weinoo

I'm big on using my hands for mixing doughs.

Buy the more expensive unit. You probably won't regret it.

The differences between the brands are more about performance rather than flavor. That's it exactly. The time I tried baking with the store/generic brand, anyone could tell the difference...that is, if they got it before I threw it away.

I see no reason not to mix the dough till it is mixed properly...it's still a no-knead dough (remember, it's not a no-mix dough), but as with all recipes, some common sense is necessary.

Why don't you buy a bag and do a comparison; I'm with HungryC though, with King Arthur being my favorite brand. I also get good results with Gold Medal and Pillsbury, but when I've bought the store brand, not so great.

I'm wondering if it might be cost effective and certainly less stressful to have everything you mention shipped by some other method than "mail?"

Actually, I'm more concerned with those same parents (as has been posited above) giving their kids that first lunchable. Because, as many of us know, it's that first drag, that first line, that first, dare I say it, lunchable, that gets one hooked.

I used to steal cigarettes from my parents. If you think kids of responsible parents aren't doing things behind their parents' backs, well, I have a bridge to sell to you.

Yet, when I have hundreds of pounds of surplus from a market garden......carrots, green beans, squash, tomatoes, beets, radishes, etc. etc. etc. and FREELY offer it to those who are "in need" it's usually turned down!!!! It has become very difficult for me to sympathize. Do you think if you offered that same stuff to someone looking for a cigarette, or a heroin addict, they'd be rushing over to grab it?

If you read the Bittman piece, he reports on the science that has proven a link, at the same level of confidence as the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer, as that between sugar and diabetes, not necessarily between sugar and obesity.

Bittman weighs in...

I definitely researched the Expobar machines before I made my Silvia purchase. The thing which worried me was that they aren't as widely carried or serviced, nor do they have the history of, the Rancilio products. But - they look like great machines.

Exactly...and the point of my OP and the article is that the fact was known by the corporate CEOs cited in the article. They met. They chose to do nothing except continue their marketing campaigns toward the most vulnerable. Great point.

Really? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/220999.php

Kraft has been reducing the amount of slat, sugar and fat in their products for the last 10 years. At least, according to Kraft... A new study in rats suggests that high-fat, high-calorie foods affect the brain in much the same way as cocaine and heroin.

I'm surprised that all of you perfect parents are sticking together on this. Wouldn't it have been nice if some of those evil corporations had actually given a damn about the health of some of their customers? But maybe at some point we'll see warning labels on food like we do on tobacco products...then all those lazy parents have no one to blame but themselves.

I don't understand why anyone is bringing city governments/mayors into this thread - or peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for that matter. I started off by referencing a piece of investigative journalism that ran in the NY Times, and which was written by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. That piece uncovered the fact that in 1999, many of the major junk food manufacturers' CEOs met to discuss what they knew was a looming health crisis affecting millions of people. They also knew that some of their food products might be considered a major contributor to that same health crisis, especially affecting young people, who would then become customers of those products for the rest of their lives. They knew the products they were making were addicting. The article draws a parallel between the addictions to certain foods the same way people might get addicted to tobacco. Interestingly enough, tobacco was often marketed to young people, even though the tobacco companies knew their product was perhaps bad for an individual's health. I asked what people thought. I asked if anyone has tried lunchables. No one is taking away your peanut butter and jelly. No one is taking away your hot dogs. No one is taking away your bud light. As a matter of fact, no one is taking away your fucking cigarettes either. They're just letting you know that if you smoke them, you might die from them. That's all.

That's such a false argument.

How much sodium, sugar and fat do you think are in the ones you remember? We can always think of worse stuff to feed kids - Bud Light has already been mentioned!

Lunchables - are now more fun than ever! Some of them even come with, gasp...water!! Welcome to LUNCHABLES! LUNCHABLES FOR KIDS!

The laziness argument is a real straw man. Don't you think that there are children whose parents both work? Perhaps multiple jobs? Or single mothers or fathers who do everything they can to raise their child(ren) alone?

What's interesting is that you appear to be blaming everyone from the Times' Pulitzer Prize winning author of the article to the parents to the kids to the restaurateurs...everyone, that is, except the perpetrators. They are hardly "nebulous others." They are named in the article.

Agreed, and quite refreshing.They actually seem to like and respect one another.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

You know, I know very little about child rearing. And I'm sure all the parents reading this are glad to take your advice. But lunchables is a $billion dollars-a-year product, so there must be something about the marketing to kids that helps them sell their stuff. And I don't know about you, but I always demanded an Anchor Steam with my supper.