5 ms·
They not only have to compete against direct competitors such as Impossible Burger, but tofu, seitan, and an array of already-established meat-substitute produc
by Finnucane 1y ago
They not only have to compete against direct competitors such as Impossible Burger, but tofu, seitan, and an array of already-established meat-substitute products. Which perhaps don't mimic meat quite as well as the new products, but are typically less expensive. The new products just cost too much for everyday use.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- qalmakka 1y agoYeah it's not like burgers have the monopoly of delicious food. There are so many good foods out there, people have been eating mostly plant based foods in both the Mediterranean and India for thousands of years. There are literally thousands of recipes from multiple cuisines around the world that don't have meat in them
- hearsathought 1y ago> people have been eating mostly plant based foods in both the Mediterranean and India for thousands of years. Since when have people of the mediterranean and indian been "mostly plant based" for thousands of years? Most indians eat meat ( and the percentage is increasing as indians become wealthier and can afford meat ). Most people throughout the mediterranean eat meat. Why is it that the vegan community goes out of their way to fetishize cultures and lie about them relentlessly? Just because greeks eat salad doesn't mean they are "mostly plant based".
- qalmakka 1y agoA. I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian B. I don't mean _now_, I mean in the previous few centuries. People in Italy, Greece, ... couldn't afford to eat meat more than a few times a year (if they were lucky), and mostly ate vegetables, a bit of cheese, lots of bread, pulses and porridge. This is why most recipes aren't really focused on "good" cuts of meat, but mince, offal, bad cuts, .. and lots of vegetables. My grandma was born a peasant in the 1920's and literally ate meat for Christmas and that was it.
- CorrectHorseBat 1y agoAs you said because they couldn't afford it, not because the alternative was tastier. When people get richer they start eating meat because it tastes good and has great nutritional value. Some people want to have the good of meat such as taste and nutrition value without all the bad such as animal cruelty and carbon emissions. What's so hard to understand about that?
- Finnucane 1y agoI've never had a burger that was as good as saag paneer.
- qalmakka 1y agoIf this were the case, we would have stopped eating those dishes. But we didn't, we still make eggplant parmesan, pasta and beans, pasta al pomodoro, pizza marinara, bean soup, minestrone, ... My point was that you _don't need_ stuff to taste like meat in order for them to be good. People couldn't afford meat so they had to invent tasty food without it, and they largely succeeded at that. Meat got so popular and common not only because it tastes great, but because it's easy to prepare and was associated to a higher status compared to more humble dishes. Several food historians theorised that the birth of many Italian-American dishes can be explained with the extreme poverty most emigrants were escaping from. people got euphoric from finally being able to afford all of the meat they wanted, so they started putting it everywhere just because they could. The problem is that for too many people having meat is a necessary condition for something to be tasty, which isn't the case. And no, fake meat doesn't really taste like meat unless you haven't ever had meat before. It tastes good, but definitely not like meat. There are other traditionally vegan things that taste way better to be honest. > great nutritional value as a meat eater, this is somewhat debatable tbh. Sure meat contains lots of protein, but you can easily get it from other sources both plant and animal based (like eggs, for instance). Red meat is also pretty unhealthy, too; I eat it because it's tasty and convenient, not for the nutritional value it provides.
- CorrectHorseBat 1y ago