Personally, I've never thought of "vegan" as a political term, rather just as a description (a person who does not eat animal products of any kind). However, that's just an argument over semantics. A Catholic could certainly choose to not eat any animal product if he so chooses. I believe the Carthusians, for example, practice perpetual abstinence from meat.You should re-read what I wrote and actually try to understand what it is I wrote.
You should re-read what I wrote and actually try to understand what it is I wrote.I did read your post carefully; I simply disagree with it. To me, if a person identifies themselves as a "vegan," it indicates their unwillingness to eat food that comes from animals, and nothing more.
Of course a Catholic can choose to practice perpetual abstinence. What he cannot do is identify as "vegan". You should be grateful that you are disconnected enough from society so as to not consider the political meaning of the term; but it seems odd that you could be disconnected in such a way as to understand the term but not understand how society views it.
I did read your post carefully; I simply disagree with it. To me, if a person identifies themselves as a "vegan," it indicates their unwillingness to eat food that comes from animals, and nothing more.No. You didn't simply disagree. Your reply indicated that you can't understand (or are unwilling to understand) the objection. This is the same kind of attitude we saw about the use of the Pagan screen name, "Student of Qi".
It's the answer to the question that follows--"why are you a vegan?"--where problems could arise.
No. You didn't simply disagree. Your reply indicated that you can't understand (or are unwilling to understand) the objection. This is the same kind of attitude we saw about the use of the Pagan screen name, "Student of Qi".I do understand the objection, I just disagree with it. The word "vegan," to me, means a person who refrains from eating animal products, and nothing more. Clearly, the word means something different to you, and includes with it certain political connotations. The dictionary agrees with me. Perhaps most of society would agree with you, I don't know. For you to make the claim, however, that a Catholic is undermining the faith by calling himself a vegan, you would have to provide actual evidence that the word "vegan" carries with it the baggage you claim.
I guess when people are so imbued with the popular culture that they can't see the problem, then it best to simply shake the dust of the feet.
Personally, I've never thought of "vegan" as a political term, rather just as a description (a person who does not eat animal products of any kind). However, that's just an argument over semantics. A Catholic could certainly choose to not eat any animal product if he so chooses. I believe the Carthusians, for example, practice perpetual abstinence from meat.Carthusians followed a diet closer to a pescatarian diet because they ate fish, eggs, and cheese.
a strict vegetarian (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegetarian#h1) who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals; also : one who abstains from using animal products (such as leather)
Genesis Chapter 9
[1] And God blessed Noe and his sons. And he said to them: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. [2] And let the fear and dread of you be upon all the beasts of the earth, and upon all the fowls of the air, and all that move upon the earth: all the fishes of the sea are delivered into your hand. [3] And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you:
A Catholic would have serious issues with such a practice or agenda.Most vegans just don't eat meat, eggs or food with animal products. That's all. I've never met one that doesn't use animal products, they just don't eat them.
WHY are you abstaining from any product that comes from animals? Because they are on an equal footing with men? Because God didn't give them to us for our use? Because only cavemen (like the Patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, saints, etc.) would be so primitive as to eat meat? Because there isn't a God in the first place?
Think about it.
Also, whatever health benefits vegetarianism provides, there is NO health benefit to not using "animal products" like leather. The only reason to abstain from leather is due to pagan, new-age, or other non-Catholic beliefs.
Let's put it this way: abstaining from all animals (and animal products) in a vegan manner suggests that "God made a mistake" -- a blasphemy that any Catholic should hold in horror.
Most vegans just don't eat meat, eggs or food with animal products. That's all. I've never met one that doesn't use animal products, they just don't eat them.Back in the 1970s, they used to throw paint on the fur coats worn by rich women and actresses before they became enlightened and stopped wearing them.
We need to take back our vocabulary. gαy means lighthearted and carefree. The rainbow is a symbol of God's covenant with Noah. To be vegan is to be a strict vegetarian, not eating any animal products or products produced by animals (no milk or milk products, no eggs, no honey). It is not political. I have a family member who is a strict vegan due to medical protocols for MS. Since the diet started she has not relapsed. We cater too much to disordered people.That's a nice thought. Next time you're at a party and having a really good time, just tell everyone how gαy you are.
Most vegans just don't eat meat, eggs or food with animal products. That's all. I've never met one that doesn't use animal products, they just don't eat them.Vegans by definition do not use animal products, their main objective is to not kill animals, think about it, why would they use products produced by killing animals (leather) if they do not even eat eggs?
... you would have to provide actual evidence that the word "vegan" carries with it the baggage you claim.It seems that others have already done so.
It seems that others have already done so.No. "Vegan" and "vegetarian" have two clearly different meanings, neither of which includes anything political.
What you seem to want "vegan" to mean already has a word in English, "vegetarian". Why use the term, "vegan", if not to connote something different? The rest of society does indeed use it for an unholy idea. If you still simply "disagree" after reading what has been posted, I have to wonder why.
No. "Vegan" and "vegetarian" have two clearly different meanings, neither of which includes anything political.ok. whatever. You can be a vegan. Go ahead and ignore reality and go with what your dictionaries tell you.
"Vegetarian" means someone who doesn't eat flesh from animals.
"Vegan" means someone who doesn't eat any animal products, including things like milk and eggs.
These are dictionary definitions. If you "disagree" with them, I have to wonder why.
A Catholic would have serious issues with such a practice or agenda.This. Put much better than I could.
WHY are you abstaining from any product that comes from animals? Because they "animals are people too"? Because monkeys evolved into man, and so for all we know dolphins and other animals might be intelligent life? Because God didn't give animals to us for our use? Because only cavemen (like the Patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, saints, etc.) would be so primitive as to eat meat? Because there isn't a God in the first place? Because God doesn't know what's good for our health?
Think about it.
Also, whatever health benefits vegetarianism provides, there is NO health benefit to not using "animal products" like leather. The only reason to abstain from leather is due to pagan, new-age, or other non-Catholic beliefs.
Let's put it this way: abstaining from all animals (and animal products) in a vegan manner suggests that "God made a mistake" -- a blasphemy that any Catholic should hold in horror.
I do understand the objection, I just disagree with it. The word "vegan," to me, means a person who refrains from eating animal products, and nothing more. Clearly, the word means something different to you, and includes with it certain political connotations. The dictionary agrees with me. Perhaps most of society would agree with you, I don't know. For you to make the claim, however, that a Catholic is undermining the faith by calling himself a vegan, you would have to provide actual evidence that the word "vegan" carries with it the baggage you claim.Funny, I just looked at these dictionary definitions and it appears that you didn't since both of these dictionaries say that a vegan is more than what you say vegan means. Even your own evidence condemns you. These are the definitions that society has determined vegan to mean.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vegan?s=t
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegan
Funny, I just looked at these dictionary definitions and it appears that you didn't since both of these dictionaries say that a vegan is more than what you say vegan means. Even your own evidence condemns you. These are the definitions that society has determined vegan to mean.Wow! They do not even use wool !!!!!! Taking wool from an animal does not hurt the animal it actually relieves it. These vegans are sicker than I thought.
a person may very well choose to abstain from meat and all animal products as a personal sacrifice but he will never announce himself as nor accept the label "vegan".Why do you assume adopting a vegan diet is a "personal sacrifice"? That makes it seem somehow the vegan diet is deficient rather than a great benefit to health. Adopting a vegan diet does not necessarily mean one is fasting; one could still be a complete glutton while avoiding eating all animal products.
Objection 2: Further, some fish are as delectable to eat as the flesh of certain animals. Now "concupiscence is desire of the delectable," as stated above (FS (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS.html), Question [30] (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS030.html#FSQ30OUTP1), Article [1] (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FS/FS030.html#FSQ30A1THEP1)). Therefore since fasting which was instituted in order to bridle concupiscence does not exclude the eating of fish, neither should it exclude the eating of flesh meat.Thus, fasting is not about food in itself but the delectation one takes in food.
Reply to Objection 2: In the institution of fasting, the Church takes account of the more common occurrences. Now, generally speaking, eating flesh meat affords more pleasure than eating fish, although this is not always the case. Hence the Church forbade those who fast to eat flesh meat, rather than to eat fish.
Why do you assume adopting a vegan diet is a "personal sacrifice"?Because meat and dairy products are delicious and going without them is a sacrifice. At least in my case and in my wife's case. Frankly, we found the most difficult transition to tradition were the Fridays, Ember Days, and the several Vigils which require fast and/or abstinence.
by all means adopt the vegan diet for pagan reasons.Adopting it for health reasons is not to adopt it for pagan reasons. Catholics must care about their health; failure to do so is a violation of the 5th Commandment.
Isn't it simple enough to say, "I avoid sources of saturated fat as I believe it to be unhealthy," rather than, "I'm a vegan."Apparently, many people feel the need adopt labels that will present themselves as more enlightened in the ways of the world so others won't think of them as Catholic.
A Catholic can certainly be a abstain from all meat and animal products, as long as it is for the correct reasons. Dietary debates should really be about the health effects of the various diets, not about their environmental impact (which is harder to accurately assess anyways). Many studies have shown people who abstain from all animal products have the lowest incidences of several disease (e.g., diabetes, heart disease, blood cancers, etc.); cf. https://nutritionfacts.org/ (https://nutritionfacts.org/)I would not have even responded because it would have been an issue that is not controversial at all. What is disturbing is the acceptance of Catholics embracing the use of terms which, by the way they are used and understood by society, are intrinsically anti-Catholic. What is even more disturbing is the fact that this topic (and previous topics) have demonstrated that many Catholics who consider themselves traditional Catholics don't even care. It's as if they want to embrace the world!
one cannot identify as a vegan because that identification carries with it a deeper meaning than simply, "I don't eat meat or animal products".By that logic, it seems "one cannot identify as a Catholic because that identification carries with it a deeper meaning than simply, 'I am a member of the Catholic Church'."
it's obvious that the superior health of Daniel was more of a sign from God, almost a miracle, rather than official health advice.How is this obvious?
By that logic, it seems "one cannot identify as a Catholic because that identification carries with it a deeper meaning than simply, 'I am a member of the Catholic Church'."I would certainly hope that anyone who identifies as a Catholic embraces all of those deeper meanings over and above simply being a "member of the Catholic Church".
How is this obvious?
2 Timothy 3:16-17Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
I agree that Protestants use scripture as a hammer, but Catholics tend to ignore it completely. It is not a useless collection of books.
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.
Although the vegan diet was defined early on in The Vegan Society's beginnings in 1944, it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism. He suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”. This is later clarified as “to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man”.
"A philosophy and 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; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."Notice that health is not even mentioned here. Veganism is an ideology that assumes that human beings do not have a right to eat or use animal products. It is incompatible with Catholicism. A Catholic should not call himself a vegan any more than he (or she) should call himself a feminist.
...
"Vegan" means someone who doesn't eat any animal products, including things like milk and eggs.
These are dictionary definitions. If you "disagree" with them, I have to wonder why.
This diet is attached to a philosophy that is opposed to basic Catholic assumptions about God's creation. Even if there were some good reason to eat that way (which is unlikely) it would be wrong to identify oneself with a anti-Catholic philosophy by calling oneself a vegan.Indeed, one might just as well create a topic entitled, "Any Confucianists here?"
Indeed, one might just as well create a topic entitled, "Any Confucianists here?"
Indeed, one might just as well create a topic entitled, "Any Confucianists here?"
To be fair, it is more obvious that Catholics cannot be Confucianists since it clearly an ideology. People might not realize what is involved in veganism, unless they had already encountered it. It is understandable that people might think that "vegan" is merely a dietary choice. You did a good thing by alerting everyone to the problem.One could only say that until they were provided the information and...rejected it. On this very topic multiple posters said simply that they rejected the Truth and would continue to have no problem with a Catholic being a vegan. Such an attitude is not new here on CathInfo. And it is sad.
You do realize that Pope Pius XII reversed the Chinese Rites controversy and allowed for the public veneration of Confucius by Catholics, not to mention participation in veneration of ancestral tablets? If you can't be a Catholic Confucian you might as well say you can't be a Catholic Platonist or a Catholic Aristotelian. But then again...this IS Cathinfo. I wouldn't be surprised if some one held that view.Pope Pius XII allowed for a few specific customs associated with Confucianism to be practiced by Catholics on the grounds that these were secular rather than religious customs.
In Confucianism there is much to admire. It has taught a noble conception of the supreme Heaven-god. It has inculcated a remarkably high standard of morality. It has prompted, as far as it knew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) how, the refining influence of literary education (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05295b.htm) and of polite conduct. But it stands today encuмbered with the serious defects that characterize the imperfect civilization of its early development. The association of T'ien with innumerable nature-spirits, spirits of sun, moon, and stars, of hills and fields and rivers, the superstitious (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14339a.htm) use of divination by means of stalks and tortoise shells, and the crude notion that the higher spirits, together with the souls (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) of the dead, are regaled by splendid banquets and food-offerings, cannot stand the test of intelligent modern criticism. Nor can a religion answer fully to the religious needs of the heart which withdraws from the active participation of the people the solemn worship of the deity, which has little use of prayer (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm), which recognizes no such thing as grace, which has no definite teaching in regard to the future life. As a social system it has lifted the Chinese to an intermediate grade of culture, but has blocked for ages all further progress. In its rigid insistence on rites and customs that tend to perpetuate the patriarchal system with its attendant evils of polygamy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02564a.htm) and divorce (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm), of excessive seclusion and repression of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm), of an undue hampering of individual freedom, Confucianism stands in painful contrast with progressive Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) civilization.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04223b.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04223b.htm)
I like eggs. I really enjoy breakfast. However, I enjoy plant based recipes. The problem with vegan recipes is too much pasta, muffins, bread. Yesterday, I made cowboy caviar.
Sorry, haven't time to read the whole thread but PEter in Acts chapter 11 is commanded to kill and eat. Vegans refust to kill. This is a distortion of morality which disallows the killing of animals for the good of man..
long-time vegans end up dead before they reach 60Source?
I get goofy when i have not had meat in a period of time... something like 1 day.The average American eats about ½ lb. of meat a day!
as Jesus said it is what comes out of our mouth not what goes in that makes us "unclean"That doesn't mean we can eat whatever. It pertains to the capital sin of gluttony not to eat healthily.
I have never seen any Scripture where God prohibits the use of animal products for man's everyday life and conveniences. So in that way it is clear that the political vegan ideology is a frontal assault on the Holy Bible and as far as that goes, Sacred Tradition.Just because man has dominion over all the things of the earth does not excuse him from being destructive or wasteful.
The service of man is the end appointed by the Creator for brute animals. When, therefore, man, with no reasonable purpose, treats the brute cruelly he does wrong, not because he violates the right of the brute, but because his action conflicts with the order and the design of the Creator (Philosophia Moralis, 9th ed., Rome, p. 136).Also quoted in the OCE article "Cruelty to Animals (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm)," the orthodox Cdl. Manning, arguably the greatest First Vatican Council father (he was responsible for the definition on papal infallibility), wrote this against animal cruelty:
It is perfectly true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) that obligations (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) and duties (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05215a.htm) are between moral persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm), and therefore the lower animals are not susceptible of the moral obligations (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) which we owe to one another; but we owe a seven-fold obligation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) to the Creator of those animals. Our obligation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) and moral duty (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05215a.htm) is to Him who made them and if we wish to know (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) the limit and the broad outline of our obligation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm), I say at once it is His nature and His perfections (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm), and among these perfections one is, most profoundly, that of Eternal Mercy. And therefore, although a poor mule or a poor horse is not, indeed, a moral person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm), yet the Lord and Maker of the mule is the highest Lawgiver, and His nature is a law unto Himself. And in giving a dominion over His creatures to man, He gave it subject to the condition that it should be used in conformity to His perfections which is His own law, and therefore our law (The Zoophilist, London, 1 April, 1887).
A Catholic can certainly be a vegan, as long as it is for the correct reasons.That is, as long as he does not grant animals "rights" equal or greater than those of humans
That is, as long as he does not grant animals "rights" equal or greater than those of humansThen he's not a vegan, for the term vegan implies this--by the Vegan Society's own statements. He would simply be someone who abstains from eating food from animals.
"Cowboy caviar"? Does it have, um, unusual ingredients that would provoke a native of the Vegan Solar System to violence? To readers of your reply who'd never even heard of the dish--including me--you gave not even 1 contextual clue about what kind of dish we should expect it to be.This is one of my favorite recipes. I've been making it for years! Texas Caviar, Cowboy Caviar... same thing. It's a pretty popular dip.
So I did the straightforward Internet research, then created a new topic devoted to it. Which, it's worth noting, with a little initiative, could've been a topic you could call your own[†], even if interest is fleeting:
"Cowboy Caviar--Not what you might guess!"
<https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/cowboy-caviar/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/cowboy-caviar/)>.
-------
Note †: Perhaps it'll serve as a lesson in productive participation & response in Internet forums. Or maybe not.
Then he's not a vegan, for the term vegan implies this--by the Vegan Society's own statements. He would simply be someone who abstains from eating food from animals.Interesting. Here's their definition of veganism, from here (https://www.vegansociety.com/sites/default/files/CompassionForAnimalsedited.pdf):
Veganism represents a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, other animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, other animals and the environment.I'm actually surprised they qualify it with "as far as is possible and practicable".
We use the words ‘other animals’ or ‘non-human animals’ in our language to acknowledge that humans are animals tooSo they distinguish between humans and other animals, which is good, but they do seem to think humans and "non-human animals" have equal rights when they say "All animals have a right to life". I wouldn't be surprised if they mentioned Peter Singer.
The WHO, which actually considers the estrogen-progesterone combined oral contraceptive ("The Pill") a Group 1 carcinogen in humans (for breast cancer), classifies consumption of processed meats as sufficiently linked to colon and rectal cancers (source (https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/Table4.pdf)).There is a big difference between claiming that processed meats are unhealthy and claiming that all meat is unhealthy.
I am trying to follow a vegan (plant based) diet after watching many youtube videos by long term plant based advocates, Dr. Neil Bernard, Dr. John Mcdougall, Dr. Esselstyn, and others.I agree that there are serious problems with conventional meat production at this time. This is why I buy my meat from alternative sources.
I've also seen many videos of how cows, pigs, and chickens are treated before being slaughtered. I think anyone who advocated meat and dairy should be required to visit these facilities.
Cancer and heart disease are directly related to consumption of meat and dairy. As Dr. Esselstyn states "Heart disease need never to exist and is 100% preventable"
I agree that there are serious problems with conventional meat production at this time. This is why I buy my meat from alternative sources.Read or watch information by these Doctors. There have been studies with patients that have eliminated heart disease by adhering to a plant based diet. Refined sugar is bad in large doses but natural sugars are inherently good (those in fruits).
The dietary factor with the most impact on cancer and heart disease is consumption of sugar. This would be the thing to change for those concerned about their health.
Neither of your points is an especially good reason to be vegan.
Over a year ago I wrote about (https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=385), a book by T. Colin Campbell and his son based on a huge epidemiologic study of diet and health done in China. The book’s major thesis is that we could prevent or cure most disease (heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, bone, kidney, eye and other diseases) by eating a whole foods plant-based diet, drastically reducing our protein intake, and avoiding meat and dairy products entirely.https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/ (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/)
I noticed a number of things in the book that bothered me. I found evidence of sloppy citations, cherry-picked references, omission of data that contradicted the thesis, and recommendations that went beyond the data. I concluded:QuoteHe marshals a lot of evidence, but is it sufficient to support his recommendation that everyone give up animal protein entirely, including dairy products? I don’t think so.The China Study involved 367 variables and 8,000 correlations. I said I would leave it to others to comment on the study design and the statistical analysis, and now someone has done just that (http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/). Denise Minger devoted a month and a half to examining the raw data to see how closely Campbell’s claims aligned with the data he drew from; she found many weaknesses and errors.
Campbell saysQuotePlasma cholesterol… is positively associated with most cancer mortality rates. Plasma cholesterol is positively associated with animal protein intake and inversely associated with plant protein intake.The data do show that cholesterol is positively associated with various cancers, that cholesterol is positively associated with animal protein, and that cholesterol is negatively associated with plant protein. So by indirect deduction they assume that animal protein is associated with cancers and that reducing intake is protective. But if you compare animal protein intake directly with cancer, there are as many negative correlations as positive, and not one of those correlations reaches a level of statistical significance. Comparing dietary plant protein to various types of cancer, there are many more positive correlations and one of them does show strong statistical significance. The variable “death from all cancers” is four times as strongly associated with plant protein as with animal protein. And Campbell fails to mention an important confounder: cholesterol is higher in geographic areas with a higher incidence of schistosomiasis and hepatitis B infection, both risk factors for cancer.
Campbell says breast cancer is associated with dietary fat (which is associated with animal protein intake). The data show a non-significant association with dietary fat, but stronger (still non-significant) associations with several other factors and a significant association with wine, alcohol, and blood glucose level. The (non-significant) association of breast cancer with legume intake is virtually identical to the (non-significant) association with dietary fat. Animal protein itself shows a weaker correlation with breast cancer than light-colored vegetables, legume intake, fruit, and a number of other purportedly healthy plant foods.)
He indicts animal protein as being correlated with cardiovascular disease, but fails to mention that plant protein is more strongly correlated and wheat protein is far, far more strongly correlated. The China Study data show the opposite of what Campbell claims: animal protein doesn’t correspond with more disease, even in the highest animal food-eating counties.
These are just a couple of examples. Minger found many more, which she describes in her long article, complete with impressive graphs. Her exposé is well worth reading in its entirety, if only as a demonstration of how to think about epidemiologic data.
Minger goes on to reveal gaping logical holes in Campbell’s own research on casein, a milk protein that he believes causes cancer. He showed that casein was associated with cancer when given in isolation to lab animals, but he projects those results onto humans and onto all sources of animal protein. Other animal proteins have been shown to have anti-cancer effects, and the results of a normal diet containing multiple protein sources are likely to be very different from his casein-only studies.
Minger concludesQuoteI believe Campbell was influenced by his own expectations about animal protein and disease, leading him to seek out specific correlations in the China Study data (and elsewhere) to confirm his predictions.She is being polite.
This is a cautionary tale. It shows how complex issues can be over-simplified into meaninglessness, how epidemiologic data can be misinterpreted and mislead us, and how a researcher can approach a problem with preconceptions that allow him to see only what he wants to see. The China Study was embraced by vegetarians because it seemed to support their beliefs with strong evidence. Minger has shown that that evidence is largely illusory. The issues raised are important and deserve further study by unbiased scientists. At any rate, one thing is clear: the China Study is not sufficient reason to recommend drastic reductions in protein intake, let alone total avoidance of meat and dairy foods.
There are some facilities that treat animals terribly, and shame on them. But they are the minority. I was born and raised on a farm that produced cattle, I have worked in the beef industry and have visited many farms in the Midwest. My husband is the same. He currently works both at a convential dairy and a raw milk dairy. The average farmer and rancher cares for their livestock, and goes to large efforts of work and expense to make sure they are healthy and happy as can be reasonable while still making a profit. YouTube is rife with videos using the footage from unethical farms to drive an agenda that is both politically and morally degenerate. Docuмentaries like food inc drive me up the wall. This kind of media is undoubtedly written and produced by people who know nothing of the ins and outs of farming, or Have not spoken with or observed what really goes on with MOST livestock. And you know what this creates? Assenine laws created by people in corporate offices that have likely never stepped foot on a farm. This puts unnecessary burden on the farmer, especially the smaller farmers. For this reason many mom and pop operations throw in the towel and the corporate farms gain in momentum. That is how we get cows getting milked by robots, and dairy coops that regulate what you can and cannot do, all with the guise of health and safety.
I've also seen many videos of how cows, pigs, and chickens are treated before being slaughtered. I think anyone who advocated meat and dairy should be required to visit these facilities.
I am trying to follow a vegan (plant based) diet after watching many youtube videos by long term plant based advocates, Dr. Neil Bernard, Dr. John Mcdougall, Dr. Esselstyn, and others.I am eating a lot less meat and dairy and eggs now. I am trying to lose weight and also be more simple and penitential. I have had success with a high-carb mostly plant food diet and at times eating less food like during lent. But if I did stop eating animal foods completely I would not call myself a vegan because of the political baggage. I plan on continuing to eat how I am eating when I am done losing weight although I figure I will have to eat a larger quantity of food than I am eating now.
. . .
Cancer and heart disease are directly related to consumption of meat and dairy. As Dr. Esselstyn states "Heart disease need never to exist and is 100% preventable"
...It takes a lot more farmland to support an animal food based diet than it does to support a vegan diet. So if everyone were to suddenly change to an atkins type diet there would not be enough farmland to feed everyone. So because of limited resources most people will have to eat their bread or their bowl of rice anyway.This is a good point, and one that ought to be considered.
But the average person does need vitamin B-12, which can only been had from dairy products, or in a supplement form.B12 is available from green leafy vegies, cauliflower and fermented foods.
Zinc, to my knowledge, is only available from meat, or supplement form. Some vegetarians are low in zinc, which can lead to health problems.
If one is suffering from cancer, or from an auto-immune disease, then it might be a good idea to lower one's consumption of meat, and eat natural foods. Just my opinion.
B12 is available from green leafy vegies, cauliflower and fermented foods.
Zinc is available from Pumpkin Seeds, Chickpeas, Cocoa Powder, Cashews, Kefir, Yoghurt, Mushrooms, Spinach.
In sufficient quantities for the minimum daily allowance, from what a person would normally consume in a daily diet?I don't know. I never even think about minimum daily allowances. I was just letting you that there are non-meat and non-dairy alternatives.
vitamin B-12, which can only been had from dairy products, or in a supplement form…Zinc, to my knowledge, is only available from meat, or supplement form.
I don't know. I never even think about minimum daily allowances. I was just letting you that there are non-meat and non-dairy alternatives.
In sufficient quantities for the minimum daily allowance, from what a person would normally consume in a daily diet?The B12 argument is used as a tactic to convince people that meat and dairy are necessary.
I hope you won't take it as correcting you if I cite an article:You can certainly find critics of any study, pro or con on meat vs plant based. I'm convinced that meat and dairy are harmful based on my own experience as well as the appearance of plant based practitioners. I have more energy at 52 and can play full court basketball with younger guys. The plant based practitioners are generally slim and look healthy. My blood pressure was the lowest I have ever remember (112/69).
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/ (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/)
The B12 argument is used as a tactic to convince people that meat and dairy are necessary..
Humans historically got B12 from eating vegetables, fruits and drinking fresh water from springs and streams, or by farming and then eating without washing their hands. Since we no longer do these things, “natural” plant based sources of Vitamin B-12 have dropped out of modern life.
In the modern day, our produce is heavily sanitized and chemically cleaned to meet retail standards, and subsequently the B12 (bacteria) removed.
The "natural" way of consuming B12 - from unwashed vegetables and unfiltered water - isn't safe for humans because there are also other less desirable bacterias present in these places such as E. coli and salmonella. So in the modern world it's much safer to just get our B12 from a supplement.
So what is B12 and why is it important?
Wikepedia: "B12 is a water-soluble vitamin that has a key role in the normal functioning of the brain and nervous system via the synthesis of myelin, and the formation of red blood cells. It is one of eight B vitamins."
Even meat is fortified with B12 these days, as it is unnaturally raised and animals become deficient. That said, cows and pigs tend to eat their own poop (accidentally mostly,) so they tend to always retain some B12.
So, go vegan and take a B12 supplement as needed.
Personally, I've never thought of "vegan" as a political term, rather just as a description (a person who does not eat animal products of any kind). However, that's just an argument over semantics.There's more to veganism than your description. I am not against a vegetarian diet, if it is called for, but veganism is a different matter. It tends to both political and religious quirks - a philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_status_of_animals).