What heartens me is that the shift towards plant-base protein can be gradual while still having a large impact. Ingredients like ground beef make up the majority(?) [1] of beef sold and there are already good plant based simulacra on the market [2] with more coming soon. I have my doubts we'll see anything marketable and cost competitive that could compete with larger cuts of meat in the next decade, but I could see…
I thought taco bell and now subway were only just 50% meat. I'm sure they'd go to more filler if they could legally label it as "meat"
Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless
51–60 of 205 posts
Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless
#52Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless
#53What heartens me is that the shift towards plant-base protein can be gradual while still having a large impact. Ingredients like ground beef make up the majority(?) [1] of beef sold and there are already good plant based simulacra on the market [2] with more coming soon. I have my doubts we'll see anything marketable and cost competitive that could compete with larger cuts of meat in the next decade, but I could see…
I'd have to disagree on that. I've had most fake meats on the market. The closest that comes to real meat is Quorn, and that's only for poultry and such. There's just something off about most meat substitutes.
Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless
#54Animal agriculture seems to me like one of those things that in 50 to 100 years people will look back on with bewilderment. "You mean you birthed whole animals, let them grow for two years, fed them all the while, just to kill them, chop up their remains, and ship that to people?" Plant based protein and maybe even more so cultured/clean meat (e.g. http://www.memphismeats.com/ ) seem likely to totally replace how we…
Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless
#55I'll never go meatless, the health benefits of meat are too great.
Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless
#56Animal agriculture seems to me like one of those things that in 50 to 100 years people will look back on with bewilderment. "You mean you birthed whole animals, let them grow for two years, fed them all the while, just to kill them, chop up their remains, and ship that to people?" Plant based protein and maybe even more so cultured/clean meat (e.g. http://www.memphismeats.com/ ) seem likely to totally replace how we…
Plants are alive too.
Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not clear to me that humans are going to think of a more efficient way to turn energy and matter into food in the next century. We could potentially alter the animals into something that would be hard to recognize, but that'll be an evolution of animal husbandry, not something that will leave us bewildered at animals. What do you see that indicates we're going to make massive leaps beyond what animal life has al…
There's already a more efficient way to turn energy and matter into food - plants. Running it through animals before we eat it is the inefficiency.
Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless
#58I'll never go meatless, the health benefits of meat are too great.
Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless
#59Animal agriculture seems to me like one of those things that in 50 to 100 years people will look back on with bewilderment. "You mean you birthed whole animals, let them grow for two years, fed them all the while, just to kill them, chop up their remains, and ship that to people?" Plant based protein and maybe even more so cultured/clean meat (e.g. http://www.memphismeats.com/ ) seem likely to totally replace how we…
"You mean you planted that whole acreage with seed, let them grow, watered and fertilized them all the while, just to cut them down, chop them up and ship that to people?"
Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, on the same token I'm totally mystified that people used horses to pull plows. What the heck were they thinking?
I would argue the difference here is we could just, you know, eat the plants but we don't want to. 36% of US corn goes to feed animals for meat and dairy (3%-40% efficient). [1] There would be significantly more food to go around if the plants were just eaten directly. It would be more like if there were plows at the time that operated on solar but nobody wanted to use them, and instead, decided to tie horses to the…
You're really arguing something separate here. We can't eat a lot of plants that animals can. 36% of corn goes to feed animals for meat, but what percentage of corn is inedible for humans? (husks, leaves, cobs)
There's a reason we don't domesticate carnivores - we're not creating any more food sources. We don't compete with things that digest cellulose.