Trans-Fat Pros (Great Icing) Cons (Bad Health-Wise)

Decorating By Apti Updated 15 Jun 2010 , 7:55pm by Kitagrl

Apti Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 8:11am
post #1 of 26

A five-month addicted newbie is asking all of you fabulously talented people to weigh-in on the pros and cons of trans-fats. I live in California where trans-fats will be eliminated by law as of June 2011. I have read extensively about the awful health side-effects of trans-fats which are apparently in everything, not just icing, but haven't seen any posts on any cake sites saying not to use it. All the posts I've read just say how bummed cake people became when Crisco got healthier. Am I being overly concerned about this issue?

25 replies
Loucinda Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 11:55am
post #2 of 26

Icing is sugar and fat, there is no way to make it good for you. Moderation is the key with it. (even IMBC is sugar and fat!) It is meant to be a "treat" and not something one would eat everyday. (I tell this to my students that ask me if there is any way to make icing "healthier".)

minicuppie Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 11:59am
post #3 of 26

Not a problem IMHO. I am sure you don't wake up everyday and eat a mixer bowl full of BC icing. Cake is a treat and not meant to be the base of the nutrition pyramid. We have found how to get around the lack of TF in Crisco (no one went out of business that I know of). Cheer up and buy some Sweetex.

mamawrobin Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 12:01pm
post #4 of 26

I use Indydebi's buttercream recipe and the "new" 0 trans fat crisco doesn't affect her recipe. For some reason her recipe works just as well with or without the trans fat.

Loucinda Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 12:06pm
post #5 of 26

I forgot to tell you HI!! And glad you are here and posting at CC. icon_biggrin.gifthumbs_up.gif

Adevag Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 9:11pm
post #6 of 26

Hi,
I don't think you can let anyone decide about your concerns. You have done a lot of research about trans fats so you have to decide for yourself. I know I don't want ANY trans fats in me or in my kids bodies. Nor could I feed it to somebody else.
Of course, no body considers cake to be healthy. But a little sugar and fat "on special days" (as my kids say) are the rules in our home. No trans fats ever. I would not even consider it edible and I wish it would be illegal to put it in food everywhere.
Several decades of research show consumption of trans fatty acids promotes heart disease, cancer, diabetes, immune dysfunction, and obesity and reproductive problems.
Are you overly concern? Not at all in my opinion.

Kitagrl Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 9:15pm
post #7 of 26

Cake and frosting is never healthy...so if we are going to be in the "unhealthy food" business we may as well make sure it tastes good and looks right. thumbs_up.gif

7yyrt Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 9:26pm
post #8 of 26

Adevag, are you vegan?

To the Food and Drug Administration, which is in charge of most packaged food labeling, there is no difference between the trans fat that occurs in cows and other ruminant animals and the kind that is artificially created and favored in large-scale food manufacturing.

Trans fats are in meat, cheese, butter, milk. All those foods should be illegal?
Food police are supposed to come take all my chickens away in little chicken handcuffs, to be humanely euthanized?

(The above is intended to be a humorous story of what could occur if all transfats were outlawed.)

bostonterrierlady Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 9:27pm
post #9 of 26

I agree it is bad for you. But what she is saying is that she will not have the option next year. Her state is banning next year this time. So she has to find a way to make it work without transfats.

madgeowens Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 9:53pm
post #10 of 26

In my op.......as far as I know.......no one holds a gun to your head and makes you eat anything....it should be your decision and not the d@$%m government...if you don't want to serve it, then don't......if you don't want to eat it, then don't.

funcakes Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 10:06pm
post #11 of 26

I so wish we would focus on what TO EAT and not what not to eat. My school has banned all high sugar, high fat foods. I agree with that most of the time. However, there is absolutely no restriction on any artificial ingredients. It seems the more the better. Artificial color-go for it, Artificial flavors-no problem, perservatives-the more the better!
Sugar cookies-oh, NO! that will kill the kids, serve sugar free Jello instead.
Please someone explain THAT to me.

Kitagrl Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 10:07pm
post #12 of 26

I totally agree that preservatives are worse than fat and sugar!!!

The biggest problem today is not what kids eat. Its that kids sit around doing nothing. Seriously.

7yyrt Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 10:43pm
post #13 of 26

How can kids learn to be active?
Not at school; recess, where the children run and play as they please, is taken away and replaced with PE classes where they are forced to flail their limbs in unison or sit around and watch while the athletically-gifted kids do things.

funcakes Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 11:12pm
post #14 of 26

Activity at schools differs from place to place. Thank goodness where I am children still have active recess and a great PE where they are all active and also learn sportsmanship.
Teams, sports and clubs are also available to the kids after school. But you are right few parents make them turn off the wii and video games to be active at home or do their homework!

Apti Posted 14 Jun 2010 , 11:36pm
post #15 of 26

Thanks everyone. I'll opt to not use transfats (especially since I've never been exposed to icing that has it). I'll try Indydeby's BC recipe since that was suggested and she is a Jedi Master of the caking world. I am but a lowly Paduwan, but will use cake to make the world a happier place!

Love you guys.

Kitagrl Posted 15 Jun 2010 , 12:14am
post #16 of 26

Unfortunately the crazy people in this world have helped keep our kids from being active...its not safe to roam the neighborhoods anymore so most kids go home and sit playing video games.

I'm trying to keep mine outside and active this summer but its not easy! Especially doing cakes!!!!

But really...when all of us were kids...there was nothing much to sit around and do, unless you wanted to watch tv or read books. No video games or cell phones or anything like that. So we went outside and ran around, rode bikes, whatever. Calories don't count so much if you're burning them.

Adevag Posted 15 Jun 2010 , 12:34am
post #17 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7yyrt

Adevag, are you vegan?

To the Food and Drug Administration, which is in charge of most packaged food labeling, there is no difference between the trans fat that occurs in cows and other ruminant animals and the kind that is artificially created and favored in large-scale food manufacturing.

Trans fats are in meat, cheese, butter, milk. All those foods should be illegal?
Food police are supposed to come take all my chickens away in little chicken handcuffs, to be humanely euthanized?

(The above is intended to be a humorous story of what could occur if all transfats were outlawed.)




No, I'm not vegan. (nothing against vegans) I did not mean all trans fats. Sorry, I should have been clearer. When I think of trans fats I think of hydrogenated oils. So no, I don't think that the trans fatty acids that occur naturally in the digestive system should be banned! Only the synthetic trans fats!

Madgeovens- of course we make our own decisions on what to eat but don't you think it's great to have laws on what is allowed to be put in our food so that we can know what we eat. The government does not force you to buy anything in a store, but they should definitely regulate on what is allowed to be sold in a grocery store. And just like very poisonous pesticides that have proven to cause cancer etc. have been banned, why should the government not ban something that for sure shortens our lives? (not trying to cause a big off topic debate and I am typing this with a calm and friendly "tone," hope it's not misread!)

mbark Posted 15 Jun 2010 , 12:45am
post #18 of 26

I am in CA, does this mean my local cake store will no longer carry the high-ratio shortening?! I have wonderful results with it using Sugarshack's bc recipe & don't know what I would do without it!

Kitagrl Posted 15 Jun 2010 , 12:51am
post #19 of 26

I actually resent the idea that the government knows whats best for us, better than us just reading the ingredients.

If they want the food people to have to list ingredients that's fine...but I don't care for the idea that they would actually ban something. Let US make our own decisions.

Speaking here in Philly...where they are working on passing the soda tax....(well thankfully I'm not IN Philly...)

If the government wants to restrict food buying at ALL, the only time they should be doing it is for the food they are paying for, such as EBT or WIC or etc.... but then I guess I'm getting too close to politics for this thread. *gulp*

Long live Sweetex!!!!! thumbs_up.gif

(Philly actually did have a trans fat ban too but thankfully they exempted bakeries...so far....I am not sure about NYC.)

7yyrt Posted 15 Jun 2010 , 1:39am
post #20 of 26

mbark,
http://highratioshortening.com/trans-fats-threatens-high-ratio-shortening-sales-in-california
As of January1, 2010, The new law in the state of California has gone into effect. No more Trans Fats in the baked and fried and cooked goods. This will effect the sales of high ratio shortening, which has partially hydrogenated oil in the ingredients.

January 1, 2011 is the date for discontinuing deep-frying yeast dough and cake batter. Violation of this law could result in a fine of $25 to $1000.

Apti Posted 15 Jun 2010 , 11:41am
post #21 of 26

Thanks 7yyrt for listing the correct dates for the California conversion from trans-fats. Yesterday I looked in a San Diego county WalMart and they no longer carry the shortening with 3% trans-fats that several forums have listed as a good alternative to high-ratio. Another forum suggested that IndyDeby's BC works well because of the Dream Whip, so tomorrow is the big day to put my precious KitchenAid to work incorporating Dream Whip (I bought all 3 boxes that WalMart had).

artscallion Posted 15 Jun 2010 , 12:10pm
post #22 of 26

While it affects everything, including the food we buy in markets, I think the intention of government food regulations like these is to protect us when we can't read the ingredients and make an informed choice. When you go into a restaurant or school cafeteria you don't get to know what they're using as ingredients and can't make an informed choice.

If you've ever worked in a restaurant before, you know that many places would have no problem slathering your baked fish with chicken fat if they thought it would make it taste better, and you more likely to return. They have absolutely no concern for your health or calories. And there's no way for you to know this, sitting at your table.

Plus, when everything contains the tastier. bad-for-you ingredient, like trans fat, with no non-trans-fat alternative, where's the choice. If every cookie in the aisle uses bad fat, because it's cheaper and tastier, you don't have a choice.

7yyrt Posted 15 Jun 2010 , 3:40pm
post #23 of 26

Kitagrl,
Around here they do regulate the WIC purchases. Whole grains, fruit, vegetables, formula, baby food, milk, etc. (I know because there are stickers on the shelves stating this or that is allowed.) None of the empty- calorie food is on there.
-
Part of my beef with trans-fats; is that hydrogenated is the bad stuff, studies with the naturally occurring trans-fats showed they are actually good for people.

The regulations don't make any distinction, and consider them all bad.

indydebi Posted 15 Jun 2010 , 7:22pm
post #24 of 26

Bluntly, the govt is the last entity who has any credibility about eating healthy. They are in charge of our public school cafeteria menus, yet when my daughter tried to apply Weight Watcher points, she found out that no matter WHAT she picked at school .... except for plain salad ...... a school lunch ate up ALL of her weight watcher points for the day.

So if this is the crap they are deeming as "healthy" for our children, then they can shove their opinion where the sun dont' shine. icon_evil.gif

To the original question: It's cake and icing. By definition, it's not "healthy" nor is it suppose to be, or does it ever PRETEND to be.

pugmama1 Posted 15 Jun 2010 , 7:33pm
post #25 of 26

I have been wanting to try IndyDebi's icing and am glad it was posted that it is made with the new Crisco. I will try it on my next cake adventure. My buttercreams in the past have had some butter in them, so my question is whether the icing is best with just Crisco or is it equally good with part butter?

Kitagrl Posted 15 Jun 2010 , 7:55pm
post #26 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by indydebi

Bluntly, the govt is the last entity who has any credibility about eating healthy. They are in charge of our public school cafeteria menus, yet when my daughter tried to apply Weight Watcher points, she found out that no matter WHAT she picked at school .... except for plain salad ...... a school lunch ate up ALL of her weight watcher points for the day.

So if this is the crap they are deeming as "healthy" for our children, then they can shove their opinion where the sun dont' shine. icon_evil.gif

To the original question: It's cake and icing. By definition, it's not "healthy" nor is it suppose to be, or does it ever PRETEND to be.




thumbs_up.gifthumbs_up.gifthumbs_up.gifthumbs_up.gifthumbs_up.gif

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%