in some climates a stick of butter becomes a puddle of butter.
[hijack on butter]
NZ fridges have a butter conditioner – a small compartment designed to hold 500g of butter and keep it at a temperature warmer than the rest of the fridge so that it is spreadable directly from the fridge.
NZ also pioneered a variety of semi-soft butter back in the early nineties. (I had a friend working in the testing lab.) Basically the deal was to produce anhydrous milk fat (AMF) fractionally distil it, discard (ok repurpose) the middle fraction and keep the solid and liquid fats that did not change state between fridge temperature and room temperature. This AMF was reconstituted back into butter and mixed with regular butter at a specific ratio. Just delicious. And 100% butter by any sensible definition.
[/HOB]
It keeps longer. I like butter, but if I keep it out of the fridge, it turns rancid before I’ve used half of it.
There might be a solution to this now…
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1070983896/the-stupendous-splendiferous-butterup
In Olden Dayes butter was stored in an inverted ramekin set in a bowl of water. So you get room temperature storage and an air tight seal when not in use to retard rancidity.
Such butter keepers are still sold today. Presumably they work fairly well, and might be suitable to your relatively cool climate.
And of course, out of a refrigerator with a specially-designed compartment is exactly how we evolved to eat butter, right?
And I’m not so sure that, when people say “chemicals are bad”, they mean “synthesized chemicals”. We have an example from earlier in this very thread, for instance, where what is meant is “chemicals with really long names”. If someone genuinely believes that “chemicals with really long names” are bad, then they’re just plain wrong, and spouting nonsense. That’s what the DHMO thing is meant to address (or at least, part of it): A thing can have a long name and yet be as safe and familiar as water.
What do people “really mean” when they say “chemicals”? In most cases, they don’t even know themselves. You can’t address their arguments on the merits until you can get them to actually make their arguments, and you can’t get them to do that until you can get them to realize that they aren’t actually making arguments. This is a long and uphill struggle, but the first step in it is, in fact, pointing out that everything is chemicals.
No, in most cases they mean natural substances vs products of synthetic industrial chemistry. I’ve never seen this ‘long names’ thing before so suspect it is a red herring in our discussion.
Of course they are wrong about the distinction between natural and synthetic, for no such clear division exists, but I do not believe that semantics is the right handle on the debate, if you actually wish to prevail.
ETA: and even if semantics is a valid first step in the discussion, the problem is that subsequent steps are omitted; people drop “Hurr durr DHMO LOL” and walk away.
Hydrogenation causes some of the cis double bonds to reform into trans, unless you hydrogenate to the point of eliminating all the double bonds, which would result in a solid fat index unsuitable for margarine. Most margarine sold in stores near me is non-hydro and uses palm oil to create the proper solid fat index.
Hydrogenated oil = increased trans unless every double bond removed
I don’t think he’s talking about semantics though. Saying that “chemical” is a word that can refer to natural stuff is different than pointing out that natural stuff is made of chemicals just like everything else.
Maybe the best way to start is by asking that person what they mean by “chemical,” and going from there.
As already mentioned in this thread, margarine (in Norway at least) uses fully hydrogenated oil (in the case of the tub in my fridge, coconut oil) mixed with other plant oils (the tub in my fridge is 57% canola oil).
That’s fair, because I’ve stopped listening to them, too. The minute someone starts talking about food
- being unsafe because it contains chemicals
- being unsafe because it’s not natural
- being safer because it’s organic
- being unsafe because it’s GMO
- not being “real food”
- being unsafe because it contains ingredients they can’t pronounce, or
- being unsafe because we didn’t “evolve to eat it”
I write them off as an idiot, and stop listening. So it goes both ways. It’s like creationists who keep pointing out that ears and eyes are impossible because they’re irreducibly complex. After the first couple hundred times it’s pointed out that these things are COMPLETELY WRONG, it’s easier just to let ignorance win and move on to easier battles.
These food statements aren’t reasoned arguments, they’re pretty much just articles of faith at this point, and there’s no use reasoning with what amounts to religion.
I’ve always been pro-science and accepting of chemicals in food and agriculture
but that’s because I fucking understand science
How many of the whiners do you know actually know what the hell they’re talking about?
The best thing you can do is learn science yourself. Then you can make your own judgements (which will probably not be anti-synth-chemical)
A quick explanation however, can be provided You simply ask, “do you think that all the scientists in all universities and companies and government are just sitting around jacking off? No, they make the decisions they do based on the scientific work they do and the understandings we have of chemistry and the human body, with reasonable parameters of certainty in their conclusions, along with reasonable valuations of utility balanced with the certainty and possible harm”
Here’s a more precise explanation of why you shouldn’t be afraid
-Artificial food ingredients are mostly synthetic versions of already natural chemicals, or just chemical-ly sounding named extracts from natural sources. Thus, they are all largely digestible and safely metabolizable. There are a few things that are purely synthetic, but often they’re similar to something natural, or are almost natural and can be metabolized by the body as though they are natural. The ones that are totally unique and synthetic have been tested and seem to show no ill effects even at unreasonably high doses, with little exception. Furthermore, there’s ample biochemical reason to believe the body should be able to handle them just fine
-Pesticides are certain chemicals that are chosen precisely because while they kill bugs, they also disappear from the environment relatively quickly. If they stuck around that much, they wouldn’t use them as pesticides since they would ruin the crop. Also, consider that for a LOT of crops bee pollination is a concern, so again, they’re not spraying anything that would stay and prevent the bees from doing their job.
-There’s ample reason to believe GMOs aren’t uniquely more dangerous than breed created through other more “traditional” means, and ample reason to believe they are LESS so. The list of all toxins that can be in plants is not a long list, and the list of toxins that are actually common and likely to be in plants is an even shorter list (oxalates, alkaloids, cyanogenic glucosides, and I think there’s one more I’m forgetting). And here’s a non-surprise, the crops humans eventually domesticated do not have a lot of these toxins. The issue with genetic manipulation is that the genes may also affect other things in the plant that would affect such toxins, however, since we know what the toxins are, we can test for them. And note that even that problem is a POTENTIAL problem, but in practice the genes they’ve inserted they can be pretty sure will not affect the prevalence of toxic plant chemicals.
However, there are older forms of plant breeding, such as mutagenic treatment of plants to get more unique genes to be expressed, that have these same concerns, only more so, since mutagenic involves simply exposing seedlings to radiation so that tons of random mutations happen, and then the breeders select from the new stock of unique traits. But you don’t hear anybody protesting mutagenic practices in traditional breeding
Is it possible that there are some chemicals in corn or soy or whatever that we don’t realize are being produced more in the genetically modified plants as a side effect of the genetic manipulation, that also happen to be carcinogenic in those higher amounts? Maybe, but not likely, since if there is anything like that, it’s already in normal corn/soy to some extent, so some accidental jump from 10,000 ppm to 30,000 ppm probably won’t be the stark difference between ill effects and benign.
Is it possible that the genetic manipulation that the scientists have done has induced the plants to create new chemicals of which we are noit aware of, possibly, but very unlikely. The plant is the plant and has evolved to perfect itself to the point it was at nowadays, and we’re manipulating a few genes that effect a few chemical systems in the plant. To make a plant make new chemicals, we would have essentially created a new plant, and we’re not nearly that far advanced.
We’re poking around with DNA here and there, it’s really not as advanced as it sounds. We still know jack shit about the way organisms, or even DNA/RNA/epigenetics works from the ground up. It’s only merely recent, that doesn’t mean it’s that advanced or deep into messing with the inner workings of the plant. The tweaks we have done are very useful, but they’re just that, small tweaks.
Suspect all you want, “Don’t eat things containing ingredients you can’t pronounce” has been a health food dictum since before I was born.
Cite?
ETA: That is, a citation showing that this is a relevant factor in the ‘chemicals are bad, OK’ type questions. I don’t recall any threads on ‘chemicals in foods’ that focused on word length or complexity, but maybe I just missed them.
Oh come on, why does he need a cite? I know I’v heard that before, though not often, because it sounds kind of stupid. Usually it’s the “names you can’t pronounce” thing. I remember ice cream commercials with kids trying to read the weird ingredients and being unable to pronounce them
in general, we’re all used to the anti-chemical dogma that’s out there
Honestly, I don’t recall seeing that argument. I’m not kidding.
As far as I’m aware, the chief mischaracterisation of ‘chemicals’ is that they are to be feared because they are ‘unnatural’, not that they have complex names.
["2.) If You Can’t Say It, Don’t Eat It
Don’t buy products with more than five ingredients or any ingredients you can’t easily pronounce."](Michael Pollan: If You Can't Say It, Don't Eat It : NPR)
If You Can’t Pronounce It, Don’t Eat It
["Try to imagine this conversation:
Grocer: “Can I help you find something?”
Shopper: “Why, yes! I’m looking for sodium aluminosilicate, butylated hydroxyanisole, and potassium metabisulfite.
Grocer: “Sure! Right over here!”
Frankly, we don’t know anyone who would have these items on a grocery list. Heck, most of us probably can’t even pronounce them without some tutoring from a food scientist. But it’s likely you’ve consumed these ingredients if you’ve ever eaten grated cheese or cereal, or enjoyed a glass of wine."](http://www.bestfoodfacts.org/food-for-thought/pronouncing_food_ingredients)
I envy you that this is an entirely new world to you.
You don’t remember the Breyer’s Ice Cream “Polysorbate 80, Johnny” commercials from as far back as the 80’s? (The “ice cream commercial” mentioned earlier, probably). Maybe it was a regional thing.
Never heard of it.
Honestly, it’s been completely off my radar, but the point was (this thread notwithstanding), is the length/complexity of the chemical names something that people commonly ask about on this topic here on the SDMB?