wrote in
:
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0610-2, 03/10/2006), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 13 Mar 2006 10:17:55 -0500, Rich
wrote:

writes:

I was at Trader Joe's earlier today and, while waiting in
line, enjoyed the sendup of wine snobbery in their goofy,
wine-critic-style descriptions of the "varietal"
chocolate bars. My favorite was the one with "a hint of
tobacco."

I mentioned Valrhona on a.r.k recently. Their literature
includes "varietal" and "tobacco" while omitting "goofy"
and "sendup".

My friend, who was coincidentally at Trader Joe's yesterday
also and read those same descriptions, said that she's not
so sure they were intended to be goofy send-ups.


I was at a Trader Joe's on Saturday ! I bought 4 bottles of
wine and some yummy blackberries and 2 kinds of fancy
chocolate cakes and TO HELL WITH THE DIET !

Good chocolate, though.


Sis got me a 1 pound + bar of dark for giftmas. Or was it my
Bday ? Anyhow, I still have about 1 pound of it. Of course,
I only opened it on Friday.

Indeed it is.

But as with expensive wines, so with expensive chocolate: I
don't want to develop my palate to the point that I can't
enjoy the cheaper-but-good stuff.


I am willing to risk it. I don't like milk chocolate at all,
and for all love dark chocolates, I really don't eat all that
much.

Mate will consume most of the cakes I bought. He doesn't like
dark chocolate, so I get to slowly nibble the big bar to
death.

--
TeaLady (mari)

"The principal of Race is meant to embody and express the
utter negation of human freedom, the denial of equal rights, a
challenge in the face of mankind." A. Kolnai
Avast ye scurvy dogs ! Thar be no disease in this message.

_.-In rec.food.cooking, Bob (this one) wrote the following -._
Did you notice above, "packaged food
manufacturers...?"

Check.

What I meant is that they can't lie about it. They're under no legal
requirement to list their ingredients.

There is a legal requirement to list the ingredients. In your prior
example if they put lactose in then they need to state 'lactose'.

No. I said "if they used lactose extracted from milk, they can say
lactose and be done with it." *Can* say lactose. Not *must* say lactose.

But what if they include, as they did, tallow but don't list it in any
form?


Did you simply not notice that this is "Copyright © 1998-2006 The Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea" - the U.K.?

Completely. I had searched for FDA info on labeling and apparently in
the 12 minute time frame I had to read and reply to your post I
grabbed a non-sequitur link.

Got it? "Pre-packed foods."

Check.

Do you want to actually talk about this or is it more important to win?

I made my point/goal clear. You stated Y must do X. And then I
pointed out that Y had just recently acknowledge that they didn't do X
and it had happend as rently as Z moons ago. Since then you have been
trying to say, contrary to your earlier statement that they are not
required to do so and that it is perfectly fine if they didn't other
than a little PR problem while I have maintained, as you stated inyour
orginal comment, that they are legally required to do X.

I said I didn't write it clearly. What I initially wrote wasn't
accurately what I meant; I corrected myself. The facts:
1) McD is not legally required to list their ingredients.
2) But, if they do, it must be true.

That is pretty clear.


I wrote the "Food Additives" section in the Oxford University Press
Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. I'm somewhat conversant with
the subject.

It would have been better for you to quote the OUEFDA instead of state
you wrote the section. The way you phrased it makes it sound like a
argument from authority.

LOL So you want me to quote myself? Boy, talk about an argument from
authority. I bet you'd accept that in a heartbeat, right?

Not exactly. I was simply pointing out that there /might/ have been
a better way to have done it without sounding like you were arguing
from authority. Admitidly there isn't an easy way to do it on this
one unless you pull from another source that you didn't write but I
think I will find some of that below.

Get over yourself. I've said before and again here what the legal
requirements are. I misstated it at first and corrected it and have
admitted it repeatedly.

Ok then we can end this now.


If McD has been knowingly adding stuff to their fries but not saying it,
or worse, denying it, they should get a smack.

If you were in Korea and eat something you thought was dog free
because you read the label and didn't see dog on it would you be happy
with 'a smack'.

What the hell does a restaurant in Korea have to do with American food
laws? Focus... And I love how you loaded that one up. Dog, indeed.
That's certainly equivalent to a starch isolate from wheat.

I was illustrating through analogy why McD's should have listed beef
specifically as an additive in their fries. I thought that would have
been transparent.

McD started out with a beef fat-vegetable fat frying mixture.

And it was good.

It produced what they and their customers thought were good fries.

And in my youth I was one of them.

How the wheat was processed and what finished product it became is one
of the central elements of the question. If you're going to argue that
no matter what or how much processing it undergoes, it's still wheat, we
have nothing to talk about on that subject.

On a chemistry level I agree with you. Which is why I haven't pushed
the wheat thing nearly as hard as the beef issue.

You've insisted that the law binds them to state their ingredients.
You're wrong.
Go read the law - the American law - before posting this again.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/label.html is where you can find the regulations.

Lots of info but nothing I saw points to what they can omit from the
ingrediants section.

"Unlike processed foods, restaurant menu selections are not
required to supply complete nutrition information."
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tpmenus.html

The way I read that is that they do not need to post full
'nutritional information'. It doesn't mention anything about what
additives can be omitted.


http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdnewlab.html
First sentence: "Grocery store aisles are avenues to greater nutritional
knowledge." Not restaurants.

The last one is not a contextual quote here is the whole thing:
Grocery store aisles are avenues to greater nutritional knowledge.

Under regulations from the Food and Drug Administration of the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Food
Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the food label offers more complete, useful and
accurate nutrition information than ever before.

It is a comparative statement about previous labeling vs new
standards. Not a reference to grocery stores vs restaurants.

"Food labeling is required for most prepared foods, such as breads,
cereals, canned and frozen foods, snacks, desserts, drinks, etc.
Nutrition labeling for raw produce (fruits and vegetables) and fish is
voluntary." Packaged foods, not foods prepared for immediate consumption.

So where are the sections on prepared foods that tell us what they can
omit?

But none of this happens in a vacuum. We're talking about a burger joint
where they sell meat, dairy and wheat products all day long. It is
absurd to expect that there won't be some cross-contact in the normal
course of events of cooking, handling, wrapping or boxing, and delivery
to customers.

Agreed. The point I am addressing is not cross contact but
intentional misinformation though omission.

--
.-')) fauxascii.com ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that
' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to
((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word.
((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:17:59 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:

On 2006-03-13, Chris McGonnell wrote:

Anyway, it's easy to spell "thesaurus" if you remember it's the book
that looks like a dictionary but sounds like a dinosaur.

Ever been attacked by a Thesaurus Rex like that lawyer in Jurassic
Park?

Um, no...

Hey, is that a threat?!

Just stay outta the park's port-a-johns.

--
Chris McG.
Harming humanity since 1951.
"What do you expect from a bunch of kiwi smoking sheep herders?" --
oTTo
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

On 2006-03-14, Chris McGonnell wrote:

Just stay outta the park's port-a-johns.

I try to avoid them already.

Faux_Pseudo wrote:
_.-In rec.food.cooking, Bob (this one) wrote the following -._

Did you notice above, "packaged food manufacturers...?"

Check.

What I meant is that they can't lie about it. They're under no legal
requirement to list their ingredients.

There is a legal requirement to list the ingredients. In your prior
example if they put lactose in then they need to state 'lactose'.

No. I said "if they used lactose extracted from milk, they can say
lactose and be done with it." *Can* say lactose. Not *must* say lactose.

But what if they include, as they did, tallow but don't list it in any
form?

THEY ARE NOT OBLIGED TO LIST ANYTHING, ANYWHERE. SAID AGAIN. FOOD FOR
IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION IS NOT MANDATED TO HAVE A NUTRITION LABEL OR AN
INGREDIENTS LIST. PERIOD.

ONLY "PACKAGED" FOODS ARE. THAT MEANS CANNED, DRIED, BOTTLED FOODS.
BAKED GOODS FOR LATER CONSUMPTION LIKE BREADS AND DESSERT GOODS. ICE
CREAM SOLD FROM SUPERMARKET FREEZERS.

FRESH PRODUCE DOESN'T NEED SUCH LABELS. FRESHLY CUT MEATS DON'T NEED
SUCH A LABEL. FISH DOESN'T NEED SUCH A LABEL. FOOD SOLD FOR IMMEDIATE
CONSUMPTION IS RESTAURANT FOOD FROM ANY KIND OF RESTAURANT - FAST FOOD,
SLOW FOOD, HOT FOOD, COLD FOOD - ANYTHING EXPECTED TO BE EATEN SOON
AFTER DELIVERY. NO LABELS ON HOT PIZZA. NO LABELS ON BOWLS OF SOUP. NO
LABELS ON THE BREAD BASKET IN RESTAURANTS. NO LABELS ON ICE CREAM CONES.
NO LABELS ON THAT GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICH. OR THE FRIES WITH IT. NO
LABEL ON THE TIRAMISU.

NO LABELS ON HOT BURGERS.

LABELS *ONLY* MANDATORY ON *PACKAGED* FOODS. THINK FOODS PREPARED AND
PACKAGED IN A FACTORY SOMEWHERE. NOT COOKED AND SERVED ON PREMISES.

Did you simply not notice that this is "Copyright © 1998-2006 The Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea" - the U.K.?

Completely. I had searched for FDA info on labeling and apparently in
the 12 minute time frame I had to read and reply to your post I
grabbed a non-sequitur link.

?

Maybe it would have been better to have waited and done a bit better
research. But even so, the one you cited said it out loud and clear. No
labels necessary for foods for immediate consumption.

Got it? "Pre-packed foods."

Check.

Do you want to actually talk about this or is it more important to win?

I made my point/goal clear. You stated Y must do X. And then I
pointed out that Y had just recently acknowledge that they didn't do X
and it had happend as rently as Z moons ago. Since then you have been
trying to say, contrary to your earlier statement that they are not
required to do so and that it is perfectly fine if they didn't other
than a little PR problem while I have maintained, as you stated inyour
orginal comment, that they are legally required to do X.

Wonderful spinning. You should be in Washington.

And they are *not* legally required to do so, and I corrected the
misstatement. Several times, apparently to no avail.

I said I didn't write it clearly. What I initially wrote wasn't
accurately what I meant; I corrected myself. The facts:
1) McD is not legally required to list their ingredients.
2) But, if they do, it must be true.

That is pretty clear.

I wrote the "Food Additives" section in the Oxford University Press
Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. I'm somewhat conversant with
the subject.

It would have been better for you to quote the OUEFDA instead of state
you wrote the section. The way you phrased it makes it sound like a
argument from authority.

LOL So you want me to quote myself? Boy, talk about an argument from
authority. I bet you'd accept that in a heartbeat, right?

Not exactly. I was simply pointing out that there /might/ have been
a better way to have done it without sounding like you were arguing
from authority. Admitidly there isn't an easy way to do it on this
one unless you pull from another source that you didn't write but I
think I will find some of that below.

Right.

Get over yourself. I've said before and again here what the legal
requirements are. I misstated it at first and corrected it and have
admitted it repeatedly.

Ok then we can end this now.

If McD has been knowingly adding stuff to their fries but not saying it,
or worse, denying it, they should get a smack.

If you were in Korea and eat something you thought was dog free
because you read the label and didn't see dog on it would you be happy
with 'a smack'.

What the hell does a restaurant in Korea have to do with American food
laws? Focus... And I love how you loaded that one up. Dog, indeed.
That's certainly equivalent to a starch isolate from wheat.

I was illustrating through analogy why McD's should have listed beef
specifically as an additive in their fries. I thought that would have
been transparent.

It was transparent, just irrelevant. An emotional appeal rather than the
legalities and actual events. And "beef" isn't an "additive" in their
fries. I frankly would have expected you to have understood the
vocabulary you're trying to argue with by now.

McD started out with a beef fat-vegetable fat frying mixture.

And it was good.

It produced what they and their customers thought were good fries.

And in my youth I was one of them.

How the wheat was processed and what finished product it became is one
of the central elements of the question. If you're going to argue that
no matter what or how much processing it undergoes, it's still wheat, we
have nothing to talk about on that subject.

On a chemistry level I agree with you. Which is why I haven't pushed
the wheat thing nearly as hard as the beef issue.

Is this the "beef extractives" used for flavoring or tallow in the fry
fat? If the extractives, I have no problem with not saying it because
the chemistry issues are no different than the ones with wheat extractives.

If the tallow, I think they should have either posted it on the walls in
the restaurants as a warning, or suggested to the world that they cook
with beef in many products, so maybe it would be better to go eat at
"Wacko Veggies 'R' Us" if that's a problem.

You've insisted that the law binds them to state their ingredients.
You're wrong.
Go read the law - the American law - before posting this again.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/label.html is where you can find the regulations.

Lots of info but nothing I saw points to what they can omit from the
ingrediants section.

THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO *HAVE* AN INGREDIENTS SECTION. THEY ARE NOT
OBLIGATED TO HAVE NUTRIENT LABELING. HOW CAN ONE OMIT INFORMATION FROM A
NON-EXISTENT DOCUMENT? *EVERYTHING* IS OMITTED FROM A NON-EXISTENT DOCUMENT.

THEY'RE CLASSIFIED AS RESTAURANTS BECAUSE THEY SERVE FOOD FOR IMMEDIATE
CONSUMPTION - WHICH IS NEVER OBLIGATED TO HAVE NUTRIENT OR INGREDIENT
LABELING. THEY NEITHER HAVE TO LIST WHAT'S IN THE FOOD, NOR WHAT'S NOT.

"Unlike processed foods, restaurant menu selections are not
required to supply complete nutrition information."
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tpmenus.html

The way I read that is that they do not need to post full
'nutritional information'.

It really doesn't matter what "the way [you] read it" is. Only matters
what the whole CFR says are the regulations at hand and how they're to
be observed. The simple, plain, utter, absolute fact is that restaurants
are not mandated to supply *any* nutritional information. Period.

It doesn't mention anything about what additives can be omitted.

It means they aren't required to supply nutritional information like
packaged products. Chef Boyardee canned lasagna (if they make something
like that) has to have an ingredients list. Olive garden don't have to
provide *any* nutritional information for a plate of pasta.

*Everything* can be omitted because nothing is directed to be included.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdnewlab.html
First sentence: "Grocery store aisles are avenues to greater nutritional
knowledge." Not restaurants.

The last one is not a contextual quote here is the whole thing:
Grocery store aisles are avenues to greater nutritional knowledge.

Under regulations from the Food and Drug Administration of the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Food
Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the food label offers more complete, useful and
accurate nutrition information than ever before.

It is a comparative statement about previous labeling vs new
standards. Not a reference to grocery stores vs restaurants.

The "food label" is only mandatory for packaged foods. Not restaurant
foods. It makes the very clear distinction that you seem to want to
deny, or at least your harping on it seems to indicate that.

"Food labeling is required for most prepared foods, such as breads,
cereals, canned and frozen foods, snacks, desserts, drinks, etc.
Nutrition labeling for raw produce (fruits and vegetables) and fish is
voluntary." Packaged foods, not foods prepared for immediate consumption.

So where are the sections on prepared foods that tell us what they can
omit?

"Prepared foods" in the regulation are "packaged foods." Not foods for
immediate consumption. Hostess Twinkies, not hot burgers. Why do you not
get this from the list the regulation offers?

Why are you having such a difficult time grasping this very simple set
of facts? Restaurants are not obligated to provide nutritional
information. Period.

It hasn't mattered what citations I've offered. Doesn't even matter from
the perspective of that British web site you cited where they said the
same thing.

You still cling to what should be on their nutrition labels when they
don't have any because nobody serving foods for immediate consumption
has any. Nutrition labels are the panels that list the breakdown of
macronutrients, vitamins and minerals on cans and jars, bread bags,
etc.. No take-out food box or bag from a restaurant selling food for
immediate consumption needs to have such labeling. And none that I've
ever seen do.

But none of this happens in a vacuum. We're talking about a burger joint
where they sell meat, dairy and wheat products all day long. It is
absurd to expect that there won't be some cross-contact in the normal
course of events of cooking, handling, wrapping or boxing, and delivery
to customers.

Agreed. The point I am addressing is not cross contact but
intentional misinformation though omission.

Right.

Bye.

Pastorio

Pastorio,
You tell 'em. I worked in fast-food for quite sometime, and knew that
ingredient lists were NOT required.
Ah well, some people's children.

Cheers,
Chuck Kopsho
Oceanside, California