I don't agree with the parent poster's assertion either though.
Which ofc it's nothing but marketing nonsense considering that the most bioavailable form of iron Heme-iron is found only in meats.
Hell they could really cheat and just throw ferrous sulfate directly in the mix rather than using naturally occurring iron in the veggies.
No, it means that the Non-heme is less bioavailable i.e less efficiently absorbed from the body.
If you insist on reading the statement as "this burger has non-heme iron at quantities comparable to heme iron in meat that will also be just as bio-available" then yes, it's impossible.
However, I was trying to point out that there are several ways of reading that statement without it being marketing doublespeak.
TL;dr- I think we're arguing different points here.
>It has as much bioavailable iron and protein as the same size serving of ground beef, with 14 grams of fat and 240 calories per quarter-pound patty.
Also, per Impossible's site, changes to nutrition for the new recipe are:
>The new Impossible Burger features 30% less sodium and 40% less saturated fat than the current recipe and just as much protein as 80/20 ground beef from cows
The original recipe only has 5g of carbohydrates per serving, so assuming that remains constant, this doesn't seem terribly problematic for those on a low-to-moderate carbohydrate diet.