> So waving away Beyond/Impossible as safe

As I said, they measurably improve health outcomes relative to the meats they're replacing in important areas.

My understanding of the studies on UPF health outcomes is that their data is drawn overwhelmingly from traditional categories like junk food and processed starch and sugar. Which is all the more reason to avoid the equivocation between the two categories, lest someone get the mistaken impression that the Twinkie data is about the burgers.

▲

dragonwriter 3 days ago | parent [-]

> As I said, they measurably improve health outcomes relative to the meats they're replacing

They imitate meats, but is there any evidence that, in practice, they replace them? In menus, and I suspect in actual human eating behavior, they seem to replace earlier vegetarian options like old-school TVP, not meat.

	▲	erikerikson 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		We have eaten impossible burgers as a replacement of beef burgers we would have otherwise eaten on burger night. Some of us even prefer the flavor but the prices are sometimes higher than beef and that reduced our consumption (at that moment we were tighter). If they were substantially less expensive we would have had to financially rationalize beef, beyond the health and environmental rationalizations.