I think it’ll be a big win when plant-based burgers are cheaper than animal based burgers. From a raw ingredients standpoint plant based food should almost always be cheaper than animal based food because the costs associated with farming plants is lower than the costs associated with farming animals. Hopefully, with McDonald’s scale and with their vertical integration they can make affordable, tasty, and comparably healthy veggie burgers a reality.
The price of animal agriculture products is artificially lowered by direct subsidy, price controls, and indirectly lowered by the unaccounted ecological costs. It is largely a matter of policy rather than a reflection of market forces.
On a level playing field, the cost competitiveness is there. For instance, in New Zealand, one of the largest dairy export markets, I can buy a vegan pizza for the same price. In fact, I can buy it from Dominos, a US brand that doesn't even offer it in the US.
Most Italian pizza has rather little cheese. I remember watching something once where the chef of a fancy pizzeria said that the most important thing in pizza is the bread: it should taste great without any topping. Then the sauce and finally everything else.
I've had a great vegan pizza once and between bread, sauce and toppings, it tasted like great Italian-style pizza. Sure, a sprinkle of cheese would have made it better still, but the point is it tasted great and it tasted like pizza.
Sure, it doesn't make for a great American-style pizza, which is all about overloading on cheese (and having rather meh tasting bread typically...), but that's not all there is to pizza around the world.
First two main distinctions: NY/NJ style, which is generally the traditional American pizza. 1" crust, a little crispy, thin body, sauce, lots of cheese. This has a few variations though, most notable "thin crust", which is often cracker-thin and very firm & crispy, the body much thinner too.
The other main variety is Chicago deep-dish pizza, which is very thick, anywhere from 1-3 inches deep in my experience.
Both of these in their pure forms are difficult to find outside of their regions. But the NY/NJ style is popping up in places around the country. North Carolina Charlotte area for example, as transplants from the North-East find their way to other parts of the country.
Then there's the various pizza chains: Pizza Hut, Dominos, Papa Johns... most of their pizzas most closely resemble the NY/NJ, but that's putting it loosely. They're sort of like a McDonald's Big Mac compared to a steak house burger, except at least for me, I sometimes just want the Big Mac, but I'd never choose the chain pizza when the alternative is available.
Let me be clear though: some people are purists to one type or another and consider other varieties, or chain pizzas, to be blasphemy. But if you put aside ideological considerations, almost all pizza is fundamentally good. You can find bad pizza, but it's harder than finding good pizza. (Let the downvotes roll in from Chicago/NY purists :D )
I’d like to chip in with a favourite of mine: Detroit style [1]. A rectangular pizza baked in a greased, shallow pan with cheese that goes all the way to the edge. The bottom comes out golden brown with a fried texture but the base is otherwise very light and fluffy. This gives a crispy/soft/chewy contrast with the sauce/cheese/pepperoni on top. This type of pizza can also handle more sauce and toppings than a New York style without getting soggy. I prefer crispy over soggy any day, and I love toppings.
The cheese around the edges comes in contact with the metal pan and turns brown and crunchy, just like you get when the cheese leaks out into the pan with a grilled cheese sandwich. Amazing pizza!
If you don’t have a rectangular pan you can also make it in a cast iron skillet. Works extremely well!
Okay, Okay, so this is tough on me. I never thought of myself as a pizza fundamentalist. I didn't think I'd find a pizza hill to die on. But I also never thought anything like "Detroit" pizza existed. I can deal with the shape: Sicilian pizza has been a thing for a long time, and let's face it: Chicago deep dish is standing on the should of a giant when it improved on the thickness of Sicilian.
But cheese all the way to the edge, and browned crispy? That's almost too much. But not quite: It's the type of cheese. I don't see mozzarella in that link you posted, I don't even see the lesser trinity of 3 cheeses. I see something called "brick" cheese. That's just a bridge too far.
I won't be the one to push the button on this and trigger the fallout that comes with it, Detroit has enough problems as it is. But you need to hope the true pizza extremists don't hear about this. Maybe delete the post, or at least put a /s sarcasm flag on the end. Also at the beginning, and in the middle. Maybe one after each word.
Also Detroit pizza looks awesome and I want some right now.
I would argue there’s a third Western style. Typically served round; thicker, more sour crust; a very generous cheddar/jack/mozzarella blend; and modest amounts of sauce, compared to Chicago-style anyway. The crust is often dusted with cornmeal. Round Table (founded in Menlo Park!) epitomized this pizza, though I haven’t eaten there in years so I can’t say if they’ve kept any semblance of quality.
You’ll find it throughout the Southwest at many smaller chains. Dion’s is one regional I can vouch for. Two Boots in New York is probably the closest I ever found on the East Coast, but I didn’t look hard outside of the City.
It’s distinct to me from New York style because of the amount of cheese and the rise of the crust. The more topping-laden variants (“combo”) can require a knife and fork to eat, whereas a classic New York slice is designed to be eaten standing up and toppings are portioned accordingly.
I'm in the NY/NJ area and have a near endless selection of places to choose from: a bunch use cornmeal on the bottom... I'm not sure if that's just to prevent sticking to the oven or not, but it produces a texture I really prefer.
See, that's the thing: there really is an infinite variety. I know that's true of other foods, but very few other foods are available in such diverse forms with that level of ubiquity. In a 5-square mile area I could easily get 10 different types, and it's all available with pretty much the same convenience as fast food.
I guess I was mainly referring to NY/NJ and Chicago style, since they're the ones I'm most accustomed to, but overall I guess the main difference I see compared to Italian pizza is a much greater emphasis on cheese.
> But if you put aside ideological considerations, almost all pizza is fundamentally good.
Completely agree. I like American style pizza and I like cheese. I also like Italian style pizza and often find it has more interesting flavours, but that doesn't make American style pizza bad or anything. Just different. A good American style pizza is better than a bad Italian style too, obviously.
My main point though was that the idea of cheese-less pizza really doesn't seem strange to me, once you look outside of the American cheese-focused pizzas and that's the only reason I brought up the differences really.
On cheese-less: Yes, there's a brand of really good quality frozen pizzas that has a variety that has a little extra sauce, no cheese, and spinach. It was surprisingly good. I also have a pizza stone in my over to bake frozen varieties, or the occasional home-made pie. Well worth the investment. It doesn't product pizzeria quality output the way their specialized ovens do (and especially brick ovens) but it is pretty good.
I grew up on pizza in the NYC/NJ area. The Italian styles with minimal cheese are a disappointment to me. Many are able to get the crust and sauce perfect, which is no small feat, and then it feels like they just gave up with the cheese.
Pizza in NYC usually not only has great crust and sauce, but it also has plenty of cheese. They don't "overload" it like many places outside the area. (I am purposely separating "Pizza in NYC" from "NYC Style" because people around the US suck at emulating it).
Its a tradeoff made differently in the US/ Italy. The Naples style pizza uses “fresh” buffalo mozzarella which releases a lot of water. It has a nice creamy flavor but you can’t cover a thin crust pizza in it without it becoming soggy. What we call mozzarella in the US is actually low moisture mozzarella and one of its advantages is you can cover a whole pizza in it.
The 'soggy' is a part of the experience; not really disgusting soggy but definitely something you cannot pick up as a slice; the toppings would fall off. Italians eat them generally with fork & knife, but if you want, you can fold the slices 2x (sides to eachother like you would do and then fold the point into there as well and then you can pick it up by the crust).
The basic thing which I have seen as big difference; you have to cook these pizzas from going into the oven to plate in < 90s (usually it's less than that; in my oven, when it's perfect, it takes about 60s) and then immediately eat it. If you leave it only for a bit even, to me it is no longer good.
That's where the low moisture (which here they equate with lower quality, not sure if that's true, but more moist is considered better) mozzarella comes in handy; if you want to serve slices over a period of 30min or you want to deliver a pizza etc, you really cannot use this Italian style as far as I have seen and tried.
> The Italian styles with minimal cheese are a disappointment to me.
Have you had one in Italy? Personally, I quite like American style pizza, but the Italian style I still find has a more interesting flavour profile and therefore I tend to prefer it.
As far as I am concerned the Neapolitan pizza is the only real pizza. Compare it to the archetypical Dominoes Margherita pizza. American variants of "pizza" definitely deliver melted cheese, tomato sauce, and heated bread in large quantities but the layers of flavor that you find in a faithful reproduction of Neapolitan pizza to the Italian standard are completely missing. One of the first things Americans will notice in an appropriate Neapolitan pizza is that the cheese does not flood the pizza. Its quantity is reduced to appropriately contrast and compliment the thin layer of tomato sauce. And keep those wet veggies off my pizza.
I suppose it's worth noting that the Neapolitan pizza can only have been in existence since 1548 at the earliest, and there are probably more 'real'/traditional pizzas sans tomato
Actually Neapolitan pizza is 170 years old. Flatbreads have been around for millennia.
So pizza in Naples is only slightly older than pizza in Little Italy in NYC. It arrives in USA in 1890s
The main problem is that in the great american convenience rush of the 50-s, 60-s etc the tradition is overwhelmed by mass pizza from the chains. And what becomes mass pizza (especially delivered) is inferior product. We have lower baking temperatures, start pumping the dough with oil, sugar and whatnot to get some browning. To compensate for lack of flavor in the dough you start putting all kinds of toppings on top and too many of them. Upping the calories to insane levels to compensate for their flavorlessness.
I think that when people dish out on American pizza they don't mean NYC, New Haven, Chicago or Detroit styles but Dominos and Pizza Hut at their worst.
That's interesting, I'm annoyed at my shortcut/assumption in my head that a) it would be older than 170 yrs and b) that there wouldn't be a clear historical record of the exact date. Although, cooked down tomatoes, flatbread etc. presumably met under a different name before that
Classic American attitude of wanting quantity over quality. No, I don’t want to stuff my gut with a pound of low quality cheese that tastes like rubber. You do you America!
I didn't taste pizza till I was like 15 and that was frozen.
I didn't taste NY style till I was 30 or something.
Lol I remember crying big time because mom tricked me into getting first communion by saying she'll take me to a pizzeria.
p.s. don't get insulted too much, ton of places messed their food - best burgers aren't mcdonalds, best buffalo wings aren't in Buffalo NY, best sushi isn't in Tsukiji market, best cuban sandwiches aren't in Florida. All due because locals tend to fetishise it or mess it up to serve tourists.
Which just kinda proves my point that average Italian pizza is nothing compared to NY style.
Back to question I don't think I've ever tried certified Neapolitan pizza, but pretty sure I've had unofficial version many times. It's good, but given choice I'd take NY style. I was about to make one just to realise my dough didn't rise enough (guessing lack of water) few weeks back.
And some pizza doesn't have any cheese at all, such as pizza marinara (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_marinara), which is rare in the US but was pretty common growing up in the Italian portions of Western Pennsylvania.
It’s called apizza there, and a plain pie is surprisingly good: the places which do it (we liked Modern & Sallie’s) have really flavorful sauces which carry the day.
Cheese free pizza is a regression. It reminds of native Hawaiians becoming addicted to SPAM after living on it throughout World War 2. Nowadays many Hawaiians take pride in their cultural heritage of SPAM recipes (and heart disease?)
That's the Cheese Mafia. The US dairy industry has a powerful lobby and sales operation, run in association with the US Department of Agriculture. Milk sales have been dropping for years, and the dairy industry has been trying to prop up sales by adding cheese to everything, with considerable success. Over half the Dunkin' Donuts menu has cheese, and they're changing their name to "Dunkin".
This could be, I am fan of the pizza from Napoli and I have been to the best chefs over there; besides the Marinara, pizzas have plenty of cheese and the Italian people in the restaurants all consistently asked for an extra serving of mozzarella on top. As I try to copy the experience at home in my wood burned oven, I watched and read many italian (Italy and US based) Napoli pizza chefs and ‘rather little cheese’ never was mentioned. Are you talking about a different style or maybe compared to US style pizza? I had pizzas in the US, but I find them generally too heavy; probably because the base is too thick. I can eat 2 napoli ones while only 1/2 a US one (again, based on my very limited pizza experience in the US!). But I saw brilliant chefs on youtube from the US; my business trips did not allow me to travel the US for pizza tasting...
Nothing of the extremely limited options that you tried.
It’s funny seeing people discussing authoritatively about things that they even admit to not know at all.
There are a few groups that are making "real" vegan cheese, ie modifying e-coli or yeast to produce the same milk proteins, and then going through the cheese making process. One such is Real Vegan Cheese [https://realvegancheese.org/].
Plants live, fungi live, bacteria live, and animals live. The differentiator is the ability to feel pain. Some small bugs (animals) already show no pain response, but most animals do. It is said plant feel pain, but that's a different kind of pain than pain in animals.
Vegans try --when possible-- not to cause pain on others, or reduce it as much as possible. We're against the commodification of animal lives. We (vegans) know that driving a car kills some bugs, and pests are being exterminated in the process of crop production: yet for most of us this is "not possible" to get around, for now.
But for most of us it is possible not to consume animal products, wool, silk, go to zoos or buy pet form breeders.
> Vegans try --when possible-- not to cause pain on others, or reduce it as much as possible.
It is worth making clear, however, that not all vegans share these ethical concerns. Other vegans may have adopted the diet for health reasons (China Study or similar) and do not believe that livestock raising and slaughter is unethical.
Nope. In the definition as is very well agreed upon, vegans are against the commodification of animals and do not use/consume animal (derived) products when not needed. This goes beyond diet (hence veganism setting itself apart from vegetarianism which is only a diet).
What you name are people following a plant based diet. Vegan follow pretty much a plant based diet. But other do as well for other reasons that "the vegan reason".
No, the definition that is "very well agreed upon" is purely the lack of animal products in the food. The logo on supermarket products that denotes the product as "good for vegans" is based purely on that lack of animal products, not on any ethical beliefs beyond that.
Also, even among those who would call themselves vegan for ethical reasons and so do not eat animals or dairy products, there are a considerable amount of people without qualms about using animal products in other spheres of life than food.
You seem to be trying to do gatekeeping about what a "real vegan" is and cut out those who don’t share your purist animal-rights obsession. That is obnoxious.
> (hence veganism setting itself apart from vegetarianism which is only a diet).
Veganism has set itself apart from vegetarianism because in common parlance the latter term covers diets that allow milk products.
> No, the definition that is "very well agreed upon"
That's what you say. I'm a vegan for 7+ years and know many. One thing so great about veganism is that the mission/definition is very clear. Pls see Wikipedia, or one of the many introductions on YT.
> The logo on supermarket products that denotes the product as "good for vegans" is based purely on that lack of animal products, not on any ethical beliefs beyond that.
Supermarkt product dont hold ethical beliefs. They may fit with certain beliefs though. That's what's indicated with "suitable for vegetarians/vegans". They could be more "correct" or cater for a wider public by saying: "fits with a plant based diet".
Plant based is the word for the diet component of veganism.
> there are a considerable amount of people without qualms about using animal products in other spheres of life than food.
They are not vegan according to the definition.
> Veganism has set itself apart from vegetarianism because in common parlance the latter term covers diets that allow milk products.
And eggs. And honey. And the fact that veganism is more than a diet, hence vegans not going to zoos and not buying wool/fur/slik/leather.
Well your mouth, gut is full of living organism and well, you inhale, consume living organisms all the time just by existing so I wonder how far this argument can go.
As far as veganism goes I think bacteria is where they draw the line right?
idk bacteria aren't considered animals right? Also they don't have a nervous system, which a lot of vegans take into account. And also it's about minimizing harm rather than fully eliminating it.
Ha ha, yes, wonder how many people know Escherichia coli is a bacterium found in feces. Often quoted in the context of polluted / unhygienic water sources. Source: a relative, who was a biologist / chemist dealing with public water supplies.
The appeal of vegan pizza is that no animals were industrially farmed to make it. If you think your cheese is suffering free you are lying to yourself.
The reality is, the appeal to eating a vegan pizza to some is that they know it will be cruelty free, and I admire that, to be sure.
However, if you want to win over the average consumer, or someone who has developed tastebuds over twenty years, or really anyone who doesn't already eat a vegan diet, you have to overcumb 1 crucial thing:
It needs to taste good or better than whatever you are trying to replace.
I haven't come across a vegan pizza that doesn't taste like the way I have come to expect pizza to taste, the cheese just isn't right. All the food science in the world can't seem to solve this problem (I've tried it homemade, by several skilled professionals, I've tried what was rated as some of the best vegan pizza in my city, mutiple times of the years, and the list goes on).
Until it tastes like the pizza I have fundamentally come to expect pizza to taste like, it just isn't worth switching for me.
If you can solve this problem, nobody is going to care if its vegan or not, because it just taste good.
I wish PETA and the like would focus their time and money on this, since it would actually yield the net benefit results they're looking for without the air of hositility some of their followers have.
Yes, you can debate whether its right or wrong to even think this way. The truth is, people in large already do, why not meet them where they are at?
Its good tasting at its price point, I'd argue (if you like McDonalds anyway). Nobody is going to be pay more for the same and I think at scale vegan food is cheaper, generally. Its why its all about taste.
For anyone curious, the largest non-profit focusing on exactly that (cheap & delicious vegan alternatives) is the Good Food Institute: https://www.gfi.org/
New York Pizza in The Netherlands has a great vegan shoarma pizza containing shoarma by De Vegetarische Slager ("The Vegetarian Butcher"?), nowadays an Unilever subsidiary. It contains caramelized onions, vegan cheese, a garlic swirl, and tomato sauce. The shoarma contains the correct spices, and is salty. Crust is crunchy enough. Highly recommended.
There's also research into meat grown from stem cells. Right now it is still too expensive to grow, but I believe that is the way forward.
One of the best lies about impossible burger and the likes that got me to try them was that it tasted so real that it made vegans sick. Naive me. It made me sick.
"I'd switch in a heartbeat if vegan food is cheaper, healthier and as tasty or tastier"
duhhh you'd be stupid not to at that point. Until we get there the consumer needs to signal big corporations that demand exists and McDonald's adding plant based options is a huge step. Every burger sold will contribute to encourage more companies to offer vegan options, even cheese
Gee well that's a rather bold statement. I find this attitude of "if you're not vegan you're a liar" so insufferable. I can think of at least a few explanations for the parent comment. "If you think your cheese is suffering free..."
For your third suggestion, I'll take a shot: For animals to lactate, they must become pregnant. Dairy cows are repeatedly impregnated, they give birth, and they are separated from their calves. Female calves become dairy cows themselves, male calves are either made into veal or killed promptly. A small fraction may become studs for more dairy calves.
The entire ordeal is very much not natural and not pleasant. And we do it at a scale that is awe-inducing. If you are a compassionate type that sees cows in a similar light to dogs, I'd bet you can understand why someone would feel very strongly that it's not an option.
If you would like to learn more there are a few documentaries that explore the big 3 benefits of veganism--Health, ecology, and animal welfare. I won't link them here as they are easy to find for any that are interested.
Interesting question. A search later and a quick read of this study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15377608/) and the answer seems to be one about economics and FDA approval.
Well, if you take the time to learn about dairy farming (even in free range dairy farms), you would quickly find out that cows have a natural lifespan of ~20 years, but cows used in dairy farms have an average lifespan of ~6 years. From the perspective of giving entities that we believe are probably conscious and probably feel suffering and pain a fair chance at life, minimizing the amount of dairy and cheese we consume would seem like a good idea. I'm looking forward to a world where lab-grown cheese substitutes are as good as (or better) than the real thing.
Their population would be greatly reduced, but is having a billion consciousnesses in a mediocre state and potentially suffering somehow better than having a few orders of magnitude fewer consciousnesses that are properly cared for and living more "natural" lives? It is hard to say without getting into the details, but from a high-level utilitarian perspective, one feels that the latter is somehow more preferable, although doing any kind of arithmetic with souls is a risky business.
not much of a life really is it? That aside, it would make room for the non-livestock animals to live on the planet, reintroduce some biodiversity and create genetic firewalls to stop pandemics going absolutely buckwild.
Free range or not, cows still need to be artificially inseminated (read: industry term to fancy dress "cow rape"), the calves still need to be weaned off after only a few weeks with their mothers (once the colostrum part is over) and/or be given formula milk substitute while humans drink what's rightfully the calf's. Leaving the calf with the cow is absolutely not profitable. Also, the mother cow needs to be culled after only 5-6 years of living because they cannot bear children after that; cows naturally live for up to 20 years. Free range cows still end up in the same slaughter house, so you're indirectly funding the beef industry. Oh, and by the way, if the calf is a male, it's killed right away or sold to the veal industry.
It's disgusting and cruel regardless of how much space the cow had to roam in; every other aspect of its life was miserable. Not knowing this is okay, but if you're reading this and the sibling comments, you really have no excuse any more.
You almost make a religion out of this. Make the lion vegan to complete the circle. That would end the misery on this world, right?
Some animals are abused and we can work on regulation to prevent that and promote sustainable development (in EU they already have some laws about this) but I don't think making sure cows die by old age should be the end goal.
1. Lions are obligate carnivores, we're not. We do not need meat to survive (evidenced by several cultures around the world living off a nearly entirely plant-based diet for centuries), lions do.
2. What animals do isn't a good moral compass. Animals rape each other, steal, kill their children, and do all sorts of morally reprehensible stuff.
>Some animals are abused and we can work on regulation to prevent that
The best solution to stopping animal abuse is to not breed the animal in the first place. Can't abuse something that doesn't exist now, can we?
>I don't think making sure cows die by old age should be the end goal.
I never proposed that. I said we shouldn't have bred them into this miserable existence in the first place.
Why do we get to decide how long a cow should live? Why do we get to artificially inseminate a cow that cannot possibly give consent? Why do we get to take away the newborn child of a defenceless creature? Come on.
How about because I don't care about it that much? Sometimes good food involves suffering. I'm glad we're at the top of the food chain. I'm not about to give up my steak, I'm not about to give up my cheese, I'm certainly not about to give up my foie gras.
I don't think we should go out of our way to hurt animals (for example intensive chicken production where you have overcrowded operations where chickens stay in the dark, etc, should be outlawed), but if I want to eat it I'll eat it. The cow need not consent, because it's my food.
Fundamentally it's simply not a moral issue to me, it's a gastronomic one. I believe most people agree with me. Vegans are so incredibly out of touch.
It never needs to. You're performing mental gymnastics, I'm sorry. It's never true that this sort of immense suffering just needs to magical occur for the world to operate normally. There are limitless delicious recipes that require 0 suffering, 0 pain, 0 murder.
> I don't think we should go out of our way to hurt animals
That's what the entirety of animal agriculture is. We go WAAAY out of our way. It's expensive, inefficient, unhealthy, and immoral, and we do it anyway.
Who's talking about murder? I'm not for eating humans lol. This sort of phrasing is intellectually dishonest.
> That's what the entirety of animal agriculture is. We go WAAAY out of our way. It's expensive, inefficient, unhealthy, and immoral, and we do it anyway.
So are you against eating all meat or in favor of reforming industrial meat farming? These are two very different positions.
> It never needs to.
Yes I didn't say it needs to. I said sometimes it does. Foie gras involves sticking a pipe down a duck's throat and force feeding it until it has liver desease which makes its liver extra large and tasty. It is what it is. I support it because it's delicious. My taste buds are more important than a given animal's suffering, plain and simple.
I know I'm being blunt but I feel this holier-than-thou attitude on the vegan's side needs to be confronted with a little bit of "silent majority"-type viewpoints.
I'm not making controversial points, I'm spelling out widespread ideas to you.
> My taste buds are more important than a given animal's suffering, plain and simple.
lol holy shit. When your reasoning gets to this point, I think we need to back up and appreciate the insanity of what you're saying. Would you be fine with some alien species arriving to Earth and doing all this to you? Would you accept it and think "Ah yes well it is what it is!"
Like it or not, that's what the argument is of most people who eat meat. I also think my tastebuds are more important than an animal. This is why things like impossible foods sidestep this issue, because they know people don't switch en masse on ethical grounds, but they do it you make a better product, in terms of price and more importantly, taste.
If an alien comes to us to eat us, I mean yes, that's just how it is. We can try fighting back of course (which species wants to be killed?) but if they win then, what can you do? Appeal emotionally with them? They could say the same thing, that it's just how it is. Might really does make right. If they have superiority in fighting power, I mean, there's nothing we can do other than accept it. And that's the same thing that's happening with us and the animals we eat.
So if I can physically overpower someone is it okay for me to keep them as a slave? Is it moral to kill someone if I gain pleasure from the act, as long as I’m physically capable of it?
The alien hypothetical isn’t about what is possible, it’s about what is right. Would you feel that the aliens should be allowed to enslave and eat you? Or would you feel like you’re being wronged, and that you don’t deserve it?
Might makes right, so sure, if you were able to enslave someone, why wouldn't you be able to keep them? You just have to fend off from people who'd want to take them away from you, right? After all, we do that with pets, they're our slaves basically.
It's clear that you're trying to say that animals and people are equivalent, that animals are slaves. If I don't believe in that world view, you can't make me care. You could show rational reasons like, eating a vegetarian diet is better to combat climate change, which I accept, but having a moral appeal doesn't move me to change my meat-eating ways.
If an alien can overpower us, sure I'd try to escape because I obviously want to live, but I'd be under no delusion that I deserve to not die. The alien captured and wants to eat me, so that's going to be what will happen. There is a difference between how I feel, what would happen, and what is morally right. I posit that morals don't matter in this case, only power over other beings, which the aliens have over us in this scenario.
Said another way, why should morals matter in this case? I'm genuinely asking, because whenever I ask this, people don't give an actual answer and instead say something like, it's the right thing to do or it reduces suffering, but this uses morality to explain why morality matters, sort of like using the Bible to ask why things that are said in the Bible are true.
Oh I've seen plenty of pictures and videos and whatnot. I've slaughtered plenty of animals myself (though never a cow, to be honest).
I'm not looking away and pretending it doesn't exist. I'm staring at it and saying "yes I approve of that because I like to eat animals".
If your argument is that intensive farming is less than ideal, sure, I agree. If your argument is that the solution to that is to stop eating meat, that's where you lose me.
Not really. Just because you enjoy a good steak doesn't mean you agree to torture the animal. Also "happy" animals seem to have better taste so it's a win win.
How on Earth is it a win for the animal you are raising to then kill? If the cow could talk, do you think it'd describe the situation as a win win? If I keep a slave, and raise them to harvest their organs, and keep them content until their teenage years only to kill them, is that a win win?
What kind of slave? A human slave? They're more valuable in other forms of labor than harvesting their organs (usually; sometimes organ prices can exceed labor value). That's why slavery and organ harvesting still exist after all, if no one thought it was valuable, then it wouldn't exist. We don't have slaves in developed countries because we figured out that former slaves being able to use their brains for labor rather than their physical prowess was more valuable for society as a whole.
That's because I'm trying to remove any emotional or moral appeals from the answer and try to focus on the rational answers, because people usually don't respond to moral appeals if they don't hold the same morality worldview as one would. It's like both sides not understanding each other, such as pro choice and pro life people.
Why would it never need to? I can say that a steak is a good food, and by vegans' definition it involves the suffering of a cow, and therefore, sometimes good food involves suffering.
Yes, but that's not the argument that the poster above was making. Good food can be cruelty free, but not all good food can be. Therefore, if you want a specific food that requires cruelty, you're just gonna have to accept that fact. Somewhat related, but why would I restrict my choice of food if I want to eat what I want to eat?
So what? Again, moral appeals don't move people who do not subscribe to the same world view as you do. If I'm pro choice, I could yell all day that a woman's right to life matters more than a fetus', and if I'm pro life, I could say the opposite. It won't change the minds of people who don't hold those same moral positions.
I mean, if you see the footage of what goes on in slaughter houses and then still think momentary sensory pleasure (taste) is more important to you than the life of a sentient being, you're just a sociopath. Do you also believe it is okay for me to torture a dog just because I get visual satisfaction from it?
I'm fully aware of what happens in slaughterhouses. I would be more than willing to pay for more expensive meat where the animals have more space for them, or eat proper grass, as opposed to, let's say, having corn shoved into them and antibiotics to suppress persistent infections, etc. The meat is tastier that way, too.
> you're just a sociopath
Sure, according to your definition I would be. So would most people, billions of them.
> Do you also believe it is okay for me to torture a dog just because I get visual satisfaction from it?
Visual satisfaction? No. But if you want to slaughter and eat it I don't have a problem with that.
> really? lol ok
Yes, really. You come across as some sort of quixotean person yelling at windmills while most of us over here are just eating our meat. It's simply that people don't say it, out of politeness.
>> 2. What animals do isn't a good moral compass. Animals rape each other,
Neither what humans do is a compass for animals's behaviour. You know that cows are not humans, right? There is not much consent in their social life.
We can work to offer them a "good" peaceful life before a quick innevitable slaughter. Not all the farmers cage their animals. Some of them live a pretty good life eating good grass and breathing fresher air than most humans do.
As long as the lifespan of a cow is concerned what difference does it make if it lives 5 years or 20 years? Eventually you have to accept that death is innevitable for animals, insects, plants and humans alike.
Eventuall you will end up death too, get eaten by "disgusting" worms.
You also seem to favor no life at all than a short span? Would you prefer not to be born if you were to know your life will end up tragic (i.e in car crash, or eaten by a lion)?
I'm vegan (plant-based eater is less catchy) - but I started for health reasons tbh. Personally, I don't eat that many substitutes, except for convenience when I haven't got time to cook.
While the suffering argument is entirely valid, it's obviously not a successful driver of change. The climate change/pandemic/health angle is easily more appealing to the average consumer.
It is more the concept of wanting something you claim to not want by making a fake version of it. Just eat vegan products? It seems like a cognitive dissonance when I see the words vegan and burger together.
But vegans want burgers, they just don’t want to kill an animal for that burger. This is no different than someone making a turkey burger because they don’t like beef.
For some reason, only vegans get called out for making substitutions.
> Burgers aren't a huge deal in Asia, for example.
Asia is a big place, but for example in China pretty much everything has a small amount of pork as a minor ingredient/seasoning; "vegan" dishes are the pitiable food of the poor; and the word for household is literally a roof with a pig underneath it
The only "bad" burger to the op is the traditional definition that includes meat. Burger as a concept of two-breads, some toppings, and a patty (arguibly a melt?) is fine.
You just repeated yourself. So I ask again why when you claim that this is something you think is bad. By conception, you want something that is not what you claim to desire. It is engineered and the opposite of natural by design.
First, I'm not a vegan. Second, vegans avoid animal products because they come from animals. Various imitation and substitute products do not come from animals and so are not avoided.
Or, tl;dr: You do realize soy milk is very popular among vegans, right?
Apologies, I failed to communicate my point correctly.
What I am trying to say is that vegans are trying to engineer a product. So this product the opposite of natural, so what is with the claims of health?
I don't know why I used the word "bad"
I find it frustrating as a person who only eats meat and vegetables to have to tolerate vegans who claim health benefits. Most vegans I've met are fat.
I'm no newbie vegan and I still looooove vegan burgers. I'm "indoctrinated" only insofar that everyone is "indoctrinated" by the gastronomic culture of their upbringing.
What I want the most is a readily available vegan food on every corner. For instance, it is surprisingly difficult to buy anything vegan on a highway stop/petrol station where I am from. Vegan burger from MCD will mean a lot.
Hmm, then I guess that leads to my next question: what is a burger? Is a turkey burger a burger? Is a burger ground meat? Is it simply ground protein (making a vegan burger a burger)?
Well, meat requires more plants to “suffer” than eating the plants directly. So if this was your line if reasoning, you would be a staunch vegan. The majority of crops are grown to feed livestock.
People usually make your argument in bad faith because even when corrected you never had a moral interest in “minimizing plant suffering” to begin with. You just thought you had a good gotcha.
> So if this was your line if reasoning, you would be a staunch vegan.
Not really. A person who eats both doesn't typically agonize over the morality of eating animals or plants like many vegans do. It's pointing out the fallacy of advocating veganism on the basis of animal suffering.
That of course is only one argument for veganism among many much stronger ones, but it doesn't make it a bad argument to make.
Vegans choose to abstain from animal products, not that they "don't want them."
The reasons might be environmental, ethical, moral, or religious, etc... Not important, just that a vegan or vegetarian is simply someone who did a cost-benefit analysis where, to them, the costs of meat (environmental degradation, massive suffering, personal guilt, my-god-said-so, whatever) outweigh the benefits (taste, convenience, social acceptably). That's merely it!
It's not cognitive dissonance to want to enjoy some of the benefits of something without some of the costs - that's what vegan "meat" (at least attempts) to do.
So weak discipline? I don't get it as a person who just eats meat and veggies why you would want something you don't want?
It's like creating a protein based pea that tastes exactly like a pea in every way but made with animal protein and I call it carnivore peas. What you are saying is that you are trying to reverse engineer something for hedonism's sake.
They aren't trying to reverse engineer anything, they are trying to make food they like that is not also attached to activities they find unethical.
There's no contradiction or dissonance, it's "I find raising and slaughtering animals for food unethical" on the one side and "I like certain flavors" on the other.
You shouldn't make assumptions about how others see the world. I'd prefer that my cheese came from an animal that didn't live in abysmal conditions, but TBH I just enjoy the cheese and don't care all that much where it came from.
If you think your life ia suffering free to other beings, your existence is predicated on forms of organization and governance which inflict massive suffering aka the military-industrial-logistics system which ensures the delivery of whatever you need from all corners of the globe.
Move to a remote island if you want to be a saint. But don't posture to be a holy man or even more simply "a better man" by not eating animals and byproducts.
If you’re vegan because you’re against cruelty, you might want to reconsider eating cashews. They’re processed in facilities that are often horrifically cruel to the workers [1].
well that's from 2013? Do the claim still hold? I don't think there will be anything left to eat for vegan ? Why
See example of oil. There has been too many controversies regarding palm oil and how it destroys orangutan habitat. But now if we shift to olive oil which many people did there was a news of some bird being killed for that?
So the question is can we have 100% vegan? No for sure
But can we try to vegan as much as possible? Yes for sure.
And I will not eat the cashews from those company that are responsible for being horrifically cruel to workers. Same for palm oil and olive oil. We shall try for best.
you can google cashew mozzarella. They're all basically cashew, tapioca starch (makes it stretchy), flavorings (miso/nutritional yeast/etc), garlic, and a liquid (water/non-dairy yogurt/etc). The ingredients are blended, then cooked until it thickens.
There's actually a big scene of vegan cheese alternative making, it's just pretty localised right now. For example there are many companies in London making excellent vegan alternatives (e.g. I AM NUT OKAY, Honestly Tasty, Kinda Co, Mouse's Favourite), many of which offer something with pizza-melty mozzarella-like effect. Local pizza delivery places offer the vegan options too. There's even some with blue mould for that real funky cheesy flavour! It's expensive right now but the product is there.
Honestly depends on the pizza. You can have good vegan pizza and bad normal pizza. You can have "cheese replacement" and you can have pizza that just doesn't use cheese. There's a wide spectrum and some of it is, IMHO, pretty nice (maybe some cheese would make it better still though) and some is not.
(I'm not vegan, I just like to try vegan/vegetarian foods)
I've found so far, vegan cheese either melts and doesn't taste good or doesn't melt and tastes good. And by good I mean in comparison to mass produced cheese. It'll be awhile before there's a good, vegan alternative to homemade mozzarella. However, there doesn't need to be. The vast majority of cheesy/non-vegan food that's eaten is low quality ingredients.
It’s a taste thing which varies person to person. Andy’s vegan margarita pizza is my favorite and the cheese scratches all the boxes for me. I’ve had fine vegan mozzarellas various places though. Might be time to try again or just encourage people to try for themselves as tastes aren’t universal.
The vegan cheeses I’ve sampled tend to fall into this uncanny valley of cheese flavor. Like yeah, its sorta like cheap bag cheese, cheese with more sweaty feet undertaste that I couldn’t not picture once I made the mental connection. Usually doesn’t melt, I've taken a torch to some trying to get it to melt and just end up searing it.
Vegan burgers sometimes suffer from this when they lean away from the bean/tex mex route and try and tackle a hamburger. It ends up tasting like the grease is masking all the flavor, and it isn’t pleasant rendered fatty grease like in a burger but vegetable oil and a surprising amount of it. I don’t know if its the way its prepared or what, but imo its a tough prospect trying to ask $15 for a burger that tastes like oil soaked starch, hidden behind the aioli on the bun hoping you don’t notice. Impossible burgers fall into this grease pit area for my pallet, I’ve tried them pretty much anywhere I see them at least once and no matter how they try and hide the patty with the other components it still stands out like a sore thumb to me.
I’ll wait another 5 years and try again. Hopefully more food science development can iron out these kinks.
That's only for the cheap fake cheese, not a good cashew cheese.
What's nice about cashew cheese is that it won't make you sick as quickly as a dairy cheese pizza will, which despite it's good taste charged a hefty tax afterward.
What about pizza and lasagna are even remotely comparable? I really like pizza and really hate lasagna. Hate, hate, hate it.
Seriously, I don't know what it is about the lasagna form but the best tasting ingredients on earth end up tasting like garbage when assembled into a lasagna. I don't get it...
Pizza, on the other hand, manages to be mostly enjoyable in its many different forms, including cheese-less (had that once at a fancy restaurant).
They are basically opposite foods from each other as far as I'm concerned.
If anything that's a reflection on the vegan pizza available to you. Where I live (Melbourne, Australia) there are plenty of really excellent vegan pizza places.
To be fair, I don't expect vegan burgers to mimic meat any more than I expect chicken to taste of beef. I just need it to taste good and have good texture, staying together when in the pan or on the grill and do well in the bun. I also can't quite remember what most meat tastes like, honestly.
There are many ways to make pesto, and to make it plant based as well. My current favourite when preparing it myself is to grind smoked roasted almonds and nutritional yeast flakes.
Also, I said it's trivial to make Indian food vegan, not that Indian food is vegan by default. What specific ingredients are irreplaceable in Indian cooking? I've replaced paneer with tofu, kheer (and consequently, most milk-based drinks) is trivially made with oat milk, vegan yoghurt can replace curd in 99% of the dishes (like chaat, raita, etc), vegan butter is indistinguishable from dairy-based butter. Ghee doesn't have a substitute, but it isn't a big deal. Naan has curd in it traditionally, but it's pretty easy to make it without dairy. Since going vegan, I've made virtually all of my favourite Indian dishes and it was no more difficult than the traditional recipes.
South Indian food (where I'm from) is even easier as most dishes don't have dairy to begin with.
Some milk-based sweets are the only things that I miss out on, but that's probably a good thing anyway.
I don't know why your comment was downvoted so heavily. I'm sure a baked bread dish topped with a red sauce and cheese-imitations taste nice, but they simply aren't pizza.
Now if you remove the cheese-imitation you have marinara pizza.
One go to is just make sure everything else is plant based or vegan (depending) and just order without cheese. Pizza without cheese sounds odd as a pretext, but does work in practice. It’s also a lot lighter.
There is no appeal. Not for me anyway. I actually like fruits and vegetables, so I don't need to mutilate them into some sick facsimile of meat and dairy in order to enjoy them.
I tried some great vegan cheese substitutes but these days I just heat soy cream/soy milk with nutritional yeast,a bit of miso and a bit of tapioca starch and pour it over the pizza. For the mouth feel of "something cheesy on top" this is more than enough
Pauline Gee’s slice shop in Greenpoint has some vegan options that would fool most people in a blind taste test, I think. The bread and the sauce are doing most of the work.
Vegetable oils are most likely carcinogenic, amid other health issues (GI, heart) [0]. Red meat is not [1]
Further, these fake meats, Impossible Burger namely, have been linked to kidney failure in mice studies [2] (one commissioned by the Impossible Foods manufacturer). In particular:
" * A rat feeding study commissioned by the manufacturer Impossible Foods found that rats fed SLH [soy leghemoglobin] developed unexplained changes in weight gain, changes in the blood that can indicate the onset of inflammation or kidney disease, and possible signs of anemia
* Impossible Foods dismissed these statistically significant effects as “non-adverse” or as having “no toxicological relevance” "
I understand these aren't as good test subjects as human studies, however it seems under the guise of the green movement, this evidence has been willfully ignored, or just not known. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> Vegetable oils are most likely carcinogenic, amid other health issues
Strange. Why do I only ever see this claim from esoteric websites and blogs and never from serious organizations? E.g. "No need to avoid healthy omega-6 fats"[1]
In fairness to the esoteric websites, the official guidelines for the US have been high-carb and low-fat for what 40 years? And the health outcomes in the US during that 40 years haven't been great. I've heard the phrase "epidemic of obesity" a lot.
That doesn't make the esoteric websites right, but I think perhaps the idea that the consensus diet advice is good and right "because consensus" is suspect also.
People don’t necessarily follow official guidelines. I wouldn’t call the American diet low fat https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-caloric-supply-deri... . Also this doesn’t even take into account the type of carbs. The average American consumes 15 grams of fiber a day, which means they don’t eat enough fruits, vegetables, legumes, seeds and nuts. Also a lot happened during those 40 years, to pin it all on the food guidelines is a bit too simplistic IMO.
To be fair, your first link doesn't say that vegerable oils are bad for you. It just says that the Omega-6 fatty acids in them, if not balanced out by additional Omega-3s from other sources, cause health problems. So vegetable oils aren't inherently unhealthy and can be consumed without problems as long as the need for Omega-3 is respected.
Imagine feeling this guilty about eating meat and not having the willpower to stop that you have to find borderline conspiracy theory articles about how vegetable oil is as bad for you as smoking cigarettes and how an impossible burger will give you kidney failure just to make yourself feel better about eating meat.
According to the WHO class 2 is "probably carcinogenic" and what was effectively a meta (or meta-meta) analysis showed that the increased risk was 18%.
Do we know how bad vegetable oils are for people yet? Is there any reason to think that they're 100% A-OK?
Humans have been eating meat for 10s or 100s of thousands if not millions of years. Humans have been eating highly refined vegetable and seed oils for what, a couple of hundred?
One of these food sources helped turn apes into humans. The other didn't even exist until humans invented a LOT of technology.
>>Humans have been eating meat for 10s or 100s of thousands if not millions of years.
Technically that may be true but humans only ate meat when the hunt was successful. Most of the time , they had a plant based diet. Meat has always been unaffordable luxury for most peole. The farm grown , tax subsidixzed, growth hormone loaded meat industry is a rather new phenomenon.
Until recently, the hunt was broadly successful (maybe not every single day, but certainly every week).
Hunter-gatherers are the only type of group for which there are no anthropologically/historically documented cases of starvation. In contrast to pastoralists and agriculturalists, which have suffered starvation regularly.
Hunter-gatherers across nearly all of the globe always had a diet of meat and plants. It is absolutely false that it was plant-based "most of the time". Eating meat has absolutely not always been an unaffordable luxury -- that's a complete myth. Meat as a "luxury" was a totally new phenomenon that arose only with agriculture.
For the vast majority of human history, meat (or fish) has been plentiful and broadly consumed.
Humans might have been eating a lot more meat in the past when they were hunter-gatherers: it's just that their entire existence was centered around getting that food. Look at Inuits and how little plant based food they consumed.
Inuits are often used as a gotcha in support of meat-based diets but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. For one thing they're so often brought up because they're the exception, not the rule for human diets, their diet is a consequence of the very dire living conditions in the Arctics that makes agriculture impractical. For an other, their diet is not similar to your average meat lover in modern Europe or USA: a lot of fat, not a lot of carbs, meat is eaten raw (which changes its nutritional content), they eat organs and skin (not just the flesh):
>Vitamins and minerals which are typically derived from plant sources are nonetheless present in most Inuit diets. Vitamins A and D are present in the oils and livers of cold-water fishes and mammals. Vitamin C is obtained through sources such as caribou liver, kelp, muktuk, and seal brain; because these foods are typically eaten raw or frozen, the vitamin C they contain, which would be destroyed by cooking, is instead preserved.
"However, actual evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population."
> Humans have been eating meat for 10s or 100s of thousands if not millions of years.
This argument glosses over the crux of current scientific knowledge: We do not know exactly why the type of meat the (average) human eats today is net-negative for health _even though_ humans have been eating meat for ages.
Particularly, is it due to the change in nutritional makeup due to domestication, mass farming, processing etc. or is meat inherently (slightly) carcinogenic?
If somebody knows of recent studies, would love to learn more.
I don't remember the exact details, but the study found that after X days of eating Impossible Burgers mice suffered serious health side effects. So what did they do? Ran another study for X/2 days and resubmitted to the FDA.
You really need to have something more verifiable than that before just throwing around a claim like that. What study are you talking about? You could at least try and find a link.
So there's one study that didn't find an association between meat an cancer? Well this article[1] says it looks at 400 studies, and did find an association. One of the studies had 262195 people.
Lifelong meat eater here. I'm really happy about this news and hope it sticks over the long-run. These new plant-based burgers are basically zero penalty ways to eat more responsibly. They taste about as good as the normal "ok" burger from FastFoodJoint(TM), cost about the same, and are less worse for the planet and everybody on it.
It's also more accepting for people who have various dietary restrictions and opens up an entirely new, mediocre, but fast/cheap dining experience.
One thing to note is that after some initial offerings, Burger King has yet to really keep their plant burger in the weekly coupon deluge I get. Meaning if I want like 2 entire burger meals I can get it for under $10 with the right coupon. But if I want their Impossible Whopper I still end up paying full-price for it.
So yes, if the plant burgers were cheaper than the alternative there really wouldn't be much of a reason to eat the originals any more.
The buns already contain so much sugar that they don't really apply.
I did keto for a while and looked at the nutritional information for those burgers, they're not really on the list unless you get them bun-free.
The veggie burgers when bun free do have carbs, but I'd consider them to be borderline okay at 6gm of sugar and non-fiber carbs (1gm of sugar) for 14gm of fat and 19gm of protein for a reasonably solid ratio of 6:33 or ~20%. It's not as good as bacon, but it's probably as good as beans...
Just because this particular item isn't something for folks on a particular diet doesn't disprove the claim. It still is more accepting for people who have various dietary restrictions.
It's long overdue that all the social costs of meat consumption are priced into those goods and/or that we subsidise plant based alternatives so that the ecological benefits are reflected at the counter. I'm pessimistic it's going to happen though.
I agree, but I also think its long overdue to reflect transportation costs to the consumers as well (airline prices and gasoline prices are artificially subsidized and do far more damage to the environment than meat production--target them first).
> From a raw ingredients standpoint plant based food should almost always be cheaper than animal based food
Genuinely curious: is it though? I can certainly see the strength of the argument if we're merely comparing 1 lb of soy vs 1 lb of beef, but my understanding is that veggie burgers require quite a bit of processing to become "meat-like". It'd be interesting to keep track of cost and environmental impact differences between a low-tech soy-tasting patty vs an impossible burger.
I don't know about the ones that are meat-like - that is never my goal (and impossible burgers seem too fatty for my tastes). But I can make something good tasting at home - one of the better ones has brown rice and chickpeas as the main ingredients.
I'm going to guess McDonald's veggie burgers will have a decent amount of processing: I don't know how that compares to processing hamburger patties. We are, after all, comparing hamburger patties to pucks of veggie material instead of veggie burgers vs steak.
I was also dubious of the claim that "processed" foods are less healthy, but there does seem to be some evidence to support the claim at least along one vector:
> Processing may affect the natural resistant starch content of foods. [...] Whole grain wheat may contain as high as 14% resistant starch, while milled wheat flour may contain only 2%.
> The fermentation of resistant starch produces more butyrate than other types of dietary fibers.
> Butyrates are important as food for cells lining the mammalian colon (colonocytes). [...] Butyrate is extremely essential to host immune homeostasis.
Basically, resistant starch is extremely important to the health of your colon, and fairly important to your health in general. From what I hear, colon cancer is not terribly fun. Since processing greatly reduces the resistant starch content of certain goods it seems reasonable to claim that "processing" makes some foods less healthy.
Though like all things there is a lot of subtly here; I wouldn't be surprised if plant based burgers end up healthier on the whole despite the processing when compared to regular meat. But they are unlikely to be healthier than the equivalent in unprocessed veggies.
> Basically, resistant starch is extremely important to the health of your colon, and fairly important to your health in general.
So if you eat exclusively processed grains, you don't have the resistant starch. Meanwhile, red meat is linked with actually causing colon cancer, not just failure to prevent it.
In a nation where most people have an extreme caloric surplus, "processing", aka "cooking" increases the caloric intake of diners. Processing usually removes fiber also.
A lot of processing does entail removing fiber and other nutritional content. That's why I just eat normal vegetables, not lab atrocities created at McDonald's.
Get ready for the future. A Finnish company can make protein from air and electricity now. Once they figure out carbohydrates, oils, sugar, starch, we may give up growing food corn entirely.
It's an approach to growing single cell protein (e.g. products like Quorn) that uses hydrogen oxidizing bacteria with hydrogen from renewable-powered water electrolysis.
I wonder to what extent farming subsidies and implicit subsidies such as the under pricing of carbon emissions make meat burgers less expensive than they ought to be.
Plant based food are cheap because the overwhelming majority of government subsidies go to farmers and not ranchers. (there are some misleading charts on the internet that try to bundle school lunch programs providing milk as a meat subsidy)
I would very much approve a food tax on the externalizes, determined by a review process per product if the seller request it.
It would however not be as simple that plant-based food would just be cheaper. Every kind of food type has a spectrum of climate impact, depending on multiple factors like farming method, transport, and local factors. A hunter shooting down an overpopulated flock of wild boars is going to have a distinct different climate impact than a pig farmer in a industry farm. Same for crop rotating farm that don't use fertilizers or pesticides vs one that massively contribute to eutrophication, burn down forests to make room, and leaves a desert behind.
A tax would at first fix the competition between similar products that only differ in the climate impact. Secondarily it would encourage locally over imported. And third it would make most plant-based food cheaper vs most meat. It would also add a huge tax on factory farmed meat and encourage farmers to use slower and much less harmful practices when raising animals.
If you priced the externalities in fossil fuels would be cost prohibitive, but a sizable political faction, particularly in the US, views Pigovian taxes as equivalent to totalitarian Communism, and an influential if anti-scientific set of economic viewpoints views externalities as either unreal or not practically subject to internalization.
The meat (and dairy) industry receive massive subsidies from the the US federal government, and they have massive externalized costs. Some externalized costs are greenhouse gas emissions, downstream downstream pollution, reduced health outcomes in consumers, heavy fresh water usage. The meat & dairy industry received the majority of the benefit from the $867 billion farm bill passed in 2019.
>The meat & dairy industry received the majority of the benefit from the $867 billion farm bill passed in 2019.
No, they didn't. The majority of the 10 year funding bill went to SNAP (food stamps). [1]
I do hate how I have to waste my time researching your ridiculous claims, I do wish such extreme takes could just be out right deleted before they cause any damage.
> The majority of the 10 year funding bill went to SNAP (food stamps).
That would only rebut the claim being made if there was an analysis that SNAP spending + other subsidies did not result in a majority of the total ending up with the meat and dairy industry. Its worth noting that even before they were configured into a poverty support program, food stamps were conceived of, and have always been (hence the involvement of USDA) an agricultural subsidy program. So what goes into SNAP is not separate from industry subsidies.
What percentage of SNAP funding is spent on foodstuff with animal products in it? Over a quarter of the average American food budget is spent on meat and diary directly, with more being spent on products that contain meat and dairy. It’s safe to assume SNAP spending is similar.
In exchange for these subsidies, farms have lots of regulation and little control over prices. I wouldn't consider that to be a benefit. The main downside is that it keeps around the bad farmers and makes it harder for the good ones.
A good way to think of this problem is that there are two solutions:
Option A, farmers continue to receive government subsidies, or,
Option B, consumers pay the ‘real’ price for food (which factors in the cost of externalities eg climate change, no factory farms, etc)
Farmers get it coming and going. If it is a "bad" year, and the crops fail, you don't get money and might not be able to afford to keep going next year. If it is a "good" year and a "good" year for everyone else, it becomes a "bad" year again -- overproduction means that your prices drop and you might not be able to afford to keep going next year.
But while both situations are equally bad for the farmer, it's really bad for civilization if you don't produce enough food -- in fact, you want to ensure that even in multi-sigma off-years, with flooding everywhere that floods and drought everywhere else, you still produce enough food to feed everyone.
That means that you have to build in a lot of overproduction -- every year should be a "bad" year for the farmers.
(As an aside, you'll never see more concealed glee than a couple of farmers in one state talking about a flood in another state that produces a similar slate of crops, knowing that's going to bump crop prices by 20-30% while also not wanting to be happy about others' misfortune.)
Can anyone comment on why oatmilk is so expensive then. Because oats are super cheap. But 1L of oat milk is $4.50 where I live, which crazy because thats more than regular milk.
Likely the same reason as always. Mass production. Everything about cow milk is mass produced and hyper competitive. Its a wonder that your milk costs so little and not that the oat milk costs $4.
They arguably could do this by making the meat come from ecologically better solutions (silvopasture, savory method, etc.). Imagine if both the meat and plant choices were both better.
The counter-argument is it that all burgers would monetarily expensive, but factory meat is also expensive just in forms of unaccounted externalities.
In McD India menu they already have a couple of types of veggie burgers to cater to the local population. However their patties have potato as one of the main ingredients and it is doubtful whether it will appeal to an average western buyer who needs that meaty feel alongwith protein.
Yes, this being cost competitive in the marketplace is a huge win.
Lets not leave out the sole most crucial factor, other than price, being taste.
My proposition has always been the following, and in fact, has gotten me to switch a number of things in my diet to vegan over the years, its really simple
If you blindfold me, and tell me what I'm eating, and I eat it, does it taste like what I'm expecting it to?
When it does, I switch to that thing, if its something I don't care enough about that I want it to be an exact replicable experience, I may switch to it anyway since its often healither and better for the environment.
Given the texture and general makeup of the average McDonald's patty (its not 100% beef, per say, it has alot of veggie based fillers like soy), this may not be a hard test to pass.
> Hopefully, with McDonald’s scale and with their vertical integration they can make affordable, tasty, and comparably healthy veggie burgers a reality.
McDonald's hasn't even made tasty meat burgers a reality, so that's asking a bit much.
OTOH, I supect McDonald's will continue to harvest as much of a premium as the market will bear from anyone with special dietary preferences that they cater to, including vegetarians, regardless of underlying food costs. Now, if there is lots of competition in serving vegetarian fast-food, then there will be pressure to bring the price down to the extent costs support it.
I'd bet that in a few iterations the plant based meats will taste better too.
It took them a pretty long time to get the food to taste like meat, there's nothing stopping them from tweaking the taste even more. Their food science must be pretty alright as it stands.
A few dozen taste variables and you get thousands of distinct tastes. You can tailor the taste in some acceptable 'tastes-good' parameters to fit just about anything:
'Introducing the Captain America 7 Burger (TM)! Unique and only at Burger King! Our unique blend of spices combined with our Burger scientists American gumption have created the perfect burger for shared virtual summer fun! Order with Shield Sauce (TM) for that taste of Freedom!'
I want to see a coca-cola freestyle-style plant-hamburger machine where you choose your own blend of bases and watch them be extruded from some bags then blended together and plopped onto a griddle.
Also when plant-based burgers actually meet the nutritional profile of animal-based burgers.
Right now the Impossible Burger still significantly trails behind an equivalent-weight beef burger in protein, and has a bunch of carbohydrates (which beef doesn't have at all) [1].
Our diet is already far too stuffed with processed carbohydrates, so it's unfortunate that the Impossible Burger adds even more. Hopefully, further improvements can focus on healthy proteins instead.
Over half of under-5 child mortality in India is the result of malnutrition, and half the children under 3 are below a healthy weight. The WHO has citied not only insufficient food, but also a substandard diet.
Poverty is obviously a factor. I was simply pointing out that India is not a good example of vegetarianism and plant based foods being cheaper. You also seem to discredit the comment I was replying to.
You still need to process those plants to mimic what the animal did (ie fermenting the grass to extract bioavailable protein and stripping out fibre).
Veggie (black bean/lentil) burgers can already be cheaper than meat. But the meat replacement (ie similar protein to meat) burgers are more expensive.
I'm not sure why mcdonalds would bother making a meat replacement burger, its fast food so they can just use flavouring to make it taste like meat without incurring the expense of adding protein. It probably will be cheap.
As a plus side their customers will still be starving for protein afterwards. Large fries please!
I'm at a loss for what you're suggesting here or what your point is. No consumer is going to buy meat flavored rice cakes, and standard plant-based meat has as much protein as animal meat.
>As a plus side their customers will still be starving for protein afterwards.
Why? Meat replacements are engineered to have similar nutritional value as the meat-based version.
for example, BK:
>A traditional Whopper has 660 calories, 40 grams of fat (12 of which are saturated) and 28 grams of protein. The Impossible Whopper clocks in at 630 calories, 34 grams of fat (11 saturated) and 25 grams of protein, so it's pretty similar from a macro nutritional standpoint. [0]
It’s currently thought to be less important than it use to be. Previously it was assumed that a complete protein needs to be consumed during every meal. Now it’s generally regarded as okay to have a complete protein across the entire day. This makes it very likely to have a complete protein by eating a variety of foods throughout the day.
This is the same company that made a salad unhealthy [1]. I do not hold out any hope that their vegetarian options will be even comparably "healthy". It will be deep-fried crap, packed with additives and flavourings.
It makes little economic sense for it to be cheaper. People abstaining from certain types of food for ideological reasons like vegans and vegetarians do, are usually prepared to pay more to support their believes. It takes economic privilege to be picky about what food one eats. It would be foolish for restaurants to forgo such signals.
Agree price is the main issue. Veggie burgers currently almost never taste better than the alternatives (I believe it's possible but just not achieved yet). So right now I have to buy it solely for the environment. Which is is ok, and I do it sometimes, but I don't like having to make so many tradeoffs.
>somewhat unsurprisingly, will be called "McPlant."
Is it just me that didn't find the name obvious, and perhaps not a good one?
Many people have an aversion to something if it's called plant, healthy or natural. I think Impossible Foods was right in marketing their products for meateaters rather than vegans.
> Many people have an aversion to something if it's called plant, healthy or natural.
I don't think this is the issue.
Nobody would eat something called "McMeat", it begs the question "What kind of meat?" and usually the assumption is the worst. When I hear "McPlant", what comes up in my head is eating a tree or grass. If you leave it to people's imagination, often what comes to mind is the worst not the best.
This is the genius of "Impossible Burger". They manage to suggest it's great and sidestep the inevitable question of what is in it. They are literally suggesting the opposite, that they found the holy grail of food, great tasting and healthy.
Though I have the same feelings when I read "McRib" as well and it's making another comeback so maybe I'm off base here.
It's Malcolm Gladwell so take it with a packet of salt I suppose. I think it's Gladwell at his best and I often find myself referring back to it whenever the topics of fast food or marketing come up.
On the naming:
The McLean was a flop, and four years later it was off the market. What happened? Part of the problem appears to have been that McDonald's rushed the burger to market before many of the production kinks had been worked out. More important, though, was the psychological handicap the burger faced. People liked AU Lean in blind taste tests because they didn't know it was AU Lean; they were fooled into thinking it was regular ground beef. But nobody was fooled when it came to the McLean Deluxe. It was sold as the healthy choice--and who goes to McDonald's for health food?
Times have changed, but I think there's still a lot to be said for this suggestion at end of article:
But transparency can backfire, because sometimes nothing is more deadly for our taste buds than the knowledge that what we are eating is good for us. McDonald's should never have called its new offering the McLean Deluxe, in other words. They should have called it the Burger Supreme or the Monster Burger, and then buried the news about reduced calories and fat in the tiniest type on the remotest corner of their Web site.
I think the times have really changed since 30 years ago. McDonalds sells Fruit and Lattes and Salads and Wraps now (or did until the pandemic started) and while none of those were a top seller, they all moved units. Healthy (or at least, the illusion of healthy) is in, even at McDonalds.
As long as the burger tastes good, and isn't gross or labour-neglected or similar (like their salads and wraps occasionally were), then I suspect the Plant-based Burger to do reasonably well.
Anecdotally, I'm at McDonalds about once a week, and I'd try it at least once.
Impossible Burger and Beyond Burger have managed to get around this by focusing on the apparent paradox of healthy versus tasty. Burger King leveraging that branding and calling it the Impossible Whopper was a good call.
Communicating that it's a plant based food isn't good enough, they need to communicate that it tastes good first and foremost.
Yeah, when I originally learned what the Impossible Burger actually was, my first thought was, "Wow. They must have read that Malcolm Gladwell article."
This is such a weird statement, especially when McDonald's constantly markets itself as a hangout/social/party food and is often perceived as such culturally everywhere around the world. So limiting variety seems like an awful contradiction here.
When I was teen we'd hit mcdonald's constantly as a group of friends, that was pretty much the only time any of us would eat mcdonalds. Now that vegetarianism is becoming more popular mcdonald quickly dropped out of the menu since they don't have a single valid option.
To me it's just so mind blowing that mcdonald's didn't carry a single vegetarian meal other than salad, fries or desserts; what a rookie business mistake.
"buried the news about reduced calories and fat in the tiniest type on the remotest corner of their Web site."
Exept how do you reach your target audience now? Vegans wont be checking the remotest corner of the mcdonalds website every sunday. Worst of all, you'll probaly piss off meat eaters who might feel deceived, your main customer.
Most people know that "Chicken" McNuggets are only modestly-chicken-based (and are primarily corn starch and whatever other stuff). McNuggets are still a top seller, even though real 100% Chicken Tenders were on the same menu right next to them for years.
Similarly McChicken "nugget-paste-based" sandwiches are on the McDonalds menu, right next to 100%-real Buttermilk Chicken sandwiches.
I could see something similar working out with a McPlant-type burger.
Its only ever a minority that gets outraged or praised over certain things. not entire groups as a whole. I would hypothetically fall in to the category of being 'outraged' over not explicitly mentioning the fact that the burger that I eat contains soy instead of very low quality meat. especially if I have the expectation of a regular mcdonalds burger. There is enough grey area in what is fit for human consumption when you look at certain additives sugar replacement and now you allow companies to not even have to put meat in a product that pretends to contain meat?
IIRC McDo in the UK advertise their nuggets as "100% breast meat". They clearly aren't as they have batter, but I assume they mean "the meat portion is 100% chicken breast" yet have a niggling feeling they mean "the meat we put in is all chicken breast but we put textured soya/other fillers in too".
One of the problems with all the lying in advertising is you never quite know how cynical you need to be.
Thanks for the clarity! I did not write that very well. Didn't mean to imply that is was something other than vegetable oil plus some animal-based seasonings.
"McPlant" is a fairly horrible sounding burger! Burger King here in NZ have plant-based burgers called the Rebel Whopper which is quite a catchy name. Technically, it can't be classified as vegetarian though, because it's cooked on the same grill as the beef burgers. Not sure if the McPlant will be cooked on different grills or not?
I think the Rebel Whopper branding is really spot on. It‘s like the opposite of the McLean problem described in another comment: it‘s not the reasonable choice.
The Rebel Whopper is a marvel! It is just "the real thing" and brings me the same joy as eating the meat burger. I usually choose the Rebel since they introduced it. We have a McVegan in Germany, too. I like it, but it is not "like the others".
Very simply, you can't sell it as vegetarian if it has meat in it. Vegetarians may choose to abstain from meat for many reasons, including religious ones. Burger King's duty is not to question those choices; it's simply not to deceive their customers.
Yeah and I don't like kale in my food. Clearly I'm not wrong, because apparently nobody is. But a busy restaurant is not the place to make a fuss over where a particular dish was cooked. I don't get to insist on a separate pot to make my meal, because it might get polluted by kale.
It is wrong, it a real sense, to have unreasonable personal rules about a restaurant kitchen.
Yes but if you tell the restaurant to not put kale in your food, and they go ahead and cook it in kale juice anyway, you'd be a bit annoyed right? Burger King aren't complaining about it - they are still promoting the plant-based aspects of the burger, but aren't claiming that it's a vegetarian meal. Nobody is making a big deal about it.
Says you. Others (by the billions) say otherwise. Raising a stink in a public restaurant makes you look silly. Witness the widespread cultural backlash against it.
This is all obvious and well-known. I know that righteous indignation is a drug, and it shows mostly on the internet, thank goodness. But we should all strive to break the addiction. The world will be a better place.
According to you, it's wrong "in a real sense" to make a fuss at a restaurant. According to others it's wrong to eat meat. Who are we to say which is worse? Which ultimately causes more harm and suffering in the world? It's great that you're not a fussy eater. Now try to show some respect for people who make different choices than you. And speaking of righteous indignation, you are showing a good deal of it in the face of some imagined restaurant incident; everyone else has simply pointed out that you can't sell non-vegetarian food as vegetarian.
Misbehaving in public, routinely, is just annoying and disrespectful. There (should be) standard for behavior in public. That's a basis for civilization.
And don't be silly - everybody has had to suffer through the lunch-time episode of somebody at the table grilling the waiter about how the food is cooked and what exactly is in it and don't they know they should do it different? While everybody else wishes they'd get on with it because we're hungry. Takes no imagination at all.
sigh so much energy spent but your point was ultimately that Burger King should be able to lie about the contents of its food and no one should care. Just admit you were wrong dude!
Nah no problem. Look silly all you like. I'm just trying to help here. Everybody has their own place they've reached on their journey. Some are still in their early idealistic phase - like a college junior with all the answers and nothing better to do than shoot the bull. Some have seen a bit of water under the bridge, and recognize this.
Your condescension is obnoxious and pathetic -- I've lived and seen more than you ever will. You're the "bull" in this analogy? Haha! I couldn't care less about your boring, pointless "journey".
At least for me, the point is that I'll try to make choices that reduce suffering. You can't reduce it to zero, but most animal products can be replaced with a similar alternative with a similar price and less suffering.
Even organizations like PETA recommend against pestering restaurants about small details and trace ingredients, and I couldn't agree more: it makes vegans look nitpicky and rude and makes it harder for most people to want to make baby steps in the direction of reducing animal products.
My advice to new vegans: be easy on yourself and others. I'd rather see ten people who reduce their animal products consumptions by 90% than one extremist who does 99% and alienates everyone else.
> Many people have an aversion to something if it's called plant, healthy or natural.
Moreover, to many "McPlant" will sound like a healthy alternative, when in reality many plant-based meat replacements are a similar number of calories or higher than meat, and are unlikely to be healthier in general.
> Can we decouple the idea of "healthy" from calories?
Not completely. While calories themselves don't make a food healthy or unhealthy, healthy foods definitely skew towards low caloric density, and unhealthy foods definitely skew towards high caloric density.
2. There are no unhealthy foods, only unhealthy diets. Even a bowl of ice cream isn't unhealthy if you're getting all your nutrients and not eating too many calories.
"Every doctor" would be wrong. The guy from the Fat Head documentary showed that you can lose weight and become healthier on an all-McDonalds diet.
Also, the food pyramid (which, admittedly, is so incorrect that it should cause you to question any healthcare professional who quotes it) does include a small layer for fat, oil, sugar, and sweets, implying you can have them as an occasional treat but not all the time. No doctor is going to tell you to never eat at McDonalds, only to make it a rare treat.
Many plant-based meats are healthier than animal-based meats, just because they don't contain cholesterol and usually few saturated fats. Somewhat related, they also hae a lower chance of giving you foodborne dieases.
There are omnivores like me that are excited about plant-based burgers yet feel silly ordering a "McPlant." I'm so self-conscious that if I'm at a Denny's I won't order a "Moon Over My Hammy." I'm aware the person taking the order doesn't care and hears these menu names a thousand times a day and still have that aversion.
Are there more than a tiny number of us? I don't know.
I'm the same way. If a menu has "Eggs Benny" on it, I'll order "Eggs Benedict" because I can't bring myself to say cutesy things. I know it's my hangup. I'll change orders before I say something like that, most of the time.
I similarly refuse to use Starbucks' cute-isms for cup sizes (Venti, etc.) but I won't have any trouble ordering a McPlant - it might even provide me another reason to visit a McD beyond the wireless-for-the-price-of-a-coffee reason.
Most people misunderstand Starbucks size names. They think they're all smart assuming that Starbucks calls a small drink "tall" because of marketing or whatever. But it's actually the too-cool-for-school crowd that is wrong.
"Short" is in the shortest cup. It's the small size.
"Tall" is the taller cup. It's the regular size.
"Grande" is the large size. "Grande" means "large."
"Venti" is extra-large. "Venti" means "twenty," and is used because the drink is twenty ounces.
Because Starbucks doesn't list the "short" size on the menu, angry people assume Starbucks is trying to hide something. But it's not. Just ask for a short. I've never been to a Starbucks that didn't have the short size.
When I order a "short," about 90% of the time the response is, "Don't you want a 'tall,' instead? It's the same price." My response is, "It's not about money. It's about portion control." And everyone goes about their business.
All true, but the names are still "cute". Small, regular, large, XL work just fine.
That said, I'm already order what amount to a liquid dessert with a silly name, so IDGAF. Venti Frappathingamajig with extra whip and a side of the 'beetus please.
Around here I'll often go somewhere and ask for "your smallest size of chips" or something, and they'll tell me they don't have small, only regular. OK thanks for that unnecessary interaction.
Re. "short", I am the opposite - I am ordering the "largest". I appreciate the thought they appear to have put into the sizes and your associated explanation but I think using numbers (1-4?) would have been more intuitive but I guess then it would be less distinctly Starbucks?
I thought it had something to do with the day they changed their prices by changing the names - what was a short became a 'tall', and the tall became a 'venti'. Essentially charging more for each size (charging the tall price for what used to be a short) etc.
I absolutely hate all the cutesy trademarks businesses expect you to use. I don't want a 'Mc' anything, just give me a 'number 5 Burger.' And fuck all the bullshit terms these corporations use instead of small/medium/large. These are all attempts by their marketers to worm their corporate language into your brain.
Last time I was at a McDonald's, it was easy, even preferred, to order from a giant touch screen, so perhaps there's less friction on silly names than there used to be.
(Reminds me of a report I read ages ago about the "Ziosk" on-table ordering devices causing customers to be more likely to order desserts and other "guilty pleasure" foods.)
> Is it just me that didn't find the name obvious, and perhaps not a good one?
It's easy to imagine some sort of stylized green leaf on the wrapper, would would fit well with their other iconography. To understand why it's a good name, you need to imagine it in the visual context of their design language.
Mcsomething it had to be. The question is what is the something. McVeggie doesn't work, because veggie burgers became synonymous with the last generation of plant based burgers. McPlant does sound awkward right now but with the full backing of mcdonalds marketing / their resturant footprint it will roll of the tongue within a few months of launch.
I'm just throwing this out there, but maybe there was an equivalent to what "Supersize" meant for going larger in size instead that's geared towards plant-based versions of each burger. So maybe I still want a Big Mac, but I want it with these plant-based burgers but still with the extra slice of bread and the special sauce.
I don't have a name for this as clever as Supersize, but it seems feasible.
If they wanted to get sued for trademark infringement.
(McDonalds is working with Beyond Meat, one of Impossible Foods' largest competitors, for their plant-based meat substitutes; deriving their product name from a competitor's product is almost certainly a bad idea.)
Agreed it is a terrible name. Honestly I think food companies have no idea how to do vegan options. They keep trying to compete directly with meat and dairy and the results are just kind of unsettling. Just the phrase "no-meat meat" by itself is mildly horrifying. I prefer my food to be recognizable, describable.
Taco Bell did a good job: they just give you a burrito full of beans. The only problem was they have no idea how to cook vegetables with seasonings so the bean burrito is just bland and nasty. For McDonald's, make an actual vegan sandwich: spinach, cucumbers, sprouts for texture, some kind of sauce, tomatoes, a dash of salt and pepper. Vegan food is just like meat-based food: if the recipe is good, and the cook does a good job, it tastes good.
I agree McPlant is quite boring, and honestly, a little unappetizing. Although I'm happy they are (finally) offering a vegetarian burger, with all the time they waited to release one, they could have put more thought into the name.
> Many people have an aversion to something if it's called plant, healthy or natural.
I don't think that's true, particularly "natural". People have been labeling everything they can "natural" for years in order to boost sales.
But it's interesting that McDonalds is being so explicit. Perhaps Impossible and Beyond Meat have already done the hard work of exposing people to these products and now McDonalds hopes to swoop in without dealing with any of the product confusion?
Either way I'm interested to try them. I've had a few of the Dunkin Donuts Beyond Meat breakfast sandwiches and they're fantastic.
Yes! Beyond Meat is definitely a 'cut above' the other one. And McD's started by collaborating with Beyond Meat. If that means anything, I look forward to a great McPlant!
There was an article in one of the business magazines about a year ago about why so many fast food companies are adding meatless options.
It's not about health. It's not about choice. It's not about the planet. It's about money.
The menus need high-priced items and low-priced items to appeal to different types of customers. Most fast-food joints need a basic product they're known for, and a premium product that costs the consumer more and has a larger profit margin, that the average consumer might occasionally try.
The fast food companies can charge more for a meatless product, and reap bigger profits.
Once the meatless companies scale up their supply chains and production lines, they predict that they'll be cheaper than meat. So in the future the meatless option will be the "dollar menu" and you'll have to pay a premium for the real deal. Of course that also depends how the subsidies to the meat industry keep up as demand drops.
The mockery was mostly about how obvious/lazy/predictable people felt the name was. I don't understand why you think that disproves anything? The iPad was a success, but the name can still be obvious without the product being bad.
It couldn't be that stupid-sounding by accident. I think the name is a defense against people feeling like it's a pretentious thing to order at McDonald's.
The goal really should be to cut down on the carbon impact in the long term with a product that is hopefully also tastier and healthier, that will entice a large fraction of the country to increase the plant-based fraction of their diet. Not just offer a veggie burger for "poor liberals and vegetarians" who have nothing else to eat at McDonalds.
I really hope they don't screw this up by producing a crappy Costco-quality veggie burger. Impossible and Beyond are doing great on the taste front, Burger King already engaged Impossible, and I'm not sure how much research it will take McDonald's to catch up.
I always wonder what the vegetable vs meat market would look like without subsidies.
Imagine a free market where the veggie burger at McD is $1 and the beef one is $5. How many people would opt for the vegetarian option?
Instead, in the market which we have intervened, it’s the beef that cost $1 and the veggie burger $5.
Obesity is driven in part by lack of affordability of vegetables and in terms of resources and pollution (methane), beef is worse. It seems the incentives cater only to our carnal desire and (mostly corporate) cattle ranchers.
I don’t really care for meat all that much, but alas my taxes still go towards that damn $1 hamburger.
Sure, but that doesn't mean meat is the main culprit to obesity either That is not to say it doesn't play a role, nor the meat subsidies have other adverse effects either.
It's processed foods with added sugars/sweeteners that fuel obesity, and the lack of affordable unprocessed vegetables sure directly worsens the situation. In the US corn subsidies in particular are an issue, as they not only fuel obesity via high fructose syrup but also a third of the corn is used as animal feed, serving as an indirect subsidy to the meat industry.
Would swapping the beef out of a Big Mac extra value meal (super sized) make enough of a difference that it didn’t make people fat?
Seems like you could attack that thing from a lot of different angles (smaller portions, not including a quart of sugar to drink, etc.) and get better results.
And how healthy are these heavily-processed plant-based patties anyway? French fries are also plant-based, that doesn't make them healthy in and of itself.
Putting US obesity calamity aside, a large fraction of Macdonalds' beef sold worldwide is produced in Brazil. Therefore not incentivizing water intensive, methane producing products, AND as a bonus further limiting the destruction of Amazonian ecosystems sounds like a great way to attack it to me?
I remember a great story from a Macdonalds executive in a reddit AMA, who mentioned they had a pilot for a burger recipe which included grilled aubergine. The pilot was really successful and they had great feedback in tasting sessions but then they ran the numbers and quickly realize there wasn't enough world production of aubergine to role out the new burgers in their target markets. That story although funny really gives an insight into the scale and volume of Macdonalds as a business and their non-negligible impact on the world food market.
For me most of Macdonalds taste is in the seasoning/sauces, if they can make a passable smokey flavoured bean/soya patty and suddenly have a ground breaking ecologic impact without even hitting their bottom line, I say more power to them.
I'll dig up the source later, but some studies show that each hamburger has an $8 subsidy behind it. I don't think the parent comment is way over stating the effects of subsidies.
The pricing of a big Mac in different countries is too consistent for the u.s. to be subsidizing the burger to the toon of a 25x price difference relative to a soybean burger.
I'm not claiming anyone's lying. Just that they probably are.
If I showed you a study on the supposedly benign health effects of tobacco, except that study was funded by Philip Morris, would you trust it until proven wrong? Would you argue "how is their obvious agenda a bad thing?"
Yeah, I'm not sure it should work like that anymore. Trump lied in almost every publicly uttered sentence. Why is the onus still on the media to disprove him? At some point you should not automatically trust an institution like the presidency anymore.
Back to the original question. NGO's repeatedly say a single kg of meat costs 50.000 liters of water. That number in itself is not undisputed. If they don't specify which meat and which country they're referring to, they're lying. Or misrepresenting facts at the least. If they use this argument in a region that has no shortage water, they're abusing this fact to support a narrative. Etcetera.
The cost of soybeans is a lot cheaper to make an artificial burger (once they get the R&D down) than feeding the same soybeans to a cow and getting roughly 1:10 the calorie weight due to energy pyramids. You can get roughly 200 kg of protein per acre per year, while cows it is roughly 19 kg of protein per acre per year.
Of course this is talking future costs, for we are still perfecting artificial plants / proteins that taste like meat even though we been "branding" veggie burgers since the 1980s and the food science goes back hundreds of years prior to that.
Probably the logistics for feedstock is more lax when it comes to hygiene than you apply for food, but the plant matter is to my understanding the same.
1. Energy efficiency doesn't translate to costs of patty raw materials. Cattle can graze on uncultivated land, getting that portion of food for virtually free. There are other added costs to cattle farming outside of feed.
2. There are many costs to a cooked burger outside the cost of the patty.
> Energy efficiency doesn't translate to costs of patty raw materials. Cattle can graze on uncultivated land, getting that portion of food for virtually free. There are other added costs to cattle farming outside of feed.
Every time someone says this, but it's like 97% of cattle in the US that are crop-fed.
A lb of soybeans is cheaper than a lb of meat. But that that is a small percentage of the cost of delivering a mcdonalds burger to a customer.
There is the cost of the bun, the condiments, the transportation, employees, real estate, advertising, paying people to ensure consistent quality, etc...
Even if the soybean burger was free you wouldn't see a 25x relative price movement in the cost of a soybean burger relative to a meat burger.
Only recently, though, did it start tasting like meat. Or at least like fast food burgers. That's what Beyond Meat and Impossible have done. Impossible adds heme, which tastes like blood. They're both biochemistry companies.
Impossible burgers have no health advantage over meat, and much more salt, but they're trying to improve on that.
Here in India, we do get veg burgers. Those who prefer chicken burgers always goes for that even though it is priced higher(like 10-20% diff) than veg based burgers.
Also, we don't have pork or beef on the menu. Only chicken
I traveled to India last year for a business trip. Indian McD has apparently had vegetarian burger options for decades, including the McVeggie (vegetable patty), McSpicy Paneer (cottage cheese patty) and McAloo Tikki (potato-based patty).
The Indian population is about 40% vegetarian, so this makes sense. Personally, I think the vegetarian burgers tasted incredible, and I wish we had them here.
I went to India last year and found the vegetarian burgers awful. I think the American palate requires a little bit of a different taste than the Indian.
That's definitely possible, yeah. I already didn't eat much meat (where I live people aren't as crazy about meat as they often are in the US) and was used to salads and veggie sandwiches and stuff for meals.
But I agree, if they choose to bring these offerings to other countries, they're going to have to adjust the recipes, as I'm sure they will.
Here in the Kitchener-Waterloo region of Ontario/Canada, the local McDonalds ran with Beyond Meat burgers for about a month (maybe April-ish)? From what I could tell, it was very successful (often sold-out, and anecdotally the workers told me that it was the most popular new thing they'd seen in a long time). For my family, we went from not having eaten McD's for years to getting it occasionally.
However, they stopped it suddenly. So the fam now goes to A&W since they have Beyond.
Anecdotal evidence that doing meatless right in fast food can be a driver of growth, higher margins, and bring back a key demographic that otherwise wouldn't dream of setting foot in there.
Yes, I was thrilled to see that A&W had Beyond Burgers in Canada. It is the sole reason they got my business multiple times when I used to visit that country.
It appears not to be the case: https://awrestaurants.com/food/burgers/AW (https://awrestaurants.com/menu). I think I have been to a US location once/ever in the previous decade but in Canada, I would often seek out their locations when I wanted lunch (Beyond Burger wrapped in lettuce).
If you want to really be blown away by plant based meat replacements at fast food restaurants the dark horse is KFC. Whatever they put into their plant based crispy chicken burger is shockingly good, they also turned it into popcorn chicken which is also delicious.
It's too bad their restaurants are in such poor condition and their staff always seem to hate their lives... If not for that I'd probably go more.
In Sweden, we also have the chain called Max, which was quite early, and more importantly, serves a wide variety of products based on non-red-meat (plant, chicken, fish). They are generally pretty good too.
We have the McVeggie over here (Portugal) which are meh, but I recently discovered Linda McCartney's veggie burgers and I have fooled a couple of people thinking it was meat. They are very very good IMHO.
You have some stores around Lisbon, there is one in Estrela. You can also google it and some major chains say they have it but I haven't tried ordering online.
McDonald's had an all-veggie burger back in the 80's in the United States, but it went away.
I don't know if it was nationwide, or regional. It came out around the same time as the McDLT, which was awesome.
(As an aside, one of the things that has always bugged me about McDonald's is its menu inconsistency from market to market. The franchisees have too much power, IMO. I have to drive a few hundred miles each year to get McRibs because the local franchise owners won't carry it. And McRibs don't freeze well.)
In the 90s Burger King had an incredible 'meat like' vege burger here in Europe. As a freshly vegetarian teenager at the time it was my go too 'faux flesh'. For some unknown reason they cut it from the menu in favour of their rather awful 'bean burger'.
In Germany they introduced the Big Vegan TS (based on the Nestlé Incredible Burger) in April 2019. As far as I know it found great adoption and they even added the smaller Veganburger TS (same patty) to their menu. With the Big Vegan TS and all the sauces on there you can hardly tell it isn’t meat.
Can someone help me to understand all of the pessimism surrounding plant-based meat?
Of all of the morally-dubious technologies in the world today, this seems like a force of unequivocal good, and yet the criticism is endless: "it's not healthier", "the name sucks", "it'll give you cancer".
All of these just seem to be missing the point that it's _no worse than meat_ in most respects, and _way better_ in others (i.e. ethical and environmental impact).
A definitive answer to your question might not be possible but always keep in mind that in any free market, the incumbent has a vested interest in maintaining their position.
A recent parallel could be vaping: It had rediculously overblown criticisms for quite a while, to the point where some smokers were telling folks (unironically) that it wasn't safe and they shouldn't do it.
I want to know what I eat. For example, if I eat meat I want to know if it is pork or beef.
Plant-based does not cut it on that criteria.
Call it what it is, not what it pretends to be.
I think it might be something to do with the "lab grown" aspect. Where people perhaps don't necessarily understand how plant based foods are made and associate it with harsh chemicals and "fake" products to mimic another.
The idea that the plant based alternative is not natural when compared to meat that is grown in animals that we have seen for many lifetimes.
Similar to "I let my body build natural immunity, rather than take a chemically laced vaccine"
From what i've read, the impossible burger is pretty close to meat, unlike other plant based burgers.
On the other and, burger king already sell those.
So i'm curious, why doesn't McDonald's sell those too ?
Is the supply restricted to burger king ? or do they think it's not woth the more expensive price, and and meat eaters will still prefer to eat a McD burger, while plant easters don't care that much about closeness to meat ?
I'd guess because vertical integration is way better for margins at scale. Why be dependent on another company if you don't have to? It's way better to own your own product.
McDonalds partnered with Beyond briefly probably to test demand in the market. They're better off investing in their own recipe if they're able to pull it off.
I'd guess they can afford to pay the people they need to do it.
When I first had an impossible burger I didn't like it, but I was also eating meat at the time. After a few months of being vegetarian I think they're great.
Now vs long term. If they NEEDED something now - just use beyond. I don't think the are getting hammered now, but I think they see this as a trend that will stick so they want to be able to support the volumes needed for a real rollout and get all those profits in house. I guarantee they will be the biggest fake meat producer in a few years. Just imagine the impact of a fake meat McRib!
What's weird is McDonalds is a huge food corporation and the process Impossible and Beyond (and 50 other plant-based meats use) are pretty much open secrets. Why don't they just make their own? They're very good at making tasty stuff. I think some of the earlier players like Morningstar that use seitan etc. are actually much closer to what McDonalds wants - especially for breakfast sandwiches.
I'm not sure this is an open, non-patented secret , because there are only 2 companies that make their burger quite similar to meat, and even with that, impossible is much more similar.
Maybe that's what happened? I had v2 later and liked it better?
The first time I had it the smell was off, and the outside was too crisp so it didn't taste like a burger - it was closer than a veggie patty or something but the experience was like eating beef that had something off with it (not pleasant). I was disappointed since everyone said you couldn't tell the difference and to me it was immediately obvious.
After being a vegetarian for a while I tried again and this time it was better. The smell is still a little off, but other than that with condiments and stuff inside a bun it's easy to forget it's not a real burger. Though it's hard to know if it's just because I haven't had one in a long time.
It satisfies enough of what it feels like to eat a burger to enjoy them at a cookout. It also makes it easier for me to be a vegetarian since burgers were my favorite food.
Impossible has had ongoing supply issues. My city is very vegan friendly and had at least a handful of restaurants service impossible burgers that disappeared when Burger King rolled their impossible whopper out. There may be other factors, but I suspect this was part of the decision.
Are we leaping to conclusions by assuming this is referring to an impossible burger/beyond burger sort of product? A "plant-based" burger could also just be the sort of plain old veggie burger that e.g. Burger King has been offering for decades. Is there more detailed information somewhere?
> “ McDonald's had been running small tests of plant-based options in Canada since as early as last year, and was reportedly canvassing customers in the UK recently for their thoughts on vegan options at the Golden Arches”
In 2001 I had a vegetarian (vegan?) burger at McDonalds in the UK. McDonalds in India already has plenty of unique veggie items on their menu. I’m confused by these statements.
India is a more unique market due to the extremely high number of Hindus, who do not eat beef due to the revered status of the cow. This has a significant impact on the provisioning of products, as McDonalds would not be able to survive on beef alone.
McD in India doesn't sell any beef products, period. The menu is entirely chicken and vegetarian options. (They tried a lamb-based Maharaja Mac earlier, but pulled it in favor of the current chicken version some years ago.)
I persobally will continue to avoid McDonalds but think this is not a bad initiative. I’ve been eating a whole lot less meat lately and don’t miss it at all. I sometimes have veggie burgers from Trader Joe’s and they are, surprisingly, very good. I also tried veggie salamy and bologna and they are quite good as well though the heavy processing is a big turn off for me.
What about the processing in the veggie salami/bologna turns you off? Their meat counterparts are also heavily processed and are known to be carcinogenic.
You answered this question yourself. I am not sure how unhealthy the processig is so I prefer to stick with less processed veggies, I eat fresh as much as I possibly can
Or will they just put it into their "burgers"? Seems like the kind of thing they'd do.
For the uninitiated: McD's used to fry their fries in lard, and then changed in the 90's to vegetable oil to lower cholesterol, etc. But they still (secretly) used beef flavor, from animals, and lost a $10M lawsuit from vegetarians and Hindus.
I wish they'd start using beef tallow again. I recently made a few batches of store-bought fries deep fried in tallow and it was one of the best things I've ever tasted. There's something primally satisfying about the taste of animal fats vs plant-based fats.
That’s one opinion. I personally am put off by the tastes and smells of animal fats and proteins. Perhaps it’s because I consider animal products to be very unhealthy and environmentally harmful. The percentage of people in developed countries that are either vegetarian or vegan is increasing and McDonals is clearly trying to service this demographic.
This is McDonald's we're talking about. They are very much more concerned with mad science than taste. They're concerned with keeping costs low and their food easy to transport, store and cook (or reheat).
A bit of a sticking point with me and my partner is I refused to go eat at a cafe with my partners sister/husband for brunch as it was a vegan cafe. My reasoning was it was junk food, heavily processed food made to taste like meat. Nutritionaly there was nothing on the menu that suited my macros as I was training for a competition on a strict diet.
I did explain I'd happily eat somewhere that served real, whole food that was vegan, the issue wasn't about it being a vegan cafe, the issue was the food was nutritionally junk.
Whole based plant foods can be extremely tasty, healthy and simple. I quite happily eat these types of vegan meals. I actively avoid beyond meat burgers but will quite happily eat lentil burgers.
Still on the topic of McDonalds, people want beyond meat style burgers so it's good they are providing them as an option.
While true, those of us who liked the taste and texture of meat but became vegetarian for other reasons really appreciate how hard companies are trying to imitate meat with plants.
India has had vegetarian burgers for years, in fact, most people order these veg burgers because they don't eat meat ( culture / religion ). Ive never eaten meat, but I really love burgers.
I've enjoyed for years beetroot burgers - they're not meat but with goat cheese they are epic. These newer plant based burgers do of course address some ethical concerns around meat and certainly seem more sustainable.
With any eye on public health rather than sustainability: I wounder what these plant based burgers will do in the long run. I've been on the keto diet for quite a while now which leans heavily on animal-based fats and proteins, never felt healthier. With animal fats for example most of them are quite good for you. It's some of the plant based fats that are really problematic (typically the ones that melt at room temperature).
I really suspect the "sugar crisis" might actually be the "carbohydrates crisis" (i.e. not just fizzy drinks and sweets, but bread, pasta, rice, cereal, etc). I think most people have diets such that they run off pure carbohydrates 24/7 and then get the "shakes" when they go a few hours without them. I think plant based burgers will still be packed full of carbs, nothing to say of the buns and additional toppings.
I understand that these plant based burgers aim to break the perception of "plants taste awful, meat tastes good", but I wish more was done where it really counts in McDonalds meals, like chips, buns, batter, etc.
I had a "Beyond Burger" the other day. It was larger than you'd ever get from either BK or McD's, but it was still a licensed product.
The flavor was pretty good (if a bit too "meaty" as it were), but the texture was very wrong. There were sizable globs of rubbery material in them which was a bit disturbing (think Pearl Tea style tapioca, only 2-3x more resilient). It was as if globules of gristle had made it into the final product, bypassing the grinder.
I've found it works substantially better as ground meat because you don't get that squishy texture. We've added it to pasta, tacos, and various things now and it's worked out well. Just add some turmeric, chili powder and cook in some cumin seeds.
It sounds like they probably cooked it wrong. From what I understand cooking both the Beyond and Impossible burgers can be a bit finicky and easy to overcook/undercook, which is part of why they've been so slow in rolling it out to restaurants.
For a point of comparison, last time I had a Beyond burger it had texture basically identical to a beef burger cooked medium (a little more dry than my usual preference).
I've had a few Big Macs lately, and from my perspective the meat is perhaps the least consequential part of that sandwich, both flavor and texture-wise. At one point I asked for 4x extra cheese (gross, I know) and after the first few bites, that too seemed to be pushed aside in the palate by the sauce. I can almost guarantee you I would not notice a difference if they swapped the beef for beyond meat.
In my example, it was about 1/2 or 1/3 lb worth of meat, with minimal fixings, so at least some places are definitely using it in a way where the flavor/texture of the 'meat' matters.
I bought a frozen "impossible burger" (although I don't remember if it was beyond burger or impossible burger). It was not a good experience. When uncooked it looked like cat can food, when cooked it still smelled like cat food.
I have a feeling those are the same ingredients than cat food.
I would rather eat an official and assumed vegan burger rather than one of those "fake" meat burger
That was 100% a Beyond Burger. I cannot stomach another Beyond Burger after the smell that hit me after the first time I opened a package of raw Beyond. Raw Impossible Burger has basically no smell to me.
I think they must not be cooking it correctly. I've had the Beyond Burger patties and ground meat. If you only warm it up some of the "gristle" feels like plastic bits. Yuck. If you low and slow cook it, seems like it integrates better
And salt and spices help too, I feel they purposely under season it
They came up with a new formula somewhat recently and I had the same experience. I think it's just awful. Impossible Burger has been a consistent, very burger like experience.
It's good to see options proliferate and do well in the market. Ideally though, the next phase of this trend should yield products which emphasize organic/regenerative attributes, or similar labeling with ties to positive ecological outcomes.
We have had the McVeggie in New Zealand for a while now - They even included it in our "Kiwi Burger" range. I think it's off the menu now but easily the best burger I have had from Maccas.
purely driven by curiosity, not vegan or health-concerned or anything, it still took me a very long time (years) to one time take a chance and try an Impossble burger somewhere (think it was A&W). One night I just decided to take the plunge.
It was 'fine'. But nothing is really incentivizing me to have it regularly. I kind of want to be mislead -- don't tell me it's a plant-based burger. If the studies are consistent, I'll think it's fine.
McDonalds finally taking the plunge into this is big for markets as is anything they get into. I suspect that they finally see the numbers working as far as consumer-readiness and competitors all selling them now also. So that indicates it must be working somewhat at the other places like Burger King etc. Has anyone you know said they eat plant burgers regularly tho - other than veggie/vegan friends??
Maybe McNatural would be a better name, less focused on the Plant aspect which I agree will turn ppl away.
I would say one in three of the burgers I consume is plant- based, I do it to reduce meat consumption. If I find myself at BK, for instance, I always get the impossible whopper. Same at home--1 lb beyond beef for every 2 lb ground beef. Eventually the veggie stuff will get even better (and cheaper), and the ratio will flip.
Same - I’m not too ideological and want to take a pragmatic approach to it while still recognizing that I want to eat junk food every now and then. My main pet peeve is that in my usual spot they slap $4 extra to sub impossible instead of real meat. The burgers are great so I take it but it just shouldn’t be more expensive than an animal that’s been fed the veggie patty ingredients times a hundred to make that patty.
No, I'd rather have them tell me its fake meat. The vegetable oils are most likely carcinogenic, amid other health issues (GI, heart) [0]. Red meat is not [1]
Further, these fake meats, Impossible Burger namely, have been linked to kidney failure in mice studies [2] (one commissioned by the Impossible Foods manufacturer). In particular:
"
* A rat feeding study commissioned by the manufacturer Impossible Foods found that rats fed SLH [soy leghemoglobin] developed unexplained changes in weight gain, changes in the blood that can indicate the onset of inflammation or kidney disease, and possible signs of anemia
* Impossible Foods dismissed these statistically significant effects as “non-adverse” or as having “no toxicological relevance”
"
I understand these aren't as good test subjects as human studies, however it seems under the guise of the green movement, this evidence has been willfully ignored, or just not known. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Burguer King have this in the menu. I tried one, I still prefer the meat ones, but is nice to have the option, specially when before the pandemic I was craving for some fast food, I could go there with my girfriend who is a vegetarian, and she could eat more than french fries.
Burger King's had the Impossible Whopper for quite a while now. I feel like the silly estrogen "controversy" probably drove some people to try it just for the memes, including me. It's pretty good in my opinion.
Burger King impossible burger is the worst thing I've ever had. I don't know whether this is as good as it gets or it wasn't prepared correctly. It was awful, though, and more expensive than other sandwiches.
I foresee a world where McDonalds has a value menu full of plant based food and then a "premium menu" with large beef patties that are high quality and more expensive ($10-15).
As a lifelong US vegetarian, I won't hold my breath. The number of times McDonalds has test marketed vegetarian alternatives has left me doubting they will ever bring a veg alternative to market.
The COVID related menu simplification at mcdonalds have made it really hard to eat even slightly healthy there. I'm surprised they are considering a project like this, although 2021 is a ways out.
Some vegans. If you care about the environment at all you’re not going to be demanding every restaurant buy additional grills, expand footprint, or alternatively not serve vegans at all. Demanding separate grills doesn’t have any impact on animal suffering either. The only vegans I could see caring about that are the purity test vegans or the vegans who are convinced meat is physically dangerous to human health, and those people shouldn’t eat in McDonald’s regardless.
I have also heard that some people that are on strict vegan diets can develop an intolerance to animal products. So I guess it's possible they could have issues with cross contamination.
Disclaimer: This is pure, third-hand speculation. I am not in a position to know if developing an animal products intolerance is possible.
I can confirm having developed some intolerance to animal fats since becoming vegetarian. It isn't usually a problem if my fake-meat is cooked on the same surface as real-meat, but every so often I will experience some stomach discomfort. Pig fat seems to be the most likely to cause it.
This used to be a concern for me earlier on in my vegan years but I soon realized that veganism isn't about eating a "pure" diet, it's about the animals. The best thing for the animals is for these products to sell and I shouldn't let a little cross contamination deter me from that.
Yep, I call myself a "mostly plants" person because of this. When buying and cooking for myself I avoid meat and animal products but I felt like it was wrong to waste food just because it was meat.
As an ethical vegan (reduce animal suffering but previously enjoyed eating meat) I don't care if it shares the same grill or goes into the same fryer. But I'm also unlikely to go somewhere where that'd happen - it's more likely if I'm pressed for options i.e. somewhere out of the city.
I'd give the McDonalds burger a go though - it's always interesting to see how far food tech can be pushed and how different it is from the real-deal. The key in my mind is synthetic collagen to give fake meat the bounce/snap/chew of real meat (FWIW I don't eat fake meat often, just interested in food tech in general).
I think that this particular product is aimed at Vegans/Vegetarians, while products like the Beyond Burger and Impossible Burger are aimed at "flexitarians".
So, when making a "meaty" product, the simplest thing to do is make it a different shape than your other products.
It surprises me that this is just happening now in the US. Here in Germany, McDonalds has been selling various plant-based burgers for years, if not decades.
Plant based isn't always the best option for nutrition and environment. In fact with regenerative agricultural practices, holistic management and grass fed/finished cows, more carbon can be captures in solid than released.
There is nothing in that link which makes your point. Veggies are an order of magnitude lower in carbon footprint per calorie than beef. Environmentally speaking there is no argument for eating beef
It can't be worse TBH. If somebody told me "Yeah, so McDonald's has been using fake meat for the past decade" I wouldn't even dispute it.. "Ahh, that makes total sense".
Seriously though, I'm sure we've all had veggie and vegan burgers an order of magnitude better than what McDonald's passes off as a hamburger.
Like others have mentioned, I don't see this being successful. Unlike Burger King and Wendy's, McDonald's uses beef tallow in their fries, making vegetarians avoid them.
If the only appeal here is a subpar burger that you can't even get fries with, people are just gonna go elsewhere.
McDonalds hasn’t used beef tallow in their fries for 20+ years.
[edit] this seems disputed. The ingredients list includes “natural beef flavor” which it says is wheat and milk derivatives.
To clarify: old school McD fries were fried in beef tallow at the restaurant. Now it’s vegetable oil at the restaurant, but are par-fried at the processing plant in vegetable oil with some “natural beef flavoring”
The parent is at least tempering their statements with uncertainty. How is it that you are certain that they use beef tallow? Seems like a rather strong claim given that McDonalds doesn't appear to list their ingredients.
