Welcome to the Louisville Restaurants Forum, a civil place for the intelligent discussion of the local restaurant scene and just about any other topic related to food and drink in and around Louisville.
no avatar
User

Iggy C

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

563

Joined

Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:33 am

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Iggy C » Thu Nov 07, 2013 4:38 pm

My bad! I am notoriously bad at picking up on tone in email/messageboard-type situations!
no avatar
User

Josh A

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

218

Joined

Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:01 pm

Location

Paristown Point/Germantown

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Josh A » Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:08 pm

Iggy C wrote:there's a black market for lead paint

Just as an aside, you can still get lead paint. It's used in a few specific industrial applications and requires you to fill out a ton of paperwork to get, but it's out there.

That being said, why not just use lard? It doesn't have transfat when it's not hydrogenated.
no avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

23220

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Robin Garr » Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:56 pm

Charles W. wrote:I think he was tweaking Robin.

I am pretty much non-tweakable. 8)
no avatar
User

RonnieD

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

1931

Joined

Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:09 pm

Location

The rolling acres of Henry County

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by RonnieD » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:21 pm

Wait a minute? What did we do before trans-fats? Was no one able to eat because the food was so horrible? How did mankind make it so long without this freedom granting ingredient? Whatever did we do? How will we live without it? I guarantee that somewhere there was a caveman desperately trying to force extra hydrogen atoms into a wooly mammoth leg just so he could stomach it. :roll:

All it does is increase expiration dates and make shelf stable food WAY more shelf stable than it should be. Pretty sure I can live without that. (Hey these cookies expire within my life time!)

Maybe McDonalds will go back to frying in beef tallow, now we're talking.

Oh, and since we are being so absurd as to suggest that banning trans-fats is akin to the loss of freedoms, let me remind you of two things: 1. Everyone seems to love the seat belt law and that bad boy is nothing but a freedom inhibitor, and 2. If we are going to wave the freedom flag, let's go all in and allow food manufacturers just put whatever kinds of deadly and horrible chemicals in our food that they want and print on their packages "caveat emptor!" Let freedom ring!
Ronnie Dingman
Chef Consultant
The Farm
La Center, KY
no avatar
User

Carla G

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

3160

Joined

Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:01 am

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Carla G » Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:06 am

RonnieD wrote:Wait a minute? What did we do before trans-fats? Was no one able to eat because the food was so horrible? How did mankind make it so long without this freedom granting ingredient? Whatever did we do? How will we live without it? I guarantee that somewhere there was a caveman desperately trying to force extra hydrogen atoms into a wooly mammoth leg just so he could stomach it. :roll:

All it does is increase expiration dates and make shelf stable food WAY more shelf stable than it should be. Pretty sure I can live without that. (Hey these cookies expire within my life time!)

Maybe McDonalds will go back to frying in beef tallow, now we're talking.

Oh, and since we are being so absurd as to suggest that banning trans-fats is akin to the loss of freedoms, let me remind you of two things: 1. Everyone seems to love the seat belt law and that bad boy is nothing but a freedom inhibitor, and 2. If we are going to wave the freedom flag, let's go all in and allow food manufacturers just put whatever kinds of deadly and horrible chemicals in our food that they want and print on their packages "caveat emptor!" Let freedom ring!


Well...I was gonna post but I can not do better than this. 'Nuff said.
"She did not so much cook as assassinate food." - Storm Jameson
no avatar
User

Steve P

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

4848

Joined

Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:18 pm

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Steve P » Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:14 am

Gary Z wrote:So... at what point does personal responsibility come into play? If we are incapable of making these choices for ourselves then let's take it to the extreme...

Reinstate Prohibition. Alcohol related deaths are crazy high.

Maybe they should make it so cars don't go faster than 30 miles an hour. That would save lives too right?

Ban tanning beds. Tobacco. Religion. Pit bulls. European soccer events. Asteroids.

I mean, really?


DEFINITELY European Soccer events and probably Pit Bulls as well.
Stevie P...The Daddio of the Patio
no avatar
User

Jason G

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

320

Joined

Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Jason G » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:52 pm

Gary Z wrote:So... at what point does personal responsibility come into play? If we are incapable of making these choices for ourselves then let's take it to the extreme...

Reinstate Prohibition. Alcohol related deaths are crazy high.

Maybe they should make it so cars don't go faster than 30 miles an hour. That would save lives too right?

Ban tanning beds. Tobacco. Religion. Pit bulls. European soccer events. Asteroids.

I mean, really?


To me, this is comparing apples and oranges. I mean, if you smoke, you know the dangers. The trans fat thing is kind of a hidden danger that you can easily remove from society without really impacting anyone.

No one is out there consciously making a choice to buy products with trans fats as a life choice, unlike alcohol, tobacco, religion etc.

Also doesn't help that its called "trans-fat". Thats just not very scary. They should have called it like "death poison" or something.
no avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

23220

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Robin Garr » Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:00 pm

Jason G wrote:To me, this is comparing apples and oranges. I mean, if you smoke, you know the dangers. The trans fat thing is kind of a hidden danger that you can easily remove from society without really impacting anyone.

No one is out there consciously making a choice to buy products with trans fats as a life choice, unlike alcohol, tobacco, religion etc.

Also doesn't help that its called "trans-fat". Thats just not very scary. They should have called it like "death poison" or something.

:mrgreen:

I basically agree with this, and would add that banning trans fats is regulatory on industry, not on individuals. My reference to "drinking the Kool-Aid" has to do with the mysterious ability that the mega-corporate sector has developed by which it manages to persuade the less thoughtful genre of Randian llibertarians that their economic and social interests are somehow aligned.
no avatar
User

Paul S

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

159

Joined

Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:11 pm

Location

Goshen

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Paul S » Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:51 am

Jason G wrote:To me, this is comparing apples and oranges. I mean, if you smoke, you know the dangers. The trans fat thing is kind of a hidden danger that you can easily remove from society without really impacting anyone.

No one is out there consciously making a choice to buy products with trans fats as a life choice, unlike alcohol, tobacco, religion etc.

Also doesn't help that its called "trans-fat". Thats just not very scary. They should have called it like "death poison" or something.


Jason hit the nail on the head.

Clearly, there is a public lack of understanding of where processed trans fats come from and what purpose they serve. People who make this out to be a personal responsibility or "freedom" issue are basically missing the point. Trans fats are quite frequently a hidden danger that do not really impact a person's decision to indulge.

Trans fats simply are not in the same category of things like sugar, caffeine, alcohol, etc. in terms of people making dietary life choices.
no avatar
User

Gary Z

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

419

Joined

Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:05 am

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Gary Z » Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:28 pm

Basically what I'm reading here is that we need government regulation of trans fats because people are too stupid to become aware of what they are putting in their bodies.

I'm taking Darwin's side. Let's thin the herd.
no avatar
User

Jessica H

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

297

Joined

Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:25 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Jessica H » Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:09 pm

Josh A wrote:That being said, why not just use lard? It doesn't have transfat when it's not hydrogenated.


Being the owner of an all vegetarian bakery, and having been raised in a Kosher household, I can tell that there are a lot of reasons that lard can not be used in everything.

There is a huge population of people in this country that can not eat lard, whether it be religious, ethical choices or a health required diet.

I am not as concerned about this ban as the owners of a donut shop probably are. There are decent vegetable shortenings on the market that are already trans-fat free. They don't have the same consistency as a shortening with trans-fat, but it is manageable. When used in traditional buttercream, which is something that we use quite a lot of, it does not set up the way other shortening does. It is not as stable, and can result in sweating cakes, which also causes colors to weep and streak.

Clearly some shortenings can also be replaced with butter, however butter is about 3 times the cost. Which means a big price increase that bakeries will have no choice but to transfer to the customer.

We do use a pure vegetable margarine at the bakery for our vegan desserts. And we have more than a few vegan customers. My main concerns are how this ban will effect these deserts. There are trans-fat free margarines on the market, but those all contain milk. While I am happy to substitute tofu or applesauce into a recipe, it dramatically affects the consistency of those desserts, even more than it effects the taste.

I believe in educating people on trans-fats. I also don't think that limiting percentages, as they have already done in California, is a bad thing. However, I do not really get this ban. Sodium Nitrate, found in almost all lunch meats and frozen meals was recently declared unfit for human consumption by the American Cancer Society. Yet the FDA has not even made a statement about this or even thought to regulate it. .
Jessica Haskell
Owner
Sweet Surrender Dessert Cafe
502.899.2008
http://www.sweetsurrenderdessertcafe.com
no avatar
User

Paul S

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

159

Joined

Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:11 pm

Location

Goshen

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Paul S » Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:06 pm

Gary Z wrote:Basically what I'm reading here is that we need government regulation of trans fats because people are too stupid to become aware of what they are putting in their bodies.

I'm taking Darwin's side. Let's thin the herd.


Actually, trans fats would have very little to do with thinning the herd from a Darwinistic view. People who consume trans fats do not necessarily become less sexually attractive... nor would their lifespans decrease to such an extent that they would be less likely to pass on their genes via procreation.

Just sayin'. :lol:
no avatar
User

Gary Z

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

419

Joined

Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:05 am

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Gary Z » Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:47 pm

Whoops! I meant Herbert Spencer. I've been confusing certain ideas of theirs for years.
no avatar
User

Adriel Gray

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

411

Joined

Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:53 pm

Location

Louisville Slugger

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Adriel Gray » Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:05 pm

I wish they would ban war. That one always bums me out.
no avatar
User

Doug Davis

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

444

Joined

Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:05 pm

Location

The Highlands

Re: Looks like Louisville won't have to ban trans fats

by Doug Davis » Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:05 pm

Jessica H wrote:When used in traditional buttercream, which is something that we use quite a lot of, it does not set up the way other shortening does. It is not as stable, and can result in sweating cakes, which also causes colors to weep and streak.

Clearly some shortenings can also be replaced with butter, however butter is about 3 times the cost. Which means a big price increase that bakeries will have no choice but to transfer to the customer.



Jessica, you know Im a huge fan of yours and your bakery. So Im hoping Im reading this statement wrong?

But when I think shortening, I think Crisco. When I think buttercream icing I think butter, and other fatty but mostly natural and non-industrial products (with maybe the exception of food coloring).

I sincerely hope Im not finding out that most "butter"cream icings are crisco with sugar and food coloring? Because that's disgusting.

Someone please clarify this? Because I will either need to stop ordering from local commercial bakeries or start insisting my icings arent made with crisco.
I eat, therefore I am.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Claudebot and 0 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign