Author Topic: Beyond Burger 2.0  (Read 6416 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9576
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #390 on: December 03, 2019, 11:10:15 AM »


The problem with Beyond and Impossible is that (based on what people are saying above) it tastes like meat, so eating it you will never ween yourself of the desire for meat, and apparently it's not really much (or any) better for you than meat.

I do not WANT to end my enjoyment of meat. I would like a meat with a much lower carbon footprint, however.

I was responding to comments about being "unable" to quit eating meat. I specifically said that if people don't want to quit eating meat I won't criticize them for their choice.

Fair enough. There are, of course, many people who don't want to drive a car to work. They would prefer a subway or reliable train. But there are huge numbers of people that simply won't give up their cars. For those, you might look at a less bad solution, like electric cars. Meat is in the same category. There are a few billion people I think who would like a meat that's less bad for the environment and less bad for cows and chickens but would be happy if it was at least as unhealthy as normal meat.


Agreed.

And I was offering my experience: I knew that if I ate fake meat I'd always know that I was getting second-best and never be really happy with my diet, whereas changing my taste (simple to do, though it took a little while) I am much more satisfied than I'd be if I always craved meat and had to settle for something less.

I'm not telling anyone what they should do. I'm pointing out from my experience that there is an alternative which is just as satisfying and much healthier. There are benefits to driving a car vs. taking a train. There are no benefits of eating meat vs. a plant-based diet. And for what it's worth, you can make burgers that are made of beans and taste like beans but have all the feel of burgers including catsup and mustard if you like those. Because you can make them yourself they don't have to have any saturated fats or excessive amounts of sodium.

I get it that some folks don't want to switch. I'm just pointing out that there is an alternative, and that it tastes just as good, and is good for you. I think that in the discussion of Beyond and Impossible we should not forget that fake meat is not the only alternative to meat.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 16968
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #391 on: December 04, 2019, 04:49:02 AM »
Moderator Comment Discussion about whether or not sugar is addictive has been split off and can be found here:
https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=51624.msg9641054#msg9641054

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #392 on: December 04, 2019, 01:47:02 PM »
Moderator Comment Discussion about whether or not sugar is addictive has been split off and can be found here:
https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=51624.msg9641054#msg9641054

In a very ham fisted manner.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8872
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #393 on: December 05, 2019, 07:56:11 AM »
I'm still waiting for Carbshark to post a link that suggests there's no scientific consensus that meat production has a 15x-20x bigger carbon footprint than something like beans. This is the quote I suggested:

"Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein"

"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12498
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #394 on: December 05, 2019, 10:55:18 AM »
I'm still waiting for Carbshark to post a link that suggests there's no scientific consensus that meat production has a 15x-20x bigger carbon footprint than something like beans. This is the quote I suggested:

"Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein"
What’s your source for that quote? Those numbers seem made up.

Here’s an example of what I was referring to:


https://www.fb.org/market-intel/agriculture-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9576
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #395 on: December 05, 2019, 11:02:45 AM »
Moderator Comment Discussion about whether or not sugar is addictive has been split off and can be found here:
https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=51624.msg9641054#msg9641054

In a very ham fisted manner.

"Ham fisted"? Seems more a kid-glove approach to me. At another board I know of, a digression like the one about sugar would have been moved into a thread called "Snippiness" which is a dumping ground for anything and everything the mods don't like. Now sugar has its own thread where anyone who wants to can continue that discussion.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9576
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #396 on: December 05, 2019, 11:13:32 AM »
I'm still waiting for Carbshark to post a link that suggests there's no scientific consensus that meat production has a 15x-20x bigger carbon footprint than something like beans. This is the quote I suggested:

"Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein"
What’s your source for that quote? Those numbers seem made up.

Here’s an example of what I was referring to:


https://www.fb.org/market-intel/agriculture-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions

I see nothing in that link that addresses the total greenhouse gasses per gram of protein for either plant-based foods or animal-based foods. It speaks of the emissions per sector and of slight improvements in recent years, but as near as I can tell, it ignores the obvious fact that there's a ten-fold reduction in protein when plants are fed to cows. (Other animals are more efficient. I think poultry only has a three-fold reduction.) So all the emissions of the plants that are fed to the animals accrue to the accounting for the animals. And the linked article does not even deal with water use, energy use, or pollution.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8872
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #397 on: December 05, 2019, 12:25:23 PM »
I'm still waiting for Carbshark to post a link that suggests there's no scientific consensus that meat production has a 15x-20x bigger carbon footprint than something like beans. This is the quote I suggested:

"Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein"
What’s your source for that quote? Those numbers seem made up.

Here’s an example of what I was referring to:


https://www.fb.org/market-intel/agriculture-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was the source.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/we-cant-limit-global-warming-15c-without-changing-diets

To review when I originally posted that your comment was "And there is no broad consensus on the health impact of meat eating or the environmental impact. "

Do you suggested the 20x figure is not a consensus? I read it as that. So I asked for a source that pegs beef's emissions foot print at a lower x figure as compared to growing an efficient vegetable protein. What do your most trusted sources suggest? Beef is 2x? 1x? 10x that of a bean? Link, please.

As Daniel points out, that link doesn't address that. I'm not sure what question it answers.


« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 12:27:46 PM by mindme »
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12498
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #398 on: December 05, 2019, 01:35:36 PM »
I'm still waiting for Carbshark to post a link that suggests there's no scientific consensus that meat production has a 15x-20x bigger carbon footprint than something like beans. This is the quote I suggested:

"Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein"
What’s your source for that quote? Those numbers seem made up.

Here’s an example of what I was referring to:


https://www.fb.org/market-intel/agriculture-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was the source.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/we-cant-limit-global-warming-15c-without-changing-diets

To review when I originally posted that your comment was "And there is no broad consensus on the health impact of meat eating or the environmental impact. "

Do you suggested the 20x figure is not a consensus? I read it as that. So I asked for a source that pegs beef's emissions foot print at a lower x figure as compared to growing an efficient vegetable protein. What do your most trusted sources suggest? Beef is 2x? 1x? 10x that of a bean? Link, please.

As Daniel points out, that link doesn't address that. I'm not sure what question it answers.

You're asking me to support a comment I didn't make. 

There is no broad consensus on the environmental impact of eating meat.

You're pulling a single statistic from a single crop with a single meat product and claiming that I'm disputing that.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #399 on: December 05, 2019, 02:50:00 PM »
I'm still waiting for Carbshark to post a link that suggests there's no scientific consensus that meat production has a 15x-20x bigger carbon footprint than something like beans. This is the quote I suggested:

"Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein"
What’s your source for that quote? Those numbers seem made up.

Here’s an example of what I was referring to:


https://www.fb.org/market-intel/agriculture-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was the source.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/we-cant-limit-global-warming-15c-without-changing-diets

To review when I originally posted that your comment was "And there is no broad consensus on the health impact of meat eating or the environmental impact. "

Do you suggested the 20x figure is not a consensus? I read it as that. So I asked for a source that pegs beef's emissions foot print at a lower x figure as compared to growing an efficient vegetable protein. What do your most trusted sources suggest? Beef is 2x? 1x? 10x that of a bean? Link, please.

As Daniel points out, that link doesn't address that. I'm not sure what question it answers.

You're asking me to support a comment I didn't make. 

There is no broad consensus on the environmental impact of eating meat.

You're pulling a single statistic from a single crop with a single meat product and claiming that I'm disputing that.

Cite some experts who take a contrarian view on the environmental impact of eating meat, besides the meat producers, their corporate customers, and their paid scientists.  You’re taking the same approach as global heating denialists, who make the same claim that humans aren’t cooking the Earth.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8872
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #400 on: December 05, 2019, 03:04:57 PM »

There is no broad consensus on the environmental impact of eating meat.

You're pulling a single statistic from a single crop with a single meat product and claiming that I'm disputing that.

Maybe there isn't a broad consensus. Maybe there has only been one study that pegs it at 20x. What I'm asking is if you think there is no broad consensus then could you supply some kind evidence, beyond your own assertion, there is, in the literature, differences in opinion about the carbon footprint of the beef industry as compared to other agricultural products that produce protein for human consumption.

"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12498
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #401 on: December 05, 2019, 05:05:51 PM »

There is no broad consensus on the environmental impact of eating meat.

You're pulling a single statistic from a single crop with a single meat product and claiming that I'm disputing that.

Maybe there isn't a broad consensus.

That's all I'm saying. No broad consensus on the total impact compared to other sources

Quote
Maybe there has only been one study that pegs it at 20x. What I'm asking is if you think there is no broad consensus then could you supply some kind evidence, beyond your own assertion, there is, in the literature, differences in opinion about the carbon footprint of the beef industry as compared to other agricultural products that produce protein for human consumption.

So, again, you're asking me to defend a comment I haven't made.  I haven't claimed anything about agricultural products that produce protein.

My position is that the claims of the impact that current levels of meat production have on the environment are exaggerated.  This has led people (even people in this forum) to conclude that the best thing they can do to fight global warming is eat less beef. That's an absurd misdirection.

The best thing individuals can do is to drive and fly less (or switch to electric cars) and use less fossil fuel based energy for heating and cooling.

The best things civilization can do are reduce the use of fossil fuels for transportation and energy; develop alternative building techniques that generate less greenhouse gas; hasten the development of clean transportation of goods (electric trucks and trains, not using fossil fuels as a primary source). Cutting meat consumption is way down the list.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #402 on: December 05, 2019, 05:10:25 PM »
Moderator Comment Discussion about whether or not sugar is addictive has been split off and can be found here:
https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=51624.msg9641054#msg9641054

In a very ham fisted manner.

"Ham fisted"? Seems more a kid-glove approach to me. At another board I know of, a digression like the one about sugar would have been moved into a thread called "Snippiness" which is a dumping ground for anything and everything the mods don't like. Now sugar has its own thread where anyone who wants to can continue that discussion.

It was ham fisted, because CarbShark started the argument (yet again, sigh...) that sugar is addictive, and the Moderator chose to transfer the discussion to a new thread, with one of my comments as the first one, giving the impression that I think the idea that sugar could be addictive is anything worth considering seriously.  The Moderator should have started with the first CarbShark comment with the sucrose addictive nonsense (comment #389).  And anyway.  CarbShark had started a thread regarding sugar being addictive already a while back.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 05:14:25 PM by bachfiend »
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12167
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #403 on: December 05, 2019, 05:19:06 PM »
Moderator Comment Discussion about whether or not sugar is addictive has been split off and can be found here:
https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=51624.msg9641054#msg9641054

In a very ham fisted manner.

"Ham fisted"? Seems more a kid-glove approach to me. At another board I know of, a digression like the one about sugar would have been moved into a thread called "Snippiness" which is a dumping ground for anything and everything the mods don't like. Now sugar has its own thread where anyone who wants to can continue that discussion.

It was ham fisted, because CarbShark started the argument (yet again, sigh...) that sugar is addictive, and the Moderator chose to transfer the discussion to a new thread, with one of my comments as the first one, giving the impression that I think the idea that sugar could be addictive is anything worth considering seriously.  The Moderator should have started with the first CarbShark comment with the sucrose addictive nonsense (comment #389).  And anyway.  CarbShark had started a thread regarding sugar being addictive already a while back.

Request for a merge then.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #404 on: December 05, 2019, 05:19:24 PM »

There is no broad consensus on the environmental impact of eating meat.

You're pulling a single statistic from a single crop with a single meat product and claiming that I'm disputing that.

Maybe there isn't a broad consensus.

That's all I'm saying. No broad consensus on the total impact compared to other sources

Quote
Maybe there has only been one study that pegs it at 20x. What I'm asking is if you think there is no broad consensus then could you supply some kind evidence, beyond your own assertion, there is, in the literature, differences in opinion about the carbon footprint of the beef industry as compared to other agricultural products that produce protein for human consumption.

So, again, you're asking me to defend a comment I haven't made.  I haven't claimed anything about agricultural products that produce protein.

My position is that the claims of the impact that current levels of meat production have on the environment are exaggerated.  This has led people (even people in this forum) to conclude that the best thing they can do to fight global warming is eat less beef. That's an absurd misdirection.

The best thing individuals can do is to drive and fly less (or switch to electric cars) and use less fossil fuel based energy for heating and cooling.

The best things civilization can do are reduce the use of fossil fuels for transportation and energy; develop alternative building techniques that generate less greenhouse gas; hasten the development of clean transportation of goods (electric trucks and trains, not using fossil fuels as a primary source). Cutting meat consumption is way down the list.

No.  One of the things people can do to ‘fight’ global heating is to eat less beef, or avoid it altogether.  One thing, but not necessarily the best thing.  There’s nothing stopping a person from reducing beef consumption, and also doing the other things you mention.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

 

personate-rain