Plant-based meat deceleration signals niche future
foodinstitute.com
foodinstitute.com
If they become equal or less in price than meat, they'll go from a slightly indulgent curiosity into a viable alternative. And there's also a lot of potential in plant-based chicken and seafood, neither of which (in my limited experience anyway) are anywhere close to replicating the original taste and texture.
Same for dairy.
It seems vegetarians are okay with lifelong encagement, and eventual killing, as long as they dont have to eat it. Leather is "vegetarian", and so are wool and silk.
But yes, veterinarians and fish makes no sense.
Leather can make sense to me until cows start being raised just for leather or the price of meat is such that it would be uneconomic if the price of leather was not factored in.
It doesn't to me. The alternatives are all plastics. So sure you're saving animal lives, but you're also just contributing to our oil addiction. It's like Christians picking and choosing which things to believe from the Bible, but with ethics instead.
They aren't for vegetarians stricto sensu, hence why ovo-vegetarians are distinguished.
> Same for dairy.
Yes, exactly the same for diary, which is why lacto-vegetarians are distinguished.
“vegeterian” ≠ “ovolacto-vegetarian”
We needed the word vegan because vegetarian was such a silly line in the sand ethically speaking (just dont eat their flesh!).
Also the males are not needed of breeding breeds, they go straight to the wood chopper after they've hatched.
What you describe is more related to industrial production rather than vegetarianism - although I have to admit that it's still on point in this particular discussion.
If you went for perfection, you'd never use any form of motorized transport, never eat any foods shipped across state lines, set your thermostat for survival temperatures, and go full "freegan" for everything you consume. There's a point at which better is all you really can do - just how much better is the question.
> Frozen Quorn Crispy Nuggets
> Mycoprotein (39%), Water, Rehydrated Free Range Egg White, Wheat Flour (Wheat Flour, Calcium Carbonate, Iron, Niacin, Thiamine), Vegetable Oils (Sunflower, Rapeseed), Salt, Maize Flour, Wheat Starch, Milk Proteins, Textured Wheat Protein (Wheat Protein, Wheat Flour), Natural Flavouring, Raising Agents: Tetrasodium Diphosphate, Sodium Carbonate; Pea Fibre, Firming Agents: Calcium Chloride, Calcium Acetate; Wheat Gluten, Gelling Agent: Pectin; Dextrose.
Maybe they fed the animal rubbish (likely in case of cheap meat), stuff that changes the color of meat and preventive antibiotics amongst other medicine cocktails.
Meat (and dairy and eggs for that matter) also comes with all kinds of hormones, as it is from an animal not much unlike the creatures we are ourselves. So those hormones also affect our system.
Yes plant-based "fake meats" have more ingredients, while also having less of the downsides of animal foods (saturated fats, sulfur-rich protein, hormones, high levels of persistent "forever chemicals").
So the choice is yours.
From what I know the plant-based alternatives are usually healthier. If you want to reach the next level use traditional meat replacers: lentils, beans, nuts, tofu, tempeh, soy-skin.
For what it's worth, I'm not suggesting meat is any less of an offender. Just instead that something that can be pitched as meat-alternative and still be full of crap. And it's worth looking into those ingredients to make an informed decision about what's healthy/not (putting aside other non-health benefits of avoiding meat)
(Just hearsay, haven't been to Oz in a while and with the current political climate I'm not too interested)
It would be nice if the eggs and milk were gone. But it’s a small amount and overall way better than actual chicken.
Maybe some ingredients are hidden in the processing, but which ones do you find objectionable?
Once plant-based alternatives have more than half the market the price will come down a lot, which will increase demand further.
This would only be true if it weren’t significantly worse in both taste and health risk than actual meat. I think fake meat as it exists now would have to be a lot cheaper than actual meat for most people to be willing to switch to it.
So...they're getting pretty close.
Health-wise is highly debatable as well (I'd claim functional equivalence there, though there are people in both camps). Neither is good for you!
I disagree very strongly. Ruminants are a huge fraction of my ancestors’ diet (possibly a caloric majority) over evolutionary timescales, so it should come as no surprise that ruminants are not only better for me than extruded pea protein, but one of the best possible foods for me.
This makes it seem like a meat industry hit piece.
I overestimated; we should be paying 3x more for meat than we do at retail.
There are also cases where the government restricts crop production.
http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/wickard-v-filburn-1942/
https://thecounter.org/biden-administration-farmers-conserva...
Perhaps not to the same degree, I'm not sure, but worth pointing it out when claiming only one is a subsidized industry.
I don’t think that beyond burgers are very healthy but my wife and I eat them at least once a week anyways. I like a maxed-out burger with the ‘works’ without having animals die for my eating pleasure. When I do occasionally eat real meat, I prefer no feed lot beef over pork or chicken because I understand that chickens and pigs live miserable lives while cattle get to live outside and graze.
Also, it wouldn’t matter anyway: the climate impact of raising so many and feeding them carbon intensive grain is bonkers.
I'd go as far as to say it's evil.
Edit: OP clarified with a source below that it would be closer to $15
Related would be the conflicting effects on supply of less economies of scale vs being able to utilize only the most efficient means for production (e.g., only the places most fit for it would be producing cattle, meaning that the marginal cost would be lower than in the previously utilized high cost areas, although this wouldn't be sufficient to counteract the original shock, it might help balance the other effects.)
Note: i have no idea if the $45 is realistic, but the principle is there - much of the production cost of meat is payed by the state. The price of meat would increase if this practice stopped because without any increase in profits.
But despite their opinion, no, it isn't that expensive. That sort of analysis heavily relies on telling you what you want to hear, and expecting that you won't dig into the analysis and realize that if you applied the same standard to everything else in the world you'd get absurd results all over the place.
Edit: OK, I saw the article you linked. I guess in more rural areas this is something we never saw: I've known people who are smaller produces of beef/pork and never saw a dime of this money yet I pay less per pound than most people do in the store.
So the people have ultimately given up some things, ergo subsidising the farmers.
So enormous herds of cattle in the desert in CA owned by extremely politically connected ranchers will get enormous subsidies resulting in all this "Big Macs should cost $45" stuff.
Meanwhile I live in a civilized area that gets near five feet of rain per year. The cows reproduce and eat infinite free grass and water. Essentially all I pay my organic farmer buddy for is his labor, everything else is rounding error. His land is geologically unsuitable for factory style farming so there's no opportunity cost. I pay less than $3/lb live weight and some pittance to his buddy the butcher to process and freeze my half cow every year or two. Short of massive government intervention its hard to imagine how he'd go out of business; he's not getting any subsidies to be taken away.
I suspect the future is going to be much less level and much less equal. If you live in an area where infinite free water falls from the sky, even the poor people are going to have a high-ish standard of living. If you live in a desert... maybe not so comfortable of a life anymore... Note this also applies to plants, not just meats.
[1] Soybean Subsidies in the United States totaled $44.9 billion from 1995-2020 - https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=soyb...
70% of that is for livestock feed.
The numbers may vary, but any credible source you are going to find will show that the vast majority of soy is grown for animal feed.
Other than that I just can't find any sources that corroborate what you say. Every single source I could find that has actual numbers contradicts your statement.
Take the US for example
Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market for U.S. soybeans is for production of foods for human consumption, like salad oil or frying oil, which uses about 15 percent of U.S. soybeans. A distant third market for soybeans is biodiesel, using only about 5 percent of the U.S. soybean crop.
from https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...
Yeah because that’s how soy beans work dude. I think there must be some miscommunication here - the majority of the harvested soy bean is physically not palatable to humans.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding what “70 percent of the soybeans” means. 70 percent of the harvested soy material is not salable to humans. It’s called “soy meal”, look it up. It’s not like if you count all the beans that get picked, 70% of them go to cows. Each harvest is mechanically separated into its component parts and shipped to different consumers, and only a minority of the mass is suitable for oil production or direct consumption.
And just so we don’t end this discussion with misinformation I’m gonna leave a final quote here:
About 85 percent of the world’s soybeans are processed, or "crushed," annually into soybean meal and oil. Approximately 98 percent of the soybean meal that is crushed is further processed into animal feed with the balance used to make soy flour and proteins.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170112075924/http://www.soyate...
Have a great day!
Instead of attacking their existence, wouldn't it be a better idea to attack how they are unfairly applied to existing structures rather than new, less environmentally harmful options?
The money to be made by completely owning all meat that goes through fast food and low budget food is too great that someone’s going to collude with government to make it happen.
The people who make it happen will definitely still be eating steak though. If you want to see the future, look at how little the 2020 travel restrictions affected the rich. Could tell the rich people I know were getting a perverse kick out of traveling last year using loopholes when the rest of us were denied.
If animal farming is so unethical we need to make plant based "meat" and "beyond meat" then farming no longer exists and you can't just buy a cow anymore.
2 futures exist, everything the same as today or the future where your kids never know the taste of actual meat and only "meat" provided by the "Amazonn of "Meat" ". I'll leave it up to you to figure out how we get to option A or B.
As a Texan, former steak and ribs consumer, and now 10+ year vegitarian, I have discovered that _good_ vegitarian creations are divine - textures, flavors, and fewer belly aches later. But it takes some real effort for a while to start to learn to really cook. And it's as or more expensive, since quality organic veggies are not cheap (and you can consume more by volume than you can meat).
However, even the best meat replacements are rarely as nice to eat as a good veggie dish (imo).
So people just need some good education and training. Then they can eat very healthy and very tasty food without all the sodium and other additives that go into the manufactured fake meat.
That said, there are a lot of recipe books. And most of the ones I've seen seem to have good combinations of ingredients. There are certain things that tend to go well together (and prep techniques that work best).
In general, you have to consider both flavor characteristics (such as bitterness, acidity, "green" taste (brussel sprouts, kale, spinach, broccoli), sweetness (cooked peppers, onions), and so forth. Then you consider textures - too many crunchy veggies in one dish make you feel like you have to work to eat... LOTS of chewing. However, too many soft stuff without some firm/crunch can be like just a sauce. So you'll see things like cashews added for protein and texture, etc.
Not all veggie dishes need a lot of ingredients. Just go dine at some places that have good reviews about their vegetarian dishes to start to get an idea. But avoid the really expensive places, as they tend to like to turn everything into some kind of cream sauce :P.
Jackfruit for example makes a pretty good burger (at least, I like them, so I keep making them). The resulting burger is vegetarian, yes. But at a restaurant I'm never going to order 'vegetarian burger', just like I wouldn't order 'meat pie', it just doesn't sound at all appetising (someone's going to call me out here with 'fish pie'... sure, but that's an established dish, and you have a good idea of the fish/seafood you should expect).
'Vegetable' is slightly better in that it at least doesn't sound like 'this is the knock-off version if you have specific requirements' - 'vegetable lasagne' is sort of fair enough for example. Still not as good as being a bit more descriptive though.
Not to say that I want to teach these places to do a better job on their menus - it's a great indicator to avoid them!
To replace frozen meat in a Whopper, it simply needs to be a cheaper input. The 'Impossible Whopper' was $1-2 more expensive.
Potentially if it gets very cheap it may be something poor people opt for to save a dollar vs a real burger.
Other than that, the excitement about not eating real meat is limited to the same circles that claim climate change is their reason for not having kids (see story from yesterday.) For the rest of us, a nice juicy burger or steak is where it's at and that's not changing anytime soon
Sameish situation here, but I can't agree. I love plant-based "meats", because meat taste and texture is not at all why I want to eat less meat.
Also, who is this "Food Institute":
> As a marketing director in the food and beverage industry, the Food Institute gives Harry Davis & Company a direct line to c-suite influencers at all of the major brands.
Is this company a vehicle for food marketeers? Are they actually placed to make predictions, or is this PR for the meat industry?
I missed that, found it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28621288