Close
today i learned (til)

The Pot That Keeps on Giving: Perpetual Stew

October 31, 2025

Image adapted from “Perpetual stew laughing” taken by Annie Rauwerda is CC BY-SA 4.0.

Would you eat stew from a pot that’s been cooking for over 45 years?For most people, the concept of eating food that has existed for such a long time sounds concerning to say the least. Surely, no one has kept a pot of stew for years.

Well, it is a very real thing, and it is called perpetual stew! The idea is to keep a pot of stew simmering over a certain temperature at all times to prevent harmful microorganisms from growing. In theory, it is safe, and there are even restaurants around the world serving it to customers. So, would you try perpetual stew?

Perpetual Stew: What is it?

Perpetual stew can be known as forever soup or hunter’s stew. Essentially, it is a pot of stew that is constantly kept cooking over heat. Over time, people can take from the stew, eat it, and replenish it with water and more ingredients (Murashima, 2025). In this case, “time” could range anywhere from a number of days to even years. 

In modern days, the concept has gained a good deal of traction all over the internet after some influencers have tried their hand at making the stew themselves. One blog writes about how Rauwerda, an influencer online, created her own perpetual stew over the course of 2 months, inviting friends, family, and even strangers to add to the stew (Martinko, 2024). The idea certainly draws a lot of attention, but how safe is this practice in reality?

Is it Safe to Eat?

Naturally, there is a cause for concern when consuming something that has been left “out” for such a long period of time. Most people would be concerned about the food spoiling if it was left out for a few days, not to mention a couple years.

Food spoilage is generally caused by a large number of different microorganisms like protists, fungi, and bacteria (Rawat, 2015). Although they are not visible to the human eye, microorganisms are generally found everywhere. Under the right conditions, these kinds of organisms can reproduce rather rapidly and cause harm to the human body. For instance, one research article describes how spore-forming bacteria can grow in heat-treated foods and survive at temperatures up to 55°C (Rawat, 2015). This means that despite being heated, foods like stews can still harbor harmful bacteria. Hypothetically, though, the stew may be safe to eat if it is constantly kept at around 60°C, a temperature above the threshold that those bacteria can survive (Murashima, 2025). If the stew ever dips below that temperature, though, it may be best to discard that pot and start over. After all, bacteria can appear and multiply within just a few hours.

Not as Strange as it Sounds

Perpetual stew isn’t something that you can just make at home either! In some parts of the world, the stew is actually sold in restaurants. One family-owned establishment in Bangkok, Thailand called Wattana Panich serves a beef noodle broth that has been cooking for over 45 years (Sullivan, 2019). The family keeps the broth cooking all day, selling it to customers from around the world. However, the practice is not as simple as keeping the pot boiling at all hours of the day. Nattapong Kaweeantawong, the owner of the restaurant, describes how the family only takes a small part of the original soup every night and keeps it over a constant simmer. The rest of the soup is then removed from the pot so that it can be cleaned, and the small bit of soup that was put aside is then used to make a new soup the next day (Sullivan, 2019). Thus, the restaurant has not kept the entire pot of soup for 45 years, but rather a small part of the old soup is kept as the “starter” for the new soup each day. 

Although from a microbiological perspective it may not be the exact same, the concept of keeping a portion of old foods as a starter to make new ones isn’t foreign at all. Sourdough bread is made with a starter that includes a multitude of microorganisms that cause fermentation, including Lactobacillus (Corsetti & Settanni, 2007). Kombucha is fermented tea, which includes the use of bacteria and yeast. Vietnamese yogurt is made with a starter as well, where the cook will always keep a portion of the previous batch of yogurt to make a new one. 

Therefore, perpetual stew may not be as scary as it sounds! Perhaps it is simply a cultural thing or a matter of opening your mind, but it isn’t just a pot of boiling rotten food. It may not be the best idea to try making the stew at home, since there are many ways for the stew to go wrong without the proper knowledge. However, it could be a dish worth trying when travelling abroad!

Would you ever consider trying a stew that’s been brewing for years?

 

References:

Corsetti, A. and Settanni, L. (2007), Lactobacilli in sourdough fermentation, Food Research International, Volume 40, Issue 5, Pages 539-558, ISSN 0963-9969, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2006.11.001. 

Martinko, K (2024). Meet Perpetual Stew: The Medieval Soup That Became a Social Media Sensation. AllRecipes. https://www.allrecipes.com/what-is-perpetual-stew 

Murashima, C. (2025). Want to try perpetual stew? Some tips for avoiding foodborne illness. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/11/nx-s1-5422245/perpetual-stew-safety-tips 

Rawat, S. (2015). Food Spoilage: Microorganisms and their prevention. Asian journal of plant science and Research, 5(4), 47-56.

Sullivan, M. (2019). Soup’s On! And On! Thai Beef Noodle Brew Has Been Simmering For 45 Years. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/11/03/772030934/soups-on-and-on-thai-beef-noodle-brew-has-been-simmering-for-45-years 

0Likes
About Author

Hey hi! I'm a CS major here at Georgia Tech that enjoys learning all things art and design.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
AI & Historical Texts
today i learned (til)
Is the Dark Web a Playground for Criminals or a Tool for Good?
today i learned (til)
A Reflection on Planning Educational Children’s Activities
today i learned (til)
Vertigo: Living like you’re on a perpetual rollercoaster

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.