Commentary for Avodah Zarah 134:10

If I can taste the pork but it is only taste and not substance, then the mixture is prohibited but one who eats it has not transgressed a biblical commandment.

If there so much prohibited substance that it gives off a bad taste then it is permitted to eat the mixture.

Abahu uses some strange language—if he put more of the forbidden substance. Why didn’t he just say “if it imparts a detrimental flavor” it is permitted.
The answer is that R. Abahu was teaching another halakhah. Even if there are other reasons why the food doesn’t taste good, if the prohibited substance does not improve the flavor and the mixture tastes bad, the mixture is permitted.
This also accords with the second version of Resh Lakish’s statement. If the food tastes bad it is permitted even if it could be improved by more or less salt/spice.

Kahana thinks that all rabbis agree that if the prohibited substance imparts a detrimental flavor it is permitted. But Abaye senses in the statement made by Resh Lakish that there are those who disagree.

The Talmud notes that there is indeed at least one tanna who holds that even if the prohibited substance imparts a bad flavor the mixture is prohibited. However, this is clearly not the dominant position....

Meir derives his law from the case of vessels acquired from Gentiles. Such vessels cannot be used unless they are koshered. The assumption is that the taste of the forbidden food cooked in them will be emitted when they are used by a Jew and it will impart its flavor to the Jew’s food. But this flavor by definition will be detrimental because it has been sitting in the walls of the vessel for a long time. From here R. Meir derives the general conclusion that even though the flavor imparted to the dish makes it taste worse, the dish is forbidden.

Shimon would hold that a vessel used by a Gentile cannot be used by a Jew only if the Gentile used it that day. By definition, the taste imparted from the walls of the vessel will be for the betterment of the dish. If the food was cooked more than a day earlier, the dish that the Jew cooks in it is not prohibited.

Meir responds that the taste emitted by the wall of the pot will always worsen the flavor a little such that halakhically he considers this a case of “imparting a detrimental flavor.” Again, this proves that even if the forbidden substance imparts a detrimental flavor, it is prohibited.

For an animal to be called a “nevelah” and to be prohibited it must be something that people would eat. It must be something that if a Jew gave to a stranger, he would eat. If people would not eat it then it is not prohibited—it is no longer called nevelah. So too anything with a bad taste—if people would not eat it, then it is not prohibited for a Jew to eat it.