How sustainable are fake meats? • Hacker News Board

Re: How sustainable are fake meats?

#31

Post by prepend » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:48 AM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #20

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are more sustainable but they are in no way replacements. I've had a few but I wouldn't make it a habit to replace meat with it. But I would surely replace one of my meals with 100% vegetables if it was easy to get and tasty. One that comes to mind is a bean and rice burrito with salsa. It's delicious. That's the type of replacements that should be pushed, not fake meats. The idea that fake meat is so much…

As a vegetarian, having fake meat options is really great. Sometimes you just want a burger, or you need something that can be cooked on a grill at a social gathering. Just the fact that I can get fast food that isn't Taco Bell when I want to is a big deal.

As a former vegetarian, I loved boca burgers as they were cheap and high in proteins and minimally processed.

The new fake meats aren’t that great over existing meat substitutes and I’m frustrated that their price is so high and has not been coming down over the years available. I don’t see these being viable as they cost more than beef.

Re: How sustainable are fake meats?

#32

Post by prepend » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 7:53 AM UTC

wyre wrote: post #19

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they aren't really addressing the point, they point out that eating more vegetables is better but they don't address the point that creating more satisfying dishes with out having to produce a super processed product that does not resemble a vegetable and requires so many resources is so much better than fake meats at any level. Fake meat is green washing at its best.

Yes unprocessed vegetables are more sustainable than fake meat. The problem is that we as a society need to reduce the amount of meat that we eat. Fake meat is a drop-in replacement and is more sustainable. Your argument isn’t helping anything except for the meat industry.

It’s not a drop in replacement. It doesn’t taste like meat and it’s expensive.

Everyone I know has tried it and no one has replaced meat in their diet. I know some vegetarians who use them.

If we had a drop in, then I agree with you. But fake meats aren’t going to do it. I think it’s better to have more realistic health campaigns and subsidies.

I suspect this is just these new fake meat startups spending PR to get subsidies set up.

Re: How sustainable are fake meats?

#33

Post by tsol » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 8:19 AM UTC

markeibes wrote: post #22

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are more sustainable but they are in no way replacements. I've had a few but I wouldn't make it a habit to replace meat with it. But I would surely replace one of my meals with 100% vegetables if it was easy to get and tasty. One that comes to mind is a bean and rice burrito with salsa. It's delicious. That's the type of replacements that should be pushed, not fake meats. The idea that fake meat is so much…

Why did you kill the planet, daddy? It was just too tasty!

But super processed fake meats are way worse for the environment than bean burritos?

Re: How sustainable are fake meats?

#34

Post by orionblastar » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 8:19 AM UTC

_xerces_ wrote: post #12

superchroma wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe the answer is to try and make almond milk substitute then?

While almond is better, the article does suggest that almonds themselves are not the best when it comes to water usage.

Then why am I being downvoted when I post that?

Re: How sustainable are fake meats?

#35

Post by midoridensha » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 8:30 AM UTC

oweiler wrote: post #29

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are more sustainable but they are in no way replacements. I've had a few but I wouldn't make it a habit to replace meat with it. But I would surely replace one of my meals with 100% vegetables if it was easy to get and tasty. One that comes to mind is a bean and rice burrito with salsa. It's delicious. That's the type of replacements that should be pushed, not fake meats. The idea that fake meat is so much…

Look for Indian cuisine, which in parts is both vegan and delicious/healthy. Much better than that overprocessed crap.

Almost all the Indian food I've had (which is indeed delicious) has been based on chicken.

Re: How sustainable are fake meats?

#36

Post by pjerem » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 8:49 AM UTC

orionblastar wrote: post #3

It takes 8 gallons of water to produce cow milk 1 gallon. It takes 48 gallons of water to make almond milk 1 gallon. The same with the plant burgers take more water to make than meat. When water gets scarce there will be shortages.

I’m amazed that people are still considering almond milk as a replacement of milk. Both beverages share basically nothing except maybe that they are white and people still compare them.

In reality, you can reduce/stop cow milk consumption without replacing it. And if you want to replace it, almond milk is a pretty bad choice.

I like both but to me it’s like comparing coffee with chocolate arguing that you can (or should) replace one with the other.

If you want to stop cow milk for [insert reason] and, by the meantime, you are worried about the water consumption of almond milk, just don’t drink both.

Re: How sustainable are fake meats?

#37

Post by herbst » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 9:56 AM UTC

tuatoru wrote: post #27

blackqueeriroh wrote: post #10

Did any of you read the article? Fake meats are actually much more sustainable that real meats

There are a few little details elided. Pastoral lands are pastoral, and not arable, usually because they are not suitable for arable cropping. There is either too little rainfall, or the wrong kind/timing of rainfall, or the soils are wrong. For rainfall reasons forests are out too. Articles that go on about how ${large_number} percent of the world's non-desert, non-mountain, non-arctic land is used for grazing anima…

30% or more of Switzerland is not useable for any kind of farming other than cattle. Fertilizers in the Alps are heavily discouraged. Less than 5% of the food for cows is imported. The far majority is produced trough the same grass the herds spent their time on.

And to round this up there is a relatively okish label jungle so you can know exactly which kind of farming you support.

Just because beef isn't the solution for the world hunger doesn't mean it's not the best possible and probably even most ecological solution in some areas.

Re: How sustainable are fake meats?

#38

Post by Schroedingersat » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 10:03 AM UTC

peyton wrote: post #26

Schroedingersat wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do change their behavior slowly. That is why filming on factory farms and slaughterhouses is a jailable offense in Australia and why the meat industry spends billions on handouts worldwide. Very simple changes like reducing meat in media, mandating a listed vegetarian option at restaraunts, forced transparency on the harms involved, and lowering the massive subsidies would reduce meat consumption considerably.…

Post-pandemic I think people are pretty tired of behavior change campaigns like these. What would you do about backlash or counter-movements?

There were numerous tantrums after the cigarettes. If you ignore them and the measures are only a mild inconvenience and you don't have to get people to do something actively they get tired of it and shut up

Re: How sustainable are fake meats?

#39

Post by myshpa » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 10:18 AM UTC

tuatoru wrote: post #27

blackqueeriroh wrote: post #10

Did any of you read the article? Fake meats are actually much more sustainable that real meats

There are a few little details elided. Pastoral lands are pastoral, and not arable, usually because they are not suitable for arable cropping. There is either too little rainfall, or the wrong kind/timing of rainfall, or the soils are wrong. For rainfall reasons forests are out too. Articles that go on about how ${large_number} percent of the world's non-desert, non-mountain, non-arctic land is used for grazing anima…

> There is either too little rainfall, or the wrong kind/timing of rainfall, or the soils are wrong. For rainfall reasons forests are out too.

No. Forests create rain. Missing forests (thanks to animal husbandry) are partly responsible for droughts and irregular/extreme weather events. Please don't pretend that grazing is the only thing these lands are good for. Almost any land can be reforested easily (if it has some dirt, and it's not just sand/rock desert, then it's harder, but not at all impossible).

> Leaving these pastoral lands fallow (without herds of wild ruminants, with their global warming emissions) would just result in continual grass fires.

We've taken away the ability of those lands to reforest itself with continual grazing / fire burning. We have to supply some seeds (see fukuoka method) and let the land be. Nature will do the rest.

> Pastoral lands are pastoral, and not arable, usually because they are not suitable for arable cropping. > Persuading people to leave money on the table is difficult.

Your premise is that all land must have a commercial value. It's a fallacy. We should rewild those areas and return that land to forests & wild animals (we've stolen it from them).

We need to stop subsidizing bad/harmful things (e.g., oil industry, meat/dairy production, sea exploitation, plastic production) and start subsidizing the right things (e.g., alternative energy sources/savings, plant based foods, reforestation efforts).

Re: How sustainable are fake meats?

#40

Post by myshpa » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 10:30 AM UTC

herbst wrote: post #37

tuatoru wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few little details elided. Pastoral lands are pastoral, and not arable, usually because they are not suitable for arable cropping. There is either too little rainfall, or the wrong kind/timing of rainfall, or the soils are wrong. For rainfall reasons forests are out too. Articles that go on about how ${large_number} percent of the world's non-desert, non-mountain, non-arctic land is used for grazing anima…

30% or more of Switzerland is not useable for any kind of farming other than cattle. Fertilizers in the Alps are heavily discouraged. Less than 5% of the food for cows is imported. The far majority is produced trough the same grass the herds spent their time on. And to round this up there is a relatively okish label jungle so you can know exactly which kind of farming you support. Just because beef isn't the solution…

We would not need cca 75% of our agricultural lands if stopped overindulging in meat/dairy.

Those 30% you're talking about is not the only land your cattle herds need ... there is also corn/seeds/alfaalfa etc. produced somewhere.

Beef needs 120x more land than plant-based foods for the same amount of calories.

Western countries are a model for developing countries. If we base our diets on meat/dairy, they will want the same. We're developed, we have to set a positive/meaningful example.

We would need several Earths to feed the world same diet as westerners eat. It's simply short-sided and selfish to insist upon current practices to the detriment of everybody else (& Earth & wild animals & biodiversity etc.).