Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/01/impossible-foods-just-raised-75-million-for-its-plant-based-burgers
265 comments
This is a neat comment, but as someone who's been to a couple different Momofuku places (incl. Ssam Bar) but never had that dish: how heavily spiced is it? The dish is inspired (simultaneously) by Mapo Tofu and Bolognese --- it's supposed to literally be Ssam Bar's take on Mapo Tofu --- which suggests to me that the quality of the pork is probably not all that important to the overall dish.
A good hamburger, on the other hand, relies almost entirely on the flavor of the beef.
There's an informal rule in cooking about how the simpler a dish is, the better your ingredients and technique have to be, because there's nothing to hide behind.
A good hamburger, on the other hand, relies almost entirely on the flavor of the beef.
There's an informal rule in cooking about how the simpler a dish is, the better your ingredients and technique have to be, because there's nothing to hide behind.
You're absolutely correct.
1. It's unlikely that Impossible Foods will ever match the quality of a grass-fed, grain-finished 80/20 chuck + short rib blend from a purveyor like Pat LaFrieda.
2. The dish is heavily spiced and the Impossible Foods product is playing the role of the bolognese. It can hide under the seasoning and spices.
3. I still think the product is valuable. The vast majority of meat product Americans consume meets a much lower bar. I think Impossible Foods already makes a product that's better than the ground meat that goes into a lot of fast food chains. If you didn't tell people, I suspect they'd prefer a Taco Bell or White Castle product made with Impossible Foods instead of the "mix" that they currently use.
1. It's unlikely that Impossible Foods will ever match the quality of a grass-fed, grain-finished 80/20 chuck + short rib blend from a purveyor like Pat LaFrieda.
2. The dish is heavily spiced and the Impossible Foods product is playing the role of the bolognese. It can hide under the seasoning and spices.
3. I still think the product is valuable. The vast majority of meat product Americans consume meets a much lower bar. I think Impossible Foods already makes a product that's better than the ground meat that goes into a lot of fast food chains. If you didn't tell people, I suspect they'd prefer a Taco Bell or White Castle product made with Impossible Foods instead of the "mix" that they currently use.
That really depends on the type of burger. Occasionally, I enjoy a good In n Out Burger. I don't expect their meat quality is particularly good.
"Patty melt" style burgers are generally less reliant on meat quality as long as you can get a good, crunchy, umami seat on the thin mean patty or patties.
I suspect the thicker higher end style burgers would be more reliant on the quality of the beef.
However, for economic reasons, they are probably the necessary target of impossible meat until they reach a scale large enough to compete with cheap beef.
"Patty melt" style burgers are generally less reliant on meat quality as long as you can get a good, crunchy, umami seat on the thin mean patty or patties.
I suspect the thicker higher end style burgers would be more reliant on the quality of the beef.
However, for economic reasons, they are probably the necessary target of impossible meat until they reach a scale large enough to compete with cheap beef.
In-n-Out burger patties are never frozen and the chain has a number of high-profile chefs as fans. Their beef may be ground and it's fast food, but McDonalds it ain't.
Freezing isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially for burger patties with a good amount of fat. I'd rather have that than something that's been sitting around in the fridge for too long. As long as it's frozen very quickly and defrosted properly, freezing is fine.
In-N-Out meat is pretty good; it's just super thin. McDonald's is not good, but believe me, if McDonald's had a good burger patty, and if they wanted to freeze it, it wouldn't be any worse for it.
On the other side of things, In-N-Out doesn't freeze their fries, and they're much worse than the frozen fries from places like McDonald's or Shake Shack's crinkle-cut fries, and it's specifically because they don't do the fry-freeze-refry process critically important for great fries.
In-N-Out meat is pretty good; it's just super thin. McDonald's is not good, but believe me, if McDonald's had a good burger patty, and if they wanted to freeze it, it wouldn't be any worse for it.
On the other side of things, In-N-Out doesn't freeze their fries, and they're much worse than the frozen fries from places like McDonald's or Shake Shack's crinkle-cut fries, and it's specifically because they don't do the fry-freeze-refry process critically important for great fries.
The critical thing about great fries is that they are fried twice, once to cook the potato and the second time for the crispy shell. The freeze step in the middle is likely just for transportation logistics.
While the double frying is critical, the freezing step in the middle is not just for logistics. The fries are better when they're frozen post-initial fry. I make fries all the time from scratch, and I always throw them in the freezer before the second fry. The final product is better than when I don't freeze between fries. Freezing helps add irregularity to the surface and aids in crisp them up post second fry.
> Freezing the potatoes causes their moisture to convert to ice, forming sharp, jagged crystals. These crystals damage the cell structure of the potato, making it easier for them to be released once they are heated and convert to steam.
from http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/05/the-burger-lab-h...
from http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/05/the-burger-lab-h...
Yeah, you can buy those all-natural 100% potato french fries from the supermarket and fry them into something truly fantastic. When restaurant fries taste "frozen" it's because they're not being refried well.
Who freezes ground beef before turning it into a world-class hamburger? What's the best frozen hamburger I can buy?
> Who freezes ground beef before turning it into a world-class hamburger? What's the best frozen hamburger I can buy?
I do, because I'm not a restaurant, and I don't buy enough meat for one or two servings of hamburger. If a restaurant's been around long enough and has enough turn over, they won't have my problem, but a place could want to freeze for time reasons, or to help with getting a gnarly crust by cooking it from frozen, etc. If you're freezing with the kind of thing the NYC sushi guys use (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/nyregion/sushi-fresh-from-...), and defrosting properly, a truly great hamburger could easily be made from a frozen patty.
I've never heard of a good prefrozen hamburger patty unless you're getting something from Snake River Farms or something along those lines (they ship frozen meat). I freeze my own.
I do, because I'm not a restaurant, and I don't buy enough meat for one or two servings of hamburger. If a restaurant's been around long enough and has enough turn over, they won't have my problem, but a place could want to freeze for time reasons, or to help with getting a gnarly crust by cooking it from frozen, etc. If you're freezing with the kind of thing the NYC sushi guys use (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/nyregion/sushi-fresh-from-...), and defrosting properly, a truly great hamburger could easily be made from a frozen patty.
I've never heard of a good prefrozen hamburger patty unless you're getting something from Snake River Farms or something along those lines (they ship frozen meat). I freeze my own.
When I don't want to take the time to grind my own meat I have the butcher do it for me. I don't know any restaurants that incorporate freezing to improve quality, only to lower costs.
It comes down to logistics. Maybe I'm a smaller restaurant, and I want to serve BBQ or fresh bread. Might not be feasible for them to smoke a brisket every day if they're not a brisket place, but you can definitely freeze some brisket and bring it back to life in pretty good quality. It doesn't improve it, but it lets a restaurant serve something that they otherwise couldn't.
Same goes for fresh bread. Maybe they want to serve pastrami sandwiches in Manhattan, but the best rye bread they can find is in Detroit, and so they have their baker freeze the bread and ship it over. It's not that the bread is better because it was frozen, but they're able to get better bread because they could freeze it.
Same goes for fresh bread. Maybe they want to serve pastrami sandwiches in Manhattan, but the best rye bread they can find is in Detroit, and so they have their baker freeze the bread and ship it over. It's not that the bread is better because it was frozen, but they're able to get better bread because they could freeze it.
Yes, these are examples of people maximizing for a variable other than quality. The linked study indicates that the freeze-thaw cycle has significant negative effects on the quality of ground beef. I believe ground meat is probably more damaged by freeze-thaw than whole cuts of meat.
https://www.dti.dk/_/media/66980_Effect%20of%20packaging,%20... (PDF!)
https://www.dti.dk/_/media/66980_Effect%20of%20packaging,%20... (PDF!)
The methodology used for that paper makes it irrelevant for a discussion of optimizing the quality of frozen items——the packaging, the cooked burger doneness (167F), and the fat percentage are all significantly different from what would be used in a high-end commercial setting.
I've been saying that a great burger could be cooked with a frozen patty (and you could even freeze the bun as long as you don't freeze them together), not that the freezing itself improves the quality of the meat for typical burger metrics of quality (with the exception of crust formation, which could be much better potentially if cooked from frozen).
Freezing food has a stigma that it doesn't deserve if the freezing and thawing is done with care. As I mentioned before, the best sushi restaurants in Manhattan all freeze their fish and store it in extremely cold freezers, and there's no significant detriment to quality. If Shake Shack wanted to do so, they could freeze their patties, and they'd still have one of the best restaurant burgers out there. They certainly would not be freezing their meat in the way that was done in that burger paper, nor would they be using meat of that quality.
Freezing food has a stigma that it doesn't deserve if the freezing and thawing is done with care. As I mentioned before, the best sushi restaurants in Manhattan all freeze their fish and store it in extremely cold freezers, and there's no significant detriment to quality. If Shake Shack wanted to do so, they could freeze their patties, and they'd still have one of the best restaurant burgers out there. They certainly would not be freezing their meat in the way that was done in that burger paper, nor would they be using meat of that quality.
You definitely cannot freeze cooked barbecue brisket and bring it back to life at adequate commercial quality. You can freeze raw brisket, but that doesn't solve the core problem of serving barbecue brisket, which is that it takes so long to cook that you have to either be really good at predicting your turnover or close up early when you run out.
Long story short: freezing brisket, not a great plan.
Long story short: freezing brisket, not a great plan.
You certainly can freeze barbecued brisket and bring it back to life in great shape——I've done it plenty of times. It took a lot of trial and error, but it's not impossible. I'm not cooking a 18 hour brisket just to eat a quarter pound of it and toss the rest.
Freezing has nothing to do with meat quality. It's the source of beef that matters.
I tried the Impossible Meats burger - it was nowhere near as tasty as a beef burger. I think it could be improved drastically by just adding a little MSG tho.
Most burgers are improved with MSG, it is a miracle salt.
And msg is generally considered safe these days?
MSG is Monosodium Glutamate, the sodium salt of glutamate. Glutamate is an amino acid common in food, I assure you you eat tons of glutamate on a daily basis. There's nothing inherently unsafe about it, and your body knows exactly what to do with it. In fact, your body is literally made with it.
That said glutamate is a neurotransmitter, so yeah you probably shouldn't inject large quantities or anything.
That said glutamate is a neurotransmitter, so yeah you probably shouldn't inject large quantities or anything.
Pretty much.
Is MSG safe to eat?
FDA considers the addition of MSG to foods to be “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS).
https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/foodad...
Is MSG safe to eat?
FDA considers the addition of MSG to foods to be “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS).
https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/foodad...
It's ben heavily studied for decades and the whole msg scare has no science to back it up. It's possible that some people have a sensitivity to MSG, but for >99.99÷ of the population, it's completely safe.
I buy shakers of it, it can be delicious in some meals.
I buy shakers of it, it can be delicious in some meals.
It's never not been safe.
wrong, this is what they used to synthesise MSG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylonitrile
I believe some MSG is still made with this and causes migraines and other heart issues, it's mostly phased out though, and can cause mixed reactions as the type of MSG isn't labelled, let alone MSG.
I believe some MSG is still made with this and causes migraines and other heart issues, it's mostly phased out though, and can cause mixed reactions as the type of MSG isn't labelled, let alone MSG.
>this and causes migraines and other heart issues
Until you can provide a shred of evidence for that I will assume you're just adding a layer of legitimate-sounding abstraction to the same superstition. Toxic precursors =/= toxic end products. This is chemistry, not alchemy.
Until you can provide a shred of evidence for that I will assume you're just adding a layer of legitimate-sounding abstraction to the same superstition. Toxic precursors =/= toxic end products. This is chemistry, not alchemy.
Your link has no mention of the subject being directly used to manufacture MSG, and only mention a link to glutamic acid being used for syntheses of it. This is not adequate evidence that Acrylonitrile was ever present in commercial MSG.
there are two known methods, acrylonitrile and bacteria as per this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate#Productio...
I think of it like gluten, or lactose, for most people its fine, but some people definately don't tolerate it and only they need to avoid it. If you have the enzymes required to process it then you're fine, if your genetics are missing something required for processing it then you'll have problems.
just like people with Phenylketonuria and aspartame. Aspartame contains Phenylalanine and can cause issues for some, and it varies from product to product (quality standards). I used to have issues from drinking cheap diet cola.
MSG itself is not a problem. Actually, it is so good, you can use lowest quality products, add some MSG and still get tasty meals. I avoid MSG precisely for this reason - I try to eat quality food and you may never know what's behind it when MSG is used.
Do you also avoid salt,because literally the exact same reasoning could be used for salt or any spices
If food in a restaurant is too salty or spicy, I accept that as a signal that chef might be trying to hide something. Contrary to the salt and spices, the problem with MSG that it's hard to tell how much of it was used just by tasting, that's why I try to avoid it at all. I do use salt and spices when I cook at home, but then I rarely have to question the quality of products used. For example, when I cook burger from quality beef, a pinch of salt and black pepper is all I need, then why do you think McDonald's etc. use MSG by the handfuls?
A friend in LA got my brother and I to try impossible burgers (he's pescatarian, I'm vegawarian): we agreed it was not that great.
What does vegawarian mean?
I assumed it was a typo, but apparently its an actual term. Basically vegetarian-friendly. Sounds a bit buzzword-y, but I like the concept.
https://www.greenprophet.com/2009/01/vegewarianism/
https://www.greenprophet.com/2009/01/vegewarianism/
I'm aware vegetables are better.
A shibboleth
I also had the Impossible burger and was not impressed - to me, it was too greasy, and didn't have any real flavor of its own. I would not order it again for pretty much any reason - I actively disliked eating it.
I just want to point out that there are lots of ways to get umami. MSG is just one of them (and not really a great way IMHO).
I cooked vegan at home for a long time (I'm not actually an ethical vegan, I just like vegan food). Konbu dashi will give you similar glutamate profiles, but tomatoes, fermented products like shoyu and miso, etc are simple ways to boost the umami as well. Usually the biggest trick in good vegan food is to understand how to balance all of the flavours. Meat based cooking has so many savoury flavours, and if you simply cut out the meat, you end up with overly sweet/sour dishes. They lack depth. If you're designing a dish and you are waiting until the end to figure out how to get the umami in (for example, by adding MSG), then you're really not going to succeed most of the time IMHO. If I want a savoury dish, umami is where I start.
Having said that, I've never made a vegan burger style dish that I've thought was particularly good. I've had some excellent vegan dishes like that at restaurants and I've always wondered how they did it. Since MSG triggers migraines in me, I'm pretty sure it wasn't MSG :-)
I cooked vegan at home for a long time (I'm not actually an ethical vegan, I just like vegan food). Konbu dashi will give you similar glutamate profiles, but tomatoes, fermented products like shoyu and miso, etc are simple ways to boost the umami as well. Usually the biggest trick in good vegan food is to understand how to balance all of the flavours. Meat based cooking has so many savoury flavours, and if you simply cut out the meat, you end up with overly sweet/sour dishes. They lack depth. If you're designing a dish and you are waiting until the end to figure out how to get the umami in (for example, by adding MSG), then you're really not going to succeed most of the time IMHO. If I want a savoury dish, umami is where I start.
Having said that, I've never made a vegan burger style dish that I've thought was particularly good. I've had some excellent vegan dishes like that at restaurants and I've always wondered how they did it. Since MSG triggers migraines in me, I'm pretty sure it wasn't MSG :-)
MSG consumption has never been linked to physical symptoms in a double blind test.[0] It's an abundantly occurring natural amino acid. Kombu dashi is one of the foods where the flavor of MSG was originally identified as umami because it contains MSG.
[0]http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/foodadd...
[0]http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/foodadd...
MSG can be made using toxic chemicals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylonitrile
Most of the things you list as MSG alternatives actually contain MSG; like tomatoes, konbu dashi, and many fermented products.
Yeah, a lot of times you'll see MSG in ingredients lists as "hydrolysed vegetable protein", or "hydrolysed soy protein". And that's exactly what you're getting in soy sauce, or tomatoes, or konbu dashi -- naturally produced MSG.
One is L-shaped (artificial and flavour enhancing) the other is natural.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/4433/Monosodium-Glutamate-MSG...
http://science.jrank.org/pages/4433/Monosodium-Glutamate-MSG...
Since when is "natural vs artificial" evidence of relative healthiness, or even a logical basis for comparison at all? You have numerous comments in this thread all drawing on the same fallacy that some MSG can be "good" and some can be "bad" when that is inherently impossible.
Producing a URL with the word "science" in it ending in .org is not sufficient evidence. Find a single empirical datapoint or published study, otherwise stop spreading fearmongering speculation. Do you concern yourself with which table salt to buy because it may be "bad NaCl"?
Producing a URL with the word "science" in it ending in .org is not sufficient evidence. Find a single empirical datapoint or published study, otherwise stop spreading fearmongering speculation. Do you concern yourself with which table salt to buy because it may be "bad NaCl"?
Surely the flavour enhancing one must be the natural one, or else meat wouldn't have the umami taste, or am I missing something?
I make a black bean / brown rice / sweet potato with cumin vege burger that tastes pretty good
it's all about the quality of the MSG and the manufacturing standards. if you added MSG to foods yourself, you'd know which brands to use or avoid.
When visiting Europe I had a similar experience with "Seitan" [1] based sausages.
I quickly realised that what I like most about sausages isn't really the animal fat / flesh, it's the wheat, barley and or other spices + salt fried in oil that I enjoy. I should also add the texture which was easily reproduced with Seitan.
Also I found Seitan cheese burgers to be really, really good.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_gluten_(food)
I quickly realised that what I like most about sausages isn't really the animal fat / flesh, it's the wheat, barley and or other spices + salt fried in oil that I enjoy. I should also add the texture which was easily reproduced with Seitan.
Also I found Seitan cheese burgers to be really, really good.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_gluten_(food)
Do they still offer the sausage? I'd love to try it when I visit NYC.
I think the way it breaks a part has always made me lean towards it being served as a bbq pulled pork slider. I didn't think about how it would taste as a "sausage".
I've felt like vegetarian hot dogs tasted the same (indistinguishable) or better as regular hot dogs for a while now.
I'm a little more skeptical of "pork" substitutes simply because lard makes everything taste better. Split pea soup vs split pea soup with coppa. Regular pie crust vs lard crust. Plain pizza vs with prosciutto. Risotto vs risotto w pork fat (or goose fat). For all of these there's no contest (for me).
I'm a little more skeptical of "pork" substitutes simply because lard makes everything taste better. Split pea soup vs split pea soup with coppa. Regular pie crust vs lard crust. Plain pizza vs with prosciutto. Risotto vs risotto w pork fat (or goose fat). For all of these there's no contest (for me).
I live literally a block away from Ssam bar--I'll be going in tomorrow for lunch to try this out. Thanks for the tip!
I'm afraid they've taken the Impossible Foods version off the menu :(
They do they same pork version at both lunch and dinner now. I'll ask why they switched next time I stop by.
Aside: I too live very close to Ssam Bar and would be happy to get a coffee in the neighborhood. If you're interested, contact info is in my profile.
They do they same pork version at both lunch and dinner now. I'll ask why they switched next time I stop by.
Aside: I too live very close to Ssam Bar and would be happy to get a coffee in the neighborhood. If you're interested, contact info is in my profile.
I too live nearby and would love to try the non-processed food version.
How do you know for that sure it will reduce the number of animal lives and reduce CO2? Farming the plants needed to produce this fake meat takes up land, potentially (and most likely) more land needed to produce equal amounts of meat.
Unless they are running a completely solar operation and managing their farms using a system of rotational grazing that sequesters CO2, they most certainly are emitting it.
I see this as only mildly better than CAFOs. Employing holistic management techniques is still the best, and unfortunately, under appreciated way to produce meat in an ethical, sustainable way that also generates new fertile soil and sequesters carbon/methane as a side effect.
Unless they are running a completely solar operation and managing their farms using a system of rotational grazing that sequesters CO2, they most certainly are emitting it.
I see this as only mildly better than CAFOs. Employing holistic management techniques is still the best, and unfortunately, under appreciated way to produce meat in an ethical, sustainable way that also generates new fertile soil and sequesters carbon/methane as a side effect.
> Farming the plants needed to produce this fake meat takes up land, potentially (and most likely) more land needed to produce equal amounts of meat.
And it will often take up land that is more fertile, and as such has a higher biodiversity cost, than what is needed for grazing animals (which can be done on land more barren or harder to farm).
It is often forgotten that you can herd animals in ways that coexist with the rest of the ecosystem, while farming plant based food (especially products like grains or soy) requires you to raze all existing life in the area you wish to use for farmland reducing it to a monoculture with no room for diversity.
(But it should be made clear that this only counts for grazing animals. Industrial meat production where you feed the animals grains gives you the worst of both worlds).
And it will often take up land that is more fertile, and as such has a higher biodiversity cost, than what is needed for grazing animals (which can be done on land more barren or harder to farm).
It is often forgotten that you can herd animals in ways that coexist with the rest of the ecosystem, while farming plant based food (especially products like grains or soy) requires you to raze all existing life in the area you wish to use for farmland reducing it to a monoculture with no room for diversity.
(But it should be made clear that this only counts for grazing animals. Industrial meat production where you feed the animals grains gives you the worst of both worlds).
Are you sure? Cows eat plants. The footprint from cows is largely due to the fact that you need 14 pounds of grain per pound of cow, if I remember correctly. Unless these burgers are somehow taking 14 pounds of grain to produce per pound of burger, I think we're in a better place.
That said, eliminating cows I still don't think will help the environment. That freed up land will be bought and used for some other purpose. It's natural capitalism. If you want to fix the environment, you need heavy penalities / taxes for nonsustainable resource usage. That's the only way.
That said, eliminating cows I still don't think will help the environment. That freed up land will be bought and used for some other purpose. It's natural capitalism. If you want to fix the environment, you need heavy penalities / taxes for nonsustainable resource usage. That's the only way.
Cows don't need grain. Grain feeding is part of industrial meat production that is highly detrimental to the environment. Feeding cows grass (and rotating them) though has the total opposite effect. It creates soil that can hold more water and sequester carbon. So it eliminates the need for grain production because cows simply eat grass while naturally fertilizing it.
Huge fan of a carbon tax.
Huge fan of a carbon tax.
No way anyone can feed cows on grass alone if you want to earn big bucks or feed 200M their daily beef steak.
Do you have data comparing profits from CAFOs vs grass-fed operations? Wouldn't grass fed sellers earn more as it's a premium product?
How did the North American plains support millions of bison just on grass at one point?
How did the North American plains support millions of bison just on grass at one point?
Bison are easier on the grass than cows.
One problem is of course that few places are good enough carbon sinks to make grass fed beef even close to co2 neutral.
A better idea would be less regular manure and more humanure.
A better idea would be less regular manure and more humanure.
The other purpose beeing green fuels? Im okay with this.
>potentially (and most likely) more land needed to produce equal amounts of meat
Please explain this in more detail.
>and sequesters carbon/methane as a side effect
I have not heard of a farming practice that sequesters methane released from ruminants. Can you provide more information?
Please explain this in more detail.
>and sequesters carbon/methane as a side effect
I have not heard of a farming practice that sequesters methane released from ruminants. Can you provide more information?
>>potentially (and most likely) more land needed to produce equal amounts of meat
>Please explain this in more detail.
Sure! Plants are much less nutrient dense that animals. So for them to create fake meat that's equally nutrient dense as real meat, their farms have to be adequately large. You need a ton of plants to achieve the density of meat. Animals on land however are already nutrient dense. The only physical space they need is enough room to graze.
>>and sequesters carbon/methane as a side effect
>I have not heard of a farming practice that sequesters methane released from ruminants. Can you provide more information?
Scientists and farmers in this area can do a much better job explaining it than I [1], [2], [3].
[1]: https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl...
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z75A_JMBx4
[3]: https://vimeo.com/80518559
>Please explain this in more detail.
Sure! Plants are much less nutrient dense that animals. So for them to create fake meat that's equally nutrient dense as real meat, their farms have to be adequately large. You need a ton of plants to achieve the density of meat. Animals on land however are already nutrient dense. The only physical space they need is enough room to graze.
>>and sequesters carbon/methane as a side effect
>I have not heard of a farming practice that sequesters methane released from ruminants. Can you provide more information?
Scientists and farmers in this area can do a much better job explaining it than I [1], [2], [3].
[1]: https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl...
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z75A_JMBx4
[3]: https://vimeo.com/80518559
You should become familiar with the energy pyramid. It's an order of magnitude more efficient to extract energy from plants than to pass the plant energy through animals first. https://www.brainpop.com/science/energy/energypyramid/
You're right that animal-based foods are much more calorie-dense than plant-based foods. But an animal contains roughly 1/10 of the calories of all the plants that collectively went into feeding it.
The animal's only energy source is plants. Some portion of that energy goes into producing muscle and organ tissue. Some of it is converted to heat. The rest is used for respiration, digestion, thinking, walking around, dreaming, and all the other ongoing processes of life. Animals don't undergo photosynthesis, nor do they spontaneously generate energy.
Unless there's something else you're getting at here. Energy loss and trophic levels is a pretty well-understood idea.
http://kids.britannica.com/students/assembly/view/90132
Admittedly, there is a bit more nuance to the issue; for example, a cow can produce milk and meat from grass, which, for humans, creates available nutrients where there were none before. However, we could also plant that field of grass with corn or potatoes and get many more calories for the same amount of water and sunlight.
The animal's only energy source is plants. Some portion of that energy goes into producing muscle and organ tissue. Some of it is converted to heat. The rest is used for respiration, digestion, thinking, walking around, dreaming, and all the other ongoing processes of life. Animals don't undergo photosynthesis, nor do they spontaneously generate energy.
Unless there's something else you're getting at here. Energy loss and trophic levels is a pretty well-understood idea.
http://kids.britannica.com/students/assembly/view/90132
Admittedly, there is a bit more nuance to the issue; for example, a cow can produce milk and meat from grass, which, for humans, creates available nutrients where there were none before. However, we could also plant that field of grass with corn or potatoes and get many more calories for the same amount of water and sunlight.
I've studied the amount of energy and water necessary to produce beef extensively, both at university and professionally, and I can say from experience that it would be extremely difficult for something like the impossible burger to consume more energy and water than the equivalent amount of actual meat.
Meat is expensive in energy and water because it takes huge amounts of vegetable matter and water for a period of _years_ to get to a point where it's consumable; by contrast, said vegetable matter can be produced in typically less than one year.
Meat is expensive in energy and water because it takes huge amounts of vegetable matter and water for a period of _years_ to get to a point where it's consumable; by contrast, said vegetable matter can be produced in typically less than one year.
Did you study industrial beef production or grass-based holistic management? As far as I'm aware, the latter isn't taught at schools (yet). Although the technique is very old, and based on nature's natural cycle of herd movement, it only caught on again in the early 2000s.
How will said vegetable matter get it's nutrients year after year as the soil it's growing on gets eroded? Wouldn't external fertilizer, pesticides, etc need to be brought in? Doesn't creating that expend huge amounts of energy on it's own?
How will said vegetable matter get it's nutrients year after year as the soil it's growing on gets eroded? Wouldn't external fertilizer, pesticides, etc need to be brought in? Doesn't creating that expend huge amounts of energy on it's own?
To be honest, it doesn't make that much of a difference when we compare the cost of calories from vegetable matter to the cost of calories from meat (and, when we're talking about a few ounces of organic matter for a burger, that is basically what we're talking about).
Sure, you have to worry about soil erosion, but by the same token you have to consider the fact that a single cow has a large grazing area. Fertilizers, pesticides etc. are optional but not strictly required, and again don't really change the bottom line.
Sure, you have to worry about soil erosion, but by the same token you have to consider the fact that a single cow has a large grazing area. Fertilizers, pesticides etc. are optional but not strictly required, and again don't really change the bottom line.
Could you please enlighten me on how land gets fertilized on it's own without grazing herbivores to create a proper soil micro-biome?
Sure cows need grazing land, but they don't require all the external inputs an industrial soybean farm, for instance, needs. All they require is land, sunlight, electric fences, and some water if rainfall is inadequate or the soil is in bad shape due to prior mismanagement or desertification.
Sure cows need grazing land, but they don't require all the external inputs an industrial soybean farm, for instance, needs. All they require is land, sunlight, electric fences, and some water if rainfall is inadequate or the soil is in bad shape due to prior mismanagement or desertification.
>Could you please enlighten me on how land gets fertilized on it's own without grazing herbivores to create a proper soil micro-biome?
You just keep their shit, let it decay, microorganisms flourish, and then spread it over the fields. Also switching plants regularily helps keeping decent amount of nitrogen in the soil.
>Sure cows need grazing land, but they don't require all the external inputs an industrial soybean farm, for instance, needs
This only works for extensive breeding, which is no more than 20% in the usa [1]. Sure, these eat hay in the winter, but thats not sufficient to keep animals fat enough. Inside their diet basically is the same as others, which is 50kg of corn silage, and some 2-5 kg of dehydrated soy protein. Per day. Good luck producing as much waste as a cow during her life time.
nb : I live and studied veterinary medicine in Europe, where we don't grow soy and import it from south america mostly (USA grows a lot already, idk if its autosufficient though). So yeah, deforestation exists so we can eat beef :)
1 - http://www.beefusa.org/beefindustrystatistics.aspx " feedlots with greater than 1,000 head capacity account for 81% of all cattle on feed". These mega farms don't do extensive breeding.
You just keep their shit, let it decay, microorganisms flourish, and then spread it over the fields. Also switching plants regularily helps keeping decent amount of nitrogen in the soil.
>Sure cows need grazing land, but they don't require all the external inputs an industrial soybean farm, for instance, needs
This only works for extensive breeding, which is no more than 20% in the usa [1]. Sure, these eat hay in the winter, but thats not sufficient to keep animals fat enough. Inside their diet basically is the same as others, which is 50kg of corn silage, and some 2-5 kg of dehydrated soy protein. Per day. Good luck producing as much waste as a cow during her life time.
nb : I live and studied veterinary medicine in Europe, where we don't grow soy and import it from south america mostly (USA grows a lot already, idk if its autosufficient though). So yeah, deforestation exists so we can eat beef :)
1 - http://www.beefusa.org/beefindustrystatistics.aspx " feedlots with greater than 1,000 head capacity account for 81% of all cattle on feed". These mega farms don't do extensive breeding.
You're saying grazing is zero input but e.g. a soy bean farm is not. This whole comparison is off.
A soy bean farm is a bad idea, firstly. To maintain balance, you wouldn't just want to farm soy beans.
Next, grass doesn't just magically appear. It too needs nutrients.
Cow manure is one way to improve soil nutrients, but Permaculture shows us many more ways to keep the cycle flowing.
In the end, the best picture is actually that the cows grazing and the soy beans exist together in a larger system of many other products that work together in providing nutrients that the others need.
Cows, though, are ultimately unnecessary for a Permaculture style system, and we can grow food without them. Then they can just be there as our friends and participate in our agricultural systems as fertilizers, if circumstances happen that way.
A soy bean farm is a bad idea, firstly. To maintain balance, you wouldn't just want to farm soy beans.
Next, grass doesn't just magically appear. It too needs nutrients.
Cow manure is one way to improve soil nutrients, but Permaculture shows us many more ways to keep the cycle flowing.
In the end, the best picture is actually that the cows grazing and the soy beans exist together in a larger system of many other products that work together in providing nutrients that the others need.
Cows, though, are ultimately unnecessary for a Permaculture style system, and we can grow food without them. Then they can just be there as our friends and participate in our agricultural systems as fertilizers, if circumstances happen that way.
Everything I'm talking about is based on Permaculture. From the Wikipedia page on Permaculture [1]:
Animals, domestic or wild are a critical component of any wild or designed sustainable ecosystem. Research indicates that without the animal’s participation and contribution, ecological integrity is diminished or impossible. Some of the activities that contribute to the system include: foraging to cycle nutrients, clear fallen fruit, weed maintenance, spreading seeds, and pest maintenance. The nutrients are cycled by animals, transformed from their less digestible form (such as grass or twigs) into more nutrient-dense manure.
Fertilizer requires manure. Without manure you need synthetic fertilizer, which breaks the natural feedback loop and no longer good Permaculture practice.
Sure grass doesn't magically appear on it's own, but it can when you rotate some ruminants around from paddock to paddock. I have a friend who has a business doing this. She drives around a truck full of sheep and revitalizes land that has been turned to desert due to overgrazing or mismanagement [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
[2]: http://brittanycolebush.com
Animals, domestic or wild are a critical component of any wild or designed sustainable ecosystem. Research indicates that without the animal’s participation and contribution, ecological integrity is diminished or impossible. Some of the activities that contribute to the system include: foraging to cycle nutrients, clear fallen fruit, weed maintenance, spreading seeds, and pest maintenance. The nutrients are cycled by animals, transformed from their less digestible form (such as grass or twigs) into more nutrient-dense manure.
Fertilizer requires manure. Without manure you need synthetic fertilizer, which breaks the natural feedback loop and no longer good Permaculture practice.
Sure grass doesn't magically appear on it's own, but it can when you rotate some ruminants around from paddock to paddock. I have a friend who has a business doing this. She drives around a truck full of sheep and revitalizes land that has been turned to desert due to overgrazing or mismanagement [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
[2]: http://brittanycolebush.com
> How will said vegetable matter get it's nutrients year after year as the soil it's growing on gets eroded?
1. It won't be eroded if you practice good farming, e.g. Permaculture 2. The meat industry is horrendously worse at regeneration of land than the worst farm practices 3. How else do you expect nutrients arrive in soil? It's a process that happens naturally very easily and just needs to be managed
1. It won't be eroded if you practice good farming, e.g. Permaculture 2. The meat industry is horrendously worse at regeneration of land than the worst farm practices 3. How else do you expect nutrients arrive in soil? It's a process that happens naturally very easily and just needs to be managed
I'm happy to see that fat and protein are the main ingredients.
http://impossiblefoods.com/images/faq/nutrition-facts.png
A lot of veggie imitation meats are low on fat and protein and extremely high on processed carbs.
http://impossiblefoods.com/images/faq/nutrition-facts.png
A lot of veggie imitation meats are low on fat and protein and extremely high on processed carbs.
Wow, do nutrition labels in USA generally not show figures per 100g?
No, and it's really obnoxious, because there are thresholds where content doesn't have to be listed. For example, a package of tic-tacs will say that it has 0g sugar per serving (a 'serving' being one tic-tac), but the whole (small) package will have something like 20g of sugar.
This is one thing I actually think America does right. I'm the type of person to eat a single tic-tac, but even if I acknowledge that there are failures, it's far easier for me to get a rough sense as to how bad eating something is if it lists it's actual content. Ideally there would be both, but having to do 0.85 * 260 just to get the calorie count for this is just annoying.
I do think the design of the labels is completely ridiculous, though. Sugar, trans fats, and caloric count should be made much more prominent and put in red so that uninformed people understand that these are the primary causes of sickness in America.
I do think the design of the labels is completely ridiculous, though. Sugar, trans fats, and caloric count should be made much more prominent and put in red so that uninformed people understand that these are the primary causes of sickness in America.
That's more-or-less what Sainsbury's (in the UK) did with their products.
Most things must show the amount per serving and the amount per 100g (in common across the EU), but they also show a chart with green/orange/red based on a typical serving size.
Example: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/61458000/jpg/...
Most things must show the amount per serving and the amount per 100g (in common across the EU), but they also show a chart with green/orange/red based on a typical serving size.
Example: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/61458000/jpg/...
> put in red so that uninformed people understand that these are the primary causes of sickness in America.
The hypothesis here being what? Lack of red highlighting in informative tables is the cause for uninformedness? :)
The hypothesis here being what? Lack of red highlighting in informative tables is the cause for uninformedness? :)
It's per serving.
Obviously, it's easier to compare if they are all relative to 100g, but arguably per-serving is more useful when making eating decisions. When I'm buying a food, I'm not trying to do science; I'm trying to figure out how much of a particular nutrient I'm personally going to get when I eat that item.
For example, if I have soup, there's no way I'll have as little as 100g of it. If I have tea, there's no way I'm going to have as much as 100g of tea leaves. The mass of a serving could be 1 or even 2 orders of magnitude different depending on the type of food.
Serving sizes are required by law to be "based on amounts of foods and beverages that people are actually eating" (see https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocument... ).
Obviously, it's easier to compare if they are all relative to 100g, but arguably per-serving is more useful when making eating decisions. When I'm buying a food, I'm not trying to do science; I'm trying to figure out how much of a particular nutrient I'm personally going to get when I eat that item.
For example, if I have soup, there's no way I'll have as little as 100g of it. If I have tea, there's no way I'm going to have as much as 100g of tea leaves. The mass of a serving could be 1 or even 2 orders of magnitude different depending on the type of food.
Serving sizes are required by law to be "based on amounts of foods and beverages that people are actually eating" (see https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocument... ).
The UK labels generally show per serving and per 100g together. Generally I find the serving sizes so low you're best to completely ignore them.
The UK labels generally show per serving and per 100g together.
In fact, I think that's now the norm in the whole of the EU.
In fact, I think that's now the norm in the whole of the EU.
Per-serving isn't standard between items though. The FDA requirements are broad enough that companies can make up their own serving sizes, and one company could consider a 12oz can one serving, and the other two.
If the two-serving brand is also advertised as low sodium and consumers don't notice that the serving size is half as big, that's gonna seem to be much lower sodium than it really is.
If the two-serving brand is also advertised as low sodium and consumers don't notice that the serving size is half as big, that's gonna seem to be much lower sodium than it really is.
Serving size is highly individual matter and, from my personal experience, usually much smaller than actual amount I take of pretty much everything.
Why not both? Which is what is used in Europe.
It can certainly go either way, but space and simplicity would be the arguments against including both. On a small label, you might need to use a smaller font. Even if you have enough space, a more minimalist approach can be quicker to read (provided that it contains the information you actually want).
We should consider ourselves lucky they used grams at all and not their fancy units.
What drives me nuts is that the Nutrition Information has metric units but the front of the package may not (e.g. "One Quart (32 oz)" but no liter equivalent printed).
Worse is that many products have bogus information. I'm not talking just about the inexactness of the methods, but in many cases the macronutrient math doesn't add up.
Total calories should be about (protein + carb)x4 + (fat)x9. Too often, it isn't close. I was comparing two versions within a product line yesterday (chili with beans vs without beans), and the calorie count for one mismatched the macronutrient breakdown by almost 10%.
Worse is that many products have bogus information. I'm not talking just about the inexactness of the methods, but in many cases the macronutrient math doesn't add up.
Total calories should be about (protein + carb)x4 + (fat)x9. Too often, it isn't close. I was comparing two versions within a product line yesterday (chili with beans vs without beans), and the calorie count for one mismatched the macronutrient breakdown by almost 10%.
If you think that's bad, I encountered a package of tofu recently which stated "Serving Size: 1/4 package; Servings per Package: 8"! Things like that really make you wonder about the reliability of the rest of the information on the label...
It's either a seemingly random measure or, if in a single serving container, the total calories.
[deleted]
interesting. FWIW, here's the ingredients list for the Beyond Meat burger:
water, pea protein isolate, oil blend (canola oil, flaxseed oil, palmoil, sunflower oil, dha algal oil), methylcellulose, carrageenan, potassium bicarbonate, caramel color†, yeast extract, maltodextrin, potassium chloride, tapioca starch, sorbitol, calcium chloride, natural flavoring, spices, salt, vegetable extract mix (spinach, broccoli, carrot, tomato, beet, shiitake mushroom), l-cysteine hydrochloride, beetjuice powder (flavor and color), natural hickory smoke concentrate, calcium sulfate, onion powder, onion extract, mesquite powder, sugar‡, pomegranate seed powder, ferric phosphate (iron), paprika extract (spice and color), garlic extract, cyanocobalamin (vitamin b12)
water, pea protein isolate, oil blend (canola oil, flaxseed oil, palmoil, sunflower oil, dha algal oil), methylcellulose, carrageenan, potassium bicarbonate, caramel color†, yeast extract, maltodextrin, potassium chloride, tapioca starch, sorbitol, calcium chloride, natural flavoring, spices, salt, vegetable extract mix (spinach, broccoli, carrot, tomato, beet, shiitake mushroom), l-cysteine hydrochloride, beetjuice powder (flavor and color), natural hickory smoke concentrate, calcium sulfate, onion powder, onion extract, mesquite powder, sugar‡, pomegranate seed powder, ferric phosphate (iron), paprika extract (spice and color), garlic extract, cyanocobalamin (vitamin b12)
[deleted]
> A lot of veggie imitation meats are low on fat and protein and extremely high on processed carbs.
Which makes them pretty bad, even worst for dieting.
Which makes them pretty bad, even worst for dieting.
I wish they would list the phosphorus contents. I'm on dialysis and require high protein requirements every day but must restrict phosphorus. If I knew this number I could better account for it in my diet. Unfortunately phosphorus is not required in current labeling requirements.
That's a shame.
Curious, how do you normally figure out the phosphorus content ? Is there a guideline somewhere that gives you an adequate estimate ?
Curious, how do you normally figure out the phosphorus content ? Is there a guideline somewhere that gives you an adequate estimate ?
For many common food items, the USDA has a database of full nutrition information including phosphorus. This is a God send for me. https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list
Beyond thing I have few tricks to get a estimate but mostly for those things I don't know the numbers well, I eat in moderation.
Beyond thing I have few tricks to get a estimate but mostly for those things I don't know the numbers well, I eat in moderation.
I'm glad as well - I've found that even seemingly similar products by different brands will wildly vary in carb/protein content.
I could go grab two brands of non-meat burger patty off the shelves right now, and one will be 25% carbs, and one 6%. It's ridiculous.
I could go grab two brands of non-meat burger patty off the shelves right now, and one will be 25% carbs, and one 6%. It's ridiculous.
[deleted]
I'm a fan and as a 3-time food+tech entrepreneur, imho they're going to be very successful.
I'm an omnivore, love burgers. I also love veg burgers, but they're not burgers -- they're something else, the way salmon burgers and fried chicken sandos are great but don't count when you want a "beef burger."
The Impossible Burger was the first burger I tried (Jardiniere in SF) that my brain said, "yes, this is a burger". In fact, it was close enough that... it was boring. I could eat it every day and if beef burgers were taken away from me, I wouldn't notice or reminisce.
The next step is to make the raw IB meat available in grocery, so I can experiment myself - load up the umami, mix in spices, stuff it with cheese, try it with different levels of done-ness, etc.
I'm an omnivore, love burgers. I also love veg burgers, but they're not burgers -- they're something else, the way salmon burgers and fried chicken sandos are great but don't count when you want a "beef burger."
The Impossible Burger was the first burger I tried (Jardiniere in SF) that my brain said, "yes, this is a burger". In fact, it was close enough that... it was boring. I could eat it every day and if beef burgers were taken away from me, I wouldn't notice or reminisce.
The next step is to make the raw IB meat available in grocery, so I can experiment myself - load up the umami, mix in spices, stuff it with cheese, try it with different levels of done-ness, etc.
I tried a Beyond Burger, which I believe is the main other horse in this "veggie burger" race and I was pretty impressed. It doesn't have the "plant blood" that seems to be Impossible's secret sauce, but on a bun, with ketchup, lettuce and tomato I thought it was pretty great. Great enough that I'd order it instead of a normal burger if it was widely available.
We keep beyond burgers stocked at my place in the east bay. Delicious, and not that much more expensive than good ground beef.
how did the cost compare to meat?
I think the patties were sold in pairs at Whole Foods for about $8, so $4 a piece. Kind of steep but in a world where people pay $9 a serving for BlueApron seems competitive enough.
Environmental, ethical, or dollar cost?
Dollar cost. I'd love to switch away from beef burgers for a health and ethical reason, but can't justify a $15 burger when most burgers at a nice restaurant are $10 where I live.
thanks. yes. that's what i was wondering about.
I'm curious about the environmental cost myself.
just the simple dollar cost
Two 1/4 lb. frozen patties are around $6. I've never been a fan of veggie burgers, but these really do taste excellent and the nutrition profile is great.
What is it with first-world vegans/vegetarians wanting to eat these extremely processed imitation meat frozen foods? There is an entire tradition of vegetarian cuisine around the world from Rasta Ital, to Hindu Sattvic, Afghani, and Thai which you could learn with just a tiny bit of effort.
I think the goal is more to transition omnivores away from meat. There is a consensus that the meat industry in unsustainable as is. But, there is also a strong belief that trying to convince the world they don't want meat via rational arguments is futile. Thus, we need work-arounds via either plants that mimic meat or changing the meat industry over to vat-brewed meat.
Mimicking is exactly how you get omnivores to not try your product.
You'd like me to try vegan food? Make real vegan cuisine with its own flavors and consistency. Don't try to make fake meat, I won't eat vegan to taste something meat-like. I'll eat it for good tasting vegetables and fruits.
You'd like me to try vegan food? Make real vegan cuisine with its own flavors and consistency. Don't try to make fake meat, I won't eat vegan to taste something meat-like. I'll eat it for good tasting vegetables and fruits.
Different subgroups. Replacement products are interesting for omnivores that want to get rid of meat in their diet. Omnivores that intend to remain such don't really care.
> trying to convince the world they don't want meat via rational arguments is futile
Of course it is, because it should be pretty obvious that they do want meat. If they didn't want meat you wouldn't be having the argument in the first place, right?
I've never tried a real honest to god direct replacement for meat that I actually was fooled -- even for a moment -- into thinking might actually be meat. I've had some delicious vegetarian dishes, I've had some delicious vegan dishes, but those things definitely just aren't the same experience as eating meat. Tofurkey just don't cut it.
Which isn't to say that I'm not open to the idea of having a 1:1 lab-made replacement for meat that is indistinguishable from the real thing. I most definitely am. If you could provide me with lab-meat at even just a small premium I'd probably go vegetarian where that option was available.
But boy do I love me some meat-or-indistinguishable-from-meat products in my meals.
Of course it is, because it should be pretty obvious that they do want meat. If they didn't want meat you wouldn't be having the argument in the first place, right?
I've never tried a real honest to god direct replacement for meat that I actually was fooled -- even for a moment -- into thinking might actually be meat. I've had some delicious vegetarian dishes, I've had some delicious vegan dishes, but those things definitely just aren't the same experience as eating meat. Tofurkey just don't cut it.
Which isn't to say that I'm not open to the idea of having a 1:1 lab-made replacement for meat that is indistinguishable from the real thing. I most definitely am. If you could provide me with lab-meat at even just a small premium I'd probably go vegetarian where that option was available.
But boy do I love me some meat-or-indistinguishable-from-meat products in my meals.
> Which isn't to say that I'm not open to the idea of having a 1:1 lab-made replacement for meat that is indistinguishable from the real thing. I most definitely am. If you could provide me with lab-meat at even just a small premium I'd probably go vegetarian where that option was available.
Question: does that count as going vegetarian? To me that's just going techno-carnivore.
Question: does that count as going vegetarian? To me that's just going techno-carnivore.
Depends why you're asking. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-mad...
An important component of the pitch to omnivores is price. If the price is low enough, it becomes an easier sell.
But very often the prices on these vegetarian meat substitute products is the same or higher than the comparable meat product. I think that's because the food system, and various subsidies to "big meat", make meat unnaturally cheap.
But very often the prices on these vegetarian meat substitute products is the same or higher than the comparable meat product. I think that's because the food system, and various subsidies to "big meat", make meat unnaturally cheap.
That, and economy of scale. Were omnivores less that 5% of the population, no doubt we'd see higher prices there too.
Hey, I like vegan food a lot, but it's not like "extremely processed imitation meat" foods haven't been part of vegan culture for a long time. Go to a tofu restaurant in Japan and take a look at what they do to yuba. As for the frozen part, vegans have traditionally had to cook virtually everything they ate in the first world. There has not historically been a lot of convenience food. The last 20 years or so, it's grown a lot, but it is still dwarfed by the more traditional convenience food. Especially in big cities in the west, if I want a prepared vegan take-away, then it is usually a million times better to get one from one of the tiny restaurants that are the advantage of having nice multi-cultural societies.
But there is one last reason for the "I can't believe it's not a dead animal!"-burger/dog: Culturually, people invite you to barbeques. If you show up with your Shoujin ryouri bentou, people look down on you and tell you that you're stuck up. If you show up with an eggplant and a hot dog bun, they won't call you stuck up, but they will reasonably say, "You're really going to grill an eggplant and stick it in a hotdog bun? That's why vegan food is so sad". (BTW, that actually sounds good to me :-) ).
Yes, vegans want to go to barbeques and fit in and not have to explain why they decided not to eat meat. Sometimes they just want a normal western cultural experience without having to compromise on their principles. Sometimes they grew up with this kind of food and they are feeling nostalgic. There are huge numbers of reasons why people do these kinds of things and why it is a big deal to them.
And yes, they should learn about cuisines that are culturally vegetarian for many, many reasons as well. Most do even if they also eat processed vegetable protein in a package.
But there is one last reason for the "I can't believe it's not a dead animal!"-burger/dog: Culturually, people invite you to barbeques. If you show up with your Shoujin ryouri bentou, people look down on you and tell you that you're stuck up. If you show up with an eggplant and a hot dog bun, they won't call you stuck up, but they will reasonably say, "You're really going to grill an eggplant and stick it in a hotdog bun? That's why vegan food is so sad". (BTW, that actually sounds good to me :-) ).
Yes, vegans want to go to barbeques and fit in and not have to explain why they decided not to eat meat. Sometimes they just want a normal western cultural experience without having to compromise on their principles. Sometimes they grew up with this kind of food and they are feeling nostalgic. There are huge numbers of reasons why people do these kinds of things and why it is a big deal to them.
And yes, they should learn about cuisines that are culturally vegetarian for many, many reasons as well. Most do even if they also eat processed vegetable protein in a package.
Appreciate how you illustrate the different aspects. I can take being the odd one out every now and then as a vegan. I'm aware that my choice places me in an odd spot from time to time. But it can be so good to not stick out sometimes. Whether it is that you have nice convenience food that can be handled just like the original or a taste that you thought you had given up or a social event where your food doesn't even register as weird.
And I believe these imitations really do help a lot of people make the transition either away from meat or towards less meat. Which I see as a good thing.
And I believe these imitations really do help a lot of people make the transition either away from meat or towards less meat. Which I see as a good thing.
As a vegetarian who regularly makes curries from scratch, from soaking the lentils to grinding my own spices from whole seeds/pods and grilling paneer in tandoori paste, I can say it doesn't hurt to have the option when you've feel like having a burger, and it's a good way for people who want to make the switch to vegetarianism to know that their favourite junk foods are still an option.
Why do you soak the lentils?
Soaking lentils (and other legumes like chickpeas) cuts cooking time by about half.
It's even more important for legumes and other foods because it removes phytic acid (one of the things that prevents absorption of nutrients/minerals) and makes it easier to digest. It's similar with nuts too. They all become nutritionally more accessible (and "richer") when soaked and the soaking water is later thrown out (before cooking).
Dried lentils need some time to absorb water.
I love meat. Especially fried chicken. I was raised on it. But I only eat in in the condition someone else is throwing away scraps. Its a moral thing. Cant I be vegetarian for moral choices without acting like I'm above the taste of meat?
My wife is coming around too and you know what? Foods like this are the gateway drug for those of us born and raised on meat to change our ways (should you want to... if you want to continue to eat meat that is your path in life to take!)
My wife is coming around too and you know what? Foods like this are the gateway drug for those of us born and raised on meat to change our ways (should you want to... if you want to continue to eat meat that is your path in life to take!)
There's room for both. The vast majority of my meals are from Indian, Mexican, Thai, etc. recipes but occasionally I get the craving for a good burger. I've had some pretty good and a lot of not so good veggie patties, and although I'd only envision myself eating one of these every few months, I'm still excited to see what they came up with.
Edit: To note that I've only been a vegetarian for about 8 years (or around a 20-25% of my life), so definitely get the occasional craving for foods I used to enjoy in the past.
Edit: To note that I've only been a vegetarian for about 8 years (or around a 20-25% of my life), so definitely get the occasional craving for foods I used to enjoy in the past.
People enjoy eating certain foods. Having options that allow you to replicate a certain taste without having to kill something is desirable to people who have gone veg.
There's also the aspects of food as a culture or social participation. People want to be able to participate in things like BBQs or eat out at restaurants with friends.
There's also the aspects of food as a culture or social participation. People want to be able to participate in things like BBQs or eat out at restaurants with friends.
>without having to kill something
I think even vegans/vegetarians have to acknowledge they are killing plants to eat. I suspect the better for environment/health argument is more prevalent (why I eat little meat).
At some point somethings going to have to die to feed yourself (until we can gene edit photosynthesis into humans..). I take some consolation that I'll be feeding bacteria when I'm gone.
I think even vegans/vegetarians have to acknowledge they are killing plants to eat. I suspect the better for environment/health argument is more prevalent (why I eat little meat).
At some point somethings going to have to die to feed yourself (until we can gene edit photosynthesis into humans..). I take some consolation that I'll be feeding bacteria when I'm gone.
For many people there is an ethical difference between killing animals and killing plants. Most of my vegetarian/vegan friends actually abstain from meat because they don't want to be responsible for the killing of animals, not because of environmental or health concerns (though they acknowledge the added bonus)
Do you think killing an animal is the same as killing a plant? I've never met a someone who felt that way. I don't think it's common whatsoever, especially among vegetarians.
I'm not going to go that far, to equate plants and animals. The original comment said "without killing something".
so I wondered why it's a no brainer that plants are ethically ok to kill and eat but species closer to us aren't.
Anyone who's dealt with animals or pets sees intelligence and Personality. So it's easy to have empathy and want to let them live (especially if they're cute and docile). Nobody likes killing animals if unnecessary (for the most part, I never understood hunting for sport). Factory farming doesn't leave a pleasant feeling either.
But there is a trend of getting protein from bugs.. and I'm wondering were that fits into people's thinking.
It's more of a thought experiment than anything.
Idle thoughts from a species on top of the food chain with ample calories available that is the steward of the planet (and not doing too well)
so I wondered why it's a no brainer that plants are ethically ok to kill and eat but species closer to us aren't.
Anyone who's dealt with animals or pets sees intelligence and Personality. So it's easy to have empathy and want to let them live (especially if they're cute and docile). Nobody likes killing animals if unnecessary (for the most part, I never understood hunting for sport). Factory farming doesn't leave a pleasant feeling either.
But there is a trend of getting protein from bugs.. and I'm wondering were that fits into people's thinking.
It's more of a thought experiment than anything.
Idle thoughts from a species on top of the food chain with ample calories available that is the steward of the planet (and not doing too well)
It takes way more plants to raise animals for our consumption than to just eat the plants directly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer...
Is this rhetorical or are you actually wondering why someone would want meatless substitutes for foods that they (used to) enjoy?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm not sure that the real target is vegans/vegetarians. I don't eat, nor desire, that many of these substitutes and neither do the friends I've had for 20+ years of this diet. I believe these products are more for people who aren't committed to making a full lifestyle change, but just want to have 'meatless Mondays' or the like.
I've learned that Chinese vegetarians also want to eat them, and mock meats are quite a staple of a lot of Chinese vegetarian cooking. (But indeed not of the other cuisines that you mention.)
Generally I prefer meals that are naturally vegan. In certain social situations these types of substitutes are helpful. Additionally, if it allows for more "meatless Monday's" or lowers the bar to eat more vegan, I'm all for it!
This is actually for meat eaters.
Indian vegetarian food is great (I'm Indian). But its biggest problem is the lack of any "solid" food or texture (which is why you see raw onion on every Indian dinner plate - to give the necessary crunch to dal-rice).
It's not a first world phenomenon alone. For most people around the world, the food they've grown up with is almost part of their identity and also a comfort factor. It's one reason why many people have real struggles, with themselves, when wanting to change their food habits and give up what they're used to. One might argue that people being stuck to certain things sounds silly, but it's the reality around. To have large scale change, we need such alternatives.
why does anyone want to try new foods... to try new foods and to have diversity of options.
That's a great suggestion, and what I do as a vegan (mostly I eat beans and rice). But I believe things like this are developed in response to current cuisine, e.g. meat burgers. That people don't want to give up that taste and want a way to maintain their current desires for taste. I admit that I still enjoy e.g. a Beyond Burger occasionally for that reason.
I do eat some of these foods. And foods from elsewhere. the truth is this: Sometimes I want a different texture. Or something my mother made growing up. It already takes a bit of doing (immigrant, so different ingredients). Artificial meat helps me make the texture more similar to what I remember.
Also, more options for variety and stuff.
Also, more options for variety and stuff.
For the same reason people eat processed meat: taste. If processing plants can make them taste better for some people, then what's the big deal? It looks like you are trying to associate processed foods with "first world vegans/vegetarians".
Not everyone has the time or interest. I'd rather go out than cook a meal.
Haven't tried it but certainly a noble cause, I hope they succeed.
> “I love VCs and particularly the ones that invested in us,” Brown had said. “But it’s truly astonishing how little diligence they do in terms of the actual science that underlies some tech companies.”
Recent headlines on Theranos, Juicero, uBeam really drive this point home
> “I love VCs and particularly the ones that invested in us,” Brown had said. “But it’s truly astonishing how little diligence they do in terms of the actual science that underlies some tech companies.”
Recent headlines on Theranos, Juicero, uBeam really drive this point home
Talking to VC firm who was considering an investment in a quantum computing company, I was also blown away by how little science they attempted to understand. It doesn't make any sense to me. My best explanation is that they think it's simply impossible to become well-informed at a reasonable price, and instead just rely on aligning the interests of the founders with their own.
Tried an Impossible Burger for the first time the other day. In a burger with lots of condiments and toppings, it was OK, but not something I'd order again. When I took a bite of it by itself, it tasted like cat food.
Since there are so many positive reviews, I wonder if it just wasn't prepared correctly? The restaurant had only started serving it a few days earlier.
Since there are so many positive reviews, I wonder if it just wasn't prepared correctly? The restaurant had only started serving it a few days earlier.
I tried one at Umami Burger and left with the same general impression as you. It was bland by itself, saved by copious melted cheese Umami Burger serves it with, and did not have any of the nice pink associated with medium-rare. I guess it's comparable to a fast food burger, but does not seem like anything I'd want to repeat. The sugars and vegetable oils listed on the ingredients list make me wonder if the whole thing is even healthy.
I love this video of Adam Savage trying the Impossible Burger at Jardinière. Gets into the details of how they prepare it compared to their standard burger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF9bf9uKQQk
I am extremely eager to see lab grown meat more so than I am eager to see better meat substitutes become mainstream.
However, being a meat eater, since the news of this product came out however many months and years it was, I have been wanting to try it. Which is more than I can say for other meat substitutes.
However, being a meat eater, since the news of this product came out however many months and years it was, I have been wanting to try it. Which is more than I can say for other meat substitutes.
I'm very skeptical of the benefits of lab-grown meat. It might taste the same, but I don't see how it can have all the same nutrition as an actual animal breaking down good plants with a real digestive system.
We hardly know a thing about what's good for our bodies. I doubt scientists will be able to produce a food that won't hurt us somehow in the long run.
We hardly know a thing about what's good for our bodies. I doubt scientists will be able to produce a food that won't hurt us somehow in the long run.
It's hard for me to understand the excitement for lab meat. Can you explain your interest?
Meat minus the guilt. A more moral meat, if you will.
I can get behind the idea. I can't morally justify eating one animal, loving another.
I can get behind the idea. I can't morally justify eating one animal, loving another.
Not GP, but I'm excited about "clean meat" because I believe it has the best chance, over time, to have a huge impact on reducing animal suffering and reducing the environmental damage currently caused by animal agriculture. It'll probably be a lot better for human health too, since controlling what's in it will improve with a higher probability of success.
It is less resource intensive to produce. Hand-tuned assembly code burger vs transpiled javascript for the hot path (I eat cheeseburgers very often, as do many, many others in the countries I frequent).
You can feed more people with the same amount of resources. 80,000 humans a day die from lack of food. Everything we can do to meaningfully improve food production efficiency is a big win for the species.
You can feed more people with the same amount of resources. 80,000 humans a day die from lack of food. Everything we can do to meaningfully improve food production efficiency is a big win for the species.
Better control over the quality and consistency of the end product? I enjoy a wagyu steak a lot more than a tough cheap cut or minced up eyelids and connective tissue.
Reproducibility of particularly good strains of meat.
Tried it, tastes. OK. A bit like meat, smells a bit like a barn.
Has any thought been given to the long-term economic consequences of something like this replacing animal products in the market? The price of commodity corn shot up when production of corn-based ethanol became popular as well as other uses of corn.
I'm not sure if the agricultural industry would be ready to support a large shift towards this very easily.
I'm not sure if the agricultural industry would be ready to support a large shift towards this very easily.
It actually requires a lot less lands to make a plant-based burger than a beef-based one, as you're skipping a whole ladder in the chain.
I believe the ratio is between 6 and 8 times less land for beef, although you should definetly research this number if you're interested.
This makes plant-based burger and vegetarian/vegan foods a lot more eco-friendly and requires less land to produce, which is a problem most developped countries are facing
I believe the ratio is between 6 and 8 times less land for beef, although you should definetly research this number if you're interested.
This makes plant-based burger and vegetarian/vegan foods a lot more eco-friendly and requires less land to produce, which is a problem most developped countries are facing
If something like this replaces animal products, the demand for grains would drastically fall. Is this the economic consequence you are worried about?
I've tried it. It's good.
At $16 a pound I'd much rather get some high quality meat or fish. If it comes down in price to something reasonable I might add it to our rotation.
At $16 a pound I'd much rather get some high quality meat or fish. If it comes down in price to something reasonable I might add it to our rotation.
16USD per pound, which is 44AUD or 35USD per KG, thankyou Wolfram, is high, but considering the environmental and ethical advantages it's almost miraculous. That's just about dead on 5x what I pay for chicken breast now, so it's not at all crazy to imagine splurging on this once in a while for a meal with a vegan friend, and that the price will come down to a mass-market, regular purchase level in the not-so-distant future.
Much like how a Tesla Model 3 isn't as cheap as a Corolla, but still not completely out of the question for alot of people like a Model S is.
Even if it settles at double the price of meat I could see myself buying it regularly. Given how unethically meat is produced now, I don't mind accepting some price increase.
Much like how a Tesla Model 3 isn't as cheap as a Corolla, but still not completely out of the question for alot of people like a Model S is.
Even if it settles at double the price of meat I could see myself buying it regularly. Given how unethically meat is produced now, I don't mind accepting some price increase.
Until it reaches parity with ground beef, I don't expect to see it outside the Whole Foods-range of grocery stores
I guess I'm used to my friends picking out more affordable options. I might spend extra occasionally because my wife is a vegetarian but I can't see any of my friends selecting it at this price, even at $8 a pound.
Agreed. Seriously it should be magnitudes cheaper than real meat (since it is plants and presumably not as nutritious), not more expensive.
Tried it, liked it. Best vegetarian burger of my life.
Nutrition panel is in the FAQ https://www.impossiblefoods.com/faq/
I am excited to try the Impossible Foods burger. Waiting for it to come to Utah.
But will it be Kosher? :)
Does anyone know what the omega 6:3 ratio of this fake meat is?
The last three paragraphs of this article are a bit awkward.
Sam Harris did a good interview with this outfit:
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/meat-without-murder
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/meat-without-murder
Is it just me or do posts about "vegetarian/vegan" foods, Tesla, or any flavor of the day seem to produce so many suspicious comments?
It looks every other comment is trying to "sell" us something rather than being regular honest commenting. Reminds me of evangelicals or jehovah's witnesses trying to sell me their religion.
Maybe knowing how social media works now has got me cynical.
I'll never become vegetarian and I'll stay an omnivore til I die. It's great that they were able to raise money and hopefully they'll open up options for the vegetarians crowd. But please stop with the Impossible Foods is going to save the world stuff.
Tesla going to save the world. Impossible Foods is going to save the world. Jesus is going to save the world. Goodness.
It looks every other comment is trying to "sell" us something rather than being regular honest commenting. Reminds me of evangelicals or jehovah's witnesses trying to sell me their religion.
Maybe knowing how social media works now has got me cynical.
I'll never become vegetarian and I'll stay an omnivore til I die. It's great that they were able to raise money and hopefully they'll open up options for the vegetarians crowd. But please stop with the Impossible Foods is going to save the world stuff.
Tesla going to save the world. Impossible Foods is going to save the world. Jesus is going to save the world. Goodness.
Probably just you. This product is indeed capable of changing the world for the better if scaled up. "Saving it" is hyperbole. But it's not about making a nice meal for vegetarians, it's about sustainable meat consumption for a growing population.
>This product is indeed capable of changing the world for the better if scaled up. "Saving it" is hyperbole.
But "changing the world" isn't hyperbole?
> But it's not about making a nice meal for vegetarians, it's about sustainable meat consumption for a growing population.
What? Meat eaters aren't going to choose fake meat no more than vegetarians are going to choose fake vegetables/fruits.
People are still going to hunt, still going to keep livestock and still going to consume meat. We are omnivores after all.
Also, meat production is HIGHLY sustainable already. We waste tons of meat because we have such an excess of it.
But "changing the world" isn't hyperbole?
> But it's not about making a nice meal for vegetarians, it's about sustainable meat consumption for a growing population.
What? Meat eaters aren't going to choose fake meat no more than vegetarians are going to choose fake vegetables/fruits.
People are still going to hunt, still going to keep livestock and still going to consume meat. We are omnivores after all.
Also, meat production is HIGHLY sustainable already. We waste tons of meat because we have such an excess of it.
Meat eaters will eat fake meat if economics incentive them too. You don't need to completely switch over to impact the world. Growing meat is a substantial waste of energy and nutrients. Unless you think we will never struggle to produce enough food, it's hard to reconcile how you can think we won't run into issues with meat.
It's not just him.
Jesus will save the world.
Tofu/soy burgers have been around for >20 years already. How is this significantly different?
[Edit: way to be downvoted instantly for asking a serious critical question. Remember when hn prided itself on a higher level of discussion than reddit?]
[Edit: way to be downvoted instantly for asking a serious critical question. Remember when hn prided itself on a higher level of discussion than reddit?]
The HN guidelines ask you not to go on about downvotes, so would you please not? However low the discussion quality is, this always makes it worse.
OK, I'll help explain why I downvoted you. It probably would have taken you less time to google "impossible foods burger" than to write your question. More importantly, by starting of your question the way you did, you seem to be implying, intentionally or not, some level of smugness that "don't these guys know soy burgers have been around for 20 years."
Here is the Impossible Foods FAQ: https://www.impossiblefoods.com/faq/
Here is the Impossible Foods FAQ: https://www.impossiblefoods.com/faq/
I read the article. It didnt say. I even googled leghemoglobin and found that its in all soy/tofu, so that didnt seem a differentiator. I expect other people here will have the same question
Honestly yes if you cant be clear what your business does where others have failed IMO at the very least your marketing team is failing
Honestly yes if you cant be clear what your business does where others have failed IMO at the very least your marketing team is failing
The business doesn't DO anything different.
Soy burgers have been around for 20 years and that has been 20 years of failure.
Vegetarians might not care how the product tastes, especially if they make their culinary decisions for ethical reasons. But this is the first time meat eaters are actually saying that they might use a veggie product just because they like it.
That is a big deal.
Soy burgers have been around for 20 years and that has been 20 years of failure.
Vegetarians might not care how the product tastes, especially if they make their culinary decisions for ethical reasons. But this is the first time meat eaters are actually saying that they might use a veggie product just because they like it.
That is a big deal.
Yeah, and Impossible purposely sells these in the meat aisle because they want to complete against the meat burgers, not against veggie burgers.
It tastes much better than tofu/soy burgers of the last 20 years.
To give you some idea of what's different:
http://youtu.be/ebNeUihciDI
http://youtu.be/ebNeUihciDI
Thanks for the response. I would think that 'thier aim is to produce burgers that taste exactly like ground beef' or similar could fit in the article.
> Soy
I wonder how the community here will respond to this. Most here seemed upset by the male-infertility story from a week or two ago. Turning around to gush over soy would be completely incoherent.
"Soy as health food" is diabolically false.
I wonder how the community here will respond to this. Most here seemed upset by the male-infertility story from a week or two ago. Turning around to gush over soy would be completely incoherent.
"Soy as health food" is diabolically false.
Their "soy leghemoglobin" doesn't come from soy though. It comes from GMO Algae. Presumably they could reprogram that algae to produce a different hemoglobin-like molecule.
Check the ingredients list:
>Full Ingredient List:
>Water, Textured Wheat Protein, Coconut Oil, Potato Protein, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Leghemoglobin (soy), Yeast Extract, Salt, Soy Protein Isolate, Konjac Gum, Xanthan Gum, Thiamin (Vitamin B1), Zinc, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12.
>Contains:
>Soy, Wheat
This contains soy. My comment stands.
>Full Ingredient List:
>Water, Textured Wheat Protein, Coconut Oil, Potato Protein, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Leghemoglobin (soy), Yeast Extract, Salt, Soy Protein Isolate, Konjac Gum, Xanthan Gum, Thiamin (Vitamin B1), Zinc, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12.
>Contains:
>Soy, Wheat
This contains soy. My comment stands.
Those labels are because the compounds could trigger a soy allergy, because, y'know, they're chemically identical.
Notice that all the "soy" falls in the "2% or less of" bucket. This is not the same as a soy burger. Have you eaten one?
Notice that all the "soy" falls in the "2% or less of" bucket. This is not the same as a soy burger. Have you eaten one?
When did I say this was a 100% soy burger?
> Those labels are because the compounds could trigger a soy allergy
...because it contains soy, which has negative effects on fertility. That was my whole point. So why change the subject?
> Those labels are because the compounds could trigger a soy allergy
...because it contains soy, which has negative effects on fertility. That was my whole point. So why change the subject?
At what quantities does soy have negative effects on fertility?
According to the study, it seems that consuming regular really only impacted men who were overweight or obese. I'd be interested in understanding if this really had something to do with the men being overweight and something they were previously eating was causing their sperm count to be abnormally high for their level of health.
From https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/23/11/2584/2913898/S...:
This association was stronger at the higher end of the sperm concentration distribution suggesting that soy food intake may have stronger associations among men with normal or high sperm concentrations than among men with low sperm concentration. Also, soy food intake was more strongly inversely related to sperm concentration among overweight and obese men. Intake of soy foods or isoflavones was unrelated to the remaining semen analysis parameters examined.
From https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/23/11/2584/2913898/S...:
This association was stronger at the higher end of the sperm concentration distribution suggesting that soy food intake may have stronger associations among men with normal or high sperm concentrations than among men with low sperm concentration. Also, soy food intake was more strongly inversely related to sperm concentration among overweight and obese men. Intake of soy foods or isoflavones was unrelated to the remaining semen analysis parameters examined.
I love how highly, highly processed foods are suddenly A-OK to many people here once it's a fake meat product.
>But high-temperature processing has the unfortunate side effect of so denaturing the other proteins in soy that they are rendered largely ineffective.23 That's why animals on soy feed need lysine supplements for normal growth.
>Nitrites, which are potent carcinogens, are formed during spray-drying, and a toxin called lysinoalanine is formed during alkaline processing.24 Numerous artificial flavorings, particularly MSG, are added to soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein products to mask their strong "beany" taste and to impart the flavor of meat.25
>In feeding experiments, the use of SPI increased requirements for vitamins E, K, D, and B12 and created deficiency symptoms of calcium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, copper, iron, and zinc.26 Phytic acid remaining in these soy products greatly inhibits zinc and iron absorption; test animals fed SPI develop enlarged organs, particularly the pancreas and thyroid gland, and increased deposition of fatty acids in the liver.27
http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/avoid_soy.htm
I shouldn't even have to post about "Textured Wheat Protein" but it's essentially another denatured protein, one that is completely doused in glyphosate right before harvest..
Check out the chart on page two...
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ITX_2013_06_04_Seneff.pdf
These "vegan" foods are nowhere near healthy.
>But high-temperature processing has the unfortunate side effect of so denaturing the other proteins in soy that they are rendered largely ineffective.23 That's why animals on soy feed need lysine supplements for normal growth.
>Nitrites, which are potent carcinogens, are formed during spray-drying, and a toxin called lysinoalanine is formed during alkaline processing.24 Numerous artificial flavorings, particularly MSG, are added to soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein products to mask their strong "beany" taste and to impart the flavor of meat.25
>In feeding experiments, the use of SPI increased requirements for vitamins E, K, D, and B12 and created deficiency symptoms of calcium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, copper, iron, and zinc.26 Phytic acid remaining in these soy products greatly inhibits zinc and iron absorption; test animals fed SPI develop enlarged organs, particularly the pancreas and thyroid gland, and increased deposition of fatty acids in the liver.27
http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/avoid_soy.htm
I shouldn't even have to post about "Textured Wheat Protein" but it's essentially another denatured protein, one that is completely doused in glyphosate right before harvest..
Check out the chart on page two...
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ITX_2013_06_04_Seneff.pdf
These "vegan" foods are nowhere near healthy.
Yeah, I'd love lab grown meat, but I wouldn't eat this. It looks terrible for you.
There's no gentle way to make the complaint about I'm about to: going to Mercola.com for good health science is roughly equivalent to referring to the Flat Earth Society for good GPS algorithms. Joe Mercola has developed a multimillion dollar business which is essentially built on telling his audience that everything in the world is poisonous unless he sells it to them. When I say he's one of the folks who believe that fluoridation is a nefarious government conspiracy, I am not kidding. He also believes coffee enemas will fight cancer. Again, I am not making this up.
There's conflicting evidence about soy's health benefits, which is a sentence that is, generally speaking, just as true after a "s/soy/any_damn_food" operation. Nitrites are highly toxic in quantity, but in small quantity, they've been used in food processing since the Middle Ages. It's what you cure meat with. Most of the nitrites in your diet, though, are naturally occurring.
And while no one claims MSG has massive health benefits, it's been extremely well established that it's harmless. It's just a salt. I'm sure Doc Mercola will tell me the decades of tests that show it's safe are simply a sign that every first world health agency is in the pocket of Big Umami, but y'know, color me skeptical.
There's conflicting evidence about soy's health benefits, which is a sentence that is, generally speaking, just as true after a "s/soy/any_damn_food" operation. Nitrites are highly toxic in quantity, but in small quantity, they've been used in food processing since the Middle Ages. It's what you cure meat with. Most of the nitrites in your diet, though, are naturally occurring.
And while no one claims MSG has massive health benefits, it's been extremely well established that it's harmless. It's just a salt. I'm sure Doc Mercola will tell me the decades of tests that show it's safe are simply a sign that every first world health agency is in the pocket of Big Umami, but y'know, color me skeptical.
> And while no one claims MSG has massive health benefits, it's been extremely well established that it's harmless. It's just a salt.
While it's true that MSG is well-studied and about as well-established as safe as can be, “It’s just a salt” is, well, not support for it’s safety; potassium cyanide is also just a salt, and no one (sane, at least) is going to argue that it is safe to ingest.
While it's true that MSG is well-studied and about as well-established as safe as can be, “It’s just a salt” is, well, not support for it’s safety; potassium cyanide is also just a salt, and no one (sane, at least) is going to argue that it is safe to ingest.
The Mercola article has citations, which you ignored. There is also a link to a MIT paper which you ignored, and deals with the main ingredient in the product at hand.
>When I say he's one of the folks who believe that fluoridation is a nefarious government conspiracy, I am not kidding.
Fluoride lowers IQ in children an average of 15 points, per Harvard meta-analysis.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-children...
>researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children.
So... what exactly is he wrong about when it comes to fluoride?
You are blinded by your bias against this one Doctor, enough to miss the main points regarding why these foods are total shit.
>When I say he's one of the folks who believe that fluoridation is a nefarious government conspiracy, I am not kidding.
Fluoride lowers IQ in children an average of 15 points, per Harvard meta-analysis.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-children...
>researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children.
So... what exactly is he wrong about when it comes to fluoride?
You are blinded by your bias against this one Doctor, enough to miss the main points regarding why these foods are total shit.
> Fluoride lowers IQ in children an average of 15 points, per Harvard meta-analysis.
No. Aside from the fact that meta-analyses are primarily a means of identifying areas for direct research because they have a strong tendency to magnify publication bias (among other problems), that's not what the cited piece concludes. Your own quote shows that the conclusion is much weaker, noting that the meta-analysis “found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children.”
Finding strong indications that it has a possibility (“may” ≠ “does”) of causing some adverse reaction is not the same as concluding that it does have any adverse impact, and even farther from any particular quantification of that impact. And the actual average result (which isn't a study conclusion on the actual impact) was 7, not 15 IQ points for “high flouride content”; to quote your source: “The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15.”
No. Aside from the fact that meta-analyses are primarily a means of identifying areas for direct research because they have a strong tendency to magnify publication bias (among other problems), that's not what the cited piece concludes. Your own quote shows that the conclusion is much weaker, noting that the meta-analysis “found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children.”
Finding strong indications that it has a possibility (“may” ≠ “does”) of causing some adverse reaction is not the same as concluding that it does have any adverse impact, and even farther from any particular quantification of that impact. And the actual average result (which isn't a study conclusion on the actual impact) was 7, not 15 IQ points for “high flouride content”; to quote your source: “The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15.”
You're right, it's 7 points. However, that means there are still considerable issues (both medical and ethical) with the mass-ingesting of fluoride, which lends more credibility to Mercola's paranoia than your skepticism, in my opinion. And regardless of that, you are still ignoring all the main issues brought up with TVP.
> You're right, it's 7 points.
You acknowledge that you got the number wrong, which is good, but the smaller problem. The bigger problem is that the number was not, in either case, an impact concluded by the meta-analyses, it was merely the average impact of high flouridation in the studies included.
> However, that means there are still considerable issues (both medical and ethical) with the mass-ingesting of fluoride
No, it doesn't. Again, the source you cite does not conclude that there is any adverse effect. The meta-analysis, according to it's authors, indicates only that there may be an adverse effect.
Even the follow-up study by the authors (linked from your source; meta-analyses rarely support strong conclusions about fact, but often provide direction for further research) seems to indicate some effect, especially at high dosage levels but again, mostly is an indicator for further research, not a basis for concluding a clearly quantified effect.
Without a qauntifiable effect tied to actual flouride levels, it's not clear if there is any probl with the actual flouridation practice in the United States. Almost every substance is harmful in excess, even ones where moderate amounts are better than none.
You acknowledge that you got the number wrong, which is good, but the smaller problem. The bigger problem is that the number was not, in either case, an impact concluded by the meta-analyses, it was merely the average impact of high flouridation in the studies included.
> However, that means there are still considerable issues (both medical and ethical) with the mass-ingesting of fluoride
No, it doesn't. Again, the source you cite does not conclude that there is any adverse effect. The meta-analysis, according to it's authors, indicates only that there may be an adverse effect.
Even the follow-up study by the authors (linked from your source; meta-analyses rarely support strong conclusions about fact, but often provide direction for further research) seems to indicate some effect, especially at high dosage levels but again, mostly is an indicator for further research, not a basis for concluding a clearly quantified effect.
Without a qauntifiable effect tied to actual flouride levels, it's not clear if there is any probl with the actual flouridation practice in the United States. Almost every substance is harmful in excess, even ones where moderate amounts are better than none.
Are none of these studies convincing to you?
http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/
If not, what would be?
http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/
If not, what would be?
I love how the anti-vaxer Mercola keeps being referenced here on HN every time someone wants to make a case against veganism. In fact, every single anti-vegan blog out there links to the same Mercola articles.
> "Most here seemed upset by the male-infertility story from a week or two ago."
Do you have a link to that story?
Do you have a link to that story?
Actually only 6 days ago.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14855796
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14855796
No explicit mention of soy, plus "The analysis did not explore reasons for the decline".
Furthermore, it's said that plant-derived oestrogen does not act in the same way as human-derived oestrogen. I'll find a link...
EDIT: Link...
http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/ask/ask-the-expe...
"Phytoestrogens, being weak estrogens, are like small, private planes with few passengers and no cargo, yet they still occupy the Jetway after landing. When phytoestrogens occupy the cell, normal estrogens cannot. Plant estrogens do not eliminate all of estrogen's effects, but they do minimize them, apparently reducing breast cancer risk and menstrual symptoms.
For men and boys, the phytoestrogens in soy do not appear to have any effect on hormone levels and have not been shown to affect sexual development or fertility. Research studies show that men consuming soy have less prostate cancer and better prostate cancer survival."
Furthermore, it's said that plant-derived oestrogen does not act in the same way as human-derived oestrogen. I'll find a link...
EDIT: Link...
http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/ask/ask-the-expe...
"Phytoestrogens, being weak estrogens, are like small, private planes with few passengers and no cargo, yet they still occupy the Jetway after landing. When phytoestrogens occupy the cell, normal estrogens cannot. Plant estrogens do not eliminate all of estrogen's effects, but they do minimize them, apparently reducing breast cancer risk and menstrual symptoms.
For men and boys, the phytoestrogens in soy do not appear to have any effect on hormone levels and have not been shown to affect sexual development or fertility. Research studies show that men consuming soy have less prostate cancer and better prostate cancer survival."
Why would it mention soy? The article only brings up what I said it brought up, the fertility decline.
Soy protein does blunt testosterone production. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131010091557.h...
Soy's effects are well known, at least among (some) doctors.
--
edited after the parent's edit:
Soy contains phytoestrogens, which are endocrine disruptors. Soy is incredibly estrogenic (http://igrow.org/livestock/beef/hormones-in-beef-myth-vs.-fa... Table 1). See the following research if you're interested.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21175082
> Phytoestrogens, natural plant compounds abundantly found in soy and soy products, behave as weak estrogen mimics or as antiestrogens. They are considered to be EDCs [endocrine disrupting compounds], and have some beneficial effects on health, including reducing the risk of breast cancer and improving metabolic parameters. However, the supporting evidence that consumption of phytoestrogens is beneficial is indirect and inconsistent. Lifetime exposure to estrogenic substances, especially during critical periods of development, has been associated with formation of malignancies and several anomalies of the reproductive systems.
And, the most relevant one:
https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/23/11/2584/2913898/S...
"These data suggest that higher intake of soy foods and soy isoflavones is associated with lower sperm concentration."
Soy protein does blunt testosterone production. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131010091557.h...
Soy's effects are well known, at least among (some) doctors.
--
edited after the parent's edit:
Soy contains phytoestrogens, which are endocrine disruptors. Soy is incredibly estrogenic (http://igrow.org/livestock/beef/hormones-in-beef-myth-vs.-fa... Table 1). See the following research if you're interested.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21175082
> Phytoestrogens, natural plant compounds abundantly found in soy and soy products, behave as weak estrogen mimics or as antiestrogens. They are considered to be EDCs [endocrine disrupting compounds], and have some beneficial effects on health, including reducing the risk of breast cancer and improving metabolic parameters. However, the supporting evidence that consumption of phytoestrogens is beneficial is indirect and inconsistent. Lifetime exposure to estrogenic substances, especially during critical periods of development, has been associated with formation of malignancies and several anomalies of the reproductive systems.
And, the most relevant one:
https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/23/11/2584/2913898/S...
"These data suggest that higher intake of soy foods and soy isoflavones is associated with lower sperm concentration."
Do any of these doctors you refer to also note that beer is a high source of phytoestrogens?
Of course HN is 'completely incoherent'. So is any real sample of millions of people.
Pretty cool
I'm paleo, and wanted to try it to see how it tastes. Closer than I expected to a real burger. Not great, but this would be an excellent replacement for factory farmed animals. Not as tasty, or as good for the environment as pasture raised cows.
Any time you see "good for the environment" and "cows" in the same sentence, stop reading.
> Not as good for the environment as pasture raised cows.
Even at scale?
Even at scale?
Eh, depends what you mean by "scale".
When you start talking environmentally sustainable meat production, you're talking about utilizing land and calories that would not be well utilized otherwise. Pastureland that is too rocky or arid for grain or vegetable production, grazed at a level that is sustainable for that land. Food waste and mast you can feed to pigs or goats but not people.
Scale is "a whole lot of meat" but "not much as Americans eat now".
When you start talking environmentally sustainable meat production, you're talking about utilizing land and calories that would not be well utilized otherwise. Pastureland that is too rocky or arid for grain or vegetable production, grazed at a level that is sustainable for that land. Food waste and mast you can feed to pigs or goats but not people.
Scale is "a whole lot of meat" but "not much as Americans eat now".
Going to stay away from this, myself. For the same reason I eat oranges instead of drinking Sunny Delight and eat sausage rather than eat sausage-flavored potato chips.
Flavor is our evolved way of our bodies telling us what our body wants to eat. "Impossible burgers" are just a simulation of food.
Flavor is our evolved way of our bodies telling us what our body wants to eat. "Impossible burgers" are just a simulation of food.
Sausage isn't really very natural.
There is a fun analogy with Sunny Delight, with the use of cheap inputs and lots of flavoring.
There is a fun analogy with Sunny Delight, with the use of cheap inputs and lots of flavoring.
> Flavor is our evolved way of our bodies telling us what our body wants to eat.
We don't really live the way we evolved to live, though. I can get the high calorie foods hunter gatherers sought out to see them through lean times delivered to me at my house while I sit around in my underwear.
We don't really live the way we evolved to live, though. I can get the high calorie foods hunter gatherers sought out to see them through lean times delivered to me at my house while I sit around in my underwear.
Impossible Burgers contain heme iron, which is disastrous to the body.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-safety-of-heme-vs-non-h...
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-safety-of-heme-vs-non-h...
Forgive me if I don't quite find your source credible, since it appears to have been written by a volunteer, and since it doesn't actually give concrete evidence on maximum recommended dose.
The source is just screenshots of academic studies.
Yes, and I took at look at them. Some of the studies (especially the blood cookies or whatever ones) actually mentioned that heme iron actually helped anemic children. Many of the others could not come to a conclusion.
Well, in that case, heme iron may not be so bad. I'm not here to debate that. But the source has ground -- until someone gives me a better source.
You first posted
> Impossible Burgers contain heme iron, which is disastrous to the body.
Then posted
> Well, in that case, heme iron may not be so bad. I'm not here to debate that.
Are you revoking your initial claim?
> Impossible Burgers contain heme iron, which is disastrous to the body.
Then posted
> Well, in that case, heme iron may not be so bad. I'm not here to debate that.
Are you revoking your initial claim?
Edited and cherry picked screenshots. He deliberately erased the context of one of the first screenshots in the video.
nutritionfacts.org is vegan propaganda and shouldn't be confused with a good source.
Nutritional science is hard and we have very limited ability to actually study it and make strong recommendations. Cherry-picking phrases and results from limited power studies just muddies the waters.
Here's the founder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Greger
> In his lectures, videos, and writings about nutrition he tries to persuade people to change their eating habits from a Western pattern diet to a whole foods, plant-based, healthy diet—optimally to vegan diet—and says that such a diet can prevent and reverse many chronic diseases.
> Retired physician Harriet A. Hall ... has written that ... Greger often overstates the known benefits of such a diet as well as the harm caused by eating animal products (for example, in a talk he claimed that a single meal rich in animal products can "cripple" one's arteries), and he sometimes does not discuss evidence that contradicts his strong claims.
"Disastrous" is clearly a gross overstatement.
Nutritional science is hard and we have very limited ability to actually study it and make strong recommendations. Cherry-picking phrases and results from limited power studies just muddies the waters.
Here's the founder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Greger
> In his lectures, videos, and writings about nutrition he tries to persuade people to change their eating habits from a Western pattern diet to a whole foods, plant-based, healthy diet—optimally to vegan diet—and says that such a diet can prevent and reverse many chronic diseases.
> Retired physician Harriet A. Hall ... has written that ... Greger often overstates the known benefits of such a diet as well as the harm caused by eating animal products (for example, in a talk he claimed that a single meal rich in animal products can "cripple" one's arteries), and he sometimes does not discuss evidence that contradicts his strong claims.
"Disastrous" is clearly a gross overstatement.
Would love to see a better source.
- Nutritionfacts.org is non-profit - Their conclusions are based on studies. - They're not trying to sell supplements or food products.
Do they omit certain studies that contradict their overall conclusions? Sure. That doesn't mean anything to me.
- Nutritionfacts.org is non-profit - Their conclusions are based on studies. - They're not trying to sell supplements or food products.
Do they omit certain studies that contradict their overall conclusions? Sure. That doesn't mean anything to me.
> Would love to see a better source.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional/
> - Nutritionfacts.org is non-profit - Their conclusions are based on studies. - They're not trying to sell supplements or food products.
IMO: Your website is trying to sell a lifestyle. Their conclusions are made in advance; then they attempt to rationalize them with studies after the fact.
> Do they omit certain studies that contradict their overall conclusions? Sure. That doesn't mean anything to me.
That is a major red flag in science reporting.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional/
> - Nutritionfacts.org is non-profit - Their conclusions are based on studies. - They're not trying to sell supplements or food products.
IMO: Your website is trying to sell a lifestyle. Their conclusions are made in advance; then they attempt to rationalize them with studies after the fact.
> Do they omit certain studies that contradict their overall conclusions? Sure. That doesn't mean anything to me.
That is a major red flag in science reporting.
>Do they omit certain studies that contradict their overall conclusions? Sure. That doesn't mean anything to me.
Cherry-picking doesn't mean anything to you?
Cherry-picking doesn't mean anything to you?
An unbiased explanation of the differences: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional/
I really can't be bothered watching the video but I had a look at the first article it "quotes" (https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/196_10_040612_sup...). The video says:
"no more likely to suffer from iron deficiency anaemia than non-vegetarians"
But has actually deliberately erased the context (it uses the same PDF, the rest has been whited out in the screenshot):
"[In Western countries like Australia, where we enjoy a varied food supply,] vegetarians are no more likely to suffer from iron deficiency anaemia than non-vegetarians."
And shamelessly cherry picked:
"but a number of studies suggest that vegetarians are at greater risk of having low iron stores (as reflected by serum ferritin)."
So I'm going to suggest that people not pay this video much mind.
I really can't be bothered watching the video but I had a look at the first article it "quotes" (https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/196_10_040612_sup...). The video says:
"no more likely to suffer from iron deficiency anaemia than non-vegetarians"
But has actually deliberately erased the context (it uses the same PDF, the rest has been whited out in the screenshot):
"[In Western countries like Australia, where we enjoy a varied food supply,] vegetarians are no more likely to suffer from iron deficiency anaemia than non-vegetarians."
And shamelessly cherry picked:
"but a number of studies suggest that vegetarians are at greater risk of having low iron stores (as reflected by serum ferritin)."
So I'm going to suggest that people not pay this video much mind.
Am I right in thinking that all forms of meat contain heme iron? And in what dosage is this "disastrous" to the body?
Maybe "disastrous" is the wrong word.
"An increase in heme iron intake of 1mg/day appeared to be significantly associated with a 27% increase in risk of CHD" according to one study.
"An increase in heme iron intake of 1mg/day appeared to be significantly associated with a 27% increase in risk of CHD" according to one study.
And no links to studies?
I promise you it is not.
At Momofuku's Ssam Bar in the East Village of NYC, you can order an off menu item called Spicy Pork Sausage and Rice Cakes. It's not really off the menu - the item has simply been around so long and is so well known to regulars that they left it off to make room for new dishes.
I've had it more times than I count.
At lunch time however, they serve Spicy "Impossible Sausage" and Rice Cakes. The first time I ordered it, I was ready to complain about one of my favorite things ruined by a hyped product.
But then I took my first bite, and it somehow tasted better than the pork sausage version. I've been back many times since and the Impossible Foods version of the dish is often tastier than the pork version.
Let that sink in for a moment. Impossible Foods was able to replace high quality pork sausage served in a beloved dish at one of New York's buzziest restaurants and make the dish better.
The vast majority of ground meat in the American food chain is of lower quality. If Impossible Foods can replace that ground meat at scale, the ramifications are enormous. They will reduce by a huge margin the number of animal lives and quantity of CO2 necessary to feed us.