« first day (2093 days earlier)      last day (1206 days later) » 

12:41 AM
I have a question about whether something would be on topic
I'm curious if any dishes contain an actual poison as an ingredient. It may qualify as an ingredients question, but it also seems like it might be fishing.
12:53 AM
Not so much ingredients that happen to contain trace amounts, though that might count as well.
@JoelHarmon I think you might want to refine it a bit?
If it's a poison even after it's cooked, it obviously won't work, so the only way it works is if it's something that stops being poisonous when cooked.
And at that point... I dunno, it's sort of a reasonable thing to ask, but it's also very list-y.
There are definitely foods that are unsafe to eat uncooked.
Q: Are nectarine seeds edible?

RayEating a nectarine this afternoon, I found the pit was cracked open. Curious, I broke it apart and found an almond-like seed (or nut?) inside. I remember hearing that some almonds, or perhaps their relatives (stone fruit?), may be poisonous in their natural form. Do nectarines fall into that ca...

Taro and kidney beans are the other common examples I know.
Do those count as "an actual poison as an ingredient"?
1:10 AM
it's a hypothetical question; I was leaning more toward "technically a poison on its own, but diluted to safe levels"
the original inspiration is this comment
Oh, diluted to safe levels seems really common...
Vitamin A poisoning is a thing; you can overdose on liver.
Yeah, now I'm running into the problem of being able to overdose/underdose on pretty much anything, including water
Probably some of the things I listed earlier still have some amount of bad stuff in them even when normally prepared, just not enough to cause problems.
I mean, water's a little extreme, you have to put some effort into it. But yeah, there are plenty of things where if you ate a day's worth of calories of just that, it'd probably be bad.
I'm leaning toward this not making a good question because it's too poorly defined
no matter how interesting it might be
A: What rules should I follow for improvised food recipes that aren't dangerous?

rackandbonemanIngredient combinations are rarely a problem. Mishandling ingredients could in some cases cause trouble: -Putting anything that isn't supposed to be consumed raw, due to being unsanitary when raw (mostly animal derived ingredients - eg non-sushi grade fish, pork, chicken), on the plate raw. -Pu...

You might be interested in the second bullet there.
Q: Are there food combinations that are dangerous?

Strategy ThinkerIs there a combination of ingredients that will chemically interact to create poison? I am interested in whether this possible with any common preparation method (e.g. via cooking, blending, whisking, microwaving) but not by burning the food or leaving the food out to be contaminated by bacteria...

Sort of a converse thing, you can't put non-poison and non-poison together to get poison (although the OP framed it as asking for cases where it does become harmful, and accepted a bit of a corner case as an answer).
1:31 AM
thanks for helping scratch an itch, @Jefromi
not exactly what I was looking for, but I was expecting a negative anyway
4 hours later…
5:51 AM
@JoelHarmon The problem with every poison is dose. Many substances occur naturally, especially in plants, that our digestive system can easily handle if the amount consumed is small enough. And "small enough" van actually be pretty much, as I described here for caffeine. Similar rules apply for bitter almonds (marzipan), oxalic acid (unboiled, e.g. in sorrel), coumarin (tonka bean, ...
... woodruff or cinamon). And the effects are gradually, see the coffee example: from being slightly jittery to keeling over is quite some distance. Or woodruff - most experience a serious hangover, not coma. Typically official agencies give a tolerable daily intake.
So I'm with you and @Jefromi here, while an interesting topic, probably not a good question for the site.
5 hours later…
11:23 AM
@Stephie thanks for the confirmation
3 hours later…
2:47 PM
@Stephie Hi. I prefer no to post images of the wedding cake! They didn't look as good as expected
2 hours later…
4:36 PM
@Gigili you made a wedding cake? Cool.
4:56 PM
Look everyone! My team raised $2240! Our fundraising goal was $2000! Wooo
@Gigili what flavor/frosting did you end up doing?
1 hour later…
6:16 PM
@Jay Congrats! Great job!
6:29 PM
@Jay well done!
6:55 PM
And my vacation starts tomorrow!
Good times good times!
7:06 PM
@Jay Did you see my comment before you edited? :)
There's also unfortunately an opinion-based aspect here: anything remotely to do with definitions of terms will pretty reliably attract quibbling about definitions rather than anything useful about actual food. — Jefromi ♦ 3 hours ago
Is the edit intended to make it on topic?
oops i didnt sorry lol
Dunno, it certainly makes it better.
@Jay It's fine, I dunno if it's too opinion-based.
Happy to see what folks think.
I still think we have no idea what the definition of "bread" is.
Are crackers bread?
Okay maybe I was right about the problem :)
There's that discussion that happens pretty much every time; in this case it would be "can you call stuff sandwiched inside X a sandwich" vs "does 'a sandwich' without context imply just bread or could it also be X?"
People will naturally use familiar terms to describe things they don't normally describe, and that doesn't mean the definition has been expanded.
7:13 PM
Sure... I could put a "sandwich" between two pieces of lettuce and still say it's a "sandwich".
... or between two pieces of deep-fried chicken...
Maybe in this case it's kind of a non-issue though because basically anything can go inside a sandwich, so "X Y Z sandwich" always implies "X Y Z inside bread" not "X Y inside Z".
Unlike this one:
Q: Pumpkin carpaccio: correct use of the name

Marc LuxenIN my view, carpaccio is thinly sliced beef, nothing else. But now, it seem OK to serve salmon carpaccio, or even, as I recently saw, pumpkin carpaccio. Am I to assume that everything thinly sliced and spreaded on a plate can be called a carpaccio nowadays? Can I expect, say, cheese cake carpacci...

I think it's funny that Wikipedia calls the Double Down a "pseudo-sandwich".
7:30 PM
aha official terminology
> A sandwich is a food item consisting of one or more types of food, such as vegetables, sliced cheese or meat, placed on or between slices of bread, or more generally any dish wherein two or more pieces of bread serve as a container or wrapper for some other food.
So, Wikipedia would argue that, without "bread", there is no sandwich.
1 hour later…
9:00 PM
Schlagrahm Rahm ?
If we're talking about cream, there's a list of the kinds in US and UK here: cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/784/…
No idea if that covers what you need for German though.
(also, isn't Schlagrahm Rahm "whipped cream cream"?)
@Jefromi Dunno... I used the Switzerland section of the chart on Wikipedia... I have no clue what it means. :D en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream#Switzerland but 35% is about 36%, which is what Heavy whipping cream is in the US.
@Catija I think you're reading multiple terms at once there.
It's saying there are four words: Vollrahm, Schlagrahm, Rahm, and Sahne.
... There's three listed, so I grabbed the one in the middle. The French and Italian ones are easier.
Ah, that makes more sense.
The odd thing is that slagroom sometimes means whipped cream, sometimes unwhipped cream.
It really makes no sense to me.
Perhaps I should ask a Question.
9:08 PM
Is it maybe that it's both whipping cream and whipped cream?
Umm possibly!
Hmmmm... Yeah, we usually call it "heavy whipping cream" in the liquid form and "whipped cream" in the solid form.
And whipping cream is cream that can be whipped?
... well, unless it went all the way to butter.
9:08 PM
I can see that kind of thing getting mixed up in language.
But can't all normal creams be whipped?
It has to be enough fat, so not all creams work.
Shops here sell only sour cream and crème fraîche as alternatives.
All other creamy products can be whipped.
"cream" as a category doesn't really include sour cream or creme fraiche.
Indeed, I would not normally call those creams.
9:10 PM
The minimum fat content to whip is something like 30%.
But all other products in a shop with "cream" on then can be whipped.
They can here.
@Cerberus We have a variety... half and half... which isn't really "cream"... "light cream"... "light whipping cream"... and "heavy whipping cream"... or something like that... all I ever buy here is heavy whipping cream
Or I must never have noticed them.
9:11 PM
Okay, well, we're speaking in English right now.
but I would be surprised if it's impossible to buy light/single cream there.
I was talking about slagroom and why it was called that.
Perhaps it is a relict.
Do you know what percentage it is?
Yes, so I don't know what the Dutch or German for UK single cream/US light cream is.
@Catija Hmm interesting, I've never seen anything other than whippable creams here!
Let me check...
But that Switzerland table has Halbrahm and Kaffeerahm at 15-25% and 15%, so they can't be whipped.
Dutch wiki says they exist too:
Room bestaat uit melkvet en kleine hoeveelheden van andere koemelkbestanddelen. De melk wordt afgeroomd en de verkregen room wordt veel gebruikt bij het maken van toetjes en taarten. Melkvet bevat voor 60% aan verzadigde vetten. Volgens de Nederlandse Warenwet moet room uit koemelk worden bereid, waarna door verhoging van het vetgehalte een vloeibaar of dikvloeibaar zuivelproduct wordt verkregen. Het vetgehalte van room moet ten minste 10% bedragen. In ruimere zin kunnen veel voedingsmiddelen die hetzelfde mondgevoel geven, ook omschreven worden als romig of met fantasievarianten op room, zoals...
> Koffieroom: 15% vetgehalte
> Room: 20% vetgehalte (o.a. zure room).
So plain "room" is actually not whippable.
9:13 PM
So, kaffeerahm is probably half and half...
@Catija Yeah, half and half is apparently 10.5%-18%.
That makes sense because I'm guessing there's a relation between kaffee and coffee?
I see 30% and 35%.
Also just FYI if you go to Canada it's all different from the US, so... be careful.
And I think the predominant use of half and half is in beverages.
9:15 PM
The only kind of room that are below 30% seem to be "diet cream", which...seems crazy.
@Jefromi That's odd, because it's just not sold here. That I have ever seen.
Well, so if they never sell the lower-fat ones, then yes, all your cream can be whipped.
Is it possible the "diet" part is a rebranding?
"diet cream" would probably be about the same thing as "light cream"... They also sell some sort of magical "non-fat cream"... product? No way I can actually call that cream, though.
I guess koffieroom is sold. But that is meant for coffee, so I don't think anyone would try to whip that.
@Jefromi I've never seen just "cream" in any any shop that was below 30%.
@Catija Yeah, not cream, but the packaging often looks pretty similar so I can imagine someone not realizing and trying to whip it.
9:18 PM
I've only seen things that normal people would not buy, like diet cream or coffee cream, below 30%.
@Catija Haha, fat free, even.
Half and half isn't bad... I used to use it in my coffee before I was banned from drinking caffeine.
They're not even allowed to call it cream?
I suppose if there is no fat in it, it can't be cream?
Half-and-half isn't called cream to begin with.
The top one has fat.
We don't say half-and-half cream, we just say half-and-half.
Top one?
I don't think I've ever tasted dairy products with all the fat removed.
I...like fat, I must admit.
9:21 PM
The first of the two pictures, the one that just says "half-and-half".
all the fat removed (skim milk) is pretty obviously watery, but half-and-half still has plenty of thickness/richness from the fat.
I had cross-domain content blocked for that, so I only saw it when I clicked it.
Oh, it didn't imgur it, I see.
I have allowed SE-to-Amazon for this session.
So anyway, everyone who just buys "cream" here comes home with 30–35%.
So I guess calling that "slagroom" is kind of left over from when lighter creams were still sold as "cream" and used as a general-purpose cream.
Ohhh I get a tax return from HM Revenue & Customs‏.
Kookroom...that means "cooking cream". But I don't think normal people would buy it.
It comes in a plastic bottle and is far more expensive.
I guess those have starch added for thickness, but it does say room on the label.
I dunno, I haven't searched thoroughly, it's more time-consuming in a language I don't speak, but it does look like some of these things exist there, whether or not you think people buy them.
I honestly have no idea who buys which kinds of cream here, but the store sells them, so I assume some people buy all of them.
Yes, well, it says "kookroom" and "room culinair", not just "room" or some other label that means it's general-purpose cream.
Okay, and "light cream" says "light cream" not just "cream".
9:32 PM
...but people would still say it's "cream".
Same way they would say "heavy cream" is "cream".
So by "room" everybody thinks only of the normal, general-purpose kinds of cream, that are all 30+.
You could be right.
Not here, nobody would think you wanted anything but general-purpose cream if you asked them to buy "room".
Unless there are some crazies somewhere that I've never met...
"Light cream" still means it's not meant for one specific purpose, right?
I'd think more about people who are clueless rather than crazy :P
None of them have a specific purpose just from the name.
9:34 PM
I can completely imagine my calorie conscious mom buying light cream and assuming it would whip if a recipe didn't specifically call for "heavy whipping cream".
Specific enough.
I mean, you can't whip light cream, half and half is for coffee mostly, and sometimes heavy cream will say heavy whipping cream for emphasis, but... it's all cream.
Yes, diet or cooking or coffee, that's what I meant by "not general-purpose".
What does general purpose mean, then?
Can be whipped?
Because suitable for cooking or coffee sounds pretty general to me.
Can be used for anything, "normal cream".
@Jefromi OR, not AND.
9:36 PM
20% works fine for cooking and coffee.
But I guess I now have an idea of why it's sometimes called slagroom, because people probably used lighter cream sometimes for things that we now normally use 30% cream for.
Won't whip, not good for philadelphia-style ice cream, but probably fine for anything else you'd use cream for.
Yeah. Soups don't really need heavy cream.
@Jefromi Ah, but it says coffee cream, so you're not allowed to cook with it!
Particularly if they have other thickeners.
@Cerberus Huh? Why not?
9:38 PM
So if you don't ever make whipped cream or philadelphia-style ice cream (plenty of people don't) then light cream might well be a better general-purpose cream than heavy cream.
Or are you just being pedantic?
Because they want you to buy a new bottle for that! It's market differentiation, baby.
@Catija I think he's joking, though the ones I had found were cooking cream not coffee cream.
Those non-general-purpose names are probably intended for market differentiation. Although they've probably added something to each non-general-purpose cream that makes it less suitable for certain used. Like the starch in "cooking cream" and maybe coffee flavour in coffee cream.
I know I hated coffee cream as a child. I think it tastes a bit like coffee.
Flavored creams here are usually clearly marked as being flavored or sweetened.
9:40 PM
This "cooking cream" doesn't clearly say it contains starches.
That label seems clear?
Yes? "Vanilla Caramel Cream" sounds pretty clear to me.
Hmm it seems there's "coffee milk" and "coffee cream".
10:05 PM
Woah... one rep user came back after a year and edited a post... how crazy... cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52231/…
Still doesn't actually answer the question... but... whatever.
At least it looks slightly better.
Haha, yes.
11:12 PM
@Catija There's actually an answer buried near the end, and I guess the rest of the answer is "here's the closest you can come"
Is there? The closest I can see is a couple of admonitions to not use enameled but not any explanation why.
okay not an explained answer but a "no"
I think the reason is implied - there's crazy heating.
So... heating = bad for enamel?
I don't really use enameled cookware much, so I'm not that familiar with it.
I guess that's what Joe's answer says, essentially.
excessive heating I guess, yeah
I'm fixing up the answer more, because ughhh
I do have an enameled dutch oven but it's matte black on the outside, so only the inside is enameled... and it's black, so most of the concerns that Joe lays out may not apply?
It's also oval, which is not a great shape for stir-frying.
@Jefromi You are a saint. The crazy caps and the weird use of other forms of emphasis are really... meh.
And the abbreviation of "D-O".
11:18 PM
Yeah I took pretty much all of that out.
I left a little italics but eh, not every key phrase actually needs that much emphasis.
because emphasis is like superheroes
and bonus, I added a tl;dr
So... phone numbers in questions/answers are bad, right...?
@Catija Yeah, should be edited out.
Both as a favor to the user and to remove unnecessary bits of posts (like you'd remove a signature).
The whole answer is trash, so I was hoping it'd just get deleted but I think the M&TV mods are doing something else. It's been flagged but I didn't think about just deleting the phone numbers... not sure why.
11:29 PM
I see. If it weren't a bad answer from a new user, you could let them know they can put whatever contact info they like in their profile (just not in posts) but sounds like probably not worth it in that case.
okay now that is a VLQ answer.
actually incomprehensible
The one you're talking about.
Oh, you went to go and see? HA HA... yeah, it's bad.
The ET question, right?

« first day (2093 days earlier)      last day (1206 days later) »