Paul Saladino· MD
from the study at white oak — where you know you would have to eat basically for every impossible burger you would have to eat a white oak – grass-fed burger to offset your emissions from – an impossible burger
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
from the study at white oak — where you know you would have to eat basically for every impossible burger you would have to eat a white oak – grass-fed burger to offset your emissions from – an impossible burger
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
they found an impossible Burger emits 3.5 pounds the exact same number of carbon dioxide equivalent for every pound of impossible Burger they sell
meaning you'd have to eat one we generally raised beef burger to offset the carbon emissions of a impossible burger