this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2025
37 points (97.4% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14178 readers
614 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net
corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net
a_little_red_rat@hexbear.net
khizuo@hexbear.net
thelastaxolotl@hexbear.net
CoolerOpposide@hexbear.net
37
What’s the stance on fake borger? (hexbear.net)
submitted 4 days ago by Lussy@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Talking about impossible and beyond meat, of course. I like their taste, so I’m not one of those burger fash who complains about not being able to taste the flesh wounds of their victims. Just need the skinny on how it compares in terms of it’s nutrient quality, health factors in terms of contaminants in production or as a result of (PFAS, lead), and the impact on the environment. I’m sure the production of fake borg is better than maintaining and slaughtering cows, but relative to other foods how much better is it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Frivolous_Beatnik@hexbear.net 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I remember some dubious online talk about Impossible's animal testing being required by the US Gov as part of some meat replacement/GMO thing but that may be 100% cope idk - not that it makes impossible vegan because it's government mandated lol

[–] Trying2KnowMyself@hexbear.net 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Quoting directly from their website, bolding mine:

in 2014, we submitted extensive data (which did not include rat testing), to an academic panel of food safety experts from the University of Nebraska, University of Wisconsin Madison, and Virginia Commonwealth University. Based on this data, the panel unanimously concluded that our key ingredient is “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS. This means that Impossible Foods has been complying with federal food safety regulations since 2014. In addition, we voluntarily decided to take the optional step of providing our data, including the unanimous conclusion of the food-safety experts, to the FDA via the FDA’s GRAS Notification process

It’s their voluntary decision to take an optional step that led to:

The FDA reviewed the data and had some questions. To address them, we conducted additional tests. It is industry standard to perform rat feeding studies

[–] Frivolous_Beatnik@hexbear.net 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Thanks for the quote! So it was biaoqing-copium then

Wonder why they would choose to take that optional route. Is it as simple as animal testing being seen as the easiest way and industry standard?

[–] Trying2KnowMyself@hexbear.net 12 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

You can read the rest of their justification if you’d like, where they say things like:

without the rat testing, our mission and the future of billions of animals whose future depends on its success was thwarted

But they don’t actually make any attempt to address why an optional and voluntary step was necessary to their mission and its success.

[–] Frivolous_Beatnik@hexbear.net 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

monke-beepboop

I'm going to assume it's expedience and profit motive then.

Replacing animals in the diets of meat lovers would absolutely require heme

Seems, from that page, that they're committed to the idea of Impossible and similar products not being intended for vegans, but for carnists who want to reduce their animal consumption, which is probably a larger market in the US at least. Disappointing but not really surprising.

We designed the study rigorously so that it would never have to be done again

I don't see how this justifies...anything? If it was optional, and was a small-scale test that only had to be done once, why do it at all?

My idle thought goes to "does that make them currently vegan then?" but that's pointless when there are infinite vegan options that don't require supporting a brand which did animal testing. Nobody needs a hyper realistic borger

[–] Trying2KnowMyself@hexbear.net 13 points 4 days ago (2 children)

If they were already overly focused on carnists, it only gets better from there! The CEO+founder whose name appears under that post was replaced:

Peter McGuinness, the current CEO of Impossible Foods, has said that the plant-based sector was previously too “woke” and “divisive” for mass appeal.

He also referred to the original marketing of Impossible Foods’ plant-based meat products as a solution to the climate crisis as a “mistake,” and called the original leaders “zealots.”

Impossible has pivoted to focus primarily on meat-eaters and flexitarians under McGuinness’s leadership.

[–] Frivolous_Beatnik@hexbear.net 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

too "woke" and "divisive"

fake meat burger is too woke

see my pfp for reaction

American burger brain and its consequences... The structural, load bearing brainworms can't be removed, the entire thing needs to go

Also fuck off with that "flexitarian" shit. "Limited vegetarian" my ass, that's just carnism! God I hate this liberal-ass mindset

[–] Trying2KnowMyself@hexbear.net 10 points 4 days ago

It’s a great strategy when the majority of your market is vegans and vegetarians to alienate them whenever possible.

[–] BelieveRevolt@hexbear.net 9 points 4 days ago

Seems, from that page, that they're committed to the idea of Impossible and similar products not being intended for vegans, but for carnists who want to reduce their animal consumption

That's the take vegans generally seem to have on them. It doesn't help that their site is full of phrases like ”Everyone loves meat because it’s so delicious”, strong pick me energy. Personally, I'm not a fan of the ”vegan food needs to taste like meat to appeal to carnists” approach in general.