Veganism: Who is behind the Agenda?

Christy42

barnaman wrote: »

The biggest problem with Veganism v Vegetarianism is that its just not possible to to be truly Vegan. Veganism relies on fortified foods. An essential vitamin for life is B12. The source of B12 is bacteria that live in plant eating animals guts. Ominvores get it through meat or animals products, Vegans get it from fortified cereals.



https://veganhealth.org/vitamin-b12-vegan-sources/


"The vitamin B12 component in B12 supplements and fortified foods is made by bacteria and sourced from bacteria cultures; it is not taken from animal products"


The problem is the bacteria cultures, propionibacterium shermanii, are all cultured on a lactate medium! Essentially whey (as a waste product from cheese making) :rolleyes:

Source for that last paragraph? I am curious as it is it something I have come across before.

El_Duderino 09

jaymla627 wrote: »

If you had bought 10k worth of beyond meat shares in July they would now be worth a little over 3k, the steam is going out of the vegan fake meat market before it even gets going...

If that was really the case, there wouldn't be the level of fear amongst those whose produce meat.

Plus consider if there wasn't social welfare payments to prop up meat production, it might not be viable for a lot of producers. If the same subsidies were given to Beyond Meat and they didn't have to worry about the profit margin, then they might well take a fair chunk of the market share.

Meat and dairy had all the advantages from historical advantage to traditional events like Sunday roast including meat and then they get subsidised if it's not profitable. But still non meat and non dairy alternatives like oat milk continue to grow their market share.

Mock all you want, but if there wasn't credible reason to worry, there wouldn't be threads like this one.

Xcellor

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If that was really the case, there wouldn't be the level of fear amongst those whose produce meat.

Plus consider if there wasn't social welfare payments to prop up meat production, it might not be viable for a lot of producers. If the same subsidies were given to Beyond Meat and they didn't have to worry about the profit margin, then they might well take a fair chunk of the market share.

Meat and dairy had all the advantages from historical advantage to traditional events like Sunday roast including meat and then they get subsidised if it's not profitable. But still non meat and non dairy alternatives like oat milk continue to grow their market share.

Mock all you want, but if there wasn't credible reason to worry, there wouldn't be threads like this one.

And even with subsidies there are still protests complaining it's loss making.

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

And even with subsidies there are still protests complaining it's loss making.

Cherry pick away xcellor - the facts are that a huge range of agricultural produce whether vegetables, fruit or animal produce have been forced into minimum price production.

Not just meat but vegetable growers are also being forced to supply at the lowest possible price. Historical subsidies were put in place to provide cheap food with the producer losing out to the middleman. So not much changes there

Tbh I always find it hilarious that we have those who don't gave a clue about agriculture or farming informing those that do how things are and rubbing their hands in anticipation of some fantasy utopian vision where we all eat some vaguely plant related processed ****e courtesy of some large corporate interest.

Excuse me of I dont share your enthusiasm.

gozunda

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If that was really the case, there wouldn't be the level of fear amongst those whose produce meat.
Plus consider if there wasn't social welfare payments to prop up meat production, it might not be viable for a lot of producers. If the same subsidies were given to Beyond Meat and they didn't have to worry about the profit margin, then they might well take a fair chunk of the market share. Meat and dairy had all the advantages from historical advantage to traditional events like Sunday roast including meat and then they get subsidised if it's not profitable. But still non meat and non dairy alternatives like oat milk continue to grow their market share.
Mock all you want, but if there wasn't credible reason to worry, there wouldn't be threads like this one.

I love the selective use of language. 'Social welfare payments' when linked to farm produce and 'subsidies' when used in association with large corporate producers lol.

'Fear'? Again the hyperbole there is hilarious. Do you think its 'fear' to want a system which rewards all food producers for the costs of production?

Meat and dairy have an advantage in this county for the very simple reason that is what our climate and topography and soils suit. Dont like that no? I would suggest perhaps setting up your own alternative farming system and let us know how you get on. Best of luck with that.

You might also want to check the thread title btw - it relates to - who is pushing a plant food / vegan agenda. And who is that? A quick check shows it is mainly large corporate interests hell bent on selling us ****e processed foodstuffs. And this is much of the same ****e being eulogised by a small number of zealot like plant food advocates because it suits that old time vegan jazz that meat etc is akin to nuclear waste or similar.

Tbh we need more threads like this one to point out the bs that is being bandied around as fact and bring back a bit of reality to the discussion about food production.

emaherx

Xcellor wrote: »

And even with subsidies there are still protests complaining it's loss making.

That makes no sense what so ever. These plant based "meat" producers are not farmers, they will also pay farmers as little as possible for their produce which is most likely subsidized in the country of origin or produced in the third world. Why do you believe they'd pay a fairer price than meat factories do?

It's not just the meat producers that are subsidized. The meat factories and the retailers are not loosing money here. Vegetable/tillage farmers here get a raw deal too.

Xcellor

gozunda wrote: »

Cherry pick away xcellor - the facts are that a huge range of agricultural produce whether vegetables, fruit or animal produce have been forced into minimum price production.

Not just meat but vegetable growers are also being forced to supply at the lowest possible price. Historical subsidies were put in place to provide cheap food with the producer losing out to the middleman. So not much changes there

Tbh I always find it hilarious that we have those who don't gave a clue about agriculture or farming informing those that do how things are and rubbing their hands in anticipation of some fantasy utopian vision where we all eat some vaguely plant related processed ****e courtesy of some large corporate interest.

Excuse me of I dont share your enthusiasm.

What cherry picking? No other group of farmers is currently protesting

emaherx

Xcellor wrote: »

What cherry picking? No other group of farmers is currently protesting

You mean like right now or just recently?

https://www.farmersjournal.ie/tillage-farmers-continuing-protest-at-glanbia-gates-499763

https://www.farmersjournal.ie/watch-farmers-protest-over-low-vegetable-prices-in-dublin-426921

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.euronews.com/amp/2019/09/17/dairy-farmers-call-for-a-fair-price-for-milk

El_Duderino 09

gozunda wrote: »

I love the selective use of language. 'Social welfare payments' when linked to farm produce and 'subsidies' when used in association with large corporate producers lol.

'Fear'? Again the hyperbole there is hilarious. Do you think its 'fear' to want a system which rewards all food producers for the costs of production?

Meat and dairy have an advantage in this county for the very simple reason that is what our climate and topography and soils suit. Dont like that no? I would suggest perhaps setting up your own alternative farming system and let us know how you get on. Best of luck with that.

Sure, call it welfare or subsidies, farmers get them to help them produce their product, the meat free companies don't get the same level of welfare/subsidy. If the topography is so great and the product is so good, why does it need subsidy to make it viable? If it was pure business then the market would decide if it wants it it not.

The farming lobby is huge in Ireland and Europe (hence all the support for the farming industry) so I think it's a bit rich to point the finger at big business as if you're not being represented. The decades of 'drink milk', 'eat meat' and similar ads on TV and all the media, are hardly small a sign of a small business but I don't suppose you have a problem with that.

I think you have no interest in a system that rewards all food produces. If they started taking some of your welfare/subsidies and gave it to the meat free food producers (meat free burgers or lab grown meat) I think you'd go bananas.

emaherx

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure, call it welfare or subsidies, farmers get them to help them produce their product, the meat free companies don't get the same level of welfare/subsidy. If the topography is so great and the product is so good, why does it need subsidy to make it viable? If it was pure business then the market would decide if it wants it it not.

The farming lobby is huge in Ireland and Europe (hence all the support for the farming industry) so I think it's a bit rich to point the finger at big business as if you're not being represented. The decades of 'drink milk', 'eat meat' and similar ads on TV and all the media, are hardly small a sign of a small business but I don't suppose you have a problem with that.

I think you have no interest in a system that rewards all food produces. If they started taking some of your welfare/subsidies and gave it to the meat free food producers (meat free burgers or lab grown meat) I think you'd go bananas.

The meat free companies don't get subsidies just like the meat companies don't get subsidies so what? But the farmers do so what's the difference?

El_Duderino 09

emaherx wrote: »

The meat free companies don't get subsidies just like the meat companies don't get subsidies so what? But the farmers do so what's the difference?

Yeah, the difference is that the farmers get them to make their business viable where it wouldn't otherwise be viable.

So mocking the meat free businesses for losing share price is too rich.

emaherx

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah, the difference is that the farmers get them to make their business viable where it wouldn't otherwise be viable.

So mocking the meat free businesses for losing share price is too rich.

But it's true of all food produced on farms meat or otherwise. Why do people compare meat free food companies to beef farmers? When the comparison should be to meat factories where the playing field is a bit more level than you are claiming.

Count Mondego

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah, the difference is that the farmers get them to make their business viable where it wouldn't otherwise be viable.

Meat production is highly profitable, but it's the retailers and processors making the profit. The breakdown of that profit is a different issue entirely.

El_Duderino 09

emaherx wrote: »

But it's true of all food produced on farms meat or otherwise. Why do people compare meat free food companies to beef farmers? When the comparison should be to meat factories where the playing field is a bit more level than you are claiming.

Why compare free to meat producers? Because they're selling products to the same market and one has subsidies to help keep them.in business and the other doesn't. So one has to deal with the realities of supply and demand and the other doesn't. So when the one who's being subsidised mocks the one who isn't being subsidised for their falling share price, it's a bit rich, isn't it?

El_Duderino 09

Count Mondego wrote: »

Meat production is highly profitable, but it's the retailers and processors making the profit. The breakdown of that profit is a different issue entirely.

So do the farmers want a more socialist approach than the free market approach?

ganmo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure, call it welfare or subsidies, farmers get them to help them produce their product, the meat free companies don't get the same level of welfare/subsidy. If the topography is so great and the product is so good, why does it need subsidy to make it viable? If it was pure business then the market would decide if it wants it it not.

The farming lobby is huge in Ireland and Europe (hence all the support for the farming industry) so I think it's a bit rich to point the finger at big business as if you're not being represented. The decades of 'drink milk', 'eat meat' and similar ads on TV and all the media, are hardly small a sign of a small business but I don't suppose you have a problem with that.

I think you have no interest in a system that rewards all food produces. If they started taking some of your welfare/subsidies and gave it to the meat free food producers (meat free burgers or lab grown meat) I think you'd go bananas.

The payments to farmers is one of the corner stones of the EU having being agreed upon in the treaty of rome way back in the 1950.
the payments were to ensure there wouldn't be a boom bust cycle of food prices while maintaining a local supply.

without the payments farming in the eu would be much more corporate and nobody wants that

Waffletraktor

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So do the farmers want a more socialist approach than the free market approach?

Imports produced with the same Qa standards and oversight, same production methods and inputs banned in Eu not allowed to be used. Otherwise farms can't compete and the west is just exporting the things problem away.

auspicious

barnaman wrote: »

The problem is the bacteria cultures, propionibacterium shermanii, are all cultured on a lactate medium! Essentially whey (as a waste product from cheese making) :rolleyes:

Vegans of course acknowledge the less than adequate processes and outcomes in certain scenarios; take crop deaths for example or vaccinations cultured using FBS sources.
It is difficult to be a purist in anything.

It depends on the b12 brand. Vegan sources are grown on vegetable juices ( e.g. cabbage juice) or fungi ( as is the case with Veg1 from the vegan soceity using Cyanocobalamin ) or molasses as with Engevita nooch.

And of course a natural plant source of b12 has been found
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/parabel-announces-natural-plant-source-of-vitamin-b12-in-water-lentils-and-lentein-plant-protein-1028697181

Count Mondego

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So do the farmers want a more socialist approach than the free market approach?

We don't have a free market approach, we have an oligopoly at the processor level that controls the price and restrictions on live export have left no other avenue of sale.

emaherx

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why compare free to meat producers? Because they're selling products to the same market and one has subsidies to help keep them.in business and the other doesn't. So one has to deal with the realities of supply and demand and the other doesn't. So when the one who's being subsidised mocks the one who isn't being subsidised for their falling share price, it's a bit rich, isn't it?

Yes same market but both sets of farmers are subsidized!

Neither type of factory is subsidized (although both probably are in some way like most multinational companies) so at least compare factories to factories and farmers to farmers. Comparing a farmer to a factory is utter BS.

roosterman71

Subsidies: They go to landowners, not just farmers. And not just beef/meat farmers. Tillage farmers and vegetable farmers get them too. Cool fact - one of the biggest recipients of these subsidies is non other than Mr. vacuum - James Dyson. The Queen herself gets them too. The president of Hungary and his cronies have been targetted for their mass buying of land to claim subsidies. Furthermore, these subsidies are to keep food prices within reach of the citizens and not have them inflate along with the rest of the economy.

Yet the farmer is the one losing money here as the producers/retailer is a price setter. Farmers have had to expand, get more efficient (no harm there) and do more with rising input costs just to try stand still. Compare the price of milk received by a farmer in the 80s to today. Then do the same comparison for power, insurance, land, heating, feed, fertiliser, etc. The graphs don't align.

The fake meat companies get subsidies too in the form of tax breaks or grants for setting up, etc.

Someone said here a few pages back that you don't need animals to be organic. That was never suggested. Ya need animals for organic manure to spread back on the land (or for bio-energy production). Without it for land you need more artificial fertilizer (oil based) which has negative impacts on soil health, which means crops don't grow as well, which leads to lower yields, which leads to more fertilizer to try boost things, which leads to negative impacts on soil, which leads to ...

Since when was processed food the way forward? Buy locally grown produce from local people. Ya'll be better off

emaherx

roosterman71 wrote: »

Subsidies: They go to landowners, not just farmers. And not just beef/meat farmers. Tillage farmers and vegetable farmers get them too. Cool fact - one of the biggest recipients of these subsidies is non other than Mr. vacuum - James Dyson. The Queen herself gets them too. The president of Hungary and his cronies have been targetted for their mass buying of land to claim subsidies. Furthermore, these subsidies are to keep food prices within reach of the citizens and not have them inflate along with the rest of the economy.

Yet the farmer is the one losing money here as the producers/retailer is a price setter. Farmers have had to expand, get more efficient (no harm there) and do more with rising input costs just to try stand still. Compare the price of milk received by a farmer in the 80s to today. Then do the same comparison for power, insurance, land, heating, feed, fertiliser, etc. The graphs don't align.

The fake meat companies get subsidies too in the form of tax breaks or grants for setting up, etc.

Someone said here a few pages back that you don't need animals to be organic. That was never suggested. Ya need animals for organic manure to spread back on the land (or for bio-energy production). Without it for land you need more artificial fertilizer (oil based) which has negative impacts on soil health, which means crops don't grow as well, which leads to lower yields, which leads to more fertilizer to try boost things, which leads to negative impacts on soil, which leads to ...

Since when was processed food the way forward? Buy locally grown produce from local people. Ya'll be better off

Won't be long till someone else claims vegan burgers aren't subsidized, its like the words are invisible to them.

El_Duderino 09

Count Mondego wrote: »

We don't have a free market approach, we have an oligopoly at the processor level that controls the price and restrictions on live export have left no other avenue of sale.

And subsidies. Don't forget them.

Free markets tend toward monopoly. That's just what free markets do. So yes farmers want more socialism or no they don't?

emaherx

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And subsidies. Don't forget them.

Free markets tend toward monopoly. That's just what free markets do. So yes farmers want more socialism or no they don't?

I think farmers would be happy with no subsidies and a fair price whether producing beef or carrots. Do you want to pay more for your food though?

We currently have subsidies and a monopoly in the form of beef factories and vegetable buyers.

El_Duderino 09

emaherx wrote: »

I think farmers would be happy with no subsidies and a fair price whether producing beef or carrots. Do you want to pay more for your food though?

Yeah I think that would be better. I think we should pay the price things actually cost to be viable. So if that means meat goes up and some people can't afford it, grand. We don't subsidise every business to make sure everyone can afford the product. If meat is expensive and a luxury item or something people have once a week then that's OK. People would just eat other things they can afford. So yeah, I'd agree with you there.

Parishlad

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I think that would be better. I think we should pay the price things actually cost to be viable. So if that means meat goes up and some people can't afford it, grand. We don't subsidise every business to make sure everyone can afford the product. If meat is expensive and a luxury item or something people have once a week then that's OK. People would just eat other things they can afford. So yeah, I'd agree with you there.

Thanks, this is actually funny.
If food is too expensive then people can eat something else.

El_Duderino 09

Parishlad wrote: »

Thanks, this is actually funny.
If food is too expensive then people can eat something else.

Meat. If meat is too expensive...

emaherx

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Meat. If meat is too expensive...

Why meat?
Because you happen to not like it?

I think sprouts should be made unaffordable, evil little green spheres.

emaherx

Parishlad wrote: »

Thanks, this is actually funny.
If food is too expensive then people can eat something else.

Let them eat cake?

emaherx

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We don't subsidise every business to make sure everyone can afford the product. If meat is expensive and a luxury item or something people have once a week then that's OK. People would just eat other things they can afford. So yeah, I'd agree with you there.

Every one needs to eat, meat is not a luxury item but a nutritious food.