Sure, I know for a fact that the final product isn't the same - this is a good thing. I think you're falling for the fallacy that natural is better. At a most basic level, our ancestors proved hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago that this is false - natural meat is uncooked meat, but both the bio-availability of the protein and the safety of the food increases with cooking.

▲

Xeoncross 7 months ago | parent [-]

I would argue your comparison is itself a fallacy of equivalency. There are certain things in nature you cannot (and should not) consume (cooked or uncooked).

Certain foods like milk are the most basic/only source of nutrients for mammals from the time of birth. This isn't anything like raw meat or poisonous berries.

	▲	SketchySeaBeast 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		> I would argue your comparison is itself a fallacy of equivalency. There are certain things in nature you cannot (and should not) consume (cooked or uncooked). This doesn't address my example. You can consume raw meat, and we used to, before we had fire. Now there's some meat that's not great to consume uncooked. Chicken should be cooked. But beef? We can eat that raw, but there are considerations to ensure it's safe, and it's easier, tastier, and better for you to consume it cooked. > Certain foods like milk are the most basic/only source of nutrients for mammals from the time of birth. This isn't anything like raw meat or poisonous berries. Again, an appeal to nature. Most mammal's drink milk only at the beginning of their lives and stop once they can consume other food sources. Regardless, raw milk straight from the teet of a mammal's mother is not the same as the raw milk in stores. Modern agricultural practices have ensured that diseases can easily travel between creatures, infesting the milk, which is what pasteurization solves.