71–80 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm looking forward more at Soylent[0] than lab-grown meat. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_%28drink%29
Enjoy! http://www.meghantelpner.com/blog/the-soylent-killer/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm looking forward more at Soylent[0] than lab-grown meat. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_%28drink%29
Enjoy! http://www.meghantelpner.com/blog/the-soylent-killer/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lobster is a bug; it used to be 'ick' and now its 'yum'. The ick factor is cultural. No reason the OP can't be right - if bugs are tasty, and some people start eating them, and then more people, they could easily become a regular thing.
Lobsters, shrimps or mussles are actually delicious, and are thus expensive. Insects or dog/cat meat on the other aren't, as otherwise they would have been adopted into worldwide diet long time ago. So today they still remain a cheap source of food in some third world countries.
Deciding something is delicious or not has more to do with culture and upbringing than actual taste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm looking forward more at Soylent[0] than lab-grown meat. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_%28drink%29
Enjoy! http://www.meghantelpner.com/blog/the-soylent-killer/
Also outdated, the new version 1.4 of their formula removed more than half of the maltodextrin in favor of lower GI carbohydrates, which was one of the few potentially legitimate complaints.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm looking forward more at Soylent[0] than lab-grown meat. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_%28drink%29
Enjoy! http://www.meghantelpner.com/blog/the-soylent-killer/
Lets start with the the addressing of the fish oils found in soylent. They claim fish oils are good, "but just how high-quality is the fish oil going to be in a mass-produced beverage?", yet they didn't think to check the website where they cite that their fish oils come from algae and even provide information on the shelf-life of soylent based on when the oils in it are likely to be rancid[2]
Moving on to sucralose. The study it cites that was published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health has been revised by studies that have been conducted since then and found that the study was "deficient in several critical areas" and that its conclusions "are not consistent with published literature and not supported by the data presented".[3] But hey, why cite that when we could just be scared by old crappy studies. The other wildly inaccurate claim of the article is it addresses the effects of "cooking with sucralose at high temperatures" when that will literally never be relevant while consuming soylent which is recommended to be prepared at room temperature and stored at even lower temperatures. Another case of employing scare tactics instead of a little bit of critical thinking.
As for maltodextrin? The claim in the article hinges around the high blood sugar spike from maltodextrin which is offset by other ingredients in foods, but if that's not enough, they've measured the glycemic index of previous recipes of soylent and they're doing so for Soylent 1.4 (the most recent recipe)[4]. The point is, this isn't some hidden scandal that this author uncovered in the two seconds that they looked at the ingredients list, it's known and tested and accounted for.
The list goes on with every one of the other concerns with appeals to nature here and scare tactic there (including a false and now corrected claim about an ingredient coming from "a beaver's ass. Literally."). In conclusion, I think the source you cited is not a very high quality one and readers should be aware of it.
Edit: Spaced out sources to be more readable.
[0]:https://faq.soylent.me/hc/en-us/sections/200307055-About-Soy...
[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
[2]:http://diy.soylent.me/wiki/perishability
[3]:Brusick, D. "Expert Panel Report on a Study of Splenda in Male Rats." Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2009 Oct;55(1):6-12.
[4]:https://faq.soylent.me/hc/en-us/articles/201273715-Soylent-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enjoy! http://www.meghantelpner.com/blog/the-soylent-killer/
This article is full of misinformation and unbased speculation. Any of the arguments provided in this article can be refuted with a little bit of research, but if guidance was needed, their "about" section and FAQ are quite in depth [0]. This article also employs a logical fallacy of appealing to nature in just about every paragraph [1], just because it's not found outside in nature doesn't mean it's bad. And vice ve…
Am I the only one bothered by the sheer amount of killing this means? You might have to feed poultry 2lb to get 1lb of food, but you kill only one living creature. With insects, how many living creatures are you going to kill to get 1lb ? (even though that would only require 1lb of feeding). Yes I know, they are not conscious at the same level, and are killed in a way so that they don't suffer, but still.
People have been publishing this article every few months for as long as I can remember. They may well be an efficient form of protein but... squick. Basically.
It's just unfamiliarity - you would have the same reaction to a prawn if you hadn't grown up with it. And many outsiders would have a similar reaction to squid cooked in its ink (Spain), half-rotted herring (Scandinavia), or even just strongly flavoured blue cheese (everywhere). For that matter, lots of people feel icky about fresh tomatoes. It's not likely to become something which is mainstream overnight, but there…
The article capitalizes on a popular foreboding about resource limits with a thrilling "ick" factor, but it's premise is unsubstantial. I once met an ancient Jewish gentleman who, due to poverty, had been forced to eat lobsters as a youth. In that day they were considered on par with rats as a food source (not to mention they were forbidden by his religious culture) and he had never recovered from the experience, and…
Shellfish are considered unclean in Judaism, but you shouldn't generalize from that to assume every other culture views them the same way, as with pork, the religious prohibition probably originated with the elevated risk of food-borne illness that was exacerbated by the climate.