“In icings, PHOs provide the air-holding capacity to achieve specific desired gravities, along with the melting and spreading characteristics that allow icings to be evenly spread on cakes,” said Tom Tiffany, senior technical manager, ADM Oils in Decatur, Ill. “The heat stability enables the icing to remain stable when exposed to a variety of transportation and storage conditions.”
Dr. McNeill said icings sold at retail may require a shelf life of up to 1.5 years. If shelf life fails to reach that duration, consumers may open a tub of icing and find it’s “like a piece of concrete,” Dr. McNeill said.
To replace PHOs and still keep the desired shelf life in icings, formulators may use palm oil along with a liquid vegetable oil such as canola oil or sunflower oil that may keep saturated fat as low as possible, he said.
Guys, there’s this thing called “butter.” And “lard.”
As Dr. Meade says:
Switching to saturated fat could be the SHORT term solution while waiting 2 develop some other frankenfat. Jesus wept http://t.co/ttRwCz6k1v
The public MUST NOT let TBFS slip slowly into oblivion. Nina’s first story should create an outraged public that demands the following:
Government-sponsored nutrition must be totally terminated.
Freedom of information in valid nutritional sciences must be made widely available.
All citizens must have the right to design their own nutrition plans.
A primary prevention program based on eliminating the causes of diseases must be implemented.
It won’t happen unless we make it happen. It has to become a political issue. Attacking Michelle’s school-lunch tyranny would be a good start.
[Update a few minutes later]
And yet the USDA is still spending millions to propagandize us about low fat:
The USDA also proposed a study on changing how food is described on menus, labeling low-sodium and low-fat versions as “regular,” and “framing regular versions of certain snack products as high-fat or high-sodium.”
I’d like to see someone on the Hill make an issue of this.
We got what looks to be very good news today. While the appeals court didn’t actually rule on our case, they did issue an opinion in BuckleyBurke, which is closely related, as it has to do with the right to an interlocutory appeal under collateral-order doctrine in an anti-SLAPP case. Their arguments largely mirror the ones we make in our brief, and they seem to be quite aggressive in their defense of the First Amendment, so it seems likely that there’s a very good chance that they’ll actually address our merits, and perhaps ultimately end up dismissing.
[Daturday afternoon update]
Sorry, had the name of the case wrong. Here‘s Les Machado’s take:
Takeaway: the headline here is the Court’s conclusion that the denial of a special motion to quash is immediately appealable. While the Court was careful to not extend its ruling to the denial of a special motion to dismiss, parties who are currently appealing from the denial of special motions to dismiss have to be buoyed by the decision.
This seismic shift in melanoma care — largely brought about by enlisting the immune system in the fight — might eventually be used to treat other cancers, researchers said. Smoking-related lung cancers, among others, are now starting to respond to similar treatments, according to research to be presented at this week’s conference.
“We really are in a historical time right now,” said Dr. F. Stephen Hodi, director of the Melanoma Treatment Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “Cancer treatment five years ago compared to five years from now — it’s going to be completely different.”
Faster, please.
I found this a little sad, though:
“Someone with metastatic melanoma, I used to tell them to ‘eat whatever you want.’ Now, I’m saying ‘you should watch that cholesterol,’ ’’ said Dr. Patrick Hwu, chairman of the Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
It’s amazing and frightening how ignorant the medical profession is about diet and cholesterol.
Over at First Things, John Murdock has some thoughts (including a discussion of me, Mark and the Mann suit), but there is also a howler:
Big decisions, whether in the life of a person or a nation often boil down to trust. America has been hemming and hawing for a while now, trying to decide if the 97 percent or so of climate scientists who say we have a big manmade problem are looking out for our best interest or are self-serving quacks.
Sorry, but this number has been debunked multiple times. It is simply false that 97% of scientists say that we have a “big manmade problem.” You can only get to such a ridiculous number by watering down what the “consensus” is about. Most scientists (including me) believe that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Period. Once you get beyond that, to whether or not we are causing a significant change in the climate with emissions, let alone whether or not the results will be catastrophic, and need to be addressed with immediate public policy, the “consensus” falls completely apart. Anyone who believes in that nonsensus needs to go read this.