Whole Foods CEO on plant-based meat: good for the environment, not for health
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
But he's literally comparing a veggie burger to a salad, not what it's replacing: ground up cow meat that's reassembled in a factory. You won't find everything in ground beef listed on a label.
Fake burgers are a transition and off-ramp for people looking to eat less meat. Not people living a purist lifestyle like the Whole Foods CEO.
Beyond Meat/Impossible serve as nice punching bag for people denying the impact of the beef trade has on the environment and this article is catnip for them.
Comparing a Beef patty to a Beyond Meat patty shows roughly comparable macro nutritional values. [1],[2]
Beyond Meat "wins" in that it does not have any cholesterol, and no trans fats. But each has comparable calories, and fat levels. (Though it should be noted that Beyond Meat is most likely much better for the environment oz for oz).
The issue that the Whole Foods CEO is taking is that Beyond Meat is marketed as a healthy alternative to meat. It is only marginally more healthy at best. Replace a cheese burger with Beyond Meat and you still have something that is unhealthy.
I'd liken this to the same diet fad marketing that vegetarian food was healthier. This lead to Americans believing they were being healthy while over consuming pastas and other processed grains simply because they omitted the meat.
1: https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/the-beyond-burger/
2: https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/ground-bee...
"Water, Pea Protein Isolate*, Expeller-Pressed Canola Oil, Refined Coconut Oil, Rice Protein, Natural Flavors, Cocoa Butter, Mung Bean Protein, Methylcellulose, Potato Starch, Apple Extract, Salt, Potassium Chloride, Vinegar, Lemon Juice Concentrate, Sunflower Lecithin, Pomegranate Fruit Powder, Beet Juice Extract (for color)"[0]
[0] https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/the-beyond-burger/
Edit: I am aware you can buy processed burgers/meat. But you can also buy/make burgers from meat that is not processed. I am not aware of a process to make meat free burgers/meat without processing and a ~dozen ingredients
To simplify the discussion though, I focused on the nutritional values, which seem very similar to beef.
https://nutritionfacts.org/2014/02/27/trans-fat-in-animal-fa...
Vegetarian food is healthier, and reduces all cause mortality. Here's one of many studies that say so:
And you would expect people who eat a vegetarian diet to be more healthy on average. They're likely more affluent, educated and aren't drinking, smoking or eating junk food as much as the general population.
I don't have access to the article, so I'm not sure what they define as a plant-based diet, but Harvard defines them as a diet focused mostly on plants, not one that omits meat (vegetarian) and/or animal products completely (Vegan).
I wouldn't argue a diet based around plants is more healthy than one that is not, but I wouldn't generalize and say vegetarian (read: no meat) is more healthy than one that does involve meat.
> How is "marginally more healthy _at_ best" defined?
Just comparing the nutritional values between 4oz of beef vs 4oz of Beyond Meat.
Studies done in the USA can have very disparate conclusions because questionnaire studies are terrible w.r.t. diet "in your study, "The ARIC study did not assess whether participants were following a plant‐based diet.", the average person eats insanely unhealthy (> 70% overweight) and the average american's idea of meat is basically fried bread with condiment levels of meat. It's further confounded because vegetarians are usually higher SES or conscientious about what they're eating in the first place.
So you would expect to find studies disputing this and also studies that find the health effects of vegetarian diets are not unique. And you do:
(2012) Vegetarian diets, low-meat diets and health: a review. Public Health Nutr 15: 2287–2294. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22717188
> CONCLUSIONS: The health benefits of vegetarian diets are not unique. Prudent plant-based dietary patterns which also allow small intakes of red meat, fish and dairy products have demonstrated significant improvements in health status as well. At this time an optimal dietary intake for health status is unknown. Plant-based diets contain a host of food and nutrients known to have independent health benefits. While vegetarian diets have not shown any adverse effects on health, restrictive and monotonous vegetarian diets may result in nutrient deficiencies with deleterious effects on health. For this reason, appropriate advice is important to ensure a vegetarian diet is nutritionally adequate especially for vulnerable groups.
2017 study shows "no evidence that following a vegetarian diet, semi-vegetarian diet or a pesco-vegetarian diet has an independent protective effect on all-cause mortality": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28040519/
An Austrian study suggests vegetarians are less healthy and have a lower quality of life, and higher rates of mental illness: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/jo...
In Australia, which I think has one of the highest meat intakes in the world, "We found no evidence that following a vegetarian diet, semi-vegetarian diet or a pesco-vegetarian diet has an independent protective effect on all-cause mortality."
Objectively, nicorette is unhealthy, but doctors will recommend it all day if it helps you quit smoking.
https://blog.dana-farber.org/insight/2018/07/nicotine-cause-...
Reminder that a low-grade stimulant like caffeine is considered to have deleterious effects.
Recent studies have shown that nicotine can affect several important steps in the development of cancer
>At present, it is not possible to draw a conclusion whether nicotine itself may act as a complete carcinogen
If you're going to quote it, include the bits that don't agree with you as well. The paper basically says "it may affect the role of other cancer causing agents, but we're not sure yet. We cannot say that nicotine is, in and of itself, a carcinogen"
Also reach back in time 30 minutes and remember that you claimed nicotine is, by itself, a "well known carcinogen", which is false.
But they point out 372 million people not eating meat is the same as 12 million cars off the road for 1 year! Where do they get these garbage numbers?
This is similar to the argument for vaping vs. smoking, and just yesterday there was report, and have been in the past, about the harm caused by the other chemicals in vaping liquid which IMO may make it worse than smoking.
The question is, are we going to find out soon that the additives in these fake meat burgers are worse (or at least equally bad) for health than real meat?
I don't wake up any longer coughing so hard the neighborhood can hear it.
There are 1,300 deaths in the US every day from smoking. Are these in the papers? You know the answer to that.
There has been 1 reported death by the CDC from vaping, and people are losing their minds over it.
We don't even know if it was because of vaping; we know that someone got sick, and they smoked a vaporizer.
This stuff isn't subjective. No one with any amount of credibility attached to their name is making that claim, so what's your basis for it?
Hamburgers aren’t inherently unhealthy (though I’ll concede that in practice they often are). A well-made hamburger contains part protein, vegetables and carbs. It’s a whole meal. A bit too heavy on the carbs maybe, but not extremely so. It can stand on its own with very few additional flavour components, and has the potential of being a more wholesome meal than many others.
The issue, rather, is twofold. First, almost all burgers skimp on the veggies and generally use low-quality ingredients, instead relying on other flavour components (i.e. too much sugar and salt, and often added fat in the form of low-quality cheese and bacon). And secondly, burgers are umami bombs and lead people to overeat, both in terms of quantity (serving size) and frequency.
Most (all?) foods aren't. It's less the quality of ingredients and more the latter you wrote about--the consumption rate relative to their nutritional values that makes the more or less healthy.
Quality of ingredients may lend itself to poor nutritional values, but over-consumption is the bigger problem.
Some foods are just too low in NV to over consume, like say broccoli. Others, are much easier, leading to the moniker of "unhealthy."
Why do people continue to make nutritional arguments using macronutrients as the basis? Macronutrients tell you very little about how healthy something is.
"It's a whole meal" - what does that even mean?
What tells you if something is healthy is the nutritional value - vitamins, minerals, enzymes, antioxidants, phytonutrients etc. Just because something is high in protein or high in carbs or low in fat does not tell you whether it is healthy.
A burger is not unhealthy, but eating only burgers probably is.
Multivitamins are not a replacement for a balanced diet[1], most likely provide very little protective health effects[2] and can, in some cases, be dangerous[3].
> It's the macronutrients that matter when it comes to actual meals
Why? What difference does it make what ratios of macronutrients individual meals are comprised of?
> A burger is not unhealthy, but eating only burgers probably is
That's not saying much at all. You can probably say that about most edible things.
1. https://time.com/5564574/supplements-vitamins-health/
Fat and protein would be the problem. The typical American diet is very high in fat and protein. More carbs (low GI carbs with fiber) would make it healthier. To make a well balanced burger, you'd probably need to eliminate cheese, reduce the size of the patty significantly, use a whole wheat bun, and add plant fiber. You're basically replacing all of the ingredients.
The average American eats significantly less fat, and more carbohydrate now than fifty years ago.
Interesting how this trend appears to track perfectly with the rise of obesity...
This is very interesting data, but it doesn't say what you're implying it says. The condensed version is that people are eating more quantity, which is leading to increased obesity. And that's certainly the biggest factor. Macros are far less important that overall quantity.
I have been training hard for about a year now, trying to get my body into as ideal shape as I can get it. During that time, I've experimented with a wide range of diets, including keto. I was on keto for about 4 months. I was decently well fat adapted by the end of it, but I did not feel healthy. I was also not making progress in my training. I plateaued for for months.
I switched to a "high carb" plant based diet and I haven't looked back since. My performance has skyrocketed, my fitness is building at a mind boggling pace, I sleep better, my skin is clearer, and I just feel healthier.
Just because an athlete at peak performance can utilize carbs effectively does not mean the average person does.
I would argue that a burger with bun included is balanced even for most low-carb diets. It's the addition of fries and a sugary drink that throws it out of balance. I was actually able to lose weight by replacing my routine soda/fries with an additional burger.
And refined sugars and grains.
Source: https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/guide/heart-disease-lowe...
Intake of animal fats linked to 21% higher risk of dying from any cause.
Source: https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/plant-based-fats...
Higher percentage of the amino acid Methionine in the protein portion of meat/dairy/egg vs. plant protein, which promotes cancer and diabetes in adulthood.
Source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-07-diet-cancer-treatment...
The sugar Neu5Gc, found in most mammalian meat. We don't have it, and it seems to increase colon cancer rates.
Source: https://www.sciencealert.com/evolutionary-story-of-red-meat-...
Your studies are mildly interesting but correlations are low and large scale studies of vegetarians do not show any benefit in terms of longevity. The reasonble take away is that, while meat consumption may certainly increase the risk of some things, it also prevents other things.
No, I don't think it's a reasonable takeaway, unless you have something to back that up besides opinion.
That's literally not what he said, though.
The quote from the article is:
>“As for health, I will not endorse that, and that is about as big of criticism that I will do in public.”
Not endorsing something as being healthy as the CEO of a health foods chain and saying something is "not good for health" are two completely different statements.
There are probably insider trading implications holding him back from making absolute promotional statements for a company that he most likely holds stock in.
I agree the Beyond burgers could be "less processed", but IMHO the main health benefit from eating Beyond Meat burgers is because they're "not meat".
That's the main point people seem to be missing.
They're perhaps not as healthy as eating raw nuts and berries for dinner, sure.
But if it's a choice between traditional beef patties and a beyond meat burger of the same size and weight, the beyond meat burger is "healthier" hands down.
Whole Foods CEO: Highly-processed food not good for health.
Highly-processed organic matter is not food.
It’s incredibly easy and tempting to overeat when consuming ultraprocessed foods compared to consuming more traditional foods.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-find...
And animals don't subsist on air. In terms of 'processed', the types of nutrients fed to factory-farmed animals are terrible, including massive amounts of antibiotics. Cows are regularly fed the cheapest carbs available, including Skittles [2]
[1] https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/health/spilled-skittles-road-...
"We’ve been in a gradual warming trend since the ending of the “Little Ice Age” in about 1870, and climate change is perfectly natural and not necessarily bad. In general, most of humanity tends to flourish more when global temperatures are in a warming trend and I believe we will be able to successfully adapt to gradually rising temperatures."
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/whole-foods-...
Eating a cube of lamb is more efficient than eating grass, surely?
Not efficient in terms of environmental resources invested.
How much grass being eaten by the lamb resulted in a pound of lamb? How much water did the lamb consumer per pound of weight?
From the article:
>a plant-based burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 45% less energy, has 99% less impact on water scarcity, and 93% less impact on land use than a ¼ pound of traditional U.S. beef.
yes and no. With the massive increase of meat consumption, there needs to be more livestock, which require more land, even if free ranged (unsure of correct term here, but non-factory industrial methods). This land, in lots of cases requires cutting down forests and the greenhouse gas releases of having such a large amount of livestock
Best estimates show that 70%+ of cows and 98%+ of all other meat in the US comes from factory farms(CAFO's)[1], so to say "it's the large scale factory farming methods" is describing most meat people consume. So in this context, MOST meat IS bad for the environment
> "There are plenty of veggie farms that damage the environment too"
I'm hearing these kind of lazy whataboutism's a lot lately. They are mostly not well thought through, knee-jerk defenses in response to having lifestyle choices/beliefs questioned. Most recently it was "soy beans for vegan products are also causing rainforest destruction" as if it's even slightly comparable to animal agriculture destruction. Do you have any examples or data to back up this statement?
1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iUpRFOPmAE5IO4hO4PyS...
I totally empathize with meat eaters who say, "I could never go vegetarian." That's how I feel about the Whole Food CEO's diet. Fifteen fruits and vegetables every day? Unfathomable!
Those are kept in the fridge, not in the freezer. They are somewhat processed, but surely not as heavily as BM/Impossble.
Seems a nice middle ground. Not as intense as meat / meat imitations, but I'm quite sure they are healthy (given their relative simplicity) and provide sufficient protein.
Have consumed them non-stop over 6 years, and I've kept myself in shape and energetic.
Here are some examples https://www.vegetalia.com/categoria-producto/vegeburgers/
> "a perfect mix of macro-nutrients"
What is this "perfect mix"? who is determining this? Macronutrients say very little about how good a food it for you.
> "Great protein, good source of fat, and tons of nutrients. Hard to beat honestly."
Hamburgers contain trans fat[1], cholesterol[2], Neu5Gc[3], heme iron[4] and other cancer causing compounds from cooking/charring[5]. But yea, it's the bun you need to worry about...
1. https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/plant-based-fats...
2. https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/guide/heart-disease-lowe...
3. https://www.sciencealert.com/evolutionary-story-of-red-meat-...
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261306/
5. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/d...
This is pretty misleading. Animal fat has a very small amount of trans fat. The main source of trans fat is hydrogenated vegetable oil, which was invented to be a cheap, "healthy" alternative to lard and tallow.
> This is pretty misleading. Animal fat has a very small amount of trans fat
I'm sorry, but what was misleading? I didn't say "most trans fat in hamburgers is from animal fat". Pointing out that a main source is probably hydrogenated vegetable oil does not negate the animal fat source or the amount of trans fat overall.
He says:
> “I don’t think eating highly processed foods is healthy. I think people thrive on eating whole foods,” Mackey says. “As for health, I will not endorse that, and that is about as big of criticism that I will do in public.”
https://medium.com/center-for-biological-diversity/does-meat...
> the animals eat that too, which means you eat it
It's not true in general, as some things animals eat get digested into other things and don't exist in the animals anymore. Their components do exists, but we don't consider atoms of meat the meat itself.
Like mercury does in tuna.