Council cooking advice

[Gob]

Furious fish shop owners have slammed a council after it spent £3,000 of taxpayers' cash on a guide on how to make their chips.







The six-page document goes into minute detail on how thick each chip should be, as well as recommending exact temperatures for frying and informing workers that fries should be 'golden' in colour.

Chippie owners criticised Cheltenham Borough Council bureaucrats for the guide, calling it patronising and unnecessary.

James Ritchie, 28, who owns Simpsons Fish and Chips in the Gloucestershire town, said: 'We try really hard to make sure we know these things anyway.

'We have our food nutritionally tested so for us this would not be a good experience for us.

'I would go to the National Federation of Fish Friers for advice and not the council. They couldn't tell us anything. There is nothing they could tell us that we don't already know.'

Gloucestershire County Council has allocated £40,000 to Cheltenham Borough Council to fund health improvement schemes in 2013/14 and 2014/15.

The guide says: 'By shaking the chips and banging the wire scoop several times, you can reduce fat absorption by 20% and make your chips crisper.

'This is because chips carry on absorbing fat after they come out of the fryer.

'If you bang and shake you’ll use less oil, need to top up less often, and need to empty the drain in the chip box less often.'

Just over £20,000 has been awarded to five projects in the town this year - including the so-called 'healthy chip' scheme, which costs £3,000.

It is hoped that the scheme will help reduce the amount of oil absorbed into deep fried foods, consequently reducing obesity levels in low-income areas.

A spokesman for the TaxPayers' Alliance branded the guide a 'ludicrous' move.

He said: 'When we're trying to make savings it beggars belief the council is doing takeaway training.

'The idea that it's appropriate to spend taxpayers' money telling chip shop owners how to cut chips is just ludicrous.

'They must think again - even the beneficiaries of this bizarre scheme don't seem particularly keen on it.

'If the Council wants people in low-income areas to be able to buy healthier, but often more expensive, food it should think about cutting council tax.'

Fish and chips became a stock meal among the working classes in the United Kingdom as a consequence of the rapid development of trawl fishing in the North Sea, and the development of railways which connected the ports to major industrial cities during the second half of the 19th century, which meant that fresh fish could be rapidly transported to the heavily populated areas.

Deep-fried fish was first introduced into Britain during the 16th century by Jewish refugees from Portugal and Spain, and is derived from pescado frito. In 1860, the first fish and chip shop was opened in London by Joseph Malin.
Fish and chips in Brighton, England

Deep-fried chips (slices or pieces of potato) as a dish may have first appeared in Britain in about the same period: the Oxford English Dictionary notes as its earliest usage of "chips" in this sense the mention in Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities (published in 1859): "Husky chips of potatoes, fried with some reluctant drops of oil".

[MajGenl.Meade]

So, how does one cook a council?

[Lord Jim]

So, how does one cook a council?

"Fried, parboiled or fricassee..."

[rubato]

Is anything less enthusiastically received than useful information?








yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Is anything less enthusiastically received than useful information?

Well, if one were to go by the epic fail of all the efforts that have been made to educate you here over the years, the answer to that question would clearly be a resounding "no"...

But that's probably an atypical example....

[Big RR]

Other than the use of sunflower or rapeseed (canola) oil (I honestly don't recall what the oil was, but it was stable to continued heating at 350F), we did every one of these things when I was the cook in a restaurant during high school/college. It's pretty standard restaurant practice; not sure what cost the 3000 pounds; perhaps the printing?

[Gob]

Probably the printing and distrubtion. Teaching Grandma how to suck eggs isn't cheap.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't believe we're on the eve of distrubtion.

[Gob]

Piss off! I'm glad we beat you yesterday!!

[rubato]

Probably the printing and distrubtion. Teaching Grandma how to suck eggs isn't cheap.

Grandma wasn't morbidly obese. The grandkids are and their kids will be even more so with inaction.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

The grandkids are and their kids will be even more so with inaction.

Oh my, is that a tiny 40 watt light bulb I see finally starting to glow dimly over your head?

Yes, the primary explanation for the increase in obesity in our society is the decrease in physical activity, both among children and adults...

Not "food is too cheap"....

Congratulations on finally getting the right end of the stick for once


ETA:

Oh wait a minute...

It just occurred to me that your use of the word "inaction" might not have been your inartful way of acknowledging the bleeding obvious...

You might have been referring to something stupid like government "inaction" for failing to make food more expensive...

Please tell me that my initial optimistic interpretation was the correct one...

[rubato]

Still trying to beat that dead horse?


Evidence already presented shows that cheap calories are an, and likely the most, important driver of obesity. I won't repeat it for you. Someone who cites a tobacco company shill over the CDC is too stupid to argue with.



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Oh damn...

I'd hoped for the best, and once again I was disappointed...

ETA:

Of course anyone hoping that logic, knowledge, and common sense might somehow burrow its way into rube's wee small brain was setting themselves up for failure and disappointment from the outset...

After 15 years, I really should have known this...

But what can I say...despite all evidence to the contrary, I remain an eternal optimist....

[Daisy]

It depends on what you think is cheap.

From my limited experience in Florida you can get high calorie fast food extremely cheaply in the USA (two high calorie burgers for five dollars in checkers drive thru), and good healthy food can be hard to find in the supermarkets at a reasonable price.

And nobody walks anywhere.

You're both right. Not that either of you would ever agree that

[Lord Jim]

You're both right. Not that either of you would ever agree that

I really find any attempt to create some sort of "equivalence" between myself and the rube thing to be so vile and disgusting that it is beneath comment...

Anyone who would attempt to make such a comparison, really ought to re-think the way their brain works...

[MajGenl.Meade]

LJ, what mythical "equivalence" demands an attack on Daisy?

She said (and she's right) that both you and rubato have made valid points - and both are correct. Your respective viewpoints are not at all "equivalent" in content. He concentrates on the long-term effect of unhealthy food choices - you speak of unhealthy (non) exercise as a driver. Both those views are correct in themselves without one being exclusive of the other. Do you really not see that?

Second - she says (and she's correct) that you probably will not agree that you're both right. And that rubato will probably not agree that you're both right. You have certainly proved her point as to yourself. (I would regard any attempt by rubato at this point to pretend agreement as self-serving).

And you describe her perfectly reasonable comment as "vile", "disgusting", "beneath comment" (and yet you comment in detail of course), and she needs to rethink the way (their) brain works?

I think your post is unpleasantly abusive and you should apologise to the lady. In the meantime I'm rethinking the way my brain works.

[Lord Jim]

I apologize for some of the language I used responding to Daisy, but I get cranky whenever I see what looks like some sort of equivalence comparison between me and that moron...

You're both right. Not that either of you would ever agree that

That's simply wrong. I do not have regarding rube, (as rube does regarding me) some sort of neurotic insecurity that makes it impossible for me to acknowledge when I believe he is right about something. I've admitted to agreeing with him many, many times. (A courtesy which of course he is too much of a boorish clod to have ever extended to me.)

That comment of Daisy's which I quoted seemed to me to imply that rube and I are somehow equally pigheaded about acknowledging validity in each others positions. That is false. Rube wins that contest by many laps.

If that wasn't what she intended to imply, then I will apologize not just for some of the language I used but also for the substance of the criticism.

In this specific case, here again is what he originally said:

Food is too cheap and that is the most important driver of the obesity epidemic

There's no way I'm going to agree that he's "right" about that, because that statement is not just wrong, it is wrong to the point of being laughably ignorant. I'm not going to acknowledge that statement to be correct, not because I can't bring myself to admit when rube is right out of some sort of stubborn obstinance, but because it has the same level of ignorance and stupidity attached to it as "the Poles weren't victims of the Nazis" or "seal barking is an unusual event."

The most "important driver" for the obesity epidemic, is as I have pointed out, the decline in the amount of exercise that Americans get. The two track perfectly, and not coincidentally they also track with the increase in the availability of electronic gadgets and diversions over the past 20 years.

There is no such correlation between the obesity epidemic and "cheap" food. There are some primitive societies where food is cheap to the point of being free and plentiful. And yet you don't see a lot of fat people in those societies because they don't sit around on their asses all day...

In the US, food has been relatively cheap and plentiful in most places at most times throughout most of American history. Certainly this has been true throughout the seven decades since WW II, and yet for most of that time there was no obesity epidemic.

If one wishes to accurately describe something as "the most important driver" for a given phenomena, one must isolate it as the variable, and demonstrate a correlation. (A real scientist would probably know that.) "Food is too cheap" simply doesn't work.

In addition to lack of exercise, there are some secondary factors, such as lack of availability of more nutritious options in some cases, (or situations where more nutritious options are too expensive; the exact opposite of what rube is gibbering ignorantly about) or lack of education about foods that are better choices.

But "food is too cheap" doesn't even make the list of secondary causes. It's just mindless idiocy.

[MajGenl.Meade]

A gracious response

[oldr_n_wsr]

As far as I can remember, food has always been relatively cheap. What I do see a differnce in (aside from less excercise) is the availability of cheap, less healthy food choices. I remember back in the 60's to late 70's there being about 1 McD's in a 10 mile radius, maybe 1 BK in a 20 mile radius and no Wendys, checkers or Taco bells (or any other fast food resurants). There was one Jack in the box, but I never encountered another in Nassua County.
Now there are two of each of those in a 5-10 mile radius (although not so many JITB), pretty much everywhere on the island. MAkes the choices for dinner more in line with less healthy (fatty). Someone drivng home after work is tired and is debating whether to cook a healthier meal is overwhelmingly tempted by the many fast food places he/she passes on their way home. They end up deciding they are too tired to cook and roll into MC'ds (or any other FF place).
Easier, more convenient and damn the fat. (and don't forget to "supersize" that meal, no one can not finish a large fries from McD's)
It's probably mnore expensive than cooking ones own meal, but if you add in the time it takes to make that meal, it evens out a bit. Especially when one has things to do before or after dinner.

And yes, obesety has definately grown since more electronic "distractions" have become more ingrained in our culture. But I think the availability of fast food has grown in a similar timeline. Both contribute.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Now that I think about it, "cheap" electronics is a factor too. If games and internet and cell phones were more expensive, fewer people (kids) would have them and have to go outside and play tag or spud or any other physical games rather than sit inside and give their thumbs a workout.