Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Science

Whole Foods CEO Says Eating Plant-Based 'Meats' is Unhealthy 233

Posted by msmash from the shots-fired dept.
The CEO and cofounder of Whole Foods has some concerns about the plant-based "meat" craze. John Mackey told CNBC on Wednesday that plant-based meat substitutes are good for the environment but not for your health, echoing concerns that have been raised by dietitians and nutritionists in recent weeks. From a report: "If you look at the ingredients, they are super-highly processed foods," Mackey told CNBC. "I don't think eating highly processed foods is healthy. I think people thrive on eating whole foods." He added: "As for health, I will not endorse that, and that is about as big a criticism that I will do in public." Mackey also said plant-based meats were a better for the environment than traditional meat, which usually consumes large amounts of water for production.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Whole Foods CEO Says Eating Plant-Based 'Meats' is Unhealthy More

Whole Foods CEO Says Eating Plant-Based 'Meats' is Unhealthy

Comments Filter:

  • From Judge Dredd (the one with Stallone) (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kaenneth ( 82978 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @01:45PM (#59134010) Journal

    Eat recycled food, it's good for the environment, and OK for you.

    • Eat recycled food, it's good for the environment, and OK for you.

      My memory fades, but I seem to remember that Stallone cursed the cannibals by saying:

      "EAT ME!"

      Probably not the best thing to say to cannibals.

      • My memory fades, but I seem to remember that Stallone cursed the cannibals by saying:

        "EAT ME!"

        Probably not the best thing to say to cannibals.

        I eat cannibal
        Feed on animal
        Your love is so edible to me
        I eat cannibals

        I eat cannibal
        It's incredible
        You bring out the animal in me
        I eat cannibals

        What can you do
        You're in a stew
        Hot pot cook it up
        I'm never gonna stop
        Fancy a bite
        My appetite
        Yum yum gee it's fun

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lazarus ( 2879 )

      We should actually be eating more bugs. Better protein content, better for you, and better for the environment. Except they are bugs of course and we have some kind of taboo about that.

  • Can't disagree.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by clifwlkr ( 614327 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @01:46PM (#59134014)
    I have a hard time believing that a lab grown food item pressed into whatever shape, is somehow good for you. Time and time again we find that what grows in nature, touched as little as possible, is always the healthiest choice. It is crazy important to eat not only foods from as close to nature as we can, but foods close to where we live as well. More of that will not only save the environment, but probably increase our lives as well....
    • Its really just as unhealthy because they put the same amount of fat and carbs in as regular meat. If they need to make it taste like meat, they need to add the fat back in. They are just "better" fats since its all vegetables.

      • They are just "better" fats since its all vegetables.

        Most vegetables don't have useful amounts of fat. What they put in is usually oil from seeds, which is unnatural, because hunter gatherer people, as well as early agriculture civilizations, did not eat significant amount of seeds. Also, popular seeds like rape and cotton are naturally toxic so they were never eaten.

        They are only called "better" fats, because they have better profits. Cotton seed oil was an almost useless waste product until someone decided to turn it into crisco. They are not good for your

        • Re:Can't disagree.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @03:54PM (#59134590)

          Most vegetables don't have useful amounts of fat. What they put in is usually oil from seeds, which is unnatural, because hunter gatherer people, as well as early agriculture civilizations, did not eat significant amount of seeds.

          Hunter-gatherer people also typically died before the age of 40. And as for agricultural civilizations not eating seeds, what do you think is wheat and corn?

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by butchersong ( 1222796 )
            Nah, if you remove confounding things like diseases, death by violence or accident, we really haven't extended lifespan much and that even is allowing for modern medical treatments since those are kind of canceled out by our sedentary lifestyle. All things being equal, people were often much healthier. Ah, if they weren't starving to to death or something.

            • Mod parent up. The low 'average life expectancy' of our ancestors is commonly misunderstood. A lot of children used to die, which really slashes the average.

            • if you remove confounding things like diseases, death by violence or accident, we really haven't extended lifespan much

              That has to be hands down the most bizarre definition and arrangement of stipulations I have ever seen.

              All things being equal, people were often much healthier

              Which is true if we accept your completely deranged definition of existence to be true. So yeah, if we suspend some of the most basic tenets of human existence, it's incredibly easy to say that cavemen had it easy. Shoot! If it weren't for things like weather, temperature, and the thermodynamic nature of the universe we'd all be completely happy to live outside and we'd not have to bother with this sill

          • It took agricultural technology about 10k years of development to even approach the nutritional value of traditional hunter gatherers. Only in the last century has agriculture become nutritionally competitive with hunting and gathering.

            The only reason hunting and gathering died out is because of its environmental cost. Rather than let people die after overextending their use of the environment, we could alter the environment to increase the potential consumption load beyond its natural capability.

      • Re:Can't disagree.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NoMoreACs ( 6161580 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @02:03PM (#59134076)

        Its really just as unhealthy because they put the same amount of fat and carbs in as regular meat. If they need to make it taste like meat, they need to add the fat back in. They are just "better" fats since its all vegetables.

        Meat doesn't have carbs.

    • But gorging on hamberders and fried allthethings is probably fine...

      It's a dumb discussion. Much of what we eat isn't great for us. Meat alternatives aren't people health food, they're planet health food. Nobody is claiming anything else but loafs of people feel the need to dispute the non existent argument anyway. These people are arguing with the wind and we should really point that out.

    • Nothing says nature like a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese!

    • I have a hard time believing that a lab grown food item pressed into whatever shape, is somehow good for you.

      Have a bite of this raw cassava, then. It's a staple food in the tropics, but you vegans shouldn't be processing it to remove the cyanide first.

      • Good grief. I don't think when people are talking about processed foods they mean basic things like grinding or cooking. We are talking about massive changes to the basic ingredients such that there is very little recognizable about what is there at all anymore. Not simple things like heating, grinding, cooking, or even boiling in a stew.

        Half the garbage in the supermarket has so much non basic ingredients (like high fructose corn syrup) in it and we wonder why obesity is so high? I am not even close

        • Good grief. I don't think when people are talking about processed foods they mean basic things like grinding or cooking.

          Alas, most people who complain about processed foods are just plain ignorant about the toxins in many raw vegetables.
          More to the point, to avoid fruitless side arguments about issues like this, the original statement should be made with sufficient precision that misinterpretation looks deliberate and silly.

    • Re:Can't disagree.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @08:50PM (#59135442)

      On the other hand, the "processed food" term is so dumb in itself. Picking fruit off of a tree is processing it. No one really gives a good reason why "processed" is bad, as if whole wheat grains are great but grinding it suddenly turns it into an evil food to be avoided. I agree that bleaching some foods is not necessarily good, but grinding and reshaping stuff mechanically is not magically sucking out all the nutrients. We've got some of the most bizarre dietary mumbo jumbo these days that people just accept as fact (8 glasses of water a day for another example).

  • ... that raise my concern. The non-meat burgers I looked at add a bunch of salt to give them the sense of having flavor. Then you add in the sodium of the condiments and you're well up in your sodium intake for the day with just a burger sandwich.

    • Re:It's the sodium levels... (Score:5, Informative)

      by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @01:57PM (#59134046)

      Then again, a lot of more recent research has been indicating that dietary sodium isn't nearly as much of a concern as they previously thought, and links to things like high blood pressure may have been incorrect conclusions.

      If you look at a modern diet compared to the average diet prior to the obesity epidemic, the main problem has been processed food and a massive increase in the intake of sugar. The things our grandparents and great-grandparents ate would make most modern juice-bar addicts head's spin, yet they were generally much more trim and fit than our generation.

      • Re:It's the sodium levels... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @03:06PM (#59134394)
        People did a lot more manual labor back then. e.g. Doing the laundry meant taking it to the river and beating it on a rock for an hour, not loading it into a box and pushing some buttons then watching TV eating bon bons until you heard the washing machine ding.

        PBS ran a reality show called Frontier House where they asked families to live like people did in the pioneer days - farming to try to grow enough food to survive through the winter. At one point the men were eating 4000-5000 calories per day but losing weight. They insisted that something was wrong and demanded to see doctors The doctors examined them, and pronounced them to be in excellent health, more fit than most of their regular patients. Eating a boatload of greasy bacon and sausages, a half dozen eggs, a plate of potatoes, and a basket of bread for breakfast is just fine if you're going to spend the next 10 hours digging in a field. Likewise, loading up on two dozen pancakes topped with butter and syrup isn't a problem if you're going to spend the next 8 hours climbing, sawing, and hauling trees. Even the subsistence diet fed to slaves has been estimated to be 3000-3500 calories. If I told you someone today was eating 3000 calories a day, you'd probably think they were morbidly obese.

        The main "problem" is lack of exercise. A side effect of technology moving us from manual labor to machine labor.
      • Salt may be as bad as sugar in terms of calorie intake though because it tends to make you hungry after eating it.

        • Salt may be as bad as sugar in terms of calorie intake though because it tends to make you hungry after eating it.

          This is what I say about only being allowed to eat half a chicken for lunch. It leaves me hungry, and forces me to binge out on cookies, cakes, and donuts all afternoon until dinner time. If I could have just eaten a whole chicken bucket, then I would have been full and maybe only needed a litre or two of Dr Pepper to tide me over.

      • } Then again, a lot of more recent research has been indicating that dietary sodium isn't nearly as much of a concern as they previously thought, { --- I was speaking more about the fact that things with more salt in them has a salty taste to them. We've been conditioned to think that the salty taste tastes good, when all it does is plaster over the fact that the food was bland and real spices and seasonings are more expensive than salt. Talk to a professional chef. What she learned in culinary school

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      This is a much more reasonable criticism than the general criticism against "processed foods".
      If this plant-based product contains excessive salts, then it may be actually even much less healthy than simply eating real meat.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      That's true, an Impossible Burger patty has 140 mg of sodium more than a Burger King beef patty (370 mg vs. 230 mg). 140 mg is 6% of the American Heart Association's recommended daily limit.

      In exchange, you'll be consuming zero cholesterol (vs 80 mg) so it's a dietary tradeoff.

      • 140 mg is 6% of the American Heart Association's recommended daily limit.

        And if you check the recommended sodium limits in other countries, that percentage will be lower/higher for the same 140mg.

    • And salt has never been key to revealing/enhancing meat flavors.

    • also the saturated fat levels

      these "burgers" are bad, Mr. CEO is actually correct in this case

      Plenty of other good ways to go all veggie if that's your thing

  • Everyone has philosophies about healthy living, but very little *applicable* data or understanding of the human body. While I have absolutely 0 interest in plant-based meat, and fully intend to eat meat based meat for the remainder of my (potentially short) life, it is doing absolutely 0 good for the CEO of WHOLE FOODs to claim that he believes WHOLE FOODS are healthier than processed plant-meat burgers.

    Show us the science. Also, don't be alarmed if we still just don't care. I could choose to live a healthi

    • Re:Once again... (Score:5, Funny)

      by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @02:07PM (#59134098)

      Obligatory IT Crowd:

      Moss: Question 39. When was the last time you exercised?
      Roy: The last time I exercised was... never.
      ...
      Moss: Okay, question 40. Do you get your five fruit and veg?
      Roy: I mean, I certainly try to... I would say I probably do.
      Jen: A day.
      Roy: A WHAT?!

    • The issues are saturated fat, salt and amino acid levels in these meatless burgers that are the same problems other high processed foods have

      there is peer reviewed science for those problems

  • Natural foods fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @01:59PM (#59134056)

    "If you look at the ingredients, they are super-highly processed foods," Mackey told CNBC. "I don't think eating highly processed foods is healthy. I think people thrive on eating whole foods."

    This is just another example of the false thinking that "natural" - healthy, "un-natural" bad. Just because a food has artificial chemicals or processing to it does not mean that food is healthy, and moreover, foods that contain no artificial chemicals and processing can still be unhealthy.

    Many foods are "highly-processed", for example, milk is typically cooked to a high temperature -- a process called pasteurization, but that helps protect us from infectious diseases in the milk: thus it improves the public health.

    Whether a food is "safe" and healthy in the long run cannot be determined based on solely how much processing was done to the food, or whether the ingredients are natural or artificial additives.

    Yes; it is the ingredients, nutrients, and molecular components of the food that matter --- but It is not as "easy" or "apparent" as people who follow the natural=better fallacy would suggest.

    And in some cases, what would be necessary is detailed studies of particular components; if they are novel or different especially.

    • Folks seem to miss a lot, such as the role of exercise, or the nutrition content of meat (it's moderate in a balance of nutrients, versus plant-based diets which are high in narrow ranges of nutrients for each type of plant food source but dangerously-deficient in others).

      Folks also miss the economic role of processed food in human rights. Processed food has a lower cost and higher shelf life; it also has lower economic costs in terms of total preparation. Preparing whole foods into a meal costs a lot

      • You know, this is spot-on and I thank you for reminding me of this well documented trend. 'We' tend to forget the transformations that took place over the last century, as we have become accustomed to the conveniences of modern life, and don't always appreciate what the advancements meant to daily living.

      • Uhhh... so I now have to eat garbage food to support women's rights?

        I don't disagree that industrialized agriculture is great for making food more accessible and freeing up time but it doesn't mean we have to eat mystery pink sludge. There's plenty of cheap ingredients that can be made into tasty, reasonably healthy meals with a minimum amount of time and effort.

    • This is ridiculous. Milk is not highly processed just because it's been heated a bit. The fake beef has been constructed by a complicated recipee from many ingredients that have been produced from processed produce. That's what this article is talking about.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Some milk is infected as it leaves the cow. It's not common, and dairy farmers put a lot of effort into ensuring that their cows produce healthy milk. Nonetheless, a few people get sick from drinking raw cow's milk every year, and from among those some die due to drinking the bad milk. Some others get organ damage they have to deal with the rest of their lives.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by blindseer ( 891256 )

      Many foods are "highly-processed", for example, milk is typically cooked to a high temperature -- a process called pasteurization, but that helps protect us from infectious diseases in the milk: thus it improves the public health.

      Pasteurization does not cook the milk to a high temperature. What pasteurization does is basically give the milk a "fever" by heating it to a temperature slightly above that of a healthy bovine (or that of a healthy human) to kill off many of the germs that would spoil the milk. The point of pasteurization is to NOT cook the milk as that would have an effect on the taste, color, and consistency. If you want to know what cooked milk tastes like then get evaporated milk from a can and add some water to bri

      • Hey buddy, I see why you would think that pasteurization wouldn't be performed at elevated temperatures, as 'cooking' something full of proteins would cause it to curdle, as the proteins denature.

        What you're missing is that the product is only 'flashed' to the elevated temperature, then returned to a chilled-state. See, the rate of reaction for the denaturating of the proteins is low compared to the rate of death of bacteria, at least in certain temperature regimes. So, the idea is to raise the temperatur
    • I agree with you regarding the term 'processed' foods, in that 'processing' alone shouldn't transform healthy food to unhealthy. However, processed food must be kept free of bacteria and such between the time of preparation until serving, and this requires food preservation techniques to be employed, and it's these techniques that have been found to impart deleterious health considerations.

      Meats are often preserved by pumping the meat full of nitrates. Chemical preservatives are added in abundance and as
    • Jesus yes. This. Simply arguing that something processed is inherently bad because many processed foods are bad ia fucking retarded.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
      All you need to do is compare societies with diets comprised of highly processed foods to those who rely on more whole foods to see a clear difference.

      Something that is processed can still have a good nutrition value and have health benefits. I think the entire point of the article is that you really cannot go wrong with naturally grown, unprocessed foods.

    • The thing is, "processed" is a vague term in some sense. It's the *type* of process that matters. Some of our local tribes in NorCal used to use acorns as food. You can't eat acorns by themselvs--they taste nasty because of the tannins. In order to fix that, they first ground the acorns, then washed them in several stages. The result is an acorn flour that you can then use to make various other end products--I'm not sure exactly how they used it, but even if they ate the acorn flower in a simply hard-t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jma05 ( 897351 )

      Recent NIH study showed rather dramatic differences between ultra-processed and unprocessed diets in a very short period under controlled conditions.

      https://www.cell.com/cell-meta... [cell.com]

      Be sure to see the supplemental file
      https://www.cell.com/cms/10.10... [cell.com]
      It has photos of each meal used.

      I am not sure if you understand pasteurization or "highly-processed" properly. Pasteurization is just heating it to 60C over 20 min. Flash Pasteurization is 72C for 15 seconds. Neither is remotely what we call highly processed. I

  • this is Opinion not News (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mschaffer ( 97223 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @02:01PM (#59134062)

    This is not news The CEO of one of the larger purveyors of "minimally processed?" (or whatever overpriced crap they sell) foods says that processed foods are bad for you. Without proof it's just opinion.

    • there is much evidence processed foods and the chemicals in them are harmful: weight gain, cancer risks, kidney problems, etc. that's peer reviewed science.

      national health institute says so

      • there is much evidence processed foods and the chemicals in them are harmful: weight gain, cancer risks, kidney problems, etc. that's peer reviewed science.

        national health institute says so

        If we are talking harmful additives, yes obviously those are a problem. The "problem" with many processed foods is they concentrate the food value and are often cheap and convenient as well making over eating more of a problem. By forcing people to eat less dense foods and making them inconvenient and expensive, overeating is less of a problem but then it puts foods outside the reach of the less fortunate. There is plenty of peer reviewed science on these aspects as well.

  • ...plant-based meat substitutes are good for the environment but not for your health, echoing concerns that have been raised by dieticians and nutritionists in recent weeks.

    Was anyone expecting any different rant from this fella? I wasn't!!

    Even those so called dieticians are in someone's pockets in today's America - sadly.

  • The CEO and cofounder of Whole Foods ... I think people thrive on eating whole foods."

    *I* see what you did there.

    Besides, I think eating highly processed foods gives the undertaker a bit of a break; there's less for them to do. Heck,with the amount *I* eat, I should get a kickback from them.

  • From TFA... "One of the most dominant companies in the plant-based meat space — Beyond Meat — got its start at Whole Foods in 2013 with its vegan 'chicken' strips." Allowing a product to be sold in your stores is, at least IMHO, an endorsement of the product.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      From TFA... "One of the most dominant companies in the plant-based meat space — Beyond Meat — got its start at Whole Foods in 2013 with its vegan 'chicken' strips."

      Allowing a product to be sold in your stores is, at least IMHO, an endorsement of the product.

      To be fair, if you go to Whole Foods' website, while Beyond Meat products are listed, all of them show as currently not available in store.

  • Yeah, we "know" (Score:3)

    by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @02:13PM (#59134142)

    This isn't new knowledge. Meat is a natural part of a human's diet dating back to before our evolutionary divergence from "animals". While we can exist without animal flesh in our diets it makes getting a range of vital nutrients far harder to get. Meanwhile we stuff ourselves with grains that are not only completely devoid of vital nutrients but also spike blood sugar levels which encourages weight gain and blood sugar problems.

    Don't get me wrong here, I fucking love bread and rice. Pretending they're vital parts of a human's diet given their complete lack of nutritional value is retarded though.

    • Meat is a natural part of a human's diet dating back to before our evolutionary divergence from "animals".

      Not true. Most populous country in the world is largely vegetarian.

      Meanwhile we stuff ourselves with grains that are not only completely devoid of vital nutrients but also spike blood sugar levels which encourages weight gain and blood sugar problems.

      Not true. Whole grains do not effect blood sugar they way you're describing.

      Pretending they're vital parts of a human's diet given their comple
  • Strikes me as funny how the meatless meat has turned a group that was previously anti-processed foods into pro-processed. Strange bedfellows. And even Whole foods surprised me. I expected them to be pro meatless meat.

  • I see what you did there ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @02:51PM (#59134302)

    The CEO and cofounder of Whole Foods ... John Mackey told CNBC ... "I think people thrive on eating whole foods."

    The convergence of Capitalism and Capitalization ...

  • It's not an iron-clad one yet, though.

    Recent research suggests "highly processed" food is bad for us. The thing is nobody knows what the actual problem is with "highly processed" food. Nobody even has a workable definition of "highly processed". It's a subjective call. Is bread a "highly processed" food? By any reasonable definition it would have to be, but I suspect the kind of rustic bread people ate five hundred years ago might get a pass.

    This notion has taken off in the public mind because of an inc

  • As we shape our environment, the standard split of reactions to change occur. Some folks think the newer methods are systematically wrong, and bias their interpretations that way, other folks have other biases. But as a whole, we adapt to favor that which we can most easily produce and benefit from over time.

    Happens across cultures, over changing times, and across changing landscapes. Folks in places that eat lots of rice will be quite concerned with the health of folks eating non-rice dishes for their g

  • The moniker "Super-highly processed foods" is similar to "ultra-processed" and I assume as bereft of any actual meaning. Saying a food is processed is really more of a marketing term meant to evoke factories and lab-coat wearing chemists. Originally it was comforting for people who had to endure the (sometimes lethal) variation of home-canned food, and while now to their descendants it has become sinister it remains incredibly vague.

  • If you want to turn desert and sand into grassland and black dirt then it will take large grazing animals to do this.

    https://www.ted.com/talks/alla... [ted.com]

    Meat is good food. Most every human civilization has lived on red meat for thousands of years. Europeans were so dependent on meat and milk for getting enough protein and vitamin D in the winter that adult lactose tolerance has been bred into the gene pool. I hear people talk of a "paleo diet", and eating like the hunter and gatherer tribes did long ago for

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

      Given the history of carnivores, plotted against the history of humanity, I'd agree grazing animals produce meat to eat, but inserting "for us" gives a very wrong implication of causality here. We evolved to have meat in our diets because that is what local conditions supported -- conditions that would not exist if there weren't already other carnivores running around. Grazing animals would figure out how to breed themselves in our absence, as they did before we got here.

  • I tried Beyond Meat sausages. They suck ass compared to the real thing, I'm sorry to say, although I will concede that they are at least edible, unlike the "regular" meatless sausage. Even if they were healthy AF (which I consider highly unlikely given the level of food processing involved), and cost less (right now they're about 2x the cost), I wouldn't buy them.

  • Considering Whole Foods has a dedicated section for homeopathic medicines, the credibility of Dr. CEO's expertise on this topic and the genuineness of his concern is up for debate.

    =Smidge=

  • ...Whole Foods CEO failed to secure favourable enough conditions for it to stock Beyond Meat products. Is now attacking them in a bid to compete.

    Whole Foods stocks plenty of very unhealthy pseuo-health foods that have been heavily processed. They don't give a shit about your health.

  • Those faux meats have a high fat content, which is either coconut oil or palm oil.

    Palm oil in particular is a major cause of deforestation in tropical countries, as rain forests are cleared to make for a vast plantations of palm oil.

    The end result may still be less than beef's impact (someone needs to do the math), but it is not as benign sounding as 'good for the environment'.

    • You need some to do the math that is unbiased. Good luck finding somebody who is unbiased. I do know a number of farmers and ranchers. They don't use an overly large amount of water, or anything else. But then again, I don't live in an area of intensive meat rearing - it's a lot of ranching but on a lot of land. Personally I'd rather eat a moderate amount of beef and, if not eating meat for protein, eat eggs, beans, and so on. Something to make fake meat does not appeal to me - strictly my personal pr
  • "super-highly processed foods". Meh. I'll wait for the "Ultra-mega" version to come out. Super-highly is so old school.

  • I'll take unhealthy over the all the moral debt of being vegan.

  • I don't eat nothing with "meat" in the name, it's animal or plant-based... There's several alternatives, you know... Why "meat" is even needed?

  • Would that be more water than what is used to rinse recyclables?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai

Close