Vegan food startup orders contractors to buy their mayo so it looks more popular - Polidicks

Vegan food startup orders contractors to buy their mayo so it looks more popular

87 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50833021]How long has veganism been around? I'm sure vegetarianism has been around since they invented the carrot, but I feel like veganism is just a fad/phase[/QUOTE] Yes, it's a fad much like the components that build it, such as being healthy and caring for animals. I'm sure that in time all these things will pass! [QUOTE=jamzzster;50833043]Zero fat mayo for me. It doesn't taste that different and won't clog my arteries up with the shear amount I have with chicken. It's a small change but worth it considering how fatty mayo is[/QUOTE] I'd be wary of "fat free" foods because that entire idea comes from a time when nutrition wasn't very well understood and they attacked fat because it was easily marketable and continues to this day to make a lot of money for the companies that have those products. Fat isn't often the leading cause of what makes a food unhealthy, and to make it fat free they often put even worse things in it to make up for the flavor. In the same way that "zero calories" should put up red flags, fat free is the same. Nothing is free, if they took out one unhealthy component then you're still paying for it in some other way. A bucket of chicken and fat free mayo is still a bucket of chicken and mayo. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50834973]Actually in this case I'm going to call it false advertising. "Oh hey, we got this new mayonnaise product, it's called Just Mayo!" "Oh awesome! So it's just really simple mayonnaise then?" "No! It actually has none of the ingredients of actual mayonnaise! But we're gonna charge you $7 more and make you [I]think[/I] you're buying really good mayo!" Like, at least I Can't Believe It's Not Butter is honest in its title. "This isn't actually butter." This Just Mayo stuff? Ripoff. [editline]5th August 2016[/editline] Like, it's not even the fact that its label is misleading that gets to me, I mean you can just read the ingredients label if you care about that. The thing that bugs me is that like last time I checked a jar of this was like $10 and a same-sized jar of regular mayo is like $3. Why the fuck would anybody want that? When will this non-gmo, organic, gluten-free bullshit stop? If I was a vegan I'd rather just not buy Mayo altogether before I wasted money on overpriced stuff like this. This is making me unreasonably upset.[/QUOTE] It's shady of them to try and hide the fact that the mayo is vegan, true. The thing is, if you haven't noticed by reading through this thread, there's a clear stigma against vegan food and the product would honestly do a lot worse if they marketed its "veganness." For anyone who's actually tried this mayo, they know that it tastes about the same if not better. That's the whole point of the product and that's why they downplay the fact that it's a vegan food, because if people just picked it up and bought it they would love it but if people were told beforehand that it's vegan they would never believe that it's any good. This is really an issue which started with radical veganism and exploded with public perception, in that veganism is some crack looney lifestyle, when actually there's a lot of logic in it's legitimate practice and a lot of flavor in it's legitimate eating. The sourness of the worst vegans in the world shouldn't be projected onto the foods they eat. And in regards to the price, I'd say its probably because larger dairy companies have found really extreme (and inhumane) ways to reduce costs, as well as the fact that they get subsidized by the government due to their influence on the industry. companies that are vegetable / vegan based have no chance in terms of competing with prices.

just mayo is fucking great, im sad about this. It was available in dollar tree for a while.

[QUOTE=adadadsd;50835270]Yes, it's a fad much like the components that build it, such as being healthy and caring for animals. I'm sure that in time all these things will pass! I'd be wary of "fat free" foods because that entire idea comes from a time when nutrition wasn't very well understood and they attacked fat because it was easily marketable and continues to this day to make a lot of money for the companies that have those products. Fat isn't often the leading cause of what makes a food unhealthy, and to make it fat free they often put even worse things in it to make up for the flavor. In the same way that "zero calories" should put up red flags, fat free is the same. Nothing is free, if they took out one unhealthy component then you're still paying for it in some other way. A bucket of chicken and fat free mayo is still a bucket of chicken and mayo. It's shady of them to try and hide the fact that the mayo is vegan, true. The thing is, if you haven't noticed by reading through this thread, there's a clear stigma against vegan food and the product would honestly do a lot worse if they marketed its "veganness." For anyone who's actually tried this mayo, they know that it tastes about the same if not better. That's the whole point of the product and that's why they downplay the fact that it's a vegan food, because if people just picked it up and bought it they would love it but if people were told beforehand that it's vegan they would never believe that it's any good. This is really an issue which started with radical veganism and exploded with public perception, in that veganism is some crack looney lifestyle, when actually there's a lot of logic in it's legitimate practice and a lot of flavor in it's legitimate eating. The sourness of the worst vegans in the world shouldn't be projected onto the foods they eat. And in regards to the price, I'd say its probably because larger dairy companies have found really extreme (and inhumane) ways to reduce costs, as well as the fact that they get subsidized by the government due to their influence on the industry. companies that are vegetable / vegan based have no chance in terms of competing with prices.[/QUOTE] I agree with all of this except for the bit about marketing. Who is the target audience for this product? Surely, isn't it people who wish to buy food that doesn't come from animals or animal byproducts? If that is the case, given that this audience is willing to pay the price, why is it okay to mislead the labeling for the sake of tricking the general public (who are not the target audience of the product)? If the organic section in my local Kroger grocery store is any indicator, these products can sell well without obscuring their composition behind deceptive labels.

[QUOTE=bdd458;50834090]how is it mayo without egg, the key ingredient in mayonnaise is egg yolk.[/QUOTE] the key ingrediant in mayonnaise is oil bud

[QUOTE=Shadaez;50835506]the key ingrediant in mayonnaise is oil bud[/QUOTE] Mayonaise is a emulsion of egg yolk and oil, usually a neutral oil with no flavour at it's core.

You can make Vegan Mayo out of chick pea water, oils and some flavouring. I fucking hate Mayo, but I made chick pea water mayo and it was pretty good.

i'm more upset by products like Aunt Jemima maple syrup (corn syrup + fake flavoring) fooling people like my dad into not knowing what real maple tastes like anymore

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50833021]How long has veganism been around? I'm sure vegetarianism has been around since they invented the carrot, but I feel like veganism is just a fad/phase[/QUOTE] I think you've let memes skew your perception of reality. Veganism is just stricter vegetarianism, so I'd say it's been around for about as long. If you've got a moral reason to not eat meat, you'll have a moral reason to be vegan as well, it's just a higher maintenance lifestyle with a big stigma so most people don't do it.

My family got a jar of the "Just Mayo" stuff a while back and I legitimately thought it was just damn good mayo this whole time, I'd have never guessed it was vegan

[QUOTE=J!NX;50832835]to be fair, its no wonder vegan food gets a bad rep considering the instances where animal products would benefit everyone universally E.I: Hunting overpopulated animals for food, using animals for stuff that they just produce no matter what because that's their nature, etc. instances that many vegans are outright against despite any and all reasoning Extremist vegans are insanely dumb and ruin it for legitimate vegetarians. Now anything that's considered a vegan alternative is immoral because hey fuck why not. At least one thing has come out the diet lunatic crowd, and that's more gluten free food for people who actually would die if they had gluten and not just "Feel sick I guess even though I don't even know what gluten is". now if only extremist vegans would stop being giant shitlords and meat eaters would actually respect people for their diet[/QUOTE] I tend to remain quiet when I see threads like this one and read off-putting comments, but this one has be in a bit of a tiff. Anyway local resident vegan here, to lay down the law. A plant-based diet would actually benefit the world a ton more than any omnivore diet could. Example: Less water, less space and less greenhouse gases. Many people are in arms about climate change, yet they espouse a simple diet change. Extremists are always annoying, they tend to do wacky shit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The way you make vegetarians seem like the sane ones is ludicrous. They eat diary,eggs and honey (few more things, but these are the essentials). How that makes them sane is something you have to explain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you could stop being an ignorant and actually read about the plant-based diet, you would be able to see how it is only a logical conclusion for us as humans in the long run. Why I should respect a diet that kills the environment and the animals just so you can savour in the taste is extreme. The only thing I can do is tolerate it, because I can't slap the hamburger out your hand, nor would I feel inclined to do so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And before you pull any dumb bullshit excuse out of your ass how your second removed cousin from Africa can't go plant-based because she is vegetable-intolerant and she only has cows to eat in her little village in Nigeria. Veganism has always been about trying to do the least amount of harm where possible. So if you live in a town with a supermarket and you have the internet available to you, congrats, chances are you will be able to go vegan without any problems. If you happen to live in that same village as your cousin, you have to do what you have to do to survive, it's unreasonable to do ask otherwise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Animal agriculture contributes from 14.5% to 51% of greenhouse gases. An omnivore diet needs more space to cultivate their food than a plant-based one, we will run out of space if we continue like this. Water shortage has and will continue in plenty of areas where they have livestock walking around. Like in California, they tend to blame the almonds, yet the livestock and the feed for the livestock take up a lot more water. I will leave the ethical side of slaughtering animals for a philosophical thread, because most people don't give a shit where their animal products come from. __________________________________________________________________ Sources: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/faq[/url] - to get you started with some general answers [url]http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf[/url] - 14.5% [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html[/url] (the rapport is being a pay wall) - 51% [url]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160419120147.htm[/url] - Deforestation due to animal agriculture [url]http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/edusafety/training/pec/water/blaine-hanson_water_forum_complete.pdf[/url] - Water usage CA crops ____________________________________________________________________ I don't see the issue with using the word mayonnaise, as long as it is clear that it is vegan mayonnaise. On the side it says: [img]http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/var/plain_site/storage/images/publications/food-beverage-nutrition/foodnavigator-usa.com/people/highlights-from-foodnavigator-usa-s-ceo-debate-from-gmos-to-gourmet-popcorn-plant-eggs-the-rise-and-rise-of-gluten-free/8699081-1-eng-GB/Highlights-from-FoodNavigator-USA-s-CEO-debate-From-GMOs-to-gourmet-popcorn-plant-eggs-the-rise-and-rise-of-gluten-free_strict_xxl.jpg[/img] For me that's pretty clear. Kind of like how Gardein markets their products: [img]https://gardein.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/gardein_frz_CrspyTndrs_US_Sm-225x238px-225x238.png[/img] It has chicken nuggets in the name, but has meat-free under it.

[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50836628]I tend to remain quiet when I see threads like this one and read off-putting comments, but this one has be in a bit of a tiff. Anyway local resident vegan here, to lay down the law. A plant-based diet would actually benefit the world a ton more than any omnivore diet could. Example: Less water, less space and less greenhouse gases. Many people are in arms about climate change, yet they espouse a simple diet change. Extremists are always annoying, they tend to do wacky shit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The way you make vegetarians seem like the sane ones is ludicrous. They eat diary,eggs and honey (few more things, but these are the essentials). How that makes them sane is something you have to explain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you could stop being an ignorant and actually read about the plant-based diet, you would be able to see how it is only a logical conclusion for us as humans in the long run. Why I should respect a diet that kills the environment and the animals just so you can savour in the taste is extreme. The only thing I can do is tolerate it, because I can't slap the hamburger out your hand, nor would I feel inclined to do so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And before you pull any dumb bullshit excuse out of your ass how your second removed cousin from Africa can't go plant-based because she is vegetable-intolerant and she only has cows to eat in her little village in Nigeria. Veganism has always been about trying to do the least amount of harm where possible. So if you live in a town with a supermarket and you have the internet available to you, congrats, chances are you will be able to go vegan without any problems. If you happen to live in that same village as your cousin, you have to do what you have to do to survive, it's unreasonable to do ask otherwise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Animal agriculture contributes from 14.5% to 51% of greenhouse gases. An omnivore diet needs more space to cultivate their food than a plant-based one, we will run out of space if we continue like this. Water shortage has and will continue in plenty of areas where they have livestock walking around. Like in California, they tend to blame the almonds, yet the livestock and the feed for the livestock take up a lot more water. I will leave the ethical side of slaughtering animals for a philosophical thread, because most people don't give a shit where their animal products come from. __________________________________________________________________ Sources: [URL]https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/faq[/URL] - to get you started with some general answers [URL]http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf[/URL] - 14.5% [URL]http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html[/URL] (the rapport is being a pay wall) - 51% [URL]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160419120147.htm[/URL] - Deforestation due to animal agriculture [URL]http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/edusafety/training/pec/water/blaine-hanson_water_forum_complete.pdf[/URL] - Water usage CA crops [/QUOTE] I'd take issue with a lot of this. You suggest that vegan diets would be better for the environment; I'd suggest that that only applies if you base your numbers purely on factory farming. Agriculture as we currently know it, whether vegan or carnivorous, is unsustainable. No factory farming will ever be beneficial to the environment; in reference to the Independent study you linked, it's important to note that it's the way cows are treated and kept and managed, not their mere existence, that has a negative impact. Cows (and other grazing livestock) produce methane, yes, but this also helps promote healthy grass, which sucks carbon from the atmosphere and stores it in soil. This thus converts wild indigestible vegetation into edible food. For more on this, I recommend "Cows Save the Planet" by Judith Schwartz; she explains far better than I can the types of cow farming methods that could help reduce our levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. These methods are being used by the National Trust here in the UK to sequester carbon in soil to the same end. There's also [URL="https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change"]this video[/URL] that goes into more depth. My point is, a vegan diet requires soil enriched by either animal manure, organic fertilisers containing manure, blood, fish and bonemeal, or chemical fertilisers which rely on fossil fuels and similar ingredients - I suppose your approach to veganism will dictate how you feel about this. I'd also point out the socioeconomic impacts of veganism to humans, such as what's happening in Peru and Bolivia, where quinoa has skyrocketed in price due to western demand and made it virtually impossible for poorer Bolivians to afford it. Veganism has a massive problem when it comes to considering human welfare, both for the farmers and workers who produce a lot of vegan-appropriate foods and their own health, but I'm sure you're familiar with the argument about vitamins and nutrients that vegans don't get without supplements. Similar arguments can be made about the evolutionary requirement of humans to eat meat. You also discuss space; I'd counter that most of the world's arable land is now in use. To feed a completely vegan population, that arable land will need to be more intensely farmed, which will require more herbicides, fertilisers, and pesticides; again, I think this is an ecological consequence that most vegans don't think about - not to mention, of course, the animals that have had their habitats reduced by the turning over of land from its native vegetation and animals to agriculture. The replacement of grass-fed meat produce by grain products means a lot more animal death than animal farming and results in far greater environmental degradation. Grass and grazing-based agriculture is the only real sustainable agriculture; pasture and livestock universally contribute to greater biodiversity and where it is removed and replaced by monocrop agriculture, biodiversity suffers. This is how the world functioned before we started industrial agriculture - most of the world isn't suitable for monocrop grain agriculture, but for animal husbandry and appropriate vegetation. People like Simon Fairlie and Peter Ballerstedt suggest that the best and most environmentally sound agricultural practice involves putting livestock on land unsuitable for crops and using pigs and chickens to utilise food waste. Furthermore, I'd also mention that going to the supermarket or using the internet to get your food delivered probably produces quite a bit of pollution; consider the places where vegan food is produced, how much it takes to get it to your supermarket, how many pesticides and herbicides are used to maintain crops in an ecosystem that isn't appropriate for growing that crop, and the rest. Buying a couple of steaks directly from a local farmer will always be better for the environment than buying any vegan products.

[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50836628]I tend to remain quiet when I see threads like this one and read off-putting comments, but this one has be in a bit of a tiff.[/QUOTE] I think I may have misrepresented the shit out of myself because I was posting while tired at the time, but I think veganism is a morally justifiable cause and if we started all choosing to eat lab grown meat that doesn't force animals into smelly cages the world would probably be better off. Not a vegan/vegetarian myself as a note. Also, i just said 'vegatarians' cause thats the word I thought of to say, didn't actually mean to compare the two so WOOPS. They're both very different so yeah that was a very silly wording :v: when it comes to plant diets I'm totally cool with people that acknowledge its benefits. I disagree with labeling shit deceptively and removing the use of animal products universally. If you're going to hunt for example, to prevent overpopulation of deer, you may as well sell / eat the meat. If you own sheep, you may as well sell the wool, because they produce that no matter what happens. If you own bee's, well, honey is fucking delicious, so keep farming them. I think Garden markets labeling is fine because they make it obvious in big letters that its vegan. The name and everything says it after all. But then Just mayo has a logo and name that disagree's and its very iffy despite the labelling. It'd be like if a company with "just vegan" sold non-vegan products. Imagine 'Just vegan' on a mayo jar with a big plant on the top but in fine print on the side it says 'non-vegan', it's kind of pointless and makes you think it's something else and then silently reminds you that it uses hormone fed animals. Like, the giant egg logo makes it seem like it has egg in it, but it says its a non-egg product. product images are one thing because they're meant to show what it looks like (vegan chicken looks like chicken, so obviously you show that), but you shouldn't show something that isn't inside the product. It counters its own logic. Just like it'd be silly to have "just vegan" non-vegan mayo with a giant plant on the top despite having no veggies, fruit, or anything vegan.

[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50836628] And before you pull any dumb bullshit excuse out of your ass how your second removed cousin from Africa can't go plant-based because she is vegetable-intolerant and she only has cows to eat in her little village in Nigeria. Veganism has always been about trying to do the least amount of harm where possible. So if you live in a town with a supermarket and you have the internet available to you, congrats, chances are you will be able to go vegan without any problems. If you happen to live in that same village as your cousin, you have to do what you have to do to survive, it's unreasonable to do ask otherwise. [/QUOTE] I take it someone un-ironically used this as an argument against you and that's why you're bringing it up that "But what about people who can't eat veggies" argument always comes from omnivore extremists :v: The 'they cant eat veggies argument' never made sense to me ever and belongs in [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O_VYcsIk8"]satire[/URL] because its such an absurdly specific scenario

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;50836974]I'd take issue with a lot of this. You suggest that vegan diets would be better for the environment; I'd suggest that that only applies if you base your numbers purely on factory farming. Agriculture as we currently know it, whether vegan or carnivorous, is unsustainable. No factory farming will ever be beneficial to the environment; in reference to the Independent study you linked, it's important to note that it's the way cows are treated and kept and managed, not their mere existence, that has a negative impact. Cows (and other grazing livestock) produce methane, yes, but this also helps promote healthy grass, which sucks carbon from the atmosphere and stores it in soil. This thus converts wild indigestible vegetation into edible food. For more on this, I recommend "Cows Save the Planet" by Judith Schwartz; she explains far better than I can the types of cow farming methods that could help reduce our levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. These methods are being used by the National Trust here in the UK to sequester carbon in soil to the same end. There's also [URL="https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change"]this video[/URL] that goes into more depth. My point is, a vegan diet requires soil enriched by either animal manure, organic fertilisers containing manure, blood, fish and bonemeal, or chemical fertilisers which rely on fossil fuels and similar ingredients - I suppose your approach to veganism will dictate how you feel about this. I'd also point out the socioeconomic impacts of veganism to humans, such as what's happening in Peru and Bolivia, where quinoa has skyrocketed in price due to western demand and made it virtually impossible for poorer Bolivians to afford it. Veganism has a massive problem when it comes to considering human welfare, both for the farmers and workers who produce a lot of vegan-appropriate foods and their own health, but I'm sure you're familiar with the argument about vitamins and nutrients that vegans don't get without supplements. Similar arguments can be made about the evolutionary requirement of humans to eat meat. You also discuss space; I'd counter that most of the world's arable land is now in use. To feed a completely vegan population, that arable land will need to be more intensely farmed, which will require more herbicides, fertilisers, and pesticides; again, I think this is an ecological consequence that most vegans don't think about - not to mention, of course, the animals that have had their habitats reduced by the turning over of land from its native vegetation and animals to agriculture. The replacement of grass-fed meat produce by grain products means a lot more animal death than animal farming and results in far greater environmental degradation. Grass and grazing-based agriculture is the only real sustainable agriculture; pasture and livestock universally contribute to greater biodiversity and where it is removed and replaced by monocrop agriculture, biodiversity suffers. This is how the world functioned before we started industrial agriculture - most of the world isn't suitable for monocrop grain agriculture, but for animal husbandry and appropriate vegetation. People like Simon Fairlie and Peter Ballerstedt suggest that the best and most environmentally sound agricultural practice involves putting livestock on land unsuitable for crops and using pigs and chickens to utilise food waste. Furthermore, I'd also mention that going to the supermarket or using the internet to get your food delivered probably produces quite a bit of pollution; consider the places where vegan food is produced, how much it takes to get it to your supermarket, how many pesticides and herbicides are used to maintain crops in an ecosystem that isn't appropriate for growing that crop, and the rest. Buying a couple of steaks directly from a local farmer will always be better for the environment than buying any vegan products.[/QUOTE] The majority of these issues are ones that would not be of concern if all existing livestock mass-production spaces were repurposed to directly benefit humans (in the total absence of meat-trade), most particularly given modern science for alternative methods of agriculture. In such a situation it wouldn't be necessary to import high-protein food production from other countries. But all that aside, the only thing I actually want to address is this: [quote]Similar arguments can be made about the evolutionary requirement of humans to eat meat.[/quote] This isn't a thing. I changed my diet by simply [I]stopping[/I] the consumption of meat products. I haven't needed to make any other changes to my lifestyle or take additional supplements in order to stay healthy. Humans never relied completely on meat as a means of survival, except in regions or lifestyles that enforce limited food supplies with no variety (eating the exact same plants every single day, for example; staple-crops to the extreme). Granted, I've not stopped eating eggs or products made with them, and I'm sure full veganism is a little bit more complicated. Regardless, I want to make the point that most people have the misconception that these dietary lifestyles are somehow difficult to achieve. Perhaps believing such things provides a convenient reason to not even try going without. Or maybe I misunderstood your meaning completely. [editline]5th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50837004] Before long, you'll have to give up a vegan diet because it's too expensive, and we're [B]all[/B] going to be eating bugs because that's the only actual efficient answer.[/QUOTE] I was half joking earlier yesterday before this thread that we should be mass farming insects for nutrient pastes. [url=https://www.amazon.com/1500-Live-Ladybugs-Guaranteed-Delivery/dp/B00533KOIC]they're cheap[/url]

[QUOTE=bitches;50837025]The majority of these issues are ones that would not be of concern if all existing livestock mass-production spaces were repurposed to directly benefit humans (in the total absence of meat-trade), most particularly given modern science for alternative methods of agriculture. In such a situation it wouldn't be necessary to import high-protein food production from other countries. [/quote] That's not something that's going to happen overnight, and the process of converting all this land to modern science for these new methods of agriculture would be so lengthy, expensive, and without any guaranteed results I would wonder what benefit it would have over simply decentralising our agriculture. That would also, of course, require the removal of yet more animal species, yet more native vegetation, and result in similar reductions in biodiversity as non-livestock farming does. We'd end up with a pile of cows, pigs, chickens, deer, and similar without any purpose, unless we were going to have one massive barbecue before we all eat a vegan diet and wait for modern science to produce the supplements we'll inevitably require. [quote]This isn't a thing. I changed my diet by simply [I]stopping[/I] the consumption of meat products. I haven't needed to make any other changes to my lifestyle or take additional supplements in order to stay healthy. Humans never relied completely on meat as a means of survival, except in regions or lifestyles that enforce limited food supplies with no variety (eating the exact same plants every single day, for example; staple-crops to the extreme). Granted, I've not stopped eating eggs or products made with them, and I'm sure full veganism is a little bit more complicated. Regardless, I want to make the point that most people have the misconception that these dietary lifestyles are somehow difficult to achieve.[/QUOTE] I meant the literal evolutionary requirement, as in, as meat eating pertains to human evolution, rather than as it pertains to survival. I'm basing that on [URL="http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/11/3886S.long"]this study[/URL], particularly this part: [quote]The routine, that is, daily, inclusion of Animal Source Foods in the diets of children seems mandatory as most [B]wild plant foods would not be capable of supplying the protein and micronutrients children require[/B] for optimal development and growth, nor could the gut of the child likely provide enough space, in combination with the slow food turnover rate characteristic of the human species, to secure adequate nutrition from wild plant foods alone. Wild plant foods, though somewhat higher in protein and some vitamins and minerals than their cultivated counterparts, are also high in fiber and other indigestible components and most would have to be consumed in very large quantity to meet the nutritional and energetic demands of a growing and active child.[/quote] Essentially, humans required meat to grow into what modern humans are today in terms of brain capacity. In modern terms, this means children require dense nutrition as is found in eggs and meat, because the alternative would be consuming far more vegetable matter than their stomachs and digestive systems are equipped for.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50837048]I'm not joking at all when I say I believe that the vast majority of people, aka the non 1%, world wide will have a diet made out of mostly insects and bugs by 2050ish.[/QUOTE] So zootopia

[QUOTE=J!NX;50837082]So zootopia[/QUOTE] I guess? I never saw that one. More like Snowpiercer

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;50837070]That's not something that's going to happen overnight, and the process of converting all this land to modern science for these new methods of agriculture would be so lengthy, expensive, and without any guaranteed results I would wonder what benefit it would have over simply decentralising our agriculture. That would also, of course, require the removal of yet more animal species, yet more native vegetation, and result in similar reductions in biodiversity as non-livestock farming does. We'd end up with a pile of cows, pigs, chickens, deer, and similar without any purpose, unless we were going to have one massive barbecue before we all eat a vegan diet and wait for modern science to produce the supplements we'll inevitably require.[/quote] In this make-believe world where the human race within wealthy and capable nations all decided to transition away from meat products, it would simply mean ending breeding between the animals already planned for consumption. Ending the supply of new animals for food supply would mean both ending future suffering endured by the animals that would then not be born, and preventing a catastrophe of having thousands of consumption animals standing around without a place to exist in our modern world. I don't think many vegetarians or vegans would object to the notion that it's better for a species to become extinct than to exist purely for suffering as a modernly unnecessary food source. [editline]5th August 2016[/editline] there's obviously a huge host of practicality issues, but the point is that none of them are doomsday and all of them have solutions that would be better in the long run after the dust settles

I'm not sure how they thought this would go unnoticed. I can understand why they did it though. I imagine most people are happy just buying the traditional versions of most of their food, but if you see a bunch of people buying some different version of mayo, you might go "If some many people are buying it, maybe it's good". That said, it's still pretty dishonest. [QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50836628] A plant-based diet would actually benefit the world a ton more than any omnivore diet could. Example: Less water, less space and less greenhouse gases. [/QUOTE] I'm going to assume you meant less water and space used, which I admit does sound nice. As for the green house gases portion, how much are we talking about here exactly? If it's a negligible amount, then I could understand why it's not considered a prime concern. [QUOTE] Many people are in arms about climate change, yet they espouse a simple diet change. [/QUOTE] I'm not sure if you mean that people concerned about climate change are switching diets or they are not. Again though, I don't actually know how much pollution is actually caused by the food production industry, but as I said, if it's a small amount, then I imagine it's not a prime concern. Even if it was, not everyone is going to suddenly become vegan/vegetarian/gluten free. [QUOTE] The way you make vegetarians seem like the sane ones is ludicrous. They eat diary,eggs and honey (few more things, but these are the essentials). How that makes them sane is something you have to explain. [/QUOTE] You reply makes it sound like vegetarians aren't sane though. If they aren't sane, then why? What makes them different from vegans or people that go gluten free? [QUOTE] If you could stop being an ignorant and actually read about the plant-based diet, you would be able to see how it is only a logical conclusion for us as humans in the long run. Why I should respect a diet that kills the environment and the animals just so you can savour in the taste is extreme. The only thing I can do is tolerate it, because I can't slap the hamburger out your hand, nor would I feel inclined to do so. [/QUOTE] First, if you're going to say things like that, you better have some evidence that actually backs up your claim. Furthermore, if you're going to say things like that, you can do it without taking such a condescending elitist tone. Seriously, it almost reads like" If you were as smart as me, you would know that I'm right and that you're wrong." You want people to understand your side, explain it to them in a well thought out and polite manner. The moment you start insulting people to get your point across is the moment you lose all credibility. [QUOTE] Animal agriculture contributes from 14.5% to 51% of greenhouse gases. An omnivore diet needs more space to cultivate their food than a plant-based one, we will run out of space if we continue like this. Water shortage has and will continue in plenty of areas where they have livestock walking around. Like in California, they tend to blame the almonds, yet the livestock and the feed for the livestock take up a lot more water. I will leave the ethical side of slaughtering animals for a philosophical thread, because most people don't give a shit where their animal products come from. [/QUOTE] Again, unless you have a credible source for those statistics, they're meaningless. If we all switched over to a plant base diet, how much space would we actually save though? While I imagine growing the plants would take up less space, that's a whole lot of food that your going to have to replace to keep up with demand. How much of a water shortage are we talking about for those livestock areas? Do these have an impact on residential areas or are we talking about separate water supplies for the livestock? Could these water shortages be cause by other factors or do they have no impact? While most people don't care, some do. There's been a fair bit of discussion about GMOs and the like, which seems like a horrible thing to leave out in regards to plants. What would the stance be on genetically modified foods if we were only stuck eating plants? What about pesticides? These are fairly important issues that you can't just gloss over. [QUOTE] I don't see the issue with using the word mayonnaise, as long as it is clear that it is vegan mayonnaise. On the side it says: [img]http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/var/plain_site/storage/images/publications/food-beverage-nutrition/foodnavigator-usa.com/people/highlights-from-foodnavigator-usa-s-ceo-debate-from-gmos-to-gourmet-popcorn-plant-eggs-the-rise-and-rise-of-gluten-free/8699081-1-eng-GB/Highlights-from-FoodNavigator-USA-s-CEO-debate-From-GMOs-to-gourmet-popcorn-plant-eggs-the-rise-and-rise-of-gluten-free_strict_xxl.jpg[/img] For me that's pretty clear. Kind of like how Gardein markets their products: [img]https://gardein.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/gardein_frz_CrspyTndrs_US_Sm-225x238px-225x238.png[/img] It has chicken nuggets in the name, but has meat-free under it.[/QUOTE] If I go to the store and buy a jar labeled mayo, then I expect it to be mayo, not imitation mayo. Now, I'm not saying that the imitation mayo is better or worse, but it should be clearly marked that it isn't traditional mayo. Labeling it "Just Mayo" is just asking for trouble as all it's going to do is mislead people. Doesn't help that the part that shows that it's not traditional mayo looks like it's a step up from fine print. I feel like this should just be common sense in regards to most things though.

[QUOTE=Reaper297;50837380]I'm not sure how they thought this would go unnoticed. I can understand why they did it though. I imagine most people are happy just buying the traditional versions of most of their food, but if you see a bunch of people buying some different version of mayo, you might go "If some many people are buying it, maybe it's good". That said, it's still pretty dishonest. I'm going to assume you meant less water and space used, which I admit does sound nice. As for the green house gases portion, how much are we talking about here exactly? If it's a negligible amount, then I could understand why it's not considered a prime concern. I'm not sure if you mean that people concerned about climate change are switching diets or they are not. Again though, I don't actually know how much pollution is actually caused by the food production industry, but as I said, if it's a small amount, then I imagine it's not a prime concern. Even if it was, not everyone is going to suddenly become vegan/vegetarian/gluten free. You reply makes it sound like vegetarians aren't sane though. If they aren't sane, then why? What makes them different from vegans or people that go gluten free? First, if you're going to say things like that, you better have some evidence that actually backs up your claim. Furthermore, if you're going to say things like that, you can do it without taking such a condescending elitist tone. Seriously, it almost reads like" If you were as smart as me, you would know that I'm right and that you're wrong." You want people to understand your side, explain it to them in a well thought out and polite manner. The moment you start insulting people to get your point across is the moment you lose all credibility. Again, unless you have a credible source for those statistics, they're meaningless. If we all switched over to a plant base diet, how much space would we actually save though? While I imagine growing the plants would take up less space, that's a whole lot of food that your going to have to replace to keep up with demand. How much of a water shortage are we talking about for those livestock areas? Do these have an impact on residential areas or are we talking about separate water supplies for the livestock? Could these water shortages be cause by other factors or do they have no impact? While most people don't care, some do. There's been a fair bit of discussion about GMOs and the like, which seems like a horrible thing to leave out in regards to plants. What would the stance be on genetically modified foods if we were only stuck eating plants? What about pesticides? These are fairly important issues that you can't just gloss over. If I go to the store and buy a jar labeled mayo, then I expect it to be mayo, not imitation mayo. Now, I'm not saying that the imitation mayo is better or worse, but it should be clearly marked that it isn't traditional mayo. Labeling it "Just Mayo" is just asking for trouble as all it's going to do is mislead people. Doesn't help that the part that shows that it's not traditional mayo looks like it's a step up from fine print. I feel like this should just be common sense in regards to most things though.[/QUOTE] When someone calls vegans extremist that don't understand how the real world works, then I can call them ignorant of their knowledge of veganism and plant-based diets. Ignorance is what it is, I can't change the definition. As for being respectful, that's not going to work. I can tolerate it, but I cannot respect someone's decision to consume animal products, it goes against my entire ideology. This is where the ethical side comes in, but I won't discuss that here, since it is off-topic. I don't pull those comments about being better for the environment out of my ass, that's why I put the sources on the bottom of my comment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The world won't go plant-based overnight, so it it pointless to wonder about where we will put the animals or how we will feed everyone on plants. You grow with the demand, which has already been happening. Vegetarians and vegans are a growing niche market, the market shows it too. Simply taking a look at the supermarkets in my area shows the rise of diary and meat alternatives. As for your GMO and pesticides, a large number of crops is currently being grown as food for livestock. The burger you eat is made of the cow that eats the crops you are worried about. Also, omnivores eat plants too. So I do not see why GMOs or pesticide is put as a problem for vegans to solve. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vegetarians tend to stop eating meat because I don't want animal to die for their food. I understand that thought process, but they completely gloss over the conditions the rest of their animal products are produced. The eggs they eat come from chickens, most of them live 1/10 of their actual lifespan. There is also the genetic breeding that happens, which causes all kinds of health problems for the chickens. A lot of rescue chickens need aid to get through their later years safely, because of all the egg laying they had to do. The second part is that male chicks are seen as useless, so they go in the grinder. So you have female chickens that lead a life forced to produce eggs for someone's lunch and male chicks that get ground up. The milk they drink come from cows, most of them live 1/4 of their actual lifespan. Cows are bred to produce the most milk, which leads to plenty of health problems. Cows need to be pregnant to produce milk, so they are forcibly inseminated after they stop producing milk. After pregnancy the calf gets taken away, it becomes calf's meat, a dairy cow or a beef cow. The mother cow probably won't see their calf again, which makes the mother cow act distressed. So you have cows that lead a life forced to give milk and be impregnated for the rest of their life.

[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50836628]I don't see the issue with using the word mayonnaise, as long as it is clear that it is vegan mayonnaise. On the side it says: [img]http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/var/plain_site/storage/images/publications/food-beverage-nutrition/foodnavigator-usa.com/people/highlights-from-foodnavigator-usa-s-ceo-debate-from-gmos-to-gourmet-popcorn-plant-eggs-the-rise-and-rise-of-gluten-free/8699081-1-eng-GB/Highlights-from-FoodNavigator-USA-s-CEO-debate-From-GMOs-to-gourmet-popcorn-plant-eggs-the-rise-and-rise-of-gluten-free_strict_xxl.jpg[/img] For me that's pretty clear. Kind of like how Gardein markets their products: [img]https://gardein.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/gardein_frz_CrspyTndrs_US_Sm-225x238px-225x238.png[/img] It has chicken nuggets in the name, but has meat-free under it.[/QUOTE] How is that clear? I don't see any clear indication that the product is vegan. All I see is a bunch of tiny print from which you might be able to deduce that it is vegan. "Egg-free, dairy-free" does not equal "vegan". You know what else is egg-free and dairy-free? This ribeye. [IMG]http://www.brandtbeef.com/images/products/000r_669-4.jpg[/IMG] When people think of mayo they think of egg yolk and oil. They don't think vegan. Calling it "Just Mayo" is intentionally misleading. Also, the Gardein thing says "seven grain crispy tenders" not "chicken nuggets". And it very clearly says meat-free in large print right underneath. This isn't comparable in any way. [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] [t]https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/1baa5e59-1014-4f66-8f85-3dbde9077306_1.d455b24fca561bc90f0622c6419a9153.jpeg[/t] There's a fucking [I]egg[/I] as the logo

I'm going to sell jarred food products, and I'll be selling it under my brand name "Just veggies", I'll make the labelling green and have a large plant logo on the top on the side it will say "Egg, cholesterol, soy, dairy" etc in very small print is this ok?

Oh boy, here we go. [QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50839137]As for being respectful, that's not going to work. I can tolerate it, but I cannot respect someone's decision to consume animal products, it goes against my entire ideology. This is where the ethical side comes in, but I won't discuss that here, since it is off-topic.[/QUOTE]Right off the bat you set a terrible mood, I think, "yet another vegan comes riding in to bitch at us about his lifestyle and force that shit on the rest of us." You'll pry my venison steak from my cold, dead hand but I don't imagine you'll have a good go at that since I'm the one who shot the son of a bitch in the first place. I say this as somebody who heavily prefers eating garden vegetables, I'm almost to the vegetarian threshold so [I]I'm the type of person you want to convince to keep going and you're doing the opposite.[/I] Let's get to correcting the bullshit: [QUOTE]You grow with the demand, which has already been happening. Vegetarians and vegans are a growing niche market, the market shows it too. Simply taking a look at the supermarkets in my area shows the rise of diary and meat alternatives.[/QUOTE]That's wonderful. Speaking of bullshit do you know how those plants were grown? I do! See, I grew up in rural Minnesota and I know precisely what it takes to turn a seed into a sprout and into a plant and into a vegetable that you enjoy and happily munch on while patting yourself on the back for not consuming a single animal. Only... you are. Kind of. See, that ~organic~ label on your vegetable is supposedly a gold standard among the largely pro-environment vegan community that says, "this vegetable? Morally safe to eat!" So how does it grow? Well first the field needs to be fertilized, so right before harvesting all the cow shit and straw from the barn is loaded up into the spreader and put out on to the field. See if we want organic certification we're not allowed to use the fertilizers that most other farmers use but even if we were they'd still get cut in with top of the line shit straight from the pooping, farting sphincters of hundreds of bovines. Or maybe chickens, I actually grew up on a small poultry farm, but I helped out on other farms [I]plenty[/I] of times. (child labor is A-OK in certain contexts) So after snow and after all of winter really spring comes and we plant our little heritage seeds that aren't at all genetically modified. Then we water, and depending on the crop we might just wait until the sprouting stage to do more. Now at some point these wide open fields will get reoccupied by all the woodland creatures that move from their pockets of wood and spread out, really the population density of ground squirrels stays the same regardless if it's field or forest. Before I get ahead of myself I just want to splice this in: [QUOTE]Vegetarians tend to stop eating meat because I don't want animal to die for their food. I understand that thought process, but they completely gloss over the conditions the rest of their animal products are produced.[/QUOTE] Yeah about that... Well, time goes on, gallons and [I]gallons[/I] of water, more animal waste, an untold number of dead crows because those fuckers eat a lot, dead deer, dead anything really that fucks with the field. Actually farm fields tend to wind up as kill zones because there's all these animals that just [I]eat plants[/I] and they love the purposefully easy to access crops. Keep in mind this is all to feed [I]you[/I] and others like you so you're indirectly using countless animals, slaves even, all suffering so you can have their precious shit. You're also indirectly killing animals because [I]haha fences are only somewhat good at stopping livestock[/I] so all these animals are just attracted to what we're growing for you. Really you haven't avoided any suffering, it's business as usual on the farm and the death toll is still solidly what it would be if people were eating meat. Of course we're still assuming they drink milk because without that cow shit you're shit out of luck if you want to eat enough plants to survive. Anyway it's harvest time, so us farmers hop in our big machines powered by massive diesel engines that probably don't run the greatest because we're short for time almost all the time and just haven't gotten around to fixing them. Environmental regulations for agricultural machinery are [U]very[/U] different than they are for cars, and quite often we don't bother to fix them because if they're John Deere made we literally can't. Why? Well it's all proprietary bullshit and they want us to spend the meager amount of money we get when we sell our crops to pay for a technician to come and fix them. Yeah, [U]fuck[/U] those green and yellow sons of bitches. Anyway, financial trouble aside we drive our gigantic machines belching diesel smoke into the air and start sawing down those crops in a variety of different ways. Except we're not alone, remember those little furry creatures I talked about. Yeah, you can always tell when you run a rabbit over because they scream all the way through the machine. Like actually scream. It sounds like a woman being raped inside a tin can. Remember to wash your veggies! So let's recap: - You've contributed to animal slavery because you need their buttholes to keep pumping - You've contributed to the death of passing herbivores and birds because they will eat a field clean otherwise - You've contributed to the wholesale slaughter of acres of ground animals Of course none of this is true if you grow your own vegetables, and of course this is just farming in the Upper Midwest. I'd say the "animals die a lot on farms" is pretty much a universal rule around the globe though, even in rice paddies and on orchards. Fun stuff. [QUOTE]As for your GMO and pesticides, a large number of crops is currently being grown as food for livestock. The burger you eat is made of the cow that eats the crops you are worried about. Also, omnivores eat plants too. So I do not see why GMOs or pesticide is put as a problem for vegans to solve.[/QUOTE][I]Oh this reminds me of the [B]bees,[/B] I had forgotten all about those little darlings.[/I] I suppose you might consider an apiary a prison, and beekeeping slavery, but actually they're extremely important to agriculture [I]worldwide[/I] and are especially critical for most of the garden vegetables we enjoy in the United States. Like no joke, without the bee food production would plummet. So you really do need a large abundance of bees, actually you need a large abundance of bees in a certain place at certain times and with consistency because if the local area simply doesn't have them you will need to artificially introduce them. Arable land is nice but when your crops aren't pollinated it kind of puts a damper on the whole thing, but what on earth does [I]any[/I] of this have to do with GMOs? Well two parts. One, GMO crops tend to be seedless and thus need to be supplied yearly and are engineered to take a certain type of pesticide. These crops don't need to go to seed because, well, they can't so the company that makes them sends you the amount you need and you pay for it. This is great for corporate farms who produce an absurd amount of food annually and take up many, [I]many[/I] square miles of space. This doesn't work out so well for the local bee population because each of these fields is a monoculture environment so the only plants that [I]do[/I] have flowers tend to be really, really far away. Sure it's an inconvenience, but it's not too bad right? [B]Wrong.[/B] Secondly the pesticides for these GMO crops are [I]likely a significant factor to colony collapse disorder[/I] which is such an alarming phenomena that it has the USDA, EPA, DNR, BLM, and several other alphabet agencies extremely worried. Without bees there's no wildflowers and wild plants getting pollinated with regularity. That means those species stop reproducing which means they eventually die off which means the herbivores die off which means the carnivores and omnivores die off which means the scavengers die off! Yep! [del]Everything[/del] a lot of things will die without bees. Sure, GMOs and their special pesticides aren't the primary cause of colony collapse disorder and it's actually a combination of factors but [I]weren't you the same guy complaining about agriculture contributing to climate change?[/I] Surely if that bothers you then the GMO contribution to the apiapocalpyse would freak you the fuck out. [QUOTE]The eggs they eat come from chickens, most of them live 1/10 of their actual lifespan.[/QUOTE]??????????????????????????? Huh? Chickens live for about four to six years in the best of conditions, in the wild (yes, feral chickens do exist) they live for far less. So really their lifespan on a farm is contextual, a broiler has been bred for his/her meat and really only lives the better part of a year so that's the lower end of the spectrum, the upper end is a free-range egg hen. They live as long as their little hearts will carry them or until a predator comes and snatches them, (on a true free range farm) so that's kind of dependent on the environment. Ideally you want your coop to move every week to two weeks so the chickens can pick the area clean but without resorting to eating grass. (this can bind them up, they need a mixed diet) This makes them produce more or less one and a half eggs a day each, so a coop with fifty hens will make a hundred and fifty eggs about every two days. Some hens lay two a day, especially as they get older, but at some point they stop and this is usually where there's a dilemma. We'll get to that in a bit. [QUOTE]There is also the genetic breeding that happens, which causes all kinds of health problems for the chickens.[/QUOTE]I wasn't aware there was any other type of breeding. Actually I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, that birth defects happen? Yeah, that happens with anything, [I]that happens with people.[/I] This is absolutely one of the dumber points you've made so far and I don't have much else to say about it. [QUOTE]A lot of rescue chickens need aid to get through their later years safely, because of all the egg laying they had to do.[/QUOTE]Oh wait no I spoke too soon, this is absolutely the dumbest fucking thing I've read in your post. When a hen reaches sexual maturity she ovulates, just like everything else with ovaries, so I'm not sure what the hell you have in your head but I really, [I]really[/I] hope I'm not having "the talk" with you because that would be weird. Long and short, females ovulate, they make [I]eggs[/I] and these can potentially be fertilized but they don't really have to be because the female whatever is just going to drop another one when she's good and ready. With humans that takes [I]a bit[/I] longer than it does with chickens who ovulate pretty much daily, you can excite this process with some stimuli but it's still going to happen anyway. That said most egg-laying chickens are [U]virgins[/U] and were never mounted, so every egg laid is an automatic natural process of the hen's body. You do think a woman's body is beautiful, right? Oh, speaking of bodies let's get back to that old chicken who simply has no more eggs left to lay. Well two things can happen: one she's put in a box with fertilized eggs to be a brooder (they'll sit on golf balls sometimes, it's an automatic process) or she's passed on to the slaughter house. Often enough this day never comes because old hens tend to be tired hens and plenty of times they just up and die when they run out of eggs. Perhaps careful timing by nature? Who knows! [QUOTE]The second part is that male chicks are seen as useless, so they go in the grinder.[/QUOTE]Depends on the industry and depends on the context, for breeds that lay eggs the males tend to be useless for meat so yeah this often happens. I don't like it, we never did it on our farm because our eggs were hatched naturally. Roosters were grown in a different pen and sent off to slaughter when they were big, but I was aware of the conditions of other farms from a young age. Not exactly a cruel process though, the grinder is pretty humane compared to all the other ways to go on a farm. [QUOTE]The milk they drink come from cows, most of them live 1/4 of their actual lifespan.[/QUOTE]... No...? Cows tend to live pretty old until they can't make milk anymore. They develop hip and joint problems soon after, I don't know of anyone cruel enough to keep a cow around when she's crippled and can't even feed herself. This is another spectacularly dumb part of your post. [QUOTE]Cows are bred to produce the most milk, which leads to plenty of health problems.[/QUOTE]Problems wild bovines develop too, cows are not special. Even the mighty buffalo will die of mastitis but at least cows have the benefit of veterinary care. Unlike chickens who are small and easily replaced a single dairy cow is a significant investment, she will produce hundreds of thousands of dollars over her lifetime and any health problem with any cow is not taken lightly. Losing a dairy cow to mastitis is one thing but if disease spreads among the herd it could mean head after head lost so any sign of discomfort or illness is immediately acted upon because [I]a lot of money is at stake.[/I] [QUOTE]Cows need to be pregnant to produce milk, so they are forcibly inseminated after they stop producing milk.[/QUOTE]Or just exposed to a bull, depending on whichever is cheaper and easier. What, were you somehow unaware that animals have genitals and use them? This is how farms work, sex is a huge part of animal husbandry. I feel like I'm being told how snow works as a Minnesotan, you act like this is some awe-inspiring secret but it's not. [QUOTE]After pregnancy the calf gets taken away, it becomes calf's meat, a dairy cow or a beef cow. The mother cow probably won't see their calf again, which makes the mother cow act distressed.[/QUOTE]Yes, because making the [I]dairy cow[/I] lose her milk is such a great idea. What is this stupid bullshit? Pulling the calf away too early causes a dairy cow to stop producing milk, the best time is when it's old enough to survive on it's own without milk (thus giving you a new cow) and when she's still full with milk. (thus giving you milk) Either way in a few weeks the calf is going to be discarded by the mother, so the udders swell and after a few days they begin to shrink which is a [U]very[/U] painful process. Like, extremely painful. When being milked this process is drawn out and gradual, the udders just shrivel up because she lacks the necessary hormones to keep milk production up. This takes around three hundred days by the way, so it's a long time from pregnancy to losing her boob juice. Until then the cows will happily trot out every morning to be milked dry, this process is so routine that automatic milkers exist that simply require the cow to approach and stand still without any human intervention at all. They need to be active at all times because the cow will approach whenever she feels like being milked and the machine has to be able to wash the nipples clean and try to keep track of the condition of the herd. As I said before, cows are large investments so the lack of human-bovine interaction leaves gaps so that [I]might[/I] cause problems in a careless or inexperienced farmer. [QUOTE]So you have cows that lead a life forced to give milk and be impregnated for the rest of their life.[/QUOTE]... Yes, just like every other female mammal on the face of the planet. [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] [B]TL;DR: You kill animals too, you have no moral high ground [U]at[/U] [U]all[/U] and I really don't think you even know what the hell you're talking about.[/B]

[QUOTE=bitches;50835661]i'm more upset by products like Aunt Jemima maple syrup (corn syrup + fake flavoring) fooling people like my dad into not knowing what real maple tastes like anymore[/QUOTE] Get that man some real maple or at least a can of lyle's maple flavour golden syrup, its as close to the real thing as you can get without it being actual maple syrup, shits also made of actual sugar not fucking corn as well.

[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50836628]If you could stop being an ignorant and actually read about the plant-based diet, you would be able to see how it is only a logical conclusion for us as humans in the long run. Why I should respect a diet that kills the environment and the animals just so you can savour in the taste is extreme. The only thing I can do is tolerate it, because I can't slap the hamburger out your hand, nor would I feel inclined to do so.[/QUOTE] Why should I [i]not[/i] respect a diet that we've been using for generations successfully? I don't give a shit about how it effects the environment, it is quite literally impossible to not do anything that'll hurt the environment in the long run in our daily lives. It's possible to work towards reversing climate change while still eating meat/driving a car. And don't even bring up the shit about killing animals, that's your personal view that not everyone else shares, so it's not an effective argument. If you're vegan, fine. I don't give a shit. But if you actively secretly hate people who eat meat, then I have no respect for you.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50839766]Oh boy, here we go. Right off the bat you set a terrible mood, I think, "yet another vegan comes riding in to bitch at us about his lifestyle and force that shit on the rest of us." You'll pry my venison steak from my cold, dead hand but I don't imagine you'll have a good go at that since I'm the one who shot the son of a bitch in the first place. I say this as somebody who heavily prefers eating garden vegetables, I'm almost to the vegetarian threshold so [I]I'm the type of person you want to convince to keep going and you're doing the opposite.[/I] Let's get to correcting the bullshit: That's wonderful. Speaking of bullshit do you know how those plants were grown? I do! See, I grew up in rural Minnesota and I know precisely what it takes to turn a seed into a sprout and into a plant and into a vegetable that you enjoy and happily munch on while patting yourself on the back for not consuming a single animal. Only... you are. Kind of. See, that ~organic~ label on your vegetable is supposedly a gold standard among the largely pro-environment vegan community that says, "this vegetable? Morally safe to eat!" So how does it grow? Well first the field needs to be fertilized, so right before harvesting all the cow shit and straw from the barn is loaded up into the spreader and put out on to the field. See if we want organic certification we're not allowed to use the fertilizers that most other farmers use but even if we were they'd still get cut in with top of the line shit straight from the pooping, farting sphincters of hundreds of bovines. Or maybe chickens, I actually grew up on a small poultry farm, but I helped out on other farms [I]plenty[/I] of times. (child labor is A-OK in certain contexts) So after snow and after all of winter really spring comes and we plant our little heritage seeds that aren't at all genetically modified. Then we water, and depending on the crop we might just wait until the sprouting stage to do more. Now at some point these wide open fields will get reoccupied by all the woodland creatures that move from their pockets of wood and spread out, really the population density of ground squirrels stays the same regardless if it's field or forest. Before I get ahead of myself I just want to splice this in: Yeah about that... Well, time goes on, gallons and [I]gallons[/I] of water, more animal waste, an untold number of dead crows because those fuckers eat a lot, dead deer, dead anything really that fucks with the field. Actually farm fields tend to wind up as kill zones because there's all these animals that just [I]eat plants[/I] and they love the purposefully easy to access crops. Keep in mind this is all to feed [I]you[/I] and others like you so you're indirectly using countless animals, slaves even, all suffering so you can have their precious shit. You're also indirectly killing animals because [I]haha fences are only somewhat good at stopping livestock[/I] so all these animals are just attracted to what we're growing for you. Really you haven't avoided any suffering, it's business as usual on the farm and the death toll is still solidly what it would be if people were eating meat. Of course we're still assuming they drink milk because without that cow shit you're shit out of luck if you want to eat enough plants to survive. Anyway it's harvest time, so us farmers hop in our big machines powered by massive diesel engines that probably don't run the greatest because we're short for time almost all the time and just haven't gotten around to fixing them. Environmental regulations for agricultural machinery are [U]very[/U] different than they are for cars, and quite often we don't bother to fix them because if they're John Deere made we literally can't. Why? Well it's all proprietary bullshit and they want us to spend the meager amount of money we get when we sell our crops to pay for a technician to come and fix them. Yeah, [U]fuck[/U] those green and yellow sons of bitches. Anyway, financial trouble aside we drive our gigantic machines belching diesel smoke into the air and start sawing down those crops in a variety of different ways. Except we're not alone, remember those little furry creatures I talked about. Yeah, you can always tell when you run a rabbit over because they scream all the way through the machine. Like actually scream. It sounds like a woman being raped inside a tin can. Remember to wash your veggies! So let's recap: - You've contributed to animal slavery because you need their buttholes to keep pumping - You've contributed to the death of passing herbivores and birds because they will eat a field clean otherwise - You've contributed to the wholesale slaughter of acres of ground animals Of course none of this is true if you grow your own vegetables, and of course this is just farming in the Upper Midwest. I'd say the "animals die a lot on farms" is pretty much a universal rule around the globe though, even in rice paddies and on orchards. Fun stuff. [I]Oh this reminds me of the [B]bees,[/B] I had forgotten all about those little darlings.[/I] I suppose you might consider an apiary a prison, and beekeeping slavery, but actually they're extremely important to agriculture [I]worldwide[/I] and are especially critical for most of the garden vegetables we enjoy in the United States. Like no joke, without the bee food production would plummet. So you really do need a large abundance of bees, actually you need a large abundance of bees in a certain place at certain times and with consistency because if the local area simply doesn't have them you will need to artificially introduce them. Arable land is nice but when your crops aren't pollinated it kind of puts a damper on the whole thing, but what on earth does [I]any[/I] of this have to do with GMOs? Well two parts. One, GMO crops tend to be seedless and thus need to be supplied yearly and are engineered to take a certain type of pesticide. These crops don't need to go to seed because, well, they can't so the company that makes them sends you the amount you need and you pay for it. This is great for corporate farms who produce an absurd amount of food annually and take up many, [I]many[/I] square miles of space. This doesn't work out so well for the local bee population because each of these fields is a monoculture environment so the only plants that [I]do[/I] have flowers tend to be really, really far away. Sure it's an inconvenience, but it's not too bad right? [B]Wrong.[/B] Secondly the pesticides for these GMO crops are [I]likely a significant factor to colony collapse disorder[/I] which is such an alarming phenomena that it has the USDA, EPA, DNR, BLM, and several other alphabet agencies extremely worried. Without bees there's no wildflowers and wild plants getting pollinated with regularity. That means those species stop reproducing which means they eventually die off which means the herbivores die off which means the carnivores and omnivores die off which means the scavengers die off! Yep! [del]Everything[/del] a lot of things will die without bees. Sure, GMOs and their special pesticides aren't the primary cause of colony collapse disorder and it's actually a combination of factors but [I]weren't you the same guy complaining about agriculture contributing to climate change?[/I] Surely if that bothers you then the GMO contribution to the apiapocalpyse would freak you the fuck out. ??????????????????????????? Huh? Chickens live for about four to six years in the best of conditions, in the wild (yes, feral chickens do exist) they live for far less. So really their lifespan on a farm is contextual, a broiler has been bred for his/her meat and really only lives the better part of a year so that's the lower end of the spectrum, the upper end is a free-range egg hen. They live as long as their little hearts will carry them or until a predator comes and snatches them, (on a true free range farm) so that's kind of dependent on the environment. Ideally you want your coop to move every week to two weeks so the chickens can pick the area clean but without resorting to eating grass. (this can bind them up, they need a mixed diet) This makes them produce more or less one and a half eggs a day each, so a coop with fifty hens will make a hundred and fifty eggs about every two days. Some hens lay two a day, especially as they get older, but at some point they stop and this is usually where there's a dilemma. We'll get to that in a bit. I wasn't aware there was any other type of breeding. Actually I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, that birth defects happen? Yeah, that happens with anything, [I]that happens with people.[/I] This is absolutely one of the dumber points you've made so far and I don't have much else to say about it. Oh wait no I spoke too soon, this is absolutely the dumbest fucking thing I've read in your post. When a hen reaches sexual maturity she ovulates, just like everything else with ovaries, so I'm not sure what the hell you have in your head but I really, [I]really[/I] hope I'm not having "the talk" with you because that would be weird. Long and short, females ovulate, they make [I]eggs[/I] and these can potentially be fertilized but they don't really have to be because the female whatever is just going to drop another one when she's good and ready. With humans that takes [I]a bit[/I] longer than it does with chickens who ovulate pretty much daily, you can excite this process with some stimuli but it's still going to happen anyway. That said most egg-laying chickens are [U]virgins[/U] and were never mounted, so every egg laid is an automatic natural process of the hen's body. You do think a woman's body is beautiful, right? Oh, speaking of bodies let's get back to that old chicken who simply has no more eggs left to lay. Well two things can happen: one she's put in a box with fertilized eggs to be a brooder (they'll sit on golf balls sometimes, it's an automatic process) or she's passed on to the slaughter house. Often enough this day never comes because old hens tend to be tired hens and plenty of times they just up and die when they run out of eggs. Perhaps careful timing by nature? Who knows! Depends on the industry and depends on the context, for breeds that lay eggs the males tend to be useless for meat so yeah this often happens. I don't like it, we never did it on our farm because our eggs were hatched naturally. Roosters were grown in a different pen and sent off to slaughter when they were big, but I was aware of the conditions of other farms from a young age. Not exactly a cruel process though, the grinder is pretty humane compared to all the other ways to go on a farm. ... No...? Cows tend to live pretty old until they can't make milk anymore. They develop hip and joint problems soon after, I don't know of anyone cruel enough to keep a cow around when she's crippled and can't even feed herself. This is another spectacularly dumb part of your post. Problems wild bovines develop too, cows are not special. Even the mighty buffalo will die of mastitis but at least cows have the benefit of veterinary care. Unlike chickens who are small and easily replaced a single dairy cow is a significant investment, she will produce hundreds of thousands of dollars over her lifetime and any health problem with any cow is not taken lightly. Losing a dairy cow to mastitis is one thing but if disease spreads among the herd it could mean head after head lost so any sign of discomfort or illness is immediately acted upon because [I]a lot of money is at stake.[/I] Or just exposed to a bull, depending on whichever is cheaper and easier. What, were you somehow unaware that animals have genitals and use them? This is how farms work, sex is a huge part of animal husbandry. I feel like I'm being told how snow works as a Minnesotan, you act like this is some awe-inspiring secret but it's not. Yes, because making the [I]dairy cow[/I] lose her milk is such a great idea. What is this stupid bullshit? Pulling the calf away too early causes a dairy cow to stop producing milk, the best time is when it's old enough to survive on it's own without milk (thus giving you a new cow) and when she's still full with milk. (thus giving you milk) Either way in a few weeks the calf is going to be discarded by the mother, so the udders swell and after a few days they begin to shrink which is a [U]very[/U] painful process. Like, extremely painful. When being milked this process is drawn out and gradual, the udders just shrivel up because she lacks the necessary hormones to keep milk production up. This takes around three hundred days by the way, so it's a long time from pregnancy to losing her boob juice. Until then the cows will happily trot out every morning to be milked dry, this process is so routine that automatic milkers exist that simply require the cow to approach and stand still without any human intervention at all. They need to be active at all times because the cow will approach whenever she feels like being milked and the machine has to be able to wash the nipples clean and try to keep track of the condition of the herd. As I said before, cows are large investments so the lack of human-bovine interaction leaves gaps so that [I]might[/I] cause problems in a careless or inexperienced farmer. ... Yes, just like every other female mammal on the face of the planet. [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] [B]TL;DR: You kill animals too, you have no moral high ground [U]at[/U] [U]all[/U] and I really don't think you even know what the hell you're talking about.[/B][/QUOTE] I can't take this seriously when you make the claim that growing only crops kills just as many animals as mass producing meat. It shows how little you know about the industry, perhaps on purpose to justify your insane claim. Dramatizing it with descriptions of animal death for the shock value doesn't make the point any less false. [editline]6th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50839816]Why should I [i]not[/i] respect a diet that we've been using for generations successfully? I don't give a shit about how it effects the environment, it is quite literally impossible to not do anything that'll hurt the environment in the long run in our daily lives. It's possible to work towards reversing climate change and still eat meat. And don't even bring up the shit about killing animals, that's your personal view that not everyone else shares, so it's not an effective argument. If you're vegan, fine. I don't give a shit. But if you actively secretly hate people who eat meat, then I have no respect for you.[/QUOTE] He's saying that he doesn't respect your complete disregard for nonhuman forms of life for the sake of a flavor.

[QUOTE=bitches;50839820]He's saying that he doesn't respect your complete disregard for nonhuman forms of life for the sake of a flavor.[/QUOTE] And I don't respect him not respecting me and his assuming that I eat meat just for the flavour.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.