Going Nuts over NIST’s Standard Reference Peanut Butter (2016)
nist.gov
nist.gov
https://www.nist.gov/image/cigarettes-lab
https://www.nist.gov/fire/history/standard-reference-cigaret...
And then if you outlawed vapes then I'm sure there's still some other fire hazard to worry about and they would modify the tests again.
https://www.parent.com/blogs/conversations/2023-why-are-we-a...
Your use of the phrase "moral panic" in this context is ironically in support of a moral panic about the dangers of fabric flame retardants.
Here you go, buddy:
> [Referring to a Gene Autry costume that had over 100 lawsuits over the burn victims] The cowboy suit and other similar incidents were the impetus for the 1953 passage of the Flammable Fabrics Act, which regulated, among other things, which fabrics could be used for clothing. No more rayon pile chaps for kids (or brushed rayon sweaters for women), as such items had become famous for creating what were widely reported at the time as "human torches."
>Here you go, buddy:
If I didn't read it why would I say something like "I didn't know the moral panic went so far back"?. Like I said, I'm familiar with the actual standards for flammability that didn't come about until the early 1970s and resulted in the textile industry adding flame retardants to everything. I have no idea what they were legislating in the 1950s but it wasn't the whole industry. Regardless, the point which you seem to be missing is that it's not clear how good for everybody it is to be living their whole lives in and around clothes and textiles that are treated with flame retardant chemicals that are safe in the same way that pesticides and sketchy plastics are safe.
Edit: I was right, turns out the 1953 law is basically "don't sell anything that's more flammable than typical" https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/1609.1
Sorry, it's clear we are talking past each other. You have a great week.
The PB is ~1/3 of the entire materials cost. ;-)
From the BOM:
…
NIST Standard Peanut Butter 1 jar $150 $150
Laser Safety Goggles 1 pair $25 $25
Total Estimated Cost - - $520NIST Standard Peanut Butter – $1,107 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38016900 - Oct 2023 (35 comments)
NIST Standard Reference Materials Catalog [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41917035 - Oct 2024 (9 comments)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3103
Along with it being Peanut Butter Day, it is also Tea Day! This is not as much of a coincidence as it might first appear though, since every day is Tea Day.
* If the test involves milk, then it is added to the bowl before pouring the infused tea into it, unless that is contrary to the organisation's normal practice.
* If milk is added after the pouring of tea, the standard notes that best results are obtained when the liquid is between 65 and 80 °C
My organization tends to prefer milk after, But I'm a silly yank who has lots of wrong opinions on a great deal of things (or so I've been told).
I put cream at the bottom of coffee cups before the machine puts coffee in about half the time, though. I have a lot of family in Britain.
Instead of concocting reference garbage, maybe your government should just ban anything that is not just ground peanuts from being called "peanut butter".
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B...
You've got exactly the kind of attitude we're looking for!
Isn't that the entire point of everything done? Crazy wild ass things nobody in their right mind would try, but getting to watch someone else do it drives those views.
About the only time my cooking is science is candy. Every degree matters, percentage matters so much, etc. A few degrees means crystals are radically different.
I think the two important differences are that the results of bad cooking tend to be slightly more edible than the results of bad baking, so many people don't even realize they can't cook. And many more people are forced into cooking via necessity, so the average skill level is higher.
Raw dough is always raw dough. You can't fake rising, etc.
Not to mention, if you watch cooking/baking shows, you'll see just how much overlap there really is. Some challenges in Masterchef involves baked goods, cakes, macaroons, etc. Some challenges in the Great British Baking Show involves cooking things. Either to make savory pies or to make compotes or jams, etc.
That said, cooking is generally far more forgiving that baking. If you put some amount of chicken in an oven set to a temperature of "very hot", you'll eventually have cooked chicken.
If you mix some amount of flour, water, and yeast, let it sit for some amount of time, and then put it in a "very hot" oven, you're unlikely to end up with what anyone would call "bread". It may not even really be that edible unless you were to grind it back into a power and mix it with water.
I will often reduce sugar, add things (cocoa, nuts and so on). As an example if you add cocoa you need to add fluid to compensate. More butter (or oil) leads to a "wetter" crumb and so on.
It takes more experience than regular cooking to do this though, and th feedback cycle is slower.
https://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/TroopSupport/Subsi...
If you please, I request Type III, Style D, shape (d). Low-fat sugar cookies in patriotic shapes, including but not limited to Uncle Sam, Bald Eagle, Torch of Liberty, Letters "USA", American Flag, Statue of Liberty, etc.
The reference flour is like a decade old. Not exactly optimal for actual baking.
So we trust them to self-report their nutrition labels, rather than having an unbiased lab perform the test? That seems problematic.
I have a friend who does mass spectroscopy testing to measure volatile chemical emissions from consumer goods. They don't do final certification testing for the relevant government agency, but they are contracted by the companies themselves to provide continuous testing services as the products are being developed and manufacturing processes are being dialed in. Once they have a finished product, it's sent to a government lab (or independent contractor, I'm not sure) for final certification.
That's like saying that the customers and shareholders of a given company are sufficient because they can sue, and therefore financial audits of the company are unnecessary.
The solution doesn't have to be a heavyweight centralized agency, either. Simply requiring periodic tests by an independent, licensed third party (just like financial auditors) should be sufficient.
The FDA is technically in charge of the doing these inspections for stuff that doesn't fall under the USDA, but they are fully captured doing the D in FDA and not the F.
It'd make sense to move that responsibility out of the FDA and into the USDA to form a new food focused agency. It'd also make sense to regulate supplements, but there's a lot of monied interests that don't want more/better oversight so good luck seeing that happen.
At a minimum, consumers should be reasonably confident that what's on the label is in the package. That's not really true for supplements.
Sometimes typos are just fun. Could you imagine if everyone of your meetings had to follow strict FDA guidelines? Not sure if that would improve or worsen the typical meeting experience. Maybe a chart on the meeting invite like calories/sugars/etc that would indicate the type of meeting. If the sugars are too high, it will be one of those meetings where everything is super positive and sickening to sit through. A high protein value could indicate there will be actual useful information in the meeting.