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

231–240 of 538 posts

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

#231

Post by dashundchen »

zornado wrote: post #143
nindalf wrote: post #3

Congrats to that team for building a great product. I hope they see a lot of success. Long term, I hope plant based meat alternatives become commoditized. If there are a bunch of alternatives that taste just as good and importantly are cheaper than meat , most people will switch. That's a huge win for the environment (and also animal rights), and I can't wait to see it happen.

I am not getting this. Highly processed foods are the source of all problems and people cheer up for synthetic food!

I can't speak for all, but most vegan/vegetarians I know, myself included, don't view processed meat substitutes like this as a staple. They are expensive and seen as less healthy compared to less processed plant protein.

Meals more often revolve around beans, legumes, tofu, tempeh, seitan. I think since many meat eaters are less familiar with cooking meals around these, they assume vegs are just subbing meat 1-to-1 with foods like Impossible Burger, Tofurkey, Quorn.

More often they are a food for convenience, special occasions like cookouts, specific recipes, or they happen to be the only option at a restaurant. Some I've known have used them as sort of an aid to transition to a plant based diet, if they happen to have cravings for meat.

However it's great to have more choices, and seeing brands like these in store gives more visibility to veg diets. (It's weird to me that this is the case, when the whole produce isle is vegan, but that's the way it is in a meat-by-default culture).

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

#232

Post by joe_the_user »

fashionrob wrote: post #218

The other thing I am not seeing in the comments is that most store bought meat from big chains like Vons, Krogers, Walmart, etc- doesn't really taste that good. When cooked, likely chewy, dry and tasting "off". When we think of the "good burger" bite, we arnet thinking of discount ground meat from the market, we are thinking of a good burger from some restaurant.

Well,

I like the taste of existing meat substitutes to be honest.

The problem I have is that I find meat substitutes hard to digest and meat seems to help my digestion regardless of taste.

As far as restaurants go, I'm not if the meat used by restaurants actually is better quality that supermarket ground beef. In my shallow exposure to restaurant food prep, I get the impression that restaurants in, say, the $8-12 burger range use the cheapest acceptable supplies and make it taste good with good equipment, sweat/salty/spicy recipes, and professional preparation. I think you need to go to Chez Panisse type restaurants before you get dishes where "the ingredients stand on their own" and there's a reason for that.

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

#233

Post by dfxm12 »

danharaj wrote: post #6

That's really cool. Although I wish there were more vegan food that didn't try to replicate non-vegan textures and flavors. Imitation can only be playing catch-up. The best vegan and vegetarian food does its own thing.

Are you really limited in vegan options that don't try to replicate non vegan textures and flavors? Where do you shop and eat? Do they not have a section for fruits and veggies? Do they not have dry goods like rice and beans?

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

#234

Post by bigato »

dfxm12 wrote: post #214
sremani wrote: post #210

As a person who was born in a family with tradition of vegetarianism, I find this "veggie meat" obsession fascinating and fear a future where I cannot even eat the one veggie burger on the menu.. because it tastes like a hamburger.

Why wouldn't you be able to eat the Impossible Burger? Does your family have a tradition of vegetarianism because you don't like the taste of beef?

Some people who are vegetarians have or develop a strong aversion to meat smell, let alone flavor.

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

#235

Post by be-ez »

skybrian wrote: post #229
be-ez wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When compared to meat there is almost no doubt that Impossible is better for the environment. Impossible has an environmental mission first. Checkout the sustainability report from 2017 http://www.ift.org/~/media/Food%20Technology/Weekly/IF_Susta... Or the update from 2018 https://impossiblefoods.com/if-pr/2018-Impact-Update/

Why "no doubt"? What's your basis for that? I'm no expert, but I expect land is different in different places. There are different sources of feed. Someone changes a supplier or a farming practice, and it changes a number in a spreadsheet, and you'll get a different answer. Accounting gets complicated enough with money. When you're doing science it's much more difficult. This sounds like the sort of thing that scient…

It sounds like you didn't read the report or check the references on page 26.

I recommend reading this paper and coming to your own conclusion about "almost no doubt". Within sustainability science, there is little debate about the lack of efficiency to produce protein via cows.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

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

#236

Post by toasterlovin »

be-ez wrote: post #48
nindalf wrote: post #3

Congrats to that team for building a great product. I hope they see a lot of success. Long term, I hope plant based meat alternatives become commoditized. If there are a bunch of alternatives that taste just as good and importantly are cheaper than meat , most people will switch. That's a huge win for the environment (and also animal rights), and I can't wait to see it happen.

When compared to meat there is almost no doubt that Impossible is better for the environment. Impossible has an environmental mission first. Checkout the sustainability report from 2017 http://www.ift.org/~/media/Food%20Technology/Weekly/IF_Susta... Or the update from 2018 https://impossiblefoods.com/if-pr/2018-Impact-Update/

There's a really handy way to estimate the amount of resources that go into (and thus, the environmental impact of) making a product:

Its price.

When these are significantly cheaper than beef, then it'll be safe to state categorically that they are better for the environment. Until then, it's mostly a game of "pay attention to these metrics that favor my product and ignore the metrics which favor the competition".

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

#237

Post by Arnavion »

belltaco wrote: post #191
bluGill wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 or deserving of rights So you're against animal anti-cruelty laws? Are you okay with animals like dogs and cats being torture for human entertainment?

>So you're against animal anti-cruelty laws?

"I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights" is not necessarily the same as "I don't want animals to have rights". It can simply be "I don't care if animals have rights".

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

#238

Post by jobigoud »

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)

> 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)

So here is the kicker, exactly because vegan people see these animal lives as worth valuing, they don't consider your "agree to disagree" stance as a "peaceful solution", as it implies the death and suffering of these entities.

It's one of those subjects where you can't have an "agree to disagree" or a "live and let live", or a "to each their own" type of deal, because one side is considering that a third party is involved and hurt, while the other side doesn't consider that a third party is involved at all. i.e: sentient being vs food.

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

#239

Post by Blinks- »

I wonder if they balanced the amino acid profile correctly, if this is not a complete protein then it wold detract from the main reason I eat meat, for simple exercise recovery. One of the problems I have with grain protein sources is they are rarely formulated in a way that allows for slow absorption and it forces me to look up what amino acids I need to supplement with.

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

#240

Post by logfromblammo »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #115
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…

What if the 'proselytizing' was environmental instead? Switching away from meat would lessen your footprint considerably, and likely improve your health[1] even if you don't care about the moral arguments. 1: http://time.com/4266874/vegetarian-diet-climate-change/

By the environmental footprint argument, I could do far greater good for it by murdering the person with the largest footprint, and altering the remainder of my lifestyle not at all.

To ask those with the smallest prints to wear smaller shoes is ridiculous while some still wear a different yacht on each foot. You ask the man with the ha'penny to give a farthing, while the man on the gold throne is unmolested.

If I save the whole Earth, will I get to keep some of it, or will title to the vast majority of the habitable area remain with those who made my interventions necessary?

It's a matter of incentives. Why should I bust my ass to live green on a rented 1/8 of an acre, while my neighbor that owns the 400 sqmi ranch is buying pipes and pumps specialized to move liquefied manure by the cubic meter, and blowing cigar smoke in my face when I complain about the smell? Go annoy the asshats that can actually make a difference by changing their behavior, or save your arguments for a political campaign. My only stake in the environment is my own survival. If it down comes to that, I already know I'm expendable. I won't just lay down and die, though; I'm going to at least try to eat the rich, instead of my vegetables.

Post reply on HN