Trans Fat Fight Claims Butter as a Victim
Cities like New York have already banned artificial trans-fat for health reasons, although scientists think natural trans fat might actually turn out to be beneficial. Because of an FDA ruling that says products with half a gram or more of trans-fat "can’t be called trans fat-free, even if butter is the only fat," companies like Starbucks are making their suppliers cut out butter to make their product labeling ("no trans-fat!") easier. From Trans Fat Fight Claims Butter as a Victim, by Kim Severson of the New York Times:
This is an important issue because anything made with animal fats will have trans fats and make it impossible to claim trans fat-free,” said Marion Nestle, nutrition professor at New York University. “Milk has trans fats, after all, and you can see what a mess this is going to cause.
The Schwartz Bros. bakery has been providing Starbucks with baked goods in the Northwest since Starbucks had only 13 stores. Now, bakeries in Seattle and Portland provide the pastries to about 600 Starbucks outlets.
We’ve gone back and replaced all of the nice, good butter with supposedly trans fat-free margarine,” said Rick Doyle, the Schwartz regional manager. “The hardest one for us was the croissant. We replaced butter with palm oil. From my perspective it’s not a croissant any more. It’s lost all its lamination and flavor.
Food hysteria overall isn't good for our health, and neither is it good for our tastebuds, but will it be good for business? Don't put up with this nonsense—vote with your wallet!
0 Comments - Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
