| |
| ▲ | abdullahkhalids 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Ultra-processed food does not have an agreed-upon definition The United Nations Food and Agriculture authority have designed the NOVA classification of food[1, 2], which includes ultra-processed food as a category. [1] https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/527... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification | | | |
| ▲ | parasti 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I read "cancer" in between the lines of that comment. So the characterization of (potentially) that backdrop as "a bit of personal harm" feels wildly overassuming. | |
| ▲ | dfxm12 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If one is truly worried about both, they don't have to eat beyond meat though. They can eat rice and beans. Eating rice and beans instead of both conventional and beyond meat is bad for beyond meat, too, I guess. | |
| ▲ | baby 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ultra processed food is food you wouldn't be able to make at home from whole ingredients. It's easy to make bread and pizza. | | |
| ▲ | gizmo686 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I might be able to figure out how to grind wheat into flour for bread. Maybe I can squint hard enough to consider baking yeast to be a "whole ingredient". But cheese? I assume I can probably figure it out with the internet, but it is not at all obvious what goes into that. And the milk I would use almost certainly went through an industrial sterilization process that I know I am not equipped to so. | | |
| ▲ | internet_points 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You can make ricotta in <1h with whole milk, vinegar and a bit of salt. And it's good on pizza! But most "regular" cheeses like Swiss cheese also need rennet, ie. you need to slaughter a calf and scrape its stomach lining. You may want to make sure your downstairs neighbor is OK with the procedure before you start (offer them a veal dinner to make up for the noise?). Other than that, it's basically (unpasteurized) milk, salt and water. And time. Yeast: take a sourdough baking class. You just need air, water and (organic) flour. | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | lopis 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Your ignorance of the process or recipe of a food product doesn't affect the definition of ultra processed food. No amount of knowledge will let you make something like ultra processed foods at home with home equipment simply because it uses industrial processes and ingredients. Naturally there is a spectrum of processed-ness. |
| |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | And yet, pizza regularly appears on lists of "ultra processed" foods. As do potato chips and ice cream, two foods that are also very easy to make at home from whole ingredients. There is no consistent definition and people regularly bend over backward to put all "junk food" in this category. | | |
| ▲ | hombre_fatal 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, it's a good example of how useless "ultra processed" is as a heuristic when we can use a slightly better label like "junk food". So, donuts are fine because they are only a few ingredients that you can make on your stove, and they're bad once a factory makes them? Maybe only because the factory uses "chemicals"? No, it's the fried calorie-dense food that is easy to overeat while displacing nutrition from better food sources that is the problem. | | |
| ▲ | voakbasda 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Everyone here seems to be avoiding the point that ultra processed foods contain ingredients that home bakers would never use: preservatives, anti-caking agents, flavor enhancers, artificial colors and flavors. Ingredients that are not food and add little to no nutritional value. Pizza made at home will not use such things. Your local pub that makes their own pizza will not either. Fast food or frozen pizza gets their ingredients from central suppliers in bulk, and they have no choice but to use such things in order for their products to survive the extended storage, processing, transportation, and similar delays that will occur on the way to the consumer. | | |
| ▲ | hombre_fatal 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a very convenient red herring to zoom in on some additives instead of zooming out to evaluate your dietary patterns. Probably because we can use it to let ourselves off the hook for a bad diet. We can do things like roleplay that it's the seed oil in our Doritos making us fat, and that if it were butter then, idk, it would be a superfood or something? It's the pepperoni, 15g sodium, 100g saturated fat, and 3000 calories of Costco pizza you just ate that's doing a number on your body, not the guar gum in the dough. Or, how are you going to pick apart an ingredient list when you just ate a half-dozen home-cooked lard donuts? You're cool with laying down arterial plaque but you draw the line at ascorbic acid in the store-bought cream filling? The "ulta processed" meme is a huge distraction. It's like listening to a fat guy talk about how he's very particular about the gum he chews because he stays away from "sugar alcohols". Yeah? What about the other 4999 calories of food you ate today? | |
| ▲ | Kirby64 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Everyone here seems to be avoiding the point that ultra processed foods contain ingredients that home bakers would never use: preservatives, anti-caking agents, flavor enhancers, artificial colors and flavors. Ingredients that are not food and add little to no nutritional value. Precisely what is wrong with flavor enhancers? A common flavor enhancer is MSG, and using that in homemade dishes would not be that unusual. I frequently use it in many home preparations that could use more savory flavor. Likewise with thickeners or emulsifiers such as cornstarch, xanthum gum, guar gum, etc: these are often used in many preparations at home. Just because something has 'no nutritional value' doesn't mean it doesn't have culinary value. By this same logic, spices have no nutritional value and are just flavors, which clearly doesn't pass the sniff test. | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sometimes. But if you look at papers, media coverage, and policy proposals you'll find that "has preservatives and stuff" is not actually a necessary nor sufficient requirement. | |
| ▲ | Karrot_Kream 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is not true. I frequently use these spooky "ingredients" in home cooking. I use sodium citrate to make cheese sauces that don't coagulate. I use MSG if I need a source of glutamic umami. I've used various gums as thickeners. These aren't some toxic compounds that machines put in our food. You can just go to a food supply store and grab them. MSG is just available pretty much everywhere. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pacifika 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can debate semantics / definitions or make an assessment and get most of the benefit. | | | |
| ▲ | mjevans 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I was extremely dismayed when that supermarket simulator game that got popular on Twitch called 'pizza' something along the line of 'frozen dessert pie'... At least the way it tends to get made in the US, a sugary pastry that's stuffed full of sugar, carbs, fats and cheese? Ok yeah, my favorite foods are _all_ terrible for me and I can't eat them anymore. This makes me very sad. | | |
| ▲ | pacifika 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Why not make pizza at home? | | |
| ▲ | dzhiurgis 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Pizza at home is my pet peeve. Lots of work working the dough, lots of waiting, super messy. Needs expensive oven and tons of electricity. All of this work to get one of the cheapest meal available. Now compare to a steak - add salt, 5 minutes on pan, rest. Better than $50 steak at most restaurants. | | |
| ▲ | SideburnsOfDoom 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I get that pizza at home is a whole hobby, yes. And if you don't want to do it, it's all of those things that you say. 1) My pizza oven runs on gas not electricity. Not that this is better environmentally. Some run on wood. 2) I'm getting better results than I can get in a local pizza place. Cheap pizza is not great pizza. Home pizza making has a learning curve, it's more of a niche thing than e.g. cooking a steak or burger. For grandparent post, Pizza is of course not a "dessert", it's a savoury main course. Full of white flour, cheese fats, and salt. So also not health food. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | timeon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One does not need to eat these "ultra-processed" foods when reducing meat consumption. | |
| ▲ | dokyun 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The words "good" and "very bad" indicate that the world is less important to that person than themselves. I'd be okay with a bit of personal harm if it helps against climate change. Yeah, no shit? We're not ants in a colony. I think you're pretty stupid if you're alright with harming yourself while achieving nothing. If you wanna risk your life for a cause then take direct action, eating processed slop and pretending to feel good about it is only gonna make both your world and mine shittier. | | |
| ▲ | KempyKolibri 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The thing is, we don’t even have good evidence that UPF is necessarily harmful. Whey protein is UPF, but is associated with positive outcomes. Mass produced wholemeal bread is UPF, but is associated with good outcomes. I’m not convinced that the “UPF” category adds anything useful over “HFSS” at this point. Happy to be pushed off my view, but seen nothing that would do so thus far. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | buu700 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well it's not like they're "ultra-processed" because they're meat alternatives. I get most of my protein from Meati (mycelium), eggs, tofu, cheese, and whey/plant/collagen protein powders, none of which I would characterize as ultra-processed[1]. I'm just not sure how you could justify calling plant-based meats non-ultra-processed under any useful definition of the term. Although I'd also add that UPF avoidance is more of a useful heuristic than an inherently reliable indicator of something's healthfulness. It's not like it's physically impossible to use complex industrial processes to create a product with high-quality nutrition that aligns with a given consumer's desired macros. I don't personally believe that plant-based meats as we know them are as healthy as meat, but that doesn't mean they couldn't theoretically be, and it doesn't mean lab-grown meat can't be (although I'll let other people be the guinea pigs on immortalized cells and check back in next century). Edit: 1: Except the powders. Turns out that they're on the low end of "ultra-processed" based on the Nova classification system, whereas Beyond/Impossible Meat is more firmly in that category. See comment below. | | |
| ▲ | glenstein 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >I'm just not sure how you could justify calling plant-based meats non-ultra-processed under any useful definition of the term. It's not a question of whether or not they fit that definition, it's that the definition itself is so expansive that it allows equivocation between food products that are meaningfully different in their ingredients, health outcomes and environmental outcomes. | | |
| ▲ | buu700 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Agreed. UPF-ness is a useful and now-trendy heuristic to determine whether and how to more qualitatively analyze the health properties of a given food, but it's not the final answer. Sugar isn't a UPF (it's in Nova group 2), but I think most people would choose to eat a plant-based burger before a bowl of sugar. | | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I personally think it is less useful than just "junk food." At least that name makes it clear that it is a fuzzy heuristic. | | |
| ▲ | buu700 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I see "junk food" as a value judgement more so than a heuristic. How do you define "junk food"? Most people would agree that most things that are marketed as candy are junk food, but what else qualifies as "junk food"? Off the top of my head, I bet you could ask 10 different people about which of these qualify as "junk food" and get 10 different answers: pizza, pasta, granola bars, burgers, lettuce-wrapped burgers, Impossible burgers, steak, salad with store-bought dressing, canned chicken noodle soup, coconuts, dates, MCT oil, bacon, oatmeal, cheese, mozzarella sticks, French fries, potato chips, baked potatoes, cereal, corn, popcorn, protein powder, protein bars, smoothies, sugar-free ice cream. "Ultra-processed" may be a little fuzzy at the boundaries, but at least it's a specific enough term that we all know and mostly agree on what we're talking about when we use the term. UPF-ness is a heuristic that can help determine whether or not a certain food is junk, but once you've categorized something as "junk food" you've already decided it's unhealthy. No one has to study or debate whether or not junk food is unhealthy. | | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 2 days ago | parent [-] | | But that's what makes it more valuable. It is honest. There's a value judgement in "ultra-processed" that is just hidden. This is how you get ostensibly serious people saying that frozen lasagna made with whole ingredients and no preservatives is still "ultra-processed" because it is shipped in plastic or that a can of baked beans made with sugar and preservatives isn't "ultra-processed" because it is part of a traditional british breakfast. If you ask 10 different people on the street what "ultra-processed" means you'll get even less consistency. And the value judgement is the only part that has an especially meaningful connection to health. It is admittedly really difficult to do rigorous research on the health impacts of diet, but the connection between "ultra-processed-ness" and health outcomes is super messy. And even when we can get data that suggests negative health outcomes, what's the actual cause? Preservatives? Lack of fiber? Hyperpalatability? Nobody has been able to clearly articulate a cause and if we could then we could just focus on that thing rather than the "ultra-processed-ness." |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jvia 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Protein powders are an ultra-processed food. | | |
| ▲ | adrian_b 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Some protein powders, e.g. many of the plant protein powders, require complex processing, which is reflected in their price, which is many times greater than the price of meat (per protein content). However there are other protein powders that are obtained using minimal processing, much less than the traditional food processing, so they cannot be considered "ultra-processed" by any definition. For instance the protein concentrates that are extracted from milk or whey are much less processed than the traditional dairy products. (This is also reflected in their price, which is similar to that of the cheapest kinds of chicken meat, per their protein content.) To extract the protein powder from milk or whey, only simple (in principle) processing steps are done: centrifugation to remove the fat, ultrafiltration to remove the lactose and the water and drying to remove the residual water. This kind of processing alters the proteins of milk far less than the traditional making of cheese, which requires strong processing with enzymes and/or acid and/or heat and/or fermentation, and which causes significant changes in the structure and composition of the milk proteins. If you call milk/whey protein concentrate as "ultra-processed", you must call any cheese as "hyper-super-ultra-processed". It is true that making milk/whey protein powders requires machines that can be made only using modern technologies, while cheese and other dairy products were already made many millennia ago. However the simplicity of the old technologies is only apparent, because they exploited the work of dead animal bodies (rennet) or bacteria or fungi, which are much more complex than human-made machines. In this case, i.e. for making milk/whey protein powders, modern technology has allowed the use of much less processing for extracting the useful part of milk, keeping it in its unaltered state, than the traditional technologies, so this is clearly not an example of "ultra-processing". Similarly, extracting vegetable oils using supercritical carbon dioxide is certainly not "ultra-processing" as it allows a better preservation of the oil fraction of oily seeds or oily fruits than the traditional oil extraction methods. So the use of modern processing methods is not the same as "ultra-processing". To the latter, one should count only processing methods that cause irreversible changes in the food, removing the control of the end users on the composition of the food that they eat, i.e. processing that mixes ingredients into the food or that alters the food through heating or other treatments. | | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Fruit juice concentrates are often considered "ultra-processed" in the scientific literature, media, and policy initiatives. Are they substantially more processed than whey protein? The definitions are indeed fucked. |
|
| |
| ▲ | scythe 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >I'm just not sure how you could justify calling plant-based meats non-ultra-processed under any useful definition of the term. The most pressing question here: is tofu ultra-processed? It's a protein isolate prepared by a solution-precipitation process. If you replace the tofu salts (calcium sulfate and similar) with ethanol (an anti-solvent for proteins) you get protein powder. This is not the most efficient way make protein powder, but the point is that on the one hand you have a traditional centuries-old process, and on the other you have what seems to be a sine qua non of ultraprocessed food, and the difference is... ethanol. Beyond Meat, which contains... dietary fiber... is part of a particular subset of highly processed foods that are trying to be healthy. If you see "chicory root extract" on a food's ingredients label, it's probably in this club. This is a telltale sign of spiking the dietary fiber content. (Beyond Meat does not contain chicory; its fiber is from peas.) Most ultra-processed foods are not trying to be healthy. They are designed to be addictive. It's a little bit like the old kerfuffle over "weapons-grade" encryption being restricted for export. The technology can be useful for military purposes, but encryption is not a weapon per se. The critical diversion is not from meat to processed foods, but from the practice of deliberately engineering addictive foods to the techniques that facilitate it. The food product companies would like you to look anywhere other than their intentions, because they can always change the how and what in pursuit of them. They will always be happy to ostentatiously move away from the old way of making a bag of chips you can't put down, to the new way of making a bag of chips you can't put down. The root of the problem is the incentive structure. | | |
| ▲ | cameldrv 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Their intentions sort of don't matter. The food company and the grocery store are businesses, and the idea that a business should exist for anything except profit has become less fashionable. In any case, there are enough business owners/executives who believe this, and are not punished for it, that they will outcompete you if you don't. The way to make a good profit in the food industry is to sell a lot of a product that you can sell for a good price, but have it be very cheap to manufacture. If you take really cheap input material that historically was used mostly for animal feed, like corn or oats, and can do a bunch of food science magic to it to make it very tasty and addictive, you can charge a good price and people will buy lots of it. The problem with ultraprocessed foods is simply that the manufacturer has been given too many free parameters, and if they get enough they can find something addictive and unhealthy. Since shelf space on grocery store shelves is allocated based on sales, the shelves will be filled with addictive food. This is even true of the produce section. Fruits and vegetables are bred to increase their sugar content, reduce bitterness, etc. Luckily breeding fruit trees is more time consuming and less controllable than all of the chemistry that can happen in a potato chip factory. We will see how this holds up as genetic engineering becomes more predictable. Anyhow the only solution we've really come up with to this social problem is to change our brains with Glucagon Like Peptides to be less susceptible to these tricks. We will see how long that is able to keep ahead of the food companies. | |
| ▲ | buu700 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's an interesting question. Based on Grok's analysis, the answer isn't that tofu is UPF, but that your particular proposed method of creating a protein powder would not be UPF. Unless you followed that process with "additional steps like centrifugation, pH adjustment, spray-drying, and stabilizers", as would typically be involved in production of commercial powders, it would remain in Nova group 3 like tofu. (Whether it would be a particularly palatable or mixable protein powder is obviously another matter entirely.) Of course I agree with the rest of your point, which is similar to what I was saying. (I also chuckled at your choice of analogy, as a founder of an encryption startup.) I have a lot of thoughts on the incentive structure[1], which I would dramatically overhaul given the option. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44808168 |
| |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | RandallBrown 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Interestingly I would describe "tofu, cheese, and whey/plant/collagen protein powders" as ultra-processed foods simply because they use take a lot of processing to make. | | |
| ▲ | adrian_b 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The use of the word "processing" is ambiguous. There are 3 kinds of processing, with very different effects. One kind is separating a product into its components. Another is mixing various ingredients. The third is applying some treatment to the product that modifies its structure, heating being the most frequent method. I consider only mixing ingredients and applying various treatments as belonging to "ultraprocessing", because these processing methods remove the control of the end consumer about what is being eaten, as they are normally irreversible. On the other hand, any separation method cannot have a harmful effect by itself and separation of the edible components is absolutely necessarily for human food, because we have reduced digestive systems, which are unable to extract as efficiently the nutrients from food as those of most other non-carnivorous mammals. The only harmful effects of well-separated food ingredients, like seed flour, oils or protein powders, happen when the end consumers choose to mix them in unhealthy proportions, like when adding too much sugar or too much fat to some dish, but then they can blame only themselves for this. With food that has passed through the other kinds of processing, nothing that the end consumers do with it can make it healthy, when it has not originally been so, which happens frequently because for its producers it is more beneficial to try to make it addictive instead of healthy. | | |
| ▲ | Karrot_Kream 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In your definition what is the difference between "ultraprocessing" and "processing"? |
| |
| ▲ | buu700 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It looks like the protein powders were a bad example — I'd understood that they were comparable to flour, which GPT had at one point corroborated, but Grok is giving me more detailed and better referenced information which contradicts that. The powders are definitely UPF under the Nova classification system[1], which I would argue (per my "heuristic" reasoning) invites justified skepticism and need for long-term studies, but doesn't inherently make them unhealthy. The system is based more on the number of steps and/or ingredients involved in preparation than a deep qualitative analysis of what those steps are. That being said, the same system would categorize Meati, tofu, and cheese as merely processed (Nova group 3), not ultra-processed (group 4), at least according to Grok (which provided detailed reasoning that sounded credible). For comparison, Beyond Meat and Impossible Meat were deemed to be firmly in group 4. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification | |
| ▲ | baby 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can easily make tofu at home |
|
| |
| ▲ | scoofy 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It really is funny and sad: "Ultra processed foods are killing us" Meaning: stop eating sugar cereals, doritos, frappuccinos, sweet granola bars, cheesy crackers, candy, and salted, processed deli meats Popular interpretation: stop eating vegetarian meat alternatives | |
| ▲ | energy123 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wish people could see through labels and categories, but it seems they can't. It's so lazy to stamp X with label Y and expect the reader to think differently about X because of your decision to apply the category Y. | |
| ▲ | abdullahkhalids 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > meat alternative products ... have better cardiovascular outcomes, cancer outcomes Beyond meat type meat alternative products have simply not been around enough, and not consumed by enough people to enable any sort of studies that show they are better. It takes many years, sometimes decades of tracking tens of thousands of people through their lifetimes to establish any reasonable certainty that something is better than the other. | | |
| ▲ | glenstein 3 days ago | parent [-] | | On the contrary, there are already trials pointing in the direction of better outcomes for meat alternatives. I don't have the energy at the moment to Google them up but you can find them if you try. Moreover the ingredients in meat alternatives are known quantities and they lack the specific compounds like heme iron, nitrosamines, and saturated animal fats that are mechanistically linked to cancer and heart disease in red and processed meat. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Moreover the ingredients in meat alternatives are known quantities and they lack the specific compounds like heme iron, nitrosamines, and saturated animal fats that are mechanistically linked to cancer and heart disease in red and processed meat. Beyond doesn't contain heme iron, but Impossible does. | | |
| ▲ | glenstein 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Good point. From chatgpting about this for a moment, it sounds like the heme is chemically structurally identical, but it's soy derived and (1) there isn't yet research tying it to the same health outcomes as animal heme, and (2) there may be an important difference in the environmental and chemical context and which it's delivered, as animal heme is delivered in saturated animal fats, accompanied by nitrites/nitrates (from curing) and heterocyclic amines or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (from high-heat cooking of meat). But it could be a legit issue in terms of sharing rather than improving on a health outcomes associated with meat. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | ajross 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This seems likely true, but at the same time the actual science has been (1) pretty conclusive on the "processed foods are bad" top-line result yet (2) really, really bad at isolating exactly why that top-line result holds. Yes, high glycemic index foods and trans fats are bad, and high sodium is bad for at least some at-risk people. But they aren't bad enough to explain the processing result. So waving away Beyond/Impossible as safe because they don't have the stuff you list is potentially premature. Frankly I think the bigger reason these don't seem to be working out is that they aren't having the actual impact desired. The price isn't coming down. And if the price remains at higher-than-meat levels the ecological impact (which is what I personally care more about) is probably not where it needs to be either. I mean, let's be blunt: all this dithering about health effects and environmental externalities isn't actually going to change anything. Make a burger for the price of a bean dip, however, and the market will beat your door down even if they claim not to care about the hippy nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | glenstein 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > So waving away Beyond/Impossible as safe As I said, they measurably improve health outcomes relative to the meats they're replacing in important areas. My understanding of the studies on UPF health outcomes is that their data is drawn overwhelmingly from traditional categories like junk food and processed starch and sugar. Which is all the more reason to avoid the equivocation between the two categories, lest someone get the mistaken impression that the Twinkie data is about the burgers. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > As I said, they measurably improve health outcomes relative to the meats they're replacing They imitate meats, but is there any evidence that, in practice, they replace them? In menus, and I suspect in actual human eating behavior, they seem to replace earlier vegetarian options like old-school TVP, not meat. | | |
| ▲ | erikerikson 3 days ago | parent [-] | | We have eaten impossible burgers as a replacement of beef burgers we would have otherwise eaten on burger night. Some of us even prefer the flavor but the prices are sometimes higher than beef and that reduced our consumption (at that moment we were tighter). If they were substantially less expensive we would have had to financially rationalize beef, beyond the health and environmental rationalizations. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dyauspitr 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Meat alternatives are stupid. Soy bean chemically mangled until it tastes like meat is an abomination. Either have real lab grown meat or change your perspective and eat like the South and East asians do, making vegetarian meals incredibly delicious. | | |
| ▲ | whycome 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Chemically mangled? I’m all for all tastes and textures. Cheese production may be the definition of “chemically mangled milk” but I’m all for it. | |
| ▲ | Orochikaku 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Could you elaborate on why you feel as though it’s an abomination? I don’t quite see the hang ups about it. |
|
|