Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Impossible Whopper: Your thoughts on plant-based burgers?
Options
Replies
-
I think every fast food place should have a veggie burger. I don't understand how it doesn't just make business sense. (Yes I am a vegetarian but that isn't my point.) We don't prefer to eat fast food but when we are driving somewhere (husband and I) and we want to pick up something quick we would drive-thru at McDonald's IF they had a veggie burger for me to eat, while my husband eats his beef burger. But they don't. So we go to Harvey's.
One vegetarian in a group of people that has to be fed can make the decision for where the whole group goes. I don't get why they don't all have a veggie burger option.
I imagine the demand is not there yet. Believe me, if they thought there would be a profit they would.
Also having separate areas to cook the veggie burgers will affect workflow.
Any indication that they're cooking them separately? It doesn't seem as if most restaurants cook their vegetarian things separately from the meaty ones, even if that means a common grill surface for things like burgers.
Burger King might not, but I wasn't referring to them specifically. There are definitely restaurants that do this, including some fast food restaurants that do this though.
No evidence, but I wonder if that might be more common in your area (NW coast, urban, I think?) vs. mine (Great Lakes, mid-sized city).
I wouldn't be especially surprised if that was the case. I know the one fast food place that I'm ever tempted to go to does this (they also have multiple vegetarian options that aren't salad though...). I will also say, I was once in my favorite coffee shop when a health inspector came one time and the health inspector was very keen on finding out about and talking about cross contamination with regards to things like almond milk vs cow's milk vs soy milk vs oat milk. Part of it was a potential allergy issue but she also mentioned people who are vegan.1 -
I think it’s fantastic. I would love to eat it, but I am on the low FODMAP diet, so it wouldn’t suit me personally.0
-
A non vegan viewpoint that I found on Twitter today, posted by a vegetarian
https://lachefnet.wordpress.com/2018/03/31/a-tale-of-two-expos/amp/?DfUda=&__twitter_impression=true4 -
A non vegan viewpoint that I found on Twitter today, posted by a vegetarian
https://lachefnet.wordpress.com/2018/03/31/a-tale-of-two-expos/amp/?DfUda=&__twitter_impression=true
I think part of the problem with these kind of comparisons is that they tend to compare the ideal scenario on one side with the average (or even worst) scenario on the other side. I think it is pretty clear that a lot of/most animal agriculture in North America is more intensive than what is described here, and thus more damaging. I kind of think it is a useless exercise anyway to compare which is "better". We should all just make the best moral and environmental choices we can within our own personal preferred way of eating.8 -
I took my kid to The Counter and tried it today. It was...fine. Not the best burger I’ve ever had, but better than some beef burgers I’ve had. If/when I commit to giving up beef entirely it would solve a burger craving.1
-
A non vegan viewpoint that I found on Twitter today, posted by a vegetarian
https://lachefnet.wordpress.com/2018/03/31/a-tale-of-two-expos/amp/?DfUda=&__twitter_impression=true
I think part of the problem with these kind of comparisons is that they tend to compare the ideal scenario on one side with the average (or even worst) scenario on the other side. I think it is pretty clear that a lot of/most animal agriculture in North America is more intensive than what is described here, and thus more damaging. I kind of think it is a useless exercise anyway to compare which is "better". We should all just make the best moral and environmental choices we can within our own personal preferred way of eating.
I thought that was the point of this particular article: To contrast the best animal agriculture with the more damaging forms of plant-food production, as a counter to people who insist that plant-based eating is always much more virtuous.
Heck, I'm a long-term vegetarian, and the halo of virtue around plant-based eating, in some blogosphere representations of it, kinda makes me eye roll, too. "Plant based" can be unhealthy and ecologically damaging. Omnivory likewise. And either can be done in a relatively more ecologically responsible way, and the products consumed in nutrient-dense rather than highly-processed forms.
It's not as easy as "plants good, meat bad" or vice-versa. That, IMO, was the point.
I don't think the writer was saying that that example of beef production was typical of where the modern mass supply of beef comes from.2 -
Tbh I don't frequent fast food restaurants, mainly because I've been a vegetarian all my life and unless I want a bowl of lettuce, "hold the chicken", there is basically no way for me to eat there. Except subway, I guess.
I love this concept though, and if they came to my area I would get one just to check it out. It would certainly make social situations easier (when driving with other people, I wouldn't have to be the party pooper that says sorry guys I can't eat there, can we go somewhere else, etc.). I like Morningstar Grillers a lot, I assume they're similar to BK's version.
Either way, a step in the right direction! Of course it's still going to come in a non-biodegradable wrapper and be processed in a huge plant somewhere and shipped by diesel, yada yada, but every little step for the environment is a win. Huge societal change happens in tiny increments.3 -
A non vegan viewpoint that I found on Twitter today, posted by a vegetarian
https://lachefnet.wordpress.com/2018/03/31/a-tale-of-two-expos/amp/?DfUda=&__twitter_impression=true
I think part of the problem with these kind of comparisons is that they tend to compare the ideal scenario on one side with the average (or even worst) scenario on the other side. I think it is pretty clear that a lot of/most animal agriculture in North America is more intensive than what is described here, and thus more damaging. I kind of think it is a useless exercise anyway to compare which is "better". We should all just make the best moral and environmental choices we can within our own personal preferred way of eating.
I thought that was the point of this particular article: To contrast the best animal agriculture with the more damaging forms of plant-food production, as a counter to people who insist that plant-based eating is always much more virtuous.
Heck, I'm a long-term vegetarian, and the halo of virtue around plant-based eating, in some blogosphere representations of it, kinda makes me eye roll, too. "Plant based" can be unhealthy and ecologically damaging. Omnivory likewise. And either can be done in a relatively more ecologically responsible way, and the products consumed in nutrient-dense rather than highly-processed forms.
It's not as easy as "plants good, meat bad" or vice-versa. That, IMO, was the point.
I don't think the writer was saying that that example of beef production was typical of where the modern mass supply of beef comes from.
I think that's a reasonable point, and I personally think too much generalizing gets done about animal agriculture being bad for the environment vs. other sorts of agriculture -- part of it depends on the particular surroundings and what they are fit for. But the problem is that the only way most meat comes from such examples is if the amount of meat produced goes way down. One way of achieving that could be finding alternatives that people who crave beef would also enjoy. Most people who eat meat alternatives (including things like black bean burgers) or want to include less meat in their diets aren't actually planning to become vegetarian. But for some (not you, obviously) even talking about the current consumption of meat being too high or wanting to cut down on meat consumption personally seems to be something to argue against. Using this kind of comparison in this thread in support of what seems to be an argument against reducing meat consumption is not valid.3 -
A non vegan viewpoint that I found on Twitter today, posted by a vegetarian
https://lachefnet.wordpress.com/2018/03/31/a-tale-of-two-expos/amp/?DfUda=&__twitter_impression=true
I think part of the problem with these kind of comparisons is that they tend to compare the ideal scenario on one side with the average (or even worst) scenario on the other side. I think it is pretty clear that a lot of/most animal agriculture in North America is more intensive than what is described here, and thus more damaging. I kind of think it is a useless exercise anyway to compare which is "better". We should all just make the best moral and environmental choices we can within our own personal preferred way of eating.
I thought that was the point of this particular article: To contrast the best animal agriculture with the more damaging forms of plant-food production, as a counter to people who insist that plant-based eating is always much more virtuous.
Heck, I'm a long-term vegetarian, and the halo of virtue around plant-based eating, in some blogosphere representations of it, kinda makes me eye roll, too. "Plant based" can be unhealthy and ecologically damaging. Omnivory likewise. And either can be done in a relatively more ecologically responsible way, and the products consumed in nutrient-dense rather than highly-processed forms.
It's not as easy as "plants good, meat bad" or vice-versa. That, IMO, was the point.
I don't think the writer was saying that that example of beef production was typical of where the modern mass supply of beef comes from.
I think that's a reasonable point, and I personally think too much generalizing gets done about animal agriculture being bad for the environment vs. other sorts of agriculture -- part of it depends on the particular surroundings and what they are fit for. But the problem is that the only way most meat comes from such examples is if the amount of meat produced goes way down. One way of achieving that could be finding alternatives that people who crave beef would also enjoy. Most people who eat meat alternatives (including things like black bean burgers) or want to include less meat in their diets aren't actually planning to become vegetarian. But for some (not you, obviously) even talking about the current consumption of meat being too high or wanting to cut down on meat consumption personally seems to be something to argue against. Using this kind of comparison in this thread in support of what seems to be an argument against reducing meat consumption is not valid.
Agreed. I think the link was probably posted on this thread for reasons different than the ones that motivated the article writer, though I'm speculating, of course. (While the article's writer was quite clear about his/her motivations, I'd be speculating about PPs motivations. Critiquing the form of the article because of how it's (mis?)used on the thread was more what I was speaking to).
In responding to the post critiquing the article, I should've agreed wth that poster's comment "We should all just make the best moral and environmental choices we can within our own personal preferred way of eating." because I agree with that.
Part of my main original rationale for becoming vegetarian (back in 1974 at age 18
) was the high resource consumption involved in typical meat production, including an unfavorable protein input to output ratio, in a world at the time where issues of food production were looming large, and famine then a large-scale issue (some of it not due to production or supply problems, as is now more clear in hindsight).
Modern population dynamics and food production (adequacy, sustainability, ecological impact and more) are still problems, with dietary patterns possibly/probably not as major a driver as some would believe. Dietary patterns are probably a factor, but not just with respect to meat-eating. It's a complicated world.
2 -
I don't have a problem with plant-based burgers in general but I do have a problem with the fact that ingredients in the Impossible Whopper were not only tested on animals (let that sink in for a minute) but that those lab rats were purchased from a lab animal farm notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment. This was done at the direction of The Impossible Company, with their full knowledge and consent and they have the nerve to defend it. Where I would like them to shove their "Whopper" is, well...impossible.
https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/impossible-foods-ceo-blasts-animal-testing-i-abhor-the-exploitation-of-animals0 -
While I agree that some agricultural practices for raising beef are less than ideal, agricultural practices for raising plants are also not ideal. Both need to be severely revamped, imo. I feel that arguing for veggie burgers based on an environmental argument is misguided. Plowing and turning over the soil causes soil loss and very poor water retention, and the use of pesticides or flame weeding creates an environment that rather void of life compared to what it could be (plants, micro organisms, insects, nematodes, birds and small mammals cant survive long in a monocropped field). Proper grazing can restore ecosystems- industrially raised animals, not so much.
This is a wonderful video about raising beef well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
I'm all for veggie burgers being sold for people who do not want to eat beef, or for those who just want to try something new. It is a good option.
I am not for people feeling that they SHOULD choose a veggie patty because of the environment or because they think replacing beef with plants is healthier.5 -
My husband and I have had a Slutty Vegan Burger and she uses the Impossible Burger patty. He always said anything he tried that was “healthy” lacked flavor and despises veggie patties. He couldn’t tell the Slutty Vegan burger wasn’t real meat. Needless to say, he loved it.1
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I wouldn't eat it. I have no reason to eat a replacement food when I can eat the real thing. IMO, replacement foods are not generally up to the same nutritional level as the real food.
I like the option of it for those vegetarians who enjoyed meat but gave it up for some other reason, and for those who cant eat fast food because they are halal.
I would stick to meat for a few reasons:
Gluten- as a celiac, it would not be safe, not that fast food is often safe.
Nutrition - meat is generally more nutritious than plant proteins.
Limiting seed PUFASs - I'd rather eat saturated fats that we've eaten safely (badically) forever.
Environmental reasons- fewer animals die for beef than monocrops; pastured animals improve the soil and water retention; grasslands help with carbon sinks.
Meat is cheaper - fake is less nutrition for more money.
I am all for offering it as an option though. It will work for some. As long as they dont force it on me with a meat tax or something, I say to each their own.
Nutrition: Speaking of the general when this thread is about a specific product isn't necessarily that useful. The Impossible Burger is specifically designed to be similar to beef nutritionally. For this specific product, is there a nutritional concern compared to a ground beef patty?
Keep in mind that the person choosing a Whopper made from an Impossible Burger is likely eating it instead of an equivalent fast food meal made with meat, so the nutritional differences should be considered in that context instead of compared to completely different meals.
Environmental: The typical fast food burger is made from cows being fed soy and corn. If monocrops are a concern, then eliminating beef makes more sense as it takes many pounds of feed to produce just a pound of beef. Eating the soy ourselves is the more rational choice for those with this environmental concern, as it reduces the overall demand. Comparing the environmental impact to a pastured animal makes sense only if the majority of fast food burgers are coming from pastured animals. Are they?
Nutritionally, if someone is eating fast food once in a while, it probably makes little to no difference what burger they chose because other foods will fill in for deficiencies. My point was just that they are probably not equal, and that meat us probably more complete. Not a big deal unless it is an everyday thing.
Most beef only spend a very short time on feedlots. The vast majority of their time is on a pasture, so no, they are not mono cropped. At least not in my country. And when they do go to a feedlot, they tend to get the waste crops that we cant or dont eat as well.
Instead of saying they "probably" aren't equal, can you tell me what you'd expect to get in a burger that isn't in the Impossible Burger?
In my country, pollution from feedlots is a major issue and cows are fed soy and corn, even when they are pastured for part of their lives. So choosing a beef burger due to concern about pollution or monocrops wouldn't make sense.
Real beef. Fake beef will not be real beef. It will not be the same. It may be similar but I doubt its proteins are the same or complete. I am guessing the vitamins and minerals differ. I am guessing there are more pufas and less saturated fats.
As a human, I am designed to eat meat. I am probably not designed to eat vegan burgers. I am not saying they are bad. I am saying they are less than ideal for me. Ymmv
"Fake" versus "real" isn't an objective nutritional difference. That's more of an emotionally driven assessment.
You're guessing a lot here. The nutritional information is available for this product. You don't have to guess, yet you keep doing so.
For the average person ordering a Impossible Whopper instead of a regular Whopper, is the difference in nutritional impact worth noting? I still haven't seen a compelling reason to think that there is.
"It's not real" isn't an objection that is based in an actual assessment of the differences.
I do not believe that I was "designed" to eat anything. This is an argument that is absolutely not based in any evidence, it's completely emotional. You're free, of course, to reject foods based on religious grounds. But in the context of a debate, it doesn't really move us forward.
So it's not "real," it's not ideal, it's not what you're meant to eat. These are all emotional responses.
I dont think that saying I am not evolved to eat vegan burgers us emotional. That's factual.
Just like humans are not evolved to drink baby formula. They are meant to drink breast milk. If formula bad? No. Is it as good as breast milk? No. It is fake, or imitation, breast milk.
I feel you are defending the fake/imitation beef patty emotionally. So what if it is not as nutritious as beef would be? As I said, i doubt it will make much difference in peoples' lives unless they eat it daily.
I am saying guess because I dont want to research nutritional differences that exist between meat and vegan alternatives.
I say designed in evolutionary terms. Not religious. Humans are meat eaters. I see no reason to replace it with soy and corn proteins if I am not being forced to. I dont see where we evolved (were designed) to rely on plant proteins, yeast and added vitamins and minerals for our nutritional needs. We can get by on it, sure, but is it ideally suited to the human body? Doubtful. Will eating imitation burger once in a while hurt? Also doubtful. But I am all for people having that option if they want it.
You wrote "designed." If you meant "evolved," that's a different statement.
Do you think you evolved to eat Burger King Whoppers? Go through a drive-thru? Exchange currency for a paper bag full of food?
Why is the plant burger where the line is drawn?
If we're looking what humans have evolved to do and limiting ourselves to activities with a long prehistorical/historical record, then Burger King as a whole is probably out. Restaurants of all kinds are out.
Should we be limiting ourselves only to activities for which there is a well-established history over long periods of human evolution?
It's fine not to want to research the differences between the Impossible Burger and the regular Whopper, but I do think if you refuse to educate yourself on it then it doesn't really make sense for you to offer opinions on the nutritional differences.
This isn't an emotional defense for me, it's just intellectually hard for me to understand the exact nature of some of these objections especially when you're sharing that you haven't even bothered to learn anything about the nutritional specifics of the product in question.
I dont eat whoppers. I dont think I ever had. I think I last ate take out in 2010. It isn't for me. Tonight I had burger patties for dinner though. Beef and eggs with a few spices. I think we evolved (were designed by evolution) to eat that .
The line does not need to be drawn at plant burgers. I have said over and over that it's a nice option for people to have. I just do not want to eat it. I wouldn't eat the bun or the fries or drink a glass if milk either. It's just food choices based in my own needs and preferences. Just because it is there is no reason for me to eat it.
Perhaps you could offer me what you have researched on its nutritional strengths in comparison to the beef burger? You researched it because you have an opinion, correct? Nutritionally I said it is not the same as beef but you are welcome to prove me wrong.
To me it comes down to why would I eat an imitation burger, that costs more and does not have the same nutrition as beef, when i could eat and enjoy the beef patty? I can see no reason at all.
Nobody is saying you have to eat it. The point is that your objections are subjective and you're trying to position them as objective reasons to avoid it.
"I don't want to eat it" is a perfectly valid reason not to eat something but let's not position it as some sort of logical stance.
Yes, I have read about the nutritional differences between the Impossible Burger and a beef burger. That's why it seemed odd to me when you asserted, as if it was factual, that the Impossible Burger was nutritionally inferior. You made the claim based on your assumptions and I think that deserves to be called out. Again, you're free to share what you think the relevant nutritional differences are since you're the one who is making the argument that it should be avoided for nutritional reasons.
Everyone's choice is subjective.
I gave the reasons I had first not wanting to eat fake beef. I choose not to because I would rather eat beef, for many reasons. You just dont agree with me and my reasons... more subjectiveness.
I disagree, on general principle, with the decision to use animals for food.
This doesn't keep me from recognizing that some arguments for eating meat are weaker than others, either from the point of view of logic, moral consistency, or basis in fact.
If someone makes an argument for eating meat that is based on counter-factual information, I'm going to notice that.
"I don't want to eat it" is a complete and fully justified reason not to eat something, but let's not pretend that it isn't subjective. That wasn't the argument you put forward initially. You were pretending that there were nutritional or environmental reasons that make beef a better choice.
9 -
A non vegan viewpoint that I found on Twitter today, posted by a vegetarian
https://lachefnet.wordpress.com/2018/03/31/a-tale-of-two-expos/amp/?DfUda=&__twitter_impression=true
"The problem with getting protein straight from plants is that to get RDA levels of many of the different essential amino acids, you have to eat a lot of plants especially of green leafy vegetables or broccoli . . . "
Gee, and plants are exactly what vegans eat. How on earth is this a problem?9 -
ultra_violets wrote: »I don't have a problem with plant-based burgers in general but I do have a problem with the fact that ingredients in the Impossible Whopper were not only tested on animals (let that sink in for a minute) but that those lab rats were purchased from a lab animal farm notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment. This was done at the direction of The Impossible Company, with their full knowledge and consent and they have the nerve to defend it. Where I would like them to shove their "Whopper" is, well...impossible.
https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/impossible-foods-ceo-blasts-animal-testing-i-abhor-the-exploitation-of-animals
They were literally in a no-win situation. If it wasn't tested, you'd have people claiming there is no evidence that it is safe and we need to eat beef instead.
I guess they had the option of not developing the product at all, but if you're using the metric of what prevents more slaughter in the long run I think it's possible to conclude that the company made the choice they thought most ethical.
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »I don't have a problem with plant-based burgers in general but I do have a problem with the fact that ingredients in the Impossible Whopper were not only tested on animals (let that sink in for a minute) but that those lab rats were purchased from a lab animal farm notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment. This was done at the direction of The Impossible Company, with their full knowledge and consent and they have the nerve to defend it. Where I would like them to shove their "Whopper" is, well...impossible.
https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/impossible-foods-ceo-blasts-animal-testing-i-abhor-the-exploitation-of-animals
They were literally in a no-win situation. If it wasn't tested, you'd have people claiming there is no evidence that it is safe and we need to eat beef instead.
I guess they had the option of not developing the product at all, but if you're using the metric of what prevents more slaughter in the long run I think it's possible to conclude that the company made the choice they thought most ethical.
I'd add that - though I understand the foundation point about the exploitation of animals and the probability of miserable lives of animals in labs - they were testing on animals an ingredient that they believed, on good evidence, was safe enough for humans to eat without being tested on animals . . . and so far, it appears they were correct.
6 -
ultra_violets wrote: »I don't have a problem with plant-based burgers in general but I do have a problem with the fact that ingredients in the Impossible Whopper were not onl tested on animals (let that sink in for a minute) but that those lab rats were purchased from a lab animal farm notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment. This was done at the direction of The Impossible Company, with their full knowledge and consent and they have the nerve to defend it. Where I would like them to shove their "Whopper" is, well...impossible.
https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/impossible-foods-ceo-blasts-animal-testing-i-abhor-the-exploitation-of-animals
How dare they serve plants to lab rats. No really, where am I supposed to be appalled and offended?
The link you provided says the opposite of the "notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment". If you're going to make that claim, how about a link that supports it instead of one talking about how they carefully screened their supplier?
5 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »I don't have a problem with plant-based burgers in general but I do have a problem with the fact that ingredients in the Impossible Whopper were not onl tested on animals (let that sink in for a minute) but that those lab rats were purchased from a lab animal farm notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment. This was done at the direction of The Impossible Company, with their full knowledge and consent and they have the nerve to defend it. Where I would like them to shove their "Whopper" is, well...impossible.
https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/impossible-foods-ceo-blasts-animal-testing-i-abhor-the-exploitation-of-animals
How dare they serve plants to lab rats. No really, where am I supposed to be appalled and offended?
The link you provided says the opposite of the "notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment". If you're going to make that claim, how about a link that supports it instead of one talking about how they carefully screened their supplier?
To be fair, it is typical for even the most well run labs to kill rats when experiments are concluded. They can't be used for future testing (because it could confuse results) and I am not aware of any rehoming or adoption possibilities for these particular animals (dogs used for animal testing are sometimes adopted out and primates are sometimes sent to sanctuaries). I don't know for a fact what happened to these rats when testing was done or if Impossible Foods made alternate arrangements for them, but this helps explain why testing on rats -- even if one can be fairly confident that the tested substances won't ultimately result in harm -- is a concern for vegans.
I honestly don't envy the decision the CEO (who has been vegan for fourteen years) had to make here. He was choosing between the possibility of alleviating harm to some animals on a huge scale in the future or concrete harm to a very specific group of animals in the present. There's a reason why these types of decisions make such a great basis for ethical thought experiments or conversation starters . . . most people are doing them with humans, not animals, but the issues are worth thinking about for all types of individuals.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »I don't have a problem with plant-based burgers in general but I do have a problem with the fact that ingredients in the Impossible Whopper were not onl tested on animals (let that sink in for a minute) but that those lab rats were purchased from a lab animal farm notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment. This was done at the direction of The Impossible Company, with their full knowledge and consent and they have the nerve to defend it. Where I would like them to shove their "Whopper" is, well...impossible.
https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/impossible-foods-ceo-blasts-animal-testing-i-abhor-the-exploitation-of-animals
How dare they serve plants to lab rats. No really, where am I supposed to be appalled and offended?
The link you provided says the opposite of the "notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment". If you're going to make that claim, how about a link that supports it instead of one talking about how they carefully screened their supplier?
To be fair, it is typical for even the most well run labs to kill rats when experiments are concluded. They can't be used for future testing (because it could confuse results) and I am not aware of any rehoming or adoption possibilities for these particular animals (dogs used for animal testing are sometimes adopted out and primates are sometimes sent to sanctuaries). I don't know for a fact what happened to these rats when testing was done or if Impossible Foods made alternate arrangements for them, but this helps explain why testing on rats -- even if one can be fairly confident that the tested substances won't ultimately result in harm -- is a concern for vegans.
I honestly don't envy the decision the CEO (who has been vegan for fourteen years) had to make here. He was choosing between the possibility of alleviating harm to some animals on a huge scale in the future or concrete harm to a very specific group of animals in the present. There's a reason why these types of decisions make such a great basis for ethical thought experiments or conversation starters . . . most people are doing them with humans, not animals, but the issues are worth thinking about for all types of individuals.
I was under the impression that lab rats are often killed because it is generally cruel to keep them alive for their full life span. At least for carcinogenic testing, the typical rat is the Sprague-Dawley breed that is going to develop tumors with age even when used as the control group.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »ultra_violets wrote: »I don't have a problem with plant-based burgers in general but I do have a problem with the fact that ingredients in the Impossible Whopper were not onl tested on animals (let that sink in for a minute) but that those lab rats were purchased from a lab animal farm notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment. This was done at the direction of The Impossible Company, with their full knowledge and consent and they have the nerve to defend it. Where I would like them to shove their "Whopper" is, well...impossible.
https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/impossible-foods-ceo-blasts-animal-testing-i-abhor-the-exploitation-of-animals
How dare they serve plants to lab rats. No really, where am I supposed to be appalled and offended?
The link you provided says the opposite of the "notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment". If you're going to make that claim, how about a link that supports it instead of one talking about how they carefully screened their supplier?
To be fair, it is typical for even the most well run labs to kill rats when experiments are concluded. They can't be used for future testing (because it could confuse results) and I am not aware of any rehoming or adoption possibilities for these particular animals (dogs used for animal testing are sometimes adopted out and primates are sometimes sent to sanctuaries). I don't know for a fact what happened to these rats when testing was done or if Impossible Foods made alternate arrangements for them, but this helps explain why testing on rats -- even if one can be fairly confident that the tested substances won't ultimately result in harm -- is a concern for vegans.
I honestly don't envy the decision the CEO (who has been vegan for fourteen years) had to make here. He was choosing between the possibility of alleviating harm to some animals on a huge scale in the future or concrete harm to a very specific group of animals in the present. There's a reason why these types of decisions make such a great basis for ethical thought experiments or conversation starters . . . most people are doing them with humans, not animals, but the issues are worth thinking about for all types of individuals.
I was under the impression that lab rats are often killed because it is generally cruel to keep them alive for their full life span. At least for carcinogenic testing, the typical rat is the Sprague-Dawley breed that is going to develop tumors with age even when used as the control group.
That could be accurate too, I just remember reading that it's impossible to use them for more than one type of testing because if they develop cancer or other issues, it would be impossible to tell if it was due to the current tests or previous tests.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions