We’ve been told that lard is the devil’s foodstuff so often that — despite the best efforts of food writers reminding us that lard is actually better for you than butter — we tend to shy away from the stuff. (Lard hasn’t been helped by the fact that the boxed, shelf-stable version labeled “lard” is actually nothing but unhealthy trans fats, instead of freshly rendered lard.)
The latest (and very funny) attempt to convince us to return to our “lard-ers” comes from the Guardian, with a blog post titled "Consider Lard." Author Oliver Thring touts lard for its versatility in the kitchen and its nutritional benefits, and shares a little history:
Before the Second World War, Britons ate lard without guilt or fear. Its disappearance from our kitchens parallels a surge in the national waistline and an upswing in the cosseted maladies of fat. It’s worth remembering that the very people who so trumpeted the benefits of factory margarine — which we now know caused considerably more harm than good — were the same who lambasted lard and denied its natural glories.
Sift | |
| Here’s where we sort and report the latest in food news. | |
Want more? Comb the archives.
| | Cooking phasesChange in our kitchensReflections on cooking — and a career that’s based largely at the stove. |
The Culinate 8Breads of IndiaFlatbreads from around the continent | The Produce DiariesLeeksBeyond a supporting role |
First PersonLa Cosa NostraThe great Sicilian-Neapolitan kitchen rivalry | Cynthia’s High FiveMy new columnFive ideas each month for eating better |
There is 1 comment on this item
Add a comment
1. by Matthew Amster-Burton on Mar 3, 2011 at 7:44 AM PST
Hooray for lard!
One note: boxed lard is partially hydrogenated and contains trans fats, but it’s still mostly monounsaturated fat. Also, it doesn’t have much flavor. Still, though, it makes a pretty good pie crust.
Add a comment