Running-water thawing is still one of the most common methods in commercial kitchens — but it is also one of the least safe, least predictable, and most resource-intensive practices still in use today. What used to be seen as a convenience is now recognized by food-safety experts as a major liability.

This article breaks down why running faucets create hidden risk, what the FDA and California Food Code actually require, and why modern continuous-movement systems are rapidly replacing this outdated practice.

1. Running Water Thaws Only a Small Portion of the Food

Operators assume running water “bathes” the food, but in reality:

  • Only one point of the product is being hit by water

  • The rest sits partially exposed to warm air

  • Heat transfer is inconsistent and slow

  • Warm pockets form on surfaces above the waterline

This results in:

  • Uneven thawing

  • Temperature swings

  • Higher bacterial growth risk

Compare this to full-submersion thawing, where 100% of the surface area is in equal contact with temperature-controlled water.

See also:
Cold Water vs Walk-In vs CNSRV: Full Comparison

2. Tap Water Often Exceeds the 70°F Limit Required by Code

FDA Food Code + CA Retail Food Code require:

  • Water must be ≤70°F

  • The process must finish in ≤2 hours

But in practice:

  • Many regions supply tap water at 75–85°F, especially in summer

  • Kitchen staff rarely measure water temperature

  • Thawing times for large proteins often exceed 2 hours

  • Faucet settings drift as operators step away

This means most running-water thawing quietly violates code without anyone realizing it.

For more, see:
Understanding FDA & California Thawing Requirements

3. Running Water Allows Warm Zones to Develop

Even when the water is cool enough, running-water thawing has structural temperature problems:

  • Only the splashed side thaws

  • The top of the product warms into the danger zone

  • The underside sits in stagnant water with poor movement

This temperature stratification is why health departments treat running-water thawing as high-risk unless tightly controlled.

Contrast with continuous circulation systems, which prevent warm pockets entirely.

4. Water Waste Is Extreme — And Completely Unnecessary

Commercial faucet flow rates: 6–10 gallons per minute
Running-water thawing for typical proteins: 20–60 minutes

This means:

  • 45 minutes × 8 gpm = ~360 gallons per cycle

  • Large proteins like turkeys can require >3,000 gallons

  • A single kitchen can waste hundreds of thousands of gallons per year

Hotels, groceries, and high-volume restaurants pay enormous water/sewer bills because of this.


5. Labor and Operational Problems

Operators must:

  • Monitor the water temperature

  • Adjust the faucet flow

  • Ensure the product stays submerged

  • Keep the process under the 2-hour limit

But in reality:

  • Staff step away

  • Water temperature increases

  • Items float or shift position

  • Timing isn’t tracked

This creates inconsistent results and real safety risks.

6. Why Modern Systems Are Replacing Running Water

Continuous-movement thawing systems like CNSRV DC:02:

  • Maintain water <70°F

  • Fully submerge food

  • Circulate water at ~130 GPM

  • Avoid warm zones

  • Reduce water use by 98%

  • Thaw food up to 50% faster

They eliminate the guesswork and dramatically reduce compliance liability.

Explore the technology:
👉 CNSRV DC:02 Product Page

Bottom Line

Running-water thawing is:

  • Inconsistent

  • Risky

  • Resource-intensive

  • Often out of compliance

  • Scientifically inferior to full-surface, controlled thawing

Modern operators are shifting to continuous-movement systems that improve safety, speed, uniformity, and sustainability.