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?
Replies
-
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.12 -
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?15 -
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.
To address some of your points:
Gluten - it depends on the burger. The new impossible burger, as well as many others, are gluten free. Not all are certainly, but there are a number of gluten free options.
Nutrition - This is a pretty outdated assumption. Newer plant based replacements have a similar nutritional profile to their beef counterparts. Sometimes with more protein.
Environmental - This will be the most controversial of the points, but I strongly disagree with your issue that meat is more environmentally friendly than plant based products. The environmental cost of industrial beef production is significant, and one of the ways that most reputable environmental organizations say that people can make the biggest impact in their personal environmental impact is to reduce meat consumption. That is the appeal to plant based alternatives for many meat eaters like myself, who don't see ourselves ever going full vegetarian, but can see benefit in limiting our environmental impact by making a partial replacement of our normal meat consumption. The environmental impact of the production of plant based is generally rated to be significantly lower.
15 -
My thoughts are since I'm in that area, I need to give it a try....5
-
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.2 -
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.
To address some of your points:
Gluten - it depends on the burger. The new impossible burger, as well as many others, are gluten free. Not all are certainly, but there are a number of gluten free options.
Nutrition - This is a pretty outdated assumption. Newer plant based replacements have a similar nutritional profile to their beef counterparts. Sometimes with more protein.
Environmental - This will be the most controversial of the points, but I strongly disagree with your issue that meat is more environmentally friendly than plant based products. The environmental cost of industrial beef production is significant, and one of the ways that most reputable environmental organizations say that people can make the biggest impact in their personal environmental impact is to reduce meat consumption. That is the appeal to plant based alternatives for many meat eaters like myself, who don't see ourselves ever going full vegetarian, but can see benefit in limiting our environmental impact by making a partial replacement of our normal meat consumption. The environmental impact of the production of plant based is generally rated to be significantly lower.
Nutritionally it may be similar to meat. It will not be the same.
Sort of like comparing breast milk to formula. Formula may be okay but it is not the same as breast milk.
Meat is responsible for somewhere in between 2-4% of greenhouse carbon emissions. Agriculture is much more. I think rice is around 11%. Other animals like horses, chickens, and pets contribute ute too. DThe biggest contributor to carbon emissions is fossil fuels though. That's roughly three quarters of it. Not flying, driving less, living in smaller homes or avoiding purchasing fossil fuel products would make a much larger difference.
IMO, the supposed greenhouse dangers of beef has been overblown by animal right activists and the media. I've seen some saying beef is a 50% contributor to emissions, although the more common, and recently debunked, number is closer to 18% instead of the more accurate ~3%. 3% of a trace gas is pretty small compared to fossil fuels.9 -
Yuck.6
-
tbright1965 wrote: »My thoughts are since I'm in that area, I need to give it a try....
It was ok. I could tell the patty was different. I didn't regret the choice, but I didn't love it either. I like burgers (sadly) and I could see occasionally having one. I'd probably want a Whopper JR option to further cut down the size of the food allowance hit.
I did mention to my wife I was going to get one of each at some point in the future, and cut each into 1/3rds giving her and our son a 1/3rd of each to see if they can tell the difference in a blind taste test.5 -
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.7 -
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.
8 -
Here’s the full ingredient list for the new recipe:
Water, Soy Protein Concentrate, Coconut Oil, Sunflower Oil, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Potato Protein, Methylcellulose, Yeast Extract, Cultured Dextrose, Food Starch Modified, Soy Leghemoglobin, Salt, Soy Protein Isolate, Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E), Zinc Gluconate, Thiamine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1), Sodium Ascorbate (Vitamin C), Niacin, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12. Contains: Soy
Here’s the full ingredient list for the original recipe.
Water, Textured Wheat Protein, Coconut Oil, Potato Protein, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Leghemoglobin (Soy), Yeast Extract, Salt, Konjac Gum, Xanthan Gum, Soy Protein Isolate, Vitamin E, Vitamin C, Thiamin (Vitamin B1), Zinc, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12. Contains: Soy, Wheat
Like I said in an earlier post: No Thanks!3 -
Here’s the full ingredient list for the new recipe:
Water, Soy Protein Concentrate, Coconut Oil, Sunflower Oil, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Potato Protein, Methylcellulose, Yeast Extract, Cultured Dextrose, Food Starch Modified, Soy Leghemoglobin, Salt, Soy Protein Isolate, Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E), Zinc Gluconate, Thiamine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1), Sodium Ascorbate (Vitamin C), Niacin, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12. Contains: Soy
Here’s the full ingredient list for the original recipe.
Water, Textured Wheat Protein, Coconut Oil, Potato Protein, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Leghemoglobin (Soy), Yeast Extract, Salt, Konjac Gum, Xanthan Gum, Soy Protein Isolate, Vitamin E, Vitamin C, Thiamin (Vitamin B1), Zinc, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12. Contains: Soy, Wheat
Like I said in an earlier post: No Thanks!
I'm not following: what do you find objectionable about these ingredients?
For context, here are the ingredients of the bun that all Whoppers (including the beef ones) are served on: Unbleached Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate (Vitamin B1), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Folic Acid), Water, Sugar and/or Liquid Sugar (Water, Sugar), Soybean Oil, Yeast. May Contain 2% or less of the following: Salt, Wheat Gluten, Sesame Seeds, Yeast Food (May contain one or more of the following: Calcium Sulfate, Calcium Carbonate, Monocalcium Phosphate), Dough Conditioners (May contain one or more of the following: Wheat Starch, Distilled Monoglycerides, Sodium-Stearoyl Lactylate, Ascorbic Acid, [Ethoxylated] Mono- and Diglycerides, Calcium Staeroyl-2-Lactylate, Calcium Peroxide, Datem, Potassium Iodate), Guar Gum, Enzymes, Milled Flaxseed, Maltodextrin, Ascorbic Acid, Cultured Wheat Flour, Soy Flour, Soy Lecithin, Corn Starch.9 -
I eat vegan at home but I am much more flexible when eating away from home if I am unable to find a vegan option. While I don't miss the taste of meat at all, I do like the idea that this is an option for situations when I'm hungry and have limited time to seek a different option. My husband and I are going on a road trip next week so maybe we'll try one.
I have vegan friends who do miss the taste of meat and they live products like Beyond Burger and The Impossible. I think Burger King is wise to tap into this market.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I'm not following: what do you find objectionable about these ingredients?
For context, here are the ingredients of the bun that all Whoppers (including the beef ones) are served on: Unbleached Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate (Vitamin B1), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Folic Acid), Water, Sugar and/or Liquid Sugar (Water, Sugar), Soybean Oil, Yeast. May Contain 2% or less of the following: Salt, Wheat Gluten, Sesame Seeds, Yeast Food (May contain one or more of the following: Calcium Sulfate, Calcium Carbonate, Monocalcium Phosphate), Dough Conditioners (May contain one or more of the following: Wheat Starch, Distilled Monoglycerides, Sodium-Stearoyl Lactylate, Ascorbic Acid, [Ethoxylated] Mono- and Diglycerides, Calcium Staeroyl-2-Lactylate, Calcium Peroxide, Datem, Potassium Iodate), Guar Gum, Enzymes, Milled Flaxseed, Maltodextrin, Ascorbic Acid, Cultured Wheat Flour, Soy Flour, Soy Lecithin, Corn Starch.
First of all I don't eat fast food, but if I was one the go and had to choose it def wouldn't be some fake meat patty made from the roots of a soy plant. Also I'm keto and avoid wheat if/when all possible, so I wouldn't eat the bun anyways.
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?17 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I'm not following: what do you find objectionable about these ingredients?
For context, here are the ingredients of the bun that all Whoppers (including the beef ones) are served on: Unbleached Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate (Vitamin B1), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Folic Acid), Water, Sugar and/or Liquid Sugar (Water, Sugar), Soybean Oil, Yeast. May Contain 2% or less of the following: Salt, Wheat Gluten, Sesame Seeds, Yeast Food (May contain one or more of the following: Calcium Sulfate, Calcium Carbonate, Monocalcium Phosphate), Dough Conditioners (May contain one or more of the following: Wheat Starch, Distilled Monoglycerides, Sodium-Stearoyl Lactylate, Ascorbic Acid, [Ethoxylated] Mono- and Diglycerides, Calcium Staeroyl-2-Lactylate, Calcium Peroxide, Datem, Potassium Iodate), Guar Gum, Enzymes, Milled Flaxseed, Maltodextrin, Ascorbic Acid, Cultured Wheat Flour, Soy Flour, Soy Lecithin, Corn Starch.
First of all I don't eat fast food, but if I was one the go and had to choose it def wouldn't be some fake meat patty made from the roots of a soy plant. Also I'm keto and avoid wheat if/when all possible, so I wouldn't eat the bun anyways.
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?7 -
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?
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.0 -
BecomingMoreAwesome 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?
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.
Dang, their menu looks amazing-road trip!
2 -
BecomingMoreAwesome 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?
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.
I WANT TO EAT ALL THE CALORIES2 -
BecomingMoreAwesome 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?
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.
Dang, their menu looks amazing-road trip!
Can confirm their food is good, though the portion sizes and prices are exactly what you’d expect from looking at that menu and their list of locations. I’m going to try their impossible burger today, though I’ve been sick and lazy and thus don’t have enough calories available for the toppings I like, and I’ll only be able to gaze longingly at the shake menu.
1 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
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