Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that meat needs to eaten in the quantity and frequency that it’s currently eaten in the west to maintain a healthy diet is a recent idea. For my grandparents growing up most meat, especially things like chicken was a luxury reserved for special occasions. It’s also always interesting to me that when this argument comes up people are suddenly very interested in standing up for “the poor”, there are a whole ho…
Historical diets were nothing like modern vegetarianism. They also were not super heathy, oftentimes missing nutricients and causing diseases from the lack of them.
How to lower the price of plant-based meat
531–540 of 679 posts
Re: How to lower the price of plant-based meat
#532Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a strategic perspective grain is the most important thing in a food shortage. People can live a year or two without fruit or vegetables, but without the calories in grain things will get violent fast.
I'm not going to dismiss it outright, but I am mild-to-medium skeptical of this theory. Take a look at some of the recent years of subsidies listed on https://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000&progcode=total&yr... . It's not just that we prioritize feed crops more than oranges, we also prioritize feed crops more than potatoes and root vegetables. Our corn subsidies are on average over twice as high as our wheat subs…
That is as true today as it was back then. Especially when you're feeding the cattle soybeans, which are perfectly good food for humans.
Re: How to lower the price of plant-based meat
#533Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to suggest that you think our meat comes from animals who kinda exist and compete mutually with crops when actually we feed most of our crops to animals. If there was an ecological disaster that killed crop production, we wouldn't waste it by feeding it to animals for a grossly inefficient luxury item. It's like when people try to make a "pro-meat" claim by pointing out how much water it takes to grow a po…
Most animals can feed on wild grasses which we can't digest. They can serve us with a lot of resources and stay alive too (milk, wool, eggs). But if the event is so severe that even grass is gone, then rats are left and canibalism.
Re: How to lower the price of plant-based meat
#534Interestingly 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.)
>> Interestingly it doesn't even discuss the obvious solution: Let people who buy real meat pay for the externalities. Are we going to have people paying for the "externalities" of all the products they consume? For example, the people who buy a new phone every year or half (this habit causes a significant amount of pollution, so-called "e-waste"). The people who drive their car everywhere. The people who fly a few t…
Practical: how easy is it to have a rough calculation of the externality's cost, and include that in the price?
Desirable: how does pricing in the externality help achieve some socially desirable objective?
Re: How to lower the price of plant-based meat
#535Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because nature almost by definition is living things eating other living things and humans evolved to be omnivorous for various nutritional reasons This is such a non-argument, and I'm saying this as a(n occasional) meat-eater. > nature almost by definition is living things eating other living things The default state for most living beings is scarcity. I think we all intuitively judge the morality of people's acti…
>I am irritated by the weak justification though Pot, kettle. >Humans evolved the ability to eat meat because it increased their chances of survival in a hostile environment with scarce resources. It doesn't stop there. Humans have subsequently evolved to thrive on fatty foods. Our understanding of nutritional evolution is incredibly weak. Despite agriculture predominantly giving us access to carbohydrates, human bra…
This argument is not very powerful though. For one, it only justifies eating meat for those who have tried to cut meat from their diet and noticed adverse health effects (which should be safe for most people who don't already suffer from some risk factor, like anemia, to try); in my anecdotal experience a tiny minority of the people who make health-based arguments. And secondly, it only justifies the minimal meat consumption necessary to be healthy, and no more.
Re: How to lower the price of plant-based meat
#536From an athletic or 'health' perspective, these plant-based meat substitutes have way too high fat content. You can get 93+% lean beef with 3-4 grams of fat per 20~ grams of protein, or even higher with game meat. None of the plant proteins appeal to a healthy eater, with the high coconut/canola/sunflower oil content.
Well, from a health perspective, what you really want as your main drive is high, low omega 6 vs omega 3, high quality fat, relatively low protein and the least carb you can do. Carb is not evil per se, a carb+protein based is, it leads to type 2 diabetes, and pave the way to cancer and cognitive dysfunctions, the key thing in those disease being recurrent and close insulin spikes.
A beef with But otherwise I agree with you: plant-based meat-like patty is the worst you can eat (referring to their current recipes that are loaded with omega 6).
Re: How to lower the price of plant-based meat
#537Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see it as them trying to compete with meat. Impossible has higher cholesterol content than beef right now, but I have a feeling this will change as the industry matures.
Plant-based foods cannot have cholesterol.
Re: How to lower the price of plant-based meat
#538Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a strategic perspective grain is the most important thing in a food shortage. People can live a year or two without fruit or vegetables, but without the calories in grain things will get violent fast.
I'm not going to dismiss it outright, but I am mild-to-medium skeptical of this theory. Take a look at some of the recent years of subsidies listed on https://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000&progcode=total&yr... . It's not just that we prioritize feed crops more than oranges, we also prioritize feed crops more than potatoes and root vegetables. Our corn subsidies are on average over twice as high as our wheat subs…
The US consumes a lot of corn, either directly through corn sirup, or indirectly through meat. So it does make sense to have a significant amount of domestic production of what your population actually consumes. That corn might not be healthy is another important topic on it's own.
So subsidizing local farmers isn't the same thing as optimizing for a worst case scenario. In case of a large-scale multi-year war that triggers a famine, you could still order your farmers to switch to growing potatoes, when you have enough actively harvested farmland to begin with. That means subsidizing what is actually consumed during times of peace.
But I'm not saying that's the only reason for the subsidies. Lobbying definitely plays a big (the biggest) role and the largest industries have the strongest lobbying power. But when you have the strategic argument in hand, lobbying for subsidies becomes a lot easier, especially in a country that spends more on the military than any other.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_....
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_production_in_the_United...
Re: How to lower the price of plant-based meat
#539Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The protein yield per acre for soybeans vs mung beans is 6x. While this is probably not too unfair for mung vs. soy, it's important to remember that yield per acre can't always be compared directly across crops that grow in different climates. Tropical climates can average well over 50" of rain per year while cold climates are wet if they hit 25", and the conservation of mass already affects cold-climate growth befo…
The optimal crop certainly depends on weather. In northern Brazil they double crop corn for insane yields of 22M calories per acre. In Wisconsin they grow wheat for 4m calories per acre. Farmers in the Midwest split between soybean (oil/protein 6m calories per acre) and corn (carbs 11m calories per acre). Optimizing yield per acre, adjusting for the value of oil/protein/carbs and weather is the best explanation for t…
I definitely prefer bananas over blueberries so maybe I'm just confused.
Re: How to lower the price of plant-based meat
#540Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I am irritated by the weak justification though Pot, kettle. >Humans evolved the ability to eat meat because it increased their chances of survival in a hostile environment with scarce resources. It doesn't stop there. Humans have subsequently evolved to thrive on fatty foods. Our understanding of nutritional evolution is incredibly weak. Despite agriculture predominantly giving us access to carbohydrates, human bra…
>Many of today's health epidemics are linked to a lack of fat and an excess of carbohydrates. I'm genuinely curious as to what you're getting at. When you say "excess of carbohydrates", are you referring specifically to processed foods or refined sugars? >Try finding fatty fruits and veggies: they were incredibly scarce for most the human population until the last 100 years. Maybe fatty fruits and veggies were scarce…
Long story short: many diseases are insulin linked. Insulin spikes highest by repeatedly eating carbohydrates throughout the day. Fiber decreases those spikes somewhat, but still doesn't compare at all to a fat-based diet or protein-based diet. There are ways to cope with an excess in carbohydrates (heavy exercise is one, fasting is another), but there is no way to cope with a lack of fat. Additionally, mitigation strategies can cause their own problems (many joggers, especially vegetarian and vegan ones, start developing iron deficiencies). The whole "it is just processed sugar" thing is just the tip of the iceberg.
>I highly doubt nuts and seeds were.
Put in perspective: foraging for nuts and seeds is a lot more difficult and intensive than hunting a giant mammal. Plus, the former is a lot more seasonal than the latter.
>But that doesn't really matter if we're talking about what we can do today.
It does. Human evolution and mutation is slow. By looking at what our primary diet was up until recently, we can understand the macronutritional and micronutritional needs of our body and how a vegetarian/vegan diet may or may not influence that.
>Things like avocados, olives, coconuts, and the above-mentioned large categories of nuts and seeds, are readily available for most people making these sorts of arguments. Plus, if you're vegetarian and not vegan, then you have access to cheese, yogurt, milk. It's easy to eat high fat and low carb while avoiding meat, so the argument for eating meat to be healthy on these grounds seems quite weak to me.
The main thing currently under scrutiny is the bioavailability and toxins (for lack of better term) of plant-based foods compared to meat. Turns out a lot of plants don't want to be eaten, and when you can't move, you start developing ways to protect yourself without requiring locomotion. Not only are various of these toxins decreasing bioavailability (zinc is a big one, eating beans with oysters is a terrible way to decrease bioavaialability of zinc), these toxins are actively causing harm and inflammation, whereas a meat-based diet is seen as the "ultimate restriction diet". Avocados, coconuts, olives and nuts stand out here, being more fat heavy, but as most of the population does not have a history with these compared to animal products, it is difficult to say its all good. Beyond that, it is very difficult to get all your minerals and vitamins just on those alone, which isn't the case for meat and seafood, which results in either tapping into the remainder of the veggies and fruit, or tapping into animal products.
Obviously, the argument is more than macros. If macros were all that mattered, you could just stuff your face with whey protein and vegetable oil and call it a day. The argument in favor of meat is a lot more nuanced and without that nuance, will be ruthlessly picked apart by the pro-vegan gang who tend to be a lot more zealous than their carnivorous counterparts (the carnivores have nothing to lose if vegan diets prove to be better, they are already on the moral low). To explain this in its entirety would take far more than a HN comment.
What's concerning is just how much meat-eaters have to play the defense. We don't know that much about vegan and vegetarian diets compared to an ancestry and entire tribes of carnivores. We put forward theoretical models devoid of animal products, using obscure plants to fill in some deficiency, but never test whether it will work on the larger scale. The ecology argument is thrown about as if people don't understand how carbon cycles work. It's humans going vegetarian and vegan which deviates from the status quo, not the other way around. We should be questioning the long term (multi-generational) effects of it as long as we haven't put hoards of people on a vegan or vegetarian diet that didn't include some shady 10 ingredient meat-replacement containing added sugar. We should also be questioning our current understanding of the "cows bad beans good" narrative, and what truly is the cause of the problem (human greed).