5 ms·

I am not getting this. Highly processed foods are the source of all problems and people cheer up for synthetic food!

by zornado 8y ago

tim333 8y ago
The devil's in the details. Because some processed food is bad doesn't mean it all it.
- cies 8y ago
  In this case it certainly looses from straight up beans or lentils. It will straight up win from a regular burger though. Talking health here. Nothing to back it up, just common sense about cholesterol and different fats.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    I think the above argument is based on environmental impact: processed meat vs processed veggie thing to look like mean Both require, well, processing. I would assume the meat one requires more energy to make.
    - cies 8y ago
      Both environmental and health were mentioned already.
staplers 8y ago
People cheer while it's novel (like television, social media) but our children will hate it and feel cheated out of real nutrition by 'manufactured food'.
- ldh 8y ago
  Most of the meat they eat now comes from factory farms, you can't get much closer yo manufactured food than that.
  - staplers 8y ago
    Then don't eat factory farmed meat, and don't eat lab grown fake meat. There are more than two options.
- dsabanin 8y ago
  Or, quite possibly, since humanity's progress can't be stopped, our children will hate us once they open their eyes and realize who their favorite hot dogs and burgers were made out of and how we spoon fed them with corpses since their very first moments. Edit: I believe that there's definitely a potential version of the future where corpse eating will be looked at the same way we look at cannibalism now.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > how we spoon fed them with corpses since their very first moments I have not seen meat recommended as food to give newborn infants, ever. They don't even eat solid meals!
    - dsabanin 8y ago
      Not newborns, but people introduce squashed animal products as puree to children pretty soon, and it's not the main point I was making.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        > it's not the main point I was making The point you were making was clearly "we're feeding newborns dead 'corpses'", so I felt the need to make sure your appeal to emotion was at least somewhat factually correct.
mrspeaker 8y ago
Are you really not getting this, or just making straw men? "That's a huge win for the environment (and also animal rights)". The comment seems pretty clear to me. If it's just straw men... nothing is black and white - the same people who say boo to "synthetic foods" (which is obviously a massive scale too) are not the same people who say "meat production is bad for long-term human survival". The issues are complex and overlap in weird ways.
vkou 8y ago
Saying that food is 'processed' is meaningless. What matters is how it is processed.
mey 8y ago
This sounds like clean food concepts. There isn't science behind clean/unclean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia_nervosa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia_nervosa https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-fell-for-clean-eating https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-...
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  The more processing a food stuff undergoes the more opportunity there is for it to be adulterated and/or contaminated. Oftentimes it's not even intentional. e.g. An ingredient supplier from China delivers whey tainted with Cadmium, this gets mixed into a protein shake powder. Nowhere on the ingredients is Cadmium and the company producing protein shake powder had no intention whatever of producing Cadmium-laced shakes. This type of thing has occurred multiple times quite publicly in pet foods. Contaminated cat food made from contaminated Chinese ingredients killed an ex coworker's cats years ago, if memory serves the contaminant was Melamine. An effective means of protecting ourselves from these industrial errors is to avoid eating industrially manufactured foods altogether. There was a case back in I believe it was the 80s where a red food dye was being derived from Coal tar. When the process worked flawlessly, there was no problem. But the dye was found to be carcinogenic, because the process, as one would expect, had a non-zero error rate. The public reaction to this news is what led to red M&Ms being deprecated for years, even though they supposedly didn't use the red dye in question. Which is the only reason I even know the story. I presume there are many instances of this kind of thing occurring that manage to fly under the radar. Soylent was in the news fairly early on with contaminated China-sourced ingredients as well. An even more recent incident has been chopped romaine lettuce as supplied to fast-food chains like Chipotle. Some supplier had contaminated heads with e.coli, the processor then spread the contamination to a much larger scale as they consolidated supplies from multiple farms, chopped it all up, then shipped it out. By simply avoiding consumption of chopped lettuce, a minimal amount of processing, one significantly reduced the probability they would be exposed to the e.coli.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > By simply avoiding consumption of chopped lettuce, a minimal amount of processing, one significantly reduced the probability they would be exposed to the e.coli. You seem to have an issue with globalization, not processing.
belltaco 8y ago
Because it's better for the environment and health compared to what it's replacing(95% less land and 74% less water, plusmore humane). If people eating whole plant foods start eating this, it's not good, but if meat eaters do it's a win. And it's much more likely that way more meat eaters will use this as replacement.
dashundchen 8y ago
I can't speak for all, but most vegan/vegetarians I know, myself included, don't view processed meat substitutes like this as a staple. They are expensive and seen as less healthy compared to less processed plant protein. Meals more often revolve around beans, legumes, tofu, tempeh, seitan. I think since many meat eaters are less familiar with cooking meals around these, they assume vegs are just subbing meat 1-to-1 with foods like Impossible Burger, Tofurkey, Quorn. More often they are a food for convenience, special occasions like cookouts, specific recipes, or they happen to be the only option at a restaurant. Some I've known have used them as sort of an aid to transition to a plant based diet, if they happen to have cravings for meat. However it's great to have more choices, and seeing brands like these in store gives more visibility to veg diets. (It's weird to me that this is the case, when the whole produce isle is vegan, but that's the way it is in a meat-by-default culture).
- senorjazz 8y ago
  I agree. But I don't think this is targeted at established vegetarians though. Maybe those who want to eat less meat, or stop but don't know how?
  - sethhochberg 8y ago
    I'd put myself in the "want to eat less meat" bucket - I'm not a vegetarian. I eat meat, enjoy it, and don't have any health problems that preclude me from consuming it. I know farming meat at scale isn't good for the environment though, and if some kind of synthetics or lab-grown meats could provide the same enjoyment I get from traditional meat with less environmental impact at roughly the same cost, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
gbear605 8y ago
Highly processed foods are problematic when they’re unhealthy, which they usually are. The impossible burger seems to be healthy, relatively speaking - it’s not loaded with fats, sugar, and salt, unlike a lot of processed food.

I am not getting this. Highly processed foods are the source of all problems and people cheer up for synthetic food!

tim333 8y ago

The devil's in the details. Because some processed food is bad doesn't mean it all it.

cies 8y ago
In this case it certainly looses from straight up beans or lentils. It will straight up win from a regular burger though. Talking health here. Nothing to back it up, just common sense about cholesterol and different fats.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  I think the above argument is based on environmental impact: processed meat vs processed veggie thing to look like mean Both require, well, processing. I would assume the meat one requires more energy to make.
  - cies 8y ago
    Both environmental and health were mentioned already.

staplers 8y ago

People cheer while it's novel (like television, social media) but our children will hate it and feel cheated out of real nutrition by 'manufactured food'.

ldh 8y ago
Most of the meat they eat now comes from factory farms, you can't get much closer yo manufactured food than that.
- staplers 8y ago
  Then don't eat factory farmed meat, and don't eat lab grown fake meat. There are more than two options.
dsabanin 8y ago
Or, quite possibly, since humanity's progress can't be stopped, our children will hate us once they open their eyes and realize who their favorite hot dogs and burgers were made out of and how we spoon fed them with corpses since their very first moments. Edit: I believe that there's definitely a potential version of the future where corpse eating will be looked at the same way we look at cannibalism now.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > how we spoon fed them with corpses since their very first moments I have not seen meat recommended as food to give newborn infants, ever. They don't even eat solid meals!
  - dsabanin 8y ago
    Not newborns, but people introduce squashed animal products as puree to children pretty soon, and it's not the main point I was making.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      > it's not the main point I was making The point you were making was clearly "we're feeding newborns dead 'corpses'", so I felt the need to make sure your appeal to emotion was at least somewhat factually correct.

mrspeaker 8y ago

Are you really not getting this, or just making straw men? "That's a huge win for the environment (and also animal rights)". The comment seems pretty clear to me. If it's just straw men... nothing is black and white - the same people who say boo to "synthetic foods" (which is obviously a massive scale too) are not the same people who say "meat production is bad for long-term human survival". The issues are complex and overlap in weird ways.

vkou 8y ago

Saying that food is 'processed' is meaningless. What matters is how it is processed.

mey 8y ago

This sounds like clean food concepts. There isn't science behind clean/unclean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia_nervosa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia_nervosa https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-fell-for-clean-eating https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-...

newnewpdro 8y ago
The more processing a food stuff undergoes the more opportunity there is for it to be adulterated and/or contaminated. Oftentimes it's not even intentional. e.g. An ingredient supplier from China delivers whey tainted with Cadmium, this gets mixed into a protein shake powder. Nowhere on the ingredients is Cadmium and the company producing protein shake powder had no intention whatever of producing Cadmium-laced shakes. This type of thing has occurred multiple times quite publicly in pet foods. Contaminated cat food made from contaminated Chinese ingredients killed an ex coworker's cats years ago, if memory serves the contaminant was Melamine. An effective means of protecting ourselves from these industrial errors is to avoid eating industrially manufactured foods altogether. There was a case back in I believe it was the 80s where a red food dye was being derived from Coal tar. When the process worked flawlessly, there was no problem. But the dye was found to be carcinogenic, because the process, as one would expect, had a non-zero error rate. The public reaction to this news is what led to red M&Ms being deprecated for years, even though they supposedly didn't use the red dye in question. Which is the only reason I even know the story. I presume there are many instances of this kind of thing occurring that manage to fly under the radar. Soylent was in the news fairly early on with contaminated China-sourced ingredients as well. An even more recent incident has been chopped romaine lettuce as supplied to fast-food chains like Chipotle. Some supplier had contaminated heads with e.coli, the processor then spread the contamination to a much larger scale as they consolidated supplies from multiple farms, chopped it all up, then shipped it out. By simply avoiding consumption of chopped lettuce, a minimal amount of processing, one significantly reduced the probability they would be exposed to the e.coli.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > By simply avoiding consumption of chopped lettuce, a minimal amount of processing, one significantly reduced the probability they would be exposed to the e.coli. You seem to have an issue with globalization, not processing.

belltaco 8y ago

Because it's better for the environment and health compared to what it's replacing(95% less land and 74% less water, plusmore humane). If people eating whole plant foods start eating this, it's not good, but if meat eaters do it's a win. And it's much more likely that way more meat eaters will use this as replacement.

dashundchen 8y ago

I can't speak for all, but most vegan/vegetarians I know, myself included, don't view processed meat substitutes like this as a staple. They are expensive and seen as less healthy compared to less processed plant protein. Meals more often revolve around beans, legumes, tofu, tempeh, seitan. I think since many meat eaters are less familiar with cooking meals around these, they assume vegs are just subbing meat 1-to-1 with foods like Impossible Burger, Tofurkey, Quorn. More often they are a food for convenience, special occasions like cookouts, specific recipes, or they happen to be the only option at a restaurant. Some I've known have used them as sort of an aid to transition to a plant based diet, if they happen to have cravings for meat. However it's great to have more choices, and seeing brands like these in store gives more visibility to veg diets. (It's weird to me that this is the case, when the whole produce isle is vegan, but that's the way it is in a meat-by-default culture).

senorjazz 8y ago
I agree. But I don't think this is targeted at established vegetarians though. Maybe those who want to eat less meat, or stop but don't know how?
- sethhochberg 8y ago
  I'd put myself in the "want to eat less meat" bucket - I'm not a vegetarian. I eat meat, enjoy it, and don't have any health problems that preclude me from consuming it. I know farming meat at scale isn't good for the environment though, and if some kind of synthetics or lab-grown meats could provide the same enjoyment I get from traditional meat with less environmental impact at roughly the same cost, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

gbear605 8y ago

Highly processed foods are problematic when they’re unhealthy, which they usually are. The impossible burger seems to be healthy, relatively speaking - it’s not loaded with fats, sugar, and salt, unlike a lot of processed food.