An
Ashton University study found that food dropped on a carpet is less
likely to contain germs than food dropped on laminate and tiled
surfaces.
GETTY IMAGES
31 comments:
Ally O.
said...
I thought that this was pretty disgusting because I have always been used to dropping different foods on different surfaces. I'm never doing that again. This article should have had more facts and details and I thought that it should have had a little bit more depth out into it. Although I learned a lot from this article, I feel as though I could have learned a little bit more. Other than that, I really enjoyed this article because it taught me a lot about something that I just assumed to be clean. I will be way more cautious now that I know the truth behind dropping food! This is gross and I rate this article about 7 out of 10 stars because I learned a lot, but felt as though I could have learned more.
I think that just because the 5 second rule has less bacteria then 30 seconds, that doesn't mean you should eat the food. I mean, it just seems like plain logic that you shouldn't eat it. Also, I think that the 5 second rule has to be true due to the fact that the longer the food is on the floor the longer the time for bacteria to attach and duplicate. Overall, I think the 5 second rule is real but stupid.
Although I understood that the main point of the article was that the 5 second rule had been tested and studied and the main tip is to be cautious of eating off the floor, I was still a little unclear on the message: should or should you not eat food from the floor in a 5-second time period? It seemed as if sometimes the article was arguing for the cause and then against it. Anyway, I thought this was interesting. I thought it was pretty interested that the people testing the rule thought to use different surfaces, and that it actually did affect the result. If I were to guess, I would think that food dropped on outdoor surfaces would have more bacteria than ones dropped on inside surfaces, because outside, bacteria can gather from the underside of people's dirty shoes, more from the air, and lots more from a variety of outdoor-only sources. I think that it's best to avoid food dropped on a sidewalk, but if you dropped food on a carpet indoors, then it might be okay to eat it in 5 seconds or less. In conclusion, I liked the article but I wish it was more clear, and I wish I could have learned more, like Ally O. said.
I think that this article was really interesting. Before the article I never really thought about the reasoning behind the five-second rule, I just did it. At the beginning of the article I was thinking, "Uh Oh I used the five-second rule today, what if it is dangerous?" I convinced myself that it was dangerous, so when I got to the part when It said that it wasn't dangerous I was very relieved. Over all I give this article 8 out of ten.
I disagree with Sam. I don't think you should waste food, but I know no one wants to hear that from me. As I enjoy mostly dry foods, not wet foods, I have always believed that they would get less bacteria on them, and I think that the article said that, but it was unclear. I agree with Lilah that the article didn't really make a point, and with Ally that they didn't tell you a lot of the facts. I think it's cool that they tested it, though. I think as long as you drop it and pick it up right away, it should be okay, but if you go away, and come back two days later, pick it up, and eat it, then you'll probably get sick. This article would be cool if they actually described some more elements about the experiment. I believe that it's hard to find someone who's never eaten food off the floor. I rate this article 3 out of 5 stars this round.
This article is not very informative but still pretty interesting. I have never taken in consideration that the material of the floor might have an impact on how much bacteria might be transfered. I would like to know how the material actually effects it though. I also don't think the playing russian rollete with your guts was a good example. Did they mean that it is like taking chances with your stomach? All in all this was a good article but should have had more information.
Like Juliet, I enjoy many dry foods so my argument may be invalid. I also agree with Lilah and Juliet that the article didn't make a point. I have always believed in the 5 second rule so I was intrigued by this article. Everyone has eaten something off the floor. So even if you think it's gross, most of you are guilty of the crime.
I personally have never trusted the 5 second rule. Before I read this article I thought that there would be more bacteria if dropped on the carpet rather than tile. Now that I had time to think about it, it seems more likely that tile would be worse for dropped food. I think this because tile is walked on more and most families don't walk on the carpet with socks. Also, because rarely do you see that tile is cleaned.
I thought thought that the 5 second rule was fake so I just threw away my food if it touched the ground. But when I read the article, I now no that it isn't likey going to catch bacteria on it. I still think that it will be a bit dirty and won't eat food of the ground. I mad up my own rule called the 3 second rule just to make sure that the food isn't to dirty. I would rate this article a 8 out of 10 because I now know that the 5 second rule is kind of true.
It was very interesting to finally find out the truth about this myth. A lot of people I have been around eat food of off the ground if it has been less than 5 seconds, and previously I have always wondered about it. I'm glad that someone actually tested it out to get scientific data on it. Reading the article, I realized that I probably would have come to the same conclusion (that the food has less bad bacteria but still has some) if I really thought about it. I think that their explanation was pretty good, but, like a lot of the other articles we have seen, it could have been better and longer. In conclusion, it was very fun to finally find out the truth, although the article could have had more information. They tended to jump back and forth between topics a lot while not having enough detail in any of them. 3.75 out of 5.
This article was actually really interesting. When I read in the beginning of the article that the 5-second rule actually worked, I was confused because I once watched an episode of Mythbusters where they tested this theory and it was not true. This being said, there were some differences in the tests. First of all, to drop the food, they just dropped it from the air with their bare hands in Mythbusters, which could have varied the results of the test. Next, they didn't test on diffenent surfaces. I think they only did wood and bathroom tile. Their conclusion was that no matter how long you drop something on the ground for, it still picks up the same amount of bacteria. I think the logic in this is that when you first drop it on the ground, it picks up the bacteria from the spot that it fell on, and the rest of the piece of food takes the bacteria from the air that it would be exposed to anyway. I think that both the Mythbusters' and Ashton University's studies are valid, but I would trust the University's article more because of the way they conducted the experiment. I give this article a 7/10 bceause it could have had more detail.
This article was pretty interesting, however I really can't come to a conclusion about whether or not the 5 second rule is valid or not. The article did not quite say whether it is safe or not safe or if different types of food get different results. For example it did not state whether a chip would collect more bacteria than a piece of pizza, so overall I didn't really like this article due to the fact that it was on both sides of the equation and not really coming to a clear conclusion.
This article was very interesting. I like the way they tested something that almost everyone, 87%, uses. On the othere hand, I disliked the fact that they released the article before they had all the facts, and before the experiment was finished. Overall I give this article a 6/10.
I thought the article could of been more descriptive in terms of getting to the point. At the end of the article, they never mentioned whether it works or not, but instead mentioned that it was inconsistent and that it was like "Russian Roulette". They also said one in six people die a year from food poison, but never said that it was from picking up food from the floor. One last point, is that because this theory has been tested so many times, the product comes out to be the same each time. Unfortunately, this article never said what the final statement was, and what they accomplished by running the tests. I would think more fondly about the article if there was information that was not mentioned in other articles, and if the results were actually in the article.
I thought that this article was very informative. I am very clumsy so I sometimes went off of that rule but now I won't. Although I thought it was very helpful, I agree with Ally O that I wish they included more information. This is a very interesting topic and I might want to do more research on it.
I thought that this article was very informative. I am very clumsy so I sometimes went off of that rule but now I won't. Although I thought it was very helpful, I agree with Ally O that I wish they included more information. This is a very interesting topic and I might want to do more research on it.
I liked but wasn't crazy about this article. I think that it was interesting but I could've learned a lot more from it. All I know is I can say goodbye to the five second rule, because after reading this I will never eat floor food again. People say "5-second rule", but if you're even going to do it, I think that you should consider starting a 1 or 2 second rule. It taught me a bit about how bacteria can attach and duplicate to food though. To be honest I feel kind of guilty when I use the five second rule. I'd give this article a 6 out of 10 stars because it was semi-educational, and partly interesting, but could've been a lot more descriptive.
As soon as I read that it has scientific meaning I was super excited. I have used this rule my entire life. Although I do agree with Sam that it still does have bacteria and you can still get an infection. The only thing is that I haven't got an infection from this and I use this rule all the time. So this article is somewhat true and somewhat false. I wonder if you can go longer than five seconds and if bacteria goes onto the food and duplicates in your mouth or in your stomach. Overall this is a good article, but there is so many ifs that this wasn't enough information.
As soon as I read that it has scientific meaning I was super excited. I have used this rule my entire life. Although I do agree with Sam that it still does have bacteria and you can still get an infection. The only thing is that I haven't got an infection from this and I use this rule all the time. So this article is somewhat true and somewhat false. I wonder if you can go longer than five seconds and if bacteria goes onto the food and duplicates in your mouth or in your stomach. Overall this is a good article, but there is so many ifs that this wasn't enough information.
I have never obeyed the 5 second rule because I always found it disgusting. I agree with Kristin about how we are all guilty of the crime, but rarely will I eat something off of the floor. I agree with many other people in saying, this article did not show enough information. I do not know if I mostly eat wet or dry foods, but in any case, I will definitely be more cautious about dropping things on the ground.
When I saw this article, I got scared because I thought it was going to be talking about how the five second rule doesn't really mean anything and it doesn't make a difference. However, I was surprised to read it and find out that the five second rule infact does have some scientific basis. I am a person who will pretty much each food off of anything... Unless somebody's stepped on it. I do agree with Sam, that just because it has LESS bacteria doesn't mean it doesn't have A LOT of bacteria, but at the same time, everything we touch-- everything we do-- has so much bacteria on it... Honestly, does it make that much of a difference? I'm not saying we shouldn't be careful with eating off of the floor, I'm just saying I don't really think it's THAT big of a deal. And now that I think about it, probably 70% of the time I eat food off the floor it's off of a carpet. And it's not like something people do everyday! Overall, I am as careful as possible to be clean (I can be real germaphobic-like), but I'm not going to suddenly, after reading this article, go crazy about not eating food off of the floor... I already go crazy about too many other things that don't matter...
I read Lilah's comment, and I'd like to agree. The article was really unclear as to whether it was arguing for or against eating food off the floor. It made good points for both sides. I read it and thought "So it's okay to eat food off the floor". But before writing my comment, I read others which were talking about how the article showed them not to eat food off the floor, so that's kind of what I wrote my comment about as well. I think that the idea of the article was great, but I also think it could have been written much better. I'd give it an 8 out of 10 because it wasn't as clear as it could've been.
I think this article was useless and boring. I still think you should not eat stuff that has fallen on the floor no matter what, if its been there for 30 seconds or 2 seconds i don't care. I agree with Sam, the 5 second rule is real but stupid.
Because I have always thought that the "five second rule" was simply a fake rule that people had invented, I was pretty shocked to find out the scientific proof behind it. Actually, I really disliked the article. What conclusion did they come to? I mean, it is common knowledge that a piece of food that is dropped on the floor is bound to pick up some bacteria. If that was the conclusion, it seems as if they were restating what everyone knows. What is the five second rule? That something sitting on the floor for five second or less is still safe to eat? No matter what scientific proof was given in the article, I believe that nothing that has fallen on the floor is healthy. It makes me extremely angry to think that people haven't come to the conclusion that the longer something is on the floor, the more bacteria it will collect. Lastly, I was pretty disgusted that more than 80% percent of people would eat things off the floor. I also don't want to hear that girls are cleaner than boys anymore, after that experiment, I don't believe so.
I believe that the study was conducted by a place called ashton university. This place is so obscure that it doesn't even show up when I look for it, it says, "Were you looking for Aston?" Turns out, it is some out of the way college that is described as a diploma mill. I think that for those of you who thought the article was horrible, this answers a lot of your questions.
When I first clicked on this article, I thought that it was going to be talking about how the five second rule is just a stupid myth and it doesn't do you any good to eat food off the floor. Now, I have to admit I have dropped food on the floor saying, "Five second rule!" and then quickly pick it up and eat it. I don't really go by the five second rule anymore, but like Sam said, even though food that's been on the ground for5 seconds has less bacteria than it does for 30 seconds, it's just illogical to eat it. Getting straight to the point, it's rather disgusting, and can sometimes get you sick. I also saw that Lilah made a very good point. The article didn't make it very clear in which we should or should not eat food off the floor if it's been there for five seconds. It was supporting the idea of the five second rule, but then arguing against it and saying that it's unsanitary. Otherwise, I thought that the article was very interesting, and thought that the experiment where they dropped food on different types of floors, was cool. In addition to the article, I also watched the video that was linked towards the end of the article. It was a fun little video that explained about the bacteria that grows on food dropped on the floor. Looking at this entire post overall, I give it a 3 out of 5 stars.
I've always thought the five second rule was foolish (It's plain logic that something sitting on the ground for 5 seconds would gather less bacteria than if it was sitting for 20 seconds, but once it touches the ground it really IS contaminated, but I never knew that it made such a big difference!). I have dropped good food on the ground before and picked it up in 2-3 seconds (I'll take risks) but I'm always sure to use caution. I like how the researchers went to test whether a piece of food would gain more bacteria on different surfaces for the same amount of time. Also, if you do eat dropped food should you eat it quickly because the bacteria may multiply?
My whole life everybody has taught me that the five second rule is bad. My teachers, my parents, and other adults. Also I thought it is just common sense. I mean if I have a bag full of chips and one falls out, even if it was my last I find it rather disgusting to pick it up and eat it, even though it was only on the ground for "2 seconds". This article was pretty much useless because I am pretty sure nobody is going to start eating things off the floor. I agree with almost everybody's comments. If something fell on the ground for 5 seconds it has less bacteria than if it was there for thirty seconds but it is still yucky and it still has a lot of bacteria on it.
I agree with Sam. The second something hits the ground, there has to be bacteria on it. True, some surfaces attract less bacteria, but it's there nonetheless. Of course, 30 seconds there's going to be more bacteria than after 5 seconds, but as I said before, no matter how much time passes, anything dropped on the floor is contaminated.
This article was interesting. I knew that food accumulated more bacteria when it touched the ground, but I never knew how much. However, food will be contaminated no matter what. Dropping it on the ground only contaminates it more. I also agree with Benjamin. They didn't come to a conclusion as to whether or not the food is safe to eat.
31 comments:
I thought that this was pretty disgusting because I have always been used to dropping different foods on different surfaces. I'm never doing that again. This article should have had more facts and details and I thought that it should have had a little bit more depth out into it. Although I learned a lot from this article, I feel as though I could have learned a little bit more. Other than that, I really enjoyed this article because it taught me a lot about something that I just assumed to be clean. I will be way more cautious now that I know the truth behind dropping food! This is gross and I rate this article about 7 out of 10 stars because I learned a lot, but felt as though I could have learned more.
I think that just because the 5 second rule has less bacteria then 30 seconds, that doesn't mean you should eat the food. I mean, it just seems like plain logic that you shouldn't eat it. Also, I think that the 5 second rule has to be true due to the fact that the longer the food is on the floor the longer the time for bacteria to attach and duplicate. Overall, I think the 5 second rule is real but stupid.
Although I understood that the main point of the article was that the 5 second rule had been tested and studied and the main tip is to be cautious of eating off the floor, I was still a little unclear on the message: should or should you not eat food from the floor in a 5-second time period? It seemed as if sometimes the article was arguing for the cause and then against it.
Anyway, I thought this was interesting. I thought it was pretty interested that the people testing the rule thought to use different surfaces, and that it actually did affect the result. If I were to guess, I would think that food dropped on outdoor surfaces would have more bacteria than ones dropped on inside surfaces, because outside, bacteria can gather from the underside of people's dirty shoes, more from the air, and lots more from a variety of outdoor-only sources. I think that it's best to avoid food dropped on a sidewalk, but if you dropped food on a carpet indoors, then it might be okay to eat it in 5 seconds or less. In conclusion, I liked the article but I wish it was more clear, and I wish I could have learned more, like Ally O. said.
I think that this article was really interesting. Before the article I never really thought about the reasoning behind the five-second rule, I just did it. At the beginning of the article I was thinking, "Uh Oh I used the five-second rule today, what if it is dangerous?" I convinced myself that it was dangerous, so when I got to the part when It said that it wasn't dangerous I was very relieved. Over all I give this article 8 out of ten.
I disagree with Sam. I don't think you should waste food, but I know no one wants to hear that from me. As I enjoy mostly dry foods, not wet foods, I have always believed that they would get less bacteria on them, and I think that the article said that, but it was unclear. I agree with Lilah that the article didn't really make a point, and with Ally that they didn't tell you a lot of the facts. I think it's cool that they tested it, though. I think as long as you drop it and pick it up right away, it should be okay, but if you go away, and come back two days later, pick it up, and eat it, then you'll probably get sick. This article would be cool if they actually described some more elements about the experiment. I believe that it's hard to find someone who's never eaten food off the floor. I rate this article 3 out of 5 stars this round.
This article is not very informative but still pretty interesting. I have never taken in consideration that the material of the floor might have an impact on how much bacteria might be transfered. I would like to know how the material actually effects it though. I also don't think the playing russian rollete with your guts was a good example. Did they mean that it is like taking chances with your stomach? All in all this was a good article but should have had more information.
Like Juliet, I enjoy many dry foods so my argument may be invalid. I also agree with Lilah and Juliet that the article didn't make a point. I have always believed in the 5 second rule so I was intrigued by this article. Everyone has eaten something off the floor. So even if you think it's gross, most of you are guilty of the crime.
I personally have never trusted the 5 second rule. Before I read this article I thought that there would be more bacteria if dropped on the carpet rather than tile. Now that I had time to think about it, it seems more likely that tile would be worse for dropped food.
I think this because tile is walked on more and most families don't walk on the carpet with socks. Also, because rarely do you see that tile is cleaned.
I thought thought that the 5 second rule was fake so I just threw away my food if it touched the ground. But when I read the article, I now no that it isn't likey going to catch bacteria on it. I still think that it will be a bit dirty and won't eat food of the ground. I mad up my own rule called the 3 second rule just to make sure that the food isn't to dirty. I would rate this article a 8 out of 10 because I now know that the 5 second rule is kind of true.
It was very interesting to finally find out the truth about this myth. A lot of people I have been around eat food of off the ground if it has been less than 5 seconds, and previously I have always wondered about it. I'm glad that someone actually tested it out to get scientific data on it. Reading the article, I realized that I probably would have come to the same conclusion (that the food has less bad bacteria but still has some) if I really thought about it. I think that their explanation was pretty good, but, like a lot of the other articles we have seen, it could have been better and longer. In conclusion, it was very fun to finally find out the truth, although the article could have had more information. They tended to jump back and forth between topics a lot while not having enough detail in any of them. 3.75 out of 5.
This article was actually really interesting. When I read in the beginning of the article that the 5-second rule actually worked, I was confused because I once watched an episode of Mythbusters where they tested this theory and it was not true. This being said, there were some differences in the tests. First of all, to drop the food, they just dropped it from the air with their bare hands in Mythbusters, which could have varied the results of the test. Next, they didn't test on diffenent surfaces. I think they only did wood and bathroom tile. Their conclusion was that no matter how long you drop something on the ground for, it still picks up the same amount of bacteria. I think the logic in this is that when you first drop it on the ground, it picks up the bacteria from the spot that it fell on, and the rest of the piece of food takes the bacteria from the air that it would be exposed to anyway. I think that both the Mythbusters' and Ashton University's studies are valid, but I would trust the University's article more because of the way they conducted the experiment. I give this article a 7/10 bceause it could have had more detail.
This article was pretty interesting, however I really can't come to a conclusion about whether or not the 5 second rule is valid or not. The article did not quite say whether it is safe or not safe or if different types of food get different results. For example it did not state whether a chip would collect more bacteria than a piece of pizza, so overall I didn't really like this article due to the fact that it was on both sides of the equation and not really coming to a clear conclusion.
This article was very interesting. I like the way they tested something that almost everyone, 87%, uses. On the othere hand, I disliked the fact that they released the article before they had all the facts, and before the experiment was finished. Overall I give this article a 6/10.
I also agree with JP in that they had not come up with a crystal clear conclusion
I thought the article could of been more descriptive in terms of getting to the point. At the end of the article, they never mentioned whether it works or not, but instead mentioned that it was inconsistent and that it was like "Russian Roulette". They also said one in six people die a year from food poison, but never said that it was from picking up food from the floor. One last point, is that because this theory has been tested so many times, the product comes out to be the same each time. Unfortunately, this article never said what the final statement was, and what they accomplished by running the tests. I would think more fondly about the article if there was information that was not mentioned in other articles, and if the results were actually in the article.
I thought that this article was very informative. I am very clumsy so I sometimes went off of that rule but now I won't. Although I thought it was very helpful, I agree with Ally O that I wish they included more information. This is a very interesting topic and I might want to do more research on it.
I thought that this article was very informative. I am very clumsy so I sometimes went off of that rule but now I won't. Although I thought it was very helpful, I agree with Ally O that I wish they included more information. This is a very interesting topic and I might want to do more research on it.
I liked but wasn't crazy about this article. I think that
it was interesting but I could've learned a lot more from it. All I know is I can say goodbye to the five second rule, because after reading this I will never eat floor food again. People say "5-second rule", but if you're even going to do it, I think that you should consider starting a 1 or 2 second rule. It taught me a bit about how bacteria can attach and duplicate to food though. To be honest I feel kind of guilty when I use the five second rule. I'd give this article a 6 out of 10 stars because it was semi-educational, and partly interesting, but could've been a lot more descriptive.
As soon as I read that it has scientific meaning I was super excited. I have used this rule my entire life. Although I do agree with Sam that it still does have bacteria and you can still get an infection. The only thing is that I haven't got an infection from this and I use this rule all the time. So this article is somewhat true and somewhat false. I wonder if you can go longer than five seconds and if bacteria goes onto the food and duplicates in your mouth or in your stomach. Overall this is a good article, but there is so many ifs that this wasn't enough information.
As soon as I read that it has scientific meaning I was super excited. I have used this rule my entire life. Although I do agree with Sam that it still does have bacteria and you can still get an infection. The only thing is that I haven't got an infection from this and I use this rule all the time. So this article is somewhat true and somewhat false. I wonder if you can go longer than five seconds and if bacteria goes onto the food and duplicates in your mouth or in your stomach. Overall this is a good article, but there is so many ifs that this wasn't enough information.
I have never obeyed the 5 second rule because I always found it disgusting. I agree with Kristin about how we are all guilty of the crime, but rarely will I eat something off of the floor. I agree with many other people in saying, this article did not show enough information. I do not know if I mostly eat wet or dry foods, but in any case, I will definitely be more cautious about dropping things on the ground.
When I saw this article, I got scared because I thought it was going to be talking about how the five second rule doesn't really mean anything and it doesn't make a difference. However, I was surprised to read it and find out that the five second rule infact does have some scientific basis. I am a person who will pretty much each food off of anything... Unless somebody's stepped on it. I do agree with Sam, that just because it has LESS bacteria doesn't mean it doesn't have A LOT of bacteria, but at the same time, everything we touch-- everything we do-- has so much bacteria on it... Honestly, does it make that much of a difference? I'm not saying we shouldn't be careful with eating off of the floor, I'm just saying I don't really think it's THAT big of a deal. And now that I think about it, probably 70% of the time I eat food off the floor it's off of a carpet. And it's not like something people do everyday! Overall, I am as careful as possible to be clean (I can be real germaphobic-like), but I'm not going to suddenly, after reading this article, go crazy about not eating food off of the floor... I already go crazy about too many other things that don't matter...
I read Lilah's comment, and I'd like to agree. The article was really unclear as to whether it was arguing for or against eating food off the floor. It made good points for both sides. I read it and thought "So it's okay to eat food off the floor". But before writing my comment, I read others which were talking about how the article showed them not to eat food off the floor, so that's kind of what I wrote my comment about as well. I think that the idea of the article was great, but I also think it could have been written much better. I'd give it an 8 out of 10 because it wasn't as clear as it could've been.
I think this article was useless and boring. I still think you should not eat stuff that has fallen on the floor no matter what, if its been there for 30 seconds or 2 seconds i don't care. I agree with Sam, the 5 second rule is real but stupid.
Because I have always thought that the "five second rule" was simply a fake rule that people had invented, I was pretty shocked to find out the scientific proof behind it. Actually, I really disliked the article. What conclusion did they come to? I mean, it is common knowledge that a piece of food that is dropped on the floor is bound to pick up some bacteria. If that was the conclusion, it seems as if they were restating what everyone knows. What is the five second rule? That something sitting on the floor for five second or less is still safe to eat? No matter what scientific proof was given in the article, I believe that nothing that has fallen on the floor is healthy. It makes me extremely angry to think that people haven't come to the conclusion that the longer something is on the floor, the more bacteria it will collect. Lastly, I was pretty disgusted that more than 80% percent of people would eat things off the floor. I also don't want to hear that girls are cleaner than boys anymore, after that experiment, I don't believe so.
I believe that the study was conducted by a place called ashton university. This place is so obscure that it doesn't even show up when I look for it, it says, "Were you looking for Aston?" Turns out, it is some out of the way college that is described as a diploma mill. I think that for those of you who thought the article was horrible, this answers a lot of your questions.
When I first clicked on this article, I thought that it was going to be talking about how the five second rule is just a stupid myth and it doesn't do you any good to eat food off the floor. Now, I have to admit I have dropped food on the floor saying, "Five second rule!" and then quickly pick it up and eat it. I don't really go by the five second rule anymore, but like Sam said, even though food that's been on the ground for5 seconds has less bacteria than it does for 30 seconds, it's just illogical to eat it. Getting straight to the point, it's rather disgusting, and can sometimes get you sick. I also saw that Lilah made a very good point. The article didn't make it very clear in which we should or should not eat food off the floor if it's been there for five seconds. It was supporting the idea of the five second rule, but then arguing against it and saying that it's unsanitary. Otherwise, I thought that the article was very interesting, and thought that the experiment where they dropped food on different types of floors, was cool. In addition to the article, I also watched the video that was linked towards the end of the article. It was a fun little video that explained about the bacteria that grows on food dropped on the floor. Looking at this entire post overall, I give it a 3 out of 5 stars.
I've always thought the five second rule was foolish (It's plain logic that something sitting on the ground for 5 seconds would gather less bacteria than if it was sitting for 20 seconds, but once it touches the ground it really IS contaminated, but I never knew that it made such a big difference!). I have dropped good food on the ground before and picked it up in 2-3 seconds (I'll take risks) but I'm always sure to use caution. I like how the researchers went to test whether a piece of food would gain more bacteria on different surfaces for the same amount of time. Also, if you do eat dropped food should you eat it quickly because the bacteria may multiply?
My whole life everybody has taught me that the five second rule is bad. My teachers, my parents, and other adults. Also I thought it is just common sense. I mean if I have a bag full of chips and one falls out, even if it was my last I find it rather disgusting to pick it up and eat it, even though it was only on the ground for "2 seconds". This article was pretty much useless because I am pretty sure nobody is going to start eating things off the floor. I agree with almost everybody's comments. If something fell on the ground for 5 seconds it has less bacteria than if it was there for thirty seconds but it is still yucky and it still has a lot of bacteria on it.
I agree with Sam. The second something hits the ground, there has to be bacteria on it. True, some surfaces attract less bacteria, but it's there nonetheless. Of course, 30 seconds there's going to be more bacteria than after 5 seconds, but as I said before, no matter how much time passes, anything dropped on the floor is contaminated.
This article was interesting. I knew that food accumulated more bacteria when it touched the ground, but I never knew how much. However, food will be contaminated no matter what. Dropping it on the ground only contaminates it more. I also agree with Benjamin. They didn't come to a conclusion as to whether or not the food is safe to eat.
Post a Comment