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

611–620 of 794 posts

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

#611

Post by potatoman22 »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #607
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 Isn’t this disingenuous because the endgame will be the genocide of almost all farm animals. If they’re so environmentally unfriendly, can’t look after themselves, serve no purpose because they’re no longer food then why would we let them live and continue to breed them. So there will still be some final suffering until we remove these species from the ear…

Eating plant based meat won’t cause the genocide of farm animals. Quite the opposite, actually.

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

#612

Post by Thorentis »

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…

Where do you draw the line between animals and plants? Plants are a form of life. Is it the pain? What is it about animal pain that is morally objectionable? Because humans can feel pain too, therefore animal pain is also bad? Assuming we grant that, what if animals were put to sleep before being killed? Does that then make it okay? I find the whole "violence against animals" argument to be incredibly hand-wavy and without substance.

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

#613

Post by markonen »

koheripbal wrote: post #521
markonen wrote: post #299

The local burger joint closest to my house is 100% vegan and uses Beyond patties. It’s also, in my opinion, the best burger in town. I’m a carnivore and would definitely notice the difference in a Pepsi challenge of the patties themselves, but the overall taste and presentation make this place pull ahead of all the meat-based alternatives. I feel like we’ve crossed a threshold. This was literal sci-fi just a couple o…

I really wonder if there are special cooking instructions to make them that might be causing so many restaurants to pull them off the menu. I've tried several Beyond burgers at various restaurants, and all of them were the worst burgers I've ever had. Dry, tasteless, and chewy - absolutely nothing like real meat. Do a degree that I question if they're all being prepared wrong.

Yeah, that doesn't sound like my experience at all (which is limited to this one place). If anything, the burgers I like are less dry and less chewy than the beef-based competition.

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

#614

Post by whywhywhywhy »

kmonsen wrote: post #150
sweetheart wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how burgers taste, so I want to eat them. But I don't want an animal to experience horrific treatment and slaughter just for the taste, so I seek it out in plants. That makes sense, no? I can like the salty, fat taste but opt-out of the subjugation and slaughter of another being.

I’m exactly like you, I love the taste of meat and I love animals. Whenever it is an option I choose beyond/impossible meat. That means virtually no one has to die for me that day.

What happens to the animals if all meat becomes beyond?

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

#615

Post by zx14 »

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…

> Maybe you think the burger tastes different, or has a strange texture, but I certainly won't try to argue that because it doesn't matter.

Maybe to you it doesn't matter.

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

#616

Post by bronzeage »

Most estimates of greenhouse gas emissions are misleading. Cows might emit methane and co2, but that carbon came from their food, and that carbon in their food was captured from the air, so it's actually a cycle without net increase in carbon in the air. That's unlike fossil fuels, which bring carbon from the ground into the air and actually increase the carbon in the air in the process. The only real net emissions in the process of creating beef are the fossil fuels burned in the process, from transportation.

This distinction between real carbon emission, and carbon cycle is important because there's misguided notion of how much of a real difference it would make if people stopped eating meat. The decrease in emissions will be offset by a decrease in carbon capture from their food, and the net difference will be much less than assumed.

Moreover, if the process of creating meat replacements requires more fossil fuels to be burned than the natural process of growing food and feeding cattle, it might be that alternative meats are detrimental to the environment. I haven't seen a fair comparison of the net emissions of the whole process, they always count the cows farts without discounting for the carbon capture while growing their food.

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

#617

Post by v77 »

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…

Canada just added an explicit recognition of grazing land into our carbon tax program for just this reason. Not only are pastures incredibly better for native plant/animal conservation (in North America) than crop fields but native grasslands are also incredible carbon sinks:

https://www.canadiancattlemen.ca/news/forage-program-aims-to...

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

#618

Post by louthy »

medstrom wrote: post #488
toper-centage wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

From what I understand grain used for animal feed is of a poorer quality and can't be used to make bread. And so it's essentially a waste product (usually because of rain just before a harvest).

I won't claim to be an expert, this information was given to me by an arable farmer friend of mine.

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

#619

Post by bavell »

atweiden wrote: post #292
tomcam wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel you. I stopped eating meat for 40 years for the same reason. But... they are on the same food chain we are, and they’d eat us in a heartbeat, right?

> I feel you. I stopped eating meat for 40 years for the same reason. But... they are on the same food chain we are, and they’d eat us in a heartbeat, right? Herbivorous ruminants like cows would never eat you, and would generally never harm you unless provoked. Breeding intelligent lifeforms in a bespoke way to murder them for cash — whatever the reason or creature involved — is diabolically evil. If you do this for…

Farmers raising livestock are diabolically evil merchants of death? I usually reserve that level of vitriol for the military industrial complex, global arms dealers, etc... not a family with some cows...

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

#620

Post by wffurr »

bronzeage wrote: post #616

Most estimates of greenhouse gas emissions are misleading. Cows might emit methane and co2, but that carbon came from their food, and that carbon in their food was captured from the air, so it's actually a cycle without net increase in carbon in the air. That's unlike fossil fuels, which bring carbon from the ground into the air and actually increase the carbon in the air in the process. The only real net emissions i…

>> The only real net emissions in the process of creating beef are the fossil fuels burned in the process, from transportation

I think you are drastically oversimplifying the carbon impact of modern agriculture. Artificial fertilizer production, irrigation, mechanized farm equipment all substantially contribute to CO2 emissions and other serious environmental impacts.

Edit: Reading the EPA report, the sources I mentioned aren't even in the top 3: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis....

Soil management practices (aka tilling) causing N2O release, digestive methane from cattle, methane, and methane and N2O from manure handling. Fertilizer was lumped in with crop residue burning and rice cultivation in 4th place.

Two of the top three are directly related to animal husbandry, and the rest are heavily impacted by the vast amount of land used to grow feed for cattle in feedlots instead of directly feeding people.

Post reply on HN