2 ms·
"First, this is old news. And second, it's non-news." If you asked the average person how much wood they thought was in their cheese they'd look at you as if y
by pmoriarty 5y ago
"First, this is old news. And second, it's non-news."
If you asked the average person how much wood they thought was in their cheese they'd look at you as if you were crazy.
It's absolutely news because most people have not even the faintest clue that the cheese they buy contains anything but cheese, much less wood products.
I also see nothing wrong with calling cellulose "wood pulp". That's what it is, isn't it?
- clairity 5y ago> “I also see nothing wrong with calling cellulose "wood pulp". That's what it is, isn't it?” wood pulp would be relatively unrefined/contaminated compared to cellulose, which you’d expect to be relatively pure and harmless, so that’s what makes it misinformative. intentional ambiguation like this is a too-common media sensationalism tactic.
- crazygringo 5y ago> I also see nothing wrong with calling cellulose "wood pulp". That's what it is, isn't it? Of course it isn't. That's like calling glucose "apple". Cellulose is a compound that is found in wood pulp, but wood pulp contains many more compounds. The cellulose used for food can be extracted from wood pulp. It can also be extracted from cotton. But it isn't wood pulp, and it's irresponsible and sensationalistic for a journalist to call it that.