8 ms·

When compared to meat there is almost no doubt that Impossible is better for the environment. Impossible has an environmental mission first. Checkout the sust

by be-ez 8y ago

When compared to meat there is almost no doubt that Impossible is better for the environment. Impossible has an environmental mission first. Checkout the sustainability report from 2017 http://www.ift.org/~/media/Food%20Technology/Weekly/IF_SustainabilityReport2017.pdf http://www.ift.org/~/media/Food%20Technology/Weekly/IF_Susta... Or the update from 2018 https://impossiblefoods.com/if-pr/2018-Impact-Update/ https://impossiblefoods.com/if-pr/2018-Impact-Update/

skybrian 8y ago
Why "no doubt"? What's your basis for that? I'm no expert, but I expect land is different in different places. There are different sources of feed. Someone changes a supplier or a farming practice, and it changes a number in a spreadsheet, and you'll get a different answer. Accounting gets complicated enough with money. When you're doing science it's much more difficult. This sounds like the sort of thing that scientists and economists can debate for decades. I'm certainly not going to trust some unsourced numbers in a press release.
- be-ez 8y ago
  It sounds like you didn't read the report or check the references on page 26. I recommend reading this paper and coming to your own conclusion about "almost no doubt". Within sustainability science, there is little debate about the lack of efficiency to produce protein via cows. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189029 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
  - skybrian 8y ago
    That's more impressive, and yet, as a non-expert, I still don't know how to evaluate whether the calculation is bug-free. Do you? I guess I'd have to track down all the references and build my own spreadsheet? There are some spreadsheets listed in the references, but it seems like a complicated task. Just to nit-pick one little detail, it seems to treat all land the same: "Significant decreases in land occupation also follow from a shift away from animal-based foodstuffs. The VEG and VGN occupy 70% and 79% less land than the MUD, respectively (VEG = -63% and VGN = -74% for isocaloric diet comparison)." But, prime farmland and grazing for grass-fed beef aren't the same, so adding them up and taking a percentage seems dubious. (I'm also skeptical of estimates with no margin of error.) Given that no single scientific paper is definitive (you need to read the literature) I don't see how to come to a conclusion on any of this without a whole lot more work than I'm going to put into it for an online discussion.
    - be-ez 8y ago
      The original comment wrote off the report as "some unsourced numbers in a press release" - I aimed to show it was more than that. Impossible has quite the academic rigor. Agreed - there's plenty of room to interpret the specific numbers.
    - norswap 8y ago
      Juse because "we can't be absolutely sure" doesn't mean the evidence doesn't point in a direction. There doesn't seem to be ground to overwhelmingly doubt to evidence to the point where the conclusions are radically reversed. It's a known cognitive bias (assuming you don't know what you're doing) or sophism (if you do). See: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GrDqnMjhqoxiqpQPw/the-proper-use-of-humility https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GrDqnMjhqoxiqpQPw/the-proper...
      - skybrian 8y ago
        While I don't have a basis for saying the most common take on things is wrong, the way I think of this is: what's the likelihood that we'll see a new study that proves the opposite of what most non-experts (or even experts) currently believe? In the case of nutrition, economics, and ecology, my rough answer is "rather high". (Consider Piketty and spreadsheet errors.) And answering this question combines all of them. If being right matters, I'd hedge my bets. Most people aren't heavily invested in Impossible Foods, so bet-hedging basically means letting them do their thing and seeing how it turns out. I look forward to trying their new product. I'm just quibbling with "no doubt". Just like being an expert in most subjects is unnecessary, being doubt-free is unnecessary for most people in most subjects, and I think most conversations would go better if the true believers (and radical cynics) backed off a bit and acknowledged uncertainty.
        ace_of_spades 8y ago
        While I take your point that there is always some uncertainty involved sometimes it is just not that productive to reinforce doubt... otherwise we would never move forward. Look at climate change... are we 100% certain? Of course not but there is overwhelming evidence that is just prudent to act even for the faint possibility of being wrong. Same here... logic (how could be creating a living thing to slaughter it and eat it be more effecient than processing and eating the feed itself? That would mean raising an animal with all its (unnecessary) complexity was more efficient than our focused industrial processes...) and evidence (e.g., scientific studies and calculations) very much point to the direction that production of meat alternatives would be much more environmentally friendly (at scale). I don’t think this is so much about “true believers” but there is simply a lot of evidence pointing in the direction that this is really something that could improve the world in many dimensions. But you are certainly right that like any other pursuit this should be done dillegiently and with care. If you have specific criticism of some evidence that should be discussed... However, there is no need to be overly sceptic and lay bricks on the road if there is no credible evidence pointing in that direction (In this case baseline skepticism doesn’t seem to hold up against the available evidence at this point). Change will be difficult and reinforcing doubt might delay the development and roll out of viable products at high costs to environment and animals.
  - LoSboccacc 8y ago
    Sure it's less efficient when compared to high protein crops, but there are vaste acres of land that can't be farmed and can only sustain grazing animals (and then some of those are more feed efficient than others, say, cows vs sheep)
- chefgoldbluum 8y ago
  The burger is made primarily from Soy. Soy accounts for 2/3 of global protein feed. Humans eating directly from livestock's primary food source is likely to be much more efficient at a global scale.
  - thrillgore 8y ago
    Your parent is employed by Impossible Foods based on their post history.
    - ilikehurdles 8y ago
      This appears to be right. It’s a valid disclaimer to note in such a discussion.
    - be-ez 8y ago
      Your right I probably should have disclosed that I previously worked there but it's fairly clear from my post history so I figured it didn't matter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - macintux 8y ago
        Now we have to go back and look at everyone’s post history in every thread?
        cjhopman 8y ago
        Only if you want to argue about the person rather than about the points they are making.
  - Jedd 8y ago
    > Soy accounts for 2/3 of global protein feed. This may be the current case, but it doesn't, indeed shouldn't, be so. It just happens that in the US, CAFO's are the best (financially) way to raise beef cattle. In any case, livestock's primary food source should never have been soy beans.
  - 8y ago
toasterlovin 8y ago
There's a really handy way to estimate the amount of resources that go into (and thus, the environmental impact of) making a product: Its price. When these are significantly cheaper than beef, then it'll be safe to state categorically that they are better for the environment. Until then, it's mostly a game of "pay attention to these metrics that favor my product and ignore the metrics which favor the competition".
- cwyers 8y ago
  This is only true if there are no significant externalities.
- be-ez 8y ago
  The price of beef does not include the environmental impact so I'm not sure this is a good indicator of the impact of making a product. Beef/Milk in the USA is also subsidized...
  - ajross 8y ago
    Beef is expensive though! I don't think people are reading the grandparent post carefully enough. I think the point is correct. Obviously at the margins there are costs to environmental impact that may or may not be realized in consumer pricing and there's lots to argue about on the regulatory side. But in general, if you have to "equivalent" products shipped and produced in bulk, and one costs 4x as much as another (roughly where "beef vs. soy protein" lands for the consumer), it's a really good bet that the cheaper one involved less energy to produce.
    - gbear605 8y ago
      Or there are significant fixed costs that have not been amortized - for example, R&D for an entirely new type of burger. It’s very possible that the materials cost (growing ingredients + manufacturing) of the impossible burger is less than the materials costs of a beef burger while still costing more in a store.
soperj 8y ago
At least mention that you work for the company.
- be-ez 8y ago
  Your right I should have included the disclaimer that I previously worked there.
  - throwaway082729 8y ago
    Why is it his right?
    - snakeboy 8y ago
      It looks like a typo. "You're right" was intended, not "Your right".
    - hnbroseph 8y ago
      Because his left is currently indisposed, of course!
  - scoot 8y ago
    > I should have included the disclaimer that I previously worked there Or perhaps a disclosure. A disclaimer is sort of the opposite: "I believe X about company Y. Disclosure: I work(ed) there, so could be biased." "I believe X about company Y. Disclaimer: I have never worked there, so could be completely wrong."
    - rpwverheij 8y ago
      good to know for this non native speaker. thank you
jampekka 8y ago
Does this mean the company will sell it for as cheap as possible regardless of profit? And release all IP of course? If not, the purpose is to make money and the "mission" is just marketing BS.
- albntomat0 8y ago
  At the very least, they have investors[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_Foods#Financing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_Foods#Financing
- aey 8y ago
  That’s not really true. They would need change their model to meat based burgers after they gain market share for their mission to be BS. Profit has nothing to do with it. What you are proposing would prevent them from building a healthy company that can maximize market share and have the largest possible beneficial impact on the environment. I want them to drive all the meat based competitors out of business.
  - jampekka 8y ago
    Why does it have to be this company maximizing market share? Releasing the IP would allow others to do that as well, likely increasing the overall meatless share.
    - aey 8y ago
      I don’t know since I am not the CEO or even in the industry. Maybe open source IP model would fail to get critical mass. Maybe the best path forward is to get Burger King as an investor. If they maximize profits while still being committed to an environmentaly friendly meat replacement, that doesn’t mean they are limiting their impact in any way. It’s just as likely they are maximizing their impact. I personally don’t care how much money they make, but I do care about the environment and animal rights.
      - ianai 8y ago

by be-ez 8y ago

skybrian 8y ago

Why "no doubt"? What's your basis for that? I'm no expert, but I expect land is different in different places. There are different sources of feed. Someone changes a supplier or a farming practice, and it changes a number in a spreadsheet, and you'll get a different answer. Accounting gets complicated enough with money. When you're doing science it's much more difficult. This sounds like the sort of thing that scientists and economists can debate for decades. I'm certainly not going to trust some unsourced numbers in a press release.

be-ez 8y ago
It sounds like you didn't read the report or check the references on page 26. I recommend reading this paper and coming to your own conclusion about "almost no doubt". Within sustainability science, there is little debate about the lack of efficiency to produce protein via cows. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189029 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- skybrian 8y ago
  That's more impressive, and yet, as a non-expert, I still don't know how to evaluate whether the calculation is bug-free. Do you? I guess I'd have to track down all the references and build my own spreadsheet? There are some spreadsheets listed in the references, but it seems like a complicated task. Just to nit-pick one little detail, it seems to treat all land the same: "Significant decreases in land occupation also follow from a shift away from animal-based foodstuffs. The VEG and VGN occupy 70% and 79% less land than the MUD, respectively (VEG = -63% and VGN = -74% for isocaloric diet comparison)." But, prime farmland and grazing for grass-fed beef aren't the same, so adding them up and taking a percentage seems dubious. (I'm also skeptical of estimates with no margin of error.) Given that no single scientific paper is definitive (you need to read the literature) I don't see how to come to a conclusion on any of this without a whole lot more work than I'm going to put into it for an online discussion.
  - be-ez 8y ago
    The original comment wrote off the report as "some unsourced numbers in a press release" - I aimed to show it was more than that. Impossible has quite the academic rigor. Agreed - there's plenty of room to interpret the specific numbers.
  - norswap 8y ago
    Juse because "we can't be absolutely sure" doesn't mean the evidence doesn't point in a direction. There doesn't seem to be ground to overwhelmingly doubt to evidence to the point where the conclusions are radically reversed. It's a known cognitive bias (assuming you don't know what you're doing) or sophism (if you do). See: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GrDqnMjhqoxiqpQPw/the-proper-use-of-humility https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GrDqnMjhqoxiqpQPw/the-proper...
    - skybrian 8y ago
      While I don't have a basis for saying the most common take on things is wrong, the way I think of this is: what's the likelihood that we'll see a new study that proves the opposite of what most non-experts (or even experts) currently believe? In the case of nutrition, economics, and ecology, my rough answer is "rather high". (Consider Piketty and spreadsheet errors.) And answering this question combines all of them. If being right matters, I'd hedge my bets. Most people aren't heavily invested in Impossible Foods, so bet-hedging basically means letting them do their thing and seeing how it turns out. I look forward to trying their new product. I'm just quibbling with "no doubt". Just like being an expert in most subjects is unnecessary, being doubt-free is unnecessary for most people in most subjects, and I think most conversations would go better if the true believers (and radical cynics) backed off a bit and acknowledged uncertainty.
      - ace_of_spades 8y ago
        While I take your point that there is always some uncertainty involved sometimes it is just not that productive to reinforce doubt... otherwise we would never move forward. Look at climate change... are we 100% certain? Of course not but there is overwhelming evidence that is just prudent to act even for the faint possibility of being wrong. Same here... logic (how could be creating a living thing to slaughter it and eat it be more effecient than processing and eating the feed itself? That would mean raising an animal with all its (unnecessary) complexity was more efficient than our focused industrial processes...) and evidence (e.g., scientific studies and calculations) very much point to the direction that production of meat alternatives would be much more environmentally friendly (at scale). I don’t think this is so much about “true believers” but there is simply a lot of evidence pointing in the direction that this is really something that could improve the world in many dimensions. But you are certainly right that like any other pursuit this should be done dillegiently and with care. If you have specific criticism of some evidence that should be discussed... However, there is no need to be overly sceptic and lay bricks on the road if there is no credible evidence pointing in that direction (In this case baseline skepticism doesn’t seem to hold up against the available evidence at this point). Change will be difficult and reinforcing doubt might delay the development and roll out of viable products at high costs to environment and animals.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  Sure it's less efficient when compared to high protein crops, but there are vaste acres of land that can't be farmed and can only sustain grazing animals (and then some of those are more feed efficient than others, say, cows vs sheep)
chefgoldbluum 8y ago
The burger is made primarily from Soy. Soy accounts for 2/3 of global protein feed. Humans eating directly from livestock's primary food source is likely to be much more efficient at a global scale.
- thrillgore 8y ago
  Your parent is employed by Impossible Foods based on their post history.
  - ilikehurdles 8y ago
    This appears to be right. It’s a valid disclaimer to note in such a discussion.
  - be-ez 8y ago
    Your right I probably should have disclosed that I previously worked there but it's fairly clear from my post history so I figured it didn't matter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - macintux 8y ago
      Now we have to go back and look at everyone’s post history in every thread?
      - cjhopman 8y ago
        Only if you want to argue about the person rather than about the points they are making.
- Jedd 8y ago
  > Soy accounts for 2/3 of global protein feed. This may be the current case, but it doesn't, indeed shouldn't, be so. It just happens that in the US, CAFO's are the best (financially) way to raise beef cattle. In any case, livestock's primary food source should never have been soy beans.
- 8y ago

toasterlovin 8y ago

There's a really handy way to estimate the amount of resources that go into (and thus, the environmental impact of) making a product: Its price. When these are significantly cheaper than beef, then it'll be safe to state categorically that they are better for the environment. Until then, it's mostly a game of "pay attention to these metrics that favor my product and ignore the metrics which favor the competition".

cwyers 8y ago
This is only true if there are no significant externalities.
be-ez 8y ago
The price of beef does not include the environmental impact so I'm not sure this is a good indicator of the impact of making a product. Beef/Milk in the USA is also subsidized...
- ajross 8y ago
  Beef is expensive though! I don't think people are reading the grandparent post carefully enough. I think the point is correct. Obviously at the margins there are costs to environmental impact that may or may not be realized in consumer pricing and there's lots to argue about on the regulatory side. But in general, if you have to "equivalent" products shipped and produced in bulk, and one costs 4x as much as another (roughly where "beef vs. soy protein" lands for the consumer), it's a really good bet that the cheaper one involved less energy to produce.
  - gbear605 8y ago
    Or there are significant fixed costs that have not been amortized - for example, R&D for an entirely new type of burger. It’s very possible that the materials cost (growing ingredients + manufacturing) of the impossible burger is less than the materials costs of a beef burger while still costing more in a store.

soperj 8y ago

At least mention that you work for the company.

be-ez 8y ago
Your right I should have included the disclaimer that I previously worked there.
- throwaway082729 8y ago
  Why is it his right?
  - snakeboy 8y ago
    It looks like a typo. "You're right" was intended, not "Your right".
  - hnbroseph 8y ago
    Because his left is currently indisposed, of course!
- scoot 8y ago
  > I should have included the disclaimer that I previously worked there Or perhaps a disclosure. A disclaimer is sort of the opposite: "I believe X about company Y. Disclosure: I work(ed) there, so could be biased." "I believe X about company Y. Disclaimer: I have never worked there, so could be completely wrong."
  - rpwverheij 8y ago
    good to know for this non native speaker. thank you

jampekka 8y ago

Does this mean the company will sell it for as cheap as possible regardless of profit? And release all IP of course? If not, the purpose is to make money and the "mission" is just marketing BS.

albntomat0 8y ago
At the very least, they have investors[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_Foods#Financing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_Foods#Financing
aey 8y ago
That’s not really true. They would need change their model to meat based burgers after they gain market share for their mission to be BS. Profit has nothing to do with it. What you are proposing would prevent them from building a healthy company that can maximize market share and have the largest possible beneficial impact on the environment. I want them to drive all the meat based competitors out of business.
- jampekka 8y ago
  Why does it have to be this company maximizing market share? Releasing the IP would allow others to do that as well, likely increasing the overall meatless share.
  - aey 8y ago
    I don’t know since I am not the CEO or even in the industry. Maybe open source IP model would fail to get critical mass. Maybe the best path forward is to get Burger King as an investor. If they maximize profits while still being committed to an environmentaly friendly meat replacement, that doesn’t mean they are limiting their impact in any way. It’s just as likely they are maximizing their impact. I personally don’t care how much money they make, but I do care about the environment and animal rights.
    - ianai 8y ago