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?

1235716

Replies

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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. ;)
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    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.
  • BecomingMoreAwesome
    BecomingMoreAwesome Posts: 150 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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.
  • geneticsteacher
    geneticsteacher Posts: 623 Member
    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-whopper
  • tmpecus78
    tmpecus78 Posts: 1,206 Member
    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.

  • tmpecus78
    tmpecus78 Posts: 1,206 Member
    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 :#
  • FireOpalCO
    FireOpalCO Posts: 641 Member
    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.
  • tmpecus78
    tmpecus78 Posts: 1,206 Member
    tmpecus78 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.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited April 2019
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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.