<Alan > wrote in message
...

> For whatever reason, we in North American have gotten used to a lot of
> foods having sugar in them -- especially prepared foods from food
> factories.
> I don't like it, but it seems to have spread over the last 40, or so,
> years.

I'm wondering if it's because of:

1. Baby foods with sugar added to them to make them more palatable to mother
and baby

and/or

2. Sugar-frosted breakfast cereals targeted at kids

--
Bob
Kanyak's Doghouse
http://kanyak.com

Opinicus wrote:
>
> <Alan > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > For whatever reason, we in North American have gotten used to a lot of
> > foods having sugar in them -- especially prepared foods from food
> > factories.
> > I don't like it, but it seems to have spread over the last 40, or so,
> > years.
>
> I'm wondering if it's because of:
>
> 1. Baby foods with sugar added to them to make them more palatable to mother
> and baby
>
> and/or
>
> 2. Sugar-frosted breakfast cereals targeted at kids

Good grief! Is sugar allowed in baby foods in the USA? As far as I
know, it isn't in the UK. It certainly wasn't in any if the (admittedly
very few) baby foods I bought for my son, 9 or so years ago. Nor was
salt. Mostly I made my own, so salt and sugar were never an issue.
Food processors are wonderful things...

The breakfast cereals we have in the house: Wheetabix, Shredded Wheat,
no added sugar muesli made by Canterbury Wholefoods (has whole hazel
nuts and biiiig chunks of Brazils in it - yummy, but hard going!), and
Kellogg's Fruit & Fibre, which does have sugar in, but isn't coated in
it like Frosties. And, naturally, porridge oats and pinhead oatmeal!


DH eats the Man Sized muesli, I eat the Wheetabix, Shredded Wheat and
porridge, son occasionally eats the Fruit & Fibre or Wheetabix, but
would usually rather have a cold meat or cheese sandwich for breakfast,
or a cold sausage...

--
Kate XXXXXX
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore!

Kate Dicey > nattered on
:

> Opinicus wrote:
>>
>> <Alan > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > For whatever reason, we in North American have gotten used to a lot
>> > of foods having sugar in them -- especially prepared foods from
>> > food factories.
>> > I don't like it, but it seems to have spread over the last 40, or
>> > so, years.
>>
>> I'm wondering if it's because of:
>>
>> 1. Baby foods with sugar added to them to make them more palatable to
>> mother and baby
>>
>> and/or
>>
>> 2. Sugar-frosted breakfast cereals targeted at kids
>
> Good grief! Is sugar allowed in baby foods in the USA?

Allowed, yes. However, some brands make it a point of advertising that
they don't add it.

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:33:50 +0000, Kate Dicey
> wrote:


>
>Good grief! Is sugar allowed in baby foods in the USA? As far as I
>know, it isn't in the UK. It certainly wasn't in any if the (admittedly
>very few) baby foods I bought for my son, 9 or so years ago. Nor was
>salt.

Seeing that I have some baby food around, I went and got out a jar.
It's the meat, so it's not infant food. No veggies, either, so the
seasoning might differ. Fussy cats happen to sometimes like the taste
of baby food, but only of the meat kind. In any case, the jar of
turkey lists under ingredients: finely ground turkey, water, and
cornstarch. However, off to the side, in the nutrition facts, it
shows 35 mg sodium and 110 mg potassium. Sugars are a 0.

Hmm. How did that 145 mg of various salts turn up in the pure turkey,
water, and cornstarch? I know. Hard water.

I know that salt was in baby foods 30 years ago. Probably sugar, too.
Parents sometimes get babies to eat by pretending their food is yummy.
Therefore, they occasionally get a taste. If it doesn't meet adult
standards (such as they were in that less than health conscious time),
the parents wouldn't give it to their kids. Therefore many baby foods
were seasoned to look and smell good to adults. Animal foods still
are. They have to be palatable looking and smelling enough for owners
to be willing to touch them. Very fussy animals, such as cats, often
have owners who like the food to even look like real human food.
--
rbc: vixen Fairly harmless

Hit reply to email. But strip out the 'invalid.'
Though I'm very slow to respond.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli

lid nattered on
m:

> Hmm. How did that 145 mg of various salts turn up in the pure turkey,
> water, and cornstarch? I know. Hard water.

They were already in the turkey tissue. Believe it or not, contrary to
the propaganda foisted upon us by the Food Police and other leftists, we
do actually need some salts in our diet.


> are. They have to be palatable looking and smelling enough for owners
> to be willing to touch them.

Yup, otherwise, dog food would look and smell exactly like cat poop.

Opinicus muttered....

> <Alan > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> For whatever reason, we in North American have gotten used to a lot
>> of foods having sugar in them -- especially prepared foods from food
>> factories.
>> I don't like it, but it seems to have spread over the last 40, or so,
>> years.
>
> I'm wondering if it's because of:
>
> 1. Baby foods with sugar added to them to make them more palatable to
> mother and baby
>
> and/or
>
> 2. Sugar-frosted breakfast cereals targeted at kids
>

I think that modern "health" concerns have removed most/all of the added
sugar from baby food (and most of it was added not only for baby tastes but
to be appealing to moms who tasted).

Kids only? When it came to cereal, that which was first aimed at kids
certainly broadened the target to adults (especially with all the sweet
granola).

I subscribe to an older, more historic approach....

We (hosts) serve to ourselves and to guests sweetened
foods/sauces/condiments as part of ancient cultural memory, that we were of
an affluence which allowed us to purchase sweeteners (in a time when sugars
were vastly more expensive/harder to get than today).

Certainly, in the US South, "sweetening" has cultural/societal
implications. Pooor man's cornbread remains sugarless unto this day, while
most of the current mixes - the cornbreads of even modest affluence - are
so heavily sugared as to be unpalatable. "Sweet" tea, massively pre-
sugared, is a typical restaurant and home manifestation of "moving up"
among the lower and lower middle class venues in which it is most often
available. Unsugared hams are hard to find, and most of the pink loaves
currently purveyed are more sweet than they are "hammy".

TMO

Olivers > nattered on
:

> We (hosts) serve to ourselves and to guests sweetened
> foods/sauces/condiments as part of ancient cultural memory, that we
> were of an affluence which allowed us to purchase sweeteners (in a
> time when sugars were vastly more expensive/harder to get than today).

And in the present day is a symbol of poverty, given that salt, sugar, and
fat are the hallmarks of the lower-class/prole diet.

> venues in which it is most often available. Unsugared hams are hard
> to find

But thank the Powers that Be that they still can be found. (Indeed, even
unsmoked--just cured and aged.)

"Bryan J. Maloney" > wrote in message . 193.32>...
> Olivers > nattered on
> :
>
> > We (hosts) serve to ourselves and to guests sweetened
> > foods/sauces/condiments as part of ancient cultural memory, that we
> > were of an affluence which allowed us to purchase sweeteners (in a
> > time when sugars were vastly more expensive/harder to get than today).
>
> And in the present day is a symbol of poverty, given that salt, sugar, and
> fat are the hallmarks of the lower-class/prole diet.
>
> > venues in which it is most often available. Unsugared hams are hard
> > to find
>
> But thank the Powers that Be that they still can be found. (Indeed, even
> unsmoked--just cured and aged.)

I wrote a two part article on sugar for Food History News. The
article covered a bit of sugar history, the various processes used in
the 19th century to produce different types of sugar, how to make your
own sugar loaf, and a glossary of the various types of sugar.

Virginia Mescher

And what an excellent article it is!

Andy Smith


>
>I wrote a two part article on sugar for Food History News. The
>article covered a bit of sugar history, the various processes used in
>the 19th century to produce different types of sugar, how to make your
>own sugar loaf, and a glossary of the various types of sugar.
>
>Virginia Mescher

>
>
>
>
>
>

(ASmith1946) wrote in message >...
> And what an excellent article it is!
>
> Andy Smith

Andy,

Thanks for the feedback. It was really fun to research and I only
touched the surface of the sugar story. I'm doing an expanded version
for another magazine which will include more detailed information on
sugar history and how it came to the US and affected slavery.

I think the next issue of Food History News will have the glosssary in
it. I found that one of the more difficult portions of the article to
research.

Virginia Mescher

Virginia Mescher > wrote:

> I wrote a two part article on sugar for Food History News. The
> article covered a bit of sugar history, the various processes used in
> the 19th century to produce different types of sugar, how to make your
> own sugar loaf, and a glossary of the various types of sugar.
>
I wish I could read it! Any copy available on the net? Have you came
across eggs, used to purify cane sugar?
Thank you

--
lilian

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:36:04 -0600, Olivers >
wrote:

>We (hosts) serve to ourselves and to guests sweetened
>foods/sauces/condiments as part of ancient cultural memory, that we were of
>an affluence which allowed us to purchase sweeteners (in a time when sugars
>were vastly more expensive/harder to get than today).

My theory is that calorie-dense foods (fats and sugars) were the most
desirable when simple survival was the goal. Sharing these prizes
would be nurturing and hospitable.

>Certainly, in the US South, "sweetening" has cultural/societal
>implications. Pooor man's cornbread remains sugarless unto this day,

Don't think so. Sorghum and cane are common in old-time Southern
cooking.

>while
>most of the current mixes - the cornbreads of even modest affluence - are
>so heavily sugared as to be unpalatable. "Sweet" tea, massively pre-
>sugared, is a typical restaurant and home manifestation of "moving up"
>among the lower and lower middle class venues in which it is most often
>available. Unsugared hams are hard to find, and most of the pink loaves
>currently purveyed are more sweet than they are "hammy".

Regional, not class, preferences. Many Southerners put sugar in a lot
of things many Californians don't. Southern iced tea is normally very
sweet; it's unsweetened in other regions. Smithfield, VA, the center
of much classic ham production, produces mostly salt-cured products,
'though 'honey-cured' items are available.

The OP inquired about a "North American" fondness for sugar, which I
think is a mistaken impression. *I* wonder about the inclusion of
sugar in many dishes in Southern US cooking, But it's mostly, AFAIK, a
regional preference.

Frogleg muttered....

> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:36:04 -0600, Olivers >
> wrote:
>
>>We (hosts) serve to ourselves and to guests sweetened
>>foods/sauces/condiments as part of ancient cultural memory, that we
>>were of an affluence which allowed us to purchase sweeteners (in a
>>time when sugars were vastly more expensive/harder to get than today).
>
> My theory is that calorie-dense foods (fats and sugars) were the most
> desirable when simple survival was the goal. Sharing these prizes
> would be nurturing and hospitable.
>
>>Certainly, in the US South, "sweetening" has cultural/societal
>>implications. Pooor man's cornbread remains sugarless unto this day,
>
> Don't think so. Sorghum and cane are common in old-time Southern
> cooking.

But most regionallly marketed Southern cornbread "mixes" contain no sugar
(and white meal products are popular), while the national brands are
heavily sugared (and overwhelmingly from yellow cornmeal). Cornbread
certainly continues to be a food primarily eaten in lower income
househholds (or those where family members were raised in lower income or
rural environments). As for sorghum and cane syrups, they are for putting
on cornbread, not in it...(ahhh, memories of my grandmother's favorite,
cornbread crumbled in buttermilk, with just a dash of syrup atop...)


>
>>while
>>most of the current mixes - the cornbreads of even modest affluence -
>>are so heavily sugared as to be unpalatable. "Sweet" tea, massively
>>pre- sugared, is a typical restaurant and home manifestation of
>>"moving up" among the lower and lower middle class venues in which it
>>is most often available. Unsugared hams are hard to find, and most of
>>the pink loaves currently purveyed are more sweet than they are
>>"hammy".
>
> Regional, not class, preferences.

Any Southerner worth his salt (or sugar) can predict (by "Class")just which
restaurant or household will serve sweetened tea. Move up the
income/affluence/segmented market appeal ladder and unsweetened tea doesn't
appear (in resturant or household). Of course it's regional, but heavily
defined by income and environment within the region.

> Many Southerners put sugar in a lot
> of things many Californians don't. Southern iced tea is normally very
> sweet; it's unsweetened in other regions.

Your knowledge of the US South is obviously inadequate. We could drive
down most any Southern street and pick out restaurants (or homes) where
pre-sweetened tea will be offered.

> Smithfield, VA, the center
> of much classic ham production, produces mostly salt-cured products,
> 'though 'honey-cured' items are available.

"Smithfield" these days being a brand name for a modestly priced line of
prepared pork products, the "Smithfield" brand hams in most meat counters
are as heavily dosed with water and sugar as are the Hormels, etc.. Now,
if you're talking of dry-cured Smithfield-style hams, whether from Virginia
or even Missouri, you're talking about a tiny fraction of 1% of the ham
market, barely a blip, as most folks would turn up there noses at the
traditional and historic versions of ham. Your market will have "honey
cured" or "Maple sugar smoked", etc., but almost every label will reveal a
transfusion of sugar amidst the water enema that most hams receive.

>
> The OP inquired about a "North American" fondness for sugar, which I
> think is a mistaken impression. *I* wonder about the inclusion of
> sugar in many dishes in Southern US cooking, But it's mostly, AFAIK, a
> regional preference.
>

.....and pumpkin pie, a "Yankee" dish, is not a vegetable laced with sugar
to make it more appealing/palatable? Are not dozens of Czech and German
recipes heavily sugared? British "savory" condiments, a trademark of an
otherwise bland cuisine?

As for sugar being cheap....for po'folks in the South refined sugar
remained relatively expensive until post-Depression years, while syrups,
sorghum/cane/molasses are not adaptable to many baked goods.

Just as my grandmother, a kitchen-master when it came to scratch biscuits
(or beaten, cheese, sweet potator, etc. varieties) or a dozen different
types of cornbread, hastened to the grocery to buy "store bought light
bread" when I was coming to lunch on school days, demonstrating that she,
raised an orphan on a hardscrabble West Texas ranch, had "moved up", she
saved a number of heavily sugared recipes for "company". My grandfather,
born in the Centennial Year, 1876, was even truer to his roots. He limited
his intake of "canned goods" to peaches and tomatoes, preferably from the
can with a spoon, but preferred condensed or evaporated milk in his coffee,
both habits "pure cowboy".

"Southern" is a category of cuisine which encompasses vast varieties,
separate by affluence, urban or rural (and a myriad of subregions and areas
thereof), and certainly ethnic and racial considerations. Even "sugared"
tea, a caste/class offering is far more likely to be encountered in parts
of Georgia than in Texas West of the Brazos, although here in Central
Texas, I can think of dozens of resturants with side-by-side metal tea
dispenser, one sweet, one "plain". Most of them (with only one exception
that comes to mind, a chain of delis), don't need a sign to indicate that
"sweet tea" is available. The building, the address and the vehicles in
the parking lot provide good circumstantial evidence of what lurks within.

On the otherhand, the Resort at Amelia Island, the Inn on Turtle Creek, the
Club at Augusta, Ponte Vedra, Galatoire's, Brennan's, Ruth's Chris, etc.
would make you a glass of sweet tea, but are unlikely to have it in an urn
or on the menu.

TMO

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:21:06 -0600, Olivers >
wrote:

>Frogleg muttered....

>>>Certainly, in the US South, "sweetening" has cultural/societal
>>>implications. Pooor man's cornbread remains sugarless unto this day,
>>
>> Don't think so. Sorghum and cane are common in old-time Southern
>> cooking.
>
>But most regionallly marketed Southern cornbread "mixes" contain no sugar
>(and white meal products are popular), while the national brands are
>heavily sugared (and overwhelmingly from yellow cornmeal). Cornbread
>certainly continues to be a food primarily eaten in lower income
>househholds (or those where family members were raised in lower income or
>rural environments). As for sorghum and cane syrups, they are for putting
>on cornbread, not in it...(ahhh, memories of my grandmother's favorite,
>cornbread crumbled in buttermilk, with just a dash of syrup atop...)

Can't say authoritatively. I've never bought cornbread 'mix.'. I can't
think that sugar was ever a particularly expensive ingredient in the
US.

>> Many Southerners put sugar in a lot
>> of things many Californians don't. Southern iced tea is normally very
>> sweet; it's unsweetened in other regions.
>
>Your knowledge of the US South is obviously inadequate. We could drive
>down most any Southern street and pick out restaurants (or homes) where
>pre-sweetened tea will be offered.

Precisely. It's a regional preference. Sweetened (iced) tea by default
in the south; unsweetened in other areas.
>
>> Smithfield, VA, the center
>> of much classic ham production, produces mostly salt-cured products,
>> 'though 'honey-cured' items are available.
>
>"Smithfield" these days being a brand name for a modestly priced line of
>prepared pork products,

Smithfield hams are distinct products processed ('though not
prorduced) within the city limits of Smithfield, Virginia. They are
*not* products of a single company, but rather a local association.

http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/Consumer/Timeline/

"1926 -- To protect the good name of Smithfield products, Virginia
enacted a law defining Genuine Smithfield Meats as peanut-fed hogs
raised in Virginia or North Carolina and cured in the town limits. In
1968, it was amended to include hogs raised elsewhere."
>>
>> The OP inquired about a "North American" fondness for sugar, which I
>> think is a mistaken impression. *I* wonder about the inclusion of
>> sugar in many dishes in Southern US cooking, But it's mostly, AFAIK, a
>> regional preference.
>
>....and pumpkin pie, a "Yankee" dish, is not a vegetable laced with sugar
>to make it more appealing/palatable? Are not dozens of Czech and German
>recipes heavily sugared? British "savory" condiments, a trademark of an
>otherwise bland cuisine?

Again, what's your point? Desserts contain sugar? Yep. I guess they
often do. You got me there. Are you saying that all veg dishes in
North America contain sugar? I don't think so. All meats? Nope. All
ham? Not AFAIK. All jams? Not even those.

The OP inquired about an perceived "North American" fondness for
sugared/sweet foods in relation to a recipe for mac&cheese. I replied
that sweet salad dressings and the addition of sugar to, say, green
beans cooked with a little side meat seemed odd to me, too. Regional
preference. Southern US. Not typical to North America. Not anything to
do with 'class' of food. Not even universal in the Southern US.