My sister is a vegan and on my urging she tried an impossible burger when it first came to San Francisco and she loved it.
But Burger King is cooking the impossible burger on the same grill upon which they're grilling the meat. I haven't asked her but I'm guessing most vegans won't be buying their impossible burgers at Burger King for that reason.
You only have to walk into a supermarket to see this is nonsense, meat vs veggie options are like 10 to 1.
You're referencing one widely debunked survey (this is about the vegan part of it, but it applied to the whole study and the vegetarian percentage claim (of 14%, not 20%), is discussed and debunked later in the article):
https://fullfact.org/health/vegans-uk/
I know 1 vegan and 1 vegetarian, but I know at least 6 ex-vegetarians.
I think it's a two-parter: There's a degree of social pressure within groups, but it's also a function of where you live. As part of a university-dense area there's a lot of eco-conscious vegetarians here - which makes it easier to market to vegetarians - so they have more options - which makes it easier to be vegetarian. Feedback loops.
I live in Nottingham, which has two big universities. There are a few vegan cafes and bars around. I don't know how old you are, but a lot of my ex-veggie friends stopped being so in their 30s.
Most people aren't going to worry about incidental "contamination".
Why is the corporate world so hopelessly stupid?
I can't say I agree with this sentiment. This sort of thing happens in other food service outlets and it's never bothered me. The one that comes to mind is grocery stores having separate slicers for meat and dairy to accommodate those who keep kosher. I'm not Jewish, and neither am I a vegetarian, but I wouldn't call those who do keep such lifestyle choices unreasonable.
Also, the word demand here commands more than one meaning. If there is demand for such a separation, and money to be made from accommodating that demand, those practices will find their way into the market.
Look it, no one is demanding anything. They're mis-representing their product. That's all that I'm saying. The end.
Everything else you're saying, your railing against the so-called "vegan moral framework," etc..., is, to me, just you grinding an axe.
They are flame broiled, not grilled. They aren't cooked in any type of grease.
Many fast food places (McDonald's, Wendy's) use a flat surface similar to this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Flickr_X...
Typical ground beef is 20% fat (80% lean), and if you cook it on that, the fat will melt, it will hang around on that surface, and whatever else you cook next will be cooked in animal grease left over from the beef patty.
If you flame broil, the burger sits on a wire mesh, and the grease drips away.
I'm not just picking nits. I'm really trying to make a sincere point that I think one method will have significantly less transfer (not zero) than the other.
They are fairly large and probably expensive, so a separate broiler may not be an option.
"Our World Famous Fries™ and hash browns are go-tos for our vegetarian and vegan guests. Since 2007, we’ve made them without any animal-sourced ingredients. We cook them in 100% vegetable oil, in a dedicated fryer separate from our meat items."
FRENCH FRIES Ingredients: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (Canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Natural Beef Flavor [Wheat and Milk Derivatives]), Dextrose, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate (Maintain Color), Salt. Natural beef flavor contains hydrolyzed wheat and hydrolyzed milk as starting ingredients. Contains: WHEAT, MILK.
Source: URL -> https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/product/small-french-frie...
The Morningstar patties that BK has are pretty bad and taste very artificial and I'm not surprised meat eaters don't like them.
There are roughly half a billion vegetarians in India.
This entire thread is about a question that refers to the US so to be able to misinterpret my response so significantly is strange.
I do not believe it is linguistically possible for me to have been more dispassionate than when I wrote There are roughly half a billion vegetarians in India.
Comments like moate's, "Data or it didn't happen," do not strike me as overly emotional either. You might want to just lighten up.
> Only 5 percent of Americans identify as vegetarian and of that 5% most are liberal. If you can give me a good argument for why those liberal people should be evenly distributed around the US I am all ears.
Interesting thought. I have no data as to whether this is true but if fast food is more of a city thing (I believe it), what you're saying would seem to make rolling out something like a good veggie burger a lot more attractive in terms of marketing demographics than the simple "5%" figure alone would indicate, which speaks to the question you were originally responding to.
> This entire thread is about a question that refers to the US so to be able to misinterpret my response so significantly is strange.
The comment you were responding to literally begins "I lived in England..." I don't think a little misunderstanding is a big deal. Fair enough, you were talking about the United States.
This is why I'm so emotional. This isn't a fact. This is an assumption, and a really weird one at best. Here's what we have for facts:
About 5% of the US population identify as Vegetarian or vegan. "Most" vegetarians are liberal. Liberals are not evenly distributed among the general population.
Putting this together, your assumption is highly flawed at best. There's no logical reason we can't assume that while liberals aren't equally distributed, vegetarians are. Being a vegetarian means you're likely inclined to be liberal, it's a correlation not causation. There's nothing I've seen that shows anything about expected distribution of vegetarians based on where they live. The best thing anyone has come up with is the thanksgiving gallup poll below.
Also, your OG statement was that they aren't common outside of meto areas. This is so vague and meaningless. What's common? That 1/100 people are a vegetarian? That people know someone anecdotally that is a vegetarian?
My point is that your asserting that you know that vegetarians are uncommon in the Rural US. I posit that it's impossible to know that. That's not to say you're wrong or not (I'm not claiming I know either) but that making a statement of that type is problematic in a fact based discussion.
> In the US, vegetarians are not common outside of certain metropolitan areas
[1]https://news.gallup.com/poll/238328/snapshot-few-americans-v...
I mean my thoughts are the whole "Vermont Hippy" seems like a thing, and IDK that Vermont even has a meto area (/s).
It becomes the OP's job to provide fact when they state things and then are asked to back them up.
OP can then choose not to do so, but the one asking for source is not to be blamed here.
Asking for fact-checks is fine, but it's also exceedingly annoying to try to build up a point while people who don't know what they're talking about disingenuously stand around demanding you validate every single statement or axiom you want to make. That's a common rhetorical style on the internet, and it seems it's very often designed more to exhaust and bore the person being questioned than as a way to improve understanding.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/11/22/american...
So. Now that I have shown you the evidence about how people in the city are more likely to have attempted to reduce their meat consumption, are you willing to admit that your initial skepticism was completely and totally wrong?
It seemed pretty obvious the the initial conclusion of "people eat less meat in cities" is a true statement. This is due to me have a basic, 101 understanding of how population demographics work, and understanding that people living in a city are more likely to be liberal, and therefore eat less meat.
So, do you understand the evidence now, and why you were completely incorrect to give doubt over such an obviously true conclusion, that anyone with any basic knowledge of demographics would understand?
Nobody needed to give evidence in the first place for this. It is obviously true.
Regardless of the accuracy of the original statement, I feel as though "initial skepticism" is ALWAYS the correct response to a claim made on the internet. If anybody is going to claim anything on a site like HN, they shouldn't have to provide evidence because they might not be trustworthy, but rather they should have to provide evidence so their statements can actually have something to stand on.
Here is the problem with that. I don't think you understand how toxic an eternal skeptic is to a conversation.
An eternal skeptic is someone who never makes any positive claims or reasons as for why they disagree with something that someone else said. All they do is repeat, over and over again "ummm, why don't you prove it!".
Yeah, no. If you disagree with something, then the honest thing to do is say specifically why you disagree with it, and to make positive claims of your own.
If someone just sits back, and refuses to engage with the argument, or give evidence as for why the other person is wrong, then what I usually do is give them the evidence that they asked for, and then make fun of them for not knowing about it in the first place.
Because if their initial skepticism was correct in the first place, then the skeptic would have had the guts to explain why they disagree, instead of just being a coward, by only repeating "prove it" a dozen times over.
It is ridiculous to expect someone to give a 30 page essay of facts and figures, for every single claim that you make.
Instead, the honest thing to do, is to say specifically what you think is incorrect, and give your reasons why, and then the conversation can go from there.
In person, I agree completely. Skepticism towards your friends/ family/ acquaintances can easily poison the discourse and ruin relationships. If I have a discussion with a person I know, then I should absolutely give them the benefit of the doubt, and take what they say at face value unless they say something I find literally incredulous.
When you're having a discussion online though, it's a completely different story. People say stupid stuff on the internet, and "stupid" is a spectrum that goes all the way to "well-intentioned and seemingly-logical but poorly-researched and false". Online, and on a site such as this which aims for a certain level of discourse, every claim should be backed up. There's always somebody who disagrees that is going to read your comment, and you should give them a reason to reconsider their initial position.
This is not an easy thing to do. I believe a lot of stuff without knowing immediately why. This forces me to better account for my ideas, which helps structure my thinking. I'm not a strong enough logician to make infallible arguments, but by trying to convince an eternal skeptic, I only make my own arguments better.
[EDIT: I gave you an upvote, since you were in the gray. Some others had downvoted you, but that was undeserved, since I think your disagreement was in good faith. Other people, please don't downvote stale's comment.]
> People say stupid stuff on the internet, and "stupid" is a spectrum
Ok, but if you ask for evidence, because you are skeptical and refuse to give any reason as for why you are skeptical, and I provide the evidence, then I get to call you stupid.
I get to say "Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, look how wrong you were, and how right I was, because you didn't believe something, that I knew what obviously true".
I am not saying that you can't be skeptical. Instead, I am saying that if you disbelieve a claim, then you need to say specifically why you are disbelieving.
Take a stance. Say why you think the other person is wrong. Don't be a coward and just say "I disbelieve you, but refuse to say why".
And if you do that, then I am going to give you that evidence that you asked for, and call you stupid for not giving your reason why you were skeptical in the first place.
I am asking nothing more of the skeptic than they are asking of me. Yes, I'll give you evidence, and treat you nicely. If you also gave a justification for your disbelief in the first place.
I'm not making any claims about where vegetarians do or don't live, and it seems pretty bold to throw something out like stating where most people of such a diverse group live.
In the US, Burger King has been supplying veggie patties for some time, but I wonder why it took American fast food places so long to expand. For instance, why is there still an absence of veggie burgers in a typical US McDonald's? Is this a business decision or something else?