• Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.

Bovaer to be added to cattle feed

Amity Island

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Starting with cows (what next?) bovaer has been declared a "safe" additive by both European and UK regulators as "it doesn't transfer into milk".

Bovaer is a compound made of silicon dioxide, propylene glycol and organic compound 3-nitrooxypropanol which is shortened to 3-NOP.

Bovaer is a dietary supplement for cattle that, when added to their food, helps reduce the amount of methane they produce in digestion, a gas that contributes to climate change.

www.dailymail.co.uk

ALL English cows to be given controversial Bovaer feed by 2030

A document mentioning a Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs plan to mandate the use of 'methane-suppressing feed products' English cattle is circulating on social media.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
Why did you put "safe" in quotation marks, in your first post?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
beating_my_betes said:
Why did you put "safe" in quotation marks, in your first post?
Click to expand...
Because "safety" is a key factor (if not "the" most important factor) in almost all aspects of life, be it the design and construction of buildings, design and build of vehicles, the built environment, food production, healthcare and food safety.
beating_my_betes said:
What evidenc are we supposed to be countering?
Click to expand...
Evidence that what I had said was incorrect. All I have said is that when people use the word "safe", ask for their definition of "safe" first, before making any decisions. When experts make claims that for example -- the chemical -- "it doesn't transfer in milk", use some discernment, as it may come to be untrue.

Everything else you mention I've never said nor alluded to in any way.

I'm not here to criticise, mock or insult other members of the forum, I only offer valid statements and opinion and hopefully develop a respectful and useful conversation.
 
Here are some facts that I found helpful:

fullfact.org

Is milk from cows fed Bovaer safe? - Full Fact

The methane-reducing cow feed additive is considered safe by food safety authorities in the approved doses. And contrary to some claims online, Bill Gates was not involved in its development.
fullfact.org fullfact.org

I use plant milk but we do have cows milk in the house too sometimes. Whether Bovaer is safe or not, I use local milk from a small farm where I can literally see the cows it comes from.
 
Inka said:
Here are some facts that I found helpful:

fullfact.org

Is milk from cows fed Bovaer safe? - Full Fact

The methane-reducing cow feed additive is considered safe by food safety authorities in the approved doses. And contrary to some claims online, Bill Gates was not involved in its development.
fullfact.org fullfact.org

I use plant milk but we do have cows milk in the house too sometimes. Whether Bovaer is safe or not, I use local milk from a small farm where I can literally see the cows it comes from.
Click to expand...
Hi Inka, my concerns are also for the cows themselves. They've been around and eating grass for probably over 10,000 years. How will changing their bodily functions effect them in the long term?
 
Very true. That occurred to me too. Sadly, the welfare of cows is rarely thought of nor that of chickens. More than that, perhaps if we want to reduce the methane in the atmosphere, we should look at our whole food systems. Carrying on as we are, with some anti-methane meds slipped into cow feed hardly seems the best way.
 
Amity Island said:
Because "safety" is a key factor (if not "the" most important factor) in almost all aspects of life, be it the design and construction of buildings, design and build of vehicles, the built environment, food production, healthcare and food safety.

Evidence that what I had said was incorrect. All I have said is that when people use the word "safe", ask for their definition of "safe" first, before making any decisions. When experts make claims that for example -- the chemical -- "it doesn't transfer in milk", use some discernment, as it may come to be untrue.

Everything else you mention I've never said nor alluded to in any way.

I'm not here to criticise, mock or insult other members of the forum, I only offer valid statements and opinion and hopefully develop a respectful and useful conversation.
Click to expand...
Normally when people use quotation marks in that manner, it is as per a sarcastic "nudge nudge, wink wink".

And unless I've missed it you haven't provided evidence of this chemical being unsafe.

Also, out of curiosity, why does the buck stop here? Were you ok with all the other chemicals and antibiotics given to cows?
 
Inka said:
Very true. That occurred to me too. Sadly, the welfare of cows is rarely thought of nor that of chickens. More than that, perhaps if we want to reduce the methane in the atmosphere, we should look at our whole food systems. Carrying on as we are, with some anti-methane meds slipped into cow feed hardly seems the best way.
Click to expand...
The whole thing is a diversion, a red-herring an affront to both human and non-human animals. Thankfully, cell-cultured meat and precision-fermented dairy is already starting to happen.
 
Your view of what "safe" means seems rather unrealistic. Surely by any reasonable analysis they're incredibly safe? Not perfectly safe, but nothing that actually does something is.

You give the impression of wanting to find some darker motivation for things which might just be what they seem.

And maybe Bovaer really is just an additive which isn't too expensive which'll reduce methane production from cows in a way which (as far as anyone can tell) won't harm the milk or the cows (or anything else).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Stephens said:
Your view of what "safe" means seems rather unrealistic. Surely by any reasonable analysis they're incredibly safe? Not perfectly safe, but nothing that actually does something is.
Click to expand...
All I am suggesting is a definition of "safe". Informed consent relies on being informed. Do you not agree that this is perfectly reasonable?

MHRA defines safe as "the benefits outweigh the risks". This does not mean that a product is necessarily safe by any stretch of the imagination. It is purely contextual, eg cancer treatments are inherently (not safe) dangerous but compared to not receiving treatment are considered "safe" in terms of "the benefits outweighing the risks".

Perhaps then, this is what we should be told instead of using the word "safe"?

My point has nothing to do with conspiracy, lizard people or the dark underworld.
 
Amity Island said:
All I am suggesting is a definition of "safe". Informed consent relies on being informed. Do you not agree that this is perfectly reasonable?

MHRA defines safe as "the benefits outweigh the risks". This does not mean that a product is necessarily safe by any stretch of the imagination. It is purely contextual, eg cancer treatments are inherently (not safe) dangerous but compared to not receiving treatment are considered "safe" in terms of "the benefits outweighing the risks".

Perhaps then, this is what we should be told instead of using the word "safe"?

My point has nothing to do with conspiracy, lizard people or the dark underworld.
Click to expand...
How about the 'light' underworld, though? :confused:
 
As somebody who spent much of their life in an industry where safety was at the forefront of almost all decision making, I find the conversations in threads of this sort rather like listening in on a pub conversation about diabetes.

Best to keep out of it.
 
Docb said:
As somebody who spent much of their life in an industry where safety was at the forefront of almost all decision making, I find the conversations in threads of this sort rather like listening in on a pub conversation about diabetes.

Best to keep out of it.
Click to expand...
AI is getting so good at stuff. I’m not even sure I’m interacting with real people online, half the time.
 
Docb said:
Best to keep out of it.
Click to expand...
And yet you didn't 😉

Besides, if you have a lot of experience in this area, why not share some of it? Thus far, the info @Inka has shared suggests that, not unlike most chemical usage, the given dosage is not only many times lower than toxic levels (to humans, not rodents) but many times less than the (presumably cautious) FDA safety recommendations.

Is there anything in that article that strikes you as a red flag?
 
@beating_my_betes - You mistakenly imply I have experience in animal feed science. I don't and so cannot make any comment of value to the subject of the thread. In order to do so, I would have to get some overall understanding of the subject, the pros and cons of the issue and the motivations of those making all the noise. I don't have the time, or inclination, to do that.

To be clear, my experience in working in a safety critical industry taught me to leave people who know nothing about a subject other than what they have read in the media to get on with their discussions in their own private world knowing it might give them a reason for living but will never affect anything. As I say, just like listening in to a pub conversation about diabetes.

There, I have shared my experience.
 
From what I can gather Bovaer is only being given to cows that are permanently kept inside and so not grass fed .
Carol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top