annecros
-
Posts
2,636 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by annecros
-
-
I've taken to just making my next batch right away, without cleaning the bowl from the previous. (Anything to avoid cleaning...) By batch #4 it was tasting pretty sourdoughy.I pulled off some dough from this batch to use in my next one. Do I need to do anything special to it before I use it? And how do I incorporate it in a fresh batch?That's a good idea.
I've been taking a pinch after the fermentation, feeding it and leaving it on the counter in a crock for the rest of the day. The next morning, I feed and refresh it then mix the dough in the afternoon. I wasn't happy with the results of storing the chef in the fridge overnight, and I am starting to get a nice sour, but am only two loaves in with this. I like the idea of not washing the bowl though. Sounds like my kind of method.
-
I've always done the blast at 500 and then oven off method, because it works for me. I am open for suggestions though, and like to keep an open mind, so this topic is of interest to me.
I did some work over the year with a beef company, and my friend there just sent us a 17 pound Certified Angus rib roast for Christmas. I keep opening the fridge and patting it on its little butt - we call him Junior and I am considering hanging his own Christmas stocking for him. He's almost become part of the family. He's swimming around in his cryovac, because personally I don't care for the "game" I detect in dry aged beef. I do intend to season it and give it 24 hours uncovered in the fridge before roasting though.
I certainly will not french the bones. The plate of bones on the table is a big family favorite, and "Deviled" bones for lunch the next day I consider a real treat, if there are any left. I agree that there is a lot of great meat there.
I am wondering how many ribs to roast though. I am only serving 7 to 8 people. I am thinking of taking the two bones from the small ends for steaks later for hubby and myself, but it almost hurts to think of desecrating Junior.
Will have to mediate on the subject...
-
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!
-
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.
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.
-
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.[...]
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Point taken, but that is why I said usually. I know it is not the same thing, but these boards are usually appointed by elected officials.
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.
-
No, because in the 18th century, this was a low-population agrarian country with no railways, airlines, etc., etc., etc. The genius of the Constitution was that the framers made it flexible enough to grow and change with the country, as considered necessary by a super-majority of society.
I am more than a little bit uncomfortable with your summary dismissal of all public servants dealing with health. Should we do a search on their credentials in order to prove that some of them are highly distinguished specialists? I think that it's very possible to generally criticize bureaucracy and over-regulation without launching a generalized ad hominem attack on the entire civil service. Please concede that there are public servants who are motivated by professionalism and a desire to serve the public as diligently as possible. And if you can't remember any such examples, how about C. Everett Koop, the Surgeon General under President Reagan?
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.
-
I am, however, dubious that there are some hand ringing "fat cats" who are sitting in a back room somewhere dreaming or more regulations (most bureaucrats can't handle enforcing the regulations as they currently exist), although annecros's point is well taken concerning special interests who have a wide range of motives and varying qualities of verifiable evidence to support their positions.
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.
-
No, because in the 18th century, this was a low-population agrarian country with no railways, airlines, etc., etc., etc. The genius of the Constitution was that the framers made it flexible enough to grow and change with the country, as considered necessary by a super-majority of society.
I am more than a little bit uncomfortable with your summary dismissal of all public servants dealing with health. Should we do a search on their credentials in order to prove that some of them are highly distinguished specialists? I think that it's very possible to generally criticize bureaucracy and over-regulation without launching a generalized ad hominem attack on the entire civil service. Please concede that there are public servants who are motivated by professionalism and a desire to serve the public as diligently as possible. And if you can't remember any such examples, how about C. Everett Koop, the Surgeon General under President Reagan?
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 am, however, dubious that there are some hand ringing "fat cats" who are sitting in a back room somewhere dreaming or more regulations (most bureaucrats can't handle enforcing the regulations as they currently exist), although annecros's point is well taken concerning special interests who have a wide range of motives and varying qualities of verifiable evidence to support their positions.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
I've got some bad news for those who are worried about a slippery slope: we're already two thirds of the way down that slope, without brakes, accelerating at 32 feet per second per second and the slope happens to be a cliff.
If regulators can muster even mediocre evidence that something is unhealthy (whatever that means), they can regulate it. And people are in favor of that. Anne, I'm sorry to say that in the case of the trans fat ban, there was little meaningful opposition. . . . .
A summary of all comments, including lists of those in support or opposition, is available online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/...ts-response.pdf. A total of 2,340 written comments were received (including 53 people who spoke at the October 30 public hearing). Overall, 2,266 (95%) comments supported the proposal and 74 were in opposition. Unqualified support for the proposed changes came from numerous leading national and local professional societies, academic institutions, and local hospitals and advocacy groups, including the American Medical Association (AMA), National Hispanic Medical Association (NHMA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Cancer Society (ACS), American Diabetes Association (ADA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), New York Academy of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, Harvard University, New York University, Institute for Urban Family Health, and Northern Manhattan Perinatal Partnership.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.
-
That's not the prevailing theory, though. Regulators (and those who support the regulatory state, aka almost everyone) take for granted that a healthy lifestyle should not be a personal choice. They reckon that the taxpayers and society at large bear the costs of poor public health -- those costs are the "second hand smoke" of so-called bad dietary choices, justifying most any regulation, such as the ban on trans fats.
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.
-
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.
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:
#Division of Health Promotion & Disease Prevention
# • Tobacco Control
# • Chronic Disease Prevention
# • District Public Health Offices
# • The Asthma Initiative
# • Clinical Systems Improvement
# • Workplace Wellness
# • School Health
# • Maternal, Infant & Reproductive Health
# • Day Care
#
Division of Disease Control
# • Emergency Management
# • Communicable Disease Control
# • Public Health Laboratory
# • Immunization
# • HIV/AIDS
# • Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention & Control
# • Tuberculosis Control
#
Division of Mental Hygiene
# • Early Intervention
# • Planning, Evaluation & Quality Improvement
# • Program Services – Mental Health
# • Project Liberty
# • Mental Health Disaster Preparedness & Response
# • Community Liaison & Training
#
Division of Environmental Health
# • Environmental Disease Prevention
# • Food Safety & Community Sanitation
# • Poison Control
# • Veterinary & Pest Control Services
# • Environmental Sciences & Engineering
#
Division of Epidemiology
# • Epidemiology Services
# • Surveillance
# • Injury Epidemiology
# • Public Health Training
# • Vital Statistics
#
Division of Health Care Access & Improvement
# • Health Insurance Services & Medicaid Managed Care
# • Oral Health
# • Correctional Health
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.
-
as far as flying to japan to have a dinner, i'd have to think that would cost more money, and certainly more time. perhaps time is valuable to some people. i think there's even an old saying related to that fact.
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.
-
We're talking about a local regulation, not an exercise of federal power. So the "general welfare" clause of the United States Constitution would not be relvant here, even if it meant the federal government had carte blanche to regulate.
I don't know that these appeals to liberty mean much in the real world anyway. On the issue of whether New York has the lawful authority to regulate food safety in restaurants, the train has left the station. We should also try to be clear on what the trans fat "ban" actually is. Trans fats have not been banned in New York. You can still go buy a zillion products in the supermarket that are made with trans fats. Trans fats have been banned from restaurants. Now, I don't think that makes the regulation any less stupid -- it may even make it more stupid -- but that's what it is.
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.
-
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [My bolding]
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.
-
Thanks for the responses. I'm going to see what kind of spelt flour I can find and give it a shot - what can I lose?
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?
-
I realize that trans fats occur in nature. Those trans fats aren't being banned. They also tend to exist in much smaller quantities than in the artificial substitues. I just bought some french butter that lists 1/2 gram trans fats per serving. Not sure what's in a comparable amount of shortening, but I suspect it's significant.
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?
-
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.
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.
Is trans fat worse than alcohol, or chocolate, sugar, coffee or beef?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.
Minimalist No-Knead Bread Technique (Part 1)
in Pastry & Baking
Posted
Please do. I did a partial sub with spelt, but was subbing rye in at the same time. I love the flavor of spelt, and I've always heard that it benefits from minimal handling.