Hacker News Reader

As a vegetarian and former meat eater, I've had an "impossible taco" a couple of times. I don't want or crave meat, but they tasted very good. However, the texture totally weirded me out and both times I checked more than once to make sure they didn't accidentally serve me meat. I would wager a meat eater wouldn't know the difference if they were accidentally served these vegetarian tacos instead of beef.

In a fast food environment, as a vegetarian, I don’t think I would order this unless there was an easy way for me to verify which burger I was eating.

Also as a vegetarian, there is a clear difference in the earlier veggie patties that Burger King served—Morning Star possibly, not these—and that of a regular whopper meat patty.

I still would. It still signals to the restaurant that I want the non-meat option. If they slip up, oh well, and at that point it would be more wasteful for me to throw the "real" burger out.

I eat meat and occasionally eat impossible burgers to reduce my meat consumption, and you can definitely tell. Just not as good.

Another vegetarian here who cannot tell the difference. I guess not having had meat in a few years helps make the effect realistic.

Yeah, the place in Brixton that sells these has made a big deal every time I've eaten there about how hey, this doesn't have meat in it, and I'm like "I know, believe me, if you made burgers with meat that were like this I would never eat here again". It's passable, but it is not good. Like you I'm conscious of the need to consume less meat, and these burgers are a step, but let's hope this isn't the destination. They've taken the "veggie burger" from "actually I've changed my mind, I'm not hungry after all" to reluctant acceptance.

For me I wouldn't say they're as good as the burgers I would normally have on rare occasion but the ones I've had were better than the sort of burger I'd expect to get at Burger King, where they're being introduced.

As a heathen who likes to have things like jalapenos on my burger I think I'm quicker to embrace it than I would be if I liked my burgers straight.

Have you had the new 2.0 version? Reviews say it's much better. They're still rolling it out to retailers.

Unsure. Last time had one was a few weeks ago. So maybe?

>I would wager a meat eater wouldn't know the difference

If this is true the processed food industry would no longer use real meat if the fake meat is cheaper.

At the moment the "fake meat" is much more expensive. But the price will come down as economies of scale kick in.

Incidentally, as a meat eater I'd stop eating it tomorrow if this was the case (bring on the healthy and eco-friendly bacon, sausages and steak!).

Substitutes like Quorn mince in a chili are already more than acceptable to me.

I ordered an Impossible burger without knowing about the brand, I thought it was just what the restaurant called it. I never suspected a thing until I later read somewhere about the brand Impossible. So, in my case, you're right.

Vegns often fail to understand how important texture is to meat eaters when it comes to replicating a meat product so that it will appeal to meat eaters.

Additionally, a lot of vegns are also extremely health conscious, and so they tend to avoid a lot of unnecessary fat in their diet. A lot of chefs will say "fat is flavor," which is true, but what's also true is that fat conveys flavor. It sticks to surfaces in places that water doesn't and allows flavors to linger.

It's why the Impossible and Beyond Burgers are succeeding: they haven't lost sight of what makes a burger, a burger.

(off topic) Is there any reason you seem to have replaced the a in vegan with an asterisk? It happened twice so I am guessing it was not a typo? I am just curious? Is it like x86 or something?

The term seems to include both "vegetarian" and "vegan".

This guy gets it.

* is the wild card character so veg*n "matches" both "vegan" and "vegetarian." It's a short-hand way to say "vegetarian and/or vegan."

It's not very obvious that it's supposed to stand for more than one letter. Is it less confusing to do this way than to say "vegetarian" since that includes vegans?

Have you met any Vegans? There is no way they'd accept being lumped into a larger 'Vegetarian' demographic. One thing about Vegans is, is that they are not shy about telling you what they are.

That's an old stereotype that is certainly not true for the vegans I know - which are pretty many by now, most of whom have gone vegan in the past few years.

There's still a lot of toxicity in the vegan community. Just yesterday I read an article about how a vegan started eating meat and fish. The vegan community found out and started bullying her for it. [0]

[0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/vegan-youtube-is-imploding-as-...

She was making all her money off videos about being a vegan. She deserved plenty of fish emojis for the deception. It wasn't about a diet change.

That might be true for a specific community of vegans that explicitly seek each other out (see sibling comment), but that's hardly relevant for considering whether to group them together with vegetarians when a comment applies to both of them on HN.

That's backlash against a fake youtube shill, not specifically about someone giving up a vegan diet.

Same reaction would occur for any vocal activist caught doing the antithesis of what they preach.

Most vegans will say "do whatever you have to do to live" and want a reduction in the consumption of animal products and harm of animals wherever possible. They will, for example, take vaccinations and medical treatments that have been derived from animal products if there are no alternatives.

So, if a person has honestly tried everything and they absolutely need to eat some meat and fish to be healthy, then most won't have an issue with it. There will always be crazy internet kooks though.

This is just a made up stereotype. They only place you see this trend is in angsty teens or Reddit users who tend to be vocally hormonal about anything.

I have met far more people who tell me cliches about vegans than I have vegans who tell me they're vegan.

Vegetarian does not include vegan. The set of things vegans don't eat is strictly larger than the set of things vegetatians don't eat.

The restrictions are a strict superset, so the group members are a strict subset.

I thought it was. If it was just one letter it'd be veg?n or something. :)

While it's true that vegans are also vegetarians going strictly by dictionary definitions, without any other qualifier the term "vegetarian" is usually is taken to mean lacto-ovo vegetarian, at least in some circles.

Whether it's confusing or not or obvious or not, it was an extremely common term in the online vegetarian community I used to participate in around 15 years ago. Not trying to make a judgement on the term, just informing.

"Hackers" have their own version - *nix.

It's a good start, but it's so, so oily, even compared to a meat burger - and the oil seeps out all over the place. It's such a mess that I eat them with a fork.

I'd rather eat something like a black bean burger, but I also eat meat so I'm not looking for my vegetable burgers replicate the experience.

Yeah I agree, it's good but it's very clearly not a burger. I'm also not vegetarian, just eat meat only once a week or so.

(But then maybe I'd say the same thing about burger Kings beef burgers too haha)

IMO it all comes down to the place that cooks it. I've had oily ones and I've had ones that were very meat like.

This is actually making it sound even more appealing to me. You can't beat a good greasy burger after a night out!

It definitely depends on how it’s cooked. I’ve had quite a few of these and certain places tend to make them oily. I’ve found that to be the case when ordering a Beyond Meat patty as well from Carl’s Jr./Hardys even though they aren’t nearly as oily when I make them myself.

Addon: This youtube video posted by Burger King of "expletive-filled double-takes from actual diners informed that the Whoppers they just ate were made of plants..."

https://youtu.be/N9FED3jkNTo

... was linked from this Politico piece: "Inside the Race to Build the Burger of the Future."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/01/meat-poli...

Isn't it illegal to sell people food that doesn't contain what is advertised?

Presumably the video is either faked or (more charitably) the customers were asked if they would like to try this new recipe. No lying going on in that last case.

Certainly viewed like it was made for /r/hailcorporate, complete with authentic f bombs and all.

It's an Impossible Burger, and left undersaid is that it's a fast-food burger. It's not an Impossible Steak or an Impossible Grill Burger. I just don't see the point, vs a high-protein high-fat patty made of bean or soy protein isolate that tastes good in it own non-fake-fast-good-meat-burger way. The only reason I am tempted to buy meat patties is that they are so much cheaper than Boca patties. An even-more-expensive patty that adds red liquid to simulate the look of heme is moving in the wrong direction.

I ate lunch at a Founding Farmers (https://www.wearefoundingfarmers.com/about/story/) and we ordered a regular burger and an Impossible burger for the table. Everyone was not only surprised at how good the Impossible burger was, the majority actually preferred it.

I highly agree, it somehow just cooks better though and doesn't burn that easily.

I disagree. Momofuku Nishi in New York sometimes (weekend brunch only, I believe; the rest of the time it's a boring fast food version) serves a high-end version of the Impossible Burger for lunch, and it's decidely not a fast-food burger. It's the best veggie burger I've had the pleasure of eating.

> It's an Impossible Burger, and left undersaid is that it's a fast-food burger.

Since it's right up front in the headline that it's Burger King,I don't think the fast food part is “undersaid”.

> I just don't see the point, vs a high-protein high-fat patty made of bean or soy protein isolate that tastes good in it own non-fake-fast-good-meat-burger way.

If you don't see the point of fast food, you can, I hope, at least see that lots of people do.

And since there are people going off meat for environmental or ethical reasons, providing them an open which is both attractive in taste to their current palette and fitting with their existing lifestyle but for the change they are deliberately making seems to have obvious value.

Like you point out, it's maddening people are missing this all over. This isn't for vegetarians to eat something like meat again, it's for meat eaters to carry on not giving a shit about what they eat.

And it can't be cheaper than a real meat burger, because consumers will kill its adoption by calling it the "cheap" product. Regardless of merit or quality.

No it wouldn't kill the adoption. It would become practically mandatory for processed food and the only way to eat real meat would then be to buy it and prepare it yourself.

Which would be a good thing? Fast / processed food is pretty much the main market for low welfare factory farmed meat.

There have been studies on how people choose food, and there are two factors that dominate: taste and cost. If it's cheaper and tastes good, it wins.

(Source: the recent book Clean Meat.)

If I have to pay $2 more for a fake burger, I'm basically never going to buy it.

I've had an impossible burger 1.0 and felt it was basically like a crappy but passable burger.

Waiting for the 2.0 one to hit places near me. Which version are you talking about?

I don't know. I ordered them at Bareburgers in Westchester, NY in the past year: https://www.bareburger.com

2.0 version was introduced at CES in January of this year.

If it was before January it was the 1.0 version, if it was after January it might have been either.

The 2.0 version is available at some restaurants in SF. I haven’t got to try it yet but was told about it.

I have found the 2.0 versions of both Impossible Burger and Beyond Meat burgers to be a decent improvement over their original versions.

Is the 2.0 version labeled as such? Or as "new and improved" ?

> If someone told me that the world would end tomorrow, I would go out and eat a proper cheeseburger.

Let me do you a favor: The world is going to end tomorrow!

I also had an Impossible Burger at a Pittsburgh chain Burgatory [1], I was extremely impressed and wouldn't noticed it was a veggie burger if I hadn't ordered it. [1] https://burgatorybar.com/

I had the Impossible Burger in a few places.

About six months ago I had it in a vegan place near Cape Canaveral, and I was in disbelief it wasn't a meat burger. I asked the waiter twice.

It's been 15+ years since I last ate meat (and even more, red meat), and I hate the taste.

For anyone vegan or vegetarian who hates the taste of meat and is afraid to try it, I recommend giving a try even though it's supposed to taste like meat as it might feel different. I believe the preparation makes it very different because all other times (10+?) I had it (both 1.0 and 2.0), I enjoyed (specially at Umami Burger in Anaheim). The only reason I haven't had it more is that I don't live in the U.S., and I prefer the Portobello mushroom patty at Umami.

Interesting. I really like the Beyond Burger (and their sausage) but the one time I had the Impossible Burger, it tasted like a pretty generic veggie burger. Maybe the restaurant ran out and substituted.

Yeah I tried the Impossible 1.0 a few weeks ago in Hong Kong, and the Beyond a few days ago in Melbourne and found the Beyond much nicer. With that said, there is a lot more to burgers than just the patties so it could just be differences between restaurants.

I honestly think if the Beyond wasn't more expensive than a normal patty, I would probably order it all the time (and I am very much a meat eater)

I'm keen to try the Impossible 2.0 and the Beyond sausages.

This is awesome that you have managed to stay vegetarian for 10 years. I have heard the term Pescatarian before but didn't quiet understand it. Is that when you eat fish + veggies?

Essentially, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pescetarianism

This is great news. I’m looking forward to trying it out. Thanks for your review.

what's your motivation for eating fish/vegetarian? it sounds like you really want meat and your current situation is a kind of sacrifice?

I became a vegetarian for ethical reasons; I trust it's not hard to imagine or look up what those reasons are. At the time, I felt strongly about this. Over the years, I discovered I felt less strongly about it, but it was a deeply ingrained habit by that point. I also discovered that even though I no longer carried a deep moral imperative to not eat meat, I still carried a deep personal connection to the person I was when I did carry that imperative.

I eventually decided I didn't care about fish that much - but I decided that I would eventually eat fish again years before I finally did. Yes, it's a compromise of my original ethical judgement, but it's one I can live with.

I stay pesca for ease of diet. Even in nowhere, US you can walk into a diner and get a fish sandwich.

"how often are you in nowhere, US?"

and that's about how often I eat fish. To me it's just a less bad choice, which in my brain is still a net positive gain on the meal.

The irony is that most people have given up on Burger King because of the poor dietary selection. In the breakfast menu, there is almost nothing to eat that is not high cholesterol and/or fattening. If Burger King manages to leverage this new item effectively, they could assist in saving the lives of the same people that they are helping to make piss poor life choices with.

> The irony is that most people have given up on Burger King because of the poor dietary selection.

[citation needed]

It's quite clear the OP is speaking in an anecdotal manner.

The use of [citation needed] is one of the most infuriating, passive-aggressive internet trends perpetrated by people who clearly don't understand the point of citations [1].

[1] citation not required

> It's quite clear the OP is speaking in an anecdotal manner.

No, it wasn't; OP made a universal claim (“most people” not “most people I know”), and a claim of irony which makes more sense with a real geerality.

I actually assumed (and, in fact, still assume despite your interjection) that the not_a_pizza had some basis for making that general claim, and merely omitted it, perhaps because they assumed others were familiar with it.

I agree, but there are less snarky ways to say that.

The impossible burger isn't really noticably healthier than a beef burger. It still has roughly the same calories, saturated fats and so on.

Anectodally, it does make you feel slightly less bloated, though.

Why don't you think that fish is meat?

It is, if you define it that way. If my text bothers you because I did not consider fish to be meat, then just replace "meat" with "beef."

I feel there's a different way to ask this question and potentially get a better answer.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this question. What's a better way to ask?

The OP never said fish wasnt meat, so it seems like it could be jab. I can't tell if it was, and I have no real stake in the argument, but when I read the question I felt it could be a bit too open to be interpreted as hostile.

This question could be posed better, but it does deserve an answer. "Meat" does not have a precise biological meaning; its meaning is largely cultural. Some people distinguish "red meat" and "white meat"; others understand meat as separate from poultry, and seafood (is fish seafood? same story). In fact, in some languages the word for "meat" is more specific to mammal meat - e.g. french, "viande" vs "volaille" - in others less so: in Japanese, 魚 (fish) is definitely not 肉 (meat) but you eat 牛肉 (cow-meat) and 鳥肉 (bird-meat).

The vocabulary of cooking is full of these sort of things (legumes/vegetables/fruits/...is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? is a potato a vegetable?)

Aha, thank you for the etymological details!

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Why was this posted? I don't think there's anything wrong with this question.

Because it's a classic flamewar topic which leads away from the specifics of this story and towards generic hostilities; and because taking a stronger interpretation of the comment would have made the question unnecessary—i.e. scott_s is probably just as aware as the rest of us that fish are animals and their flesh is in that sense meat, and therefore he was probably just not using the word 'meat' in that sense.

scott_s replied in an evenhanded way, but many (maybe most) commenters in his position would have taken the question as hostile and responded in kind.

How could I better ask the question? I'm genuinely confused since they poster talks about not eating "meat" but eats fish, which culturally for me (Buddhist and Hindu) are non-veg

I don't think the poster ever actually said that fish isn't meat, and I guess a lot of people are interpreting your question as a hostile challenge of the idea of pescatarianism (along the lines of "Why don't you think that cheeseburgers are murder?").

If you are struggling to understand pescatarianism as an idea, my perspective is that flexitarianism, pescatarianism, vegetarianism, and flexiveganism are all compromise diets that get some but not all environmental and ethical benefits of veganism. Different people have different levels of commitment and make different tradeoffs in their life choices. Whether that's "the only meat I eat is fish" or "I eat fish but not meat" is just a matter of definitions.

In terms of the English word "meat", there is certainly some ambiguity. At least as I know the term, it feels like a stretch (but maybe technically correct) to count fish as meat. I've had people suggest sushi when I say that I'm vegetarian, unaware that vegetarians don't eat fish. If you google for the Food Pyramid, most diagrams call out meat and fish as different things. "Vegetarian" almost always doesn't allow fish, but "meat" just isn't a very precise word.

Just adding the information contained in your second sentence here would have been enough to ask the question better. This kind of point is one that people typically get very hostile about, very quickly, in internet discussions, so if you're going to go there, you need to differentiate your comment from flamebait.

Also, scott_s's original comment didn't say that fish isn't meat, or even imply that. In English the word "meat" didn't traditionally include fish, and that usage is more than enough to cover what he probably meant. Taking the strongest plausible interpretation, as the guidelines request, makes the question unnecessary.

You're getting downvoted, but I don't think everyone realizes this can be a genuine point of confusion.

"Meat", like many words, has multiple senses. One of them is the flesh of any animal. Another is the flesh of a mammal, which would exclude fish (and probably poultry).

The second definition isn't used as often, but you will find it many dictionaries, and some people do use the word in that way and treat meat / poultry / fish as disjoint sets. For example, the classic book "Joy of Cooking" has chapters titled "Shellfish", "Fish", "Poultry and Wildfowl", "Meat" (pork, beef, lamb), and "Game". (Actually, I guess "Joy of Cooking" is being even more specific and taking "meat" to mean domesticated mammal flesh, because there are some mammals in the "Game" chapter.)

I don't know if they edited their comment or not, but it doesn't say anything like that.

Not speaking for the OP, but Catholics don’t consider fish or seafood to be meat from a religious perspective when practicing abstinence every Friday (and Ash Wednesday) during Lent.

If you really like cheeseburgers that much how about just eating fewer? :)

Does it have to be an all or nothing experience?

If you are vego for ethical reasons then yes, every time its bad.

Every time you press the accelerator pedal on your car you are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. Every time is bad.

That does not mean that we stop driving. We drive less.

That's not fundamentally ethical at scale, it's a systems problem. "Do the least damage" is the interim fix while the industry decarbonizes.

Not eating cute critters is fundamentally ethical.

These kinds of comparisons just don’t work and they come off as being an odd sort of defensive reply. Not to mention it’s a false equivalence. In the end though it’s a personal choice that really doesn’t need to be criticized, whether it is based on preference or ethical beliefs.

If you consider it wrong to torture and kill animals for your pleasure, as many vegans and vegetarians do, then it's unlikely that you think that occasionally torturing and killing animals, and eating their dead bodies, is either moral or appetising.

If it's been 18 years since you had a burger, I'm not sure you're the expert on what's closest to meat.

You have to consider the set of alternative available to the person.

If you're considering people who do eat meat, and want something that is close-enough to meat as a substitute, then yes, I am not a good judge of that. But if you're considering people who do not eat meat, and want something that's as close as they can get of things that are not meat, then I think I am an expert since over the past 18 years I have had many different varieties of that thing.

Why is this getting downvoted?

Vegans are an opinionated bunch.