> There's no reason to be afraid of simple chemistry

Food chemistry is one of the most complicated chemistries ever. Not only we can't simply construct an argument of safety from first principles but also nutrition labels hardly makes an exhaustive list of the contents and processes involved. Not even mentioning the labeling regulation quirks.

> All food is processed.

This is reduction to absurdity. Even if genetically engineered, the process of cell divisions that end up being a living cow is so complicated that it would lend itself more readily to a claim of integrity, one much stronger than a decade old factory assembly process of dead nutrients. We've co-evolved with the former process for millions of years and created the latter in the last several decades in the name of profit maximization.

> Cows are genetically engineered

That's not what processed food means. A slice of steak from a GMO cow is not processed food, except inasmuch as slashing a knife is a process.

Furthermore, more or less traditional cheese is not considered "processed food" in that context even though it is definitely processed for a long time and with significant effort. Nor is wine or sauerkraut for that matter.

Yeah "not considered" processed because it's what people are used to, not because it's safe or natural. Livestock have been genetically engineered via selective breeding for millenia before we knew what DNA was. Unless we have reason to believe that mixing pea protein and heme in sterile vat is actually more dangerous than fermentation, it's FUD. Grilling meat can release carcinogens (https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/d...).

Real meat is lindy. Fake meat is not. We won't know until multi-decade studies have been done on the health effects of a fake meat diet.

Fortunately, we at least know that meat consumption, specially red meat, is bad for you and a WFPB diet is better. So my suggestion is to use products like beyong as a gateway to a WFPB diet.

Just one quick find: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/records-found-in-...

> In 2013, Ramsden resurrected another long-lost randomized study, the 1960s-era Sydney Diet Heart Study. Reanalyzing its unpublished data—also stored on old nine-track computer tapes—he found that volunteers who replaced much of the saturated fat in their diet with polyunsaturated fats high in linoleic acid had a higher risk of death from coronary heart disease

Meat, literally millions of years in our evolutionary past VS seed oils barely 100 (more like 50 for mass adoption), but surely "the science" is never wrong nor corrupted. Inform yourself on the history of this with Ancel Keys etc.

Modern humans don't go back literally millions of years. If one were to look at how humans evolved then looking at "Comparative Anatomy of Digestive System of Carnivores, Omnivores, Herbivores, and Humans" to me implies a strong bent towards fruits and nuts. Personally, I think whatever could be eaten got eaten. The consensus of the IPCC is that we should eat less meat.

Food has extremely strong cultural significance and a lot of people tie up their identity with it. I can understand that. If they feel that their diet is under attack they see it as life and death for their identity.

I imagine you've picked a side and will seek whatever information or studies suits you; everyone is doing that these days. It's anti-scientific.

I arrived at this conclusion both from personal experience (I've tried all the apparently reasonable diets) and the scientific data. Nuts are barely digestible. Our digestive system doesn't look like a herbivore / fruit eater at all. Surely we've had some, but that's not what we're build for. I think we're like dogs, we can survive on a diversity of foods (and get sick from some of them) but we thrive on meat. That's my n=1 intimate conviction, not one I sought to arrive at, but once I had experience it there's absolutely no doubt in my mind. Naturally I sought the people that had the same experience and they do have the data and the explanations for why, but it's too lengthy to provide here, although I can give hints if you wish.

Oh and australopithecus ate meat, this goes far beyond modern humans. This is why we got smart, because intelligence pays off far more for hunting than for foraging, particularly for an otherwise frail creature.

Sure hints would be good and much appreciated! When you say "our diet doesn't look like a herbivore/fruit eater at all", I see tables like this [1] and it would strongly suggest the opposite. Maybe it's propaganda... I don't know, I should like to see something like a ScienceBrief on it.

In terms of the last thing you said. You phrased it as "australopithecus ate meat"; it seems they predominantly were herbivorous according to wikipedia[2]. Which doesn't preclude eating meat, but could easily be misinterpreted from the way you put it.

[1] https://livinontheveg.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/compara... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus#Diet

Re: human digestion, this comparison of human digestive tract vs other animals https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Bravo-10/publicat...

I didn't mean to imply that australopitecus was predominantly carnivorous, but I recently found out they had tools for hunting and/or cutting flesh, just to make a point that the trend started much earlier than homo sapiens.

Might come back with more links/thoughts later

Yes, thank you for this! Well more the paper behind the picture. This is much more interesting stuff.

Dogs can synthesize vitamin C and we can't.

"Fake meat" is an epithet. It's a meat substitute made of real food. None of the ingredients are remotely dangerous. People have been eating tofu and seitan for centuries. We know very what the effects of vegetarianism and veganism are. Some nutrients like iron and B12 need to be looked after but otherwise you can have robust good health.