Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Trade Descriptions Act: shortbread?

48 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Mar 21, 2010, 4:54:32 PM3/21/10
to
Shortbread. I love it. How is it made? Well, it's something along the
lines of 1 part suger, 2 parts butter, 3 parts flour (oatmeal flour or
these days, wheat flour). Or perhaps a ratio of 1,2,2.

So, if I buy something called "Buttery shortbread" which has as its two
most significant ingredients "Wheat flour, vegetable fat (then a
description of all the things that make up said vegetable fat)".

Then further down the list are "sugar" and then "butter (10%)".

Isn't that a clear breach of the Trade Descriptions Act? The butter
content should be at least 33% according to most of the recipes.

How can "buttery shortbread" have only 10% butter?

Michael

Chris Lamb

unread,
Mar 21, 2010, 5:53:17 PM3/21/10
to
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:54:32 +0000, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

>
> How can "buttery shortbread" have only 10% butter?

Presumably because 'buttery' has no well defined legal meaning in the
context of foodstuffs?

I refer the hon. gent. to 'chocolate flavoured', 'lemony' and a whole host
of other fudge (no pun intended) words associated with food naming.

C

ng...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 21, 2010, 6:30:01 PM3/21/10
to
On 21 Mar, 20:54, Michael Kilpatrick

An even odder, and much more cut-and-dried case to my mind, is Tesco's
"All-butter shortbread." Surely if something is "all butter,"
it's.....well, it's not shortbread, is it?

Message has been deleted

Theo Markettos

unread,
Mar 21, 2010, 6:56:39 PM3/21/10
to
ng...@aol.com <ng...@aol.com> wrote:
> An even odder, and much more cut-and-dried case to my mind, is Tesco's
> "All-butter shortbread." Surely if something is "all butter,"
> it's.....well, it's not shortbread, is it?

There was also some chocolate in Waitrose that proudly advertised itself on
the front as '100% cocoa butter' and then happened to mention on the back
that it was 35% cocoa solids. I never did get around to sending a picture
to the ASA.

Theo

Message has been deleted

Theo Markettos

unread,
Mar 21, 2010, 8:40:17 PM3/21/10
to
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

>
> The entity calling itself Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
> >
> > How can "buttery shortbread" have only 10% butter?
>
> Because that terminal "y" makes all the difference.

It's a good thing it wasn't 'batter shortbread', then.

Theo

Roland Perry

unread,
Mar 22, 2010, 2:12:12 AM3/22/10
to
In message <1kd23chsxqsy3.1...@40tude.net>, at 21:53:17 on
Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Chris Lamb
<chris_...@lykaon.noeggsausagebeansandspam.org.uk> remarked:

>> How can "buttery shortbread" have only 10% butter?
>
>Presumably because 'buttery' has no well defined legal meaning in the
>context of foodstuffs?

A buttery is an old name for a cafe/teashop. It's not necessarily a
description of a particular recipe.
--
Roland Perry

Cwatters

unread,
Mar 22, 2010, 2:14:20 PM3/22/10
to

"Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xrWdnYDunKERGjvW...@pipex.net...

"Utterly Butterly" is only 9%..

http://www.dairycrest.co.uk/our-brands--products/spreads/utterly-butterly.aspx

Ingredients: Vegetable Oils, Water, Reconstituted Buttermilk (9%); Salt
(1.6%); Omega 3 (derived from fish oils) Emulsifiers - E471; Soya Lecithin;
Preservative - Potassium Sorbate; Lactic Acid; Flavouring; Vitamin E;
Colour - Natural Beta Carotene; Vitamins A&D


Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Mar 22, 2010, 4:50:37 PM3/22/10
to
Cwatters wrote:
>
> "Utterly Butterly" is only 9%..
>
> http://www.dairycrest.co.uk/our-brands--products/spreads/utterly-butterly.aspx
>
> Ingredients: Vegetable Oils, Water, Reconstituted Buttermilk (9%); Salt
> (1.6%); Omega 3 (derived from fish oils) Emulsifiers - E471; Soya Lecithin;
> Preservative - Potassium Sorbate; Lactic Acid; Flavouring; Vitamin E;
> Colour - Natural Beta Carotene; Vitamins A&D


Hmm, but perhaps the "l" in butterly makes all the difference. Butterly
isn't really a word, whereas buttery is.

Or if it is intended to suggest that it is really quite like butter
perhaps that may actually not be misleading. However, that could clearly
(at least to my tongue) not be said of the "buttery shortbread"!

Michael

Message has been deleted

Brian Watson

unread,
Mar 23, 2010, 2:22:17 PM3/23/10
to

"Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xrWdnYDunKERGjvW...@pipex.net...

I'd be more concerned that (1) it ain't short, and (2) it ain't bread.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
www.imagebus.co.uk/shop


Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Mar 24, 2010, 7:04:39 AM3/24/10
to
Brian Morrison wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
> "ng...@aol.com" <ng...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Surely if something is "all butter,"
>>it's.....well, it's not shortbread, is it?
>
>

> That means that all of the fat content in the shortening is butter, or
> at least that's how I think it's supposed to be interpreted.

It seems to me that this is the definition of shortbread. It's sugar,
butter and flour. Calling it "all butter" is therefore redundant. If it
isn't made predominantly with butter as the fat, it ain't shortbread. In
the same way that a "Victoria sponge cake" is a very particular recipe
of cake, and if you stray too far from the path then you simply can't
call it a VCS. Or call something without any almond content a "Bakewell
pudding".

Michael

Duncan Wood

unread,
Mar 24, 2010, 7:09:37 AM3/24/10
to

Do you anything other than your own opinion to suggest that shortbread
that isn't called all butter shortbread doesn't contain any other forms of
shortening though?

--
Duncan Wood

Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Mar 24, 2010, 8:07:14 AM3/24/10
to
Duncan Wood wrote:
>
> Do you anything other than your own opinion to suggest that shortbread
> that isn't called all butter shortbread doesn't contain any other forms
> of shortening though?


It's rather like the various forms of "cautionary accidental" in music,
where it is customary to put a natural sign in front of a note which is
an octave higher/lower than a note in the same bar which has been
sharpened or flattened by an accidental. Yet musical convention dictates
that other-octave notes are not altered by such an accident. The
presence of the "cautionary" natural is merely a reminder of the rule to
avoid ambiguity yet its existence in fact creates the need for it always
to be there and the creeping assumption that its absence would mean that
the note in fact *is* affected by the sharp or flat in the other octave!

Shortbread used to mean "butter, sugar, flour" yet now because people
love to burn down rainforets for palm oils to stuff in our foods, we
have to suffer proper shortbread being called "pure butter shortbread"
to distinguish it from the shitty veggy-fat rubbish which through
stealth misappropriates acceptance under the simple, unqualified term
"shortbread".

Michael

Duncan Wood

unread,
Mar 24, 2010, 8:19:24 AM3/24/10
to

But it's had other shortening in some recipes for centurys, I've seen
many old recipes with lard, e.g.
http://www.bigoven.com/4588-Petticoat-Tails-%233-recipe.html

--
Duncan Wood

Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Mar 24, 2010, 8:24:38 AM3/24/10
to
Duncan Wood wrote:


>
> But it's had other shortening in some recipes for centurys, I've seen
> many old recipes with lard, e.g.
> http://www.bigoven.com/4588-Petticoat-Tails-%233-recipe.html

Bleargh. Not sure I like the sound of that. Lard is good for pastry
(50/50 with butter for pastry used to make mince pies), but I'm not sure
I need to squeeze a pig in order to make a biscuit.

Michael

Duncan Wood

unread,
Mar 24, 2010, 8:29:58 AM3/24/10
to

The all butter versions do taste better IMHO but I'm not Scottish.


--
Duncan Wood

0 new messages