Vegan dairy - The end of using cows?

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 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

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 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

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 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 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 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 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 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...