Talk:Margarine/Archive 1

Margarine will destroy society

This is a good basic page discussing the history of a human dietary artifact that will eventually be shown to be one of the scourges of technological humankind. For over 125 years (as of 2003) we have suffered the delusion that this edible plastic is food; time for some course correction.

Margarine, shortening and the like are mostly deformed processed oils, stripped of natural antioxidants and sterols, artificially saturated/cross-linked at high temperature in the presence of catalysts. That they are loaded with abnormal "trans" molecular structures is the least of their health-impairing properties.

They are proving to cause every manner of membrane abnormality in animal cells, leading directly to fatty-degenerative diseases like atherosclerosis, diabetes, and cancer. Obesity is a reflection not of overconsumption per se but due to increased appetite due to chronic fatty acid malnutrition and derangement.

Johanna Budwig PhD concluded this back in the 1950s, using only the primitive analytical tools of the era. (This was posted on 8 July 2003 by User:204.182.66.121)

• If that isn't a partisan manifesto, I don't know what is. Trans fats occur in unprocessed foods, not just in hydrogenated oils, and one might as well label the "non-trans" fats (a.k.a. fats with cis double bonds) "deformed" and "abnormal," since they're the isomeric form that is actually bent. The list above of diseases that trans fats "cause" is broader than any I've seen from a credible institutional source on the Web. All that anybody credible blames on trans fats is heart disease, and this they do so in much more cautious tones than those used above. I imagine this Johanna Budwig is a marginal figure and doesn't belong in the article either, but I don't know anything about her. Certainly her "conclusion" (a.k.a. hypothesis) is not one that many scientists nowadays entertain, if they ever did. 168... 19:11 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

• I would like to challenge the relevance of the "one molecule" reference. Hydrogen-peroxide will strip the living flesh from your hand but it is only one molecule away from water. Ozone is dangerous to humans but it is only 1 molecule away from breathable oxygen. The "one molecule" reference is ridicules on the face of it. Justin 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Justin, you obviously know very little about chemistry. Aside from the fact that nobody seems to have mentioned anything about a "one molecule" reference, you don't seem to have even paid attention to the argument (you certainly don't reference it). One molecule of Hydrogen Peroxide contains two atoms of hydrogen and two atoms of Oxygen. One molecule of water has one Oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. Unsaturated fatty acids, on the other hand, react differently because their preferred state is to be saturated, and to do so, they pick up extra hydrogen ions. Please see more at saturated fat, unsaturated fat, trans, and trans fatty acid. --RealGrouchy 05:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As humorous as the butter-nazi's diatribe is, I must say that I find the quote "Hydrogen-peroxide will strip the living flesh from your hand" even more amusing. -Grammaticus Repairo 05:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The semantics of this argument often amuse me as well. I'd also like to note that cyanide is 'one molecule away' from oxygen, and mercury is 'one molecule away' from LSD. Finally, it's extremely important to note that Computers are 'one invention away' from a spanner wrench. Or Wikipedia is 'one website away' from (Insert porn site here). RabidDutchman (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Effect on Dietary Restrictions

One area that isn't mentioned but was interesting to me is the effect Margarine has had on the Kosher Jewish diet. As most know, kosher Jews are not allowed to mix meat (typically beef or lamb but excluding chicken) with dairy foods like milk or butter. This meant that cooking beef or lamb in any type of butter sauce was forbidden. However margarine is not a dairy product and, depending on the oils, used can be meat or neutral (parve). Because this is the case, "butter" sauces can be made with margarine.

• Some margarines contain butter, tallow or lard. Those wishing to maintain a vegan or kosher diet must be careful to read the ingredients. Justin 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Heintz?

"In 1853, Heintz discovered that margaric acid..."

Who is Heintz? -- Kaszeta 01:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe the katchup company? Justin 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• • What is kAtchup? Something like catchup, catsup or ketchup?Mace Windu 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

One pound restriction?

It's possible to buy margarine in 5 pound tubs, but they're labled "For institutional use only". Most retail grocery stores don't have that size, but some wholesale stores that sell in bulk have it available to the average consumer.

Gregg's Gold-n-Soft is simply the best, in my opinion, whether in a one or five pound tub.

Do butter/margarine blends like "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" circumvent the the one pound restriction because of their butter content? I know that ICBINB is available in sizes larger than one pound, as is a generic blend available at American ALDI stores. -- Pennyforth 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have purchased Shedd's Country Crock in a 3 pound tub before... I think mention of the one pound restriction should be removed or at least say there used to be one... the evidence is clear there is no longer a restriction, as one can obtain 3 pound tubs of margarine at a grocery store. 70.56.23.156 (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC) §

Coloured margarine and Quebec

The statement that coloured margarine is still banned in Quebec isn't quite correct. It is banned now but only since 1987.

Animal Fat vs Veggie Fat

Heck, in the western states, we call any veggie oil spread "Soy Butter." Stuff like Country Crock, Brummel & Brown, Imperial, Smart Balance, or any nondairy spread not made with lard or tallow.

Natural Food

aside from Trans fats that are present in some margarines...

People are so afraid of Butter and Animal fat because scientists at various times have found out "new information".

you don't need to listen to scientists to be really healthy just think. People have been using butter and animal fat for thousands of years and heart attacks were almost unknown, the easiest way to stay healthy is to avoid as much as possible anything that has been processed in a factory. Just don't use excessive amounts of natural fats and remember to eat more grain and vegetables than meat and dairy and exercise alot.

The man and big corporations want you to stay dumb to the ways of the human animal. You can make practically any food substance you want in your home from Beer to Butter to Bread and if you make it yourself you can make sure only things you want to eat are in the finished product.

Yes, by all means, let us return to the grand old days of consumption, the wasting disease, life expectancy of 40-50 years, and women dying in childbirth half the time. Man in harmony with his environment! It truly was a better time. We can learn so much from our ancestors.

But seriously, dude? Get yourself an education. Then you can ignore scientists and "just think".

--63.25.96.15 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we merge the "is it really healther?" subsection

The quality of writing obviously drops, it seems like someones soapbox speech, and much of this content can be conveyed by adding one or two sentences to the prior section.

• • Would be nice to see a deeper discussion of the Butter Vs Margarine debate. But it should be done a bit less one-sided. Justin 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Attempted to conform to NPOV conventions in my edit. Perhapse the previous section should be removed or edited? Justin 19:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've tried to clean up the nutrition section a bit. In doing so, I tried to reduce the emphasis on margarine vs butter a bit (this is an entry on margarine, not on butter). I retained most of the relevant comments (not those concerning cholesterol in shrimps....), but I don't have citations for every single statement (as was requested by an earlier edit). I leave this for future contributors. Generally, I hope that the Section has become a bit more systematic and more neutral in tone than the previous version. Hippolyte 17:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Does anyone remember something about vitamins being compulsory in Margarine and White Flour (and hence bread) in the UK since WW2? Think it was D and E. Could be relevant, no? Skittle 14:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"It is estimated that in countries where manufacturers voluntarily add vitamins A and D to margarine and spreadable fats this contributes about 20% of the recommended intake(1) of vitamin A and about 30% of vitamin D for very important groups of the population. Iron-enriched breakfast cereals have become, in the 1990s, the principal source of iron in young children's diets in the UK, replacing the meat that was the main source of iron in the 1950s. Foods enriched or fortified with vitamins and minerals can therefore make a significant contribution to nutrient intakes." From [1] Skittle 14:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Vitamin content of margarine

   4.—(1)  Any margarine sold by retail shall contain in every 100 grams of such margarine—
(a) not less than 800 micrograms and not more than 1000 micrograms of vitamin A, and
(b) not less than 7.05 micrograms and not more than 8.82 micrograms of vitamin D,

and a proportionate amount in any part of 100 grams.

   (2)  No person shall sell by retail any margarine in contravention of this regulation."

Northern Ireland law. Statutory Rule 1996 No. 47 Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 [2]

"Margarine Key points • Margarine has similar characteristics to butter and is produced by hydrogenation of vegetable oils. • There are many different types of margarines and spreads. Margarine is defined in law and must contain certain ingredients in certain quantities. • Most margarines and low fat spreads are high in unsaturated fatty acids and contribute to the vitamin D and E intake of the UK population. Margarine is a popular alternative to butter with the same fat content as butter. Spreads is the term used to describe similar products with different compositions (e.g. reduced fat products). Margarines and spreads are produced from a range of vegetable oils and fat and are used for a variety of food products. COMPOSITION Margarine is defined in law as the product obtained from vegetable and/or animal fats with a fat content of more that 80%, but less than 90%. It is a solid emulsion of water in oil. Margarine has to be produced in accordance with the Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) Regulations 1995. Margarine must contain certain ingredients in certain quantities: • Fat content – minimum 80%, but less that 90% • Milk fat content – maximum 3% of total fat • Vitamin A – 940-960 IU per ounce (800-1000µg per 100g) • Vitamin D – 80-100 IU of vitamin D per ounce (7.05-8.82µg per 100g) Spreads have a similar composition to margarine but are usually lower in fat. For example, low fat spreads (defined as a spread with 40g fat/100g) and some spreads which contain 75% fat cannot be called margarine as they do not meet the minimum fat level requirement. Water is used to bulk out these spreads. Very low fat spreads are unsuitable for frying and baking but they are suitable for spreading directly out of the refrigerator. Spreads may also be fortified (e.g. with vitamin A and D) at levels similar to margarine, although this is not required by law. NUTRITION Margarine and spreads are usually made from a mixture of highly unsaturated oils such as rapeseed and sunflower oils, and therefore contain less saturated fatty acids and more polyunsaturated fatty acids than butter. A number of different processes are used to produce margarine and spreads including rearrangement and hydrogenation. Although trans fatty acids may be produced during hydrogenation, in the UK efforts have been made to reduce or remove trans fatty acids from margarine and spreads through product reformulation and the use of new techniques. Based on the latest National Nutrition and Diet Survey, intake of trans fatty acids is 1.2%, well below the 2% average population target for the UK. Margarines and spreads are important sources of vitamin E and, excluding butter, they contribute 14% of total vitamin E intake in adults (Henderson et al. 2003b), 17% in boys and 16% in girls (Gregory et al. 2000). Margarines (fortified with A and D by law) and low fat spreads (usually fortified with A and D, voluntarily) also contribute a significant proportion of vitamin D, contributing to 16% of intake in adults (Henderson et al. 2003b), 19% in boys and 19% in girls (Gregory et al. 2000). They also contribute to total vitamin A intake, but to a smaller extent." [3]

1940 Due to poor nutrition during the war, the addition of vitamins was required by law, which corrected the only nutritional deficiency of margarine compared to butter.[4]

Additives

Perhaps the article should also take into account the kinds of initiatives behind products and brand such as Flora, which contain Omega 3s and 6s or anti-cholesterol sterols. [5] Also, I agree that the current entry is severely one-sided. Jddriessen 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Margarine wars

I'm new to adding things to wikipedia, so I'll ask here and get some $0.02 Does the history or margerine deserve it own page? Or specifically the despute that went on between margarine and butter? There was a lot more that happened then what is written about in this article.

---

What about the heavy metal issue? http://www.healthe-livingnews.com/articles/who_says_butter_is_better.html

Spelling and pronunciation

There is an inconsistency in the spelling of margarine, being spelled margerine in other parts of the article. The Oxford English dictionary in the 2002 edition has only the spelling with an a (margarine). I would be curious to know what is the correct pronunciation, my girlfriend who is English says it like if there was an e but it is inconsistent with the spelling, in addition, as native of the same town as Chevreul I suppose my pronunciation is more likely to be the one of the inventor. Anyone for an explanation ? Blastwizard 13:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Margerine is simply a misspelling. Technically, margarine should be pronounced with a hard g, but according to the OED, this pronunciation became rare "in the second half of the 20th century". I personally have never met anyone who uses the hard g in this word in English. It would be more logical, though. Lesgles (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a guide from the 1940s to the use of "good English" which describes the use of hard g in "margarine" as "characteristic of those in general society who know the product and are of a high enough standing not to use it" =D doktorb _words^deeds 15:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My friend's (Northern-Irish) parents always pronounced it with a hard G and "een" at the end. They are the only people I have ever heard pronounce it that way.--24.224.151.11 05:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this

The article currently says "Trans-fat-free varieties of margarine in a tub form are available, and they are the best choice for use as a spread." That seems a pretty bold assertion not to have a citation. Or am I reading this wrong? -- Steven Fisher 20:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed that because it can't easily be verified. -- Luke Ament 2:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Regionalism

In informal speech people commonly refer to margarine as butter... This appears to be a regionalism; I know around here, people are very specific about them. -- Steven Fisher 17:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

perhaps thats specific to your region, when i was growing up 'butter' was the generic term for any similar type of spread that went on to bread Kejoxen 10:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Rumors

I heard a rumor that Margarine is initially black but is dyed to appear yellow. (How someone dyes black to yellow is a mystery.) Does anyone know the truth of this? I assume it's a myth, as the article says Margarine is naturally white. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.21.215.250 (talk • contribs) .

why would a product that comes from predominatly white animal fat become black during its production cycle? (baring the product going rancid) i think you answered you're own question there. Kejoxen 10:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This factoid was created by a chain e-mail hoax [6], one which also circulated the wisdom that "Margarine is but ONE MOLECULE away from being PLASTIC..." Femto 12:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How about culinary applications??

The Butter-vs-Marg battles rages on. But it's not just a health issue, guys and gals. It's also a very bitter CULINARY feud!

The arguments over "butter versus margarine" are in no way limited to topics like trans fats and cholesterol. They also revolve around which TASTES better, which is better for frying, which is better for baking, etc. I know my aunt used to use margarine when baking cookies, something which makes my mother CRINGE. Why isn't this debate featured in the article as prominently as the health issue? Thelastemperor 03:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That debate is not featured because it is purely subjective and therefore would be impossible to discuss intelligently. Lcament 21:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent discussion? Really? Where? How can something be purely subjective if it is based on an objective stimulus in the real world? Let's not let flippant relativism guide discussion guide things. Let's aim for the cool, considerate intellect which seems to be the goal of wikipedia. The properties of butter vs margarine in cooking are certainly something which can be examined in a rational, objective, and dispassionate manner. Just because you cannot do it does not mean it cannot be done... this margarinal dismissal of mature inquiry seems to be the bread and butter of too many a talk page. 67.166.205.235 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It can only be discussed in the article if it has been covered by published, reliable sources that we can cite. —Angr 17:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Recipes call margarine 'shortening'?

I'm no chef, but I have followed a lot of recipes in my day and have never encountered a recipe which called for 'shortening' when it actually meant 'margarine'. Or 'oleo', for that matter, though I suspect that term might be more common in Europe than here in the US. -Grammaticus Repairo 04:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If it said shortening how would you know if it meant margarine? --Gbleem 11:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If I am well-informed, shortening and margarine are different things. Margarine contains about 20% aqueous phase, a shortening none. It is used in baking. The comment on trans fat in shortening may be therefore inappropriate here, because it does not apply to margarine (anyway, transfat has been removed from most margarines in Europe for over a decade now. The whole trans-issue seems to pop up in the US context all the time, where the market has been much slower to react.) --User:Hippolyte

its a known fact that generally food that has more fat in it tastes better. not many people would use butter at all if they didnt think it tasted better.

I've never heard anyone refer to "margarine" as "shortening." They're completely different things. Given that this error has been sitting here for two years, I'm fixing it. (Good thing Wikipedia is quick to correct mistakes.) 128.114.60.65 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Margarine vs. spread

Are all butter-like spreads margarine? Is the use of the word spread a marketing choice or is their a legal reason? --Gbleem 11:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In Australia the use of the word "margarine" has virtually disappeared from the tubs and has been replaced with "spread", or with nothing at all! Examples: "Meadow Lea Original" or "Home Brand Canola Spread". The word margarine is, I guess, considered to be hopelessly old fashioned along with "washing soda", "baby gripe water" and other products familiar only to Mr Burn's generation!!--MichaelGG 01:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Plastic?

uuhhh...no comment to the fact that margarine is supposed to be one molecule off of plastic? why not?Mace Windu 16:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not. Frankg 19:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is an uncommon myth; I reckon it comes from lipids being carbohydratic (in the sense that they are made of C, H and O; although aren't really carbohydrates) and plastics being made from hydrocarbons (made mainly of C and H); but I haven't ever seen the original chain email that makes the claim myself.--KX36 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Production of cholesterol

-"However, the human body transforms saturated fat into cholesterol." I don't know why this line is here, it seems to be one of those things that people who konw nothing but what they heard from some "doctor" on daytime TV would say. Cholesterol can be synthesised de novo from acetate, acetate is produced in the metabolism of fatty acids, saturated or otherwise, as well as carbohydrates and proteins; so basically everything organic that we eat. There are several theoretical sources of cholesterol, and this is one of them (2 others being the diet and pulling it out of cell membranes, where it's useful); however, more than enough cholesterol is taken in the diet to stop de novo synthesis from acetate and cholesterol removal from plasma membranes. This quote makes it sound like eating too much saturated fats directly increases the serum cholesterol levels, when really the only time cholesterol would be synthesised de novo from acetate for use in the systemic circulation is when the amount is so dangerously low that the stability of cells plasma membranes is affected. Cholesterol is not even synthesised de novo when the levels are too low for steroidogenesis to take place, the steroidogenesis stops, showing how de novo synthesis of cholesterol from acetate is NOT a main source of cholesterol and is indeed only rarely used even in emergencies. De novo synthesis is the main source of cholesterol in some special circulations and avascular tissues such as the seminiferous tubule of the testis, but DOES NOT occur anywhere where it can get into the systemic circulation, which is where all the popular negative effects of cholesterol are associated.--KX36 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Did margarine ever contain blubber?

I've been repeatedly told by my mother that margarine used to contain blubber before the 1970s. Is there any truth to this? I find it hard to believe. Devil Master (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It was one of the main uses for blubber in the 19th century, once margarine spread (!pun) as a butter substitute for the poor and in institutions. Blubber was one of the cheap fats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.94.67 (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

logical fallacy

"Regular butterfat contains ~65% saturated fatty acids on fat [7], although this varies somewhat with season. One tablespoon of butter contains over 7g of saturated fat." Apples and oranges - somebody please fix --70.74.82.114 (talk) another example: ""zero grams" trans-fat, which effectively means less than 500 mg trans-fat per serving. Butterfat contains 2-5% trans fatty acids (mainly C18:1w7)[14]."--70.74.82.114 (talk)

Nutrition and NPOV

The section on Nutrition is interesting, but largely off-topic, and should be removed to its own article. Why tack it onto the Margarine article? Why not add it to Butter, Shortening or Olive oil? Simply adding this section appears to have created a soapbox for every nut job to chime in with their opinions on "good" cholesterol, "bad" cholesterol, and an endless stream of junk science and poor research. If a section on nutrition is retained, it should deal strictly with the nutritional value of Margarine, and not vector off into all kinds of irrelevant speculation. (Some Wikipedians may remember the drumbeat against egg consumption about 20-30 years ago. Then, in the 1990s we were told that eggs aren't so bad, after all, and are good for your health. I'm waiting for the same turnaround in medical opinion on margarine and trans fats. Hah! Keep it real, folks.) —Quicksilver^{T @} 17:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Nutrition section is off-topic but I think this should be fixed by making it apply to margarine and not by moving it. I came to this article to find out the various percentages of fats in the composition of margarine but instead only see information about the fats in general rather than how much of them different sorts of margarine contain. As it is now, the information in the Nutrition section is better expressed in the individual articles about each of the types of fat, and nowhere does it give the nutrition facts for different types of modern margarine. -- 76.244.151.182 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)