Plant-based meat deceleration signals niche future(foodinstitute.com)
foodinstitute.com
Plant-based meat deceleration signals niche future
https://foodinstitute.com/focus/plant-based-meat-deceleration-signals-niche-future/
103 comments
Qorn is a near perfect replacement for chicken nuggets.. but then I can barely tell what's in chicken nuggets anyway!
So perfect, the list of ingredients is full of crap and not vegan, which surprised me and may be hurting their sales.
> Frozen Quorn Crispy Nuggets
> Mycoprotein (39%), Water, Rehydrated Free Range Egg White, Wheat Flour (Wheat Flour, Calcium Carbonate, Iron, Niacin, Thiamine), Vegetable Oils (Sunflower, Rapeseed), Salt, Maize Flour, Wheat Starch, Milk Proteins, Textured Wheat Protein (Wheat Protein, Wheat Flour), Natural Flavouring, Raising Agents: Tetrasodium Diphosphate, Sodium Carbonate; Pea Fibre, Firming Agents: Calcium Chloride, Calcium Acetate; Wheat Gluten, Gelling Agent: Pectin; Dextrose.
> Frozen Quorn Crispy Nuggets
> Mycoprotein (39%), Water, Rehydrated Free Range Egg White, Wheat Flour (Wheat Flour, Calcium Carbonate, Iron, Niacin, Thiamine), Vegetable Oils (Sunflower, Rapeseed), Salt, Maize Flour, Wheat Starch, Milk Proteins, Textured Wheat Protein (Wheat Protein, Wheat Flour), Natural Flavouring, Raising Agents: Tetrasodium Diphosphate, Sodium Carbonate; Pea Fibre, Firming Agents: Calcium Chloride, Calcium Acetate; Wheat Gluten, Gelling Agent: Pectin; Dextrose.
It’s definitely highly processed like many meat imitations, but aside from the processing the ingredients themselves don’t seem too bad.
It would be nice if the eggs and milk were gone. But it’s a small amount and overall way better than actual chicken.
Maybe some ingredients are hidden in the processing, but which ones do you find objectionable?
It would be nice if the eggs and milk were gone. But it’s a small amount and overall way better than actual chicken.
Maybe some ingredients are hidden in the processing, but which ones do you find objectionable?
This is pretty fascinating. Meat alternatives are sometimes packed full of other ingredients. I try to use a simple rule when I substitute one food for another: consume things with the fewest number of ingredients. Otherwise, is that alternative truly healthier? Not so sure.
Meat can hide a lot of ingredients behind one: the animal.
Maybe they fed the animal rubbish (likely in case of cheap meat), stuff that changes the color of meat and preventive antibiotics amongst other medicine cocktails.
Meat (and dairy and eggs for that matter) also comes with all kinds of hormones, as it is from an animal not much unlike the creatures we are ourselves. So those hormones also affect our system.
Yes plant-based "fake meats" have more ingredients, while also having less of the downsides of animal foods (saturated fats, sulfur-rich protein, hormones, high levels of persistent "forever chemicals").
So the choice is yours.
From what I know the plant-based alternatives are usually healthier. If you want to reach the next level use traditional meat replacers: lentils, beans, nuts, tofu, tempeh, soy-skin.
Maybe they fed the animal rubbish (likely in case of cheap meat), stuff that changes the color of meat and preventive antibiotics amongst other medicine cocktails.
Meat (and dairy and eggs for that matter) also comes with all kinds of hormones, as it is from an animal not much unlike the creatures we are ourselves. So those hormones also affect our system.
Yes plant-based "fake meats" have more ingredients, while also having less of the downsides of animal foods (saturated fats, sulfur-rich protein, hormones, high levels of persistent "forever chemicals").
So the choice is yours.
From what I know the plant-based alternatives are usually healthier. If you want to reach the next level use traditional meat replacers: lentils, beans, nuts, tofu, tempeh, soy-skin.
I think you're making my point for me, but it is well said - breaking into simple ingredients like lentils and beans is a good start.
For what it's worth, I'm not suggesting meat is any less of an offender. Just instead that something that can be pitched as meat-alternative and still be full of crap. And it's worth looking into those ingredients to make an informed decision about what's healthy/not (putting aside other non-health benefits of avoiding meat)
For what it's worth, I'm not suggesting meat is any less of an offender. Just instead that something that can be pitched as meat-alternative and still be full of crap. And it's worth looking into those ingredients to make an informed decision about what's healthy/not (putting aside other non-health benefits of avoiding meat)
Being the healthier alternative isn't the goal. The intent is to be the green alternative or the kind alternative. Thinking it's inherently healthier is something I hear more from detractors than supporters. I eat meat alternatives because I like meat but believe in climate science and like animals. I'm not pretending I'm on a diet.
Thought in Oz (their home market) Quorn is fully vegan already, and they are working on it everywhere else.
(Just hearsay, haven't been to Oz in a while and with the current political climate I'm not too interested)
(Just hearsay, haven't been to Oz in a while and with the current political climate I'm not too interested)
Quorn was my best discover this year. It’s been a long time since I’ve had real chicken nuggets though I do occasionally eat chicken, but at this point I find quorn better than actual chicken nuggets.
I think there's a lot of variation in chicken taste so it's pretty hard to have a perfect replacement. Not sure why creates such a big range of taste
It’s definitely not chicken…
it's not vegan too I don't understand this product? Is it for vegetarian?
It results in less meat consumed, so it's better for the environment, etc. A bit of egg vs. a lot more meat. And chickens produce a lot more egg than they do meat if you're raising then for eggs, so it's better. Not perfect, but better.
If you went for perfection, you'd never use any form of motorized transport, never eat any foods shipped across state lines, set your thermostat for survival temperatures, and go full "freegan" for everything you consume. There's a point at which better is all you really can do - just how much better is the question.
If you went for perfection, you'd never use any form of motorized transport, never eat any foods shipped across state lines, set your thermostat for survival temperatures, and go full "freegan" for everything you consume. There's a point at which better is all you really can do - just how much better is the question.
What's so hard to understand about vegetarian products?
Vegetarian is hard to understand once looking from an ethical perspective. Why is the chicken flesh bad, but the eggs okay while producing those eggs also has chicken killed?
Same for dairy.
It seems vegetarians are okay with lifelong encagement, and eventual killing, as long as they dont have to eat it. Leather is "vegetarian", and so are wool and silk.
Same for dairy.
It seems vegetarians are okay with lifelong encagement, and eventual killing, as long as they dont have to eat it. Leather is "vegetarian", and so are wool and silk.
It’s because it doesn’t involve the direct killing of the animal but yes it’s a bit weird. Also one in theory gets more eggs per hen than chicken flesh so more protein per animal, at least if the hen is kept for multiple cycles.
But yes, veterinarians and fish makes no sense.
Leather can make sense to me until cows start being raised just for leather or the price of meat is such that it would be uneconomic if the price of leather was not factored in.
But yes, veterinarians and fish makes no sense.
Leather can make sense to me until cows start being raised just for leather or the price of meat is such that it would be uneconomic if the price of leather was not factored in.
Leather can make sense to me
It doesn't to me. The alternatives are all plastics. So sure you're saving animal lives, but you're also just contributing to our oil addiction. It's like Christians picking and choosing which things to believe from the Bible, but with ethics instead.
It doesn't to me. The alternatives are all plastics. So sure you're saving animal lives, but you're also just contributing to our oil addiction. It's like Christians picking and choosing which things to believe from the Bible, but with ethics instead.
The only reason leather makes sense to me ethically is that we can take it from animals that died naturally.
> Vegetarian is hard to understand once looking from an ethical perspective. Why is the chicken flesh bad, but the eggs okay
They aren't for vegetarians stricto sensu, hence why ovo-vegetarians are distinguished.
> Same for dairy.
Yes, exactly the same for diary, which is why lacto-vegetarians are distinguished.
“vegeterian” ≠ “ovolacto-vegetarian”
They aren't for vegetarians stricto sensu, hence why ovo-vegetarians are distinguished.
> Same for dairy.
Yes, exactly the same for diary, which is why lacto-vegetarians are distinguished.
“vegeterian” ≠ “ovolacto-vegetarian”
Defacto: vegeterian === ovolacto-vegetarian (and leather, and wool, and silk, and zoos, and animal circus, and ...)
We needed the word vegan because vegetarian was such a silly line in the sand ethically speaking (just dont eat their flesh!).
We needed the word vegan because vegetarian was such a silly line in the sand ethically speaking (just dont eat their flesh!).
You can eat/use non-vegan vegetarian food and things without hurting animals.
What you describe is more related to industrial production rather than vegetarianism - although I have to admit that it's still on point in this particular discussion.
What you describe is more related to industrial production rather than vegetarianism - although I have to admit that it's still on point in this particular discussion.
wait, do they kill chickens after they lay eggs?
They do not go to chicken retirement houses after they age beyond peak egg production.
Also the males are not needed of breeding breeds, they go straight to the wood chopper after they've hatched.
Also the males are not needed of breeding breeds, they go straight to the wood chopper after they've hatched.
It’s also for people who simply look to eat less meat, but aren’t strict vegetarians.
I mean... When you buy an Apple you also don't get an apple but instead get a phone. :P
> If they become equal or less in price than meat, they'll go from a slightly indulgent curiosity into a viable alternative
This would only be true if it weren’t significantly worse in both taste and health risk than actual meat. I think fake meat as it exists now would have to be a lot cheaper than actual meat for most people to be willing to switch to it.
This would only be true if it weren’t significantly worse in both taste and health risk than actual meat. I think fake meat as it exists now would have to be a lot cheaper than actual meat for most people to be willing to switch to it.
Taste is highly contextual for these products. A badly cooked impossible burger is WAY better than a badly cooked meat burger imho. A meat burger that's cooked well is better than the same for an impossible burger (also imho).
So...they're getting pretty close.
Health-wise is highly debatable as well (I'd claim functional equivalence there, though there are people in both camps). Neither is good for you!
So...they're getting pretty close.
Health-wise is highly debatable as well (I'd claim functional equivalence there, though there are people in both camps). Neither is good for you!
> Neither is good for you!
I disagree very strongly. Ruminants are a huge fraction of my ancestors’ diet (possibly a caloric majority) over evolutionary timescales, so it should come as no surprise that ruminants are not only better for me than extruded pea protein, but one of the best possible foods for me.
I disagree very strongly. Ruminants are a huge fraction of my ancestors’ diet (possibly a caloric majority) over evolutionary timescales, so it should come as no surprise that ruminants are not only better for me than extruded pea protein, but one of the best possible foods for me.
well the pricing doesn't makes sense atm if we compare the subsidies received by animal industry. Also I think pricing would be comparable if plant based industry enjoys the same amount of subsidiary.
Subsidy, and scale. The meat business is huge.
Once plant-based alternatives have more than half the market the price will come down a lot, which will increase demand further.
Once plant-based alternatives have more than half the market the price will come down a lot, which will increase demand further.
IMO, May Wah has absolutely nailed the texture and taste of chicken, particularly if you season it.
Deceleration in growth. Surely it's more natural to equate sales (not YoY growth in sales, d/dt sales) to velocity, in which case they're still accelerating, just less than before.
Also at least going by the supermarket shelves here, part of that might be that they didn't prepare for that explosive growth. The more popular lines are almost never fully available.
Yeah it's super rude and unprofessional to intentionally conflate first and second derivative in a headline.
This makes it seem like a meat industry hit piece.
This makes it seem like a meat industry hit piece.
It’s extremely tough to compete with a subsidized industry. A burger should cost $45, not $6, but with incentives, this is the reality.
+1 you are correct, the subsidies given to the beef industry are absurd given the externalities of cow farts, water usage, etc.
I don’t think that beyond burgers are very healthy but my wife and I eat them at least once a week anyways. I like a maxed-out burger with the ‘works’ without having animals die for my eating pleasure. When I do occasionally eat real meat, I prefer no feed lot beef over pork or chicken because I understand that chickens and pigs live miserable lives while cattle get to live outside and graze.
I don’t think that beyond burgers are very healthy but my wife and I eat them at least once a week anyways. I like a maxed-out burger with the ‘works’ without having animals die for my eating pleasure. When I do occasionally eat real meat, I prefer no feed lot beef over pork or chicken because I understand that chickens and pigs live miserable lives while cattle get to live outside and graze.
The subsidies given to the plant industry are absurd given the externalities of obesity, diabetes, soil depletion, etc.
> absurd
I'd go as far as to say it's evil.
I'd go as far as to say it's evil.
The environmental impact of "cow farts" and "cow burps" is largely a myth.
[citation needed]
Also, it wouldn’t matter anyway: the climate impact of raising so many and feeding them carbon intensive grain is bonkers.
Also, it wouldn’t matter anyway: the climate impact of raising so many and feeding them carbon intensive grain is bonkers.
Well it's not a myth - but it is relatively minor compared to - say fossil fuel based power generation. Methane output is well documented - about 1lb a day for dairy cows and about half that for beef cows - without mitigation from additives.
If burgers cost $45 you’d see an explosion in cattle farming. That would put the value of a cow over 6 figures. All the crypto miners would be buying cattle at that rate.
No, because that's the quoted increase in price assuming the same profit as today. That is, that's the actual production cost of the meat give or take a few percent. Today much of that production cost is payed by the US government or local state governments through subsidies, water rights etc.
Note: i have no idea if the $45 is realistic, but the principle is there - much of the production cost of meat is payed by the state. The price of meat would increase if this practice stopped because without any increase in profits.
Note: i have no idea if the $45 is realistic, but the principle is there - much of the production cost of meat is payed by the state. The price of meat would increase if this practice stopped because without any increase in profits.
That's someone's opinion of the actual price, based on their opinion that the "water rights" ought to be more expensive because they think it would produce change they happen to agree with. In their opinion it ought to be a lot more expensive in other ways too.
But despite their opinion, no, it isn't that expensive. That sort of analysis heavily relies on telling you what you want to hear, and expecting that you won't dig into the analysis and realize that if you applied the same standard to everything else in the world you'd get absurd results all over the place.
But despite their opinion, no, it isn't that expensive. That sort of analysis heavily relies on telling you what you want to hear, and expecting that you won't dig into the analysis and realize that if you applied the same standard to everything else in the world you'd get absurd results all over the place.
Sure. But the point is still that this kind of cost increase would not result in cows becoming more profitable, by definition.
No, burgers would cost $45 because cattle farming would be unsubsidized and very expensive. It wouldn't just be a random $40 tax on burgers, that's obviously counterproductive.
I think the point is that $45 is a made up number to push a point. An unsubsidized burger would obviously not cost $45.
Edit: OP clarified with a source below that it would be closer to $15
Edit: OP clarified with a source below that it would be closer to $15
Making up numbers doesn't seem like the best way to prove a point.
It may not be the best way, but hyperbole is an established rhetorical device.
Welcome to the internet
[deleted]
I believe the implication is that if burgers cost $45 there would be a lot less demand. Its not like McDonalds would suddenly have 10x revenue from $45 Big Macs.
Subsidies are keeping cow COGS artificially low. Removing them would increase the cost to raise a cow; selling it for more money does not necessarily lead to more profit. This is the difference between gross profit and net profit... and we're not even taking into account what the market is willing to pay for a burger in the first place.
No, the high cost would start with the cattle ranchers. And since the consumer simply would not pay $45/burger, the demand would fall to almost nothing. Cattle ranchers would decide it wasn't worth doing.
It's not like there wouldn't be any more cattle ranchers. If say a subsidy on cattle production were removed today, the ranchers would refuse to sell to restaurants and distributors at the low price they do today and agree on some price they can break even at. Anywhere offering burgers would have to do it at a much higher price to break even. Many less consumers would likely choose to purchase them, decreasing the demand for burgers, causing a decrease in demand downward until things balance out.
Related would be the conflicting effects on supply of less economies of scale vs being able to utilize only the most efficient means for production (e.g., only the places most fit for it would be producing cattle, meaning that the marginal cost would be lower than in the previously utilized high cost areas, although this wouldn't be sufficient to counteract the original shock, it might help balance the other effects.)
Related would be the conflicting effects on supply of less economies of scale vs being able to utilize only the most efficient means for production (e.g., only the places most fit for it would be producing cattle, meaning that the marginal cost would be lower than in the previously utilized high cost areas, although this wouldn't be sufficient to counteract the original shock, it might help balance the other effects.)
It would start further up the chain with commodity farmers providing the feed.
Ok, true. But regardless of where it starts, there would not be one spot where one part of the chain was making some huge profit. Thus, it wouldn't be as the parent poster suggested (for the feed producer or the cattle rancher).
No, for a couple reasons. The way a burger would get to its true cost is by imposing true costs upstream. If cattle ranchers actually had to pay true costs, their profits wouldn't be higher. Indeed, a $45 burger would cause a drastic fall in hamburger demand, causing a net decrease in ranchers.
Sure, but also many of the agricultural ingredients in the "fake meat" are subsidized too.
Perhaps not to the same degree, I'm not sure, but worth pointing it out when claiming only one is a subsidized industry.
Perhaps not to the same degree, I'm not sure, but worth pointing it out when claiming only one is a subsidized industry.
Plant production is also heavily subsidized in the US [1], so I don't see how this is relevant.
[1] Soybean Subsidies in the United States totaled $44.9 billion from 1995-2020 - https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=soyb...
[1] Soybean Subsidies in the United States totaled $44.9 billion from 1995-2020 - https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=soyb...
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...
70% of that is for livestock feed.
70% of that is for livestock feed.
That’s because cows eat soy meal, which is inedible to humans. The economic demand for soy is almost entirely human consumption - they just give the by-products to cows because they can save a few cents by not throwing it away.
That is completely false.
The numbers may vary, but any credible source you are going to find will show that the vast majority of soy is grown for animal feed.
https://ourworldindata.org/soy
The numbers may vary, but any credible source you are going to find will show that the vast majority of soy is grown for animal feed.
https://ourworldindata.org/soy
Yeah, by mass. Look into the actual dollar numbers. It’s not economically viable to feed human-edible soy to cattle. There are much cheaper food sources. Cows just get the scraps (which outweigh the human-destined product). It’s not grown “for cattle” in the sense that cattle have essentially zero effect on the amount of soy that gets grown. https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/soy
This isn't true at all. The majority of soy produced all over the world is feed grade soy which isn't destined for human consumption.
Other than that I just can't find any sources that corroborate what you say. Every single source I could find that has actual numbers contradicts your statement.
Take the US for example
Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market for U.S. soybeans is for production of foods for human consumption, like salad oil or frying oil, which uses about 15 percent of U.S. soybeans. A distant third market for soybeans is biodiesel, using only about 5 percent of the U.S. soybean crop.
from https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...
Other than that I just can't find any sources that corroborate what you say. Every single source I could find that has actual numbers contradicts your statement.
Take the US for example
Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market for U.S. soybeans is for production of foods for human consumption, like salad oil or frying oil, which uses about 15 percent of U.S. soybeans. A distant third market for soybeans is biodiesel, using only about 5 percent of the U.S. soybean crop.
from https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...
> This isn't true at all. The majority of soy produced all over the world is feed grade soy which isn't destined for human consumption.
Yeah because that’s how soy beans work dude. I think there must be some miscommunication here - the majority of the harvested soy bean is physically not palatable to humans.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding what “70 percent of the soybeans” means. 70 percent of the harvested soy material is not salable to humans. It’s called “soy meal”, look it up. It’s not like if you count all the beans that get picked, 70% of them go to cows. Each harvest is mechanically separated into its component parts and shipped to different consumers, and only a minority of the mass is suitable for oil production or direct consumption.
Yeah because that’s how soy beans work dude. I think there must be some miscommunication here - the majority of the harvested soy bean is physically not palatable to humans.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding what “70 percent of the soybeans” means. 70 percent of the harvested soy material is not salable to humans. It’s called “soy meal”, look it up. It’s not like if you count all the beans that get picked, 70% of them go to cows. Each harvest is mechanically separated into its component parts and shipped to different consumers, and only a minority of the mass is suitable for oil production or direct consumption.
No, this is not about the percentage of harvested material. I’m having trouble believing that you are having this exchange in good faith, so I’m gonna end this here.
And just so we don’t end this discussion with misinformation I’m gonna leave a final quote here:
About 85 percent of the world’s soybeans are processed, or "crushed," annually into soybean meal and oil. Approximately 98 percent of the soybean meal that is crushed is further processed into animal feed with the balance used to make soy flour and proteins.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170112075924/http://www.soyate...
Have a great day!
And just so we don’t end this discussion with misinformation I’m gonna leave a final quote here:
About 85 percent of the world’s soybeans are processed, or "crushed," annually into soybean meal and oil. Approximately 98 percent of the soybean meal that is crushed is further processed into animal feed with the balance used to make soy flour and proteins.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170112075924/http://www.soyate...
Have a great day!
Literally just google “soybean meal” and you’ll understand what they’re talking about. I feel like I’ve explained this pretty thoroughly. I can’t get my head around how you feel the need to conflate percent mass with percent quantity. Is there some language or conceptual barrier here?
So, has anyone ever thought about why our food supply is so heavily subsidized by the government? Attacking food subsidies is, essentially, saying, I don't want a safety net for our country in case something goes haywire in our food production network.
Instead of attacking their existence, wouldn't it be a better idea to attack how they are unfairly applied to existing structures rather than new, less environmentally harmful options?
Instead of attacking their existence, wouldn't it be a better idea to attack how they are unfairly applied to existing structures rather than new, less environmentally harmful options?
As someone who raised cows and now routinely buys beef directly from the rancher—care to explain this? Unless you are trying to say that ag-use land tax credits are subsidization?
Edit: OK, I saw the article you linked. I guess in more rural areas this is something we never saw: I've known people who are smaller produces of beef/pork and never saw a dime of this money yet I pay less per pound than most people do in the store.
Edit: OK, I saw the article you linked. I guess in more rural areas this is something we never saw: I've known people who are smaller produces of beef/pork and never saw a dime of this money yet I pay less per pound than most people do in the store.
Its a cost of corruption but its marketed as a commodity industry wide cost of production.
So enormous herds of cattle in the desert in CA owned by extremely politically connected ranchers will get enormous subsidies resulting in all this "Big Macs should cost $45" stuff.
Meanwhile I live in a civilized area that gets near five feet of rain per year. The cows reproduce and eat infinite free grass and water. Essentially all I pay my organic farmer buddy for is his labor, everything else is rounding error. His land is geologically unsuitable for factory style farming so there's no opportunity cost. I pay less than $3/lb live weight and some pittance to his buddy the butcher to process and freeze my half cow every year or two. Short of massive government intervention its hard to imagine how he'd go out of business; he's not getting any subsidies to be taken away.
I suspect the future is going to be much less level and much less equal. If you live in an area where infinite free water falls from the sky, even the poor people are going to have a high-ish standard of living. If you live in a desert... maybe not so comfortable of a life anymore... Note this also applies to plants, not just meats.
So enormous herds of cattle in the desert in CA owned by extremely politically connected ranchers will get enormous subsidies resulting in all this "Big Macs should cost $45" stuff.
Meanwhile I live in a civilized area that gets near five feet of rain per year. The cows reproduce and eat infinite free grass and water. Essentially all I pay my organic farmer buddy for is his labor, everything else is rounding error. His land is geologically unsuitable for factory style farming so there's no opportunity cost. I pay less than $3/lb live weight and some pittance to his buddy the butcher to process and freeze my half cow every year or two. Short of massive government intervention its hard to imagine how he'd go out of business; he's not getting any subsidies to be taken away.
I suspect the future is going to be much less level and much less equal. If you live in an area where infinite free water falls from the sky, even the poor people are going to have a high-ish standard of living. If you live in a desert... maybe not so comfortable of a life anymore... Note this also applies to plants, not just meats.
Can't be sure where you are, but in the Netherlands there were limits on amount of manure (which has various soil and air pollution effects) that were surpassed by dairy farmers, resulting in EU penalties, resulting in NL having to find a way to lower overall pollution... resulting in temporary stoppage of all new building construction and permanent reduction of max speed limits from 6-19h (from 120 to 100 max).
So the people have ultimately given up some things, ergo subsidising the farmers.
So the people have ultimately given up some things, ergo subsidising the farmers.
$45?? I could have expected double, but not 7.5x. Do you have a source?
I’ve raised ruminant animals without getting subsidized by the government. Meat does not cost $100/lb or whatever you’re imagining.
Care to explain or add sources on this?
Reference: https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/removing-meat-subsidy-our-cogn...
I overestimated; we should be paying 3x more for meat than we do at retail.
I overestimated; we should be paying 3x more for meat than we do at retail.
Yes, the government subsidizes corn and soy. That doesn't mean that alternatives cheaper than the unsubsidized price of these inputs couldn't be found. If subsidies are removed, innovation may follow.
There are also cases where the government restricts crop production.
http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/wickard-v-filburn-1942/
https://thecounter.org/biden-administration-farmers-conserva...
There are also cases where the government restricts crop production.
http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/wickard-v-filburn-1942/
https://thecounter.org/biden-administration-farmers-conserva...
Some of these plant-based meat substitutes are very high in oil and salt and sugar. They’re an effective transitional product for getting people off their meat-every-day habit, but I feel they are the start of a journey that leads to eating more actual fruit & veg, not more ultra-processed fake meats.
Yes. For health the "Whole Food Plant Based" (wfpb) diet has a lot of research behind it, and excluded all heavily processed ingredients (like oils, white flour and refined sugars).
I can’t see any other future than the working class only having a option of artificial meat.
The money to be made by completely owning all meat that goes through fast food and low budget food is too great that someone’s going to collude with government to make it happen.
The people who make it happen will definitely still be eating steak though. If you want to see the future, look at how little the 2020 travel restrictions affected the rich. Could tell the rich people I know were getting a perverse kick out of traveling last year using loopholes when the rest of us were denied.
The money to be made by completely owning all meat that goes through fast food and low budget food is too great that someone’s going to collude with government to make it happen.
The people who make it happen will definitely still be eating steak though. If you want to see the future, look at how little the 2020 travel restrictions affected the rich. Could tell the rich people I know were getting a perverse kick out of traveling last year using loopholes when the rest of us were denied.
This is an interesting theory because I wonder if people would start growing and butchering their own animals again if it ever gets to that point. It is much more gruesome than having your own veggie garden, though, so I wonder if Americans would take to it.
Weird you assume owning animals would be legal. You have to pay the carbon tax on those cows flatulence you do realize right?
If animal farming is so unethical we need to make plant based "meat" and "beyond meat" then farming no longer exists and you can't just buy a cow anymore.
2 futures exist, everything the same as today or the future where your kids never know the taste of actual meat and only "meat" provided by the "Amazonn of "Meat" ". I'll leave it up to you to figure out how we get to option A or B.
If animal farming is so unethical we need to make plant based "meat" and "beyond meat" then farming no longer exists and you can't just buy a cow anymore.
2 futures exist, everything the same as today or the future where your kids never know the taste of actual meat and only "meat" provided by the "Amazonn of "Meat" ". I'll leave it up to you to figure out how we get to option A or B.
You don't need plant based meat. That's just a a crutch for people who don't know how to cook. It's much easier to take decent meat, throw it on a pan or grill, and end up with something pretty tasty.
As a Texan, former steak and ribs consumer, and now 10+ year vegitarian, I have discovered that _good_ vegitarian creations are divine - textures, flavors, and fewer belly aches later. But it takes some real effort for a while to start to learn to really cook. And it's as or more expensive, since quality organic veggies are not cheap (and you can consume more by volume than you can meat).
However, even the best meat replacements are rarely as nice to eat as a good veggie dish (imo).
So people just need some good education and training. Then they can eat very healthy and very tasty food without all the sodium and other additives that go into the manufactured fake meat.
As a Texan, former steak and ribs consumer, and now 10+ year vegitarian, I have discovered that _good_ vegitarian creations are divine - textures, flavors, and fewer belly aches later. But it takes some real effort for a while to start to learn to really cook. And it's as or more expensive, since quality organic veggies are not cheap (and you can consume more by volume than you can meat).
However, even the best meat replacements are rarely as nice to eat as a good veggie dish (imo).
So people just need some good education and training. Then they can eat very healthy and very tasty food without all the sodium and other additives that go into the manufactured fake meat.
Really agree with that. 'Plant-based meat' is just barely an improvement on, and still very much in the same zone as 'vegetarian burger', 'vegetarian x' - what? What is it?!
Jackfruit for example makes a pretty good burger (at least, I like them, so I keep making them). The resulting burger is vegetarian, yes. But at a restaurant I'm never going to order 'vegetarian burger', just like I wouldn't order 'meat pie', it just doesn't sound at all appetising (someone's going to call me out here with 'fish pie'... sure, but that's an established dish, and you have a good idea of the fish/seafood you should expect).
'Vegetable' is slightly better in that it at least doesn't sound like 'this is the knock-off version if you have specific requirements' - 'vegetable lasagne' is sort of fair enough for example. Still not as good as being a bit more descriptive though.
Not to say that I want to teach these places to do a better job on their menus - it's a great indicator to avoid them!
Jackfruit for example makes a pretty good burger (at least, I like them, so I keep making them). The resulting burger is vegetarian, yes. But at a restaurant I'm never going to order 'vegetarian burger', just like I wouldn't order 'meat pie', it just doesn't sound at all appetising (someone's going to call me out here with 'fish pie'... sure, but that's an established dish, and you have a good idea of the fish/seafood you should expect).
'Vegetable' is slightly better in that it at least doesn't sound like 'this is the knock-off version if you have specific requirements' - 'vegetable lasagne' is sort of fair enough for example. Still not as good as being a bit more descriptive though.
Not to say that I want to teach these places to do a better job on their menus - it's a great indicator to avoid them!
What’s a good veg cookbook for preparing such dishes?
I'm sorry, I don't know! I'm just really skilled at searching for and selecting restaurants with good vegetarian options.
That said, there are a lot of recipe books. And most of the ones I've seen seem to have good combinations of ingredients. There are certain things that tend to go well together (and prep techniques that work best).
In general, you have to consider both flavor characteristics (such as bitterness, acidity, "green" taste (brussel sprouts, kale, spinach, broccoli), sweetness (cooked peppers, onions), and so forth. Then you consider textures - too many crunchy veggies in one dish make you feel like you have to work to eat... LOTS of chewing. However, too many soft stuff without some firm/crunch can be like just a sauce. So you'll see things like cashews added for protein and texture, etc.
Not all veggie dishes need a lot of ingredients. Just go dine at some places that have good reviews about their vegetarian dishes to start to get an idea. But avoid the really expensive places, as they tend to like to turn everything into some kind of cream sauce :P.
That said, there are a lot of recipe books. And most of the ones I've seen seem to have good combinations of ingredients. There are certain things that tend to go well together (and prep techniques that work best).
In general, you have to consider both flavor characteristics (such as bitterness, acidity, "green" taste (brussel sprouts, kale, spinach, broccoli), sweetness (cooked peppers, onions), and so forth. Then you consider textures - too many crunchy veggies in one dish make you feel like you have to work to eat... LOTS of chewing. However, too many soft stuff without some firm/crunch can be like just a sauce. So you'll see things like cashews added for protein and texture, etc.
Not all veggie dishes need a lot of ingredients. Just go dine at some places that have good reviews about their vegetarian dishes to start to get an idea. But avoid the really expensive places, as they tend to like to turn everything into some kind of cream sauce :P.
Try Plenty by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yotam_Ottolenghi
Vegetables Unleashed by José Andrés and Matt Goulding is great.
Plant-based meats are processed foods - consumer spending probably follows marketing and advertising intensity, same as for a can of Pringles or a bottle of Red Bull.
To replace frozen meat in a Whopper, it simply needs to be a cheaper input. The 'Impossible Whopper' was $1-2 more expensive.
To replace frozen meat in a Whopper, it simply needs to be a cheaper input. The 'Impossible Whopper' was $1-2 more expensive.
[deleted]
I do think it's a fairly niche market. The people in my life who like "plant based meat" are the same ones that are "veggie burgers" before. Either they don't love the taste of meat or don't eat it for religious reasons.
Potentially if it gets very cheap it may be something poor people opt for to save a dollar vs a real burger.
Other than that, the excitement about not eating real meat is limited to the same circles that claim climate change is their reason for not having kids (see story from yesterday.) For the rest of us, a nice juicy burger or steak is where it's at and that's not changing anytime soon
Potentially if it gets very cheap it may be something poor people opt for to save a dollar vs a real burger.
Other than that, the excitement about not eating real meat is limited to the same circles that claim climate change is their reason for not having kids (see story from yesterday.) For the rest of us, a nice juicy burger or steak is where it's at and that's not changing anytime soon
Anecdotally, I've evolved in to a flexitarian (first I've heard that term is this article) since I met my partner who's a vegan. As a result, I eat many vegan meals, both at restaurants and prepared at home. When I eat vegan, I generally avoid plant based "meats", partly because I don't really know what's in them, partly because they are inevitably highly processed, and partly because if I'm eating vegan it's because I don't want to eat meat, so why would I eat something that goes out of its way to be like meat.
> if I'm eating vegan it's because I don't want to eat meat, so why would I eat something that goes out of its way to be like meat
Sameish situation here, but I can't agree. I love plant-based "meats", because meat taste and texture is not at all why I want to eat less meat.
Sameish situation here, but I can't agree. I love plant-based "meats", because meat taste and texture is not at all why I want to eat less meat.
Always bugs me when a news source like this is so small it doesn’t have a Wikipedia listing. With only their “about us” to go by who funds them and what their angle is is hard to divine.
Waaaaay too early to make this call. The early brands have barely begun to establish themselves.
Also, who is this "Food Institute":
> As a marketing director in the food and beverage industry, the Food Institute gives Harry Davis & Company a direct line to c-suite influencers at all of the major brands.
Is this company a vehicle for food marketeers? Are they actually placed to make predictions, or is this PR for the meat industry?
Also, who is this "Food Institute":
> As a marketing director in the food and beverage industry, the Food Institute gives Harry Davis & Company a direct line to c-suite influencers at all of the major brands.
Is this company a vehicle for food marketeers? Are they actually placed to make predictions, or is this PR for the meat industry?
The alternatives market is going to be quite something in the coming decades. Given that HN thread from several weeks back where it was clear that lab-grown meat isn't going to happen any time soon, I'll be curious about alternatives that aren't gross processed frankensteins like the current offerings.
> that HN thread from several weeks back where it was clear that lab-grown meat isn't going to happen any time soon
I missed that, found it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28621288
I missed that, found it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28621288
Beyond Meat is a fairly big % of this and they had a bad Q1 (11% growth) but a good Q2 (30%+). I personally don't like the taste of Beyond Meat (although I find the Impossible Burger delicious - and tastes exactly like high quality meat.)
What does [flagged] mean and, assuming it's something bad, what could possibly be construed as bad about this article?
If they become equal or less in price than meat, they'll go from a slightly indulgent curiosity into a viable alternative. And there's also a lot of potential in plant-based chicken and seafood, neither of which (in my limited experience anyway) are anywhere close to replicating the original taste and texture.