Testing the Meatless Whopper

As part of my job I occasionally have to do something I would never choose to do.  Today I ate an Impossible Whopper to assess the difference between meat and  meat substitutes.  Meat substitutes are a major product development in the food industry and there is a lot of capital being raised by meat substitute companies.  The primary rationales for meat substitutes are that they are healthier, they are better for the environment and they prevent animal abuse. The good news from a vegetarian perspective is that it wasn't terrible; it was kind of dry and bland, but it almost tasted like meat.  In the final analysis, it was inoffensive.

However, there were still several drawbacks.  First it was a $1 more than a regular Whopper. Secondly, it wasn't particularly more healthy than a regular Whopper.  The Impossible Whopper is 630 calories compared to 660 for a regular Whopper; 34 grams of fat compared to 40 grams for a regular Whopper; 10 mg. of cholesterol compared to 90 mg. for the regular Whopper.  On the other hand the Impossible Whopper has 1,080 mg. of sodium compared to 980 mg. in a regular Whopper; and 58 grams of carbohydrates compared to 49 for a regular Whopper.

So on net the Impossible Whopper is slightly healthier - or more accurately - slightly less unhealthy than a regular Whopper.  It is not price competitive given the marginal improvement in health. 

The fact that the Impossible Whopper is about 20 to 25 percent more expensive than a regular Whopper should question whether or not a meatless patty is better for the environment than a beef patty.  It may be the case that more resources are needed to produce a plant based burger.  The efficiency of meat production systems tends to be understated.  While it is true that it takes 7 lbs. of feed to produce 1 lb. of beef, it is also true that much of this feed is in the form of grass and that pasture based systems do not stress the environment.  Another way to put it, is that in the U.S. beef replaced bison in much of the country, with little net impact on the environment.  Bison are better suited to life on the plains than cattle, but they aren't as tasty, and they are much harder to domesticate.  Intensive cattle feeding (higher grain and corn rations) do occur in the last 6 months or so of a steers life, as the animal is fattened up.  While it could be argued that there is some environmental degradation due to intensive feeding, it is pretty minimal.  Also, there is a fair amount of research being carried out on 100 percent pasture based systems.  Cattle do drink a lot but they also pee a lot which recharges aquifers, as a result the impact of livestock production on water supplies is also overstated.

In terms of animal welfare it should be noted that abused animals have a lower productivity than animals that are not abused.  Their feed conversion ratios are lower, and their vet bills tend to be higher.  Also, there is also a higher chance that the carcass will receive a lower grade. As is the case with environmental impacts, animal welfare advocates tend to overstate their case. There is very little abuse in the industry. For the most part, while cattle don't live that long, while they are around they have a pretty good life.

So go ahead and eat real meat for the time being.