This is why Taco Bell is my fast-food joint of choice. You can sub beans for meat in almost any item on the menu. I've been a vegetarian for going on 15 years, and the only other fast-food joint...
This is why Taco Bell is my fast-food joint of choice. You can sub beans for meat in almost any item on the menu. I've been a vegetarian for going on 15 years, and the only other fast-food joint that offered anything vegetarian was Burger King (BK Veggie, which is a Morningstar patty and pretty bland).
Here in Canada, A&W offers Beyond Burger patties, and they are my go-to for fast food burgers because of that. Is the same not available in the US? Edit: Apparently it's a Canada-only thing. And...
Here in Canada, A&W offers Beyond Burger patties, and they are my go-to for fast food burgers because of that. Is the same not available in the US?
Edit: Apparently it's a Canada-only thing. And A&W Canada isn't actually even connected to A&W in the states anymore.
I'm surprised they weren't able to have similar success in the states. Of the prototypical fast food restaurants in my opinion A&W has the best burgers.
I'm surprised they weren't able to have similar success in the states. Of the prototypical fast food restaurants in my opinion A&W has the best burgers.
Sadly, I just don't think there is enough of a market for that. In the Venn diagram of those looking for basic veggie-only dishes and those that regularly go to fast food places, there probably...
Sadly, I just don't think there is enough of a market for that. In the Venn diagram of those looking for basic veggie-only dishes and those that regularly go to fast food places, there probably isn't enough of an overlap to make it worth including those dishes on the menu. Although most fast food places are offering salads, wraps and a few more vegetarian-friendly dishes now at least. And these plant-based meat alternatives are an even bigger step in the right direction too. So maybe one day soon the diagram will start to overlap some more, and we will see more basic veggie dishes on the menu. :)
Yeah to be honest I'm a little confused by the request. I don't go to Sushiria if I'm looking to have a bbq, i don't go to Burger King when looking for pizza, and likewise I don't go to McDonalds...
Yeah to be honest I'm a little confused by the request. I don't go to Sushiria if I'm looking to have a bbq, i don't go to Burger King when looking for pizza, and likewise I don't go to McDonalds if I'm looking to have a good vegetable dish.
Is it bad for restaurants to specialize? No; so why would it be bad for fast food to keep its niche?
The Beyond is a good addition to their lineup which sticks to the niche. And i don't really see it as a "vegetarian" option for what it's worth (any more than I see falafels as a vegetarian option). Their meat quality is pretty horrible anyway, most of what makes the fast food burgers good is sauce, texture and bun.
I tried home cooking a Beyond burger a couple weeks ago. It was .. okay. I wouldn't replace high quality burgers with it (though I will give it another shot with a different cooking style). But I could definitely see myself ordering this as a fast food joint.
For what it's worth, I personally find Beyond Burgers a more than adequate beef burger replacement, especially since (as you said) it's more about the accoutrements anyways. I have a box of them...
For what it's worth, I personally find Beyond Burgers a more than adequate beef burger replacement, especially since (as you said) it's more about the accoutrements anyways. I have a box of them sitting in my freezer as we speak, and every time my family does burger night that's what I cook for myself instead of a beef burger. Though admittedly, I have digestive issues when it comes to beef, and so am probably more than a little biased against it to begin with. :P
Yeah I'm not your usual meat lover. I don't mind BK/McD burgers for their texture, but if I make them at home my burgers are always extremely fresh and nearly raw (I cook them for all of ~45-60s...
Yeah I'm not your usual meat lover. I don't mind BK/McD burgers for their texture, but if I make them at home my burgers are always extremely fresh and nearly raw (I cook them for all of ~45-60s at high heat, just to give them a bit of a grey texture). BB is not a suitable replacement for that.
Overall I eat meat pretty rarely though, at least as far as meals go (snacks on the other hand…)
Livestock in general, but beef in particular, is one of the most environmentally destructive and resource-intensive foods we cultivate and consume. Us moving away from eating it as much as we can...
Livestock in general, but beef in particular, is one of the most environmentally destructive and resource-intensive foods we cultivate and consume. Us moving away from eating it as much as we can is a giant step in the right direction in a number of ways, but chief among them being that it will significantly reduce the amount of damage we are doing to this planet.
And that is why IMO it's especially good to see these giant, multinational fast-food chains starting to embrace the idea of plant-based meat alternatives. Since not only does that have the potential to significantly reduce our meat consumption worldwide, but the money they can provide to Beyond Meat (and similar companies) will also help them rapidly scale up their production, and hopefully increase the amount they can spend on trying to develop even better products.
I agree with you. I'm very excited to see Beyond Meat gaining in popularity, and I hope they do well. However I'd also like to mention that simply ending all meat production isn't a viable option...
I agree with you. I'm very excited to see Beyond Meat gaining in popularity, and I hope they do well. However I'd also like to mention that simply ending all meat production isn't a viable option either.
Without farming livestock, we wouldn't produce nearly enough calories to feed the world. Much of the land that's used for grazing isn't suitable for farming crops on.
Basically we need to wind down meat production but simultaneously improve crop yields via GMOs and other methods. We need to study alternative feeds for animals (bug farming is one idea), and improve food preservation and distribution techniques.
It's one of those areas where we could largely solve one problem by making a drastic change, but it introduces all sorts of other problems. So we need to set a goal and work towards it.
I'm pretty sure that's not true, since as far as I understand it, meat production is actually a huge net negative in calories due to its inefficiency, and a significant amount of our arable...
Without farming livestock, we wouldn't produce nearly enough calories to feed the world
I'm pretty sure that's not true, since as far as I understand it, meat production is actually a huge net negative in calories due to its inefficiency, and a significant amount of our arable farmland is being dedicated to grazing, and production of that inefficient animal feed that could otherwise be used to produce calories that humans could consume directly instead. See:
Just 55 percent of the world's crop calories are actually eaten directly by people. Another 36 percent is used for animal feed. And the remaining 9 percent goes toward biofuels and other industrial uses.
Another possibility, as the map above shows, is that the world could devote more existing farmland back to feeding people. Again, as the numbers suggest, just 55 percent of crop calories go directly toward people. The rest goes toward biofuels or animal feed. Humans can't eat biofuels, obviously. And animal feed is also an inefficient way of feeding people — about one-tenth as efficient, on a calorie basis, as eating crops directly.
One implication of that is that, as countries like China and India grow and consume more milk and meat, the pressure on global farmland will grow. But, alternatively, if the world shifted even a small portion of its diet away from resource-intensive meats or grew fewer biofuels, we could wring more food calories out of existing farmland.
p.s. That doesn't mean I am in favour of completely abolishing all meat production though, as it's completely unrealistic to expect that to happen, especially overnight. But IMO we do need to significantly cut down our overall meat consumption as quickly as we can if we ever want to have a hope of tackling climate change. And IMO getting people to switch over to plant-based meat alternatives is the best way we can do that, since if they're "good enough" then most people won't really have to make much of an effort to change their eating habits (which is hard to get people to do) to still have a massively positive effect.
Thanks for pulling up those sources. I was going off memory, but more arable land is used for grazing than I first thought. I think our views are actually pretty closely aligned on this topic, but...
Thanks for pulling up those sources. I was going off memory, but more arable land is used for grazing than I first thought.
I think our views are actually pretty closely aligned on this topic, but one other consideration is that "arable land" is actually a spectrum rather than a discrete property. The numbers can fluctuate quite a bit based on how you define it. It's possible that some of this land may be technically arable but not desirable for many of the common cash crops. At least that was my understanding.
Here's a post that puts some numbers to it, though it's a few years out of date now.
Those are good points. I never really thought about what gets defined as arable before, but you're probably right that there is still a lot of land that is classified as that which isn't actually...
Those are good points. I never really thought about what gets defined as arable before, but you're probably right that there is still a lot of land that is classified as that which isn't actually ideal for cash crops. That and a lot of grazing areas, for sheep and goats especially, can actually be incredibly rocky and not usable as cropland at all either.
I think our views are actually pretty closely aligned on this topic
Yeah, most likely. So sorry if I came across as seeming overly hostile or critical of what you said. :)
It seems like increasing meat consumption is mostly bad and reducing it would be good. It doesn’t follow, though, that eliminating livestock would necessarily be a good thing environmentally....
It seems like increasing meat consumption is mostly bad and reducing it would be good. It doesn’t follow, though, that eliminating livestock would necessarily be a good thing environmentally. Maybe reducing meat consumption until the remaining cattle are mostly grass-fed would be enough?
I'm not sure we should just be focusing solely on calories and nutritional value here. Grass fed cattle that graze on natural grasslands have benefits that most likely outweigh bulldozing the...
I'm not sure we should just be focusing solely on calories and nutritional value here.
Grass fed cattle that graze on natural grasslands have benefits that most likely outweigh bulldozing the biome to feed more people. I'm not sure what % of beef production that would represent but here in Canada there is enough crown (public) land that is used for grazing that there is an entire department of the government devoted to grazing rights/tenure of public land.
Similar to skybrian, read my p.s. please. I am not advocating for the complete conversion of all cattle grazing grassland (although it should be noted that a significant amount of that land was...
Similar to skybrian, read my p.s. please. I am not advocating for the complete conversion of all cattle grazing grassland (although it should be noted that a significant amount of that land was not grassland in many parts of the world until we deforested it), nor the complete abolishment of animal husbandry. However, IMO what we absolutely need to do is significantly reduce the amount of meat we consume, and 100% stop destroying other biomes to make room for more cattle grazing.... which is still happening worldwide at an alarming rate!
Thanks, didn't see your edit. Definitely agree with you there just thought I'd point it out I don't think transitioning to purely plant-based nutritional economies is universally good. Much of the...
Thanks, didn't see your edit. Definitely agree with you there just thought I'd point it out I don't think transitioning to purely plant-based nutritional economies is universally good. Much of the terrible parts of the livestock industry (particularly animal welfare) are associated with its industrialization and replacing less industrialized livestock operations with the kind of hyper-efficient farms required to feed a planet a near 100% plant-based diet sounds dystopian to me.
Yeah, that's fair, your point is well taken, and I mostly agree with you too. I just thought I should make it clear that even though I do strongly believe we need to significantly reduce our meat...
Yeah, that's fair, your point is well taken, and I mostly agree with you too. I just thought I should make it clear that even though I do strongly believe we need to significantly reduce our meat consumption, I am not a total zealot. ;)
p.s. I still eat meat on occasion myself (cured meats, esp on pizza, are my weakness), although I mostly stick to fish these days, and pretty much never eat red meat anymore.
While I think it’s great that more restaurants are offering vegetarian options, I just wish they would offer some basic vegetable dishes instead.
This is why Taco Bell is my fast-food joint of choice. You can sub beans for meat in almost any item on the menu. I've been a vegetarian for going on 15 years, and the only other fast-food joint that offered anything vegetarian was Burger King (BK Veggie, which is a Morningstar patty and pretty bland).
Here in Canada, A&W offers Beyond Burger patties, and they are my go-to for fast food burgers because of that. Is the same not available in the US?
Edit: Apparently it's a Canada-only thing. And A&W Canada isn't actually even connected to A&W in the states anymore.
I don’t think I have an A&W anywhere near me anyway.
Only time I ever saw an A&W was in Canada. I had no idea the restaurant existed.
A&W was always just a drink if you had asked me prior.
I'm surprised they weren't able to have similar success in the states. Of the prototypical fast food restaurants in my opinion A&W has the best burgers.
I only had it that one time in Edmonton but I remember being unimpressed. I think I liked the onion rings though.
Sadly, I just don't think there is enough of a market for that. In the Venn diagram of those looking for basic veggie-only dishes and those that regularly go to fast food places, there probably isn't enough of an overlap to make it worth including those dishes on the menu. Although most fast food places are offering salads, wraps and a few more vegetarian-friendly dishes now at least. And these plant-based meat alternatives are an even bigger step in the right direction too. So maybe one day soon the diagram will start to overlap some more, and we will see more basic veggie dishes on the menu. :)
Yeah to be honest I'm a little confused by the request. I don't go to Sushiria if I'm looking to have a bbq, i don't go to Burger King when looking for pizza, and likewise I don't go to McDonalds if I'm looking to have a good vegetable dish.
Is it bad for restaurants to specialize? No; so why would it be bad for fast food to keep its niche?
The Beyond is a good addition to their lineup which sticks to the niche. And i don't really see it as a "vegetarian" option for what it's worth (any more than I see falafels as a vegetarian option). Their meat quality is pretty horrible anyway, most of what makes the fast food burgers good is sauce, texture and bun.
I tried home cooking a Beyond burger a couple weeks ago. It was .. okay. I wouldn't replace high quality burgers with it (though I will give it another shot with a different cooking style). But I could definitely see myself ordering this as a fast food joint.
For what it's worth, I personally find Beyond Burgers a more than adequate beef burger replacement, especially since (as you said) it's more about the accoutrements anyways. I have a box of them sitting in my freezer as we speak, and every time my family does burger night that's what I cook for myself instead of a beef burger. Though admittedly, I have digestive issues when it comes to beef, and so am probably more than a little biased against it to begin with. :P
Yeah I'm not your usual meat lover. I don't mind BK/McD burgers for their texture, but if I make them at home my burgers are always extremely fresh and nearly raw (I cook them for all of ~45-60s at high heat, just to give them a bit of a grey texture). BB is not a suitable replacement for that.
Overall I eat meat pretty rarely though, at least as far as meals go (snacks on the other hand…)
Why are the plant-based meat patties a bigger step in the right direction? What’s the right direction?
Livestock in general, but beef in particular, is one of the most environmentally destructive and resource-intensive foods we cultivate and consume. Us moving away from eating it as much as we can is a giant step in the right direction in a number of ways, but chief among them being that it will significantly reduce the amount of damage we are doing to this planet.
And that is why IMO it's especially good to see these giant, multinational fast-food chains starting to embrace the idea of plant-based meat alternatives. Since not only does that have the potential to significantly reduce our meat consumption worldwide, but the money they can provide to Beyond Meat (and similar companies) will also help them rapidly scale up their production, and hopefully increase the amount they can spend on trying to develop even better products.
See:
Environmental impact of meat production
Beef environment cost 10 times that of other livestock
Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth
The Real Problem With Beef
Etc. Etc. Etc.
(just google "beef|meat|livestock + environment|climate", and you will find countless articles and studies that discuss this issue)
I agree with you. I'm very excited to see Beyond Meat gaining in popularity, and I hope they do well. However I'd also like to mention that simply ending all meat production isn't a viable option either.
Without farming livestock, we wouldn't produce nearly enough calories to feed the world. Much of the land that's used for grazing isn't suitable for farming crops on.
Basically we need to wind down meat production but simultaneously improve crop yields via GMOs and other methods. We need to study alternative feeds for animals (bug farming is one idea), and improve food preservation and distribution techniques.
It's one of those areas where we could largely solve one problem by making a drastic change, but it introduces all sorts of other problems. So we need to set a goal and work towards it.
I'm pretty sure that's not true, since as far as I understand it, meat production is actually a huge net negative in calories due to its inefficiency, and a significant amount of our arable farmland is being dedicated to grazing, and production of that inefficient animal feed that could otherwise be used to produce calories that humans could consume directly instead. See:
How much of the world's cropland is actually used to grow food?
And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio
p.s. That doesn't mean I am in favour of completely abolishing all meat production though, as it's completely unrealistic to expect that to happen, especially overnight. But IMO we do need to significantly cut down our overall meat consumption as quickly as we can if we ever want to have a hope of tackling climate change. And IMO getting people to switch over to plant-based meat alternatives is the best way we can do that, since if they're "good enough" then most people won't really have to make much of an effort to change their eating habits (which is hard to get people to do) to still have a massively positive effect.
Thanks for pulling up those sources. I was going off memory, but more arable land is used for grazing than I first thought.
I think our views are actually pretty closely aligned on this topic, but one other consideration is that "arable land" is actually a spectrum rather than a discrete property. The numbers can fluctuate quite a bit based on how you define it. It's possible that some of this land may be technically arable but not desirable for many of the common cash crops. At least that was my understanding.
Here's a post that puts some numbers to it, though it's a few years out of date now.
edit: Whoops, isn't > is.
Those are good points. I never really thought about what gets defined as arable before, but you're probably right that there is still a lot of land that is classified as that which isn't actually ideal for cash crops. That and a lot of grazing areas, for sheep and goats especially, can actually be incredibly rocky and not usable as cropland at all either.
Yeah, most likely. So sorry if I came across as seeming overly hostile or critical of what you said. :)
Not at all. In fact I was worried I was being too contrarian. Thanks for the chat!
It seems like increasing meat consumption is mostly bad and reducing it would be good. It doesn’t follow, though, that eliminating livestock would necessarily be a good thing environmentally. Maybe reducing meat consumption until the remaining cattle are mostly grass-fed would be enough?
See my p.s. I suspect I was writing that as you were replying. I actually already mostly agree with you on this. :)
I'm not sure we should just be focusing solely on calories and nutritional value here.
Grass fed cattle that graze on natural grasslands have benefits that most likely outweigh bulldozing the biome to feed more people. I'm not sure what % of beef production that would represent but here in Canada there is enough crown (public) land that is used for grazing that there is an entire department of the government devoted to grazing rights/tenure of public land.
Similar to skybrian, read my p.s. please. I am not advocating for the complete conversion of all cattle grazing grassland (although it should be noted that a significant amount of that land was not grassland in many parts of the world until we deforested it), nor the complete abolishment of animal husbandry. However, IMO what we absolutely need to do is significantly reduce the amount of meat we consume, and 100% stop destroying other biomes to make room for more cattle grazing.... which is still happening worldwide at an alarming rate!
See: When it comes to deforestation, nothing beats a hamburger
Thanks, didn't see your edit. Definitely agree with you there just thought I'd point it out I don't think transitioning to purely plant-based nutritional economies is universally good. Much of the terrible parts of the livestock industry (particularly animal welfare) are associated with its industrialization and replacing less industrialized livestock operations with the kind of hyper-efficient farms required to feed a planet a near 100% plant-based diet sounds dystopian to me.
Yeah, that's fair, your point is well taken, and I mostly agree with you too. I just thought I should make it clear that even though I do strongly believe we need to significantly reduce our meat consumption, I am not a total zealot. ;)
p.s. I still eat meat on occasion myself (cured meats, esp on pizza, are my weakness), although I mostly stick to fish these days, and pretty much never eat red meat anymore.
This is the first I've heard of OmniPork. I did a few web searches and didn't see anything about it being available in the US.