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

501–510 of 794 posts

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

#501

Post by hawos »

tomp wrote: post #386
dcolkitt wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the difference would be though, that without the demand for meat, those cows would likely never have lived at all. 99%+ of all cows alive are used for human agriculture. From the perspective of any living creature, I generally think of existence as a positive good versus non-existence. I know I certainly would rather come to a violent death at a young age than have never been born at all. I think there's a pl…

I had to scroll 1/3 down the page before finally finding this argument. Simply said, for cows, eating meat means murder. Not eating meat means extinction.

Because there would be no efforts to prevent cows from going extinct? What?

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

#502

Post by dvko »

wyager wrote: post #204
seoaeu wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

This is provably false, see [1]. The page is in Dutch, but surely there are English sources just a quick Google search away too.

1. https://nieuwscheckers.nl/nieuwscheckers/soja-voor-veevoer-i...

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

#503

Post by hellbannedguy »

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…

To those that don't want to become 100% vegetarians, even though we all know it's better for everyone including the animal that'slaughtered;

How about just using meat in small quantities, and for seasoning?

A little bit of beef/chicken goes a long way. Most Americans do not need more protein.

I have gotten by with a few pounds (less than 5 lbs) of meat a year.

If a cash strapped, loser, like myself can do it, anyone can.

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

#504

Post by xdennis »

name_nick_sex_m wrote: post #197
paranoidrobot wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 disagree. While there will no doubt be friction, people should be confronted with the reality of their choices; long term we can't preserve their bubble of ignorance, might as well address it now

Mate, you're the one who lives in a bubble. Natural food eaters have no problem killing animals for food. We've been doing it for hundreds of millions of years and we're not going to stop now because you live in a first world country where you have time for imaginary problems.

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

#505

Post by lambdaba »

ajdegol wrote: post #481
lambdaba wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I arrived at this conclusion both from personal experience (I've tried all the apparently reasonable diets) and the scientific data. Nuts are barely digestible. Our digestive system doesn't look like a herbivore / fruit eater at all. Surely we've had some, but that's not what we're build for. I think we're like dogs, we can survive on a diversity of foods (and get sick from some of them) but we thrive on meat. That's my n=1 intimate conviction, not one I sought to arrive at, but once I had experience it there's absolutely no doubt in my mind. Naturally I sought the people that had the same experience and they do have the data and the explanations for why, but it's too lengthy to provide here, although I can give hints if you wish.

Oh and australopithecus ate meat, this goes far beyond modern humans. This is why we got smart, because intelligence pays off far more for hunting than for foraging, particularly for an otherwise frail creature.

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

#506

Post by csomar »

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…

> but the fact that we can eat something this similar to a burger but without the slaughter of living, feeling, individual being is so unbelievably important and incredible.

You know that plants are also living, feeling beings? Though not sure about being individual but that's highly subjective.

The cycle of life is that some trees harvest the sun, and then it's a fish-eat-fish kinda world.

Vegan meat is not important because it doesn't kill animals (it'll kill plants, and hence this is purely emotional/subjective). But because it could be very sustainable. There is a reason why Japanese eat vegetables, fish and pork. They have a large population on a tight island. They have to do otherwise. (they also drive very small compact cars/mini-vans).

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

#507

Post by xdennis »

dotsam wrote: post #405
doodirock wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um... Now you sound like the one who is ignorant. Not everyone thinks killing an animal for food is some terrible blight on the world. I have zero issues with it and no amount of "but they're living things and so cute" is going to change that fact. It's exactly this type of nonsense that gets people to turn away from meat like products. We don't need a lecture about sad little animals every time we order a delicious…

I think it is useful to distinguish between 'killing an animal for food' and 'rearing billions of animals each year in factories in conditions in which they suffer, and subsequently killing them for food'. Factory farmed animals does look like a terrible blight on the world to me - what makes you think it isn't?

Factory farming makes meat available to the common man. Without it only rich people could afford meat.

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

#508

Post by theshrike79 »

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.

As someone who tries to eat more vegetarian food - and is succeeding better at it every week, burgers are the only thing I use cow meat for. There just is no substitute when you want a proper burger.

I've tried portobello, chicken, pork, chickpea, you name it.

But when I want a burger, the only thing that actually works is minced cow meat - and Impossible/Beyond Burger. They're still a bit hard to get (usually sold out) and expensive, but we're getting there.

I want my children to live in a world where eating 4-legged mammals is an expensive delicacy, not an everyday occurrence or something you can get for $1 from McD.

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

#509

Post by tsimionescu »

0-_-0 wrote: post #493
tsimionescu wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not an argument that fairs well on HN in general, but the fact that we can eat something this similar to a burger but without the slaughter of living, feeling, individual being is so unbelievably important and incredible. The problem I have with this argument is that it always seems to me to focus on the life of the animal, but not on the death of the animal. All animals eventually die, and most natural dea…

I think you could make the argument that it's possible to ethically raise animals in a way where it's a good deal for both sides, as long as an animal suffers less than it would suffer in nature. If causing unnecessary suffering is unethical, then the opposite should be a moral imperative, so this simple mathematical argument leads to the conclusion that ethically raising animals should be morally superior to veganis…

I don't really find this kind of simple ethical calculus convincing, but I would say that a world where some people continue eating meat and keep raising cows, pigs, chicken, sheep, goats and other animals that would die off if they weren't consumed seems better to me than a purely 100% vegan world. On the other hand, as someone's personal choice instead of worldwide decision, I don't think it seems plausible that being vegan is "less moral" than being an ethical farmer.
Post reply on HN