Remix.run Logo
lithocarpus 6 hours ago

Beyond Burger ingredients:

Yellow Pea Protein, Avocado Oil, Natural Flavors, Brown Rice Protein, Red Lentil Protein, 2% or less of Methylcellulose, Potato Starch, Pea Starch, Potassium Lactate (to preserve freshness), Faba Bean Protein, Apple Extract, Pomegranate Concentrate, Potassium Salt, Spice, Vinegar, Vegetable Juice Color (with Beet).

Except for Vinegar, every one of these is an industrially processed/extracted/refined ingredient that humans never ate until within the last ~50 years.

We have no way to even know if many of these are safe let alone healthy.

I don't know of any evidence that these things are a decent substitute for meat and salt which humans have been eating for our entire history. And for those who actually believe animal fat and salt are unhealthy one could make burgers with lean meat and less or no salt.

chabska 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> humans never ate until within the last ~50 years

Humans have been eating some of these for thousands of years. I know "extract" is a scary big scientific word, but most of the time it's just immersing the grain in hot water, strain it to remove the pulp, then boiling the liquid to concentrate it. You can separate the starch and protein from any bean or grain in your kitchen with some basic kitchen equipment and hot water.

oblio 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The dose makes the poison.

People weren't doing that at a mass scale before people figured out they could make money by increasing addictiveness, once technology was good enough.

unfitted2545 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You know what we do know? That there is sufficient evidence that red meat causes cancer in humans: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/can...

You also have to consider that you eating meat does quite a lot of harm to the animal! Have you tried dog meat?

mikkupikku 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Dog meat is pretty good.

(It also amuses me when vegans retreat to xenophobia as their Motte.)

3rodents 10 minutes ago | parent [-]

Since when have vegans used dog meat in a xenophobic way? The entire point of the dog meat comparison is to highlight that meat consumption is cultural and that other cultures eat animals we consider to not be food even though they are an animal that has equivalent intelligence to animals we do eat.

Dogs are the perfect example, not because of xenophobia, but because they are such a plain example of hypocrisy that can be refuted on every point.

baud147258 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Have you tried dog meat?

I'd like to try one day. But I don't think I'd easily find a butcher selling it here in Western Europe

lithocarpus 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Every single study I've seen so far on this topic conflates "red meat" and "processed meat".

I would argue that modern processed meat may well be really bad for us.

I imagine that burned/charred meat is carcinogenic too, same as burnt/charred anything is.

If there's a well constructed study that actually suggests that natural red meat is bad or causes cancer, please give a link and I'll look, I genuinely want to know.

I also wouldn't be shocked to learn that modern factory farmed red meat has stuff in it that's toxic, where say wild venison might not.

I won't disagree on harm to animal, I'm not a fan of industrial animal ag, etc.

TeMPOraL 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Hardly anyone is eating raw flesh of the animal they just hunted down, so no, there's not going to be many studies to find, because approximately no one has been eating non-processed food for the past several thousands of years. Not even the "health conscious" folks so deathly afraid of the sin of "processing"; they just don't realize that washing and cutting and boiling are sins too.

ErroneousBosh an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> That there is sufficient evidence that red meat causes cancer in humans

By a barely measurable amount. No-one is ever going to die of cancer caused by eating red meat. You are far more likely to die of heart disease than any sort of cancer, and after that you are far more likely to die in a car accident because you were distracted by your phone (doesn't matter if you were driving the car, or walked out in front of a car because you were too busy scrolling on your phone, in this case). Cancer is waaaay down the list.

> You also have to consider that you eating meat does quite a lot of harm to the animal

Yeah, bit of a shame that. You have to give them the best life you possibly can. But, without livestock farming there is no arable farming, so what are you going to do?

> Have you tried dog meat?

No, because dogs are carnivores and carnivores tend to taste bad.

auggierose an hour ago | parent [-]

> No, because dogs are carnivores and carnivores tend to taste bad.

Interesting! If that's true, maybe it is because carnivores are less healthy.

whakim 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is no reason to believe that the foods humans have historically eaten are safer/healthier than "industrially processed/extracted/refined" food simply because we have historically eaten them. Evolution does not select for avoiding the health problems facing modern-day humans such as cancer or heart disease.

dataflow 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No reason? How about financial incentives?

KAMSPioneer 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Uhh I don't think that financial incentives are a valid reason to believe something is healthier or safer than an alternative. Unless I have missed some sarcasm.

lithocarpus 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean there is a financial incentive to use byproducts of industrial processes that would otherwise be wasted, as food ingredients, and as there is no requirement to rigorously show that new ingredients are safe to consume in the US, this happens all the time and makes up a big portion of the average modern US diet.

KPGv2 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But the list of allegedly questionable foods above are all foods we already eat, just with some things removed (e.g., avocado oil is just avocado with the flesh removed; pea protein is peas with the carbs removed). It is not obvious to me how you would conclude these are unhealthy.

lithocarpus 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not saying they're healthier simply because we've historically eaten them.

But there are many reasons to believe natural/traditional foods may be safer and healthier than new industrial foods. To name a few:

1) There's reason to believe our bodies may be more adapted to eating natural or traditional foods, having eaten them for hundreds of thousands of years rather than one or two generations.

2) Many highly processed foods have within decades of their introduction to our diet been found to be really bad for us. Refined sugars, refined oils, refined flours, artificial sweeteners, many of the weird additives, many synthetic compounds like methylcellulose (someone close to me is extremely sensitive to this one), on and on.

3) These new ingredients, new kinds of refining and processing, and even synthetic food compounds, do not have to undergo any rigorous testing to be shown to be safe before being added to food. Even if they do some studies for some of them, how would you really know it's not causing serious long term problems for say 1% of people? Or even 10%? The size and duration of a study you'd need to find them to be safe would be expensive and they generally don't do it, since they're not required to.

4) These new ingredients often introduce novel molecules to the body that the body may not be adapted to. I hope I don't need to explain how many novel molecules that were invented and widely used in recent decades have proved to be highly toxic.

5) We have a huge increase in severe chronic disease in recent decades. I won't claim here that this is primarily because of the changes to our diet from industrially processed foods, but diet is a top contender given that it's one of the biggest things that has changed in the human lifestyle, along with all the other novel substances our bodies come in contact with now.

6) We know of tons of people who were healthy to age 80, 90, 100, eating primarily/entirely natural foods. We don't yet have any examples of this with people eating a large portion of modern industrial foods that didn't exist 80 years ago. This is not proof that they're dangerous, I'm just saying we don't know and have reason to be cautious.

missingdays 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> There's reason to believe our bodies may be more adapted to eating natural or traditional foods

By this logic, you shouldn't eat modern meat, as its very different from the one our ancestors were eating. Modern meat is mostly fat

KPGv2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> There's reason to believe our bodies may be more adapted to eating natural or traditional foods, having eaten them for hundreds of thousands of years rather than one or two generations.

This is an argument that no white people should be eating pineapples, mangos, bananas, kiwifruit, etc. Hell, probably not even apples.

auggierose an hour ago | parent | next [-]

They will be fine, white people have, as everybody, African ancestors.

tovlier 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

KPGv2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> every one of these is an industrially processed/extracted/refined ingredient that humans never ate until within the last ~50 years

what absurd scaremongering! Do you know how yellow pea protein, for example, is "refined"?

You take dried peas and grind them into powder. Pop in a centrifuge to separate protein from starch. Not exactly pumped full of "toxins"!

> Avocado Oil

You literally press avocado flesh. It's been done for centuries. It's not some crazy refinement process.

> brown rice protein

This is just ground up rice mixed with amylase or protease to isolate the proteins. There's nothing scary here. We've been eating it for millennia.

etc

croes 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I don't know of any evidence that these things are a decent substitute for meat and salt which humans have been eating for our entire history.

I‘m pretty sure humans eat potato, rice, peas etc. since a pretty long time.

I‘m also pretty sure that the meat our ancestors ate is a lit different from the meat we have now coming from animals optimized for meat production and fed with whatever produces the most meat and costs the least (mad cow disease anyone?).Not to mention the amount of meat we eat today compared to back then.

The problem with processed food isn’t that it is processed but that it makes it easy to consume too much

lithocarpus 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Potato != extracted potato starch

Peas != extracted pea protein

They're not the same thing.

I do agree that wild meat is probably a lot healthier than modern industrially farmed meat. Just as wild plants are probably often a lot healthier than modern monocropped plants grown with synthetic fertilizers rather than healthy soil.

OJFord an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It doesn't actually say 'extracted' though, are we sure 'protein' actually implies that (i.e. separated it from other elements) vs. just being marketing copy to make 'yellow pea' et al. more exciting to certain people? (Protein, grr. Meat replacement, protein, grr, yeah.)

Not to mention all cooking really is is a bunch of refinement, extraction, chemical reaction, and heating processes anyway. I refine & extract & process in my kitchen all the time, including separating protein in milk (cheeses) or wheat flour (chaap, seitan, or for the starch) for example.

baud147258 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

the issue with wild meat is going to be all parasites in the animal, at least according to friends who hunt (and when they managed to get something, which doesn't seem to be a given).

noufalibrahim 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Reminds me of a joke I read online. "Plant Based Meat" is not Plant. It's not Based and it's not Meat.

KPGv2 2 hours ago | parent [-]

About as funny as complaining "oil" is used to refer to petroleum-based lubricants, avocado oil, etc. since the etymology of "oil" is strictly a reference to olive oil only.

I can't stand this type of thing, just like people who get upset at terms like "oat milk" or "soy milk."

Not really a dig at you, sorry.

noufalibrahim 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No problem. I didn't take the original comment too seriously either. Just a passing chuckle at some wordplay.

TBH, I haven't heard the complaints about the use of "oil" in that context.

OJFord an hour ago | parent [-]

GP isn't saying people do complain about oil, they're saying by the same logic people ought to, if they wish to be consistent, which seems silly.

s5300 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

viccis 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

djtango 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As someone who is very cautious about health and nutrition and spent 4 years studying Chemistry at a good university, my takeaway at the time of graduation was more aligned with your caricature as a better prior and heuristic for judging consumable foods.

I remember being told an anecdote that left me feeling humble about just how much of the body we understand: there were cases where the kinetic isotope effect could affect biochemistry, that was how sensitive our systems are and that industrial synthesis will definitely produce different isotopic ratios to natural synthesis.

My conviction on this subject has continued to strengthen with articles like [1] on emulsifiers recently entering public awareness.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/c5y548258q9o

EDIT: grammatical cleanup

haraldooo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I‘m eating plant based meats regularly but I guess we all know how e.g. trans fats, high fructose corn sirup and probably more were once considered safe and are certainly not anymore

tomhow 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Please don't post snark like this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

californical 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is a hell of a straw man. The body is very well adapted to natural foods, and is efficient at using nutrients supplied in natural ways.

Engineered ingredients may or may not be equivalent, but they often remove nutrients that existed in whole foods, then attempt to add nutrients back in through industrial processing. But we still don’t know the full affects of that delivery method, but we do know that it can negatively impact the gut microbiome.

There’s enough evidence out there to be highly skeptical of ultra processed ingredients

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/ultraprocessed-foods-bad-f...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-025-01218-5

I don’t think those links prove definitively that UPF is a direct cause of disease, but they show strong evidence that there are problems with UPF and we should probably eat more whole ingredients