Linda,

Isn't there a way to make this and have it tested by a Cooperative Extension Office?

Best of luck, gardengrl. I did that with my salsa and it took me FIVE YEARS to get anyone at Michigan State University to say that my recipe for salsa (which is commonly canned, not something they say shouldn't be canned) was acidic enough to waterbath.

I started at my local extension office, where I have a friend, and she went to the University but it was a long and involved painful process. Even then they would only say the batch I provided was safe, they wouldn't give it a blanket "yes, that's fine".

Annie

Up to recent years Bernardin had a recipe for pumpkin butter containing orange juice in their book, but they pulled it out. I know testers gave up on pumpkin butter because, regardless of the recipe, they could not come up with a consistent pH, so sometimes it was in the safe range and sometimes it wasn't. They just decided it wasn't worth the risk.

Carol

No way that I know of. We sure can't do it. It would take someone with a lab.
As was said by Carol, every batch of pumpkin butter seemed to have a different ph level, even using the same brands of canned pumpkin, etc. I think the ph level of the individual pumpkins varies so much. I think if they did come up with a safe recipe, it would have so much acid no one would want to eat it !
I would not risk canning it.

I guess what gets me is being able to FIND canning recipes for pumpkin butter. From what I found, the USDA wrote off pumpkin butter for home canning back in the 1970s. Why are there still recipes floating around?

Are there a few people who tried it and got lucky? Is the USDA being over zealous? I guess I'm a bit of a rebel and have always questioned authority; I guess that's why I do what I do for a living: research and front end analysis.

Take the olive tepenade I talked about months ago; I never made it as all the info I found said, "No, no, no!" Yet, I still buy it from a local business who makes it themselves by BWB. We've been buying from this business at least once a month, for over a year.

Someone, somewhere is canning items that are listed as "not safe" by the USDA, yet I've never heard of anyone getting sick, or incidents in the news, or through the USDA. The only incidents I've ever heard were from blantantly obvious mistakes in home canning, usually in third world countries. Of the approximately 100 cases of botulism poisoning reported in the U.S. each year, only 25% of them are food-borne, and even a smaller percent from home preserving and not documented.

I'm not trying to argue with any of the information available or by expert's advice. I guess my background in research analysis makes me take any kind of government data or information in the news with a grain of salt.

Where's my July issue of Mother Earth News??!!! :-) Harumpf...

Gardengrl, when you find it, let me know. I haven't received mine Mother Earth News either!

Annie

Gardengrl,
I just found this recipe on the sure-jell website:

SURE.JELL for Less or No Sugar Needed Recipes
Spiced Pumpkin-Pecan Butter

3-1/2 cups canned pumpkin
1/2 cup PLANTERS Pecan Pieces, toasted
1 Tbsp. pumpkin pie spice
2-3/4 cups sugar, divided, measured into separate bowls
1 box SURE.JELL For Less or No Sugar Needed Recipes Premium Fruit Pectin
1/2 tsp. butter or margarine

BRING boiling-water canner, half full with water, to simmer. Wash jars and screw bands in hot soapy water; rinse with warm water. Pour boiling water over flat lids in saucepan off the heat. Let stand in hot water until ready to use. Drain well before filling.
MEASURE pumpkin, pecans and pumpkin pie spice into 6- or 8-qt. saucepot. Mix 1/4 cup of the sugar and pectin in small bowl. Add to pumpkin mixture; mix well. Add butter to reduce foaming. Bring mixture to full rolling boil (a boil that doesn't stop bubbling when stirred) on high heat, stirring constantly. Stir in remaining 2-1/2 cups sugar. Return to full rolling boil, stirring constantly. Boil exactly 1 min., stirring constantly. Remove from heat. Skim off any foam with metal spoon.
LADLE immediately into prepared jars, filling to within 1/8 inch of tops. Wipe jar rims and threads. Cover with two-piece lids. Screw bands tightly. Place jars on elevated rack in canner. Lower rack into canner. (Water must cover jars by 1 to 2 inches. Add boiling water, if necessary.) Cover; bring water to gentle boil. Process 10 min. Remove jars and place upright on a towel to cool completely. After jars cool, check seals by pressing middle of lid with finger. (If lid springs back, lid is not sealed and refrigeration is necessary.)

Do you think they would have the recipe on their website if they haven't tested it? Think of the liability. Linda Lou knows about that.

I was looking that recipe again. It doesn't even have any added acid. Wow.

O.k., found some "data." I went to the CDC website and found 8 food-borne cases of botulism poisoning reported in 2003 (the rest were either infant, wound related, or some other freak strain of botulism):

1 came from home canned beans & corn
2 came from eating fermented fish heads (no joke...gack!)
1 came from....gulp...home canned pumpkin butter

The botulism source could not be determined for the remaining 4 food-borne cases.

Sigh....

I know Ball has the recipe, but personally, with all I have studied and read, I would still freeze it... but, I am not a risk taker with foods.

This is the most current info I have and is from National Center for Home Food Preservation :
More recent research with pumpkin butter has been done at the University of Missouri. Pumpkin butter is mashed or pureed pumpkin that has had large quantities of sugar added to it, but not always enough to inhibit pathogens. Sometimes an ingredient such as vinegar or lemon juice is added to the formulation to increase the acidity (decrease the pH). However, pumpkin butters produced by home canners and small commercial processors in Missouri have had pH values as high as 5.4. In fact, the pH values seemed to be extremely variable between batches made by the same formulation (Holt, 1995).

It is not possible at this point to evaluate a recipe for pumpkin or mashed squash for canning potential by looking at it. At this point, research seems to indicate variability of the products is great, and in several ways that raise safety concerns. It is best to freeze pumpkin butters or mashed squash.

Would it be possible to pressure can this instead? If commercial canners can can it (plain pumpkin), why couldn't a home canner?

Which brings me to my second question...why are some foods BWB'd (like jellies) and others are pressure canned? Why isn't everything pressure canned?

I made this spiced pecan pumpkin butter last week and love it. Is it too late to refrigerate/freeze it?

Kathi (obviously a newbie to canning...)

There is simply no need to pressure can high acid foods (like jellies). Only low acid foods need pressure canning since they don't have a low enough pH to kill off any botulism spores. I have a friend that insists on pressure canning all her recipes cause "it's safer!" I have another friend that open kettles his jams/jellies/pickles. I know there's no harm in either method.

At what point is your pH low enough to be safe? It's not hard to test pH. So if the acidity is the main problem, I'd think someone would be able to come up with a safe solution. You just have to want pumpkin butter enough to pH test every batch.

> Are there a few people who tried it and got lucky?

The thing is, botulism is pretty rare. You don't have to get superbly lucky to can something low acid and have it come out safe. Lots of people can things without following all the safety guidelines properly, and most of them don't get sick.

Some of them probably do get sick and don't know why, mind you, though if it's botulism it'll be a pretty serious illness so it seems likely it'll be diagnosed --- they'll at least seek medical care.

But a few do get sick. And with botulism the sick is SO serious that most folks don't want to risk it, even if the chances are small!

It was interesting to see the stats you found. I looked up the statistics Canada ones once, and found for the year I looked at there were about a dozen cases (by far the highest incidence in the surrounding years --- most years it was 3 or 4 --- still, surprisingly high compared to the U.S. since Canada has 1/10 the population!).

I believe over half of them were infants.

Several were from restaurant meals (!). The home-preserving ones that year were all from meat or fish --- most of them were home-preserved salmon in the far north.

I think I just said on another thread that there was no evidence I knew of of anyone actually getting sick from home-canned pumpkin butter, it was just a question of not being able to test for sure. Alas, that is now not true.

Zabby

"I was looking that recipe again. It doesn't even have any added acid. Wow."

Look a little closer: the second ingredient in Sure-Jell is acid. (Note that the first ingredient in both the regular Sure-Jell and the one "for no sugar needed recipes" is sugar.)

Harry & David had a big recall of olive tapenade last year around Christmas time. If Harry & David rans into problems, I'm not sure I'd trust a local neighborhood canner to make it....

>I guess my background in research analysis makes me take any kind of government data or information in the news with a grain of salt.As well you should, GardenGirl. There are an incredible number of factors involved here. Among the things to consider:

1. USDA, as a general rule, always errs far on the side of safety. We are the only country in the world whose official canning recomendations are as stringent. Can we say "overzealous?"

And, while the Delaney amendment of the Food & Drug Act has been recinded, there are many who still operate with that mental outlook.

2. There is a gross difference between USDA and CDC information re: control of boutulism. USDA insists it takes sustained heat in excess of 240 degrees (thus the need to pressure can low-acid foods). CDC, however, says sustained heat of 175 degrees. If that is, indeed, true, then those old fashioned recipes that call for BWBs of very long times should be perfectly safe.

3. All safety standards are based on the concept "could cause" rather than "will cause." The question is, and always has been, what is the real risk factor?

4. USDA and FDA (plus other government agencies, but these are the two that are germane) have a long history of TACs which reach conclusions counter to their own data.

5. As I've said before, many of our standards are based on the fact that our ability to measure nothing gets better every day. But what level of toxin really is dangerous, versus the mere fact that we can measure small levels?

6. In recent history (i.e., the past, say, 30 years) the average annual incidence of food-caused boutulism is amazingly low. Of those reported cases a minority are from home-canned foods (most are from restaurants and other food-service organizations). And among those that do come from home-canned foods there are mitigating factors---such as using the food in a mayonaise-based dish, which then sits out at room temperature or in the sun for several hours.

7. There is a tendency among USDA and other food scientists (as well as master preservers) to confuse "untested" with "unsafe." Just because a canning recipe has not been tested doesn't automatically mean it isn't safe. It could be perfectly safe (or not be). Untested merely means untested.

So what can we conclude from all this? The fact is, the risk factor is very low: statistically speaking it is non-existant---unless you or a loved one are among the unlucky ones to contract boutulism.

I have friends who still open-kettle can green beans. Her mother did it that way before her, and her mother before her. They ain't killed nobody yet. But there is always tomorrow.

I know of no case where home-canned pumpkin butter caused anyone to get sick. Certainly there have been no reported cases of boutulism. Does this mean the standards be damned, full speed ahead? Or merely that we've been lucky?

The fact is, if we weighed the risk factors of regular life by the same standards USDA uses nobody would ever drive a car; or even try crossing the street. On both a raw-numbers and per-capita basis, more people die each year from insect stings and lightening strikes then do from "improperly" canned foods.

So what you do is weigh the risks and make your own decision. But that weighing should be based on real information, not on some knee-jerk "that ain't safe" reaction from Big Brother.

Wow, well said GardenLad.

Concerning point #7, I often see claims made by extension offices and master food preservers that do not appear anywhere in the official USDA document. Is there top secret, classified supplemental material that is not available to the general public or do they simply make it up as they go along?

GL,

As you know, I am very much in general agreement with you on these issues.

Though note Gardngrl said she found a report on the CDC of botulism caused by home-canned pumpkin. I was surprised --- all the incidences I've seen in the Canadian stats are restaurant meals or else home-canned meat or fish.

The whole "could cause" mentality generated a bit of a stir in Toronto last year, when the municipal health department introduced new regulations that basically would have banned the serving of sushi as it is traditionally prepared, because it could cause illness. Now, sushi has become FABULOUSLY popular in Toronto as in many major cities, and there was an uproar, and in the end it came out that there was not a SINGLE case on record of anyone getting sick from eating restaurant sushi in Toronto, ever --- it was a theoretical problem. The health department eventually backed down.

That said, I do generally follow USDA recommendations. It's not hard to do and because I give many of my canned goods away I prefer to know I'm in the no-risk zone rather than in the low-risk zone I'd probably be comfortable enough with for myself.

But when I meet someone who does open-kettle their green beans I don't stay awake nights worrying that they're likely to die from it, because I know they're a much greater risk from crossing the street on the way to buy the green beans!

Zabby

I wonder if the difference between the CDC and USDA position has to do with the fact that one is referring to the temperature required to kill toxins and the other is referring to the temperature required to kill spores. Just speculating.

Most bureaucracies are resistant to risk and innovation. There is a tremendous power in institutional inertia. It's the nature of the beast. And today's litigious climate only exacerbates those tendencies.

Historically the USDA has been ultra-conservative; but I wouldn't conclude from that an active malevolence and I certainly don't conclude that Extension agents are making up information. Not without evidence of such.

What I am sure of is there's no mistake so stupid someone won't make it. The question is how far an agency goes in attempting to reduce the prevalence of such mistakes.

We can certainly argue with their position, but the low incidence of food poisoning from home-canned products could be construed as a tribute to the merit of their philosophy.

As far as open-kettle green beans go (common in my family even in the present generation) the old timers would also boil the h**l out of them before serving. I doubt there's risk in eating them but I question how much nutritional value is left, not to mention the dubious pleasure of eating a limp, olive-drab vegetable.

Carol

Commercial canners use what is called a botulinum cook to reduce the cahnce of a survival of a botulism spore to 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 (that's one in a trillion, GL - we can indeed measure nothing very accurately). All low acid foods (above pH 4.5) that are to be stored on the shelf must be be canned for 3 minutes at 121 C or 250 F. The spores can also be killed at 10 minutes at 115 C or 240 F or 32 minutes at 110 C or 230 F. It seems the temperature is not as important as the sustained application of heat.

>that's one in a trillion, GL - we can indeed measure nothing very accuratelyPrecisely my point.

When I began editing Package Engineering magazine, ppm (parts per million) was the typical measurement. When I left two years later, ppb (parts per billion) had become common. Now ppt (parts per trillion) are starting to be seen as a gross measurement.

But the fundemental question remains. How many parts per anything of boutulism spores or toxin is dangerous? You know, boutulism bacterium---the stuff women are injecting into their lips?

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that 20 years ago 12 ppm was the accepted level. Now we say 12 ppt is acceptible. Is that a function of the actual danger level? Or is it merely that because we can measure something that small we'll establish standards that do so?

>I often see claims made by extension offices and master food preservers that do not appear anywhere in the official USDA document.I'd have to hear a specific example. In general, there are reams and reams of technical and scientific documentation available that the general public doesn't see merely because they aren't interested in that technical a level. But there are no "secret" documents I'm aware of. The generally available documents are written at a very simple level, so that anyone can understand the principles and practices being discussed.

Here's an example: I've never seen, in any of the general canning and preserving booklets, the precise pH level that defines safe acidity. But I know it's available from the USDA if you ask.

Far as I know, all master preservers and other Extension service personel have to provide answers by the book, without varying from it. It's precisely that "party line" responsiveness that provides fuel for some of the discussions on this forum.

Zabby: Long before the sushi craze hit my friends and I were into the raw fish thing. Only we called it "bait." :>)

>all the incidences I've seen in the Canadian stats are restaurant meals or else home-canned meat or fish.Last time I checked I was looking at North American figures. Generally you are right. In all of North America, that year, there were only 11 incidents (if I recall correctly, 23 cases) of food caused boutulism. Most of them came from restaurant food. The balance did, indeed, come from fish or meat.

There was one incident (three cases) that involved home-canned greenbeans. But they had been mixed in a salad, after opening, which sat on a picnic table, in the hot sun, for several hours. So it may or may not have been the canning process that was at fault.

In all the home-canned incidents but one there was a similar situation---the food had been stored or used improperly after opening.

In the final incident they could trace the case to home-cooked food, but could not determine if it had been canned improperly, or stored improperly after opening.

BTW, the "could cause" mentality is directly responsible for the injunctions not to can food products containing oil or flour. There are no documented cases I'm aware of that resulted from pressure canning food from a recipe that included either of them.

**I wonder if the difference between the CDC and USDA position has to do with the fact that one is referring to the temperature required to kill toxins and the other is referring to the temperature required to kill spores. Just speculating.**

Carol, you may be speculating, but you are absolutely correct. There is no gross difference between the CDC and the USDA. The CDC information only discusses temperatures required to destroy the toxin, which is what makes you ill. The USDA discusses techniques which prevent the spores from multiplying and creating toxin during prolonged storage at room temperature under conditions with little available oxygen. That involves both destruction of the spores by application of heat, and by creating an acidic environment that prevents the spores from multiplying and producing toxin.

**Here's an example: I've never seen, in any of the general canning and preserving booklets, the precise pH level that defines safe acidity. But I know it's available from the USDA if you ask.**

Whoops, Lad, read both your BBB or the 1995 USDA guide. Both explicitly refer to a pH level of 4.6, in text and graphically. This is on page 3 of the 2002 BBB, and on page 1-3 of the 1995 guide. I realize the 2002 BBB is not current, I just can't find my newer one. I suspect the same material is there.

Yes, the USDA errs on the side of safety. However assuming that all instructions in their guidance is a result of safety issues is a mistake. The guidance also incorporates information that considers the quality of the finished product, as well as thrift. Unfortunately, sometimes the guidance is unclear as to which of those three is the actual basis for the instruction. I word searched the 1995 USDA guide for both oil and flour and find no information regarding either being unsafe. For flour, in fact, there is a recipe for a pickled corn relish that uses it as a thickener. There is a discussion on pie filling that discusses a resulting runny product when using corn starch or other starches. For oil, there are a couple of recipes that use it, including tuna packed in oil. I'd actually like to see a reference to either of these that says it's unsafe to can them, so if anyone has one, please sing out.

**those old fashioned recipes that call for BWBs of very long times should be perfectly safe.** Lad, I'm going to ignore your rationale for this statement, which is incorrect, but also say, you are correct anyway. Indeed, the 1995 guide states: **The time needed to safely process low-acid foods in a boiling-water canner ranges from 7 to 11 hours;** (page 1-4). Yes, the USDA says it's safe to process low-acid foods in a BWB. However, again in developing their guidance, they consider the quality of resulting product. One wonders whether the resulting product would be desirable or nutritious after 7 hours in a BWB. I would hazard a guess that someone at the USDA thinks probably not. And I might add considering all the folks who complain about the length of time required for processing tomatoes, I can't imagine many would be willing to process anything for 7, much less 11 hours.

Last, sometimes I think that we all read too much into the words. Sometimes, unsafe means you could get very, very ill. Sometimes, it means you might cut your finger fishing out pieces of the broken mayonnaise jar. There are not only differences in levels of risk, but in kinds of risk.

Petro

>Lad, I'm going to ignore your rationale for this statement, which is incorrect, but also say, you are correct anyway.Petro, did you read this thoroughly? My "rationale" cannot be incorrect. I said, "if this therefore that." The basic premise (which I presented as a question, not a statement of fact, btw) might be wrong. But, if you accept the premise, everything that follows is correct. If botulism spores can be destroyed by application of sustained heat of 175 degrees F, then a long BWB, which raises the temperature to 212, will, indeed, produce a safe product.

Long times in a BWB, by the way, would be on the order of 1-3 hours, under those conditions (read some of the old canning instructions). I can't begin to understand that 7-11 hours stuff. The maximum temperature food can attain in a bwb is 212F. After 7 hours you would have a kettle full of mush, bnt it would still measure only 212 degrees.

So from that statement we can conclude that contrary to USDA's other pronouncements, boutulism spores can be destroyed by sustained heat of 212 degrees. Leading to the question: How long is "sustained?" The 7-11 hours claimed by USDA? Or the 1-3 hours used under real conditions by our grandmothers? Or none of the above?

As to the pH information, sorry if I misremembered not seeing it in the basic canning guides. My point, however, was that there is no "secret" information used by USDA and Extension service personel. And I stand by that statement. Maybe my example was wrong, but the premise was not. As I think you'll agree.

Incidentally, the BBB is not a USDA document, and there are times it and USDA disagree.

>There are not only differences in levels of risk, but in kinds of risk.Absolutely! But so what? The problem with USDA (as with most of our paternalistic gubmint) is that it views us as all being 3 years old, and incapable of understanding anything more complex that seeing Dick and Jane run.

Yes, it's possible that a recycled mayo jar _could_ break in the bwb (but, then too, so _could_ a Ball jar). And anyone with the brains God gave a turnip knows that you can cut yourself on broken glass.

But that's not how USDA issues its cautions. Instead it issues a blanket statement not to recycle mayo jars for home canning----despite the fact that hundreds of people successfully reuse those jars every day.

Given it's philosphy, I'm surprised USDA doesn't caution that if a jar does break you should throw the whole kettle away, because otherwise you'll cut yourself on the broken glass, get a bad infection, and die.

> The problem with USDA (as with most of our paternalistic gubmint) is that it views us as all being 3 years old, and incapable of understanding anything more complex that seeing Dick and Jane run.

No, it knows that SOME people who will use its recommendations as instructions for canning are no smarter than three-year-olds, and can't understand anything very complex. So it makes it builds in extra safety and conservatism, and issues blanket statements rather than nuanced discussions because they are simple and easy to follow.

People are free to not follow those recommendations, to do their own research and make their own decisions. It's not like canning green beans in an open kettle, or, heck, even canning mushrooms in 100% oil in a warm bathtub for 5 minutes, is actually illegal. Go for it if you want to, GL! (But I'm not fond of mushrooms, thanks, so I'll pass.
;-) )

Zabby

It is nice to know why, though, so an evaluation of the risks can be properly performed.

>No, it knows that SOME people who will use its recommendations as instructions for canning are no smarter than three-year-olds, and can't understand anything very complex."

This is where we really disagree, Zabby. Everything the U.S. government does; from the laws it passes, to the administrative decress it issues, to the TAC recommendations it promulgates, demonstrates quite clearly that it doesn't believe _any_ of its citizens are smart enough to tie their own shoelaces, let along make rational decisions about their own health and safety. Big Brother Will Take Care of You might as well be engraved on our money; it's all but become the national motto.

Be that as it may, the trouble with "So it makes it builds in extra safety and conservatism, and issues blanket statements rather than nuanced discussions because they are simple and easy to follow." is that it reduces everything to the least common denominator---one of the great socialist flaws. Rather than educating the very few who don't comprehend, we'll just reduce everything down to pablum. And then complain about having a nation of functional illiterates.

In practical canning terms (you remember canning? This is a discussion about canning) what happens with that approach is that they issue their simplistic flat statements: Don't do this. Don't, to put a point on it, try canning pumpkin butter because it isn't safe.

Somebody comes along and does it, with no ill effects. Next thing you know, they hold every statement made by USDA in suspicion. And after that, "we ain't killed nobody yet" becomes a viable response to governmental interference.

All I ask for is that they provide me with the real risk factors, and I'll decide whether or not the risk is justified. Nebulous "could lead to such and such" and "has the potential of...." just isn't good enough. That's exactly how they destroyed the American Merchant Marine.

I'm just tired of being warned about risks that are not real threats. Quick, raise your hands: How many of you have contracted salmonella from eating raw eggs?

I have no doubt that some of the USDA warnings are rightous. But so many more of them aren't remotely realistic that I tend to disregard all of them. And that's where the real danger lies. USDA is dedicated to crying wolf. And when a real wolf finally appears, nobody is prepared for it.

>canning mushrooms in 100% oil in a warm bathtub for 5 minutes

LOL, Zabby!

Question: How do you warm a bathtub?

Lad, I'm sorry, but I read your posts very carefully, both of them. You said:

**2. There is a gross difference between USDA and CDC information re: control of boutulism. USDA insists it takes sustained heat in excess of 240 degrees (thus the need to pressure can low-acid foods). CDC, however, says sustained heat of 175 degrees. If that is, indeed, true, then those old fashioned recipes that call for BWBs of very long times should be perfectly safe.**

In particular you said **If that is, indeed, true**. I am saying quite bluntly, it is not true. There is no gross difference between the USDA and the CDC information. I refer you to the document: Botulism in the United States, 1899-1996, Handbook for Epidemiologists, Clinicians and Laboratory Workers, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases, 1998

I refer you specifically to pages 6 and 9:
Page 6 states **The heat resistance of spores vary from type to type and even from strain to strain within each type; although some strains will not survive at 80 degrees C., spores of many strains require temperatures above boiling to ensure destruction.**. Page 6 also discusses factors that may limit the multiplication of spores such as pH, and the activity of water when it is impractical or undesireable to completely eliminate spores by temperature.

Page 9 specifically states **Although botulism spores are heat stable, botulinum toxin is heat labile. Botulinum toxin can be inactivated by heating to 176 degrees F. (80 degrees C.)**

I have never seen a CDC document that says sustained heat of 175 degrees will destroy all spores. If you have a reference, I would like to read it.

I really don't think the USDA views us as 3 year olds. I do think they may think that people can be imperfect. After all if intelligent, educated and articulate people don't remember reading that the limiting pH for processing in a boiling water bath is 4.6, what about those who aren't?

Petro

We do have manuals and materials published for our training and use that is not for sale to the public. They are not 'secret' , but textbooks, like anyone studying in a school. Not everything I have is printed for the public.
I also have the whole complete National Foodsafety Database in printed form. Three thick volumes.

Yes, not that many people get botulism, possibly due to the hard work some of us do to help the public?

You all should be on this side of it and see how you feel about things.....

I think this does give you an idea of the risk of the pumpkin butter: Canning Pumpkin Butter and Mashed or Pureed Squashes
Elizabeth L. Andress, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Extension Food Safety Specialist,
Department of Food and Nutrition

In accordance with the USDA recommendations, the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service does not have a recommendation for canning these products either. There are not sufficient data available to allow establishing safe processing times for any of these types of products. It is true that previous USDA recommendations had directions for canning mashed winter squash, but USDA withdrew those recommendations and any publications preceding the Complete Guide to Home Canning (September 1994) are considered out of date.

Some of the factors that are critical to the safety of canned pumpkin products are the viscosity (thickness), the acidity and the water activity. 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.

More recent research with pumpkin butter has been done at the University of Missouri. Pumpkin butter is mashed or pureed pumpkin that has had large quantities of sugar added to it, but not always enough to inhibit pathogens. Sometimes an ingredient such as vinegar or lemon juice is added to the formulation to increase the acidity (decrease the pH). However, pumpkin butters produced by home canners and small commercial processors in Missouri have had pH values as high as 5.4. In fact, the pH values seemed to be extremely variable between batches made by the same formulation (Holt, 1995).

In case you are interested, in Washington State, copied and pasted information, this is the most current one I have :
Recent foodborne botulism cases in Washington were associated with improperly home-canned asparagus, beets, corn, carrots, spinach, and salsa. Wound botulism is most frequently associated with injection drug use, particularly black tar heroin.

In all due respect, Linda Lou, that site specifically says that Washington sees 0-2 cases per year, and then uses the word "recent" for six different products. So the question is: What is meant by "recent." The site also notes that the last death from botulism in Washington was in 1983. Can we presume from that that "recent" covers a period of more than 20 years?

There is also nothing in that site showing the investigation reports in toto. So, what we don't know is whether the foodborne cases involving home-canned foods resulted from improper canning practices or improper storage/handling after the jar was opened. Obviously that makes a difference.

Based strictly on the information presented, we do not know the per capita incidence (that is, the number of infections per the total population of home canners)in any particular year, the direct cause of infection, or whether multiple cases in any particular year are separate incidents or not. Without that information there is no way of establishing a true risk factor.

>I think this does give you an idea of the risk of the pumpkin butterActually it merely supports my contention that many of the warnings are nebulous at best. What is says, in plain English, is:

1. We cannot establish consistent recommendations because the pH of pumpkin butter varies. In short, it may or may not be safe, we just have no way of telling ahead of time.

2. That pumpkin and winter squash are capable of supporting.....which can cause....under the right storage coditions.

Most telling, however, is the line that amounts to a disclaimer: "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."

That's an awful lot of "ifs." If bacteria are present...if they survive processing...if there is a high enough water activity, then maybe they will thrive and produce toxin.

That just about defines nebulous.

Furthermore, once uncovering commercial canneries that were providing a product USDA considers unsafe, did they take steps to close down those operations? Or is USDA's attitude that it's ok for commercial food sources to risk our health, but not for us to risk it ourselves? Or, more likely, was it that they recognized the threat level was too low to offset the economic inpact to those companies?

Just to keep the record clear, I am not, and have never promoted the idea that anyone play fast and loose with food safety. What I have said, and stand by, is that each home canner should weigh the actual threat level, and then make an informed decision whether or not to proceed. And in most cases USDA does not provide us with realistic threat-level information.

In all due respect, Linda Lou, your original statement was:

No pumpkin butter is safe to can

I don't see that anywhere in the material you just copy and pasted. I see that the USDA does not provide a recommended recipe. Ball apparently has one but you believe that is suspect. Does that make other recipes in the Ball book suspect as well?

I understand the concern over the viscocity of the product but if a recipe is to be pressure canned, PH and water content are basically a moot point. I have a recipe that I've used for several years. It is a USDA recommended recipe, no. Is it safe, yes?

I keep hearing about this Ball recipe for pumpkin butter, but certainly can't find it. It's not in the current BBB. It's not in the 1993 edition. It's not even in the 1974 edition.

The '74 edition does have a recipe for canning pumpkin and winter squash as a cooked puree. But that has disappeared from all modern editions.

As to Linda Lou's original statement, you have to understand that people assocated with USDA often use the terms "unsafe" "may not be safe" "untested" and "not adequately tested" as interchangeable synonyms. And they have a platonic outlook, in that they believe that something that exists in pontenia and something that exists in reality are the same thing.

Ackk! I just bought a jar of Pumpkin Butter from a Farmer's market. Dh has already spread some on bread and he likes it. Good to know it isn't safe! I guess if my dh gets sick, we'll know the source.

It may be that the pumpkin butter referred to as a "Ball recipe" actually was a Bernardin one.

My 1996 (Revised edition) Bernardin Guide to Home Preserving does have a pumpkin butter recipe on page 25. Subsequent to that date the recipe was removed from the guide, but I don't know in what year.

Carol

Malon,

**I understand the concern over the viscocity of the product but if a recipe is to be pressure canned, PH and water content are basically a moot point.**

Check the link I provided for the CDC Handbook on Botulism, specifically the information on page 6. Water activity (not exactly the same as water content) and pH are two factors that can both limit and promote growth of spores. If the viscosity is wrong, and the heat doesn't penetrate to the center of the jar such that all the spores are destroyed, a higher water activity or a higher pH can actually promote growth of spores. It's worthwhile to remember that spores are basically organisms, kind of like seeds and sensitive to the environment. There are environments where they simply won't grow at all, environments where they will multiply, but poorly, and environments that are optimum for maximum multiplication. The growth factors are all interrelated.

The dynamic nature of bacteria is also why how well we can measure something matters. What you measure after the canning process can change. A very small number of spores right after canning could lead to a large number of bacterium and high toxin levels 6 or 12 months down the road.

Petro

Petro,
What you said "The dynamic nature of bacteria is also why how well we can measure something matters. What you measure after the canning process can change. A very small number of spores right after canning could lead to a large number of bacterium and high toxin levels 6 or 12 months down the road. "
Exactly ! Thank you.

I would like to add something that might help clarify this problem for some people. I am not a food safety expert, but I am a microbiologist.

Petro explained spores as "basically organisms". Perhaps it would help to realize that spores are an alternative life style for some bacteria. Only a very few types of bacteria are able to become spores, Clostridium botulinum being one. Also, some bacteria grow only in the presence of oxygen, some grow only in the absence. Clostridium botulinum grows in the absence of air. When the bacterial form of Clostridium botulinum finds itself in adverse conditions, such as low pH, high oxygen, high temperature, it undergoes a complex developmental change and becomes a spore. One bacterium becomes one spore. The spore is a non-growing, highly resistant form. It does not divide and become more spores. It is very, very resistant to many chemicals, antibiotics, heat, cold, pH changes, dessication, etc. Spores are among the hardest microorganisms to destroy. They also can survive a very long time, literally hundreds of years. Viable spores have been found in ceramic pots from villages that were deserted several hundred years ago.

When environmental conditions change to become what the bacterial form likes, the spore goes through its own developmental change, called germination, and becomes the bacterial form again. Again, one spore becomes one bacterium. However, since conditions are favorable, that one bacterium immediately begins growing and dividing and can very quickly become many bacteria, producing toxin.

I hope this helps. For a very interesting story about bacterial spores, you should read the link below. It's about Bacillus anthracis, another spore-forming bacteria, and the causative agent of anthrax. Incidently, the formation of spores is the reason anthrax is feared as a biological weapon.

Petrowizard - I perfectly understand the impact of pH and water activity for some items but my contention remains that a recipe pressure canned for an adequate amount of time effectively destroys any spores that might be present. How else could we can other low-acid foods without worrying about temperature or pH? What's the viscocity of chile con carne or baked beans or ground beef? I don't see anything in your reply that suggests that the canning process would not eliminate any spores present.

In fairness to the USDA's use of "unsafe," "untested," etc. interchangably: Given what we know about bacteria and other pathogenic organisms, I think it's reasonable to assume, by default, that it's not safe to eat wet, cut vegetables that have been left on a shelf at room temperature for months unless there's a darn good reason to believe it is. For many recipes and processes, I believe that we have that reason: someone credible (for this kind of thing, anyway) has done testing and concluded they're safe. That's good enough for me. That someone has been doing it for thirty years and isn't dead yet is not. "Crazy until proven safe" might be a good motto when it comes to canning recipes. We might consider it "proven" that a fruit or vegetable concoction with at least a certain viscosity and acidity processed for a certain amount of time is safe, which is why it's safe to improvise some with pickle recipes even if the USDA doesn't agree. But I don't think anyone has come up with one processing time that's adequate for anything you can think of to pack into a jar and yields edible results.

To sumarize and reiterate Petro's response to the confusion about processing times and botulinum spores: You CANNOT kill them in a BWB. (Boiling can destroy the toxin they produce, which only does you any good after you open the jars and right before you eat the contents.) Commercial canners bring foods to 250 degrees for three minutes to kill them. And that means that the internal temperature of the food is actually at that temperature for that length of time, not that the ambient temperature was 250 degrees for three minutes. This means processing times must be based on each food's viscosity and other properties, which determine how long it takes to heat through. Foods with pH less than 4.6 need not be processed at such a high temperature because the acid inhibits botulinum growth and toxin production (it still doesn't kill it). BWB processing is still necessary to pasteurize the food, to kill molds and other bacteria and perhaps to help deactivate botulinum.

So the questions we need to ask when deciding whether and how to can something at home are Is the pH low enough to inhibit botulin production? and How long does it take to heat through? Without these answers, the canning process is a crapshoot. If a recipe gives consistent results, the USDA can answer these questions for us. If not, and we want to can a recipe anyway, we must answer these questions ourselves and FOR EACH BATCH. I'm not aware of any way to determine that every point in a batch of jars reached a certain temperature for a certain length of time at home. I do believe we can reliably determine the pH of a batch: with a good pH meter, perhaps like those used by wine or vinegar makers. (For chunky foods like pickles or fruit, you can put one jar through the blender--as long as each jar has close to the same amount of solid and liquid--and measure the pH of the results.) But with thick foods like pumpkin butter, even if you confirm the pH batch by batch, I still am not sure how to know your BWB processing time is long enough for pasteurization.

The argument that you or your mother or grandmother have been using a recipe for decades and no one's died yet is invalid. I bet that of all the cases of foodborne botulism reported to the CDC, not one involved someone who had--or whose mother or grandmother had--botulism before.

The fact that botulism is extremely rare is a testament to the success of the USDA guidelines, certainly not a reason to start ignoring them. And keep in mind that while botulism may be pretty rare, so is home canning. Your risk is not the same as that of the general population.

"In recent history (i.e., the past, say, 30 years) the average annual incidence of food-caused boutulism is amazingly low. Of those reported cases a minority are from home-canned foods (most are from restaurants and other food-service organizations). And among those that do come from home-canned foods there are mitigating factors---such as using the food in a mayonaise-based dish, which then sits out at room temperature or in the sun for several hours."

Look at the CDC handbook link Petro provided. On average, there were 23 cases per year of foodborne botulism in the US from 1950 to 1996 (and the numbers are pretty consistent, so only considering more recent years doesn't paint a prettier picture). Most of those are from home-canned food: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/files/botulism.pdf. You can figure this out from that report by looking at the number of outbreaks (affecting 2 or more people) caused by home-canned food and the total number of cases (apparently including those from "outbreaks"). 289 outbreaks x 2 = 578 / 1087 = .53. So AT LEAST 53% of foodborne cases are caused by home-canned food. CDC and other sources will say that most of these were caused by "improper canning techniques," but I imagine that they are assuming that if a canning technique allowed the production of botulin, it was improper--how else would they know? Besides, these sources would classify any canning of pumpkin butter as "improper". I could not find any evidence that all or most of these cases involved "mitigating factors". Please provide your sources, gardenlad.

My point is this: malonanddonna says "A recipe pressure canned for an adequate amount of time effectively destroys any spores that might be present." I totally agree with this statement. However, in the case of pumpkin butter, we have no way of knowing what amount of time is adequate.

However, in the case of pumpkin butter, we have no way of knowing what amount of time is adequate.

I of course disagree. I simply use the procsessing times that were established well before the 1982 meeting of the canning czars.

As far as the CDC statistics averaging 23 cases per year from 1950 - 1996, what was the gain in re-writing the USDA guidelines? Why didn't this virtually eliminate cases stemming from home canned food?

And keep in mind that while botulism may be pretty rare, so is home canning.

Maybe where you live but certainly not around here. Retailers like Wal-Mart would not dedicate 8-12 feet of shelf space for canning supplies if it was "rare". Netiher would the hardware stores and grocery stores.

Since the organization that established those processing times no longer endorses them, what makes you believe they're adequate, especially since more recent evidence suggests that establishing a safe processing time for something as variable as pumpkin butter may not be possible?

It's difficult to identify trends in botulism epidemiology. In addition to changes in safety guidelines, the numbers reflect changes in diagnosis and reporting; changes in how many people do canning, what they can, and how they prepare and eat the results; and changes in compliance with safety guidelines. But the number of foodborne botulism cases per year went from 33.6 in the 70s to 21.5 in the 80s to 17.5 from 1990 to 1996--a significant decline. If you only consider botulism types A and B--the types implicated in home canning of vegetables and fruits--the decline is even greater (27.5 in the 70s to 10 in the 90s), as the incidence of type E, which is mostly associated with improper preparation and storage of traditional Alaska Native foods, not canned foods, has actually risen.

"Why didn't this virtually eliminate cases stemming from home canned food?"
"I simply use the procsessing times that were established well before the 1982 meeting of the canning czars."
Perhaps you have answered your own question.

Regarding the rarity of home canning: it is rare compared to activities like driving a car, making comparisons like "if we weighed the risk factors of regular life by the same standards USDA uses nobody would ever drive a car" pretty useless. If as many people canned as drove cars, botulism wouldn't be so rare. And it isn't so rare if if you only consider the population of people who eat foods canned without regard to USDA guidelines.

I don't find any pumpkin butter recipe in my current Ball Blue book. Am I missing the recipe ?

Pumpkin butter is not like jams, because pumpkin is a low acid food, not a high acid one like other fruit butters.
That is one of the main differences. You can't safely can pumpkin like it like it is a fruit.

linda lou,
I can't find it in the Ball Blue book either--it only has recipes for freezing or drying pumpkin, which it classifies as a vegetable.

Since the organization that established those processing times no longer endorses them, what makes you believe they're adequate, especially since more recent evidence suggests that establishing a safe processing time for something as variable as pumpkin butter may not be possible?

Mainly because the organization didn't establish the processing times. Historically, processing times came from the food packaging industries that were in the business of preserving food, the USDA gathered this information for print. It's mostly a philosophical issue with me - I place more trust in private business than I do government beauocracy.

You're originally stated that the number of cases were fairly consitent from 1950 thorugh 1996 with most coming from home-canned food. Now you state there has been a significant decline. I'm as confused with this change of direction as I am with the USDA's change of direction on some processes.

Linda Lou - You originally posted that you knew that there was a Ball recipe. I assumed you were talking about pumpkin butter but could have been mistaken.

I clarified in a previous post that the pumpkin butter recipe was printed in the Bernardin book which is under the aegis of the same corporation as Ball. Both were owned by Alltrista and now by Jarden.

Carol

Clear back before 1974, I think it was, the USDA did have a pumpkin butter recipe, but since found, due to their testing, the information now provided, it is not considered safe to can any pureed pumpkin product, including pumpkin butter. I know it was in the 1970's sometime that they started retesting it.

Things do change in science, including food science and safety. I am glad for ongoing research in these fields.

malon, the numbers are all in the CDC document if you're confused. I said the numbers were pretty consistent from the 1950s to the 1990s; when you look at them (on page 29), you can see this (prorating the 90s because the number given is only for seven years, you get 176). The numbers from the 80s and 90s were quite close to those from the 50s and 60s. This preempts the potential argument that the annual average from that period was totally irrelevant to recent years--that's all.

Then you mention "the 1982 meeting of the canning czars." So we need to look at the period of time immediately before then--the 70s--and the periods since then. The number of cases peaked in the 70s, and declined significantly each decade since then, which contradicts your implication that nothing has changed since the new regulations were made.

I don't trust private business or government bureaucracy: private business has poisoned plenty of people with botulin out of ignorance or greed, and the USDA throws me into fits of rage on other issues; I trust science and my own ability to reason. (linda lou, too, seems to know what she's talking about.)