Recap from the National Extension Association of Family and Consumer Sciences conference
One of the many hats I wear at UGA is my role as a process authority. As a food process authority, I am an expert in processing and have the authority to determine product classifications and processes to reduce pathogens in many types of foods. Much of my work so far has been with the food industry to help companies develop formulations and thermal processes for their products.
Most of the products I see are considered acidified foods – barbecue sauces, pickled vegetables, dressings, etc. – and the Georgia Department of Agriculture as well as the US Food and Drug Administration requires producers of these products to have a process (usually thermal) and formulation (low enough pH) to control microorganisms that can make us sick. That’s where I come in.
Another important role of mine at UGA is as the process authority for the National Center for Home Food Preservation (NCHFP), directed by my good friend, Dr. Carla Schwan. Carla and I frequently bounce ideas back and forth about questions we receive from Georgians who are canning foods at home.
Home canning may not be a particularly hot topic to process authorities who are used to working with large-scale industry clients, but it is one that I get really excited about. I am a home canner, so I like to bring my science with me into a kitchen and think about how the recipe I am using was developed.
I had an opportunity to give a talk on this exact topic at the National Extension Association of Family and Consumer Sciences annual meeting in Providence, RI. Carla and I co-presented, where she focused on presenting updates to the NCHFP, food safety basics, and trends she has observed. My presentation led a room full of roughly 70 Family and Consumer Sciences extension agents from across the country through the steps of how to validate a recipe for use in a home canner. This is a talk I usually give to folks at the industry level, so it was unique to be invited to talk to this audience.
I explained the process of using product formulation (pH and water activity) to control pathogens in foods, and what kind of thermal process to use based on product formulation.
I also walked through the steps of making sure jars inside of a canner were sufficiently thermally processed to inactivate microorganisms of concern. This process involves evacuating the air from the canner so it’s a full steam environment, finding the coldest spot in a canner, and determining the heating rate of a jar in the coldest spot of the canner. The time-temperature data collected from these experiments, along with information about how microorganisms are inactivated at different temperatures, is used to develop a recommended processing time. Typically, these processing times are rounded up to a time that is easier to remember (e.g. if the calculation comes back that the jars need to be processed for 17 minutes and 38 seconds, we would just round that up to 20 minutes).
We also discussed the importance of taking notes and being transparent in how recipes are developed. Most, if not all, of the home canning recipes out in the world do not provide data sets or information on how they were validated. If a home canner were to call an extension agent to get guidance on the example above, and they said they only processed their jars for 18 minutes, then the agent could advise that the jars would still be safe since the minimum process time was 17 minutes and 38 seconds. However, without that information, the home canner would be advised to throw the product away.
In terms of notetaking, there are no federal regulations on home canning and recordkeeping. The model used at the industry level includes writing down the formulation steps, production details, and processing times and temperatures of each batch. If home canners followed this model for their foods, this would provide extension agents with useful information to help address process deviations by home canners. Instead, agents typically must rely on the home canners’ memory, which may not be the most reliable method.
Carla and I received a significant amount of positive feedback on our session. We were flattered that over 70 people spent 3 hours on a Monday morning to attend our presentations. We are already looking forward to our next collaboration!