Meat Alternatives: Modern franken-food or Ancient Buddhist culinary staple?
We asked you what words come to mind when you think of mock meats or meat alternatives on Instagram. These were your responses…
Mock meats (AKA meat alternatives) typically have a bad rep amongst health-conscious consumers. They’re seen as processed, packaged, soy foods that are filled with lots of unrecognizable ingredients. At the same time, vegetarian, vegan and flexitarian consumers are often drawn to mock meat products for their taste, convenience and of course, virtuousness.
Let’s take a deep dive into what mock meats are and where they come from.
The main ingredients in mock meats are generally soy protein and gluten/ wheat protein, and the tradition of making mock meats from these ingredients dates back thousands of years to ancient China.Soybeans are indigenous to China but it took centuries before the Chinese really learnt how to harness the culinary and nutritional properties of the soybean. Soybeans are packed with protein, amino acids and important minerals but are also rather hard to digest and need a bit of processing to really bring out their flavour and nutrition. Legend has it that tofu was first discovered by accident when Liu An (179-122 BC) added salt to a batch of soy milk and noticed it curdle. However, an excavated tomb from the Han Dynasty (25-220 AD) revealed a mural of a kitchen scene illustrating the making of soy milk and tofu. This would mean that tofu has been part of the Chinese diet for over 2000 years. Unlike soy milk, tofu is particularly high in calcium and so the discovery of tofu meant an essential calcium boost for the majority of Chinese people who had never had dairy foods as part of their traditional diet.
Around the same time, Buddhism spread from India to China with one of their core philosophies being that of the virtuousness of a vegetarian diet. Buddhist teachings spread rapidly through China and Chinese peasants were particularly receptive to the notion of a vegetarian diet since many of them couldn’t afford to eat much meat anyway.
Vegetarianism was officially adopted by Chinese Buddhists in the 6th century. Chinese texts from 965 CE record the Chinese magistrate Shi Ji as promoting tofu as “mock lamb chops” and encouraging frugality amongst the Chinese people by choosing tofu over meat. From this we know that tofu was used as a meat alternative.
Around 8000 years ago, wheat became a domesticated crop in China, but it didn’t form a large part of the Chinese diet due to it being hard to cook and eat. Then in 300 BC, new technology enabled Chinese people to make flour from wheat and wheat became a staple grain in the Chinese diet. By the 6th century, evidence shows that the Chinese were using wheat protein (AKA gluten) made from rinsing flour to create meat alternatives such as seitan.
Around the 10th to 13th century faux meat emerged as a specialty cuisine in China. Faux meat products such as imitation pork, mutton and duck were made from soybeans, wheat protein and mushrooms. Whilst Buddhist monks didn’t eat these foods regularly and generally ate a very humble vegetarian diet, Buddhist monasteries often had to entertain guests, pilgrims and visitors with grand banquets. These guests were often used to eating meat at banquets and so the Chinese developed and refined the culinary art of mock meats.
Still to this day, mock meats are a central feature of vegetarian temple kitchens throughout China and Taiwan.
Let’s jump forward to modern day Western culture where mock meat products can be found displayed in most supermarket freezers. These products are obviously not the same as what was served in 6th Century China, but they are clearly the result of a long history of pretty genius culinary creativity. To this day, the basis of most meat alternatives remains soy, wheat protein and mushrooms and utilizes the same processes and techniques used in ancient China.
Some questions to reflect on:
1. Knowing that meat alternatives have been around for thousands of years and make use of ancient culinary practices, do they seem less scary/ unhealthy to you?
2. What makes a food “processed”? Is processing always a bad thing? Is processing always unhealthy?
3. Why do we fear soy? Is soy really an evil food filled with hormones and antinutrients? Or is it a nutritional mainstay of many of humanities’ most successful (and healthy) civilizations?
4. Why do we fear wheat? Is it really the cause of weight gain, gut issues, intolerances, and inflammation? Or is it a nutritional mainstay of many of humanities’ most successful (and healthy) civilizations?
5. Why do some foods earn their place in a made-up nutritional hierarchy as “junk”, “processed”, “unnatural”, “unhealthy” and others as all-perfect “healthy”, “clean”, and “natural”. How does this very all-or-nothing approach to nutrition affect our thinking around food and health? What determines which foods we see as healthy versus unhealthy? Do different people, cultures or societies see these foods differently to the way you do?
Here are some of my thoughts and reflections on the above. I would love to hear your takes too:
Most people fear foods that seem unnatural or heavily processed or have ingredients in them that they don’t recognize. A lot of these notions come from modern-day dieting messaging which focuses on processed foods as the root of all evil. The narrative goes something like this: “Once upon a time, humans ate only unprocessed foods straight from nature. Because of this, all humans were slim and healthy and didn’t get diseases like cancer or diabetes. As our food system became more industrialized, humans started eating more processed foods that are more unnatural and became fatter and unhealthier with time. If we simply go back to eating as our ancestors did, we will be slim and healthy again.” Sound familiar? I know going back to eating our “ancient” or original human diet sounds like a romantic concept but really this is such an over-simplification of human health and history. Here are some counter-arguments to consider:
1. Humans have always processed their food to some extent. Processing food makes it easier to digest, absorb nutrients and prolongs its shelf life. The ability to process food is part of our evolutionary survival as a species. We learnt to cook meat on fire so that we don’t get sick from it. We learnt to grind grains into flours to make them more digestible. We learnt to dry, salt and candy foods to help preserve them during times of scarcity. We have always processed food. Processed food is natural to human beings.
2. Nobody knows what the original or most natural human diet really is. Humans have always survived in a number of climates and conditions with very varying dietary patterns. We are highly adaptable and can pretty much survive almost on any type of diet. This is part of our evolutionary advantage. Claiming that our ancestors ate one particular type of diet is simply false.
3. Ancient humans weren’t always healthy, disease-free, or slim. Pre-industrial humans struggled with food insecurity. They didn’t always have access to enough food or nutrition and were often underweight or undernourished. They ate whatever they could get their hands on and whatever would keep their bellies full. They also suffered from lots of infectious diseases, and many died young due to injuries, violence, malnutrition or disease. The past was not some panacea of health. Humans simply had to live long enough to reproduce and average life expectancy was short. Industrialization has brought with it better food security, less malnutrition, medical advances and longer life expectancy. Since people have more access to an abundance of food all the time, lifestyle diseases are more common but going back to the past isn’t the answer.
Processing is any form of manipulation to food which changes it from its original agricultural state. So chopped and cooking are considered processing. Nobody eats a wholly unprocessed diet. And processed food isn’t bad or unhealthy as a rule. It is often more nutritious or healthier since processing our food helps to keep it fresh, rid it of bacteria and make it more digestible. Sometimes processing involves removing some of the healthful components of a food. For example, when we juice fruits we remove a lot of the fibre. Other times, processing involves adding ingredients that are not so healthful. For example, salt, sugar or certain additives. Basically, instead of labelling all processed foods as “bad”, it’s important for us to really look at what is in these foods: what are their ingredients? Do they provide any valuable nutrition? Can certain ingredients in the amounts added be considered harmful? And then, put them into context of our diet as a whole. For example, fruit juice lacks fibre but it does contain valuable nutrients. If we eat enough fibre from other foods, it might be okay to have some fruit juice. It’s all about the nuance.
Soy is simply a bean. Much like a lot of other beans. It is not some scary evil bean but the narrative surrounding soy and its hormonal effects has been around for almost 100 years. Yes, soy beans contain phytoestrogens. So do chickpeas and cashew nuts and rye and many other healthful foods. In fact, many of these foods contain phytoestrogens in greater quantities than soy. None of these foods have ever been proven to be bad for health or to affect hormone levels in humans. If they did, we would know about it by now since the Chinese have been eating soy products for almost 3000 years. Plus, rural Chinese populations have very low rates of breast cancer compared to the West and soy products have been associated with better breast cancer survival rates. So, we have to ask ourselves, where does this soy-phobia come from? I can only surmise that perhaps there is an element of racism involved in the common narrative around soy and soy foods. Soy foods started becoming popular in the US around the 1950’s. Right around the time of the Cold War. Tensions between America and China were high and anti-Asian racism was common. Chinese food was seen as “dirty”, “weird”, “smelly” and “disgusting”. These attitudes might have affected how the West perceived soy products and might be the reason why to this day, soy-phobia persists.
Wheat is just a grain, much like many other grains. However, it is easy to grow, highly nutritious, versatile and has great crop yields. For this reason, much of humanity has been using it as a staple part of their diet for thousands of years. In my opinion, the popularization of low carb diets over the last decade or so has led to many staple carbohydrate-rich foods being perceived as “bad”. Wheat is often used to make pastries, breads, noodles, dumplings, and many other high-energy foods. In our weight-obsessed culture, these foods might be perceived as “evil” since they have the potential to promote weight gain. Conflating weight loss with health however is misguided. And the truth is that whether these foods are made from wheat or rice or potato or corn or any other carbohydrate, they will be just as high in energy, but often less nutritious. Again, we need to put foods into the context of our greater diet: if we eat some high energy foods, along with enough low energy foods, our energy balance should remain stable. We don’t need to avoid all high energy foods in order to maintain a healthy waistline. We just need to know how to moderate our intake.
Finally, let’s discuss how this type of reductive thinking affects our attitudes towards food and health. Put simply: no food in isolation is “good”, “bad”, “junk” or “unhealthy”. Only a general dietary pattern can be considered “health promoting” or not. Basically, a healthy diet is one which includes all food groups, a variety of foods within each food group and a focus on more plant foods and more unsaturated fats. People who eat this type of diet can still include “fun” foods in moderation and be perfectly healthy.
Health is complex. Physical health is part of what makes us healthy but our mental, social, and emotional wellbeing arguably have a bigger impact on our general health. Eating the perfect diet does not make a person healthy. And eating a “bad” diet does not make a person unhealthy. There are plenty of very healthy people who eat lots of “bad” foods. There are plenty of people suffering from ill health even when eating a very healthful diet. We need to broaden our understanding of health to encompass a more holistic view of what really makes up health. This also helps us to not put so much pressure and blame on individuals to have to make sure they are always healthy. But to look at how socio-political and socio-economic factors impact human health and how we can push for bigger systematic changes in these areas.
When we label food as “bad” or “junk” we are assigning a moral value to that food and we are associating the eater with that label. It seems silly to say, we know rationally that a person who eats “bad” food is not a “bad” person. However, the underlying message is that they are bad for choosing to eat that food. When we are children, we don’t know how to isolate different parts of ourselves from other parts of ourselves. We can’t understand that we can be “bad” at school, but still be a “good” or “worthy” person. When we are told that certain foods are “bad” or “junk”, we internalize these messages to mean that when we eat these foods we are “bad” or “naughty”. I often hear adult patients tell me about how they were “naughty” by having a piece of cake. We then feel unworthy, ashamed, and guilty for our behaviour.
We also moralize weight. Weight loss or slimness is seen as healthy and a sign of discipline and self-restraint. Weight gain or fatness is seen as unhealthy, ugly, gluttonous, lazy, lacking discipline and just general failure. The psychological effects of this kind of thinking are devastating. We really need to clear up this messaging and stop putting moralizations onto foods and in turn onto the character of the eater of these foods. Can we see all foods as morally neutral? They are neither good nor bad. They all have a place in the diet. Sometimes they are just there for fun or enjoyment. Other times they are there for nutrition. Some of them are important to eat daily. Others are better eaten sparingly. Can we then see all people as morally neutral and not label them based on their weight or what they choose to eat? Eating cake is neither good nor bad. It’s just something we all do sometimes. Being fat is neither good nor bad. It’s just the way some people look. We all look different. (And no, being fat doesn’t automatically make someone unhealthy. Let’s stop labelling people as healthy or unhealthy based on external appearance).
This merely scratches the surface of everything I would like to say about meat alternatives. And I will get to dissecting more of the nutritional side of them soon. But for now, I hope I have convinced you that they are not some scary, unrecognizable, processed food. And that they can perhaps be a part of a balanced diet if you wish them to be.
Please comment with any of your own thoughts, perspectives, and reflections on this article. I would love to hear from you.