The LA Times today had an article on the front page called "The
Courage of Their Confections" which tells of the Grocery Manufactuers
of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
"milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and
Guittard Chocolate Co., two of California's oldest chocolatiers, are
having fits about this. The trade group, which says it has the support
of the Chocolate Manufacturers of America says it's "just thinking
outside the old chocolate box." It wouldn't prevent Sees and Guittard
from using cocoa butter and milk, of course, but there ought to be a
label on the vegetable oil and "milk protein concentrates" candy that
precludes the word "chocolate" or "milk chocolate," much as those
chemistry experiments at the fast food joints don't call their
products "milk shakes."

Class is open for discussion.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

On 2007-04-14 18:36:36 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
said:

The LA Times today had an article on the front page called "The
Courage of Their Confections" which tells of the Grocery Manufactuers
of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
"milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and
Guittard Chocolate Co., two of California's oldest chocolatiers, are
having fits about this. The trade group, which says it has the support
of the Chocolate Manufacturers of America says it's "just thinking
outside the old chocolate box." It wouldn't prevent Sees and Guittard
from using cocoa butter and milk, of course, but there ought to be a
label on the vegetable oil and "milk protein concentrates" candy that
precludes the word "chocolate" or "milk chocolate," much as those
chemistry experiments at the fast food joints don't call their
products "milk shakes."

Class is open for discussion.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd


I'm with you--this is a very bad idea. Given the number of clueless
consumers concerned only with price, this will make it less viable for
real chocolate manufacturers to keep making the good stuff--and
increase the pressure on them to use cheaper ingredients so they can
compete with the inferior crap that would then also be labeled
"chocolate."

Guittard has a website at http://dontmesswithourchocolate.guittard.com/
making their case against the proposed change. It includes a link to
the FDA's site where they take public comments on the proposal. I
already gave them mine!

--
MaryMc

(remove the obvious to reply)

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:21:17 -0700, MaryMc
wrote:

On 2007-04-14 18:36:36 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
said:

The LA Times today had an article on the front page called "The
Courage of Their Confections" which tells of the Grocery Manufactuers
of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
"milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and
Guittard Chocolate Co., two of California's oldest chocolatiers, are
having fits about this. The trade group, which says it has the support
of the Chocolate Manufacturers of America says it's "just thinking
outside the old chocolate box." It wouldn't prevent Sees and Guittard
from using cocoa butter and milk, of course, but there ought to be a
label on the vegetable oil and "milk protein concentrates" candy that
precludes the word "chocolate" or "milk chocolate," much as those
chemistry experiments at the fast food joints don't call their
products "milk shakes."

Class is open for discussion.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd


I'm with you--this is a very bad idea. Given the number of clueless
consumers concerned only with price, this will make it less viable for
real chocolate manufacturers to keep making the good stuff--and
increase the pressure on them to use cheaper ingredients so they can
compete with the inferior crap that would then also be labeled
"chocolate."

Guittard has a website at http://dontmesswithourchocolate.guittard.com/
making their case against the proposed change. It includes a link to
the FDA's site where they take public comments on the proposal. I
already gave them mine!

After the way certain classics have been adulterated by substituting
corn syrup, fructose and worst of all... beet sugar for real cane
sugar, this is a fight they can't afford to lose. Just think about
what happened to Coke. It *tastes* better in Hawaii, because it *is*
better.

--
See return address to reply by email

said...

Just think about
what happened to Coke. It *tastes* better in Hawaii, because it *is*
better.


I thought it tasted better in Hawaii because it is Hawaii!!

Coke SUCKS in Philly by comparison. G

Andy

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
The LA Times today had an article on the front page called "The
Courage of Their Confections" which tells of the Grocery Manufactuers
of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
"milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and
Guittard Chocolate Co., two of California's oldest chocolatiers, are
having fits about this. The trade group, which says it has the support
of the Chocolate Manufacturers of America says it's "just thinking
outside the old chocolate box." It wouldn't prevent Sees and Guittard
from using cocoa butter and milk, of course, but there ought to be a
label on the vegetable oil and "milk protein concentrates" candy that
precludes the word "chocolate" or "milk chocolate," much as those
chemistry experiments at the fast food joints don't call their
products "milk shakes."

Class is open for discussion.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd


Its the "Walmart syndrome", where the only thing that can ever matter is
how cheaply something can be purchased.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:48:50 -0500, Andy q wrote:

said...

Just think about
what happened to Coke. It *tastes* better in Hawaii, because it *is*
better.


I thought it tasted better in Hawaii because it is Hawaii!!

Coke SUCKS in Philly by comparison. G

Since I haven't tried cooking with Coke yet (I'm going to try coke
basted ham someday), the only *good* Coke is one with several shots of
bourbon or rum in it.

FYI: Coke syrup is (was?) made with real cane sugar in Hawaii long
after the pretend stuff was common here on the mainland... Mexico used
cane sugar the last time I noticed, too.

Hopefully, Beans will grab a bottle of Coke and read the ingredient
list for me. This is becomming a burning question!

--
See return address to reply by email

Michael "Dog3" Lonergan wrote:

I'm with you and Terry. There are substitutions for sugar, butter, lard,
oils etc. There are probably a Godzillion substitutions out there. Some
have been substituted and touted as a healthy alternative. Others have
just quietly substituted a product for something else to lower the price
in order to increase sales. Fake crab meat comes to mind immediately. I
draw the line at chocolate. Seriously. Let Sandra Lee and her followers
eat crap if they want to. Just leave my chocolate, crab meat, butter and
lard alone.

In reference to fake crab, the problem is you're thinking of it as "fake
crab". Surimi is an ingredient in its own right and has its uses. I
don't use it as a crab substitute.

--Charlene

--
I have found out that there ain't no surer way to find out whether you
like people or hate them than to travel with them. -- Mark Twain


email perronnellec at earthlink . net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Apr 14, 9:36?pm, Terry Pulliam Burd
wrote:
The LA Times today had an article on the front page called "The
Courage of Their Confections" which tells of the Grocery Manufactuers
of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
"milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and
Guittard Chocolate Co., two of California's oldest chocolatiers, are
having fits about this. The trade group, which says it has the support
of the Chocolate Manufacturers of America says it's "just thinking
outside the old chocolate box." It wouldn't prevent Sees and Guittard
from using cocoa butter and milk, of course, but there ought to be a
label on the vegetable oil and "milk protein concentrates" candy that
precludes the word "chocolate" or "milk chocolate," much as those
chemistry experiments at the fast food joints don't call their
products "milk shakes."

Class is open for discussion.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

I think it's a bad idea. It would force the price of real chocolate
to go through the roof. Chocolate manufacturers would be able to
charge whatever they wanted to for real chocolate because they know
real chocolate connoisseurs will seek out only the real thing.

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
The LA Times today had an article on the front page called "The
Courage of Their Confections" which tells of the Grocery Manufactuers
of America, a trade group, campaign to let chocolate makers replace
cocoa butter with vegetable oils and milk (for milk chocolate) with
"milk protein concentrates." This is just *wrong*, IMHO. Sees and
Guittard Chocolate Co., two of California's oldest chocolatiers, are
having fits about this. The trade group, which says it has the support
of the Chocolate Manufacturers of America says it's "just thinking
outside the old chocolate box." It wouldn't prevent Sees and Guittard
from using cocoa butter and milk, of course, but there ought to be a
label on the vegetable oil and "milk protein concentrates" candy that
precludes the word "chocolate" or "milk chocolate," much as those
chemistry experiments at the fast food joints don't call their
products "milk shakes."

Class is open for discussion.

Horrors! I sure hope they aren't allowed to call it chocolate.
And I sure wish we could get the fake crab users to quit calling
it crab. Drives me bananas, although I've trained myself to
always ask if it's real crab or not! I really can't see how
companies get away with some of their labeling and advertising
claims. We really ought to have much stricter laws, requiring
them to tell the absolute truth, no matter what. And another
thing, while I'm ranting is the pictures of foods you see on
labels, tv, ads, etc. They look nothing like what you actually
get when you open the package or wrapper. It should be the
law that they have to use pictures of the actual food the
way it looks when served to the customer or whatever. I love
the boxes of frozen foodsl that have a giant picture of what's
supposedly inside (I think they have somewhere in tiny print
that the picture is larger than life-sized, but . . .) and then
you open it and it's half the size of the picture and not nearly
as "pretty".

Kate


--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

sf wrote:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:48:50 -0500, Andy q wrote:


said...


Just think about
what happened to Coke. It *tastes* better in Hawaii, because it *is*
better.


I thought it tasted better in Hawaii because it is Hawaii!!

Coke SUCKS in Philly by comparison. G

Since I haven't tried cooking with Coke yet (I'm going to try coke
basted ham someday), the only *good* Coke is one with several shots of
bourbon or rum in it.

I agree that it was a sin to change from sugar to
corn syrup, nevertheless, Coke is still the best cola
out there and I won't dring anything else. It's infinitely
better than Pepsi (spawn of the evil empire).

Kate

--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

"Charlene Charette" wrote
In reference to fake crab, the problem is you're thinking of it as "fake
crab". Surimi is an ingredient in its own right and has its uses. I
don't use it as a crab substitute.


True. Even though I am from Maryland, I use surimi in some pasta
salads I make. When I want crab I buy crab.

Another good reason for making a distinction between surimi and
crab is for those who want to limit carbohydrates. The surimi I have
used has been full of potato starch, whereas crab has no carbs.

kilikini wrote:
cybercat wrote:
"Charlene Charette" wrote
In reference to fake crab, the problem is you're thinking of it as
"fake crab". Surimi is an ingredient in its own right and has its
uses. I don't use it as a crab substitute.

True. Even though I am from Maryland, I use surimi in some pasta
salads I make. When I want crab I buy crab.

Another good reason for making a distinction between surimi and
crab is for those who want to limit carbohydrates. The surimi I have
used has been full of potato starch, whereas crab has no carbs.

That's exactly true. I had no idea how much sugar was in surimi until I
really looked at the label. I still eat it, though, and I like it for
stuffed fish and on it's own as a "crab" salad sandwich. I don't think it
tastes anything like crab, but I like it; I buy it.

I like it, too. I sometimes dip it in melted butter, or warm it
with butter and eat it that way.

kili ------ putting on her flame retardant suit

Eh. Everyone has something trashy they like. :-) My Japanese friend
calls surimi "the hot dog of the fish world" and our response around
here is "yeah, but hot dogs are good".

Serene

cybercat wrote:
"Charlene Charette" wrote
In reference to fake crab, the problem is you're thinking of it as
"fake crab". Surimi is an ingredient in its own right and has its
uses. I don't use it as a crab substitute.


True. Even though I am from Maryland, I use surimi in some pasta
salads I make. When I want crab I buy crab.

Another good reason for making a distinction between surimi and
crab is for those who want to limit carbohydrates. The surimi I have
used has been full of potato starch, whereas crab has no carbs.

That's exactly true. I had no idea how much sugar was in surimi until I
really looked at the label. I still eat it, though, and I like it for
stuffed fish and on it's own as a "crab" salad sandwich. I don't think it
tastes anything like crab, but I like it; I buy it.

kili ------ putting on her flame retardant suit

Serene-y the Meanie wrote:
kilikini wrote:
cybercat wrote:
"Charlene Charette" wrote
In reference to fake crab, the problem is you're thinking of it as
"fake crab". Surimi is an ingredient in its own right and has its
uses. I don't use it as a crab substitute.

True. Even though I am from Maryland, I use surimi in some pasta
salads I make. When I want crab I buy crab.

Another good reason for making a distinction between surimi and
crab is for those who want to limit carbohydrates. The surimi I have
used has been full of potato starch, whereas crab has no carbs.

That's exactly true. I had no idea how much sugar was in surimi
until I really looked at the label. I still eat it, though, and I
like it for stuffed fish and on it's own as a "crab" salad sandwich.
I don't think it tastes anything like crab, but I like it; I buy it.

I like it, too. I sometimes dip it in melted butter, or warm it
with butter and eat it that way.

kili ------ putting on her flame retardant suit

Eh. Everyone has something trashy they like. :-) My Japanese friend
calls surimi "the hot dog of the fish world" and our response around
here is "yeah, but hot dogs are good".

Serene

LOL. I've never had it with butter; when I use it, it's usually an
enhancement ingredient. I'll try it your way sometime! Around here though,
almost every buffet has it as a "crab" salad with celery, mayo and onion and
I put it on my plate only because it's not deep fried or cooked to death
like everything else is down here. :~)

kili

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:38:53 -0400, Kate Connally
wrote:

It's infinitely
better than Pepsi (spawn of the evil empire).


LOL! I like Pepsi, but I like Dr. Pepper better than both.
PS: I lost the Coke challenge. I chose Pepsi, thinking it was Coke.

--
See return address to reply by email