Talking about impossible and beyond meat, of course. I like their taste, so I’m not one of those burger fash who complains about not being able to taste the flesh wounds of their victims. Just need the skinny on how it compares in terms of it’s nutrient quality, health factors in terms of contaminants in production or as a result of (PFAS, lead), and the impact on the environment. I’m sure the production of fake borg is better than maintaining and slaughtering cows, but relative to other foods how much better is it?

  • Trying2KnowMyself [they/them, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    18·
    2 个月前

    Quoting directly from their website, bolding mine:

    in 2014, we submitted extensive data (which did not include rat testing), to an academic panel of food safety experts from the University of Nebraska, University of Wisconsin Madison, and Virginia Commonwealth University. Based on this data, the panel unanimously concluded that our key ingredient is “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS. This means that Impossible Foods has been complying with federal food safety regulations since 2014. In addition, we voluntarily decided to take the optional step of providing our data, including the unanimous conclusion of the food-safety experts, to the FDA via the FDA’s GRAS Notification process

    It’s their voluntary decision to take an optional step that led to:

    The FDA reviewed the data and had some questions. To address them, we conducted additional tests. It is industry standard to perform rat feeding studies

        • Frivolous_Beatnik [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
          10·
          2 个月前

          monke-beepboop

          I’m going to assume it’s expedience and profit motive then.

          Replacing animals in the diets of meat lovers would absolutely require heme

          Seems, from that page, that they’re committed to the idea of Impossible and similar products not being intended for vegans, but for carnists who want to reduce their animal consumption, which is probably a larger market in the US at least. Disappointing but not really surprising.

          We designed the study rigorously so that it would never have to be done again

          I don’t see how this justifies…anything? If it was optional, and was a small-scale test that only had to be done once, why do it at all?

          My idle thought goes to “does that make them currently vegan then?” but that’s pointless when there are infinite vegan options that don’t require supporting a brand which did animal testing. Nobody needs a hyper realistic borger

          • Trying2KnowMyself [they/them, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            13·
            2 个月前

            If they were already overly focused on carnists, it only gets better from there! The CEO+founder whose name appears under that post was replaced:

            Peter McGuinness, the current CEO of Impossible Foods, has said that the plant-based sector was previously too “woke” and “divisive” for mass appeal.

            He also referred to the original marketing of Impossible Foods’ plant-based meat products as a solution to the climate crisis as a “mistake,” and called the original leaders “zealots.”

            Impossible has pivoted to focus primarily on meat-eaters and flexitarians under McGuinness’s leadership.

          • BelieveRevolt [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            9·
            2 个月前

            Seems, from that page, that they’re committed to the idea of Impossible and similar products not being intended for vegans, but for carnists who want to reduce their animal consumption

            That’s the take vegans generally seem to have on them. It doesn’t help that their site is full of phrases like ”Everyone loves meat because it’s so delicious”, strong pick me energy. Personally, I’m not a fan of the ”vegan food needs to taste like meat to appeal to carnists” approach in general.