Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 528 posts

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#381

Post by ceejayoz »

ghaff wrote: post #263
neltnerb wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never heard anyone so confused that they can't tell the difference between "animal that was never alive" and "made from vegetable products". This isn't confusing, and I will need evidence to believe that it is "widely used". I don't think I've ever even heard someone attempt to conflate the two before you. But I acknowledge that just because this is completely obvious to me and I've never met someone who was c…

I honestly don't care what people call the different types of meat substitutes. Plant-based meat seems a bit odd to me because it's not, you know, meat. But it seems to be the term in use. Yes, I understand that there is a difference between grown from meat cells and made from plants with components that make it look and taste more like meat.

I haven't seen many offerings saying plant-based meat.

I've seen plant-based burger, plant-based sausage, etc.

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#382

Post by dmix »

robin_reala wrote: post #340
zsrxx wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

kfc.nu ? Why that TLD?

Sweden has a big history with .nu (“now” in Swedish) and .se seems to be taken by a local business. Doesn’t seem to have stopped kfc.com from trying to redirect to kfc.se though when clicking on the “take me to my local site” button, oops.

Good catch, it must be hard to keep track of all of the global business's different domain names in a giant company like that.

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#383

Post by roywiggins »

whatshisface wrote: post #269
_bxg1 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Livestock contributes around 15% of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions. Produce fundamentally has a smaller impact, in part due to its relative simplicity. I don't know how much processing is required for these products after-the-fact, but I know that at least one of the recent pivotal innovations was in genetic engineering, not processing.

Veggie burgers don't grow on trees - they are highly advanced industrial end products with million-mile supply chains. I don't get why people can't just eat vegetables if they want to be vegetarians. Instead of being unhealthy from eating too many grams of well-understood macronutrients (where dieting is easy, just eat less), we're all going to be unhealthy from eating to many micrograms of beef simulating molecules.

at this point most vegetables are highly advanced industrial products with million-mile supply chains, at least if you shop at your average American grocery.

These vegetarian burgers aren't particularly healthy, but it's because of their salt content.

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#384

Post by behringer »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #349
behringer wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://health.usnews.com/wellness/food/articles/2017-05-11/...

...are you incapable of explaining your reasoning yourself in less than, what is this, 5 pages of ad-filled text? I find it very difficult to take someone seriously who responds in this fashion.

Ok

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#385

Post by ceejayoz »

patrickaljord wrote: post #241
mrguyorama wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm eating fast food, why do I care about the nutritional value?

Because this is worse than fast food. With a burger you get protein and fat. With those meat replacement you get processed carbohydrates and little protein which is worse.

That's not true.

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/food/a21566428/beyond-meat-b...

20 g fat, 5 g carb, 20 g protein in a four-ounce Beyond Burger patty.

23 g fat, 0 g carb, 19 g protein in a four-ounce 80/20 beef patty.

Same amount of protein, plenty of fat, only a few carbs added.

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#386

Post by tomjen3 »

adrianN wrote: post #68
koolba wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plant-based meat, on the other hand, can be both cheaper and less gross at the same time, and it might help them cut down on calories and improve their health image. Which is “less gross” is highly objective. > I wonder what impact it'll have on climate change when McDonalds stops buying real beef. Would be a nice longbet, “ McDonald’s will stop selling beef burgers by 20XY ”. I’d be on the “no” side of that bet.

They will eventually stop selling beef burgers made from real cows. Lab grown meat will replace them. I don't know enough about the current state of lab grown meat to give an estimate for XY, but it seems inevitable to me.

When they do that it will take most american farmers down with them, along with all the people working in the meat plants. The environment is not good, but of course the alternative is unemployment, especially when most of the farms also go under.

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#387

Post by devinhelton »

namdnay wrote: post #345
devinhelton wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes perfect sense: meat is expensive and difficult to work with, so low-cost chains like these have been serving really disgustingly low-quality meat for quite some time now; in some cases it could barely even be called meat. Consumer advocates in the past few years have actually done a pretty good job at pressuring the top fast food chains to not dilute their beef with additives. McD's, Burger King, and Wendy's…

> When traveling, I sometimes just buy a bunch of MdD's patties a la carte. o_O > how fashionable vegetarianism has become I don’t think it’s a question of fashion. However tasty meat may be, it’s ethically and environmentally bad. Whether it’s in 50 or 500 years’ time, one day our descendants will look back at us and wonder: “they ate corpses?!”

However tasty meat may be, it’s ethically and environmentally bad.

I disagree entirely, but there is no need to relitigate this debate here. If by any chance you have never read the pro-meat argument, the book The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith is a pretty good primer.

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#388

Post by hoorayimhelping »

mrguyorama wrote: post #218
nostromo wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with existing meat substitutes is that they are high in processed carbohydrates and low in protein. The taste has been fairly ok for a while. It's the nutritional value that's the problem.

If I'm eating fast food, why do I care about the nutritional value?

I care about the nutritional value of food deeply, and I eat fast food occasionally. A McDonald's quarter pounder with cheese and a medium fries has really good macronutrient ratios. And a burger from Mickey D's is one of the most cost effective sources of protein you can find.

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#389

Post by tomjen3 »

telesilla wrote: post #103

I'm preparing a large dinner for an organisation at the moment and decided that we'd make the menu vegan/vegetarian (we use a wonderful Italian caterer, so flavour isn't going to be missed). When I mentioned it to some omnivore colleagues, they asked why and I shrugged and said "the Amazon is burning". They shrugged back and said, makes sense. It's not many years since I would have expected complaints at not catering…

You would definitely still get that with the people I work with, though perhaps they wouldn't bother arguing with you on it, instead writing you of completely (nothing I personally do will have any influence the Amazon burning or not).

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#390

Post by BubRoss »

bad_user wrote: post #235
bigtech wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have some reason to believe that meat is healthier, or is this speculation?

The number one reason is that we've eaten red meat for millions of years, literally. Given fake meat is new and I'm not seeing it in stores nearby yet, I'm going to assume a fair comparison will take another decade, after the studies and the meta analysis show up. Until then the burden of proof is not on me ;-)

When you say something brand new and made from vegetables must cause cancer I think the burden of proof is absolutely on you, and so far you haven't given a single reason why that might be true.
Post reply on HN