Impossible Burger

[capitalcityguy]

But we were living to much younger ages too, so why do you think our body is adapted to red meat when we never lived long enough for these diseases to occur?

This is an oft misunderstood statistic. Life expectancy stats measure the average of a group...not an individual.

Life expectancy increases are due in large part because of better infant healthcare (far, far fewer babies die today) and the benefits of clean water, available food sources, and ability to keep common diseases at bay with vaccines.

That...and while we haven't wiped out warfare, we aren't routinely having to defend our territories or families to the death.

If a human could avoid all the aforementioned former pitfalls, they generally lived as long as we do now (at least looking back a couple thousand years)>

Much like the faulty studies testing the effects of eating red meat within diets (which none are ever done without also consuming the other Standard American diet garbage), you can't really compare life expectancy across generations because you can't control for the environment....at least to effectively measure how consuming fatty meats did or did not affect longevity. Just too many unrelated factors that could play into this.

 

[HFCS]

Re: fancy dog food...

In fancier parts of LA there are organic, non-gmo, local, five star daily made dog food stores that charge the same price as a nice restaurant. It's quite the perplexing and shocking image when I see a homeless guy sitting in front of one of these places...

You can see the "LAMB" on the sign there, half the time I'd see a homeless guy right there next to that sign.

 

[cygrads]

I don't know if "processed" is a fair word. My understanding is they are using the same cells and biology to just "grow" muscle tissue (ie meat) in a petri dish. So it is literally meat, just not from a whole animal. I'm not sure how they provide energy to it to keep it growing, I suppose google can tell us.

Not sure if that is what the Impossible Burger is, but I had read this as something that was being done and close to fruition. On one hand, it's great that it is the "same" thing. On the other hand, it's kinda creepy af too. Not sure how I feel about it.

I could see this taking up some market share from "traditional" sources. Possibly a cheaper source of protein. But maybe the traditional would then command a price premium.

They are also growing organs, like kidneys and livers and such, for transplants. I think they are doing some of this already.

Brave new world kids...

Soilent Green is people! (For those old enough to know the reference).

 

[Cycsk]

Did you ever tell us which one was the dog food?

 

[CTTB78]

Did you ever tell us which one was the dog food?

My guess is Door #1.

 

[josh4cy]

I didnt know what an "impossible burger" was and ordered one at zombie burger. was not impressed. i am normally super open to any food item and am not a picky eater. but it still needs some work to be called a meat replacement.

 

[matclone]

I was going to guess Door #2, because I didn't see any sugar behind that one.

 

[simply1]

Re: fancy dog food...

In fancier parts of LA there are organic, non-gmo, local, five star daily made dog food stores that charge the same price as a nice restaurant. It's quite the perplexing and shocking image when I see a homeless guy sitting in front of one of these places...
You can see the "LAMB" on the sign there, half the time I'd see a homeless guy right there next to that sign.

The thing is, these fancy foods showed up because euthanized animals, diseased animals, and spoiled meat were being used as meat product. Any source of meat from any reason.

 

[nhwdmcy]

Full disclosure, I'm part of animal ag industry.

Key points to remember

1. The environmental argument against animal ag specifically as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions is not well understood by most. 3.9% of all GhG emissions come from Animal Ag. The vast majority comes from fossil fuels. This misleading narrative is propogated by well funded anti animal ag groups, much more well funded than any ag lobby. Those anti ag groups have made hundreds of lawyers very, very wealthy. Buy tesla stock not beyond meat.

2. Animal welfare is a very complex subject. If you aren't around animals every day, your understanding of their welfare could be very, very far from reality. A stressed animal is not a high peforming animal, which is not a profitable animal.

3. I respect everyone's right to eat what they want. God bless America. But I ask you to really dig deep to understand why you would be motivated to eat a product like an impossible burger. If you cant stand the idea of eating something that has a face, I can see that. I would challenge you to think about what happens in the wild everyday, but I digress. If you think ending modern farming practices will save the planet, its the opposite. Not embracing technology and innovation will risk setting us back on an incredible run of vastly decreasing percentage of people in the world living in poverty.

The number one way to make food production more eco friendly is to increase the efficiency of it. Make more with less. No question.


Thanks for reading.

 

[simply1]

Full disclosure, I'm part of animal ag industry.

Key points to remember

1. The environmental argument against animal ag specifically as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions is not well understood by most. 3.9% of all GhG emissions come from Animal Ag. The vast majority comes from fossil fuels. This misleading narrative is propogated by well funded anti animal ag groups, much more well funded than any ag lobby. Those anti ag groups have made hundreds of lawyers very, very wealthy. Buy tesla stock not beyond meat.

2. Animal welfare is a very complex subject. If you aren't around animals every day, your understanding of their welfare could be very, very far from reality. A stressed animal is not a high peforming animal, which is not a profitable animal.

3. I respect everyone's right to eat what they want. God bless America. But I ask you to really dig deep to understand why you would be motivated to eat a product like an impossible burger. If you cant stand the idea of eating something that has a face, I can see that. I would challenge you to think about what happens in the wild everyday, but I digress. If you think ending modern farming practices will save the planet, its the opposite. Not embracing technology and innovation will risk setting us back on an incredible run of vastly decreasing percentage of people in the world living in poverty.

The number one way to make food production more eco friendly is to increase the efficiency of it. Make more with less. No question.


Thanks for reading.

Probably heading to the cave, but do you have a source?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181217120025.htm

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html

Also you haven't mentioned potential health impacts of switching out for plant based protein.

 

[HFCS]

Agree in principal on many of your points. I don’t think the greenhouse gasses are a good reason to be against it from an environmental perspective. The amount of water used is a much better reason.

I actually think for the most part of animal welfare, pigs and cows have it pretty well off. It’s poultry that really gets the short end of the stick. I used to build grain bins. I’ve been on a lot of farms all over Iowa. I’ve seen a lot of different options.

I agree technology is the way forward. I think these meat replacement products are a big part of increasing efficiency. It takes a lot less land and water to produce a pound of impossible burger than it does a pound of ground beef. It’s going to take an all hands on deck approach to solving the worlds demand for food.

Water use can be an issue for vegetarian food choices too. The comparatively high amount of water used to farm almonds is a pretty big issue in California, or at least it was until the drought ended a year or two ago. Especially interesting and difficult given almonds are exploding in popularity as a dairy substitute.

I'm not saying the fossil fuel energy is behind the claims of animal ag industries carbon footprint potentially being exaggerated, but if you look at who would really benefit the most from that in terms of immediate financial windfall it's the fossil fuels industry rather than environmental activists. I appreciate and agree with much of @nhwdmcy post but that's the one part where I think maybe he's been misled.

Speaking as someone who tried being vegetarian and settled into a natural unprocessed foods diet instead, there is definitely a lot of irrationality in almost any of these dietary movements (gluten free, vegan, vegetarian, raw foodism, etc). I'd challenge anyone to try being a vegetarian for a week and tell someone who offers you meat "no thank you, I don't eat meat". You'll be surprised to find that most people react as if you just assaulted their child. We take our food choices incredibly personally. Even now when I do eat meat, if I tell someone that I don't eat bacon they get over the top offended quite often. For that I really respect the tone of @nhwdmcy post because it is rare.

 

[DeereClone]

Did you ever tell us which one was the dog food?

Left is beyond meat, middle is dog food, right is impossible burger.

 

[capitalcityguy]

Again, hey I'm 100% fine with posting an ingredients list. I'm also 100% fine with saying, if you're unwilling to shoot and animal in the head looking directly in their eyes, or unwilling to stand on a kill floor of a slaughterhouse for a little bit, you probably shouldn't be eating as much meat as many of us do. I do think a lot of people like meat, but understand the fundamental hypocrisy of their lives that they really want to be totally ignorant of what it takes to get that burger on their plate and might make a different choice if given the option.

How is observation or participation any type of valid bar (assuming you agree that the human species has evolved to eat meat) on how much of this required food source one should eat? You are conflating two related, but separate issues. (Note: I’m not arguing against pushing for more humane food sourcing).

Similarly (using your logic) if someone needing open heart surgery isn’t willing to stand on the operating floor and observe the procedure, should they be guilted into not making the choice to go ahead with surgery because they aren’t willing to stomach observing it firsthand.

Of course not. This is a silly argument because the ability to observe or perform the action has nothing to do with the requirements your body needs for either nutrition (i.e…amount of meat) or repair (in the case of surgery).

 

[HGoat1]

Probably heading to the cave, but do you have a source?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181217120025.htm

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html

Also you haven't mentioned potential health impacts of switching out for plant based protein.

Agriculture represents 9% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.The 3.9% referenced is the total output of greenhouse gas emissions from animal ag in the USA (not worldwide), per the EPA
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 

[HGoat1]

As an aside, it is worth noting if we could ever tackle the enormous problem of food waste in our country, we would see much lower GHG numbers for agriculture and our overall food supply chain. Forty percent of food produced in the United States goes to landfills, and that food waste is the largest contributor to agriculture’s carbon – and overall environmental – footprint. This unacceptable amount of wasted food ranges from the most perishable commodity, fruit and vegetables (50-plus percent), all the way to animal-sourced foods such as meat and milk (20 percent). It is also worth noting that the majority of the United States’ food waste does not occur at the farm level (i.e., producer) but at the consumer level.

 

[HGoat1]

Another thing to consider- Critics of animal agriculture suggest we could better use our farmland to grow crops (instead of raising animals) and thus reduce GHGs. To put the issue in perspective, think of the surface area of Earth as an 8½-inch-by-11-inch sheet of paper. One-fourth of that sheet is all land. Of that post-card-sized parcel representing all land, we have approximately the area represented by a business card, which is all agricultural land on which we produce food. However – and here’s the rub – not all agricultural land is the same. Two-thirds of the business card is “marginal” farmland. In other words, it is not conducive to growing fruits and vegetables due to poor soil nutrients and/or lack of moisture. Yet, we can use marginal agricultural land to raise ruminant livestock that is able to eat feed such as grasses that are inedible by humans and upcycle them to high-quality animal-based foods

 

[capitalcityguy]

Your body doesn't need meat to survive. If it needs open heart surgery, it needs that to survive. Dumb comparison.

I didn’t mean to suggest either scenario was required “to survive”. I’m making the assumption you will be healthier eating meat and in some instances, undergoing surgery and because of this, the types of measures you put up as roadblocks are silly.

Neither might be required to “survive” in the near term. Both make for a healthier body long term (again…assuming you believe in eating meat is a requirement for humans).

 

[VeloClone]

As an aside, it is worth noting if we could ever tackle the enormous problem of food waste in our country, we would see much lower GHG numbers for agriculture and our overall food supply chain. Forty percent of food produced in the United States goes to landfills, and that food waste is the largest contributor to agriculture’s carbon – and overall environmental – footprint. This unacceptable amount of wasted food ranges from the most perishable commodity, fruit and vegetables (50-plus percent), all the way to animal-sourced foods such as meat and milk (20 percent). It is also worth noting that the majority of the United States’ food waste does not occur at the farm level (i.e., producer) but at the consumer level.

This is a good reason to look hard at your own food practices. I am not militant about throwing out items that have expired according to the manufacturer's "best if used by date". Many unopened "non-perishables" are perfectly good long after the cereal manufacturer has determined it might be time for you to buy a newer box. Throwing away that forgotten box, can or jar in the back of the pantry because of an arbitrary date on the package is a huge waste.

Another huge waste we should all think about is fast food. We have an entire industry that is built on the premise that food is prepared and held waiting for the next customer to come along and order it. If no customer appears or the customer orders something else the food is thrown away. This waste adds up and means that every time we visit the neighborhood McDonalds we are contributing to the problem even if we are in the "clean plate club".

There are other things that can be done to mitigate the problem. There are organizations like "Second Harvest" who collect unwanted food and make it available to the needy. There are also partnerships set up with large caterers and some restaurants that take table scraps and leftovers and convert them over to feed at hog operations since food safety laws don't allow this prepared food to be used for human consumption.

 

[capitalcityguy]

Eating meat is not a requirement for humans. I am honestly confused. No, I don't believe things that are not true.

My point with people putting up stuff like an ingredients list, is that they are trying to dissuade people from trying a different protein source. Fine, lets list that right along with the absolutely gruesome sight of a kill floor.

You'd have to qualify "a requirement". I think that is why you are confused. I'm suggesting if it is a requirement to be the healthiest version of yourself. That can, and currently is, a debatable topic.

Yes, if you don't think our bodies were made to ingest a bunch of things that don't occur naturally, then it would make sense to make that argument. Likewise, the same types of arguments can be made against eating meat depending on what the animal consumed (e.g....grass fed vs grain) or were injected into them (growth hormones) . That is the parallel arguments.

Challenging someone to hunt for their meat has nothing to do with whether it is healthier for them to consume and thus a measure of how much they should eat of it if your goal it to be the healthiest version of yourself

 

[NebrClone]

Read ingredients, very high in salt. This is not as bad a list as other non meat items.

Impossible Burgers are significantly lower in protein than beef-based burgers, yet they contain more fiber. Impossible Burgers are also higher in fat and contain carbohydrates, while beef burgers do not contain any carbs.

Impossible Burgers also contain a high amount of added salt, packing in 16% of the daily value for sodium in one 4-ounce (113-gram) serving.

The five main ingredients of an Impossible Burger 2.0 are:

• Water
• Soy-protein concentrate
• Coconut oil
• Sunflower oil
• Natural flavors.

Impossible "meat" also contains 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