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
-
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Pretty much, and even for the control group, you've probably lost a fair chunk of their lifespan. I think plenty of tests want to include at least part of the developmental age in them to see if the tested substance does something to a developing body that wouldn't be noticed in a developed one. You certainly couldn't cross compare using a group of rats that are tested from birth against a group that started the experiment already months to a year old.1 -
Impossible Burger 2.0 is good. I wouldn't have known it wasn't meat if I had been served one and wasn't told. Was too expensive though.
The veg burger at Carl's is disgusting. I threw it away. Impossible 1.0?
I hope BK goes national with it. Can't wait to try an Impossible Whopper.2 -
dogWalkerTX wrote: »Impossible Burger 2.0 is good. I wouldn't have known it wasn't meat if I had been served one and wasn't told. Was too expensive though.
The veg burger at Carl's is disgusting. I threw it away. Impossible 1.0?
I hope BK goes national with it. Can't wait to try an Impossible Whopper.
I see on their instagram they are rolling out vegan meat in taco bells. Also chicken nuggets, sausage based breakfast items, etc. in a ton of fast food and chain restaurants. I am interested to try!1 -
I have a juicer and occasionally I will take the vegetable pulp that is left over and make a hamburger or meatballs. I guess it is kind of healthy, but the texture is lacking. By the time I add eggs and/or breadcrumbs (or something similar) how much healthier is it? Not sure it's worth it, but I keep trying. However, when I don't use the pulp, my mulch is appreciated much more in the garden.2
-
I think impossible veg meat has more calories than meat.
Sad face.1 -
Burger King has announced that the test was a success and they are rolling out the impossible whopper to all 7000 US locations by the end of the year.3
-
-
dogWalkerTX wrote: »I think impossible veg meat has more calories than meat.
Sad face.
Discussed earlier in the thread - read back. IIRC, the version 2.0 Impossible is pretty close in calories, protein, etc.3 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »dogWalkerTX wrote: »Impossible Burger 2.0 is good. I wouldn't have known it wasn't meat if I had been served one and wasn't told. Was too expensive though.
The veg burger at Carl's is disgusting. I threw it away. Impossible 1.0?
I hope BK goes national with it. Can't wait to try an Impossible Whopper.
I see on their instagram they are rolling out vegan meat in taco bells. Also chicken nuggets, sausage based breakfast items, etc. in a ton of fast food and chain restaurants. I am interested to try!
This seems like it could be a start toward my nightmare: That all of the restaurants will get rid of all vegan/vegetarian options that are tasty (but don't taste like meat), in favor of ones that "taste just like meat".
I get that this would make a lot of vegans/vegetarians happy, and it's alleged to be good for the planet, which is all very nice, and probably makes it a good thing in the big picture.
In my small picture, as someone who became vegetarian in part because I don't much like meat, it might kind of s**k. I also wonder about the fun that disgruntled, underpaid kitchen staff will have feeding actual meat to vegans because the product is nearly indistinguishable. In my case, that wouldn't cause me moral anxiety, but it could possibly give me some serious digestive distress.
(When I've accidentally eaten something with meat broth, that's sometimes come to my attention because, after nearly 45 years of vegetarianism, my body (or my microbiome?) doesn't seem to handle it all that well. Not true for all veg*ans, but sometimes happens for me. I don't think it's suggestability, because the digestive distress has usually triggered (thus preceded) investigation and discovery, rather than happening after I discover I ate something subtle but meaty. It's pretty hard to tell by flavor if - for example - otherwise strongly flavored soups, sauces, casseroles and the like contain substantial chicken broth.)4 -
I can't have beef anymore, so the Beyond Meat patty is perfect for me! I had it for the 1st time at Johnny Rockets. It was awesome!2
-
Cahgetsfit wrote: »We have a burger shop up the road from my place where ALL their burgers are plant-based. I haven't tried it yet, but some friends have and said they are great.
I have had the odd veggie burger here and there and enjoyed it, but I think, especially now that I am more conscious of protein intake, that meat is just easier for me to get my protein in.
A veggie burger or meat-alternative burger I'm assuming would have less protein. I have no idea - just guessing!!!
I would't eat it from Burger King though. Every single time I've had Burger King I have vomited. And I did try more than once to make sure it wasn't just a coincidence and I was feeling sick from something else. No. It was the burger. McDonald's is fine tho. No vomiting there.
You would think but the new wave of plant based burgers actually has comparable or sometimes more protein then a beef patty. They also have more fat then you would expect. I've been eating the Field Burger which has a pretty good meaty taste although doesn't have the feel and texture of a beef burger. A 3.25 oz patty is 290 calories with 16g of fat and 25g of protein. Most of the new plant type burgers have 20g or more of protein per burger.
I personally prefer turkey. Butterball patties in the freezer section are 240 calories and 31g of protein. And they're amazing. Better than beef.1 -
brittanystebbins95 wrote: »Cahgetsfit wrote: »We have a burger shop up the road from my place where ALL their burgers are plant-based. I haven't tried it yet, but some friends have and said they are great.
I have had the odd veggie burger here and there and enjoyed it, but I think, especially now that I am more conscious of protein intake, that meat is just easier for me to get my protein in.
A veggie burger or meat-alternative burger I'm assuming would have less protein. I have no idea - just guessing!!!
I would't eat it from Burger King though. Every single time I've had Burger King I have vomited. And I did try more than once to make sure it wasn't just a coincidence and I was feeling sick from something else. No. It was the burger. McDonald's is fine tho. No vomiting there.
You would think but the new wave of plant based burgers actually has comparable or sometimes more protein then a beef patty. They also have more fat then you would expect. I've been eating the Field Burger which has a pretty good meaty taste although doesn't have the feel and texture of a beef burger. A 3.25 oz patty is 290 calories with 16g of fat and 25g of protein. Most of the new plant type burgers have 20g or more of protein per burger.
I personally prefer turkey. Butterball patties in the freezer section are 240 calories and 31g of protein. And they're amazing. Better than beef.
They are good.0 -
LEAVE MY MEAT ALONE!😤4
-
brittanystebbins95 wrote: »Cahgetsfit wrote: »We have a burger shop up the road from my place where ALL their burgers are plant-based. I haven't tried it yet, but some friends have and said they are great.
I have had the odd veggie burger here and there and enjoyed it, but I think, especially now that I am more conscious of protein intake, that meat is just easier for me to get my protein in.
A veggie burger or meat-alternative burger I'm assuming would have less protein. I have no idea - just guessing!!!
I would't eat it from Burger King though. Every single time I've had Burger King I have vomited. And I did try more than once to make sure it wasn't just a coincidence and I was feeling sick from something else. No. It was the burger. McDonald's is fine tho. No vomiting there.
You would think but the new wave of plant based burgers actually has comparable or sometimes more protein then a beef patty. They also have more fat then you would expect. I've been eating the Field Burger which has a pretty good meaty taste although doesn't have the feel and texture of a beef burger. A 3.25 oz patty is 290 calories with 16g of fat and 25g of protein. Most of the new plant type burgers have 20g or more of protein per burger.
I personally prefer turkey. Butterball patties in the freezer section are 240 calories and 31g of protein. And they're amazing. Better than beef.
I have those too. Had one yesterday. I like them but they don't compare to beef for me.0 -
I'm finding it fascinating to read the articles that are coming thick and fast now that the Impossible Burger is becoming firmly integrated into mainstream food choices, particularly fast food. I rarely have to guess what food philosophy the writer is championing, just skimming down to the conclusion gives me an interesting perspective on how a set of facts (nutritional content, environmental impact) can be interpreted in so many different ways. For example:
One that showed up this morning (WFPB perspective) started off with a straight-forward analysis of the nutritional content (similar to beef) and environmental impact (less than beef and comparable to other meat-replacement products). The bulk of the article compared the burger unfavorably to WFPB foods (which is not a market the Impossible Burger is competing for) in terms of nutrition (hammering on an unsupported link between heme (iron) and diabetes, heart disease and cancer) and environmental impact (more impact than unprocessed foods).
An article a couple of days ago compared the Impossible Burger to beef, using 93% lean beef as the standard rather than the 80% that the Impossible Burger uses for their nutritional comparisons. As expected, the Impossible Burger came out a poor second to the beef, particularly since the article specifically used fat and protein ratios to compare quality. Inexplicably, the article also commented negatively on the fact that the Impossible Burger isn't made entirely of vegetables, and that if you add mayo and fries it becomes a calorie bomb (because apparently nobody does that with beef burgers).
For me, it's not appealing since I like beef, and when I eat a non-meat burger I'm not looking for a substitute but something that has it's own flavor and texture. I'm interested to see, once the novelty wears off, where the Impossible Burger finds it's marketing niche.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »LEAVE MY MEAT ALONE!😤
Adding more non-meat options doesn't remove options for omnivores.
13 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »dogWalkerTX wrote: »Impossible Burger 2.0 is good. I wouldn't have known it wasn't meat if I had been served one and wasn't told. Was too expensive though.
The veg burger at Carl's is disgusting. I threw it away. Impossible 1.0?
I hope BK goes national with it. Can't wait to try an Impossible Whopper.
I see on their instagram they are rolling out vegan meat in taco bells. Also chicken nuggets, sausage based breakfast items, etc. in a ton of fast food and chain restaurants. I am interested to try!
This seems like it could be a start toward my nightmare: That all of the restaurants will get rid of all vegan/vegetarian options that are tasty (but don't taste like meat), in favor of ones that "taste just like meat".
I get that this would make a lot of vegans/vegetarians happy, and it's alleged to be good for the planet, which is all very nice, and probably makes it a good thing in the big picture.
In my small picture, as someone who became vegetarian in part because I don't much like meat, it might kind of s**k. I also wonder about the fun that disgruntled, underpaid kitchen staff will have feeding actual meat to vegans because the product is nearly indistinguishable. In my case, that wouldn't cause me moral anxiety, but it could possibly give me some serious digestive distress.
(When I've accidentally eaten something with meat broth, that's sometimes come to my attention because, after nearly 45 years of vegetarianism, my body (or my microbiome?) doesn't seem to handle it all that well. Not true for all veg*ans, but sometimes happens for me. I don't think it's suggestability, because the digestive distress has usually triggered (thus preceded) investigation and discovery, rather than happening after I discover I ate something subtle but meaty. It's pretty hard to tell by flavor if - for example - otherwise strongly flavored soups, sauces, casseroles and the like contain substantial chicken broth.)
I absolutely agree with this.4 -
I'm finding it fascinating to read the articles that are coming thick and fast now that the Impossible Burger is becoming firmly integrated into mainstream food choices, particularly fast food. I rarely have to guess what food philosophy the writer is championing, just skimming down to the conclusion gives me an interesting perspective on how a set of facts (nutritional content, environmental impact) can be interpreted in so many different ways. For example:
One that showed up this morning (WFPB perspective) started off with a straight-forward analysis of the nutritional content (similar to beef) and environmental impact (less than beef and comparable to other meat-replacement products). The bulk of the article compared the burger unfavorably to WFPB foods (which is not a market the Impossible Burger is competing for) in terms of nutrition (hammering on an unsupported link between heme (iron) and diabetes, heart disease and cancer) and environmental impact (more impact than unprocessed foods).
An article a couple of days ago compared the Impossible Burger to beef, using 93% lean beef as the standard rather than the 80% that the Impossible Burger uses for their nutritional comparisons. As expected, the Impossible Burger came out a poor second to the beef, particularly since the article specifically used fat and protein ratios to compare quality. Inexplicably, the article also commented negatively on the fact that the Impossible Burger isn't made entirely of vegetables, and that if you add mayo and fries it becomes a calorie bomb (because apparently nobody does that with beef burgers).
For me, it's not appealing since I like beef, and when I eat a non-meat burger I'm not looking for a substitute but something that has it's own flavor and texture. I'm interested to see, once the novelty wears off, where the Impossible Burger finds it's marketing niche.
The main market for plant based alternatives besides vegetarians and vegans (although some may be put off by how similar they are to meat), is a fairly sizable and growing number of meat eaters who enjoy the taste of meat and are not ready to give it up completely, but want to be more conscious of their environmental footprint. I'd be a good example of one of those consumers. The Impossible burger has an 89% lower carbon footprint, uses 87% less water, and 96% less land in its production than a beef hamburger does. So that's the market. A certain amount of the appeal is the novelty, but I also think the markets will continue to grow once more skeptics try the alternatives and believe it can be realistic alternative to meat.
The stock market certainly seems to think the segment will continue to grow. It's competitor Beyond Meat tripled its IPO public offering price in the last week.3 -
This seems like it could be a start toward my nightmare: That all of the restaurants will get rid of all vegan/vegetarian options that are tasty (but don't taste like meat), in favor of ones that "taste just like meat".
I get that this would make a lot of vegans/vegetarians happy, and it's alleged to be good for the planet, which is all very nice, and probably makes it a good thing in the big picture.
In my small picture, as someone who became vegetarian in part because I don't much like meat, it might kind of s**k. I also wonder about the fun that disgruntled, underpaid kitchen staff will have feeding actual meat to vegans because the product is nearly indistinguishable. In my case, that wouldn't cause me moral anxiety, but it could possibly give me some serious digestive distress.
I suspect (or at least hope) that while impossible may displace other veggie burgers/faux meat products in fast food establishments, that it won't replace accidentally vegan/vegetarian choices (eg: things that just happen to not have meat, like a poke bowl with tofu or something like a taco bell item with beans, rice, veggies, and guac but no meat (or meat replacement).4 -
I'm finding it fascinating to read the articles that are coming thick and fast now that the Impossible Burger is becoming firmly integrated into mainstream food choices, particularly fast food. I rarely have to guess what food philosophy the writer is championing, just skimming down to the conclusion gives me an interesting perspective on how a set of facts (nutritional content, environmental impact) can be interpreted in so many different ways. For example:
One that showed up this morning (WFPB perspective) started off with a straight-forward analysis of the nutritional content (similar to beef) and environmental impact (less than beef and comparable to other meat-replacement products). The bulk of the article compared the burger unfavorably to WFPB foods (which is not a market the Impossible Burger is competing for) in terms of nutrition (hammering on an unsupported link between heme (iron) and diabetes, heart disease and cancer) and environmental impact (more impact than unprocessed foods).
An article a couple of days ago compared the Impossible Burger to beef, using 93% lean beef as the standard rather than the 80% that the Impossible Burger uses for their nutritional comparisons. As expected, the Impossible Burger came out a poor second to the beef, particularly since the article specifically used fat and protein ratios to compare quality. Inexplicably, the article also commented negatively on the fact that the Impossible Burger isn't made entirely of vegetables, and that if you add mayo and fries it becomes a calorie bomb (because apparently nobody does that with beef burgers).
For me, it's not appealing since I like beef, and when I eat a non-meat burger I'm not looking for a substitute but something that has it's own flavor and texture. I'm interested to see, once the novelty wears off, where the Impossible Burger finds it's marketing niche.
The main market for plant based alternatives besides vegetarians and vegans (although some may be put off by how similar they are to meat), is a fairly sizable and growing number of meat eaters who enjoy the taste of meat and are not ready to give it up completely, but want to be more conscious of their environmental footprint. I'd be a good example of one of those consumers. The Impossible burger has an 89% lower carbon footprint, uses 87% less water, and 96% less land in its production than a beef hamburger does. So that's the market. A certain amount of the appeal is the novelty, but I also think the markets will continue to grow once more skeptics try the alternatives and believe it can be realistic alternative to meat.
The stock market certainly seems to think the segment will continue to grow. It's competitor Beyond Meat tripled its IPO public offering price in the last week.
I agree that's a market they're strongly advertising to. I also think they'll tap into a segment of the population that doesn't eat beef for whatever reason but misses the taste, and doesn't find any of the beef-substitute products available a good replacement, so doesn't buy them. In other words, creating a new market niche of people who currently don't spend money either on beef or beef substitutes.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions