Talk:Vegetarianism by country
|WikiProject Food and drink||(Rated Start-class)|
- 1 Vegetarianism in Canada
- 2 Vegetarianism in India
- 3 Vegetarianism in Switzerland
- 4 Pesco and pollo
- 5 Footnotes?
- 6 Animal Renet in European Hard Cheese
- 7 Clarification
- 8 reading from ingredients is not easy
- 9 Removed original research
- 10 Vegetarianism in Spain
- 11 European Section
- 12 Vegetarianism in Mexico?
- 13 Africa
- 14 POV bias?
- 15 Taiwan number of vegetarians
- 16 Vegetarianism in France
- 17 Why was my edit removed? (I'm new to Wikipedia!)
- 18 Israel's paragraph
- 19 Deleted paragraph on New Healthway book from India section
- 20 split
- 21 India Percentages
Vegetarianism in Canada
This section needs work. It contains some all caps text and seems to go on some tangential rant. "Draft-dodgers" "Learning through osmosis." I don't know enough about the topic or wikipedia to fix this, but I wanted to alert people that this is not right. --WTesZ0 10:55 Monday, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Vegetarianism in India
I would like to see more evidence that as you say, Vegetarian is most common in the "north and west" of India and less common in the South. In fact, according to most accounts, it is the opposite and the South has a greater tradition of Vegetarianism. The North, influenced by Aryan and Muslim cultures, has more of a meat tradition. Look at Tandoori for example. From my own travels in India alone, I found vegetarian restaurants far more prevalent in the south. We need more information on this. --Mezaco 23:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Vegetarianism in Switzerland
Even if Switzerland is counted as part of the European Union for the purposes of this article, it would not have the second-highest vegetarian percentage in the EU if Italy's is 10%, Germany's is 9%, and Switzerland's is 5%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Pesco and pollo
I object to the terms "pesco vegetarian" and "pollo vegetarian". If you eat fish or chicken, you are simply not a vegetarian. The terms are not accepted amongst real vegetarians, and no vegetarian organisations use these terms. Instead of "pesco vegetarian", one could use "pescetarian", which does not convey the false impression that pescetarianism is a type of vegetarianism. --TheLastNinja 14:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I am a vegan myself, and so fully understand the above point: however, pescetarians, polloterians and pollo-pescetarians still deserve recognition as groups which abstain from certain types of animal-based or derived food. As long as there is a clear distinction between a vegetarian, who eats no animal flesh, from a pescetarian who eats fish and seafood but not other meats, and a polloterian who eats poultry but no other meats, then there is no problem with giving information about these groups within articles concerning vegetarianism. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't mind that. I was objecting to the usage of confusing terms ("pesco vegetarian" and "pollo vegetarian"). I'm fine with pescetarian and pollotarian. TheLastNinja (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This page has a couple footnotes, but they don't seem to actually go anywhere. How to fix this?
Animal Renet in European Hard Cheese
(virtually all Dutch and European hard cheeses contain animal rennet)
(virtually all Dutch hard cheeses contain animal rennet).
I believe this to be wrong, as most British cheese at least is made with non-animal rennet ( claims 90%), and I believe the same to be true in Ireland. Even all the rest of Europe produced cheese with animal rennet this could not be described as "virtually all", maybe "most" would do. I have also seen a number of European hard cheeses marked as suitable for vegetarians in British supermarkets. Of course it is possible that more of these will be exported to the UK, but it does seem that use of non-animal rennet is increasing. -- Q Chris 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the original author meant "continental European", but even that seems like an over-generalization. It would probably need a source. -kotra 10:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
What does this mean (bold added):
Virtually all hard cheeses in continental Europe contain animal rennet with the vegetarian form not very widespread or well known. As awareness grows, so does availability, and in most major cities in Western Europe it is quite common to find vegetarian products including cheese.
Does the bold text mean "vegetarian products with cheese in them" or "vegetarian products, including cheese"? -kotra 10:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I would guess "vegetarian products, including cheese", though I am not 100% certain. -- Q Chris 13:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
reading from ingredients is not easy
Removed the following again:
- Because nearly all food products sold in America are required to list all of their ingredients on the food's packaging, it is relatively easy to decipher which foods contain animal products, and what type of animal it came from. In addition, there is also a large and growing number of vegetarian and vegan meals and dishes being sold in most grocery stores.
It is not easy to look at all the ingredients. I can tell you this from experience. Firstly every single packet you buy. This takes a long time and is error prone, think taking 20 minutes for a small hand-basked of groceries. Then you come across ingredients such as "Lecithin" or "Carrageen", which you may have to look up. Also on many packages it will list "fatty acids" or "glycerol", which may or may not be of animal origin, you cannot tell this from the ingredients list - you have to contact the manufacturer. There is NO WAY that anyone can compare having a list of ingredients to having "suitable for vegetarians" or a vegetarian symbol. I find that when I visit the USA I end up eating a very limited range of foods or parve foods from the Jewish section because of this. In the UK there are a few brands I don't buy because they don't label clearly, though fortunately most do. Most countries now include complete ingredients list, so this is hardly a distinguishing point for the USA anyway. -- Q Chris 08:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed original research
I've removed the following because it appears to be original research, and confusingly worded besides:
Vegetarian options in North America are often advertised as the "healthy choice" and not for any animal rights reason, perhaps due to large farming communities and every other TV advert promoting red meat.
The connection between large farming communities and the greater use of the "healthy choice" advertising is not described, nor is the connection between "every other TV advert promoting red meat" (which is certainly an exaggeration) and the "healthy choice" advertising, either. -kotra (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Vegetarianism in Spain
I read vegetarianism is more popular in the region of Catalonia. I found this to be false and I don't think the information should be included without a proper reference. I removed the following sentence: Vegetarianism is far more common in Catalonia than in the other autonomous regions. Wallenwood (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I also found that people were interested in bringing politics instead of data; the Franco reference is pretty dubious, Franco only specifically forbade naturism in 1939, see here:
Durante la segunda República y la guerra civil funcionaron la sociedad naturista "Fruta y Libertad", de Madrid, y la "Sociedad Naturista de Barcelona", pero, debido a los conflictos ideológicos de esa época, el régimen franquista disolvió las sociedades naturistas y prohibió la práctica del naturismo a finales de 1939.
By 1963 the XVII Vegetarian International Congress was celebrated in Barcelona without any problem during the regimen:
A partir de los años sesenta se inicia otro periodo de actividad con la formación de grupos vegetarianos en varias ciudades españolas, y en 1963 se celebra en Barcelona -auspiciado por la Unión Vegetariana Internacional- el XVII Congreso Internacional Vegetariano. En mayo de 1964 las sociedades de Barcelona, Madrid, Baracaldo y Valladolid establecen la Federación Naturista Vegetariana Española, que después de un periodo de crisis se hace rotativa.
I have read and edited the European section of this page and observe that some of the comments therein appear to be original research albeit that many seem to be generally accurate based on personal experience. Perhaps we should remove the commentary if we cannot supply more sources for the assertions made? DarkerBlue (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes; original research ought to be removed from the article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I will begin to look for sources for the statements made and edit accordingly. DarkerBlue (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Vegetarianism in Mexico?
There should be a section detailing vegetarianism in Mexico. From my experiences in the Yucatán area, they were really tolerant of them and most of their dishes can be made vegetarian. But that is just for the Yucatán area, as for the whole country I don't know and I don't have resources. Someone should look into adding a Mexico section. I would if I knew how to do so properly. Thank you.
Conspicuous in absence is a section on vegetarianism in Africa. It is a large continent with an incredibly diverse set of peoples inhabiting it. Surely there is some information available. Just sayin'
Hello. Very interesting article but I notice that 17 out of the existing 54 footnotes (or 31%) are from sources with a vested interest in vegetarianism. Mostly are vegetarian societies, others are companies catering to vegetarians only. This may skew the numbers presented; and at any rate it lowers the credibility of the whole article.
What tipped me to look at the references was the "some say 5% of Brazilians are vegetarians". Knowing personally about 200 Brazilians, all of them as meat-loving as you get, I had to check the footnote. The number 5% was floated by Ms. Marly Winckler, president of the Brazilian Vegetarian Society. She goes on to say,
- "At present, vegetarians compose about 5% of the Brazilian population," Ms Winckler said. "This means there are approximately 7 million active or potential vegetarians…"
A few things come to mind:
- Ms. Winckler has a vested interest in the number of vegetarians—she'd like them to be millions and millions, which is very much understandable.
- She is mixing "active" and "potential" vegetarians. I don't want to be too strict but I'd say a potential vegetarian isn't a vegetarian yet, so it's best not to count them.
- She is setting the bar too low: all human beings are born with an omnivorous physiology, but we can all become vegetarians if we so choose. So the figure of 5% hints at some estimate, but 100% would do just as well.
- Her statement is unsourced (there may well exist some kind of study or poll but she doesn't cite it), which coupled with the above reduces the statement's credibility to wishful thinking (in my book).
A cleanup of the footnotes is in order IMO. If there are no credible numbers, better to either remove the section from the article, or indicate the source in the text, e.g. "In 2004, the President of the Brazilian Vegetarian Society said that there may be 5% "active and potential vegetarians" in Brazil". – Tintazul msg 08:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's true that the numbers are biased, but you don't address bias on Wikipedia by removing information, you address it by adding it. WP:NPOV compels us to not present a "neutral" or "unbiased" account, but all relevant points of view. That means the problem isn't including these stats, it's with how they are presented. The best way to deal with it is to clarify in the prose where these numbers come from, and to add further stats from government bodies, university/consumer research etc. Betty Logan (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Taiwan number of vegetarians
"In Taiwan, 1.7 million people, or 10% of the population of Taiwan, follows a vegetarian diet at least some of the time. There are more than 6,000 vegetarian eating establishments in Taiwan. Food labelling laws for vegetarian food are the world's strictest, because more than 2 million Taiwanese use vegetarian food". Is it 1.7 million or more then 2 million. the source  says "We request clear labeling of vegetarian food to meet the needs of the growing number of vegetarian food users of about 2 million, and to help religious practitioners not break food taboos," health department official Hsu Ching-hsin said." not more than 2 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Vegetarianism in France
I am having a difficult time understanding the section about France. It says clearly, and supported by the sources, that it is now against the law to serve any vegetarian meal.
If I look at a copy of the decret (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000024614716), it says that:
- Four or five meals on every breakfast or lunch, with at least a main meal containing a garnish or dairy product;
- variety of served meals;
- adapted size of portions; and
- adapted rules for water, bread, salt, and sauces.
As I understand it, the law states that at least a meal must be non-vegetarian.
I don't have first-hand experience in France, but French is my mother tongue. Is it just my understanding of the original document that is off?
If it isn't, I'm concerned about wikipedia and such sites in the sources (including the European Vegetarian Union) that could spread false information.
What do you think?
- Well, to be fair Wikipedia says this is what the European Vegetarian Union has reported, and checking the source, that is true as presented. That said, the EVU could be wrong or wilfully misrepresenting the situation—after all it is a vegetarian propaganda site—and I don't agree that we should be relying on it for interpretations of the law. We can't replace it with our own interpretation of the law so ideally we need to find a better source than the EVU. Betty Logan (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Why was my edit removed? (I'm new to Wikipedia!)
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and there's a lot to learn so please bare with me. I made an edit a few days ago, and it was removed. I want to improve my edit but I'm not sure why it was removed, is someone able to offer some help? My addition is written below: (Also...I hope this is the correct place to post this questions!)
Recent globalization and an increase in India’s middle class have led to the beginning of a dietary shift in India. With the onset of industrial animal agriculture, or factory farming, leading to cheaper animal-derived foods, and the introduction of Western fast food restaurant chains, demand is growing for meat, eggs, and dairy products. This shift in dietary customs is opening a public dialogue on the animal welfare, health, environmental, and cultural consequences of a more heavily animal-based diet. 
- Your edits were inappropriately cited. Select the appropriate template from Wikipedia:Citation templates and fill in all the applicable fields in the correct parameters i.e. author names, title, publisher, date of publication, relevant page numbers, relevant periodical information if applicable, url if online etc. Full bibiographic details are needed for references. Betty Logan (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I went to Citation Templates and cited my references as report on a website, following the template exactly. However, it was removed again. Not sure what I'm doing wrong here? Here is how I sited exactly:
MacDonald, Mia; Iyer, Sangamithra (December 2011). "Brighter Green Veg or Nonveg: India at the Crossroads". Brighter Green. Retrieved March 27, 2012.
- Your source is properly referenced, and I had a quick look at it and it backed up the statements you made, so I don't quite know why it was removed. Personally I would have permitted your recent edit, so I presume the editor may have objected to the source itself, although I don't know on what grounds (he may have seen that you re-added removed material and wasn't aware that you had corrected the reference). You can ask him at his talk page, I'm sure he'll give you an explanation. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The article is a bit biased towards veganism, especially where it presents the names of scientists and academics. Campbell's studies with rats are one thing, but sofar nobody has proved that a vegan diet can cure cancer in patients who have not received chemo/radio/hormonetherapy. Where are the clinical trials with his patients and other similar therapies like Gerson or Gonzalez? There should be a section with this on-going debate between vegetarianism and veganism. Duo Li should be on that list too. Numbers many times tend to include under the umbrella name "vegetarians" the vegans and the so-called pescovegetarians and pollovegs. Vegetarians should be labled as lacto-ovo or lacto, any other category falls outside the label. Tchibum (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
It didn't come out right, and i would like to fix it before it will be removed. Problem is that im used to the regular editing page (like this one), and the new one is so heavy my computer can't handle it. That's the main reason the edit came out like that. Hope i don't have to much spelling mistakes. :) Id.ma.co (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted paragraph on New Healthway book from India section
In the section on India, I've deleted the paragraph on the book New Healthway. This was a non-story that got hyped in the media because it sounded funny. But practically no one in India has read the book, and the guy who wrote it isn't even Indian. You could hardly say that it reflects in any meaningful way on Indian attitudes towards vegetarianism, and a long paragraph about it here is not merited. For reference, see this press release that the publisher put out; they claim that only 70 copies of the book were sold in India last year. There are plenty of actually relevant things that could be said about the long history of Indian vegetarianism instead! (FYI, I'm a non-vegetarian American journalist working in India, and I was motivated to intervene here out of embarrassment over the sensationalist tendencies of my profession.) Rollorollor (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for raising this here. It was me that added this material originally, although it seems it got expanded after I added it.
- First, in the context of the rest of the article, I agree that a lengthy passage about this blunder is probably undue weight. This also leads me to wonder if there's not a more detailed Wikipedia account of vegetarianism in India. And of course, if there is, this article should wikilink it.
- It's worth pointing out (here) that the publisher's statement is an apology and withdrawal, not a rebuttal of the fact they published the textbook (which is very clearly a textbook). It also mentions more than a thousand sales of the textbook in the preceding year, as well as the "only 70" in the year they mention.
- On the other side, although the BBC is a "very reliable" source, their piece here is towards the less reliable and more sensationalist of their articles. But again, they do indicate numerous "academics" (mostly nameless) described this as a serious issue.
- I wonder if we might consider something like:
- 'In (year), one of the largest Indian publishers was criticised for publishing a school textbook "riddled with inaccuracies", arguing that eating meat led to laziness, sex crimes and other problems. The publisher subsequently apologised, withdrew the textbook, and emphasised that the material was only the view of the individual author. Academics suggested that the Indian government should change its view that choice of textbooks was solely a matter for the schools concerned.'
Vegetarianism in United States, Vegetarianism in United Kingdom, Vegetarianism in India, Vegetarianism in Brazil and Vegetarianism in China. Also can split Vegetarianism in Australia and Vegetarianism in Netherlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
In the § India section it says: "[...], 31% of Indians (over 350 million people) are vegetarians, while another 9% consumes eggs." As it says in the Infobox of Vegetarianism, reliably sourced: "Description: A vegetarian diet is derived from plants, with or without eggs or dairy." I feel tempted to change the 31% to "40% [...], 9% of which", because that may be more accurate. Thoughts? --188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)