New plant-based pork ribs to feature edible vegan bones
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
A black bean "burger" can be a joy, a greasy Beyond Burger is never a good time. If I really want the experience of a hamburger, no amount of TVP and coconut oil is going to replicate that experience anyway.
I am not a vegetarian or vegan, but I used to love the vegetarian options and would often opt for things such as a black bean or portobello burger.
Now I just get a regular burger.
Basically the soy-flour bones are just one additional element, it's not like people are going to be buying them on their own, they'd realize that they're just seasoned dog treats.
I get why they want to do this for streamlining purposes, but it doesn't make any sense to me. People that want to avoid eating meat will still avoid it, but also the differences need to be taken into account regarding texture and seasoning, which it doesn't seem like they do.
I could eat that for DAYS. No meat required, no pretensions of meat required!
So first you cook them traditionally or at least close. Then you serve and eat them.
And next you have some left over bones. Which you need to bake or fry? Like why even bother to combine things like that?
And then, considering if they are shared. And someone eat them by hand and suck from the bone, you still want to mix them together, bake/fry and eat? It sounds kinda yucky...
Ethics, economics, politics, etc. will always be secondary to even the most fanatical customers. If the product sucks, it sucks.
That remains to be seen. In my view the more vegetarian options and ease of access, the better.
Oh, and try to make them healthy, unlike Impossible burgers.
Next up: plant based roast boar's head, complete with eyeballs.
I’ve had thousands of veggie burgers and most lack stability unfortunately
Coincidentally I just got back from Jamaica a few days ago, and as a vegetarian I always try to find the Rasta spot as soon as I can as they’re usually the ones with the best veg food. I was thinking of these burgers and now here we are — I guess I should make a batch this weekend!
Yes, there are a billion lovely things you can do with vegetables, but sometimes people are looking for a specific known quantity. Maybe it's a "food as a nostalgia/cultural heritage" thing-- you always had a hot dog when you went to the baseball game, now you can still get a Beyond Sausage. Maybe it's not yet being adventurous enough to try a meatless dish that stands on its own. Maybe it's trying to cater to an entire family, where other family members are eating meat and you want to provide something they'll be comfortable with.
Even outside of the attempt to emulate meat, I give them credit for experimenting, because it expands the culinary vocabulary. Maybe those "realistic bones" can be used as part of an entirely novel dish to add texture or change how the cooking cycle progresses.
I'd rather they focus on things that stand a chance of actually being good alternatives.
Plus if you hype something and the product doesn't live up to the hype, it damages the market.
I would say that the primary goal is to reduce the animal suffering and environmental damages caused by animal agriculture. Healthier varieties of plant-based products are a good thing too, but it's less important which products people are switching to, as long as they're switching away from factory farming.
There is no such thing.
Even if we never get to a perfect simulation of meat, the ethical and environmental reasons for avoiding factory farming far outweigh whatever marginal pleasure you might get from it.
Ummmm, like much needed protein? Source of B12?
I'm skeptical, because many things, like Corn Ethanol, are actually not what they're promised to be. I would love it if this wasn't the case here, but I suspect it is.
Any proof either way?
Updated- the guy above provided a bunch, thanks!
Thanks? And you think you'll get away with that? ;)
> a farm raised (not factory raised) real chunk of meat
Farm raised is in fact worse for the climate than CAFOs (because it takes longer), not talking about other aspects.
> I'd wager $20
Just joking, of course. Try some good vegan restaurant instead (happycow.net).
I've also been paying attention, and know that many things that are sold to us as greener, arent.
If you've been raised vegetarian, it's possible you have some blind spots. A lot of people have an idealized picture of how the industry works.
Have you seen "dairy is scary" ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI
Or dominion? https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
> know that many things that are sold to us as greener, arent
Certainly, that's why I would recommend focusing on science rather than mass or social media.
It's like with corn based ethanol fuels. Yes, we can turn corn into fuel. Yes, it takes more fuel to burn than we get out of the process.
A new University of Oxford study adds to the growing body of evidence that plant-based foods, even the processed ones, are better for the planet than meat, especially beef and lamb.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2120584119
Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/07/plant-ba...
Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds
https://css.umich.edu/publications/research-publications/bey...
Beyond Meat's Beyond Burger Life Cycle Assessment: A detailed comparison between a plant-based and an animal-based protein source
the Beyond Burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 46% less energy, has >99% less impact on water scarcity and 93% less impact on land use than a ¼ pound of U.S. beef
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local ... Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.
What's your source for this claim about ethanol fuels? You can get pure ethanol at any pump in Brazil, it's widely used, and it's even 10% in gasoline. You sure they are losing money on that?
It's the same for the sugar cane based ethanol made in other countries.
The study on corn ethanol looks so-so, however it's only one study and has a lot of disclaimers about possible problems in methodology. They claim the difference could be as low as zero and as high as 24%. They also are quite strong in saying biofuels must be a part of managing carbon. Just that we need something more efficient than corn. And some scientists have already found problems with the study.[1]
As far as the numbers being the same for sugar cane, that's completely wrong. It produces close to double the fuel.
[1] https://growthenergy.org/2022/05/25/doe-scientists-release-c...