> GP is saying that people like the taste and texture of meat.
Why are you interpreting what I wrote as if I claimed that people like the taste and texture of *raw* meat? That's probably the most uncharitable possible interpretation of my argument. Stop being ridiculous.
> there is no need to replicate the texture and taste of meat as you have infinitely many ways to structure the taste and structure of plant based food, including ways that are superior in both taste and texture to how people prepare meat.
This is so absurd I don't even know where to start.
The whole point of the article and the plant-based meat alternatives it talks about is that finally there's something that's close enough to ground beef in taste and texture that it can be substituted, but it still needs to come down in price to be a viable everyday alternative. Every alternative that came before simply wasn't good enough, and only really appealed to people who were already vegetarian. And the success of Beyond and Impossible shows that there is clearly a market for products that replicate meat, because a lot of people want to buy stuff that tastes like meat.
When it comes to actual beef, there's absolutely nothing like it yet, in neither taste nor texture, and texture is the part that is hardest to get right. If there was something even remotely comparable, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because everyone would already be happily eating that alternative.
I'm sure you're happy eating your little salads, thinking they're superior to every other dish in existence. But you clearly don't understand why people like meat, and what they like about it, which is why you appear bewildered by these products and claim that there is "no need" for them.
These products will be a cornerstone of future environmental policy and ensure we can meet our sustainability goals for the entire planet.