HOME > Chowhound > Not About Food >

Creamer vs. Half and Half

Davwud Dec 26, 2007 02:13 PM

Hey Hounds

So I'm sitting here wondering if coffee creamer (The non dairy kind) is better for you than half and half cream is. For you coffee anyway.

We won't get into my FIL making milk out of it for cereal and to give to the dogs.


  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. Veggo RE: Davwud Dec 26, 2007 02:24 PM

    Call me old-fashioned, but I'm more comfortable with something that came from a Jersey cow than from a factory in north Jersey.

    1 Reply
    1. re: Veggo
      LindaWhit RE: Veggo Dec 26, 2007 03:10 PM

      Bingo. Key for me is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_c... "Other common ingredients include corn syrup and vegetable oil solids. Some creamers are based on soy milk rather than on milk protein." A link from the Wikipedia article goes here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15...

      Just. Don't. Need. It.

    2. jnstarla RE: Davwud Dec 26, 2007 04:01 PM

      The Coffeemate-type products used to be full of trans fats (through hydrogenated soy proteins). Not sure if they still are, but I prefer something a little less manufactured in my coffee.

      38 Replies
      1. re: jnstarla
        Davwud RE: jnstarla Dec 26, 2007 04:56 PM

        My rule of thumb has always been, something made naturally HAS to be better than is manufactured.
        What I have found out when confronting my SIL with this is that this decision is not based on health but on finances. My FIL is plain and simply opting for the cheapest measure. Regardless of his, my MIL or the dogs health.
        I just still can't wrap my head around making "Milk" out of it.


        1. re: Davwud
          kare_raisu RE: Davwud Dec 26, 2007 06:55 PM

          I have to play the devils advocate. Who says drinking milk beyond infancy and of another species is "better?" The Chinese have been making soy milk for centuries.

          [This is coming from a cheesemonger. - & I do drink milk]

          Half and half does have an oily off taste if youve weaned yourself off of it and try it after several months.

          1. re: kare_raisu
            cayjohan RE: kare_raisu Dec 26, 2007 07:32 PM

            kare, I agree with what you say about humans as a species drinking milk beyond infancy, and then, of another species. Still, being lactose intolerant, I can drink buttermilk and kefir, love cheese, and good yogurt is a joy. Also, I agree that soy products are good, and love many of them to distraction.

            I recognize your devil's advocate position and respect it, but I have to take up the bait and say: ( as you would expect) why would manufactured non-dairy, HFCS-laden, additive-laden creamer be better for one, rather than just having a Tbsp. of cream in one's coffee, as I am personally able to to, but know not all can?

            I just love these fringier CH threads...it's what we're all thnking but never ask.


            1. re: cayjohan
              kare_raisu RE: cayjohan Dec 26, 2007 07:44 PM

              I agree!

              1. re: cayjohan
                Up With Olives RE: cayjohan Dec 27, 2007 06:54 AM

                Wow, you can drink buttermilk? That has one of the highest levels of lactose. At least that's what it says on the Lactose Intolerance site here http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepa...

                1. re: Up With Olives
                  cayjohan RE: Up With Olives Dec 28, 2007 09:35 AM

                  I know - odd. From what I've been told, is has to do with the culturing of the product. As if it's sort of, well, pre-digested for one's system! I don't know, but won't knock whatever mechanism is at work, as regular milk is a no-go for my tum.

                  1. re: cayjohan
                    Up With Olives RE: cayjohan Dec 28, 2007 12:11 PM

                    I'm so excited. I've been avoiding baking with buttermilk, which, as we know, is a pretty miraculous product. I'll try it.

                2. re: cayjohan
                  Mr Taster RE: cayjohan May 12, 2008 04:15 PM

                  You should know that lactose intolerant people can drink raw milk (unpasteurized).


                  3. Why do you say that "Raw Milk is Alive"?
                  Natural organic raw milk has in it vitally important living things. These include the following: beneficial bacteria, enzymes (including lipase, protease. and other), lactase forming bacteria, and many enzyme based pathogen killing systems. ****The common practice of pasteurization inactivates or dramatically reduces the effects of these important active (living) elements. As a result, you may be lactose intolerant when drinking pasteurized milk, but not lactose intolerant when you drink raw milk.**** This is because lactase enzymes are being formed when you digest raw milk. That is why we say, "only living milk brings life."

                  In fact some lactose intolerant people drink raw milk as a morning "supplement" which allows them to eat pasteurized dairy during the rest of the day.

                  So it would seem that milk left alone is healthy... it is actually the processing of milk that makes our bodies reject it!

                  Mr Taster

                  1. re: Mr Taster
                    phofiend RE: Mr Taster May 13, 2008 08:12 AM

                    Having grown up on a farm drinking unpasteurized milk and developing lactose intolerance at the age of 6, I have to strongly disagree. Also, enzymes are proteins, not living things.

                    1. re: phofiend
                      Mr Taster RE: phofiend May 13, 2008 09:35 AM

                      The way it was explained to me is that pasteurization destabilizes the proteins, and is is that destabilized protein which the body rejects. I think the term "living" is referring not specifically to the protein, but to the milk as a whole... ie pasteurized milk is dead milk whereas unpasteurized milk is a living thing.

                      Mr Taster

                      1. re: Mr Taster
                        Pollo RE: Mr Taster May 14, 2008 08:38 PM

                        Lactose intolerance is due to inability to digest the sugar lactose...nothing to do with proteins or pasteurization. Any heat treatment (i.e. cooking) denatures proteins and no one develops bad reactions to cooked proteins (from any sources). The whole notion that pasteurized milk is somehow inferior to "raw" milk is idiotic...along the same lines that unpasturized apple juice is supperior to "raw" apple juice. Both "raw" apple juice and milk can and will have nasty bugs in it...the question is how soon you will get sick and how nasty it will be. People should go and see how milk or apple juice is "made" before believing the nonsense.....

                        1. re: Pollo
                          Mr Taster RE: Pollo May 14, 2008 10:28 PM

                          By your argument, yogurt with dead cultures is not superior in any way to yogurt with live active cultures. Would you agree with this statement?

                          Raw milk contains bacteria which produces lactase. Lactase deficiency is what causes people to be lactose intolerance:

                          See header "What causes lactose intolerance" here:

                          Therefore, drink the lactase producing bacteria and you can then consume dairy which does not contain lactase (i.e. pasteurized dairy products


                          My information comes from a recent visit to several farms and dairies central California's dairy country (Fresno area). All of the dairies except for one were fetid stinkholes with cows rooting around in what looked like mud, but wasn't (if you get my point). Raw milk from these conventional dairies would be a death sentence... that's why the milk has to be pasteurized.

                          Conversely, the raw milk dairy maintained open pastures with grazing cows and was by comparison an extremely sanitary place (no lagoons or fetid stinkholes at all).

                          Leaving the argument of the benefits of live bacteria aside, I feel more comfortable drinking raw milk which comes from a clean, well maintained single source dairy than milk that has to be pasteurized because the conditions in which it is harvested are filthy.

                          Mr Taster

                          1. re: Mr Taster
                            Pollo RE: Mr Taster May 15, 2008 08:03 AM

                            I did not claim that "yogurt with dead cultures is not superior in any way to yogurt with live active cultures". If you read the link you posted you can see in the first paragraph that "Lactose intolerance is caused by a shortage of the enzyme lactase, which is produced by the cells that line the small intestine". Pasteurization is designed to get rid of bugs that are pathogenic and will be present in raw milk. Wheather cows are living under conventional conditions or have access to open pastures changes only the probability that the milk they produce will have the pathogenic bugs.

                            1. re: Pollo
                              Mr Taster RE: Pollo May 15, 2008 09:37 AM

                              Pollo said:
                              "The whole notion that pasteurized milk is somehow inferior to "raw" milk is idiotic"

                              Pollo also said:
                              "I did not claim that "yogurt with dead cultures is not superior in any way to yogurt with live active cultures"

                              If you agree that the living organisms and bacteria in yogurt have positive health benefits, then why would you immediately assume that it is "idiotic" that raw milk does not? While this is not a direct correlation, acceptance of one would lead the curious dairy consumer to investigate the other... to summarily dismiss the whole notion of healthful milk bacteria as "idiotic" but healthful yogurt bacteria as a matter of course, may not be a practical conflict, but certainly is an intellectual one.

                              A) Lactose intolerance is caused by lactase deficiency
                              B) The living bacteria in raw milk produce lactase as a byproduct

                              then would it not make sense that lactose intolerant people could consume raw milk?

                              Lastly, Pollo said:
                              "Pasteurization is designed to get rid of bugs that are pathogenic and will be present in raw milk."

                              Pasteurization cannot get rid of only pathogens and leave the beneficial bacteria. This is clearly a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

                              Incidentaly, there is also evidence to suggest that a grass-fed diet (versus grain) changes the pH balance in the cow, making their bodies less susceptible to infectious disease.

                              Mr Taster

                              1. re: Mr Taster
                                Pollo RE: Mr Taster May 15, 2008 01:06 PM

                                Yogurt is started with pure cultures of non-pathogenic organism. Raw milk may have small amounts of non-pathogenic bugs that may or may not be of any benefit. On the other hand if pathogenic bugs are present then people get sick. It is the notion of the suposed benefit of raw milk that I find idiotic. This is a simple situation where the suposed benefits of raw milk are miniscule in comparison with the benefits of pasteurization. Want the benefit of "good" bugs eat yogurt.

                                1. re: Pollo
                                  Mr Taster RE: Pollo May 15, 2008 01:30 PM

                                  I am merely pointing out that pasteurization does bad things to milk as well (why do you think that every milk except raw must be fortified with vitamins A and D).

                                  Sanitary raw milk production lends itself well to smaller scale, sustainable farming. It does *not* lend itself well to mass produced factory farming. Raw milk production is totally inefficient by comparison... think about it, in addition to raising the cows, you have to plant grass and alfalfa for the cows to eat, and rotate the pastures. You've got to absorb the expense of growing a crop (which you do not sell directly, and for which there is no direct profit) as well as the expense of raising and milking the cows. Compare this to conventional dairy farmers which throw grain in a bucket and let the cows eat as they stand around in pools of liquid manure all day. It's much more efficient, but come on-- it's so disgusting!

                                  The real problem with pathogens in raw milk comes from irresponsible dairy producers. In the days before milk was pasteurized, unless you knew your dairy famer's milk production practices, it was a crapshoot as to what you got. Back then, who knew if the milk was produced (or stored) in sterile conditions. I think pasteurization in this environment was necessary because there were no adequate health standards in place, and bacteriological analysis of milk was not possible. That is clearly not the case in today's hyper health aware marketplace.

                                  If you know where your raw milk comes from, the potential danger is infinitesimal. This is one thing that would worry me about raw milk going mainstream.... undoubtedly there would be greater competition to keep prices low, and those farms which employ expensive, ultra-sanitary measures would be forced to cut them in order to keep their business alive, and the risk of pathogens would go up.

                                  The thing that really gets me is that all this is just common sense. Let cows be cows... eat grass, roam freely, have babies and they will produce high quality, sanitary raw milk. It's only when you impose an unnatural system of dairy processing onto this paradigm that pathogens become a real problem.

                                  Filthy boiled milk might be clinically safer since the risk of contamination is basically 0, but its important to know that the benefits to the digestive system are also 0 (and can in fact exacerbate other digestive problems, not the least of which is lactose intolerance). To buy or not to buy raw milk is a decision that people must make for themselves, but it should be an educated decision.

                                  Mr Taster

                                  1. re: Mr Taster
                                    alkapal RE: Mr Taster May 15, 2008 04:01 PM

                                    "It's only when you impose an unnatural system of dairy processing onto this paradigm that pathogens become a real problem."

                                    that is not correct. anthrax is a case in point.

                                    "Can milk be contaminated by anthrax?
                                    Although most anthrax outbreaks in recent history have been recorded in beef cattle, there is a possibility that anthrax can occur in dairy cattle. B. anthracis is fragile and easily inactivated by common disinfectants or exposure to moderate temperatures (above 58°C or below 4°C). In an environment such as milk, the vegetative organisms of B. anthracis die spontaneously within 24 hours. Furthermore, it is known that B. anthracis does not form spores in a cool environment, and the fermentation processes would destroy all vegetative bacteria that gain access to milk. The environmental contamination of milk with anthrax is extremely unlikely and this is precluded further under Canadian milk handling processes which require collected milk to be carried through enclosed milk lines to milk room refrigerated vats. The collected milk must also be cooled to 1-4°C within two hours of milking and maintained at that temperature. All the above precautions combined with B. anthracis characteristics are sufficient to reduce the risk of viable anthrax organisms present in bulk milk or dairy products, from herds where anthrax occurred, to nil."

                                    citation from the canadian food inspection agency: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/a...

                                    1. re: alkapal
                                      Mr Taster RE: alkapal May 15, 2008 04:27 PM

                                      I was making the common sense point that cows living in a healthy environment tend to produce healthy milk. I was not making the "uncommon sense" point that healthy living condition insulates cows from every instance of disease.

                                      You can live your life with the umbrella always open, always anticipating a problem, always insulating yourself from a percieved threat. I'm just here to make the point that it's okay to put away the umbrella if the skies are clear.

                                      Mr Taster

                                      1. re: Mr Taster
                                        Pollo RE: Mr Taster May 15, 2008 05:55 PM

                                        Problem with "common sense" approach is that it is very uncommon as this discussion demonstrates to a certain dgree. Cows (as do any other animals) are prone to infection and do carry bugs in their systems regardless if they appear healthy or live in healthy environment (i.e. grass fed) so unless you where to test each and every animal regularly and have almost sterile milk collecting/processing environment you will run into problems. The point I am making is that the suposed benefits of consumption of raw milk are not worth the risks or the costs of such production. By the way, the addition of vitamins A & D to milk are at this point in time nothing more than a marketing ploy. Sure, in the 1930's, '40's or '50's it made sense due to under nourished population but now?

                                        1. re: Pollo
                                          Mr Taster RE: Pollo May 15, 2008 11:50 PM

                                          That's not true.... you don't have to test each and every animal regularly. You do, however, have to test the batches of milk regularly, and government regulations mandate a certain minimum. That's why it's important to know your raw milk supplier and his sanitary practices. You should find a raw milk provider that voluntarily exceeds government minimum standards. If you find a raw milk provider who takes sanitation seriously, contamination risk is so low as to be negligible.

                                          Mr Taster

                                          1. re: Mr Taster
                                            Pollo RE: Mr Taster May 18, 2008 01:07 AM

                                            Required testing of milk is v. limited and generic in nature and will not detect the potencial pathogens that may be there. To implement this kind of approach (testing) would be 1) v. expensive and 2) too long to be usefull since raw milk will has a short shelf life (time delay before results are available). To say that "you need to knowing your supplier" is meaningless. Pasteurization does what it's supposed to do - kill pathogens and if in the process few beneficial/harmless bugs get killed...Oh, well....eat yougurt with live cultures....

                                            1. re: Pollo
                                              Mr Taster RE: Pollo May 18, 2008 06:23 AM

                                              "Required testing of milk is v. limited and generic in nature and will not detect the potencial pathogens that may be there."

                                              Where do you get this information?


                                              Out of all dairy producers, raw milk production itself is very limited in scope. The expense of raw milk testing procedure as well as the inherent expenses (such as maintaining a grass/alfalfa crop to feed the cows) mean that the cost of raw milk is very expensive ($5-$7 per half gallon is how much I pay at the farmer's market, but I've seen it at retailers for $10).

                                              Mr Taster

                                              1. re: Mr Taster
                                                Pollo RE: Mr Taster May 18, 2008 08:46 AM

                                                The problem is not where I get my information (I'm a microbiologist/food scientist) but that you do not understant the information you quote. Have a look at it again and try to comprehend what is stated.

                                                1. re: Pollo
                                                  Mr Taster RE: Pollo May 18, 2008 11:44 AM

                                                  If you're a microbiologist/food scientists than you should have no problem quickly pointing me to the journals in which you are referencing your information.

                                                  Mr Taster

                                                  1. re: Mr Taster
                                                    Pollo RE: Mr Taster May 18, 2008 12:40 PM

                                                    No need for journals...at this time you did not even understand what I said in my last post. Like I said before....read the info. you quoted:


                                                    There is more than enough information to make my point.

                                                    1. re: Pollo
                                                      Mr Taster RE: Pollo May 18, 2008 01:17 PM

                                                      I've said a lot of things here, and I want to understand your points.

                                                      Specifically which of my many points do you contest, and what specific references in the vt.edu site contradict these assertions?

                                                      Mr Taster

                                          2. re: Pollo
                                            Scargod RE: Pollo May 16, 2008 01:07 PM

                                            My grandparents used and drank raw milk all their lives and so did I when I visited, which was regularly for fourteen years. I remember my grandmother boiling water and taking that hot water down to the barn to wash the udders and her hands with before she began milking. They knew what to do. There was no testing, but they took good care of their livestock.

                                            1. re: Scargod
                                              Mr Taster RE: Scargod May 16, 2008 02:27 PM

                                              At the raw milk farm I visited, they used iodine to sterilize the udders before milking. In fact, the milking barn itself had a huge pile of iodine stained rags piled up right next to the washing machine!

                                              Mr Taster

                                              1. re: Mr Taster
                                                Pollo RE: Mr Taster May 18, 2008 01:10 AM

                                                Iodine is not a sterilizer...it's a sanitizer and can not be used all the time since it's an irritant to the udders.

                                                1. re: Pollo
                                                  Mr Taster RE: Pollo May 18, 2008 06:18 AM

                                                  What is your source for this information?

                                                  Mr Taster

                                                  1. re: Mr Taster
                                                    Servorg RE: Mr Taster May 18, 2008 01:42 PM

                                                    I find it hard to beieve that you can "sterilize" a cow's udder. What would you do, stick the udder into an autoclave? And if you could I imagine that you would be left with one VERY angry cow after the procedure.

                                                    1. re: Servorg
                                                      Mr Taster RE: Servorg May 18, 2008 01:54 PM

                                                      What they do at this particular dairy that I visited is that before milking, they douse the surface of the udder with iodine and then wipe it up with a terrycloth towel which then goes in the aforementioned laundry bin.

                                                      Is it so hard to believe that the same substance that had been sterilizing wounds for generations and is an essential for campers and backpackers to ensure clean drinking water can be put to similar usage in sterilizing a cow's udder?

                                                      Mr Taster

                                                      1. re: Mr Taster
                                                        Servorg RE: Mr Taster May 18, 2008 03:40 PM

                                                        A cow's udder can't be "sterilized" without heating to a temp of around 160 degrees Centigrade and keeping it there for 20 minutes or so. A cow's udder won't ever be the same again if you do that (nor would mine). You can "sanitize" using an anti bacterial solution such as the one you cite. But that does not get rid of 100% of the external (surface) bacteria.

                                                        1. re: Servorg
                                                          Mr Taster RE: Servorg May 18, 2008 03:51 PM

                                                          Thank you for clarifying the semantics. Nothing we consume is 100% free of microscopic life, nor should it be!

                                                          Mr Taster

                                                          1. re: Mr Taster
                                                            Servorg RE: Mr Taster May 18, 2008 03:59 PM

                                                            The cow would find the semantic distinction excedingly important.

                                                            1. re: Servorg
                                                              Mr Taster RE: Servorg May 18, 2008 04:08 PM

                                                              Considering that the context of our discussion places us in a dairy farm, I think most non-science majors reading along knew that I was not referring to laboratory-like sterization procedures.

                                                              (ok, here come the ornery contrarian replies...!)

                                                              Mr Taster

                                                          2. re: Servorg
                                                            Pollo RE: Servorg May 18, 2008 08:00 PM

                                                            Standard autoclave sterilization is set at 15 min at 121.1 deg. C (250 deg F).

                                                        2. re: Servorg
                                                          Scargod RE: Servorg May 18, 2008 03:22 PM

                                                          I do not know the science or laws/regulations for selling raw milk to consumers today, but look at what the price has risen to! Today I passed a place (with cows) with a sign exlaiming "raw milk". I think I should get into this business at the current price! As I said, my grandparents milked daily and I had plenty of it and this argument over what is OK (or correct, legal, etc.) seems silly....

                3. cayjohan RE: Davwud Dec 26, 2007 06:43 PM

                  Half and half gets my vote.

                  Let's think market forces here for a sec: if all people who love god food just STOPPED buying the insipid "creamer," the world would be a much tastier place.

                  As for your FIL, DT, get him a box of dry milk! The dog would be much better off nutritionally! (I know...hard to change the hardened in-laws...)

                  But for the bipeds, certainly - real dairy, in whatever amounts they can tolerate. No fakes unless you have true allergy issues.

                  Milk out of CoffeeMate? - yuuuurrrgh.


                  1 Reply
                  1. re: cayjohan
                    Davwud RE: cayjohan Dec 26, 2007 07:52 PM

                    "(I know...hard to change the hardened in-laws...)"

                    You have no idea who you're dealing with here. He had a stroke about a year back. Or so some doctor said...... ;-)


                  2. JiyoHappy RE: Davwud Dec 26, 2007 08:00 PM

                    Nothing beats real genuine 1/2 & 1/2 in coffee. I find a dash of torani's syrup flavors coffee much better than non-dairy creamers.

                    1. s
                      sueatmo RE: Davwud Dec 26, 2007 08:02 PM

                      I don't like non-dairy creamer because it turns coffee into an ugly gray color. But at home I don't use conventional half & half either; I use non-fat half & half (I know, a contradiction in terms). Your question is a good one because one has to ask, which is better, the manufactured item, which I believe has fewer calories and fat, or the more "natural" one which has lots of fat. Probably the best answer to learn to drink black coffee.

                      4 Replies
                      1. re: sueatmo
                        JiyoHappy RE: sueatmo Dec 26, 2007 08:11 PM

                        Isn't there corn syrup & sugar added in non-fat 1/2 & 1/2 ?

                        1. re: sueatmo
                          Davwud RE: sueatmo Dec 26, 2007 08:19 PM

                          Not to mention partially hydrogenated oils. The stuff is made in a lab for cryin' out loud. How healthy can it be??

                          The best answer is to drink black decaf. You don't need all that caffeine in you either. Which is what I drink.
                          The odd thing is, years ago, when faced with creamer or black coffee I opted for black since the other stuff is vile. Once I got used to it, I found I liked coffee much better. So did my innards if you know what I mean.


                          1. re: Davwud
                            sueatmo RE: Davwud Dec 27, 2007 06:46 AM

                            I basically agree with you about creamer. At work I opted for black coffee because I couldn't bear the creamer. But there is something so nice about cream in my coffee.

                            I do, however, depend on the caffein in coffee for the stimulus it gives me in the morning.

                            Luckily, for those like me who need to watch fat intake, there is no-fat half & half. But that is a processed food. Sometimes you have to take what you can get.

                            1. re: sueatmo
                              manraysky RE: sueatmo Feb 18, 2008 12:58 PM

                              I'm with you on the FF 1/2 & 1/2. I started using it as part of my weight loss program. There's a lot of fake foods I won't eat, but sometimes I just have to go there. This is definitely a case of "you take what you can get."

                        2. mschow RE: Davwud Dec 27, 2007 07:08 AM

                          I hate that creamer stuff. For my coffee, it's half and half or no coffee at all.
                          My mother takes the creamer issue even further. She PREFERS the dry powder creamer, not even the Coffee Mate brand. She prefers the cheap Shop Rite grocery store brand powdered creamer. Barf.

                          2 Replies
                          1. re: mschow
                            OldDog RE: mschow Dec 27, 2007 08:14 PM

                            Please tell your mother for me that she is not alone. I also PREFER the dry powder creamer, and prefer the cheaper store brand (currently Albertsons) over CoffeMate, which I find tends to be lumpy.

                            1. re: OldDog
                              Davwud RE: OldDog Dec 28, 2007 09:02 AM

                              My MIL uses it because that's what my FIL gives her to use. He gives her that because it's cheap.
                              She's unfortunately suffering from Alzheimer's and really doesn't know what she likes anymore. She uses it out of habit.


                          2. a
                            AMFM RE: Davwud Dec 27, 2007 07:12 PM

                            there is a difference between "not diet" food and bad for you food. 1/2 and 1/2 is incredibly high in fat but (particularly if you buy organic which has NO additives, hormones, etc) it isn't BAD for you, it should simply be consumed in moderation. certain people have extenuating circumstances which further require them to limit their consumption.

                            natural foods are not bad. some are simply more luxurious than others. now processed foods....

                            3 Replies
                            1. re: AMFM
                              ekammin RE: AMFM Dec 28, 2007 08:29 AM

                              I won't use the powder. There are some restaurants that automatically bring it with your coffee, instead of milk or cream (I suppose it's cheaper, and easier to store.) I usually ask for milk or cream; if they don't have it, I don't drink the coffee.

                              1. re: ekammin
                                Cheflambo RE: ekammin Dec 28, 2007 11:33 AM

                                That dry powdered stuff is just .... nasty. Adding water to it to make "milk" just makes white water (you're not fooling the dogs, either). And on that topic I agree with whoever noted above that DOGS SHOULD NOT HAVE MILK! I wont use any non-dairy creamer, and if I find myself in an office situation where nothing else is available, I just pass on the coffee all together. The fake "creamers" in liquid form aren't much better.

                                I only allow myself 1 cup of coffee a day. I add 1 packet of Splenda (instead of the 2 spoons of sugar I want) and some chocolate milk or Land-o-Lakes Fat Free 1/2 & 1/2. The real half&half would be better, but Im trying to cut back on every fat gram too. Its a treat I allow myself once in a while, usually when I am traveling and this is what is being served at the hotel or coffee shop.

                                1. re: Cheflambo
                                  hipquest RE: Cheflambo Feb 17, 2008 06:29 PM

                                  If you're using Fat Free Half and Half you're getting your sugar fix, or really HFCS.

                                  My husband accidentally purchased the fat free stuff and could not figure out what was wrong with his coffee. :)

                            2. Boccone Dolce RE: Davwud Feb 17, 2008 05:39 PM

                              I almost passed out when I read the container of coffee creamer this morning. It's corn syrup and CRAP! I like half and half in there, but I have to drink the coffee VERY hot, and I've been using creamer which doesn't cool it down a bit. Habe not really been loving the flavor, but it's better than microwaving the mug every 2 minutes. So NOW what? I hate the smell of milk (too cow-y) and we don't use it, we use Silk (and I can't bring myself to put that in my Blue Mountain splendor) - Anyway I want to experiment and heat the half and half- what will happen, I wonder. I tried to drink it black- BLAH- I just don't like it...
                              If heating the half and half brings out the cow-smell, I will cry.

                              5 Replies
                              1. re: Boccone Dolce
                                Davwud RE: Boccone Dolce Feb 17, 2008 06:23 PM

                                Once I learned to drink coffee black (And it took a few weeks) I found that I liked coffee a lot better.


                                1. re: Boccone Dolce
                                  AMFM RE: Boccone Dolce Feb 18, 2008 11:24 AM

                                  have you tried a foamer? then you can heat lower fat milk and foam it and it doesn't seem so curdly. more latteish but still... i used to have a hand held pump one and it was pretty easy and worked.

                                  1. re: Boccone Dolce
                                    Pollo RE: Boccone Dolce Feb 18, 2008 01:14 PM

                                    Creamers...both dry and liquid are the ultimate CRAP....it's a perfect way for dairy companies to unload the stuff they can not sell at a v. nice profit....

                                    1. re: Pollo
                                      alkapal RE: Pollo Apr 26, 2008 09:47 AM

                                      this is about non-dairy creamers. so the evil profiteering dairies are not behind that. ;-P

                                      1. re: alkapal
                                        Pollo RE: alkapal Apr 30, 2008 08:36 AM

                                        Actually, many dairies do make non-dairy versions in the same facilities....

                                  2. EmileJ RE: Davwud Apr 29, 2008 07:30 PM

                                    I read on one of these posts that non-dairy creamers primary ingredient was sodium cascientate - the primary ingredient in elmers glue -I'll take milk.

                                    4 Replies
                                    1. re: EmileJ
                                      Davwud RE: EmileJ Apr 30, 2008 08:45 AM



                                      1. re: EmileJ
                                        maryv RE: EmileJ May 11, 2008 02:57 PM

                                        For what it's worth, Elmer's doesn't use that anymore. It's all petroleum-derived now. But yes, it did used to have a casein product derived from milk for its main ingredient - that's why there's a bull on the label.

                                        1. re: maryv
                                          dolores RE: maryv May 12, 2008 06:21 AM

                                          Shouldn't there have been a cow? The bull only contributed, the cow did the work!

                                          From the sound of it, I'm glad I never used that fake creamer stuff. The 'flavored' kinds sounded horrific.

                                          1. re: dolores
                                            maryv RE: dolores May 16, 2008 08:29 PM

                                            Haha, yeah, I was thinking something like that myself! I guess they needed something Masculine for that Manly task of gluing.

                                      2. Passadumkeg RE: Davwud May 12, 2008 06:16 AM

                                        I drink my coffee black or if the coffee is bad w/ cream. However, I wish to advocate for nondairy creamer as an excellent hand cleaner. Really! If your Coffee Mate is is in the same room as the photo copier, and your hands get all black from the tonier, put a little nondairy powdered creamer between your palms, add a little water, and lather up! It works as well as Go Jo, seriously! A great hand cleaner, but it will no longer pass my lips.

                                        2 Replies
                                        1. re: Passadumkeg
                                          Scargod RE: Passadumkeg May 12, 2008 10:37 AM

                                          Have you tried bathing with it? Bon Ami?

                                          Seriously, I drink coffee black but when it's strong, and I want to pretend I'm in France, I add cream. Artificial creamers and sweeteners make me gag. Heavy cream IS oily tasting when you drink/use 0 fat for so long, but I love it, greasy...

                                          1. re: Scargod
                                            Passadumkeg RE: Scargod May 12, 2008 04:41 PM

                                            Funny, when coffee's weak and cheap, I kill it w/ cream.

                                        2. p
                                          phoebek RE: Davwud May 14, 2008 05:16 PM

                                          I've always referred to non-dairy creamer as "white death."

                                          1. k
                                            KevinB RE: Davwud May 15, 2008 01:14 AM

                                            Can't stand any non-dairy "creamer", whether powder or liquid. But, since I've been watching my weight, I've backed off from cream to milk. First it was whole milk, then 2%. Now it's 1% (I've tried skim - that was too thin). A tablespoon of half&half has about 20 calories; the same amount of 1% has about 6. That saves me (on my roughly 7 cups a day) about 100 calories a day or about a pound a year from my waistline.

                                            2 Replies
                                            1. re: KevinB
                                              moymoy RE: KevinB May 17, 2008 01:47 PM

                                              i can totally relate, my family grew up on h&h, about a year ago i switched to 2% and never went back. now i use 1% organic milk (much better than regular 1%) and it's great in my coffee. once you stray away from h&h going back is very difficult, the heaviness of the h&h becomes alot more prominent.

                                              1. re: moymoy
                                                alkapal RE: moymoy May 18, 2008 04:19 AM

                                                experts on this thread, what is it about organic milk that gives it such a better, fuller mouth feel than "regular" milk?

                                            2. m
                                              MacTAC RE: Davwud May 18, 2008 09:56 AM

                                              For me, better than Half & Half, is light cream. I prefer the taste, and when I compared labels, the light cream was lower in fat.

                                              Around here (Long Island), Dunkin Donuts uses it when you ask for cream. It's not easy to find in supermarkets but I usually manage between Waldbaum's or Stop and Shop.

                                              1. im_nomad RE: Davwud May 18, 2008 02:24 PM

                                                For the same reason i am a proponent of butter in moderation over the low-fat margarine stuff.......i vote for cream, over the synthetic versions in any form.

                                                That being said, i've used anything in a pinch, and I don't drink cream in my coffee...gave that up a couple of years ago during a diet, and switched to 2% milk.....when i tried a coffee with cream it had a weird sweetness to it i didn't like (i like my coffee unsweetened), so i stayed with the milk,soymilk, or black. I've always said that people who load all sorts of things into their coffee (like the triple-triple types)..really don't much like the taste of coffee....so i wonder why they drink it.

                                                Now cream in tea once in a blue moon....is divine !

                                                Davwud....if your FIL is using the flavored types...maybe he just likes the flavor on his cereal....no biggie. I grew up eating diluted carnation canned milk on my cereal...it seemed to be what everyone had.

                                                4 Replies
                                                1. re: im_nomad
                                                  Davwud RE: im_nomad May 18, 2008 03:11 PM

                                                  Nope, this is purely a financial deal. He's cheap. Very cheap. We went looking for a new fridge for them. He walked over to the appliance section looked around a picked out the cheapest one he could fine. It was an upright freeze. IOW, he only looked at the price tag.

                                                  He also will mix dishwasher powder with water instead of springing for dish soap. It's maddening.


                                                  1. re: Davwud
                                                    im_nomad RE: Davwud May 18, 2008 05:26 PM

                                                    how old is FIL? Both my parents were born during the 30's.....and waste of money is a big thing to them

                                                    1. re: Davwud
                                                      cheeseguysgirl RE: Davwud May 19, 2008 10:39 AM

                                                      Sounds like my Mom and grandmother. We always used to say they ordered off the menu from right to left (and I'm not talking about Hebrew menus).

                                                      1. re: Davwud
                                                        neverlate RE: Davwud Mar 11, 2009 08:30 AM

                                                        Why don't you buy him some dish soap while you're there? I was with a friend once while she was buying a new TV. She had plenty of money, but talked the salesman into giving her an "architect's discount" because her son was an architect.

                                                    Show Hidden Posts