What is ‘Non-Veg Milk' that US wants to sell in India, is it from cow, buffalo or...?
Non-Veg Milk: We all consume milk as it is healthy and one of the prime sources of energy, protein, and calcium. In every Indian household, children have been given a glass of milk with their breakfast for their proper growth and nutrition. As a significant population in India is vegetarian, milk is the prime source of their protein and other nutritional needs. Here in India, milk is considered pure and also used in several religions to worship gods. Hindus consume it during their fasts and use it in the Panchamrit. Milk is usually considered vegetarian, but for some time, non-veg milk has become a topic of the town. The non-veg milk made headlines following the trade deal between India and the United States. Let us know what non-veg milk is and how it is different from the milk available in our country. What Is A Non-Veg Milk?
It is very surprising for Indian population that milk, which is included in vegetarian food, can also be non-vegetarian. However, the term is non wrong as far as we are talking about the milk from American cows. This term is being used for the milk of those cows who are fed fodder or food mixed with animal products.
In simple terms, the milk obtained from cows which are fed meat or blood-based feed is called non-veg milk. In America, farmers feed their cows a non-veg mixed feed in order to increase their weight. To prepare the non-veg mixed feed, meat of pig, chicken, fish, horse, cat and dog is used. Why Is This Milk Considered Non-Veg?
This milk is considered non-vegetarian because cows are herbivore, an animal anatomically and physiologically evolved to feed on plants. And milk obtained from cow is considered as vegetarian product.
But milk obtained from cows who are forced to eat fodder prepared from meat powder, bones, fat etc, is not considered as vegetarian. In These Countries Too, Cows Are Fed Non-Vegetarian Food
Many countries, including those in Europe, Russia, Mexico, Thailand, the Philippines, Brazil, and the United States, use non-vegetarian feed for cows. The use of non-vegetarian milk is normal in countries like Japan, Australia, and Germany.
On the contrary, in India, cows are mainly fed vegetarian fodder like dry straw, green fodder, corn, wheat grains, and bran. However, some big dairy farms have started using foreign fodder methods, but still, non-vegetarian fodder is not used here. Is Non-Veg Milk Harmful For Health?
Several studies have found that milk from a cow that eats non-vegetarian food is nutritionally safe to drink for humans. It will not cause any harm to health.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Kanholibara seeks protection from Nagdevta with temples over graves of snakebite victims
1 2 Nagpur: Kanholibara, a village 53 km from Nagpur in Hingna tehsil, observes a tradition which stirs curiosity and disbelief. Here, when someone dies from a snakebite, the body is not cremated but buried, and a small temple dedicated to Nagdevta is built over the grave. The villagers believe the land is cursed, and worshipping the serpent god will save more lives from snakebites. Despite modern medical facilities and treatments now available, Kanolibara still sees one or two deaths from snake bites every year, claim villagers. Over 50 such small temples have been in the last nearly 75 years. Last year, Ashok, a snake rescuer from the village, caught a snake which in turn bit him 3- 4 times, leading to his death. Villagers say that many young children have also died over the years, often while playing or sitting in the fields. "Whenever a snake takes a life, we build a shrine for the Nagdevta on the spot," says a village elder, Purushottam Nataram adding, "It's our way of asking for protection. Every year, elaborate rituals are held at the snake temples on Nag Panchami. In the days leading up to the festival, the temples are freshly painted and decorated. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Villagers adorn the shrines with flowers and colourful fabrics. On the day of the festival, villagers, dressed in vibrant clothes, offer prayers and perform rituals. People from nearby villages join the celebrations, believing the blessings of Nagdevta carry power beyond Kanolibara. Interestingly, survivors of snake bites are also brought to the shrines. Inspired by their faith, a large Nagoba temple has also been built. Every Nag Panchami, these survivors visit the temple to express their gratitude. Decades ago, the lack of awareness and medical facilities meant that a snake bite was almost always fatal. With no doctors or treatments within reach, faith became the villagers' only weapon. Over time, this faith turned into a ritual, and the snake temples became part of the village's identity. Even today, despite knowing that a hospital can save lives, Kanholibara's people do not break their tradition. A new death leads to another temple, another shrine where prayers will be whispered for years to come.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Maker of GLP1 pens scales up for generic debuts
As weight-loss drug sales surge with semaglutide's patent expiration, Gujarat's Shaily Engineering Plastics, an injector pen manufacturer, anticipates significant growth. Its stock has nearly doubled, and the company is doubling its production capacity to 80-85 million pens by fiscal year-end to meet rising domestic and export demands. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Mumbai: With sales of weight-loss drugs surging and set to go up even more as semaglutide goes off patent early next year, a low-profile manufacturer of injector pens, Gujarat-based Shaily Engineering Plastics , is set to reap a windfall. Its stock has nearly doubled over the past 12 months. Manufacturers of the pen-like devices that make it easy to self-administer metered doses that would otherwise need to be injected with a syringe are the unnoticed beneficiaries of weight-loss drugs becoming is doubling capacity in line with plans of top pharma companies to launch generic versions of GLP1 weight-loss drugs early next year in India and overseas, said a senior company executive. It will be increasing capacity to 80-85 million pens by this fiscal year end from 40-45 million currently to cater to domestic and export demand, Sanjay Shah, chief strategy officer, told ET."We will look at further expansion and ramp up (in FY27). Currently, we are working with multiple players who are looking to launch generic semaglutide in different markets," he to Shah, various estimates suggest global demand for injector pens is likely to reach 500 million per year in the next two-three years and about 2 billion by is leading industry insiders to predict a looming supply crunch for pen leading drugmakers like Sun Pharma , Dr Reddy's, Cipla and Lupin are expected to be a part of the first-day launch wave in several international markets and India as soon as the patent is investing about '125 crore in FY26 on capacity expansion of its IP-led pen platform."We will be expanding (capacity) going forward to cater to the global as well as domestic market," said drugmaker Novo Nordisk 's weight-loss molecule semaglutide, branded Ozempic and Wegovy , will go off patent in March next year, opening up the gates for Indian and overseas drugmakers to launch cheaper generic expect an immediate price reduction of 50% and further by 60-80% over the coming years. This will boost affordability, potentially spurring sales of the drug and consequently, injector the past, shortages of both Eli Lilly's tirzepatide and Novo's semaglutide in the US were largely due to lack of devices and fill-n-finish capacities after demand for the drugs far outstripped supply.
The Hindu
7 hours ago
- The Hindu
The medical boundaries for AYUSH practitioners
The recent controversy on X between a hepatologist and an Indian chess Grand Master, on whether practitioners of traditional medicine can claim to be doctors, has sparked much commentary on the role and the status of practitioners of traditional Indian medicine systems such as Ayurveda and Unani, in India. Committees, governments, perspectives The burning issue here is not merely whether practitioners of Ayurveda can refer to themselves as doctors, but rather the scope of medical activities permitted under Indian law. This is an issue which has consequences for public health. A starting point for this discussion is to understand the framing of the debate over the last 80 years, beginning 1946, when the Health Survey and Development Committee, better known as Bhore Committee, batted in favour of modern scientific medicine based on evidence. The committee had pointed out that other countries were in the process of phasing out their traditional medicine systems and recommended that states take a call on the extent to which traditional medicine played a role in their public health systems. The Bhore committee's lack of enthusiasm for the traditional medicinal system did not go unnoticed by practitioners of traditional Indian medicine who mounted a vocal protest. They managed to convince the Government of India to set up the Committee on Indigenous Systems of Medicine, which submitted its report in 1948. This committee unabashedly wrapped up its conclusions in communal language, framing the issue in terms of Hindu nationalism by linking Ayurveda to the Vedas and its decline to 'foreign domination'. While the Nehru government took no action to formally recognise these practitioners of traditional medicine, the Indira Gandhi government in 1970 enacted a legislation called The Indian Medicine Central Council Act recognising and regulating the practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani. This law was replaced in 2020 with a new law called The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act. The syllabus for aspiring practitioners of Ayurveda is an absolute mish-mash of concepts that span everything from doshas, prakriti, atmas (which includes learning the difference between paramatma and jivatma) with a sprinkling of modern medical concepts such as cell physiology and anatomy. These are irreconcilable concepts — the theory of tridosha attributes all ills to an imbalance of doshas, while modern medicine locates the concepts of some diseases such as infections in 'germ theory', among others. There is no middle ground between both systems of medicine which is why concepts such as integrative medicine make no sense. Point of friction Nevertheless, the legal recognition of this new class of practitioners led to questions on the exact boundaries between the practice of traditional and modern medicine. The major point of friction has been the prescription of modern medicines by the practitioners of traditional medicine. Ayurvedic practitioners, in particular, while claiming the superiority of their art over modern medicine, have consistently demanded the right to prescribe modern medicines developed by evidence-based modern science. Pertinently, this dispute revolved around the interpretation of Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which defined the class of 'registered medical practitioners' who can prescribe modern medicine. This definition is complicated since it is not limited to doctors with a MBBS degree. It delegates a certain amount of power to State governments to pass orders declaring medical practitioners on their State medical registers as persons 'practising the modern scientific system of medicine for the purposes of ….' the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. Many State governments have used this power under Rule 2(ee) to allow registered practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani to prescribe modern medicine such as antibiotics. The constitutionality of these orders was challenged before the courts and the first round of litigation concluded in 1998 with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors. The Court concluded that 'the right to prescribe drugs of a system of medicine would be synonymous with the right to practise that system of medicine. In that sense, the right to prescribe allopathic drug cannot be wholly divorced from the claim to practice allopathic medicine'. Simply put, Ayurvedic practitioners had no right to prescribe modern medicine. That judgment never stopped the lobbying by Ayurvedic and Unani practitioners with State governments for the promulgation of orders under Rule 2(ee) allowing them to prescribe modern medicine. Several State governments have continued passing these orders in defiance of the Court's judgment. This inevitably leads to litigation before the High Courts, usually by the Indian Medical Association, which often wins these cases. Unsuspecting patients too have often sued practitioners of Ayurveda before consumer courts on the grounds that they were deceived into believing that they were being treated by a doctor with a MBBS degree who can prescribe modern medicine. While much of the litigation has revolved around the right to dispense modern medicine, there is also the issue regarding the medical procedures that can be conducted legally by practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani. For example, can a registered Ayurvedic practitioner 'intubate' a patient? This is an important question to ask since it is an open secret that many hospitals purporting to practise modern medicine are hiring Ayurvedic practitioners with Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degree at lower pay in place of graduates with a MBBS degree. Further, a notification by the Indian government in 2020 has allowed Ayurvedic practitioners (post graduates) to perform 58 minor surgeries, including the removal of the gall bladder, appendix and benign tumours. The constitutionality of this notification is pending before the courts. If the notification is upheld, the question that arises is whether these Ayurvedic practitioners can now use anaesthetic agents and antibiotics required to conduct surgeries. The stakes are high for public health in India since the likely strategy of Ayurvedic practitioners will be to argue that these surgeries were known in traditional Indian medicine. In these times of heady Hindutva, it will be difficult to find a judge who will ignore these claims. The political factor The larger political backdrop to this entire debate regarding Ayurvedic practitioners is 'Hindu pride', which has fuelled claims of fantastical achievements by ancient Indian civilisation, be it the pushpaka vimana or the claims of the Kauravas being test tube babies. When a policy issue such as Ayurveda is cynically draped in the language of 'Hindu pride', it is not just the Bharatiya Janata Party but also the Indian National Congress which feels compelled to support an obviously dangerous approach to public health. The last election manifesto of the Indian National Congress, in 2024, promised that the party would 'support' all systems of medicines instead of a promise to support only rational, evidence-based medicine. This blind faith in traditional medicine is going to cost every citizen in the future since the government is actively considering the inclusion of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) treatments under the Ayushman Bharat insurance scheme funded by tax-payers. This is in addition to approximately ₹20,000 crore of tax-payer money spent on research councils functioning under the Ministry of AYUSH with a mandate to research AYUSH. They have very little to show for in terms of scientific breakthroughs. Twitter outrage notwithstanding, the joke at the end of the day is on the tax-payer. Dinesh S. Thakur is the author of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'. Prashant Reddy T. is the coauthor of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'
