12 ms·

How sustainable are fake meats?

47 points by hatmatrix 4y ago

Zigurd 4y ago
Fake meat is already a clearly superior replacement for more dubious meat dishes like "breakfast sausage. Though there is an irony for the companies making the best fake meat: It's an off-ramp from meat. I find I eat less meat, real or fake. Maybe that's because fake meat does a good job satisfying a craving. I'm much more selective: Bison instead of beef burgers, salmon instead of chicken. You don't have to eliminate meat to get lots of environmental and health upside if you change the way people think of meat as part of their diet. Cheap meat was a quality-of-life goal for many governments, pushed by the meat industry. That went way out of balance and negatively affects health and the environment. If tasty and nutritious fake meat gets down to the price of good quality burger meat, it will be a tipping point with many benefits.
jononomo 4y ago
One thing that no one talks about is the methane that humans produce. If you literally eat only beef, then the volume of your poop decreases by 80% and you completely stop farting. If everyone on Earth ate only beef then there would just be 80% less poop for us to deal with and no one on Earth would fart. Also, we could put an end to most chronic diseases -- and the healthcare sector is a also a large contributor to global warming.
jononomo 4y ago
We could use nuclear power to desalinate seawater and turn the Sahara desert into a vast grassland that could support a couple billion cows -- in my view this is the best route forward for humanity, given how much better beef is for human health than any other food. Full disclosure: I only eat beef.
mountaintimefrm 4y ago
No mention of nuts in the article, nor in the comments here, which is truly sad. It's like people have forgotten that nuts exist, as they are so often left out the discussion around meat vs plants vs fake meats WRT fats and proteins. Nuts are incredibly nutritious, high in fat and protein that is arguably of better quality than animal fats and proteins, and many nut trees can live for hundreds of years while producing thousands of pounds of nuts every year. Some nut species can live for thousands of years if they are managed correctly (there are still living hazelnuts in Italy that were planted by the Romans). Deeply tap-rooted species like walnuts and hickories don't require supplemental watering once established. I can't find it at the moment but last year I read a study of energy flows for North American tree crops, and the ERoEI of Shagbark Hickory was rated at 55,000. Going forward, anytime there is discussion of energy or efficiency of plant vs animal agriculture vs fake meat, etc, if tree crops aren't factored into the discussion then that provides an opportunity to quote No Country for Old Men: "You don't know what you're talking about, do you?" Leaving out that there is the option of growing a tree that produces a cow's weight worth of fats and proteins every year, with little to no inputs, in perpetuity, is a crime of omission. Just to compare some approximate numbers, 100g of hazelnut contains 17.0g of carbs, 13.7g protein, and 60.8g fat. Walnuts contain 9.9g, 26.1g, and 65.2g, respectively. Whereas 100g of beef contains 0g carbs, 35g protein, and 10g fat. And 100 grams of black beans contains 25g carbs, 9g protein, 0.5g fat. Further reading -- Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture, by J. Russell Smith Further viewing -- "Nuts as Staple Foods" a presentation by Osker Brown: https://youtu.be/CJpitVC4mzs https://youtu.be/CJpitVC4mzs
drewg123 4y ago
From the article: "even poorly produced plant-based meats are better, environmentally, than meat from well-raised livestock."
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  This is patently false. There is a organization, hired by the company that makes these fake burgers, to measure their environmental impact. A holistic cattle farm then hired the exact same company to measure their environmental impact. The results show that the fake meat farms had a carbon footprint (I don’t remember how bad/large it was), but the holistic ranch was carbon negative. I am on my phone now, if I remember I will come back here and link to the studies. I also recommend watching Allen Savory’s Ted talk on this subject.
- bantunes 4y ago
  I don't know why this is surprising. Option A: grow plants, eat plants. Option B: grow plants, breed animals, feed plants to animals, give animal antibiotics to survive breeding pens, give animal hormones to grow faster, slaughter animal, eat animal.
  - jononomo 4y ago
    99% of plant species are not suitable for human consumption, whereas 99% of animal species can be safely consumed by humans. And as for the remaining 1% of plant species that humans do eat, you will find that if you cut them out of your diet you will see remarkable health improvements.
  - hitpointdrew 4y ago
    It’s surprising because it’s dead wrong. Watch Allen Savory’s Ted talk.
  - steve_adams_86 4y ago
    The grow plants, feed to animals step takes up nearly 80% of the world’s agriculture: https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
steve_adams_86 4y ago
If you know much about agriculture, this question has an almost certain answer. The contrast of energy and resource expense between plants and animals is staggering, even if you’re comparing a less demanding animal like chicken. You can refrigerate, process, and ship many plants by sea, truck, and plane and they won’t catch up to animal foods. We’re also not seeing a clear economic picture in Canada and the USA because subsidies/tax breaks/etc can significantly transform the final costs of something like milk or beef in a grocery store. My kids like the fake meats, but I’m pretty content with whole grains and legumes covering most of my protein requirements. Once you get over meat, you almost never think about it and the substitutes seem unnecessarily unhealthy (they’re kind of like savoury junk food with a ton of salt and saturated fat). I think it’s also important to acknowledge how filthy, torturous, destructive, and unethical the vast majority of animal agriculture activities are.
- KronisLV 4y ago
  > My kids like the fake meats, but I’m pretty content with whole grains and legumes covering most of my protein requirements. Once you get over meat, you almost never think about it and the substitutes seem unnecessarily unhealthy (they’re kind of like savoury junk food with a ton of salt and saturated fat). Personally I often have vegetarian dishes in eateries or when ordering take-out, when available - it is probably just me, but none of those really feel "worse" than meat, nor do I find myself feeling like I'm missing out on it. Even when having fast food, a pea/bean based burger patty feels good enough to me and is a similarly enjoyable experience to a meat based one. That said, I still sometimes have meat (and other animal products) as well, given that I'm not educated enough or don't feel competent enough to nail down what exactly my dietary requirements might be, though talking with a GP and getting blood work done every now and then can be at least a bit helpful in that regard. Still, there is a certain comfort in having fried eggs or something like that once a week, although some suggest that many of the oils used in cooking might also be worse than olive oil. For the majority of people, the quote by Michael Pollan is probably decent advice: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Of course, some people's strong enjoyment of meat aside, it's hard to even know exactly what you're eating on a daily basis, given the many additives used for a variety of reasons in food products nowadays. And recognizing that sometimes going to sleep a bit hungry is okay might also take work, as would training yourself to recognize the difference between hunger, thirst and stress/boredom as well. (note: adjacently to this topic, carnivorous pets also still enjoy a diet with lots of meat in it, currently no good "compromise" there, their dietary requirements have to be taken into account as well and messing about with those feels unwise) > I think it’s also important to acknowledge how filthy, torturous, destructive, and unethical the vast majority of animal agriculture activities are. I've heard that Dominion from 2018 can be rather eye opening, though viewer discretion is advised: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(2018_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(2018_film) Personally, I've also gone hunting with my father and have helped dispose of the guts, carry game back home, skin the carcass, cut/snap the bones and so on. I'm not saying that everyone needs to do that, but partaking in the process of preparing meat (even in a farm setting) is a humbling experience. Maybe not enough to "scare" one away from eating meat, but definitely enough to make one reconsider how much meat they consume.
an1sotropy 4y ago
answer: more sustainable than "real" meat, sometimes a lot more so. But sustainability doesn't determine popularity, and all the efforts taken to increase popularity (i.e. more engineering and more processing) do increase environmental cost. But plant-based foods are still a big win, probably: the business realities of these products mean that true numbers are not disclosed. btw I hate the term "fake" here - it's not like modern animal-derived food, as consumed in a typical meat-based diet. is somehow "real" or unadulterated. (and for those who hasten to point out that they only eat grass-fed beef, the article notes that its carbon footprint is even higher).
- drewg123 4y ago
  I strongly agree. A lot of the current "meat" that people eat is highly processed. Its not like chicken nugget or burger is a "natural" product these days. Some burgers are made up of meats from up to 100s of animals[0]. [0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/05/there-are-a-lot-more-cows-in-a-single-hamburger-than-you-realize/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/05/there...
kujin88 4y ago
AFAIK they're far more sustainable since they need nowhere near the amount of land, water, resources and food as the animals in the dairy and meat industries do. This, and further minus all the torture, suffering and force-feeding
- megaman821 4y ago
  I think fake meat will be important in the future because there is no way we can eat the amount of meat and dairy that we do without many negatives. That said, there is a level of sustainable livestock. Cows can graze on natural grass lands, eating a plants that humans can't digest anyway. Pigs can mostly eat agricultural waste product. Chickens can eat cover crops. The fact that land is cleared for grazing and animals are fed crops is due to the amount of meat people eat could never be met through natural means.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > I think fake meat will be important in the future because there is no way we can eat the amount of meat and dairy that we do without many negatives. Or we could eat like our grandparents used to eat back in the 50s-60s, at least in France meat was still a fairly occasional thing, you bought a good cut of meat every now and then and enjoyed it. Today we chug gallons of processed meat at every meal, most of it being bad on both the nutritional and taste aspect.
schnevets 4y ago
My wife is pescatarian, which has really lowered my consumption of meat. There is such a weird contrast between meat marketing and the actual use. With my reduced consumption, I am still sometimes pulled in by marketing: the masterfully grilled steak; the shawarma roasting on a spit; the artisanal burger with a delicate balance of ground beef, fat, sausage, and maybe one or two secret ingredients... ...but this expectation rarely meets the reality when I order a meat item. Modern consumers have high demands for consistency and convenience, and that usually means adjuncts, breading, blending, and other techniques to account for the uncertainties of agriculture. I think we are still generations away from indistinguishable lab meat, but there are so many advances that are ready for market. I don't understand why the industry is so determined to R&D that "replaces" all animal consumption when more specific, modest goals (replacing the chicken nugget, replacing the pepperoni) would have a notable environmental improvement.
- dairylee 4y ago
  > modest goals (replacing the chicken nugget, replacing the pepperoni) Quorn have made 'Crispy Nuggets'[1] from funghi for decades. They're a great replacement for chicken nuggets and I feel like if someone ate them without realising they wouldn't question what they're eating. 1: https://www.quorn.co.uk/products/chicken-style-nuggets https://www.quorn.co.uk/products/chicken-style-nuggets
  - reaperducer 4y ago
    My old boss gave me one of hers at lunch one day. I noticed instantly. But I'm still of a mind that if you want to promote vegetarianism, make vegetable recipes taste better; don't make the vegetables imitate something they're not.
    - hombre_fatal 4y ago
      Maybe the purpose of these foods isn't to promote vegetarianism. You're suggesting it's activism when it's just making a product for vegetarians who still enjoy the taste of meet from time to time.
intrasight 4y ago
"fake meat" is processed food. That, IMHO, is the main difference over just eating fresh vegetables. It's more expensive because of that, and introduces externalities and risks. I see "fake meat" as a temporary crutch for people transitioning to vegetarianism.
- ben_w 4y ago
  > "fake meat" is processed food. It's not like animals have no risks or externalities. What's the critical difference between industrial processing vegetable matter into a fried patty, and a cow organically processing vegetable matter into flesh which is then turned into a fried patty? Cows getting BSE is what made my mother decide I would be "vegetarian at school" back in the late 80s. Overuse of antibiotics in the production of meat gets a significant share of the blame for the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. > I see "fake meat" as a temporary crutch for people transitioning to vegetarianism. Most people demonstrably don't care enough about even the combination of the ethical, environmental, and the health the reasons for a better diet. Meat substitutes are aimed at most people.
  - intrasight 4y ago
    My comment was only about "fake meat"
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Which I'm saying is no worse than the status quo by your own standard, and which is an improvement by the standards of those promoting them.
      - intrasight 4y ago
        I very much agree that it's an improvement for all involved. But I'll still suggest to my friends who consume fake meats that they try just eating the fresh vegetable ingredients.
        4y ago
ecshafer 4y ago
Fake meats seem to get a market on very the environmentally conscious and vegetarians but I don't think it'll hit big. Beyond the marketing appeal to normal consumers of "eww processed fake meat", the reality is that it's all very gross. I have given them a college try and they are not a good replacement for meat and wouldn't willingly eat them again and most people I have talked to feel the same about it. I am much more bullish on lab grown meat which produces actual meat and merely removes the animal as an incubator. If we can get the process of turning some plant matter into actual meat that will be the golden ticket, and people will actually buy this since its actually meat.
odiroot 4y ago
Even just looking at this article, switching from beef (and lamb) to pork would already help a lot.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  The issue there is that pigs and chickens spend their lives in confined pens, and to avoid mass disease outbreaks in those conditions, they're pumped with lots of antibiotics (possibly growth promoters as well). Such facilities also produce vast quantities of fecal matter, leading to water pollution problems (and likely methane as well). https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/boss-hog-the-dark-side-of-americas-top-pork-producer-68087/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/boss-hog-t... Probably the best way to raise beef is small herds on grasslands, but this results in extremely expensive meat. That's more reasonable anyway: meat should be viewed as a luxury item, not a staple.
dbreunig 4y ago
Maybe don't bury the answer in the 16th paragraph of the article, Knowable? This is bullshit framing. Almost as bullshit as the Y axis in the Land Use chart.
trabant00 4y ago
This seems fundamentally wrong to me. You can not compare the efficiency of two methods unless they get the same result. But fake meat is not meat. Compare fake meat to unprocessed vegan food, let's see how that turns out for your marketing materials. And we can all guess which is healthier too.
nrclark 4y ago
I always think it's interesting to view meat production through the lens of history. Goats or sheep can be raised on land that's completely unsuitable for farming. Pigs and chickens can recycle food-waste into usable protein. You can make an argument that modern feedlots aren't great for the environment, the animals, or our overall health. But it's a big jump to go from that to "all meat is bad for the environment".
- roboticmind 4y ago
  Even best case emissions of meat production are higher than the worst case emissions of plant protein > Many argue that this overlooks the large variation in the footprints of foods across the world. Using global averages might give us a misleading picture for some parts of the world or some producers. If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced. https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
photochemsyn 4y ago
Just a reminder: the underlying issue is really 'how sustainable is the current global human population under business-as-usual practices'? It's clear a plant-based diet will reduce the land area, water, and fertilizer needed for food production - but if human population grows in response, then you simply end up back where you started - but with the plant production going to feed humans instead of livestock. There's also the problem of food distribution - many countries rely heavily on imports to meet basic food needs, and the producing countries are typically running high-impact agriculture - double-cropping high-efficiency strains soy, corn, wheat, potato, etc. crops using vast amounts of fertilizers and water (essentially the 'Green Revolution' approach). Abandoning high-intensity agriculture (going back to pre-industrial methods like crop rotation) would cut food production in half at least, leading to global famines. Hence, pushing towards regional independence on basic food production is pretty important, given the uncertain future of climate impacts on agricultural production. A final thing to keep in mind: methane from animals and wetlands is quite different from methane from fossil fuel production, as the latter represents a net transfer of carbon from stable geological deposits to the atmosphere, while the former represents the cycling of atmospheric carbon (CO2) into plant matter, and while those carbon atoms may be burped out by cattle as methane (CH4), they end up oxidized back to CO2 within 10-20 years in the atmosphere. Regardless, cutting the global cattle population by 80-90% makes a lot of sense (this is about what pre-industrial popuations were like). Meat would then be quite expensive, a luxury item, which also makes sense.

47 points by hatmatrix 4y ago

Fake meat is already a clearly superior replacement for more dubious meat dishes like "breakfast sausage. Though there is an irony for the companies making the best fake meat: It's an off-ramp from meat. I find I eat less meat, real or fake. Maybe that's because fake meat does a good job satisfying a craving. I'm much more selective: Bison instead of beef burgers, salmon instead of chicken. You don't have to eliminate meat to get lots of environmental and health upside if you change the way people think of meat as part of their diet. Cheap meat was a quality-of-life goal for many governments, pushed by the meat industry. That went way out of balance and negatively affects health and the environment. If tasty and nutritious fake meat gets down to the price of good quality burger meat, it will be a tipping point with many benefits.

jononomo 4y ago

One thing that no one talks about is the methane that humans produce. If you literally eat only beef, then the volume of your poop decreases by 80% and you completely stop farting. If everyone on Earth ate only beef then there would just be 80% less poop for us to deal with and no one on Earth would fart. Also, we could put an end to most chronic diseases -- and the healthcare sector is a also a large contributor to global warming.

jononomo 4y ago

We could use nuclear power to desalinate seawater and turn the Sahara desert into a vast grassland that could support a couple billion cows -- in my view this is the best route forward for humanity, given how much better beef is for human health than any other food. Full disclosure: I only eat beef.

mountaintimefrm 4y ago

No mention of nuts in the article, nor in the comments here, which is truly sad. It's like people have forgotten that nuts exist, as they are so often left out the discussion around meat vs plants vs fake meats WRT fats and proteins. Nuts are incredibly nutritious, high in fat and protein that is arguably of better quality than animal fats and proteins, and many nut trees can live for hundreds of years while producing thousands of pounds of nuts every year. Some nut species can live for thousands of years if they are managed correctly (there are still living hazelnuts in Italy that were planted by the Romans). Deeply tap-rooted species like walnuts and hickories don't require supplemental watering once established. I can't find it at the moment but last year I read a study of energy flows for North American tree crops, and the ERoEI of Shagbark Hickory was rated at 55,000. Going forward, anytime there is discussion of energy or efficiency of plant vs animal agriculture vs fake meat, etc, if tree crops aren't factored into the discussion then that provides an opportunity to quote No Country for Old Men: "You don't know what you're talking about, do you?" Leaving out that there is the option of growing a tree that produces a cow's weight worth of fats and proteins every year, with little to no inputs, in perpetuity, is a crime of omission. Just to compare some approximate numbers, 100g of hazelnut contains 17.0g of carbs, 13.7g protein, and 60.8g fat. Walnuts contain 9.9g, 26.1g, and 65.2g, respectively. Whereas 100g of beef contains 0g carbs, 35g protein, and 10g fat. And 100 grams of black beans contains 25g carbs, 9g protein, 0.5g fat. Further reading -- Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture, by J. Russell Smith Further viewing -- "Nuts as Staple Foods" a presentation by Osker Brown: https://youtu.be/CJpitVC4mzs https://youtu.be/CJpitVC4mzs

drewg123 4y ago

From the article: "even poorly produced plant-based meats are better, environmentally, than meat from well-raised livestock."

hitpointdrew 4y ago
This is patently false. There is a organization, hired by the company that makes these fake burgers, to measure their environmental impact. A holistic cattle farm then hired the exact same company to measure their environmental impact. The results show that the fake meat farms had a carbon footprint (I don’t remember how bad/large it was), but the holistic ranch was carbon negative. I am on my phone now, if I remember I will come back here and link to the studies. I also recommend watching Allen Savory’s Ted talk on this subject.
bantunes 4y ago
I don't know why this is surprising. Option A: grow plants, eat plants. Option B: grow plants, breed animals, feed plants to animals, give animal antibiotics to survive breeding pens, give animal hormones to grow faster, slaughter animal, eat animal.
- jononomo 4y ago
  99% of plant species are not suitable for human consumption, whereas 99% of animal species can be safely consumed by humans. And as for the remaining 1% of plant species that humans do eat, you will find that if you cut them out of your diet you will see remarkable health improvements.
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  It’s surprising because it’s dead wrong. Watch Allen Savory’s Ted talk.
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  The grow plants, feed to animals step takes up nearly 80% of the world’s agriculture: https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

steve_adams_86 4y ago

If you know much about agriculture, this question has an almost certain answer. The contrast of energy and resource expense between plants and animals is staggering, even if you’re comparing a less demanding animal like chicken. You can refrigerate, process, and ship many plants by sea, truck, and plane and they won’t catch up to animal foods. We’re also not seeing a clear economic picture in Canada and the USA because subsidies/tax breaks/etc can significantly transform the final costs of something like milk or beef in a grocery store. My kids like the fake meats, but I’m pretty content with whole grains and legumes covering most of my protein requirements. Once you get over meat, you almost never think about it and the substitutes seem unnecessarily unhealthy (they’re kind of like savoury junk food with a ton of salt and saturated fat). I think it’s also important to acknowledge how filthy, torturous, destructive, and unethical the vast majority of animal agriculture activities are.

KronisLV 4y ago
> My kids like the fake meats, but I’m pretty content with whole grains and legumes covering most of my protein requirements. Once you get over meat, you almost never think about it and the substitutes seem unnecessarily unhealthy (they’re kind of like savoury junk food with a ton of salt and saturated fat). Personally I often have vegetarian dishes in eateries or when ordering take-out, when available - it is probably just me, but none of those really feel "worse" than meat, nor do I find myself feeling like I'm missing out on it. Even when having fast food, a pea/bean based burger patty feels good enough to me and is a similarly enjoyable experience to a meat based one. That said, I still sometimes have meat (and other animal products) as well, given that I'm not educated enough or don't feel competent enough to nail down what exactly my dietary requirements might be, though talking with a GP and getting blood work done every now and then can be at least a bit helpful in that regard. Still, there is a certain comfort in having fried eggs or something like that once a week, although some suggest that many of the oils used in cooking might also be worse than olive oil. For the majority of people, the quote by Michael Pollan is probably decent advice: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Of course, some people's strong enjoyment of meat aside, it's hard to even know exactly what you're eating on a daily basis, given the many additives used for a variety of reasons in food products nowadays. And recognizing that sometimes going to sleep a bit hungry is okay might also take work, as would training yourself to recognize the difference between hunger, thirst and stress/boredom as well. (note: adjacently to this topic, carnivorous pets also still enjoy a diet with lots of meat in it, currently no good "compromise" there, their dietary requirements have to be taken into account as well and messing about with those feels unwise) > I think it’s also important to acknowledge how filthy, torturous, destructive, and unethical the vast majority of animal agriculture activities are. I've heard that Dominion from 2018 can be rather eye opening, though viewer discretion is advised: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(2018_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(2018_film) Personally, I've also gone hunting with my father and have helped dispose of the guts, carry game back home, skin the carcass, cut/snap the bones and so on. I'm not saying that everyone needs to do that, but partaking in the process of preparing meat (even in a farm setting) is a humbling experience. Maybe not enough to "scare" one away from eating meat, but definitely enough to make one reconsider how much meat they consume.

an1sotropy 4y ago

answer: more sustainable than "real" meat, sometimes a lot more so. But sustainability doesn't determine popularity, and all the efforts taken to increase popularity (i.e. more engineering and more processing) do increase environmental cost. But plant-based foods are still a big win, probably: the business realities of these products mean that true numbers are not disclosed. btw I hate the term "fake" here - it's not like modern animal-derived food, as consumed in a typical meat-based diet. is somehow "real" or unadulterated. (and for those who hasten to point out that they only eat grass-fed beef, the article notes that its carbon footprint is even higher).

drewg123 4y ago
I strongly agree. A lot of the current "meat" that people eat is highly processed. Its not like chicken nugget or burger is a "natural" product these days. Some burgers are made up of meats from up to 100s of animals[0]. [0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/05/there-are-a-lot-more-cows-in-a-single-hamburger-than-you-realize/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/05/there...

kujin88 4y ago

AFAIK they're far more sustainable since they need nowhere near the amount of land, water, resources and food as the animals in the dairy and meat industries do. This, and further minus all the torture, suffering and force-feeding

megaman821 4y ago
I think fake meat will be important in the future because there is no way we can eat the amount of meat and dairy that we do without many negatives. That said, there is a level of sustainable livestock. Cows can graze on natural grass lands, eating a plants that humans can't digest anyway. Pigs can mostly eat agricultural waste product. Chickens can eat cover crops. The fact that land is cleared for grazing and animals are fed crops is due to the amount of meat people eat could never be met through natural means.
- lm28469 4y ago
  > I think fake meat will be important in the future because there is no way we can eat the amount of meat and dairy that we do without many negatives. Or we could eat like our grandparents used to eat back in the 50s-60s, at least in France meat was still a fairly occasional thing, you bought a good cut of meat every now and then and enjoyed it. Today we chug gallons of processed meat at every meal, most of it being bad on both the nutritional and taste aspect.

schnevets 4y ago

My wife is pescatarian, which has really lowered my consumption of meat. There is such a weird contrast between meat marketing and the actual use. With my reduced consumption, I am still sometimes pulled in by marketing: the masterfully grilled steak; the shawarma roasting on a spit; the artisanal burger with a delicate balance of ground beef, fat, sausage, and maybe one or two secret ingredients... ...but this expectation rarely meets the reality when I order a meat item. Modern consumers have high demands for consistency and convenience, and that usually means adjuncts, breading, blending, and other techniques to account for the uncertainties of agriculture. I think we are still generations away from indistinguishable lab meat, but there are so many advances that are ready for market. I don't understand why the industry is so determined to R&D that "replaces" all animal consumption when more specific, modest goals (replacing the chicken nugget, replacing the pepperoni) would have a notable environmental improvement.

dairylee 4y ago
> modest goals (replacing the chicken nugget, replacing the pepperoni) Quorn have made 'Crispy Nuggets'[1] from funghi for decades. They're a great replacement for chicken nuggets and I feel like if someone ate them without realising they wouldn't question what they're eating. 1: https://www.quorn.co.uk/products/chicken-style-nuggets https://www.quorn.co.uk/products/chicken-style-nuggets
- reaperducer 4y ago
  My old boss gave me one of hers at lunch one day. I noticed instantly. But I'm still of a mind that if you want to promote vegetarianism, make vegetable recipes taste better; don't make the vegetables imitate something they're not.
  - hombre_fatal 4y ago
    Maybe the purpose of these foods isn't to promote vegetarianism. You're suggesting it's activism when it's just making a product for vegetarians who still enjoy the taste of meet from time to time.

intrasight 4y ago

"fake meat" is processed food. That, IMHO, is the main difference over just eating fresh vegetables. It's more expensive because of that, and introduces externalities and risks. I see "fake meat" as a temporary crutch for people transitioning to vegetarianism.

ben_w 4y ago
> "fake meat" is processed food. It's not like animals have no risks or externalities. What's the critical difference between industrial processing vegetable matter into a fried patty, and a cow organically processing vegetable matter into flesh which is then turned into a fried patty? Cows getting BSE is what made my mother decide I would be "vegetarian at school" back in the late 80s. Overuse of antibiotics in the production of meat gets a significant share of the blame for the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. > I see "fake meat" as a temporary crutch for people transitioning to vegetarianism. Most people demonstrably don't care enough about even the combination of the ethical, environmental, and the health the reasons for a better diet. Meat substitutes are aimed at most people.
- intrasight 4y ago
  My comment was only about "fake meat"
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Which I'm saying is no worse than the status quo by your own standard, and which is an improvement by the standards of those promoting them.
    - intrasight 4y ago
      I very much agree that it's an improvement for all involved. But I'll still suggest to my friends who consume fake meats that they try just eating the fresh vegetable ingredients.
      - 4y ago

ecshafer 4y ago

Fake meats seem to get a market on very the environmentally conscious and vegetarians but I don't think it'll hit big. Beyond the marketing appeal to normal consumers of "eww processed fake meat", the reality is that it's all very gross. I have given them a college try and they are not a good replacement for meat and wouldn't willingly eat them again and most people I have talked to feel the same about it. I am much more bullish on lab grown meat which produces actual meat and merely removes the animal as an incubator. If we can get the process of turning some plant matter into actual meat that will be the golden ticket, and people will actually buy this since its actually meat.

odiroot 4y ago

Even just looking at this article, switching from beef (and lamb) to pork would already help a lot.

photochemsyn 4y ago
The issue there is that pigs and chickens spend their lives in confined pens, and to avoid mass disease outbreaks in those conditions, they're pumped with lots of antibiotics (possibly growth promoters as well). Such facilities also produce vast quantities of fecal matter, leading to water pollution problems (and likely methane as well). https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/boss-hog-the-dark-side-of-americas-top-pork-producer-68087/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/boss-hog-t... Probably the best way to raise beef is small herds on grasslands, but this results in extremely expensive meat. That's more reasonable anyway: meat should be viewed as a luxury item, not a staple.

dbreunig 4y ago

Maybe don't bury the answer in the 16th paragraph of the article, Knowable? This is bullshit framing. Almost as bullshit as the Y axis in the Land Use chart.

trabant00 4y ago

This seems fundamentally wrong to me. You can not compare the efficiency of two methods unless they get the same result. But fake meat is not meat. Compare fake meat to unprocessed vegan food, let's see how that turns out for your marketing materials. And we can all guess which is healthier too.

nrclark 4y ago

I always think it's interesting to view meat production through the lens of history. Goats or sheep can be raised on land that's completely unsuitable for farming. Pigs and chickens can recycle food-waste into usable protein. You can make an argument that modern feedlots aren't great for the environment, the animals, or our overall health. But it's a big jump to go from that to "all meat is bad for the environment".

roboticmind 4y ago
Even best case emissions of meat production are higher than the worst case emissions of plant protein > Many argue that this overlooks the large variation in the footprints of foods across the world. Using global averages might give us a misleading picture for some parts of the world or some producers. If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced. https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

photochemsyn 4y ago

Just a reminder: the underlying issue is really 'how sustainable is the current global human population under business-as-usual practices'? It's clear a plant-based diet will reduce the land area, water, and fertilizer needed for food production - but if human population grows in response, then you simply end up back where you started - but with the plant production going to feed humans instead of livestock. There's also the problem of food distribution - many countries rely heavily on imports to meet basic food needs, and the producing countries are typically running high-impact agriculture - double-cropping high-efficiency strains soy, corn, wheat, potato, etc. crops using vast amounts of fertilizers and water (essentially the 'Green Revolution' approach). Abandoning high-intensity agriculture (going back to pre-industrial methods like crop rotation) would cut food production in half at least, leading to global famines. Hence, pushing towards regional independence on basic food production is pretty important, given the uncertain future of climate impacts on agricultural production. A final thing to keep in mind: methane from animals and wetlands is quite different from methane from fossil fuel production, as the latter represents a net transfer of carbon from stable geological deposits to the atmosphere, while the former represents the cycling of atmospheric carbon (CO2) into plant matter, and while those carbon atoms may be burped out by cattle as methane (CH4), they end up oxidized back to CO2 within 10-20 years in the atmosphere. Regardless, cutting the global cattle population by 80-90% makes a lot of sense (this is about what pre-industrial popuations were like). Meat would then be quite expensive, a luxury item, which also makes sense.