How do you perceive a vegan diet? This is... - Healthy Eating
How do you perceive a vegan diet? This is a multiple choice poll so please tick all that apply and say what other is 💚
123 VotersPlease select all that apply:
Hi Jerry, I am working on it, slowly but surely!
Eating out depends upon a lot of factors; occasional select meat, maybe a vegan or vegetarian order but always just enough food to satisfy health and no more. Somehow "I am a vegan" accidently came out in the answers. I am not, however, I respect it.
I am lazy and rather than make vegan meals I would buy pre packed, saying that a lot of my meals are meat and dairy free and simple to put together. It is the cruelty reason that I eat this way.
How to put together a vegan diet that is healthy would be a challenge for me. Had heart bypass 10 years ago, had to learn how to eat healthy then. Don`t have a lot of money to play around with.
Surely if you don't have a lot of money then going down the whole food plant based route is the most ultra-cheap lifestyle on the planet!
Too restrictive....can lead to obsessive eating habits and anaemia.
Variety of food sources is what the human race and other omnivores have evolved to survive on.
Removing all the other red blooded creatures from this world so that we can eat vegetable matter grown in artificial fertilisers won’t save the planet!
There is room for all of us to be inter-dependant and to live together.
Another good poll Jerry, well done.
I became a Vegan for my health condition, I have IBS and it has improved my condition. I am actually eating a more varied diet than I was before and thoroughly enjoying it.
I love animals and had been struggling for a while re eating meat but it was when someone on the IBS group said they had gone Vegan and was feeling much better then I decided to give it a go, there's no looking back for me, I'm loving the food and lifestyle.
😀
Veganism is a cult based on nonsense (like religion). Those who follow it long-term will pay the price health-wise. I shudder when I think of the children being raised Vegan by their thoughtless parents who think "saving animals" is much more important than the wellbeing of their offspring.
I have to shake my head when I walk past an abattoir close to where I live and see the protestors ranting and raving and holding "cruelty" signs. Their lack of intelligence is in part due to their "perfect diet" causing the brain to malfunction. There's no cruelty in abattoirs but there is in factory farms, and that's where they should be protesting.
Ask a Vegan about the mice that are killed during the harvesting of their precious grains or the slugs, snails, and insects that are killed on lettuce farms, for example. They don't count because they don't have cute faces? Or the fact that wheat, for example, kills other plants and destroys the habitats of the animals they're so keen to protect.
That's my rant for the day! 
Now I must try to get in touch with Selma Blair who was recently diagnosed with MS. She became Vegan in 2011. Guess where I'm going with this?
MS is an auto immune disease often triggerd by a virus or vaccination -nothing whatsoever to do with veganism.Im not a vegan but I find your response as ill informed as you think vegans are.
I grew up next to an abattoir and believe me there was nothing kind about the way animals were treated.
your example of vegans not caring about the slugs and snails and mice because they dont have cute faces is facile and rather ridiculous
I am glad to see your courage to voice that opinion. I wonder how often these people following vegan diets to cruelty reasons have seen how a cat deals with a bird, mouse or young rabbit that it has caught. Have they seen the result of a hunt by a sparrow hawk or a buzzard?
As members of the human race we do not need to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals but we are omnivores as I have said previously, we do need the benefits of meat and dairy produce. We are seeing a rise in mental disorders in the elderly and under achieving in the young which some authorities are saying is caused by a reduction in the amount of saturated fat in our modern diet. In some cases it is being replaced by the polyunsaturated fats and oils which are being shown to cause other complications. They are products of modern technology; the hydraulic press and even worse solvents which are carcinogens. They are not real food.
I could go on but.................
the rise in mental disorders in the elderly is to my mind often the result of medication ( diuretics leading to dehydration and therefore shrinking of brain cells ,statins -low cholesterol has been linked with dementia ) isolation and poor social care.Under achieving in the young -well where do you start with that one -poor nutrition ie living off junk food ,high sugar levels , (agreed the reduction of good quality fats but not necessarily of animal origin )over diagnosis of ADHD and then precribed Ritalin and on and on it goes
I agree with you entirely but would add the obsession with reducing the intake of dairy products and saturated fats. The brain is practically 80% fat.
The other illness/disease which has grown out of all proportion is autism. It is said that in America for every school bus load of 50 children there will be at least one autistic child. If the growth in this disability continues at the current rate we shall be left with nobody to govern. In our local town (not in USA) they have built a whole new treatment centre/hospital specially for the treatment of autism. Have you seen the film Vaxxed that the pharmaceutical industry has tried so hard to ban?
and I agree with you almost entirely !-apart from when you mention the obsession with reducing dairy : to my mind it is the low fat obsession /reducing ALL fat that is the problem
The dangers are in the polyunsaturated fats and you can read about them in detail at: healthscams.org.uk/the-trut...
We don't go near anything like those fats and oils. We cook with duck fat or butter and buy raw milk from the farm - 4 litres a week.
Do you have a plan to feed the world on raw milk? or is this lifestyle for the lucky few who live near such a farm and can afford this product.
I think that you have lost sight of the fact that ALL milk starts off as raw milk but the food industry has found a way of making some money out of it by destroying its nutritional qualities and turning it into a useless white liquid. I don't quite understand your logic how processing a perfectly good food and making it more expensive can help feed the world. For us it certainly is not a lifestyle as we attempt to eat and drink food as near to how it is produced or comes out of the ground - organic if possible.
My nephew has his own cows and gets his own raw milk from them - by hand. This is a farm in a fabulous location on the banks of Snowdon (google Henbant). To sell that milk on the to a large market would be a challenge for him because no longer would he be in control of how long the milk would be on the shelves.
Historically milk was pasteurised because as distribution widened longer shelf life was needed. They did this because lots of people were becoming very unwell, if not dying, on the raw milk.
Unless you are expecting everyone to have a local raw milk supplier near to where they live, then shelf life is critical as distribution challenges increase. Whilst Snowdon might be a great place, servicing local homes, for such a project I don't expect the centre of any big city to have a local farm producing raw milk in huge quantities any time soon.
Of course, if you have an alternative to pasteurisation then I think the dairy industry would love you.
Yes, pasteurisation has been said to increase shelf life but it does damage the milk too. Most of the milk bought in supermarkets has not only been pasteurised but homogenised too which is said to be a process creating a danger in the digestive system. Our raw milk lasts at least eight days in closed bottles in a fridge held down to +3°C. Given a brief shake the cream recombines with the milk.
What a coup for the milk processors to be able to say that people were dying though drinking raw milk? They more than likely died from other complications but by blaming the milk the processors secured their business. I'd like to know if any dairy farmers have ever died from drinking their own milk. When our family were young we had a holiday on a farm and the milk on the breakfast table would arrive in the same jug that the farmer had used to milk his house-cow, sometimes with the odd bit of straw attached.
I do understand what you say about distribution in large towns but there are some family dairy farmers that have developed very successful delivery services. There is frequently a queue at the market stall where our supplier sells his milk and cheese, so much so that I sometimes stop to serve his milk customers while he is busy selling his cheese.
In our local street market there are now nine accredited Organic producers of a range of foods to include, fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy produce.
We have rather drifted off the point of this survey but nevertheless..............
Firstly, totally agree, secondly, MS is occasionally misdiagnosed and can be found to be B12 deficiency. B12 is only found in animals, when vegans don't supplement with vitamin B12 this can happen. You can find alsorts of studies relating to this on the internet, as symptoms considerably overlap. Also people who have MS have been found to have improvements with injections of vitamin B12.
I also find the response about the elderly interesting. As we get older the acid in our stomachs reduce, vitamin B12 needs acid to extract it from our foods. Vitamin B12 deficiency can have symptoms of dementia.
I have also added the obsession with the reduction in dairy foods and saturated fat. The brain is practically 80% fat. See my reply to alchemilla12 above.
The brain is made of omega-3 fat. None of the dairy or saturated fat.
I wouldn't be so arrogant as to give you my opinion; I quote established medical practitioners who believe that the obsession to avoid saturated fats is a contributory factor in the increased numbers of elderly with Alzheimers.
Really, who? Here's Dr Neil Barnard talking about the Chicago study which found that saturated fat increases the likelihood of getting Alzheimer's. The first part is about diabetes, but he talks about Alzheimer's starting at time stamp 24:15.
Sorry greenbexy, you are so very wrong about the source of B12. B12 is made by bacteria in and around plants, 100%. Animals create no B12 at all, not even human animals.
All supermarket vegetables are washed. It is this washing that washes away the B12. If you buy dirty vegetables then it is possible that would be a sufficient source of B12.
Animals who eat good grass will probably get sufficient bacteria to ensure that there is enough B12 to pass to humans. Aren't animals kind like that! Animals fed on corn and soy crops (the vast majority) don't see daylight so much and certainly don't get to see healthy grass. These are fed B12 supplements.
The B12 supplements they are fed to animals are the same that humans can eat. These are produced by micro-algae.
Finally you need to be aware that research shows a 1/3rd of meat eaters are B12 deficient. Do you know your B12 levels are good, or are you just hoping they are? B12 deficiency is not something to play around with in a guessing game!
For me, I say cut out the middle man and get B12 in guaranteed quantities from micro-algae sources. Luckily overdosing on vegan B12 supplement is reliable, has no side-effects, is cheap & easy and involves no animal cruelty.
I am not a vegan, far from it, and yes I do have vitamin B12 deficiency. This was caused from taking antacids for two years as acid reflux had damaged my throat. I now have frequent injections, as you will know, once you are deficient, you will never gain the stores back and need injections for life. Algae does contain vitamin B12, but not in it's active form and you would have to consume large quantities to get even near the recommended amount, which even then, as it contains sodium isn't a good idea. So really I suggest you look at your vitamin B12 status, and remember the test isn't a that reliable, and could sway 20% either way. So, yes, you have to supplement with B12 if you are vegan. If you quote me a reliable study that backs your claim, then maybe I will change my mind. As, up to now, The Vegan society recommends to supplement with B12 and all studies have not been proven, probably wishful thinking really that these studies keep trying to prove it, but unfortunately never do!
I agree all vegans should take B12. Mine was checked about a year ago and the level was reported as good.
Very sorry you have continuing B12 issues from acid reflux.
Were you going here?
Firstly veganism is a fad which only the wealthy can afford to indulge in. Secondly, humans are omnivores. A healthy diet requires humans to eat from animal and vegetable sources. A diet which requires supplements isn’t healthy or wholesome, and comes back to the first point I made, that it is a fad which only the affluent can afford to adopt.
a healthy diet does not require humans to eat from animal and vegetable sources.Most of the worlds longest living societies are vegetarian.
what makes you think that veganism requires supplements -the right food choices provide all nutrients needed including B12.
I would think a meat based diet is more expensive than a plant based one
I agree with you as far as vegetarianism is concerned. Vegetarians can eat a balanced diet if they eat eggs, cheese and milk products. It doesn’t need to be a meat based diet to be healthy. The question was about veganism. 😊
yes I realise what the question was about! I still believe that vegans can eat healthily providing they know what they are doing and eat a wide ramge of plant based foods
So how do you get B12 if you don't supplement? It is only found in animal products! Tiny bits added to 'some' food is nowhere near enough. Even vegan societies recommend B12 supplements!
Cost doesn't come into it, it's the content that matters. We are omnivores.
well the cost came into it because Trimmer teacher said : " Firstly veganism is a fad which only the wealthy can afford to indulge in...it is a fad which only the affluent can afford to adopt."
I disagree with your comments about veganism being a fad that only the wealthy can afford to 'indulge' in.I consider it to be a lifestyle.
The following link is an interesting and thought provoking insight into veganism from a very knowledgeable man. This blows your theory about it being an unhealthy diet out of the water.
You only have to google “Why you should be vegan” or “Why you shouldn’t be vegan” to find articles and statistics which will prove whichever side you choose to believe! 😊
Which is why we go to the research. We then even check the research against criteria to ensure no-one is pulling a fast one, either intentionally or unintentionally.
For example, because I consume no animal products if I consumed say 1 egg daily then my cholesterol would skyrocket from its current level. Whereas if someone who consumes say 3 eggs daily then starts to eat 4 eggs then there will be little or no change in their cholesterol. Both people have increased their egg consumption by 1 egg per day, but the effect on cholesterol is enormous. This effect is borne out by the Hegsted Equation and 99.9% of research, both past and current.
Exactly right Trimmerteacher, you have put it in a nutshell.
Trimmerteacher, I'll pitch the cost of my vegan lifestyle against your weekly omnivore costs any day.
Tonight I filled a large shopping bag with fruit & vegetables that cost £15. Add some lentils and pulses to that and I have almost a week's evening meals for two. What does £15 buy for you.
I'm serious, let's do a comparison and put to bed this nonsense that a vegan lifestyle is more expensive than a meat diet. Yes, I know you can buy McDonalds burgers for next to nothing. But I am talking about food that sustains a healthy life, not rubbish that destroys the planet as well as humans.
I am happy to upload scans of my food purchases to an independent arbiter, if you are. We can then even go further and do a nutritional analysis and see which one packs the best nutritional punch!
where I live in the UK I would not say a diet based on meat, fish, eggs and dairy is cheap. In fact eating good quality meat, fish, eggs and dairy is something only the affluent can really afford. Sadly the poor often eat poor quality versions of these foods if they can afford to eat them at all. Since I have often been less than affluent I have often been grateful how well and how economically I can eat using a huge variety of plant based foods such as lentils, beans, rice, nuts and seasonal fruits and vegetables.
I am not yet convinced that cutting out whole groups of foods is a sensible thing to do. Nutrition is such a complex subject that it would be easy to get it wrong, or skewed, to the detriment of health and many other major factors like farming. To be a seriously committed vegan takes study and application with many implications other than what one actually eats, wears and uses. I prefer to follow the optimum nutritional guidelines I read in a comprehensive book (*) many years ago and which I note seem to be being newly confirmed in much of the scientific study going on now. (*) The Optimum Nutrition Bible" by Patrick Holford, pub. Piatkus 1997.
Interesting striving.
Many low-carbers cut back so much on their carbs that I think they put their long term health in jeopardy. Many of these cut out legumes for what I consider disjointed thinking around things like lectins. Yes many lectins are not good for the body, but none absolutely none of these get into the human body because we cook legumes and grains. If there is research that studies a cohort consuming lots of lectins, whatever the health outcomes, I would really like to hear about it!
Looking at glycemic issues is very interesting. As I have posted before many legumes and indeed berries such as blueberries have a profoundly beneficial effect on this.
Good poll Jerry. I am vegan and think it’s great for health, the animals and the planet. What surprised me about going vegan was that you do actually have a much more varied diet and it’s much easier than people might think 🌱👍
Jerry, as always another great topic. I've been gone for some time not doing to well. Come back and to a whole new group how wonderful, some old faces and new. You have been busy. To the topic as one older I've had my eating phases not as dramtic as the ones today. My Son and his wife can be on this diet one month and another the next. Vegan for 6 months next thing eating meat, they saw the light. To the individual that mentioned putting it off on your off spring not all parents require their children to eat like them. Unless it is regional influence. Most diets are fad, parents will concede to feeding a well rounded diet to children of meat and veggie's. I cook for any type of diet depending on my guest or the timing and diet demands of the older children these days. My son-in-law is married to a vegan from India she has never tasted meat, seafood, you understand my drift and I must be careful in preparing her meals. I've loved learning to cook Indian lucky to have a next store neighbor that is helpful to taste when I'm confused. I just keep an open mind on people's likes and dislikes. I tend not to eat much meat myself and when I do we solely buy grass fed, my husband will eat a steak daily and a pound of bacon on the keto diet. I lean to seafood and some free range poutry. Once again Jerry super sorry so long winded.
In my opinion I feel a vegan diet may be going against what mother earth has provided for us to be healthy human beings. In nature there are all the nutrients provided that we need on a daily basis, and certain food items grow at certain times of year because that is what we require nutritionally to survive at that time of year. This is coupled with the nutrients that we require from animals that we simply cannot get from other sources. The surge in animal free diets may be fuelling the increase in the destruction of habitats where animals live, thus begging the question, can a completely vegan diet be totally cruelty free?
i dont think mother nature intended us to drink the food that cows produce for their calves. no other mammal does this and the milk that any mammal produces for its young is not continued into " adulthood"
certain races - particularly Asians -do not have the gastric enzyme to digest dairy products
The same can be said for goats milk, yaks milk and any other mammalian milk that people drink, but it is drank worldwide. We have a high percentage of asians in the establishment where I work and none of them are flagged as having lactose intolerence.
not being flaagged as lactose intolerant doesnt mean they arent! its not a matter of opinion that asians have a deficiency of lactase its a matter of fact. Have you asked the asians you work with if they have any health issues - probably not
I work with 2 asians, however I help educate asian children...about 60% asian children in our school...........It is up to the parents of the children to tell the staff in the school about health issues of their child and if they are all lactose intolerant, we have not had any notification of ANY child being lactose intolerant from our asian community I'm assuming that we would see/smell some sort of symptoms of it?
what nutrients do you think we get from animals that we cant get from other sources?
I'm sure you can get all the nutrients you need from other sources, but are those sources affecting animals in any way? Such as the growing of avocados in california...the bees have to be shipped in to pollinate them, thus affecting the bees that have to be moved as they are not native to that area. The land that has to be made available for all the crops needed to provide the growing demand, not just for vegan diets but for everyone, for example palm oil and soya.
well you originally said " This is coupled with the nutrients that we require from animals that we simply cannot get from other sources." so how come you now think we can get all the nutrient we need from other sources?
the problems with avocados and bees is a completely different argument
That depends on how vegan you want to be....any sort of veganism affects animals in some form or another, even clearing fields for crops/vegetables with affect the animals that were living in that habitat before food crops are planted.....not sure also if you could get all the nutrients from food from crops that only grow in this country? SO then you are affecting animals from lots of other habitats aswell.
If all the meat eaters give up all the land they're using to grow soy and other feed for the animals they're eating, we'd have way more than enough land to grow food for a world full of vegans.
and we would all be deficient in vitamin B12 and all the health problems that would bring.
sorry forgot to say about vitamin B12 'The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 (including some plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals) and B12 supplements.' (taken from the vegan society website) these supplements are taken from animal sources, so you cannot be completely vegan and get all the nutrients your body requires from plants.
My point exactly, further up!
There are no nutrients that we require from animals that we cannot get from other sources.
RAISING ANIMALS FOR FOOD IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF RAINFOREST DESTRUCTION, SPECIES EXTINCTION, OCEAN DEAD ZONES AND FRESH WATER CONSUMPTION
Hyner, Christopher "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Stanford Environmental Law Journal
Margulis, Sergio "Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon". World Bank Working Paper No. 22
Machovina, Brian, et al "Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption". Science of the Total Environment 536 (2015) 419-431
"What Causes Ocean “Dead Zones”?". Scientific American
Gerbens-Leenes, P.W., et al "The water footprint of poultry, pork andbeef: A comparitive study in different countries and production systems". Water Resources & Industry Volumes 1-2, March-June 2013, 25-36
Vitamin B12 is NOT available from plant based sources and if we were supposed to eat a totally plant based diet then we would not have canine teeth...sorry but it is basic evolutionary biology. Veganism is a choice and, like some religions, the opinions of a lot of vegans to force their choices on other people that theirs is the only cruelty free diet is not acceptable to most people. Everyone can do much more to help with the state that this planet is in, preaching to go vegan and hiding behind the excuse that is 'cruelty free' is false. Every diet that every human eats harms animals in one way or another to varying degrees.
daviesgirl, part from B12, which is both an issue for omnivores and vegans, please tell me what essential nutrients exactly animal products provide that are not available in plant foods! I cannot think of any, not one! And the B12 issue is a due to the western fascination for washing vegetables in our clinically over-clean society, nothing more.
Your poll doesn't count the partial vegan eaters .
Isn't it rather cruel to eat only part of a vegan?
But I like to eat the best bits
If it will save an animal, you may eat my beard.
Love the joke!
I would like to reduce our meat consumption, however it isn't feasible for us to switch to a vegan diet at the moment (I'm not able to eat legumes or soya, and OH is coeliac, so we have a very restrictive diet).
Gojiman is doing a series of youtube videos you might be interested in. For instance youtube.com/watch?v=ItWozxJ... where he is helping someone with SIBO issues. He is not promising that someone might be able to go vegan with this series. However he is promising to help address underlying gut issues. Of course, somethings cannot be reversed - once a celiac always a celiac, afaik. Whereas one might be able to grow out of the worst aspects of a peanut allergy.
Thanks Andy, I'm already working through my gut issues with a nutritionist, so getting advice specific to my needs. Hopefully one day I'll be able to tolerate legumes again
As an aside, it can be quite hard to find legumes/lentils that haven't been processed in a plant that also handles gluten! It's tough for the coeliac's out there!
Of the celiacs I know well, none of them has ever expressed concern about legumes/lentils being handled separately from gluten products. I have cooked for them many times and never have they mentioned contamination in the plant. Of course, I always work from dried legumes and rinse/soak them first which is what the celiac society recommend. coeliac.org.uk/gluten-free-...
Some coeliac's are less sensitive, but we definitely take a wide berth of anything that says it "may contain" - Tesco and Asda legumes say so on the pack, so I wouldn't want to risk them.
Me too. I buy Natural selection pulses from the Co-op as they're just packed with seeds and nuts. 👍
I am very sensitive to gluten and cannot tolerate oats and 20ppm isn't low enough for me.
Thanks, that's good to know!
I have a housemate who's celiac, so I completely understand. He keeps his food in his bedroom, separate from ours and uses a private entrance and his own bathroom. He rarely comes into the rest of the house just to avoid any contact with our food. Yet he still occasionally gets very sick and is in a lot of pain.
Sorry. Good luck on improving your gut biome!
I'm vegan and have Parkinson's. To be clear, I got PD while eating a typical western diet and became vegan because of the health benefits. I stay vegan for that plus the health of the environment and to reduce animal cruelty.
While I can understand why you think it might, veganism does nothing to reduce animal cruelty or improve the health of the environment. It just results in different abuses.
Vegans happily turn a blind eye to the cruelty and environmental mismanagement that accompanies vegetable-growing for the same reason meat-eaters turn a blind eye to the dysfunctions in the meat industry: because if they didn't, they'd have to change their beliefs, and that's hard.
Thanks for the attempt to explain this to me. While I can understand why you might not know this, there is a big difference between being a vegan and eating like a vegan. Unlike vegetarianism, which defines a diet and nothing else, veganism is officially defined:
"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." (Source: vegansociety.com/go-vegan/d...
"Exploitation" confuses some people. It simply means treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from them. In this context, it means using parts of animals to make clothes or eating them just to enjoy their taste. Things like cheese, eggs, honey, and meat are considered to be products of animal exploitation.
Some who call themselves 'vegan' refer only to their diet and care little about animals, but they are using the term incorrectly. Others, who care only about animals and not their own health could eat only Oreo cookies and drink sugar-loaded soft drinks; they would not be consuming animal products, but are they doing their best for the environment and themselves (as we are animals, too)?
What you are referring to is the unfortunate fact that we don't live in a perfect world. Many farmers who grow only plants don't do so in a truly vegan way. So, even though raising animals in a "factory" to be food is terribly inefficient and causes more pollution and greenhouse emissions than all forms of transportation put together (and other terrible things), just switching to plant-based sources of food is not a perfect solution. Bees are currently cruelly exploited (by moving their hives and stealing their honey that they need to be healthy) just to fertilize many of the plants that vegans eat, for example. True, we don't consume honey, but the practice continues, and to a degree, we support it by buying the food.
If someone embraces veganism (see definition above) and they are aware of the current plant-based shortcomings, they should recognize that there is a lot of work ahead before we get there. As of now, most vegans lean heavily on the "as far as is possible and practicable" bit. But these are "early days" and the conversation is underway among us vegans.
Thanks for contributing to it.
(PS: I'm 61 and became a vegetarian 5 years ago, vegan 9 months ago. It's not that hard.)
I'm aware of that, but the same groups exist in the meat-eating world: there are plenty of meat-eaters (including myself) who are appalled by industrial meat production and actively attempt to undermine it, either by voting with their $ or providing alternatives. We also seek to minimize, "as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."
If that's all veganism was, you'd all be meat-eaters. There's nothing in that statement incompatible with keeping chickens in your backyard and enjoying a cockerel dinner once a month. But it's more than that, isn't it? It demands that animals conform to a role that vegans believe is right for them. Bizarrely, it ignores the existence of virtually all animals in favour of the doe-eyed fluffy ones. In that aspect the ideals of veganism spring from exactly the same place in the human psyche that gave rise to factory farms: it's the idea that we can somehow mould nature to fit what we believe is true, rather than accept our place in it with humility. It's not that we "don't live in a perfect world", exactly; it's just that the world doesn't fit the vegan definition of "perfect", and it must therefore be redesigned. That's a dangerous game to play.
We meat-eaters are at least honest with ourselves. We know that the world runs on death, and that you can scratch into any bit of living soil and find one creature eating another creature. This happens not because the world is imperfect; it's an inevitable consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The cycle of predator and prey slows our descent into chaos. We also recognise that animals are not humans; they have their own place in the universe, their own wants and needs, their own role to fulfil. Those needs and roles might be congruent with ours, but they're not the same.
Of course, if you are serious about your ideals, your best option is to buy your vegetables from 'conventional' growers. For maximum ethical impact, seek out those who are trigger-happy with the pesticides and herbicides, because those guys are essentially growing their plants in sterile soil, devoid of all animal life. Since there are no earthworms, reptiles, frogs, beetles, etc living on their land, the various mechanical operations associated with farming will cause no harm to animals. Nor is there an orgy of violence going on between animals. Because there aren't any. You can eat your vegetables secure in the knowledge that all animals that might have been harmed never had a chance to exist in the first place. Conversely, you want to avoid those organic growers who have small groups of animals rotated through cultivated areas. Their land is teeming with all things great and small, and those lifeforms are mostly killing each other. Every so often a surplus male duck or goat gets killed and eaten. Quite despicable individuals, those back-to-nature types.
Veganism is not merely a work-in-progress; it's a fundamentally impossible philosophy that denies the importance of death (and perhaps suffering) in the natural order of things. There is no implementation of veganism, even a purely theoretical one, that would achieve what you want. The Jains recognise this, and tie themselves in knots over it. You are free to believe what you want to believe, of course, but your position has only a minority following because it lacks internal consistency and has no foundation in physical reality.
Just to be clear, I have no problem at all with people who simply don't like meat, who find that it disagrees with them, or who don't like the idea of eating a dead animal. But I'll push back at those earnest academics who sit at their desks and tell us all that veganism is going to save the planet. Let them go outside and grow some plants and raise some animals (and most likely change their views) and then I might listen to what they have to say.
There's something very basic to our disagreement, and if we just expose it, we'll save each other a lot of time and effort. Let's start with something that you say we agree on:
>> "We also seek to minimize, 'as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food...'"
Yet obviously we disagree on some part of this statement. Let's look at each part:
I believe that it's "exploitation" to feed, kill, and eat an animal. Do you? I suspect that you do, and thank you for working towards reducing the level of cruelty and exploitation in the current meat factories.
Oh, but then you say there's nothing in the statement that should keep you from eating one of your chickens. What more would you have to do before you'd consider it exploitation? So, is it cruelty you're against, but not exploitation? If so, you do not agree with the statement.
Or do we simply disagree on what's "possible"? If so, then our disagreement is very basic. and this is at the core of it.
Do you see eating meat as a biological or psychological imperative? Something that's so deep within us that it can't be denied? Is that what seems impossible to you?
>> I believe that it's "exploitation" to feed, kill, and eat an animal. Do you?
Of course I don't. I think it's completely ridiculous. In what way, exactly, is the animal being exploited? I am being fed by a network of social systems; eventually I will be killed, possibly by some tiny organism, and I will be eaten by others. There is nothing wrong with this. The vast population of worms in my soil are there because of my actions; had I not carefully husbanded their habitat, they would not be there in the first place. Many of them die by predation, I imagine, and that's nobody's fault but mine. Nevertheless, the idea that those worms are being mercilessly exploited (because I feed them, they till my soil for me, and then they are eaten) makes no sense whatsoever.
Exploitation comes when people fail to treat the animal as an animal; when it is viewed as merely a thing, a protein-machine. That's bad not just for the animal, but for all the interlinked systems that the animal should participate in, but cannot.
>> Do you see eating meat as a biological or psychological imperative? Something that's so deep within us that it can't be denied? Is that what seems impossible to you?
I see it as something that is built into the core of the physical universe. It is the only implementation of Life On Earth that would or could work. If you believe this can be subverted - for the human population at least - please spell out exactly how you think you can make it happen without breaking something. I am completely confident you cannot. Basic physics will throw a spanner in the works.
I note from your description of ducks and coyotes, and making ourself "the exception to that rule", the common feature of both veganism and the factory-farming proponents: the idea that man is separate from nature and can do whatever he likes with it, or ignore those bits that he disagrees with. As you said, this boils down to belief, and belief is immune to reason. You've decided that you're going to act benevolently to a tiny subset of creation, while disrespecting nature at large.
I would just add one proviso to the above: people sometimes think that if something is good on a small scale, then making it happen on a big scale is better. Life isn't always like that. I posted an argument a few weeks ago suggesting that a small number of vegans is a positive thing, because their needs complement the needs of meat-eaters. Seven billion vegans, on the other hand, would spell the end of the world. Literally.
>> The exploitation comes when people fail to treat the animal as an animal; when it is viewed as merely a thing, a protein-machine. That's bad not just for the animal, but for all the interlinked systems that the animal should participate in, but cannot.
Agreed.
>> "I see it (eating meat) as something that is built into the core of the physical universe. If you believe this can be subverted - for the human population at least - please spell out exactly how you think it can happen without breaking something."
Really? So an herbivore, such as an elephant, must kill and eat other animals or it's breaking something in the core of the physical universe? Let's get back to this.
While we humans are technically omnivores (in that we can derive energy from meat) we are not particularly good at it. For tens of millions of years, our distant ancestors evolved a marvelous ability to eat a wide range of plant food. The time since we became omnivores is probably about 1/1000 of that time.
Dogs are an example of an omnivore which descended from carnivores, while a pig is an example of an omnivore which descended from herbivores. We are like pigs. Now, if we were obligatory carnivores, like cats, yes you'd have a point and I should go rip my ducks apart and eat them immediately. But we are barely able to digest meat, and because our bodies weren't initially designed to handle things like saturated fat, it can clog our arteries. Dogs, on the other hand, are healthier when on a meat diet rather than a plant-based one. No matter how much saturated fat a dog eats, it will not get arteriosclerosis from it.
Let's get back to that carnivorous elephant and the core of the universe. We are more herbivore than carnivore and by quite a lot. You might not like that, but I believe it's true. We also have big brains, given to us by that same universe. If we use our big brains to realize everything I've just said, then we can use the big brains to decide to behave like herbivores, especially since that's what's best for us health-wise.
There. I choose to live as an elephant at the top of the herbivore food chain. I don't have to kill and eat other animals to live. I thrive better without it. The universe accepts the elephant and it will handle vegans just as easily without breaking.
>> So an herbivore, such as an elephant, must kill and eat other animals or it's breaking something in the core of the physical universe?
Strawman. An elephant does not have that role; not only would the elephant not choose to be a predator, it couldn't even be forced into it.
Most animals have a diet that they will naturally be drawn to, and that diet defines their ecological niche. Humans are no different.
>> While we humans are technically omnivores (in that we can derive energy from meat) we are not particularly good at it.
An omnivore is an omnivore. Just because it can theoretically subsist at one extreme or the other doesn't mean that it should. We are, as you said, very similar to pigs, which thrive best with a diet of mostly plant matter plus a small amount of ... other animals.
>> We are more herbivore than carnivore and by quite a lot. You might not like that, but I believe it's true.
Nobody here is arguing that humans are carnivores, merely that we need some animal protein on the plate. My arguments with andyswarbs revolve around his impression that I eat nothing but steaks, bacon and eggs. The low-carb high-fat diet that I (loosely) adhere to is actually mostly vegetables. The animal content is perhaps 10% by weight. Curiously enough, that precisely matches the amount of animal protein that the planet could optimally provide for us.
>> Dogs are an example of an omnivore which descended from carnivores
Eh? Dogs are not omnivores. I spend about half my life in the Philippines, where dogs are treated as such (ie., they're given table scraps; human food). A sorrier looking bunch of miserable, diseased mutts I have never seen.
>> No matter how much saturated fat a dog eats, it will not get arteriosclerosis from it.
Since dietary SFAs are not the cause of arteriosclerosis, this is hardly surprising
>> because our bodies weren't initially designed to handle things like saturated fat, it can clog our arteries.
Where on earth did you get this from? Our bodies store energy mostly as palmitic acid, because that's the natural endpoint of the reactions that convert carbohydrates into fatty acids. Palmitic acid is a long-chain SFA; clearly, then, SFAs are a perfectly good fuel. Short-chain SFAs are burned in a very similar manner to carbohydrates.
If you eat fewer carbohydrates your bodyfat composition will change (same thing happens to pigs, of course; this has been extensively studied), but a body that can't access fat for fuel is (at best) at a serious evolutionary disadvantage, which is presumably why such humans died out ... if they ever existed at all.
A normal human body is extremely good at burning fats for fuel, and a human eating a standard Western diet runs roughly half-and-half on glucose and fat. How do we know? Easy: respiratory quotient varies depending on what we're burning as fuel, from 0.7 for fats to 1.0 for carbs. The average over the course of a day is about 0.8 - ie., we're burning both. You could surmise this from first principles, since we're mostly not eating or digesting food, but running on stored reserves.
If we use our big brains to realize everything I've just said, then we can use the big brains to decide to behave like herbivores
Yeah, try doing that in a brittle environment, ie., roughly half of the landmass of the US. Turning over vast acreages of land to growing grains (and, by implication, destroying the natural ecosystems that were there in the first place) has caused no end of trouble on that benighted continent. Of course, most of those grains are used for animal feed, but that's a whole different barrel of stupidity.
As I said, I have no problem with the individual deciding, for whatever personal reason, that he doesn't want to eat meat. However, if humans were ever forced to behave collectively as herbivores - and I can see some future misguided government doing exactly that, if this nonsense goes too far - then we're doomed. To be clear: my argument is not about the healthfulness or otherwise of veganism for the individual. I'm suggesting that it is nonsensical for humans collectively to try to be something they're not.
I think nature will provide a corrective force if this is ever attempted, probably via a radical culling of our species. Nature is usually fairly blunt when it comes to imposing her opinions.
If you genuinely think that (say) 300m Americans could become vegan without causing ecological collapse, please describe the exact implementation. If you can do that, I'll buy what you're selling.
>> "Dogs are not omnivores. I spend about half my life in the Philippines, where dogs are treated as such (ie., they're given table scraps; human food). A sorrier looking bunch of mutts I have never seen."
That may be, but dogs, unlike cats, can survive on a plant-based diet. chewy.com/gather-endless-va...
>> I know because my dog does.
Well, it's probably miserable and will die earlier than it ought to. I think that's as horrible as feeding cows on grains and recycled cow parts.
As I said, I'm baffled mostly by the vegan's highly selective views on "animal exploitation". Some animals are worthy of his beneficence. Some are cruelly manipulated to be what he wants them to be. And some are just ignored as beneath contempt.
We'll work on that. Or at least I will. So, in the interest of working on it, what do you think I should do with the dog and ducks? How should I treat them?
Let them be what they are. Or if you can't, don't keep them.
If the ducks are being eaten by coyotes occasionally, I assume they're just fine out there doing duck-like things. At least up to the point they become dinner. Not so sure about the dog.
I don't "keep" the ducks. They are free to fly away. Some have, or have been eaten by something. I prefer to believe they flew away.
The dog is a bit of a conundrum because if he doesn't stay with me, then it's either find him a new home or take him to the pound, and that would be breaking an unspoken arrangement between us.
>>>> No matter how much saturated fat a dog eats, it will not get arteriosclerosis from it.
>> Since dietary SFAs are not the cause of arteriosclerosis, this is hardly surprising
>>>> because our bodies weren't initially designed to handle things like saturated fat, it can clog our arteries.
>> Where on earth did you get this from?
Since you asked. youtu.be/2Ftoy6jqxm8
Please carefully watch the whole thing. I am quite careful to check. the research studies that are quoted, looking up the actual studies whenever possible
Good grief. I had to watch that just out of morbid curiosity. Half of what Greger says conflicts with basic biochemistry, and the other half is just lies. That supposed straight-line equation for delta cholesterol was debunked decades ago. His statement about how correlation works is just plain wrong. Give me a different video by someone else and I might have more constructive comments.
Are you disputing the mundane fact that our bodies use SFAs as a primary fuel?
BTW I'm not a "low fat" vegan, but all of my fats come from plants. If someone were to convince me that saturated fat wasn't bad for me, I might even use more coconuts (not oil because that's processed and I hate anything processed).
Here are a few other short videos:
youtu.be/YZrmdmpBcJE Dr Klapper
youtu.be/okxk5WbG3Gc (very shot)
youtu.be/BnHYHjchn6w (at 25:15 talks about saturated fat and Alzheimer's)
I'll watch more later, but just a note on the Klapper video. He uses a very standard debating technique: you draw your audience along an uncontentious line of thought, and then slip something in that they barely even notice but then accept as a settled issue. In this case it's "animal protein" (in the middle of a shopping-list of other stuff) that causes inflammation. He chucks that in there with absolutely no supporting evidence and no mention of the fact that meat-eaters don't have "animal protein going through their bloodstream". They have amino acids, which are the same molecules whereever they come from.
I'm very keen on "sanity checks", as you might notice from my other posts. Does it seem likely that an amino acid that came from a steak will carry some harmful invisible payload that an amino acid from a soybean does not? Everything's possible, I suppose, but in those immortal words of Dr Sagan: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
And then there's the bit about cholesterol, where he asserts that the numbers mean nothing as long as you're vegan, but if you're a meat eater, suddenly they do matter. Uhh, OK.
See, I can't take these people seriously because they just make stuff up to fit their beliefs. Michael Greger is exactly the same. The stuff they make up isn't even clever; it's transparent nonsense. But they have to do this, because if they didn't, their whole world would come crumbling down.
Anyway, I'd still like to know why you think a molecule that your body routinely uses for fuel suddenly becomes dangerous if it comes from a spoonful of palm oil. Nevermind the debates: what's the mechanism? Spell out to me the chain of events that destroys your circulatory system. How does your body even tell the difference between a harmless molecule of palmitic acid that it made itself, and a harmful one that you ingested?
OK, let me tackle this from a different angle. You do realize that our digestive system is quite complex and includes billions (some say trillions) of bacteria. These consist of a large number of types of bacteria species.
To make the next bit clearer, let me use a metaphor: our digestive system is somewhat like a big, complex oil refinery designed to take in different types of crude oil, process it through various stages during which its chemical composition is altered and certain useful molecules are extracted to be stored and eventually turned into plastics, petrol, etc.
Now, along comes some jerk who delivers a load of already-refined petrol and puts it into the refinery. But the refinery was designed to take in crude oil, not refined petrol. What's going to happen? Who knows! Explosions? Carnage?
An analogous event happens when we consume refined sugar or oils. Suddenly, early-on portions of the refinery are exposed to refined and concentrated chemicals that it was not designed to handle. The refinery begins to break down (at the very least). Let's say that at some later time, it gets another batch of unrefined crude oil, but it's now too broken to handle it correctly. The same things happen to our gut bacteria.
For example, we're designed to ingest 50-100 grams of fiber a day. SAD contains less than 5. Fiber can't be used by our bodies, but it is exactly what some of the helpful bacteria in your gut needs. They die off and without them, you get IBS, leaky gut, etc. and other breakdowns in your "refinery".
Now let me apply this to a few things like refined oil and sugar, cholesterol, and protein. We all know that refined sugar is bad for us, right? In simple terms, using the refinery metaphor, it's very easy to see that the system designed to handle glucose in your blood was NOT designed to handle so MUCH so quickly. (I can go into this in more detail if need be.)
Same sort of thing happens with refined oils. Again, remember the oil refinery. What the refinery expects (for example) are veggies. It can process and extract oils from veggies as the mash makes it through your digestive system. But what if you consume refined vegetable oil? BANG! (or should I say "Glorp!"?) the oil gets into your blood all at once (as did refined sugar) and makes your red blood cells stick together, constricts your arteries, causes inflammation, etc. all because your "refinery" expected unrefined veggies but got refined oil.
Moving on to something a little more interesting, like iron: Iron you get from meat is different from the iron you get from plants and is handled differently by your digestive system. Briefly, here's the difference between these two types of iron: As iron is incorporated into muscles (either yours or an animal's) it's turned into "heme iron". The iron in plants such as spinach is normal or "non-heme iron". I could explain further, but this is well known so I'll leave it at that.
Let's say you eat some spinach. Believe it or not, your body knows how much iron it needs. Your gut extracts just enough iron from the spinach and everything's happy. But only iron from plants can be regulated in this very elegant, well-controlled way.
OTOH, let's say that you eat some meat. Even if you don't need iron, that heme iron will be brought into your blood regardless. Excess iron floating around can oxidize, which isn't good for brain cells among other things.
(Warning! This paragraph is total conjecture, but it sounds good!) This is why I said that it's important to know if we're omnivores descended from herbivores or carnivores; our most ancient ancestors got their iron from plants, not meat, so that's the system that's most developed. More recent ancestors began eating meat, so handling heme iron was basically wedged in there with a crowbar and duct tape, metaphorically speaking. We can handle both types of iron, but the plant-based iron system is elegant and well-controlled.
The same sort of situation happens with cholesterol. Ideally, your body decides how much is needed by all the things that need cholesterol, and it produces just that much. But if you eat meat, that animal's cholesterol comes into your system whether it's needed or not. Hint: it's not. When you have too much cholesterol, I say that it's not a good thing, but you seem to disagree. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
Something similar but a little different happens with proteins. I'll get into that in a little more detail if you like but for now I'll just say that animal protein contains a LOT of an amino acid called Leucine, which is needed, yes, but not in the amount found in animal-based foods. Leucine up-regulates certain aging pathways. (I'm not an expert on this and could be using the terminology incorrectly.) In fact, just restricting Leucine works almost as well as restricting calories to slow aging. And, as before, if proteins come from plants, the system of handling them and bringing them into your body is much more elegant and controlled. As I say, I'll get into that more soon.
I could go on and on. I'm sure you're probably rolling your eyes and will respond with "where do you get this stuff". But I'm pretty sure that a lot of this is well known and easily verified and reproduced in labs. There are a few conjectures in there (such as evolutionary contributions).
Still curious to know how you would describe the mechanics of a functioning vegan planet.
A vegan world is not about zero animals. It is about reducing the exploitation and suffering of animals where it is possible and practicable.
Instead of cattle, sheep and chickens dominating the animal species a vegan planet would have an incredibly diverse set of plants and animals living as equal partners. No longer would rain forests be plundered to grow grass-fed beef animals, or grow soy/corn to feed to cows etc. Animals could live on farms until they die naturally helping create further diversity in the farms vegetable produce.
>> Animals could live on farms until they die naturally
As I've pointed out before, a "natural death" for most animals is predation, sickness, injury, violence, or starvation. Of course, the vegan can happily ignore this; as long as it's not him personally eating other creatures, it matters not one jot if they're getting eaten regardless.
>> living as equal partners.
What does "equal" mean here? This modern obsession with "equality" drives me up the wall. It's meaningless. I am not equal to you, your grandma, or your dog. You are not equal to a chicken or a cow or a bacterium.
A rabbit is there to be eaten by carnivores. It is not an "equal partner" of the carnivores. If it isn't eaten by carnivores, bad stuff happens: to carnivores, to rabbits, and to a whole bunch of other species.
>> No longer would rain forests be plundered to grow grass-fed beef animals, or grow soy/corn to feed to cows etc.
These things have nothing to do with meat-eating per se; they're about profit. It would not be stopped if we were all vegan. Someone would find some different excuse to destroy the rainforests etc.
>> It is about reducing the exploitation and suffering of animals where it is possible and practicable.
Then why not simply support those farmers who raise meat animals with those ideals in mind? Your bucolic vegan farm would involve the deaths of roughly (finger-in-the-air approximation here) 1000 little furry animals, or green squishy animals, every year, per hectare. If you used machinery, they'd die in pretty unpleasant ways. Let's not forget to mention a few million ugly fingernail-sized ones and billions of insignificantly-tiny ones.
Now, add a cow and twenty chickens into the mix and you've increased the number of furry lives lost by, ooh, 0.25%, while improving the lives of two or three human omnivores. Again, finger-in-the-air estimation. Is that the awesome power of veganism that will turn the planet into a paradise for our non-human friends? All seems a bit pointless to me.
OK I'm too busy to save the world today, but here's a video from The Economist that has some facts and figures to start with,
Oh, veganism would change the world all right.
I was more interested in how it might theoretically make the world better, though
I do like reading The Economist. It's basically The Beano for grownups.
These are precisely the sort of earnest academics I was talking about earlier. I'm sure Dr Springmann there is very clever chap, but I bet he's never successfully grown so much as a geranium in a pot. Economists have no intuitive handle on the way agriculture works or how it might be corrected to address the problems we face. The facts in the video are basically accurate, but using that curious sort of math that economists are famous for, they put two and two together and end up with six and a half.
I'll just take two glaring mistakes in their assessment:
1) Farm animals, mostly, should not be eating grains, or any other product raised on arable land. Finisher hogs, fine; a bit of grain, not too much, otherwise they'll get fat. Same sort of thing with chickens; primitive digestive system, they need a bit of concentrated food. Mostly, though, the animals that we eat have a specific ecological niche that they've been forcibly removed from. Left to their own devices, they eat stuff that humans can't, growing on land that humans can't use, and they turn it into food that we can eat (ie., bacon and chicken nuggets). This process can be optimized quite dramatically. I have a fair bit of experience growing forage for animals. You can get an astounding amount of output in the tropics from perennial plants with almost no effort at all, especially if you let the animals browse or root for themselves. Eventually you can rotate the animals out entirely (in fact you have to), coppice standing forage as mulch, and grow fertility-demanding annuals for 9-18 months in the space they occupied. Then you put some animals back again.
2) The feed conversion ratio issue. The main economic output of an animal is not meat. The most valuable outputs are manure and labour. That's where the other three-quarters of the feed goes, and the whole lot of it gets wasted because the agricultural system is run by economists.
>> "I note from your description of ducks and coyotes, and making yourself "the exception to that rule", the common feature of both veganism and the factory-farming proponents: the idea that man is separate from nature and can do whatever he likes with it, or ignore those bits that he disagrees with. "
That's not what I wrote: "Herbivores don't eat other herbivores, in general. I believe that we (meaning humans) have made ourselves the exception to that rule and that we'll be happier and healthier once we recognize ourselves for what we really are. (Re- the story of the carnivorous elephant at the center of the universe.)
Your arguments all seem to assume that, as omnivores, we must eat both plants and animals. Otherwise, we're not living by nature's rules or breaking the universe. That's not the definition of an omnivore. Being an omnivore means being able to survive on whatever food makes the most sense. Right now, it makes sense to grow and consume plants. To feed 7 billion vegans with plants is much healthier and more efficient than what we're doing now.
>> "As you said, this boils down to belief, and belief is immune to reason."
I believe you mistake me for someone who doesn't have access to the internet. After much research, I believe that beliefs can be rigid or changeable. They can be the result of blind trust or based on logic, scientific study, etc. I take it that you do not believe that?
BTW, just so you know I'm not an "academic". I grew up in Iowa on a farm, and we always had our big garden full of a wide variety of plants. We did raise chickens and a pig or two. Today, I live in the country and still grow much of my own food. I have a pond with 24 ducks who can come and go, who will never have their eggs stolen, and who will never be eaten by me or mine. Will they fly off? Some have. Will a coyote kill some from time to time? Possibly, but that's nature and therefore not my concern.
You said, "The "world runs on death." Herbivores don't eat other herbivores, in general. I believe that we have made ourselves the exception to that rule and that we'll be happier and healthier once we recognize ourselves for what we really are.
So, I'm not coming at this from ignorance, but from a different belief.
Perfectly said, JAS9 ! Thank you for the explanation between the Vegans/Vegetarians and the diets.
In my personal experience to date, I have found the vegans that I know (and sometimes vegetarians) display a hypocritical attitude and more often than not, use their choice of diet/lifestyle as a reason to express their diet and animal rights opinions onto me, and in a rather aggressive and forceful way. As chance would happen, despite my health issues I find I look healthier in appearance compared to my vegan friends and I suffer with 'normal' illness less (such as colds etc) and my BMI is good. Unlike theirs.
If vegans like this believe they hold positions of such liberated pieties, because of their dietary beliefs they must realise it's probably not doing their cause much good. Hence, I'm not attracted to veganism!
You don't have a high opinion of your vegan friends and I think that is a shame, none of my vegan friends are how you describe.
On HE we respect all healthy diets regardless of personal or ethical choices and some people find they can mange their arthritis better on a plant based diet and weight loss so if it improves health we support it and each other.
In this regard, I believe that there are 2 types of vegans. The kind you refer to are 'crusaders' and I count myself as one. We firmly believe the dire consequences that most people aren't even aware of, and we do our best to educate. Now, I'm a little different than most true believers in that I try to tone my posts down, but sometimes I just can't help it. If you catch me going full 'crusader', please understand that it's coming from my concern and love, not anger.
The second type of vegan might well outnumber the crusaders. These are the quiet ones who go through life living as a vegan but never pushing their beliefs on their friends or sometimes even relatives. Veganism is growing quite rapidly, and you might be surprised who they are.
I understand JAS9 and thank you for taking the time to explain. However, I am not completely naive to aforementioned 'dire consequences' but there are dire consequences attached to so many things. Including veg.
I can quite innocently ask-not argue-ask a vegan/vegetarian (because I am genuinely interested) about vegan foods, it tends to veer off the rails away from food and ends in a struggle about morals and facts. If I choose to ask direct questions in return, eg: If they think (for instance) out of season produce being flown in from far flung lands is conducive to a healthy environment? Or mention pesticides, or rainforests or if they feed their cats/dogs meat?! I am often met with an irritated response that I can guarantee will end in a heated discussion!
And, with the advent of social media I became quite angry and upset at how people feel it's OK to share very graphic pictures of animal cruelty. I don't want or need to see that.
I'm not about to adopt a full vegan diet at this time, but I am very open to reasonable and respectful opinions and ideas. I am interested what vegans/vegetarians eat as I may start small and incorporate certain bits and bobs into my own diet.
There's more to veganism than just diet though isn't there? It's a lifestyle choice it would appear, and realistically, that just isn't for me. And with all due respect, and with direct reference to what you say, I wouldn't dream of impressing my opinions or attitude onto a vegan or vegetarian through my 'love' of red meat and my 'concern' for their iron levels. I would love for anyone to categorically prove to me that a vegan way of life is completely cruelty free and 100% good for the environment when it seems to be espoused as such which is rather misleading.
This is a fantastic poll, Hidden ! Thank you for posting it.
I believe that if anyone wants to start/follow a certain type of diet/life style related to food and what we eat, then they should be allowed to do so. It shouldn't matter who they are or what they are. A person is a person. Everyone should feel comfortable with what they want to do no matter who or what they are.
