Disrupting the cow

[BioWizard]

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/ ... ng-n780721

Pat Brown wants every piece of meat consumed in the world to be made entirely from plants. He’s going after the carnivores — and the meat industry that serves them red, bloody, marbled meat.

The scientist and chief executive behind the plant-based burger from Impossible Foods, Brown doesn’t particularly care that vegetarians and vegans rave about its flavor. He’s on a mission to recreate the texture, smell, and flavor of meat that carnivores crave — while cutting down on the waste in meat production.

[jocular]

Should the taxpayer be asked to subsidize these products as a way of reducing our communal carbon footprint?

If the difference in taste is small I am sure I would eat these products (and their cousins) at cost price anyway (I always buy organic ground beef anyway)

This man seems to be doing his bit to maintain the environment.

[zetreque]

He won't get my support. Not that cows are all that natural, but I only eat the most natural foods I can find for my health. I don't like being a lab rat anymore when it comes to the food I eat. Just yesterday I confirmed yet again a delayed subtle reaction I have to cheese. These delayed allergy reactions are so weird and hard to pin down.

[BioWizard]

He won't get my support. Not that cows are all that natural, but I only eat the most natural foods I can find for my health. I don't like being a lab rat anymore when it comes to the food I eat. Just yesterday I confirmed yet again a delayed subtle reaction I have to cheese. These delayed allergy reactions are so weird and hard to pin down.

Zet, either your reaction is misplaced, or you meant to say "whole/unprocessed food" rather than "natural food". Yes whole/unprocessed food is generally better. But it also depends on how and why the food was processed. Sometimes processing is actually better for you, for example if it eliminates toxins and microbes. General rules of thumb are good for efficiently navigating life, but sometimes you need to consider things on a case by case basis.

Think about it this way. The cow's body does a lot of stuff to the plant before it becomes a burger patty. If the biochemist is using the same starting material to create something that tastes the same, provides a similar nutritional value, and doesn't pose additional harm (could arguably pose less), then the question in my mind isn't why, it's why not?

You can do your part and buy organic meat, eat sustainably, and not over stuff yourself. But most people won't do that. Some just want a greasy burger every day. And you don't have the right to stop them. So you if you can at least offer them something that is arguably beneficial (at least for the environment), and tastes/feels/nourishes more or less the same to them, then... why not?

[BioWizard]

If the difference in taste is small I am sure I would eat these products (and their cousins) at cost price anyway (I always buy organic ground beef anyway)

Same here.

[zetreque]

If the biochemist is using the same starting material to create something that tastes the same, provides a similar nutritional value, and doesn't pose additional harm (could arguably pose less), then the question in my mind isn't why, it's why not?

Because I don't trust that even the smartest biochemists can yet engineer a food that is "more nutritious" because they don't even know the full extent of what foods and ratios of them, or combinations during a given meal humans evolved eating and every compound in those foods.

As for "natural foods" "whole foods," yes that is what I meant.

[BioWizard]

If the biochemist is using the same starting material to create something that tastes the same, provides a similar nutritional value, and doesn't pose additional harm (could arguably pose less), then the question in my mind isn't why, it's why not?

Because I don't trust that even the smartest biochemists can yet engineer a food that is "more nutritious" because they don't even know the full extent of what foods and ratios of them humans evolved eating and every compound in those foods.

As for "natural foods" "whole foods," yes that is what I meant.

Science isn't about taking someone's word without looking at their data though. So trust in the biochemists' capabilities is not required for determining the value of their product.

And it's not like they're making this thing from rubber or recycled fecal matter. They're making it from other food.

And nobody is saying that this is intended to replace meat entirely. It could just be an easier way to introduce vegetarian based food into the diet or some. Or it can make it easier on some of us who sometimes want to enjoy a burger but don't necessarily feel like consuming red meat that day (I for one would greatly welcome that option).

I'm not sure what's prompting your position. So far it doesn't appear to be facts.

[zetreque]

I have yet to see any data to make me feel confident in eating a processed food. I think money should instead be funneled into uncovering prehistoric evolutionary diets instead. No need to reinvent the cow.

[Serpent]

I'll take any new, clean product I can get.
I know far too much about what's in food and where it's been, but
- I can't control all the sources of my food
- haven't the resources to produce all my own, even if I were inclined
and
- I've already eaten so many kinds that a little more is unlikely to damage me any further.


I honestly can't picture a mass conversion of humanity to prehistoric diets - even if all that food could be de-extinguished and there were not far too many people per mammoth. But I can just about imagine a mass conversion to a cheaper source of tasty protein.

[BioWizard]

I have yet to see any data to make me feel confident in eating a processed food.

The guy mixed up some vegetable material to make something that looks and tastes like a burger. He didn't pull it out of a nuclear reactor. I was generous in calling it processing, when it probably qualifies more as cooking. Take a deep breath zet.

I think money should instead be funneled into uncovering prehistoric evolutionary diets instead.

I don't necessarily agree, because I see this as an incomplete solution. You're assuming that we'd want to replicate our biology from prehistoric times. However, I'm not convinced. Everything humans do suggests that they'd want more - a lot more. They'd want to live longer and healthier than our prehistoric ancestors ever did. While learning about our prehistoric diet can help us eliminate some of the bad stuff in our modern diet, it's not going to be sufficient to give us everything we will ask from it. You're also assuming that such information would automatically have an effect on the corruption and ignorance that shape our modern diet. Which I don't believe will be the case either.

The question is almost uninteresting, not to say boring. I think we have a pretty good idea what our ancestors ate from existing research. I wouldn't "funnel" more money into that - I'd be a lot more interested in funding research that can yield immediate solutions that don't yet exist. Like what this guy is doing. I don't need more papers telling me I shouldn't consume too much wheat, simple sugars, sodium, fat, or meat, and that I should increase my daily intake of fresh vegetables and fruits.

[BioWizard]

I honestly can't picture a mass conversion of humanity to prehistoric diets - even if all that food could be de-extinguished and there were not far too many people per mammoth. But I can just about imagine a mass conversion to a cheaper source of tasty protein.

Bingo.

[wolfhnd]

For some people a steak is like a fine bottle of wine, very subtle differences in texture, color,smell and taste are important to them. In my opinion these kind of products are not for meat lovers. It seems to me that trying to market anything as a substitute automatically makes it something that will appeal only to the non discriminating.

Why not create something new and exciting so it can be marketed universally?

[BioWizard]

For some people a steak is like a fine bottle of wine, very subtle differences in texture, color,smell and taste are important to them. In my opinion these kind of products are not for meat lovers. It seems to me that trying to market anything as a substitute automatically makes it something that will appeal only to the non discriminating.

Why not create something new and exciting so it can be marketed universally?

I'm your ultimate meat burger lover. I have a weekly ritual at one of the high end burger joints in my city. Few things I look forward to like that burger with an icecold glass of local brew. That doesn't make me automatically reject this for what it is though. I will likely still want my once a week all meat burger - unless this is so good that I absolutely can't tell a difference (or better).

And I won't talk about my weekly steak and wine ritual. But yeah, I love my MEAT. I'd still be willing to cut back given good options, though.

[wolfhnd]

Here is a way to market something like this. People's tastes vary widely. Some people like there meat aged and some don't. Many people may assume that meat processing is as simple as cutting it up but they are mistaken it is actually a fine art. Controlling all the environmental factors is frankly as impossible as controlling the weather to produce a special wine.

This process if automated properly could produce a dozen variations. Letting people taste a variety and even customize their selection would revolutionize the marketing of a food product. People like nothing better than feeling special.

[wolfhnd]

Stupid slow phone double post excuse me.

[BioWizard]

Here is a way to market something like this. People's tastes vary widely. Some people like there meat aged and some don't. Many people may assume that meat processing is as simple as cutting it up but they are mistaken it is actually a fine art. Controlling all the environmental factors is frankly as impossible as controlling the weather to produce a special wine.

This process if automated properly could produce a dozen variations. Letting people taste a variety and even customize their selection would revolutionize the marketing of a food product. People like nothing better than feeling special.

These are good suggestions, wolfhnd. And I agree with you on the art of preparing meat. I've learned about that from my better half.

[BioWizard]

I think you raised a very important point there, wolfhnd. Getting a positive emotional reaction for a new product/idea and garnering consumer adoption is rarely about facts or data or the science behind it. It's mostly about marketing strategy :)

[Watson]

I just hope they mark it as such, whatever that is.

[Serpent]

I just hope they mark it as such, whatever that is.

Of course they have to.
There are all kinds of vegetarian protein products on the market already, have been for decades, and they're labelled and the nutritional information is on the back, just like any other food.

There is a potentially very large market for cholesterol-free meat-like products, as the more prosperous nations' population ages and develops health problems that restrict their diets. Old people don't like to give up what they're used to, but are more reluctant to give up living, so they'll jump at a compromise.

There is also a wide open vista for countries developing economically - quite a large percent of the burgeoning middle classes of Asian countries is vegetarian by religion and habit, but maybe has some western aspirations; a transitional cuisine might well find fertile ground there.

And don't forget the kosher and halal angle. Though maybe the cloned meat industry has that market cornered.

[Watson]

I was thinking of the strong resistance to any indication of GMO labeling. But yes I can see how this is different.

[Serpent]

More and more restaurants are finding that it pays to list vegetarian options on their menus, but most chefs don't know how to cook without meat or what to substitute in that central spot on the plate, so it's usually just some overpriced, underseasoned pasta with broccoli on top.
The veggie burgers that are any good are almost as expensive as beef, and harder to work with. There are non-meatballs which taste all right, but the excellent chicken-like soy product by the same maker has inexplicably disappeared from grocery store freezers. I only buy these things as an occasional treat and do not order them at restaurant mark-up - but would love to get something like them, cheaper.

Biggest problem: they have way too much salt and sometimes fat - which should be avoided by the same people who have to avoid meat.

[BioWizard]

Biggest problem: they have way too much salt and sometimes fat - which should be avoided by the same people who have to avoid meat.

I'm seeing a trend from high sodium to high potassium. Which is only slightly better, at least in theory.

[Watson]

Interesting that all the cooking show stress more seasoning and season everything, which means more salt and put it on everything. This is fine for the restaurants, and the occasional meals out, but not the best message for the home kitchen. The Dr's less salt for health reasons is getting lost when there is the Chef Ramsey's message, MORE SEASONING, ya' donkey.

What does the potassium do to flavor/food?

[Serpent]

Biggest problem: they have way too much salt and sometimes fat - which should be avoided by the same people who have to avoid meat.

I'm seeing a trend from high sodium to high potassium. Which is only slightly better, at least in theory.

It works perfectly for me: since I had chemotherapy a while back, my kidneys dump essential elements, notably calcium, potassium and magnesium, which means I have to replace them with a supplement unless i get them in food. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of old people needed extra potassium, as well as the standard calcium. Young people in different stages of life, reproduction and level of physical activity probably all need different amounts of vitamins and minerals.