3 ms·

I think the point is that the article is conveying too much of the wrong kind of details.

• kragen 1y ago
  vlovich123 may be correct that I am giving the BBC too much credit in general. But I don't think I'm especially well-informed; I'd never heard of methylglyoxal before looking this up in Wikipedia. I agree that its focus is somewhat wrong. I don't think that the backgrounder on the importance of food preservation is completely without value. It's just that it's already fairly well known that food rots and why. My larger objection, though, is that there are important, well-established reasons for honey to be far less perishable than other substances of similar water activity and pH, and the article does not mention them even briefly. I think it's fine to have lots of the wrong kind of details, but it's not fine to omit the right ones.
  • bookofjoe 1y ago
    >I think it's fine to have lots of the wrong kind of details, but it's not fine to omit the right ones. Who decides which are "wrong" and which are "right?"
    • kragen 1y ago
      The title of the article, "The chemical secrets that help keep honey fresh for so long," seems like a good criterion in this case.