new research debunks trad views on nutrition

I think that analysis is misleading @Krugerrand . There are lots of papers about its use in cheese making, and even Wikipedia has this

Recombinant chymosin[edit]​

Because of the imperfections and scarcity of microbial and animal rennets, producers sought replacements. With the development of genetic engineering, it became possible to extract rennet-producing genes from animal stomach and insert them into certain bacteria, fungi or yeasts to make them produce chymosin during fermentation.[11][12] The genetically modified microorganism is killed after fermentation and chymosin is isolated from the fermentation broth, so that the fermentation-produced chymosin (FPC) used by cheese producers does not contain any GM component or ingredient.[13] FPC contains the identical chymosin as the animal source, but produced in a more efficient way. FPC products have been on the market since 1990 and are considered the ideal milk-clotting enzyme.[14]

FPC was the first artificially produced enzyme to be registered and allowed by the US Food and Drug Administration. In 1999, about 60% of US hard cheese was made with FPC[15] and it has up to 80% of the global market share for rennet.[16]

By 2008, approximately 80% to 90% of commercially made cheeses in the US and Britain were made using FPC.[13] The most widely used fermentation-produced chymosin is produced either using the fungus Aspergillus niger or using Kluyveromyces lactis.

FPC contains only chymosin B,[17] achieving a higher degree of purity compared with animal rennet. FPC can deliver several benefits to the cheese producer compared with animal or microbial rennet, such as higher production yield, better curd texture and reduced bitterness.[14]

Edited to add, and it doesn't involve getting rennet from calves' stomachs.
 
No.
No.
No.
I don't ecc be en know how many noes to put after reading that

Sigh.

I'm not opposed to the GRAS concept when it is used for things people ate before oleo was devised. Using it for this is just wrong.

But thank you. Unwelcome as this is, I'd rather know about it than not know.
look at who wrote the 'analysis' and read it critically.
 
look at who wrote the 'analysis' and read it critically.
I did. Did you read it critically or dismiss it because of the name?

Nothing in it contradicts what is in the wiki info except wiki's confidence in the purity of the enzyme isolated from the fermentation broth vs the pdf's contention that traces of other things sometimes remain. And the consequential results in some people's digestive systems.

I would go further. Purity is not necessarily a good thing. Pure salt vs mineral salt. First press, cold press olive oil vs the alternatives. White flour.

Saying "rennet" instead of "chymosin" is like saying "maple sugar" instead of "sucrose" on a package of white sugar. Maple syrup is mostly sucrose.

Then there is the sticky point of the definition of rennet: the lining of a calf's stomach.

Not wanting to eat beef should be a separate issue, in my opinion. Use different sources of the enzyme if you wish but then label it so.

But since that is brought up: in traditional cheese making, the piece of membrane is removed after the enzymes do their thing. Also, in light of misrepresentation, very little membrane is needed. People playing on the sentiment factor of using real rennet tend to not mention how little rennet is needed.
 
I did. Did you read it critically or dismiss it because of the name?

Nothing in it contradicts what is in the wiki info except wiki's confidence in the purity of the enzyme isolated from the fermentation broth vs the pdf's contention that traces of other things sometimes remain. And the consequential results in some people's digestive systems.

I would go further. Purity is not necessarily a good thing. Pure salt vs mineral salt. First press, cold press olive oil vs the alternatives. White flour.

Saying "rennet" instead of "chymosin" is like saying "maple sugar" instead of "sucrose" on a package of white sugar. Maple syrup is mostly sucrose.

Then there is the sticky point of the definition of rennet: the lining of a calf's stomach.

Not wanting to eat beef should be a separate issue, in my opinion. Use different sources of the enzyme if you wish but then label it so.

But since that is brought up: in traditional cheese making, the piece of membrane is removed after the enzymes do their thing. Also, in light of misrepresentation, very little membrane is needed. People playing on the sentiment factor of using real rennet tend to not mention how little rennet is needed.
I didn't dismiss it, and I wouldn't dismiss anything because of the name of the author (or their colour, sex, or any other personal feature).
Always ask of any source qui bono? In whose interest is it written? For whose benefit? In this case, it's a sales pitch for something that doesn't include the damned ingredient.
Look at the bottom of the pdf.
 
Last edited:
Always ask of any source qui bono? In whose interest is it written? For whose benefit? In this case, it's a sales pitch for something that doesn't include the damned ingredient.
Look at the bottom of the pdf.
True. And that should be considered.

On the other hand, Pfizer spends a LOT of money, often without credit being given. I don't know if they give money to wiki but they do give money to where wiki gets their info.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom