Silicone poaching pods: do they meet manufacturer’s claims?

Nelson Barber, Charles Broz, Rhonda Hammond and Janice Boyce

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

Correspondence:Nelson Barber,Department of Nutrition,Hospitality and Retailing,Texas Tech University,PO Box 41240, Lubbock,TX 79409, USA. Tel:+806 742 3068; Fax:+806 742 3042; E-mail:nelson.barber@ttu.edu

Keywords:poaching pods, siliconebakeware

Abstract

Manufacturers are marketing silicone cooking and baking devices (e.g. cakepans) for a variety of foods, and claim these devices are easy to use, stick-resistant, heat-resistant, stain-resistant and dishwasher-safe. Recent researchhas reported contrary results from the manufacturers’ claims. Silicone Poach-ing Pods were tested in this study to determine if they are as effective asclaimed by manufacturers. Results indicated that in fact Poaching Pods arenot easy to use. Egg products stuck to the pods during poaching and therewas visible browning on the rim of the baked custards. Finally, the instruc-tions need clarification to avoid potential cooking mistakes.fri_132 117..122

Introduction

Three recent studies have reported the effective-ness of silicone cooking devices, such as cake pans,muffin pans and trussing ‘Foodloops’ (Barber et al.2007a; Barber et al. 2009). These and other sili-cone devices are reported by manufacturers,such as Fusion Brands (2007), to be easy to use,pliable and supportive for different types of foodand preparation methods. Manufacturers alsoclaim that these devices are stick-resistant, heat-resistant, stain-resistant and dishwasher-safe; allprofessing to be food safe (for food contact) andFood and Drug Administration (FDA) compliant.Yet studies have contradicted these claims, and forexample, it has been found that silicone productsare neither stick-resistant nor heat-resistant andthey have been found to act as an insulator ratherthan a conductor of heat (Barber et al. 2007b).

The poaching process

To poach a food item, the food is either partiallyor completely covered by a liquid which is then

brought to, and maintained at, a temperature justbelow boiling point. Poaching is an effective wayof cooking foods for both hot and cold service;not only does it produce healthy food but italso enhances flavor. It can, however, requireconsiderable skill and judgment, particularly withcomplex shallow poached fish dishes. The follow-ing are some reasons to poach food:1 A fast method of cooking tender food;2 To avoid food from breaking up or fallingapart;3 Poaching liquid can contribute to taste andmake a good base for sauces.

Poaching methods

• Deep Poaching – involves covering the foodwith cooking liquid, and is often carried out ontop of the stove.• Shallow Poaching – is where the food is par-tially covered with cooking liquid. The process isoften started on top of the stove and continued inthe oven. The liquid often comes two-thirds of the

Original article

20th Anniversary Volume

© 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 117–122

DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0159.2009.00132.x

117

way up the food. In shallow poaching, the liquidcan be used to form the basis of the sauce.

Poaching equipment

There are various types of equipment that can beused to poach foods, such as:• Saucepans, hotel pans (rectangular stainlesssteel pans used on steam tables) or shallow stockpots.• Fagor 4-cup commercial egg poacher (seeFig. 1).• Fish Kettles – specially designed for processingwhole fish – tight fitting lids – containing a per-forated drainer with handles – made from stain-less steel, aluminum or tin-lined copper.• Round or oval frying pans, ‘sauteuse’ and ‘platà sauter’ – used for shallow poaching – madefrom fireproof china, tin-lined copper or enam-eled cast iron.

Silicone

In the foodservice market, silicone has been avail-able for the past 10 years. Silicone is a classof inorganic rubbers made by connecting siliconatoms with other organic groups. It was devel-oped for use in the foodservice industry becauseof its superior reliability, coupled with tempera-ture and chemical resistance similar to glass andwhen exposed to extreme temperatures it will notbecome misshapen (DVO Enterprises, Inc. 2003;Dow Corning Corporation 2006).

According to Dow Corning Corporation(2006) and DVO Enterprises, Inc. (2003), siliconecooking equipment can be used in the oven,microwave or freezer; does not absorb heat likeother bakeware; and allows heat to transferevenly. One important attribute of these products

is that the cooking process will stop immediatelywhen food is removed from the heat, therebyavoiding any significant carry over cooking.Silicone will withstand temperatures from –58°F(14°C) to 675°F (357°C).

Silicone Poaching Pods

An item that is relatively new to the foodservicemarket is the silicone Poaching Pod. According tothe patent documents filed by the manufacturer,Fusion Brands, this product is considered as aflexible, heat-resistant silicone cooking equipmentformed in the shape of miniature bowls. Thissilicone equipment is particularly ideal for poach-ing eggs, but has other applications, suchas making custards. For poaching eggs, the PoachPod suspends the egg over the hot water. Whendone, the egg can be simply popped out (Fig. 2).To remove other cooked items from the PoachingPod, slide a spoon or similar dull tool around thesides, invert, and the contents come right out.

According to the manufacturer, the PoachingPod is heat-resistant to 675°F (357°C), food safeand an FDA-compliant silicone. It is claimed tobe non-stick and is reusable because it cleans upeasily in soapy water or in a dishwasher.

Purpose of the study

Given the previous discussion, this study willexamine whether the silicone Poaching Pods liveup to manufacturer’s claims of non-stick, ease ofuse, reuse and cleaning.

Figure 1 Fagar 4-cup commercial egg poacher.

Figure 2 Silicone Poaching Pods.

118 Silicone poaching pods N. Barber et al.

© 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 117–122

Materials and methods

Materials and methods

For each of the cooking methods, the researcherswere comprised of classically trained chefs, onefrom the Culinary Institute of America, one fromKendall Culinary College and who is also amember of the Research Chefs Association andone from Chef John Folse Culinary Institute atNicholls State University. Combined, they haveover 30 years of culinary practical and educa-tional experience.

Cooking methods

This study will test the Poaching Pods’ manu-facturer’s cooking claims using two differentmethods (poaching and baking) and products(eggs and custard). Table 1 summarizes themethods, equipment and products. First, therewill be three cooking methods for poaching eggs:• Deep poaching using a 51/2-quart sauce potone-quarter full of cold water, two tablespoons ofcider vinegar, with no lid;• The use of the 4-cup Fagor commercial eggpoacher (Fig. 1);• The Poaching Pods following the manufactur-er’s instructions. It should be noted that theseinstructions are vague for poaching eggs. Forexample, the instructions read: Place PoachingPod (with the egg) in a pot of boiling water, coverwith a lid, and cook until desired doneness – 4 to6 minutes. These instructions do not indicate howmuch water to place in a pot, and as most cooksknow, eggs are generally cooked between 3 and5 min. So it is not clear how the 4–6 min equatesto this standard cooking time.

For these poaching methods, three tests wereconducted, each cooking the eggs for 4 min,which is in the middle of the culinary accepted3- to 5-min range (Labensky & Hause 2007,p. 670). According to Labensky & Hause (2007,p. 659), the 3-min minimum time is due in part tohow long it takes for egg whites to set and becomefirm at temperatures between 144°F (62°C) and149°F (65°C). After that, the time to completionof cooking depends on how firm an individualwants the yolk. At 3 min, the yolk is loose(runny), while at 5 min the yolk is firm. For the T

able

1C

ooki

ngm

etho

ds,

prod

uct

and

equi

pmen

t

Coo

king

met

hod

Prod

uct

Equ

ipm

ent

Wat

erle

vel

Coo

king

tim

eN

umbe

rof

eggs

cook

edN

umbe

rof

test

s

Dee

ppo

achi

ngE

ggs

51 /2-

quar

tpo

t1 /

4fu

ll4

min

33

Fago

r4-

cup

Egg

sFa

gor

As

reco

mm

ende

d4

min

43

Poac

hing

Pods

Test

AE

ggs

51 /2-

quar

tpo

t3 /

4fu

ll5

min

33

Test

BE

ggs

51 /2-

quar

tpo

t1 /

4fu

ll5

min

33

Wat

erba

thba

king

Cus

tard

1-cu

pPy

rex

glas

sra

mek

ins

and

2″ho

tel

pan

Just

toco

me

1 /2″

upth

esi

deof

ram

ekin

s45

min

at32

5o FT

hree

ram

ekin

spe

rte

st3

Poac

hing

Pods

Cus

tard

2″ho

tel

pan

1 /4

full

Sam

eas

stan

dard

cust

ard

Thr

eePo

achi

ngPo

ds3

119Silicone poaching pods N. Barber et al.

© 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 117–122

Poaching Pods, the same was done, cooking theeggs to 5 min, which is in the middle of the manu-facturer’s instructions of 4–6 min.

For the Poaching Pods, because the instructionsdid not specify how much water to place inthe cooking pan, two additional tests were per-formed. The first – Test A – filled a 51/2-quartsauce pot three-quarters full of water. For Test B,the same sauce pot was filled only one-quarterfull. When cooking the eggs, the Poaching Podswere not greased as part of the test. The manu-facturers did not suggest this, and results fromprior studies that tested the ease of removal fromsilicone bakeware (Barber et al. 2007a) foundthat when the silicone equipment was greased, theproduct browned and became crusted.

For the custard, the methods and products usedwere:• The Poaching Pods following the manufactur-er’s instructions;• The use of 1-cup glass Pyrex ramekins;• The use of 2″ hotel pan with water bath forboth cooking methods;• Each of these methods used the custardrecipe obtained from Labensky & Hause (2007,p. 1264);• For this study, eggs and egg-based custard werethe primary food products to test.

Data analysis

For each of the cooking methods previouslydescribed, three separate tests were performed toensure consistency of approach and to ensurethere were no biases in the cooking processes.Tests were performed to determine if an eggcooked using the Poaching Pods is better in easeof use and doneness when compared with thetraditional deep-poaching method using a saucepot and the Fagor 4-cup commercial poacher.

For ease of use, the researchers looked at theability to remove the Poaching Pods from thehot water and to handle the Poaching Pod whenremoving the egg. When poaching eggs, using atraditional water bath, eggs can be removed fromthe water with a slotted spoon with little difficultyor risk of breaking the egg. When comparing thedoneness, again following the culinary acceptedcooking times (Labensky & Hause 2007, p. 670),the researchers looked for a well-set and firm egg

white and consistency of the egg yolk. Similarlyfor testing the custard, the Poaching Pods werecompared with 1-cup glass Pyrex ramekins forease of removal from the water bath and custarddoneness. Here again, ease of use also consideredpresentation to the customer on the plate. Inother words, would it be appropriate to serve thecustard in the Poaching Pod?

Results and discussions

Expectations of testing

In light of the manufacturer’s claims and becauseof previous silicone cooking research (Barberet al. 2007b; Barber et al. 2009), the resear-chers expected to find food stuck to the PoachingPods when food was removed, as well as afterthey were machine washed. It was also expectedthat because of the insulator effect of silicone,the food items would not be completely cookedwhen following culinary accepted cooking timesof 3–5 min.

Visual testing

Despite manufacturer’s claims that the product isnon-stick, it is clear from this study (Fig. 3) thatpoached egg was ‘stuck’ to the Poaching Pods.

When considering the custard cooking process,despite following the manufacturer’s directionsand the recipe, the resulting custards in the Poach-ing Pods had browning along the rim as shown inFig. 4.

Objective measurement – physical testing

Eggs

Results of poaching eggs using the Poaching Podsare as follows. For Test A, the Poaching Podssubmerged after 1 min and sank to the bottom ofthe pot. This was caused by the rapid boiling ofthe water. Removal of the Poaching Pods from thehot water at the 4-min mark was cumbersome.Tongs were used to lift them out, and because ofthe pliability of the material, they were difficult tohandle.

Removal of eggs from the Poaching Pods,which needed to be done quickly to avoid any

120 Silicone poaching pods N. Barber et al.

© 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 117–122

carry over cooking effect, was also a challenge.The Poaching Pods were too hot to handle withbare hands, so an oven mitt was used. Accordingto the manufacturer, the egg should be ‘gentlypushed out’ without any trouble. However, whenthis was tried, the egg, which had stuck to thePoaching Pod around the sides and bottom(Fig. 3), broke apart, creating a mess on the plate.Next, to avoid cutting or nicking the PoachingPods when removing the egg, the researchers useda dull butter knife, which in 60% of the removalsbroke the egg yoke before the egg was completelyremoved, with residual egg sticking to the sidesand bottom of the Poaching Pods.

For Test B (using less water in the pot – seeTable 1 for detailed methods), the Poaching Podsdid not sink; however, for ease of use the sameresults were found as in Test A.

Custard

After baking the custard using the Poaching Pods,it was determined that removal from the water

bath was not a simple task. Because the PoachingPods are pliable and hot from the oven, ovenmitts were needed to remove them from the waterbath so they could be placed on a tray to cool inthe refrigerator. This was also a challenge as thePoaching Pods did not, in every case, want to stayupright. Once they were cooled (overnight) andallowed to set, the issue of how to serve thembecame the next task.

Most often when using traditional bakingmethods and equipment (e.g. Pyrex or ceramicramekins), the product can be served in thesecooking vessels. But serving custard in the Poach-ing Pod to a guest did not seem appropriate. Thisalso presented the dilemma of how to torch thesugar coating onto the custard if you were pre-senting it as crème brule.

Conclusion

According to the manufacturer, the Poaching Podis ‘the first heat-resistant silicone poaching tool.Poaching Pods will not splinter or break, and areheat resistant to 675°F (357°C). The PoachingPod is reusable and cleans up easily in soapywater or in a dishwasher’ (Fusion Brands 2007).The results of this study indicated that the Poach-ing Pods were not easy to use for eggs or custard,nor were they easy to clean after use (either byhand or dishwasher). In addition, the resultingproducts were not acceptable, as in the browningon the custards.

Thus, three areas need to be addressed by themanufacturers. First, instructions on how muchwater needs to be placed in a cooking vesselwill avoid the ‘submerging’ of the Poaching Podswhen poaching eggs. Second, cooking times needto be equated to what is normally considered foracceptable egg poaching. For example, if a user

Figure 3 Results of egg poaching.

Figure 4 Results of custard cooking.

121Silicone poaching pods N. Barber et al.

© 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 117–122

of the Poaching Pod wants to cook a 3-min egg,how long should that take in the Poaching Pod?Finally, the instructions should make recom-mendations of how the Poaching Pods should beremoved from the boiling water if poaching anegg, and how custard should be served if using thePoaching Pod.

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to recognize the TexasTech University Experimental Foodservice Lab foruse of its cooking, baking and testing equipment.

References

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.

Barber N, Broz C, Boyce J (2009). Silicone adjustablebundling devices: do they meet manufacturers’claims during cooking and cleaning. Journal ofFoodservice 20:63–70.

Dow Corning Corporation (2006). 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).

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

Labensky S, Hause A (2007). On Cooking: A Textbookof Culinary Fundamentals, 4th edn. Pearson: UpperSaddle Ridge, NJ.

122 Silicone poaching pods N. Barber et al.

© 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 117–122