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

Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

css.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 794 posts

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#131

Post by wyager »

purephase wrote: post #92
wyager wrote: post #29

Land usage is a totally useless metric for the impact of beef production, because we can (and do) raise cattle on land that's basically useless for anything else.

Completely ignores the methane output issue which is a huge contributor to global warming. Also, killing billions of sentient beings simply because the taste is a bit off, but let's all just ignore that.

The methane output issue is also pretty much total BS.

First off, there used to be over 60 million buffalo in North America, producing similar amounts of methane. We have only 50% more cows today.

Second, whatever cows don't eat is probably going to be metabolized by fungi, which also produce methane (although it's not well-quantified how much).

Third, the half-life of atmospheric methane is only on the order of 9 years (it's a fairly unstable molecule in an oxidizing environment), so its long-term effect is much smaller than CO2's, even though it's a more potent greenhouse gas.

> simply because the taste

It's about nutrition and health. "Taste" is a strawman.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#132

Post by sweetheart »

ipaddr wrote: post #85
sweetheart wrote: post #36

While it is not my experience at all, I understand that some folks have certain negative opinions of Beyond Burgers, and other fake meat/imitation burgers: - The texture is off - Maybe they cook strangely - Potentially less taste But the most important thing about them, and the reason I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. This is not an argument that fairs well…

But why would you want to replicate the outcome of a slaughter if that part of the process upsets you? Why make an apple taste like the death of a cow? For me eating things in their most natural forms seems more appealing. I don't know what is in beyond meat but avoiding processed anything seems like a more healthy strategy.

I like how burgers taste, so I want to eat them. But I don't want an animal to experience horrific treatment and slaughter just for the taste, so I seek it out in plants. That makes sense, no? I can like the salty, fat taste but opt-out of the subjugation and slaughter of another being.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#133

Post by ErikVandeWater »

sweetheart wrote: post #36

While it is not my experience at all, I understand that some folks have certain negative opinions of Beyond Burgers, and other fake meat/imitation burgers: - The texture is off - Maybe they cook strangely - Potentially less taste But the most important thing about them, and the reason I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. This is not an argument that fairs well…

What you're saying a little silly, given that if people had decided to stop eating cows 20 years ago, the cow I ate a part of today would never have gotten to exist in the first place. An argument that cows are abused and are better off never existing would be a reasonable one.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#134

Post by andyana »

sidlls wrote: post #113
dqv wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less animals stand to die at the blades of the harvester when one chooses to stop eating animals altogether. You can't eliminate suffering, but you can take active measures to reduce it.

One can also choose to consume meat that is not treated with cruelty. It’s more expensive, but does exist. The “less violence” argument doesn’t hold sway with some. That’s a purely subjective assessment that not everyone agrees with. For example, I don’t consider the slaughter of animals for food to be particularly more violent than the wholesale shredding of plant fibers at harvest.

Curiously, where would you draw the line for violence?

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#135

Post by alecst »

sidlls wrote: post #113
dqv wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less animals stand to die at the blades of the harvester when one chooses to stop eating animals altogether. You can't eliminate suffering, but you can take active measures to reduce it.

One can also choose to consume meat that is not treated with cruelty. It’s more expensive, but does exist. The “less violence” argument doesn’t hold sway with some. That’s a purely subjective assessment that not everyone agrees with. For example, I don’t consider the slaughter of animals for food to be particularly more violent than the wholesale shredding of plant fibers at harvest.

> I don’t consider the slaughter of animals for food to be particularly more violent than the wholesale shredding of plant fibers at harvest

You probably think of "violence" differently than most people then.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#136

Post by SubiculumCode »

dcolkitt wrote: post #76
sweetheart wrote: post #36

While it is not my experience at all, I understand that some folks have certain negative opinions of Beyond Burgers, and other fake meat/imitation burgers: - The texture is off - Maybe they cook strangely - Potentially less taste But the most important thing about them, and the reason I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. This is not an argument that fairs well…

I guess the difference would be though, that without the demand for meat, those cows would likely never have lived at all. 99%+ of all cows alive are used for human agriculture. From the perspective of any living creature, I generally think of existence as a positive good versus non-existence. I know I certainly would rather come to a violent death at a young age than have never been born at all. I think there's a pl…

If we all moved to impossible beef, cattle populations would plummet. However, despite popular perception, for most of its life before slaughter, a cow is raised in large open ranges for grazing, like in the California foothills. Only the last parts of their live do they get put into crowded feedlots for "fattening", which might be described as inhumane. Perhaps, it would lead to the advent of wild cattle in the California hills, as land owners stop caring.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#137

Post by inter_netuser »

sweetheart wrote: post #36

While it is not my experience at all, I understand that some folks have certain negative opinions of Beyond Burgers, and other fake meat/imitation burgers: - The texture is off - Maybe they cook strangely - Potentially less taste But the most important thing about them, and the reason I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. This is not an argument that fairs well…

The unfortunate part is that there is a non-significant number of people who are allergic to contents of these faux-meats.

..but nobody is allergic to meat.

There is a theory that benefits mostly ascribed to keto, are actually due to reduced inflammatory load in the diet.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#138

Post by jhardy54 »

ipaddr wrote: post #85
sweetheart wrote: post #36

While it is not my experience at all, I understand that some folks have certain negative opinions of Beyond Burgers, and other fake meat/imitation burgers: - The texture is off - Maybe they cook strangely - Potentially less taste But the most important thing about them, and the reason I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. This is not an argument that fairs well…

But why would you want to replicate the outcome of a slaughter if that part of the process upsets you? Why make an apple taste like the death of a cow? For me eating things in their most natural forms seems more appealing. I don't know what is in beyond meat but avoiding processed anything seems like a more healthy strategy.

> Why make an apple taste like the death of a cow?

I’ve been “vegan” for the better half of a decade and I don’t think this is confusing at all: because it’s familiar and it tastes good.

Familiarity and tastes can change over time, but it takes time and effort, and people are already putting effort into being open-minded when they try a veggie burger instead of a beef burger.

Sure, a quinoa salad might be healthier, but most people aren’t choosing between a cheeseburger and some ultra-healthy vegan cuisine.

We should aim to make these choices easy and comfortable instead of criticizing folks for taking baby steps in the right direction.

Just my two cents.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#139

Post by fastball »

agogdog wrote: post #115
King-Aaron wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have indeed tried them, and they aren't as nice as a real beef burger in my opinion. And as a predatory animal, the fact that something "needs to die" for me to feed doesn't factor into the equation. (Of course, you can certainly reduce cruelty if you move away from a US-style factory farming model). Looking forward to seeing how the technology develops, but yeah. It hasn't changed my habits yet.

>And as a predatory animal, the fact that something "needs to die" for me to feed doesn't factor into the equation. I'm having a hard time following this... are you saying that you don't think about the reality of killing animals for food because of some biological mechanism outside of your control?

My interpretation was more: nature doesn't have morality, animals don't have morality, other animals aren't worried about killing each other, the only reason we are worried about it is because we are projecting the horror of death that comes from being a cognizant being onto animals that are unlikely to even have a concept of "death", so it's not a moral conundrum for an animal that has evolved to eat meat (humans) to eat meat.

Or, said another way: if animals being killed to be eaten is inherently bad, should we not be trying to replace the diet of all lions on earth with BeyondMeat too?

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#140

Post by hourislate »

cageface wrote: post #11
hourislate wrote: post #4

>90% less greenhouse emissions, 99% less water, and 93% less land This was a great video concerning those claims above.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g

This video is pure garbage. Detailed rebuttal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44CDBdC8CA

Your video is pure garbage. The detailed rebuttal is false....
Post reply on HN