Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018) • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by SamBam » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:16 AM UTC

spenczar5 wrote: post #149

SamBam wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does grassland really need to be suited for any kind of agriculture? The prairies used to be one of the greatest carbon sinks in the world, storing as much or more carbon per acre than most forests. They were also a source of incredible diversity. Cattle ranching operations transforms that carbon sink into methane gas to warm our atmosphere. And while the water is returned, the energy spend transporting and cleaning…

How does that calculation work? Prairies were inhabited by huge herds of large grazers: bison. Thats how they stayed as prairies. There were about 60 million bison on the American prairie before 1800. There are about 90 million cattle in the US across all states - with large numbers outside the bison’s range, in states like New York and Tennessee and California. So - roughly in the same ballpark. Pasture-raised cattl…

Part of the issue is also that there is simply far less grassland now. The prairies and other grasslands used to be huge, and supported 2/3rds of the number of bovines. Now they're a tiny fraction of the size and supporting 50% more.

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

#202

Post by ddlutz » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:16 AM UTC

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 tried impossible burger once. Wanted to like it for all the good environmental / ethical reasons. However, it just tasted nutty to me, like somebody had ground up some nuts that had a visual appearance very similar to ground beef. Tasted nothing like meat to me.

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

#203

Post by rbg246 » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:17 AM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #177

agogdog wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

> 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? Pretty much everyone needs to kill things to live, even vegetarians (thousands of baby plants were killed to make every loaf of bread). Theoretically there are fruitarians who don't, but my understanding is that is not a sustainable…

But you should be mindful about it and try and minimize your impact.

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

#204

Post by wyager » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:18 AM UTC

seoaeu wrote: post #107

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.

We also destroy enormous swaths of rain forest each year to increase the amount of land for cattle...

Incorrect, but a common misconception. The Amazon is destroyed to grow soya crops for 2-3 years. After the land has been depleted by soya growth, the farmers will put cattle on it for tax/legal reasons and because they can get a bit more money out of it. The vast majority of the economy impetus for rainforest destruction is due to demand for soy.

Vegetable activists often attempt to divert blame to meat production by saying things like "70% of the amazon soy is used to feed cattle", which is true, but only by mass. Cattle are fed the byproducts of soy production like soy meal that humans refuse to eat. By dollar value, almost all of the soy produced goes to human consumption.

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

#205

Post by dqv » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:18 AM UTC

wyager wrote: post #148

dqv wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's also worth keeping in mind that living off plants generally kills more total animals (although smaller animals) than living off medium-large animals. Your net consumption of plants is reduced when you reduce your consumption of animals, friend. How do you figure it would cause the death of more total animals? >While I assign pretty significant utilitarian value to "stop eating animals", it still falls a few ord…

> How do you figure it would cause the death of more total animals Cattle grazing causes less animal death than industrial plant agriculture (land clearing, pest control, insecticide usage, etc.). > People get along just fine eating only legumes and grain No they don't. Healthy vegans are few and far between. Not that the SAD is much (or any) better.

>Cattle grazing causes less animal death than industrial plant agriculture (land clearing, pest control, insecticide usage, etc.).

Even grass fed beef are fed fodder which is the result of industrial plant agriculture.

>No they don't. Healthy vegans are few and far between.

Yes they do. Healthy vegans are way more common than you think. There is nothing unique about meat that can't be obtained from plant-based foods.

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

#206

Post by name_nick_sex_m » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:18 AM UTC

andrew_ wrote: post #195

This is a phenomenon that all too often suffers from the distaste of ruinous empathy [1] and moral superiority. I personally don't care why/how [you] _feel_ about this product. Stories about morality and feelings in the alt food market are insufferable and immediately invoke an epic eye roll. I care about what I eat in this order: 1. Is it healthy? 2. Does it taste good? 3. Is it sustainable? Fake meat, at this point…

So your priorities are to be

1. selfish asshole

2. selfish asshole

3. globally conscious

and not listed (no importance):

4. against animal cruelty

Good to know, thanks for sharing.

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

#207

Post by telchar » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:19 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #90

sweetheart wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More crops are grown to feed the livestock than people, so if you want to save the field animals and insects, going plant based will save even more.

Not sure this is true if you're looking at free-range though. There are many places which are not very amenable to growing crops fit for human consumption, but are more than adequate for growing the grasses (and more) that ruminant digestive systems (e.g. cows) can easily digest. So if you're growing soy on deforested land as a base for your "cruelty free" burger, it is very possible that this has damaged the origina…

This argument - which I see often - ignores that land doesn’t have to be used for growing crops or grazing. Leaving some land wild allows biodiversity which has quite literally unquantifiable benefits now and far into the future. Using less land in total let’s us leave more land wild, and/or to put solar panels on it, or put it to other uses that may be beneficial.

Further, some of that land which is unsuitable for growing crops used to be - and was degraded by growing crops or grazing. Further degrading and depleting it doesn’t do us any favors.

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

#208

Post by King-Aaron » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:19 AM UTC

sweetheart wrote: post #141

sidlls wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no such thing as slaughter without cruelty. The animals do not want to die, and they are killed. That is _always_ cruel.

Plants don't want to die either, and they do their best to evolve specifically to avoid death.

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

#209

Post by tootie » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:19 AM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #170

I'm generally surprised no one brings up the negative health benefits of processed foods. It is not healthier to get rid of meat only to replace it with high salt chemically processed food that tastes like meat. It seems like we are going backwards. You know what uses less greenhouse emissions, less water and less land? The orginal plant based food that gets processed into a beyond burger. If you really care about th…

All food is processed. Cows are genetically engineered. There's no reason to be afraid of simple chemistry. Cranks like Michael Polian have made a fortune selling FUD with no science. Just read a label. Boxed food with a ton of salt and sugar is probably not good for you whether it's corn syrup or agave nectar. Similarly, boxed fiber and protein is perfectly fine. Buying locally is not scalable and fails to take advantage of the climate advantage of different geographies.

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

#210

Post by the_benno » Fri, May 07, 2021, 3:19 AM UTC

o0-0o wrote: post #10

And if you’ve tried one, just about 99% less taste.

Have you tried one? This just isn't true. They taste slightly different, but definitely not "less".

If you do it right -- get a nice crust on there, don't overcook it, toast up some decent buns in butter and use good pickles, cheese, etc. -- it's every bit as flavorful and indulgent as a beef burger. (a decent one at least... you're not going to replicate the best of the best, nor should that really the goal)