- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
“We have to stop destroying the planet as we feed ourselves,” a World Bank official said, as red meat and dairy drive CO2 emissions.
Cows and milk are out, chicken and broccoli are in — if the World Bank has its way, that is.
In a new paper, the international financial lender suggests repurposing the billions rich countries spend to boost CO2-rich products like red meat and dairy for more climate-friendly options like poultry, fruits and vegetables. It’s one of the most cost-effective ways to save the planet from climate change, the bank argues.
The politically touchy recommendation — sure to make certain conservatives and European countries apoplectic — is one of several suggestions the World Bank offers to cut climate-harming pollution from the agricultural and food sectors, which are responsible for nearly a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.
…
The paper comes at a diplomatically strategic moment, as countries signed on to the Paris Agreement — the global pact calling to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — prepare to update their climate plans by late 2025.
Well it was originally designed to stop the dairy industry from putting weird stuff in milk, so there definitely a need because they kept trying to put weird stuff in it.
That part I understand, no more formaldehyde and brains in the milk. It’s more the industry fighting against the term being used for alternative milks which should have their own standards associated with them. Coconut milk and cream have existed for ages and nobody cares. But my (dairy farmer) family all of a sudden have really strong opinions on using the term milk for alternative milks. Or other generic terms being used for vegan products like mince, sausage, burger, steak. All of these things typically have a word in front to describe what they’re made of, but for some reason certain people get real worked up when that word is ‘vegetable’.
Being a regulator is like being a teacher. There is one kids who keeps putting crayons in his nose so you make a no crayons in your nose rule to stop him and it works great until this one kid uses crayons in nostrils to make amazing pictures for a talent show and suddenly the first kid says “hey I thought you said no nose crayons, why is she allowed crayons now”
The main problem is that it’s actually super hard to have a regulatory definition of “milk” that forces the dairy industry to not put stuff in milk, but also allows up to 100% of the product to be oats.
Vegan steak will be difficult for the same reasons. But I would guess vegan sausage, burgers, nuggets, boneless wings etc… will be very easy to approve since some products are already more fillers than meat already lol!
Simple. “Milk” is different from “soy milk”, just like “milk” is different from “sweetened milk” (in what godforsaken realm is aspartame in milk?). How is this not already handled?
I know it feels easy to armchair regulate but it’s not usually that easy. Like if you keep current milk regulations but then let people add a word before milk to escape the rules (to allow oat milk for example) then the dairy industry will pull shit like “pure milk” and “super milk” to escape the rules. It’s a cat and mouse game as soon as you start adding exceptions.
Milk is one of the longest regulated foods because the dairy industry misbehaves so much. The industrialisation of milk was so bad it caused tuberculosis outbreaks among other things.
I’m not saying there isn’t a good solution, there are always many good solutions possible. All I’m saying is not to forget that there is a reason the word milk was regulated for so long. Whatever exception is carved out for almond milk has to be well constructed enough not to weaken the current milk standards, yet broad enough to allow for any variety of plant based milk and that’s going to take some serious expertise. Enshrining plant based milks in a well thought out regulation is going to be the best way to stop this whole “only animal milk is milk” stuff. Until then the dairy industry is going to keep using the regulation to its advantage whenever it can to keep others out of the market.
But that’s not how it was framed at the courts at all, proven by the fact that all the other product names containing “milk” were considered okay. It was specifically argued that customers could be confused to accidentally buy the vegan variant. Based on your arguments “coconut milk” should be problematic, but it isn’t. Soy milk and almond milk could have been grandfathered in, but they weren’t, and the reason very specifically was pressure from the dairy industry targeting their competition.
I don’t know what’s confusing.
1.A regulation was created to control what you can and can’t put in the product called “milk” for the good of the customer.
2.The dairy industry used the regulation that was built to restrain them to keep vegan milks out of the market dishonestly using the “for the good of the customer” argument.
3.If someone can fix the regulation to allow both well regulated milk and non dairy milks then it’ll put an end to this bullshit.
Where have I lost you? Just because 2 happened doesn’t mean 1 didn’t happen first. In fact 2 would have been a lot harder if there wasn’t regulation controlling the word milk in the first place.
This problem is worse with cheese, using words like “cheese product” or “butter flavoring” for butter. Nobody is getting confused about Oat milk not being from cows, but these “not quite cheese” products are misleading.