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

Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 538 posts

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#391

Post by cies »

vatueil wrote: post #272
jobigoud wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a fundamental disagreement, the only possible peaceful solution is agree to disagree (I hope we don't come down to the non-peaceful ones) So here is the kicker, exactly because vegan people see these animal lives as worth valuing, they don't consider your "agree to disagree" stance as a "peaceful solution", as it implies the death and suffering of these entities. It's one of those subjects where you can't h…

Eh. We exist in a society where people who perform abortions must live with people who believe a fetus is equivalent to a full human life. People who believe unbelievers go to hell must live with people who are atheists. The tension between vegans and non-vegans is not unique or unprecedented. The only thing that's new is veganism's recent growth spurt, which has produced a lot of new converts that mainstream society…

Exactly. Also the scale of the "3rd party damage" is humongous in case of bio-industry. Many millions of animals per day are having the life squeezed out of m.

Abortions need supervision, paperwork, a studied persons decision. Slaughterhouse killing of often done by immigrants, unable to find any better work.

Where the embryo can potentially harm the mother, the animals we kill every day have zero possible negative impact on our lives.

So I agree there are similar cases, but all these cases are very ---very--- unique in their dynamics.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#392

Post by cwkoss »

sizzle wrote: post #356

Does anyone know the latest findings from studies that linked soy consumption to estrogen increase in men? The impossible burger being non soy based was a huge selling point for me...

Examine has a good writeup, jump to "Men’s health and testosterone"

tl;dr: "Reasonable intakes of soy foods and soy isoflavones do not affect men’s testosterone levels, estrogen levels, or fertility, although case reports have documented adverse effects from incredibly high daily intakes of soy for 6–12 months. Men who are at risk of developing prostate cancer might reduce their risk by eating soy foods, but soy foods do not appear to benefit men who already have prostate cancer."

The case studies regarding feminization seem to have been cases of people ingesting 300+g of soy protein a day for 6+ months. That amount of protein would require nearly 100% of your calorie RDA if eaten in soybeans, so it seems likely these two people had quite odd diets that could confound drawing conclusions these cases. If they were taking a soy protein extract, I would want to study if questionable supplement purity/contamination issues had any effect - solvents and heat could transform some of the isoflavones or solvents could remain in final product.

https://examine.com/nutrition/is-soy-good-or-bad/

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#393

Post by sethhochberg »

senorjazz wrote: post #311
dashundchen wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for all, but most vegan/vegetarians I know, myself included, don't view processed meat substitutes like this as a staple. They are expensive and seen as less healthy compared to less processed plant protein. Meals more often revolve around beans, legumes, tofu, tempeh, seitan. I think since many meat eaters are less familiar with cooking meals around these, they assume vegs are just subbing meat 1-to-1…

I agree. But I don't think this is targeted at established vegetarians though. Maybe those who want to eat less meat, or stop but don't know how?

I'd put myself in the "want to eat less meat" bucket - I'm not a vegetarian. I eat meat, enjoy it, and don't have any health problems that preclude me from consuming it. I know farming meat at scale isn't good for the environment though, and if some kind of synthetics or lab-grown meats could provide the same enjoyment I get from traditional meat with less environmental impact at roughly the same cost, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#394

Post by delecti »

ibejoeb wrote: post #369
groestl wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spiders consume twice the biomass of all adults on earth every year, so I think it's safe to say: Animals. Both in number as well as in weight, even if all humans adopted the US lifestyle (120kg meat/year).

Okay. I'm thinking that animal suffering ought not be the metric here, in that case.

Is the argument that suffering (even if only of animals) isn't worth reducing if we aren't the main source of it globally? I don't think we should use nature as the metric for morality, because a lot of really terrible things are very "natural".

Certainly we aren't going to "eliminate" animal suffering, the word the above comment used, but reduction is another matter.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#395

Post by jameslk »

Nobody ever seems to question what's in these burgers. Just focusing on taste is not good enough. Any independent research/investigation (besides Impossible Food's own marketing materials) on the healthiness of the ingredients? Even if the ingredients aren't inherently unhealthy on their own, if I'm just eating a bunch of filler without much nutrition compared to real meat, that's still a problem.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#396

Post by white-flame »

leereeves wrote: post #70
picodguyo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say whatever sells more non-meat burgers is good. Telling a die-hard meat eater to just eat a mushroom or some eggplant is not going to be effective.

I'm a die-hard meat eater and I'd eat a lot of a tasty veggie sandwich patty. I need more veggies in my diet but it's hard to get enough without cooking. It doesn't have to be a fake burger. Just something tasty for a healthy daily dose of vegetables. For me, soy doesn't qualify. It's one of the most common crops in the world and there's already enough of it in other things I eat.

If you're not cooking, but are concerned about health, how are you eating that you somehow escape vegetables?

The thing is, "healthy" is often associated with freshly prepared foods. The non-cooking-yourself option for (hopefully) freshly prepared food would be reasonable usually sit-down restaurants, most of which offer plenty of vegetables because they're cheaper than the main course. And of course, delivery is an option.

(Obviously, "freshly prepared" as framed in opposition to pre-prepared with additives, handling, and ingredient selection focused more on the taste & texture surviving longer term delivery and storage.)

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#397

Post by sjy »

kelnos wrote: post #266
pstuart wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My reply was to a very specific (and obviously troubling to me) statement: "I do not consider animal lives worth valuing". I totally get that there's a difference between the scenario you're describing and factory farms. In fact, I've posited before that those animals would never have any life if there wasn't a demand to eat them at some point. But the statement in question reads as "I don't give a fuck what happens…

> But the statement in question reads as "I don't give a fuck what happens to any animal" What exactly is wrong with that statement, though? I personally do give fucks about certain kinds of animals, but I recognize that my choices as to what animals to care about is entirely subjective and is a result of my upbringing. I have no problem with a person who draws the line at "entirely no fucks given about any animal" (…

What’s wrong with the statement is that it is ‘entirely subjective,’ like your own views – it is no less arbitrary to include only humans on your list of animals deserving of empathy. Such an ethical rule cannot accommodate the proposition that some kinds of harm to animals (eg. needlessly torturing mammals) are unacceptable and some kinds of harm to humans (eg. self-defence, euthanasia, abortion) are acceptable.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#398

Post by tschwimmer »

jameslk wrote: post #395

Nobody ever seems to question what's in these burgers. Just focusing on taste is not good enough. Any independent research/investigation (besides Impossible Food's own marketing materials) on the healthiness of the ingredients? Even if the ingredients aren't inherently unhealthy on their own, if I'm just eating a bunch of filler without much nutrition compared to real meat, that's still a problem.

A list of ingredients from the company's website:

Water, Textured Wheat Protein, Coconut Oil, Potato Protein, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Leghemoglobin (Soy), Yeast Extract, Salt, Konjac Gum, Xanthan Gum, Soy Protein Isolate, Vitamin E, Vitamin C, Thiamin (Vitamin B1), Zinc, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12.

source: https://impossiblefoods.com/faq

Seems like a regular old veggie burger, with some more slightly exotic additives. I had not heard of Leghemoglobin, which appears to be some sort of hemoglobin-like protein found in legume plant roots.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#399

Post by Rebelgecko »

sc4les wrote: post #337
nugget wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soy contains phytoestrogens which certain populations (e.g. women pregnant with male fetuses) may be advised to reduce intake of or avoid. Something to keep in mind as meat replacements become more popular - that it may not be a one-size-fits-all solution.

Complete bogus, please abstain from spreading this misinformation. Unlike animal products which contain actual hormones active in humans plant products have an negligible effect and you would have to consume impossible amounts for the smallest of effects. Further, phytoestrogens actually benefit humans

  ...you would have to consume impossible amounts for the smallest of effects

  Further, phytoestrogens actually benefit humans
Maybe I'm not parsing things well, but these 2 statements seem contradictory.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#400

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

logfromblammo wrote: post #344
Djvacto wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experiences, both as a meat-eater for most of my life and about a year of not eating meat, most of the reason you (or I, previously) couldn't stomach that kind of vector is because (at least in my case) it's the difference between thinking about where the meat comes from vs not. I was fully aware of what animals were, and that they died so I could have that food, but I never really tried to think about it. Basi…

I would advise against telling someone who they are or why they feel a particular way, without at least some minimal level of acquaintance. Meat comes from the corpses of animals slaughtered on our behalf. Selfishness does not come from eating it, or from insufficiently valuing the environmental impact of it, or from getting annoyed with people that have made it a cornerstone of their personal religion. I don't feel…

Thank you for that well thought-out and reasoned response. Have an upvote!
Post reply on HN