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.
Thoughts on Beyond Burger and other fake meat
Replies
-
rodnichols69 wrote: »My point was that this is not fear mongering.as some loon assumed. Understand what you are eating. There are good options and there are bad. My neighbor makes incredible veggie burgers from scratch using ingredients we can pronounce.
But I can pronounce all those ingredients, and other than one or two I might have to look up, I know what they are.
Maybe if you were more specific about which of those ingredients you're struggling to pronounce, we could help you with it.
The funniest thing is that the ingredients people usually point to as most suspect due to being 'unpronounceable' are the vitamins.11 -
rodnichols69 wrote: »My point was that this is not fear mongering.as some loon assumed. Understand what you are eating. There are good options and there are bad. My neighbor makes incredible veggie burgers from scratch using ingredients we can pronounce.
I hope it doesnt contain spinach
I have a lisp and cant pronounce it properly
9 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »My point was that this is not fear mongering.as some loon assumed. Understand what you are eating. There are good options and there are bad. My neighbor makes incredible veggie burgers from scratch using ingredients we can pronounce.
But I can pronounce all those ingredients, and other than one or two I might have to look up, I know what they are.
Maybe if you were more specific about which of those ingredients you're struggling to pronounce, we could help you with it.
The funniest thing is that the ingredients people usually point to as most suspect due to being 'unpronounceable' are the vitamins.
If whole foods came in with a list of "ingredients", nobody would eat them.3 -
rodnichols69 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »
There are lots of ingredients that are perfectly safe for human consumption, but are also used in animal food or even in inedible products.
It's classic blogosphere fear mongering to suggest you shouldn't consume an ingredient because it's sometimes used in a product you wouldn't consume.
Water is the first ingredient in many toxic household cleaners, for example the Soft Scrub I just used to clean my sink. Do you really want to drink something that makes up the majority of Soft Scrub?
ETA: And considering the movement toward all-natural, whole food pet foods, not to mention the homemade pet food trend, I'd hazard a guess that many pet owners are buying a pet food because it has the kind of ingredients they would eat. The pet food market ain't what it used to be
Soy Protein Concentrate, Coconut Oil, Sunflower Oil, Natural Flavors, Potato Protein, Methylcellulose, Yeast Extract, Cultured Dextrose, Food Starch Modified, Soy Leghemoglobin, Salt, Soy Protein Isolate, Mixed Tocopherols, Zinc Gluconate, Thiamine Hydrochloride, Sodium Ascorbate, Niacin, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Vitamin B12.
What are you attempting to communicate to us here?2 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Sorry, which of those ingredients are you unable to pronounce? Most of the words are long, but pretty straightforward.
Took me some time before I realized the proper way to pronounce 'jicama' though.
I struggle to say "aubergine," which puts me in the awkward situation of being able to eat eggplant here in the States, but having to turn it down in the UK.9 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »What if I slice it before adding yogurt? Is that ultra-processed, or do I have to mash it first?
Just make sure you don't eat it with more than 3 other foods. 5 = ultraprocessed frankenfood, remember!6 -
rodnichols69 wrote: »My point was that this is not fear mongering.as some one assumed. Understand what you are eating. There are good options and there are bad. My neighbor makes incredible veggie burgers from scratch using ingredients we can pronounce.
They don't contain quinoa, then? 7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »Sorry, which of those ingredients are you unable to pronounce? Most of the words are long, but pretty straightforward.
Took me some time before I realized the proper way to pronounce 'jicama' though.
I struggle to say "aubergine," which puts me in the awkward situation of being able to eat eggplant here in the States, but having to turn it down in the UK.
Yes, and I'll have a hard time ordering sorrel soup in Russia. (It's pronounced "shchee". At least, when it comes to borshch, I can 'cheat' and call it borsht.)4 -
They are building a new BK down the block from me, and as soon as that bad boy has it's grand opening I'm going to try an Impossible Whopper now. Maybe do my own comparison taste test!1
-
Let's come at the concerns about processed foods, and the strategy of small ingredient lists as a determinant, from another direction.
Consider cacao powder, generally considered a healthful, simple, minimally processed product. (I think it came up earlier in the thread, by implication at least.) For clarity about motives, I absolutely agree that it's a good thing to include in one's eating.
Cacao beans grow in big pods that are hand-harvested (sometimes by exploited workers BTW). The pods are split open, and cacao beans are removed. (They don't taste like chocolate at this point, and they're not brown.) Next, they're fermented, an anaerobic/aerobic process that actually ferments the pulp around the beans rather than the beans themselves. This process involves heating and turning them over a period of days until they turn brown. (Often but not always, the heating is natural, i.e., uses sun in a warm region.) During the fermentation, microbial magic happens, the pulp drips away, and various effects of heat, acid, and enzymes also affect the beans. Sometimes microbe mixtures are introduced to facilitate the process (vs. just relying on the microbes that are naturally present).
Next is drying, and possibly aging. Sometimes the drying is also sun/climate, sometimes not. If they were destined to be cocoa powder or chocolate, they would be roasted, which raw cacao powder is not (that's one main diffence between basic cocoa powder and cacao powder).
Next, the beans are broken up into nibs, and sieved to sort by size. The nibs need to be ground/pulverized to separate out most of the cocoa butter. For cacao powder, cold-pressing is normally used to concentrate the particles and separate the cocoa butter. Usually, the particles would then clump into the form of a sort of cake, which is pulverized to powder. (Cocoa powder would've been heat-ground rather than cold-pressed to separate the cocoa butter.)
So, this is a minimally processed, or unprocessed product, I guess because the treatment of the beans with heat/acid/enzymes is a natural fermentation, not the introduction of chemicals (other than maybe those microbes). And the chopping, drying, maybe aging, cold-pressing don't count as processing, I guess.
The end result has just one ingredient: Certified organic cacao powder (Theobroma Cacao), according to my packet of Navitas Organics Cacao Powder. I wonder why they get to say that, since they pressed the cocoa butter out, mostly, so part of the plant is removed - labeling laws are weird that way, I guess? (Theobroma cacao is the botanical Latin name of the tree. BTW: Can we pronounce that? I admit I have trouble with botanical Latin pronunciation, but I think I know this one. (Whew!)).
FWIW: Cacao powder retains some beneficial phytochemicals that roasting/heat-grinding the roasted cacoa beans excludes from cocoa powder. So, the main difference between the two is heat, at the roasting (or not) stage, and grinding (which involves heat) vs. cold-pressing. Cocoa powder may be further treated (Dutch processed) with alkalai to change the flavor profile, but that's not always part of the process.8 -
They are building a new BK down the block from me, and as soon as that bad boy has it's grand opening I'm going to try an Impossible Whopper now. Maybe do my own comparison taste test!
I tried the Beyond Burger in a sample at Costco the other day.
Ugh. Tastes like meat. If my memory's any good, not really very good meat . . . but it's been 45 years. Kinda weird texture, too, IMO - seems like ground beef patties hung together a little more. I dunno. 1 -
Let's come at the concerns about processed foods, and the strategy of small ingredient lists as a determinant, from another direction.
Consider cacao powder, generally considered a healthful, simple, minimally processed product. (I think it came up earlier in the thread, by implication at least.) For clarity about motives, I absolutely agree that it's a good thing to include in one's eating.
Cacao beans grow in big pods that are hand-harvested (sometimes by exploited workers BTW). The pods are split open, and cacao beans are removed. (They don't taste like chocolate at this point, and they're not brown.) Next, they're fermented, an anaerobic/aerobic process that actually ferments the pulp around the beans rather than the beans themselves. This process involves heating and turning them over a period of days until they turn brown. (Often but not always, the heating is natural, i.e., uses sun in a warm region.) During the fermentation, microbial magic happens, the pulp drips away, and various effects of heat, acid, and enzymes also affect the beans. Sometimes microbe mixtures are introduced to facilitate the process (vs. just relying on the microbes that are naturally present).
Next is drying, and possibly aging. Sometimes the drying is also sun/climate, sometimes not. If they were destined to be cocoa powder or chocolate, they would be roasted, which raw cacao powder is not (that's one main diffence between basic cocoa powder and cacao powder).
Next, the beans are broken up into nibs, and sieved to sort by size. The nibs need to be ground/pulverized to separate out most of the cocoa butter. For cacao powder, cold-pressing is normally used to concentrate the particles and separate the cocoa butter. Usually, the particles would then clump into the form of a sort of cake, which is pulverized to powder. (Cocoa powder would've been heat-ground rather than cold-pressed to separate the cocoa butter.)
So, this is a minimally processed, or unprocessed product, I guess because the treatment of the beans with heat/acid/enzymes is a natural fermentation, not the introduction of chemicals (other than maybe those microbes). And the chopping, drying, maybe aging, cold-pressing don't count as processing, I guess.
The end result has just one ingredient: Certified organic cacao powder (Theobroma Cacao), according to my packet of Navitas Organics Cacao Powder. I wonder why they get to say that, since they pressed the cocoa butter out, mostly, so part of the plant is removed - labeling laws are weird that way, I guess? (Theobroma cacao is the botanical Latin name of the tree. BTW: Can we pronounce that? I admit I have trouble with botanical Latin pronunciation, but I think I know this one. (Whew!)).
FWIW: Cacao powder retains some beneficial phytochemicals that roasting/heat-grinding the roasted cacoa beans excludes from cocoa powder. So, the main difference between the two is heat, at the roasting (or not) stage, and grinding (which involves heat) vs. cold-pressing. Cocoa powder may be further treated (Dutch processed) with alkalai to change the flavor profile, but that's not always part of the process.
An impressive understanding of the growing and processing of cacao! I say this as one who lives in Oaxaca, a cacao growing region and a place where there is a lot of chocolate processed. Our youngest daughter was here for a visit last week and we were able to actually see and handle fresh cacao pods in one of the mercados. You can easily buy processed cacao beans here and make your own nibs or grind them or whatever else you'd like for very little money. Honestly, when you break open a cacao pod, it's hard to imagine someone once came up with the idea to dry/ferment them and eat them. They are very slimy with a coating. But the same can be said of coffee, another product grown and processed here.
As a retired chef and avid foodie, there are few foods that are not processed to some degree or another. I'm not one personally for a lot of highly processed foods but that is not because I believe they are necessarily bad. I'd just rather buy the raw materials and make it myself because, well, that's just what I like and I feel like I can control the flavor and quality better.
But for people for whom processed foods are a useful convenience or they just plain like some of them, no problem. It really is about educating yourself about nutrition and selecting good products. Also, as your botanical name of cacao indicates, the whole idea that one needs to be able to pronounce the name of ingredients in order to deem them safe for consumption is just plain silly and borderline orthorexic IMHO.8 -
They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.0
-
They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.
Maybe you saw the story about BK not guaranteeing there’s no meat in the Impossible Whopper because they cook them alongside the beef burgers. But the patty has no meat, just possibly cross-contamination at Burger King.9 -
just_Tomek wrote: »
Well of course. They said that the other they are reliable. Do you doubt they verifying them?4 -
They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.
Who said that? And what would be the point of putting just a small amount of meat in it? It's not like just a small amount is going to give it a texture and taste that reminds some people of meat.
You'd still need to do all the work of creating an overall texture and taste that did the job and for what . . . like a practical joke?2 -
Based on the web searches I've done while following this thread, Yahoo News threw me a story that Kellogg's is coming out with it's own plant-based burger products.
The name : Incogmeato
12 -
-
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.
Maybe you saw the story about BK not guaranteeing there’s no meat in the Impossible Whopper because they cook them alongside the beef burgers. But the patty has no meat, just possibly cross-contamination at Burger King.
My husband was telling me about an article he read on Yahoo News. Some guy who is Vegan is suing BK because it wasnt 100% plant based. According to the article BK admitted they add a small amount of meat.0 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.
Maybe you saw the story about BK not guaranteeing there’s no meat in the Impossible Whopper because they cook them alongside the beef burgers. But the patty has no meat, just possibly cross-contamination at Burger King.
My husband was telling me about an article he read on Yahoo News. Some guy who is Vegan is suing BK because it wasnt 100% plant based. According to the article BK admitted they add a small amount of meat.
No, BK admitted that the patty could be contaminated with meat due to being cooked next to meat patties. They offer to cook it separately in a microwave if you do not want that possibility. But the Impossible patty itself does not have any meat added.12 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.
Maybe you saw the story about BK not guaranteeing there’s no meat in the Impossible Whopper because they cook them alongside the beef burgers. But the patty has no meat, just possibly cross-contamination at Burger King.
My husband was telling me about an article he read on Yahoo News. Some guy who is Vegan is suing BK because it wasnt 100% plant based. According to the article BK admitted they add a small amount of meat.
Actually they admitted they cook the Impossible Whopper on the same grill as the meat patties and they may be (would almost certainly be) contaminated by particles of meat coating the shared surface.
If the burger chain really is targeting an untapped consumer segment who are vegetarian/ vegan their process is deeply flawed by not using a dedicated grill.
As far as not eating anything you can't pronounce, I have celiac disease and am constantly looking up the meaning of big complicated chemical-sounding ingredients. I don't even bother to learn to pronounce them, I look at the definition and move on. :-)6 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.
Maybe you saw the story about BK not guaranteeing there’s no meat in the Impossible Whopper because they cook them alongside the beef burgers. But the patty has no meat, just possibly cross-contamination at Burger King.
My husband was telling me about an article he read on Yahoo News. Some guy who is Vegan is suing BK because it wasnt 100% plant based. According to the article BK admitted they add a small amount of meat.
Actually they admitted they cook the Impossible Whopper on the same grill as the meat patties and they may be (would almost certainly be) contaminated by particles of meat coating the shared surface.
If the burger chain really is targeting an untapped consumer segment who are vegetarian/ vegan their process is deeply flawed by not using a dedicated grill.
As far as not eating anything you can't pronounce, I have celiac disease and am constantly looking up the meaning of big complicated chemical-sounding ingredients. I don't even bother to learn to pronounce them, I look at the definition and move on. :-)
Pretty much anything cooked in a restaurant that is not a vegan restaurant is very likely to be contaminated by meat grease, meat particles, random meat bits (usually something like bacon pieces that fall into ingredients tubs or onto foods beeing cooked when cooks are lifting ingredients above them or cooking meaty things near them), etc. They're using the same grill/griddle, and anyone who's ever seen a restaurant kitchen should predict this.
IMO, this is a thing that any rational vegetarian, fully plant-based eater, or vegan ought to understand before they contemplate eating in a general-omnivore restaurant; along with the possibility that the staff/menu will misrepresent (possibly not with malice) whether a food contains something like meat broth or lard.
To me, this is where the Vegan Society definition of veganism might come in: "a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or a other purpose." Different individuals will have different boundaries for what's "possible and practical".
Some people choosing where to dine out will want to take a strict line on these things, and I respect that. Personally, I do my best, and don't stress about it. (If there's an isolated bit of ham in my hash browns at a diner, I pick it out. I assume there's residual bacon grease. I'm grateful if it doesn't taste like bacon. I'll live. Of course, I'm not vegan, just vegetarian, so I'm inherently more loosey-goosey. Thankfully, meat avoidance by choice is not necessarily as strict a discipline as working with food allergies or medical conditions.)
But believing (pretending to believe?) BK will be pure, and suing when they aren't . . . well, that's an advocacy position (hmm) I can't fully get behind. JMO, however - I don't pretend to speak for others.10 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.
Maybe you saw the story about BK not guaranteeing there’s no meat in the Impossible Whopper because they cook them alongside the beef burgers. But the patty has no meat, just possibly cross-contamination at Burger King.
My husband was telling me about an article he read on Yahoo News. Some guy who is Vegan is suing BK because it wasnt 100% plant based. According to the article BK admitted they add a small amount of meat.
Actually they admitted they cook the Impossible Whopper on the same grill as the meat patties and they may be (would almost certainly be) contaminated by particles of meat coating the shared surface.
If the burger chain really is targeting an untapped consumer segment who are vegetarian/ vegan their process is deeply flawed by not using a dedicated grill.
As far as not eating anything you can't pronounce, I have celiac disease and am constantly looking up the meaning of big complicated chemical-sounding ingredients. I don't even bother to learn to pronounce them, I look at the definition and move on. :-)
Very few places that offer vegan/vegetarian options use a dedicated grill. If I order a portobello burger at a local pub, I'm not assuming a dedicated grill. That's not a flaw, that's a reflection that veganism is an ethical position, not an attempt at dietary purity (that said, individual vegans may find it gross to eat things cooked on shared grills and that's perfectly valid). It's the same with fryers -- if you're ordering french fries at a place that also offers chicken strips, the assumption is that they've been fried in the same oil.
From the first days of the Impossible Whopper launching, it was common knowledge within online vegan communities that the burger itself -- as in Burger King's default presentation -- wasn't vegan (it has mayo) and that you could either have it cooked on the shared grill or you could ask for it to be microwaved.4 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.
Maybe you saw the story about BK not guaranteeing there’s no meat in the Impossible Whopper because they cook them alongside the beef burgers. But the patty has no meat, just possibly cross-contamination at Burger King.
My husband was telling me about an article he read on Yahoo News. Some guy who is Vegan is suing BK because it wasnt 100% plant based. According to the article BK admitted they add a small amount of meat.
Actually they admitted they cook the Impossible Whopper on the same grill as the meat patties and they may be (would almost certainly be) contaminated by particles of meat coating the shared surface.
If the burger chain really is targeting an untapped consumer segment who are vegetarian/ vegan their process is deeply flawed by not using a dedicated grill.
As far as not eating anything you can't pronounce, I have celiac disease and am constantly looking up the meaning of big complicated chemical-sounding ingredients. I don't even bother to learn to pronounce them, I look at the definition and move on. :-)
Pretty much anything cooked in a restaurant that is not a vegan restaurant is very likely to be contaminated by meat grease, meat particles, random meat bits (usually something like bacon pieces that fall into ingredients tubs or onto foods beeing cooked when cooks are lifting ingredients above them or cooking meaty things near them), etc. They're using the same grill/griddle, and anyone who's ever seen a restaurant kitchen should predict this.
IMO, this is a thing that any rational vegetarian, fully plant-based eater, or vegan ought to understand before they contemplate eating in a general-omnivore restaurant; along with the possibility that the staff/menu will misrepresent (possibly not with malice) whether a food contains something like meat broth or lard.
To me, this is where the Vegan Society definition of veganism might come in: "a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or a other purpose." Different individuals will have different boundaries for what's "possible and practical".
Some people choosing where to dine out will want to take a strict line on these things, and I respect that. Personally, I do my best, and don't stress about it. (If there's an isolated bit of ham in my hash browns at a diner, I pick it out. I assume there's residual bacon grease. I'm grateful if it doesn't taste like bacon. I'll live. Of course, I'm not vegan, just vegetarian, so I'm inherently more loosey-goosey. Thankfully, meat avoidance by choice is not necessarily as strict a discipline as working with food allergies or medical conditions.)
But believing (pretending to believe?) BK will be pure, and suing when they aren't . . . well, that's an advocacy position (hmm) I can't fully get behind. JMO, however - I don't pretend to speak for others.
I have picked meat bits out of food before (an example would be a bit of ham that somehow made it to my pizza). It's not my favorite thing to have happen, but you're absolutely right. The pragmatic vegan eating at a non-vegan restaurant is realizing that this may sometimes happen.
There's also, as you pointed out, the very real issue that well-meaning people sometimes don't understand what exactly is in their food or what would be a problem for a vegan. If I'm someplace that offers specifically vegan options, I'm usually assuming that they understand what should and shouldn't be in the dish. Other places, it's certainly more of an . . . adventure. In the past thirteen or so years, there are three times I'm aware of when I told a dish had no animal products and it wound up having them (all three times it was dairy). I'm sure there are other times it has happened and I didn't taste it.
I absolutely can't understand the logic of suing Burger King over this.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.
Maybe you saw the story about BK not guaranteeing there’s no meat in the Impossible Whopper because they cook them alongside the beef burgers. But the patty has no meat, just possibly cross-contamination at Burger King.
My husband was telling me about an article he read on Yahoo News. Some guy who is Vegan is suing BK because it wasnt 100% plant based. According to the article BK admitted they add a small amount of meat.
Actually they admitted they cook the Impossible Whopper on the same grill as the meat patties and they may be (would almost certainly be) contaminated by particles of meat coating the shared surface.
If the burger chain really is targeting an untapped consumer segment who are vegetarian/ vegan their process is deeply flawed by not using a dedicated grill.
As far as not eating anything you can't pronounce, I have celiac disease and am constantly looking up the meaning of big complicated chemical-sounding ingredients. I don't even bother to learn to pronounce them, I look at the definition and move on. :-)
Pretty much anything cooked in a restaurant that is not a vegan restaurant is very likely to be contaminated by meat grease, meat particles, random meat bits (usually something like bacon pieces that fall into ingredients tubs or onto foods beeing cooked when cooks are lifting ingredients above them or cooking meaty things near them), etc. They're using the same grill/griddle, and anyone who's ever seen a restaurant kitchen should predict this.
IMO, this is a thing that any rational vegetarian, fully plant-based eater, or vegan ought to understand before they contemplate eating in a general-omnivore restaurant; along with the possibility that the staff/menu will misrepresent (possibly not with malice) whether a food contains something like meat broth or lard.
To me, this is where the Vegan Society definition of veganism might come in: "a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or a other purpose." Different individuals will have different boundaries for what's "possible and practical".
Some people choosing where to dine out will want to take a strict line on these things, and I respect that. Personally, I do my best, and don't stress about it. (If there's an isolated bit of ham in my hash browns at a diner, I pick it out. I assume there's residual bacon grease. I'm grateful if it doesn't taste like bacon. I'll live. Of course, I'm not vegan, just vegetarian, so I'm inherently more loosey-goosey. Thankfully, meat avoidance by choice is not necessarily as strict a discipline as working with food allergies or medical conditions.)
But believing (pretending to believe?) BK will be pure, and suing when they aren't . . . well, that's an advocacy position (hmm) I can't fully get behind. JMO, however - I don't pretend to speak for others.
I have picked meat bits out of food before (an example would be a bit of ham that somehow made it to my pizza). It's not my favorite thing to have happen, but you're absolutely right. The pragmatic vegan eating at a non-vegan restaurant is realizing that this may sometimes happen.
There's also, as you pointed out, the very real issue that well-meaning people sometimes don't understand what exactly is in their food or what would be a problem for a vegan. If I'm someplace that offers specifically vegan options, I'm usually assuming that they understand what should and shouldn't be in the dish. Other places, it's certainly more of an . . . adventure. In the past thirteen or so years, there are three times I'm aware of when I told a dish had no animal products and it wound up having them (all three times it was dairy). I'm sure there are other times it has happened and I didn't taste it.
I absolutely can't understand the logic of suing Burger King over this.
I assumed the logic was probably one of
1. Put pressure on BK toward offering a more pure option**, or being more pure generally, or
2. Money grab.
I don't support either strategy, personally.
** Might be just as likely to encourage them not to bother at all.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.
Maybe you saw the story about BK not guaranteeing there’s no meat in the Impossible Whopper because they cook them alongside the beef burgers. But the patty has no meat, just possibly cross-contamination at Burger King.
My husband was telling me about an article he read on Yahoo News. Some guy who is Vegan is suing BK because it wasnt 100% plant based. According to the article BK admitted they add a small amount of meat.
Actually they admitted they cook the Impossible Whopper on the same grill as the meat patties and they may be (would almost certainly be) contaminated by particles of meat coating the shared surface.
If the burger chain really is targeting an untapped consumer segment who are vegetarian/ vegan their process is deeply flawed by not using a dedicated grill.
As far as not eating anything you can't pronounce, I have celiac disease and am constantly looking up the meaning of big complicated chemical-sounding ingredients. I don't even bother to learn to pronounce them, I look at the definition and move on. :-)
Pretty much anything cooked in a restaurant that is not a vegan restaurant is very likely to be contaminated by meat grease, meat particles, random meat bits (usually something like bacon pieces that fall into ingredients tubs or onto foods beeing cooked when cooks are lifting ingredients above them or cooking meaty things near them), etc. They're using the same grill/griddle, and anyone who's ever seen a restaurant kitchen should predict this.
IMO, this is a thing that any rational vegetarian, fully plant-based eater, or vegan ought to understand before they contemplate eating in a general-omnivore restaurant; along with the possibility that the staff/menu will misrepresent (possibly not with malice) whether a food contains something like meat broth or lard.
To me, this is where the Vegan Society definition of veganism might come in: "a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or a other purpose." Different individuals will have different boundaries for what's "possible and practical".
Some people choosing where to dine out will want to take a strict line on these things, and I respect that. Personally, I do my best, and don't stress about it. (If there's an isolated bit of ham in my hash browns at a diner, I pick it out. I assume there's residual bacon grease. I'm grateful if it doesn't taste like bacon. I'll live. Of course, I'm not vegan, just vegetarian, so I'm inherently more loosey-goosey. Thankfully, meat avoidance by choice is not necessarily as strict a discipline as working with food allergies or medical conditions.)
But believing (pretending to believe?) BK will be pure, and suing when they aren't . . . well, that's an advocacy position (hmm) I can't fully get behind. JMO, however - I don't pretend to speak for others.
I have picked meat bits out of food before (an example would be a bit of ham that somehow made it to my pizza). It's not my favorite thing to have happen, but you're absolutely right. The pragmatic vegan eating at a non-vegan restaurant is realizing that this may sometimes happen.
There's also, as you pointed out, the very real issue that well-meaning people sometimes don't understand what exactly is in their food or what would be a problem for a vegan. If I'm someplace that offers specifically vegan options, I'm usually assuming that they understand what should and shouldn't be in the dish. Other places, it's certainly more of an . . . adventure. In the past thirteen or so years, there are three times I'm aware of when I told a dish had no animal products and it wound up having them (all three times it was dairy). I'm sure there are other times it has happened and I didn't taste it.
I absolutely can't understand the logic of suing Burger King over this.
I assumed the logic was probably one of
1. Put pressure on BK toward offering a more pure option**, or being more pure generally, or
2. Money grab.
I don't support either strategy, personally.
** Might be just as likely to encourage them not to bother at all.
I forgot the money grab!
Yes, if restaurants think that the only option is to have distinct grills and fryers, it's going to be easier not to bother at all.0 -
If the burger chain really is targeting an untapped consumer segment who are vegetarian/ vegan their process is deeply flawed by not using a dedicated grill.
My take on it is that they are not going for the vega###n segment explicitly. I think they are targeting people more like me, who enjoy meat but who are looking to cut down for a variety of reasons: environmental, ethical, sentimental, even trend following. To be fair I've had a few "Impossible Burgers" and have enjoyed them.
I know a person who works for a major university in food service, and this person tells me that they are test marketing a burger that is a mix of meat and non-meat ingredients - a "reduced meat" burger. This is certainly not aimed at veg###ns but at the latter category.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.
Maybe you saw the story about BK not guaranteeing there’s no meat in the Impossible Whopper because they cook them alongside the beef burgers. But the patty has no meat, just possibly cross-contamination at Burger King.
My husband was telling me about an article he read on Yahoo News. Some guy who is Vegan is suing BK because it wasnt 100% plant based. According to the article BK admitted they add a small amount of meat.
Actually they admitted they cook the Impossible Whopper on the same grill as the meat patties and they may be (would almost certainly be) contaminated by particles of meat coating the shared surface.
If the burger chain really is targeting an untapped consumer segment who are vegetarian/ vegan their process is deeply flawed by not using a dedicated grill.
As far as not eating anything you can't pronounce, I have celiac disease and am constantly looking up the meaning of big complicated chemical-sounding ingredients. I don't even bother to learn to pronounce them, I look at the definition and move on. :-)
Very few places that offer vegan/vegetarian options use a dedicated grill. If I order a portobello burger at a local pub, I'm not assuming a dedicated grill. That's not a flaw, that's a reflection that veganism is an ethical position, not an attempt at dietary purity (that said, individual vegans may find it gross to eat things cooked on shared grills and that's perfectly valid). It's the same with fryers -- if you're ordering french fries at a place that also offers chicken strips, the assumption is that they've been fried in the same oil.
From the first days of the Impossible Whopper launching, it was common knowledge within online vegan communities that the burger itself -- as in Burger King's default presentation -- wasn't vegan (it has mayo) and that you could either have it cooked on the shared grill or you could ask for it to be microwaved.
Yeah, I don't get the purity idea. If there's something unclean about any amount of matter from animals, don't eat - even ignoring the things that live in the harvested fields, humans and other animals constantly shed skin and dander, some particles are going to end up with food at levels beyond human perception, but they'll be there.
Nothing about grilling it separately is going to lead to fewer animals suffering, and given separate grills could make it more expensive, or if implemented more work for the workers, it seems likely to lead to more animal suffering.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions