Live data from Hacker News

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

engadget.com

511–520 of 538 posts

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

#511
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> not cooking shouldn't be a barrier to healthy eating, nor should it be considered mutually inclusive with eating junk.

Nobody suggested healthy eating requires one to cook. There's a myriad of places everywhere that serve healthy food, so if you're foregoing veggies, it's your choice. s/cheeseburger/salad/g; done.

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

#512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

> 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. Sure, but you're not going to do that, so the best thing you can possibly do is alter your lifestyle and do your best to help others do the same. Pointing your finger at someone else and crying "but he's worse than I am, so why should…

We know I'm not going to go out and literally murder rich people. Not right away. I'd rather get together with a bunch of like-minded people and tax their excessive consumption. If they resist, we'd almost certainly try taking away all their favorite stuff and locking them in a people-cage before resorting to killing them.

Votes for higher tax rates on wealthier tax brackets, and for stricter environmental laws, and more enforceable penalties for breaking them, are all more effective than me, individually, setting my thermostat just one more degree towards discomfort, separating my recycling into just one more category, shortening my showers by just one more minute, and doing all that stuff we were told would make a difference.

But then one (allegedly) rich jackass screws it up for everybody, unilaterally withdrawing from international environmental agreements, and putting a fox in charge of the EPA's henhouse. It can make someone question their commitment. Why should I voluntarily endure all this eco-sterity, when I can reduce my environmental footprint to zero and still live to see the melting methane clathrates roiling arctic seas, because we were all apparently targeting the wrong people?

The people who collectively claim to own most of the planet are the ones who are destroying it. They can do as they please with their other possessions, can't they? I lost whatever direct stake I had in this planet in the wake of the 2007 mortgage crisis. I used to own land. Or I thought I did. Now I have to rent the ground on which I sleep. So if the planet is dying, I don't really have to worry about my piece of it dying. If my home is demolished by floods and tornadoes, that's more the landlord's problem: I move on to the next place. I'm just in a race with all the other doomed souls, to work hard enough to make enough money to win the bidding war to rent the last habitable place on Earth. In doing that, I may have to discard any pretense of environmental responsibility, and think solely of my own small tribe, because clearly, the cartel in place to ensure cooperation for the greater good of all civilization is not effectively checking the renegades who are choosing personal benefit over collective benefit, at a world-altering scale.

So instead of tsking at the person who threw brown glass into the clear glass bin, get violently pissed at the person who is secretively trucking those bins to the landfill, because glass recycling isn't profitable this month. Instead of frowning at the person eating a real meat hamburger, go ape on the person whose animal waste lagoon breached a levee and washed into the local watershed. I'm not going to do one more damned thing to my own lifestyle for the sake of environmentalism, as long as I think that nothing that I have already done, and nothing I am currently doing, really matters.

If becoming an eco-terrorist is the only plausible way to avoid Venus 2: Methane Boogaloo, then yeah, I think I could maybe make a difference that way. There are definitely better paths to pursue, collectively, but I think maybe the folks telling me, "Hey, you! Stop eating meat. Thanks!" while trading Bitcoin and designing the next Juicero-like company (but better this time), are not fully understanding the problems at hand, and will not be effective allies.

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

#513
post #509
post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "trick" is occurring when the impossible burger is indistinguishable to your senses from a real burger. You are not changing anything about the nutritional value, but your body will release leptin, insulin, salivia, etc as if it did have the nutritional value of a burger. This is bound to lead to some kind of problem, the only question is how big. Take it to the extreme of something that is totally undigestible c…

Are leptin, insulin, etc released because of what the brain "thinks" you are eating, or are they released as a response to what actually goes into your body? Aspartame tastes sweet and one could easily imagine the brain "thinking" it is sugar- and yet aspartame consumption does not produce an insulin response. How did you arrive at a conclusion that this "tricking" is actually happening, when it seems there are prove…

Aspartame doesnt taste anything like sugar to me...

And at this point, from what I've read, the impossible burger is not capable of tricking the person. But look up "anticipatory insulin/whatever release":

>"Currently, anticipatory or cephalic phase insulin release (CPIR) is defined as insulin release which occurs prior to nutrient absorption in response to sensory stimulation of the oral cavity by the taste of food or food ingestion. In humans, the response is typically characterized by a rise in plasma insulin levels that occurs independently of increases in blood glucose, peaking within 4 minutes after sensory stimulation and returning to baseline by 8–10 minutes post stimulation" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056926/

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

#514
post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that killing a living thing to eat its body is not unique to "meat", nor is raising it in a controlled environment for the purpose of consumption. Fish (as is sometimes classified separately) and vegetables are living things raised and killed for consumption of their bodies as well. I believe reconciling all of these as ethically equal (including raising the ethical weight of killing a plant as equal to an a…

> it's hard to draw a clear and reasonable line between "life that is acceptable to eat" and "life that is not acceptable to eat". How about the line between "life that will likely suffer when prepared for us to eat" and "life that will likely not suffer when prepared for us to eat"?

Even that can be a difficult distinction. Colonies of trees, for example, have been shown to respond to damage and illness.

IIRC, trees release specific substances into their root systems in response to damage or illness in order to communicate to nearby trees. Dying trees will even give up their sugar reserves to feed younger, healthier trees.

So, while it may not be on the same level as animals, I can see an argument being made that trees respond to something resembling "pain" or "suffering".

I did a quick search and stumbled across this article[1] from the Smithsonian Magazine which corroborates some of this and expounds on it a bit. It waxes a bit... mystical, I guess? It does seem to be based on science, but the only thing it links to are books on the subject. So, you know, grain of salt. It's a place to start, though.

1: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering...

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

#515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

According to the ASPCA, over 95% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms[0]: [0] https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare According to Dr. Hershaft, a holocaust survivor which has dedicated his life to researching animal rights, it is estimated that less than 1% of the meat in the US are from smallscale family farms, he and his team did an AMA on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c…

According to the ASPCA:

> A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food.

That's an _extremely_ broad definition that says nothing about the condition of the animals.

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

#516
post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your right I probably should have disclosed that I previously worked there but it's fairly clear from my post history so I figured it didn't matter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Now we have to go back and look at everyone’s post history in every thread?

Only if you want to argue about the person rather than about the points they are making.

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

#517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume virtually everyone knows but I'll be pedantic anyway: if one wants to reduce the number of animals killed, the milk industry not immune. A cow's natural lifespan is 18-22 years (according to google). The average lifespan of a dairy cow is 4-6 years. A dairy cow has between 2-4 calves in that time. Only 1 is needed for replacement, meaning that for each dairy cow in the herd, you kill a calf every second year…

>> A dairy cow has between 2-4 calves in that time. Only 1 is needed for replacement, meaning that for each dairy cow in the herd, you kill a calf every second year. I think they would just kill the boy calves, and keep the girls.

You only need one girl to replace the previous one. If you keep more than one, then your herd size increases (which you usually don't want).

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

#518
post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IRT meat substitutes coming in bulk forms as opposed to pre-formed patties, I've had "Beyond Meat" before which comes as a ground beef substitute as well as patties. The prices for Beyond Meat weren't much higher than the leanest ground beef at the grocery store. https://www.beyondmeat.com/

It is currently selling at around $30 /kg for Patties. Retails for Ground Beef goes around $10 / Kg. I would certainly not call that cheap or even affordable.

Ah, last time I saw it in the store I just saw a package of patties for ~$5.50. I had assumed it was about the same quantity of food as the packages it was next to, but I guess they come in 2-packs compared to the other patties next to them being 4-packs. I've mostly had it prepared in restaurants, with its price comparable to getting the steak option.

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

#519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have an issue with reading comprehension, considering which sentence you specifically quoted. What does globalization have to do with chopping lettuce on an industrial scale that disperses pathogens across massive batches? It doesn't matter where the consolidated lettuce came from, the real problem is that it was processed. Furthermore, in the example I'm referencing, which was thoroughly covered in the U…

> You seem to have an issue with reading comprehension I don't want to have to link to the site guidelines, since I'm sure you're aware that this isn't a particularly nice thing to say :/ > What does globalization have to do with chopping lettuce on an industrial scale that disperses pathogens across massive batches? Chopping the lettuce had nothing to do with E. Coli getting in it; the problem was that the lettuce c…

The e.coli originated from an irrigation ditch getting contaminated by effluent from nearby livestock farms.

Processing expanded the contamination substantially increasing its reach to consumers, while also making it more difficult to narrow down which supplier had introduced the contamination.

From the consumer's perspective, by simply avoiding processed lettuce they significantly improved their chances of consuming untainted lettuce.

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

#520
post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't [1]. But both processed meat and excessive consumption red meats have been linked to cancer in some studies [2]. This has also been refuted. [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processed_meat [2] https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat [3] http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/meat-and-cancer/ Google "meat cancer" for alternative sources.

you're 3rd link comes from a person who is so anti-plants its laughable. Almost all of her posts are pro-meat. It seems her livelihood now depends on it. https://twitter.com/GeorgiaEdeMD/status/1011204721598660608

I didn't cherry pick - they were top result for the query, but neither did I read the sites more widely - It's which I included the search suggestion for alternative sources.
Post reply on HN