Hacker News Reader

Comment by sp332 | Hacker News Reader

Actually I can't find any P.R. from Beyond Meat that claims its stuff is healthier. I can't see that Subway said the new stuff was healthier either. Here's a sample press release: https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-08-07/subway-r...

Impossible Foods is pretty similar, although they do claim they looked for ingredients that are "better for people" which implies being healthier but isn't even that specific. https://www.whitecastle.com/pdfs/New_Impossible_Slider_FAQ.p...

View on HN

It's right here in bullet 1:

https://www.beyondmeat.com/about/

Plant based meat is "Improving Human Health", vs Animal based meat which according to them has "16% Increased cancer risk", and "21% Increased Heart Disease Risk.

Beyond Meat claims its 'better for you' right at the top of their products page:

https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/

Yeah "Better for people" could mean that it's better for people's environment due to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Poe's law in full effect, I'm genuinely unsure if this is a joke. "Better for people" reads to every layperson as "good for you".

Also Beyond meat's main product page (https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/) literally says "better for you": "Imagine your favorite meaty dishes like burgers and tacos delivering the juicy, delicious taste you know and love, while being better for you [...]".

Does it, though? I would assume they would say "Better for you" if they meant it was healthier, and "Better for people" if they meant it was better for humanity as a whole.

I guess it could be read either way, though.

edit: although looking at the actual pdf, it says "better for people and the environment", which hurts my interpretation of the wording.

I'm with tshannon, unsarcastically. It might even mean better for people morally, without affecting the person physically at all.

My point though is, if that is what they meant, there is an obvious difference between what was said and what they mean in normal interpretations, and I'm almost inclined to believe it's purposefully deceptive.

There are much clearer ways to state that, like "better for the environment".

Yeah it's extremely weaselly no matter what. It doesn't make any particular health claims, plus it says they "looked for" such ingredients and does not claim that they found them or used them.

"Better, for people!"

To Serve Man

It says "Improving Human Health" in the leftmost graphic on https://www.beyondmeat.com/about/, and they list specific medical ailments under that. Only a lawyer could try to make the argument these weren't pitched as better health options than burgers, and even then, I would not want to be that lawyer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNw95c75g7o

"Eat recycled food for a happier healthier life, be kind and peaceful to each other, eat recycled food. Recycled food is good for the environment, and ok for you."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com