Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I suspect marketing bullshittery. I’ve bought “sugar in the raw” a few years ago to try, and it reminded me of back in In high school chemistry II in which I did an experiment where I took a brand name sugar and a lower budget brand sugar and examined it under a microscope. The budget brand sugars’ crystal structure was larger but hollow. Weighing the two by volume showed less mass for the budget brand. Putting the same volume of the two in a mortar and grinding with a pestle yielded less volume for the budget brand which means for the same volume you’re getting less sugar.
I believe that “sugar in the raw” does the same thing to give you less for more price, but compounds it’s marketing by telling you it’s unprocessed and more natural. Maybe that’s true but you’re certainly getting less product for the price. One would think less processing would cost less. The only difference from the experiment was that you were paying less for less. Kind of interesting how business ethics have changed over the years.
But isn't it all sold by weight? The same with how the calories are counted?
Yes, that is why the whole argument is a fallacy. I am all for eating the rich and taking down the corporations, but this one is off base. The "in the raw" generally means it is A. Made from sugarcane not sugar beats, and B. Unbleached.