undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjhbadger8y ago0 comments

That's just an arbitrary distinction to avoid calling things "margarine". Margarine had a bad reputation in the UK as something only poor people eat. In other places like the US it doesn't have this stigma and so people feel fine referring to it without euphemisms like "spread".

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

PaulRobinson8y ago· 2 in thread

It's not just a semantic difference, it's normally a chemical one, and even in the US, very much a legal one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margarine

The EU has very strict definitions of this, and in the UK (for health reasons I expect), there is no market appetite for a spread that contains partially hydrogenated oils.

In the US, regulations are much more lax and substances that are considered unfit for mass market consumption in Europe (typically for health concerns), such as trans fats, are widely available in the US.

You can dress this up as a "stigma" or a "euphemism", but I call it reasonable consumer protection law.

mrob8y ago

Partially hydrogenated oils or trans fats are not required for a spread to be legally considered margarine. It's possible to make margarine without them. See https://alphaalgae.wikispaces.com/file/view/trans+fat+reduct...

The labeling requirement is theoretically protecting consumers from being ripped off by paying for water when they were expecting fat, but the manufacturers have convinced consumers this is actually a good thing ("reduced fat"). The real reason all spreads in the UK now have <80% fat is most likely cost reduction.

PaulRobinson8y ago

Will everybody on HN please stop assuming the "law" is as it is in their local jurisdiction, and why posting a technical industry article on different fats is meant to convince me I'm wrong in establishing that in the UK (the country in which this thread's food is considered), there are specific terms used for specific products, I can't fathom.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse