this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
86 points (88.4% liked)

Funny

14415 readers
903 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AceTKen@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 points 21 hours ago

Not sojalecithin?

[–] TypFaffke@feddit.org 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Emulsifiers gonna emulsify 🚬

[–] EditsHisComments@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How to inhale peanut butter to undo ~10yrs of smoking?

[–] VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I was curious.

Apologies if you're actually quitting. My jocularity is quite weird.

[–] HackerJoe@sh.itjust.works 3 points 14 hours ago

Triple Flavor
Breath

WTF?

[–] EditsHisComments@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This made me kinda queasy looking at it lmao.

I actually quit everything last year. I still get some cravings every now and then, but throw that onto the pile of consequences from my youth. Not the worst withdrawals I've experienced, but definitely was the hardest to fully quit.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

which is probable

Why would this be probable? Evidence?

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Plausible" is what you wanted. "Probable" means "likely".

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world -5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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 5 points 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 4 points 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

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works -1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

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 -2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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 3 points 13 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.