Edit the moderators of the vegan community have decided that they don't want you to read what was written in the thread and have removed all of my comments
They only need to be pregnant once. The calf milk is different than normal milk and can not be sold. The stuff we drink is what happens after a calf is born but you never stop milking so the cow stays productive. I think you need to revisit mamal biology. Once the process of Milk production is started milk will be produced in most mammals till the long term cessation of mamary tisssue stimulation.
Im sorry, but what kind of mammal biology are you talking about that says that two different types of milk come from the same animal?
Also, milk production usually does go down somewhat over time and sometimes even does cease, and it's different for every individual, which makes it less predictable and less profitable to just impregnate a cow once. This is why dairy farmers almost always try to impregnate their cows yearly. Here's one source, there's plenty more coming up if you look it up on a search engine though https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/dairy/farming
Nope that’s not how it works at all. They keep reimpregnanting the mother and then they take the calf away for slaughter while the mother cries for her child for months on end.
Impossible burgers cooked right on the skillet are pretty damn good, imo. And easy. I'm no vegetarian but we keep them in our weeknight rotation.
Edit: Connect is messing up and I can no longer see some comments below. The study you cite, SMCF, uses the Nova classification system to define ultra-processed foods, meaning that category contains "soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes." This gives you no information on Impossible burgers' impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.
They have more protein, fiber, and iron than beef.
Red meat consumption has been shown to increase risks of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer, full stop.
I don't know what a "health food" would be, but I would probably classify them as foods that are healthier alternatives to foods that are proven bad for your health. Which is what "Impossible" etc. are.
Health food is anything that isn't processed to hell and back.
Impossible is just alternative junk food. Like vapes are for cigarettes. Healthier still means crap. I'd probably just use mushrooms or tofu as a patty if I wanted an alternative to beef.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are not well-informed about what "processed" food constitutes, to begin with.
According to the Department of Agriculture, processed food are any raw agricultural commodities that have been washed, cleaned, milled, cut, chopped, heated, pasteurized, blanched, cooked, canned, frozen, dried, dehydrated, mixed or packaged.
As such, most of our diet is processed food, and there's nothing wrong with that. If there are particular ingredients that have been added in the processing of any consumer product that are themselves bad for your health, I would definitely encourage abstinence from that product.
While vaping is monumentally safer for one's health than cigarette smoking, both are still a needless introduction of potential harm to one's health, I agree.
But we must eat food, and the harm from that food being vaguely "processed" versus the harm from it containing ingredients certainly known to contribute to stroke, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes just isn't a worthwhile comparison.
The definition by The Global Panel on Agrigulture and Food Systems for Nutrition of "Ultra-Processed Foods" is contingient on those foods being depleted in dietary fiber, protein, various micronutrients, and other bioactive compounds.
While the oreos you're using in other examples would probably fit that definition, the alternative meats we're discussing don't, as they are "processed" to include those constituents.
Your wikipedia links don't make an assertion. The one on UPF does remind you, though, that
Some authors have criticised the concept of "ultra-processed foods" as poorly defined
The crux of this learning moment for you shouldn't be about definitions, but the relative "healthiness" of vegan food products.
It's clear you began with a preference to paint with a broad brush these meat substitute products as "junk food," and you have the opportunity to recognize they aren't as obviously unhealthy as you first thought.
Modern plant-sourced diets may incorporate a range of ultra-processed foods (UPF), such as sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery, but also the ‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers that are produced with ingredients originating from plants and marketed as meat and dairy substitutes.
Thanks for your teaching moment, but take a second to get up to speed and we can talk after that.
Greater numbers of people are choosing plant-based meat substitutes for various reasons, including perceived health benefits.
While leaner cuts of beef can still have a place in a heart-healthy meal plan, consumers may be more willing to overeat plant-based meat substitutes, but their high sodium and saturated fat content may pose health risks.
As an alternative to over-processed vegan foods, clinicians may advise patients to consider leaner cuts of meat and incorporate wholesome vegetarian superfoods, such as nuts, greens, and vegetables, into their diets.
Based on a 100-gram comparison, the Impossible Burger has more favorable stats for protein (17.2 g compared with beef’s 16.8 g), fiber (4.4 g to beef’s 0 g), and iron (3.7 mg to beef’s 2 mg) than traditional beef. It’s also lower in calories with fewer grams of total fat (11.5 g vs beef’s 19.9 g) and saturated fat (5.3 g vs beef’s 7.3 g)
However, the Impossible Burger has almost five times the sodium content as a beef patty (327 mg vs beef’s 66 mg). Pair an Impossible Burger with a bun and condiments, and consumers will be on the fast track to a high-sodium meal.
Beyond burgers are literally right there lmao. You don't need lab grown meat to stop supporting animal abuse, it's a thinly veiled excuse to avoid having to change and grow as a person
2 things, 1) I can't afford it as a regular item 2) Id say they're maybe 70% there, there's still a taste and texture issue. I personally don't mind it and would happily switch over if it weren't for #1
Vegans/Vegetarians will never get the vast majority of people out there to give up meat, best shot is that lab meat if they can get the cost equivalent to real meat.
Sounds like the perfect thing to advocate that the government subsidizes while the tech matures and comes down in cost on its own.
70% is way more than enough there that it's no excuse to support animal abuse
Like I said, if I could afford it I would have switched already long ago, I personally am fine with the taste and texture. But for many others, that 30% is gonna be a deal breaker.
Cows are mammals. They produce milk for their calves, its not something that cows just naturally produce. So the dairy industry only exists from repeated forcible impregnation.
You realise that veal is often just the calves taken from dairy cows, right? If you drink milk you are already supporting veal. They're killed anyway, it's just the difference between them being discarded or being sold.
It's like if you pay a hitman to do some murders for you. Are you a murderer? I guess not technically, but 'conspirator to commit murder' doesn't have the same ring to it. Thus we just opt for rapist, since you support an industry that annually rapes cows and kills their calves so that you can enjoy a tall glass of cow juice.
It's ok if that's what you want to do. No judgement here.
You can't really compare the two things. You have limited control over how your taxes are spent, you can vote on how you want them spent and protest the actions of your government, but outside of that it's not up to you.
With milk, though, you are directly financing it by buying the product, and the product wouldn't exist without those things happening. So you are in effect a 'conspirator to cow rape' since your demand incites the act.
Ok, so because you're being needlessly pedantic here is the comparison.
I am not directly responsible for the wars and murders my government commits because of the reasons I stated above. But if they had a big bucket that said 'put money in this big bucket to directly support the wars and murders of your government' and I were to put money in of my own free will - then yes I would be directly responsible for those wars and murders.
If I do not put money in I am not directly responsible.
That's the difference between paying taxes and buying a bottle of cow milk.
I guess I don't agree with you. If I buy a product that specifically requires the death of an animal I would feel like I am responsible for the death of that animal and monetarily incentivising the death of other animals.
If I pay a hitman to kill someone I am not innocent of murder.
You don't get to support an industry that kills animals and then say you're not responsible for the death of animals.
the animal is dead long before I walk into a store or restaurant, and the people who did the killing have already been paid. I have no responsibility for that.
Without getting into a semantics debate on what rape is. The reason the word is used is because dairy cows are impregnated by fisting the cows asshole and stimulating their cervix before squirting a semen gun into their vagina. The cows cannot consent to this so the word rape is used. Some people might not consider it rape for whatever reason and yes, the word was probably chosen to be provocative. But that's the explanation.
You see part of the problem with the system then. This is why vegans go as far as possible and practicable, because animal abuse is built into everything and is not optional. We're trying to minimize it where we can, and use that momentum to eventually get rid of some of the malevolent built in nonsense we all have to deal with. Nobody should be subsidizing cow rapists and murders, and it shouldn't be a requirement to live here to.
You're obviously not listening to what I'm saying.
I understand you have strong feelings about your beliefs but not everyone does.
When you attack someone for not sharing your feelings you are as bad as the anti-abortion people or the republicans who want to take away the rights of the LGBTs.
How the fuck did you think milk was produced? This is literally grade school biology. Farmers rape cows for their milk, and you pay them for the privilege.
I think you seriously underestimate how much non-human raping goes on in the animal world. Many species have dicks that have evolved specifically to facilitate rape.
What does that have to do with humans choosing to rape cows for profit? Total non-sequitur. Bears shit in the woods, does that mean you do too? Animals rape, therefore you should too?
It's literally penetrating a genitals to impregnate them against their will for our own benefit, the definition of rape. Saying you don't care about the rape of cows and will keep eating dairy is your opinion, but denying that it is rape is just straight up cognitive dissonance.
Vegans need to downvote anyone that disagrees when them is proof their ideas cannot stand scrutiny. They do not relish in a debate of in any capacity. They don't even have original ideas, it's the same couple talking points because it's ideology base. They call themselves converts but won't accept it's a religion.