FDA ruling could ban shortening with trans fats in US

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

jason_kraft Posted 12 Nov 2013 , 7:30pm
post #151 of 202

A

Original message sent by embersmom

But...this is where education comes in.  It's easy for you, me, and others here to understand and follow that because we're all obviously privileged in the sense that 1) we are literate, 2) we're educated, and 3) we're more food-centric than the general public.  As simple as the color-coded idea is, how much do you want to bet that it'd confuse people?  As it is, only a small segment of our society pays attention to nutrition labels.  Unfortunate but true :shrug:

I believe this needs to start in high school, if not earlier. Basic nutrition classes should be a required part of the curriculum. Schools should also require a basic understanding of civics, personal finance, and rhetoric, but that's another story.

lilmissbakesalot Posted 12 Nov 2013 , 7:59pm
post #156 of 202

Of course!  An outright ban on white sugar would be jolting to say the least, and I'm not suggesting that is what should happen (but I know that you know that).  Want to make it easy in the cereal aisle?  Just skip it... LOL.  Just about every boxed cereal out there is useless for nutrition. Most of it is simple, empty carbs and sugar.  Have a real breakfast... some steel cut oatmeal and fruit or eggs or last night's leftovers... any of that is better than rice krispies (even the all natural organic non-GMO ones).

 

I know that the outright banning of anything isn't going to garner much support from the general public, and that's not what I was suggesting... simply saying that refined white sugar in any quantity is not good for you... period.  There are so many other ways to naturally get the sugars your body needs (and can use over a longer period of time) that don't just add empty calories.  The average American gets close to 1/2 of their daily calories from soda.. that's scary.  Don't believe it... I can drink 3 big glasses with dinner... that's over 700 calories alone, and that's one meal.  It fills you up with nothing good for you and most of the time is caffeinated so it robs you of water on top of it all.  Used to be you had a small glass with dinner occasionally (originally it was medicinal), now people drink it like it's water.  And diet soda is worse because people treat it like it IS water.

 

Obviously I am passionate about nutrition, and I know this is a friendly back and forth.  I don't want to come across like I am being combative.  The current food system has created ALL of this.  We all want easy and convenient, but that isn't the right way.  There is tons of sugar in our food system because it makes things cheaper.  You don't have to use real nutritious foods because you can puff up some corn and sprinkle it with tons of sugar and our body THINKS it's being satiated, but really you get nothing from it.  There is no easy fix for it, but it has to start with education.  The FDA is as corrupt as big agriculture too.  I really don't think they have the best interests of the individuals at heart.  They are a for profit business and can be swayed like any other.  Don't think for a second that Monsanto and ConAgra don't lobby fiercely for their products/poisons.

 

I wish there was an easy fix.  I am pretty militant when it comes to food and even I still cave.  I had soda last night... I ate Cheetos the other day.  If it wasn't there I would have had some veggies.  Now I want Cheetos... LOL!

AnnieCahill Posted 12 Nov 2013 , 8:21pm
post #157 of 202

Quote:

Want to make it easy in the cereal aisle?  Just skip it... LOL.  

 

Yep.  I rarely shop the inner aisles of the grocery store.  I love (real) bacon and eggs in the morning!  Woot!

lilmissbakesalot Posted 12 Nov 2013 , 8:23pm
post #159 of 202

Me too, Annie.  I go into the aisles for a few things, but most of my grocery bill is produce.

lilmissbakesalot Posted 12 Nov 2013 , 8:24pm
post #160 of 202

I'm making brownies tonight... I'll send you some!  ;)

-K8memphis Posted 12 Nov 2013 , 8:37pm
post #161 of 202

i just made some 'baby frittatas'--'crustless quichettes'--a tiny bit of potato, bunch of shredded zucchini, cheese, bacon, onions, some cooked down minced spinach, hot pepper flakes-- baked as muffins so i can freeze them up and have 'fast food' when i need it--

 

i do sometimes toss a small handful of uncle sam's cereal in my yogurt--that's not a horrible cereal--low glycemic--god knows what the wheat is doing to us--certainly doesn't seem to be doing anything for the bee population--

kblickster Posted 12 Nov 2013 , 8:41pm
post #162 of 202

I live in a rural area.  The closest grocery store to me is in a poor neighborhood.  I shop there often as the next nearest store is 12 miles further.  The last few years I have seen a drastic change in the baking aisle and in the produce section.  The premade selections have taken over.  Bagged salad, bagged slaw, precut veggies.  I have to search for food that is not ready to eat.  The baking aisle is one place that baffles me.  Boxed selections have nearly pushed out flour, sugar, etc.  Cornmeal is something I use regularly.  There used to be 10 brands of it on the shelf.  Now there are 2 choices.  Frozen fruit and vegetable selections have also declined.  It's plentiful if you want it in microwaveable bags.

 

I complain to management constantly and they tell me that they discontinue their least popular items.

howsweet Posted 12 Nov 2013 , 9:01pm
post #163 of 202
Quote:

That's true, but most people don't realize what the amounts really are and that insulin resistance is a slow process that doesn't show itself until some very quiet changes in your body finally begin to be impossible to ignore.  Happens after many years of eating a high carb diet (not just refined sugars).

 

Lot of people don't know how to eat sugar. For example a food high in sugar like an orange, should be eaten opposed by a protein and fiber ( the fiber naturally comes with the orange). That way it's absorbed more slowly into the bloodstream. Orange juice on the other hand not such a good thing. But just try telling most people they shouldn't have a big glass of orange juice...

 

It caught up with K8memphis and was starting to catch up with me. I couldn't loose weight on a 1200 calorie a day diet and it was like a bad dream. Thanks goodness I found a doctor who taught me how to eat. It turned out I could eat lots of calories, as long as it was the right food.

 

It takes a long time for your insulin metabolism to get out of whack which is one reason younger people can eat lots of bad food with no apparent effect. But a high carb diet does effect you and eventually you begin to see it. I lost 35 lbs without even counting calories and, as they say in commercials, without being hungry .

Mmmm...cheetos...you didn't say anything else after that did you? lol

 

 

 

I don't know what this duffy person says, but sugar is a killer. No question. And like you said, not in the acute sense. It's slow. Barry Sears, known for the zone diet, is a real scientist, not, say, your average general practitioner with a diet book taking advantage of health craze, like most people think.  His site is a terrific source of info. http://www.drsears.com/Resources/Glossary/tabid/385/Default.aspx  And this article is a little hard to read, but a good next step if you want to eat an noninflammatory diet http://www.drsears.com/Resources/Glossary/tabid/385/Default.aspx

-K8memphis Posted 12 Nov 2013 , 10:20pm
post #164 of 202

 

i'm a chipaholic--i eat kale chips to help keep me out of the chip aisle--love me some kale chippies--no easy fix like you said but i have a set of recipes for treats and chips that don't bust my diet and for me just having a plan in place really helps when i get cravings--i had brownies yesterday made with ground raisins macerated in bourbon and a stevia/sugar blend with just a tad of gf flours--my husband loves to eat gf because he feels better--my dog and my cat love kale chips--who'd a thought? ;)

 

 

william dufty is an author who wrote "sugar blues" about how bad he thinks sugar is--lots of history--

 

i like barry sears--very good doctor and very good material--i've got one of his books somewhere--

 

just because 'they' can't draw the line on how much sugar is too much doesn't mean it's ok then--

 

the more one can back away from the stuff the better--me i have a sweet tooth aka an addiction--so...i've learned to appreciate stevia plus more fresh fruits all in moderation...usually in moderation but the sugar cookies i made for halloween FOR THE KIDS--no moderation at all--yum yum eat 'em up--one in each hand--buy a bag of fricken candy for the trick or treaters don't  touch my dang cookies--had my husband hide the remainder--but no worries i found 'em!!!! :lol:  just can't trust an addict -- hahahaha

MBalaska Posted 12 Nov 2013 , 11:54pm
post #167 of 202

Susceptible  people who can’t do simple math buy into the ZERO labeling.

 

For example: one cookie equals one serving.

1 serving containing .05  (half a gram of poofat) and it is labeled as zero.

When you eat 6 cookies you get 3 grams of poofat.

You do not get Zero grams of poofat –  as the trickydicktrick  labeling would suggest.

 

Lost in the forest for the trees, counting the rings, peeling off the bark, & spanking the squirrels; while the rest of us are in a cozy cabin eating cake, scarfin’ brownies, and drinking home brew.  No wonder folks are leaving California.

 

{if it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it.  That old saying left out  the new plan– if govt. says it's bad for you  just re-label it.”

 

 :party:

jason_kraft Posted 13 Nov 2013 , 12:07am
post #168 of 202

A

Original message sent by MBalaska

Susceptible  people who can’t do simple math buy into the ZERO labeling.

For example: one cookie equals one serving. 1 serving containing .05  (half a gram of poofat) and it is labeled as zero. When you eat 6 cookies you get 3 grams of poofat. [I]You do not get Zero grams[/I] of poofat –  as the trickydicktrick  labeling would suggest.

I'm confused...are you upset at the <.5 loophole, or the proposed regulation that removes the <.5 loophole?

jason_kraft Posted 13 Nov 2013 , 12:10am
post #169 of 202

AAnother excellent book is "Salt, Sugar, Fat", since the problem goes beyond just sugar to include how companies apply multiple layers of sugars, salts, and fats (all of which are very cheap) to enhance the addictive potential of the food.

Amazingly enough, manufacturers have only been required to break out the salt, sugar, and fat contents of their products since the 1990s.

http://www.amazon.com/Salt-Sugar-Fat-Giants-Hooked/dp/1400069807

jason_kraft Posted 13 Nov 2013 , 12:16am
post #170 of 202

ARegarding serving sizes, the FDA is aware of this issue but there is not a simple fix. For example, if you just increase serving sizes across the board it may encourage people who actually pay attention to the serving size to consume more than they otherwise would have. Standard serving sizes based on focus groups and surveys were instituted in the 90s, but they did not take into account that people tend to underestimate how much they eat.

More info: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/business/06portion.html?pagewanted=all

MBalaska Posted 13 Nov 2013 , 1:02am
post #171 of 202

“I keep hearing you're concerned about my happiness.
All that thought you're giving me is conscience, I guess.
If I were walking in your shoes, I wouldn't worry none.
While you and your friends are worrying 'bout me,

I'm having lots of fun.

Counting flowers on the wall,
That don't bother me at all.
Playing Solitaire till dawn,
With a deck of fifty-one.
Smoking cigarettes and watching Captain Kangaroo.
Now, don't tell me I've nothing to do.”

        Eric Heatherly

 

Cookies in the cabin’s oven, gotta run..............

Not that I have to hurry I just have a run in my black fishnet stockings

There’s no law against that yet is there. Bakin in a French maids outfit. sure hope not cause the bears love it.

MBalaska Posted 13 Nov 2013 , 3:15am
post #173 of 202

Quote:

Originally Posted by -K8memphis

it has an addicting quality to it --gratifies like cocaine --it's not cocaine but the pleasure center in our heads reacts that way to it

gratifies like cocaine -- in the pleasure center.  that was the mind blowing part.

 

by the way I wonder why my big new tub of Crisco is weeping.  It's 20 degrees outside, house is 75, have had the tub for only one month, expiration date is two years from now 2015.  And there's a tablespoon of oil seeping into the crater in the middle. hmmmmm

Cara-mel Posted 13 Nov 2013 , 8:44am
post #174 of 202

A

Original message sent by AnnieCahill

Butter is solid fat, it's unlikely for bacteria to grow if it's been stored properly.  It can get rancid after a period of time, but people have kept it on their counters covered for weeks with no issues.  Are you one of those who thinks that raw eggs can kill you?  :)

Even if you cut your all shortening recipe with half butter it would make your product taste better and more than likely wouldn't require refrigeration under a CFL, especially if you use a crusting buttercream. 

ETA I don't remember if butter is considered a potentially hazardous food.  I don't think it is here in VA.

I do believe raw eggs can carry a potential risk since the patients I work with cannot have them as part of a low bacterial diet then I'm not eating them. I'm not saying one way is best. To each his own, just stating that this FDA thing is a problem for some of us and butter isn't the answer for everything. What I think about raw eggs is irrelevant and I don't use butter in my everyday food so I don't know anything about leaving it on the counter. Being snippy isn't called for....I wasn't trying to be rude.

AnnieCahill Posted 13 Nov 2013 , 12:21pm
post #175 of 202

AIt was actually a joke about the eggs, you know, chef smiley face and everything...

embersmom Posted 13 Nov 2013 , 1:44pm
post #178 of 202
howsweet Posted 13 Nov 2013 , 4:05pm
post #179 of 202

A

Original message sent by Cara-mel

I do believe raw eggs can carry a potential risk since the patients I work with cannot have them as part of a low bacterial diet then I'm not eating them. I'm not saying one way is best. To each his own, just stating that this FDA thing is a problem for some of us and butter isn't the answer for everything. What I think about raw eggs is irrelevant and I don't use butter in my everyday food so I don't know anything about leaving it on the counter. Being snippy isn't called for....I wasn't trying to be rude.

I was going to post that this is an Internet forum and an odd place to be trying to dictate how people express themselves. But I went back and read the post and didn't find it "snippy" anyway. This is a discussion that's only going to be hindered if everyone feels like they have to walk on eggshells. I don't know that this happened here, but all too often I see people when they have no other argument resorting to attacks on how the person spoke to them. How they worded their argument. It's not a nice tactic.

-K8memphis Posted 13 Nov 2013 , 4:16pm
post #180 of 202

idk-- cara-mel has 16 posts and sometimes it takes a while (maybe 10,000 posts like me--still working on it) to get the hang of forum speak--

 

i'd like to applaud cara-mel for the honest reply so that liz had the opportunity to respond and clarify--that will work imo--

 

and there's always the private message option by clicking on the poster's name under their avatar--"wth did you mean" in a nice way though--

 

and one needs to slow down and read carefully in these things--come back and read it over without emotion--as we know--we can read any emotion into these posts--so we gotta take it easy--giving the benefit of the doubt is important in forums

 

in life giving the benefit of the doubt is less successful --go with your gut

 

but anyway..."wag more bark less" is my new favorite slogan -- i just need to do it more ;)

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%