Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Thoughts on Beyond Burger and other fake meat

1141517192022

Replies

  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 13,696Member Member Posts: 13,696Member Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    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.
  • dbanks80dbanks80 Posts: 3,528Member Member Posts: 3,528Member Member
    They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.
  • kimny72kimny72 Posts: 14,647Member Member Posts: 14,647Member Member
    dbanks80 wrote: »
    They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.

    Who says? The company that makes it says it's vegan.
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 1,061Member Member Posts: 1,061Member Member
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    dbanks80 wrote: »
    They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.

    Who says? The company that makes it says it's vegan.

    They. They say it. They know what they are talking about.

    Well of course. They said that the other they are reliable. Do you doubt they verifying them?
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,498Member Member Posts: 21,498Member Member
    dbanks80 wrote: »
    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?
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 4,475Member Member Posts: 4,475Member Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    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 :lol::lol::lol:

    Hilarious.

    Also makes me think of the Seinfeld debate between the Bro and the Manssier.
    edited February 13
  • dbanks80dbanks80 Posts: 3,528Member Member Posts: 3,528Member Member
    dbanks80 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.
    edited February 13
  • PAPYRUS3PAPYRUS3 Posts: 5,371Member Member Posts: 5,371Member Member
    just_Tomek wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    dbanks80 wrote: »
    They said the Beyond Burger is not 100% plants/veggies. It has a small amount of meat in it.

    Who says? The company that makes it says it's vegan.

    They. They say it. They know what they are talking about.

    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,498Member Member Posts: 21,498Member Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    dbanks80 wrote: »
    dbanks80 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.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,498Member Member Posts: 21,498Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    dbanks80 wrote: »
    dbanks80 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.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 13,696Member Member Posts: 13,696Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    dbanks80 wrote: »
    dbanks80 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.
    edited February 14
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,498Member Member Posts: 21,498Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    dbanks80 wrote: »
    dbanks80 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.
  • JruzerJruzer Posts: 3,365Member Member Posts: 3,365Member Member
    mph323 wrote: »

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.