In message <6q6ng4t10nca0sjth4eq9ba6urjhqr7v2d>,
Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine Intervention.
<x{yz}enophil44> writes
>On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:48:37 -0000, Carlton Miniott
><davebudd> wrote:
>>I'm averse to large quantities of oil at near-spark-point temps in
>>my house, and the chippy can't guarantee no cross-contamination between
>>the chips friers and the fish friers, for the gluten-free requirement.
>
>So am, I which is why we have an automagically-controlled deep fat
>fryer.
>
>Not only does it enable The Boy to produce the best chips known to man
>(or woman), but we can do our own GF battered fish, various delicious
>fritters, samosas and all sorts of other stuff.

But does it get hot enough to temper steel?

Carlton Miniott <davebudd> wrote:

> Well, I'm averse to large quantities of oil at near-spark-point temps in
> my house, and the chippy can't guarantee no cross-contamination between
> the chips friers and the fish friers, for the gluten-free requirement.

My daughter's a coeliac and she's never had any problems with chippy
chips. Yes, you do occasionally get a bit of fish batter in with the
chips, but it's easy to spot and remove. I suspect that the chances of
contamination of the hot oil is highly unlikely.

You're more likely to get gluten contaminated oven chips as it is not
unknown for these to be lightly coated with flour before freezing to
stop them sticking together. If they do this there is NO obligation for
the manufacturer to mention this on the packet, as the flour anti-stick
coating is not, technically, an ingredient of the product.

The previous incumbant of our village chippy was more than happy to dip
a piece of fish in a tupperware container full of our home-made gf
batter mix that I took up there. The current crowd took over when
daughter was at Uni, and we haven't tried this with them, as she has now
decided that she doesn't really like fish, except in potato-based fish
cakes.

In message <3130303032303038490BB08477>, Rusty_Hinge
<rusty.hinge> writes
>The message <6q6ng4t10nca0sjth4eq9ba6urjhqr7v2d>
>from Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine
>Intervention.<x{yz}enophil44> contains these words:
>
>> Jumbo King Prawns in tempura batter, anyone?
>
>Deep-fride Ma's Bras, anyone?

Won't they be a bit rubbery?

I still miss red puddin suppers.

In message <490c3265$0$500$bed64819>, Richard Robinson
<richardR> writes
>Andrew Marshall said:
>>
>> the cMaCni's oven chips which we abeznily ohl,
>
>Just incidentally, do these have any connection with the bloke currently
>losing any last traces of reputation as a cbyvgvpvna across t'pond ?

Apart from him being a chip off the old Bush?

Andy Burns wrote:

>> I'm averse to large quantities of oil at near-spark-point temps in my
>> house
>
> One of my custards is a fire service, a few of months ago I arksed
> "Where do they park the chip pan fire demo van now?" the answer "Vg
> pnhtug sver".

Heh. I bet That was a demonstration that made a lasting impression.

In message <490c3265$0$500$bed64819>, Richard Robinson
<richardR> writes
>Andrew Marshall said:
>>
>> the cMaCni's oven chips which we abeznily ohl,
>
>Just incidentally, do these have any connection with the bloke currently
>losing any last traces of reputation as a cbyvgvpvna across t'pond ?

I don't goov so. I hope not, or I shall feel moved to eschew them.

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 12:50:45 +0000, robraitxxxxx (Rob)
wrote:

>Carlton Miniott <davebudd> wrote:
>
>> Well, I'm averse to large quantities of oil at near-spark-point temps in
>> my house, and the chippy can't guarantee no cross-contamination between
>> the chips friers and the fish friers, for the gluten-free requirement.
>
>My daughter's a coeliac and she's never had any problems with chippy
>chips. Yes, you do occasionally get a bit of fish batter in with the
>chips, but it's easy to spot and remove. I suspect that the chances of
>contamination of the hot oil is highly unlikely.

In most chippies the chips are cooked in a different fryer from the
fish. Contamination is a risk - certainly my dietitian thinks it might
be.

On or around Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:47:18 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
<spam> enlightened us thusly:

>On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 12:50:45 +0000, robraitxxxxx (Rob)
>wrote:
>>In most chippies the chips are cooked in a different fryer from the
>fish. Contamination is a risk - certainly my dietitian thinks it might
>be.

I guess it depends on how sensitive you are to the gluten. The chip fryer,
if only hfrq for chips, is only going to get batter etc. in small quantity
and occasionally, and for the most part, the batter will be removed again.
Granted, you sometimes get the odd bit of batter amongst yer chips, but it
tends to be recognisable, so you needn't eat it.

I don't know if the gluten (presumed in the flour of the batter) can escape
into the oil, and thence onto the chips, but if so I'd imagine it would be
very small amounts.

However, if you're sensitive to gluten in the way for example arGid is to
Rushdiesº (very severe allergic reaction, of the 999 and pray kind, from
what I hear), then that amount could easily prove nasty.

º old joak. Think Satanic verses and a bit of laterality.

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:25:21 +0000, Austin Shackles
<austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS> wrote:

>On or around Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:47:18 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
><spam> enlightened us thusly:
>>I guess it depends on how sensitive you are to the gluten. The chip fryer,
>if only hfrq for chips, is only going to get batter etc. in small quantity
>and occasionally, and for the most part, the batter will be removed again.

Er, if the chip fryer is used only for chips, there should be no
batter at all. Unless your chippy batters its chips. My chippy has two
fryers - one for chips, one for anything in batter. He had that set-up
long before people became aware of coeliac.

>Granted, you sometimes get the odd bit of batter amongst yer chips, but it
>tends to be recognisable, so you needn't eat it.

Doesn't matter.

>I don't know if the gluten (presumed in the flour of the batter) can escape
>into the oil, and thence onto the chips, but if so I'd imagine it would be
>very small amounts.

Contamination is contamination, though. "Very small amounts" doesn't
matter.

>However, if you're sensitive to gluten in the way for example arGid is to
>Rushdiesº (very severe allergic reaction, of the 999 and pray kind, from
>what I hear), then that amount could easily prove nasty.

Sensitivity apart, the real problem is gut-wall damage. I don't have
any sensitivity at all to gluten, so exposure to it will damage my gut
wall without giving me any symptoms, which is more dangerous in the
long-term. Because damage to the gut wall leads to decreased
absorption of nutrients and increased risk of bowel cancer.

In message <qNednUrq8-mD3JHUnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d>, Kate
XXXXXX <kate> writes
>Andrew Marshall wrote:
>> The spice mixes sound interesting, but I doubt that Geoff would like
>>them. Rosemary oil would probably be OK thobut.

>While I do like them hot and spicey, there are milder mixes that work
>well, such as garam masala, Schwart's Cook Art Moroccan mix, and garlic
>and Herb de Provence (I has some luvery Herb de Provence my friend
>brung me back from her hols) works well, as do the goose poos.

I might try the garam masala and the Moroccan one, some time when I'm
cooking for myself alone, but Geoff, though he likes a mild curry when
eating in an Indian restaurant, doesn't care much for spicy stuff at
home. I goov I may try cooking some roast spuds with a little rosemary
and see what he goovs of them, then perhaps try some others, but also
cook half of them plain, just to be safe.

> I have a friend who is allergic to so many spices that I only dare
>use herbs when cooking for her, and I'm very careful with those that
>are both, like coreander.

I've not so far had to do any non-allergenic cooking; if I had to, I'd
dread not getting it completely safe.

g8bur said...
> I've not so far had to do any non-allergenic cooking; if I had to, I'd
> dread not getting it completely safe.
>
You have, however, had at least one guest with multiple allergies.
Thing is, there are some allergies (thankfully) that cooking
ameliorates. (Is that the right word?)

In message <MPG.23792b297723a999989ab3>, Sena
<senacot> writes
>g8bur said...
>> I've not so far had to do any non-allergenic cooking; if I had to, I'd
>> dread not getting it completely safe.

>You have, however, had at least one guest with multiple allergies.

True, but IIRC most of the nosh, apart from simple sambridges and simla,
was takeaways or noshings-out. If I had to cook summat complificated
from scratch I'd arrq to be very careful what I put in it (and ask lots
of questions first TAAW).

>Thing is, there are some allergies (thankfully) that cooking
>ameliorates. (Is that the right word?)

Not sure - I goov it means 'to make better' or 'to improve', which could
be said to be a good result of the cooking destroying the allergens.

g8bur said...
> >Thing is, there are some allergies (thankfully) that cooking
> >ameliorates. (Is that the right word?)
>
> Not sure - I goov it means 'to make better' or 'to improve', which could
> be said to be a good result of the cooking destroying the allergens.
>
Destroy is probably a better worm. I think my brain's gone AWOL.

In message <fEF3UEGqCyDJFwlL>, Andrew Marshall
<g8bur> writes


>>Thing is, there are some allergies (thankfully) that cooking
>>ameliorates. (Is that the right word?)
>
>Not sure - I goov it means 'to make better' or 'to improve', which
>could be said to be a good result of the cooking destroying the
>allergens.

It means to make less bad, so it was the right choice of worm here.

The message <fEF3UEGqCyDJFwlL>
from Andrew Marshall <g8bur> contains these words:

/snip/

> >Thing is, there are some allergies (thankfully) that cooking
> >ameliorates. (Is that the right word?)

> Not sure - I goov it means 'to make better' or 'to improve', which could
> be said to be a good result of the cooking destroying the allergens.

Means to molish less of - such as less stinging, less harsh, less
bitter, more Sheddy.