Who'd have thought it
apparently, money does carry the mark of the beast. £666 note next?
Slacktivist vegetarians and vegans have been writing strongly worded tweets after the Bank of England confirmed that there are animal fats in the new polymer £5 notes. The plastic fivers were introduced earlier this year to replace the UK’s battered and disintegrating stocks of paper £5 notes. While at the time the bank was …
Fuck sake. Do none of you know any vegans at all? It's not that obscure a lifestyle choice.
It's perfectly possible to get shoes and wallets that don't involve animal products. Many people do. There's no sensible reason for using animal fat when making money, and a lot of ethical vegetarians would be equally outraged. You don't have to be vegan to think that unnecessary cruelty should be avoided.
Who the fuck thinks "I'm making a more robust form of currency, what that needs is some dripping"?
I'd like to hear at what point in the animal hierarchy does the welfare of the animal become a primary concern?
For instance how many vegans "care" about the welfare of all the insects that get destroyed when their vegetables are harvested or pesticides applied? When do they "care" about the welfare of all the rodents that get viciously chopped up while still alive by harvesters, harvesting their corn/wheat/potatoes etc?
Or is it that the welfare of those animals isn't to be considered?
> Fruitarianism would be the appropriate choice of ethical food consumption
I'm not sure if you're joking, but believe it or not, that thing actually exists. Heard a bloke mention he was a "fruitarian" the other day. First I misheard it as "frittarian", as in someone who feeds exclusively on frittate (a sort of omelette), then I decided he was describing his occupation (we used to have barmen and now we have baristas [sic], so why not fruitarians instead of fruit sellers? At least the plural is not mangled).
But no, turns out the bloke actually lives on fruit.
Doesn't bother me, of course, it's his life, but I'm somewhat mystified by the seemingly random dietary choices that people would make. To me, if you do not eat something either because: a) you don't like it (shellfish!), or b) it's not accepted, or is forbidden, in your culture (insects). The rest strikes me as a bit fanciful. But hey, everyone is quite welcome to make their own rules in this respect.
Anyhow, back to my decaf organic cappuccino with gluten-free soya milk.
"Given those concerns, Fruitarianism would be the appropriate choice of ethical food consumption"
Does an Apple tree feel pain and distress when you snatch it's embryonic offspring away from it? And how does it feel knowing you'll only eat the casing and thrown the life-giving seed away?
I remember an SF story many years ago where one of the characters was from a society which refused to eat anything that had once been alive. Their only food was artificially manufactured from chemicals. A bit of a bummer when they got stranded in the wilderness with no supplies.
The propagation strategy of fruiting plants is for animals to eat the fruits and discard/excrete the seeds...
The plant actually benefits from feeding the animal by helping it spread the seeds further.
working as intended..
Any ideology that denies reality is going to fall foul of reality.
My son is a staunch, nay crusading, vegan, and on getting the old questions about what they call "cross contamination" his response is something along the lines of "birds crap and insects die on the wheat fields, and the fuel that powers the (vegan) food delivery vans comes from dead animals, but if you think I give that a second thought then you're ****ing crazy"
Oh and he'd prefer his M&D not to have leather seats in their cars, but accepts that it's just not on to have cloth seats in any decent car (i.e. any car that can do 0-60 in less than 7 seconds, preferably German or Italian made or a "proper" 4x4 :rolleyes:)
There's no sensible reason for using animal fat when making money,
I suspect there's probably a very good and sensible reason. The Royal Mint are good at this. If they need tallow in there, it's because they need it.
Much the same as there is a move to stop plant cultivators using peat-based compost. Everyone agrees it's bad, but no one has yet managed to produce a compost that has the right water-retention and binding qualities the industry requires without mixing some peat in.
You don't have to be vegan to think that unnecessary cruelty should be avoided.
Certainly, cruelty should be avoided. I don't think there's even such a thing as necessary cruelty.
However, how do you know that cruelty is involved in production of the tallow in the notes? It sounds like what you are saying is that use of animal products is, by definition, cruel, and I would beg to differ on that.
If we look at the animal kingdom, most carnivores kill their prey in much more cruel manners than humans do. We generally take steps to ensure the animal is stunned before killing them.
In addition, AFAIK, tallow is generally produced as a by product of other industries, such as food production. There is logic to saying that, if the animal will be killed for food, anyway, why not make the best possible use of all parts of it?
I do believe the Royal Mint has made an error here, as there will be negative PR. However, if anyone wishes to stop accepting or using them, that is their right*. I'm sure it will be a massive inconvenience to them (for example, if they refuse a fiver as change in a shop, they'll either get a bunch of bulky, heavy coins or be told the transaction cannot be completed). But, then again, vegans are used to being inconvenienced (and inconveniencing others), so they probably won't mind that.
* WRT legal tender, see http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines
In short, it is only a legal requirement to accept legal tender as payment of a debt.
"I do believe the Royal Mint has made an error here, as there will be negative PR. "
Quick correction: If comments below are correct, the production of the vast majority of polymers uses animal products as a lubricant at some stage, so will contain trace amounts of them. So, if they are going to use polymers, they probably had no choice.
I'm a meat-eater, but I'd take issue with this.
If you accept other people eat meat (they do) then there's no unnecessary cruelty involved in fivers. Because no animal was killed for it's tallow. The animals were killed for meat or fabric, the tallow is a by-product.
If the animal has been kiilled, far better to make use of it than waste anything.
if the 5 pound note used PETROLEUM instead of animal fat, would it be "less bio-degradable" ? It's like you can't please one enviro/wacko group without angering the others... [so it's 'greens' vs 'vegans' now - can't do ANYTHING with 'political correctness' in the way!]
best thing to do: tell them ALL to go pleasure themselves, and just ignore their shrill noise. And if they riot, shoot them with beef-fat soaked rubber bullets, and put them in jail for a while without access to their "special dietary requirements". Joke-em if they can't take a @#$%.
> Fuck sake. Do none of you know any vegans at all? It's not that obscure a lifestyle choice.
Curiously enough, I do. They don't go ape at the slightest hint of meat, they don't proselytize, they don't participate in Twitter storms. You could say they lead by example.
Like you say, its a lifestyle choice. As for people swooning at the sight of new fivers if they have problems handling these notes then I'm prepared to do it for them.
No problem with the ones who follow their beliefs without trying to impose them on every other person in the entire world.
Its the radical militant true believers that cause the issue to become polarised, adopting a position that the majority of people can see is frankly fucking stupid, and discrediting any moderates.
"There's no sensible reason for using animal fat when making money,"
You don't actually thing there's a special farm somewhere fattening up animals for the slaughter just to make fivers and throwing away all that meaty and leathery by-product, do you?
If the fat is being used to make some plastics, it's most likely that it's "waste" product. Selling it for other uses instead of disposing of it (at a cost) means less waste so those of us who have chosen the blood thirsty, murdering lifestyle of eating meat can feel better that more of the animal is useful in death.
Yes - most of us have the displeasure of knowing at least one vegan. Thus we know they are a bunch of sanctimonious, puritanical hypocrites, who are more interested in proving their moral superiority than anything else.
If they took their nonsense seriously they would resemble Jain aesthetes and may even become nice people.
But many of the leather alternatives are man-made, perhaps polymer based and also incorporating animal derived elements. Anything machine made is potentially from a machine that uses animal derived lubrication or component release substances so that's out too. Bottom line is vegans are a tiny minority. Obsessive vegans even fewer and if we pander to the misguided perceptions of every tiny minority group human progress would cease. We live in a democracy and your route to change is through the ballot box not twitter.
Vegans: normal people don't give a s**t about your views, if you prefer to live in the stone-age, fine but you have no right to impose your lunacy on the rest of us. We are prepared to tolerate you but you are intolerant of our different views and intolerance is an evil.
As for "unnecessary cruelty should be avoided" my stance is a bit different: cruelty should be eliminated not just avoided and there's no space for the "necessary cruelty" you speak of. There are undoubtedly examples of bad practice, which I condemn, but I don't consider livestock farming and human use of animal derived materials to be intrinsically cruel.
As for "...what that needs is some dripping". No that's not how the decision is made. The plastic pellet manufacturer needs an additive to improve on the usability of his pellets, he searches for substances that deliver the required performance. He finds tallow. As it happens that ticks more boxes than just servicing his need, it's biodegradeable, it's essentially a waste product (so making better of animals cattle killed for food and saving it going to landfill), it's non-toxic, alternatives may be from polluting petrochemical industries or complex man-made organic chemicals with unknown toxicity. OK I doubt if those issues made any influence of his choice but they're valid issues. Next decision, the guys looking for materials to make the new notes. They identify a polymer that fits the bill (pun unintended). It's supplied as pellets. They will no doubt have required COSHH certification but do you really think every manufacturer of any non-foodstuff is going to enquire about (or care about) all the obsessions of a variety of lunatic fringe obsessives?
All that aside: who NEEDS cash these days? If you don't like plastic fivers pay by credit/debit card: don't ask too many questions about the plastic pellets used to make your plastic cards or you'll have to fall back on barter (and living in a world without plastic).
"Vegan to herd of cows: Sorry but you should never have experienced life at all, even for the brief time you are being fattened up."
Er, honestly? I'm not vegan (nor vegetarian), but this sort of reasoning is on pretty dubious ground from a purely logical point of view.
Does this mean (for example) that by not attempting to get a woman pregnant at every possible opportunity that I'm depriving those nonexistent children of life? Would it matter that they might have a pretty rotten life if that was better than "never having experienced life at all"?
Or (more in line with your reasoning), does this mean that anyone against reckless procreation like this is effectively saying to the children of such irresponsible people that they shouldn't have existed at all?
It's a philosophical can of worms (#) being misused by yourself as a form of smartass quasi-moral blackmail.
(#) I've no idea if the can of worms is vegan-friendly or not. Are they still meant to be alive when you open the can? What is their intended purpose? Are we intended to eat or exploit them? Do Heinz do a curry flavour version too?
Does this mean (for example) that by not attempting to get a woman pregnant at every possible opportunity that I'm depriving those nonexistent children of life?
I think it goes further than just attempting to not get a woman pregnant, if you oppose the use of animal products then you are committed to there being no farm animals at all. This is more like trying to stop all women becoming pregnant so that you can allow the human race to die out.
I think it goes further than just attempting to not get a woman pregnant, if you oppose the use of animal products then you are committed to there being no farm animals at all. This is more like trying to stop all women becoming pregnant so that you can allow the human race to die out.
So you're suggesting that before humans farmed animals, the said animals (e.g. cows) did not exist. How did the first farmers create them, I wonder?
"So you're suggesting that before humans farmed animals, the said animals (e.g. cows) did not exist"
Well, actually yes. Modern farm animals did not exist before humans farmed them. We MADE cows, by selectively breeding the meatiest and most docile wild aurochs over many generations. Much the same occurred with chickens from jungle fowl, pigs from wild boars, dogs from wolves, etc.
> Sorry but vegans are the most self-righteous self-denying fools on the planet,
I'm sure there are as many reasons for that dietary choice as there are people following it. I do not understand your caricature or why it would bother you.
> and will get no respect from me.
I hope you won't complain about not getting what you don't give then.
Dunno about the leather angle, as far as I can work out vegans are eating vegetables that once upon a time in an earlier life cycle for at least some ( if not most ) of the atoms and organic compounds concerned were insects and dead animals of all types.
So I'm just wondering how many vegetable life cycles of decomposition ex animal life has to go through before its "vegan friendly". That's if its at all possible to guarantee insects haven't lived in the soil were the vegetables were grown ... ( I'm in IT , so don't know much about this )
I reckon vegetable packaging should have some rough stats on how much of it was some form of animal or insect life one or two life cycles ago. I guess the real "hard nut" vegans would then all starve to death at the terrifying thought vegetables contain recycled animal matter, and then we wouldn't have to hear their bleating again ... oh deep BLISS !
Also, who says plants don't have feelings and that plants don't mind being eaten ? I could go on ...
I bet most of you vegans out there still wear leather shoes
No, the ones I know wear "crocs"
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the plastic in crocs comes from fossil hydrocarbons, so that's (long) dead animals. Same story with petrol.
And I can't help wondering about more obscure animal products. The only one that springs to mind is good-quality shirt buttons. Oh, and the wax on citrus fruit.
"And I can't help wondering about more obscure animal products."
Before the age of the digital camera - one could point out that photographic film had an animal gelatin emulsion.
In the early days of photography it was found that some emulsion batches had a much better sensitivity to light. It was found that the cows had eaten plants that had a high sulphur content.
“Wearing crocs is like getting a blowjob from a dude: it feels good until you look down and you realise you are gay.” —Manolo
No, it's more like making homophobic jokes: makes you feel like you’re cool until you realize people are pointedly looking away from you, much as they might if you’d let out a loud belch at a funeral.
> No, it's more like making homophobic jokes
I thought the joke was, pardon the pun, seriously unfunny, but I don't find it homophobic.
I think it plays on the subject having a different idea of himself than who he actually is, and the shock of realising that he has become the target of his own prejudices. In other words, he's not saying he doesn't like wearing "crocs", but that he *didn't expect* to like it until he unknowingly found himself wearing them. For all you know Manolo may be a crocs wearing homosexual.
Then again, if you have to explain it, it's not a very good joke.
It's quite possible to wear leather on your way from the job killing bunnies as part of testing animal product-based cosmetics at the animal experimentation lab to your local fox hunt while being a vegan and a member of the Vegan society.
You might not be the most popular member, to put it mildly, but all you need to do is not eat animal products. (And pay the subscription...)
There are other vegans who extend that to trying to avoid all animal-based products. It's this bunch who are getting upset about the new fivers.
How they cope with the fact that a large proportion of plastics are derived from crude oil, otherwise known as the remains of lots and lots of plankton and amoebas etc, I don't know.
Perhaps some animals matter more than others to them, but it can be hard to see reality from the very top of the moral high ground.
> There are other vegans who extend that to trying to avoid all animal-based products.
Many vegans chose to eat organic food. Most organic food is grown using manure and even bone meal.
Do animal-based products become acceptable when they have been recycled by a vegetable or other sort of plant?
"Perhaps some animals matter more than others to them,[...]"
A Buddhist monastery in Macau had a restaurant for tourists. It was a surprise to see fried oysters on the menu. My vegetarian companion explained that the line was drawn based on various classification characteristics - and delicious oysters lacked the essential central nervous system. Apparently vegans are also ambivalent about the classification of oysters.
"How they cope with the fact that a large proportion of plastics are derived from crude oil, otherwise known as the remains of lots and lots of plankton and amoebas etc, I don't know."
well yeah ...
I guess they're just really angry all the time whilst reading The Guardian or latest missive from Jeremy Corbyn.
Maybe vegans could be rebranded as "carnophobics" . Then its a phobia and could be treated as a mental illness.
This post has been deleted by its author
If you open the article (clickbait) you will find, not unexpectedly, that it is exactly *one* temple where exactly *one* blokess said something about how outraged she was about some thing or another.
But does the headline say "Essentially nobody gives a toss about what you use to make banknotes"? No, the poor excuse for a journo finds *one* person willing to say some bollocks in front of a microphone, and then characterises a whole community from that one person.
I work with journos, and there are some good ones, but they get their profession's name dragged through the mud by people who write dross like the above and by the illiterate hordes who read it uncritically.
"pork tallow is only ever used in government money"
When the money is packed into the pork barrels.
It would probably be a good idea to use a mix of suet, lard and mutton fat to create the tallow just to ensure that the greatest number of individuals are offended. Indian, Muslim and Vegan mutiny guaranteed.
"Just to clarify, doesn't this mean that using the placcy fivers is blasphemy for Hindus?"
I think the simple solution to this (and other issues around using beef tallow in the new notes) would be to substitute vegan tallow into the process - a win win solution.
A vegan that I know is very particular about what she eats, but wearing leather is fine (assuming they still make Doc Martins with leather) and she drinks Guinness quite happily, despite the fact that until fairly recently they used fish by-products to clarify it after brewing - as is done with most beers.
> I've heard a self-proclaimed vegetarian state that fish are not meat. I guess he was brought up old style Christian.
You are likely correct. At least in some Catholic countries, when they talk about "meat", they exclude fish, apparently because that is permissible on days when other meat is not. Notably, in Spain a "vegetable sandwich" is a sandwich with tuna, eggs, mayo, a slice of lettuce and if you're lucky a bit of tomato.
I do not know if there is any historical relation to Jewish dietary requirements, where the "meat" food group does not include fish, which is considered "neutral"¹, same as vegetables.
¹ Assuming you consider said fish to be kosher in the first place, which not all fish is.
> A vegan that I know is very particular about what she eats, but wearing leather is fine [blah blah]
SO FUCKING WHAT???
She'll eat what she wants, she'll wear what she wants, and that's no fucking business of yours! Or do you expect to have to justify why you had one sugar with your tea and not two, or none? Seriously, how about minding your own miserable business and leaving other people alone?
"I think your case study design may carry a risk of selection bias.."
Probably because, like people of varying sexuality, you don't really know who or what they are in day to day life unless they are "in your face" about themselves so it's "militants" that most people are aware of.
(yeah, I know, not a great analogy since most LGBT are not choosing a "ifestyle")
A guy I worked with for years, never knew he was gay until recently, but then he doesn't dress up like one of The Village People or talk like Julian Clary. I never knew, didn't care and still don't care. He's just a bloke.
I know a bunch of different vegans and vegetarians (and gluten free types etc.) and none of them have given me a rant on what I should eat. (Much good that it would do them).
Perhaps it's because I don't start conversations by telling them they're pointless whining SJWs?
My partner is a vegetarian, I'm not. My experience has been similar to yours, I expect.
When the subject comes up, as it inevitable will in a restaurant when she explains why she doesn't want to share a meat dish, the common result is a half-hour or so tedious discussion, invariably driven by the meat eaters. They seem to think that someone being a vegetarian is some sort of implied criticism of them that they are duty bound to respond to, usually by using the same sort of arguments used above, often with an attempt to 'convert' her to their way of thinking. Having experienced it first hand many times, I've no doubt who the 'loonies' actually are.
As I understand it, the rational veggie/vegan choice is "I do not want any part in killing or hurting an animal" (with definition of hurt being very much up for debate). I actually don't mind so much: if you don't want animals to be killed because of you, fine. Go for it.
If there's a by product that would exist anyway, by using the fivers you are not in any way killing or hurting the animal, since no animals have been killed or hurt specifically to provide that material. In other words: no extra animals die as a result of fivers. Their consciences are therefore completely clear.
(Of course, then you get to the "none shall pass my lips" brigade who insist on different ovens/plates/forks. That's entirely different and completely irrational, because accidentally imbibing a trace amount of fat does not increase the number of animals killed or hurt for your lifestyles. "None shall pass my lips" is more of a religious point of view than a practical, logical, rational or ethical one).
..."none shall pass my lips" brigade who insist on different ovens/plates/forks...
try telling that to a coeliac whose "gluten-free" meal was prepared in the same area as regular pizza, bread, or other wheat containing food. Been there, done that. Not a pretty sight (or smell in the bathroom afterwards)
Or a peanut allergy sufferer who is in anaphylactic shock because they had traces of peanut on a spoon to stir their meal.
That's not religion. I know you mean the crazy fad-dieters here, they annoy me as well. Makes things really difficult for those us don't have a choice when it comes to certain types of food.
Are you saying a vegan would die from eating a fiver with a trace of amount of tallow ?
if not then comparing them to someone with a deadly peanut allegy or someone who is a coeliac is a fallacy
I am no expert in this sort of thing so feel free to call me out
try telling that to a coeliac whose "gluten-free" meal was prepared in the same area as regular pizza, bread, or other wheat containing food
Or someone with a soy-allergy using the same wok that you've just cooked a nice Chinese meal in - inevitably some soy-protein will remain behind to aggravate their allergy - even if the pan has been washed up well.
 - No. You can't use a brillo pad on my well-seasoned wok. It's taken ages to get a proper seasoning on it. And, just for the record, I hate teflon-coated woks. Proper mild steel is best.
"As I understand it, the rational veggie/vegan choice is "I do not want any part in killing or hurting an animal" (with definition of hurt being very much up for debate)."
I know that veg*ns try to rationalise their diet in these terms but that doesn't hold water for long. For example it's not possible to "hurt" some animal life and the "killing" involved is of the same order of that involved in "killing" vegetables.
For example shellfish don't have a central nervous system and are pretty much the animal equivalent of vegetables. Sea cucumbers, sea urchins, jellyfish are also edible and have no CNS. I don't see veg*ns consuming them, hence there's more to their aversion to eating animal protein than cruelty. There's also not much consideration of the cruelty involved in farming vegetables. Harvesters mangle animals leading to a slow, lingering and painful death. Farmers trap, poison and shoot animals that eat and damage their crops. I don't see much hand-wringing over this from the veg*ns.
"Sea cucumbers, sea urchins, jellyfish are also edible and have no CNS."
plants don't have a central nervous system, either. But plants are *ALIVE*. Those vegans are eating "live" food! What hypocrites those vegans are! They should stick to seeds... oh wait, seeds are "plant babies". I guess they'll all have to STARVE now...
This post has been deleted by its author
"I wonder how many would be complaining if it were discovered the new notes contained trace amounts of recycled shit"
Given that people eat bread coated with re-cycled piss (Urea), spread it on their lips and faces and rub it into their skin (Allantoin) it's likely that any *recycled* shit would be just as acceptable. All veg*ns seem to be happy to eat recycled shit. We put the shit on the fields, we grow the veg, we eat the veg.
Given that people eat bread coated with re-cycled piss (Urea)
Piss may contain urea, but I don't think it's an economical source. I believe urea was one of the first organic compounds to be synthesised. Perhaps they should have chosen a name that doesn't advertise the urinary connection.
I believe urea was one of the first organic compounds to be synthesised. Perhaps they should have chosen a name that doesn't advertise the urinary connection.
It's called urea because it was first discovered in urine.
The scientific name is carbonyl diamide, and it's also known as carbamide.
> I don't think many cattle are raised purely to supply tallow
Sheep are raise to produce wool, sheering sheep is good for them, in lots of climates un-sheered sheep are at risk of dying unpleasant deaths due to overheating. (OK humans have probably tinkered with their heredity of moved them from colder location or stopped them migrating). Anyway sheep could be farmed without the plan to kill them.
But they'd still die. We all will.
Once they'd died then the carcases can be used to provide tallow.
should go around inside hazmat suits just in case they touch something or breath in molecules of air that has been contaminated with animal (and/or human) fats if they are that sensitive to it.
It makes a change from the news that apparently every £20 note in circulation has traces of Cocaine on them.
"If you're calling someone else's attitude to animal rights stupid then you're acting superior." No we're not asking you to live by our rules but you seem to expect everyone else to live by yours.
You just need to be aware that if you co-exist with meat eaters you are going to be contaminated.
The article used the word 'Superior'. Perhaps that is where AC got it from?
Tallow has been used for centuries for Lighting. I've seen Tallow lamps being used in at least one part of India that is heavily Vegan.
IMHO, kudos to the Royal Mint for using a sustainable (by-)product rather than an oil based substitute.
"should go around inside hazmat suits just in case they touch something or breath in molecules of air that has been contaminated with animal (and/or human) fats if they are that sensitive to it."
They will also have to give up the majority of manufactured goods. Tallow has many uses in manufacturing and engineering. They will find that drinking water supplies in commercial premises are likely to contain minute traces of tallow. It is used as a thread lubricant and cutting agent when assembling pipework.
"should go around inside hazmat suits just in case they touch something or breath in molecules of air that has been contaminated with animal (and/or human) fats if they are that sensitive to it."
IIRC The monks of the Jain religion wear face masks to avoid inadvertently swallowing a fly and causing its death.
"breath in molecules of air that has been contaminated with animal (and/or human) fats"
Bacteria a separated into flora and fauna. Many of them floating in the air.
Then there are all the microscopic creepy crawlies that live all over the outside of the human body, not to mention the herds of wild beasts roaming up and down your eyelashes. A true vegan should never wash!
Don't forget, sweat doesn't smell (much). The bad smell is the by-product of the bacteria using said sweat as sustenance!
I will start up an exchange process. I will swap 2 new fivers for a crisp tenner* for anyone who is unsure of how humanly dispose of them.
After all, I didn't fight my way up to the top of the food chain to worry about where my currency came from
* Plus £5 handling fee
Pint for you sir.
It's disrespectful to an animals life if it's killed just for it's hide, or for a specific cut of meat. When an animal is slaughtered everything is used, and I mean everything. Those cheap chicken burgers you get? The 50p ones? Well that's full of mechanically reclaimed meat. Essentially produced from throwing in chicken bones which have had the most of the meat cut off leaving little traces of meat on the bone, and removing it using high pressure water jets. The bones are then ground up in to animal feed or plant food.
"It's disrespectful to an animals life if it's killed just for it's hide, or for a specific cut of meat."
When the railways penetrated the plains of North America it became very easy to shoot vast numbers of buffalo. Apparently the only part that was shipped for sale was the tongue - the rest of the carcass was left to rot.
"brains need meat to function correctly."
that's probably true, or at least ingesting cholesterol. [I have this theory about 'low cholesterol' meds and altzheimers...]. cholesterol is necessary for proper nerve/brain function.
In nature, carnivores and omnivores are the ones with the bigger brains, forward-facing eyes, etc. and with the exception of certain veggie-primates [who also eat insects, but that's easily/deliberately overlooked when pointing them out] it's the rule that if you have a big brain and forward-facing eyes, you're either an omnivore or a carnivore.
Is what Vegans think will happen to all those animals we breed for food and dairy, if we stopped doing that. I can't see farmers just leaving the animals to their own devices, and some, if you did, would die a very unpleasant death as they have been bread to over produce milk. What would happen is that vast numbers of healthy animals would be culled and then wasted, because farmers are also businesses, and just having animals to look at doesn't make much money. Our use of animals for meat tends to have very little waste, everything is used for something, and by products are in many, many things we all have to use every day.
They think that we'd stop breeding animals for food and dairy and the population would die out. They think that being born to live your life in a cage and then be killed isn't worth it. They think that a smaller population of animals living naturally is better than a massive population living in misery.
And to do that we would need to increase our crop manufacturing. Granted the land used by breeding livestock could in some cases be used to grow crops, but when you use the land for crops then you are killing off the little animals that live in those lands happily co-existing with the livestock. Mice, moles, insects, birds etc.... not to mention the fact that use of pesticides would have to increase( and who knows what sort of impact that could have on the environment), and as much as you may not like it, gmo's would likely also be on the rise to meet the growing demands (or just to increase yields and make it worth it for the farmers).
Next, onto the human factor. Think of all the industries that would go out of business overnight if you stopped using animal products. We would have to increase the use of plastic to fill the gap. Our oil use goes up, the price of oil becomes more expensive. Not to mention the fact that we increase the amount of plastic waste we generate.
Way to save the world!
The sheep, cows and turkeys I encounter in the fields on my walks seem happy enough. Granted this happiness dips a short while before their death, but that's a lot less suffering than the average cow experiences when it lives out its natural life - or for that matter, a human.
I understand that there is a lot of suffering in the food chain, but plenty of suppliers care about the welfare of the animals they rear and they're not hard to find, People like me push our business their way, and we don't pay more for meat... we just eat a bit less of it.
Finally, if vegans want wild things to live in the wild, they need to be more vocal about the size of the human population, because it's our need for fields which displaces wildlife, and that continues to rise in line with the rise in population size and living standards, and giving up meat won't fix that in the long run.
"They think that being born to live your life in a cage and then be killed isn't worth it."
You think that cows are born to live their lives in a cage? What are those big things that are dotting the hillsides around my home? Inflatable models of cows?
And thats the million dollar question the bacon dodgers like to avoid.
The reality is if we stopped eating meat we would need to cull millions of animals as no farmer is going to pay to fence and graze what has become wildlife.
Cows roaming free on roads, sheep randomly invading towns, pigs in your garden etc all breeding away etc.
Farmers would need to fence in crops, having seen how quickly escaped sheep can eat through an arable crop we could end up with food supply issues once we release all those cuddly ruminants and they graze through everything.
Well from the couple I know.
They basically think that things like cows beeing bred to produce milk and such is not the most ethical way to have treated animals and as such they would rather not eat them, same things with chickens etc, they also do not wear leather, and they do not preach to me about my omnivorous habits, they will also share the same table with me without cringing back in abhorrence.
They certainly haven't gone on a rant about how meat eaters are evil, and how we should all stop eating meat, or health or anything like that, in fact they seem to be just getting on with it, unlike whats seems a small amount of radicalised fundamentalist burger munchers posting on here, who I assume are off to pelt a vegatarian cafe with sauasges later.
As a chemist you should be doing what you did at university, READ. If you read the article or any of the other news reports about the story, then you'd read that it's used in the manufacture of the polymers, in the pellets. And if you read a bit more, maybe like doing RESEARCH (again something you must have done at uni) you'd find that it's used as a lubricant, you know something to help all the pellets move along through the production process.
" As a chemist you should be doing what you did at university, READ."
The original article seemed to imply that it was a deliberate formulation decision, rather than inadvertent trace amounts used in tallow lubricants.
"there is a trace of tallow in the polymer pellets used in the base substrate...."
So, an even more ridiculous matter then.
But adding oddball things to the formulation isn't that insane. Back in 1991 the Bank of Australia had a polymer note, and the three resins used were chosen for being harder to identify specifically by analysis, when blended. So I was wondering if it was something more than "it's what we use to wax the pellet chutes". The University lab I was working in was contracted by the mint to see how easy it was to reverse engineer. The answer was still extremely easy if you have access to high grade analytical equipment.
So I'd assume that it's not just the fivers that are the issue, it'll be pretty widespread. It may well be that the vegetarians plastic shoes have those same traces...
There are non animal alternatives, but they're more expensive and can (I believe) make the plastic a little softer (less durable?).
Thank you, you got there before me.
So the next logical conclusion is that all packaging and non-food products need to contain an ingredients breakdown, as a quick google indicates a number of animal by-products are used in the production of many plastics. And many other things
Industrial tallow can come from animal or vegetable sources. It can be a by-product of biodiesel production from corn oil, FFS. To the industry, it's just another name for triglycerides. They're used to adjust the melting points of substances as well as their viscous properties at different temperatures.
The tweet from BoE dude just says "tallow". He/she is an idiot! They didn't check with their supplier the absolute source of all the materials used in their product?!
Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised it came from a beef source, I'm just annoyed by (1) the person who tweeted not understanding the hidden part of the question and seemingly without referring it to a manager, and (2) the over-reaction of people as the original spark gets Chinese-whispered away from what was actually said.
>>there is a trace of tallow in the polymer pellets used in the base substrate of the polymer
1) Why tallow - is there no synthetic option?
2) Why didn't the people who decide these things foresee the inevitable fuss?
Maybe a page was missing from the requirements spec.
Its not that there is no synthetic option - its would just be too costly. I think most vegans would be surprised to discover that almost all synthetic products have some animal products in them Biodiesel contains animal products - not just the fat from burgers but when leather is made the fat scraped of the skins is boiled down and goes in along with your chip fat.
To make animal free synthetics you'd probably have to build a whole new production line and supply chain for everything.
"1) Why tallow"
Why not? Most people (i.e. the democratic majority, held to be sacrosanct, except of course when it gets to be a tad inconvenient) don't care whether tallow is used as a lubricant or not. Why should the majority have to change what they do to accommodate a minority?
>>and similar SANE reasons...
And now back in the real world...
I can only hope that after they factored in the potential costs of cleaning up the PR+social media mess and probable reformulation, it was still worth the risk of starting with tallow.
That's sanity, but I doubt that's what happened.
With all coins and notes in circulation you can guarantee someone at some point has handled meat and that money straight after, these vegans flipping out should just go the whole hog (pun intended) and go and live in a plastic bubble in the middle of a forest. It's absolutely pathetic getting so furious about what's probably a 0.01% trace of tallow that makes it into the final note, the animals that get rendered are dead anyway and I'm pretty sure it's the parts that can't be used for meat so that animal would have died regardless.
This would be very easy to test... PCR (selectively amplify) the 16S gene (conserved through all bacteria), sequence them, put the sequences through something like Mothur (identifies bacterial sequences) and crunch the stats on the population etc. The amusing thing in this context is that one of the R packages for "community analysis" is called Vegan...
"I'd be more concerned about the numbers of faecal bacteria that seems omnipresent and especially on money."
That's why people have generally stopped eating rare burgers - especially from Scottish beef. E. Coli 0157 needs to be killed by heat. The abattoir processing is only a question of how much, rather than whether, faeces gets into the minced beef.
Apparently the kitchen wooden chopping boards are a major source of bacterial contamination.
Seems pretty unlikely as the lignins present in wood have a natural antibacterial action.
It's the stuff that survives in the cuts and scratches in plastic chopping boards that would worry me.
Let's get real. Nobody posting here "fought their way to the top of the food chain". Let's put anyone who says that in a cage with a hungry lion, see who ends up getting out alive, and let's test that theory. Anyone willing to volunteer?
There's no good reason to expose animals to more suffering by using them as a commodity, when the need for their use, particularly in the manufacture of currency, is not justified by any reasonable, scientifically sound "need".
And for the record, vegans aren't just having a fit over nothing. This is the year 2016 (almost 2017), and yet we have only gotten MORE vicious and cruel toward the animals that are tortured every day in factory farms and feedlots, and yet we continue to create more of a demand for their suffering by calling for the use of more animal products when it's completely unnecessary. You're not just talking about the suffering of animals here, you're talking about funneling more food and water into a "resource" that yields a net loss in resources. That's inefficient use of resources by first-world countries that, due to their demand for meat and animal agriculture, are depriving impoverished countries of the resources that THEY need to survive. Let's not also forget that one of the top causes of world-wide deforestation (the lungs of our planet) is animal agriculture.
And for those suggesting that the animals farmed in factory farm settings / feedlots are living "happy lives" up until the point of slaughter really ought to visit a factory farm at some point in their lives, and see for themselves. The truth is a lot more complicated than the idyllic picture that's been painted for us.
Are these factory farms you are talking about in the UK?
I was under the impression that we'd improved the lot of the animals we use in the food chain considerably. For example, banning factory production of eggs etc.
If there is considerable suffering of animals on UK farms then call the RSPCA and any of the Animal Rights Organisations. They'll be on to it in a flash.
I have seen intensive beef farms in the USA. The cattle there never see sunlight. Bloody awful places.
And yet the truth is a lot more complicated than the idealistic view that vegans hold of "lets stop eating meat and it will automatically make the world a better place".
I am all for humane treatment of animals. Heck, I go out of my way to ensure that where possible we buy free range animals and non battery caged eggs, I even grow my own veg (as the weather allows). But unfortunately humans don't like to be told what to do (at least not directly) and in fact, humans are the most wasteful animals on the earth.
It is an inefficient use of our time to sit in front of the gogglebox staring at other people doing absurd things for our entertainment. It is an inefficient use of our lives to spend a majority of it in an office staring at a screen and typing away on a keyboard making 1's and 0's fly around the world.
It is illogical to drink fermented fruit and get drunk just to make the rest of the time sitting in front of a screen more bearable
It is crazy to inhale smoke that will ultimately kill you for pleasure... and not only that, but pay for the privilege.
The list goes on...
You are raging against but 1 small cog in a very large machine. The problem is not that we eat animals. Nor even the fact that we have come up with ways to meet the growing demand for such things. These are just symptoms of a larger problem.
If you really want to break it down, there are just too many humans.
So let me pose that question to the Vegans... would you kill and eat meat from a human to save a hundred cows from being needlessly born, raised and killed?
"It is an inefficient use of our time to sit in front of the gogglebox staring at other people doing absurd things for our entertainment. It is an inefficient use of our lives to spend a majority of it in an office staring at a screen and typing away on a keyboard making 1's and 0's fly around the world."
Oh, so I suppose you want to go back to grandparent's time and do lots of manual work and work long hours with very little leisure time? That must be efficient use of your time. Me? I'd rather use efficient technology that makes my job easier and faster with with less physical work meaning that I have more time for my own pleasure, which might involve the gogglebox.
No, what we should be doing is phasing out the most wasteful animal agriculture practices, in order to sustain the rest of the world's population. Sound reasonable? That 50 pounds of grain and 500+ gallons of water to yield 1 pound of beef? Yeah that's what I'm talking about when I refer to wasteful animal agriculture practices.
> Grass can grow on hill farms when very little else will.
Our beautiful "natural" landscapes like the Lake District and not at all natural. They are maintained by the sheep farming. This is why this were not culled in the Foot and Mouth disaster a few years back.
There's a difference between inustrialized agri-business, and herding. The results are still the same - Eventual slaughter, either way. However, the science behind it is just a matter of numbers. It's inefficient to funnel roughly 500 gallons (I'm American), and 50 pounds of grain into an animal to produce one pound of beef. Just to give you a rough idea, you're talking about roughly the equivalent of running your shower for a couple of weeks, without stopping. That's how much water is involved in producing one pound of beef. In a world that is having a population crisis, in conjunction with a clean water crisis, from a purely analytical point of view without taking into account one's personal definition of suffering, this is an inefficient, and irresponsible use of resources.
But to state what should be obvious, since it's easy to anthropomorphise how "content" animals may look relative to their mental, physical, or emotional state is not an accurate way of gauging the levels of suffering that an animal is forced to endure. Just because Temple Grandin came up with a way to make cows less anxious while they're having a cannula inserted into their stomach, or to be tagged or branded, doesn't mean that the cow suffers less. It only makes us feel better about the suffering that we're inflicting on others.
Either way, I'm not trying to turn this into a pro-vegan vs. anti-vegan thread. I'm personally vegan. It's the right choice for ME. I have been since 2002, and don't ever see myself going back. People have to do the research for themselves and provide themselves with the most objective view of everything before settling with the facts and figures that support one theory or another. It's called deductive reasoning. We as humans have that ability. It's one of the reasons why I choose to reduce the suffering that I cause to the sentient beings with who I share this planet. Notice I said, "reduce" not "eliminate", because reduction is the goal. Elimination of suffering is impossible. However, we vote with our money for the kind of treatment that we are comfortable with toward others. I'd like to be one less person contributing to the problem if at all possible. Nobody is perfect -- vegans included. We all share a bit of responsibility by virtue of our very existence, for creating the suffering of another creature on this planet. The goal of veganism is the reduction (as much as possible) of our inflicting suffering on others -- Not unattainable perfection.
"Let's get real. Nobody posting here "fought their way to the top of the food chain". Let's put anyone who says that in a cage with a hungry lion, see who ends up getting out alive, and let's test that theory."
It may have escaped your notice but the British diet does not contain lion meat. I'm more than happy to be put into a cage with the farm animals that I eat. Given that I am a part-time farmer I already spend time in cages with farm animals. So far it's them (0) me (lots) on the scale of who wins. So I would argue, successfully, that I have indeed fought my way to the top of the food chain.
If you could point to any other macro-predator with a population of approx. 7 billion I would be interested to know what species it is.
BTW all the guff about "torturing" animals on farms is just that, guff. Animals get well treated because abusing animals gives poor results when it comes to the quality of meat, milk and hides. Although I suspect your use of the term "feedlots" means that you are talking about production outside Europe. I can't speak for the farming practices of the Shermans.
The test is simple.
Fill a mug with cold water and place in a microwave oven. Add the new note and run on High for 60-second periods.
If/when a burning smell is detected, and your oven is clean, check the note. RFID chips usually get so hot they melt the Kevlar.
For those that don't eat meat based on the taste or husbandry of animals that's fine. But how many cry out because their phone was manufactured in a plant (sorry) where humans are forced to occupy small stalls for twelve hours a day in return for minimal sustenance, allowed only to sleep at night in small rooms and never allowed to see natural daylight?
Vegans have the perfect right to deny anything that involves mistreatment of animals ... as long as they remember humans are animals too.
Are vegan's now going to discover that almost every plastic has some animal byproduct in it? Are they going to be stopping using their: Cars, TVs, Mobiles, laptops, shoes, clothes, chairs, guitars, bicycles, airliners, hats. This goes on and on and on.
I've got popcorn - go for it.
Vegans are basically following a belief system. Just like Christians and Muslims. And because it's a belief, and all beliefs can conflict with each other, everyone can take the piss out of everyone else. So don't feel ashamed about criticising someone's beliefs. The basic human right of free speech means that you have the right to offend someone else because they will be offending you, be it by spouting some religion or political opinion.
Suggest you go back through the comments and count how many anti-V* comments there have been; making fun of those who are complaining about not being able to lick the new fiver is all very well but derogatory comments are going a bit far.
As for preaching, yes new-V*s do that a bit too much but they usually grow out of it. As someone who has been a vegetarian for nearly 30 years, I generally don't bother. But when the 'corpse defilers' start poking fun, I'll poke right back at 'em.
"If vegans weren't so damn self-righteous"
I don't believe they are. They've chosen a lifestyle that isn't yours. But they *chose* it, mainly after thought and consideration and on the basis of knowledge, something rather different from those of you smug meat-eaters who can't be bothered to think of the consequences of global farming, animal misery, and above all the chemical filth that producers inject into animals which you then ingest. Good luck with that.
Me, I'm not vegan, but I admire those who are. I don't eat meat partly for health reasons (see above), but if any of you has a strong stomach I recommend that you find a copy of "The Animals Film", broadcast on UK C4 in 1982. One half about animal farming, the other about the abuse of animals in cosmetics production. If you make it to the end then you, like me, won't touch farmed meat ever again.
"....But they *chose* it, mainly after thought and consideration and on the basis of knowledge....." I have yet to meet a vegetarian - including several university professors - that actually had a real clue about nature, human dietary requirements, or any real knowledge of the meat farming/slaughtering industry. What they all seem to have in common is a lot of misinformation that can be easily debunked in minutes flat, often leaving them in an emotional blather and ranting about "choices". Yes, it is their right to make a life choice based on being uninformed and ignorant, but please don't try passing it off as some decision based on superior intellect, learning, experience or knowledge, as it is actually little more than denial of scientific reality, and please don't try and tell the rest of us we have to respect their inability to deal with the facts of life.
then stick by it. dont use the fivers. its your principle (could be religious, vegan, etc, whatever) and it may inconvenience you. thats half of the point isnt it? its your problem, deal with it, dont whine about it.
ive never met a vegan (ive not met many but one of my close friends is one) who has stopped driving due to all the innocent flies they kill whilst driving around. its too inconvenient she (and the other few i have asked whn i come across them) says. it only seems to be a principle when its convenient.
petition has been set up and signed by around 5,000
Hmm, I wonder. If one were to hold a proper survey, scaled to represent the population as a whole, on the subject of "who gives a shit?", would 5,000 be more than the error bars on it...?
Way to big up your statistical insignificance guys.
would 5,000 be more than the error bars on it...?
I think so. It's a large absolute number, and the bigger the overall population, the narrower the error bars.
What it means is that there at least 5,000 people in the UK who are concerned about this. So probably not one in my neighbourhood, but perhaps ten in my county. (I think I know who they are.)
"Way to big up your statistical insignificance guys."
Being generous with my rounding up, that's 0.01% of the population. I think their views can safely be ignored.----
especially as I signed it just for the fun factor.
As I understand it, the traces of tallow are used as a lubrication product in the manufacturing process and are not part of the "recipe" for making the notes.
If that is the case, I should carry a warning banner to keep Vegans away from me, a significant part of the process used to make me the shape I am involved bacon, burgers and fish fingers
To me, the term "trace" implies that the substance is not needed but just happens to be there for some reason. It's an impurity, if you will.
The sort of outrage I'm seeing over this seems completely illogical to me, it's a bit like kicking off because a knife was used to prepare vegetarian food that had previously been used to cut a meat product. So what? It doesn't make any difference as to whether an animal was killed or not. It doesn't make any difference to anything.
This post has been deleted by its author
that a British government attempting to enforce occupation/democracy on India about 100 odd years ago, mixed animal fat with munitions which were going to be handled by Hindu soldiers, with devastating results.
Certanly we can expect to see a decline in the use of fivers in popular culture, as an aid for shovelling snow on the weekends.
"History tells us that a British government attempting to enforce occupation/democracy on India about 100 odd years ago, mixed animal fat with munitions which were going to be handled by Hindu soldiers, with devastating results...." Er, no, that was simply anti-British propaganda. The paper cartridge packets were sealed against moisture (and also to help lubricate the bullet in the rifled barrel of the Pattern 1853 Enfield) with beeswax and mutton grease, but agitators told the troops that the seal used other animal fats, selectively telling them it was beef fat for the Hindus and pork for the Muslims. In an attempt to stop the rumour, the East India Company and the Army offered Indian troops the option to make up their own cartridge packets with vegetable oil tallow, but the agitators simply changed their story to say "That must mean we were right about the animal fats!" As with most such unsuccessful rebellions, the lying agitators (allegedly Imperial Russian spies and/or Hindu nationalists) largely escaped persecution, but the rebels that fought (the Indian sepoys) were eventually killed, imprisoned or executed. Some were executed by being chained to the muzzle of a cannon and blown apart, but before you fall for another myth about that method being a British invention, it was actually copied from the Moghuls.
F*** you all. I came here to get away from Daily Mail types. Yes, this is a planet of necessary violence - we get that, but one thing we have the ability to do is make choices. When that choice is taken away from you (a lot of you have been complaining about the snoopers charter) then we have a right to complain. Nuff said.
I was in a staff canteen once (sometime ago). I used a serving implement to pick up some piece of cooked meat and put it on my plate.
My colleague who was vegetarian (not vegan) then wouldn't use that implement to put vegetables on their plate. The cross contamination must have been negligible.
To me some of vegetarians behaviour seems over the top and bordering on psychiatric OCD.
It must be really hard living life worrying that much.
"My colleague who was vegetarian (not vegan) then wouldn't use that implement to put vegetables on their plate. The cross contamination must have been negligible."
I wouldn't agree with that. If you touch raw chicken with some implement, you wouldn't then use that implement for cooked food, or any other raw food (I certainly hope).
But we are not eating 5 pound notes, so that's a bit different.