Restaurant Food Cooling Practices

National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MS F60, 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, USA. .
Journal of food protection (Impact Factor: 1.85). 12/2012; 75(12):2172-8. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-256
Source: PubMed


Improper food cooling practices are a significant cause of foodborne illness, yet little is known about restaurant food cooling practices. This study was conducted to examine food cooling practices in restaurants. Specifically, the study assesses the frequency with which restaurants meet U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendations aimed at reducing pathogen proliferation during food cooling. Members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Environmental Health Specialists Network collected data on food cooling practices in 420 restaurants. The data collected indicate that many restaurants are not meeting FDA recommendations concerning cooling. Although most restaurant kitchen managers report that they have formal cooling processes (86%) and provide training to food workers on proper cooling (91%), many managers said that they do not have tested and verified cooling processes (39%), do not monitor time or temperature during cooling processes (41%), or do not calibrate thermometers used for monitoring temperatures (15%). Indeed, 86% of managers reported cooling processes that did not incorporate all FDA-recommended components. Additionally, restaurants do not always follow recommendations concerning specific cooling methods, such as refrigerating cooling food at shallow depths, ventilating cooling food, providing open-air space around the tops and sides of cooling food containers, and refraining from stacking cooling food containers on top of each other. Data from this study could be used by food safety programs and the restaurant industry to target training and intervention efforts concerning cooling practices. These efforts should focus on the most frequent poor cooling practices, as identified by this study.

Download full-text


Available from: Laura Green Brown, Jul 18, 2014
  • Source
    • "The majority of schools did not monitor product temperatures during the cooling process. These findings in schools are consistent with a recent study that found that many restaurants do not verify cooling, do not monitor time and temperature during cooling, and do not calibrate thermometers [10]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Food is frequently cooked, cooled and reheated for service at a later time in schools and other foodservice operations in the United States [US]. Inadequate cooling of food has been associated with foodborne illness. The purpose of this study was to determine if practices commonly used in school foodservice to cool beef taco meat and steamed rice would meet US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] 2009 Food Code standards. Prepared products cooled at 5.08 cm and 7.62 cm depths in stainless steel counter pans were placed uncovered in a walk-in refrigerator, a walk-in freezer (beef taco meat only), and a walk-in refrigerator with an ice water bath. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including mean times and temperatures, with standard deviations. Cooling beef taco meat in a walk-in freezer at a depth of two inches and cooling steamed rice in a walk-in refrigerator at a depth of two inches with an ice water bath were the only methods that met both FDA Food Code time and temperature standards. Results suggest that challenges and risks exist with common methods used to cool food, especially if food volume is not reduced before cooling. Specific protocols for cooling procedures based on types of food and equipment are needed. These findings and recommendations are important for foodservice professionals who oversee food services and cooling practices in schools and other operations.
    Food and Nutrition Sciences 07/2013; 4(7):735-740. DOI:10.4236/fns.2013.47094
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that improper cooling practices contributed to more than 500 foodborne illness outbreaks associated with restaurants or delis in the United States between 1998 and 2008. CDC's Environmental Health Specialists Network (EHS-Net) personnel collected data in approximately 50 randomly selected restaurants in nine EHS-Net sites in 2009 to 2010 and measured the temperatures of cooling food at the beginning and the end of the observation period. Those beginning and ending points were used to estimate cooling rates. The most common cooling method was refrigeration, used in 48% of cooling steps. Other cooling methods included ice baths (19%), room-temperature cooling (17%), ice-wand cooling (7%), and adding ice or frozen food to the cooling food as an ingredient (2%). Sixty-five percent of cooling observations had an estimated cooling rate that was compliant with the 2009 Food and Drug Administration Food Code guideline (cooling to 41°F [5°C] in 6 h). Large cuts of meat and stews had the slowest overall estimated cooling rate, approximately equal to that specified in the Food Code guideline. Pasta and noodles were the fastest cooling foods, with a cooling time of just over 2 h. Foods not being actively monitored by food workers were more than twice as likely to cool more slowly than recommended in the Food Code guideline. Food stored at a depth greater than 7.6 cm (3 in.) was twice as likely to cool more slowly than specified in the Food Code guideline. Unventilated cooling foods were almost twice as likely to cool more slowly than specified in the Food Code guideline. Our data suggest that several best cooling practices can contribute to a proper cooling process. Inspectors unable to assess the full cooling process should consider assessing specific cooling practices as an alternative. Future research could validate our estimation method and study the effect of specific practices on the full cooling process.
    Journal of food protection 04/2015; 78(4):778-83. DOI:10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-14-252 · 1.85 Impact Factor