Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Thoughts on Beyond Burger and other fake meat
Replies
-
I haven't tried it because it has a lot of fat in it at least ones I've looked at. I consume mock meats but I find I get a lot of my protein from natural sources (edamame, etc) as long as you plan it out.
If I have "fake meat" - I like Boca veggie burgers because it's more lean and I think it's more "meaty" in taste. Not that I desire that, but the juiciness is desirable.
I don't like Gardein much. I eat morningstar and Boca mostly and they can be cheaper. Try making your own too, it's easier than you think!
To each his own, mock meats or no.2 -
rodnichols69 wrote: »
I wanted to see who this professor is, and Snopes beat us to dealing with this quote"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/impossible-burgers-dogfood/
"What's True
Impossible and Beyond Meat Burgers share some ingredients with at least one brand of vegan, grain-free dog food selected for the comparison.
What's False
The purported similarity between the three ingredient lists is overstated."
The researcher in question is an animal scientist, for whatever that is worth :drinker:
Also I wouldn't be shocked if what he said was taken out of context.1 -
rodnichols69 wrote: »
I wanted to see who this professor is, and Snopes beat us to dealing with this quote"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/impossible-burgers-dogfood/
"What's True
Impossible and Beyond Meat Burgers share some ingredients with at least one brand of vegan, grain-free dog food selected for the comparison.
What's False
The purported similarity between the three ingredient lists is overstated."
The researcher in question is an animal scientist, for whatever that is worth :drinker:
Also I wouldn't be shocked if what he said was taken out of context.
In this particular case, I think it was in context. He tweeted that Impossible and Beyond Meat burgers were "indistinguishable from dog food."2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »This and I also don't see a difference between the "Ah! Fake meat is processed!!" seen here and any other "Ah!! Processed food is bad for you!!" that we see in so many other threads.
Sure, it was mentioned upthread that we don't see these concerns voiced about protein powder (despite it's being processed) but we see that pointed out in almost every processed/clean foods thread.
The fact that protein powder doesn't get the normal amount of grief for being processed is it's own phenomenon and I think is probably largely due to the fact that it is associated with fitness.
People in general perceive protein powder as a fitness/health/weight loss aid (as misguided as that may be).
Veggie burgers, convenience foods, etc. don't generally have that same perception (although some people do wrongly assume plant based in inherently healthier) and thus don't enjoy the same lack of critique.
People throw stones at "processed food" for the same reasons that they throw them at fast food, convenience foods, sugar, GMOs, etc.. To claim that veggie burgers only catch the same stones (on a site like MFP nonetheless) because hayseed Trumpers want us to buy beef is a pretty silly conspiracy theory.
I am not promoting any conspiracy theory, but I do see more flack here, even when the discussion is specifically focused on something like the Impossible Whopper vs a Whopper or the Beyond Burger at a local burger joint vs. their regular burger.2 -
I am not promoting any conspiracy theory, but I do see more flack here, even when the discussion is specifically focused on something like the Impossible Whopper vs a Whopper or the Beyond Burger at a local burger joint vs. their regular burger.
I would suspect that the additional flak is caused more by people's familiarity with/affection for certain favorite foods, which can be compounded by clever advertising and fond memories associated with said foods. Some on both sides (in the meat eater, fast food camp as well as in the non-meat eater camp) make food based decisions based on emotion. Emotionally based thinking is going to cause more knee-jerk reactions as well as strongly held and strongly stated positions, so probably cause more heated discussion. As we all know, it just takes a few people to change the whole tone of a conversation.
That said, while I could see where large cattle raising corporations would want to keep their portion of the market share, I can also see where large agricultural companies would also see a great opportunity for profit using plant based foods to get edge into the meat market while charging a premium. It's interesting to watch.
Finally, on a personal note, I regularly eat the same things that are in my cat's food. Chicken, turkey, salmon, tuna, shrimp, certain vegetables, sometimes legumes, rice, certain supplements, et cetera. Then again it's not quite a fair comparison because I feed him The Good Stuff.
Regarding the original question, though, I have eaten meat substitute when I've been at friends' houses, and didn't mind it. One mushroom based brand was particularly tasty in gravy. I think it's kind of cool how they can make beef patties that look real because of the use of things like beet juice, I'd probably eat them if offered them, but find meat easier to find/work with/cheaper so I stick with that. If I had access to natural, grass fed, better treated meat I'd use that by preference.
4 -
Processed food is unhealthy no matter the package it comes in1
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »This and I also don't see a difference between the "Ah! Fake meat is processed!!" seen here and any other "Ah!! Processed food is bad for you!!" that we see in so many other threads.
Sure, it was mentioned upthread that we don't see these concerns voiced about protein powder (despite it's being processed) but we see that pointed out in almost every processed/clean foods thread.
The fact that protein powder doesn't get the normal amount of grief for being processed is it's own phenomenon and I think is probably largely due to the fact that it is associated with fitness.
People in general perceive protein powder as a fitness/health/weight loss aid (as misguided as that may be).
Veggie burgers, convenience foods, etc. don't generally have that same perception (although some people do wrongly assume plant based in inherently healthier) and thus don't enjoy the same lack of critique.
People throw stones at "processed food" for the same reasons that they throw them at fast food, convenience foods, sugar, GMOs, etc.. To claim that veggie burgers only catch the same stones (on a site like MFP nonetheless) because hayseed Trumpers want us to buy beef is a pretty silly conspiracy theory.
I am not promoting any conspiracy theory, but I do see more flack here, even when the discussion is specifically focused on something like the Impossible Whopper vs a Whopper or the Beyond Burger at a local burger joint vs. their regular burger.
I definitely don't think you're promoting a conspiracy theory (I was referring to the comments made about "small government, conservative states" being out to get meat replacements).
I guess I just haven't noticed any more flack myself.
But if it's there I would imagine it belongs more to what amusedmonkey spoke of, people defending what they already eat/like/prefer.
The same way I've heard people who like regular Coke say "I don't drink Diet because it's full of chemicals," people who like beef probably feel like they need to defend themselves from a perceived message that veggie burgers are allegedly superior for health and/or moral reasons.2 -
BuddhaBunnyFTW wrote: »Processed food is unhealthy no matter the package it comes in
You eat nothing but raw, uncut foods?9 -
BuddhaBunnyFTW wrote: »Processed food is unhealthy no matter the package it comes in
Depends on the process.
One of my favorite ways to hydrate involves a food item that undergoes several processes. First you take some barley and dampen it. Then you leave it in a warm place until it just barely starts to sprout. When the acrospire is just evident, you kiln the resulting product to remove the moisture. Then you crush it, add very warm water, and essentially let it sit for an hour or so. There's more to this process, but that's mostly what it is. Then you remove the liquid portion and boil it for an hour or two. In the meantime, you add bitter aromatic herbs to the boiling kettle at various times. After boiling, the liquid gets chilled, and it gets strained again to remove the herbs. The next process takes a couple weeks; the liquid goes through a transformation with the aid of a species of saccharomyces. The product may be moved to a different vessel as the saccharomyces slows down and settles. From there, some additional sugar can be added to a pressure holding vessel like a glass bottle, or the liquid can have carbon dioxide forced into it. After another week of resting, you can now hydrate!
It's a great process!10 -
BuddhaBunnyFTW wrote: »Processed food is unhealthy no matter the package it comes in
How are you defining processed? A great deal of nutrient-dense food is processed.
Also, we wouldn't really have fruits and veg many places (including where I live) right now but for processing and related things (like the ability to transport them long distances).3 -
BuddhaBunnyFTW wrote: »Processed food is unhealthy no matter the package it comes in
I find it hard to believe that mustard is really a risky choice.14 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »This and I also don't see a difference between the "Ah! Fake meat is processed!!" seen here and any other "Ah!! Processed food is bad for you!!" that we see in so many other threads.
Sure, it was mentioned upthread that we don't see these concerns voiced about protein powder (despite it's being processed) but we see that pointed out in almost every processed/clean foods thread.
The fact that protein powder doesn't get the normal amount of grief for being processed is it's own phenomenon and I think is probably largely due to the fact that it is associated with fitness.
People in general perceive protein powder as a fitness/health/weight loss aid (as misguided as that may be).
Veggie burgers, convenience foods, etc. don't generally have that same perception (although some people do wrongly assume plant based in inherently healthier) and thus don't enjoy the same lack of critique.
People throw stones at "processed food" for the same reasons that they throw them at fast food, convenience foods, sugar, GMOs, etc.. To claim that veggie burgers only catch the same stones (on a site like MFP nonetheless) because hayseed Trumpers want us to buy beef is a pretty silly conspiracy theory.
I am not promoting any conspiracy theory, but I do see more flack here, even when the discussion is specifically focused on something like the Impossible Whopper vs a Whopper or the Beyond Burger at a local burger joint vs. their regular burger.
I think a lot of the reason you see more flack in the Impossible Whopper vs regular Whopper discussion is because from what I hear(I admittedly haven't tried it yet) they did such a good job imitating the real thing. I am not saying that makes it deserving of more criticism, but when a product is created that has the look, texture and taste of the real thing, some people assume that it can only be replicated using harmful chemicals. Even the nutritional information is incredibly similar.
The funny thing is, food processing is far safer now than it ever was in the past, yet people are constantly talking about how in the good old days people used to eat nothing but whole foods. Milk used to contain formaldehyde to increase its longevity, and there were all sorts of other real, harmful chemicals being added to foods without the consumers knowledge. Whether a food product is safe or not has nothing to do with the number of letters in its name, yet too many people use that as a determining factor which is crazy to me.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »
I wanted to see who this professor is, and Snopes beat us to dealing with this quote"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/impossible-burgers-dogfood/
"What's True
Impossible and Beyond Meat Burgers share some ingredients with at least one brand of vegan, grain-free dog food selected for the comparison.
What's False
The purported similarity between the three ingredient lists is overstated."
The researcher in question is an animal scientist, for whatever that is worth :drinker:
Also I wouldn't be shocked if what he said was taken out of context.
In this particular case, I think it was in context. He tweeted that Impossible and Beyond Meat burgers were "indistinguishable from dog food."
My faith in humanity has not been restored (it's been a day, I swear, it's been a day).5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
Oh my. I don't want any of those ingredients. Well..water and salt for those pedantics.
It's okay to not want something. You don't have to eat the burger, It's such a niche item anyway. I just hope this fixation on ingredients in general (not the ingredients in this specific burger) is not causing anxiety around food. I personally want every single one of these ingredients because each one serves a purpose, otherwise it wouldn't be there. From nutritional profile to taste to color to texture to storage safely. I'll take it.
If it makes you feel any better, most people seem to only really care about these type of ingredients when they are in a meat replacement.
To be fair, a lot of the concern is because animal foods are nutritious, staple foods. When you replace them with ultra processed/novel foods there's good reason for caution. When you see how much money is being spent to create this market it's even more concerning.
You accidentally hit on it, but not for the reason that you think. The reason why meat replacements have such a strong negative following against them is because the farmer and meat producer industries are extremely influential in America. A lot of jobs and economic activity in certain states revolve around these industries. And they are terrified of meat replacements because they know that while they are not quite there yet in terms of being ready for wide spread adoption (price point and lack of nutritional improvement being some limiters so far), they also know it's only a matter of time. How far are we from a beyond/impossible type meat replacement that tastes and cooks like meat but has a fraction of the fat and is cheaper than meat? I'd imagine it's single digit years until that happens.
So that's why they are waging both a PR and regulation war against meat replacements. It's why you see in all these "small government, conservative states", the ones that think clean water regulation is the devil, they are passing new laws to ban the term "veggie burger".
It's not because they are scared that plant based meat replacements are bad, it's because they are scared that they are good.
I'm pretty sure "big cattle" isn't sending people to these forums to hate on veggie burgers.
Also, the ingredients in meat replacements are grown by farmers, largely in "small government, conservative states."
I don't know whether that's touching naivete about motives or a lack of understanding about how the Internet can and is used. Or are you just questioning whether they send people or bots?
To be fair, I kinda agree. I don't think most of the disagreers here have anything to do with big cattle. They may have been socially conditioned by big cattle (no idea, I don't live in the US), but it's mostly just a knee jerk reaction because their choice feels superior and/or they feel their choices are being challenged. People don't like societal shifts in general and feel pride in their established beliefs and choices. Choice supportive bias is a very prevalent cognitive bias that we all have, so it tends to have an even larger effect with choices that we identify as part of our identity because of it having certain morality undertones ("I'm a meat eater and my choice is superior and not immoral, therefore the alternative choice must be inferior in some way"). Not to mention that people are generally wary of new things and are slow to accept them.
While I agree that some, probably most, people defending their meat-eating by disparaging meat alternatives are just circling the wagons on what they're used to and defending the morality of their choices, I was challenging the idea that one particular industry is not following what is today a common business practice.
It is possible both for
(1)"big cattle" isn't sending people to these forums to hate on veggie burgers.
to be false (as it would take only two individuals associated with, connected to, or hired by the cattle industry for it to be true) and
(2)I don't think most of the disagreers here have anything to do with big cattle
to be a correct belief (as it would only take one more than half of the disagreers to not have anything to do with big cattle).
Companies of all kinds pay people to influence discussions in social media. It's not remotely an unusual thing. When you see first-time posts from someone touting a supplement, a named diet that has books and other products associated with it, directing you to a specific website, do you really think none of them are doing so for a financial motive? Some bloggers are paid (in money or in goods) to say positive things about specific products. Pretty much any company of a decent size or sophistication has social media specialists in their communications departments. But nobody in the beef industry tries to influence public opinion in forums where meat alternatives are discussed?
ETA
Since you're not in the U.S., perhaps you are unaware that the cattle industry's tactics in the U.S. have included getting laws passed to prevent labeling that in any way suggests that meat alternatives are in fact "meat" alternatives, getting laws passed people from saying anything bad about beef, and suing people for saying anything that suggests there might be health advantages for trading some saturated fat animal products for unsaturated fat plant protein products. I'm not seeing them getting queasy over the idea of paying for some social media influencing.1 -
rodnichols69 wrote: »
The number one ingredient in the cat food I buy is "pig entrails". Number 2 is salmon.
Lots of folks consider pig entrails comfort food.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Jossy_star wrote: »I am a meat lover and nothing can replace real meat in my personal opinion but if you want a vegan meat than try cooking one at home... i found lots of easy recipes and it turned out great
Can you clarify? Because it sounds as though you're suggesting that non-vegans shouldn't have to suffer the disgusting sight of people eating plant-based "meat" in public.
Fairly certain she's saying she prefers homemade veggie burgers over store bought.
I prefer the taste of homemade food for about 90% of the things I might be able to buy at a fast food place, but I don't see why people who prefer a non-meat option should be denied the convenience of eating when they're away from home, pressed for time, meeting friends for a quick meal, etc., etc.
Wasn't saying anyone should be denied anything.if you want a vegan meat than try cooking one at home
(Yes, I know you weren't the one who said it, but you jumped in to explain what they must have meant.)0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Jossy_star wrote: »I am a meat lover and nothing can replace real meat in my personal opinion but if you want a vegan meat than try cooking one at home... i found lots of easy recipes and it turned out great
Can you clarify? Because it sounds as though you're suggesting that non-vegans shouldn't have to suffer the disgusting sight of people eating plant-based "meat" in public.
Fairly certain she's saying she prefers homemade veggie burgers over store bought.
I prefer the taste of homemade food for about 90% of the things I might be able to buy at a fast food place, but I don't see why people who prefer a non-meat option should be denied the convenience of eating when they're away from home, pressed for time, meeting friends for a quick meal, etc., etc.
Wasn't saying anyone should be denied anything.if you want a vegan meat than try cooking one at home
(Yes, I know you weren't the one who said it, but you jumped in to explain what they must have meant.)
She recommended that people try making their own.
Where did she or I say that veggie burgers should ONLY be made at home?4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
Oh my. I don't want any of those ingredients. Well..water and salt for those pedantics.
It's okay to not want something. You don't have to eat the burger, It's such a niche item anyway. I just hope this fixation on ingredients in general (not the ingredients in this specific burger) is not causing anxiety around food. I personally want every single one of these ingredients because each one serves a purpose, otherwise it wouldn't be there. From nutritional profile to taste to color to texture to storage safely. I'll take it.
If it makes you feel any better, most people seem to only really care about these type of ingredients when they are in a meat replacement.
To be fair, a lot of the concern is because animal foods are nutritious, staple foods. When you replace them with ultra processed/novel foods there's good reason for caution. When you see how much money is being spent to create this market it's even more concerning.
You accidentally hit on it, but not for the reason that you think. The reason why meat replacements have such a strong negative following against them is because the farmer and meat producer industries are extremely influential in America. A lot of jobs and economic activity in certain states revolve around these industries. And they are terrified of meat replacements because they know that while they are not quite there yet in terms of being ready for wide spread adoption (price point and lack of nutritional improvement being some limiters so far), they also know it's only a matter of time. How far are we from a beyond/impossible type meat replacement that tastes and cooks like meat but has a fraction of the fat and is cheaper than meat? I'd imagine it's single digit years until that happens.
So that's why they are waging both a PR and regulation war against meat replacements. It's why you see in all these "small government, conservative states", the ones that think clean water regulation is the devil, they are passing new laws to ban the term "veggie burger".
It's not because they are scared that plant based meat replacements are bad, it's because they are scared that they are good.
I'm pretty sure "big cattle" isn't sending people to these forums to hate on veggie burgers.
Also, the ingredients in meat replacements are grown by farmers, largely in "small government, conservative states."
I don't know whether that's touching naivete about motives or a lack of understanding about how the Internet can and is used. Or are you just questioning whether they send people or bots?
To be fair, I kinda agree. I don't think most of the disagreers here have anything to do with big cattle. They may have been socially conditioned by big cattle (no idea, I don't live in the US), but it's mostly just a knee jerk reaction because their choice feels superior and/or they feel their choices are being challenged. People don't like societal shifts in general and feel pride in their established beliefs and choices. Choice supportive bias is a very prevalent cognitive bias that we all have, so it tends to have an even larger effect with choices that we identify as part of our identity because of it having certain morality undertones ("I'm a meat eater and my choice is superior and not immoral, therefore the alternative choice must be inferior in some way"). Not to mention that people are generally wary of new things and are slow to accept them.
While I agree that some, probably most, people defending their meat-eating by disparaging meat alternatives are just circling the wagons on what they're used to and defending the morality of their choices, I was challenging the idea that one particular industry is not following what is today a common business practice.
It is possible both for
(1)"big cattle" isn't sending people to these forums to hate on veggie burgers.
to be false (as it would take only two individuals associated with, connected to, or hired by the cattle industry for it to be true) and
(2)I don't think most of the disagreers here have anything to do with big cattle
to be a correct belief (as it would only take one more than half of the disagreers to not have anything to do with big cattle).
Companies of all kinds pay people to influence discussions in social media. It's not remotely an unusual thing. When you see first-time posts from someone touting a supplement, a named diet that has books and other products associated with it, directing you to a specific website, do you really think none of them are doing so for a financial motive? Some bloggers are paid (in money or in goods) to say positive things about specific products. Pretty much any company of a decent size or sophistication has social media specialists in their communications departments. But nobody in the beef industry tries to influence public opinion in forums where meat alternatives are discussed?
ETA
Since you're not in the U.S., perhaps you are unaware that the cattle industry's tactics in the U.S. have included getting laws passed to prevent labeling that in any way suggests that meat alternatives are in fact "meat" alternatives, getting laws passed people from saying anything bad about beef, and suing people for saying anything that suggests there might be health advantages for trading some saturated fat animal products for unsaturated fat plant protein products. I'm not seeing them getting queasy over the idea of paying for some social media influencing.
Holy propoganda, Batman.
Yes, suing those who call your product unhealthy is a telltale sign that you're sending people and bots to infiltrate the forums of a calorie counting app, create profiles, rack up hundreds of unrelated comments and wait for the opportunity to attack veggie burgers when a thread finally arises.
ETA: I'm not a member of big cattle (my uncle used to have a few cows but I'm a suburban guy) but I can see the reasoning behind labeling restriction against calling a product "meat" which doesn't contain meat.
Maybe I'm naive but I just dont see that as nefarious even if you can argue that it may be unnecessary.
ETA ETA: Also, it is not common business practice to infiltrate forums incognito.
It is becoming common business practice to advertise on Facebook, Instagram, etc. and sponsoring posts/creators on social media is still an emerging trend but even this is still not yet the business standard (most companies still have enough old school influence to believe they should only focus on larger advertising campaigns and value celebrity endorsements above social media content creators).
Even with sponsored posts, there is a great deal of regulation placed on the content creator and sponsorships must be disclosed.
So no, undercover "agents" infiltrating small forums like this one for the off chance that a thread about veggie burgers will come up is not at all standard business practice.
The kind of bots/spammers you're referring to just show up and create a spam thread as their first post.6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Jossy_star wrote: »I am a meat lover and nothing can replace real meat in my personal opinion but if you want a vegan meat than try cooking one at home... i found lots of easy recipes and it turned out great
Can you clarify? Because it sounds as though you're suggesting that non-vegans shouldn't have to suffer the disgusting sight of people eating plant-based "meat" in public.
Fairly certain she's saying she prefers homemade veggie burgers over store bought.
I prefer the taste of homemade food for about 90% of the things I might be able to buy at a fast food place, but I don't see why people who prefer a non-meat option should be denied the convenience of eating when they're away from home, pressed for time, meeting friends for a quick meal, etc., etc.
Wasn't saying anyone should be denied anything.if you want a vegan meat than try cooking one at home
(Yes, I know you weren't the one who said it, but you jumped in to explain what they must have meant.)
She recommended that people try making their own.
Where did she or I say that veggie burgers should ONLY be made at home?
Lynn wasn't the only one, as that was my take from her comment as well, given the context.
Remember the discussion was about whether one could eat fake meats like BeyondBeef healthfully, as well as whether it was a reasonable alternative for a Whopper, etc., and the poster jumped in to say that she would prefer beef, but: "..if you want a vegan meat than try cooking one at home..'
So in the context it seemed that she was saying the only acceptable "vegan meat" was one made at home (so homemade seitan?), and that the BeyondBeef or ImpossibleWhopper were not acceptable alternatives, instead (again) "if you want a vegan meat than try cooking one at home."
I have lost track of the conversation, so I don't think that poster was paid by anyone or whatever, but I do think she was basically saying any meat is great, but the only vegan alternative that is at all meat like that would be okay is some homemade version (and again it's not clear what that's limited to? A black bean burger, homemade seitan (or is wheat gluten bad), what?).
At the least it's a "processed = bad, homemade = always the one best option" kind of comment that I think you'd usually be disagreeing with, isn't it?5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Jossy_star wrote: »I am a meat lover and nothing can replace real meat in my personal opinion but if you want a vegan meat than try cooking one at home... i found lots of easy recipes and it turned out great
Can you clarify? Because it sounds as though you're suggesting that non-vegans shouldn't have to suffer the disgusting sight of people eating plant-based "meat" in public.
Fairly certain she's saying she prefers homemade veggie burgers over store bought.
I prefer the taste of homemade food for about 90% of the things I might be able to buy at a fast food place, but I don't see why people who prefer a non-meat option should be denied the convenience of eating when they're away from home, pressed for time, meeting friends for a quick meal, etc., etc.
Wasn't saying anyone should be denied anything.if you want a vegan meat than try cooking one at home
(Yes, I know you weren't the one who said it, but you jumped in to explain what they must have meant.)
She recommended that people try making their own.
Where did she or I say that veggie burgers should ONLY be made at home?
Lynn wasn't the only one, as that was my take from her comment as well, given the context.
Remember the discussion was about whether one could eat fake meats like BeyondBeef healthfully, as well as whether it was a reasonable alternative for a Whopper, etc., and the poster jumped in to say that she would prefer beef, but: "..if you want a vegan meat than try cooking one at home..'
So in the context it seemed that she was saying the only acceptable "vegan meat" was one made at home (so homemade seitan?), and that the BeyondBeef or ImpossibleWhopper were not acceptable alternatives, instead (again) "if you want a vegan meat than try cooking one at home."
I have lost track of the conversation, so I don't think that poster was paid by anyone or whatever, but I do think she was basically saying any meat is great, but the only vegan alternative that is at all meat like that would be okay is some homemade version (and again it's not clear what that's limited to? A black bean burger, homemade seitan (or is wheat gluten bad), what?).
At the least it's a "processed = bad, homemade = always the one best option" kind of comment that I think you'd usually be disagreeing with, isn't it?
I agree on all points. The implication that homemade is inherently better for you was there and, you're right, I 100% disagree with that.
However, I was defending the poster from this severe extrapolation:lynn_glenmont wrote: »Jossy_star wrote: »I am a meat lover and nothing can replace real meat in my personal opinion but if you want a vegan meat than try cooking one at home... i found lots of easy recipes and it turned out great
Can you clarify? Because it sounds as though you're suggesting that non-vegans shouldn't have to suffer the disgusting sight of people eating plant-based "meat" in public.
Of course, Lynn went from me saying that I don't think Jossy is claiming she shouldn't have to see other people eat meatless burgers in public to asking me "why should anyone be denied anything" which, of course, I don't think they should. And she knows that.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
Oh my. I don't want any of those ingredients. Well..water and salt for those pedantics.
It's okay to not want something. You don't have to eat the burger, It's such a niche item anyway. I just hope this fixation on ingredients in general (not the ingredients in this specific burger) is not causing anxiety around food. I personally want every single one of these ingredients because each one serves a purpose, otherwise it wouldn't be there. From nutritional profile to taste to color to texture to storage safely. I'll take it.
If it makes you feel any better, most people seem to only really care about these type of ingredients when they are in a meat replacement.
To be fair, a lot of the concern is because animal foods are nutritious, staple foods. When you replace them with ultra processed/novel foods there's good reason for caution. When you see how much money is being spent to create this market it's even more concerning.
You accidentally hit on it, but not for the reason that you think. The reason why meat replacements have such a strong negative following against them is because the farmer and meat producer industries are extremely influential in America. A lot of jobs and economic activity in certain states revolve around these industries. And they are terrified of meat replacements because they know that while they are not quite there yet in terms of being ready for wide spread adoption (price point and lack of nutritional improvement being some limiters so far), they also know it's only a matter of time. How far are we from a beyond/impossible type meat replacement that tastes and cooks like meat but has a fraction of the fat and is cheaper than meat? I'd imagine it's single digit years until that happens.
So that's why they are waging both a PR and regulation war against meat replacements. It's why you see in all these "small government, conservative states", the ones that think clean water regulation is the devil, they are passing new laws to ban the term "veggie burger".
It's not because they are scared that plant based meat replacements are bad, it's because they are scared that they are good.
I'm pretty sure "big cattle" isn't sending people to these forums to hate on veggie burgers.
Also, the ingredients in meat replacements are grown by farmers, largely in "small government, conservative states."
I don't know whether that's touching naivete about motives or a lack of understanding about how the Internet can and is used. Or are you just questioning whether they send people or bots?
In most MFP discussions (as this one), most people are either regular posters with somewhat defined views that are consistent across a number of threads -- including most people in this discussion -- and a few newbies who say pretty typical newbie things and don't seem to be advertising anything. Where people are advertising, it's usually not subtle (I often report them).
Occasionally posters have accused regulars of being paid by BigAg or BigSugar (usually for saying occasional treats are fine in the context of a healthful diet), and that's generally absurd, and I haven't seen anyone in this discussion or MFP generally who seems like a paid operative. I do see a lot of people committed to diets and diet advice that I think is poor (the current carnivore fad is one that rather horrifies me), but I don't think they are paid operatives of BigBeef (or for that matter of Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan or whoever pushes that diet). Nor do I think vegan posters (even the ones who say goofy things, unlike the MFP regulars who are also vegans) are paid by PETA or whatnot.
One million years ago when the internet was younger and so was I (i.e., around 1999, when some posters legal on MFP had not yet been born), I used to post at Salon and made the mistake of coming out as Bradley-curious, only to be immediately accused of being a Bush operative or Republican operative (which sounded kind of grand and flattering, despite how it was meant, and plus I would have loved some extra cash, but was absolutely hilarious if you actually had read my posts, most of which were not even about politics -- it was an impressive commitment to a character if true). No real point here, except that it's something I always think about when accusations of being an operative or the like come up (and I do miss those days, sigh).3 -
just_Tomek wrote: »I see we are still at it nice and strong. Well at least its still somewhat on the topic.
Carry on.
^This. Carry on folks, carry on. Hey, does anyone remember the Oreo's thread? Maybe we can bring that back just for some fun.
1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
Oh my. I don't want any of those ingredients. Well..water and salt for those pedantics.
It's okay to not want something. You don't have to eat the burger, It's such a niche item anyway. I just hope this fixation on ingredients in general (not the ingredients in this specific burger) is not causing anxiety around food. I personally want every single one of these ingredients because each one serves a purpose, otherwise it wouldn't be there. From nutritional profile to taste to color to texture to storage safely. I'll take it.
If it makes you feel any better, most people seem to only really care about these type of ingredients when they are in a meat replacement.
To be fair, a lot of the concern is because animal foods are nutritious, staple foods. When you replace them with ultra processed/novel foods there's good reason for caution. When you see how much money is being spent to create this market it's even more concerning.
You accidentally hit on it, but not for the reason that you think. The reason why meat replacements have such a strong negative following against them is because the farmer and meat producer industries are extremely influential in America. A lot of jobs and economic activity in certain states revolve around these industries. And they are terrified of meat replacements because they know that while they are not quite there yet in terms of being ready for wide spread adoption (price point and lack of nutritional improvement being some limiters so far), they also know it's only a matter of time. How far are we from a beyond/impossible type meat replacement that tastes and cooks like meat but has a fraction of the fat and is cheaper than meat? I'd imagine it's single digit years until that happens.
So that's why they are waging both a PR and regulation war against meat replacements. It's why you see in all these "small government, conservative states", the ones that think clean water regulation is the devil, they are passing new laws to ban the term "veggie burger".
It's not because they are scared that plant based meat replacements are bad, it's because they are scared that they are good.
I'm pretty sure "big cattle" isn't sending people to these forums to hate on veggie burgers.
Also, the ingredients in meat replacements are grown by farmers, largely in "small government, conservative states."
I don't know whether that's touching naivete about motives or a lack of understanding about how the Internet can and is used. Or are you just questioning whether they send people or bots?
In most MFP discussions (as this one), most people are either regular posters with somewhat defined views that are consistent across a number of threads -- including most people in this discussion -- and a few newbies who say pretty typical newbie things and don't seem to be advertising anything. Where people are advertising, it's usually not subtle (I often report them).
Occasionally posters have accused regulars of being paid by BigAg or BigSugar (usually for saying occasional treats are fine in the context of a healthful diet), and that's generally absurd, and I haven't seen anyone in this discussion or MFP generally who seems like a paid operative. I do see a lot of people committed to diets and diet advice that I think is poor (the current carnivore fad is one that rather horrifies me), but I don't think they are paid operatives of BigBeef (or for that matter of Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan or whoever pushes that diet). Nor do I think vegan posters (even the ones who say goofy things, unlike the MFP regulars who are also vegans) are paid by PETA or whatnot.
One million years ago when the internet was younger and so was I (i.e., around 1999, when some posters legal on MFP had not yet been born), I used to post at Salon and made the mistake of coming out as Bradley-curious, only to be immediately accused of being a Bush operative or Republican operative (which sounded kind of grand and flattering, despite how it was meant, and plus I would have loved some extra cash, but was absolutely hilarious if you actually had read my posts, most of which were not even about politics -- it was an impressive commitment to a character if true). No real point here, except that it's something I always think about when accusations of being an operative or the like come up (and I do miss those days, sigh).
I've long suspected you were some kind of sleeper agent.
I'll bet if I could just figure out your trigger word you'd flood this whole site with spam.
5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
Oh my. I don't want any of those ingredients. Well..water and salt for those pedantics.
It's okay to not want something. You don't have to eat the burger, It's such a niche item anyway. I just hope this fixation on ingredients in general (not the ingredients in this specific burger) is not causing anxiety around food. I personally want every single one of these ingredients because each one serves a purpose, otherwise it wouldn't be there. From nutritional profile to taste to color to texture to storage safely. I'll take it.
If it makes you feel any better, most people seem to only really care about these type of ingredients when they are in a meat replacement.
To be fair, a lot of the concern is because animal foods are nutritious, staple foods. When you replace them with ultra processed/novel foods there's good reason for caution. When you see how much money is being spent to create this market it's even more concerning.
You accidentally hit on it, but not for the reason that you think. The reason why meat replacements have such a strong negative following against them is because the farmer and meat producer industries are extremely influential in America. A lot of jobs and economic activity in certain states revolve around these industries. And they are terrified of meat replacements because they know that while they are not quite there yet in terms of being ready for wide spread adoption (price point and lack of nutritional improvement being some limiters so far), they also know it's only a matter of time. How far are we from a beyond/impossible type meat replacement that tastes and cooks like meat but has a fraction of the fat and is cheaper than meat? I'd imagine it's single digit years until that happens.
So that's why they are waging both a PR and regulation war against meat replacements. It's why you see in all these "small government, conservative states", the ones that think clean water regulation is the devil, they are passing new laws to ban the term "veggie burger".
It's not because they are scared that plant based meat replacements are bad, it's because they are scared that they are good.
I'm pretty sure "big cattle" isn't sending people to these forums to hate on veggie burgers.
Also, the ingredients in meat replacements are grown by farmers, largely in "small government, conservative states."
I don't know whether that's touching naivete about motives or a lack of understanding about how the Internet can and is used. Or are you just questioning whether they send people or bots?
To be fair, I kinda agree. I don't think most of the disagreers here have anything to do with big cattle. They may have been socially conditioned by big cattle (no idea, I don't live in the US), but it's mostly just a knee jerk reaction because their choice feels superior and/or they feel their choices are being challenged. People don't like societal shifts in general and feel pride in their established beliefs and choices. Choice supportive bias is a very prevalent cognitive bias that we all have, so it tends to have an even larger effect with choices that we identify as part of our identity because of it having certain morality undertones ("I'm a meat eater and my choice is superior and not immoral, therefore the alternative choice must be inferior in some way"). Not to mention that people are generally wary of new things and are slow to accept them.
While I agree that some, probably most, people defending their meat-eating by disparaging meat alternatives are just circling the wagons on what they're used to and defending the morality of their choices, I was challenging the idea that one particular industry is not following what is today a common business practice.
It is possible both for
(1)"big cattle" isn't sending people to these forums to hate on veggie burgers.
to be false (as it would take only two individuals associated with, connected to, or hired by the cattle industry for it to be true) and
(2)I don't think most of the disagreers here have anything to do with big cattle
to be a correct belief (as it would only take one more than half of the disagreers to not have anything to do with big cattle).
Companies of all kinds pay people to influence discussions in social media. It's not remotely an unusual thing. When you see first-time posts from someone touting a supplement, a named diet that has books and other products associated with it, directing you to a specific website, do you really think none of them are doing so for a financial motive? Some bloggers are paid (in money or in goods) to say positive things about specific products. Pretty much any company of a decent size or sophistication has social media specialists in their communications departments. But nobody in the beef industry tries to influence public opinion in forums where meat alternatives are discussed?
ETA
Since you're not in the U.S., perhaps you are unaware that the cattle industry's tactics in the U.S. have included getting laws passed to prevent labeling that in any way suggests that meat alternatives are in fact "meat" alternatives, getting laws passed people from saying anything bad about beef, and suing people for saying anything that suggests there might be health advantages for trading some saturated fat animal products for unsaturated fat plant protein products. I'm not seeing them getting queasy over the idea of paying for some social media influencing.
My own theory is that big pharma pays people to put conspiracy theories based reasons on message boards. This encourages people to be checked for paranoia and use more anti-psychotics. So I never listen to people proposing anything remotely conspiratorial.5 -
just_Tomek wrote: »I see we are still at it nice and strong. Well at least its still somewhat on the topic.
Carry on.
^This. Carry on folks, carry on. Hey, does anyone remember the Oreo's thread? Maybe we can bring that back just for some fun.
The Oreo thread contains settled science and does not belong in the debate section.7 -
I fear that my secret business model is leaking out, before it has a chance to make my fortune.
I pretend to be a nice li'l ol retired lady, spending my spare time trying to help people** here on MFP with weight management, rowing, and basic nutrition.
Every time I post "I'm a vegetarian, but you don't need to do that for health" or "fake meat mostly tastes yucky, if you ask me", I earn 0.0035 cents from Big Meat.
Every time I post "Oreos are brown cardboard with denatured dollar store toothpaste filling" (sorry, Carlos) or "those Lofthouse frosted sugar cookies are just sweet, not delicious, and not worth their calories", I get 0.0026 cents from Pepperidge Farm. (I did get a nice bonus the day I compared Bel Vita nutritionally to Pepperidge Farm Oatmeal Cookies, though).
And so forth.
The work part of it is OK, but the back-office services-selling, database infrastructure development, and billing is killing me.
** Or as certain individuals on certain threads would have it, being a know-it-all show-off jerk for the simple pleasure of my own self-aggrandizement, without the slightest concern for others (I guess because no one cares about others?).6 -
I fear that my secret business model is leaking out, before it has a chance to make my fortune.
I pretend to be a nice li'l ol retired lady, spending my spare time trying to help people** here on MFP with weight management, rowing, and basic nutrition.
Every time I post "I'm a vegetarian, but you don't need to do that for health" or "fake meat mostly tastes yucky, if you ask me", I earn 0.0035 cents from Big Meat.
Every time I post "Oreos are brown cardboard with denatured dollar store toothpaste filling" (sorry, Carlos) or "those Lofthouse frosted sugar cookies are just sweet, not delicious, and not worth their calories", I get 0.0026 cents from Pepperidge Farm. (I did get a nice bonus the day I compared Bel Vita nutritionally to Pepperidge Farm Oatmeal Cookies, though).
And so forth.
The work part of it is OK, but the back-office services-selling, database infrastructure development, and billing is killing me.
** Or as certain individuals on certain threads would have it, being a know-it-all show-off jerk for the simple pleasure of my own self-aggrandizement, without the slightest concern for others (I guess because no one cares about others?).
Recently I outed myself as a shill for "Big Cheese" (aka the state of Wisconsin). My pay is freebies from my niece who is marketing manager for the Dairy Farmers of Wisconsin, cheese division.5 -
I fear that my secret business model is leaking out, before it has a chance to make my fortune.
I pretend to be a nice li'l ol retired lady, spending my spare time trying to help people** here on MFP with weight management, rowing, and basic nutrition.
Every time I post "I'm a vegetarian, but you don't need to do that for health" or "fake meat mostly tastes yucky, if you ask me", I earn 0.0035 cents from Big Meat.
Every time I post "Oreos are brown cardboard with denatured dollar store toothpaste filling" (sorry, Carlos) or "those Lofthouse frosted sugar cookies are just sweet, not delicious, and not worth their calories", I get 0.0026 cents from Pepperidge Farm. (I did get a nice bonus the day I compared Bel Vita nutritionally to Pepperidge Farm Oatmeal Cookies, though).
And so forth.
The work part of it is OK, but the back-office services-selling, database infrastructure development, and billing is killing me.
** Or as certain individuals on certain threads would have it, being a know-it-all show-off jerk for the simple pleasure of my own self-aggrandizement, without the slightest concern for others (I guess because no one cares about others?).
5 -
I am very anti-processed food. I don't care if it's vegan or not. If you wanna be vegan, be vegan, but be a clean vegan. I do eat meat yet there is a lot of meat I don't buy because it has unnecessary ingredients. I watch where I put my money.Sylphadora wrote: »
Nope
Considering your profile says you will only eat "Meat. Eggs. Fish. Raw cheese. 100% chocolate" I suspect the fact that you won't eat a Beyond Burger doesn't really set it apart from all sorts of stuff that people interested in vegetarian burgers would be fine with, including pretty much everything they eat.0 -
Sylphadora wrote: »
I am very anti-processed food. I don't care if it's vegan or not. If you wanna be vegan, be vegan, but be a clean vegan. I do eat meat yet there is a lot of meat I don't buy because it has unnecessary ingredients. I watch where I put my money.Sylphadora wrote: »
Nope
Considering your profile says you will only eat "Meat. Eggs. Fish. Raw cheese. 100% chocolate" I suspect the fact that you won't eat a Beyond Burger doesn't really set it apart from all sorts of stuff that people interested in vegetarian burgers would be fine with, including pretty much everything they eat.
Why does the "cleanness" of a vegan's diet matter to you at all? How does it impact you if I want to sometimes eat foods that have undergone processing?10
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