8 ms·

Very encouraging news for our environment to see a meat producer actively debut a non-meat product that will actively take away from meat sales. Reminds me of K

Very encouraging news for our environment to see a meat producer actively debut a non-meat product that will actively take away from meat sales. Reminds me of Kodak. Where Kodak did not embrace digital early enough, and then many years later was bankrupt. I think that’s a fanciful comparison. More likely they worked the numbers and realize two things. First, the people most likely to buy meatless products weren’t part of their existing customer base, so there is no cannibalization. Second, that even if they don’t sell at meaningful volume, it’s fantastic PR. After all, when there are people so unaware of global trends and so wrapped up in their own desires and wishes that they honestly see meatless burgers as a harbinger of global change at scale... it would be crazy to leave the PR well untapped.

drdrey 8y ago
As a meat eater, I would absolutely replace some of the meats I buy with meatless products if I liked them.
- hervature 8y ago
  As a consumer, I would absolutely replace some of the consumables I buy with perfect substitutes if I liked them. This is exactly what economists assume.
  - taneq 8y ago
    "If I liked them" is a much lower bar than "perfect substitute".
    - dane-pgp 8y ago
      And there's possibly an "even if they were more expensive" dimension to such a claim too.
      - hervature 8y ago
        I'll give you that, but if you look at the price of Beyond Burgers and a gourmet burger at the grocery store, they are equivalent. Also to your parent, likeability is orthogonal to being a substitute. You may much prefer Ferrari (or even horse for that matter) to your Toyota, that doesn't mean you would replace it.
    - grenoire 8y ago
      The economic definition of a perfect substitute is less about the literal definition of the phrase, but more about the way in which OP substituted it in (ha!)
- Kyragem 8y ago
  Try the impossible burger
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  There are already quite a lot of decidedly decent meat substitutes on the market. They often don't taste much like the meat they are imitating, but are flavorful in their own right. Morningstar Farms in particular has a pretty large selection of burger patties.
dkarl 8y ago
I doubt PR is what they're after, since they're selling it under a brand that has long sold faux meats, which they just acquired last year. People won't know the connection unless they read the business news. I just did a little more searching, and they acquired the Field Roast brand (which makes vegetarian sausages) last year as well. I'm guessing their research tells them that these brands are going to become more valuable in the future.
tdb7893 8y ago
I don't know. There are environmental and ethical issues with the current animal agricultural practices so as it becomes easier to be vegetarian more people will switch. I think it's a long way off being truly mainstream but the easier it becomes to switch the more people will. Also meat eaters will still get these sometimes if they are good.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  It's actually quite mainstream in some places in the world -- not only places that have been that way for a long time like large parts of India, but a large fraction of college students in Germany are vegetarian or vegan.
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    India is not a monolith, it’s more than a billion incredibly diverse people, the majority of whom are neither vegan nor vegetarian. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43581122 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43581122 The biggest myth, of course, is that India is a largely vegetarian country. But that's not the case at all. Past "non-serious" estimates have suggested that more than a third of Indians ate vegetarian food. If you go by three large-scale government surveys, 23%-37% of Indians are estimated to be vegetarian. By itself this is nothing remarkably revelatory. But new research by US-based anthropologist Balmurli Natrajan and India-based economist Suraj Jacob, points to a heap of evidence that even these are inflated estimations because of "cultural and political pressures". So people under-report eating meat - particularly beef - and over-report eating vegetarian food. Taking all this into account, say the researchers, only about 20% of Indians are actually vegetarian - much lower than common claims and stereotypes suggest. Hindus, who make up 80% of the Indian population, are major meat-eaters. Even only a third of the privileged, upper-caste Indians are vegetarian. The government data shows that vegetarian households have higher income and consumption - are more affluent than meat-eating households. The lower castes, Dalits (formerly known as untouchables) and tribes-people are mainly meat eaters. Like the rest of the developing world, they’re eating more meat, not less. I’m not against people in developed nations cutting down on meat, especially if it’s an issue of ethical treatment of animals. The idea that Americans can make a serious dent in meat consumption by abstaining is a fantasy though. There is a vast and growing market for meat, and richer countries eating less over time will simply shift the market and slightly drop the price. Much like buying an EV, putting down the burgers won’t save the world. There are still lots of good reasons to do these things, it’s just that averting climate change isn’t one of them unless you think billions of people around the world who are gaining more disposable income are inclined to listen to you. They’ll then have to patiently explain to you that in many cases their relatively lower meat consumption wasn’t a matter of taste or choice, but economic conditions.
StrictDabbler 8y ago
First, the people most likely to buy meatless products weren’t part of their existing customer base, so there is no cannibalization. I'd like to suggest that the term "cannibalization" should be used gently when applied to a meat company. [ I would also like to take a look at your comment in terms of assertions because I'm having a hard time parsing it. - People who want meatless products aren't buying meat so they're an expansion opportunity. I think that's a fair assessment. - Meatless products may not be big sellers but they're good PR. I'm not sure about this. - People are unaware of global trends and are self-centered AND - self-centred people see meatless burgers as a sign of global change THEREFORE - making a meatless burger is good PR, so much so that not doing it is crazy. Are you sure that last part makes any sense at all? It feels like an emotional appeal that doesn't really connect. FWIW, if I were running a meat company I would be comparing the PR value of a meatless burger with the expense of tooling up an entire meat-free production and packing line. I think I'd need real sales to justify that outlay.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  Given that that the desires and wishes I referred to are, even by the standards of a truly cynical person, ultimately altruistic I’m going to disagree with your characterization of what I said as boiling down to “self centered.” I would rather say, blinded by hope or a desperate desire to see environmental catastrophe averted, which has a very different character from what people tend to mean by self-centered. Then what we have more closely resembles the following: People looking for hope around every corner, unaware of just how desirable meat is in much of the (rapidly) developing world, might look at a move like this and conclude that this is a sign of a sea-change. Given that I was responding to someone who saw this in the same terms as the move from film to digital photography perhaps you can see what I meant. As to expenses, this company is buying the meatless producers outright, no retooling required.
- munk-a 8y ago
  I'd also disagree with - People who want meatless products aren't buying meat so they're an expansion opportunity. I think that's a fair assessment. I think that the desire to eat meat-like products is much lower than a lot of people assume in vegetarian/vegan people. Products like Seitan and other "meat texture" items have always done poorly when compared to vegetarian/vegan offerings that simply omit any meat-like ingredients, some people don't like the texture of meat and those that do find near-meat but not meat products to always fall short - sort of like (all)gluten free bread, it exists and you can buy it, but it feels like having a mouth full of sand. If it's late and you're itching for a slice of toast but can't have it it's just better to find whole alternatives, nuts, maybe something involving harissa. I think imitation foods will always end up falling flat because they're imitations - and there is some psychological reinforcement there that keeps us from saying "close enough" even when it gets really close - probably the same effect that makes people try to call backsies if they fail the pepsi challenge.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I don't think it at all fanciful, or just about PR. More about future proofing, or to use a cliche, hard headed business. We have to reduce meat consumption as we understand the impact on climate change, and as ever more of the world gains a developed life. Meat consumption needs to trend like smoking. I'd happily dump most of my meat eating if decent alternatives were out there. Those that I have tried so far are a distinctly second rate experience. I haven't yet managed to try any of these new generation. No matter how good their meat free product who would switch meat supplier on the strength of it? They're separate, just brands in the portfolio. If means small, sustainable, organic meat production as a rare luxury is all that's left, great. Just as it used to be. Perhaps just a goose at Christmas. One day even that won't be necessary.
- papatowel 8y ago
  > We have to reduce meat consumption as we understand the impact on climate change, and as ever more of the world gains a developed life. Meat consumption needs to trend like smoking. For the US I disagree. According to the math, if the entire country went 100% vegan it would cut emissions by 2-3%. If we're only going to look at individual habits there are other areas that are more impactful. Flying in airplane less would have a far larger impact than not eating meat. Or not having children, or owning an automobile etc. Meat consumption has also declined in the US by ~25% since the 1960s. So you may get your wish :) Growing more crops doesn't necessarily == better for the environment versus livestock either. Especially ruminants. They can actually be an important component of regenerative agriculture. I think that's what we need to encourage. They also utilize land that's not suitable for growing crops, and can eat things we can't and turn it into something nutritious for us. I realize this argument goes against the narrative that's being put out. But according to the research I've seen this is the case. If you disagree I can't promise I'll have a detailed response but I'm always interested to hear others' thoughts.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    > According to the math, if the entire country went 100% vegan it would cut emissions by 2-3%. I would love to see something, anything that validates that claim as it is wildly at odds with everything I have seen. > Meat consumption has also declined in the US by ~25% since the 1960s. You made a typo, you meant increased. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/
randomsearch 8y ago
I think it’s best to leave cannibalisation out of this discussion. Seriously, an unfortunate homonym (is it really a homonym? Kinda).
- StrictDabbler 8y ago
  It's an unfortunate metaphor.
nmca 8y ago
Could you provide a citation for your global trends comment?

drdrey 8y ago

As a meat eater, I would absolutely replace some of the meats I buy with meatless products if I liked them.

hervature 8y ago
As a consumer, I would absolutely replace some of the consumables I buy with perfect substitutes if I liked them. This is exactly what economists assume.
- taneq 8y ago
  "If I liked them" is a much lower bar than "perfect substitute".
  - dane-pgp 8y ago
    And there's possibly an "even if they were more expensive" dimension to such a claim too.
    - hervature 8y ago
      I'll give you that, but if you look at the price of Beyond Burgers and a gourmet burger at the grocery store, they are equivalent. Also to your parent, likeability is orthogonal to being a substitute. You may much prefer Ferrari (or even horse for that matter) to your Toyota, that doesn't mean you would replace it.
  - grenoire 8y ago
    The economic definition of a perfect substitute is less about the literal definition of the phrase, but more about the way in which OP substituted it in (ha!)
Kyragem 8y ago
Try the impossible burger
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
There are already quite a lot of decidedly decent meat substitutes on the market. They often don't taste much like the meat they are imitating, but are flavorful in their own right. Morningstar Farms in particular has a pretty large selection of burger patties.

dkarl 8y ago

I doubt PR is what they're after, since they're selling it under a brand that has long sold faux meats, which they just acquired last year. People won't know the connection unless they read the business news. I just did a little more searching, and they acquired the Field Roast brand (which makes vegetarian sausages) last year as well. I'm guessing their research tells them that these brands are going to become more valuable in the future.

tdb7893 8y ago

I don't know. There are environmental and ethical issues with the current animal agricultural practices so as it becomes easier to be vegetarian more people will switch. I think it's a long way off being truly mainstream but the easier it becomes to switch the more people will. Also meat eaters will still get these sometimes if they are good.

greglindahl 8y ago
It's actually quite mainstream in some places in the world -- not only places that have been that way for a long time like large parts of India, but a large fraction of college students in Germany are vegetarian or vegan.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  India is not a monolith, it’s more than a billion incredibly diverse people, the majority of whom are neither vegan nor vegetarian. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43581122 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43581122 The biggest myth, of course, is that India is a largely vegetarian country. But that's not the case at all. Past "non-serious" estimates have suggested that more than a third of Indians ate vegetarian food. If you go by three large-scale government surveys, 23%-37% of Indians are estimated to be vegetarian. By itself this is nothing remarkably revelatory. But new research by US-based anthropologist Balmurli Natrajan and India-based economist Suraj Jacob, points to a heap of evidence that even these are inflated estimations because of "cultural and political pressures". So people under-report eating meat - particularly beef - and over-report eating vegetarian food. Taking all this into account, say the researchers, only about 20% of Indians are actually vegetarian - much lower than common claims and stereotypes suggest. Hindus, who make up 80% of the Indian population, are major meat-eaters. Even only a third of the privileged, upper-caste Indians are vegetarian. The government data shows that vegetarian households have higher income and consumption - are more affluent than meat-eating households. The lower castes, Dalits (formerly known as untouchables) and tribes-people are mainly meat eaters. Like the rest of the developing world, they’re eating more meat, not less. I’m not against people in developed nations cutting down on meat, especially if it’s an issue of ethical treatment of animals. The idea that Americans can make a serious dent in meat consumption by abstaining is a fantasy though. There is a vast and growing market for meat, and richer countries eating less over time will simply shift the market and slightly drop the price. Much like buying an EV, putting down the burgers won’t save the world. There are still lots of good reasons to do these things, it’s just that averting climate change isn’t one of them unless you think billions of people around the world who are gaining more disposable income are inclined to listen to you. They’ll then have to patiently explain to you that in many cases their relatively lower meat consumption wasn’t a matter of taste or choice, but economic conditions.

StrictDabbler 8y ago

First, the people most likely to buy meatless products weren’t part of their existing customer base, so there is no cannibalization. I'd like to suggest that the term "cannibalization" should be used gently when applied to a meat company. [ I would also like to take a look at your comment in terms of assertions because I'm having a hard time parsing it. - People who want meatless products aren't buying meat so they're an expansion opportunity. I think that's a fair assessment. - Meatless products may not be big sellers but they're good PR. I'm not sure about this. - People are unaware of global trends and are self-centered AND - self-centred people see meatless burgers as a sign of global change THEREFORE - making a meatless burger is good PR, so much so that not doing it is crazy. Are you sure that last part makes any sense at all? It feels like an emotional appeal that doesn't really connect. FWIW, if I were running a meat company I would be comparing the PR value of a meatless burger with the expense of tooling up an entire meat-free production and packing line. I think I'd need real sales to justify that outlay.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
Given that that the desires and wishes I referred to are, even by the standards of a truly cynical person, ultimately altruistic I’m going to disagree with your characterization of what I said as boiling down to “self centered.” I would rather say, blinded by hope or a desperate desire to see environmental catastrophe averted, which has a very different character from what people tend to mean by self-centered. Then what we have more closely resembles the following: People looking for hope around every corner, unaware of just how desirable meat is in much of the (rapidly) developing world, might look at a move like this and conclude that this is a sign of a sea-change. Given that I was responding to someone who saw this in the same terms as the move from film to digital photography perhaps you can see what I meant. As to expenses, this company is buying the meatless producers outright, no retooling required.
munk-a 8y ago
I'd also disagree with - People who want meatless products aren't buying meat so they're an expansion opportunity. I think that's a fair assessment. I think that the desire to eat meat-like products is much lower than a lot of people assume in vegetarian/vegan people. Products like Seitan and other "meat texture" items have always done poorly when compared to vegetarian/vegan offerings that simply omit any meat-like ingredients, some people don't like the texture of meat and those that do find near-meat but not meat products to always fall short - sort of like (all)gluten free bread, it exists and you can buy it, but it feels like having a mouth full of sand. If it's late and you're itching for a slice of toast but can't have it it's just better to find whole alternatives, nuts, maybe something involving harissa. I think imitation foods will always end up falling flat because they're imitations - and there is some psychological reinforcement there that keeps us from saying "close enough" even when it gets really close - probably the same effect that makes people try to call backsies if they fail the pepsi challenge.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

I don't think it at all fanciful, or just about PR. More about future proofing, or to use a cliche, hard headed business. We have to reduce meat consumption as we understand the impact on climate change, and as ever more of the world gains a developed life. Meat consumption needs to trend like smoking. I'd happily dump most of my meat eating if decent alternatives were out there. Those that I have tried so far are a distinctly second rate experience. I haven't yet managed to try any of these new generation. No matter how good their meat free product who would switch meat supplier on the strength of it? They're separate, just brands in the portfolio. If means small, sustainable, organic meat production as a rare luxury is all that's left, great. Just as it used to be. Perhaps just a goose at Christmas. One day even that won't be necessary.

papatowel 8y ago
> We have to reduce meat consumption as we understand the impact on climate change, and as ever more of the world gains a developed life. Meat consumption needs to trend like smoking. For the US I disagree. According to the math, if the entire country went 100% vegan it would cut emissions by 2-3%. If we're only going to look at individual habits there are other areas that are more impactful. Flying in airplane less would have a far larger impact than not eating meat. Or not having children, or owning an automobile etc. Meat consumption has also declined in the US by ~25% since the 1960s. So you may get your wish :) Growing more crops doesn't necessarily == better for the environment versus livestock either. Especially ruminants. They can actually be an important component of regenerative agriculture. I think that's what we need to encourage. They also utilize land that's not suitable for growing crops, and can eat things we can't and turn it into something nutritious for us. I realize this argument goes against the narrative that's being put out. But according to the research I've seen this is the case. If you disagree I can't promise I'll have a detailed response but I'm always interested to hear others' thoughts.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  > According to the math, if the entire country went 100% vegan it would cut emissions by 2-3%. I would love to see something, anything that validates that claim as it is wildly at odds with everything I have seen. > Meat consumption has also declined in the US by ~25% since the 1960s. You made a typo, you meant increased. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/

randomsearch 8y ago

I think it’s best to leave cannibalisation out of this discussion. Seriously, an unfortunate homonym (is it really a homonym? Kinda).

StrictDabbler 8y ago
It's an unfortunate metaphor.

nmca 8y ago

Could you provide a citation for your global trends comment?