5 ms·
I think the term 'meat' is very broad. Taste-wise there will (and maybe already are) meat-substitutes that are comparable to animal-meat. But these are very art
by mantenpanther 8y ago
I think the term 'meat' is very broad. Taste-wise there will (and maybe already are) meat-substitutes that are comparable to animal-meat. But these are very artificial products and healthwise maybe not a good choice.
Animal meat itself varies in it's nutritional properties, depending on how the livestock is treated. Grass-fed, free range beef is not the same as grain fed, factory raised.
I'm not sure about in-vitro meat, but I doubt it is from a nutrition standpoint even comparable to, for example, high quality beef.
My point is, meat != meat and often I read only about mimicking taste and texture. For me the nutritional profile is more important (also ethics, but this normally goes hand in hand with meat-quality).
- dagw 8y agoBut these are very artificial products and healthwise maybe not a good choice. Even if they actually are fine heathwise, it might be hard convincing people of that fact. My wife for example refuses to buy frozen ready made veggieburger patties and insists on making them from scratch because she wants to know what she's eating. There is no way you could convince here to buy these artificial meat substitutes over ground beef no matter what they taste like or what health arguments you make.
- futureastronaut 8y agoThat's an argument you should be grateful to lose.
- rsynnott 8y agoWhich is... odd, really. Buying ground beef, you’re putting a fair bit of trust in the supply chain, too.