Right, but if it isn't healthier, the target demographic is restricted to people who like meat flavor but don't want to eat animals, unless there is some other reason to ever eat one.
Right, but if it isn't healthier, the target demographic is restricted to people who like meat flavor but don't want to eat animals, unless there is some other reason to ever eat one.I don't see how this is really an issue in the fast food setting. People buying cheeseburgers at a fast food joint aren't exactly eating their because they're worried about their health...
Its better for the environment.Right, but if it isn't healthier, the target demographic is restricted to people who like meat flavor but don't want to eat animals, unless there is some other reason to ever eat one.
"It's better for the environment" is just one of several reasons that might persuade a person not to want to eat animals.Its better for the environment.
That said I'm firmly in the veggie burgers should be made from beans and veggies camp, anything else is a journey to disappointment.
Wife is veggie, she doesn't like them because they look too meaty.
I'm a carnivore, I don't like them because they aren't meaty enough.
Son is carnivore and just gets a weirdly disappointed look on his face when he realises somethings up at about the halfway through stuffing it into his face stage.
I don't see how this is really an issue in the fast food setting. People buying cheeseburgers at a fast food joint aren't exactly eating their because they're worried about their health...
Yeah, that's what I was saying."It's better for the environment" is just one of several reasons that might persuade a person not to want to eat animals.
BUT is it?"It's better for the environment" is just one of several reasons that might persuade a person not to want to eat animals.
It is. You're eating vegetable protein instead of feeding vegetable protein to cows to make meat.BUT is it?
Does it not take land, fertilizer, etc (potentially many of the same issues) to grow the ingredients for a faux burger, a larger amount you process down into a concentrated protein chemical goo?
Stating it is, seems like an assumption to me, based on what? Predators eating animals that eat plants, has been sustainable for longer than humans have been around. It's the human method of farming that is the issue, still present growing crops to make veggie protein.It is. You're eating vegetable protein instead of feeding vegetable protein to cows to make meat.
I'm not convinced that the new high tech meatless burgers are particularly healthier than a meaty burger though.
Predators eating animals that eat plants, has been sustainable for longer than humans have been around.
It's the human method of farming that is the issue, still present growing crops to make veggie protein.
Unless cows become more than 100% effective at turning veggie protein and water into animal protein...
It's the methods that are the problem.
You can see this formula play out in poorer areas of the world. Meat is a rarer treat, simply because it takes too many resources vs growing vegetables.But the efficiency of raising vegetable protein is always going to greater than raising animal protein. Unless you are going to compare a super efficient way of raising meat to a super wasteful way of raising vegetables.
Basically (soil+water makes vegetable protein) is always going to be more efficient than (soil+water makes vegetable protein+water makes meat protein)
The quality of vegetable protein is often inferior for humans who have adapted otherwise. That leads to health issues and all the costs associated with it.But the efficiency of raising vegetable protein is always going to greater than raising animal protein. Unless you are going to compare a super efficient way of raising meat to a super wasteful way of raising vegetables.
Basically (soil+water makes vegetable protein) is always going to be more efficient than (soil+water makes vegetable protein+water makes meat protein)
Not necessarily, but again it isn't about efficiency. Efficiency does not matter as long as it isn't at a burdomsome low level to the point where there isn't enough food. You can do something very inefficiently and still have a lower environmental impact. For example those who grow their own small scale garden food, do so very inefficiently but can have a lower environmental impact than modern farming.But the efficiency of raising vegetable protein is always going to greater than raising animal protein. Unless you are going to compare a super efficient way of raising meat to a super wasteful way of raising vegetables.
Basically (soil+water makes vegetable protein) is always going to be more efficient than (soil+water makes vegetable protein+water makes meat protein)
I'll still stick to tofu. There are ways to make it tasty with seasonings.I can't get over the ingredients list for Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat.
Impossible burger ingredients:
Beyond Burger ingredients:
I thought about trying Beyond Burger several times for research purpose but every time, I decline because that ingredients list is like miles long with not so great things. The only reason I would eat fake meat would be for health reason. But the ingredients for both Impossible and Beyond burgers are so bad, I would be healthier if I just ate 100% real beef burgers instead of these fake burgers.
I don't mind eating veggies. I eat lot of vegetables. But I eat real vegetables and cook from scratch. Not all this processed garbage pretending to be healthy. And that's what Impossible and Beyond Burgers are. Processed garbage. Not even real food. Hard pass for me.
Not necessarily, but again it isn't about efficiency. Efficiency does not matter as long as it isn't at a burdomsome low level to the point where there isn't enough food. You can do something very inefficiently and still have a lower environmental impact. For example those who grow their own small scale garden food, do so very inefficiently but can have a lower environmental impact than modern farming.
Raising vegetable protein crops for mass faux meat production requires growing (and weeding or GMO) a specific crop, and amending the soil or rotating crops.
Cattle on the other hand, given enough area can free range graze for a large portion if not the entirety of their diet, and can driven to the slaughterhouse on their own 4 hooves.
You aren't truly understanding the environmental impact of raising animals.
I understand fine that faux science generated those %.
Methane is produced by anerobic bacterial decay. Anything grown, by man or nature, whether eaten by a cow or used to make faux burgers, is eventually going to contribute to this bacterial decay. Dumb or deliberately faux science ignores this and wants to conveniently hide that a large % of greenhouse gases are involved in transportation, as if that doesn't exist for other foods. The %s in that bar graph are literally impossible.
^ Making faux meat is not "just" growing vegetables in some idealized way that dismisses the inefficiencies and environmental impact. It seems that you, like the cooked faux science, want to ignore real science.
One last time: It's not about efficiency, rather method. We have enough sunlight and soil to grow more than the population needs, including feeding livestock, can be very wasteful and it won't matter as long as the METHOD is sustainable. Towards that end, we need more plant life 'sinking away CO2, not to try to rid our lives of every source of it.
We are both going to seem like a broken record right about now, so unsubscribed...
Sunlight alone is useless in deserts or areas with unsuitable land. Kingdom Plantae's needs vary extraordinarily depending on the specific plant that is being grown.^ Making faux meat is not "just" growing vegetables in some idealized way that dismisses the inefficiencies and environmental impact. It seems that you, like the cooked faux science, want to ignore real science.
One last time: It's not about efficiency, rather method. We have enough sunlight and soil to grow more than the population needs, including feeding livestock, can be very wasteful and it won't matter as long as the METHOD is sustainable. Towards that end, we need more plant life 'sinking away CO2, not to try to rid our lives of every source of it.
We are both going to seem like a broken record right about now, so unsubscribed...
Sunlight alone is useless in deserts or areas with unsuitable land. Kingdom Plantae's needs vary extraordinarily depending on the specific plant that is being grown.
Soy is in these days and there are more things to its production than just seed in the dirt. You start reading up on what soy does, and anyone still clinging to some notion it in particular would be universally better than some meat needs to turn in their rationality card.
Why Soy Is Bad For You And The Planet | Small Footprint Family
Despite the well-crafted, expensive PR campaign, soy is bad for you, and you need to know the havoc it has wrought on our health and the environment.www.smallfootprintfamily.com
These rudimentary and lobbyist fueled analyses are sorely deficient as causing human harm also causes financial and environmental damage, as gas for transport, drug development, etc all add to the consumption of fossil fuels.
The Amazon rainforest is ten times more valuable than most common American forests, and soy and sugar, not cattle are two of the exponents brining that particular forest down.