Food experts from Queen Margaret University (QMU) in Edinburgh, Scotland, have cooked up a substitute for one of the world’s most environmentally contentious ingredients: palm oil.
They’re calling the breakthrough innovation PALM-AT, and say the plant-based discovery is healthier for both people and the planet.
It has 88 per cent less saturated fat and comes with – they say – 70 per cent lower emissions than regular palm oil, which is used in everything from baked goods to toothpaste to cosmetics.
Developed using linseed and rapeseed combined with fibre, it can be made locally on a global scale, avoiding the deforestation and habitat loss associated with palm oil production in countries including Malaysia and Indonesia.
That’s because the general scientific community has to evaluate the findings and be able to reproduce it.
When you don’t hear about them again, it either means one of three things:
There were some issues found that sent this research back to correct.
It was not reproducible and, thereby, deemed not plausible or false.
The industry has no incentive to apply this new technology, either because it would be too costly to retrofit into their current system or there is no profit to be made by it.
I already knew some of those reasons, the point is that if the discovery is not being applied, is it really a progress worth of being posted here?
I see your point, however I would prefer this type of article vs. the one where a corporation takes all the credit by “inventing” a new thing and labeling it as something brave.