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

551–560 of 794 posts

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

#551

Post by greshario »

entropyie wrote: post #546
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…

Irish person here with a couple of random facts: - Ireland is one of the larger per-capita beef producing countries - Beef lobby is quite powerful - Our local Chipper / Take Away / "Fish & Chips" shop sells Beyond Meat burgers - As a meat eater who grew up on a beef farm, I can say they look and taste amazingly good... 95% as good as a real burger. Most cattle are treated well in Ireland, living outside on fresh gras…

Cattle are treated well in Ireland, and sheep too (comparatively). However, pigs and chickens are treated terribly, and we have a total cultural blindspot to it. We have nothing to be proud of when it comes to animal welfare.

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

#552

Post by roenxi »

dotsam wrote: post #483
roenxi wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prefer…

The compromise position then would be to breed them so they didn't suffer. It'd probably be good for the meat quality too.

The idea there is a moral issue here is suspect. It is obvious I, personally, don't want to be factory farmed. It isn't obvious that factory farming is a moral problem.

It is all moot anyway, vat-grown meat is going to be more hygienic, cheaper and all-round better once they work out the kinks. But it might result in the near or total extinction of cattle.

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

#553

Post by roenxi »

arrrg wrote: post #550
roenxi wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can you tell me what exactly I missed? The pill prevents millions of humans from existing and I just cannot for the life of me see any ethical issue with that.

I did, that was what I said in the comment. There isn't an issue with a pill preventing millions of humans existing. And that is worse than factory farming, because it affects humans. Ergo factory farming isn't a moral issue.

With some tweaks to taste, that is the argument you are responding to. The bit after the "because" depends on the person's moral framework.

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

#554

Post by cubesmarching »

dalmo3 wrote: post #548
cubesmarching wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All humans eventually die, and most natural deaths are far more horrifying than how we would be able to murder other humans, especially in modern times (though even traditional slaughter is nothing compared to dying of cancer, stroke, being murdered in a car crash, etc.) So, I think that it is important how the humans are grown (prisons are absolutely horrible, unacceptable places to live in, and should ideally becom…

Now do one for plants.

Plants are not conscious and do not feel pain. But even if your argument is in good faith and you genuinely believe that the plight of plants is equivalent to the suffering of animals, then that is still an argument for veganism, as producing a kilo of animal flesh requires several kilos of plant matter, thus increasing the total amount of suffering relative to simply eating plants directly.

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

#555

Post by hermannj314 »

I have tried Beyond Meat. My concern is changing my diet to lock in with a single vendor selling a patented food product with 30%+ margins.

Is there a reason this amazing, world-changing, sustainable product isn't being sold at a reasonable or better price than ground beef? Tyson operates at 13% margin. Ground beef is 25% cheaper than Beyond.

Compete on price and I will buy it; pretty simple. Otherwise, this all feels like marketing propagande to convince us to overpay to line the pocket of a greedy industrial food manufacturer.

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

#556

Post by cies »

cameronh90 wrote: post #525
cies wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I admire vegetarians for their genuinely caring moral position Actually vegetarians follow a diet along traditional lines (dairy okay, meat nay), they are not so much into moral positioning. Vegans are the ones making an ethical stance: "no animals harmed for me whenever I have the choice" Hence vegans dont wear wool/silk/leather, dont go to zoos/animal races, and dont consume eggs/dairy.

As a vegetarian maybe I can provide some insight to my position. The reason I consume dairy and eggs is because I think that fundamentally dairy and egg (honey too) production CAN be ethical, whereas I think intentionally killing an animal for food can never be ethical. I'm aware not everyone shares the same opinion - but for me, killing a conscious being for food is not something I want a part in, even if it had a g…

Not to be condescending, but I practiced the exact same mental gymnastics for many years. I used the exact same reasoning ("can be ethical"). I also did select organic/etc eggs and dairy.

Buttt... This lead to people believe that I was okay with dairy/eggs, and when others picked for me I had a hard time rejecting.

And dairy and egg producing animals are hurt big time: children taken away, caged, slaughtered, selectively bread to have unnatural bodies (hen only lay ~12 eggs per year in nature vs. 300+ for domesticated variants). This is maybe worse than wild animals being killed.

After 12+ year vegetarian I went vegan 7+ years ago. I regret not doing so earlier.

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

#557

Post by throwaway81523 »

batiudrami wrote: post #97
wyager wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I assign pretty significant utilitarian value to "stop eating animals", it still falls a few orders of magnitude short of "provide for the health and wellbeing of humans". We are, at the very least, decades away from having a complete enough understanding of nutrition to safely replace the nutritional value of beef with a substitute fake beef product. Once we accomplish that, there are some second-order effects…

As far as I understand it you can have a perfectly suitable vegetarian diet without much effort (note: vegan is trickier and very hard for babies). If you want to maintain your current meat/“meat” consumption then we are still many years off lab meat being cheap and accessible enough yes. The intent of beyond burger, I think, is not to be a meat substitute every time you would currently eat meat, but instead a nice t…

I haven't tried any of these beyond burger things yet. I probably will sometime but I'm squeamish about the concept. It makes me think of Soylent Green or weird funguses or whatever.

It's simpler to just use normal ingredients without meat. Corn and beans is a tasty combo that's ridiculously easy to make with an instant pot (electric pressure cooker) and the plants combine to give you complete protein. Dump a cup of dry beans into the pot (20 pound bag from Costco is about 20 bucks and keeps forever), cover with water, close lid and press the "beans" button, and go back to whatever you were doing on your computer. About 40 minutes later (they go by fast since you are paying zero attention to the cooking) there are some loud beeps. Let out the pressure, dump in a can of corn and maybe some spicy pasta sauce, stir and serve. Or do similar with rice instead of corn, add some green vegetables, etc.

The above is quite a filling vegan main course for about $1 per person. No need for techno burgers of insect fritters or any of that weirdness. The instant pot is a life changer-- even more useful than a microwave imho.

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

#558

Post by georgeek »

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…

Burgers and sausages are some of the most detached ways to eat meat. While a steak has bones, a burger is much more abstract. There is probably a good anthropological theory behind this.

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

#559

Post by open0 »

lambdaba wrote: post #387
toper-centage wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, do you have more on thst "seed oils are toxic"? Literally never heard about that.

See this for the example https://youtu.be/ZdhywL6icZU There is a ton of info, just look around. Also, what is the common ingredient in all processed foods? This is what is making people fat. Omega-6 integrates in body fat, easily oxidized and unstable, rendering our own fat inaccessible for energy, so we're chronically hungry, tired, and inflamed. Than add in sugar and salt for hyperpalability. We've been hacked. See…

Chia and flax seeds are some of the best sources of Omega-3s...

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

#560

Post by knuthsat »

lambdaba wrote: post #387
toper-centage wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, do you have more on thst "seed oils are toxic"? Literally never heard about that.

See this for the example https://youtu.be/ZdhywL6icZU There is a ton of info, just look around. Also, what is the common ingredient in all processed foods? This is what is making people fat. Omega-6 integrates in body fat, easily oxidized and unstable, rendering our own fat inaccessible for energy, so we're chronically hungry, tired, and inflamed. Than add in sugar and salt for hyperpalability. We've been hacked. See…

Just like meat is not toxic, neither is seed oil. I've been eating large amounts (~1000kcal a day) of flaxseed oil, olive oil, pumpkin seed oil, coconut oil and there has been no ill-effect on my cardiovascular or general health at all, after years of doing that.

This orthorexic behavior by labeling certain foods as unhealthy or healthy is the real problem.

Any kind of diet needs to be accompanied by a proper lifestyle. Eating a high calorie diet and then not having any physical activity is just asking for a bunch of metabolic issues.

Particular food item is not healthy or unhealthy, toxic or rejuvenating. It's the lifestyle+diet that can be labeled as healthy/unhealthy.

Post reply on HN