This conversation shows that plenty of people are uncomfortable with a food process like this. Many of you point out that food is complex, and people are irrational to be squeamish about this particular process.
But how about this? Maybe people wouldn’t eat so much meat if they were more aware of the process behind it? And maybe, given how detrimental meat production had been to the environment, that wouldn’t be a bad thing.
So, rather than protecting people by hiding the truth behind the processes that are behind the food they eat, we should be more transparent.
If that means we go back to small farms, local butcheries — something people have been comfortable with for centuries — it would of course raise the cost of meat. But If we hope to address climate change, that absolutely needs to happen.
>So, rather than protecting people by hiding the truth behind the processes that are behind the food they eat, we should be more transparent.
I agree, but in order to be transparent the ingredients and processes would need to be disclosed (ideally on the packaging) and this news seems a step further in the opposite direction.
The funny part of it to me is the cognitive dissonance of people who both believe that a change of less than 1 degree in global mean temperature over a century will destroy the Earth, but also that we'll be terraforming Mars by then.
But how about this? Maybe people wouldn’t eat so much meat if they were more aware of the process behind it? And maybe, given how detrimental meat production had been to the environment, that wouldn’t be a bad thing.
So, rather than protecting people by hiding the truth behind the processes that are behind the food they eat, we should be more transparent.
If that means we go back to small farms, local butcheries — something people have been comfortable with for centuries — it would of course raise the cost of meat. But If we hope to address climate change, that absolutely needs to happen.