Although it is important to understand that fake meats are a part of traditional vegetarian culture, at least East Asian ones. There's a whole genre of Chinese food that is based on fake beef, fake pork, etc. Whether these are better or worse than the new "disruptive" versions from Impossible and Beyond is another issue, but the idea that "real vegetarians" don't eat fake meat is a narrow, Western misconception.
Generally it is just called "vegetarian meat" (素肉) and is made from a mixture of potato-like tubers, beans, and wheat, with various spices to give it flavor. There are even a few restaurants in the US that serve it, for example Yuan Fu Vegetarian in Rockville, MD (Washington DC suburb)
Sure. But I used to like the occasional burger, and now I can have something that tastes similar without the ethical concerns. Is it healthy? No. But neither is a fast food burger. Is it satisfying as an occasional treat? Absolutely.
Weirdly, in the US anyway, most "fast food" places have had no vegetarian protein at all on the menu. Their only main course vegetarian options tend to be salads with very low protein (and usually, only a single kind of salad out of maybe 3 will actually be vegetarian - the others will have a meat protein).
It's no mean feat for a vegetarian who's traveling to find a source of protein at any of these restaurants.
Before the "fake meat" products, Taco Bell bean burritos were basically the only ubiquitous option. Starbucks, and some other fast food joints, do have some egg-based protein options in the morning.
So I have no love for Impossible/Beyond/whatever ultraprocessed stuff, and I'd much rather get a big bowl of black beans with some tempeh or something, but the convenience of being able to find any protein when you're pressed for time is welcome.
Favoring "fake meats" for reasons of ethics, rather than health, does not preclude keeping one's health. The bogeymen of "processing" and "GMOs" do not make any definitive statement about the healthiness of those products.
Processed foods have a well-established impact on health. Do you have some evidence tat says otherwise?
> do not make any definitive statement about the healthiness of those products
Did someone say "definitive", or maybe it's a factor. If you don't think that's a factor, what is your evaluation of the healthfulness of the fake meats?
(Is 'bogeymen' like a spell - if we say that magic word, we make something meaningless? 'The bogeyman of Covid!' 'The bogeyman of my mortgage!' This is awesome!)
"Processed" is hopelessly vague and tells you nothing about the manner and the scale of the processing. According to the article, a processed food is one which is "manufactured by adding salt, sugar, oil, or other processed culinary ingredients to minimally processed foods."
So, it's anything with any amount of salt, sugar, or oil.
How much?
An Impossible Burger trivially meets the definition of a processed food. In more meaningful terms:
• An Impossible patty has 370mg of sodium. That is actionable information and should inform your dieting, should you choose to eat one. But with the WHO suggesting a daily limit of 2000mg (the American Heart Association aims lower, 1500mg), a single 370mg patty alone isn't anything to be scared of. Yes, it's a substantial portion of your budget, but if you're committing to eating a burger, how much more are you actually planning to eat? It should be a significant fraction of all of the food you're eating today, regardless of the salt content!
• Impossible patties have less than 1g of added sugars. At that low quantity, I don't much care.
• Impossible meat contains coconut and sunflower oil. Coconut is one of the healthiest options for a food oil, whereas sunflower is sometimes high in omega-6 (the ingredients list is not specific enough to tell). I would love to know the relative proportions, but I'll content myself with knowing that coconut is higher on the list.
So at the end of the day, an Impossible burger seems like a fine meal to me. By my standards, it doesn't clearly raise alarm on any of the three axes that define a "processed" food. Take that scare word away and let's deal in material facts.
> "Processed" is hopelessly vague and tells you nothing about the manner and the scale of the processing.
Hmmm ... it's a widely used term of art in nutrition around which there is a lot of consensus.
> An Impossible Burger trivially meets the definition of a processed food.
It clearly meets (ha) the definition of ultra-processed foods, afaict. You can find the definitions elsewhere too.
> an Impossible burger seems like a fine meal to me. By my standards ...
You should eat what you like, of course. But we are entitled to your own opinions, not to our own facts. Your personal standards and mine have no bearing on the health of Impossible foods.
