Chapotraphouse

14178 readers

981 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

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

[–] FumpyAer@hexbear.net 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Fake burger is functionally the same nutrition of animal flesh burger.. Maybe with fewer trans-fats at least? It shouldn't be looked as a healthy option, although it is better morally. Like burgers, it is a sometimes food. Highly processed slop with kinda high protein, nutritionally speaking.

Compared to a fast food burger it tastes slightly worse than a quarter pounder, but way better than a normal McDonalds cheeseburger. Basing my opinion on the Burger King Impossible burger compared to my memory of McD which I don't eat anymore for many reasons.