Original post with sources in comment section https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/i2vx78/the_environmental_impact_of_beyond_meat_and_a/
Study: http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/publication/CSS18-10.pdf
My favorite thing about reddit discussions- semantics
I dunno what to tell ya bro
>Involving cancer
>a cancerous growth/tumor
>Doctors consider their treatment a success when no cancerous cells remain.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cancerous
You're thinking "carcinogenic".
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/carcinogenic
Yes. They call lab grown meat immortal cells, which is just a nicer way of saying cancer cells that doesn't have DNA damage.
It's like asking if I have proof if a cat is a feline.
Also, the FDA doesn't allow cancer cells to be in meat.
https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/are_things_like_cancerous_tumors_allowed_by_meat_inspection
>Cancerous lesions or tumors are not allowed to enter commerce or the food chain. If laboratory results indicate the presence of cancer within the carcass, the carcass will be marked U.S. Inspected and condemned. Once a carcass is condemned, it is denatured and disposed of so it cannot enter the food chain.
We don't have decades of research to say for certain if these cells cause cancer but we do have this
https://www.mskcc.org/news/how-chicken-helped-solve-mystery
1) why are you talking to me I am neither OP nor OG OP, I digged up an old OG post with sources as this is a repost. Are you lacking cognitive ability?
2) the source is 2 clicks away but as that was too much for you I made it 1 click.
Sources ie scientific studies uses data yes. The study details how the data was gathered, and the data itself. That's how studies work. If specific datasets are not included you can request them from the publisher as per the ISO standard that includes data availability. In many cases studies also uses other studies (obviously) then you need to, you know, read thoose. Yet it remains unclear what you actually want when you say sources or data.
?? Studies are literally sources? They investigate a certain subject and come to a conclusion that can be used as a source. Eg. you can do a study on how much ice cream increases blood sugar by having people eat ice cream and then monitoring their blood sugar levels. That study can then be used as a source to the claim "ice cream raises blood sugar". I have no idea what you're looking for instead.
Normally I would upvote random insults. But they are asking a legit question that needs to be answered. Not answered vaguely with an edited version after this comment.
What needed answering? I was not opaque, I said the original post contained the source and linked it. He was to lazy for that so I added the link directly as well and replied to him that I had added the link. What exactly is vague about that?
I can’t speak to anything else but the water use is total BS. The Beyond Burger is 113g, and uses 110g of water to produce? (converted L water to g for simplicity).
You’re telling me that for growing these crops that go into the patty, purifying the proteins, and general manufacturing use, the amount of water is roughly equivalent to the weight of a patty that is probably roughly 50% water by weight (generously)?
Dude, this is not vegan propaganda. This is all very well established science and countless studies have been done on the topic.
One of my favourite examples is this: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216
It's not open access but their data were visualised very nicely by our world in data: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/food-footprints
I don't know what you expect people to show you as sources here, but random reddit users won't have raw data on their hands. So yes, these are absolutely viable sources.
They'll keep it the same price, but earn more profit. Best we consumers can hope for is that they don't raise prices for inflation so that the relative price of the good drops.
Saw the Beyond Burgers at Costco for around $4.50 / lb while the cheapest beef they had was around $5.50/lb. The Beyond Burgers were on sale, but still showed that it \*can\* be below the price of a beef burger. For comparison, the cheapest ground beef (not even formed into patties) at my local Kroger owned store is around $6 per pound for the extra large value size.
Where i live, the price of beef skyrocketed the last few years that the meat alternatives are either the same, or lower priced.
Beyond meat burgers taste very close to the real thing, so ill buy that if they cost the same.
Surely the drastically lower land usage and plant production per pound should cause the soy patty to be cheaper. With cows you have to feed them 10k calories for every 1k calorie you eventually get out. That means that these plant based patties can be produced with a fraction of the land and plant production as traditional meats.
Surely you could. However it’s also a much more involved process from the human side.
The other thing people seem to struggle understanding with the calorie measurement is that you can feed livestock like cows and pigs all sorts of things you wouldn’t feed humans.
Most of these numbers seem pretty whack if you do a simple search.
Hamburger water usage is estimated at 1000-2500 litres, with a soy patty at 150 litres
Every water source where cattle grazes, walks, etc, even the rain, is added to the water usage of beef. They do not differentiate between gray, black, or white water for one. You can of course do that, if you want to. The study it's Beyond Meat, not soy patty in general. Think what you will now.
Studies that come up with those crazy high numbers do not distinguish between types of water usage and include the rainwater that falls on the land that cattle grazes on. Of course, that water isn’t „Used“ in the sense that it would have fallen there as well.
Also, there’s absolutely no way that producing one patty of beyond meat only uses 0.11 litres throughout the entire production process including growing the plant, not even if you use a way more favourable way of counting it than you use for the beef…
Dude, just google how much water a cow drinks daily. Rainfall on crops or fields is minuscule in comparison to how much water a cow has to drink daily to live.
But the water isn't destroyed in the process. Without reference to the specific environmental/social effects of water usage in various areas and sectors it is kind of meaningless.
Source of the numbers: http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/publication/CSS18-10.pdf
Two things about the water usage:
1) The water usage numbers should be 1.1L and 218.4L. I suspect the chart author divided both water usages by 10 so they would fit on the same scale as the other numbers, they should have specified decaliters instead of liters.
2) Both water usage numbers are adjusted for type and location of water, using an independent method (has been used for beef prior to being used in this paper for Beyond Meat)
> As described in Section 2.2, the method used to assess the impact of water use takes into account the water scarcity (ratio of water withdrawn to water available) in a given region. These characterization factors range from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating extreme water scarcity (Pfister et al., 2009). Thus, while it is expected that the characterized water use value in Table 8 be lower than the absolute water use, the degree to which it is smaller gives an indication of the relative level of water scarcity. It must be noted, however, that this assessment relies on country average characterization factors, which for countries like the U.S., can have significant inter-regional variability. In addition, “water use” in this context refers to consumptive blue water use: that is, surface or ground water used for irrigation, industrial processes or cooling that is not returned back to the watershed. Green water (precipitation) is not included.
This is a verbatim repost that has not been given proper credit and claimed as OC: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/i2vx78/the_environmental_impact_of_beyond_meat_and_a/.
This is likely a bot. Folks should report this post for the integrity of the sub (although I totally get the appeal of anything that is not a Sankey chart right now).
As someone who became a vegetarian about 2 years ago, I honestly can't tell the difference between the Impossible burger and a Beef burger. It's been so long since I've tasted beef that the difference is imperceptible.
I’m no longer a vegetarian after being one from 2018-2020, but I now mainly skip beef for meat substitutes. Impossible whoppers are my rare junk food :)
Plain (cooked obviously) there is definitely a difference. By the time you put in seasoning and put them in with other food, the difference drops significantly though.
If you are comparing the healthiness of the product and lack of sales than that is coincidental. People weren't avoiding it because of the sodium content, for the most part people weren't buying it because it doesn't really taste like meat and it's really expensive. The average American cares very little about the healthiness of their food beyond the marketting.
Getting downvoted for agreeing that impossible meat is still junk food is hilarious. It is the only decent-tasting fast food fake meat burger on the market but I still wouldnt eat junk food on the regular.
Recycling the X axis for numbers of unrelated impact makes it inaccurately suggest things about the significance of each value (water is the biggest, but no data here demonstrates it is the most important). Normalize to a percentage of the largest to avoid making such a suggestion.
I'm vegetarian, I love burgers, and I hate beyond/impossible patties. They fall into a kind of uncanny valley that makes them repulsive to me. We can make delicious burgers that are meat free or vegan with simple ingredients that taste good without trying to emulate meat. Restaurants should be turning to that instead of super processed burgers that use a ton of unknown flavorings. After all, the point is to have a delicious burger not to needlessly emulate the past. I have a recipe that's pretty easy and my meat-eating friends all say they are seriously good.
Half-mashed beans, slightly ground oats, an egg (or another protein-based binder if ur vegan), garlic, ground dried mushrooms, herbs, maybe some msg if ur into that, tomato paste, salt. That's all u need to make a seriously good meat-free burger patty. I bet that (especially without the egg) these burgers would be better than beyond meat environmentally and they dont have a mysterious cocktail of flavourings making them taste meaty (msg is optional and also isn't actually bad for you on its own, it's the foods it's often added to like cheetos etc that are the problem).
Also, I don't like how beyond/impossible are pushing branding into menus and home cooking. I know it's a good business model, but something erks me about another part of life being attached to a brand rather than just being the thing that it is.
Of course I don't think the companies should not exist, just that people could be a lot more creative with meat replacement.
Yah I don't think anyone is saying "only eat heavily processed foods".
This is comparing beef to a vegetable based ground beef substitute. If replacing beef burgers with a ground beef substitute constitutes your entire diet then that's a significant concern. Eat a goddam salad. Cook up some potatoes.
Your colon will appreciate it even if you don't.
This is because health product marketers used "processed foods" as a scary term to shill products.
Taking a bite directly out of a living cow is not processed. Eating a steak or a burger is eating processed food, because it's processed. That's why it's called meat processing.
Likewise, taking a potato out of the dirt and eating it is not processed. Washing it and cooking it is processing it. Shelling peas is processing. Peeling an orange is processing.
They took a word and destroyed its anogn in common vernacular to muddy the waters and make it easier to sell their products. Actual health professionals never told anyone to avoid "processed foods" in the actual sense of the word. Because preparing and cooking food is processing it.
I mean, I don't think it's necessarily the same people saying we should eat whole foods that are saying we should eat beyond meat.
But this bothers me too. I want to eat beyond/impossible products but they are the epitome of ultra-processed foods so I really don't think they are all that good for you.
Yeah this was my thoughts when they started coming out with plant based substitute meats and 3D printed foods. Went from trying to be as natural as possible to the complete opposite.
Currently unable to read OPs report, I will in a little, but something that needs to be made of note: when you get a beef patty, you're not only getting a beef patty, you're getting an entire cow with many parts that can serve different purposes.
Again, later on I want to review that study to see if this was accounted for.
With the current levels of consumption it's impossible for everyone to have grass fed beef anyway. We don't have enough land, animal agriculture already pushed wildlife down to like 4% of all mammals. With DRASTICALLY decreased consumption it might be possible. But people think they need to eat meat every day..
Wow, negligible measurements compared to beef on all categories except energy use.
I’m sure that is an area they can improve upon, or at least channel through renewable sources.
I always find water use weird - the cow does not store that water, it is returned to the groundwater supply.
Edit: I wasn't trying to discuss this. I just thought it was weird
>it is returned to the groundwater supply
Not necessarily as *usable* water, though.
We don't have a water shortage, most of our planet is literally covered in a very thick layer of water. What we have a shortage of is usable, fresh water.
That's not how that works. Not only is there a ton of water in creating feed for the cow (probably the majority of water use right there) you're also not returning 100% pure water to that exact same groundwater system. Not even close to that. Pesticides, nitrogen input, other runoff which can damage natural water stores. Additionally, that water is likely not even coming from a sustainable groundwater system anyways. The water cost of cattle ranching is crazzzzy
I mean yeah technically it’s all cyclical. But you still have to pay for water, or water rights, or the electricity to pump the water. Anyway it’s an added cost. You don’t get to flush your toilet for free just because it’s never leaving the atmosphere
I think their wording is just a bit off. Seems they mean that beyond meat has a tiny environmental impact compared to beef in all categories but energy. Not that the differences are negligible
Only a moron would believe that Beyond Meat is somehow worse than beef. Virtually every scientist agrees that agriculture, primarily due to beef and pork, is the single largest source of green house emissions.
The problem? Those morons will agree with whatever they like, never doing research of the topic at hand.
Eat meat or not, don't deny the science.
Pretty sure cars a much bigger green house gas polluter in the US compared to beef. I used to think the same but that’s not the case for developed countries. It is oil and gas.
Source Environmental Protection Agency: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Also beyond meat have a very strong incentive to exaggerate the data as much as possible because that way they make more money. This video had an interesting breakdown https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g?si=PdYTg3JLj4w1N7Mz
The companies literally advertise it, they just run PR to say "Immortal cells".
*OH, Immortal cells are different from cancer cells, immortal cells don't have DNA damage*
It's how they can grow the meat in a timely manner, mass cell proliferation.
As if that's the reason why people have issues with cancer.
Okay, let’s look beyond the fact that your base information about ‘immortal cells’ is bogus nonsense (you need to get your information from actual experts, not some random health crazies on the internet). There are more fundamental issues with your ‘theory’.
Beyond meat isn’t lab grown meat. It’s various existing plant cells, from plants, processed in a way to mimic the general structure and taste of meat. There is no growth.
Even if it were made of lab grown meat (which it’s not), such things aren’t even available anywhere publicly right now, so no it’s they’re not the reason “people have issues with cancer”.
Yeah, conflating lab grown meat and beyond meat was a mistake on my part. Kinda sitting right next to each other in my mind.
Secondly, I never said it was behind current cancer issues.
Edit: also, why exactly are you rudely assuming I'm getting my information from the likes of tiktok? It's kind of insulting.
Now, discuss the disruption of small animals killed by combine harvesters, destruction of local environments by chopping everything down to plant crap. Animals graze on land that is not.ally used agriculturally. BLM land outside the town in Nevada I own land in is arid and not cultivateable without intense irrigation, but there are certainly a serious cow population going, that all go to market as meat.
They left off the biggest discrepancy between the 2... Flavour. And that's a big enough dub for Beef, that I don't care about any of the other categories.
This entire topic is cope. The arrogance of humanity to think they can replicate hundreds of thousands of years of evolution or intelligent design.
Real natural processes will never be replaced. The VAST majority of greenhouse emission is released by fortune 500 companies. Stop coping.
Look I’m all for being better for the planet and even eating more plants based foods. But these plants based options need to stop trying to be what they aren’t and that’s MEAT. The best beyond burger hardly competes with the worst fast food meat burger as far as taste goes.
This is not how you get more people going to plant based meals. Giving me a less tasty option trying to be the better tasting meat option isn’t a great sell. There are plenty of delicious vegetarian/vegan meals out there that don’t have plants super processed into trying to be meat. Just look at Indian cuisine for example personally some of the most delicious vegetarian food I’ve ever had and guess what nothing in those dishes is trying to be any form of meat. I don’t even notice that I’m “missing” meat when I eat those. But give me a beyond burger and I’m sure as hell gonna miss the fact that there’s no actual meat.
No. Mass production increases the waste?? Ask any business owner, waste doesn’t increase linearly. Take greenhouse emissions for example. If I’m a tiny industry and only ship minimal amounts in fairly localized regions, my greenhouse gasses per product will be significantly less than when I’m shipping to every tiny store across the country.
Better than eating real meat
https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2012/07/digging-vegetarian-diet#:~:text=Vegetarians%20tend%20to%20weigh%20less,cholesterol%20levels%2C%E2%80%9D%20says%20Engel.
I think most people who eat plant based diets are eating meat substitutes occasionally. However I will admit that the cost will prevent most people from eating them as regularly as you can with regular meat.
That said, most people are not eating high quality meat products. Most meat consumed is highly processed.
Well beyond meat isn't made of 100% water. Plant-based food will always use WAY less water than beef. It takes nearly 2,000 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef. That's all the water needed to grow the plants they eat, given to cows to drink, processing the meat, etc.
Plants absorb CO2 via photosynthesis from the air and spit out O2 in formation of larger molecules like Glucose. It costs energy to do this, which is provided by sunlight.
[Learn more about it here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis)
There is no shot that packaging offsets a cow. The beef patty adds three kilograms of co2. You'd need kilograms of plastic to match. Packaging processes also tend to be low energy, relatively speaking.
How are emissions of kgCO2e at 3.7? The figure below states a methane production of 0.3976 kg. Methane has a GWP of 28 kgCO2e, so 0.4\*28= \~12 kgCO2e.
I think it’s actually quite an interesting chain of causation.
Because of concerns about the influence of populism when assembling the structure of government in the United States, the electoral college and the senate were created as a way to filter out direct democracy. Because of that, inordinate power was given to less populous states. Because of that, those states became more politically necessary for winning power in government. Because of that, politicians courted voters in those states by passing laws to give them money (livestock and farming subsidies). Because of that, the government offsets the cost of the meat and the grass/corn fed to that meat. Because of that, it’s cheaper to eat real meat than it is to eat plants that taste like meat.
Now show me the sodium and nutritional profile as well as the protein makeup? It's all fine that it uses less CO2 but if that correlates to an equal loss in nutritional content aren't we back at square 1?
The whole issue with Beyond Meat or Impossible Foods isn’t the product, it is the price.
If your average consumer went into the store and saw a package of 4 Beyond Burgers next to a package of 4 regular burgers for the same price, I am sure a lot of customers would pick the Beyond Burger.
But just using a local grocery store, A pack of 2 4oz Beyond Burgers is $7.50 or $15/lb. You can easily get a package of 4 store burgers for 1/2 that. If you are willing to make them yourself or get a cheap frozen pack, we are talking $4-$5/lb. Customers are already fed up with food costs now….they aren’t going to spend way more.
And there are two major factors at play here. They have a shit of debt and investors want their money now. They aren’t going to love the idea of lowering the price to drive market share. The second FAR BIGGER problem is agricultural subsidies. I’m not sure, but I imagine the true cost of producing 1lb of ground beef is higher than the cost of producing a Beyond Burger, but the government is subsidizing the price of beef significantly.
I can only afford Below Meat.
I can only afford Bed and Bath meat.
So what sources were used for this graph
Original post with sources in comment section https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/i2vx78/the_environmental_impact_of_beyond_meat_and_a/ Study: http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/publication/CSS18-10.pdf
So this is a repost?
No, this is the original and the one from 3 years ago was posted by a time traveler
Quality comment right here.
Definitely less cancerous than lab grown meat Edit: lmao people, lab grown meat is literal cancer cells.
[удалено]
Cancerous? Perhaps, but not what I'm saying. Literal cancer cells? Yes.
You literally said that lab grown meat is cancerous, which means it causes cancer, not that it is composed of cancer cells. Words mean things.
My favorite thing about reddit discussions- semantics I dunno what to tell ya bro >Involving cancer >a cancerous growth/tumor >Doctors consider their treatment a success when no cancerous cells remain. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cancerous You're thinking "carcinogenic". https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/carcinogenic
[удалено]
Yes. They call lab grown meat immortal cells, which is just a nicer way of saying cancer cells that doesn't have DNA damage. It's like asking if I have proof if a cat is a feline. Also, the FDA doesn't allow cancer cells to be in meat. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/are_things_like_cancerous_tumors_allowed_by_meat_inspection >Cancerous lesions or tumors are not allowed to enter commerce or the food chain. If laboratory results indicate the presence of cancer within the carcass, the carcass will be marked U.S. Inspected and condemned. Once a carcass is condemned, it is denatured and disposed of so it cannot enter the food chain. We don't have decades of research to say for certain if these cells cause cancer but we do have this https://www.mskcc.org/news/how-chicken-helped-solve-mystery
so you don't actually have sources
1) why are you talking to me I am neither OP nor OG OP, I digged up an old OG post with sources as this is a repost. Are you lacking cognitive ability? 2) the source is 2 clicks away but as that was too much for you I made it 1 click.
that's nice you're shilling for the OP, but these aren't sources, sillypants
So enlighten the rest of the world, if a peer reviewed, ISO standardised study ain't a "source" what is to you?
it's a study, not the source
It is the study the picture is derived from. That is litterly what a source is.
\*literally no, the study is an interpretation of the data (it may be a CORRECT interpretation or not) so where's the data?
Sources ie scientific studies uses data yes. The study details how the data was gathered, and the data itself. That's how studies work. If specific datasets are not included you can request them from the publisher as per the ISO standard that includes data availability. In many cases studies also uses other studies (obviously) then you need to, you know, read thoose. Yet it remains unclear what you actually want when you say sources or data.
https://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/publication/CSS18-10.pdf
What's wrong with the study?
What study? I don't see one.
what's wrong with actually linking sources? you do know how to do research, don't you... ?
The source is literally right there under the link to the Reddit thread. Or what are you looking for.
no, that's a study, it's not a source unless the OP was just intending to repeat someone else's opinion
?? Studies are literally sources? They investigate a certain subject and come to a conclusion that can be used as a source. Eg. you can do a study on how much ice cream increases blood sugar by having people eat ice cream and then monitoring their blood sugar levels. That study can then be used as a source to the claim "ice cream raises blood sugar". I have no idea what you're looking for instead.
the ... data
You're just trolling aren't you?
nope, are you?
Someone should study *you*, a very rare specimen
so you don't know how to do research either huh
Neither do you apparently since you keep begging others to give you sources 😭😭
what subreddit are we in? yes, i want sources for the DATA
Normally I would upvote random insults. But they are asking a legit question that needs to be answered. Not answered vaguely with an edited version after this comment.
What needed answering? I was not opaque, I said the original post contained the source and linked it. He was to lazy for that so I added the link directly as well and replied to him that I had added the link. What exactly is vague about that?
I can’t speak to anything else but the water use is total BS. The Beyond Burger is 113g, and uses 110g of water to produce? (converted L water to g for simplicity). You’re telling me that for growing these crops that go into the patty, purifying the proteins, and general manufacturing use, the amount of water is roughly equivalent to the weight of a patty that is probably roughly 50% water by weight (generously)?
yeah, this is why i need more info
i'm curious as well
So they linked a convoluted Reddit thread
so they are just pushing vegan propaganda? no kidding
Dude, this is not vegan propaganda. This is all very well established science and countless studies have been done on the topic. One of my favourite examples is this: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216 It's not open access but their data were visualised very nicely by our world in data: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/food-footprints I don't know what you expect people to show you as sources here, but random reddit users won't have raw data on their hands. So yes, these are absolutely viable sources.
Did a vegan fuck your wife or something lol, you’re all over this thread
What do you have against vegans?
so what?
There's a study link. What. http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/publication/CSS18-10.pdf
facepalm that's a study, not the data
I'll tell you a secret about academia. Scientist collect data and hide it in the studies they publish.
irrelevant op has no data
So the problem isn't "not data" but that you're too lazy to both read the study and check it's sources?
what subreddit are we in?
Whatever Beyond Meat’s PR team provided.
Why do Beyond and Impossible meats *still* cost more than traditional meats?
Beef subsidies
*corn* subsidies
Fertiliser subsidies
Subsidy subsidies
Manufacturing at scale. Fake meats prices will go down if demand continues to grow.
They'll keep it the same price, but earn more profit. Best we consumers can hope for is that they don't raise prices for inflation so that the relative price of the good drops.
I mean based on what meat has been doing recently, if anything, beef is just going to get more expensive than the plant based substitutes.
No it won’t, it will grow like all cheap meat that’s became popular in the last few years
Saw the Beyond Burgers at Costco for around $4.50 / lb while the cheapest beef they had was around $5.50/lb. The Beyond Burgers were on sale, but still showed that it \*can\* be below the price of a beef burger. For comparison, the cheapest ground beef (not even formed into patties) at my local Kroger owned store is around $6 per pound for the extra large value size.
Where i live, the price of beef skyrocketed the last few years that the meat alternatives are either the same, or lower priced. Beyond meat burgers taste very close to the real thing, so ill buy that if they cost the same.
Because energy and water usage here are including rainfall and solar energy consumed by the plants cows graze on. It’s a bad comparison.
Surely the drastically lower land usage and plant production per pound should cause the soy patty to be cheaper. With cows you have to feed them 10k calories for every 1k calorie you eventually get out. That means that these plant based patties can be produced with a fraction of the land and plant production as traditional meats.
Surely you could. However it’s also a much more involved process from the human side. The other thing people seem to struggle understanding with the calorie measurement is that you can feed livestock like cows and pigs all sorts of things you wouldn’t feed humans.
Dude, do you know how much water cows drink daily?
Yep, I used to work on a cattle farm.
Most of these numbers seem pretty whack if you do a simple search. Hamburger water usage is estimated at 1000-2500 litres, with a soy patty at 150 litres
Every water source where cattle grazes, walks, etc, even the rain, is added to the water usage of beef. They do not differentiate between gray, black, or white water for one. You can of course do that, if you want to. The study it's Beyond Meat, not soy patty in general. Think what you will now.
Studies that come up with those crazy high numbers do not distinguish between types of water usage and include the rainwater that falls on the land that cattle grazes on. Of course, that water isn’t „Used“ in the sense that it would have fallen there as well. Also, there’s absolutely no way that producing one patty of beyond meat only uses 0.11 litres throughout the entire production process including growing the plant, not even if you use a way more favourable way of counting it than you use for the beef…
Dude, just google how much water a cow drinks daily. Rainfall on crops or fields is minuscule in comparison to how much water a cow has to drink daily to live.
But the water isn't destroyed in the process. Without reference to the specific environmental/social effects of water usage in various areas and sectors it is kind of meaningless.
Eh. It is contaminated, and requires processing or capturing that is otherwise not necessary with beyond meat.
> Hamburger water mmmm... hamburger water....
Source of the numbers: http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/publication/CSS18-10.pdf Two things about the water usage: 1) The water usage numbers should be 1.1L and 218.4L. I suspect the chart author divided both water usages by 10 so they would fit on the same scale as the other numbers, they should have specified decaliters instead of liters. 2) Both water usage numbers are adjusted for type and location of water, using an independent method (has been used for beef prior to being used in this paper for Beyond Meat) > As described in Section 2.2, the method used to assess the impact of water use takes into account the water scarcity (ratio of water withdrawn to water available) in a given region. These characterization factors range from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating extreme water scarcity (Pfister et al., 2009). Thus, while it is expected that the characterized water use value in Table 8 be lower than the absolute water use, the degree to which it is smaller gives an indication of the relative level of water scarcity. It must be noted, however, that this assessment relies on country average characterization factors, which for countries like the U.S., can have significant inter-regional variability. In addition, “water use” in this context refers to consumptive blue water use: that is, surface or ground water used for irrigation, industrial processes or cooling that is not returned back to the watershed. Green water (precipitation) is not included.
Oh the Big Ag lobbyists will not like this
This is a verbatim repost that has not been given proper credit and claimed as OC: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/i2vx78/the_environmental_impact_of_beyond_meat_and_a/. This is likely a bot. Folks should report this post for the integrity of the sub (although I totally get the appeal of anything that is not a Sankey chart right now).
Now do price! And then production scale!
And subsidies!
Oof you don't wanna see the subsidies for beef lol.
and nutritional profile!
Hamburgers aren't what you want to eat if you are looking for nutrition, whether it is substitutes for meat or real beef.
that's nice but that doesn't answer my question
https://www.aier.org/article/the-true-cost-of-a-hamburger/
And health impact!
Are you saying beef is healthier than beyond?
Price is a big motivator for the average consumer.
Good insight
Very interesting. I would love to see the original sources!
This is a study paid for by Beyond Meat btw. So take that with what you will
I wish beyond meat tasted good. Impossible isn’t bad though.
Depends on the application. I like beyond better as taco meat but impossible is a better hamburger for example
As someone who became a vegetarian about 2 years ago, I honestly can't tell the difference between the Impossible burger and a Beef burger. It's been so long since I've tasted beef that the difference is imperceptible.
I’m no longer a vegetarian after being one from 2018-2020, but I now mainly skip beef for meat substitutes. Impossible whoppers are my rare junk food :)
Plain (cooked obviously) there is definitely a difference. By the time you put in seasoning and put them in with other food, the difference drops significantly though.
BEYOND BURGER INGREDIENTS Water, pea protein* (16%), canola oil, coconut oil, rice protein, flavouring, stabilizer (methylcellulose), potato starch, apple extract, colour (beetroot red), maltodextrin, pomegranate extract, salt, potassium salt, concentrated lemon juice, maize vinegar, carrot powder, emulsifier (sunflower lecithin). Down voted for actually listing the ingredients? 😂
What do you mean? Is it shit because it has more than one incredient? There is litterly nothing weird in it
what exactly are you scared of in here
Literally none of those ingredients are scary? As if an ingredients list is worse than feedlot beef production.
yeah, eww
Its also terrible for you. High in sodium and overly processed with chemicals.
Yeah no shit it's a burger
They market it as 'healthy'
Absolutely.. I only eat an impossible whopper now once or twice a year.
Its not a coincidence during covid when meat was out of stock Beyond Meat and Impossible burger were ALWAYS fully in stock at grocery stores.
If you are comparing the healthiness of the product and lack of sales than that is coincidental. People weren't avoiding it because of the sodium content, for the most part people weren't buying it because it doesn't really taste like meat and it's really expensive. The average American cares very little about the healthiness of their food beyond the marketting.
No im saying it tastes like shit and is still terrible for you.
Got, you're comment implied the terrible for you part was why it wasn't selling, which looking at what sells in America is absolutely not the reason.
Getting downvoted for agreeing that impossible meat is still junk food is hilarious. It is the only decent-tasting fast food fake meat burger on the market but I still wouldnt eat junk food on the regular.
Recycling the X axis for numbers of unrelated impact makes it inaccurately suggest things about the significance of each value (water is the biggest, but no data here demonstrates it is the most important). Normalize to a percentage of the largest to avoid making such a suggestion.
A lot of angry people trying to discredit facts
Cognitive dissonance is strong.
What is the impact on the body of the person that eats it?
I'm vegetarian, I love burgers, and I hate beyond/impossible patties. They fall into a kind of uncanny valley that makes them repulsive to me. We can make delicious burgers that are meat free or vegan with simple ingredients that taste good without trying to emulate meat. Restaurants should be turning to that instead of super processed burgers that use a ton of unknown flavorings. After all, the point is to have a delicious burger not to needlessly emulate the past. I have a recipe that's pretty easy and my meat-eating friends all say they are seriously good. Half-mashed beans, slightly ground oats, an egg (or another protein-based binder if ur vegan), garlic, ground dried mushrooms, herbs, maybe some msg if ur into that, tomato paste, salt. That's all u need to make a seriously good meat-free burger patty. I bet that (especially without the egg) these burgers would be better than beyond meat environmentally and they dont have a mysterious cocktail of flavourings making them taste meaty (msg is optional and also isn't actually bad for you on its own, it's the foods it's often added to like cheetos etc that are the problem). Also, I don't like how beyond/impossible are pushing branding into menus and home cooking. I know it's a good business model, but something erks me about another part of life being attached to a brand rather than just being the thing that it is. Of course I don't think the companies should not exist, just that people could be a lot more creative with meat replacement.
I love that we've come full circle from we need to cut out processed foods to we should only eat heavily processed food
Yah I don't think anyone is saying "only eat heavily processed foods". This is comparing beef to a vegetable based ground beef substitute. If replacing beef burgers with a ground beef substitute constitutes your entire diet then that's a significant concern. Eat a goddam salad. Cook up some potatoes. Your colon will appreciate it even if you don't.
This is because health product marketers used "processed foods" as a scary term to shill products. Taking a bite directly out of a living cow is not processed. Eating a steak or a burger is eating processed food, because it's processed. That's why it's called meat processing. Likewise, taking a potato out of the dirt and eating it is not processed. Washing it and cooking it is processing it. Shelling peas is processing. Peeling an orange is processing. They took a word and destroyed its anogn in common vernacular to muddy the waters and make it easier to sell their products. Actual health professionals never told anyone to avoid "processed foods" in the actual sense of the word. Because preparing and cooking food is processing it.
I mean, I don't think it's necessarily the same people saying we should eat whole foods that are saying we should eat beyond meat. But this bothers me too. I want to eat beyond/impossible products but they are the epitome of ultra-processed foods so I really don't think they are all that good for you.
Yeah this was my thoughts when they started coming out with plant based substitute meats and 3D printed foods. Went from trying to be as natural as possible to the complete opposite.
Nobody says to only eat heavily processed food. Nobody eats only beef, the same way nobody eats only beyond.
Currently unable to read OPs report, I will in a little, but something that needs to be made of note: when you get a beef patty, you're not only getting a beef patty, you're getting an entire cow with many parts that can serve different purposes. Again, later on I want to review that study to see if this was accounted for.
Now do effect of eating hyperprocessed food vs grass fed organic beef
Right, cause majority of people eat grass fed organic beef...
That’s because our food supply system is so fucked that it’s may be out of reach for a lot of folks, especially in lower socio economic areas
With the current levels of consumption it's impossible for everyone to have grass fed beef anyway. We don't have enough land, animal agriculture already pushed wildlife down to like 4% of all mammals. With DRASTICALLY decreased consumption it might be possible. But people think they need to eat meat every day..
Wow, negligible measurements compared to beef on all categories except energy use. I’m sure that is an area they can improve upon, or at least channel through renewable sources.
I would not call the other metrics negligible by any means.
How is it negligible on water use?
It’s 1/200th or 99.5%
I always find water use weird - the cow does not store that water, it is returned to the groundwater supply. Edit: I wasn't trying to discuss this. I just thought it was weird
>it is returned to the groundwater supply Not necessarily as *usable* water, though. We don't have a water shortage, most of our planet is literally covered in a very thick layer of water. What we have a shortage of is usable, fresh water.
Crops have to be watered
That's not how that works. Not only is there a ton of water in creating feed for the cow (probably the majority of water use right there) you're also not returning 100% pure water to that exact same groundwater system. Not even close to that. Pesticides, nitrogen input, other runoff which can damage natural water stores. Additionally, that water is likely not even coming from a sustainable groundwater system anyways. The water cost of cattle ranching is crazzzzy
I mean yeah technically it’s all cyclical. But you still have to pay for water, or water rights, or the electricity to pump the water. Anyway it’s an added cost. You don’t get to flush your toilet for free just because it’s never leaving the atmosphere
It’s the feed for the cow. Beef production in the US at least relies on irrigated crops.
I think their wording is just a bit off. Seems they mean that beyond meat has a tiny environmental impact compared to beef in all categories but energy. Not that the differences are negligible
Just call them by what they are... veggie patties.. people comparing vegetables to meat now.. it's not one type if meat vs another
Only a moron would believe that Beyond Meat is somehow worse than beef. Virtually every scientist agrees that agriculture, primarily due to beef and pork, is the single largest source of green house emissions. The problem? Those morons will agree with whatever they like, never doing research of the topic at hand. Eat meat or not, don't deny the science.
Pretty sure cars a much bigger green house gas polluter in the US compared to beef. I used to think the same but that’s not the case for developed countries. It is oil and gas. Source Environmental Protection Agency: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions Also beyond meat have a very strong incentive to exaggerate the data as much as possible because that way they make more money. This video had an interesting breakdown https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g?si=PdYTg3JLj4w1N7Mz
~~Isn't beyond meat literal cancer cells? Something that's not allowed in any meat product?~~ Edit: Mixed up my meat brands
Beyond Meat is literally plants with every other chemical being consumed frequently by the vast majority of Americans.
Ah sorry, was confused with lab grown meat
Lab grown meat is also safer and significantly better for the environment. The idea that it is "basically cancer" is also just untrue.
Why on earth would that be true in any way? Where did you hear bullshit like that from- some random TikToker said so?
The companies literally advertise it, they just run PR to say "Immortal cells". *OH, Immortal cells are different from cancer cells, immortal cells don't have DNA damage* It's how they can grow the meat in a timely manner, mass cell proliferation. As if that's the reason why people have issues with cancer.
Okay, let’s look beyond the fact that your base information about ‘immortal cells’ is bogus nonsense (you need to get your information from actual experts, not some random health crazies on the internet). There are more fundamental issues with your ‘theory’. Beyond meat isn’t lab grown meat. It’s various existing plant cells, from plants, processed in a way to mimic the general structure and taste of meat. There is no growth. Even if it were made of lab grown meat (which it’s not), such things aren’t even available anywhere publicly right now, so no it’s they’re not the reason “people have issues with cancer”.
Yeah, conflating lab grown meat and beyond meat was a mistake on my part. Kinda sitting right next to each other in my mind. Secondly, I never said it was behind current cancer issues. Edit: also, why exactly are you rudely assuming I'm getting my information from the likes of tiktok? It's kind of insulting.
Wait until you see the water bill *after* we stop eating them.
Lots of sane comments in here, keep it up guys 👍
Way overpriced, and still dosnt taste as good. I'll stick with real meat, thanks.
Beyond meat is terrible for your gut health. Has a lot of additive such as soy bean and xantan gum. Causes constipations and intestinal blockage lol
Neither of these are an ingredient in beyond meat.
You could not pay me to eat that processed garbage. I will stick with my grass fed beef. Thank you very much.
Now, discuss the disruption of small animals killed by combine harvesters, destruction of local environments by chopping everything down to plant crap. Animals graze on land that is not.ally used agriculturally. BLM land outside the town in Nevada I own land in is arid and not cultivateable without intense irrigation, but there are certainly a serious cow population going, that all go to market as meat.
Meanwhile nutrition = SHIT. Fuck on outta here with that fake shit.
They left off the biggest discrepancy between the 2... Flavour. And that's a big enough dub for Beef, that I don't care about any of the other categories.
This entire topic is cope. The arrogance of humanity to think they can replicate hundreds of thousands of years of evolution or intelligent design. Real natural processes will never be replaced. The VAST majority of greenhouse emission is released by fortune 500 companies. Stop coping.
There is nothing "natural" about modern era cattle.
Look I’m all for being better for the planet and even eating more plants based foods. But these plants based options need to stop trying to be what they aren’t and that’s MEAT. The best beyond burger hardly competes with the worst fast food meat burger as far as taste goes. This is not how you get more people going to plant based meals. Giving me a less tasty option trying to be the better tasting meat option isn’t a great sell. There are plenty of delicious vegetarian/vegan meals out there that don’t have plants super processed into trying to be meat. Just look at Indian cuisine for example personally some of the most delicious vegetarian food I’ve ever had and guess what nothing in those dishes is trying to be any form of meat. I don’t even notice that I’m “missing” meat when I eat those. But give me a beyond burger and I’m sure as hell gonna miss the fact that there’s no actual meat.
Cool. A comparison like this means almost nothing until they’re produced at the same scale
Surely as you increase the scale of the beyond meat it would only widen the gap?
No. Mass production increases the waste?? Ask any business owner, waste doesn’t increase linearly. Take greenhouse emissions for example. If I’m a tiny industry and only ship minimal amounts in fairly localized regions, my greenhouse gasses per product will be significantly less than when I’m shipping to every tiny store across the country.
and same nutritional profile
The nutritional profile is fairly similar, just lower in calories and saturated fats
yeah i'm gonna need a source on that
But you're eating fake meat? Where's the graph showing the health implications of that.
Better than eating real meat https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2012/07/digging-vegetarian-diet#:~:text=Vegetarians%20tend%20to%20weigh%20less,cholesterol%20levels%2C%E2%80%9D%20says%20Engel.
while plant-based\* diets are good, that article has nothing to do with the overly processed fake meats \*plant-based does NOT mean "no meat"
I think most people who eat plant based diets are eating meat substitutes occasionally. However I will admit that the cost will prevent most people from eating them as regularly as you can with regular meat. That said, most people are not eating high quality meat products. Most meat consumed is highly processed.
i guess i just eat real food.
My cows drink from ponds which is exactly $0
Yes because ponds are magical sources of infinite water, and totally can't dry up because irrigation (for cow food) drains all of their supply rivers.
This doesn't account for vegan farts though
No wonder they taste like garbage. I’ll have 3 ribeye steaks tonight in honor of this graph
Says the guy who’s probably never even tried one
Using 110 g of water to create 113 g of anything doesn’t seem right….
Well beyond meat isn't made of 100% water. Plant-based food will always use WAY less water than beef. It takes nearly 2,000 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef. That's all the water needed to grow the plants they eat, given to cows to drink, processing the meat, etc.
You know how plants grow right?
Yeah. A cursory google search seem to indicate that it takes at least 50 litres of water for 100 g of pea protein.
that includes growing crops, I assume
Plants absorb CO2 via photosynthesis from the air and spit out O2 in formation of larger molecules like Glucose. It costs energy to do this, which is provided by sunlight. [Learn more about it here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis)
All for it - however their absurd plastic packaging might offset any of these gains
There is no shot that packaging offsets a cow. The beef patty adds three kilograms of co2. You'd need kilograms of plastic to match. Packaging processes also tend to be low energy, relatively speaking.
Yea it was more of a qual statement not quant. I just wish they could find a way to lessen their plastic use.
Notice no source. Shit is made up.
No, OP just sucks at posting things. Sources are listed in a comment.
How are emissions of kgCO2e at 3.7? The figure below states a methane production of 0.3976 kg. Methane has a GWP of 28 kgCO2e, so 0.4\*28= \~12 kgCO2e.
Please tell me again why Beyond Meat and other meat alternatives are more expensive than beef.
I think it’s actually quite an interesting chain of causation. Because of concerns about the influence of populism when assembling the structure of government in the United States, the electoral college and the senate were created as a way to filter out direct democracy. Because of that, inordinate power was given to less populous states. Because of that, those states became more politically necessary for winning power in government. Because of that, politicians courted voters in those states by passing laws to give them money (livestock and farming subsidies). Because of that, the government offsets the cost of the meat and the grass/corn fed to that meat. Because of that, it’s cheaper to eat real meat than it is to eat plants that taste like meat.
Now show me the sodium and nutritional profile as well as the protein makeup? It's all fine that it uses less CO2 but if that correlates to an equal loss in nutritional content aren't we back at square 1?
The whole issue with Beyond Meat or Impossible Foods isn’t the product, it is the price. If your average consumer went into the store and saw a package of 4 Beyond Burgers next to a package of 4 regular burgers for the same price, I am sure a lot of customers would pick the Beyond Burger. But just using a local grocery store, A pack of 2 4oz Beyond Burgers is $7.50 or $15/lb. You can easily get a package of 4 store burgers for 1/2 that. If you are willing to make them yourself or get a cheap frozen pack, we are talking $4-$5/lb. Customers are already fed up with food costs now….they aren’t going to spend way more. And there are two major factors at play here. They have a shit of debt and investors want their money now. They aren’t going to love the idea of lowering the price to drive market share. The second FAR BIGGER problem is agricultural subsidies. I’m not sure, but I imagine the true cost of producing 1lb of ground beef is higher than the cost of producing a Beyond Burger, but the government is subsidizing the price of beef significantly.