every year hundreds of people around the world die while getting out of bed, slipping in the shower, walking down stairs, and choking on food, and tens of thousands die in car accidents. Yet what do we do every morning - we get out of bed, take a shower, walk down stairs, eat breakfast, and drive to work. How stupid can we be!

Life involves risk. If we want to eliminate all risk we can stay in bed all day, encased in a sterile bubble and fed sterile food, but is that living? And even then we risk getting hit by a meteor. A ship is safe in harbor, but ships are not meant to be in harbor. Nor are we meant to stay in bed.

I don't mean to be flip, but I am trying to make a point that we need to take probability into account before we worry ourselves to death. We all appreciate the reward and consequence parts of decision making, but probability is the third vital part of the equation, and the least understood. Once we understand the probability, we can take prudent precautions that are balanced with quality of life.

For example, not driving a car to avoid accidents sacrifices too much quality of life for me, but I can reduce my risk to acceptable levels by wearing a seat belt, not driving under the influence, using turn signals, and driving defensively. Likewise I don't eat my food too fast, run down stairs, or stand on a hill in a thunderstorm. In home canning, thanks to this forum, I now acidify my tomato salsa and use a pressure canner. But that said, I do vary from proven recipes in order to make the salsa that I like. I am not recommending that anyone ignore the rules and guidelines for home canning - you have to decide your own risk tolerance level - but for me I accept this risk based on the statistics for botulism above and my own 33 year history with my recipe.

My point is simple - know the risks associated with home canning and take prudent measures to bring that risk into your personal level of acceptability, but don't stop canning out of fear of dying. You have much bigger risks to fear in your daily life.

Queuetue, don't forget that people who canned in the old days had some procedures or knowledge that mitigated the risks, and that new canners might not know. For example, boiling tomatoes or green beans for 10 minutes to break down any botulism toxin that could have been in the jar. Or even canning green beans for 4 hours in a BWB--while it's not an approved method, maybe it kills off more botulism spores than a 1-hour BWB that someone new to canning might try.

My point is, someone who was well-versed in the old ways of canning may have been safer than someone flying by the seat of their pants today, even though neither one is following the modern guidelines.

Melissa

An interesting read I've stumbled upon is this 1983 critical study of home preserving literature, including the ancient and "modern" history of the current set of practices.
http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/publications/usda/review/content.htm

This review places modern canning recommendations squarely on the 1946 USDA Technical Bulletin 930, which is unfortunately not online. Apparently, instead of a hard recommendation of specific procedures, it has graphs showing the effects of various methods of preparation and indicators of the effectiveness of different ph, temperature and time ranges. This study was also to determine how much botulism was present in a heavily inoculated container which was canned and then stored at 86 degrees (98.6 for meat). No studies apparently for storing your preserved food in a sane way or without intentionally inoculating it. I think this represents the feeling in the bulk of the literature on the issue of preservation: "Take the worst-case scenario, drive it to zero risk, report how we did it"

They also seem to have based their nutritional analysis exclusively on levels of vitamin C. One thing we have not discussed above with regard to "why take the risk" is the flavor and nutritional content benefits of lesser processing.

It seems that no other large scale testing has been done by the USDA, and when recommendations change, it's because people are reinterpreting this original data.

Another interesting (although dry) paper is the 1998 "USING RISK ANALYSIS TO INFORM MICROBIAL FOOD SAFETY DECISIONS" at http://pdf.cast-science.org/websiteUploads/publicationPDFs/microbial_ip.pdf

I wonder what it would cost to do this 1940's study over again - and if major canning manufacturers could be relied upon to provide some of the funding, along with individual donors.

This review places modern canning recommendations squarely on the 1946 USDA Technical Bulletin 930, which is unfortunately not online.

queuetue - it isn't so much that the modern recommendations are based on that bulletin but rather that bulletin, the only info available at that time, was the trigger for all the subsequent research and changes.

"Take the worst-case scenario, drive it to zero risk, report how we did it".

Very likely. ;) That is the safest approach in science since it can be replicated. But it also allows the most room for the various idiosyncrasies of the people using the guidelines.

wcthomas makes a vital point - knowledge - whether it comes from formal training or years of experience, is invaluable when it comes to making adjustments to recipes. If the home canner FIRST understands all the underlying basics of pH, temp and time effects, PC vs. BWB, and pathogens (and there are many besides c. bot) then they are in a position to make safe changes.

Unfortunately most home canners today are NOT that well informed on those issues. Many new canners are entering the field and many who have not canned for years are joining them. Their primary goal is to home can all their favorite cooking recipes and all their left-overs. Yet they want to do this with no understanding of any of the most basic rules of safe home canning. Since they lack that knowledge that will let them make safe decisions, following only tested and approved recipes is the only way to go until such time as they learn/understand the effects of pH, which foods are acidic and which are not, how pressure cooking works, how ingredients interact with each other, etc. Without that knowledge they are a potential danger to themselves and others. Thus the recommendation to "take a class".

USDA publishes monthly and even weekly food safety bulletins you can subscribe to if you wish to be inundated with emails but NCHFP sorts through those and sorts out the most current ones applicable to home canning and publishes them. They are also passed on to the county extension agents who teach the classes. And, as Linda Lou has posted in the past, they are required to attend update seminars on a regular basis too.

In Canada, unless you are close to the border, I don't know the equivalent source of info for you (Carol might) but surely there is one. I know U. of Alberta, McGill and several other Canadian universities have food science programs and labs so they may be a good source of info for you.

Dave

Zeuspaul, they actually do test for botulism. That is how they determined that the methods for canning pumpkin butter were unsafe.

Do you have a reference? Elizabeth L. Andress, Ph.D. when referring to pumpkin butter seems to indicate they tested for the conditions favorable to botulism.
http://www.fcs.uga.edu/pubs/current/FDNS-E-P.html

Studies conducted at the University of Minnesota in the 1970's indicated that there was too much variation in viscosity among different batches of prepared pumpkin purees to permit calculation of a single processing recommendation that would cover the potential variation among products (Zottola et. al, 1978). Pumpkin and winter squash are also low-acid foods (pH > 4.6) capable of supporting the growth of Clostridium botulinum bacteria which can cause the very serious illness, botulism, under the right storage conditions. If the bacteria are present and survive processing, and the product has a high enough water activity, they can thrive and produce toxin in the product.

I find it interesting that according to the wctomas CDC reference only one case of botulism in pumpkin products was reported in the ten year time frame.

I find it a bit incredulous that the USDA cannot come up with a worst case pressure canning processing time for pumpkin puree. I am of the opinion that it can be done and should be done for a popular american vegetable product. Pumpkin butter would provide more challenges and could follow once the basics have been addressed.

Failure to provide basic processing times doesn't necessarily lead to safer home canning. It can lead to cynisism.

After looking at the botulism data at the CDC I find it difficult to believe that pumpkin puree cannot be safely home canned. I think Granny Miller makes some very good points.

Zeuspaul

From Granny Miller's blog

Just so you know, since the mid 1990's there has been a controversy in regards to the safety of home canning pumpkin butter.

Now a days home canning pumpkin butter is not recommended by canning "authorities" and "experts".

As far as I can tell the safety issue is a theoretical one.

Pumpkin is a low acid food and the only safe way to can low acid foods is with a pressure canner.

The difference with pumpkin butter, is that the PH is radically altered by the addition of lots of sugar and lemon juice.
The heavy sugar and acidic lemon juice makes the pumpkin butter safe to can via the boiling water bath method.....

.. at least that's what everybody thought and did before somebody wrote a food science paper in the late 1970's and then again in the 1990's and freaked out home canners everywhere.
Apparently there is a possibility that you could get botulism from pumpkin butter.

So these days "experts" are telling home canners to freeze their pumpkin butter or store it in the refrigerator.

I don't have much use for warnings from food science "experts"
that are 35 years too late, and who made careers from published papers that peddled "it might happen" fears.

You do what you think is best with your pumpkin butter.

But as for me, I'm hopelessly stuck in my ways and haven't died yet from poisoned pumpkin butter.
I'm not going to change how I store mine and just might write my own pumpkin butter paper someday!?

wcthomas,

You've articulated many of my thoughts on the subject better than I did.

I do wonder where you got even the estimated figure of a million home canners, however---like queue, I haven't been able to find any info on how many people actually can, let alone how many jars are canned (which is the real figure one would need to get reasonable idea of the probability).

Risk involves two parts: the probability of the outcome and the seriousness of it. Since botulism poisoining is a VERY serious outcome (a 4% death rate is pretty high for an illness, IMHO), it seems worth it to me to ensure that the probability of contracting it is very, very low.

But it has long puzzled me why *zero* seems to be the only acceptable (to the guideline producers and many canners) level of risk for this one activity, when, as you say, we cheerfully accept small levels of risk to balance against benefits in other areas.

As I said in my earlier post, I do wonder if it has to do in part with the emotional connection many of us make with food preparation for others---the idea that something that feels so nurturing and healthful could be harmful instead kind of freaks us out, maybe?

Z

zabby you make a good point..I believe this is true.

As I said in my earlier post, I do wonder if it has to do in part with the emotional connection many of us make with food preparation for others---the idea that something that feels so nurturing and healthful could be harmful instead kind of freaks us out, maybe?

and in regard to the risk issues....I would like to point out too that while we do take risks as in driving in our every day life and many other daily situations...we still take every precaution possible...or I know that I do. I wouldn't for instance go for a walk in a deserted area or I wouldn't ride in a car with someone who was a reckless driver or intoxicated and I always buckle up therefore I am willing to accept the guidelines given to me regarding saftey in canning since that is all I have to go on with any accuracy and then...like with driving...there are still risks involed in home canning...did I do everything right...is everything sealed, did I cook it long enough etc etc etc.

I would also be willing to accept the idea that even though lots and lots of data is available from way back when...I rather doubt that the issues of dying from home canned foods was very accurately reported way back when....so I'm not willing to accept that anyone's old old recipes should be canned in this day and age.

My mother made jelly every year, and not once was it ever water bathed...it had a paraffin seal on it and not one of us ever got sick that I know of but ...would I do it that way...never. My Mother made up her own soup stock and other things to her own taste and canned it to her liking ...she didn't have a bunch of books or guidelines....No one died but I wonder how many times (if any) someone had the stomach flu...etc etc

I really enjoyed Granny Millers site. I was reading that she was giving it up and I was disappointed but I guess there is tons of information that I will enjoy.

I rather doubt that the issues of dying from home canned foods was very accurately reported way back when....so I'm not willing to accept that anyone's old old recipes should be canned in this day and age.

I'm inclined to believe recent CDC data reflects a large percentage of botulism cases. It is very serious and most people would go to a doctor so most cases are probably reported. It's too bad they don't report additional details of how the food was processed. With one reported case of botulism in ten years for a particular vegetable one might assume that the canning procedure was at the very low end of the range of safety options.

My issue isn't with newer *stricter* guidelines. They are easy enough to follow. The problem is the lack of guidelines for some very popular vegetables. There are NO GUIDELINES for canning tomato sauce as a low acid vegetable. And there are NO GUIDELINES for canning pumkpkin puree inspite of the near zero reports of botulism for these vegetables.

You can't buckle your seat belt if you don't have a seatbelt.

After reading the CDC data on botulism and pumpkin I was convinced that the risk is very very low and that fears and risks are over stated. The CDC data does not support the USDA's position or lack of position. The FDA approves prodedures for pumpkin puree so we know it can be done safely.

I pulled out an old canning book and noted a pressure canning process for pumpkin puree. It WAS 80 minutes at 10 psi for quarts. If one were to process for 120 minutes and bump pressure to 15 psi would there be any safety risk? If one considers all of the various procedures that home canners use for processing pumpkin puree results in one case of botulism in ten years certainly the risk of botulism from processing pumpkin puree for 120 minuts at 15 psi would be very close to zero.

Zeuspaul

Hi Zabby,

I have seen several references on the Internet to the number of home canners being in the millions, but the most recent and credible comes from Alltrista in the following quote from the Seattle Post Intelligencer dated 9/24/97:

"But home canning is alive and well. More than 28 million Americans do it, representing nearly a third of the nation's households, according to a recent survey by Alltrista Consumer Products Co., the dominant player in the home-canning industry."

Another paper from 1982 put the figure at 40% of American housholds, which is consistent with the above. That paper also indicated that the majority canned 25-100 jars, and some 15-25% of the home canners were not using approved methods. (http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/publications/usda/review/intro.htm)

Another quote from Nader.org "The Agriculture Department says there was a total of 19 million home canners last year (1974)"

I didn't find statistics for the number of jars, but if 28 million people canned 50 jars each, the number would be well over one billion.

I think the reason the published recommendations tend to seek a zero probability for botulism is partly because of liability and partly because it is achievable. The USDA would naturally want to always recommend the safest procedures they know of, and others would not want to publicly contradict the USDA in writing. If we all followed these recommendations exactly, our risk would be negligible, but then I would have to give up my fantastic salsa recipe which I am not willing to do.

I started canning in the mid 70s, and the books I read back then did not say I had to acidify tomato salsa, use a pressure canner, or stress that recipes could not be modified. Hence I used considerably more onions and garlic in my recipe, no acid, and processed in a BWB for 45 minutes, clearly out of line with modern recommendations. I did this for about 30 years and over a thousand pints with no spoilage ever. I found this site a few years ago and learned there are safer ways to can, so I bought an All American 30 qt pressure canner, started growing high acid heirloom tomatoes, and this year began adding citric acid. I now process at 15 lbs for 15 minutes, but the recipe remains the same. While this method/recipe is not approved by anyone, in light of my history, my knowledge of botulism, and the botulism statistics, I am quite comfortable.

Each of us has to find our own personal balance between risk and quality of life. I feel that my canning techniques are more severe than the majority of US home canners, and no one seems to be getting botulism in the US from tomato products, so I feel good.

TomNJ

I guess really and truthfully that is the real answer...

Each of us has to find our own personal balance between risk and quality of life.

Maybe we forget to allow for the fact that retention of nutrition and quality/longevity of final product are also factors in the calculation.

So it may be that there are no current recommendations for something like pumpkin puree because the time required for the level of safety the NCHFP is aiming for results in a not-very-palatable or not-very-nutritious product. If the heat of long processing kills all the vitamins, that's not desirable either. From that perspective canning chunks and then pureeing after opening the jar is preferable.

Safety (reduction of risk) is only one factor.

The emotionalism of this whole issue intrigues me, especially reading Granny's post on pumpkin butter. I think some people want to can the way they want to can while resenting any implication that there is a level of risk.

Jams and jellies are another example. If you want to open-kettle can as the Europeans do or use paraffin (my memories of it aren't fond and I am glad not to use it anymore), go right ahead. The boiling water bath recommendation isn't primarily safety-related. It's shelf-life that's the factor. Boiling water bath reduces the risk of mold and increases longevity of the product, reducing waste.

So that's another consideration. I'd surmise there are a number of high-acid products (a full-vinegar relish, for example) which could also be open-kettle-canned with minimal health risk, but again, their shelf life is reduced due to the presence of air in the product.

I'm not a scientist, but if the majority of home canners make a reasonable effort to follow the NCHFP/USDA guidelines (which are designed to allow for all the ways people fail to follow directions), it seems only reasonable that the incidence of botulism would be low.

How do we conclude from that what the risk is of boiling water bathing green beans, as my cousin does? And how do we allow for the fact that after she opens the jar and puts the beans in the pan she adds some bacon and boils the heck out of them for twenty minutes? Canning practices are only part of the equation.

My BIL boiling water baths salmon, which is ironic because his mother always used a pressure canner going back 60+ years. He's lived to tell the tale. But he processes for 4 hours. I know there's some research (old research) about reduction of botulism risk with very extended boiling water bath processing times, but I personally prefer the safety and higher quality of a pressure-canned product.

So yes, there are people who continue to do what the family did in 1940 and live to tell about it but how to account for all the variables I do not know.

Sometimes in blogs and discussions on forums I hear a tinge of conspiracy theory in speculation about the USDA and the NCHFP, as if their purpose in life is to frustrate home food preservers. But the USDA is basically out of the business. I don't think they much care one way or the other.

The USDA some years ago dumped the task of research and development in the lap of the NCHFP, which is generally strapped for funds. So are all the Extension agencies I know of.

I, too, would be interested in more research. Documents at the NCHFP site indicate they have identified all sorts of areas where more work is needed. Now if someone would establish a foundation to support these efforts . . .

I do think it's important to have these discussions and it's nice to see we can disagree while respecting various points of view.

Carol

So it may be that there are no current recommendations for something like pumpkin puree because the time required for the level of safety the NCHFP is aiming for results in a not-very-palatable or not-very-nutritious product.

The FDA approved pumpkin puree tastes fine to me and it is what the majority of Americans use. Perhaps it isn't as nutritious as cubed pumpkin. How many vitamins are washed out when one adds water??

I preserve pumpkin for convenience. When I make pumpkin pie or pumpkin cake I want to use a puree as a time saver. I grow and use a lot of pumpkins/squash. Currently I freeze because it is the only approved method for puree. However I have limited freezer space. If I were interested in the most nutritious food I would use one of about fifty fresh winter squash laying around my hallways.

I think having several options is important. We could have cubed pumpkin for the most nutritious product and pureed pumpkin for the most convenient product.

I don't see many alternatives to the NCHFP. That puts the monkey on their back.

I also don't think that a foundation should have to fund research into additional approved recipies. If there are 24 million home canners and half of them are tax payers then there should be a lot of funds already available.

Zeuspaul

Tom, thanks for the cite on that statistic. I will admit to some skepticism about numbers from a study done by Alltrista (who sell canning products, after all). But then, who else would bother to do a study? I figure your guess of 50 jars per household on average as fair as any---a lot of people only do a few, I bet (my sister will, for example, make one visit to a PYO most summers and do a batch or two of jam; other friends can only goodies for Xmas gifts, etc.), but for each of them there's one of, well.... us. ;-)

Anyway, *I* would eat your salsa MOST happily.

And you and ruthie are of course both right that we each need to find our own balance. That's one reason I tend to pipe up around here if someone says doing something is "not allowed" or "against the rules" or "unsafe." I repeat, there is NO home canning police, and many variations from the USDA/NHFCP/Food Canada recommendations are NOT so much known to be unsafe as not proven to be 100% risk-free, which is a VERY different thing.

And I do think it's important to have these discussions (thanks again for bringing it up, queue!), and to be wary of an alarmist attitude, which can scare away people from canning unnecessarily, making it sound really tricky to do it without killing anyone.

I'm not keen to can jam with paraffin because it seems like a lot of trouble, but if someone gave me some done that way, I'd eat it cheerfully, unless I saw mould on it.

I think it's too bad Granny has no use at all for "experts"---from her blog I would consider her to be one! ;-) But I agree with her that it looks like the risk of pumpkin butter is largely theoretical. I bet I take a greater risk eating store-bought hamburger (plenty of people get sick from that regularly) than home-canned pumpkin butter.

Ruthie, your point is good that you lower your risk by following guidelines like wearing seatbelts (BION, I am just learning to drive, at the age of 43, so I am very aware of all the current guidelines, LOL! ;-) ).

But I still think a lot of folks --- and I'm not picking on you here, but talking generally --- who accept ZERO risk in canning and can't understand why anyone would do otherwise DON'T actually by a long shot do EVERYTHING they could to lower their risk in other areas. For example, studies have shown that driving more slowly makes you less likely to be hurt in a car. So does living near your workplace so you spend less time on the road. But how many people even take that factor into consideration AT ALL when choosing a home or workplace? How many careful canners who follow this year's recommendations ONLY go out and buy a new car every year so that they always have a vehicle that meets the LATEST safety standards?

Meanwhile, it's frustrating that the recommendations only ever seem to get stricter, with increasing amounts of things advisable NOT to do, without a corresponding NEW bunch of techniques and recipes. I was thinking about this especially making my international goodie baskets from Ellie Topp's book---why ever aren't there more tested recipe for satay sauce? More Thai-flavoured things? Why aren't there a flood of canning recipes coming out for pomegranates, since they're so trendy?

Well, because there's no funding for testing them. Grrr. I don't know if I think it's something taxpayers' money should be used for or not (most of us who home can do it as a hobby rather than as a necessity, but on the other hand keeping the skill alive does help ensure the future safety of the food supply through the existence of other than big-batch commercial foods).

OK, it's late and I'm rambling. Time to end this post and the canning year.

I sure do appreciate the civilized, thoughtful tone of this discussion and wish you all a safe and delcious 200(!

Zabby

ksrogers' story about his grandmother picking mushrooms could be an excellent example of a) our not understanding everything our older relatives did to make something safe or b) our older relatives doing something very risky, but getting away with it.

As a mushroom hunter, I can guarantee that you can not taste mushrooms to identify which are poisonous and which are safe. However, his grandmother probably knew how to identify one type of mushroom by other characteristics and distinguished between it and a poisonous look-a-like by tasting for bitterness.

Or, she could have just been incredibly lucky. Most mushroom poisonings happen when people move to the USA from Eastern Europe or Asia. They have a very safe mushroom that they commonly picked in the old country. Unfortunately, the Death Cap mushroom in the states looks very similar and they are unaware of the poisonous look-a-like.

Based on her tasting, I would suspect she really knew what she was doing, but we no longer have the full details of her methods.

It just brings up the point that we either may not understand everything that a relative did to make something safe or we might not be as lucky as they were.

An interesting discussion overall,
Bellatrix

I don't know how high the risks get.

But 20 years ago a friend of mine killed herself and nearly killed her new husband when she canned corn improperly and it developed botulism.

My brother was a wild mushroom picker too. He used photos in books to identify the good ones. In my grandmothers case, she only did the mushroom hunting about once a year, and sometimes didn't come home with many after a whole day in the woods of VT. Never tasted anything she used them in though.

And you and ruthie are of course both right that we each need to find our own balance. That's one reason I tend to pipe up around here if someone says doing something is "not allowed" or "against the rules" or "unsafe." I repeat, there is NO home canning police, and many variations from the USDA/NHFCP/Food Canada recommendations are NOT so much known to be unsafe as not proven to be 100% risk-free, which is a VERY different thing.

Yes, Zabby I know it upsets you when I say such things. ;) But if you recall, it is usually in response to a specific question from someone who has never canned before or for years. A very different situation than when talking with an experienced canner who understands the underlying principles of home food preservation.

True, there is no canning police but given the amount of UNsafe canning practices out there and poor quality not to mention very unsafe info available on the web, maybe there should be at least one place where folks can count on to provide exceptionally safe info - perhaps here? That way they get both sides of the issue and can decide for themselves.

There is a very real need for stressing safety when it comes to addressing inexperienced home canners - many of whom lurk here and have come to trust us over the years as a source of safe info. Harvest Forum at GW comes up as a recommended source of good info many places on the web and usually pops up first or second when anyone Googles a canning question so it would be irresponsible of us to toss off a quick "oh, sure I do that all the time" answer when it is a clearly questionable area.

Of course we can all toss out shortcuts and changes we have discovered to be safe over the years, but it should be done with care as to who may be reading what we say and provide the needed disclaimers too. How many times has there been a post saying something like "I read somewhere on the web that it is safe to..."

Hopefully it wasn't here that they read it. ;)

Dave

Hi Zabby,

"Recommendations are NOT so much known to be unsafe as not proven to be 100% risk-free, which is a VERY different thing."

Very well said!

"Anyway, *I* would eat your salsa MOST happily."

And I would happily send you a pint of my salsa but I fear the Canadian customs folks may not approve. On the other hand, if you find yourself passing through New Jersey, your jar will be waiting!

For botulinum spores the commercial canning industry uses the 12D (12 decimals) cook for heat processing low-acid canned foods (any products with a pH above about 4.5). The 12D process is intended to reduce a bacterial spore population from 1,000 spores in each can of food to 1 spore in 1 billion cans, a reduction of 12 decimal places. This is viewed as a worse case scenario as it provides a one-in-a-billion chance that a spore would survive in a jar that started with 1,000 spores.

To achieve a 12D cook for botulinum spores you need to heat to 250F for 2.5 minutes. The spore kill rate is about four times faster at 250F (15 psi) than at 240F (10 psi), and is also faster for acid foods. Of course that means the coolest part of the jar (center of jar or chunk of food) has to meet this requirement, and that brings in other factors such as viscosity of the product, solids to liquid ratio, size and arrangement of particles, density, etc. Since these factors vary with each recipe, it is difficult to come up with a general rule.

If the spores do grow and produce the toxin, the toxin itself is much less heat stable and can be destroyed in 5 minutes at 185F.

For anyone interested in studying botulism in more depth, the following links should be useful:

http://www.hi-tm.com/1908/SECTION-2-F-1908.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/files/botulism.pdf

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/nutrition/DJ1097.html

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/FSRE_SS_3PrinciplesThermal.pdf

http://www.answers.com/topic/clostridium-botulinum-1

TomNJ

>> Yes, Zabby I know it upsets you when I say such things. ;) But if you recall, it is usually in response to a specific question from someone who has never canned before or for years.

Yes, Dave, and I know you mean only the best. But inaccurate is inaccurate in my books. Hey, I'm an editor. I correct inaccuracies for a living, and I'm going to continue to do so here. But you lucky Harvest folk get my input free of charge. ;-)

And of course readers of this forum get yours too, and are free to do what they like with the combination.

>> True, there is no canning police but given the amount of UNsafe canning practices out there and poor quality not to mention very unsafe info available on the web, maybe there should be at least one place where folks can count on to provide exceptionally safe info - perhaps here?

Gee, there are lots of places to find the USDA/NCHFP guidelines. Which I think is a good thing---I've sent many inexperienced folk links to them, and will continue to do so.

This forum is for discussions among people, one of whom is me, and one of whom is you, so, as you say, people will get a variety of opinions, which is as it should be.

Tom,

Next time I'm out that way I'll take you up on that! How far are you from NYC? (Customs doesn't much care, btw, but the airport security folk sure don't like glass canning jars in carry-on luggage!)

Thanks for the link. I do find this subject interesting. As a college student I was part of a dining co-op where students made their own group meals, and once summer had the job of researching and writing a kitchen cleanliness & safety manual for my fellow students. (This is the kind of experience from my college experience that I have found MUCH more useful over time than the content of the actual classes!) I worry more about the risks of supermarket meat than those of home-canned tomatoes.

Zabby

Hi Zabby,

I am 45 minutes south of NYC, either by car or train.

If you are sure Canadian customs would have no problem, just drop me your address via my page and I'll mail you a pint of my salsa. I tried to send some certified Idaho potato seed to a cousin in Ireland a few years back and their customs confiscated the shipment at the border.

TomNJ

Tom,

Seeds are a different matter indeed! THe agricultural folks require phytosanitary certificates for those, even for tiny noncommercial shipments (shh, I've been known to sneak a few tomato seeds into a letter and get away with it).

Fresh fruits and vegetables may be questioned, depending on what state you cross into. But canned goods--commercial or home-canned--are OK. They just don't like 'em in the carry-on luggage. Told me my jam was a gel (even the one that got a really good set, humph!) and that the 4-oz jar itself could be a danger. Sigh.... ;-)

Z

Statistics are only valid PER PERSON included. If only 20,000 people are eating home canned foods it's not the same comparative risk of of only 20,000 people are driving. Come on. Not even apples to apples here. Look at the percent. Because maybe if as many people are home canned food as drove there would be a lot more

You arguing with a 13 year old thread. Most of the people that commented on the original thread are no longer active members on GW.