Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Impossible Burger 2.0

2456714

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭older by the day


    After looking at prime time now, I'd say burgers in Ireland will be fairly cheap in a few months time


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,182 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    As much as too much red meat may not be good for you I would rather keep visiting my local butcher than eat something with ingredients I've never heard of or can barely pronounce.
    If you need to buy food that tastes like meat then stop being vegetarian and buy a leg of lamb (gorgeous)


  • Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭Upstream


    The world does need an alternative to meat that's exactly like meat.

    You are right, and the best alternative to meat that's exactly like meat is ...

    ... meat.

    The problem with meat is not the cow, it's the how. It all comes down to how they're managed. Grass and pasture-based livestock have the potential to help build soils and sequester carbon. They can do this at a rate that can reverse global warming in less than a decade. They've built soils depths of over twenty feet on the great plains and they can do it again.

    Here's Allan Savory explaining how it can work on a global scale
    https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change

    Closer to home, my soils have 16 or 17% organic matter in the top four inches, and I've spoken to organic producers with higher levels, over 18% organic matter. If my land was in intensive tillage for 20 or 30 years, it could be more like 3% or less. I'm trying to work out what that translates to, and I'm not quite sure, but with a back of the envelope calculation, I think there is a difference of somewhere between 100 and 150 tons of carbon sequestered per hectare between these two scenarios. That's a lot of cow burps.

    I've spent the last year or two trying to learn about regenerative agriculture, and what I can do to help. All I know is I have a long way to go and so much to learn, but properly managed cows are the way forward.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,441 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    That ingredient your referring to Heme? The one pumping oxygen around your blood? Bad for you? Not likely.

    I'm not pushing it but I can see where it has a place in the food chain. It's been completely dismissed here for not factually accurate reason though.

    A lot seems of the debate seems to be about how bad it is for you and the environment. Meat production isn't exactly the best thing for the environment ether. We use plants to make animals into meat, making plants into meat is a lot more sustainable.

    As for nutrition..

    The 2.0

    Nutrition Facts
    Serving size4 oz. (113g)

    Amount per serving
    Calories240
    % Daily Value*
    Total Fat14g 18%
    Saturated Fat8g 40%
    Trans Fat0g
    Cholesterol0mg 0%
    Sodium370mg 16%
    Total Carbohydrate9g 3%
    Dietary Fiber3g 11%
    Total Sugars<1g
    Includes<1g Added Sugars 1%
    Protein19g 31%
    Vitamin D0mcg 0%
    Calcium170mg 15%
    Iron4.2mg 25%
    Potassium610mg 15%
    Thiamin28.2mg 2350%
    Riboflavin0.4mg 30%
    Niacin5.3mg 35%
    Vitamin B60.4mg 25%
    Folate115mcg DFE 30%
    Vitamin B123mcg 130%
    Phosphorus180mg 15%
    Zinc5.5mg 50%
    * The % Daily Value tells you how much a nutrient in a serving of food contributes to a daily diet. 2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition advice.


    Standard burger

    Nutrition Facts
    Serving Size:
    1
    burger (113g grams)
    Amount Per Serving
    Calories from Fat 153
    Calories 240
    % Daily Value*
    26%Total Fat 17g grams
    35% Saturated Fat 7g grams
    Trans Fat 1g grams
    28%Cholesterol 85mg milligrams
    4%Sodium 90mg milligrams
    9%Potassium 330mg milligrams
    0%Total Carbohydrates 0g grams
    0% Dietary Fiber 0g grams
    Sugars 0g grams
    Protein 21g grams
    0% Vitamin A
    0% Vitamin C
    0% Calcium
    15% Iron
    * Percent Daily Values are based on a 2000 calorie diet.
    INGREDIENTS: 100% Pure Beef.


    It's not that unhealthy in comparison, probably slightly better for you. If I had to choose between a Brazilian burger on the shelf or the impossible one I'd probably pick the latter.

    I love the way you slipped in there that plants are being turned into meat being better for the environment.

    So, plants can’t be “turned into meat” I don’t care what wizardry amd chemicals you wash through this muck, Bill Gates isn’t turning plants into meat.

    Taking plants and super processing them into a substance that resembles meat with all he added chemicals and energy simply can’t be seen to be an environmentally sustainable food.

    If you want plants, eat fruit and veg
    If you want a burger, eat a beef burger.

    If you want lots of health problems from eating a load of un necessary chemicals eat this processed muck.

    I take at face value your statement that your neither V or V, but to be honest your grasp on what a good environmentally sustainably produced food is desperately lacking.

    I’m seeing many nuances I see when discussing this issue with vegans in that they will absolutely accept any compromise on the environmental or sustainable nature of their food to appease their vegan beliefs. That’s fine, beleive
    That fantasy , but don’t for a minute think that any sane person believes that a commercial, super processed imitation food mass produced half way round the world from questionable ingredients, in a country with atrocious food production methods is in any way superior to locally produced foods. It’s just not true.

    In this drive to demonise farming vegans and commercial manuipulators are convincing people that fat cat business and share holders somehow have the moral ground on food production. It’s beyond belief that in an age with such information and technology that it appears people are becoming more gullible and down right stupid.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,978 ✭✭✭Unearthly



    Didn't realise you could get a version here in Thunderoad the UK made one. https://m.independent.ie/videos/life/watch-food-enthusiasts-react-to-meatless-bleeding-burger-in-dublin-37791865.html
    Going to give it a try the next time i'm passing.

    I tried that burger and I was not impressed. Felt completely bloated afterwards and felt a bit ill for rest of the day. The saturated fat in the Moving mountain burger is higher than a McDonald's burger, that's how you know they are doing it wrong. Low saturated fat is one of the selling points of a vegan diet so to me the product is a failure


    The fake meats should only be used sparingly otherwise people are doing the vegan diet wrong


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,139 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    Rory28 wrote: »
    The impossible burger 2.0 sounds like a great idea but what happens to all the cattle if we just switch to artificial beef?

    Slaughter them all or let them loose?

    Well the price of beef would fall to the price of the substitute.

    So either producers world have to match the price or go out of business.

    But yes, the excess would be slaughtered.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,043 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Kinda looking at it as alternative to a burger for meat eaters not a burger for vegans.
    The moving mountain one doesn't sound as tasty, the beetroot is no substitute for Heme.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,182 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    Kinda looking at it as alternative to a burger for meat eaters not a burger for vegans.
    The moving mountain one doesn't sound as tasty, the beetroot is no substitute for Heme.

    Why would a meat eater swap a real meat burger for that crap? Even the processed burgers are better than that including the budget ones


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Yea that's the Heme, it's what gives it the blood. It's FDA approved safe to eat and they've requested it to be classified as a food colouring.

    The proper name is Soy leghemoglobin (SLH) which is a protein that's never before been in the human food supply and produced in GM yeast.  and no it's not "blood" btw

    And from the article linked previously
    When the burger’s manufacturer Impossible Foods first applied to the US FDA for GRAS (Generally Recognised as Safe) status for SLH, the FDA refused to grant it due to the fact that Impossible Foods’ arguments “do not establish safety of SLH for consumption”. But the company went ahead and marketed the burger anyway.

    Didn't realise you could get a version here in Thunderoad the UK made one. https://m.independent.ie/videos/life/watch-food-enthusiasts-react-to-meatless-bleeding-burger-in-dublin-37791865.html
    Going to give it a try the next time i'm passing.
    I like burgers, if I can't tell the difference I don't mind swapping out the real thing now and again.

    If it can be produced here the environmental impact can't be as bad as your assuming.

    As for 'impossible Burger' the ingredients are to be flown in under licence and then made up and to date sold through the UK etc. So yes the food miles for what is essentially just junk food are horrendous.

    ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,043 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    fritzelly wrote: »
    Why would a meat eater swap a real meat burger for that crap? Even the processed burgers are better than that including the budget ones

    To cut down on their meat intake. That's something we need to do, well I do definitely. An odd one of these wouldn't do much harm. No worse than the beef wellington I had tonight when I looked at the ingredients.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,139 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    _Brian wrote: »
    I love the way you slipped in there that plants are being turned into meat being better for the environment.

    So, plants can’t be “turned into meat” I don’t care what wizardry amd chemicals you wash through this muck, Bill Gates isn’t turning plants into meat.

    Taking plants and super processing them into a substance that resembles meat with all he added chemicals and energy simply can’t be seen to be an environmentally sustainable food.

    If you want plants, eat fruit and veg
    If you want a burger, eat a beef burger.

    If you want lots of health problems from eating a load of un necessary chemicals eat this processed muck.

    I take at face value your statement that your neither V or V, but to be honest your grasp on what a good environmentally sustainably produced food is desperately lacking.

    I’m seeing many nuances I see when discussing this issue with vegans in that they will absolutely accept any compromise on the environmental or sustainable nature of their food to appease their vegan beliefs. That’s fine, beleive
    That fantasy , but don’t for a minute think that any sane person believes that a commercial, super processed imitation food mass produced half way round the world from questionable ingredients, in a country with atrocious food production methods is in any way superior to locally produced foods. It’s just not true.

    In this drive to demonise farming vegans and commercial manuipulators are convincing people that fat cat business and share holders somehow have the moral ground on food production. It’s beyond belief that in an age with such information and technology that it appears people are becoming more gullible and down right stupid.

    You haven't explained why it's not sustainable, or at a minimum less sustainable than traditional beef production.

    Would this be you just dismissing the product out of hand because it threatens farming? Surely not?!?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,603 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    _Brian wrote: »
    We need to be pushing people back to basics of, local produce, food prep and home cooking.
    There is a serious addenda that ANYTHING non animal based is better. This simply isn’t true, it’s an outright lie but it’s being pushed by the extreme vegan brigade on one side and massive corporations on the other.

    Thats what I love about the French - they have this type of thing nailed and that why its such a pleasure to visit, especcially regions like the Dordogne


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,441 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    You haven't explained why it's not sustainable, or at a minimum less sustainable than traditional beef production.

    Would this be you just dismissing the product out of hand because it threatens farming? Surely not?!?

    When the sequestration of carbon into grass souls is taken into account properly beef farming is a very environmentally sound sustainable food production method.

    Coupled with local traditional butcher slaughter and supply to local customers it has near no food miles associated with it.

    Predominantly grass fed beef is a superior beef product.

    On tue flip side a highly processed food transported round the world from questionable ingredients.

    It’s long known that humans are healthier consuming a variety of foods but the core is to be eating foods in as natural a state as possible, this completely excludes these super processed foods from a healthy diet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,043 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    gozunda wrote: »
    The proper name is Soy leghemoglobin (SLH) which is a protein that's never before been in the human food supply and produced in GM yeast.  and no it's not "blood" btw

    And from the article linked previously


    The ingredients are flown in under licence and then made up and to date sold through the UK etc. So yes the food miles for what is essentially just junk food are horrendous.

    ...

    It's 2019 that was back in 2017, it's full approved no safety concerns. Eat away. It's a food colouring.
    It's a plant based replica of a protein that carrys oxygen in blood. The only way they could mimic it was to GM it and it's the first time they've managed to make it. It's what gives meat not just beef it's meaty quality apparently. (I'm open to try it)
    It's nutritional value is more than beef. Don't see how you can call it junk.
    Again the food miles, Brazilian beef to the UK or Irish beef to Brazil. Huge waste of resources. This can't be worse.

    That article is a bit of a crock no way of knowing if it was the cause and it's the only article and was deleted shortly after being posted online.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,139 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    _Brian wrote: »
    When the sequestration of carbon into grass souls is taken into account properly beef farming is a very environmentally sound sustainable food production method.

    Coupled with local traditional butcher slaughter and supply to local customers it has near no food miles associated with it.

    Predominantly grass fed beef is a superior beef product.

    On tue flip side a highly processed food transported round the world from questionable ingredients.

    It’s long known that humans are healthier consuming a variety of foods but the core is to be eating foods in as natural a state as possible, this completely excludes these super processed foods from a healthy diet.

    There is no carbon sequestered in grass beyond a growing season. None. There are no farmers mowing grass and then burying it. It's a spurious argument.

    Crops are grown, then consumed, and then transformed into meat, which in turn is consumed. The carbon from the grass ends up in the human, so you're hardly claiming that humans are the carbon reservoirs of agriculture?


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    You haven't explained why it's not sustainable, or at a minimum less sustainable than traditional beef production. Would this be you just dismissing the product out of hand because it threatens farming? Surely not?!?

    Sustainable in relation to food production refers to the impact of a product on the environment and the relevant depletion of natural resources by any one product

    What is true is that all food production has impacts on the environment in one way or another. Whether that the cultivation of grain or the rearing of livestock.

    Looking at this - ask yourself the question which product would fail a test of the lights being put out? By that I am referring to relevant inputs such as fossil fuels and processing.

    Irish Beef is a locally produced product when consumed here. It has a relatively straight forward path from farm to fork with distances here being minimised due to the size of the country. And yes beef can and be produced with minimal inputs under Irish conditions where forage makes up the largest part of feedstuff.

    Now compare locally produced beef with one if the aforementioned frankenbergers. The raw material detailed for the bergers is soy meal. Most soy meal comes from the US and Brazil and is produced as a by-product of the soya oil industry. This process uses large amounts of water, chemical solvents to extract the oil and meal etc

    The soy meal then used as the raw product is further transported to a centralised production facility in the US for processing into the raw material for these bergers. Again this process uses large amounts of water and additives to achieve a final product.

    Then when all that is done - the berger product is packaged and then shipped across the Atlantic for final packaging and distribution.

    So Mr Musician to answer your question as to whether -
    Would this be you just dismissing the product out of hand because it threatens farming? Surely not!

    The answer is obviously no. Just because you don't like an answer does not mean that something is being 'dismissed out of hand'

    It is quite clear however that the whack-a-molers are out in support of throwing the usual dirt at farming. But there you go - that's not unusual is it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    It's 2019 that was back in 2017, it's full approved no safety concerns. Eat away. It's a food colouring.
    It's a plant based replica of a protein that carrys oxygen in blood....

    Lol. Did you do science in school or did you read that of the backing a cornflakes package? It's not just used as a 'food colouring' - it is in effect a genetically modified protein. A genetically modified protein that is unknown to the human gut. I have to laugh - If they really just wanted to use a food colouring theres plenty already on the market - no need to go off and get tied up in knots over ...

    It is this type of disingenuous whitewashing which is of more concern than the pushing junkfoods like these. But hey eat whatever ****e you like. We wish you well...


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,043 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    gozunda wrote: »
    Sustainable in relation to food production refers to the impact of a product on the environment and the relevant depletion of natural resources by any one product

    What is true is that all food production has impacts on the environment in one way or another. Whether that the cultivation of grain or the rearing of livestock.

    Looking at this - ask yourself the question which product would fail a test of the lights being put out? By that I am referring to relevant inputs such as fossil fuels and processing.

    Irish Beef is a locally produced product when consumed here. It has a relatively straight forward path from farm to fork with distances here being minimised due to the size of the country. And yes beef can and be produced with minimal inputs under Irish conditions where forage makes up the largest part of feedstuff.

    Now compare locally produced beef with one if the aforementioned frankenbergers. The raw material detailed for the bergers is soy meal. Most soy meal comes from the US and Brazil and is produced as a by-product of the soya oil industry. This process uses large amounts of water, chemical solvents to extract the oil and meal etc

    The soy meal then used as the raw product is further transported to a centralised production facility in the US for processing into the raw material for these bergers. Again this process uses large amounts of water and additives to achieve a final product.

    Then when all that is done - the berger product is packaged and then shipped across the Atlantic for final packaging and distribution.

    So Mr Musician to answer your question as to whether -



    The answer is obviously no. Just because you don't like an answer does not mean that something is being 'dismissed out of hand'

    It is quite clear thowever that the whack-a-molers are out in support of throwing the usual dirt at farming. But there you go - that's not unusual is it?

    In fairness that's all a load of nonsense. Where did you get those facts from?
    Do you even know how it's made. Not a notion by the sounds of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,043 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    gozunda wrote: »
    Lol. Did you do science in school or did you read that of the backing a cornflakes package? It's not just used as a 'food colouring' - it is in effect a genetically modified protein. A genetically modified protein that is unknown to the human gut. I have to laugh - If they really just wanted to use a food colouring theres plenty already on the market - no need to go off and get tied up in knots over ...

    It is this type of disingenuous whitewashing which is of more concern than the pushing junkfoods like these. But hey eat whatever ****e you like. We wish you well...

    It's served in 4000 restraunts and about to hit supermarkets, it's been deemed harmless to humans. Yeast is already well known to the human gut no reason for this to be any different, haven't read of anyone sick or dying and plenty have been eaten.
    There nothing wrong with something been modified to make it better.


  • Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭Upstream


    There is no carbon sequestered in grass beyond a growing season. None. There are no farmers mowing grass and then burying it. It's a spurious argument.

    Crops are grown, then consumed, and then transformed into meat, which in turn is consumed. The carbon from the grass ends up in the human, so you're hardly claiming that humans are the carbon reservoirs of agriculture?

    None???

    I don't think you have the correct idea about how plants grow and build soil.
    Carbon is not sequestered by farmers mowing grass and the decaying matter being turned into soil. That's not how the great plains in Americal got over 20 feet of topsoil. The Red Indians didn't have toppers on their tractors back then...

    Carbon is sequestered by plants pumping sugars (carbon) into the root zone.
    A healthy annual plant like grass can put somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of the sugars it produces into root exudates to feed the biology in the soil. They, in turn, supply the plant with all the nutrition it needs.

    The plant root is a bit like an inside out version of our gut. The process is called the soil food web. It's a bit of a revelation, look it up.

    We have been ignoring the soil food web for the past eighty years and feeding chemical fertilizers to our plants instead (this suppresses the microbes in the soil and stops the soil food web functioning normally) and wondering why our environment is in trouble and health problems are on the rise. Things have to change, but not in the way you think.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    In fairness that's all a load of nonsense. Where did you get those facts from? Do you even know how it's made. Not a notion by the sounds of it.

    I do indeed. And no it is not 'nonsense.' It's an area I am qualified in. And yes I have a decent knowledge of the soybean processing industry and the food industry in general. Plus I've took it on myself to do some basic research on this latest product. I just love it when posters rock up to the farming forum and try to tell regular posters here that they know nothing about farming and food production lol.
    It's served in 4000 restraunts and about to hit supermarkets, it's been deemed harmless to humans. Yeast is already well known to the human gut no reason for this to be any different, haven't read of anyone sick or dying and plenty have been eaten.There nothing wrong with something been modified to make it better.

    Lol.

    Are you sure you're not on commission. A scientist you are not. :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,441 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    It's served in 4000 restraunts and about to hit supermarkets, it's been deemed harmless to humans. Yeast is already well known to the human gut no reason for this to be any different, haven't read of anyone sick or dying and plenty have been eaten.
    There nothing wrong with something been modified to make it better.

    Wow, as many as 4000 worldwide.
    I shouldn’t have much bother avoiding it so ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,043 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    It's not sold here so how can you say it has to be shipped across the Atlantic. It's like me saying beef is bad because it has to be shipped across the Atlantic. Surely it's sustainable close to point of manufacture in the same way that meat production is once it's close to home.
    You haven't provided anything to back up your assumption that it's bad for your health. The nutritional values point in the opposite direction, it appears more nutritional.
    I'm not pro this burger but at the same time I'm not daft enough to think that beef farming is good for the environment.
    They both have impacts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,441 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Humans have been eating beef for a very long time and the positive health benefits are well known.

    A product that the FDA has concerns over, that bases its safety on one single trial where an ingredient never ever consumed by humans before was fed to rats for 28 days and they survived. That’s it, that’s how it’s safety has been “proven”.

    Many, many of the ingredients are lab produced substances where masses of chemicals and energy are concerned both to produce the ingredients and the final “burger” like food.

    Again, in a rush to replace proper animal farming veganism is selling out it’s food chain to large industrialised massively processed foods with questionable ingredients, little regard for the environmental impact of their manufacture and a staggering demonstration of ignorance about being manipulated by big business to turn them into a massive cash cow for shareholders.

    Comparing this “product” to a beef burger with say 3 or 4 natural ingredients is just bizarre.

    As for all the fortifications, it’s well known that your vitamin/mineral intake is much more beneficial if achieved through consuming a wide variety of fruit, veg, dairy and meat foods, by that they mean proper natural food.


  • Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭Upstream


    I'm not pro this burger but at the same time I'm not daft enough to think that beef farming is good for the environment.

    Not daft enough?
    You've missed the point, I'll say it again, it's not the cow, it's the how.

    Beef farming can be bad or good for the environment, it all comes down to how the cattle are managed. And correctly managed cattle and other ruminant animals have the potential to help soils sequester enough carbon to reverse global warming in less than a decade, if every farmer farmed using regenerative practices.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,043 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Ah come now lads GM food is not safe, cows will reverse global warming.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,441 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Ah come now lads GM food is not safe, cows will reverse global warming.

    Beef can be sustainably produced, much is currently and I think more could be given proper support and education. Interesting it becomes a better meat too somits a win win.
    Compare that to highly processed foods with scary ingredients and processing which can never be environmentally friendly or sustainable, never mind healthy.

    I’ve worked with silicone valley companies extensively, I understand the mindset. I can see how they see no problem with massive chemical and energy usage, it’s how they live their lives surrounded by noxious chemicals and processes, it’s normalised for them.
    So you take that mindset, add in some serious marketing gurus who have identified a market ripe for the grooming, a set of consumers that will never question the use of chemicals and highly processed ingredients as long as it carries the high moral ground vegan sticker. It’s a match made in heaven, the perfect storm for investors and share holders.

    Look up some of the ingredients and how they are made, SPO for instance uses an eye watering number of petrochemical derivatives and nurotoxins in its manufacture, a really scary ingredient.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,043 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    The simple fact is you can make all the claims you want about going back to the good old days it's not going to happen. Meat is now a mass produced product. You have to discuss it in the now context not some utopian ideal you hold about the future of meat production.

    I'm not saying meat should be replaced but giving people an alternative is not such a bad thing when people are being encouraged to cut down on their consumption.

    As for the scary SPO, have you anything to back that up, https://medium.com/impossible-foods/soy-facts-myths-and-why-its-in-our-new-recipe-12815b4997cf


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,015 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    The biggest problem we face now is taking a phrase from Donald Trump Fake News. Over the last 6 months we have being pumped with fake news regarding meat regarding it health issues and its effect on global warming.

    On global warming about 55% is caused by fossil fuels. Any sane person realizes to reduce emission the best way is to target the biggest emitter. But too many vest interests especially in the US are unwilling to target this issue. The only way global warming will be reversed will be to increase the price of fuel in countries that sell petrol and diesel at sub 1 euro/lit and get it above that level. In the US petrol retails at less than 70c/litre. Most of North and South America are the same, Australia and NZ are slightly sub the euro/liter and in the Gulf states it is below 50c/liter. Airlines access there fuel without vat or custom's excise. If we managed to reduce fossil fuel emission by 20% we would reduce green house gas by way over 20% by knock on effects such as smaller cars being produced etc.

    Food production (agriculture) is accountable for 15% of emissions that include the cows farts and belches in all. I am not sure what % is atributable to beef. But by in far dairy would have more of an impact that beef production. In general Beef is a byproduct of the dairy system. It is arguable whether meat is such a greenhouse emitter. In fact of them all beef produced where 80-90% of its food is from grass either by grazing or fodder is maybe no more harmful that some vegetable or grain production. This is because most grain and vegetable production removes carbon from the soil and there production is highly mechanized. Just look at any 200 acres beef farm and tillage farm. The beef farm will have a small sub 100 HP tractor or two and putting up a few hundred hours a year and some small machinery. The tillage or vegetable farm will have 150Hp+ tractors putting up a few thousand hours between them as well as emission tied up in large machinery as well. If you put diesel up by 50c/liter in the morning which could continue and take the price shock.

    Just looking at the impossible Burger at present it has a few dodgy ingredients which have either health or greenhouse gasses implication. First we have Soy protein which is mainly produced in the US and Brazil. In the US by cheap fuel and in Brazil agriculture expansion is one of the biggets emission issues caused by deforestation
    Brazil deforestation greehouse gas implications.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brazil-greenhouse-gas-emission-spike-blamed-on-deforestation/

    Next we have Coconut oil. The jury is out a while on this one. You have it being promoted as a healty alternative to other oils but there is balancing opin where it is considered one of the most danger oils you can consume

    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/16/coconut-oil-isnt-healthy-its-never-been-healthy/402719001/

    But the real danger will be in 5 years+ time as these impossible burgers are mass produced. The use of alternative cheaper ingredients will change what ever health benefits they may be perceived to have. What we know about burgers is that big company's looks for miniscule savings whereever possible. The bigger the company the more dodgy the production.

    I wonder how long before someone puts horse meat in the impossible burger to reduce costs. I take a bit of steak, a salmon cutlet(even farmed salmon) a lamb chop or a piece of roast chicken any day. And all this to save maybe 1-2% of greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we save that

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    It's not sold here so how can you say it has to be shipped across the Atlantic. It's like me saying beef is bad because it has to be shipped across the Atlantic. Surely it's sustainable close to point of manufacture in the same way that meat production is once it's close to home.
    You haven't provided anything to back up your assumption that it's bad for your health. The nutritional values point in the opposite direction, it appears more nutritional. I'm not pro this burger but at the same time I'm not daft enough to think that beef farming is good for the environment. They both have impacts.

    Why the pedantism? As you claimed - it's to be available here shortly. How'd do you think they're going to get it from the US to Europe? Magic it with unicorns and fairy dust?

    The vast distances involved in shipping soybean meal and all the other additives including the synthesised vitamins and other ingredients even before this product leaves the US is quite staggering tbh. All highly processed foodstuffs have a large ecological footprint due to the high usage of fossil fuels and transport- these being the number one cause of greenhouse gases.

    At the end of the day it is a type of highly processed junk food to be imported from the US - that's it. What more do you want? I've already outlined that all food products have impacts on the environment. The main point you appear to be missing is that locally produced and consumed primary foodstuffs such as vegetables and meat have less of an impact here especially since much of our beef is grass based.


Advertisement