this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
371 points (98.2% liked)

Not The Onion

12344 readers
803 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] amzd@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

people not wanting to consume milk should stick to products with positive confirmation that it is milk-free.

So maybe like a package of butter that doesn’t have milk in the ingredients list?

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 12 points 1 week ago

It actually does contain it in the ingredient list (I.e. sweet cream). It just that the FDA requires an additional label warning of allergens, like contains nuts or milk, which is what this was missing.

[–] jakwithoutac@feddit.uk 8 points 1 week ago

Any reason you conveniently left out the start of the sentence you’ve quoted? Because the bit you’ve left out changes the tone pretty significantly.

In this particular situation I’d deem positive confirmation to be something like a vegan certification, as opposed to the absence of something.

Combine the absence of milk from the ingredients on something advertising itself as butter with no other distinguishing information and that adds up to suspicion for me.

[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

That's not a positive confirmation.