this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
90 points (86.9% liked)
Funny
14423 readers
184 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
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
view the rest of the comments
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.
Emulsifiers gonna emulsify ๐ฌ
How to inhale peanut butter to undo ~10yrs of smoking?
I was curious.
Apologies if you're actually quitting. My jocularity is quite weird.
WTF?
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.
Why would this be probable? Evidence?
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.
"Plausible" is what you wanted. "Probable" means "likely".
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
You aren't establishing a probability.
Or, by saying "probably" you are establishing a probability of > 0.5.... with absolutely no proof.
This is the first time I've heard that definition. It seems like a niche definition that can easily result in misunderstandings
Not sojalecithin?
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.
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.
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.
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.
More of a source than an internet rando, and it's published in many places, look it up, or don't.
I did, obviously. Why do you think I was telling you what they said?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9738911/
Here's the one with the mouse diarrhea.
Why would I click on your link when you haven't even described what it is supposedly refuting, you just gave a blanket ignorant statement that emulsifiers do not cause damage to the human body which is just not fucking true. So it would seem talking to you as a complete waste of time.
That was literally in my comment.
Not what I said. Try reading again. Hint: I objected to you saying something was definitive and "destroyed the blood brain barrier" when they're at the point of "this might be a thing that's relevant and we need more research".
... According to a random article in the guardian, and "common knowledge". News agencies are notoriously bad at reporting science and health news, and without evidence "common knowledge" is just a rumor.
The link I shared is a typical piece of research on the topic. It's not intended to "refute" anything. You'll not that their conclusion is "we should probably check on this more" because humans aren't mice and they don't consume emulsifiers the way they do in lab studies.