This story doesn't really explain what killed lard in Europe. They don't sell Crisco or any other kind of shortening here in Norway, for example. Norwegian recipes often call for butter, but rarely for lard. Few things are ever deep fried and in pie crusts, we use butter, not lard. The closest thing you can find to shortening in a Norwegian supermarket is coco fat. The only thing I know of that was traditionally cooked in lard is donuts, which are literally named lardrings (smultringer) in Norwegian.
What happened in Norway is that butter was rationed because of WWII and they introduced margarine (another product of hydrogenation) as a substitute, and after the war, it was promoted as a healthier alternative to butter.
Lard must've been around, especially in other parts of Europe than Norway, but I doubt these domestic American events killed it.
I often see Americans attempting to explain why things happen in their country by pointing to domestic events, with said events failing to account for an identical thing happening all over the world.
> This story doesn't really explain what killed lard in Europe.
It's NPR. It's an American news channel. It's not trying to detail the history of Europe.
I don't mean to take this out on you because your comment is informative and interesting, but I'm really getting frustrated with this so often being the top comment's criticism on HN, or being the top responding criticism to the top comment on HN. Simply put, it's a Eurocentric criticism. It always reads like, "Why didn't this journalist consider Europe when they wrote this piece?"
Perhaps it's different on European sites, but American sites don't bother contextualizing which nation they're talking about because the context is already self-evident to the primary Anglo American audience. News stories don't appear in English as a lingua franca; it's just the primary language.
It's not that we don't care about Europe. It's just too far away. Europe just isn't the default American context. We don't qualify our journalism if it's only about America.
I think there is another way to read that comment. That lard is also unusual in Denmark, but the mechanisms being presented here don't really fit. In other words, there are other mechanisms at work, and perhaps that calls into question the narrative...
Of course it could just be that they are different places.
Thats how I read it. If they reason that lard went away in the US is not the same reason it went away in the EU, then what is the EU reason and does the EU reason cast doubt on the US reason.
The original comment makes it sound like lard was never really there to begin with in Europe, or at least Scandinavia. There was no "going away" in Europe, so nothing to really inform the hypothesis on it's fall in the US.
This is definitely not true in the UK - cooking with Lard was a huge thing in my grandparents generation, but almost unheard of amongst my peers. I'm 40.
What has changed is people's views of what's healthy, and Lard is considered hilariously unhealthy, to the point of it being a joke.
But people used to deep or shallow fry with it, use it in pastry, cook with it in all sorts of ways. It was also a poverty food during and after WWII - bread and lard is cheap enough and calorie dense enough to keep workers going through the day.
Here's a quick and easy take for you: Denmark is an entirely different culture with an entirely different consumption history. Their recipes call for butter, and their replacement was a veg-oil product.
Looking at some fast consumption stats (current, and I'm lazy here but I'll assume this probably link to historic consumer trends) Denmark is top 8 in milk consumption per capita but don't even show up in the top 40 for pork consumption.
My guess for why they don't use lard: They never really did. If you have a dairy/beef based food culture and minimal pork you probably aren't going to use pork lard because it's just not around.
It wasn't "killed" in Denmark (anecdotal old Danes, please feel free to prove me wrong here) because it was never the de facto fat for these applications.
Edited to add: "Approx. 90 percent of the production is exported and is thereby essential to the Danish economy and the balance of trade." They currently produce a decent volume of pork and then ship it out of country.
Input from a Dane, albeit not an anecdotal old one: We did use more lard in the old days, as well as beef tallow and horse fat, for specialty recipes. Duck and goose fat were also highly prized, as they are to this day.
I have a couple of pre-1900 recipe collections, with the oldest recipes being from a 1616 cookbook. The old recipes do tend to use significantly more rendered fats than we do today, I think mostly because it's an inevitable byproduct of butchering and preparing meat, and you wouldn't want anything to go to waste. Butter took time and effort to produce, but rendered fat just had to be collected while you were cooking.
However we've always been heavy dairy consumers, so it makes sense that it would be our primary culinary fat. It's such an ingrained part of our cuisine that in the mid-20th century, our TV chefs made "plenty of butter!" their catchphrase.
We also had the great margarine replacement during/after WWII, and the eventual realization that trans fats were even worse than saturated fats. Even though margarine is now free from trans fats, I think most people are still skeptical of it, and prefer butter.
This is interesting. My impression from across the sound is that the Danes love their pigs and everything that comes from them. I must confess I've pointed out the svinefedt in a Danish store to a fellow countryman and we had a good chuckle about you guys...
Come on, I must have been raised in another Denmark from a parallel universe then?
Fedtemadder (lard on bread) is an essential part of the danish smørebrødsbord (open sandwich table). It is common to use lard instead of butter on speciel occasions, like Christmas for example. And it tastes great :-P
I've only been living in Denmark for 4 years, but nearly every single julefrokost or påskefrokost I've been to used lard instead of butter as the initial layer for the smørrebrød.
Fried pork is the national dish of Denmark. They eat a lot of pork.
Their own official statistics [1] show 54.6kg/capita (120lbs) in annual pig meat consumption, which would put them at a solid #1 in the pork.org table. However, they admit that the statistics are probably about twice that of the real consumption due to border trade. Realistically they are placed similar to the US.
As other commenters have guessed: I was calling the narrative into question. Lard was once common in Europe (if not necessarily in the Nordic region) and now it isn't. Could it be that something other than this domestic narrative killed lard?
The same is true of other trends both in America and elsewhere. For example, in Norway, we perceive rural areas being abandoned in favour of urban areas as a problem to be solved. We pretend that this problem is domestic, and that we can solve it domestically, but we are actually looking at a global trend, yet no one points this out when it is discussed.
I think that 99% of the time when Europeans make what you perceive as annoying "Eurocentric" observations, they are actually calling cause and effect into question. If an effect occurs on both sides of the Atlantic, and the Americans are attributing it to domestic causes, that would seem to be the wrong conclusion, because what, then, caused it to simultaneously happen in Europe?
It might take a lot of time to research even more material to get a wider context, but that half of a paragraph that contextualizes and compares situations to other parts of the world are often the most interesting parts of such stories, at least to me.
I don't agree. Humans are just naturally more concerned with what's close to them or what directly interacts with them. It's just part of the normal signal to noise filtering.
In the US, unless you live in certain coastal cities, the overwhelming majority of people you meet are from the US and living within 100 miles of where you're at. So, the context of almost all the important information that you need on a daily basis to survive is going to be about the US and about your state. If there's a massive flood of the Mississippi and you live in Missouri, you might know someone affected, or at least be impacted due to the economic damages.
If a German lives near the French border, isn't he naturally going to be more concerned about news of what's going on in France? He's going to meet French nationals much more often than others and French culture is going to have a pretty direct impact on his daily life. If there's a major fire in Strasbourg, he's going to be interested in what happened. He might know some of the casualties, directly or indirectly. Maybe he dated a girl from the University. If there are riots due to poor management of the crisis, or a sewage leak into the Rhine, all these things can affect him directly. Just because he lives nearby.
Do either us Americans or the German need to know about what's going on in Vietnam? Only in the broadest sense. If there's a tsunami that hits Da Nang, it's unlikely to affect anybody we know personally, unlikely to affect our daily life, unlikely to affect our larger economic lives (even if our countries send aid). It's tragic. We certainly care that people died and that they need help. It just isn't a tragedy that touches us personally. Vietnam is not part of our default context.
Your entire argument is bogus in the context of this story. It has nothing to do with "caring more about people close to them".
The manufacturing and consumption of lard in the U.S. is a technology/tradition inherited from the parts of the world Americans emigrated from. And the development of the hydrogenation process and its implementation as a consumable product (replacing lard) was shared between Europe and the US. (Reference is made to this in the article). Thus the experience in Europe (and elsewhere) is directly relevant to the topic under discussion and comments from non-Americans on the situation in their countries are also directly relevant.
I don't see why you can't have similar outcomes from different causes when a social circumstance is involved.
What killed lard in Europe? Different things. Probably even different things per country if you get very specific about it.
Merely exploring only American causes to an American result, doesn't make the article bogus and that criticism is what everyone is responding to because the OP said:
> I often see Americans attempting to explain why things happen in their country by pointing to domestic events, with said events failing to account for an identical thing happening all over the world.
>What happened in Norway is that butter was rationed because of WWII and they introduced margarine (another product of hydrogenation) as a substitute, and after the war, it was promoted as a healthier alternative to butter.
Margarine was extremely popular in the US for a time (and there's still plenty of it in grocery stores). Among health conscious people, butter was looked on with suspicion as recently as 20 years or so ago. (I ran/run weekend hiking trips sometimes and 20 years ago, I would definitely have gotten dirty looks if I only bought butter. Today no one cares.)
Crisco was pretty popular at one point in the US but AFAIK it's receded quite a bit. I don't do a lot of baking but I don't really see it in recipes these days. And lard is still not in mainstream use at all.
I get the impression you're generally better off sticking to (whole fat/"normal"/etc) versions of products and simply being aware of portion sizes than substituting or diluting things just because there's some health fad going on against something in it like cholesterol or fat or sugar. Have a breakfast of eggs with real butter and a glass of whole milk, use full real mayonnaise instead of some sickly-tasting light version, have a burger, just watch out for daily calories. An exception of course if if you have a particular medical condition that requires a special diet.
"All you have to do is eat less. Two words: Eat. Less. That's all you need to know about weight loss. Eat less, I guarantee you'll lose weight. It worked in Changi. It worked for Ghandi - no love handles on that man! But remember, eating less will not work unless you actually eat less." - Dr Rudi
"All you have to do is breath. Two words: Just breath. That's all you need to know about not dying from asphyxiation. Just breath, I'll guarantee you'll not die from asphyxiation. It worked for me. It worked for James LeBron - no asphyxiation signs on that man! But remember, just breathing will not work unless you actually just breath." - Dr Rudi (probably) to an Asthma patient
I know there is some small proportion of the population who physically cannot refrain from overeating. That doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority, eating less IS an option, which is good because it's literally the only way to lose weight apart from surgically removing things from your body.
All that aside, yeah, Dr Rudi probably would say that because he's a satirical caricature.
Health conscious people prefer margarine to butter on a hiking trip? Must be some pretty relaxed trips: Food is fuel, the more calories the better!
I carry peanut butter and Crisco on my backpacking and canoeing trips...they're heavy, but nutritionally dense! A peanut butter jar might last you two months at home, but you can likely expect to be packing the empty jar out with you after a week in the woods.
Most people doing weekend trips don't suddenly abandon their day to day eating habits and start eating jars of peanut butter and mayonnaise.
ADDED: That wasn't intended as snark but my observation is that most people on weekend dayhike trips or even multi-day backpacks maintain fairly conventional eating habits even if they're not energy/weight optimal. I certainly do.
The calories aren't the issue; as far as I know butter and margarine have about the same amount per serving. Margarine was preferred because it was thought that the saturated fat in butter was going to clog your arteries and kill you.
You do seem unreasonable and unnecessarily combative in this subthread. I've had to read over it several times to figure out how your comments are appropriate replies, and I’m not seeing it.
That commenter wasn't mounting an argument for a position on whether or not "saturated fat in butter was going to clog your arteries and kill you" - just explaining the thinking behind those who preferred margarine.
But it's also not "established science" that "saturated fat is bad for health". If it were that simple, any food containing saturated fat would never appear in the "healthy in low-moderate quantities" section of a mainstream recommended diet chart.
Clearly that's not the case, and clearly many experts have different things to say about this topic.
So, please stop throwing around accusations of "science denial", when any person who engages seriously with this topic knows that it is still a matter of ongoing research and discussion.
This is an appallingly bad-faith style of discussion. You must know full well this terminology is used for its evocative link to holocaust denial.
Not that it should make a difference to how you conduct yourself, but I’ve had cause to research this topic in order to get myself through serious health issues. So I know what it looks like when people are or aren’t engaging with this topic with honesty.
It’s a deeply important topic that deserves better than crap like this, particularly from a longtime user of this site.
Not only saturated fat isn’t bad but at worst neutral, but also LDL is not “bad” when measured as concentration, which is the main argument against sat fats on the page you linked. There is plenty of research on this topic.
You should be careful about making blanket statements like "established science" and "science denial".
It makes you come off as an extremist, and in fact, the page you linked makes no such claims and is far more moderate. It talks only about potentially harmful dietary fats.
> Research about the possible harms and benefits of dietary fat is always evolving. Current evidence suggests that the smart play is to focus on choosing healthier fats and avoiding the less healthy ones.
Researchers (particularly those in the field of nutrition) have got things completely wrong before. An important part of being a good scientist is knowing the limits of the current body of research.
That is not true even on difficult hikes. You need more calories then normal, but it is not like you would suddenly had to eat tripple portion of everything else you die.
Also, it is not like extreme cardio or weight lifting. You can go on for hours without eating. It won't feel great, but won't be big issue either.
Besides, for long hikes and climbs, people minimize weight. Bin of peanut butter to go through in two days sound excesive.
Bringing butter, peanut butter or mayonnaise on a hike is not about eating more but about carrying less.
300g of butter for example is about 2150 calories, enough food for a day for a small person. Compare that to pasta and you would need to carry more than 1.6 kg for the same amount of calories. If you're going on a five day hike you're carrying 8 kg of pasta vs only 1.5 kg of butter.
That said I only bring butter and mayonnaise on week long hikes, for weekends or day trips I don't bother.
Pasta sounds like highly theoretical food for a hike. I have yet to see anyone who would carry pasta or similar food for a hike as main source of calories. Sounds impractical and waste of space. Or raw butter which would melt in the heat. Also, eating 300g of butter as energy source for whole day sounds like one of those things that makes your stomach go real bad.
Quick energy in sugary food weights a little and comes in gazimilion sources. Proteins bars or dry meant are easy to get, weight a little and have enough calories. Both are slow calories.
But besides, already traditional bread and ham or sausage or bacon or whatever are good enough for day hike. Or any kind of already cooked meat that can survive a day. You do not need more for one day. For more days, you need to consider more then just calories in the thing. Which where pasta like food or canned food comes into play - people carry it because they want real food to actually fills stomach and comfort of it, not because they would worry about being unable to fill calories. Besides, you can hike on caloric deficit.
Carrying 1.5kg of butter as primary source of food for 5 days hike sounds like one of those things that gets hikes cancelled second day and someone needing help to get back.
Crisco was pretty popular at one point in the US but AFAIK it's receded quite a bit. I don't do a lot of baking but I don't really see it in recipes these days. And lard is still not in mainstream use at all.
I bought some lard at Safeway just last week. It can be had, but it's usually in the dustiest, lowest, most-hidden shelf in the baking aisle.
It's excellent for deep frying, and economical because it can be used over and over and the flavor only improves. (Unless you burn something.)
Find a Mexican grocery or butcher. They often have fresh lard as a result of making carnitas. It’s so much better. For cooking you can also save bacon grease or render chicken fat and skin (which also gives you tasty chicken cracklings).
Natural animal fats as well as making stock are great ways to level up your cooking game.
Lately I've been boiling up cheap bones and offcuts. You get a few L of stock and a few hundred mL of fat – enough to last the week unless you're deep frying.
In a Polish restaurant, i had a starter of lard on bread - you get some slices of bread, and a pot of lard with little flecks of gherkin or something in it. I wasn't all that taken with it, i have to confess.
But in Britain we do have, or once had, something distantly related:
> In a Polish restaurant, i had a starter of lard on bread
This sounds like something they could do in Ukraine. Was the large a solid piece, or a spread? Eating solid pieces of pork fat is very normal in Ukraine.
Pork lard is eaten in the same way across Eastern Europe, not just in Poland or Ukraine, i.e. also in Hungary, Romania, the former Yugoslavia, and Russia and among Russians in Central Asia.
You can find lard in Spain pretty easily some stores even have lard from ibérico style pigs with a much deeper flavor. I imagine most Southern Europe and Eastern Europe has easy access.
used to cook a lot with lard in the last 5 years in austria, after discovering that many supermarkets stock it. right now i prefer clarified butter. the only vegetable oil in my pantry is pumpkin seed oil for salads. margarine is banned in my household; my mother used to use it but switched back to butter and lard in recent years.
It sounds as if lard was never a very big thing in Norway whereas it was at one point in the United States. It seems as if it could just be a coincidence what happened in the States and in Europe.
"The only thing I know of that was traditionally cooked in lard is donuts"
Makes a huge difference with cake donuts. They are crispy on the outside, and moist, and hold cinnamon/sugar on the outside. Haven't had one in quite a while though...all the US donut stores use vegetable oil.
So did margarine continue displacing butter after WWII?
If TFA were generalized some, it would help explain what killed lard and butter in the US. The lard-to-Crisco and butter-to-margarine narratives have much in common. Different companies were involved, but it was all enabled by hydrogenation. And there were the same (now known to be bogus) health claims vs saturated fats. Health claims that were undoubtedly sourced, at least in part, by sellers of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.
One of the biggest high-profile product launches of the 90's was for the margarine brand "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!", which launched with a huge ad campaign featuring the then-faddishly-popular male model Fabio.
Interestingly enough what seems to have killed lard, at least the most common domestic use of it (making fries), in France and Belgium really is hydrogenated vegetal oil. Fries simply taste better. And it's also much worse for your health.
Since it was commercialized just after WW2 and lard had been used as a butter substitute during the war there was a favourable context for it to happen.
Lard is still used extensively in butcher shops as part of pork preparations (rillettes, grattons etc.). Mostly traditional/regional stuff.
The lard you find in supermarkets is tasteless, hydrogenated dross, fit only for making soap.
If you want actual lard, and you don't want to pay through the nose to get it from a specialty provider, you can visit your local butcher and ask for fat trimmings (tell him you're going to feed them to your dog if he has any misgivings) and render it yourself. It'll cost you next to nothing and it's extremely good for you.
While you're there, pick up a few marrow bones too. And some offal.
I get about 40% of my calories from lard/tallow, and I've never felt better.
Finding bone marrow, fat trimmings, or most of the cheap by-product of whole animal butchering is not as easily available even from a good local butcher.
Some butcher still do, I manage to find some stuff in halal butcher and random butchers around town, but 40 min travel to find a bag of bone is not something you do past the exitement of the first time.
Context for those not in the know: the Belgians excel at fries (pomme-frites/frites) in a way that other nations can't even imagine. If you find yourself in Belgium, you should get some frites. If you're there in mussel season, get a moules-frites.
My favorite joke about Belgium is that the world's largest friterie/frituur is on the border between Holland and France.
> I often see Americans attempting to explain why things happen in their country by pointing to domestic events, with said events failing to account for an identical thing happening all over the world.
I often see American colonies who labor under the delusion they have agency. Lard going away in Norway is much like Lysenkoism being popular in communist Poland.
What happened in Norway is that butter was rationed because of WWII and they introduced margarine (another product of hydrogenation) as a substitute, and after the war, it was promoted as a healthier alternative to butter.
Lard must've been around, especially in other parts of Europe than Norway, but I doubt these domestic American events killed it.
I often see Americans attempting to explain why things happen in their country by pointing to domestic events, with said events failing to account for an identical thing happening all over the world.