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

241–250 of 794 posts

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

#241

Post by asveikau »

easytiger wrote: post #142
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…

> is they require no violence against animals. And you wonder why people can't take absolutists seriously. The marketing power of the moral superiority concept is no new thing. Pivoting the crux of success of your ideology around an incredibly poor burger filling makes no sense either. In the UK restaurants are being allowed to reopen in 10 days. In London there are an incredible density of steak restaurants which ha…

The person you're replying to has a different opinion from yours and you seem very offended by it. It hasn't got anything to do with lockdown in London, how booked steak restaurants will be there, or how much the "emotionally intelligent people" cringe. This all feels like non sequitur or ad hominem.

I eat meat with no plans to stop and I don't have a problem with the comment you're replying to.

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

#242

Post by howlin »

beaunative wrote: post #222
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 fo…

It seems hard to make sense of your objection here other than as a statement that past acts that might be considered wrong were how we got to where we are today. I don't think it's unreasonable to acknowledge our history while also recognize we shouldn't repeat the wrongs of the past.

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

#243

Post by purephase »

wyager wrote: post #131
purephase wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ye…

There's a lot of literal bullshit to dispel here.

First, the whole bison vs. cow argument is bunk for a variety of reasons. The diet that roaming bison ate is very different that the beef and dairy cattle eat today. Also, they didn't typically shit in large pools given that they were not animals that we're penned in to the same geographical location and roamed, often over many, many miles throughout the year.

Second, you're looking solely at North America. Cattle "production" is truly worldwide at this point, with beef and dairy cattle farms in many far off places where the animals are not native, and the true reporting of their numbers is grossly under-reported.

And, the whole goddamn thing about fungi is just.. I don't even know where to start with that. The amount of food created to feed cattle is staggering, and without that need in the first place, then the fungi wouldn't need to metabolize and emit methane, even though all of this is just some kind of insane babble. The methane comes from huge pools of manure that can, and more likely is not, properly and sustainably dealt with. There are blighted areas in the US alone where large cattle companies have simply abandoned the areas due to health concerns.

Here's the thing about methane though, when you generate an enormous amount of it, year over year, the cumulative effects of it cooling the planet (you know, melting glaciers, raising sea temperatures) does not really give a damn about the half-life of atmospheric methane. Once those effects set in, they're self-perpetuating and continuing to feed into the same root causes only makes it more difficult to resolve.

Finally, if you think that beef filled with GMO corn is some kind of magical health / nutrition goal post, well, there's nothing I could possibly say to counteract the sheer inanity of that position.

I think Beyond Beef is fine. I don't eat it for "health" reasons, and anyone who eats mass produced ground beef for "health" reasons is just straight up lying to themselves. All of these are comfort foods that we can all sustainbly live without. The decision is whether the slight taste difference is worth the absolutely terrible cost to the environment, and the devastating cost associated with the mass slaughter of sentient animals.

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

#244

Post by dguaraglia »

spenczar5 wrote: post #228
dguaraglia wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That was, indeed, how cattle used to be raised back in the day, with maybe some grain added to their diet to make up for seasonality of plants (after all, cow eating is a year-round business).

Nowadays, most cattle lives confined in a pen, being fed grass and grains depending on the stage of growth. There’s still some very small farmers using the traditional methodology, but the vast majority of the meat you can buy in a supermarket - even fancy ones like Wholefoods - are the product of mass production.

The USDA’s website has a pretty good rundown of the process: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/...

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

#245

Post by fastball »

telchar wrote: post #207
fastball wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

Land doesn't have to be used for anything, unless you want to do things.

The point is that grazing is much less destructive to the original ecology than farming, so it's not clear that 1 acre of farming is better than 100 acres of grazing.

I might be misguided here, but AFAIK grazing doesn't "deplete" the land at all (and might even improve the land with manure / etc), where as farming absolutely does unless you're careful about it.

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

#246

Post by Skunkleton »

542458 wrote: post #147
lowercased wrote: post #81

It's good to see these sorts of numbers, especially as a $BYND stockholder. :) I've had more impossible burgers (from BK) than beyond, and I think I prefer the impossible taste a bit more, but only slightly. In a burger, with other toppings (tomatoes, mustard, onions, lettuce, etc)... the 'non-beef' taste is pretty minimal, in my experience, although I do notice a slight aftertaste. Haven't tried the new "beyond 3.0"…

Hey, I agree with pretty much everything you just said. One other obstacle that is worth highlighting is that (at least where I am) the cost delta between beyond/impossible and plain-old beef is pretty massive, and the #1 thing keeping me from eating more of it.

The cost is a shame. Still, it will be cheaper eventually.

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

#247

Post by patrickmclaren »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #153
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…

> they require no violence against animals. While I sympathise with the argument, I think that it's a mistake to push this aspect front and centre. There's a whole lot of people out there who simply like eating meat, and that it means killing an animal is not particularly a problem. The people I've spoken to about Beyond/Impossible and similar fake-meats all tend to think of it as something for vegans/vegetarians, be…

I think the best angle is the one given in the title: 90% less greenhouse emissions, 99% less water, and 93% less land.

This is an approach that provides compelling meal options in a manner that scales much better than our traditional livestock methods.

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

#248

Post by matchbok »

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.

Simply false. Cats, for example, will die without animal protein.

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

#249

Post by apendleton »

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.

Fellow vegetarian take: I stopped eating meat for environmental reasons, not because I disliked the experience of eating meat, and while I was never a big meat eater, there are definitely some meat-containing foods I miss from time to time, a good burger being one. I think a well-made black bean burger can be really great, and without priors I'd probably say better than fake meat, but for whatever reason it doesn't pull the nostalgia levers for me, so I do like an impossible burger every now and then.

More importantly though, I don't really thing I'm the target audience (nor are you). I think it's more like, say, my parents: generally environmentally conscious (retrofit their house with a heat pump, etc.), but have established dietary habits that have kept them from making big changes specifically around meat. I think if you were able to offer them something indistinguishable from the real thing, though, they'd be totally down to swap it out at a barbecue or whatever. Personally I think getting 50% of Americans to cut their meat intake by 20% is way easier than getting 10% to give meat up entirely, especially with good alternatives, and the outcome is the same. Worth a shot, I'd say?

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

#250

Post by cageface »

King-Aaron wrote: post #69
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 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.

So if some day an alien race arrives and starts farming humans for sandwich meat just because they like the way we taste that's fair play as far as you're concerned?
Post reply on HN