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

251–260 of 538 posts

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

#251

Post by skybrian »

be-ez wrote: post #235
skybrian wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That's more impressive, and yet, as a non-expert, I still don't know how to evaluate whether the calculation is bug-free. Do you? I guess I'd have to track down all the references and build my own spreadsheet? There are some spreadsheets listed in the references, but it seems like a complicated task.

Just to nit-pick one little detail, it seems to treat all land the same: "Significant decreases in land occupation also follow from a shift away from animal-based foodstuffs. The VEG and VGN occupy 70% and 79% less land than the MUD, respectively (VEG = -63% and VGN = -74% for isocaloric diet comparison)."

But, prime farmland and grazing for grass-fed beef aren't the same, so adding them up and taking a percentage seems dubious. (I'm also skeptical of estimates with no margin of error.)

Given that no single scientific paper is definitive (you need to read the literature) I don't see how to come to a conclusion on any of this without a whole lot more work than I'm going to put into it for an online discussion.

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

#252

Post by kelnos »

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?

I think that some people (though probably very few) might be okay with that, but most people probably draw the line at cannibalism even if they don't respect human life.

Really, your question just illustrates the fact that this debate is entirely subjective and based on emotion.

As a further thought experiment, we're obviously already working on growing human organs for the purpose of organ transplants. Would people be ok with growing individual human organs for the purpose of food? I expect most people would think that would be gross and be against it, but ethically it seems in the clear.

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

#253

Post by danharaj »

dfxm12 wrote: post #233
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?

Those are ingredients you listed. I'm talking about prepared meals. Most vegan restaurants that aren't Indian around here use such ingredients to imitate non vegan dishes.

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

#254

Post by be-ez »

skybrian wrote: post #251
be-ez wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That's more impressive, and yet, as a non-expert, I still don't know how to evaluate whether the calculation is bug-free. Do you? I guess I'd have to track down all the references and build my own spreadsheet? There are some spreadsheets listed in the references, but it seems like a complicated task. Just to nit-pick one little detail, it seems to treat all land the same: "Significant decreases in land occupation als…

The original comment wrote off the report as "some unsourced numbers in a press release" - I aimed to show it was more than that. Impossible has quite the academic rigor.

Agreed - there's plenty of room to interpret the specific numbers.

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

#255

Post by pstuart »

1001101 wrote: post #200
pstuart wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My reply was to a very specific (and obviously troubling to me) statement: "I do not consider animal lives worth valuing". I totally get that there's a difference between the scenario you're describing and factory farms. In fact, I've posited before that those animals would never have any life if there wasn't a demand to eat them at some point. But the statement in question reads as "I don't give a fuck what happens…

You'll find about ~5% (depending on source) of people have severe difficulties feeling empathy towards fellow humans, let alone animals.

And then there's the bit about future psychopaths practicing their craft as children by torturing animals. That wasn't intended in my initial reply though.

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

#256

Post by chefgoldbluum »

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…

The burger is made primarily from Soy. Soy accounts for 2/3 of global protein feed. Humans eating directly from livestock's primary food source is likely to be much more efficient at a global scale.

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

#257

Post by news_to_me »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #127
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.

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.

Respectfully, I agree with the tone of the parent comment. I think there are circumstances when a little bite in a comment is appropriate. I'm not sure of wvlia5's original intent, but logfromblammo's position seemed a bit shockingly selfish to me, and a shocked/accusatory response seemed to echo my feeling as well.

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

#258

Post by rgbrenner »

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".

but environmental impact is often an externality that isn't included in the price.

If you ignore that, you get all kinds of obviously wrong things: a cheap gas guzzling car is cleaner than a tesla; natgas for electricity is cleaner than nuclear. etc. And worse, when you start talking about tech that hasn't scaled up yet.. if you go back 10 years, you would get: solar panels are worse than burning coal.

The price is not an indicator of environmental impact.

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

#260

Post by gadders »

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.

I live in semi-rural England in Kent. In the collection of fields around my house are pigs, sheep and beef cattle. I'm lucky enough that I can buy meat from happy pasture-grazing animals.

On the flip side, I also get to interact with the animals - stroke them, feed them apples etc. It makes me happier that they have a good life, and also sadder as I can see that they're actual creatures with a life.

Post reply on HN