this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
117 points (93.3% liked)
InsanePeopleFacebook
5150 readers
68 users here now
Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fwiw, the CDC and USDA sites still have the correct info in full rather than the half assed bullshit spouted on Facebook
https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/prevention/home-canned-foods.html
The USDA link is on that page
For now. Don't tell RFK.
Exactly
Last I checked, the USDA also still says that any pork not cooked to 165 is unsafe, which hasn't been true for decades.
I'm not arguing in favor of disregarding canning safety, but the USDA can be slow to come up to speed.
On canning, they're backed by over a century of practical information. Canning is essentially the practice of controlling decay. There's not much wiggle room involved when it comes to the pathogenic side of that. The temps at which they die off, or where various toxins are neutralized, have been reproduced so often and so reliably that it's not really in question.
Pork safety comes down to pretty much one pathogen in terms of finished safe temp and time. There's a curve to it. But the USDA (so far) tends to be very sith and deal in absolutes. At 165, with nothing else involved, you know you aren't going to get sick. There's other temps that can get the job done at different times, but we gotta be real about how dumb people are. You start displaying that chart, and the average person will start thinking they can piddle with it.
Plus, going to a lower temp with a rest, or at longer times, you run into more variables in the first place; more room for error to creep in. There's no way I'd recommend that process to someone new to cooking pork, so I can't be upset that the organization that's supposed to be the default source for food safety stays with the most certain path.
Hell, I wouldn't be upset if the USDA only listed canning guidelines that were similarly limited to no brainer numbers. Nuance is for experienced cooks.
I mean still pressure can your food but this does say kind if the same thing:
Yup :)
At the time I dropped the comment, nobody had laid out an external source that can be considered authoritative. While the "currently" caveat in the comment is meant to say that you can only trust things so far, you gotta take extra care when there's any risks involved.
The info in the image from the post wasn't wrong, just untrustworthy :)