Its perceived to be healthier. I don’t believe it is cheaper, but it might be. It not as readily available
Not butter.
Actually, I should make the caveat, that I don’t really know if there are other situations like this. I’m thinking of a particular case…but I suppose someone might surprise me and say “this other thing” qualifies. I’m just not aware of other cases.
– Is it consumed in liquid form?
– Is it a significant source of protein?
– Is a sweetener involved?
I’m going to use B here for the replacement food product, and A for the product that it replaces and is made up of.
Is B understood to be healthier than A because it doesn’t contain (or contains less of) something that most people perceive as unhealthy?
Because it DOES contain (or have more of) something that most people think IS healthy?
Because people typically use / consume it differently?
Is fermentation involved in producing either product?
Would most people perceive A and B as different versions of the same food item? (E.g., brown rice vs. white rice?) Or are they different enough that most people would perceive them as different items, like milk and cheese?
Can B replace A in all culinary situations? Or just in certain ones?
If I, an American living in a medium-sized town, went to my local Kroger, would I typically be able to buy A there? How about B?
I’ve put my answers in bold and italics
No
No
Yes
A sugar substitute that claims to be made from sugar?
Gordon has a Yes answer. And I’ll make a point to mention that the primary food product in the replacement is commonly obfuscated to use wording that (I believe) is intentional to mislead the public into not realizing the replacement is largely the original primary food product.
Also….when this is figured out (which is probably very shortly) there might be some argument on semantics because the primary food product is not “exactly” what you would think it replaces…but it is realistically and functionally the same.
Did I make it confusing enough?
Is product A ice cream?
Ah, I think I know it. Most artificial sweeteners (at least, when sold by themselves, not in a soft drink or the like) are, in fact, still mostly sugar, because the artificial sweetener is so much sweeter than sugar that a full “dose” of sweetness would be too tiny to be useable. So they put in half a teaspoon of sugar and a single grain of artificial sweetener in a packet, for as much sweetness as a full teaspoon of sugar.
Not Ice Cream
Chronos has it exactly.
If you look at the packaging of artificial sweeteners, the first ingredient is usually Dextrose, which is a simple sugar. They have to essentially cut the artificial sweetener with something because it is so sweet a very little bit goes a long way. However, its hard to handle and process such small amounts of artificial sweetener. So they mix the prescribed amount with dextrose and other things to make it easier to handle and pour.
Imagine the possibilities!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8yW5cyXXRc
Back in the day The Internet Oracle (which addressed the buttered toast/cat paradox multiple times) had an entry that involved powering a flying saucer with a bunch of buttered toast cats and the sound that UFOs made was really just a bunch of cats meowing. I don’t remember the specifics or which digest it’s in (and the website is not searchable and I couldn’t find it searching with either Duck Duck Go or Google).
On a side note, The Internet Oracle also had an answer with a cameo by Cecil Adams and Ed Zotti.
A man petitioned the government for years to receive a specific number license plate. After resistance and paperwork, he was able to receive it. It was: 337-370.
Once issues, controversy ensued and there was debate if he should be able to keep it. Why?
Was the guy known as 'OLE LEE’, maybe?
Was 337-370 his prison number?
You got it! Easy puzzle, I guess. Here is a picture of him with it.
It was unknown whether he would be allowed to display it upside down. His name was actually Ole Lee apparently.
Still not as funny as this one.