This week on The Alex Marlow Show, Chef Andrew Gruel took aim at Bill Gates’s latest “innovation”—artificial butter made from carbon. Far from being impressed, Gruel warned that the concept highlights a troubling trend in food and technology: billionaires manufacturing problems so they can sell the world their expensive “fixes.”

Gruel explained that the entrepreneurial formula usually begins with identifying a genuine issue and providing a simple solution. But when that cycle runs dry, he argued, some innovators start inventing problems out of thin air. “When there’s no problem, because maybe you’ve solved them all, you make up a problem,” he said. “This is the same idea.”

The chef noted that even if the butter could be synthesized, the sheer amount of electricity required would make it both costly and impractical. He questioned why Gates continues to push artificial substitutes rather than improving access to natural, sustainable food sources. “The energy alone would outweigh any supposed benefit,” Gruel emphasized.

Bill Gates has poured billions into alternative food projects, from synthetic meats to lab-grown dairy substitutes, positioning himself as a central figure in the movement to replace traditional farming. Critics argue these ventures often serve corporate interests rather than public health, with the added effect of concentrating control of the food supply into fewer hands.

Gruel’s comments touch on broader concerns shared by many in the food industry. Artificial products not only risk displacing natural farmers but also undermine consumer choice. For everyday families, questions remain about cost, nutrition, and whether people even want to eat “carbon butter” in the first place.

Meanwhile, Gates and his supporters frame the innovation as a bold response to climate change, arguing that reducing livestock farming is necessary to cut emissions. But skeptics counter that tinkering with the basics of human diets—especially by replacing real butter with a lab-concocted imitation—crosses a line from science into social engineering.

The conversation also raised a deeper cultural question: why are elites so focused on remaking the food system when the real problems of hunger and food insecurity stem more from distribution and policy failures than from butter or meat itself? Gruel suggested the drive for “innovation” in this space often looks less like problem-solving and more like empire-building, where the public gets stuck paying the price.

As the idea of carbon-based butter makes its way into public debate, it’s clear that Gates’s vision for the future of food won’t go unchallenged. From farmers to chefs to consumers, a growing number of voices are asking: who really benefits from these so-called solutions, and what are we giving up in return?

Whether artificial butter ever makes it to store shelves remains to be seen. But if Gruel’s reaction is any indication, Gates’s “creepy” invention is already leaving a sour taste.