this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
437 points (94.5% liked)
science
14445 readers
1 users here now
just science related topics. please contribute
note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry
Rule 1) Be kind.
lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about
I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fake food is going to be more healthy than the real deal?
Sure buddy
This fallacy is called an appeal to nature.
It is also a fact that butter is a staple food that has been used for thousands of years with a proven track record.
This fallacy is called an appeal to tradition.
Just because something is fallacy the way it was presented does not make it wrong if he facts check out :)
Your facts don't check out, that's what makes you wrong. Fallacies are just the symptom.
Is butter not the best product in its class? both from health ie nutrition value and taste perspective?
Not anymore. This product matches butter on both counts and puts out much less pollution and takes up much less land than factory farming. I urge you to actually read the article, many of your points are addressed within.
I am just going with ol realiable
y'all have fun testing another "product"
This is called the fallacy of being a dope.
I trust you bro
"Bro", butter is literally just a hydrocarbon. As in carbon atoms and hydrogen atoms.
Making it in the lab produces chemically identical molecules.
As in, literally the same thing. Like actually for real no difference. Including however bad or healthy it is to eat.
Any nuances in the real thing will be from impurities that would have to be added to the lab produced stuff, should you want to.
The real difference is how it is made, not in what it produces. Meaning the synthetic option can be produced without livestock, and potentially using much less energy and land.
*hydrocarbon, not carbohydrate (the latter contains oxygen). Otherwise spot on.
Thanks.
🤡🤡🤡
If you want to be pedantic, straight out of the lab this stuff would be equivalent to "clarified butter". Butter, from which all impurities have been removed.
Still butter tho.
So headline is a bit of PR voodoo as i expected.
Big food companies has made a lot of afford to discredit butter and eggs since these foods are very good and cheap, aka processed food industry's main competition.
Don't trust them. Read the article, use your brain, and understand why your comments are wrong.
Yes daddy
What are you, 12?
This may be a logical fallacy known as false equivalence, when one fact is stated or implied to be conflated with another not directly related fact.
So was margarine before veganism was a widespread thing?
They said it's NOT made to be more healthy.
It won't be, it's processed shite
OKAY
So is any meat, mayonnaise, even butter is processed. Ever went into a fast food chain? Most ingredients are processed to the bits.
You better not take any medicine, that super processed? And Coca cola or any energy drinks? Bleh, made in labs!
I guess you only eat whole grains collected by you, that must suck.
Dam y'all really getting bent on shape over this lol
I wrote it’s not made to be more healthy, because that’s the current marketing of butter alternatives. This isn’t claiming to be more healthy. The compounds are the same as the fatty acids in butter.
It’s simply a way to get butter while reducing carbon dioxide, rather than increasing it.
If it's chemically identical, what does it matter if it's come from dairy, this process, or a Star Trek replicator?
Fake medicine is going to be more healthy than the real (plant) deal? Sure buddy.
It's not made to be more healthy, just more planet friendly.
Good or bad, it's still processed food.
That's my half-assed neutral statement. I choose not to eat processed foods. As long as there's disclosure, I don't care.
What people eat or don't eat is their business.