silicone adjustable bundling devices: do they meet manufacturer's claims during cooking and...

Silicone adjustable bundling devices: do they meetmanufacturer’s claims during cooking and cleaning?

Nelson Barber, Charles Broz and Janice Boyce

Department of Nutrition, Hospitality and Retailing, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA

Correspondence:Nelson Barber, P.O. Box41240, Department ofNutrition, Hospitalityand Retailing, Texas TechUniversity, Lubbock, TX79409, USA. Tel: +806742 3068; Fax: +806 7423042; E-mail:[email protected]

Keywords:food safety, Foodloops,silicone bakeware,trussing

Abstract

Silicone cooking and baking devices are purportedly easy to use, can bestretched to hold and support a variety of foods, and are stick-resistant,heat-resistant, stain-resistant and dishwasher-safe. Also, depending on thesilicone device, such as muffin pans, they are food safe and Food and DrugAdministration compliant. Yet recent research has reported results to thecontrary. Testing a new method of bundling or trussing food, this study foundthat adjustable silicone bundling devices, also known as ‘Foodloops’, are notas effective as manufacturers claim. The Foodloops often slipped off foodwhile cooking, food stuck to the silicone, and using the aerobic plate countspiral method, significant levels of bacteria were found after cleaning.

Introduction

Recently, two studies were conducted on theeffectiveness of silicone cooking devices. The firststudy, by Barber et al. (2007b), found that sili-cone cake pans, when compared with non-silicone cake pans, did not produce better productcharacteristics, such as texture, volume and color,and in fact the silicone cake pan did not live up tothe manufacturer’s statement of easy release andnon-stick. The second study, by Barber et al.(2007a), found similar results when testing sili-cone muffin pans compared with traditionalmetal muffin pans.

Silicone devices, such as muffin pans, are pur-portedly easy to use; can be stretched to hold andsupport a number of foods for a variety of foodpreparation uses; and are stick-resistant, heat-resistant, stain-resistant and dishwasher-safe.Some purport to be food-safe (safe for food

contact) and Food and Drug Administration(FDA) compliant. As a result, there is a variety ofsilicone bakeware offered - everything fromspatulas to tortilla warmers – with the opportu-nity to buy silicone bakeware in every color andshape imaginable. However, there are disadvan-tages to the use of these silicone products. First,as mentioned in the studies by Barber et al.(2007a,b), the silicone cooking material wasneither stick-resistant nor heat-resistant. In addi-tion, according to Consumers Report (2006), sili-cone products can be easily cut and may crack orcrumble after long use.

Methods of securing foods duringthe cooking process

Traditionally, cooks and chefs use many differentdevices to secure meat, poultry, fish, vegetablesand other food before and during the cooking

Original article

20th Anniversary Volume

© 2009, The Authors

Journal compilation © 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 63–70

DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0159.2008.00126.x

63

mailto:[email protected]

process. For example, an osso bucco (an Italianbraised food dish) may be tied before braising,while vegetables such as green beans or asparagusare often bundled before cooking, both typicallywith twine or string. Twine has been used as themethod for trussing or bundling foods for decadesbecause meat tends to fall apart and away fromthe bone as it cooks, and twine will hold the meatin place. Yet learning how to properly tie eachfood item using twine can take time.

In addition, while cooking, twine absorbs juicesand oils from the food. The twine and meat willfrequently interact and the twine will stick to thefood. The twine also may assume the color of thefood. After cooking is complete, chefs typicallycut and remove the twine from the meat prior toserving. However, it is often difficult to find andremove the twine after cooking because the twinehas become colored and often enmeshed with thefood. Finally, twine or string is not optimal forgrilling because it may catch fire during grilling.Rather, many chefs or cooks when grilling meatwill use skewers or toothpicks, or when grillingvegetables they will soak the twine in water.

For poaching foods, cheesecloth is most oftenused. Cheesecloth (muslin or gauze) is typicallywrapped around the food to prevent it fromlosing shape, settling and touching other foodduring cooking. However, cheesecloth, much liketwine, frequently sticks to the food and is difficultto remove after cooking is complete. The use ofsilicone mesh or silicone perforated sheets can bewrapped around the food and will function likecheesecloth, but with similar results of food stick-ing to this product (CIA 2006, pp. 608–613).

Recent to the market, edible collagen ribbon isa method used to bundle or truss food items. Thisis a strong, pliable and edible ribbon made ofcollagen, taking on the color and flavor of thecooked food item. These ribbons are often formedof flattened collagen (sausage) casing slit to formfilms or ribbons, which are then twisted. The slitcasing may simply be folded or plaited to providea multiple-layer film or ribbon, typically twolayers or four layers (Devro Corporation 2008).

Silicone

Although relatively new to the foodservice market,silicone has been widely available as a kitchen tool.

A class of inorganic rubbers of various composi-tions and formulas, silicone is made by connectingsilicon atoms and other organic groups. Siliconewas developed for its superior reliability; com-bined with the temperature and chemical resis-tance of glass and versatility of plastics, whenexposed to extreme temperatures, it will not mis-shapen (DVO 2003; Dow 2006).

Silicone bakeware can be used in the oven,microwave or freezer. It does not absorb the heatlike other bakeware but allows the heat to trans-fer evenly to the food (DVO 2003). The cookingprocess stops immediately when food is removedfrom the oven, preventing additional browning ofthe bottom and edges of the food. It can with-stand temperatures ranging from –58°F to 675°F.The bakeware can be folded for convenience instoring without damaging the material.

Silicone adjustable bundling devices (Foodloops)

An item that is relatively new to the market is thesilicone adjustable bundling device, or the Food-loop, as it is commercially known. According tothe patent documents filed for this product, asilicone adjustable bundling device aids in thecinching and un-cinching of one or more items,such as the wrapping of food in preparation forcooking (Fig. 1). A cavity element and a stopelement are attached to opposing ends of a lengthof flexible textured silicone cord.

The cord can be pushed through the cavity toform a loop that can hold various items. The loopcan be tightened and loosened by sliding the cordwithin the cavity. The texture of the cord interactswith protrusions in the cavity, locking the cord inplace. The cavity also acts as a type of clench and

Figure 1 Silicone adjustable bundling device.

64 Silicone adjustable bundling devices N. Barber et al.



the end stop prevents the cord from slipping allthe way out of the cavity (US Patent & Trade-mark Office 2005).

According to the manufacturer Fusion Brands,the Foodloop is heat-resistant to 675 F (357 C),food-safe and an FDA-compliant silicone food-trussing device. This device eliminates the frustra-tion of using string and toothpicks to keep certainfoods together, such as poultry, fish or bundledvegetables. Because silicone is generally heat-resistant, the manufacturer suggests that theFoodloop can be used in a wide variety of cookingapplications, such as stovetop, oven or micro-wave cooking. It is claimed to be non-stick andwill not scratch coated pans, and is reusablebecause it cleans up easily in soapy water or in adishwasher (Fusion Brands 2007).

Food safety and equipment cleaning practices

Food safety behavior

This study did not set out to measure knowledgeof food hygiene but to consider whether behaviortoward food safety and hygiene would impact theuse of the silicone Foodloops and create any bac-terial issues. Previous research has shown thatmany basic food handling procedures are not con-ducted according to the government’s recommen-dations (FDF 1996), despite awareness of foodsafety and the importance of certain types of foodsafety behaviors (Swicker 1995; FDF 1996; Allen2000; Redmond & Griffith 2003).

It has been assumed that restaurants, cafeteriasand bars are the most frequently cited locationswhere foodborne disease outbreaks occur (Allen2000; Kassa et al. 2001). However, foodborneillness arising from foods consumed at homeis three times more frequent. According toRedmond & Griffith (2003), over the 10-yearperiod from 1992 to 2002, 87% of reported food-borne disease outbreaks in the UK, Europe, Aus-tralia and the USA have been associated with foodprepared and consumed at home.

Thus, the importance of establishing and fol-lowing good food safety practices both at homeand in the foodservice industry is critical. It hasbeen assumed by researchers and the governmentthat awareness or knowledge determines or influ-ences behavior (Barber 2008); however, ignorance

may not be the major problem, but rather failingto apply principles already known.

Cleaning of equipment

At best, cross-contamination of food can bereduced or prevented if equipment and surfacesused for both raw and cooked food are thor-oughly cleaned and disinfected between opera-tions (Zhao et al. 1999). Tools and equipmentshould be washed in hot detergent water, rinsedand, if possible, treated with a sanitizer allowingto air dry. Dishwashers, which use high tempera-tures to clean and disinfect items, are consideredto be more hygienic than manual dishwashing.

Food safety is primarily determined by (i) thepotential for contamination with and survival ofpathogenic microorganisms of concern; and (ii)the potential for subsequent growth and/or toxinproduction. Therefore, properly cleaning prior tostorage can work to assure protection (Worsfold1997).

Purpose of the study

This study had two goals. The first was toexamine, using different cooking methods,whether silicone adjustable bundling devices,Foodloops, live up to the manufacturer’s claimsof non-stick, ease of use and reuse. The secondgoal was to determine if improper cleaning of thereusable Foodloops, particularly given the ‘cavityelement’, will result in bacterial growth.

Materials and methods

Cooking methods

This study used 18 silicone Foodloop adjustablebundling devices, and tested the Foodloop manu-facturer’s cooking claims using the followingcooking methods: deep fry, sauté, broiling, roast-ing, grilling, boiling and microwave. Thesemethods were selected in consideration for howfoodservice providers and consumers may use thisproduct. For the roast and broil, a standard elec-tric oven and a commercial gas oven were used.The grill method was selected, even though not arecommended method by the manufacturer,because this study was to determine how the

65Silicone adjustable bundling devices N. Barber et al.



product would work under all different foodser-vice cooking applications. It is likely that someusers may try to use this product when grillingrather than twine or skewers, disregarding manu-facturer’s instructions.

The sauté method used standard metal tongs,olive oil and a 10-in. non-stick sauté pan. For thedeep fry method, a 6-qt aluminum stock pot,vegetable oil and metal tongs were used. A200-550°F, 10-in.-long thermometer was usedwith an adjustable clip for hanging in any posi-tion, to insure constant oil temperature of 350°F.

For the roasting and broiling methods, the meatwas pan seared first, then placed in an aluminum(9 ft ¥ 12 in.) roasting pan at 350°F for therequired cooking time according to the meatproduct. A Kenmore electric oven (Kenmore,Sears and Company, Hoffman, IL) was used forthe roasting and broiling, as well as a Garland 6burner commercial gas oven (Garland Commer-cial Ranges, Welbilt Corporation, Stamford, CT).The grill method used a gas grill (APW WyottChampion Cook Series, APW Wyott, Dallas, TX),wiped first with an oiled towel, and metal tongs.Finally, the microwave used for this test was aWhirlpool model (Whirlpool Company, BentonHarbor, MI), with the cook time set for 15 min onhigh mode.

For the boiling method, two bundles of aspara-gus, each in a 4-qt pot of water, were allowed tocook for 15 min. The preparation for this cookingmethod was not as easy as the manufacturerclaims. The Foodloop was cumbersome to usewith the asparagus bundles. For comparisontesting, this test was also conducted using tradi-tional twine.

Food products

For this study, chicken was selected as the meatproduct and asparagus as the vegetable. Chickenwas used because it is very commonly used (Davis& Lin 2005) as a cooked product in foodserviceestablishments and in the home; and as men-tioned earlier, asparagus was used because it isoften bundled when cooked.

Measurement of food safety

To test for bacterial growth, the aerobic platecount (APC) method was used. This method is

intended to indicate the level of microorganism ina product. Detailed procedures for determiningthe APC were developed by the Association ofOfficial Analytical Chemists (1998) (AOAC) andthe American Public Health Association (1984)(APHA). To perform this test, the Texas TechUniversity Animal & Food Sciences Department,Food & Nutrition Laboratory was hired toperform the spiral plate count (SPLC) method.

The SPLC method is an official method of theAPHA and the AOAC. In this method, a mechani-cal platter inoculates a rotating agar plate witha liquid sample. The sample volume dispenseddecreases as the dispensing stylus moves from thecenter to the edge of the rotating plate.

The microbial concentration is determined bycounting the colonies on a part of the petri dishwhere they are easily countable, and dividing thiscount by the appropriate volume. One inocula-tion determines microbial densities between 500and 500 000 microorganisms/mL. Additionaldilutions may be made for suspected high micro-bial concentrations. The researchers selectedroasting and sauté as the two most often usedcooking methods to test for APC.

Data analysis

For the APC testing, three independent tests wereperformed for the sauté and roast with three dif-ferent cleaning methods. The first was a no-washscenario whereby the Foodloop, once removedfrom the food product, was allowed to cool for30 s. For the hand-wash scenario, the Foodloopwas removed from the food product, placed in asink filled with warm (near 120°F) soapy water(Dawn dishwashing liquid #02613PG, Proctor &Gamble Inc., Cincinnati, OH) and hand-washed,rinsed under warm water and allowed to dry for1 min. The dishwashing process practiced in res-taurants is similar to home-based dishwashingbecause it revolves around the same idea. Dirtyutensils are washed by using water and a dish-washing detergent.

For the dishwasher scenario, once the Food-loop was removed from the food product it wasvisibly checked for changes to the Foodloop, andfor sticking of food to the silicone ties. Thenit was set in the cloth mesh pouch provided bythe manufacturer, placed in the Kitchenaid dish-




washer (Kitchenaid Corporation, Greenville, OH)and run through a full wash cycle. After each ofthese wash applications, the Foodloop was placedin a sterile testing bag and delivered 30 min laterto the APC testing center.

Finally, a comparison was performed to deter-mine if a roasted chicken would cook better usingthe traditional twine as compared to the Food-loop product. Following generally accepted truss-ing methods for roasting chicken (or other fowl),a whole chicken was cooked at 350°F in an elec-tric oven and trussed as shown in Fig. 2.

Results and discussions

Expectations of testing

Despite the claims of the manufacturer andbecause of the Foodloops design as well as previ-ous silicone cooking research (Barber et al.2007a,b), the researchers expected to find foodstuck to the Foodloops (both on the cord and inthe cavity) when removed from the cooked foodand after they were washed. Also, given thedesign of the Foodloop and its ‘cavity’ element,along with consumers’ general lack of food safetyknowledge and practices, we expected to find bac-terial growth as a result of improper washing.

It was not expected that the Foodloops would,as a product, deteriorate in any fashion because ofthe industrial grade of silicone used to manufac-ture them. However, they are subject to nicks andslicing from sharp knives, which could happen,should users slice the food product after cookingand before removing the Foodloop.

Visual testing by researchers

It is clear from this study that, except for micro-wave cooking, regardless of the cooking method,food was ‘sticking’ to the Foodloops. In addition,it was visually noted that during the roasting andbroiling cooking methods, when the Foodloopcame in contact with the skin of the meat product,charring would occur and this charring wouldremain on the Foodloop even after cleaningthrough the hand-washing and dishwasherprocess.

Objective measurement – Physical Testing

Cooking methods

As stated earlier, the researchers tested the siliconeFoodloops using various cooking methods, eachto replicate possible foodservice use. In general,the Foodloops were easy to use and remove on theroasted whole chickens.

Their use for this cooking method is question-able because they can only secure the legs of thechicken, thus serving no other cooking purpose.The resulting roasted product (Fig 3, left chicken)using the Foodloop did not look as appealing asthe traditional trussed chicken. In addition, theFoodloop had fallen off the chicken duringcooking with food sticking to it.

Except for the grilling and boiling methods,the use of the Foodloops did not present anyunusual issues in preparing the food forcooking, or during the cooking process. After15 min in the boiling water, the asparagus

Figure 2 Foodloop and traditional trussed chickensfor roasting.

Figure 3 Roasted chickens (Foodloop on left).




reduced in size and became softer, causing theFoodloop to loosen with some of the asparagusslipping out. This made the removal of thebundles from the water very difficult. Figure 4shows how the product and Foodloop lookedafter removal from water. For the twine tests,because twine will absorb some of the water (orjuices) when cooking and therefore swell, loos-ening and difficulty of removing the bundlesfrom the water were not an issue.

Finally, for the grill cooking method, onechicken was cut in half and each half was trussedwith two Foodloops and placed on the preheatedgas grill with angled drip splash guards betweenthe flames and the grills. Figure 5 shows thegrilled chicken.

Although the manufacturer mentioned that theuse of Foodloops is not recommended for grilling,two concerns with this method still surfaced.First, as the chicken got hotter, the fat started tomelt and the Foodloops became loose and even-tually slipped off the chicken during cooking.

Second, as evidenced in Fig. 6, the Foodloopcharred and became brittle and broke in pieceswhile cooking.

APC testing

The results of the APC testing, shown in Table 1,indicate some interesting findings. When consid-ering the roast method of cooking and dishwashermethod of cleaning, tests 1 (TNTC) and test 2

Figure 4 Boiled asparagus.

Figure 5 Grilled chicken.

Figure 6 Foodloop used on grill.

Table 1 Results of APC testing

Cook method Test Treatments Log cfu/mL

Roast 1 Hand wash <1 ¥ 10Roast 2 Hand wash TFTCRoast 3 Hand wash 6.19Roast 1 Home wash TNTCRoast 2 Home wash 6.39Roast 3 Home wash TFTCRoast 1 No wash <1 ¥ 10Roast 2 No wash <1 ¥ 10Roast 3 No wash TFTCSautéed 1 Hand wash 6.29Sautéed 2 Hand wash TNTCSautéed 3 Hand wash 5.05Sautéed 1 Home wash <1 ¥ 10Sautéed 2 Home wash <1 ¥ 10Sautéed 3 Home wash <1 ¥ 10Sautéed 1 No wash TFTCSautéed 2 No wash 6.10Sautéed 3 No wash <1 ¥ 10

Note: <1 ¥ 10 = zero count.TFTC, too few to count; TNTC, too numerous tocount.




(6.39 cfu/mL) suggest that these Foodloops aresusceptible to bacterial growth.

For the roast ‘hand-wash’ test, there was a widerange of APC results. Because bacteria are air-borne in a kitchen, by not sterilizing the dryingsurface at the beginning of the day (even though itwas sterilized the night before) and allowing theFoodloops to air dry prior to placing in the ziplock bags for testing, bacteria may have collectedon the Foodloops. Further testing should considersterilizing the work surface before washing andair drying.

When considering the sauté method of cookingand the hand-wash method of cleaning, all threetests, test 1 (6.39 cfu/mL), test 2 (TNTC) and test3 (5.05 cfu/mL), suggest that the Foodloops aresusceptible to bacterial growth.

This is a potential concern because of the claimthat Foodloops are reusable. Yet these productsare likely to be stored in a drawer or cabinet andwill be reused straight from storage when prepar-ing food without prewashing.

Conclusion

According to the manufacturer, the Foodloop is‘the first heat-resistant (to 675 F) silicone foodtrussing tool. The Foodloop won’t splinter orbreak off like toothpicks and won’t get soggy orstick to foods like twine. The Foodloop is reus-able and cleans up easily in soapy water or in adishwasher’ (Fusion Brands 2007). Although theproduct was heat-resistant (except for the grill-ing), the results of this study have indicated that,as expected, should foodservice providers or con-sumers not follow safe equipment cleaning for areusable product such as silicone Foodloops,there is a strong likelihood that bacteria can formand grow, particularly in the cavity of the Food-loops, where food can be trapped and washingpractices maybe lax.

It is therefore suggested that manufacturers ofthese and similar products place a food safetywarning on the package that alerts consumers tothe need for care and proper cleaning of theirproducts. Additionally, the Foodloop is not easyto use and food does stick, particularly duringcertain cooking methods such as roasting.

The manufacturer should qualify their state-ment about the product’s non-stick capabilities.

This result was supported by two other siliconeproduct research studies that found bakedproducts stuck to the silicone bakeware (Barberet al. 2007a,b). Finally, the researchers, whoare trained chefs, found the use of traditionaltwine trussing to be fast, easy and with easyclean up, reducing the risk of an unsafe reusableproduct.

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to recognize the TexasTech University Experimental Foodservice Labfor its use of its cooking, baking equipment andtesting equipment. The researchers would alsolike to acknowledge Mr. Stewart, CEO of theFood Loop Company, for providing the Food-loops for us to test.

References

Allen R (2000). Study shows shrinking consumer con-fidence in food-safety practices. Nations RestaurantNews, October 30, 2000. Available at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_44_34/ai_66891138 (accessed 30 November 2008).

American Public Health Association (1984). Compen-dium of Methods for the Microbiological Examina-tion of Foods, 2nd edn. APHA: Washington, DC.

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1990).Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edn. AOAC:Arlington, VA.

Barber N (2008). How self-confidence and knowledgeeffects the sources of information selected duringpurchase situations. Published dissertation, TexasTech University, Lubbock, Texas.

Barber N, Boyce J, Binkley M, Broz C (2007a). How dosilicone muffin pans compare to traditional metalpans? Journal of Foodservice 18:218–26.

Barber N, Scarcelli J, Almanza B, Daniel J, Nelson D(2007b). Silicone bakeware: Does it deliver a betterproduct? Journal of Foodservice 18:43–51.

CIA (2006). The Professional Chef, 8th edn. JohnWiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ.

Consumers Report (2006). We pan silicone bakeware.Available at: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/home-garden/kitchen/cookware-bakeware-cutlery/silicone-bakeware-106/overview/index.htm?resultPageIndex=1&resultIndex=1&searchTerm=silicone%20cookware (accessed 2 April 2008).

Davis C, Lin B (2005). Factors affecting US beef con-sumption. The U.S. Department of Agriculture(October 2005). Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ldp/Oct05/ldpm13502/ldpm13502.pdf (accessed 1 May 2008).




http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_44_34/ai_

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_44_34/ai_

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro

http://www.ers.usda

Devro Corporation (2008). Edible collagen ribbon.Available at: http://www.cix.co.uk/~devro/products/index.htm (accessed 15 March 2008).

Dow Corning Corporation (2006). Withstand tempera-ture extremes. Available at: http://www.dowcorning.com/content/rubber/rubberprop/rubber_thermal.asp(accessed 17 March 2008).

DVO Enterprises, Inc. (2003). Silicone bakeware – thenewest advance in cooking! Available at: http://www.dvo.com/silicone.html (accessed 13 December2007).

FDF (1996). National Food Safety Report, Food andDrink Federation and the Institution of EnvironmentHealth Officers, London.

Fusion Brands (2007). The foodloop. Available at:http://www.thefoodloop.com/about/ (accessed 18January 2008).

Kassa H, Harrington B, Bisesi M, Khuder S (2001).Comparisons of microbiological evaluations ofselected kitchen areas with visual inspections forpreventing potential risk of foodborne outbreaks infood service operations. Journal of Food Protection4:509–13.

Redmond EC, Griffith CJ (2003). Consumerfood handling in the home: a review of food safetystudies. Journal of Food Protection 66:130–61.

Swicker R (1995). Food safety: test your foodsafety practices. Cooperative Extension, Universityof Massachusetts. Available at: http://www.nncc.org/nutrition/fd.safw.practices.html (accessed 29November 2008).

US Patent & Trademark Office (2005). Adjustable bun-dling device – United States Patent 20050241116.Available at: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220050241116%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20050241116&RS=DN/20050241116(accessed 31 March 2008).

Worsfold D (1997). Food safety behaviour in the home.British Food Journal 99:97.

Zhao P, Zhao T, Doyle M, Rubino J, Meng J (1999).Development of a model for evaluation of microbialcross-contamination in the kitchen. Journal of FoodProtection 61:960–3.




http://www.cix.co.uk/~devro/products

http://www.dowcorning

http://www.dvo.com/silicone.html

http://www.dvo.com/silicone.html

http://www.thefoodloop.com/about

http://www.nncc.org

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=

silicone adjustable bundling devices: do they meet manufacturer's claims during cooking and...

Documents