Can protein startups and their investors take on Big Cow?
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
On another note, Beyond Meat's founder was featured on "How I Built This", a favorite podcast for many HN'ers.
edit: a link to a news article from a year ago. http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2016/09/23/report-alleges-...
That's going to be the good stuff. Further downscale are the processed soy products. These are Soy Extender 2.0; textured vegetable protein processed to make it taste more like meat. You can buy soy hamburger patties now, under the Beyond Meat brand. Whole Foods carries them. Anyone tried one?
http://beyondmeat.com/products/view/beyond-burger
Apparently the protein is mostly peas.
I think one of the simplest solutions would be to have a different line of products under a different brand name which had a mixture of plant based meat alternative (i.e. Boca or Impossible Burger) to actual meat in the burger. That way you get the taste of meat but the substrate is fiber based.
The level of actual meat could be adjusted like they do fat content for ground beef (i.e. I'm feeling sorta vegan today so I'm gonna go 75% plant based today).
The one thing I never understood is American vegetarian restaurants who serve tofu steaks as the entire dish. This looks awful:
http://www.pbs.org/food/fresh-tastes/asian-baked-tofu/
Asian people always eat tofu blended in with a bunch of meat and vegetables for the actual flavor. Here are some examples:
If the goal is to be healthier, why not just go with the highest quality beef you can find, but eat it less often? A quality steak once a week sure must be healthier than a heavily processed veggie burger every day (tho i have no data to prove it).
Not saying humans aren't causing tons of ground level pollution, which we totally are and that's indisputable. Just don't confuse it with global warming.
"No proof that any" is just flat out wrong... on the level of "there's no proof that 1 + 1 always equals two".
A hypothesis must be falsifiable for it to be valid in the first place, and saying "the Sun did it" is a valid way to falsify the hypothesis; thus you now must also prove the Sun is not affecting climate change to the degree that we have measured.
No one has been able to prove this, and all evidence collected by NASA seems to indicate that the Sun is by far the largest driver of climate fluctuations on Earth, even during the modern age, not humans.
Those same scientists produced the data that made this possible. The same predictions they've been making since the 70s, the same ones Al Gore et al. built a financial empire on... did not come true, and are woefully wrong.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Kpr6U8FBQEM/UPRuAB8NUbI/AAAAAAAABy...
Pay attention to both scales. Did humans have greater climate change ability than we have now, in the past, but then suddenly stopped? Notice the range labeled "mini ice age" covers a time period during an extended period of abnormally low solar activity (with the Spörer and Maunder minimums happening during this period).
Edit: Also, sorry, I couldn't find better URLs for these images, Google isn't cooperating today.
On a more personal note, if a scientific consensus is not it, what kind of information would be able to convince you that man made global warming is real?
And now you crack out another absolute "all evidence collected by NASA" which is also just plain wrong. First NASA isn't the only group studying climate change, nor is it their primary mission. So whether or not NASA has or has not found evidence that the Sun is the largest driver is immaterial.
And again a simple Google search shows you are utterly wrong in regards the Sun being the primary driver.
Just go away.
But calling these companies Big Cow just sounds utterly ridiculous. It just doesn't work at all.
But, yeah, I'm over the Big $company monikers.