Burger King is rolling out meatless Impossible Whoppers nationwide | Hacker News Reader

Burger King is rolling out meatless Impossible Whoppers nationwide

theverge.com

Here an interesting quote[0] from the founder of Impossible Burger that kind of touches on the meatless vs vegetarian/vegan discussion happening a lot in this thread:

"[Before becoming a vegan] I loved putting milk in my coffee and cereal, but plant-based milks don’t work for me so far. No-one is trying very hard to deliver the full experience of what consumers value from milk. We don’t want to follow the course of soya and almond milk. We’re after 100% of the market, not a niche of people avoiding meat or being health conscious.

To capture the whole market you have to deliver whatever it is that consumers value from that category of product. People have been making veggie burgers forever but not trying to make something that replicates the crave-able experience that meat lovers enjoy."

[0]https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/08...

As an aside, there are quite a few non-dairy creamers that work great for coffee/tea etc, as almond/soy definitely do not work well.

Many mainstream "Non-dairy" creamers, like Coffee Mate and International Delight, usually have dairy in them though, specifically, caseinate. So not suitable for strict vegans. It's a quirk in labeling laws that products that have milk-derived ingredients can be labeled non-dairy as long as they label the milk-derived ingredients as milk-derived in the ingredients list.

That being said, they do make vegan creamer, never had any myself. It's still a specialty product though, most places that serve coffee, beyond coffee shops, are only going to have milk, half and half, and Coffee Mate/International Delight.

> there are quite a few non-dairy creamers that work great

As someone who has tried a lot of non-dairy creamers, I have yet to find a single one that "works great". There's something very characteristic about both the taste and the consistency of milk and most replacement products are nowhere close. That's not to say milk is irreplaceable for all applications, but there's a tendency to over-hype healthy and organic replacement products that try to be "just as good" because we all want a sustainable, healthy replacement without sacrificing anything at all, but belying reality is hardly going to get us there.

Personally, I feel more attracted to the idea that it's better to do something than nothing at all. You don't have to go vegan tomorrow, if people just ate less meat and started thinking about this type of stuff as a luxury and not a right, we would've come a long way. Personally, milk in my coffee is non-negotiable. Bacon for breakfast? Well, I hardly need it every day, or even every week, so I'm open to discuss frequency.

Yeah my experience too is that the non dairy creamers.... taste very much like non dairy creamers.

That's not necessarily bad if you like that, there are lots of product substitutes that to a good job in their own right even if they aren't what they intended to replace. I cook and there are all sorts of good products that historically were intended to replace or augment something else and do their own thing well.

But as far as non dairy creamers go, it's just no a replacement for actual milk for me. Two similar, but noticeably different things.

I'm unsure of the ethics of milk as food. Do milk cows live good lives? Can they? I've researched, and haven't come to a firm conclusion, but I'm not as alarmed by it, in relative terms.

Could be bias. Dairy is my most-favoured food. Cheese, milk, yogurt, butter...

Imagine being more or less constantly pregnant during your entire life, hooked up to a machine that sucks your calves food out of you, while they are dragged away for slaughter or to join the crew. After a handful lactations, or if you don’t produce enough, or you’re sick too often, you’re slaughtered too. Most of the time you’re indoors walking around in your own feces. Sound like a good life to you?

>Imagine being more or less constantly pregnant during your entire life

Can you explain this to me, I only know how this is on farms, the cow will be in heat 1 time a year, I mean it is natural to the cows, you can't impregnate them if they are not in heat and if it was a wild cow she would still get as pregnant as often.

But maybe is the industrial way something else is happening? Let me know so I understand your point

You most certainly can impregnate a cow that is unwilling. The following article is definitely biased, but the point still stands that the animals aren't exactly consenting to this.

https://theirturn.net/2016/06/15/2016061420160613the-rape-ra...

I know about artificial insemination, but you can't do it when you want, it only works when the cow is in heat. When a cow is in heat she behaves differently (she starts ridding other cows) so the farmer notices this and calls a veterinarian to inseminate the cow or bring a bull.

I was asking if they can force the cow to be in heat. change the ovulation cycle or whatever explains the thing I quoted.

Typically they're looking for a bull to do that job. Just because a woman is ovulating doesn't mean that she wants some other species to restrain her, anally violate her, and forcibly impregnate her.

This argument only works if you believe that animals are worthy of empathy, but many would rather live with the cognitive dissonance that animals are incapable of emotions than go through the hassle of changing their diet.

This are cows not humans, my experience is with real world cows that are raised outside on fields,when the cow is in heat she will start ridding other cows(yes cows become lesbians and "rape" other cows, I know your mind is blown now), a bull will smell her from a distance and will come to the cow, the cow is always wiling because is her nature, she is not a thinking human it is all instinct.

At my grandparents farm artificial insemination was used when there was no old enough bull present(this is on small villages in Romania, and to make you even more outraged animals like horses are still used for work).

Again, just because they are cows does not mean they do not have emotions. These animals are more than capable of feeling happiness, sadness, fear, pain, etc.

Modern industrial scale agriculture is what we are talking about here, not one-off mom and pop farms that represent a drop in the bucket of dairy production.

This is why I ask in my original comment that I replied if the industrial farms do something different to make the cows get pregnant faster, if yes I want to inform myself (so if you know what terms to search about, procedure names etc but don't make me search something that does not exist).

About animals having feelings, I know very well, just that when nature says is time to get pregnant the cow is just an animal in heat(it is dangerous even and you must be careful around them)

Emphasis on “during your entire life”. Yes in the wild, cattle would be naturally inclined to bear offspring annually, but may not always. Also, would eventually stop and live on to help care for the calves of younger individuals in the flock.

Wild cattle were likely also older when they first calves as domesticated cattle are both bred to calve earlier and also forced too. Basically inseminated as early as physiologically possible.

Keep in mind also that dairy cattle are bred for optimal milk production which carry a lot of problems like mastitis, birth complications etc. and yes most dairy cattle are artificially inseminated.

>Emphasis on “during your entire life”. Yes in the wild, cattle would be naturally inclined to bear offspring annually, but may not always. Also, would eventually stop and live on to help care for the calves of younger individuals in the flock.

Please link me to facts

>Wild cattle were likely also older when they first calves as domesticated cattle are both bred to calve earlier and also forced too. Basically inseminated as early as physiologically possible.

Please link , because I can't believe that a wild animal is in heat but decides not to follow the instincts, my cat got pregnant so freaking young I was afraid she would die. The animals do not decide this but if you have links to scientific paper where healthy individuals do not follow the natural instinct I want to see it.

I am not arguing for a camp or other, I want to clear up things when someone tells me things that at first glance seems as fake things people in cities that never seen an animal imagined. But I will change my mind if you provide the facts to read for myself.

Not sure what qualifies fact, as there are not a lot of wild bovine species left in world.

As for choosing not to mate, I think there are studies showing that animals in captivity regularly refuse to mate. After all, in the wild there’s competition.

It’s also possible and not uncommon to alter feeding regimes to stimulate heifers to reach puberty faster than that which would happen in the wild.

The comment was meant to touch upon the question of whether dairy cattle live happy lifes. It’s hard to argue that they do, although it’s also hard to prove that they don’t. From an ethical humanitarian point of view which I think is totally appropriate when deciding what to eat, one can easily empathize with these animals by simple observation and a sprinkle of common sense. Whatever the facts are, dictated by whatever authority, may or may not make a huge difference.

I don’t think it matters so long as animals are impregnated forcefully by humans through artificial insemination while in captivity, there’s so little resemblance to the wild that any comparison is quite pointless.

Edit: I have education in agriculture and have both visited and worked at several dairy farms.

I also don't care what happens in the wild, I care about facts and people that invent facts to support their claims. AFAIK we can't force impregnate an animal if it is not in heat, the animals that won't mate in captivity probably do not get in heat or from documentaries I seen they fail to get pregnant or keep the pregnancy (I seen one about pandas).

Well, I can’t produce the hard facts. I’m talking about what I know from anecdotal and educational experience. I don’t have sources at hand. Sorry :)

If you really care about the subject I encourage you to research it from all points of view. If you can, visit some dairy farms and make your own observations.

I have a ton of experience with farms in third world countries, we did not feed them antibiotics or hormones or special food, only grass or other related plant thing from our grounds. For a long time we had a bull that would do the job when the cows were in heat but when we reduced the number of cows it is too expensive to have a bull and we asked a veterinarian to do the artificial insemination.

I did not heard of any magic way to make the cows have more milk, there is no need to have her get pregnant often, and the quality of the milk is related with the food quality. The quantity of the milk is something genetic, some cows just give more milk then others, and some races then other.

What I see from some responses her is that the facts were wrong, the cows are not forced in heat(nobody provided a link) and all the thread is based on morals/ethical stuff that I don't want to debate, I wanted to know if I am missing some information(I have no time and need to inform myself on how some bad farms do things because I am not promoting an ideology with facts I did not researched before)

That’s your prerogative of course.

I never said that cattle are forced into heat. Most of western industrialized dairy production use artificial insemination though. That’s hardy controversial or in need of backing up with sources. Nothing ideological about it. You don’t think it qualifies as forcing an animal into pregnancy, well that’s up to you to fit into your ethics framework, nothing I can present as “fact” can change that.

It’s perfectly possible to improve the quality of milk (I.e. manipulate fat, protein and lactose contents) via altering feeding regimes. Hardly controversial, and quite common but in the west, through the use of feed concentrates with additives. Nothing ideological about this either.

As for hormone supplements to control heat, well, or sure why you find this hard to believe, but the again, your anecdotal experience maybe doesn’t support it. Do some basic research into western industrialized dairy production.

You say you don’t have time to research, but the you expect others to do it for you? Not really any constructive about that.

My comment was about a question that was asked: do dairy cattle live happy lives? I don’t believe it’s possible to answer that question with hard facts.

>You say you don’t have time to research, but the you expect others to do it for you? Not really any constructive about that.

Why should I research since I am not the one that is promoting an agenda, someone said X and I asked for links to read that X is true. People that say that X is true but can't find the place where they found their claim then maybe it is super hard to find or maybe it does not exist.

Who is promoting an agenda?

I’m making quite incontroversial statements that should be trivial to verify if you have an inch of interest. I’m leaving it to you to make your own ethical considerations. I also gave you one source, and encourage you to explore more on your own. If you don’t to, fine, but then I don’t really see a point about going on about agendas and ideology.

Do allow me to exemplify how simple research can back up some of my uncontroversial observations.

https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-informa...

“Estrous Control and Synchrony in Cattle Exogenous hormones can mimic the hormones of the natural estrous cycle in cattle. By administering exogenous hormones, producers can control and synchronize estrus in breeding heifers and cows as well as shorten their estrous cycles. Producers can group animals according to the phase of their estrous cycle, which reduces management burdens. Some estrous synchrony regimens may also induce or advance estrus in animals that aren’t cycling (they’re anestrous). For example, a cow is normally anestrous after giving birth, and an estrous synchrony regimen may be used to advance her first heat after calving. This allows her to be bred again sooner. These drug regimens may also be used to advance the timing of the first heat in heifers at puberty.”

It’s true that you can’t impregnate an animal in heat, but once in heat you can obviously. It’s also possible to control heat with hormon supplements, which farmers regularly use to synchronize calfings in their herd.

Not really sure what point you’re trying to make. Just because a female is ovulating, do you have the right to impregnate her?

>Not really sure what point you’re trying to make. Just because a female is ovulating, do you have the right to impregnate her?

Just if a female is hungry do I have the right to give it food? If she is ill do I have the right to heal her or I need to ask for permission? Same for pet owners.

What point are you trying to make?

Not sure hiw putting a plate of food in front of someone is comparable to putting your arm into a female’s birth canal with a canister of sperm.

Again, what you think is ok and not ok in terms of treating an animal, even pets, is part of your ethical framework. And it’s up to you to inform yourself in order to justify that framework to yourself. The burden of proof is not on anyone but you.

> As someone who has tried a lot of non-dairy creamers, I have yet to find a single one that "works great".

Oh, man, this is so true. I like cream in my coffee, but if the only thing available is non-dairy creamers, then taking it black is much preferable.

I think the first step that most people can agree on is to remove all agricultural subsidies and tariffs (and ethanol requirements). That way, the things being produced in -- and imported to -- the US more closely match what consumers actually want, without government putting its finger on the scale.

As the costs of subsidized, unhealthy food rise, consumption will decline. This, of course, assumes that the demand is induced by artificially low prices. If people consume just as much high-fructose corn syrup at higher prices, then you have a cultural challenge on your hands.

Even more important than removing agricultural subsidies and tariffs would be to implement laws that require humane treatment of these living, breathing creatures. Prices would soar and alternatives would prosper if factory farms were not allowed to torture animals.

In the US a big factor is the very high sugar tariff. So I'm not convinced that taking all the fingers off the scale would make for much healthier!

In my mind, this seems like the most reasoned middle ground I've encountered. I'm a committed carnivore, but I do have ethical qualms with animal death, and if there are options that have negligible differences in experience (cost/convenience/taste), I'll take it, but as you mentioned, there are small, but concrete ways to improve things without going whole hog into avoiding all animal products or having to wait for big companies to adopt those options.

(As an aside, does anyone know the reasoning behind avoiding honey? I've even seen a software license that forbade it's use in any product that may directly or indirectly use or industrialize animal products, including honey).

The Vegan Society have an explainer on this:

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/honey-industry

In practise, the answer is because it's a form of exploitation and exploitation is considered Always Bad by the VS. It's probably easier to explain this to people than to try and nuance (ie soften) the stance. Not a criticism.

Oatley Oat Milk works incredibly well. It's kind of a trendy thing at Alfred coffee shops in LA but invented 30-years ago in Sweden. It's in several stores but the supply has been limited so it's somewhat hard to get.

Again, "works incredibly well" is, in my subjective opinion, almost an absurd exaggeration. Yes, it "works", but by what criteria? If your criteria is that it should be better than no addition to the coffee at all, sure, but that is true for all creamers, for some people even the worst ones. If your criteria is that you want the taste of milk, then it really, really does not work, at all.

Ironically I find that I (vegetarian, not vegan) tend to enjoy meat replacements that don't try replicate meat. I find the ones that DO try to replicate meats taste are just not very good at it, and it ends up tasting pretty bad. The good stuff is still tasty and savory but it's doing its own thing.

edit: Not to say the impossible burger can't be good (I've not been able to try one) Just a comment on existing products that I've tried.

Isn't this just a criticism of existing meat-alike products? Or have you tried impossible burger and found it not tasty?

I've been a vegetarian for ~my whole life, tried the impossible burger, didn't like it. To be fair it might have more to do with the way it looks rather than the taste - meat-looking stuff doesn't appeal to me. My favorite burger is [0], which makes no attempt to look or taste like meat but is delicious in its own right.

[0]: https://www.ah.nl/producten/product/wi128419/garden-gourmet-...

Love that one as well. The chimichurri burger of garden gourmet is nice as well, but a bit spicy.

It is a criticism of existing products, I have not tried an impossible burger and would be very excited to find that it tastes as good as meat.

My wife was diagnosed with celiac last year, and we've found the same to be true of eating GF alternatives. Foods that try to replicate gluten tend to be much worse than things that are just good without it.

I am with you 100%, I wan't a veggie patty for the veggies, not as a replacement for meat.

My problem stems from the fact that I'm not vegetarian, I am always comparing the meatless burger patties with the "meatful" variety, and they never compare. I've had Impossible burgers and the Beyond Meat burgers, and they just aren't the same.

In general I agree with you, though I will say that the Impossible burgers are just plain good. I order them over meat when I get the chance, and I'm not a diet activist. They just made a good product.

The best is the cuisine from countries that have a large vegetarian population. For example at the cafeteria where I work they have samosas served with something made with chickpeas, which doesn't leave me feeling like I missed meat with my lunch.

I don't want these "Impossible" burgers to eliminate veggie burgers doing their own thing, and I'm a bit worried it might eventually come to the point where everyone thinks they need to be just like beef.

Some of the existing veggie burgers are very tasty even though they don't try to trick your taste buds in replicating the 'meat experience' 100%. Like Morningstar Farms Tomato & Basil Pizza burgers are just awesome, for example. They're one of my mainstays for super-quick lunches. You can see and taste the veggies in the burger and they taste great.

And I'm saying this as a meat eater, who grilled beef hamburgers on the grill just last night

I agree with you. There are a lot of veggie burger patties out there that are essentially flattened falafel, and it would be a shame to lose them. Falafel is great all on its own.

I feel like they'll be just fine if they just advertise themselves as being falafel patties. I'm pretty thoroughly not vegetarian, so I ain't gonna reach for a veggie patty if the only reason it's being sold is because "well it's not beef!". Sell it to me as falafel and I'll eat it because I happen to like falafel.

I'm not a vegetarian at all (I eat a lot of various meats, love'em) but I genuinely like veggies, too, and I fully agree with you. The best vegetarian dishes are the ones that work with the best flavors of whatever ingredients are present, not ones that try and pretend to be something else. You can get some very savory flavors with mushrooms, gluten, etc that are wonderful all on their own.

That being said, I've been reading enough about the impossible burger that I'm looking forward to getting to try one.

I'm in your lane, the more a veggie burger embraces the vegetables, not being a meat simulacrum, the better it tastes. The more beany a black bean burger, the better. I like the "Chik'n" patties but they are deep fried so arguably the main flavor is not meat but crust. But not this burger. Try it, I think you'll be impressed.

I agree. Even as a meat-eater, some of the vegetarian fare such as certain types of gardenburgers are delicious in their own right. They aren't really trying to be meat, and I suspect I'd like them less if they were.

As a fellow vegetarian, I agree with not liking non-meat meat products that are too close. But, my transition was a long one. My family was very much carnosaur. I was told that I need to "expand my horizons," which meant eating new and different types of animals. (I not many that I haven't tried.) When I met my wife to be, who was vegan, that made me rethink my diet. She introduced me to many new cuisines, notably Indian and Thai, that feature dishes not based around meat.

At first, it was deciding what new vegetarian things to try, and what choices I was going to give up. I've come to realize that a lot of people identify with food. For some, it's a family thing to have a big burger. For others, whatever non-meat products they have had gave bad experiences. I can't tell you how many people I've met who say tofu is horrible. To be fair, most places or people have no clue properly prepare it; thus, the very idea of a non-meat substitute is killed.

I've tried the burger. It's impressively too close to the real thing for me to want to eat them. Yet, it is my hope that the impossible burger will be one of many avenues for people to make a transition to a more sustainable, ethical and healthier diet. In turn, I hope it ups the game for other companies to look at vegetarian options that are prepared well.

I think of traditional Midwest (German, Scandinavian based) cuisine as a primary driver - it was an eye opening experience to hear vegetarians I’ve met say how much they also hate steamed vegetables. The lack of tasty spices in traditional American vegetable dishes definitely keep a lot of people going back to meat and dairy as primary flavor drivers.

FWIW I hate steamed and boiled vegetables of all kinds, but love meat.

You might be onto something with spices, though. The cuisines which have more palatable (subjectively, of course) veggie dishes tend to be the ones that are more creative with spices, now that I think about it.

I'm very curious about people in your camp -- those that don't like attempts to replicate meat, but do like the "patty" food format. How do you usually eat your meat replacements? On a sandwich? Chopped up? A mix? Since it seems like they are all frozen (but maybe I'm wrong here?), is a big part of the draw convenience? Is protein content a factor in your decision at all?

What are you favorite meat replacements that don't try replicate meat? I'd be interested in trying some :-D

Maybe its the "uncanny valley" phenomenon for taste? When you get closer to taste of the real thing, people notice the differences more. But people like something totally different like a TJs veggie masala burger for what it is.

What I find ironic is that the industry is so focused on thinking that people only eat meat because of the taste. Not because of all the valuable micro-nutrients, varied animal proteins, and fat.

Or the detrimental health effects of animal based burgers either...

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Heart_beat...

Let's be honest: most people do eat meat because of the taste. And the industry is going to go after the largest crowd first.

The uncarnine valley.

Trying to replicate meet is essential to have a market-fit product. We have evolved into subconsciously LOVING meet. Hadn’t the vegan-chicken tasted like chicken I wouldn’t stopped eating chicken.

I was visiting a sister when she tricked me into eating a vegan replacement of chicken!(I’m a steak lover and always made jokes about vegan people) I couldn’t believe what I was eating wasn’t chicken. Then she made me try chicken nuggets, and OMG...having had that experience with chicken, I wouldn't be surprised if their burger tastes the same...

The taste of chicken was so real I couldn't believe it. I’ve been eating it for a month now and I lost 10 lbs. WITHOUT working out.

I see this getting said a lot but I really don't find this, I mean there are loads of standalone fantastic vegetable products which are nothing to do with meat and taste great but No Chick Fillets (in a Jalfrezi) have confused dinner guests who thought they were eating chicken until I told them they were vegan, or No Bull Mince (in a bolognese), Beyond Meat burgers have been well received (although I personally don't find them as nice as burgers which I can still recall from before coming vegetarian).

I guess one thing I find is it is easy to find really good recipes of long running favourite dishes and be able to substite our chicken, or beef mince with a vegan alternative and still get the full rich flavours of the dish, with the right texture, filling power, protein levels, etc of what would have been meat.

FWIW here are some of "my" recipes (ones I have found elsewhere and catalogued together on one place) which have been well received by family and guests: https://www.copymethat.com/recipebox/steven-craft/3775240/ if there is any mention of meat then substitute with the products mentioned above.

Yep. I first tried black bean burgers when I was first moving towards being vegetarian years ago. Now, I still prefer them to the meat substitutes I’ve had (which don’t yet include Impossible or Beyond Meat) because black beans + spices works very well with all of the traditional American burger condiments and dressings, and adds its own enjoyable flavor. Beats the pants off of the dense, grain-heavy fake meats I’ve sampled.

I was never a foodie though, so I think the format of a hamburger matters as much to me as the substance, being a kind of comfort food due to the familiar experience. Those of you with more refined palates are welcome to hold this position in contempt.

I've always said the same thing. I like tofu when tofu is being tofu, but not when it's trying to be something else.

Isn't there a YC startup from the last batch that does precisely this (high-quality, versatile milk substitute)?

EDIT: yep, Eclipse Foods:

https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/19/launching-from-yc-eclipse-...

The founder of Impossible Burger was on Too Embarrassed To Ask podcast [0] and I specifically remember him talking about how his product is meat (because of the heme). It's just not meat from an animal, or at least this is how I interpreted sections like "...It’s a heme protein that turns out to be basically the single thing that separates meat categorically from all other foods in terms of its flavor profile."

0 - https://www.recode.net/2017/8/18/16171336/transcript-impossi...

As a side point, milk (in espresso drinks) was one of the last animal food products I’ve been holding on to. My five year old, who’s mostly vegan because she’s allergic to milk, said, “daddy, why do you keep putting cow milk in your coffee, you should stop.”

I had read somewhere that it takes around two or three weeks to get used to the taste of something. I’m a coffee snob, and I really didn’t like the taste of almond milk in coffee. Well, sure enough, after a few weeks I really don’t mind it and I can see being completely used to it soon.

I do still prefer oat milk, which has recently become a lot more available. Much milder taste, and it foams better for lattes.

Almond milk in coffee makes it taste like disgusting hot bitter marzipan imo.

Ha - a fair description of how I viewed it initially as well. Though, it is amazing how tastes can change. I have the gene that makes Cilantro taste like soap. When I first moved to California, I couldn’t stand it. A decade later and I love cilantro.

Interesting, I've eaten Chipotle (which has cilantro in the rice) for years and I still hate the taste of cilantro.

I am decidedly not a coffee snob, but agree that almond milk in coffee isn't great. I've tended to use coconut milk because it has some creaminess to it that seems to work well in coffee.

I'll have to see if I can find oat milk to try.

Most shops in SF have oat milk, if you're located in that area. Oat milk has been a game changer for me. All Blue Bottle locations carry Oatly oat milk.

While Oatly scrambles to scale up, some of the other major brands have stepped in. Silk has an oat milk out in the past few weeks and it’s good. But Oatly is still my fav.

After a month of Whole30 eating a couple years ago, I've completely switched from dairy in my coffee. Previously, I always used sugar and half-and-half, but a month was enough to make a permanent change.

My favorite by far is unsweetened cashew milk, followed by hazelnut and coconut, but I'm using it as a creamer or latte substitute, not looking for foam. I can't stand the nutty grittiness of almond milk in my coffee, but I now generally prefer nut milks to cow milk and cream.

My grandma actually makes her iced coffees with almond milk. I don't care for the taste, but I'm usually against adding anything to coffee in the first place (on the rare occasion that I actually pick coffee over tea).

> not a niche of people avoiding meat or being health conscious

very well articulated. I've been fortunate enough to be around vegan people that aren't so judgemental, but they seemed to still neglect the existence of people that would like to replicate the experience of meat and interpret that as apathy.

As far as I can tell, I'm the target demographic for this.

I eat beef (and other meat) burgers because I like how they taste. If this comes close, I'll gladly switch, even though they cost a little more. I'm far from vegetarian, but I've been thinking more and more that I'd like to slim down on my actual meat eating for a few reasons, including the environment, the animal living conditions, and the cholesterol.

The one thing I'm not happy about is trading fat for carbs. I'd rather stick to the protein and fat. But no solution is going to be perfect.

As someone raised around cattle ranches, I really don't understand the animal living conditions argument.

Cows have it pretty good (especially in my country Uruguay) - I absolutely understand it when you´re speaking about chicken and fish though.

The one ugly part for cattle is the slaughter, you need to have tough skin to work at a slaughterhouse.

Well most of them don’t live on “ranches” for one.

There's an interesting anti-meat psyop going around, coinciding with rising meat prices (Canada).

Ranches and feed lots are different. In the US, cows are raised on ranches until 6 months before slaughter, where they are brought to a feed lot, fattened up in crowded conditions, then slaughtered

Doesn't that end up being almost a third of their life?

There is a documentary called Dominion which might be interesting to you:

https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch

Warning: it's quite shocking / bloody.

I've wanted to meaningfully change my diet and watching this made me realize it's time. Thanks for the reminder.

I grew up in a rural area, with ranchers as personal friends, I don't need to watch a propaganda film. I know how cattle are raised and slaughtered. And I know butchers who have done that sort of work for decades and it doesn't bother them at all. They enjoy their work.

My understanding is that the vast majority of cattle (80%?) in the United States is raised in factory farms; the vast majority the meat Americans available to purchase grocery store, served in restaurants, and processed for fast food, is sourced from those same farms.

And my understanding is that the conditions would be horrific by almost any standard: the animals are kept confined, in extremely cramped and nasty conditions, often unable to move or turn around, all day and every day, seldom or never permitted to roam. (I'm ignoring the whole antibiotics overuse question.)

When they're ready for slaughter, they're crammed into trucks and transported for hundreds of miles, in all weather, standing in their own feces. Exhausted, terrified, and freezing or overheated after transport, many are shocked with electric prods or beaten to force them back out of the trucks. Then they are hit with bolt guns to "stun" them, after which their throats are slit.

The lucky cows are unconscious before they are sawed apart, but you can bet that the types of workers who do these dirty, low-paying jobs, hundreds of times per day, as quickly as possible, without clogging up the factory line, aren't always trained well enough nor concerned whether they cause suffering.

The bolt gun is not to stun them, but an ethical method of killing an animal.

> A captive bolt stunning gun kills the animal and reduces it instantly unconscious without causing pain.

https://www.grandin.com/humane/cap.bolt.tips.html

You kind of have to think of the human toll on those workers too. Granted they are free to leave which helps but still. That’s a lot of weight on ones soul.

No, 91% of cattle ranches are family owned and about half of all cattle are raised in small herds of 50 head or less.

You are also belittling the work of these professionals. You sound like you have little knowledge of the industry in general.

The top result I got on google said 78% of cattle comes from factory farms. Its source doesn't cite further sources though. It sets off my BS-meter. Do you have any sources yourself on how much cattle is factory farmed?

Cattle aside, it does seem like most all small animal meat is factory farmed (poultry & pork).

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2015/Cattl...

>Operations with 1,000 or more head of cattle on feed accounted for 75 percent of the inventory in 2007 and 77 percent in 2012.

That's from your source there. While most farms/ranches might be family owned, most cattle are in large operations.

Whether owned by family or raised as a member of a small herd is immaterial to where the majority of these cattle end up as adults: loaded on transport trucks to concentrated feed lots where they await processing by the factory slaughter system. Maybe the first 1/2 of their life is great, even idyllic, but that's not much of a comfort.

I'll admit phrased that last part ("types of people") very badly, so let me clarify. First, I should say that I'm very keen to believe that most of these workers are (as you say) professionals. It sounds like, in your direct experience, they are, which is great. But here's the issue:

This work is dangerous (dealing with deadly equipment and huge stressed animals), dirty (in the Mike Rowe sense), and low-paying (at or near minimum wage, per Google). So the gist of what I'm saying is, in that type of high-pressure, low-ethical-incentive situation, it's simply inevitable that:

1. Mistakes get made. 2. Corners get cut. 3. Equipment fails. 4. A worker stops caring (or didn't care to begin with).

Even if we imagine that literally all workers in these jobs are infallible, professional, and compassionate, we still have to deal with equipment working non-optimally (see the link about the bolt guns above; they ain't perfect). This means that some nonzero % of cattle processed suffer during slaughter. Even if we're charitable and say that that number must be small, like 1%, that's still a hell of a lot of cattle suffering.

In addition, you can easily find first-person accounts from slaughterhouse workers who describe exactly this imperfect system in vivid detail, where some animals end up dismembered while still "sensate". (And this is totally skipping over all of the ethical issues with confinement and slaughter in the first place!) So, to sum up:

We know logically that we make cattle suffer at scale.

We know empirically that we make cattle suffer at scale.

I would really, really like to be wrong about this.

As one who also grew up and currently lives in the rural Midwest - it's people not knowing what they're talking about. They hear about the awful conditions poultry are raised in and extrapolate it to all livestock.

I welcome all companies that sell meat to publish videos of their operations. I would really like to buy meat only from companies that minimize the suffering of the livestock. Do you have any preferred livestock vendors that document their supply chain?

I cannot imagine its economical for anyone in South Dakota to have these "factory farms".

What do you mean? Do you think "factory farms" are less capital efficient than farms that would try to minimize suffering?

When you have ranches like South Dakota, yeah, I think they are too expensive given the number of cattle.

Is this video faked? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixI7HxF0JmU

If you take a car trip anywhere outside the major city centres of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, etc (and from what I hear, Texas) you'll inevitably see many, many head of cattle milling about in fields. I would put forth that no farmers really want to mistreat their animals, and will go at great lengths to keep them as safe as they can - this year's cyclone blizzard in Nebraska was especially indicative of this[0]. Farmers generally don't have a complete supply chain anyway - they sell their animals at the stockyard to whichever packing plant is buying them.

[0] https://www.omaha.com/news/plus/heavy-snow-freezing-temps-ha...

I don't think farmers really want to mistreat their animals. It is apparent that some farms put profit ahead of suffering. I would like to be able to look up a brand of meat in the grocery store and have them document how they take care of the animal. I would like to be able to make an informed decision in the marketplace. Saying it is impossible because farmers don't manage their supply chain is a way of answering my question.

I've driven by a few factory farms in California. You know you're close to one when you're hit with the smell of manure many miles out. When you actually drive by the farms, the reality is quite depressing: the cattle are standing in their own shit with barely any space to move. I'm done with red meat myself.

So the cattle are living in the same condition as many San Franciscans? I live in TX and grew up in FL and the cattle have plenty of room to roam here.

South Dakota cattle are roaming the fields, in fact, about 100,000 died in the early winter storm in 2013. They were still in the summer pastures and had not grown their winter coat. It started as a rain and then turned into a blizzard. The winter pastures are better protected.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/100000-cattle-feared-dead-after...

That's pretty bad, it isn't like that in other places. In fact it's better for the environment to rotate grazing lands overall. It helps deal with or reverse desertification. It's not much different than how fish farms have been changing to something closer to what nature offers in places.

My single biggest issue with these meat alternatives is I cannot understand why it's costing so much more than actual meat.

> My single biggest issue with these meat alternatives is I cannot understand why it's costing so much more than actual meat.

I'd imagine it's because of the economies of scale; once production ramps up to sufficiently-high volume, the prices should in theory go down. Availability in fast food should hopefully help with that.

Subsidies are another aspect to this, though I don't know offhand how heavily cattle ranching is subsidized v., say, corn or soy.

Glad to hear you've given up red meat. Not to preach too much here, but why just red meat?

Poultry, for example, is no better. Male chicks are dumped onto conveyor belts and ground alive as they provide no value to the farmers (for meat or eggs).

Dairy farms are also equal to or worse than the factory farms you mentioned.

Same. I tried the impossible burger recently and was pleasantly surprised - it's as good as meat in my view. As a moral matter I will never eat meat when the Impossible variant is available.

This may sound ridiculous but what I really want to try is an Almost Impossible burger. The flavor and texture of a regular Impossible burg was a bit off from a regular burger but still tasty and close to an all beef experience. I wonder if mixing in a small percent of beef will still achieve the goal of drastically cutting meat consumption while still giving beef consumers their fix.

You might enjoy the Improbable Burger: https://youtu.be/vSh58Tg75Ds

I've been eating the Beyond Meat (pea protein) burger from A&W for a while now. It's pretty damn close to the taste of beef, I'm happy to make the switch. It has an aftertaste that some might describe as metallic, but you really have to look for it, it's not that strong.

What shocked me was how much the taste of a burger comes down to texture. There's enough toppings on burgers that you don't really get the beef taste anyways, the patty is really just there for texture!

That metallic aftertaste is the only thing I found disagreeable about the Impossible Burger I tried recently. The texture wasn't exactly right, either, but it was not objectionable.

Also, if you cannot really taste the beef, you're eating crappy burgers :). My #1 trick for making an inexpensive burger palatable is to get it as a double, just to try and get enough meat for the flavor to come through.

Impossible meat did release a 2.0 version to their patties, I didn't get a metallic aftertaste.

Blood has a metallic aftertaste... did they overdo hemoglobin, maybe?

Hi! Is there an email I can reach out to you at?

Have you actually been diagnosed with high cholesterol or is this just preventative? You probably don't have to worry unless your diet has already been causing a problem. Lots of people eat terribly and their bloodwork comes back with flying colors.

The issue I have, is that this shouldn't cost more at all. They're literally charging more to process the food they're feeding the cows into something meat-like than it costs to actually buy the meat. If the cows are a less expensive process, then I'm just not into it.

(Aside from the fact that I can't handle legumes anyway)

That's development costs. With time, the infrastructure to make these burgers will be as widely available as that to make cow burgers, and that will bring costs down.

There are large agricultural subsidies on meat, and on corn (which the cows are fed). You can't make a veggie burger out of just corn, so it has to use less underpriced components.

Aren't there also subsidies on soy and other sources of protein that are used?

Aside: I'd be okay eliminating most subsidies as long as work-life and safety standards from import countries match US.

https://farm.ewg.org/cropinsurance.php?fips=00000&summpage=P...

well, the product being sold is not your typical grind beans and other ingredients made into a patty. This is a genetically modified protein made to feel and taste like meat. The R&D that went into making this happen is incredibly complex. I'm confident the price will go down just as with everything else.

There is no significant link between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol levels.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/dietary-cholesterol-doe...

Except there is. You've been fooled by the egg industry shills.

https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/03/22/the-effects-of-dietary...

I vouched for your comment because you do raise valid counter evidence, however for future reference I think it could have been stated a bit more tactfully.

That was conventional knowledge for those "in the know" for the last couple years but I recently read a pretty big study which disputes this too: https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2019/03/eggs-cholester...

Which sucks because I really enjoyed eating tons of eggs for the few years where people thought they were actually not bad for you

”Diet data were collected using food frequency questionnaires or by taking a diet history. Each participant was asked a long list of what they’d eaten for the previous year or month. The data were collected during a single visit.The study had up to 31 years of follow up (median: 17.5 years), during which 5,400 cardiovascular events and 6,132 all-cause deaths were diagnosed. A major limitation of the study is participants’ long-term eating patterns weren’t assessed.”

You can probably start eating your eggs again. Food questionnaires are pretty much useless, and more so the longer the time period you’re supposed to try to remember your food intake for. People usually can’t remember what they’ve eaten for the last week, much less the last month or year. These dietary epidemiology studies get way too much attention and can’t prove anything. Here we’re supposed to act on a single questionnaire being administered, asking about an already-at-the-time maligned food product, and a followup decades later, with no interim data, and no data on other factors known to influence heart disease (exercise, stress, etc.)

For a good critical look at the heart disease question, I recommend Dr. Malcolm Kendrick’s series of posts on the topic

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org

I lived in England for a bit and remember fast food places commonly having veggie burgers. This was both in Burger King and McDonald's. It was super convenient for that occasional quick bite.

In the US, Burger King has been supplying veggie patties for some time, but I wonder why it took American fast food places so long to expand. For instance, why is there still an absence of veggie burgers in a typical US McDonald's? Is this a business decision or something else?

Vegetarians are not common outside of certain metropolitan areas in the US

Data or it didn't happen.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I did run into this (which doesn't answer the question, but is interesting)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5622783/

Total percentages of vegetarian and vegan Americans do appear to be quite low, and they skew more liberal and lower income[1]. I'm not the person you're responding to, and it requires some extrapolation, but the liberal skew does at least suggest that vegetarians may skew "metropolitan" as well.

[1]https://news.gallup.com/poll/238328/snapshot-few-americans-v...

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but "skew metropolitan"(your point) and "aren't common outside of certain metro areas"(op point) don't feel like the same rhetorical weight.

I mean my thoughts are the whole "Vermont Hippy" seems like a thing, and IDK that Vermont even has a meto area (/s).

> Vegetarians are not common outside of certain metropolitan areas in the US

There are roughly half a billion vegetarians in India.

From context, the correct reading of your parent comment is:

> In the US, vegetarians are not common outside of certain metropolitan areas

Im pretty clearly talking about the United States. I cant believe people reacted so emotionally to my comment when i wasnt even passing a value judgment and just stating a fact. Only 5 percent of Americans identify as vegetarian and of that 5% most are liberal. If you can give me a good argument for why those liberal people should be evenly distributed around the US I am all ears.

This entire thread is about a question that refers to the US so to be able to misinterpret my response so significantly is strange.

> I cant believe people reacted so emotionally to my comment

I do not believe it is linguistically possible for me to have been more dispassionate than when I wrote There are roughly half a billion vegetarians in India.

Comments like moate's, "Data or it didn't happen," do not strike me as overly emotional either. You might want to just lighten up.

> Only 5 percent of Americans identify as vegetarian and of that 5% most are liberal. If you can give me a good argument for why those liberal people should be evenly distributed around the US I am all ears.

Interesting thought. I have no data as to whether this is true but if fast food is more of a city thing (I believe it), what you're saying would seem to make rolling out something like a good veggie burger a lot more attractive in terms of marketing demographics than the simple "5%" figure alone would indicate, which speaks to the question you were originally responding to.

> This entire thread is about a question that refers to the US so to be able to misinterpret my response so significantly is strange.

The comment you were responding to literally begins "I lived in England..." I don't think a little misunderstanding is a big deal. Fair enough, you were talking about the United States.

>> I cant believe people reacted so emotionally to my comment when i wasnt even passing a value judgment and just stating a fact.

This is why I'm so emotional. This isn't a fact. This is an assumption, and a really weird one at best. Here's what we have for facts:

About 5% of the US population identify as Vegetarian or vegan. "Most" vegetarians are liberal. Liberals are not evenly distributed among the general population.

Putting this together, your assumption is highly flawed at best. There's no logical reason we can't assume that while liberals aren't equally distributed, vegetarians are. Being a vegetarian means you're likely inclined to be liberal, it's a correlation not causation. There's nothing I've seen that shows anything about expected distribution of vegetarians based on where they live. The best thing anyone has come up with is the thanksgiving gallup poll below.

Also, your OG statement was that they aren't common outside of meto areas. This is so vague and meaningless. What's common? That 1/100 people are a vegetarian? That people know someone anecdotally that is a vegetarian?

My point is that your asserting that you know that vegetarians are uncommon in the Rural US. I posit that it's impossible to know that. That's not to say you're wrong or not (I'm not claiming I know either) but that making a statement of that type is problematic in a fact based discussion.

McDonald's has been testing one they call the McVegan, but it's only available in a few countries outside the US. With Burger King's version being available, I'm guessing that will speed up the availability of the McVegan in the US.

They could easily make their fries Vegan in the US, yet they haven't. I doubt they'll really bring it here.

They are Vegan. From mcd's website:

"Our World Famous Fries™ and hash browns are go-tos for our vegetarian and vegan guests. Since 2007, we’ve made them without any animal-sourced ingredients. We cook them in 100% vegetable oil, in a dedicated fryer separate from our meat items."

Yet they're not.

FRENCH FRIES Ingredients: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (Canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Natural Beef Flavor [Wheat and Milk Derivatives]), Dextrose, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate (Maintain Color), Salt. Natural beef flavor contains hydrolyzed wheat and hydrolyzed milk as starting ingredients. Contains: WHEAT, MILK.

Source: URL -> https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/product/small-french-frie...

In America only one or two percent are vegetarians. In England it's over twenty percent! That's the reason it pays to cater to them.

My sister is a vegan and on my urging she tried an impossible burger when it first came to San Francisco and she loved it.

But Burger King is cooking the impossible burger on the same grill upon which they're grilling the meat. I haven't asked her but I'm guessing most vegans won't be buying their impossible burgers at Burger King for that reason.

Depends why they are vegan. If it’s for environmental or even ethical reasons a small amount of cross-contamination may not be objectionable as long as they personally are not contributing to demand for meat.

No, it's not. I wouldn't even say it's 5%, let alone 20%.

You only have to walk into a supermarket to see this is nonsense, meat vs veggie options are like 10 to 1.

You're referencing one widely debunked survey (this is about the vegan part of it, but it applied to the whole study and the vegetarian percentage claim (of 14%, not 20%), is discussed and debunked later in the article):

https://fullfact.org/health/vegans-uk/

I know 1 vegan and 1 vegetarian, but I know at least 6 ex-vegetarians.

Since you're offering anecdotes as information, I'll also add that about 20-30% of my friends are vegetarian here in the UK. None are vegan, though.

I think it's a two-parter: There's a degree of social pressure within groups, but it's also a function of where you live. As part of a university-dense area there's a lot of eco-conscious vegetarians here - which makes it easier to market to vegetarians - so they have more options - which makes it easier to be vegetarian. Feedback loops.

I'm offering actual facts coloured by an anecdote, there's a big difference.

I live in Nottingham, which has two big universities. There are a few vegan cafes and bars around. I don't know how old you are, but a lot of my ex-veggie friends stopped being so in their 30s.

The UK's vegetarian rate is more like 10% as far as I recall. Since cooking veggie burgers on the same grill as meat burgers doesn't lead to additional harm to animals, I hope and expect most vegans to be happy to go for it -- veganism is not an allergy.

I've known several vegetarians (not even vegan) who after being such for several years would frequently get significant stomach issues upon eating vegetarian meals cooked on surfaces used to cook (especially red) meat, so while its true that vegetarianism and veganism are not allergies, I think it may be significantly less accurate to assume this means that they aren't associated with digestive sensitivity to cross-contamination with meat products.

> But Burger King is cooking the impossible burger on the same grill upon which they're grilling the meat.

Why is the corporate world so hopelessly stupid?

What I find more "hopelessly stupid" is being so uptight about the matter that you care if a few particles of animal matter made their way into your food from a shared grill. Even assuming the vegan moral framework, it does no additional good to separate the grills and you're not encouraging any more animal harm by reusing the other grill. It's not like a religion that bans eating certain foods, or an allergy, in which cases it's reasonable to want to 100% avoid ingesting a single mole of the stuff.

I'm not a vegetarian or a vegan, personally. I'm a hunter, a fisherman, and I buy beef by the half cow from a small ranch. All of that said, if Burger King is selling some food products and marketing them as vegetarian or vegan, but they are being cooked in animal grease, and surely that is what this means, well, then they're either stupid, they're liars, or they're hopelessly incompetent. And you see this sort of tone deaf nonsense coming out of corporations time and time again.

In the sense that they're not giving these customers what they want, they're being incompetent, but I think it's totally unreasonable in the first place to demand such total separation. Like caring if the same coffee machine was used for non-free-trade coffee grounds before you used it for your own grounds, or that a non-cage-free egg was made on the same grill earlier in the day when you ordered cage-free.

> I think it's totally unreasonable in the first place to demand such total separation.

Look it, no one is demanding anything. They're mis-representing their product. That's all that I'm saying. The end.

Everything else you're saying, your railing against the so-called "vegan moral framework," etc..., is, to me, just you grinding an axe.

> but I think it's totally unreasonable in the first place to demand such total separation

I can't say I agree with this sentiment. This sort of thing happens in other food service outlets and it's never bothered me. The one that comes to mind is grocery stores having separate slicers for meat and dairy to accommodate those who keep kosher. I'm not Jewish, and neither am I a vegetarian, but I wouldn't call those who do keep such lifestyle choices unreasonable.

Also, the word demand here commands more than one meaning. If there is demand for such a separation, and money to be made from accommodating that demand, those practices will find their way into the market.

I did say religious concerns and allergies have more merit for full separation than vegan/vegetarian preference to have no animal matter touch the food. My issue is it's a waste of resources to have two grills just for this.

> but they are being cooked in animal grease

They are flame broiled, not grilled. They aren't cooked in any type of grease.

If I'm working the burger station and I'm cooking an impossible burger at the same station as regular burger patties there will be transfers between one and the other, no? I didn't mean they were _literally_ cooking them in animal grease but rather figuratively.

If you have a care for the environmental impact, would not having an additional grill be a waste of resources and harmful to the planet?

It definitely would increase the friction of adoption. The perfect is the enemy of the good and all that....

OK, I can understand that's not the point you were making. I thought you were saying that because at many fast food places they are literally cooking them in animal grease.

Many fast food places (McDonald's, Wendy's) use a flat surface similar to this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Flickr_X...

Typical ground beef is 20% fat (80% lean), and if you cook it on that, the fat will melt, it will hang around on that surface, and whatever else you cook next will be cooked in animal grease left over from the beef patty.

If you flame broil, the burger sits on a wire mesh, and the grease drips away.

I'm not just picking nits. I'm really trying to make a sincere point that I think one method will have significantly less transfer (not zero) than the other.

To add to your comment, Burger King uses an automated broiler machine similar to this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSuLWkBt5MI

They are fairly large and probably expensive, so a separate broiler may not be an option.

Veganism isn't an allergy, and it's not about maintaining perfect bodily purity. It's about making ethical choices.

Most people aren't going to worry about incidental "contamination".

Sounds like a religion. I get not wanting factory farmed meat, but what's wrong with hunting meat for yourself? In the end we're all meat for something, even if it's just the worms.

I believe the argument is that if you were capable of subsisting without harming another living creature, then you should try to do that.

My understanding is that it's an ethical decision about not killing an animal (or some animals) or directly supporting the killing of an animal. Hunting would be in conflict with this decision. The consequences around an animal's killing are irrelevant here.

It then seems that if an animal is dead, and you are simply picking up small traces from a grill, vegans ought not to have an issue.

I've met zero non-dieter vegans who have this stance...

One here. I'm concerned with being the cause of animal suffering and not concerned if my vegan food was cooked on the same surface as meat.

Where did you get these statistics? Wikipedia shows it much differently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country

England had a mad cow scare that kicked off a wider adoption of non-beef alternatives.

>Burger King has been supplying veggie patties for some time, but I wonder why it took American fast food places so long to expand.

The Morningstar patties that BK has are pretty bad and taste very artificial and I'm not surprised meat eaters don't like them.

I wonder what the cost basis is of an Impossible Burger vs. a beef patty.

The meat industry has built up some economies of scale but it's hard to believe that raising and slaughtering cows is the most cost effective way to feed people protein.

I am not a vegan. But I do hold a lot of environmental values.

There is a LOT of interesting writing on the economy of the meat industrial complex.

In essence: It is totally propped up by with subsidies from the US Government. They LOSE money on every cow slaughtered. They destroy our planet. All of the profits go to the billionaire farm owners who lobby to keep the laws in place. It is so horribly corrupt.

Personally, I find it disgusting that we give hand-outs so these billionaire ranchers can:

- Feed us unhealthy food

- Destroy the environment with greenhouse gasses and farm run-off

- Take up MASSIVE amounts of space

- Use massive amounts of water

- Create drug-resistant bacteria by pumping the animals full of antibiotics

- create horrible living conditions for animals and suppress anti-meat propaganda with ag-gag laws

- Pay their workers in the factory farm a pittance to do depressing, disgusting work so the owners can hoover up all of the profit.

Check out https://meatonomics.com/ for more information.

Yes, it's sad on many levels. Never heard of a billionaire farmer though. Maybe Purdue (chicken)?

Tyson, Cargill, JBS, National Beef are all multi-billion dollar companies whose owners are billionaires.

Calling them "ranchers" is probably a stretch though, haha!

Yeah, definitely a stretch, and one that I feel distorts the picture.

"Billionaire ranchers" conjures up an image of some guy with a cowboy hat and gold chains in a mansion overlooking endless expanses of pastures and barns. In reality most independent ranchers don't live so lavishly :)

How do local farmers fall into the mix? I buy a cow every year from a local farm - they raise and slaughter the cow and deliver the whole thing butchered and packaged. I much prefer this to anything I could buy at the grocery store.

Personally, I don't have a problem with locally raised beef. Factory farms make up the majority of beef.

Stats are here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/its-time-to-end-factory-f_b_1...

Oxford and CSIRO scientists already proved grass fed cattle is worse for greenhouse gases than CAFO beef farming. Carbon sequestration no where near makes up for the increases emissions.

Do you have a citation for this? Curious about how they figured that, given:

* The emissions from the livestock themselves should be identical given the same number of cows and the same dietary input; CO₂ output might increase for pasture-raised cattle, given the higher physical activity, but methane output (IIRC the primary concern re: cattle and their environmental impact) shouldn't change all that much

* Non-livestock emissions (from e.g. motorized equipment) seem much easier to minimize in a traditional ranch setting - especially considering that independent ranchers once upon a time ran their ranches without motorized equipment at all, and some still do - than for a modern factory farm

Sure: http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-b...

Full report: https://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fc...

Now granted, I haven't read the entirety of the 127-page report, but it doesn't seem to say much of anything about CAFO at all (searching for "CAFO" or "factory" gives zero results, and searching for "concentrate" gives five results that all have nothing to do with CAFO), so I'm not sure how that's supposed to function as a citation for the specific claim that CAFO is somehow more environmentally friendly than free range ranching.

What the report actually seems to be claiming is that free range cattle ranching is not carbon neutral on a global scale. It can be carbon-neutral or even outright carbon-sequestering on a local scale, however, with the right diet / plant availability and other factors, albeit with other environmental tradeoffs/externalities (for example, the crops that help reduce methane output when used as feed tend to require more fertilizer to grow).

Stop misrepresenting the facts, they are not Oxford or CSIRO scientists at all. It's the "Food Climate Research Network" which is a think tank operating out of the University of Oxford. No one has "proved" anything.

In science it's actually hard to "prove" anything. You can disprove something though.

If the cow was well managed and grazed, it's probably carbon neutral or even a carbon sink.

The grass grows via the sun, the cows eat the grass and leave natural fertilizer, which sequesters carbon when the grass regrows.

>It is totally propped up by with subsidies from the US Government. They LOSE money on every cow slaughtered.

I don't think the math works out on that one.

This page [1] gives total meat consumption per person per year as 222.2 lb, which would be (x320 million) = 71 billion lb/year.

This page [2] gives total farm subsidies (which is a high estimate since it include all subsidies not just those to meat) as $20 billion.

So, that's $0.27/lb as an upper bound on the magnitude of the subsidy.

[1] https://www.globalagriculture.org/whats-new/news/en/32921.ht...

[2] https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

222.2 lb / year sounds high!

I'm not sure if 7M vegetarians would move the needle much, but even ignoring them, that's about 0.6lbs of meat every day for every man, woman and child.

Assuming toddlers and the elderly don't eat that much, that puts some adults closer to a pound of meat a day every day.

That's a lot more meat consumption than I would have estimated.

> that's about 0.6lbs of meat every day for every man, woman and child.

That doesn't sound all that high at all. I probably would've guessed slightly lower at less than 0.5lbs/person, but knowing the average American diet that seems well within reason. If I ate a 1/4 lb burger twice a day (i.e. for lunch and dinner) or a 1/2 lb burger once a day (i.e. just for lunch or dinner), that'd be pretty close on beef alone.

I think more needs to be done to promote grass fed beef as well. If done well, it can have a negative carbon footprint, versus imitation meats which have many of the same problems that grain fed beef does (monocropping, destruction of local ecosystems, use of pesticides, etc.).

How would grass fed beef generate a negative carbon footprint?

They eat grass, distress the soil and leave their fertilizer behind. The grass regrows, which captures carbon via photosynthesis.

Obviously I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I don't know if the methane produced by cattle has a bigger impact. But it definitely seems better than both grain fed meat and monocrops, in terms of energy input and environmental/ecosystem impact.

The major energy input in the system is the sun, not fossil fuels for fertilizer/pesticide production and farm equipment to plant and harvest crops.

Yeah I've never heard of carbon neutral cows. If you're saying that the grassland would be replaced with concrete, then there would be a reduction in carbon sequestration.

But still, I don't think it's close. Cows produce a lot of methane:

https://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/methane-cow.htm

> Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence. Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. In any case, that's a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution produced by a car in a day.

> In New Zealand, where cattle and sheep farming are major industries, 34 percent of greenhouse gases come from livestock.

> Initially, grazing areas were filled with a variety of grasses and flowers that grew naturally, offering a diverse diet for cows and other ruminants. However, in order to improve the efficiency of feeding livestock, many of these pastures became reseeded with perennial ryegrass. With the aid of artificial fertilizers, perennial ryegrass grows quickly and in huge quantities. The downside is that it lacks the nutritious content of other grasses and prevents more nutritious plants from growing. One commentator called it the "fast food" of grasses.

> Believers in naturally grown, mixed-species pastures say that the use of them will reduce greenhouse gases, improve animal health and meat quality and reduce the use of artificial fertilizers.

Sounds like it's still a carbon emitter, but if you're going to do it try to find cows that are eating on native, organic grass.

Oxford and CSIRO scientists already proved grass fed cattle is worse for greenhouse gases than CAFO beef farming. Carbon sequestration no where near makes up for the increases emissions.

If you take the historical view, we have about as many cattle now as there were bison in North America.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-b...

> They eat grass, distress the soil and leave their fertilizer behind. The grass regrows, which captures carbon via photosynthesis.

I think the equation is a lot more complicated than that. For instance, did you know that the vast majority of weight that your body regularly sheds is due to the carbon you breathe out? The average human breathes out around 2.3 lbs of C02 per day. That increases a lot when you're engaging in physical exertion.

I'm guessing that the same holds true for cows, but the poundage is going to be a lot higher because their body mass is a lot larger. Cows (and people) have to eat as much they shed in order to avoid wasting away, and most of that is carbon.

I would expect that a fully grown cow is essentially carbon neutral, not carbon-absorbing, if you're just looking at the dietary cycle.

Of course, I’m saying the resulting soil production is where the carbon is being captured.

You're linking to a website with a clear agenda, hardly a reliable source. First off, who are the billionaire ranchers and secondly, why would it be wrong for them to exist (since they exist for every other major industry, too, including tech).

- Farm land for vegetables takes up MASSIVE amounts of space, and it's not the same as leaving that land to nature and wildlife - Animals have to be killed in the production of veggie farms, from pesticides to rodents - Water doesn't get "used" up when you feed cattle with it. It goes through the same cycle it has for billions of years for all the other animal life on this planet. What gives? - Factory farms are more common for vegetables than they are for cattle, and it's not like the harvesters are getting paid any more than the ranchers. They're often paid less. 91% of cattle ranches are family owned (https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2015/Cattl...)

Raising cattle also requires additional land use for growing feed.

And in turn more water used, and that water doesn't go back into the ground as urine.

That said, actual ranching (i.e. giving livestock room to graze) would be far less of an environmental burden (so long as it's in places where one doesn't have to burn down forests to make that grazing land).

I can "buy" a cow from a local farmer and they will raise it and slaughter it and deliver all the meat butchered from the cow. It provides nearly a year's supply of meat, at much lower cost than buying similar amounts from the grocery store. If more people followed suit of buying local farm direct then the whole thing would be better off.

You're leaving out the cost of owning and powering a chest freezer which is not insignificant.

A freezer costs about 50 bucks a year in electricity (depending on rates, obv). That's a lot less than a half a beef to fill it will cost.

They're leaving out a lot more than the freezer cost. Not everyone wants frozen meat. Fresh meat tastes better.

There are a lot of other issues with their "buy a cow" idea.

Frozen meat tastes orders of magnitudes better than any of the alternatives

How's that work when you want to use some? Do you have a giant chunk of frozen meat you have to get smaller, more usable pieces from? Do you thaw it enough to cut then put the rest back? I can't picture how this works.

Typically when you buy a large fraction of a cow, the butcher will process it into a bunch of different cuts, I.e. ribeye, flank, chuck, tenderloin, etc. the cuts are usually single-serving, except if you want to keep the tenderloin whole or something. You also get a bunch of hamburger patties or ground beef. Point is, you get all the meat pre-cut before your freeze, so you can use only what you need at any given time.

Keep in mind that cattle ranchers and feed suppliers also receive subsidies that artificially lower the price of meat in America.

Quantifying the exact impact of this is muddled by polarized articles on both sides, a complicated supply chain, and the fact that the alternatives industry also benefits in subsidies indirectly. Still, it seems to be the case that meat alternatives are facing an uphill battle on cost due to subsidies.

The meat industry are placing some pretty big bets on meat substitutes. Tyson owns 5% of Beyond Meat.

Tyson sold its stake in Beyond Meat last week and supposedly plans to make its own moves into this marketspace.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/tyson-foo...

$7 more at The Counter. It's a "premium item" there.

had my first impossible burger this weekend. the patty itself was like 6oz and cost $15 just for the burger (no fries). i'm in NYC and even this is a bit high for the area. it was also sitting on a large bun topped with lettuce/tomorrow. the patty was overwhelmed. I thought it tasted just ok and would give it a C. The whopper patty tastes better IMO.

Whopper patties IMHO are the worst fast food burger patties. Sometimes they're over-microwaved and on the border of inedible. I can't imagine an impossible burger tasting worse.

Burger King actually flame grills their burger patties - are you saying they are overly tough or overly burnt?

Their patties are microwaved to re-heat before serving.

My answer would be overly tough.

They do get flame grilled initially, after being pulled from the freezer, but then they sit in a heated drawer for an amount of time. The only reheating they get is a quick microwaving for maybe 5-10 seconds, and then they're off on their way. (This is all unless you ask for it fresh, in which case you'll wait for 2-3 minutes while you get a fresh patty.)

In addition, the people working in the kitchen are supposed to toss any extra patties out after x hours, provided they don't just press the ignore button when the timer goes off and do nothing, which is what I saw 99% of the time when I did this job like, 15 years ago.

So if you come at an odd hour, you may be getting a particularly old patty. Granted, things may have changed in a decade and a half and I worked in a very low profit store in a rural area, so my experience may be much different.

I tasted the impossible burger a while ago and was underwhelmed by the taste. In NY we had bareburgers that provided us with the impossible before BK.

It's better than a typical veggie burger for sure but will definitely not choose it over meat.

Every review I've seen has said the new version is much better, and that's just starting to roll out.

I'd give it another go, they debuted a new version at CES back in January which people say is a lot better than the old version.

In addition to the other people who commented, I'll add that, like beef, impossible burger will vary based on the cook. So things like seasoning and level of doneness have a big impact. I'm a big hamburger fan, and I had a well seasoned, medium rare impossible burger and thought the flavor was great. Texture was different, but not bad. Anyway, I'd also recommend giving it another try.

You likely had the impossible 1.0, which is supposed to be inferior. I've had the 1.0, and it was decent. The 2.0 is very hard to find, even in California, but easy to find the 1.0.

yup, in LA there's monty's ( https://montysgoodburger.com/ ). it's similarly priced ($16, i think), but that's too much for a mediocre burger. to be fair, it usually has a line. but for that price, it really needs to be comparable to father's office or plan check, which are both delicious.

"the patty itself was like 6oz and cost $15 just for the burger "

Wait, what?

Not unusual for nyc

This is nice for all the reasons mentioned but honestly I'm probably not going to ever eat it until it makes its way onto the value menu. I don't go to fast food to get a $5 burger, I go there to get a $1.55 burger. I can't be the only one.

Well at some point we will have to reckon with the economics of how a $1.55 burger comes to be. It's simply not possible without sacrificing health, animal welfare, and the environment. Not trying to be preachy about this, but in a cheap meal there are many costs upstream which you pay for one way or another, just not at the counter.

I see no reason we can't have a plant based $1.55 burger that's not superior to the meat burger on all those metrics. The plant burger doesn't have the whole animal portion of the supply chain to pay for. It seems like an economics of scale issue.

My original post more accurately could have read "the economics of how a $1.55 meat burger comes to be."

I don't know anything specific about how the Impossible meatless burger is produced. I know that there are some tricky economics involved in beef production, specifically in government subsidies for the corn which is fed to cattle to make beef; the stream of meat "byproduct" which is turned into "ground beef"; and the huge supply of land and water rights used for grazing cattle which was obtained long ago by huge ranches for free or cheap, which any new at-scale competitor (meat or meatless) will have a hard time beating.

You're not going to just convince the average consumer to not buy the $1.55 burger in front of them by telling them to think about the upstream. You need to provide them with a straightforward alternative. Right now a $5 meatless burger might be able to compete with a $5 beef burger, but it's still going to lose in the $1.55 weight class.

If people had to pay the true cost rather than the often subsidized one, it would be a more equal choice. I wouldn't propose to market "meaty" vs "meatless" on the basis of these hidden costs.

The irony to me is that the $1.55 burger is truly the "impossible" one. Without massive subsidies for feed corn, water, farm labor, etc the value meal burger would not exist.

There is no "true cost". It always boils down to an whether or not any given side effect should be covered and that always boils down to subjective and opinionated arguments.

You're not. the mcdouble is the cheapest, most nutritious sandwich every made. A vegan burger can't compete.

Agreed. You might not want to build your entire diet around them but under $2USD for ~400kcal in about as balanced as a format as you can expect from a burger is pretty damn impressive. The fact that you can walk into a McDonalds on just about any continent and get said McDouble and it will be just like any other McDouble is a miracle of modern logistics and process control.

Don't disagree about the process control but is 200kcal/$1 really the best you can do? I mean obviously you can buy something in bulk and beat that but it's less interesting than if you only had $2.

Okay so research results:

* A 2 pack of Hot Pockets is $2 and 640kcal.

* Two banquet turkey pot pies are 640kcal for $1.80.

* Cheating somewhat because the ratio is amazing Kroger brand pizza rolls are 1467kcal for $2.77.

* Found a vegetarian option! Totino's Triple Cheese Party Pizza is 700kcal for $1.34.

Hot Pockets are kinda sandwiches I suppose.

Supermarket prices are an unfair comparison; you should compare with a mini-market that provides a microwave for customer use, as you don't need to heat up the McDouble.

What if it cost $2.55?

The meat-free burger will cost customers about one dollar more than the beef version.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/1/18290336/burger-king-impos...

Whitecastle has impossible sliders now

Previous related popular discussion on HN here, when they introduced it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19542379

I feel like Taco Bell could have done this years ago with any old seitan product, and I await their announcement eagerly.

I wonder if there's a big market at Taco Bell, the reason I say that is because Taco Bell has beans, which is a just fine protein for me at least. I personally don't feel like I need anything else if I've got beans. Though, honestly, Chipotle and Moe's both have a tofu option though.

Yeah tacobell has always been super vegetarian friendly because you could just substitute beans for meat in anything

yes and no - there is a certain satisfaction to the meat filling even when it is not meat. we make fake meat tacos at home pretty often, but never bean tacos.

alas existing brands of fake ground beef are actually not all that useful outside of taco territory - gets gummy in bolognese, etc.

I'd say a taco with beans is much better than a burger without any Patty(MCD in USA) but that's personal preference on what constitutes a good meat substitute.

Del Taco has Beyond for their tacos and Chipotle has sofritas so I can see Taco Bell offering something other than beans in the near future

This is great news, and hopefully it can make its way to Europe soon. I was always a big fan of the Whopper and excited to try this.

What I am still baffled about is how the Linda McCartney range of vegetarian products has not made it to the US yet. The Mozzarella burger in that range tastes absolutely phenomenal (very meaty) and is great value (€2 for packet of 2). Would highly recommend anyone to check this out if in Ireland or the UK (Tesco or Waitrose always have them in stock).

I like White Castle impossible burgers . But, I actually liked the veggie burgers that Burger King already had . I expect Impossible ones being a step up.

Unfortunately I don't live in an area with White Castle. I've tried an Impossible burger at a more "premium" burger place, Wahlburgers. I've also tried one at a local mom and pop that tested them for a week. I am excited to potentially have some healthier discount/fast food options in my area. I can't wait until BK rolls out here, I will be one of the first in line.

WC Impossible burger was served too "rare" tasting for me. I hope BK is more regular fast food burger tasting.

I'm curious to try this. I'm not a vegetarian, but our species' reliance on other animals for food makes me a little uneasy.

So... I pay a little extra for the BK Impossible Burger. I find its taste dead on. Awesome! But... how do I know some penny pinching Burger King franchise owner isn't just using regular beef patties for both regular burgers and Impossible Burgers? ;-)

Contracts. BK finds out and removes contract for franchise Rights. These rights are expensive to get.

BK the franchise would destroy someone if it got out in the news they were doing this. This is a huge PR stunt and they're going to protect themselves as fiercely as possible against negative PR with this.

The current Morningstar veggie patties at Burger King are microwaved so no cross contamination with the conveyor belt cooking contraption that cooks the meat patties. Maybe they'll do the same with the Impossible patties.

I hope they will bring this to Europe soon.

I look forward to trying it.

Having said that I find that fast food burgers already taste "like" a burger and are a bit off anyway.

Replacing my home made burgers, going to be dang hard with some kind of substitute.

When is this happening? What’s the exact date I can stroll into a Burger King and buy this?

I'm interested in meatless burgers because the field can expand so much: being able to get the taste, the smell and texture of a meal without the "classic" ingredients.

Honest question: if people decide to adopt this veggie diet, will we see a change in average height? Protein or not, most cultures with veggie cuisines have much shorter people.

On similar news; McDonalds also rolled out a vegan burger in Germany today. It's apparently only a test run but I hope it stays considering it's pretty damn good.

The Impossible Burger uses coconut oil which is 90% saturated fat the highest of any oil. Saturated fat causes a spike in bad cholesterol. Beef fat has saturated fat but it's only at 40% of the total.

Even heme the thing that makes the burger look bloody is even worse foe health than the coconut oil. Of all the things in red meat heme is the thing that causes the most harm and it's in the Impossible Burger.

I'm not vegetarian but I do eat mainly plants with low meat consumption. I like the concept of vegetable-based burgers for diet reasons (not morality/ethics) but the Impossible Burger with coconut oil and heme seems very unhealthy.

The article claims the impossible burger to have 90% less cholesterol

Of course — all food has good and bad qualities, the question here is really: Is it unhealthier than a beef burger? With all other qualities being equal or better?

For example: Coconut oil may have the highest % of saturated fat, but that data point isn't relevant unless we know how much they put in each impossible burger, and compare that to the amount of fat in ground beef. I.e. despite that percentage, _per burger_ a beef burger might still give you more saturated fat.

The same goes for the concern about heme.

old recipe: 70% sat fat per 4oz serving [0]

new recipe: 40% saturated fat per 4oz serving. [1]

ground beef: 37% saturated fat per 4oz serving.[2]

[0]https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600217292...

[1]https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600189392...

[2]https://www.nutritionix.com/food/ground-beef

I've eaten the original impossible burger, and I can't wait to try the new version.

Could you provide some sources? Also, quantity is a big factor. It may use coconut oil, but still have less oil/fat than beef.

I aim to eat a high fat diet and I never avoid salt (my constitution appears to handle even very high salt intake without the common ill effects). So to me, the impossible burger is perfectly healthy. I'd only worry about trading too much protein for carbs.

I might try BK again based on this. Love the impossible burger. I wish my local BK were a little cleaner.

This is a good gambit from BK, and just definitely a good trend overall.

Eventually Walmart is going to start a price war with meat. It's going to be really interesting how the market will respond. I suspect a majority of people won't care.

Are these the burgers that bleed for no apparent appetizing reason?

If I see my burger bleed, I'm sending it back, because I don't want food poisoning. Not sure how they came up with this nonsense that they think people want to see bloody under cooked ground meat.

The beet juice makes them "bleed", but more than that, it gives them the color of beef. And it turns brown when cooked.

wut?

it’s not blood, “it's myoglobin, the protein that delivers oxygen to an animal's muscles. This protein turns red when meat is cut, or exposed to air. Heating the protein turns it a darker color. Rare meat isn't “bloody,” it is just cooked to a lower temperature” [0]

you’re sending stuff back based on your lack of knowledge.

[0] https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.huffpost.com/entry/what-i...

Burgers should not be served rare because of the risk of food poisoning in under-cooked minced beef. You can eat steak rare because you sear the outside, killing the bugs.

Calling it "blood" is wrong (but everybody knows what that means), but sending it back for more cooking isn't.

Some people think the risk is small enough that they're not bothered by it.

as much as i appreciate a meatless burger, it's no-where near perfect. The saturated fat content is extremely high (15%) thanks to the coconut oil. And it's super high in sodium as well: 1240mg (about 70% of 1500). and half of it is still fat. They've still got some work to do before it can be considered healthy.

But, they say it tastes just as good as the real thing, which is quite an achievement.

Ingredients: Potato protein, soy protein (soy leghemoglobin), coconut oil, yeast extract, cultured dextrose, methylcellulose, and food starch modified.

I think they're explicitly not interested in making it healthy as compared to a beef burger. They're looking to appeal to exactly the same people that would want a regular burger, and deliver as near an identical experience as possible, but with a lower carbon footprint. Products already exist on the market for health-conscious consumers, but BK customers apparently prefer burgers, health considerations notwithstanding. Presumably at least part of that preference is because they're greasy and salty and indulgent, and substitute products would need to check those same boxes to be appealing.

I'm mostly worried about soy and generally, this human interventionism.

Where you take something that has been with us for 2000 years and replace it with something else, on which it's impossible to have the same amount of data.

Same worry applies to cars, plastics, artificial fertilizer, pesticides etc.

Government isn't going to stop this.

2000 years? humans have been consuming dairy for only 10,000 years, a very short evolutionary timescale. And many people can still barely consume it.

There's really no reason other than the "feel good" marketing that this should cost MORE than actual beef. As long as that's the case, it's more of a "pacify the woke" thing than a "make the world better" thing.

"As long as that's the case..."

As long as the hypothetical you stated without evidence is true, then we must accept the false choice you presented?

I may have failed to understand your point, or you may have failed to make one.

If it costs more than actual meat... then is there really another reason beyond consumer demand to do this? Because if it is costing more, imho it's likely way overpriced or potentially more harmful environmentally than the actual animal farming.

Its kinda misleading, there's still animal products in this because of how the food is prepared...

Can you be more specific? Are you referring to cheese? Do they cook the burger in animal fat?

A Whopper contains mayonnaise, which is made from egg yolk. I assume that's what bifrost meant by "animal products".

This doesn't say "vegan" burgers, it says meatless. It doesn't sound like this incorrect, is it?

Which is optional cf. “have it your way”.

I think that the Impossible Burger originally achieved its taste by using heme protein isolated from cow blood, but it looks like that's now done by expressing and purifying soy leghemoglobin in a yeast expression system, so I'm not sure what bifrost is referring to.

The grill it's cooked on also cooks meat patties. Some people do not like any contamination in their food.

When I became vegetarian I thought about this a lot but came to the conclusion that if I ever wanted to go out with friends that it's something I'll have to accept. You'd be surprised at the number of places that use chicken broth in otherwise vegetarian fare as well. It's a compromise, but one I'm willing to accept; some people are not.

I'm def not in the camp of being PO'ed by that but I understand why some people are. One thing I learned long ago was that there were "dieters" and "ethical vegans" and only sometimes did they overlap. The availability of the IB is great for dieters which increases demand and thus eventually the "ethical" population is served.

I'm referring to the process of cooking it. They don't separate the food and you get cross-contact with meat and dairy proteins - making it non-vegetarian and definately not vegan. This is basically all marketing driven (which is fine) but its not animal-product free, which is what normal people think when they see "plant based" food.

How much of an "impossible" 150g burger are we talking about here that contains animal meat ? 10% ? 50% ?

In a cross-contamination scenario as described, it's going to be trace amounts only.

So it's a meatless burger that might have been in contact with meat or been in contact with a surface that has been in contact with meet ?

And this upsets people to the point the entire product is dismissed and labelled a lie ? No wonder the world is not at peace.

People don't like being lied to.

How is it a lie ?

Where is this line drawn ? After all farmers like to fertilize fields using manure from animals - which ends up in the plants. Animals breathe and exhale CO2, which plants might take up. Plants might have been in contact with or partially eaten by birds, butterflies, deer etc. "contaminating" the plant we later eat, but this does not seem to bother people.

Are you absolutely certain this is the case? The majority of my vegetarian friends would be upset to find their vegetarian dish was contaminated with meat if they ate out in a restaurant. I don't see why it would be any different in BK?

I am 100% certain about this, ask about allergens instead of specific ingredients and you'll get a real answer that isn't spun.

Virtually every vegetarian meal you've ever had was contaminated. My personal anecdote here is several years making pizza. Veggie pizzas are topped by hands that have handled meats without being washed, the pizza cutter used to slice your pizza just got done cutting a hundred meat pizzas. In my years making pizzas I made 2-3 pizzas in a non-contaminated way, it was a special request. Everyone is either unaware of this or is ok with it.

I don't disagree. This is why I personally avoid places that aren't 100% vegan or don't have serious published food handling guidelines. Someone's laziness could kill someone.

Indeed, unless Burger King is using a completely separate grill for the vegetable burgers, some vegetarians/vegans are going to be upset that their vegetable patty was prepared where meat was and possibly exposed to meat, and there could be kosher/halal issues.

I think the people who are concerned with this are familiar with how food is made at restaurants. For example, I worked at a pizza shop in high school and occasionally someone would request we wash our pizza cutter so that their veggie pizza would not be contaminated with meat from previous pizzas. We, of course, accommodated their request without issue. But I worked there for years and saw this request maybe 2-3 times. And that may have been the same customer. The people who take that level of constraint are a tiny, tiny fraction of the already smallish customer base seeking meatless/vegetarian food.

Those people aren't the target audience. It's to get meat eaters to be willing to replace meat in their diet.

I may be wrong, but I don't think BK is advertising these as vegan or even vegetarian. They appear to be very careful to say "meatless" instead, which is not inaccurate.

They're certainly not advertising them as kosher/halal.

I wonder if this will turn into a "food weaselwords" debate with the FTC. Its basically going to take a concerted study and some food-lab time.

This is some of why it is important to distinguish moral food specifications from health-related specification: it takes work for me to eat out anywhere that isn't exclusively vegetarian because meat contamination makes me ill, and restaurants don't understand that, for example, labeling things "vegetarian" when they are fried in the same oil as meat is misleading. Sometimes the grill is well-cleaned and it is fine, and then other times I am in for a night of misery and it's just not worth the risk.

Bingo! This is basically my problem -> I am a human detector of certain animal proteins in my food, if I ingest them my immune system gets angry. I can't be "oh its fine" about certain things in/ob my food so I tend to like vegan options.

I stopped eating meat for ethical reasons, and after a couple of decades it makes me ill, presumably because my gut flora no longer tolerates it. So any reason to not eat meat can become a health-related specification, given time.

From the sounds of it I'm nowhere near as sensitive to it as you and bifrost.

Burger King doesn't use a grill at all. They flame-broil their burgers.

I believe some (or all?) of them use a Nieco ( https://nieco.com/ ) brand broiler that basically has a metal conveyor belt that carries the patty through a flame.

See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSuLWkBt5MI

They could, if they wanted, designate one lane solely for Impossible patties (and other non-meat products).

If they don't, looks by the time the belt makes it way back through the flame, whatever residue on it will have been mostly reduced to ash. I would guess the belt wouldn't transfer meat grease and crumbs onto a veggie patty as much as a grill would. But, after it leaves the belt, it slides down to a holding area, where it would come into contact with whatever else was on the belt before it.

Its shared equipment so the effect is the same (grill/broil). I believe you have to hit around 1600F to denature the proteins so "ash" is really more like "crispy protein". If you look at the output side you'll see some pretty tasty carmelized beef stuff, so you're 100% correct, they'd have to dedicate a lane...

No person who keeps Kosher eats at Burger King. Even their restaurant here in Israel isn't Kosher https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/burger-king-returns-to-i...

TIL. But McDonalds in Israel is kosher, so why didn’t Burger King adopt the same policies in order to better complete with McD?

Its a franchise, not a company store; a narrower rule for franchises in Israel might mean that instead of 1 in Israel, they have 0. They make more money off 1 than 0, so...

Were Burger King to actively seek to compete in Israel, they might adopt a kosher policy (and might also enforce it on franchisees, in order to protect the brand image). But since they aren't doing that, why bother with extra restrictions on who can pay them money to run a franchise?

No doubt if they expand into Jerusalem they will be. They may have wanted to have a restaurant in Tel Aviv that can be open on Shabbos for non-Jewish tourists and business travelers. (Though the food is so good in Israel, I wonder why anyone would seek out a burger chain.)

Only 50 out of 180 McDonalds in Israel are Kosher (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Israel )

As long as it's described as "meatless" and not "vegan", it's not misleading. It's still vegetarian.

Not if it has meat juice on it due to how its prepared. I realize some people are willing to be handwavey about it...

It's not about being handwavey. I am vegan and in my experience, most vegans for ethical reasons have no reason to be concerned about cross-contamination because they're not purchasing an animal product. I care about not supporting the use of animals, and purchasing an animal product is the actual factor that contributes to this.

Frequenting an establishment that profits off of animal products is, of course, a valid issue but that's different than meat juice contamination.

The goal of Impossible Burger is to get meat eaters to replace meat in their diet with something more sustainable. It's not about vegan/vegetarian purism.

I imagine some people are also hand-wavey about the inevitable insect meat they consume in their otherwise vegetarian or vegan diet, or the countless small animals killed in the production of those foods. We all have to draw our lines somewhere I suppose, but let's be realistic about it. Consuming a few specs of beef juice on a vegetarian sandwich is not the same as purchasing or eating meat.

Typically vegans don't eat Honey so most do care. There are a lot of vegans who don't eat products with Palm Oil in them because of how bad it is for habitats. I agree 100% that its not the same but its also not Vegan.

No need to be so dismissive, there's nothing hand-wavy about it. That meat juice you think I'm so concerned about? Hey, I didn't request that an animal be slaughtered for my meal, that was the guy before me. If some of his meat drippings fall on my Impossible Burger, no purity tests have been failed.

I guess its the difference of intent vs the outcome.

Yes, you didn't ask for meat but you got some anyways and if you're fine with that, thats cool.

If there's meat juice on your vegan burger even by accident its not vegan, I don't think thats too weird of a concept. I'm sure people will bikeshed about this, but if you go look up the definition of "vegan" you'll generally find its "doesn't consume animal products" and there won't be too many mentions of "its ok if there's a little bit of meat in something". Interestingly I found out that there IS an exception for eating Halal; If you eat something that is Haram by accident, you're not at fault. This transpired because a buddy of mine went to a BBQ and was going off on how delicious the chicken and brisket was, and then I pointed ou the rib slabs and sausages hanging over it and then he turned a bit green....

but if you go look up the definition of "vegan"

Oh, hell, no. I'm not looking to Webster's to define my lifestyle choices. You want to get all legalistic about it, knock yourself out. But don't set up a legalistic strawman and then proceed to beat the stuffing out of him.

Imagine being so picky that you're willing to hold back society's progress about an issue that you care about, for no other reason than waiting for perfection.

I get your argument, but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Note that this can a religious concern for some people.

Are vegetarians the target for this? I wouldn't have thought you'd find too many of them in Burger King. I'm not a vegetarian, and do like a burger occasionally. On those rare occasions (usually on long journeys) when I do go to Burger King, if there's a good tasting beef alternative that's easier on the environment than beef, why not.

It's still vegetarian, just maybe not vegan.

Agreed - wasn't disputing that. All I was saying was that maybe us meat eaters who want to be slightly more healthy and slightly better for the environment are actually the target market.

I think you're correct here. I had an impossible burger, but I can say pretty clearly every person who is a meat eater regularly has found it more pleasing than long time vegetarians. I personally enjoy the Beyond Meat Patty more. Anecdotal evidence is only just that, but it's been a trend I've seen. Personally I hope this becomes a big success and people really enjoy it, even if it's not my thing.

The majority of vegans enjoy the meat taste and the new crop of substitutes, just not the ethical/environmental costs. Source- polled my vegan group.

I know a lot of vegetarians and vegans who don't want anything to do with something that's like meat, so perhaps your anecdote and my anecdote add up to advice to not claim either of us knows what a majority of vegans want?

As an example of this issue in action, if you're taking your company out for food, it's a huge mistake to go to a place that only offers meat-like stuff for vegetarians and vegans.

Perhaps its a cultural thing, are most of those folks veg who don't like meat from India / South East Asia?

I work in vegan food industry (own company and invested in others) and the market research we've done has always been consistent here that most vegans enjoy eating plant meats (ie- beyond / hungry plannet / impossible / gardein etc). Granted that research has been mostly in Australia and Hong Kong which is where I focus on

It's not vegetarian either if there's meat juice. Vegetarian means they only consume eggs or milk. Meat in the product at all is not meatless. Same reason some beers can't claim to be vegetarian. They need to cook it on a different grill. I'd be surprised if they weren't prepared for this. There's usually two sets of utensils in most places I've seen or they clean the knife prior to cutting.

Most vegetarians don't take the quasi-religious interpretation that coming into contact with another meat product permanently dirties whatever they're eating. Some do, certainly, but not most.

A more general definition of a vegetarian food is food whose ingredients do not purposefully include any product that requires killing an animal to extract it.

Note that the homeopathic definition of vegetarian means that essentially no food is vegetarian, because basically all grains and vegetables include small fauna that are inadvertently incorporated into the ingredient during harvesting.

While I'm certainly not trying to be quas-religious, what's the point of a definition of it means nothing? If there's meat in the patty because of poor preparation, that's plainly easily avoidable by scraping the grill, and bk just refuses to do it or find one of the other amazingly easy ways to not have it cooked in beef fat, you can't call it vegetarian. Absolutely there's no way for a company to never have insects, rats, and other pests in their foods even under the best of conditions. This isn't that. If they cook the patty in beef fat, is not meatless, you've made the beef fat an intentional part of the product, therefore not vegetarian. The patty itself is still meatless, the end product is not.

Edit: Most vegetarians you happen to know. I personally don't like the fluidity with which the term is used expressly because it leads to confusion. You want to eat meat, cool you do you, but don't make it harder to explain for people who choose to actually follow the definition by making it meaningless. It's like the term "green" when people guest started using it it had a definition that was understood, now it's meaningless. If someone is comfortable with meat intentionally being in their food for to preparation to the point that they don't mind if there's meat in their food, they probably consume far more meat products than they realize and I doubt that they are as vegetarian a they intend to be, which again is fine, I just dislike claiming to be something that, by definition, one isn't and trying to torture the definition to your preferences.

If you're intentionally cooking something in beef fat to impart beef fat flavor, that's one thing. If you happen to be using the same cooking surface that might have some marginal level of beef fat residue, that's something entirely different.

If you adopt a definition of vegetarian that excludes any product that has a microgram of animal meat in it, you rapidly run into the problem that there is literally no vegetarian food, because dead animals end up unintentionally incorporated into pretty much all products in the processing stage. There's not even vegetarian water, because (animal) rotifers are present in it.

I say this all as a vegetarian who avoids fish sauce and animal-based broths, meaning effectively large swaths of Japanese and Southeast Asian cuisines are effectively off limits to me. The attempt to one-up the majority of vegetarians by demanding convoluted purity rituals for the right to claim membership in the One True Vegetarianism doesn't help anyone.

I have an interesting anecdote of possible relevance to this. A company that I worked for a few years ago was near a vegan burger joint. Their burgers were works of genius -- they were excellent and even meat-eaters like myself literally could not tell that there wasn't any meat in the things.

We hired a new dev who was a vegan from birth, and had never eaten food intended to taste like meat. In an effort to be inclusive, our manager took us to this restaurant for the welcome lunch, so that everyone would be able order freely.

The new hire gave it a try, but it turned out to be too much like the real thing, and he couldn't stomach eating more than a couple of bites of it.

That was what made me realize that fake vegetarian meats were not really intended for vegetarians. They are intended for current meat-eaters and meat-eaters who are trying to reduce or eliminate their meat consumption.

Yeah, I'm a meat eater who's most of the way to vegetarian just because I don't care for most meat, really. I usually go for vegetarian options when dining out out, when they're available and look like they'll be decent, and treat meat dishes as a fallback, with some exceptions (sushi).

I hope these things don't crowd out other veggie alternatives and make them harder to find. Things like portobello "burgers", which I'd much rather have than a real burger or something imitating one.

I don't see how this follows. An "animal product" is not the same thing as "meat." Meat is just one type of animal product to which people commonly have special objections. That is why the burger is accurately described as "meatless" and not "vegan."

I am not vegetarian, but I have plenty of friends who are for a wide array of reasons (moral, religious, environmental). This burger has come up with a few of them, and so far they are just happy that there is vegetarian option. They see it as important that a company like BK is offering a progressive vegetarian option. Not one of them has complained that there is a miniscule amount of non-vegetarian contamination.

Of course I see why some would complain, and it is important that there are always people pushing for progress. But lets not pretend that _this_ isn't progress.

Not sure I agree with you. As a "meatless" burger, it is _exactly_ what I had in mind. I'm not particularly interested in an entirely autotrophic diet.

There’s a good reason why these sort of products are marketed as meatless and not vegetarian, and it’s not because they still contain some animal products.

When a true vegetarian is hungry, the first thing that comes to their minds are plant based foods. If the first though is of juicy burgers or bacon or chicken then that person is not a real vegetarian. To be vegetarian is to be vegetarian in mind and identity.

Meatless options are things you offer to omnivores. If you do not identify as a vegetarian, many people will likely not even consider vegetarian options unless you think they offer some benefit for you to reach a goal.

"To be vegetarian is to be vegetarian in mind and identity."

Says who? Lots of people try out being vegan, vegetarian or eating plant based diets and many appreciate foods that remind them of meat.

No, the real reason is that as soon as you label something vegetarian, it's an instant turn off to many meat lovers.

> To be vegetarian is to be vegetarian in mind and identity.

I've been a vegetarian for 7 years. I identify as vegetarian. That doesn't mean I have some sort of purity of mind and spirit. It just means I don't eat meat, gelatin, etc... I enjoy fake meats, and I'm excited to try one of these.

When (probably not an if at this point) there are meat substitutes that are palatable to carnivores, will vegetarians accept them, meaning eat them? It's an interesting question, but I expect there will always be people that like the current vegetarian no meat lifestyle, even if there are non-meat but meat-like substitutes they'll avoid them.

I do love a burger, even though I feel like I'm moving toward the veggie lifestyle for health and environmental reasons. I do have one vegetarian friend who likes meat-like substitutes :-).

Honestly I see no reason to eat this stuff ever unless I'm in a pinch. If I want a burger I'm not wanting something that looks or smells like meat just something with the same form factor as a burger.

Lately it's lentils and kidney beans with walnuts. Smash em all up and you got yourself a nice lil patty.

I make sliders this way with all the fixings and I just don't ever see myself wanting something more "realistic" haha

> To be vegetarian is to be vegetarian in mind and identity.

Most people don't consider this a matter of identity. They're not trying to stand our or make a statement based on what they eat. They just want a healthier more planet-friendly alternative, not a medal. For that, "meatless" is sufficient.

I've not intentionally eaten meat in over 15 years. The only real definition of vegetarian is someone who makes a conscious choice to not eat something that contains meat. Just because someone may still crave meat but chooses not to eat it doesn't make them any less of a vegetarian.

I dated a vegetarian many years ago. It was my first exposure to that lifestyle. She was not against me eating meat even in front of her. She didn't politicize her choice, it was for her health and nothing more. Luckily some fast food places serve salads and so on trips across country we could stop at those places where I could eat a burger and she could eat a salad. Alternately I would go with her to a local Austin burger joint that had a vegetarian night on Wednesdays. I would eat and enjoy a veggie burger with her. We both were willing to meet each other half way.

options like a veggie burger at Burger King give options to people like her. Not every vegetarian is a vegan who makes all meals political. Burger King serving a veggie burger doesn't have to be political. Not every vegetarian surrounds themselves with only other vegetarians.

Cool "No True Scotsman" bro. Problem is there's no "unified vegetarianism". There's some degree of common cultural identity, but I know plenty of vegetarians who DGAF about the grill their food was cooked on. Hell, just getting people to agree what the term "meat" means can be difficult.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com