|
August 29, 2006
The halves and half-nots (and other risk-free dangers)
In a fit of hurried grocery shopping yesterday, I carelessly grabbed a container of what I thought said "Half and Half" for my morning coffee. Unfortunately, I missed reading the words "Fat Free." No excuse; it wasn't even fine print. Worse, I didn't see the "Fat Free" part until I had opened the container and poured some into my coffee. Yeccch! Food critic though I am not, in my unprofessional opinion, this swill tastes for the world as if it's half non-fat milk and half non-dairy creamer. (Probably that's exactly what it more or less is.) I thought about the language. "Half and Half" is not a brand name, as there are innumerable brands of "Half and Half." It is supposed to be a standardized dairy product consisting of half cream and half milk. The FDA has a specific legal definition of what is legally called "half-and-half": PART 131--MILK AND CREAM--Table of ContentsHuh? I looked again on the label, and I saw that there is zero fat. Here's the label: I have no problem with the marketing of any product, except that I don't see how they get around the FDA's definition of "half and half." (Nor am I the first blogger to wonder about this.) Hmmmm.... Might it be the hyphens? The FDA uses them, while the product I bought does not. They'd probably say that because they never stated it was half cream and half milk, that they're not misrepresenting anything. But half of what and half of what? They can probably say it is half milk, because the definitions of milk include low-fat, non-fat and other varieties. But there is no FDA definition of "cream" other than those which specify that it must contain fat. Sec. 131.150 defines "heavy cream" as "cream which contains not less than Which means that even if they are allowed to escape the FDA's hyphenated definition by removing the hyphens, that only makes it "hyphen free half and half." There's still the plain meaning of the words. What do they mean? Clearly, there is no possibility that the product is half cream. Is it half non-dairy creamer? Shouldn't they say so? Not being a vegan, I don't have to address the highly volatile issue of whether "non-dairy" creamers are in fact non-dairy. But a site on the non-dairy=dairy warpath was kind enough to describe the mysterious product that my fat free half and half container labels "Carrageenan": "a thickener derived from a red seaweed commonly called Irish Moss." Carrageenan is used as a thickener (which probably means that the stuff would be watery without it) and here's a site which doesn't seem to like it: Carrageenan is a commonly used food additive that is extracted from red seaweed by using powerful alkali solvents. These solvents would remove the tissues and skin from your hands as readily as would any acid.Sounds thickening to me, but it still doesn't tell me much about the totality of what's in the non-milk half of the alleged "half and half." Are they required to say? Or has "Half and Half" simply been degraded by the industry without the say-so of Uncle Sam's language police? I think what is going on here is a literal war of words, with the industry trying to insinuate and weasel its way out of government requirements. Is this product even half milk and half something else? Frankly, I doubt it. There's no assurance on the label that it's half anything. What concerns me is the plain meaning of English. Unless I am wrong, "Half and Half" is being reduced to a meaningless expression (analogous to the old "5 and 10" stores) which not only doesn't mean half milk and half cream, it doesn't mean half of anything. If half is not half, what's next? Will whole not be whole? (I don't want to look.) If this doesn't make sense, I'm sorry. I'm trying to make half sense, and I'm not even sure whether I'm halving trouble. MORE: Looking again at the above label, I notice more smoke and mirrors by the listing of the word "MILK" followed by an asterisk which indicates that this alleged "MILK" adds "a trivial amount of fat." But I thought milk had fat! What about the 0% on the label? Does the word "zero" now exclude any "trivial amount"? Why? Have mathematicians been consulted? I'm wondering. Can they do this with trivial amounts of Mercury, lead or asbestos? Why not? If zero excludes trivial amounts, and words like "half" are reduced to being trivial, then why can't all dangers be reduced to zero by such word reductionism? (I think I should go on record as being one hundred percent in favor of half zero tolerance and half zero intolerance, provided the amounts are trivial.) Will someone please tell me whether "zero" is more or less than "trivial"? AFTERTHOUGHT: I think this post is a classic example of what can go wrong when logic is applied to things which are not logical. It's obvious that words like "half" and "zero" literally mean half or zero in the logical (or mathematical) sense. In industry terms, "half" is not half, and "zero" is not zero. That's because being "too" literal about these things would probably threaten the economic fabric of society or something. But what about mercury? Is there zero relativism? posted by Eric on 08.29.06 at 07:43 AM
Comments
Thank you! :) Eric Scheie · August 29, 2006 02:00 PM !! How did I miss your lovely blog. This shows the power of links. "Why are so many people coming to visit me from Classical Values?" I can't find Eat4Today mentioned anywhere...I keep looking. I actually read 3 or 4 posts. Somehow I skip right past the relevant (obviously relevant) one....And then I find it! It seems like just an innocent aside, but it's moved the masses. Thank you very much Eric. I'll be back. katiebird · August 29, 2006 02:56 PM "Probably that's exactly what it more or less is." This has got to be one of the most convoluted statements I've ever seen! What does it mean? :-) Mick · August 29, 2006 03:53 PM Katie, welcome! Mick, that statement was my obtuse way of espressing my sarcastic disgust! Eric Scheie · August 29, 2006 06:29 PM What about Mercury? It's still a planet as of now. triticale · August 30, 2006 08:33 AM Zero, as far as food is concerned, is less than .5g of a substance. Thus stuff like Pam and other nonstick sprays, which are composed exclsively of fat and propellants have 0g fat per serving. Rounding is a wonderful thing...ain't it. Anyway, too true about the fat free half and half, the stuff is truely dreck. Well spotted Liam · August 30, 2006 03:21 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Eric, what you wrote, and so early in the am, AFTER attempting to drink the "product" in your coffee... is serious, it is. I just could not resist (please, no attempt at minimizing, putting down, dis-respecting in ANY way) just had me rofl. You write about something, that in my opinion is not funny, and is frustrating, but I love how you put it. That was great.I hate what is done to our food. "Will whole not be whole?" So true. cadia