Danger Zone: worksheet
Write about the activity only. Leave out names, class periods, emails, and other personal details.
Predict using the game's count categories before each trial. Record time and temperature, then explain the result. Counts, illness outcomes, and cooling curves are illustrative; use official food-handling guidance outside the game.
FACS.2.COM.4
Level 1: Picnic at 75 F
| Predicted count category | Time out / limit (min) | Peak count / game result | Passed? |
|---|---|---|---|
1. Compare your predicted and measured count category. How long was the food out, and what was the time limit? FACS.2.COM.4
2. Why does normal appearance or smell not prove that food has been handled safely? FACS.2.COM.4
Level 2: Heat wave at 95 F
| Predicted count category | Time out / limit (min) | Peak count / game result | Passed? |
|---|---|---|---|
3. Record the same plan at 75 F and 95 F. What changed in the time limit and outcome? FACS.2.COM.4
4. In the heat wave, why is two hours on the table followed by ice not enough to pass? FACS.2.COM.4
Level 3: Leftover chili
| Predicted count category | Container / delay / reheat | Center cooling / game result | Passed? |
|---|---|---|---|
5. Record your container, fridge delay, and reheat temperature. Compare center cooling with the edge. FACS.2.COM.4
6. Why can reheating fail to rescue a plan that was mishandled earlier? Separate the game rule from real food-safety guidance. FACS.2.COM.4
When a trial missed
7. Pick one trial that missed. Which level was it, and what went wrong? Use the rule the game showed you. FACS.2.COM.4
Wrap-up
8. Use a claim, evidence from two trials, and reasoning to explain why prevention matters more than trying to fix unsafe handling later. FACS.2.COM.4
| Claim | |
|---|---|
| Evidence | |
| Reasoning |