Vegan dairy - The end of using cows?

Xcellor · 31-08-2019 9:58am #1

Just came across a video on YouTube reviewing a product from this crowd https://www.perfectdayfoods.com/

Obviously not mainstream yet but if you can produce dairy proteins without the need for cows it would really be an enabler to reduce dairy coming from cows.

It is lactose free and contains same proteins as cow milk. So many products contain whey protein so the applications are huge.

Would be nice if some indigenous company started something like this.

lawred2 · 31-08-2019 10:01am

Xcellor wrote: »

Just came across a video on YouTube reviewing a product from this crowd https://www.perfectdayfoods.com/

Obviously not mainstream yet but if you can produce dairy proteins without the need for cows it would really be an enabler to reduce dairy coming from cows.

It is lactose free and contains same proteins as cow milk. So many products contain whey protein so the applications are huge.

Would be nice if some indigenous company started something like this.

I wonder which is a more efficient milk producer?

Cows or plantations?

I'd imagine such a transition would not come without it's own costs and casualties! Probably some more rainforest..

Danzy · 31-08-2019 10:04am

The rainforests are being burnt for Soy.

Almond milk is as environmentally catastrophic product as one can find.

As is the continuing corporatization of agri at the expense of small producers.

davidjtaylor · 31-08-2019 10:37am

Danzy wrote: »

The rainforests are being burnt for Soy.

Almond milk is as environmentally catastrophic product as one can find.

Yes, if using Californian almonds and creating tetrapacks.

If you buy whole almonds, get loose organic from Spain. Get a decent blender and you can make your own almond milk. Minimal food miles and waste and you're not consuming all the unnecessary other ingredients.

Xcellor · 31-08-2019 10:57am

lawred2 wrote: »

I wonder which is a more efficient milk producer?

Cows or plantations?

I'd imagine such a transition would not come without it's own costs and casualties! Probably some more rainforest..

It uses yeast and sugar both of which are already in abundant supply. We also have experience in fermentation in this country. Ireland can even grow sugar ...

Xcellor · 02-09-2019 2:57pm

Well can't wait for this to start being offered - the meat alternatives are really picking up momentum. If this got a foot hold the need to have such a large dairy herd disappears.

The only problem would be genetically modified yeast is used to make the proteins... Still you don't eat the yeast only what they produce which is chemically identical to what gets extracted from milk.

Tar.Aldarion · 03-09-2019 11:24am

Nothing wrong with GMO, amazing technology, may be something wrong with a particular company like Monsanto etc. Insulin is vegan now due to GMO.

Xcellor · 03-09-2019 11:42am

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Nothing wrong with GMO, amazing technology, may be something wrong with a particular company like Monsanto etc. Insulin is vegan now due to GMO.

Yeah I agree, nothing wrong with GMO but the "It's not natural, it's processed muck" etc brigade will use it as a way to defend "natural - clean - fresh milk".

If we are able to produce dairy protein on scale without the need to use cows, the dariy industry will need to point to something to detract or it will signal the end to the exploitation.

When you factor in cost cows versus yeast ...

snowstreams · 05-09-2019 4:07pm

If it can be produced without lactose and without the A1 casein that Fresian cows have, then most of us would probably be better off on it rather than cow based dairy.
If people noticed the health affects they would switch in time.

With a bit of GM we should be able to grow the sugar in the areas of ireland that are currently used for dairy farming.

gozunda · 07-09-2019 5:56pm

snowstreams wrote: »

If it can be produced without lactose and without the A1 casein that Fresian cows have, then most of us would probably be better off on it rather than cow based dairy.
If people noticed the health affects they would switch in time.

With a bit of GM we should be able to grow the sugar in the areas of ireland that are currently used for dairy farming.

And how exactly is something like refined sugar better for people than a whole food such as milk?

Milk and dairy are important and are recognised as being a healthy part of a range of balanced diets.

henryporter · 07-09-2019 6:03pm

gozunda wrote: »

Milk and dairy are important and healthy parts of a range of balanced diets.

Unless one is lactose intolerant which is one of the benefits of this product apparently

is_that_so · 07-09-2019 6:17pm

In response to the OP, very doubtful any time soon if ever. This example here looks more like a company who have a product and they'd barely make a tiny dent.

828 million tonnes are produced annually, India, surprisingly to me, is the biggest producer of milk
Milk is more than just the bits people like to get agitated about.
172,000 tonnes of cheddar type cheese and 35,000 tonnes of speciality cheeses come from Irish processors per annum.
Lactose is widely used in Pharmaceuticals.
https://drug-dev.com/lactose-in-pharmaceutical-applications/

And the agri-food business generated 7% of GDP and employed 10% of the population in 2016, that's 167,000 people.
https://www.teagasc.ie/rural-economy/rural-economy/agri-food-business/agriculture-in-ireland

gozunda · 07-09-2019 6:24pm

henryporter wrote: »

Unless one is lactose intolerant which is one of the benefits of this product apparently

Fair enough but I did not exclude lactose intolerance tbh - I referred to a range of diets. There will always be some dietary exceptions. In Ireland, UK and parts of Northern Europe rates of lactose intolerance are quite low.

snowstreams · 07-09-2019 10:59pm

gozunda wrote: »

And how exactly is something like refined sugar better for people than a whole food such as milk?

Milk and dairy are important and are recognised as being a healthy part of a range of balanced diets.

If the yeast converts all the sugar to protein, then it would be as healthy as lactose free milk.
But I was thinking more along the lines of A1 casein for allergic reasons which is a common problem for people with autoimmune problems.

I gave up dairy for this reason.
I tried a few of the alternatives but then found that goats milk was fine due to its lack of A1 casein.

gozunda · 07-09-2019 11:25pm

snowstreams wrote: »

If the yeast converts all the sugar to protein, then it would be as healthy as lactose free milk. But I was thinking more along the lines of A1 casein for allergic reasons which is a common problem for people with autoimmune problems.
I gave up dairy for this reason.
I tried a few of the alternatives but then found that goats milk was fine due to its lack of A1 casein.

Yeah fair enough but I was thinking more about the further processing of the highly refined ingredients involved. For example - dairy milk which is a wholefood (albeit with something taken out of it in the case of lactose free milk) as say compared to a highly processed drink made with sugar, yeast etc. For comparison I know 'plant based' whole foods are often held up as something as worthwhile in veg*n diets.

Afaik lactose intolerance effects under 10 % of the Irish population - so the lactose intolerance not a problem for the majority of people I would imagine

uck51js9zml2yt · 08-09-2019 12:02am

Xcellor wrote: »

Yeah I agree, nothing wrong with GMO but the "It's not natural, it's processed muck" etc brigade will use it as a way to defend "natural - clean - fresh milk".

If we are able to produce dairy protein on scale without the need to use cows, the dariy industry will need to point to something to detract or it will signal the end to the exploitation...

Who is being exploited?

Xcellor · 08-09-2019 10:09am

Bridger Handsome Munitions wrote: »

Who is being exploited?

Cows produce milk for baby cows. Not full grown humans.

gozunda · 08-09-2019 12:43pm

Xcellor wrote: »

Cows produce milk for baby cows. Not full grown humans.

They are called calves . And yes 'cows' also now produce milk for dairy products. Other revolutions in agriculture mean than crops such as the potato - have been selected to produce large edible potatoes which us humans take from the mother plant and eat. I'm damn sure the potato wasn't designed for humans specifically either.

Xcellor · 08-09-2019 11:22pm

gozunda wrote: »

They are called calves . And yes 'cows' also now produce milk for dairy products. Other revolutions in agriculture mean than crops such as the potato - have been selected to produce large edible potatoes which us humans take from the mother plant and eat. I'm damn sure the potato wasn't designed for humans specifically either.

I use the term baby cow because milk is "designed" for babies. No human needs to drink milk past weaning. We certainly do not need to drink milk from another animal.

However if people still want to eat these proteins then hopefully with technology the need to use animals in their production will be reduced.

Danzy · 08-09-2019 11:31pm

Xcellor wrote: »

I use the term baby cow because milk is "designed" for babies. No human needs to drink milk past weaning. We certainly do not need to drink milk from another animal.

However if people still want to eat these proteins then hopefully with technology the need to use animals in their production will be reduced.

No calf needs it past weaning either.

gozunda · 08-09-2019 11:38pm

Xcellor wrote: »

I use the term baby cow because milk is "designed" for babies. No human needs to drink milk past weaning. We certainly do not need to drink milk from another animal.

However if people still want to eat these proteins then hopefully with technology the need to use animals in their production will be reduced.

That may as be - but the correct term is calves. Cows refer to the female of the species. That doesn't negate the drinking of milk btw.

Plus I would suggest we dont 'need' to do a lot of things.

Xcellor · 09-09-2019 8:38am

gozunda wrote: »

That may as be - but the correct term is calves. Cows refer to the female of the species. That doesn't negate the drinking of milk btw.

Plus I would suggest we dont 'need' to do a lot of things.

Yeah we don't need to do a lot of things but we do. That doesn't mean some of the things we do out of tradition/culture shouldn't be questioned when alternatives are available...

Using milk in the past was a necessity to human survival but now in the western world it's a choice - a taste preference which is highly addictive... There is growing evidence that milk consumption shows correlations with some forms of cancer - it's certainly not a super food.

But leaving that aside the cycle involved in making dairy available on the scale humans demand is disgusting. It's exploitative and cruel.

Roll on the technology to remove cows from the production process!

gozunda · 09-09-2019 9:43am

Xcellor wrote: »

Yeah we don't need to do a lot of things but we do. That doesn't mean some of the things we do out of tradition/culture shouldn't be questioned when alternatives are available... Using milk in the past was a necessity to human survival but now in the western world it's a choice - a taste preference which is highly addictive... There is growing evidence that milk consumption shows correlations with some forms of cancer - it's certainly not a super food.But leaving that aside the cycle involved in making dairy available on the scale humans demand is disgusting. It's exploitative and cruel. Roll on the technology to remove cows from the production process!

What people decide is of 'need' is indeed often subjective - but there we go. And no its not 'addictive' - people drink milk etc for many reasons, because it's a recommended part of a healthy balanced diet, they may have a preference for it etc etc - but I've yet to see anyone mainlining it ar going to rehab

And try not to go down the road of the old C word ****e attack. There are various studies which show just about everything causing cancer eg. Maize. We could play snap all day with these ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314947/

Soy

https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/soy-may-turn-on-genes-linked-to-cancer

And no it is neither cruel or exploitative imo You may think that but that remains an opinion. There may be exceptions to how animals are cared for etc - however animal welfare here is amongst the best there is. Exceptions to that shouldn't be used to beat everyone.

And yes milk remains a recommended part of a healthy diet. It is also a wholefood - and even vegans recognise the values of whole foods they eat.

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/milk-and-dairy-nutrition/

I get it that vegans may dislike milk for a number of reasons. It's just the usual kitchen sink vegan activism which is ott and renders a lot of criticism out there with the pixies

Xcellor · 09-09-2019 10:59am

gozunda wrote: »

What people decide is of 'need' is indeed often subjective - but there we go. And no its not 'addictive' - people drink milk etc for many reasons, because it's a recommended part of a healthy balanced diet, they may have a preference for it etc etc - but I've yet to see anyone mainlining it ar going to rehab

And try not to go down the road of the old C word ****e attack. There are various studies which show just about everything causing cancer eg. Maize. We could play snap all day with these ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314947/

Soy

https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/soy-may-turn-on-genes-linked-to-cancer

And no it is neither cruel or exploitative imo You may think that buy it - that remains your opinion. There may be exceptions to how animals are cared for etc - however animal welfare here is amongst the best there is. Exceptions to that shouldn't be used to beat everyone.

And yes milk remains a recommended part of a healthy diet. It is also a wholefood - and even vegans recognise the values of whole foods they eat.

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/milk-and-dairy-nutrition/

I get it that vegans may dislike milk for a number of reasons. It's just the usual kitchen sink vegan activism which is ott and renders a lot of criticism out there with the pixies

There are more alternatives available than soy for replacing dairy milk, which don't contain *actual* hormones and is not optimized for the growth of a calf rather than a fully grown human.

There is nothing natural about forcibly impregnating, taking the calf away affter a couple of days, extracting as much milk as possible then repeating until production falls below an acceptable quota and sending the cow to slaughter.

Anyway the OP is about technology that is able to produce the same dairy components without the need to use animals. This has to be preferred? The majority of applications for milk are not actually "whole milk" anyway.

gozunda · 09-09-2019 3:35pm

Xcellor wrote: »

There are more alternatives available than soy for replacing dairy milk, which don't contain *actual* hormones and is not optimized for the growth of a calf rather than a fully grown human. .

I did not mention soy replacing dairy milk- soy was highlighted as the whole bunch of things allegedly causing cancer in various studies. But yes soy does contain phytroesgrogens which may or may not act as hormones for humans and in the same way for milk - depending on who you read. As detailed- milk is recognised by bodies such as NHS as suitable as part of a healthy balanced diet.

There is nothing natural about forcibly impregnating, taking the calf away affter a couple of days, extracting as much milk as possible then repeating until production falls below an acceptable quota and sending the cow to slaughter.

There's fek all 'natural' about anything humans do. As for cows some are AI'd - others the attentions of a bull and certainly it involves little more than other procedures for domestic animal farm or pet. Yes older farm animals are sent for slaughter. That's the normal procress. As detailed - it is highly regulated and inspected

Unless humans revert to foraging and hunting - none of us can claim exception for our lifestyles or what we eat. What is for sure is that humans having been consuming dairy products for a significant part of our history and our nutrition has benefited hugely from it.

Anyway the OP is about technology that is able to produce the same dairy components without the need to use animals. This has to be preferred? The majority of applications for milk are not actually "whole milk" anyway.

No I dont agree. Highly processed foods are not better by any means imo. If you mean by applications for milk - yogurt, cheese , butter then these are also fairly minimally processed foodstuffs and are preferable to whatever made from refined sugar and god knows what.

Xcellor · 09-09-2019 4:07pm

gozunda wrote: »

No I dont agree. Highly processed foods are not better by any means imo. If you mean by applications for milk - yogurt, cheese , butter then these are also fairly minimally processed foodstuffs and are preferable to whatever made from refined sugar and god knows what.

We are talking about taking a cow out of the equation and replacing it with yeast which can produce the required proteins, chemically identical to those extracted from milk. So it's not highly processed. Does it need to come from a cows teat before you want to eat it?

gozunda · 10-09-2019 9:38am

Xcellor wrote: »

We are talking about taking a cow out of the equation and replacing it with yeast which can produce the required proteins, chemically identical to those extracted from milk. So it's not highly processed. Does it need to come from a cows teat before you want to eat it?

Well yes I do have some concerns that these commercial companies are introducing synethised products as replacements for wholefoods

As for the use of modified 'yeast' in food manufacture - yes there have been some significant concerns: for example:

The Impossible Burger is a plant-based burger, the key ingredient of which is a protein called soy leghemoglobin (SLH), derived from genetically modified (GM) yeast
* A rat feeding study commissioned by the manufacturer Impossible Foods found that rats fed SLH developed unexplained changes in weight gain, as well as changes in the blood that can indicate the onset of inflammation or kidney disease, as well as possible signs of anemia

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19006-rat-feeding-study-suggests-the-impossible-burger-may-not-be-safe-to-eat

I do not understand the desire to abandon whole foods especially when faced with complex processes used in the synthesis of these yeasts (for the manufacture of these foodstuffs) and which are deemed to be highly processed and it's not just me saying that btw.

https://qz.com/1655309/beyond-meat-needs-to-communicate-how-it-makes-its-plant-based-burger/

Whilst some vegan advocates and activists seem to have a serious hang up about 'teats' - most people do not. The physiology of an animal or the fact that vegetables are frequenly grown with the aid of real ****e does not bother me in the slightest. It's been that way for millennia and I dont see that changing for the majority of the people on the planet. In India alone there are 75 million dairy farms, many with just a few animals each. Some cute business types making money out of lifestyle choices in the west are not going to impact that imo.

Xcellor · 10-09-2019 10:43am

gozunda wrote: »

Well yes I do have some concerns that these commercial companies are introducing synethised products as replacements for wholefoods

As for the use of modified 'yeast' in food manufacture - yes there are some significant concerns: for example:

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19006-rat-feeding-study-suggests-the-impossible-burger-may-not-be-safe-to-eat

I do not understand the desire to abandon whole foods especially when faced with complex processes used in the synthesis of these yeasts etc which is deemed to be highly processed and it's not just me saying that btw.

https://qz.com/1655309/beyond-meat-needs-to-communicate-how-it-makes-its-plant-based-burger/

Whilst some vegan advocates and activists seem to have a serious hang up about 'teats' - most people do not. The physiology of an animal or the fact that vegetables are frequenly grown with the aid of real ****e does not bother me in the slightest. It's been that way for millennia and I dont see that changing for the majority of the people on the planet. In India alone there are 75 million dairy farms, many with just a few animals each. Some cute business types making money out of lifestyle choices in the west are not going to impact that imo.

The GM yeast being used to produce the dairy proteins is NOT going to be eaten by the end consumer. It is a producer, it uses sugar, ferments and creates proteins that are identical under a microscope to what is already extracted from whole milk. So to be clear there is nothing chemically different. Also GM yeast AFAIK is used in other applications production of vaccines etc when previously there was dependency on animals - so it's an accepted scientifically safe process.

*Actual* GM products are fed to Irish cattle routinely and while this is not the primary food it is used to "finish" - so the period of time right before slaughter we are stuffing cattle full of this to put on weight. But this doesn't concern you? Is this not a bit inconsistent? https://www.teagasc.ie/animals/beef/nutrition/finishing-cattle/

I take your argument about whole foods but in many food products whole milk is not used but whey protein and other dairy components. So if the efficiencies of yeast production of these components was shown to be cheaper/more environmentally sustainable then would you still object and on what basis?

If we appeal to tradition - i.e. we did it this way forever we should continue to do it, we would never achieve any progress. It's a bogus argument.

gozunda · 10-09-2019 1:55pm

Xcellor wrote: »

The GM yeast being used to produce the dairy proteins is NOT going to be eaten by the end consumer. It is a producer, it uses sugar, ferments and creates proteins that are identical under a microscope to what is already extracted from whole milk. So to be clear there is nothing chemically different. Also GM yeast AFAIK is used in other applications production of vaccines etc when previously there was dependency on animals - so it's an accepted scientifically safe process.

I am aware of the process. As in the case of the impossible Burger where the key ingredient of which is a protein called soy leghemoglobin (SLH) is itself derived from genetically modified (GM) yeast. So even when the yeast itself is not consumed - it is a synthesised protein which is being flagged by a number of studies of being of some concern. So as in the link provided above - there is no concensus that it is an "accepted scientifically safe process."

Xcellor wrote: »

Actual GM products are fed to Irish cattle routinely and while this is not the primary food it is used to "finish" - so the period of time right before slaughter we are stuffing cattle full of this to put on weight. But this doesn't concern you? Is this not a bit inconsistent? ...

Kitchen sink again? "Stuffing"? You may notice I did not mention the issue of GM crops rather *fully synthesised foodstuffs*. But yes on that issue - I prefer that animal feedstuffs should be clearly demarcated so as should be the case with the synthesised food - consumers have a clear choice. And of interest certainly not all cattle are finished with feedstuffs using soy meal etc. Many are finished without supplementary feed and others are finished with supplementary feedstuffs produced on farm or sourced locally.

Xcellor wrote: »

I take your argument about whole foods but in many food products whole milk is not used but whey protein and other dairy components. So if the efficiencies of yeast production of these components was shown to be cheaper/more environmentally sustainable then would you still object and on what basis?

And where such ingredients are not 'wholefoods' and not within the remit of what I am clearly referring to. And please note - what you've labelled as 'objections' are observations made by not only me but also by others and detailed above. "
"So if the efficiencies of yeast production"? We are entering the realms of IFology - so no I'm not going down that rabbit hole one way or the other.

Xcellor wrote: »

If we appeal to tradition - i.e. we did it this way forever we should continue to do it, we would never achieve any progress. It's a bogus argument.

The example of India is NOT an appeal to tradition. It is the state of play in much of the world where small dairy enterptises provide livelihoods and an important source of nutrition for many many people. It does not need to be highlighted that change for changes sake is clearly a non sequitur.

Xcellor · 10-09-2019 3:59pm

gozunda wrote: »

I am aware of the process. As in the case of the impossible Burger where the key ingredient of which is a protein called soy leghemoglobin (SLH) is itself derived from genetically modified (GM) yeast. So even when the yeast itself is not consumed - it is a synthesised protein which is being flagged by a number of studies of being of some concern. So as in the link provided above - there is no concensus that it is an "accepted scientifically safe process."

Kitchen sink again? "Stuffing"? You may notice I did not mention the issue of GM crops rather *fully synthesised foodstuffs*. But yes on that issue - I prefer that animal feedstuffs should be clearly demarcated so as should be the case with the synthesised food - consumers have a clear choice. And of interest certainly not all cattle are finished with feedstuffs using soy meal etc. Many are finished without supplementary feed and others are finished with supplementary feedstuffs produced on farm or sourced locally.

And where such ingredients are not 'wholefoods' and not within the remit of what I am clearly referring to. And please note - what you've labelled as 'objections' are observations made by not only me but aldo by others and detailed above. "
"So if the efficiencies of yeast production"? We are entering the realms of IFology - so no I'm not going down that rabbit hole one way or the other.

The example of India is NOT an appeal to tradition. It is the state of play in much of the world where small dairy enterptises provide livelihoods and an important source of nutrition for many many people. It does not need to be highlighted that change for changes sake is clearly a non sequitur.

Leghemoglobin while occurring naturally in plants isn't in the quantity found in animal flesh. So there maybe questions around this particular protein. However the evidence wasn't compelling enough to stop FDA approving it for human consumption - vegan conspiracy?

Back on topic... the proteins derived from the process in OP are proteins that have been consumed in isolate form for many years and are consumed by billions of people daily... So once again - they are chemically indistinguishable from those derived from milk. So can we stop talking about Impossible burgers now?

Regarding animal feed. As this is fed primarily during the "finishing" and the end weight determines the price paid to the farmer is it not in the best interest to ensure as much of this product is fed to these animals? Not sure why the term "stuffing" isn't appropriate word.

OK so when production of these proteins via yeast rather than extracting from cows milk is shown to be environmentally more sustainable what would be your remaining objections? Is it purely financial - the livelihood of farmers in India?

gozunda · 10-09-2019 4:55pm

Xcellor wrote: »

*Leghemoglobin while occurring naturally in plants isn't in the quantity found in animal flesh.* So there maybe questions around this particular protein. However the evidence wasn't compelling enough to stop FDA approving it for human consumption - vegan conspiracy? Back on topic... the proteins derived from the process in OP are proteins that have been consumed in isolate form for many years and are consumed by billions of people daily... So once again - they are chemically indistinguishable from those derived from milk. So can we stop talking about Impossible burgers now? Regarding animal feed. As this is fed primarily during the "finishing" and the end weight determines the price paid to the farmer is it not in the best interest to ensure as much of this product is fed to these animals? Not sure why the term "stuffing" isn't appropriate word. OK so when production of these proteins via yeast rather than extracting from cows milk is shown to be environmentally more sustainable what would be your remaining objections? Is it purely financial - the livelihood of farmers in India?

*I must have missed that. You need to check your plant biology sources - Leghaemoglobin is an oxygen carrier and hemoprotein found in the nitrogen-fixing root nodules of leguminous plants and NOT animals. It functions are somewhat similar to the hemoglobin of blood - but it is not the same substance.

Did anyone say it was a 'vegan' conspiracy? It's big business. That is not difficult to understand.

No the created proteins are not "consumed by billions of people daily" - these are synthesised proteins used to replicate naturally occuring wholefoods such as milk.

On the other tack you delved into - Cattle can and are finished on grass without supplementary feed depending on time of year and the condition of the cattle. No one wants over fat cattle. Plus when prices are low - it makes no sense to add extra cost to finishing cattle.

'Stuffing' (sic) is clearly hyperbole because cattle are not stuffed full of supplementary feed including soy as you implied. Supplementary feed when used can and does come from a variety of sources including on farm.

"Environmentally more sustainable"? - compared by whom and what standard of sustainability exactly? Do you believe all production systems are somehow the same and that we should close down all animal farming because big business tell people to do so - regardless where those people live or that dairy products provide an valuable source of nutrients in many different parts of the world, India included. Or does that not matter?

We can of course spend lots of time in spurious if / when future speculations about commercial applications of genetically modified 'yeast' - which has no relevance to reality as was detailed previously. But hey do feel free if you wish to do so...

Xcellor · 11-09-2019 11:06am

gozunda wrote: »

*I must have missed that. You need to check your plant biology sources - Leghaemoglobin is an oxygen carrier and hemoprotein found in the nitrogen-fixing root nodules of leguminous plants and NOT animals. It functions are somewhat similar to the hemoglobin of blood - but it is not the same substance.

Did anyone say it was a 'vegan' conspiracy? It's big business. That is not difficult to understand.

No the created proteins are not "consumed by billions of people daily" - these are synthesised proteins used to replicate naturally occuring wholefoods such as milk.

On the other tack you delved into - Cattle can and are finished on grass without supplementary feed depending on time of year and the condition of the cattle. No one wants over fat cattle. Plus when prices are low - it makes no sense to add extra cost to finishing cattle.

'Stuffing' (sic) is clearly hyperbole because cattle are not stuffed full of supplementary feed including soy as you implied. Supplementary feed when used can and does come from a variety of sources including on farm.

"Environmentally more sustainable"? - compared by whom and what standard of sustainability exactly? Do you believe all production systems are somehow the same and that we should close down all animal farming because big business tell people to do so - regardless where those people live or that dairy products provide an valuable source of nutrients in many different parts of the world, India included. Or does that not matter?

We can of course spend lots of time in spurious if / when future speculations about commercial applications of genetically modified 'yeast' - which has no relevance to reality as was detailed previously. But hey do feel free if you wish to do so...

Thanks for correcting me. I meant to say leghaemoglobin is a naturally occuring protein in plants, just wouldn't be as concentrated as what impossible burgers are. But yes while similar to animal type in function it isn't identical.

Irregardless my point was this specific protein hasn't been eaten in the concentrated quantities that are present so there maybe questions over it.

In terms of big business, the meat and dairy industry are big business too and have very powerful well established lobbies - they have been dominant and it's not surprising that milk is included in many recommendations as healthy as a result.

Proteins in isolate form are already extracted from milk, the very same isolates that can produced directly as a byproduct from this GM yeast. So it's the same protein.

Why does the process that makes the protein matter if it is indistingishable from the one extracted from cow milk? It's nutritionallly identical.

I don't see whole milk disappearing anytime soon but for every other type of dairy protein given that we can produce to the same qualilty in terms of nutrition why wouldn't we?

gozunda · 11-09-2019 2:07pm

Xcellor wrote: »

Thanks for correcting me. I meant to say leghaemoglobin is a naturally occuring protein in plants, just wouldn't be as concentrated as what impossible burgers are. But yes while similar to animal type in function it isn't identical.Irregardless my point was this specific protein hasn't been eaten in the concentrated quantities that are present so there maybe questions over it. In terms of big business, the meat and dairy industry are big business too and have very powerful well established lobbies - they have been dominant and it's not surprising that milk is included in many recommendations as healthy as a result.
Proteins in isolate form are already extracted from milk, the very same isolates that can produced directly as a byproduct from this GM yeast. So it's the same protein. Why does the process that makes the protein matter if it is indistingishable from the one extracted from cow milk? It's nutritionallly identical.
I don't see whole milk disappearing anytime soon but for every other type of dairy protein given that we can produce to the same qualilty in terms of nutrition why wouldn't we?

No worries

You dont believe that the plant food and fake meat / milk industry is not big business?

Milk is recommended first and foremost by non commercial health care specialists such as bodies like the NHS in the UK etc. They recommend dairy products as a part of a healthy balanced diet so those types of misleading arguments can be firmly binned.

As detailed - it's not the same - it's a synthesised form of the protein. That has been gone into some detail already. So lets put that one to bed.

As to your question "Why wouldn't we"?

Again I'm not referring to 'isolates' - I referred speifically to the recognised value of wholefoods and not highly processed components used to make synthesised dairy products.

Animal farming is vitaly important part of many many peoples lives worldwide and provides for livelihoods and is a valuable source of nutrition. I have already given India as an example where this is the case for many millions of people. Manufacturing fake milk and telling people they can buy it from some pan global corporation instead of producing their own is clearly not progress - rather it is simply more domination of the processes of primary production by the few in order to generate corporate profit.

Tbh I fail to see how the endless advocacy of these synthesised products have got anything to do with a persons desire to lead a vegan lifestyle. It's not as if there are no plant based alternatives out there for those who wish not to eat dairy products. Tbh the endless promotion of these synthetised commercial products by means of tarring all animal farming (as in the case of the use of supplementary feedstuffs etc) ultimately fails because such tarring does not stand up to scrutiny

Rather the questions should be directed at looking at why corporate interests are so preoccupied with developong these types of synethised foods / concentrating the means of primary production in the hands of a few and instead ask why others haven't stopped to question whether they should ...

Xcellor · 12-09-2019 4:14pm

gozunda wrote: »

No worries

You dont believe that the plant food and fake meat / milk industry is not big business?

Milk is recommended first and foremost by non commercial health care specialists such as bodies like the NHS in the UK etc. They recommend dairy products as a part of a healthy balanced diet so those types of misleading arguments can be firmly binned.

As detailed - it's not the same - it's a synthesised form of the protein. That has been gone into some detail already. So lets put that one to bed.

As to your question "Why wouldn't we"?

Again I'm not referring to 'isolates' - I referred speifically to the recognised value of wholefoods and not highly processed components used to make synthesised dairy products.

Animal farming is vitaly important part of many many peoples lives worldwide and provides for livelihoods and is a valuable source of nutrition. I have already given India as an example where this is the case for many millions of people. Manufacturing fake milk and telling people they can buy it from some pan global corporation instead of producing their own is clearly not progress - rather it is simply more domination of the processes of primary production by the few in order to generate corporate profit.

Tbh I fail to see how the endless advocacy of these synthesised products have got anything to do with a persons desire to lead a vegan lifestyle. It's not as if there are no plant based alternatives out there for those who wish not to eat dairy products. Tbh the endless promotion of these synthetised commercial products by means of tarring all animal farming (as in the case of the use of supplementary feedstuffs etc) ultimately fails because such tarring does not stand up to scrutiny

Rather the questions should be directed at looking at why corporate interests are so preoccupied with developong these types of synethised foods / concentrating the means of primary production in the hands of a few and instead ask why others haven't stopped to question whether they should ...

I feel like we are going around in circles. The process to make something is irrelevant if what it produces is nutritionally and chemically identical - from the point of being a source of food. A biological process is used, just not one that involves a cow.

My OP was specifically about proteins that are extracted from dairy.

"...if you can produce dairy proteins without the need for cows it would really be an enabler to reduce dairy coming from cows.

It is lactose free and contains same proteins as cow milk. So many products contain whey protein so the applications are huge."

Why do you keep talking about whole milk?

In a society that is becoming more aware of our impact on the environment we can't continue on a path of expanding dairy herds to meet demand from population growth. Something needs to change...

I don't believe dairy proteins are healthy and should be eaten by humans whether as part of whole milk or in isolate form.

"The milk protein, casein, promotes the proliferation of prostate cancer cells such as PC3 and LNCaP."

"Western diet, rich in milk and dairy products, animal fat and sugars, with high calcium contents, is also connected to the risk growth of PC (6–8). Greater per capita milk consumption are probably correlated with higher PC incidence and mortality according World Cancer Research Foundation 2007 (9–13)."

We are so biologically different from a cow and the milk produced by a cow is significantly different. To think we can just feed this to humans with its bovine growth hormones and not have side effects is crazy.

davidjtaylor · 12-09-2019 6:00pm

Xcellor wrote: »

I feel like we are going around in circles.

That may be the point. Vegan Sidekick on FB illustrates the nonsensical tactics of last-worders quite well.

gozunda · 12-09-2019 11:31pm

davidjtaylor wrote: »

That may be the point. Vegan Sidekick on FB illustrates the nonsensical tactics of last-worders quite well.

Is it david? or do you just like attacking other posters from the sidelines as we have seen continuously, without you actually engaging in any discussion? It certainly does nothing to convince anyone else of such "nonsensical tactics" for sure.

gozunda · 13-09-2019 12:03am

Xcellor wrote: »

I feel like we are going around in circles. The process to make something is irrelevant if what it produces is nutritionally and chemically identical - from the point of being a source of food. A biological process is used, just not one that involves a cow. My OP was specifically about proteins that are extracted from dairy. "...if you can produce dairy proteins without the need for cows it would really be an enabler to reduce dairy coming from cows. It is lactose free and contains same proteins as cow milk*. So many products contain whey protein so the applications are huge. Why do you keep talking about whole milk? In a society that is becoming more aware of our impact on the environment we can't continue on a path of expanding dairy herds to meet demand from population growth. Something needs to change...
I don't believe dairy proteins are healthy and should be eaten by humans whether as part of whole milk or in isolate form."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6527888/". We are so biologically different from a cow and the milk produced by a cow is significantly different. To think we can just feed this to humans with its bovine growth hormones and not have side effects is crazy.

The point clearly already established is that the process is indeed relevant as it involves industrial production methods creating synthesised proteins whose usefulness or otherwise have yet to be shown. The endless promotion is very strange considering that it is simply another corporate commercial product.

And your own bias is clearly evident. Just because you believe that or want others to believe that - does not make it so. This from the NHS website on a healthy balanced diet.

Milk and dairy products, such as cheese and yoghurt, are great sources of protein and calcium. They can form part of a healthy, balanced diet.

As with all foods it comes with the caveat of dont eat too much. Simple really.

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/milk-and-dairy-nutrition/

It remains milk from dairy cows is a recognised as a wholesome and nutritious wholefood. That is how it is.

If as above however you attempt to claim dairy proteins are not healthy then how in dogs name can you then try and claim that producing "same proteins as cow milk*" are somehow then magically healthy?

Do you not see the contradictions and inherent bias - no?

You may note humans are also biologically different from plants - and all of which contain plant hormones. Humans however have been consuming both plants and dairy products for millennia and no we haven't turned into anything strange from eating either of these two food types.

"...if you can produce dairy proteins without the need for cows it would really be an enabler to reduce dairy coming from cows."

Strange you would continue to completely ignore the importance of cows as a means of livelihood and nutrition to the vast numbers of humans across the globe and instead support the industrialisation of synethised milk and 'isolates' by already wealthy financial corporate interests.

Keep telling others what they should be allowed to do - even where much of that direction seems to come from endless promotion presented by those pushing a commercial agenda ...

And its not just me saying that ...

Dana Perls, senior food campaigner for the environmental group Friends of the Earth — are concerned that the FDA will not give sufficient scrutiny to this new wave of synthetic proteins. Perls worries that the adoption of these proteins will make our food supply even more dependent on the fruits of biotechnology. "
...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/02/747026144/dairy-ice-cream-no-cow-needed-these-egg-and-milk-proteins-are-made-without-animalike

PainInTheArse · 13-09-2019 9:47pm

Its crazy that dairy is put up on such a high pedal stool

, its on most of the worlds food pyramids and plates (I think the Canadians have left it out) and yet up to 75% of the worlds population are lactose intolerant.

I reckon there is some major dairy propaganda going on. :P

gozunda · 13-09-2019 10:19pm

PainInTheArse wrote: »

Its crazy that dairy is put up on such a high pedal stool , its on most of the worlds food pyramids and plates (I think the Canadians have left it out) and yet up to 75% of the worlds population are lactose intolerant. I reckon there is some major dairy propaganda going on. :P

And yet as detailed above - in India alone there are 75 million dairy farm (many with just a couple of animals) but hey go figure. I hear they are very good at 'dairy propaganda' (sic) there ...

PainInTheArse · 14-09-2019 12:23pm

gozunda wrote: »

And yet as detailed above - in India alone there are 75 million dairy farm (many with just a couple of animals) but hey go figure. I hear they are very good at 'dairy propaganda' (sic) there ...

If you look at the Chinese food pyramid, they recommend 300g of milk and milk products. That's very bizarre for a country, in which over 90% of the population are lactose intolerant.

The Chinese are the 3rd largest milk producers in the world.

Markcheese · 14-09-2019 2:32pm

Most dairy isn't consumed as fresh milk, it's fermented in some way first.. (To varying degrees) which uses up amounts of lactose... And apparently this has been going on for 10s of thousands of years (since before Europeans had a lactose tolerance)
But if you don't like it, or it doesn't suit you don't eat it... Like nuts or whatever,
Choice is the big thing... You can pay for processed laughing cow, industrial Red cheddar,or pricier farmhouse cheeses, it's your money,
Same with vegan or veggie products..

gozunda · 14-09-2019 10:11pm

PainInTheArse wrote: »

If you look at the Chinese food pyramid, they recommend 300g of milk and milk products. That's very bizarre for a country, in which over 90% of the population are lactose intolerant.
The Chinese are the 3rd largest milk producers in the world.

Bizarre if you try and only use a guestimate for an entire population I suppose.

Taking a quck look at a variety of sources it would appear there are a number of different opinions on the percentage of prople in China who are lactose intolerant

Although there seem to be no official figures,
some chinese sources suggest that lactose intolerance only affects around 10% - 50% of the population.

Other studies indicate that lactose intolerance affects around 30% of Chinese children, and approx 92% of adults suffered from some degree of lactose mal-absorption.

And that's the thing about lactose - it is found in breast milk, and almost everyone is born with the ability to digest it. According to the literature - it is very rare to see lactose intolerance in young children up to the age of 5 - 7 years of age.

Lactose intolerance is something which develops with age and is usually caused by a decrease in lactase production.

So even if we ignore the lack of consistent data on the level of intolerance in adults and consider the diet of young children - then perhaps chinese food recommendations are not 'bizarre' at all.

Markcheese · 15-09-2019 3:09pm

Has anyone tried lactose free milk, does it taste the same ish as regular....? I'm pretty sure they just chuck in a bit of lactase to break down the lactose, (but I can't remember what it breaks down to....)

Xcellor · 18-09-2019 3:47pm

gozunda wrote: »

The point clearly already established is that the process is indeed relevant as it involves industrial production methods creating synthesised proteins whose usefulness or otherwise have yet to be shown. The endless promotion is very strange considering that it is simply another corporate commercial product.

And your own bias is clearly evident. Just because you believe that or want others to believe that - does not make it so. This from the NHS website on a healthy balanced diet.

As with all foods it comes with the caveat of dont eat too much. Simple really.

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/milk-and-dairy-nutrition/

It remains milk from dairy cows is a recognised as a wholesome and nutritious wholefood. That is how it is.

If as above however you attempt to claim dairy proteins are not healthy then how in dogs name can you then try and claim that producing "same proteins as cow milk*" are somehow then magically healthy?

Do you not see the contradictions and inherent bias - no?

You may note humans are also biologically different from plants - and all of which contain plant hormones. Humans however have been consuming both plants and dairy products for millennia and no we haven't turned into anything strange from eating either of these two food types.

"...if you can produce dairy proteins without the need for cows it would really be an enabler to reduce dairy coming from cows."

Strange you would continue to completely ignore the importance of cows as a means of livelihood and nutrition to the vast numbers of humans across the globe and instead support the industrialisation of synethised milk and 'isolates' by already wealthy financial corporate interests.

Keep telling others what they should be allowed to do - even where much of that direction seems to come from endless promotion presented by those pushing a commercial agenda ...

And its not just me saying that ...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/02/747026144/dairy-ice-cream-no-cow-needed-these-egg-and-milk-proteins-are-made-without-animalike

Is traditional agriculture and milk production is not already industrialized?

Interesting article you posted.

"If all this sounds a little too futuristic, consider this: Much of the cheese produced today already relies on the same technology in the form of rennet, an enzyme used to curdle milk. Cheese makers used to get it from the stomachs of slaughtered calves but for many years now, much of the rennet used for cheese has been made via microbial fermentation, notes Friedrich."

A further bit of information reveals this comes from none other than GM...

Fermentation-produced chymosin
Because of the above imperfections of microbial and animal rennets, many producers sought other replacements of rennet. With genetic engineering it became possible to isolate rennet genes from animals and introduce them into certain bacteria, fungi, or yeasts to make them produce chymosin during fermentation. The genetically modified microorganism is killed after fermentation and chymosin isolated from the fermentation broth, so that the fermentation-produced chymosin (FPC) used by cheese producers does not contain a GMO or any GMO DNA. FPC is identical to chymosin made by an animal, but is produced in a more efficient way. FPC products have been on the market since 1990 and, because the quantity needed per unit of milk can be standardized, are commercially viable alternatives to crude animal or plant rennets, as well as generally preferred to them.[8]

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennet

So another working example of how animals were taken out of one process which previously required them.

I can understand why dairy industry would oppose this as it threatens a big chunk of their industry.

Many dairy farmers are also not on board. For one thing, says Alan Bjerga of the National Milk Producers Federation, an industry group that represents dairy producers, products made with synthetic dairy proteins may not have the same nutritional profile – such as vitamin and mineral content — as those made with milk from real cows.

This is a nonsense statement. Obviously a protein isolate is not going to have vitamins and minerals anymore than a protein isolate from cow milk would. These "synthetic dairy proteins" do NOT replace whole milk but as stated there are many applications where whole milk is NOT required.

gozunda · 25-09-2019 10:42pm

Xcellor wrote: »

Is traditional agriculture and milk production is not already industrialized? Interesting article you posted.
A further bit of information reveals this comes from none other than GM... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennet So another working example of how animals were taken out of one process which previously required them. I can understand why dairy industry would oppose this as it threatens a big chunk of their industry. This is a nonsense statement. Obviously a protein isolate is not going to have vitamins and minerals anymore than a protein isolate from cow milk would. These "synthetic dairy proteins" do NOT replace whole milk but as stated there are many applications where whole milk is NOT required.

My apologies. I only saw your reply now. As to your first question.

"Is traditional agriculture and milk production is not already industrialised? "

Simple answer is no. Most milk is produced on family farms. It is true that the milking process itself has become more efficient with the use of on farm milking parlours. But the process is not 'industrialised' or based in factories. Animals spend most of their time outdoors grazing and return to the milking parlour themselves at certain times of the day. It's quite amazing to see cows making their own way for milking and lining up to be let in.

Milk is collected and sent to one of a number of dairy co-ops for bottling and sterilisation as required by law. In Ireland dairy co-ops have been in operation for at least 170 years. In the old days the churns were brought by ass and cart. These days it is transported by milk tanker.

As for the rennet example. It's not that 'animals were taken out of the process" rather a solution to the variable supply of natural Rennet was developed by scientists due to seasonal variations in supply - this is detailed in your wiki link. Dairy farmers do not oppose the use of artificial rennet - as it makes the use of whole milk in cheese making a viable operation. The Rennent is simply the an enzyme
which plays a very small (but fairly essential) part in the making of cheese.

As for whole milk - from the website the company set up to produce and market this synethised product are selling it as 'milk'. With this being promoted as one of their primary products. So indeed these "synthetic dairy proteins" are being used as a substitute for whole milk. Hence the comparison

TheFortField · 26-09-2019 8:15pm

Danzy wrote: »

The rainforests are being burnt for Soy.

Almond milk is as environmentally catastrophic product as one can find.

As is the continuing corporatization of agri at the expense of small producers.

I drink Almond milk on a daily basis, is there a more environmentally friendly alternative milk?

I’ve ruled out a number of alternative milks for various reasons:

I don’t consume any soya products, soya milk included
I’ve concerns about arsenic levels in rice milk
I’ve an intolerance to gluten so oat milk is out

What’s left?

Xcellor · 27-09-2019 12:21am

TheFortField wrote: »

I drink Almond milk on a daily basis, is there a more environmentally friendly alternative milk?

I’ve ruled out a number of alternative milks for various reasons:

I don’t consume any soya products, soya milk included
I’ve concerns about arsenic levels in rice milk
I’ve an intolerance to gluten so oat milk is out

What’s left?

What's wrong with soya are you allergic to it?

Not sure what is the most environmentally friendly, ive seen hemp milk before. Hemp can even grow in Ireland

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/tillage/wanted-farmers-to-grow-5000-acres-of-hemp-for-westmeath-firm-38292515.html

Maybe the new cash cow...

Xcellor · 27-09-2019 12:37am

gozunda wrote: »

My apologies. I only saw your reply now. As to your first question.

"Is traditional agriculture and milk production is not already industrialised? "

Simple answer is no. Most milk is produced on family farms. It is true that the milking process itself has become more efficient with the use of on farm milking parlours. But the process is not 'industrialised' or based in factories. Animals spend most of their time outdoors grazing and return to the milking parlour themselves at certain times of the day. It's quite amazing to see cows making their own way for milking and lining up to be let in.

Milk is collected and sent to one of a number of dairy co-ops for bottling and sterilisation as required by law. In Ireland dairy co-ops have been in operation for at least 170 years. In the old days the churns were brought by ass and cart. These days it is transported by milk tanker.

As for the rennet example. It's not that 'animals were taken out of the process" rather a solution to the variable supply of natural Rennet was developed by scientists due to seasonal variations in supply - this is detailed in your wiki link. Dairy farmers do not oppose the use of artificial rennet - as it makes the use of whole milk in cheese making a viable operation. The Rennent is simply the an enzyme
which plays a very small (but fairly essential) part in the making of cheese.

As for whole milk - from the website the company set up to produce and market this synethised product are selling it as 'milk'. With this being promoted as one of their primary products. So indeed these "synthetic dairy proteins" are being used as a substitute for whole milk. Hence the comparison

I disagree with your assessment of the dairy industry. It's referred to as an industry for a reason. Even the cows that are used have been bred to ensure they produce as much milk as possible. Very unnatural. But then so is always being pregnant too. Poor animals that are subjected to this cycle over and over again, there is no retirement for them - just a trip to a slaughter house when they are no longer as profitable as they could be.

The example of rennet is to show how a product that you would class as synthetic can be just as good (in this case even better) than one extracted from animals. These synthetic proteins which are nutritionally identical to those extracted from cows milk also have significant advantages. The big one is not needing to have cows involved...

I'm more interested in the technology in general. I think it could be a huge disruptor and given the huge consumption of dairy products and the environmental impact associated with it we need to be challenging the status quo.

gozunda · 27-09-2019 11:58am

Xcellor wrote: »

I disagree with your assessment of the dairy industry. It's referred to as an industry for a reason. Even the cows that are used have been bred to ensure they produce as much milk as possible. Very unnatural. But then so is always being pregnant too. Poor animals that are subjected to this cycle over and over again, there is no retirement for them - just a trip to a slaughter house when they are no longer as profitable as they could be.
The example of rennet is to show how a product that you would class as synthetic can be just as good (in this case even better) than one extracted from animals. These synthetic proteins which are nutritionally identical to those extracted from cows milk also have significant advantages. The big one is not needing to have cows involved...I'm more interested in the technology in general. I think it could be a huge disruptor and given the huge consumption of dairy products and the environmental impact associated with it we need to be challenging the status quo.

Well I'd be surprised if you argued otherwise as a vegan

. But no the primary production of milk is not an industrial process. Family farms are not 'industies'. Cows are still cows and do what cows do. That breeding has improved this aspect of milk production is something which is possible through good management practices.

The cows being pregnant is much the same as that which happens in the wild. Once a wild cow gives birth - the cow will go in heat and be impregnated - that's how it works. The main difference here being - that domestic cows are cared for and looked after by humans. Yes older animals are slaughtered and that is part and parcel of responsible farming. In the wild the same animals would be predated or starve to death. Good Animal welfare practises ensures that animals are humanely killed and then processed as food.

The relevant issue with rennet is that it is simply an enzyme and not a final product. What you are advocating is a wholey synthesised product which does not exist outside a laboratory. Tbh I never could understand why those who are vegan - (widely promoted as a diet based on natural wholefoods) inexplicably choose to advocate for such highly processed synthesised products funded by huge corporate interests.

The fact is that all food production globally contributes less than a quarter of all emissions and more importantly feeds people and provides for peoples livelihoods whether that is a small farmer in India with two cows or one here with 60.

It remains the bulk of greenhouse emissions (approx 70 - 80 %) come from the use of fossil fuels in the energy and transport sector and crazy that cows have become the virtual football in the game of food fashion wars and market share.

davidjtaylor · 27-09-2019 12:15pm

TheFortField wrote: »

I drink Almond milk on a daily basis, is there a more environmentally friendly alternative milk?

I’ve ruled out a number of alternative milks for various reasons:

I don’t consume any soya products, soya milk included
I’ve concerns about arsenic levels in rice milk
I’ve an intolerance to gluten so oat milk is out

What’s left?

It depends on where the almonds come from. Organic almonds from the EU are best. Avoid Californian.

Check out with specific manufacturers to find the origins of their ingredients.

Or better still make your own almond milk, it's simple and you can ensure you get organic EU almonds. It gets rid of the disastrous packaging that is Tetrapak too.

P.S. these people who blame vegans for destruction of rainforest for soy. Bollix. Most rainforest soy is fed to cattle; the bulk of the rest is consumed directly as a cheap bulking agent and as lecithin etc. So in reality, practically every scrap of rainforest soy is consumed by meat-eaters!

emaherx · 27-09-2019 1:38pm

Xcellor wrote: »

I disagree with your assessment of the dairy industry. It's referred to as an industry for a reason. Even the cows that are used have been bred to ensure they produce as much milk as possible. Very unnatural. But then so is always being pregnant too. Poor animals that are subjected to this cycle over and over again, there is no retirement for them - just a trip to a slaughter house when they are no longer as profitable as they could be.

The example of rennet is to show how a product that you would class as synthetic can be just as good (in this case even better) than one extracted from animals. These synthetic proteins which are nutritionally identical to those extracted from cows milk also have significant advantages. The big one is not needing to have cows involved...

I'm more interested in the technology in general. I think it could be a huge disruptor and given the huge consumption of dairy products and the environmental impact associated with it we need to be challenging the status quo.

Cows being always pregnant is very unatueral?
What? Why? And how?

If anything farmers extend the period between pregnancy compared to nature, this is to allow cows calve in batch's at convenient times of the year it's actually not possible to shorten it. Many animals have much shorter gestational times and have multiple litters a year, as far as I know humans are the only animals who plan for not being pregnant.

Vegan dairy - The end of using cows?

Comments