"Cheryl" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> On 2/1/2014 12:11 PM, Doris Night wrote:
>> Becel makes a vegan margarine. It's no more expensive than their
>> regular margarine.
>
> I'm cutting out wheat, and I'm not going to look for something as a sub
> and I think for you, margarine without dairy might be something you just
> have to avoid. It sounds nasty.

Nope. Not nasty. You just have to learn to adjust. I cut out wheat for a
long time too when Angela had to. Eventually I went back to eating things
like bread but I still served gluten free meals.

"KenK" > wrote in message
...

> If you're curious enough, take an almost used up container of the normal
> product, freeze it, thaw it, and see if it has the same problem as the
> stuff you posted about?

I will try that when I get to the bottom of the one I have remaining. It's
possible that it froze in my own fridge. Things at lower left of the bottom
drawer do that sometimes. I don't think it was there but I could be wrong.

"Timo" > wrote in message
...
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:33:27 AM UTC+10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/31/2014 11:38 PM, Timo wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:21:51 PM UTC+10, Sqwertz wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't know who Codex Al is,
> >
> > Cure thy ignorance:
> > http://www.codexalimentarius.org/
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alimentarius
> >
> >> but for it to be labeled margarine HERE
> >> in the U.S. it must be 80%. Regardless of what Al says.
> >
> > Keep up with changes in the laws. Specifically, note what can be
> > labelled as "reduced-fat margarine" and "light margarine". USA seems to
> > be adopting the EU standards for such things. Such can't be labelled
> > "margarine" without the qualifiers (as per Codex A. standards), but can
> > be labelled as a particular type of margarine.
>
> Why? I don't care about such laws.

You weren't bleating about what can and can be labelled margarine, in
ignorance of international standards and US regulations. If one isn't being
pedantic about standards and regulations, and is happy to use "margarine" to
describe whatever spread looks like and behaves like margarine, there's no
reason to care about such laws. I certainly didn't mean to imply that _you_
were some kind of ignorant arse-faced baboon pontificating from a position
of ignorance. My recommendation of learning was addressed to such, not to
you.

There's a difference between everyday usage of the term "margarine", and
technical usage of "margarine". Except for some recipes that will not work
so well with lower fat margarines, everyday usage of "margarine" works
perfectly well for most people.

> I use real butter, no chemicals.

To be technical, butter has chemicals. Chemicals produced in a cow's udder,
rather than a chemical plant. Except for the other chemicals that are added
(but usually those are evaporated from seawater or dug (salt), or grown
(colouring) rather than synthetic).

Yet another example of everyday language differing from technical language,
and working perfectly well. There is the not-always-true implication that
"natural chemicals = good, synthetic chemicals = bad", but that's the usual
rhetoric, and presumably part of the communicative intent.

---

Indeed. Everything on this planet is made of chemicals.

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> If it's normally reliable, take it back for a replacement. This may be
> shippage damage. Possibly froze in a truck on the way over and that
> result is what that type does if frozen.
>
> Best guess there.

Not sure where I bought it. Probably Winco but... I shop at a variety of
places. Just know it wasn't Albertsons or Target as they don't sell it.
Albertsons did some time ago but not now. I did write to the company.
Perhaps they'll send me a coupon or something.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> On 1/31/2014 10:41 PM, Roy wrote:
>
>> Whoops, I was looking at their "original" product. The new ones say
>> "buttery" what ever that means. Anyway its crap IMO.
>> ===
>
> Sometimes we have to eat "crap" and made do. During my last month of
> experimenting with eliminating wheat, what I sometimes eat I used to call
> crap. Now it doesn't make my stomach feel like crap.

Oh yeah. When Angela first went gluten free, we tried everything. I tried
baking everything. Most of it was no good. Thankfully some products and
recipes were good. And I'd rather eat something that tastes not so good but
won't make me sick than something that tastes good but I know will make me
sick. And after a while your taste buds adjust. I never thought I'd like
popcorn with no butter. And not only do I like it, but I like it better! I
don't even mind mashed potatoes with no butter. Add in enough caramelized
onions and you won't even notice that it's not there.

Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> eb.com...
> > On 1/31/2014 10:41 PM, Roy wrote:
> >
> > > Whoops, I was looking at their "original" product. The new ones
> > > say "buttery" what ever that means. Anyway its crap IMO. ===
> >
> > Sometimes we have to eat "crap" and made do. During my last month
> > of experimenting with eliminating wheat, what I sometimes eat I
> > used to call crap. Now it doesn't make my stomach feel like crap.
>
> Oh yeah. When Angela first went gluten free, we tried everything. I
> tried baking everything. Most of it was no good. Thankfully some
> products and recipes were good. And I'd rather eat something that
> tastes not so good but won't make me sick than something that tastes
> good but I know will make me sick. And after a while your taste buds
> adjust. I never thought I'd like popcorn with no butter. And not
> only do I like it, but I like it better! I don't even mind mashed
> potatoes with no butter. Add in enough caramelized onions and you
> won't even notice that it's not there.

Hey Julie. Bean Gravy can be outstanding on potatos.



--

Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If it's normally reliable, take it back for a replacement. This
> > may be shippage damage. Possibly froze in a truck on the way over
> > and that result is what that type does if frozen.
> >
> > Best guess there.
>
> Not sure where I bought it. Probably Winco but... I shop at a
> variety of places. Just know it wasn't Albertsons or Target as they
> don't sell it. Albertsons did some time ago but not now. I did write
> to the company. Perhaps they'll send me a coupon or something.

Ok, fair enough. I'm thinking it froze which with the higher water
content caused the messy bit. If so, it is technically safe to use for
cooking.

I know when baking i have to adjust more recent recipes around the
added water of 'margarine'/spreads as I use real butter. They no longer
assume that and the water added messes up a bread (or lack of it if
using real butter in a recent recipe that assumes margarine).


--

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>>
>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > If it's normally reliable, take it back for a replacement. This
>> > may be shippage damage. Possibly froze in a truck on the way over
>> > and that result is what that type does if frozen.
>> >
>> > Best guess there.
>>
>> Not sure where I bought it. Probably Winco but... I shop at a
>> variety of places. Just know it wasn't Albertsons or Target as they
>> don't sell it. Albertsons did some time ago but not now. I did write
>> to the company. Perhaps they'll send me a coupon or something.
>
> Ok, fair enough. I'm thinking it froze which with the higher water
> content caused the messy bit. If so, it is technically safe to use for
> cooking.
>
> I know when baking i have to adjust more recent recipes around the
> added water of 'margarine'/spreads as I use real butter. They no longer
> assume that and the water added messes up a bread (or lack of it if
> using real butter in a recent recipe that assumes margarine).

I can't remember the last time I saw a recipe requiring margarine. Maybe
the non margarine circles I move in

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

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...

> Hey Julie. Bean Gravy can be outstanding on potatos.

Hmmm... Will have to look that up. Haven't heard of it.

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>>
>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > If it's normally reliable, take it back for a replacement. This
>> > may be shippage damage. Possibly froze in a truck on the way over
>> > and that result is what that type does if frozen.
>> >
>> > Best guess there.
>>
>> Not sure where I bought it. Probably Winco but... I shop at a
>> variety of places. Just know it wasn't Albertsons or Target as they
>> don't sell it. Albertsons did some time ago but not now. I did write
>> to the company. Perhaps they'll send me a coupon or something.
>
> Ok, fair enough. I'm thinking it froze which with the higher water
> content caused the messy bit. If so, it is technically safe to use for
> cooking.

No, you can't use this stuff for cooking. It's only a spread. The texture
and water content is such that it ruins whatever you are trying to cook.
>
> I know when baking i have to adjust more recent recipes around the
> added water of 'margarine'/spreads as I use real butter. They no longer
> assume that and the water added messes up a bread (or lack of it if
> using real butter in a recent recipe that assumes margarine).

Well, this isn't recommended for cooking.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...

> I can't remember the last time I saw a recipe requiring margarine. Maybe
> the non margarine circles I move in

Back when I did a lot of baking, I found that the texture of some cookies
was better with margarine.

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>>
>>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > If it's normally reliable, take it back for a replacement. This
>>> > may be shippage damage. Possibly froze in a truck on the way over
>>> > and that result is what that type does if frozen.
>>> >
>>> > Best guess there.
>>>
>>> Not sure where I bought it. Probably Winco but... I shop at a
>>> variety of places. Just know it wasn't Albertsons or Target as they
>>> don't sell it. Albertsons did some time ago but not now. I did write
>>> to the company. Perhaps they'll send me a coupon or something.
>>
>> Ok, fair enough. I'm thinking it froze which with the higher water
>> content caused the messy bit. If so, it is technically safe to use for
>> cooking.
>
> No, you can't use this stuff for cooking. It's only a spread. The
> texture and water content is such that it ruins whatever you are trying to
> cook.
>>
>> I know when baking i have to adjust more recent recipes around the
>> added water of 'margarine'/spreads as I use real butter. They no longer
>> assume that and the water added messes up a bread (or lack of it if
>> using real butter in a recent recipe that assumes margarine).
>
> Well, this isn't recommended for cooking.

I used to bake with margarine in the old days, but never the new spread. I
don't think they were ever meant to be used for baking. Do they not contain
too much water? So I have read anyway. I only use butter or lard and have
done so for years.



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

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I can't remember the last time I saw a recipe requiring margarine. Maybe
>> the non margarine circles I move in
>
> Back when I did a lot of baking, I found that the texture of some cookies
> was better with margarine.

It's many years since I used it. I know various fats make a difference
depending on what you are baking.


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

On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 15:12:12 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>No, you can't use this stuff for cooking. It's only a spread. The texture
>and water content is such that it ruins whatever you are trying to cook.

I've found that the water content in "spreads" causes it to separate
when you put it on toast, so you end up with soggy toast. I'd never
buy it in place of butter.

Doris

Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Hey Julie. Bean Gravy can be outstanding on potatos.
>
> Hmmm... Will have to look that up. Haven't heard of it.

Very old sothern stuff. You make a pot of dried beans and as they cook
down, they turn to mush and you add water to make bean gravy.

You can do this naturally in a crockpot by making beans and then with
the ends of them, run through a blender.

Normally folks added fat to the beans (non-vegetarian). You may find a
TB of TVP enhances it if that works for you. In some parts of Asia,
they add Tofu to this and mix it.

Many add just black pepper an let it be. Others add a variety of curry
seasonings.

Though I've never made it from canned beans, I gather you can rinse
canned black eyed peas or canned white ones to make this with a masher
or food processor/blender. You'd want to add about 3/4 cup stock to a
can of rinsed beans then test to see if as thin as you want it. It's
intended to be a pretty thick gravy. It's easy to add more stock so
start minimal and see if it's as you like it then add more til it hits
what you want.

If you want to try it for little money, get a small can of white or
black eyes peas and mix up a little bullion for the broth. Rinse the
beans and add the broth to a blender then taste and add salt and pepper
to your liking. Snag off a small bit of those mashed potatoes you make
regular and try a spoon of these over them.

Later if that works, you can try to fancy it up by blending in a little
tofu and maybe a pinch of curry powder.

Take it slow first as you are not a fancy cook family and this is meant
to be a simple thing, fast to make and not overtly spicy. I suspect
your family will like this one after reading you for a long time.

Carol

--

Ophelia wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
>
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > >
> >>"cshenk" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >>> If it's normally reliable, take it back for a replacement. This
> >>> may be shippage damage. Possibly froze in a truck on the way over
> >>> and that result is what that type does if frozen.
> > > >
> >>> Best guess there.
> > >
> > > Not sure where I bought it. Probably Winco but... I shop at a
> > > variety of places. Just know it wasn't Albertsons or Target as
> > > they don't sell it. Albertsons did some time ago but not now. I
> > > did write to the company. Perhaps they'll send me a coupon or
> > > something.
> >
> > Ok, fair enough. I'm thinking it froze which with the higher water
> > content caused the messy bit. If so, it is technically safe to use
> > for cooking.
> >
> > I know when baking i have to adjust more recent recipes around the
> > added water of 'margarine'/spreads as I use real butter. They no
> > longer assume that and the water added messes up a bread (or lack
> > of it if using real butter in a recent recipe that assumes
> > margarine).
>
> I can't remember the last time I saw a recipe requiring margarine.
> Maybe the non margarine circles I move in

Don't know! Most of my more recent cookbooks for breads use it as an
option and the water amount can be wrong due to it.


--

Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > >
> >>"cshenk" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >>> If it's normally reliable, take it back for a replacement. This
> >>> may be shippage damage. Possibly froze in a truck on the way over
> >>> and that result is what that type does if frozen.
> > > >
> >>> Best guess there.
> > >
> > > Not sure where I bought it. Probably Winco but... I shop at a
> > > variety of places. Just know it wasn't Albertsons or Target as
> > > they don't sell it. Albertsons did some time ago but not now. I
> > > did write to the company. Perhaps they'll send me a coupon or
> > > something.
> >
> > Ok, fair enough. I'm thinking it froze which with the higher water
> > content caused the messy bit. If so, it is technically safe to use
> > for cooking.
>
> No, you can't use this stuff for cooking. It's only a spread. The
> texture and water content is such that it ruins whatever you are
> trying to cook.
> >
> > I know when baking i have to adjust more recent recipes around the
> > added water of 'margarine'/spreads as I use real butter. They no
> > longer assume that and the water added messes up a bread (or lack
> > of it if using real butter in a recent recipe that assumes
> > margarine).
>
> Well, this isn't recommended for cooking.

Smile, it would probably work for frying scrambled eggs.



--

"Doris Night" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 15:12:12 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>No, you can't use this stuff for cooking. It's only a spread. The
>>texture
>>and water content is such that it ruins whatever you are trying to cook.
>
> I've found that the water content in "spreads" causes it to separate
> when you put it on toast, so you end up with soggy toast. I'd never
> buy it in place of butter.

ewww I haven't tried it and reading that .... ((


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

On 2/2/2014 7:15 PM, cshenk wrote:
> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> Well, this isn't recommended for cooking.
>
> Smile, it would probably work for frying scrambled eggs.
>
Might as well just use oil. There's so much water in that particular
spread I doubt it would be very good for frying eggs.

Jill

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > If it's normally reliable, take it back for a replacement. This
>>>> > may be shippage damage. Possibly froze in a truck on the way over
>>>> > and that result is what that type does if frozen.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best guess there.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure where I bought it. Probably Winco but... I shop at a
>>>> variety of places. Just know it wasn't Albertsons or Target as they
>>>> don't sell it. Albertsons did some time ago but not now. I did write
>>>> to the company. Perhaps they'll send me a coupon or something.
>>>
>>> Ok, fair enough. I'm thinking it froze which with the higher water
>>> content caused the messy bit. If so, it is technically safe to use for
>>> cooking.
>>
>> No, you can't use this stuff for cooking. It's only a spread. The
>> texture and water content is such that it ruins whatever you are trying
>> to cook.
>>>
>>> I know when baking i have to adjust more recent recipes around the
>>> added water of 'margarine'/spreads as I use real butter. They no longer
>>> assume that and the water added messes up a bread (or lack of it if
>>> using real butter in a recent recipe that assumes margarine).
>>
>> Well, this isn't recommended for cooking.
>
> I used to bake with margarine in the old days, but never the new spread.
> I don't think they were ever meant to be used for baking. Do they not
> contain too much water? So I have read anyway. I only use butter or lard
> and have done so for years.

Yes, they contain too much water. I have run across recipes once in a great
while that do call for spread in baking but they're usually for cookies or
other things that I don't make any more.

I have made the mistake twice of using it on toasted cheese. Oddly, it's
fine with the microwave method which is not something I would normally do
because it's not as good as in the oven. Perhaps I don't notice it then as
it tends to make the toast a bit soggy to begin with. But when blood sugar
is low and I need to eat quickly I will resort to that. But do them in the
oven or in a skillet and you'll have a soggy mess.

"Doris Night" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 15:12:12 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>No, you can't use this stuff for cooking. It's only a spread. The
>>texture
>>and water content is such that it ruins whatever you are trying to cook.
>
> I've found that the water content in "spreads" causes it to separate
> when you put it on toast, so you end up with soggy toast. I'd never
> buy it in place of butter.

This one doesn't normally do that on toast. Odd thing is, the package that
I opened that looked fine had no plastic on top. I could have sworn that
they came with plastic on top and this one hadn't been used. But then when
I came home from the store, another one mysteriously appeared. I went to
check it, and it does have the plastic. I didn't remove it to check. I do
think that perhaps I did remove that plastic some time ago. Sounds vaguely
familiar. I think I was about to make toast but then had some sort of
urgent situation to where I had to leave the house right away so just
grabbed a package of crackers or something instead. May well have been one
of my trips to the hospital before my dad died. Not sure. That's all a
blur now.

At any rate, the put I put the icky one in the little fridge. I doubt they
would want me to ship it back, but if they do, I have it.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Doris Night" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 15:12:12 -0800, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>No, you can't use this stuff for cooking. It's only a spread. The
>>>texture
>>>and water content is such that it ruins whatever you are trying to cook.
>>
>> I've found that the water content in "spreads" causes it to separate
>> when you put it on toast, so you end up with soggy toast. I'd never
>> buy it in place of butter.
>
> ewww I haven't tried it and reading that .... ((

Believe me I would eat butter if I could.

On 2/2/2014 7:23 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Doris Night" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 15:12:12 -0800, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> No, you can't use this stuff for cooking. It's only a spread. The
>>> texture
>>> and water content is such that it ruins whatever you are trying to cook.
>>
>> I've found that the water content in "spreads" causes it to separate
>> when you put it on toast, so you end up with soggy toast. I'd never
>> buy it in place of butter.
>
> ewww I haven't tried it and reading that .... ((
>
>
That's the problem with these "buttery spreads". They don't contain any
dairy. They're mostly water with oils. Apparently the type Julie
bought contains various types of oils even though the (marketing) label
says "Buttery Spread with Flax oil".

Smart Balance does make some spread products that are butter combined
with oil to (allegedly) reduce fat content. Butter with olive oil, or
canola oil.

What Julie bought is not something you or I would buy. To me, a product
like that is like soy burgers pretending to be meat.

Jill

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 1:02:25 PM UTC+10, Timo wrote:
>
> Also as said above, there'll be less trouble with a higher fat spread. This one is mostly water. Again, as said above, it isn't margarine by any widely accepted technical standards.

I must confess to being wrong on this point. Recent standards include stuff like "half-fat margarine" (about 40%, natch), and zero-fat margarine (not zero, but very low, but WTF?).

I'm interested in the technical details of how they try to maintain a water-in-fat emulsion at low fat levels. 'Tis work-relevant, and I'll spend some work time on it.

"cshenk" > wrote in message
news
> Smile, it would probably work for frying scrambled eggs.

I doubt it. Was talking to my friend about this and she said that you can't
use it for any cooking. Her son went shopping for her following her last
operation and he bought this instead of what she wanted. Said it was only
good as a spread.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/2/2014 7:15 PM, cshenk wrote:
>> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>> Well, this isn't recommended for cooking.
>>
>> Smile, it would probably work for frying scrambled eggs.
>>
> Might as well just use oil. There's so much water in that particular
> spread I doubt it would be very good for frying eggs.

Agree.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/2/2014 7:23 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Doris Night" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 15:12:12 -0800, "Julie Bove"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, you can't use this stuff for cooking. It's only a spread. The
>>>> texture
>>>> and water content is such that it ruins whatever you are trying to
>>>> cook.
>>>
>>> I've found that the water content in "spreads" causes it to separate
>>> when you put it on toast, so you end up with soggy toast. I'd never
>>> buy it in place of butter.
>>
>> ewww I haven't tried it and reading that .... ((
>>
>>
> That's the problem with these "buttery spreads". They don't contain any
> dairy. They're mostly water with oils. Apparently the type Julie bought
> contains various types of oils even though the (marketing) label says
> "Buttery Spread with Flax oil".
>
> Smart Balance does make some spread products that are butter combined with
> oil to (allegedly) reduce fat content. Butter with olive oil, or canola
> oil.
>
> What Julie bought is not something you or I would buy. To me, a product
> like that is like soy burgers pretending to be meat.

Agree but haven't got much choice.

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>>
>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Hey Julie. Bean Gravy can be outstanding on potatos.
>>
>> Hmmm... Will have to look that up. Haven't heard of it.
>
> Very old sothern stuff. You make a pot of dried beans and as they cook
> down, they turn to mush and you add water to make bean gravy.
>
> You can do this naturally in a crockpot by making beans and then with
> the ends of them, run through a blender.
>
> Normally folks added fat to the beans (non-vegetarian). You may find a
> TB of TVP enhances it if that works for you. In some parts of Asia,
> they add Tofu to this and mix it.
>
> Many add just black pepper an let it be. Others add a variety of curry
> seasonings.
>
> Though I've never made it from canned beans, I gather you can rinse
> canned black eyed peas or canned white ones to make this with a masher
> or food processor/blender. You'd want to add about 3/4 cup stock to a
> can of rinsed beans then test to see if as thin as you want it. It's
> intended to be a pretty thick gravy. It's easy to add more stock so
> start minimal and see if it's as you like it then add more til it hits
> what you want.
>
> If you want to try it for little money, get a small can of white or
> black eyes peas and mix up a little bullion for the broth. Rinse the
> beans and add the broth to a blender then taste and add salt and pepper
> to your liking. Snag off a small bit of those mashed potatoes you make
> regular and try a spoon of these over them.
>
> Later if that works, you can try to fancy it up by blending in a little
> tofu and maybe a pinch of curry powder.
>
> Take it slow first as you are not a fancy cook family and this is meant
> to be a simple thing, fast to make and not overtly spicy. I suspect
> your family will like this one after reading you for a long time.
>
> Carol

Thanks! We don't do tofu or TVP although daughter does like a very few
prepared foods with it in there. She doesn't like gravy of any kind and I'm
not a big gravy eater either. We never had it when I was growing up except
for Thanksgiving dinner or hamburger gravy.

As for me not being a fancy cook... Not sure where you got that from. I
dislike cooking simple things and much prefer very complicated recipes.
Although I don't always have time to cook like that.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/2/2014 7:15 PM, cshenk wrote:
>> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>> Well, this isn't recommended for cooking.
>>
>> Smile, it would probably work for frying scrambled eggs.
>>
> Might as well just use oil. There's so much water in that particular
> spread I doubt it would be very good for frying eggs.

Did Julie say she was using it in cooking?? I must have missed that.


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

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2/2/2014 7:15 PM, cshenk wrote:
>>> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>
>>>> Well, this isn't recommended for cooking.
>>>
>>> Smile, it would probably work for frying scrambled eggs.
>>>
>> Might as well just use oil. There's so much water in that particular
>> spread I doubt it would be very good for frying eggs.
>
> Did Julie say she was using it in cooking?? I must have missed that.

I did say perhaps in another thread that I spaced out and used it a few
times on a grilled or toasted cheese sandwich. Combined with my faux cheese
and done in the microwave (not the way I normally do it), it is edible. I
think because the microwave will make it a tad soggy anyway. But in a
skillet or in the oven? Will be inedible.

My friend is the one who said not to try to cook with it. Her son
accidentally bought this for her when she was home recovering from an
operation. It is not what she normally buys and apparently she did try to
cook with it. That wasn't a good time for her. Her son didn't even buy
half of what was on her list and since she had been stuck home and ill, had
been unable to get groceries for some time. So seeing as how the cupboard
was pretty bare, she tried to make do with what she had.

In case anyone is wondering, I was unable to get out there to do shopping
for her. She lives in another city. I can't remember now what all was
going on in my life but I do remember that I simply couldn't do it.

On 2/3/2014 6:37 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2/2/2014 7:15 PM, cshenk wrote:
>>> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>
>>>> Well, this isn't recommended for cooking.
>>>
>>> Smile, it would probably work for frying scrambled eggs.
>>>
>> Might as well just use oil. There's so much water in that particular
>> spread I doubt it would be very good for frying eggs.
>
> Did Julie say she was using it in cooking?? I must have missed that.
>
>
No, but Carol mentioned scrambled eggs.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/3/2014 6:37 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2/2/2014 7:15 PM, cshenk wrote:
>>>> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, this isn't recommended for cooking.
>>>>
>>>> Smile, it would probably work for frying scrambled eggs.
>>>>
>>> Might as well just use oil. There's so much water in that particular
>>> spread I doubt it would be very good for frying eggs.
>>
>> Did Julie say she was using it in cooking?? I must have missed that.
>>
>>
> No, but Carol mentioned scrambled eggs.

Oh! Does it work with those?

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

On 2/3/2014 9:36 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2/3/2014 6:37 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 2/2/2014 7:15 PM, cshenk wrote:
>>>>> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, this isn't recommended for cooking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Smile, it would probably work for frying scrambled eggs.
>>>>>
>>>> Might as well just use oil. There's so much water in that particular
>>>> spread I doubt it would be very good for frying eggs.
>>>
>>> Did Julie say she was using it in cooking?? I must have missed that.
>>>
>>>
>> No, but Carol mentioned scrambled eggs.
>
> Oh! Does it work with those?
>
I don't know. I've never bought the product she described.

Jill

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2/3/2014 6:37 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 2/2/2014 7:15 PM, cshenk wrote:
>>>>> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, this isn't recommended for cooking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Smile, it would probably work for frying scrambled eggs.
>>>>>
>>>> Might as well just use oil. There's so much water in that particular
>>>> spread I doubt it would be very good for frying eggs.
>>>
>>> Did Julie say she was using it in cooking?? I must have missed that.
>>>
>>>
>> No, but Carol mentioned scrambled eggs.
>
> Oh! Does it work with those?
>

No.

On Monday, February 3, 2014 1:53:12 PM UTC+10, Sqwertz wrote:
>
> I just nailed your ass, contradicting practically everything you said
> and provided factual references (even using your OWN references).

Ho hum. I said, "Originally, margarine was 80% fat or more, and these days, the great power of Codex Al. decrees that 60% or more can be labelled as margarine as long as there is appropriate labelling (as decreed by Codex Al.) so people don't think it is 80%+."

To repeat, for your obviously limited comprehension, I said that "margarine" is 80%+ (actually up to 90%, not more), and "<adjective> margarine" (e.g., "reduced-fat margarine", "light margarine", etc.) can be lower fat.

I also said that there are international standards allowing such labelling of low-fat margarines.

Despite your boasts, you haven't contradicted any of those claims, merely supporting my first statement, of 80%+ for no-adjective margarine. Really, do you think that agreeing with me is somehow contradicting me? Bleating that you don't know about international standards like Codex Al. is hardly a refutation or contradiction. "Practically everything" is not a synonym for "almost nothing". And cure your ignorance: US FDA has no problems with stuff being described as "low-fat margarine", "light margarine", etc.

(AFAIK, USFDA can't redefine "butter" and "margarine", as that's enshrined in older law, but "light margarine" etc. is no problem. Perhaps as a local you can explain the wonders of your legal system to us foreigners.)

On 2/3/2014 12:34 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 15:54:42 -0600, DreadfulBitch wrote:
>
>> My son is a cashier at Wally World and has shared stories that would
>> curl your hair. Most are funny as hell and none have anything to do
>> with the "fat spread" of customers.
>
> And I could tell you a few storeies about a the Walmart cashiers, as
> well. I wouldn't call them funny, though. More like pathetic and
> dumb as a rock.

Well! Obviously you've never gone through my son's line. Then again,
maybe you have and it's you he's told stories about.

Working at WalMart is not a glamorous job, or even PC to some, but it's
gone a very long way to helping him get through college. It's not a
life long career for him.

--
DreadfulBitch

I intend to live forever....so far, so good.
......Steven Wright

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 15:54:42 -0600, DreadfulBitch wrote:
>
>> My son is a cashier at Wally World and has shared stories that would
>> curl your hair. Most are funny as hell and none have anything to do
>> with the "fat spread" of customers.
>
> And I could tell you a few storeies about a the Walmart cashiers, as
> well. I wouldn't call them funny, though. More like pathetic and
> dumb as a rock.

Same here. Bugs the crap outta me. Since I worked retail my entire life,
when I was working, store employees who don't know which end is up, get to
me. Unless of course they are wearing a "Trainee" badge.

My boss once said that it had something to do with payment. He was only
paying minimum wage so he could only expect them to do the minimum amount of
work. I strongly disagree. I was once a minimum wage person. That didn't
last for long! I got promoted quickly. And with promotions come more
money. Well, usually, anyway...

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:46:12 PM UTC+10, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:07:48 -0800 (PST), Timo wrote:
> > On Monday, February 3, 2014 1:53:12 PM UTC+10, Sqwertz wrote:
> >>
> >> I just nailed your ass, contradicting practically everything you said
> >> and provided factual references (even using your OWN references).
> >
> > Ho hum. I said, "Originally, margarine was 80% fat or more, and
> > these days, the great power of Codex Al. decrees that 60% or more
> > can be labelled as margarine as long as there is appropriate
> > labelling (as decreed by Codex Al.) so people don't think it is
> > 80%+."
>
> And which is completely false.

For some fantasy meaning of "completely"?

> As I pointed out, there is no 60%
> provision anywhere in your meaningless "Al." In there they state that
> 80%+ makes it margarine EVERYWHERE. Anything under 80%, IF THE
> COUNTRY ALLOWS IT, may be be labeled "light", "low fat" or whatever
> the **** else they want to call it provided they explain it.

You contradict yourself already.

> But NONE
> of that applies here in the U.S. since we don't allow it, period.

So what? You were whining about international standards. But you should look at what FDA allows to be described as "light margarine".

> Repeat: None of this applies here in the United States. So stop
> trying to tell us Americans what the legal standards are here in OUR
> country.

So what? You were whining about international standards. But you should look at what FDA allows to be described as "light margarine".

Ho hum. You claimed you'd contradicted my statements that only 80%+ fat margarine is proper margarine, and that there are commonly used international standards that lower fat spreads can be labelled as "<some adjective> margarine". No contradiction seen, thus you are full of shit. End of story.

On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 21:08:31 -0800 (PST), Timo >
wrote:

In reply to squitz

> So what? You were whining about international standards. But you should look at what FDA allows to be described as "light margarine".
>
> > Repeat: None of this applies here in the United States. So stop
> > trying to tell us Americans what the legal standards are here in OUR
> > country.
>
> So what? You were whining about international standards. But you should look at what FDA allows to be described as "light margarine".
>
> Ho hum. You claimed you'd contradicted my statements that only 80%+ fat margarine is proper margarine, and that there are commonly used international standards that lower fat spreads can be labelled as "<some adjective> margarine". No contradiction seen, thus you are full of shit. End of story.

<laughing> You have him on the ropes.

)


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:57:27 PM UTC+10, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 21:08:31 -0800 (PST), Timo wrote:
>
> > So what? You were whining about international standards. But you
> > should look at what FDA allows to be described as "light
> > margarine".
>
> <yawn> Show me, asshole. I've asked you that *3 times* now.

Do you need to be spoonfed?

In any case, you said that you had posted stuff "contradicting practically everything you said". Ho hum. I said, "Originally, margarine was 80% fat or more, and these days, the great power of Codex Al. decrees that 60% or more can be labelled as margarine as long as there is appropriate labelling (as decreed by Codex Al.) so people don't think it is 80%+."

To repeat, for your obviously limited comprehension, I said that "margarine" is 80%+ (actually up to 90%, not more), and "<adjective> margarine" (e.g., "reduced-fat margarine", "light margarine", etc.) can be lower fat. I also said that there are international standards allowing such labelling of low-fat margarines. Despite your boasts, you haven't contradicted any of those claims, merely supporting my first statement, of 80%+ for no-adjective margarine. Really, do you think that agreeing with me is somehow contradicting me?