Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomp | Hacker News Reader

> with a warped sense of ickiness or masculinity, or we can choose protein security indefinitely into the future

I think you're confusing a few things.

I'm very pro lab-grown meat, and I don't see why it would be either "icky" (if anything, it could be much more "pure", able to grow in controlled conditions without any pesticides, hormones or antibiotics) nor less "masculine" (a steak is a steak is a steak).

I'm very much against plant-based "fake" meat, because they're usually far from natural (tons of chemicals) and full of propaganda ("red meat is unhealthy" but conveniently conflating pure red meat with highly-processed stuff like sausages and salami, or "red meat is unsustainable" while we keep burning coal and importing plastics from China... don't get me wrong, I strongly support carbon tax, but want to be able to what to consume (drive car vs. eat steak) myself).

View on HN

> they're usually far from natural (tons of chemicals)

I really object to marketing use of the word 'natural' and 'chemicals'. I don't mean to single you out - these concepts are widespread in marketing.

Plenty of 'natural' things are bad, like small pox, the Ebola virus and salmonella.

Plenty of 'unnatural' things are good, like antibiotics to treat infection.

All matter is made from chemicals. Whether a chemical like penicillin or salt is synthesised in a lab, or extracted from the ocean, holds no baring on whether that chemical is good for you.

- EDIT - Generalised the penicillin example.

I wouldn't say Penicillin is 'unnatural', there are probably better examples out there.

That's true, I just picked penicillin and salt intentionally as they both can be synthesised in a lab and in nature

Penicillin is a natural product of fungi against bacteria.

When it comes to food, I use the following criteria: could I make it myself in my kitchen? (Some "minimal processsing" like fermentation and curing therefore fall under "natural".)

I'm pretty sure the answer is "no" for most of the plant-based fake meat. It's also "no" for McDonald's burger so I'm not just hating on plants.

I understand this conversation is about Beyond Meat kinda stuff, but it's isn't no for the two oldest and most popular fake meats--tofu and seitan. And yet tofu especially gets beat up in terms of fake vs natural.

You can definitely make seitan in your kitchen, I am not disagreeing with anything you're saying though.

Tofu and seitan get "beat up" because (1) tofu is soy and seitan is gluten (many people dislike those, for various reasons), (2) they're often used to mimic (fake) meat, not made into creative meals of their own, and (3) for me personally, tofu is extremely bland.

As an omnivore, I love seitan - it's pretty common in Chinese and Japanese cuisine. I wish more vegetarian places in the US would use it, but it seems that only tofu has crossed over, which is a shame, because tofu generally doesn't have the texture and bulk of meat, but rather of soft, non-meltable cheese, and is not even as filling as that.

Lots of veg places in the US -do- use seitan. It may be your location that doesn't. It's very popular for vegan chicken sandwiches, fingers, wings, curries etc. I'm in LA tho which may be the current veg restaurant capital of the world.

It's definitely true highly processed foods correlate with poor health outcomes. This correlation is mainly because ultra-processed foods often contain added sugars, excess sodium, and unhealthy fats (source: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/processed-foods...).

There's an (open) question here of what the cause is; is this inherent to all food processing?, or is it the nutritional content of the food?

I would argue eating home-made potato chips, cookies and ice cream may lead to worse health outcomes than plant-based burgers with better nutritional benefits

I prefer the criteria "would a prehistoric person eat this?". Our bodies evolved with food you could pick off a plant and put in your mouth sometimes after applying heat. Or meat. This is "natural" food. Plenty of ingredients you buy in a modern store are processed like flour and sugar. You can make donuts in your kitchen and I'd call that one of the worst foods you can eat nutritionally.

I don't think you can dismiss the sustainability of meat-substitutes just because we as a society continue to use coal or import plastic. A bean-based veggie burger has a much lower environmental footprint regardless of those things. The major difference is that choosing to buy a meat-substitute instead of the real thing is a decision that people can individually make, even if just for one meal a week, while most of us don't have the ability to choose to close down a coal plant.

> a steak is a steak is a steak

would lab-grown steak be remotely similar to a good cut of steak? I'd guess for sausage (and other processes meat) lab-grown won't be different, but I don't think lab-grown will be able to reach real-steak level anytime soon

i don't see why not

It's more complex, but it's a matter of how soon, not if. And how soon, not if, lab-grown steak will be better than real ones, because you'll be able to tinker with the composition in ways you simply can't currently.

Not confusing those things, this is just a different argument against a different thing (plant based meat).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com