Do you eat Roquette pea protein isolate?

[nobody]

Do you eat Roquette pea protein isolate?

NUTRALYS® Plant Protein by Roquette

If you buy Beyond Burgers then you do very likely eat Roquette pea protein isolate, because Roquette is one of Beyond Meat's pea protein isolate suppliers:

Supply Agreements

We have entered into a one-year supply agreement with Roquette America, Inc., or Roquette, which provides us with pea protein sourced from yellow peas from Canada and France. The agreement expires on December 31, 2019. This agreement increases the amount of pea protein to be supplied by Roquette in 2019 compared to a previous agreement with Roquette which was superseded by this new agreement. The pea protein obtained pursuant to the supply agreement is obtained on a purchase order basis regularly, per fairly equal quantities, throughout the term. Roquette is not obligated to supply us with pea protein in amounts in excess of the regular spread by month of the total minimum quantity required to be purchased by us. We have the right to cancel purchase orders if we provide timely written notice; however, the total annual amount purchased must be at least the minimum amount specified in the agreement. We also have the right to be indemnified by Roquette in certain circumstances. Roquette is located in France and ships the pea protein to an intermediary storage facility in Chicago, Illinois.

We have a three-year supply agreement with PURIS Proteins, LLC, or Puris, under which we may purchase domestically sourced pea protein. The agreement expires on December 31, 2021. We obtain protein under the supply agreement on a purchase order basis. We have the right to cancel purchase orders if we provide timely written notice; however, the total amount purchased in each year must be at least either the minimum volume specified for that year in the agreement or an amount based on a formula. We also have the right to be indemnified by Puris and must indemnify Puris in certain circumstances.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1655210/000162828019004543/beyondmeats-1a5.htm

In 2013 Roquette Group tested their pea protein isolate on 120 Wistar rats, who were of course killed at the end of the study:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264281787_Subchronic_toxicological_effects_of_pea_protein_isolate_nutralys_on_wistar_rats_A_ninety-day_dietary

Everyone is always saying Impossible Burger is not vegan because they tested their novel ingredient, soy-legheoglobin, on rats in order to get a "no questions letter" from the FDA (necessary for distribution in major retail/restaurant chains and for foreign government agency requirements in the case of export), which can be read here:

GRAS Notices

Yet these same people who claim Impossible Burger is not vegan claim Beyond Burger IS vegan, just because Beyond Meat never had to do a rat study themselves, because their supplier had already done the study. This study was used by another company to obtain a "no questions letter" for pea protein isolate from the FDA...

"Axiom and SPRIM also cite a published toxicity study in which rats were fed pea protein isolate in the diet for 90 days. No compound-related adverse effects were reported at up to 100,000 ppm (equivalent to 8726 mg/kg bw/d for male rats and 9965 mg/kg bw/d for female rats)."

Agency Response Letter GRAS Notice GRN 608

Pea protein concentrate is GRAS for use as an ingredient, formulation aid, and texturizer in foods.

www.fda.gov

...thereby allowing any company whose business model is based on the use of pea protein isolate, such as Beyond Meat, to secure the distribution channels necessary to exist as a viable company.

Apparently, according to the logic used by anti-Impossible, pro Beyond people, if your supplier tested on rats that's fine, as long as you didn't test on rats yourself. So if I start a food cart vendor business where I sell spicy plant based meatball/vegan parmesan subs using Impossible beef, my product is vegan, as long as I don't test on rats myself. That makes no sense. But I guess it wouldn't matter if it made any logical sense. All I would need is for Peta to declare my product vegan and then people would just accept and parrot it.

 

[Forest Nymph]

I've noticed you like to argue with people over hair splitting nonsense.

 

[nobody]

I've noticed you like to argue with people over hair splitting nonsense.

I noticed you like to make snarky quips in lieu of defending your misleading comments such as:

But Impossible Burgers are made for people like him which is why I don't knock them, even if they were animal tested and contain GMOs and I will probably never eat one unless I'm desperate (why not eat Beyond Burgers? As a vegan).

 

[nobody]

P.S. "Hair splitting" is such a bizarre choice of words. You eat pea protein isolate that is produced by the company that did the rat testing on pea protein isolate (which is only relevant because it matters to you what company tested a novel ingredient on rats necessary for the wide availability of any product containing that novel ingredient. Also, the study was done in 2013, since it matters to you when the animal testing was performed).

That's a HUGE difference from the picture you are painting here...

No that is not true. While some products contain ingredients that may have been incidentally tested on animals in the past, Impossible Foods, as a company, recently, intentionally, fed rats excessive amounts of their plant heme for two years. It's not like someone having to take Lithium, or buying a processed food where one ingredient was tested on animals by a different company in 1977.

...in which Impossible Foods has done done something very different from the companies whose conduct you find acceptable, who are either far removed from the animal testing by company ownership/time (1977) or are providing something necessary for human (mental) health in the case of lithium.

Convincing fake meat is necessary to save farm animals. So if animal testing is necessary and acceptable in the case of medicine that helps humans, such as lithium, it is logically also necessary and acceptable in the case of fake meat that helps farm animals, unless you're speciesist.

Roquette Group, as a company, recently, intentionally, fed rats excessive amounts of their pea protein for 90 days, and you eat it. Not that I think there is anything wrong with eating it under the circumstances, and I eat it too, but you seem to be in denial about it.

 

[Nekodaiden]

Short answer is no, I don't eat it, because I don't think protein isolates are natural and healthy(as has been shown with soy protein isolate, which can/does raise igf-1). Not that everything I consume is healthy (it's not), but I don't see the point in adding another to the list unnecessarily. I would eat it, however, on a rare basis if it was found in a processed food and I needed something to eat, without moral qualms.

 

[nobody]

Short answer is no, I don't eat it, because I don't think protein isolates are natural and healthy(as has been shown with soy protein isolate, which can/does raise igf-1). Not that everything I consume is healthy (it's not), but I don't see the point in adding another to the list unnecessarily. I would eat it, however, on a rare basis if it was found in a processed food and I needed something to eat, without moral qualms.

Is Impossible/Beyond less healthy for omnivores than say 90% lean real ground beef?

 

[Forest Nymph]

P.S. "Hair splitting" is such a bizarre choice of words. You eat pea protein isolate that is produced by the company that did the rat testing on pea protein isolate (which is only relevant because it matters to you what company tested a novel ingredient on rats necessary for the wide availability of any product containing that novel ingredient. Also, the study was done in 2013, since it matters to you when the animal testing was performed).

That's a HUGE difference from the picture you are painting here...



...in which Impossible Foods has done done something very different from the companies whose conduct you find acceptable, who are either far removed from the animal testing by company ownership/time (1977) or are providing something necessary for human (mental) health in the case of lithium.

Convincing fake meat is necessary to save farm animals. So if animal testing is necessary and acceptable in the case of medicine that helps humans, such as lithium, it is logically also necessary and acceptable in the case of fake meat that helps farm animals, unless you're speciesist.

Roquette Group, as a company, recently, intentionally, fed rats excessive amounts of their pea protein for 90 days, and you eat it. Not that I think there is anything wrong with eating it under the circumstances, and I eat it too, but you seem to be in denial about it.

Dear nobody,

By hair splitting, I mean this is a personal choice. For example some vegans won't eat in restaurants that serve meat, or eat french fries prepared in oil with fried chicken parts. Other vegans say hey this is going a bit far because the risk of cross contamination is negligible or from a health perspective cancelled out from high heat temperatures.

Still other vegans insist on personal purity - which is, let's face it, a privilege of middle class people since the working class and poor might have to sometimes settle for "accidentally vegan" foods or even free food with traces of whey or milk. PETA actually upholds the more pragmatic 99% rule to be inclusive to students, people in urban areas and so forth.

Which brings us to the topic at hand. Some vegans won't eat Impossible Burgers because their company directly and intentionally tested on animals instead of oh I don't know, testing their products on people who get paid for it, like a medical study. There are vegans who say it's fine for new vegans or non-vegans to promote plant based lifestyles, but not for them for this reason. I am one of those people. I don't stop other people from eating Impossible Burgers, I choose not to eat them myself.

The reason why PETA holds up a 99% rule but criticizes Impossible Foods is to draw national attention to the problem of mandatory animal tests. I also think it's completely obvious that an Impossible Burger is a kind of pricey luxury item, while that free granola bar with honey might be due to actual need for food.

At the end of the day Beyond Foods did not directly fund animal testing. That means more to some people than others.

I also find it honestly ridiculous that people who won't eat honey, almonds or avocados would still eat an Impossible Burger. But these again are all hair splitting things.


nobody: "Don't have children in case your great grandchildren end up harming animals."

Also nobody: "Impossible Foods is totally fine."

Lol

 

[Nekodaiden]

Is Impossible/Beyond less healthy for omnivores than say 90% lean real ground beef?

I am unaware at this point of exactly what goes into either of these 2 (although I am assuming they are vegan) so it's hard to answer general questions on the health aspect except to say that some of the obvious negatives (cholesterol, TMAO, heme iron, fecal matter, animal fat among others) would presumably be absent from non-animal products. However this does not make a product healthy any more than motor oil is "healthy" compared to 90% ground beef. In general, too much oil, isolates (including protein) and lack of fiber/vitamins/minerals in a processed product can make it at least as unhealthy as something like lean beef, which still contains vitamins and minerals despite the negatives.