Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by rhino369 » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

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.

I dunno, I'd probably still pay extra for the real deal.

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

#242

Post by dsfyu404ed » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

w0utert wrote: post #163

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I want my tacos and burgers to taste like tacos and burgers. I don't care whether it's "real" beef or not. If someone's selling 80/20 that's blended with some plant product (or even just 100% plant product) and it's substantially cheaper than 80/20 and tastes about the same then that's what I'm gonna buy. So far no option like that exists on the shelf. All the fake meat options cater to the people who shop at w…

Most of the meat you get from the ‘easy’ places like supermarkets tastes terrible anyway, compared to quality meat from a specialist store. I’ve long ago stopped eating chicken almost completely because of this, in the end you just taste whatever you serve with the chicken, and you get a certain bite from it that is easily imitated using ‘fake meat’. I’m pretty sure I will never be a strict vegetarian, but I honestly…

People have different priorities. Some people insist on eating high end food or driving high end cars or drinking high end wine or all/some/none of those.

I eat cheap mass produced meat because it's often an ingredient in the things I put on the menu (hamburgers about once a week and tacos about once a month). I buy the store brand. If someone wants to make a more environmentally friendly semi-meat or non-meat product that is a drop in replacement for meat in my use case and is superior in any other way (shelf life, price, health, taste, etc) and equal in the rest then I will use it. At present nobody has done that for beef.

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

#243

Post by cwyers » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #236

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/

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".

This is only true if there are no significant externalities.

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

#244

Post by be-ez » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #236

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/

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".

The price of beef does not include the environmental impact so I'm not sure this is a good indicator of the impact of making a product. Beef/Milk in the USA is also subsidized...

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

#245

Post by kelnos » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:14 PM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #123

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 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?

Not the parent poster, but I think, given that this boils down to an emotional reaction, it's perfectly consistent to value the well-being of different animals in different ways.

There's no inherent quality that makes a cat or dog more or less deserving of humane treatment than a cow or pig. There's no inherent difference (aside from judgments around taste) that makes it acceptable to eat the meat of a cow but not of a dog (and, indeed, in some cultures, the opposite can be the case).

At the end of the day it's all just what we've been socialized from a young age to believe is acceptable or not, sometimes reinforced with religious beliefs.

I personally will never be swayed by vegetarian/vegan "the poor animals!"-type arguments (but fully respect people who choose not to eat meat for those reasons). Arguments around health, sustainability, and cost (in that order) are what I care about.

(For the record, I think torturing any animal out of malice is messed up and is probably an indicator of some sort of mental illness. However, other people simply being indifferent toward animal welfare is just not something I care about. Everyone has different emotional attachments to different things.)

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

#246

Post by lrobinovitch » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #236

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/

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".

That is false. Almost always, cheaper != environmental. Environmental practices often cost more, and this gets passed on to the consumer.

Case in point, soy gets 8% the share of agricultural government subsidies while feed for animals gets 34%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_St...

Price only reflects what consumers are willing to pay and the effects of subsidies, NOT the environmental impact...

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

#247

Post by deadmetheny » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:18 PM UTC

hombre_fatal wrote: post #204

gadders wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if I'd eat this burger, but if lab-grown meat was available and as good as the natural alternative, I think I would definitely switch. Sadly if everyone did this it would probably mean we would only see cows, sheep etc in zoos, rather than grazing in fields.

The industrial meat/ag complex loves that you think of their products as coming from the sort of happy pasture-grazing farms you see on the side of the highway.

Most of them do. Chickens are the main exception, and I would agree that their conditions are pretty bad.

Downvoters - I live in the Midwest. I grew up on a farm. Much of my family still farms and raises livestock. Factory farming of livestock is not the norm for non-poultry.

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

#248

Post by ibejoeb » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:19 PM UTC

novia wrote: post #62

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.

I used to feel this way until I tried an impossible burger (1.0, I presume). I thought the only way to allow the more carnivorous of us to have a satisfying meal while eliminating animal suffering was to grow petri dish meat. Impossible burgers seriously nail the taste and texture and nutritional proportions. It also seems like it will be much more cost effective to create them than the aforementioned petri dish burg…

Out of curiosity, what eats more animals, humans or the rest of the animal kingdom?

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

#249

Post by jtuente » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #95

screye wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being born in India, I've had the privilege to eat vegetarian meals that can rival even the best meat based meal. While I welcome 'impossible' meat replacements, it is funny that the meat reduction movement is looking at such impractical and immature products instead of simpler solutions such as bringing veg friendly cuisines to the fore. I am opposed to advocating for cold-turkey veganism though. Milk products and e…

It’s astounding to me that you mock efforts to replicate meat when the “simpler solutions” is to just tell people to eat veg cuisines and this give up the meat-based cuisines they’ve lived with. And then in the next sentence, you oppose veganism because it’s apparently wrong to give up cuisines you’ve lived with.

Cold-turkey is an idiom meaning to immediately change without a transition. It's often used as "quitting smoking cold-turkey".

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

#250

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #203

barrkel wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well-being of animals is distinct from slaughtering them for food. The beef I buy comes from cows that roam in fields, usually in Ireland. They're not unhappy then, as I can attest having grown up in the countryside. And the fact there are so many of them means the total lifetime happiness (of the cows at least) probably outweighs their death, if it's done humanely.

As a thought experiment, would people be okay with humans being grown for meat, given a happy life and then slaughtered humanely?

Sign me up for the Morlock team, and let me know when the Eloi roast is done.~

The argument against this has nothing to do with Eloi thoughts and feelings, and everything to do with their ability to invade the Morlock tunnels and wipe them all out, as a matter of survival. That is, it doesn't matter if the Eloi object, if they lack the means to enforce their objections. Eloi thoughts do not carry any weight in Morlock arguments.

Besides that, feeding themselves to humans by the billions as captive domesticated prey species may be the only shot those species have at reaching other planets.