3 ms·
If artificial meat is to be advertised as a meat replacement, it ought to have similar nutritional qualities to real meat. Otherwise we're either misleading con
by n4r9 4y ago
If artificial meat is to be advertised as a meat replacement, it ought to have similar nutritional qualities to real meat. Otherwise we're either misleading consumers into thinking they're getting benefits that they're not, or creating mental effort for them as they now have to eat twice to get the same total benefit. The latter is something vegans and vegetarians already have to do; it's tricky to get enough protein and iron in a veggie diet while keeping calories low. If a single product can reduce that mental effort, that's great.
- makeitdouble 4y agoI'd see it in the same framing as artificial sweetners, margarine and other "ersatz" peoducts: they don't need and might not want to have exactly the same properties as what they replace. In practice less caloric meat, or in general meat that tastes good but has little impact on someone's diet in good or bad ways would be a fantastic product in itself.
- n4r9 4y agoI do see what you're saying but there's a crucial difference between sugar and meat. Sugar gives almost no marginal nutritional gain for a modern human. It can be substituted with something "empty" without thinking about it. If you do the same with meat, you have to get the nutrition from somewhere else. Also, meat is generally a healthy food source. In terms of protein per calorie, chicken breast and steak are up with with pure protein shakes.