That's really disgusting. I wouldn't eat cookie prepared with polyprophene and polhexade and hsjdhsjdjasdh.

Posted by: dusoft at January 12, 2005 08:06 AM

This is a specification, not just a recipe. If they just requisitioned "oatmeal cookies" or "brownies," they wouldn't know what they were going to get in terms of ingredients, size, quality, packaging, etc. I'd say the document is appropriately detailed.

Posted by: Bob Sifniades at January 12, 2005 08:33 AM

Somewhat off the subject, but when I served in the Navy in the early 1970's, I worked in the mobile radio repair shop. The whip antennas on the various vehicles broke off quite often and needed to be replaced. We could have gone to a local electronics store and purchased the exact same antenna for 3 dollars. But since the antenna was available in the Navy supply system, we were required to order it through the system for 50 dollars. It was the exact same antenna, manufactured by the same company, but we were required to spend over 16 times more on it than we needed to.

Posted by: Gary Edstrom at January 12, 2005 11:28 AM

Only 26 pages? Hmmm... must be the abridged version.

Posted by: Cary at January 12, 2005 01:27 PM

I'd like to point out that "Chocolate" is mispelled in the title. All that time to prepare the document, no time to spellcheck.

Posted by: Julie at January 12, 2005 01:31 PM

So THAT'S where our tax dollars go! I wonder how many copies had to be made. It's a sad sad waste of trees!!! :(

Posted by: Tonya at January 12, 2005 04:05 PM

As has been pointed out, this is not simply a recipe for a single chef to follow in his or her kitchen, but a specification which describes the procedures and requirements for mass-production, testing and packaging of food for broad consumption.

It still seems over the top to me, but I'll bet that it's not just limited to the armed services. I'm guessing that a large-scale commercial producer of biscuits or other mass-comsumed food product has similarly detailed procedures for the production, testing, packaging and distribution of their wares.

Posted by: Gil at January 12, 2005 05:15 PM

I understand there has to be standards to follow. Is it not possible to have ONE main list for the qualifications of particular ingredients? I see these are to be mass produced but as usual the government seems to make a semi-simple thing as complicated as possible.

Posted by: Leslie at January 12, 2005 06:37 PM

Yeah, it's definitely excessive. It reminds me of some jobs I've worked on where everyone has to throw in their two cents worth in order to feel they've contributed something significant, and you end with a a really over-written spec.

Posted by: Gil at January 12, 2005 06:47 PM

Yes, it's ridiculous, but you realize that the reason such detailed specifications have grown up is that without them suppliers rip off the government by providing inferior goods and claiming there was no spec saying the cookies shouldn't contain sawdust.

Posted by: KCinDC at January 13, 2005 02:16 PM

Sounds good, I'll bake um and eat um..Support our troops... Peace in the Middle East!

Posted by: big G at January 13, 2005 03:23 PM

Don't you think that military English is broken? Nuts, pecan, shelled. Boots, black, two, feet for the use of. Backwards ran sentences until reeled the mind.

Posted by: SImon Trew at January 20, 2005 07:17 PM

I'd like to see the specification for the "inflexible bags" in which the cookies are intended to be stored.

Posted by: Dale Baxter at January 21, 2005 09:26 PM

Errr.

Any chance this is a JOKE document?...

I mean, there are a lot of them out there, believe it or not.

Though I'd expect it to be dated April 1st...

Posted by: Richard Lynch at February 8, 2005 06:52 PM