111–120 of 679 posts
It really shouldn't be called "meat". It should be called plant-based protein or meat-substitute. The definition of "meat" shouldn't change because you press some soy to look like a chicken leg.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malnutrition is also an externality. I am not sure how healthy these options are but I suspect that substituting minced meat patties, for mashed vegetables glued together with cheap vegetable oils is not an nutritional improvement.
There are plenty of very healthy meat-avoiding people in the world. Malnutrition is also a problem in the world. Malnutrition from people eating fake meat? So far, not a problem.
Because there aren't that many. For people eating a vegetarian or vegan diet, keeping well-fed is a real concern and not everyone is pulling it off. For example, the following article is about infant nutrition but some of its comments apply to adults:
Vegetarian diets in childhood and adolescence : Position paper of the nutrition committee, German Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ)
In Western countries, vegetarian diets are associated with lower intakes of energy, saturated fatty acids and animal protein and higher intakes of fibre and phytochemicals, compared to omnivorous diets. Whether the corresponding health benefits in vegetarians outweigh the risks of nutrient deficiencies has not been fully clarified. It should be noted that vegetarians often have a higher socioeconomic status, follow a more health-conscious lifestyle with higher physical activity, and refrain from smoking more often than non-vegetarians. The nutritional needs of growing children and adolescents can generally be met through a balanced, vegetable-based diet; however, due to their higher nutrient requirements per kilogramme of body weight, vegetarian children have a higher risk for developing nutrient deficiencies than adults. With a vegetarian diet, the mean intakes of some nutrients, such as the omega-3 fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are lower than in omnivores or those eating fish. For other nutrients, such as iron and zinc, the bioavailability from vegetable foodstuffs is reduced when the intake of phytates and fibre is high; thus, the prevalence of iron deficiency can be increased despite high vitamin C intake. In addition, vitamin B12 is only found in animal-source foods. Vitamin B12 should be supplemented in people of all age groups who follow a strict vegan diet without consuming animal products. A vegetarian diet in childhood and adolescence requires good information and supervision by a paediatrician, if necessary, in cooperation with an appropriately trained dietary specialist.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31722049/
See also some relevant articles:
Vegetarian diets during pregnancy: effects on the mother's health. A systematic review
Note well: Data are scarce, often inconsistent and not homogeneous for many of the topics we considered, mainly because only a few studies have been performed in developed countries, _whereas other studies have derived from developing countries, where vegetarianism can be a proxy indicator of malnutrition._ (my underlining)
Vitamin B12 Deficiency Is Prevalent Among Czech Vegans Who Do Not Use Vitamin B12 Supplements
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31835560/
etc.
There is no such thing as plant-based meat. There's only plant-based protein. If we didn't live in a corrupt society this would be punishable by court for disinformation.
Interestingly it doesn't even discuss the obvious solution: Let people who buy real meat pay for the externalities. (Interestingly even in places where there's some form of carbon pricing - like the EU - this often doesn't cover a large share of emissions from meat production, as methane emissions are very relevant here - I'm not aware of any methane pricing scheme anywhere.)
The problem is that most of the cows in the world live in India, Africa and South America, regions which have relatively low carbon intensity per capita. In the developed world, agriculture accounts for on average ~10% of carbon emissions, half of which is from cows. Targeting methane makes a small difference in rich countries and on a global scale places an unfair burden on the poorest countries, and politically, severely hurts the perception of climate protection advocacy among farmers, who are no doubt smart enough to know that fossil fuels are responsible for eight times as much greenhouse emissions as they are, and who are generally an extremely sympathetic constituency, cf. recent Indian protests.
In rich countries, transportation and thermal processes based on fuel burning account for the lion's share of greenhouse gas pollution and rightly deserve the spotlight. The outlier is China, which is rapidly expanding meat production along with its transition to a more industrialized economy. Purveyors of meat substitutes might consider taking the Chinese market more seriously, since they have an opportunity to get in on the ground floor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last election was in 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_elect...
To the figurehead, talking shop parliament. Effectively all the power in the EU belongs to the commission, which is appointed not elected.
Interesting how all the Silicon Valley brainiacs here on HN are far more interested in discussing the semantics of “meat” than the technology or economics. Kind of disappointing, really.
Umm, just eat the plants instead? I don't get fake meat. It is a solution to the wrong problem. Make a small amount of meat sustainable and respectful of animal wellness. Then make the rest of your diet plant based. Done.
Almost the entire point of cultivating different foods is to enjoy different flavors and textures. If something is tasty but expensive, in terms of money or the environment, we should encourage the people that try to make it cheaper. There's no reason to want things to be expensive and rare treats.
Cows and livestock eat plants and convert into meat. It’s natural and organic and proven process that’s been around for thousands of years. Ground up plants with food colorings and odd shapes are not meat.
> It’s natural and organic and proven process that’s been around for thousands of years. Which is a good example how "natural" and "been around for thousands of years" does not equal "is good for the environment".
The problem is the scale, which is also a problem with the industrial growing of crops and industrial fishing.
In rich countries we probably eat too much meat both for our health and for the impact on the environment, but the bottom line is that feeding 8 billion people and counting, who are getting richer globally, is going to hit the environment hard.
IMHO, the best way to reduce meat consumption is to ban subsidies and to increase regulatory quality standards, which would make prices go up significantly. But that's politically unpalatable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree. That's one area where europe is much better than the US, they tend to force stuff to be labeled what it is.
Yup, very true. Just recently German chocolate producer "RitterSport" made a new chocolate product but were disallowed to call it chocolate because it doesn't contain any sugar (they used some substitute), which according to the definition a chocolate product has to contain to be called chocolate.
https://uebermedien.de/57277/wie-man-eine-neue-schokoladenso...