Not sure "dead" is the right word (chuckle) but certainly shouldn't have attracted the kind of investment that it did. The basic premise is flawed: that grazi

Not sure "dead" is the right word (chuckle) but certainly shouldn't have attracted the kind of investment that it did. The basic premise is flawed: that grazing land can be turned into meat-like proteins without meat creatures. The aspirations were laudable (less cruelty, less GHG emissions, less water use) but the kinds of plants being used to make meat-substitutes just won't grow in enough quantity to replace meat. Turns out cows are pretty efficient after all. The humans running the cows could use a lot of smartening up though. From genetics to supplemental feed they could do a lot to reduce emissions, and practices could reduce cruelty quite a bit, but things move slowly in Agriculture. "Michael McCain, chief executive, told analysts last month that while the company had built a business model for plant-based meat assuming a radical shift in consumer behaviour, “this transformational outcome did not materialise”." and also relying on a "radical shift in consumer behaviour" seems extremely risky. "Build it and they will come" is not a business strategy, it's a wish.