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

211–220 of 794 posts

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

#211

Post by _3u10 »

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.

Suicidal behavior in humans and other animals suggests that this is not always true.

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

#212

Post by sweetheart »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #191
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…

> Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. I find this interesting, in that cropping has plenty of violent against animals but one step removed. I have a small cattle property, we run on hill country with diversified ecosystem, mixed grass and bushland. We have a heap of native animals living across the property. And at the end of the day the steers do get sent of for slaughter after 18 to 24 mont…

I don't get the feel that you're having a go, no worries :)

I think there are two parts to this: we can't raise the animals that folks want to eat without _also_ growing plants to feed those animals, so from my perspective it seems that we can apply most or all points about the negatives of cropping to the cropping that is done to support animal agriculture. So if cropping is bad, it's still bad when we do it for the animals we intend to eat.

Secondly, and this is argument I don't make often because its _really_ not popular (but you seem like a great person so I'm happy to share!), I just don't think animals exist to provide or serve us. They are their own beings, and we are ours. Personally, I don't care if someone treats their animals like absolute royalty. If we kill them, or we forcibly impregnate them and remove their children so we can have their milk, it's wrong to me. But again, this is not an argument many people are swayed by, so I don't generally mention it.

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

#213

Post by tootie »

adrian_mrd wrote: post #152

Whilst the environmental and animal welfare benefits of many of the ‘fake’ meats (Beyond, Impossible, Vegetarian Butcher, etc) are noble and important, in the spirit of ‘full’ lifecycle analysis, it is important to also consider just how processed (ultra processed) these products are and the potential impacts this has in the human health domain. And the research on ultra processed foods is rather clear, they are ‘bad…

All your food started in the heart of a star. What's a few more steps.

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

#214

Post by wyager »

dqv wrote: post #205
wyager wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

Cattle are fed the byproducts of human agriculture that humans refuse to eat. Anything else cattle are fed (scrubland plants, grass, etc.) is extremely low-impact.

> Healthy vegans are way more common than you think.

The vast majority of vegans I know are clearly malnourished. Only the ones who exhibit fairly herculean effort manage to maintain a good physique. OTOH, the vast majority of people I know who maintain an extremely animal-heavy (or animal-exclusive) diet show visible indicators of extremely good health (good skin condition, high muscle mass, good bone development, good teeth, etc.)

> There is nothing unique about meat that can't be obtained from plant-based foods.

Nutrition science is not at a state where we can make this statement conclusively, but what we do know conclusively is that it's at least extremely difficult to get a complete nutritional profile from plants, whereas it's very easy to do so from animal products.

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

#215

Post by rognjen »

name_nick_sex_m wrote: post #206
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.

Never thought about it that way. I guess wanting to be healthy is selfish.

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

#216

Post by hourislate »

anthony_romeo wrote: post #144
EarthLaunch wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a horrible vision of an HN where everyone just posts links to videos.

I’ve been starting to look for alternatives TBH. I’m really starting to get ‘Reddit 2015’ vibes from the type of knee jerk low quality cynical uninformed comments I’ve been seeing float to the top recently somewhat more frequently than usual. Not jumping ship yet, but I always like to be ahead of the game a bit.

Have you tried /g yet?

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

#217

Post by spicymaki »

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…

Well said! I am a vegetarian for much the same reasons. I think that compassion is a solid reason beyond the environmental and health reasons. As technology enthusiasts we should be driving new ways of producing food that cause the least harm.

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

#218

Post by xenihn »

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.

I think we'll eventually be able to recreate "meat" that is equal to or even better than meat that came from an actual animal. We'll reach a point where "fake" meat tastes better, is healthier for you, and, most importantly of all, is more profitable.

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

#219

Post by sweetheart »

sidlls wrote: post #155
sweetheart wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is such a thing, for example the slaughtering of an animal for food.

If you watch the footage of pigs being half-stunned, throats slit, and then drowning in a vat of hot blood, and can earnestly tell me you don't see that as cruel, I promise you I will never make that argument again.

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

#220

Post by calvinmorrison »

lamontcg wrote: post #199
calvinmorrison wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great time to plug MSG... the delicious umami flavor wrapped up in one delish ingredient. I never used salt much growing up at home - we always used Aromat! I was shocked to learn that most of the world doesn't use Aromat! Everyone go buy Aromat! It's delicious but unfortunately seems to be mostly popular for Swiss and South Africans! It's perfect on tomatos

The 'S' in MSG is 'Sodium'. If you're limiting salt due to high blood pressure, you also have to avoid MSG (according to NIH and AHA)

My diet is basically dried meats, cheese and olives. I will probably have a heart attack soon
Post reply on HN