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

381–390 of 645 posts

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#381

Post by wizzwizz4 »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #240
ayuhito wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Chemicals” are overused as a term for sure, but there is a huge difference between what’s legal in America and Europe that brings a shred of truth to the previous statements. For example, common ingredients like potassium bromate or ADA are straight up banned in the EU for health concerns. Reading the ingredient list of American bread is plain shocking at times.

And there are a handful of chemicals banned in the US for health concerns that the EU is fine with.

Individual cases are interesting. For example, Wikipedia says this of E122:

> In the US, this color was listed in 1939 as Ext. D&C Red No. 10 for use in externally applied drugs and cosmetics. It was delisted in 1963 because no party was interested in supporting the studies needed to establish safety. It was not used in food in the US.

> Azorubine has shown no evidence of mutagenic or carcinogenic properties and an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0–4 mg/kg was established in 1983 by the WHO.

Wikipedia's article on E180 is a stub. Wikipedia's article on E105 says it's now banned in both the US and EU, but it doesn't say when it was banned: did the US ever approve it?

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#382

Post by pdpi »

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…

More like "hyper-processed plant-based faux-meat may not succeed".

Beyond Meat's problem is that they're catering to a tiny, highly-specific niche: people not willing to eat meat but are willing to pay through the nose for hyper-processed fake meat. So their audience is:

1. Vegan or vegetarian 2. Fairly well-off 3. Willing to consume highly-processed foods. 4. Craving a beef burger

This is all sorts of problematic as a combination.

First off, people who have stopped eating red meat (even if they haven't gone vegetarian) tend to really not enjoy the smell of beef, so their craving for a beef burger is under question from the get-go. Second, many vegetarians/vegans made that choice for health reasons (rather than ethical reasons), so "highly processed foods" are a no-go. Once you've cut out those two groups, you only get to keep the wealthier people of the leftovers.

Honestly, as a meat eater who loves vegetarian food, I just don't understand the appeal of fake meat like this. Give me a chana masala or a dal dish instead, any day of the week.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#383

Post by 9dev »

scythmic_waves wrote: post #329
evrimoztamur wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides ultra-processed foods 'hysteria,' basic ratios I consider here are: - protein to fat (which is roughly 1.4 in Beyond Meat (20g protein / 14g fat in 100g) versus 2.5-3.5 in beef (30±5g protein / 12.5±2.5g fat in 100g)) - protein to mass (20% vs ~30%) - micro-nutrients to mass (a very wide variety of minerals, vitamins, and other unknown nutrients present in beef) - carbohydrates (not present in substantial amo…

Thanks for breaking that down. As someone doing weightlifting, this is the primary reason I don't bother with vegetarian meats. They actually taste pretty good IMO, but they don't offer nutritional benefits commensurate with animal meat. It's a shame, really. I'd gladly incorporate them if I could get a similar protein : calorie ratio.

There’s very successful vegan lifters and athletes, though. It’s absolutely possible to thrive without meat and dairy products.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#384

Post by null0ranje »

kaladin-jasnah wrote: post #362
makingstuffs wrote: post #129

The problem with Beyond Meat is that it is insanely expensive. I could buy a free range, organic and grass fed beef burger for the price of their ultra processed burger. Don’t get me wrong, as a vegetarian, I think they taste nice. They are just too damn expensive and not particularly healthy which goes against why I am a vegetarian. In Europe we have so many alternatives that are insanely cheaper and, as an Indian,…

The company's products in my and other people's views have caused a significant wane in vegetarian and vegan burger diversity. Gone are the chickpea and black bean burgers on menus—your only choice is Beyond Meat-esque burgers. As someone who doesn't actually really like how Beyond Meat tastes, it's unfortunate that it's the only option sometimes. As someone who likes food variety and practically needs it, eliminatin…

Ive never understood the drive to make meat substitutes instead of celebrating vegetarian cuisine. I’m not a vegetarian, but if I eat some dish that is vegetarian, why wouldn’t I want to celebrate the vegetable itself made from instead of trying to make some fake meat that never quite hits the mark?

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#385

Post by cj »

scythmic_waves wrote: post #329
evrimoztamur wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides ultra-processed foods 'hysteria,' basic ratios I consider here are: - protein to fat (which is roughly 1.4 in Beyond Meat (20g protein / 14g fat in 100g) versus 2.5-3.5 in beef (30±5g protein / 12.5±2.5g fat in 100g)) - protein to mass (20% vs ~30%) - micro-nutrients to mass (a very wide variety of minerals, vitamins, and other unknown nutrients present in beef) - carbohydrates (not present in substantial amo…

Thanks for breaking that down. As someone doing weightlifting, this is the primary reason I don't bother with vegetarian meats. They actually taste pretty good IMO, but they don't offer nutritional benefits commensurate with animal meat. It's a shame, really. I'd gladly incorporate them if I could get a similar protein : calorie ratio.

I dunno. I track macros religiously with daily protein/fat/carb targets for weight lifting.

I don't care much about the macros of each individual meal (or any individual ingredient). When dinner comes around, I'm cooking whatever meal will let me hit my targets for the day. If I already got most my protein in, I'll happily eat something with "bad" protein/calorie ratio.

Granted, 99% of people don't track food intake, so yea, probably makes sense to optimize food nutrition for the average person eating an average meal looking for an average balance of macros on a per-meal basis.

I guess my point is there's a time and place for virtually all foods (including junk food... bodybuilders regularly snack on things like sour patch kids during workouts).

Critiquing beyond burgers for their macro breakdown doesn't make sense to me. But criticisms around the level of processing is 100% valid IMO. The last package I opened up quite literally smelled like dog food.

Edit: Also FWIW, I'm a vegetarian (although eat meat maybe once every 1-2 weeks, sometimes beef). Despite that, I'm easily able to get 200+ grams of protein a day. If I took protein powder out of my diet completely, I'd still be able to hit 150g/day at least without really trying.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#386

Post by bastawhiz »

qmmmur wrote: post #12
bastawhiz wrote: post #6

I feel like I'm the ideal customer for Beyond Meat and its competitors. I am not price sensitive, I don't mind the idea of plant based meat products, and I am willing to try new things. My biggest reasons for not buying Beyond Meat are that I: 1. Would rather not cook, and eating Beyond Meat in a way that's financially meaningful for them as a company means me cooking 2. If I'm going to put in the effort to cook, I w…

For your own health, I implore you to explore even the most basic of cooking.

I do cook, I didn't say that I don't. My point is that if I'm going to pay a premium for a main ingredient and go through the effort of cooking it, I do not want it to be mediocre at best. Beyond Meat, imo, just isn't a more pleasing option, and the only reasons that I can see to choose it are:

1. You really like meat but have reasons to avoid it.

2. You want to broaden the diversity of foods in your exclusively plant based diet.

And that's not me. And probably not very many other people, either.

Hell, I buy a lot of vegetarian meals that require a fair amount of preparation. But they're not meat substitutes, because if I'm optimizing for enjoyment, I'm buying something that tastes good on its own rather than mimicking something that tastes good.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#387

Post by 9dev »

spwa4 wrote: post #158
globular-toast wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really a problem with Beyond Meat or a problem with our policies not correctly pricing meat due to not caring about the environment or animal welfare?

A lot of people would say it is a problem with making the entire population pay for the moral preferences of a few.

While the entire population externalises the negative effects of their diet on the rest of the world. If you’d sit alone on that branch you’re sawing off, I’d say good riddance! But unfortunately, you’re destroying this marvellous spaceship we all depend on, just for a little convenience.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#388

Post by seanmcdirmid »

pdpi wrote: post #382
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…

More like "hyper-processed plant-based faux-meat may not succeed". Beyond Meat's problem is that they're catering to a tiny, highly-specific niche: people not willing to eat meat but are willing to pay through the nose for hyper-processed fake meat. So their audience is: 1. Vegan or vegetarian 2. Fairly well-off 3. Willing to consume highly-processed foods. 4. Craving a beef burger This is all sorts of problematic as…

There are lots of high end vegetarian restaurants in Beijing that focus on fake meat. Pure Lotus is a famous one, that goes over the top on everything. I don’t really get the appeal, I would rather have more vegetarian-honest dishes at a veg place (I’m not a vegetarian)

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#389

Post by santoshalper »

null0ranje wrote: post #384
kaladin-jasnah wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company's products in my and other people's views have caused a significant wane in vegetarian and vegan burger diversity. Gone are the chickpea and black bean burgers on menus—your only choice is Beyond Meat-esque burgers. As someone who doesn't actually really like how Beyond Meat tastes, it's unfortunate that it's the only option sometimes. As someone who likes food variety and practically needs it, eliminatin…

Ive never understood the drive to make meat substitutes instead of celebrating vegetarian cuisine. I’m not a vegetarian, but if I eat some dish that is vegetarian, why wouldn’t I want to celebrate the vegetable itself made from instead of trying to make some fake meat that never quite hits the mark?

I think the idea was that Beyond Meat would be a "transitional" product that would provide an ever growing vegetarian/vegan population an option that was familiar to them. For example, if you do not care about celebrating vegetables, and just want to end animal cruelty, but you miss the taste of meat, then a beyond burger was supposed to be for you.

The biggest problem they have is the exhorbinant prices, which relegate it to niche status.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#390

Post by santoshalper »

itsoktocry wrote: post #322
hellcow wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'we can do it and it may get more people to eat vegetarian.' That's a noble goal in and of itself. Every step to reduce environmental impact and animal cruelty has value. Beyond and Impossible were my "off-ramp" from eating meat every meal to exploring vegetarianism and veganism. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

If you're going to eat vegetarian, eat vegetarian. There are lots of foods out there. The idea that normal, healthy people are going to eat ultra processed vegetarian slop so they can pretend they are eating meat was never going to work.

Well, they do have $330M in revenue and the product is all over the place, so I'm not sure your hypothesis is correct. Many people simply don't share your view "if you're going to eat vegetarian, eat vegetarian". I think the biggest problem is that they have not been able to get cost under control.
Post reply on HN