42 ms·

Beyond Meat signs global supply deals with McDonald’s, KFC and Pizza Hut

• drewg123 6y ago
  This is the best news I've heard all week. The more widely vegan "meat" is available, the more likely it is to be adopted by average people and not just dedicated vegans. Reducing the demand for real beef is probably one of the best things we can do in the short term for the environment, due to the amount of land required for cattle farming, and due to the surprising amount of methane emitted by cattle. (see the documentary "Cowspiricy", or Mark Rober's "Feeding Bill Gates a Fake Burger to save the world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V3ESHcfA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V3ESHcfA)
  • partiallypro 6y ago
    Are there stats to back up that non-vegans begin consuming more vegan based meals if they have the option? And I mean more than once. A consumer might try it but then go back to normal. At there good stats on repeat buying on a large scale?
    • space_fountain 6y ago
      I'm also interested in any stats people can bring up, but the proliferation of realistic fake meat has absolutely led to me eating less meat
    • 8ytecoder 6y ago
      Every meal without meat is a win in my book. I could be wrong - I assume most Americans have meat at least twice a day if not all three meals and also snack on jerky and other meat/dairy products. So any change will be a win.
      • thehappypm 6y ago
        I would think most Americans diet looks something like: Breakfast is vegetarian but not vegan, a bowl of cereal with milk, bagel with cream cheese, coffee with milk, toast and butter. Even the more involved breakfasts like eggs or waffles don't necessarily need to have meat, just because making bacon or sausages is time consuming and most breakfasts are on the go. Lunch usually has meat but maybe not a lot. A few slices of turkey on a sandwich, a salad with a few strips of chicken, a bowl of soup with chunks of chicken or beef. Dinner has meat almost always, unless you are actively avoiding it or are eating one of the rare vegetarian dinners Americans will eat, like cheese pizza. Most dinners will be something like chicken with mashed potatoes, pasta with meatballs, stir fry, burgers and fries.. meat is a centerpiece. Snacks are usually unhealthy but vegetarian. Chips, cookies, ice cream. Jerky is expensive and more of a road trip/camping food.
    • RandallBrown 6y ago
      I have friends that prefer the Impossible breakfast sandwiches at Starbucks to their meat versions so that's what they order.
      • mike_d 6y ago
        Your friends probably don't like the fillers they use. The turkey bacon for example uses ground up cherry pits to bulk it out and reduce cost.
        • nkurz 6y ago
          I think you must be wrong. Here's the ingredient list for Starbuck's turkey bacon: Turkey Bacon [Turkey, Vinegar And Lemon Juice Concentrate, Water, Brown Sugar, Honey, Salt, Potassium Chloride, Seasoning (Natural Flavorings, Sea Salt), Cherry Powder, Evaporated Cane Sugar] https://www.starbucks.com/menu/product/368/single?parent=%2Ffood%2Fhot-breakfast%2Fbreakfast-sandwiches-and-wraps https://www.starbucks.com/menu/product/368/single?parent=%2F... First, they are using "cherry powder", which I'm almost sure is ground cherry flesh, not pits. At least, all the examples I can find online are the fruit (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cherry+powder%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cherry+powder%22), and I'm doubtful that they would be legally allowed to call pits "powder", since most cherry pits are often considered to be poisonous. Second, the ingredients need to be order of weight. There is more salt, potassium chloride and seasoning than "cherry powder". While I'm sure their bacon is really seasoned and salty, this doesn't leave much room for a "bulking agent". And I'd be really surprised that "cherry powder" is cheaper than "turkey", as I recently bought an after-thanksgiving turkey for well less than $1/lb. I'd be betting that the "cherry powder" is either being used as a flavoring, for the color, or to justify some spurious nutritional claim. But if you have more in-depth knowledge that would support your position that it's just cheap bulking agent, I'm happy to be wrong!
      • tguvot 6y ago
        This sounds like a testimony to a quality (or actually absence of it) of starbucks food
    • jdlshore 6y ago
      Anecdotally, environmental concerns led me to consume less beef and to try the Impossible burger. I liked it better than beef and now I'll order it rather than a burger.
    • throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      "Conversions" and other voluntary consumption where people specifically pick the beef they want doesn't really matter to the bigger picture. Plant based meat is a rounding error until it gets good enough (at an equivalent or better price to ground beef) that McDonalds and Walmart can cut their low end products without anyone noticing or caring. People don't understand just much low end beef sells compared to the mid range products people might replace with plants (at present). In my experience at the foodservice level it's easily 50:1, maybe even 100:1.
      • jdavis703 6y ago
        It’s ambiguous what you mean by “cut,” but Taco Bell has cut their ground beef with soy based product for years. The biggest question is how far can meat preparations be diluted with fillers... I don’t think we have to eliminate meat to have a meaningful impact (e.g. a 50% reduction in meat consumption would cut about 3% of US greenhouse gas emissions.)
        • throwaway0a5e 6y ago
          That's exactly what I mean by cut. As the filler gets better (which is certainly the long game for synthetic meats) you can keep upping the amount as long as the end user can't tell. You're very right about diminishing returns and not needing to eliminate meat fully though.
          • koolba 6y ago
            It's like boiling a frog with the intention of eating it before it jumps out of the pot.
    • maxfurman 6y ago
      There's an assumption here that, at scale, non-meat options will be cheaper than raising cows. If the vegan option is $1 and the meat option is $2, many consumers will choose vegan. These are big ifs, of course, but it seems possible to me.
    • loceng 6y ago
      There will certainly be people who are indifferent and eat whatever, and be lead/manipulated via the propaganda that "vegan is healthier" - which arguably isn't true - but eating high-quality, fatty, red meat is healthy; it's the other junk people also eat with red meat that causes problems.
    • jdavis703 6y ago
      I’m just a single data point... But I’m not vegan, but I eat fake meats multiple times a week. In fact I haven’t eaten any real meat in 3 weeks.
    • throwawayboise 6y ago
      I'd like to know that too. I've never tried fake meat, and have no desire to. If I want to eat meat, I want real meat. I don't trust industrially processed synthetic foods, and I'd think we'd have learned by now that they are not worthy of our trust.
      • metabagel 6y ago
        Impossible burgers are ridiculously close to meat and worth a try. Beyond Burgers are more noticeably different than meat.
    • arcturus17 6y ago
      I’ll eat fake meat from time to time but I still eat real meat the vast majority of time. The main reasons are that it’s only distributed in restaurants where I live, it is less protein-dense (I lift heavy) and I’m not 100% sure about its safety. But I would be willing to eat more of it as these issues are solved.
    • nicoburns 6y ago
      I don't have any statistics to share with you, but in the last couple of years pretty much every mainstream restaurant chain in the UK has added at least one vegan option and few vegetarian options. And I frequently hear non-vegetarians saying that they sometimes choose those options (either because they feel like it's a more ethical choice, or simply because they like that particular menu option). Some people seem to consider meat a necessary part of every meal. But that number of a relatively small percentage in my experience.
    • GVIrish 6y ago
      My personal anecdote is that I've shifted most of my meat consumption away from red meat to Beyond Meat burgers, chicken, and fish. I only eat steak as a special occasion now where I used to have steak regularly. If there are more meat substitutes out there that taste good and aren't exorbitantly priced I'll absolutely eat more of them.
    • metabagel 6y ago
      What you’re referring to are sometimes called “flexitarians” - people who will often choose a vegetarian option if it is available, but who will eat meat if no suitable vegetarian option is available.
  • brightball 6y ago
    IMO this is the better solution to methane... https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/941030964/adding-red-seaweed-to-cow-feed-could-cut-bovine-flatulance https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/941030964/adding-red-seaweed-...
    • GavinMcG 6y ago
      Headline is "Adding Red Seaweed To Cow Feed Could Cut Bovine Flatulence"
  • DamnYuppie 6y ago
    I truly don't understand the methane issue. Historically worldwide the # of ungulates is probably well below historical averages. It looks like today we have around 98 million head of cattle in the US. Historically we had bison in excess of conservatively 60 million. This doesn't even begin to count all the animals in Africa. Overall wide life is declining. https://www.statista.com/statistics/194297/total-number-of-cattle-and-calves-in-the-us--since-2001/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/194297/total-number-of-c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison The point is the amount of large mammal farts, it appears to be burps, going on now is probably not that much higher than it always has been. We have merely swapped out one large untamed mammal for a more domesticated one. EDIT: I should point out I am not advocating for more cows. I don't think we should be clear cutting forests to raise more of them. Yet I don't think we should be running to get rid of all of them either. Historically beef was quite expensive and was usually reserved for rare occasions or the very wealthy. I can see a path forward where we keep the herd size constant and let prices rise. This would obviously drive people to look for cheaper substitutes.
    • mikepurvis 6y ago
      > large mammal farts going on now is probably not that much higher than it always has been I believe a big part of it has to do with the feedlot diet— when they're eating a high-calorie diet of mostly corn/grain instead of their natural diet of grass, it puts their digestive system into overdrive. EDIT: I looked into it a bit more after posting this, and it looks like it's not clear-cut— for example, it takes a cow a lot longer to reach slaughter weight eating grass, so even if they're belching less during that time, it's a long enough time that it may be a wash, or even worse: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/climate/beef-cattle-methane.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/climate/beef-cattle-metha... EDIT 2: Here's a piece which makes the original case, acknowledging greater direct emissions but claiming a savings that makes up for it from soil sequestration due to grazing: http://newzealmeats.com/blog/grain-fed-vs-grass-fed-beef-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ http://newzealmeats.com/blog/grain-fed-vs-grass-fed-beef-gre...
      • DamnYuppie 6y ago
  • macintux 6y ago
    I always assumed the inefficient grain and water requirements alone would make it worthwhile.
  • ngngngng 6y ago
    Raising cattle can easily become a net negative to carbon emissions if cows are given slightly more space to graze and moved around more often. If all cattle were raised in this way there would be slightly less cattle production but a far more positive environmental impact than if we all switched to vegan "meat". https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/blog/carbon-negative-grassfed-beef https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/blog/carbon-negative-grass...
    • loceng 6y ago
      There needs to be a proper discussion, debate, to break apart ideologies that are perpetuating misinformation or just simply not taking into account the whole ecosystem; the documentary Sacred Cow seemed to do a good job to explain it.
      • throwaway1777 6y ago
        Not sure why this was downvoted, sacred cow is actually a good unbiased take at regenerative agriculture (including both plants and animals)
    • silicon2401 6y ago
      > less cattle production This idea would lose the interest of anybody with influence over cattle production right here. It's almost impossible to make people simply want less, but it's more feasible to make them want something different than what they want today.
      • est31 6y ago
        What you are looking for are subsidies. In the EU you can get subsidies for not touching a plot of arable land at all.
    • pat2man 6y ago
      I think both solutions work hand in hand. We replace the lower quality meath with vegan alternatives. This allows meat producers to focus on higher value, grass fed products. So we still eat steak but frozen processed meat patties are replaced with plan alternatives.
  • com2kid 6y ago
    I agree that this is important, and less meat consumption is good, but I am kind of upset that the entire American culinary experience is being reduced to "burgers, pizza, and fried chicken." I say that because most of the articles on meat alternatives are written from the perspective of "if only Americans can stop eating hamburgers!" First off, in terms of global solutions, that isn't going to fly. Try going to Italy and telling people "we've replaced all your meat, with a ground beef alternative!" and see how pissed people get. Countries around the world have culinary traditions older than America itself. Many of these traditional preparations of various cuts of meat are a huge part of culture and history. Second off, I, an American, don't even eat hamburgers[1] more than once or twice a year. And I'm not going to switch all my meat eating over to meat alternative hamburgers. Of course replacing some meat is good, my main complaint is how so many articles reduce American food to just a few categories. I have the same problem when friends come to visit from overseas, or even friends who've been in America for awhile (sometimes years!) who have no idea that American food is anything other than burgers and pizza. [1] I eat sausages a bit more frequently, which I could fill with a plant based alternative.
    • jimktrains2 6y ago
      > Countries around the world have culinary traditions older than America itself. Many of these traditional preparations of various cuts of meat are a huge part of culture and history. Many of these traditions include "new world" ingredients such as tomatoes, potatoes, bell peppers, corn, squash, some beans, &c that wouldn't become common in europe or asia until the 16th or 17th century. While still older than the founding of the united states, they're still "newer" than many people realize. These new ingredients were incorporated into older traditions just as new ingredients will be. Noöne will force it on anyone, but people will experiment and find culinary and economic reasons to use new ingredients.
      • astura 6y ago
        Very good point, for example, I think of dragon fruit as being 100% an Asian food so I was shocked to find out it's indigenous to the Americas.
      • 6y ago
  • hannob 6y ago
    Unfortunately the documentary Cowspiracy is operating with massively exaggerated numbers (it claims meat is responsible for more than 50% of ghg emissions, it's explained on the wikipedia article of the film). Real numbers from credible sources are that greenhouse gas emissions from the meat and dairy industry are around 15%. Which is large enough to take this problem seriously, but it's still far away from those claims. I think this is harming the case. The problem is big enough to be passionate about fake meat. No need for exaggeration.
    • nightski 6y ago
      The 15% is globally also. In the US it's as low as 7% (all of agriculture is 10% - directly from the EPA website). We buy a 1/4 a cow from a local farmer once every six months. It's a pretty low impact way eat meat.
      • hamax 6y ago
        Except for the cow.
        • fastball 6y ago
          It's only 1/4 of a cow. The cow still has 3/4 to work with.
          • deleted 6y ago
            [deleted]
          • rsj_hn 6y ago
            Everyone has to cut back in lean times.
        • leadingthenet 6y ago
          The cow wouldn't even exist if it weren't useful to us. Let's treat them as humanely as possible, while not pretending they're something they're not. If you want to help animals, let's tackle the issue of rewilding and reforestation more seriously.
  • elktea 6y ago
    The popular crusade against meat is one of the more misguided. Meat provides far more nutritional value than any plant and the environmental impacts have been greatly exaggerated. See below: Regarding carbon: "removal of livestock in the US would only lead to a net GHG reduction of 2.6% in national emissions. Similarly, removing all dairy would lead to a reduction of just 0.7%. At the same time, both transitions would create domestic deficiencies in critically limiting nutrients [White & Hall 2017; Liebe et al. 2020], which is not unexpected given that Animal Sourced Foods are valuable sources of essential nutrition [see elsewhere]. and methane: "As argued above, this is not wishful thinking as there is still ample potential for mitigation of biogenic methane in global food systems. Moreover, the global cattle population has not been increasing during the last decade, making its contribution to global warming debatable [Shahbandeh 2020]. It is, however, true that methane has nonetheless been suddenly increasing since 2007. Yet, this can be ascribed to a multitude of potential reasons, incl. geological and fossil fuel emissions, wetlands, rice farming, and landfills [Gramling 2016; Nisbet et al. 2016; Alvarez et al. 2018; Rasmussen 2018; Etiope & Schwietzke 2019; Malik 2021], or a decrease in hydroxyl radical levels, the main sink for atmospheric methane [Turner et al. 2017] https://aleph-2020.blogspot.com/2019/06/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html https://aleph-2020.blogspot.com/2019/06/greenhouse-gas-emiss...
    • vortegne 6y ago
      > Meat provides far more nutritional value than any plant Completely wrong
      • kleton 6y ago
        What is one plant that contains menaquinone or eicosapentaenoate?
        • chickenpotpie 6y ago
          Sauerkraut, buckwheat, fermented soy
        • vortegne 6y ago
          Are you eating a lot of liver? Because if not, you're not getting that much of menaquinone anyway. And there's plenty of it in plant-based foods, as pointed out by the other commenter. As for omega-3, I believe it's been a few decades since we found it in a ton of different seeds, nuts and oils.
  • fortran77 6y ago
    > Reducing the demand for real beef is probably one of the best things we can do in the short term for the environment, And reducing the amount of food we eat in general! If the 66% of the U.S. population who are obese or overweight just started eating no more food than they needed, we'd go a long way to reducing greenhouse emissions. Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oby.22657 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oby.22657
  • kleton 6y ago
    If you fly over the country, you will see a bunch of green circles from center pivot irrigation systems mining "fossil" groundwater. All the brown spots outside of those circles are vegetated, but the only way to get human food out of them is grazing. By necessity there will always be a large amount of cattle grazing area. Feedlots should be ended as a practice- wasteful of feedstock and poor quality and nutrition of the output.
    • metabagel 6y ago
      Cattle drink a lot of water, and the plants they consume require a lot of water. If we want to produce as much food as possible, as well as free up water for human consumption and irrigation, we should probably cut back on raising cattle for food.
  • swiley 6y ago
    Maybe. As someone who isn't a fan of the meat production process and accidentally bought some vegan "meat" due to Amazon pushing it on everyone it's not the same. I threw it out because I couldn't eat it.
    • bluntfang 6y ago
      My toddler did the same thing! Just threw it off their high chair trey!
    • lostgame 6y ago
      Similar! I can immediately and clearly tell the difference, like water and vodka! A similar texture, colour and presentation does not the same thing make. It may have been due to the spelling, but I found it utterly fascinating that a dead comment below stated even their toddler was able to differentiate! I didn’t throw it out. I donated it to a friend. I have a basically never throw food out policy.
  • therealmarv 6y ago
    You should research on German Ökotest and beyond meat test. I don't get why things like beyond meat is not more tested. Why is mineral oil in their patties ???
    • savrajsingh 6y ago
      there is no mineral oil in beyond meat: https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/beyond-beef/ https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/beyond-beef/ click 'ingredients'
      • therealmarv 6y ago
        not on purpose. Just google for words: beyond meat mineral oil Öko-Test or see my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26320898 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26320898
  • frankfrankfrank 6y ago
    That methane emission meme is not accurate, as simple logic reveals. The methane produced by cows is not going to be significantly more than the equivalent produced by the same amount of plant material left to rot/decompose. One would even have to reasonably theorize and possibly could even conclude that the energy the cow takes out of the plant material to produce milk and meat and heat, actually captures energy that rotting plant material would have converted into methane. An interesting side story about this issue is that it has been shown a long time ago that ruminants actually enrich the environment (assuming non-industrial practices) through both processing the plant material and both converting it into compost and also seeding it with bacteria, while also trampling the plant material into the ground and thereby facilitating the breakdown. That lesson came out of the discovery of Allan Savory a Rhodesian/Zimbabwean ecologist that desertification only accelerated once huge herds were culled in an assumption that the grazing was causing the desertification, rather than that they were part of the system. I encourage you to reassess what you surely are convinced about.
    • ornornor 6y ago
      > ruminants actually enrich the environment (assuming non-industrial practices) Wink wink. What’s the ratio of non industrially farmed beef vs industrially farmed beef anecdotes non withstanding?
    • mikepurvis 6y ago
      Follow the foodchain, though— the "plant material" that industrially farmed cows are eating is almost entirely grown-for-purpose corn for which there are substantial inputs in terms of petroleum-based fertilizers. And even if there weren't, those same fields left fallow would be capturing the same atmospheric carbon for plant/tree growth and holding it for much longer than a crop which is being harvested every season. It's not like the cows are eating exclusively grass clippings which were just going to be left to rot otherwise.
    • ceph_ 6y ago
      This post is disingenuous at best. Want to cite some credible sources that back it up? Methane is produced by decomposition in oxygen deprived anerobic environments. Like a cows gut or a tidal bog. Grass rotting in a field will not produce the same levels of methane as grass digested by cows. And that's not even touching on the rate at which it's released. Are you going to say burning the field is just as bad as letting it decompose because they both release CO2?
  • rsj_hn 6y ago
    The agreement isn't to make vegan meat more available, but to make Beyond Meat the "preferred supplier" of vegan meat when they do sell it (so that they don't choose an alternate vegan beef supplier for their patties but buy all their alt-beef from BM). E.g. this is an industry press release akin to saying "We were chosen to supply the rubber for the new Toyota Tacoma". People reading this as McDonald's promising to stop using beef or replacing beef with the fake beef or even putting the alt-beef into new dishes are misinterpreting this press release.
  • bendubuisson 6y ago
    I'm a vegetarian, but Cowspiracy is not something I would use in an argument, the thing is full of shortcuts and misleading facts...
  • _cloudkate 6y ago
    I share the same take with you! Reading some of the discussions going on in the comments, I'm surprised anyone thinks this is anything but good news. Like you said, it means: 1. non-vegetarians & non-vegans have more options. This is great for so many reasons! 2. Demand for beef will go down, which has a positive effect on the environment.
  • Chris2048 6y ago
    I eat less meat because I think quality has declined; as meat is seen as the default-superior option, quality is less scrutinised, and has thus lowered. As such, either I buy expensive, from a trusted location, I I stick to something else; Vegan options has been good quality so far, not that I don't expect this to change in the future. Right now highly processed & shaped pink slime (with added salt + sugar) is sold at unreasonable prices, partly because people don't know what they are eating (or what it's really worth, often masquerading at other things), and partly because the main factor in consumer choice is PR budget - the low cost cheap meat therefore gets the higher marketing budget. My one hope in this space is grocery delivery services becoming the norm will make it easier for people to scrutinise products from the comfort of home, with the convenience of a search engine.
    • ricardobayes 6y ago
      Don't think it's just marketing though. People always reject change at first - and they are right to do so. This reaction is coded in us. I just hope vegan food items will not go the path of electric vehicles where they are forced on us without choice. (Saying this as a plant-based eater).
      • Chris2048 6y ago
        Well, it might be forced upon us if the market changes such that meat becomes a luxury item again. To be fair, it's currently heavily subsidized, and isn't taxed in proportion to the resources (land/water/carbon) it uses, so we're kinda living outside our means already - the exact same is true of fossil-fuel based vehicles..
  • chovybizzass 6y ago
    i don't believe cow farts are a bigger problem than cars.
  • YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    >> This is the best news I've heard all week. Not meaning to snark, but I don't see the good news. A manufacturer of mass-produced, low-quality, highly procesed food has struck a deal with large companies that specialise in selling exactly that kind of food. That the food in question is plant-based makes no difference at all. Companies like McDonalds, KFC and PizzaHut are responsible for the normalisation of industrial food production that is causing widespread environmental destruction and they have no incentive to solve the problems it creates. Switching to plant-based alternatives will simply change where the damage is done. This is just typical greenwash. As a for instance of how companies like McDonalds encourage industrial farming and agriculuture tactics that are detrimental to the environment: A Mongabay investigation, prompted by a report done earlier this year by the NGO Mighty Earth, suggests that customers buying chicken from some of Britain’s largest supermarkets and fast food chains may unwittingly be fuelling rampant deforestation in the Bolivian Amazon and Brazilian savanna. Tesco, Morrisons and McDonald’s buy their chicken from Cargill, the biggest private company in the world, which feeds its poultry with imported soy. The U.S. food distributor purchases its soy from large-scale agribusiness operations that often burn and clear large swathes of native forest to make way for their plantations. https://www.mightyearth.org/ukmeatinvestigation/ https://www.mightyearth.org/ukmeatinvestigation/
    • ip26 6y ago
      But that's exactly the point. People eat 5 million head of cattle at McDonalds annually. Beyond Meat will hopefully need a lot less soy feedstock than cattle ranching for the same burger, so it should be a strong improvement.
    • theptip 6y ago
      > Companies like McDonalds, KFC and PizzaHut are responsible for the normalisation of industrial food production that is causing widespread environmental destruction and they have no incentive to solve the problems it creates. Switching to plant-based alternatives will simply change where the damage is done. This seems like a reasonable prior, if you had no evidence about the specific harms of meat production vs. Beyond Meat. But given the widely documented harms of beef production (devastation of the Amazon for soy feedstock/grazing, GHG emissions, water usage, etc) and the lack of evidence of similar levels of harm from potential replacements like Beyond, I'm curious as to why you're indifferent to potential improvements in the worst parts of the food supply chain. It seems like a non-sequitur; "McDonalds' current practices do harm, McDonalds is considering a new product, therefore new product must do equal harm." It sounds like you do care about the harms; do you have specific evidence/comparisons that indicate Beyond actually is as bad as beef for the environment? My model here is that companies like McDonalds are completely indifferent to the negative externalities they impose on the environment, except inasmuch as they become financial/reputational liabilities. I see no reason to assume that a plant-based alternative must, a priori, be bad, just because McDonalds are rolling them out. As a thought experiment, consider if they had vat-grown beef, produced in each store. This might have the side-effect of halting environmental devastation and reducing CO2 emissions from transportation. Would McDonalds pay extra for this? Probably not. But if it's significantly cheaper than farmed beef, then I think obviously yes, they would use it. I don't think you could make the generic statement "switching to vat-grown alternatives will simply change where the damage is done" without providing a more rigorous analysis of the specific processes involved.
  • yrgulation 6y ago
    As a beef “fan” i was amazed by the taste of beyond meat. I am trying to reduce meat (due to practical moral considerations) so dont be harsh. Happy to try such alternatives.
    • rendered_fat 6y ago
      Is it healthy?
  • war1025 6y ago
    > The more widely vegan "meat" is available, the more likely it is to be adopted by average people This argument always reminds me of Margarine, which was promoted for years as having great health benefits, and then we later find out that it is loaded with trans fats and actually terrible for you.
    • adtac 6y ago
      That argument makes no sense. If I said that the more unleaded petrol is available, the more likely it is to be adopted by average people, would it remind you of margarine too? Should we go back to leaded petrol? Or coca-cola with cocaine in it?
  • megablast 6y ago
    The real game changer will be when they price it cheaper than meat.
    • adtac 6y ago
      That will require government subsidisation, just like how meat and dairy is subsidised.
  • actuator 6y ago
    > and not just dedicated vegans. Are vegans actually adopting these? I would have assumed non vegetarians eating fake meat more. A significant part of the world is vegetarian/vegan, so we don't have dearth of just plant based food preparations from there. Isn't it easier to adopt those things for dedicated vegans?
  • TheRealSteel 6y ago
    I've spent the last year vegan (only eating meat again this week because I'm in quarantine and can't get vegan food) and I: - Firmly believe that lab grown and plant-based imitation meats will be the thing that makes the world vegan, not somehow convincing everybody to stop eating meat and dairy - Would invest in lab-grown meat for profit if I had money to invest - it just makes sense to me that it will eventually become cheaper to manufacture than traditional meat for obvious reasons, and when it does, the McDonald's marketing machine will be out in full force to convince everyone that lab-grown meat is the manly masculine option (completely different to being one of those 'pussy vegans', right!?) and will succeed massively Beyond is a plant-based imitation meat, not a lab grown meat (which I think will make more of a splash due to their variety and authenticity), but I still think it has its place and wish them success. Even if you don't are about the animal cruelty, animal agriculture is a huge contributor to climate change - far bigger than international flights - and not eating meat is usually the best thing an individual can do to lower their contribution.
  • belorn 6y ago
    When it comes to the climate I have two primary problems: 1: We use fossil fuels (natural gas) to create artificial fertilizers. We use manure from cattle to create organic fertilizers. The production of artificial fertilizers is seen as positive for the environment while the production of organic fertilizers is seen as an negative. 2: When we use artificial fertilizers to grow crops which get used to produce bio fuel we call it carbon neutral. Cattle eating grass is in contrast seen as a major if the largest contributor to climate change.
  • notnestle 6y ago
    Don’t be fooled, not all plant based foods are good for the planet. Nestle makes them in Israel & sends them with refrigerated air freight around the world. That’s more harmful than a cow...
  • waheoo 6y ago
    I don't think you can call it vegan. Millenia of meat eating went into the making of this "meat".
  • spicyramen 6y ago
    That doesn't taste as good as meat.
  • jb_gericke 6y ago
    Agriculture accounts for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, of which livestock is only a portion (soil and crops are lumped in with agriculture). Focussing on the smallest denominator in reducing emissions is nonsensical (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...). I understand there is a morality aspect at play but it's frustrating hearing the vegan vitriol dolled out without thought for consequence. Meat is by far the most nutrient dense food available to humans. The vegan diet (as in strict vegan, not vegetarian) is incredibly unhealthy. Have you considered the land use required to grow the crops necessary to deliver the same amount of nutrients to a global populace? There's a burgeoning industry growing which conflates health and veganism and snidely appeals to the morality aspect of the vegan diet while dangerously touting non-existent health benefits. The list of ingredients ina a beyond burger is longer than my arm. My advice? Stay away from fast food (vegan or otherwise), eat whole, unprocessed foods much as possible, eat 'mindfully', make your own decisions regarding your health and diet and don't buy into anyone's snake oil/capitalistic agenda.
  • kmonsen 6y ago
    I'm not vegan, but I always pick the Beyond/impossible options when they are available. I hardly taste the difference and one less cow had to die for me having a tasty meal. And greenhouse gasses I guess, but for me animal cruelty is the most important.
    • ricardobayes 6y ago
      You are one cool person
      • kmonsen 6y ago
        I am not very cool at all, I just like animals.
  • seanmcdirmid 6y ago
    Unless there is a health benefit, why would normal people adopt vegan meat? Impossible meat has just as much fat and other bad things compared to real meat, I’m not sure why would be interested in it. If we replace cattle grazing by more plant growing, what are we going to do with the marginal land that is arable enough for grazing but not for growing things? It’s not like neveda is going to be able to switch from cattle to soy.
    • wortelefant 6y ago
      Which ingredients are you referring to exactly - the lack of antibiotics normally used when raising cattle? Plant-based meat has much less cholesterol, but the main reason should be animal welfare. Why choose to be responsible for the death of a living being, especially if there are healthy and tasty alternative. Unused land should not be a problem, it was not always used for grazing after all.
      • seanmcdirmid 6y ago
        Right m, we could just leave the land to nature. But some people like to make some use out of their (or in the case of the west the BLM’s) land.
    • looperhacks 6y ago
      People who care for animals but don't want to give up the taste of meat come to mind
  • acd10j 6y ago
    After reading some of the comments, I am increasingly thinking that People who eat beef/meat regularly will still seek Original/Farm grown/actual cattle beef. And Beyond meat style beef will be used for turning vegetarian people to get taste of beef, so that they can graduate to real beef later. Non Vegetarian people will never accept climate impact their eating habits have on environment.
    • dsomers 6y ago
      I’m not a vegetarian, but I eat a lot less meat now than two years ago primarily because of climate change, but also because it now feels easy because I’ve found meat alternatives like this that I enjoy the taste of.
  • moltar 6y ago
    The myth about beef and methane has been debunked many times. If you want a detailed accord please read the Sacred Cow or watch the doc.
  • otabdeveloper4 6y ago
    Beef is a net positive for the environment while "vegan" mass-produced cash crops are a net negative. Beef can (and does) graze on natural pastures that would have been otherwise ruined and turned into something useless.
    • perfunctory 6y ago
      If only we ate grass fed beef exclusively. Unfortunately this is not the case.
      • otabdeveloper4 6y ago
        Seems a heck of a lot easier to motivate people to feed their cows on land nobody wants anyways than to invent "vegetarian meat".
        • perfunctory 6y ago
          Unfortunately not. There is simply not enough land to replace all beef with grass-fed beef.
          • otabdeveloper4 6y ago
            Citation needed, because there is a lot of unused land in the world.
    • adtac 6y ago
      Cash crops such as soy that are a mainstay in vegan diets? What do you think most of the cows eat before they're slaughtered for your lunch? A five year Oxford University study done on 38,700 farms showed that if everyone in the world switched to a plant based diet, we would be able to reduce agricultural land by 76% [1]. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29853680/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29853680/
  • kvgr 6y ago
    I don't understand this vegan processed food propaganda to push people not eat meat. What would be much more efficient is making laws for more quality meat. US is very weirdly regulated(drugs, healthcare, doctors compared to food quality) Reduce the steroid meat. The prices would go up, the consumption down. If you want to eat meat, you would pay more. I would. I love meat, all types. You don't also have to eat beef every day. Chicken, pork and other types of meat are pretty much equal in quality if you avoid fat cuts for example of pork. I also love bread and vegetables. And I also think it is much better to eat fresh meat and fresh vegetables then heavily processed vegetables, grains and industrially processed oils. There are much more efficient ways to curb down emissions than fighting holy war against meat(coal anyone? trans oceanic shipping).
    • TeMPOraL 6y ago
      > I don't understand this vegan processed food propaganda to push people not eat meat. What's the propaganda angle? This is working the problem from a different end. Yes, we need to increase quality and reduce the amount of steroids/antibiotics used in meat production. Yes, we should stop subsidizing it and let the prices go up. But at the same time, lots of people love meat, so providing a similarly tasting alternative will reduce the demand for meat without forcing people to alter their tastes too much. Mid-term, it helps mitigate a climate problem. Meat production is very energy-inefficient and emission-intensive to such a large degree, that it is a good problem to attack early. Long-term, it also solves an ethical problem. Ever since homo sapiens started to settle down and domesticate animals, we've been very cruel to farm animals[0]. I don't want to push any moralizing propaganda here - it's a touchy topic for everyone now, as way too many groups use it as a weapon, but I think everyone knows there's something to it. It's uncomfortable to touch. But! If we can develop enough meat substitutes, we can just sidestep this problem entirely, and eventually stop farming animals[1]. > There are much more efficient ways to curb down emissions than fighting holy war against meat(coal anyone? trans oceanic shipping). I think a better way than fighting a holy war is to make options available. Which is what Beyond Meat is doing. They're not telling you, "stop eating meat!" - they're saying, "if you'd like to stop eating meat but can't because it's so tasty, try our alternative, maybe you'll like it enough". -- [0] - Factory farming is just extreme end of it, but even the old-school small farms are just animal abuse and torture. [1] - At least for meat. I'm not sure what the story for milk and eggs are, both of which are crucial ingredient to a wide range of foods and chemistry.
  • HenryBemis 6y ago
    Marketing-wise, I remember reading about the Oil industry heavily advertising on the benefits of plastic RECYCLING, which helped remove the guilt on oil extraction and plastic production, thus helping the large growth in the business[0]. (APOLOGIES for the below sporadic CAPS - I really have to learn how to write bold/italics in HN) I see the ethical and environmental benefits of eating meat without killing an animal. This makes me wonder the following: -is this to ensure meat-eaters continue to eat meat (for their benefit) without the suffering of animals? -is this to ensure that we eat cleaner/healthier/disease-free meat? [1] -is this to industrialise meat production further with a smaller harmful footprint? -is this to SELL TO VEGANS? (expand the customer base?). If I can break down the vegetarians/vegans into two categories: a) Those who don't want to eat meat because they prefer a plant-based diet (by choice, medical reasons, etc.) and b) Those who do it for ethical reasons - 'meat is murder'. -is this to SELL TO various RELIGIONS FOLLOWERS? I am thinking that around 2-3-4bn people do NOT eat a certain type of meat (or another)(pork, beef) for religious reasons. Imagine selling 'non-beef beef burgers' to 1.5bn people in India, 'non-pork bacon' to 2-3bn Muslims, etc. -how will 'permissible' (halal) meat consumers be affected by this? The 'halal' process defines a ritual that is not possile. Will religion follow/adapt? [0]: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled?t=1614759902332 https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-... [1]: https://www.motherjones.com/food/2015/08/poop-ground-beef-superbugs-antibiotic-resistant/ https://www.motherjones.com/food/2015/08/poop-ground-beef-su... (I was trying to remember the movie.. but I couldn't..)
  • shafyy 6y ago
    Pardon me for hijacking the top comment, but I see so much wrong information here that I want to address: 1) Direct emissions from livestock Yes, direct emissions from livestock are around 15% of all GHG emissions globally, and less than that in the US or most developed countries. That's because a lot of developed countries "import" emissions by buying cheap meat from livestock agriculture intensive coutries 2) Direct emissions are just the tip of the iceberg, though The bigger threats from livestock agriculture are land use and loss of biodiversity. Today, around 45% of usable land is used for or by livestock [1]. That's nuts. That land has something called the "opportunity cost of carbon" - meaning how much carbon could be sequestrated there by natural vegetation if it wasn't used for livestock. And that's a lot. One study that was published in Nature estimated that: "[...] finding that shifts in global food production to plant-based diets by 2050 could lead to sequestration of 332–547 GtCO2, equivalent to 99–163% of the CO2 emissions budget consistent with a 66% chance of limiting warming to 1.5 °C [2] Biodiversity is a separate issue than climate change (mostly), but if we start fucking it up more its consequences will be more dire, and it's not on the public's mind currently. Today, 60% of all mammals are cows. Only 4% of all mammals are wild life [3]. Let that sink in. Disturbing habitats of species, planting monocultures and changing the balance of biodiversity leads to the extinction of a lot of species. Humans are at the top of the food chain, and starting to erase species further downstream will lead to non-linear events that will endanger us. And don't get me started about zoonotic diseases. 3) Holistic grazing One comment mentioned that it's better to have cattle on land that's considered "marginal" than not having cattle, arguing that having cattle actually sequestrates more carbon than it emits. Of course, this is total bullshit or we would have some sort of cow pertuum mobile. This sort of livestock agriculture is often referred to "holistic grazing" and is more a cult movement than something rooted in science. Their "research" is often debunked by scientific studies [4]. It's always better to eat plants directly than to process it through a cow or chicken or goat. That's just basics physics. Sources: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4.epdf?sharing_token=lgXbpAbkjFrSjOabh_v66NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P77FyzGHe2tktE9ZrHAccCF62Zbhw7v9AoX05gp9lKKfvbGYiWvEkliPbe2e81XovvLyHq-XdiyAuDp2Urehw6kn5U8rgjMFeDp4GZPLLotA9UA4C2XbmuaoSDw0f-0Xo%3D https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4.epdf?shar... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-ra... https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijbd/2014/163431/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijbd/2014/163431/
  • Solstinox 6y ago
    When you see this as the top comment on HN, you realize how good of a job Big Oil has done deflecting their sins onto animal husbandry.
• marrone12 6y ago
  I prefer the taste of impossible but this is great news for the category.
  • tommoor 6y ago
    Agreed, impossible is far superior. Impossible is only $5.99 for 12oz in Trader Joes at the moment
    • ArchOversight 6y ago
      It's also for sale at Costco: $16 for 2 lbs which matches the pricing of the Trader Joes.
    • chasd00 6y ago
      i can get a pound of organic, free range, rocked to sleep every night by the rancher, ground beef for about that. i thought Impossible/Beyond was suppose to be significantly cheaper than beef? I've had it but my wife brought it home one night so didn't see the price.
      • rsj_hn 6y ago
        Butcher box sells you free range, grass fed beef for $16/pound, delivered to your home.
      • mywittyname 6y ago
        Beef is hella subsidized in the USA. Both directly, and indirectly, through low grazing fees on public lands and subsidized feeds. The grocery store tubes of 73/27 are under $3/lb where I'm at. Making beef insanely cheap per calorie.
  • tootie 6y ago
    I think either beats any frozen beef that gets served at a cheap fast-food joints while neither comes close to beating fresh, high-quality beef. They can take over the entire bottom of the market which is probably the most unwholesome for the environment.
• leereeves 6y ago
  On a somewhat related topic, has anyone seen any information about how well the Impossible Whopper is selling?
  • TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    I don't have that data, but I have an anecdote. I buy them about 4 times a week on my way to work (its a really convenient stop and I don't get fries, cheese, or mayo with it). When they were new, they would sometimes be out of stock. But I haven't encountered that in probably six month or more. They really seem to be fully supporting the product. So hopefully that means they're selling pretty well!
  • judge2020 6y ago
    Jan 2020: https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/burger-king-franchisees-impossible-whopper-sales https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/burger-king-franchisees-...
    • fl0wenol 6y ago
      So that's why they added it to the 2 for $6 menu. I got them all the time when it was on there. Anecdata, but ... It's basically the only thing I get from Burger King anymore. And I'm not vegetarian or anything, I just had consistent (not the best, but serviceable and consistent) texture and flavor so I didn't feel like I was missing out on anything. But I wouldn't be down to paying a big premium for them... that 2 for 6 putting it on the same level as the normal Whopper made the case.
  • silicon2401 6y ago
    In hopes of boosting the Impossible Whopper, it's the first thing I've eaten from BK that I've enjoyed in over a decade. No hyperbole, it just tastes good whereas to my taste, the rest of BK food tastes pretty dismal.
• grecy 6y ago
  and yet their stock price is down..... this market is hard to read!
  • headmelted 6y ago
    I would think this was less correlated as it’s only a contract for supply. In any case McDonalds isn’t selling a co-branded Beyond Meat product, they’re selling the McPlant. Beyond Meat’s moat looks very shaky here. It seems likely that Beyond Meat is only getting these contracts as it’s a relatively cheap way for McDonalds to test the substitute market before producing their own alternatives. It makes no business sense for them to hand over the core of their product to BM when it’s likely they can create something similar in-house.
    • axlee 6y ago
      Agreed. The only food items that McDs have not vertically integrated are sodas, everything else is bound to end up part of their supply chain.
      • throwawayboise 6y ago
        Not sure what you mean by "vertically integrated" they do not own cattle ranches or potato farms. They buy Heinz or Hunts catsup, etc. They do have a lot of proprietary recipes and process, but the ingredients are mostly sourced from other wholesale producers.
        • erichurkman 6y ago
          The cattle ranches and potato farms don't have their names or logos on the burgers or fries. McDonalds can swap them out at any time. Soda, on the other hand, is Coke's product and brand completely.
          • throwawayboise 6y ago
            Yes, this is hardly different from any other restaurant.
• e_commerce 6y ago
  People hate fake meat. It's also horrible for you.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• lolbrels 6y ago
  Tried it a single time just to entertain a co-worker. The smell was putrid and overwhelming - like a mix between ammonia and raw intestines from a gutted fish. All got thrown away but the smell lingered in the kitchen for a day or two. Just terrible lol. I don't eat at any of these places, but I'd be interested to see how much is sold. Just one of those products where everyone raves about it online yet I've never heard someone actually talk about it, seen anyone actually eat it and in my own test it was just awful for even the least picky eater. Think the hype surrounding this product is all fabricated.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• submeta 6y ago
  Just when you think there is no hope for this planet and for humanity something slowly emerges seemingly out of nowhere. Fridays for future was one of those developments that caught me by surprise. Young people fighting for our planet while „angry white men“ claiming there ain’t no climate change. Or take the sudden surge of interest in everything veggy / vegan. In Germany there is a growing demand for vegan products, and this demand seems to be very strong, because every grocery store has a growing number of vegan products lately. I turned vegetarian last year not because I hate the taste of meat but because there are a dozen reasons we should not be eating meat. Environmental reasons, but also the pain we are causing these animals, every single day.
  • harveywi 6y ago
    Why didn't you consider cannibalism?
    • nine_k 6y ago
      Obviously, it still causes suffering, and the supply is even more limited.
  • mutatio 6y ago
    Interesting, are there studies in climate change denial demographics?
  • marknutter 6y ago
    What's with the casual racism in your post?
    • txsoftwaredev 6y ago
      You can't be racist towards white people. It would only be racist if the said angry black men.
      • marknutter 6y ago
        Only racists say you can't be racist towards white people. You, for instance.
• at_ 6y ago
  Their stuff is good. Here in the UK every supermarket chain now has their own vegan ranges putting out stuff almost (admittedly not quite) as good, priced very competitively. Even a couple of years ago that simply wasn't case. Random stray thought I had earlier is how interesting things are going to be when we move further away from emulating existing meat products, and become more comfortable eating plant-based stuff that doesn't necessarily resemble (or have names that are a play on) anything else in nature, in the same way Pepsi is just Pepsi. I'd love to take a peak at what menus are gonna look like in 20 years, assuming this shift is the real deal. Are we gonna have to memorise a slapstick sounding list of dozens of engineered protein sources to get by? (Oomph, tofurky, shroomdog... and of course, quorn! etc)
  • theNJR 6y ago
    The analogy of less water and more Pepsi is terrifying and potentially accurate.
    • hedora 6y ago
      Plants love electrolytes!
  • hans-moleman 6y ago
    BBQ Pepsi Burgers. The future is beautiful.
    • hedora 6y ago
      Oh god. I’ve seen the future. That reminds me of a certain college campus food service that signed an exclusive contract with Coke. Coke brand milk. Coke brand grade D but edible meat (we found the box in the dumpster). Hell, they even f———ed up the soft drinks because they had hyper-optimized machines that mixed corn syrup, citric acid, flavor, co2 and water on site. The mix, and therefore PH, was frequently so far off that students would fall ill for 4-8 hours with convulsive stomach cramps and miss class about once a week. In fairness, it was still better than the milk. So. Much. Food. Poisoning. Decades later, I’m still boycotting those ^{+$&@! $@&&}^+# &@$@&s!
• ukyrgf 6y ago
  Impossible is definitely better tasting, but I'm happy to see Taco Bell is included in this deal (though not in the headline here on HN). I haven't been there since they got rid of potatoes, so having a vegan option would make my taco consumption during lunch break skyrocket.
  • jfengel 6y ago
    Taco meat [EDIT: in Taco Bell's usage] is a perfect application, since its texture is already squishy and the flavor is dominated by spice. Plus, it's wrapped in a shell and mixed with lettuce and other things. Even a mediocre fake meat is enough to pass. Beyond Meat should have no trouble producing a virtually-indistinguishable taco meat.
    • whalesalad 6y ago
      Del Taco already has a Beyond Meat taco and it tastes like shit.
      • jonwachob91 6y ago
        Too be fair though... Everything at Del Taco tastes really bad. :)
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
    • dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Taco meat is a perfect application, since its texture is already squishy and the flavor is dominated by spice. “Taco Bell ground beef” rather than “taco meat”; this is very much not true of taco meat generally, including the non-ground-beef options at Taco Bell or other similar fast-food taco restaurants.
    • dec0dedab0de 6y ago
      Taco meat is a perfect application, since its texture is already squishy and the flavor is dominated by spice Cheap fast food is a perfect application, There are plenty of higher quality tacos in the world.
• corban1 6y ago
  Thanks vegan meat, now I can enjoy my prime beef steak with less remorse. Go vegan meat!
  • pindab0ter 6y ago
    Aren't Beyond and Impossible ground beef replacements, not steak and other kind of "whole meat" replacements?
    • somehnguy 6y ago
      He was making a way overused and lame joke ala ‘others eating less meat means I can double my meat consumption’
• spacejam88 6y ago
  sdfsdf
• spacejam88 6y ago
  I look at this as good but cautious news. People really need to be eating more vegetables in their diet, but I just don't think we need to go to such measures simply to mimic meat, when there are so many vegetarian options already exist. Remember that there is a large population of the world that doesn't even eat meat and that Beyond Meat is not serving those people, even though they are in the "vegetarian" market.
  • Ensorceled 6y ago
    Getting someone eating 4 or 5 big macs a week to switch to 4 or 5 big beyond macs, served at the takeout they've been going to for years, is much easier than getting them to switch to traditional Indian dishes made by nobody that lives within a three hour drive of them.
  • arduinomancer 6y ago
    Ehh I think it’s fair to say that encouraging people to eat more vegetables didn’t work.
    • dec0dedab0de 6y ago
      maybe if there were more salty greasy vegetable meals that were cheap and readily available.
• LinuxBender 6y ago
  Is this the same as what is described here? [1] [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktgh51E8V1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktgh51E8V1Q
• m4tthumphrey 6y ago
  I stopped eating meat in January 2018 and I can honestly say the only thing I miss is a Big Mac! This is VERY good news for me and a long overdue! That being said, whilst I do love a Beyond burger, here in the UK, I was surprised to hear it was Beyond that McDonalds selected for this. While in Orlando 2 years ago, I tried an Impossible burger for the first time and it was incredible. The size, texture and taste would be perfect for McDonalds (Big Mac). Still, I will be all over this once it hits UK branches!
  • noneeeed 6y ago
    I keep seeing people say that Impossible tastes better, bit Beyond keeps snagging big deals like this and it makes me wonder if they have either a price or supply-chain advantage.
    • hahahahe 6y ago
      A key factor being BYND is a public company and they are under pressure to produce results. These are largely small experimental runs. I think the general consensus is that Impossible is the better product. And my guess is McDonald’s knows this and could be trying to drive down valuation for Impossible so they can buy it. It’s currently valued around $4-5B vs $9B for BYND.
      • leafmeal 6y ago
        I really don't know jack about this stuff, but I will be blown away if your market predictions turns out to be true.
    • acchow 6y ago
      https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/impossible-foods-abandons-pursuit-of-mcdonalds-burger-deal.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/impossible-foods-abandons-pu... "The company said it cannot produce enough of its imitation meat to partner with the world’s No.1 fast-food chain."
  • redisman 6y ago
    I tried a Big Mac recently and it's really not that great, pretty dry. The sauce is the amazing part. I prefer getting a Impossible burger from a slightly more expensive burger place instead now. Maybe I just need to buy a gallon of that sauce and pour it on there.
• unchocked 6y ago
  All of the sudden - I get it. These co's are dealing with a really shitty, commodified form of beef that they'd love to develop an alternative to. So the immediate benefit is they get to serve vegetarians, but the long term is they can transition off their price-above-all meat supply chain.
  • redisman 6y ago
    Kind of a win-win-win. Companies like it if they can just press soy or peas and fats into patties, environment likes having less bottom of the barrel meat farms, animal welfare is better at the high end farms, maybe the veg patties are a bit healthier(?).
    • omosubi 6y ago
      I'm very skeptical that these patties are healthier. I'm guessing that in 5 or 10 years it'll come out that eating them regularly is terrible for your system and it'll be like the margarine/butter debate. I don't have evidence for this but I'm very curious to see
      • jMyles 6y ago
        My body certainly doesn't ask for more of them.
      • grumple 6y ago
        They are not healthier in terms of fat/protein/nutrients. They do lack some of the cancerous elements of meat production (nitrates). But the big win is that they are made from plants and cost far less to produce while removing the animal cruelty and greatly reducing the risk for disease spread (because of not using animals). Seeing as we are in the midst of a pandemic caused by meat eating and we’ve had several other smaller pandemics we believe were caused by meat eating that seems like a big win for the future (hiv originated with bushmeat, h1n1, mad cow disease).
  • swyx 6y ago
    what prevented you from getting it before? this seems like it was the explicit goal of the meat substitute companies for forever
• umvi 6y ago
  Impossible meat with ketchup, mustard, lettuce, tomato, etc., tastes just like a beef burger to me. If impossible patties were cheaper than beef patties at the supermarket I would definitely buy them.
  • psychometry 6y ago
    There's huge variance in prices where I live. Some grocery stores sell a pack of two for about $5. If you were buying sustainable beef from humanely-raised cattle you'd probably be paying that much, too.
• cptskippy 6y ago
  Rather than trying to encourage people to substitute the ingredients in their meals, I wish we'd encourage more healthy habits and work life balance. So many people are either pressed for time or incapable of preparing a decent meal. If they aren't ordering takeout, they're falling back on boxed or prepared options. Simply substituting fake meat for real meat isn't improving anyone's lives.
  • arduinomancer 6y ago
    You don’t think less factory-farming is a good thing?
    • cptskippy 6y ago
      This doesn't reduce factory farming it, it just changes it.
      • doublerabbit 6y ago
        Doesn't change a thing. KFC,McD don't give a rats-arse about anything other than money. They will still murder and inhumanely treat animals.
  • eatwater123 6y ago
    Improving cow's lives though :)
    • cptskippy 6y ago
      If the demand for beef plummeted over night, they wouldn't release the cows into a field to live out the remainder of their lives. At best a drop in demand will reduce the population size of future generations of cows. It doesn't fundamentally change how they'll be raised or treated.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • 6y ago
• tssva 6y ago
  I have never tried Beyond Meat and maybe I should give it a try but I am hesitant because of my experience with Impossible burgers. Obviously they must taste similar to meat and be tasty to the majority of people, but to me they taste nothing like meat and are quite disgusting. I know a few others that have the same reaction while most people at worse seem to think they taste like a low quality burger. I wonder what is in them that causes some like myself to have such a negative reaction to them and how large that percentage of people is.
  • dec0dedab0de 6y ago
    I don't think they taste like meat, but i think they're both pretty good.
  • pdx6 6y ago
    Impossible burger tastes like it is engineered. It isn’t terrible but in San Francisco, it isn’t any less expensive at a typical non-chain burger joint. I also had digestive issues, though I have only had it once so I can’t claim it was the IB. Veggie burgers just seem like a healthier, more delicious option, and a known quantity if I want to skip the beef.
• nafizh 6y ago
  I feel the price is still quite high for daily consumption. For example, 3 lbs of impossible ground meat is ~50$, so per pound comes in about ~16$ (data from impossible website). Real ground beef, even when you buy high quality will be around 7-8$ per pound.
  • tommoor 6y ago
    It has been high but it's already coming down, I don't know how permanently. Currently Impossible is: - Costco: $16 for 2lbs - Trader Joes: $5.99 for 12oz
• therealmarv 6y ago
  This brand was tested by German magazine called "Öko-Test" on their ingredients. Also not for the first time. It got a BAD review again because it contains too much mineral oil in it (could have various reasons, packaging of ingredients or oily manufacturing machines) and 20g fat per 100g "meat". So it's unhealthy on mineral oil (MOSH) which can easily accumulate in your body and fat percentage. One of the sources which you can Google translate: https://www.businessinsider.de/gruenderszene/food/beyond-meat-oeko-test-mineraloel/ https://www.businessinsider.de/gruenderszene/food/beyond-mea... Another English article: http://www.ezineblog.org/2020/12/12/beyond-meat-fails-the-test-again-too-much-mineral-oil/ http://www.ezineblog.org/2020/12/12/beyond-meat-fails-the-te...
  • mathgorges 6y ago
    The fat percentage criticism strikes me as a bit odd. At least where I am (USA) ground meat is categorized by its fat percentage and 20% fat is the standard I usually see in the supermarket. I guess what I'm saying is: 20% is indeed a high fat percentage, but it's also the typical fat percentage for conventional meat so it feels disingenuous to use it to criticize plant-based meats.
    • pwinnski 6y ago
      80/20 is very typical for ground beef, although some people shop specifically for 85/15 or even 90/10. I find the 90/10 lacks flavor.
      • Black101 6y ago
        I drain the 80/20 meat after cooking it... so it is probably close to 90% meat when I'm done
        • yurishimo 6y ago
          Yea depends on how you use it. Ground meat cooked for a casserole, probably too much fat, but 20% fat in a burger is good.
• zozin 6y ago
  HN masses cheering on the success of Soylent Red or Soylent Yellow?? Just eat less meat if you think meat production is bad/bad for the planet, don't cheer on meat substitutes, which are just processed foods made from entirely processed ingredients. Eating meat for every meal is not good for you, but you can bet that Beyond and Impossible will advertise themselves as something that can be eaten for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Enjoy your industrial slop, I'll just make a salad and eat meat a few days a week.
  • mft_ 6y ago
    I assume you're being downvoted because of the tone of your comment, but this is actually a really valuable point: > processed foods made from entirely processed ingredients There's evidence that suggests the degree to which foods are processed (generally) correlates with unhealthiness. And there's also good evidence that meat is unhealthy in various ways. So, it's difficult to know where the balance would lie: unprocessed meat, vs. processed meat-substitute?
    • poopoopeepee 6y ago
      > So, it's difficult to know where the balance would lie I would expect that soon someone will come out with a plant-based meat substitute that is marketed as "Only five ingredients, made in a kitchen not a factory".
  • mindcandy 6y ago
    The founder of Impossible Foods has said that a major motivator for founding the company is 1. Global poverty is lifting. People around the world are starting to make more money. 2. A big point of pride when your family starts making money is literally putting meat on the table. 3. Our current meat production process cannot scale up to meet that demand. But, good luck convincing billions of people coming out of extreme poverty that they're simply too late and they should give up on the dream that they can finally have meat too --for the sake of climate change. They are going to demand something. He believes plant-based meat can reach that scale at a tiny fraction of the impact if they can make it acceptably close in quality. That's something I can cheer for.
• endisneigh 6y ago
  Is beyond meat actually healthier than meat? If you search my question you’ll see the results are hardly conclusive. What’s everyone’s take?
  • nepeckman 6y ago
    Compared to what meat? Which animal, which cuts, which quality? Is it healthier than a really high quality meat, prepared well? Maybe not. Is it healthier than fast food "beef"? Yeah probably. Either way, environmental and moral concerns are just as relevant as health concerns when considering diet.
  • kilroy123 6y ago
    I personally don't think so. I'm no scientist. I have, however, done a LOT of studying about food because I have some serious stomach issues. What has finally worked for me? Intermittent fasting for 15-16 hours a day — eating a low-carb diet filled with veggies. I feel a night and day difference eating like this. Btw I was mostly vegan and vegetarian for half a decade before this. Take it as you will.
  • dec0dedab0de 6y ago
    I think it tastes pretty good, but I would be surprised if it were any healthier.
  • therealmarv 6y ago
    I think it's more unhealthy because it contains too much mineral oil (search my other comment) according to various tests of a German magazine.
    • throwaway5752 6y ago
      Yes, you've posted this elsewhere. Your sourcing is very poor on this, and you don't make it clear that it's residue, rather than an ingredient (further, you exaggerate the hazard substantially, this is something that is consumed in large quantities for treating constipation). To be clear, it is not an ingredient, and it is Generally Recognized as Safe in multiple applications (https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/food-additive-status-list#ftnM https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/food-addit...) and it's pretty obvious from the product this is food equipment lubrication.
• whalesalad 6y ago
  Bummer - the Impossible burger is 100x better than Beyond Meat. I've tried the stuff at Del Taco too and it is pretty dismal. Even my veggie sister was disappointed.
• legitster 6y ago
  I enjoy eating meat and have no plans of going off of it completely. But we eat so much of it as a culture. And when you add up every hot pocket, frozen pizza, slider, hot dog, or chicken nugget, it's hard to argue that most of meat actually being consumed can't be easily substituted. For something healthier and cheaper too! And I know people blast tech companies for focusing too much on making things flashy and cool, but the people who are making electric cars and fake meat cool are the ones who are going to save our asses while we were busy scolding people for not trying harder to enjoy brown rice.
  • exyi 6y ago
    Beyond Meat is not like tofu or so, it is designed to be unrecognizable from meat by tasting it - so you won't have to give on our beloved meat. I also don't want to go with a vegan diet just because "environment", but having a reasonably priced substituent which does not contain tortured animals and has lower env. impact - then just why not.
    • legitster 6y ago
      I've consumed a lot of Beyond and Impossible, and it's good! But still a far way from unrecognizable. In fact, one thing they have made me appreciate is how good some of the "traditional" meat substitutes are. I actually quite like Boca and Garden Burgers et al! Still, the once or twice a year I go to a steakhouse and get a nice medium rare steak - we're a long, long way off from that.
      • blackearl 6y ago
        I'm sure Burger King's meatless burger is recognizable to some, but when I tried it I don't think I'd really be able to tell the difference. It's easier to hide when the meat is already super processed like fast food meats. Agreed that there's still no comparison to a fine steak.
        • ksec 6y ago
          I guess it depends. I dont know anyone who cant tell the difference even without knowing it. They do taste good, but they are not meat. Even processed one. And generally speaking, McDonald's processed food are pretty damn good in terms of processed food category. As compared to rest of the industry.
• Black101 6y ago
  And their stock dropped 5% today.... good time to buy!
  • hahahahe 6y ago
    This was already discussed last week and it was essentially a PR stunt.
    • tryonenow 6y ago
      Can you elaborate? I was wondering why the stock dropped. What's the PR stunt and why has the price dropped?
• exabrial 6y ago
  Personally I avoid their stuff. I'd rather have a locally raised steak from one of my neighbors who loves their cattle and their job. Eating highly processed food just isn't good for you.
  • beisner 6y ago
    To be fair, neither is red meat. Unclear which is worse, though.
    • mikeg8 6y ago
      Where are the studies that show grass fed red meat is bad for your health? All studies I've seen concluding red meat is a health concern are using grain finished beef.
      • spark3k 6y ago
        It's definitely bad for the health of the cow.
      • dukeyukey 6y ago
        There are studies e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-iron-and-health-report https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-iron-and-hea... The vast majority of beef cattle in the UK are fed grass from pasture most of the year, then hay/silage over winter when there isn't much grass. The conclusion was the same; red meat isn't great for you, at least in significant quantities (90g+ a day).
        • jtdev 6y ago
          That study doesn’t say what you think it says. Show me one single study that finds an actual link between red meat consumption and bad health outcomes... Not some epidemiological bullshit - a real study with real findings.
  • hyperpl 6y ago
    I agree. I once tried beyond meat by accident (some vegans were visiting and did a switcheroo on me) and it was one of the most repulsive things I had ever tasted.
• barbs 6y ago
  This is undoubtedly good news, despite what some people in these comments would have you believe. I seriously wonder if some commenters are being paid by big meat industries to try and sway opinions of richer/more powerful people? Or perhaps it's just the tendency of HN commenters to be contrarian.
• gverrilla 6y ago
  lab food will be a very limited trend.
• bredren 6y ago
  Beyond nutritional or environmental reasons to reduce meat consumption, there are ethical considerations about the consciousness of the animals we slaughter. It doesn’t matter how we get people to be less reliant on factory farms, so long as we do. We must examine every avenue that allows us to reduce the suffering of animals.
  • BitwiseFool 6y ago
    Preface: I'm a hypocritical omnivore who likes animals. If meat alternatives and lab grown meat become cheap and indistinguishable from real sources, I predict that within the span of two generations our descendants are going to look back on us as immoral savages. I use cognitive dissonance and distance from how my food is made to get over how horrible industrial farming is and how brutal life can be for livestock. They'll wonder how we were able to tolerate such brutality and all the answers come back to either 'out of sight, out of mind' or 'it's tasty'.
    • krrrh 6y ago
      I imagine this sentiment is often from seeing documentaries about the worst conditions in farming, and the general cosseting away from life and death that most of us have enjoyed. But the farms and ranches I grew up around, and that I buy most of my meat from, never seem that brutal when I’ve visited them, and the animals seem well cared for and mostly doing their own thing on the pasture most of the time. I wanted to take more responsibility for my consumption, so I’ve been increasingly substituting in meat that I hunt for that which I buy from farmers. The North American model of wildlife management maintains an abundance of wildlife compared to other continents, and the hunting community pours billions of dollars into land conservation and re-establishing extirpated species into their natural ranges. There’s a paradox in hunting—killing an individual animal but pouring resources and votes into maintaining populations, and the existence of that species in the face of industrial exploitation of the land. The system is set up so that the populations don’t decline year over year, the number of animals harvested by hunters is often simply subtracted from the total number of animals that would have died from starvation over winter. The damage done to the natural environment by the sort of soy and legume monoculture that makes industrial meat substitutes profitable has its own issues, and anyone who’s lived near a farm and seen the vultures and raptors circling a freshly combined field knows that the number of rodents killed to produce a cows worth of veggie burgers is significant. I’m not arguing that we should, or could, go one way or the other, but I hope that a hundred years from now the moral certitude that you’re describing has not been adopted. We’ve been eating other animals for as long as we’ve been a species, and hunting just as long, and farming for 12,000 years. Long term, the species and environment would probable be best served by some diversity in approaches.
• dfxm12 6y ago
  They just missed the start of this Lenten season. I'm fascinated by what fast food places market when a huge chunk of their customers won't eat land or air-based meat one a day out of the week. Is Beyond Meat finally going to topple the fish sandwich? As an aside, I did always want to try the Mc hula burger, but thanks to Vatican II, it was not long for this world and died way before I was born...
• thehappypm 6y ago
  I love the idea of vegan meat alternatives but personally don't like Beyond's taste. It tastes too much like peas for me, doesn't get past "uncanny valley". I do like Impossible though -- Qdoba has it and it's fantastic in a burrito.
• chasd00 6y ago
  i've had it, it's not bad. It's no bone-in ribeye but it's not bad. more power to them.
  • chiph 6y ago
    Same here. It's totally acceptable for something like a burger or ground meat "crumbles" for pizza and tacos. It won't replace a good steak (yet). Their problem as a company is that the product is pretty easy to copy. And the danger there (beyond the threat to the firm) is that one of the knock-offs will be so bad that it kills the entire meat-alternative product space because of the bad reputation. Which would be a shame - anyone who has driven by the stockyards on Interstate 5 in California would appreciate reducing our supply on cattle.
• dekhn 6y ago
  I really wanted to like Beyond Meat, but there's something about how it smells that seems... off... to me. I really want to go work there just to play with a GCMS and figure out what component smells bad to me and remove it. Personally, I think the epitome of vegan meat replacement is Morningstar Veggie Breakfast Patties. most meat eaters I know who try them say "huh... this is pretty damn good for something that doesn't have meat in it"
  • redisman 6y ago
    We have the same taste buds. Morningstar Hot Dogs are also really good for that cheapo hotdog experience.
  • gowld 6y ago
    It's the coconut oil. Coconut oil smells terrible when cooked, like burning rust.
• alacombe 6y ago
  I just slaughtered two muttons over the week end, enjoy your highly processed fake meat while I enjoy some tasty juicy ribs !
  • goatcode 6y ago
    I wish we were neighbors :)
• txsoftwaredev 6y ago
  How does it compare to Japanese A5 Wagyu?
  • redisman 6y ago
    A veggie meat with Wagyus fat content would be... interesting.
• dannyphantom 6y ago
  that's awesome; i'd love if Beyond could produce a nice vegetarian fish substitute as well. also hoping buying some shares wouldn't be a good short-term investment after their earnings miss.
• Kharvok 6y ago
  Almost all of livestock farming emissions come from transportation and powering the processing facilities. See Frank M. Mitloehner at UC Davis research on methane emission from livestock.
  • soyftware 6y ago
    This paper: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7876/files/inline-files/CLEAR-Center-Methane-Cows-Climate-Change-Sep-2-20_6.pdf https://clear.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7876/files/inl... References: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2018/ghg_inventory_trends_00-18.pdf https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2018/g... Which says on page 17: > Livestock emissions are almost entirely CH4 generated from enteric fermentation and manure management, and most of the livestock emissions are from dairy operations. Enteric and manure management seem fairly close, both between 11-12 million tonnes with manure management being higher by some hundred thousand. I'm not sure what manure management is, I'm sure part of it is transportation, etc, but that's not "almost all of livestock farming emissions." In this paper (the errata): https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987 > In total, the “no animal products” scenario delivers a 28% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of the economy relative to 2010 emissions (table S17). The scenario of a 50% reduction in animal products targeting the highest-impact producers delivers a 20% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
• superkuh 6y ago
  I wish companies were not able to label and sell these textured vegetable proteins as "meat". They are great products but they are not meat and as scale increases and they become less expensive than meat there will be strong commercial profit motives to replace real meat with "* meat" for monetary reasons. I'd strongly prefer for increased funding to isolated tissue culture methods. That way we could have real meat without the environmental or ethical issues.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • ausbah 6y ago
    there was a small push by the meat lobby to do exactly that a couple years ago [1] I think it's a silly form of regulation. there are plenty of non-milk milk products, or "fruit flavor" things that don't have any fruit https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/technology/meat-veggie-burgers-lab-produced.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/technology/meat-veggie-bu...
    • p1necone 6y ago
      I think it's very silly. I as a consumer would like to buy a substitute for cows milk that is not animal based. Being forced to call it "almond juice" or something is just making my life harder (and not making anyone elses life easier). Nobody is going to think that "almond milk" is actually the same as cows milk and accidentally buy it instead of the dairy product, so what's the problem? (Also, almond and soy milk are not new products, they've been consumed for hundreds of years in Europe and Asia respectively)
    • theNJR 6y ago
      There were FDA rulings around the use of the word "milk". I think it went to court, and I don't recall the final ruling.
  • p1necone 6y ago
    I've never seen plant based meat labelled in a way that could trick a reasonable person into thinking it was animal meat. I don't see what you'd gain from not allowing the word "meat" to be used - it's very clearly a product that's trying to imitate various kinds of animal meat, and I want that communicated to me efficiently.
• dqpb 6y ago
  How does this compare to impossible burger? I didn’t like impossible burger at all.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• Spooky23 6y ago
  Gross. Replacing meat with coconut oil and pea protein is bad for the earth and bad for people.
• goatcode 6y ago
  https://youtu.be/eoWvrcvTrZI https://youtu.be/eoWvrcvTrZI
• jordache 6y ago
  I tried the impossible whopper. You literally could not tell the difference between that and a normal beef whopper. I realized a lot the attributes of these commercial food products are the additions, like sauce, and toppings that contribute to that precisely calibrated flavor.
  • apozem 6y ago
    My wife is vegan and let me try her Impossible Burger at a local chain. I am not vegan so she wanted to know how accurate the taste was. It tasted exactly like a frozen burger you'd cook on your backyard grill.
    • gowld 6y ago
      Only if you bury it in toppings.
  • kart23 6y ago
    Impossible is really good, even the texture is nearly spot-on. However, I've found Beyond meat to give itself away pretty easily, and it has a distinctly chemical-ly, (plant?) aftertaste.
    • astura 6y ago
      I find the Beyond Meat aftertaste quite pleasing, actually. It taste kind almost herbal to me. It's been more than two decades since I've had hamburger so I can't comment on authenticity.
  • null0pointer 6y ago
    I tried the impossible whopper too and I could certainly tell the difference. It was very close, and if I wasn't paying attention I might not have noticed, but it does taste distinctly different. Not trying to say you're wrong, just want to provide another datapoint. I tried it about a year ago, so maybe they've updated their recipe since then. I would encourage anyone reading to give it a try see what they think.
• megablast 6y ago
  How about bringing the price down now??
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• znpy 6y ago
  uhm... i'm not against this thing per se, but last time i tried a beyond meat burger... it didn't taste like meat at all. at least, not the kind of meat that usually goes in a burger. it tasted more like entrails/chitterlings/pluck (not sure what the correct word would be, i'm not a native speaker of english). we'll see, I guess.
• lorax_108 6y ago
  that fake meat is bad for you.
• cynoclast 6y ago
  I just want to point out that there's no way they would be doing this if it weren't profitable for both BM and McDs. Which means they're both charging you way more than what you're getting is worth because they have to satisfy not one, but two businesses. As always: Any time there are three parties in a business deal, one of them is getting fucked. And It's not BM or McDs.
• AzzieElbab 6y ago
  Wasn’t KFC forbidden to call their chicken “chicken” already?
• emrah 6y ago
  In my later years, I tend to be more skeptical of brilliant/magical solutions. I genuinely hope "Beyond Meat" doesn't turn out to be more trouble than good in the long run. Then again fast food meat isn't that great anyway so the bar is pretty low to begin with.
• dleslie 6y ago
  My kids _love_ Beyond Beef; to the point that they ask for "the real beef" when I cook "beef" items, like burgers and meatballs, with literal real beef. I've tried the other fake meats on them; like Lightlife and St. Ives. They won't touch it, and I find cooking with the other fake meats is just ... nowhere near as good. Beyond beef is awesome. I wish it were cheaper.
• RedComet 6y ago
  barf emoji
• pojzon 6y ago
  This sounds like a good news but at the bqck pf my head I still have humorous SP episode about the same. Hope the quality of the food will be better than what they serve now.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• ecommerceguy 6y ago
  I tried the one from Burger King and was very off-put by the flavor. Of course I don't like beats too much either... so maybe that's why I found the flavors unpleasant. JM2C
  • astura 6y ago
    At least in the US Burger King does not sell Beyond Burger made by Beyond Meat, they sell the Impossible Burger made by Impossible Foods. They are two different products from two different companies.
• Judgmentality 6y ago
  I'm not asking this to rain on the parade - I love what these guys are doing but I have a question about their process and the ethics of it. So in order to grow the meat, they have to culture the cells in bovine fetal serum, which they get from cow fetuses on their way to slaughter. My question is how much meat is grown per fetus? > Cell-grown meat, I told him, would be spurred on by synthetic serums refined from the crude system currently used, where cells are bathed in fetal bovine serum. The serum, which promotes cell growth, is collected from the hearts of calf fetuses found in pregnant cattle gone to slaughter. https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/mar/14/impossible-burger-meat-from-cells-change-eating-habits https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/mar/14/impossible-burg...
  • jtdev 6y ago
    Wow, that does not sound like something I want to eat.
  • astura 6y ago
    You entirely missed the context of that quote, which was preceded by "vegan meat replacements today, meat grown from cells tomorrow." "Cell-grown meat" isn't what Beyond or Impossible are doing - what they are doing is "vegan meat replacements," replicating the taste of meat using vegetable sources. Neither company is trying to grow real meat from cell cultures in a lab, which is what you're talking about.
    • Judgmentality 6y ago
      Oh wow, I was confusing them with another company. Thank you for the clarification.
      • astura 6y ago
        As far as I know cell grown meat is not quite a viable product yet (hence the "tomorrow,") but there are many companies and organizations researching the topic to try to make it a reality. In contrast, both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are existing commercial products that are mass produced and widely available in grocery stores and restaurants. Are you thinking of Eat Just? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eat_Just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eat_Just >In December 2020 its lab-grown chicken became the first lab-grown meat to receive regulatory approval in Singapore. Shortly thereafter, Eat Just's cultured meat was sold to diners at the Singapore restaurant "1880", making it the "world's first commercial sale of cell-cultured meat".
• boring_twenties 6y ago
  For me personally, the Beyond burger was wholly unsatisfying. I much prefer veggie burgers that don't bother pretending to be meat, such as the ones Trader Joe's sells frozen. In fact, those have become my standard late-night meal. (As someone who used to be a "meat with every single meal" kind of guy.)
• xyst 6y ago
  going long with $BYND
• Jennifer9918910 6y ago
  I'm available for sex, Please just follow my link https://rebrand.ly/sexygirls007 https://rebrand.ly/sexygirls007
• trashface 6y ago
  Great, another way to load up on Omega 6 acids via vegetable oil. Exactly what Americans need. Hello obesity and inflammation disorders. The for-profit medical industry in the US will love this. I'm a vegetarian, so it doesn't affect me too much, but you meat eaters may be better off with moderate consumption of actual (good quality) meat.
  • CyanBird 6y ago
    So this is the next debate point from vegans etc towards meat eaters? "don't eat that fake meat bs bc it is harmful to you, eat" natural meat instead "? Don't you see that it is a bit against the general best interest of ppl? As to even begin most of the population are not eating organic meat by a long shot
    • philliphaydon 6y ago
      By good quality I don’t think the OP meant organic. But meat that hasn’t been processed like in fast food...
      • trashface 6y ago
        Yes, exactly. You don't have to eat organic. Just avoid meat from cows raised on corn and soy and copious amount of antibiotics. Which is probably 90% of the beef in the US.
    • flipcoder 6y ago
      > "don't eat that fake meat bs bc it is harmful to you, eat" natural meat instead "? Yes.
  • danShumway 6y ago
    If you're worried about health, then skip the fake meat debate and just tell people to stop eating at McDonald's. People are comparing these patties to premium, unprocessed meat, and that's just not what McDonald's has ever been serving. I don't think anyone is going to McDonald's or Pizza Hut and thinking to themselves "I need to make sure this burger doesn't have too many trans fats." The fake meat on your pizza is not as big of a health problem as, for example, the massive amount of thick-bread pizza crust and sweetened tomato sauce. So it's a bit like arguing about the health benefits of substituting almond milk in a chocolate fudge recipe. You may have a legitimate point, but the context around that point matters.
• pid_0 6y ago
  Jskamalakdjekebwhwjwj
• SavageBeast 6y ago
  BYND to the MOON! [diamond hands emoji here]
• wait_a_minute 6y ago
  It's very interesting to see that the veganism debate will be settled not by anyone actually winning the argument, but by innovation once again obviating an unnecessary debate. Humans can fundamentally do anything! Dream big.
• wdb 6y ago
  Personally, I don't understand why they need to call it meat or vegetarian butcher while it isn't. I understand it's accepted by the EU courts but it feels odd. I typically order my vegan meals/recipes from Riverford (https://www.riverford.co.uk https://www.riverford.co.uk) and Abel and Cole which are nice but I do think I need to swap it out occasionally with some vegetarian meals. I do think they could have some more mashes in their recipe collection
  • 3131s 6y ago
    The Chinese are big on this "mock" meat too... which as a vegetarian I almost always find disgusting. Just give me legumes, nuts, seeds, mushrooms, leaves, roots, etc. Tofu and seitan are about the only processed foods that I ever eat.
  • subungual 6y ago
    I think it's just easier to call it meat because it makes clear what dietary/textural/taste role it is supposed to fill. The spot is already cut out in people's schemata. Maybe language will shift and a new word will emerge to better characterize substitutes in the future, or maybe the definition will ultimately be subsumed by replacements. Honestly, it's not ever really bothered me, so maybe it's just a question of individual language aesthetic preferences. I'll give you that using "butcher" is a little weird, though for most places I've seen do that it's a marketing gimmick.
• MrMan 6y ago
  I am happy about this but I don't understand the fake meat thing. Our household reduced our meat consumption by 95 percent, we don't use any fake meat. It is highly processed and to us doesn't taste very good.
• chovybizzass 6y ago
  if they slip that shit in their food without telling us I will be very upset.
  • thomasfromcdnjs 6y ago
    What I think is worse. Is that they call it "meat". People who aren't that switched on will start eating it, when there is no proof it is actually good for you. I'd like to see a 10-20 year study before we just accept that Beyond Meat is actually good for long term health. Supermarkets are putting this stuff in the "meat" section too. Poor old person who can barely see that actually needs real tried and test nutrition. Kind of evil if you ask me but that is why this comment is at the very bottom.
    • adtac 6y ago
      They need to rename peanut butter too, it's not actually butter :/
      • souprock 6y ago
        Start with "peanut". It's not a nut. Peanuts are a type of pea, related to lentils and beans. Call the result "goober goo".
• bradgessler 6y ago
  Have you ever eaten a burger at McDonald’s and thought, “wow! This beef is juicy, sweet, succulent, and delicious!”? Probably never, so it’s great to see these plant based alternatives that taste “just as good” become available. There will always be demand for high quality beef, chicken, and pork ... and no substitute either.
  • ghayes 6y ago
    While I largely agree, I would argue there might be a tipping point where people eat so little animal-based meat that the majority of people become vegetarian, and then the norms shift such that traditional meat is treated like we currently treat fois gras.
    • bradgessler 6y ago
      Totally! Meat could become a decadence. I think that would be OK.
• jasonv 6y ago
  Beyond < Impossible
• victorfonseca 6y ago
  I feel ashamed to fart after reading the comments.
• dadrian 6y ago
  BeyondMeat determined they should not try to out-pizza the Hut
• mdpopescu 6y ago
  Yay, more poison in our diet. What's the worst that could happen?
• ricardobayes 6y ago
  As a person who likes to research and optimize things, I have optimized meat out of my life. At first I ate "pareto-plant-based" meaning 80% plant-based, 20% meat, usually at social gatherings. Then I realised I eat meat only to please others and to "fit in", so I gave up on that and accepted being an outcast. I'm really thankful for remote work so I don't have to pretend anymore. I never called myself "vegan" even though I eat like one because people think I'm judging them or something. They hated me just for existing.
• yc-kraln 6y ago
  I think it's amazing that Beyond Meat has managed to convince everyone that their extremely complicated, oily, fatty, plant-protein based burgers are any sort of ersatz for beef. I have tried burgers made with it, they taste fine, but I can't believe that it is any healthier than beef. And I don't believe that a more expensive product has any chance of offsetting beef demand.
• dagorenouf 6y ago
  I’m a 31yo heavy meat eater. Pretty shocked that we’re in the process of making these vegetable oil compounds go mainstream. I feel like an old man who doesn’t want to get with the times. I did not see it coming.
• unixhero 6y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/futurology https://www.reddit.com/r/futurology called, it wants its prediction back!
• devops000 6y ago
  The stock hasn't moved much after this news
• wooger 6y ago
  Yuck. Nasty fake shit full of dubiously sourced powders from China, and more fat than 10 real burgers. To replace meat with something demonstrably less healthy is a ridiculous endeavor. All people regardless of the restrictive hipster diet they follow should know that eating ingredients in as un-processed a state as possible (fresh meat & vegetables for one) is the way forward for health. This is the opposite.
• gadders 6y ago
  I'm looking forward to when lab-grown meat becomes widely available. I'd rather eat that than vegetables, and both would presumably be equally environmentally friendly.
• thorin 6y ago
  I'm not sure about these companies, in terms of getting massive uptake of meat alternatives they seem fine. However their product is heavily processed food, with ingredients you don't really need to be eating and massively marked up in prices. Other than marketing, what are you really gaining over a 3rd world diet of rice and beans/lentils. Hey you could even prepare your own dinner from a selection of fresh vegetables and fruit (and if you're feeling absolutely crazy you could add a few eggs, milk, meat, fish or grains). This seems like it solves a couple of problems and ignores/creates a whole load more. People who are content eating all their meals from McDonalds etc have their own issues, most of which can't be fixed by meat substitues.
  • whywhywhywhy 6y ago
    >what are you really gaining over a 3rd world diet of rice and beans/lentils. The working class doesn't want to eat beans/lentils they want to eat McDonalds and Taco Bell. This way we can swap out the meat and force them to eat meat substitute for the supposed greater good and eventually save money and the environment while we do it. They're already being sold turkey meat when they order pork in some stores (Subway in particular does this) so what does it matter if it's just all switched out for artificial meat.
    • thorin 6y ago
      "The working class doesn't want to eat beans/lentils they want to eat McDonalds and Taco Bell" Is suppose this is the bit I don't get. In the UK I feel like the working class see McDonalds as a "treat", which they might have once a week and the kids will get a toy or an ice cream. It's way way cheaper to spend the 10-20 pounds I'd spend for 3 or 4 meals from McDonald's on real food. I could easily make a good roast dinner with dessert or similar meal for the whole family for that kind of money. It just feels like laziness to me, which we're all guilty of and I'd probably be even more guilty of if I had less free time and poorer living conditions. I'd still argue that working class don't "want" to eat at McDonald's on a regular basis, not in Europe anyway.
• ChildOfChaos 6y ago
  The Quorn KFC burger is absolutely fine though here in the UK. I'm guessing this is just the in the US?
• efiecho 6y ago
  After trying both Beyond Meat and Impossible Meat, without the stuff being drenched in sauce and other burger ingredients, just the plain "meat", I must say that I don't like it one bit. It smells like canned cat food and taste nothing like real meat to me. I will switch to fake meat when I'm unable to sense any difference between something like a Greater Omaha ribeye and a fake substitute, not a day before :)
• tim333 6y ago
  There is a burger place doing beyond meat burgers round the corner from my flat - Neat Burger, started by Lewis Hamilton. Not bad really - probably comparable to a basic McDonalds burger though a fair bit pricer. - article on the restaurant: https://vegnews.com/2020/12/lewis-hamilton-s-vegan-restaurant-expands-to-third-location https://vegnews.com/2020/12/lewis-hamilton-s-vegan-restauran...
• teekert 6y ago
  I'm a noob but why does this news not correlate with an increase in the bynd stock's price?