XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.science, alt.politics
XPost: soc.culture

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/24/are-upfs-really-that-bad-heres-what-food-experts-say-on-the-rise-of-ultra-processed-foods

Vegans eat more ultra-processed foods than any other diet.
How bad is that really for health and the environment?

Veganism has the potential to promote healthy eating as
people ditch meat - but the rise of ultra-processed foods
(UPFs) could hamper its positive effects.

Product launches for plant-based convenience foods tripled
between 2013 and 2018. In the UK, half the population have
added meat substitutes to their diets, while almost a third
opt for alternative milks.

Many of these plant-based substitutes are classified as UPFs:
foods that have undergone heavy processing to improve their
perishability and taste. UPFs are often high in salt, sugar
and saturated fat, with additional colourings, preservatives
and additives.

. . .

"Veganism" was always a 'religion'.

Hey, those poor widdle animals will eat YOU,
no problem :-)

In any case, as explained here, 'vegan' food has
to be massively "processed" just so most people
can stand to eat it at all.

Nevermind the need for tons of vitamins and
mineral supps also needed to keep vegans
(barely) alive.

Humans were not evolved to be vegan - but
omnivores. Study of human health over the
ages suggests that the "hunter-gatherers"
were THE most healthy - meat AND veggies
plus a decent amount of exercise required
to obtain both. Farming/grains/veggies led
to a considerable decline in health. The
"Staff Of Life" was actually a club beating
us over the head. The old bones tell the tale.

Now, to be fair, the term "processed" is often
used as a negative. There's nothing inherently
wrong with "processing" foods - just depends
on the details of what that MEANS in any
particular micro-context.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)