12 ms·
Tyson Foods CEO: The Future of Food Might Be Meatless
- intrasight 10y agoSeems a certainty to me, assuming that eventually the cost of the carbon footprint gets passed down to consumers.
- arcticbull 10y agoCarbon footprint for meat is significantly higher because you have to grow the plans and feed it to the animals, and moving up a trophic level is usually ~10% efficient. It's much more efficient to consume the plants directly.
- jimmywanger 10y ago> It's much more efficient to consume the plants directly. We can't consume most plants directly, and the ones that we do, we consume only a tiny minority of the plant (most of the time).
- arcticbull 10y agoSo do many of the animals ^_^ at least it's my understanding that corn stalks are fairly useless as animal feed, and due to subsidies, corn is the primary feedstock for animals and humans alike in the US.
- sanswork 10y agoRight so we replace the production of the plants we can't consume directly with ones we can. It's not like we're forced to produce non-consumable plants. We do it because we need to feed the consumable animals.
- jimmywanger 10y ago> we replace the production of the plants You make that sound like swapping out a machine on a production line. For some places, you simply can't grow plants that we can consume directly. A lot of land doesn't receive enough water/sun, has poor soil, or is on such a steep slop that cultivating it is not worth the effort. The most efficient use of that land would be grazing land. As for being "forced to produce non-consumable plants", we are. We can't eat the entire bell pepper plant. We're producing stems, leaves, and roots as byproducts, things that animals actually can eat.
- sanswork 10y agoRight so that land becomes unproductive land and can return to its natural state or be used for other needs. And that is fine since we don't need as much farm land to sustain a non-meat society. You're intentionally confusing waste material with primary purpose. That's dishonest. If we could feed all the livestock we need with waste material we would since it would be a lot cheaper for the producers.
- jimmywanger 10y ago> Right so that land becomes unproductive land Why? It's perfectly productive once you let some goats on that land and then eat the goats. > And that is fine since we don't need as much farm land to sustain a non-meat society. Should we switch to a completely potato agriculture then? If your argument against meat is waste, then we should go towards whatever crop has the highest yield per acre. Why waste all that acreage, water, and fertilizer on kale and broccoli? > You're intentionally confusing waste material with primary purpose. That's dishonest. You're missing the point, which is that we're by necessity creating all this other material that can be used to feed animals as a necessary byproduct of creating the grains to feed the animals. The proportions don't work out as neatly as you think. > If we could feed all the livestock we need with waste material we would since it would be a lot cheaper for the producers. Incorrect. On a grain diet, livestock fatten more quickly and are ready for the market sooner. Pasture raised livestock is a thing, and requires less capital and investment. It just takes longer for the livestock to be ready for market and the meat is tougher and gamier.
- xexers 10y ago> and the ones that we do, we consume only a tiny minority of the plant (most of the time) So do the animals. The soy and wheat we feed the animals is a tiny portion of the plant... so what? If we have 1000 calories of wheat, it's better to feed that to a human, than a cow; The cow will only produce 100 calories of meat for the same grains that we would have eaten.
- jimmywanger 10y ago> So do the animals. Not really. Cows, goats, sheep raised somewhat naturally eat grass and leaves and twigs, things we cannot digest. They can also eat the parts of the tomato that we don't eat, such as the stalks and leaves. If you're talking about feeling animals with grains, the way we grow grains is even more problematic, with huge amounts of petroleum and water inputs.
- xexers 10y ago> Cows, goats, sheep raised somewhat naturally eat grass and leaves and twigs, things we cannot digest That's correct. The problem is, 99% of our animals in america are not raised that way [1]. They are raised eating soy, wheat, and corn. Grass is more expensive, so it's not used. [1]: https://farmforward.com/ending-factory-farming/ https://farmforward.com/ending-factory-farming/
- jimmywanger 10y ago> Grass is more expensive, so it's not used. Nit: grass is less profitable. The expense of grass is nothing, but it takes longer to raise the livestock to pasture weight and the meat is less marbled and gamier in texture, which drives the price down.
- maerF0x0 10y agoCertain lands cannot support human edible plants, but can be used for grazing. Suddenly non-productive land can be producing meat.
- arcticbull 10y agoFair enough, I don't think it has to be all or nothing, and I think that the percentage of meat consumed can and should drop dramatically.
- agitator 10y agoGenetically Engineer the plants to grow in those conditions, boom.
- maerF0x0 10y ago"Genetically engineer plants to grow in unideal conditions, and then formulate those into recipes that taste like cows" sounds more difficult than "Grow cows, eat cows"
- brohoolio 10y agoInteresting to see if the company actually shifts it's culture. My wife is vegetarian so I'm exposed to quite a bit of different sources of veggie protein. My concern is that the fake meat stuff is actually kind of expensive compared to meat. If it was cheaper I can see more folks move in that direction.
- muninn_ 10y agoI'm willing to bet that this is for two reasons: 1. It's expensive because people with more money are more likely to be vegetarian. 2. We don't pay for the true cost of meat, i.e. green house gas emissions, water usage, transportation costs, etc....
- nine_k 10y agoHow is water and transportation not paid for?
- rflrob 10y agoIn a lot of the Western US, water usage is based on decades-old interstate compacts, where future water rights are based on a use-it-or-lose-it system. I'm not necessarily in favor of the extreme unregulated end of the free market either, but the system as it stands seems to me to be a market distortion that incentivizes people towards heavy water-usage activities (ranching, raising of water-heavy feed crops like alfalfa), rather than what a purely free market would apportion. See, for example, https://projects.propublica.org/killing-the-colorado/story/wasting-water-out-west-use-it-or-lose-it https://projects.propublica.org/killing-the-colorado/story/w...
- tekklloneer 10y agoMassive government subsidies and tax breaks. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it, but it does make the playing field unfair.
- arcticbull 10y agoWhat isn't paid for is the cost of feed. Corn is the major foodstuff of both birds and, sadly, commercial cows. Corn is subsidized to below the cost of production by the US government. Transportation is not paid for, really, because the highways are maintained without usage fees.
- nunez 10y agoif they can make affordable plant based chicken that's as tasty and protein-packed as real chicken and veg beef that's as good as real beef, then I'm 100% in. the biggest problem with non-meat foods (for me) has always been with their macros. I can get 32g of protein with nearly zero fat or carbs from 4oz of chicken for less than $2 a serving. Last I checked, this was not possible with alternative food.
- frozenport 10y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_duck https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_duck
- agrajag 10y agoMy wife is vegetarian and I eat meat analogues typically one meal a day. For almost all applications Mock duck, seitan, soy-based chicken are all inferior substitutes for their meat counterparts. They're less flexible when cooking, don't absorb flavors as well, and are generally either chewier or stringier than real meat. I have a lot of hope for lab-grown meat, but there's still a lot of progress to be made for meat analogues.
- sdenton4 10y agoA big part of those 'macros' is farm subsidies. Meat is artificially cheap in the US. Kind of ridiculously so.
- MK999 10y agoCan you quantify that at all? How much of a discount is there baked in due to subsidies?
- sdenton4 10y agoHere's a list written by a guy who wrote a book on the economics of meat production in the US. (Yeah, it's on the PETA web site, but somehow the 'i just really like big Macs' crowd doesn't get around to doing research on food in the same way...) http://www.peta.org/living/food/10-things-wish-everyone-knew-meat-dairy-industries/ http://www.peta.org/living/food/10-things-wish-everyone-knew... His top-line number is that a $5 burger would cost $13 without various subsidies, funded by $38B or year in subsidies to the meat industry. I also found claims that removing subsidies would eventually lower prices by allowing competition from countries without subsidies. But my guess is there's a limit to bottom price globally given current tech, regulations, tariffs, and land availability. And it's difficult to know where that is relative to subsidizes process in the US...
- sethbannon 10y agoAnimal agriculture seems to me like one of those things that in 50 to 100 years people will look back on with bewilderment. "You mean you birthed whole animals, let them grow for two years, fed them all the while, just to kill them, chop up their remains, and ship that to people?" Plant based protein and maybe even more so cultured/clean meat (e.g. http://www.memphismeats.com/ http://www.memphismeats.com/) seem likely to totally replace how we do things now. Disclosure: I'm an investor in Memphis Meats
- mynameishere 10y agoYeah, on the same token I'm totally mystified that people used horses to pull plows. What the heck were they thinking?
- arcticbull 10y agoI would argue the difference here is we could just, you know, eat the plants but we don't want to. 36% of US corn goes to feed animals for meat and dairy (3%-40% efficient). [1] There would be significantly more food to go around if the plants were just eaten directly. It would be more like if there were plows at the time that operated on solar but nobody wanted to use them, and instead, decided to tie horses to the plows because they would rather. Had a hard time working farm subsidies into the analogy. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-c...
- cmdrfred 10y agoIf we all lived in 3 foot by 7 foot cubes it would cost a great deal less to heat our homes as well. Just because a more optimal way to do things exist doesn't mean anyone actually wants to do it. I enjoy eating meat, thus I will continue to do so.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- 10y ago
- Koshkin 10y agoThere will always be exceptions. Meatless? Not for animals in the wild. Not for hunters, either.
- adamnemecek 10y agoNow that this has been rectified, what does this correction change going forward?
- Koshkin 10y agoOther than that the future of food will never be meatless? Well, nothing, of course.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sanswork 10y agoIt's possible we get to a time where hunting animals is seen as completely socially unacceptable. As for animals in the wild it's expected you understand that they are referring to humans.
- wnevets 10y agoAccording to random people on the internet plant based protein isn't as good your for cat as animal based protein. Why couldn't that be the same for humans?
- nilved 10y agoAm I right that this is sarcasm? In case I am wrong about this being sarcasm, the reason cats need to eat meat to survive is that they don't naturally synthesize taurine like most mammals.
- arcticbull 10y agoWell, you see, one is a cat. The other's people. But more seriously, cats evolved as carnivores and humans as omnivores.
- kevin_thibedeau 10y agoCats are obligate carnivores. They can't synthesize all the nutrients they need from a plant diet.
- AstralStorm 10y agoActually neither are humans, unless there is some viable way to synthesise B12 in the intestine. It is likely that early humans were insectivores too. Or there was some way to get B12 synthesising bacteria up in the duodenum.
- marak830 10y agoI'm particularly interested in vat grown meat. As a consumer, I do care about the footprint of my meat based protein, although I don't want to give up eating meat. As a chef, if they can get marbling in, I'm excited for the different styles we could create. Note: a plant based reactor (sorry I couldn't remember the term, the seed for the meat to grow with), has been mentioned a few times as becoming close to ready, which would bring the costs down a lot.
- it_learnses 10y agoyep, vat interests me as well since I am not sure of the amount of carbohydrates in plant based proteins. Lentils and beans for example have good amount of protein, but also tend to have a lot of carbs.
- specialist 10y agoPrice competition from vat grown meat will crater public support government subsidies for farming and ranching. Much like solar etc tanks coal. Ranching, in particular, will become niche / artisan endeavors.
- marak830 10y agoI don't see the problem with this, considering the methane output and grain requirements. (Note my family use to run a large cattle fa in Australia, I can see how this would effect them. )
- SeanBoocock 10y agoWhat heartens me is that the shift towards plant-base protein can be gradual while still having a large impact. Ingredients like ground beef make up the majority(?) [1] of beef sold and there are already good plant based simulacra on the market [2] with more coming soon. I have my doubts we'll see anything marketable and cost competitive that could compete with larger cuts of meat in the next decade, but I could see a near-term future where Taco Bell is using a 50/50 beef/plant "meat" in their food with that ratio shifting away from animal products with time. [1]: http://meat.tamu.edu/ground-beef-labeling/ http://meat.tamu.edu/ground-beef-labeling/ [2]: http://beyondmeat.com/products/view/beefy-crumble http://beyondmeat.com/products/view/beefy-crumble
- dawnerd 10y agoI thought taco bell and now subway were only just 50% meat. I'm sure they'd go to more filler if they could legally label it as "meat"
- notyourwork 10y agoYou are missing the point of OPs post. The premise would be that we as a society would be accepting of meat alternatives and a company like Taco bell may market this way.
- jimmywanger 10y ago> there are already good plant based simulacra I'd have to disagree on that. I've had most fake meats on the market. The closest that comes to real meat is Quorn, and that's only for poultry and such. There's just something off about most meat substitutes.
- mbrameld 10y agoI agree that there's nothing out there that can simulate a grilled steak, but I don't think you're going to notice the difference between real ground beef and the fake stuff in a Taco Bell taco.
- accountface 10y agoThe future of food needs to be meatless.
- alrs 10y agoI'll never go meatless, the health benefits of meat are too great.
- chc 10y agoIs this meant to be sarcasm or is this actually something you believe about nutrition?
- alrs 10y agoI am not utilizing sarcasm.
- nkozyra 10y agoCan you elucidate? What can't be substituted / augmented otherwise?
- alrs 10y agohttp://www.ketotic.org/ http://www.ketotic.org/ advocates my position better than I could.
- AstralStorm 10y agoWith what interventional long term studies?
- xexers 10y agoThat's funny... I went vegetarian for the health benefits alone.
- alrs 10y agoThe ethics of vegetarianism are sound, but the health benefits far less so. https://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/cardiobrief/63427 https://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/cardiobrief/63427
- 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mc32 10y agoDefinitely forward looking to invest in food intake in general rather than just meat. That being said, I thought the future of meat itself was "lab meat" i.e produced in growing vats, rather than on farms. The other thing is balance, if your source of plant protein is skewed to one thing like Soy, there is the risk of the body not being used to the other things in Soy --it's not like Chinese when they eat anything other than rice, have the protein as the main dish or portion --it's mostly a side dish and not the main source of nutrition.
- paulcole 10y agoAll it's going to take is one large-scale prion disease outbreak in the United States and all fast food will be meatless. I'd be willing to wager it'll happen in my lifetime.
- maerF0x0 10y agoThis is just shareholder value. Scaling meat has so many problems, but if you can sell fake meat at meat prices suddenly there is so much more profit margin to be returned to shareholders. I do not believe for 1 second that Tyson cares about health, environments, farmers or the well being of animals. > "We just got to the point last year where the consumer is demanding [the elimination of antibiotics in the food chain] and wants transparency." The only reason your animals need antibiotics is because they're living in overcrowded cells eating the wrong food (they're ruminants, corn/soy is not their food), covered in fecal matter etc. etc. A small number of animals per acre , lots of sunlight (ultraviolet light) and proper waste disposal (bugs, rains, etc).
- AVTizzle 10y ago>"I do not believe for 1 second that Tyson cares about health, environments, farmers or the well being of animals." I haven't followed Tyson - is there something they've done in recent history that has particularly contributed to the skepticism? Or is this more general "all corporations-are-evil" skepticism?
- jaredklewis 10y ago> I do not believe for 1 second that Tyson cares about health, environments, farmers or the well being of animals. In which case we should all marvel at the virtues of capitalism and the free market, which take our selfish desires, and convert them into environmentally and communally beneficial actions.
- kbos87 10y agoThere's an important difference in conviction and intent between this headline and what he said.
- brightsize 10y agoThere's of course the other "meat": insects. "Because they are cold-blooded, insects are very efficient at converting feed into protein (crickets, for example, need 12 times less feed than cattle, four times less feed than sheep, and half as much feed as pigs and broiler chickens to produce the same amount of protein)."[0] I'm plenty squeamish but might just be willing to try mealworm flour. Other ideas: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130514-edible-insects-entomophagy-science-food-bugs-beetles/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130514-edibl... [0] http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf
- colept 10y agoI have tried Crickets and while insects are efficient to raise - their feet are like small toothpicks.
- mark_l_watson 10y agoThe cost of meat is kept artificially low in the USA because bribed/corrupt polititions keep giving meat producers free or cheap water grants, etc. Ironically, in another article thread on HN it was mentioned that it would cost $50B to repair dams in the USA, and I think that is about what the government gives to meat producers. Solve the epidemic corruption of public elected officials and a lot of other problems would be resolved.
- bane 10y agoI think this is pretty cool. I don't think it will eliminate meat from diets, but it offers more variety and choices. Most plant-base meat substitutes are pretty terrible. But I'm not even sure why they exist, plants are already pretty great. Consider Chipotle's sofritas, lots of people who swear by meat love it...and that's because it tastes good. My meal tonight also had no meat in it (another tofu dish), but used some fermentation of the soybeans (Doenjang [1]) to create an incredibly savory and rich soup stock. I'll probably eat a burger tomorrow, but I don't see these other foods as penalty foods and I'll often choose them over the meat foods because they taste good, not for any other reason. It's a bit like buying a Tesla, it's a no compromises great car, not a penalty box like the market tried to push for years. Great vegetarian food doesn't even have to be labelled as vegetarian, it just has to be great food and people will choose to eat it. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doenjang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doenjang
- cholantesh 10y agoIgnoring the arguments for taste (subjective), animal welfare (agreed to a large extent), and environmental impact (also agreed), there's still the issue of protein bioavailability. Plant-based protein is simply inferior in this regard. I still eat a mostly plant-based diet and look forward to the day when that parity problem is solved. Incidentally, if anyone has a suggestion for an egg substitute that doesn't taste like crap and has similar nutritional content, I'm all ears. Eggs are pretty ethically dubious in my book, too.