New Meat-Free Hamburger: White Castle & Burger King Offer Plant-Based Option

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BillTre
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the introduction of plant-based hamburger options by White Castle and Burger King, including the use of heme derived from beet roots to mimic the taste of real meat. Participants share their experiences, preferences, and thoughts on meat substitutes, vegetarianism, and the implications of consuming these products.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express excitement about trying the new plant-based burgers and discuss their taste similarities to real meat.
  • Others mention various brands of plant-based burgers, such as "Impossible Burgers," "Beyond Burgers," and "Incredible Burgers," highlighting their growing availability and popularity.
  • There is a discussion on the motivations behind vegetarians seeking meat-like flavors in their food, with some questioning the rationale while others suggest it helps ease the transition away from meat.
  • Concerns about the health effects of red meat consumption are raised, alongside the environmental and ethical considerations of meat production.
  • Participants share personal anecdotes about their dietary choices and preferences, including the types of vegetarian burgers they enjoy.
  • Some comments reflect on the domestication of animals and the complexities surrounding animal welfare and farming practices.
  • There is mention of the business and scientific aspects of companies like Impossible Foods, including their funding and research focus.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views regarding the motivations for consuming plant-based meat alternatives, the ethics of animal domestication, and the implications of meat consumption on health and the environment. No consensus is reached on these topics.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying assumptions about vegetarianism, animal welfare, and the taste of meat substitutes, which may influence their perspectives. The discussion also touches on the reliability of information regarding animal farming practices.

  • #61
DEvens said:
The red color in beets is produced by betanin, not heme. Iron in beets is present in other compounds. 100 grams of beet root will give you about 6 percent of your daily iron requirement, where 100 grams of beef will give you about 20%.

Opps, got that part wrong:
The Impossible Burger contains heme from the roots of soy plants, in the form of a molecule called leghemoglobin. Food scientists insert DNA from soy roots into a genetically modified yeast, where it ferments and produces large quantities of soy heme.
from here. So, it recombinant, which would bother some people, but not me.

Personally, I find the meatless burgers interesting only slightly due any personal health reasons (since I find it is easy to reduce the amount of meat I eat), but mostly due to the reduced cow methane production, which I considered an environmentally good thing.
How the production methods for these non-meat burgers affect overall carbon footprint (per pound of product with respect to cows) is something I would be interested in, but do not know.
MyoPhilosopher said:
The truth is the moral argument for veganism does not hold any weight past an initial, understandable position of respecting animals, to which I as a meat-eater(thriving human) actually agree with at its very core. If you want to kill the least amount of animals, follow a diet that is predominantly made up of large ruminants.

I can not make any sense of this statement other than as part of your ongoing disparagement of vegetarians or vegans. I am neither of those, but it seems obvious to me that you can kill fewer animals by not eating any than by eating only large ones.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
[/QUOTE]

Cattle contribute under 2% of methane in terms of greenhouse emissions in the USA. Transport account for over a quarter last time I checked.
Anyway, since you can't make sense of the statement, let me try bring up a couple of ideas.

BillTre said:
but it seems obvious to me that you can kill fewer animals by not eating any than by eating only large ones.

I find that response erroneous. At first I agree it may appear contradictory however: how many insects and other animals have to die to create vegan/vegetarian staples... the answer is a lot more than cows considering the shear volume of vegetables and non-animal products one would need to consume to simply attempt to replicate the nutrition from animal foods. I have seen a huge push of vegans that do not care about their health but rather purely operate on the intent to save animals. To me, this is hypocrisy.

I would strongly recommend looking at Alan Savory's work.

Out of curiosity, without any insult intended, is this something you have considered scientifically?
Looking at a lot of health "science" and government recommendations, the system was designed to fail, Ancel Key's pseudoscience (bullsh..) is a decent place to start asking questions.
 
  • #63
@MyoPhilosopher, you make a lot of statements without any links to support them.
If you want people to look into Alan Savory's work for instance, you, as the person making the argument, should provide a link to it.
Its your argument.
You should do the work to support it.

MyoPhilosopher said:
how many insects and other animals have to die to create vegan/vegetarian staples... the answer is a lot more than cows considering the shear volume of vegetables and non-animal products one would need to consume to simply attempt to replicate the nutrition from animal foods.
Where is the support for this "answer"?
How many insects die to produce cows? This seems more of a rationalization than any sttement supported by fact.

MyoPhilosopher said:
I have seen a huge push of vegans that do not care about their health but rather purely operate on the intent to save animals. To me, this is hypocrisy.

There are many vegans and vegetarians. They can have a variety of motives. You seem to want to lump them all into a group you can attack.
If someone does something for some purposes of their own and which seems to cause no harm, where is that hypocrisy in that?
Are they saying they are dong it for some other purpose? Certainly not all of them do that.
 
  • #64
I tried the Impossible Whopper today and the patty was real good, the problem was everything else. It's just a bad pathetic burger in general.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: OmCheeto and BillTre