5 ms·

It's still vegetarian, just maybe not vegan.

by hvs 7y ago

mhandley 7y ago
Agreed - wasn't disputing that. All I was saying was that maybe us meat eaters who want to be slightly more healthy and slightly better for the environment are actually the target market.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  I think you're correct here. I had an impossible burger, but I can say pretty clearly every person who is a meat eater regularly has found it more pleasing than long time vegetarians. I personally enjoy the Beyond Meat Patty more. Anecdotal evidence is only just that, but it's been a trend I've seen. Personally I hope this becomes a big success and people really enjoy it, even if it's not my thing.
  - hkyeti 7y ago
    The majority of vegans enjoy the meat taste and the new crop of substitutes, just not the ethical/environmental costs. Source- polled my vegan group.
    - greglindahl 7y ago
      I know a lot of vegetarians and vegans who don't want anything to do with something that's like meat, so perhaps your anecdote and my anecdote add up to advice to not claim either of us knows what a majority of vegans want? As an example of this issue in action, if you're taking your company out for food, it's a huge mistake to go to a place that only offers meat-like stuff for vegetarians and vegans.
      - hkyeti 7y ago
        Perhaps its a cultural thing, are most of those folks veg who don't like meat from India / South East Asia? I work in vegan food industry (own company and invested in others) and the market research we've done has always been consistent here that most vegans enjoy eating plant meats (ie- beyond / hungry plannet / impossible / gardein etc). Granted that research has been mostly in Australia and Hong Kong which is where I focus on
cannonedhamster 7y ago
It's not vegetarian either if there's meat juice. Vegetarian means they only consume eggs or milk. Meat in the product at all is not meatless. Same reason some beers can't claim to be vegetarian. They need to cook it on a different grill. I'd be surprised if they weren't prepared for this. There's usually two sets of utensils in most places I've seen or they clean the knife prior to cutting.
- scarmig 7y ago
  Most vegetarians don't take the quasi-religious interpretation that coming into contact with another meat product permanently dirties whatever they're eating. Some do, certainly, but not most. A more general definition of a vegetarian food is food whose ingredients do not purposefully include any product that requires killing an animal to extract it. Note that the homeopathic definition of vegetarian means that essentially no food is vegetarian, because basically all grains and vegetables include small fauna that are inadvertently incorporated into the ingredient during harvesting.
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    While I'm certainly not trying to be quas-religious, what's the point of a definition of it means nothing? If there's meat in the patty because of poor preparation, that's plainly easily avoidable by scraping the grill, and bk just refuses to do it or find one of the other amazingly easy ways to not have it cooked in beef fat, you can't call it vegetarian. Absolutely there's no way for a company to never have insects, rats, and other pests in their foods even under the best of conditions. This isn't that. If they cook the patty in beef fat, is not meatless, you've made the beef fat an intentional part of the product, therefore not vegetarian. The patty itself is still meatless, the end product is not. Edit: Most vegetarians you happen to know. I personally don't like the fluidity with which the term is used expressly because it leads to confusion. You want to eat meat, cool you do you, but don't make it harder to explain for people who choose to actually follow the definition by making it meaningless. It's like the term "green" when people guest started using it it had a definition that was understood, now it's meaningless. If someone is comfortable with meat intentionally being in their food for to preparation to the point that they don't mind if there's meat in their food, they probably consume far more meat products than they realize and I doubt that they are as vegetarian a they intend to be, which again is fine, I just dislike claiming to be something that, by definition, one isn't and trying to torture the definition to your preferences.

It's still vegetarian, just maybe not vegan.

by hvs 7y ago

It's still vegetarian, just maybe not vegan.

Agreed - wasn't disputing that. All I was saying was that maybe us meat eaters who want to be slightly more healthy and slightly better for the environment are actually the target market.

cannonedhamster 7y ago
I think you're correct here. I had an impossible burger, but I can say pretty clearly every person who is a meat eater regularly has found it more pleasing than long time vegetarians. I personally enjoy the Beyond Meat Patty more. Anecdotal evidence is only just that, but it's been a trend I've seen. Personally I hope this becomes a big success and people really enjoy it, even if it's not my thing.
- hkyeti 7y ago
  The majority of vegans enjoy the meat taste and the new crop of substitutes, just not the ethical/environmental costs. Source- polled my vegan group.
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    I know a lot of vegetarians and vegans who don't want anything to do with something that's like meat, so perhaps your anecdote and my anecdote add up to advice to not claim either of us knows what a majority of vegans want? As an example of this issue in action, if you're taking your company out for food, it's a huge mistake to go to a place that only offers meat-like stuff for vegetarians and vegans.
    - hkyeti 7y ago
      Perhaps its a cultural thing, are most of those folks veg who don't like meat from India / South East Asia? I work in vegan food industry (own company and invested in others) and the market research we've done has always been consistent here that most vegans enjoy eating plant meats (ie- beyond / hungry plannet / impossible / gardein etc). Granted that research has been mostly in Australia and Hong Kong which is where I focus on

cannonedhamster 7y ago

It's not vegetarian either if there's meat juice. Vegetarian means they only consume eggs or milk. Meat in the product at all is not meatless. Same reason some beers can't claim to be vegetarian. They need to cook it on a different grill. I'd be surprised if they weren't prepared for this. There's usually two sets of utensils in most places I've seen or they clean the knife prior to cutting.

scarmig 7y ago
Most vegetarians don't take the quasi-religious interpretation that coming into contact with another meat product permanently dirties whatever they're eating. Some do, certainly, but not most. A more general definition of a vegetarian food is food whose ingredients do not purposefully include any product that requires killing an animal to extract it. Note that the homeopathic definition of vegetarian means that essentially no food is vegetarian, because basically all grains and vegetables include small fauna that are inadvertently incorporated into the ingredient during harvesting.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  While I'm certainly not trying to be quas-religious, what's the point of a definition of it means nothing? If there's meat in the patty because of poor preparation, that's plainly easily avoidable by scraping the grill, and bk just refuses to do it or find one of the other amazingly easy ways to not have it cooked in beef fat, you can't call it vegetarian. Absolutely there's no way for a company to never have insects, rats, and other pests in their foods even under the best of conditions. This isn't that. If they cook the patty in beef fat, is not meatless, you've made the beef fat an intentional part of the product, therefore not vegetarian. The patty itself is still meatless, the end product is not. Edit: Most vegetarians you happen to know. I personally don't like the fluidity with which the term is used expressly because it leads to confusion. You want to eat meat, cool you do you, but don't make it harder to explain for people who choose to actually follow the definition by making it meaningless. It's like the term "green" when people guest started using it it had a definition that was understood, now it's meaningless. If someone is comfortable with meat intentionally being in their food for to preparation to the point that they don't mind if there's meat in their food, they probably consume far more meat products than they realize and I doubt that they are as vegetarian a they intend to be, which again is fine, I just dislike claiming to be something that, by definition, one isn't and trying to torture the definition to your preferences.