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?

11011131516

Replies

  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    I think every fast food place should have a veggie burger. I don't understand how it doesn't just make business sense. (Yes I am a vegetarian but that isn't my point.) We don't prefer to eat fast food but when we are driving somewhere (husband and I) and we want to pick up something quick we would drive-thru at McDonald's IF they had a veggie burger for me to eat, while my husband eats his beef burger. But they don't. So we go to Harvey's.
    One vegetarian in a group of people that has to be fed can make the decision for where the whole group goes. I don't get why they don't all have a veggie burger option.

    I imagine the demand is not there yet. Believe me, if they thought there would be a profit they would.

    Also having separate areas to cook the veggie burgers will affect workflow.

    Any indication that they're cooking them separately? It doesn't seem as if most restaurants cook their vegetarian things separately from the meaty ones, even if that means a common grill surface for things like burgers.

    Burger King might not, but I wasn't referring to them specifically. There are definitely restaurants that do this, including some fast food restaurants that do this though.

    No evidence, but I wonder if that might be more common in your area (NW coast, urban, I think?) vs. mine (Great Lakes, mid-sized city).

    I wouldn't be especially surprised if that was the case. I know the one fast food place that I'm ever tempted to go to does this (they also have multiple vegetarian options that aren't salad though...). I will also say, I was once in my favorite coffee shop when a health inspector came one time and the health inspector was very keen on finding out about and talking about cross contamination with regards to things like almond milk vs cow's milk vs soy milk vs oat milk. Part of it was a potential allergy issue but she also mentioned people who are vegan.
  • I think it’s fantastic. I would love to eat it, but I am on the low FODMAP diet, so it wouldn’t suit me personally.
  • BecomingMoreAwesome
    BecomingMoreAwesome Posts: 146 Member
    I took my kid to The Counter and tried it today. It was...fine. Not the best burger I’ve ever had, but better than some beef burgers I’ve had. If/when I commit to giving up beef entirely it would solve a burger craving.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,314 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »

    I think part of the problem with these kind of comparisons is that they tend to compare the ideal scenario on one side with the average (or even worst) scenario on the other side. I think it is pretty clear that a lot of/most animal agriculture in North America is more intensive than what is described here, and thus more damaging. I kind of think it is a useless exercise anyway to compare which is "better". We should all just make the best moral and environmental choices we can within our own personal preferred way of eating.

    I thought that was the point of this particular article: To contrast the best animal agriculture with the more damaging forms of plant-food production, as a counter to people who insist that plant-based eating is always much more virtuous.

    Heck, I'm a long-term vegetarian, and the halo of virtue around plant-based eating, in some blogosphere representations of it, kinda makes me eye roll, too. "Plant based" can be unhealthy and ecologically damaging. Omnivory likewise. And either can be done in a relatively more ecologically responsible way, and the products consumed in nutrient-dense rather than highly-processed forms.

    It's not as easy as "plants good, meat bad" or vice-versa. That, IMO, was the point.

    I don't think the writer was saying that that example of beef production was typical of where the modern mass supply of beef comes from.
  • FinntheVeggie
    FinntheVeggie Posts: 74 Member
    Tbh I don't frequent fast food restaurants, mainly because I've been a vegetarian all my life and unless I want a bowl of lettuce, "hold the chicken", there is basically no way for me to eat there. Except subway, I guess.

    I love this concept though, and if they came to my area I would get one just to check it out. It would certainly make social situations easier (when driving with other people, I wouldn't have to be the party pooper that says sorry guys I can't eat there, can we go somewhere else, etc.). I like Morningstar Grillers a lot, I assume they're similar to BK's version.

    Either way, a step in the right direction! Of course it's still going to come in a non-biodegradable wrapper and be processed in a huge plant somewhere and shipped by diesel, yada yada, but every little step for the environment is a win. Huge societal change happens in tiny increments.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,899 Member
    edited April 2019
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »

    I think part of the problem with these kind of comparisons is that they tend to compare the ideal scenario on one side with the average (or even worst) scenario on the other side. I think it is pretty clear that a lot of/most animal agriculture in North America is more intensive than what is described here, and thus more damaging. I kind of think it is a useless exercise anyway to compare which is "better". We should all just make the best moral and environmental choices we can within our own personal preferred way of eating.

    I thought that was the point of this particular article: To contrast the best animal agriculture with the more damaging forms of plant-food production, as a counter to people who insist that plant-based eating is always much more virtuous.

    Heck, I'm a long-term vegetarian, and the halo of virtue around plant-based eating, in some blogosphere representations of it, kinda makes me eye roll, too. "Plant based" can be unhealthy and ecologically damaging. Omnivory likewise. And either can be done in a relatively more ecologically responsible way, and the products consumed in nutrient-dense rather than highly-processed forms.

    It's not as easy as "plants good, meat bad" or vice-versa. That, IMO, was the point.

    I don't think the writer was saying that that example of beef production was typical of where the modern mass supply of beef comes from.

    I think that's a reasonable point, and I personally think too much generalizing gets done about animal agriculture being bad for the environment vs. other sorts of agriculture -- part of it depends on the particular surroundings and what they are fit for. But the problem is that the only way most meat comes from such examples is if the amount of meat produced goes way down. One way of achieving that could be finding alternatives that people who crave beef would also enjoy. Most people who eat meat alternatives (including things like black bean burgers) or want to include less meat in their diets aren't actually planning to become vegetarian. But for some (not you, obviously) even talking about the current consumption of meat being too high or wanting to cut down on meat consumption personally seems to be something to argue against. Using this kind of comparison in this thread in support of what seems to be an argument against reducing meat consumption is not valid.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,314 Member
    edited April 2019
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »

    I think part of the problem with these kind of comparisons is that they tend to compare the ideal scenario on one side with the average (or even worst) scenario on the other side. I think it is pretty clear that a lot of/most animal agriculture in North America is more intensive than what is described here, and thus more damaging. I kind of think it is a useless exercise anyway to compare which is "better". We should all just make the best moral and environmental choices we can within our own personal preferred way of eating.

    I thought that was the point of this particular article: To contrast the best animal agriculture with the more damaging forms of plant-food production, as a counter to people who insist that plant-based eating is always much more virtuous.

    Heck, I'm a long-term vegetarian, and the halo of virtue around plant-based eating, in some blogosphere representations of it, kinda makes me eye roll, too. "Plant based" can be unhealthy and ecologically damaging. Omnivory likewise. And either can be done in a relatively more ecologically responsible way, and the products consumed in nutrient-dense rather than highly-processed forms.

    It's not as easy as "plants good, meat bad" or vice-versa. That, IMO, was the point.

    I don't think the writer was saying that that example of beef production was typical of where the modern mass supply of beef comes from.

    I think that's a reasonable point, and I personally think too much generalizing gets done about animal agriculture being bad for the environment vs. other sorts of agriculture -- part of it depends on the particular surroundings and what they are fit for. But the problem is that the only way most meat comes from such examples is if the amount of meat produced goes way down. One way of achieving that could be finding alternatives that people who crave beef would also enjoy. Most people who eat meat alternatives (including things like black bean burgers) or want to include less meat in their diets aren't actually planning to become vegetarian. But for some (not you, obviously) even talking about the current consumption of meat being too high or wanting to cut down on meat consumption personally seems to be something to argue against. Using this kind of comparison in this thread in support of what seems to be an argument against reducing meat consumption is not valid.

    Agreed. I think the link was probably posted on this thread for reasons different than the ones that motivated the article writer, though I'm speculating, of course. (While the article's writer was quite clear about his/her motivations, I'd be speculating about PPs motivations. Critiquing the form of the article because of how it's (mis?)used on the thread was more what I was speaking to).

    In responding to the post critiquing the article, I should've agreed wth that poster's comment "We should all just make the best moral and environmental choices we can within our own personal preferred way of eating." because I agree with that.

    Part of my main original rationale for becoming vegetarian (back in 1974 at age 18 ;) ) was the high resource consumption involved in typical meat production, including an unfavorable protein input to output ratio, in a world at the time where issues of food production were looming large, and famine then a large-scale issue (some of it not due to production or supply problems, as is now more clear in hindsight).

    Modern population dynamics and food production (adequacy, sustainability, ecological impact and more) are still problems, with dietary patterns possibly/probably not as major a driver as some would believe. Dietary patterns are probably a factor, but not just with respect to meat-eating. It's a complicated world.

  • ultra_violets
    ultra_violets Posts: 202 Member
    edited April 2019
    I don't have a problem with plant-based burgers in general but I do have a problem with the fact that ingredients in the Impossible Whopper were not only tested on animals (let that sink in for a minute) but that those lab rats were purchased from a lab animal farm notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment. This was done at the direction of The Impossible Company, with their full knowledge and consent and they have the nerve to defend it. Where I would like them to shove their "Whopper" is, well...impossible.

    https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/impossible-foods-ceo-blasts-animal-testing-i-abhor-the-exploitation-of-animals
  • lateseg
    lateseg Posts: 10 Member
    My husband and I have had a Slutty Vegan Burger and she uses the Impossible Burger patty. He always said anything he tried that was “healthy” lacked flavor and despises veggie patties. He couldn’t tell the Slutty Vegan burger wasn’t real meat. Needless to say, he loved it.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    I don't have a problem with plant-based burgers in general but I do have a problem with the fact that ingredients in the Impossible Whopper were not only tested on animals (let that sink in for a minute) but that those lab rats were purchased from a lab animal farm notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment. This was done at the direction of The Impossible Company, with their full knowledge and consent and they have the nerve to defend it. Where I would like them to shove their "Whopper" is, well...impossible.

    https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/impossible-foods-ceo-blasts-animal-testing-i-abhor-the-exploitation-of-animals

    They were literally in a no-win situation. If it wasn't tested, you'd have people claiming there is no evidence that it is safe and we need to eat beef instead.

    I guess they had the option of not developing the product at all, but if you're using the metric of what prevents more slaughter in the long run I think it's possible to conclude that the company made the choice they thought most ethical.

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited April 2019
    FireOpalCO wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with plant-based burgers in general but I do have a problem with the fact that ingredients in the Impossible Whopper were not onl tested on animals (let that sink in for a minute) but that those lab rats were purchased from a lab animal farm notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment. This was done at the direction of The Impossible Company, with their full knowledge and consent and they have the nerve to defend it. Where I would like them to shove their "Whopper" is, well...impossible.

    https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/impossible-foods-ceo-blasts-animal-testing-i-abhor-the-exploitation-of-animals

    How dare they serve plants to lab rats. No really, where am I supposed to be appalled and offended?

    The link you provided says the opposite of the "notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment". If you're going to make that claim, how about a link that supports it instead of one talking about how they carefully screened their supplier?

    To be fair, it is typical for even the most well run labs to kill rats when experiments are concluded. They can't be used for future testing (because it could confuse results) and I am not aware of any rehoming or adoption possibilities for these particular animals (dogs used for animal testing are sometimes adopted out and primates are sometimes sent to sanctuaries). I don't know for a fact what happened to these rats when testing was done or if Impossible Foods made alternate arrangements for them, but this helps explain why testing on rats -- even if one can be fairly confident that the tested substances won't ultimately result in harm -- is a concern for vegans.

    I honestly don't envy the decision the CEO (who has been vegan for fourteen years) had to make here. He was choosing between the possibility of alleviating harm to some animals on a huge scale in the future or concrete harm to a very specific group of animals in the present. There's a reason why these types of decisions make such a great basis for ethical thought experiments or conversation starters . . . most people are doing them with humans, not animals, but the issues are worth thinking about for all types of individuals.
  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    FireOpalCO wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with plant-based burgers in general but I do have a problem with the fact that ingredients in the Impossible Whopper were not onl tested on animals (let that sink in for a minute) but that those lab rats were purchased from a lab animal farm notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment. This was done at the direction of The Impossible Company, with their full knowledge and consent and they have the nerve to defend it. Where I would like them to shove their "Whopper" is, well...impossible.

    https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/impossible-foods-ceo-blasts-animal-testing-i-abhor-the-exploitation-of-animals

    How dare they serve plants to lab rats. No really, where am I supposed to be appalled and offended?

    The link you provided says the opposite of the "notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment". If you're going to make that claim, how about a link that supports it instead of one talking about how they carefully screened their supplier?

    To be fair, it is typical for even the most well run labs to kill rats when experiments are concluded. They can't be used for future testing (because it could confuse results) and I am not aware of any rehoming or adoption possibilities for these particular animals (dogs used for animal testing are sometimes adopted out and primates are sometimes sent to sanctuaries). I don't know for a fact what happened to these rats when testing was done or if Impossible Foods made alternate arrangements for them, but this helps explain why testing on rats -- even if one can be fairly confident that the tested substances won't ultimately result in harm -- is a concern for vegans.

    I honestly don't envy the decision the CEO (who has been vegan for fourteen years) had to make here. He was choosing between the possibility of alleviating harm to some animals on a huge scale in the future or concrete harm to a very specific group of animals in the present. There's a reason why these types of decisions make such a great basis for ethical thought experiments or conversation starters . . . most people are doing them with humans, not animals, but the issues are worth thinking about for all types of individuals.

    I was under the impression that lab rats are often killed because it is generally cruel to keep them alive for their full life span. At least for carcinogenic testing, the typical rat is the Sprague-Dawley breed that is going to develop tumors with age even when used as the control group.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    FireOpalCO wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with plant-based burgers in general but I do have a problem with the fact that ingredients in the Impossible Whopper were not onl tested on animals (let that sink in for a minute) but that those lab rats were purchased from a lab animal farm notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment. This was done at the direction of The Impossible Company, with their full knowledge and consent and they have the nerve to defend it. Where I would like them to shove their "Whopper" is, well...impossible.

    https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/impossible-foods-ceo-blasts-animal-testing-i-abhor-the-exploitation-of-animals

    How dare they serve plants to lab rats. No really, where am I supposed to be appalled and offended?

    The link you provided says the opposite of the "notorious for poor conditions and ill treatment". If you're going to make that claim, how about a link that supports it instead of one talking about how they carefully screened their supplier?

    To be fair, it is typical for even the most well run labs to kill rats when experiments are concluded. They can't be used for future testing (because it could confuse results) and I am not aware of any rehoming or adoption possibilities for these particular animals (dogs used for animal testing are sometimes adopted out and primates are sometimes sent to sanctuaries). I don't know for a fact what happened to these rats when testing was done or if Impossible Foods made alternate arrangements for them, but this helps explain why testing on rats -- even if one can be fairly confident that the tested substances won't ultimately result in harm -- is a concern for vegans.

    I honestly don't envy the decision the CEO (who has been vegan for fourteen years) had to make here. He was choosing between the possibility of alleviating harm to some animals on a huge scale in the future or concrete harm to a very specific group of animals in the present. There's a reason why these types of decisions make such a great basis for ethical thought experiments or conversation starters . . . most people are doing them with humans, not animals, but the issues are worth thinking about for all types of individuals.

    I was under the impression that lab rats are often killed because it is generally cruel to keep them alive for their full life span. At least for carcinogenic testing, the typical rat is the Sprague-Dawley breed that is going to develop tumors with age even when used as the control group.

    That could be accurate too, I just remember reading that it's impossible to use them for more than one type of testing because if they develop cancer or other issues, it would be impossible to tell if it was due to the current tests or previous tests.