"Nospam" > wrote in message
...
> I've asked this before, but didn't get anywhere, so here goes
again........
>
> What happened to Blueband margarine ?
>
> Has it been re labelled ?
>
> What would the nearest thing be taste wise for cakes and cream in today's
> equivalent if it has not been re labelled ?

Butter.

Now you can see why I didn't get far the last time I asked.Dipstick

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nospam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I've asked this before, but didn't get anywhere, so here goes
> again........
>>
>> What happened to Blueband margarine ?
>>
>> Has it been re labelled ?
>>
>> What would the nearest thing be taste wise for cakes and cream in today's
>> equivalent if it has not been re labelled ?
>
> Butter.
>
>

"Nospam" > wrote in message
...
> Now you can see why I didn't get far the last time I asked.Dipstick

What? You have something against butter? It tastes better than margarine
and is healthier. Maybe butter doesn't agree with top-posting name-callers.

"Vox Humana" > wrote:

>
>"Nospam" > wrote in message
...
>> Now you can see why I didn't get far the last time I asked.Dipstick
>
>What? You have something against butter? It tastes better than margarine
>and is healthier.

Sigh. Vox, will you get off your butter-is-better-than-margarine
hobbyhorse for at least *one* thread?

His point is that butter is *NOT* BlueBand margarine, and using butter
will *NOT* re-create the flavor he is looking for in his baked goods.


Yes, we know that margarine isn't good for you. HOWEVER, when someone
is looking to re-create a flavor from the past, it's just not the
same.
--
Jenn Ridley :

"Jenn Ridley" > wrote in message
...
> "Vox Humana" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Nospam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Now you can see why I didn't get far the last time I asked.Dipstick
> >
> >What? You have something against butter? It tastes better than
margarine
> >and is healthier.
>
> Sigh. Vox, will you get off your butter-is-better-than-margarine
> hobbyhorse for at least *one* thread?
>
> His point is that butter is *NOT* BlueBand margarine, and using butter
> will *NOT* re-create the flavor he is looking for in his baked goods.
>
>
> Yes, we know that margarine isn't good for you. HOWEVER, when someone
> is looking to re-create a flavor from the past, it's just not the
> same.

Since only he knows what that brand of margarine tastes like, how could
anyone suggest something equivalent? And, if we make suggestions for brands
that aren't available in the UK, what good does that do anyone? Let's face
it, margarine costs like 39 cents a pound. Why not go out and try what is
available and use that since one can only use products that are being sold
in their local market. Furthermore, once you start using margarine in
baking there is more to consider than flavor. Something that tastes exactly
like Brand X may be horrible in a cake. Also, there are differences in
products sold under the same name from one county to the next. We have a
huge international market that imports brands like Heinz that are made
overseas. The formulas for the products are not the same as the domestic
products. Butter is the gold standard in baking. Anything else is an
approximation both in flavor and performance. It isn't a matter of being
elitist, it is simply the truth. If you want to recreate something from the
past, which isn't indicated in the message, then use what is available or
ask the store manager if he/she can locate the exact product you need.

Thank you, you got it right.
I should have made the point clear that I was wanting to re-create a taste
of years ago.
My late Mother made cakes and "cream" using BlueBand. I loved the cream
I recall it was BlueBand and some sort of sugar blended together, may have
been icing sugar ?
Cakes made with "Stork" margarine always tasted awful, and I hate the taste
and smell of butter when used to cook food. In fact, the only butter I eat
is "Anchor" and that has to be ice cold, and it is only on the occasional
sandwich.
The UK has countless brands of Margarine, and I hoped one of them was just a
re-branded BlueBand.
The obvious answer is to buy them all and try it out
Thank you for your help and I apologise for causing a heated debate and for
the name calling.
Bob (London,UK )

"Jenn Ridley" > wrote in message
...
> "Vox Humana" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Nospam" > wrote in message
...
>>> Now you can see why I didn't get far the last time I asked.Dipstick
>>
>>What? You have something against butter? It tastes better than margarine
>>and is healthier.
>
> Sigh. Vox, will you get off your butter-is-better-than-margarine
> hobbyhorse for at least *one* thread?
>
> His point is that butter is *NOT* BlueBand margarine, and using butter
> will *NOT* re-create the flavor he is looking for in his baked goods.
>
>
> Yes, we know that margarine isn't good for you. HOWEVER, when someone
> is looking to re-create a flavor from the past, it's just not the
> same.
> --
> Jenn Ridley :

Vox Humana wrote:
> "Nospam" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Now you can see why I didn't get far the last time I asked.Dipstick
>
> What? You have something against butter? It tastes better than margarine
> and is healthier. Maybe butter doesn't agree with top-posting name-callers.

And even better doesn't contain hydrogenated vegetable oils!

--
Paul

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Vox Humana wrote:
> > "Nospam" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Now you can see why I didn't get far the last time I asked.Dipstick
> >
> > What? You have something against butter? It tastes better than
margarine
> > and is healthier. Maybe butter doesn't agree with top-posting
name-callers.
>
> And even better doesn't contain hydrogenated vegetable oils!

Yep. For years we were told to avoid butter because of the cholesterol.
Most of us, myself included, used margarine when we could and used butter
with a lot of guilt. Now you can have the best of both worlds by using
butter. It has the flavor and melting characteristics that are good for
baking and it contains none of the trans-fats that result from the
hydrogenation process. I just put 10 pounds of butter in the freezer
because it was on deep discount for the holidays.

Fortunately we British are not as paranoid as some. And 10 pounds of butter
is good for you ?

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Vox Humana wrote:
>> > "Nospam" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>Now you can see why I didn't get far the last time I asked.Dipstick
>> >
>> > What? You have something against butter? It tastes better than
> margarine
>> > and is healthier. Maybe butter doesn't agree with top-posting
> name-callers.
>>
>> And even better doesn't contain hydrogenated vegetable oils!
>
> Yep. For years we were told to avoid butter because of the cholesterol.
> Most of us, myself included, used margarine when we could and used butter
> with a lot of guilt. Now you can have the best of both worlds by using
> butter. It has the flavor and melting characteristics that are good for
> baking and it contains none of the trans-fats that result from the
> hydrogenation process. I just put 10 pounds of butter in the freezer
> because it was on deep discount for the holidays.
>
>

"Nospam" > wrote in message
...
> Fortunately we British are not as paranoid as some. And 10 pounds of
butter
> is good for you ?


It is better for you than 10 pounds of hydrogenated vegetable oil.

"Vox Humana" > wrote:

>Yep. For years we were told to avoid butter because of the cholesterol.
>Most of us, myself included, used margarine when we could and used butter
>with a lot of guilt.

Speak for yourself. I've -always- baked with butter, even at the
height of the anti-butter craze. (and I've *always* got 3-4 pounds
in the freezer, as I buy it on sale. Right now, I think there's 8.)

However, I'm *not* going around telling someone who wants to re-create
a recipe made with margarine that butter is going be "better". It's
not. It may be 'better for you', and it may taste 'better' to someone
else; but that's not what he's looking for, and therefore it's *NOT*
better.
--
Jenn Ridley :

"Jenn Ridley" > wrote in message
...
> "Vox Humana" > wrote:
>
> >Yep. For years we were told to avoid butter because of the cholesterol.
> >Most of us, myself included, used margarine when we could and used butter
> >with a lot of guilt.
>
> Speak for yourself. I've -always- baked with butter, even at the
> height of the anti-butter craze. (and I've *always* got 3-4 pounds
> in the freezer, as I buy it on sale. Right now, I think there's 8.)
>
> However, I'm *not* going around telling someone who wants to re-create
> a recipe made with margarine that butter is going be "better". It's
> not. It may be 'better for you', and it may taste 'better' to someone
> else; but that's not what he's looking for, and therefore it's *NOT*
> better.
>

Get a grip. No one likes a drama queen. We're only talking about butter,
not the cure for cancer.

Your so right

"Jenn Ridley" > wrote in message
...
> "Vox Humana" > wrote:
>
>>Yep. For years we were told to avoid butter because of the cholesterol.
>>Most of us, myself included, used margarine when we could and used butter
>>with a lot of guilt.
>
> Speak for yourself. I've -always- baked with butter, even at the
> height of the anti-butter craze. (and I've *always* got 3-4 pounds
> in the freezer, as I buy it on sale. Right now, I think there's 8.)
>
> However, I'm *not* going around telling someone who wants to re-create
> a recipe made with margarine that butter is going be "better". It's
> not. It may be 'better for you', and it may taste 'better' to someone
> else; but that's not what he's looking for, and therefore it's *NOT*
> better.
> --
> Jenn Ridley :

>However, I'm *not* going around telling someone who wants to re-create
>a recipe made with margarine that butter is going be "better". It's
>not. It may be 'better for you', and it may taste 'better' to someone
>else; but that's not what he's looking for, and therefore it's *NOT*
>better.
--
>> Fortunately we British are not as paranoid as some. And 10 pounds of
butter
> is good for you ?
>It is better for you than 10 pounds of hydrogenated vegetable oil.

Butter and margarine are both madew with saturated fats so they are
likely to increase your blood cholesterol.
Just like what Vox said, transfats is the main issue with margarine,
but butter is not innocent of it either as it contains also trans fats
but in smaller amount but not the elaidi acid type which is due to the
hydrogenation of vegetable oil but anoter form which is naturally made
in the cows rumen.. with slightly different chemical composition .and
it was found to be innocous trans fatty acid..
Therefore the lesser evil is to use butter and you got a bonus!....it
taste much better with real honest to goodness , dairy fresh butter!
In fact ....I wholeheartedly use butter in many of my bakery products
as long as cost is not the factor.
Even in high ratio cakes I prefer butter( if crumb color is not an
issue) but add my own emulsfier to improve aeration and cake
performance.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:16:48 GMT
"Vox Humana" > wrote:


> with a lot of guilt. Now you can have the best of both worlds by using
> butter. It has the flavor and melting characteristics that are good for
> baking and it contains none of the trans-fats that result from the
> hydrogenation process.


This is not technically true. Everything that makes fat makes some
trans-fat. Even you.

The trans-fat content of butter is very low compared to partially
hydrogenated oils, though.

"Eric Jorgensen" > wrote in message
news:20060103101154.1ccbe7ec@wafer...
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:16:48 GMT
> "Vox Humana" > wrote:
>
>
> > with a lot of guilt. Now you can have the best of both worlds by using
> > butter. It has the flavor and melting characteristics that are good for
> > baking and it contains none of the trans-fats that result from the
> > hydrogenation process.
>
>
> This is not technically true. Everything that makes fat makes some
> trans-fat. Even you.
>

I guess that give the term "eat me" new dimension.