SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Rainbow Vegetarian Café in Cambridge, England, has announced that it will not accept the new £5 polymer notes, introduced by the Bank of England in September. Last week the British vegan community discovered that the notes contain trace amounts of beef tallow, which is animal fat, and are therefore unacceptable by their cruelty-free standards. A heated online controversy has resulted, including a petition asking the Bank to remove tallow from the polymer.
The Rainbow Café's owner, Sharon Meijland, told The Telegraph that her stance was announced last Wednesday, at the end of a BBC radio interview on the unrelated topic of Christmas food.
"We sponsor the Vegan Fair and announced on Wednesday we would not be accepting the £5 notes because they are dubious ethically. We have been providing food for vegans for 30 years and have tried to be as ethical as we possibly can...This is not just a restaurant, it's a restaurant where tiny details like this are really important."
Is any of our money cruelty-free?
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday December 06 2016, @10:36PM
Unless they also refuse to serve anyone who is wearing leather (shoes/belt/purse/wallet), have diabetes (a majority of insulin is still derived from animals), is wearing silk (how many silkworms die for a tie?), etc., etc., and don't serve anything with gelatin in it (still derived from animals in many cases).
My understanding of the issue is that tallow, a fat derived from animals, is used in the fabrication/production of the polymer used in the new bill. One thing that I'm not clear on is if there still traces of tallow in/on the bill? If so then I can understand some people's feelings about the issue and they are free to refuse the bills if they choose, that is their choice. BUT to expect the treasury to recall and destroy all the currently issued bills and expect the tax payers, most of whom don't care about it, eat the loss is being unreasonable. And if they are willing to accept the currently issued bills if the new ones are tallow free then they are even more the hypocrite.
If they really care about it they should offer to cover the cost of getting rid of the tallow from the bills since they are the only ones who have an issue with it.
Any offers to put the money up for it?
(crickets chirping)
I thought so.
I can sympathize with the temples and other Holy ground issues that where originally raised but this latest declaration sounds to me like a bunch of people trying to get their 15 minutes of free advertising by making a big deal about nothing. Or as Macbeth would put it "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Just my 2¥, your opinion may vary.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 07 2016, @08:04PM
Mostly I agree with you, just wanted to pick on one point:
That doesn't seem hypocritical at all. The problem for them is that animals are potentially being killed to produce that product. Even if it's just half a cow or whatever, the product being used means there is demand for it which means someone is killing cattle to meet that demand. That's not necessarily true in every case (it could be waste product created by OTHER demands for example), but that seems to be the general principle. If they don't accept it, they reduce demand, and possibly save a life.
So if the manufacturing process changed, then the demand for tallow for printing currency becomes zero. Whether you take the bills or not at that point makes absolutely no difference, you aren't going to bring animals back to life by refusing to touch the old bills. Currency gets a *little* weird since the demand is fairly indirect, but you could still make an argument that by refusing to handle those bills they aren't adding any wear to those bills which theoretically may reduce the need to print new replacement bills by some undoubtedly immeasurably small margin.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday December 08 2016, @02:41AM
You do raise a valid point.
Though Tallow is more of a by-product, they get it from the fat that would normally be thrown out or burned so its more of a case of using more of the animal that was being butchered anyway. I've never heard of cattle being killed just for the tallow but I haven't researched it so it might happen. Replacing the tallow in the production of these bills isn't going to save any cattle.
If the tallow can be replaced without affecting the cost of the bill then fine, lets do it. But if it means the tax payers get shafted because a minority doesn't want any animal based materials in their money I have no problem with some people boycotting the bill, if they don't want my money I will go elsewhere. Though I have to wonder what they will do if someone eats a meal and the only money they have on them is the new fivers, what are they going to do? Call the police because they won't accept the money someone is trying to give them? I would love to listen in to that conversation.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday December 08 2016, @07:13PM
Yeah, you *can* still make a weak argument that being able to sell the tallow makes the whole cow worth more. So that makes beef cheaper, which makes more people eat beef, which causes more cows to be raised and slaughtered...I do think that's a bit absurd, too small to have any real impact, but I can see the argument. If *everyone* was that concerned about these things that certainly would bring some change, so I can respect it from the viewpoint of "be the change you wish to see." On the other hand, if we're killing the cows anyway, I'd say it's better to make the most of it rather than just throwing parts away.
Yeah, and then you've gotta look at the effects of that increased costs...if a single butcher ends up working an hour of overtime because of the increased tax burden, is that worth it? Though I expect it would only be fractions of a penny per person...partly because I'd also consider it not just worthless but actually unethical to destroy and reprint existing bills using the new process. Since they don't use much tallow to begin with, unless they replace it with pure gold it shouldn't change the cost that much.
It does sound like this particular cafe wasn't intending to make a huge campaign out of this, so I can forgive the lack of research...but I'd expect to see a bit more effort from someone actually pushing for the complete removal of those notes. What's the profit margin on butchering a cow? How much of that profit comes from tallow? What else could be used for producing the notes, and how much would that cost? The activists should be able to put together a "bill of materials" for that as their estimate, then if it's reasonable the government can analyze and come up with their own estimate that includes actual labor costs. And THEN we can make an informed decision about how to proceed. Or maybe we skip the government analysis if there's a ready substitute at a similar cost -- might not be worth the cost of analysis. But the responsibility of the activist is not just to protest; they must also propose a legitimate solution. Sometimes "stop doing it" is its own solution, but this is not one of those cases.