Made from ‘mungo’ beans according to the photo. Mary and Midge would approve.
I’d be interested to give ‘em a go.
Does this mean the vegan option is now the same as the vegetarian option?
An omelette?
I’d be interested to give ‘em a go
I will stick with Aquafaba for all my Vegan bakes for now,but please leave feedback on how your 'omelette' works out 😉 🤣
So an ultra processed substitute for a natural product. No thanks
So an ultra processed substitute for a natural product. No thanks
You're going to shit yourself when you find out about bananas and lemons.
You're going to shit yourself when you find out about bananas and lemons.
I'm not following - what's ultra processed about them?
As a vegan the only thing I really miss is a nice poached egg. This looks like it will be good for omelettes and scrambled eggs.
Will probably give it a try but I really like scrambled tofu so can't see myself switching long term. And for baking I normally use aquafaba so will probably stick with that.
I’m diary free so I eat plenty of vegan options … but some of it is just ultra processed and grim… most vegan “cheese”
I'm not following - what's ultra processed about them?
Lemons don't exist in nature, they're a man-made hybrid.
Bananas - the ones we eat here - are essentially clones, they can't reproduce. They all come from one strain, Cavendish. (IIRC, banana flavouring comes from a different strain which is why banana sweets don't really taste much like bananas.)
Just a couple of examples off the top of my head, I'm far from an expert here but I'm sure there's many more. Your "natural" food probably isn't as unsullied as you think it is.
I'm not following - what's ultra processed about them?
Lemons don't exist in nature, they're a man-made hybrid.
Bananas - the ones we eat here - are essentially clones, they can't reproduce. They all come from one strain, Cavendish. (IIRC, banana flavouring comes from a different strain which is why banana sweets don't really taste much like bananas.)
Just a couple of examples off the top of my head, I'm far from an expert here but I'm sure there's many more. Your "natural" food probably isn't as unsullied as you think it is.
Genetically modified via selective breeding over many years, yes, but not processed, well, unless you wizz them up in a blender, then they are processed and GM!!!! won't somebody think of the children!? 🍔 🍟 🍕
Genetically modified via selective breeding over many years, yes, but not processed
I was replying to the "natural" claim really, I should've chosen my quoting better. It was chrismac who pulled "ultra-processed" out of his arse without any further qualification.
Are these vegan eggs "ultra-processed"? Does that make them inherently bad, or is it just a lazy argument to beat on vegans / vegan-friendly food developments (because why else would he even be reading this anyway)? Is there anything particularly natural about human beings eating unfertilised chicken ovulations?
Can someone mention "chemicals" next perhaps, I'll almost have a complete line on my Bingo card then.
IIRC, banana flavouring comes from a different strain which is why banana sweets don't really taste much like bananas.
That'll be the Big Mike banana, which got nearly wiped out by a disease in the 1950's
Are these vegan eggs "ultra-processed"?
From what I've read they appear to fall into the "processed" category as do many foods we eat. UPFs are the ones which are stuffed full of rubbish to make them "moreish". In small quantities they are unlikely to do any harm but as your main diet they are unhealthy.
Is there anything particularly natural about human beings eating unfertilised chicken ovulations?
Given that as a species we are omnivores I would say it's perfectly natural yes.
Quick question for Vegans.
When my wife is cooking bacon I love the smell and it makes my mouth water with anticipation.
Do you get he same when someone mows their lawn?
That'll be the Big Mike banana, which got nearly wiped out by a disease in the 1950's
I recently saw the explanation of that.
Disease ravaged the 'bike mike' strain, and to save the banana trade they looked at all the strains and picked one that closely matched the big mike for taste, sweetness etc, that being Cavendish.
But the point of the story was by sticking to the one strain, they are setting themselves up for another banana disease, that if it develops will wipe out the Cavendish strain, and kill the trade.
Unless of course they develop something to combat it.
PS. It's 'Mung' beans. Mungo is the patron saint of Glasgow 😉
The whole Big Mie / Cavendish thing is a problem for lots of industries.
The most profitable thing for your particular company is to to X (Grow Cavendish) but the best thing for your industry is to have a diversity of options. Do you make your company less profitable by growing a banana that is less profitable and might not even sell because it isn't what everyone expects?
People want a banana to taste like a banana but the only banana they have ever tasted is a Cavendish so they want that type of banana and anything else is wrong or inferior.
Imagine if it was the same for cheese...
Are these vegan eggs "ultra-processed"?
I haven't read the article as it's behind a paywall but I can't see how the mungo beans can't have gone through multiple processes to apparently vaguely resemble chicken eggs.
Surely if they haven't been significantly processed it will be just a case of eating mungo beans and eggs don't need to be mentioned?
The comparison with bananas and lemons is just weird. You buy a bunch of bananas, clones or not, and they definitely haven't been processed. Nor have lemons. Apples you buy are almost all hybrid but fresh fruit cannot, by definition , be classed as processed food.
So an ultra processed substitute for a natural product. No thanks
I haven't read the article as it's behind a paywall
The comparison with bananas and lemons is just weird.
Again, the comparison was around use of the word "natural."
I'll just leave this here...
Yup harsh as it is, it is probably pretty humane as it goes.Instantaneous.
While nobody is preventing people from choosing a vegetarian lifestyle, its not wholly without its problems.
Chickens are one thing, but they aren't responsible for the loss of pollinators.
So I'll just leave this here ...
Several insecticides used on crops are considered dangerous due to their potential harm to human health and the environment.Some notable examples include neonicotinoids, organophosphates, and pyrethroids.These insecticides can have negative impacts on pollinators like bees, and some have been linked to cancer, neurological damage, and endocrine disruption
I haven't read the article as it's behind a paywall but I can't see how the mungo beans can't have gone through multiple processes to apparently vaguely resemble chicken eggs.
I don't think there's much resemblance, it's a liquid poured from a bottle. If it's anything like the homemade plant based eggs it'll be a bit meh
While nobody is preventing people from choosing a vegetarian lifestyle, its not wholly without its problems.
Which also applies to livestock feed.
While nobody is preventing people from choosing a vegetarian lifestyle, its not wholly without its problems.
Chickens are one thing, but they aren't responsible for the loss of pollinators.
So I'll just leave this here ...
One of the first things you learn if you take on a vegan lifestyle is to prepare yourself to be accused of hypocrisy for not living a life pure as the driven snow, free of any impact. The ignorance in the 'accuser' is the crushing naivety that I don't know that already! People who make these decisions for ethical (animal welfare or environmental or both) think about this stuff and read up about this stuff way way more than your average member of the population. No one is a harsher critic of a vegan for not doing more or still having a negative impact on the planet or fellow creatures than themselves.
So my response to this is .......you really think I don't know this already?
The environmental and animal welfare impact of growing a plant based diet is way more than I'm comfortable with. The only comfort is knowing that counter intuitively the crops grown to sustain me is orders of magnitude less than that needed to sustain the western lifestyle meat eater I could have been.
Yup harsh as it is, it is probably pretty humane as it goes.Instantaneous.
Bit of a stretch of the word humane. Whether the death is instantaneous or not, it's the fate of a lifeform to be brought into this world to simply be ground up alive without any chance at life by a machine made by humans? That's humane?
Yours,
a chicken & egg eater.
The environmental and animal welfare impact of growing a plant based diet is way more than I'm comfortable with. The only comfort is knowing that counter intuitively the crops grown to sustain me is orders of magnitude less than that needed to sustain the western lifestyle meat eater I could have been.
I was just thinking about the numerous times the topic of environmental impact of growing crops to feed humans, or livestock pops up and how much UK farmland is used for livestock feed comes up. WWF have done a piece on that fairly recently.
https://www.wwf.org.uk/press-release/transform-uk-farmland-boost-food-resilience
Wheat and barley grown to feed farmed animals in the UK uses 2 million hectares of land - 40% of the UK’s arable land area.
Wheat grown in the UK each year to feed livestock (primarily chickens and pigs), makes up half of our annual wheat harvest and would be enough to produce nearly 11 billion loaves of bread.[1,2]
Oats grown in the UK to feed livestock each year makes up a third of our annual oat harvest and would be enough to produce nearly 6 billion bowls of porridge.
The UK imports large quantities of soy to feed pigs and poultry, fuelling the destruction of precious habitats overseas, like the Brazilian Cerrado.
some have been linked to cancer, neurological damage, and endocrine disruption
Ah, "linked to."
In unrelated news, has anyone heard from jivehoneyjive lately?
In unrelated news, has anyone heard from jivehoneyjive lately?
Probably better posting a thread on it, rather than tacked onto the end of this one.
Hope he's ok though. Kind of goes as we age, you dont hear from someone for a time and worry something might have happened to them, and the reason for the sudden thought is not a good one.
Ahh 'linked to'
Come on now old chap, lets not be disingenuous 'linked to is pretty much an acceptance that there is a link worth taking note of, and not just dismissing.
Lead pipes in houses 'linked to' health issues. Certain drugs linked to health problems in pregnancy etc etc.
Bit of a stretch of the word humane. Whether the death is instantaneous or not, it's the fate of a lifeform to be brought into this world to simply be ground up alive without any chance at life by a machine made by humans? That's humane?
Horrifying as it is, and it is horrifying, its certainly a lot quicker than the old method of drowning them. Thank god for the EU for giving the British meat industry a sharp kick up the backside. There were many traditional methods used in industry that were far from humane
They pretty much put a stop to those practices.
Having worked and studied at the sharp end i wholly agree, killing animals for food while natural, is indeed horrifying to contemplate.
But it is what it is, and we could get into the argument on how we would feed the other 78% who are omnivores
Do we have enough arable land ?. would the weather be kind enough not to destroy large swathes of crops, possibly leading to a bit of a famine, which tbf when it comes to barmy weather, the UK fairly tops the list
Ironically, "putting all of ones eggs in one basket" isn't something we should look to be doing for the sake of the minority, no matter how passionate they are about animal welfare.
Perrhaps one day they will be able to grow it in a laboratory, and I for one would welcome such technology.
I used to get into long discussions with me old mate Dave on this subject. Despite both of us being omnivores, we would mull over the moral implications of killing for food and the technology we have and whether it should be expanded, as we are now seeing these days with lab* grown meat protein.
* Calm down doggie lovers, I'm referring to laboratory not Labradors.
I believe the latter tends to be a bit fatty.
Do we have enough arable land ?. would the weather be kind enough not to destroy large swathes of crops, possibly leading to a bit of a famine, which tbf when it comes to barmy weather, the UK fairly tops the list
Same for the livestock feed covering 40% of arable land...
You could have a reasonably credible position of "I'll only eat Beef and Lamb that are wholly grass fed". But I'm not sure the UK as a whole is ready to ditch bacon sarnies or chicken anytime soon. (Ignoring personal ethics and just thinking of food security)
Let's assume for a moment that we turn over that 40% to producing wheat and oats for bread and porridge. Is there a demand for that much bread and porridge?
I don't think there's a rule meaning you can only grow two crops. Not that it matters, as Pork and Chicken farming are going to continue.
I don't think there's a rule meaning you can only grow two crops. Not that it matters, as Pork and Chicken farming are going to continue.
Let's assume for a moment that we turn over that 40% to producing wheat and oats for bread and porridge. Is there a demand for that much bread and porridge?
Probably not and we will end up just handing the land back to nature....... what then?!?!?
Is there a demand for that much bread and porridge?
As said, that's making an assumption that the land is unsuitable to grow anything else. Or the land used for human equivalent crop consumption* could not grow anything else. Or the land previously used to grow the animals could not be used for something else.
It's obviously a lot more complicated than that and to a certain extent the whole thing is symbiotic and would need remodelled. But folk way clever than me put pretty substantial figures on how much cultivated land could be returned to nature or how much more self sustaining nations like the UK could be for food, or both.
* Tbh this isn't really a thing most of the time - it's more a case that the worst quality 40% goes into animal consumption rather than farmers necessarily going out to grow it specifically for that purpose.
While nobody is preventing people from choosing a vegetarian lifestyle, its not wholly without its problems
Flatulence?
Herbivore farts are always so much more pleasant than the farts of meat eaters such as dogs, or humans.
And have you ever smelt a pigeon's fart? No? I rest my case.
One of the first things you learn if you take on a vegan lifestyle is to prepare yourself to be accused of hypocrisy for not living a life pure as the driven snow, free of any impact.
When faced with someone who doesn't eat meat there does seem to be an overwhelming urge to point-score for many people, like whichever twerp it was who felt the need to make the "yes but bacon / eating grass" comment of which I'm still recovering both from its hilarity and its originality.
Come on now old chap, lets not be disingenuous 'linked to is pretty much an acceptance that there is a link worth taking note of, and not just dismissing.
Is it though?
In isolation it's meaningless. Some things which have been "linked to" other things have indeed turned out to be true of course, but things get "linked to" other things all the time, especially if it makes for a juicy headline or generates clicks. And of course, some people just want to watch the world burn.
Whilst not normally an area I know much about I happened to be out in America when the ZOMG FERTILISER IS KILLING BEES story broke over here so I watched a couple of documentaries about it. There were a lot of people saying it was nonsense at the time, but as it turned out those "links" do appear to have been valid. There have been multiple studies and its banning was backed by Defra and the HSE. Amusingly (unless you're a bee), Gove promised that brexit would 'allow' us to ban it; instead the brexit benefit we actually received was that whilst the EU subsequently banned the use of neonicotinoid pesticides the UK did not. That decision was finally overturned just this year, something that the "what do you expect from Labour" brigade have been strangely quiet about. I guess they were probably too busy intercepting charity rowers to notice.
But.
That doesn't mean we can just backfill "linked to" between things whenever we please without further qualification, that's Daily Mail territory. Linked by whom? On what basis? The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides or some bloke in the street going "I haven't seen many bees this year, makes you think"? You can't just "leave this here" without telling us what you're leaving.
Thank god for the EU for giving the British meat industry a sharp kick up the backside. There were many traditional methods used in industry that were far from humane
They pretty much put a stop to those practices.
Odd, I thought we'd left and could do what we wanted now.
Do we have enough arable land ?
I read a "what if..." article in New Scientist several years ago. Their conclusion was that as of today (ie, when printed) there is insufficient arable-capable land mass to support a wholly vegetarian population. So as how evil we may or may not think using animals for food is, it is as far as I'm aware a necessary one.
Assuming the article to be true - I've no reason to think that the NS would lie but it's possible to be wrong and it was a while ago now that I read it - it's one reason (amongst many) that I think the Meat Is Murder types do more harm than good. Their cause is laudable but their methods are questionable and their end goal in untenable.
Assuming the article to be true
A friend in North Yorkshire married a potato farmer, his crop is almost exclusively sent for either cheap oven ready chips, or crisps. As the soil just isn't that good. They're nutritionally quite poor.
We don't t grow enough livestock feed either.
If you're recalling an article from years ago, I do recommend taking a look at the WWF report linked in the article I shared up thread. Although it's not a 5 minute read.
his crop is almost exclusively sent for either cheap oven ready chips, or crisps
So critical national infrastructure then?
What we, human's, do to other creatures to create you that 'natural' egg is an abomination we should be mortified to be party to.
May I kindly suggest you dont watch any of David Attenborough’s many programmes. In all cases you will watch animals eating other animals whilst they are still alive. Last week there was a section on how the offspring of one spider species that eat their parent alive so they can grow. At least we have the decency to kill animals before we eat them
... usually.
In other non-trolling news, how about some butter to go with those eggs?
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/butter-carbon-bill-gates-batavia-illinois
Odd, I thought we'd left and could do what we wanted now
Oh wake up and smell the sausages !!. This was clearly implied as being WHILE we were part of the largest marketplace in the history of the world
Apologies, I thought you wrote "There were many traditional methods used in industry that were far more humane" and was being sarcastic. My bad there.
I haven't read the article as it's behind a paywall but I can't see how the mungo beans can't have gone through multiple processes to apparently vaguely resemble chicken eggs.
It's weird, you're Ok with taking beans*, processing them, feeding them to animals, letting them digest it, then slaughtering them, processing the meat, and then still don't call it processed.
Cooking up the same beans, condensing the resulting water and putting it through a high sheer mixer** is processed?
As a vegetarian I can obviously only dream of having the energy to perform those mental gymnastics 😂
In an ironic twist on the argument, B12, the carnivores gotcha vitamin because it's in meat but not veg, is only needed because everyone's diet is too processed and the 'natural' source of it would be bacteria in your gut that got there from unwashed veg 🤷
*80% of soy goes to animal feed, not fancy milk and tofu
**I'm just assuming it's a variation on aquafaba
Quick question for Vegans.
When my wife is cooking bacon I love the smell and it makes my mouth water with anticipation.
Do you get he same when someone mows their lawn?
how about some butter to go with those eggs?
Wow. Butter made from industrial waste! What a time to be alive. It's like something out of the Simpsons.
I read a "what if..." article in New Scientist several years ago. Their conclusion was that as of today (ie, when printed) there is insufficient arable-capable land mass to support a wholly vegetarian population. So as how evil we may or may not think using animals for food is, it is as far as I'm aware a necessary one.
I'm open minded to being proved wrong if you can find the source of that claim, but I'm also 100% sure that is utter bull****
It takes huge amounts of arable land just to grow the crops to feed to the animals so they can inefficiently extract the protein and turn it into meat.
Look back at wartime rationing for an illustration, the last time we had to be as close to self sufficient as possible, meat was rationed, dairy was rationed.
veg - not rationed
cereals - not rationed
bread - not rationed (although apparently the quality went downhill)
beans and pulses - not rationed
The only vegan items that were rationed were sugar and preserves (assuming pectin not gelatin).
cereals - not rationed
IWM reckons this was rationed. Although in a different way.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-you-need-to-know-about-rationing-in-the-second-world-war
It takes huge amounts of arable land just to grow the crops to feed to the animals so they can inefficiently extract the protein and turn it into meat.
Poultry and Pigs, yes, cattle, and Sheep particular, not so much.
Poultry and Pigs, yes, cattle, and Sheep particular, not so much.
Sheep are somewhat of an outlier as they do survive on otherwise unproductive land. Although you have to view that in the context of a relatively small industry it therefore responsible to the deforestation of large areas of the countryside. They still consume about 7.5% of the UK animal feed though.
Cattle on the other hand consume 37% the UK's animal feed. Ruminants (sheep and cattle) overall get about 25% of their food from feed. Of the remainder Poultry takes up about 32%, pigs about 15%.
Overall though just over half of the UK cereals production ends up in animal feed.
And I think (although the AHDB data isn't entirely clear on this) there's a gap in that analysis that beans and pulses aren't included. i.e. half the current arable land is currently used just for animal feed, and I think we import other feedstuffs on top of that.
My math's and interpretation was slightly out, i divided total feed by total cereal and didn't account for not all feed being cereal.
UK wheat and barley production is ~21,000,000 tones
UK beef production is ~900,000 tones.
UK animal feed accounts for about 6,000,000 tones wheat and barely, and 1,200,000 tones soya, 37% ends up in beef (assumed evenly distributed).
So for every 100g of beef (a metrically short changed quarter pounder) you need 44g of soya, and 240g cereals, and some other stuff like seed oils.
So roughly 1/3 of cereal arable land is producing animal feed, plus the grazing land. That's a lot of land you could be growing human food on.
Going by the WWF report, Beef in the UK is 79% grass fed, sheep 86%. I'll have a re-read see if it gives a breakdown, a chunk of the remaining 21% is attributed to "food industry by products.
So roughly 1/3 of cereal arable land is producing animal feed, plus the grazing land. That's a lot of land you could be growing human food on.
I mean yeh, I have made that point way up thread.
I'm open minded to being proved wrong if you can find the source of that claim, but I'm also 100% sure that is utter bull****
You may well be right.
I've told you my source, it was an article in the New Scientist magazine. My partner of the time bought it so it would have been, I don't know, maybe ten years ago? I read it whilst I was having a poo if that helps you any, perhaps even across a succession of visits.
What their sources were, and whether it was a diligently researched piece of investigative journalism or a puff piece to fill out a few pages, I have no idea.
Going by the WWF report, Beef in the UK is 79% grass fed, sheep 86%. I'll have a re-read see if it gives a breakdown, a chunk of the remaining 21% is attributed to "food industry by products.
I haven't read the article as it's behind a paywall but I can't see how the mungo beans can't have gone through multiple processes to apparently vaguely resemble chicken eggs.
It's weird, you're Ok with taking beans*, processing them, feeding them to animals, letting them digest it, then slaughtering them, processing the meat, and then still don't call it processed.
Cooking up the same beans, condensing the resulting water and putting it through a high sheer mixer** is processed?
As a vegetarian I can obviously only dream of having the energy to perform those mental gymnastics 😂
What a weird rant. It is obviously directed at me since you specifically quote me. How have you come to the conclusion that I am okay with feeding beans to. animals ? I haven't eaten meat for over 25 years.
I still stick to my comment that I can't see how the mung beans can't have gone through multiple processes to apparently vaguely resemble chicken eggs.
Beans and chicken eggs are clearly very different foods and to get one looking or tasting like the other must by definition require multiple processes.
Chrismac's comment with regards to eggs being natural, and ultra processed mung beans not, was perfectly reasonable imo, whatever cougar thinks.
Now whether ultra processed mung beans are a perfectly healthy alternative to chicken eggs is a whole different argument, but you can't deny the difference between the two.
The product is called Just Egg. Here is a list of ingredients from the website bestservedvegan
Based on that list I'm going to say it's ultra-processed.
May I kindly suggest you dont watch any of David Attenborough’s many programmes. In all cases you will watch animals eating other animals whilst they are still alive. Last week there was a section on how the offspring of one spider species that eat their parent alive so they can grow. At least we have the decency to kill animals before we eat them
It's good you look so high when you set your moral compass. Are your kids the same; are you constantly looking over your shoulder in case one of them gets a bit hungry? I mean, do you ever look at your sister and think....she's a bit of alright? If so, skim read Dr. John Fitzpatrick's 2021 paper on the subject and follow the findings (mating with relatives is surprisingly common in some species) and boom, rutting with your sister (or balls deep in your mum) is on the cards with no guilty conscious. I mean, some animals do it so it's good enough for you right?
Or......maybe consider looking further afield, or even internally, for your moral choices. For me it's a twofold thing. Firstly, I make little distinction between humans and the rest of animal life when it comes to respect. I choose to avoid exploitation and creating suffering for an animal in the same way I make choices to not inflict the same for my fellow mankind*. Many humans demonstrate speciesism in a lot of their decision making and judgements (how they treat their own dog or expect others to treat theirs and what they are prepared to accept to happen to a pig in order to have a cheap bacon sarnie for example) - that's something I elect not to do. Secondly, I attempt to separate need and want. I don't 'need' to exploit animals to ensure my own survival in the way my forebears probably needed to. To do so now is a conscious choice - you are putting your 'want' for a bacon sarnie ahead of the suffering of pigs required by modern farming practices to get it on your plate for a price you are prepared to pay. It's done at arm's length and the food chain sanitises it nicely for you so you don't need to think about it - but you are still making that conscious choice. There is no case you can make that it is a 'need'.
It's my belief that in 300 years we'll look back at how we take advantage of animals now very much in the same way we look back at humanity's use of slavery for millennia today. Which side of history do you want to be on?
*As stated previously - I know my life will not be free of impact and it's something I regret and look to minimise. Ignorance is no excuse but sometimes it takes some working on and constant adjustments.
The product is called Just Egg
You could definitely have ‘em under the trades descriptions act for that.
Using the same principles, here’s my latest new product I’m presently focus grouping ‘Just Sausage’…
It's my belief that in 300 years we'll look back at how we take advantage of animals now very much in the same way we look back at humanity's use of slavery for millennia today. Which side of history do you want to be on?
It’s equally as likely that the AI Death-bots who will be ruling over is with an iron fist by that point, high on old Andrew Tate implants, will have developed a taste for raw meat and will be harvesting us humans like highland cows, to lightly and eat with chips and a peppercorn sauce
Makes you think….
It's good you look so high when you set your moral compass. Are your kids the same; are you constantly looking over your shoulder in case one of them gets a bit hungry? I mean, do you ever look at your sister and think....she's a bit of alright? If so, skim read Dr. John Fitzpatrick's 2021 paper on the subject and follow the findings (mating with relatives is surprisingly common in some species) and boom, rutting with your sister (or balls deep in your mum) is on the cards with no guilty conscious. I mean, some animals do it so it's good enough for you right?
Er no is the answer to that one.
It's my belief that in 300 years we'll look back at how we take advantage of animals now very much in the same way we look back at humanity's use of slavery for millennia today. Which side of history do you want to be on?
You can believe what you like about what happens in 300 years. None of us will be around to know or care.
You can believe what you like about what happens in 300 years. None of us will be around to know or care.
Using the same principles, here’s my latest new product I’m presently focus grouping ‘Just Sausage’…
I assume you'll be taking a similar stand over turkey "sausages" which are completely bereft of pork?
I assume you'll be taking a similar stand over turkey "sausages" which are completely bereft of pork?
Who said that sausages have to be made out of pork?
If you can make eggs out of mungbeans, and famously triangles from a cow, then I can make sausages out of green beans and market them as ‘Just Sausage’ 😛
can make sausages out of green beans and market them as ‘Just Sausage’
Too right you can. You can do a lot with a sausage.....you should hear what Chrismac is considering doing with his little chipolata....
I'm off on a boat to film a pod of dolphins in a minute. Male dolphins are infamous for raping porpoises - not too fussy about the gender apparently. Any hole's a goal and all that. So Chris, if family are off limits there's always that. I mean other animals do it so....it all good right?
So roughly 1/3 of cereal arable land is producing animal feed, plus the grazing land. That's a lot of land you could be growing human food on.
But it is not just about how much arable land we have, and how much of that can be turned to produce food for us.
Weather plays a huge part - which some of you might have noticed is somewhat different from the past. Even this year its been warm sunshine, perhaps a bit humid spaced with periods of torrential rain. Which im pretty sure is not an ideal scenario when harvesting crops.
Looking at it by the numbers alone is a misleading half argument, because its not taking all aspects into account.
Looking at it by the numbers alone is a misleading half argument, because its not taking all aspects into account.
Too right. It's not taking into account all the plant based material imported to feed UK based animals for starters.
I think it's also important we don't get too little Englander about it - feeding humans is a global phenomenon and probably needs a global solution.
Even this year its been warm sunshine, perhaps a bit humid spaced with periods of torrential rain. Which im pretty sure is not an ideal scenario when harvesting crops
This is why, as in this case, science needs to provide the answers. We need to assess the new climate, deal with this new reality and alter our diets accordingly. I’m working on a way to make steak out of coconuts
Or......maybe consider looking further afield, or even internally, for your moral choices. For me it's a twofold thing. Firstly, I make little distinction between humans and the rest of animal life when it comes to respect. I choose to avoid exploitation and creating suffering for an animal in the same way I make choices to not inflict the same for my fellow mankind*.
...
*As stated previously - I know my life will not be free of impact and it's something I regret and look to minimise. Ignorance is no excuse but sometimes it takes some working on and constant adjustments.
What you're dancing around is that ultimately many decisions we make are a compromise. We all decide where our "moral compass" lies and then once that's decided then obviously everyone is wrong. When I drive somewhere, anyone slower than me is a doddery old fool who is under the feet and anyone faster is a psychopath who is surely going to cause a collision.
Add morals into the mix and you've got justification for whatever lifestyle choices you make, I expect few people consider themselves to be immoral (aside from those with Catholic Guilt inflicted upon them).
Many humans demonstrate speciesism in a lot of their decision making and judgements (how they treat their own dog or expect others to treat theirs and what they are prepared to accept to happen to a pig in order to have a cheap bacon sarnie for example) - that's something I elect not to do.
I'd have gone with "doublethink."
I've said this on previous threads but, what we eat (or don't) is largely cultural. If Tesco started selling kitten burgers and puppy steaks there would be a national outcry, yet no-one blinks about a leg of lamb or a cheeky KFC. Eating pork is perfectly natural to us but would be abhorrent to most Muslims. Many countries routinely eat dog, horse, rat. What's the difference, why do we eat what we eat? For many people I expect that it's simply what they were brought up with.
You're vegan; I don't think I could do that, aside from anything else my diet is restrictive enough as it is. Others are practically carnivores; I don't think I could do that either, the idea revolts me. Most people fall somewhere in between, that's their decision just as mine is mine. I could do better, I could do worse, I think I'm OK with that (but then, I'm bound to say that just like everyone else is).
Who said that sausages have to be made out of pork?
Who said they can't be made out of beans?
I know you're just being silly but there's a point to be had here in that there are plenty of people who would object to coconut milk being referred to as "milk." Oat milk is on shelves now as "oat drink" because people presumably were being misled into thinking that farmers were going around grain fields milking their crops. Maybe I should start a campaign to have alcohol-free beer relabelled as an isotonic carbonated barley beverage despite it somewhat curiously presenting a problem to absolutely no-one thus far.
Being clear about food labelling is a good thing, but ever-increasing pinhead-dancing in case someone accidentally buys a meat-free sausage (already isolated from real food over in the Meat Free section) is absurd. "Sausage" is a shape, kids roll Playdoh into sausages.
And that’s before you get into sausages that aren’t sausage-shaped?
Its s minefield!
Im quite sure a 'sausage' in this day and age can be anything.
Looked on wiki, and it pretty much just classes it as a tube that is filled with some sort of food.
Traditionally its meat, but fill it with veggies, etc and its still basically a sausage.
Sausage casings have also evolved to include people on a non meat diet, and are also now made from Cellulose(Plant fibres) or Fibrous which is like paper(as seen in salami etc)
Personally I refer lamb gut casings. They use pork gut, but I find that too thick and it becomes 'chewy' and hard to eat. Lamb are far thinner and imho a better casing.
Cellulose i really dont like. they arent as pliable as natural gut, so i always found them difficult to link by hand. Its a product really aimed at industrial production on a linking machine.
Then when you cook them they soften and partly dissolve.
But the basic premise is whichever type, they can be filled with foods suitable for a vegan or vegetarian or omnivore diet.