Existential burger wars

POLITICAL ROUNDUP

Dr Bryce Edwards

The soy leghaemoglobin-based Impossible Burger was developed with the help of $US250m in R&D, bankrolled by investors including Bill Gates

There really is a major shift going on at the moment in which vegetarian and vegan food practices are in the ascendancy. And it’s very political. In fact, as if to underline this shift, the restaurant that’s directly across the road from the Prime Minister’s Wellington residence in Thorndon has just announced that it will no longer serve meat. 

The rise of vegetarianism
The Hillside Kitchen and Cellar is one of the city’s top restaurants, and it’s where Jacinda Ardern sometimes meets journalists for interviews, including foreign ones. Now they’ll have to have their conversations over lentils rather than lamb. 

Owner and chef Asher Boote has explained the striking of meat from the menu: “The growing conversation around these things is huge and the stats are that more and more people are eating a lower amount of meat or no meat, so we are just moving with the times really” – see Ewan Sargent’s article, Top Wellington restaurant is taking meat off the menu

There are plenty of other signs of an increasing vegetarian market in New Zealand.

Local operator of the Lord of the Fries chain of vegan restaurants, Bruce Craig, has witnessed the growing interest in meat-free diets, and is expanding his own chain, saying “he hoped the country would move with the times to develop plant-based protein” – see Aimee Shaw’s Vegan fast food operator Lord of the Fries set to open 13 more NZ stores, expand to India

The same article also reports: “The movement towards plant-based protein has attracted some heavy hitters. Canadian film-maker James Cameron has taken the lead in supporting a plant-based future. He owns several Wairarapa farms and is in the process of converting them to produce plant-based agriculture. He has also set up a company with Sir Peter Jackson, called PBT New Zealand, which is said to use technology to help produce plant-based protein 'meat' alternatives.”

This new venture by Cameron and Jackson, and other “post-meat” developments in New Zealand, are explored by Whena Owen in her recent five-minute Q+A investigation: Fake meat on the menu

For a look at other new companies in New Zealand who are innovating around a post-meat diet , see Jihee Junn’s Meat-free, dairy-free, and made in New Zealand

And for a review of the latest “fake meat” vegan burger at the new Britomart branch of Lord of the Fries, see Toby Manhire’s The meat-free Beyond Burger. His conclusion is: “It’s just quite a decent burger but to be quite a decent burger and not involve any dead animals is very laudable and good.” He’s particularly praiseworthy of the “fake-meat” patty: “The texture works, the flavour is quietly impressive and it’s even persuasively juicy.”

The rise of the Impossible Burger
It goes by various names – “fake meat”, “synthetic meat”, “plant protein”, etc – but whatever the term there’s no doubt that advances in technology mean we are seeing the fast rise in vegetarian meat-like products that are designed to be superior to conventional meat.

Unsurprisingly, this is being taken very seriously by New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), which has recently released an array of reports into the Evolution of Plant Protein, which includes a very interesting case study of The Impossible Burger. This report very clearly and colourfully explains all you need to know about the new phenomenon and why it’s going to impact on agriculture in this country. 

The burger company is based in California, but has some links with New Zealand, especially now that it has chosen to partner with the national airline in an experiment to provide the non-meat product to air travellers, for the first time. Before this partnership became controversial, Air New Zealand flew a number of journalists to the US to check out the new burger, and this is best covered by Herald science reporter, Jamie Morton in his article, Tasting the Impossible Burger with Air New Zealand

Morton’s article explores both the connection that Impossible Foods CEO and scientist, Pat Brown, has with New Zealand, as well as the disruptive affect it could have here. He reports that Brown is a big fan of this country, having visited many times, and says he wouldn’t have chosen to work with any other airline. 

He’s also talked a lot with farmers here, who he says have some “ambivalence” about what he is doing. Morton asks him about the “existential threat” of his product to farmers, and Brown says he wants to work with them, adding: “If you look into the future, you can see it's absolutely inevitable that there is going to be an irreversible transition away from animals as a food production system”.

Morton reports on his own tasting of the Impossible Burger, saying that he’s “loved meat for as long as I can remember”, but he was very impressed by the vegetarian product: “The first bite was a revelation: tasting something like a lamb burger, packing a rich, juicy texture, but with an almost-sweet aroma.”

Journalist and travel-writer Sharon Stephenson concurs, saying the burger “tastes, dare I say it, better than meat”, and “It was everything the PR machine promised it would be: thick juicy patties that felt and chewed like meat, that wouldn't be out of place at a back-yard barbie with a beer and a sunny deck” – see: Air New Zealand to serve plant-based burger on Los Angeles-Auckland flights

She also reports on the environmental superiority of the burger: “It turns out the Impossible Burger uses 95 percent less land, 75 percent less water than beef, and generates 85 to 87 percent fewer greenhouse-gas emissions. And it doesn't contain any hormones, antibiotics, cholesterol or artificial flavours.”

It’s this radical environmental advantage of vegetarian food that makes these new technological products threatening to conventional meat. At a recent University of Auckland “Future of Food Symposium”, ecologist Mike Joy was reported as explaining that environmental needs meant that future had to be meat-free: “He said the only way to change a future without enough food for all is to remove animals from our diets” – see Farah Hancock’s A future where food is off the menu

Joy lays out the numbers, “To produce one gram of protein from beef, one square metre of land is required. To get one gram of protein from rice requires just .02 of a square metre of land.” What this means, according to Joy, is we must all drop meat from our diets: “It’s not a choice. We don’t have a choice. We can choose between spinach and kale, but not animals because we will all starve.”

And for more on how meat is farmed and killed, the Herald has recently made available a new video exploring the realities – see: MEAT the documentary about the animals we eat made available to NZ Herald readers

Responses to rise of the Impossible Burger

This week, politicians voiced their beef with Air New Zealand’s choice of menu for its two weekly flights out of Los Angeles. Three backbench MPs were particularly outspoken: Clutha-Southland National MP Hamish Walker urged the airline to reconsider serving "fake burger patties”, National’s agriculture spokesperson Nathan Guy tweeted to say he was “disappointed”, and New Zealand First MP Mark Patterson said it was a “slap in the face” and “an existential threat to New Zealand's second biggest export earner”. 

When acting Prime Minister Winston Peters added his weight to the complaints, it became an international news item. CNN had the best coverage – see Bard Wilkinson’s New Zealand PM has beef with the Impossible Burger. This reported Winston Peters saying he was “utterly opposed to fake beef” and that Air New Zealand should be promoting real New Zealand meat.

Some of this escalated complaint is covered by Krysta Neve, of the animal rights' group SAFE, who pointed to the origins of the polarised debate: “Beef+Lamb New Zealand took it upon themselves to comment on Air New Zealand’s social media post, saying the airline should be offering their customers grass-fed, free range beef and lamb” – see: Air NZ 'bullied' in burgergate debate

Verdicts on burgergate
Newspaper editorials and commentators have largely been unsympathetic towards complaints about the Impossible Burger. Today, for example, the New Zealand Herald explains that Air New Zealand’s supply of the burger is not a “kick in the teeth” for beef farmers, but a case of innovating to remain ahead of competitors, and others should be doing the same – see: Our impossible MPs need to weigh up the possible.

The editorial complains that it’s actually the politicians who are finding it “impossible to innovate and adapt” like the national airline is. The newspaper also points to the fact that in the US the Food and Drug Administration is still holding up a final clearance for the Impossible Burger, a delay that suggests the power of the cattle industry to protect itself. The paper suggests that the “grizzles about Air NZ have a similar resonance”.

The Southland Times also congratulates Air New Zealand for its innovation, and says artificial meat is a “massive and legitimate challenge” that agriculture in this country can’t ignore: “Let's face it, though. It's not as though lab-grown or plant-based meats are going to go away, or languish ignored, if enough New Zealanders put our fingers in our ears and go la-la-la” – see: Air NZ: the flesh is weakened?

The Press has published an editorial asking: “Does the National Party hate vegetarians?” – see Philip Matthews’ Wake up and smell the meatless future. He says that the complaints are a “bizarre over-reaction” and “red meat advocates knocking Air NZ's menu choice risk looking as backward as climate change deniers.”

Herald travel writer Winston Aldworth also mocks those kicking up a fuss, saying “It's odd to consider that we're still in an age when faceless MPs can rant about the evil effects of vegetarianism on the national economy” – see: Why MPs are wrong to criticise Air New Zealand's Impossible Burger. Aldworth thinks Air New Zealand have made a very smart move, and naysayers will have more to worry about soon: “wait until they start making perfect milk protein.”

Science communicator Siouxsie Wiles also has a very useful explanation of the Impossible Burger, pointing out the genetic modification process involved, but saying that the actual burger “doesn’t contain anything that is genetically modified” – see: How genetic modification helps the Impossible Burger take flight

But Wiles also makes the point that farming advocates are right to be worried, because the burger “isn’t aimed at vegetarians. It’s aimed at meat-eaters.” And this is the “risk” – that many meat-eaters will start consuming artificial meat. After all, CEO Pat Brown says: “A lot of people love to eat meat… What I'm doing is allowing them to eat a lot more of what they love, except in a way that's better for them and the planet."

Finally, to find out which politician didn’t say “The Impossible Burger is the biggest single threat to the New Zealand way of life since the Asian takeaway”, see Steve Braunias latest column today: Secret diary of the impossible burger. And for other satire about the Impossible Burger controversy, see Madeleine Chapman’s Fight back against the fake-meat traitors and live like me, a true NZ patriot, and Tom Sainsbury’s Kiwis of Snapchat: Boycott Air New Zealand!


18 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.


This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

18 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Another article worth checking out is this Science Media Centre explainer by computational biologist Grant Jacobs: The ‘Impossible Burger’ is not genetically modified

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Also great article by NZ data science reasearch firm Sumfood https://www.sumfood.com/sumfood-files

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

With NZ obesity rates growing by the minute and NZ one of the leading fat countries in the world we should be exploring all alternatives.
It is a fact that we eat far too much red meat should be eating more white meat and fish and plant based food.

The potential threat to the red meat industry is good for NZ but only if we also start new initaives to produce plant based food that the world is wanting and at a premium

This shift is similar to the shift away from over producing fatty lambs that the world did not want and we were reactive in those days. It is a chance for NZ to be proactive and switch focus and for our farmers to make a fortune

There is far more future in this approach than with dairy which will be hit once the Chinese start to wonder why there population is getting fatter

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 2

The problem is we eat far too much sugar and highly processed carbohydrates. NOT that we eat too much protein and fat. Try reading “why we get fat” or the various research papers available online. to learn about all the research in this area. I’ve personally lost 8kg in the last year (all body fat) with NO diet but cutting out sugar and cutting down on carbohydrates. Never felt hungry.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

The problem is that we are doing less and have better insulation and heating in our houses; which means that our bodies aren't burning the calories that we consume. Current sugar consumption per capita is significantly less than the sugar ration was in the UK post-wartime for example! Overall calorie intake has been in decline for decades now; just not fast enough to account for technological change.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Have you checked out the price of fish lately, it's expensive as. I don't know anybody that eats it. From memory the only fish I can remember eating is the fish in my fish and chip packet.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Obesity is not caused by natural foods but by an excess of processed foods. It is not a fact that we eat far too much red meat.

You forget that meat is a plant based food. In the food chain animals eat the plants and in return give us meat and milk and all the goodies that they contain.

Just because a group of society may be happier by not eating meat, it does not follow that all of society will be happier not eating meat. It is a mistake to insist that what works for you will work for everyone.

In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that not eating meat prolongs life. If being a vegetarian is also accompanied by a stopping eating processed food then life expectancy may increase, just as it would if a meat eater stopped eating processed food.

From studies, what appears to drive people to stop eating meat is an inability to properly digest meat. One cause is an excess of highly processed meat, so going 'cold turkey' (pun intended) on meat was not the answer, just a more balanced diet and less processed food.

Another cause is a malfunctioning digestive tract damaged by prescription drugs, lifestyle drugs, alcohol, eating disorders, and again highly processed or junk foods. Once the digestive tract is returned to healthy operation, meat will be digested properly. There are plenty of ex-vegetarians who started eating meat again and many who realised that they had underlying health issues that needed fixing and once fixed had no problem with meat.

Cholesterol is a building block of the body and one of the biggest resources for tissue repair. Starving the body of good cholesterol inhibits cellular repair. Saturated fats from meat and milk are good, unsaturated trans fats from processed food are not.

Recent surveys show that over 65% of vegetarians that break their food diet will do so on a regular basis by eating fatty bacon. Go figure.

Then there is of course the fact that vegan diets in men causes a large drop in sperm count, and increasing fertility issues. Is this Darwin's natural selection at work?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I'm increasing meat intake as well as fruit and vegetables.
Decoding the alternatives requires honesty and this Government is signaling the alternative is also in ascendancy.
Just remember they are very proud of what they don't tell us and announce to the world that this is showing us how it's done.
Pass the salt. I'm cooking beef.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

The impossible burger would be highly processed I imagine. I thought the trend amongst the wealthy was non processed real foods.
It reminds me of Claytons, the whiskey that wasn't a whisky

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

This is the way of the future and denying it or opposing it is just putting your head in the sand and hoping it will go away. There will be a time in the future where dairy farmers will be converting to crops to produce this plant based protein. I have no doubt. There is no reason why NZ shouldn't be a leader in this new area. Start planning now.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The human body was designed to eat meat as part of the diet, O and B Blood types particularly so.

If you want to be healthy you should be eating natural unprocessed foods. If you only want to eat plants that is your business, but don't insist everyone else live to your likes and dislikes.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I'm waiting for Jacinda's moment of truth: "This is New Zealand's moment in history, New Zealand to lead the way in the world and become a meat free country". I would support that initiative. The meat and dairy industry in New Zealand contribute more greenhouse gases than the oil & gas industry so why not do something that will really make a difference?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

You are so wrong.
Animal emissions can only come from what they ingest in their diet. If the carbon gases were not recycled the soil would have run out of carbon centuries ago. As it is photosynthesis recycles CO2 and CH4 in a continuous cycle. At any point in time net emissions from agricultural animals are close to zero. Basic school certificate general science will verify that.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Death to dairy. Death to real meat. The cardboard substitute is here!!!
Well it will make the Greens happy, Anything to destroy the economy and take NZ back to the Stone Age is go by them.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

At end of day it will be consumer preferences and the trend lines of those preferences which will drive what is produced.

It's interesting to take note of Japanese car manufacturers views on two major disruptive tech trends;
When diesel was in its ascendency Toyota said it was improving it's diesel technologies but in the absence of government fuel tax supports for diesel, they thought their hybrid technology would win consumer support over diesel in a more neutral fuel tax environment

With all-electric cars now getting all the attention Mazda said recently it would develop all electric options but that consumers would drive the overall rate of change or product mix that Mazda would supply, which they thought would continue to be internal combustion based for some time

NZ's agricultural technology and production industry could take on a similar perspective on potential disruptive technologies and the consumer response to these over time. This has been the case with the 'organic foods' vogue - there has been a roughly proportional response by producers and distributors, including major corporate ones, to consumer demands

Of those with the progressive superior vision just hate the dumb, unwashed consumer being in control and so will try various re-directions with the taxpayers dollar to make the world work out according to their estimations of how it should be for us all

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

The biggest complaint shouldn't be about animal vs plant origin. It should be about a largely state owned company purchasing their leading 'innovation' in the area from the USA. Where are the substrates sourced from. Brazilian rain forest soy? European potato protein? Konjac from? Xanthan gum from? oo, where is the leguhemoglobin manufactured, what is their food safety control on the other compounds in the product, what purity is the compound isolated to? What yeast do they use?

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

20-30 years ago synthetic fibres were all the rage and were going to revolutionise the textile industry; doing away with nasty wool, cotton etc. Now we find the micro fibres are polluting our oceans and hanging like a Sword of Damocles over our heads. Frank G Wells makes some very sensible points in his post. We need to be ultra careful before diving headlong into this technology. The water may be very shallow.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Good Article! ☺

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.