Ship of Fools: Cadbury's Copyright Advent

Thread: Cadbury's Copyright Advent Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023979

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

I understand I must propose a topic for discussion in Purgatory, rather than just start a crusade against a "chocolate" manufacturer. So my topic for discussion is, would it right to boycott a company that tried to copyright the colour purple during the Chirstian season of Advent? And if it is right, how many shipmates will be vocally refusing to buy the nasty brown substance that Cadbury's manufacture and try to pass off as choclate this Christmas?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Are you sure that isn't just one specific pantone rather than all 'purple'?

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :

Also it'll be a trademark and not a copyright. Which is relevant because trademarks have to be defended, unlike copyrights.

Whether such protection should be granted on something as broad as a specific colour is another matter.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

I don't think it is a copyright issue. Rather it is a trademark issue. Some companies are vigorous in protecting trademark rights. In this case, they asked a company that produces chocolate not to use purple. There is a case that the use of the same shade of purple which is a Cadbury trade mark could confuse someone into thinking that the chocolate was from Cadburys. Perhaps over-vigorous in this case, but fairly typical.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

i was annoyed enough to temporarily choose another brand of chocolate

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Here is just one of Cadbury's colour trademarks.

You will see it is for a stated pantone.

Sometimes it isn't even a trademark issue but one of passing off which is another matter.

[ 19. October 2012, 13:21: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by dv (# 15714) on :

This is a non-story. Cadbury's apparently weren't even aware of the kerfuffle. It seems that Divine chocolate got bad advice from their own people and created a bit of publicity on the back of it. Nothing to see here, move along.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

But Cadbury has most certainly fought cases over the colour purple in the past.

This is what happened in Australia.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But Cadbury has most certainly fought cases over the colour purple in the past.

This is what happened in Australia.

IANAL, still less an Australian one but 'misleading and deceptive conduct' does not look or sound like breach of trademark to me. How did the appeal go?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But Cadbury has most certainly fought cases over the colour purple in the past.

This is what happened in Australia.
IANAL, still less an Australian one but 'misleading and deceptive conduct' does not look or sound like breach of trademark to me. How did the appeal go?

It is actually very close to trade marks. "Passing off", which was part of the case, is basically the unregistered version of trade marks. Cadbury hadn't got their shade of purple registered as a trade mark yet, not least because the Registrar refused to action their application while this dispute was going on.

Misleading and deceptive is a particular catch-all we have in particular legislation, but the principles are going to be largely the same no matter which route you use. Are you trying to make your products look like our products?

And the answer was a resounding no.

As far as I can recall Cadbury never got anywhere. In fact, while looking to see if I could find any later information, I discovered that it failed in several stages of the case even before the one I linked to.

What I found after this was that they had one more crack (their second) at alleging the judge was biased. That failed at the start of 2009. And then, they were supposed to go on with the main appeal... and it isn't in the law reports. Which can only mean they finally gave up.

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of thing that trademarks are for, and Cadbury's are perfectly entitled to assert their trademarks. The blogger cited in the OP seems to think bishops will be prevented from wearing purple etc. but I assume this is pure hyperbole. And Hairy Biker, if you think of Cadbury's chocolate as a "nasty brown substance" then I guess you wouldn't be buying it anyway and your boycotting it will have zero effect.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Are you sure that isn't just one specific pantone rather than all 'purple'?

Of course it is. If this company desperately wanted to use purple on their packaging they could just make it a tiny bit redder, bluer, darker or lighter and there'd be no problem.

But it's a complete non-story from start to finish. Just one more bit of multinational-bashing. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

You're right Jonah. I've tried to avoid the purple peril since they forced the EU to accept sub-standard vegetable oils as "chocolate" 12 years ago. Now they're owned by a US company, the country that gave us Hershey's, I'm susceptible to any slur on their reputation

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

orfeo,

I appreciate that 'passing off' and 'breach of trademrk' are close cousins, but this 'misleading and deceptive' appears open to one heck of a lot of interpretation! Is it a statutory thing, because, AIUI, passing off has centuries of case law behind it.

Thanks for the update though, and it shows how important it is for government departments, like your Registrar, to wait before they act, although it is also what companies complain about when you hear 'red tape gone mad'!

Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
to copyright the colour purple during the Christian season of Advent?

As other posters have already said, this is really a non-story.

Start worrying when they sue the clergy for wearing purple vestments [Smile]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
You're right Jonah. I've tried to avoid the purple peril since they forced the EU to accept sub-standard vegetable oils as "chocolate" 12 years ago.

Not "sub-standard", it acutally helps the texture and softness of high-milk content chocolate. I'm no fan myself, I much prefer dark chocolate - I don't think I've bought a bar of milk chocolate for many years. But if you do like that sort of thing, the vegetable oils can make it taste better.

And they do have to put 'contains vegetable fats in addition to cocoa butter' on the wrapper so no-one is tricking you into eating stuff you don't want.

And although Cadbury's chocolate is unpleasantly bland, sweet, and sticky, its miles better than the tasteless crystallised cardboard that is Hershey's.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Cadbury's chocolate is unpleasantly bland, sweet, and sticky

Some people have no taste [Disappointed]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
You're right Jonah. I've tried to avoid the purple peril since they forced the EU to accept sub-standard vegetable oils as "chocolate" 12 years ago.
Not "sub-standard", it acutally helps the texture and softness of high-milk content chocolate.

If that were the case then Swiss milk chocolate would be inferior to British milk chocolate. Which is nearly a laugh but it's really a cry.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I suppose if you like your chocolate to gum your mouth up with viscous cack, then vegetable oils count as an improvement. Anyway, Cadbury's mass-market gunk is a joke, though Hersheys is definitely even worse, tasting as it does of soap. Can't you people buy the real thing?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I'm very glad that Ariel washing powder changed the colour of their tablet wrappers - every time I got one out to put on a washload I was reminded of chocolate....

Isn't it the number they have sole ownership of? A slightly different shade (and therefore a different number) would be fine. As everyone knows the number of ecclesiastical purple is 666. [Biased]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

The painter Yves Klein trademarked a specific shade of blue.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The painter Yves Klein trademarked a specific shade of blue.

See, that makes no sense to me. Cadbury doesn't want other chocolatiers using that shade of purple because consumers might be induced to buy the other chocolate, thinking it's Cadbury's. (Ones with poor eyesight, presumably, since the label says "Cadbury" right on it.) Are art patrons likely to think a painting not by Yves Klein is by Yves Klein because it uses a specific shade of blue?

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The painter Yves Klein trademarked a specific shade of blue.
See, that makes no sense to me. Cadbury doesn't want other chocolatiers using that shade of purple because consumers might be induced to buy the other chocolate, thinking it's Cadbury's. (Ones with poor eyesight, presumably, since the label says "Cadbury" right on it.) Are art patrons likely to think a painting not by Yves Klein is by Yves Klein because it uses a specific shade of blue?

Art experts might find this is exactly what exposes a fake.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The painter Yves Klein trademarked a specific shade of blue.
See, that makes no sense to me. Cadbury doesn't want other chocolatiers using that shade of purple because consumers might be induced to buy the other chocolate, thinking it's Cadbury's. (Ones with poor eyesight, presumably, since the label says "Cadbury" right on it.) Are art patrons likely to think a painting not by Yves Klein is by Yves Klein because it uses a specific shade of blue?
Art experts might find this is exactly what exposes a fake.

I don't understand. Using the exact same shade of blue as the master proves it's a fake?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The painter Yves Klein trademarked a specific shade of blue.
See, that makes no sense to me. Cadbury doesn't want other chocolatiers using that shade of purple because consumers might be induced to buy the other chocolate, thinking it's Cadbury's. (Ones with poor eyesight, presumably, since the label says "Cadbury" right on it.) Are art patrons likely to think a painting not by Yves Klein is by Yves Klein because it uses a specific shade of blue?
Art experts might find this is exactly what exposes a fake.
I don't understand. Using the exact same shade of blue as the master proves it's a fake?

I quote Wikipedia (because linking to it is a pig and I haven't quoted a lot):

"While it is often said that the method for creating International Klein Blue was patented by the artist, this is not entirely true. Klein's 1961 patent had little to do with the chemical composition of the color, instead describing a method by which Klein was able to distance himself from the physical creation of his paintings by remotely directing models covered in the color".

So it isn't the colour, but the process in which the colour is used, AFAICT.

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

Don't judge all US chocolate by Hershey's. Ghiradelli is excellent.

(And now I'm remembering that once, long ago, I introduced Erin to Green & Blacks Maya Gold, and she appointed me her dealer...)

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... But it's a complete non-story from start to finish. Just one more bit of multinational-bashing.

It does take up media space that might otherwise be devoted to more meaningful multinational-bashing e.g. criticism of labour policies, environmental impacts, etc. So it might be considered to be useful rodeo-clown-distraction multinational bashing. But I loved Hershey's as a kid, so what do I know.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
orfeo,

I appreciate that 'passing off' and 'breach of trademrk' are close cousins, but this 'misleading and deceptive' appears open to one heck of a lot of interpretation! Is it a statutory thing, because, AIUI, passing off has centuries of case law behind it.

Yes, it's a statutory thing, with a lot more definitions and tonnes of case law.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
(Ones with poor eyesight, presumably, since the label says "Cadbury" right on it.)

And this is exactly why their claim to the colour is/was so ridiculous. Is there any evidence whatsoever that they want to use JUST the colour on their packaging, without putting a rather large and recognisable Cadbury logo on it?

Their own usage is denying the proposition that the colour itself is a distinctive mark.

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

'Everyone's a fruit and nut case...'
(sorry, ancient Cadbury's jingle... I'm getting old.)

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Sadly, Bean Sidhe, after reading that, I found I could sing the whole thing to myself.

M.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Don't judge all US chocolate by Hershey's. Ghiradelli is excellent.

(And now I'm remembering that once, long ago, I introduced Erin to Green & Blacks Maya Gold, and she appointed me her dealer...)

It's worth noting that Green and Blacks is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cadbury.

And as Ken so graciously put it the addition of veg oils is what makes Cadbury milk chocolate taste the way it does. And I know I'm not alone in liking it rather a lot.

Of course, as any true-Brit-chocoholic will tell you, Cadbury use different recipes in different parts of the world - I believe this is because the UK version is most delicious because it basically melts at body temperature. In hotter climes this is a problem...

As I understand it, Swiss milk chocolate is made to a similar philosophy...

Of course, YMMV...

Otherwise, nothing to see here...

AFZ

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
'Everyone's a fruit and nut case...'
(sorry, ancient Cadbury's jingle... I'm getting old.)

There's another thread covering one's first thought on hearing that tune. I can't remember which ballet though, so I can't be an intellectual.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
As I understand it, Swiss milk chocolate is made to a similar philosophy...

And yet, amazingly, they are able to do it without vegetable oil. Are British chocolatiers just stupid, then?

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

Finally a thread on a topic I really know something about. Chocolate is one of the few areas in which I can consider myself something of an expert. None of the main chocolate companies could assure me (when I wrote to ask about a decade ago) that their confectionary didn't include any cocoa produced by slave labour. Because the cocoa that they use is traded internationally, it's almost impossible to prove provenance. The only way to avoid this is to buy fair trade, organic or pretentious 'individual grower' chocolate, because, for different reasons, these manufacturers can trace the origin of their ingredients and the way in which it's grown.
So I don't buy Cadburys Dairy Milk, but do buy Green and Blacks.

Except, of course, this thread isn't really about chocolate, it's about marketing. Cadburys use a specific Pantone shade of purple in their marketing and seek to prevent other people who make similar products using the same colour.
The Meaningful Chocolate Company seem to have chosen a marketing strategy of "oooh look at us poor christians being attacked by nasty big business, pleeeease buy our chocolate, because that'll show 'em." At Easter our churches were all bombarded with whiny messages about how the nasty supermarkets wouldn't stock their eggs. Now, at Advent, it's horrid old Cadburys who have it in for them.

Rubbish. Having tasted their chocolate, I can tell them exactly why the supermarkets don't want to know - it's nasty and expensive and no-one will buy it. If it was good and offered value for money and people wanted to buy it, Mr Tesco and Mr Sainsbury would stack it to the ceiling.

If you want to buy a Fairtrade Egg for a child and teach them about the real meaning of Easter, just buy an egg from the Co-Op and take the child to a Messy Church Easter service, or an Easter Vigil or buy them a book or a DVD or even talk to them about Easter. Try the same same trick at Christmas. But don't fall for this sob story from the marketeers.

Anne

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Aren't Green & Blacks owned by Cadbury's ?

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

Ghiradelli are owned by Lindt.

Both use coconut oil now in their chocolate.

My wife is allergic to coconut oil, which actually makes eating things increasingly difficult as for reasons of cheapiness, that's what a lot of companies use now to allow their chocolate to take freezing.

Ben & Jerry's ice cream is out, for example.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Aren't Green & Blacks owned by Cadbury's ?

Yes - but because Green and Blacks chocolate is organic (and mostly fairtrade too) they can trace their cocoa back to specific growers and check the conditions under which farmworkers are employed. Once cocoa enters the international 'bulk' market, this kind of tracibility becomes impossible. Cadburys Dairy Milk is made using cocoa from the international trading market.

It may seem like hair-splitting, but the difference matters to me.

anne

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Ghiradelli are owned by Lindt.

Both use coconut oil now in their chocolate.

They may use it in their milk chocolate, but not in dark chocolate.

Here is the ingredient list for an 85% Cocoa Lindt bar.

quote:
Chocolate, cocoa powder, cocoa butter, demerara sugar, bourbon vanilla beans.

Here is the ingredient list for a 86% Cacao Ghirardelli bar.

quote:
Bittersweet chocolate (unsweetened chocolate, cocoa butter, sugar, milk fat, soy lecithin--an emulsifier), vanilla, natural flavor

Moo

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
As everyone knows the number of ecclesiastical purple is 666.

DMC stranded cotton, which I use in my cross stitch, uses the number 666 for their Christmas Red. I did wonder if it was just co-incidental [Paranoid]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Ghiradelli are owned by Lindt.

Both use coconut oil now in their chocolate.
They may use it in their milk chocolate, but not in dark chocolate.

Here is the ingredient list for an 85% Cocoa Lindt bar.
quote:
Chocolate, cocoa powder, cocoa butter, demerara sugar, bourbon vanilla beans.
Here is the ingredient list for a 86% Cacao Ghirardelli bar.
quote:
Bittersweet chocolate (unsweetened chocolate, cocoa butter, sugar, milk fat, soy lecithin--an emulsifier), vanilla, natural flavor
Moo

Interesting how you have those ingredient lists at your fingertips, Moo. [Biased]

Posted by moverly (# 4658) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Ghiradelli are owned by Lindt.

Both use coconut oil now in their chocolate.
They may use it in their milk chocolate, but not in dark chocolate.

I don't see vegetable oil in the ingredients of the (Swiss-made) Lindt milk chocolate bar I have in front of me either (sugar, cocoa butter, milk powder, cocoa mass, lactose, soy lecithin, malt extract, flavouring).

But smooth textures in chocolate don't just stem from additives. Correct processing of the chocolate mass, like concheing, helps with the texture. Perhaps different brands differ in the amount of time they spend on this step? I'm not an expert, but it sounds plausible to me that the amount of time spent processing the chocolate could be a major price factor.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Aren't Green & Blacks owned by Cadbury's ?
Yes - but because Green and Blacks chocolate is organic (and mostly fairtrade too) they can trace their cocoa back to specific growers and check the conditions under which farmworkers are employed. Once cocoa enters the international 'bulk' market, this kind of tracibility becomes impossible. Cadburys Dairy Milk is made using cocoa from the international trading market.

It may seem like hair-splitting, but the difference matters to me.

anne

Yes they are a Cadbury subsidiary and yes they are organic. I can't opine on which makes their chocolate so poor, but boy it is bad for what used to be an independent. I find all the G&B dark chocolates to be watery and gritty and the milk ones over-sweet. According to David from Divine, it's quite hard to make organic chocolate because the plant is a bit susceptible to pests, so growers don't often risk dumping the chemicals. If you want the fair-trade label Divine is very good, though their milk chocolate does taste a bit of boiled milk, or if you can live with "fairly traded" it's got to be Hotel Chocolat - especially if you can get their single-estate stuff (they even do a 100% bar i.e. with no sugar in it). Or find some small local outfit to support.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I'm sorry to drag this away from the merits of different brands of confectionery, but I've been wondering about the following:

Surely Cadbury are mostly worried about someone 'hood-winking' consumers into believing that they're buying a Cadbury product. And so, presumably, they could argue that another company is exploiting the visibility of their brand by using a colour in the packaging which is only similar to their pantone.

I am not a lawyer, I was just wondering to myself about the flexibility within the system for a competing brand to try to capture something of the 'essence' of a popular brand.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
I don't think it is a copyright issue. Rather it is a trademark issue.

I think that's an important distinction. Copyright is a claim of intellectual property. No colour is anyone's property.

Misreporting the issue as one of privatising the spectrum is guaranteed to inflame readers, which is why there's a temptation for tabloids and bloggers to do it...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Aren't Green & Blacks owned by Cadbury's ?
Yes - but because Green and Blacks chocolate is organic (and mostly fairtrade too) they can trace their cocoa back to specific growers and check the conditions under which farmworkers are employed. Once cocoa enters the international 'bulk' market, this kind of tracibility becomes impossible. Cadburys Dairy Milk is made using cocoa from the international trading market.

It may seem like hair-splitting, but the difference matters to me.

anne

Actually Daily Milk has been Fairtrade for around 2 years now... Interestingly, G&B only relatively recently have received the FairTrade mark for all of their products because iirc, despite being founded on ethical principals, some of their ingredients were harder to certify.

Similarly Cardbury - buy most of their cocoa from Ghana and have a long-term relationship with the local growers and communities even before they had the Fairtrade mark.

This is the reason why the G&B owners specifically chose to sell to Cadbury and no-other company. And why they were 'concerned' when Kraft bought out Cadbury.

AFZ

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

This is the ingredients list from Cadbury' dairy milk chocolate:

quote:

Ingredients: Ingredients: Full Cream Milk, Sugar, Cocoa Mass, Cocoa Butter, Milk Solids, Emulsifiers (Soya Lecithin, 476), Flavours. May contain traces of Nuts. Milk Chocolate contains Cocoa Solids 26%, Milk Solids 28%

Where is the coconut oil [Confused]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Is there any evidence whatsoever that they want to use JUST the colour on their packaging, without putting a rather large and recognisable Cadbury logo on it?

Their own usage is denying the proposition that the colour itself is a distinctive mark.

So no company can honestly apply more than one trade mark to one product? Unfortunately the courts wouldn't agree with you. The let Coca-Cola defend its trade marks against other people who might want to sell fizzy pop in small bottles with a waist and a logo in an old-fashioned American script and a particular shade of red on the packaging. The shape and the colour and the typeface and the name can all be considered trade marks.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
This is the ingredients list from Cadbury' dairy milk chocolate:

quote:

Ingredients: Ingredients: Full Cream Milk, Sugar, Cocoa Mass, Cocoa Butter, Milk Solids, Emulsifiers (Soya Lecithin, 476), Flavours. May contain traces of Nuts. Milk Chocolate contains Cocoa Solids 26%, Milk Solids 28%
Where is the coconut oil

Nowhere to be seen in that one, clearly. Cadbury has had a chequered career with adding and removing palm oil from its dairy Milk bars - most recently in Aus/NZ market. This link leads to an article covering that (though they subsequently removed it again due to protests).

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

(Mind you, coconut oil is one of the healthier fats - much more so than the stuff you'll find in almost and spread or butter. I think palm oil is different ?)

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Wikipedia is your friend (yet again).

I think they are both pretty dire, though palm oil is worse on a number of counts.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I thought it might have been a a regional usage.

I see risk of monoculture, but that is a regulatory issue really. Coconut oil is supposed to be OK because it is unusual as a saturated fat - it is supposed to have quite a lot of health benefits. I don't see how it would be inherently inferior as an ingredient to coco-butter.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't see how it would be inherently inferior as an ingredient to coco-butter.

It's inherently less a product of the cocoa plant than cocoa butter, for one thing.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Well so is milk, recipes for most stuff don't just include the product of one plant. Eggs work well in cake, herbs with meat, spices in curry - whatever.

[ 21. October 2012, 20:24: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Inept comparison. Taking out the natural fat of the cocoa plant and replacing it with a cheaper fat isn't the same as adding milk.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Replacing it with fat that kills your customers a bit more slowly ...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What indication do you have that cocoa butter kills people? (As if that has anything to do with your point, by the way)

[ 21. October 2012, 20:33: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

It is high in saturated fat, in a different way to coconut oil. You seem very passionate about this - want to take it to hell ?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Why, do you feel a need to get personal about it?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

You already seem to be being personal about it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What did I say that makes you think that?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

If we do this here, we are going to derail the thread MT. I'm outta here.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

You brought it up, but hey.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
(Mind you, coconut oil is one of the healthier fats - much more so than the stuff you'll find in almost and spread or butter. I think palm oil is different ?)

Unless of course you are allergic to coconut oil.

Fine that its healthier but for my wife, it certainly is not, and the creep of coconut oil into much of the confectionery world has made our lives rather awful on occasion. She was off work for a week in December of last year.

Trying to explain to local confectioners that its not necessary to use coconut oil can be like pulling teeth.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0