The case for meatless meat

I visited Burger King a few days ago to try their new Impossible Whopper, which is made with the all-plant "Impossible Burger."

 

This was my second Impossible Burger. The first was at a higher-end restaurant last year. At the time, my thought was, "Not bad. This is not a fancy restaurant burger but if no one told me, I am not sure I'd know this not made from beef." Given my experience of old-school vegi-burgers, I had to admire what Impossible Foods has achieved.

 

The Impossible Whopper was even more successful because it only needs to match the average quality, well-done (by which I mean, overcooked) beef we usually see at Burger King. It is sandwiched with the Whopper ingredients, which mask any subtle differences. I tasted it as a Whopper and alone. It was extremely close. I am not sure I could tell in a blind test. The Impossible Whopper shows that replicating beef is no longer Impossible.

 

And that's a good thing. I am a committed omnivore and I love meat, but am not happy with the way animals are raised and with the dent they make on the environment. 

 

More important is that this is on a grand scale. Burger King has rolled this out to the whole chain, exposing this product to a vastly wider audience than Impossible Foods could have achieved on their own. 

 

When I posted about the experience, quite a few replies talked about whether the Impossible Burger (and its competitor, the Beyond Meat burger) is healthier than beef. One person claimed (incorrectly) that it has less protein; some whined about all the salt; someone said "it's full of "chemicals." 

 

Wait, what? This isn't about nutrition. It's replacing hamburgers, for pete's sake. Meat substitutes are not appreciably healthier or unhealthier than meat and eating a Whopper every day is not going to be nutritious no matter what you do to it. Nutrition comes from a varied diet that embodies Michael Pollan's advice, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." 

 

Are they good for you? Silly question. It's good for us. It's not about nutrition, it's about critters and humans, and the planet we share. 

 

But criticizing salt content was where their focus was and they could not see past the nutrition label to understand why these products are breakthroughs. The meat substitutes are radically more efficient and kinder to the earth. By a stunning margin. With meat, we eat plants but only after they have been through an animal. Talk about "processed." The land, feed, labor, transportation, water, energy used in meat production are staggering costs. Not to mention that we kill animals to eat them.

 

I'm an omnivore but am all for these products. I would love it if some sweet critter did not have to die to make bacon for me.

 

I made a joke that I am waiting for Impossible Foie Gras. But it's not a joke; I would love that.