0

I really want to make the SW coke gammon in the slow cooker, but I'm going to be out of the house for around 6 hours is it safe to leave it unattended?

Debbie M.
  • 5,325
  • 7
  • 27
  • 45
Jennie
  • 1
  • 1
  • 2
  • Hi Jennie! I am not sure what you mean by "is it safe". Are you asking if you can leave a slow cooker unattended for 6 hours? Are you afraid of the carbonation in the coke damaging the cooker after heating? Something else? – rumtscho Apr 04 '17 at 17:38
  • 2
    I've seen a few recipes for braising in soda ... and many of them specifically say not to use diet soda. I don't know if it's the sweeteners breaking down under heat, or what. – Joe Apr 04 '17 at 18:16
  • 1
    Sorry didn't explain fully. Yeah to leave it unattended – Jennie Apr 04 '17 at 18:33
  • Are you talking about [this recipe](http://tastefullyvikkie.com/2016/05/12/slimming-world-slow-cooker-cola-gammon-2-syn-the-lot/)? More often than not, including a link to the recipe is helpful to the question. :D – Catija Apr 04 '17 at 20:08
  • @Jefromi : and that "duplicate" mentioned diet soda where? That's a related, not a duplicate. – Joe Apr 05 '17 at 00:36
  • 2
    @Joe Is there something that's unsafe with diet soda specifically? I'm happy to reopen if so, but the closest I see here is that it foams when you boil it - but slow cookers don't bring things to a boil rapidly. (It might need clarification before reopening, though, because it's gotten answers about the quality of the recipe instead, and even health.) – Cascabel Apr 05 '17 at 01:24
  • 1
    OP states clearly that the focus in on cooking time, not diet soda, so I think this is a dupe. – Stephie Apr 05 '17 at 10:25

2 Answers2

3

We've slow cooked gammon in (full sugar) coke before, and what happens is that all the CO2 comes out in the first few minutes as it comes up to temperature. So if you start (as we do and most recipes suggest) by bringing the cooking liquid to the boil the foaming will happen while you're standing over it.

This makes sense as gases are less soluble in hot liquids than cold; in fact I've used heating in the lab to drive off dissolved gas.

Most of the sugar is poured away in the cooking liquid, so there's not much benefit (in terms of calories) from using diet. If you plan to finish the gammon off with direct heat for browning, sugary coke is likely to give a nicer finished item (colour, flavour and smell). Some sweeteners go bitter when cooked too hot (and the reaction products may not be good to eat), while sugar caramelises.

Chris H
  • 42,952
  • 1
  • 86
  • 147
2

If you're asking in reference to the artificial sweeteners, I'd say it's probably not a great idea, but not necessarily for safety reasons.

Aspartame is the most common artificial sweetener, and the one used in most varieties of Diet Coke (apparently there are some, less common that use Splenda).

There are a lot of claims about health risks of aspartame, however, the general laboratory-tested medical and scientific consensus is that it's relatively safe. When aspartame breaks down, it breaks down into Phenylanaline, aspartic acid, and methanol, mainly, and also formaldehyde. The ratio of the first three are something like 4:5:1. Keep in mind what makes a sweetener "low cal" is the fact that much less of it is needed to attain the sweetening. Overall, as it breaks down, the exposure, though daunting to read or hear what it breaks down into, is really fairly trace and does not cause harm. I suspect people would never eat if they realized all the by-products we are regularly exposed to.

So, this "break down" happens in our natural digestive processes, and we are exposed to the components. When aspartame is heated, it starts breaking down, without our digestive systems getting a chance to work on it. Does this somehow expose us to MORE of those substances? I don't believe it does, it just happens before initial ingestion if it's already breaking down.

However, if the heat is making it break down, that means what is in the heated solution is no longer aspartame, but, rather, phenylanaline (an amino acid), aspartic acid and methanol. That combination probably does not deliver the flavor sweetening because it is no longer, molecularly, aspartame, the sweetener that gets its sweetening characteristic from its molecular structure.

I suspect your taste will be markedly different if any significant amount of the sweetener breaks down (which usually happens after it's traveled past your taste buds and into your digestive tract) into its component parts before you ever get a chance to put it in your mouth. If you slow cook it, that's a long time heating and breaking down the sweetener.

PoloHoleSet
  • 3,634
  • 17
  • 20
  • Asking about the health effects of the artificial sweetners might not be on topic. The question seems to be phrased in regards to an unattended slow cooker. – Catija Apr 04 '17 at 21:44
  • 2
    @Catija - You'll see the my recommendation is focused on the taste of the ingredients and possible unintended consequences of using an artificial sweetener on the final taste. – PoloHoleSet Apr 04 '17 at 21:48
  • That information has no bearing on the question, though. You don't even address whether it's safe to leave it unattended or not. This is likely useful info but it doesn't answer the question. Also, your third paragraph is specifically about health. – Catija Apr 04 '17 at 21:54
  • 1
    It's sort of a nonissue because this is a duplicate, so the answers to the actual question exist elsewhere, but Catija does have a point here: yes, you wrote something that'd be a good answer to "is it a good idea to use artificial sweeteners in a slow cooker recipe like this", but that wasn't the question. – Cascabel Apr 04 '17 at 23:19
  • @Jefromi - since the title is "slow cooking with Diet Coke," it seemed appropriate to address something specific to that substance. As it seems to stand now, the question title should be changed to "can I leave a slow cooker unwatched?" since it has nothing at all to do with Diet Coke. – PoloHoleSet Apr 05 '17 at 13:28
  • 1
    People often don't pick great titles, especially new users, and it's important to look at the whole question and see what they actually ask. I do try to edit titles a lot because people tend to put a lot of weight on them; you can suggest edits too. – Cascabel Apr 05 '17 at 14:13
  • @Catija - "your third paragraph is specifically about health" - well, yes, because if I just say "health is not an issue" on a stackexchange site without backing it up I get down-voted for "hand-waving." So I mention it is not really an issue, and then back it up. Regardless, if that's not relevant, and it's just a matter of leaving it alone, and that's an exact duplicate of other answered questions, why are you harping on my answer instead asking to delete the question? – PoloHoleSet Apr 05 '17 at 14:45
  • We don't delete questions that are duplicates. That isn't how SE works. I hardly think that two comments are "harping", particularly since they say different things. – Catija Apr 05 '17 at 15:02
  • @Catija - sorry, "close," not delete. Or does **THIS** SE not close duplicates? – PoloHoleSet Apr 05 '17 at 15:05
  • I'm confused... this question **is** closed as a duplicate? I don't have the entire contents of this site downloaded into my brain any more than you do. If that were the case, you could just as easily be asked "why are you answering this question if it's a duplicate"... the answer is the same. Neither of us **knew**. The dupe predates my use of this site by at least two years. – Catija Apr 05 '17 at 15:15
  • @Catija - I never said that, though it looks like it was temporarily (based on comments under the question). Not sure why it was re-opened. – PoloHoleSet Apr 05 '17 at 15:20
  • It's still showing up as closed to me. The question title ends with [duplicate] and it has the duplicate banner with the link to the other question. The edit history only has it being closed as a duplicate and no sign of it being reopened and reclosed. It's common for a moderator who unilaterally closes things to state that, should the question be clarified to explain why it's not a dupe, it may be reopened, so I'm guessing that's what @Jefromi means by the comment. – Catija Apr 05 '17 at 15:23
  • Whoops, me too, now, though once I answer a question, I don't notice its status that closely, so maybe before, too. Have a good rest of your day! – PoloHoleSet Apr 05 '17 at 15:24
  • I wasn't really suggesting reopening here, just that in general if you're thinking "should be edited" then, well, edit :) Since duplicates do stick around as signposts, there's some value in editing them, though of course less than open questions. (On the question I *conditionally* mentioned reopening - if it's not actually a duplicate, then it should of course be reopened, but if so it's unclear and needs editing.) – Cascabel Apr 05 '17 at 15:26
  • @Jefromi - I understood what you meant. Editing as I think it should be edited would have made it entirely indistinguishable from the marked duplicates, since the title would also have matched, so I passed. – PoloHoleSet Apr 05 '17 at 15:28