BRITU - question about temps and danger zone

While growing up my mom was very cautious with leaving meats out to warm up due to the 'danger zone' temps so I kinda picked that mannerism up but trying to educate myself to know what I can and can't do to create safe to eat food.

For the BRITU recipe I'll be leaving my ribs out at room temp for two hours as instructed which is 70ºF. What would push these ribs into the danger zone temps?

Appreciate any replies.

The danger zone is a function of time as well as temperature range. Although 2 hours is usually given as the maximum time food should spend in the zone, you have to figure that, for some of that interval, the ribs are still going to be below 40°.

When I make BRITU, I don't use MSG. I also don't leave my ribs out that long. I get the ribs ready (no rub) and put them back in the fridge. About an hour before I'm ready to go, I take them out, rub them and let them warm up a little bit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What would push these ribs into the danger zone temps? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The act of leaving the ribs out of the fridge will push the ribs into danger zone temps but, as Doug notes, for a while the ribs remain cold.

Because the ribs are destined to be cooked you actually have longer than 2 hours. Technically, if you start the clock when you pull the ribs from the fridge, you have 4 hours from that point if you do not temp the ribs (at the surface) and you cook them when the 4 hours is up (any additional prep has to occur within the 4-hour window). You have up to 6 hours, time measured from the moment the ribs leave the fridge and the same caveat about additional prepping applies, if you surface-temp the ribs and no part of them exceeds 70 degrees F during the 6 hours, or if ambient temp (room temp) is below 70F.

Of course, ribs don't need this amount of time--4 or 6 hours--to come to room temp. Also note that, irrespective of the recipe, many of us like to maximize smokering formation and so like to cook meats from a cold state.

Cooking is the control for bacteria likely to be present on meat. On intact meat cuts, i.e., whole cuts of meat, not those that are ground, pocketed or injected, the meat's surfaces are the places bacteria are likely to be present and, if given the right conditions, are likely to grow. But cooking pasteurizes the meat and makes it safe to eat.

Various bacteria have various optimum conditions for survival, growth and, for those that produce toxins, toxin formation. What one does not see often enough highlighted or discussed (and which I try to do as often as I can) is the need for proper and prompt cooling of foods after cooking. If the food is going to be cooked and consumed, fine, of course, but if you are cooking more than you plan on consuming then the leftovers should be promptly and properly cooled. Many food-borne illnesses (FBIs) are not caused by undercooked foods but rather from foods that are improperly handled after cooking, either by inadequate or improper cooling, inadequate reheating, inadequate holding temps, post-cook contamination (S. aureus is the biggie here), cross-contamination with uncooked contaminated foods, and many other reasons. Imo, FBIs from these circumstances are more common than those from undercooked foods.

I've written quite a bit about bacteria, the 'danger zone' and other food safety issues in posts scattered hither and yon. If you're interested look here, and for some more on cooling quickly see here. I applaud your desire to educate yourself to create safe to eat food.

Kevin, not trying to be argumentative, rather I am seeking additional confirmation. Please dont take this post as anything other than seeking an answer.

I look very deeply for data that confirms itself from various scientific sources. However I notice that most of your info/data originate from the same website. Albeit accurate, I'm sure, I was wondering if you have multiple credible references on the same subjects?

In the following quote, can you provide me with multiple/several/ 2 or 3, studies that suggest this is a safe practice and poses no threat from a food safety perspective?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You have up to 6 hours, time measured from the moment the ribs leave the fridge and the same caveat about additional prepping applies, if you surface-temp the ribs and no part of them exceeds 70 degrees F during the 6 hours, or if ambient temp (room temp) is below 70F. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It scares me a little and I would like more than one source to confirm.

Thanks Kevin, and again please consider this as merely looking for more confirmation.

I would not take your query to be argumentative. It is quite valid.

Actually, I do not take most of my info/data from a single website. Most of it I get from being involved in a listserv with food safety professionals, safety researchers, microbiologists, food safety consultants, and the like. But several of these individuals either have sites or cite supporting data and I go to those sites for much of the supporting data and for their references which I then source, or source directly from the cited references. Some of my data come directly from these same people to my email inbox as I correspond with some of them as well. These data are supported by referenced studies. Like you, I am interested in confirmation, especially since I post here and elsewhere and fully realize that many who read my posts might not have the time, inclination, or interest to source and confirm on their own.

The quote you highlight is taken from the FDA 2005 Food Code (see 3-501.19), paraphrased. Please see the section noted and if you disagree with my interpretation of the sub-paragraphs let me know. (Feel free to email me directly for a copy of the FC pdf if you do not have one available or cannot locate the spot on their site to nab one. Address in my profile.)

Whether there are specific studies that specifically support the above I don't know. I somewhat doubt it as the FDA's position is an amalgamation of widely accepted knowledge and criteria. An understanding of the various pathogens that might be on the meat in question and a simple hazard analysis of the process is sufficient to confirm the FDA's position. We already know that the kill step of cooking will control the bacteria present (any food safety/microbiology text will confirm this but note that if it didn't most of us would be ill most of the time). And we also know growth rates for various pathogens at various temps (I can dig up sources, if you'd like, on individual pathogens and growth rates v. temps--they are numerous, but as a starter see Ratkowsky, D. A., J. Olley, T. A. McMeekin, and A. Ball. 1982. Relationship between temperature and growth rate of bacterial cultures. Journal of Bacteriology 149(1): 1-5 (abstract with link to full text); and Snyder, O. Peter. 1998. Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation 18(9): 574-579 pdf). Though growth rates will increase as the temp rises, the time (4 or 6 hours) is not sufficient for the potentially present pathogens to multiply to a level where one might suspect that cooking would not cause the required log reduction in present pathogens.

Let me know what else you might like me to point you to and please do not hesitate to challenge my position(s) or ask for more info.

Wonderful answer, thanks Kevin!

Glad you didn't take it the wrong way. Some would have misinterpreted the question.

Once again, Thank you!

Steven