A decent burger tastes good, be it meat or non-meat. Burger-King appeals to the majority and is not going to be making the best burger of any kind, just a "standard" one.
> just as there are certain hamburgers that are better than others
There's nothing that objectively makes a hamburger better than another. It's all subjective, just as views are subjective. Some people like bread a lot, so they may want a really thick bun which could be overpowering to another person. Some people are vegetarian, while others cringe in disgust at a black bean burger. It doesn't make those hamburgers any better or worse than others, though.
> Also: not sure what burgers you're eating but apart from the novelty factor it's not even close in favor of real meat
My point is that some people actually prefer veggie or “fake” burgers and if tomorrow beef didn’t exist people would be more than happy with what currently exists today. It’s not like there is a huge gap there. Most people like the burger for the additions anyway.
> It's an Impossible Burger, and left undersaid is that it's a fast-food burger.
Since it's right up front in the headline that it's Burger King,I don't think the fast food part is “undersaid”.
> I just don't see the point, vs a high-protein high-fat patty made of bean or soy protein isolate that tastes good in it own non-fake-fast-good-meat-burger way.
If you don't see the point of fast food, you can, I hope, at least see that lots of people do.
And since there are people going off meat for environmental or ethical reasons, providing them an open which is both attractive in taste to their current palette and fitting with their existing lifestyle but for the change they are deliberately making seems to have obvious value.
> Is it possible for a burger to have "good taste and good texture" but also not remind you of beef?
Ever had a turkey burger? The meat has a different taste and texture from beef, but it's not bad.
Also see alligator, elk, deer, chicken sausage, etc. "Exactly like beef" is not the end-all-be-all of "satisfyingly meaty", even when you only include actual meat.
> Burger King’s chief marketing officer, Fernando Machado, said that in the company’s testing so far, customers and even employees had not been able to tell the difference between the old meaty Whopper and the new one.
Ugh.
First: The vegetarians that I know don't like meat. So making a veggie burger that tastes like the thing they don't like is just dumb.
Second: When I tasted an Impossible Burger, it was awful. It tasted like a horrible veggie burger.
At the places that I've tried it, the staff usually apologize as I order it, and warn me that I probably won't like it. They all tell me that the ordinary veggie burger that they used to serve was better.
At that point, they hint that they were strong-armed by their distributor to server it.
I personally reduced my meat consumption for environmental and health reasons, but when I want a burger, I get a burger.
I would actually expect that to make the thing taste like meat, they would have to add a bunch of fat and grease. That can't be healthy, but I'm not really going to Burger King in the first place because I want a healthy meal.
>Is it possible for a burger to have "good taste and good texture" but also not remind you of beef?
Yes! I had one today for dinner in fact. The one I ate today the patty was made with mushrooms, tempeh, and wheat berry. Greens, aioli, pickes & pickled vegetables on top.
honestly I don't really see the point of eating a burger that doesn't taste or feel like a burger. I'd prefer to eat meat less often than try a subsitute
> Why would people who enjoy a good burger want to change anything about it
If you are eating the burger specifically and solely for the beef, perhaps you don't. But for many people "cheeseburger" is a unit of food all on its own and the patty inside is more of a toppings-and-condiments delivery device. So if there's a plant-based substitute that's mildly healthier (Impossible is not a "low calorie, low sodium, low fat" substitute by any means) and a lot better on the environment, I suspect OP is correct. Many people would switch, or at least not mind the switch as much.
> with hamburgers from smaller, non-franchise restaurants
Sorry to disagree here. I think yes, there are definitely many non-franchise burger places doing fantastic burgers but I haven't seen any clearly superior. Yes different in taste but superior? No.
And very often, they lack the perfection level of McDonalds. You often get 'over-engineered' burgers, too thick, to much salad, too sticky whole grain non-typical burger bread, same frozen beef but from an unknown source, too much organic salad, too slow, too expensive, too much of being different. Too much of this attitude of not being McDonalds.
Maybe it's just a matter of taste but I prefer the plain vanilla type burgers McDonalds offers, I don't want the super organic rucola vegan burger with soybeans from your friend's burger in.
And again nobody matches their thin and ultra crisp fries.
For my part, I enjoy fast food burgers (think Wendy's, Burger King, etc...). These burger patties are not exactly rare Kobe beef. Once you put that thing on a bun, add cheese, slather it in sauce, etc... I don't find the difference in the patties very noticeable. I notice how fresh the lettuce is more than the patty.
I eat plenty of meat, so I don't have an anti-meat agenda. But, for me, for fast food burgers, I may as well choose a less environmentally damaging, and yes, more animal friendly, alternative, because it hardly makes a difference.
> The top of the SUV analogy is nice, but realistically most burgers are not terribly subtle flavor experiences coming from the brilliance of the meat substrate.
Are we talking about fast food burgers? Then yes, flavor country lives in the lab, not the burger. But this article seemed to be strongly hinting at a meat substitute, not just a burger substitute for fast food chains (which I agree with you, would be wonderful). If the flavor experience isn't coming from the meat, than why is it so hard to find a widely excepted meat substitute?
That's why it seems strange the author loaded up their burger with exquisite toppings to taste the meat.
Burger King will most likely have to reevaluate where they are cooking these burgers. The articles outlines well how while eating vegan or vegetarian is better for the environment there will still be a number of customers who will not eat cross contamination, which is understandable.
> But you are not getting them close enough for that. They taste different. They also have different nutritional composition, so if you will just replace meat by then brainlessly you are setting yourself up to failure.
Have you actually tried Beyond Meat or Impossible Burger? If you haven't please do. Just go to your nearest Burger King and order an Impossible Whopper and a regular Whopper and compare them.
They're very close to the taste and texture of real ground beef now, and I think they'll get even better with time, and that they can become as tasty as the real deal, as nutritious as the real deal, and cheaper.
You just don't want to. It's very simple: they let you have a burger that mimics meat burgers, and they taste reasonably close for some of us. I love burgers and love some of the fake meat patties since I don't usually eat meat. Simple as that.
No. A different flavour, perhaps.
A decent burger tastes good, be it meat or non-meat. Burger-King appeals to the majority and is not going to be making the best burger of any kind, just a "standard" one.
reply