A most important legal matter.

[Judith]

Well - not really - just a point of interest

A local supermarket sells plastic containers with growing vegetable matter.

The containers are labeled "Salad cress"

The ingredients are then listed as "80% Rapeseed 20% cress"

Trading standards say there is nothing wrong with this?

Is that correct? - it seems quite wrong to me.


(PS I'm not really bothered - just interested; and the egg and rapeseed
sandwich was beautiful)

[Sara]

In article <0cp0p7pp3272t7vi9...@4ax.com>,

Ugh, I always find 'salad cress' tastes of nothing. I prefer good old
fashioned mustard cress with a bite of bite in it. The leaves are lovely
in salads if you let them grow, too.

--
Armageddon can be louder than expected for such a small cat.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:35:09 +0100, Judith put finger to keyboard and
typed:

What most people call "cress" is a generic term for the young shoots of
fast-growing plants rather than specifically Lepidium sativum. In fact, if
you separated out the individual plantlings from a tray of commercial cress
and asked people to identify which is actually cress and which is mustard
or rapeseed, the chances are that they'll get it wrong - a tray full of
real cress alone would look very different to what you buy in a
supermarket.

Nearly all commercially-sold "cress" (either ready to eat or as seeds) is,
equally, a mix of different plants, only one of which will be Lepidium
sativum. Traditionally, the "other" plant was usually mustard, but
commercial cress increasingly uses rapeseed instead as it's easier.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Nthkentman]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0cp0p7pp3272t7vi9...@4ax.com...

>
>
> Well - not really - just a point of interest
>
> A local supermarket sells plastic containers with growing vegetable
> matter.
>
> The containers are labeled "Salad cress"
>
> The ingredients are then listed as "80% Rapeseed 20% cress"
>
> Trading standards say there is nothing wrong with this?
>
> Is that correct? - it seems quite wrong to me.

For a minute I thought this was a lead in to an African scam that you'd
"Inherited" several million $$$ from the Desk of the Nigerian Secretary of
Bulls**t and you wanted to borrow the *deposit*

[The Todal]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0cp0p7pp3272t7vi9...@4ax.com...
>
>

Maybe the supermarkets are somehow embarrassed to use the word "rapeseed".
But it has lots of health benefits and we should all eat much more of it.
Perhaps the industry needs to invent a new name for it. "Omega Seeds" might
be the sort of thing.

[Ophelia]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:9vclia...@mid.individual.net...

In Canada (and US too probably) they have changed the name to Canola.


--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

[Judith]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:20:03 +0100, "Nthkentman" <nthke...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Love it - you are spot on - that could so well have been the title of an
email !!

(I thought they had died a death - but I did actually get one last week; so it
must still be worth sending them out)

[Max Demian]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:40:10 +0100, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

>
>"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:0cp0p7pp3272t7vi9...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> Well - not really - just a point of interest
>>
>> A local supermarket sells plastic containers with growing vegetable
>> matter.
>>
>> The containers are labeled "Salad cress"
>>
>> The ingredients are then listed as "80% Rapeseed 20% cress"
>>
>> Trading standards say there is nothing wrong with this?
>>
>> Is that correct? - it seems quite wrong to me.
>>
>>
>> (PS I'm not really bothered - just interested; and the egg and rapeseed
>> sandwich was beautiful)
>>
>
>Maybe the supermarkets are somehow embarrassed to use the word "rapeseed".

They obviously are, as rapeseed oil is just called "cooking oil"
whereas others are "sunflower oil", "corn oil" &c.

>But it has lots of health benefits and we should all eat much more of it.

It stinks.

>Perhaps the industry needs to invent a new name for it. "Omega Seeds" might
>be the sort of thing.

It's the "oil that dare not speak its name." Originally developed as a
lubricating oil for steam locos.

--
Max Demian

[Janet]

In article <0cp0p7pp3272t7vi9...@4ax.com>, jmsmith2011
@hotmail.co.uk says...

>
> Well - not really - just a point of interest
>
> A local supermarket sells plastic containers with growing vegetable matter.
>
> The containers are labeled "Salad cress"
>
> The ingredients are then listed as "80% Rapeseed 20% cress"
>
> Trading standards say there is nothing wrong with this?
>
> Is that correct?

The food is given its common identity name plus the contents are
correctly listed on the label, compliant with food labelling legislation.

No different from selling a carton labelled "tomato soup" whose accurate
content list shows it contains more than tomatoes.

Janet

[Roland Perry]

In message <MPG.29fb49371...@news.eternal-september.org>, at
11:25:02 on Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Janet <H...@invalid.net> remarked:

> No different from selling a carton labelled "tomato soup" whose accurate
>content list shows it contains more than tomatoes.

I've got a can of tomato soup here and the ingredients include 9% Tomato
Paste. It somewhat apologetically parenthesises "equivalent to 62% raw
tomato".

A more famous brand next to it has 84% tomatoes.

Slightly more worrying is a can of "chopped tomatoes" (so nothing to
make it "soupy", like sugar and cornflower) which is only 60% tomatoes.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

> In Canada (and US too probably) they have changed the name to Canola.

Yes, in the US too. We asked in a store "what is Canola oil?" and the
truth was whispered to us by a manager - admittedly a manager who had a
self-deprecating style rare in the US as he added that he was confident
that we, being British, would not behave like US customers by running
screaming from the store on hearing the former name :)
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

[Periander]

On 20-Apr-2012, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> What most people call "cress" is a generic term for the young shoots of
> fast-growing plants rather than specifically Lepidium sativum.

At the risk of it being suggested that I'm a little argumentative I'm not
sure that you can justify the "most people" comment, I'd suggest that most
people's contact with cress is growing it themselves as a youngster or
growing it with their youngsters and are very familiar with the difference
between real mustard cress and an adulterated product.

Rapeseed shoots aren't cress so I'd be inclined to go with the misleading
packaging argument.

--

All the best,

Periander

[Periander]

On 20-Apr-2012, Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:

> The food is given its common identity name plus the contents are
> correctly listed on the label, compliant with food labelling legislation.
>
> No different from selling a carton labelled "tomato soup" whose accurate
> content list shows it contains more than tomatoes.

I have to disagree, the main ingredient of tomato soup is tomatoes (or
possibly water if you buy a crap one). Not only that Tomato soup is a
prepared product. Cress isn't, it's a primary ingredient - if you have
something labeled as "Cress" the only ingredient should be cress. Would you
be happy for instance if you bought a package of leaves labeled "Cabbage"
and it turned out that the majority content was lettuce (or vice versa to
taste)?

The correct packaging should read something along the lines of "Mixed
Shoots"

[Robin]

> The ingredients are then listed as "80% Rapeseed 20% cress"
>

I don't see a problem. AFAIK "salad cress" is not a single
species/variety/DNA profile.

In the absence of specific legislation I think we must look to the
ordinary dictionary meaning of "cress". In the OED that is:

"The common name of various cruciferous plants, having mostly edible
leaves of a pungent flavour."

Note please the "various": so we already know there is not one species
"cress".

And after dealing with Lepidium sativum and Nasturtium officinale it
continues with:

"With defining words, applied to many different cruciferous plants, and
occasionally to plants of other families resembling cress in flavour or
appearance".

"Salad cress" is not given as an example but that definition seems to me
to be a good basis for arguing that "salad cress" may quite properly be
used as a label for a mix which includes non-cruciform seeds if they are
of like flavour or appearance, which as I would also argue is true of
rape. In short, I see no case for crying foul - let alone rape :)

[Ophelia]

"Robin" <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jmrfig$8lk$1...@dont-email.me...

>> In Canada (and US too probably) they have changed the name to Canola.
>
> Yes, in the US too. We asked in a store "what is Canola oil?" and the
> truth was whispered to us by a manager - admittedly a manager who had a
> self-deprecating style rare in the US as he added that he was confident
> that we, being British, would not behave like US customers by running
> screaming from the store on hearing the former name :)

Oh dear ... lol


--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Periander" <u...@britwar.couk> wrote in message
news:9vcss8...@mid.individual.net...

>
> On 20-Apr-2012, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> What most people call "cress" is a generic term for the young shoots of
>> fast-growing plants rather than specifically Lepidium sativum.
>
> At the risk of it being suggested that I'm a little argumentative I'm not
> sure that you can justify the "most people" comment, I'd suggest that most
> people's contact with cress is growing it themselves as a youngster or
> growing it with their youngsters and are very familiar with the difference
> between real mustard cress and an adulterated product.
>

And I'd suggest that most people's contact with it is as an ingredient in a
pre-packaged Egg and Cress sandwich.


--
Alex

[John Briggs]

So they can't legally call it "Mustard and Cress" but they can call it
"Cress"?
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

Or "Spreadable Butter" which isn't butter.
--
John Briggs

[Janet]

In article <9vctak...@mid.individual.net>, u...@britwar.couk says...

>

> The correct packaging should read something along the lines of "Mixed
> Shoots"

I reckon any mention of gun violence might be as damaging to sales as
"rape".

Janet

[Judith]

I do not agree.

That is a poor analogy - tomato soup is by definition a mixture - and the
proportions could be anything.

Would it be OK to label a block of margarine as "Butter" - if it was only 20%
butter and 80% margarine?

What about a bag of apples which contained 2 apples and 8 pears?

Also - I bet if you ask people what would you expect a container of "salad
cress" to contain - then the answer would be cress. If you told then that it
was predominantly rapes-seed they would be most surprised.

Such things were often previously sold as "mustard and cress". The one in
question should be sold as "rape seed and cress".

[Adam Funk]

Well, "Rape and Cress" wouldn't sell well.

[John Briggs]

On 20/04/2012 14:40, Judith wrote:
>
> Such things were often previously sold as "mustard and cress". The one in
> question should be sold as "rape seed and cress".

"Rape seed" (rapeseed) refers to the seed - the plant is "Rape". It
should legally be sold as "Rape and Cress" - but do you see the problem?
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

Neither would "Adulterated Cress".
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

On 20/04/2012 15:15, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:55:03 +0100, "Periander"<u...@britwar.couk> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 20-Apr-2012, Janet<H...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The food is given its common identity name plus the contents are
>>> correctly listed on the label, compliant with food labelling legislation.
>>>
>>> No different from selling a carton labelled "tomato soup" whose accurate
>>> content list shows it contains more than tomatoes.
>>
>> I have to disagree, the main ingredient of tomato soup is tomatoes (or
>> possibly water if you buy a crap one). Not only that Tomato soup is a
>> prepared product. Cress isn't, it's a primary ingredient - if you have
>> something labeled as "Cress" the only ingredient should be cress.
>

> What is the definition or specification of this unique ingredient "cress"?

Lepidium sativum.
--
John Briggs

[Norman Wells]

Judith wrote:

> Also - I bet if you ask people what would you expect a container of
> "salad cress" to contain - then the answer would be cress.

That's because it's a leading question.

> If you
> told then that it was predominantly rapes-seed they would be most
> surprised.

They would be even more surprised, and may well reject it, if it was
100% cress. They want to be provided with what they expect to receive
when they ask for it, and that's not 100% cress, nor has it ever been.

It's like 'fried seaweed' in a Chinese restaurant, which is nothing of
the sort.

[John Briggs]

On 20/04/2012 16:30, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> Who defined cress as synonymous with garden cress a/k/a garden pepper cress?

As no other cress is in question, that is hardly the point.
--
John Briggs

[Roland Perry]

In message <hsm2p75c1nu3qndos...@4ax.com>, at 14:40:03 on
Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>That is a poor analogy - tomato soup is by definition a mixture - and the
>proportions could be anything.

But looking in the store earlier today, even the cheapest "Chopped
tomatoes" in tins were 60% tomatoes, in fact it was hard to find one
that wasn't exactly 60%. This makes me think there's some kind of rule
in play.

>Would it be OK to label a block of margarine as "Butter" - if it was only 20%
>butter and 80% margarine?

There's a whole range of butter-like products with a variety of names.

>What about a bag of apples which contained 2 apples and 8 pears?

But if it was "fruit", that'd be OK.

>Also - I bet if you ask people what would you expect a container of "salad
>cress" to contain - then the answer would be cress.

But perhaps people aren't clear that "cress" is a generic term, not just
one variety?

I saw a packet of "Salad leaves" for example, which I can't argue with
as a generic description.
--
Roland Perry

[John Briggs]

On 20/04/2012 14:40, Judith wrote:
>

> Would it be OK to label a block of margarine as "Butter" - if it was only 20%
> butter and 80% margarine?

You can label it "Spreadable butter" if it is only 50% butter.
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

On 20/04/2012 16:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> But perhaps people aren't clear that "cress" is a generic term, not just
> one variety?

It is being used as a generic terms for things which aren't cress.
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

And as for "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" - guess what?
--
John Briggs

[Roland Perry]

In message <DNfkr.300868$xD4....@fx06.am4>, at 17:05:10 on Fri, 20 Apr
2012, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:

>> But perhaps people aren't clear that "cress" is a generic term, not just
>> one variety?
>
>It is being used as a generic terms for things which aren't cress.

Things which aren't Lepidium sativum, perhaps.
--
Roland Perry

[John Briggs]

Or any other type of cress.
--
John Briggs

[Jon Ribbens]

It secretly actually is butter?

[Ian Smith]

That's begging the question (in the proper sense).

The supermarket HAS identified rape seed shoots as being 'salad
cress'.

Who identified 'salad cress' as being only Lepidium sativum, and are
they a higher authority than the organisation that is selling other
shoots as 'salad cress' and the compilers of the dictionary cited who
likewise don't confine it to a single species?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[John Briggs]

On 20/04/2012 17:05, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:45:03 +0100, John Briggs<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On 20/04/2012 16:30, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:55:02 +0100, John Briggs<john.b...@ntlworld.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2012 15:15, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the definition or specification of this unique
>>>>> ingredient "cress"?
>>>>
>>>> Lepidium sativum.
>>>
>>> Who defined cress as synonymous with garden cress a/k/a garden
>>> pepper cress?
>>
>> As no other cress is in question, that is hardly the point.
>
> That's begging the question (in the proper sense).
>
> The supermarket HAS identified rape seed shoots as being 'salad
> cress'.

No, it hasn't. It has identified as "Salad cress" something which is
only 20% cress. No-one has attempted to identify Rape as cress.

> Who identified 'salad cress' as being only Lepidium sativum, and are
> they a higher authority than the organisation that is selling other
> shoots as 'salad cress' and the compilers of the dictionary cited who
> likewise don't confine it to a single species?

The point is that they are not attempting to sell any other species of
cress as "Salad cress".
--
John Briggs

[Adam Funk]

"Adulterous Cress" might work in some circles.

[Adam Funk]

I can't believe that.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:55:02 +0100, John Briggs put finger to keyboard and

Yes, because young rapeseed shoots are cress in the culinary sense.

As I've said elsewhere, "cress" is a term with more than one meaning. It's
the common name for Lepidium sativum (which, in English, is more correctly
known as "Garden Cress" rather than just "cress", since there are other
cresses including Watercress, Indian Cress, Marsh Cress and Alpine Cress),
but it's also a generic term for the young shoots of many of the edible
Brassicaceae family. In the culinary, rather than botanic, sense it usually
means the latter, not least because all of them taste pretty similar anyway
when used as cress rather than as mature plants.

The main difference between Garden Cress and other plants used as cresses
(and, I suspect, the reason why "cress" is the generic term) is that,
unlike, say, Mustard and Rapeseed, Garden Cress has little to no value as a
mature plant - it produces no useful seeds (other than to produce more
cress plants), and becomes unpleasant to eat if allowed to grow beyond the
shoot stage. Other Brassicaceae, by contrast, are primarily used as mature
plants - Mustard produces, well, mustard, obviously, and Rapeseed is a
major source of vegetable oil - and their use as a salad cress is
secondary.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:40:03 +0100, Judith put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>

>Also - I bet if you ask people what would you expect a container of "salad
>cress" to contain - then the answer would be cress.

It does contain cress. It contains salad cress, which is not the same as
botanical cress. In fact, from a botanical perspective, there is no such
plant as just plain "cress".

"Salad cress" means, and always has meant, a mixture of young shoots from
various plants of the Brassicaceae family.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:45:03 +0100, Periander put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>On 20-Apr-2012, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> What most people call "cress" is a generic term for the young shoots of
>> fast-growing plants rather than specifically Lepidium sativum.
>

>At the risk of it being suggested that I'm a little argumentative I'm not
>sure that you can justify the "most people" comment, I'd suggest that most
>people's contact with cress is growing it themselves as a youngster or
>growing it with their youngsters and are very familiar with the difference
>between real mustard cress and an adulterated product.
"Mustard cress" isn't Lepidium sativum (aka "cress"). It's actually the
more traditional mixer with Lepidium sativum in a so-called "cress"
mixture. So what you thought was just plain cress was, in fact, a mixture
of mustard and cress.

To be even more pedantic, "mustard cress" simply means young shoots of
mustard. Botanically, there is no such plant as "mustard cress". What you
were growing was just plain mustard.

>Rapeseed shoots aren't cress so I'd be inclined to go with the misleading
>packaging argument.

It is potentially confusing that the word "cress" means both a specific
plant (Lepidium sativum) and the young shoots of a number of plants in the
Brassicaceae family, including mustard and rapeseed. But, in the salad
sense, it has always meant the latter. So there is nothing misleading about
the advertising.

[Janitor of Lunacy]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1bi3p7d079qjdqmcu...@news.markshouse.net...

But can you smoke it?

[Periander]

I'm going to put it down to a regional thing ... certainly in the NW when I
was young "cress" and "mustard" were two entirely different and specific
things (usually but not always) grown separately. I've seen the dictionary
definition posted by another poster and was really quite surprised.

--

All the best,

Periander

[Man at B&Q]

On Apr 20, 10:25 am, Max Demian <max_dem...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:40:10 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Judith" <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:0cp0p7pp3272t7vi9...@4ax.com...

>
> >> Well - not really - just a point of interest
>
> >> A local supermarket sells plastic containers with growing vegetable
> >> matter.
>
> >> The containers are labeled "Salad cress"
>
> >> The ingredients are then listed as "80% Rapeseed 20% cress"
>
> >> Trading standards say there is nothing wrong with this?
>
> >> Is that correct? - it seems quite wrong to me.
>
> >> (PS I'm not really bothered  - just interested;  and the egg and rapeseed
> >> sandwich was beautiful)
>

> >Maybe the supermarkets are somehow embarrassed to use the word "rapeseed".
>
> They obviously are, as rapeseed oil is just called "cooking oil"
> whereas others are "sunflower oil", "corn oil" &c.

Actually, it *is* sold as rapeseed oil. Just check the shelves in any
supermarket.

MBQ

[Syd Rumpo]

On 20/04/2012 17:05, John Briggs wrote:

I don't believe that's true now. I've noticed that 'Spreadable Butter'
is much harder to find than it was a couple of years ago, and that
several products that were called such are now just called,
'Spreadable', that is, without the reference to butter.

'Anchor Spreadable Butter' became 'Anchor Spreadable' seemingly
overnight and with no other change to the packaging. Most of these
products seemed to be butter with vegetable oil, whereas the only
products labelled 'Spreadable Butter' I see now are just butter.

I can't believe I've just spent five minutes of my life writing that.

Cheers
--
Syd

[John Briggs]

On 24/04/2012 13:15, Syd Rumpo wrote:
> On 20/04/2012 17:05, John Briggs wrote:
>> On 20/04/2012 14:40, Judith wrote:
>>>
>>> Would it be OK to label a block of margarine as "Butter" - if it was
>>> only 20%
>>> butter and 80% margarine?
>>
>> You can label it "Spreadable butter" if it is only 50% butter.
>
> I don't believe that's true now. I've noticed that 'Spreadable Butter'
> is much harder to find than it was a couple of years ago, and that
> several products that were called such are now just called,
> 'Spreadable', that is, without the reference to butter.
>
> 'Anchor Spreadable Butter' became 'Anchor Spreadable' seemingly
> overnight and with no other change to the packaging. Most of these
> products seemed to be butter with vegetable oil, whereas the only
> products labelled 'Spreadable Butter' I see now are just butter.

You are mistaken on the latter point - 'Spreadable Butter' has never
been "just butter". No spreadable butter (then called 'softer butter')
appears to be now on sale.

You are quite correct that 'Spreadable Butter' is now called
'Spreadable'. It will be interesting to see if the percentage of butter
will now fall below 50%.
--
John Briggs

[Syd Rumpo]

On 24/04/2012 17:25, John Briggs wrote:
> On 24/04/2012 13:15, Syd Rumpo wrote:
>> On 20/04/2012 17:05, John Briggs wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2012 14:40, Judith wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Would it be OK to label a block of margarine as "Butter" - if it was
>>>> only 20%
>>>> butter and 80% margarine?
>>>
>>> You can label it "Spreadable butter" if it is only 50% butter.
>>
>> I don't believe that's true now. I've noticed that 'Spreadable Butter'
>> is much harder to find than it was a couple of years ago, and that
>> several products that were called such are now just called,
>> 'Spreadable', that is, without the reference to butter.
>>
>> 'Anchor Spreadable Butter' became 'Anchor Spreadable' seemingly
>> overnight and with no other change to the packaging. Most of these
>> products seemed to be butter with vegetable oil, whereas the only
>> products labelled 'Spreadable Butter' I see now are just butter.
>
> You are mistaken on the latter point - 'Spreadable Butter' has never
> been "just butter". No spreadable butter (then called 'softer butter')
> appears to be now on sale.

I've just checked the 'fridge before I challenge you to a duel, and see
that you're right. What I have is indeed 'Softer Butter' (M&S) which is
just butter, the only added ingredient being salt. There are others, I
think Kerrygold make one too.

> You are quite correct that 'Spreadable Butter' is now called
> 'Spreadable'. It will be interesting to see if the percentage of butter
> will now fall below 50%.

I can't believe it wouldn't be better.
--
Syd

[John Briggs]

On 24/04/2012 18:05, Syd Rumpo wrote:
> On 24/04/2012 17:25, John Briggs wrote:
>> On 24/04/2012 13:15, Syd Rumpo wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2012 17:05, John Briggs wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2012 14:40, Judith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it be OK to label a block of margarine as "Butter" - if it was
>>>>> only 20%
>>>>> butter and 80% margarine?
>>>>
>>>> You can label it "Spreadable butter" if it is only 50% butter.
>>>
>>> I don't believe that's true now. I've noticed that 'Spreadable Butter'
>>> is much harder to find than it was a couple of years ago, and that
>>> several products that were called such are now just called,
>>> 'Spreadable', that is, without the reference to butter.
>>>
>>> 'Anchor Spreadable Butter' became 'Anchor Spreadable' seemingly
>>> overnight and with no other change to the packaging. Most of these
>>> products seemed to be butter with vegetable oil, whereas the only
>>> products labelled 'Spreadable Butter' I see now are just butter.
>>
>> You are mistaken on the latter point - 'Spreadable Butter' has never
>> been "just butter". No spreadable butter (then called 'softer butter')
>> appears to be now on sale.
>
> I've just checked the 'fridge before I challenge you to a duel, and see
> that you're right. What I have is indeed 'Softer Butter' (M&S) which is
> just butter, the only added ingredient being salt. There are others, I
> think Kerrygold make one too.

It was very good, but they've stopped - they now do a 'Spreadable'
(55%). If they are still making a 'Softer Butter' for M&S, I'd stock up
on it while it's still available.
--
John Briggs

[pensive hamster]

On Apr 23, 12:50 pm, "Man at B&Q" <manatba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]

>
> > >Maybe the supermarkets are somehow embarrassed to use the word "rapeseed".
>
> > They obviously are, as rapeseed oil is just called "cooking oil"
> > whereas others are "sunflower oil", "corn oil" &c.
>
> Actually, it *is* sold as rapeseed oil. Just check the shelves in any
> supermarket.
>

Rapeseed oil has become quite trendy in certain quarters. Even my
local Sainsburys offers several brands of cold-pressed rapeseed oil.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/5407832/The-rapeseed-revolution.html
The rapeseed revolution
Jun 2009

It's that time of year when fields across Britain glow dandelion-
yellow with rapeseed, the fragrant and familiar crop that is an
irritant to hay fever sufferers and farmers alike. What was once grown
merely as a "break" crop – used to suppress weeds and improve soil
quality in fallow times, and fit only for animal feed – is now gaining
a certain culinary respectability.

When cold-pressed, rapeseed provides a cooking oil with a grassy,
"green" taste. Thanks to some eye-catching health properties, it also
makes for a fitter fry-up. Little wonder, then, that homegrown
rapeseed has been dubbed "the British olive oil".

There are various well-known converts to the rapeseed revolution.
Chefs James Martin, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Tristan Welch are
devotees of its gentle, almost dusty flavours. It is the oil of choice
in the kitchens of The Dorchester, Le Manoir aux Quat' Saisons and the
House of Lords. But where rapeseed oil was once only available in
delis and Fortnum & Mason, it is now widely stocked in supermarkets.

Apart from its local provenance, rapeseed oil's big selling point, say
converts, is its health-giving properties. As with olive oil, rapeseed
oil contains Omegas 3, 6 and 9, essential fatty acids known to reduce
cholesterol and maintain heart health, joint mobility and brain
function. It is also a rich, natural source of vitamin E. High in mono-
unsaturated fats, it is one of the few unblended oils that can be
heated to deep-frying temperature without its antioxidants, character,
colour and flavour spoiling. In short, it is one of best "good" oils.
[...]

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

> Maybe the supermarkets are somehow embarrassed to use the word
> "rapeseed".

In the USA that problem is avoided by calling it Canola, coming from
"Canadian Oil Low Acid."

___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-04-25, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

> "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>> Maybe the supermarkets are somehow embarrassed to use the word
>> "rapeseed".
>
> In the USA that problem is avoided by calling it Canola, coming from
> "Canadian Oil Low Acid."

Even if it's not grown or pressed in Canada?

[David D S]

John Briggs wrote:

> On 20/04/2012 17:05, John Briggs wrote:
> > On 20/04/2012 14:40, Judith wrote:
> > >
> > > Would it be OK to label a block of margarine as "Butter" - if it
> > > was only 20%
> > > butter and 80% margarine?
> >
> > You can label it "Spreadable butter" if it is only 50% butter.
>
> And as for "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" - guess what?

Having used that once, I suggest a more accurate name might be:
"Oh my God! It's Yellow Lard!"

--
David D S: UK and PR China. (Native BrEng speaker)
Use Reply-To header for email. This email address will be
valid for at least 2 weeks from 2012/4/27 22:12:11

[John Briggs]

On 27/04/2012 15:15, David D S wrote:
> John Briggs wrote:
>
>> On 20/04/2012 17:05, John Briggs wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2012 14:40, Judith wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Would it be OK to label a block of margarine as "Butter" - if it
>>>> was only 20%
>>>> butter and 80% margarine?
>>>
>>> You can label it "Spreadable butter" if it is only 50% butter.
>>
>> And as for "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" - guess what?
>
> Having used that once, I suggest a more accurate name might be:
> "Oh my God! It's Yellow Lard!"

2% Buttermilk.
--
John Briggs