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

Barber, Nelson; Broz, Charles; Hammond, Rhonda; Boyce, Janice

doi:10.1111/j.1748-0159.2009.00132.x

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A study by Barber et al (2007) found that traditional metal cake pans produce a product that releases easily from the pan, while the silicone cake pans would not release their product, resulting in damaged finished products. In another study, Barber et al (2009b), found that silicone egg‐poaching pods produce an inferior product to that of the traditional method of poaching. The finished egg product would not release easily from the poaching pod, and the pods often capsized in the cooking vessel.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Egg cooking pods: do they meet manufacturers' claims

Broz

Baldock²,

Blind³

2013

Nutrition & Food Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeResearch on the efficiency of non‐traditional cookware is limited. Manufacturers claim that plastic egg cooking pods (Eggies™) are easy to use, offer a non‐stick product release, and create the perfect hard‐cooked egg. This study attempted to replicate consumer cooking conditions through a comparison of eggs cooked in the cooking pods to eggs cooked in a traditional fashion.Design/methodology/approachUsing two consumer range tops and stainless pans, controlled tests were performed. The results of the tests indicated that egg cooking pods did not produce a better product; they were difficult to use, had poor product release, and were difficult to clean. The products were compared by their visual appeal, and their texture. The pods were then washed and tested for protein residue that could lead to bacterial growth, and potential food‐borne illness in a consumer kitchen.FindingsThe cooked products were placed on clean plates and analyzed by the researcher for visual quality and textural quality, then photographed. Overall, the pod‐cooked egg was an inferior product that was unappealing visually as well as texturally. Optical density (OD) data were utilized to determine the presence of protein residue in the treatments. These data indicate the presence of egg protein remaining on the sterilized O‐rings, male threads, and female threads of the egg pods. Difficulty of use, inability to clean, and harboring of dangerous levels of protein residue negate the viability of this product as tested by the researcher. Despite poor value for consumers, the truly alarming aspect of these studies is the quite real danger of salmonella spp. associated with raw poultry and shell eggs.Social implicationsSalmonella spp. are transmitted through contact with the feces of an infected animal, and shell eggs were identified as a carrier of salmonella in 1988. This fact would appear pertinent to this study. As eggs must pass through a hen's intestinal tract, they are equally susceptible to salmonella spp. as well.Originality/valueThe paper finds that, sold as convenience products that will make consumers' lives easier, these devices rarely deliver an adequate performance. Much as the silicone products listed above, the plastic egg pods failed to release their cooked product. In addition, the non‐traditionally cooked products in all of the studies were inferior to those cooked traditionally.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%