4 ms·

>But are these plant burgers actually claiming or marketing themselves as healthy? Yes. A snippet from the top paragraph of Beyond Meat's Product Page: "Imagi

>But are these plant burgers actually claiming or marketing themselves as healthy? Yes. A snippet from the top paragraph of Beyond Meat's Product Page: "Imagine your favorite meaty dishes[...]while being better for you [...]"[1] [1]https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/ https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/ Edit: Beyond Meat is not claiming they are healthy, just that they are healthier. Edit 2: Looking farther, they also state that they are "IMPROVING HUMAN HEALTH" on their about page. This would likely still fall under that they claim they are "healthier" rather than healthy, though.

artimaeis 7y ago
>> But are these plant burgers actually claiming or marketing themselves as healthy? > Yes. That's not how I read that at all, look at your own quote again. > "Imagine your favorite meaty dishes[...]while being better for you [...]"[1]" Evaluate the context -- they're not claiming that a Beyond Burger is better for you than unprocessed vegetables. They're saying it's better for you than the other places you get "your favorite meaty dishes like burgers and tacos". Healthy > Unhealthy: Unprocessed vegetables > Processed vegetable burgers > Processed animal burgers They are not marketing themselves as "healthy" (what does that even mean?) -- they're marketing them self as better than animal.
- ziddoap 7y ago
  >they're not claiming that a Beyond Burger is better for you than unprocessed vegetables I'm not claiming that they said that either? They claim they are better (read: healthier) than the products they are trying to replace (read: meat). >they're marketing them self as better than animal So... healthier than animals? I understand there's some semantic ambiguity, but come on.
  - artimaeis 7y ago
    Given GP's statement about "not as healthy as eating less processed plant based foods", your reply of "yes" to the question of whether their marketing copy is selling them on "healthy", there was some confusion on my part. If that wasn't your intention then that's my bad.
    - ziddoap 7y ago
      I did answer the quoted part in isolation, so I understand the ambiguity and probably could have done more to make myself clear. For what its worth, I have nothing against Beyond Meat or their mission.
kbenson 7y ago
Healthier is not the same as healthy. Better for you is not the same as good for you. Eating a burger with less cheese is better for you and healthier, all other things equal, but very well may still not be good for you or a healthy choice overall compared to some other food entirely. In the end, if the faux-burger is healthier for you than the real one, it's a net positive to switch to it if you eat the same amount. There are plenty of things that can be said about psychological effects, and causing people to eat more, but I think the most important thing I think to say about those aspects at this point is "we don't know, so it's not appropriate to apply too much weight to those considerations."
- ziddoap 7y ago
  Thank you for explaining the intricacies of -y vs. -ier. I will go back and add ier to my comment. Just a question though, would their claim of "IMPROVING HUMAN HEALTH" fall under -ier or -y? https://www.beyondmeat.com/about/ https://www.beyondmeat.com/about/
  - kbenson 7y ago
    Improving is definitely -ier. -y denotes a state, -ier denotes movement towards that state, but not necessarily being in that state. Improving implies movement. Some might view the -ier style statements as weasely or waffling, but it's also the most responsible way to describe most foods in my opinion, as there's often just a matter os scale that tips something from healthy to not (or outright dangerous, even). An orange is a healthy snack if you can make use of the vitamin C and don't already have an overabundance of sugar. If you don't need vitamin C or already consume a lot of sugar, there are probably better sources of vitamin C and an orange might not really be a healthy choice.

artimaeis 7y ago

>> But are these plant burgers actually claiming or marketing themselves as healthy? > Yes. That's not how I read that at all, look at your own quote again. > "Imagine your favorite meaty dishes[...]while being better for you [...]"[1]" Evaluate the context -- they're not claiming that a Beyond Burger is better for you than unprocessed vegetables. They're saying it's better for you than the other places you get "your favorite meaty dishes like burgers and tacos". Healthy > Unhealthy: Unprocessed vegetables > Processed vegetable burgers > Processed animal burgers They are not marketing themselves as "healthy" (what does that even mean?) -- they're marketing them self as better than animal.

ziddoap 7y ago
>they're not claiming that a Beyond Burger is better for you than unprocessed vegetables I'm not claiming that they said that either? They claim they are better (read: healthier) than the products they are trying to replace (read: meat). >they're marketing them self as better than animal So... healthier than animals? I understand there's some semantic ambiguity, but come on.
- artimaeis 7y ago
  Given GP's statement about "not as healthy as eating less processed plant based foods", your reply of "yes" to the question of whether their marketing copy is selling them on "healthy", there was some confusion on my part. If that wasn't your intention then that's my bad.
  - ziddoap 7y ago
    I did answer the quoted part in isolation, so I understand the ambiguity and probably could have done more to make myself clear. For what its worth, I have nothing against Beyond Meat or their mission.

kbenson 7y ago

Healthier is not the same as healthy. Better for you is not the same as good for you. Eating a burger with less cheese is better for you and healthier, all other things equal, but very well may still not be good for you or a healthy choice overall compared to some other food entirely. In the end, if the faux-burger is healthier for you than the real one, it's a net positive to switch to it if you eat the same amount. There are plenty of things that can be said about psychological effects, and causing people to eat more, but I think the most important thing I think to say about those aspects at this point is "we don't know, so it's not appropriate to apply too much weight to those considerations."

ziddoap 7y ago
Thank you for explaining the intricacies of -y vs. -ier. I will go back and add ier to my comment. Just a question though, would their claim of "IMPROVING HUMAN HEALTH" fall under -ier or -y? https://www.beyondmeat.com/about/ https://www.beyondmeat.com/about/
- kbenson 7y ago
  Improving is definitely -ier. -y denotes a state, -ier denotes movement towards that state, but not necessarily being in that state. Improving implies movement. Some might view the -ier style statements as weasely or waffling, but it's also the most responsible way to describe most foods in my opinion, as there's often just a matter os scale that tips something from healthy to not (or outright dangerous, even). An orange is a healthy snack if you can make use of the vitamin C and don't already have an overabundance of sugar. If you don't need vitamin C or already consume a lot of sugar, there are probably better sources of vitamin C and an orange might not really be a healthy choice.