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

511–520 of 794 posts

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

#511

Post by edenhyacinth »

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 agree - I definitely think that how we treat deer in the UK as a food source and as a wild population is a sensible way of 'farming' animals.

My only concern is with domesticated stock. Cows couldn't possibly survive in nature, and would suffer greatly, for example. If we're concerned with raising animals for food that also live enriched lives, do we also have an obligation to breed them in ways that enrich them?

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

#512

Post by ChrisRR »

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.

Because it's easier to convince people to take on more vegetarian foods if you can provide a good alternative to foods they already eat.

Let's be honest, most people aren't going to become vegetarian, but a lot of people will happily eat more vegetarian foods if it's available.

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

#513

Post by xdennis »

shawnb576 wrote: post #171
ipaddr wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we need to eat many pounds of cow. Or many more pounds of plants to generate a pound.

Plants to animal to you is 10% efficiency. That cow needs to eat 10 lbs of plant to get the nutrients you’d get from 1 lb.

People don't eat efficiency. They want nutritious and delicious food. No one's mouth waters over kale.

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

#514

Post by dvko »

Honestly flabbergasted by the amount of ignorance in this thread, it was definitely not what I expected from the Hacker News crowd.

- Cattle does not eat soy byproducts and soy production is definitely not driven by human consumption. Not by value, not by mass. [1]

- Bison herds did not produce as much methane as today's cattle. [2]

- Cattle does not strictly use land unsuitable for growing crops. Also, this completely ignores any other unwanted effects of having too much cattle (in one area). [3]

- Meat is not always healthier than "processed foods", whatever the latter may actually mean.

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

2: https://mrdrscienceteacher.wordpress.com/2019/09/21/bison-vs...

3: https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/f/8/f/86d216c6-5b3c-4058-acb3-5...

When looking for facts on any of this, try to look for scientific papers instead of videos or blogs and do look-up the individual researchers and whom they work for. There's too much at stake here for the companies trying to sow doubt, as evidenced by some of the things I read here.

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

#515

Post by lambdaba »

jacobmischka wrote: post #487
lambdaba wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem today is not an unlimited supply of meat (for most of the world) but an unlimited supply of sugar and seed oils. And the super / unnaturally sweet fruit, this is what's hacking us.

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

#516

Post by koheripbal »

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…

The extension of this argument exposes the absurdity, as it would imply that we go out and domesticate nature. Stop lions from killing their prey in the Savannah, etc... and convert them to a vegetarian diet.

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

#517

Post by tsimionescu »

birksherty wrote: post #416
tomcam wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... look up things like “cow eating chicken” or “deer eating bird” on YouTube. Not saying it’s common, but “never” is perhaps too strong a word. And of course I really meant it in a larger sense, not the direct ruminant/person relationship.

Those are exceptions, should not change view based on that. No animal can harm humans like we do others.

There are animals that harm humans (and other animals) in much worse ways, most notably parasites.

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

#518

Post by xdennis »

sweetheart wrote: post #188
pmorici wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your view on lions, tigers, bears and other meat eating species?

If they ever have the option to live full, healthy lives without eating other animals, I'll hold them to the same standard.

At this point I can't tell if you're a parody account or not but I'll bite: how exactly do you plan on forcing omnivorous animals (bears, etc) from eating meat?

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

#519

Post by ownagefool »

tsimionescu wrote: post #492
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 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 the original argument is a good one, but lets try another.

If we had fully lab grown meat that was identical to the real thing. How many of us would convert? In theory, we all would.

In reality, we still covet mined diamonds, so we'll probably still irrationaly claim there's a difference long after there really is.

Post reply on HN