Not sure what the millennials angle adds to this article, but they sure do say the word a lot.

They're asserting that Beyond Meat's success is driven by millennial ethics on the back of... absolutely no data whatsoever. Who's actually buying Beyond Meat burgers? Do other generations actually not care about health, the environment, animal welfare, etc? Is there any evidence at all to justify these assertions?

Or did you just need to include the buzzword?

Millennials grew up with the internet, unlike generations before them. For millennials who want vegan products the internet made it easy and natural to find them, information, and community.

For older people, this took longer and is still in progress.

There are older folks interested in vegan products, but millennials are the largest current customer base so far.

I'm gonna need some hard evidence to believe what you just wrote there.

Also this assumption that "older people" are less capable of using the internet is such a load of ageist nonsense. Many of us "older people" were skilfully using the internet to find things out before most millenials were twinkles in their parent's loins.

Millenials grew up with an internet which was build by the generations before them.

World is Changing maybe a little presumptuous. Maybe in the west where ground meat is a pervasive culinary ingredient. Good luck convincing ethnic cuisines with heavy use of offal or other meat components to adopt aka the rest of the world. Appetite for meat is increasing as developing countries move from subsistence to affluent diets. People are looking forward to enjoying regional meat dishes not science burgers.

I think beyond meat is completely revolutionary, the one way to stop them is if somehow some study finds that eating this stuff causes cancer, but even that i think if off some years, where hopefully BYND can establish market dominance and work on alleviating whatever issues arise.

But that would only be an issue if the burgers are consumed in the state of California.

But more seriously, I'd like to see more food items available that aren't trying to imitate meat. For example there is a Samosa with chickpeas dish that they do in my company's cafeteria that is really good, contains no meat, but I don't miss the meat in that dish. It has a good mouth feel, gives an appropriate amount of energy, and fills me up throughout the afternoon. Whereas a dish containing mostly steamed vegetables (such as broccoli, carrots, and peas) or a salad typically fails to satisfy (unless you put cheese on the broccoli, or add ham or egg to the salad).

Now I can feel mostly satisfied by switching to primarily fish based meals, along with free range chicken (the ones that came from my grandma's chicken yard were really tasty). And I personally see that as more ethical / sustainable than consuming other mammals.

I never expected this stock to do so well, and it makes me wonder just how transformative it will become?

I thought I was making a good call when I bought PUT options against BYND last week. Let's just say that bet didn't work out (so far). The stock is crazy overvalued and such a hype machine, but it's nearly impossible to call the top on these things.

It has the potential to become VERY big. If i could have bought it at 45 dollars or so i would have put 80% of my net worth in that stock, i bought it at 80, expecting it to be $100+. These are the juul and vapes for traditional cigarettes. If vegetarian meat tasted good, is similarly priced, and doesn't prove to have adverse health consequences, why would anyone support the cruel practices of animal farming etc... Think about it, it is not easy to create fake meat which tastes like real meat, and all the money they make will enable their R&D to go further in a hard to enter market of which they are one of the first pioneers.

The current market cap for BYND is bigger than the expected global "fake" meat market in 2025 ($7.5 billion) and they are far from the only player. Its definitely valuable but I dont think its worth that much

https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/meat-substitute-market

>The stock shows this is not just a movement, but an entire shift in the food industry that’s transformative to the future of fast food.

Stop inventing meaning where there is none. Their stock performance shows that that food shoppers accept this as another option on the shelves. That's it.

>Cannabis & Beyond Meat Shows the Future of Ethics in Consumerism

Cannabis is not about ethics. It's about people who WANT TO GET HIGH.

> HIGH

That's a curious word. The effects of LSD, MDMA, cocaine, heroin and weed are all described as "high", but they're very, drastically different from each other, and different people, in different life situations and psychological states, crave for different drugs.

Weed in particular is about relaxing, contemplating, slowing down and drifting off. I think that a person who wants to get high on weed is, in general, much more ethical in his subsequent actions than someone who snorts amphetamine lines or drinks shots of vodka, and that this shift in substance of choice in the last ~10 years is overall a positive change. So, it is somewhat connected to ethics.

I’m no opponent of cannabis, having enjoyed it myself now and then. But I’ve known quite a few habitual users whose actions subsequent to getting high involve neglecting their personal obligations and their health. I’m not sure there’s anything ethical about watching cartoons for hours while consuming copious quantities of junk food, especially if this means ignoring your family or responsibilities. Of course, not every cannabis user does this, but, anecdotally, I’ve encountered this cluster of behaviors frequently.

When compared to being completely sober, I agree. But when compared to alcohol, which weed is replacing, I think it's obvious that weed is a more ethical alternative.

The question I've always had, is it the substance that causes the behavior, or is it the people prone to the behavior that is more likely to choose the substance?

I don't see how there is any ethical difference at all in using recreational drug X vs recreational drug Y.

Sure some drugs may be more harmful or addictive than another. But does a drug being more addictive or unhealthy make it less ethical? If so, then eating poorly and becoming overweight is unethical. Which seems a rather silly assertion to me.

> Cannabis is not about ethics. It's about people who WANT TO GET HIGH

That's stereotyping.

All sorts of people want to use cannabis, and for all sorts of reasons, including pain relief, health reasons, social lubrication, and for creativity.

Oh you're no fun at all :)