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
-
BecomingMoreAwesome 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.
While it’s true that they spend the majority of their lives literally on pasture, most beef cattle are not eating grass for the majority of their lives. They’re weaned at around 8 months, sold to the feed lot around 12 months, and slaughtered at 15 to 18 months. Source: The US Beef Board, a pro-beef marketing association. https://www.beefboard.org/pocket-guide/beef-lifecycle.html
And according to the Iowa Corn Board, 99% of the corn grown in the US is field corn. Per the Iowa Corn Board, “While a small portion of “Field Corn” is processed for use as corn cereal, corn starch, corn oil and corn syrup for human consumption, it is primarily used for livestock feed, ethanol production and manufactured goods. It’s considered a grain.” https://www.iowacorn.org/media-page/corn-facts
I’m not claiming that 99% of corn grown in the US is for feeding cows. Clearly it’s significantly less than that given that so much Field corn is used to make ethanol. However, it’s completely misleading to say that feedlot cattle are fed “waste” crops, when the corn is specifically grown to feed them.
Full disclaimer-I eat beef. I’m phasing out beef at home and am actively trying ground beef replacements for recipes. I do eat beef at restaurants and other people’s houses and don’t ask whether their beef is ethically sourced.
As I said, not in my country.
2 -
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. Ymmv18 -
BecomingMoreAwesome 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.
While it’s true that they spend the majority of their lives literally on pasture, most beef cattle are not eating grass for the majority of their lives. They’re weaned at around 8 months, sold to the feed lot around 12 months, and slaughtered at 15 to 18 months. Source: The US Beef Board, a pro-beef marketing association. https://www.beefboard.org/pocket-guide/beef-lifecycle.html
And according to the Iowa Corn Board, 99% of the corn grown in the US is field corn. Per the Iowa Corn Board, “While a small portion of “Field Corn” is processed for use as corn cereal, corn starch, corn oil and corn syrup for human consumption, it is primarily used for livestock feed, ethanol production and manufactured goods. It’s considered a grain.” https://www.iowacorn.org/media-page/corn-facts
I’m not claiming that 99% of corn grown in the US is for feeding cows. Clearly it’s significantly less than that given that so much Field corn is used to make ethanol. However, it’s completely misleading to say that feedlot cattle are fed “waste” crops, when the corn is specifically grown to feed them.
Full disclaimer-I eat beef. I’m phasing out beef at home and am actively trying ground beef replacements for recipes. I do eat beef at restaurants and other people’s houses and don’t ask whether their beef is ethically sourced.
As I said, not in my country.
I don't think having the US as the default context for this conversation is necessarily a bad thing. Americans eat the most fast food and I believe we eat the most meat (222 pounds per person is what is projected for this year). When we're talking about the environmental impact of meat production, why wouldn't we look at the places that have the biggest "footprint"?
Although Canada does have some fast food places that offer meat alternatives (I believe A&W sells Beyond Meat products), the recent spurt of interest in meat alternatives does seem to be mainly focused on the US as well.5 -
So, the primary objections seem to be along these lines:
- Clean eaters/food purists: Not natural, list of scary ingredients
- Sodium fears, soy fears, etc...
- Carnivore/keto: a vegan beef substitute implies that their sacred cows are unnecessary
Did I miss anything?
Too big, no Whopper Jr option.
Costs more. It's a dollar more than the original.2 -
Just because numbers are fun --
90 million acres in the US are planted to corn (the main feedgrain crop).
I've seen a variety of numbers, but all rather similar to this (for 2017): http://www.worldofcorn.com/#corn-usage-by-segment
About 38% for animal feed, 30% for ethanol, 14% for exports, and then 10% for human-food-related uses (including HFCS).
Whatever one thinks about the other uses, that's a lot of corn grown for animal feed.8 -
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.
13 -
BecomingMoreAwesome 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.
While it’s true that they spend the majority of their lives literally on pasture, most beef cattle are not eating grass for the majority of their lives. They’re weaned at around 8 months, sold to the feed lot around 12 months, and slaughtered at 15 to 18 months. Source: The US Beef Board, a pro-beef marketing association. https://www.beefboard.org/pocket-guide/beef-lifecycle.html
And according to the Iowa Corn Board, 99% of the corn grown in the US is field corn. Per the Iowa Corn Board, “While a small portion of “Field Corn” is processed for use as corn cereal, corn starch, corn oil and corn syrup for human consumption, it is primarily used for livestock feed, ethanol production and manufactured goods. It’s considered a grain.” https://www.iowacorn.org/media-page/corn-facts
I’m not claiming that 99% of corn grown in the US is for feeding cows. Clearly it’s significantly less than that given that so much Field corn is used to make ethanol. However, it’s completely misleading to say that feedlot cattle are fed “waste” crops, when the corn is specifically grown to feed them.
Full disclaimer-I eat beef. I’m phasing out beef at home and am actively trying ground beef replacements for recipes. I do eat beef at restaurants and other people’s houses and don’t ask whether their beef is ethically sourced.
As I said, not in my country.
Doh! My apologies for being the boorish American.2 -
The impossible whopper protein is about as real as the American cheese used in fast food burgers.
If someone will choose slice of American Process Cheese Food, it's hard to object to the beef substitute on the grounds of it not being real.
6 -
I'll try it. Here is the nutrition info, for those wondering:
"We will start off by saying the Impossible Burger 2.0 is a significant improvement in the saturated fat and sodium departments, compared to Impossible Foods’ original recipe. The original—which is still being served in many of the 6,000 restaurants nationwide that carry Impossible Burgers—packs 290 calories, 14g sat fat, 580mg sodium, and 27g protein. The new version is only 240 calories, with 8g sat fat, 370mg sodium, and 19g protein. However, that’s not exactly improvement enough to deem this a “healthy” choice."
https://cookinglight.com/news/burger-king-impossible-burger-vegan-whopper0 -
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
From an anthropological and evolutionary standpoint, that isn't true. (My undergrad is anthropology and I have enough of an academic background to have some insight on the topic.)
Our canine teeth aren't designed for meat, as some like to imply; other vegetarian animals (gorillas, deer, etc.) have much larger and sharper canines than we do. What we are missing dentally is far more important - we do not have the razor-like carnassial teeth found in carnivores that are used for slicing meat (dogs, cats, etc.)
The amino acid proteins we require can all come from plant based sources, and there have been medical and academic studies that conclude that when people switch from a meat to plant based diet, their vitamin intake and nutrition overall generally improves. B-12 would be the exception, but even that is found in dairy and eggs. Vegans would need to take a supplement or eat fortified foods.
We CAN eat meat, but that doesn't mean we HAVE to eat it, and it certainly doesn't mean we were designed to do so.
In America, our thinking that we must eat meat is mostly cultural and as far as humans go, is really pretty recent.
Also take into account the acids, intestine length, salivary glands, etc. and you will see major differences between carnivores and herbivores/humans.
Don't get me wrong - I enjoy a good steak like most people - but yeah, we weren't "designed" to be meat eaters.
16 -
tbright1965 wrote: »The impossible whopper protein is about as real as the American cheese used in fast food burgers.
If someone will choose slice of American Process Cheese Food, it's hard to object to the beef substitute on the grounds of it not being real.
This. I can somewhat understand rejecting fast food on the whole or having reservations about it as a frequently chosen meal. I can't understand specific objections to the Impossible Burger given the context of the rest of Burger King's menu.
Don't like soy? It's already there. Don't like sodium? It's already there. Don't like "unreal" foods? That ship has already sailed. It's hard to think of what there is to object to about the Impossible Burger that couldn't be also said of the Croissan'wich or Chicken Fries.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
This. It's simply a religious argument (although not a tenet of any religion I know of).5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
0 -
BecomingMoreAwesome wrote: »Clearly the answer is that we should all ditch Burger King and meet at The Counter, where there is something for (almost) everyone who has posted on this thread: https://www.thecounter.com/menu/index.php
They do have gluten free options and vegan options, but they don’t yet have the gluten free vegan proteins. I’ll bring roasted chickpeas with a dash of cayenne and garlic so everyone has something to eat.
hell yes! The Counter is amazing. Ate there a lot when I lived in LA
1 -
BecomingMoreAwesome wrote: »Clearly the answer is that we should all ditch Burger King and meet at The Counter, where there is something for (almost) everyone who has posted on this thread: https://www.thecounter.com/menu/index.php
They do have gluten free options and vegan options, but they don’t yet have the gluten free vegan proteins. I’ll bring roasted chickpeas with a dash of cayenne and garlic so everyone has something to eat.
hell yes! The Counter is amazing. Ate there a lot when I lived in LA
It seems like the only universally agreed upon thing in this thread is we should all go eat at The Counter8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
That's going to eliminate virtually everything at Burger King (according to their own nutritional information).6 -
tbright1965 wrote: »The impossible whopper protein is about as real as the American cheese used in fast food burgers.
If someone will choose slice of American Process Cheese Food, it's hard to object to the beef substitute on the grounds of it not being real.
I 100% agree with this statement. It's an abomination that should require wait staff to use air quotes and a weird vocal stress when asking you if would like American on that. "Would you like Swiss, pepper jack,sharp cheddar cheese, or (sigh) American cheese?"
I also agree with the assertions about being designed to eat meat. I evolved to be an omnivore, I also am lucky enough to be one of those humans who evolved to drink milk as an adult.
So I will happily argue against fake burgers based on how I like my burgers to taste, but not that the fact that it's made out of plants means I shouldn't have it. Especially since the rest of that meal will likely be french fries and a milkshake.4 -
Clearly I’m avoiding my other responsibilities today in favor of interesting internet rabbit holes.
TIL that Canadian beef spends 2-6 months on feedlots (compared to 3-6 months in the US), and is finished primarily on barley instead of corn: https://canadabeef.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/3208_CANBEEF_factsheet_NUTRITION-2016.pdf
The majority of barley grown in Canada is purpose-grown as a feed crop, “sometimes as much as 80%” per the Alberta Barley Board: http://www.albertabarley.com/about-us/industry-overview/
Personally I advocate for a much higher percentage of barley grown to make malts for me.
I don’t know what the environmental impact of typical Canadian barley production is compared to typical US corn production, but if anyone else is interested in diving down that rabbit hole, please do.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
That's going to eliminate virtually everything at Burger King (according to their own nutritional information).
Hence why I don't eat there or any other fast food chain for that matter.3 -
BecomingMoreAwesome wrote: »BecomingMoreAwesome 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.
While it’s true that they spend the majority of their lives literally on pasture, most beef cattle are not eating grass for the majority of their lives. They’re weaned at around 8 months, sold to the feed lot around 12 months, and slaughtered at 15 to 18 months. Source: The US Beef Board, a pro-beef marketing association. https://www.beefboard.org/pocket-guide/beef-lifecycle.html
And according to the Iowa Corn Board, 99% of the corn grown in the US is field corn. Per the Iowa Corn Board, “While a small portion of “Field Corn” is processed for use as corn cereal, corn starch, corn oil and corn syrup for human consumption, it is primarily used for livestock feed, ethanol production and manufactured goods. It’s considered a grain.” https://www.iowacorn.org/media-page/corn-facts
I’m not claiming that 99% of corn grown in the US is for feeding cows. Clearly it’s significantly less than that given that so much Field corn is used to make ethanol. However, it’s completely misleading to say that feedlot cattle are fed “waste” crops, when the corn is specifically grown to feed them.
Full disclaimer-I eat beef. I’m phasing out beef at home and am actively trying ground beef replacements for recipes. I do eat beef at restaurants and other people’s houses and don’t ask whether their beef is ethically sourced.
As I said, not in my country.
Doh! My apologies for being the boorish American.
The best numbers I've found for Canada and corn so far are for Ontario specifically, 2006-07:
38% for both industrial (including ethanol) and human use combined. 62% for animal feed. The total amount of corn used includes over 13% imported. Way less grown than in the US, of course.
Here's something on the Canadian beef industry: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/beef/news/vbn0804a3.htm
I haven't found any indication that Canadian cattle are less likely to be grain-fed as a percentage of their overall diet than US cattle.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions