I think it's fascinating how all these fast-food chains are jumping on artificial meat. It makes perfect sense: meat is expensive and difficult to work with, so low-cost chains like these have been serving really disgustingly low-quality meat for quite some time now; in some cases it could barely even be called meat.
Plant-based meat, on the other hand, can be both cheaper and less gross at the same time, and it might help them cut down on calories and improve their health image.
I wonder what impact it'll have on climate change when McDonalds stops buying real beef.
Can you make a clearer, better-cited case for "low cost chains serve meat that could barely even be called meat"? KFC serves (primarily) whole muscle chicken†, and the general US appetite for "dark meat" chicken is so low that we've been accused of "dumping" it on other countries and messing up their markets --- KFC seems to have no trouble sourcing its inputs effectively. KFC's suppliers include all the major chicken producers; the same firms that put chicken breasts on the shelves at grocery stores. KFC's biggest competitor is going antibiotic-free this year; at least one of KFC's suppliers already has. That's a step past supermarket chicken.
I'm not saying Tyson chicken is good; it's CAFO meat, which is not great for the environment or for flavor. But it's not "barely meat"; it's meat that basically sets the standard for meat quality in one of the meat-eatingest countries in the world, and has set that standard for over 50 years.
† Don't get me started on how irresponsible the public interest campaign against transglutaminase franken-meat is.
Just anecdotal, but I was once chatting on a plane with a guy working as a meat buyer for a major dog food brand. He told me his work was to negotiate the cheapest thing that would pass legally as meat as possible, in the biggest quantity as possible. He then mentioned in passing that his toughest competition was Mc Donald's.
>Can you make a clearer, better-cited case for "low cost chains serve meat that could barely even be called meat"?
Taco bell famously admit a few years ago that their beef filling was only 88% beef.
CBC did an investigative report in Canada recently that revealed subway's chicken was only 50% chicken. [0] The rest being a smörgåsbord of fillers. The 4 other chains studied in the tests didn't do much better.
Do you know why people think it's bad meat compared to the supermarket? Is it just the general attitude society has developed towards fast-food and big business?
I don't mind KFC but Taco Bell meat always seemed a bit...off and low quality.
It's been setting the standard for shitty meat though. Try a Tyson breast and one from a local farm and you don't even need to taste it to know it's different.
I believe the big "Pink Slime" news story halted some of this, or at least led to many fast food companies publicly decrying it. But there was definitely a point when this ammonium hydroxide treated slurry was used to cut the real stuff.
Intensively reared supermarket poultry is hardly a standard. Not in the UK anyway. Various respected media outlets have done undercover investigations in to the poultry supply chain. High-profile chefs have done campaigns to increase welfare and change buying habits. The RSPCA have serious concerns about intensively reared birds.
Is this really the thing you want to pick and argue about? About whether it is hyperbole or not to call the stuff that is NOT the subject of this article, low quality?
Why do you even care. They can "quality" up their meat all they want but in the end they are still a fast food chain that primarily sells buckets of meat. I don't need a citation to think that is disgusting, and if you don't then go take that argument somewhere where it's on topic. Jeez.
So they're actually doing the right thing in 2019 and replacing part of their product with non-meat. I hope it goes all the way, or at least make meat be the expensive "special occasion" option.
You totally misread the person you are replying to. They are speaking about fast-food chains general. In fact they only mention one chain by name and it's not KFC.
I've presumed that the reason Taco Bell uses the word beefy was because they can't legally call it beef. Much like cheap "cheese" is a processed dairy product and not actually labeled as cheese.
I'm only speaking anecdotally, but I have in mind Taco Bell's ground beef and McNuggets, for example. Cane's chicken, by contrast, always seems surprisingly high-quality.
> low-cost chains like these have been serving really disgustingly low-quality meat for quite some time now; in some cases it could barely even be called meat.
I wish this urban legend would die.
Fast-food beef and chicken at major chains is no different in quality from what you buy at the supermarket.
A McDonald's burger is 100% ground beef and salt, no "additives" or "fillers". And Taco Bell ground beef is ~90% beef, because the rest is ~10% spices (cumin, etc.) because... that's what taco meat is supposed to be, like when you make it at home.
Spreading rumors that it's somehow worse doesn't help anybody. I get that it's entertaining to believe -- but it's simply false.
It won’t die because it makes yuppies feel superior to the plebes who eat at McDonalds. My wife once encountered a lawyer at a prominent DC firm who literally sneered at the idea of eating McDonalds. I think of her every time we drive through to get an Egg McMuffin.
It makes perfect sense: meat is expensive and difficult to work with, so low-cost chains like these have been serving really disgustingly low-quality meat for quite some time now; in some cases it could barely even be called meat.
Consumer advocates in the past few years have actually done a pretty good job at pressuring the top fast food chains to not dilute their beef with additives.
It's all the other stuff (the bun, the fries, etc. ) that have preservatives, fillers, and shady additives.
(When traveling, I sometimes just buy a bunch of MdD's patties a la carte. Tasty, nutritious and very filling).
This "impossible burger" trend basically reverses the work of consumer advocates. The one element of fast food that is actually an all-natural, nutritionally complex whole food is replaced with a patty that is nothing but processed food and additives -- https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600189374... The fast food restaurant will likely save money -- but because of how fashionable vegetarianism has become, instead of being condemned, they will be actually praised as being eco and health conscious.
> When traveling, I sometimes just buy a bunch of MdD's patties a la carte.
o_O
> how fashionable vegetarianism has become
I don’t think it’s a question of fashion. However tasty meat may be, it’s ethically and environmentally bad. Whether it’s in 50 or 500 years’ time, one day our descendants will look back at us and wonder: “they ate corpses?!”
> Plant-based meat, on the other hand, can be both cheaper and less gross at the same time, and it might help them cut down on calories and improve their health image.
Which is “less gross” is highly objective.
> I wonder what impact it'll have on climate change when McDonalds stops buying real beef.
Would be a nice longbet, “McDonald’s will stop selling beef burgers by 20XY”. I’d be on the “no” side of that bet.
They will eventually stop selling beef burgers made from real cows. Lab grown meat will replace them. I don't know enough about the current state of lab grown meat to give an estimate for XY, but it seems inevitable to me.
I think the conditions most animals are raised in would be considered gross by virtually any observer who took a close look. Subjective, sure, but the same way that emergency room surgery is only subjectively gross.
it's a matter of volume. i don't expect beef to go away but the volume sold will massively decrease. there will always be the "real deal" crowd who will pay higher prices for it.
"Gross" being defined as amount of chemicals, likelihood to be spoiled and/or make you sick, etc.
Beef won't go away completely in 20XY; maybe not ever, which is fine. But at the scale and quality standards of fast-food, and with the recent progress in the meatless space, I would bet McDonald's will stop selling it in my lifetime.
Fast-food beef is retired dairy cows and flavorings made in a lab.
Gross.
Many people don't know or don't care.
There are enough people that do care to significantly impact their bottom line though. For better or worse.
Unless I missed it in TFA, it doesn't say that the raw materials (the meat) are more expensive but rather that the product is more expensive. If a fast food chain can charge more for cheaper materials, that's a double win for them.
I would assume the margins are really high. It's a premium product right now because they're still building out a market and because there was a big up-front research investment, but the fundamental sustainability of the raw materials and process must be miles better than raising cattle.
On the other hand, Swedish fast food chain Max has a pretty good "plant beef" burger made of wheat and soy protein, and it costs the same as the meat version.
I guess with Beyond and Impossible you pay a hefty price for their marketing. Or for irrelevant features: Didn't one of them put a lot of research into making a "bleeding" plant burger? Bleeding may be relevant in some settings, but not at Burger King where you always get your burger well done (AFAIK).
Watch when it has zero impact on climate change because the extensive ingredient list on the beyond meat burger which requires a huge supply chain shipping products all around the country along with a complicated manufacturing process requiring energy ends up having a similar environmental impact to simple animal farming.
Even if the environmental impact is nil, I'm fine with the reduction in suffering imposed on tens of billions of animals a year. The scale of suffering created by the meat industry is unfathomable so I think this is a step in the right direction regardless.
The supply chain on meat is pretty extensive. Modern animal farming is basically an industrial process that happens to use flesh-and-blood as host organisms for meat.
I’ve shared this a few times on this site but this BBC article [0] is pretty clear - red meat (beef in particular) is vastly worse than veg alternatives. [1] breaks it down a bit farther and shoes that the transport and processing associated with foods is a minuscule part of their impact (mostly) - the impact of processing/transporting beef is more than the entire impact of any other vegetable on the chart.
I hope that's not the case. I'm much more concerned that although these might help the environment they might not be great for the health of the people eating them. These "plant-based" foods aren't exactly food that humans or animals have ever eaten in their diet. IMO the better thing is if you want to cut back on meat, eat a salad. These meat replacements aren't anything you can cook up at home so be wary.
> a complicated manufacturing process requiring energy ends up having a similar environmental impact to simple animal farming.
"Simple animal farming" is slightly disingenuous. It's not like the animal is slaughtered on the farm, cut up into steaks and sent directly to supermarkets. There's tons of complicated processing and handling going on after the animal is finished growing. And that's on top of the energy losses from feeding and raising the animal.
the economic argument has always been the strongest in my eyes, and it's unstoppable. animals are a huge liability health wise, pollution wise, environment wise, activism wise, logistic wise, etc. most companies don't care about all that stuff at the surface level, but it all translates into dollar signs, which they do care about.
as soon as the economic-taste-weirdness function reaches a certain point, i'll expect you'll see these cheap fast food options convert more and more fractions of their products (right now many use fillers already) to fake meat, eventually replacing it entirely alongside offering reduced prices for these products, while leaving meat generally as a higher priced option signaling disposable income (sort of like Argentinian beef or w/e is today)
You were probably thinking it, but you didn't explicitly mention the No. 1 cost - raising the cattle. An animal that large is probably both delicate and expensive as it grows to maturity.
Could conceivably cut out all the work of growing bones, feeding/watering, animal healthcare, breeding & transport with labgrown meat. And the fixed cost of maintaining farmland. The cost saving potential is huge.
Not even considering the benefits of being able to quickly adjust production to what can be sold, as opposed to waiting however long it takes for a calf to grow up.
I'm not sure the environmental arguments support entirely eliminating cattle agriculture. Factory farming with cows kept indoors and fed purpose grown feed, certainly. But there's a lot of scrubland out there that doesn't have enough water for agriculture but which can still support grazing. That can't support anything like our current beef consumption but it could support a fair amount
It's not a clear win for either side. Impossible Burger has more carbs and less protein, so it's inferior in that way. But it also has more fiber (beef has none), which is good. Impossible also (surprisingly) has more saturated fat than beef, but it has no cholesterol.
As one of the articles points out, Impossible's main goal isn't making healthy food. It's other stuff like saving the planet. So it is possible that another fake-meat company could prioritize health more.
The formula for beef isn't going to change, but the formula for fake meat will, so fake meat might gain ground when it comes to health.
And that's bad? After working on my property cutting down weeds and dead trees carbs are super healthy. Carbs are only not healthy if you live a sedentary lifestyle. Carbs are our main short-term fuel source.
> Why do you think plant-based meats are lower calories than regular meat?
It's totally possible they aren't; just a reasonable guess.
> There's no evidence plant-based burgers are healthier.
There's plenty of evidence that eating red meat on a regular basis is bad for you. Chicken is admittedly a different story.
> Why would eating something super processed and filled with carbs be better than eating meat?
Many veggie patties are filled with fiber and most are filled with protein (from beans, soy, etc.). I don't know the nutritional details of the Impossible Burger or the meatless chicken featured in the article, but generally meat substitutes are not just carbs.
1. Because I don't eat meat outside of fish. This is both a lifestyle choice and a health thing: I don't have a gall bladder and my digestive track is much happier if I stay away from greasy foods, especially animal fats. I'll occasionally get an upset stomach from fish or fried eggs still, but it isn't an everyday thing.
2. While they do have carbs, they also have protein. And a bunch of other stuff the burgers don't have. Oh, and less fat in most cases. I'm guessing many are lower in calories, but I'm not sure about these particular products.
3. Not all of them are super processed. I've literally made different sorts at home, though I'm just as likely to buy a soy option. (obviously not Beyond Meat or Impossible Burgers. I actually am not impressed with these options).
Meat has been highly produced because the gov’t of Nixon’s era and today’s era has been buying up tons of bushels of grain(1). The gov’t bought grain to help support & subsidize farmers and ranchers. Grain is convenient to offload as cattle feed. Cheap cattle feed encourages raising cattle. Cow farts contribute over 40% of the world’s methane(2). Methane contributes 34 times more towards global warming per unit than carbon dioxide.
Thus if we want to tackle climate change, we should rethink our Cold War era grain subsidies and ultimately reduce our dependence on cattle.
> Cow farts contribute over 40% of the world’s methane. Methane contributes 34 times more towards global warming per unit than carbon dioxide.
How many total units of methane are there vs. total units of CO2? Otherwise, I can’t make a value judgement about the impact of cows on global warming.
> Plant-based meat, on the other hand, can be both cheaper
Definitely not the case at the moment. Last week I went to Del Taco and tried their Beyond Taco. It was $2.49 each compared to the meat one which was $1.49. If I recall correctly, you can switch to an Incredible burger patty at Red Robin for $3 extra.
They probably see a coming PR storm of anti-meat sentiment as our environment and collective health goes down the drain. And going a more veggie heavy route just doesn't work well for fast food except in the form of heavily processed stuff like meat substitutes.
It makes sense the same way it makes sense for KFC to replace honey with "honey sauce", (main ingredient corn syrup). I personally have no interest in eating plant-based substitutes for my food.
The verdict is not yet in on whether Beyond Meat's products are actually healthier for you than real meat. Beyond Meat certainly makes this claim, but there exists debate[1].
Funny thing that I heard recently. McDonalds is the greats buyer of chicken in the US. Quite surprising, considering they don't even have that much chicken in their menu.
Another advantage could be less susceptibility as a host for bacterial and other undesirable growth. Fewer recalls means willing consumers.
On the other hand I’d like to see studies on the healthiness of consuming these products long term. Intuitively they’d seem healthier, but I’d like to see that proven given their synthetic nature.
I don't normally eat KFC but visited the "original" "restaurant" in Kentucky a few weeks ago. We thought the chicken was very decent and comparable with any southern-style smaller restaurants we hit in the South.
It is not just that, growth in fast food has been stagnant for a while now. Anything new they are looking to adopt in a hope to change that. And they will all jump in in case that new thing does have a big growth effect.
The impossible whooper was inevitable and brilliant. As you mentioned, the meats served were often already low quality, with fillers, and it was arguable if it was even meat. Some fast food chains served "100% beef", but it didn't taste very different from the other crap. So the bar is low.
Replacing questionable meat with hype pseudo-meat is a straight win all around. I'm as carnivore as they come, but if I have to hit a Burger King, I'm just going to get an impossible whooper: if i'm going to be getting a shitty burger either way, I'll take the one that didn't require all the logistics around cows.
This KFC one is just the next step. Replace all the questionable meat with pseudo-meat that is (hopefully) more sustainable, and leave the "real" stuff in caviar territory where people actually care.
Fast food chains almost universally serve all-and-nothing-but beef patties, and always have. I don't understand the confusion over this. You can immediately tell from the texture.
I agree with others, get with the times. I am pretty sure all the major national fast food burgers are 100% beef, no fillers, no preservatives.
I don't eat a ton of fast food anymore, and when I do its usually McDonalds, but I have always enjoyed the Whopper. I had one a few months ago at an airport and tried the Impossible Whopper last week. It's close, but the beef version is still better in my opinion.
I just hope it isn't half-assed and they don't give up. I've noticed the newer Burger King commercials say the meatless Whopper is only available for a limited time.
"meatless Whopper is only available for a limited time"
"limited time is mostly marketing trying to create a buzz. If people buy it, they will continue to offer it. Simple as that. Otherwise it really was limited.
Plant based meats is what the chains have been wanting to do all along. Plant is cheap, doesn't matter how disgusting it is at the processing plant, because they make it look like meat anyway. And now the public has decided that plant based meats are healthy(?!?) and not loaded with salt and void of real nutrition.
I'm sorry, is there some kind of simulated nutrition I'm not aware of? Say, something that can legally be labeled as protein which is not, in fact, protein?
You will be surprised how much less healthy cheap plant based food can be than meat... Now you get human pesticides (the ones sprayed on plants), GMO and plant pesticides (the one plants have developed against mammals) on top of the low quality crap that was previously called meat.
I'm preparing a large dinner for an organisation at the moment and decided that we'd make the menu vegan/vegetarian (we use a wonderful Italian caterer, so flavour isn't going to be missed). When I mentioned it to some omnivore colleagues, they asked why and I shrugged and said "the Amazon is burning". They shrugged back and said, makes sense. It's not many years since I would have expected complaints at not catering a meat option. I feel progress is being made.
I cook vegetarian Italian food myself often but honestly find that the cuisine is still very much meat based. Good luck finding a vegetarian main dish ("secondo") in Italy (outside of Milano).
I think it's a little less direct than that, in this case. The Amazon Rainforest is a big source of cleaning CO2 out of the air (lots of trees). It's burning, which means our CO2 footprint matters even more than before. So, anything to reduce that is then good.
Also, a lot of farmland is used to grow feed for cattle and other livestock, and it's much less efficient than using the land to grow crops for people instead.
You would definitely still get that with the people I work with, though perhaps they wouldn't bother arguing with you on it, instead writing you of completely (nothing I personally do will have any influence the Amazon burning or not).
>we use a wonderful Italian caterer, so flavour isn't going to be missed
A non meat dish is still going to taste like a non-meat dish. Perhaps your colleagues were just being polite and avoiding treading into politically charged territory after you brought up the Amazon.
Personally I'm a picky eater and vegan/vegetarian dishes simply do not compare to meat. I'm sure others feel similarly. Though for one meal I suppose it isn't a huge deal - but acting like it's just as good simply isn't true for the majority of people - that's your personal taste.
I honestly don't understand why it's such a big deal that so many people insist meat must be part of a meal? To the degree that in Argentina they say "si no hay carne, no hay comida" (if there is no meat, it is not a meal). It feels like if I insisted on having bread at every table sitting. Clearly, it can be seen as just a habit and not a requirement?
I’m vegetarian and I take a bite of meat all the time, especially if it’s something special.
None of it is as good as great vegetarian food. Sure the top top top shelf stuff is probably as good. But the average meat at a restaurant or someone’s home is no better than great veggie food.
That said average veggie food sucks. If you are eating in the average-or-below segment then yes meat is probably better. In the good-to-great segment it’s not.
Veg food does require more work, which is a big part of why a lot of people/chefs don’t bother. Meat is basically perfect as-is. You just have to not fuck it up. Veggies require you do some chef work.
> Personally I'm a picky eater and vegan/vegetarian dishes simply do not compare to meat.
What are you eating, and how are you comparing it? If you're trying to treat a salad as a meat replacement, well, it's not going to do all that well. But there's a lot of meals designed to be complete without meat that might work for you, as long as you're not expecting them to taste like beef.
Which is it? Vegetarian would hardly be worth complaining about, but I'm really struggling to come up with a vegan Italian menu that sounds appetizing.
-A mixed antipasto (olives, sun dried tomatoes, bruschetta, breaded garlic mushrooms, griller artichokes, dolmades etc.) to graze on before the meal.
-Panelle Palermitane to start, which are these crescent shaped fitters made with chickpea flour, parsley and pepper. They're a popular street food in northern Sicily. Highly recommend with a little drizzle of lemon juice.
-I can think of 10 odd pasta dishes that could be had for main but a favourite of mine would probably be a puttanesca; a pasta dish with olives, capers, eggplant and red pepper flakes. Proper rustic food and very filling.
-For desert you could have a Castagnaccio which is a chestnut cake with fruits. No milk or egg involved. Great with a shot of espresso!
-Sorbets throughout to cleanse the palate.
That's just 1 option for each part, but you could probably build a dish for each course for each day of the week if needed - all varied in ingredients and flavours.
Honestly, I'd say close to 30% of my diet is Italian - all of it vegan. There are plenty of options. Unfortunately most of the food people think of when they think Italy is something lathered with cheese and cured meats, but when I travelled through there most of the diet consisted of legume based stews, casseroles and soups, and plenty of bread and salads.
Why do American (and presumably westerners) vegetarians want to replace meat? I hated vegan and vegetarian food for song long until I ate meat free Indian food. It was always the meat replacements like veggie patties and tofurkey type products that turned me away.
Indian food doesn’t have some weird mystery replacement I find on almost every vegan or veggie dish. I had a conversation with and Indian colleague who lives in the states and she agreed a lot of veggie/vegan food is just plain weird.
I'm sure this is unintentional, but be aware that denigradting immitation meat products is a common source of bullying directed at people transitioning towards plant based diets.
Our food cravings adapt to what our bodies identify as having the nutrients we need. Most people who eat a plant based diet for 5-10 years rarely eat meat replacements. But in the beginning, these replacements are great for people that are still learning meal planning. Outside of that, some people have health issues, like cholesterol, where replacing some of their meat intake with immitation meats can be beneficial. Others like to reduce their carbon footprint by eating occassional plant based meals. These individuals do not experience the change in cravings and taste so they still appreciate the taste and texture of something similar to the meat they still consume at other meals.
To put some quantitative analysis on that, while sales of immitation meat products have increased significantly, we are not seeing significant increases in the number of US residents identifying as vegan(strict vegetarian) and only modest increases in those identifying as vegetarian. This means that much of the immitation meat consuption is done by those that are still eating an animal protein based diet.
Anecdotally, I am not a huge fan of those products and also find most traditional bean and root vegetable based meals more satisfying. But please keep in mind that many people are navigating their way towards a different way of eating and they can be very sensitive to harse words about their choices.
Vegans and vegetarians aren't as much of the target market for these products as you think.
The market for these products is really omnivores who enjoy meat yet would prefer it to be made without the animal suffering and ecological footprint of meat if such a thing were available. You're never going to get the sort of market share these companies are looking for with only vegans and vegetarians - there simply isn't enough of them.
The vegetarian-curious also really don't need people bullying them about their food choices, that's unnecessary
> I hated vegan and vegetarian food ... it was always the meat replacements like veggie patties and tofurkey type products that turned me away... weird mystery replacement I find on almost every vegan or veggie dish
Completely unfair characterization of "vegan and vegetarian food." I've been a (western) vegetarian for close to two decades and commercial meat replacements are not an have never been a large part of my diet. I eat them MAYBE a few times a year, pretty much exclusively at cookouts.
That being said, that seems to have changed with the Impossible Whopper - that tastes pretty good and has a nice texture, I can see myself ordering that again.
I love Indian food, Thai food, Ethiopian food, various Mediterranean options, etc already. That doesn't mean I don't want even more options.
Especially it would be great to evolve the current US food culture to be vegetarian as well. There is a lot of culture around food that is not just purely about it being tasty food. As a teen, we'd make dumb late night runs to the drive through. We grilled burgers and dogs on Memorial Day. We'd order Pizza and Wings while watching football.
A lot of these traditions were manufactured to begin with and could be wholesale replaced by other food cultures, sure. A lot of people want to change their impact on animal suffering/the environment without 100% swapping out these cultural memories too. I think that's perfectly fair.
Sure I eat Indian food weekly, but it's comforting to feel part of your broader food culture and connected to your childhood rather than needing to avoid all the places your peers frequent.
Because meat-products are inseperable from our food culture in many places.
I'm from NC, so to me "BBQ" means something very specific and that meaning is a point of cultural pride. We like to trash talk our neighbors based on the sauce they use (eastern NC is vinegar-base, Western is ketchup-base, and South Carolina is mustard-based) but we still all agree that the meat is pulled or chopped pork. In Texas and Kansas City they call brisket and ribs "BBQ", and in other places, "BBQ" can just mean a outdoor get-together with anything grilled!
All that is to say that, becoming vegan or vegetarian in NC means losing a fun part of your culture if you throw out meat alternatives. Luckily, there are enterprising folks making amazing meat-free alternatives that still feel authentic to NC-style BBQ (I highly recommend "Fiction Kitchen" in Raleigh for eastern-style).
I can't wait for more Carolina BBQ vegan options. Fiction Kitchen's is good, though more chopped than pulled, while my preference is the latter. Still amazing though!
Because it's a great way to transport taste, whether it's tofu, Seitan or something like Beyond Meat/Impossible Burger. Yes, you can prepare awesome veggie food without it, but it's a great way to get people started without having to miss anything.
Kebab/Döner without veggie-meat just doesn't do anything for me, for example.
I don't get why people are confused about this. You've grown up with certain expectations of how food is being prepared so it should be obvious that you're interested in supplementing the parts that you don't want to eat anymore with something that's compatible with the way you've been preparing food your whole life.
Because American have a very poor culinary tradition (it's improving) so they can't think of plates prepared with different "principles". Most cuisines around the world use a lot less meat if they use it at all, and manage to do that while being delicious.
Italian food is a perfect example, it's so easy to be vegetarian eating Italian (the original version, not the one covered in meat and cheese you find in the US).
Same goes for almost every other culinary tradition in the world, meat used to be expensive.
I’m a meat eater and want to replace meat. It’s not just vegetarians. The factory farming of animals doesn’t sit well ethically with me, but meat has been a staple of my diet my entire life. If there were a viable plant based alternative that’s indistinguishable, factory farming can die out.
It’s not ready yet, and phase 1 was the really weird stuff. I think Beyond Meat is like phase 2 of “pretty close”. In the near future, you won’t be able to tell the difference
KFC isn't rolling out thai/indian curries, garlic chinese broccoli, or cheese gorditas any time soon so in this context it seems odd to somehow demonize fake meat while suggesting foreign cuisines are superior. what's the point?
most of the interest i'm guessing is coming from what was previously thought to be "unthinkable": that is, fast food chains whose core business revolves around animal flesh introducing something else that isn't animal flesh. there are tons of consequences for this outside of American vegetarians wanting to replace meat or whatever.
Personally I’d rather just eat the sides at KFC than have fake over processed chicken. I just don’t get the need for fake meat. Everyone seems to be against over processed foods and fake meats seem more processed than anything else.
> Why do American (and presumably westerners) vegetarians want to replace meat
Vegetarians do not want to replace meat. (I mean, they are already vegetarian). Anecdotally, I haven't met a single vegetarian/vegan who is interested in Impossible or Beyond Meat substitutes. Such products are instead very helpful for those who want to reduce read meat in their diet.
I've personally dined with three vegetarians at the meals where they went to try the Impossible Burger for the first time.
It's dangerous to make blanket statements about what all vegetarians think. For example, on the question of why someone has chosen to be a vegetarian, I've heard a long list of different reasons, including: animal welfare, environment, their own health/longevity/energy, not liking the taste of meat, not enjoying the idea of eating an animal's flesh (even if it were ethical), their religion encourages it, and/or it's their default because they were brought up that way and have never tasted meat.
Because "red curry with tofu" is just called "red curry with tofu", not "vegan red curry with tofu". Same with chana masala, hummus and veggie sandwich, pasta marinara, etc. But a hamburger, "chicken nuggets", etc very much needs the "vegan" prefix to make it clear what it is, so you end up associating the word with the meat substitutes. But that doesn't mean American vegetarians only eat things that have the word vegan/vegetarian in the label.
Similarly, "gluten-free" is associated with breads, pastas, etc. Not rice or other non-imitation products.
Indian food is amazing, but I also don’t want to give up the experience that is a good burger. In an ideal world, taking up a vegetarian diet wouldn’t restrict me to traditionally vegetarian foods, but would also have close analogues to the meat dishes I enjoyed before. That’s where the substitutes come in.
I think it’s great that these substitutes are being seriously developed because even though they may not be good replications today, they eventually will be, and this will allow meat to stars to have their cake and eat it too when going vegetarian.
I used to eat veggie burgers and fake chicken tenders, but you are right going with a true vegetarian recipe is always better than just taking a meat dish and using fake meat!
Because people want to keep eating things like burgers, hotdogs, tacos, etc. And not everyone knows how to replace the "meat" part. Basically not everyone knows or has the patience to build things from scratch. I'm fortunate that my family has time to cook things from scratch but I do see the market for all those replacements, some of them are good some others are yes weird.
Primarily because sometimes people want a burger and not have to have a cow die to get it.
Another reason is that red meat is known to be carcinogenic and hard on lipids and while their isn't sufficient data on plant based meats the going assumption that it is at least modestly better is probably a reasonable one.
But yes, non-processed plant based food is terrific and probably the best for you.
Here in Sweden, pretty much every fast food outlet has a vegan option.
It's honestly great, if nothing else simply because it makes it easier to be vegan - a huge blocker is often the fact that whilst you're on a road trip or similar your options may well be "eat chips or a cold premade sandwich" otherwise.
Though (as I posted in the other thread) I wish it were easier to source decent food on the go.
A year ago my wife started eating a whole lot less meat (she has experienced a lot less allergies due to this) and this year when we went to France, it was clear that "veggie/vegan" options at restaurants are often missing (we ate mostly at friend/family houses, so it was mainly an annoyance).
McD at CDG had only one non-meat item that wasn't a snack and that was their egg wrap. Even the salads had some kind of cold cuts in there.
Yes France is terrible for vegetarians (apart from major city centres obviously). Trad French cuisine is very fixated on protein+jus+carb, and the French are not as open to other cuisines (maybe because theirs is very good?)
I tried a few different varieties of chick'n nuggets, 90% of the taste is just breading and whatever the sauce so its really not a difficult as you'd imagine to have a substitute
Nuggets, patties, and sausages are going to be the first things to reach "perfect" when it comes to replacing meat because so much of their identity is in the processing and other ingredients involved. It'll be the things like a fried chicken breast sandwich that will be a lot harder to replaces because the natural meat structure matters a lot more.
The A&W beyond meat burger stands up as well as it does for the same reasons - all the other sauces they add hides the weirdness, and you just taste burger.
Exactly. We buy meatless ones from the grocery store to eat at home and it's really not all that different when the "real thing" has been shaped from a paste.
Those plant based protein patties often have too much salt but I just checked and the beyond meat seems reasonable with 390mg sodium and 300mg potassium all while using pea protein which has a pdcaas of 0.78.
Quite impressive.
If they can achieve the same with the chicken patties it'll be good!
I think the fake meat movement will go the way of Margarine.
Initially it's celebrated as a feat of engineering and as the healthy alternative to meat.
After about 10 to 20 years however, we'll see cancer and heart disease rates going up.
And then the billions of dollars spent in health care will pile up, but nobody will readily admit it, because the fuck up will be even bigger than with Margarine.
After all, Margarine is still on the shelves of super markets everywhere, maybe with slightly less trans fats, but it's still there, still advertised as the healthier alternative to butter.
We could do the same with plant based meat or whatever processed garbage gets sold in its name. We can let millions of people eat that day in and out and watch if they die out of heart disease and cancer over the next decades.
Feel free to sign up.
Personally not going to turn myself or my family into lab rats for these grandiose world changing goals.
The number one reason is that we've eaten red meat for millions of years, literally.
Given fake meat is new and I'm not seeing it in stores nearby yet, I'm going to assume a fair comparison will take another decade, after the studies and the meta analysis show up.
What makes you say that other than extrapolating from a single sample? Partially hydrogenated fats are a preservative and harm from butter and fat in general has been shown to be an abuse of statistics to avoid blaming sugar (fructose).
To me this seems like the idea that things thought to be much more benign (like cigarettes) are shown to cause cancer so cell phones must cause cancer too, without understanding any fundamentals of that sort of claim.
Margarine without trans fats is readily available and can be a healthier fat than butter though. But I agree the initial, high trans-fat margarines were bad.
Red meat is not very hard to beat in terms of negative health outcomes, so I doubt plant-based meats will be as horrid as the initial margarine put to market.
> Margarine without trans fats is readily available and can be a healthier fat than butter though
No.
> high trans-fat margarines were bad
There's no such thing as "high trans-fats". Industrial trans fats, like from margarine or other ultra-processed products, is unsafe in any quantity, low or high. There is indeed a principle of toxicology that "the dose makes the poison", however in case of trans fats that dose is really, really low.
> Red meat is not very hard to beat in terms of negative health outcomes
There is in fact no tangible proof that red meat has negative health outcomes. All you have are surrogate markers and some poor and old observational studies that can't be reproduced in randomized controlled trails.
The fake meat movement is just a cash grab for those who want to eat like crap but feel good about themselves.
Looking at the ingredients list, it's pretty obvious that cancer/heart disease will go up.
I've already got a long-term Put Option on $BYND because not even the CEO or big celebrity investors believe it is a good long-term bet -- cashing out at its peak a few weeks back.
Given the relative ease of spreading information about its deleterious health effects of their products, I think it's a house of cards that will fail, the sooner, the better...
> I've already got a long-term Put Option on $BYND
What's long-term? I haven't accepted the necessary terms anywhere to see the options (excuse the pun) - but whenever I've seen others' elsewhere the term's not long enough that I'm comfortable enough with it to be interested.
Like I might think 'X is over-valued, that won't last', but I could never confidently say how many Y months it will last.
It's odd. Most of my friends are aboard the "eat real food, not too much, mostly plants" train, and generally avoid highly processed stuff in favor of simple ingredients. But they make an exception for this weird industrial concoction.
I, personally, don't like it because my wife has allergy issues with legumes, and they're putting soy and pea protein in _everything_ now (e.g. was surprised to see it in some random almond milk the other day). I know it's a niche concern and it's on us to watch out for, but it's annoying and sort of surprising where it all is now.
I like meat. I don't eat it in large quantities or too often, and I don't think I'll ever go for this product. If I want meat, I'll have it like we've evolved to have it over millenia. YMMV.
Readit News
Plant-based meat, on the other hand, can be both cheaper and less gross at the same time, and it might help them cut down on calories and improve their health image.
I wonder what impact it'll have on climate change when McDonalds stops buying real beef.
I'm not saying Tyson chicken is good; it's CAFO meat, which is not great for the environment or for flavor. But it's not "barely meat"; it's meat that basically sets the standard for meat quality in one of the meat-eatingest countries in the world, and has set that standard for over 50 years.
† Don't get me started on how irresponsible the public interest campaign against transglutaminase franken-meat is.
Taco bell famously admit a few years ago that their beef filling was only 88% beef.
CBC did an investigative report in Canada recently that revealed subway's chicken was only 50% chicken. [0] The rest being a smörgåsbord of fillers. The 4 other chains studied in the tests didn't do much better.
[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marketplace-chicken-fast-fo...
Which is sad, IMO.
"All white meat chicken breast" is a bug, not a feature, IMO. Leg and thigh meat has so much more flavor and is much more juicy than breast meat.
I don't mind KFC but Taco Bell meat always seemed a bit...off and low quality.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18995204
TLDR: "Meat content in the hamburgers ranged from 2.1% to 14.8% (median, 12.1%)."
{Type of meat} - {FCR, Edible Weight} - {Conversion efficiency %, caloric} - {Conversion efficiency %, protein}
Beef - 36 - 2.9% - 2.5%
Pork - 6 - 9% - 9%
Chicken - 4.2 - 13% - 21%
(specifics vary according to method, but cross species comparisons remain similar)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/1...
I believe the big "Pink Slime" news story halted some of this, or at least led to many fast food companies publicly decrying it. But there was definitely a point when this ammonium hydroxide treated slurry was used to cut the real stuff.
https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/latest/details/-/articleNa...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chicken-supe...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/23/-sp-revealed-d...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/28/uks-top-sup...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/28/uks-top-sup...
Why do you even care. They can "quality" up their meat all they want but in the end they are still a fast food chain that primarily sells buckets of meat. I don't need a citation to think that is disgusting, and if you don't then go take that argument somewhere where it's on topic. Jeez.
So they're actually doing the right thing in 2019 and replacing part of their product with non-meat. I hope it goes all the way, or at least make meat be the expensive "special occasion" option.
I wish this urban legend would die.
Fast-food beef and chicken at major chains is no different in quality from what you buy at the supermarket.
A McDonald's burger is 100% ground beef and salt, no "additives" or "fillers". And Taco Bell ground beef is ~90% beef, because the rest is ~10% spices (cumin, etc.) because... that's what taco meat is supposed to be, like when you make it at home.
Spreading rumors that it's somehow worse doesn't help anybody. I get that it's entertaining to believe -- but it's simply false.
It won’t die because it makes yuppies feel superior to the plebes who eat at McDonalds. My wife once encountered a lawyer at a prominent DC firm who literally sneered at the idea of eating McDonalds. I think of her every time we drive through to get an Egg McMuffin.
Consumer advocates in the past few years have actually done a pretty good job at pressuring the top fast food chains to not dilute their beef with additives.
McD's, Burger King, and Wendy's all advertise their hamburger patties as being nothing but 100% USDA inspected ground beef, salt, and pepper. https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/product/hamburger.html https://menu.wendys.com/en_US/product/daves-double/ https://www.bk.com/food-quality/our-burgers https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/our-food-y...
It's all the other stuff (the bun, the fries, etc. ) that have preservatives, fillers, and shady additives.
(When traveling, I sometimes just buy a bunch of MdD's patties a la carte. Tasty, nutritious and very filling).
This "impossible burger" trend basically reverses the work of consumer advocates. The one element of fast food that is actually an all-natural, nutritionally complex whole food is replaced with a patty that is nothing but processed food and additives -- https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600189374... The fast food restaurant will likely save money -- but because of how fashionable vegetarianism has become, instead of being condemned, they will be actually praised as being eco and health conscious.
o_O
> how fashionable vegetarianism has become
I don’t think it’s a question of fashion. However tasty meat may be, it’s ethically and environmentally bad. Whether it’s in 50 or 500 years’ time, one day our descendants will look back at us and wonder: “they ate corpses?!”
Which is “less gross” is highly objective.
> I wonder what impact it'll have on climate change when McDonalds stops buying real beef.
Would be a nice longbet, “McDonald’s will stop selling beef burgers by 20XY”. I’d be on the “no” side of that bet.
Beef won't go away completely in 20XY; maybe not ever, which is fine. But at the scale and quality standards of fast-food, and with the recent progress in the meatless space, I would bet McDonald's will stop selling it in my lifetime.
As soon as they proudly put pictures of the animals and their living conditions on the packaging. You can put a field of corn or beans on packaging.
You can even put an image of the big machine with giant blades in the field.
Try that with meat and tell me again which is less gross.
Impossible Burger patties are actually more expensive. For example, Burger King:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/meatless-fast-food-burgers...
> The meatless burger is $5.99, around a dollar more than the regular Whopper with meat.
I guess with Beyond and Impossible you pay a hefty price for their marketing. Or for irrelevant features: Didn't one of them put a lot of research into making a "bleeding" plant burger? Bleeding may be relevant in some settings, but not at Burger King where you always get your burger well done (AFAIK).
[0] https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/scienc...
[1]
"Simple animal farming" is slightly disingenuous. It's not like the animal is slaughtered on the farm, cut up into steaks and sent directly to supermarkets. There's tons of complicated processing and handling going on after the animal is finished growing. And that's on top of the energy losses from feeding and raising the animal.
as soon as the economic-taste-weirdness function reaches a certain point, i'll expect you'll see these cheap fast food options convert more and more fractions of their products (right now many use fillers already) to fake meat, eventually replacing it entirely alongside offering reduced prices for these products, while leaving meat generally as a higher priced option signaling disposable income (sort of like Argentinian beef or w/e is today)
Could conceivably cut out all the work of growing bones, feeding/watering, animal healthcare, breeding & transport with labgrown meat. And the fixed cost of maintaining farmland. The cost saving potential is huge.
Not even considering the benefits of being able to quickly adjust production to what can be sold, as opposed to waiting however long it takes for a calf to grow up.
There's no evidence plant-based burgers are healthier. Why would eating something super processed and filled with carbs be better than eating meat?
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/impossible-burger#nutri...https://www.cookinglight.com/news/is-the-impossible-burger-h...
It's not a clear win for either side. Impossible Burger has more carbs and less protein, so it's inferior in that way. But it also has more fiber (beef has none), which is good. Impossible also (surprisingly) has more saturated fat than beef, but it has no cholesterol.
As one of the articles points out, Impossible's main goal isn't making healthy food. It's other stuff like saving the planet. So it is possible that another fake-meat company could prioritize health more.
The formula for beef isn't going to change, but the formula for fake meat will, so fake meat might gain ground when it comes to health.
And that's bad? After working on my property cutting down weeds and dead trees carbs are super healthy. Carbs are only not healthy if you live a sedentary lifestyle. Carbs are our main short-term fuel source.
And yes i do intermittent fasting.
It's totally possible they aren't; just a reasonable guess.
> There's no evidence plant-based burgers are healthier.
There's plenty of evidence that eating red meat on a regular basis is bad for you. Chicken is admittedly a different story.
> Why would eating something super processed and filled with carbs be better than eating meat?
Many veggie patties are filled with fiber and most are filled with protein (from beans, soy, etc.). I don't know the nutritional details of the Impossible Burger or the meatless chicken featured in the article, but generally meat substitutes are not just carbs.
2. While they do have carbs, they also have protein. And a bunch of other stuff the burgers don't have. Oh, and less fat in most cases. I'm guessing many are lower in calories, but I'm not sure about these particular products.
3. Not all of them are super processed. I've literally made different sorts at home, though I'm just as likely to buy a soy option. (obviously not Beyond Meat or Impossible Burgers. I actually am not impressed with these options).
4. They are an easy meal.
Thus if we want to tackle climate change, we should rethink our Cold War era grain subsidies and ultimately reduce our dependence on cattle.
Sources:
(1) Freakonomics Radio Podcast
(2) Earth and Space Science Honors course
How many total units of methane are there vs. total units of CO2? Otherwise, I can’t make a value judgement about the impact of cows on global warming.
Definitely not the case at the moment. Last week I went to Del Taco and tried their Beyond Taco. It was $2.49 each compared to the meat one which was $1.49. If I recall correctly, you can switch to an Incredible burger patty at Red Robin for $3 extra.
One of my friends from India was quite surprised when he moved to the US that McDonald's doesn't have many vegetarian options like it does in India.
[1]https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/beyond-meat-burger-beef-hea...
On the other hand I’d like to see studies on the healthiness of consuming these products long term. Intuitively they’d seem healthier, but I’d like to see that proven given their synthetic nature.
Replacing questionable meat with hype pseudo-meat is a straight win all around. I'm as carnivore as they come, but if I have to hit a Burger King, I'm just going to get an impossible whooper: if i'm going to be getting a shitty burger either way, I'll take the one that didn't require all the logistics around cows.
This KFC one is just the next step. Replace all the questionable meat with pseudo-meat that is (hopefully) more sustainable, and leave the "real" stuff in caviar territory where people actually care.
I don't eat a ton of fast food anymore, and when I do its usually McDonalds, but I have always enjoyed the Whopper. I had one a few months ago at an airport and tried the Impossible Whopper last week. It's close, but the beef version is still better in my opinion.
"limited time is mostly marketing trying to create a buzz. If people buy it, they will continue to offer it. Simple as that. Otherwise it really was limited.
Pasta con pesto/pomodoro/grilled veges/spinach/cheeses..
Aubergine Parmigiana
Pizza/Calzone..
Minestrone/Zuppa de../Ciammotta
I mean, that's without even looking at a cookbook.
I find Italy itself (particularly more southern) far more accommodating to my diet than Italian restaurants outside of Italy.
The Amazon burns every year.
Also, a lot of farmland is used to grow feed for cattle and other livestock, and it's much less efficient than using the land to grow crops for people instead.
A non meat dish is still going to taste like a non-meat dish. Perhaps your colleagues were just being polite and avoiding treading into politically charged territory after you brought up the Amazon.
Personally I'm a picky eater and vegan/vegetarian dishes simply do not compare to meat. I'm sure others feel similarly. Though for one meal I suppose it isn't a huge deal - but acting like it's just as good simply isn't true for the majority of people - that's your personal taste.
None of it is as good as great vegetarian food. Sure the top top top shelf stuff is probably as good. But the average meat at a restaurant or someone’s home is no better than great veggie food.
That said average veggie food sucks. If you are eating in the average-or-below segment then yes meat is probably better. In the good-to-great segment it’s not.
Veg food does require more work, which is a big part of why a lot of people/chefs don’t bother. Meat is basically perfect as-is. You just have to not fuck it up. Veggies require you do some chef work.
What are you eating, and how are you comparing it? If you're trying to treat a salad as a meat replacement, well, it's not going to do all that well. But there's a lot of meals designed to be complete without meat that might work for you, as long as you're not expecting them to taste like beef.
Which is it? Vegetarian would hardly be worth complaining about, but I'm really struggling to come up with a vegan Italian menu that sounds appetizing.
-A mixed antipasto (olives, sun dried tomatoes, bruschetta, breaded garlic mushrooms, griller artichokes, dolmades etc.) to graze on before the meal.
-Panelle Palermitane to start, which are these crescent shaped fitters made with chickpea flour, parsley and pepper. They're a popular street food in northern Sicily. Highly recommend with a little drizzle of lemon juice.
-I can think of 10 odd pasta dishes that could be had for main but a favourite of mine would probably be a puttanesca; a pasta dish with olives, capers, eggplant and red pepper flakes. Proper rustic food and very filling.
-For desert you could have a Castagnaccio which is a chestnut cake with fruits. No milk or egg involved. Great with a shot of espresso!
-Sorbets throughout to cleanse the palate.
That's just 1 option for each part, but you could probably build a dish for each course for each day of the week if needed - all varied in ingredients and flavours.
Honestly, I'd say close to 30% of my diet is Italian - all of it vegan. There are plenty of options. Unfortunately most of the food people think of when they think Italy is something lathered with cheese and cured meats, but when I travelled through there most of the diet consisted of legume based stews, casseroles and soups, and plenty of bread and salads.
Indian food doesn’t have some weird mystery replacement I find on almost every vegan or veggie dish. I had a conversation with and Indian colleague who lives in the states and she agreed a lot of veggie/vegan food is just plain weird.
Our food cravings adapt to what our bodies identify as having the nutrients we need. Most people who eat a plant based diet for 5-10 years rarely eat meat replacements. But in the beginning, these replacements are great for people that are still learning meal planning. Outside of that, some people have health issues, like cholesterol, where replacing some of their meat intake with immitation meats can be beneficial. Others like to reduce their carbon footprint by eating occassional plant based meals. These individuals do not experience the change in cravings and taste so they still appreciate the taste and texture of something similar to the meat they still consume at other meals.
To put some quantitative analysis on that, while sales of immitation meat products have increased significantly, we are not seeing significant increases in the number of US residents identifying as vegan(strict vegetarian) and only modest increases in those identifying as vegetarian. This means that much of the immitation meat consuption is done by those that are still eating an animal protein based diet.
Anecdotally, I am not a huge fan of those products and also find most traditional bean and root vegetable based meals more satisfying. But please keep in mind that many people are navigating their way towards a different way of eating and they can be very sensitive to harse words about their choices.
Deleted Comment
The market for these products is really omnivores who enjoy meat yet would prefer it to be made without the animal suffering and ecological footprint of meat if such a thing were available. You're never going to get the sort of market share these companies are looking for with only vegans and vegetarians - there simply isn't enough of them.
The vegetarian-curious also really don't need people bullying them about their food choices, that's unnecessary
> I hated vegan and vegetarian food ... it was always the meat replacements like veggie patties and tofurkey type products that turned me away... weird mystery replacement I find on almost every vegan or veggie dish
Completely unfair characterization of "vegan and vegetarian food." I've been a (western) vegetarian for close to two decades and commercial meat replacements are not an have never been a large part of my diet. I eat them MAYBE a few times a year, pretty much exclusively at cookouts.
That being said, that seems to have changed with the Impossible Whopper - that tastes pretty good and has a nice texture, I can see myself ordering that again.
Especially it would be great to evolve the current US food culture to be vegetarian as well. There is a lot of culture around food that is not just purely about it being tasty food. As a teen, we'd make dumb late night runs to the drive through. We grilled burgers and dogs on Memorial Day. We'd order Pizza and Wings while watching football.
A lot of these traditions were manufactured to begin with and could be wholesale replaced by other food cultures, sure. A lot of people want to change their impact on animal suffering/the environment without 100% swapping out these cultural memories too. I think that's perfectly fair.
Sure I eat Indian food weekly, but it's comforting to feel part of your broader food culture and connected to your childhood rather than needing to avoid all the places your peers frequent.
I'm from NC, so to me "BBQ" means something very specific and that meaning is a point of cultural pride. We like to trash talk our neighbors based on the sauce they use (eastern NC is vinegar-base, Western is ketchup-base, and South Carolina is mustard-based) but we still all agree that the meat is pulled or chopped pork. In Texas and Kansas City they call brisket and ribs "BBQ", and in other places, "BBQ" can just mean a outdoor get-together with anything grilled!
All that is to say that, becoming vegan or vegetarian in NC means losing a fun part of your culture if you throw out meat alternatives. Luckily, there are enterprising folks making amazing meat-free alternatives that still feel authentic to NC-style BBQ (I highly recommend "Fiction Kitchen" in Raleigh for eastern-style).
Kebab/Döner without veggie-meat just doesn't do anything for me, for example.
I don't get why people are confused about this. You've grown up with certain expectations of how food is being prepared so it should be obvious that you're interested in supplementing the parts that you don't want to eat anymore with something that's compatible with the way you've been preparing food your whole life.
Italian food is a perfect example, it's so easy to be vegetarian eating Italian (the original version, not the one covered in meat and cheese you find in the US).
Same goes for almost every other culinary tradition in the world, meat used to be expensive.
It’s not ready yet, and phase 1 was the really weird stuff. I think Beyond Meat is like phase 2 of “pretty close”. In the near future, you won’t be able to tell the difference
most of the interest i'm guessing is coming from what was previously thought to be "unthinkable": that is, fast food chains whose core business revolves around animal flesh introducing something else that isn't animal flesh. there are tons of consequences for this outside of American vegetarians wanting to replace meat or whatever.
Answer: Because taste isn't universal.
Vegetarians do not want to replace meat. (I mean, they are already vegetarian). Anecdotally, I haven't met a single vegetarian/vegan who is interested in Impossible or Beyond Meat substitutes. Such products are instead very helpful for those who want to reduce read meat in their diet.
Now you've met one.
That's a ridiculous generalisation; it totally depends why they're vegetarian.
Yeah, if it's the taste or the concept of eating meat, they're not going to want a substitute.
But if it's animal cruelty or environmental concerns, those are ameliorated by even lab-grown meats, nevermind the plant-based taste-alikes.
It's dangerous to make blanket statements about what all vegetarians think. For example, on the question of why someone has chosen to be a vegetarian, I've heard a long list of different reasons, including: animal welfare, environment, their own health/longevity/energy, not liking the taste of meat, not enjoying the idea of eating an animal's flesh (even if it were ethical), their religion encourages it, and/or it's their default because they were brought up that way and have never tasted meat.
Similarly, "gluten-free" is associated with breads, pastas, etc. Not rice or other non-imitation products.
I think it’s great that these substitutes are being seriously developed because even though they may not be good replications today, they eventually will be, and this will allow meat to stars to have their cake and eat it too when going vegetarian.
Another reason is that red meat is known to be carcinogenic and hard on lipids and while their isn't sufficient data on plant based meats the going assumption that it is at least modestly better is probably a reasonable one.
But yes, non-processed plant based food is terrific and probably the best for you.
It's honestly great, if nothing else simply because it makes it easier to be vegan - a huge blocker is often the fact that whilst you're on a road trip or similar your options may well be "eat chips or a cold premade sandwich" otherwise.
Though (as I posted in the other thread) I wish it were easier to source decent food on the go.
McD at CDG had only one non-meat item that wasn't a snack and that was their egg wrap. Even the salads had some kind of cold cuts in there.
Reminds me of old school dinners.
The taste has been fairly ok for a while. It's the nutritional value that's the problem.
Initially it's celebrated as a feat of engineering and as the healthy alternative to meat.
After about 10 to 20 years however, we'll see cancer and heart disease rates going up.
And then the billions of dollars spent in health care will pile up, but nobody will readily admit it, because the fuck up will be even bigger than with Margarine.
After all, Margarine is still on the shelves of super markets everywhere, maybe with slightly less trans fats, but it's still there, still advertised as the healthier alternative to butter.
Let that sink in for a moment.
We could do the same with plant based meat or whatever processed garbage gets sold in its name. We can let millions of people eat that day in and out and watch if they die out of heart disease and cancer over the next decades.
Feel free to sign up.
Personally not going to turn myself or my family into lab rats for these grandiose world changing goals.
Given fake meat is new and I'm not seeing it in stores nearby yet, I'm going to assume a fair comparison will take another decade, after the studies and the meta analysis show up.
Until then the burden of proof is not on me ;-)
To me this seems like the idea that things thought to be much more benign (like cigarettes) are shown to cause cancer so cell phones must cause cancer too, without understanding any fundamentals of that sort of claim.
Deleted Comment
No.
> high trans-fat margarines were bad
There's no such thing as "high trans-fats". Industrial trans fats, like from margarine or other ultra-processed products, is unsafe in any quantity, low or high. There is indeed a principle of toxicology that "the dose makes the poison", however in case of trans fats that dose is really, really low.
Also trans fats are indeed contained, in small doses, in natural foods as well. But it's not the same thing: https://chriskresser.com/can-some-trans-fats-be-healthy/
> Red meat is not very hard to beat in terms of negative health outcomes
There is in fact no tangible proof that red meat has negative health outcomes. All you have are surrogate markers and some poor and old observational studies that can't be reproduced in randomized controlled trails.
Also see:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-red-meat-cause-cancer/
https://examine.com/nutrition/scientists-just-found-that-red...
Looking at the ingredients list, it's pretty obvious that cancer/heart disease will go up.
I've already got a long-term Put Option on $BYND because not even the CEO or big celebrity investors believe it is a good long-term bet -- cashing out at its peak a few weeks back.
Given the relative ease of spreading information about its deleterious health effects of their products, I think it's a house of cards that will fail, the sooner, the better...
What's long-term? I haven't accepted the necessary terms anywhere to see the options (excuse the pun) - but whenever I've seen others' elsewhere the term's not long enough that I'm comfortable enough with it to be interested.
Like I might think 'X is over-valued, that won't last', but I could never confidently say how many Y months it will last.
I, personally, don't like it because my wife has allergy issues with legumes, and they're putting soy and pea protein in _everything_ now (e.g. was surprised to see it in some random almond milk the other day). I know it's a niche concern and it's on us to watch out for, but it's annoying and sort of surprising where it all is now.
I like meat. I don't eat it in large quantities or too often, and I don't think I'll ever go for this product. If I want meat, I'll have it like we've evolved to have it over millenia. YMMV.