4 ms·

> I think it's foolish to assume that some novel and highly processed food item is going to be safer than something which we've been eating for thousands of gen

by ggreer 9y ago

> I think it's foolish to assume that some novel and highly processed food item is going to be safer than something which we've been eating for thousands of generations. It's not that processed foods are particularly safe, but that meat is unsafe in a way we're accustomed to. Again: every year, meat-borne pathogens kill 5,000 Americans and cause illnesses in 1% of the population. Fake meats simply don't cause those rates of illness or death. If they did, the FDA would not allow them to be sold.

ericd 9y ago
And coal plants kill far more people than nuclear ones. It's just not as obvious that they're the cause to those who are sick. Who is to say that eating an equivalent amount of this fake meat product wouldn't cause a far greater number of deaths and reduction in quality adjusted years? It will be much harder to tell, because the problems aren't as obvious/acute, and there are always a huge number of confounding variables when it comes to nutrition. Unless the problems it causes are acute, the FDA isn't going to have a very good way of comparing the safety of these with normal meat.
- FeepingCreature 9y ago
  We don't know what properties this meat will have; we do know what causes regular meat to be harmful, and fake meat does not share several of those particular factors.
fish_fan 9y ago
I think you are crazily optimistic about both the FDA and the ability to see any significant health effects from fake meat. Even my vegan friends have only been eating it for about a decade, and that doesn't strike me as enough time for e.g. discerning whether it is carcinogenic. Among other things, sodium nitrate (included in the above description of fake meat) is, by itself, known to be more carcinogenic than red meat itself. But you don't see the FDA ensuring new foods don't use it.

4 ms·

> I think it's foolish to assume that some novel and highly processed food item is going to be safer than something which we've been eating for thousands of gen

by ggreer 9y ago

ericd 9y ago
And coal plants kill far more people than nuclear ones. It's just not as obvious that they're the cause to those who are sick. Who is to say that eating an equivalent amount of this fake meat product wouldn't cause a far greater number of deaths and reduction in quality adjusted years? It will be much harder to tell, because the problems aren't as obvious/acute, and there are always a huge number of confounding variables when it comes to nutrition. Unless the problems it causes are acute, the FDA isn't going to have a very good way of comparing the safety of these with normal meat.
- FeepingCreature 9y ago
  We don't know what properties this meat will have; we do know what causes regular meat to be harmful, and fake meat does not share several of those particular factors.
fish_fan 9y ago
I think you are crazily optimistic about both the FDA and the ability to see any significant health effects from fake meat. Even my vegan friends have only been eating it for about a decade, and that doesn't strike me as enough time for e.g. discerning whether it is carcinogenic. Among other things, sodium nitrate (included in the above description of fake meat) is, by itself, known to be more carcinogenic than red meat itself. But you don't see the FDA ensuring new foods don't use it.