Vegans and children, evidently they dont mix.

[Gan]

Joseph and Lamoy Andressohn, a vegan couple convicted this week of child neglect, are free to walk the streets until their sentencing in December, a judge has ruled.

Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Stanford Blake ordered the Andressohns free on $75,000 bond Thursday. They had been under house arrest pending their conviction Monday on four counts of child neglect for malnourishing four children, ages 4 to 9.

A six-person jury also acquitted the couple of the more serious charge of aggravated manslaughter Monday for the death of their 6-month-old daughter, Woyah, who prosecutors said was starved to death with a raw-foods diet.

Attorneys representing Joseph, 36, and Lamoy, 30, also asked Blake to dissolve a contact order, which barred the couple from seeing their children, who were taken from them in 2003 and placed in the care of Joseph Andressohn's sister, who testified against them.

The couple caught their first glimpse in more than two years of their two oldest sons when the boys testified against them via closed-circuit camera.

While under house arrest, the Andressohns gave birth to another girl, Joyah, in June 2005. The child was subsequently removed from their care, but they were allowed visitation rights.

Prosecutors presented five days of evidence to bolster their theory that the Andressohns fed their children an insufficient diet of uncooked fruits, vegetables and liquid concoctions of wheatgrass, almond and coconut juice, in spite of signs that the children were severely underweight.

Sentencing is set for Dec. 15, when the judge will also rule on the contact order.

SOURCE (http://www.courttv.com/trials/andressohn/111005_ctv.html)
___________________________________

Why, wHy, whY, WHY?

Can someone explain to this 'meat and potatoes' Texan why someone would do this to their child(ren)?

And this behavior resulted in the death of one of the children.

Where's sterilization when you need it.

:banghead:

[Ebondale]

Dude. I like veggies as much as the next guy, but come on. Being a vegan is a life-changing decision that someone needs to make and CHILDREN ARE NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES.

This is disgusting to me and these parents should be raped to death with a bloody T-bone steak.

[Edited on 11-19-2005 by Ebondale]

[radamanthys]

I couldnt agree harder with both of you.

Children are people too! If a kid says "I don't wanna go to church, daddy", then by all means. "I wanna steak, mom", by all means.

Defeats the whole "freedom of choice" thing, if your parents pound the shit into you like a overzealous porn star. Leaves you with little left but their opinions.

[Ebondale]

I still vote for rough buttsekz with a bloody steak.

[Gan]

I say a bloody tarpon with the eyes looking glassy eyed at em as it smacks em senseless...

[ElanthianSiren]

It happens because many people lack any sort of information on what type of diet to feed their children and see them as extensions of themselves. A diet high in sugar and processed food may be just as bad in the long run.

I'm not defending these people, just saying more people need to read up on nutrition before they pop one out. A child needs suppliments first of all to their diet. Second, a good balance of whole grains, fruit, vegetables, and meat with minimal sugar (I like it as much as the next person, but that stuff is poison to a growing body). Diets, like Atkins or low calorie diets do not work in children because, to grow, they need the nutrients in mass quantities that those diets deplete.

A little education before you become a parent isn't too much to ask IMO.

-M

[Necromancer]

Um. This isn't a vegan issue; it's a raw foods diet issue. And the last poster is correct, raising a child on a vegan or raw food diet is entirely possible, and it's MUCH healthier than raising them on meat and animal product diets.

However, like any nutrition system, if you don't know enough about nutrition, you can end up causing severe damage to your children. These parents simply didn't do their research first to determine what their children needed to be eating on a regular basis; they just assumed that the adult diety they were on translated easily to a child's diet.

To go back to the healt benefits, the massive increase in the chance of getting cancer, having heart disease, obesity alone is enough of a reason not to raise them eating animal products. Generally speaking, vegan children have fewer food allergies, get sick far less often, and almost never develop Type II diabetes.

I fully agree that children should have options and be able to make decisions for their life; diet included. But when you're talking about a child's diet, that's not always possible or realistic. And one wonders why a meat eating diet is considered the baseline (Children should CHOOSE to be vegan later in life, people have stated on this thread) instead of an animal product-free diet (which is healthier for the child). If you're going to err on one side or the other, I think it's actually more fair and thoughtful to allow children to decide to engage in eating animal products later in life. For the record, I know many people who were raised as vegetarians or vegans as children, and I have yet to meet a single one who regrets it.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<And the last poster is correct, raising a child on a vegan or raw food diet is entirely possible, and it's MUCH healthier than raising them on meat and animal product diets.>>

This poster is incorrect. Raising a child on a raw food diet is entirely possible, and it's NOT healthier than raising them on meat and animal product diets.

<<To go back to the healt benefits, the massive increase in the chance of getting cancer, having heart disease, obesity alone is enough of a reason not to raise them eating animal products.>>

Sorry, but us normal humans are omnivores. We're definitely healthy that way. The increase is from abusing good food. You can die from anything, but not everything is bad for you.

[Gan]

Well, breathing air technically causes cancer...

I think that the medical community as a whole would be where I would look for reference with regards to creating a diet beneficial to my children.

The copule in this story, who are Vegan, obviously chose to impose their lifestyle onto their children without any solid education or dietary consultation. That being said, some things that are OK for adults, arent necessarily OK for children (as stated above).

As for my choice, give me a nice combination of meat, dairy, and yes veggies and I'm a happy camper. I've yet to see anyone who has thrown their life away by eating meat or anything that had 'eyes' for that matter if it was consumed in moderation.

[Necromancer]

It is the general consensus of the "medical profession" that a vegetarian or vegan diet, when done properly, is far healthier than a meat eating diet. People don't realize how bad eating meat is for them (Or for the environment, I might add). The number of people who're dying of cancer, heart attacks, and suffering from diabetes would be dramatically reduced if everyone swithed away from an animal product diet.

And there are many guides out there, made by doctors, on how to raise vegan and vegetarian children. It's a common misconception in this country that children need meat, but it's not actually true, and they're better off without it.

The point of this post is merely to remind everyone that there's nothing inherently dangerous about raising children on non animal product diets. And that, if done well, it's actually much better for them. What the people in the news story did wrong was not research how to create a balanced diet for their children. They were some uneducated wackos, but that had nothing to do with them being on a raw food diet or their children being on a raw food diet (though I will say, as far as I know, they haven't established any major benefits of being on a raw food diet over your standard vegan diet...I could be wrong, however)

[Bobmuhthol]

If we were meant to eat vegetables alone, we would not be the humans we are today. I trust evolution over your medical science.

[Soulpieced]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
If we were meant to eat vegetables alone, we would not be the humans we are today. I trust evolution over your medical science.

Ditto. Humans aren't meant to be herbivores.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by Soulpieced]

[Necromancer]

Evolution? I love when people who clearly haven't studied it invoke it.

Sorry kids, there are numerous vegetarian societies in existence past and present. The only evolution in question here is symptomatic to the arbitrary cultural decisions made that determined that certain groups would begin eating meat. Over centuries, the human body changed to adapt to that. That doesn't mean anything of course; there's no such thing as what people were "meant" to do (aside from eat, breathe, sleep, etc, and if you try to get any more specific than that on any of those subjects the diversity of human expression becomes mind boggling).

Go read about vegetarian and vegan diets and their affects on people, as well as the environment. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, it's a starting point for everyone. There is, however, something very wrong with embracing an existence that wallows in it.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Evolution? I love when people who clearly haven't studied it invoke it.>>

You being an arrogant fuck? I love when that happens.

<<Go read about vegetarian and vegan diets and their affects on people, as well as the environment.>>

I love when people who clearly haven't studied verbs vs. nouns use the word 'affect' instead of 'effect.'

Have you looked at your fucking teeth lately? They're structured in a manner that best fits an OMNIVOROUS diet.

[Necromancer]

Yup, definitely misused affect/effect. That does not, however, make you correct in your analysis. And, hate to be a downer, but your statements on evolution make it quite clear that you're not particularly well-versed in the theories.

And had you read my post more carefully, you would have noticed the part where I pointed out that the evolution comes as a symptom of the behavior. Of course, there's still debate on whether or not incisors are actually only meant for eating meat, but even if they were, that's a development *from* eating meat, not an incitement by nature *to* eat meat.

A good example here would be the enzymes necessary to digest milk. Western Europeans by and large have this enzyme, but most of the world does not. That's not because Western Europeans are biologically mandated to digest milk. It's an effect of having been drinking milk for centuries. Their body EVOLVED to match their arbitrary cultural behavior. Most of the rest of the world never drank milk, so their bodies never developed the enzyme (though colonization has introduced the genes for the production of these enzymes in other countries). This has been increasingly an issue here in the United States, and the FDAs guidelines suggesting that all children be given milk have been under heavy fire for being clearly Eurocentric and causing no end of anxiety for parents of children who are not entirely of European decent.

The same goes with meat eating. Your body produces certain enzymes BECAUSE your culture has been eating meat for centuries. Other areas of the world where people do not eat meat, people do not produce these enzymes (nor even have the capability to do so). Likewise, anyone who does have the ability to produce the enzymes but who does not eat meat for an extended period of time will no longer produce them.

Body adapts to circumstance and culture. That's how evolution works. Evolution doesn't give us a roadmap of what to do next, it maps what we've been doing previously, which has no moral or logical bearing on what we should or should not be doing currently or in the future. Go read Joan Roughgarden if you want an official perspective.

[Warriorbird]

Damn that calcium.

:rolls eyes:

If you're going to bash Western society's food practices, at least bash something intelligent like high fructose corn syrup (which, curiously enough, can be eaten by vegans).

Cow's milk is just fine for humans if you don't let it get in the way of early childhood nutrition (curiously enough, I know a bunch of vegetarians who love cheese). These people let their obsession get in the way of early childhood nutrition which is and should be a crime.

[Bobmuhthol]

Everything you've said is correct. My reasoning, though, lies within the evident possibility that mankind, at his earliest stages, consumed meat. Today, other cultures have different structures and systems, and that's certainly because of the progression of adaptation. But is it not possible that these people are straying from human nature which has clearly held its integrity for millions of years?

And do you not also speculate that because Western culture thrives on eating meat and has the body to do so, that it would be harmful to go against this and become a vegan? An omnivorous creature becoming herbivorous in one generation seems a lot more unhealthy to me than eating meat.

[Necromancer]

No one's bashing western food. The example was used because most readers here are from the West, and they're familiar with the notion that all children need milk and that you should drink a few cups of milk a day. For Europeans who can digest it, it does indeed have health benefits (vegan issues aside). For everyone else, it causes various degrees of illness. And that point served as a way to demonstrate the ways in which evolution is an expression of past behavior and not an argument for legitimacy over other behaviors.

It's an example serving as analogy. Nothing more; nothing less.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Necromancer
that's a development *from* eating meat, not an incitement by nature *to* eat meat. Caveman 1: This meat is too hard to eat. I cannot eat it.
Caveman 2: I have teeth very well suited to eating meat. Yum! I now am far more fit than you and t3h chix dig me.
Caveman 1: *dies, progenyless*
Caveman 2: *has lots of sex, and lots of children*

#

Modern day human: Yay, meat! *schmnarf* Oo, bread! *karuanch*

What you describe sounds suspiciously more reminiscent of pangenes than evolution. If milk caused illness without the enzymes to digest it AND people wouldn't have the enzymes without drinking it, no one would ever have had milk more than once.

[SayGoodbye]

From observing his posts I can say with much confidence that Bobmuthol is not the type to make posts about things he doesn't know about and pass it off as if he's an expert.

He stated his opinion and gave valid reasons for why he thinks that way.

You (Necromancer) being of a diffrerent opinion does not make Bobmuthol ignorant.

That being said, I am of a mindset that a healthy diet for a child should consist of some dairy, whole grains, fruits, vegetables and meat. (With the exception of medical issues such as Lactose Intolerance..)

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I love this image from Madox...

only because it is true though

[Kainen]

Regardless of what else was said in this thread, the real topic is the malnourished children and their stupid parents' refusal to see that what they were doing was wrong. I hope that they get what they deserve.

[Ebondale]

What they deserve, Kainen, is brutal buttsekz with a bloody steak.

[Danical]

Animal protein is better for building muscles in body builders . . . I like it because it sustains and increases my already more than massive muscles.

What does this have to do with health . . . almost nothing. But teh big muscles allow me to get teh women more and spread my seed!

It's also a fuck of a lot easier to get X amount of protein by Y volume with meat than any other naturally exisiting substance. Kids have a tendency to not eat much food by volume in one sitting or throughout the day. Ergo, they get teh meatx0r.

[Vesi]

I am a vegetarian that raised a daughter, but what I did was let her eat poultry, fish, milk, and cheese. She also had other meats at daycare. I wasn't a fanatic and I knew that I didn't know enough to raise her on a vegetarian diet alone. (there are so many things to being a new mother and I knew she had healthy food so I focused on other things)

She's been exposed to all meat growing up, but hates most red meat. (oddly, she likes some wild game and frog's legs) She chooses chocolate soy milk over regular milk with syrup (though she puts regular milk on her cereal and likes to drink it plain) and she loves chicken and hates steak. (no pressure from me; she been allowed to basically eat what she's wanted) She's hardly been sick a day in her life and has a perfect figure.

It's all about education and I knew when I had her that I didn't have the education to raise her on a strictly vegetarian diet. (but I know people that have) The people in that article obviously were idiots.

Vesi

P. S. I am not a vegetarian because I oppose them killing the animal; meat just grosses me out. (not very noble of me but that's how it is)

[Ebondale]

Thats not as unusual a reason for being a vegetarian as you might think, Vesi. I've known a lot of people that won't eat meat simply for health reasons or because there is something strange to them about the texture of meat and fat. Don't worry about the nobility of your decision. If its right for you then who cares if its noble or not?

[Latrinsorm]

I hope I'm not the only one that only got "perfect figure" out of Vesi's post. :blush:

[Gan]

Originally posted by vulvamancer
Animal protein is better for building muscles in body builders . . . I like it because it sustains and increases my already more than massive muscles.
Whatever credibility you might have had in this debate was entirely used up by this statement.


Originally posted by vulvamancer
What does this have to do with health . . . almost nothing. But teh big muscles allow me to get teh women more and spread my seed!

And this statement put you in the hole.

Thanks for playing.

[Warriorbird]

Unless he was reaching out for an ironic Sean reference, in which case it was pretty funny. To set it permanently on the right course he has to threaten to take you out into the desert...where THINGS HAPPEN.

[Danical]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by vulvamancer
Animal protein is better for building muscles in body builders . . . I like it because it sustains and increases my already more than massive muscles.
Whatever credibility you might have had in this debate was entirely used up by this statement.


Originally posted by vulvamancer
What does this have to do with health . . . almost nothing. But teh big muscles allow me to get teh women more and spread my seed!

And this statement put you in the hole.

Thanks for playing.

It was a joke . . . sorry for my misplaced sarcasm I guess? I was mostly talking to Eric.

What I do think is my last statement, which is by and large, sound.

Additionally, potein is needed for muscle development in early children growth, thus my stress for animal protein density as well as kids inability or unwillingness to eat much or a day/meal.

I would have though it was obvious what was truth and what was bullshit denoted by the use of TEH and my indication that my muscles are the largest of any being alive.

[Gan]

Considering that women nowadays look at more than just a muscular figure when considering long term procreation and an investment in a family life, I think your second statement is still off. A one night stand is one thing. But if you were to poll women on:

a) if they prefer a male mate to assist in the rearing of said offspring,

and...

b) if massive muscle is the only indicator of fitness in reproduction (natural selection)

You would see,
In the 21st Century I'm betting you'll find that if a mature woman of civilization decides to have a mate for the purposes of reproduction and not just teh hot sex0r then you'll find they're more interested in things like intelligence, overall good looks (I know some beefheads at my gym who are dog ugly), responsibility, good judgement, and to some degree - financial stability (success). Muscles would be a bonus but not a requirement.

Your reasoning might have worked back when a strong physical stature meant that the strong will survive - so beefy is the shizznit. But today, it takes more than just a ton of white muscle mass to portray ecological fitness.

[Vesi]

Originally posted by Ebondale
Thats not as unusual a reason for being a vegetarian as you might think, Vesi. I've known a lot of people that won't eat meat simply for health reasons or because there is something strange to them about the texture of meat and fat. Don't worry about the nobility of your decision. If its right for you then who cares if its noble or not?

I basically put that so people will not assume I'm some PETA fanatic. Thanks for your supportive post though. It was nice.





Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I hope I'm not the only one that only got "perfect figure" out of Vesi's post. :blush:

Hehe Latrin.


I'm proud of how she turned out and evidently her diet and good genes (must have been from my husband's side) contributed to it. Of course, I'm not going into any details here, but if I had looked like that at 19... well... that's all I'm going to say. (and she has a boyfriend so there will be no hookups)

Vesi

[GSTamral]

<<<
It is the general consensus of the "medical profession" that a vegetarian or vegan diet, when done properly, is far healthier than a meat eating diet.
>>>

This is completely inaccurate, unless you are getting your information from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which is a PETA supported organization that produces this type of gibberish. This society, which publishes this type of stuff, also has the unique quality of not having a single licensed physician on its staff. The FACT is, the jury is out on this one. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that a healthy vegan or vegetarian diet will affect the body any differently than a healthy diet that includes meat. My mother is an actual licensed doctor and a vegetarian by choice, but even she knows better than to make blanketly stupid statements like that. It is easier to have an unhealthy meat diet than an unhealthy vegan diet due to the nature of some foods, but a healthy diet is a healthy diet.


<<<
People don't realize how bad eating meat is for them (Or for the environment, I might add). The number of people who're dying of cancer, heart attacks, and suffering from diabetes would be dramatically reduced if everyone swithed away from an animal product diet.
>>>

You must have gotten this directly from a PETA supported or Physicians Committee site or packet. Not only is eating meat healthy, so long as its done in the guided quantities, but it is also better for you. You can argue that the chemicals that are put into the animals are unhealthy, but sheerly eating meat being unhealthy? That's not just stupid, its insulting that you could make that type of brainwashed statement. Animal protein is inherently better for humans than soy protein. Humans never evolved to develop both molars and incisors, they've been there since the first humans discovered. Guess what, we have both for a reason. As for eating meat being bad for the environment, why don't you state the fact that factory farming is bad for the environment. Eating meat is both natural and healthy of itself.

<<
And there are many guides out there, made by doctors, on how to raise vegan and vegetarian children. It's a common misconception in this country that children need meat, but it's not actually true, and they're better off without it.
>>

These guides were made because vegans made conscious decisions to raise their children vegan, and needed dietary information on how to do it. As for the misconception, you are correct, children do not need meat to survive. Being better off without it, see the above regarding lying on behalf of PETA.

<<
The point of this post is merely to remind everyone that there's nothing inherently dangerous about raising children on non animal product diets.
>>

Yes, if done correctly.

<<
And that, if done well, it's actually much better for them.
>>

A lie.

<<
What the people in the news story did wrong was not research how to create a balanced diet for their children.
>>

Thus, the children were taken away from them.

<<
They were some uneducated wackos
>>

As is anyone who uses PETA, or any PETA based organization for health food research.

<<
I could be wrong, however
>>

Most of your qualitative reasoning is.

[Terminator X]

These people were dumbasses who conveniantly didn't notice their children resembling the body-types of many an Ethiopian who used to randomly flash up on those Sally Struther commercials before the discovery of her evil embezzlement scheme.

Suffice to say, Vegan or not, these people deserve to have their asses sent to the sun. You just don't kill children.

- The Termite

[Necromancer]

In reply to Tamral's post:

Actually, my information comes from the Mayo Clinic and the National Institute of Health. Care to argue that they're biased? For the record, the research PETA and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine have done is highly regarded and widely used in policy decisions. The latter, in particular, has been at the forefront of Federal changes to nutrition information. The Federal Government funds them heavily and relies on their research for its nutrition guide updates. I'm not sure where you picked up that these were somehow not credible sources, but you are very wrong. The board of Physicians, incidently, contains, among others, medical researchers from Cornell University and the University of Arizona. And there are numerous M.D. and M.D/Ph.D members of the board (not even counting the staff). So where you picked up that they weren't licensed...not sure either. My advice: stay away from Focus on the Family for your information.

The guides in question, incidently, come from a variety of sources, including the NIH.

And since there are established health benefits (again, see Mayo Clinic and the NIH for elaborations on this) to a non-meat diet, it is not a lie that children are better off without meat.

You make the claim that there are no studies indicating that a vegetarian diet has health benefits over a meat diet. Allow me to provide you with a few quotes:

American Heart Association: Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer

The Mayo Clinic: And vegetarians have lower rates of some cancers, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes.



You are correct that a diet is not necessarily better by virtue of not having meat in it (someone may substitute meat with fatty junk foods, for instance, which is not healthy). But on the basis of what goes into the vast majority of meat that is consumed alone, substituting most foods (barring twinkies and french fries) for meat is the healther alternative. Ultimately, a balanced diet that includes meat is less healthy than a balanced diet that is meat free. Again, feel free to check out the National Institute of Health and the Mayo Clinic (or the previously mentioned organizations that you somehow believe to short of credible).

My reasoning stands as sound. Yours, however, has crumbled into (false) rhetoric.

[Necromancer]

And yes, the parents in question, while apparently well-intentioned, were entirely too uneducated for the good of their children.

BUT that does not mean vegetarian and vegan diets are incompatible with children. Nor does it mean that these diets, when planned properly aren't superior to meat diets.

[Caiylania]

Those parents need to be forced into a nutrition class and then horse whipped with barbed meat tenderizers.

How could they not SEE what they were doing was killing their children?????

[Showal]

You can live entirely vegetarian, but it's not more healthy than a proper well balanced diet that includes meat. The mayans did it for years because if you combine beans with corn, it gives you all the essential amino acids required to make proteins.

Comments like this:

<<American Heart Association: Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer.>>

I would consider this to be a result of what Bob said, an overabundance of meat consumption, particularly red meat. Other types of meats, chicken and fish in particular, are very healthy for you if cooked properly. Vegetarians do not have access to all the truly unhealthy food that people who eat meat are able to eat. I would be willing to bet that the health issues are not as much a result of the consumption of meat as in the preparation of certain types of meats.

Done right, you can survive off a vegetarian diet. Without proper education, you are risking the people you are responsible for's lives. A number of vegans I've met do not know the first thing about the nutrition, only what products include meat or meat byproducts. The far majority of doctors, also, do not know much about nutrition. Doctors, in general, have only had a general overview of nutrition in med school.

I would say the variety that a meat and vegetarian based diet is capable of providing is as healthy, if not healthier, than a vegetarian based diet. However, the way you prepare the foods is just as important as the food itself.

[Back]

We already know we can lead very healthy lives and gain everything our body needs without animal products. Yes, our bodies have adapted the ability to be omnivorous in our development, but our intellect has given us the knowledge to know animal products aren’t a necessity and we have a choice. That makes us different than your average animal.

Having said that... we still do stupid shit like these parents. Even animals try to feed their offspring correctly.

[Artha]

(and she has a boyfriend so there will be no hookups)
:sniffle: We could've gone places.

[Necromancer]

>I would say the variety that a meat and vegetarian based diet is capable of providing is as healthy, if not healthier, than a vegetarian based diet. However, the way you prepare the foods is just as important as the food itself.

Actually, you really are better off removing the meat. It's pretty terrible for you. A lot of that is because of what goes into the meat here, however. Though, given balanced diets from both sides, even meat that hasn't got all the horrible, horrible things in it that our farms load them with is worse for you than vegetables. But yes, you can survive off of both in the short term.

Long term, however, raising meat for our demand isn't sustainable. It's TERRIBLE for the environment and a HUGE waste of resources. The amount of waste that is produced from the meat industry, the amount of water and grain that goes into it, and the amount of land it uses up is all disgusting. Half of the grain we're producing in this country right now is going straight into cows. A majority of the land in the middle of the country is going to livestock, and that livestock is very quickly destroying that land and rendering it useless for any other purpose.

If only people knew how wonderful quorn, boca, and morningstar farms food was!

**runs off to buy his tofurkey for Thanksgiving**

[Tova]

This isn't a Vegan issue....this is an abuse and neglect issue. Why is everyone arguing diet when it's odvious they are sickos that need to be put away. There are people that abuse children.....heart breaking.

[Wezas]

Fetuses are considered meat right?

Can't wait for lunch time.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Necromancer
If only people knew how wonderful quorn, boca, and morningstar farms food was!Morningstar vegetable "sausage" patties are *disgusting*. I can't speak for the others.

And you're still a pangenist in my book, leaving me no choice but to agree with Bob's position.

[ElanthianSiren]

If people are informed about a vegan lifestyle, it can be accomplished. Most vegans I know, however, do not eat the correct amount of legumes.

I wouldn't put a growing child on that type of diet for the simple reasons that showal listed. Also, by encouraging that diet, knowingly or not, you are encouraging people who don't have enough sense to eat the correct nutrients themselves to feed their children the same way. It's an education issue, but IMO it's much easier to get people to understand 30/30/40 than educate them on all the different requirements of being vegetarian and what fulfills those.

Also, processed foods FTL. I enjoy boca burgers, but I'd never make them the backbone of my diet. Growing food removes 16 minerals from the earth, while we replace only 4. This means that vegetarian diets need heavy supplimentalization IMO.

Now, explain everything that I just told you to a 5 year old and time how long it is before they are picking and choosing what they will and won't eat from a very small circle of "acceptable" foods. It doesn't seem that far fetched to think that an imbalance will happen.

-M

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Um. This isn't a vegan issue; it's a raw foods diet issue. And the last poster is correct, raising a child on a vegan or raw food diet is entirely possible, and it's MUCH healthier than raising them on meat and animal product diets.

Entirely in your opinion and the opinions of those that advocate a vegan life style. However, medicine isn't entirely on your side. Yes, there are health benefits to be had, there are also health risks. Children are the larger group at risk when it comes to a vegan, or raw food diet as there are required building blocks that can only be found in reasonable concentration through meat and meat fats.


However, like any nutrition system, if you don't know enough about nutrition, you can end up causing severe damage to your children. These parents simply didn't do their research first to determine what their children needed to be eating on a regular basis; they just assumed that the adult diety they were on translated easily to a child's diet.

That much I'll agree with.


To go back to the healt benefits, the massive increase in the chance of getting cancer, having heart disease, obesity alone is enough of a reason not to raise them eating animal products. Generally speaking, vegan children have fewer food allergies, get sick far less often, and almost never develop Type II diabetes.

And that is entirely a vegan slant. Portion and preparation are key here. Processed meat products, hormone treated livestock, over cooked meat, and heavy portions are the culprits. However, anyone that advocates a vegan life style will likely use the above information and tag it all as bad. Sorry champ ... the medical and nutrition communities are against you.


I fully agree that children should have options and be able to make decisions for their life; diet included. But when you're talking about a child's diet, that's not always possible or realistic. And one wonders why a meat eating diet is considered the baseline (Children should CHOOSE to be vegan later in life, people have stated on this thread) instead of an animal product-free diet (which is healthier for the child). If you're going to err on one side or the other, I think it's actually more fair and thoughtful to allow children to decide to engage in eating animal products later in life. For the record, I know many people who were raised as vegetarians or vegans as children, and I have yet to meet a single one who regrets it.

Absolutely not. The parents should be responsible enough to set aside their chosen life style when it comes to the child. A vegan diet lacks the nutrition a growing child needs.


Originally posted by Necromancer
It is the general consensus of the "medical profession" that a vegetarian or vegan diet, when done properly, is far healthier than a meat eating diet.

If you're going to quote a specific statement, that's fine, however ... the medical community recognizes that not all dietary needs are the same and vary from individual to individual. A vegan diet can be of benefit to specific body types in adults and children, it is not a cure all or universal recommendation however.


People don't realize how bad eating meat is for them (Or for the environment, I might add).

And that is what we call a load of biased horse shit. As I have pointed out, certain types of meats are bad. Processed, consistently large portions, over cooked ... etc etc . Meat is not bad for you. It can be bad for some, but as a whole (if prepared right) it a nutritional staple.

Environment? When will vegans get off this kick? If the majority of the world switched from an omnivorous diet to a vegan diet ... the environment would take a turn for the worse. Large scale erosion, vermin population explosions, water contamination ... the list is huge. Let's not even delve into the increased amount of animal parts you'll find in your processed soy products, or the increased petroleum consumption.


The number of people who're dying of cancer, heart attacks, and suffering from diabetes would be dramatically reduced if everyone swithed away from an animal product diet.

Incorrect by a large stretch. If people would eat responsible portions, cut out the processed garbage, and be more conscience of preparation ... there would be a huge reduction. However, a person on an all twinkie diet is just as prone.

There are so many causes for certain cancers, the only cancers I can think of that are linked to meat consumption are stomach and colon cancers. Studies have shown that reduced fiber intake, over cooked and processed meat intake, along with other unhealthy dietary habits, are largely responsible for such cancers.

Labeling meat in general as "bad" shows a heavily slanted opinion.


And there are many guides out there, made by doctors, on how to raise vegan and vegetarian children. It's a common misconception in this country that children need meat, but it's not actually true, and they're better off without it.

It's actually a common misconception by vegans that the medical community agrees with them.


The point of this post is merely to remind everyone that there's nothing inherently dangerous about raising children on non animal product diets.

That depends on your definition of dangerous. Far more studies show that a healthy diet that includes reasonable amounts of meat and meat fats is far more responsible for a child's physical development than a vegan diet.


And that, if done well, it's actually much better for them.

Sorry, but no. If you ask a doctor that advocates a vegan life style ... they will agree. Doctors that advocate a child's well being ... well they just say reasonable meat consumption is a necessity.


What the people in the news story did wrong was not research how to create a balanced diet for their children. They were some uneducated wackos, but that had nothing to do with them being on a raw food diet or their children being on a raw food diet (though I will say, as far as I know, they haven't established any major benefits of being on a raw food diet over your standard vegan diet...I could be wrong, however)

What these people did was simply starve their children to death. Yes, they were eating, but their developing bodies were not receiving the nutrition required.

In essence, they committed pre-meditated murder because they thought they were saving the lives of 100s of cows and other animals, but in fact they were murdering a few billion smaller animals in the effort to unknowingly starve their children.

They should fry, and if not, should be sterilized and made to work at McDonald's for the rest of their natural existence.

[GSTamral]

<<<<
Actually, my information comes from the Mayo Clinic and the National Institute of Health. Care to argue that they're biased? For the record, the research PETA and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine have done is highly regarded and widely used in policy decisions.
>>>>

Since you're going to quote the AMA later on this, perhaps it'd be wise to also point out that the AMA not only does not recognize the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, but also includes the group by name in the 2005 manual as not being a recognizable or authoratative administration regarding medical opinion or advice.

You mention PETA and Policy decisions, you are correct. Two PETA funded organizations, ELF and ALF are considered by the FBI amongst the 5 most dangerous groups of domestic terrorists. And PETA inspired no less than the Senate Environment Committee chairman to declare them to be a known supporter of domestic terrorism, so by that, you are absolutely correct that PETA is at the forefront of policy decisions.

As for the babble with the Mayo Clinic, AMA and the NIH, perhaps you ought to take the message into context. It is much easier to have an unhealthy meat diet than it is an unhealthy vegan diet due to the fact that larger portions of meat are worse for the body than an extra serving of tofu. As for meat causing heart disease, again, only if eaten in excess. A healthy diet that includes meat and a healthy diet that does not are medically no different. The average person does not necessarily eat a healthy diet. And in fact, anyone who chooses a vegetarian diet will inherently lack two essential vitamins from their diet. B12 and D, both of which can be taken in supplement form.


<<<
The latter, in particular, has been at the forefront of Federal changes to nutrition information. The Federal Government funds them heavily and relies on their research for its nutrition guide updates.
>>>

The federal government last year provided 0 dollars to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. The federal government, due to 501-C3 laws (which Peta remains under for the time being) provided PETA with some matching funds, which may have been funneled to the Physicians Committee and called federal funding.

<<<
I'm not sure where you picked up that these were somehow not credible sources, but you are very wrong.
>>>

Being my mother is a doctor and a nearly lifelong vegetarian (50+years), she is quite in the know regarding PETA's antics in publishing horseshit by means of the Physicians Committee.

<<<
The board of Physicians, incidently, contains, among others, medical researchers from Cornell University and the University of Arizona. And there are numerous M.D. and M.D/Ph.D members of the board (not even counting the staff). So where you picked up that they weren't licensed...not sure either. My advice: stay away from Focus on the Family for your information.
>>>

I again stand behind my statement. Having an M.D or a P.H.D does not make a person a licensed Physician. There is not a single licensed Physician amongst the group.

<<
It is not a lie that children are better off without meat.
>>

Yet it is. vegetarians tend to have a healthier diet than people who eat meat, because most diets are not healthy. If the diet is healthy, there is absolutely no evidence to show that eating meat is better OR worse. The only documented difference between the two types of diets is that the vegetarian may need supplements for B12 and vitamin D.

There is nothing wrong with a vegetarian or vegan diet. It can be just as healthy as a healthy diet that includes meat. Humans are by nature omnivores, but general study has shown that either diet can be equal. An unhealthy diet is an unhealthy diet. If your point is that an unhealthy vegetarian diet has less risks for some diseases than an unhealthy diet that includes meat, then sure, fine. Some risks are lessened. Some risks are also increased, but in general, an unhealthy vegetarian diet is healthier than an unhealthy vegan diet, which are both better than an unhealthy diet including meat.

PETA loves to quote other groups in an out of context manner, as does the Physicians Committee. That's why even our own Senate has considered them a sponsor and aid to domestic terrorism.

[Necromancer]

>Since you're going to quote the AMA later on this, perhaps it'd be wise to also point out that the AMA not only does not recognize the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, but also includes the group by name in the 2005 manual as not being a recognizable or authoratative administration regarding medical opinion or advice.

Of course they're not, they're a lobbying organization that does research on particular medical problems.
It is NOT an organization that even GIVES medical advice. If it is indeed listed as such, it is listed to clarify that distinction so people don't go looking around their website for information on how to cure various ailments. The group doesn't deal with individual patients, nor does it give general medical advice to groups.


>A healthy diet that includes meat and a healthy diet that does not are medically no different.

This is patently false, unfortunately. Based on the chemicals put into your meat alone, they are not equivalent.


>PETA loves to quote other groups in an out of context manner, as does the Physicians Committee. That's why even our own Senate has considered them a sponsor and aid to domestic terrorism.

The following organizations have been labeled as domestic terrorist organizations (or some synonym thereof) by members of the House and Senate at various points: The Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, ACT UP, the National Organization for Women, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Southern Poverty Law Project, and the American Red Cross. Crazies in the House and Senate do not a terrorist organization make.

>The average person does not necessarily eat a healthy diet. And in fact, anyone who chooses a vegetarian diet will inherently lack two essential vitamins from their diet. B12 and D, both of which can be taken in supplement form.

Vegans get plenty of vitamin D by virtue of being exposed to the sun. The only time it can be a concern is during the winter (and only in certain regions of this country), in which case numerous vegan cereals (most cereals, and ALL cereals in the UK, I might add) are fortified with vitamin D. The amount of B12 required is 1 microgram per day. Many cereals that are also vegan have this, a certain type of yeast that is found in many vegan foods also gives enough B12. In fact, not washing your hands often enough can give you the B12 you need. And most vegans have enough B12 stored up in their bodies when they transition to last 20-30 years (assuming they never get another bit of B12 in that time). So, no, a vegan is not inherently lacking these vitamins due to their diet.

>The federal government last year provided 0 dollars to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Physicans largely funds itself through foundations, other organizations, and its own members. Its research, however, DOES get Federal funding. In case anyone reading this is wondering, all Physicians does is run largely cancer-oriented research and lobby for research methods that do not include cruelty to animals. Tamral is trying to paint them as something they are not.

>I again stand behind my statement. Having an M.D or a P.H.D does not make a person a licensed Physician. There is not a single licensed Physician amongst the group.

Neal D Barnard, M.D. President of Physicians and also of the Cancer Project. Certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. That is the only person I bothered looking up. Go ahead and look up the rest of the board if you'd like. You are clearly wrong about the certification status of the members. These are published and respected researchers and practictioners. I'm not sure where you came up with your opinion of this organization, but it is not a commonly held one. The NIH, for example, routinely invites their members to their public meetings.


>If the diet is healthy, there is absolutely no evidence to show that eating meat is better OR worse

I have already provided you with information from the Mayo Clinic, the Heart Association, and NIH that indicates otherwise. If these organizations are not enough, your opinion is clearly too grounded in rhetoric to be swayed.

[xtc]

While it is possible to eat a healthy diet that includes meat, I think it is harder.

When you consider what factory farming does to the environment, how most meat is injected with steroids, antibiotics even for healthy animals as a preventative measure, and that we zap meat with radiation to kill any bacteria produced by the unhealthy and unsanitary conditions the animal was raised in, a vegetarian diet for health reasons is very appealing.

Regarding the environment. The Canadian Government has donesome studies on this:

At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person!

Many countries in the world use as little as 0.2 ha (half an acre) of farm land per person (see Table 1). This is equivalent to having 5.5 m2 of land available to produce each day’s food. In 1994, the average yield worldwide for cereal crops was 2 814 kg/ha, equivalent to 1.5 kg (14 cups of cooked grain) per day from 0.2 ha. For root crops, the average global yield in 1994 would have provided 6.8 kg of food per day from 0.2 ha (FAO 1997). As grains and roots are easily stored, it seems reasonable to conclude that even in cold climates, people should be able to live on food grown on 0.2 ha or less.


Farm animals are extremely inefficient converters of plants to edible flesh. To produce 31.2 million t of carcass meat in 1993, US farm animals were fed 192.7 million t of feed concentrates, mostly corn. Additional feed took the form of roughage and pasture (FAO 1997; USDA 1997). Broiler chickens are the most efficient, requiring only 3.4 kg of feed (expressed in equivalent feeding value of corn) to produce 1 kg of ready-to-cook chicken. Pigs are the least efficient. For pig meat, the feed–produce ratio is 8.4 : 1; for eggs, by weight, 3.8 : 1; and for cheese, 7.9 : 1 (USDA 1997).

In animals much of the food is converted into manure, energy for movement, and the growth of body parts not eaten by people. Very little can appear as direct edible weight gain. For example, cattle excrete 40 kg of manure for every kilogram of edible beef (Environment Canada 1995).

SOURCE (http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-30610-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html)

[Necromancer]

>Environment? When will vegans get off this kick? If the majority of the world switched from an omnivorous diet to a vegan diet ... the environment would take a turn for the worse. Large scale erosion, vermin population explosions, water contamination ... the list is huge. Let's not even delve into the increased amount of animal parts you'll find in your processed soy products, or the increased petroleum consumption.

This one cracks me up to no end.

Perhaps you're not aware of how erosion works, but planting plants is how we solve erosion, not how we contribute to it. And the beef industry is causing massive amounts of water contamination in our country. Not sure where you're getting your vermin population explosion from. Last I checked, however, cows; chickens; and pigs weren't the natural enemies of rats. Those cows certainly are fierce. Allow me to give you a few fun facts about what the meat industry is doing to your own country right now:

The latest (US) Senate Agricultural Committee report on farm pollution issued this warning about animal waste: “[I]t’s untreated and unsanitary, bubbling with chemicals and diseased organisms. … It goes onto the soil and into the water that many people will, ultimately, bathe in and wash their clothes with and drink. It is poisoning rivers and killing fish and making people sick. … Catastrophic cases of pollution, sickness, and death are occurring in areas where livestock operations are concentrated.”

The New York Times ran an investigative report on the new arrival of meat factories in small towns. Here is a short sample of the immediate effects: “Paul Isbell of Houston, Miss., began experiencing seizures after a hog farm moved in down the road. … Kevin Pearson of Meservey, Iowa, carried a towel in his car because he vomited five or six times a week on his way to work. Julie Jansen’s six children suffered flulike symptoms and diarrhea when farms moved into their neighborhood in Renville, Minn. One of Ms. Jansen’s daughters was found by Dr. Kilburn to have neurological damage.”

According to Toronto's Vegetarian Association, using data from government reports, the United States uses 56% of its land for pastures and 69% of our cereal crops are going straight to the meat industry. That's an immense amount of land to meet food needs. Using that land for crops as opposed to meat would allow us to produce far more food per acre in a world that is in dire need of more food (incidently, plant-food production is in decline, largely due to urbanization and the degredation of fertilie soil from bad farming practices and the raising of meat)

A meat-based diet actually uses seven times as much land as a plant-based diet. (report from an Agricultural NGO in Canada)

Some efforts are made to reuse animal waste, but in the US only 1/6th of the animal waste is actually reused, the majority of the remaining waste ends up in water sources causing dangerous levels of pollution in many areas. (Washington World Watch Institute)

Additionally, since the raising of animals requires so much land, the rain forests have increasingly become targets. Since 1970, over 50 million acres of rainforest land in South American alone has been destroyed to raise cattle. After cattle has been raised on land, it cannot be converted back to its previous ecosystem and it has pushed many plant and animal species into the brink of extinction. (World Watch Institute)

A quote in erosion from the Toronto Vegetarian Association after reviewing various government reports from nations in North America;

Erosion of precious topsoil from ploughed fields and over-grazed pastures is another serious agricultural problem. A permanent cover of vegetation is required to hold soil in place; once this is weakened or removed, soil can be easily washed or blown away by wind or rain. Soil mixed with agricultural chemicals and manure runs into streams and groundwater where it can cause extensive water pollution.

Organic farming can lessen some of the problems associated with agriculture – chemical dependency, erosion and pollution. But a shift in society toward plant-based diets would ease these problems simply by reducing the need for land.

(i.e. to the person who posted that shifting to a vegan society would cause erosion, you need to read up on erosion a bit more)

According to the United Nations, over 10.5% of the world's fertile land suffers from moderate to extreme degredation. The principle cause: overgrazing by livestock.

Just a few fun facts on the farm for y'all. I didn't even include the fun stuff going into your meat! So you know, cattle is generally fed with: garbage, cardboard, chicken shit, other cows mixed in with the majority of the grain we're producing in this country.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Necromancer
This one cracks me up to no end.

Perhaps you're not aware of how erosion works, but planting plants is how we solve erosion, not how we contribute to it.

Someone has spent way too much time with concrete under his feet. But I'm guessing my upbringing as a farm boy doesn't fly as a credential right? :lol:

Let me clue you into something. Grass covered fields aid in the prevention of erosion. Grain covered fields, on average, have no less than 50% exposed top soil and the root systems of the plants in those fields are so concentrated into rows that they offer little to no protection. And guess what, farmers don't like flat fields ... they tend to flood and crops are destroyed.

Now what do you think happens to exposed top soil when it rains enough for water to run? Meaning, when there is more rain than the earth is able to absorb. The top soil is taken out of the field by the running water into the spill ways and ditches. From there it goes into the creeks and rivers. What happens when all of that top soil builds in the river beds? (providing most of it hasn't been swept away to the ocean floor) Well, we flood.

Understandably there is water contamination from livestock. But that water contamination is through piss and shit. Let's talk about herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers ... all chemical. Not only does it destroy animal and plant life, but it contaminates ground water and the water that feeds into rivers and oceans.


And the beef industry is causing massive amounts of water contamination in our country.

Contamination that pales in comparison to plant based agriculture.


Not sure where you're getting your vermin population explosion from.

Again, you have spent too much time with concrete under your feet. Many types of small mammals feed on plant life and love grain. The more abundant the grains are, the more abundant the vermin are. The more abundant the vermin, the more abundant the diseases they carry.

It's not exactly rocket science.


Last I checked, however, cows; chickens; and pigs weren't the natural enemies of rats.

This has nothing to do with natural enemies since agriculture takes the animals and plants involved out of the natural order of things.

Mice, rats, what have you are great carriers of disease ... when you make their preferred food supply abundant ... the population grows in accordance to the food supply. Tell me you don't believe the food harvested from fields go straight to your plate ... they're stored in cribs and an air tight crib isn't an option.


Those cows certainly are fierce.

As your slant is certainly uneducated no matter how educated you make the gloss.


Allow me to give you a few fun facts about what the meat industry is doing to your own country right now:

The latest (US) Senate Agricultural Committee report on farm pollution issued this warning about animal waste: “[I]t’s untreated and unsanitary, bubbling with chemicals and diseased organisms. … It goes onto the soil and into the water that many people will, ultimately, bathe in and wash their clothes with and drink. It is poisoning rivers and killing fish and making people sick. … Catastrophic cases of pollution, sickness, and death are occurring in areas where livestock operations are concentrated.”

The New York Times ran an investigative report on the new arrival of meat factories in small towns. Here is a short sample of the immediate effects: “Paul Isbell of Houston, Miss., began experiencing seizures after a hog farm moved in down the road. … Kevin Pearson of Meservey, Iowa, carried a towel in his car because he vomited five or six times a week on his way to work. Julie Jansen’s six children suffered flulike symptoms and diarrhea when farms moved into their neighborhood in Renville, Minn. One of Ms. Jansen’s daughters was found by Dr. Kilburn to have neurological damage.”

According to Toronto's Vegetarian Association, using data from government reports, the United States uses 56% of its land for pastures and 69% of our cereal crops are going straight to the meat industry. That's an immense amount of land to meet food needs. Using that land for crops as opposed to meat would allow us to produce far more food per acre in a world that is in dire need of more food (incidently, plant-food production is in decline, largely due to urbanization and the degredation of fertilie soil from bad farming practices and the raising of meat)

A meat-based diet actually uses seven times as much land as a plant-based diet. (report from an Agricultural NGO in Canada)

Some efforts are made to reuse animal waste, but in the US only 1/6th of the animal waste is actually reused, the majority of the remaining waste ends up in water sources causing dangerous levels of pollution in many areas. (Washington World Watch Institute)

Additionally, since the raising of animals requires so much land, the rain forests have increasingly become targets. Since 1970, over 50 million acres of rainforest land in South American alone has been destroyed to raise cattle. After cattle has been raised on land, it cannot be converted back to its previous ecosystem and it has pushed many plant and animal species into the brink of extinction. (World Watch Institute)

A quote in erosion from the Toronto Vegetarian Association after reviewing various government reports from nations in North America;

Erosion of precious topsoil from ploughed fields and over-grazed pastures is another serious agricultural problem. A permanent cover of vegetation is required to hold soil in place; once this is weakened or removed, soil can be easily washed or blown away by wind or rain. Soil mixed with agricultural chemicals and manure runs into streams and groundwater where it can cause extensive water pollution.

Organic farming can lessen some of the problems associated with agriculture – chemical dependency, erosion and pollution. But a shift in society toward plant-based diets would ease these problems simply by reducing the need for land.

(i.e. to the person who posted that shifting to a vegan society would cause erosion, you need to read up on erosion a bit more)

According to the United Nations, over 10.5% of the world's fertile land suffers from moderate to extreme degredation. The principle cause: overgrazing by livestock.

Just a few fun facts on the farm for y'all. I didn't even include the fun stuff going into your meat! So you know, cattle is generally fed with: garbage, cardboard, chicken shit, other cows mixed in with the majority of the grain we're producing in this country.

:lol::lol:

Ok my city dwelling friend.

You are aware the water you currently drink was recently flushed down someone's toilet with human waste no?

These reports point out animal waste contamination, but neglect to point out water treatment facilities in urban areas, let alone the farmer's own well based treatments. None of the aforementioned contamination issues can hold a candle next to the devastation of plant based agriculture.

Organic farms? These can't meet the demands of modern society. Organic farms are small simply due to the demands of organic farming. The end product is also extremely costly because of the demands required to produce it.

Nice pipe dream, but it's not going to happen in our life time.

That, and if you're going to use sources that claim meat is bad for you and the environment, use non-biased sources and be sure to step out of lala land and accept the devastation that the vegan life style calls for.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Vegans get plenty of vitamin D by virtue of being exposed to the sun.Certainly non-vegans are exposed to (on average) the same amount of sun, and yet more is added to things like milk. Doesn't this suggest that the sunlight-based production of Vitamin D is insufficient for a human's needs?

I don't know where you got your "required" for B-12 from, but my vitamin says B-12 : 18 mcg : 300%, which leads me to believe 6 mcg is required for 100%. Not that it'd be all that hard to fit 6 whole mcg into something, but 6 certainly isn't 1.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Necromancer
This one cracks me up to no end.

Perhaps you're not aware of how erosion works, but planting plants is how we solve erosion, not how we contribute to it.


Understandably there is water contamination from livestock. But that water contamination is through piss and shit. Let's talk about herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers ... all chemical. Not only does it destroy animal and plant life, but it contaminates ground water and the water that feeds into rivers and oceans.

Organic farming would eliminate most chemicals used to produce fruits and vegetables and drastically reduce any contamination.


And the beef industry is causing massive amounts of water contamination in our country.


Contamination that pales in comparison to plant based agriculture.

Curious if you had any stats to back up your claim (not that I doubt you, just looking for hard facts) and again organic farming would reduce plant contamination.



Allow me to give you a few fun facts about what the meat industry is doing to your own country right now:

The latest (US) Senate Agricultural Committee report on farm pollution issued this warning about animal waste: “[I]t’s untreated and unsanitary, bubbling with chemicals and diseased organisms. … It goes onto the soil and into the water that many people will, ultimately, bathe in and wash their clothes with and drink. It is poisoning rivers and killing fish and making people sick. … Catastrophic cases of pollution, sickness, and death are occurring in areas where livestock operations are concentrated.”

The New York Times ran an investigative report on the new arrival of meat factories in small towns. Here is a short sample of the immediate effects: “Paul Isbell of Houston, Miss., began experiencing seizures after a hog farm moved in down the road. … Kevin Pearson of Meservey, Iowa, carried a towel in his car because he vomited five or six times a week on his way to work. Julie Jansen’s six children suffered flulike symptoms and diarrhea when farms moved into their neighborhood in Renville, Minn. One of Ms. Jansen’s daughters was found by Dr. Kilburn to have neurological damage.”

According to Toronto's Vegetarian Association, using data from government reports, the United States uses 56% of its land for pastures and 69% of our cereal crops are going straight to the meat industry. That's an immense amount of land to meet food needs. Using that land for crops as opposed to meat would allow us to produce far more food per acre in a world that is in dire need of more food (incidently, plant-food production is in decline, largely due to urbanization and the degredation of fertilie soil from bad farming practices and the raising of meat)

A meat-based diet actually uses seven times as much land as a plant-based diet. (report from an Agricultural NGO in Canada)

Some efforts are made to reuse animal waste, but in the US only 1/6th of the animal waste is actually reused, the majority of the remaining waste ends up in water sources causing dangerous levels of pollution in many areas. (Washington World Watch Institute)

Additionally, since the raising of animals requires so much land, the rain forests have increasingly become targets. Since 1970, over 50 million acres of rainforest land in South American alone has been destroyed to raise cattle. After cattle has been raised on land, it cannot be converted back to its previous ecosystem and it has pushed many plant and animal species into the brink of extinction. (World Watch Institute)

A quote in erosion from the Toronto Vegetarian Association after reviewing various government reports from nations in North America;

Erosion of precious topsoil from ploughed fields and over-grazed pastures is another serious agricultural problem. A permanent cover of vegetation is required to hold soil in place; once this is weakened or removed, soil can be easily washed or blown away by wind or rain. Soil mixed with agricultural chemicals and manure runs into streams and groundwater where it can cause extensive water pollution.

Organic farming can lessen some of the problems associated with agriculture – chemical dependency, erosion and pollution. But a shift in society toward plant-based diets would ease these problems simply by reducing the need for land.

(i.e. to the person who posted that shifting to a vegan society would cause erosion, you need to read up on erosion a bit more)

According to the United Nations, over 10.5% of the world's fertile land suffers from moderate to extreme degredation. The principle cause: overgrazing by livestock.

Just a few fun facts on the farm for y'all. I didn't even include the fun stuff going into your meat! So you know, cattle is generally fed with: garbage, cardboard, chicken shit, other cows mixed in with the majority of the grain we're producing in this country.

:lol::lol:

Ok my city dwelling friend.

You are aware the water you currently drink was recently flushed down someone's toilet with human waste no?

These reports point out animal waste contamination, but neglect to point out water treatment facilities in urban areas, let alone the farmer's own well based treatments. [/quote]

In urban areas water treatment facilities treat water with chlorine before it is consumed by humans. I don't see how you can compare that with contaminated water that runs off from meat farms and then makes its way into rivers and streams. This affects local wildlife and I can't imagine that well water treatment could rival large urban systems.



Organic farms? These can't meet the demands of modern society. Organic farms are small simply due to the demands of organic farming. The end product is also extremely costly because of the demands required to produce it.

Certainly it will cost more but economies of scale will come into play and start to reduce the cost of organic product as it becomes more widely available.


Nice pipe dream, but it's not going to happen in our life time.

If consumers demand it, it will happen. Look at how the EU has changed in regards to food and farming, all GM foods must be labelled as such.


That, and if you're going to use sources that claim meat is bad for you and the environment, use non-biased sources and be sure to step out of lala land and accept the devastation that the vegan life style calls for.

Some of his sources were the UN, The New York Times and the Canadian Government.

[Ebondale]

http://www.orlyowl.com/wat.jpg

Holy crap that was a long damn post.

[Edited on 11-22-2005 by Ebondale]

[Edited on 11-22-2005 by Ebondale]

[Wezas]

Meat good, Vegetables bad.

[Ravenstorm]

Excess bad. Moderation good.

I win.

Raven

[Warriorbird]

The heavens parted. The seas calmed. Tamral and Tsa'ah were actually on the same side on an issue.

Nec...get off the vegan = better for the environment notion. Corporate farming is the fucked up bit. Just because you're eating vegan doesn't mean you're eating organic and just because you're eating organic doesn't mean an environmental impact isn't being made...and an extremely negative one at that.

[Gan]

Just grow all that shit in testubes.

Bioengineering FTW!