White Castle goes highbrow? Now famous slider can come with fake beef

LINKEDIN 3COMMENTMORE

The new wave of plant-based “meat” is going mainstream — and straight into one of America’s most iconic fast-food burgers, the White Castle slider.

White Castle is announcing it is introducing a vegetarian fake-meat version of its famous mini-burgers. The burger uses a patty made by a California-based start-up, Impossible Foods, which is one of several scientifically engineered products made to make plant-based ingredients taste uncannily like juicy ground beef.

Called the Impossible Slider, it will be initially sold at 140 White Castle eateries in the New York, New Jersey and greater Chicago areas with the potential for a nationwide rollout.

The White Castle Impossible Slider — made with smoked cheddar cheese, pickles, onions and a bun — features a 2-ounce patty and costs $1.99. That compares to the chain’s traditional 0.9-ounce mini-cheeseburger at about 94 cents, depending on the store location.

The new choice might come as a surprise to White Castle devotees, especially since the fake-beef burgers have largely been confined to more highbrow burger chains and restaurants until now. But White Castle executives figured it was time to give fake beef a try.

“Plant-based proteins are growing. We felt it was a good opportunity to test it with our customers,” CEO Lisa Ingram said. “We think it will appeal to a broad range of customers — those that are meat eaters who want to try something different and non-meat eaters who want this.”

She also said the new sliders might bring in new customers, too.

This isn’t White Castle’s first foray into meatless. It has been selling a Veggie Slider since 2015.

The new Slider is bigger, because “the new taste comes through more fully” when that size patty is on the regular 2-inch-squared bun, according to the company.

Until now, Impossible Foods’ faux meat was served in more upscale chains, such as Fatburger, Umami and actor Mark Wahlberg’s Wahlburger restaurant.

Competitor Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burgers joined the TGI Friday’s menu in January and can be found on shelves of large stores such as Kroger and Target.

Animal-protein titan Tyson Foods, which acquired a 5% ownership stake in Bill Gates-backed Beyond Meat in 2016, increased its investment in December to an undisclosed amount. Last fall, Nestle announced plans to acquire Sweet Earth, a plant-based foods manufacturer.

The Impossible Slider represents what few in the traditional beef industry thought possible — that cowless meat would be a hit in a country known for its meat-and-potatoes diet and love of burgers.

Plant-based meat alternatives are growing at rate of about 11% a year, according to the research firm Acosta. The market isn’t just vegetarians: Some 71% of people who buy plant-based meat also eat the real thing.

The meat imitators present enough of a threat that in February, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, asking that the terms “meat” and “beef” be applied only to food made directly from animals. Impossible Foods’ burger is made of water, wheat protein, potato protein, coconut oil and heme, an iron-heavy molecule that gives it its meaty taste.

“Interest in meat alternatives seems to be driven by consumers at large, not just those looking for vegetarian lifestyles, but looking for diversification of tastes and health benefits,” said Billy Roberts, senior food and drink analyst at the global market research firm Mintel.

More: Where’s the beef? Not in these new plant-based burgers

More: Burgers now outselling classic jambon-beurre baguette sandwiches in France

More: Lego bricks will soon be plant-based, but don’t eat them

“Our business is a growth business. There’ll be increased demands for products like the Impossible Burger,” Impossible Foods Chief Operating Officer David Lee said. “People are increasingly asking about what impact food has on the environment and our health.”

His company recently expanded its manufacturing facility in Oakland and can produce 1 million pounds of its meat alternatives a month. That’s what will enable Impossible Foods to produce all the patties White Castle needs, though the privately-held Columbus, Ohio-based 376-unit chain declined to say how many it needs to sell to say the new product is a success.

Advertisements

By going vegan, America could feed an additional 390 million people, study suggests

By going vegan, America could feed an additional 390 million people, study suggests
It takes much more land to produce edible protein from pigs, cattle and chickens than it does to grow it from plants, according to new research. (Chuck Liddy / TNS)

 

More than 41 million Americans find themselves at risk of going hungry at some point during the year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture says.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. New research suggests the country could feed all 327 million Americans — plus roughly 390 million more — by focusing on plants.

If U.S. farmers took all the land currently devoted to raising cattle, pigs and chickens and used it to grow plants instead, they could sustain more than twice as many people as they do now, according to a report published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Set aside your cravings for cheeseburgers, bacon and chicken wings for a moment and consider the argument made by Ron Milo, a systems biology and sustainability researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, and his coauthors.

The researchers examined Americans’ eating habits and agricultural production in the years 2000 to 2010. For their calculations, they used a U.S. population of 300 million (in reality, it grew from 282 million to 309 million during that period, according to the Census Bureau).

With the help of computers, they figured out how to remove beef, pork, chicken, dairy and eggs from the American diet and replace them with plant-based foods that were “nutritionally comparable.” That means the replacement foods had to provide the same amount of calories, protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals without increasing fat or cholesterol — and they had to do it using the smallest amount of land possible.

Here’s what they found:

Imagine an area of land that can produce 100 grams of edible protein from plants. If you take that same amount of land and use it to produce eggs instead, you would end up with only 60 grams of edible protein — an “opportunity food loss” of 40%, the study authors found.

And that was the best-case scenario.

If that land were used to raise chickens, it would produce 50 grams of protein in the form of poultry. If it were devoted to dairy cows, it would provide 25 grams of protein in the form of milk products. If that land became a home for pigs, they would provide 10 grams of protein in the form of pork. And if you put cattle there, you’d get just 4 grams of protein in the form of beef.

Milo and his colleagues then scaled up their results to see how many more Americans could be fed by making each of those changes.

Eliminating eggs and replacing them with plants that offer the same nutrients would make it possible to feed 1 million additional people.

At the other end of the spectrum, swapping plants for beef would result in enough food to “meet the full dietary needs” of 163 million extra people.

In the middle were dairy (getting rid of it would result in food for 25 million more people), pigs (cutting them out would feed 19 million more people) and poultry chickens (without them, farmers could feed 12 million more people).

If beef, pork, chicken, dairy and eggs all were replaced by a nutritionally equivalent combination of potatoes, peanuts, soybeans and other plants, the total amount of food available to be eaten would increase by 120%, the researchers calculated.

To put that in perspective, the amount of food that’s currently wasted due to things such as spoilage and inefficient production methods is between 30% and 40% of what U.S. farmers produce.

“The effect of recovering the opportunity food loss,” the authors wrote, “is larger than completely eliminating all conventional food losses in the United States.”

That’s not to say there wouldn’t be a few downsides. Although a completely plant-based diet would provide more nutrients overall, consumption of vitamin B12 and a few other micronutrients would decline, the study authors noted.

The economic effects of eliminating all livestock-based agriculture are also unknown, they added. But two of the plusses include better health (which should reduce medical costs) and fewer greenhouse gas emissions, they wrote.

Even if you’re not ready to go vegan, Milo and his colleagues have certainly served up some food for thought…

[I have a thought, how about we go vegan AND REDUCE our population.]

The “Easter” Chick – A Lost Soul


By Karen Davis, PhD, President, United Poultry Concerns

*Easter Egg Hunt and Egg Gathering*

The association of a hen’s egg with Easter and Spring survives ironically
in the
annual children’s Easter Egg Hunt, for the origin of this ritual has been
largely forgotten.

Traditionally, the finding of eggs was identified with the finding of
riches.
The search for eggs was part of farm life, because a free hen sensibly lays
her
eggs in a sheltered and secluded spot. Today’s children hunt for eggs that
were
laid by a hen imprisoned in a mechanized building, most likely in a wire
cage.
The widespread disappearance of the home chicken flock in the 1950s ended
the
gathering of eggs laid by a hen in the place she chose for her nest.
Historian
Page Smith writes in *The Chicken Book*, “My contemporaries who have such
dismal
memories of chickens from the unpleasant chores of their youth had
experienced
already the consequences of putting living creatures in circumstances that
are
inherently uncongenial to them.”

Wilbor Wilson provides the background to this change in *American Poultry*
*History*. He writes: “As the size of poultry ranches increased, the chore
of egg
gathering became drudgery instead of pleasure. Rollaway nests with sloping
floors made of hardware cloth offered a partial solution, but the number of
floor eggs increased when the hens did not readily adopt the wire-floored
nests.
This changed with development of the cage system which left the hen no
choice.”

*The Hen as a Symbol of Motherhood*

In our day, the hen has been degraded to an “egg machine.” In previous eras
she
embodied the essence of motherhood. The First Century CE Roman historian and
biographer Plutarch wrote of the mother hen in *De amore parentis* [
*parental*
*love*]: “What of the hens whom we observe each day at home, with what care
and
assiduity they govern and guard their chicks? Some let down their wings for
the
chicks to come under; others arch their backs for them to climb upon; there
is
no part of their bodies with which they do not wish to cherish their chicks
if
they can, nor do they do this without a joy and alacrity which they seem to
exhibit by the sound of their voices.”

In Matthew 23:37, the mother hen is evoked to express the spirit of
yearning and
protective love: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often have I wished to gather
your
children together, even as a hen gathers together her chicks.”

The Renaissance writer Ulisse Aldrovandi wrote of mother hens in the 16th
century:

They follow their chicks with such great love that, if they see or spy at
a
distance any harmful animal, such as a kite or a weasel or someone even
larger
stalking their little ones, the hens first gather them under the shadow of
their wings, and with this covering they put up such a very fierce
defense
– striking fear into their opponent in the midst of a frightful clamor,
using
both wings and beak – they would rather die for their chicks than seek
safety
in flight. . . . Thus they present a noble example in love of their
offspring,
as also when they feed them, offering the food they have collected and
neglecting their own hunger.

*The Role of the Rooster*

The family role of the rooster is nowadays less well known to most people
than
the motherhood of the hen. The charm of seeing a rooster with his hens
appears
in Chaucer’s portrait of Chanticleer in *The Canterbury Tales*:

This cock had in his princely sway and measure
Seven hens to satisfy his every pleasure,
Who were his sisters and his sweethearts true,
Each wonderfully like him in her hue,
Of whom the fairest-feathered throat to see
Was fair Dame Partlet. Courteous was she,
Discreet, and always acted debonairly.

In ancient times, the rooster was esteemed for his sexual vigor; it is said
that
a healthy young rooster may mate as often as thirty or more times a day. The
rooster thus figures in religious history as a symbol of divine fertility
and
the life force. In his own world of chickendom, the rooster – the cock – is
a
father, a lover, a brother, a food-finder, a guardian, and a sentinel.

Aldrovandi extolled the rooster’s domestic virtues:

He is for us the example of the best and truest father of a family. For
he not
only presents himself as a vigilant guardian of his little ones, and in
the
morning, at the proper time, invites us to our daily labor; but he sallies
forth as the first, not only with his crowing, by which he shows what
must be
done, but he sweeps everything, explores and spies out everything.

Finding food, “he calls both hens and chicks together to eat it while he
stands
like a father and host at a banquet . . . inviting them to the feast,
exercised
by a single care, that they should have something to eat. Meanwhile he
scurries
about to find something nearby, and when he has found it, he calls his
family
again in a loud voice. They run to the spot. He stretches himself up, looks
around for any danger that may be near, runs about the entire poultry yard,
here
and there plucking up a grain or two for himself without ceasing to invite
the
others to follow him.”

A nineteenth-century poultry keeper wrote to his friend that his Shanghai
cock
was “very attentive to his Hens, and exercises a most fatherly care over the
Chicks in his yard. . . . He frequently would allow them to perch on his
back,
and in this manner carry them into the house, and then up the chicken
ladder.”

___________

*KAREN DAVIS, PhD is the President and Founder of United Poultry Concerns

The Case for a Carbon Tax on Beef

Photo

CreditIgor Bastidas

Let me admit up front that I would rather be eating a cheeseburger right now. Or maybe trying out a promising new recipe for Korean braised short ribs. But our collective love affair with beef, dating back more than 10,000 years, has gone wrong, in so many ways. And in my head, if not in my appetites, I know it’s time to break it off.

So it caught my eye recently when a team of French scientists published a paper on the practicality of putting a carbon tax on beef as a tool for meeting European Union climate change targets. The idea will no doubt sound absurd to Americans reared on Big Macs and cowboy mythology. While most of us recognize that we are already experiencing the effects of climate change, according to a 2017 Gallup poll, we just can’t imagine that, for instance, floods, mudslides, wildfires, biblical droughts and back-to-back Category 5 hurricanes are going to be a serious problem in our lifetimes. And we certainly don’t make the connection to the food on our plates, or to beef in particular.

Paying the Price for Polluting

The production of beef has a larger impact on the environment than that of any other meat or dairy product. A tax based on carbon emissions could increase the price of beef by up to 41 percent in supermarkets.

The cattle industry would like to keep it that way. Oil, gas and coal had to play along, for instance, when the Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency instituted mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. But the program to track livestock emissions was mysteriously defunded by Congress in 2010, and the position of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association at the time was that the extent of the emissions was “alleged and unsubstantiated.” The association now goes an Orwellian step further, arguing in its 2018 policy book that agriculture is a source of offsets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Agriculture, including cattle raising, is our third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, after the energy and industrial sectors. At first glance, the root of the problem may appear to be our appetite for meat generally. Chatham House, the influential British think tank, attributes 14.5 percent of global emissions to livestock — “more than the emissions produced from powering all the world’s road vehicles, trains, ships and airplanes combined.” Livestock consume the yield from a quarter of all cropland worldwide. Add in grazing, and the business of making meat occupies about three-quarters of the agricultural land on the planet.

Beef and dairy cattle together account for an outsize share of agriculture and its attendant problems, including almost two-thirds of all livestock emissions, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. That’s partly because there are so many of them — 1 billion to 1.4 billion head of cattle worldwide. They don’t outnumber humanity, but with cattle in this country topping out at about 1,300 pounds apiece, their footprint on the planet easily outweighs ours. 

The emissions come partly from the fossil fuels used to plant, fertilize and harvest the feed to fatten them up for market. In addition, ruminant digestion causes cattle to belch and otherwise emit huge quantities of methane. A new study in the journal Carbon Balance and Management puts the global gas output of cattle at 120 million tons per year. Methane doesn’t hang around in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide. But in the first 20 years after its release, it’s 80 to 100 times more potent at trapping the heat of the sun and warming the planet. The way feedlots and other producers manage manure also ensures that cattle continue to produce methane long after they have gone to the great steakhouse in the sky. 

The French researchers, from the Toulouse School of Economics, decided to take a look at a carbon tax on beef because the European Union has committed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions more than half by midcentury — and that includes agricultural emissions. The ambition is to keep global warming under 2 degrees Celsius, widely regarded as a tipping point at which cascading and potentially catastrophic effects of climate change could sweep across the planet. Their study found that a relatively steep tax, based on greenhouse gas emissions, would raise the retail price of beef by about 40 percent and cause a corresponding drop in consumption, much like the sugar tax on sodas and the tax on tobacco products.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to put a carbon tax on fossil fuel, a larger source of greenhouse gas emissions? You bet. But many people who now commute in conventional gas-fueled automobiles have no better way to get home — or to heat their homes when they get there. That broader carbon tax will require dramatically restructuring our lives. A carbon tax on beef, on the other hand, would be a relatively simple test case for such taxes and, according to the French study, only a little painful, at least at the household level: While people would tend to skip the beef bourguignon, they could substitute other meats, like pork and chicken, that have a much smaller climate change footprint.

The tax would also reduce the substantial contribution of beef and dairy cattle to water pollution, deforestation, biodiversity loss and human mortality. (A 2012 Harvard School of Public Health study found that adding a single serving of unprocessed red meat per day increases the risk of death by 13 percent.) Those factors have already driven down beef consumption in the United States by 19 percent since 2005.

Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache, a co-author of the French study, readily acknowledged that the proposed carbon tax on beef has no chance of becoming reality, “not even in Europe” and certainly not in the United States. Our politicians continue to regard the beef industry as, well, a sacred cow. And even if the rest of us acknowledge the reality of climate change, we tend to put off actually doing much about it in our own lives. It’s a J. Wellington Wimpy philosophy: We want our hamburgers today, on a promise to pay on some future Tuesday, probably in our grandchildren’s lifetimes.

Still, the idea of a carbon tax on beef makes me think. I crave the aroma of beef, from a burger, or a barbecue brisket cooked low and slow. It’s just harder to enjoy it now when I can also catch the faint whiff of methane lingering 20 years into our increasingly uncertain future.

50 Shades of Veganism Commentary by Captain Paul Watson

No automatic alt text available.

by Captain Paul Watson

I have seen the steady evolution of veganism in my lifetime. In the Seventies we had vegetarians but practically no one had ever heard of a vegan.

As a vegetarian in 1979, I was hard pressed to find a decent meal and at dinners I would find myself ordering an omelette for lunch or dinner which actually was considered somewhat unusual. Finding a vegetarian meal was possible but almost always restricted. Finding a vegetarian restaurant was more of a challenge but there was always Indian and Japanese vegetable sushi.

But I have seen the movement grow and although it began slowly, in recent years it has accelerated rapidly to the point where traditional meat venues like MacDonald’s and others have seen the writing on the wall and now are offering vegan burgers and the dairy industry is totally freaking out over coconut, soy, almond, hemp, oat and pea milk.

Vegan scarcity has evolved into a cornucopia of vegan alternatives. The movement has exploded and due to many considerations like animal rights, health, the environment etc, the movement is becoming stronger with each passing day.

My prediction is that by 2030, western society will be predominantly vegetarian and veganism will be the norm and not the exception.

Being a vegan sometimes appears to be a complicated affair. People seem to be vegans for different reasons and there does seem to be a bit of bickering amongst vegans on just how vegan one should be.

The only negative aspect of veganism is intolerance. And it’s not just intolerance by vegans towards meat eaters and vegetarians but intolerance of other vegans.

Sea Shepherd ships have been vegan since 2000 and we have had thousands of crew participate in campaigns so we have had plenty of opportunity to see the various factions of veganism in relationship to each other.

People do not have to be vegan to be crewmembers but they must be vegan on the ship as crewmembers. Because of this over the years we have introduced hundreds of meat eaters to veganism and as a result many have made the decision to adopt veganism as a life style.

Given the opportunity to eat real vegan meals by excellent vegan cooks it is amazing how many people have discovered veganism as a real option – healthy, delicious and easy to do.

But we have also discovered a major obstacle to people embracing veganism and that obstacle is vegans with hostile, holier than thou, angry and judgemental proselytizing attitudes.

I tend to look at this from the point of view of both the animals and eco-systems which really means I do not give a damn why anyone is vegan. The motivations to me are irrelevant. Anyone who is vegan is good for animals and for the environment. Vegetarians are also good for animals and the environment and even people who refrain from eating meat once or twice a week or who cut down on their meat consumption are good for animals and the environment.

Abstaining 100% is wonderful. Abstaining 50% is good. Abstaining 25% is helpful.

Most vegans were once vegetarian and/or meat eaters. People can change but they change best by seeing examples from others. Those who lead by example are helping to recruit more people to a vegan life style than those who try to recruit though shaming, anger and ridicule.

Every vegan meal consumed is a bonus for animals and for the environment.

It’s easy to tell when someone is a vegan because they will damn well tell you but it is somewhat more difficult to determine what kind of vegan a person might be.

Just for fun, I thought I would prepare my 50 Shades of Veganism to illustrate the wide diversity within this thing we call veganism.

VEGANISM

“A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.” Definition of veganism by the Vegan Society in 1979.

1. True vegan – Absolutely no animal products used in any manner without the need for any justification, explanation, defensiveness or offensiveness.
2. Level 5 Vegan. … A Level 5 Vegan was defined as someone who never eats anything that casts a shadow. While this definition is nonsensical the Level 5 term as it’s used today is a mostly tongue-in-cheek reference to someone who refuses to make any compromises at all in their vegan lifestyle.
3. Paleo-vegan – The Paleo diet without the meat – unprocessed foods.
4. Compassionate vegan – does not consume animal products out of a deep love for animals.
5. Compassionate Ethical vegan – does not consume animal products out of a deep love for animals and a deep concern for the lives and welfare of animals.
6. Compassionate Ethical Health vegan – does not consume animal products out of a deep love for animals and a deep concern for the lives and welfare of animals and sees veganism as a healthy life style.
7. Compassionate Ethical, Health, Environmentalist vegan – does not consume animal products out of a deep love for animals and a deep concern for the lives and welfare of animals, sees veganism as a healthy life styleand is concerned about the impact of the meat and fishing industry on the environment and climate change.
8. Activist vegan – a vegan who is an actual activist for animals. An on-the-ground-gets-things-done-in the-face-of-the-enemy-vegan.
9. Enemy Identification Confused vegan. A vegan who is unable to actually identify the real enemy i.e. the animal abusers, meat producers, hunters, and abusers and instead sends time and energy attacking vegetarians and other vegans.
10. Ethical Environmentalist vegan – does not consume animal products out of concern for the lives and welfare of animals and because they are concerned about climate change and the environment.
11. Ethical Environmentalist Health vegan – does not consume animal products out of concern for the lives and welfare of animals and because they are concerned about climate change and the environment and they also want to have a healthy lifestyle.
12. Raw vegan – A vegan who only consumes raw fruits, nuts and vegetables.
13. Raw till 4 vegan – Raw until 4 and cooked vegan after.
14. Raw Ethical vegan – A raw vegan who adopts a raw vegan diet out of concern for animals,
15. Fruitarian – Vegans who eat only fruits and nuts.
16. Raw Environmental vegan – a raw vegan who adopts a raw vegan diet out of concern for ecology and climate change.
17. Raw health vegan – a raw vegan who adopts a raw vegan diet for health reasons.
18. Organic vegans – only organic vegan foods
19. Organic Raw vegans – only raw organic fruits and vegetables.
20. Home Grown Vegans – Vegans who only eat food locally grown and preferably organic.
21. Competitive Purist Vegan – An ethical vegan who is constantly comparing themselves to other vegans and pointing out how they are better vegans than other vegans.
22. Veggie Jesuit – An ethical competitive purist vegan whose mission is to convert all of humanity to veganism through intimidation, shaming and bullying.
23. Proselytizing vegan – They just really have to preach – all the damn time.
24. Angry vegan – Constantly angry with anyone who is not a vegan.
25. Health Vegan – A vegan because it is healthier but could not give a damn about the environment or animal rights or welfare.
26. Annoying vegan – a person whose advocacy is just damn annoying.
27. Celebrity vegan – Promotes veganism in an attempt to be cool.
28. Compassionate celebrity vegan – Promotes veganism because they are actually cool.
29. Athletic vegan – A vegan who sees veganism as providing their body with more endurance, stamina and overall health.
30. Ethical Athletic vegan – An athlete who embraces veganism and promotes it because of concern for the lives and welfare of animals.
31. Environmental vegan – A vegan who is vegan because they are concerned about the impact of the meat industry and fishing on the environment and climate change.
32. Trendy vegan – A vegan who is a vegan because it’s like – well, trendy to be vegan.
33. Straight Edge vegan – A vegan who does not smoke or drinks alcohol but loves coffee.
34. Plant based vegans – These are vegans who do not like to be called vegans primarily because they are environment or health motivated vegans. Like it or not they are still vegans.
35. HCLF vegans – High Carb low fat vegans.
36. Honey eating vegan – A vegan who for different reasons justifies the consumption of honey. One reason put forward is that there is a need to support bee colonies for pollination.
37. Non-Face Eating vegans – People who view themselves as vegans but will eat animals without faces like oysters, clams and scallops for example and will insist it is still a vegan lifestyle.
38. Leather wearing vegans – People who refrain from eating animals but continue to wear leather clothing like belts and shoes.
39. Flexitarian – A person who is a vegan sometimes but not always depending upon circumstances.
40. A Freegan vegan – A person who views themselves as vegan but eats anything as long as it is free.
41. Fall off the Wagon vegan – a vegan who decides to no longer be a vegan but intends to become vegan again. ]
42. Revengeful ex-vegan – a vegan who now eats meat and passionately embraces carnism.
43. Goth vegans – Goths who practise veganism. It’s kind of their thing.
44. Nazi vegans – Yes there are indeed vegan Nazi cults because they claim Hitler was a vegan.
45. Hindu vegans – Not all Hindu’s are vegan but there is a movement to embrace veganism in Hinduism.
46. Krishna vegans – Hari Krishna, hare veganism.
47. Infiltrating vegan – someone who nefariously pretends to be a vegan for the purpose of infiltrating vegan activist groups.
48. Pervy vegans – Males who pretend to be vegan in order to pick up vegan females.
49. Norvegans – not real vegans just Nor vegans.
50. VEGANS – aliens from the star system Vega.

Egg Replacers Market to Concentrate More on the Vegan Populace

Global Egg Replacers Market is worth USD 950 million in 2016 and estimated to grow at a CAGR of 6.1%, to reach USD 1277 million by 2021

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3687600

This press release was orginally distributed by SBWire

Hyderabad, India — (SBWIRE) — 03/08/2018 — The alternative substances that are utilized in the place of eggs in various edible items are known are egg replacers. These help the manufacture replace eggs without having a subsequent change in the taste or texture of the product. It also successfully reduces the cholesterol content in the food products, thereby increasing the nutritional value of the product after all.

View sample and decide: https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/egg-replacers-market-4390/request-sample

The global Egg Replacers market value is calculated to grow with a CAGR of 6.1% to touch the valuation of USD 1277 million by the end of 2021, from 2016’s value of USD 950 million. The increasing proportion of the vegan population in the world is a major driver behind the projected growth of the market revenue.

To know more read: https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/egg-replacers-market-4390/

The outbreak of various bird-borne diseases like the Bird Flu and Avian Flu has had a positive effect on the expansion of the egg replacers market. This, coupled with the increasing number of diet conscious people choosing non-vegetarian food products is estimated to result in a significant rise in demand for egg replacers market.

Some kinds of egg replacers in the market also act as nutritive supplements to the products by providing essential vitamins or proteins. According to the analysis of the market by Application, the Bakery & Confectionaries segment has provided the biggest share of the global egg replacers market. This is reasoned with the comparatively high cost of various baked goods and bakery products.

Get your customized report: https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/egg-replacers-market-4390/customize-report

As per the geographical study of the global market, the North America region is calculated to have possessed almost 50% of the global market share. On the other hand, the highest growth rate is ascribed to the Asia-Pacific market in the near future, due to the presence of different untapped markets in the region.

The key players of the global Egg Replacers market encompass Ener-G Foods, Inc., E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Florida Food Products, MGP Ingredients, Arla Foods, Ingredion Incorporated and Orchar Valley Foods Limited.

Browse related reports by Market Data Forecast:
https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/global-baking-enzymes-market-1113/

About Market Data Forecast
Being a familiar face to the Fortune 500 companies in the field of market research, Market Data Forecast provides its clientele with research material through syndicated reports, consult projects and industry newsletters across various domains and verticals. Our in-house research panel comprises of industry experts, vertical/domain specialists, supported by a well-built research & data models that help in providing insights for making well-informed decisions. We have a well-established data gathering network across 100+ countries through tie-ups and collaboration’s with the key personnel in value chains & local research organizations. Apart the excellent research services, we also boast of unique post-purchase services offering a 24*7 analyst support for the period of six months. Further, though a continuous feedback from our users, clients and experts, we keep on innovating ourselves in this field to support the organizations in the most efficient ways.

Contact Info:
Name: Mr. Abhishek Shukla
Email: abhishek@marketdataforecast.com
Organization: MarketDataForecast™
Address: 2nd Floor, Lakeview Plaza, Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500033, India.
Phone: +1-888-702-9626
Email: abhishek@marketdataforecast.com
Web: https://www.marketdataforecast.com/

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/egg-replacers-market-to-concentrate-more-on-the-vegan-populace-933073.htm

3 Stats About Meat and Climate Change That Can Change the World

https://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/stats-meat-climate-change-can-change-world/


February 26, 201

There has been a lot of buzz recently about climate change because whether skeptics want to admit it or not, climate change is a reality. With drastic temperature changes, water scarcity, extreme drought and destructive storms, climate change is one of the biggest global challenges of our time. Given the importance of the issue, many are looking for ways to lower their carbon footprint to help the planet.

Unplugging electronics when they aren’t in use, turning off the faucet while brushing your teeth, biking instead of driving, and planting gardens and trees are all great ways to fight climate change. But what if there was one thing you can do TODAY that could have a greater impact than all of the above? What if you could have a positive impact on the planet simply with your food choices? Consider these stats…

1. Think Fossil Fuels Are the Only Source of GHGs? 

 

That’s right, more than the entire transportation sector combined. Not to mention, the global livestock system accounts for 23 percent of global freshwater consumption and 45 percent of the total land use.  Crazy, right?

2. Would You Rather Bike Everywhere to Cut Emissions or Eat a Beyond Burger?

 

Shockingly, beef eaters use 160 percent more land resources than people who eat a plant-based diet. From all of the emissions involved in deforesting land to make way for grazing cattle and grow hundreds of acres of corn and soy (which is used as livestock feed) to the methane emissions from the animals themselves, producing meat is a gassy business.

3. The BEST Way to Shrink Your Carbon Footprint

 

By simply leaving animal products off of your plate for a year, you can cut your carbon footprint in HALF. And all you have to do is eat yummy, plant-based foods!

As we learn more about the impact of factory farms on the environment and animals, we are faced with a choice – either buy into this destructive industry – or choose better. For more impactful stats like these and to learn how you can help the environment with your book choices, check out the new #EatForThePlanet book!

 

Lead Image Source: yairventuraf/Pixabay

Animal People and Sexual Misconduct

As revolting as the revelations about some HSUS officials are, those who
recently resigned or were let go did at least bring farmed animals as
individuals with feelings and intelligence into mainstream focus for the
first
time in HSUS history. This is not to excuse anything, but to say that a
change
in HSUS leadership and workplace conduct may not mean that the organization
will
now show more progressive leadership on behalf of farmed animals and
veganism. I
worry it will revert to its more traditional programs and attitudes even if
the
offensive office behavior is eliminated.

As for sexual harassment of women and worse, while women rightly object to
being
treated as objects whose bodies may be physically assaulted and
disrespected by
men, this experience, magnified a trillion times over, is precisely what
chickens and pigs and cows and all farmed animals, “laboratory” animals,
aquatic
animals, “entertainment” animals and others endure endlessly at the hands
of our
species.

If we are outraged that certain male employees in our movement have
disrespected
their female colleagues physically and professionally, we had better stand
up
and be counted for our nonhuman animal victims for whom interspecies sexual
assault and every form of intimate, repulsive violence perpetrated by human
beings against them and their bodies is their experience of being alive in
the
flesh. Veganism is not a superficial “food choice.” It is ethical activism
on
behalf of the most profoundly, helplessly victimized beings on the planet.

Animal agriculture is now, and always has been, rooted in violating the sex
organs, mating choices, and reproductive processes of helpless animals.
Humans
“breeding” animals – the very word breeding – is an obscenity. We cannot
claim
to care about animals while obscenely consuming their muscles, their nursing
mother’s milk and their eggs, or suggesting to others that these
obscenities may
be practiced “humanely.”

As animal advocates, we must amplify the animals’ voices and be their
Voice: “ME
TOO!”

For a comprehensive look at interspecies sexual assault of farmed animals
for
business and pleasure, please see and share my article Interspecies Sexual
<http://www.upc-online.org/turkeys/170613_interspecies_sexual_assault-a_moral_perspective_full_article.html>
Assault: A Moral Perspective
<http://www.upc-online.org/turkeys/170613_interspecies_sexual_assault-a_moral_perspective_full_article.html>
.

Karen Davis, PhD
President
United Poultry Concerns


United Poultry Concerns is a nonprofit organization that promotes
the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl.
Don’t just switch from beef to chicken. Go Vegan.
http://www.UPC-online.org/ http://www.twitter.com/upcnews
http://www.facebook.com/UnitedPoultryConcerns

View this article online
<http://upc-online.org/alerts/180205_animal_people_and_sexual_misconduct.html>

Chrissie Hynde hits out at ‘tyranny’ of modern animal welfare campaigning

https://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/chrissie-hynde-hits-out-at-tyranny-of-modern-animal-welfare-campaigning-36288725.html
“The singer said she was “a little over” the way the cause has
transformed over the years.”

“The Pretenders star Chrissie Hynde has bemoaned the “tyranny” of
animal welfare campaigns as she described how her attitude towards the
cause has changed.
“The US singer, 66, has become known throughout her 40-year career
with the band for her support of animal rights, but now feels a
“little over” the subject.
“She told the Press Association: “My only consistent message since I
began the band was to encourage people not to eat meat, and then over
the years it has informed most of my friendships and relationships.
““I don’t like being in the spotlight unless I am on stage with the
band, otherwise it makes me squirm, so you might as well use the fact
that you’ve got a voice to say something.
““My message has always been the exact same thing, so I’m a little
over the subject, but I’m in for life.”
“She continued: “There is a tyranny now of body awareness and
nutrition. For me it was never about that, it was about animal
welfare, and the (health) benefits of a vegetarian or vegan diet are a
by-product of not abusing animals.”