Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Beyond Meat fights for survival

foodinstitute.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 645 posts

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#281

Post by spwa4 »

ben_w wrote: post #215
kikokikokiko wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the one the aztecs regularly unleashed upon their neighbors? Or any pre-colonial tribe in the Americas or Africa (in this case up until this day really). What did the Romans brought us really?

> What did the Romans brought us really? War, pestilence, famine, and death. An excuse like "everyone else was doing it!" only goes as far as making my ancestors "not spectacularly evil ", it definitely does not make them " good ". The railways are in the plus column, but would you accept your country being taken over by several different groups of aliens who draw random-seeming lines on the maps that even split up y…

The implication of this statement is probably supposed to be that it's the west that did that. However, colonialism never conquered Africa. They took over Ottoman/muslim colonies. Muslims, and by that I mean the now dead state that is the religion, conquered 90% of the colonies, and inherited the remaining 10% from the Romans. The only big exception to that is the US.

In America, before the US there were Aztecs and Incas, both of whom were empires that ruled by fear, by regularly massacring large amounts of people.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#282

Post by spwa4 »

throwaway7783 wrote: post #273
kikokikokiko wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the one the aztecs regularly unleashed upon their neighbors? Or any pre-colonial tribe in the Americas or Africa (in this case up until this day really). What did the Romans brought us really?

By this logic all wars are justifiable. What a take!

I'm not sure how that justifies war. It just means that the outcome of a war can be better than if there never was a war. Obviously both sides in any given war believe that. Ask a few Ukrainians how that works, they can explain.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#283

Post by Marsymars »

encom wrote: post #209
submeta wrote: post #100

The hidden message of the title: Plant based alternatives may not succeed. I don’t believe that. I rather see more and more friends and people avoid eating meat or reduce their consumption drastically. Many buy plant based alternatives to milk as well. Twenty years ago only a few people would ask for oat/soy milk when ordering a coffee. But these days many do. I have been eating plant based meat alternatives for four…

[flagged]

I live somewhere not especially urban/progressive, and I’ve never even heard of this “forced veganism meme” that you reference.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#284

Post by spwa4 »

guerrilla wrote: post #223
kikokikokiko wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the one the aztecs regularly unleashed upon their neighbors? Or any pre-colonial tribe in the Americas or Africa (in this case up until this day really). What did the Romans brought us really?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

When there's only 2 things, only 2 wrongs, one wrong is the best available moral choice, and therefore the moral choice.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#285

Post by UltraSane »

jebarker wrote: post #262
bartread wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this as well: > The company expects the figure to reach about $330 million in 2025, roughly 10% higher than it was six years earlier despite a huge increase in the number of products offered. It’s not like they have any growth potential to speak of that would enable them to service that debt. It’s a bit hard to see who their target market is or, rather, it’s a bit hard to see that the market segment they’re aimin…

I would guess the primary target market is ex meat eaters that are trying to go vegetarian but have been raised to enjoy the taste/texture of meat. I am in this group. I agree it’s not a very large market for the reasons you stated above. However, maybe BM hoped they could grow that market, I.e. convince more meat eaters to give it up for ethical reasons.

"raised to enjoy the taste/texture of meat"

Humans have evolved to enjoy the taste/texture/smell of cooked meat

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#286

Post by UltraSane »

Lord-Jobo wrote: post #278
jebarker wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess the primary target market is ex meat eaters that are trying to go vegetarian but have been raised to enjoy the taste/texture of meat. I am in this group. I agree it’s not a very large market for the reasons you stated above. However, maybe BM hoped they could grow that market, I.e. convince more meat eaters to give it up for ethical reasons.

I am in a similar group; the mostly-vegetarian. Chicken when I don't have a real choice, red meat at a wedding like once a year or something. I like beyond meat products, the price is obviously a problem but they go on sale locally frequently enough to be a good substitute for us. Something about them I HATE though is that they have two burger products that are extremely similar with one main difference: product A is…

Same. Chicken, eggs, and yogurt are the only animal products I consume regularly.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#287

Post by rebeccaskinner »

submeta wrote: post #100

The hidden message of the title: Plant based alternatives may not succeed. I don’t believe that. I rather see more and more friends and people avoid eating meat or reduce their consumption drastically. Many buy plant based alternatives to milk as well. Twenty years ago only a few people would ask for oat/soy milk when ordering a coffee. But these days many do. I have been eating plant based meat alternatives for four…

The biggest issue to me is that beyond and impossible aren’t just making replacements that are worse than meat, they are making things that are worse than the alternatives we already had.

A beyond burger might be more like meat than a patty made from beans or lentils, but it tastes worse and has a worse nutritional profile. Beyond chicken isn’t even all that similar to chicken and it’s a worse substitute than seitan for something like wings.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#288

Post by albedoa »

vmg12 wrote: post #252
thoroughburro wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By “processes food hysteria stuff”, do you mean “the growing research consensus around ultra-processed foods”?

A category that includes both twinkies and whey protein powder doesn't seem that useful.

Do you think that the poster who used the phrase "processes food hysteria stuff" unprompted is intending to make a statement about the broadness or usefulness of the category.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#289

Post by square_usual »

druskacik wrote: post #275
vmg12 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A category that includes both twinkies and whey protein powder doesn't seem that useful.

The rule of thumb is that the ultra-processed food should not account for a too large part of your diet. The protein powder is usually taken as a supplement and in small quantities, as opposed to food like twinkies people can easily overeat on. But try to make protein powder 80% of your protein intake and see how you'll feel in a week.

> But try to make protein powder 80% of your protein intake and see how you'll feel in a week.

What? I've had >100g of protein from whey protein shakes every day for months now. I don't know what you're trying to imply.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#290

Post by lazylizard »

i cannot understand the urge to compete with the pig or cow or chicken (especially) for meat production. they are so good at turning feed into meat.

why not plant based lobster, crab, sea cucumber or sea urchin or sharks fin or something similar. that is unproductive? or impossible to farm? and perhaps even endangered? something that plant based processes are closer to competing on price.

Post reply on HN