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

Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 538 posts

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#121

Post by blacksmith_tb »

epanchin wrote: post #49
alangpierce wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plant-based foods are almost always significantly more efficient to produce than meat since you no longer need to grow all of the food to feed an animal for its entire life. From another article ( https://www.cnet.com/news/impossible-burger-2-0-tastes-like-... ): > But Impossible Foods can produce a burger using a fourth of the water and less than 4 percent of the land -- and emit one-tenth of the greenhouse gases --…

The rolling hills of Wales and northern England are never going to be great for crops, but they are perfect grassland for feeding cattle and lamb. The grass hills are beautiful, it would be a great shame to see them converted to crops. I would argue they won’t be, and therefore the cattle raised on them is effecient.

But of course humans have been changing that landscape for millennia to graze livestock on it - it was much more forested before we arrived, and could be again.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#122

Post by themodelplumber »

Aromasin wrote: post #90
epanchin wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rolling hills of Wales and northern England are never going to be great for crops, but they are perfect grassland for feeding cattle and lamb. The grass hills are beautiful, it would be a great shame to see them converted to crops. I would argue they won’t be, and therefore the cattle raised on them is effecient.

Decreasing meat consumption would dramatically decrease the amount of land amount used for crop agriculture, not increase it. 85% of the UK's landmass is grazing land and crops grown specifically as animal feed[1]. In 2010, the British livestock industry needed an area the size of Yorkshire just to produce the soy used in feed. But if global demand for meat grows as expected, the report says, soy production would nee…

More national parks! As a recreational hiker and walker that would be a dream. I'd go vegetarian myself if it guaranteed even 50% more parkland.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#123

Post by pstuart »

bluGill wrote: post #117
wvlia5- wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are basically saying "if I had to make no effort at all and I could also save some money, I would switch". Yes, that's obvious, everyone would, it's redundant to state it. But what those 'vegan proselytizers' are asking you for, is to not be so selfish and make a bit of a sacrifice to spare the lives of others. But of course, you 'can't stomach' to be asked to not be selfish, and they are the ones to blame.

My values are not yours. I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights. This is a fundamental disagreement, the only possible peaceful solution is agree to disagree (I hope we don't come down to the non-peaceful ones)

> I do not consider animal lives worth valuing

For the sake of discussion, do you have a pet? Or have loved ones that have a pet?

If you were to torture that pet would you feel anything? Would your loved ones object for any reason?

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#124

Post by rebuilder »

bluGill wrote: post #117
wvlia5- wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are basically saying "if I had to make no effort at all and I could also save some money, I would switch". Yes, that's obvious, everyone would, it's redundant to state it. But what those 'vegan proselytizers' are asking you for, is to not be so selfish and make a bit of a sacrifice to spare the lives of others. But of course, you 'can't stomach' to be asked to not be selfish, and they are the ones to blame.

My values are not yours. I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights. This is a fundamental disagreement, the only possible peaceful solution is agree to disagree (I hope we don't come down to the non-peaceful ones)

There are also important environmental issues that come with the production of meat and other animal products.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#125

Post by wvlia5- »

bluGill wrote: post #117
wvlia5- wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are basically saying "if I had to make no effort at all and I could also save some money, I would switch". Yes, that's obvious, everyone would, it's redundant to state it. But what those 'vegan proselytizers' are asking you for, is to not be so selfish and make a bit of a sacrifice to spare the lives of others. But of course, you 'can't stomach' to be asked to not be selfish, and they are the ones to blame.

My values are not yours. I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights. This is a fundamental disagreement, the only possible peaceful solution is agree to disagree (I hope we don't come down to the non-peaceful ones)

What if I don't value your life and want to keep you as a slave, would it be fair to 'agree to disagree'?

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#126

Post by Raphmedia »

shadyrudy wrote: post #5

Glad this version is made without gluten, unlike the current Impossible Burger. In the mean time, Beyond Meat has been my goto burger for a few months.

I'm not even vegan and go for the Beyond Meat burger whenever I'm at A&W because it taste better than regular fast food burgers ... and I got to A&W instead of other chains because the burger is there.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#127

Post by Wowfunhappy »

wvlia5- wrote: post #106
logfromblammo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about the only kind of vegan proselytizing that I can stomach. If you can make food that tastes as good as meat, with nutrition similar to meat, and sell it at a lower price than meat, I will switch overnight, and never look back. And it would be nice if it came in bulk forms, rather than just as pre-formed patties. I eat ground beef a lot more often than I eat burgers. Until then, good luck with the test kit…

So you are basically saying "if I had to make no effort at all and I could also save some money, I would switch". Yes, that's obvious, everyone would, it's redundant to state it. But what those 'vegan proselytizers' are asking you for, is to not be so selfish and make a bit of a sacrifice to spare the lives of others. But of course, you 'can't stomach' to be asked to not be selfish, and they are the ones to blame.

Just a tip, of sorts: I don't wholly disagree with your argument, but you might do well to soften the tone. As written, your post comes across as accusatory.

Maybe that's your intention, but it's a really bad way to persuade people of anything.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#128

Post by be-ez »

chris11 wrote: post #112
logfromblammo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about the only kind of vegan proselytizing that I can stomach. If you can make food that tastes as good as meat, with nutrition similar to meat, and sell it at a lower price than meat, I will switch overnight, and never look back. And it would be nice if it came in bulk forms, rather than just as pre-formed patties. I eat ground beef a lot more often than I eat burgers. Until then, good luck with the test kit…

I did see an impossible meatloaf in a grocery store, and it looks like their website is showing ground beef. So it looks like they are slowly branching out into other products.

Impossible is not currently available directly to consumers. They do not make a meatloaf - it is possible the grocery store bought the raw product and is selling their own meatloaf.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#129

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

Cyph0n wrote: post #118
wvlia5- wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are basically saying "if I had to make no effort at all and I could also save some money, I would switch". Yes, that's obvious, everyone would, it's redundant to state it. But what those 'vegan proselytizers' are asking you for, is to not be so selfish and make a bit of a sacrifice to spare the lives of others. But of course, you 'can't stomach' to be asked to not be selfish, and they are the ones to blame.

> Yes, that's obvious, everyone would, it's redundant to state it. No, it's not. Do you truly think that there would be no self-proclaimed "meat purists"? Many would still enjoy real meat and would be prepared to pay a premium for it. Heck, even now, there are people who pay attention to the grade of their meat.

Yeah - you would have “all-natural” meat that would sell for a premium over the “processed, artificial” meat.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#130

Post by be-ez »

Cyph0n wrote: post #118
wvlia5- wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are basically saying "if I had to make no effort at all and I could also save some money, I would switch". Yes, that's obvious, everyone would, it's redundant to state it. But what those 'vegan proselytizers' are asking you for, is to not be so selfish and make a bit of a sacrifice to spare the lives of others. But of course, you 'can't stomach' to be asked to not be selfish, and they are the ones to blame.

> Yes, that's obvious, everyone would, it's redundant to state it. No, it's not. Do you truly think that there would be no self-proclaimed "meat purists"? Many would still enjoy real meat and would be prepared to pay a premium for it. Heck, even now, there are people who pay attention to the grade of their meat.

I think this is correct. There is a core group of "meat purists" who define eating beef as being American or vice versa.
Post reply on HN