XP: Finally...meat-free burger!

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey
What makes a burger a burger? The patty has that textbook savory beefiness in both taste and texture. Despite efforts, meat-free alternatives have yet to convincingly impersonate the real deal—until now, that is.

at Momofuku Nishi, David Chang will unleash the Impossible Burger, an animal-free burger composed entirely of plant-based ingredients.

it surprised us with its credibility: It's as meaty and juicy as a high-class beef burger, embellished with pickles, beefsteak tomato, romaine lettuce and special sauce on a Martin's potato roll. (Vegans note: Ours did arrive with cheese). No meat and yet it "bleeds," thanks to science.
Click to expand...

Revolutionary Burger

. . . . . . Pete
 
All the best to him and am happy to see his innovations, but it's not like meat-free burgers are a new thing. Even good ones.
 
Mark, the article thesis is that David Chang's version is unique in that it "impersonates the real deal".

. . . . . . Pete
 
I saw a video clip on this stuff awhile ago and was very intrigued. If it lives up to billing, it most definitely is not just a better veggie burger. It seems the first baby step towards ushering in the philosophical debate over how good synthetic meat has to get before animal slaughter becomes entirely indefensible.
 
People are vegetarians for various reasons. Surely you can think of some that have nothing to do with the flavor or texture of the food a person is eating.

That said, calling this burger a "veggie burger" is a bit misleading. A "synthetic meat burger" seems more appropriate, and less appetizing.
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Does this not preclude "synthetic" ingredients?...

David Chang will unleash the Impossible Burger, an animal-free burger composed entirely of plant-based ingredients.
Click to expand...

. . . . . Pete
Click to expand...

The article is pretty clear about it. Just because something has plant origins doesn't mean that it hasn't been manipulated - and generally "natural flavors" (and probably the micronutrients) are synthetic: "The special ingredient is a molecule called “heme”. . . The Impossible Foods team used the molecule to reengineer the burger, making their meat-free patty out of a mixture of the heme, water, wheat protein, coconut oil and potato protein, as well as natural flavors and micronutrients . . ."
 
originally posted by Michael Lewis:
People are vegetarians for various reasons. Surely you can think of some that have nothing to do with the flavor or texture of the food a person is eating.
Click to expand...
My point is that the objection is most likely to be ethical. So why would you continue to rub your nose in the disdained thing, even an ersatz one?
 
originally posted by Michael Lewis:
People are vegetarians for various reasons. Surely you can think of some that have nothing to do with the flavor or texture of the food a person is eating.

That said, calling this burger a "veggie burger" is a bit misleading. A "synthetic meat burger" seems more appropriate, and less appetizing.
Click to expand...
Way more appetizing if you ask me...
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Michael Lewis:
People are vegetarians for various reasons. Surely you can think of some that have nothing to do with the flavor or texture of the food a person is eating.
Click to expand...
My point is that the objection is most likely to be ethical. So why would you continue to rub your nose in the disdained thing, even an ersatz one?
Click to expand...
The ethics of killing animals (uncomfortable at best) have nothing whatsoever to do with the hedonic pleasure of eating meat (mmmmmmm.... meat....). It just so happens to be the only way to obtain meat, given the present state of technology. But there is no reason why that would have to remain the case forevermore.

Most people have ethical objections to getting a gun and shooting 50 people, but only a few people have ethical objections to playing a video game where you get a gun and shoot 50 people.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
The ethics of killing animals (uncomfortable at best) have nothing whatsoever to do with the hedonic pleasure of eating meat (mmmmmmm.... meat....). It just so happens to be the only way to obtain meat, given the present state of technology. But there is no reason why that would have to remain the case forevermore.
Click to expand...
This sounds peculiar.

Most people have ethical objections to getting a gun and shooting 50 people, but only a few people have ethical objections to playing a video game where you get a gun and shoot 50 people.
Click to expand...
I think these people are peculiar, too.
 
Jeff,

The ethical objection is to killing animals. The purpose of killing the animals is to get the taste (and nutritional advantages) of eating meat. But wanting that taste and those advantages is not in itself unethical. The distinction isn't that hard. The video game analogy has the problem that some people object to the simulation of violence. But a better example might be someone who got an adrenaline rush from robbing banks and that was the main reason he did it. If he got the same rush from bungee jumping, we might think him "peculiar," but not unethical.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Michael Lewis:
People are vegetarians for various reasons. Surely you can think of some that have nothing to do with the flavor or texture of the food a person is eating.
Click to expand...
My point is that the objection is most likely to be ethical. So why would you continue to rub your nose in the disdained thing, even an ersatz one?
Click to expand...

Suggestion of memory is a strong one...
 
How about this Jeff - many people have ethical objections to taking a big axe, killing people, and taking their stuff.

Basically, what Keith said.

I know I'd find it a lot easier to be a vegetarian if I could still eat food that looked and tasted exactly like meat.
 
originally posted by Jay Miller:
How about this Jeff - many people have ethical objections to taking a big axe, killing people, and taking their stuff.
Click to expand...
This is a red herring - as were the other similar characterizations - because an act of commission is different from an act of omission here.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Jay Miller:
How about this Jeff - many people have ethical objections to taking a big axe, killing people, and taking their stuff.
Click to expand...
This is a red herring - as were the other similar characterizations - because an act of commission is different from an act of omission here.
Click to expand...

In what sense is either the analogy to video games or bungee jumping as an ethical way to get certain consequences one can get from an unethical act comparing acts of omission and commission. The only thing being omitted is the act of killing the animal. This is an ignoratio elenchi.
 
The position "I adore a food I refuse to harvest" is peculiar in light of the daily need for sustenance. It is an act of commission to avoid it.

I have no similar thrice-daily need to kill. I need do nothing about it.

Along a similar line, I don't understand artificial sweeteners: if sugary drinks are unacceptable for you then why continue to develop and indulge the taste for them? Learn to like something else and be happier.
 
the sweetener thing is different, no? most (all?) users of artificial ones like the sweet flavor, but have other reasons (weight, diabetes, etc.) for seeking a sugar substitute, i thought. it seems too easy to say "learn to like something else." If human taste and desire were that easy to corral, there would not be the multi-billion dollar market for sugar-substitutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top