Beyond has dropped “meat” from its name and expanded its high-protein drink line

Business & Market Dynamics

• Many see Beyond’s struggles as a hype/valuation issue, not proof the plant-based category is dead.
• Comparisons: Tyson’s tens of billions in revenue vs modest market cap vs Beyond’s sub‑$100m revenue at peak ~$14b cap. General view: burgers don’t scale like software.
• Several argue Beyond built a venture-scale narrative around a “good but not world-changing” product. Others note competitors (store brands, Impossible, European discounters) have caught up or surpassed them on taste and price.
• Some think the brand is now tainted and hard to pivot, regardless of strategy.

Product Quality & Taste

• Opinions on taste are sharply split:
  • Some say Beyond/Impossible are close to or better than low-end beef burgers and far better than old-school soy/bean patties.
  • Others find Beyond “gross,” inferior to both meat and traditional veg options, or only acceptable as occasional junk food.
• Impossible is often described as more realistic than Beyond; some prefer Beyond precisely because it’s less “dead cow–like.”

Price, Subsidies & Economics

• Common complaint: Beyond products are pricier than meat and far more than legumes/tofu; many won’t pay a premium for “almost as good.”
• Multiple comments blame heavy subsidies for meat and dairy; specific claims (e.g., ground beef would cost $30–40/lb without subsidies) are challenged as numerically implausible.
• Some note cheap private-label plant burgers undercut Beyond in Europe.

Health, Processing & Nutrition

• Strong debate over whether plant-based meats are healthier:
  • Critics: “ultra-processed,” long ingredient lists, high sodium, lower protein density/bioavailability vs meat, unclear long-term effects.
  • Defenders: ingredients are mostly isolated plant proteins and oils; processing alone isn’t inherently harmful; compared to fast-food beef, they can be lower in saturated fat.
• Many health‑conscious commenters prefer whole foods (lentils, beans, tofu, seitan) or homemade veg burgers over branded patties.

Ethical, Environmental & Cultural Angles

• Several vegetarians/vegans say they buy Beyond/Impossible mainly to avoid animal suffering yet still enjoy burger-like foods, especially in social settings.
• Others prefer “clearly not meat” options and dislike realistic substitutes.
• Some meat eaters use these products to reduce meat intake for climate or ethical reasons; others feel the taste/price trade-off isn’t worth it.
• Recurrent view: meaningful meat reduction requires political change (subsidies, regulation), not just better fake burgers.

Target Demographic & Use Cases

• Debate over who the real audience is:
  • Ethical vegans who still like meat-like foods.
  • Flexitarians wanting to cut meat (“Meatless Monday,” fast-food alternatives).
  • Vegetarians wanting parity at restaurants, stadiums, events.
• Several note they eat such products only a few times a year; that low frequency may be insufficient to support a high-priced, branded player.

GLP‑1 Drugs & High-Protein Drink Pivot

• Some see the pivot to high-protein fizzy drinks/bars as chasing a saturated “high protein” trend, boosted by GLP‑1 weight-loss drugs.
• Users on GLP‑1 report doctors pushing high protein to prevent muscle loss; packaged foods are responding by protein-loading products.
• Others are skeptical: protein sodas sound unappetizing, and Beyond has no clear moat in this crowded functional-food space.