Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

foxbusiness.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 205 posts

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#71

Post by paulcole »

nunez wrote: post #7

if they can make affordable plant based chicken that's as tasty and protein-packed as real chicken and veg beef that's as good as real beef, then I'm 100% in. the biggest problem with non-meat foods (for me) has always been with their macros. I can get 32g of protein with nearly zero fat or carbs from 4oz of chicken for less than $2 a serving. Last I checked, this was not possible with alternative food.

1. Seitan can give you that kind of protein.

2. Unless you're on a very specific diet or have some kind of exercise heavy hobby, that is a lot of protein (essentially a day's worth).

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#72

Post by seangrogg »

lajy wrote: post #31
viraptor wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also doesn't taste like meat. I will happily eat a vegan meal that tastes good. I'll eat meat that tastes good. But I just don't see a point in buying a "soy chicken schnitzel" which does not taste like chicken at all. Why should I be interested in that product in the first place? Hopefully one day we'll get to actually replicating the taste properly. Or growing meat synthetically. I'm happy to move to either.

I'm hesitant to believe you've had modern, high quality (or even moderate quality) meat-replacements. My girlfriend is vegan so I've been exposed to an array of options, and there are plenty that I would have never even guessed weren't meat had I not already known. There are members of the vegan community that won't even eat some meat-replacements because it tastes and feels too much like flesh and it grosses them ou…

The question here is whether that "modern, high quality meat-replacement" is equally as affordable as meat (within reason). If so, show me where I can get it. If not, I likely won't reallocate my budget.

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#73

Post by mc32 »

Definitely forward looking to invest in food intake in general rather than just meat. That being said, I thought the future of meat itself was "lab meat" i.e produced in growing vats, rather than on farms. The other thing is balance, if your source of plant protein is skewed to one thing like Soy, there is the risk of the body not being used to the other things in Soy --it's not like Chinese when they eat anything other than rice, have the protein as the main dish or portion --it's mostly a side dish and not the main source of nutrition.

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#75

Post by arcticbull »

jimmywanger wrote: post #65
arcticbull wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon footprint for meat is significantly higher because you have to grow the plans and feed it to the animals, and moving up a trophic level is usually ~10% efficient. It's much more efficient to consume the plants directly.

> It's much more efficient to consume the plants directly. We can't consume most plants directly, and the ones that we do, we consume only a tiny minority of the plant (most of the time).

So do many of the animals ^_^ at least it's my understanding that corn stalks are fairly useless as animal feed, and due to subsidies, corn is the primary feedstock for animals and humans alike in the US.

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#76

Post by alrs »

agitator wrote: post #58
alrs wrote: post #47

I'll never go meatless, the health benefits of meat are too great.

Actually, most science points to the contrary.

It's controversial, but it's not not a flat-earth opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascul...

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#77

Post by specialist »

marak830 wrote: post #19

I'm particularly interested in vat grown meat. As a consumer, I do care about the footprint of my meat based protein, although I don't want to give up eating meat. As a chef, if they can get marbling in, I'm excited for the different styles we could create. Note: a plant based reactor (sorry I couldn't remember the term, the seed for the meat to grow with), has been mentioned a few times as becoming close to ready, w…

Price competition from vat grown meat will crater public support government subsidies for farming and ranching.

Much like solar etc tanks coal.

Ranching, in particular, will become niche / artisan endeavors.

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#78

Post by sanswork »

jimmywanger wrote: post #65
arcticbull wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon footprint for meat is significantly higher because you have to grow the plans and feed it to the animals, and moving up a trophic level is usually ~10% efficient. It's much more efficient to consume the plants directly.

> It's much more efficient to consume the plants directly. We can't consume most plants directly, and the ones that we do, we consume only a tiny minority of the plant (most of the time).

Right so we replace the production of the plants we can't consume directly with ones we can. It's not like we're forced to produce non-consumable plants. We do it because we need to feed the consumable animals.

Re: Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

#80

Post by agitator »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #30
sethbannon wrote: post #9

Animal 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…

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…

Animals are an extremely inefficient way of producing food: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-80...
Post reply on HN