5 ms·

Did any of you read the article? Fake meats are actually much more sustainable that real meats

WheelsAtLarge 4y ago
Yes, they are more sustainable but they are in no way replacements. I've had a few but I wouldn't make it a habit to replace meat with it. But I would surely replace one of my meals with 100% vegetables if it was easy to get and tasty. One that comes to mind is a bean and rice burrito with salsa. It's delicious. That's the type of replacements that should be pushed, not fake meats. The idea that fake meat is so much better is crazy. It's just a new way to make a buck.
- atoav 4y ago
  It is a bit like in the Matrix. If it tastes the same and you have a good feeling when you bite into it, is there really a difference? I mean aside from the fact that we are now entering times where the water consumption of each unit of meat produced will become a serious issue and threaten the actual survival of people.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  As a vegetarian, having fake meat options is really great. Sometimes you just want a burger, or you need something that can be cooked on a grill at a social gathering. Just the fact that I can get fast food that isn't Taco Bell when I want to is a big deal.
  - prepend 4y ago
    As a former vegetarian, I loved boca burgers as they were cheap and high in proteins and minimally processed. The new fake meats aren’t that great over existing meat substitutes and I’m frustrated that their price is so high and has not been coming down over the years available. I don’t see these being viable as they cost more than beef.
    - myshpa 4y ago
      Beef is heavily subsidized. Give it time.
    - DangitBobby 4y ago
      At least at Burger King, Impossible Whoppers are only like $1 more. Most restaraunts, yeah they are the most expensive option by a couple of dollars. Very frustrating. Still good to have the option though, because the alternative is often a crappy house salad or sides.
  - WheelsAtLarge 4y ago
    Cool, have a fake meat option. It's a snack food option. But please don't tell me it's going to save the planet. It's not even close to doing that. It's just a way to sell another money making snack. I love French fries and eat them a few times a month but in no way am I kidding my self into thinking that I'm saving the planet.
- markeibes 4y ago
  Why did you kill the planet, daddy? It was just too tasty!
  - diffeomorphism 4y ago
    That reply makes no sense to me. The post you are replying to suggested replacing meat with veggies (instead of fake meat). Why do you think eating veggies will "kill the planet"?
  - tsol 4y ago
    But super processed fake meats are way worse for the environment than bean burritos?
- jstummbillig 4y ago
  It's quite simple: If someone replaces some type of food in their diet with something else, it's by definition a replacement. People ate meat. Now instead of meat, and increasingly, they eat something else instead, which turns out to be better for the environment.
- oweiler 4y ago
  Look for Indian cuisine, which in parts is both vegan and delicious/healthy. Much better than that overprocessed crap.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Almost all the Indian food I've had (which is indeed delicious) has been based on chicken.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- myshpa 4y ago
  > Yes, they are more sustainable but they are in no way replacements. Yes, they are (source: am vegan). > a bean and rice burrito with salsa. It's delicious. That's the type of replacements that should be pushed, not fake meats If you're not vegan, please don't pretend you know what you're pushing for. Beans are superb, but a little variety won't harm anyone. If you'd eat burgers all your life, and then stop eating meat for the animals/health/earth, you might crave a burger now and then. Then you'd welcome all new "franken-meats" in the supermarket/burger joint. Making a plant based meat that's not ultraprocessed is in fact a very simple thing to do. DIY plant-based meat may have minimum ingredients (protein, water & vegie-stock) and costs a fraction of the store-bought stuff. And please stop pretending that omnivores don't eat processed crap, because they do. Meat/dairy is full of harmful things (pesticides, herbicides, bacteria/toxins, antibiotics, all animals are scared/stressed for hours/days before slaughtering ...). If you're eating it, you're not eating healthier diet.
  - WheelsAtLarge 4y ago
    >Yes, they are (source: am vegan). I'm not a vegan. Fake meat is sold as replacement for people like me. Give me a choice between fake meat and a vegie plate. I will pick the vegie plate 100% of the time. It's not a replacement for me. I guess my real issue is that people think this will somehow help the planet. It won't. It's expensive so most people in the world will never be able to afford it. People with the money will mostly pick meat over it. It's a niche product at best. But the product is being sold as a the answer to save humanity. It's just a bunch of people trying to make a buck. All this when just reducing your meat intake would be so much better. It's just frustrating to me.
tuatoru 4y ago
There are a few little details elided. Pastoral lands are pastoral, and not arable, usually because they are not suitable for arable cropping. There is either too little rainfall, or the wrong kind/timing of rainfall, or the soils are wrong. For rainfall reasons forests are out too. Articles that go on about how ${large_number} percent of the world's non-desert, non-mountain, non-arctic land is used for grazing animals, all omit these inconvenient facts. The "Sand Hills" region in Nebraska is typical. Dry, could in theory support arable farming, for a while, by drawing down the Ogallala aquifer. But for the fact that that the soil is just sand, and it doesn't give good crop yields. Pouring on the amounts of fertilizer that would be required for cropping would poison the aquifer for everyone else. (In the Sand Hills, the aquifer is highly connected to the surface because of the porosity of the, er, sand.) Leaving these pastoral lands fallow (without herds of wild ruminants, with their global warming emissions) would just result in continual grass fires. That said, feeding ruminant animals grains (soy, maize/corn, wheat) is a Bad Idea environmentally as far as I can tell. So is bulldozing the Amazon rainforest to grow soy and cattle. And it might be a Good Idea to re-wild quite a bit of pastoral land. I don't know. Persuading people to leave money on the table is difficult.[1] 1. Major Major's father notwithstanding. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/771699-his-specialty-was-alfalfa-and-he-made-a-good-thing https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/771699-his-specialty-was-al...
- herbst 4y ago
  30% or more of Switzerland is not useable for any kind of farming other than cattle. Fertilizers in the Alps are heavily discouraged. Less than 5% of the food for cows is imported. The far majority is produced trough the same grass the herds spent their time on. And to round this up there is a relatively okish label jungle so you can know exactly which kind of farming you support. Just because beef isn't the solution for the world hunger doesn't mean it's not the best possible and probably even most ecological solution in some areas.
  - myshpa 4y ago
    We would not need cca 75% of our agricultural lands if stopped overindulging in meat/dairy. Those 30% you're talking about is not the only land your cattle herds need ... there is also corn/seeds/alfaalfa etc. produced somewhere. Beef needs 120x more land than plant-based foods for the same amount of calories. Western countries are a model for developing countries. If we base our diets on meat/dairy, they will want the same. We're developed, we have to set a positive/meaningful example. We would need several Earths to feed the world same diet as westerners eat. It's simply short-sided and selfish to insist upon current practices to the detriment of everybody else (& Earth & wild animals & biodiversity etc.).

Yes, they are more sustainable but they are in no way replacements. I've had a few but I wouldn't make it a habit to replace meat with it. But I would surely replace one of my meals with 100% vegetables if it was easy to get and tasty. One that comes to mind is a bean and rice burrito with salsa. It's delicious. That's the type of replacements that should be pushed, not fake meats. The idea that fake meat is so much better is crazy. It's just a new way to make a buck.

atoav 4y ago
It is a bit like in the Matrix. If it tastes the same and you have a good feeling when you bite into it, is there really a difference? I mean aside from the fact that we are now entering times where the water consumption of each unit of meat produced will become a serious issue and threaten the actual survival of people.
DangitBobby 4y ago
As a vegetarian, having fake meat options is really great. Sometimes you just want a burger, or you need something that can be cooked on a grill at a social gathering. Just the fact that I can get fast food that isn't Taco Bell when I want to is a big deal.
- prepend 4y ago
  As a former vegetarian, I loved boca burgers as they were cheap and high in proteins and minimally processed. The new fake meats aren’t that great over existing meat substitutes and I’m frustrated that their price is so high and has not been coming down over the years available. I don’t see these being viable as they cost more than beef.
  - myshpa 4y ago
    Beef is heavily subsidized. Give it time.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    At least at Burger King, Impossible Whoppers are only like $1 more. Most restaraunts, yeah they are the most expensive option by a couple of dollars. Very frustrating. Still good to have the option though, because the alternative is often a crappy house salad or sides.
- WheelsAtLarge 4y ago
  Cool, have a fake meat option. It's a snack food option. But please don't tell me it's going to save the planet. It's not even close to doing that. It's just a way to sell another money making snack. I love French fries and eat them a few times a month but in no way am I kidding my self into thinking that I'm saving the planet.
markeibes 4y ago
Why did you kill the planet, daddy? It was just too tasty!
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  That reply makes no sense to me. The post you are replying to suggested replacing meat with veggies (instead of fake meat). Why do you think eating veggies will "kill the planet"?
- tsol 4y ago
  But super processed fake meats are way worse for the environment than bean burritos?
jstummbillig 4y ago
It's quite simple: If someone replaces some type of food in their diet with something else, it's by definition a replacement. People ate meat. Now instead of meat, and increasingly, they eat something else instead, which turns out to be better for the environment.
oweiler 4y ago
Look for Indian cuisine, which in parts is both vegan and delicious/healthy. Much better than that overprocessed crap.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Almost all the Indian food I've had (which is indeed delicious) has been based on chicken.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
myshpa 4y ago
> Yes, they are more sustainable but they are in no way replacements. Yes, they are (source: am vegan). > a bean and rice burrito with salsa. It's delicious. That's the type of replacements that should be pushed, not fake meats If you're not vegan, please don't pretend you know what you're pushing for. Beans are superb, but a little variety won't harm anyone. If you'd eat burgers all your life, and then stop eating meat for the animals/health/earth, you might crave a burger now and then. Then you'd welcome all new "franken-meats" in the supermarket/burger joint. Making a plant based meat that's not ultraprocessed is in fact a very simple thing to do. DIY plant-based meat may have minimum ingredients (protein, water & vegie-stock) and costs a fraction of the store-bought stuff. And please stop pretending that omnivores don't eat processed crap, because they do. Meat/dairy is full of harmful things (pesticides, herbicides, bacteria/toxins, antibiotics, all animals are scared/stressed for hours/days before slaughtering ...). If you're eating it, you're not eating healthier diet.
- WheelsAtLarge 4y ago
  >Yes, they are (source: am vegan). I'm not a vegan. Fake meat is sold as replacement for people like me. Give me a choice between fake meat and a vegie plate. I will pick the vegie plate 100% of the time. It's not a replacement for me. I guess my real issue is that people think this will somehow help the planet. It won't. It's expensive so most people in the world will never be able to afford it. People with the money will mostly pick meat over it. It's a niche product at best. But the product is being sold as a the answer to save humanity. It's just a bunch of people trying to make a buck. All this when just reducing your meat intake would be so much better. It's just frustrating to me.

tuatoru 4y ago

There are a few little details elided. Pastoral lands are pastoral, and not arable, usually because they are not suitable for arable cropping. There is either too little rainfall, or the wrong kind/timing of rainfall, or the soils are wrong. For rainfall reasons forests are out too. Articles that go on about how ${large_number} percent of the world's non-desert, non-mountain, non-arctic land is used for grazing animals, all omit these inconvenient facts. The "Sand Hills" region in Nebraska is typical. Dry, could in theory support arable farming, for a while, by drawing down the Ogallala aquifer. But for the fact that that the soil is just sand, and it doesn't give good crop yields. Pouring on the amounts of fertilizer that would be required for cropping would poison the aquifer for everyone else. (In the Sand Hills, the aquifer is highly connected to the surface because of the porosity of the, er, sand.) Leaving these pastoral lands fallow (without herds of wild ruminants, with their global warming emissions) would just result in continual grass fires. That said, feeding ruminant animals grains (soy, maize/corn, wheat) is a Bad Idea environmentally as far as I can tell. So is bulldozing the Amazon rainforest to grow soy and cattle. And it might be a Good Idea to re-wild quite a bit of pastoral land. I don't know. Persuading people to leave money on the table is difficult.[1] 1. Major Major's father notwithstanding. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/771699-his-specialty-was-alfalfa-and-he-made-a-good-thing https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/771699-his-specialty-was-al...

herbst 4y ago
30% or more of Switzerland is not useable for any kind of farming other than cattle. Fertilizers in the Alps are heavily discouraged. Less than 5% of the food for cows is imported. The far majority is produced trough the same grass the herds spent their time on. And to round this up there is a relatively okish label jungle so you can know exactly which kind of farming you support. Just because beef isn't the solution for the world hunger doesn't mean it's not the best possible and probably even most ecological solution in some areas.
- myshpa 4y ago
  We would not need cca 75% of our agricultural lands if stopped overindulging in meat/dairy. Those 30% you're talking about is not the only land your cattle herds need ... there is also corn/seeds/alfaalfa etc. produced somewhere. Beef needs 120x more land than plant-based foods for the same amount of calories. Western countries are a model for developing countries. If we base our diets on meat/dairy, they will want the same. We're developed, we have to set a positive/meaningful example. We would need several Earths to feed the world same diet as westerners eat. It's simply short-sided and selfish to insist upon current practices to the detriment of everybody else (& Earth & wild animals & biodiversity etc.).