this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
435 points (94.1% liked)
science
15035 readers
232 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
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
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?