Is the Cracker Barrel menu getting 'woke'? Meat eaters rage on Facebook over addition of Impossible sausage

[SallyMae]

You realize most those impossible meats are neither healthier or less environmentally devastating right?

Hi there Quorra! I appreciate your point of view so I have looked into it.

First of all, impossible meats *are* less environmentally devastating than beef.¹ Impossible beef uses a tenth of the water and emits a tenth of the greenhouse gasses to produce, and is far more efficient than raising large animals for 18 to 24 months. It takes one hundred calories of feed for every one calorie you get back in meat. Yes, soy is a monoculture, but it takes far more soy to make beef than to just make soy into protein.

Secondly, impossible meats involve no risk of animal suffering, and that is another reason people choose them.

Lastly, impossible meats are not claimed to be healthier, but there is no question that eating lots of beef and pork is unhealthy.² It's associated with higher risk for type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke and colon cancer. A vegetarian diet, with or without impossibles, has a lot of health benefits. Some find it less cruel and it's definitely less taxing on the environment.

But who wants to think about all that woke crap at breakfast? IMO, this is why some have denounced the menu change as, specifically, "woke" - concerned with choices they do not care to think about.


Thanks for inspiring me to learn more about this Quorra!


1. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University found the environmental impact of plant-based meats was much lower than beef for all sustainability metrics studied, looking at greenhouse-gas emissions, blue-water footprint, land use, pesticide use, water quality, and biodiversity impacts.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00134/full


2. Red meat consumption linked to increased risk of total, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press ... mortality/

[mommy_jules]

People get pissed about some of the stupidest stuff. I hate how everything that is the slightest bit inclusive, like adding vegetarian/vegan options, is “woke” or liberal or whatever. Lord forbid, CB move into the 21st century…they serve alcohol now too. 🫣

[Quorra2.0]

You realize most those impossible meats are neither healthier or less environmentally devastating right?

Hi there Quorra! I appreciate your point of view so I have looked into it.

First of all, impossible meats *are* less environmentally devastating than beef.¹ Impossible beef uses a tenth of the water and emits a tenth of the greenhouse gasses to produce, and is far more efficient than raising large animals for 18 to 24 months. It takes one hundred calories of feed for every one calorie you get back in meat. Yes, soy is a monoculture, but it takes far more soy to make beef than to just make soy into protein.

Secondly, impossible meats involve no risk of animal suffering, and that is another reason people choose them.

Lastly, impossible meats are not claimed to be healthier, but there is no question that eating lots of beef and pork is unhealthy.² It's associated with higher risk for type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke and colon cancer. A vegetarian diet, with or without impossibles, has a lot of health benefits. Some find it less cruel and it's definitely less taxing on the environment.

But who wants to think about all that woke crap at breakfast? IMO, this is why some have denounced the menu change as, specifically, "woke" - concerned with choices they do not care to think about.


Thanks for inspiring me to learn more about this Quorra!


1. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University found the environmental impact of plant-based meats was much lower than beef for all sustainability metrics studied, looking at greenhouse-gas emissions, blue-water footprint, land use, pesticide use, water quality, and biodiversity impacts.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00134/full


2. Red meat consumption linked to increased risk of total, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press ... mortality/

Finally able to respond back, I didn't want to try to type this on my phone but busy week, haven't had a chance to sit at my laptop until today. Sources like the one you used are ok for getting a tiny picture of environmental impact but they do not take into consideration the bigger pictures and leave data out that doesn't support their own ideals. There is a reason many career anthropologists and environmental scientists are not vegetarian.

One thing missing from this article is food waste and landfills which produce a substantial amount of greenhouse gases. Food waste attributes to 4.4 billion tons of CO2 annually. Food waste decomposing does also release a substantial amount of methane in fact studies have recently found landfills are a key source of methane with food waste being the highest contributor with over 80% being plant based. Crops have the highest percentages of annual food loss and waste. Less than 20% of food loss/waste is animal base and this includes, milk, cheese, yogurt, and eggs.

Crops also causes soil degradation, depletes natural minerals from the soil, disrupts natural ecosystems and biodiversity, contributes to deforestation, accounts for 70% of fresh water consumption, increases high reactive levels of nitrogen in soil from chemical fertilization, which leaches into groundwater and river systems destroying aquatic ecosystems, and all that methane from cows, well cow manure is largely used in fertilizers for large corporate farms, which still emits the methane and is leached into soil. Food production for humans is environmentally devistating period.

As far as health, the studies are flawed to be quite frank. The studies do not include other lifestyle factors, nor differentiate between processed and unprocessed red meat, nor even how the meat is cooked. Grilled vegetables that are charred have the same risks of carcinogens as red meat charred on the grill. One to two servings of 6 oz or less of grass feed beef a week cooked properly, isn't going to increase your cancer or heart disease risks. As with all things in life, balance is important.

[Quorra2.0]

People get pissed about some of the stupidest stuff. I hate how everything that is the slightest bit inclusive, like adding vegetarian/vegan options, is “woke” or liberal or whatever. Lord forbid, CB move into the 21st century…they serve alcohol now too. 🫣

Some people do complain about the stupidest stuff. What is funny is the circle some will allow themselves to be drown into, person A complains about stupid stuff, person B gets offended that person A is complaining about stupid stuff. Person A now has attention and an audience so continues to complain about the stupid stuff, person B continues to get offended. If life was a movie, these occurrences would be the comedy. Sometimes all you can do is shake your head, laugh, and move on to something more worthwhile.

[SallyMae]

Hi Quorra, really nice chatting with you.

One thing missing from this article is food waste and landfills which produce a substantial amount of greenhouse gases. Food waste attributes to 4.4 billion tons of CO2 annually. Food waste decomposing does also release a substantial amount of methane in fact studies have recently found landfills are a key source of methane with food waste being the highest contributor with over 80% being plant based. Crops have the highest percentages of annual food loss and waste. Less than 20% of food loss/waste is animal base and this includes, milk, cheese, yogurt, and eggs.

Food waste is an everyone problem, but throwing out 22% of our meat uneaten is even more of a waste because it required so much in resources to produce. Throwing out meat is wasting some of the most environmentally-costly food available.¹

Crops also causes soil degradation, depletes natural minerals from the soil, disrupts natural ecosystems and biodiversity, contributes to deforestation, accounts for 70% of fresh water consumption, increases high reactive levels of nitrogen in soil from chemical fertilization, which leaches into groundwater and river systems destroying aquatic ecosystems, and all that methane from cows, well cow manure is largely used in fertilizers for large corporate farms, which still emits the methane and is leached into soil. Food production for humans is environmentally devistating period.

Very true. But, you need way more crops to feed animals for meat, so it makes all the crop problems much worse. We need to dial back on the damage we are doing and feeding more people with fewer crops is one way.

As far as health, the studies are flawed to be quite frank. The studies do not include other lifestyle factors, nor differentiate between processed and unprocessed red meat, nor even how the meat is cooked. Grilled vegetables that are charred have the same risks of carcinogens as red meat charred on the grill. One to two servings of 6 oz or less of grass feed beef a week cooked properly, isn't going to increase your cancer or heart disease risks. As with all things in life, balance is important.

Yes, I said, eating lots of beef and pork. I agree it can be part of a balanced diet, but it's not required for a balanced diet.


None of this suggests impossible meats are "just as bad" as the meat the are replacing. They require way less crops and, don't forget, less animal suffering. It seems to be a step in the right direction. I think having it on the menu at Cracker Barrel could nudge a few people to choose meat a little less often, and that would help. Whether the complainers like it or not, this will get people thinking about these important issues.

Thanks Quorra!


1. Americans throw out more food than plastic, paper, metal, and glass

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... -or-glass/