The Future of Meat Is Plant-Based Burgers
outsideonline.com
outsideonline.com
Yet, somehow, cows and sheep do just fine. Sometimes you have to bring in water, but that is NOTHING compared to what it takes to grow crops here.
I will also add one other item to the mix...don't call it burger. I will eat a vegetarian meal, it does not bother me at all. Just don't call it chicken or beef. In fact, don't try to be those things, just make good food without meat and I will eat it. But if you tell me it is beaf and it isn't, I WILL notice, and I won't be happy.
Seconding that. Also, I'm allergic to legumes but not real beef. So you could be putting me in danger by calling a legume patty a "burger" or "beaf".
But a burger can be anything. Chicken burger, hamburger, pork burger, etc. So I wouldn't have a problem having a vegetarian burger. Since "burger" describes the delivery mechanism and not the contents.
But I do have a problem with things like "Chikin", "Beaf" and the like. Not because they are misleading, but because it is tacky. Just don't try to imitate real meat or at the very least make up a better description of the contents. "Legume burger" vs "Beaf burger". The deliberate misspellings of real food just make it "mystery meat". I've been looking at "veggie patties" on menus for years and still don't even know what the primary ingredient is. And that makes it harder for people to "trust".
People seem to blindly eat these patties and what not but it just seems really weird to me that you are eating unidentified goop of vegetables that they are trying to pass off as meat. I guess you could spend time looking it up, but eh.
We already have a problem where the majority of kids can't even connect that a chicken nugget comes out of a chicken. Calling it a "Legume burger" will seem kind of alien but in a few years it would help make the word "Legume" mainstream and familiar and everyone would be better off. I want to easily identify what is in my food if we switch off of meat.
You can tell if you're reading the name, but not verbally. If I was at dinner party and someone asked me if I had tried the "Beaf," there's no way to know. Same with "Chik'n" or whatever it's called.
Naming products that way seems fairly irresponsible.
Or in the context of giving an order you would know. No one is trying to pull a fast one on you. Granted non-english speakers would probably have a harder time figuring it out. Its a problem but not as big of one as you make out.
Rarely do you go into something completely blind and oblivious except for the punctuation of one word.
Now, granted, if you have such an allergy, it's important to make sure anyone preparing food for you is made aware--but in the context of this hypothetical dinner party, if someone is introducing a meat substitute, there's always the possibility that they're going to remain silent in order to gauge their guests' reactions. That's where the real danger is: Guest assumes meat is, in fact, meat; host wishes to see guest's reaction to meat substitute. In such circumstances, the guest isn't going to ask if it's made of a legume because he or she has already made the assumption that it's meat.
Alas, this illustrates that food sensitivities require those of us who suffer from them to remain vigilant.
"What corn?"
"Right there. It's like Chick'n."
"What's in it?"
"Mushrooms."
"Maybe I should try something else."
"They also have Beaf, Porque, Mutt'n, Baquen, Brisk't, and Humane Fleisch."
"What? No vegetarian entrees?"
Not maliciously, of course, but long-term vegetarians get used to saying "chicken," "beef," etc. for fake meats.
Celiacs watch out.
(Seitan is gluten. It's literally just gluten. It is pure gluten from wheat. Feeding it to someone with a gluten allergy or sensitivity would be a great way to cause them serious problems. OTOH, if the Gluten-Free person in your life eats it, you now know something about them as a human being.)
One part of grain that is used for cattle is the grain shaft, which is used for bedding. Not sure if you have a better use for it, but you sure don't want to eat it...even the cows don't eat that (well, they don't each much of it anyway).
Also, make sure you aren't confusing dairy cattle with beef cattle.
Dairy cattle will often eat small amount of grain over longer periods (they live longer), but often consume a larger portion of hog corn and alfalfa. You can read up on "Total Mix Ration" if you want.
Beef cattle, when brought in for finishing will sometimes eat large amounts of grain for a short period.
Do you also want to eat hog corn and alfalfa? You can each hog corn, but the cooking time is pretty high.
Otherwise, there isn't enough grasslands to feed all the cattle that we're raising out there. And the calorie consumed by cows to calories consumed by humans ratio is somewhere like 7 to 1. If we didn't eat meat, we'd have a lot more food available on our hands, not to mention the drastically reduced methane production that threatens our climate as much as all transportation sources put together.
One of the criticisms people have is: it doesn't taste like real meat. To that, I'll say: tastes change. Sure, you (presumably of European descent) and your ancestors have been eating meat for 1000 years; but look at the spread of Indian/Chinese/Mexican places; your ancestors never had those foods! Heck, "chicken tikka" was voted as the 'national dish' of Britain, when a 100 years ago hardly anyone had heard of it!
More people would be vegetarian if restaurants had it as a decent option. Hopefully, these new products will encourage restaurants to expand their veggie menus.
People complain it doesn't taste like meat because they like the taste of meat, and your answer for those people is saying that since some people like some things they never tasted before, that specific food will grow on them?
How did you get from A to B?
(Edit: And obviously I have nothing against vegetarianism. I just don't like your argument here...)
Edit 2: Really with downvotes now? This logic is acceptable to you?
Among people who have gone without meat products for a while, who then taste meat products, either accidentally or on purpose, it is common to be disgusted by the taste, and find it in no way resembles the one they remember.
I've had the same phenomenon related to me by people who radically alter their diet in other ways, such as body builders.
So, ultimately, clinging to meat 'because you prefer the taste' is more about avoiding temporary discomfort, rather than permanent dissatisfaction. Though, of course, it doesn't appear that way until after the fact.
Have you ever tried to put Linux on someone else's computer? Tell them that it's just so much better than Windows, and that they can do everything they currently do with it and that they won't even notice the difference!?
Then you'd be a very dishonest person. Linux is not a drop-in replacement for Windows.
It is far superior, there's no contest there. And in my life, with my skills, I can use my linux systems to do all the things people do with windows, most often more efficiently. But never would I market Linux as a drop-in replacement because then, when I do drop it in, people would tell me they don't like it because it doesn't feel like Windows.
Are you seeing the analogy yet? Let me help you...
I installed Linux on my mom's laptop. I told her it would be very different but that I'm sure she could adapt, and that I'd be able to help her if she runs into trouble. She never had problems with it and only ever needed my help to print things.
By contrast, had I told her it would "all be the same", she'd have been very upset, right?
So why are people trying to get meat-lovers to eat "veggie meat" by telling them it's a replacement for it? Here, just yesterday, in the "What to eat after the apocalypse?" article:
> "You would never know the difference between say, a sausage patty, a veggie sausage patty, and an insect sausage patty. It’s all the same! It’s just the spices."
WTF? Yes, I can taste the difference. Something is wrong with your senses if you can't. That's not to say I dislike the taste, but that you won't get people to eat these things by telling them "close your eyes, pinch your nose, and just imagine you're eating caviar".
I'm finding it very hard to explain my point further. It boggles my mind that people try to sell this stuff by ... lying.
As an example: if you started offering chicken tikka masala in British pubs in the year 1900, you'd be laughed out the door. But today, it is as common as fish 'n chips. It was voted Britain's "national dish", so it's not a case of "some" people liking it. (Another example: the ubiquity of Chinese food places).
My point is: many critics of veggie meat offerings complain that it doesn't "taste like meat", so they can't eat it. But tastes change (c.f. CTM above), and there is no reason to believe that tastes won't change to accommodate Beyond Meat. So this criticism (that it doesn't taste like "real meat") is shortsighted.
No, that's not how it works. Most taste critics of veggie meat are that it doesn't taste good and it doesn't taste like meat, so isn't a suitable replacement for it.
Fish doesn't taste like meat, yet it's ruddy delicious. But fish does not market itself as a drop-in replacement for, say, beef. Fish indeed would be a very poor drop-in replacement for beef and I'm fairly certain people would notice if their burger suddenly tasted like salmon.
I had a similar problem with bread during my keto diet. Everyone doing keto around me kept saying "oh you can do this and that to make a low-carb bread and it's a perfect replacement for it!". Well no, it's bloody not. I'm french and have very high expectations for bread. "Wiping your plate" is not the main feature of bread in a dish.
I love meat (and as a sidenote, I love chicken tikka). I like some veggie "meats" (although I've tasted repugnant ones as well), but they don't replace meat, I'm sorry. Just because they can take the place of meat in the diet of some does not make them suitable for it, and that is why people complain it doesn't "taste like meat". The complaint would not be about the taste if it weren't there to replace something else.
Same things goes for grocery stores. They will sell ANYTHING a large enough chunk of consumers will buy. (I had that with granulated honey, we bought a lot of it, but the store wasn't selling enough to make it worth the shelf space, so it got dropped).
This isn't true. A restaurant isn't some optimal menu allocating machine, you can be profitable enough to continue operating even if you would be even more profitable by changing the menu to offer different or more inclusive options.
But all that doesn't make up for unpalatable food. Our local vegan restaurant makes food I can't eat. Its just too strange. A Reuben that has neither sauerkraut nor beef, nor even proper bread. Pasta that is like glue and tomato paste. Drinks I can't pronounce.
There is a way to make ground beef extremely safe for consumption, without cooking it to oblivion (a.k.a FDA guidelines). That technique is irradiation. Unfortunately, people are very squeamish about the idea of having their meat irradiated, and mandatory labeling laws mean that it's very hard to find irradiated meat.
As a result, people get into the habit of eating overcooked burgers, which further reduces the potential demand for irradiated meat, etc. Shame :(
Otherwise, get a steak, wipe it with an ammonia solution, rinse it, and grind it up yourself. The E.Coli, if it exists, is going to be on the outside of the steak; the ammonia wash will kill the vast majority of it, and you get the benefit of fresher hamburger.
Alternatively, freeze your steak by dipping it in liquid nitrogen. A normal freezer isn't sufficient to kill E.Coli, but a liquid nitrogen dip will do the job. :)
So many corners could be cut without causing problems, but standard irradiation can't kill prions. (They don't have DNA to irradiate.)
So theoretically you reduce the quality of food, increase the profit for the meat packing industry, reduce the frequency of food borne illness, but increase the damage when it does happen.
Irradiation really isn't a cut and dried benefit.
Most foodborne illnesses are actually caused by pathogens on fruits and vegetables [2], especially leafy ones [3]. Of course, this is not a reason to avoid eating produce. The majority of these diseases can be traced to their (human) food handlers, and fruits and vegetables are more likely to be eaten uncooked (or less cooked) than meats.
[1] http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodborne-estimates....
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/attribution-image.html#fo...
[3] http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/attribution-1998-2008.htm...
Remember, every time you eat meat, you are actually eating the body of a former living creature, equipped with eyes, ears, a nose, a tongue, and a complex nervous system capable of integrating its sensations, of feeling pain, fear, and depression. Rememeber, you have no way of guaranteeing (and in fact can actually be almost always certain) that this animal's life wasn't short, miserable, and didn't culminate with an utterly barbaric episode of fear and torture - and then rapid, mechanical dissembly into anonymous pieces, shipped off to your local supermarket or burger shop, its brutal, dirty provenance hidden by a facde of bright and happy advertising. Remember, every time you eat eggs, eat dairy or buy leather, you are participating and endorsing the same thing: industrial scale mistreatment and torture of animals.
Watch the video linked in the article (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRS-kzgoRq0) and remember, if you live in the US, the USDA is a captured regulator, completely toothless to prevent animal torture in slaughterhouses - in fact it simply assists in declaring whatever practices the food industry wants to use as humane. Remember, the majority of states are busy passing laws to make it illegal to film undercover videos in CAFOs and abattoirs, so no one can see what is actually going on (because if people did really see it and really understood they would be disgusted to their core.)
If you live in any other country in the world, the situation is either much worse, or a little, but not much, better.
If you believe that humans should live compassionately and avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering on other feeling, emotional creatures, then go vegan. Not vegetarian, vegan. Don't wait - do it today, not tomorrow. It's the only way that a person can look themselves in the mirror and be truly proud of what they see.
1) Our stable, successfully post-slavery world (which I would argue ours largely is) isn't a world where everyone plays slavery-reenactment videogames and has slave dolls while secretly wishing they could still own the real thing. It's a world where people overwhelmingly concur that slavery was a reprehensible practice, where people are happy that slavery is no longer mainstream, and where the wish to hold slaves is a tawdry, extremely minority desire held only in absolute secret.
Similarly, a stable, successful post-animal cruelty world isn't a world where everyone eats mock meat and secretly wishes they could still eat the real thing. It's a world where people overwhelmingly realise that eating meat was actually always a disgusting, barbaric practice, that lead to countless inhumanity and injustice, and where people are glad that humanity has outgrown it.
2) The abolition of slavery was achieved because a vocal minority of people who cared pushed for it - not because they took the easy, meek route and tried to design slave-replacing mimics - "So servile you won't even notice the difference! Just as beatable but he'll never try and run away!" Similarly, for progress on meat to occur, people need to be supported, encouraged, and pushed to realise when they are behaving badly. That includes pointing out that in encouraging convincing substitutes for barbaric products, you implicitly condone the normative value of consuming that product in the first place, and you don't push people to feel disgust at the idea of even eating animal body parts.
3) Fake meat burgers are to meat-eating what methadone is to heroin. An uncomfortable, temporary fix, undoubtedly necessary, but not admirable or desirable in the long or even mid-term.
People are capable of trying to achieve something because it is right, not because it is easy or more convenient. Pushing people to realise that their behaviour is wrong and needs to change is always going to be harder than saying "hey, just eat this burger, it'll satisfy your need to eat cooked dead bodies, but avoid all those nasty side-effects" - but it's much, much more effective and important. And it does work, even if slowly. I turned vegan because I came across people speaking passionately for its necessity, and I hope everyone who believes in it as much I do has the courage to push equally as hard, even though it is always tempting to make concessions.
Edit: I'd also just like to say that living vegan is honestly not that hard. It's actually very fulfilling because you know that even as you're doing the right thing, you're also making it easier for others to do the right thing too, and as more people turn vegan, it becomes easier and easier for everyone. A nice positive feedback cycle.
Other people have different value systems to you.
Anyway, I'm proud of myself because I know that when I go to buy food, clothes, and much more, I purposefully choose products which do not require that, behind closed doors, untold numbers of feeling, sensate creatures are, among other things, purposefully genetically manipulated to live lives of sickness and deformity, housed in miserable concentration camp-like conditions, and slaughtered barbarically. I'm proud to stand up for the rights of creatures with mental capacities the equivalent of young human babies - and I'm especially proud that I stand up for creatures unable to speak up for themselves, and hence so easy to discount and ignore their suffering and mistreatment.
What are you proud of when you buy and eat meat?
Most of our ancestors had no problems personally killing and consuming animals. Your abhorrence of the practice is not universal.
Still waiting to hear what makes you feel proud when you eat meat.
At minimum, it's _crazy_ to me that McDonald's does not have a veggie burger on the menu. Why?
IMO McDonalds have excelled when it comes to Coffee and marketing the McCafe brand and I don't doubt they could do the same thing with "healthy food choices" I just think the hype around healthy fast food has died for now and McDonalds is not willing to push it until the public demands it again.
That part is OK. I'd be really annoyed if my beef tasted like chicken or vice versa.
The problem is finding something quick and cheap that you can slap into a bun in seconds and sell for a couple bucks that tastes good. I don't care if it "kinda sorta tastes like beef sorta" but I want it to taste good.
The closest I can think of for vegetarian sandwich off the shelf would be some veggie subs I've eaten at fast food sandwich stores and the closest I can think of in theory would be some kind of marinated veggie kabob turned into a sandwich. The labor costs would be killer.
In an alternative direction, I like spinach tamales but I have no idea how to "sandwich-ify it"
I want to eat tofu that kinda pretends to be beef about as much as vegetarians want to eat thinly sliced pork ears that pretend to be lettuce. Make it taste good, not taste like a clone.
I only tried it once.
I see they have some new products now, maybe I'll try those.
Really, the Saul Alinsky-style, revolution talk and identity politics are simply not needed when you are making an alternative to a product.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/taco-bell-beef-laws...
> “What’s exciting to me is that we now have a completely different set of proteins that we can tune,” says Geistlinger. “We’re looking at yeasts and algae, which both have amino acid profiles that are superior to beef. We made something that used yeast from the brewery across the street. It came out like bratwurst!”
There's actual proof that it can make no difference either way in terms of protein quality.
I don't have any emotional attachment to eating meat, and have eaten raw vegan and vegetarian diets before (and found most vegetarian dishes to be tastier than meat-based ones). One of the reasons I don't go in for any special diets anymore is that the health assertions in support of them often end up falling short of supporting evidence.
Were you smirking when you wrote that? Is this some hard to detect form of sarcasm?
Cats need taurine which is not available from plants which is one reason why you shouldn't turn your cat vegetarian.
I've read that vegetarian food (with the right combination of veg. items) can supply all the nutrients that humans need, except for vitamin B12. For B12 you need dairy or meat products, IIRC.
About amino acids and a vegetarian diet: I had read long ago in a book about nutrition, that diets like the staple Indian diet of cereals and pulses (and vegetables too, of course) can supply all the needed amino acids, if the ratio is around 3:1 for cereal:pulse (where pulse == legume (seeds), like dals / beans / lentils / chickpeas / etc.). And that ratio is roughly what people use when eating rice with dal, or rotis/chapatis with dal, for example. This works because the cereals and pulses are both deficient in certain amino acids that humans need, but different ones, so combining them works to give enough of all of them, in the right proportions.
Coincidentally, just today I was reading up on Chinese cuisine, and one link led to another and I looked up Legume in Google and then in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legume
See under the section Nutrition Facts on that page. Interestingly, the article also says that that theory of protein combining - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_combining - is now out of favor, but still says that that ratio works, and gives examples of people in India and other countries eating foods that give that combo - e.g. "Mexican beans with corn tortillas, and the Middle Eastern Hummus (Chickpea spread commonly served with Pita bread) and Mujaddara (A dish consisting mainly of rice and lentils).[7]"
In this connection, the story of Alain Bombard, which I read as a kid, is interesting too - he sailed across the Atlantic in a small boat, with no provisions, catching fish and plankton to survive. I think I read that he researched nutrition needs and decided to get plankton too, because meat / fish do not contain Vitamin C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acid
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2937?fg=&man=&lfacet=...
I don't know if it was genuine or a sad experiment... beef wasn't actually mentioned anywhere so I don't know. The texture was weird and the taste was way off.
---
edit: Wow, voted down because I had a bad veggie burger experience? For the record, here it is..
I know that they can be better, but sometimes people will attribute better taste to something by its' nature, not that it actually tastes better.
I'm a vegetarian, quite a fan of Beyond Meat's "chicken" strips, and very much looking forward to trying a Beast Burger. I've had some shit veggie burgers, too, but if Beyond Meat can do with "beef" anything like what they've done with "chicken", this won't be among them.