http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-vs-margarine/

The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
By Roberto A. Ferdman June 17 at 12:21 PM

The 100-plus year war between butter and margarine, America's two
favorite fatty spreads, has been a battle of cultural norms, nutritional
headwinds, a bit of circumstance, and, of course, cash rich marketing
campaigns.

At times the tussle has proved a tad lopsided—for over 50 years
margarine seemed markedly outmatched. Back in 1911, the average American
ate almost 19 pounds of butter per year, the most ever, according to the
USDA. Meanwhile, margarine consumption barely broke a single pound per
person per year. Among the butter industry's many efforts to mitigate
the growth of the competing spread was a mandate, upheld in many states,
disallowing the sale of yellow margarine. In an effort to circumvent the
restriction, clear margarine blocks were often sold with a side of
yellow dye.

World World II, however, brought butter shortages and, with them, the
rise of butter's arch nemesis. It wasn't until 1957, when Americans ate
as much margarine as they did butter—8.5 pounds per year—that margarine,
which was marketed as both a healthier and cheaper butter alternative,
opened the spread in its favor. Fat had become a food faux pas, and the
margarine industry used its widening wallet to tout margarine's supposed
health appeal. "The massive advertising of health claims for margarine
transformed a generally disreputable product of inferior quality and
flavor into a great commercial success," William G. Rothstein wrote in
his book Public Health and the Risk Factor.

Even Eleanor Roosevelt came to margarine's aid. "That's what I've spread
on my toast," she said in a 1959 commercial for Good Luck margarine.

The thing about advertising is that it often works. For some 50 years
thereafter, it was butter that was left to congeal in the fridge. In
1976, at the peak of America's love affair with margarine, per capita
consumption towered to just under 12 pounds per year, or nearly three
times that of butter, according to the USDA.

Today, however, amid a complete reversal in both consumer preferences
and nutritional science—recent studies have challenged the notion that
consuming saturated fats is tied to greater risks of heart
disease—margarine's marketing efforts have lost their appeal and the
narratives have reversed themselves. Growing concerns over processed
foods and a simultaneous, and ferocious, revival of the American
appetite for natural fats has turned the tables—and this time,
seemingly, for good. Even one of the world's largest margarine makers
has conceded as much.

After announcing the return of butter back in March, Mark Bittman wrote
in defense of real food and real fats just last week. "Eat real food and
your fat intake will probably be fine," he said. If America's taste in
fatty spreads is any indication, the country seems to have already
caught on. Butter consumption is up more than 21% since its lowest
reading in 1997, while margarine consumption is down 70% since its peak
in the mid-1970s.

Put another way, the average American hasn't eaten this much butter
since 1972, or—and perhaps more incredibly—this little margarine since 1942.

I'm confused. Wasn't margarine introduced as a cheaper spread. I
though it was solely to save money. Hence the great effort to fool
people into thinking that it tasted as good as butter.

http://www.richardfisher.com

"Helpful person" > wrote in message
...
> I'm confused. Wasn't margarine introduced as a cheaper spread. I
> though it was solely to save money. Hence the great effort to fool
> people into thinking that it tasted as good as butter.
>
I don't think so. What he said sounds like what I have read of food
history.

Saving money is what I recall from the days when margarine came in bags as a white product with a color
capsule that you broke by manipulating the product inside the package, and eventually colored the
whole bag full yellow. This was in the 40's. My family was a farm family and at that time, I don't
recall any conversations about butter=bad stuff.

N.

On 6/17/2014 7:45 PM, Nancy2 wrote:
> Saving money is what I recall from the days when margarine came in bags as a white product with a color
> capsule that you broke by manipulating the product inside the package, and eventually colored the
> whole bag full yellow. This was in the 40's. My family was a farm family and at that time, I don't
> recall any conversations about butter=bad stuff.
>
> N.
>

We always used margarine when I was a kid, except on the holidays. Mom
and Dad both grew up on farms in Iowa during the depression, and they
bought margarine to save money. I recall that they called it "oley",
short for "oleomargarine"; I think my dad still does on occasion. Of
course, he still refers to the refrigerator as "the icebox", but that's
another issue...

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:45:49 PM UTC-7, Nancy2 wrote:
> Saving money is what I recall from the days when margarine came in bags as a white product with a color
>
> capsule that you broke by manipulating the product inside the package, and eventually colored the
>
> whole bag full yellow. This was in the 40's. My family was a farm family and at that time, I don't
>
> recall any conversations about butter=bad stuff.
>
>
>
> N.

Yeah, my MIL talked about that. I'm pretty sure it was because butter was rationed during the war so they had to make do with this Crisco-type spread and added color to make it more appetizing looking.
Yikes, can you imagine spreading Crisco on your toast?

Nellie

"Nellie" > wrote in message
...
> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:45:49 PM UTC-7, Nancy2 wrote:
>> Saving money is what I recall from the days when margarine came in bags
>> as a white product with a color
>>
>> capsule that you broke by manipulating the product inside the package,
>> and eventually colored the
>>
>> whole bag full yellow. This was in the 40's. My family was a farm
>> family and at that time, I don't
>>
>> recall any conversations about butter=bad stuff.
>>
>>
>>
>> N.
>
> Yeah, my MIL talked about that. I'm pretty sure it was because butter was
> rationed during the war so they had to make do with this Crisco-type
> spread and added color to make it more appetizing looking.
> Yikes, can you imagine spreading Crisco on your toast?

My MIL had a Crisco cookbook. She said they were going door to door giving
out little sample cans and the cookbook.

I have put coconut oil on toast. It's okay.

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 6:01:40 PM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Nellie" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:45:49 PM UTC-7, Nancy2 wrote:
>
> >> Saving money is what I recall from the days when margarine came in bags
>
> >> as a white product with a color
>
> >>
>
> >> capsule that you broke by manipulating the product inside the package,
>
> >> and eventually colored the
>
> >>
>
> >> whole bag full yellow. This was in the 40's. My family was a farm
>
> >> family and at that time, I don't
>
> >>
>
> >> recall any conversations about butter=bad stuff.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> N.
>
> >
>
> > Yeah, my MIL talked about that. I'm pretty sure it was because butter was
>
> > rationed during the war so they had to make do with this Crisco-type
>
> > spread and added color to make it more appetizing looking.
>
> > Yikes, can you imagine spreading Crisco on your toast?
>
>
>
> My MIL had a Crisco cookbook. She said they were going door to door giving
>
> out little sample cans and the cookbook.
>
>
>
> I have put coconut oil on toast. It's okay.


I collect old cookbooks, the ones that came with the product. I have one from Spry, which was a predecessor to Crisco, or maybe they were both out at the same time, not sure.

It is hysterical, they refer to men in the most demeaning manner, our little boys and stuff like that.
It is also historical, for they bake for the men in the Veterans Home, veterans of World War I.

Coconut oil is great for sautéing chicken.

Nellie

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:45:49 PM UTC-7, Nancy2 wrote:
> Saving money is what I recall from the days when margarine came in bags as a white product with a color
> capsule that you broke by manipulating the product inside the package, and eventually colored the
> whole bag full yellow. This was in the 40's. My family was a farm family and at that time, I don't
> recall any conversations about butter=bad stuff.

They did that in Wisconsin up till the 60s, while margarine was already
yellow sticks in Illinois.

I think "Shedd's Spread" did a lot to keep margarine popular -- it was
easier to spread on toast than a cold stick of butter.

> wrote in message
...
> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:45:49 PM UTC-7, Nancy2 wrote:
>> Saving money is what I recall from the days when margarine came in bags
>> as a white product with a color
>> capsule that you broke by manipulating the product inside the package,
>> and eventually colored the
>> whole bag full yellow. This was in the 40's. My family was a farm
>> family and at that time, I don't
>> recall any conversations about butter=bad stuff.
>
> They did that in Wisconsin up till the 60s, while margarine was already
> yellow sticks in Illinois.
>
> I think "Shedd's Spread" did a lot to keep margarine popular -- it was
> easier to spread on toast than a cold stick of butter.

I made whipped butter when I was a kid. Just add milk to it and whip with
your mixer.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 22:44:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

snip
>
>They did that in Wisconsin up till the 60s, while margarine was already
>yellow sticks in Illinois.
>
snip
I recall that not 'bringing margarine over the border' of
Illinois/Wisconsin was intended to protect the Wisconsin butter
industry. We had a couple of smuggled bags of the stuff once. It
looked like Crisco until you broke the internal orange blister and
smushed it around. At that time the bags of margarine were a lot
cheaper than butter. You c ould buy the stuff at gas stations just
across the state line.
Janet US

On 6/18/2014 1:44 AM, wrote:

> I think "Shedd's Spread" did a lot to keep margarine popular -- it was
> easier to spread on toast than a cold stick of butter.
>


Sure, but it was still like plastic. I was raised on butter and stuck
with it. Margarine is OK for some cooking though, but not on my bread.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/18/2014 1:44 AM, wrote:
>
>> I think "Shedd's Spread" did a lot to keep margarine popular -- it was
>> easier to spread on toast than a cold stick of butter.
>>
>
>
> Sure, but it was still like plastic. I was raised on butter and stuck
> with it. Margarine is OK for some cooking though, but not on my bread.

I won't touch margarine. Always butter for me. At least I know what it is
made of.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> On 6/18/2014 1:44 AM, wrote:
>
> > I think "Shedd's Spread" did a lot to keep margarine popular -- it was
> > easier to spread on toast than a cold stick of butter.
> >
>
> Sure, but it was still like plastic. I was raised on butter and stuck
> with it. Margarine is OK for some cooking though, but not on my bread.

I always found that margarine was a better not-stick to use when
frying eggs or cooking pancakes. Better than butter or oil. For the
pancakes, I would grease the pan with margarine for cooking them, then
put real butter on top to melt once they got on the plate.

G.

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:43:35 AM UTC+10, Helpful person wrote:
> I'm confused. Wasn't margarine introduced as a cheaper spread. I
> though it was solely to save money. Hence the great effort to fool
> people into thinking that it tasted as good as butter.

Yes. The "margarine is lower and saturated fats and healthier" came later.

The early margarines weren't much lower in saturated fats, anyway. Originally beef tallow, about 50% saturated vs about 60% for butterfat. When they went to whale oil, that's less saturated (and gets hydrogenated).

On 6/17/2014 3:43 PM, Helpful person wrote:
> I'm confused. Wasn't margarine introduced as a cheaper spread. I
> though it was solely to save money. Hence the great effort to fool
> people into thinking that it tasted as good as butter.

I don't know about the introduction, but it was marketed that way back
in the 50's or so. It was in the market for some time back then though.

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:43:35 PM UTC-5, Helpful person wrote:
> I'm confused. Wasn't margarine introduced as a cheaper spread. I
>
> though it was solely to save money. Hence the great effort to fool
>
> people into thinking that it tasted as good as butter.
>
>
>
> http://www.richardfisher.com

Only a filthy person would use trans-fat margarine in this millennium.

--Bryan

Travis McGee wrote:
>
> disallowing the sale of yellow margarine. In an effort to circumvent the
> restriction, clear margarine blocks were often sold with a side of
> yellow dye.

They weren't clear. They were white.

> Today, however, amid a complete reversal in both consumer preferences
> and nutritional science—recent studies have challenged the notion that
> consuming saturated fats is tied to greater risks of heart
> disease—margarine's marketing efforts have lost their appeal and the
> narratives have reversed themselves.

Baloney. The link between saturated fat intake
and cardiovascular disease was established by
studies in humans. Nothing has "reversed" the
data from those studies.

This article is poorly researched and written.

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:52:54 PM UTC-7, Mark Thorson wrote:
> Travis McGee wrote:
>
> >
>
> > disallowing the sale of yellow margarine. In an effort to circumvent the
>
> > restriction, clear margarine blocks were often sold with a side of
>
> > yellow dye.
>
>
>
> They weren't clear. They were white.
>
>
>
> > Today, however, amid a complete reversal in both consumer preferences
>
> > and nutritional science�recent studies have challenged the notion that
>
> > consuming saturated fats is tied to greater risks of heart
>
> > disease�margarine's marketing efforts have lost their appeal and the
>
> > narratives have reversed themselves.
>
>
>
> Baloney. The link between saturated fat intake
>
> and cardiovascular disease was established by
>
> studies in humans. Nothing has "reversed" the
>
> data from those studies.
>
>
>
> This article is poorly researched and written.


http://img.timeinc.net/time/pr/magcovers/62314.jpg

This is just the first article I could find, there are many that may be even more conclusive.

It is pretty much established now that there is no correlation.

Nellie

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:40:40 -0700 (PDT), Nellie
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:52:54 PM UTC-7, Mark Thorson wrote:
>> Travis McGee wrote:
>>
>> Baloney. The link between saturated fat intake
>>
>> and cardiovascular disease was established by
>>
>> studies in humans. Nothing has "reversed" the
>>
>> data from those studies.
>>
>> This article is poorly researched and written.
>
>
>http://img.timeinc.net/time/pr/magcovers/62314.jpg
>
>This is just the first article I could find, there are many that may be even more conclusive.
>
>It is pretty much established now that there is no correlation.

It's amazing how much resistance there are to the facts. Even in this
day and age.

On 6/17/2014 7:03 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:40:40 -0700 (PDT), Nellie
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:52:54 PM UTC-7, Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> Travis McGee wrote:
>>>
>>> Baloney. The link between saturated fat intake
>>>
>>> and cardiovascular disease was established by
>>>
>>> studies in humans. Nothing has "reversed" the
>>>
>>> data from those studies.
>>>
>>> This article is poorly researched and written.
>>
>>
>> http://img.timeinc.net/time/pr/magcovers/62314.jpg
>>
>> This is just the first article I could find, there are many that may be even more conclusive.
>>
>> It is pretty much established now that there is no correlation.
>
> It's amazing how much resistance there are to the facts. Even in this
> day and age.
>

That reminds me of one of the first reports in the popular press about
how fats may not be the enemy. It was written by a guy named Gary
Taubes, for the NYT Sunday magazine. The cover image was of a large
t-bone steak, with a pat of butter melting on top. This was about a
dozen years ago.

It caused a huge outcry, not the least from one of the NYT food editors,
who blasted the article and the author as being completely
irresponsible, and perhaps even criminal, for even suggesting that fat
might not be a problem. My, how times have changed.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:15:06 -0400, Travis McGee >
wrote:

>On 6/17/2014 7:03 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:40:40 -0700 (PDT), Nellie
>> > wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:52:54 PM UTC-7, Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>> Travis McGee wrote:
>>>> Baloney. The link between saturated fat intake
>>>> and cardiovascular disease was established by
>>>> studies in humans. Nothing has "reversed" the
>>>> data from those studies.
>>>>
>>>> This article is poorly researched and written.
>>>
>>> http://img.timeinc.net/time/pr/magcovers/62314.jpg
>>> This is just the first article I could find, there are many that may be even more conclusive.
>>> It is pretty much established now that there is no correlation.
>
>> It's amazing how much resistance there are to the facts. Even in this
>> day and age.
>>
>
>That reminds me of one of the first reports in the popular press about
>how fats may not be the enemy. It was written by a guy named Gary
>Taubes, for the NYT Sunday magazine. The cover image was of a large
>t-bone steak, with a pat of butter melting on top. This was about a
>dozen years ago.
>
>It caused a huge outcry, not the least from one of the NYT food editors,
>who blasted the article and the author as being completely
>irresponsible, and perhaps even criminal, for even suggesting that fat
>might not be a problem. My, how times have changed.

Times have changed, albeit painfully slowly. I've been in the
saturated fats are good camp since circa 2002 and it's gradually
getting easier to be able to at least discuss the subject now.

Nellie wrote:
>
> http://img.timeinc.net/time/pr/magcovers/62314.jpg
>
> This is just the first article I could find, there are many that may be even more conclusive.
>
> It is pretty much established now that there is no correlation.

No, it's not. _Time_ magazine is not
a scientific journal. There are no
clinical studies which overturn the
scientific data that consumption of
saturated fat is a major risk factor
for cardiovascular disease.

One of the leading organizations
supporting research in cardiovascular
disease is the American Heart Association.
When they say it's okay to eat saturated
fats, I'll believe it.

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Gettin...49_Article.jsp

But of course, that will NEVER happen.
There are few nutritional causes of
disease as well-supported by clinical
studies as the one between saturated fat
and cardiovascular disease.

On 2014-06-17, Mark Thorson > wrote:

> Baloney. The link between saturated fat intake
> and cardiovascular disease was established by
> studies in humans. Nothing has "reversed" the
> data from those studies.

No more bolagnos than yer unsubstantiated claim to the contrary.

Another article, out last week, is the Time magazine story on fats,
with a huge picture of a curl of butter centerpiecing the mag's cover.
It is much better researched and highlights doctors and their studies
which refute the long standing "anti-fat" diet campaign that has too
long dominated this country's diet dogma.

http://time.com/2863227/ending-the-war-on-fat/

nb

On 17 Jun 2014 23:11:13 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2014-06-17, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
>> Baloney. The link between saturated fat intake
>> and cardiovascular disease was established by
>> studies in humans. Nothing has "reversed" the
>> data from those studies.
>
>No more bolagnos than yer unsubstantiated claim to the contrary.
>
>Another article, out last week, is the Time magazine story on fats,
>with a huge picture of a curl of butter centerpiecing the mag's cover.
>It is much better researched and highlights doctors and their studies
>which refute the long standing "anti-fat" diet campaign that has too
>long dominated this country's diet dogma.
>
>http://time.com/2863227/ending-the-war-on-fat/

Now that such an article has appeared in 'Time', now suddenly it has
credibility in many people's eyes... sigh.

On 6/17/2014 1:14 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2014 23:11:13 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-06-17, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>>
>>> Baloney. The link between saturated fat intake
>>> and cardiovascular disease was established by
>>> studies in humans. Nothing has "reversed" the
>>> data from those studies.
>>
>> No more bolagnos than yer unsubstantiated claim to the contrary.
>>
>> Another article, out last week, is the Time magazine story on fats,
>> with a huge picture of a curl of butter centerpiecing the mag's cover.
>> It is much better researched and highlights doctors and their studies
>> which refute the long standing "anti-fat" diet campaign that has too
>> long dominated this country's diet dogma.
>>
>> http://time.com/2863227/ending-the-war-on-fat/
>
> Now that such an article has appeared in 'Time', now suddenly it has
> credibility in many people's eyes... sigh.
>

I don't buy into all these butter backlash. Butter is bad! You can take
that to the bank right there. :-)

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:58:41 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

>On 6/17/2014 1:14 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On 17 Jun 2014 23:11:13 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-06-17, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Baloney. The link between saturated fat intake
>>>> and cardiovascular disease was established by
>>>> studies in humans. Nothing has "reversed" the
>>>> data from those studies.
>>>
>>> No more bolagnos than yer unsubstantiated claim to the contrary.
>>>
>>> Another article, out last week, is the Time magazine story on fats,
>>> with a huge picture of a curl of butter centerpiecing the mag's cover.
>>> It is much better researched and highlights doctors and their studies
>>> which refute the long standing "anti-fat" diet campaign that has too
>>> long dominated this country's diet dogma.
>>>
>>> http://time.com/2863227/ending-the-war-on-fat/
>>
>> Now that such an article has appeared in 'Time', now suddenly it has
>> credibility in many people's eyes... sigh.
>>
>
>I don't buy into all these butter backlash. Butter is bad!

Let's hope we're both here to discuss this topic in another ten years.
Just amazing how... never mind.

>You can take that to the bank right there. :-)

LOL, you would too. As though a bank is some sort of pillar of
integrity and security

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:55:28 PM UTC-6, Travis McGee wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-vs-margarine/
>
>
>
> The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
>
> By Roberto A. Ferdman June 17 at 12:21 PM
>
>
>
> The 100-plus year war between butter and margarine, America's two
>
> favorite fatty spreads, has been a battle of cultural norms, nutritional
>
> headwinds, a bit of circumstance, and, of course, cash rich marketing
>
> campaigns.
>
>
>
> At times the tussle has proved a tad lopsided�for over 50 years
>
> margarine seemed markedly outmatched. Back in 1911, the average American
>
> ate almost 19 pounds of butter per year, the most ever, according to the
>
> USDA. Meanwhile, margarine consumption barely broke a single pound per
>
> person per year. Among the butter industry's many efforts to mitigate
>
> the growth of the competing spread was a mandate, upheld in many states,
>
> disallowing the sale of yellow margarine. In an effort to circumvent the
>
> restriction, clear margarine blocks were often sold with a side of
>
> yellow dye.
>
>
>
> World World II, however, brought butter shortages and, with them, the
>
> rise of butter's arch nemesis. It wasn't until 1957, when Americans ate
>
> as much margarine as they did butter�8.5 pounds per year�that margarine,
>
> which was marketed as both a healthier and cheaper butter alternative,
>
> opened the spread in its favor. Fat had become a food faux pas, and the
>
> margarine industry used its widening wallet to tout margarine's supposed
>
> health appeal. "The massive advertising of health claims for margarine
>
> transformed a generally disreputable product of inferior quality and
>
> flavor into a great commercial success," William G. Rothstein wrote in
>
> his book Public Health and the Risk Factor.
>
>
>
> Even Eleanor Roosevelt came to margarine's aid. "That's what I've spread
>
> on my toast," she said in a 1959 commercial for Good Luck margarine.
>
>
>
> The thing about advertising is that it often works. For some 50 years
>
> thereafter, it was butter that was left to congeal in the fridge. In
>
> 1976, at the peak of America's love affair with margarine, per capita
>
> consumption towered to just under 12 pounds per year, or nearly three
>
> times that of butter, according to the USDA.
>
>
>
> Today, however, amid a complete reversal in both consumer preferences
>
> and nutritional science�recent studies have challenged the notion that
>
> consuming saturated fats is tied to greater risks of heart
>
> disease�margarine's marketing efforts have lost their appeal and the
>
> narratives have reversed themselves. Growing concerns over processed
>
> foods and a simultaneous, and ferocious, revival of the American
>
> appetite for natural fats has turned the tables�and this time,
>
> seemingly, for good. Even one of the world's largest margarine makers
>
> has conceded as much.
>
>
>
> After announcing the return of butter back in March, Mark Bittman wrote
>
> in defense of real food and real fats just last week. "Eat real food and
>
> your fat intake will probably be fine," he said. If America's taste in
>
> fatty spreads is any indication, the country seems to have already
>
> caught on. Butter consumption is up more than 21% since its lowest
>
> reading in 1997, while margarine consumption is down 70% since its peak
>
> in the mid-1970s.
>
>
>
> Put another way, the average American hasn't eaten this much butter
>
> since 1972, or�and perhaps more incredibly�this little margarine since 1942.

We buy only real butter. It tastes better, it cooks better, and I like it.

The amount we use is so small that I am not going to worry about the fat intake from my butter. A pound of butter lasts months and months unless I go crazy and do some baking. I love to bake but have no one to feed it to, and we don't need it!!

DaleP

I prefer butter, and don't like to eat thickened oil. If the recipe calls for oil, I use oil, or butter, etc. I used to work in restaurants, and some of them have what's called 60/40, which is 60% margarine 40% butter (or maybe the other way around.) They do that to save money, as butter, of course, is more expensive.

I'm getting to be an old fogey, I guess, and remember the old days when there was a milk man. On the other hand, that was when the margarine craze started. Odd, eh?

On 6/18/2014 4:12 PM, Terrence Crimmins wrote:
> I prefer butter, and don't like to eat thickened oil. If the recipe calls for oil, I use oil, or butter, etc. I used to work in restaurants, and some of them have what's called 60/40, which is 60% margarine 40% butter (or maybe the other way around.) They do that to save money, as butter, of course, is more expensive.
>
> I'm getting to be an old fogey, I guess, and remember the old days when there was a milk man. On the other hand, that was when the margarine craze started. Odd, eh?
>

Margarine was invented a *long* time ago.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/25638...tory-margarine


Despite the subject line, I don't see any "generational battles" going
on. The history is interesting.

Some people like margarine. I'm not one of them. When my mom was
growing up her parents bought it because it was cheaper and more readily
available during WWII. When I was growing up it Mom bought it because
it was a cheaper product and because she was used to it. No one thought
a thing about it. We only got butter [at the time] for holiday dinners.

It wasn't until I was an adult and noticed the prices were roughly the
same I started buying butter. Why was this only for holidays? That's
the only "generational" difference in my upbringing. Margarine was
cheaper and Mom was being thrifty.

I don't use a lot of it so it doesn't really matter. I have observed
most "margarine" these days is just as expensive, if not more so, than
actual butter.

For those who have a problem with spreading cold butter on bread... take
it out of the fridge ahead of time. This has been discussed *ad naseum*
over the years.

Jill

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:47:55 PM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:

> For those who have a problem with spreading cold butter on bread... take
> it out of the fridge ahead of time. This has been discussed *ad naseum*
> over the years.

We don't like to leave the butter out all night.

On 6/19/2014 12:10 AM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:47:55 PM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> For those who have a problem with spreading cold butter on bread... take
>> it out of the fridge ahead of time. This has been discussed *ad naseum*
>> over the years.
>
> We don't like to leave the butter out all night.
>
Who says you have to leave it out all night?

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/19/2014 12:10 AM, wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:47:55 PM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> For those who have a problem with spreading cold butter on bread... take
>>> it out of the fridge ahead of time. This has been discussed *ad naseum*
>>> over the years.
>>
>> We don't like to leave the butter out all night.
>>
> Who says you have to leave it out all night?

My grandma kept hers in the cupboard. On a saucer. It was a lil' yellow
pool in the Kansas heat! Hers was very fresh though. They always had at
least one cow and she churned it as needed.

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:37:14 PM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:

> On 6/19/2014 12:10 AM, wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:47:55 PM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:
>
> >> For those who have a problem with spreading cold butter on bread... take
> >> it out of the fridge ahead of time. This has been discussed *ad naseum*
> >> over the years.
>
> > We don't like to leave the butter out all night.
>
> Who says you have to leave it out all night?
>

Our other options are
1. Get up earlier, or
2. Eat breakfast later.

Not gunna happen, to quote Dana Carvey as GHW Bush.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:10:50 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:47:55 PM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> For those who have a problem with spreading cold butter on bread... take
>> it out of the fridge ahead of time. This has been discussed *ad naseum*
>> over the years.
>
>We don't like to leave the butter out all night.

The butter I'm using stays out of the fridge all of the time, aside
from in extremely hot weather. Been doing that for decades now, never
had a problem.

On 6/19/2014 1:04 AM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:10:50 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:47:55 PM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> For those who have a problem with spreading cold butter on bread... take
>>> it out of the fridge ahead of time. This has been discussed *ad naseum*
>>> over the years.
>>
>> We don't like to leave the butter out all night.
>
> The butter I'm using stays out of the fridge all of the time, aside
> from in extremely hot weather. Been doing that for decades now, never
> had a problem.
>
For a while I used to use a butter bell. It was fine except for having
to change the cold water so often. That got to be a bit of a PITA, but
I still have the butter bell. It's cute.

Of course I have air conditioning so it wouldn't matter if I left the
butter on the counter all the time, so long as it was covered. I guess
I store it on the fridge door out of habit.

Jill

On 6/19/2014 1:04 AM, Jeßus wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:10:50 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:47:55 PM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> For those who have a problem with spreading cold butter on bread... take
>>> it out of the fridge ahead of time. This has been discussed *ad naseum*
>>> over the years.
>>
>> We don't like to leave the butter out all night.
>
> The butter I'm using stays out of the fridge all of the time, aside
> from in extremely hot weather. Been doing that for decades now, never
> had a problem.
>

Ditto. Covered butter dish.

--
ღ.¸¸.œ«*¨`*œ¶
Cheryl

On 6/18/2014 11:10 PM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:47:55 PM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> For those who have a problem with spreading cold butter on bread... take
>> it out of the fridge ahead of time. This has been discussed *ad naseum*
>> over the years.
>
> We don't like to leave the butter out all night.
>


One stick of butter stays on my counter top, until it is gone, and that
does not take very long. It does take a few days, though.

Becca

On 6/19/2014 2:23 PM, Ema Nymton wrote:
> On 6/18/2014 11:10 PM, wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:47:55 PM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> For those who have a problem with spreading cold butter on bread... take
>>> it out of the fridge ahead of time. This has been discussed *ad naseum*
>>> over the years.
>>
>> We don't like to leave the butter out all night.
>>
>
>
> One stick of butter stays on my counter top, until it is gone, and that
> does not take very long. It does take a few days, though.
>
> Becca

I used to leave the butter out all the time on the counter, with no
cover. One day the wife (now ex) came in, livid. She claimed that my cat
had been "licking the butter". She and the cat, whom I had had long
before we got married, did not have a good relationship. The ex showed
me striations on the surface of the butter and claimed that they came
from the spines on the cat's tongue. Of course, I told her she was being
ridiculous, and that the grooves were from the serrations on the knife
edge, which did not go over well.

This went on every few days for a week or two, and things got pretty
tense. Then, one day I happened out into the kitchen very early in the
morning. The dear little kitty was on the counter, with his face in the
butter dish. Ooops... I paid quite a price for that little incident.

On 6/19/2014 2:23 PM, Ema Nymton wrote:

>
> One stick of butter stays on my counter top, until it is gone, and that
> does not take very long. It does take a few days, though.
>
> Becca

Too soft for me. I cut off thin slices and put it on the warm toast.
Spread a little if possible. I'd rather have a series of lumps than too
soft and spread. I guess it is the mouth feel thing.