Well, there is a lot of stuff in between that clarifies my position, and shows how these statements do not in fact contradict each other, which you conveniently chose to leave out. I trust that others who read the thread will be able to follow all of it without my having to defend it all over again.
Thanks for clearing my confusion up. But with this answer in mind, how is it that the fully-hydrogenated version of Crisco does not have a higher saturated fat content than regular Crisco, which uses the partially-hydrogenated fats? So you don’t have to go back to page 1 where I previously posted it:
I haven’t made them from scratch in years, but the recipe I always followed growing up (which is posted here) called for either butter or margarine – no lard or shortening. Now, perhaps they might’ve come out better with lard or shortening, but I’d be hard-pressed to imagine biscuits taller, flakier and sweeter than mine. But then again, maybe I had some kind of secret, because my mother couldn’t follow the exact same recipe and get anything other than hockey pucks to come out, so what do I know. If you feel daring, you could try my recipe and let me know how it comes out.
As to the specific subject of the OP, I’m probably going to shock a lot of people, but I’m leaning towards agreeing with those who feel like this is too much government interference at this point. It kindof reminds me of that whole “saccharine causes cancer, BAN SWEET 'N LOW!” nonsense from years ago. As I recall (and I admit my memory could be faulty), saccharine was found to cause cancer in rats who were fed the equivalent of several cases of regular soda per day for, like, a year, or something ridiculous – basically in no proportion that a human would ever come close to consuming.
Canada, in its wisdom, banned it from use [/sarcasm] (Don’t know if that’s since changed). Thank goodness the U.S. had the good sense to merely require warning labels. As far as I’m concerned, there is no other sweetener that tastes (and dissolves!) as well in coffee, and you’ll get my Sweet 'N Low when you pry it from my cold, dead hands, so I can kindof understand those who say, “give me a warning label and let me decide if I’m willing to risk it,” especially since my choice doesn’t negatively affect the person sitting next to me, like smoking would, for instance.
It seems to me that your position evolved. You acknowledge that at my hypothetical Indian restaurant “There is no way to know how much lead is in the food” and “There is no way to know if it is in large enough quantities to be harmful,” which is another way of saying that things don’t inherently divide into poisonous and non-poisonous – which has been my point all along. The dose makes the poison. Everything that is banned is banned not because it is bad for you at *any *dose, but because it is bad for you at such-and-such a dose. Transfats are no different than lead in this respect.
If you’re against government regulation of food as a principle, then you should be against the regulation of food in any case, no matter what the additive, adulterant, or ingredient in question is. And I remain confused as to whether this is in fact your position or not.
It seems like this new prohibition (and that’s exactly what it is) opens the door for other foods as well.
So, if we’re going down this road of state nannyism, has anyone made a comprehensive list of foodstuffs ranking each from good to bad?
That can’t be easy, since dosage would be a major factor, and some foods are used in the preparation of others (like the fats), making separating them difficult. It might be easy to avoid spinach as an ingredient, but it might be difficult to avoid sugar, for example.
Still, if such a list could be made, there would have to be a cutoff point where the baddies above the line are banned and the goodies below are allowed to be used.
Sounds like a nightmare to decide where that line is. If it could be established that, say, use of ingredient A in “typical” quantities would result in X% increase in deaths (not an easy statistic to support), should it be banned? Reduced in use? Surely the X% isn’t the same for all substances, and there could even be some inter-reactions.
And wouldn’t cigarettes fall in the [increased risk to users] category? It is pretty well established that smoking over time increases the risk of developing lung cancer, although I’d be willing to bet my life that smoking a single cigarette, one time only, is entirely safe and I will not keel over. Is the smoking risk greater or less than the trans fats risk? If more, why aren’t cigs included in the ban?
It seems like we have started down a very slippery slope if the state can ban anything at all just for increased, but still minimal and uncertain risk.
Sorry if this is too GD, GQ or IMHO a post for the Pit. 
Fuck trans fats. There, is that better?
If you made them with margarine, then I am not surprised. Most of the time, margarine and shortening are the same thing.
If you made it with butter only, then the biscuits would never be as short as they would be had they been made with some shortening.
I disagree. I think very few people who support a ban on trans fats want to regulate people’s eating habits or outlaw foods solely on the basis of not being healthy. I myself only support the ban because I believe it is a case where indistinguishable alternatives are available for all cases that I know of (and if cases can be identified where trans fats are necessary to create a given product, I’d support exemptions with clear labeling) which will not cause undue economic hardship and which will have a clear benefit to public health.
Personally, given how we’ve ballooned as a country in the past decade or two, I think it’s time we examine what’s different about the food we’re eating. We’ve never been very healthy eaters as a country, and yet we’re fatter than ever. As much as people like to write it off as fatties not having any self-control, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the degree to which we overprocess our foods is significantly responsible. If a cheeseburger now makes you fatter than a 1980’s cheeseburger and tastes exactly the same, that’s a problem.
Actually, in NYC, a smoker cannot have a cigaret within a five mile radius of anywhere there might be a non-smoker. 
See posts #39 and #71.
What is indistinguishable to you, might be quite obvious to someone else. I have tried regular sugar, Splenda, Equal, Stevia and who-know-how-many other products in my coffee. Sugar is far more bitter to me than saccharin and it sits in the bottom of my cup no matter how much I stir and stir and stir. And other artificial sweeteners are either too sweet, too bitter or also don’t dissolve well. Others might not pay any attention to the color of the little packet they pick up, but me, I even take my beloved Sweet 'N Low on trips where I know it’ll be unavailable (like when we go home to Denmark), because absolutely nothing else will do.
I’m not sure about the economic hardship aspect. If national chains who purchase their ingredients in bulk, have to find alternative vendors for only some of their restaurants in only a small handful of areas, it could, potentially cost a considerable amount of money in overhead expenses. It’s not just about whether partially-hydrogenated oils cost more or less than other oils. For me, the verdict is out on that aspect of this thing.
Have you seen what passes as a portion size in restaurants these days? I’d say that’s a big contributing factor right there. Every-freaking-thing has become SuperSized. Whenever I go to the Cheesecake Factory, I get a To Go box and put half my meal in it before I even start eating – there is always enough for two complete meals (two pork chops come with a single order, and the mound of mashed potatoes is ungodly!).
That’s not to say that additives or trans fats or anything else might not be a contributory factor – they might. But I’m not yet convinced that their existence alone is the biggest part of the problem. (Portion) size does matter.
I don’t think the saccharine analogy works in this case. Saccharine is a unique, separate product. Trans fats are the result of processing a variety of fats which may change their manufacturing properties but not (to all accounts I’ve read) their taste. Heck, the process probably wouldn’t have been adopted so widely if it changed the taste of things, simply in order to preserve brand identity and consistency.
Until specific examples emerge of trans fats changing the taste of food, I don’t think it’s reasonable to argue against the ban on taste grounds.
My position didn’t so much evolve, as you gave me a new & unrelated situation to compare the trans fat ban to. Granted, things do not necessarily divide easily into poisonous and non-poisonous, and perhaps judgment calls need to be made, but I still think lead is a whole lot different from trans fats. Lead is a poison in the sense that ingesting it will kill you right now, as opposed to trans fats, which are perhaps unhealthy in the long term. I really don’t think there is any such thing as trans fat poisoning, where you ingest it, get sick, and die.
I am not against government regulation of foods per se, but I don’t believe in banning ingredients. I believe that informing the public of the dangers and letting them make an informed choice is the role of the government. I have said this all along. However, I realize that this is an unattainable goal in our society. If you want to talk about lead, then let me put it this way…I would certainly be more in favor of a ban on allowing it in, say, baby formula, than in the example you gave where food is cooked in lead pots for flavor, and the person eating it is fully informed of the risks, and presumably can weigh this against the perceived benefits.
But I’m not arguing against the ban on taste grounds, I merely chose an example as to how something added to certain food products, that is indistinguishable from an alternate additive to one person, might be very distinguishable to the next. Whether it be the consumer of said food or the chef who has to cook with it. Whatever. I wasn’t using that as a basis for arguing against the ban, just disputing that particular line of reasoning that you have for not opposing the ban.
I would love to! I think you are right, though, that the technique of the baker is key here…I am not very good at pastry technique…I think that biscuits made with butter would surely have a better flavor than those made with shortening. However, for someone who is not good at the technique, butter is harder to work with because you have to keep it cold to keep the consistency right, whereas with shortening, this is not as important.
That’s basically it…if you are the only person it’s affecting, then why can’t you make that decision for yourself? Seems pretty simple to me. Not to mention that the “evidence” swings back & forth on this kind of thing. God knows, if anyone told you 10 years ago that eating steak and bacon would help you lose weight, people would have thought you were crazy.
Several people have pointed out the unique nature of certain trans fat products in this thread, yet you seem to be ignoring them for the sake of convenience.
I think you’re confused. Crisco was the first brand to commercialize partial hydrogenation… about 90 years ago.
This is so true…I am a sugar person, myself…don’t consume any artificial sweeteners whatsoever. The other day I put Sweet N Low in my coffee at work because I was out of sugar packets, and it rendered the coffee pretty much undrinkable to me! I would no more want to take your Sweet N Low away from you than I would want you to take my sugar away from me.
Sweeteners are an interesting example. I do not use them because I think that there is no sense (to me) in ingesting something that I am not 100% sure of the safety of, for a perceived benefit that is not all that relevant to me (it doesn’t taste better to me, and the small amount of sugar I use doesn’t tend to give me a problem in terms of maintaining a healthy weight). If I needed or wanted to avoid sugar for whatever reason, I would probably decide that the perceived benefits ARE worth the very minimal risk. See? A perfect example of Shayna being willing to take on some risk, and me thinking it’s probably not worth it. We are different people, and make different decisions that we each feel is right for us. Why do I need the government to make that call for me?
Huh, I thought it was a recent change. Shows what I know about Crisco…
I don’t remember reading any specific examples of a product which tasted differently with trans fats than it would without. Not dismissing them if they were there, I just didn’t see them.
Then how about not focusing on the part of my counter-example that has to do with taste, and focus instead on the disolvability aspect of various sweeteners. Sugar doesn’t dissolve well in hot beverages (in my experience). I can’t stand finding a glump of it in the bottom of my cup when I get to the last sip. One of them, I think it’s Splenda, doesn’t dissolve well in cold beverages, and is really hard to stir through the drink, as it leaves a powdery film all over the top of the drink. I prefer Sweet 'N Low in hot coffee and tea and Equal in my iced tea, in part because of the difference in flavor, but also as much because of how they behave in my beverages.
What has been pointed out (and I’m in no position to dispute or corroborate it) is that products with trans fats behave differently in the cooking process.
I’ve already pointed out the fact that shortening is both a solid fat & one with a high smoke point. Aside from animal fat (particularly lard & suet), this is the only fat with these properties that isn;t prohibitively expensive. The new shortening isn’t preferable to the old among bakers, it would seem.
Therefore, it is very difficult to make certain baked goods (biscuits, for one) vegetarian without it. Taste doesn’t really enter into it, though many chefs would argue that it is by far the cleanest tasting fat to fry with.
ROFL!!! 