I've never seen labeling like this before. Interesting.
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
596 points (99.5% liked)
Mildly Interesting
25834 readers
530 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
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
That is not really true and is more fear mongering. Palm oil is much better than any alternative that can be grown in the same regions. The issue is not palm oil but amount of consumption. Palm oil actually takes up less land than other crops that can produce that type of oil.
But why do we need to grow oil in these regions?
For solid fats there is no alternative crop growing in northern regions, it is either palm oil, coconut oil (similar regions), or butter. Butter is much more expensive and has other issues. Best thing to do is eat less crappy snacks that need those solid fats, like cookies and such. Without the need for cheap ingredients we would not grow it. But if we do need it, there is no easy alternative
I think this is a little bit of a false equivalence, though. A hectare of borneo jungle ≠ a hectare of Saskatchewan prairie. It's probably an impossible thing to accurately calculate, but I'd like to see kind of control for ecological cost. E.g. is 1 hectare of borneo as important to the earth as 2 hectares of prairie?
It also seems a bit obvious that an ecosystem on the equator would be capable of greater production than one closer to the poles. It always bothers me when people compare like "x crop takes 2 times as much water as y crop" when crop x might be grown somewhere that water isnt an issue.
Yes, but palm oil is a hard fat, it's used for cookies and anywhere that needs to be solid. alternatives are coconut oil and butter. Neither are better in yield vs land use.
But if butter can be produced in abundant habitat like the midwest prairie instead of threatened species-dense places like Borneo’s jungle, I’d prefer to go with the higher land use but ultimately less ecologically destructive option.
Sure, it's an alternative. It's also much much more expensive and less healthy than palm oil (butter has more saturated fats and cholesterol).
Palm oil does what palm oil does. And it's useful in food manufacturing because you can create the same products without using butter or transfats. That's pretty much the only reason it gets so heavily used.
But the actual alternative to palm oils is to stop consuming or manufacturing products using palm oil. That means some products should just be pulled from the market. Oreos, for example.
But Oreos are mostly vegan and most of their competition uses babies in their recipes.