4 ms·

> The idea that you might make synthetic meat that tastes as good as real meat while being cheaper is very alluring This sounds like: “The idea that you might

> The idea that you might make synthetic meat that tastes as good as real meat while being cheaper is very alluring This sounds like: “The idea that you might make synthetic fuel that has a higher energy density than petroleum while being cheaper is very alluring” Of course it sounds good - but reality isn’t that simple to twist to our desires. Impossible meat was more expensive (in spite of them running at a loss), didn’t taste as good, wasn’t any healthier, and by many accounts wasn’t any better environmentally. All downsides and no upside. I’m not surprised it fizzled out given those realities. Perhaps if they’d had another 5 years to perfect it before launching they could have overcome one or two of those deficits?

azakai 4y ago
> by many accounts wasn’t any better environmentally This is false according to every serious analysis I've seen. For example: > The most popular plant-based alternatives, Beyond [Meat] and Impossible Burgers, produce about 90 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions in comparison with beef [..] They reduce land use by at least 93 percent and water use by 87 percent to 99 percent. They also generate no manure pollution. https://www.rd.com/article/plant-based-meats/ https://www.rd.com/article/plant-based-meats/ Beef is by far the worst option (see the graph there); it isn't hard to beat.
- Ntrails 4y ago
  I read articles like that and they talk about reducing land usage by not having cattle or sheep. How they cause groundwater pollution. Then I walk on the moors or the highlands with scattered livestock and I struggle. I believe the problem is mass production, factory farming, not meat. The issue is trying to keep meat insanely cheap such that it can be eaten every meal. I think if I source grass fed meat properly my impact is minimal. But. Maybe I am wrong!
  - progman32 4y ago
    Having viable meat substitutes is a path towards reducing the need for mass meat production.
    - Ntrails 4y ago
      Hard disagree, eating veggie is perfectly fine and does not require meat substitutes. However, the solution to mass meat production is regulation imo. But it is politically untenable because it amounts to pricing people out of their lives
- hardolaf 4y ago
  You can reduce beef's greenhouse gas emissions by just mandating a different animal feed that results in less methane production by the cattle. But that would require governments to actually do something.
  - tomcam 4y ago
    Do you feel that governments would be better at farming than farmers? If so I assume you feel that government bureaucrats can do your job better than you. I am against all farm subsidies BTW.
    - hardolaf 4y ago
      I personally think that governments would be better at making decisions of what to farm and where to farm it than farmers. Farmers have a profit motive whereas governments can have other non-profit motives.
      - tomcam 4y ago
        Look at history and tell me where governments deciding these things has worked. Bonus points for understanding how this worked out in China, the Soviet Union, the French Revolution, and South Africa right now. Bureaucrats never, never make these decisions without corruption, greed, and ignorance taking over. I assume you believe that they would be able to make decisions about your job better than you?
- Amezarak 4y ago
  There are a lot of variables when it comes to the environment. Grass-fed cattle grazing in the Great Plains would be tremendously better for the environment than the mass soybean/canola/corn agriculture permanently destroying the entire Midwest. The reason the Midwest is so fertile and has so much topsoil is because of thousands of years of ruminant grazing. We’re destroying millennia of ecological development and topsoil in decades. Not to mention what all the fertilizers and herbicides do. Your article just blanketly declares animals bad for the environment and plants good, which is absurd. Are we better off for having killed nearly all the buffalo? Clearly feeding cows M&Ms and canola/soy is bad. But so is mass agriculture in the first place. Responsible animal husbandry can be an actual ecological positive.
ddulaney 4y ago
One difference between fuel and food is that the fundamental ingredients are cheaper for “meat” than meat. Impossible has huge and ongoing R&D expenses as they try to simulate more things and enter more markets. But at the end of the day, raising animals is expensive and soybeans are cheap. The crappy pre-Impossible veggie burgers are cheaper than real meat for this reason (though less tasty, of course). As the R&D requirement slows down, I would expect a similar path for Impossible and other fake meats.
typest 4y ago
> “The idea that you might make synthetic fuel that has a higher energy density than petroleum while being cheaper is very alluring” Of course it sounds good - but reality isn’t that simple to twist to our desires. Impossible meat was more expensive (in spite of them running at a loss), didn’t taste as good, wasn’t any healthier, and by many accounts wasn’t any better environmentally. All downsides and no upside. To me, it seems that the question comes down to energy efficiency. How many calories in are required to produce one calorie of beef? Our World In Data claims the efficiency is 1.9% [1], whereas Yale Center for Business and the Environment claims it's 2.5% [2]. So, it seems that if somehow you could figure out how to reconfigure plants into meat in a way that isn't as inefficient, you could come out ahead on cost. Now, maybe this is way too hard to do currently (I don't know since I don't know much of the science), but it at least seems like there could be an opportunity. Another place where cost could cost factor in would be if governments were to enact a carbon tax (or, alternatively, tax meat, or subsidize plant based meats). If the actual cost to the environment could be reflected in the cost consumers pay, that's another opportunity for plant based meats to come out cheaper. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-efficiency-of-meat-and-dairy-production https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-efficiency-of-meat... [2] https://cbey.yale.edu/our-stories/disrupting-meat https://cbey.yale.edu/our-stories/disrupting-meat

azakai 4y ago

> by many accounts wasn’t any better environmentally This is false according to every serious analysis I've seen. For example: > The most popular plant-based alternatives, Beyond [Meat] and Impossible Burgers, produce about 90 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions in comparison with beef [..] They reduce land use by at least 93 percent and water use by 87 percent to 99 percent. They also generate no manure pollution. https://www.rd.com/article/plant-based-meats/ https://www.rd.com/article/plant-based-meats/ Beef is by far the worst option (see the graph there); it isn't hard to beat.

Ntrails 4y ago
I read articles like that and they talk about reducing land usage by not having cattle or sheep. How they cause groundwater pollution. Then I walk on the moors or the highlands with scattered livestock and I struggle. I believe the problem is mass production, factory farming, not meat. The issue is trying to keep meat insanely cheap such that it can be eaten every meal. I think if I source grass fed meat properly my impact is minimal. But. Maybe I am wrong!
- progman32 4y ago
  Having viable meat substitutes is a path towards reducing the need for mass meat production.
  - Ntrails 4y ago
    Hard disagree, eating veggie is perfectly fine and does not require meat substitutes. However, the solution to mass meat production is regulation imo. But it is politically untenable because it amounts to pricing people out of their lives
hardolaf 4y ago
You can reduce beef's greenhouse gas emissions by just mandating a different animal feed that results in less methane production by the cattle. But that would require governments to actually do something.
- tomcam 4y ago
  Do you feel that governments would be better at farming than farmers? If so I assume you feel that government bureaucrats can do your job better than you. I am against all farm subsidies BTW.
  - hardolaf 4y ago
    I personally think that governments would be better at making decisions of what to farm and where to farm it than farmers. Farmers have a profit motive whereas governments can have other non-profit motives.
    - tomcam 4y ago
      Look at history and tell me where governments deciding these things has worked. Bonus points for understanding how this worked out in China, the Soviet Union, the French Revolution, and South Africa right now. Bureaucrats never, never make these decisions without corruption, greed, and ignorance taking over. I assume you believe that they would be able to make decisions about your job better than you?
Amezarak 4y ago
There are a lot of variables when it comes to the environment. Grass-fed cattle grazing in the Great Plains would be tremendously better for the environment than the mass soybean/canola/corn agriculture permanently destroying the entire Midwest. The reason the Midwest is so fertile and has so much topsoil is because of thousands of years of ruminant grazing. We’re destroying millennia of ecological development and topsoil in decades. Not to mention what all the fertilizers and herbicides do. Your article just blanketly declares animals bad for the environment and plants good, which is absurd. Are we better off for having killed nearly all the buffalo? Clearly feeding cows M&Ms and canola/soy is bad. But so is mass agriculture in the first place. Responsible animal husbandry can be an actual ecological positive.

ddulaney 4y ago

One difference between fuel and food is that the fundamental ingredients are cheaper for “meat” than meat. Impossible has huge and ongoing R&D expenses as they try to simulate more things and enter more markets. But at the end of the day, raising animals is expensive and soybeans are cheap. The crappy pre-Impossible veggie burgers are cheaper than real meat for this reason (though less tasty, of course). As the R&D requirement slows down, I would expect a similar path for Impossible and other fake meats.

typest 4y ago

> “The idea that you might make synthetic fuel that has a higher energy density than petroleum while being cheaper is very alluring” Of course it sounds good - but reality isn’t that simple to twist to our desires. Impossible meat was more expensive (in spite of them running at a loss), didn’t taste as good, wasn’t any healthier, and by many accounts wasn’t any better environmentally. All downsides and no upside. To me, it seems that the question comes down to energy efficiency. How many calories in are required to produce one calorie of beef? Our World In Data claims the efficiency is 1.9% [1], whereas Yale Center for Business and the Environment claims it's 2.5% [2]. So, it seems that if somehow you could figure out how to reconfigure plants into meat in a way that isn't as inefficient, you could come out ahead on cost. Now, maybe this is way too hard to do currently (I don't know since I don't know much of the science), but it at least seems like there could be an opportunity. Another place where cost could cost factor in would be if governments were to enact a carbon tax (or, alternatively, tax meat, or subsidize plant based meats). If the actual cost to the environment could be reflected in the cost consumers pay, that's another opportunity for plant based meats to come out cheaper. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-efficiency-of-meat-and-dairy-production https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-efficiency-of-meat... [2] https://cbey.yale.edu/our-stories/disrupting-meat https://cbey.yale.edu/our-stories/disrupting-meat