Both the reading and the lecture talk about how people can eat meat that can be more better for them and healthier. The reading part supports the idea that scientists have made some methods to create simlated meat for the people to eat and stay safe and healthy. However, the lecture disputes the facts made in the reading. It says that that simulated meat will not be as benefitial as they predicted.
To begin with, the passage states that simulated meat is better for the enviornment, because it is made from plants and does not cause as much pollution. This particular fact is desputed by the professor. He said that even though the simulated mead causes less contamination to the evvoirnment, it also has negative effect to the envoirnment. He supports the idea that making simulated mead will need to use a lot of chemicals that can be harmful for the grassland.
Second, the author of the reading says that the simulated meat is much healthier for the people, because it contains less fat that is not healthy for the people. On the other hand, the professor of the lecture does not agree with the statement made in the reading part. He says that, it is true that mead has more fat, but meat has other vitamins and minerals that simulated mead does not. . It is havely proccessed using a lot of oil and sodium that can be harmfuil to individuals health.
Finally, the passage supports the idea that simulated meat is much safe for the people because it contains less bacteria. Yet, the lecturer does not agree with that. He says that it is true that there are few bacteria in the simulated meat, but there are a lot of other ingredients that are not labeled and the people can get allergic reactions, because they do not know what they are eating.
Both the
reading
and the lecture talk about how
people
can eat
meat
that can be
more better
for them and healthier. The
reading
part supports the
idea
that scientists have made
some
methods to create
simlated
meat
for the
people
to eat and stay safe and healthy.
However
, the lecture disputes the facts made in the
reading
. It
says
that that simulated
meat
will not be as
benefitial
as they predicted.
To
begin
with, the passage states that simulated
meat
is better for the
enviornment
,
because
it
is made
from plants and
does
not cause as much pollution. This particular fact is
desputed
by the professor. He said that
even though
the simulated
mead
causes less contamination to the
evvoirnment
, it
also
has
negative
effect to the
envoirnment
. He supports the
idea
that making simulated
mead
will need to
use
a lot of
chemicals that can be harmful for the grassland.
Second, the author of the
reading
says
that the simulated
meat
is much healthier for the
people
,
because
it contains less
fat
that is
not healthy for the
people
.
On the other hand
, the professor of the lecture
does
not
agree
with the statement made in the
reading
part. He
says
that, it is true that
mead
has more
fat
,
but
meat
has other vitamins and minerals that simulated
mead
does
not.
.
It is
havely
proccessed
using
a lot of
oil and sodium that can be
harmfuil
to individuals health.
Finally
, the passage supports the
idea
that simulated
meat
is much safe for the
people
because
it contains
less
bacteria.
Yet
, the lecturer
does
not
agree
with that. He
says
that it is true that there are few bacteria in the simulated
meat
,
but
there are
a lot of
other ingredients that are not labeled and the
people
can
get
allergic reactions,
because
they do not know what they are eating.