Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
3/25/2007 1:10:31 PM EDT
So this afternoon we had a tornado watch going and I was getting some gear together just in case. I was wondering, say if you had a bunch of can goods stashed, packed, etc. can you open and heat over flame or is there a liner of some type that would melt and contaminate your food in the process...?
3/25/2007 1:16:55 PM EDT
[#1]
I believe most canned foods are pasturized after they are canned, which would lead me to believe they can withstand a reasonable amount of heat.

Best guess.  If you get sick and die you will know my theory was wrong.


3/25/2007 1:19:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Yes you can heat them up right in the can , make sure you vent the top because it will explode if you don't .
3/25/2007 1:30:09 PM EDT
[#3]
I have recently learned that the food in cans is cooked after the cans are sealed.
3/25/2007 2:10:32 PM EDT
[#4]

Quoted:
I have recently learned that the food in cans is cooked after the cans are sealed.

That is correct.  If you think about it, how do you think they kill the bacteria that causes spoilage? And of course why canned fruits and veggies don't taste like their fresh counterparts, ie because they are cooked in the canning process.
3/25/2007 2:24:00 PM EDT
[#5]

Quoted:
That is correct.  If you think about it, how do you think they kill the bacteria that causes spoilage? And of course why canned fruits and veggies don't taste like their fresh counterparts, ie because they are cooked in the canning process.


Yes, but they are generally steamed or autoclaved.  I think putting direct flame under them could melt the coatings. (But I could be wrong) <shrug>
3/25/2007 2:36:41 PM EDT
[#6]
I cook soup in the can over a pop can stove pretty regular. I've been doing it for some time now. No problems.
3/25/2007 2:51:13 PM EDT
[#7]
 I've cooked pre cooked soups and beef stew in cans before.
First remove the label, then remove the lid.  Then heat with
a low flame.  Stir the food regularly.  Its nice because you dont
have any dishes afterward.  If you dont open the can, it will
blow.  I saw a can explode in a fire once, and the contents
was so hot that when it exploded, the food melted the outer
layer of a nearby sleeping bag.  The guy who did it didnt
know to open the can first.
3/25/2007 2:54:01 PM EDT
[#8]
I have cooked cans in coals during a camp out many times. a leather glove and leatherman is preferred but you can do it with just a leatherman.
3/25/2007 3:30:34 PM EDT
[#9]
The lining in the can may burn and come off in your food.   Before I cook in cans,  I empty them , burn out the lining, scrub out the can and then use it as a pot.  If you burn the can in a very hot fire there is very little left to scrub out.  You can also burn any food remains out of the can after you've cooked in it, thus conserving water.
3/25/2007 4:16:11 PM EDT
[#10]
Nice topic.  I was wondering the same thing about cooking in a can.
3/25/2007 4:36:08 PM EDT
[#11]
I've heated food in cans lots of times, with no apparent ill effects. I've heard a can explode in a trash fire, too. It was a can of string beans which I had forgotten was in the bag of trash, and when it exploded it sounded like dynamite going off.
3/25/2007 5:09:56 PM EDT
[#12]
i've seen a lot of caned food cooked on top of an old woodburning stove.... i've also cooked cans in a waterbath in my titanium cup to keep from having to clean it....

I'm not saying it's a good idea....... but i've never seen anyone die from it or at least it didn't kill them instantly

like others have stated open the can beleive me it's for the children  ...... well that and you'll need new drawrs if you leave it on to long
3/25/2007 5:29:31 PM EDT
[#13]
When i was in the service, sometimes at lunch the cooks would send out with sandwiches a mermite of hot water with individual sized canned soups and chilis.  They wouldn't open the cans, they'd just heat them up in the unopened can in a pot.  It was a nice change from green bologna or an MRE.

I liked the idea, was a very clean and sterile way to handle food in the field.  There is nothing worse than a whole squad of men with the squirts do to mishandled food or poorly cleaned serving containers.

of course for our use if you're using gas fuel it's pretty wasteful.  If you're in camp with a fire going then you can keep a big pot of water over the coals and toss in the cans a while before you're ready to eat.  bonus is you have wash water all ready!

Another thing I recall from years ago is a plastics plant cafeteria that had cans of castleberry stew, chili, and campbells soups in a vending machine.  When you put your money in the can rolled out hot!  Only place I ever saw that from a machine.
3/25/2007 5:58:49 PM EDT
[#14]
Do all cans have a lining it them?  I have seen some vegetables with a white lining in the cans but it appears not all cans have a lining - unless its a coating you can't see.
I've eaten lotsa soup and beans from heated cans with no apparent ill effect.
Only thing is the can heats up quick so use low heat and stir alot.
3/25/2007 6:21:44 PM EDT
[#15]
this is a good subject...one of the best ways to heat rations/food in a can is to boil the can in a messtin ,pot or pan...simply place your can  (YOU MUST PUT A HOLE IN THE TOP OF THE CAN SO IT WON'T EXPLODE) in your pot add water just below the top of the can and boil up your water...this will heat the can of food evenly instead of burning the food in the botom of the can while the top of the can remains cold, if you use a open flame...vince g. 11b inf...
3/25/2007 6:32:42 PM EDT
[#16]
I've done it a bunch of times, never had a probem
3/25/2007 6:36:24 PM EDT
[#17]
I've cooked in cans before....  No ill effects.

I can also say that I've blown up more than my share of cans. In fact, its a pastime of my friends and I to place a few cans in the firepit when we are camping. They usually take a min or so to heat up (and bulge). When they do go, its VERY loud.

Yes, Its a waste. We typically use very old canned goods that we probably wouldnt eat (and are inexpensive)

Best was creamed corn... Landed all over the trailer. Fire smelled like corn for days after it.

3/25/2007 7:27:21 PM EDT
[#18]
We always cook in the can. It leaves one less thing to clean.

Ranch Style beans and corn, I have cooked on a campfire hundreds of times. Take the corn and pour out the juice and put a bunch of butter in it and some salt.....mmmm good.

The only thing you need to remember is to stir the food to make sure it all gets heated. It is possible to burn the bottom and the top be still cool.

Of course you take the label off and cut the top completely off.

Oh yeah that hot can will burn your dinner table if you aren't careful
3/25/2007 7:59:07 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Ranch Style beans and corn, I have cooked on a campfire hundreds of times. Take the corn and pour out the juice and put a bunch of butter in it and some salt.....mmmm good.
quote]

Most of the nutrition, vitamins, etc., are in the juice.  
Pouring it out will lose a lot of this nutritional value.  Use it for soup or in a survival situation, drink it.  
3/25/2007 8:18:27 PM EDT
[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Ranch Style beans and corn, I have cooked on a campfire hundreds of times. Take the corn and pour out the juice and put a bunch of butter in it and some salt.....mmmm good.
quote]

Most of the nutrition, vitamins, etc., are in the juice.  
Pouring it out will lose a lot of this nutritional value.  Use it for soup or in a survival situation, drink it.  


I knew someone was going to say that. I like it that way and if I'm jst cooking a meal....I'm going to add the butter. You have to pour out the "juice" to get the butter to melt.
3/25/2007 8:52:06 PM EDT
[#21]
i do it all the time without any problems, just because it is important enough to bear repeating again ventilate the lid!
3/25/2007 8:59:27 PM EDT
[#22]
I've done this a lot camping, and back in my bachelor days.... never though there would be a problem (and there has't been.)  In todays society, if there was even the slightest posibility of an issue there would be a warning on the can.

I open the can all the way and bend it back for a handle... it needs to be stired frequently as the bottom will heat much faster.
3/25/2007 9:39:18 PM EDT
[#23]
I just compared two cans. One was a can of baked beans and the other a Chef Boyardee product. Both have a inner lining. I lived in a house once that was heated by gas space heaters. I would keep cans of water on the ledge in front of the elements. As the water boiled it would keep a little moisture in the air. I noticed that after two days or so the lining in the can would peel of and float to the surface.   Jim
3/26/2007 1:51:58 AM EDT
[#24]
al3ways cooked that way over open fire to bot have to lug around  a cook set  lol
3/26/2007 4:48:53 AM EDT
[#25]
On the subject of cans.... if there is any chance of them getting wet write whats in the can on the lid with either a sharpie or an awl.  If the labels come off you will be playing roulette every time you open a can.
3/26/2007 6:45:44 AM EDT
[#26]
Small Testes, Moobs, Breast Cancer Risk?


Dr Nigel Brooks, Zeneca CTL
Download the briefing as a PDF file

During our everyday life we are continuously exposed to a cocktail of chemicals which can mimic the actions of the female hormone, estrogen. There is concern that these chemicals, known as environmental estrogens, may have adverse effects on reproductive health in humans and wildlife. Researchers have a key role to play in understanding how these chemicals control the reproductive system, so that we are better able to judge if they really are a hazard to human reproductive health.
The perceived threat - scare or reality?

Declining sperm counts in men, an increased incidence in breast cancer, feminised fish, alligators with small phalluses; these are just some of the adverse changes in reproductive health, reported to have taken place in the past few years, and with one thing in common; they can all be caused by the female hormone estrogen. Recent research has shown that many man made chemicals can act as weak estrogens, mimicking in part the actions of our own natural hormones. These chemicals are present throughout our daily life. They can be found in the plastic lining of food cans, in pesticides, in plastics and in paints. The question is - are these chemicals actually responsible for the increased level of adverse reproductive effects? Is this a scare or reality? Tissue differences in the type and amount of estrogen receptor may explain how natural, synthetic and environmental estrogens could have specific effects in the body. ERa which predominates in Cell 1, prefers to bind a particular type of estrogen (estrogen A) whereas ERb located in Cell 2 (see figure below), prefers another (estrogen B). Following interaction with these estrogens the receptors pair up and bind to estrogen response elements (ERE) in target genes. These genes may contain ERE's which also have a preference for each of the receptors. These complex control mechanisms would allow different types of estrogen (perhaps environmental estrogenic chemicals) to act in a particular part of the body to change the activity of a specific target gene.
The uncertainty

Researchers have known for some time now that if the body is exposed to excessive amounts of estrogen at certain stages in development, this can have adverse reproductive effects. For example, females exposed to estrogens during critical periods of brain sexual development are unable to ovulate as adults, and exhibit male patterns of sexual behaviour. Could environmental estrogens mimic these adverse effects? Another example is found in an intriguing hypothesis to explain how human sperm counts may have declined in the past 50 years. A man's capacity to produce sperm is determined by the number of specialised cells in the testis, called Sertoli cells. Sertoli cell number is regulated by follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) which is secreted from the pituitary gland, but FSH can only do this during a critical period in fetal and early neonatal life. If animals are exposed to a synthetic estrogen called diethylstilbestrol during this critical period, this reduces the amount of FSH produced in the fetal pituitary gland and the testes in the male offspring are smaller, with fewer Sertoli cells.

Testes in the male offspring are smaller, with fewer Sertoli cells.

These animals produce less sperm when they reach adulthood. Can environmental estrogens have similar effects? Researchers have recently shown that when pregnant animals are exposed to a chemical called octylphenol, the secretion of FSH in the fetus is reduced. Octylphenol is a break-down product of a group of chemicals which are used in the manufacture of some detergents and paints, If exposure to this chemical were to take place for long enough during the sensitive period, then this may lead to smaller testes and reduced sperm counts. But a word of caution. We are still uncertain as to the extent to which the human body is actually exposed to chemicals such as octylphenol, and as yet there is no direct proof that there is any link between chemical exposure and changes in sperm counts in man.

Estrogen receptors are promiscuous. They allow many hundreds of different chemicals to bind to them.
Unravelling the mystery - the role of research

In order for estrogenic hormones to exert their many effects in the body of humans, they must first bind to an estrogen receptor, a specialised protein located in target cells, which recognises the hormone and allows it to regulate specific estrogen responsive genes within the cell. Estrogen receptors are promiscuous. They allow many hundreds of different chemicals to bind to them. In some cases the chemicals have structures which are so dissimilar to that of the natural hormone, estradiol, that they would never normally be thought of as having hormonal activity. These chemicals are very weak estrogens by comparison with naturally occurring hormones, but if given in high enough amounts they can activate estrogen receptors in much the same way as natural hormones do. Until recently, it was thought that there was only one estrogen receptor. However, researchers have now discovered a second estrogen receptor (ERb) which prefers to bind certain environmental and natural estrogens compared with the original estrogen receptor (ERa). This new receptor is located in higher amounts in specific tissues in the body, such as the prostate, ovary and brain. Scientists now believe that this combination of different types of estrogen receptor and differing tissue distribution, may be crucial in determining if a particular part of the body is likely to be affected by natural or environmental estrogens (see figure).
Where to from now?

The topic of environmental estrogens is of growing interest. Government agencies in the US and in Europe are eager to introduce methods for testing and interpreting data to allow an assessment of the threat to human health from exposure to endocrine disruptors. Even with a variety of different tests in place, human hazard assessment will be a challenging task. Researchers have an exciting time ahead, as they unravel the many complex ways in which natural and environmental estrogens interact with the reproductive system.