On a level playing field, the cost competitiveness is there. For instance, in New Zealand, one of the largest dairy export markets, I can buy a vegan pizza for the same price. In fact, I can buy it from Dominos, a US brand that doesn't even offer it in the US.
Vegan burgers sometimes suffer from this when they lean away from the bean/tex mex route and try and tackle a hamburger. It ends up tasting like the grease is masking all the flavor, and it isn’t pleasant rendered fatty grease like in a burger but vegetable oil and a surprising amount of it. I don’t know if its the way its prepared or what, but imo its a tough prospect trying to ask $15 for a burger that tastes like oil soaked starch, hidden behind the aioli on the bun hoping you don’t notice. Impossible burgers fall into this grease pit area for my pallet, I’ve tried them pretty much anywhere I see them at least once and no matter how they try and hide the patty with the other components it still stands out like a sore thumb to me.
I’ll wait another 5 years and try again. Hopefully more food science development can iron out these kinks.
What's nice about cashew cheese is that it won't make you sick as quickly as a dairy cheese pizza will, which despite it's good taste charged a hefty tax afterward.
(I'm not vegan, I just like to try vegan/vegetarian foods)
In other woods, it's a matter of quality of ingredients and preparation.
Seriously, I don't know what it is about the lasagna form but the best tasting ingredients on earth end up tasting like garbage when assembled into a lasagna. I don't get it...
Pizza, on the other hand, manages to be mostly enjoyable in its many different forms, including cheese-less (had that once at a fancy restaurant).
They are basically opposite foods from each other as far as I'm concerned.
I'm sure I can, but the GGP's recipe sounded particularly good! Ok thanks.
That said, I do agree that cashew is extremely versatile.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/02/c...
See example of oil. There has been too many controversies regarding palm oil and how it destroys orangutan habitat. But now if we shift to olive oil which many people did there was a news of some bird being killed for that?
So the question is can we have 100% vegan? No for sure
But can we try to vegan as much as possible? Yes for sure.
And I will not eat the cashews from those company that are responsible for being horrifically cruel to workers. Same for palm oil and olive oil. We shall try for best.
But are they actually making it? The site looks quite aspirational.
You’re welcome!
0: ignoring the subtleties of gut bacterial ecosystems
As far as veganism goes I think bacteria is where they draw the line right?
Vegans try --when possible-- not to cause pain on others, or reduce it as much as possible. We're against the commodification of animal lives. We (vegans) know that driving a car kills some bugs, and pests are being exterminated in the process of crop production: yet for most of us this is "not possible" to get around, for now.
But for most of us it is possible not to consume animal products, wool, silk, go to zoos or buy pet form breeders.
It is worth making clear, however, that not all vegans share these ethical concerns. Other vegans may have adopted the diet for health reasons (China Study or similar) and do not believe that livestock raising and slaughter is unethical.
What you name are people following a plant based diet. Vegan follow pretty much a plant based diet. But other do as well for other reasons that "the vegan reason".
No, the definition that is "very well agreed upon" is purely the lack of animal products in the food. The logo on supermarket products that denotes the product as "good for vegans" is based purely on that lack of animal products, not on any ethical beliefs beyond that.
Also, even among those who would call themselves vegan for ethical reasons and so do not eat animals or dairy products, there are a considerable amount of people without qualms about using animal products in other spheres of life than food.
You seem to be trying to do gatekeeping about what a "real vegan" is and cut out those who don’t share your purist animal-rights obsession. That is obnoxious.
> (hence veganism setting itself apart from vegetarianism which is only a diet).
Veganism has set itself apart from vegetarianism because in common parlance the latter term covers diets that allow milk products.
That's what you say. I'm a vegan for 7+ years and know many. One thing so great about veganism is that the mission/definition is very clear. Pls see Wikipedia, or one of the many introductions on YT.
> The logo on supermarket products that denotes the product as "good for vegans" is based purely on that lack of animal products, not on any ethical beliefs beyond that.
Supermarkt product dont hold ethical beliefs. They may fit with certain beliefs though. That's what's indicated with "suitable for vegetarians/vegans". They could be more "correct" or cater for a wider public by saying: "fits with a plant based diet".
Plant based is the word for the diet component of veganism.
> there are a considerable amount of people without qualms about using animal products in other spheres of life than food.
They are not vegan according to the definition.
> Veganism has set itself apart from vegetarianism because in common parlance the latter term covers diets that allow milk products.
And eggs. And honey. And the fact that veganism is more than a diet, hence vegans not going to zoos and not buying wool/fur/slik/leather.
It's not the same food as "pizza" in my humble estimation, but it's still very good.
Also, I said it's trivial to make Indian food vegan, not that Indian food is vegan by default. What specific ingredients are irreplaceable in Indian cooking? I've replaced paneer with tofu, kheer (and consequently, most milk-based drinks) is trivially made with oat milk, vegan yoghurt can replace curd in 99% of the dishes (like chaat, raita, etc), vegan butter is indistinguishable from dairy-based butter. Ghee doesn't have a substitute, but it isn't a big deal. Naan has curd in it traditionally, but it's pretty easy to make it without dairy. Since going vegan, I've made virtually all of my favourite Indian dishes and it was no more difficult than the traditional recipes.
South Indian food (where I'm from) is even easier as most dishes don't have dairy to begin with.
Some milk-based sweets are the only things that I miss out on, but that's probably a good thing anyway.
I love Daiya cheese for pizzas and it melts well too.
There are also a number of specialty cheeses that are great.
I think if you live in a decent sized city you can find great vegan pizza / supplies.
I've had a great vegan pizza once and between bread, sauce and toppings, it tasted like great Italian-style pizza. Sure, a sprinkle of cheese would have made it better still, but the point is it tasted great and it tasted like pizza.
Sure, it doesn't make for a great American-style pizza, which is all about overloading on cheese (and having rather meh tasting bread typically...), but that's not all there is to pizza around the world.
Search for images of "hawaiian spam recipe"
Pizza in NYC usually not only has great crust and sauce, but it also has plenty of cheese. They don't "overload" it like many places outside the area. (I am purposely separating "Pizza in NYC" from "NYC Style" because people around the US suck at emulating it).
Have you had one in Italy? Personally, I quite like American style pizza, but the Italian style I still find has a more interesting flavour profile and therefore I tend to prefer it.
So pizza in Naples is only slightly older than pizza in Little Italy in NYC. It arrives in USA in 1890s
The main problem is that in the great american convenience rush of the 50-s, 60-s etc the tradition is overwhelmed by mass pizza from the chains. And what becomes mass pizza (especially delivered) is inferior product. We have lower baking temperatures, start pumping the dough with oil, sugar and whatnot to get some browning. To compensate for lack of flavor in the dough you start putting all kinds of toppings on top and too many of them. Upping the calories to insane levels to compensate for their flavorlessness.
I think that when people dish out on American pizza they don't mean NYC, New Haven, Chicago or Detroit styles but Dominos and Pizza Hut at their worst.
That's interesting, I'm annoyed at my shortcut/assumption in my head that a) it would be older than 170 yrs and b) that there wouldn't be a clear historical record of the exact date. Although, cooked down tomatoes, flatbread etc. presumably met under a different name before that
The basic thing which I have seen as big difference; you have to cook these pizzas from going into the oven to plate in < 90s (usually it's less than that; in my oven, when it's perfect, it takes about 60s) and then immediately eat it. If you leave it only for a bit even, to me it is no longer good.
That's where the low moisture (which here they equate with lower quality, not sure if that's true, but more moist is considered better) mozzarella comes in handy; if you want to serve slices over a period of 30min or you want to deliver a pizza etc, you really cannot use this Italian style as far as I have seen and tried.
I guess I'm a great chef then!
As an Italian the first time I saw a nyc style pizza I found it disgusting
Just because you invented it doesn't mean you've perfected it.
I didn't taste NY style till I was 30 or something.
Lol I remember crying big time because mom tricked me into getting first communion by saying she'll take me to a pizzeria.
p.s. don't get insulted too much, ton of places messed their food - best burgers aren't mcdonalds, best buffalo wings aren't in Buffalo NY, best sushi isn't in Tsukiji market, best cuban sandwiches aren't in Florida. All due because locals tend to fetishise it or mess it up to serve tourists.
Back to question I don't think I've ever tried certified Neapolitan pizza, but pretty sure I've had unofficial version many times. It's good, but given choice I'd take NY style. I was about to make one just to realise my dough didn't rise enough (guessing lack of water) few weeks back.
First two main distinctions: NY/NJ style, which is generally the traditional American pizza. 1" crust, a little crispy, thin body, sauce, lots of cheese. This has a few variations though, most notable "thin crust", which is often cracker-thin and very firm & crispy, the body much thinner too.
The other main variety is Chicago deep-dish pizza, which is very thick, anywhere from 1-3 inches deep in my experience.
Both of these in their pure forms are difficult to find outside of their regions. But the NY/NJ style is popping up in places around the country. North Carolina Charlotte area for example, as transplants from the North-East find their way to other parts of the country.
Then there's the various pizza chains: Pizza Hut, Dominos, Papa Johns... most of their pizzas most closely resemble the NY/NJ, but that's putting it loosely. They're sort of like a McDonald's Big Mac compared to a steak house burger, except at least for me, I sometimes just want the Big Mac, but I'd never choose the chain pizza when the alternative is available.
Let me be clear though: some people are purists to one type or another and consider other varieties, or chain pizzas, to be blasphemy. But if you put aside ideological considerations, almost all pizza is fundamentally good. You can find bad pizza, but it's harder than finding good pizza. (Let the downvotes roll in from Chicago/NY purists :D )
The cheese around the edges comes in contact with the metal pan and turns brown and crunchy, just like you get when the cheese leaks out into the pan with a grilled cheese sandwich. Amazing pizza!
If you don’t have a rectangular pan you can also make it in a cast iron skillet. Works extremely well!
[1] https://www.seriouseats.com/2017/02/how-to-make-detroit-styl...
But cheese all the way to the edge, and browned crispy? That's almost too much. But not quite: It's the type of cheese. I don't see mozzarella in that link you posted, I don't even see the lesser trinity of 3 cheeses. I see something called "brick" cheese. That's just a bridge too far.
I won't be the one to push the button on this and trigger the fallout that comes with it, Detroit has enough problems as it is. But you need to hope the true pizza extremists don't hear about this. Maybe delete the post, or at least put a /s sarcasm flag on the end. Also at the beginning, and in the middle. Maybe one after each word.
Also Detroit pizza looks awesome and I want some right now.
You’ll find it throughout the Southwest at many smaller chains. Dion’s is one regional I can vouch for. Two Boots in New York is probably the closest I ever found on the East Coast, but I didn’t look hard outside of the City.
It’s distinct to me from New York style because of the amount of cheese and the rise of the crust. The more topping-laden variants (“combo”) can require a knife and fork to eat, whereas a classic New York slice is designed to be eaten standing up and toppings are portioned accordingly.
See, that's the thing: there really is an infinite variety. I know that's true of other foods, but very few other foods are available in such diverse forms with that level of ubiquity. In a 5-square mile area I could easily get 10 different types, and it's all available with pretty much the same convenience as fast food.
> But if you put aside ideological considerations, almost all pizza is fundamentally good.
Completely agree. I like American style pizza and I like cheese. I also like Italian style pizza and often find it has more interesting flavours, but that doesn't make American style pizza bad or anything. Just different. A good American style pizza is better than a bad Italian style too, obviously.
My main point though was that the idea of cheese-less pizza really doesn't seem strange to me, once you look outside of the American cheese-focused pizzas and that's the only reason I brought up the differences really.
Nothing beats American-style pizza.
This could be, I am fan of the pizza from Napoli and I have been to the best chefs over there; besides the Marinara, pizzas have plenty of cheese and the Italian people in the restaurants all consistently asked for an extra serving of mozzarella on top. As I try to copy the experience at home in my wood burned oven, I watched and read many italian (Italy and US based) Napoli pizza chefs and ‘rather little cheese’ never was mentioned. Are you talking about a different style or maybe compared to US style pizza? I had pizzas in the US, but I find them generally too heavy; probably because the base is too thick. I can eat 2 napoli ones while only 1/2 a US one (again, based on my very limited pizza experience in the US!). But I saw brilliant chefs on youtube from the US; my business trips did not allow me to travel the US for pizza tasting...
Not true, authentic neapoletan pizza is marinara(no cheese) or margheritta (lots of cheese).
Gee well that's a rather bold statement. I find this attitude of "if you're not vegan you're a liar" so insufferable. I can think of at least a few explanations for the parent comment. "If you think your cheese is suffering free..."
1. You may be underinformed
2. You've purchased free range dairy products
3. You know something I don't
The entire ordeal is very much not natural and not pleasant. And we do it at a scale that is awe-inducing. If you are a compassionate type that sees cows in a similar light to dogs, I'd bet you can understand why someone would feel very strongly that it's not an option.
If you would like to learn more there are a few documentaries that explore the big 3 benefits of veganism--Health, ecology, and animal welfare. I won't link them here as they are easy to find for any that are interested.
If you eliminate meat and dairy, those animals won’t have any life at all. The only reason they are there is because humans eat them.
Their population would be greatly reduced, but is having a billion consciousnesses in a mediocre state and potentially suffering somehow better than having a few orders of magnitude fewer consciousnesses that are properly cared for and living more "natural" lives? It is hard to say without getting into the details, but from a high-level utilitarian perspective, one feels that the latter is somehow more preferable, although doing any kind of arithmetic with souls is a risky business.
Free range or not, cows still need to be artificially inseminated (read: industry term to fancy dress "cow rape"), the calves still need to be weaned off after only a few weeks with their mothers (once the colostrum part is over) and/or be given formula milk substitute while humans drink what's rightfully the calf's. Leaving the calf with the cow is absolutely not profitable. Also, the mother cow needs to be culled after only 5-6 years of living because they cannot bear children after that; cows naturally live for up to 20 years. Free range cows still end up in the same slaughter house, so you're indirectly funding the beef industry. Oh, and by the way, if the calf is a male, it's killed right away or sold to the veal industry.
It's disgusting and cruel regardless of how much space the cow had to roam in; every other aspect of its life was miserable. Not knowing this is okay, but if you're reading this and the sibling comments, you really have no excuse any more.
Some animals are abused and we can work on regulation to prevent that and promote sustainable development (in EU they already have some laws about this) but I don't think making sure cows die by old age should be the end goal.
1. Lions are obligate carnivores, we're not. We do not need meat to survive (evidenced by several cultures around the world living off a nearly entirely plant-based diet for centuries), lions do.
2. What animals do isn't a good moral compass. Animals rape each other, steal, kill their children, and do all sorts of morally reprehensible stuff.
>Some animals are abused and we can work on regulation to prevent that
The best solution to stopping animal abuse is to not breed the animal in the first place. Can't abuse something that doesn't exist now, can we?
>I don't think making sure cows die by old age should be the end goal.
I never proposed that. I said we shouldn't have bred them into this miserable existence in the first place.
Why do we get to decide how long a cow should live? Why do we get to artificially inseminate a cow that cannot possibly give consent? Why do we get to take away the newborn child of a defenceless creature? Come on.
I don't think we should go out of our way to hurt animals (for example intensive chicken production where you have overcrowded operations where chickens stay in the dark, etc, should be outlawed), but if I want to eat it I'll eat it. The cow need not consent, because it's my food.
Fundamentally it's simply not a moral issue to me, it's a gastronomic one. I believe most people agree with me. Vegans are so incredibly out of touch.
PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals.
>Vegans are so incredibly out of touch.
really? lol ok
> you're just a sociopath
Sure, according to your definition I would be. So would most people, billions of them.
> Do you also believe it is okay for me to torture a dog just because I get visual satisfaction from it?
Visual satisfaction? No. But if you want to slaughter and eat it I don't have a problem with that.
> really? lol ok
Yes, really. You come across as some sort of quixotean person yelling at windmills while most of us over here are just eating our meat. It's simply that people don't say it, out of politeness.
It never needs to. You're performing mental gymnastics, I'm sorry. It's never true that this sort of immense suffering just needs to magical occur for the world to operate normally. There are limitless delicious recipes that require 0 suffering, 0 pain, 0 murder.
> I don't think we should go out of our way to hurt animals
That's what the entirety of animal agriculture is. We go WAAAY out of our way. It's expensive, inefficient, unhealthy, and immoral, and we do it anyway.
I'm not looking away and pretending it doesn't exist. I'm staring at it and saying "yes I approve of that because I like to eat animals".
If your argument is that intensive farming is less than ideal, sure, I agree. If your argument is that the solution to that is to stop eating meat, that's where you lose me.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/8q8984/why-animals-that-died...
> That's what the entirety of animal agriculture is. We go WAAAY out of our way. It's expensive, inefficient, unhealthy, and immoral, and we do it anyway.
So are you against eating all meat or in favor of reforming industrial meat farming? These are two very different positions.
> It never needs to.
Yes I didn't say it needs to. I said sometimes it does. Foie gras involves sticking a pipe down a duck's throat and force feeding it until it has liver desease which makes its liver extra large and tasty. It is what it is. I support it because it's delicious. My taste buds are more important than a given animal's suffering, plain and simple.
I know I'm being blunt but I feel this holier-than-thou attitude on the vegan's side needs to be confronted with a little bit of "silent majority"-type viewpoints.
I'm not making controversial points, I'm spelling out widespread ideas to you.
lol holy shit. When your reasoning gets to this point, I think we need to back up and appreciate the insanity of what you're saying. Would you be fine with some alien species arriving to Earth and doing all this to you? Would you accept it and think "Ah yes well it is what it is!"
If an alien comes to us to eat us, I mean yes, that's just how it is. We can try fighting back of course (which species wants to be killed?) but if they win then, what can you do? Appeal emotionally with them? They could say the same thing, that it's just how it is. Might really does make right. If they have superiority in fighting power, I mean, there's nothing we can do other than accept it. And that's the same thing that's happening with us and the animals we eat.
The alien hypothetical isn’t about what is possible, it’s about what is right. Would you feel that the aliens should be allowed to enslave and eat you? Or would you feel like you’re being wronged, and that you don’t deserve it?
It's clear that you're trying to say that animals and people are equivalent, that animals are slaves. If I don't believe in that world view, you can't make me care. You could show rational reasons like, eating a vegetarian diet is better to combat climate change, which I accept, but having a moral appeal doesn't move me to change my meat-eating ways.
If an alien can overpower us, sure I'd try to escape because I obviously want to live, but I'd be under no delusion that I deserve to not die. The alien captured and wants to eat me, so that's going to be what will happen. There is a difference between how I feel, what would happen, and what is morally right. I posit that morals don't matter in this case, only power over other beings, which the aliens have over us in this scenario.
Said another way, why should morals matter in this case? I'm genuinely asking, because whenever I ask this, people don't give an actual answer and instead say something like, it's the right thing to do or it reduces suffering, but this uses morality to explain why morality matters, sort of like using the Bible to ask why things that are said in the Bible are true.
Neither what humans do is a compass for animals's behaviour. You know that cows are not humans, right? There is not much consent in their social life.
We can work to offer them a "good" peaceful life before a quick innevitable slaughter. Not all the farmers cage their animals. Some of them live a pretty good life eating good grass and breathing fresher air than most humans do.
As long as the lifespan of a cow is concerned what difference does it make if it lives 5 years or 20 years? Eventually you have to accept that death is innevitable for animals, insects, plants and humans alike.
Eventuall you will end up death too, get eaten by "disgusting" worms.
You also seem to favor no life at all than a short span? Would you prefer not to be born if you were to know your life will end up tragic (i.e in car crash, or eaten by a lion)?
For some reason, only vegans get called out for making substitutions.
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24473/20191218/a-group...
People usually make your argument in bad faith because even when corrected you never had a moral interest in “minimizing plant suffering” to begin with. You just thought you had a good gotcha.
Not really. A person who eats both doesn't typically agonize over the morality of eating animals or plants like many vegans do. It's pointing out the fallacy of advocating veganism on the basis of animal suffering.
That of course is only one argument for veganism among many much stronger ones, but it doesn't make it a bad argument to make.
Burgers aren't a huge deal in Asia, for example.
Or, tl;dr: You do realize soy milk is very popular among vegans, right?
What I am trying to say is that vegans are trying to engineer a product. So this product the opposite of natural, so what is with the claims of health?
I don't know why I used the word "bad"
I find it frustrating as a person who only eats meat and vegetables to have to tolerate vegans who claim health benefits. Most vegans I've met are fat.
Asia is a big place, but for example in China pretty much everything has a small amount of pork as a minor ingredient/seasoning; "vegan" dishes are the pitiable food of the poor; and the word for household is literally a roof with a pig underneath it
The reasons might be environmental, ethical, moral, or religious, etc... Not important, just that a vegan or vegetarian is simply someone who did a cost-benefit analysis where, to them, the costs of meat (environmental degradation, massive suffering, personal guilt, my-god-said-so, whatever) outweigh the benefits (taste, convenience, social acceptably). That's merely it!
It's not cognitive dissonance to want to enjoy some of the benefits of something without some of the costs - that's what vegan "meat" (at least attempts) to do.
It's like creating a protein based pea that tastes exactly like a pea in every way but made with animal protein and I call it carnivore peas. What you are saying is that you are trying to reverse engineer something for hedonism's sake.
There's no contradiction or dissonance, it's "I find raising and slaughtering animals for food unethical" on the one side and "I like certain flavors" on the other.
However, if you want to win over the average consumer, or someone who has developed tastebuds over twenty years, or really anyone who doesn't already eat a vegan diet, you have to overcumb 1 crucial thing:
It needs to taste good or better than whatever you are trying to replace.
I haven't come across a vegan pizza that doesn't taste like the way I have come to expect pizza to taste, the cheese just isn't right. All the food science in the world can't seem to solve this problem (I've tried it homemade, by several skilled professionals, I've tried what was rated as some of the best vegan pizza in my city, mutiple times of the years, and the list goes on).
Until it tastes like the pizza I have fundamentally come to expect pizza to taste like, it just isn't worth switching for me.
If you can solve this problem, nobody is going to care if its vegan or not, because it just taste good.
I wish PETA and the like would focus their time and money on this, since it would actually yield the net benefit results they're looking for without the air of hositility some of their followers have.
Yes, you can debate whether its right or wrong to even think this way. The truth is, people in large already do, why not meet them where they are at?
Or just cost less. At scale (notwithstanding government subsidies), vegan food will be cheaper than animal based food.
People don't go to McDonald's because their burgers taste better than at the steakhouse, they go because it's cheaper.
If you have to refine it into fake meat or similar, the cost savings is gone.
duhhh you'd be stupid not to at that point. Until we get there the consumer needs to signal big corporations that demand exists and McDonald's adding plant based options is a huge step. Every burger sold will contribute to encourage more companies to offer vegan options, even cheese
There's also research into meat grown from stem cells. Right now it is still too expensive to grow, but I believe that is the way forward.
Move to a remote island if you want to be a saint. But don't posture to be a holy man or even more simply "a better man" by not eating animals and byproducts.
While the suffering argument is entirely valid, it's obviously not a successful driver of change. The climate change/pandemic/health angle is easily more appealing to the average consumer.
I've had some truly phenomenal vegan pizzas that I would regularly take over a "traditional" pizza.
I've also had some horrible ones. But you can say that about anything :-)
Now if you remove the cheese-imitation you have marinara pizza.
Vegetable oils are most likely carcinogenic, amid other health issues (GI, heart) [0]. Red meat is not [1]
Further, these fake meats, Impossible Burger namely, have been linked to kidney failure in mice studies [2] (one commissioned by the Impossible Foods manufacturer). In particular:
" * A rat feeding study commissioned by the manufacturer Impossible Foods found that rats fed SLH [soy leghemoglobin] developed unexplained changes in weight gain, changes in the blood that can indicate the onset of inflammation or kidney disease, and possible signs of anemia
* Impossible Foods dismissed these statistically significant effects as “non-adverse” or as having “no toxicological relevance” "
I understand these aren't as good test subjects as human studies, however it seems under the guise of the green movement, this evidence has been willfully ignored, or just not known. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
[0] - https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/why-vegetable-oils-are...
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-me...
[2] - https://www.gmoscience.org/rat-feeding-studies-suggest-the-i...
Do we know how bad vegetable oils are for people yet? Is there any reason to think that they're 100% A-OK?
Humans have been eating meat for 10s or 100s of thousands if not millions of years. Humans have been eating highly refined vegetable and seed oils for what, a couple of hundred?
One of these food sources helped turn apes into humans. The other didn't even exist until humans invented a LOT of technology.
Technically that may be true but humans only ate meat when the hunt was successful. Most of the time , they had a plant based diet. Meat has always been unaffordable luxury for most peole. The farm grown , tax subsidixzed, growth hormone loaded meat industry is a rather new phenomenon.
>Vitamins and minerals which are typically derived from plant sources are nonetheless present in most Inuit diets. Vitamins A and D are present in the oils and livers of cold-water fishes and mammals. Vitamin C is obtained through sources such as caribou liver, kelp, muktuk, and seal brain; because these foods are typically eaten raw or frozen, the vitamin C they contain, which would be destroyed by cooking, is instead preserved.
"However, actual evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population."
Hunter-gatherers are the only type of group for which there are no anthropologically/historically documented cases of starvation. In contrast to pastoralists and agriculturalists, which have suffered starvation regularly.
Hunter-gatherers across nearly all of the globe always had a diet of meat and plants. It is absolutely false that it was plant-based "most of the time". Eating meat has absolutely not always been an unaffordable luxury -- that's a complete myth. Meat as a "luxury" was a totally new phenomenon that arose only with agriculture.
For the vast majority of human history, meat (or fish) has been plentiful and broadly consumed.
This argument glosses over the crux of current scientific knowledge: We do not know exactly why the type of meat the (average) human eats today is net-negative for health _even though_ humans have been eating meat for ages.
Particularly, is it due to the change in nutritional makeup due to domestication, mass farming, processing etc. or is meat inherently (slightly) carcinogenic?
If somebody knows of recent studies, would love to learn more.
Strange. Why do I only ever see this claim from esoteric websites and blogs and never from serious organizations? E.g. "No need to avoid healthy omega-6 fats"[1]
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/no-need-to...
That doesn't make the esoteric websites right, but I think perhaps the idea that the consensus diet advice is good and right "because consensus" is suspect also.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/01/bacon-cancer-pr...
It's also more accepting for people who have various dietary restrictions and opens up an entirely new, mediocre, but fast/cheap dining experience.
One thing to note is that after some initial offerings, Burger King has yet to really keep their plant burger in the weekly coupon deluge I get. Meaning if I want like 2 entire burger meals I can get it for under $10 with the right coupon. But if I want their Impossible Whopper I still end up paying full-price for it.
So yes, if the plant burgers were cheaper than the alternative there really wouldn't be much of a reason to eat the originals any more.
Except for those on a ketogenic diet.
I did keto for a while and looked at the nutritional information for those burgers, they're not really on the list unless you get them bun-free.
The veggie burgers when bun free do have carbs, but I'd consider them to be borderline okay at 6gm of sugar and non-fiber carbs (1gm of sugar) for 14gm of fat and 19gm of protein for a reasonably solid ratio of 6:33 or ~20%. It's not as good as bacon, but it's probably as good as beans...
Ref: https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600189392...
Genuinely curious: is it though? I can certainly see the strength of the argument if we're merely comparing 1 lb of soy vs 1 lb of beef, but my understanding is that veggie burgers require quite a bit of processing to become "meat-like". It'd be interesting to keep track of cost and environmental impact differences between a low-tech soy-tasting patty vs an impossible burger.
I'm going to guess McDonald's veggie burgers will have a decent amount of processing: I don't know how that compares to processing hamburger patties. We are, after all, comparing hamburger patties to pucks of veggie material instead of veggie burgers vs steak.
Obviously they could be fudging the numbers, but meat is also really, really inefficient.
Every plant-based meat I'm aware of has been processed to hell and back, so I'm dubious of the claims that they are healthier.
> Processing may affect the natural resistant starch content of foods. [...] Whole grain wheat may contain as high as 14% resistant starch, while milled wheat flour may contain only 2%.
> The fermentation of resistant starch produces more butyrate than other types of dietary fibers.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistant_starch#Processing_ef...
> Butyrates are important as food for cells lining the mammalian colon (colonocytes). [...] Butyrate is extremely essential to host immune homeostasis.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butyrate
Basically, resistant starch is extremely important to the health of your colon, and fairly important to your health in general. From what I hear, colon cancer is not terribly fun. Since processing greatly reduces the resistant starch content of certain goods it seems reasonable to claim that "processing" makes some foods less healthy.
Though like all things there is a lot of subtly here; I wouldn't be surprised if plant based burgers end up healthier on the whole despite the processing when compared to regular meat. But they are unlikely to be healthier than the equivalent in unprocessed veggies.
So if you eat exclusively processed grains, you don't have the resistant starch. Meanwhile, red meat is linked with actually causing colon cancer, not just failure to prevent it.
It's an approach to growing single cell protein (e.g. products like Quorn) that uses hydrogen oxidizing bacteria with hydrogen from renewable-powered water electrolysis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-cell_protein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_oxidizing_bacteria
I have more detailed links in this old comment of mine from when Solar Foods appeared on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18355483
And then the ranchers buy the subsidized feed...
74 cents on every dollar a dairy farmer earns is from subsidy.
It’s not misleading. You don’t get milk without killing calves soon after they’re born and their mothers after a few years.
So, I wouldn't hold your breath.
That’s interesting, if not too surprising, unfortunately. Is there somewhere I can read more?
It would however not be as simple that plant-based food would just be cheaper. Every kind of food type has a spectrum of climate impact, depending on multiple factors like farming method, transport, and local factors. A hunter shooting down an overpopulated flock of wild boars is going to have a distinct different climate impact than a pig farmer in a industry farm. Same for crop rotating farm that don't use fertilizers or pesticides vs one that massively contribute to eutrophication, burn down forests to make room, and leaves a desert behind.
A tax would at first fix the competition between similar products that only differ in the climate impact. Secondarily it would encourage locally over imported. And third it would make most plant-based food cheaper vs most meat. It would also add a huge tax on factory farmed meat and encourage farmers to use slower and much less harmful practices when raising animals.
No, they didn't. The majority of the 10 year funding bill went to SNAP (food stamps). [1]
I do hate how I have to waste my time researching your ridiculous claims, I do wish such extreme takes could just be out right deleted before they cause any damage.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/massive-867-billion-farm-bil...
That would only rebut the claim being made if there was an analysis that SNAP spending + other subsidies did not result in a majority of the total ending up with the meat and dairy industry. Its worth noting that even before they were configured into a poverty support program, food stamps were conceived of, and have always been (hence the involvement of USDA) an agricultural subsidy program. So what goes into SNAP is not separate from industry subsidies.
Corn $2.1B, Soybeans $1.6B, Sugar $1.5B, Cotton $950M, Wheat $603M, Oranges $435M, Livestock $367M, Hay/Feed $240M
Almost all of this is turned into animal feed or fuel.
Option A, farmers continue to receive government subsidies, or, Option B, consumers pay the ‘real’ price for food (which factors in the cost of externalities eg climate change, no factory farms, etc)
At least that's what the internet told me, I have no insight into that industry.
Farmers get it coming and going. If it is a "bad" year, and the crops fail, you don't get money and might not be able to afford to keep going next year. If it is a "good" year and a "good" year for everyone else, it becomes a "bad" year again -- overproduction means that your prices drop and you might not be able to afford to keep going next year.
But while both situations are equally bad for the farmer, it's really bad for civilization if you don't produce enough food -- in fact, you want to ensure that even in multi-sigma off-years, with flooding everywhere that floods and drought everywhere else, you still produce enough food to feed everyone.
That means that you have to build in a lot of overproduction -- every year should be a "bad" year for the farmers.
(As an aside, you'll never see more concealed glee than a couple of farmers in one state talking about a flood in another state that produces a similar slate of crops, knowing that's going to bump crop prices by 20-30% while also not wanting to be happy about others' misfortune.)
I can buy soymilk for cheaper than cow’s milk.
The counter-argument is it that all burgers would monetarily expensive, but factory meat is also expensive just in forms of unaccounted externalities.
Lets not leave out the sole most crucial factor, other than price, being taste.
My proposition has always been the following, and in fact, has gotten me to switch a number of things in my diet to vegan over the years, its really simple
If you blindfold me, and tell me what I'm eating, and I eat it, does it taste like what I'm expecting it to?
When it does, I switch to that thing, if its something I don't care enough about that I want it to be an exact replicable experience, I may switch to it anyway since its often healither and better for the environment.
Given the texture and general makeup of the average McDonald's patty (its not 100% beef, per say, it has alot of veggie based fillers like soy), this may not be a hard test to pass.
McDonald's hasn't even made tasty meat burgers a reality, so that's asking a bit much.
OTOH, I supect McDonald's will continue to harvest as much of a premium as the market will bear from anyone with special dietary preferences that they cater to, including vegetarians, regardless of underlying food costs. Now, if there is lots of competition in serving vegetarian fast-food, then there will be pressure to bring the price down to the extent costs support it.
That might well be true in some countries. Certainly not true in Australia.
It took them a pretty long time to get the food to taste like meat, there's nothing stopping them from tweaking the taste even more. Their food science must be pretty alright as it stands.
A few dozen taste variables and you get thousands of distinct tastes. You can tailor the taste in some acceptable 'tastes-good' parameters to fit just about anything:
'Introducing the Captain America 7 Burger (TM)! Unique and only at Burger King! Our unique blend of spices combined with our Burger scientists American gumption have created the perfect burger for shared virtual summer fun! Order with Shield Sauce (TM) for that taste of Freedom!'
Mix and match lamb, elk, or pork into the final flavor profile.
All from effectively fridge safe pouches and lessened spoilage risks.
Right now the Impossible Burger still significantly trails behind an equivalent-weight beef burger in protein, and has a bunch of carbohydrates (which beef doesn't have at all) [1].
Our diet is already far too stuffed with processed carbohydrates, so it's unfortunate that the Impossible Burger adds even more. Hopefully, further improvements can focus on healthy proteins instead.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/health/is-the-impossible-burger-healthi...
Here's an easily digestible story on NPR on the topic: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/13/923170360/what-does-caste-pri...
Veggie (black bean/lentil) burgers can already be cheaper than meat. But the meat replacement (ie similar protein to meat) burgers are more expensive.
I'm not sure why mcdonalds would bother making a meat replacement burger, its fast food so they can just use flavouring to make it taste like meat without incurring the expense of adding protein. It probably will be cheap.
As a plus side their customers will still be starving for protein afterwards. Large fries please!
Why? Meat replacements are engineered to have similar nutritional value as the meat-based version.
for example, BK:
>A traditional Whopper has 660 calories, 40 grams of fat (12 of which are saturated) and 28 grams of protein. The Impossible Whopper clocks in at 630 calories, 34 grams of fat (11 saturated) and 25 grams of protein, so it's pretty similar from a macro nutritional standpoint. [0]
[0] https://www.today.com/food/burger-king-s-impossible-whopper-...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/04/mcdonalds-salad-has-more-cal...