Ironically I find that I (vegetarian, not vegan) tend to enjoy meat replacements that don't try replicate meat. I find the ones that DO try to replicate meats taste are just not very good at it, and it ends up tasting pretty bad. The good stuff is still tasty and savory but it's doing its own thing.

edit: Not to say the impossible burger can't be good (I've not been able to try one) Just a comment on existing products that I've tried.

I don't want these "Impossible" burgers to eliminate veggie burgers doing their own thing, and I'm a bit worried it might eventually come to the point where everyone thinks they need to be just like beef.

Some of the existing veggie burgers are very tasty even though they don't try to trick your taste buds in replicating the 'meat experience' 100%. Like Morningstar Farms Tomato & Basil Pizza burgers are just awesome, for example. They're one of my mainstays for super-quick lunches. You can see and taste the veggies in the burger and they taste great.

And I'm saying this as a meat eater, who grilled beef hamburgers on the grill just last night

I agree with you. There are a lot of veggie burger patties out there that are essentially flattened falafel, and it would be a shame to lose them. Falafel is great all on its own.

I feel like they'll be just fine if they just advertise themselves as being falafel patties. I'm pretty thoroughly not vegetarian, so I ain't gonna reach for a veggie patty if the only reason it's being sold is because "well it's not beef!". Sell it to me as falafel and I'll eat it because I happen to like falafel.

In general I agree with you, though I will say that the Impossible burgers are just plain good. I order them over meat when I get the chance, and I'm not a diet activist. They just made a good product.

The best is the cuisine from countries that have a large vegetarian population. For example at the cafeteria where I work they have samosas served with something made with chickpeas, which doesn't leave me feeling like I missed meat with my lunch.

I'm not a vegetarian at all (I eat a lot of various meats, love'em) but I genuinely like veggies, too, and I fully agree with you. The best vegetarian dishes are the ones that work with the best flavors of whatever ingredients are present, not ones that try and pretend to be something else. You can get some very savory flavors with mushrooms, gluten, etc that are wonderful all on their own.

That being said, I've been reading enough about the impossible burger that I'm looking forward to getting to try one.

I'm in your lane, the more a veggie burger embraces the vegetables, not being a meat simulacrum, the better it tastes. The more beany a black bean burger, the better. I like the "Chik'n" patties but they are deep fried so arguably the main flavor is not meat but crust. But not this burger. Try it, I think you'll be impressed.

As a fellow vegetarian, I agree with not liking non-meat meat products that are too close. But, my transition was a long one. My family was very much carnosaur. I was told that I need to "expand my horizons," which meant eating new and different types of animals. (I not many that I haven't tried.) When I met my wife to be, who was vegan, that made me rethink my diet. She introduced me to many new cuisines, notably Indian and Thai, that feature dishes not based around meat.

At first, it was deciding what new vegetarian things to try, and what choices I was going to give up. I've come to realize that a lot of people identify with food. For some, it's a family thing to have a big burger. For others, whatever non-meat products they have had gave bad experiences. I can't tell you how many people I've met who say tofu is horrible. To be fair, most places or people have no clue properly prepare it; thus, the very idea of a non-meat substitute is killed.

I've tried the burger. It's impressively too close to the real thing for me to want to eat them. Yet, it is my hope that the impossible burger will be one of many avenues for people to make a transition to a more sustainable, ethical and healthier diet. In turn, I hope it ups the game for other companies to look at vegetarian options that are prepared well.

I think of traditional Midwest (German, Scandinavian based) cuisine as a primary driver - it was an eye opening experience to hear vegetarians I’ve met say how much they also hate steamed vegetables. The lack of tasty spices in traditional American vegetable dishes definitely keep a lot of people going back to meat and dairy as primary flavor drivers.

FWIW I hate steamed and boiled vegetables of all kinds, but love meat.

You might be onto something with spices, though. The cuisines which have more palatable (subjectively, of course) veggie dishes tend to be the ones that are more creative with spices, now that I think about it.

I see this getting said a lot but I really don't find this, I mean there are loads of standalone fantastic vegetable products which are nothing to do with meat and taste great but No Chick Fillets (in a Jalfrezi) have confused dinner guests who thought they were eating chicken until I told them they were vegan, or No Bull Mince (in a bolognese), Beyond Meat burgers have been well received (although I personally don't find them as nice as burgers which I can still recall from before coming vegetarian).

I guess one thing I find is it is easy to find really good recipes of long running favourite dishes and be able to substite our chicken, or beef mince with a vegan alternative and still get the full rich flavours of the dish, with the right texture, filling power, protein levels, etc of what would have been meat.

FWIW here are some of "my" recipes (ones I have found elsewhere and catalogued together on one place) which have been well received by family and guests: https://www.copymethat.com/recipebox/steven-craft/3775240/ if there is any mention of meat then substitute with the products mentioned above.

Isn't this just a criticism of existing meat-alike products? Or have you tried impossible burger and found it not tasty?

I've been a vegetarian for ~my whole life, tried the impossible burger, didn't like it. To be fair it might have more to do with the way it looks rather than the taste - meat-looking stuff doesn't appeal to me. My favorite burger is [0], which makes no attempt to look or taste like meat but is delicious in its own right.

[0]: https://www.ah.nl/producten/product/wi128419/garden-gourmet-...

Love that one as well. The chimichurri burger of garden gourmet is nice as well, but a bit spicy.

It is a criticism of existing products, I have not tried an impossible burger and would be very excited to find that it tastes as good as meat.

Maybe its the "uncanny valley" phenomenon for taste? When you get closer to taste of the real thing, people notice the differences more. But people like something totally different like a TJs veggie masala burger for what it is.

I am with you 100%, I wan't a veggie patty for the veggies, not as a replacement for meat.

My problem stems from the fact that I'm not vegetarian, I am always comparing the meatless burger patties with the "meatful" variety, and they never compare. I've had Impossible burgers and the Beyond Meat burgers, and they just aren't the same.

Yep. I first tried black bean burgers when I was first moving towards being vegetarian years ago. Now, I still prefer them to the meat substitutes I’ve had (which don’t yet include Impossible or Beyond Meat) because black beans + spices works very well with all of the traditional American burger condiments and dressings, and adds its own enjoyable flavor. Beats the pants off of the dense, grain-heavy fake meats I’ve sampled.

I was never a foodie though, so I think the format of a hamburger matters as much to me as the substance, being a kind of comfort food due to the familiar experience. Those of you with more refined palates are welcome to hold this position in contempt.

Trying to replicate meet is essential to have a market-fit product. We have evolved into subconsciously LOVING meet. Hadn’t the vegan-chicken tasted like chicken I wouldn’t stopped eating chicken.

I was visiting a sister when she tricked me into eating a vegan replacement of chicken!(I’m a steak lover and always made jokes about vegan people) I couldn’t believe what I was eating wasn’t chicken. Then she made me try chicken nuggets, and OMG...having had that experience with chicken, I wouldn't be surprised if their burger tastes the same...

The taste of chicken was so real I couldn't believe it. I’ve been eating it for a month now and I lost 10 lbs. WITHOUT working out.

I agree. Even as a meat-eater, some of the vegetarian fare such as certain types of gardenburgers are delicious in their own right. They aren't really trying to be meat, and I suspect I'd like them less if they were.

My wife was diagnosed with celiac last year, and we've found the same to be true of eating GF alternatives. Foods that try to replicate gluten tend to be much worse than things that are just good without it.

What I find ironic is that the industry is so focused on thinking that people only eat meat because of the taste. Not because of all the valuable micro-nutrients, varied animal proteins, and fat.

Or the detrimental health effects of animal based burgers either...

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Heart_beat...

Let's be honest: most people do eat meat because of the taste. And the industry is going to go after the largest crowd first.

I'm very curious about people in your camp -- those that don't like attempts to replicate meat, but do like the "patty" food format. How do you usually eat your meat replacements? On a sandwich? Chopped up? A mix? Since it seems like they are all frozen (but maybe I'm wrong here?), is a big part of the draw convenience? Is protein content a factor in your decision at all?

I've always said the same thing. I like tofu when tofu is being tofu, but not when it's trying to be something else.

What are you favorite meat replacements that don't try replicate meat? I'd be interested in trying some :-D

The uncarnine valley.

The founder of Impossible Burger was on Too Embarrassed To Ask podcast [0] and I specifically remember him talking about how his product is meat (because of the heme). It's just not meat from an animal, or at least this is how I interpreted sections like "...It’s a heme protein that turns out to be basically the single thing that separates meat categorically from all other foods in terms of its flavor profile."

0 - https://www.recode.net/2017/8/18/16171336/transcript-impossi...

Isn't there a YC startup from the last batch that does precisely this (high-quality, versatile milk substitute)?

EDIT: yep, Eclipse Foods:

https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/19/launching-from-yc-eclipse-...

As a side point, milk (in espresso drinks) was one of the last animal food products I’ve been holding on to. My five year old, who’s mostly vegan because she’s allergic to milk, said, “daddy, why do you keep putting cow milk in your coffee, you should stop.”

I had read somewhere that it takes around two or three weeks to get used to the taste of something. I’m a coffee snob, and I really didn’t like the taste of almond milk in coffee. Well, sure enough, after a few weeks I really don’t mind it and I can see being completely used to it soon.

I do still prefer oat milk, which has recently become a lot more available. Much milder taste, and it foams better for lattes.

After a month of Whole30 eating a couple years ago, I've completely switched from dairy in my coffee. Previously, I always used sugar and half-and-half, but a month was enough to make a permanent change.

My favorite by far is unsweetened cashew milk, followed by hazelnut and coconut, but I'm using it as a creamer or latte substitute, not looking for foam. I can't stand the nutty grittiness of almond milk in my coffee, but I now generally prefer nut milks to cow milk and cream.

Almond milk in coffee makes it taste like disgusting hot bitter marzipan imo.

Ha - a fair description of how I viewed it initially as well. Though, it is amazing how tastes can change. I have the gene that makes Cilantro taste like soap. When I first moved to California, I couldn’t stand it. A decade later and I love cilantro.

Interesting, I've eaten Chipotle (which has cilantro in the rice) for years and I still hate the taste of cilantro.

I am decidedly not a coffee snob, but agree that almond milk in coffee isn't great. I've tended to use coconut milk because it has some creaminess to it that seems to work well in coffee.

I'll have to see if I can find oat milk to try.

Most shops in SF have oat milk, if you're located in that area. Oat milk has been a game changer for me. All Blue Bottle locations carry Oatly oat milk.

While Oatly scrambles to scale up, some of the other major brands have stepped in. Silk has an oat milk out in the past few weeks and it’s good. But Oatly is still my fav.

My grandma actually makes her iced coffees with almond milk. I don't care for the taste, but I'm usually against adding anything to coffee in the first place (on the rare occasion that I actually pick coffee over tea).

As an aside, there are quite a few non-dairy creamers that work great for coffee/tea etc, as almond/soy definitely do not work well.

> there are quite a few non-dairy creamers that work great

As someone who has tried a lot of non-dairy creamers, I have yet to find a single one that "works great". There's something very characteristic about both the taste and the consistency of milk and most replacement products are nowhere close. That's not to say milk is irreplaceable for all applications, but there's a tendency to over-hype healthy and organic replacement products that try to be "just as good" because we all want a sustainable, healthy replacement without sacrificing anything at all, but belying reality is hardly going to get us there.

Personally, I feel more attracted to the idea that it's better to do something than nothing at all. You don't have to go vegan tomorrow, if people just ate less meat and started thinking about this type of stuff as a luxury and not a right, we would've come a long way. Personally, milk in my coffee is non-negotiable. Bacon for breakfast? Well, I hardly need it every day, or even every week, so I'm open to discuss frequency.

I think the first step that most people can agree on is to remove all agricultural subsidies and tariffs (and ethanol requirements). That way, the things being produced in -- and imported to -- the US more closely match what consumers actually want, without government putting its finger on the scale.

As the costs of subsidized, unhealthy food rise, consumption will decline. This, of course, assumes that the demand is induced by artificially low prices. If people consume just as much high-fructose corn syrup at higher prices, then you have a cultural challenge on your hands.

Even more important than removing agricultural subsidies and tariffs would be to implement laws that require humane treatment of these living, breathing creatures. Prices would soar and alternatives would prosper if factory farms were not allowed to torture animals.

In the US a big factor is the very high sugar tariff. So I'm not convinced that taking all the fingers off the scale would make for much healthier!

In my mind, this seems like the most reasoned middle ground I've encountered. I'm a committed carnivore, but I do have ethical qualms with animal death, and if there are options that have negligible differences in experience (cost/convenience/taste), I'll take it, but as you mentioned, there are small, but concrete ways to improve things without going whole hog into avoiding all animal products or having to wait for big companies to adopt those options.

(As an aside, does anyone know the reasoning behind avoiding honey? I've even seen a software license that forbade it's use in any product that may directly or indirectly use or industrialize animal products, including honey).

The Vegan Society have an explainer on this:

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/honey-industry

In practise, the answer is because it's a form of exploitation and exploitation is considered Always Bad by the VS. It's probably easier to explain this to people than to try and nuance (ie soften) the stance. Not a criticism.

> As someone who has tried a lot of non-dairy creamers, I have yet to find a single one that "works great".

Oh, man, this is so true. I like cream in my coffee, but if the only thing available is non-dairy creamers, then taking it black is much preferable.

I'm unsure of the ethics of milk as food. Do milk cows live good lives? Can they? I've researched, and haven't come to a firm conclusion, but I'm not as alarmed by it, in relative terms.

Could be bias. Dairy is my most-favoured food. Cheese, milk, yogurt, butter...

Imagine being more or less constantly pregnant during your entire life, hooked up to a machine that sucks your calves food out of you, while they are dragged away for slaughter or to join the crew. After a handful lactations, or if you don’t produce enough, or you’re sick too often, you’re slaughtered too. Most of the time you’re indoors walking around in your own feces. Sound like a good life to you?

>Imagine being more or less constantly pregnant during your entire life

Can you explain this to me, I only know how this is on farms, the cow will be in heat 1 time a year, I mean it is natural to the cows, you can't impregnate them if they are not in heat and if it was a wild cow she would still get as pregnant as often.

But maybe is the industrial way something else is happening? Let me know so I understand your point

You most certainly can impregnate a cow that is unwilling. The following article is definitely biased, but the point still stands that the animals aren't exactly consenting to this.

https://theirturn.net/2016/06/15/2016061420160613the-rape-ra...

I know about artificial insemination, but you can't do it when you want, it only works when the cow is in heat. When a cow is in heat she behaves differently (she starts ridding other cows) so the farmer notices this and calls a veterinarian to inseminate the cow or bring a bull.

I was asking if they can force the cow to be in heat. change the ovulation cycle or whatever explains the thing I quoted.

Typically they're looking for a bull to do that job. Just because a woman is ovulating doesn't mean that she wants some other species to restrain her, anally violate her, and forcibly impregnate her.

This argument only works if you believe that animals are worthy of empathy, but many would rather live with the cognitive dissonance that animals are incapable of emotions than go through the hassle of changing their diet.

This are cows not humans, my experience is with real world cows that are raised outside on fields,when the cow is in heat she will start ridding other cows(yes cows become lesbians and "rape" other cows, I know your mind is blown now), a bull will smell her from a distance and will come to the cow, the cow is always wiling because is her nature, she is not a thinking human it is all instinct.

At my grandparents farm artificial insemination was used when there was no old enough bull present(this is on small villages in Romania, and to make you even more outraged animals like horses are still used for work).

Again, just because they are cows does not mean they do not have emotions. These animals are more than capable of feeling happiness, sadness, fear, pain, etc.

Modern industrial scale agriculture is what we are talking about here, not one-off mom and pop farms that represent a drop in the bucket of dairy production.

This is why I ask in my original comment that I replied if the industrial farms do something different to make the cows get pregnant faster, if yes I want to inform myself (so if you know what terms to search about, procedure names etc but don't make me search something that does not exist).

About animals having feelings, I know very well, just that when nature says is time to get pregnant the cow is just an animal in heat(it is dangerous even and you must be careful around them)

Emphasis on “during your entire life”. Yes in the wild, cattle would be naturally inclined to bear offspring annually, but may not always. Also, would eventually stop and live on to help care for the calves of younger individuals in the flock.

Wild cattle were likely also older when they first calves as domesticated cattle are both bred to calve earlier and also forced too. Basically inseminated as early as physiologically possible.

Keep in mind also that dairy cattle are bred for optimal milk production which carry a lot of problems like mastitis, birth complications etc. and yes most dairy cattle are artificially inseminated.

>Emphasis on “during your entire life”. Yes in the wild, cattle would be naturally inclined to bear offspring annually, but may not always. Also, would eventually stop and live on to help care for the calves of younger individuals in the flock.

Please link me to facts

>Wild cattle were likely also older when they first calves as domesticated cattle are both bred to calve earlier and also forced too. Basically inseminated as early as physiologically possible.

Please link , because I can't believe that a wild animal is in heat but decides not to follow the instincts, my cat got pregnant so freaking young I was afraid she would die. The animals do not decide this but if you have links to scientific paper where healthy individuals do not follow the natural instinct I want to see it.

I am not arguing for a camp or other, I want to clear up things when someone tells me things that at first glance seems as fake things people in cities that never seen an animal imagined. But I will change my mind if you provide the facts to read for myself.

Not sure what qualifies fact, as there are not a lot of wild bovine species left in world.

As for choosing not to mate, I think there are studies showing that animals in captivity regularly refuse to mate. After all, in the wild there’s competition.

It’s also possible and not uncommon to alter feeding regimes to stimulate heifers to reach puberty faster than that which would happen in the wild.

The comment was meant to touch upon the question of whether dairy cattle live happy lifes. It’s hard to argue that they do, although it’s also hard to prove that they don’t. From an ethical humanitarian point of view which I think is totally appropriate when deciding what to eat, one can easily empathize with these animals by simple observation and a sprinkle of common sense. Whatever the facts are, dictated by whatever authority, may or may not make a huge difference.

I don’t think it matters so long as animals are impregnated forcefully by humans through artificial insemination while in captivity, there’s so little resemblance to the wild that any comparison is quite pointless.

Edit: I have education in agriculture and have both visited and worked at several dairy farms.

I also don't care what happens in the wild, I care about facts and people that invent facts to support their claims. AFAIK we can't force impregnate an animal if it is not in heat, the animals that won't mate in captivity probably do not get in heat or from documentaries I seen they fail to get pregnant or keep the pregnancy (I seen one about pandas).

It’s true that you can’t impregnate an animal in heat, but once in heat you can obviously. It’s also possible to control heat with hormon supplements, which farmers regularly use to synchronize calfings in their herd.

Not really sure what point you’re trying to make. Just because a female is ovulating, do you have the right to impregnate her?

>Not really sure what point you’re trying to make. Just because a female is ovulating, do you have the right to impregnate her?

Just if a female is hungry do I have the right to give it food? If she is ill do I have the right to heal her or I need to ask for permission? Same for pet owners.

What point are you trying to make?

Not sure hiw putting a plate of food in front of someone is comparable to putting your arm into a female’s birth canal with a canister of sperm.

Again, what you think is ok and not ok in terms of treating an animal, even pets, is part of your ethical framework. And it’s up to you to inform yourself in order to justify that framework to yourself. The burden of proof is not on anyone but you.

Well, I can’t produce the hard facts. I’m talking about what I know from anecdotal and educational experience. I don’t have sources at hand. Sorry :)

If you really care about the subject I encourage you to research it from all points of view. If you can, visit some dairy farms and make your own observations.

I have a ton of experience with farms in third world countries, we did not feed them antibiotics or hormones or special food, only grass or other related plant thing from our grounds. For a long time we had a bull that would do the job when the cows were in heat but when we reduced the number of cows it is too expensive to have a bull and we asked a veterinarian to do the artificial insemination.

I did not heard of any magic way to make the cows have more milk, there is no need to have her get pregnant often, and the quality of the milk is related with the food quality. The quantity of the milk is something genetic, some cows just give more milk then others, and some races then other.

What I see from some responses her is that the facts were wrong, the cows are not forced in heat(nobody provided a link) and all the thread is based on morals/ethical stuff that I don't want to debate, I wanted to know if I am missing some information(I have no time and need to inform myself on how some bad farms do things because I am not promoting an ideology with facts I did not researched before)

Do allow me to exemplify how simple research can back up some of my uncontroversial observations.

https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-informa...

“Estrous Control and Synchrony in Cattle Exogenous hormones can mimic the hormones of the natural estrous cycle in cattle. By administering exogenous hormones, producers can control and synchronize estrus in breeding heifers and cows as well as shorten their estrous cycles. Producers can group animals according to the phase of their estrous cycle, which reduces management burdens. Some estrous synchrony regimens may also induce or advance estrus in animals that aren’t cycling (they’re anestrous). For example, a cow is normally anestrous after giving birth, and an estrous synchrony regimen may be used to advance her first heat after calving. This allows her to be bred again sooner. These drug regimens may also be used to advance the timing of the first heat in heifers at puberty.”

That’s your prerogative of course.

I never said that cattle are forced into heat. Most of western industrialized dairy production use artificial insemination though. That’s hardy controversial or in need of backing up with sources. Nothing ideological about it. You don’t think it qualifies as forcing an animal into pregnancy, well that’s up to you to fit into your ethics framework, nothing I can present as “fact” can change that.

It’s perfectly possible to improve the quality of milk (I.e. manipulate fat, protein and lactose contents) via altering feeding regimes. Hardly controversial, and quite common but in the west, through the use of feed concentrates with additives. Nothing ideological about this either.

As for hormone supplements to control heat, well, or sure why you find this hard to believe, but the again, your anecdotal experience maybe doesn’t support it. Do some basic research into western industrialized dairy production.

You say you don’t have time to research, but the you expect others to do it for you? Not really any constructive about that.

My comment was about a question that was asked: do dairy cattle live happy lives? I don’t believe it’s possible to answer that question with hard facts.

>You say you don’t have time to research, but the you expect others to do it for you? Not really any constructive about that.

Why should I research since I am not the one that is promoting an agenda, someone said X and I asked for links to read that X is true. People that say that X is true but can't find the place where they found their claim then maybe it is super hard to find or maybe it does not exist.

Who is promoting an agenda?

I’m making quite incontroversial statements that should be trivial to verify if you have an inch of interest. I’m leaving it to you to make your own ethical considerations. I also gave you one source, and encourage you to explore more on your own. If you don’t to, fine, but then I don’t really see a point about going on about agendas and ideology.

Oatley Oat Milk works incredibly well. It's kind of a trendy thing at Alfred coffee shops in LA but invented 30-years ago in Sweden. It's in several stores but the supply has been limited so it's somewhat hard to get.

Again, "works incredibly well" is, in my subjective opinion, almost an absurd exaggeration. Yes, it "works", but by what criteria? If your criteria is that it should be better than no addition to the coffee at all, sure, but that is true for all creamers, for some people even the worst ones. If your criteria is that you want the taste of milk, then it really, really does not work, at all.

Yeah my experience too is that the non dairy creamers.... taste very much like non dairy creamers.

That's not necessarily bad if you like that, there are lots of product substitutes that to a good job in their own right even if they aren't what they intended to replace. I cook and there are all sorts of good products that historically were intended to replace or augment something else and do their own thing well.

But as far as non dairy creamers go, it's just no a replacement for actual milk for me. Two similar, but noticeably different things.

Many mainstream "Non-dairy" creamers, like Coffee Mate and International Delight, usually have dairy in them though, specifically, caseinate. So not suitable for strict vegans. It's a quirk in labeling laws that products that have milk-derived ingredients can be labeled non-dairy as long as they label the milk-derived ingredients as milk-derived in the ingredients list.

That being said, they do make vegan creamer, never had any myself. It's still a specialty product though, most places that serve coffee, beyond coffee shops, are only going to have milk, half and half, and Coffee Mate/International Delight.

> not a niche of people avoiding meat or being health conscious

very well articulated. I've been fortunate enough to be around vegan people that aren't so judgemental, but they seemed to still neglect the existence of people that would like to replicate the experience of meat and interpret that as apathy.