Because it costs more money to do something to milk than not to? On top of all the other capitalism reasons.
No, the (wet, runny) shit comes after you drink the (regular) milk.
Why on this green Earth do you think I would just take the word of a company and a research they paid for on face value, and of course I would question that. There’s a lot of discussion right now on whether these new products are healthy, on whether or not they actually benefit the body in a way that is better than actual meat… if it’s a good source of protein compared to other proteins. This sort of thing will go on for years. This is just a burger replacement, a plant that tastes like meat… but there are other sources for the same nutrients. They can’t even decide if this stuff is actually “better” for anyone. We just know it tastes a lot like meat.
Hey enjoy your plant based whatever, but don’t post a link to someone’s marketing spiel and try to claim it’s anything more than it is. Tobacco had independent studies too.
I didn’t say anything about its health effects. My statement was entirely about the environmental effects of beef production. Cattle use tons of land for grazing. Then they’re fattened up with grain, which also takes tons of land to produce. They drink lots of water and the grass and feed they eat takes more water to produce. They produce manure in copious quantities and that manure contributes to eutrophication of ground water. Here’s a Scientific American article, bu there are dozens and dozens of studies that show this and it comports with common sense. There’s no question that eating meat causes more negative environmental impact than not eating meat.
Wait, are people arguing that beef production is good for the environment? I thought it was settled that they were major producers of greenhouse gases?
We don’t know the processing of Impossible Meat, Beyond Meat or any of these other highly processed products is actually hugely better for the environment until multiple studies done by independent groups over a period of years and not Impossible Foods proves that.
I am aware of what beef is and is not doing because we have decades of data from multiple sources from all over the place that tells us this. You cannot shortcut these sort of things simply because we have an exciting product at a moment in time.
While this is technically true, I’d be very surprised if the energy processing required to make soy-burgers exceeded the energy requirements to raise and process cows into burgers. Just, like, from a purely thermodynamic perspective.
We need data, actual, repeatedly, proven by multiple groups before we decide any sort of product made by anyone is some sort of wave of the future. And yes, I totally get why plant based burgers that taste like meat is a lot more appealing than say cricket powder protein bars.
We know that the production of the plants that Impossible “meat” is made of is hugely better. That’s well established. It is possible that some facet of the production process itself causes enough negative impact to offset this? I guess so, but I think it’s highly unlikely.
I’m not a vegetarian evangelist. I’ve only been meat-less for a little less than a year. And honestly, I wouldn’t even usually go for a burger at all, Impossible or not; I’d rather have a dense salad or a hummus platter or mushroomy pasta dish or whatever. If you want to eat meat, go for it, but c’mon, you can’t wave away the environmental impact of doing so. I’m not saying that you should be consumed by guilt or anything–I buy too much stuff on Amazon and commute via car–but we’d have a more sustainable environment if no one ate meat. Even if Impossible stuff turns out to a relatively inefficient way to consume plants, if it transitions a significant number of meat eaters away from meat, it will be a resounding success.
This might be their goal, but it seems highly unlikely. This is a ridiculously expensive curiosity at the moment. It could last, sure, but we don’t know that it will. If the goal is to move people off meat, I suspect it sort of is, and we’re discussing saving our planet, we’re probably looking at the less appealing things like… cricket powder, not just trying to sustain the same diet we have now, using ingredients that seem familiar.
I am just saying, before we start celebrating our meatless features, let’s really see what this product is and compare it to the other groups and products that are actually trying to save the planet as opposed to the one that has a hot product in Burger King right now that the lower income brackets can’t even afford.
I wish them all the luck in the one market, glad we have something that gets people excited. If they want to step into the save the planet, future of mankind diets… that requires more data, careful analysis and of course the… is this really the best option as opposed to the less savory other ones.
I’m pretty comfortable with cricket powder being a last resort. I have a sense that there’s a huge range of options between our current meat consumption and cricket powder.
That’s not the question though. The question is: is this option better than the status quo? Given that consumers have choice, how savory an option is is maybe the most important consideration.
I guess that really depends on how much time we have. I treat Impossible Burger using their statement:
We started with a simple question. “What makes meat taste like meat?” Then we took everything we know and love about meat, and made it even better – using plants.
I am not treating them as some sort of transition to save our planet even though they talk about the environment. That’s just a mission statement, I don’t think you want me listing a bunch of mission statements and showing you why I question what they say vs what they do.
Impossible says its team spent an inordinate amount of time getting its burger to survive the “death-defying drop” at the end of the broiler-conveyor without breaking apart.
LOL, I remember those conveyor belts very well from a high school job.
While the burger itself contains no meat, Burger King says the Impossible patty is flame-grilled on the same broiler as its chicken and beef products. This means the meatless burger will likely come into contact with bits of meat and poultry as it cooks.
There are a number of groups that don’t like it, the meatless curious, maybe not.
You just gave me a movie idea about zombie vegetarians.
I had a couple of friends invite me over for dinner the other night. The one doing the cooking is a vegetarian, because she practices a Buddhist lifestyle, and she texted me to ask, “Is the Beyond Burger okay with you? Or do you need hot juicy beef?”
Now, ignoring for a second that last statement, received over text, I was totally fine with trying the Beyond Burger. I dated and cooked for a vegetarian for years, and actually eat very little meat that isn’t fish, and will eat about anything, so I was on board.
It was really good. The texture was just about right. A little too much chew as you got to the end of each bite. But still good. The taste was excellent. I quite liked it.
I mean, when push comes to shove I will prefer hot juicy beef, or a steak, but this thing was dang tasty.
Also it’s good for people who might have a soy alergy because, as my friend said, “It’s pea-based.”
As anyone who knows me can imagine, I had to make a joke about pee. At the dinner table. People should not have me over.
-xtien
Haha, well we had the one movie about Zombie love so why not ;-)
Hey now that’s a good point. Everyone keeps acting like Beyond Meat is two steps form the grave, but there’s no real reason why we can’t have two products.