avoiding hydrogenated oil.

I posted this to Chowhound, but got no response. I hope it's okay to try again here. I'll know next time to come here first when I have Chicago food questions.

On my last trip to Chicago, I enjoyed a decent hot dog at Superdawg, but really loved the fries. Later I went to Uncle John's and enjoyed my meal, but especially the french fries. I don't know whether they actually use partially hydrogenated oil, but it's so common that I usually just assume every place is using it unless they're specifically advertising that they don't

I'm actually not particularly interested in french fries, however. I would just like to be able to have some ribs or a nice hot dog while not worrying about the fries they come with.

I just read a mouthwatering round-up of fried chicken in the Chicago area. Certainly, some of those places must eschew HO, right?

I prefer corn tortillas, which usually don't have HO to begin with as many of the flour tortillas do. But I worry about the fat taquerias use to cook the meat. Lard is frequently hydrogenated.

I can't be the only person who is happy to eat moderate amounts of natural, fried foods, but would prefer to completely avoid partially hydrogenated frankenfoods. Chicago has so much depth, especially in these areas, that there must be restaurants which don't use HO but are still as delicious as any other.

Please point me to them. Thank you.

It's not much, but I can start. I can't remember where I read it, but I believe that Harold's doesn't use HO.

Hmm, I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm hoping a lot of nicer restaurants don't use it. I try to ask. Chef at DMK said they fry in tallow. Longman & Eagle uses tallow. Butcher and Burger uses peanut oil. Those are the ones I know so far.

There is a thread about tallow here
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=21384

I wish they'd just ban it like in NYC.

Superdawg uses beef tallow to cook its fries, hence the wonderful flavour.

Anything deep fried at Au Cheval is in pork fat!

I wouldn't be too worried about the lard at our better Mexican spots, particularly those in carnicerias. That big caso in the back, where the carnitas are made, produces the very rustic manteca that one can buy at even the most "corporate" of the Latino supermercados (e.g., Tony's). With all that fresh lard laying around, do you think these guys are paying for the tasteless white axle grease from Armour? No. The customers don't want that and it is an added cost the owners don't have to pay.

I'm more interested in good information than for the Bloombergs and Emanuels of the world to decide what fat I should have available. The legislative food-nanny experiment in Chicago happened long ago, involved foie gras, and blessedly failed.

JeffB wrote:
I'm more interested in good information than for the Bloombergs and Emanuels of the world to decide what fat I should have available. The legislative food-nanny experiment in Chicago happened long ago, involved foie gras, and blessedly failed.

I rarely see objections to Foie Gras from a health standpoint, it's mostly an animal rights or welfare campaign. Trans-fats are universally acknowledged to damage human health and have no culinary or cultural merits.

I just hope you are right about the carnicerias. Sometimes I don't ask because I just don't want to know. My ex was a biochemist who did research on trans-fats and they are definitely not something I want to consume.

Bristol (daily, burgers) and Hot Doug's (weekends, encased meats) fry their fries in Duck Fat

Blanket government prohibitions against things that are "universally" panned as culturally and nutritionally meritless (but not affirmatively "dangerous" in the same sense as asbestos or hard drugs): OK. Though maybe wobbly moral arguments should not be similarly given the force of law and shoved down our collective craws? Unfortunately for you, your ex, and dare I suggest me, this isn't a geniocracy. That said, I completely share your individual preferences, I think.

I wasn't comparing the relative health benefits of goose fat versus processed lard. I'll collect all of the truthful information I can about both foods and then decide where to eat. And I will allow that businesses and eaters on the margins of existence might choose to use HO until a similarly cheap alternative takes its place. I could be wrong, but erring in favor of choice and information keeps things less oppressive in the long run.

JeffB wrote:Blanket government prohibitions against things that are "universally" panned as culturally and nutritionally meritless (but not affirmatively "dangerous" in the same sense as asbestos or hard drugs): OK. Though maybe wobbly moral arguments should not be similarly given the force of law and shoved down our collective craws? Unfortunately for you, your ex, and dare I suggest me, this isn't a geniocracy. That said, I completely share your individual preferences, I think.

I wasn't comparing the relative health benefits of goose fat versus processed lard. I'll collect all of the truthful information I can about both foods and then decide where to eat. And I will allow that businesses and eaters on the margins of existence might choose to use HO until a similarly cheap alternative takes its place. I could be wrong, but erring in favor of choice and information keeps things less oppressive in the long run.

I sometimes do worry that even when I ask, I'm not getting the whole truth. I mean, how many people even really know about this stuff?

A good example is that a lot of places have "duck fat" fries. But I know people who work in those kitchens and they do not fry in pure duck fat- it's duck fat diluted with vegetable oil and hopefully non-hydrogenated.