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

221–230 of 794 posts

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

#221

Post by adrian_mrd »

gnicholas wrote: post #179
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…

I'd be curious to know which ingredients are the most worrisome. I don't eat much Beyond or Impossible at this point, but I could see myself eating a lot in the future if they made lower-fat options (more like ground turkey than ground beef). But I don't want to eat something that is made out of unhealthy ingredients. What should I look out for?

Three good reads to start:

1. Primer on ultra processed foods: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed...

2. NOVA “the food classification that categorises foods according to the extent and purpose of food processing, rather than in terms of nutrients” [PDF]: http://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WN-2016-...

3. ‘Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the US diet: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study’: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/3/e009892

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

#222

Post by beaunative »

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…

This is probably not a popular opinion, but less environmental impact is actually more desirable to me than "no violence against animals". As far as I understand it, these sort of "animal protection" slogans only serve to make human beings feel better about ourselves, and as such could easily make us forgive (and forget) the massive amount of resources we consumed if not depleted on this earth. Simply by supplying for this huge amount of population, we have taketh away the right of other animal's possibility to have a thriving population. The human race thrived on a bloody ground, and we need to recognize that.

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

#223

Post by 867-5309 »

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…

we must also remember that these beasts are a product of selective evolution

if we had not interfered with this animal, it would have stayed similar to a gazelle

humans of course favoured a meat to size ratio and strength over agility, for their food and labour, reducing the creature to the cows we have today

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

#224

Post by rallison »

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…

It's definitely true that just switching over to plant-based foods and away from animal-based foods won't solve all the issues, it's also worth noting that a lot of cattle, at least in the US, are not raised on a foraging model, so most feed that cattle consume come from plants raised elsewhere, which are going to largely be those same cropping properties. And, further, the amount of feed to raise cattle mean that those cropping properties have to grow significantly more product than if they were producing for plant-based foods.

I do have a lot of respect for smaller cattle operations that run an ecologically sensitive operation, such that the land is used in a way that sustains itself and the cattle on it. It's just that, those are the exceptions, at least in countries like the US.

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

#225

Post by SubiculumCode »

tablespoon wrote: post #163
SubiculumCode wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Cali…

> Perhaps, it would lead to the advent of wild cattle in the California hills, as land owners stop caring. Which would be an invasive species.

indeed. making the thing even more hilarious.

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

#226

Post by rbg246 »

DistressedDrone wrote: post #198
MPSimmons wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really enjoy both BeyondBeef and Impossible Burger. My thoughts are that BeyondBeef has a kind of plastic-y smell, but is almost exactly right in terms of color and texture. The smell is not concerning to me, but it is distinct for my palette. I still eat it, and don't mind. Aside from the burgers, I also really enjoy the spicy Italian sausages. There is a slightly different taste than pork-based sausages, but I wo…

As a vegetarian, I really don't get why people are so focused on realistic meat replacement. Like, there are other things to eat. I especially don't get why people want the texture of red meat like beef patties. So you like... soft food? There's no arguing tastes, it's just weird to me that that's what other vegetarians would care about.

My thought is it's for people who are meat replacing rather than being vegetarian.

I agree with you about so many foods to choose from.

For me as a vegetarian it's an absurd thing wanting to eat something that tastes like animal but it's a taste thing so it's just a subjective view of mine.

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

#228

Post by spenczar5 »

dguaraglia wrote: post #193
spenczar5 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What you are missing is that Bison lived off whatever plants naturally grew in the land, and that their numbers declined and increased with the available food supply. The loss of natural habitat and biodiversity alone should be a cause for concern.

My impression was (again! uninformed!) that pasture-raised cattle basically are living off whatever plants naturally grow on the land. Is that not the case?

Of course it is wrong for factory farmed cattle raised in a shed, and for grain fed to cattle right before slaughter to change their meat, but I thought the bulk of their diet was basically unmanaged wild grasses?

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

#229

Post by mscarborough »

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…

If animal and insect death from cropping is a big concern, then what does it mean to feed other animals many more crops, then kill them as well?

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

#230

Post by cageface »

toolz wrote: post #37
cageface wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I just skimmed thru one video, mind giving me us the highlights? The argument that cows water requirements are mostly "green water" (i.e. rain that grows the crops they eat) seemed reasonable to me. So I have to imagine your "pure" garbage is a bit of hyperbole, but I am curious to understand which parts are wrong - hopefully without having to sift through more videos - thanks in advance

At least in the US most of the weight cattle put on comes at the end when they're fed grain in feeding lots. Needless to say this they're not drinking "green water".

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/burger-wa...

There's loads of documentation on this and other points in the video that's easy to find if you're not driving a carnivore agenda the way TIL constantly is on YouTube.

Post reply on HN