I’ve never been much of a fan of fake meat (though that long-defunct vegan soul food place near Dunbar Garden did some amazing things with glutten patties), but I’m intrigued by the fake meat Mark Bittman writes about in the New York Times. There’s a video component to the story, too.
According to Bittman, the new product from the Maryland company Savage River Farms—still nameless and still in the early stages of production—tastes and, more importantly, chews similar enough to chicken that it’s difficult to tell the difference from the real thing. No word on when you’ll be able to buy the faux-chicken, but according to Bittman, Whole Foods will soon begin to use it in its prepared foods.
What do you think?
I find this line of thinking fairly convincing:
Would I rather eat cruelly raised, polluting, unhealthful chicken, or a plant product that’s nutritionally similar or superior, good enough to fool me and requires no antibiotics, cutting off of heads or other nasty things? Isn’t it preferable, at least some of the time, to eat plant products mixed with water that have been put through a thingamajiggy that spews out meatlike stuff, instead of eating those same plant products put into a chicken that does its biomechanical thing for the six weeks of its miserable existence, only to have its throat cut in the service of yielding barely distinguishable meat?
Why, in other words, use the poor chicken as a machine to produce meat when you can use a machine to produce “meat” that seems like chicken?