Hacker News Reader

Comment by dashundchen | Hacker News Reader

Agree that it's not as healthy as eating less processed plant based foods, however I don't think anyone is going to Burger King or White Castle expecting that.

But are these plant burgers actually claiming or marketing themselves as healthy?

The only places I have seen them served are in restaurants and bars alongside burgers and unhealthy bar food - which I think you might be surprised is a big chunk of many people's diets. I have many coworkers who eat next to no vegetables.

I am hoping they can provide a spring board into more traditional plant based foods for people, including the Med and Indian cuisines you mention.

View on HN

>But are these plant burgers actually claiming or marketing themselves as healthy?

Yes. A snippet from the top paragraph of Beyond Meat's Product Page:

"Imagine your favorite meaty dishes[...]while being better for you [...]"[1]

[1]https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/

Edit: Beyond Meat is not claiming they are healthy, just that they are healthier.

Edit 2: Looking farther, they also state that they are "IMPROVING HUMAN HEALTH" on their about page. This would likely still fall under that they claim they are "healthier" rather than healthy, though.

>> But are these plant burgers actually claiming or marketing themselves as healthy?

> Yes.

That's not how I read that at all, look at your own quote again.

> "Imagine your favorite meaty dishes[...]while being better for you [...]"[1]"

Evaluate the context -- they're not claiming that a Beyond Burger is better for you than unprocessed vegetables. They're saying it's better for you than the other places you get "your favorite meaty dishes like burgers and tacos".

Healthy > Unhealthy: Unprocessed vegetables > Processed vegetable burgers > Processed animal burgers

They are not marketing themselves as "healthy" (what does that even mean?) -- they're marketing them self as better than animal.

>they're not claiming that a Beyond Burger is better for you than unprocessed vegetables

I'm not claiming that they said that either?

They claim they are better (read: healthier) than the products they are trying to replace (read: meat).

>they're marketing them self as better than animal

So... healthier than animals?

I understand there's some semantic ambiguity, but come on.

Given GP's statement about "not as healthy as eating less processed plant based foods", your reply of "yes" to the question of whether their marketing copy is selling them on "healthy", there was some confusion on my part. If that wasn't your intention then that's my bad.

I did answer the quoted part in isolation, so I understand the ambiguity and probably could have done more to make myself clear.

For what its worth, I have nothing against Beyond Meat or their mission.

Healthier is not the same as healthy. Better for you is not the same as good for you.

Eating a burger with less cheese is better for you and healthier, all other things equal, but very well may still not be good for you or a healthy choice overall compared to some other food entirely.

In the end, if the faux-burger is healthier for you than the real one, it's a net positive to switch to it if you eat the same amount. There are plenty of things that can be said about psychological effects, and causing people to eat more, but I think the most important thing I think to say about those aspects at this point is "we don't know, so it's not appropriate to apply too much weight to those considerations."

Thank you for explaining the intricacies of -y vs. -ier.

I will go back and add ier to my comment.

Just a question though, would their claim of "IMPROVING HUMAN HEALTH" fall under -ier or -y?

https://www.beyondmeat.com/about/

Improving is definitely -ier. -y denotes a state, -ier denotes movement towards that state, but not necessarily being in that state. Improving implies movement.

Some might view the -ier style statements as weasely or waffling, but it's also the most responsible way to describe most foods in my opinion, as there's often just a matter os scale that tips something from healthy to not (or outright dangerous, even). An orange is a healthy snack if you can make use of the vitamin C and don't already have an overabundance of sugar. If you don't need vitamin C or already consume a lot of sugar, there are probably better sources of vitamin C and an orange might not really be a healthy choice.

Consumption of red meat has been consistently linked to cancer, specifically of the gastrointestinal tract. The ingredients in Beyond Burgers and Impossible Burgers have not.

In the short term, I consider them healthier because of that, but I certainly don't think that processed foods are healthy in the long term, regardless of whether or not they contain animal products.

Source: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/link-red-meat-cancer-need...

Are you sure you understand your source?

Is a real burger more processed than a Beyond Burger, what I call a 'Pea-Protein Patty'?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com