news.bbc.co.uk— Mars has abandoned plans to use animal products in its chocolate, and has apologised to "upset" vegetarians.
May 20, 2007View in Crawl 4
And all of you saying bacteria and yeast are not "animals" just tells me im right when i say all you want is cheap peace of mind. Yeast, bacteria, a cow, a cat a human being, a tree, they are all alive, can we agree there? Then why do you say killing is wrong just for some of those? Why do you say eating just some of those makes them "suffer"?Is it because plants cant scream that is ok to eat them?DO you use a car? the bus? Millions of animals died to make the fuel you use in them?It is just that you are so close minded in your righteous crusade that you cant stop and think that not eating animals or animals derived products because is ethically wrong is pure BULLs**t.
from wikipediaGenetically engineered rennetBecause of the above imperfections of microbial rennets, some producers sought further replacements of natural rennet. With the development of genetic engineering, it suddenly became possible to use calf-genes to modify some bacteria, fungus or yeast to make them produce Chymosin. Chymosin produced by genetically modified organisms was the first artificially produced enzyme to be registered and allowed by the FDA in the USA. In 1999, about 60% of U.S. hard cheese was made with genetically engineered Chymosin.
@jeff303:that's pretty dumb reasoning. we weren't "intended" to live past the age of 40 either i suppose. i'd like to see how far you'd get using that line of reasoning to justify having sex with 14-year-old girls.our ancestors used to eat everything raw as well, but you're an idiot if you think that's healthier for us. human habits change, including our dietary habits. we know enough about nutritional sciences and human biology to determine what kind of foods are beneficial to our health, and it's certainly not copying the diets of our ancient ancestors whom had no such knowledge and limited resources.nutritional science is not some huge mystery. you can easily substitute other foods with protein and similar nutrients as meat and still live just as healthily, perhaps even healthier. i'm not a vegetarian, but i'm sick of these retarded ass arguments people make to criticize vegans & vegetarians.
@jeff:That is such a tired old argument. We started off as plant-eaters (look at apes and monkies). Evolution only made it possible for us to eat more types of food. Being omnivorous does not mean we have to eat both vegetables and meat to survive; it means we are able to survive just eating one, the other, or both. If we didn't adapt to being able to eat meat, then we would have died off since Africa's climate changed more towards being arid. Low precipitation = less vegetation. It was possible since we were monkies that we were able to be solely vegetarian. Beans, fruits, foliage, nuts, etc were around for a while. Beans and nuts have plenty enough protein for us to grow and be strong. Look at this way: Your argument is leaning toward the position that meat is the most important part of our nutrition. You almost suggest that it's more natural for us to eat only meat, than to eat only vegetables. If we're omnivorous, then why is it more natural to eat just meat, rather than both? I just want to point out this type of bias people tend to have. People love to take the completely opposite stance just to increase the impact of their argument.
Consumers - we have so much more power than we think. Candy is still unhealthy, though! What I'd like to see is an uproar over "health" bars and "energy" snacks that contain virtually identical ingredients to candy bars.
"The firm had said it would change the whey used in some of its products from a vegetarian source to one with traces of the animal enzyme, rennet. "There are no "vegetarian" sources of whey (cow milk protein). Glandular secretions from cows are not a form of vegetation. Also, every cow that gets "milked" for dairy products is still repeatedly impregnated in order to keep its milk production up. Its offspring are still sold to the feedlot, put into dairy farms, or locked in veal boxes. It's still killed and sent down the dissasembly line. So, the rennet Mars bars have calves' stomach in them, but buying a whey Mars bar still guarantees another cow is going to be locked in a tiny pen for a couple miserable years, pumped full of antibiotics to keep it alive, then killed.
yotomoteMay 20, 2007
And all of you saying bacteria and yeast are not "animals" just tells me im right when i say all you want is cheap peace of mind. Yeast, bacteria, a cow, a cat a human being, a tree, they are all alive, can we agree there? Then why do you say killing is wrong just for some of those? Why do you say eating just some of those makes them "suffer"?Is it because plants cant scream that is ok to eat them?DO you use a car? the bus? Millions of animals died to make the fuel you use in them?It is just that you are so close minded in your righteous crusade that you cant stop and think that not eating animals or animals derived products because is ethically wrong is pure BULLs**t.
happyscrappyMay 20, 2007
What Europe (and Canada) call a Mars Bar we call a Milky Way in the US. We still have Milky Ways.Wasn't our Mars bar just an Almond Joy anyway?
mikesum32May 20, 2007
from wikipediaGenetically engineered rennetBecause of the above imperfections of microbial rennets, some producers sought further replacements of natural rennet. With the development of genetic engineering, it suddenly became possible to use calf-genes to modify some bacteria, fungus or yeast to make them produce Chymosin. Chymosin produced by genetically modified organisms was the first artificially produced enzyme to be registered and allowed by the FDA in the USA. In 1999, about 60% of U.S. hard cheese was made with genetically engineered Chymosin.
smackheroMay 21, 2007
@jeff303:that's pretty dumb reasoning. we weren't "intended" to live past the age of 40 either i suppose. i'd like to see how far you'd get using that line of reasoning to justify having sex with 14-year-old girls.our ancestors used to eat everything raw as well, but you're an idiot if you think that's healthier for us. human habits change, including our dietary habits. we know enough about nutritional sciences and human biology to determine what kind of foods are beneficial to our health, and it's certainly not copying the diets of our ancient ancestors whom had no such knowledge and limited resources.nutritional science is not some huge mystery. you can easily substitute other foods with protein and similar nutrients as meat and still live just as healthily, perhaps even healthier. i'm not a vegetarian, but i'm sick of these retarded ass arguments people make to criticize vegans & vegetarians.
speedMay 21, 2007
Vegitarians have no problems with milk, it's vegans that hate milk. The problem was an enzyme, RTFA
imkookooMay 21, 2007
@jeff:That is such a tired old argument. We started off as plant-eaters (look at apes and monkies). Evolution only made it possible for us to eat more types of food. Being omnivorous does not mean we have to eat both vegetables and meat to survive; it means we are able to survive just eating one, the other, or both. If we didn't adapt to being able to eat meat, then we would have died off since Africa's climate changed more towards being arid. Low precipitation = less vegetation. It was possible since we were monkies that we were able to be solely vegetarian. Beans, fruits, foliage, nuts, etc were around for a while. Beans and nuts have plenty enough protein for us to grow and be strong. Look at this way: Your argument is leaning toward the position that meat is the most important part of our nutrition. You almost suggest that it's more natural for us to eat only meat, than to eat only vegetables. If we're omnivorous, then why is it more natural to eat just meat, rather than both? I just want to point out this type of bias people tend to have. People love to take the completely opposite stance just to increase the impact of their argument.
marksdailyappleMay 24, 2007
Consumers - we have so much more power than we think. Candy is still unhealthy, though! What I'd like to see is an uproar over "health" bars and "energy" snacks that contain virtually identical ingredients to candy bars.
andyparkersonJul 31, 2007
If by disgusting, you mean tasty, I agree. MMMMMMMMMmmm bee vomit!
Closed AccountJul 19, 2009
"The firm had said it would change the whey used in some of its products from a vegetarian source to one with traces of the animal enzyme, rennet. "There are no "vegetarian" sources of whey (cow milk protein). Glandular secretions from cows are not a form of vegetation. Also, every cow that gets "milked" for dairy products is still repeatedly impregnated in order to keep its milk production up. Its offspring are still sold to the feedlot, put into dairy farms, or locked in veal boxes. It's still killed and sent down the dissasembly line. So, the rennet Mars bars have calves' stomach in them, but buying a whey Mars bar still guarantees another cow is going to be locked in a tiny pen for a couple miserable years, pumped full of antibiotics to keep it alive, then killed.