As others mentioned, this reads more like a PR piece than a research claim. More importantly, the health benefits claim has been debunked before: https://www.n

As others mentioned, this reads more like a PR piece than a research claim. More importantly, the health benefits claim has been debunked before: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/impossible-burger-or-beyond-meat-aren-t-healthy-fast-food-ncna1050911 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/impossible-burger-or-b... > The challenge here is that these offerings aren’t actually any healthier. The Impossible Whopper, for instance, not only has comparable caloric and fat levels as its meat-based counterpart, but it has more salt per serving; the Del Taco options are comparable. The Impossible Slider has more calories, more fat and more sodium than the meaty original (before you add cheese to either). The salt content is significantly higher and protein sources are ultra processed, which we have ample research to show that ultra processed foods have adverse health effects. The environmental claims appear more straightforward, but we don’t need to engineer our food to drastically reduce impact - simply switch from beef to chicken. “No question chicken is a fraction of beef’s carbon emissions and it likely has the lowest carbon footprint of any animal protein,” Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/choosing-chicken-over-beef-cuts-carbon-footprint-surprising-amount/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/choos... In short, we don’t need to wait until 2035 to cut our overall food carbon footprint in half. Better yet, let’s include more unprocessed vegetable sources and eat less animal protein all together. (I know... not going to happen)