ÖKO-TEST tested a total of 20 butters. The frightening result: Only one product really convinced the experts. Read more about it here.
17 out of 20 butter brands rushed through the ÖKO-TEST test (issue 12/2022) with the rating “poor” (grade 5) or “unsatisfactory” (grade 6). Only one product gets the rating “good”. One butter achieves “satisfactory”, another at least “sufficient”. Among the 20 products tested are seven organic products, one of which is also the test winner.
The test winner, rated “good”, is the transparent dairy barrel butter Naturland organic sour cream butter (with crunch). It costs around 3.50 – depending on the dealer, the prices can also vary. The organic butter Andechser Natur Bio Almbutter sour cream butter, Bioland ( to Knuspr ) still scores “satisfactory”. The reason for the devaluation of the organic product: The laboratory found increased traces of mineral oil components and the sensory experts rated the taste and smell of the butter as “unclean and old”.
The other organic brands are just as unconvincing as most conventional butter brands. The K-Classic German branded butter mildly acidified by Kaufland is the only conventional product to pass the test with the rating “sufficient”.
Among the many losers in the test are the organic manufacturers Alnatura and Dennree. However, most conventional butter brands also fail the test. In addition to Weihenstephan, Landliebe and Meggle, the butter from the well-known Irish dairy Kerrygold also fails. But not only expensive butter is disappointing, the cheap own products from Aldi, Edeka, Penny, Lidl and Co. fly through mercilessly. Already in the 2018 test by Stiftung Warentest, the Kerrygold brands did not pass the butter test – more about this here at CHIP.de.
The reason for the many bad ratings is, among other things, the category “Mineral oil components”. 13 of 14 samples that were rated “inadequate” showed “strongly increased” values. In addition, for most butter brands in the test, ÖKO-TEST assessed the content of fatty acids typical of green fodder as too low. Above all, the content of omega-3 fatty acids allows conclusions to be drawn about the type of animal husbandry: You can tell how much grass or hay the cows have eaten as basic feed, according to ÖKO-TEST.
The plant-based butter alternative margarine did not really score in a test from 2021 at ÖKO-TEST. You can read here at CHIP.de how the alternative works. You can read more information about the butter test, the products and the results at ÖKO-TEST for a fee.
The Stiftung Warentest also tested some butter brands – the result of the study published in the magazine “test” (issue 04/2018) was not quite as critical. After all, about every second brand of butter existed here. However, some well-known brands have already attracted negative attention here. The well-known brand Kerrygold, for example, also failed the four-year-old test with the rating “poor”.
How can test results be so different?
On the one hand, you shouldn’t forget the time periods here: the test by Stiftung Warentest is a bit older, so manufacturers may have changed the production, the composition and the packaging – all of this can affect the ingredients.
On the other hand, each test uses a different standard: For example, how critically are ingredients evaluated that are still within the limit values - and with what weighting in relation to other properties examined, such as taste and consistency?
It is therefore not surprising that each test can come to slightly different results. It is all the more important to understand what was tested and how, in order to be able to relate the results.
It is worrying, however, that some brands of butter were found to be bad in two different tests – and this despite the fact that so much time had elapsed between the tests.
The original of this post “Experts can only recommend one butter” comes from chip.de.
