annecros

Lots of great suggestions here, and the first thing I would do would be to drop it into a bottle of vodka and hide it from myself! Only thing I can add is steeping vanilla bean in a good bottle of bourbon. Great for dark cakes and cookies, and makes the most amazing bourbon pecan pie!

Are the ones who made these decisions career civil service personnel or political appointees? Anyway, though, part of the reason I probably have a different take on civil servants is that, as a city employee (Brooklyn College), I am a type of civil servant, and so were my parents, who were both full-time professors in the CUNY system (my mother still is). I'm not a bureaucrat, though, thank goodness (that kind of work would bore me to death, and I surely don't disagree that there's a lot of red tape that does no-one any good). I agree about institutional food. The solution for me was for my mother to make a bag lunch for me, and when I got a bit older, for me to make my own sandwich (though I think my mother still saw to it that she packed fruit, juice, milk, a few raw vegetables and, yes, a cookie or two). ← I understand your position much better now. Honestly, I have a lot of contact with the people who do the real work in the particular agency (a subagency of the DoD) I specialize in, and have nothing but admiration for them. Yes, career civil servants are making decisions that impact the welfare of literally millions and millions of people, and base their decisions depending upon the whims of appointees who are appointed by appointees of elected people. I could save the Government so much money and deliver higher quality any day of the week, and because a lot of the proposal work I do is tied to DoD benefits, I see on a regular basis situations in which people who are in a cash strapped situation are not getting what they deserve, and who could be living a higher quality of life. And there is nothing I can do about it because the GS-9 wants to keep an appointee happy so they can finish doing their time. The only thing worse is when a high level civil servant retires and decides its time to parlay contacts and influence into a second career. If you want to see real waste, fraud and abuse then appoint a panel. The foregone conclusion that was reached before the panel was organized is always reached in the end. It works every time, regardless of the facts. I do the best I can though, both for my clients but more importantly for those who need the benefit. I play the game, and try to get the best deal I can. Every now and then I am even successful, and am proud of that. I better shut up on the subject now.

All of these points are well taken, Anne. But the thing is, civil servants for the most part are there to execute and not make policy, and therefore don't get to decide which fish they're going to fry. I'm definitely sympathetic to the argument that there are much more important health issues than an effort to ban trans fats (except from schools below college level, which act in loco parentis toward minor students), but I can't blame the rank-and-file civil servants for doing the jobs they've been asked to do. The credit or blame rests higher up. ← The credit or blame lies with the policy makers and deciders who are on the panel, who ARE civil service workers, and who determined what the regulations would be. Nothing about this ban was legislated and it is not the "will of people" as the people were not consulted. I think you may have a different picture of civil servants than I do and that's understandable, but I work with contracting officers who play politics within a huge government agency on a regular basis. It's not pretty. I've really enjoyed this topic, and thank you for your insights. I do value and appreciate your opinion. I do agree that trans fats do not belong in the public school system, but honestly the crap the kids are fed there is sometimes worse on any given day.

That's not waste, that's recycling! You'll get either more food or beautiful flowers in the end. Edited to add: I've been accumulating shrimp shells all year. A stock will come from all this soon. I don't consider making stock out of bones, skin or shells waste. ← I have a very interesting collection of frozen fish heads and trimmings in the freezer. Time to clean them out though and make stock, and what does not get used, will be BURIED DEEP in the compost pile! Reminds me of my uncle, long departed, who used to go out in the back yard after each fishing trip and bury the waste from cleaning the fish under newly planted trees.

Right. The members of the New York City Board of Health are not elected directly, but they are appointed by the mayor, an elected official, and confirmed by the City Council, also elected officials. This is similar to the way federal judges are appointed and confirmed (I'd have to look up whether there's a term of service for the Board of Health or if you just stay on it forever). Regarding a point that was raised earlier, most members of the Board of Health are either MDs, MPHs or PhDs, though I believe there may be one uncredentialed hospital administrator on it. The Board of Health was created in 1866, actually, so it's nothing new (it has changed a bit since then, but it's similar). ← on Appointed or not, elected or not, PhD or MD or MPH or not, there are much bigger risks to the public health on the streets of NYC than a tiny bit of trans fat in a cookie in the window. The stuff floating around in the hot dog water and the mud puddles, crack and heroin and unprotected sex, malnourished children, the stuff on the floorboard in the back of a cab - all come to mind. Why are trans fats a priority, and couldn't those brilliant minds be put to work resolving much more important issues? All those resources running around the city snooping in the back kitchen for a bit of trans fat. It would be funny, if it were not so pathetic. I doubt that in 1866 when the Board of Health was formed, that it was envisioned fir the purpose of policing crisco in the city. Call me a skeptic.

Oh, I do not dismiss them all. Quite the contrary. I think I have expressly stated my support of the immunization program clearly, and my hopeful encouragement that they spend time eradicating rodent hair, bug parts and human/animal feces from the food supply. More power to them in such persuits, and objectively those are tax dollars well spent. As a sufferer of a progressive, chronic illness - I have more respect for the medical profession in general than you would believe. I have had the priviledge of knowing some remarkable doctors who do an amazing job. I just don't want them in my pantry and fridge confiscating anything they deem inappropriate, especially if they are 20 or 30 layers removed from my individual case. And quite frankly, the best doctors out there have better things to do. Also, the general consensus is among the majority of doctors is well, ya gotta live too. Something about the day to day morbidity they face makes them pragmatists, I think. I'm not real big on the "living, breathing" constitution thing. Literalist here. I guess you can tell! ← I decline to get into an argument over literalism and what that should consist of, if anything, and how every later amendment would fit into such a philosophy. That goes to legal philosophy and the investigation and interpretation of history. But your not wanting civil servants enforcing bans on foodstuffs is a disagreement on policy, not a question of whether all the civil servants dealing with food policy are all non-specialists or somehow otherwise of questionable competence ("jacks of all trades, and masters of none"). I continue not to see the need to attack the entire staff of a bunch of government agencies, because you would rather they were not employed to do the particular jobs they have been hired to perform. Doesn't it make more sense to attack the higher-ups who are responsible for creating the policies you so strongly oppose? Even in the case of this particular ban, elected officials such as Mayor Bloomberg, with the allowance of the courts and higher-level governments, are ultimately responsible. Very sorry about the chronic illness! And of course there are good and bad doctors, as there are good and bad civil servants, good and bad cooks, etc., etc. ← Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that the buck stops with Bloomberg. I am sorry that I gave you the impression that I hate all civil servants, because I don't. I strongly dislike big government - and my point is, they have much bigger fish to fry that fall within the parameters of the job they were hired to do. Honestly, trans fats are already disappearing on their own, through market demand. People are choosing on their own. I find the whole concept that a government entity is regulating food stuffs intrusive and disturbing. I find it condescending and rather insulting that a panel plans to discipline the eating habits of citizens "for their own good" - and quite frankly, really don't see anything positive being accomplished after gazillions of dollars are spent. An exercise in futility. But I feel that way about a lot of things that don't belong in this discussion.

Who would have thought that there were hand wringing "fat cats" in New York who have a problem with two tablespoons of crisco in a pie crust in the first place? But, here ya have it. Not being able to enforce regulations has never stopped bureaucrat's from creating new ones. It is called "budgeting for next year" and those additional dollars have to come from somewhere, and be justified somehow. Special interests also have budgets to defend, and have to show concrete results to donors. I am a proposal writer for government contracts in my spare time. Interesting work, and an amazing way to gain insight into the mentality of a typical civil service worker (contracting officers in my case) - you wouldn't believe. ← Bureaucrats rarely make up their own rules only procedures, elected officials usually make the rules. ← Tell that to the unelected panel that banned trans fats in NYC.

Oh, I do not dismiss them all. Quite the contrary. I think I have expressly stated my support of the immunization program clearly, and my hopeful encouragement that they spend time eradicating rodent hair, bug parts and human/animal feces from the food supply. More power to them in such persuits, and objectively those are tax dollars well spent. As a sufferer of a progressive, chronic illness - I have more respect for the medical profession in general than you would believe. I have had the priviledge of knowing some remarkable doctors who do an amazing job. I just don't want them in my pantry and fridge confiscating anything they deem inappropriate, especially if they are 20 or 30 layers removed from my individual case. And quite frankly, the best doctors out there have better things to do. Also, the general consensus is among the majority of doctors is well, ya gotta live too. Something about the day to day morbidity they face makes them pragmatists, I think. I'm not real big on the "living, breathing" constitution thing. Literalist here. I guess you can tell!

Who would have thought that there were hand wringing "fat cats" in New York who have a problem with two tablespoons of crisco in a pie crust in the first place? But, here ya have it. Not being able to enforce regulations has never stopped bureaucrat's from creating new ones. It is called "budgeting for next year" and those additional dollars have to come from somewhere, and be justified somehow. Special interests also have budgets to defend, and have to show concrete results to donors. I am a proposal writer for government contracts in my spare time. Interesting work, and an amazing way to gain insight into the mentality of a typical civil service worker (contracting officers in my case) - you wouldn't believe.

You assume incorrectly. But in New York City you're going to get about as far in the trans fat debate with libertarian arguments as you'd get by showing up at a Klan meeting and defending the Jews. We'll always have New Jersey, though. ← My apologies for my bad assumption. I've seen New York change in a multitude of ways, in many different directions over the years. Even the Klan is not a power broker in the south these days. I will respectfully hold out hope for the populace! "My" libertarian arguments are simply arguments, and will stand on their own merits.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2006/pr114-06.shtml ← A cursory examination of those in support of the trans fat ban, also expressed concern that sat fats would be substituted, and concluded that would be bad. It wasn't an all encompassing endorsement of the ban, sorry to say. Are you really endorsing a world without fat? Your defeatist attitude upon infringement of personal liberty ("the slope is already there, so hang on to the bobsled" mentality) belies your support of the ban, I assume. How do you propose to ban naturally occuring trans fat? How do you figure that this is going to be enforced? How would you explain the lengenthing of life expectancy over the last 100 years during the time that trans fats have become a small component of daily intake of fats? Why do you think giving the state the right to approve or dissapprove of fats is a good thing, and of what benefit will that give the residents of the state? There are other activities with much more inherent health risks, including walking in the rain and eating foie gras. I think it is more of a case of special interests infringing upon the rights of individuals, and the fat cats in their government jobs justifying thier existance. All, In My Humble Opinion.

Yep, Regulaters are a self perpetuating burden on the population. Allowing people to make their own choices doesn't open up new civil service billets or provide job security, does it? I would have to disagree that "almost everyone" supports the regulatory state. Perhaps aspects like an immunization program - but not a Big Brother snatching a fork from your hand.

Plenty of them are medical doctors, and their mandate is broad. Here's a brief organizational overview of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene: ← THIS is the problem and you have illustrated it perfectly! Jacks of all trades, and masters of none. Big, bloated, overreaching, inefficient Bureaucracy. I cannot believe that this is what the founding fathers had in mind.

The problem with regulating consumption of any particular item is that it is applied in a blanket fashion, controlling consumption for those who have no need to limit fats along with the morbidly obese. I can think of a couple of young actresses who could stand a double fisted size hamburger and a super sized order of fries and a milkshake from time to time. Ironically, the ones that come to mind most readily are quite often photographed in New York. Our public health regulators should focus on contamination type issues, not taking out a weight watcher's scale and a set of calipers to see if they can pinch an inch every time a person sits down to eat. That is the role they are meant to fulfill as far as concern for the welfare of the public. They aren't doctors, for goodness sake. Labeling empowers people to make informed choices. If they choose to ignore the warning label, well it's a free country. I don't think that anyone in this day and age that chooses to smoke should have a basis for a lawsuit against the manufacturer, and they don't. But being a self supporting adult, they have a right to smoke if they find it enjoyable, and it's nobody elses business. The same for alcohol, chocolate, etc. etc. Those who are determinedly self destructive with their personal habits, well prohibition is no solution either. They'll get what they need one way or another, in one form or another, regardless. I'll be picking up my rib roast for Christmas today, and looking forward to the yorkies, bernaise sauce, caramel cake and cheesecake on the 25th. Probably lots of carb laden bread slathered with butter as well. You can take that meal from me when you can pry it from my cold dead hands!

I hate wasting food as well, and do think it is a sin, however my apple cores and orange peels (if not used for other things) go onto the compost pile.

yeah, flying to japan is like $800 round trip - probably more. (at least from BWI to Narita). eating steak and then doing lines, who does lines on a full stomach anyways? I have never had kobe steak or white truffles, but is this how much they usually cost? I mean, did she eat a pound of white truffles or something with her steak? lucky bitch ← I know. I can't help but think I would have enjoyed LUNCH so much more than she did. But, oh well.

Oh, you are so right! I feel better now. It is just a local anomoly. Ban in restaurants, and then go next door and buy a barrel of it? Funny, and sort of negates the "its the children" argument as well. Thank you. I will really retire now. I promise.

An argument can be made that there are other Constitutional provisions more important than the purpose of "[promoting] the general welfare," but the Constitutional basis for these actions, misguided or not as the actions may be, is right there. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear that the courts will not rule that governments have no right to "encroach on the right of the people to make decisions for themselves." Most every law in fact impinges on that right, which is not absolute; otherwise, murder wouldn't be prohibited (or, if you want a victimless crime, it would be legal to purchase any drug anyone wanted to purchase for personal use). Now, you may be a diehard libertarian, and that's a respectable and logical position, but it isn't really relevant to the reality of the situation, which is that governments (Federal or lower) DO have the power to encroach on people's rights to make decisions about what they put into their own bodies and, therefore, that the only counterarguments that are likely to have any effect would have to do with just how dangerous this chemical is and what economic impact the ban will have. And my guess is that the ban will be tried for a few years or so and then judged as to its actual effects. ← It's wonderfully vague though, isn't it? That's why attorneys are so successful. The Constitution can be interpreted in many ways, and the statement, "promote the general welfare" is no exception. What qualifies as promoting the general welfare? Where's the line between protecting the people and limiting the choices available? This is all debatable. There's a difference between a ban on drunk driving and a ban on trans fat. While one can have a detrimental effect on many people, trans fat only affects the people who choose to consume it. ← I think it is cut and dried and not vague a bit. Attorneys are successful, and not that many are truth be told, when they have the skills to make a convincing argument regardless. As a Libertarian (which has been deemed "respectable"), "Common Welfare" means to me that the government will step in when an outside influence is acting in detriment to the public at large. Otherwise, I have a right to life, LIBERTY and the persuit of happiness as long as I do not infringe upon another's rights. Maybe you can make a case that trans fats are a grand conspiracy, but you have a great deal of work ahead of you if you want to prove it. Now, if you want to deprive the vast majority of the population of biscuits because a minority MIGHT have a heart attack at some unpredetermined time in the future, then I'm going to go all Thomas Jefferson on you, not to mention John and Abigail Adams, and wonder why the heck YOU want to cripple the rest of the populace with YOUR concern for a MINORITY of the population? Is that not infringing upon another person's rights? Just asking. If somebody else eating trans fats is the biggest worry in your life and hurts your head, then take a trip to Lesotho, or Darfur, or any number of other places. People are starving and dying, and that is a sin. No single person on this planet need go hungry, IMO. A strip of potato fried in trans fat would keep someone there going for an afternoon. Then maybe they can find something better. END RANT - and noted that I need to stay away from this topic. Too emotional. One more thing - people's hearts stop for no good reason sometimes, and it has nothing to do with diet, exercise, or anything else. Life is finite. Eat a big slab of caramel cake and shut up. Now, REALLY END RANT. and I mean it.

Maybe a dollar? And in the worst case, you have tasty bread crumbs. I love this recipe!

I thought the topic was that chef's were whining. I must reveal a personal prejudice here. I do 50/50 Crisco/Butter for both biscuits and pie crust. Sometimes Crisco in a cake, depending upon the cake and the results I wanted. Wouldn't do them any other way. Feed it to my family. Should I be banned from cooking for my family?

In one serving of Crisco (1 tbsp.), there are 1.5 grams of trans fat. I am opposed to a ban on any food product. I think we should stop trying to protect us from ourselves. Where we could end up on this "slippery slope" scares me. Forced exercise, anyone? Have to show proof of your lipid levels before you eat a piece of pie? Plus as Patrick points out, people are still free to eat a Hardee's ThickBurger, fries, and a shake. Banning trans fats isn't going to stop obesity or heart disease. I don't think it will even be a blip in the radar. ← Hopefully I will get a senior citizen exemption from the exercise law when the time comes! I am just having trouble balancing the benefit of banning trans fats - if any, and see a great deal of detriment in tipping the angle on the "slippery slope" and introducing more paperwork and work load into an already bloated system. Is this really, seriously, going to be enforced? How and by whom? Too much room for abuse. Wanna buy some Crisco?

It is unclear, but if there is no benefit, and clearly a certain level of risk to using trans fats, then why shouldn't they be banned? I think the lead paint analogy is valid. What are the benefits to trans fats, aside from not having to change the oil in the fryer so frequently? I would like to at least know whether or not they are present in my meals so I can make an informed decision. Apparently there is no acceptable level of trans fat, so yes. It is more akin to a toxin than a non-nutricious food choice. How do you feel about Olestra? Would you be comfortable consuming Olestra (another artificial fat) unknowingly? ← I suppose there is an economic argument for trans fats, in that they impart a good taste at a more reasonable price. I feel certain that they don't take away from whatever nutrition is available in whatever food they are prepared with. It is reasonable to be informed that they are present, though. As far as unknowingly consuming things, we all unknowingly consume bug parts, rodent hairs, feces, etc on a regular basis. I would like to be informed, personally. At least a written warning. There is also the laborous paperwork and enforcement of the ban that should be addressed. I would rather the food police spend those resources looking for rodent hair and feces and eliminating them from the food supply than trans fats. If I had a choice.

I've done 50/50 spelt/bread flour, and was pushing the envelope with density. Tasted great, but approaching doorstop territory.

Is Kudzu natural? ← It's natural in China and Japan. And is found in the US as far north as Pennsylvania and in the state of Oregan. Horrible creature, Kudzu.

Trans fats are bad for you as even a cursory look through medline articles will tell you. Exactly how bad is unclear, but the science suggests they are worse than naturally occuring fat. So what is good about trans fats? I understand they make food a little cheaper, but how much cheaper? ← So banning them is the answer? What will the ban in NYC actually accomplish? How much trans fat is consumed vs. sat fat (pizza, ice cream, candy etc. etc.)? Am I to understand they can be purchased off the shelf easily at the store for human consumption? Is trans fat worse than alcohol, or chocolate, sugar, coffee or beef? What will the ban accomplish in the overall health of the average citizen or visitor to NY? Just asking.