Bloody Plant Burger Smells, Tastes and Sizzles Like Meat
npr.org
npr.org
I used to love meat when I was a meat-eater, and I'm a fairly picky eater that dislikes many vegetable options. (Green peppers are nasty and food-destroying in my opinion, which immediately removes over half the vegetarian options out there, just as an example), so I consider myself a decent bellweather for people who like the tastes of meat but want to actually eat less of it for various reasons.
The options that already exist today are quite varied. Boca, Morningstar, Beyond Meat, and Quorn are all big names that offer meat alternatives that taste VERY different from each other. Most of my meat eating friends won't even try any of these, sight unseen. (When they see them, they tend to have even more reluctance). So, while I think it's absolutely worthwhile to make alternatives that seem more "real", there is still a stigma to overcome just by virtue of being fake. And in america, at least, where meat-eating is tied to masculinity and bacon is worshipped, that's a tough stigma to shake.
Decent imitations of highly processed meat exist already - I've had chicken nuggets that meat eaters had no idea were fake, and I fed my in-laws a "turkey loaf" dinner for Thanksgiving for years without them realizing - but matching the taste of "quality" meats hasn't yet happened.
Much of Western food is only expected to be an accompaniment to a meat dish, which is why you can't just cut meat out and eat the vegetable dishes you're used to when you're eating meat as well, imnsho.
That said, I actually have a fairly limited range there too: if you don't like yogurt, dill, bell peppers, cucumbers, or okra, a lot gets cut out. That's on me an my tastes, not the Indian food, but it's still a reality I have to deal with.
Can you elaborate?
In western countries, there's some ambiguity around eggs, fish, and possibly lard but only as far as vegetarians can't all agree on those either.
In some other cartoon as a wink and a nod to the parents, sure. But definitely not Archer.
Pure agar is odorless and tasteless.
Orthodox Hindus who move to the West often struggle with this. Even ice cream (marked as vegetarian) sometimes has gelatin. You can ask for vegan food, which is an approximation, but "no milk" is the antithesis of many Indian diets :)
I know such families who basically never eat out ever, and prepare things from scratch at home. Though they usually are more lax on allowing the kids to eat pseudo-vegetarian food.
(Your expression works better with "England" in place of "Outside the US".)
For the purposes of definition, I use the below, which appears to be the general consensus definitions in America, though I'm sure some will dispute this.
Vegetarian: (also called ovo-lacto vegetarian) No meat (including fish/seafood). Eggs, dairy, and honey are okay. Byproducts that involved killing animals are not. Those vegetarians that are so for health reasons often skip that last part, and many vegetarians only go "so deep" when looking, so they don't worry if bleached (with animal bone) flour was used, or if the cheese was made with animal-based rennet. Lastly, insects and some low-nervous system mussels occupy a questionable space that isn't often discussed at large, but like the "so deep" issue should likely be considered "not strictly vegetarian but some vegetarians have exceptions".
Vegan: Vegetarian, plus no eggs, dairy, or honey. They tend to look deeper and more strictly than vegetarians, though the general belief that you shouldn't be killing things is shared between those vegetarians and vegans that are so for ethical reasons. (other vegan restrictions aren't food based)
Pescatarian: Vegetarian, but fish and seafood are permitted.
Some examples:
In the American southeast (not a foreign country, but might as well be) pork is as much a "spice" as a food. Many vegetable offerings at restaurants are seasoned with pork. At one cafe in Atlanta I asked if a soup was vegetarian and they said yes...then after a moment said "but it does have chicken stock", because in their mind anything that wasn't "chunks of meat" was vegetarian. (also, since I have the pulpit, as a once lover of ham, what the south does to ham is a crime. It has two varieties: salty, and really salty. I forget which is "country ham" and which is "virginia ham", but both made it easier for me to drop pork from my diet.)
In Chinese food, fish is generally considered vegetarian, and oyster sauce is particularly prevalent. If I request something "vegetarian", they'll avoid using pork-based seasonings, but will include oyster sauce unless I'm very explicit and make a pain of myself.
My Japanese friends tell me there's no point in me trying to eat there. The only option that doesn't involve seafood is "monk training food", which is...not intended to be tasty.
Thai food and Vietnamese food have, I think, some of the same issues. I know curry paste is often made with shrimp, and where an Indian restaurant will pay attention, Thai places often won't. (That said, I love Thai, so when I find a place where I trust the staff "gets it", they get a lot of business)
I wasn't vegetarian when I was in Europe, so I don't know how easy it is to be vegetarian there, but I know a lot of places that had a strong Catholic influence consider fish to be "non-meat".
In many of these places I could try to be explicit, but that's often painful because there are sometimes language issues, because I don't want to make a pain of myself, and because some places leave me not trusting that the result is actually vegetarian despite my explicitness.
In contrast, Indian restaurants tend to:
1) Share the same definition, so we have no language issues
2) Take the vegetarian/non-vegetarian divide seriously (Many Indians are vegetarian or part-time vegetarian for religious reasons), so my requests are neither a pain nor is there often a worry that I'll get something animal-based anyway.
A friend of mine from India once told me "if a mob would burn down your restaurant if you got caught mixing meat and vegetarian, you'd take it seriously too". I still don't if she was joking with me, and if so to what degree.
And that's probably not just a thought experiment given the likelihood of eventually going there on business trips.
I'm vegan an eat Japanese food all of the time. It really just depends on the restaurant. Examples:
- Tempura batter can be vegan if they don't add eggs to it. Some restaurants do, and some don't.
- Sushi rice is basically sugar, salt and rice vinegar seasoning.
- Miso soup is fine as long as you confirm they don't add "bonito" (aka fish flakes).
- Many of the vegetarian rolls are fine.
The only thing that you might worry about is if you are super-strict about cross-contamination. But if that's the case you really can't eat out at most restaurants.
- In Japan, I have never heard of anyone one using eggs in tempura batter. You can be almost 100% sure that it's OK. So vegetable tempura is a good bet. Probably the most safe is cold soba noodles with tempura.
- Vegetable sushi is only really available at those cheap revolving sushi restaurants. However, when dining with vegetarians this is my go to spot. You are unlikely to find vegetarian options at good sushi restaurants.
- You will never find miso soup or any soup (ramen, etc, etc) in Japan without animal products (apart from the rare exception that I will explain below). Ordering off the menu is likely to cause serious heart attacks in the staff. If you are a regular customer, you can get away with it, but you seriously can't expect to walk off the street and ask that the change the food for you. Which is odd because Japanese customer service (with this one exception) is usually insanely accommodating.
- Although it is remarkably better than when I arrived, Japanese people really do not understand vegetarian cooking. If you ask for vegetarian tempura they are likely to give you extra shrimp to make up for the other fish that you didn't get. If you protest that it isn't a vegetable they will look blankly at you and say, "But it's delicious". Having a moral stance on what you eat and don't eat without it being a religious thing just does not compute. They totally get the non-pork issue for those whose religions don't allow it, for example. When I was teaching English, I tried to educate the students about the word "vegetarian" and in the exam I had the question, "John does not eat meat, fish or eggs. He only eats vegetables. What is John?" One of my students answered, "John is a cow" (to which I had to give him full marks, of course ;-) ).
However, this brings me to the only strategy that worked for me consistently in restaurants. It turns out that Japan has it's own traditional vegan cuisine. It is called "shoujin ryouri". It is a Buddhist way of eating (the "monk training food" noted by the GP). It is composed of very traditional Japanese dishes and is wonderful. Although there is much more to shoujin ryouri than just eating vegetables (and they also avoid alliums like garlic and onions for some reason), it is a word that every Japanese restaurant worker will understand completely. The GP's characterisation of shoujin ryouri as "not intended to be tasty" made me laugh because it is true that it is not intended. However, it is invariably mind-bogglingly delicious. I highly recommend going to a temple that serves it and trying it.
Anyway, usually I would say, "I'm very sorry, but I only eat shoujin ryouri. I know it's completely impossible, but I wonder if there is any way you could make something like that." After getting over the shock that a westerner would eat only shoujin ryuori, the response would inevitably be, "That's incredible. I'm impressed. That's a very difficult way to live" and they will either try to make something for you, or tell you that it is indeed impossible.
Apart from rice (which is a given), the basis of most Japanese cooking is dashi (soup stock). Most restaurants (and homes) use powdered soup stock that already has katsuo bushi (the dried fish flakes) added. In shoujin ryouri they use only kombu dashi (stock made from sea kelp), sometimes with dried mushrooms. If a restaurant has kombu available, they can make dashi and then can usually figure out something. All restaurants have vegetables and tofu hanging around somewhere. If they do not have kombu, then they will be completely at a loss and there is nothing they can do.
I was vegan when I came to Japan (although not ethically vegan -- I just like eating that kind of food). I tried to keep eating that way, but it was pretty difficult (and downright impossible when I had to go to work related functions -- I got a reputation as a hard drinker because I would only pick at my food and drink beer all night ;-) ). Pretty quickly, I started eating things with normal dashi and after about 3 or 4 months just ate whatever anyone else ate at restaurants.
It is not impossible to be vegetarian (or even vegan) in Japan, but it is extremely difficult.
This. I had some vegan friends that spent some time in Thailand and there are similar things. You just have to know the "secret code word" for vegan-type food. IIRC, restaurants in Thailand that have a yellow flag outside are marking that they serve food acceptable to a particular religious order of monks (or something of the sort).
That said, I was mostly referring to eating at Japanese restaurants in the West. I realize that eating in such a way in Japan itself is somewhat difficult.
Yes, that is (unfortunately) a possible outcome, if not outright murder by an angry mob of people who take their religious and societal taboos too seriously[1].
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/ind...
If you are traveling in southeast asia, and want vegan food, ask for buddhist food. (Alas, that also precludes garlic and onion, but that's a small sacrifice in exchange for having an easy shorthand to explain vegan food.)
Also, as far as I understand, they don't use a lot of vegetable oil. So things that would be ok in the west, like bread, more than likely have lard in them.
I'm fine with eggs, though, so YMMV.
I do agree with the assumption that western vegetarians tend to want meat replacements. The biggest difference for me was seeing how a lot of Indian cuisine is actually unhealthy. Most everything is fried in oil or has so much clarified butter its unhealthy. The Indian diet (at least the people in my office) seems more unhealthy vs the western vegetarian diet and several people in my office have had heart attacks.
The only reasonable complaints re Indian food are high carbs and low amounts of high quality protein
but is eating tasty non-meat food that is lot less destructive to the environment.
that cuts to the meat of the argument against non meat( which in the West means fake meat or vegan foods) being non tasty..
(Indians seem to have a crazy sweet tooth, as far as I can tell. I like desserts, but Indian ones are usually way too much for me.)
Which suggest lots of Indian vegetarian food is indeed healthy
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/...
There is of course a great deal of culinary overlap in the Punjab region, food is much older than the 1947 partition. If you ever visit Lahore I highly recommend trying the local restaurants.
That said, I still adore tandoori chicken. >.>
I'm Indian origin. At home, we usually eat vegetarian food (not a religious thing, it just is). I don't miss non vegetarian food at all. But if I go out to eat I usually have non vegetarian food.
In the west, we tend to have a protein of some sort, which is the centerpiece of the dish, with supporting elements of carbs and veges.
With Eastern food, they tend to have a carb, and then a curry or other mix of meat and veges to go with it.
https://www.scoopwhoop.com/This-Survey-Found-Out-How-Many-In...
Agreed with your assertion. Here in India, vegetarian food is often as good, if not better than meat.
It's a GMO, and people who're vegan on principle often don't like that.
That's okay! They're already vegan, so clearly they've already found a way to eat a meat-free diet that works for them.
Carnivores are a much bigger market to chase than vegans. These new meat substitutes are targeted at converting more carnivores, not making existing vegans happier.
You won't convince me with ethical arguments, you won't convince me with guilt, you won't convince me with health (I am sitting with a glass of whiskey right now), but you might convince me with taste.
I don't think they care about people who are vegan on principle. They want to sell to meat eaters.
Some vegans do it because killing animals is morally bankrupt.
Some vegans do it because raising livestock is unsustainable. There is not enough land on earth for everyone to have a meat diet.
Some vegans do it because it's healthier. In general you can expect to ingest less toxins by eating lower on the food chain.
I'm not sure what vegan principles are violated by GMOs. I don't know of anyone who is actually against GMOs, the debate is around labeling them not banning them.
Personally I don't understand why someone wouldn't want to eat pesticide/herbicide drenched food. It's how we're going to feed the third world.
That's like saying getting kosher food labeled was really a plot to get everyone to boycott all non-kosher food.
I'm dubious about this statement. There is a lot of ocean, so seafood farming is probably quite capable of feeding humans meat. In addition, western societies currently overconsume meat. I suspect that if calorically balanced levels of consumption were observed, we probably have plenty of land.
> Some vegans do it because it's healthier. In general you can expect to ingest less toxins by eating lower on the food chain.
I see a lot of vegans eating far less healthy diets than those of carnivores. They up the oil and carb content quite significantly to make things taste better/create satiety.
I find that vegetarians (and even those who just back off on meat) seem to eat healthier than vegans, in general.
Hazlenuts, walnuts, almonds, and cashews need from 1100 to 1900 gallons per pound.
So, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to prove other than don't farm things that require water in areas that also require irrigation.
Oils can help your body absorb nutrients more effectively and also aid in other cellular processes.
Carbs are energy and your body needs this.
The key is to not consume processed carbs/oils that your body can't integrate.
Carbs from fruits and natural oils (like coconut) are a large component of any thoughtful vegan's diet. You can eat lots of these foods because they not only have carbs but they also have fiber, protein and other vitamins in good proportion, so "carb the f* up!"
Obsessively starving your body of all carbs and eating lots of meat is an extreme and unbalanced diet and will certainly lead to an early death. Just eat whole foods.
veganism != primitivism
I understand that there's an overlap between "I don't eat that, I'm vegan" and "I don't eat that, it's not natural", but when I think of vegan principles I think of animal rights -- not fallacious appeals to nature.
One idea is, instead of trying to make plant-based food taste like meat, just make meat that doesn't involve raising and killing animals. Efforts thus far have had only mild success (IIRC, it's been done at great cost, and it reportedly tasted terrible).
Assuming these efforts succeed, where does that leave me? I have no objection to harming cells, but I'd be against the killing/harming of the various animals necessary to GET the initial stem cells to be able to grow that lab meat. But, if they perfect a method of growing "meat" that no longer involves that mistreatment, at what point is it morally acceptable to me to buy and eat that "meat"?
I imagine it's similar to anyone in a field that benefits from ethically questionable research. Military smallpox testing, that one king that raised "feral" children to see what their tabula rasa state was, the Milgram experiments...I suppose this falls in the same, um, vein.
I have so much hope for this. I'm not vegetarian, but I wouldn't mind cutting out animal cruelty from my life as much as possible, as it is a place I recognize cognitive dissonance in myself. I'm really hoping they can get the cost down, and since it's controlled, can start experimenting on ways to improve taste (artificial stimulation, etc). I see no reason why we can't eventually grow meat that tastes multiples better. It's not like nature selected for pigs and cows to taste good (although we may have, over the last few hundreds or thousands of years).
> Assuming these efforts succeed, where does that leave me?
Hopefully, it means you'll eventually be eating the best burger you've ever tasted. :)
> at what point is it morally acceptable to me to buy and eat that "meat"?
I would assume immediately at the point there's a version that doesn't harm animals, if you're in it for ethical reasons. I'm not sure I understand the question, or the implications, because it doesn't seem controversial to me at all, given the predicates.
> I imagine it's similar to anyone in a field that benefits from ethically questionable research.
I'm not sure it's related at all. What animals are harmed to help us get better lab-grown meat?
That said, questionable research it's a very interesting question in itself. I've been culturally indoctrinated to belief that it's bad, but rationally, if the resaerch leads to improved lives for people during the time we would not know that information until we found it otherwise, shouldn't we weigh that correctly? Would a study that resulted in the death of 1000 people but eliminated heart disease be worth it? Yes, but we can't know what any specific research will result in, so all we do is increase the risk of our gambles with the hope of a bigger payoff.
That said, I think we need more nuanced rules regarding some studies and people that want in them. If someone is already terminally ill, but it shouldn't affect the study, I don't see the problem with a large payout to participate in a very dangerous study.
I'm assuming the acquisition of the original cells is not done at all kindly, (as in, I suspect the animal doesn't survive it), and that this is done many, many times before they perfect the process, but I'll admit that's an assumption on my part and it could be well within my ethical boundaries.
I don't plan to prejudge any options until I actually know, this was more of a hypothetical exercise that I've pondered now and again because I assume the day will come when it's actually real and the question will no longer be hypothetical. Knowing what matters to me then is better than trying to figure it out on the spot.
I was sort of under the impression it's animal stem cells, which doesn't necessitate death on the part of the animal (although I'll give you it's probably likely, to easy harvesting in some way). Like human stem cells, they aren't consumed entirely in use, which is good since US law precludes any new lines of stem cells in research[1]. There are 279 approved lines of cells in the US, but most researchers just use two or three lines. They just culture more cells from that line when they need them.
Well, it's only hypothetical in that it costs far too much at the moment, but if if trends continue from the extremely small dataset I've seen[2], we're seeing a 60% drop in price per year. If it's $18k a pound now, it should be under $10 a pound in 15 years (which might match the cost of beef with inflation by then). So, count on it in 15 years. Totally scientific. ;)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem-cell_line#Access_to_human...
2: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/lab-g...
OTOH, I've been vegetarian for 15 years and most meat flavors and textures have worn on me.
They have small farms and dual purpose chicken breeds in the US too. You don't even need the small farm, you can raise them yourself quite easily and cheaply.
Short anecdote: There's a donut shop in my town that sold vegan and regular donuts in adjacent but separate displays. In some instances, the donuts on the regular side were also vegan, identical in every way save for the label. They found that they sold far better without the word "vegan" attached to them, and eventually stopped labelling them altogether, providing a side-menu to help vegans identify which are which.
Point being, perception is surprisingly important when it comes to taste.
> And in america, at least, where meat-eating is tied to masculinity and bacon is worshipped, that's a tough stigma to shake.
I'd argue that it really doesn't matter how similar to meat these products get, if they're still seen as "fake". Even if delicious, people tend to gravitate towards "real". But hey, maybe they've found a market that wants this that I'm just not seeing.
Well I will take my anecdotic evidence (and my girlfriend's, and two friends') over your scientific studies. Fat and protein make me feel full well below my caloric needs for maintaining the same weight; I am hardly ever full with carbs, and even when my stomach feel fulls, my brain keeps wanting me to eat.
More than one should.
For some people, it's the only thing that loses some them weight. (Obesity is a disease?)
I am currently giving it a try to see whether it has any benefits for my concentration. (Inattentiveness is a disease?)
Plants are fun. I still eat lots of non-starchy ones.
Sure, I can too. And I will stay hungry or get into depression again because I wouldn't be getting enough fat.
(I am very sympathetic to low-carb eating, and am trying a ketogenic diet right now.)
I use to crave carbs, and would wind up binging on them. Now most of them do not even register as 'food' to my brain. However, on days when I eat maybe a few too many berries instead of sticking to green veggies, I can feel those cravings trying to come back. We're talking an amount that maybe pushes my daily net carb intake to the 50-60g range instead of the 20-30g range, not something that would push me over 100g. A ketogenic diet is definitely best for my health. I would rather eat a ketogenic diet than suffer the eventual consequences of diabetes - blindness, amputation, dialysis, and death.
All of which would be true on a low carb diet without ketosis. Which you may very well have been doing since you don't know if you were in ketosis or not.
> A ketogenic diet is definitely best for my health
Your completely unsupported anecdote of a single person claiming so does not counter the overwhelming scientific evidence consisting of actual studies, with multiple participants, proper measures, and control groups.
When I start eating more than 50g net carbs a day, suddenly I want to shove all the pizza in the world in my mouth. Given that pizza will absolutely kill me, a diabetic, via kidney damage, a "very low carb, high fat" diet (which is much easier to explain/abbreviate as "ketogenic") diet is best for me, personally.
I know it's an anecdote, and it certainly doesn't mean a VLCHF diet is right for anyone else, but it's working for me.
GMO or not, even the wikipage of carrageenan (e407) says:
"Some animal studies indicate tumor promotion or initiation by carrageenan.[22][23][24][25] In an industry-funded study, Cohen & Ito discuss methodological problems with four such studies, along with several evaluations of genotoxic activity, and state that there is no credible evidence that carrageenan contributes to tumor promotion or colon cancer."
Which might be FUD but better safe than sorry.
It may be that all the processing involved in making the plant compounds look/smell/taste/feel like meat are harmless, even beneficial, but it's perfectly reasonable to withhold trust for some time - especially to those of us who grew up with "Margarine is so much healthier than butter!"
Its all chemical engineered now, unless you can afford to buy a piece of land and DIY.
-Avid Meat Eater.
Most Beef in the world is grass fed, and not pumped full of antibiotics. Generally animals are more or less left in a field until they're old enough, then taken in a slaughtered.
- http://www.rollingstone.com/feature/belly-beast-meat-factory...
- https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9031-Ch...
http://assurance.redtractor.org.uk/
Most quality beef sold in UK is governed by the Red Tractor food standards and welfare scheme.
1. A product that has been changed to not use any animal products.
2. A product that already fits within those constraints.
Products in the former group have a history of being noticeably worse than their non-vegan counterpart, so "vegan" carries the stigma of "tastes worse than it looks". That stigma then wafts over to products in the second category.
Other categories of products are more careful to use distinct terms. That's why you see things labelled "naturally fat-free" instead of just "fat-free", for example.
Naturally free of animal products?
(I know you were just trying to give people a simplified model.)
Are you sure marketing didn't just want to include another buzz word to attract sales? 90% of the food that got labeled fat-free 10 years ago (Before fat was good again...) was always fat free.
It is purely marketing.
a snip:
"The industrial food chain does produce food more cheaply, in terms of the price you pay at McDonald’s or the supermarket,” replies Pollan, “but the real cost of cheap food is not reflected in those prices. You’re paying for it in your tax dollars because you’re giving farmers $20 billion a year in subsidies. You’re paying for it in public health costs. These subsidies make unhealthy food cheaper than healthy food, and so our country is facing an obesity epidemic."
[0] http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per...
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProce...
Obviously it doesn't fix it for China though, which is where a lot of the drug-resistant bugs are coming from...
(After only half a minute of Googling: http://sugarmtnfarm.com/2015/06/11/lard-vs-bacon-pigs/ )
[Aside: Actually, it's kind of interesting to consider that meat alternatives top out at a relatively low price point, whereas meat, fish, etc can get really expensive.]
Just like in the meat market, there are cheaper and more expensive meat alternatives. Compare tofu at ~$2/lb vs Field Roast at ~$6/lb, where Field Roast is more toward the gourmet end of the non-meat spectrum.
I would think that if you're not a meat eater, tofu is your ground beef equivalent. Or maybe beans, lentils, quinoa, etc, which are also pretty cheap.
Also, home made seitan is super cheap and much easier to produce than home made meat.
You can pay a lot for plant-based food, but that's much more of a niche interest.
Werent those shown to be flawed? My source is Gladwells books, but the pepsi vs coke taste test favoured pepsi because it was sweeter. But in drinking the full can people found pepsi overwhelmingly sweet and coke was more popular. My guess would be a similar thing would happen. You could optimise to appeal to low-quantity taste tests. but as a full proper meal a lot needs to be done (imo)
I think they're flawed in the sense that they were put on by the company itself.
I personally eat a low-meat diet (no more than 3 servings of meat a week), but don't generally feel the need to eat any kind of meat-substitutes; there are plenty of delicious, already vegetarian or already vegan foods. It does help eating only vegetarian and not fully vegan; cheese and eggs are good sources of both flavor and protein, and make a good "center" of a dish or "main course" of a meal that is sometimes hard to do with purely vegan food without substitutes, but I've also had plenty of delicious fully vegan meals without meat substitutes.
And even when getting closer to meat base dishes, I'm personally more likely to order a "black bean burger" or "chickpea burger" than a generic "veggie burger"; it helps to know what I'm getting, while a lot of the meat substitutes are complicated and processed. And for those processed items that do more often act as a stand in for meat, I generally prefer the more minimally processed ones like seitan, tempeh, or tofu, rather than a "tofu burger" that has a whole bunch of other things in it to make it more similar to a hamburger.
personally I'm in a different camp. I've been vegan for a while now. I pretty much never buy fake meat or fake cheese. I don't really understand it. I just eat food I make from the bulk section of the grocery store. I don't see a need to have a "boody plant burger that smells like meat" or a boca burger, that just tastes like a...boca burger. honestly I rather just have a patty made out of blackbeans and lentils that doesn't taste anything like meat. seems way simpler to me.
I like vegetarianism in concept, and would like to eat less meat, but I like meat, A LOT. If alternatives were more meatlike (fingers crossed for indistinguishable) I'd gladly eat that regardless of label. Some reservations about macro contents.
I understand where you're coming from, but some people don't want to change a habit, but are fine with substitutes.
I've never wanted a "something that approximates meat", I want good plant-based food, not a processed frozen puck in a box.
Similarly, I eat fish, but I'd never want to eat a "fish stick" - ick. That's where I categorize these meat alternatives.
Are you not a gay fish, then?
(sorry!)
The "burger" is just a convenient form factor. Each kind is really its own thing, with its own taste and mouthfeel. It needs to be tried and appreciated as such, or disappointment is inevitable.
I say this as someone who hasn't eaten meat for well over a decade and a really close meat substitute sounds gross.
I say this as a vegetarian, but I'm having a hard time seeing cost being a real advantage for imitation meat. It seems like more of a first world problem - if one cannot afford meat, they're better off spending resources on replacing its nutritional value rather than its taste.
As an example of your second point, one of the more succesful alternatives in NL is Valess [1], which mostly comes in the "burger" form factor but does not try to sell itself as imitation meat.
There are enough delicious vegetarian and vegan recipes that it makes very little sense to go vegetarian and then eat processed imitation meat. I found being vegan significantly easier when I just looked for recipes that happened to be vegan.
Wouldn't you be upset if your in-laws served you seitan that was actually chicken?
*edit: I bring this up because many people do not react well to meat substitutes. Gluten and soy intolerance affects many people and serving soy or gluten-based meat substitutes without prior informed consent can induce adverse reactions. I do believe that veganism in morally superior to carnivorism, but that still doesn't grant the right to trick others into consuming meat substitutes without their informed consent.
Most people don't do that. It seems reasonable to assume (until established otherwise) that his inlaws have not done that.
Secretly serving non-vegetarians vegetarian food is, technically, fraud, but it's not disrespecting their morality. That fraud might be slightly immoral (I don't think it is, but it's a topic for debate), but it's easily offset by the potential for convincing someone to become vegetarian.
* I think it was absolutely unethical of me. But it's one of those unethical things you do with in-laws, and falls within "white lies" territory as long as am I'm not endangering anyone's health nor causing them to violate moral principles.
* It was done simply to serve food we'd all eat, it was not my goal nor intention to "convert" anyone. Personally, I don't try to convert people beyond example and offering my reasonings when socially appropriate.
* I would consider tricking me into eating meat as worse than tricking someone to eat more non-meat than they would. That doesn't make what I did less of a trick.
People may be eating what they choose to eat with just as much moral conviction as your vegetarianism. That is not for you to decide.
You have no right to deceive others about what they are putting into their body, let alone in hopes of "convincing" or converting them.
You have no right to physically force your own morality upon others without their informed consent.
Think about what you have just argued for here.
On top of that, it's very likely that every ingredient in the "turkey loaf" was something that would not be out of place in an actual turkey loaf. In other words, no ingredients being secretly added, just one being removed.
So again here there is a difference adding a problem ingredient, and there being an ingredient you don't put in. For the former you need to ask about dietary restrictions and respect that. Which they did. For the latter, I don't think you're in much risk of violating anyone's moral system.
If it's unrelated to GMOs, I'm genuinely interested in what your objection might be.
I checked everyone's dietary restrictions beforehand. I served fake meat without informing them at my wife's request, because she knew her father (who is stubborn southerner) and brother (who is mentally handicapped) would both refuse to like it immediately. (A visit to an all-vegetarian restaurant would later prove her correct).
In all other circumstances where I've served fake meat to others it's been very openly labeled and/or pointed out.
I'm inclined to agree with everything you've said, but Thanksgiving with the in-laws is a special moral situation, vegetarian or not :)
The ability to create, cheaply, a high protein, high calorie, amino acid packed product, regardless of whether or not it is aesthetically pleasing, could have massive impacts on our ability to support the human population of this planet, in a way that existing meat and vegetarian solutions do not.
This is why I've stopped trying to find a meat substitute, they all fail in some way or another (they either don't taste right, don't have the right texture, or are far worse nutritionally than what they try to replace). I'm not a vegitarian, but I've found I prefer the Morningstar Spicy Black Bean Burger to a traditional beef patty - I like spicy foods and it has a nice texture I enjoy without feeling the need to compare it to beef. Also, the first ingredient is just plain black beans, there's some brown rice in to help as a binder but overall it has a fairly low amount of carbohydrates compared to other similar products (13g total, 4g of that is fiber).
When it comes to Morningstar's black bean burger, we agree it's not an adequate alternative in terms of taste, but I'd argue it's also not an adequate replacement in terms of health. I mentioned most existing meat alternatives do not provide enough protein. Black beans are generally fine and normally thought of as high protein, but they actually aren't a great source protein since they do not have complete amino acid profiles.
I've found that substituting meat is an almost impossible task, I certainly haven't found anything that is as satisfying as a good steak. But replacing it with something I find enjoyable in a different way works really well, as long as you have an open mind and accept that it's not going to be an identical experience. (Personally, I prefer the black bean burgers for this reason. I absolutely adore spicy foods, I've been topping burgers with pepper jack and jalapenos since I was 13, having the patty itself with a good texture and a nice kick out of the box is wonderful)
It seems to me like people are confusing eating meat with our modern agricultural processes. And if that's the case then the solution should be to improve said processes, not to stop eating meat.
The thing is - how is the average person going to improve the processes? People can eat less meat and urge the governments in different areas to force better farming practices through regulation, financial support for upgrades, investment in technology (for example, something that composts manure and spreads it better than the liquid manure we keep in vats or somehow breeding cows that produce less methane), and other such things.
Some countries will be able to pull this off. Others... well, will fail. And some of those are either major contributors or consumers.
I am a meat eater and I can tell you that, in my experience, this simply isn't the case. Your opinion is colored by the fact that you really, really, want it to be a decent imitation because you're a vegetarian. Every imitation meat product I have ever tasted has been immediately recognizable as such, and was almost inedible.
Unfortunately, the idea of fake meat that people won't notice is, at least today, a vegetarian fantasy.
I think the larger issue is why do we stubbornly try to make one thing taste like another? I may be a meat-eater but I can fill my heart's content at a number of Indian vegetarian places, to the point where I don't realize I didn't eat meat. The meal as a whole is fully satiating and nourishing.
In the same vein, I love tofu when it tastes like tofu. But when some try to make it ressemble meat, it simply becomes bad tofu. Beans are awesome and can be combined in so many ways. Bean burgers are just over-seasoned patties posing as meat.
Maybe it's my French background showing but I prefer minimal processing, or processing that brings out the natural flavors of the ingredient, not trying to hide them.
In my opinion, it's because vegetarians know that their diet is an extreme departure from the norm, and anything they can do to feel more included in the mainstream, they will do. I have relatives that are vegetarians, and being vegetarian limits their social lives to some degree (I'm sure the impact is partially dependent on where you live; this comment is based on my observations only). For example, they can't eat at certain restaurants, and they tend to not bother trying to host dinners at their homes for people with normal diets (or worse, they do host, and guests don't come back after the first time). One of my vegetarian relatives has children, and it impacts their social lives as well - kids in households with mainstream diets usually aren't big fans of tofu and aren't going to be hanging out in vegetarian households as often.
Everyone wants to feel normal, even when their lifestyle choices are far from it. This, in my opinion, is the driving force behind the quest for "vegemeat".
As a vegetarian, I'm weird. As a picky vegetarian, I'm even weirder. That's fine, I'm used to weird, and I don't expect people to cater to my weirdness.
For me, it's not about specific taste. When I went vegetarian, I lost the taste for red meat. Last time I had it (10+ years now) it was NASTY - I remembered it tasting good, but it doesn't meet (ha!) that memory.
No, it's mostly about texture. I want something that tastes _good_ (for however "good" is defined) and has the right chewiness to my mouth.
It's also about convenience - My wife and I have "meat cookies", which are morningstar "burgers" fixed on a george foreman grill, and after a few minutes of cooling, are able to be picked up and eaten like a cookie. The taste is good, but it could be better. Nothing about this experience is like a normal meat-eater.
I will concede that it'd be really nice to go to a restaurant and have an easy time picking out food from the menu. That's less about being normal and more about being able to eat when hungry.
So no - I don't think my desire for meat alternatives is about a desperate need to feel like I belong. Its about having tasty options that didn't kill animals. For many vegetarians straight vegetables can fulfill that need. Not so for me.
You seem very self-aware, which I view as a rare and positive trait. So here's a question that I am genuinely curious about: in light of the fact that you said you remembered meat tasting good prior to becoming a vegetarian, do you believe that it is unpalatable to you now because it actually tastes bad (i.e. your brain actually no longer likes the taste), or is it the thoughts that you associate with meat (those that drove you to be a vegetarian in the first place - perhaps that a cow was killed for it, or its impact on the environment)?
It was actually very weird - I'd smell it, and remember the good taste, then have some and be quite startled how bad it seemed to me. (and again, other meats did not have that reaction). I have no idea if this is a matter of personal chemistry, a more intricate mental gymnastics than the one you propose, or is actually commonplace. To this day, the smell of KFC original recipe will make me salivate. (I once found an Indian place that had a veggie Pakora that tasted JUST LIKE THAT BATTER. Man I miss that)
For background: I went full vegetarian for 6 months in college, but stopped when I was seeing stars constantly. It's easy to get decent nutrition with a vegetarian diet, particularly as I'm not active, but microwaved rice and beans and mac n'cheese (my college diet) wasn't healthy enough. So I returned meat to my diet and that's when I found I didn't like red meat anymore. I imagine I could've taught myself to like it again, but I was content with the other meat options and had no more health issues. After a few years like this I noticed that a few foods (e.g. lettuce, baby spinach) that were previously on my "ick" list were now palatable, so I started dropping a meat a year, giving my taste and lifestyle time to adjust. After a few years of that, I was fully vegetarian, and my diet has expanded, though I still have a depressingly large "these foods don't taste good to me" list.
Why do I think pork is marginally than beef? I grew up in a rural-ish* area, and have a lower opinion of cows than pigs, in terms of intelligence and awareness. I similarly think a turkey is smarter than chicken, but we are talking literal bird brains at that point.
* rural-ish = a large town surrounded by farmland. State College, PA, for the curious.
It beggars belief that you claim to be related to a vegetarian and you think that kids subsist on tofu, or even that meals are a major part of kids hanging out. Kids eat chips and pizza and pasta, all of which is vegetarian.
I am French, I live in France, and grew up in a large city. I can confirm what he said about kids in some cultures, and it's not limited to the "rural America" the sanfran crowds like to dismiss so much on the internet. I had Indians friends I grew up with as a kid, and they were made to eat meat every time we were going out with the other neighborhood kids because we liked to go to fast foods like Quick (a belgian fast food franchise that's a bit like the European McDo) and there was no decent vegetarian food there, at least when I was a kid, I wouldn't know if they changed their menus because I haven't gone to fast foods for a long time. He had to lie to his parents about not eating hamburgers, they were devout, religious vegetarian hinduists and I have no idea how they'd react if they knew their kids ate beef.
What would have happened if they refused to eat meat with us? They would either have to watch us eat at Quick while growing hungry, or just leave the group altogether. Seeing our food cultures, I would definitely have hated the very idea of growing in a vegetarian household. The indian kids could come at our places and order pizza with us, but we never, ever shared a meal at their home.
My parents loved sharing food with our indian neighbors though, despite the fact that my father loved meat, he also enjoyed the food they made and my grandmother often made vegetarian cooking to exchange with them. But that's a whole another story when it comes to kids.
because lots of people love meat but dislike the way it is obtained. compare fake cheese and icecream for the lactose intolerant - they love the taste of cheese and icecream, just not its effects on them.
Vegan cheese is completely different from lactose-free cheese, and is one of the worst things I have ever eaten. It does not retain a single attribute that makes normal cheese appealing, but still manages to smell like an old sock.
I've never had coconut ice cream, but I've had soy ice cream on several occasions and I thought it wasn't bad. (Shout-out to Chocolate Shoppe Ice Cream, a Wisconsin manufacturer who does a great job of accommodating a wide variety of dietary restrictions)
I'm sure your friend finds her brand of fake cheese palatable, but I seriously doubt it bears any resemblance to real cheese. One of my close friends was a vegetarian because she couldn't give up cheese, until the point where her conscience overwhelmed her and she became a total vegan. She's been looking for a vegan cheese for the past seven or eight years, and I've unfortunately shared in the experience. I'm comfortable with the claim that right now, vegan cheese is not a replacement for real cheese.
The problem with vegan cheese is that vegan foods are generally only convincing substitutes in a specific domain. Ice cream works because ice cream is always frozen. Nobody complains if your vegan ice cream doesn't look like ice cream when melted or boiling. On the other hand, the same cheese can be melted, broiled, burnt, shredded, or some combination of the 4 depending on the application. Plus, it has to taste like cheese too.
In some sense, it's a bit like vegan bacon, which generally just tastes a bit smokey, and I've never found any that has the crispy texture that melts in the mouth like real bacon. Fake cheese just has a really ... off texture, and it's flavor is one-dimensional.
Despite the label claiming that, it isn't actually the case. Rather than removing the sugar, which is quite difficult without affecting the milk, they simply add lactase.
For the same reason that people use birth control instead of abstinence: People like to "have their cake and eat it too." If we can get the part of something we value minus some downside we deem undesirable, we are all over it.
I am a vegetarian, and have been for about 8 years. I agree that the taste isn't a duplicate, but inedible that's a stretcher?
> Unfortunately, the idea of fake meat that people won't notice is, at least today, a vegetarian fantasy.
And I never understood why. I like the taste of vegetables. Needing things that duplicate meat in taste and texture feels unnecessary and almost ... not quite, I can't find the right word ... hypocritical -- as if humans need that flavor?
Technically, cardboard and shoe leather are edible, if you boil them enough, but you tend not to go out of your way to eat them, unless there's a bunch of people with pointy-murder-sticks outside and you've already gone through all the dogs, cats, rats, and insects.
Still, these imitation components strike me as tacky or cheap knockoffs. Even worse, for me they signal that even vegetarians can't go without the taste (or structure) of meat. I really wonder if their availability is a net positive for reducing meat consumption.
I consider myself quite a meat-eater, but I do enjoy properly thought-out vegetarian dishes (like Thai or Indian vegetable curry's), and I'm a big fan of main dish salads (usually with Feta cheese, walnuts or raisins). Still, when I do need to "replace" meat, I'd much rather go with nuts (mostly cashew, pine and almond) than any of the meat imitations.
Also, there is no requirement that meat substitutes be indistinguishable from meat to be considered edible.
How about that stick of beef jerky I carry when I go out hiking ... replacing something that artificial with something plant based doesn't sound overly challenging and maybe it would have better shelf life? Or the mystery meat in canned store bought soups?
Artificial? Where the heck are you buying your jerky? Jerky is one of the least artificial mass produced foods you can find - a big hunk of solid beef, dried, and flavored with some salt and salt-relatives. If at anything else it's not jerky.
People don't buy 6 million units per day when something is "almost inedible".
Also the argument doesn't depend on a specific "meat" or seller or sales figures. How about mystery meat products at the food store like "olive loaf bologna" not even sure what kind of animal that comes from...
The OP claimed that McDonalds burgers were "inedible". Observably, millions of people do eat them, therefore the OP is wrong.
That says nothing about the quality of the burgers, or whether eating them is a good idea, or anything else. It merely demonstrates that people do, in fact, find them edible.
"How about mystery meat products at the food store like "olive loaf bologna""
What about it? People obviously buy it and presumably eat it, or it wouldn't be in the store.
I don't get this sentiment. I'm not close to vegetarian, but I go out of my way to try to eat less meat and when I'm not at the discretion of others (eating out, eating over at a friends house, etc) I prioritize my favorite meat-free foods, but nobody should be saying "its not meat? No way, never gonna try it, I am a blood thirsty carnivore". Even if you're like me and don't have the time, effort, or circumstance to cut meat out entirely, you should still at least try alternatives when they are presented to you.
* Mention you are dieting, and someone will declare how good their triple chocolate fudge cake is. * Mention you're a vegetarian and they'll talk about how tasty meat is. * Say you can't eat a particular thing (lactose, gluten, sugar, etc) and they'll loudly declare how they don't share your restriction.
I've even noticed the same tendencies in myself, so I think it's some sort of deeply wired social construct. It's not solely restricted to food but is quite common there.
Of course, this creates a vicious cycle. Just yesterday, someone offered to buy lunch for a friend of mine. He said it would have to be vegan, and the guy lost his temper. Like "how DARE you be one of those pushy types!" When the guy only said something because he was being offered food for himself to eat. Which perpetuates the cycle of distrust and mockery.
I almost exclusively eat meat. Just the thought of trying vegetables makes me feel sick to my stomach. Whether that's immoral or not is of secondary concern to me, when the alternative borders on a panic attack. Why that is, I have no idea, but I know other people with the same reaction as me, and it might partially answer your question.
At this point the challenge is more flavour, astronomical preparation time for home-made versions thereof (DIY deep-fried veggie patties can taste excellent but they're an assload of work), and trying to reduce dairy/eggs and move more towards a vegan direction (daiya has some catching-up vs fakemeat).
I'm a flexitarian, but I'm pretty veggie heavy and have been mostly vegetarian for significant periods of time. I very rarely come across foods with green peppers.
In sandwich shops and some places with tacos and wraps, it's not uncommon to find just one dish that's properly vegetarian - often some mix of peppers, onions, squash, etc. I've always been puzzled by it, considering they tend to be somewhat polarizing vegetables. Something like beans, potatoes, rice, even corn - those things are much more broadly appealing, filling, and probably cheaper, too.
I also find that a lot of places/people don't know much about vegetarian cooking and they seem to think the only way to cure the blandness is to toss in peppers and onions.
Far more bland and full of carbs, too, so they may be more polarizing than you think.
I was fed a Tofu-rkey one year when my sister and her husband were vegan. I don't think rioting occurred, but I seem to be suppressing all memory of that horror fest.
My favorite dishes don't contain mock meats (when I went vegan they didn't exist where I used to live, so I just got used to eating lots of legumes, whole grains and tubers), but it's fun to try these foods once in a while.
I would MUCH rather have had a good vegetarian dish that wasn't trying to be something else.
Being a picky eater is a childish trait, not sure how it became synonymous with "masculinity."
Because chicken nuggets are mystery meats to start with. They're usually made from meat slurry, with various fillers added, and shaped into that shape. A chicken breast, for example, has 43g of protein per 140g of weight; a nugget, on the other hand, has 3.1g of protein per 20g of weight.
I don't want to speak for your friends, but I'd be unwilling to try any veggie burger, sight unseen, either, due to a long history of disappointment with people trying to get me to try veggie burgers that aren't tasty.
I'm Indian and lots of my friends are hesitant to eat meat for religious and/or animal rights reasons.
We also don't have the stigma attached to vegetarianism as it is in America. There is no "masculinity = meat" culture here.
I am curious to see how it works out in practice though.
McDonalds gets hit disproportionately by anti-capitalists and environmentalists and is always trying to improve their green credentials so I'm sure they'll be working on their own recipe.
I find it very difficult to understand how meat eaters can manage to get it through their throat without throwing up, but to each their own.
I sometimes get comments about how environmentally conscious I am or how ethical I am for being vegetarian, but I don't feel virtuous at all. It doesn't take any special willpower for me not to eat meat, I have zero craving for it.
I hate vegetarian food that tries to replicate the taste and texture of meat.
As other commenters have mentioned, there's a big market for just honest vegetarian cooking that does not try to imitate anything.
The same goes for food as for people: just be yourself! Don't try to be something you're not.
- How well does this product replicate the Maillard Reaction [0]? This is key when we're talking about taste and texture.
- Why did the author taste the burger with 82 toppings slathered on top by a professional chef? That's like testing out a new 21 speed, strapped to the top of an SUV.
- Why are they (presumably) trying to recreate chuck? Ground chuck is a terrible thing to replicate. It's like burger meat designed by committee[1].
- Is the sizzle coming from only extracted water from the plant burger (water vapor, decreasing heating temp)? Or are their lipids present spiking the flame, positively contributing to the cooking process?
That said, I'd love to give it a shot. Proper seasoning, a nice medium rare with a slice of American. But I'm not holding my breath. Meat is very hard.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction [1]: http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2009/10/the-burger-lab-b...
Why chuck? Once this gets cheaper in production than meat burger, but still tastes exactly the same, the big fast-food chains might join the boat. So I guess they try to stay close to that.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend to know what, the good people of Impossible Foods, are doing. Way over my head. What I do know is recreating nature is hard work, with limited success.
The chuck sub-primal cut is the shoulder of the cow. As you can imagine, the shoulder gets a lot of use while the cow is alive, so there is a lot of connective tissue which makes the cut tough (fwiw the muscles that are rarely used are the most tender to eat) However, a cow being a cow and not a horse, there is a good amount of fat interspersed within the cut. So while the cut is hard to eat like a typical steak, it has a wonderful meat to fat ratio which gives it good flavor if cooked properly (think stews and roasts). That ideal fat to meat ratio, combine with the grind making it more palatable, the ease of (mass) producing, and low price point for the cut, make it the cut of choice by distributors.
I think there's always going to be a place for The Counter or other such premium burgers, but what about the zillions of patties used by the likes of Burger King, McDonald's, In-N-Out? Those are cooked heavily, and flavor engineered six ways to Sunday. The top of the SUV analogy is nice, but realistically most burgers are not terribly subtle flavor experiences coming from the brilliance of the meat substrate.
How many millions of gallons of water and tons of greenhouse gases would be eliminated if 10% of patties at big chains were vegetarian? Even small shifts in consumption could have incredibly positive impacts on the environment and perhaps even overall health.
Are we talking about fast food burgers? Then yes, flavor country lives in the lab, not the burger. But this article seemed to be strongly hinting at a meat substitute, not just a burger substitute for fast food chains (which I agree with you, would be wonderful). If the flavor experience isn't coming from the meat, than why is it so hard to find a widely excepted meat substitute?
That's why it seems strange the author loaded up their burger with exquisite toppings to taste the meat.
Probably because it's common as hell and if you could widely replace both burger patties and sausage filling with this meat substitute, you might be able to knock 5% off the worlds meat consumption with one product.
I've broken down and bought the roasts and sliced them myself when I can't find proper chuck steaks.
They mention using coconut oil flecks to replace the beef's fat, so I imagine that'd contribute to the cooking process, "frying" it up a bit.
This is exactly why plant-based substitutes for meat are so important. I'm a vegan, but I don't think the majority of human beings will ever be convinced to adopt a plant-based diet on ethical grounds. That's a completely hopeless cause. The only way is for plant-based versions of the foods meat eaters love to be 1) indistinguishable or better tasting 2) as cheap or cheaper. In the end, most people value convenience and their own experience over ethics and the experience of others (and I'm not saying I'm better than you or anyone else—I'm the same, just not on this particular issue), so I think the right approach is to make plant-based foods the most convenient and enjoyable experience. It may be far away, but it will happen eventually.
Lots of questions long term though. Is this the "Ethanol of Meat" ? Where the total cost/impact of producing the good overwhelms the benefits? Ground chuck roast is $7/lb and currently this stuff is more expensive than that. Can it be less expensive than that? Way less expensive?
The fundamental question is does this move us toward a more efficient use of the resources we have to feed us, or is it more the high tech / high energy lifestyle? I am always wondering is this this increasing the kilowatt / person ratio or decreasing it.
1: https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?artic... 2: https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=live...
cost of meat/plant version = real cost of producing - subsidies
Substitutes have much lower growing costs in energy and water, but so far also much higher processing costs. Not too surprised that these might end up offsetting each other.
If you want plants to be efficient food sources, the best approach is not to try to make them imitate meat. Making them imitate meat is an inefficient use of plants.
Very large herds of cattle on extremely large areas of semi-arid grasslands mimic the buffalo that humans eradicated. They take few to no resources that aren't already there, and they actually support the ecosystem.
In some places cattle suck down resources that could go to other more useful places (grain, water, etc.) but in others they're the only way to gain anything from the land, and they protect it from desertification.
Assume we could feed all the meat-eaters on a revolving 60M cattle--would we then have solved the problem? Or are we supposed to maintain a smaller-than-original population?
There is no single answer about what we're "supposed to" do, but it is clear that cattle are driving the increase of methane production and that methane is a far, far more potent greenhouse gas than C02. A plant-based replacement wins hands-down in any ecological analysis.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Range_and_popul...
[2] http://www.cattlenetwork.com/advice-and-tips/cowcalf-produce...
[1] http://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-ranking-co...
Here are three sources that say an order of magnitude means ten times as much:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
So to me, reducing methane is more important than reducing total energy used (as long as we're using renewable resources for energy). If we're burning coal to produce eco-friendly plant burgers, then forget it.
It's a complicated question, but there's one analogy: The company behind "beyond mayo" can make egg substitutes for ~50% the cost of an egg.
Honestly a good chef can make cardboard taste good. But as a daily meat eater I'd love a good ground beef alternative.
My SO questions my use of ground turkey today. See what she thinks of this.
Crumbles gonna crumble.
"You don't like alcohol? Even when we dilute the heck out of it by mixing it with lots of sugar and fruit flavors? Crazy! I definitely like alcohol, although only Smirnov Ice and cosmos, for some inexplicable reason..."
Which is exactly the core operating principle upon which the fast food industry (including much of what is put on the shelves in larger grocery chains) basically works these days:
low-quality base ingredients + sugar, spices, MSG + gratuitous fats/oils + marketing == profit
Even given all the problems, I'm convinced that people won't stop eating meat unless there is a market alternative that's at least equivalent in terms of price, taste, smell, texture, and nutrition. While the plant-based alternatives are getting better and better and I'm a big fan, I'm much more excited about the cultured meat alternatives.
Basically, you can think of a cow as a biological machine inside which certain processes occur which lead to things humans like to eat (milk, meat). If you can replicate those process in the lab instead of in the cow, you can get real meat without the negative side effects mentioned above.
Until very recently, this field had been relegated to academia, but there are now several companies working on commercializing it, like Memphis Meats, Mosa Meats, and Modern Meadow. In my mind, this is the only solution: give people real meat, made without the animals.
[1] http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-80... [2] disclaimer: I'm an investor in Memphis Meats (http://www.memphismeats.com/)
I know it's tough to acknowledge it, but lots of people like me are a bit hypocrites when it comes to meat: we hate killing animals, but we love the outcome.
For comparison here is the thread from 2012 on the Twitter founders investment in Beyond Meat
The beyond burger was interesting. It was the closest to a meat patty I've eaten, of all the beef substitutes. It cooks and looks like a beef burger. However, the taste and texture is only reminiscent of meat. Against, it's the closest I've seen anyone get. But it's not a beef burger, and it's worse for inviting the comparison. I'll stick to bean burgers for now. I hope this impossible burger is better.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140423170903.h...
Even if a great steak is still better/worth eating, no one will say that fast food hamburger patties, taco bell mystery meat, etc. are in any way exemplars of amazing meat. If an animal is going to die for me to eat, it should be something like steak, not the lowest quality ground beef possible.
They're really smart going after the carnivore market.
That said, it was incredibly good to the point I asked one of the researchers who was making it so I could buy it. Unfortunately they couldn't disclose to me that information, maybe it was this product.
On the one hand, I love the science and I love watching these engineers get closer and closer to mimicking meat with each passing year. If they can succeed in creating a cheaper, tastier alternative to real meat, there could be untold benefits for both our health and the environment.
On the other hand, the article mentioned that this particular patty uses coconut oil. Well, I happen to be allergic to coconuts, so that leaves me out. I'm weary of encountering in daily life yet another highly engineered foodstuff that requires close scrutiny. I'm especially worried about eating something like this on accident someday, if they get close enough to the patina of the real meat, and having an allergic reaction.
There's a part of me that hopes the mimicry is a passing fad, and instead they use the techniques to create new tastes and experiences. That's more fun in general, and it's easier for guys like me to distinguish and avoid if needed.
>chef Traci Des Jardins served the Impossible Burger (pictured uncooked) with vegan mayo, Dijon mustard, mashed avocado, caramelized onions, chopped cornichon, tomato and lettuce on a pretzel bun.
I think I'd probably enjoy a single postage stamp served in the above configuration (in place of the patty). Obviously my review of the postage stamp would be heavily influenced by these trimmings.
Given the rest of the article, they should have just browned it and served it on a $0.50 store-bought hamburger bun http://www.walmart.com/c/kp/hamburger-buns with some lettuce and ketchup.
Or is it not actually up to the task? The rest of the article fawns that it is, but they don't put their hamburger where the reviewer's mouth is. They put mashed avocado, carmelized onion, and chopped cornichon on a pretzel bun there.
There is so much we don't yet understand about nutrition or metabolism that I would take a very low tech approach to diet. The more we process things the more chance there is of things going wrong.
I find it fascinating to look at diets of groups people who live relatively long and disease free lives. It's almost always minimally processed food
Actually the whole point of factories and assembly lines is consistency and efficiency. There's a huge amount of variability with current meat based on how it was raised, transportation, age, butchering conditions, etc.
Looks like there isn't any business that Google won't get into.
The problem stems from current livestock farming practices. Fixing that problem is far easier than trying to create lab grown meat, and in the end will be healthier as it doesn't require a change in our biological system.
Plus food is not complicated. Humans have made it complicated over the last 50-60 years. Food has been a basic necessity of life, yet most struggle with every aspect related to food, from acquiring it to cooking it.
Don't get me wrong I see this type of innovation as being very important to long-term space travel or planet colonization but for everyday human consumption I view this as a waste of time and energy.
I think we're better off cleaning up the meat industry than trying to make plants into meat. Fixing things like CAFOs and our corn subsidies could go a long way to a more sustainable meat.
I'm regularly surprised by how little the average person knows about the things that make/keep them healthy. If I really wanted a car to last I'd be sure I knew all about the gasoline and oil I was putting into it.
Seeing as you'd rather attack than do some useful work, I'll do it for you. See below:
"A healthy diet should consist of roughly one to four times more omega-6 fatty acids than omega-3 fatty acids. The typical American diet tends to contain 11 to 30 times more omega -6 fatty acids than omega -3, a phenomenon that has been hypothesized as a significant factor in the rising rate of inflammatory disorders in the United States[40]. Table Table22 shows significant differences in n-6:n-3 ratios between grass-fed and grain-fed beef, with and overall average of 1.53 and 7.65 for grass-fed and grain-fed, respectively, for all studies reported in this review."[1]
Here's a rule of thumb, fresh fatty meats (incl. eggs) contain all human micronutrients except for Vitamin C and so called "phytonutrients" (that usually only make it past our livers/kidneys by accident, as far as could be observed so far in-vivo).
Animals, us included, are not inefficient filters, or tanks that hold minerals and energy. We are chemistry sets designed for survival in a wide range of conditions.
If the substitute is cheaper and tastier, a large chunk of the agricultural industry will disappear almost overnight. For many poor countries agriculture supports a large percentage of the workforce.
And if the company that develops the meat substitute can protect their manufacturing process from being copied through patents or simply keeping it a secret, then it will become enormously rich and powerful.
So you'll effectively have a transfer of wealth from poor farmers to a large US corporation on a massive scale.
Is that a good thing?
(And yes, I recognise that poor people will also benefit by having a cheaper source of 'meat')
If you really prefer your food to look like meat, maybe you're not actually a vegetarian and your body is telling you to get some meat.
But others do it for moral reasons, and to them, meat might be the tastiest food in the world, they just choose to abstain from it, because well, you know, animals have to die for it. So, if they can eat something which tastes like meat, but doesn't require animals to die for it, that's the best of both worlds to them.
I try to eat Paleo / Ketogenic and it is so hard to find quality fat in foods because of an unjustified fear of fat.
Cholesterol is correlated with health issues in the same way that firemen are correlated with fires. It's not a causal relationship.
Since I'm sure many vegetarians/vegans will read this thread I'm curious why so many v-products try to imitate the look and feel of meat. This has always startled me a bit. Why not create awesome new/distinct stuff instead of the typical "tofu shaped like a piece of meat" I see so often.
(apart from the fun engineering/optimizing aspect of recreating something with different ingredients which is fun).
Also, why call it wheat protein instead of gluten? That's like food manufacturers calling sugar 'cane juice'.
I'm also not sure if this is better than processing mealworms and similar actual meat that can be fed algae and mass-produced would be, if at all.
There's a new soy based meat substitute called Oumph, which I believe is only available here in Sweden so far. The texture and taste is fantastic. It's the first time I've tried a meat immitation where I don't just feel like I should have gone for the real thing. I'm not a vegetarian but I've actually found myself buying it more often than real meat lately.
It wouldn't work in a burger though - it's more chicken or pork like.
You wouldn't need to kill the animal to use its blood and you could extract more blood from an animal than meat. Presumably the environmental impact of a blood only farm would be substantially lower than that of a meat farm. Or is that not the case?
(Granted, the article says the company is not marketing to vegans.)
Vegans are a relatively night-knit lot. As long as it contains no animal products and tastes good, all they'll need to do is pass out a few free samples at a single vegan meetup and then sit back and wait. Every strict vegetarian on the continent will be talking about it within a week.
Meanwhile, if they do spend much money on marketing it to vegans then they risk locking themselves into niche product status as a result of the public perceiving it as being all covered in vegan cooties.
I know of at least one fairly popular cafe that only serves vegan baked goods, but does not publicly label them as such for that reason.
It's actually one of my favorite restaurants (despite not being vegan) but it's very difficult to convince my non-vegetarian/non-vegan friends to go try it with me.
Take veggie burger patties. I've had some that were not made to resemble meat, but were just vegan ingredients in patty form, that are on par with some of the best meat burgers I've had. I've never had a veggie patty that was supposed to taste like meat that I could finish a bite of.
http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Indoor-or-outdoor-calf...
If you don't eat meat for health reason blood or meat doesn't make the difference, if you don't eat meat for the animals, why would you support a gruesome vampire farm.
Also this sounds ridiculously impractical if you can just simulate the stuff by using ketchup for the color and iron for the taste.
Although I agree that selling blood at scale would need clever marketing. It seems like the blood imitation in the article would have similar problems, since it looks and tastes like blood.
I was thinking a similar thing about "veganic" farming: http://www.veganic.com/veganic-defined
>Yet although organic crops are grown without the use of chemicals, an organic certification does allow farmers to use animal waste, including blood meal and bone meal, to fertilize fields. Some organic farms purchase these animal by-products from slaughterhouses and other non-organic sources. The animals have been given antibiotics and hormones throughout their lives, and exposed to pesticides and other chemicals.
So why isn't there an organic+ that only uses organic animal waste? My guess is that it's because it's not worth advertising. Most people probably don't want to think about what kind of waste their produce grew in, and hearing that these potatoes grew in hormone free blood meal doesn't really make you more inclined to buy them. Whereas veganic can explain it's advantages without making you think it's gross. Plus the potential audience for veganic is all inclusive.
Humorous but relevant: https://vimeo.com/18160094#t=665s
This statement is loaded with judgment. In response, I'd love if the author could provide some good data that shows a link between dietary cholesterol and blood serum cholesterol, let alone between dietary cholesterol and mortality.
Honestly, if plant-eaters took a fraction of the time they take replicating meats and just spent it making tastier vegetables I think we'd all have different diets by now.
This goes beyond the general case for GMO (where wild growth is generally crippled) and involves actively modifying the wider environment. This is a serious problem.
So it sold out at Whole Foods, and it's GMO. LMAO.
That's the only motivation I fear will change people.
Maybe it will be like gasoline and it will double in price giving electric a chance to become more robust and popular/adopted.
GMO is OK now?
Oh and incidentally, could it be developed into a medical blood replacement?
For some, there's enough motivation to do it; for others, the inconvenience of changing habits and their emotional attachment to certain foods are greater than their desire to reduce animal suffering and environmental degradation.
I hope that plant meats become so close to animal meat that the complete experience can be replicated, except for the slaughtering. I know some people like the slaughtering part, but that's a small minority.
- Beef. This was terrible. Texture was best described as processed mush. Nothing like beef, even the processed type. The taste was worse. it was for some reason sweet. Didn't feel like I was eating beef at all. You'd fool no one with this. The appearance was convincing, but thats all the praise I had for it.
- Chicken: Actually pretty good. Friend was convinced it was real. It did taste pretty good, actually a little milder than 'real' chicken and without the sometimes unpleasant strong chicken-y taste (my opinion, im referring to the slight offputting taste that old/non-fresh chicken sometimes has). So i could definitely see the utility in this. It still didn't feel indinstinguishable, if you were paying attention I think you can tell the difference. Arbitrarily i'd give it a 90% there.
I havent seen the brands other posters discussed in my supermarket (Australia here). I wonder if meat substitutes are more of an American thing?
A point I wanted to bring up was safety. The experimental nature of these substitutes leaves me feeling a bit uneasy. The primary reason I never went back to the above discussed food outlet despite liking their fake-chicken was because I am unsure what is really inside it. Yes I know its vegetable based. My guess is soy protein? But how do I know that it's safe, for example too much soy milk has been shown to have increased estrogen like hormone and potentially a risk factor for cancers in females, and altered hormonal profile in males. Ideally I'd like to eat something that's been tested and through a strict approval process (treated like a pharmaceutical would get my confidence) to make sure I'm not shooting myself in the foot later. Yes I'm aware the verdict currently out on red meat isn't great either. But between chosing the devil I know vs the devil I don't know, i'd rather know what I'm getting myself into. Interested to hear what others think about this. I admit I'm not as knowledgeable with the regulatory processes for these things. I inherently dont trust companies on face value (they have too much conflict of interest, see tobacco companies or even meat companies for example). I've kept myself basically informed via documentaries, but so far it feels like we're all in an experimental phase.
So I totally believe you. As I said, I spent a long time as a meat eater and enjoyed the taste/texture, I haven't gone full vegan despite my ethical beliefs, and I spend money on luxuries while people suffer. I'm in no place to judge other people for their choices.
I won't comment on "ethically hunting" except to say that's ethical relative to some options, not objectively ethical, but that's a discussion for later.
As for not wanting a substitute - that's fine. But there are a few groups that do:
* Those of us that don't want to kill things, but still like the taste/texture (as you can see from other comments, being vegetarian doesn't mean you hated meat, nor does it mean you loved it and miss it. All kinds exist.).
* Those that want cheaper, healthier food. As an example, the US produces a vast amount of corn, and in fact covers 35% of the global corn demand...and corn for human consumption is a tiny, tiny sliver of that corn usage. Most goes to feed animals. A lot of calories go into feeding those animals, so that they can be killed and eaten. If we convert some portion of that process into feeding people instead of animals, we've just made food (calories) cheaper. (And currently, the cheapest food is often empty calorie - ironically corn syrup factors in to that). Presumably we'd want that food to be considered tasty to people, be that by simply making vegetables cheaper, or making meat alternatives tastier.
* Those that want to reduce the impact on the world by domesticated animals raised for food. Methane is one output, but lots of sewage is another, just as an example. (Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/1338/ )
If the above doesn't cover 100% of people, that's hardly a surprise. But the above is certainly greater than 0%. If you can point out what part of my message offended you, I'll see what I can do to correct it.
Hate meat.
Keep trying to replicate it.
Seems like a bit of a mental disconnect there.
Me?
I'm an omnivore.
If they can't, it's just another over-processed frankenfood greasing the slicks to a diabetic future.
And there's plenty of evidence that this is a bad thing.
There are a lot of pretty sugary fruits, even after you account for fiber.
Fruits and vegetables will take you far. If it doesn't taste good to you, put some salt on it.
That's the definition of 'excessive', yes.
Lots of people replying, no one answering my question.
It's a tautology and you're trying to remove your question from the context of the reality in which the statement was made.
I don't have the studies handy, and you can find studies that say either way.
I think it was on here I read an article by a doctor who's general rule was keep your food as unprocessed as possible.
I agree on the carbohydrate thing (longtime keto-er), but the importance of these innovations is impossible to overstate.
Do you really believe our body's are going to process 'fake meat' as 'real meat'? I am highly skeptical of that aspect as well. Furthermore, you have taken the very natural element of food out of the picture by growing meat in a lab, this is a very primal element that technology has forgotten.
Plus food is not complicated. Humans have made it complicated over the last 50-60 years. Food has been a basic necessity of life, yet most struggle with every aspect related to food, from acquiring it to cooking it.
Don't get me wrong I see this type of innovation has being very important to long-term space travel or planet colonization but for everyday human consumption I view this as a waste of time and energy.
Further more, if you think "fixing livestock farming practices" is easy, then you're missing the big picture issue where billions of people demand meat on their plate every day for little cost. The environmental cost of the meat industry is not on your average meat eater's mind. Is it on your mind? Doesn't sound like it if you say things like "hey just fix it hmmkay cos I loves my meat".
Personally, I buy a half of cow from a local farmer every year. The cow is raised in open fields that I have visited and feed an all grass diet. It comes out to $6.99 per pound.
Honestly, I don't do this to better then environment, that doesn't cross my mind in the least and probably never well, I do this because it provides better tasting meat and a better quality of life for the cow until the day of the slaughter house.
Meat is necessary to live a strong healthy life. Meat comes from an animal. Killing is necessary to eat meat. You can keep this processed food.