QUORN IS NOT VEGAN.
I don't care much for processed fake meat or meat substitutes, I'm a lentils kind of girl. I would sincerely miss Nature's Choice dried soy chunks, because SpagBol/Mexican burritos/lasagne/sloppy joes would not be the same without. And whatever Conscious 108 is using in their food is also scrumptious. But aside from that, I'm really happy with the way vegetables taste.
I'm not interested in Quorn for many reasons, completely aside from the fact that it's not Vegan, and that is why I posted this. I was interested to see that restaurants are integrating Quorn into their menus, here and there, and I cannot understand it for the life of me. Fry's is local (albeit that we have our issues with them too) and their meat substitutes are cheaper, so why choose Quorn over Fry's? I'm sure that many Vegans are simply grateful when someone stocks something they can eat, but personally, I'm not eating at a restaurant so I can eat a Fry's sausage. I want to have something I can't make at home. And I feel somewhat the same about Quorn. It's unnecessary. I'd rather eat something delicious and chock-full of vegetables. But choosing Quorn for your menu seems illogical to me.
Rob Booth, owner of Café Maitreya in Bristol, England, agrees and is quoted in an article by the UK Independant that he doesn't use Quorn in his restaurant because: "he wants to celebrate what you can do with vegetarian food, he doesn't want to use a manufactured food product and he thinks Quorn is more suitable for home cooking."
I read about Quorn quite extensively in the last few hours and I found some interesting articles. Health24.com wrote an article about Quorn products in which they state that some consumers are experiencing symptoms such as: "vomiting and diarrhoea, while others reported symptoms of fainting, blood in the stools and severe allergic reactions." Certainly this would be the minority and only people who are allergic to the key ingredient, a fungus called Mycoprotein. Health24.com defines Mycoprotein:
"Mycoprotein is a highly processed product, produced by means of a fermentation process, which starts off with a natural type of fungus, Fusarium venenatum. The fungi are put into a fermentation vat where they are fed glucose, oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, as well as vitamins, minerals and other secret ingredients. These elements allow the fungi to grow while the vat is kept at a constant temperature. Once it reaches its desired size, egg and seasoning are added to the mixture, which is cooked and turned into chunks. It is then frozen, resulting in a structure resembling meat."
I'm not a fan of the "secret ingredients" statement either. Who knows what that is... I've been skeptical about undeclared food and beverage production process since I found out that animal products and by-products are sometimes used in the production of liquor like wine and beer. Also, read Fungi and don't think mushrooms. Think highly genetically modified and processed fungus.
The class issue related to this product also bugs me. Fake meat products are generally a luxury, middle-class product, with the exception of some types of Soya mince, products like Quorn and Fry's are marketed to a higher income bracket. Quorn claims that they aim to end world hunger with Mycoprotein, which is a bloody ridiculous statement considering the cost comparisons done by Adrian Penzhorn on foodforsport.co.za. He worked out that the cost per 10g of protein for Quorn is R7.60, while that for cow's milk is R2.81 and for Fry's soy mince it's R4.80 (still cheaper than most real meat). At this price Quorn is by no means a solution as protein for the poor. In the health24.com article they write:
"One of the journalists attending the Cape Town event asked [that] if Quorn aimed to end world hunger, why were their products aimed mainly at the middle classes instead of poorer people? According to [their spokesperson], it was because they were still “assessing the situation”." The same spokesman has also been quoted to say that "It's ironic that a product which was created to address diseases of poverty can now address a disease of affluence." (Independent, 2009)
Considering Quorn has been around since 1985 after 21 years of research into Mycoprotein started in the 1960s, I think that the claim that they're "still assessing the situation" is nonsense. What their spokesperson surely meant to say was that the company has since decided not to give a fuck about that, but that the statement about ending world hunger still looks good in the byline. Quorn is expensive and a luxury product, I'm not sure why they're trying to pretend it isn't. If they wished to end world hunger they would have started donating Quorn products to the world's poorest communities a long time ago, but I find no evidence of this kind of thing.
In the publication Consuming the Inedible: Neglected Dimensions of Food Choice; Ellen Messer writes an article called Microbial Non-food Transformed into Food: Quorn Mycoprotein. She states that the 1960s was "an era of development, dominated by Malthusians, who worried about populations outstripping food supplies and sought solutions for world hunger and malnutrition as lying in the provision of more food, especially protein that could close the alleged 'protein gap', a priority nutrition problem." She also writes later in the article, concluding the issue about mycoprotein as a saviour, that "since the 1970s, nutritionists had been debating whether food energy, protein or micronutrients should be the priority world-hunger problem; by the 1980s, other economic experts and food activists, following Amartya Sen and Frances Moore Lappe, asserted that hunger was a problem of food and nutritional entitlements, i.e. a failure of livelihoods, markets, human rights and social justice, not just a problem of food or of particular nutrients. In this transformed context of development, the 'world hunger' rationale for producing mycoprotein disappeared entirely. In its place, Marlow Foods framed and marketed their product to a new target consumer group: First World vegetarians and all those who wanted to limit their intakes of animal foods, whether for ideological, political, environmental, nutritional or health reasons."
Messer continues to state about the previously mentioned health concerns that "curiously, up until 2002, there appeared very little publicity surrounding the health and safety of this novel product. This changed when the product reached the US, with its activist food NGO, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), headed by Michael Jacobson. Jacobson (2002), in a letter to the EC Commission for Health and Consumer Protection in Brussels, argued that Quorn was not safe, and furthermore, that it was mislabeled and misrepresented as mushroom-like, when in fact it is a mould, which individuals sensitive to mould eat only at great personal risk."
Messer concludes that "the desirability of eating a 'healthy' low-fat meat-substitute apparently overrode concerns over Quorn's possibly unhealthy fungal and transnational-corporate origins."
Exponent Private Equity, the parent company that owns Quorn Foods, hold a number of varied companies in their portfolio, including Radley Handbags which are made from, you guessed it, leather. Even the fabric bags have leather straps. I know it's hard to get away from these sort of issues, because companies are often owned by a bigger company that does questionable things. But the single Vegan burger that they have currently means little ethically when Quorn still uses eggs in everything else and the money goes to a company buying and selling kilometers of leather annually. Compassion over Killing also stated that "Quorn are also actively reducing its use of eggs overall, using 3.5 million fewer eggs since 2010." I guess this is a step in the right direction and a win for the supposed 14 000 chickens that aren't laying eggs for Quorn anymore.
I enjoyed the comment about the Quorn advertising campaign in a 2009 UK Guardian article in which Alex Renton states acerbically that, "Why waste the £7m on posters and TV ads? Make Quorn free and it could be the Google of food. Now that's what I call Qlever." Perhaps even more so if there were no animals impacted by its production. I know that we can get into a spiral of ethics and obviously everyone needs to make up their own minds about to what degree they let these sorts of factors influence their decisions, but I just thought that we needed a little local criticality and dissent related to this strange space-age product being sold to us (started being developed in the 1960s, remember?) and that perhaps it's not all it's cut out to be by its marketing agents.