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

Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

css.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 794 posts

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#591

Post by hermannj314 »

simtel20 wrote: post #582
hermannj314 wrote: post #555

I have tried Beyond Meat. My concern is changing my diet to lock in with a single vendor selling a patented food product with 30%+ margins. Is there a reason this amazing, world-changing, sustainable product isn't being sold at a reasonable or better price than ground beef? Tyson operates at 13% margin. Ground beef is 25% cheaper than Beyond. Compete on price and I will buy it; pretty simple. Otherwise, this all feel…

The company is still developing its products, and the extra margin reflects the fact that it hasn't yet been able to amortize the costs as Tyson etc. have with already established slaughterhouses, monopolies on the business to secure their trade and other infrastructure.

Exactly, I agree 100%. Uber had to operate at a loss to disrupt the taxi industry but I switched to Uber because it was always cheaper and more convenient than a cab.

I can not say the same about Beyond Meat with respect to its competitors. It is unfortunate for them.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#592

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

raffraffraff wrote: post #372
atweiden wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That, said, I've tried going vegetarian multiple times before and honestly I felt awful - I'm naturally very slim and not particularly energetic to begin with, and when I was on a vegetarian diet I felt totally lethargic. The same thing happened to me when I first tried going vegan. It wasn’t until I went through a major effort at planning my meals — to the point of making an outright diet plan for myself — that I…

Could also have been b12 or iron. You're right about meal planning. I also think that if you're going to cut out an entire food group you should phase it out. You eat food every single day. You have to find something that works long term for you. A key thing is that some folks have boring "meat and potatoes" taste, with no interest in moving beyond that. My parents are old-timers living in the Irish countryside. When…

It's funny to me how people talk about iron being a problem on a vegetarian diet. I've been a vegetarian for a decade or so now and my iron level is consistently at the very high end of the normal range. I don't do anything special to achieve this.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#593

Post by dalmo3 »

cubesmarching wrote: post #554
dalmo3 wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now do one for plants.

Plants are not conscious and do not feel pain. But even if your argument is in good faith and you genuinely believe that the plight of plants is equivalent to the suffering of animals, then that is still an argument for veganism, as producing a kilo of animal flesh requires several kilos of plant matter, thus increasing the total amount of suffering relative to simply eating plants directly.

Sorry for being rude. No, my [non-]argument wasn't in good faith - it was in response to a parody comment, after all.

But you seem serious this time. The problem with that line of reasoning is: sure, you can (quite literally) weigh the pros and cons of veganism like you did. But why stop there? To sustain a kilo of human flesh you still need several thousands of kilos of plant matter. The ultra-utilitarian solution surely must be getting rid of human flesh? Now I'm not so sure your previous comment was really a parody.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#594

Post by [deleted] »

gonehome wrote: post #278
patrickmclaren wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the best angle is the one given in the title: 90% less greenhouse emissions, 99% less water, and 93% less land. This is an approach that provides compelling meal options in a manner that scales much better than our traditional livestock methods.

I disagree actually - I think the animal suffering morality angle is the best argument for most people (as long as it's done in a way that isn't too adversarial). Most people don't care about the environmental costs, we do lots of things that have environmental effects because we like them and think it's worth it. Impossible and Beyond, while good, are still noticeably worse than beef to me. The animal suffering bit…

[deleted]

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#595

Post by cubesmarching »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #585
cubesmarching wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are animals. Humans do not feel pain differently from other animals. Humans do not suffer differently from other animals. This is why intentionally causing animals like cats and dogs to suffer is illegal and viewed as abhorrent. The only reason this is not extended to other animals like cows and pigs is convenience.

>Humans are animals. I'll give you that. >Humans do not feel pain differently from other animals. Humans do not suffer differently from other animals. Humans do not feel pain differently than say, a mollusk?

The vast majority of animals raised to be killed and eaten are fowls, pigs, cattle, sheep, and goats. No, humans do not feel pain differently than these animals any more than they feel pain differently from cats or dogs.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#596

Post by simtel20 »

koheripbal wrote: post #521
markonen wrote: post #299

The local burger joint closest to my house is 100% vegan and uses Beyond patties. It’s also, in my opinion, the best burger in town. I’m a carnivore and would definitely notice the difference in a Pepsi challenge of the patties themselves, but the overall taste and presentation make this place pull ahead of all the meat-based alternatives. I feel like we’ve crossed a threshold. This was literal sci-fi just a couple o…

I really wonder if there are special cooking instructions to make them that might be causing so many restaurants to pull them off the menu. I've tried several Beyond burgers at various restaurants, and all of them were the worst burgers I've ever had. Dry, tasteless, and chewy - absolutely nothing like real meat. Do a degree that I question if they're all being prepared wrong.

I remember years ago at a bbq, a friend who use to be a short order cook at one point was flipping his burgers. He kept squeezing his frozen patties until the blood or whatever stopped running.

So yeah, if you cook a beyond pattie to the same visual cues as a regular burger in a restaurant in that way, it'll dry out. The instructions on the package are all that's needed. Oil, hot pan, 4 minutes on each side without moving it around and done.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#597

Post by louthy »

knuthsat wrote: post #423
dev_tty01 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely respect your choices and your opinion, but I don't understand them. Is the wolf diabolically evil? No cash involved of course. Is that the issue? What if I hunt the animal and kill it and then consume it, like the lion, the tiger, the hawk, and the dolphin? Is the hunter morally superior to the farmer who raises a steer, providing clean water, well grassed pasture, and then kills in a humane manner for p…

But killing is not humane if the individual does not want to die. Humans give themselves incredible characteristics compared to other animals, it's like they are miles ahead of every animal when it comes to self awareness, emotion, rational thought, it's like evolution in their case made a giant leap and not an incremental step like it is for everyone. Why are then humans comparing themselves to obligate carnivores l…

> Humans give themselves incredible characteristics compared to other animals, it's like they are miles ahead of every animal when it comes to self awareness, emotion, rational thought, it's like evolution in their case made a giant leap and not an incremental step like it is for everyone.

Didn't that leap in evolution come from being able to control our food supply to the point where we were able to consume energy at such an efficient rate that we evolved emotion, rational thought, society, etc?

It could be argued that now we've achieved that we should be looking at the next stage of evolution, which may be mulch made into fake meat loaded with salt and preservatives, or even growing laboratory meat; but surely the reason we're here and having this discussion at all is because of our domestication and consumption of animals. It seems a circular argument to say that's immoral.

Are we really evolved enough to move past that? We are certainly domesticating ourselves as every generation goes by, we see that from the massive decline in human-to-human violence over many millennia, and so a reduction in violence toward animals could also be seen in that evolutionary sense. I'm not convinced we're at a point where we're ready to 100% wean ourselves off animals for food. It certainly comes with its own set of problems.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#598

Post by cubesmarching »

dalmo3 wrote: post #593
cubesmarching wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plants are not conscious and do not feel pain. But even if your argument is in good faith and you genuinely believe that the plight of plants is equivalent to the suffering of animals, then that is still an argument for veganism, as producing a kilo of animal flesh requires several kilos of plant matter, thus increasing the total amount of suffering relative to simply eating plants directly.

Sorry for being rude. No, my [non-]argument wasn't in good faith - it was in response to a parody comment, after all. But you seem serious this time. The problem with that line of reasoning is: sure, you can (quite literally) weigh the pros and cons of veganism like you did. But why stop there? To sustain a kilo of human flesh you still need several thousands of kilos of plant matter. The ultra-utilitarian solution s…

Given that plants aren't conscious and do not feel pain, any line of reasoning that is predicated on the assumption that plants are conscious and feel pain is irrelevant.

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#599

Post by lambdaba »

jacobmischka wrote: post #580
lambdaba wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem today is not an unlimited supply of meat (for most of the world) but an unlimited supply of sugar and seed oils. And the super / unnaturally sweet fruit, this is what's hacking us.

I didn't say it was the problem causing the obesity epidemic. Donuts being worse for you doesn't make eating fatty red meat so often healthy. Also, while super sweet fruit can be problematic, it's far from one of the biggest problems. No one is getting diabetes from eating too many bananas.

Saturated fat consumption is way down compared to historical patterns: https://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/croissant_animal.png

(thankfully a recent uptick since official sources are starting to admit that saturated fat isn't bad)

Red meat consumption has been going down for decades: https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/annua...

Re: Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger life cycle assessment (2018)

#600

Post by simtel20 »

koheripbal wrote: post #526
rewq4321 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people tend to eat plain ground beef though? Flavouring/salt is generally added

I don't salt my burgers at all. Decent ground meat doesn't need to be salted, and still tastes 100x better than beyond meat.

If you're used to so little salt, that makes you an outlier in general, and would definitely make something like beyond meat unpalatable. But I do believe your tastes are very uncommon.
Post reply on HN