14 ms·
Is it only me or is this whole preprocessed food stuff the most American thing ever? Why has everything to be some powder in a bucket or some goop in a tube?
by LordHeini 7y ago
Is it only me or is this whole preprocessed food stuff the most American thing ever?
Why has everything to be some powder in a bucket or some goop in a tube?
It is so strange that people replace animal products with chemistry.
I can understand not to eat animal based products on moral or environmental grounds but replacing those with Monsanto soy and chemistry does not strike me as the proper way to do it.
Do you think the bucketized bean protein powder extracted from peas might be bad for you? Well eat the freaking peas I bet those taste better as well.
- ahje 7y agoThank you for pointing this out.
- jjjensen90 7y agoThe tone and content of your post are both unhelpful and needlessly dismissive. American has a rich, diverse, and passionate food culture that includes many whole foods and innovations created there. A lot of processed food is eaten, but so are a huge variety of unprocessed foods. Replacing animal products with plant protein (beyond burger, impossible burger, many others) is an excellent trend for many reasons, with the potential environmental impact being the foremost benefit in my opinion. I look forward to the day where lab grown and/or plant protein sources are much more mainstream. And lastly, "Monsanto soy and chemistry" is a ludicrous implication that plant based protein sources are somehow inherently scary or even that they're worse than mass-agriculture raised animal products.
- LordHeini 7y agoI never intended to imply that there is no rich american food culture there certainly is. The point still stands. Why would you replace a meal made out of plants with basically the same plants run through a blender and their ingredients extracted by some odd process? Especially if there are concerns regarding the health implications this might entail. An yes those genetically modified plants are somewhat scary not only for the plants themselves but the awful business practices of the companies producing them. I never said that antibiotics laden mass animal production is any better. I hope that the eating habits would change towards less animal products. Which would make much more sense then replacing those with artificial products for basically no reason other than habit.
- bpfrh 7y agoArtifical products are not bad in general. Everything we eat is chemical, the only difference is that somethings are created over a thousand years and some things are done in a few months/years in a lab. Extracting ingredients and creating new flavors or products is not a bad idea, especially if you can replace a hard to make product(meat). Of course, there should and will be testing if it is for safe consumption.
- Fnoord 7y agoThe word 'artificial' is, well, basically bullshit. There's no such thing as 'artificial' (or 'natural'). It all boils down to molecules and atoms, in the end. What matters is (lack of) toxicity, harmful, LD50, food safety. 'Artificial' however does not and should not imply any of that. As for > Is it only me or is this whole preprocessed food stuff the most American thing ever? I wouldn't say so. There's innovation regarding this throughout the world. On top of that, cutting down on meat saves the environment. Is saving the environment an American thing...? I'd wager that fast food is mostly an American invention, but it got picked up throughout the rest of the world. Like preprocessed food it isn't good or bad per definition.
- forgotmypw 7y agoThe difference between natural and artificial is the difference between substances we've been exposed to, and thus evolved to deal with, for millions of years, and ones which are completely new to us, and we are essentially beta-testing on our bodies. Of course, the official meaning of the world "natural", as it relates to the list of ingredients on a package, has been diluted to be meaningless, as you say.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago> Of course, the official meaning of the world "natural", as it relates to the list of ingredients on a package, has been diluted to be meaningless, as you say. It's been restricted to be meaningless, IMO. If we go by your definition of artificial, then a lot of what doesn't qualify as "natural" on food labels isn't artificial either. Many "chemicals" added to food are substances that we've evolved to deal with. GMOs in particular aren't artificial by this definition, as they're mostly about making some food contain stuff that was previously found in other food.
- sridca 7y ago> plant based protein sources are [...] worse than mass-agriculture raised animal products. Plant-based protein is no better, from the health and nutrition context, than animal-based protein. They can even be worse; for example, plant nutrients often suffer from low “bioavailability”—which means that they are hard for us to extract, absorb, and utilize[1]. More on animal protein: http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/food/meats/ http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/food/meats/ [1] https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/micronutrients-mental-health/ https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/micronutrients-mental-health/
- bitwize 7y agoI would say that at least as American as processed food, are our various peculiar forms of "low religion" surrounding food. Sugar is bad for you, salt is bad for you, meat is bad for you, wheat is bad for you. Last week coffee was bad for you; today it's great for you. Every few days do a juice cleanse to flush out all the toxins inside you. Check out this new superfood from the swamps of Elbonia, loaded with antioxidants and a guaranteed cancer fighter! Et cetera. A Native American friend put it thus: Veganism is a choice we can afford to make in modern society. If you were a Lakota living on the plains 500 or 1000 years ago, your choices were to eat buffalo or starve. The USA is, indeed, one of the most prosperous countries in the history of ever, and one of the boons of that is we get a smörgåsbord laid out before us every day, a veritable cornucopia of foods from different sources of varying quality. It has turned us into picky eaters indeed, a luxury virtually unaffordable for most of human history.
- ForHackernews 7y agoCounterpoint: I care about reducing animal suffering. I do not care about vague, unspecified concerns regarding what is "natural" or "processed". Bring on the processed pea-mush that doesn't suffer as it dies.
- azeotropic 7y agoHow do you know plants don't suffer as they die? That seems like a pretty bold assertion. Sure they don't really have muscles, so they don't thrash around like animals, and they don't make noise or cry out when they are killed. On the other hand, when they are wounded they do make chemical compounds to resist predation and to signal to nearby plants that predators are present (e.g. salicylate). This seems vaguely parallel. Is the moral worth of plant suffering lower because it isn't close enough in form to human suffering? If we were to encounter a truly alien species, how would you know whether or not it experienced suffering?
- cageface 7y agoIf you really care about the suffering of plants, which I strongly doubt, you should still eat them because the alternative is feeding ten times as many of them to an animal and then also eating the animal.
- azeotropic 7y agoI'll admit to being wildly inconsistent on this, since I do care about what I perceive as the suffering of some of my favorite individual plants and animals, but not enough about the suffering of plants or animals in general to stop eating them or building things out of wood and leather, or what have you. I could imagine other alternatives. I knew a fruitarian once (before Notting Hill came out). I suppose you could try and engineer auxotrophy into human cells. I went to a conference once where some people earnestly (but naively) proposed it.
- krageon 7y agoIf this were an argument made in good faith, you would have done the absolutely mediocre amount of required thinking about what it is animals eat. Given that you evidently did not, this reads as empty contrarian posturing. Not very useful for anyone, except maybe for your pleasure.
- odiroot 7y agoSome people prefer to chug on Soylent Green (and maybe even force others to do the same) just to be able to boast how green they are.
- Broken_Hippo 7y agoDo you think the bucketized bean protein powder extracted from peas might be bad for you? Well eat the freaking peas I bet those taste better as well. That's like telling folks to simply eat wheat instead of bread or to eat oatmeal instead of the cereal flakes made from it. These aren't things that you can simply substitute: Pea protein gives variety of texture and allows folks to eat food they grew up with even though they no longer subscribe to that diet. Yes, there is room in the diet for both things, just like there is room for both bread and cracked wheat and other whole grains. There is more to food than simply nutrition and glossing over this is a fault that needs addressed. And it is obvious that you've not eaten it. If you disagree with these things... don't eat them. Simple as that.
- ainiriand 7y agoMonsanto soy and chemistry... What do you think cows or chicken eat? Freshly grown grass from Switzerland? Having worked for an accounting shop specialised in cow farms I can assure you that one of the main bills is antibiotics and food supplements. Also cow food is usually highly specialised.
- inferiorhuman 7y agoOut here we have cows grazing on grass. Both on private dairy farms and on government land (ostensibly to keep the invasive grasses in check).
- ainiriand 7y agoI live in Ireland, we have those too. I think that most of the meat is not like that though. More like this https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3265/3239157183_91c5fbc582_z.jpg?zz=1 https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3265/3239157183_91c5fbc582_z.j...
- apatters 7y agoI actually couldn't care less about all the moralizing, virtue signaling PETA type crap. I spit on hipsters and their endless moral outrage. I'm an unapologetic meat eater. I love my cuts of beef carved off of methane farting cows and you can pry them out of my cold, dead hands. I also love peas! And beans! And lentils, and chickpeas... They're all delicious. Hummus is divine. I have no objections to consuming a diet of mostly plants, because plants taste great too. So these weird processed plants don't make a lot of sense to me either. If a veggie burger is good I'll order it, but why not just make great food that features the plant as the centerpiece and tastes amazing? There's no shortage of options. (And when you start thinking this way, and avoid joining cults of all persuasions, you realize pretty quickly that these dishes often get even better when flavored with a very modest amount of animal. When I make refried beans I render the lard myself and it doesn't take much to make a difference, but there is simply no substitute.) Is it convenience? Maybe, but it's pretty damn easy to throw stuff into a crock pot before you go to work and have a mouth watering stew/soup/chili/ratatouille/whatever ready to eat when you get home at night. More likely it's just people thinking what the corporations tell them to think. There's no money to be made in serving food the way we've always eaten it. Business needs products it can patent and trademark and market at a premium. The next Zuckerberg needs to build his fortune so he can start his foundation and virtue signal harder than you!
- the_gastropod 7y ago> I spit on hipsters and their endless moral outrage. I'm an unapologetic meat eater. I love my cuts of beef carved off of methane farting cows and you can pry them out of my cold, dead hands. This doesn’t strike me as a particularly reasonable argument. There are plenty of enjoyable things that are bad for you, those around you, or in this case, the whole planet (cigarettes, slavery, rolling coal, etc.) What would it take for you to care about “methane farting cows”? Aside: Cows actually don’t fart much. Most of the methane they produce comes out the other end as a burp.
- apatters 7y agoAll it takes is a compelling case that eating a plant-heavy diet is in my best interests, which is easy: plants taste great and they're healthy. My contention is with the vocal minority of extremists who evangelize plant-only diets as the only right way to live, even though they aren't necessarily better. These people resort to less effective, morality based arguments to sway others (let's face it, most people care more about eating tasty food than saving the environment), indicating that their real concern isn't moving the needle on meat consumption, it's asserting their moral superiority in order to gain status among their peers. A pragmatist would use effective tools to reduce the average person's meat consumption by 75% and that would solve a lot of problems. They'd cook healthy vegetable heavy dinners for their friends, or maybe promote pork/chicken instead of beef since those generate fewer emissions. A fanatic proclaims that the only solution is eliminating all meat consumption, and the fate of the earth is on the line.
- greendestiny_re 7y ago>Why has everything to be some powder in a bucket or some goop in a tube? Highly processed foodstuffs have: 1) longer shelf life, 2) more easily controllable composition, 3) fewer ingredients, which lessens risk of lawsuits, 4) more flexibility to allow for addition to other foods. Those four advantages combine to help producer recoup costs and avoid negative publicity. Maximize profits, minimize risks; whatever comes out as a result is the "food" product.
- alfonsodev 7y agoand I would add "5) Higher density of nutrients" I can't imagine how many peas you'd have to eat to get the same amount of protein that you would with the powder solution.
- HeadsUpHigh 7y agoYou get more protein but you get less of everything else. What do you replace that with? For example it appears that peas have a decent amount of vit K in them. Also what do you do with the carbs taken out? Do you replace them with sugar? Because that's an inferior source. Or do you just add sugar to the powder in the first place to make it's taste bearable?
- gamblor956 7y agoPea (powder) protein is intended for supplementing protein, not carbs. If you wanted carbs you'd just eat the peas.
- sridca 7y agoI think it is to do with the culture of consumerism and capitalism, in conjunction with taking of moral stances against one's own health, than American culture per se: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLk5AAKRem8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLk5AAKRem8
- elindbe2 7y agoWhy eat bread when you can just eat boiled wheat grains?
- bitwize 7y agoProcessed foods started becoming a major thing in the 1950s, when memories of the Depression and the Dust Bowl still loomed large in the minds of American citizens. Processed foods are designed to keep for longer, ship over long distances, and be manufactured in bulk, allowing for people in famine-affected regions to still be able to purchase food from elsewhere affordably. It's fine to restrict yourself to a diet consisting only of locally grown, organic, whole foods, and to never eat meat from a chicken whose résumé you can't review first. Just be aware that you are making your food security dependent on the conditions of your region.
- tomjen3 7y agoIf by most American thing ever you mean the most awesome idea ever, I would say no, but it is still up there. Everything does not have to powder in a bucket, but if say 80% of what was sold in a grocery store was, the world would be a much better place. You are free to buy your old fashion food, and I will enjoy my Huel.
- mogadsheu 7y agoLate reply but you might appreciate: America is a big country, and population centers are often a long distance/inconvenient to access from the food supply. This applies to both cities and remote towns in the countryside. Ensuring safety and stability is often a larger priority than freshness. I.e. The remote town of 500 people 6 hours away from Salt Lake City won’t have the scale or shelf life to accept fresh kale from the California Coast. Processing helps bring these people food safely and conveniently.