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.
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.
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
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 the carbon footprint of the manufacturing? Meat is also distributed.
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?
Can you answer the question about the carbon footprint of manufacturing plant based foods?
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.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
We're particularly trying to avoid ideological battle here, regardless of which ideology people are battling for or against.
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!
For people who are considering vegetarianism for environmental or health reasons, it's important to be able to say "You don't have to go without."
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.
But the thing is ribs are just about one of the hardest things to emulate, so all that's going to happen is they'll fail and put people off meat alternatives.
I'd rather they focus on things that stand a chance of actually being good alternatives.
Agreed. I'm an unapologetic meat eater, and I'll never eat faux meat crap, especially when it's just some inferior copy of the real thing. But there are plenty of things that don't have meat in them that are good to eat- someone else mentioned halloumi, lots of Indian food and Japanese food, etc. It's the perennial "running for the leader of the opposition" problem. Focus on making something good, not on an inferior substitute for something that's already there.
This ignores the reality that many people are attached to eating meat and all of the familiar things that come along with it. For many, the realistic simulations of meat are the first step toward adopting plant-based alternatives. It's also likely that cultivated ("lab-grown") meat is going to be more popular than plant-based when it reaches a similar price point to conventionally grown meat.
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.
Some of them are getting pretty close, to the point that people choose them over real meat in blind taste tests.
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.
Well... some people think whatever they eat at KFC is real poultry. I can understand how these people can be fooled. But for some of us lucky enough to eat the chicken we raised... this leap looks like the grand Canyon.
When true vat meat is a thing, I'll get it. But I've never tasted a realistic simulation of meat. The closest I think I've seen is plant based hot dogs, but it's still a miss.
As an ethical-vegetarian, these are very much not for me, but I've also noticed this weird thing where some restaurants (Sushirrito's the most recent one I've seen) drop their traditionally meat free items and replace it with something that is just a meat item with the meat subbed out.
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.
Same - I see that quite a lot around traditional Polish restaurants. Polish cousine already has a lot of meat-free dishes, a lot of it borne from the times of difficulty and learning to make do with very little, so it's completely normal to order a dish that just doesn't happen to have any meat in it, and no one would even think of it as specifically vegetarian/vegan(even though it is). But now those dishes are being pushed out for specific vegetarian/vegan dishes where a traditional dish with meat is being replaced with a meat-imitation. It's like......why? If you want vegetarian dumplings(pierogi), there are literally dozens of different options already, we've been making them literally for centuries, but you'd rather have pierogi with meat-imitation pork mince? I mean suit yourself, but it's just weird.
One of the greatest things on Earth, cheese and potato pelmeni/pierogi, steamed and then lightly pan fried in butter (or oil) with onions. Serve with smetana and anything else you like.
I could eat that for DAYS. No meat required, no pretensions of meat required!
What’s the nutritional and health verdict on the fake meat products generally so far? Seems like we’re encouraging people to replace the least processed part of their diet with something completely processed. That seems like a bad idea and it seems like the kind of thing we’re going to really regret in 100 years when we trace back a load of diseases to it. This is just a gut feeling though - is there any research?
I don't think a lot of health claims are made about these, it's either an ecological argument, a moral (killing animals is bad) argument, or both. After all I think we all understand that it's more than possible to reduce or eliminate meat without having to eat highly processed frankenfood recreations of meat. I'd be much happier eating foods that make the best of non-meat ingredients without trying to imitate the taste and texture of something it just... isn't.
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 wouldn't really call this completely processes. It's just soy flour mechanically processed with some seasoning.
I'd put it into the same category as fish sticks or chicken nuggets.
Not something I would eat every day, but if someone wants to do it, they'll be fine.
...Fish sticks and chicken nuggets are some of the more iconic "highly processed foods" out there though? And think about it, "just soy flour with seasoning" sure, but what about the "meat" on the bones? That's going to be soy flour and a mixture of saturated and unsaturated fats, binders, textural elements, seasoning, thickeners and so on.
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.
So blending a fish and pressing it back together with some flour is the most processed thing you can think of?
If that's the case, maybe there is nothing wrong with processed foods.
A lot of plant-based meat substitutes are effectively a very dense/high-protein (gluten) bread loaf. Not excessively exotic or processed compared to other common foods.
I just can't wrap my head around the idea of the process to eat these.
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...
It also doesn’t make sense because meat eaters don’t eat the pork bones, so it’s not as if anyone feels like they are missing out on edible bones and want to substitute for this.
76 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 185 ms ] threadI'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...
We're particularly trying to avoid ideological battle here, regardless of which ideology people are battling for or against.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
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.
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
Ummmm, like much needed protein? Source of B12?
https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
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!
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.
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.