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

61–70 of 794 posts

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

#61

Post by Spooky23 »

flatline wrote: post #28
tashoecraft wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is that comparing against plain red meat with no salt added? Because if so that’s not really a fair comparison because you generally add a decent amount of salt to burger whereas you don’t really need to for beyond

I never add salt to ground beef patties, am I unusual in this respect? They taste fine without, especially when you add all the toppings.

Dopey middle class people who don’t know how to cook buy 95% lean ground beef or turkey, because fat and it costs more. Latchkey kids like me didn’t learn to cook unless we cooked it up ourselves. Dinner was a product.

If you use an appropriate cut of meat (like ground chuck), you don’t really need to salt as the meat has flavor. Salt will bring out more flavor, but you don’t need a lot.

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

#62

Post by creato »

wyager wrote: post #45
raidicy wrote: post #32

Genuinely curious; is eating something processed like this better than eating regular unprocessed ground meat?

Nutrition "science" cannot yet make accurate predictions here, but from my perspective there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that no single artificial product yet captures the nutritional profile of real beef.

That's probably true. It's probably also true that there are nutritional pros and cons to both. If we could engineer the "ideal" meat for nutrition, it probably wouldn't be exactly the same as real beef.

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

#63

Post by ronyeh »

sweetheart wrote: post #36

While it is not my experience at all, I understand that some folks have certain negative opinions of Beyond Burgers, and other fake meat/imitation burgers: - The texture is off - Maybe they cook strangely - Potentially less taste But the most important thing about them, and the reason I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. This is not an argument that fairs well…

I mostly agree with you and personally love beyond ground "beef". However, it is going to be a long time before we replace meat. The only way is if we can produce it cheap enough that it literally costs an average person more to buy conventional 85/15 ground beef.

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

#64

Post by batiudrami »

sweetheart wrote: post #36

While it is not my experience at all, I understand that some folks have certain negative opinions of Beyond Burgers, and other fake meat/imitation burgers: - The texture is off - Maybe they cook strangely - Potentially less taste But the most important thing about them, and the reason I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. This is not an argument that fairs well…

The Beyond Beef burgers that my local burger chain (Grill’d) sell are pretty good, too. They’re a little drier than a good beef patty and a bit sweeter, but if you told me it was beef I think I would believe you, albeit not cooked perfectly.

My understanding is that popular opinion says Impossible is even closer, though I haven’t tried it personally.

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

#65

Post by SamBam »

elktea wrote: post #60
sweetheart wrote: post #36

While it is not my experience at all, I understand that some folks have certain negative opinions of Beyond Burgers, and other fake meat/imitation burgers: - The texture is off - Maybe they cook strangely - Potentially less taste But the most important thing about them, and the reason I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. This is not an argument that fairs well…

> No one needed to die for you to eat it. Except all those animals + insects that once inhabited the fields

This is the case for almost all food you eat, unless you survive by foraging.

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

#66

Post by MPSimmons »

sweetheart wrote: post #36

While it is not my experience at all, I understand that some folks have certain negative opinions of Beyond Burgers, and other fake meat/imitation burgers: - The texture is off - Maybe they cook strangely - Potentially less taste But the most important thing about them, and the reason I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. This is not an argument that fairs well…

I really enjoy both BeyondBeef and Impossible Burger.

My thoughts are that BeyondBeef has a kind of plastic-y smell, but is almost exactly right in terms of color and texture.

The smell is not concerning to me, but it is distinct for my palette. I still eat it, and don't mind. Aside from the burgers, I also really enjoy the spicy Italian sausages. There is a slightly different taste than pork-based sausages, but I would never complain about a Beyond Meat spicy sausage in my Italian food. The sweet Italian version tastes almost like a breakfast sausage to me.

For Impossible Burgers, I feel like the taste is virtually 100%. I don't actually know, if I were eating an impossible burger on a bun with the fixings, if I could tell you it was an impossible burger. The only thing they would lose on is the texture and maybe the color. The texture is more... chipped(?) than ground beef, so looking at a patty (probably easier with an 8oz than a 4oz) is pretty obvious, but man, the flavor is great.

Like I said, I eat either one of them as my first choice whenever they're sold at a restaurant.

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

#67

Post by psychometry »

wyager wrote: post #45
raidicy wrote: post #32

Genuinely curious; is eating something processed like this better than eating regular unprocessed ground meat?

Nutrition "science" cannot yet make accurate predictions here, but from my perspective there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that no single artificial product yet captures the nutritional profile of real beef.

That nutritional profile also includes increased risk of GI tract cancers among other serious conditions, so I'm not sure what the argument you're trying to make is.

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

#68

Post by eppsilon »

swader999 wrote: post #43

Most of the ranch land in my area isn't really suitable for other kinds of agriculture so I don't know if that measure means much. It certainly isn't irrigated and I think the cows give back the water they use.

IIRC someone was working on a seaweed-based feed additive to cut down on the methane production, not sure what came of it.

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

#69

Post by King-Aaron »

sweetheart wrote: post #36

While it is not my experience at all, I understand that some folks have certain negative opinions of Beyond Burgers, and other fake meat/imitation burgers: - The texture is off - Maybe they cook strangely - Potentially less taste But the most important thing about them, and the reason I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. This is not an argument that fairs well…

I have indeed tried them, and they aren't as nice as a real beef burger in my opinion. And as a predatory animal, the fact that something "needs to die" for me to feed doesn't factor into the equation. (Of course, you can certainly reduce cruelty if you move away from a US-style factory farming model).

Looking forward to seeing how the technology develops, but yeah. It hasn't changed my habits yet.

Post reply on HN