4 ms·

Uhhh this seems like a silly article. Nobody has ever claimed these things are healthier. It's always been about producing this "food" without slaughtering anim

by atonse 7y ago

Uhhh this seems like a silly article. Nobody has ever claimed these things are healthier. It's always been about producing this "food" without slaughtering animals and all the extremely inefficient processes involved (feedlots, methane emissions, inhumane conditions). In other news, LED lightbulbs still run on fossil fuels!

AndrewBissell 7y ago
Here's an HN thread full of comments claiming fake meats are healthier. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20867218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20867218
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  They are healthier than burgers (barely), but that's a really low bar. They are not health foods, and nobody is eating them because they think that they are.
autoexec 7y ago
Lots of companies are adverting it that way though, and not just the big ones. A quick search of menus found descriptions like: "You'll have to stop in for Green Market's light and healthy menu, with treasures like the Impossible Burger Bowl and Avocado Caprese" and "A healthy, vegetarian plant based patty grilled and served on our brioche bun, lettuce and tomato." Also saw this from a country club's website: "A new interest in using meatless foods for this season was sparked by our health-conscious Members and expanded offerings by some popular meatless food companies. We will begin using a vegan brand called Beyond Meat in some menu items.[...] We are excited to include a variety of healthy options for our Members and are looking forward to a great season!" If menus and restaurants are calling it healthy it's a fair question to ask.
ModernMech 7y ago
I would actually expect that to make the thing taste like meat, they would have to add a bunch of fat and grease. That can't be healthy, but I'm not really going to Burger King in the first place because I want a healthy meal.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  they would have to add a bunch of fat and grease In the case of the Impossible burger, they add coconut oil which is high in saturated fat. Some argue that the Medium Chain Triglycerides (MCTs), lauric acid and caprylic acid, in coconut oil isn't as bad as other saturated fats, but the evidence is still unclear. Probably not worse than the fat in non-grass fed beef though.
aeturnum 7y ago
I agree with your first critique but I think the LED comparison isn't helpful. Unlike these burgers, which aren't aiming to be healthier, LED lightbulbs aim (and succeed) at using less energy than their competition and thus contribute less to climate change. If the burgers both were healthier and similar to beef then they'd be like LED bulbs!
- Flockster 7y ago
  But aren't they aiming for more energy efficiency with these burgers? And due to being plant based, aren't they succeeding?
- ajross 7y ago
  Presumably the point of the comment was that vegetarian meat substitutes aim, identically to LED lighting, at being a more efficient substitute for the traditional product. "Healthy" is basically a strawman in the linked article. You should {eat plants, use LEDs} because they use less energy.
- atonse 7y ago
  The analogy I was going for: LED bulbs have the same effect (same brightness), while using 85% less energy. But in spite of that it's like still complaining that they run on fossil fuels as if that invalidates the efficiency gains. Impossible burgers have the same effect (having a fatty, juicy burger) while ultimately being much less destructive to the environment. (They actually use something like 85% less water). But complaining about the fact that they aren't healthier is an attempt to take away from the other amazing advances involved. I've had "lab-grown meat" (as I've called it) on my future-world wishlist for at least a decade. It seems like we could get rid of a host of problems (inefficiency, suffering, potential for bacteria and diseases like mad cow from meat, etc), by engineering our meat. I suspect the health aspects will follow, as the next frontier, now that this stuff tastes close enough to meat, will be to reduce cholesterol and other effects. After all, if you really think about it, 99% of the sensations related to eating food are before we swallow it. If we can replicate all those things (the touch, the smell, the taste, the sight) and start to engineer the internal effects, we could have our (artificial) cake and eat it too, correct? I say this as someone who LOVES hamburgers, who is a big foodie. Apart from lack of food poisoning, there is fundamentally no difference in feeling in your stomach between fine dining food and a homemade sandwich. And the same goes for the effects on your health. So we should absolutely try to engineer these things for their effects on our bodies. But first you have to convince people to want to even put this stuff in their bodies. And that's what the appeal to the other 4 senses is.
Rebelgecko 7y ago
The companies may not be claiming it, but it's still a surprise to many people who are used to Morningstar hot dogs and the like (which I believe actually are healthier than the real thing)
zemnmez 7y ago
i'm honestly really surprised by this! a lot of people go more vegetarian for the health benefits
ryandvm 7y ago
Indeed. I wish this headline would stop popping up. I'm eating burgers because they taste good. I'll order the Impossible Burger every chance I get because it really does taste close enough to beef that I can't tell the difference, and it has a much more acceptable environmental and ethical footprint.
awinder 7y ago
Beyond Meat claims it's better for you in the first sentence on it's product landing page: https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/ https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/
mc32 7y ago
I don’t think that’s true. There are two almost equally important aspects to imitation meats and a lesser third: 1. Require less energy input 2. Healthier than animal meat 3. Animal welfare (but this is less important for most people) Imitation meat so far accomplished no 1 and no 3. It so far has not addressed no 2. It may be of equivalent health impact. We don’t know, but they are heavily (ultra as people like to say) processed foods... with additives and such. But some people get tripped up by looking mostly at no 1.
Allower 7y ago
As they say in the article, many people will believe that 'plant-based meat' is healthier, I have not seen anyone else reporting the increased sodium content for these meat substitutes, I think that's a valuable addition to the ongoing conversation. Of course it doesn't preclude the premise of "meatless" meat, and the other myriad benefits it heralds.
excursionist 7y ago
> Nobody has ever claimed these things are healthier. That's just not true, the supposed health benefits are touted everywhere. Beyond Meat literally claims their products are 'better for you' at the top of their website. https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/ https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/
yellowapple 7y ago
> Nobody has ever claimed these things are healthier. Beyond Meat literally does on their website.

by atonse 7y ago

AndrewBissell 7y ago

Here's an HN thread full of comments claiming fake meats are healthier. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20867218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20867218

lern_too_spel 7y ago
They are healthier than burgers (barely), but that's a really low bar. They are not health foods, and nobody is eating them because they think that they are.

autoexec 7y ago

Lots of companies are adverting it that way though, and not just the big ones. A quick search of menus found descriptions like: "You'll have to stop in for Green Market's light and healthy menu, with treasures like the Impossible Burger Bowl and Avocado Caprese" and "A healthy, vegetarian plant based patty grilled and served on our brioche bun, lettuce and tomato." Also saw this from a country club's website: "A new interest in using meatless foods for this season was sparked by our health-conscious Members and expanded offerings by some popular meatless food companies. We will begin using a vegan brand called Beyond Meat in some menu items.[...] We are excited to include a variety of healthy options for our Members and are looking forward to a great season!" If menus and restaurants are calling it healthy it's a fair question to ask.

ModernMech 7y ago

I would actually expect that to make the thing taste like meat, they would have to add a bunch of fat and grease. That can't be healthy, but I'm not really going to Burger King in the first place because I want a healthy meal.

WillPostForFood 7y ago
they would have to add a bunch of fat and grease In the case of the Impossible burger, they add coconut oil which is high in saturated fat. Some argue that the Medium Chain Triglycerides (MCTs), lauric acid and caprylic acid, in coconut oil isn't as bad as other saturated fats, but the evidence is still unclear. Probably not worse than the fat in non-grass fed beef though.

aeturnum 7y ago

I agree with your first critique but I think the LED comparison isn't helpful. Unlike these burgers, which aren't aiming to be healthier, LED lightbulbs aim (and succeed) at using less energy than their competition and thus contribute less to climate change. If the burgers both were healthier and similar to beef then they'd be like LED bulbs!

Flockster 7y ago
But aren't they aiming for more energy efficiency with these burgers? And due to being plant based, aren't they succeeding?
ajross 7y ago
Presumably the point of the comment was that vegetarian meat substitutes aim, identically to LED lighting, at being a more efficient substitute for the traditional product. "Healthy" is basically a strawman in the linked article. You should {eat plants, use LEDs} because they use less energy.
atonse 7y ago
The analogy I was going for: LED bulbs have the same effect (same brightness), while using 85% less energy. But in spite of that it's like still complaining that they run on fossil fuels as if that invalidates the efficiency gains. Impossible burgers have the same effect (having a fatty, juicy burger) while ultimately being much less destructive to the environment. (They actually use something like 85% less water). But complaining about the fact that they aren't healthier is an attempt to take away from the other amazing advances involved. I've had "lab-grown meat" (as I've called it) on my future-world wishlist for at least a decade. It seems like we could get rid of a host of problems (inefficiency, suffering, potential for bacteria and diseases like mad cow from meat, etc), by engineering our meat. I suspect the health aspects will follow, as the next frontier, now that this stuff tastes close enough to meat, will be to reduce cholesterol and other effects. After all, if you really think about it, 99% of the sensations related to eating food are before we swallow it. If we can replicate all those things (the touch, the smell, the taste, the sight) and start to engineer the internal effects, we could have our (artificial) cake and eat it too, correct? I say this as someone who LOVES hamburgers, who is a big foodie. Apart from lack of food poisoning, there is fundamentally no difference in feeling in your stomach between fine dining food and a homemade sandwich. And the same goes for the effects on your health. So we should absolutely try to engineer these things for their effects on our bodies. But first you have to convince people to want to even put this stuff in their bodies. And that's what the appeal to the other 4 senses is.

Rebelgecko 7y ago

The companies may not be claiming it, but it's still a surprise to many people who are used to Morningstar hot dogs and the like (which I believe actually are healthier than the real thing)

zemnmez 7y ago

i'm honestly really surprised by this! a lot of people go more vegetarian for the health benefits

ryandvm 7y ago

Indeed. I wish this headline would stop popping up. I'm eating burgers because they taste good. I'll order the Impossible Burger every chance I get because it really does taste close enough to beef that I can't tell the difference, and it has a much more acceptable environmental and ethical footprint.

awinder 7y ago

Beyond Meat claims it's better for you in the first sentence on it's product landing page: https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/ https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/

mc32 7y ago

I don’t think that’s true. There are two almost equally important aspects to imitation meats and a lesser third: 1. Require less energy input 2. Healthier than animal meat 3. Animal welfare (but this is less important for most people) Imitation meat so far accomplished no 1 and no 3. It so far has not addressed no 2. It may be of equivalent health impact. We don’t know, but they are heavily (ultra as people like to say) processed foods... with additives and such. But some people get tripped up by looking mostly at no 1.

Allower 7y ago

As they say in the article, many people will believe that 'plant-based meat' is healthier, I have not seen anyone else reporting the increased sodium content for these meat substitutes, I think that's a valuable addition to the ongoing conversation. Of course it doesn't preclude the premise of "meatless" meat, and the other myriad benefits it heralds.

excursionist 7y ago

> Nobody has ever claimed these things are healthier. That's just not true, the supposed health benefits are touted everywhere. Beyond Meat literally claims their products are 'better for you' at the top of their website. https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/ https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/

yellowapple 7y ago

> Nobody has ever claimed these things are healthier. Beyond Meat literally does on their website.