The Impossible Burger 2.0

emaherx

Xcellor wrote: »

There is no ethical way to produce meat. There are different degrees of suffering that an animal can go through sure, but at the end it's all the same. And even if you get the best and most "ethical" meat its not sustainable to meet global demand which is why factory farming exists.

Yes there is, what's unethical about omnivores eating meat?

Do you think mass production of an entirely plant based diet for the global population can be done entirely ethically? Or even in an environmentally friendly way?

dmakc

Sorry but it's frustrating to read people feel the need to defend meat for 14 pages on an agri-board against what is clearly a troll with an agenda, talking hype, skimming over the science presented to him with tripe you'd find on reddit/vegan. Just let this waste of energy thread dissipate

_Brian

Xcellor wrote: »

To create products that taste good and taste similar to their non-plant based alternatives, you need to use the same type of ingredients. You aren't going to make a fatty beef patty like product without fat.

The benefit of plant based "junk food" is there is no dietary cholesterol which is significant to those who are genetically predisposed to have higher cholesterol in their blood. Also it contains fibre which the majority of people don't eat enough of. Not suggesting for a moment someone get their fibre this way, just pointing out there are some benefits of this junk food over "traditional" junk food.

There is no ethical way to produce meat. There are different degrees of suffering that an animal can go through sure, but at the end it's all the same. And even if you get the best and most "ethical" meat its not sustainable to meet global demand which is why factory farming exists.

Meat is absolutely ethically produced.
I would agree with you on factory farming, I would love to see a maximum density introduced to stop it.

But pasture fed beef raised on family run farms is a superior product that lives a superior life. Slaughtered humanely it is a superior food to ANY lab grown mega processed alternative.

I appreciate some people can’t balance the slaughter of animals with food production and that is their right, but telling untruths is wrong too, unethical to use your own term. Vegans nor vegetarians do not get to police the worlds food supply with their stance on what is ethical, their opinion is not more correct or morally acceptable, it’s just another opinion.

Xcellor

emaherx wrote: »

Ah the video said these are real people, now I'm convinced. Do they show the people who called them out and said the Beef was the better burger?

Will they be allowed market them in Europe as a healthy alternative when they contain more saturated fat then beef?

They have no cholesterol though. Something that all plant alternatives whether milk alternatives, cheese etc have in common.

Something like 1/4 in the developed world die of heart disease which has been linked to too much cholesterol in the blood. A burger without cholesterol isn't healthy for you any more than a 0% fat yogurt full of sugar isn't either but that hasn't stopped the yogurt industry.

This burger is for the "I want to make small changes in my diet that probably won't make any major changes to my overall health but will make me think I'm eating healthy"

These people drink milk with plant sterols which apparently reduce cholesterol.

drunkmonkey

dmakc wrote: »

Sorry but it's frustrating to read people feel the need to defend meat for 14 pages on an agri-board against what is clearly a troll with an agenda, talking hype, skimming over the science presented to him with tripe you'd find on reddit/vegan. Just let this waste of energy thread dissipate

You've kinda missed it along with a lot of people, it's not beef, it's junk mantra isn't going to win the day. There's probably some enterprising farmer reading this thinking they might be onto something here and is trying to make his own impossible burger using Irish products. Sitting back throwing mud at isn't going to do anyone here's business any good.
It might take a small % of the market but with the amount of burgers we eat here yearly 10% of the market is still worth chasing.
Worst case scenario is if we start importing them from the states or a UK distributor. There coming to a restaurant near you one way or another.

dmakc

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You've kinda missed it along with a lot of people, it's not beef, it's junk mantra isn't going to win the day. There's probably some enterprising farmer reading this thinking they might be onto something here and is trying to make his own impossible burger using Irish products. Sitting back throwing mud at isn't going to do anyone here's business any good.
It might take a small % of the market but with the amount of burgers we eat here yearly 10% of the market is still worth chasing.
Worst case scenario is if we start importing them from the states or a UK distributor. There coming to a restaurant near you one way or another.

I've no doubt they will tick this obligatory box off on their menu. So why not put your money where your mouth is, buy a few acres and make a few patties? And stop telling us how we'll be "begging for the likes of you to buy our land by the time Impossible Burger 10.0 rolls around".

Majority here are already in the game, and won't be listening to someone preaching from the sidelines.

emaherx

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You've kinda missed it along with a lot of people, it's not beef, it's junk mantra isn't going to win the day. There's probably some enterprising farmer reading this thinking they might be onto something here and is trying to make his own impossible burger using Irish products. Sitting back throwing mud at isn't going to do anyone here's business any good.
It might take a small % of the market but with the amount of burgers we eat here yearly 10% of the market is still worth chasing.
Worst case scenario is if we start importing them from the states or a UK distributor. There coming to a restaurant near you one way or another.

Do you work for the impossible burger company? as currently it's little more than a curiosity. I'm sure sales will spike initially as people will be curious to test their claims. Also they will struggle to produce them cheaper than beef as beef is very cheap.

Their environmental and land use claims are also fairly laughable, it's starting to come to light that beef is not the cause of global warming and also the importance of grazing animals for soil health. Also to compare land use of fairly barren range land in the States with their fertile croplands is not comparing like for like, they also include every acre of crops grown for cattle feed even if these feeds are by products of plants like soya grown for ingredients in human food like the impossible burger. Also they have put of many Vegans with their testing of ingredients on rats. Also won't be popular with the anti GMO crowd either, it's actually quite hard to see a market.

Xcellor

emaherx wrote: »

Their environmental and land use claims are also fairly laughable, it's starting to come to light that beef is not the cause of global warming and also the importance of grazing animals for soil health. Also to compare land use of fairly barren range land in the States with their fertile croplands is not comparing like for like, they also include every acre of crops grown for cattle feed even if these feeds are by products of plants like soya grown for ingredients in human food like the impossible burger. Also they have put of many Vegans with their testing of ingredients on rats. Also won't be popular with the anti GMO crowd either, it's actually quite hard to see a market.

Now that the component that goes into impossible burger is FDA approved there is nothing stopping other companies taking it and making food without the use of rats. Most food in the modern world at some point has been tested on animals... How far removed it has to be from the origin where it was tested on rats before it becomes "acceptable" is a matter of conscience for vegans I suppose.

The non-vegans who are just looking for an alternative "healthy" (because everything plant based is healthy :rolleyes:) choice won't care. The offering will become wider to give an actual healthier choice in the same way we see "Less than 5% fat mince" , "Lean steak", "Skimmed milk". There is no way these burgers need so much fat but for the most impact, commercially it makes sense to release the closest thing they can to "meat".Looking at their website they seem to already have a different type of patty from the "original".

Augmented food is a growing industry, I heard on the radio the other day that Coca Cola are looking into milk industry here with the intention of making some super milk, a premium product which could sell for multiples of the price. The dairy industry already have so many variants of milk now. Makes you wonder why a product which is "natural", "wholesome", "good for you" etc needs so much removed / added.

Xcellor

Just got this sent not applicable to Irish market but is "hot"

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/today-5-burger-and-fries-includes-vegetarian-and-vegan-burgers-and-potato-or-sweet-potato-fries-frankie-bennys-3208188

emaherx

Xcellor wrote: »

Just got this sent not applicable to Irish market but is "hot"

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/today-5-burger-and-fries-includes-vegetarian-and-vegan-burgers-and-potato-or-sweet-potato-fries-frankie-bennys-3208188

A discount for burgers? So, what am I missing?

Xcellor

emaherx wrote: »

A discount for burgers? So, what am I missing?

The promotion emphasizes "vegetarian and vegan" burgers. No experience of the food quality of Fankie & Bennies but I am guessing it's more upmarket than burger king...

emaherx

Xcellor wrote: »

The promotion emphasizes "vegetarian and vegan" burgers. No experience of the food quality of Fankie & Bennies but I am guessing it's more upmarket than burger king...

Yes, but no mention of the impossible burger, in my local chipper you can get vegetarian/vegan burgers and even ones made from chicken.

drunkmonkey

I misunderstood what they were putting into burger king I thought it was the one they've been pimping since cex, they actually went and made a whopper replacement, costs a $1 more so it's pitched above beef.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng4C2HMH664

_Brian

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I misunderstood what they were putting into burger king I thought it was the one they've been pimping since cex, they actually went and made a whopper replacement, costs a $1 more so it's pitched above beef.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng4C2HMH664

Jesus they both look utterly disgusting 🤮

emaherx

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I misunderstood what they were putting into burger king I thought it was the one they've been pimping since cex, they actually went and made a whopper replacement, costs a $1 more so it's pitched above beef.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng4C2HMH664

A fake bland burger that sells for a dollar more, I'm sorry I take it back, that will be huge with meat eaters!

drunkmonkey

_Brian wrote: »

Jesus they both look utterly disgusting 🤮

Yea that was my reaction, wasn't the jucy bleeding alternative I was expecting.

emaherx

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Yea that was my reaction, wasn't the jucy bleeding alternative I was expecting.

You wouldn't do well in advertising.

"Try our plant burger, it bleeds!" Awesome

Xcellor

https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/poor-diet-kills-more-people-around-the-world-than-smoking-research-shows-915378.html

US co-author Professor Walter Willett, from Harvard University, said the findings supported recent research on heart and artery disease that advocated replacing meat with plant protein.

"Adoption of diets emphasising soy foods, beans and other healthy plant sources of protein will have important benefits for both human and planetary health," he said.

Dr Anna Diaz Font, from the World Cancer Research Fund, said: "This study is very important as it demonstrates the major role that diet plays in the health of individuals and populations.

So impossible burgers all around! Soy foods are healthy! :rolleyes:

drunkmonkey

emaherx wrote: »

You wouldn't do well in advertising.

"Try our plant burger, it bleeds!" Awesome

Try our beef burger it's made from plants, know the difference!

dmakc

Xcellor wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/poor-diet-kills-more-people-around-the-world-than-smoking-research-shows-915378.html



So impossible burgers all around! Soy foods are healthy! :rolleyes:

https://isupportgary.com/uploads/articles/397606854-Walter-Willett-Potential-Conflicts-of-Interest.pdf

This old fart again

emaherx

Xcellor wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/poor-diet-kills-more-people-around-the-world-than-smoking-research-shows-915378.html



So impossible burgers all around! Soy foods are healthy! :rolleyes:

Soy may be healthy that dosen't make all soy based foods healthy. Plenty of perfectly good ingredients go into all sorts of processed junk.

Xcellor

dmakc wrote: »

https://isupportgary.com/uploads/articles/397606854-Walter-Willett-Potential-Conflicts-of-Interest.pdf

This old fart again

"More than 130 scientists compared dietary habits to rates of death and disease in 195 countries."

That seems a large group of scientists and I would assume it was peer reviewed too.

dmakc

Xcellor wrote: »

"More than 130 scientists compared dietary habits to rates of death and disease in 195 countries."

That seems a large group of scientists and I would assume it was peer reviewed too.

Well if it's anything like the EAT-Lancet commission where 31 out of 37 scientists had previously espoused vegetarian views then I would assume these peer reviews weren't much better. Propaganda pays

emaherx

dmakc wrote: »

Well if it's anything like the EAT-Lancet commission where 31 out of 37 scientists had previously espoused vegetarian views then I would assume these peer reviews weren't much better. Propaganda pays

I think it is the EAT-Lancet report and has been fairly widely criticized since it was published.

emaherx

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Try our beef burger it's made from plants, know the difference!

I suspect I will "know the difference"

dmakc

emaherx wrote: »

I think it is the EAT-Lancet report and has been fairly widely criticized since it was published.

Yep. Though it'd be nice if the copy and paste monkeys in the media news outlets realised this.

Xcellor

Here's a link to the study.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)30041-8/fulltext

Published yesterday. It was funded by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation who have a stake in Impossible burger.

I need to read the research but at first glance it appears very comprehensive.

dmakc

Xcellor wrote: »

It was funded by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation who have a stake in Impossible burger.

Well that just wrote itself then didn't it?

I see they chose Ashkan Afshin the lead author this time round to give Willett a break.

Previous work in 2014: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/5/e006385.full.pdf

“optimal intake for meat was defined as zero.”

_Brian

Xcellor wrote: »

"More than 130 scientists compared dietary habits to rates of death and disease in 195 countries."

That seems a large group of scientists and I would assume it was peer reviewed too.

And of that 130 scientists, how many recommended eating hyper processed foods.
How many recommend eating ingredients where 25% is made up of completely unknown unidentifiable proteins grown in a lab vat ??

I’d wager none.

Talk to any nutritionist or Health professional and the one single message is less processing is better not more. Foods prepared with raw ingredients in their natural form is vastly superior to foods with excessively processed ingredients.

emaherx

Xcellor wrote: »

Here's a link to the study.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)30041-8/fulltext

Published yesterday. It was funded by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation who have a stake in Impossible burger.

I need to read the research but at first glance it appears very comprehensive.

So a second report funded by a different Vegan Billionaire using the same scientists came to the same conclusion and isn't in any way biased in the data it used?