Veggie Burgers -- Price is the Key!

I just saw an article in today's (24 May 2017) San Diego Union Tribune and LA times by David Pierson about the Umami Burger serving a new "Impossible Burger."  It is described as a vegetarian burger that "bleeds" and tastes very similar to real beef hamburger.

I thought this day would come sooner or later, and I hope that other meats can be realistically simulated with vegetarian materials. From my reading, it appears that we should all eat much less meat (or none?) for our health, and to help the environment.

I am looking forward to trying an Impossible Burger at some point, and I do hope it will be an enjoyable experience.  I also hope that non-meat sandwiches become more popular.
However, I believe there is one problem:  Price!  The article I referenced says tha the Umami Burger's version of the "Impossible Burger" will sell for $16.  I can believe that people might be willing to try it once--but probably would not make a habit of eating at that price!
Over the past 30 years, my wife, Elaine, has purchased different vegetarian burgers.  One of the brands I remember was "Morningstar Farms."   We thought they tasted sort of OK --but weren't great,  However, because usually, they were more expensive than their real beef equivalent, we generally did not buy them again.
The price for a commodity usually reflects the cost of production in some way.  Environmentalists would like to see all things we buy accurately reflect the cost not just of production, but also the cost of the effect on the environment.  It is hard for me to understand how some oats, other grains, mushrooms, and seasoning could be as costly to produce as growing and processing beef into hamburger.  From an environmental standpoint, the veggie burger must have much lower environmental cost than beef.  Why are non-beef burgers still so much more expensive?
As a consumer, I look for the best value for my money.  I want a food that tastes good, but also provides me with the most nutrition, including protein.  Since lean ground beef is currently selling for between $2.15 and $3.50/pound, the meat for a quarter-pound burger should cost less than $1 to cook at home.  To be able to achieve mass-market penetration, the cost of bulk vegetarian burger material would need to be at least 25% less than the cost for ground beef.  By my estimation, the cost to produce the veggie burger material must be at least 50% of the cost of beef.  That gives the veggie burger business still a big opportunity for profit.  Typical restaurants now are charging from $5 to $9 for deluxe beef hamburgers.  In my mind, an equivalent veggie burger should be priced 15%-25% below that.
Why are prices of veggie burgers still so high?  I believe it is because retailers treat it as a specialty item.  I also think that they are afraid that if the price drops, they will lose business for the higher priced beef due to the "cross-elasticity of demand."  Also, there doesn't seem to be any real competition because the market appears to be just a malls "niche."  
We have a "chicken or egg" situation.  Businesses aren't willing to ramp up production and drive down the costs to produce the products because the market doesn't appear big enough.  And consumers aren't willing to buy the products because the prices are too high and selection is too small.  I think it is going to take a large manufacturer to put out a huge marketing campaign with major TV spots along with TV, newspaper and magazine ads to break through the barrier.  Not sure it will ever happen because the company that makes that investment can be undercut easily by copycat competitors.

Why do I Order Tomato Juice on a Plane? -- What else don't I know about myself?

Sunday's LA Times had an OpEd by Daniel Engber titled: "Why Do People Drink So Much Tomato Juice On Airplanes?"   The point of the article is that apparently altitude changes our taste such that we choose different foods.  The article made me think!  I, also never would choose tomato juice at home or at a restaurant.  However, very frequently have I ordered it on a plane.  It never dawned on me that I did that!
My thought is now: What else do I do caused by outside influences that I am not even aware of?

Why are Dietary Guidelines So Often Wrong?

Bradley Fikes had an interesting column in the San Diego Union Tribune that complained about the current problems with the US Federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The last guideline was published in 2010 Apparently the guidelines are being revised again, and are due out by the end of 2015.   There is concern that the Guideline is wrong on the amount of fat, salt and cholesterol recommended in our diet.  Each time the guidelines have been rewritten, there have been major changes, which implies that the previous guidelines were wrong, and maybe even harmful to those who followed them.  How can we, and our expert scientists be so very wrong so often?
I've often wondered why we really need to have such a guideline.  It often takes years of "negotiation" to establish a guideline, because so many vested special interests are involved in the process.  The producers of the food we eat all have a major financial interest in even subtle changes made in the guideline.  A slight change in recommended fat in our diet could impact the meat and cooking oil industry.  Because the guidelines are developed by a committee, and involve such negotiations, the results are not necessarily "scientific."  --they may include some science but also involve politics and popularity.
One of the problems is that it is difficult to create one guideline for all people.  Another problem is the difficulty of determining long-term effects of various dietary changes.  Scientists continue to learn more and more about how our bodies work and the effect of various foods on it.  We are also learning that our genes have something to do with how we handle our food, and possibly even more so, the bacteria and other organisms living in our body help determine how our body uses the food we eat.  This problem is extremely complicated, and I suspect that we will continue to learn more about what we should be eating in the future. 

Furor and Confusion over "Monsanto Protection Act"

I must admit when my son-in-law told me about the "Monsanto Protection Act", I had never heard of it!  Somewhat surprising to me, because I thought I was keeping up on what was going on in the GMO food area.  I'm still not convinced that GMO food is dangerous to eat.  I do understand that it could harm the environment, including other plants, insects, animals and birds.  But that is a different problem, and requires a different form of testing and analysis from use of GMO foods as foods!
I have not seen any evidence where GMO food has been shown to be a health hazard when eaten.  I have heard a few anecdotal stories about people claiming to have had reactions to GMO foods, but none of them have been conclusively been shown to have been caused by the GMO food, other than someone possibly having a allergic reaction to a food, or a GMO food.  I believe that everyone is different, so that it is possible that someone in the world might have an allergic reaction to almost every type of food, whether GMO or not.  The key question to determine if food is safe is to determine if more than a few people have a reaction -- as we now do with peanuts.

I learned from Wikipedia article that the provision called "The Farmer Assurance Provision" AKA the Monsanto Protection act was passed as part of the 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. The provisions originally were to expire on Sep 30 2013, but were later extended to December 31, 2013.  So, as far as I can tell, the so-called "act" is no longer in force.  Maybe there was some other extension, but I haven't been able to find it.

The way I understand the provision, growers, who in good faith, planted seeds, or manufacturers of seed, in good faith produced seeds that had been reviewed and approved by the FDA, could, if challenged in a court, continue to produce those seeds or grow those crops until the process made it through the court system.  Apparently there were judges and courts who, based upon lawsuits filed by anti-GMO organizations were forcing the seed manufacturers to stop selling FDA-approved seeds that were challenged in the court.  They were also forcing growers to plow under FDA-approved GMO crops that were challenged.

It is clear that the anti-GMO groups, and some publications, including the "International Business Times" (see this article) were opposed to the law, as well as the process by which the law was passed. Snopes also described the situation: Huffington Post has had a lot of articles during that period too

I totally agree with much of the criticism about how the bill got passed, as described in the International Business Times.  I do not like "trailer bills" that are attached to "must pass" legislation, such as annual budgets.  That circumvents all of the appropriate committee hearings and doesn't allow citizens time to write their representatives and senators to support or object to new laws.  I also don't like it when laws are actually written "in the back room" by individuals or companies who may profit from the wording of the law.  It always makes me suspicious.  There isn't much excuse for Congressional Representatives saying that they don't know what is in a bill that they pass.  They do have aids to review the wording of laws, and probably shouldn't vote for something that they haven't read.  However, it is often possible that the sponsors of the bills keep provisions like these hidden in the hopes that their peers might not know what they are voting for. I'm not sure that the criticism of the President is correct, since the provision was a short-term provision, and he was being forced to sign an appropriations bill that had many more, much larger, concerns included.   I also disagree that this law set a dangerous precedent. There have been lots of laws passed, particularly for short-term relief to allow agencies and courts to prevent legal disasters.  What would have happened if the anti-GMO lawsuits were permitted to require farmers to plow up FDA-approved crops?  Who would have reimbursed them if the anti-GMO plaintiffs later lost in court?  Somehow, I would think that if a farmer planted an FDA-approved seed, or a pharmacist sells an FDA-approved drug, they shouldn't be held liable for losses based upon unproven lawsuits.  The approval process for GMO foods and pharmaceuticals is designed to protect the public.  Yes, it may have flaws!  But it works as a carefully balanced trade off between getting needed new drugs or crops to market, and protecting the public. 

Cutting down on food waste - The Science Show - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I heard this on Science Show with Robin Williams,  one of my favorite podcasts: Cutting down on food waste - The Science Show - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  PhD student, Elisha Vlaholias is researching ways to reduce the tremendous amount of food that is wasted around the world.  I also hate to see food waste -- I hate to see anything wasted!  I think that methods to extend shelf life would help reduce waste.  I thought electron beam sterilization would have been the panacea, but there was too much public backlash.  Newer types of package might help along with more intelligent sizes of packages.  I also think that using internet for more "just in time" ordering of food would help.  That way only the amount ordered would be provided.  Currently we buy larger sizes than we need in order to get lower "per unit" prices, and then end up wasting that food.  One of my personal pet peeves is the "expiration date" on packages.  I posted a comment on the Australia Radio National website for this podcast as follows: 


Elisha,

I applaud your efforts!  I believe you are onto something serious when you discuss the "expiration date."   When expiration dates were first proposed, the industries fought against it.  Now it helps them sell more!  I believe you could save a tremendous amount of food from being wasted if you could propose, and demonstrate the effectiveness (through research with consumers) of a new set of guidelines for expiration.  There needs to be multiple dates, or one date with defined periods that would indicate:  "sell by" "for best quality use by" and "danger, do not use beyond this date" -- For good reason, manufacturers would not like their "brand" sullied by someone who uses a product beyond a date after which the food may not taste as good as the manufacturer wants.  However the food is not "poison" --and will not hurt a person if they eat it.  However there probably is a date beyond which food could cause sickness.  If for example the label would say" sell by June 1, 2015, Use within 60 days beyond, do not use 180 days beyond, I think it would cut down on a lot of waste!



Good luck with your investigation!

Corporate irresponsibility over GMOs - The Washington Post

I've been very concerned about the current popular effort to denigrate "Genetically Modified Organisms" or GMO food.  Genetic modification, in effect, accelerates the process of cross-breeding to achieve specialized hybrids which have helped feed the world.  There have been no proven cases of sickness or disease specifically caused by the genetic modification of foods.  But the mystique seems to continue!

I was very impressed by this op-ed by Michael Gerson in the Union Tribune that was a reprint from the Washington Post Corporate irresponsibility over GMOs - The Washington Post

Michael explained the problem much better than I ever could, and his main point is that now many large, mainstream companies such as Chipotle & Whole Foods are "cashing-in" on the concept and are helping to promote the fear of GMO foods.  Yes, anything to discriminate their business from the others, and be able to extract a premium price over their competitors seems like good business.  Michael points out that the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the World Health Organization all conclude that GMOs are safe to eat.  How many leading organizations need to say something is OK to cancel out one bit of "junk science" that says it isn't OK? (see this link)

Yes, there may be other reasons to not want to use GMO food.  For example, it is possible that pollen from a GMO crop could get infused into wild plants.  It could damage habitat and put endangered plants or animals at risk for extinction.  However, it doesn't make sense to avoid all GMO food based upon that rationale.

Should those of us who believe GMO food is safe now boycott businesses such as Chipotle & Whole Foods?  Should we go out of our way to buy GMO foods?  Somehow, I think that very few people would jump on that bandwagon!  At first the anti-GMO crowd were just a few "junk science" believers who came up with clever terms such as "FrankenFood" --but now Anti-GMO has the power of large businesses with huge marketing muscle to help spread even more "fear" among the masses. The movement is going to end up hurting the world!  Gonna be tough to stop!

I'm also ashamed of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports. I have been a supporter and subscriber to Consumer Reports continuously since around 1970, and believe in their causes.  In this GMO cause, however, the leadership of CU has lost their way and gone off the deep end!  By insisting on GMO labeling, CU adds credence to the fears that GMO food might be in some way dangerous to eat.  It is clear that CU knows there is no danger, but pushes anyway for disclosure.    There are many dangerous things hiding in our foods that we do need labeling for, or have them removed.  By fighting for GMO labeling, CU loses the political capital needed to push for protecting our food supply against the much more dangerous chemicals, such as pesticides, heavy metals, or even the amount of Neu5GC in our red meat, which UC San Diego has shown to be the cause of many of the cancers as we get older.
CU should refrain from trying to paint all GMO foods with the same brush.  If a specific GMO food or food additive is determined to be harmful, then CU should advocate to have it removed from our food supply or the amount identified on labels.  Meanwhile GMO foods have saved the world from famine and malnutrition.

Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food | Talk Video | TED.com

I am getting very tired of reading about the seemingly overall hatred of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in our food supply.  The GMO opponents seem to be reacting with irrational fear and emotion with very little or no scientific rationale for their actions.  I was impressed by this TED video which presents some arguments FOR the use of GMO:

Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food | Talk Video | TED.com

I do want our food supply to be safe.  I also believe in good labeling, so we know what we are eating.  However I think it is unreasonable to consider all foods which have some sort of genetic modification to be dangerous or "frankenfoods."

I can certainly believe that it could be possible that some genetic modification to a food source could make the food dangerous to eat.  However, I have not yet heard of any that have been produced that are truly dangerous to all humans.  Yes, there are anecdotal reports that some people have had allergic reactions or problems with some GMO food.  However we find many more people have problems with existing foods that are generally accepted as safe.  How many people are now finding they have problems with Gluten?  With peanut allergy?  With Lactose?  Since everyone is different, it is just as likely that some will have reactions to slightly different foods.

I can understand the fear of change.  There is good reason to say that if our food is OK now, why take chances on changing it?  It is relatively easy to determine if animals or people get sick immediately after eating a food.  But what about the effects of eating a particular food over periods of years or decades?  Could the modified food have an effect on our babies?  Could it contribute to dementia in old age?   These are very difficult to test for.  The best we can do is make short-term safety tests based upon reasonable scientific processes.

Even foods which have been considered safe for centuries, are now being questioned.  The latest findings that eating beef, pork, lamb and fish eggs causes an increase in the probability of mutations in our body's cells to cause cancer is a good example.  These findings seem relatively unequivocal. (See my previous Blog post)  However the anti-GMO crowd appears to be more afraid of the unknown than what seems to be known and proven.

I also understand the potential problems that GMO food crops could introduce to the environment.  Pollen or nectar from a GMO plant designed to resist pests or diseases could kill or injure other beneficial pests.  The genes from the GMO food crop could become transferred to other similar native species and cause harm to the environment in many different ways.  What that means to me is that the world needs a global database of all organisms and we need to keep track of all modifications made to them, whether through "natural breeding" or genetic manipulation.  I believe with the power of the internet and the huge databases that are currently being used and built, we are getting close to that.  Then, we do need to have some sort of process to record and approve of all new food products as they are developed, and before they are unleashed and released to the world's food supply.  The problem now is that so many of these modifications are done "in secret" to protect patents, or unpatentable technologies that the public doesn't have full knowledge of what is happening to their food supply.