| > This very much reinforces my skepticism and distrust towards this trend of branded so-called "meat-substitutes" and "plant-based cheeses" etc And Microsoft suing MikeRoweSoft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft) reinforced my skepticism in "operating systems" and "word processors". The legal matters of a single company are largely unrelated to the industry it operates within, and I don't think this particular data-point should have any bearing on how you think of imitation meat. The Microsoft lawsuit made me think "microsoft is dumb, I'm glad I use linux". This lawsuit, I think reasonably, makes me think "Impossible foods might be a dumb company, might have a bad legal team etc... I'm glad I eat boca burgers instead". > People have eaten non-meat products since the dawn of history ... So, is there really that much value in these industrial "plant-based" meat/cheese substitutes? ... The greatest value of these companies is not in their technology to make "meat-substitutes". Rather, it is in getting customers to assume that they depend on their brand. Sure, fine. You can also substitute all of that with "We didn't use to have McDonalds. McDonalds has value by raising brand recognition. We really don't need it though because people can just go home and bake their own bread" I don't think you're making a point specific to the meat substitute industry here, nor is it really an actionable point. We do live in a society. Companies and brand names do exist. People do have different eating habits and expectations than we did 1000 years ago. What's the point? |