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

Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 114 posts

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#21

Post by perfunctory »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #18

My wife and I really enjoy both IF and BM burgers - just be sure to not overlook them! They do contain a lot of fat from vegetable oil but they are very low in cholesterol. I will trade more sodium for the advantages for me of reducing cholesterol. They really taste good. We like them on good rolls, purple onion, tomato, lettuce, and whatever sauce we feel like. Fantastic tasting burgers. There is also the advantages…

I didn't do any history research on the subject but my own conspiracy theory suggests that the whole "humans have soul, animals don't" thing was invented to justify the natural world destruction.

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#22

Post by leot »

bambax wrote: post #10

> Nutrition is a major reason that people are giving plant-based burger a try Not really sure about that. Current meat "production" involves destroying the planet at an accelerated pace while treating animals in the most horrible way imaginable (and even beyond imagination).

Excellent example of strawman click-bait:

1 take a newsy subject involving something many people like 2 choose an aspect of it about which to adopt the "sober skeptic" stance 3 write the article as though this aspect is the only part of the newsy subject that's worth discussing

The move made in 3 is the trick. It's at least disingenuous, and may even be cynically mercenary.

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#24

Post by captainredbeard »

nextstep wrote: post #5

Veganism is not a health choice for most vegans, it’s an ethical one. Plant-based foods use fewer resources per calorie and do not require cruel treatment of animals.

If you let ruminant livestock graze in a carefully managed pattern instead of feeding them grain (grown and transported from miles away), it improves the land and reduces the amount of pollution:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

Cattle are not very efficient at converting grain to protein. It’s about 7:1. Pork is 2:1, in comparison. Poultry is close to 1:1.

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#25

Post by captainredbeard »

fao_ wrote: post #8
nextstep wrote: post #5

Veganism is not a health choice for most vegans, it’s an ethical one. Plant-based foods use fewer resources per calorie and do not require cruel treatment of animals.

> Plant-based foods use fewer resources per calorie and do not require cruel treatment of animals. They kind of have to at some point, otherwise you're using artificial nitrogen to top up the soil and that's not just bad for the soil but is also depleting a limited resource (The nitrogen comes from what IIRC is, a single mine). I remember reading about some farmers that managed to buck the usual statistics by getting…

Joel Salatin, perhaps?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Salatin

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#26

Post by captainredbeard »

xgulfie wrote: post #11
fao_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plant-based foods use fewer resources per calorie and do not require cruel treatment of animals. They kind of have to at some point, otherwise you're using artificial nitrogen to top up the soil and that's not just bad for the soil but is also depleting a limited resource (The nitrogen comes from what IIRC is, a single mine). I remember reading about some farmers that managed to buck the usual statistics by getting…

You realize most of the atmosphere is Nitrogen, right? I would not call it a limited resource. Clovers and other cover crops also fix hydrogen.

Are you implying that nitrogen depletion in the soil is a non-issue?

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#27

Post by Consultant32452 »

CJefferson wrote: post #19
fao_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plant-based foods use fewer resources per calorie and do not require cruel treatment of animals. They kind of have to at some point, otherwise you're using artificial nitrogen to top up the soil and that's not just bad for the soil but is also depleting a limited resource (The nitrogen comes from what IIRC is, a single mine). I remember reading about some farmers that managed to buck the usual statistics by getting…

Vegans aren't stupid -- but the difference in animal suffering from a meat heavy diet and a meat free diet is massive. Just because something can't be done 100% today, doesn't mean it isn't worth achieving 95% success.

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

more environmental damage, and

a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat.

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-ther...

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#28

Post by gpvos »

eof wrote: post #14
bambax wrote: post #10

> Nutrition is a major reason that people are giving plant-based burger a try Not really sure about that. Current meat "production" involves destroying the planet at an accelerated pace while treating animals in the most horrible way imaginable (and even beyond imagination).

I think saying “a major reason” is fair and accurate, but I agree that the it seems people are, in general, much more concerned about the ethics of industrial farming as it relates to animal cruelty, as well as beef being such a large contributor to co2.

While I think that's true for many people, I would like to have actual data about whether the wide public is more swayed by environmental/ethical or health concerns. Many companies are marketing this from a health angle, and they may know more than you and me. (Another possibility, which I'm not discounting, is that they think everyone is as cynical as they are.)

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#29

Post by [deleted] »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #27
CJefferson wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vegans aren't stupid -- but the difference in animal suffering from a meat heavy diet and a meat free diet is massive. Just because something can't be done 100% today, doesn't mean it isn't worth achieving 95% success.

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 more environmental damage, and a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat. http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-ther...

[deleted]

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#30

Post by hallihax »

Speaking as somebody who does enjoy a vegan boiger - 'health' and 'nutrition' are not things I'm looking at when I want a burger.

This whole debate is one big straw-man. I'm a vegan. I don't need burgers. I might want burgers, but they don't form a part of a standard diet just in the same way any kind of burger probably shouldn't form part of anybody's regular diet.

If you're eating processed food - there's a considerable chance that whatever it is you're eating - vegan or otherwise - is neither nutritious nor healthy. It probably tastes good though, which is why you want it in the first place.

Ultimately it boils down to this: if I'm eating a burger, then nutrition and health are more or less irrelevant - I'm after taste. I think the lives of animals are more important than my taste-buds, so I eat plant-based burgers. It's not really any more complicated than that.

Post reply on HN