Yesterday, while in my local supermarket, I passed the bricks of Armour Lard relegated to the marked-down mini fridge where just last weekend sat the Christmas cookie dough.   Studying the label, I came to learn that true lard is only from pigs; all my efforts to store meat dripppings, because I know of no environmentally harmless means of disposal,  has been wasted on .......pseudo-lard?  That prompted some research and I found that lard is undergoing something of a renaissance; famous restaurants and cooks favor it for flaky crusts and sauteing, forgoing oils that once replaced it, that are reportedly not so healthy after all.  And yet, while fat is gruesome, it is self defining, and dare I say, genuine; unlike so many other substances in our foods I don't need a PhD to decipher the chemical compounds and additives.   Liquid or solid form,  it looks pretty much how it would look attached to our hips.  But what does transfatty acid look like?  Like most consumers I've never seen it in its natural/unnatural form.    The FDA tells us it's bad for us.   A couple decades ago, we were told that sugar was bad too, and artificial sweetners and corn sweeteners proliferated the marketplace and wound up in manufactured products.    No surprise that many of our subscribers are allergic to corn and corn derivative products when 20 years ago such reaction and intolerance were rare.

Consider this:  Outside the executive suite, today's most highly paid  positions among food manufacturers are chemists/chemical engineers.   Aunt Jemima may have worn an apron in her kitchen but today's staff is more likely to be donning a white coat in a laboratory.       A little Splenda in my coffee may be harmless, however, the prospect of baking with cups of it and serving it to my children bears more scrutiny.   According to pharmainfo.net, the average drug product undergoes an average of  6 years of consumer safety testing before its release to the public, yet no similar scrutiny is required for artificial food substances which could affect a much larger percentage of the population.  Why is that, when both are created in a lab?   The few articles available on the web are dedicated to how the heating process can render artificial sweeteners, un-sweet, requiring even larger amounts than what the package states is equivalent.  While I'm aware of the tests performed on the packet quantities, including great grand daddy of them all, sweet n low, I have not been able to find any studies on recent brands used in mass quantities, since artificial sweeteners for baking purposes is relatively new.   I am always seeking ways to improve my diet and that of my family,  but I'll wait this one out until I see some studies  several years from now that measure incidence of cancer, hypoglycemia, or other ailments from well-meaning substitutes.  It seems I'm in good company; manufacturers, most recently Pepsi,  are touting their products with "100 % natural sugar".   Everything old really IS new again!