• bizarroland@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 day ago

      Many US peanut butter manufacturers add emulsifiers and other chemicals into their peanut butter so that it remains homogenous.

      The realization is that the person would be eating those emulsifiers, and some people have claimed that they have negative health consequences, which is probable, although I don’t know if they do or not.

      • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Peanut butter is mostly just hydrogenated oils, but emulsifiers in things like Ice Cream are horrible for you, added to prevent separation of ingredients. Some destroy the blood brain barrier, damage gut flora health, and a bunch of other bad stuff.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Citation needed. Most of the emulsifiers in ice cream are simply different sticky carbohydrates. Usually beans.

          Studies show that there might be an impact that contributes to risk factors leading to an increased risk of certain metabolic disorders. This means that we need more study, not that there’s anything that warrants changes in behavior or saying anything definitive.

          • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Article in the guardian, and elsewhere a couple years ago. It’s not a secret, the problems with some of these emulsifiers. In fact it’s common knowledge to those of us whose heads are not inside the asses of billionaires which may not include you admittedly. No offense.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              An article in the guardian is not a resoundingly strong source, particularly given how news sources like to report health topics.

              If you look at any of the reviewed research by academics, it’s pretty clear it’s something they want to look at more, but it’s hardly a definitive “horrible for you” or destroying the blood brain barrier.
              In one study they only let mice drink emulsified water, and then gave them a food substance they were allergic to. This resulted in an increase in diarrhea.

              If you’re going to cite the guardian and “common knowledge” as your source, you might hold off on the “head in ass” accusations.

        • bizarroland@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Many things are probable.

          I chose that word because it is possible that there could be health issues caused by the emulsifiers in american peanut butters, but also I don’t know if it is.

          Probable is an apt word when something isn’t necessarily impossible.

          You will also note that I didn’t use the word likely, because I can’t say whether it is likely or not.

            • bizarroland@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              I meant it in the secondary definition of the term, which is “establishing a probability”.

              Plausible is also a good word for it, but probable is still apt

              • blarghly@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 day ago

                You aren’t establishing a probability.

                Or, by saying “probably” you are establishing a probability of > 0.5… with absolutely no proof.

              • otp@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                This is the first time I’ve heard that definition. It seems like a niche definition that can easily result in misunderstandings