Veggie sausages - illegal?

One thing people do not realize is that meatless burgers are NOT generally any healthier than a burger with meat. Consumers really need to read the government-required nutritional information labels on the back of the package before buying them.

That's very true - but I do think that in the UK (for now) the standard of vegan/vegetarian burgers/sausages is very good in terms of additives, fats, salt etc. This is also true of many ready meals. It used to be the case that they were high salt, sugar and full of additives. Not so these days. Of course, that may change...
 
somewhere in the not too distance past,,,, some organization - unrelated to "sales" - did a trial and found that people proclaimed the vegetable based burger best beef tasting burger out of the batch.
so first one has to extend congrats to the flavor lab for making a plant based product taste more like 'the real thing' than 'the real thing'....
next, altho all the components/additive/chemicals are undoubtedly "approved" for human consumption, what's the long range effect?
should one ponder back in history over all the food/drug "additives" that were "known to be safe" but turned out to be "not so safe" - - - one gets a pause.....

it gets back to issues ala the feed lot vs grass pasturing. if one calculates out the amount of space, the time cows spend farting, the erosion, on and on and on..... grass fed beef can be construed to be 4-5 times as "harmful" to the environment as feed lot beef. totally aside from the issue that 'doing that instantly and exclusively' = millions go dead by starvation.
I'm a long long long time organic gardener - but truth is, organic methods cannot produce enough crops to feed the world.
who'da thought....?
 
somewhere in the not too distance past,,,, some organization - unrelated to "sales" - did a trial and found that people proclaimed the vegetable based burger best beef tasting burger out of the batch.
so first one has to extend congrats to the flavor lab for making a plant based product taste more like 'the real thing' than 'the real thing'....
next, altho all the components/additive/chemicals are undoubtedly "approved" for human consumption, what's the long range effect?
should one ponder back in history over all the food/drug "additives" that were "known to be safe" but turned out to be "not so safe" - - - one gets a pause.....

it gets back to issues ala the feed lot vs grass pasturing. if one calculates out the amount of space, the time cows spend farting, the erosion, on and on and on..... grass fed beef can be construed to be 4-5 times as "harmful" to the environment as feed lot beef. totally aside from the issue that 'doing that instantly and exclusively' = millions go dead by starvation.
I'm a long long long time organic gardener - but truth is, organic methods cannot produce enough crops to feed the world.
who'da thought....?


I don't know where you got your cattle information from, but it was not from Texas. Although corn fed cattle do emit less methane, they are not at a feed lot very long. Cattle are also not equipped to digest corn. That is why they need antibiotics -- that and they walk around in their own feces 24/7. Also, like I already said, ALL cattle are pasture raised on grass. SOME spend the time right before slaughter getting fattened up at feed lots.

BTW, cows LOVE corn, it is like a sweet dessert for them. That's one reason why it is used to fatten up cattle. But, would you eat nothing but sweet desserts for weeks, and expect it to be good for you? You would get fat, just like the cattle.

There is a 3,000 acre working ranch about 300 yards from my house. The cattle are moved from pasture to pasture. That allows the grasses to grow back, and prevents erosion. I've also seen feedlots up close several times. They are all over rural Texas. You can smell the stench from miles away. In 20 years in my current house, I have NEVER smelled anything coming from the ranch 300 yards up the road.

Feedlots don't exist for the good of the environment, or the health of the cattle. They exist ONLY for profits. Period. Fatten the cattle up before sale to make more money.

CD
 
One of the reasons I don't buy New World wines is this " Even if a person shrugged off the impact of terroir on a wine, the Champagne name is tied to specific quality regulations, factors that New World wines, including those made in the U.S., don’t adhere to. Minimum aging times, maximum yields, potential alcohol, residual sugar, and more are legally enforced for any wine labeled as Champagne. Thus, the presence of the term “Champagne” on a label doesn’t just refer to the wine’s place of origin, as the words “California” or “Finger Lakes” do. It is a guarantee of quality and style, both of which are not necessarily upheld by sparkling wines produced outside of Champagne."
The EU and all the other countries that are AOC members as far as I understand ban the sales of any sparkling wine called Champagne when not made in the AOC regulated region. The countries that support AOC are shown in green. Non of this has anything to do with your comment re EU bureaucracy.
1603182777539.png
Why You Shouldn't Call Sparkling Wine 'Champagne'
 
Last edited:
I must admit that I find veggie bacon a very annoying concept. Just call it Smokey flavour bakes or something. In fact a lot of vegetarian and vegan foods would be more effectively marketed as products in their own right rather than ersatz versions of animal products.
 
Happily, common sense has prevailed and the EU have rejected this drivelling nonsense from the meat industry.
I concur EU " bureaucracy" at it's finest. It's does amaze me the amount of bloviation that is emitted by Daily Mail readers and their ilk. The last time I looked the UK was on the winning side of EU parliamentary votes 93% of the time.
 
I don't know where you got your cattle information from, but it was not from Texas. Although corn fed cattle do emit less methane, they are not at a feed lot very long. Cattle are also not equipped to digest corn. That is why they need antibiotics -- that and they walk around in their own feces 24/7. Also, like I already said, ALL cattle are pasture raised on grass. SOME spend the time right before slaughter getting fattened up at feed lots.
Spot on Doggers mate. This article may interest you, my dog Max had the same carbon footprint as a Transit van.
The environmental footprint of your pet is bigger than you think
 
The UK is also trying to keep feedlots out of the UK, and beef from feedlots out. To be clear, there are no "factory" cattle. They are all raised eating grass in a pasture. But many in the US then spend their final weeks in feedlots, eating corn to fatten up before sale. I personaly avoid feedlot cattle, and buy beef from cattle that eat grass from birth to slaughter.

As for fake meat, the labeling here is very clear on these products, so it would be very hard to mistaken for real beef in the supermarket. I'm okay with them calling it a burger as long as they make it clear on the packaging that is is meatless.

One thing people do not realize is that meatless burgers are NOT generally any healthier than a burger with meat. Consumers really need to read the government-required nutritional information labels on the back of the package before buying them.

Texas is beef country. Those meatless meat products are not very popular here. However, a lot of the beef we produce ends life at a feed lot. I've seen some feed lots (and smelled them) up close. Nasty. Thats why they need to load the cattle up with antibiotics. But, the demand for grass fed and finished beef is going up. Putting "grass fed, no antibiotics, no growth hormones" on a package lable of beef is now a selling point. That what I buy, as much as I can.

CD
I remember being interested in trying the impossible burger from Burger King, thinking it would have all the flavor (judging by all the exited people in the commercials) and be healthier because of the lack of meat. As you say, the vegan burgers are not much healthier. Looking at the ingredients, there's a lot of flour and oil in those burgers, which I'm guessing is for texture. This seems like a massive opportunity lost for the industry.

MW-HL289_meatle_20190612124902_NS.jpg
 
I remember being interested in trying the impossible burger from Burger King, thinking it would have all the flavor (judging by all the exited people in the commercials) and be healthier because of the lack of meat. As you say, the vegan burgers are not much healthier. Looking at the ingredients, there's a lot of flour and oil in those burgers, which I'm guessing is for texture. This seems like a massive opportunity lost for the industry.

View attachment 49285

Wow! I was thinking about trying an Impossible Whopper, just to see if is as good as people are saying it is. But, with 1,240 MG of sodium, not a chance. It looks like this "vegan meat" just replaces red meat with stuff that is just as bad for you, or even worse.

I wish they would have listed carbs, too. I have a feeling these "burgers" are pretty high in carbs and sugars.

CD
 
Wow! I was thinking about trying an Impossible Whopper, just to see if is as good as people are saying it is. But, with 1,240 MG of sodium, not a chance. It looks like this "vegan meat" just replaces red meat with stuff that is just as bad for you, or even worse.

I wish they would have listed carbs, too. I have a feeling these "burgers" are pretty high in carbs and sugars.

CD
I've had one. It does taste and (mouth)feel like a Whopper, but it's by no means a healthy alternative.

Well, it's healthier for the cow, I suppose.
 
Back
Top Bottom