4 ms·

The real impact of this kind of technology will be when it becomes cheaper and starts to interest the general public.

Just_Smith 8y ago
Agreed - As someone who enjoys the taste and the effort being made, Impossible burgers still feel very much like a novelty. There are several restaurants in my area serving Impossible burgers, but they are usually the most expensive burger on the menu. Given that this is going to be a dollar more than a standard whopper, it'll cost the same as a double whopper. With that, the only real incentive to eat the impossible whopper over the standard whopper would be personal motivation to eat less meat. And I'll hazard a guess that most people eating Burger King aren't immediately concerned with cutting down their meat consumption.
- username223 8y ago
  Agreed as well. I find this encouraging given beef's large carbon footprint, and think low-grade burgers are the best target for replacement by synthetics (forget trying to engineer a steak). I don't expect them to become popular until they're almost indistinguishable and at least as cheap, but I think that could happen soon.
cannonedhamster 8y ago
It's already most likely cheaper when you take into account false pricing signals due to the fact that the US meat industry is heavily subsidized through taxation. Add to that lower healthcare costs due to less heart disease and realistically it should be pretty cheap comparatively. I've had this burger and I prefer the Beyond Burger, but the meat eaters that had it said it tasted just like a run of the mill fast food burger, so I'm hoping that it takes off with the health and environmentally conscious. If anyone can really make this work I'm thinking Burger King or McDonalds could, they are both excellent logistically and process wise. This is exciting news in the food world and opens up a lot of choices for people looking for less heavy food choices.
- Scoundreller 8y ago
  Be careful, ounce for ounce, the meat substitute burgers may not be all that healthy. The impossible burger has more fat, more saturated fat and more sodium than the standard beef patties. Less cholesterol though. Again, by mass (their patties are smaller, so direct comparisons are a little harder). Comparison chart about halfway down: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/nutrition-environment-general-science/impossible-burger-vegetarian-breakthrough-brought-you-science https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/nutrition-environment-gene... I know that the beef industry has a lot of subsidies (many billions per year), but how much impact does that have on price? Without subsidies, what happens to the $3.99 Big Mac? Would it go to $4.19 or $7?
  - gowld 8y ago
    Nutrition per mass is irrelevant -- that depends on water content (meaningless) and starch content (minor). your choice of toppings and bun dominate the "per unit measure" analysis. What matters is the ratios protein vs sat fat vs fat vs carbs, and what your view of health science tells you is optimal. Per g of protein, impossible burgers are low fat, and Beyond Meat is reguar fat.

Agreed - As someone who enjoys the taste and the effort being made, Impossible burgers still feel very much like a novelty. There are several restaurants in my area serving Impossible burgers, but they are usually the most expensive burger on the menu. Given that this is going to be a dollar more than a standard whopper, it'll cost the same as a double whopper. With that, the only real incentive to eat the impossible whopper over the standard whopper would be personal motivation to eat less meat. And I'll hazard a guess that most people eating Burger King aren't immediately concerned with cutting down their meat consumption.

username223 8y ago
Agreed as well. I find this encouraging given beef's large carbon footprint, and think low-grade burgers are the best target for replacement by synthetics (forget trying to engineer a steak). I don't expect them to become popular until they're almost indistinguishable and at least as cheap, but I think that could happen soon.

cannonedhamster 8y ago

It's already most likely cheaper when you take into account false pricing signals due to the fact that the US meat industry is heavily subsidized through taxation. Add to that lower healthcare costs due to less heart disease and realistically it should be pretty cheap comparatively. I've had this burger and I prefer the Beyond Burger, but the meat eaters that had it said it tasted just like a run of the mill fast food burger, so I'm hoping that it takes off with the health and environmentally conscious. If anyone can really make this work I'm thinking Burger King or McDonalds could, they are both excellent logistically and process wise. This is exciting news in the food world and opens up a lot of choices for people looking for less heavy food choices.

Scoundreller 8y ago
Be careful, ounce for ounce, the meat substitute burgers may not be all that healthy. The impossible burger has more fat, more saturated fat and more sodium than the standard beef patties. Less cholesterol though. Again, by mass (their patties are smaller, so direct comparisons are a little harder). Comparison chart about halfway down: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/nutrition-environment-general-science/impossible-burger-vegetarian-breakthrough-brought-you-science https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/nutrition-environment-gene... I know that the beef industry has a lot of subsidies (many billions per year), but how much impact does that have on price? Without subsidies, what happens to the $3.99 Big Mac? Would it go to $4.19 or $7?
- gowld 8y ago
  Nutrition per mass is irrelevant -- that depends on water content (meaningless) and starch content (minor). your choice of toppings and bun dominate the "per unit measure" analysis. What matters is the ratios protein vs sat fat vs fat vs carbs, and what your view of health science tells you is optimal. Per g of protein, impossible burgers are low fat, and Beyond Meat is reguar fat.