Cake Central › Cake Forums › Cake Talk › Cake Decorating › FDA ruling could ban shortening with trans fats in US
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FDA ruling could ban shortening with trans fats in US - Page 7

post #91 of 201
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by embersmom View Post

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.

We had a similar issue with our dairy-free BC frosting made with Sweetex Z during very hot days...we were working in a commercial kitchen and if it was too warm we would have to do the piping in the walk-in fridge. For those doing baking from home you would need to blast the A/C on hot days to make sure the frosting doesn't get too warm.
post #92 of 201

The thing I don't understand about zero trans fat shortening is that they contain mono and di-glycerides. From everything I read they are trans fats, but since they contain less than .5 grams, you can label it trans-fat free. I wonder if the zero trans fat shortenings (like Sweetex-Z) that use mono- and di-glycerides will have to be reformulated too.  This will be interesting to see how it pans out. Since my niche is dairy-free I use shortening.  Many of my customers avoid soy-based products entirely so I primarily use 100% palm oil.  I have used Sweetex-Z in the past (which is mostly palm oil too), and I will say that I love it and hate it because of the emulsifiers.  The emulsifiers help in that  it is the only way (I know at least) to fully incorporate fruit, dairy-free yogurts, and other things into frosting without the use of eggs without the frosting seperating. It is harder to work with because it is so airy, which I think is a result of the polysorbate 60 (whipping aid). I tend to have less problems with 100% palm oil.  Life would be easier if I could just use butter and eggs, but I can't.  I foresee if things like Sweetex-Z are eliminated too, my entire menu will have to change and I will no longer be able to make things like  real strawberry frosting or mock cream cheese frostings. I know trans fat and mono-diglycerides are not the best, but they do provide alternatives for those that can't have dairy or egg products, but can tolerate soy derivatives like mono and di-glycerides. 

post #93 of 201

i think parchment bags also reduce on the heat transfer of hot hands/atmosphere to melty icing--also using two bags in & out the fridge--blasting the air is too costly pour moi--

 

i have also worn gloves to pipe but that's mostly to keep me from getting burned on hot sugar but it sure would work to maintain the icing temp too

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by costumeczar View Post
 

I just made some brownies from scratch and they're really good, yum yum yum. They have booze in them, too.

 

omg--baked stuff with booze (and booze is trans fat free ;) is the best imo--here's a good one--sugar free jello is the bombshabomb with a dash of grand marnier or rum ;)

 

a dash!

one baker's 'never ever do' is the next baker's 'i swear by this'
Reply
one baker's 'never ever do' is the next baker's 'i swear by this'
Reply
post #94 of 201
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdovewings View Post

The thing I don't understand about zero trans fat shortening is that they contain mono and di-glycerides. From everything I read they are trans fats, but since they contain less than .5 grams, you can label it trans-fat free. I wonder if the zero trans fat shortenings (like Sweetex-Z) that use mono- and di-glycerides will have to be reformulated too.  This will be interesting to see how it pans out. Since my niche is dairy-free I use shortening.  Many of my customers avoid soy-based products entirely so I primarily use 100% palm oil.

Reformulation of existing ZTF shortening products is certainly a possibility, it depends if the trans fat ban applies to both lipids and emulsifiers. The FDA labeling requirement for trans fat exempted emulsifiers. If emulsifiers are in scope for the ban, it's possible for one or more manufacturers to submit a food additive petition to the FDA arguing that the benefits of small amounts of mono and diglycerides outweigh the risks.

Regarding soy-free we used Spectrum shortening (100% palm oil) to offer soy-free frosting as an alternative but the taste and texture of the Sweetex-Z based frosting was superior. If Sweetex-Z was not available I'm sure we would be able to improve on the quality of the Spectrum frosting but it would require more R&D.

As an illustration of what is possible with even more restrictive rules, check out the Whole Foods list of banned ingredients. I can see many items on this list eventually being addressed by future FDA regulation. http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/about-our-products/quality-standards/unacceptable-ingredients-food
post #95 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_kraft View Post

As an illustration of what is possible with even more restrictive rules, check out the Whole Foods list of banned ingredients. I can see many items on this list eventually being addressed by future FDA regulation. http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/about-our-products/quality-standards/unacceptable-ingredients-food

 

That is pretty funny, because I bought a box full of mini desserts from the Whole Foods dessert case this summer, and the ingredient list they printed me included sleeve fillings and lots of unpronounceable items.  Wish I still had it, and I would post it here.  The desserts were mediocre at best, and certainly didn't contain only the purest of ingredients.

 

Liz

Follow me on my Twitter handle: @Sugar_Iowa

Or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SugarFineBakedGoodsAndConfections

Reply

Follow me on my Twitter handle: @Sugar_Iowa

Or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SugarFineBakedGoodsAndConfections

Reply
post #96 of 201
Yes,Liz. Its going to get very ugly.

I would offer a word advice. I don't know if it was this thread or another but the solution is not stock up on all the hi ratio you can find. Switch now. The one with all butter really does taste good icon_smile.gif
post #97 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by morganchampagne View Post

Yes,Liz. Its going to get very ugly.

I would offer a word advice. I don't know if it was this thread or another but the solutn is not stock up on all the hi ratio you can find. Switch now. The one with all butter really does taste good icon_smile.gif

 

I don't use any shortening or margarine, so it doesn't affect me. :)  Part of my unique selling proposition is that I use all natural ingredients, baked from scratch.  So all of my recipes, including cookies and pie crusts use real butter.  And I will add that it took a lot of testing and r & d to find the best recipes and methods for using real butter, which behaves differently in baking than man made products.  But I love butter, so that wasn't a stretch for me.

 

Liz

Follow me on my Twitter handle: @Sugar_Iowa

Or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SugarFineBakedGoodsAndConfections

Reply

Follow me on my Twitter handle: @Sugar_Iowa

Or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SugarFineBakedGoodsAndConfections

Reply
post #98 of 201
Oh no that wasn't directed at you! I think I read somewhere before you use butter...i was just agreeing with you that it was going to get ugly. Sorry about that
post #99 of 201

That's ok Morgan . . . I do wonder who this will affect more - smaller bakers or larger in store bakeries?  Many in store bakeries use Bettercreme style products - I am not sure if that style product has trans fats, but I'm sure their cake mixes probably do, so there is where they will be affected. (Along with the pastries/doughnuts/etc.)

 

But smaller bakers might be affected doubly if they use both mixes and products like Sweetex - it really could throw a wrench in the works.

 

Liz

Follow me on my Twitter handle: @Sugar_Iowa

Or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SugarFineBakedGoodsAndConfections

Reply

Follow me on my Twitter handle: @Sugar_Iowa

Or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SugarFineBakedGoodsAndConfections

Reply
post #100 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_kraft View Post


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."
 
So...it won't be as 'easy' a decision to ban salt and sugar...I mean you can't take it out of products because sugar is not always so unhealthy and salt is an essential nutrient..so that means they must look at an alternative way to protect people from themselves.   But how? 
Hmmm...it must be something that sounds like they're really concerned about the healthcare of the chronically stupid.   Something that will look good on paper and appeal to those who think they're really  making a difference when in fact they are NOT..let's see Hmmmm...think....what can they do?  OH! Hey! How about putting a TAX on salt and sugar?   It's the obvious 'solution' for them not being able to do an outright ban on sugar and salt!
I can hear the arguments now..."If we can't stop people from making their own decisions about their own life, then by golly we'll force them PAY for it!   And we'll line up studies (generally from Universities and 'independent' research facilities that receive federal grants) that show all the terrible side effects of this evil rock called 'salt' and it's chubby natural-cane sidekick and beet brother, 'sugar'! 
We'll rally every health guru in the nation to decry the use of these products and demand that any restaurant that dares to flavor their food with them will have to not only pay a tax on the product when they purchase it to cook with...but also pay a 'user' tax to the government for submitting these substances to an 'uneducated' public who, in their naivety and trust,  have only ever assumed that everything they ate was pure, natural,  FDA approved sawdust,
And since the public is also so gullible about saving the world from evil manufacturers, we'll convince them that the rising cost of their products are a direct result of these 'predatory profit mongers' desire to make more money at the expense of the health of the consumer...and not as the result of them having to pay higher and higher taxes on the sugar and salt they use to make the products consumers want.
And we'll find low-information people who buy into this and who will be HAPPY to pay a higher tax if they can stop little Johnny from being chubby...never mind that he sits on his arse all day playing video games.  Video games have no salt or sugar, so how can they be bad for you?"
If you think they won't eventually stick a hefty tax on sugar and salt both in individual purchases and in products, then you are very naive.  This WILL impact all baking and decorating on every level!  We deal in sugar and salt...and fat!  The Unholy Trinity!  The wheels are already in motion.
 

If I am ever on life support, unplug me...

Then plug me back in.  See if that works!

Reply

If I am ever on life support, unplug me...

Then plug me back in.  See if that works!

Reply
post #101 of 201
Thread Starter 
@carmijok

1. Regulating a food additive is not necessarily the same as banning it. If you read the last sentence of my quote, you will see that the issue is more that "safe" is not the same as "safe in any amount".
2. The FDA does not have the power to levy taxes.
3. If somehow the FDA was able to get Congress to pass a tax on salt and sugar, it would essentially be a national sales tax on all food. Somehow I doubt this will happen in our current political environment.
4. My earlier question still stands about your previous statement that a "sugar tax is happening", from what you've posted it seems like a sugar tax is more farfetched speculation than anything that is currently happening. I would be interested in seeing a single reputable source indicating that anyone is seriously talking about a tax on all sugar and/or salt.
post #102 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by liz at sugar View Post
 

I do wonder who this will affect more - smaller bakers or larger in store bakeries?  Many in store bakeries use Bettercreme style products - I am not sure if that style product has trans fats, but I'm sure their cake mixes probably do, so there is where they will be affected. (Along with the pastries/doughnuts/etc.)

 

But smaller bakers might be affected doubly if they use both mixes and products like Sweetex - it really could throw a wrench in the works.

 

Liz

My guess it's going to affect us big time in all areas.  Most of our bread/roll dough comes in frozen and some kind of shortening is used in it.  Ditto the pastries, the donuts, the muffins, the icing, the cakes...probably even the Bettercreme, which I don't recall whether or not contains trans-fats.  When the first no trans-fat regulation came around, many of the items we received from vendors who reformulated their product were nothing like the product they had beforehand.  Either the taste was off, or the texture, or something that you couldn't quite put a finger on.  I've already explained what happened with our regular icing.  Our sales fell during that period because people returned product saying it didn't taste "right". 

post #103 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by liz at sugar View Post
 

That's ok Morgan . . . I do wonder who this will affect more - smaller bakers or larger in store bakeries?  Many in store bakeries use Bettercreme style products - I am not sure if that style product has trans fats, but I'm sure their cake mixes probably do, so there is where they will be affected. (Along with the pastries/doughnuts/etc.)

 

But smaller bakers might be affected doubly if they use both mixes and products like Sweetex - it really could throw a wrench in the works.

 

Liz


During my brief stint as a grocery store decorator, all the icing colors came in buckets which never, ever had to be refrigerated, so that had to be transfat. The list of ingredients I don't remember anymore, but it didn't really seem to contain any real food. They had a whipped icing that had to be refrigerated and if that didn't have transfat, it had transfat-like ingredients.

 

It may affect me as a smaller baker since it means my competitors who use shortening in their icing may switch to butter and have an icing that can compete with mine in flavor and texture.

post #104 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdovewings View Post
 

The thing I don't understand about zero trans fat shortening is that they contain mono and di-glycerides. From everything I read they are trans fats, but since they contain less than .5 grams, you can label it trans-fat free.

tdovewings:  the trick, and I do mean trickydicktrick, is in the labeling.

 

If it says less than .5 grams PER SERVING; a serving is probably a teaspoon or tablespoon. Yes?

 

It's all still in there, and if you eat lots of it,  you still get lots of it.

 

However they try to make people believe that they are getting close to Zero amounts by this labeling.

The FDA Government approved labeling permits this subterfuge. (more greased palms)

Of course we all have our limits, but how can you possibly find your boundaries unless you explore as far and as wide as you possibly can? I would rather fail in an attempt at something new and uncharted than safely succeed in a repeat of something
Reply
Of course we all have our limits, but how can you possibly find your boundaries unless you explore as far and as wide as you possibly can? I would rather fail in an attempt at something new and uncharted than safely succeed in a repeat of something
Reply
post #105 of 201
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBalaska View Post

The FDA Government approved labeling permits this subterfuge. (more greased palms)

And the FDA's proposed ban eliminates this subterfuge, since even <0.5g will no longer be acceptable.

The bigger issue is whether or not emulsifiers will be exempt from the ban.
Quote:
If it says less than .5 grams PER SERVING; a serving is probably a teaspoon or tablespoon. Yes?

A typical BC recipe calls for 1/2 cup of shortening for 3 cups of frosting. A cupcake usually has about 1/4 cup of frosting, so the amount of shortening in one serving size would be 1/24 cup, or 2/3 tbsp. Serving sizes for shortening are usually 1 tbsp on the label.
Edited by jason_kraft - 11/11/13 at 9:23pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cake Decorating
Cake Central › Cake Forums › Cake Talk › Cake Decorating › FDA ruling could ban shortening with trans fats in US