The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Burger King to Trial Meat-Free Impossible Whopper
Burger King is helping to bring meatless meat into the mainstream.
On Monday, the fast-food chain announced that it would begin testing the Impossible Whopper in 59 locations in St. Louis. The move is a partnership with Impossible Foods, a California-based company that uses a genetically-modified yeast to make its plant-based burgers taste and bleed like meat.
"We wanted to make sure we had something that lived up to the expectations of the Whopper," Burger King's North America President Christopher Finazzo told Reuters. "We've done sort of a blind taste test with our franchisees, with people in the office, with my partners on the executive team, and virtually nobody can tell the difference."
In an April Fools' themed video, the fast-food chain shows customers eating the burgers and being surprised to discover that they are not made of meat.
The Impossible Taste Test | Impossible Whopper
Former Stanford University Prof. Pat Brown started Impossible Foods in 2011. A vegan, Brown told The New York Times that he wanted to decrease the demand for meat for ethical and environmental reasons, but he thought that in order to do so, he had to create a product that meat-lovers would still enjoy.
"Our whole focus is on making products that deliver everything that meat lovers care about," he told The New York Times.
His company's secret ingredient is a protein called heme that it believes is responsible for that unique meat flavor. Impossible grows it from soybean roots and mass-produces it with yeast, then mixes it with vegetable products.
Impossible meats are now sold at 6,000 U.S. restaurants, including White Castle and Fatburger. But if the Burger King test is successful, Brown told Reuters that number would more than double.
"Burger King represents a different scale," Impossible Foods COO and CFO David Lee told CNN.
The Impossible Whopper now costs $1 more than a beef one, but Lee suggested that could change.
"The only thing we need to be affordable and at scale versus the incumbent commodity business is time and size," he said.
While it is pricier, the Impossible Whopper is healthier than the meat original: it has slightly fewer calories, less cholesterol and no trans fats. It is also better for the environment. When compared on a per kilogram basis with meat burgers, Impossible Burgers require 87 percent less water and 96 percent less land while emitting 89 percent fewer greenhouse gasses and 92 percent less aquatic pollutants, according to a company-funded analysis.
However, the company has been criticized by some environmental groups for not conducting enough testing before marketing its products and by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for testing on rats, according to The New York Times.
Impossible isn't the only company hoping to popularize meatless meat. Beyond Meat announced in January that its meatless burgers would be available at Carl's Jr.
Burger King's Chief Marketing Officer Fernando Machado told The New York Times that he expected the Impossible Whopper to do well.
"I have high expectations that it's going to be big business, not just a niche product," he said.
- Nebraska Lawmakers Want to Ban the Word 'Meat' From Vegetarian ... ›
- Missouri Becomes First State to Regulate the Word 'Meat' - EcoWatch ›
- Vegan Meat Substitutes: The Ultimate Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Vegan Beyond Meat Burger Launches at Carl's Jr. Fast-Food ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Tracy L. Barnett
Sources reviewed this article for accuracy.
For Sicangu Lakota water protector Cheryl Angel, Standing Rock helped her define what she stands against: an economy rooted in extraction of resources and exploitation of people and planet. It wasn't until she'd had some distance that the vision of what she stands for came into focus.
Last week, the Peruvian Palm Oil Producers' Association (JUNPALMA) promised to enter into an agreement for sustainable and deforestation-free palm oil production. The promise was secured by the U.S. based National Wildlife Federation (NWF) in collaboration with the local government, growers and the independent conservation organization Sociedad Peruana de Ecodesarrollo.
The rallying cry to build it again and to build it better than before is inspiring after a natural disaster, but it may not be the best course of action, according to new research published in the journal Science.
"Faced with global warming, rising sea levels, and the climate-related extremes they intensify, the question is no longer whether some communities will retreat—moving people and assets out of harm's way—but why, where, when, and how they will retreat," the study begins.
The researchers suggest that it is time to rethink retreat, which is often seen as a last resort and a sign of weakness. Instead, it should be seen as the smart option and an opportunity to build new communities.
"We propose a reconceptualization of retreat as a suite of adaptation options that are both strategic and managed," the paper states. "Strategy integrates retreat into long-term development goals and identifies why retreat should occur and, in doing so, influences where and when."
The billions of dollars spent to rebuild the Jersey Shore and to create dunes to protect from future storms after Superstorm Sandy in 2012 may be a waste if sea level rise inundates the entire coastline.
"There's a definite rhetoric of, 'We're going to build it back better. We're going to win. We're going to beat this. Something technological is going to come and it's going to save us,'" said A.R. Siders, an assistant professor with the disaster research center at the University of Delaware and lead author of the paper, to the New York Times. "It's like, let's step back and think for a minute. You're in a fight with the ocean. You're fighting to hold the ocean in place. Maybe that's not the battle we want to pick."
Rethinking retreat could make it a strategic, efficient, and equitable way to adapt to the climate crisis, the study says.
Dr. Siders pointed out that it has happened before. She noted that in the 1970s, the small town of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin moved itself out of the flood plain after one too many floods. The community found and reoriented the business district to take advantage of highway traffic and powered it entirely with solar energy, as the New York Times reported.
That's an important lesson now that rising sea levels pose a catastrophic risk around the world. Nearly 75 percent of the world's cities are along shorelines. In the U.S. alone coastline communities make up nearly 40 percent of the population— more than 123 million people, which is why Siders and her research team are so forthright about the urgency and the complexities of their findings, according to Harvard Magazine.
Some of those complexities include, coordinating moves across city, state or even international lines; cultural and social considerations like the importance of burial grounds or ancestral lands; reparations for losses or damage to historic practices; long-term social and psychological consequences; financial incentives that often contradict environmental imperatives; and the critical importance of managing retreat in a way that protects vulnerable and poor populations and that doesn't exacerbate past injustices, as Harvard Magazine reported.
If communities could practice strategic retreats, the study says, doing so would not only reduce the need for people to choose among bad options, but also improve their circumstances.
"It's a lot to think about," said Siders to Harvard Magazine. "And there are going to be hard choices. It will hurt—I mean, we have to get from here to some new future state, and that transition is going to be hard.…But the longer we put off making these decisions, the worse it will get, and the harder the decisions will become."
To help the transition, the paper recommends improved access to climate-hazard maps so communities can make informed choices about risk. And, the maps need to be improved and updated regularly, the paper said as the New York Times reported.
"It's not that everywhere should retreat," said Dr. Siders to the New York Times. "It's that retreat should be an option. It should be a real viable option on the table that some places will need to use."
Leaked documents show that Jair Bolsonaro's government intends to use the Brazilian president's hate speech to isolate minorities living in the Amazon region. The PowerPoint slides, which democraciaAbierta has seen, also reveal plans to implement predatory projects that could have a devastating environmental impact.