To make this alternative butter, you don't need land, livestock, or crops.
A California-based startup called Savor has figured out a unique way to make a butter alternative that doesn’t involve livestock, plants, or even displacing land. Their butter is produced from synthetic fat made using carbon dioxide and hydrogen, and the best part is —- it tastes just like regular butter.
My thought was "I doubt you can make fat only with hydrogen and carbon", but fats/lipids are literally hydrocarbons. Adding other elements changes the taste, so it isn't necessary to have mammals anywhere in the production chain.
Very interesting and probably not the first time this is/has been done. It seems quite obvious.
According to the savor team, it was quite easy for them:
“We start with a source of carbon, like carbon dioxide, and use a little bit of heat and hydrogen to form chains which are then blended with oxygen from air to make the fats & oils"
I want to guess they are glossing over a complicated enzyme they created, or other form of reagent.
To start with, fatty acids also need Oxygen because of the COOH and OH group of the glycerin in fat. They are not hydrocarbons. You know what also is just made of Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen? Hundreds of thousands of molecules. All sugars and carbohydrates. If you allow for Nitrogen too, you could cover most molecules found in biological life.
None of this has any bearing on how difficult or complicated it is to synthesize these from more basic molecules like CO2 or H2.
Something I wondered with this, is that butter/margarine/similar need an emulsifier. They consist of basically 80% fat + 20% water, which would not normally mix, but then you add an emulsifier and they do.
There's lots of different emulsifiers. In butter, it's apparently mostly casein. My margarine lists lecithin and glyceride.
And well, looks like glyceride consists out of lots of H, C and O, so I'm guessing that's probably what they're using in this process...
Ever since I’ve had to go dairy-free due to sudden lactose intolerance, I’ve had to learn the sad world of vegan cheese. And, the thing that I’ve learned is that almost all the makers have this obsession with coconut oil, the smallest amount of which I can taste—giving the cheese an “off” taste—and which gives me heartburn.
The problem is a lot of store bought vegan cheeses are ok at best. I think violife is probably the best i have been able i buy but it's still not great.
But, making vegan cheese yourself otoh you can make some really good shit.
We get this butter substitute (green lid, can't remember the name, I'd make a terrible shill) and it is phenomenal and 100% replaced spread butter. Cooking, I still use the regular most of the time though.
I don't know about international food, but the German vegan meat companies like Rügenwalder Mühle and Like meat have made huge leaps last year. Mortadella, Fleischwurst, Schnitzel and Chicken Nuggets all taste almost identical to the original. Ground "meat" is close, but you have to chose the right kind for each recipe. More complex stuff is still really bad tho. I say all of this as a passionate vegan meat hater.
They're not bad, on par or better than most frozen grocery store hamburger patties, and way better than the vast majority of fast food burger meat. No, they're not better than a hand ground 80% lean sirloin patty, but they could easily replace what McDonald's uses without their customers batting an eye.
For foie specifically, it's worth to try to find alternatives due to the creation process of the original being so bad that it's basically banned outside of Spain and France.
It's a synthetic saturated fat, so basically a synthetic margarine. Butter is made from milk. So the headline should read "[...] makes 'margarine' out of water and CO2", but everybody hates margarine, so I get why they chose butter instead.
Really? I don't mind it as a substitute for baking, but for eating on bread or using it to fry something I don't think it comes even close to the flavor you get from real butter.
“I’ve tasted Savor’s products, and I couldn’t believe I wasn’t eating real butter. It tastes really good—like the real thing, because chemically it is.” Bill Gates recently wrote in his blog post.
If it’s chemically the same as butter, should we call it butter or something else?
Margarine is made of hydrogenated oil. This is chemically identical to the fatty acids in butter. It’s not an alternative for dietary purposes, it’s just a more planet friendly solution.
actual margarine is getting hard to find in stores around here, and when you do it's priced almost as high as a non-sale price of real butter. margarine has 80% fat content and similar baking and cooking properties as butter.
what's on store shelves is a cheapened, watered down product laced with extra chemicals and fillers, ranging from 25-40% oil and can't even make a proper box of mac & cheese. some of them don't even melt when put on toast, hot, right from the toaster.
Interesting way to get fat alternatives, people are already used to eating fake butter regularly, so it probably wouldn't take much to add this to our diet.
The biggest question which is barely alluded to in the article is cost. If it can't compete with mass produced butter at cost and scale then it'll just be another "alternative" which is good but not as big.
They also mention that they compared emissions and land use but give no aspect of what synthetic processes are used (I'd assume they at least have provisional patents on the "how to" already).
It wouldn’t offset much, given the upper price for direct air capture here https://www.iea.org/commentaries/is-carbon-capture-too-expensive at a little under $350/ton, and assuming a pound of ‘butter’ comes entirely from CO2 (some will by hydrogen based on the article, but assuming that’s negligible) that means at most the credit should be 16¢ per pound, which is 3.4% of the average cost of a pound of butter ($4.69, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000FS1101). My cost of butter is below average and it’s still only a 4.5% subsidy.
Edit to add: if you count the CO2 production from obtaining the milk used for real butter against the cost as well (let’s assume the resources for this process and the process of making milk into butter are similar), it seems like producing a pound of butter is emits around 4 kg of CO2, which nets you another $1.4 on each package of butter (if you use the lower number for carbon capture this is a total of $0.6 including the pound of capture from above). This is actually pretty significant, so if there was a tax for greenhouse gas emissions to cover the cost of recapture it would help a product like this be more viable.
“The big challenge is to drive down the price so that products like Savor’s become affordable to the masses—either the same cost as animal fats or less. Savor has a good chance of success here, because the key steps of their fat-production process already work in other industries,” Gates said.
Sounds like it's not currently price competitive but it might be in the future. I expect economies of scale would be helpful too.
Yeah, that's always the thing with these technological solutions, you practically cannot compete with plants. They involve barely any work, nor machinery, for the output they deliver.
Fat and oil production from animal and plant-based sources are collectively responsible for about 3.5 billion tons of CO2
You cannot be serious that animal-based and plant-based are grouped in this figure. Plant-based is likely close to carbon-neutral, and only not net-negative, because of transport, cooling etc., which will also be necessary for this artificially created fat...
How plant-based compares to this new process still needs to be seen for sure. If it's just a machine you can plug in at the store and everyone can get their butter like out of an ice cream machine, without transport and cooling chain, then it's likely a lot better.
But at this point, I don't expect the process to be much more efficient than what plants are doing, which means you'd still need a ton of energy and particularly also land area for it.
They're from the same class yes, but is it also going to contain vitamins A, D, E and K2 or contain fatty acids like Conjugated Linoleic Acid or Butyric acid?
I'm trying to point out that factory produced fats will most likely lose out on the health benefits of butter as a source of fatty acids.
I wonder if they can use CO2 that comes from industrial carbon capture, or if it needs to be something purer that takes a lot of energy to produce.
Also, I'm not sure if we can get industrial volumes of hydrogen from sources other than fossil fuels now. Its been a while, but last I checked it was coming from things like byproducts from reformers.
So I have limitations with videos, but the argument that capturing carbon is costs more energy than it took to put into the air is valid as long as we're still dumping carbon in the air. But, we have to stop putting carbon in the air and we have to start taking it out again.
There are ≈950 gigatons of excess CO2 in the atmosphere 27% of that by weight is carbon, the us population is 333milion, so if every American eats 770lbs of carbon sequestered butter we will solve climate change.
If CO2 is a byproduct of another process, then I'd make a guess it is fairly cheap. The flaw here is that CO2 and H2 are both products of steam reforming using methane... Which is to say, the cheaper version might just come from using natural gas. Hydrogen has to be sourced from some energy consuming process, and that too is often from the methane steam reformation. So it's certainly possible, but yet again is ready to become yet another "green" product made from fossil fuel. Doesn't have to be, but I can be.
Edit: to correct a discrepancy, the article mentioned hydrogen, but if the hydrgon comes from water used in the process then some of the issues of providing H2 is less big. But either way I expect this to be energy costly. Nevertheless, a lab made product is still something that doesn't need large areas of land to produce.
The problem with making carbon into butter is it will just be released once someone eats it and burns off the calories. BUT, I think you can make soap from just about any oil. So you could turn carbon from the air into fake butter, turn that fake butter into soap, and then store the soap in caves, solving any potential soap shortages for the next several millennia while also solving the climate crisis.
Butter is already made from carbon. They’re creating the same hydrocarbon chains that are in the fatty acids that butter is comprised of, just without the cow.
Also, for anyone who thinks that carbon bound up in fatty acid chains in butter is released back into the atmosphere through metabolism, I will direct your attention to the population US Midwest and Great Plains. These people have been proving that you can effectively sequester butter for many decades.
I mean cool, but if farts release CO2 after digestion breaks down fats and proteins, then it's not much of a carbon sink, is it? Not to mention the scale necessary to reverse climate change. We'd have to make billions of barrels of the stuff, then pump it deep underground for long term sequestration. It'll be so energy intensive we'll require nuclear fusion.
Most of the CO2 savings comes from not raising cows, you’re correct that the carbon capture in the butter wouldn’t matter that much due to digestion, but it is likely not all the carbon will be released as CO2 again.
It's not intended to be a carbon sink. It's essentially intended to be a more carbon efficient way of producing margarine without having to grow e.g. palm oil and destroy forests. They thought, instead of making plants do the work of turning water and CO2 into fats, let's just do it in the lab.
The basic science could work, although it's usually tough to beat "put seeds into ground and wait" on pure cost. However the fact that they compare this to butter makes me sceptical. Given how wasteful growing a whole cow is just to make some milk fat, it's easy to look efficient compared to that. They would compare themselves to sustainably produced margarine if they were honest.
so what i don't get is how any margarine could have the same flavour as butter without adding in some sort of protein and presumably a bit of sweetener, considering that butter is fat/milk protein/milk sugar (lactose)..
You can obviously get close enough (i mostly eat margarine), the non-fat content of butter is very small after all, but still surely you have to add those things to get that extra kick of flavour that butter has?
This isn’t margarine. Margarine is made from hydrogenated vegetable oil. This process allegedly creates the same hydrocarbon chain fatty acids found in butter.
what it's made from is utterly and completely irrelevant, both margarine and butter are primarily just fat. My point is that i don't see how you can replicate the precise flavour of butter with only fat.
where on earth did you get that nonsense from? the swedish food safety agency explicitly says that modern margarine contains basically no trans fat at all, and the primary source of trans fat is diary products
Until we reach mass deployment of electrolyzers, all of this hydrogen will be coming from natural gas. Would be interesting to do a life cycle analysis and see what percentage of the CO2 emissions associated with producing the hydrogen end up incorporated into the product.
Finally, after years of research and experiments, the Savor team settled on a method that combines carbon dioxide from the air and hydrogen from water to make butter (synthetic fat) in the lab.
Looks like saturated fat. Don't eat it. Queue ketobro pseudoscience.
Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios of total and cardiometabolic mortality for 1-tablespoon/day increment in cooking oil/fat consumption. Forest plots show the multivariable HRs of total (a) and cardiometabolic (b) mortality associated with 1-tablespoon/day increment in butter, margarine, corn oil, canola oil, and olive oil consumption. HRs were adjusted for age, sex, BMI, race, education, marital status, household income, smoking, alcohol, vigorous physical activity, usual activity at work, perceived health condition, history of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer at baseline, Healthy Eating Index-2015, total energy intake, and consumption of remaining oils where appropriate (butter, margarine, lard, corn oil, canola oil, olive oil, and other vegetable oils). Horizontal lines represent 95% CIs
The “thing” with cholesterol is that the science wasn’t actually wrong! Eating foods laced with cholesterol is indeed unhealthy, as the data showed, which is why everyone incorrectly assumed cholesterol was to blame, until it turned out that the real culprit was saturated fat, which is concentrated in animal products, which also lots of contain cholesterol.
But hey, all those pesky scientific details would require knowing biochemistry and that is just way too inconvenient for the troglodytes who treat food as a religion and are currently downvoting this comment.
I do remember, yes. Eggs are still bad, high cholesterol levels are still bad, eggs still raise cholesterol levels. TMAO is still bad. Eggs still raise TMAO.
Industry pseudoscience is exceedingly dangerous. What the egg industry studies (and their friends in cheese) do usually is to swap their object of desire with something else that raises cholesterol; or they use people who already have high cholesterol. Most people aren't aware that there's a cholesterol plateau which, if already achieved, hides dose effects.
Guarantee that A) it doesn't taste just like real butter, and B) it'll make you shit yourself and bring a return of the label "may cause anal leakage".
Does that mean it's not a potentially viable product? No, it doesn't. But let's not bullshit.
The problem with Olestra (the anal leakage oil alternative) is it’s a mixture of hexa-, hepta-, and octa-esters of sucrose with various long chain fatty acids. The resulting radial arrangement is too large and irregular to move through the intestinal wall and be absorbed into the bloodstream.
What Savor has supposedly created is chemically identical to the fatty acids in butter. It’s not made of new compounds, but made in a new way.
There was a run of fat replacement back (iirc) in the late nineties. Olestra was one of the name brands.
It wouldn't digest at all, and it also wouldn't mix in happily with the rest of the body waste in the colon. Hence, anal leakage becoming a phrase you would see on food labels.
And you would, sometimes, have not only leakage, but diarrhea. Sometimes violent diarrhea.
Basically, the oil was slippery enough to escape the anus no matter how tight it was. And there was a lot of it, under pressure from other waste behind it.
why do rich people want to replace any living being with a silicon version ?
Gates took billions to reinvent the cow. My guess is that Bill wants to own all that land and crops that cows eat because he is a fucking moronic hoarder.
Cattle farming methane is a massive contributor to the greenhouse effect. This process would reduce methane output as well as consume carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas. It would help us in our fight against climate change.
Well, if it's all being sold for consumption, it would be net zero carbon change for the product itself plus whatever carbon it takes to drive production.
The main advantage is the reducing the reliance on beef.
Though I gotta wonder how much demand can go down before the price reduction makes producing the volume of beef no longer worth it and only profitable if it's scaled down because until then, they'll just lower prices to keep producing the same amount or more because you're a failure if line doesn't go up.
Cows are one of the worst things for the environment. Massive production of methane at the cost of more water and land than any other protein source. Getting rid of methane works be the quickest way to dent global warming given how much worse than carbon it is (in the near term )