Connect with us


I Tried 11 Peanut Butters and Here’s the Best One

This article originally appeared on

I am a peanut butter devotee, and have been for..

This article originally appeared on

I am a peanut butter devotee, and have been for basically ever. There is no time of day that peanut butter doesn't sound like the right call, or a great foundation for a meal. I will spread it on toast or rice cakes, smear it on apple slices, and mix it into curries and sauces and marinades. At this point, peanut butter is likely coursing through my veins.

The nutty spread has a rich history, going back to the Ancient Aztecs and Incans, who roasted peanuts and ground them into a paste. But peanut butter as we think of it today made its debut in 1884, when Canadian Marcellus Gilmore Edson patented peanut paste. Eleven years later, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (yep, him again) patented a peanut butter making process. In 1903, Dr. Ambrose Straub of St. Louis, patented a peanut butter making machine. Even when it comes to creating peanut butter, it takes a village.

The same is true of discovering the best peanut butter. I joined forces with Gabbie, our intern extraordinaire, and Alex, our excellent videographer, to try 11 different kinds of peanut butter—all creamy, not crunchy, to keep it simple—to figure out which one was very best. Here's what we discovered:

The All-Natural, Separated Peanut Butters

These peanut butters claim "all-natural" or organic bonafides and have that thin (or thick, in some cases) slick of oil on top. They require stirring before spreading.

Justin's Classic Peanut Butter

Buy: $5;

Justin's started out great: It was super smooth and easy to combine the butter with the oil on top. It was pleasingly gold in color. It had a great, classic label. And all of us had tried Justin's peanut butter cups and were big fans. But licking the peanut butter off the spoon was a disappointment to say the least. It tasted oddly sweet, and extremely oily, leaving a slick coating on our tongues. We could see this one being good for baking, but that was about it.

Brad's Organic Smooth Peanut Butter

Buy: $5;

Brad's had a ton of oil on the top: So much so that it was hard to stir the butter without having the oil drip down the sides of the jar. Not great. But it really tasted like whole peanuts were used in the process—nut, husk, and shell—in a kind of bitter, kind of dusty sort of way. Alex described it as tasting "like the peanuts on the floor of Five Guys, but not in a bad way." It wasn't our favorite, but we wouldn't necessarily avoid it.

Smucker's Natural Creamy Peanut Butter

Buy: $22 for 2;

The Smucker's was hard to stir, but once it was combined, this was our favorite in this category. It only has one ingredient—peanuts—and tastes like it. It was rich and pleasingly bitter. If you are a fan of peanut butter for the peanut taste, this is the jar for you. (We all went back for thirds of this one.)

Crazy Richard's 100% Peanuts Creamy Peanut Butter

Buy: $26 for 6;

While it was super easy to stir, Crazy Richard's peanut butter was basically liquid. You were better suited spooning it out that spreading it with a knife. As for the taste? Well, it was deeply unexciting. The peanut taste was lacking, and it had no other strong flavors to speak of. It was inoffensive, but not recommended.

Winner: Smucker's, by a long shot.

The All-Natural, No-Stir Peanut Butter

These jars were both organic, and didn't require any stirring. It was an easier way to enjoy "good-for-you" peanut butter.

MaraNatha Organic No Stir Creamy Peanut Butter

Buy: $7;

A health store favorite, MaraNatha was immediately intriguing. Clearly made by a company that also makes stir-required peanut butter, this one was definitely on the oily side. While we all agreed, this jar's sweetness would lend itself well to a PB&J, the gritty texture was off-putting. It was solidly okay, but nothing to write home about. Or, if you're more blunt and/or Gabbie, "There's no reason for this."

365 Organic Creamy Peanut Butter

This unassuming jar was our surprise favorite. Who woulda thought Whole Foods' house brand knew peanut butter so well? The perfect, spreadable texture, this peanut butter boasted perfect levels of sweet and salty. It had the rich peanut-y taste that adults will appreciate, but a smooth, easy texture that will appeal to kids. And us 20-somethings, too, frankly.

The winner: 365, hands down.

The Non-Stir Grocery Store Staples

These peanut butters are the ones that are easiest to find at just about every grocery store or bodega. They're the brands we grew up with, and the ones easiest to eat right out of the jar.

Reese's Creamy Peanut Butter

Buy: $4;

All three of us were ready to dismiss Reese's peanut butter, expecting it to taste more like the candy than anything we want to put on a sandwich. But we were wrong. While it was definitely one of the sweeter peanut butters, it wasn't offensive. The consistency was wonderfully creamy. We could imagine this being a great base for cookies, a peanut butter cheesecake, or even a buttercream. And we wouldn't hate to find it smeared on toast.

Skippy Creamy Peanut Butter

Buy: $3;

Skippy was super sweet—in a faux-caramely, fake way—but the aftertaste was bitter. It tasted nostalgic—"like the Lunchables version of peanut butter," said Alex. But it seemed liked that if we ate any more of it, we'd get a stomachache. Gabbie grew up on Skippy, and said, mildly shocked, "I can't believe I liked eating that for so many years." We'll pass on this one.

Jif Creamy Peanut Butter

Buy: $3;

With the disappointment of other childhood favorites fresh, I'll admit I felt nervous to try the peanut butter I grew up with. I didn't need to be. Jif was mildly salty with a well-balanced sweetness. It was "more natural tasting" than a lot of our other grocery store picks—which is to say, it actually tasted like peanuts. My childhood memories could remain intact.

Peanut Butter & Co. Smooth Operator

Buy: $21 for 6;

Cute label aside, this pick had an almost disturbingly thick, heavy consistency. While the initial taste was a-okay—salty and appropriately peanut-y—there was a strange, brown sugar aftertaste that we didn't love. It was fine! But it won't turn into our go-to.

Peter Pan Creamy Peanut Butter

Buy: $3;

With a gritty texture, bitter flavor, and aspartame-y aftertaste, people actually said "ew" after tasting this contender. We'll pass. Forever.

Winner: Jif. Choosy moms are right.

But we were unanimous in our decision for overall winner: Whole Foods' 365 Organic Creamy Peanut Butter knows what's up.

Original Article

The post I Tried 11 Peanut Butters and Here's the Best One appeared first on News Wire Now.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Preventing food fraud: Europe’s battle against the spice pirates

Spices are among the oldest food products in the world and still enjoy great popularity today. But h..

Spices are among the oldest food products in the world and still enjoy great popularity today. But how can we be sure of their quality and authenticity? With serious money to be made, counterfeiters are often attempting to fradulently pass off inferior products as the genuine article.

To find out more about how fraud in this arena can be identified and stopped, we went to Belgium to meet a spice trader – and also to see scientists working at the Joint Research Centre’s Fraud Detection Unit.

Spice expert

Herbs and spices are the daily business of Alexandre Veuve; he is the manager of the prestigious spice specialist and gourmet grocery store Le Tour Du Monde En Epices in Waterloo, south of Brussels.

As an expert in the sector, he always guarantees that the products he sells are of the highest quality:

However, he knows only too well that fraud is a common risk in this market:

“There is generally fraud on quite expensive spices, for example saffron. This is a spice that is worth as much as gold, so obviously there are a lot of scams involving it.

“Powders are also the target of fraud because they can be more easily falsified.

“That’s why we make our own powders; we buy the spices whole and then we create them ourselves.”

“There is ofen fraud on quite expensive spices – for example, saffron. This is a spice that is worth as much as gold, so obviously there are a lot of scams involving it.”Euronews

Europe’s food fraud unit

One of the facilities of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre in Geel in Belgium hosts the European Food Fraud Detection and Prevention Unit. Here, teams of scientists analyse samples of spices imported to Europe using state-of-the-art technologies, in some cases using methods similar to those used for police investigations.

One of the most powerful tools at their disposal is DNA analysis. The genetic map of the spice can indicate whether or not there are foreign biological elements present.

The most common types of fraud are the use of less expensive plants, or the addition of dyes to make the spice appear more attractive or authentic.

Antoon Lievens, a Molecular Biologist at the Unit, says saffron is a good example of where fraud is regularly attempted:

“We’ve found one or two samples that were not saffron at all and the sequencing analysis has shown that it was safflower that has been sold as saffron.

“Another exemple is curcuma (turmeric). We’ve found a sample that was not curcuma, but actually paprika powder that had been dyed or coloured to look like curcuma.”

Analysis via spectroscopy

The detection of fraud is based on a set of investigative protocols, each of which unveils a part of the puzzle. Spectroscopy is one powerful method; it doesn’t require special sample preparation and allows a rapid result through the examination of the samples molecules by a laser beam.

Jone Omar, an Analytical Chemist at the Fraud Detection and Prevention Unit, says this is a foolproof method:

“Spectroscopy is basically based on a ray of light touching the sample, which makes the molecules vibrate and we then obtain a light spectrum readout of the vibration of those molecules.

“So when we focus on a pure food, we have a pure spectrum for it.

“When we spot an adulteration, the spectrum of the vibration of the molecule bands is different.”

This x-ray fluorescence technique, which is also used for non-invasive analysis of artworks to establish authenticity or otherwise, reveals whether or not inorganic materials – such as sand or clay – are present in the plant sample.

Chemical tests such as liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry allow, through the separation of the molecules, the establishment of whether or not there are traces of external dyes present.

These same techniques are also used to create chemical fingerprints of spices, which can then provide even more in-depth information about the nature of the sample.

If the adulteration is confirmed, certain measures can then be taken.

Franz Ulberth, Head of the Fraud Detection and Prevention Unit, explains:

“One of the further measures could be that you send inspectors to check the company, to look into the books, to (examine) transportation papers, establishing a chain of traceability, to trace it back to the origin.”

The spice production and distribution supply chain is spread between different countries and this makes controls more complicated.

In a growing market of global scale, the use of these techniques is key to certifying the quality of the product.

Read from source

The post Preventing food fraud: Europe's battle against the spice pirates first appeared on NewswireNow – A Press Release Publishing Service.

Continue Reading


UK beef exports to US resume after more than 20 years

British beef is back on US menus for the first time in more than 20 years as exports restart on Wedn..

British beef is back on US menus for the first time in more than 20 years as exports restart on Wednesday.

The beef was banned after the BSE outbreak in 1996 when cattle were infected by what became commonly known as Mad Cow Disease.

Some UK beef was cleared for export in March after US inspections in 2019, and shipments from Northern Ireland’s Foyle Food Group will be the first to leave.

Ministers said the US market will be worth £66m to the UK over five years.

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, a body funded by farmers and the supply chain, called the resumption of exports a “historic moment”.

Dr Phil Hadley, a director at the board, said: “The US represents an important potential market for our red meat exports and today’s first shipment is the result of the hard work and persistence of industry and government to bring about this crucial next step.

“This important milestone will bring a fantastic boost to the sector and we look forward to seeing more of our red meat served up on dinner tables across the US in the months and years to come.”

In 2019, the US Food Safety Inspection Service undertook a series of audits at UK beef, pork and lamb facilities. Pork exports to the US continue as usual, while exports of lamb have yet to commence.

“This is great news for our food and farming industry, helping the sector go from strength to strength,” said Environment Secretary George Eustice.

Post-Brexit deals

International Trade Secretary Liz Truss said: “This could be just the tip of the iceberg. The free trade deal we are negotiating with the US will create a host of export opportunities for British agriculture. We are seeking an ambitious and high standards agreement that benefits farmers and delivers for consumers.”

However, those free trade talks remain controversial, with critics warning the government not to lower UK food standards in order to strike a deal.

This week a group of celebrities and chefs, including Jamie Oliver and Joe Wicks, said post-Brexit trade deals should not open the floodgates to lower-quality food, citing chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-injected beef.

However, Ms Truss has previously insisted the UK will not allow US chlorine-washed chicken to be stocked in supermarkets as a ban is already written into law.

She said the UK will not compromise on environmental, animal welfare and food standards in its quest for trade agreements.

Read from source

Continue Reading



Dietary advice needs to be more environmentally friendly, say scientists.

After looking at recommen..

Dietary advice needs to be more environmentally friendly, say scientists.

After looking at recommendations from around the world, a new study has found that 98 per cent of government dietary guidelines are falling behind current science for both health and environmental impact.

Theres a good chance youve never taken a second look at your countrys dietary guidelines. Despite this, they often find their way into our lives as the basis of food education, policy-making and labelling initiatives.

Research recently published in the British Medical Journal looked at available dietary guidelines from 85 different countries in every region of the world. They judged each set of guidelines against five environmental targets and one health target that governments had pledged to reach.

The health target was to reduce early deaths from non-infectious diseases by a third, while environmental targets were linked to the 2C limit set by the Paris Climate Agreement. Other environmental targets considered pollution from farming, land use and destruction of nature.

Lead researcher Dr Marco Springmann at the University of Oxford told Euronews Living that our food system is “a major driver of environmental impacts”.

“Without dietary changes towards more plant-based diets, key environmental limits related to climate change, land use, freshwater extraction, and biogeochemical flows associated with fertilizer application risk being exceeded,” he added.

Dr Springmann said that what the team behind the study discovered was “shocking and revealing”. Only two of these sets of dietary guidelines, from Indonesia and Sierra Leone, were in line with all 6 of the health, climate and pollution targets.

The report found that 98 per cent of the dietary guidelines looked at by researchers didnt meet at least one of the global environmental and health targets. Guidelines from 74 of the countries also failed to give recommendations that would keep dietary carbon emissions within the global warming limits set by the Paris Climate Agreement.

Some countries were worse than others. If everyone in the world followed advice from the US or the UK, for example, then food-related carbon emissions would be three times the limits for avoiding dangerous levels of climate change.


In every country the study looked at, people were eating more red and processed meat than recommended by WHO guidelines.

The researchers are recommending that new dietary guidelines are brought in line with current science with “stringent reductions in dairy and beef. They also say that there should be specific advice available for people looking to eat healthy and sustainable plant-based diets.

“We also looked at several examples of how reformed dietary guidelines could look,” lead researcher, Marco Springmann wrote in a blog post. “In short, they involved much stricter limits for meat and dairy, both for health and environmental reasons, and to be specific but not overly prescriptive, they included different dietary patterns based around plenty of whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and legumes.”

These reformed guidelines are similar to the science-based advice of the “planetary health diet” created by the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet and Health. This diet was created with the idea of providing nutritious food to the worlds growing population while addressing the role of agriculture in the climate crisis.


But Helena Gibson-Moore of the British Nutrition Foundation tells Euronews Living that it is important to remember that dietary guidelines are “also developed to provide adequate nutrition to populations.”

“Dairy products might not be the most environmentally friendly foods to produce but are important sources of calcium and iodine in many countries, so reducing intakes may increase the risk of nutritional deficiencies,” she says.

“Its also important to bear in mind other factors of a healthy and sustainable diet, for example, cultural differences, as well as the cost and accessibility to foods, to ensure that dietary recommendations are achievable for everyone.”

Read from source

Continue Reading