111–120 of 439 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could there be? Products like Beyond Meat are barely a decade old.
So if we don't know its longterm health effects, why are people so eager to replace meat with it in their diet?
And it's not like the standard american diet has been doing a lot of favors for most people's health.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I think I overcooked my Impossible burger as well. It did smell and taste like meat. However it didn't smell or taste like a burger. It smelled and tasted just like Spam. I love Spam, but it's not a hamburger. I'm hoping that this is just due to cooking improperly.
Sounds like maybe you're referring to Beyond Burger, not Impossible Burger? Impossible Burger isn't available in grocery stores yet, and Beyond has sort of a spammy taste to it that Impossible doesn't have (from my perception).
I have a stupid question: was there a regulatory change in the recent past that made it easier to file for IPOs? Or is this just a coincidence that all these S-1s were filed around the same time?
I think it'll be a fun project to scrape the data and create some visualizations with it. Look out for a Show HN from me if you're interested!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm the first one to admit that the line is fuzzy. I read this story [1] by Glenn Greenwald (of Snowden interview fame), and I realized that I was not ok with gestation crates for pigs, or the practices espoused by the industrial farming of any animal. I do not object to raising animals and eating them, but I do object to essentially keeping them in brutal, squalid conditions. Animals should have access to the outdoo…
That theoretical distinction makes sense to me, but I don't see how it would be possible to support one kind of animal agriculture and not the other with purchasing habits. When most consumers don't distinguish provenance, demand for animal products is fungible.
Find a local farmer and source a whole animal to split with your friends. Visit the farm, meet the farmer. A whole beef is a few thousand dollars, and splits nicely into 8ths. We spent, I believe, ~$6.50/lb for organic, grass fed beef.
It's more time and cost up front, but now we have a freezer full of meat to draw from when we need to. If I eat meat, it's from that one animal. We don't eat meat often at home.
Anecdotally seems like impossible burger has been more commercially successful
There's definitely a bit of an arms race going on, and it's unfortunate. I find both products to be very different, and we could stand to have some diversity in the area of alternative meat products. Off the top of my head, in terms of commercial availability I've seen them at: Beyond: - Safeway (both meat patties, and frozen boxed crumbles) - Del Taco - Carls Jr. - Veggie Grill Impossible: - Umami Burger - White Cas…
I don't follow, how is competition bad in this case? Sounds like the opposite to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could there be? Products like Beyond Meat are barely a decade old.
So if we don't know its longterm health effects, why are people so eager to replace meat with it in their diet?
taste, environmental well being, anti-cruelty are all potential inputs into the question "should i try a meatless alternative", and i'm sure there are others
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the animal is free from suffering, including lacking awareness of what's happening during the killing, that's as free from cruelty as you can get. If lacking life is what's cruel, then vegetarianism doesn't really solve that problem, since the animal would never be born without farming.
> If lacking life is what's cruel Nobody's arguing this, are they? If you do believe this, then I hope you're breeding rats, rabbits, and insects as fast as possible!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>free from cruelty. Do you mind if I ask what your requirements for this are? At the end of the day, isn't ending life cruel, no matter the means?
Not sure what OPs requirements are, but mine are along these lines: "If animals like free-range cows have lives that are not worth living, almost all wild animals could plausibly be thought to also have lives that are worse than non-existence. Nature is often romanticised as a well-balanced idyll, so this may seem counter-intuitive. But extreme forms of suffering like starvation, dehydration, or being eaten alive by…
I think this is more an argument for an eventual plan to deal with wild animal suffering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_animal_suffering), not an argument that whatever we do to free-range animals is acceptable because it's no worse than the suffering wild animals experience. Of course it's not very pragmatic for humanity to make a dent in that problem in the near future, especially without causing externalities, but just because it's hard doesn't mean the alternative is to say "they all have shit lives anyway, who cares what we do with them?"
I've gone vegetarian, except for a single grass fed animal I bought from a local farmer. (I live in a city, it was easier than I thought it would be to connect with a farmer out in the rural part of my state.) The transition was way, way easier than I thought it was going to be. I didn't guilt myself when I made mistakes, just stopped eating meat unless I was sure the provenance of it was sustainable and free from cr…
"Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in: at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein" http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-ther...
First, it's highly specific to Australia, where the impact of Eurasian cereal farming is profoundly negative, because they're nothing like the native grasses. That could probably be mitigated by not growing Eurasian grains in giant monoculture farms, in favor of edible native crops. There are something like 6,000 native plants in Australia that are edible by humans; very few of them are farmed commercially or have even been thoroughly investigated for that purpose.
Also, it then goes on to say "If more Australians want their nutritional needs to be met by plants, our arable land will need to be even more intensely farmed." This is a very questionable assumption. Generally switching from commercially-raised meat to a plant-based diet results in a lower food-crop consumption profile. This is because meat animals are frequently raised, or at least fattened during the terminal months of their lives, on human-edible crops (in the US it's almost solely corn).
Anyway, I get the impression that article is someone playing devil's advocate / provocateur, which is not something I have a lot of time for. There are lots of solid, peer-reviewed articles [1] investigating the ecological impact of plant vs. meat-based diets; there is a wide consensus that plant-based diets are significantly more sustainable. There are probably places on earth where that's not true, and perhaps Australia is one of them, but it's not broadly true for most of the planet.
[1]: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/660S/4690010