No doubt. But until we quantify it throwing out baseless assumptions is ridiculous either way. It can't just be said "Beyond Meat" is better for the environment without any numbers or data to back that up.

There have been studies. Here is one done by the University of Michigan (I believe specifically about Beyond, since they commissioned the research or something like that). http://css.umich.edu/publication/beyond-meats-beyond-burger-...

It's been a while, but I remember findings signalling something like 30% less emissions?

Yea I saw that one, and I agree it's a good starting point and far better than nothing. The results are interesting, although it should be noted it was directly commissioned by Beyond Meat themselves.

There are however a lot of assumptions in that study. For example, a cow is not 100% 1/4 lb beef patties. So how do you go about distributing emissions that relate directly to the beef patty vs. those for steaks, brisket, or numerous other cuts? Since beyond meat does not currently provide substitues for those. They use an "economic model" which isn't entirely clear to me.

Or the lighting thing. They make all these assumptions about light energy consumption based on lumens and size of facilities - but there is no justification of the accuracy of these assumptions. Also how much of that energy is coming from renewable sources? It could favor either way but without figuring this out it makes a lot of it questionable.

There are other assumptions in there that raise questions and I think a lot more study needs to be done (ideally not funded by either industry).

Livestock contributes around 15% of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions. Produce fundamentally has a smaller impact, in part due to its relative simplicity. I don't know how much processing is required for these products after-the-fact, but I know that at least one of the recent pivotal innovations was in genetic engineering, not processing.

Veggie burgers don't grow on trees - they are highly advanced industrial end products with million-mile supply chains. I don't get why people can't just eat vegetables if they want to be vegetarians. Instead of being unhealthy from eating too many grams of well-understood macronutrients (where dieting is easy, just eat less), we're all going to be unhealthy from eating to many micrograms of beef simulating molecules.

I've never heard of a veggie burger with chemical flavoring. Most of them aren't intended to simulate beef; they're a combination of various savory, protein-rich plants and some seasoning. I'm not a vegetarian, but sometimes I enjoy a bean patty anyway.

As for this new wave that is intended to simulate real meat, the flavor is completely natural, just found in an unusual source outside of actual meat:

> Impossible Foods' scientists discovered that heme is a key factor in how meat behaves.[15] Heme is the molecule that gives blood its red color and helps carry oxygen in living organisms.[16] Heme is abundant in animal muscle tissue and is also found naturally in all living organisms.[17] Plants, particularly nitrogen-fixing plants and legumes, also contain heme.[18] The plant-based heme molecule is identical to the heme molecule found in meat.[19][20]

> To produce heme protein from non-animal sources, Impossible Foods selected the leghemoglobin molecule found naturally in the roots of soy plants.[21] To make it in large quantities, the company's scientists genetically engineered a yeast and used a fermentation process very similar to the brewing process used to make some types of beer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_Foods

at this point most vegetables are highly advanced industrial products with million-mile supply chains, at least if you shop at your average American grocery.

These vegetarian burgers aren't particularly healthy, but it's because of their salt content.