Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates & Twitter Founders Put "Meatless" Meat To the Test

assertation (1255714) writes "Bill Gates and the founders of Twitter are betting millions that meat lovers will embrace a new plant-based product that mimics the taste of chicken and beef. Meat substitutes have had a hard time making it to the dinner tables of Americans over the years, but the tech giants believe these newest products will pass the "tastes like chicken" test. Gates has met several times with Ethan Brown, whose product, Beyond Meat, is a mash-up of proteins from peas and plants."

72 of 466 comments (clear)

  1. Watch Out for PETA by Scarletdown · · Score: 4, Funny

    Prepare to be targeted by an angry mob from PETA...

    The other PETA, that is... People Eating Tasty Animals.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Watch Out for PETA by The123king · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know... If everyone in the world switched from eating meat to eating vegan substitutes (which is more environmentally friendly), you're going to end up with a massive animal welfare crisis on your hands. All those cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc are no longer going to be wanted by mankind. What this means is many thousands of years worth of natural and artificial selection will be wasted, most animals domesticated for meat will die out, and us as humans will lose a large chunk of what makes us "human".

      TL;DR good for environment, not so good for the billions of animals domesticated for meat.

      --
      If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
    2. Re:Watch Out for PETA by erikkemperman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If everyone in the world switched from eating meat to eating vegan substitutes (which is more environmentally friendly), you're going to end up with a massive animal welfare crisis on your hands. All those cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc are no longer going to be wanted by mankind.

      I think I see what you mean. But the words "animal welfare crisis" seem pretty adequate to describe the way our meat ends up on our plates right now.

      Personally I am a meat lover of the hypocrite kind: if I had to slaughter my own, I'd be a vegetarian tomorrow. So I have this sort if compromise where I only eat meat maybe two or three days a week, and then I choose the more expensive kind which is supposed to be from animals which could be argued to have had a half decent life.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    3. Re:Watch Out for PETA by mspohr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You do realize that farm animals are bred and raised on... duh, farms and that this is done in response to a "market" where people demand food from these animals. Basic "market" principles apply here. If there is less demand then the farmers won't breed and raise more animals.
      So... if the market goes away there won't be a lot of homeless animals.
      Also, all of the breeding and natural and artificial selection of animals has only served to produce odd monocultures of animals and nothing would be lost. I'm sure that some people will keep some demand for these animals.
      It would be good for the environment (and the animals) for people to switch to eating fewer of them.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re:Watch Out for PETA by Badger+Nadgers · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All those cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc are no longer going to be wanted by mankind.

      But if we get rid of them, where are we going to get all the sh*t for the organic veg?

    5. Re:Watch Out for PETA by Immerman · · Score: 3, Informative

      The same place we do now - from the animals eating the vegetables (in this case people)

      We're already facing an impending fertilizer shortage, phosphorous in particular IIRC. Plants need it to grow, animals then eat the plants and incorporate it into their own flesh and waste, and humans eat the meat and do the same. Net result a continuous flow of valuable soil nutrients into sewage treatment facilities where it gets sequestered. Sooner or later we're going to have to go back to closing the loop.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:Watch Out for PETA by gutnor · · Score: 2

      Maybe we will go back to reasonable population of those animals, raised on regular farm and not in factories. "Vegan" meat will essentially replace cheap meat, there will still be a market for $60 per kilo sirloin.

    7. Re:Watch Out for PETA by blackpaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All those cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc are no longer going to be wanted by mankind. What this means is many thousands of years worth of natural and artificial selection will be wasted, most animals domesticated for meat will die out

      I suspect there will always be a market for real meat, in the situation you describe I image real meat will move to being a delicacy and a luxury, hopefully supplied by animals farmed in a more "humane" manner.

    8. Re:Watch Out for PETA by bug1 · · Score: 2

      I recently switch to buying RSPCA endorsed chicken fillets, and i have to say, they are much TASTIER.

      It seems to me that if the animal is looked after better, its much taster to eat when you eat it. It creates a bit of a catch22 for animal welfare groups, the more succesful they are the less vegetarians there will be.

    9. Re:Watch Out for PETA by The123king · · Score: 2

      This. Wild venison only has upsides. The wild deer population has to be controlled by man, otherwise the population will skyrocket, and every truck driver will have a deer crash once a week. Of course, shooting these wild animals means disposing of their bodies. what better way than disposing of a dead corpse than it ending up on my dinner plate! This comes from someone who has eaten venison donated from a "pest control"* friend

      *Pest control, as in farmyard pests, such as deer, foxes and rabbits (rabbit stew is AWESOME)

      --
      If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
    10. Re:Watch Out for PETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It might be more environmentally friendly, which it isn't, but there's also the issue of a lot of the substitutes being unhealthy. Soy products have a hormore related to estrogen, but harmful to both men and women. Many of the grains contain things meant to prevent predations that hurt people as well.

      I personally can't eat a lot of the meat substitutes except in small portions and not as a part of my regular diet or I start to get sick.

      Then there's certain vitamins that are really hard to find, if they exist at all in plants.

    11. Re:Watch Out for PETA by theIsovist · · Score: 2

      Seattle's already doing this. The water treatment plants compost solid waste and turn it back into, well, usable compost. http://www.loopforyoursoil.com... I've heard this is becoming common elsewhere as well. The big issue, now, is to reduce agricultural run off which represents a huge break in the nutrient loop.

    12. Re:Watch Out for PETA by jxander · · Score: 2

      Yes, but imagine the outrage the first time a Velicoraptor eats a small child.

      --
      This signature is false.
    13. Re:Watch Out for PETA by bingoUV · · Score: 2

      Could it be placebo? Your conclusion coincides with naive expectations.

      In absence of double blind studies - do you know incidences of people who didn't know the animal was looked after better, before eating the animal, and remarked that this meat was tastier than average?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    14. Re:Watch Out for PETA by bug1 · · Score: 2

      I didnt have any consious expectations that it would taste better so it cant be a placebo.
      But of course that doesnt make my experience objective either, im not aware of any studies that concure (or disagree) with my experience.

    15. Re:Watch Out for PETA by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Seattle's already doing this. The water treatment plants compost solid waste and turn it back into, well, usable compost.

      Are the human medicines removed from the compost?

      Also, how about the persistant herbicides.? This isn't granola-speak, if your composting facility is accepting grass clippings, you're almost certainly getting herbicides.

      http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletch...

      And our over-medicated society? Here's a post for King County

      http://www.lhwmp.org/home/hhw/...

      Even when we don't dump old medicine down the toilet, we whizz out a lot of it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re: Watch Out for PETA by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      The compost is treated to a specific level on site, then passed along to a third party company that handles viral and chemical issues. It's actually the reason the waste water treatment plant cannot directly offer you the compost. That said, there's a ton of research going into this and a working system in place that currently opposites commercially. Your concerns are valid, but they are also taken into account.

      Do you have the cites for that? Many places have simply taken to not accepting any grass clippings. The persistent herbicide problem will show up very quickly, because thhat rich brown compust will kill your plants.

      People often use the citation please crutch - I just really want to know what process removes the medicines from the compost. Certainly the persistent herbicide issue is waiting 5 years - that one is easy if inconvenient. Medicine? a bit of a different problem.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. But the price? by Kojiro+Ganryu+Sasaki · · Score: 2

    Stuff like this tends to be prohibitively expensive. That seems to be the greatest obstacle to acceptance.

    1. Re:But the price? by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a pound of ground beef (16 OZ 90%) is under 4.50 as I write this in my local store. Also chicken breasts are going for 2.99$ a pound. Im not going to spend more money for less of a product, that is not even real meat

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:But the price? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Recently I bought a 6 lb package of 88% ground beef at Costco for less than $18.

      $5.27 for 12 oz is double what I'm paying for beef.

      I'm all in favor of reducing meat consumption but not at the price of doubling my food budget.

    3. Re:But the price? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      Within the last 6 weeks chicken has been for sale for 99 cents a pound twice. Breast meat filets have been on sale for $1 per pound once and for $1.99 several times.

      Beef seems to be holding around $4 bucks but oddly- steak dips lower (as low as $3) periodically.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:But the price? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      all good points. In my case they were boneless skinless chicken breasts. and When I buy them its to prepare a meal, If I wanted easy id go to the frozen food dept and buy some chicken nuggets and throw them in the nuker. There is something satisfying though about spending an hour crafting a great dish and finishing it off with a good quality beer

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:But the price? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Unless it's 80% injected water it doesn't actually change anything.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:But the price? by retchdog · · Score: 2

      that's not actually true. the commodities/basic ingredients (apart from meat) are very competitively priced. i bought some excellent coffee there for $5.70/# which could easily have sold for $12/#.

      canned beans, salsa, bread, etc., are very well-priced for the level of quality you get. even the cheese department usually has a few very good things on sale.

      it's the meat, organic bullshit, and pre-packaged convenience items that get ridiculous fast.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    7. Re:But the price? by houghi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why is meat so cheap compared to vegetables when you need several times as much vegetables to feed the animals for the same abount of nutricion.
      Logic would say that vegeatians would be a financial choice. It is the same in Europe.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    8. Re:But the price? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Wild guess: they don't feed cattle on asparagus and mangetout.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:But the price? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter if it's cabbage.

      The animals we eat are simply much better at deriving nutrition from plant matter. Much of what they eat isn't just inefficient for humans to try an eat, it's entirely undigestible.

      The idea of feeding corn to a cow is a pretty new one borne out of the rise of industrial farming.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:But the price? by Khashishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. Transportation, packaging, and stocking costs are large for vegetables in cities. Usually, frozen, canned, or otherwise processed vegetables are cheaper than fresh vegetables in the supermarket because you have to take into account transportation and waste.
      2. Subsidies for farm animals, corn, and soy.
      3. Some of what is fed to farm animals is not considered fit for human consumption.
      4. High concentration animal agriculture is quite an efficient machine.
      5. People are picky with produce. You see a shelf of vegetables and you pick through it for the best piece, because it all costs the same anyways. With meat, it's a hunk of unidentifiable flesh in a package--it's all the same since you can't easily tell the difference.

    11. Re:But the price? by crioca · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why is meat so cheap compared to vegetables

      Tens of billions of dollars in farming subsidies every year and the animal feed subsidy is almost as large as all the others combined.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States

      It's not that meat is so cheap compared to vegetables, it's that you pay the difference in other ways.

    12. Re:But the price? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the fat that tastes good, not the meat. Go make a burger from fatless steak tartar and prepare to gag. No cheating with mayo or cheese.

      Why do you think a filet mignon has bacon around it, or bleu cheese or a cream sauce on it? Bogue without...even flawlessly medium rare.

      A veggie patty with some good animal fat substitute is the way to go.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  3. AND?? by Gavrielkay · · Score: 3, Funny

    Peas and plants. Because now peas aren't plants? Who wrote that?

    1. Re:AND?? by Ardyvee · · Score: 2

      Aren't peas the seed of a plant instead of the plant itself?

      --
      I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
    2. Re:AND?? by Smurf · · Score: 2

      Peas are seeds, a vegetable that comes from a pea plant. TFA is technically correct.

      But following that logic ("a pea is not a plant because it is just part of a plant") the statement is still incorrect because I bet you could use the same argument to disqualify all the other ingredients as being plants.

  4. The diffciulty in getting carnivores to switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The difficulty now comes in finding a way to convince carnivores to switch."

    If it tastes like meat, smells like meat, and looks like meat, then I won't refuse it on principle. How do you get me to switch? Make it cheaper than real meat.

    1. Re:The diffciulty in getting carnivores to switch by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't get the fixation people have with 'tastes like meat' (actually the texture is the tricky part, taste is rather easy). If you actually learn to cook reasonably well then meat dishes actually aren't the most fantastic things around. I find that not eating meat is pretty trivial and given the cost, health, sustainability, and ethical advantages of that choice why not do it? I have yet to meet a person who switched and didn't FEEL much better afterwards. Almost any garden variety restaurant in China can make you a dish that usually can't be distinguished from a meat dish, and if I wish I can make several of them myself. OTOH there are plenty of other ways to enjoy your vegetables more.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    2. Re:The diffciulty in getting carnivores to switch by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't get the fixation people have with 'tastes like meat' (actually the texture is the tricky part, taste is rather easy). If you actually learn to cook reasonably well then meat dishes actually aren't the most fantastic things around....Almost any garden variety restaurant in China can make you a dish that usually can't be distinguished from a meat dish, and if I wish I can make several of them myself. OTOH there are plenty of other ways to enjoy your vegetables more.

      Show me a vegetable dish with the flavor and texture of a nice medium rare filet mignon, or a slab of prime rib medium with au jus, and I will switch. Until then, I am keeping my meat.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:The diffciulty in getting carnivores to switch by Slugster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it tastes like meat, smells like meat, and looks like meat, then I won't refuse it on principle.

      I would. "Carbs that taste like meat" is still carbs.

      A few years back I tried eating low-carb out of curiosity (that is--high meat & fats). Best thing I ever did, and the regular medical checkups I get reflect that. It may not be what the AMA advises, but 5000 years of Eskimos trumps whatever the committee opinion is this year.

      Besides, they could make the carb-meat "cheaper" just by placing a ridiculous tax on the real stuff.

    4. Re:The diffciulty in getting carnivores to switch by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, but it's vegetable protein, not vegetable carbohydrates. That doesn't as such mean they are good at getting all the pea starches out...but let's look at their packaging (assuming they're not committing fraud)

      For an 85g (3oz) serving of Beyond Meat "chicken" strips, the macros are: 3g fat, 20g protein, 6g carbs, 2g fiber.

      For 85g of cooked chicken breast (grilled) the macros are: 2-3g fat, 19-21g protein, 1-2g carbs, 0g fiber.

      So 4g net carbs vs 1g net carbs. Even on Keto I wouldn't worry too much about the difference. Overall the macro balance is quite close to chicken breast. They also appear to have more iron than real chicken by a lot (20% RDI vs 3-6%). More than steak, even (~15%).

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    5. Re:The diffciulty in getting carnivores to switch by Immerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because as a species we desperately need to reduce the rate at which we're drawing down the viability of the global ecosystem. We're currently consuming roughly 40% more natural resources than can be sustainably harvested, and the other 60% of the words population is undergoing rapid economic growth to the point that they can reasonably expected to be consuming at a comparable level to the west within the century - the idea of a "third world" will be an anachronism. Given that reality, and since raising their consumption to current western standards would result in global ecological collapse, we must instead figure out how to lower consumption rates in the West to the point that global equalization is sustainable.

      The problem is not as bad as it first appears though - roughly 3/4 of the food grown in the world today ends up discarded as trash due to spoilage and economic inefficiencies, so if we can eliminate the waste then we could feed 10 billion people a Western diet without increasing current food production at all. We still need to reduce our natural resource consumption by roughly 1/3 though, just to stop strip-mining the planet, even further if we want to give it a chance to recover and start becoming more productive again. Fishing should probably be (mostly) eliminated first - the oceans are our most important ecosystems for global health and have been utterly devastated by overfishing in the last century. The lumber industry is another major culprit - but the demand for wood products is falling in the face of more advanced metal, plastic, and concrete technologies, and tree farms are becoming more common.

      That leaves agriculture(plants and animals) as one of the major contributing factors. Plus there's the serious energy-intensiveness of the industry (20-3% of total current energy consumption I think) And the vast majority of plants are grown to feed animals, which yields a terrible return on investment. 10 pounds of animal feed nets you only about 1 pound of beef, 2 pounds of pork, or three pounds of chicken. The easiest way to reduce the ecological and energetic impact of farming is to give up the meat. Or to switch to more efficient meat, but that pretty much means eating insects and the Western world has some ridiculous hang-ups about that. Still, locusts will produce 9 pounds of low-fat high-quality protein from that same 10 pounds of feed, and they're perfectly happy eating the cellulose-rich leftovers from crops grown for human consumption. And I'd bet you that a McDonalds Locust-burger wouldn't taste appreciably worse than the present meat-product, while also being considerably more nutritious.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:The diffciulty in getting carnivores to switch by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Texture is key. There's a group of people with a certain condition who can only eat certain foods, and apparently the food is so godawful that it is hard to get these people to eat at all above the bare minimum. There's a few companies experimenting with 3d printed versions of this food to improve the texture.

      It is not hard to go without meat, certainly don't need it every day, and there are plenty of tasty veg dishes, as long as they are real veg dishes, not with crappy tofu or whatever mixed in to "replace" meat. But I *like* steak, foie gras, prime rib, veal, a good hamburger, prosciutto, proper sausages. There's nothing as yet that replaces those pleasures in life. It would be great if more eco-friendly alternatives are invented, but until them I will continue to enjoy these treats.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:The diffciulty in getting carnivores to switch by afgam28 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A good steak really is an amazing thing, and no meat substitute is likely to replace it. A fake meat product that is made from "peas and plants" doesn't sound anywhere near as nice as a rare filet mignon, but it still sounds a lot better than mechanically separated pink slime and the mystery meats that fast food restaurants put in burgers, hot dogs, chicken nuggets, etc.

      It's still early days and I'm sure this Beyond Meat product will get cheaper, to the point where this could replace the low-grade meat that is so common in the food industry. This would be a massive win in terms of animal welfare, sustainability, nutrition and maybe even cost to consumers.

      I suspect that a lot of people would prefer vegetables that have most of the taste, texture and protein of meat, rather than food that is grown in horrific conditions but technically meets the definition of meat despite being quite different nutritionally.

    8. Re:The diffciulty in getting carnivores to switch by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, cereal grains are likewise a problem. But so is the stuff we call meat today. We evolved to eat wild game. Fatty, un-exercised, hormone-saturated domesticated meat is a *completely* different thing. Go have a few deer steaks, maybe a nice wild turkey, and then tell me that we evolved to eat the stuff they sell at the supermarket.

      In that same vein, prior to agriculture we were nomadic hunter-*gatherers*, our diet was hardly mostly meat except when we colonized marginal grassland regions where the vegetation was mostly far less nutritious to us fruit, nut, and tuber-eaters, and we survived by preying on the more specialized plant-eaters. Probably the best sense of our "natural" diet is to look to our cousins among the apes - particularly our closest relatives the chimpanzees and bonobos, though they seem to have similar diets to most of the great apes. They certainly won't pass up a juicy animal that catches their eye, but plants don't run nearly as fast, and make up the majority of their diet.

      Also, if you want to talk health, look at China, India, South America, etc. where non-impoverished individuals in their 80s or 90s are routinely in excellent health, with mental and physical vigor to make an American in their 50s jealous. What are they eating? Mostly plants. Some insects. A little higher meat here and there.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:The diffciulty in getting carnivores to switch by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree that veggie dishes can be tasty. I even thing that, because of my wife's belief that all "real" meals must contain meat, I personally eat way too much of it. I've had some vegetarian Indian dishes that blew me away.

      But bacon is good. Steak is good. Burgers are good. No one needs these things, of course, but you can't deny that these things are delicious to a whole lot of people.

      If we expand to animal products, you would destroy some of my very favorite meals - my absolute favorite breakfast is two eggs, sunny side up, home fries, side of bacon and rye toast with a coffee and OJ. Bacon, butter, and eggs.

      Cost: Americans spend less on their food than just about any other country on the planet. Cost is not an issue.
      Health: Most of us would probably get more bang for our buck by exercising, cutting out processed foods, and putting down the booze.
      Sustainability: As an individual, any choice I make will affect everyone else - but not in the way you think. I cut out meat, it just gets slightly cheaper for those who do not. Perhaps if we had some kind of collective action it would be effective, but this individual stuff is just feel-good nonsense.
      Ethical: I hear you guys. The arguments are sound and rational, but ultimately appeal to emotions. They just do nothing for me. I'm just not very empathetic of livestock. To me, eating a cow is no different emotionally than killing a house mouse. Maybe better, since I'm actually using the cow.

      have yet to meet a person who switched and didn't FEEL much better afterwards.

      I find this to be true of any choice people make. Otherwise their choice would be a poor one and they would feel stupid. Basic human nature.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  5. The War on Farmers by teslabox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not enough to industrialize agriculture, now they want to trick us with fake food.

    Cows graze around boulders and on slopes, where tractors can't work. They cannot be effectively replaced. (Feeding cows corn & soybean meal is rather foolish, and is the real problem here.)

  6. Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is really a regional problem (understandable in a country that has never had capacity issues raising cattle on enormous scale).

    Outside the US, many countries have been eating significant quantities of meat substitutes for ages - my favourite, even as a meat eater, being Quorn, which is genuinely rather nice tasting and doesn't have to taste 'like' meat to appeal to me (though it's not a vegan product in any sense).

    Within the US, Quorn received a seriously dubious monstering from CSPI, but even in the UK Quorn needed help to get past the 'fake meat' angle; Sainsbury's went big on it and it survived.

    Try it sometime, particularly with a splash of light soy sauce right at the beginning, which does help it taste more chickeny, if you need that.

    1. Re:Americans by camperdave · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...though it's not a vegan product in any sense

      Sorry, but to us carnivores, vegan means any substitution of meat for hippy-dippy, new age fairy food. The only thing you should substitute meat with is other meat; chicken or steak burritos for example.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  7. Re:why copy meat? by markass530 · · Score: 2

    I would say vaginitis is a helluva concession

  8. This will backfire by hessian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Grand liberal vision:

    We stop eating meat, everyone has more to eat.

    Actuality:

    We stop eating meat, people breed until the damage is equivalent to what we're doing now.

    1. Re:This will backfire by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Actuality: People in poor countries continue to be oblivious to the hipster "Beyond Meat" movement in western countries
      FTFY

  9. Not all vegetarians would like vegetarian meat. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Some of the vegetarians follow vegetarian diet due to religious reasons. An extreme form of that practice is followed by the Jains, They would not even eat root vegetables because harvesting it kills the plant. But they would accept milk because milking does not kill the cow. There are others who would eat all the vegetables, but not meat. These people not only don't want to eat meat, they don't want anything that looks like meat.

    In fact I belong to one such group: south Indian lacto-vegetarian brahmin. My rational mind and my reading of scriptures tell me, it is just a cultural practice, Hinduism does not really ban meat. My reading of books in evolution and my rudimentary understanding of biology tells me Homo sapiens evolved to eat at least some meat. Our closes primate relatives bonobos and chimps both eat meat. Still my cultural training is so ingrained I would not be able to bring myself to bite a piece of chicken, or something that resembles chicken. I am sure bits and pieces of meat must have found their way into my plate by accident. Restaurant workers might not have changed gloves, or the pizza cutter might not have been wiped before cutting my pizza, or the soup might have had a chicken stock instead of vegetable stock. Even after knowing all this, I am not able to bring myself to eat meat or anything that resembles meat.

    I know we form such a microscopic minority what we think or do would not have the slightest effect on the general population and trends. But still, I have no plans to change.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Not all vegetarians would like vegetarian meat. by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How it got that way is that meat is tasty and provides a lot of energy. People are so fervently against giving up meat because the substitutes that have been put forth (tofu, soy) generally suck in most forms people consume them in. Yes you can kind of make Tofu tasty with some work (though personally I've never had tofu elevated beyond "edible"), but you have to do nothing to a chicken breast to make it tasty other than cook it.

      If this mean substitute is actually tasty and the texture is not horrifically awful (most of the supposed meat substitutes ignore that aspect) then in fact a lot of people probably would be OK using it.

      Your main problem, as with so many other things in ilife. will be environmentalists since it's not "natural".

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  10. Obligatory by fiziko · · Score: 3, Funny

    The cost of the alternatives: Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal strip 3105.

    --
    - W. Blaine Dowler
    http://www.bureau42.com
    1. Re:Obligatory by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm still waiting for a meat-based vegetable substitute.

  11. missing the fat flavor by Khashishi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I tried it. The texture and protein feel matches lean chicken or turkey reasonably well. But the fat flavor is missing. This is a general observation I have with all the faux meats. They simulate really lean cuts, but all the flavor comes from the fat, which is missing. It's probably the case that recreating the fat of meat is more difficult than creating the protein. This is a challenge to the manufacturers out there.

    1. Re:missing the fat flavor by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try frying it in lard. I bet that will make it better.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:missing the fat flavor by TClevenger · · Score: 2

      Or we've been demonizing fat for so long that they're afraid to put any in.

    3. Re:missing the fat flavor by doomer · · Score: 2

      Bingo. The lack of fat is quite important. I am a type II diabetic and eat 5% carbs, 20% protein, and 75% fat in order to normalize my blood glucose and weight. I also know that plant proteins are not the same as animal proteins. So I would be quite suspicious of this 'meat'. It sounds like company has bought into the low-fat high-carb 'heart healthy' diet and think that animal protein and fat is really bad for you. In fact it is becoming more and more clear that we need to be moving to a low-carb, moderate protein (animal based), high fat diet if we want to prevent the disease of civilization (diabetes, heart, obesity, Alzheimer, ...).

  12. Finally getting this right. Maybe. by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After a long history of failures, from Hamburger Helper to VitaPro, this stuff apparently tastes more or less like processed chicken. It's sold at Whole Foods. It's not cheap. Chicken tends to be chopped up and extruded anyway. ("McNuggets"). Matching the taste of breaded chicken nuggets seems do-able.

    Nutrition is an issue. The nutritional composition of this is entirely determined by the manufacturer. The mix of proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals is a manufacturer choice. There are few standards on the required nutritional value for human food products. Most concerns about food safety involve excluding undesired or toxic components. It's quite possible to sell something that tastes like meat, is harmless, but has little nutritional value.

  13. Re:It's not all about flavor... by CRCulver · · Score: 2

    Besides, it's not like we have a food shortage, the problem is distribution.

    Raising livestock takes more water than growing plants, and water is certainly something one would like to conserve. Furthermore, livestock effluence (animal shit) tends to find its way into rivers and streams.

    Animal welfare isn't the other ethical issue involved here. I see nothing objectionable in slaughtering an animal and eating it, but doing it on a mass scale presents a risk to the environment that has convinced me to limit my meat intake.

  14. Re:why copy meat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll never understand. For some reason some people apparently don't want to eat meat, but they want to eat a bad imitation of it.
    It's like diet coke. If you want to lose weight, drink some water. If you like the taste of diet coke better, you are a weirdo, but at least I can respect that.

  15. Re:how much land does it cost to make it ? by tomhath · · Score: 2

    Good question, but did you realise it takes 6lbs of feed to raise 1 lb of meat?

    And you do realize that most of that feed is grass, which is grown on land not suited to cultivation? The final few weeks of "finishing" uses more grain, but the cattle are raised on hay, pasture and range.

  16. Simulating meat does seem bizarrely common by Coisiche · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the UK, Quorn is the main faux meat mycoprotein. I'm not a vegetarian but I have tried a few of their products and they are, without exception, all about simulating meat.

    The simulated chicken pieces are probably the most realistic; so much like the real thing in terms of appearance, texture and taste it's uncanny. The steak strips aren't as good texture wise, nor is the lamb cutlet, but both are ok taste wise although to visual inspection the lamb one is obviously artificial. The sausages are good but since the meat content of real sausages is questionable anyway, I don't think there's much comparison to draw. The biggest fail is the Quorn bacon rashers. You have to wonder why they bothered trying. Nothing can compare with real bacon and we can't help vegetarians who chose to give that up.

  17. Re:It will fail... by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    what the hell is with some people always needing to insert insults against republicans or democrats in articles that have nothing to do with politics?

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  18. User ground-up rock dust "remineralize" soil by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://remineralize.org/
    "Better soil, better food, better planet.... We see a future of thriving farms and gardens producing healthy, nutrient-dense food in great abundance. We see exuberant forests returned to a state of grandeur not seen in centuries, silently sequestering the carbon dioxide that so threatens our planet today. We see a stable climate and a cleaner, healthier environment. We see all of this being possible through the simple and effective process of soil remineralization."

    You are right that much of today's organic industry has become co-dependent on conventional livestock farms to use the manure for fertilizer to make up for what is removed from the soil. And returning human waste back to the soil has not proven that workable in the USA because sewage sludge is often contaminated with heavy metals or prescription drugs.That is a big difference from the "Farmers Of Forty Centuries" in China with cleaner sewage back then.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

    Also related:
    http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/...
    http://www.epa.gov/agriculture...
    http://www.globalecotechnics.c...
    http://www.oceanarksint.org/

    From: http://remineralize.org/histor...
    ----
    Benefits of Remineralization
    * Provides slow, natural release of elements and trace minerals.
    * Increases the nutrient intake of plants.
    * Increases yields and gives higher brix reading.
    * Rebalances soil pH.
    * Increases earthworm activity and the growth of microorganisms.
    * Builds humus complex.
    * Prevents soil erosion.
    * Increases the storage capacity of the soil.
    * Increases resistance to insects, disease, frost, and drought.
    * Produces more nutritious crops.
    * Enhances flavor in crops.
    * Decreases dependence on fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
    Soil Remineralization (SR) creates fertile soils by returning minerals to the soil in much the same way that the Earth does: during an Ice Age, glaciers crush rock onto the Earth's soil mantle, and winds blow the dust in the form of loess all over the globe. Volcanoes erupt, spewing forth minerals from deep within the Earth, and rushing rivers form mineral-rich alluvial deposits.
    Within silicate rocks is a broad spectrum of up to one hundred minerals and trace elements necessary for the well-being of all life and the creation of fertile soils. Glacial moraine or mixtures of single rock types can be applied to soils to create a sustainable and superior alternative to the use of ultimately harmful chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
    SR has been shown in scientific studies to achieve fourfold increases in agricultural and forestry (wood volume) yields and to produce both immediate and long-term benefits from a single application.
    Hundreds of thousands of tons of appropriate rock dust for soil and forest regeneration are stockpiled by the gravel and stone industry.
    ---

    I hope more people learn about this.

    On the topic of this article on meat alternatives, about seventeen years ago I wrote a letter to a person I had met who was trying to raise fund for some kind of recreational complex in Des Moines, Iowa. His family was a producer of equipment for meat grinding. Inspired by the work of Jon Robbins and "Diet for a New America" and EarthSave back then, I suggested in the letter he consider adapting the technology to make meat substitutes, which I told him was a growing industry. Never heard back from him. See also:
    http://johnrobbins.info/

    Glad to see peop

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  19. Re:A good visual why to move away from animal food by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

    And to respond to another comment: dairy cattle do get eaten, that's most of the hamburger you see. But they're just using it up, it's not considered very good grade.

    Similar thing with wool sheep that are past it. They're edible if you cook them by the brick method: put a quarter of animal in a pot with a brick, water and a bay leaf. Boil.

    When you can stick a fork in the brick the meat's nearly ready.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. from a Dedicated omnivore by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    If it is so good,STOP marketing it as a meat-substitute and market it on its' own merits and strengths. I am not looking to go vegan or vegetarian for that matter but I could always use a tasty new treat. You are only taking on years of fruitless arguing by trying to 'replace' meat.

    Note : I love salads, tofu, and egg plant, but also cheese, eggs, ice cream, and BACON...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  21. I can't do it; I've tried before. by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Informative

    I find that not eating meat is pretty trivial ...

    Good for you. I'm reminded of a quote from a comic I read when someone expressed shock and incredulity that another character had not seen Star Wars. Her response was simply, "Your life experiences are different from my own." What you are basically saying here is that you don't really like meat all that much and it was no big sacrifice to give it up. That's not the case for everyone.

    I find the switch to a meatless diet extremely hard, and I become just absolutely ravenous when I go more than a few days without it. I've tried three times for all the good reasons that you mention, and I just get a craving that cannot be satisfied by anything else.

    Almost any garden variety restaurant in China can make you a dish that usually can't be distinguished from a meat dish, and if I wish I can make several of them myself.

    As someone who likes meat, I find that statement laughable. If the vegetables in the dish are the most interesting and delicious part to you, then that's probably true for you. However, while I do enjoy many vegetarian Chinese and Indian dishes, I will NEVER confuse them for those with meat. The taste of the meat is not found in the meat itself but also in the sauces.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:I can't do it; I've tried before. by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      I know of a few authentic places, where they have the Chinese-only menu, but that's not the point. Meat has a distinctive flavor. Unless you do something absolutely horrifying to it to suppress it, you are simply never going to make a dish where it tastes the same with or without meat.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  22. Think of carob & chocolate by Valdrax · · Score: 2

    Because people like meat, and you aren't going to get some people to switch until they can get the experience of meat. The problem is that the primary consumers of vegetarian meat substitutes are people who don't like meat.

    Imagine if we were talking about giving up chocolate. People could tell you that there's all sorts of yummy, fruit flavored alternatives out there that have "great flavors and textures all their own" and "can satisfy the appetite." But none of them are chocolate. They don't compare at all when you've got that craving, even if they are nutritionally equivalent or better.

    So then someone invents carob bars, and all the chocolate lovers look askance at it, while the non-chocolate people are split between those that embrace the new "tastes just like chocolate" treat (which it doesn't) and others are just so puzzled why anyone would want chocolate in the first place. Is it any wonder it fails to attract people who are okay with chocolate?

    It's the same with meat substitutes and meat.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  23. Re:Irrelevant. by PPH · · Score: 4, Informative

    Our ancestors didn't eat meat.

    Tell that to the American horse, the Mammoth and a number of other species that our ancestors ate into extinction.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  24. Not Filet Mignon. Meat Slurry by Radtastic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Artificial meat is going to happen at some point, well before it can surpass the filet mignon or prime rib. Right now, it just needs to be better and cheaper than Meat Slurry , then, market forces will accelerate the quality.

    Trust me on this, the bar is set pretty low for it to succeed.

    --
    You stereotypers are all the same...
  25. Miss the point - I don't want factory food by pubwvj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This totally misses the point. I, and many people, do not want factory produced food. I want food I can replicate without high technology. I can grow plants, fruit, nuts and MEAT out in my fields. Meat is easy to produce. I have pastures. The sun shines on them. The rain falls. The forages grow. My pigs, chicken, ducks, sheep and geese eat the plants (and bugs). I eat the animals (and plants). It works. It's easy. It's reliable. It's sustainable.

    My way does not require electricity, high technology, a laboratory or shipments of chemicals from distant locations.

    What the factory farmed methods, be they CAFO or huge grain fields, does is to concentrate the power and wealth into the hands of the few resulting in a fragile, brittle system that can easily fail or be attacked and controlled by hostile forces.

    Bill Gates Meatless Meat is a total fail.

    I'll stick to real meat.