Skip Navigation

The "Backlash" to Plant-Based Meat Has a Sneaky, if Not Surprising, Explanation

TL;DR: the meat industry's misleading messaging campaign + lobbying

47 comments
  • A competing interest creating fake grass roots campaigns to point out how unhealthy the competition is doesnt surprise me in the least, but that said I think even without it some of the dip can likely be applied to the novelty wearing off and the expectations of infinite growth.

    An impossible burger tastes fine for a veggie burger, but at the end of the day it isnt beef. Combine that with the unfortunate fact that plant based impossible style meat alternatives are more expensive, and inflation and you just have fewer people looking to splurge on something for the novelty.

    Personally I dont think I'll ever stop eating meat all the way, but I do try to reduce my daily consumption so it isnt an all the time thing. When I do have a meatless day it's usually better served by having actual meatless(or vastly reduced) cuisine and not fake meat. So pizza, pasta with various cheeses, falafel, hummus dip snacks, rice and beans, bean burrito, arroz con gandules, vegetarian curry, veggy noodles, and etc. Likewise Ive talked to vegans and vegetarians who just no longer like meat and prefer their veggie burger taste like a bean patty instead of something that fake bleeds.

    Dont get me wrong I agree that plant proteins and lab grown meats are important for eventually reducing meat consumption overall which is better for the environment. Meat eaters like myself would have an easier time eating less meat if there was an easy meat alternative. I just think that there are genuine organic reasons behind the drop in addition to the propoganda and I wonder how much of this now is the other side pulling their own astro turfing because they should be having the exponential and infinite growth that our market seems to demand and anything less than that is failure.

    Initial adoption of "impossible" and alternatives was rapid and sudden so I wonder how much of this dip can be ascribed to the age old capitalist issue of expanding too rapidly and then falling off once the novelty wears off.

    But yeah in short: Oh yeah big meat is definitely astroturfing, but I suspect there are more factors at play in the sales dips we're seeing.

    • When I do have a meatless day it’s usually better served by having actual meatless(or vastly reduced) cuisine and not fake meat

      I agree with statement exactly. I will always choose a vegetable based meal that is its own thing instead of something similar to meat. I want it to emphasize the vegetables or grains instead of hiding it. Most of these have generations of people creating these traditional vegetarian or vegan dishes which are great instead of a cheap knock off.

      I feel lab grown meat will attack traditional meat consumption much more. Same with actually ethically and sustainable meat creation.

  • I think we should go harder into mycoculture and Insectivory. We can grow mushrooms or other fungus on our plant waste like wood, paper, and food scraps. We can also feed soldier flies, grubs, ants, termites or grasshoppers on farm and food waste.

    Insects and fungi are also WAY more efficient than mammals like cows, or reptiles like birds. And they can both use waste material from agriculture without using up resources that we ourselves could use for ourselves. Fungi can be grown in the pitch black, so that reduces energy consumption. Many insects can be grown in far denser populations that like cows or chickens, and they don't have nearly the same level of consciousness (that we know of) as cows or other mammals. So, even if we are still killing them, its arguably less unethical.

    On top of that, consumption of insects has way lower risk of disease. Salmonella, worms, prions, etc. You can get those and others from mammals and birds, but insects are so different from us that it's a lot safer for the most part. That being said, there might still be some risk we haven't identified yet.

  • It's more complicated IMO. While I was initially pro-plant based diets, I noticed that a disproportionate number of vegans suffer from loss of skin elasticity, a pallid complexion, and sunken eyes. Yes, it's superficial, but it's a sign that vegan diets are missing an important part of our required dietary intake. It reminds me of the debacle around infant formula, where researchers didn't know that DHA was necessary for human development until 2003, which meant that formula-fed children born before 2003 were stunted. I simply don't feel comfortable sacrificing my well-being for the well-being of other animals, at least until lab-grown meats become available.

    • Anecdotes aren't really a great way to look at things. Looking at statements from nutrition bodies is likely more helpful here:

      It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/

      You can also just as easily find widespread deficiencies in important things mainly or only found in plant-based foods like fiber

      Populations that consume more dietary fiber have less chronic disease. Higher intakes of dietary fiber reduce the risk of developing several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers, and have been associated with lower body weights. The Adequate Intake for fiber is 14 g total fiber per 1,000 kcal, or 25 g for adult women and 38 g for adult men, based on research demonstrating protection against coronary heart disease. Properties of dietary fiber, such as fermentability and viscosity, are thought to be important parameters influencing the risk of disease. Plant components associated with dietary fiber may also contribute to reduced disease risk. The mean intake of dietary fiber in the United States is 17 g/day with only 5% of the population meeting the Adequate Intake. Healthy adults and children can achieve adequate dietary fiber intakes by increasing their intake of plant foods while concurrently decreasing energy from foods high in added sugar and fat, and low in fiber. Dietary messages to increase consumption of whole grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, and nuts should be broadly supported by food and nutrition practitioners.

      https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(15)01386-6/fulltext

      Let's also realize that foods like red meat have a known cancer risk and negative health outcomes. The common claim is that the studies are only correlational, but there are Randomized Controlled Trials looking at that. For instance, one such study (that was even beef industry funded) found that:

      Substituting red meat with high-quality plant protein sources, but not with fish or low-quality carbohydrates, leads to more favorable changes in blood lipids and lipoproteins.

      https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035225#d3646671e1

      If you want to look at unknown risks, look at things like microplastics that are going to be more concentrated the higher up the food chain you go. For instance looking at fish:

      A significant presence of MPs [microplastics particles] was found: 692 ± 120 MPs/100 g of tuna in water and 442 ± 84 MPs/100 g of tuna in oil

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35305437/

      • Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control.

        Compared to what though? If you only eat properly selected (fat to protein ratio) meat products (fatty meat, eggs, hard naturally maturing cheese) with a proper selection of vegetables, so that they contain all the micronutrients you need in good quantities, fiber and are low on carbs, the amounts of carbohydrates you 'll be getting will definitely be low enough to have perfect serum glucose -most of your energy will be coming from ketone bodies. You can't have elevated serum glucose if you don't rely on carbs for energy. It's pretty tough to mess up the metabolic pathways related to carbohydrates too with that approach. Which is pretty easy to do if your focus is to just eliminate animal products, since most plant foods are loaded with carbohydrates. When the objective is health, the focus should be proper selection of foods for the body first and then everything else.

        Of course vegetables (fiber), fruits (water & fiber), whole grains (fiber), legumes (fiber), soy products (debatable, tofu, tofu skins, tempeh all have low to zero amount of carbs), nuts/seeds (fiber) are handled better as far as their carbohydrate content goes since they are metabolized at a slower pace than white rice or flour products. But it's not the meat in the burger that messes up your glucose levels, its the potatoes and the bread. And if you don't match your activity levels with the quantities of -easier-for-your-body- carbohydrate sources from plant foods, you will start having issues too, quantity matters as much as quality in this aspect of nutrition.

        This is not a comment to support animal products, just to point out that what messes up serum glucose is improper selection of plant based foods, not saturated fat or meat products in general (probably with the exception of many dairy products).

        You can also just as easily find widespread deficiencies in important things mainly or only found in plant-based foods like fiber

        There are other deficiencies too if you don't eat proper plant based foods (again like the ones mentioned in the first quote of my comment), which can be equally important. Easiest example is magnesium. All the greatest sources of it are plant based foods. This metal is also a good reason why legumes/beans are important (apart from the obvious abundance of potassium). Seeds and nuts are a great source too, but cost more (not just to buy them, they take up much more resources from the environment to produce them).

        People who rely heavily on meat, thinking this is easy access to full of essential amino-acids protein (which it is, muscle tissue is something of a protein storage for most of animal bodies), won't be getting magnesium in good quantities unless they start eating proper plants or buying supplements (created from plant matter), since most of magnesium (and many other micronutrients like it) is stored in the bones of the animals (which we don't eat, and bone broths don't do much either). It's pretty funny that many people think they can't get proper protein from plants, which is untrue, but in fact it's the other way around, as far as deficiencies go, once you start looking at micronutrients.

  • I'm waiting to try the lab grown shit. Plant based shit has mostly be gross. The best plant based meat substitute I've tried still had the texture of wadded up paper (but it did completely taste like chicken aside from that).

47 comments