Beyond Meat is struggling, and the plant-based meat industry worries
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
One extremely frustrating aspect of plant meat is that they tried to aggressively push out traditional veggie burgers on restaurant menus. A familiar refrain I've heard in restaurants in the last few years is "we used to have a nice veggie patty, but they replaced it with the beyond/incredible/whatever patty."
The thing is, vegetarian food is incredible without needing to taste like meat. When I've had these products, I've always walked away feeling like they taste inferior to traditional vegetarian burgers / sausages that don't try to taste like meat.
> Some say the slowdown in sales is a product of food inflation, as consumers trade pricier plant-based meat for less-expensive animal meat.
Normally vegetarian food costs less than meat. It's because the animals need to eat (surprise surprise) vegetables! When you eat the vegetables directly instead of having the animal eat the vegetable for your, it's cheaper.
IMO, I think the "meat in a vat" system where animal tissue is grown in some kind of factory setting is a much better approach. When I want to eat meat, I want to eat meat.
And it is. I think these things work better when they aren't trying to be meat.
I eat meat, but I’d replace all my meat consumption with plant based options if it was a similar substitute and matched the price.
But I also want the black-bean burger option, because, as you said, it’s a different taste.
So I think (I hope anyway) that there’s room for both the vegetarian options that are their own thing, and vegetarian options that aim to be a 1:1 replacement.
It is quite literally a matter of taste though, so you aren't wrong, but your perspective is just your own.
Maybe I agree, that this modern crappy fake food is make by meat eaters for people who try to not eat so much meat, but they forgot that a normal veggie patty doesn't need to taste like meat.
Beyond is amazing for me because I get to enjoy something that's close enough to the food I love without eating any meat.
Well, neither are regular sausages haha
That's irrelevant - someone who is in the mood for a meat patty burger won't be happy with a veggie patty no matter how great it tastes, unless it tastes like meat.
There's tons of comments here saying how nice veggie patties can be[1], but none of the posters saying this have the self-awareness to realise that the taste of veggie patties are irrelevant if they don't taste like meat to people who want a meaty taste.
[1] I agree, they can be very nice, and when I'm in the mood for one, I choose it.
Beyond and Impossible aren’t amazing but they are decent and consistent.
This upsets me because as a vegetarian the last thing I want is to be reminded of what meat tastes like. Who exactly is this for? Because the last I heard it was being marketed primarily at meat eaters.
(Note that beyond or impossible might fit the bill, but availability has been so inconsistent here for the more “raw” ground-X products versus patties/sausages that I haven’t gotten to try it. I don’t care much about burgers.)
They aren't a one-to-one replacement for meat, but even when I've tried the impossible or beyond meat replacements, I find they taste like tofu instead of real meat.
It’s unfortunately not as appealing to many because seitan is wheat gluten. But it’s definitely worth trying; Chinese Buddhists haven’t been eating it since the sixth century on a whim.
This was quite a while back but the first time we went in and looked at the menu the question of "is all of this vegan except for these two items with an asterisk?" (It was the 'classic' Chinese style menu with about 200 things on it with numbers to identify them).
I found the "drumsticks" and the pot stickers to be quite good. For an entree, I would have the Mongolian (now the 'Spicy Mongolian Delight') which was again quite good. The only problem with eating there is on the drive back home I'd have a hankering for some beef jerky.
The problem with many vegetarian meals is described in Vegetarian meals that aren't just brown gack - https://everything2.com/title/Vegetarian+meals+that+aren%252...
We encountered that with a vegetarian restaurant in Mountain View (or was it Palo Alto? somewhere on El Camino Real) that had vegetarian food... but it was entirely boring without much flavor, texture, or... spirit. It was a bowl of bland vegetarian chili... with kale. No spices from onions, or garlic or anything really interesting. It was brown and green.
And so, that's what made Golden Era somehow different - it had flavor and did a lot of work with the sauces to make them interesting and desirable.
However, there's a couple "Western" vegetarian/vegan joints in my immediate area that I've tried a couple of times. To be fair you get lots of food for the money, but both places produce a product that really is quite flavorless -- even with pretty different menus. Things like extra spicy vegan chili go down with the flavor profile of water, other dishes taste like salad baked in an oven, it's really dreadful shit. Yelp reviews for both places? 4+ stars. shrug
The trick is you must add a fair bit of olive oil to the pan, as it does not have the same fat content actual mince does. Once you do, it tastes brilliant in the dishes I'd use it for, with the seasoning and such we use.
And for umami tomato (fresh/canned & condensed) works wonders.
Intersect those two sets of food products and you get exactly who this is for.
Actually even more particularly, it's for food products where the absolute quality of the meat, and the way in which it is cooked, doesn't really matter all that much ... burgers, sausages, chicken nuggets, etc.
The problem really with these products is that the prices are absolutely hilariously ridiculous. If I could walk into a Burger King tomorrow, have no meat-based burgers and only Impossible burgers, but all the prices were 20% lower, I would eat...at least 20% more Burger King. Maybe more.
But right now the prices for an Impossible Whopper can be 20% more than the one made from an animal raised at great expense.
Beyond Meat's real problem is that it's not as convincing of a meat substitute as an Impossible Burger, leaving it deep in the uncanny valley while an Impossible product can often times be imperceptibly the same as a low quality fast food burger patty.
But Beyond Meat and Impossible Burgers and suchlike have been actively displacing the existing options in restaurants and grocery stores. To my palate and that of nearly all my longtime vegetarian friends, those pre-existing options were much more palatable. My (pesca) kids won't even eat these meat analogue products; they think they're disgusting. I do appreciate that these products might be making it easier for other people to cut back on their meat consumption, but I also think it's fair to miss a reduction in the already meager selection of convenience foods that I liked.
I'm a fan of real meat. But isn't the environmental impact of Beyond Meat lower than that of meat meat? Sure, a vegetarian meal would be even lower. But that's not the competition. Those folks are already eating vegetarian, or so the thinking goes.
Don't get me wrong -- I think there can totally be some questions around health and environmental impacts of vegetarian/vegan foods entering the market! But I think the mapping between "there are preservatives in it" and "it's bad" is, uhh, not necessarily strong.
They are still not there.
They're comically far off on the price side, but if they could get price-competitive with bulk 80% ground beef, they would capture a large amount of that market, I think.
This is, of course, true, but as a business proposition it's a bit daunting.
When you're competing with industrial agriculture, you're competing with a technology stack that's tens of thousands of years old, spans the globe, and employs literal billions of people. It's not quite the same as accepting a couple years of unprofitability when scaling up a social network. What if it takes centuries?
"The United States federal government spends $38 billion every year subsidizing the meat and dairy industries. Research from 2015 shows this subsidization reduces the price of Big Macs from $13 to $5 and the price of a pound of hamburger meat from $30 to the $5 we see today."
https://www.aier.org/article/the-true-cost-of-a-hamburger/#:....
(Why do I say the numbers don't make sense? a) That subsidy works out to about 35 cents per person per day. How could that possibly reduce the price of a pound of hamburger by a factor of 6? b) In other countries, a Big Mac costs at most $6.71. The $13 figure seems to be nonsense.)
Subsidies can have both > 1 multiplier impacts and non-linear impacts. For example, subsidies allow for artificial economies of scale to kick in that can then bring the price down significantly. However, were those subsidies to dry up, then certain thresholds may no longer be met and you may see again a non-unitary and non-linear rise in price.
Indeed this is the main theoretical reason why a society would be interested in subsidies: they can get back more benefit than what they pay for in the form of the subsidy.
This is dwarfed by feed subsidies. Feed subsidies don't convert directly to edible-food subsidies; the 'big five' staple crops are subsidized independent of 'specialty' crops, and the vast majority of corn is grown for feed and ethanol in the US, and is of a variety not used for any kind of human food production.
https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/primer-agricult...
Now, if I'd known to look out for it, I'm sure I could have picked and found out. But since I wasn't looking for a difference, I didn't notice one. And that's coming from someone who eats a ton of (real) burgers.
That’s the issue here, veggie folks think meat tastes gross and everyone who eats it is evil and carnivores think vegetables taste gross and vegans are just NPC henchmen for the Illuminati
Hilarity ensues. Thus, beyond burger.
In general I’d rather eat vegetarian than fake chicken or sausages, but beyond meat’s current product makes me feel optimistic about a future without methane emissions.
To you. Which is legit -- if it's not to your taste, that's fair. But to a lot of people, it really is close enough -- which is equally legit.
Sometimes it seems these BM and IF, etc., are trying to simultaneously cater to both customers at once. That will likely not work as they are different customers.
I mean, isn’t meat sustainable? As it’s renewable. Factory farming isn’t sustainable, but there’s plenty of pasture raised organic beef ranchers who grow meat in a sustainable way. If the goal is sustainability, then there are other ways that are likely healthier.
I thought the benefit was for ethical vegetarians who like the taste of beef but don’t want to harm animals.
Everything on Earth will be toast in ~5 billion years.
Human civilization/all life that wants to keep existing also needs to change dramatically in the next five billion years but I think that is to be expected.
Methane is a better example, but ironically factory farming has the answer there. Collecting manure in a waste pool and turning it into biogas turns it from a negative to a net positive.
But I’ve realized that this weird food product leaves some kind of odd taste in my stomach, and not just from Burger King. I’m pretty over these fake beef burgers now, and would way rather have a black bean burger or a garden burger. Those taste light and yummy and don’t leave a weird feeling in my stomach.
When mixed with water it transforms into a firm gel after heating, or it can be used to create extremely resilient emulsifications.
It’s practically flavourless, so it works well. I’m not convinced it passes through the GI tract with no impact whatsoever, but it appears so far to be relatively benign.
It’s nothing like sawdust or a filler, though. It’s also somewhat expensive so it wouldn’t be a good option for filler. My 500g bag was around $25, but if you wanted to use actual sawdust, well I think you could get that for close to nothing.
It seems fairly benign, but it can’t be digested and it isn’t clear to me if we have gut flora which can break it down efficiently.
I enjoy throwing together little experiments in a similar vein to beyond meat or impossible burger products, but it feels too much like a lab experiment to eat regularly. My kids like “meat balls” with spaghetti, so I tend to make that and otherwise I’m gravitating back towards whole food-based garden burgers.
A weird thing about beyond/impossible is that while they appear moderately healthier than real meat from some perspectives… They are still pretty trashy. I can’t not feel like I’m making a bad choice, even if it’s home made, and at the end of the day I just want to feel good (mentally and physically) about my food.
This is a qualitative/irrational assessment and not a quantitative/rational one, especially considering that fat consumption got a wrongfully-deserved bad rap for decades thanks to unethical lobbying by the sugar industry.
I’d argue (based on the best dietary research the world has produced) that saturated fats do deserve a bad rap, and most refined fats are also worth minimizing in a diet. Are all fats bad? Not at all, we should eat them. We’d die without them. Are saturated fats and refined plant fats worth including in our diet? Arguably no, not at all. Incidental consumption of them is more than enough and intentional consumption becomes problematic quite quickly.
I’m not aware of any outcomes-based studies spanning the globe which indicate that a high fat diet serves most people well as far as long term quality and quantity of life. On the other hand, there are several, and more all the time, showing the opposite.
The valid “fat is actually okay!” data almost exclusively comes from whole-food based studies. However, those which position saturated fats as safe or healthy are typically of poor designs. One example off the top of my head is one which put vegetarians on an extremely high coconut oil diet and meat eaters on a lean meat diet. The results? Eating meat is better for your cholesterol! Surprise?
I couldn’t make this stuff up. In fact, someone likely paid people a lot of money to make it up. The irony is that it uses the truth (saturated fat raises blood lipids) to indicate that this truth is actually false. If saturated fat was bad, wouldn’t the intersection of meat eaters and vegetarians look different? It must be okay. Makes a great headline!
I agree that the sugar lobbying is absurd and harmful to society, but you’d be doing yourself a disservice to believe there isn’t a massive and busy lobby behind fats as well. Why wouldn’t there be? Look at how many studies around animal products and fat are funded by associates of the food processing industry.
And yet the best studies we have clearly have no commercial agenda behind them, they typically took years or decades of work, yet they’re hastily discounted by all kinds of people.
diet is a fairly complex topic and it's a shame that most doctors don't get more than a single course in nutrition. I read a paper like this (which is related to our discussion) and the raw complexity is just... difficult to boil down into a variety of good food choices sometimes: https://openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e000871
https://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation/impossible-burger-vs-be...
Maybe the evidence for meat doesn't generalise, but the idea that fresh vegetables would retain some sort-lived structures that start to break down once processed seems plausible. I was just pointing out that GPs claim could do with some backup.
If this idea was new to you then maybe have a look at these sources, or do some other searches
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/red-and-proce...
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/processed-foods...
"There is evidence showing an association with certain types of food processing and poor health outcomes (especially highly- or ultra-processed foods). This association applies mainly to ultra-processed foods that contain added sugars, excess sodium, and unhealthful fats."
From the second one. Maybe you confused my position?
On one hand, the faux meats sound quite risky, but in the other hand they are under extreme scrutiny like no highly processed food before them, so they might not actually be bad at all.
But as humans we can't read every study for every ingredient. We have to use heuristics to guesstimate a healthy diet. Reducing (not eliminating) processed foods is a decent one. Same goes for including protein, increasing fiber (so whole wheat instead of the cake americans call "bread"), including veggies.
The complexity of digestion rivals that of cryptography. And the same caveats apply.
Ultraprocessed foods, let's say a [plant] burger, are the food equivalent of "roll your own crypto".
Less processing = fewer things we break without knowing we broke them. I'm in no way actually arguing against cooking.
This would take a fair bit of time and space to explain in general, but if you have specific questions I'll do my best to address them.
Nutrition pretty much by definition requires a lot of simplification to allow people to make quick decisions on food choices, and so broad rules that are mostly right are pretty useful (and pretty much the basis of how most diets work).
Healthy food is basically a lemon market, so what would a plausible mechanism to economically incentivize high processing for healthfulness look like?
Conversely there is a clear economic incentive to highly process food in order to decrease unit cost at fixed palatability. By increasing yield (pink slime) or shelf-life (trans-fats) or taste and looks (flavor enhancer etc).
None of these are necessarily bad in all cases, and in some cases might even correspond to increases in healthfulness (e.g. by killing harmful micro-organisms).
But on average, in the absence of some additional economic incentive to keep or increase healthfulness, I'd expect optimization for these criteria to decrease it.
For example, a lot of nutrients have short shelf-lives, so if there is an incentive to increase shelf-life but not an equal incentive to preserve nutritiousness (and I don't think there is), you'd expect healthfulness to go down, no?
I'm not a vegetarian or fruitarian, I don't generally care about animal death or suffering. But if I did that would be my tactic to minimize pain in the system.
The form of sugar in fruit isn’t quite as bad as some, and all the fiber helps it be absorbed more slowly but there is still a lot of it many.
An apple has a much sugar as 6oz of Coke. Lots of nutrients too, but 23g of sugar is… a lot.
https://www.instagram.com/jamesbebbington/?hl=en
http://www.inspiredlife.org/richard-harpham/item/35-james-pr...
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
So your comment makes no sense at all.
The bigger issue is vitamins, in particular B12. But that's easily fixed with a daily multivitamin.
I don’t want to know how anybody gets actual, non-supplemented B12 nowadays. Many foods add a B12 in the form of cyanocobalamin. We evolved in a world where bacteria left B12 on nearly every surface left out long enough. But nowadays we clean our food and it shouldn’t be present. People will say they get it from the organ meat of certain animals - because that’s where those animals collect the B12 in their environment.
Notably, I avoid cyanocobalamin like the plague. It releases small amounts of cyanide into your liver upon processing. It’s also not particularly bioavailable. There are better B12s and I wish food would leave me to choose it myself.
Peas (gen Pisum) are very close to gen Lathyrus. Many of this wild flowers use a chemical defense to protect their seeds that is accumulative and can lead to serious and permanent neurodegenerative consequences at long term.
Lathyrism is one of the oldest diseases known in the history. Was observed in people with irreversible damages on their spinal cord after eating big amounts of the plant Lathyrus sativus, today known as Pisum sativum or "pea".
The disease develops after heavy consumption of peas for over two months so, to include an unlimited amount of Pisum sativum in the diet as your main source of protein is a terrible idea. Another case of wrong solutions and dangerous advice provided by veganism. If you are doing it, please stop right now and read this:
The commonly consumed pea types (yellow, sweet, snap, snow) have no risk of causing Lathyrism. Only wild peas pose a risk and those are outright banned in most nations. (notable exception, india, where it is part of several common dishes).
The fact that wild peas are much more dangerous does not remove the danger from common sweet peas (of any kind or color, Is the same species). Is a matter of how much of it you eat, and if you allow enough days between meals to detox.
It depends also in "how" you eat it. If you mix it with cereals or not (hint, you should) and even in "where" you cook it.
You are spreading FUD.
The link you've provided is yet another study on wild peas (grass pea is a wild pea, Lathyrus sativus, just a different name).
Show me the study that links sweet pea, Lathyrus odoratus, consumption with Neurolathyrism.
The only danger to eating sweet peas is when you eat them in combination with eating wild peas. [1]
The pea types I listed do not cause lathyrism without being mixed with Lathyrus sativus.
By common sweet pea, I mean the green common edible one. Pisum sativum = Lathyrus sativus a species that is known to cause the disease if eaten in large amounts. Lathyrism is happening still today in a few parts of the planet like India, and is a serious irreversible condition, not much unlike paraplegia. This is not FUD, is a proven medical fact. Maybe the vegetable has a different name in English. Dunno, but we are talking about the same species all the time.
Lathyrus odoratus, is the Fragrant sweet pea, a small species with huge flowers that smell really well. It has tiny peas that are not really edible -in big amounts- (all are "edible" in very small quantities but it does not worth the risk) and of course, as most Lathyrus it causes lathyrism. is just that is a different case of Lathyrism, affecting bones instead nerves if I remember correctly.
Lathyrus sativus is also referred to as the “white pea”. Because it’s white.
I know sativus and sativum look the same but that doesn’t mean they are the same plant.
Here’s an article with photos of Lathyrus sativus. [1]
If I may inquire, are you from india? If so, then yes, you probably do have to be more aware of the peas you are eating. From the articles I can find it sounds like Lathyrus sativus is banned in india but still somewhat commonly sold. That’s not the case where I’m at in the US. You cannot accidentally get Lathyrus sativus here because nobody is selling it.
[1] https://india.mongabay.com/2019/05/toxic-debate-rages-on-ove...
Yep. The International Plant Names lists 33 synonims for Pisum sativum L. and 16 for Lathyrus sativus L. and none of them coincide. Botanical names are changing all the time, and is not straightforward sometimes.
So you were right and I was wrong. I stand corrected. Thank you for getting me out of my mistake.
Taken from wikipedia entry on Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score [1]:
- Chicken has a PDCAAS of 0.95
- Soy has a PDCAAS of 0.92
- Black beans have a PDCAAS of 0.74 (highest legume)
- Other beans and legumes have a PDCAAS of 0.70
- Wheat (seitan) has a PDCAAS of 0.42
Facts:
Soy has good enough nutrients to make a valid claims for it without throwing away valid science.
Soy is not surpassing chicken breast in PDCAAS, or red meat.
Eggs and dairy literally break the scale and are by far the highest ranking whole foods on a PDCAAS basis.
Seitan and beans are terrible in comparison in terms of PDCAAS, with you needing to consume nearly 2x the amount of protein from the former to compete with the later.
Opinions:
As far as fat goes, keep in mind tofu has a 1:2 fat:protein ratio. Chicken breast is 1:20+. This reason is the reason a lot of people herald chicken breast
Overconsumption of soy can lead to health implications
Soy does not have enough leucine to trigger the MTOR pathways to build muscle. If you are having soy post workout, you need to consume 45-60g of protein, vs just 20-30g of protein from animal products
Red meat has literally everything you need to live. Throw in a little carbs and fiber too and you can run at peak performance without worrying about anything in your diet.
Biases:
I've been relentless about my diet for 10 years and have tried everything. This includes vegan, vegetarian, keto, carb cycling, protein sparring modified fasts, you name it.
This year I started eating an animal based diet and not only do I feel great, my TDEE went from 2400 to over 3700. This means while I used to eat 2400kCal to maintain my weight, I now have to eat 3700 to maintain my weight, and I feel fantastic while doing so.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_Digestibility_Correcte...
That sounds pretty comparable from your chosen metric.
However, it's also misleading to claim it's debunked then point to seitan and beans as viable alternatives, or warn against fat content immediately after comparing tofu to chicken.
Are there other areas of your life that you optimize for your own personal preferences at the expense of other sentient beings?
Are there areas where you don’t?
> Are there other areas of your life that you optimize for your own personal preferences at the expense of other sentient beings?
I think the answer must be yes for everyone here. We are choosing to use (and pay for) the internet and electricity when we could instead be buying food for people who have none. We participate in Western economies which prey on the economies of the developing world.
I think it's important to also think about the definition here of 'sentient' and the definition of 'harm'. Is it 'harmful' to build houses, when otherwise animals would live in the fields/forests? Is it 'harmful' to burn fossil fuels for energy? Do you refuse to use electricity which has come from fossil fuel sources?
Is 'sentience' the right point to draw the line? How would you respond to findings like this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pce.13065, which comes to the conclusion that the assumption that plants are not sentient may be flawed?
You make great points about exploitation that we all benefit from.
As for plants, I think it’s possible, however raising animals requires even more plants to be killed.
And I’m not sure plants experience pain the way animals do. And if I had to choose, it seems animals are more capable of experiencing pain and suffering.
Because I wake up refreshed, have steady energy throughout the day, and can focus on solving complicated tasks throughout the day. I'm happier and healthy than I've ever been.
> Are there other areas of your life that you optimize for your own personal preferences at the expense of other sentient beings?
Almost every area of my life is at the expense of other sentient beings. I use energy that probably comes from coal that is fueling the war. I use an iPhone that has a battery that was probably made from slaves in china, built from materials sourced from slaves in mines in Africa. If you're checking hacker news, I'm assuming you are optimizing for your own personal preferences at the expense of other sentient beings.
I'd like to change some of that. The are more effective ways of doing so than just opting out of society.
> Are there areas where you don’t?
Chicken and pork are actually my favorite foods. I don't eat them because I think as livestock they're a net harm to the environment.
I don't kill spiders in my house, they're happy to cohabitate.
I have a dog, I sacrifice hours a day to make sure he is happy and healthy.
Happy to answer any other questions
Do you desire to protect your dog or dogs over other animas capable of the same or greater social and emotional experience?
Why not eat dogs?
In your view, if a lion and a hunter both kill a gazelle, have they both committed the same moral violation?
The philosophy makes no sense even if you start with the assumption that animals are on the same moral plane as people that does not preclude or discount eating them out of preference because animals already do that. If you want to argue for veganism use a less combative prideful argument. For example I'm not vegan or vegetarian but I heavily reduce my meat consumption for environment and health reasons, less than 2 times a month and I want to go lower. Talking about the nuance and difficulty that comes with eating less meat and overcoming them should be inline with the, moral pride based better than you attitude you have. And it should be something you are seeking not trying to derail because your goal is to get people to eat less meat.
One need not conflate “combative” with confronting.
As for other animals, I know that they suffer, feel pain, and have a desire to live.
I do not know if they have the capacity to decide what to eat.
We humans, however, do.
And, the vast majority of meat being eaten is from animals that are vegetarian.
According to Wikipedia and Google, tofu [1] has 8% protein, while chicken [2] has almost 31%.
Is there some more finesse required in the exact variety of tofu that you mean?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu#Nutrition_and_health
[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=chicken+breast+nutrition+100...
I have tried vegan (whole foods only) for months, and I have real trouble with legumes, not just normal gas, and my blood work went crazy. Triglycerides shot up for one.
The healthiest I have ever felt, and the best my blood work has ever been, was eating 1.5lbs of grassfed beef every day (with lots of roots and leaves too).
I can do vegetarian pretty easily, I process eggs and dairy well, but both of those foods are designed to trigger rapid growth in young organisms. I'm not growing anymore so I tend to pack on fat with them.
My chosen middle ground is to get my protein from fish (Cobain said they don't have feelings) and dinosaurs(they had their time). I feel little kinship to cows, grew up around them, but it isn't efficient, even if I feel physically better eating them.
There are plenty of studies showing large populations of vegetarians suffering vitamin deficiencies, so thriving is quite a stretch. Here is one example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29446340/
What do you think the animals humans like to eat, eat? A heck of a lot of grain and other plants. "Animal agriculture" includes the fluffy animals (with whom we may empathize - they ain't robots) and the massive farms that grow their feed.
Animal agriculture incidentally kills and displaces far more other creatures than non-animal agriculture simply due to the additional land requirements. It is far easier to accept the less harmful industry.
There's a wide spectrum of how much you're willing to do to avoid causing suffering:
- Nothing, eat meat from the worst factory farms without second thought
- Only eat meat from local, ethical, sustainable, etc farmers.
- Only eat meat you have personally killed in the most humane way possible
- Vegetarianism
- Veganism
- Fruitarianism
- Starve to death?
Telling people that their principles or feelings are wrong is rarely a great way to convince people, it just makes you look obnoxious in debates.
On the second point, I agree, if in person I wouldn't make such a statement in that way because reactions are immediate and you're within immediate awkwardness. But on the internet, you read a statement and then you will emotionally react, but can then go research more, ponder, deliberate and choose whether you respond emotionally, matter-of-factly, not at all, etc. I think that's great and in a sense encourages some more provocative honesty that we dance around in the flesh.
Maybe you must eat factory farmed meat, fine, it's not for me to say. But that's not most people. Most people can do with reducing their meat intake, and it isn't hard. It's not like you are in the wilderness hunting or anything. You just go to the grocery store and buy veggies and beans and stuff.
Furthermore, for some people, eating meat from a factory farm is orders of magnitude more difficult than eating a strict plant based diet. Maybe that's easy for you - not for me.
Finally, while nature may indeed be cruel, we do not need to be.
The idea that killing animals is more cruel than not is to ignore ecology.
Factory farms and industrial meat is certainly another story. But I wanted to point out that cruelty is not so black and white. It’s similar to the cat people that feed strays — makes them feel good, but it makes the problem worse which is more cruel than simply not feeding the strays.
I strongly disagree with this. If there were no humans participating, and deer ended up overpopulated, and then starved, would there be any issue? Of course not, this is just how nature balances itself.
That "killing an animal directly via hunting" is more cruel than "letting the populate self-correct via natural processes" is not a matter of common sense - it's not something we all agree on. There is an implication that we know better than the universe and I'm not convinced that is the case.
> Wild pigs are another significant environmental nuisance. They reproduce rapidly and cause massive destruction wherever they go. Seems like managing those populations without eating the meet is worse ethically.
I assume you are referring to feral pigs, which are not wild in the sense that a native creature is. They are domesticated pigs which have ended up in foreign environments. Whether hunting them is appropriate or not, I'm not sure.
Nowadays, though, we have gotten ourselves in a pickle, by eliminating the natural predators in many environments in which deer thrive naturally, or have adapted to. Via our own lack of foresight, consideration for the planet as a whole, or even some degree of self-serving malice, we have created a really tricky problem.
I do agree we ought to work on this issue. Hunting is probably the best, most practical solution we have, but only because I believe we should try to fix what we have broken, not because it is somehow less cruel. A less practical but far less cruel solution may be a sterilization program for the invasive populations.
Each particular deer is, though. And if you were one, given a choice between getting shot and starving to death, which one would you prefer?
Is the humane way to kill an animal the same way one would humanely kill a toddler without consent of the parents or child?
If not why not, when we consider animal have at least the intelligence, will to live, social connections and capacity for suffering as children?
One can argue the cruelty of eating animals regardless - but there very much is a difference between tightly caged factory farming, pumping animals with medicine constantly because the conditions keep them sick all the time, and raising animals in a healthy environment.
Halal one.
> Is the humane way to kill an animal the same way one would humanely kill a toddler without consent of the parents or child?
Interesting wording.
> If not why not, when we consider animal have at least the intelligence, will to live, social connections and capacity for suffering as children?
When we will be able to ask for that kind of a contest?
PS. I know, animals has some signs of intelligence. But for me this measure of intelligence is not enough for not willing to eat it. And referring to parent poster, I really think there is some ethics in eating only those meat which has been killed by me, but I only have a chicken farm when I want to eat not only chicken.
Is exactly what happens. Without cattle there is not the need of meadows anymore. Not wildflowers, butterflies, hedgehogs, molluscs or birds. Soy fields have a biodiversity composed of: Soy. Period.
If we got rid of all cattle, we would not reduce the amount of soybeans grown by 77%, just our utilization of what is grown.
Beans are the crop. Everything else must wait until they are ready, and by then it will be basically dry matter. Therefore all except the beans is a residual.
Can still be recycled into more human food by herbivores, but we couldn't do it directly. We can't feed on dry stems, withered flowers or brown leaves.
If you want specific studies I can go look up in the book but it sounds like your asking for further reading, not cited sources.
If anyone wants to engage with the consequences of animal agriculture, this is a great starting point: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO%20repor...
What do you imagine we would do with the soy pucks that are produced after extruding the oil?
Also, ruminants need non starchy, fibrous plant materials. I can't speak toward chicken and pork but I don't advocate people eat those.
"86% of the global livestock feed intake is made of materials that are inedible by humans" - Sacred Cow, Diana Rogers, source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221191241...
Of that last 14% of human edible food, the vast majority is used at the end to fatten up the animals for slaughter.
"Results estimate that livestock consume 6 billion tonnes of feed (dry matter) annually – including one third of global cereal production – of which 86% is made of materials that are currently not eaten by humans. In addition, soybean cakes, which production can be considered as main driver or land-use, represent 4% of the global livestock feed intake. Producing 1 kg of boneless meat requires an average of 2.8 kg human-edible feed in ruminant systems and 3.2 kg in monogastric systems. While livestock is estimated to use 2.5 billion ha of land, modest improvements in feed use efficiency can reduce further expansion."
Even the source you are citing agrees that after massaging the numbers as much as possible it's still 3x less efficient to produce calories for human consumption by feeling animals.
I cannot access the full article, but from the abstract that seems to not be congruent with what the study is suggest. Perhaps you are confusing kg for kcal? It could indeed be the fact that it is 3x less efficient by weight.
Given that the article is pointing out that 86% of the feed for animals is not edible by humans, claiming that meat is 3x less efficient calorie wise with these numbers is also making the claim that we are growing plants 2x more calorically dense by meat than weight.
For factory farmed cattle (which is the most common) the situation is far worse.
An individual cow needs 24lbs of food per day. How much soy does one person consume in a day?
To have hay in winter you still need a meadow of high grass that will burst with life in spring, and cattle is excluded from this areas. Hay don't require pesticides or weedkillers. Traditional farming areas double its purpose as small natural reserves, even in winter. (Not all is nice, we could have a forest there instead, but is still better than modern agriculture for a mile).
> An individual cow needs 24lbs of food per day. How much soy does one person consume in a day?
This is a false equivalence.
The correct question would be: "how much soy consume the number of people that could be feed with this cow".
The error is understandable because many of this movements are focused in the individual, and equality among individuals. This is just one way to study ecology, but not the more interesting or rewarding one, and sometimes leads to plain wrong conclusions.
A cow can produce until 88lbs of milk a day. Having 12000 L of milk by cow in a lactating season is not uncommon, and some can reach 20000 L of milk. And this without talking about the meat and the leather.
Dairy cows and meat cows are entirely different. Old dairy cows do become meat, but it's very poor meat.
Please also explain how any large monoculture crop is a net gain for diversity?
> Evidence for that rather large claim?
While most cows in Brazil are grass-fed, about half are raised on former rainforest:
"Nearly 50% of Brazilian livestock are raised in fields that used to be rainforest."[0,1]
"Most cows in Brazil, the world’s largest beef exporter, are grass-fed."[2]
See also:
How beef demand is accelerating the Amazon’s deforestation and climate peril[3]:
> Cattle ranchers in the Brazilian Amazon — the storied rainforest that produces oxygen for the world and modulates climate — are aggressively expanding their herds and willing to clear-cut the forest and burn what’s left to make way for pastures. As a result, they’ve become the single biggest driver of the Amazon’s deforestation, causing about 80 percent of it, according to the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.
Cattle Ranching in the Amazon Region[4]:
> Cattle ranching is the largest driver of deforestation in every Amazon country, accounting for 80% of current deforestation rates. Amazon Brazil is home to approximately 200 million head of cattle, and is the largest exporter in the world, supplying about one quarter of the global market. Low input cost and easy transportation in rural areas make ranching an attractive economic activity in the forest frontier; low yields and cheap land encourage expansion and deforestation. Approximately 450,000 square kilometers of deforested Amazon in Brazil are now in cattle pasture. Cattle ranching and soy cultivation are often linked as soy replaces cattle pasture, pushing farmers farther into the Amazon.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/meat-consumption-linked-to-t...
[1] http://www.cbra.org.br/portal/downloads/publicacoes/rbra/v42...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-12-17/saving-th...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/27/how-beef-...
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20180928055440/https://globalfor...
> It sounds like you are suggesting non-animal agriculture kills or displaces more animals than animal agriculture.
Animal agriculture is better for biodiversity than crop monocultures. I understand that the truth can be shocking for some people, but there are dozens of ecological studies pointing to the environmental value of pastures and meadows, specially as ecotones.
As the initial plan to demonize cattle failed, now you are silently replacing "non-animal agriculture" by "rainforests" as a straw man to attack the original claim. Sorry, but this was not the point that we were discussing.
"Non-animal agriculture", also known as "Agriculture", has replaced happily as many rainforest hectares as cattle, if not more. Take a look to the fate of Indonesian rainforests
The reason is simple: to produce the same amount of energy (and protein) with livestock as you would with crops, you have to use orders of magnitude more resources and you affect the environment orders of magnitude more: you use more fuel, release more greenhouse gases, use more water, use more land area, destroy more soil, et.c.
And while it might be true that one hectare used for grazing might be more biodiverse than one hectare used for, your example, soybeans. But 85 percent of the world's soybean crop is processed into meal and vegetable oil, and virtually all of that meal is used in animal feed.
I think you need to look up the meaning of the expression "straw man". And about the rainforests: Tropical rainforests are the most biologically diverse terrestrial ecosystems in the world, and right now, huge areas of that rainforests are destroyed for the land to be used to raise cattle.
This is just silly. I can't imagine an internally consistent worldview that would assert something like this. Of course natural biomes are valuable regardless of the presence of cattle. Besides, modern cattle are domesticated creatures and don't even really have a native (i.e. not man-made or facilitated) environment.
The assertion regarding soy fields is at best a misunderstanding of the actual data regarding land use, or at worse, a meaningless tautology.
For those who don't have time to click and read the link in the other reply by user vnorilo, I'll just quote the relevant paragraph:
> More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products such as tofu, soy milk, edamame beans, and tempeh. The idea that foods often promoted as substitutes for meat and dairy – such as tofu and soy milk – are driving deforestation is a common misconception.
I mean if you determine that animals dying for your diet is no good, then make sure you consider the people that might be dying to bring you the goods you haven't checked the source of, or for the stadium you enjoy watching events at, etc.
Quit meat if you feel you need to, but don't pretend it makes you a morally better person because 'animal murder,' it's not that simple.
If your interested in killing the least amount of animals, why not go hunting and fishing, that almost assuredly kills fewer than industrialized agriculture. I've replaced almoat all beef all year round in our family with deer venison kept year round in a chest freezer.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think that veganism or vegetarianism for most people is very emotional action. Most of the pop media around it focuses on the cuteness of the animal not on the total number of animals killed. and it's ignoring that like in hunting or ethical farming, the animals have a very full happy life.
As a hunter it's interesting seeing this article on HN and seeing no mention of hunting. Also not a bad thing, it's not part of the culture here, but it's interesting to see that bias in the HN culture.
If everyone were to switch to a vegan diet, global agriculture land use would be reduced by 75%.
Dubai opened one about 6 months ago capable of producing over a million kg of leafy greens a year, the largest vertical farm in the world by some margin, and that's just a pilot project.
The “largest vertical farm in the world by some margin” produces less calories than a tiny family farm that can barely afford its own tractor. The largest wheat farm in Canada is over 35,000 acres which means it produces just as much food per day as the largest vertical farm produces per year. That wheat farm isn’t even in the list of top 10 largest farms in North America.
We’re comparing pebbles to continents.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/190356/wheat-yield-per-h...
[2] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...
Edit: I made a slight mistake in my math. A 60 lbs bushel of wheat when processed doesn’t yield exactly 60 pounds of usable food, but it doesn’t change the overall picture (360 kcal => 240 kcal, 130 acres => 180 acres)
Edit 2: That vertical farm cost $40 million to build. Our hypothetical wheat farm would cost under $2 million for the land, fertilizer, seeds, and machines.
The industry is growing at 25-30% YoY…. That’s gonna snowball fast.
> The industry is growing at 25-30% YoY…. That’s gonna snowball fast.
Pure fantasy. We’ve had vertical farming for thousands of years already - first built by the same Babylonians that grew wheat in Mesopotamia! When’s it going to start snowballing?
It's not just land use, it's every single vector of comparison, like water use, energy use, human labor (ab)use, habitat destruction, etc.
If humanity is the ground of your analysis, meat consumption will fail to present itself as the decisive factor for any vector of comparison. The decisive factor will generally be the elevation of capital or oligarchic social ends over general social interest.
It's a better quality of product and doesn't send their cows to feedlots.
I've seen industrial farming and it's not pretty, but more than anything it products a pretty crappy product now compared to organic.
You eat a lot less as the quality leaves you satisfied.
> wanting to reduce suffering
Bullshit, you don't give 2 shits about that, you want to increase suffering in actual sentient beings.
Which a cow is not. Hence you are in a cult because what else would you call that position??
You are not a moral agent and you don't get to define what others can and can't do when it comes to food production.
Organics is a fantastic way to go, it just shows how full of shit you are to go against that.
Liar.
You forget all that leather used in a myriad of products, that leather comes from cows. Or feathers and down from various birds. Or the other million side products of animal husbandry, that I'm not even aware of. I think almost every part of a cow is used in an industrial process, not much is wasted.
Plus, this needs a totally vegan solution and you're wiping out any and all dairy products: cheeses (all 100 million of them), yogurt, regular milk, sour milk, sour cream, whey, etc.
And there's vegan cheese https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancheesemaking
and of course vegan yogurt etc. (you can make yogurt with coconut milk for example)
...and it sucks as a replacement for genuine leather.
My old boss was vegan (or rather his wife was and he was very accommodating of her diet, he would still eat meat outside the home). He would always mention that the fanciest, most expensive vegan cheese option out there set itself apart from the rest with the tagline "It melts!" on the packaging. Vegan cheese has to come a long way to be anywhere comparable to real cheese. The same applies to synthetic leather, by the way.
But if you are looking for something like a slice of cheddar or vegan mac-n-cheese the options are really pretty terrible and all have an aftertaste like you just ate a spoonful of Crisco.
[0] https://miyokos.com/products/classic-double-cream-chive-chee...
I don't think I have ever seen something trying to imitate any really soft (brie) or blue (roquefort) cheeses.
But even that aside, it's not our duty as consumers to keep eating animals to keep industry able to make shoes and cheese.
My point is, what are we going to replace those with? Especially leather & co. They have real life applications, they're not just fads. Plus, will those replacement products be sustainable? Vegan leather is just rebranded plastic, for example.
I'm equally curious, but I don't know the numbers, if replacing plastic packaging with paper/cardboard is environmentally sound. I remember back in the day efforts to reduce paper consumption, I think our sustainable paper production capacity was near its limits.
Even vegan (plastic) leather is significantly better from an environmental and emissions perspective than cowhide leather. The tanning process is not exactly eco-friendly, and neither is raising cows.
What in the flying fuck is "cyber chicken". I'm assuming this is a joke, right!?
You're not getting the flavour of a burger, no matter how hard you try to fool yourself (or make yourself sick). That's why these companies are flailing.
I think the purists are trying to hold a parity argument but the substitute enjoyers are cool with experimentation and want something similar even if it's not 1:1.
What proof do you have them being unhealthy? Impossible for example has fairly simple list of ingredients. Better macros than burger ground.
Anecdotally. My father in law has had to stop eating red meat due to health concerns. He enjoys impossible products just fine with no negative concerns in blood biomarkers or examines (several years running now). We are controlling for exercise patterns too. He’s just replaced his frequent burgers with an impossible patty instead.
This comment is just a wild claim with no evidence and falsely equates “processed” with “unhealthy”
I think you mean we have studies of dubious quality blaming red meat. And scores of people repeating the same trite arguments.
It's the same people that brought to you salt causes high blood pressure and saturated fat causes atherosclerosis, pushing the low fat craze and the obesity epidemic.
Sure, meat is bad, go eat hyper processed fake meat.
Those studies were all ideological driven and would never pass replication.
Mongols vs China, diet was a defining factor in the Mongols victories.
Meat and dairy, the dairy gave them tons go vitamin D as well.
Source?
Iirc it was that the figting forces of the various northern chinese states were comprised of conscript peasants whose diet consisted of grain and not much else, which stunted their growth among other things, meaning the mongols were significantly larger and stronger than them leading to certain mythologizing in the centuries afterwards. It probably also didn't help that the conscripted peasants were, well, conscript foot soldiers, wheras the mongols were willing participants on horseback
Bang on, same thing with the Dutch and the Brits when the empire flourished.
Dietary changes drive a lot of these things, more than I think is generally understood and credited.
The Mongols are a very famous example and extreme as you stated the Chinese peasant and soliders mostly had a grain based diet and poor health that came with it.
From just 2 minutes with your paper: "Higher heme iron intake appeared to be significantly associated with a 31 % (95 % CI 4–67 %) elevated risk of developing CHD" --- lmao, loving that 95% confidence interval between 4 and 67%.
Passing those out as proof of real science keeps the disinformation and terrible practice alive. If I had a dime every time a random commenter gave me a link to an epidemiologic nutritional study, I could fund a double blind randomized one myself.
1: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/29/plant-based-... — have fun reading the actual numbers in Tables 2, 3 and 4 of the linked paper.
if normally distributed, two thirds would have elevated risk between 14% and 48%
that is to say, almost everyone has an elevated risk - so I have no idea why you are complaining about confidence intervals
Yet white fish is one of the most recommended heart healthy foods.
You have to be careful when talking about specific mechanisms in terms of Whole Foods. Nutrition can't be reduced down to single mechanisms to provide confident recommendations, and often times results are the opposite of what we would expect mechanistically.
also, it's still lower than red meat, it's on the order of white meat
if you want an iron-rich fish you'd have to go up to bluefin tuna, which does have a red tint to its meat
But some people do not support their habits to be changed and are ready to believe anything that confort their opinions. Even if their habits destroy the planet.
It's worth obfuscating this point. We don't know red meat isn't healthy.
Equally, we also don't know that red meat is healthy.
Without making a case for either side, readers should know that the field of nutrition is incredibly unclear, often times very individualized, and most of what people 'know' are just 'educated guesses'. For every study proving one side of the argument, you can find 10 studies proving the opposite side.
There is a need.
More importantly, while I like the taste of meat too much to give up on it, I would also very much prefer that it could be had without killing animals. I don't think plant-based meat is going to be the ultimate solution to this - more likely, it'll be the lab-grown stuff. But, either way, it requires investments from the food industry to reach maturity, and those won't happen unless there's a real customer interest. Buying fake-meat burger is a way to express that interest.
https://www.freshprep.ca/orders/11661077/recipes/thai-beyond...
(crustaceans are a good example as traces of them tend to get included into algal based food, but less pleasant sounding examples are e.g. from time to time small worms being in fruited pressed for juice, sound terrible but isn't really that terrible and impossible to avoid without using pesticides which are worse then that by far)
Except that fish are much more closely related to mammals than crustaceans are to insects (same phylum, different class). Here is an example of an animal that is as closely related to a cow as a grasshopper is to a lobster: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salp
Edit: Even more, dietary preferences tend to focus on a single species. Plenty of people eat chicken but not turkey, or eat pork but not boar. There are even people who eat lamb but not adult sheep. And no one eats wolf or eagle meat. To then come and say "hey, you already eat one arthropod, why not another" is pretty absurd.
I'm not at all against eating insects, I'm just pointing out that the fact we eat shrimp has 0 to do with it.
Either way, while we eat some mammals and birds, we still don't eat the vast majority of mammals or birds, and we barely eat any reptiles or amphibians or fish.
Hexapoda are all of the insects.
I think those meat replacements are good for people who have just become vegan as they give you a sense of familiarity, but after a while you realise that it’s possible to eat a delicious vegan diet that doesn’t consist of mega-processed things trying to be meat.
https://twitter.com/business/status/1594742995647070214?ref_...
I don't have any ill effects from tofu either.
PS : soaked portobello mushrooms veggie burger is a delicatessen
Highly under-appreciated IMO.
There must be some special way to prepare it to make it taste good. There's no way I'll take this stuff and make burger patties out of it just like I would regular ground beef.
I'm not the only one either, do a search for "beyond smells like..." and look at the autocomplete results.
Raw ground beef is much more pleasant, though bland.
I ordered a incredible beef pizza thinking it was extra topping or something.
Half way through I happened to eat one of the 'beef' bits by itself and realised it tasted terrible and possibly expired.
I googled it and turned out they sold me a fake meat while advertising it as "<product_name> beef". Which I felt should be false advertising.
The funny thing is I really enjoy falafels and the English brand of vege mushroom paddies. But this fake meat is soulless.
The etymology doesn't really matter, but the french word for cheese refer to how milk is ~processed... "Fromage" -> "Formage" -> "putting stuff in forms". If you think "peanut butter" is confusing... it is called "pinda kaas" in dutch... directly translates to "peanut cheese"!
I'm in the UK so I might have trouble getting them, most of the vegan cheese I have access to is basically the same flavour just in different shapes and forms.
They're really good with no awful side effects or tastes. I like some vegetarian options, but honestly, most of it either tastes nasty or has poor texture.
And I doubt their business is struggling, or that Beyond Meats's fate has them worried.
Big problem though is the required level of processing to take a vague protein slurry and turn it into a glued together nugget means it's only really comparable to the absolute lowest quality, bulk batch, school lunch grade nuggets.
This said, I used to like Quorn before they started stuffing egg (mostly eggwhite) into everything. The real slime mold is great, but where I live it's near impossible to get Quorn products without the egg. They taste as bad as impossible/beyond with their clearly chemical taste.
Going beyond this, mosr vegetarians/vegans find over time that it is much cheaper and actually nicer to go simple, not with the replacements. tofu, seitan or simply vegetable dishes without any of these things. E.g. in a well flavoured bolognese/ragout no one can taste a difference between meat, fake meat or simple hard tofu (mouth feel/texture are clearly different though). And anyone should really try making seitan, it's super fun and easy - basically you just wash a bag of flour repeatedly with warm water.
Beyond doesn’t have the same issue for me.
It's a well known story I've heard of vegetarians going back to eating meat and then getting sick from the meat for some time. This is also why eating foods you're not used to can often make you sick even if they're fine. Your gut microbiome adapts to your diet, and if you suddenly change what you eat you can get indigestion.
From my understanding the beyond/etc "meat" acts like real meat to your body microbiome because it's so similiar.
The odd peculiar taste of these kinds of new plant based burgers can be pretty foul. For me and my partner, the Burger King veggie burger now tastes similar to dish soap.
Bring back the delicious bean burgers and actual normal veggie burgers.
That's interesting - is it a genetic thing like cilantro?
After this I tried several of these alternatives just to look for different flavors. Beyond meat really smelled weird when cooking, and while somewhat acceptable in taste I can totally share the stomach weirdness.
This didn't prevent me to keep trying other stuff. "Impossible meat" I was never able to find yet. But as other have said, the major issue is that all the alternative options cost _more_ than actual beef where I live. This makes it a luxury option.
"Here’s a pesky little chemical called hexanal. If you’ve ever eaten a beyond burger, or any of these plant based products 2.0 (though to be honest, it’s more like they’re on V.46.6.2) and burped 10 or 15 minutes afterwards, and thought to yourself, “Hmmm, wow, ok I definitely just had a meat alternative” you were probably regurgitating this aerosol. Some people think it’s fruity, like green apple, others like mulched grass. At the lab, we had to walk outside to get wafts of it in its pure form, but the minute I opened the cap I knew exactly what this flavour was…. “OLD FRYER OIL, 100%”. It’s metabolized in all manners of organisms through the oxidation of fatty acids, and is… kind of unpleasant?! The point is that while this molecule exists in fava beans, peas, and soy, (the three kings of texturized vegetable protein) when you have a WHOLE FOOD, its there in harmony among all sorts of other volatile compounds, while also being locked away deep inside the beans fibres. It’s the act of processing that concentrated and heightens the presence of off-flavours like these, making the processed foods made from them taste, well, processed. Good with the bad. You can’t concentrate for protein without concentrating other aspects of a plant. There’s always a cost. Now, I will always be a huge proponent for whole foods, made with care, prepared simply. But the realities of grocery store shelves dictate a different truth. People opt for convenience, and sometimes, you’ve got to meet them where they are. My current work at CH has me doggedly hunting down an effect of fermentation I’ve long known intuitively through practice. Certain lactic acid bacteria fermenting their way through legumes don’t just mask, but dismantle this and other problematic molecules. I’m still after the mode of action, but it’s also enough for me to know that age old techniques of fermentation (like soaking ones legumes or grains days in advance of their cooking) can still put to shame the greatest technological “advances” of food science of the past 40 years. Nature is, after all, cleverer than you are. "
https://www.facebook.com/david.zilber/posts/pfbid02CkCY53qDd...
Though IDK what came out of their affair with Bezos, seems it didn't gain traction in the US? Unlike the rest of the world, they're big in LatAm and expanding. I think Australia is their latest successful gig. This isn't a paid endorsement btw, I just like their stuff.
I assume Beyond, Impossible etc use another, more crude/unrefined approach.
> Though IDK what came out of their affair with Bezos, seems it didn't gain traction in the US? Unlike the rest of the world, they're big in LatAm and expanding. I think Australia is their latest successful gig. This isn't a paid endorsement btw, I just like their stuff.
Here they recently partnered with Kraft to make Not versions of their cheese singles (although some would say they weren't really cheese to begin with) and eventually other products. NotChicken is supposed to also make it here relatively soon, but sadly only as patties.
OP's point is that Beyond/Impossible replaced the veggie patty with a non-meat version of meat patty, instead of adding a new item in the menu.
When I'm in the mood for a veggie burger, I don't want a hamburger. Restaurants shouldn't replace veggie patties with imitation meat -- they should have both.
I'm Italian, I could eat vegetarian meals everyday for a month without ever eating the same thing twice.
Same goes for all of Europe, Asia, Middle East, Africa or South America.
Vegetable dishes are the foundation of every established culinary tradition.
There's absolutely no need for incredible|magical|impossible|whatever meat.
You're saying that vegetarians don't know this?
Arguably some don't.
Read again: some.
I am absolutely not claiming that, I am absolutely claiming that beliefs based on feelings and not hard truths tend to reject rational arguments, hence their members are usually not the most curious people around and it's common they ignore things that are obvious to the rest of us.
Take a western vegetarian, we all know a few of them and some vegan too.
Most vegetarians/vegan inform themselves in vegetarian communities, which are based on the same western principles where they were born, mainly North America.
Most vegetarian communities are based on spurious correlations, like the fact that 80% of people from India are Hinduists, a religion that promotes a lacto-vegetarian diet letting people believe that 80% of Indians are vegetarians, which is obviously completely false.
Christianity promotes a mostly vegetarian diet too, there's a list of food that you should not consume on certain days, nobody follows those prescriptions anymore, they are thousands years old and come from the Jewish traditions.
But if I say that 30% of the World population is Christian, a religion that promotes a mostly vegetarian diet, things sound completely different.
Don't also forget that in vegetarian circles meat is the root cause of everything bad: from cancer[1] to diabetes[2], deforestation[3], being overweight [4], depression[5] and even infertility[6] (yes, you heard right!)
All these claims have been either debunked, highly exaggerated or correlated when there is no factual evidence. Yet they resist in the narrative of these communities, like the idea that Christ died on a cross and then came back to life 3 days later. It's false, we know it is, but people still believe it and there's nothing we can do about it.
It's easy to understand the stigma that these manipulatory lies can create around "traditional food", these people often think of themselves as revolutionary going against the status quo, so their enemy are their local traditions, not just the meat (everyone eats some meat around them, so it must be "the others their ways and they do not see it").
So they end up eating a lot of food that is not local nor traditional (tradition equals bad, remember?), such as tofu, that in Italy is totally not traditional nor commonly used, yet most vegetarians and vegans rely on it.
The reason why?
Vegetarianism in the west is a business, if you can sell the dirty cheap tofu at 5-10 euros/kg (that's the price in Italy) while poultry costs 3-5 euros/kg (raw, raised on the ground and antibiotic free) you can understand how convenient it is to sell people the idea that you need to eat tofu instead of pasta with tomato sauce (1-1.5 euros/kg), you are in for the big bucks.
Don't dismiss what I say just because you disagree, I've researched the topic a lot, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
> Most meals for most people worldwide are essentially vegetarian, even if the people are not obligate vegetarians
Sooner or later people in the west will understand that there are people among us priding themselves for not eating meat while our pets, for example cats, every year eat 10 times the meat an average central African person has to eat, suffering the horrendous consequences of malnutrition, like watching their children die of hunger or curable disease that their bodies weakened by the forced plant based diet hadn't the strength to fight, and we don't see a problem with that.
The irony is that those people are in developing countries, they are developing, they will eventually eat more meat, no way they will keep dying for a made up belief, for those who care about animal suffering I have an advice: renounce to pets. They eat too much meat, they kill too many animals, they are not sustainable.
[1] https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/cancer-causing-foods-2/
[2] https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/diabetes/
[3] https://thehumaneleague.org/article/meat-industry-deforestat...
[4] https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/obesity/
[5] https://psychcentral.com/depression/foods-that-cause-depress...
[6] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods-to-avoid-when-try...
Yes, almost every vegan I've known is optimizing to minimize animal "cruelty", defined on their own ideological terms. Meanwhile, almost every vegetarian I've known is either one for religious reasons (and have their tradition's cultural cuisines to draw from) or simply don't like meat. I also know many Muslims who avoid meat at restaurants since it's not halal. I am struggling to recall any vegetarians that eat an average American diet by simply replacing meat with something like tofu.
If your intent is indeed to refer to vegetarians, I think that hasn't been the case in the US since perhaps the 90s. American vegetarianism really took off in the cultural context of the 60s and 70s, where Eastern ideas & sensibilities were imported but not the people or their cuisines. If a median American in the 70s wanted to maintain a meat free diet, their options were genuinely restricted. That's certainly not the case now, where the median American vegetarian is likely of recent immigrant descent, and has their heritage cuisine to inspire vegetarian meals. Changes to American immigration policy and the segment of countries where immigrants have come from have changed American vegetarianism. I also think something like Impossible burgers have very little appeal to the median vegetarian, since they're not interested in the taste of meat to begin with.
Yes, unlike the median American vegetarian, the median American vegan tends to appear spontaneously among families that are not themselves vegan. Unlike vegetarians, they don't have a rich family tradition to draw from, and plenty learn to just wing it. That said, I do think even this is likely not the case anymore. Today, in any big city, good vegan/vegetarian food is easy to find. As an illustrative example, I asked a relative who's lived in NYC for 40 years what his favorite restaurant meal has been (he absolutely loves steak). His favorite restaurant is a vegan Korean BBQ. Similarly, I've been informed by Mexicans of an amazing Mexican vegan place in Brooklyn.
so basically you want a veggie patty disguised as an hamburger.
but there's a catch: agriculture kills as many animals than we do to eat them.
You might not see them, but billions of insects, worms, small rodents etc are killed in the process of making agriculture a viable business.
Pesticides are not exactly environmental friendly.
But then the crops need to be protected from their natural predators: herbivores!
You might have asked yourself sometimes why we don't see deers, boars, jackrabbits, cows, goats (the list is endless) roaming free close to crop fields and the answer is simple: they eat the crops, so they have been killed in the past and are now kept away, maybe not shooting them directly, but not asking gently either.
That causes massive repercussions on natural fauna too: coyotes, wolves, bears, cougars, bobcats etc cannot survive in absence of preys.
So basically veggie patties are not made of dead animals, but a lot of animals died so that we could eat them.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/insec...
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023989118
Most importantly: loss of vegetable specie due to mono cultures farmed specifically for humans (tomatoes for burgers, for example - McDonald's is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, purchaser in the world of potatoes, lettuce and tomatoes - or avocados for fancy sandwiches, that consume 300 liters of water to produce a single fruit) is not be underestimated.
As an example, this sentence
> vegans are inflicting far less damage because most of the cereal crops that are mono-cropped (wheat, corn, soy, etc.) are fed to the animals people consume.
is almost completely made up and numbers are greatly exaggerated for propagandistic purpose.
The reason why original Parmigiano cheese is so worshipped by Italians and it's so expensive abroad, is exactly because cows are not fed with crops, bu with natural grass.
The reason why in USA many animals are fed with farmed crops is because crops are subsidized by the govt, making them cheaper than the alternatives.
Another reason why herbivores are fed with crops is because they can eat the remains we can't eat, which is around 85% of the whole plant
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5caca181348cd9...
According to FAO (United Nations Agency for food) "only 13% of global animal feed (all animals for food, including chickens, pigs and cattle) is comprised of grain crops"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22119...
Crops are also heavily subsidized to produce bio fuel, which is not great, I agree, but that has nothing to do with feeding animals or eating their meat.
I think you'd need to have sources that prove that specifically crops grown for human consumption result in more deaths, or that we'd have to grow more of those crops to feed humans compared to the crops grown to feed animals.
Again, just to clarify, the third source you mention has categories for things like "by-products", "Other non-edible", "Oil seed cakes", etc. Whether or not humans can eat those is irrelevant. The point is that all those things could still be coming from crops grown in the same general way as the crops grown for human consumption. Does that make sense, or am I being too religious for your logical atheistic brain?
I think you don't understand the issue.
Vegetarians (and vegans) don't kill less animals, they simply don't eat them (or at least that's what they say...)
> The point is that all those things could still be coming from crops
The point is that eating meat, unless you are from the US, does not mean you're killing billions of animals for fun.
American domestic cats kill billion of birds and other small animals every year.
Why are vegetarians obsessed only with non vegetarian people and not with domestic cats, which they love?
Because it's a religious fight, not an ethical one.
They want to blame someone and found this.
Anyway: scientific method implies that if you say "vegetarians kill less animals" you should prove it with numbers, as humans their activities kill billion of animals every year all over the World.
Vegetarians are not outside of the human realm, they live in societies as we all do and the major source of animal killing and suffering is not eating some meat, that's only selection bias at work.
It would be the same as saying: plants produce oxygen, if you only eat plants you're robbing our planet of breathable air, you should replant every plant you eat.
But every normal well functioning human knows that it's stupid to divide people into good and bad.
That's exactly what vegetarians do.
If you believe in veganism, it's OK, religions are allowed in our societies.
If you believe "vegan facts" from a vegan website is the truth, I don't know what to say to you, you can't fight made up beliefs, I got the Pope in front of my house, I know you can't beat blind faith.
But, the claim has always been that vegetarians don't kill less animals, not that they kill more. Which is arguably true. You won't find vegans in poor countries, you'll find denutrished children starving to death, they'd eat some meat if they could, just to survive. Veganism is a first World problem and as many other first World problems it's completely disconnected from reality.
When you'll eat an entire plant of wheat from roots to the top, we can talk about eating only vegetables.
Until that day you are only wasting resources, as any of us western humans do so well.
On average each year every American eats 3 chickens. Are you sure vegetarians on average don't cause the death of 3 birds each year? Can you prove it? Can you prove the industry you rely on for food is more ethical and kills less animals?
If your objection is "but I don't eat chicken so I kill 3 chickens less than the average" remember that other people could reply "I don't eat vegetables as much as you, so the damages produced by the agriculture industry are much more on you than on me"
Waiting for the data, please refrain if you wanna answer with more propaganda.
Source? Your claim, thus the onus is on you to prove this, which you haven't.
> American domestic cats kill billion of birds and other small animals every year.
Completely irrelevant whataboutism. Like, that's a textbook example of the fallacy.
> Vegetarians are not outside of the human realm, they live in societies as we all do and the major source of animal killing and suffering is not eating some meat, that's only selection bias at work.
> It would be the same as saying: plants produce oxygen, if you only eat plants you're robbing our planet of breathable air, you should replant every plant you eat.
I don't even know how to respond to this. If we include fish, then _trillions_ of animals are killed every year for their meat and body parts. How is that not the greatest source of animal suffering?
> If you believe in veganism, it's OK, religions are allowed in our societies.
This is such a lazy insult. Why do you insist on acting like you argue in good faith, yet say nonsense like this? Genuinely, why?
> You won't find vegans in poor countries, you'll find denutrished children starving to death, they'd eat some meat if they could, just to survive. Veganism is a first World problem and as many other first World problems it's completely disconnected from reality.
What is the point you're making here, exactly? Because some people in the world have limited access to non-animal based sources of nutrition then veganism as an ethical framework is entirely debunked. How on Earth does that follow?
Your style of debate is _not_ working, my guy. Your comment history in other threads seems to paint a picture of you not really arguing in good faith. If you want to continue this discussion, I'll only do it on a video call. My email is in my profile if you'd like to set that up.
Veggie burgers are in a weird position because it's hit or miss on whether they are made with eggs. So it alienates vegans. I don't even bother checking at restaurants if the veggie burgers are vegan anymore. But with Beyond and Impossible, the name recognition is there. Vegetarians and vegans alike know they can eat it. It alienates fewer people. That said, I want as many choices as possible when I go out to eat, so being able to choose a (vegan) veggie burger would be great.
Then they replaced that with beyond/impossible at a higher price. I tried it once, and it basically killed the aura. Now it’s just another burrito shop, no different than any other.
Chickens in particular are very efficient at turning feed corn into usable protein. 3000 calories of fully cooked chicken costs $5 at costco.
1. First off, the vast majority of restaurants that I've been to that offer Impossible or Beyond Burgers still offer at least one traditional veggie burger. In fact I don't know if I've ever seen a restaurant that will only offer a faux meat burger but not offer a veggie burger.
2. I love a good Impossible Burger, fundamentally because it satisfies my cravings for meat in a way veggie burgers never do. Faux meat burgers have very similar protein/fat/carb ratios to real meat, while veggie burgers are nearly always a ton of carbs. I can eat an Impossible Burger and feel full for hours. I eat a veggie burger and I'm hungry again really quickly.
I want the full fat, greasy, meaty nostalgia of my very American-diet childhood and Impossible/Beyond have finally gotten 95% to achieving that. I definitely do not want some bean/vegetable patty with low fat, low salt, and weird texture.
Additionally, my Midwestern-diet wife happily eat Impossible (not Beyond) burgers with me which is a pleasant surprise.
Isn’t that what BM wants to do though?
I think that’s what they’re going for, not so much satisfy vegans as much as sell their product to non vegans, or everyone.
You see this all the time with “keto” junk foods. Keto brownies were definitely the worst.
Point being, we waste a lot of resources trying to ape “unhealthy” food and do a disservice all around.
I've found a similar trend in the supermarket frozen aisles. I used to be able to reliably find "veggie crumbles" at most largeish stores, perfect for pizza, chili, or mapo tofu. My favorite brand was Quorn (not quite vegan, includes egg whites) but there were often several decent options. Now it's rare to find anything other than Beyond or Impossible, packaged to look and feel like ground meat, very fussy. They taste okay, but I prefer both the crumbles' flavors and form factors. I've gone back to using TVP. (I'm not vegetarian -- I'll happily brown my TVP in bacon grease.)
I love meat, and the best non-meat burgers I've eaten that I would absolute eat again and again, didn't try to be non-meat. They were just really tasty vegetable burgers.
One is in a cookbook called “the vegan Korean”, and it’s a legitimately memorable food experience. I’d much rather find that at a restaurant than some kind of run-of-the-mill faux meat burger.
https://thekoreanvegan.com/best-ever-black-bean-burger-with-...
One problem I find with a lot of their products is that their marketing seems off - it is often hard for me to locate plant based nuggets or tenders or patties or just anything. They often say "Chickn", "Pork" or beef in large font with graphics but only write "plant-based" in small text at a location on the packaging which you really have to pay attention to notice. It's not hence, easy to distinguish these things from actual meat by simply glancing at the packaging through the glass.
I don't know whether they want people looking for actual chicken to buy these and give up on returning them later, or whether they're reluctant to highlight the plant-based part of the label as they're often in a small corner in a store.
(...) livestock consume 6 billion tonnes of feed (dry matter) annually – including one third of global cereal production – of which 86% is made of materials that are currently not eaten by humans [1]
In particular, much of meat consumed by us is that of ruminants, which depend on eating foods which must be fermented internally to be assimilated, such as grass. The global livestock sector ingested an estimated 6.0 billion tonnes of feed (DM) in 2010. The three major feed materials were grass and leaves (46% or 2.7 million tonnes, Fig. 2 and Table SI 2 in Supplementary Information), followed by crop residues such as straws, stover or sugar-cane tops (19% or 1.1 billion tonnes DM). At global level, human-edible feed materials represented about 14% of the global livestock feed ration. [1]
[1] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001They get the cheapest possible bits that can't be sold for more to humans but are still enjoyed by animals.
Animals tend to eat human waste products which is a form of recycling, turning essentially rubbish into bioavailable protein
You are not the target group for these products!
The whole point of these products is to replace meat for habitual meat eaters. If the companies can get their products to taste about the same as meat, and have about the same nutritional value, while being cheaper, we can eliminate enormous amounts of habitual meat consumption. That's the value. That's the target.
This is about replacing the meat in gas station hot dogs and fast food burgers and food court lunches, and if these alternatives can be made good enough and cheap enough, we can reduce the total meat consumption in society to a fraction of what it is today, without having to ideologically convert people to vegetarianism.
These products are for all the people who don't think vegetarian products are incredible, but actually don't care whether or not their burger is made of cow or plants, as long as it tastes the same. But the traditional veggie burgers that you prefer don't cut it, so these products are a step further on the way to a product that will. They're not there yet, though.
Circumstances – widespread disease, for example – could see the price of meat exceed these products for periods of time. At which point these products could become contenders on factors of price, but as soon as the market starts to shift the price of meat will fall on the decrease in demand, and you're back to square one. Especially as meat has lag time to market so the price will fall further than you might expect before meat producers are able to pull back on production. There is nothing to keep people eating these products if there is nothing to differentiate them in the market.
The real value proposition is that it is different. A new food option to choose from. If it can be made great, where it is craved as much as meat, then they might have something. Until then, I can see why they are struggling.
Whether this is from the lab, a recipe of plant inputs, or some other currently unknown thing - if you are able to develop and commercialize a product around a ‘specific technology’, you can drive the cost of that down through experience and scale.
Animals are a VERY thermodynamically inefficient way of converting plants to ‘high quality proteins’. We have automated the crap out of the food processing system. There are no material efficiencies left to be had. Compare that to options which are on paper thermodynamically superior (I.e. not supporting the life of an animal to only use their muscle tissue).
By taking a technology with a much higher theoretical efficiency, and then scaling that up - creates the classic technology disruption scenario. ->‘It’s the cheaper version of X commodity, why wouldn’t I choose that?’
This really is such a cool take on it that it bums me out to say…
>why wouldn’t I choose that?
…because I just[0] don’t wanna eat fake meat.
[0] On a very deep, perhaps primal level. I can feel it rooted so far in my brain it’s hard to convey. Rather eat peanut butter at every meal.
That would be pertinent if they were eating the same foods, but they don't eat the same foods. They eat the stuff we won't eat, produced largely either as a byproduct of the production of the foods we do eat or produced on lands that cannot support the foods we eat.
The more efficient we get in producing plants to eat, the more efficient byproducts there are for animals to eat, so you get a continuous relationship of meat becoming cheaper as other foods become cheaper. Economies of scale can only get you so far when the raw material inputs are your main cost centre.
The industry will have to move towards using those 'waste' products in order to be competitive, but at that point you're essentially just replicating animal processes and you're up against a 'machine' doing the same that has had millions of years to develop itself.
I'd say cheaper doesn't seem feasible without duplicating the subsidies received by the meat industry (including farming of animal feed). Give similar subsidies to the plant-based-meat industry, and I'd bet that meat replacements will be much cheaper than meat.
But there's a political risk at that: Meat industry has huge political influence. If their profits are hurt, they would probably demand even more subsidies for covering their "loss". Or you can expect farmers on the streets, and your political oposition taking advantage of the situation.
I'll grant you poultry (chicken, turkey) producers with their sweet, sweet supply management deal. But producers of other meat products? I'd say they are essentially ignored in political circles. If they actually had huge political influence they'd be all over supply management like the poultry producers are afforded. If you venture out into the backroads it's painfully obvious how much richer the poultry producers are compared to their beef and pork producing neighbours, and it is downright sad when you look at those producing less common meats.
The government pays 40% of the insurance premiums for crop insurance (insurance against mother nature) which is a subsidy to plant growers, and is sometimes claimed to by a subsidy to animal producers by extension, but the program doesn't factor in where the product goes. Navy beans grown for humans are very bit as eligible for those subsidies as corn grown for cattle. While it is fair to call it a subsidy, it would be quite disingenuous to claim that is a meat subsidy but not a 'meat alternative' subsidy as well.
It's not a choice for me. When I go to _restaurants_, they are replacing their only vegetarian options with these impossible/beyond meats, and they're charging $2 more while they're at it.
These goals and target markets sound great on paper, but feels like the exact opposite in practice. The goal for reducing waste is great, but why are vegetarians paying that cost when they go out.
I’ve never understood the “pretend meat” category. Lots of vegetarian food tastes amazing and is good for you. It doesn’t have to pretend.
It’s like over-boiling broccoli and covering it in cheese sauce: easier for broccoli-haters to eat, but totally missing the point.
The number of people who eat meat and don't care if their meat is made of meat has got to be in the 7 figure range worldwide. The number of people that don't eat meat and want their vegetables to taste like meat is probably larger, though still miniscule. It's failing because there's no market for it.
It turns out a lot of people just prefer eating meat over other options regardless of price. I'm not really surprised.
It's like you are trying to position fish sticks on the same slot as fresh salmon.
Huge marketing campaign, target low price segment - that would be the market experiment I would be really interested in.
I have already seen this sentiment among poor people.
I do think that if the target market for Beyond really was meat eaters, they've been deluding themselves. Maybe they can shave off a few meat eaters due to the ethical issues, but how many? Ultimately, I have to assume the only way to win many over is on cost, which would have to be a high volume low margin business (if it's even possible to get the prices that low).
This sounds like people at a startup with no product/market fit telling the market that it is wrong.
- People who don't like the taste of meat -> traditional veggie patties
- People who like the taste of meat but are open to eating less of it -> beyond meat, etc.
- People who like the taste of meat and want to eat meat -> meat
I myself fall into the second group.
I don’t think a significant number of people who “start” with beyond meat are going to end up vegetarians.
In fact I think it’s more likely that they go back to eating meat the same amount once they’re done with the substitutes. And maybe if they’re as (rigid? closed-off?) as we’re implying (since they are not already actively eating less meat), they might even walk away with the mindset of “vegetarian food is not as good as meat” and therefore in future avoid the wide variety of delicious vegetarian food.
If people truly want to eat less meat, just throw in some of the most delicious off-the-shelf replacements (like veggie patties) once a week or once a month. The water’s fine, as they say.
No!!!
The target market is habitual meat eaters. People who grab a hot dog as a snack. Eat a burger for lunch. Make pasta bolognese for dinner. Get chicken nuggets for the kids.
The vast majority of meat consumption is done without a strong craving for meat. People are just buying and eating dishes they like. Asking that all of these people consciously substitute those meals with vegetarian meals is not going to happen in a million years.
But if the cheapest hot dog is fake meat, and taste the same, they'll switch. If the cheapest burger is fake meat, and taste the same, they'll switch.
These products will never replace a steak dinner.
So either way, it wont work that well in it's current state.
That's only because we are "subsidising" meat production cost through immense animal suffering. Once you have regulations that make the animals we keep in captivity have a somewhat good life, then meat price goes through the roof and those alternatives are the only reasonable option for the non-rich.
> And if they replace meat consumption then it puts even more stress on the agricultural land that can actually grow vegetable crops, which is only about a quarter of all farm land.
And where do you think the animal food is grown? Instead of feeding it to animals, make veggy dishes out of it.
It's true that some land can't be reasonably used for growing and harvesting crops, and keeping animals there which turn this into high quality protein is the best option, but that's only for certain regions on the planet.
"Ingredients: Water, Pea Protein†, Expeller-pressed Canola Oil, Refined Coconut Oil, Rice Protein, Natural Flavors, Dried Yeast, Cocoa Butter, Methylcellulose" (there are a bunch of ingredients that are less than %1 that I'm excluding)
On top of that, there is a vast amount of land you will never be able to use for vegetable crops, and the ONLY way you will get food out of it is ruminant grazing. Removing that from the food supply is going to create price shocks and even more soil depletion as food demand concentrates on that %25 of land left. On top of that, animal food production takes a lot of uneditable plant material and turns it into something human edible, which subsidizes vegetable prices. Without that either plant prices will go up.
This focus on plant only nutrition reminds me of 'environmentalists' shunning nuclear power, and in the end cause more damage to the earth via increased coal power production in the end, like Germany. While the actual answer is nuclear and solar power. Cows and other ruminants are the nuclear power of food.
> Beef fat clogs your arteries and causes heart disease.
That is fairly outdated science, it's quite the opposite actually! In 10 to 20 years, your doctor is going to start singing the praises of saturated fat and it's going to be quite hilarious. You can look up research papers today.
I am completely down to eat bugs even but eating bugs at a scale anything close to meat in general is a laughable amount of bugs. We would probably need 10 times the long haul trucking to ship that many bugs around.
That is, while I'm happy to eat a perfect meat substitute, I'm also don't have a problem with vegetables and I'd rather have a totally-not-meat burger than a not-quite-meat burger.
I mean, honestly, aren’t most cheap burger meat patties in that uncanny valley?
I love meat but eat it rarely. And I like burgers, even the cheap McDonald’s stuff. But burger patties are basically entirely their own texture, which is only loosely related to beef meat.
Now a burger with lightly cooked and well seasoned, real fresh ground beef? It’s a different product altogether. But it’s also less popular and I don’t think it’s what beyond meat tries to replace.
Yeah what they need to imitate faithfully is the fastfood variety. I'm sure that's slightly easier than imitating the "proper" thing. What they have now is the not-quite-a-fastfood-thing even.
Habitual meat eater here. I will never ever trust these products to be right for my body the way meat is. Humans haven’t nailed it in the past with heavily processed foods, why would it suddenly work now? I understand the noble dream, I really do. But the fact is, unless I find myself in near poverty or poverty and (no added sugar) peanut butter is unavailable, imitation meat will never be a go-to for me.
Hell, not to mention the disgust I’d feel eating it while knowing my betters are certainly dining on the real thing.
Not to mention mad cow disease and similar issues.
What risks are you thinking of with plant based or lab grown? If anything it seems the lab environment would catch anything significant before it got out of the building.
I'm not arguing with you, honestly curious. I've not thought about this much.
You’re asking people to trust a process (food science) that we’ve spent the last decade finding out has poisoned us for generations.
HFCS wasn't last decade. Trans-fats wasn't last decade. We've known they were bad more than a decade ago.
Many more decades ago they marketed these artificial food alternatives without any evidence of long term health effects, and the process of "proving" them bad took many years (funny how the onus lies on the potential victims), and only recently we've been able to mostly contain the damage of HFCS and trans fats.
It seems every once a while this process restarts again. Americans sure love to play with their food. (I'm not American)
Yes, absolutely.
The history of processed foods is that they’re really bad for us, compared to natural foods, even when ostensibly of similar nutrition.
Why would I trust a process that has failed for decades to work this time?
I'd rather eat less meat than replace it with this crap.
Tons are buying sunscreen that doesn’t even work all while thinking they are better than everyone else.
Honestly making it cheaper is probably an error. Less cash for developer to improve it and has negative aspect of it.
Where did you get that idea? Meat consumption in developer contries is excessive and far from healthy.
Buy whole chicken when it’s on sale, if you have a freezer you can stock up and break it down into pieces in advance.
A 4oz piece of chicken probably gives a better combination of amino acids than many servings of peanut butter.
Edit: actually I looked it up and peanuts are a decent source of protein, the issues are possibly omega6 and getting peanut butter without added sugar or oil, you should be able to find peanut butter with just peanuts and salt as ingredients.
There's the kicker; the "meat replacement" industry is not in it for the good of humanity or whatever, they're in it for the money. They know there's a demographic of people who feel guilty and who are willing to pay extra to soothe their conscience.
I'm going to sound like a gatekeeper here, but Real Vegetarians know how to cook without something that looks or tastes like meat. Meat replacement patties are just... uninspired and lazy conscience comforting food products. IMO and such.
I wouldn't object to better stimulus from up above, that is, make vegetable options more available, diverse, and affordable. Frozen is fine.
Yes, and how's that ideological conversion going?
If you truly want to lower global meat consumption, fake meat is the only realistic way of achieving that.
Veggie patties mostly taste fine, but the entire point of a sandwich is that I can pick it up with my hands and take a bite out of it. If the patty can’t stay on the sandwich, it’s not a good sandwich. Just put it on a plate and call it a veggie loaf or something that I can eat with a fork.
Even the older products you get at the grocery store from Boca and Morningstar Farms could be structurally acceptable, but whenever a restaurant tries to make a veggie patty I swear they’re just sticking some vegetables in a blender, putting it in a round shape, and hoping it stays that way. I’ve eaten soups with more structure.
I'm not vegan, but I've grown to always take the veggie burgers, unless they're beyond meat or black beans-based. They tend to be better than that dry-tasting overcooked patty (in my opinion). Makes me sad when they replace their veggie options with beyond meat
Most restaurants have plenty of tasty ways to deliver vegetarian carbs, but protein is harder to find. The Beyond and Impossible burgers aren’t perfect, but they do allow me to meet my macronutrient needs while satisfying a burger craving. Old-school veggie burgers don’t do the job.
Sure, you are married to a vegan and learned to appreciate the taste. In the same way, I enjoy a level of Indian spices that would make an average American's eyes bulge out. But for habitual meat eaters there is nothing that really replaces the texture, the feeling of substantial satiety, reality of not being hungry again for 8 hours... To each their own?
> Normally vegetarian food costs less than meat. It's because the animals need to eat (surprise surprise) vegetables! When you eat the vegetables directly instead of having the animal eat the vegetable for your, it's cheaper.
We have herds of goats eating dry brush to prevent wildfires around here. I don't suppose you would enjoy THAT vegan dish? :-)
Unless the cook has a flame grill or knows their business very well I also find beyond/impossible 'meat' to taste worse than a decently prepared seitan or bean based patty.
This is something I always have to highlight to folks. In Australia, personally speaking, the best veggie burger is call the 'Not burger'. It doesn't taste like Meat, it just tastes good! There is a reason why they haven't changed it in almost 20 years I have known about it.
for taste yes, for vegan and vegetarians it depends. that audience is so heavily diluted by a dozen different goals they want to represent or embody.
some don't like the inflammation (according to their sources) that a meat diet causes within humans, in which case this wouldn't satisfy them
some don't like harm to animals, in which case this would satisfy them
some don't like the environment impact, in which case, who knows? sustainability study and audits needed
others...?
It is a common misconception that vegetarians want food that looks and taste like meat, but is vegetarian or vegan. Most vegetarians already know what to eat. Fake meat is for the carnivores who don't want to go cold turkey and have no idea what to eat otherwise.
> One extremely frustrating aspect of plant meat is that they tried to aggressively push out traditional veggie burgers on restaurant menus.
Which to me shows that restaurants/BM assume that fake meat is what vegetarians want.
Actually, as far as I recall, a counter argument to this, is that fresh vegetables are more expensive since their shelf lives are a lot shorter. I can buy most types of meats (chicken, beef, etc.), freeze them for weeks and the taste would still be great, while fresh vegetables will normally only last for a few days.
Of course you can go for frozen vegetables, but this is only limited to some vegetables, and in my opinion, don't taste as good as fresh vegetables.
Certainly if you have sufficient storage, it's possible to buy meat in bulk quite cheaply, some of which might even be cheaper per kg (or per calorie?) than many vegetables, but if you stick to in-season vegies and cook them sensibly (into dishes that last a while), on average they're still going to be cheaper than meat. Plenty are in the order of $1-$2/kg in Aus. (potatoes, onions, pumpkin etc.) - I don't know any meat that cheap.
My sister is vegan, and whenever we have a vegan meal, I'm already hungry 2 hours after the meal. On the other hand, if I eat a burger for lunch, I might not be even hungry by dinner time. Again, I'm not a dietitian so I'm pretty ignorant about these things, but if it has to do with proteins, I think the ROI for meat proteins is going to be a lot higher compared to vegetables.
I realize this gets complicated, but just another counter argument for ROI of meat compared to vegetables.
I've been asking myself ever since this beyond/incredible/whatever fad got started: Why spend all the time and energy trying to make something taste like beef that isn't beef? Why not spend that same time and energy creating a new, appealing of its own (and then market that)?
[1] https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/packaged...
At Gourmet Burger Kitchen the Beyond Meat cheeseburger costs 30% more than its beef counterpart.
Clearly just one example but it's rare the veg option's cheaper.
I've been a vegetarian for nine years. It becomes noticeable when your meal jumps 50% in price and goes from being the cheapest in a group to the most expensive.
I make vegetarian burgers sometimes, either something grilled(broiled)/griddled stacked up like halloumi & aubergine, or a patty of shredded jackfruit or something. Why would I want to eat nondescript 'vegetarian patty'?
It's not just burgers, 'vegetarian lasagne' etc. is (aside from not being good appealing marketing) a reliable negative signal for a menu.
The meat pie is the (unofficial) national dish of Australia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_pie_(Australia_and_New_...
Elsewhere though, unless presented as intending to be a specific thing from down under, 'meat pie' is a lot less appetising than 'steak and kidney pie' or whatever, because who wants mystery meat (implicitly perhaps the cheapest odds and ends available).
Similarly though to be fair 'fish pie' in the UK & France at least is a slightly flexible mixed fish fare.
This resonates though. A lot of restaurants have vegetarian dishes prepared to taste sort of like meat (e.g. paneer tikka instead of chicken tikka etc.). It was telling that the reverse was never there. I never liked the trend but understood it since the vegetarians would like to enjoy the taste of the other food and this was a compromise. This seems to be next step in that evolution but from what I've read, the stuff is highly processed and has a ton of chemicals added for flavour, stability etc. There are several vegetarian dishes that I enjoy for the vegetarian taste and the last thing I want is for them to pushed aside for these highly processed products that try to approximate meat.
As a note - many traditional curries are vegetarian, which isn't surprising as India has a long history of vegetarianism. Paneer curries have been around for at least a few hundred years with reasonable evidence for a few thousand. Whilst it may be a substitute for meat in a westernised 'x tikka masala', and half decent Indian restaurant should have some established dishes designed around the paneer.
Interesting I'm reading Michel Pollan's book the Omnivore's Dilemma, about large scale agriculture, it's quite worrying, although I don't feel the UK is quite at the stage of the US yet. I see quite a lot of animals roaming and diversity when I'm out walking, but it's definitely going in that direction.
What can I say? My body needs meat.
This was an ideological value prop, not one based off customer pain points.
Good post
It's a better approach if it's economically viable. And there are doubts it ever will be, see e.g. https://thecounter.org/lab-grown-cultivated-meat-cost-at-sca...
The thing is, I think the only criteria it was judged by is that it has to look completely like baloney. It did, it had me fooled. But tasted disgusting.
Earnestly answering your question, it's because every person perceives taste differently (eg to some people, cilantro tastes like soap!). The complexity of vegan substitutes is high, because they're trying to simulate a completely different flavor. So likely you're just sensitized to whatever happens to be in that particular product. If you tried a different fake baloney, you'd likely have a completely different experience (not saying a good experience necessarily, depending on your expectations, but at least different).
This is literally the whole point of the Food Chain and why species counts generally decrease as you go up the chain. Plants make up the vast majority of biomass on the planet. Animals that eat plants make up the next largest chunk. Animals that eat those animals make up the next largest. Etc.
I eat meat, but it's undeniable that vegetation is far more economic than meat on sheer scale.
"Ten pounds of grass make a pound of steak. And ten pounds of steak make a pound of tiger.
But these have the same number of calories - so you might as well just eat the cow and save yourself a lot of work."
I have eaten land-based predator meat before, and it's usually very oily and not good for you at all. I wouldn't recommend them. Fish that eat other fish, like Tuna, can be tasty but are still not very nutritious.
I'm not a vegan nor a vegetarian. I just sometimes think I eat too much meat and check out vegetarian restaurants. They all have 100 kinds of fake burgers and little else.
There are thousands of good food recipes without meat. Why are you trying to sell me burgers?
In many other cuisines, there are naturally non meat dishes, just look at the Indian cuisine. Heck, even my own country cuisine, Romania, has plenty of meat free dishes that taste very good.
One of the reasons that the vegetian options are more expensive is because the margins are higher. People compare supermarkets based on meat prices, so they accept lower margins on meat to attract more customers.
Another thing is that people don't typically buy brand name meat, which allows supermarkets to more aggressively negotiate on price.
At least this is how it is in the Netherlands (according to a newspaper article I can't find right now).
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/food/a21566428/beyond-meat-b...
One Beyond Burger has 260 calories. There are claims that these are healthier alternatives to beef, but to what end? Calories is certainly not it because this is compared to 230 calories in a same size beef patty.
https://bluebirdprovisions.co/blogs/news/beyond-meat-vs-beef....
”Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.”
> I also still eat plenty of meat, just not every day
The reason you don’t see the value prop of beyond burgers is that you’re eating the real thing regularly. As a pescitarian who loves meat, I would bet the farm that if you went vegetarian, you would think Beyond is a godsend.
> IMO, I think the "meat in a vat" system where animal tissue is grown in some kind of factory setting is a much better approach.
Similar to how nuclear fusion is better than fission, and self-driving cars are preferable to human-controlled, etc etc.
It’s funny to hear how a person who eats meat thinks that I should be satisfied with a sausage made out of a carrot. I eat enough of veggies in their original form, but they do not make a great burger or sausages. I also really don’t think that meat alternatives are pushing out anything – it’s the consumers that prefer them. I know I am.
I would like to clarify that for me eating healthy was not the reason I became vegan. We need to stop the torture and extermination of sentient beings for the sake of pleasing our tastebuds.
I have eaten vegan dishes that were excellent, I am not opposed to them at all. One of the best Tikka Masla's I have ever had was vegan. However I can not stand when they attempt to make be believe X is Y meat, no, it is not and no amount of marketing will get me to believe they taste the same. They do not.
Just like Cauliflower Mash does not taste like potatoes, it tastes like puréed Cauliflower...
Other organs like livers, brain, or lung from various vertebrates also taste similar, but different from muscle meats.
The more stages in processing a food undergoes, the worse it is for people. It’s really that simple.
People are trying to over-science food in my opinion. Sticking to good, wholesome ingredients is the way to go. Support local farmers not some large conglomerate factory.
Here’s a good recipe for example:
A lot of people making this kind of point, but it's subjective and you have no idea if you're in a majority or not in your preferences.
Whereas, a factory made thing is mass-produced and has to target the lowest-common-denominator.
The homogenization of veggie burgers into one particular type of patty is the reason I don't even try Burger places anymore. It used to be that if you had 5 Burger places near you, you'd get 5 very different veggie burgers (e.g. black bean, quinoa, mixed veggies, all with a different mix of spices). Now you basically get the same veggie burger at every place, just with different dressings/sauces.
I suspect it's better in big cities (e.g. NYC) where there's enough of a customer base for a veggie patty and a engineered meat patty on the menu. But in other places, I think the customers numbers are just too small. So I understand the logic from a business perspective, but for some customers it just sucks to have lost the veggie patty.
So much, this, I have been vegetarian my whole life and quite honestly the idea of eating something that tastes like meat is almost as unappealing as the idea of eating meat. I get that it helps people give up, but it's not for me.
They've kind of hit an uncanny valley of food. As such, I say good riddance!
It's not that I enjoy eating the product, it's that I need to find protein somehow when I'm at "American food" restaurants (fast food or otherwise). In most of these places there's no veggie protein options other than the "veggie burger" - and the fake meats have made these a little more ubiquitous.
The idea of a lettuce tomato onion burger stack on a bun is that there's a taste and texture contrast between the stack of vegetables and something that's not another stack of vegetables but mashed. (Doesn't mean it has to be Beyond or Impossible, see last para.)
I suspect displacement happened because folks paying $25 for a "burger" when out are less interested in the garden mash, want something a little edgier. FWIW, before Beyond and Impossible, at any restaurant or diner where I took time to explain the difference in alt-burger types, they were willing to try ones I mention below, and they reported customers preferred it. In many, someone had just told them "have a vegetarian burger" and they just got the mashed veggies patty or mashed beans cake since that's what most products are. Not being vegetarian themselves, they weren't aware of other availability. By contrast, Impossible and Beyond essentially went door to door "educating" them, so they switched.
While Impossible and Beyond displaced the meat alternatives, that doesn't mean you have to go meat in a vat at home, you can do products such as Morningstar Farms Grillers Original, or maybe Boca All-American Flame-Grilled Burger. Those taste stack more reasonably with what goes on a burger than the mashed vegetables patties, without the weirdness (fake blood look, why?) of Impossible or Beyond. Your local diner will probably be happy to stock them as they're simple frozen goods.
I can agree that "mashed vegetables" does not describe a good veggie patty. I don't agree that a good veggie patty fails in "burger" format.
I can easily imagine that some people have simply never tasted a good veggie patty in "burger" format, because they are rare.
This is the root of most "meat alternatives" in average restaurants -- much of the restaurant world hasn't figured out that providing vegetarian options isn't about finding equivalent "meat replacements" but instead about cooking up options that stand on their own and taste great.
> While Impossible and Beyond displaced the meat alternatives
In my experience the "meat alternative" patties have not displaced the good veggie patties in the restaurants that had good veggie patties to begin with.
> ...that doesn't mean you have to go meat in a vat at home, you can do products such as Morningstar Farms Grillers Original, or maybe Boca All-American Flame-Grilled Burger. Those taste stack more reasonably with what goes on a burger than the mashed vegetables patties, without the weirdness (fake blood look, why?) of Impossible or Beyond. Your local diner will probably be happy to stock them as they're simple frozen goods.
A beef burger patty has the wonderful property that it is simply made of meat -- a good beef patty has no ingredient lists because it isn't a packaged food.
A good veggie patty is also made on site of simple whole foods, in the same way a good burger is and in the same way any other good meal is.
Any frozen puck taken from a bag and slapped on a grill fails the test, be it comprised mostly of beef, soy, beans, "beyond beef", wheat, or whatever. Those things are about convenience, not taste.
I'm already picky for burger meat, I'd rather have plain sandwich than burger with mediocre meat, and at best those emulate that, mediocre burger meat, at cost of way more processing.
Not exactly. In pastoral agriculture, animals eat grasses that humans cannot, on land that is not easily farmable (infertile, rocky, hilly, etc). A nice side effect of this is that the animals make the land more farmable by fertilizing it with their poops.
The availability of "perfect substitutes" for meat wouldn't affect my food choices at all and this is likely true for a lot of people.
I'm a meat lover and this annoys me too! One of my favorite sandwiches is a southwestern style black bean burger.
I also flat out hate Impossible Burgers, they taste off, their texture is weird, and they leave me feeling icky after I eat one.
Humans did not.
FWIW, I've always liked Beyond Meat as a "good enough" substitution for a beef burger that's easy to prepare that is close in texture to a real burger - if you use a burger sauce and cheese like most recipes for non-vegans do, it tastes pretty close. I even liked it so much I'd order it at restaurants wherever available and bought a few shares since I figured they'd do well.
I've tried Impossible Burgers too (both prepared by others and myself), and I don't like that it has hemoglobin in it and for some reason it's more in the uncanny valley than Beyond meat is for me - Beyond Meat is just different enough that it doesn't taste to me like moldy beef the way Impossible Burgers seem to.
What _did_ eventually get me to stop making Beyond Burgers is that the fat and sodium content is as bad or worse than just plain regular beef. Reducing red meat consumption to once a month or so achieves basically the same benefits, and occasional red meat consumption + no more frequent beyond meat burgers is healthier in the long run than what I was doing before. I think an under-appreciated advantage to the veggie and black bean burger options out there is they tend to be way better w.r.t. fat and sodium, and taste just as good once you give up on the "almost beef" taste of these new-wave alternatives, but Beyond Meat _did_ work for a few people out there and just never tweaked their product enough to seriously compete with cheaper alternatives as inflation has gotten worse.
There was a widely-publicized article recently questioning some "well-established" science that had, previously for decades, linked red meat to higher rates of heart disease, etc.
Tangentially, seems to me the science on every food seems to change every few years. Sugar, fat, MSG, eggs, butter, meat, fish, milk, the list goes on.
As others in both this and the linked article stated, I think just reducing consumption would drastically reduce the amount of necessary livestock, which would reduce everything else in the chain. I definitely became more conscious of what I consume from all the secondary and tertiary effects.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33655321
[2] https://bigthink.com/health/red-meat-cancer-not-health-risk/
Long term, highly controlled trials are more useful, but much rarer.
"Eating red meat at most causes increases in risks of cancer and similar by 15%. If people replace calories that could come from vegetables with red meat, that risk gets worse because they're eating less vegetables"
So yeah, eating red meat isn't that bad, but if it reduces your vegetable intake significantly, it probably is worse for you. And it's harder to get the right amount of vegetables if you eat a lot of red meat (unless you just want to increase your calorie intake)
But I'll fight anyone who eats hamburgers without pickles.
All of those except for the egg have sugars as a major source of calories, they just aren't, except for the egg, particularly calorie dense.
On sandwiches I can do vinegar and oil.
I'm also not a fan of mayo or ketchup because I think they're disgusting, but go look at the nutrition information: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91q08lhAYAL... https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5a/56/4a/5a564a60d38dc88d97e3...
A 1 tbsp serving of both will set you back 4g of sugar. Sure, they each have "high fructose corn syrup" on the ingredient list, but it's a small enough amount to have no nutritional impact. In reality, the bulk of the sugar in the ketchup is coming from the tomatoes and the mayo doesn't have enough to even warrant listing measurable calorie content from sugar at all.
Hasn't the dietary sodium thing been found to be a non-issue, except for a few individuals with high blood pressure?
https://www.cochrane.org/CD004022/HTN_effect-low-salt-diet-b...
https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s...
> https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s... Excess levels of sodium/salt *may* put you at risk for: Excess levels of sodium/salt *may* cause increased water retention that leads to: (my emphasis)
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32738302/ "Some studies have shown that HSD has a positive correlation with albuminuria, an important risk factor for the development and progression of kidney disease in a hypertension-independent manner "
A correlation with a risk factor .It asserts "is associated with chronic degenerative diseases including renal diseases" with no citation. The paper itself is about feeding a high-salt diet to mice.
I'll see your citations, and raise you:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33351135/ Sodium intake, life expectancy, and all-cause mortality
"Our observation of sodium intake correlating positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries argues against dietary sodium intake being a culprit of curtailing life span or a risk factor for premature death. These data are observational and should not be used as a base for nutritional interventions".
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33351135/ Sodium intake, life expectancy, and all-cause mortality
Good overview of the poor design of that study and many others that make statements that very much go against the plurality of high quality evidence:
"While calling for a controlled trial to provide “robust evidence” to support the current global policies, Mente et al. lend their support to an “ecological analysis” of global statistics by Messerli et al. [78]. There are many inherent limitations of such analyses. Messerli et al. [78] correlate sodium and outcomes by country, not by individual. The study design is unable to remove unmeasured confounding (ecological fallacy), a well-known methodological concern that the authors acknowledge and then promptly dismiss. Many countries do not have data on sodium intake and, when available, it is often of poor quality. When comparing “high income” countries (in World Bank Income Class 1), the authors aggregate data from the USA, UK and Canada, Trinidad & Tobago, and Equatorial Guinea. The distribution of wealth in these countries and the ensuing disparities in individual health will have huge effects on life expectancy due to factors other than sodium intake, none of which are accounted for. In addition, Messerli et al. ignore the hard evidence from previous human trials. Yet, Messerli et al. claim their results “argue against dietary sodium intake being a culprit of curtailing life span or being a risk factor for premature death”.
from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13668-021-00383-z
Exactly. As a vegetarian, I do choose a Beyond burger when I go to a burger restaurant, but I never buy it to make at home. There are healthier alternatives that are also delicious.
They have a solidly good product, it's a shame they can't make it work.
As a parent one big problem I had with them was that for home use they only sell the huge quarter pound patties (while they do shrink when you cook them, they do so less than beef) which were too much for my kid. I had to thaw them, slice them down the middle (which is tricky) and cook the two halves separately. They're much too big for a standard burger bun. It seems obvious they're going for a prestigious form-factor but missing out on being able to sell something more universal.
You are the target demographic; you're looking for a vegetarian or vegan meat analog so you can continue your existing eating habits and the meals you're familiar with, instead of the more difficult task of changing your lifestyle and diet.
That said, chips are vegan.
IMHO, Health / Nutrition is very K.I.S.S (keep it simple stupid), but it feels like so many people get caught in the trap of finding "one weird trick" to keep them lean / healthy and then setting common sense on fire - so long as they obey that rule.
> Vegans are healthier and leaner than Omnivores. Therefore I can eat pastries for breakfast lunch and dinner, and as long as they don't contain animal products I'll lose weight!
I tried two burgers 1-2 years ago: when I opened the package I smelled alcohol, the same while frying them in the pan and while eating them (I cooked them "medium/well done" without cheese nor anything else as I was curious and just wanted to try this stuff out) => is this normal?
Asking because I never read anywhere anything that mentioned this... . (btw. I'm in Switzerland, so maaaybe here the product is "different" to comply with the country's regulations..., just a wild guess).
In the end I didn't like it because of that smell (I'm in general ok with alcohol, I'm drinking a beer right now), the texture and taste was acceptable/good.
Overall I'm not a huge fan of Beyond Meat. While it does feel closer in taste to beef than impossible burgers, I heavily prefer the taste of impossible burgers to beyond. Impossible burgers have a stronger umami taste and tend to add to the experience. Beyond kinda just tastes like lower end beef to me. This means Beyond is facing a Coke vs Pepsi situation here - effectively halving their market.
From a price standpoint, they're more expensive than beef is. While economically this makes sense due to heavy beef subsidies around the world (the US spends $38 billion in subsidies - about $114 per person), it's still a heavy expense for consumers. This means despite being cheaper to make, they're still the more expensive option. This means they're a premium product, not an economic option.
When these are the factors at play, it really cuts down the market size. You're really only targeting people who prefer your version, are willing to pay a premium for a sub-par version of a burger while not choosing plenty of the other food options out there. IMO these plant based meats are really doomed to fail unless we stop subsidizing the beef industry. If they become an economically viable choice, they become an option for many more people. Right now they're too niche.
You can get pound of TVP or soy protein is like $3-4; and certainly less at wholesale prices. It comes dehydrated, so back of the napkin I'd guess the cost for a company producing fake meat products is like $1/lb or less.
I paid $8.50 at a gas station for 2.47 oz of "Noble Jerky." Ingredients: soy protein, sugar, black bean paste, spices.
I imagine the profit margins for these products approaches that of soft drinks.
1. Raw materials are cheap 2. Expensive end product 3. Company is losing money
The most straightforward explanation is that the processing is expensive in some way, unless I’m missing something here. I feel like the burden of proof should be on you to establish that the straightforward explanation is not accurate beyond just a claim.
Yes, marketing.
The process for creating these fake meats is complicated and long, so there are certainly a few novel steps in there. I'm guessing that a few key steps do not scale well today and have significant technological barriers to scaling. I have no idea what they could possibly be.
All conjecture, but as a former bench scientist (spending money, not making budgets), it felt like our burn rate was reasonably constant.
It's even excellent just chucked into some instant ramen (after frying it) with some spring onions!
Originally only tried it due to a serious lack of fridge/freezer space.
The problem with both of them is I can get a sack of burgers from Costco, like 50 of them, for less than I'd pay for 20 of the fake ones. and they'll taste and smell the right way and be usable in more recipes.
I’ve no issue with removing the subsidy but I’m not sure that changes much either.
$10 a person is naive math, sure, there would be reduced demand which means that some of that cost would be bourne by other purchasers to keep industry revenue stable, and there would be a reduction in production which further compounds this. But it's not a doubling in cost, I think the true number would be between 20 and 30 dollars per person (10-20% of their monthly food budget) that continues eating as much meat, per month, and close to that percentage in production decline. A big deal, but not a complete upheaval in the meat industry.
The subsidies aren't really about keeping meat costs down for consumers so that meat producers can remain profitable. They're more about manipulating the global meat market to compete against other producers and ensure domestic food security.
Interesting. I've always felt the opposite: Impossible closer to beef, Beyond much tastier.
But I haven't eaten a real burger in a couple decades.
I think that number is basically made up. It comes from a chain of references by activists and lobbyists (against meat and dairy subsidies) who are basically playing a game of broken telephone with statistics.
AIER cites a Columbia SIPA article, which cites the book Meatonomics. Meatonomics is written by a lawyer who advocates against meat and dairy and seems to have synthesized the number by adding numbers from several sources. He cites an article by an anti-meat/dairy law firm which estimates dairy subsidies at $19 billion. (Meatononics includes dairy subsidies in the $38 billion figure.)
But those dairy subsidies aren't from payments to dairy farmers. They're looking at indirect subsidies, the largest of which is food stamps and other nutritional assistance programs. They estimate that Americans spend about 11% of their food budget on dairy products and based on that they estimate the amount of food stamp money that goes to dairy farmers.
tl;dr: The number is a rough estimate based largely on the government giving poor people food stamps and people choosing to spend some of that on meat and dairy. The numbers are also from advocacy groups, not peer reviewed journals.
IMHO this is the wrong approach and hardly ever works well or relies on luxury products like beyond meat(1).
The best vegetarian food I had eaten was such which was designed as vegetarian food, not as a dish with meat and then modified to somehow work. Pretty much the only times I ended up with vegetarian food which tasted disgusting was with meat replacement products.
At the same time beyond meat isn't the only producer of meat replacement products, and you don't need massive international cooperation for them either. For example the local butcher around where I live has meat replacement products, self-made based on the recipe they licensed from another smallish non-international company. It doesn't taste like meat, but it tastes good and has properties similar but not quite like meat wrt. taste direction, consistency and texture so you can swap it in to get a quite different but still good tasting result (through it's not stake like, more pulled pork like, suited for dishes which need pulled pork or minced meat).
(1): Now part of the reason why it is more expensive then meat is probably state subventions but on a pure resource level meat is much more resource intensive to produce then most vegetarian stuff.
I've accidentally cut my meat consumption down drastically through sheer laziness, so I always find it puzzling that people make a fuzz about it.
Because meat tastes better, and I want it. If I can have that taste without an animal involved then it’s all the better. If not then I’ll continue eating meat.
Vegetarians and vegans just don’t seem to understand this. Food is all about personal preference but the extreme majority of people eat and enjoy meat. They enjoy it because they find it delicious. If people felt vegetarian options were as delicious as meat we wouldn’t be having these discussions.
People who don’t have a taste preference for meat are obviously not the target for plant based meat.
Good _food_ tastes good. Most times you eat it's complemented with sauces, marinades, etc. Cooking vegetarian requires the same effort. People who slather a Midwestern meatloaf in ketchup likely wouldn't even notice if it was vegetarian unless you told them.
> If people felt vegetarian options were as delicious as meat we wouldn’t be having these discussions.
Meat is a luxury and a status symbol. Eating meat every day is something my parents did because they could afford to because their parents _couldnt_. I'm not going to sit here and tell you a bone in rib eye with a pan sauce isn't delicious - it is, but so is a paneer masala, or huevos rancheros.
Legitimately laughing out loud at this response. You're sitting there at your keyboard telling other people that their food preferences are wrong? Seriously? No one is going to take you seriously if you can't acknowledge the basic premise that food preferences are personal opinions.
"Food is all about personal preference"
Sorry, as a person who eats both, meat doesn't "just taste better". If by vegetables, you're referring to standard meat and 3 veg that western countries were used to, then yeah meat tastes way better. But if you're trying Indian/Thai, etc, vegetables can taste as good as meat, and in some cases, even better.
The only thing "wrong" here is all the people chiming in to tell others that their differing preferences are incorrect.
I don’t think you can reasonably state this as objective fact.
I eat meat mostly because it’s the easiest way for me to hit specific protein targets. I personally prefer vegetables in most circumstances though.
People know how to pan fry up some chicken/beef, this their fake analogs too, but not how to make saag paneer curry. Or some pan fried chicken is what they crave while they’ve never had these foods you consider superior.
Our relationship with food is very weird and delicate. It’s more of an identity trait than a rational choice we make daily. We like our comforts.
I hope that people trying to improve their diets will discover spices beyond salt, pepper and chillies, lol.
I do believe part of it is that western diets are more about the ingredients and the textures / mouthfeels / flavors thereof than spices. Which is ironic, given the whole colonization and world spice trade thing from some time ago.
As somebody who does not really eat meat but is very concerned about protein targets, this isn't quite so simple. Various meats (chicken, some fish) can be extremely cheap extremely high protein foods. When you don't have these to work with you need to think a lot more about your options.
I often "replace" a meat protein option with seitan, tofu, or tempeh just to hit my goals. These things aren't engineered in a lab the same way that Beyond etc have been, but they are processed/made and fill the "chunk of protein" requirement in a way that whole plants struggle with.
If you don't toss in a "chunk of protein," you need to be incredibly careful working in proteins. Anything with a low protein/calorie ratio becomes difficult to work in. Cheap staples like pasta and rice are even questionable because their protein ratios are relatively low, and then you find yourself eating only beans...
This is easier for vegetarians who eat cheese and eggs, of course. Nutritionally these things act more like meat and you can use them as such.
On top of that, does BYND really seem likely to be a independent company long term considering the other consolidation we see in the market? This is a market where on the supply side you have Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Neslte - massive consolidation. On the demand side you have Walmart. What does that mean? It means it needs to either grow massively to the point where it can be independent, or the price needs to come down to the point where an acquisition is attractive. We're probably reaching the latter of those two right now.
It could be that plant based meats in general grow to became atleast as big as the meat industry, but the likelihood of that being reflected in BYND's stock price is slim.
This statement from Impossible (which is included in the article) directly contradicts the "plant based meats are failing" subtext the article seems to want to push otherwise:
> “We’re not experiencing anything like what Beyond Meat has reported or some of the other brands in the space,” Keely Sulprizio, a spokeswoman for Impossible Foods, said in an email. “Quite the opposite: We’re seeing hypergrowth, with over 60 percent year-over-year dollar sales growth in retail alone.”
> The IRI data show that while volume sales of Impossible ground meat and faux burger patties were down slightly, volumes of other categories, including frozen faux meat and chicken, soared.
I have at least 8 vegan dishes I can make that are just amazingly delicious. A mushroom risotto, veggie tajine, chana masala, ramen, moussaka, general tso's cauliflour, cuban black beans, jajangmyeon. Make it vegetarian and I have even more; give me eggs, chicken or pork, and a whole universe opens up. It's very rare that I ever cook red meat anymore, just because there's so many recipes that don't make use of it.
My favorite fast food restaurant is Pollo Tropical. Their franchise has 140 locations in South Florida. Most of their menu is rice, beans, vegetables, salad, roast chicken, and roast pork. The white rice and black beans with sauteed onions is delicious enough (and big enough) to be a meal in itself. The fried plantains are like savory candy. It's healthy[ish], fast, and definitely not typical American fare. Yet it won't work outside of Florida, because Americans think rice and beans equals "mexican" food.
American culture simply hasn't incorporated foreign cuisines in a way that makes them actually tasty. If it's not smothered in cheese or bacon, they don't want it. It took an unbelievable combination of luck and grit for one woman to introduce America to French cuisine, allowing home cooks to stretch past the bland, canned staples of the 1960's. We have a lot more variety in restaurants today, but the home cook is still left with garbage "Americanized" recipes you find on Google Search. We need a new revolution in home cooking to introduce the people to meatless dishes, and we need restaurants (especially fast food) to push them outside the home too.
Finally, we're gonna need to clamp down on meat. There's no way around it. As long as animals can be farmed so cheaply that a few pounds of meat costs $5 or less, people will not stop buying it and restaurants will not stop selling it. Just like we need to make cars less convenient in city centers to emphasize bikes, buses and trains, we need to make meat less convenient.
Safety also matters, US meat industry is really strictly controlled and paradoxically it's safer to eat meat than veggies, especially fresh like a salad. It'd be tough to solve, this. No one would vote to remove meat controls but comparable controls over pesticide/soil/cleanness would be unpopular too as they'd increase prices and make veg tougher to sell.
This is the reason US eggs are washed, removing their natural antibac coating, and therefore need refridgeration whereas UK/EU eggs are not and do not.
I remember reading a lot about this subject during the Brexit debate, but have forgotten a lot of it since. So, what am I missing?
Regarding this part:
> It took an unbelievable combination of luck and grit for one woman to introduce America to French cuisine, allowing home cooks to stretch past the bland, canned staples of the 1960's.
I feel like this should be obvious but I'm ashamed to know I don't know who you're describing. Can you or somebody else happening to read this please elaborate?
Clamping down on meat is not enough, you need to also get around cooking everything in oil, and added sugar (basically, everything about your cuisine).
I disagree with the last part on a philosophical level. Society should push forward, and that doesn't mean we need to take convenient things and make them less convenient, so that alternatives seem more attractive in comparison. We need to make the alternatives better in-and-of themselves, otherwise there will be more pushback from people who currently only use cars, as opposed to a more positive "oh, we can use our car for X and then use this other thing for Y because it offers Z advantage vs the car"
Realistically though I don't see how to make bike travel safer and more convenient in an already packed city, without taking away road space from cars. Same for bus lanes.
I mean... pizza.
The one group that really hates Vegans more than meat eaters are Vegetarians. Veganism is making being Vegetarian increasingly harder. It's so hard to find a Vegetarian pizza nowadays with real cheese. It's either meaty or fully Vegan. Same for burgers. Vegetarians don't want to eat a shitty meat like patty. They want a Vegetarian burger, made of a bean patty, mushroom or some other vegetables which is not some form of dystopian processed food. Unfortunately Veganism has pushed all real Vegetarian burgers off the menus and repalced them with Beyond meat.
Look, I don't mind Beyond meat, I tried it and thought it was nice, but currently it costs as much as a real prime cut of beef which doesn't make sense to me and doesn't taste nearly as good. Our (Vegetarian) household actively refuses overpriced Vegan food because it starves menus of good creative Veggie options and therefore is a net harm at the moment.
“Veganism is making being Vegetarian increasingly harder.” This is a bold claim. Those people you met needs to chill because the problem you described is light years of being a “real” problem. Adding or removing ingredients is possible in most restaurants and quite easy: “Please can you substitute the absence of cheese or the vegan cheese for real cheese.”
If anything, since veganism started becoming popular, the options in restaurants have increased. There are places that previously didn't offer any or many vegetarian options, and now have more options (Gregg's and KFC are two that come to mind).
I'm fine with eating vegan options as well, I only use eggs and dairy products at home because I can't replace everything yet. I'm currently looking at some new egg replacement products, which would allow me to get far closer to the ideal, 100% vegan, diet.
That said, I actually like Beyond Meat, Moving Mountains, Nestlé's Garden Gourmet's Incredible Burger, Rügenwalder's products, etc. When I started living vegetarian in 2011, all the replacement products were shit and I ended up just making all food from scratch instead.
I'm genuinely happy that all these options exist nowadays, while I don't use them every day, they've become a staple of our diet by now, as they make adapting omnivore recipes much easier. I can always adapt it further later.
And I know some vegetarians who get "meat cravings" every few months, which these products help with – they allow fulfilling the craving without resorting to actual butchered animal flesh.
I don't think I've ever been to a pizza place that didn't just let me choose a vegetarian pizza with real cheese. I also love Beyond Meat, but most veggieburgers I ate prior to Beyond Meat were vegan too, though few places used cheese or egg. You can make a vegan black bean burger, or a great vegan portobello. Veganism isn't what converted places to Beyond.
Speak for yourself. Vegetarians are not a monolith, and I know many that eat beyond/impossible as a staple of their diet.
So they still showed growth, the stock just crashed; and the others in the segment who don't have to report numbers are doing better. Just sounds like a discounted stock to me.
This stock doesn't look discounted at all, they don't make any money and don't have any growth. I haven't checked their strategy to turn this around but just from the financials I'd say the stock is about where it should be.
The market is huge, but it's quite literally a matter of taste.
Even at this 'discount' their market cap is 2x their revenue, which doesn't sound so bad until you compare it to someone like Tyson foods who has a market cap that is 0.5x their revenue.
Given BYND isn't growing much and its got a bad cost structure, it's still 'expensive,' just less so than before.
Unfortunately after I had cooked a bunch of them I realized what the smell of uncooked Beyond reminded me of: wet cat food. Now I can't get that association out of my head and the smell of the uncooked patties is so revolting I can't really enjoy them any more :(
Japanese cuisine has a substantial part of it built around eating raw produce. Such that many sushi are deemed ok for expecting mothers to eat.
Meanwhile balut is a delicacy in South East Asia.
Scottish people eat haggis, and Iceland eats hakarl (which traditionally used urine)
Asians eat durian while the French love blue cheese. I think all tastes can be acquired.
I don't think hakarl was ever processed with urine - it just smells like it because of the high urea content. Do you have a source that it was processed with urine?
When I see those 2-packs of Beyond Burgers on the shelves in the supermarket, they are marked down 40%, and they are still more expensive than a 4 pack from other brands. Makes zero sense to buy them.
From a blind taste and smell perspective, animal flesh on a grill is very hard to beat. But if one wants to avoid eating animals, it is possible to do so very happily without resorting to manufactured creations that resemble meat.
Unfortunately, good creative vegetarian meals do take more work than throwing a nice steak on a grill. It seems that humans have a predisposition for appreciating hot animal fat with something to chew on.
All this is to say that we don't need fake meat. But it takes more effort and work, especially at first. Once the ingredients and skills are in place, however, vegetarial dishes can be more satisfying than typical meat dishes.
We should not be wasting business effort to provide fake something, but instead we should be working to teach good alternatives.
I think the reason we are in this situation is that companies need to sell things. Selling cooking lessons (good vegetarian cooking recipes and skills) is not as easy as pushing to the grocery store a plastic container with something resembling a hamburger patty.
I've had these fake-patties and they're good, I've gone to burger king and it's more than good enough. But then again, when I go to the supermarket these are still too expensive compared to regular meat and the flavor profile is not as good. So I they would have to come up with a really killer product, but how can that happen when adoption is so slow? They are not going to get money to really improve things to the required level to dominate the market.
In this regard, I think anyone who was hoping for plant-based meat to replace meat was being a little naïve. Imo, the solution to phasing out meats should come more in incentivising proper vegetarian/vegan meal plans, restaurants, etc. Probably through education plans on the benefits and the right ways to approach plant-heavy diets as well as tax incentives and so on.
But... do we even want to phase out meat? I think for a large majority of people the answer is no and so we end up with products like "beyond meat". I think vegans are right, ethically and politically but in many cases it is very difficult for us to admit how wrong we are and it really doesn't help when the counterpart comes off as morally superior. There needs to be humility but at the same time, this is not a problem we can really ignore.
I think our societies are addicted to meat and so the solution to our meat problem should be the same kind of solutions we apply when we have systemic addiction problems. Education, rehabilitation, support. It's difficult for us to admit that we do have a problem, and being such a systemic world-wide scale problem... well, yeah, it's almost impossible.
Until that price shows up at the supermarket it is irrelevant.
I never looked, but if the above is true, then that is the issue. People will always buy cheap. And to many people, if more expensive than 'real' meat, then they will not buy "beyond meat". Why, real meat in people's mind will always equate to higher quality.
$38B is only $100 per person. Even if it all went towards ground meat, it could only subsidize 4 lbs at a $30 -> $5 cost reduction.
Through no-tariff trade agreements, countries like the US who massively subsidize dump on countries that don't.
This is such a wild thing to say without any proof. SA, for example uses way more petrol than the EU, largely because of direct subsidies that keep the price low [0] Now, notice how my example was a consumer subsidy, and consumers can't easily export petrol.
What you're maybe confused by is the concept of tariff-free trade that's become popular in the past few decades.
The US subsidizes corn farmers (who are free to sell corn to whomever they like anywhere in the world) not corn consumers. Most Western subsidies are to producers, for a variety of reasons.
A single global prevailing price isn't evidence of subsidies not working, it's just evidence of free trade.
The true counterfactual for Western subsidies is the global price if there weren't subsidies, which is usually pretty extreme, for example:
As we have seen, corn is one of the most highly subsidized crops in the US, with subsidy levels as high as 47% of farm income. Other important distortions characterize US corn markets, some more important to prices perhaps than high subsidy levels. [1]
Now keep in mind, that's not 'Corn is 47% cheaper because of subsidies' that's '47% of the effort dedicated to growing corn would not happen if not for subsidies.'
>$38B is only $100 per person. Even if it all went towards ground meat, it could only subsidize 4 lbs at a $30 - $5 cost reduction.
To make the claim you did just has no basis in logic. The US does not participate in direct subsidies like you claim. It instead gives farmers $38bn when the total value of cattle marked for slaughter in the US is $135bn. [2]
[0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE?locat... [1] https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/15590/ [2] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/...
2) What does it matter how they give it? $38B is still only $100 per person. Are you saying they give more than $38B?
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how supply and demand work. The money is not given directly to people so making it per Capita is an intellectually dishonest red herring.
$38bn creates an unknown amount of incremental supply of beef (since it is given to farmers). It does not lower aggregate beef prices by $38bn, it increases the effort dedicated to beef production by $38bn (even then, that's still a 25% subsidy relative to the entire market, you can't just make things per Capita to make them seem like a small number without context).
The increased supply form that new effort then interacts with demand. Both of those curves have slopes, so the interaction is much more complex than you're making it out to be.
Like I don't think Beyond could fool a meat eater for a second (and it's not as explicitly their intention), whereas Impossible is pretty damn convincing in certain contexts.
Also, Impossible started out strongly focused on the restaurant industry, and AFAIK still doesn't even bother with supermarkets. Whereas Beyond started as a supermarket item. Even if I did like Beyond I agree I'd be less inclined to buy these to cook myself.
Anecdotally, my partner modified the menu at the bar he used to run to change the burger to be Beyond by default and beef optional. While it was clearly labelled on the menu, people didn't seem to read it/realise that the default was vegetarian. Everyone was very excited about the "new" burger, and most people were (happily) surprised to find out it was vegetarian.
So at least at this one bar in Amsterdam, Beyond fooled many meat eaters.
Eaten 'naked', no. Cover it with cheese, bacon, bbq sauce, onions, tomatoes etc. and I think it can easily compare to a Burger King pr McDonald Burger.
They are now widely available in supermarkets. In my big city they are carried by all the major chains, Safeway, Walmart, Giant, Target, Harris Teeter, Wegmans and Trader Joes.
The "problems" with meat have more to do with how the industry operates than the actual practice of eating meat itself. We are omnivorous. And the health issues with meat are overstated by those with an agenda to force their diet on others.
You either love meat and won't touch these things with a 10 feet pole or you are vegetarian/vegan and usually take care of what you put in your body, meaning probably a limited amount of junk/processed food, meaning no fake meat substitutes.
The market really isn't that big imho, there are already plenty of alternative to meat for most applications, which are cheaper, less processed and taste as good or better
My gf is vegan, she makes home made black beans patties, cauliflower patties, spinach patties, &c. they're all excellent, it's more of a question of habit than taste in my opinion
I think this is wrong, and you're missing where the market is.
From what I've read, the meat alternatives actually sell primarily to meat eaters who feel like they should occasionally substitute meat for health reasons or variety.
Non-meat-eaters have already weaned themselves off meat taste-wise and are not-so-interested.
That's at least the case for me. Note I'm not saying that these meat substitutes are actually unhealthy, they just look very suspicious to me.
Not all of them!
I don't buy meat for myself any longer, and am trying to get away from dairy. However, my childhood furnished me with possibly lifelong cravings for jerky, burgers, nuggets and sausages-- all of which the meat substitutes totally satisfy now. I'm very glad for these options!
Now I just need a good cheese substitute and I can go mostly vegan (I will still likely eat meat & dairy when it comes to leftover food that would otherwise be thrown out, though; my desire to avoid waste is greater than my desire to avoid those things because my body will be garbage all too soon no matter what I do anyway... life is far too short to justify being a purist imo).
Is there something I should read on this topic?
Think of it this way: every molecule in a cut of beef is something that was safe to be in a cow, and is generally safe for humans too. That’s true of beans and peas too. But every processing step denatures the organic matter further through a sequence of noisy organic chemistry reactions with lots of byproducts. Each inorganic processing step is making carcinogens and such, in trace amounts. A raw beef steak is 99.99% stuff that you have been evolved to eat. A beyond burger is probably 98-99% ok. But that extra 1-2% is very important to your health.
Unfortunately this isn’t something required to be studied by the FDA, so it isn’t.
This was my experience. A month or two after dropping animal products, my body just stopped asking for them. I couldn’t care much less if I ever had meat or cheese again. I’ve got a massive repertoire of other stuff I crave instead now.
But in 2018, some flexitarian friends showed me these new meat replacements, like Rügenwalder's veggie lineup, Nestle's Incredible Foods and later Beyond.
And it's only at that point that I started including meat replacements in my meals. Now we're including at least one type of meat replacement a day.
And 9 of my closest friends have got pretty much the exact same experience. We're all between 20 and 30 years old.
You guess incorrectly. Soy is a complete protein. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19145965/
It really does not matter, since presumably that is not the only food you eat. You need all the amino acids, but like any other nutrient, you don't need them all from the exact same source. As long as all the food you eat balances out the needed nutrients, you are good.
It'd be like saying, apples are unhealthy because it doesn't have literally every nutrient and if you only ate apples for the rest of your life you would be malnourished. Which is true but also a silly thing to say because nobody eats only apples.
Imagine if instead of freeing the slaves, Abraham Lincoln just instead made "Freedom Credits" that were issued to businesses that didn't use slave labor, but it allowed companies that used slave labor to purchase surplus "Freedom Credits" as offsets so they could claim they're making progress towards their ESG goals. Maybe it would become part of these companies advertising like "Fairtrade" has. The net result is that we would still have some kind of chattel slavery.
As ridiculous as this sounds, this is what we are doing when we defer to market based solutions to help nibble away at real policy issues. Also, consumer choices are already highly constrained by what the market bares.
Millions voting with their pocket books can have the same impact; causing the industry to change because of reduced revenue. Especially if we can reach the tipping point where beyond/impossible becomes less expensive than beef.
In this analogy, Mark Rober would be your Abraham Lincoln, his video helped tip me towards eating more plant-based burgers, and has been seen 54M times.
The substitution of meat for other protein sources has real (albeit lagging) effects on the agricultural economy. Less people buying meat leads to less production of meat at scale, which in turn results in reduced deforestation (and potentially reforestation). Producing less meat leads to less greenhouse gas production at several points in the chain, most notably from reduced number of animals, but also during production and logistics. More forests contribute to carbon capture and biodiversity.
Probably the two biggest obstacles to consumer based solutions have been policy that subsidizes the cost of meat, and the cultural backlash to the idea of eating less meat (despite the many health + environmental incentives to reducing meat consumption overall).
Eating plant based meat instead of meat directly causes less animals to be factory farmed as demand is reduced. That reduces suffering, seems like something to me
Do you have leather shoes? Boots? Jackets? Other leather accessories like a wallet?
Leather upholstery in your car? A leather couch?
Do you consume dairy in any form (ice cream, yogurt, regular milk, sour milk, sour cream, cheese, ...)?
Well prepared tofu/seitan/mushrooms are delicious, nutritive, much more environmentally friendly and you don't have to ask yourself if they were raised ethically or in hell like conditions
It's not perfect, and I have nothing against meat per se, but I acknowledge that we can't eat meant 1-2 times a day every day sustainably/ethically and affordably
> you are vegetarian/vegan and usually take care of what you put in your body, meaning probably a limited amount of junk/processed food, meaning no fake meat substitutes.
is very false for my circles. All this means for these people just means "no meat" or "no animal products". These people around me (and I) eat just as many frozen pizzas, microwave meals, and junk food as any other person. We just substitute meat versions for non-meat versions. That usually means making fully vegetarian/vegan dishes, but it's not at all uncommon, especially among those who eat less meat, to substitute meat with meat-like alternatives.
I know very few people who actually care to put in the time to home-make their own patties etc.
Vegans and vegetarians are rare pokemons here.
"I think there's been a mistake. There's bacon in my vegetarian meal."
"Oh, that's not a mistake. Bacon isn't meat, we think of it as a garnish."
This happened in two places, one of them the canteen at my workplace.
That’s why I do buy the idea that there’s a hard cap on the market size. I think all beers and wines tastes the exact same shade of gross.
When I say this, most ppl think I’m being an edge lord or I’m just a stupid asshole. it’s practically attempted murder!
“MONSTER!” “HOW DARE YOU?!”
As a Texan, just the thought of fake meat gives me indigestion. Im nauseous just writing this. My stomach won’t stop gurgling.
My morning is in ruins.
I do believe in some states of the US it was more popular, but I don’t think it’s everywhere. I bet you that as per usual it’s the red-blue divide.
I love meat and regularly buy these instead of hamburgers. While shopping for vegan Thanksgiving guests I saw some patties that imitate chicken. Going to try those out soon too.
Things like BM aren't appealing to me, though, because of the price point. I can just eat non-meat things instead.
I've tried many of the traditional alternatives. Tofu can be great, but getting it there is a lot of effort. Tempeh is ok but only works with some dishes. For me there's nothing quite as easy as throwing a Beyond Meat sausage or patty on the barbecue in the summer.
I know it’s considered contentious, but the balance of research around this strongly indicates that reducing saturated fats has profoundly positive impact on health outcomes.
I’m not saying don’t eat them or they’re terrible. They do seem better than real meat as far as health goes. I’ve just been blown away by the amount of fat these things contain and I wonder if people realize how much it is.
Assuming you can afford to eat meat, which many meat eaters might find themselves less able to do if prices continue to climb and/or beef subsidies end.
Ground beef could easily cost $15+ per pound without subsidizes: https://www.aier.org/article/the-true-cost-of-a-hamburger/
Last I checked, Beyond Burgers cost almost 50% more pr lbs than the cheapest bulk ground beef in the store. If that changed then there might be a market.
First, for many vegetarians it is primarily moral position, not health position. It does not imply the know or care more about healthy eating.
Second, even people who care for health food, that does not mean they subscribe to junk/processed cultural labels, which are illdefined and often irrelevant to whether the food is healthy or not.
The "variety" contingent includes me BTW. I've enjoyed all sorts of vegetarian meat alternatives over the years - old school soy or peanut-based "TVP" in a can back in the 70s, tempeh, bean-based and rice-based and mushroom-based kinds, etc. I make both lentil and potato burgers according to my own recipes. One of the reasons I prefer Beyond to Impossible is that Impossible tastes too much like meat. I can easily tell the difference with Beyond, though, making it less of a direct replacement for beef and more like a different meat to experiment with. That's far more interesting to me.
Unfortunately for Beyond, I think I'm in the minority. Most in-betweeners seem to have settled on Impossible. Consumers want a direct replacement, apparently. Beyond has simply not won in a finite market. There's no need for a Manichean "two types of people" model to explain it.
If you're doing it for cost reasons you'll eat cheaper meat or vegetarian, or if you're doing it ideologically you're eating vegetarian.
I want to eat less meat not because of mumbo jumbo health stuff but because the meat industry is just cruel to animals. I wish I had the fortitude to eat no meat, but my hope is fake meat will get to the point where I don't miss real meat anymore, so I support it.
And sorry, impossible burger tastes better than most vegan varieties, which aren't really just "vegan" by the strict definition but must fulfill some other strange moral criteria.
If you don't know where to start, look for 4H programs. You could literally buy and eat some kid's loved school project. No cruelty required.
I'm 90% plant-based (I occasionally eat meat). I love beyond meat and prefer it to real meat, but it's more expensive than real meat. One of the more significant egoistic advantages of a plant-based diet is the cost, which generally means it tends not to end up on the shopping list.
Their target market is all wrong. They need to drop the cost below "luxury food" and cater to the crowd who are scraping together cash for a McDonalds.
Also their obvious social media astroturfing is very on the nose. I don't like being gaslit when I ask questions about why people would eat lab grown meat
That's a false dichotomy there - you're making the assumption that there's only two types of people: 1) meat eaters, and 2) people who care about what they eat.
I can assure you, you are incorrect.
As for beyond meat - I find the taste and texture unsettling and a little too sweet. Kind of like it had beets in it. Impossible meats I eat about once a week
I am 100% rooting for Impossible to win regulatory approval here in the EU, even though it's an uphill legal battle. The USA leads the world in junk food technology, and we need better junk food to get us through the energy transition.
Before artificial meat I had to forgo burgers, as I never liked veggie patties.
They aren’t the same by any means; we just happen to like the Beyond Meat alternative for those dishes. I really hope they stick around.
I believe the Beyond meat burger tastes much better than most beef. I prefer them to the black bean patties, etc.
But, Beyond is listed on the stock market, so it's easier to see that they've been struggling?
One place they absolutely don't work for us is Loco Moco. For whatever reason a soft real meat patty just works so much better there.
I'll give a try to Impossible and see what we think.
Every time an electric vehicle caught fire it was national news, and then someone in the comments would point out that they weren't catching fire any more than gas cars, but that wasn't newsworthy.
The early days of the Internet, the media constantly portrayed it as full of child porn and hackers.
Now the ultra-critical lens is on meat alternatives. But in 10 years that'll be the default when you order a Big Mac and nobody will think of it as any weirder than any of the other ingredients in packaged and prepared foods.
They might have to get the price down, the taste better, or better marketing/management.
In that time (well, 2020-present) we've gone from having Beyond burgers constantly in the fridge + inclusion in a meal every few days, and seeking out restaurants that have them, to completely avoiding them. I cannot tell if the flavor has actually changed or my family has become too accustomed to alternatives-- Impossible is king to us and I'll happily take Gardein or even Boca options over Beyond now, althought I'll happily take a Beyond patty over the average black bean burger, my original standard, back before the Brave New Meatless Times (black beans feature heavily in my diet still, but not on bread :).
It's worth noting their sausage- and chicken-type products are really quite excellent. But the standard bearer, the burger patty, doesn't compete these days, IMO.
Source:
- https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Reducing-the-pric...
This is capitalism, not ecology.
Beyond Meat spent an enormous amount of money to have their foot everywhere but if your product is mediocre a better products will take your place.
Also very interesting is that different countries have different priorities when it comes to such food items. The planted CEO stated that it was quite difficult to enter Germany because price was a much bigger factor than taste.
Unless you are a strict vegan, in which case, you can't eat Impossible Burgers. [0]
[0]: https://oopsvegan.com/en/blog/is-the-impossible-burger-vegan
> soy heme had to undergo animal testing
That's it. You have to be that strict a vegan to think it doesn't count.
I have always thought that the target market for Beyond/Incredible/etc was not vegetarians, but rather partners of vegetarians. They don’t really want to give up meat but they want to support their partner and/or avoid conflict.
My intention was not to suggest meat substitutes are strictly better than meat for losing weight, or reducing heart disease, general public health advice (I am not qualified to even make those comments!).
The scope I was hoping to address was situations where an individual needs to replace meat for their specific dietary requirements. In this case, meat substitutes may be useful if, say, there is something in meat causing inflammation for the individual.
This is largely "what-if" though, and would probably require a doctor's consult to confirm.
It's really the same play as any technology, the first generation jumps the gun and strikes too early given their ambitions.
But someone's gotta be the Yahoo! It's a necessary step in the path.
If you're vegan, eat whatever you want as long as it doesn't exploit an animal in any conceivable way.
Who cares about this uncanny fake-meats? Only people that exploit animals.
I've lived with dozens of other vegetarians, and I've heard the "I don't like fake meat" position a lot, but it's not a clear majority, and far from universal.
My grocery store sells five+ brands of fake chicken at this point, in addition to vegetarian burgers, fish, and sausage. There's very obviously a market.
(And for chicken nuggets specifically, I'd be surprised if you could tell the difference, haha.)
I'm in tech, and (for whatever reason) I feel more kinship toward Beyond Meat than I do Swanson. It hyped itself up as an innovative product (it is!), raised money like an innovative product (sure, why not) and now is being valued like the product it actually is.
This happens all the time (Peloton! Airbnb!), and every time news articles act aghast. At some point, products collide with the industry they're competing with, and start to be valued by the same metrics.
Vegetables are supposed to taste like vegetables. They're good without needing to be processed. Nobody wants to buy uncanny valley meat substitute, except as a novelty. And novelty business models work, but these guys misread their market and thought it could be a daily meat replacement, for a group of people that don't eat meat, or a group of people that eat real meat, not the fake stuff. Of course they failed.
There's definitely a niche for this, and it's large enough to build a multi billion dollar company.
And if it can work in the country that's home to the Currywurst, then it can work everywhere.
But that's obviously wrong, vegetarians and meat eaters are buying it én masse, the product is clearly a success, at least in Germany. And not just once, but repeatedly, again and again.
A couple of years ago I was at a restaurant (Beach Chalet in GGP in SF) and ordered their "veggie burger". It was one of those Beyond Meat/Impossible burgers. One bite and I recoiled in horror: did they give me real meat instead of the veggie option? Now, it has happened in the past that I have been given meat when I specifically ordered something vegetarian. For example: "beef burrito" at a taco place when I wanted a "bean burrito". It brought back those bad memories and I could not take another bite.
The problem here is a marketing one. Beyond and Impossible have a market, but it's those people who would just like to lower their meat consumption. _It is not the veggie burger eating hippie!_ By forcing us vegetarians to consume these fake burgers, the industry is embracing a lose-lose proposition: most vegetarians want nothing to do with these because of the taste, and most meat eaters would rather just eat the real thing.
There's a fast food chain called "Max" that has veggie patties. When I tasted their burger for the first time I thought they might have messed up my order and given me real meat, the taste and texture seemed so realistic. But I hadn't eaten real red meat in around 20 years, and didn't trust my own taste, so I got my meat-eating boyfriend to try it. He was also confused and suspicious, so he went to the cashier to confirm that this was definitely not meat. I was pretty blown away!
One thing I thought was cool was, a few years ago, seeing a plant-based patty + bacon burger. At that time these replacements were only really marketed for people not wanting to eat meat at all, so at first I was confused about whether the bacon is vegetarian, too. But no - the bacon was real. After the initial double take I realized how cool it is, and how these kinds of partial-options can help normalize eating _less_ meat even if you still want real bacon (for example).
For the long term though, I'm hopeful for lab-grown meat becoming a more common and accessible option.
But I have to admit ... the best products are products which don't want to be meat replacements. That are well flavored (with herbs and smoke) tofu products from one german company/brand. They are too expensive for day to day use like the most other meat replacements but if I want to spend my money on that than I buy the really good stuff.
Vegan/Vegetarian has, depending on the intention behind this decision, often a health related reason. Meat alternatives are often highly processed food which is not healthy at all. Proteins from peas, soy, mushrooms or whatever remind me more at dog food with hydrolyzed protein content for allergic dogs ;-)
The replacements may or may not taste good ... at the end they are not as healthy as self cooked food.
I also think that the anti-meat trend has peaked out. The people yakking about Soylent were yakking about fake meat, and their attention span is limited.
In the past, vegetarianism/veganism was mostly the reserve of activist types, dogmatic in their approach, with little interest in fake meats (though they existed, demand & competition was low enough for them to be pretty poor substitutes).
Then, more recently, there was a big trend of vegetarianism becoming more mainstream, with many people trialling it: during that trial, there's naturally a lot of reliance on products like Beyond. Similarly, with the mainstreaming of it all, many old-timer vegetarians become more comfortable/open with liking/trying meaty things & also as the product quality/variety improves, many old-timer vegetarians will be naturally curious excited to test new options. So this all results in big spikes in demand for Beyond.
Now I think we're entering a phase of (a) long-term dedicated vegetarians have tried it out & the novelty has disappeared and (b) "trial" vegetarians are settling into a "flexitarian" / low-meat diet, where they just eat real meat when they want to, but do their best to reduce consumption. So the demand drops.
There's still going to be the odd "trial" vegetarian who likes meat but stayed strict & there's probably some old-timers who developed a taste for it, but it's a much lower % of people than at the peak of novel interest.
---
There's also a few notable exceptions where new substitutes have succeeded in gaining a culturally iconic status - e.g. the Greggs sausages in the UK. These will probably retain some popularity I guess, but they're very much the exception.
I make an effort to reduce (and hopefully stop) eating meat after witnessing the insane cruelty we subject smart, intelligent and emotional animals to. The cognitive dissonance required to eat tons of pigs but on the other hand love dogs and cats is just weird. I mean if you get the chance, check out some cows and pigs. They're awesome and form a bond with you.
So hearing pigs scream in pain from CO2 suffocation is absolutely psychotic to me. Their cries burned themselves into my mind. Especially considering that most of them probably never saw the sun or could ever lay down in the grass to doze off... :(
For me, eating meat doesn't justify this pure horror. However, I still make a distinction between this sort of meat and, say, animals that had happy free roam years on a farm. I get a lot of heat from vegans but it doesn't matter. ANY reduction in the consumption of live animal products is a positive thing and there will always be political radicals.
So in the end, I find myself in your category (b) at the moment with severely reduced meat consumption. Beyond Meat temporarily helps to bridge the gap, it's akin to the nicotine bandaid, only this time it's for the meat addiction. But in that way the subsutition products are temporary and the majority of vegan/vegetarian food we cook is way tastier than the ready made substitutes.
[1] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23273338/germany-less-mea...
Not only they taste like the real thing or better, but they are multiplying in variety, number and availability.
The 'fake' versions of meat dishes starting to taste much better seems that they should start being called new, actual dishes instead of being considered clones.
Yes, there are plenty of delicious vegetarian dishes that don't require any kind of fake meat. We know. Please shut up since this isn't what fake-meat products solve.
Fake-meat products are for when I have meat cravings, when I go to a restaurant that doesn't normally do vegetarian cuisine, and ditto cultural events like cookouts.
We also have a Next Level Burger in our local Whole Foods we occasionally eat at and if they added Beyond Meat to the menu I don't think I would order it over the other vegi patties they already serve...
...but it is so expensive. In my country (EU) it's easily 2x the price of real meat. And sells frozen in packs of 10. And there is ONE store that sells it.
At reduced price, packs of 2 would be a hit. Like this it's "yeah I tried it once, it was good... nope, not going to buy again"
But, it's more than that. It's also economic. These things cost more than meat themselves. They also cost more than other vegetarian friendly (and tastier, but that's subjective), patties. Even worse, they've trying to drive up consumer cost of alternative burgers in general. I can either spend 32 NIS on a 4 pack of really good vegan burgers, or I can spend 24-30 NIS on a 2 pack of "plant based meat burgers". Heck, they actually cost ~25% more than meat burgers here.
I may have personal reasons to not like them. But from a purely economic point of view, they just don't fit here. Interestingly the data shows that they also don't sell here.
There is nothing natural about it at all and it's a shame as it's pushed vegetarian offerings off the table, options that are from what I can see healthier and more accessible to a broader consumer base.
water, pea protein, expeller-pressed canola oil, refined coconut oil, rice protein, natural flavors, cocoa butter, mung bean protein, methylcellulose, potato starch, apple extract, pomegranate extract, salt, potassium chloride, vinegar, lemon juice concentrate, sunflower lecithin, beet juice extract;
as a substitute for beef?
See https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-f...
> mounting evidence of plant consumption by both early modern humans and Neanderthals, in addition to meat. Wild nuts and grasses were often combined with pulses, such as lentils, and wild mustard.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/23/oldest-cooke...
> Cooking in caves: Palaeolithic carbonised plant food remains from Franchthi and Shanidar
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/co...
He's saying that we ate all of those AND meat, and meat was actually meat, you know, a tried and tested substance on which entire species subsist, while the new thing is a super complex mix of stuff we don't really understand.
An appeal to nature and/or tradition is not inherently a fallacy.
We KNOW for a fact that meat is a valid food, and we also know almost all of its downsides.
We definitely don't know the downsides of all these new "foods". And unfortunately it's the kind of thing that will take decades and decades to figure out.
See for tobacco, for example: https://youtu.be/GMOyNgLSX2g?t=1801
But in any case, since I don't have conclusive evidence this is bad for us, I'm perfectly fine with others being Guinea Pigs and I'll be perfectly happy to eat it once there are government mandates in place to ban meat consumption and have it replaced with artificial meat :-)
This is the part where you bring out the "processing" boogeyman, right? Like people haven't been eating processed foods for decades too?
[0] with the exception of the heme in Impossible burgers I suppose, which did undergo animal testing and was approved by the FDA same as drugs you've likely taken that were approved in the past decade.
And guess what, saturated fats are killing us. Saturated fats found in abundance in processed foods. Less processed foods don't have as many saturated fats, so this isn't really a problem you encounter with a traditional diet.
This is just an example of why're right that processed foods are bad for us.
It's not a boogeyman if it can be proven right with a 2-minute Google search.
And not this kind of Google search: https://youtu.be/Cxqca4RQd_M?t=286
Excuse me for not trusting blindy J. Random startup making food from stuff at the bottom of a glass tube. I'm sure their incentives are perfectly aligned with mine :-)
I mean, should they try create a new naming system, stop advertising as anything related to meat at all. Create a whole new menu set, they don't even need burger! Look around the world of feed, mediterranean, italian, portuguese, south east asia etc. Plant-based chelf should be the whole new study as well. The current plant-based industry is so mediocre or too early.
Some of the worst displays of poor manners in the “civilised” world was of people fighting over piles of toilet paper.
Sometimes I cycle another 2½km to the the next grocery store, because they usually have more like meat and vivera products, but often they're sold out there as well and I've got to try another day.
A single Beyond Meat patty at the U.S. supermarket price is equivalent to the Indian rupee price of ~4 full vegetarian burgers at Burger Singh (the Indian BK).
Yes we need to stop farming animals (climate, space, cruelty, cost) - but there are alternatives.
Edit: yes vegetable dishes are prepared in the home usually by the wife and tend to take hours - so the convenience aspect plays a huge role as society changes - but ready meals are not the only solution - humans used to be good at social - we might need to relearn how to design our cities and discover our neighbours
I got no affiliation with Dad's aside from thinking that they make a couple of fine sandwiches, and the mushroom sandwich is a great example of a vegetarian hamburger "alternative" that doesn't try to be a hamburger but tastes real good.
I'm omnivorous but like that mushroom sandwich sometimes (and the hamburger sandwich they sell is probably the best sandwich in the state, so that's saying something).
Can a more informed follower provide some insight? Are they just grossly mismanaging their production costs?
Then there's Beyond itself. Striking a deal with McDonald's likely involved a lot of time and money — and then the "McPlant" product immediately failed. If you're going to convince Americans that plant-based meat is good, meeting them where they're at with fast food may seem like a good idea. But the type of people who find themselves in the McDonald's drive-thru, and the type of people who will pay extra for plant-based meat, is a tiny sliver of the theoretical burger Venn Diagram.
Now, you could call that grossly mismanaged, or you could call it the best possible shot they had at catering to a wide audience and breaking out of the niche vegan market. But the fact is, the product failed. Where can they possibly go from here to continue growth?
There’s economies of scale, sure, but the ingredients they use are far cheaper than the inputs required to make beef.
There is effectively no market for this product at costs that exceed beef
And subsidies! Don't forget the subsidies!
But e.g. things like minced meat alternative just taste awful, no matter which brand. I'd rather just put more veggies in my food, or mushrooms, or more natural things like tofu and spice it myself...
I see those plant-based products only as an alternative to very cheap, low quality meat. E.g. Id rather eat a plant based "chicken" nugget, than one made from meat scraps full of bone splitters and cartillage.
Will it be cheaper to manufacture this future plant-based meat than real meat? Very likely yes.
Then, it seems obvious that eventually everyone eating meat will switch to plant-based meat.
The real question is if BYND will survive this technology shift. Whoever does will have at least tens of billions in revenue (and be worth some multiple of that) given that the current size of the meat industry is $1.3t (1% market share = $13b). At a $800m market cap, the stock seems cheap.
When I was a kid, my gram grams in Ukraine treated our animals like family members. That cow and hog dinner cooked for them smelled so good I wanted to plant my face in it myself.
My grandfather even built a sun deck for the pigs. A sun deck.
We wanted them to be HAPPY and PLUMPY, and when it was time to get the household through the winter, the dispatching was done quickly.
Humane meat should be scarce and expensive. The problem is that it's hard to know whom to trust with the claims of humanely raised stock.
To a lot of us, it will never be considered humane to kill something that is perfectly healthy for no other reason than that we want to eat something that tastes a certain way.
> When I was a kid, my gram grams in Ukraine treated our animals like family members
Think about this for a minute.
I dont care at all the beyond burgers are everything nutritionists claim is bad for you. I know nutritionists are outright lying.
Personally however, it didn't hit the threshold of being better than meat. So that was the last time I had beyond meat.
In other news, FDA approved lab grown meat. Chicken is first at bat.
The marketing was building a lot of hype, and targeting fast-food was smart, because I think that meat is usually very low quality so changing for a plant-based recipe could have been a double win: the taste is not worse or better, and the concerns about animal cruelty and bad ecological footprint is the worst for the type of meat used in this industry.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/20/beyond-meat-...
I avoid pork and beef most of the time, except on occasions.
In that sense they're a nice addition to my selection, I find they have a unique flavor to them, but most often they're the protein that I cook when I'm lazy, because of how they don't need any prep.
So if you want eat a burger and don't feel bad, just eat a pork or chicken burger and you should be fine.
For me, Beyond Meat was pretty terrible when I tried it. Maybe if you put it in burger with many other things its not as bad.
Impossible, beyond and whatever all the brands are called did all heavily upset my and my partners stomach so far. Just the same ugly feeling like after a burger king visit but for longer.
No issue with black bean, Quorn or veggie patties. No issue with actual meat. We aren't picky.
Vegetarian food can be very tasty and beautiful and it does not have to be a substitute or an imitator of meat and other non-vegan food
This "we have problem, so consume this..." pattern in all kind topics is obvious "divide and conquer". Especially when politics come in.
I'm curious when anti-plant-meaters will became enemies of the planet.
Nobody should be treating food stocks like growth stocks imo. Food doesn't scale that way and the margins aren't great.
I keep visiting supermarkets which claim to sell Beyond and I’m yet to find one.
The other issue with many meat subs: they usually have insanely high saturated fat content. At least if replacing beef, make it a healthier alternative.
Long term tho, I think lab grown meats will prevail and non-meat meats will age like margarine.
When I asked him why he'd gone so all-in on vegetarianism, he said "Daddy, animals are my friends. And you don't eat your friends"
The little bastard derived the whole thing from first principles, with no input from his parents.
I've tried to use the vegetable-based mince alternatives in pasta sauce, and we're always really unsatisfied with the results. He much prefers lentils / tofu / tempeh and frankly so do we.
We're in the target demographic for these products, and I can tell you: THe problem isn't the price, the branding or the level of ethical awareness. It's the product! It's a lousy substitute for the meat-based alternative, and it doesn't even stack up well against the raw ingredients they're derived from, which have the advantages of being cheaper and tasting better.
In fact, however, there are _plenty_ of plant-based companies doing just fine (like Planted). I'm a fan of nearly all of their products and have watched their growth over the past few years, which has been nothing short of incredible.
I wouldn't worry about plant-based "meats", as the tech improves and we bring another 2+ billion onto the planet, they'll find their market share more and more.
There might not be any story here besides inflation and Covid supppy chain problems.
E.g. I just ate some Impossible chili, and it was great!
Also, I kind of prefer a good veggie burger over an impossible burger. Let veggies be veggies and meat be meat.
I wonder what % of people would prefer, like I do, one of those, over beyond/impossible or similar?
I totally could believe it wasn't butter btw.
They’re beyond “well done”
I’ll see myself out.
Personally, the taste and look of beyond meat make me urge and feel like vomiting. It looks and tastes too much like a dead animal. I never miss the taste of meat, in fact, I hate the idea of eating anything that used to be alive.
So for any of these companies go make it big, they need to cater to the 90%+ of people who like meat.
If I had to choose one or the other, real meat hands down. I just don’t eat meat that much, maybe twice a week now.
I’m looking forward to vat grown meats, but the aluminium foil hat person in me thinks it would be used as a carrier for other crap the government decides to throw in there.
We live in Aldi and Action times.
I am all for a less meaty diet, but those trendy lifestyle companies like Beyond are not the solution.
I don't think they would try to get caught but they could try to pass the tests to get a FDA approval.
But in reality I think that there is a large portion of vegetarians that view the texture of meat as "gross" and so realistic meat substitutes have no appeal to them.
I don't know if this is true or not, and I have no way of proving this other than the times that I've offered beyond meat at a party but not gotten any takers. It's just an idea that perhaps meat eaters are pushing a narrative at a demographic that doesn't have a desire for it!
Not commenting on an article you didn’t read is always an option.
Would never eat any plant based fake meat products.
None of this would have been possible without meat substitutes like Beyond and Impossible, as I would not have had the discipline to stick with the diet. I've had previous generation veggie burgers which tasted like fried cardboard. I think these nasty tasting products of the past have left people with the impression that vegan food just tastes horrible, and vegans have to be crazy to eat them (Boca, I'm looking at you). I certainly expected the worst the first time I had a Beyond burger, and I was very pleasantly surprised. I even evangelized it to a guy at the next table who was asking the waiter if it was good. I think once more people try these products, they'll really take off.
I think part of the problem with Beyond uptake is the way that these fast food restaurants test their products, and the way they package them. These chains are national, and they assume that demand for products will be similar across locations, but that's just not true. Like it or not, Vegans live in mostly "Blue" metro areas, not fly-over states. So if you're McDonalds, and you test your products in Dayton OH, or middle-of-nowhere Alabama, then you're setting them up to fail. They should be tested in LA, SF, NYC, Miami, Chicago, etc, and they should gradually spread out from there.
The other problem is how fast food chains package their plant based products so that vegans can't eat them. The Impossible Whopper is an example. Since I'm vegan, I can't eat eggs and dairy, which means I need to order the Whopper w/o cheese and mayo. This means that I almost never get an Impossible Whopper, since I like cheese (and mayo) on my burgers. I'll instead order from a local vegan place that actually offers vegan mayo and cheese. Similarly, McDonalds in the EU has a plant-based chicken sandwich, but the BREAD contains dairy. So I have to order it w/o the bun, meaning I almost never order it, and instead order something fully vegan from a local place. There's a Qdoba just down the street that has an Impossible Burrito. But again, no vegan cheese, so I tend to order from a smaller local place.
My feeling is that once these 2 things are corrected, vegan meat alternatives will take off. I talked to a grocery store manager a few weeks ago in a middle-sized US city (Richmond, VA), and he said that Beyond products are flying off the shelves, and often backordered. After that conversation, I invested in Beyond stock. I figure if they are doing well in Richmond, then there is a huge market opening up.
Tertiary butylhydroquinone (TBHQ), Red #3/erythrosine, Sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP), Propylene Glycol....
not in my lunch/dinner thanks.
[1]: https://www.beyondmeat.com/en-US/products/the-beyond-burger
I'm fine with either but I don't eat much fast food or TV dinners.
For homemade the processed fake meat is more expensive and harder to work with than just grilling some steaks.
there is chinese demand for... sea cucumbers...Nostoc flagelliforme..i dunno...all kinds of crab and lobster...shark's fin? that they are prepared to pay good money for..
why are the lab grown food firms trying to compete against the domestic chicken? why not lab grown shark's fin or sea cucumber?
Go woke, go broke.
I wouldn't be surprised if Beyond and Impossible have to provide product for free or even pay the grocery stores to carry the products.
SPOILER
Soylent Green is both the name of a 1973 science fiction film and of a wafer-like food product in the film. The film is a police procedural set in the future, based on the 1966 novel Make Room! Make Room! The food is a processed protein ration made of human beings and distributed to an unsuspecting populace.
I'm wary of female vegans since I believe pregnant women should eat meat to deliver a healthy baby. When she's not pregnant she can stop eating meat for all I care.
I don't know a single person that eats this stuff on the regular. I know a handful of people that have tried it, that was it. Nobody is being fooled that this product is healthier than real meat. I can't figure out who's buying this stuff.
I quit eating meat a few years ago for ethical reasons but I still like to have a burger or brat or have a meat-like product in a pasta sauce or whatnot, and Beyond meat fills that role well.
Beyond Meat: water, pea protein, expeller-pressed canola oil, refined coconut oil, rice protein, natural flavors, cocoa butter, mung bean protein, methylcellulose, potato starch, apple extract, pomegranate extract, salt, potassium chloride, vinegar, lemon juice concentrate, sunflower lecithin, beet juice extract
Impossible: Water, Soy Protein Concentrate, Sunflower Oil, Coconut Oil, Natural Flavors, 2% Or Less Of: Methylcellulose, Cultured Dextrose, Food Starch Modified, Yeast Extract, Soy Leghemoglobin, Salt, Mixed Tocopherols (Antioxidant), L-tryptophan, Soy Protein Isolate, Zinc Gluconate, Niacin, Thiamine Hydrochloride
Definitions of the less common ones:
Methylcellulose: A common fiber/laxative. Non toxic. Deemed safe by the FDA and EFSA.
Tocopherols: Vitamin E. Often used as a supplement. Naturally occurring in egg yolk and leafy vegetables.
L-Tryptophan: An amino acid. Often used as a supplement. Its presence in turkey is what thanksgiving celebrants often assert to be the reason of their "food coma"
The ingredient list overall is pretty tame, so not sure which the OP is calling out specifically. There definitely are high oil counts in these though.
Not to mention salted meat, fish, fish/worcestershire sauce, soy sauce, vegemite...
Fake meat is just as dumb as those CVT transmissions that have fake shift points, or setting your watch 10 minutes ahead so you will never be late.
If you think eating meat is wrong, then stop doing it. It's a defensible moral position. But don't try to trick yourself into thinking you are still doing it -- instead, have the mental strength and willpower to admit to yourself that you are eating vegetables. Maybe even learn how to cook them in a way that does not impersonate meat.