Slashdot Mirror


American Cheese Surplus Reaches Record High

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there's a 1.4 billion-pound cheese surplus. "The glut, which at 900,000 cubic yards is the largest in U.S. history, means that there is enough cheese sitting in cold storage to wrap around the U.S. Capitol," reports NPR. Americans managed to consume nearly 37 pounds per capita in 2017, but that wasn't enough to reduce the surplus. From the report: The stockpile started to build several years ago, in large part because the pace of milk production began to exceed the rates of consumption, says Andrew Novakovic, professor of agricultural economics at Cornell University. Over the past 10 years, milk production has increased by 13 percent because of high prices. But what dairy farmers failed to realize was that Americans are drinking less milk. According to data from the USDA, Americans drank just 149 pounds of milk per capita in 2017, down from 247 pounds in 1975.

Suppliers turn that extra milk into cheese because it is less perishable and stays fresh for longer periods. But Americans are turning their noses up at those processed cheese slices and string cheese -- varieties that are a main driver of the U.S. cheese market -- in favor of more refined options, Novakovic tells Here & Now's Jeremy Hobson. Despite this shift, sales of mozzarella cheese, the single largest type of cheese produced and consumed in the U.S., remain strong, he says. Novakovic also notes that imported cheeses tend to cost more, so when people choose those, they buy less cheese overall. The growing surplus of American-made cheese and milk means that prices are declining. The current average price of whole milk is $15.12 per 100 pounds, which is much lower than the price required for dairy farmers to break even.

55 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. wrap around the U.S. Capitol by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    "The glut, which at 900,000 cubic yards is the largest in U.S. history, means that there is enough cheese sitting in cold storage to wrap around the U.S. Capitol,"

    Awesome! The artist Christo merely wrapped the German Parliament in cloth. Wrapping the US Capitol in cheese would absolutely top that!

    Now, if we also have a surplus of bacon . . . we could also wrap it in that, and fry that bastard, and have lunch for the rest of the year!

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:wrap around the U.S. Capitol by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, this sounds like a great idea. We can use it to build a wall around Washington, D.C. I'm pretty sure Mexico will gladly pay for it.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:wrap around the U.S. Capitol by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The glut, which at 900,000 cubic yards is the largest in U.S. history, means that there is enough cheese sitting in cold storage to wrap around the U.S. Capitol,"

      Awesome! The artist Christo merely wrapped the German Parliament in cloth. Wrapping the US Capitol in cheese would absolutely top that!

      Now, if we also have a surplus of bacon . . . we could also wrap it in that, and fry that bastard, and have lunch for the rest of the year!

      The beauty of this situation is that the pork is already on the inside.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:wrap around the U.S. Capitol by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's really a stupid measurement. The reference standard is how many times the cheese can wrap around the Library of Congress. Everybody knows that.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  2. Supply and demand by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The current average price of whole milk is $15.12 per 100 pounds, which is much lower than the price required for dairy farmers to break even.

    If an industry consistently produces more than consumers demand and has prices below break even, the normal market response would be for some of the producers to go out of business. The only reason they don't is because of government subsidies. There's no good reason for the government to constantly exempt farmers from the normal law of supply and demand.

    --

    There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    1. Re:Supply and demand by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If an industry consistently produces more than consumers demand and has prices below break even, the normal market response would be for some of the producers to go out of business. The only reason they don't is because of government subsidies. There's no good reason for the government to constantly exempt farmers from the normal law of supply and demand.

      There is a very good reason why farmers are exempt from the normal laws of supply and demand... Same reason we use corn based ethanol that takes more energy to produce that the output energy as a fuel. That simple reason is... Iowa votes first

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    2. Re:Supply and demand by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 2

      Our President heard that cheese is essential for Poutine. And if his BFF Poutine wants cheese, well dammit, Poutine shall have cheese. Billions and billions of pounds of cheese. For Poutine.

    3. Re:Supply and demand by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its hard work to ramp up and ramp down farms and the needed generational skills.
      Most normal nations do all they can to keep their farms productive and producing so their nations will never face food shortages.
      Some decades see a lot of extra food.
      Productivity is good. Farmers on the land, been productive is good.
      Needing to find money to import food is not good.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Supply and demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Keeping a stable food supply is one of the highest priorities of any sensible government on the planet, actually.
      Problem is there are sometimes low demands for some things, which leads to issues that tend to spiral out of control if not managed properly.
      This is one of those cases. It has been horribly mismanaged.
      The shitty quality cheeses produced are also an issue.

    5. Re:Supply and demand by rgmoore · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm pretty sure Donald Trump's BFF cares a lot more about borscht than poutine.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    6. Re:Supply and demand by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's no good reason for the government to constantly exempt farmers from the normal law of supply and demand.

      There's a very good national security reason:
      We want to keep sufficient food production in the United States so that if we are at war, or just if there is a global food crisis, we won't have people starving to death.

      That doesn't mean we necessarily have to fund milk producers, but it makes sense to ensure you have enough good food production. It's better than buying another stealth F-22 Raptor, and much cheaper.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Supply and demand by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its hard work to ramp up and ramp down farms and the needed generational skills.
      Most normal nations do all they can to keep their farms productive and producing so their nations will never face food shortages.

      ... and other countries have no subsidies at all. New Zealand has none. Do you think they are starving?

      Subsidies are driven by politics, not by "preventing hunger".

      The American Electoral College, which magnifies the power of small rural states, means that our system of subsidies is especially stupid. Even European farm subsides look sensible when compared with ours.

    8. Re:Supply and demand by smoot123 · · Score: 2

      Most normal nations do all they can to keep their farms productive and producing so their nations will never face food shortages.
      ...
      Needing to find money to import food is not good.

      The world has changed. It used to be shipping food was expensive and wasteful. Shipping is now so cheap and reliable it is much less important to grow all your own food.

      It used to be the case that farmers didn't produce enough food for everyone to eat well. We now produce enough food that everyone could eat a nutritious diet of more than 2,000 calories. So producing enough food is no longer the problem, it's moving food to the people who want it.

      With these changes, it no longer makes sense for each country to stockpile food in case of shortage. A reasonable strategy is to stockpile cash, if anything, and just import food when it's needed. And you'd buy it from whoever can grow it the most productively, which might not be your local farmers. If you import from high productivity farmers, you'll have more cash on hand because you didn't give it to less productive local farmers. So not only is this better for food security, it's arguably better for your local economy.

    9. Re:Supply and demand by smoot123 · · Score: 2

      There's a very good national security reason:

      That's a reason but I don't think it's a great reason any more. Farmers worldwide are so productive and shipping is so efficient that it's really unlikely we'll have a world-wide famine. Or any famine, for that matter. It's quite safe to just depend on remote farmers.

      I won't even get into asking what sort of security spending that money elsewhere could buy.

      It's better than buying another stealth F-22 Raptor, and much cheaper.

      I don't know about that. A Raptor costs what, $100 million? That's a lot but an order of magnitude or two less than farm subsidies (measured in the tens of billions per year, I think).

    10. Re:Supply and demand by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      re "stockpile food in case of shortage. "
      That can change with politics, war, currency prices. An embargo.
      When the low cost food stops, riots start.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    11. Re:Supply and demand by jabuzz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Noting that you get beef in the EU that originates outside the EU, you just don't get beef pumped full of hormones. Similarly you get chicken that is from outside the EU. It;s just not slaughtered in such disgustingly horrible conditions that the only way to make it safe to eat is wash it in chlorine.

      The USA is free anytime to export these products to the EU, they just have to be produced in line with EU standards. It is a totally reasonable expectation.

      It's no different from banning imports of toys painted with lead paint.

    12. Re: Supply and demand by mjwx · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's no different from banning imports of toys painted with lead paint.

      It's very, very different. Lead paint is demonstrably harmful, whereas the hysteria over "GMOs" and "teh kemikillzzz!" is just clever marketing.

      By the sounds of that... You don't actually know what EU standards are. They aren't particularly high, Thailand can meet them, not sure why the US cant.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:Supply and demand by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      You say these things now but your tune might change mighty fast in the event of regional weather disaster or some kind of blight that causes a large number of crops to fail. These things have happened in the past. Producing an over abundance of food means that we don't starve when this happens. You are correct the policy to not maximize economic efficiency because that is not what its about. Its about insurance.

      It absolutely is about preventing hunger. It is also becoming a political foot ball, where one site wants to try and profit by it beyond the insurance justification and certain other players want to rather disingenuously claim that the "red states" are actually dipping their hands into the federal till more than the coasts. Which might be true in the strictest technical sense but as previously stated is about the insurance of food security. While the coast might send more net dollars to dear old Uncle Sam you have to consider there is some distortion in value. I can assure nobody will give a crap about anything Hollywood produces if they don't have food on their tables. The value of all the intellectually property out west and most of the accounting ledger lines in the east won't be worth much to anyone if they can't procure a meal because their isnt one to buy.

      (Yes I realize CA produces a lot of food - really not the point)

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    14. Re: Supply and demand by kaatochacha · · Score: 2

      Thailand meets them because they're not as large an economic threat in those areas. If Thailand started exporting massive amounts of food to the EU, you can bet something would come up making it unsafe.
      Don't believe for a moment that countries don't game these systems for economic reasons. In all directions.

  3. I will be glad to help by Lije+Baley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love cheese, fancy or not. But it's expensive. Quit hoarding, lower the price, and I'll eat it! Dairy product boom and bust is nothing new in the U.S. When I was a kid, dairy was like some kind of strategic item, with practically a command economy, government subsidies always coming and going. Our neighbor (farmer) got in and out of the dairy business every few years, following the subsidies. In fat (ha ha) years, the government was giving the stuff away.

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    1. Re:I will be glad to help by skam240 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I made a trip to the UK a few years ago and found quite a lot of really fucking good cheese of all kinds and varieties for very affordable prices. Over here, anything other than the fundamental basics for cheese are a small fortune. It seems to me our Dairy industry is pretty dysfunctional and I suspect government subsidies are discouraging them from innovating in the context of their surplus milk.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    2. Re:I will be glad to help by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      The subsidies stem back to the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. That's when Americans realized that OMG it's possible for the country not to produce enough food to feed everyone. Consequently, the government enacted a system of subsidies to assure there's always overproduction of food. An oversupply would normally crater the market price, so the government buys all that food at a fixed price (high enough to keep the farmers in business). Then resells the food to the public at a lower price.

      That's why corn ethanol and high fructose corn syrup exist. Due to this system, the country grows more corn than it consumes. Consequently the government has to figure out things to do with the excess corn. It becomes foreign aid, feed for cattle, corn ethanol, and high fructose corn syrup. This is why those reports about beef costing us $x per pound in subsides doesn't really mean that we would save $x per pound if we ended the subsidies for cattle feed. The cost to grow that extra corn is a sunk cost. If we stopped using the excess corn for feed, that doesn't mean we get our money back. Its cost would just be distributed to other things we do with the excess corn - corn we send as foreign aid would cost us more, and ethanol and HFCS prices would go up. The way it's set up now, if farmers have a bad corn crop, all that happens is some cows go hungry instead of people going hungry (in fact those cows which can't be fed will probably be slaughtered to produce beef).

      This is also why we we pay farmers not to grow anything - so their land is ready and available to be turned into cropland in case existing cropland should be decimated by disease, pestilence, or another dust bowl. If we didn't pay the farmers, they'd sell the land and it would be used to build condominiums and other things that you can't eat.

      So the subsidies are basically insurance. We're paying extra to guarantee there's always an oversupply of food. We could kill the subsidies and the average price of food over time would be lower. But some years we wouldn't produce enough food to feed everyone and food prices would spike.

    3. Re:I will be glad to help by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The subsidies stem back to the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. That's when Americans realized that OMG it's possible for the country not to produce enough food to feed everyone.

      This is nonsense. The dust bowl affected mostly Oklahoma and Kansas, and did NOT lead to food shortages. The problem during the depression was OVER PRODUCTION and FALLING PRICES. And the purpose of the subsidies was an attempt to pull land out of production, and raise prices to fight deflation.

      This was part of the NIRA, which was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 1935.

  4. And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Maybe if the cheese was of a better quality like you get elsewhere in the world it would sell better?

    Also, cheese isn't the only thing to do with excess milk - butter and milk powder are globally traded commodities.

    Do the Chinese buy up US-made infant formula like they do Australian and New Zealand formulas?

    Also interesting to note that the article talked about consolidation of diary farms, but what it omitted is that on a global scale, the average US dairy farm is still what would be considered a hobby farm in Australia and New Zealand (the world's largest exporter of dairy products)

  5. Part of the answer by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

    If Americans aren't eating processed cheese slices or string cheese, the Feds should be discouraging dairy farmers from making it. Sell off what they've got in storage to supply the market, and get the farmers to make other cheeses instead, such as Swiss, Cheddar, Muenster and Jack. Also, get them to make more yogurt, as that's very popular now especially among the health conscious and those trying to lose weight.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:Part of the answer by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Informative

      I take it, then, that you've never tried plain unsweetened yogurt. Not only is it tasty and nutritious, there are lots of recipes out there that use it.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Part of the answer by BlazeMiskulin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Farmers don't make the cheese. They raise cows that produce milk.

    3. Re:Part of the answer by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      Speak for your self, AC. I've been eating yogurt since before it came flavored, and still like it. Not only that, just try making tzaziki or tandoori chicken without it.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  6. Re:Cow Milk by bobbied · · Score: 4, Funny

    is for baby cows.

    Moooo!

    I love cheese! Just not a million pounds of it. No Whey...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  7. Another Trump comment by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Informative

    And Trump criticizes Canada's supply management which is aimed to discourage overproduction. Jesus.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  8. Results by DaMattster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These are the results of corporate America not responding quickly enough (and maybe doubling down against) to demands by Americans for healthier foods. I feel badly for the small farmers that are adversely impacted because they basically produce what the larger buyers order them to produce. I recall something the President of Kraft Foods said in the 1960s. He said that these preservatives were made for the space race and to keep food fresh for astronauts on long trips. He specifically said these preservatives are not safe for long term consumption. It just goes to show Corporate America doesn't give a flying fuck about you and me past the money we give.

  9. It's simple. by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just stop f'ing subsidizing stuff. The end result is always uneconomic, unintended consequences. And, "American cheese" just sucks, anyway. If they're going to build a cheese bank, make it aged Cheddar or Colby or Gouda (IMHO).

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  10. That's nice this isn't an EU issue by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    What's more the obvious solution is for our dairy industry to start making more expensive cheeses and carving into the imports.

  11. Cheese? by tquasar · · Score: 2

    Could it be that the product isn't cheese? The label says "pasteurized process cheese food". Send it to any cheese producing region in the world and see how it's received by the locals. My mom made grilled cheese sandwiches when I was a child but I wouldn't eat the stuff today. Local stores carry a wide variety of cheese with different flavors and textures.

    1. Re:Cheese? by smoot123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The label says "pasteurized process cheese food".

      You're being too generous. IIRC, it's "pasteurized processed cheese food product". I don't know how a food is different from a food product and I'm pretty happy that way. I'll just stay away from the nasty stuff.

      (Well, except I have a recipe for a Velveeta-based chili cheese dip. It's appalling but really tasty after a few beers.)

    2. Re:Cheese? by quenda · · Score: 2

      Could it be that the product isn't cheese?

      Exactly. American "Cheese" is not cheese. Even in the US itself, it cannot be labelled as cheese, but must be called "processed cheese", "cheese-based food" or "edible congealed rubber-like product".

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    3. Re:Cheese? by sabbede · · Score: 2

      That's only because it's a blend of other cheeses. It's not "not real cheese", it's several real cheeses. I'm rather partial to Land o' Lakes White American, which I believe is a cheddar and muenster blend. Not at all rubbery or plasticy like your typical yellow cellophane-wrapped single.

  12. Re:Cow Milk by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Funny

    is for baby cows.

    Moooo!

    I love cheese! Just not a million pounds of it. No Whey...

    I Gouda hand it to you. Feta love of God, that's so funny, I Camembert it. Emmental for cheese jokes -- I just Edam up.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  13. Then why by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

    Then why is anything better than spray-cheese so bloody expensive?

  14. There is indeed a good reason by Pollux · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's no good reason for the government to constantly exempt farmers from the normal law of supply and demand.

    There is a reason, and it's a damn good one: To regulate supply and stabilize pricing.

    Think about it: have you ever had to worry about food, really, really worry about it? A moderate price increase due to increasing oil prices at the turn of the century is the closest our country has ever come to a "food crisis". There has never been a serious food shortage or price inflation for food in the US for as long as I've been alive.

    It used to not be that way. You can go back to the 70s, and read about how rapidly fluctuating food prices created quite a political stir, as evidenced by the April 1973 cover of Time Magazine. If you study the data on this page, you can see both how food prices (particularly beef) stabilized after 1980, and how the average worker has seen a steady increase over time in the amount of food that can be purchased with their wages.

    That has been the primary purpose of the US Farm Bill: to encourage, subsidize, and regulate the food market, stabilizing pricing and providing ample food supply. Because when there's oversupply, people complain about food going to waste. When there's a lack of supply, people riot and governments collapse. Which would you really prefer?

    1. Re:There is indeed a good reason by crunchygranola · · Score: 2

      There's no good reason for the government to constantly exempt farmers from the normal law of supply and demand.

      There is a reason, and it's a damn good one: To regulate supply and stabilize pricing.

      Think about it: have you ever had to worry about food, really, really worry about it?

      I entirely agree. There is no agricultural economy anywhere in the world that does not require government intervention to maintain a stable business environment. It is the nature of the beast. Industrial agriculture is vulnerable to the vagaries of nature, and have characteristics that no other economic activity possess - it is an essential primary producer, it is tied to seasonal cycles by nature with naturally fixed production cycles, it has large capital inputs that must be recouped on an annual basis, and the ability to stockpile its product (create "inventory") is limited at best.

      That has been the primary purpose of the US Farm Bill: to encourage, subsidize, and regulate the food market, stabilizing pricing and providing ample food supply.

      Lots of caveats about that though. Yes, that should be the primary purpose of the US Farm Bill. But in an era in which farm production is almost entirely from huge agricultural corporations it is heavily loaded with nonsensical and even counter-productive pay-offs, and actual management of supply (as in the milk situation) has been poor. The worst example is the Federally mandated for grotesque over-production that greatly exceeds all other farm products in tonnage and value in the U.S. Most of that corn goes into government-subsidized gasohol production, a strictly energy-negative activity that increases the U.S. carbon footprint. It is basically handing over taxpayer money to the likes of Archer-Danile-Midlands to produce a crop that Americans don't need, at a heavy cost to the environment. That should be stopped completely.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  15. Re:Cheesus Christ that's a lot of cheese! by reboot246 · · Score: 2

    That's nearly enough cheese to make another Moon!

  16. Re:Coincidence I read about this last night by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last night, I was wondering what exactly "American cheese" is.

    It's this tasteless, rubbery gunk that, in some cases, looks pretty close to cheese.

    It's really weird stuff, when I lived in the US I initially bought generic cheese (i.e. went for the most average product because their cheese looks weird and I wanted to go for the safest option), and it was tasteless rubbery gunk. So I bought stronger cheese, and it was tasteless rubbery gunk. Then I bought extra strong, mature, whatever cheese, and it was still tasteless rubbery gunk. A few months later I was on a plane stuck on the tarmac due to snow and chatting to the guy next to me, who was a cheese importer. He said business was tough, because it was hard to sell cheese with any flavour when most people went for the most bland gunk there was. So there were twenty different types of cheese in the supermarket, but all were the same bland gunk, because that's what sold.

  17. Wow, I can't even... by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    It's a surplus of cheese made in America, not a surplus of "American" Cheese....

    And you can largely thank our government for having a consistent food supply. The government heavily regulates what's grown and how it's grown via those subsidies. Before that we had over farming and farmers growing too much of the same, profitable crops until they market saturated and collapsed....

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  18. Re:Central planning and price manipulation by gov by dryeo · · Score: 2

    In 1900 America was much more advanced then Russia, which still had an aristocracy that traded in peasants and a big secret police bureaucracy. America also didn't sacrifice a large chunk of its population and industrial base to win WWII or have people like Stalin in charge to set things back.
    Another example is China, who once they did switch to a more mixed system advanced pretty quick. When I was a kid, it was "eat your dinner, there's millions of starving Chinese". They were also smart enough to switch governments from the progressive to conservative parts of the party every 8 years, not too different from America. Now that Xi has decided to be dictator for life, they'll probably run into the complacency leading to corruption and no innovation problems.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  19. Re:??? by Harvey+Manfrenjenson · · Score: 2

    Do you REALLY want to live in a world where food becomes genuinely seasonal and regional again, and you have to plan "what do I feel like eating tonight" around "what does the store actually have available to PURCHASE this week?"

    Yes.

  20. Re:"American Cheese" by Picodon · · Score: 2

    You’re right about the summary, but what the (Vox) article really said is American (along with “cheddar, Swiss and other cheese varieties on record”), which is much worse than just “cheese from the U.S.” Go ahead and check that Wikipedia article, and enjoy the mouth-watering pictures and description: “American cheese cannot be legally sold under the name (authentic) "cheese" in the US. Instead, federal laws mandate that it be labeled as "processed cheese" [...] or "cheese food".” Perhaps we should just stick to its popular earlier names of “factory cheese” or “yellow cheese” (Which, without a doubt, many of our contemporaries will surmise comes from yellow cows.)

    So, may be the USDA should instead say that we have a monster surplus of... “cheese food” (sounds like food for the cheese monster, yum).

    In all fairness, there are good cheese producers in this country (and also in Canada), who try to fight the Walmarts of the cheese industry and deserve some recognition. However, I suspect that those producers are little concerned by the USDA surplus report.

  21. I for one can't wait for the "more refined options by melted · · Score: 2

    I for one can't wait for the "more refined options". There have been some good domestic cheeses appearing. There's no reason Wisconsin couldn't produce cheeses that are easily on par with the famous French varieties for half the price. I'm looking forward to $6/lb Wisconsin "Epoisses". :-)

  22. MAGA by SimonInOz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Clearly, we need to make America Grate again.

    --
    "Cats like plain crisps"
  23. Re:Coincidence I read about this last night by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's something worse: American "chocolate". I first thought the sample I tried is badly spoiled -- it tasted like vomit. Turns out, US manufacturers intentionally add butyric acid (which is a good part of what makes vomit smell) because it was what "consumers demand".

    Early on, chocolate production in the US was done with exceptionally bad hygiene and poor process, resulting in a product that was spoiled and in any civilised setting would be thrown out. Yet like that cheese gunk, companies instead make people think this is what chocolate tastes like.

    Being able to legally call a product with no cocoa at all "chocolate" doesn't help, either.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  24. Re:Coincidence I read about this last night by dargaud · · Score: 2
    One explanation is that there are basically 2 types of milk: good quality with high cream and low water content, and the opposite. In countries with a history of quality cheese production (France, Italy, etc), low quality milk is used for drinking and high quality for cheese production. In the US it's the opposite, hence the shitty quality of the cheese.

    The most insane experience I had there was when I bought small mozzarella balls to use as appetizer. Placed in the middle of a dinner table, after a few minutes, they started doing weird fizzing noises, to the point that all conversation stopped and we looked at them: they shriveled, spitting their water out and turned to grey raisins after 5 minutes. We threw them out.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  25. Re:The cheesiest by Barsteward · · Score: 3, Funny

    they could process it into house style bricks, leave it outside for a few months to go stale and hard and then Trump can use them to build his wall. might attract all the "rats" he complains about too...

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  26. Re:Coincidence I read about this last night by Whorhay · · Score: 2

    A lot of American Cheese Products, such as cheese wizz and those orange slices aren't made from cheese curds. Instead they are made from the whey, there are special powdering towers used to remove the water resulting in a whey powder that is used to make all that crap. It's actually kind of a genius solution to reduce waste from traditional cheese making, and produce more profit in the mean time. That said I don't like it much either.

  27. Re:Cow Milk by cyberchondriac · · Score: 3, Funny

    My blood is curdling, there's got to be a cheddar way of making cheesy jokes, just leave it brie. Some cultures are better left provolone.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  28. Re:Coincidence I read about this last night by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    American Cheese is a style of cheese. It is mostly made from vegetable oil; it isn't really real cheese. They're allowed to call it 100% cheese if they have some minimum percentage of milk.

    There is no style of product called American Chocolate. American chocolate is just chocolate made in America.

    Anybody who bakes with chocolate buys "baking chocolate," which is 100% pure chocolate. It tastes different depending on the grade of cacao used, but not based on where it is made. And if you use this and eat it frequently, you do know what chocolate tastes like.

    The local stores have chocolate bars from 35% to 85% chocolate. A 65% chocolate bar made in Portland tastes the same as a 65% one made in Amsterdam.

    The stuff you're eating isn't chocolate. It is "chocolate flavored."