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

481–490 of 794 posts

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

#481

Post by ajdegol »

lambdaba wrote: post #394
toper-centage wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately, we at least know that meat consumption, specially red meat, is bad for you and a WFPB diet is better. So my suggestion is to use products like beyong as a gateway to a WFPB diet.

Meat, literally millions of years in our evolutionary past VS seed oils barely 100 (more like 50 for mass adoption), but surely "the science" is never wrong nor corrupted. Inform yourself on the history of this with Ancel Keys etc.

Modern humans don't go back literally millions of years. If one were to look at how humans evolved then looking at "Comparative Anatomy of Digestive System of Carnivores, Omnivores, Herbivores, and Humans" to me implies a strong bent towards fruits and nuts. Personally, I think whatever could be eaten got eaten. The consensus of the IPCC is that we should eat less meat.

Food has extremely strong cultural significance and a lot of people tie up their identity with it. I can understand that. If they feel that their diet is under attack they see it as life and death for their identity.

I imagine you've picked a side and will seek whatever information or studies suits you; everyone is doing that these days. It's anti-scientific.

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

#482

Post by dtech »

medstrom wrote: post #474
danShumway wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a complicated topic, with multiple responses, but I'm only going to touch on one specific aspect of it. Reducing violence in regular farming is an admirable goal that people should strive towards. It's also worth talking about the environmental costs of ingredients like palm oil, and it's worth talking about the human costs of products like cocoa. I don't mean to diminish any of that at all, it's all worth pa…

>and the majority of the feed for those animals comes from... traditional crop farming. I don't know how to find data but I thought that "grain-fed" cattle largely don't exist outside the USA (chicken/pork are different), so the only crop farmed is hay. And that may not impose as heavy costs as other crops?

Netherlands is the 2nd largest argricultural exporter [1], and has heavy factory animal farming that are all fed farmed crops. Very little grazing for meat animals.

[1] https://www.deheus.com/articles/news/the-netherlands-are-alm...

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

#483

Post by dotsam »

roenxi wrote: post #467
arrrg wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you view the millions of existences prevented by contraception the same way? Those humans also don’t exist for entirely preventable reasons … This seems like an on its face absurd and pointless argument to me. In these scenarios we are basically talking about unborn hypothetical future cows and from that perspective your argument makes no sense at all. Cattle would obviously continue to exist in some form, even wi…

You've missed the argument - the argument is we have prevented the existence of millions of humans without blinking, many of whom would probably rather exist. Once we've one that, killing off large numbers of animals is an academic point. Who cares if we kill them by preventing their existence or giving them years of life then killing them? They're the lucky ones who got to be born. If you gave me a choice, I'd rathe…

Is there a quality of life tipping point at which you would rather never have been born? If you were offered a life consisting entirely of pain and suffering, would you accept that?

If the quality of life is *not* an issue, we could logically maintain that we are morally obliged to maximise the number of beings brought into life -- however short and horrible that life may be -- because any form of existence is preferable to non-existence.

If quality of life *is* an issue, we should strive not to bring beings into existence that are likely to have a particularly low quality of life. The suffering of factory farmed animals may be great enough to say it would be better that they never existed rather than they were born into a short life of imprisonment and suffering.

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

#484

Post by herbst »

I tried it (and some clones) and for whatever reason both me and my partner get a bloated stomach from it. Very likely not a mental thing as I get this too from Saitan but actually like stuff like quorn or well done tofu.

On the other side I know many of the cows I eat, I don't think they actually suffer other than dying too early.

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

#485

Post by gwd »

tommit wrote: post #461
gwd wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but "Let's not eat any animals at all ever" is a different target than "Let's raise and kill animals in a way that's ecologically sustainable and humane". I'd argue that working towards #1 is actively working against #2. The other factor that I don't quite get about think-of-the-animals vegans is this: What exactly do you think is going to happen to all those cows and chickens if the entire world becomes veget…

Uhm ... I would personally say yes. First of all, the "painlessly killed" part is pretty wishful thinking/rationalization on your behalf. In many cases, the killing is not at all painful. Of course the other part makes for a pretty good ethical debate. Is it better to live a miserable life and die and early and unnatural death than it is to never be born at all? There is no right answer, but I myself feel like I woul…

> And if you say "well but I buy my meat from my local butcher..." ok cool. Most people still don't, and won't, and that's the real issue.

Right, but this goes back to my first paragraph. I would argue that most people do not have the moral effort to entirely give up meat voluntarily. There is some subset of people who are willing to make inconvenient life choices out of consideration of the lives of animals. You can convince these people to become vegans; or you can convince these people to only buy ecologically sound and minimum-suffering animal products. (For the sake of argument, let's call these "ethical" animal products, even though I know you may not agree with that label.) The more people you convince to become vegans, the fewer people are buying "ethical" animal products. The smaller the market for "ethical" animal products, the less incentive there is for people selling animal products to try to do so "ethically".

> Is that a life you would want to life?

Imagine a future where some hyper-intelligent alien species has taken over basically most habitable places in the galaxy, including the most habitable places on earth. We are unable to understand nearly any of these aliens' motivations or thought processes, much less their technology, and unable to offer them anything of value in terms of economic production: there is nothing we can do that they, or their machines, can't do better.

There are a few "reserves" for humans on earth where we're allowed to live "wild", but these are overcrowded and have no natural resources other than sunlight and (relatively poor) soil: all the minerals of value are extracted by the aliens.

But, there is one thing we can offer them: we ourselves are a delicacy, and some of the aliens at least are willing to pay a high price for the chance of consuming (whatever that means -- nobody's quite sure if it's eating or something else) a healthy 30-year-old human.

These aliens aren't ethical enough to let us spread throughout the galaxy on our own terms; but they are ethical enough not to do anything we haven't consented to.

So there's always an open offer, available between the ages of 12 and 18, to any human: to stay in one of the "human reserves", or enter the "cattle" program. If you're on the cattle program, you have freedom of movement through many places in the galaxy. Your health is taken care of, and there are lots of opportunities to socialize with other humans, to learn from them, to express art or music or whatever; but, the vast majority of you will, at the age of 30, be quickly killed and consumed by the aliens.

Particularly healthy men may be allowed to live longer for "captive breeding" programs (if they consent to do so); and many women will have the option to enter a "captive breeding" program as well, in which they bear children every two or three years until they're 40.

Children raised in the captive breeding program are also given the option, between 12 and 18, of going to the "human reserve" to live out their life there as well as they can.

So, here's the question: You're about to turn 18. Life in a human reserve is little better than stone age, since there are no natural resources upon which to build technology. Do you live out your 50 or 60 years (average life expectancy without advanced health care) in the freedom of a stone age society? Or do you travel the galaxy, having advanced technology and medical care, until you're 30?

Of course some people would chose to live in freedom; but I'm pretty sure there would be a pretty big uptake for being eaten.

I'm pretty sure cows, if they could be made to understand the proposition would be the same way. A handful would prefer to live in the wild, getting their own food, having no health care or shelter or protection from predators; but most would probably choose the life of free-range cattle, ending in death.

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

#486

Post by nicolas_t »

Nursie wrote: post #477
roel_v wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think it hilarious when people like me, urban dwellers, tell me to my face they only buy meat from some small butcher because they only trust him, or some variation of that story." I bought half a pig some time ago; I have a copy of his (probably 'her'?) earmark here next to me on my desk. I get an invitation each year to go watch it when it goes out to pasture for the first time that year. I can choose to have th…

> for which I don't know the English word - it's a grayish slab, often eaten on rye bread here in North-Western Europe In British English, that would be "Head Cheese" or "Brawn", or at least head cheese is likely to be a similar product, made from the animal's head, that's the only thing I can think of. I've never eaten it and it's regarded as kinda gross. Now blood sausage, that can be tasty :)

Fromage de tête in French, if you can get over the idea of it, it's well worth trying it. When it's well made with good quality ethically sourced meat (we used to do the same and buy a pig with neighbours and then process it), it's super tasty.

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

#487

Post by jacobmischka »

lambdaba wrote: post #459
jacobmischka wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lions, and our ancestors, ate much leaner grass fed animals compared to our factory-fattened cows and pigs. I don't believe hunter gatherers were eating meat with 15-20% fat content as often as Americans eat burgers.

On the contrary, fat is prized by hunter-gatherers and humans likely had access to much more fat (megafauna) for much of our evolutionary history. Fat allowed us to supply for the high energy needs of our brains. This isn't my own speculation but collated from various sources, I can provide if interested just don't have them on hand.

Yes, it was certainly prized because of its high calorie content and relative scarcity compared to today, when one can have a virtually unlimited supply. That's why it tastes good.

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

#488

Post by medstrom »

toper-centage wrote: post #347
rallison wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

To add to that, even grass fed, free range animals are often fed more grain at the end of their lives so the grow quicker in the last couple months.

While not as efficient as if we'd eat that grain directly, it doesn't seem terribly inefficient, and it may reduce the number of individuals that need to be born & die. (Of course under a stark analysis of whether to have cattle at all, the conclusion could be different, so the question is what analysis you're using this info for). Anyway, if on top of that you subscribe to the hypothesis that grain is not good for human health, grain-finishing may do net good.

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

#489

Post by arvinsim »

rallison wrote: post #237
DistressedDrone wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought this way too until the Beyond/Impossible burgers. Before them, the garden burgers and similar options mostly got a "why bother?" reaction from me. Give me a dish that is meant to be vegetarian, not something trying and failing to replicate a meat dish. But I also love a good burger. To each their own, of course, but a well cooked burger (well cooked, not well done) made with quality meat.. it's hard to top.…

Yes, I agree that the price is a very big factor for mass adoption.

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

#490

Post by bumbada »

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…

It is very easy to understand. People like Bill Gates who is a big investor in artificial meta are lobbing for normal eat and fish to be banned one way or another.

That it, people eating the way they always had eaten have other people wanting to force them to do something. That triggers reaction in the opposite sense.

Those technologies should prosper on its own, and they will be if they are cheaper or more nutritious. Over time they will.

It is like illustration ideas in Spain. People that read were accepting those ideas on their own until Napoleon came and wanted to impose the ideas by force. The reaction against the invader made those ideas(and the people that supported them) not only to not to prosper but go back(and the people expelled from the country), because they were the ideas of the invaders.

I love technology, and as entrepreneur and engineer have always managed innovation. I believe it it the future, but because I know innovation well I also know the drawbacks.

Early products tend to have bugs on them. When we create something knew I expect those like Elon expects their new rockets to explode. When those bugs are related to health it means people die.

And we don't really know what those bugs are. The world in incredibly complex. For example autism or cancer, leukemia, and allergies in young people are skyrocketing.

We know it is related to microorganisms in the gut and we also know that we are killing those microorganism like fungus, bacteria and virus that were beneficial to humans.

We started spraying roundup and other products thinking the world was super simple. And it is not, eliminating all insects, fungus and bacteria that were with us for millions of years will have consequences and secondary effects we could not predict.

Over time all our food will be grown indoors and cultured bacteria will do everything for us like cotton, vaccines or paper. But trying to accelerate the progress by coercion could backfire.

Post reply on HN