Hacker News Reader

Comment by hirundo | Hacker News Reader

This goal is opposite of the approach to reduce meat consumption with -- ultra-processed -- meat substitutes. In general there's a problem with meat being replaced with processed vegetarian options. It sure can't be assumed that people will instead turn to actual vegetables.

So is meat part of the fight against ultra-processed food or not? I believe that meat is a health food, and from where I stand I can't tell where the zeitgeist is on this. Ethics aside, does the nutrition establishment believe that meat is better or worse than ultra-processed options in general?

View on HN

A cow is in a sense a factory producing various proteins, fats, and carbs from grass. Does putting it into something "natural" reset it? I would imagine that red meat isn't a UPF by definition as it's only been through one process, but would argue that the inconsistency with fake meat clearly feeling processed is definitely interesting. Also interesting is perhaps that red meat is presumably not UPF but is carcinogenic.

In that sense a plant is as much a factory as an animal, and all foods are processed before they are harvested.

If this is an argument that "processing" isn't really a useful concept, I'll disagree, because it's clear that post-harvest processing has a very significant effect.

The only definition of ultra processed food is food the middle classes turn their noses up at.

You are right about meat though.

Meat is the most nutritious food you can eat, as it contains all the nutrients you need. There isn't any other food which compares to meat in that regard (with the exception of eggs).

Raw or frozen lean meat is obviously not "ultra-processed" and it is an optimal source of proteins that are not combined with too much starch or too much fat, as in most alternatives.

Nevertheless there are valid reasons why some prefer other sources of proteins, due to ethical concerns or sustainability concerns.

Moreover, human stupidity has ensured that today there no longer exists any food choice that is free of health risks. Every choice has health risks, so at most it can be assessed that a choice is less bad than the others.

For instance, beef or poultry meat may contain hormones and antibiotics, fish may contain mercury, nuts and seeds may contain lead and cadmium, and so on.

Historically in the US, the nutrition establishment has been certain since at least the 1970s that meat "is the devil". Blamed for cardiovascular disease, for cholesterol, for cancer. Beef and pork fat, lard and tallow, where possible, have been replaced by vegetable oils. Even ignoring environmental and cost concerns, we've been told over and over to moderate our meat intake, to reduce it, to minimize it.

I don't know that I've heard it referred to as "processed", so there's at least that. On the other hand, it's difficult to argue that some things we call "mystery meat" aren't highly processed. Sausages and such.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com