American kids seem to grow a foot on average bigger every generation. We all attribute meat and chicken, probably with extra hormones for the change in body size over generations. And as my teen boy starts his big growth spurt I try to feed him meat so he can reach his height potential. I remember by friend Ofer, a vegan, worried about his boy growing. His son Kai is now over 6 feet tall. The kid wasn’t growing along with his peers, so Ofer thought the vegan diet might be slowing his son down.

Is there something to risk when feeding our children a plant-based diet? The science now has answers, and it comes from a country of more vegans per capita than anywhere in the world.

A new study from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) researchers and the Nutrition Division of the Israeli Ministry of Health suggests that a vegan diet can support rapid growth in children and that infants and toddlers who are vegan catch up with their peers by the time they are aged two.

The research was published last week in JAMA Network Open. It’s yet to give answers about growth and vegetarianism in teens.

This study analyzed a decade of records (2014–2023) of 1.2 million children provided by the Israeli Ministry of Health, which tracks the development of approximately 70% of the children in the country.

This massive dataset allowed the team—led by Kerem Avital, MPH, and Prof. Danit R. Shahar, PhD, of BGU —to move beyond small-scale debates and provide population-level evidence. They found Infants from vegan households closely tracked their omnivorous peers across all measurements, weight, length, and head circumference, with mean differences that were clinically minor (WHO z-score <0.2) and diminished further when adjusted for birth weight.

By age 24 months, stunting rates remained low across all dietary patterns (3.1% for omnivores, 3.4% for vegetarians, and 3.9% for vegans) with no statistically significant differences in odds between groups.

“In the context of developed countries, these findings are highly reassuring,” said Kerem Avital, lead researcher and PhD candidate at Ben-Gurion University. “The data suggests that with the proper environment, plant-based diets do not compromise the fundamental physical development of infants.”

As veganism moves from a niche lifestyle to a global health trend, BGU’s research provides the scientific “bridge” needed to inform international public health policy and nutritional counseling for the next generation.

As for now, we only have anecdotal information that a high-protein vegan or vegetarian diet does not impact growth heights in teens heading into adulthood. Michael Peterson, a father of 2 teenage boys in Ottawa, Canada, wondered if being a veggie kid might affect the growth patterns of his kids.  

“My kids both went vegetarian for a number of years during some formative time,” Peterson tells Green Prophet. “I have a 6’1” 18-year-old and a 5’7” 15-year-old who I am sure based on his griping about body ache is about to burst up again.

We try and feed them wholesome, home made, veggie-based with mixed protein. With the youngest’s rock climbing obsession we have had to up the protein which he prefers getting from animals, however, he is very conscious of getting from multiple sources. Grains, nuts, etc.”

Rebecca Wolf, a mom and occupational therapist in Arizona shares her experience raising vegetarian kids: “My kids have been raised vegetarian/pescatarian since birth. They also eat eggs and dairy. They are all in the 95%+ height category for their ages.”

Skipping steak, we find out from science and anecdotes, may not stunt a child’s growth; it might challenge our assumptions about what fuels it.

The post Are vegetarian babies at risk for being shorter than meat eaters? appeared first on Green Prophet.

In recent years, the suggestion that the blue-green algae superfood put in green smoothies commonly known as spirulina may rival traditional animal-sourced proteins has attracted growing attention. Some people like health influencers David Avocado Wolfe are suggesting its better to eat a pile of spirulina over a steak for protein value.

The question posed by many nutrition-conscious readers is whether spirulina truly contains more protein than steak. A review of the available data offers a nuanced answer: yes by dry weight, but in practical terms, not in typical servings.

Spirulina, scientifically referred to as Spirulina (dietary supplement) (a biomass of cyanobacteria), when processed into its dry powder form, is remarkably rich in protein. One detailed review reports protein levels ranging from 55 % to 70 % of its dry weight.

An authoritative source from Harvard Health, a respected medical institution, also states that “spirulina boasts a 60% protein content” in its dried form. Against that backdrop, the raw concentration of protein in spirulina appears exceptionally high compared with many foods.

By contrast, typical cuts of cooked lean beef—such as steak—contain significantly lower percentages of protein by weight. According to credible sources, cooked lean beef averages about 22% to 26% protein.

For example, one nutrition database lists a 100-gram portion of grilled beef tenderloin as containing approximately 26 grams of protein. Thus, on a gram-for-gram basis (i.e., comparing 100 g of dried spirulina vs. 100 g of steak), spirulina contains more protein. However, this comparison misses two important practical considerations: serving size and bioavailability. (And well, taste). You can sink your teeth into a 250g steak, raised on organic grass in open pastures. Try eating 250 grams of spirulina.

While spirulina is very protein-dense in dry form, typical daily servings are small—often a few grams. A tablespoon (about 7 g) of spirulina powder provides around 4 g of protein. By contrast, a single steak meal may provide 25 to 50 g of protein in one sitting. For example, a 10-ounce steak (≈ 283 g) has been cited as delivering around 42 to 50 g of protein. If yu are a vegan there is no question that you will eat tofu, and spirulina and beans and pulses for protein. If you are a vegewarian, a fresh, healthy steak may give you more than just protein. It gives you more iron and other amino acids too.

While both spirulina and beef provide “complete” protein (i.e., containing all essential amino acids), the absorption and usability of that protein by the human body may differ. Animal-sourced proteins are often considered more easily digestible and more strongly tied to muscle repair and growth, though the exact difference can depend on numerous factors including cooking method, other dietary components and individual digestive efficiency.

So what’s the verdict? By dry weight spirulina indeed contains a higher concentration of protein. Yet, when the comparison is adjusted to realistic portion sizes and typical consumption, steak delivers far more protein in a single serving. Let’s root for companies like Aleph Farms, making lab-grown steak from real animal tissue so we can bypass the animal suffering bit altogether.

The post What has more protein – spirulina or a steak? appeared first on Green Prophet.

These open, hand-held breads are really in a class of their own. You bite into a light, flexible crust that holds a spicy lamb filling. It’s so good. Take another bite or two. Before you know it, you’re already reaching for another one.

It’s an easy enough recipe, but it does require time and some exotic ingredients: tahini, pomegranate molasses, and sumac powder. All are available at Mediterranean grocery stores or online, and it’s worth buying and getting to know them. Tahini, or sesame seed paste, is a familiar condiment in Middle Eastern cuisine. (Discover 8 ways to eat tahini) Pomegranate molasses is a syrup of pomegranate juice that lends a slight sweet/sour taste to food. (Try our Almond Torte with Pomegranate Molasses.) I like to add a small amount of it to salad dressings. In meaty dishes such as this, it balances the earthiness of tahini and the bright flavors of the ground spices. Sumac imparts a sourish taste, like lemon, and an attractive red color.

When I first started eating these non-Western foods in Israel, I was startled by the presence of cinnamon in lamb dishes. But I soon realized how right it tastes. It sets off the slight gaminess of the meat and brings all the elements together.

Lahmacun, or lahmajoun are fun to eat folded over and out of hand, as a snack or finger food. If you prefer to make bigger pastries, they also make a satisfying meal.

Serve with a good mixed salad.

Photo of Lachmacun via Caroline’s Cooking

More fabulous Middle-Eastern dishes featuring lamb:

Lamb Kebabs Marinated in Pomegranate Molasses

Eat The Whole Animal: Lamb’s testicles and hog balls

The post Make Lahmacun, crispy Turkish flatbreads with meat appeared first on Green Prophet.

The breakdown of climate concerns

• Concern about climate change crosses political lines.
• 77% of the Israeli public is concerned about climate change; the difference between right-wing and left-wing voters is smaller than expected: 72% of right-wing voters and 89% of left-wing voters express concern about climate change.
• There is an understanding that the climate crisis is man-made.
• There is high trust in science and scientists (63%) compared to very low trust in social media (only 14%).
• There is a willingness to change behavioral habits for the sake of environmental protection (36% are willing to eat less meat, 33% are willing to travel more by public transport).

One-third of survey participants expressed a willingness to change their behavior for the sake of environmental protection. 36% are willing to eat less animal-based food; 33% are willing to travel more by public transport; 24% are willing to fly less and only 13% are willing to pay higher taxes to promote environmental protection.

“It seems that the public is readier to change their habits than policymakers believe,” said Tamar Zandberg, head of the National Institute for Climate Policy Research at Ben-Gurion University and former Minister of Environmental Protection.

The post Most Israelis concerned about climate change, new survey appeared first on Green Prophet.

Lab-grown meat companies such as US–based Mission Barns and Israel-based Aleph Farms (includes Leonardo Dicaprio as investor), are making cultured meat from animal cells. This process is often marketed to be more environmentally friendly than beef because it’s predicted to need less land, water and greenhouse gases than raising cattle.

But in a preprint, not yet peer-reviewed, researchers at the University of California, Davis, have found that lab-grown or “cultivated” meat’s environmental impact is likely to be “orders of magnitude” higher than retail beef based on current and near-term production methods.

Researchers conducted a life-cycle assessment of the energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted in all stages of production and compared that with beef. One of the current challenges with lab-grown meat is the use of highly refined or purified growth media, the ingredients needed to help animal cells multiply. Currently, this method is similar to the biotechnology used to make pharmaceuticals. This sets up a critical question for cultured meat production: Is it a pharmaceutical product or a food product?

“If companies are having to purify growth media to pharmaceutical levels, it uses more resources, which then increases global warming potential,” said lead author and doctoral graduate Derrick Risner, UC Davis Department of Food Science and Technology. “If this product continues to be produced using the “pharma” approach, it’s going to be worse for the environment and more expensive than conventional beef production.”

The scientists defined the global warming potential as the carbon dioxide equivalents emitted for each kilogram of meat produced. The study found that the global warming potential of lab-based meat using these purified media is four to 25 times greater than the average for retail beef.

A more climate friendly burger in the future?

One of the goals of the industry is to eventually create lab-grown meat using primarily food-grade ingredients or cultures without the use of expensive and energy-intensive pharmaceutical grade ingredients and processes.

Under that scenario, researchers found cultured meat is much more environmentally competitive, but with a wide range. Cultured meat’s global warming potential could be between 80% lower to 26% above that of conventional beef production, they calculate. While these results are more promising, the leap from “pharma to food” still represents a significant technical challenge for system scale-up.

“Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It’s not a panacea,” said corresponding author Edward Spang, an associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Technology. “It’s possible we could reduce its environmental impact in the future, but it will require significant technical advancement to simultaneously increase the performance and decrease the cost of the cell culture media.”

Even the most efficient beef production systems reviewed in the study outperform cultured meat across all scenarios (both food and pharma), suggesting that investments to advance more climate-friendly beef production may yield greater reductions in emissions more quickly than investments in cultured meat.

Risner said even if lab-based meat doesn’t result in a more climate-friendly burger, there is still valuable science to be learned from the endeavor.

“It may not lead to environmentally friendly commodity meat, but it could lead to less expensive pharmaceuticals, for example,” said Risner. “My concern would just be scaling this up too quickly and doing something harmful for the environment.”

The post Lab-grown meat telling convenient lies about carbon footprint? appeared first on Green Prophet.

More than 17,000 animals are killed each minute in slaughterhouses across the United States.  Slaughterhouse byproducts such as fat, bone, blood, and feathers often are sent to rendering facilities for conversion into tallow, lard, animal meal, and other products. The runoff from byproducts harms people as it flows into rivers and streams eventually polluting the land and the people drinking from aquifers.

If you look at news around the world, slaughterhouses or abattoirs, are dumping waste with no regard to the environment. See Tunisia, India, England.

Both slaughterhouses and rendering facilities require a near-constant flow of water, and they discharge staggering quantities of dangerous and damaging water pollution into rivers and streams, including millions of pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus, along with bacteria, grease, and other pollutants.

Today, the US Environmental Protection Agency (known as the EPA) proposed new water pollution control standards for slaughterhouses and rendering facilities. This is after a victorious lawsuit started by a number of lawsuits from community and conservation organizations. The new rules could help to prevent at least 100 million pounds per year of water pollution by strengthening or imposing standards on a fraction of the country’s approximately 5,000 slaughterhouses and rendering facilities, which together are leading sources of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.

Water pollution from slaughterhouses and rendering facilities threatens human health and the environment.  For instance, exposure to nitrogen compounds in drinking water can cause colorectal cancer, thyroid disease, birth defects, and—in infants under six months of age—methemoglobinemia, or “blue baby syndrome,” a potentially fatal condition.  In addition, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution feed algal growth, which can render water unsafe for drinking, unfit for recreation, and uninhabitable for aquatic life.

As algae die and decompose, they consume oxygen, giving rise to “dead zones” in iconic waterways such as Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.

“Pollution from slaughterhouses and rendering facilities disproportionately harms under-resourced communities, low-income communities, and communities of color,” said Earthjustice attorney Alexis Andiman.

Pollution from slaughterhouses and rendering facilities exacerbates environmental injustice.  Most slaughterhouses and rendering facilities are located within one mile of populations that, on average, the EPA classifies as “low income,” “linguistically isolated,” or at high risk of exposure to toxic substances.

To make matters worse, slaughterhouses and rendering facilities are often located near additional slaughterhouses, rendering facilities, concentrated animal feeding operations, and other sources of pollution, compounding the risks they pose.

The federal Clean Water Act requires the EPA to set water pollution standards for all industries, including slaughterhouses and rendering facilities, and to review those standards each year to determine whether updates are appropriate to keep pace with advances in pollution-control technology.

Despite this clear mandate, the EPA has failed to revise standards for slaughterhouses and rendering facilities for at least 19 years.  Some slaughterhouses and rendering facilities are still subject to standards established in the mid-1970s.

And the EPA has never published national standards applicable to the vast majority of slaughterhouses and rendering facilities, which discharge polluted wastewater indirectly through publicly-owned treatment works—also known as POTWs—even though the EPA has acknowledged for decades that, without adequate pretreatment, pollutants in slaughterhouses and rendering facility wastewater pass through many POTWs into our nation’s rivers and streams.

The victory was brought on by Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Waterkeeper Alliance, Humane Society of the United States, Food & Water Watch, Environment America, Comite Civico del Valle, Center for Biological Diversity, and Animal Legal Defense Fund.

This coalition initially challenged the Trump Administration’s decision not to update water pollution control standards for slaughterhouses and rendering facilities in 2019.  In response to that challenge, the EPA pledged to strengthen its regulations—but it did not commit to a timeline for doing so.  The coalition filed a second lawsuit in December 2022 to press the EPA to act promptly, resulting in an agreement that committed the EPA to propose new standards by December 2023 and publish final standards by August 2025.

“Today, the EPA took a major step towards reducing the massive flow of pollution that slaughterhouses dump into America’s rivers,” said John Rumpler, senior clean water director for Environment America. “If the agency follows through with a strong final rule, it will mark significant progress in reducing threats to wildlife and public health – including toxic algae, pathogens and nitrate contamination of drinking water sources.”

Many publicly owned wastewater treatment plants are not equipped to treat the waste they receive from one or more of the estimated 3,708 indirectly discharging slaughterhouses and rendering plants across the country, likely contributing to 73% of these facilities violating their clean water permit limits for pollutants typically released by those dischargers, said Kelly Hunter Foster, a Waterkeeper Alliance Senior Attorney.

One way to avoid this is for the facility itself to install a MBR or MBBR for slaughterhouse wastewater treatment which are designed to handle high contaminant discharges.

“Lax regulations allow industrial animal agriculture to profit while burdening communities with pollution and causing animals immense suffering,” said Animal Legal Defense Fund Senior Staff Attorney Larissa Liebmann. “With these updated pollution standards, EPA is making slaughterhouses account for some of the costs of their unsustainable business model.”

Building better environmental regulation in your country, province, state or city? Look to the EPA guide for starters.

The post America makes new laws for slaughterhouse rules on wastewater appeared first on Green Prophet.

There are always arguments for and against going vegan, and they are many, but for many in today’s world, going vegan is all about the ethical decision not to harm animals, at any level, from eating them to wearing their skins. Those of us out there who have taken meat off our plate have done so for a variety of reasons, reducing factory farming only one of the myriad factors in our choice. Also on the list of reasons why people turn away from flesh consumption is the environment and health concerns. 

No matter how one looks at animal production, the rule for even the small farms is that animals are machines, born and bred for our consumption. To “live” and die for our gastrointestinal desires.

This, for the vast majority of herbivores, is the number one cause behind our vegetarianism. Look at the numbers of people who have turned vegetarian in recent years and the statistics are optimistic. In Germany, nearly 10 percent of the population is plant-eaters, in the UK it’s around 7 percent and the numbers are growing in almost all industrialized nations.

Factory farming is a great concern for millions of us, but it is also the so-called “sustainable farms” talked up by “experts” that we are also campaigning against. The factory farm industry is horrific and well documented by animal rights groups worldwide.

In the Middle East, it is too-often assumed that factory farming doesn’t exist, at least in the excess it does in the West, but this is far from the reality. With the abundance of fast-food, factory farming has taken hold in Egypt and across the region, where companies have massive facilities located throughout countries. It is away from the gaze of many observers, and thus is not receiving the attention it should, but it exists and is costing us, both health wise and environmentally.

One need not be an expert to refuse to eat from these institutions. However, the smaller farms should not be seen as an altruistic alternative to the factory farm. On numerous small farms, including here in the region, animals are still branded, debeaked, castrated and ultimately slaughtered without the opportunity to live a full and social life – animals are social beings much like us “higher” beings.

To say that vegetarianism is not having a direct impact on meat production whether factory farm or small farm is wrong. Ending meat eating helps show and push an agenda where we will not accept the killing of beings who want and deserve a pain-free existence where they are able to form communities, be merry and interact with one another without fear of meeting a cleaver.

Maybe we vegetarians are not making as much of dent in meat-eating as we would hope, but we are making a difference. Wal-mart, America’s largest retailer, has in the past few years, has begun selling a number of vegan alternatives. If this isn’t proof that we are making a difference with our pocket book then what else is needed to convince ardent meat-eaters?

The health factors are well-documented. Vegans live longer, have less disease, lower cholesterol, and as the world’s largest animal rights organization the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has said, have better sex. All the above seem to be worthy in themselves of going vegetarian.

The China Study – conducted over 20 years by Oxford University, Cornell University and The Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine – has shown that meat consumption has put Americans on, literally, a deadly path. The study details the connection between nutrition, heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

With 6 of the top 10 most obese countries located in the Middle East, maybe it is time to look at reducing our meat intake. For many this cannot be an immediate move, but over time, it could help continue the green push that has erupted in the region to help reduce obesity levels and greenhouse gases caused by animal production.

“People who ate the most animal based foods got the most chronic diseases … people who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic diseases. These results could not be ignored,” said Dr. T. Colin Campbell, an author of the study and a respected nutritionist.

Environmentally, going vegan and not participating in animal production is the number one thing we, as individuals can, immediately and on our own, help reduce the effects of climate change. Seems to be vegetarians are doing a lot. It is more than a political statement, it is an economic one in the same way abolitionists against slavery were two hundred years ago.

We believe, as animal rights supporters, that it is morally wrong to exploit animals in any manner.

Reducing the idea of vegetarianism to whether or not it is having a direct impact on meat production and meat consumption misses the point entirely. We are not avoiding animal products because we want to see less meat eating – although this is a major factor in the long run – instead it is about not participating in the wholesale slaughter of intelligent animals who feel pain and suffering as acutely as humans do.

Professor Jeffrey Masson tells of how elephants can feel grief for the death of a fellow elephant as deeply as a human does for another human.

At the end of the day, one cannot persist on small farming without also participating in factory farming and causing the unnecessary suffering of animals at our expense. Do people like Woginrich refuse to eat meat when they go out if they do not know where it comes from? Doubtful. The only way one can, without worry, know that they have not participated in the killing of animals is to go vegan.

The post Vegetarianism Can Save the Middle East appeared first on Green Prophet.

Following the TV exposure of severe animal abuse in Israel at the Tnuva Adom Adom livestock slaughterhouse  a public outcry has been raised among Israel animal rights activists over the cruel tactics used on livestock brought there for slaughter. In addition to public demonstrations outside the Dairy Giant Tnuva’s headquarters in Tel Aviv  petitions are being circulated to have the slaughterhouse closed down due to cruel and unusually harsh treat of animals.

This  abuse included hitting and kicking the animals and poking them continuously with iron bars and  electric “shockers” to force them to move along quicker to the area where they would be slain. This cruel treatment of animals has resulted in the  Tnuva company facing criminal charge of abuse and cruelty to animals, as reported afterwards by  Haaretz.
Enraged Israelis protest in front of Tnuva’s Adom Adom offices

The treatment of livestock at the Adom Adom slaughterhouse, often from the hands of inexperienced employees, has been brought to the attention of Israel’s Environmental Protection Minister Gilad Erdan who said that “this exposure of abuse is added proof that the protection of animal rights shouldn’t be left in the hands of the Agriculture Ministry, which is mainly concerned with the best interests of the food industry.”

The use of electric shocking devices appears to have set off a number of alarm bells in Erdan’s environment protection ministry and resulted in confiscation of the shocking devices by the police .

Erdan, one of the rare ministers who actually knows something about environmental issues, is concerned that the abuse practiced at the Adom Adom slaughterhouse is in violation of Israel’s Animal Welfare Law in which is stated: “A person shall not torture an animal, treat it with cruelty or mistreat it in any way.”

Animal abuse at slaughterhouses and similar facilities, especially during the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha (Feast of the Sacrifice) has also occurred in Palestine, where a frightened cow about to slaughtered in Gaza turned on its proposed slayer and killed him.

A member of the Jordanian royal family, Princess Alia, has spoken out in favor of more humane animal slaughter during festivals like Eid al-Adha.

In regards to the revealed animal abuse at the Adom Adom slaughterhouse, the petition submitted to Israel’s High Court of Justice by the NGO’s Anonymous and Let Animals Live informed the High Court that the abuse the animals have been subjected to “was not exceptional, but was methodical, routine and continuous.”

The petition states that  animals suffered electric shocks to all their body parts, including their heads, faces and testicles.

It’s more than enough to make consumers think twice when considering purchasing a beef roast, steak, or package of ground meat under the Adom Adom label.  Those of you are meat eaters and wherever you live, when biting into your favorite hamburger think of the suffering the poor cow who “contributed” the meat patty for it had to endure.

::Haaretz

More articles on animal slaughtering and abuse:

Israel’s Cruel Meat Industry Exposed by Watchdog TV Show

Angry Cow Murders Its Gazan Slaughterer During Muslim Eid Festival

Jordan’s Princess Alia Calls for Humane Animal Slaughter Ahead of Eid al-Adha Festival

The post Israel’s Animal Abuse Story in Tnuva Meat Plant Causes Furor appeared first on Green Prophet.

Eid began Friday and will end Monday, the last day of the Hajj. When traveling in Palestinian cities, I have always marveled at the street art communities make to welcome pilgrims home.

Eid al-Adha is also known as the Holiday of Sacrifice, the Feast of the Sacrifice, the Major Festival, the Greater Eid and Bakrid.

Fires, ritual animal slaughter (and sharing that meat with the poor), and feasts are among the cherished celebratory customs.

There has been much debate about the role of meat in the celebration. In 2011, Jordanian Princess Alia spoke about the importance of humane animal slaughter when celebrating Eid al-Adha.

There is a growing awareness that customs in some areas of the Middle East, such as making bonfires by burning trash and tires, can harm the environment. Dr. Hammoud al-Awdi, a sociologist at Sanaa University in Yemen, recently told Al-Shorfa:

“This custom [burning trash] might harm the environment. But it comes from the countryside, where children would collect firewood and place it in piles to burn on the eve of Eid.”

Many Muslims around the world are proactively engaging the ancient traditions in new ways, seeking to revive more sustainable, traditional practices and create new environmentally conscious ways to celebrate.

For many families in the Middle East, this year’s holiday has been marked by fear and bloodshed. In Syria, innocent civilians were killed near a children’s playground in Daf al-Shok, a Sunni residential neighborhood in southern Damascus. And al-Awdi said that public fear is also tangible in Yemen’s capital.

To celebrate, he said people stroll in the city’s gardens, or take quick trips, but are careful to return home before dark.

Read more about Muslim holidays:

Eid Al-Adha: The Muslim Festival of Meat?

Jordan’s Princess Alia Calls for Humane Animal Slaughter Ahead of Eid al-Adha

7 Tips for a Sustainable Eid-ul-Adha Festival

Image of pilgrims in Mecca via AHMAD FAIZAL YAHYA, Shutterstock 

The post A look at Islam’s Eid al-Adha 2012 Across the Middle East appeared first on Green Prophet.

Free from the dilemma of buying the free-range or organic eggs (I own my own coop with eight hens), the Israeli government has decided to make a law that will require the Made-In label on every egg sold in Israeli supermarkets. The public was aghast apparently at the news that millions of the eggs sold on the local market do not originate in Israel, but come from countries such as Turkey which does not control for salmonella. Some 80 million eggs are imported to Israel every year from Turkey, more than half of the 3 percent of all foreign imports and the health inspection on these eggs are limited, according to Haaretz. Some of them are sold under the Tnuva label, which includes pictures of hens out to pasture in verdant fields. Likely the opposite of how these eggs are raised. 

The egg market in Israelis huge, turning over NIS 710 million a year (about $177 million USD). The dominant players are Tnuva with a 44% market share, followed by Glicksman (21%) and M. Lesser with 10%.

According to surveys more than 80 percent of Israelis would buy local eggs if given the choice, so the companies have an interest to hide this information from consumers. The new labelling would include a code that tells the conditions in which the chickens were raised.

The label law was reported this week in Haaretz, and it comes on the heels of last summer’s tent protests and an Israeli public that is demanding more and more transparency in food prices and the food market in general. I hope for all Israelis that the egg effort to label every egg will pay off in other directions too. There have been scandals in Israel over re-frozen beef and frozen fish from China pumped with water. And as they come to awareness, one firm has found outrageous levels of potential carcinogens in ceramic pots and pans.

Just today a local water report testing water at the tap from municipalities throughout Israel found unreasonable levels of heavy metals being supplied to homes throughout the country. A vast majority of the problems were found in Arab towns and villages. While the government regularly tests water in its municipal pipes, with the water coming up clean, this is the first time that water was tested at the taps. Outdated pipes are the reason for the unusually high levels of contaminants in the water, the report (and not yet online) stated.

So you’ve got a label on your eggs. One that you can feel good about. It’s time for the public to know where all our food comes from so that suppliers will be forced to be transparent, and the public better able to make educated decisions with their pockets.

Image of organic eggs from Shutterstock

The post Israel to Label All Egg Imports appeared first on Green Prophet.