4 ms·

Well at some point we will have to reckon with the economics of how a $1.55 burger comes to be. It's simply not possible without sacrificing health, animal welf

Well at some point we will have to reckon with the economics of how a $1.55 burger comes to be. It's simply not possible without sacrificing health, animal welfare, and the environment. Not trying to be preachy about this, but in a cheap meal there are many costs upstream which you pay for one way or another, just not at the counter.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I see no reason we can't have a plant based $1.55 burger that's not superior to the meat burger on all those metrics. The plant burger doesn't have the whole animal portion of the supply chain to pay for. It seems like an economics of scale issue.
- ndespres 7y ago
  My original post more accurately could have read "the economics of how a $1.55 meat burger comes to be." I don't know anything specific about how the Impossible meatless burger is produced. I know that there are some tricky economics involved in beef production, specifically in government subsidies for the corn which is fed to cattle to make beef; the stream of meat "byproduct" which is turned into "ground beef"; and the huge supply of land and water rights used for grazing cattle which was obtained long ago by huge ranches for free or cheap, which any new at-scale competitor (meat or meatless) will have a hard time beating.
goda90 7y ago
You're not going to just convince the average consumer to not buy the $1.55 burger in front of them by telling them to think about the upstream. You need to provide them with a straightforward alternative. Right now a $5 meatless burger might be able to compete with a $5 beef burger, but it's still going to lose in the $1.55 weight class.
- ndespres 7y ago
  If people had to pay the true cost rather than the often subsidized one, it would be a more equal choice. I wouldn't propose to market "meaty" vs "meatless" on the basis of these hidden costs. The irony to me is that the $1.55 burger is truly the "impossible" one. Without massive subsidies for feed corn, water, farm labor, etc the value meal burger would not exist.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    There is no "true cost". It always boils down to an whether or not any given side effect should be covered and that always boils down to subjective and opinionated arguments.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

I see no reason we can't have a plant based $1.55 burger that's not superior to the meat burger on all those metrics. The plant burger doesn't have the whole animal portion of the supply chain to pay for. It seems like an economics of scale issue.

ndespres 7y ago
My original post more accurately could have read "the economics of how a $1.55 meat burger comes to be." I don't know anything specific about how the Impossible meatless burger is produced. I know that there are some tricky economics involved in beef production, specifically in government subsidies for the corn which is fed to cattle to make beef; the stream of meat "byproduct" which is turned into "ground beef"; and the huge supply of land and water rights used for grazing cattle which was obtained long ago by huge ranches for free or cheap, which any new at-scale competitor (meat or meatless) will have a hard time beating.

goda90 7y ago

You're not going to just convince the average consumer to not buy the $1.55 burger in front of them by telling them to think about the upstream. You need to provide them with a straightforward alternative. Right now a $5 meatless burger might be able to compete with a $5 beef burger, but it's still going to lose in the $1.55 weight class.

ndespres 7y ago
If people had to pay the true cost rather than the often subsidized one, it would be a more equal choice. I wouldn't propose to market "meaty" vs "meatless" on the basis of these hidden costs. The irony to me is that the $1.55 burger is truly the "impossible" one. Without massive subsidies for feed corn, water, farm labor, etc the value meal burger would not exist.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  There is no "true cost". It always boils down to an whether or not any given side effect should be covered and that always boils down to subjective and opinionated arguments.