Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaysea | Hacker News Reader

I am honestly surprised there is so momentum behind Impossible or Beyond. Both are ultra processed foods, and their health and environmental implications are unclear. They are also not great substitutes for real meat - they simply don't have the same taste profile, although I will acknowledge it is not as far off as previous attempts at vegan burgers or other such products. I think they are good as their own type of product and don't mind the taste though. Are these really going to replace traditional meat products? In my mind, no. But investors seem to be taking that bet.

View on HN

> they simply don't have the same taste profile

People who eat meat aren’t the target audience. The target audience are people who don’t eat meat but still go to MacDonalds or Burger King, it’s a growing segment, and don’t worry, noone is going to try to force you or others like you to join, but just like there are likely 90% of the clothing brands out there that you don’t care for but are still hugely successful, it’s ok that you aren’t in the target audience, they can still be successful.

> Both are ultra processed foods, and their health and environmental implications are unclear.

I think people may be confused about who Impossible and Beyond are marketing to. They are not marketing to people who don't want to eat a cheeseburger because it's too processed or even because it's meat. They are marketing to people who primarily want something that tastes good - not identical to meat, but delicious - and would secondarily prefer non-meat if it is available for equivalent taste. Whether something is "processed" or not doesn't come into it. Not everyone cares about how healthy or natural a food is.

You can tell this because their marketing doesn't in any way promote their food as being particularly "natural" aside from being made from plants. It's all focused on how good it tastes and looks. On their homepage (https://impossiblefoods.com/ as of this writing), Impossible Foods' first three pitches for their product are:

1) It tastes like meat and is delicious. 2) It's better for the environment. 3) It's better for the environment.

You say their environmental impact is unclear - I don't think that's true. It is extremely difficult for even the most intensive plant-based food processes to come close to the environmental impact of meat. Even almond milk, for example, which is an environmental disaster due to its water use, is immensely better than animal milk.[0] Even if Impossible were only half as good for the environment as meat, it would still be enormously beneficial to consume Impossible preferentially, and I suspect it is much better than that.

> Are these really going to replace traditional meat products? In my mind, no.

They certainly won't replace things like whole-muscle cuts of meat. But as costs for meat rise, I could see them edging out the ground meats they intend to replace in a lot of areas. I could also see them being in an ideal position to design and produce non-animal or lab-grown cuts of meat for consumption. There are already some companies doing this: https://kuleana.co/ for example. If I were an investor, that's the bet I'd be making.

[0] https://ideas.ted.com/which-plant-based-milk-is-best-for-the...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com