Replacing eggs is a brilliant idea, and was the topic of a Washington Post story May 19 at, headlined, “There’s a multibillion-dollar race to replace eggs.”

I am not vegan but am considering becoming one because of research.

The article said egg production and consumption can have negative effects on the well-being of animals, humans, and the environment but didn’t do an adequate job of explaining these negative effects. That could have sparked a greater interest in replacing eggs, causing the negatives to become positives.

According to a website titled “Welfare Issues for Egg Laying Hens,” 95 percent of U.S. egg-production facilities are cramped with battery cages holding chickens that “may never experience natural light or fresh air and do not leave their cages until they are gathered for slaughter.” These battery cages “are more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella,” the page said.

Another page titled “Environmental Footprint of the Egg Industry,” indicated that negative effects on the environment come mainly “from the production of the feed supplied to the laying hens, (the) materials used in the packaging of eggs, (and) a carbon footprint of 2.7 kg per dozen eggs.”

Choosing powdered eggs made from soy powder, liquid eggs made from pumpkin seed protein, or protein obtained from mung beans and, eventually, a plant-based egg would decrease chicken suffering, salmonella, and environmental damage. While humans may have concerns about allergies or the taste of these alternatives, there are many options to choose from. As the May 19 story mentioned, eggs are flavorless and can be quietly replaced.

Life is all about innovation. We as humans need to be educated and open-minded to make decisions for the greater good.

Sydney Hall