Generally, how these Stiftung Warentest tests work is that they a pick a product category, like here patties, then they come up with disciplines to rate them in and then they grade each product accordingly.
Some of the disciplines here were (translated by me):
sensory rating
nutritional-physiological quality
microbiological quality
user friendliness of packaging
I would assume that they did a blind taste test and all that jazz, too. It is their business model to sell the data to industry, investors etc., so if their methodology wasn’t up to snuff, they’d be out of business pretty quickly.
There might be an issue with not everyone seeing the same article text. Here’s what it says for taste:
Plant-based options scored better on average for seasoning, juiciness, and overall cooking results. Some beef patties, meanwhile, showed up with off-putting smells, flat flavors, and shelf-life issues.
The original source lists more rating categories and the source we’re getting it from is biased, so maybe some taste categories with opposite results are left out here.
But it can’t be too biased either, though, because the original publication from Stiftung Warentest is also titled “Vegan beats Beef” (“Vegan schlägt Rindfleisch”). They would not write that, if it misrepresented their data.
Wir untersuchten gekühlte Pattys am Mindesthaltbarkeits- oder Verbrauchsdatum oder bis zu zwei Tage davor, die tiefgekühlten Produkte im Laufe der Prüfphase.
Which translates as:
We evaluated cooled patties on the Mindesthaltbarkeitsdatum (legally required at-least-good-until-date, like a shelf-life-date) or on the use-by-date, or up to two days before that. The frozen products were tested at any point throughout the evaluation phase.
If the product has started rotting at that point, that is entirely the fault of the producer, since they specify those dates.
I am very confused. Are we seeing same article?
@Captain_Buddha@lemmy.world below also seemed to not see a direct quote from the article.
Here’s the part of the article describing the results that I see:
The result
Vegan patties came out on top, and it wasn’t particularly close:
Overall rating
Seven out of ten plant-based patties rated “good.” Only three out of ten beef patties did.
The three top-scoring burgers came from Aldi MyVay, Garden Gourmet, and Beyond — and they were all vegan.
This is a dramatic reversal from the last time this test was run in 2021, when meat still held the edge. The improvement in plant-based products over just a few years has been remarkable.
Fats
Vegan patties averaged 43% less fat and 20% fewer calories than their beef counterparts — and the fat they do contain skews toward the healthy, unsaturated kind, while beef patties lean heavily on saturated fat.
Taste
Plant-based options scored better on average for seasoning, juiciness, and overall cooking results. Some beef patties, meanwhile, showed up with off-putting smells, flat flavors, and shelf-life issues.
Food safety
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria were found in 40% of the beef patties tested. One contained genuinely pathogenic bacteria. The vegan patties? Zero contaminants.
Price
The vegan patties were, on average, 20% cheaper than beef. And that’s before accounting for the massive government subsidies that artificially deflate the price of conventional meat. Without those subsidies, the gap would be even wider.
Was it a head to head comparison? The article looks a bit out of context
Generally, how these Stiftung Warentest tests work is that they a pick a product category, like here patties, then they come up with disciplines to rate them in and then they grade each product accordingly.
Some of the disciplines here were (translated by me):
I would assume that they did a blind taste test and all that jazz, too. It is their business model to sell the data to industry, investors etc., so if their methodology wasn’t up to snuff, they’d be out of business pretty quickly.
So would have completely lost in a test based on “what tastes best”.
There might be an issue with not everyone seeing the same article text. Here’s what it says for taste:
The original source lists more rating categories and the source we’re getting it from is biased, so maybe some taste categories with opposite results are left out here.
But it can’t be too biased either, though, because the original publication from Stiftung Warentest is also titled “Vegan beats Beef” (“Vegan schlägt Rindfleisch”). They would not write that, if it misrepresented their data.
That definitely sounds like a rigged test. Lol. “Vegan burger is better than beef… Made with rancid meat”
From the original source:
Which translates as:
If the product has started rotting at that point, that is entirely the fault of the producer, since they specify those dates.
The article is totally unsupported by the test then as it says it is only about taste.
I am very confused. Are we seeing same article? @Captain_Buddha@lemmy.world below also seemed to not see a direct quote from the article.
Here’s the part of the article describing the results that I see:
You can find more information on the Stiftung Warentest site itself.