Impossible Foods, the six-year-old, Redwood City, Ca.-based company known for its "juicy" meatless burgers, quietly announced $75 million in funding late last week, led by Temasek, with participation from Open Philanthropy, as well as earlier investors Bill Gates, Khosla Ventures and Horizon Ventures.The company says it isn't providing further financial details but the round brings Impossible's funding to nearly $300 million, including earlier rounds that have included GV, Viking Global Investors and UBS.Impossible's burgers are made with soy leghemoglobin, a protein that carries heme, an iron-containing molecule that occurs naturally in every animal and plant.The company has said it wants to replace a number of animal products with goods engineered from plants, but for now, it seems squarely focused on getting more of its burgers into the world. Part of that strategy involved opening a factory in Oakland, Ca., in May, where it expects to be producing 1 million pounds of ground "plant meat" each month.
Impossible Foods, the six-year-old, Redwood City, Ca.-based company known for its "juicy" meatless burgers, quietly announced $75 million in funding late last week, led by Temasek, with participation from Open Philanthropy, as well as earlier investors Bill Gates, Khosla Ventures and Horizon Ventures.
The company says it isn't providing further financial details but the round brings Impossible's funding to nearly $300 million, including earlier rounds that have included GV, Viking Global Investors and UBS.
Impossible's burgers are made with soy leghemoglobin, a protein that carries heme, an iron-containing molecule that occurs naturally in every animal and plant.
The company has said it wants to replace a number of animal products with goods engineered from plants, but for now, it seems squarely focused on getting more of its burgers into the world. Part of that strategy involved opening a factory in Oakland, Ca., in May, where it expects to be producing 1 million pounds of ground "plant meat" each month.
Thought the race was on to have us eat insects.
Yo goober, where's the meat?
but until multiple, (relatively) unbiased double-blind studies conclusively show that the next great "meat substitute" is indistinguishable both taste-wise and nutritionally from the real thing...I'll keep eating real meat. And I suspect that will take quite a while.
Meanwhile, these investors just threw away their money after falling for a clever PowerPoint presentation. Something something fool and his money...
I've been making spaghetti with Beyond Meat Beefy Crumble. Nobody who eats it can tell it's not meat. This is likely to be even better.
falling for a clever PowerPoint presentation.It couldn't have involved serving burgers made with the product they were evaluating. That would have made too much sense.
Something something fool and his money...Yeah, because we all know how foolish Bill Gates is with his money . . .
Yeah, because we all know how foolish Bill Gates is with his moneyI would not worry about where he invests his money. He has so much of it a loss of 75 million would be a 'woopse' not a life changing event. Even then he actually split the risk with a bunch of other investors.
People with that sort of money do NOT invest like you or I. They invest in hundreds of things. If 9 fail and one gets a home run they come out ahead. They do it all the time. They are playing the odds. He is also playing the odds with trying to change the world with his money. He plays it that way because just the act of him investing creates price distortions. Warren Buffet has the same issue. BTW together those two have cornered the rail markets in Canada and most of the midwest. If it looks like this may take off look to his buddies to try to buy out the supply chain. He is one of the most ruthless businessman our world has ever created and makes Trump look like he is playing with tinker toys.
Obviously you're not in the target market.
You're gonna get fucked up if you want to prevent me from giving these a try.
What's next, are you going to decide that I can't have bacon either? Are bacon and non-beef burgers against your religion you fucking sand nigger? You want to get between me and a bison burger with bacon or black bean burger [morningstarfarms.com]? No kangaroo jerky for me because it's not beef? No hot wings because it's not beef? I'll cave your fucking head in, sand nigger.
Is there such a thing as kangaroo jerky? I'd buy it. Tried a kangaroo steak at a restaurant in Sydney and quite enjoyed it.
You can have bacon, as long as it's not that turkey bacon crap.
Does the meat substitute need to taste equivalent to beef? Don't get me wrong, animal products are delicious, and they are the competition for vegetarian products. But I would be thrilled if a whole new flavour profile arises from a vegetarian selection that I prefer over meat alternatives.
I'm curious about price. I favor vegetarian options at restaurants: I know a steak is delicious but to really doll up a plant sandwich is a culinary challenge. However day to day it is tough to find appealing choices that are cheaper than the competing meat product and easy to make. Typically the meat replacements like in the article are actually more expensive than hamburger, so justification for the vegetarian purchase stems from your particular morals.
I think some of the marketing for Beyond Burger is directed towards carnivores who want to substitute more plant protein for the meat protein in their current diet.
The main point of meat substitutes is that they resemble meat. In the US, vegetarians and vegans make up a fraction of a percent of the total population. In other countries where vegetarianism and veganism are more common, they don't use meat substitutes because it's not something they're interested in. Plus, the substitutes are usually expensive.
indistinguishable both taste-wise and nutritionally from the real thing...
What if it tastes better?
For many burgers that would not be terribly hard. Most restaurant burgers are made with poor grade meat in the first place. Then cooked badly. Most of the time it comes down to spices and cooking method. So it is possible for it to be 'better'. One place I ate at as a child had 'Grade D meat fit for human consumption' written on the sides of the boxes...
Look up some Impossible Burger reviews on YouTube. From what I can see they have created something that can possibly fool a blind taste tester. YMMV, but it seems to have done a great job at imitating meat after lots of "the boy who cried meat" attempts like Boca Burger or whatever that totally did not taste like meat. The heme "blood" seems to be key.
Meanwhile, these investors just threw away their money after falling for a clever PowerPoint presentation.
AFAIK it is sold to a handful of restaurants:
https://www.impossiblefoods.com/findus/ [impossiblefoods.com]https://www.umamiburger.com/the-impossible-burger/ [umamiburger.com]
Point being that it is at least not made of vapor.
Yum...soy protein. Do you want the Kool-Aid with that?
You clearly have nothing of value to add to the conversation. Are you on that raw meat only diet [vice.com]?
Mercola is shit. [google.com]
Additionally 99% a very large percentage of soy is genetically modified
Bad grammar, no insight.
Numerous artificial flavorings, particularly MSG
Another warning sign: linking it to debunked fearmongering.
Maybe soy is bad for humans. But Mercola could be worse.
I'd eat Boca Burgers all the time, because they're tasty and you don't wind up feeling greasy the way you do after a regular hamburger.
They are, however, expensive.
This is the move IMO: http://www.tastyislandhawaii.com/images13/costco/costco_ms_chip_bgr_pk1.jpg [tastyislandhawaii.com]
Indeed - they taste nothing like meat, but I'll usually get them when available simply because they are consistently delicious anyway, while the actual meat options are... often not.
I'm not concerned whether or not it has all of the same nutrients as meat does, I'm concerned whether or not it needs to go through such extreme processing that it fails to offset the energy and resources meat production requires and leaves a bunch of "Extra" completely unknown stuff in.
Some synthetic edible meat-like food products (i.e. "Soy" chicken nuggets, etc." have paragraphs-long ingredients lists full of chemicals that sound like they belong in your computer's PCB vs. Trader Joe's ground Garbanzo Bean/Potato/Carrot/Pea patties (which are great). What is wrong with this country where it's almost like we can't be seen eating vegetables? Can somebody stand up for spinach and carrots please? They aren't very tall on their own, and they don't require 300 million dollars to R&D their production.
I understand that substitutes intend to appeal to folks who would otherwise not be seen eating "rabbit food" but unless the IMAGE of eating vegetables is fixed first, they will still order the "Real deal" just "because."
Hipsters munching bean burgers and tofu bacon has two up sides:
1. Mal-nourished virtue-signalling hipsters die sooner.
2. Less demand = lower meat price for me.
I don't see a down side here.
Hipsters have been around longer than you might realize, check out this article from 1957 by Normal Mailer, subtitled: "Superficial Reflections on the Hipster"
Don't be put off by the lead title, it was written long before PC-speak was a thing,
REAL Hipsters go back to Zoot Suits and Bill Burroughs
No, REALLY REAL hipsters go back to togas and Diogenes.
And meat is known to be carcinogenic, so best of luck with that brain cancer you've obviously got.
Yeah it increases the risk of specific cancers by ~20%?
But you have like a 5% chance of getting one of those.
So now you have a 6% chance.
But if you exercise regularly, the same group of cancers has around ~20% less risk.
So its 5% again.
Its not a huge difference. I could feeling the 1% chance was worth it but...
It MIGHT be a bigger factor with heart disease though; you're much more likely to die from heart disease than cancer in the first place, too.
Oh, don't spoil his self-righteous narrative. He might trigger and feel unsafe.
If your meat is "crispy bacon and hot dogs" and your non-meat is "steamed broccoli and shiitake mushrooms", then meat seems to cause cancer.
If your meat is "steamed wild salmon" and your non-meat is "french fries and dark toast", then non-meat seems to cause cancer.
There's little to no evidence to support the belief that properly cooked meat eaten in moderation causes cancer. In fact, there's little reason to believe eating meat in moderation causes any health problems whatsoever.
People like to blame meat when their morbidly obese coworker keels over, but that's not really an accurate statement. It isn't the meat, it's the lack of exercise, nutritional balance and usually clogged arteries that lead to it. Blaming the meat when cutting back to more reasonable levels and getting adequate exercise would have solved the problem is ridiculous.
You want to dictate to me what foods are clean and unclean? I'll cave your goddamned head in, you sand nigger. I can't have my rack of ribs because it's not beef? Kiss your ass goodbye. I can't have a veggie burger with bacon when I want a veggie burger with fucking bacon because it's against your goddamned religion, sand nigger? Just try me. I'll cave your fucking head in.
Proof that retarded people shouldn't be allowed on the 'net unsupervised.
Even when supervised they will still tweet stupid shit at 2am while on the toilet.......
Maybe you should go spend some time with a punching bag instead of posting for a while. You're wound up.
The heart of soybean country is 2000 miles from Oakland according to Bing. That is a 29-hour drive. These people aren't serious. Look at the map:
Why? Do the vegan start-up people not want to live where local farms can supply their needs? Could it have something to do with hating that part of the country?
What do you mean, I think it's a perfect analogy:
Their product is to meat what Oakland is to San Fransisco
Why do I catch these immediately after hitting the submit button?
Because it's really spelled 'Frisco.' :-)
Or as my friend likes to say, San Fransicko.
You can achieve efficiencies in either direction. Locating the plant near the inputs saves shipping costs for production. Locating the plant near the customers saves shipping costs on the finished goods plus allows faster delivery cycles to make just in time inventory systems work better. Add in the fact that it is much easier to get venture funding if your investors don't have to deal with "flyover country" and it does make economic sense to put that first trial plant in CA, taxes, unions and other expenses included. But do the math, that plant only expects to toss out something on the order of one 1/4lb patty per second. That ain't full scale production of the sort that will ever repay the money already sunk into this project. If they end up with a product that actually sells (none of the previous attempts have) they would more than likely locate a full scale plant somewhere with much cheaper expenses all around, i.e. a red state in flyover country.
You can, but when it comes to food, you really want to be as close to the source as possible. That way you can get things processed and frozen as quickly as possible. The moment that fruits and vegetables are picked they typically start the process of degrading. But, if you pick and do whatever processing you want to do near the source, you can greatly reduce that degradation. It's one of the reasons why canned fruits and vegetables can be better than the ones available in the produce aisle.
The cost of soybeans is about the same in Oakland as it is in the mid-west. But most of the top talent want to live on the coasts.