4 ms·

> 'we can do it and it may get more people to eat vegetarian.' That's a noble goal in and of itself. Every step to reduce environmental impact and animal cruel

> 'we can do it and it may get more people to eat vegetarian.' That's a noble goal in and of itself. Every step to reduce environmental impact and animal cruelty has value. Beyond and Impossible were my "off-ramp" from eating meat every meal to exploring vegetarianism and veganism. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

itsoktocry 1y ago
If you're going to eat vegetarian, eat vegetarian. There are lots of foods out there. The idea that normal, healthy people are going to eat ultra processed vegetarian slop so they can pretend they are eating meat was never going to work.
- lanfeust6 1y ago
  Burgers were never considered a "health" item so replacement with slop qua occasional treat is not q crazy concept. As another user has whined about, burger restaurants almost always offer some variant of it, and grocery chains carry it. Beyond Meat has competition now, cheaper too
- santoshalper 1y ago
  Well, they do have $330M in revenue and the product is all over the place, so I'm not sure your hypothesis is correct. Many people simply don't share your view "if you're going to eat vegetarian, eat vegetarian". I think the biggest problem is that they have not been able to get cost under control.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
graublau 1y ago
You needed a product to help you do that? Were vegetables themselves unappealing?
- xeromal 1y ago
  Vegetables as a meat substitute were. I don't think it's wise to pretend meat unto itself is not appealing to many humans because it's different from vegetables, grains, and fruits.
throwpoaster 1y ago
Animal agriculture converts scrub land into carbon sinks that produce food.
- PaulHoule 1y ago
  It can. In permaculture models where you are not supplying a lot of inputs and able to cycle 100% of the manure back on grass it's great. In 20 years of running a horse farm the quality of our pasture and hay has been steadily getting better because we've been building soil. Apply huge amounts of nitrogen fertilizer to grow corn, badly contaminating the Mississippi river and creating a dead spot in the Gulf of Mexico, feeding animals in CAFO where discarding of the manure is a problem and that's something different. Real life systems are a little more complex than that as a cow might be grown up on scrub land and then fattened up at a CAFO for the last few months. Who knows what the long term fate of land that is cleared in the Amazon rain forest is.
- bluebarbet 1y ago
  This is a regionally-contingent oversimplification that obscures the much more essential fact that animal agriculture always requires substantially more land than arable agriculture to produce the same amount of food. Land is very much a finite resource and I personally would prefer to see a bit more of it left to nature (or "scrub", as you call it).
  - seec 1y ago
    You are the one making an oversimplification. The type of food you get from animal agriculture is nowhere near the same thing as what you get from large scale plant agriculture. On top of that, what you harvest from plant agriculture needs enormous amounts of processing and requires a whole lot of modern machinery and a very complex supply chain. And at the end of it the nutritional profile of your output is not at all the same, you can get closer by adding even more processing, that requires even more supply chain wizardry, more energy and more secondary input but suddenly you are not really more efficient than the animal farm; how shocking...
  - throwpoaster 1y ago
piyushpr134 1y ago
Indian here. We can eat vegetarian without this processed crap. Happy to see this die. We had equivalent companies here in India too. And they also are struggling. Happy to see this being rejected by masses
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  That's a lot of vitriol against a firm that doesn't promote animal cruelty, nor encourage people to avoid less-processed crap. They are a for-profit vegetarian company in a capitalist market, not Nestle's trying to sell African mothers on powdered formula.

itsoktocry 1y ago

If you're going to eat vegetarian, eat vegetarian. There are lots of foods out there. The idea that normal, healthy people are going to eat ultra processed vegetarian slop so they can pretend they are eating meat was never going to work.

lanfeust6 1y ago
Burgers were never considered a "health" item so replacement with slop qua occasional treat is not q crazy concept. As another user has whined about, burger restaurants almost always offer some variant of it, and grocery chains carry it. Beyond Meat has competition now, cheaper too
santoshalper 1y ago
Well, they do have $330M in revenue and the product is all over the place, so I'm not sure your hypothesis is correct. Many people simply don't share your view "if you're going to eat vegetarian, eat vegetarian". I think the biggest problem is that they have not been able to get cost under control.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

graublau 1y ago

You needed a product to help you do that? Were vegetables themselves unappealing?

xeromal 1y ago
Vegetables as a meat substitute were. I don't think it's wise to pretend meat unto itself is not appealing to many humans because it's different from vegetables, grains, and fruits.

throwpoaster 1y ago

Animal agriculture converts scrub land into carbon sinks that produce food.

PaulHoule 1y ago
It can. In permaculture models where you are not supplying a lot of inputs and able to cycle 100% of the manure back on grass it's great. In 20 years of running a horse farm the quality of our pasture and hay has been steadily getting better because we've been building soil. Apply huge amounts of nitrogen fertilizer to grow corn, badly contaminating the Mississippi river and creating a dead spot in the Gulf of Mexico, feeding animals in CAFO where discarding of the manure is a problem and that's something different. Real life systems are a little more complex than that as a cow might be grown up on scrub land and then fattened up at a CAFO for the last few months. Who knows what the long term fate of land that is cleared in the Amazon rain forest is.
bluebarbet 1y ago
This is a regionally-contingent oversimplification that obscures the much more essential fact that animal agriculture always requires substantially more land than arable agriculture to produce the same amount of food. Land is very much a finite resource and I personally would prefer to see a bit more of it left to nature (or "scrub", as you call it).
- seec 1y ago
  You are the one making an oversimplification. The type of food you get from animal agriculture is nowhere near the same thing as what you get from large scale plant agriculture. On top of that, what you harvest from plant agriculture needs enormous amounts of processing and requires a whole lot of modern machinery and a very complex supply chain. And at the end of it the nutritional profile of your output is not at all the same, you can get closer by adding even more processing, that requires even more supply chain wizardry, more energy and more secondary input but suddenly you are not really more efficient than the animal farm; how shocking...
- throwpoaster 1y ago

piyushpr134 1y ago

Indian here. We can eat vegetarian without this processed crap. Happy to see this die. We had equivalent companies here in India too. And they also are struggling. Happy to see this being rejected by masses

IAmBroom 1y ago
That's a lot of vitriol against a firm that doesn't promote animal cruelty, nor encourage people to avoid less-processed crap. They are a for-profit vegetarian company in a capitalist market, not Nestle's trying to sell African mothers on powdered formula.