The Impossible Burger 2.0

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's probably going to be in about 15,000 burger locations as well as been sold in supermarkets in the next couple of months If the burger king trial goes well and that's just the states.
Someone is eating them and it's not just vegetarians. Diet coke sells more now than classic coke and that's ****e so I wouldn't understimate the general public and say they won't buy it as it's not beef.

Since when do the general public have an issue with eating beef? I especially don't see those who seek BK burgers on a regular occasion having a need for a beef alternative.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's probably going to be in about 15,000 burger locations as well as been sold in supermarkets in the next couple of months If the burger king trial goes well and that's just the states.
Someone is eating them and it's not just vegetarians. Diet coke sells more now than classic coke and that's ****e so I wouldn't understimate the general public and say they won't buy it as it's not beef.

But its just rubbish food..
Your diet coke analogy is perfect..


Regular coke is a terrible product, it and its like have contributed shockingly towards the decline in general health between obesity and all the associated problems in drinking highly processed drinks with sugars and what not added..
Diet coke is essentially a marketing strategy to allow them continue sell a rubbish product but with a tweak that lets weak minded people think its a healthy product.. But its not, its still rubbish, I look at all the obese people walking about drinking diet coke believing its their hormones working against them..



Similarly the impossible burger is a replica of a poor food, its still a poor food, there is no advantage in it at all, people shouldn't be eating this junk, same as people shouldn't be eating products made from ground beef, its a sub prime product.. Its a marketing ploy to gain market share dressed up as some savior of the planet and animals, its a joke.


This thread will run a long time because they are working on impersonating cuts of meat too, I guarantee there is a company working on producing vegetable alternatives somewhere to cut out the need to farm them..


Can people not understand that as we add more and more hyper processed foods to our diet we are both damaging our health and handing over food supply to multinational conglomerates.. The impossible burger is backed by Bill Gates, his strategy was always simple, destroy all competitors, dominate the market, charge whatever you want for your product as you've eliminated all alternatives.. This is the type of person people are now heralding as a champion of our food supply, to paraphrase the DUP - NO, NO, NO !



Again..
Humans need to be eating foods as close as possible to their natural state. Not taking fruits, vegetables and meat and running them through manufacturing process after process adding dangerous ingredients at every step.. Taking a burger with 4-5 ingredients including meat, replacing it with a non meat substitute with 20+ ingredients is not progress, its a step backwards. Worse when they release their steak alternative they will be saying to replace a holesome food with 1 ingredient and replace it with a factory produced product with 20+ ingredients, how are people falling for this madness and corruption of our food supply.

gozunda wrote: »

Tbh impossible burgers and similar rubbish haven't been around long enough to show possible health effects. Bit like the production and promotion of highly processed plant based margarine and spreads which are were originally promoted as healthy and are now known to anything but. But hey lets promote highly processed foods which are anything but whole foods - cos their 'vegan' yeah .... :rolleyes:

Type2 diabetes and obesity ain't from eating a balanced diet including meat either. We can look to the rise of highly processed junk foods for that. And what is the impossible burger? Oh wait!


People who like who like good quality and ethically produced foods (and yes that includes meat) ain't going to be eating that ****e one way or the other..

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.

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

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 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 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 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 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 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 🤮

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:

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

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 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 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 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.”

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?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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

Imposdible burger 'ingredients'

Water, Soy Protein Concentrate, Coconut Oil, Sunflower Oil, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Potato Protein, Methylcellulose, Yeast Extract, Cultured Dextrose, Food Starch Modified, Soy Leghemoglobin, Salt, Soy Protein Isolate, Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E), Zinc Gluconate, Thiamine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1), Sodium Ascorbate (Vitamin C), Niacin, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12

It's not "made from plants' btw it's made from highly modified processed muck.

They can stick it ....

The food we give to cows to supplement their diets is full of GM soy+corn and cow nuts are highly processed but it's OK for them to eat it and then humans to eat them... Hmm. Double standard.

emaherx wrote: »

Pretty sure none of that soy was modified to Bleed. Also none of my cattle are fed Soy GM or otherwise. So no double standard here.

This is one example of food fed to promote high gain. Sold in ireland. Full of GM ingredients. Highly processed. Even has palm oil in (so eating cows is also killing orangutans) Look at all those additives..... Absolutely not natural for a cow to be eating this.

It's great that you don't feed your cows this but how does a consumer tell who does and who doesn't?

Perhaps we need to have "really grass fed beef" and "grass fed with GMO and other stuff" labels.

Xcellor wrote: »

This is one example of food fed to promote high gain. Sold in ireland. Full of GM ingredients. Highly processed. Even has palm oil in (so eating cows is also killing orangutans) Look at all those additives..... Absolutely not natural for a cow to be eating this. It's great that you don't feed your cows this but how does a consumer tell who does and who doesn't? Perhaps we need to have "really grass fed beef" and "grass fed with GMO and other stuff" labels.

You can use all the whataboutery you like tbh on this issue. It doesn't change the fact that Burger King are using hip and trendy marketing to sell highly processed ****e to gullible fools. But there you go ...


¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Xcellor wrote: »

Irish beef production uses highly processed nuts full of GM. I suppose most people are gullible fools when they believe that Irish beef is all grass fed and natural.

Clearly producing cows in Ireland is not sustainable if we need to feed them GM food to fatten them up.

Who cares what burger king do? Good luck to them. Beef grown with GMO food and now meatless burgers manufactured with GE.

Beef isn’t “grown” with ration.

Irish cattle are predominantly grass fed, ration would make up a tiny proportion of their overall lifetime feeding.

But hey, I don’t mean to stifle your propaganda there.