Live data from Hacker News

Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless

foxbusiness.com

161–170 of 205 posts

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

#161

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…

I don't see it. A cow's rumen is amazing. You can feed a cow almost any vegetable matter and they will grow and produce milk and meat. Chickens and pigs are more particular but in terms of energy in to food out, are still very inexpensive and easy to manage. Cell cultures require sterile laboratory conditions, growth factors and very specific nutrient requirements. A largely plant-based diet, sure, that is what most…

You could be right.

But animals spend a lot of energy making products other than consumable protein. They require a lot of land and water and fuel even if housed in close quarters. And you have to tend them which is labor intensive. And ship them around to be finished and slaughtered.

If energy costs rise to a certain point and technology becomes good enough (including automation) I'd expect protein from whole animals to be considerably more expensive than lab grown. The exception maybe being strictly grass fed beef on land that isn't useful for much else. But that won't have the taste people expect and might not actually be as good as the lab grown stuff.

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

#162
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they as sentient? Do they suffer as much? I don't think there is reason to believe these things.

Plants can experience pain and do, in-fact, communicate with other plants, animals, and fungi.

Doesn't pain require having nerves?

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

#163
post #125
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animals shouldn't suffer either if they're raised right. I also don't see how putting a bullet through a cow's head somehow causes any suffering.

> Animals shouldn't suffer either if they're raised right. This is not possible at-scale. Also, do you really think that giant corporations, that would willingly throw humans under the bus by the truckload to save a few dollars, give a crap about the suffering of an animal? Especially an animal that is slated for the slaughterhouse anyways? Just look at how they react to undercover videos that expose illegal practice…

So to me this makes it even lesser of a problem namely all we have to do is fix the legal system and stop them from lobbying aggressively instead of most of the world population all of a sudden changing its diet entirely.

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

#164
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animals shouldn't suffer either if they're raised right. I also don't see how putting a bullet through a cow's head somehow causes any suffering.

The problem is, that's not what's happening. Not everyone who eats cows are getting them from people who treat them as nicely as I guess you claim to. Further, why waste food and water on cows when humans can just eat and drink that themselves? Why raise a cow and then shoot it in the head when you can just, you know, eat plants.

I'd argue it's great for the cow! Think about it they're doing really well as a specie, never before in history they were so successful and enjoyed such high numbers. Their population has simply sore, that however cannot be said about most other species. Also Daniel Dennet gave a TED talk about this. [1]

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_war...

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

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we replace the production of the plants You make that sound like swapping out a machine on a production line. For some places, you simply can't grow plants that we can consume directly. A lot of land doesn't receive enough water/sun, has poor soil, or is on such a steep slop that cultivating it is not worth the effort. The most efficient use of that land would be grazing land. As for being "forced to produce non-co…

Right so that land becomes unproductive land and can return to its natural state or be used for other needs. And that is fine since we don't need as much farm land to sustain a non-meat society. You're intentionally confusing waste material with primary purpose. That's dishonest. If we could feed all the livestock we need with waste material we would since it would be a lot cheaper for the producers.

> Right so that land becomes unproductive land

Why? It's perfectly productive once you let some goats on that land and then eat the goats.

> And that is fine since we don't need as much farm land to sustain a non-meat society.

Should we switch to a completely potato agriculture then? If your argument against meat is waste, then we should go towards whatever crop has the highest yield per acre. Why waste all that acreage, water, and fertilizer on kale and broccoli?

> You're intentionally confusing waste material with primary purpose. That's dishonest.

You're missing the point, which is that we're by necessity creating all this other material that can be used to feed animals as a necessary byproduct of creating the grains to feed the animals. The proportions don't work out as neatly as you think.

> If we could feed all the livestock we need with waste material we would since it would be a lot cheaper for the producers.

Incorrect. On a grain diet, livestock fatten more quickly and are ready for the market sooner. Pasture raised livestock is a thing, and requires less capital and investment. It just takes longer for the livestock to be ready for market and the meat is tougher and gamier.

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

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(note: I'm a chef of a fine dining restaurant, so take this how you will). Telling people to change won't work. But at the same time, people in my position(available to influence flavours of a region), should do our part in not restricting ourselves to animal products. This I have seen happen over the past 10 years, the amount of reduced meat or no meat items on my menus has increased, as well as doing more to use su…

Thanks for sharing your experience - and for looking out for the environment!

Well, we do all live here. And I want my children's children to have somewhere to live as well.

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

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right so that land becomes unproductive land and can return to its natural state or be used for other needs. And that is fine since we don't need as much farm land to sustain a non-meat society. You're intentionally confusing waste material with primary purpose. That's dishonest. If we could feed all the livestock we need with waste material we would since it would be a lot cheaper for the producers.

> Right so that land becomes unproductive land Why? It's perfectly productive once you let some goats on that land and then eat the goats. > And that is fine since we don't need as much farm land to sustain a non-meat society. Should we switch to a completely potato agriculture then? If your argument against meat is waste, then we should go towards whatever crop has the highest yield per acre. Why waste all that acre…

>Why? It's perfectly productive once you let some goats on that land and then eat the goats.

Because it isn't needed for food production anymore.

>If your argument against meat is waste

My argument against meat isn't waste. Less waste is a benefit but not a primary reason.

>You're missing the point, which is that we're by necessity creating all this other material that can be used to feed animals as a necessary byproduct of creating the grains to feed the animals.

I've read this a few times and I keep reading it the same way "We produce waste that can be used to feed animals as a bitproduct of producing feed for animals?"

>Pasture raised livestock is a thing, and requires less capital and investment.

And tons more cleared grassland. Like an unsustainable amount.

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

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"I do not believe for 1 second that Tyson cares about health, environments, farmers or the well being of animals." I haven't followed Tyson - is there something they've done in recent history that has particularly contributed to the skepticism? Or is this more general "all corporations-are-evil" skepticism?

As i remember it there was much negativity around them in Michael Pollan's books and the documentary Food Inc.

Being in the Food Industry and having deal with Cargrill, Tyson, JBS etc. Tyson was actually not that bad in terms of business practice.

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

#169
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, that's not what's happening. Not everyone who eats cows are getting them from people who treat them as nicely as I guess you claim to. Further, why waste food and water on cows when humans can just eat and drink that themselves? Why raise a cow and then shoot it in the head when you can just, you know, eat plants.

I'd argue it's great for the cow! Think about it they're doing really well as a specie, never before in history they were so successful and enjoyed such high numbers. Their population has simply sore, that however cannot be said about most other species. Also Daniel Dennet gave a TED talk about this. [1] [1] https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_war...

If aliens arrived tomorrow and took half the humans to another planet to farm their meat would you think that was great for those humans because we are now a multiplanetary species?

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

#170

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…

How long something has been around is often a good way to determine how much longer it will be around in the future. I'd be willing to bet that humans will stop driving cars much sooner than they stop farming. Humans have been practicing animal agriculture for a long time...

>How long something has been around is often a good way to determine how much longer it will be around in the future

This mode of (purely statistical) longevity argument is the "Doomsday Argument". The classic version is about predicting how much longer human civilization might endure. The crux of it is that there's only a 5% chance that we're currently in the first 5% of humanity's total timeline, and a 95% chance that we're in the last 95% of it.

If we assume that 60 billion humans have been born so far, it can be estimated that there is a 95% chance that the total number of humans ever will be less than 20 × 60 billion = 1.2 trillion. Assuming that the world population stabilizes at 10 billion and a life expectancy of 80 years, it can be estimated that the remaining 1,140 billion humans will be born in 9,120 years.

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

Post reply on HN