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

#301

Post by unclewaltr » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

wil421 wrote: post #298

chefgoldbluum wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where did you get soy is the primary food source for cattle? This article recommends no more than 20% soy in cattle’s diet. The article is from last year. [1] >Researchers have found that when the oil content of the ration exceeds 7 percent, it can be toxic to the microbes in the cattle’s rumen and decrease digestibility. Too much oil in cattle rations will lead to scours (diarrhea), cessation of rumen fermentation a…

Interesting, this might be why soy is pressed for its oil before being used as cattle feed. The resulting patties are used as feed and the oil byproduct is sold.

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

#302

Post by zapzupnz » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

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 agree that the best vegan and vegetarian food does its own thing, but for me, a pescatarian, the idea of not having the delicious taste and texture of salmon slowly baked in a cast iron pan for four hours whilst being basted with oil every half an hour … my tongue just disallows it. It's not yet a sacrifice I'm willing to make until I encounter a viable alternative, and so efforts like these are a step further not just for people like me but for the general population.

Fortunately, fish is fairly easy to imitate with soy, but nothing quite beats that melt-in-your-mouth quality of slowly baked salmon. That's about the only meat I eat anymore, though I still experiment with substitutions. Usually some kind of tofu and a thick-but-viscous sauce of some kind, but even then it's flavoured with dashi.

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

#303

Post by WorldMaker » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

p1necone wrote: post #273

Is the Impossible Burger much better than Beyond Meat? Because I've had the Beyond Meat patty (from a vegan chain called Lord of the Fries, their standard beef substitute is great) and it was awful - very obvious that it was made from plants (tasted like root vegetables with a weird chemical/metallic tang to me) and the texture was way off. It could have been prepared poorly though.

I do think that the Impossible Burger is much better than Beyond Burger. It's a lot of subtle things that Impossible gets right. (The fact that it "bleeds" is fascinating and interesting part of its appeal to old carnivore instincts.)

That said there is room for both at the table and right now they both have different strengths (Impossible handles "medium rare" much better; Beyond hits greasy spoon / fast food "medium" or "medium well" better).

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

#304

Post by zapzupnz » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:30 PM UTC

auiya wrote: post #166

leereeves wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a die-hard meat eater and I'd eat a lot of a tasty veggie sandwich patty. I need more veggies in my diet but it's hard to get enough without cooking. It doesn't have to be a fake burger. Just something tasty for a healthy daily dose of vegetables. For me, soy doesn't qualify. It's one of the most common crops in the world and there's already enough of it in other things I eat.

> I need more veggies in my diet but it's hard to get enough without cooking How so? On face value this feels like an excuse for simply making poor diet choices. If I'm mistaken, then... cook?

Not everybody has the time or inclination. There's something vaguely nagging mother-in-law-ish about simply being told to stop being lazy and cook. If I don't want to cook, that's my business. In the modern world, when both adults in a family are working, not cooking shouldn't be a barrier to healthy eating, nor should it be considered mutually inclusive with eating junk.

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

#305

Post by ilikehurdles » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:31 PM UTC

thrillgore wrote: post #282

chefgoldbluum wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your parent is employed by Impossible Foods based on their post history.

This appears to be right. It’s a valid disclaimer to note in such a discussion.

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

#306

Post by Broken_Hippo » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

deadmetheny wrote: post #247

hombre_fatal wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I beg to differ - it has basically become the norm for pigs. It didn't used to be, but it has become so.

I grew up in Indiana. Now, I've not lived there in 5 years, but I did live quite some time in a place that pigs outnumbered people in the county. The county seat was 3000. Even smelling pigs was becoming a rarity while out on a country drive and a flood meant that thousands of pigs drowned in a flooded barn ("pig factory").

Perhaps you are in a place where the pigs usually roam free, but I certainly wasn't.

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

#307

Post by Retric » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

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…

Until we stop wasting farmland growing crops for cows their is zero difference between crop land and farm land.

Scrub land filled with cows is obviously terrible for the environment, but so is the wasteland traditional farming creates. We call it insecticide but it really kills off entire ecosystems. Minimizing impact means minimizing the land we use.

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

#308

Post by nugget » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:33 PM UTC

chefgoldbluum wrote: post #256

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…

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.

Soy contains phytoestrogens which certain populations (e.g. women pregnant with male fetuses) may be advised to reduce intake of or avoid. Something to keep in mind as meat replacements become more popular - that it may not be a one-size-fits-all solution.

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

#309

Post by Djvacto » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:35 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #289

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. Exactly so. If I had to make no effort at all, and I could also save some money, I would switch. But it is not obvious that everyone would. Perhaps all of your acquaintances would, but perhaps you just don't know someone of the sort who wouldn't. Pre-framing the debate in (hostile) terms of just how selfish I am gives me the inkling that you are not looking for an honest, factual, and productive discussion, and…

In my experiences, both as a meat-eater for most of my life and about a year of not eating meat, most of the reason you (or I, previously) couldn't stomach that kind of vector is because (at least in my case) it's the difference between thinking about where the meat comes from vs not. I was fully aware of what animals were, and that they died so I could have that food, but I never really tried to think about it. Basically, it seems hostile because it makes us feel challenged. That's not to say that no vegans/vegetarians are ever hostile, because they can be, just as much as anyone else can. But overall, the general idea is a challenge to your/our current worldview, and no matter how they word it, we're going to feel challenged.

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

#310

Post by Broken_Hippo » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #190

puranjay wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love meat but I've always struggled to reconcile my love of eating it with my love of animals. I would be happy to pay a premium if it meant I could get meat-like taste without the guilt

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.

"Sadly if everyone did this it would probably mean we would only see cows, sheep etc in zoos, rather than grazing in fields."

Eh, not really, as cows and sheep and goats still provide valuable resources. Milk and wools, for example. I'm guessing lots of other things can be taken as they die naturally - leathers and stuff from bones and pet foods and whatnot. Sure, we could eventually engineer ourselves out of needing farm animals, but it is going to take some time.

Granted, I am excited for this meat/burger to be available to the public even if you shy away from eating it. I don't eat meats outside of fish anyway and I'm always excited to get tastier edible stuff.