Discussions

"Cancer may only be part of the story. Studies over the past decade suggest that glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — pollutes water sources, hangs around in soil far longer than previously suspected, and routinely taints human food supplies. In both the U.S. and Europe, the supposedly safe limits for human ingestion are based on long-outdated science. Research also points to serious adverse consequences for the environment, and there are indications glyphosate can cause disease in mammals even several generations removed from the initial exposure."  
 
Source - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/roundup-cancer-risk-is-only-one-danger-to-humans-animals  
 
Whataboutism is a useless tactic. All pollutants and excessive chemical use produce environmental challenges. However, intelligent use of chemicals can have positive effects. The problem arises when profit is placed before responsibility.  
 
Marpet

Anyone yet pointed out all the Roundup that gets sprayed on your precious soybeans?? Soybeans that are supposed to be so much better than meat.  
 
If they are going to make fake meat why can't they at least make it healthy-that is-eliminate the salt.  
That would make it more less unappealing to more people.

...do your homework.  
 
Soy is NOT an ingredient in Beyond Burger patties.  
 
https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/the-beyond-burger/  
 
Look under Product Details tab.  
 
With that said, I can't speak to the other ingredients about their Roundup exposure.  
 
Also, plant based meats shouldn't be viewed as a "healthy alternative". Just as an alternative to meat. Too much meat in your diet isnt healthy either.  
 
Marpet  
 
Edited by Marpet, 2019-06-22 13:17:34

I have no interest at all in researching meatless burgers, other than reading the nutritional label. My comment was to whomever mentioned soybeans in an earlier comment. I am not going back to look for it.  
 
So-meat is not healthy (in your view marpet) but you have no interest in alternative food being more healthy? That makes no real sense either. There is no earthly reason they need so much salt in any of our food products, yet they keep pouring it in there. If people squawked as much about salt as they do about meat, we would all be better off.  
 
I am not concerned about whatever a gas a few million catte put Into the atmosphere-not when I see what kind of a mess people are making-oceans full of plastic garbage' garbage washed up on beaches, sea life dying from all that garbage...balloons and lanterns being released to pollute the waters and land and in turn kill even more sealife and land mammals...pesticides used on crops and in the process killing off the bees that are so necessary to our survival. Sorry, cattle will cause the world a lot less grief than humans do.  
 
Edited by Cassie1668, 2019-06-22 19:43:50

Couldn't help notice most of yours links are from environmental groups that spin articles to their liking. Try reading some articles from Ag Canada on agriculture, carbon sequestering and sinks. I think you will find that, the Canadian farmer thru changed tillage practices actually now store more than they emit.

Post your evidence and links. I'll read them.  
 
Agriculture is a net carbon emitter. Post the evidence that it isn't.  
 
I referenced the EPA. Trump's EPA.  
 
Marpet  
 
Edited by Marpet, 2019-06-22 23:02:28

When did I state meat wasnt healthy? I stated "too much meat" wasn't healthy. These were meat alternatives and not health foods. Your assumptions are getting the best of you.  
1 comment spoke of soybeans ( which you didn't reply to directly) and most comments have talked about Beyong Meat. My assumption, my bad.  
And Whataboutism doesn't give you a pass. Methane produced by a few million cattle is a hell of a big problem.  
 
Do your homework.  
 
Marpet  
 
Edited by Marpet, 2019-06-22 23:22:27

I will grant you that strides taken by Canadian farmers have lowered their GHG emissions significantly since the '80s, however I have yet to find information stating that agriculture in Canada is carbon negative.  
 
A report from The Western Producer stated "“Every day an animal is alive he or she is burping out methane,” said Kristen Tapley, a cattle producer from Langruth, Man., back in 2016. “If we can speed up that process, of getting the calf off the cow and through the feedlot, our carbon footprint goes down.” Yikes! Maybe a better way to reduce GHG would be to not need as much beef in the first place?  
 
https://www.producer.com/2018/12/small-efforts-can-make-a-big-impact-on-public-opinion/  
 
I will also agree that it appears that the carbon sequestered in some sinks are not counted in the National Emissions numbers but without having those numbers, claiming a carbon negative situation is a stretch, possible but not proven.  
 
I'll keep reading but back to the OPs original post...  
I have tried a few of the "Fake meat" options. I have enjoyed some, disliked many, viewed them as a meat alternative, not as a health food (both have their negatives). From an environmental stand point, I will continue to reduce my meat intake (Westerners eat far to much meat on a daily basis) while also trying to move to an electric vehicle and reduce the amount of commercial goods entering my home.  
 
All of these steps are required to reduce our GHG emissions.  
 
Marpet

Which one?  
 
My first link was to Business Insider. Is that an environmental group?  
 
My second link was to Quora. A place where people can ask questions and have them answered. Is IT an environmental group?  
 
My third and fifth links were to the EPA under Trump. But a shell of an environmental group. Their actually not allowed to talk about climate change. Read that again.  
 
My forth link was to beef2live.com talking about cattle numbers. Environmental group spinning facts?  
 
Bloomberg, Beyond Meat, and The Producer were my final links.  
 
Tell me again how most of my links were to environmental groups spinning facts in there favour.  
 
Show me.  
 
Marpet

Here is the Ag Canada link http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/climate-change-and-agriculture/greenhouse-gases/measuring-emissions

I think he's referring to the fact that A&W sources all their beef from the US, while places like Harvey's, McDonalds and DQ all get their beef from Canadian farms.

As far as your links:  
No arguing the business link to what the carbon footprint is for the type of food.  
No arguing on what carbon farming produces.  
No arguing on the number of cattle in North America.  
But lets compare apples to apples-the business link doesn't say what carbon farming takes out, neither does the EPA link, neither does the link on animal numbers.  
The Ag Canada link does.  
I tend to believe in science and the progress we as farmers have made in doing our part to ensure producing food is sustainable and helps the environment at the same time.

In addition to the sodium disparity between meat and beyond meat, I think it is important to point out the Carb disparity as well. No carbs in the beef patty vs. 5g in the beyond meat patty. Granted, this is likely a moot point if you are consuming a bun with your burger.

Thanks for the opportunity to read it. Unfortunately, in discussions like this, all to often opinions are presented as facts. Having links allows others to increase their knowledge, if so inclined.  
 
In response, you say comparing "apples to apples" and that my links don't because they ignore the carbon sinks available in agriculture (I responded to this earlier, acknowledging that the sinks weren't referenced). Unfortunately, this link is guilty of the same bias.  
"In 2009, Canada produced 690 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents (Mt CO2e) from all sources, mostly as CO2 from energy use. Agriculture accounted for about eight per cent of these emissions (56 Mt CO2e), largely as CH4 (about two-thirds) and N2O (about one-third). This value does not i:nclude emissions from energy use: if these are counted, then agriculture accounts for roughly 10 per cent of Canada's emissions."  
 
How can the emissions from energy use in agriculture be ignored? Seen any electric tractors out there? That crop duster doesnt sound EV. Fossil fuels are what gets the crop in to, out of and on to our tables. It is an input that cant be ignored.  
 
Now, I can't be sure that that agriculture isn't still carbon negative since neither of our sources implicitly states this but I will grant you that great strides have been achieved. Hopefully the trend will continue.  
 
Marpet  
 
Edited by Marpet, 2019-06-24 10:44:27

Again-Ag Canada is telling us that agriculture with current practices are a carbon sink.  
Again-Grade 5 science tells us that plants use C02 to grow. It is then stored in the soil with minimal or zero till.  
In Canada farmers plant almost 23 million acres of crops every year.  
None of your links tell us anything except how much carbon each sector produces and how big the carbon footprint of each food product produced.  
This thread started with the "fake burgers" and lot of people don't believe plant based food should use the words meat or sausage when doing their advertising. If it is that good then advertise it for what it is-pea meal sandwich.  
I will end my thoughts on this thread by saying-if you are that concerned about the supposed carbon footprint of the food you eat is-don't eat.

"None of your links tell us anything except how much carbon each sector produces and how big the carbon footprint of each food product produced."  
 
Yeah, that was my argument, with facts attached.  
 
You stated your opinion and that zero-till is a carbon sink. I agree but it doesn't mean that the total sink is greater than the total emission.  
The government lists agricultural processes as contributing 8-10% of the CO2e emissions for the country. Your links don't show it as being the opposite.  
 
Thanks for the opinion though.  
 
Marpet

My take away, is that they are not beef nor are they fake. They are an alternative for someone that does not want a beef burger.

They do not want to source their beef from Canada then I wont buy from them. My mom cooked up some veggie burgers years ago and although I could tell the difference I still wont eat a veggie burger. I have cows and i'm happy with that. Years ago CBC interviewed a researcher from I think Spain who fastened methane recorders to both ends of cows and left them there for a few weeks. Can't remember how many cows but in the end it was very little even compared to a modern vehicle. Plus there is ALOT of diesel emitted to produce beets and peas. In the end call it what it is.

I wonder what the odds would be that when it comes to the actual carbon footprint it’s like Einstein said “it’s all relative”.  
A cow creates a nearly finished product requiring a certain amount of inputs, and a hamburger cow can require nothing but really good hay. A peameal, soymeal, or plant based protein burger requires a certain amount of inputs from fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides, plus mechanical processes to produce. I’m one of those people who figure that the lowest carbon footprint is created under natural conditions, could be wrong though.  
For myself, who makes my living from producing finished cattle, I know if I was out working in the field, and someone brought me one of those beyond burgers from A&W, I would eat it, first one didn’t kill me, so all is good.