Fda Ruling Could Ban Shortening With Trans Fats In Us

Decorating By jason_kraft Updated 26 Nov 2013 , 2:07pm by milkmaid42

costumeczar Posted 9 Nov 2013 , 11:39am
post #61 of 202

A

Original message sent by shannycakers

additionally, is everyone forgetting that fondant has trans-fats also in it...

I make my own and it doesn't have trans fats.

kblickster Posted 9 Nov 2013 , 12:16pm
post #62 of 202

Costumeczar,  How do you flavor this icing.  Do a few tablespoons of vanilla effect the texture?  How about fruit purees or dairy creamers?

MimiFix Posted 9 Nov 2013 , 12:35pm
post #63 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBalaska 
 

... They got their palms greased...  

 

Thank you, MB, I LOVE puns. 

jason_kraft Posted 9 Nov 2013 , 4:00pm
post #64 of 202

A

Original message sent by embersmom

From a cake standpoint, though, this could very well matter somewhere down the line.  It's true that a lot of shortening products are no longer made with trans fats, but I'm willing to bet that there are more still being made with them.  My guess is that most of those are of the Sweetex or other commercial-only variety.  My greater fear is that the manufacturers will find something else that's worse for you, healthwise, and make that its new standard because it'll be cheaper to manufacture.  On a greater scale, that's what it's all about.

Every major manufacturer of high ratio shortening has a zero-trans-fat product by now so they can remain in the California market. Generally the replacement has been palm oil with added emulsifiers...palm oil has its own issues involving the environmental impact of its cultivation and its saturated fat content but it is still a better alternative than trans fat.

I'm not sure why healthier fats like canola oil are not used more widely in shortening, it may be due to performance of the product and/or the cost. Given that so many food manufacturers will be reformulating their products, this may be a good opportunity for a healthier and more sustainable shortening product to be introduced since the existing ZTF shortenings set a lower bar for performance.

MimiFix Posted 9 Nov 2013 , 5:15pm
post #65 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_kraft 

... Given that so many food manufacturers will be reformulating their products, this may be a good opportunity for a healthier and more sustainable shortening product to be introduced...

 

R&D departments are kept busy with both new product development and, for a variety of reasons, reformulation of existing products. I agree with Jason that this FDA ruling may spur competition to create better quality shortening for our recipes. Now is the time to contact customer service departments with your suggestions. Whether you realize or not, they do pay attention. 

costumeczar Posted 9 Nov 2013 , 9:44pm
post #66 of 202

A

Original message sent by kblickster

Costumeczar,  How do you flavor this icing.  Do a few tablespoons of vanilla effect the texture?  How about fruit purees or dairy creamers?

You mean the all-butter one with confectioner's sugar? i don't even bother putting vanilla in since that will make it darker. It really does taste better than the version with shortening...my kids are my taste testers and they both wanted more of it when I gave it to them to try. I only use it for the outside of cakes, and I use meringue buttercreams for the fillings. I don't know how it would take flavorings, you's probably have to add more sugar to it, but that's something you'd have to experiment with.

MBalaska Posted 9 Nov 2013 , 11:58pm
post #67 of 202

Once you take a naturally healthy food such as Canola Oil and put it through the hydrogenation process you no longer have the healthy food of Canola Oil you have a synthetic modified food that is solid at room temperature which has  ‘Trans Fatty Acids.’

 

Your FDA says that Trans fatty acids are unhealthy fats that form when vegetable oil hardens in a process called hydrogenation .

 

Hydrogenation,  chemical reaction between molecular hydrogen and an element or compound, ordinarily in the presence of a catalyst. The reaction may be one in which hydrogen simply adds to a double or triple bond connecting two atoms in the structure of the molecule or one in which the addition of hydrogen results in dissociation (breaking up) of the molecule (called hydrogenolysis, or destructive hydrogenation). Typical hydrogenation reactions include the reaction of hydrogen and nitrogen to form ammonia and the reaction of hydrogen and carbon monoxide to form methanol or hydrocarbons, depending on the choice of catalyst.

 

Nearly all organic compounds containing multiple bonds connecting two atoms can react with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst. The hydrogenation of organic compounds (through addition and hydrogenolysis) is a reaction of great industrial importance. The addition of hydrogen is used in the production of edible fats from liquid oils.

 

The industrial importance of the hydrogenation process dates from 1897, when the French chemist Paul Sabatier discovered that the introduction of a trace of nickel as a catalyst facilitated the addition of hydrogen to molecules of carbon compounds.  (meaning motor oil, then applied the process to food oil)

 

**This is the circle.  It started with Butter and lard as normal food, it ends with butter and lard as the recommended safest normal food.  I like butter, I like lard, I like trans-fatty Shortening, I don't like bear fat though - it really had a wild gamey taste yuck.

-K8memphis Posted 10 Nov 2013 , 12:25am
post #68 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBalaska 
 

... I don't like bear fat though - it really had a wild gamey taste yuck.

 

whoa--crossing it off my list  right now  :lol: i'll stick with butter but i did harvest some bacon fat last week--great for frying eggs, popping popcorn ;)

MBalaska Posted 10 Nov 2013 , 12:51am
post #69 of 202

K8memphis:  harvesting bacon.....yummy.  ;-D

 

What about natural trans fats? According to the USDA, a pound of ground beef has more than 8g of natural trans fat.

 

       Web MD Jan. 20, 2012 -- All trans fats are not created equal.

Some are manmade, and have been added to all sorts of foods to increase their shelf life, but others can be found naturally in beef, pork, lamb, butter, and milk.

Norasmom Posted 10 Nov 2013 , 2:24am
post #70 of 202

Apparently the feds aren't subsidizing trans-fat, if they were, they wouldn't have decided it was dangerous.  

 

 What about high fructose corn syrup? No one can argue that stuff is good for you, but it is subsidized big time.

liz at sugar Posted 10 Nov 2013 , 4:49am
post #71 of 202

Quote:

Originally Posted by -K8memphis 
 

 

whoa--crossing it off my list  right now  :lol: i'll stick with butter but i did harvest some bacon fat last week--great for frying eggs, popping popcorn ;)

 

I love frying eggs in bacon fat . . . but with the advent of those convenient little boxes of pre-cooked bacon, I rarely cook up a batch at home anymore.

 

Liz

jason_kraft Posted 10 Nov 2013 , 5:48am
post #72 of 202

A

Original message sent by MBalaska

What about natural trans fats? According to the USDA, a pound of ground beef has more than 8g of natural trans fat.

       Web MD Jan. 20, 2012 -- All trans fats are not created equal. Some are manmade, and have been added to all sorts of foods to increase their shelf life, but others can be found naturally in beef, pork, lamb, butter, and milk.

There is no way to remove natural trans fats from beef, pork, lamb, butter, and milk. Humans have been consuming natural trans fats from these sources as a primary component of their diet since before the dawn of civilization so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume natural trans fats are safe. Science supports this, as these natural trans fats (conjugated linoleic acid or CLA) are apparently more healthy than artificial trans fats. http://chriskresser.com/can-some-trans-fats-be-healthy

By contrast, it is easy to reformulate existing products that use artificial trans fats to use similar ingredients that do not contain artificial trans fats.

jason_kraft Posted 10 Nov 2013 , 5:53am
post #73 of 202

A

Original message sent by MBalaska

Once you take a naturally healthy food such as Canola Oil and put it through the hydrogenation process you no longer have the healthy food of Canola Oil you have a synthetic modified food that is solid at room temperature which has  ‘Trans Fatty Acids.’

Fully hydrogenated oil does not contain trans fat.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/trans-fat/CL00032

howsweet Posted 10 Nov 2013 , 5:59pm
post #74 of 202

Quote:

Originally Posted by carmijok 
 

 

 

You know you can force people to eat organic vegetables and exercise all day long and some will still be fat,  and some will die of cancer and some will still have heart disease.  Linda McCartney, famous vegan who died of breast cancer comes to mind as well as the acclaimed runner Jim Fixx who died of a heart attack while running.  We don't get out of this alive!

 

...

 

Am I an advocate for all trans-fats?  Not really...but I am against FORCING an entire industry to change based solely on the studies-du-jour that claim we're all going to die.  if you remember 30 years ago, trans-fats were introduced as a 'healthy' alternative to fats like that pesky coconut oil!  My have times have changed.  I'm so sick of this 'first- it's-bad-then- it's- good' flip-flop philosophy.

 

The problem with your argument is the assumption that vegan is a healthy diet and the use of an exceptional example like Jim Fixx. You're right, we are all going to die, but that's an example of someone who probably denied her body of some essential nutrients and a person with an unusual genetic history. There are plenty of people eating healthily and living healthy lifestyles who are extending their lives. 

 

Transfats are not going to flip and be called healthy again - when "they" said they were healthy, it was partly because there was no history of artificial foods at the the time. No one was touting that it was proven to be safe --- it was more like it didn't occur to them that it might not be and the manufacturers didn't care. Trans fats were a substitute for saturated fats which were thought to be bad. Relatively, no one would have been hurt from reducing the amount of saturated fat in their diet. The problem was the substitution in processed foods. That's an example of why we shouldn't assume any BPA free containers are safe just because they don't contain BPA.  Industry doesn't care what they package in, but now we know BPA is bad, so they'll use anything without BPA. The customer makes the leap of assumption that the new product is safe.

 

Coconut oil was thought to be bad because of its saturated fats, but now we know it's not as simple as saturated fats, but inflammation (from substances like sugar) that causes heart disease. Are we in for some surprises? No doubt, but that's not a reason to avoid substances we know are harmful.

 

Will the government ban result in substitution of something worse that transfat? Time will tell. As they say, just eat fresh fruits, vegetable and meats. Careful with the grains.

carmijok Posted 10 Nov 2013 , 11:41pm
post #75 of 202

A

Original message sent by howsweet

Quote: The problem with your argument is the assumption that vegan is a healthy diet and the use of an exceptional example like Jim Fixx. You're right, we are all going to die, but that's an example of someone who probably denied her body of some essential nutrients and a person with an unusual genetic history. There are plenty of people eating healthily and living healthy lifestyles who are extending their lives. 

Transfats are not going to flip and be called healthy again - when "they" said they were healthy, it was partly because there was no history of artificial foods at the the time. No one was touting that it was proven to be safe --- it was more like it didn't occur to them that it might not be and the manufacturers didn't care. Trans fats were a substitute for saturated fats which were thought to be bad. Relatively, [B]no one would have been hurt from reducing the amount of saturated fat in their diet.[/B] [B]The problem was the substitution in processed foods[/B]. That's an example of why we shouldn't assume any BPA free containers are safe just because they don't contain BPA.  Industry doesn't care what they package in, but now we know BPA is bad, so they'll use anything without BPA. The [B]customer[/B] makes the leap of assumption that the new product is safe.

Coconut oil was thought to be bad because of its saturated fats, but now we know it's not as simple as saturated fats, but inflammation (from substances like sugar) that causes heart disease. Are we in for some surprises? No doubt, but that's not a reason to avoid substances we know are harmful.

Will the government ban result in substitution of something worse that transfat? Time will tell. As they say, just eat fresh fruits, vegetable and meats. Careful with the grains.

Well it's not MY assumption that a vegan diet is healthy...it's what's being promoted ad nauseum these days. Ever hear of 'meatless Monday's?' And Jim Fixx is certainly not the only 'healthy' person to have dropped dead. He's just one of the most well known. My point is that people should be able to follow whatever lifestyle they want and if being vegan is your thing, or running marathons makes you feel good, then that's what you should do. It's just no guarantee that you --as an individual --will live longer no matter how many studies there are. What should NOT happen is to have those lifestyles blanket- enforced on everyone 'for our own good'!

If enough people decide they'd rather not consume trans fats, manufacturers will get rid of them in order to keep their customers happy and themselves in business. That's why so many companies have already taken them out of their products! To assume that a forced regulation will cause childhood and adult obesity rates to drop is ludicrous! If you eat 14 cupcakes everyday it makes no difference If they're free of trans fats or not! So why force EVERY manufacturer in the country to switch their process when the problem lies more with personal responsibility?

Successful companies are the ones that change and adapt to prevailing trends. Those that don't will either disappear or maintain a loyal enough following that the market for that item will prove to be a viable alternative. And what is wrong with that? Used to be, having choices was a great thing!

I do not use Crisco in my buttercream so it makes no difference to me whether they have trans fat in there or not. But it was CRISCO that made the decision to take it out...(without a government mandate I might add) and now there are those that are not happy about it. So should those individuals have NO alternative? And where does all this good-for-you-or-else legislation stop?

You yourself mentioned the inflammatory properties of sugar! Stop sugar! That will protect everyone, right? I happen to agree that sugar wreaks havoc on certain individuals...myself included...however, Ive got enough sense to take care of myself...but our industry is all about sugar! OMG....we're the reason little Johnny is a tubbo! Never mind he sits in front of a computer all day and night! We need to be regulated for our own good!

Obviously the FDA, as much as they'd love to also put a ban on sugar, that won't happen. No, what will happen and IS happening is a sugar tax. Yes, in order to make everyone believe the government cares so much about you, anything with sugar in it will be taxed to the nines. So, our costs go up, the customer has to pay more, and everyone will feel great knowing they're putting an end to childhood obesity., right?

I am not trying to be the champion of trans fats or sugar! i am more concerned with a government entity deciding what choices we can or cannot make!

It's time people took responsibility for their own actions and their kids behavior. Want to end obesity? Don't eat so much! Step away from the phone and computer and walk somewhere. Take your kid with you. Learn to cook --with real food. Enjoy everything in moderation --including cake. And don't depend on government regulations to save you from yourself because no matter what is or isn't banned, and no matter how much you believe forcing people to 'do the right thing' is possible, it ultimately is the individual that will decide his or her fate.

MBalaska Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 12:12am
post #76 of 202

Well lookie here, just this month in the Los Angeles Times. A cardiologist from Harvard and a Washintonian food council member says they're heading in this direction of bans.  First Trans fats, then Salt, then Sugar.   Molon Labe.

 

["FDA's trans fat decision: An opening for regulating salt, sugar?"]

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-fda-transfat-salt-sugar-regulation-20131107,0,536733.story#axzz2kI3cZylJ

 

The R & D people are going to be going out of their heads resolving those issues.  Bring back the old fatty Crisco....... It's not like anyone eats it out of the tub with a spoon.

jason_kraft Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 12:46am
post #77 of 202

A

Original message sent by MBalaska

Well lookie here, just this month in the Los Angeles Times. A cardiologist from Harvard and a Washintonian food council member says they're heading in this direction of [COLOR=000080][B]bans[/B][/COLOR].  First Trans fats, then Salt, then Sugar.   Molon Labe.

[SIZE=12px]["FDA's trans fat decision: An opening for regulating salt, sugar?"][/SIZE] [URL=http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-fda-transfat-salt-sugar-regulation-20131107,0,536733.story#axzz2kI3cZylJ]http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-fda-transfat-salt-sugar-regulation-20131107,0,536733.story#axzz2kI3cZylJ[/URL]

The R & D people are going to be going out of their heads resolving those issues.  Bring back the old fatty Crisco....... It's not like anyone eats it out of the tub with a spoon.

The article you linked to does not mention banning anything besides trans fat. Regulating the max amount of sugar or salt per serving size is a possibility, albeit a remote one. Here is the crux of the article's point:

"In an interview Thursday, Willett cautioned that regulating sodium and sugar as additives would hardly be as easy as making a decision to ban trans fats. While trans fats have no nutritional value, salt is an essential nutrient. And sugar, when consumed at reasonable levels, is not harmful, he said. If it is to act on mounting scientific concern about dietary sodium and sugar, the FDA will have to rethink the assumption that an additive it considers as safe "is safe in any amount," Willett said."

jason_kraft Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 12:48am
post #78 of 202

A

Original message sent by carmijok

Obviously the FDA, as much as they'd love to also put a ban on sugar, that won't happen. No, what will happen and IS happening is a sugar tax. Yes, in order to make everyone believe the government cares so much about you, anything with sugar in it will be taxed to the nines.

I've never heard that a sugar tax is happening, what's your source on this? There was some discussion a while ago about taxing soft drinks but I don't believe that developed into any regulatory changes.

-K8memphis Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 1:08am
post #79 of 202

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason_kraft 


I've never heard that a sugar tax is happening, what's your source on this? There was some discussion a while ago about taxing soft drinks but I don't believe that developed into any regulatory changes.

 

it did in tennessee and arkansas--there is also a bit of a sugar tax here in tennessee--we ♥ taxes we ♥ tons of tax as much as we can levy--it's true in a handful of other states, the soda tax i mean

 

the candy tax was not included in a tax decrease so it is taxed a teeny bit higher--with state & local tax we are just under 10% o.m.g.

 

i have no idea how it is collected and i've run retail stores that sell soft drinks and candy-

 

this is the sum total of all that i know

howsweet Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 2:37am
post #80 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmijok 


Well it's not MY assumption that a vegan diet is healthy...it's what's being promoted ad nauseum these days. Ever hear of 'meatless Monday's?' And Jim Fixx is certainly not the only 'healthy' person to have dropped dead. He's just one of the most well known. My point is that people should be able to follow whatever lifestyle they want and if being vegan is your thing, or running marathons makes you feel good, then that's what you should do. It's just no guarantee that you --as an individual --will live longer no matter how many studies there are. What should NOT happen is to have those lifestyles blanket- enforced on everyone 'for our own good'!

If enough people decide they'd rather not consume trans fats, manufacturers will get rid of them in order to keep their customers happy and themselves in business. That's why so many companies have already taken them out of their products! To assume that a forced regulation will cause childhood and adult obesity rates to drop is ludicrous! If you eat 14 cupcakes everyday it makes no difference If they're free of trans fats or not! So why force EVERY manufacturer in the country to switch their process when the problem lies more with personal responsibility?

Successful companies are the ones that change and adapt to prevailing trends. Those that don't will either disappear or maintain a loyal enough following that the market for that item will prove to be a viable alternative. And what is wrong with that? Used to be, having choices was a great thing!

I do not use Crisco in my buttercream so it makes no difference to me whether they have trans fat in there or not. But it was CRISCO that made the decision to take it out...(without a government mandate I might add) and now there are those that are not happy about it. So should those individuals have NO alternative? And where does all this good-for-you-or-else legislation stop?

You yourself mentioned the inflammatory properties of sugar! Stop sugar! That will protect everyone, right? I happen to agree that sugar wreaks havoc on certain individuals...myself included...however, Ive got enough sense to take care of myself...but our industry is all about sugar! OMG....we're the reason little Johnny is a tubbo! Never mind he sits in front of a computer all day and night! We need to be regulated for our own good!

Obviously the FDA, as much as they'd love to also put a ban on sugar, that won't happen. No, what will happen and IS happening is a sugar tax. Yes, in order to make everyone believe the government cares so much about you, anything with sugar in it will be taxed to the nines. So, our costs go up, the customer has to pay more, and everyone will feel great knowing they're putting an end to childhood obesity., right?

I am not trying to be the champion of trans fats or sugar! i am more concerned with a government entity deciding what choices we can or cannot make!

It's time people took responsibility for their own actions and their kids behavior. Want to end obesity? Don't eat so much! Step away from the phone and computer and walk somewhere. Take your kid with you. Learn to cook --with real food. Enjoy everything in moderation --including cake. And don't depend on government regulations to save you from yourself because no matter what is or isn't banned, and no matter how much you believe forcing people to 'do the right thing' is possible, it ultimately is the individual that will decide his or her fate.


If you're not assuming it, why were you using it to support your statement?

 

The kind of change you 'd like is extremely slow since most Americans are not educated about  the harmful effects of what they're consuming. Meanwhile people are getting sick.  If someone's a smoker - as a tax payer, I don't especially want to foot his/her medical bills. I feel the same way about people who eat enough sugar and unopposed carbohydrates to give themselves heart disease, diabetes and liver problems. So if a tax would offset that, I'd be fine with it.

 

And this specifically:

Quote:
Originally Posted by carmijok 
 
Obviously the FDA, as much as they'd love to also put a ban on sugar, that won't happen. No, what will happen and IS happening is a sugar tax. Yes, in order to make everyone believe the government cares so much about you, anything with sugar in it will be taxed to the nines. So, our costs go up, the customer has to pay more, and everyone will feel great knowing they're putting an end to childhood obesity., right?

 

The reason the government is going to tax sugar is in order to have us believe they care?  And you personally know the FDA wants to ban sugar?  And it will be "to the nines"? 

jason_kraft Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 4:06am
post #81 of 202

A

Original message sent by -K8memphis

it did in tennessee and arkansas--there is also a bit of a sugar tax here in tennessee--we ♥ taxes we ♥ tons of tax as much as we can levy--it's true in a handful of other states, the soda tax i mean

the candy tax was not included in a tax decrease so it is taxed a teeny bit higher--with state & local tax we are just under 10% o.m.g.

i have no idea how it is collected and i've run retail stores that sell soft drinks and candy-

this is the sum total of all that i know

A soda tax is very different from a sugar tax. Sugar is a very common ingredient and there's nothing wrong with consuming sugar in moderation. Regulation and/or taxation come into play when you have a food or ingredient that is causing a negative financial impact in other areas (such as healthcare) without offering any redeeming nutritional value. This is the reason the FDA has acted to ban artificial trans fats. A soda tax is obviously not a perfect solution since it won't automatically make people eat healthier, but it would at least offset some of the increased healthcare burden.

Setting sales tax for specific categories of items is within the purview of individual states, as the FDA does not have the power to levy taxes. Regulation (e.g. banning or setting limits for a certain food or ingredient) can be done at any level of government, up to and including the FDA.

carmijok Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 8:14am
post #82 of 202

A

Original message sent by howsweet

If you're not assuming it, why were you using it to support your statement?

The kind of change you 'd like is extremely slow since most Americans are not educated about  the harmful effects of what they're consuming. Meanwhile people are getting sick.  If someone's a smoker - as a tax payer, I don't especially want to foot his/her medical bills. I feel the same way about people who eat enough sugar and unopposed carbohydrates to give themselves heart disease, diabetes and liver problems. So if a tax would offset that, I'd be fine with it.

And this specifically:

The reason the government is going to tax sugar is in order to have us believe they care?  And you personally know the FDA wants to ban sugar?  And it will be "to the nines"? 

[B][/B][quote name="howsweet" url="/t/765583/fda-ruling-could-ban-shortening-with-trans-fats-in-us/75#post_7462293"] [quote name="howsweet" url="/t/765583/fda-ruling-could-ban-shortening-with-trans-fats-in-us/75#post_7462293"]

If you're not assuming it, why were you using it to support your statement? [B] because it is widely accepted ( and loudly proselytized) by those who claim to be health experts that a plant based diet is better than a carnivorous diet...allowing for better health and longer life. I merely pointed out a particularly vocal proponent of this belief who died of breast cancer anyway. The point being is that everyone is different and you cannot make blanket decrees for EVERYONE just because you happen to buy into the hype du jour[[/B][/B]/B]

The kind of change you 'd like is extremely slow since most Americans are not educated about  the harmful effects of what they're consuming. [B]So what planet are you living on? We are being bombarded everyday by one study or another as to what is 'bad' for us. It's on tv...it's throughout the internet its being taught in schools. Heck I grew up on being taught the benefits of fruits and vegetables...this is not new stuff. It's the reason some manufacturers have already gotten rid of trans fats..without government force. its the reason restaurants have been told to change their menus and post calorie counts. If you don't know that eating a dozen donuts is bad for you then no amount of labeling, 'education' or government mandates against trans fats is going to help you, because you can't legislate stupidity.'[/B]

Meanwhile people are getting sick.  [B]Guess what...people get sick everyday and for different reasons. you cant rely on or pinpoint any one thing that will keep everyone disease free. My great uncle Grady drank and smoked like a fiend. his favorite foods were cheeseburgers and anything fried and he had a wicked sweet tooth. He died when he was 97...with a smile on his face so Im told. everyone told him what he was doing was'bad' for him, but he said he'd rather enjoy his life on his terms and no one else's. If only he had known how much better his life would have been had someone decided how he should have lived it! [/B]]

If someone's a smoker - as a tax payer, I don't especially want to foot his/her medical bills. [B]I don't necessarily want to foot lot of other people's medical bills under our new healthcare law, but we're going to. Think those cigarette taxes are going toward that? [/B]]

I feel the same way about people who eat enough sugar and unopposed carbohydrates to give themselves heart disease, diabetes and liver problems. So if a tax would offset that, I'd be fine with it. [B]whats an 'unopposed carbohydrate'? Besides shouldn't that fall under the concept of personal responsibility? Oh I forgot , we don't recognize that anymore. People have to be told how to live because they aren't educated enough and hence, too stupid to figure it out on their own [/B]

So if a tax would offset that, I'd be fine with it. [B]And I'm sure your customers would understand and adore paying more for their cakes because they're saving someone from themselves. When they decide that the cost of buying from you is too expensive, maybe you'll be just as happy when you go out of business because people are afraid of sugar. That is the goal of any of theses types of taxes you know..to make it so painfully expensive people will eventually quit. But you'll be ok with that, right?[[B].

And this specifically:

The reason the government is going to tax sugar is in order to have us believe they care? [B]Tell me anytime the government imposed a tax that they said it wasn't for 'the greater good'?[/B]

And you personally know the FDA wants to ban sugar? [B] If given enough ammunition by the food police, i believe they'd give it a go.[/B]

And it will be to the nines? [B] have you seen how high taxes are on cigarettes? And getting higher? I think in NY, a pack runs around $7. And I believe The president wants to tack on another 94 cents a pack...don't know if that's happened but its indicative of how these types of taxes rise. So yes...should there be a tax on sugar ( there are already taxes on sugared sodas out there now), I predict that the cost of sugar ...and everything that contains sugar...will rise accordingly. In fact i believe the cost of sugar will double in price in the next year if not sooner and that will be in large part due to taxes and restrictions all under the misguided belief that you can legislate and control behavior. Control being the operative word.

MBalaska Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 9:15am
post #83 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_kraft 

Just saw this article...the FDA has announced a new ruling stating that partially hydrogenated oil will no longer be "generally recognized as safe". The impact to cake decorating is that shortening with trans fats would no longer be able to be sold in the US.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/health/fda-trans-fats.html?_r=0

Here is an article to help make the transition to zero-trans-fat baking:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/FacetheFatsRestaurantResources/Baking-without-Trans-Fat_UCM_303915_Article.jsp

And here is a list of zero-trans-fat high ratio shortening products:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/FacetheFatsRestaurantResources/Cake-and-Icing-Shortenings-For-Restaurants-and-Bakeries_UCM_304610_Article.jsp

Well golly gee, it just became a puzzle…

 

This post wasn’t started  ‘cause the authoritarian dictates of a central government planning entity was depriving folks of their personal freedom of choice, and that it was annoying (as I believed it to be when I first read it.)

 

It was started as an announcement enthusiastically celebrating the elimination of folks personal freedom of choice in their pantry edibles.

 

Say it ain’t so….. a handful of peeps in a Washington DC Federalie office  cutting off grease for 300 Million people, from Maine to Hawaii, Puerto Rico to American Samoa & Guam.  Because someone says it’s for the ‘Greater Good’. And that each and every single one of those 317,045,818 peeps are exactly the same.

 

Bring back the Old Shortening.  Bring on the Butter, Sugar, Salt, White Pastry Flour, Whole Eggs, Baking Powder. Yes I’ll bake contraband cakes and cookies.  I’ll be an outlaw. A cake baking Ma Barker, a cookie making Bonnie Parker ---cause I like Trans-Fat Crisco Shortening.  The real heavy duty stuff that My Grandma taught me to use.  Where will it end?

 

What does the other 99% of the world’s population eat for grease?  Shouldn't we ban their foods also? Why stop in the United States.  Go for the world.

Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Scandinavia, Italy, Asia, Europe, Africa..........what do they eat for grease?

-K8memphis Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 12:54pm
post #84 of 202

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason_kraft 


A soda tax is very different from a sugar tax. Sugar is a very common ingredient and there's nothing wrong with consuming sugar in moderation. Regulation and/or taxation come into play when you have a food or ingredient that is causing a negative financial impact in other areas (such as healthcare) without offering any redeeming nutritional value. This is the reason the FDA has acted to ban artificial trans fats. A soda tax is obviously not a perfect solution since it won't automatically make people eat healthier, but it would at least offset some of the increased healthcare burden.

Setting sales tax for specific categories of items is within the purview of individual states, as the FDA does not have the power to levy taxes. Regulation (e.g. banning or setting limits for a certain food or ingredient) can be done at any level of government, up to and including the FDA.

 

fact remains we are taxed for soda and sugar along with a handful of other states--

 

the candy and soda tax does not offset anything but ill managed fiscal responsibilities

Cara-mel Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 1:29pm
post #85 of 202

A

Original message sent by IowaBaker

Natural doesn't mean I want to eat it, either. Carmine and cochineal, made from ground cochineal beetles, are used in the US as red food coloring and may legally be labeled "natural coloring" without saying what. It can be a problem for people with insect allergies. Castoreum, which is vanilla scented and flavored, can be listed simply as "natural flavoring". It comes from a beaver's butt. [URL=http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/10/02/beaver-butts-emit-goo-used-in-vanilla-flavored-foods/]http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/10/02/beaver-butts-emit-goo-used-in-vanilla-flavored-foods/[/URL] I'd like more specific labeling, please.

I'm with you on this!!! I don't want nothing from a beaver's butt! Majority of bad cholesterol is in meat/animal products anyway, I grew up vegetarian and later added fish and poultry so I have excellent cholesterol levels. Something will always be bad for us...it's a never ending cycle. Eggs were bad, now they're good....hmm.

embersmom Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 1:34pm
post #86 of 202

Quote:

Originally Posted by MBalaska 

 

This post wasn’t started  ‘cause the authoritarian dictates of a central government planning entity was depriving folks of their personal freedom of choice, and that it was annoying (as I believed it to be when I first read it.)

 

It was started as an announcement enthusiastically celebrating the elimination of folks personal freedom of choice in their pantry edibles.

I was thinking the exact same thing :nodding:  What I'm surprised is that it was mentioned upthread how this no-trans-fat ruling is going to affect us as cakers, and there was maybe one response to that?

 

I don't know about anyone else, and maybe it's because I work for a supermarket chain, but yeah, it's going to b a very BIG deal.

 

When the icing we currently use was first reformulated, it caused a lot of problems both in using it and with the taste.  The company has since reformulated it again, so now the taste is OK, but the application of it is still off because whatever they're substituting for the trans-fat is very temperature-sensitive.  I mean, we have to leave it over by the oven in the dead of winter in order to get it soft enough to use it!  During the warmer months it's a gloppy, noncrusting mess, so soft you can't really pipe anything with it.

 

I mentioned in another thread that I'm betting that temperature-sensitive non-trans-fat is the culprit.  Now, I haven't had the chance to read the ingredient label so I can't tell you what it is, but it got me thinking...if it's something like Sweet-Tex or another hi-ratio shortening, it's not just "me" who's going to be affected.

 

If you doctor boxed cake mix, you'll be affected.  Ditto brownie, quick bread, anything of those mixes in the baking aisle.

 

If you use shortening as opposed to butter in your icing, you'll be affected (OK, maybe not if you already use Crisco, but if you don't...)

 

Those refrigerator biscuits/croissants in the dairy case?  They'll be affected.

 

Using flavored coffee creamer in your icing?  That will be affected.

 

Love donuts?  Do you patronize Krispy Kreme or Dunkin?  They're going to be affected.

 

There's more, but you get the point, I hope:  Every single commercially-made product that's either already baked or is an ingredient is going to be affected.  For me the supermarket baker/decorator, that includes all my bread and roll dough as well as the pastries I bake off.

 

Trans-fat is what gives products that buttery "mouthfeel" without the butter.  Butter is expensive, which is why most commercial entities don't use it, or if it is used, it's used sparingly and mostly as a flavoring agent if butter extract isn't used.

 

I know, I know, there are people on CC who are purists and wouldn't use anything but butter.  This won't directly affect them as far as their caking is concerned, but for those who aren't, I'm just trying to give you a heads up.  And yes, I'm being a bit militant about it because I was called an idiot in another food-related site for even bringing this up, believe it or not.

liz at sugar Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 2:00pm
post #87 of 202

Quote:

Originally Posted by embersmom 
 

I was thinking the exact same thing :nodding:  What I'm surprised is that it was mentioned upthread how this no-trans-fat ruling is going to affect us as cakers, and there was maybe one response to that?

 

I don't know about anyone else, and maybe it's because I work for a supermarket chain, but yeah, it's going to b a very BIG deal.

 

I know, I know, there are people on CC who are purists and wouldn't use anything but butter.  This won't directly affect them as far as their caking is concerned, but for those who aren't, I'm just trying to give you a heads up.  And yes, I'm being a bit militant about it because I was called an idiot in another food-related site for even bringing this up, believe it or not.

 

I agree it will be a big deal for those who use these products.  But most people don't plan ahead, and wait until they can't get it anymore before trying to adapt, and then they will be in full panic mode.  I'm sure it will get ugly next year.

 

Liz

embersmom Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 2:15pm
post #88 of 202

Quote:

Originally Posted by liz at sugar 
 

 

I agree it will be a big deal for those who use these products.  But most people don't plan ahead, and wait until they can't get it anymore before trying to adapt, and then they will be in full panic mode.  I'm sure it will get ugly next year.

 

Liz


Oh, I know, I know :shakes head:  I'm just trying to do my part to sound one of the first warning bells.  We got the news at work a couple of weeks ago that a bunch of the items we carry won't be available for awhile while the manufacturers rework the formula to meet the no-trans-fat criteria.  It's going to be interesting to see how our customers will react.

-K8memphis Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 3:02pm
post #89 of 202

i thought they were already banned? little slow here--but i know we went through panic mode already when we found them missing the first time--but i mean i'm a mostly butter & oil person for cakes--except yeah i would miss them in cake mix that i once used for tier cakes-- oh yeah and for gingerbread creations--but i already have and use the 'lotsa trans fat has been removed' products-

 

let's raise our 32 ounce fountain drinks in salute of new laws to make us safe--oh except not new yorkers -- they are too protected to toast with 32 ounce drinks this way --hey new yorkers, put a 16 ounce in each hand! but back quietly away from the shortening no sudden moves and nobody gets hurt greased :lol:

jason_kraft Posted 11 Nov 2013 , 3:33pm
post #90 of 202

A

Original message sent by MBalaska

It was started as an announcement enthusiastically [I]celebrating[/I] the elimination of folks personal freedom of choice in their pantry edibles.

That's news to me...can you point out where in my original post I was "celebrating"? I posted this thread as a public service, as we had to deal with the same thing in California a few years ago and as liz mentioned above there is some planning and R&D required. I can also confirm that the sky has not fallen in our great state, and food still tastes good without trans fat.

I've also stated several times that while I think some regulation is necessary, I don't agree with a full ban on trans fats.

If we can stick to a discussion of how this ban will impact baking and decorating I think this thread will be more productive. If you disagree with the ban, the FDA is currently accepting public comments on their proposal so I would recommend contacting them directly with a well-reasoned argument.

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%