3 ms·

It's served. Looking again, it's actually part of HACPP.[1] I don't know the exact legal status of that in the US, but [2] is pretty close: "Bacteria grow most

by arp242 4y ago

It's served. Looking again, it's actually part of HACPP.[1] I don't know the exact legal status of that in the US, but [2] is pretty close: "Bacteria grow most rapidly in the range of temperatures between 40 °F and 140 °F [..] Keep hot food hot—at or above 140 °F". Regardless of whether or not it's legally regulated in the US, you should be keeping meat above 60°C, and a 10°C upwards margin seems reasonable. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_analysis_and_critical_control_points https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_analysis_and_critical_c... [2]: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/danger-zone-40f-140f https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and...

bombcar 4y ago
If it can be shown that those temperatures can cause significant burns to children, I wouldn't be surprised to see modifications to the guidelines (and those are pretty "wide" already - covering the heat lamps and "2 hours" and similar).
- arp242 4y ago
  I'd be wary of changing things too quickly based on an incident. How often do these sort of incidents happen? And how severe are they? This is another difference with the coffee case: there burns there were very severe and required extensive hospital treatment, but here it's not really clear what the damage was here – it just mentions second degree burns on the upper leg, which can range from "ouch" for a few weeks to "requires skin grafts". Since there is no mention of hospitalisation, I'd wager it's "ouch". There are many things that can be hazardous to children because children are stupid. We should probably focus on "does" rather than "can" here. It's not my impression that McDonalds currently does cause a great number of serious burn victims among children with their chicken nuggets. Sporadic small incidents are of course unfortunate, but you can't avoid all risk everywhere, and there is a trade-off as well as lower temperatures at serving would increase the chance of food poisoning. The parents argue that the nugget was served far too hot; McDonalds denied it. I have no way to verify if that's true, but the more I think about this case the more I suspect seems there is very little going on. "I stubbed my toe and sued for $$$" rather than "someone was seriously injured", based on what's reported in the media about this as well as the jury's verdict which merely found McDonalds failed to provide instructions for safe handling of the food and did not find the product to be defective (i.e. too hot).

by arp242 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago

If it can be shown that those temperatures can cause significant burns to children, I wouldn't be surprised to see modifications to the guidelines (and those are pretty "wide" already - covering the heat lamps and "2 hours" and similar).

arp242 4y ago
I'd be wary of changing things too quickly based on an incident. How often do these sort of incidents happen? And how severe are they? This is another difference with the coffee case: there burns there were very severe and required extensive hospital treatment, but here it's not really clear what the damage was here – it just mentions second degree burns on the upper leg, which can range from "ouch" for a few weeks to "requires skin grafts". Since there is no mention of hospitalisation, I'd wager it's "ouch". There are many things that can be hazardous to children because children are stupid. We should probably focus on "does" rather than "can" here. It's not my impression that McDonalds currently does cause a great number of serious burn victims among children with their chicken nuggets. Sporadic small incidents are of course unfortunate, but you can't avoid all risk everywhere, and there is a trade-off as well as lower temperatures at serving would increase the chance of food poisoning. The parents argue that the nugget was served far too hot; McDonalds denied it. I have no way to verify if that's true, but the more I think about this case the more I suspect seems there is very little going on. "I stubbed my toe and sued for $$$" rather than "someone was seriously injured", based on what's reported in the media about this as well as the jury's verdict which merely found McDonalds failed to provide instructions for safe handling of the food and did not find the product to be defective (i.e. too hot).