8th Continent is the brand of soy-milk that comes in those plastic
roundish curve-contoured bottles. I formerly discovered that it had
the sheep product of lanolin. But lately I reviewed the ingredients on
a bottle and lanolin is not listed, only "natural flavors."

My suspicion is that there has been no change in the composition of
the product, they have merely realized they can tuck the lanolin
content neatly away behind the innocuous designation of "natural
flavors." Anyone agree with this suspicion? Anyone got the lowdown on
the rules, if any, for the "natural flavors" catch-all?

"Daniel Miller" > wrote in message
news
> 8th Continent is the brand of soy-milk that comes in those plastic
> roundish curve-contoured bottles. I formerly discovered that it had
> the sheep product of lanolin. But lately I reviewed the ingredients on
> a bottle and lanolin is not listed, only "natural flavors."
>
> My suspicion is that there has been no change in the composition of
> the product, they have merely realized they can tuck the lanolin
> content neatly away behind the innocuous designation of "natural
> flavors." Anyone agree with this suspicion? Anyone got the lowdown on
> the rules, if any, for the "natural flavors" catch-all?

I think it does sound like a way they're trying to deceive vegans. People
who are lactose intolerant probably make up the largest market for soy milk,
but vegans would likely run a close second (I like to drink it and I'm
neither though). It seems like they might want to change their ingredients
list in case there are some allergy issues that might affect people.

-Rubystars

Daniel Miller > writes:

> 8th Continent is the brand of soy-milk that comes in those plastic
> roundish curve-contoured bottles. I formerly discovered that it had
> the sheep product of lanolin. But lately I reviewed the ingredients on
> a bottle and lanolin is not listed, only "natural flavors."
>
> My suspicion is that there has been no change in the composition of
> the product, they have merely realized they can tuck the lanolin
> content neatly away behind the innocuous designation of "natural
> flavors." Anyone agree with this suspicion? Anyone got the lowdown on
> the rules, if any, for the "natural flavors" catch-all?


8th Continent uses an animal derived vitamin D in their product,
right? (D3) I wonder if that isn't where the lanolin comes in.

Nana

"Daniel Miller" > wrote in message
news
> 8th Continent is the brand of soy-milk that comes in those plastic
> roundish curve-contoured bottles. I formerly discovered that it had
> the sheep product of lanolin. But lately I reviewed the ingredients on
> a bottle and lanolin is not listed, only "natural flavors."
>
> My suspicion is that there has been no change in the composition of
> the product, they have merely realized they can tuck the lanolin
> content neatly away behind the innocuous designation of "natural
> flavors." Anyone agree with this suspicion? Anyone got the lowdown on
> the rules, if any, for the "natural flavors" catch-all?

I don't recall lanolin ever being listed as an ingredient. I could be
wrong. However, the lanolin comes from vitamin D3, derived from wool fat.
Below is an article from Vegetarians in Paradise about 8th Continent Soy
Milk.

from Vegetarians in Paradise (http://www.vegparadise.com/news19.html)

July 17, 2002 -- Vegparadise News Bureau

Lanolin-laced Soymilk Hits the Supermarkets: the Vitamin D3 Story


The world has functioned quite well with seven continents until this year
when two conglomerates combined their efforts to add one more, 8th
Continent. A joint venture of Protein Technologies International and General
Mills, 8th Continent is gearing up to flood the American market with its new
laboratory creation--soymilk that won't be labeled vegetarian.

Protein Technologies International, creator and worldwide marketer of Solae
brand soy protein and soy fiber and developer of this soymilk, has been a
division of Dupont since it was purchased by the giant chemical company in
1997.

Skeptics who wonder what kinds of products would emerge from joint efforts
of General Mills and Dupont would find some of their answers on the labels
of 8th Continent soymilk. No one should assume that a soymilk is vegetarian
or vegan.

When we called General Mills Consumer Information to inquire if this soymilk
were vegetarian, we were informed that the product was not vegan. The
representative first stated that it contained lanolin. When we asked what
the lanolin was for, he responded that it was in Vitamin D used to fortify
the milk. "The lanolin is from wool fat," he said.

In Becoming Vegan by Brenda Davis and Vesanto Melina, the authors point out
that Vitamin D can be from animal and plant sources. Vitamin D2 is derived
from plants like some mushrooms, certain seaweeds, and yeast.
"Ergocalciferol, commonly referred to as vitamin D2, is commercially
produced from yeasts by irradiation," the authors say.

"When a fortified food or supplement label says 'vitamin D3 or
"cholecalciferol,' that means the origin was animal (generally fish, but
sometimes from sheep wool, hides or other animal parts such as cattle
brains). Often milk or margarine, which may be thought of as vegetarian
products, will contain vitamin D3 of animal origin. We have even found
supplements that are labeled 'vegetarian,' yet contain Vitamin D3; upon
further inquiry, the suppliers were surprised to realize that the Vitamin D
used was of animal origin. Occasionally a soymilk can be found that uses D3
instead of D2, though most have chosen the D2 (plant) form and clearly list
D2 on the nutrition panel."

To make the product more attractive and tasty, the manufacturer has added
color and natural and artificial flavor as well as sugar and salt. The label
does not indicate the source of the color or flavors. Information about
color and flavors are proprietary and does not have to be revealed by the
company. Nowhere on the label does one see the words "organic" or "non-GMO."

In contrast one can purchase Westsoy 100% Organic Non Dairy Soy Beverage
that has only two items on its ingredients list: FILTERED WATER AND WHOLE
ORGANIC SOYBEANS.

Uncowed by the dairy industry that has tried to prevent producers of rice
and soy beverages from using the word "milk" in their products, 8th
Continent is calling their product "soymilk." In 2000 the National Milk
Producers Federation wrote to the FDA claiming that soymilk is mislabeled.
"The law says you don't got milk if it doesn"t come from a cow," said a
spokesman for the milk producers group.

Packaged in 8 oz. and 32 oz. blue plastic bottles, 8th Continent soymilk
comes in three flavors. The original (plain) version contains 3 grams of fat
(none saturated), no cholesterol, 170 mg sodium, 8 g of carbohydrates, 7 g
of protein, 6 g of sugar, and1 g of dietary fiber.

The vanilla flavor is higher in sugar (10 g) and carbohydrates (11 g). The
chocolate beverage adds much more sugar (21 g), more carbohydrates (23 g),
more sodium (190 mg), and a small amount of saturated fat.

The small size sells for $1 while the quart size is $2.

Ingredients in the original flavor are listed below:
SOYMILK (WATER, SOY PROTEIN, SOYBEAN OIL, CALCIUM PHOSPHATE), SUGAR,
POTASSIUM CITRATE, COLOR ADDED, CELLULOSE GEL, SOY LECITHIN, DIPOTASSIUM
PHOSPHATE, SODIUM HEXAMETAPHOSPHATE, SALT, XANTHAN GUM, NATURAL & ARTIFICIAL
FLAVOR, VITAMIN A (PALMITATE), VITAMIN B12, VITAMIN D, VITAMIN B2
(RIBOFLAVIN) CONTAINS SOY INGREDIENTS

"Lorraine" > wrote in message
...
>


Wow!! Very impressive research, Lorraine. Thanks for taking the time.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 02:14:15 GMT, "Lorraine"
> wrote:

>I don't recall lanolin ever being listed as an ingredient. I could be
>wrong. However, the lanolin comes from vitamin D3, derived from wool fat.

Reflecting on it for a bit, I am not sure I ever read lanolin listed
there either, I could have got the information from the article you
quoted or a similar one.

Lanolin is an interesting question for vegans. It is a oily skin
secretion that gets on the wool as it grows and is separated from the
wool after the sheep is shorn. So it doesn't really hurt the sheep.
But it is an animal product. So what should vegans make of it?

This leaves aside the aesthetic question of drinking an oily sheep
skin secretion, which I personally find sort of repulsive.

"William Hershman" > wrote in message
news:2KA6c.39821$Cb.585613@attbi_s51...
>
> "Lorraine" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
>
> Wow!! Very impressive research, Lorraine. Thanks for taking the time.

Thanks, and you're welcome. )

"Daniel Miller" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 02:14:15 GMT, "Lorraine"
> > wrote:
>
> >I don't recall lanolin ever being listed as an ingredient. I could be
> >wrong. However, the lanolin comes from vitamin D3, derived from wool
fat.
>
> Reflecting on it for a bit, I am not sure I ever read lanolin listed
> there either, I could have got the information from the article you
> quoted or a similar one.
>
> Lanolin is an interesting question for vegans. It is a oily skin
> secretion that gets on the wool as it grows and is separated from the
> wool after the sheep is shorn. So it doesn't really hurt the sheep.
> But it is an animal product. So what should vegans make of it?
>
> This leaves aside the aesthetic question of drinking an oily sheep
> skin secretion, which I personally find sort of repulsive.

Hehe. Yeah, there is a certain ick factor to the idea of drinking anything
with skin secretion in it. Since the sheep don't seem to be killed in order
to acquire the secretion, I guess the vitamins derived from it could be
categorized as vegetarian. Technically, it probably wouldn't be considered
vegan since it is animal derived, as is the wool itself which many vegans
abstain from wearing, or at least strive to eliminate from their wardrobes.
However, I think that it comes down to just allowing your conscience to
guide you on whether that is something you need to be concerned about.
Vitamin D3 or not, I personally don't want to have anything to do with it
just based on the fact that it's coming from Dupont. Their soybeans are
more than likely genetically modified. That's a big no-no in my book, which
would hold true even if I weren't vegan. There are so many other good soy
milks out there. I just assume to leave 8th Continent to its presumed
target market - omnis who are either trying to get more soy into their diets
or those who are lactose intolerant.

Lorraine

....which will henceforth be shortened to either the
Irrational Search, or the Search for Micrograms.

Daniel Miller wrote:

> 8th Continent is the brand of soy-milk that comes in those plastic
> roundish curve-contoured bottles. I formerly discovered that it had
> the sheep product of lanolin. But lately I reviewed the ingredients on
> a bottle and lanolin is not listed, only "natural flavors."
>
> My suspicion is that there has been no change in the composition of
> the product, they have merely realized they can tuck the lanolin
> content neatly away behind the innocuous designation of "natural
> flavors." Anyone agree with this suspicion? Anyone got the lowdown on
> the rules, if any, for the "natural flavors" catch-all?

I can't imagine a better example of "vegan"
irrationality and obsession over ****-ALL. It is
perfectly clear that actually refraining from harming
animals is NOT the motivation in this. Rather, it is
the public demonstration of devotion to The Cause that
is the sine qua non.

We begin with ALL "vegans" committing a fundamental
logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying the
Antecedent. Basic "vegan" thinking provides as clear
an example of the fallacy as any textbook or webpage:

If I consume products containing animal parts, I
cause animals to suffer.

I do not consume products containing animal parts;

therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer.


The conclusion is plainly false, because there are ways
to cause animals to suffer OTHER than by consuming
products containing animal parts.

When one points out the fallacy to the idiot "vegans"
who believe it, they huffily deny believing it; they
claim already to know that vegetable crop production
causes MASSIVE collateral deaths of animals (CDs). But
if they already know of CDs, then why the Search for
Micrograms? If they really already know about CDs,
then rather than ****ING AWAY time and effort trying to
extirpate a couple of micrograms of lanolin from their
soy milk, a much better use of time would be trying to
get rid of high-CD foods like rice from their diets.

The Irrational Search illustrates something extremely
negative about "vegans", and thus "veganism". The
question then becomes, just what IS the negativity? I
think it's twofold. First is cognitive dissonance.
"vegans" *claim* to be aware of CDs, but they really
aren't, and the Search for Micrograms is the expression
of cognitive dissonance. The second is the undeniable
fact of "veganism" being a *religious* practice, rather
than a genuine ethics. Ethics simply CANNOT be based
on blind obedience to rules that are not based on
principle, but that's ALL "veganism" is: blind
obedience to the rule "don't consume animal parts."

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> ...which will henceforth be shortened to either the
> Irrational Search, or the Search for Micrograms.
>
Most of Jonathan's parts are measured in micrograms.
Ha! gotcha JB.
You make a good point, but I think the decision to avoid animal products has
already been made. This thread is just to help people follow that
decision, and whether it's a rational one or not is another subject...one
which most would avoid debating with you.

William Hershman wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>...which will henceforth be shortened to either the
>>Irrational Search, or the Search for Micrograms.
>>
>
> Most of Jonathan's parts are measured in micrograms.
> Ha! gotcha JB.

How ya been?

> You make a good point, but I think the decision to avoid animal products has
> already been made.

If the wish to avoid animal parts were based on
something rational, e.g. allergic reaction, I could see
it. But don't you, Bill, think the Search for
Micrograms is...well, just ****ing silly to the Nth degree?

> This thread is just to help people follow that
> decision, and whether it's a rational one or not is another subject...one
> which most would avoid debating with you.

Why do you suppose that is?

*

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> ...which will henceforth be shortened to either the
> Irrational Search, or the Search for Micrograms.
>
> Daniel Miller wrote:
>
> > 8th Continent is the brand of soy-milk that comes in those plastic
> > roundish curve-contoured bottles. I formerly discovered that it had
> > the sheep product of lanolin. But lately I reviewed the ingredients on
> > a bottle and lanolin is not listed, only "natural flavors."
> >
> > My suspicion is that there has been no change in the composition of
> > the product, they have merely realized they can tuck the lanolin
> > content neatly away behind the innocuous designation of "natural
> > flavors." Anyone agree with this suspicion? Anyone got the lowdown on
> > the rules, if any, for the "natural flavors" catch-all?
>
> I can't imagine a better example of "vegan"
> irrationality and obsession over ****-ALL.* It is
> perfectly clear that actually refraining from harming
> animals is NOT the motivation in this.* Rather, it is
> the public demonstration of devotion to The Cause that
> is the sine qua non.
>
> We begin with ALL "vegans" committing a fundamental
> logical fallacy:* the fallacy of Denying the
> Antecedent.* Basic "vegan" thinking provides as clear
> an example of the fallacy as any textbook or webpage:
>
> *** If I consume products containing animal parts, I
> *** cause animals to suffer.
>
> *** I do not consume products containing animal parts;
>
> *** therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer.
>
> The conclusion is plainly false, because there are ways
> to cause animals to suffer OTHER than by consuming
> products containing animal parts.
>
> When one points out the fallacy to the idiot "vegans"
> who believe it, they huffily deny believing it; they
> claim already to know that vegetable crop production
> causes MASSIVE collateral deaths of animals (CDs).* But
> if they already know of CDs, then why the Search for
> Micrograms?* If they really already know about CDs,
> then rather than ****ING AWAY time and effort trying to
> extirpate a couple of micrograms of lanolin from their
> soy milk, a much better use of time would be trying to
> get rid of high-CD foods like rice from their diets.
>
> The Irrational Search illustrates something extremely
> negative about "vegans", and thus "veganism".* The
> question then becomes, just what IS the negativity?* I
> think it's twofold.* First is cognitive dissonance.
> "vegans" *claim* to be aware of CDs, but they really
> aren't, and the Search for Micrograms is the expression
> of cognitive dissonance.* The second is the undeniable
> fact of "veganism" being a *religious* practice, rather
> than a genuine ethics.* Ethics simply CANNOT be based
> on blind obedience to rules that are not based on
> principle, but that's ALL "veganism" is:* blind
> obedience to the rule "don't consume animal parts."

Uhhh could it be that we don't want to consume growth hormones or
antibiotics?
Could it be that we what you think means jack shit?
How do become so pretentious?
What's with all the terms? Are we supposed to be impressed?
If you like to eat meat go buy a steak and chow down. What the **** are you
doing here?

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> William Hershman wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>...which will henceforth be shortened to either the
> >>Irrational Search, or the Search for Micrograms.
> >>
> >
> > Most of Jonathan's parts are measured in micrograms.
> > Ha! gotcha JB.
>
> How ya been?

I've been fine, busy preparing for an actuarial exam in May. It's tough;
wish me luck.
>
> > You make a good point, but I think the decision to avoid animal products
has
> > already been made.
>
> If the wish to avoid animal parts were based on
> something rational, e.g. allergic reaction, I could see
> it. But don't you, Bill, think the Search for
> Micrograms is...well, just ****ing silly to the Nth degree?


For myself, yes I do think it's silly. I eat a mostly vegan diet because I
think it's the most healthy way for me to eat. I've tried other diets, and
found that this works best for me. But for someone avoiding animal
products for other reasons, no I don't think it's silly. I wouldn't think
it's silly for a Jew trying to keep Kosher to Search for Micrograms of Pig
products. Or Search for Micrograms of dairy products, since those aren't
permitted for a certain time after eating meat.
Would I make such a decision? NO. I haven't and I wouldn't. But is it
irrational to be zealous in trying to follow one's principles? (or is it
principals?) I think that's the question. I don't know the answers.
Anyone care to chime in on this?
>
> > This thread is just to help people follow that
> > decision, and whether it's a rational one or not is another
subject...one
> > which most would avoid debating with you.
>
> Why do you suppose that is?

I suppose they just don't care for you very much, and I find that hard to
believe. You're so charming, and likable.

William Hershman wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>William Hershman wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>...which will henceforth be shortened to either the
>>>>Irrational Search, or the Search for Micrograms.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Most of Jonathan's parts are measured in micrograms.
>>>Ha! gotcha JB.
>>
>>How ya been?
>
>
> I've been fine, busy preparing for an actuarial exam in May. It's tough;
> wish me luck.

Oh, you bet. I worked with some actuaries at a
prop/cas reinsurance company for a few years. It's a
tough field.

>
>>>You make a good point, but I think the decision to avoid animal products
>
> has
>
>>>already been made.
>>
>>If the wish to avoid animal parts were based on
>>something rational, e.g. allergic reaction, I could see
>>it. But don't you, Bill, think the Search for
>>Micrograms is...well, just ****ing silly to the Nth degree?
>
>
>
> For myself, yes I do think it's silly. I eat a mostly vegan diet because I
> think it's the most healthy way for me to eat. I've tried other diets, and
> found that this works best for me. But for someone avoiding animal
> products for other reasons, no I don't think it's silly. I wouldn't think
> it's silly for a Jew trying to keep Kosher to Search for Micrograms of Pig
> products.

That's a very different thing. It's a highly specific
religious injunction, and it's an end in itself.
"veganism" is ostensibly a means to an end, and the end
is supposed to be the pursuit of a principle, NOT the
demonstration of how assiduously one can follow a rule.

> Or Search for Micrograms of dairy products, since those aren't
> permitted for a certain time after eating meat.

Same objection.

> Would I make such a decision? NO. I haven't and I wouldn't. But is it
> irrational to be zealous in trying to follow one's principles? (or is it
> principals?)

The former is the correct word, but it's irrelevant,
because the Irrational Search proves that it *isn't*
about any principle.

> I think that's the question. I don't know the answers.
> Anyone care to chime in on this?

I doubt it. The truth would be too harmful.

>
>>>This thread is just to help people follow that
>>>decision, and whether it's a rational one or not is another
>>>subject...one which most would avoid debating with you.
>>
>>Why do you suppose that is?
>
>
> I suppose they just don't care for you very much, and I find that hard to
> believe. You're so charming, and likable.

Well thanks...I think...but I don't believe that's it.
I think it's because they already know the result
will be devastating.

here's an interesting column by jo stepaniak on the whole wool thing, from
her 'ask jo' archives at http://www.vegsource.com/jo/qa/archive.htm

What's Wrong with Wool?


Is wool considered non-vegan? I have several woollen sweaters and a winter
coat.



On the surface, it appears that wool is a benign product because, at least
theoretically, it can be obtained without harming the sheep. However, upon
closer inspection, we find that the wool industry is actually very similar
to the egg and dairy industries. While animals such as laying hens, dairy
cows, and wool-bearing sheep are not immediately killed to procure their
salable products, they suffer tremendously for years prior to their ultimate
and unavoidable slaughter.

Most people believe that sheep are overburdened with too much wool and
therefore need to be shorn. Although today's wool-bearing sheep have thick,
heavy coats, it is the result of selective breeding over thousands of years.
These animals are descended from wild mountain sheep, still found in some
remote regions of the world, which shed their fine woolly hair naturally.
Wool provides sheep with warmth and protection from inclement weather and
sunburn. Because our "modern" wool-bearers are extremely vulnerable to the
elements without their wool, many sheep die of exposure shortly after being
denuded.

From the earliest of times there was complicity in the use of wool. Merinos,
which were originally from Spain, are the most efficient wool producers.
Mutton breeds, which primarily originated in England, are used predominately
for meat. Cross-breeds are raised for the dual purpose of meat and wool.
Nevertheless, Merinos also yield mutton and mutton breeds also yield wool.
No sheep escapes either function; it is just a matter of emphasis.
Essentially, all wool is a slaughterhouse product.

Wool is classed as either "shorn wool," that which is shorn from sheep
annually, or "pulled wool," that which is taken from sheep at the time of
slaughter. Horrors abound on sheep farms, including mutilating, painful
surgical procedures that are performed without anesthesia. These entail
mulesing, the cutting of large strips of flesh off the hind legs to reduce
fly problems, and tail docking, designed to preserve the salable condition
of wool surrounding a sheep's anus, among others. A large percentage of the
world's wool is produced from Merinos exported from Australia. These sheep
are crammed onto ships by the tens of thousands, crowded into filthy pens,
and packed so tightly they can barely move. As a result, thousands of sheep
die each year from suffocation, trampling, or starvation.

Sheep shearers are paid by piece rate, meaning that speed not precision
guides the process. Consequently, most sheep are roughly handled, lacerated,
and injured during the process. The production of wool, as with all
industries that consider animals as mere commodities, is rife with cruelty
and abuse. In addition, the purchase of wool supports the continual
slaughter of millions of lambs and sheep each year.

Vegans do not use wool or any other materials obtained from animals.
Fortunately, there are many alternatives to wool that are cruelty-free,
nonallergenic, quick-drying, easy to clean, environmentally-sound, and
provide warmth without bulk. Therefore, for most new vegans, the question is
usually not what can they substitute for wool but what should they do with
the woollen items they already own. In many instances, this is a matter of
economics.

It can become cost prohibitive to replace an entire wardrobe of sweaters,
slacks, suits, and coats all at once. Some new vegans continue to wear their
wool clothing until it wears out and then replace it with non-woollen items
piecemeal. Others feel that wearing woollen garments, regardless of how old
they may be, lends credence to their acceptability. Often new vegans sell
their animal-based attire to thrift shops or donate items to shelters for
homeless or battered people. Some people choose to donate any money they
collect from the sale of their old animal based goods to charitable
organizations that support vegan-related causes. What you do with your
woollen clothing is a matter of personal choice. There are many conscionable
options that can help align your apparel with your ethics.






Copyright © 1998-2004 by Jo Stepaniak All rights reserved.
Nothing on this web site may be reproduced in any way
without express written permission from the copyright holder.
"Daniel Miller" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 02:14:15 GMT, "Lorraine"
> > wrote:
>
> >I don't recall lanolin ever being listed as an ingredient. I could be
> >wrong. However, the lanolin comes from vitamin D3, derived from wool
fat.
>
> Reflecting on it for a bit, I am not sure I ever read lanolin listed
> there either, I could have got the information from the article you
> quoted or a similar one.
>
> Lanolin is an interesting question for vegans. It is a oily skin
> secretion that gets on the wool as it grows and is separated from the
> wool after the sheep is shorn. So it doesn't really hurt the sheep.
> But it is an animal product. So what should vegans make of it?
>
> This leaves aside the aesthetic question of drinking an oily sheep
> skin secretion, which I personally find sort of repulsive.