Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ben and Jerrys Cookie Dough ice cream ingredients:


Ingredients: Cream (27%), water, condensed skimmed milk, sugar*, wheat flour, brown sugar*, free range egg yolk, milk fat, soybean oil, egg, vegetable fat, cocoa mass*, fat reduced cocoa powder*, vanilla extract*,molasses, stabilisers (guar gum, carrageenan), salt, natural butter flavouring, cocoa butter*, natural vanilla flavouring, natural brown sugar flavour with other natural flavourings, emulsifier (soya lecithin), coffee extract*.


Muck.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ben and Jerrys Cookie Dough ice cream

> ingredients:

>

> Ingredients: Cream (27%), water, condensed skimmed

> milk, sugar*, wheat flour, brown sugar*, free

> range egg yolk, milk fat, soybean oil, egg,

> vegetable fat, cocoa mass*, fat reduced cocoa

> powder*, vanilla extract*,molasses, stabilisers

> (guar gum, carrageenan), salt, natural butter

> flavouring, cocoa butter*, natural vanilla

> flavouring, natural brown sugar flavour with other

> natural flavourings, emulsifier (soya lecithin),

> coffee extract*.

>

> Muck.



If it's muck, it's damned good muck.

Unusually, I'm with Huguenot on this one. There's nothing whatsoever in there that classifies it as muck.


Milk, cream, eggs, sugar = the custard ice cream is made from.


The cocoa and fats would make up the cookie dough.


Is it the emulsifier and stabilisers you have a problem with? Well sheesh, I'd hate to see the response on here if someone were to buy an ice cream from a name manufacturer and it split.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Which ingredient is muck BNG?

> You've got your standard ice cream, plus the

> flavours for cookies and vanilla.


Soybean oil? Vegetable fat?


> What's your problem? And, God bless, what are you

> getting so angry about?


There's no problem. I thought I answered your condescending comment in a straightforward way, but hey ho.


> Bizarre.


Right.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • This presumably hasn't been done by vandals. It's hardly a Sycamore Gap situation. So if it's been done by professionals, unless it was a mistake (unlikely) there must have been a good reason, as it would have cost money. It would perhaps have been a good idea to put a notice on the tree explaining why such drastic work was done, but usually (I think) it would be either because of disease (often not noticeable on the surface) or that the roots or branches  were endangering nearby structures. As already said, nobody on here is likely to know. The tree department in Southwark Council are helpful in my (admittedly limited) experience. Please post on here when you have found out, as I agree what's left of the tree looks pretty odd. Depending on why the work was done, possibly they intend to remove the rest as well?
    • I have a very stupid question. I want to get a SIM card to put in an old mobile as a back up,  in case despite my best efforts my mobile gets stolen and I have no way of contacting anybody quickly, eg banks. Can I just buy any old cheap pay as you go  SIM card and put say ten pounds on it and it will then be fine for years (with the phone kept charged!) even if I don't use it, or do I have to use the phone  every so often to keep the SIM card valid?
    • I hate to see trees cut down to such an unfinished state. Unless the tree is home to wildlife, an effort should be made to remove & replace. Otherwise, it's just so useless & unsightly.
    • Given the level of care in Dulwich Park, I would not expect this to be careless or unnecessary. It will grow back.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...