Culinary Signs of the Apocalypse: 2010

[Toliver]

Cheez Whiz was bad enough, but now they have waffle batter in an aerosol can. Can this really be happening?

Uh, yep. It's quite the success, too. It doesn't mean you have to buy it.

Here's a post I made linking to an article on the money the pancake batter-in-a-can is making (click here).

[lancastermike]

this topic:

click here

[Shamanjoe]

Cheez Whiz was bad enough, but now they have waffle batter in an aerosol can. Can this really be happening?

Uh, yep. It's quite the success, too. It doesn't mean you have to buy it.

Here's a post I made linking to an article on the money the pancake batter-in-a-can is making (click here).

I never said I'd buy it. I'm just sad that it exists..

[Pierogi]

Cheez Whiz was bad enough, but now they have waffle batter in an aerosol can. Can this really be happening?

Uh, yep. It's quite the success, too. It doesn't mean you have to buy it.

Here's a post I made linking to an article on the money the pancake batter-in-a-can is making (click here).

I never said I'd buy it. I'm just sad that it exists..

Hey, it's better than the Aunt Jemima Frozen Waffles, isn't it???? Granted, not by much, but still.....

[Chris Amirault]

Long Trout Winery, "where the wine is cool and hippie chicks rule," offer bottlings they've named Swollen Member, German Helmet, and Old One Eye.

ETA: Eat, Pray, Love, the pinot grigio.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Chris Amirault
tx to bevlog -- CA (log)

[andiesenji]

I've followed this topic with great interest and today I came across a contender.

I had to put gas in the van and for some obscure reason, my SpeedPass would not activate the pump so I had to go into the store.

The prominent placement next to the register is occupied by a hang stand with bite-sized "Slim Jim" sausage pieces in little resealable bags.

I mean, come on folks! How difficult can it be to bite off a piece of a skinny sausage?

What's next, bite size pieces of Popsicles?

[Stephanie Brim]

What's next, bite size pieces of Popsicles?

Actually, those would be a nice touch for my husband with overly sensitive front teeth. He can't bite into popsicles like most people. Same with any type of ice cream treat you can't eat with a spoon.

Edited to remove the word 'frozen' before ice cream. Duh, me.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Stephanie Brim (log)

[MaxH]

...bite-sized "Slim Jim" sausage pieces in little resealable bags. / I mean, come on folks! How difficult can it be to bite off a piece of a skinny sausage?

Welcome to Consumer Marketing! It seems irrational sometimes, only because it mirrors irrational consumer behavior, which marketers try diligently to accommodate. (Otherwise, why would they dicker constantly with product package sizes, or change the names or the selling pitches of products periodically? E.g., a group of mass-market US breakfast cereals that all had "Sugar" in their names when I was a kid -- sugar was perceived as appealing -- got renamed minus the "sugar," once it became a Bad Word. If anything, the cereals themselves have more sugar now, a trend in that class of products.)

It's not just food products. If a US doctor prescribes an expensive medicine that you must pay for, ask if it's available in larger dosages such as bigger pills (often true). You may find that a bottle of larger doses costs about the same for the same number of pills, and they even come scored in halves or quarters, so the doctor can just write for you to break them up for the dose you need. If you're rational, that is ...

[Porthos]

Cheez Whiz was bad enough, but now they have waffle batter in an aerosol can. Can this really be happening?

Uh, yep. It's quite the success, too. It doesn't mean you have to buy it.

Here's a post I made linking to an article on the money the pancake batter-in-a-can is making (click here).

I never said I'd buy it. I'm just sad that it exists..

Hey, it's better than the Aunt Jemima Frozen Waffles, isn't it???? Granted, not by much, but still.....

I do use this product in one (and one only) setting. Camping. For camping it is very convenient. I'm fixing pancakes for others when I do this. I don't eat pancakes myself.

[Chris Amirault]

That's not horrible industrial high fructose corn syrup. That's good ol' corn sugar, hon!

[MaxH]

... horrible industrial high fructose corn syrup.

Apropos, I don't know if eG did one already, but you could readily run a thread on fatuous, fashionable pop misconceptions about food science. Taken together, in an age when information including accurate information is easily available, these notions themselves may be the ultimate (if not too ominous a word) culinary sign of apocalypse. E.g., fashionable stigmatizing of HFCS (fructose-glucose syrup) without also considering that fructose ("fruct" from "fruit") and glucose (from Gk. for "sweet") are among the most common sugars in fresh fruits & vegetables, the core of our natural ancestral diet, and that honey is a natural HFCS (close in composition to common synthetics) with important trace nutrients added. Or that fructose has long (much longer than HFCS was around) been viewed as a "healthier" sugar than common sucrose because its slower metabolism causes less blood-sugar peaking, consequently less insulin response (lower "glycemic index"). These inseparable considerations are often missing in discussions of HFCS in which I see a tone suggesting if we'd just eliminate that "toxic" HFCS, we could go on eating our 140 pounds of commercial sugars annually with free conscience and no more diabetes or obesity.

... another sign of [civilizations approaching decline] is: reference books. The old civilization has piled up works of the mind for centuries ... direct access to the treasures grows less easy, less frequent, as the social revolution brings more and more of the untaught and the self-indulgent out of bondage. At that point the museum is born, and the research library. There, the inmates -- scholars and specialists -- begin to digest, organize, theorize, and publish reference books. The term Alexandrian [for civilizations nearing decline] comes from the famous establishment of this sort -- the Mouseion, the Muses’ library and scholar’s hostel, at Alexandria in the third century B.C. / Alexandrianism comes in various sizes: lesser ones can be followed by vigorous returns to discipline, firsthand knowledge, and creativeness, as happened at the tail end of the Middle Ages and again at the turn of the eighteenth century. Similarly, a healthy barbarian invasion may clear the air and the bookshelves for a fresh start. But during the very pleasant time of relaxed mental life through culture from handbooks, nobody can tell what is to happen next. Today, judging solely by the output of reference books, one would say that our Alexandrianism was of the largest dimensions since Alexandria itself.

Jacques Barzun, The Culture We Deserve (Wesleyan University Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8195-6237-8)

[Alcuin]

... horrible industrial high fructose corn syrup.

Apropos, I don't know if eG did one already, but you could readily run a thread on fatuous, fashionable pop misconceptions about food science. Taken together, in an age when information including accurate information is easily available, these notions themselves may be the ultimate (if not too ominous a word) culinary sign of apocalypse. E.g., fashionable stigmatizing of HFCS (fructose-glucose syrup) without also considering that fructose ("fruct" from "fruit") and glucose (from Gk. for "sweet") are among the most common sugars in fresh fruits & vegetables, the core of our natural ancestral diet, and that honey is a natural HFCS (close in composition to common synthetics) with important trace nutrients added. Or that fructose has long (much longer than HFCS was around) been viewed as a "healthier" sugar than common sucrose because its slower metabolism causes less blood-sugar peaking, consequently less insulin response (lower "glycemic index"). These inseparable considerations are often missing in discussions of HFCS in which I see a tone suggesting if we'd just eliminate that "toxic" HFCS, we could go on eating our 140 pounds of commercial sugars annually with free conscience and no more diabetes or obesity.

Jacques Barzun, The Culture We Deserve (Wesleyan University Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8195-6237-8)

Sure, HFCS is just another sugar, but it is not the same as honey. Honey is far more difficult to produce, and more expensive. Not to mention that, because of its unique production (bees, flowers, et al), it has character. The problem is that HFCS makes it easy for "food" companies to deliver 140 pounds of sugar annually. Sure, another sugar would cause the same effect, but the ease with which the HFCS flows is the real problem. Renaming HFCS to corn sugar is a cheap ploy to redirect our attention away from HFCS, which leaves the sugar itself center stage--"pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" though. Focusing on the naming of the thing itself focuses us on the thing itself, not the systemic problem that is behind it.

[Dakki]

Apropos, I don't know if eG did one already, but you could readily run a thread on fatuous, fashionable pop misconceptions about food science.

Problem: They're all going to be believed by some portion of the eGullet membership.

I won't point out threads because of the risk of offending people (my fatuous popular misconception is someone else's cutting edge science/common sense) but it won't be too hard to find them.

Off-topic, that Barzun quote is interesting but I think the argument is outdated. One of the nicer things about the interwebs is how easy it has made to get your hands on vast amounts of literature (for free!) that was previously only accessible through an interlibrary loan, if at all.

[Dakki]

Sure, HFCS is just another sugar, but it is not the same as honey. Honey is far more difficult to produce, and more expensive. Not to mention that, because of its unique production (bees, flowers, et al), it has character. The problem is that HFCS makes it easy for "food" companies to deliver 140 pounds of sugar annually. Sure, another sugar would cause the same effect, but the ease with which the HFCS flows is the real problem. Renaming HFCS to corn sugar is a cheap ploy to redirect our attention away from HFCS, which leaves the sugar itself center stage--"pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" though. Focusing on the naming of the thing itself focuses us on the thing itself, not the systemic problem that is behind it.

Agreeing with this. HFCS sounds industrial/synthetic/nasty, corn sugar sounds comparatively much nicer.

Renaming unpopular stuff to make it sound harmless and give it a fresh start in the public's mind is a favorite pastime of the PR types who run our civilization. See: Layoffs, downsizing, rightsizing. Polyester, microfiber. Neutron bomb, enhanced radiation weapon, reduced blast device.

[MaxH]

One of the nicer things about the interwebs is how easy it has made to get your hands on vast amounts of literature (for free!) that was previously only accessible through an interlibrary loan, if at all.

Welllll ... I won't belabor this, but a food friend, distinguished humanities dean, has students who do research needing wide-ranging library access to many kinds of materials. He says most really good sources online are private, i.e. within specialized libraries or databases that charge to support themselves, therefore little of it shows on public searches. Today, Barzun's "reference book" [read: Google] users never see that content. Same for scientific sources I use, even for side interests like food (I must keep actual books handy, the good ones don't give their content out free online), and many of my remarkable primary-source food books (pre-ISBN) -- here I don't just mean cookbooks -- not to mention articles, are never even mentioned online, let alone accessible. The current and the recent obsess the online world almost exclusively.

Alcuin, I'm with you somewhat on HFCS (I hardly defend absurd commercial euphemism) but miss some of your argument. Regardless of production, honey contains some 98% of subsances identical to, indistinguishable from, commercial HFCS, and we evolved from people eating natural foods full of the same substances. Consequently if HFCS inherently has uniquely evil properties compared to sucrose (of all things), the same holds for honey and fruit. Also, before HFCS became common in the 1980s, back when we consumed just 130 pounds sugars annually, processed-food makers were doing the same things with sucrose (table sugar), introducing it into all kinds of foods because people like that and will pay for it. The main reason US uses more HFCS today is an economic fluke reflecting price supports. Yet some people act like sugar-related epidemics would vanish with HFCS. That's self-deception, and distracts from deeper issues, like people preferring bread with sugar added, and voluntarily consuming huge sugar intakes of whatever type.

[Dakki]

One of the nicer things about the interwebs is how easy it has made to get your hands on vast amounts of literature (for free!) that was previously only accessible through an interlibrary loan, if at all.

Welllll ... I won't belabor this, but a food friend, distinguished humanities dean, has students who do research needing wide-ranging library access to many kinds of materials. He says most really good sources online are private, i.e. within specialized libraries or databases that charge to support themselves, therefore little of it shows on public searches. Today, Barzun's "reference book" [read: Google] users never see that content. Same for scientific sources I use, even for side interests like food (I must keep actual books handy, the good ones don't give their content out free online), and many of my remarkable primary-source food books (pre-ISBN) -- here I don't just mean cookbooks -- not to mention articles, are never even mentioned online, let alone accessible. The current and the recent obsess the online world almost exclusively.

Oh, the humanities. [/pun]

Yeah your friend is talking about how a lot of stuff is inaccessible. My point is that a lot more stuff used to be inaccessible.

I won't bore you with the kind of stuff I like to read but here's The Historic American Cookbook Project, found by Googling "old cookbooks online" and reading a forum post in the first result. Took me maybe 20 seconds. Imagine what it would have taken to get access to this information 20 years ago.

[andiesenji]

A further note on the bite-size snack sausages.

This morning a toddler (the child of a neighbor) was in a car seat and was given a piece by his daddy who was transporting three other children to their schools.

The little guy choked on it and the dad detoured to the ER. Thankfully he is okay but his dad said he wouldn't do that again.

The little boy is used to chewing on the regular sausages and does okay with them.

(He's a budding chile-head.)

Now Frank is worried about how he is going to explain this to his wife when she calls home. (She's in the military and not presently available by phone.)

So, this may not be such a good idea after all.

Edited September 14, 2010 by andiesenji (log)

[Chris Amirault]

Just to clarify, this --

That's not horrible industrial high fructose corn syrup. That's good ol' corn sugar, hon!

-- was intended to parody the Manichean dualisms (deadly/healthy; corporate/homespun; you can add more I'm sure) that structure most discussions of food and the ways that branding takes advantage of same.

[MaxH]

..here's The Historic American Cookbook Project... imaine what it would have taken to get access to this information 20 years ago.

Actually what we did 20 years ago was get the inexpensive Dover paperback facsimile editions of the most famous of those historic American cookbooks (a few are especially important). Especially after the Hesses, in their harsh but scholarly landmark book of US food criticism almost 35 years ago, laid out a compact history and bibliography of such cookbooks. But the point is taken, a lot of excellent information is now easier to find.

Incidentally, if the obvious absurdities of saying "corn sugar" for high-fructose corn syrup are inadequate, another is that the term is already taken. It's long been common to call dry dextrose "corn sugar" (as lactose is "milk sugar" and glucose "grape sugar"). The language is a little redundant (dextrose and glucose are the same thing, the dextro glucose isomer, but in US it's commonly been "dextrose" if from corn, glucose from grapes or other sources). I bought bulk dextrose labeled "Corn Sugar" decades ago as a kid with an armchair interest in food science which, as you see, persists.

Add grapes to the natural glucose-and-fructose ("HFCS") sources, by the way. Years ago shrewd manufacturers started cooking down grape juice to use as a natural sweetener minus the dreaded S-word. Its sugar components are mainly those of HFCS. Grapes must be deadly.

[Chris Amirault]

One-quarter of US adults are avoiding foods containing gluten.

[xxchef]

One-quarter of US adults are avoiding foods containing gluten.

Now if we could only get that many to avoid just plain BAD (IE low quality/poorly prepared) food, we'd be getting somewhere!

[xxchef]

Culinary Sign of the Apocalypse...

"Frankenfish"

"Genetically engineered salmon that grows twice as fast as the conventional fish appears to be safe, an advisory committee told the Food and Drug Administration Monday [9/20/2010]. But they argued that more testing may be needed before it is served on the nation's dinner tables.

<snip>

The company is arguing that the fish do not need to be labeled as genetically engineered. "The label could even be misleading because it implies a difference that doesn't exist."

See full article from Business Week here: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9IC0BMO0.htm

[Porthos]

Could some explain to me, in simple terms, what is the basis of the opposition to genetically-modified or genetically-engineered food sources?

[andiesenji]

A person might be allergic to shellfish and the allergy is severe, possibly fatal.

For instance, say a genetically engineered fish has some of its genes manipulated and a gene from shellfish substituted so the fish grows more rapidly.

When you consume that fish your system will recognize the fish as shellfish and react to it.

This has happened with plants that have been genetically modified.

[mkayahara]

Could some explain to me, in simple terms, what is the basis of the opposition to genetically-modified or genetically-engineered food sources?

In a broad sense, I think the opposition to GMOs is based largely on the feeling that they haven't been sufficiently tested. I mean, think about it: we can hardly figure out with any certainty the effects on the human body of foods that haven't been modified on the molecular level (take HFCS, for example), and sometimes those effects don't come to light for years, or decades (see "trans fats"). So for a lot of people, there's a cautionary principle at work. And that's not even getting into the potential religious implications...