231–240 of 320 posts
I've had the pleasure of having freshly harvested spirulina. It was buttery and wonderful and rich, eating a few grams felt like a big slice of chocolate cake. Eating algae is not a compromise or a burden, it's a fabulous luxury we should all experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Origin of supply seems fairly important to keep track of: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21732-z > "Distribution of metals and metalloids in dried seaweeds and health risk to population in southeastern China (2018) Most sources report levels low enough to not cause health risks, but eating large quantities ( > 5g day ) is probably not the best idea, and it should be tested for lead, mercury and cadmium (i…
is 5g a large quantity? I must be missing significant context.
I will not eat the bugs and I will not eat the algae.
I cannot understand how it is possible that the phrases like "food security" instead of "hunger" became used widespread organically seemingly out of nowhere. Genuine question, can someone explain that to me without resorting to some sort of conspiracy theories?
To those saying that "hunger" refers specifically to a physical state, we used to have the term "world hunger", and we obviously weren't talking about the planet itself being hungry.
I've had the pleasure of having freshly harvested spirulina. It was buttery and wonderful and rich, eating a few grams felt like a big slice of chocolate cake. Eating algae is not a compromise or a burden, it's a fabulous luxury we should all experience.
All of the people who are saying they'd never eat it and will stick with their beef/chicken/pork are the same kind that said hell no to EVs. They'll die out and the world will adapt to a changing food economy just as we did with the changing fuel economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Algae isn't an experimental food; plenty of rich people eat sushi, for example.
If plenty of people are already doing it, why is the article titled with the question of whether we should start doing it? It's because the article is talking about making it more of a primary source of nutrition. It isn't even the primary ingredient in sushi. So, if the rich (and politicians) start eating it as a primary source of nutrition, then the commenter to whom you were replying might consider it similarly.
I had eaten it, the green are good, salty when fresh and a little bland after cooking it, the red are a little bitter with a medicine aftertaste. You should use it sparsely in kitchen. Is more a spice than a main dish.
The main problems are that climate change removed 90% of the Laminaria forests here in the last 20 years and that the red algae are harvested and sold for pharma and industry, so aren't really available to harvest to the common people. You need a permit for this. The culture is also complicated here.
Better than crickets, but I'll stick to beef thanks.
I've wondered if the move to get rid of livestock to reduce wasteful resource consumption can just be focused on getting rid of beef. Poultry cultivation is far less water intensive than raising cattle. If everyone just ate chicken and pork that would be a significant improvement. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/beef-uses-ten-...
I will not eat the bugs and I will not eat the algae.
I was looking into algea/spirulina for B12, but found some sources indicating it is not a bioavailable form of B12, and also prevents real B12 from being absorbed. I'd be interested to know any counter research to this. > almost all algae revealed vitamin B12 analogues instead of the real thing. Analogues are not only ineffective, but also potentially dangerous. Most researchers have consequently dismissed algae as a…
Yep. People need meat.