|
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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 |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
"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. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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 |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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 |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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... |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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). |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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 |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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. :-) |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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 :) |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
On 6/17/2014 2:17 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> 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. I'm not counting on that. I'm scheduled to die in this year or the next. :-) > >> 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 :) > I would take it to the bank because I don't like being around a lot of money. Rest assured though - I don't care for banks. My dad told me about the old days when he would drinking and gambling after work. He said the Chinese and Filipino workers would hide their winnings in cracks in the rock cause they couldn't let their wives at home see they were gambling. They couldn't hide the fact that they were drinking though. Boy, they must have gotten yelled at all the time. They was in the doghouse for sure. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
"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. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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 |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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 |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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 |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
On 6/17/2014 3:42 PM, Nellie wrote:
> > In the Gold Country here in California, a family recently stumbled across a lot of 'loot' I don't remember how much, but it was a lot. No one can figure out where it came from, but believe it was Jesse James's from a stagecoach holdup. Incredibly, there are records of those old heists and the amounts and which had been found and which are still missing. This one was not on any of those lists. a real mystery. > > Nellie > That's pretty cool. My in-laws live in Oroville CA so I got to believe that thar's gold in them thar hills - or at least the world's biggest dam pile of dirt. :-) |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
"Nellie" > wrote in message ... 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 --- I have seen the Spry one online. The old lady lecturing the young one on what men want. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
> 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. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
|
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:17:13 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>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 :) Don't forget about the benefits of lard compared to butter and/or vegetable oil products. Less saturated fat compared to butter. More monounsaturated fats. Less polyunsaturated fats . . . I've never used margarine except for that one taste of the Crisco-like stuff. I always figured butter and lately lard are natural products and I'll go with that. Janet US |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
|
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
On 2014-06-18, Janet Bostwick > wrote:
> Don't forget about the benefits of lard compared to butter and/or > vegetable oil products. Less saturated fat compared to butter. More > monounsaturated fats. Less polyunsaturated fats . . . I've never > used margarine except for that one taste of the Crisco-like stuff. I > always figured butter and lately lard are natural products and I'll go > with that. But, margerine and Crisco are heavily hydrogenated oils and the hydrogination process turns the unsaturated fats into trans fats, which are suspected to be even worse than other saturated fats. http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-hydrogenated-oil.htm I've recently been given about a cup of this: http://www.spectrumorganics.com/spec...ic-shortening/ It's palm oil based and is used by the organic baker, in town. Looks jes like Crisco. I've yet to try it in my butter/shortening pie crust dough, as it's been too warm to bake. I'll let you know how it turns out when I get around to baking another pie. ;) nb |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
On 18 Jun 2014 16:27:29 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>On 2014-06-18, Janet Bostwick > wrote: > >> Don't forget about the benefits of lard compared to butter and/or >> vegetable oil products. Less saturated fat compared to butter. More >> monounsaturated fats. Less polyunsaturated fats . . . I've never >> used margarine except for that one taste of the Crisco-like stuff. I >> always figured butter and lately lard are natural products and I'll go >> with that. > >But, margerine and Crisco are heavily hydrogenated oils and the >hydrogination process turns the unsaturated fats into trans fats, which >are suspected to be even worse than other saturated fats. > >http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-hydrogenated-oil.htm > >I've recently been given about a cup of this: > >http://www.spectrumorganics.com/spec...ic-shortening/ > >It's palm oil based and is used by the organic baker, in town. Looks >jes like Crisco. I've yet to try it in my butter/shortening pie crust >dough, as it's been too warm to bake. I'll let you know how it turns >out when I get around to baking another pie. ;) > >nb I'd like to hear. I'm making a couple of beef pot pies for dinner. I have some leftover pieces of steak and the temps outside require turning on the furnace and using the oven. (Deck temp the a.m. was 38F) Then we are going to 90F by the end of the week. Crazy. Janet US |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
Spry and Crisco were available at the same time...they were competitors.
N. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
On 2014-06-18, Janet Bostwick > wrote:
> I'd like to hear. I'm making a couple of beef pot pies for dinner. I > have some leftover pieces of steak and the temps outside require > turning on the furnace and using the oven. (Deck temp the a.m. was > 38F) Then we are going to 90F by the end of the week. Crazy. I can sympathize. Looks to be a tad cooler by am, so may turn on oven tonight, as I don't sleep real good in the wee-wees. May throw a berry pie together to see if dough works. We'll see. ;) nb |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
"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/ |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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? |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:17:14 PM UTC-5, Nellie wrote:
> > I collect old cookbooks, the ones that came with the product. > > It is hysterical, they refer to men in the most demeaning manner, our little boys and stuff like that. > > > Nellie > > Referring the wife as "the little woman" is just as demeaning. I've read publications from the same era advising 'the little woman' to put on a clean dress before her hard working husband gets home from work. Also, don't bother him with your daily household problems. After all he is the man of the house and should be catered to. |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:26:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:17:14 PM UTC-5, Nellie wrote: > > > > > > I collect old cookbooks, the ones that came with the product. > > > > > > It is hysterical, they refer to men in the most demeaning manner, our little boys and stuff like that. > > > > > > > > > Nellie > > > > > > > > Referring the wife as "the little woman" is just as demeaning. I've read publications from the same era advising 'the little woman' to put on a clean dress before her hard working husband gets home from work. Also, don't bother him with your daily household problems. After all he is the man of the house and should be catered to. Sure it is. The reason it surprised me is that the woman bashing was so much more prevalent. Reading things like "Men can be such little boys, isn't that right, ladies?" cracked me up because it is usually the other way around. Nellie |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
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 |
The generational battle of butter vs. margarine
"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message ... > On 18 Jun 2014 16:27:29 GMT, notbob > wrote: > >>On 2014-06-18, Janet Bostwick > wrote: >> >>> Don't forget about the benefits of lard compared to butter and/or >>> vegetable oil products. Less saturated fat compared to butter. More >>> monounsaturated fats. Less polyunsaturated fats . . . I've never >>> used margarine except for that one taste of the Crisco-like stuff. I >>> always figured butter and lately lard are natural products and I'll go >>> with that. >> >>But, margerine and Crisco are heavily hydrogenated oils and the >>hydrogination process turns the unsaturated fats into trans fats, which >>are suspected to be even worse than other saturated fats. >> >>http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-hydrogenated-oil.htm >> >>I've recently been given about a cup of this: >> >>http://www.spectrumorganics.com/spec...ic-shortening/ >> >>It's palm oil based and is used by the organic baker, in town. Looks >>jes like Crisco. I've yet to try it in my butter/shortening pie crust >>dough, as it's been too warm to bake. I'll let you know how it turns >>out when I get around to baking another pie. ;) >> >>nb > I'd like to hear. I'm making a couple of beef pot pies for dinner. I > have some leftover pieces of steak and the temps outside require > turning on the furnace and using the oven. (Deck temp the a.m. was > 38F) Then we are going to 90F by the end of the week. Crazy. > Janet US Our weather is wacky here too. Yesterday it kept going from a little too warm to chilly and at one point it was warm with a chilly wind but muggy. I did a little freezer cleaning out and discovered waaaay too many cooked hamburger patties. So tonight, husband is going to have a burger on some kind of roll. I can't remember the name. I want to say Crustini. I had one last night. It was okay. The roll was better than your standard bun which I could live without. Tomorrow I will fry up some onions and green peppers, add brown gravy and serve over the patties with a side of mashed potatoes. Angela will likely opt for a piece of chicken instead but there is some of that cooked in the freezer as well. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter