This is the best news I've heard all week. The more widely vegan "meat" is available, the more likely it is to be adopted by average people and not just dedicated vegans.
Reducing the demand for real beef is probably one of the best things we can do in the short term for the environment, due to the amount of land required for cattle farming, and due to the surprising amount of methane emitted by cattle.
(see the documentary "Cowspiricy", or Mark Rober's "Feeding Bill Gates a Fake Burger to save the world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V3ESHcfA)
I truly don't understand the methane issue. Historically worldwide the # of ungulates is probably well below historical averages. It looks like today we have around 98 million head of cattle in the US. Historically we had bison in excess of conservatively 60 million. This doesn't even begin to count all the animals in Africa. Overall wide life is declining.
The point is the amount of large mammal farts, it appears to be burps, going on now is probably not that much higher than it always has been. We have merely swapped out one large untamed mammal for a more domesticated one.
EDIT: I should point out I am not advocating for more cows. I don't think we should be clear cutting forests to raise more of them. Yet I don't think we should be running to get rid of all of them either. Historically beef was quite expensive and was usually reserved for rare occasions or the very wealthy. I can see a path forward where we keep the herd size constant and let prices rise. This would obviously drive people to look for cheaper substitutes.
Unfortunately the documentary Cowspiracy is operating with massively exaggerated numbers (it claims meat is responsible for more than 50% of ghg emissions, it's explained on the wikipedia article of the film).
Real numbers from credible sources are that greenhouse gas emissions from the meat and dairy industry are around 15%. Which is large enough to take this problem seriously, but it's still far away from those claims.
I think this is harming the case. The problem is big enough to be passionate about fake meat. No need for exaggeration.
I agree that this is important, and less meat consumption is good, but I am kind of upset that the entire American culinary experience is being reduced to "burgers, pizza, and fried chicken."
I say that because most of the articles on meat alternatives are written from the perspective of "if only Americans can stop eating hamburgers!"
First off, in terms of global solutions, that isn't going to fly. Try going to Italy and telling people "we've replaced all your meat, with a ground beef alternative!" and see how pissed people get. Countries around the world have culinary traditions older than America itself. Many of these traditional preparations of various cuts of meat are a huge part of culture and history.
Second off, I, an American, don't even eat hamburgers[1] more than once or twice a year. And I'm not going to switch all my meat eating over to meat alternative hamburgers.
Of course replacing some meat is good, my main complaint is how so many articles reduce American food to just a few categories.
I have the same problem when friends come to visit from overseas, or even friends who've been in America for awhile (sometimes years!) who have no idea that American food is anything other than burgers and pizza.
[1] I eat sausages a bit more frequently, which I could fill with a plant based alternative.
Raising cattle can easily become a net negative to carbon emissions if cows are given slightly more space to graze and moved around more often. If all cattle were raised in this way there would be slightly less cattle production but a far more positive environmental impact than if we all switched to vegan "meat".
The popular crusade against meat is one of the more misguided. Meat provides far more nutritional value than any plant and the environmental impacts have been greatly exaggerated. See below:
Regarding carbon:
"removal of livestock in the US would only lead to a net GHG reduction of 2.6% in national emissions. Similarly, removing all dairy would lead to a reduction of just 0.7%. At the same time, both transitions would create domestic deficiencies in critically limiting nutrients [White & Hall 2017; Liebe et al. 2020], which is not unexpected given that Animal Sourced Foods are valuable sources of essential nutrition [see elsewhere].
and methane:
"As argued above, this is not wishful thinking as there is still ample potential for mitigation of biogenic methane in global food systems. Moreover, the global cattle population has not been increasing during the last decade, making its contribution to global warming debatable [Shahbandeh 2020]. It is, however, true that methane has nonetheless been suddenly increasing since 2007. Yet, this can be ascribed to a multitude of potential reasons, incl. geological and fossil fuel emissions, wetlands, rice farming, and landfills [Gramling 2016; Nisbet et al. 2016; Alvarez et al. 2018; Rasmussen 2018; Etiope & Schwietzke 2019; Malik 2021], or a decrease in hydroxyl radical levels, the main sink for atmospheric methane [Turner et al. 2017]
Not meaning to snark, but I don't see the good news. A manufacturer of mass-produced, low-quality, highly procesed food has struck a deal with large companies that specialise in selling exactly that kind of food. That the food in question is plant-based makes no difference at all. Companies like McDonalds, KFC and PizzaHut are responsible for the normalisation of industrial food production that is causing widespread environmental destruction and they have no incentive to solve the problems it creates. Switching to plant-based alternatives will simply change where the damage is done. This is just typical greenwash.
As a for instance of how companies like McDonalds encourage industrial farming and agriculuture tactics that are detrimental to the environment:
A Mongabay investigation, prompted by a report done earlier this year by the NGO Mighty Earth, suggests that customers buying chicken from some of Britain’s largest supermarkets and fast food chains may unwittingly be fuelling rampant deforestation in the Bolivian Amazon and Brazilian savanna.
Tesco, Morrisons and McDonald’s buy their chicken from Cargill, the biggest private company in the world, which feeds its poultry with imported soy. The U.S. food distributor purchases its soy from large-scale agribusiness operations that often burn and clear large swathes of native forest to make way for their plantations.
The agreement isn't to make vegan meat more available, but to make Beyond Meat the "preferred supplier" of vegan meat when they do sell it (so that they don't choose an alternate vegan beef supplier for their patties but buy all their alt-beef from BM).
E.g. this is an industry press release akin to saying "We were chosen to supply the rubber for the new Toyota Tacoma". People reading this as McDonald's promising to stop using beef or replacing beef with the fake beef or even putting the alt-beef into new dishes are misinterpreting this press release.
I've spent the last year vegan (only eating meat again this week because I'm in quarantine and can't get vegan food) and I:
- Firmly believe that lab grown and plant-based imitation meats will be the thing that makes the world vegan, not somehow convincing everybody to stop eating meat and dairy
- Would invest in lab-grown meat for profit if I had money to invest - it just makes sense to me that it will eventually become cheaper to manufacture than traditional meat for obvious reasons, and when it does, the McDonald's marketing machine will be out in full force to convince everyone that lab-grown meat is the manly masculine option (completely different to being one of those 'pussy vegans', right!?) and will succeed massively
Beyond is a plant-based imitation meat, not a lab grown meat (which I think will make more of a splash due to their variety and authenticity), but I still think it has its place and wish them success.
Even if you don't are about the animal cruelty, animal agriculture is a huge contributor to climate change - far bigger than international flights - and not eating meat is usually the best thing an individual can do to lower their contribution.
> The more widely vegan "meat" is available, the more likely it is to be adopted by average people
This argument always reminds me of Margarine, which was promoted for years as having great health benefits, and then we later find out that it is loaded with trans fats and actually terrible for you.
> Reducing the demand for real beef is probably one of the best things we can do in the short term for the environment,
And reducing the amount of food we eat in general! If the 66% of the U.S. population who are obese or overweight just started eating no more food than they needed, we'd go a long way to reducing greenhouse emissions.
Are there stats to back up that non-vegans begin consuming more vegan based meals if they have the option? And I mean more than once. A consumer might try it but then go back to normal. At there good stats on repeat buying on a large scale?
If you fly over the country, you will see a bunch of green circles from center pivot irrigation systems mining "fossil" groundwater. All the brown spots outside of those circles are vegetated, but the only way to get human food out of them is grazing. By necessity there will always be a large amount of cattle grazing area. Feedlots should be ended as a practice- wasteful of feedstock and poor quality and nutrition of the output.
Unless there is a health benefit, why would normal people adopt vegan meat? Impossible meat has just as much fat and other bad things compared to real meat, I’m not sure why would be interested in it.
If we replace cattle grazing by more plant growing, what are we going to do with the marginal land that is arable enough for grazing but not for growing things? It’s not like neveda is going to be able to switch from cattle to soy.
Don’t be fooled, not all plant based foods are good for the planet. Nestle makes them in Israel & sends them with refrigerated air freight around the world. That’s more harmful than a cow...
When it comes to the climate I have two primary problems:
1: We use fossil fuels (natural gas) to create artificial fertilizers. We use manure from cattle to create organic fertilizers. The production of artificial fertilizers is seen as positive for the environment while the production of organic fertilizers is seen as an negative.
2: When we use artificial fertilizers to grow crops which get used to produce bio fuel we call it carbon neutral. Cattle eating grass is in contrast seen as a major if the largest contributor to climate change.
I eat less meat because I think quality has declined; as meat is seen as the default-superior option, quality is less scrutinised, and has thus lowered.
As such, either I buy expensive, from a trusted location, I I stick to something else; Vegan options has been good quality so far, not that I don't expect this to change in the future.
Right now highly processed & shaped pink slime (with added salt + sugar) is sold at unreasonable prices, partly because people don't know what they are eating (or what it's really worth, often masquerading at other things), and partly because the main factor in consumer choice is PR budget - the low cost cheap meat therefore gets the higher marketing budget.
My one hope in this space is grocery delivery services becoming the norm will make it easier for people to scrutinise products from the comfort of home, with the convenience of a search engine.
Marketing-wise, I remember reading about the Oil industry heavily advertising on the benefits of plastic RECYCLING, which helped remove the guilt on oil extraction and plastic production, thus helping the large growth in the business[0]. (APOLOGIES for the below sporadic CAPS - I really have to learn how to write bold/italics in HN)
I see the ethical and environmental benefits of eating meat without killing an animal. This makes me wonder the following:
-is this to ensure meat-eaters continue to eat meat (for their benefit) without the suffering of animals?
-is this to ensure that we eat cleaner/healthier/disease-free meat? [1]
-is this to industrialise meat production further with a smaller harmful footprint?
-is this to SELL TO VEGANS? (expand the customer base?). If I can break down the vegetarians/vegans into two categories: a) Those who don't want to eat meat because they prefer a plant-based diet (by choice, medical reasons, etc.) and b) Those who do it for ethical reasons - 'meat is murder'.
-is this to SELL TO various RELIGIONS FOLLOWERS? I am thinking that around 2-3-4bn people do NOT eat a certain type of meat (or another)(pork, beef) for religious reasons. Imagine selling 'non-beef beef burgers' to 1.5bn people in India, 'non-pork bacon' to 2-3bn Muslims, etc.
-how will 'permissible' (halal) meat consumers be affected by this? The 'halal' process defines a ritual that is not possile. Will religion follow/adapt?
Maybe. As someone who isn't a fan of the meat production process and accidentally bought some vegan "meat" due to Amazon pushing it on everyone it's not the same. I threw it out because I couldn't eat it.
Are vegans actually adopting these? I would have assumed non vegetarians eating fake meat more. A significant part of the world is vegetarian/vegan, so we don't have dearth of just plant based food preparations from there. Isn't it easier to adopt those things for dedicated vegans?
Agriculture accounts for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, of which livestock is only a portion (soil and crops are lumped in with agriculture). Focussing on the smallest denominator in reducing emissions is nonsensical (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...).
I understand there is a morality aspect at play but it's frustrating hearing the vegan vitriol dolled out without thought for consequence. Meat is by far the most nutrient dense food available to humans. The vegan diet (as in strict vegan, not vegetarian) is incredibly unhealthy. Have you considered the land use required to grow the crops necessary to deliver the same amount of nutrients to a global populace?
There's a burgeoning industry growing which conflates health and veganism and snidely appeals to the morality aspect of the vegan diet while dangerously touting non-existent health benefits. The list of ingredients ina a beyond burger is longer than my arm.
My advice? Stay away from fast food (vegan or otherwise), eat whole, unprocessed foods much as possible, eat 'mindfully', make your own decisions regarding your health and diet and don't buy into anyone's snake oil/capitalistic agenda.
I'm not vegan, but I always pick the Beyond/impossible options when they are available. I hardly taste the difference and one less cow had to die for me having a tasty meal. And greenhouse gasses I guess, but for me animal cruelty is the most important.
As a beef “fan” i was amazed by the taste of beyond meat. I am trying to reduce meat (due to practical moral considerations) so dont be harsh. Happy to try such alternatives.
After reading some of the comments, I am increasingly thinking that People who eat beef/meat regularly will still seek Original/Farm grown/actual cattle beef. And Beyond meat style beef will be used for turning vegetarian people to get taste of beef, so that they can graduate to real beef later.
Non Vegetarian people will never accept climate impact their eating habits have on environment.
I share the same take with you! Reading some of the discussions going on in the comments, I'm surprised anyone thinks this is anything but good news. Like you said, it means:
1. non-vegetarians & non-vegans have more options. This is great for so many reasons!
2. Demand for beef will go down, which has a positive effect on the environment.
You should research on German Ökotest and beyond meat test. I don't get why things like beyond meat is not more tested. Why is mineral oil in their patties ???
I enjoy eating meat and have no plans of going off of it completely. But we eat so much of it as a culture.
And when you add up every hot pocket, frozen pizza, slider, hot dog, or chicken nugget, it's hard to argue that most of meat actually being consumed can't be easily substituted. For something healthier and cheaper too!
And I know people blast tech companies for focusing too much on making things flashy and cool, but the people who are making electric cars and fake meat cool are the ones who are going to save our asses while we were busy scolding people for not trying harder to enjoy brown rice.
This brand was tested by German magazine called "Öko-Test" on their ingredients. Also not for the first time. It got a BAD review again because it contains too much mineral oil in it (could have various reasons, packaging of ingredients or oily manufacturing machines) and 20g fat per 100g "meat".
So it's unhealthy on mineral oil (MOSH) which can easily accumulate in your body and fat percentage.
One of the sources which you can Google translate:
All of the sudden - I get it. These co's are dealing with a really shitty, commodified form of beef that they'd love to develop an alternative to. So the immediate benefit is they get to serve vegetarians, but the long term is they can transition off their price-above-all meat supply chain.
Their stuff is good. Here in the UK every supermarket chain now has their own vegan ranges putting out stuff almost (admittedly not quite) as good, priced very competitively. Even a couple of years ago that simply wasn't case.
Random stray thought I had earlier is how interesting things are going to be when we move further away from emulating existing meat products, and become more comfortable eating plant-based stuff that doesn't necessarily resemble (or have names that are a play on) anything else in nature, in the same way Pepsi is just Pepsi. I'd love to take a peak at what menus are gonna look like in 20 years, assuming this shift is the real deal. Are we gonna have to memorise a slapstick sounding list of dozens of engineered protein sources to get by? (Oomph, tofurky, shroomdog... and of course, quorn! etc)
Great, another way to load up on Omega 6 acids via vegetable oil. Exactly what Americans need. Hello obesity and inflammation disorders. The for-profit medical industry in the US will love this.
I'm a vegetarian, so it doesn't affect me too much, but you meat eaters may be better off with moderate consumption of actual (good quality) meat.
Beyond nutritional or environmental reasons to reduce meat consumption, there are ethical considerations about the consciousness of the animals we slaughter.
It doesn’t matter how we get people to be less reliant on factory farms, so long as we do.
We must examine every avenue that allows us to reduce the suffering of animals.
Impossible is definitely better tasting, but I'm happy to see Taco Bell is included in this deal (though not in the headline here on HN). I haven't been there since they got rid of potatoes, so having a vegan option would make my taco consumption during lunch break skyrocket.
I really wanted to like Beyond Meat, but there's something about how it smells that seems... off... to me. I really want to go work there just to play with a GCMS and figure out what component smells bad to me and remove it.
Personally, I think the epitome of vegan meat replacement is Morningstar Veggie Breakfast Patties. most meat eaters I know who try them say "huh... this is pretty damn good for something that doesn't have meat in it"
I tried the impossible whopper. You literally could not tell the difference between that and a normal beef whopper. I realized a lot the attributes of these commercial food products are the additions, like sauce, and toppings that contribute to that precisely calibrated flavor.
Just when you think there is no hope for this planet and for humanity something slowly emerges seemingly out of nowhere.
Fridays for future was one of those developments that caught me by surprise. Young people fighting for our planet while „angry white men“ claiming there ain’t no climate change.
Or take the sudden surge of interest in everything veggy / vegan. In Germany there is a growing demand for vegan products, and this demand seems to be very strong, because every grocery store has a growing number of vegan products lately.
I turned vegetarian last year not because I hate the taste of meat but because there are a dozen reasons we should not be eating meat. Environmental reasons, but also the pain we are causing these animals, every single day.
Rather than trying to encourage people to substitute the ingredients in their meals, I wish we'd encourage more healthy habits and work life balance.
So many people are either pressed for time or incapable of preparing a decent meal. If they aren't ordering takeout, they're falling back on boxed or prepared options.
Simply substituting fake meat for real meat isn't improving anyone's lives.
I wish companies were not able to label and sell these textured vegetable proteins as "meat". They are great products but they are not meat and as scale increases and they become less expensive than meat there will be strong commercial profit motives to replace real meat with "* meat" for monetary reasons.
I'd strongly prefer for increased funding to isolated tissue culture methods. That way we could have real meat without the environmental or ethical issues.
As a person who likes to research and optimize things, I have optimized meat out of my life. At first I ate "pareto-plant-based" meaning 80% plant-based, 20% meat, usually at social gatherings. Then I realised I eat meat only to please others and to "fit in", so I gave up on that and accepted being an outcast. I'm really thankful for remote work so I don't have to pretend anymore. I never called myself "vegan" even though I eat like one because people think I'm judging them or something. They hated me just for existing.
Have you ever eaten a burger at McDonald’s and thought, “wow! This beef is juicy, sweet, succulent, and delicious!”? Probably never, so it’s great to see these plant based alternatives that taste “just as good” become available.
There will always be demand for high quality beef, chicken, and pork ... and no substitute either.
I stopped eating meat in January 2018 and I can honestly say the only thing I miss is a Big Mac! This is VERY good news for me and a long overdue!
That being said, whilst I do love a Beyond burger, here in the UK, I was surprised to hear it was Beyond that McDonalds selected for this. While in Orlando 2 years ago, I tried an Impossible burger for the first time and it was incredible. The size, texture and taste would be perfect for McDonalds (Big Mac). Still, I will be all over this once it hits UK branches!
I love the idea of vegan meat alternatives but personally don't like Beyond's taste. It tastes too much like peas for me, doesn't get past "uncanny valley". I do like Impossible though -- Qdoba has it and it's fantastic in a burrito.
[+] [-] drewg123|5 years ago|reply
Reducing the demand for real beef is probably one of the best things we can do in the short term for the environment, due to the amount of land required for cattle farming, and due to the surprising amount of methane emitted by cattle. (see the documentary "Cowspiricy", or Mark Rober's "Feeding Bill Gates a Fake Burger to save the world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V3ESHcfA)
[+] [-] DamnYuppie|5 years ago|reply
https://www.statista.com/statistics/194297/total-number-of-c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison
The point is the amount of large mammal farts, it appears to be burps, going on now is probably not that much higher than it always has been. We have merely swapped out one large untamed mammal for a more domesticated one.
EDIT: I should point out I am not advocating for more cows. I don't think we should be clear cutting forests to raise more of them. Yet I don't think we should be running to get rid of all of them either. Historically beef was quite expensive and was usually reserved for rare occasions or the very wealthy. I can see a path forward where we keep the herd size constant and let prices rise. This would obviously drive people to look for cheaper substitutes.
[+] [-] hannob|5 years ago|reply
Real numbers from credible sources are that greenhouse gas emissions from the meat and dairy industry are around 15%. Which is large enough to take this problem seriously, but it's still far away from those claims.
I think this is harming the case. The problem is big enough to be passionate about fake meat. No need for exaggeration.
[+] [-] com2kid|5 years ago|reply
I say that because most of the articles on meat alternatives are written from the perspective of "if only Americans can stop eating hamburgers!"
First off, in terms of global solutions, that isn't going to fly. Try going to Italy and telling people "we've replaced all your meat, with a ground beef alternative!" and see how pissed people get. Countries around the world have culinary traditions older than America itself. Many of these traditional preparations of various cuts of meat are a huge part of culture and history.
Second off, I, an American, don't even eat hamburgers[1] more than once or twice a year. And I'm not going to switch all my meat eating over to meat alternative hamburgers.
Of course replacing some meat is good, my main complaint is how so many articles reduce American food to just a few categories.
I have the same problem when friends come to visit from overseas, or even friends who've been in America for awhile (sometimes years!) who have no idea that American food is anything other than burgers and pizza.
[1] I eat sausages a bit more frequently, which I could fill with a plant based alternative.
[+] [-] ngngngng|5 years ago|reply
https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/blog/carbon-negative-grass...
[+] [-] elktea|5 years ago|reply
Regarding carbon: "removal of livestock in the US would only lead to a net GHG reduction of 2.6% in national emissions. Similarly, removing all dairy would lead to a reduction of just 0.7%. At the same time, both transitions would create domestic deficiencies in critically limiting nutrients [White & Hall 2017; Liebe et al. 2020], which is not unexpected given that Animal Sourced Foods are valuable sources of essential nutrition [see elsewhere].
and methane: "As argued above, this is not wishful thinking as there is still ample potential for mitigation of biogenic methane in global food systems. Moreover, the global cattle population has not been increasing during the last decade, making its contribution to global warming debatable [Shahbandeh 2020]. It is, however, true that methane has nonetheless been suddenly increasing since 2007. Yet, this can be ascribed to a multitude of potential reasons, incl. geological and fossil fuel emissions, wetlands, rice farming, and landfills [Gramling 2016; Nisbet et al. 2016; Alvarez et al. 2018; Rasmussen 2018; Etiope & Schwietzke 2019; Malik 2021], or a decrease in hydroxyl radical levels, the main sink for atmospheric methane [Turner et al. 2017]
https://aleph-2020.blogspot.com/2019/06/greenhouse-gas-emiss...
[+] [-] YeGoblynQueenne|5 years ago|reply
Not meaning to snark, but I don't see the good news. A manufacturer of mass-produced, low-quality, highly procesed food has struck a deal with large companies that specialise in selling exactly that kind of food. That the food in question is plant-based makes no difference at all. Companies like McDonalds, KFC and PizzaHut are responsible for the normalisation of industrial food production that is causing widespread environmental destruction and they have no incentive to solve the problems it creates. Switching to plant-based alternatives will simply change where the damage is done. This is just typical greenwash.
As a for instance of how companies like McDonalds encourage industrial farming and agriculuture tactics that are detrimental to the environment:
A Mongabay investigation, prompted by a report done earlier this year by the NGO Mighty Earth, suggests that customers buying chicken from some of Britain’s largest supermarkets and fast food chains may unwittingly be fuelling rampant deforestation in the Bolivian Amazon and Brazilian savanna.
Tesco, Morrisons and McDonald’s buy their chicken from Cargill, the biggest private company in the world, which feeds its poultry with imported soy. The U.S. food distributor purchases its soy from large-scale agribusiness operations that often burn and clear large swathes of native forest to make way for their plantations.
https://www.mightyearth.org/ukmeatinvestigation/
[+] [-] rsj_hn|5 years ago|reply
E.g. this is an industry press release akin to saying "We were chosen to supply the rubber for the new Toyota Tacoma". People reading this as McDonald's promising to stop using beef or replacing beef with the fake beef or even putting the alt-beef into new dishes are misinterpreting this press release.
[+] [-] TheRealSteel|5 years ago|reply
- Firmly believe that lab grown and plant-based imitation meats will be the thing that makes the world vegan, not somehow convincing everybody to stop eating meat and dairy
- Would invest in lab-grown meat for profit if I had money to invest - it just makes sense to me that it will eventually become cheaper to manufacture than traditional meat for obvious reasons, and when it does, the McDonald's marketing machine will be out in full force to convince everyone that lab-grown meat is the manly masculine option (completely different to being one of those 'pussy vegans', right!?) and will succeed massively
Beyond is a plant-based imitation meat, not a lab grown meat (which I think will make more of a splash due to their variety and authenticity), but I still think it has its place and wish them success.
Even if you don't are about the animal cruelty, animal agriculture is a huge contributor to climate change - far bigger than international flights - and not eating meat is usually the best thing an individual can do to lower their contribution.
[+] [-] war1025|5 years ago|reply
This argument always reminds me of Margarine, which was promoted for years as having great health benefits, and then we later find out that it is loaded with trans fats and actually terrible for you.
[+] [-] fortran77|5 years ago|reply
And reducing the amount of food we eat in general! If the 66% of the U.S. population who are obese or overweight just started eating no more food than they needed, we'd go a long way to reducing greenhouse emissions.
Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oby.22657
[+] [-] partiallypro|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kleton|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|5 years ago|reply
If we replace cattle grazing by more plant growing, what are we going to do with the marginal land that is arable enough for grazing but not for growing things? It’s not like neveda is going to be able to switch from cattle to soy.
[+] [-] bendubuisson|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notnestle|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] belorn|5 years ago|reply
1: We use fossil fuels (natural gas) to create artificial fertilizers. We use manure from cattle to create organic fertilizers. The production of artificial fertilizers is seen as positive for the environment while the production of organic fertilizers is seen as an negative.
2: When we use artificial fertilizers to grow crops which get used to produce bio fuel we call it carbon neutral. Cattle eating grass is in contrast seen as a major if the largest contributor to climate change.
[+] [-] macintux|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Chris2048|5 years ago|reply
As such, either I buy expensive, from a trusted location, I I stick to something else; Vegan options has been good quality so far, not that I don't expect this to change in the future.
Right now highly processed & shaped pink slime (with added salt + sugar) is sold at unreasonable prices, partly because people don't know what they are eating (or what it's really worth, often masquerading at other things), and partly because the main factor in consumer choice is PR budget - the low cost cheap meat therefore gets the higher marketing budget.
My one hope in this space is grocery delivery services becoming the norm will make it easier for people to scrutinise products from the comfort of home, with the convenience of a search engine.
[+] [-] HenryBemis|5 years ago|reply
I see the ethical and environmental benefits of eating meat without killing an animal. This makes me wonder the following:
-is this to ensure meat-eaters continue to eat meat (for their benefit) without the suffering of animals?
-is this to ensure that we eat cleaner/healthier/disease-free meat? [1]
-is this to industrialise meat production further with a smaller harmful footprint?
-is this to SELL TO VEGANS? (expand the customer base?). If I can break down the vegetarians/vegans into two categories: a) Those who don't want to eat meat because they prefer a plant-based diet (by choice, medical reasons, etc.) and b) Those who do it for ethical reasons - 'meat is murder'.
-is this to SELL TO various RELIGIONS FOLLOWERS? I am thinking that around 2-3-4bn people do NOT eat a certain type of meat (or another)(pork, beef) for religious reasons. Imagine selling 'non-beef beef burgers' to 1.5bn people in India, 'non-pork bacon' to 2-3bn Muslims, etc.
-how will 'permissible' (halal) meat consumers be affected by this? The 'halal' process defines a ritual that is not possile. Will religion follow/adapt?
[0]: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-... [1]: https://www.motherjones.com/food/2015/08/poop-ground-beef-su... (I was trying to remember the movie.. but I couldn't..)
[+] [-] swiley|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otabdeveloper4|5 years ago|reply
Beef can (and does) graze on natural pastures that would have been otherwise ruined and turned into something useless.
[+] [-] megablast|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] actuator|5 years ago|reply
Are vegans actually adopting these? I would have assumed non vegetarians eating fake meat more. A significant part of the world is vegetarian/vegan, so we don't have dearth of just plant based food preparations from there. Isn't it easier to adopt those things for dedicated vegans?
[+] [-] jb_gericke|5 years ago|reply
I understand there is a morality aspect at play but it's frustrating hearing the vegan vitriol dolled out without thought for consequence. Meat is by far the most nutrient dense food available to humans. The vegan diet (as in strict vegan, not vegetarian) is incredibly unhealthy. Have you considered the land use required to grow the crops necessary to deliver the same amount of nutrients to a global populace?
There's a burgeoning industry growing which conflates health and veganism and snidely appeals to the morality aspect of the vegan diet while dangerously touting non-existent health benefits. The list of ingredients ina a beyond burger is longer than my arm.
My advice? Stay away from fast food (vegan or otherwise), eat whole, unprocessed foods much as possible, eat 'mindfully', make your own decisions regarding your health and diet and don't buy into anyone's snake oil/capitalistic agenda.
[+] [-] kmonsen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yrgulation|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Solstinox|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acd10j|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _cloudkate|5 years ago|reply
1. non-vegetarians & non-vegans have more options. This is great for so many reasons! 2. Demand for beef will go down, which has a positive effect on the environment.
[+] [-] therealmarv|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] legitster|5 years ago|reply
And when you add up every hot pocket, frozen pizza, slider, hot dog, or chicken nugget, it's hard to argue that most of meat actually being consumed can't be easily substituted. For something healthier and cheaper too!
And I know people blast tech companies for focusing too much on making things flashy and cool, but the people who are making electric cars and fake meat cool are the ones who are going to save our asses while we were busy scolding people for not trying harder to enjoy brown rice.
[+] [-] therealmarv|5 years ago|reply
So it's unhealthy on mineral oil (MOSH) which can easily accumulate in your body and fat percentage.
One of the sources which you can Google translate:
https://www.businessinsider.de/gruenderszene/food/beyond-mea...
Another English article:
http://www.ezineblog.org/2020/12/12/beyond-meat-fails-the-te...
[+] [-] unchocked|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at_|5 years ago|reply
Random stray thought I had earlier is how interesting things are going to be when we move further away from emulating existing meat products, and become more comfortable eating plant-based stuff that doesn't necessarily resemble (or have names that are a play on) anything else in nature, in the same way Pepsi is just Pepsi. I'd love to take a peak at what menus are gonna look like in 20 years, assuming this shift is the real deal. Are we gonna have to memorise a slapstick sounding list of dozens of engineered protein sources to get by? (Oomph, tofurky, shroomdog... and of course, quorn! etc)
[+] [-] trashface|5 years ago|reply
I'm a vegetarian, so it doesn't affect me too much, but you meat eaters may be better off with moderate consumption of actual (good quality) meat.
[+] [-] bredren|5 years ago|reply
It doesn’t matter how we get people to be less reliant on factory farms, so long as we do.
We must examine every avenue that allows us to reduce the suffering of animals.
[+] [-] ukyrgf|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marrone12|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dekhn|5 years ago|reply
Personally, I think the epitome of vegan meat replacement is Morningstar Veggie Breakfast Patties. most meat eaters I know who try them say "huh... this is pretty damn good for something that doesn't have meat in it"
[+] [-] jordache|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] submeta|5 years ago|reply
Fridays for future was one of those developments that caught me by surprise. Young people fighting for our planet while „angry white men“ claiming there ain’t no climate change.
Or take the sudden surge of interest in everything veggy / vegan. In Germany there is a growing demand for vegan products, and this demand seems to be very strong, because every grocery store has a growing number of vegan products lately.
I turned vegetarian last year not because I hate the taste of meat but because there are a dozen reasons we should not be eating meat. Environmental reasons, but also the pain we are causing these animals, every single day.
[+] [-] cptskippy|5 years ago|reply
So many people are either pressed for time or incapable of preparing a decent meal. If they aren't ordering takeout, they're falling back on boxed or prepared options.
Simply substituting fake meat for real meat isn't improving anyone's lives.
[+] [-] superkuh|5 years ago|reply
I'd strongly prefer for increased funding to isolated tissue culture methods. That way we could have real meat without the environmental or ethical issues.
[+] [-] endisneigh|5 years ago|reply
What’s everyone’s take?
[+] [-] exabrial|5 years ago|reply
Eating highly processed food just isn't good for you.
[+] [-] ricardobayes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradgessler|5 years ago|reply
There will always be demand for high quality beef, chicken, and pork ... and no substitute either.
[+] [-] m4tthumphrey|5 years ago|reply
That being said, whilst I do love a Beyond burger, here in the UK, I was surprised to hear it was Beyond that McDonalds selected for this. While in Orlando 2 years ago, I tried an Impossible burger for the first time and it was incredible. The size, texture and taste would be perfect for McDonalds (Big Mac). Still, I will be all over this once it hits UK branches!
[+] [-] thehappypm|5 years ago|reply