Talk:Veganism

Archives
August 2003 – May 2005 May – September 2005 October 1 – November 18, 2005 November – December 2005 December 2005 – July 2006 July 2006 – December 2006 January 2007 – March 2007

Please sign with time stamp (~~~~) for all comments. Every time. Cheers. Gtabary 18:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And please add new talk to the BOTTOM of the page. Every time. Thanks. Angr (t·c) 00:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization

Reorganization suggestions:

1. Eliminate "motivations" as a section and instead use its subsections as the main article sections
2. Eliminate "criticism and controversy" as a section and merge its subsections into the other sections
3. Merge "Ethical criticism" and "Ethics" from "Motivations" if appropriate (it appears this would not actually be appropriate)
4. Merge "Ethical criticism" and "Resources and environment" from "Motivations" (this seems more appropriate)
5. Merge "Health concerns" and "Health" from "Motivations"
6. Merge "Similar diets and lifestyles" with the "Definition" section

Kellen ^T 10:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If anyone were to do it, it's you Kellen. Maybe something this big should be tried first, then compared? Vert et Noir^talk 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

When I have a few spare hours perhaps =) Kellen ^T 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-contradictory

This section seems to contradict itself:

The American Dietetic Association says that a properly planned vegan diet presents no significant nutritional problems.[26] Vegans are potentially at risk for being deficient in nutrients such as vitamin B12,[47] vitamin D,[48] calcium,[49][48] iodine[50] and omega-3 fatty acids.[51] These deficiencies can have potentially serious consequences, including anemia,[52] rickets[53] and cretinism[54] in children, and osteomalacia[53] and hyperthyroidism[54] in adults. Supplementation, particularly for vitamin B12, is highly recommended for vegans.[55]

--Nomenclator 08:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict itself. ADA says properly planned vegan diets are ok. Paragraph goes on to say that an improperly planned vegan diet is more likely to lead to these deficiencies, which have these results. Kellen ^T 08:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No it does not "go on to say that an improperly planned vegan diet is more likely to lead to ... deficiencies." It just flatly states that vegans are at risk for being deficient in certain nutrients. You have poor reading comprehension; you are confused about how English, or language in general, works.

It also implies (as opposed to states directly) that vegans are more likely to have a deficiency in omega-3 fatty acids than others. This is may or may not be true, depending upon who you are comparing vegans with. In places where fish is rarely on the menu, vegans are not any more likely to be at risk for an omega-3 f.a. deficiency. Same thing goes for all the vitamins except B12. Sun exposure is the major source of vit D. Vegans are no less likely to get sun exposure than anyone else. In fact, since most vegans are health-concious and educated, logic would tell us that they are more likely to sunbathe.

--Nomenclator 08:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen, you've been warned numerous times. Read WP:NPA. If you can't edit without attacking other editors, you should stop editing wikipedia. If you want to clarify the sentence to say "An improperly planned diet..." then do so. Kellen ^T 09:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And the part about omega-3 fatty acids still needs clarification. The deficiency risk is not specific to vegans, it is a deficiency risk for the industrialized world in general. And I am tired of people who revert my attempts to change things so that they are are more accurate, simply because they didn't like the precise way I worded it. If I improved something, but didn't improve it "enough", you should leave it, or perhaps improve it a little more, not revert it back to being totally inaccurate.--Nomenclator 08:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This brings up a problem I see with this article. The ADA says a vegan diet is healthy, in one passage. Yet multiple paragraphs that follow claim the contrary. I believe the ADA, as a whole, carries more weight in dietetic matters than individual detractors voluminously covered in the criticism section. As such, the ADA's finding should be given precedence and the detractor's criticismsm condensedm and put into context as minority opinions in the dietary community. Abe Froman 06:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There apparently needs to be clarification in the article. The following paragraphs aren't arguing against the ADA; rather, they illustrate (a) how and why vegans are susceptible to certain deficiencies (b) what the effects of these deficiencies are. What the ADA says includes proper supplementation, which is not undertaken by all vegans, nor indeed known about by all vegans. Some of these things should be condensed, the deficiencies (vit B, A, calcium, etc) and the effects of these deficiencies should also be included. There's not really many detractors on the health front ... maybe the UC Davis study author, though, like the vegan society, all he says is that vegans need to responsibly supplement. Also, blanking large sections of the article isn't the proper way to fix the perceived ambiguity, so please don't do that again. Kellen ^T 09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'deficiency' argument for supplementation is repeated at least 12 times. I believe this, among the other criticisms that are repeated ad nauseam, is subtle Discrimination aimed at creating a view of vegans as deficient. This Discrimination is also obvious in the section that covers genital defect. The study in question does not single out veganism as a cause of genital defects, but the editor who inserted the claim makes that jump. This is indicative of the POV bias that permeates the criticism section and seeks to marginalize vegans as sexually and nutritionally defective. Abe Froman 16:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quite mistaken. The conclusion of the article on genital defects reads:

As vegetarians have a greater exposure to phytoestrogens than do omnivores, these results support the possibility that phytoestrogens have a deleterious effect on the developing male reproductive system.

. Vegans, being a subset of vegetarians, can be included as being at risk according to this study. It might be worth noting that the researchers considered the problem to be high soy (phytoestrogen) levels in the first trimester, but the article is quite clear on the risk. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick thought about a List

I just finished exploring one of those brilliant 'List' articles around, and I was thinking, would it be relevant (and forgive me if it's been done, I did a search I swear!) to create a list of animal ingredients, and include a link in this article? I know that many of you would agree that one's non-vegan friends and family are constantly saying "that's not vegan/vegetarian!?". Maybe a list would be really helpful to help people understand the scope of a vegan diet. As a very new Wikipedia member I feel it is not my place to create it myself, besides the fact that all the wiki-skills are a bit beyond me at this point. Anyone interested in doing this with me, or think it's totally pointless? Eddie mars 07:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's pointless. There's lists available from the vegan society and elsewhere on the web. Kellen ^T 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Kellen here. The list shouldn't be ON this page, but linking to one? Especially if we take the opportunity to shorten the existing list to obvious examples (animal flesh, eggs, milk, textiles/leather/fur and "precious" materials like ivory and pearls). I would even go so far as to say that it might be a good article, such as "Animal ingredients found in food". --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's reasonable to link to one, I just don't know that it's very productive to make an article on WP about it as it will essentially be a full mirror of the vegan society list and (probably) nothing more. Kellen ^T 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hum. I just had a good look at the Vegan Society's list, and it is more thorough than I first suspected. I think that you are correct, and that linking to that site would be sufficient. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 15:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Clear Discrimination

Summary: The Health Effects Section of this article is written in a discriminatory tone against vegans. The POV tone, and oft-repeated information on nutritional deficiency and sexual defect seek to marginalize vegans as a class. This violated Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. The section on health effect should be condensed, and rewritten in a NPOV tone that does not cast all vegans as nutritional and sexual freaks.

Specific Passages In Dispute:

• "Vegans are potentially at risk for being deficient in nutrients such as vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, iodine and omega-3 fatty acids. These deficiencies can have potentially serious consequences, including anemia, rickets and cretinism in children, and osteomalacia and hyperthyroidism in adults. Supplementation, particularly for vitamin B12, is highly recommended for vegans."

This passage must be rewritten. The American Dietetic Association claims veganism is safe, but the next few sentences undermine that claim by making it appear all vegans are deficient in these nutrients. A WP:NPOV tone is needed, explaining that supplementation is recommended.

• Specific Nutrients Section

This passage is a straight repeat from the previous paragraph in the section. It's repetition merely reinforces a POV argument that all vegans are nutrtionally deficient. It should be removed, as it is redundant to the argument made in the previous section in the article.

• Vitamin B12 deficiency Section

Yet another repeat of the section on nutritional deficiency. This section should be removed for the same reason the Specific Nutrients Section needs removal, it is redundant and seeks to enforce a POV argument that all vegans are nutrtionally deficient.

• Mineral deficiencies Section

Yet another repeat of the section on nutritional deficiency. This section should be removed for the same reason the Mineral Deficiency Section needs removal, it is redundant and seeks to enforce a POV argument that all vegans are nutrtionally deficient.

• Soy products and genital defects Section

This study cited does not link vegetarianism to genital defect. It claims more study is needed. Yet the editor who inserted it makes the jump to claim vegans produce sexually deficient offspring. This is not what the study says. The section should be reworded or removed as scurrilous.

Abe Froman 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It may need re-writing, and clean-up, but as stated previously, blanking it is not the way to do that. While the ADA and Dieticians of Canada both say that Veganism can be perfectly OK, they are clear to point out that it must be properly balanced. The trust truth is that working with a smaller subset of foods does put you at higher risk for missing some nutrients. This is an important message, and not at all biased against Vegans. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to the above: Listing sourced articles that are against Veganism is important to achieve a NPOV on the article. These are genuine concerns. If you wish to make it more clear that they do not concern a well planned vegan diet, or even a vegan diet that is widely varied and supplemented (specifically for B12), then find some counter sources and add them to the article. That will make it even more NPOV. Removing the sections that you don't like, when they are well sourced, is not the way to do it. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Abe. The nutritional and health sections specifically state that a vegan diet is perfectly healthy, as long as appropriate nutrition is maintained. The material that follows discusses nutritional deficiencies common to vegan diets. There is a vast informational difference between stating "all vegan diets are healthy" and stating "vegan diets can be healthy, but here's the stuff you should be sure to supplement". Leaving the page with a unqualified endorsement does potential vegans a disservice by not educating them about how to do it right. I'm reverting the blanking. Skinwalker 16:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You both miss the point. I left the supplementation and deficiency argument in, in one place. Repetition is the problem with the section. Repeating the same deficiency argument a dozen times, in different places, violates WP:NPOV, as it pushes a vegans-are-defective motif. I dispute the revert, and believe you are both aiding the marginalization of this minority. Abe Froman 16:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of assuming bad faith and accusing us of anti-vegan prejudice (which is silly, considering that all of the active editors of this page, excepting myself, are vegans IRL), why don't you try consolidating the B12 section as a positive start? That's much more preferable to wholesale blanking. Cheers, Skinwalker 17:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, try consolidating the "Vegan pregnancies" section instead. Or citing it reliably. Kellen ^T 17:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The existing section in no way violates NPOV. The sources are the ADA and the vegan society. If you think the language implies that all vegans are deficient in these things, I'm sorry. I wrote the section as it stands now (I'm vegan, if you care), and intended it to be as clear and specific as possible.

You appear to have misunderstood the section breaks. The paragraph you are most annoyed about is an introductory paragraph to the rest of the subsections. The "specific nutrients" section is an expansion and specification of what is stated in the introduction, and should therefore stay. Then there is the "vegan pregnancies" section which itself has 4 subsections; these should probably be merged as they appear to be causing confusion. First, though, it would be helpful to reliably cite the material in the vegan pregnancies section. Kellen ^T 17:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The section does not in my opinion in any way violate NPOV but it would perhaps be helpful in this section to include details of how great the identified risks are (ideally compared to the level of risk in other diets), since as far as I am aware, the majority of vegans have generally good diets and serious dietary deficiencies are rare. The sources cited may well quantify the risks, but it would be good to have some more detail in the article itself.--Michig 18:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stating the deficiencies once is NPOV. Repeating them a dozen times, in difference places in the article, is not NPOV, it is POV pushing. Abe Froman 18:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Abe Froman here.

Specifically regarding the section saying

"Vegans are potentially at risk for being deficient in nutrients such as vitamin B12,[1] vitamin D,[2] calcium,[3][2] iodine[4] and omega-3 fatty acids.[5] These deficiencies can have potentially serious consequences, including anemia,[6] rickets[7] and cretinism[8] in children, and osteomalacia[7] and hyperthyroidism[8] in adults. Supplementation, particularly for vitamin B12, is highly recommended for vegans.[9]"

As I've said before , omega=3 fatty acid deficiency is not specific to vegans, but the sentence implies it is. It is specific to people in the industrialized west who don't have a good balance between sea animals and warmblooded animals. Same goes for vit d, it is deficient in all people who don't get enough sunshine. And milk does NOT naturally contain vitamin D. Essentially, milk packers add "a vitamin D tablet" to you quart of milk. Vegans can just as easily supplement with vit d and milk-drinkers can. And other dairy products don't have any vitamin d, just whole vit D fortified milk. So it isn't really the milk that is providing milk drinkers with vit D, it is the "vitamin D tablet" added to it - something that vegans can do just as easily as milk drinkers.

Furthermore, calcium is not a problem for vegans either. It is just a matter of eating things like dark leafy green. Brocolli, kale, collards, even spinach and romaine lettuce. Plus sesame seeds, often eaten by vegans, are loaded with calcium. How many vegans don't eat hummus (with sesame tahini in it). A few. But most vegans know about the leafy green business. Almonds are high in calcium too.

And again, vitamin D does not come from milk. Vegans and non vegans get it from the same sources - sunlight, or supplementation. Perhaps we should petition makers of tofu to add vit d2 to tofu. I am just kidding. I don't think we need paternalistic protection. --Nomenclator 14:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cpoupart "they are clear to point out that it must be properly balanced." I wouldn't be at all surprised that they say the exact same thing about ANY population. For example, if they don't say a well-planned French-Canadian diet can be healthful, provided French-Canadians make make an effort to get a balanced diet, and that French-Canadians are potentially at risk for shortages of a small number of nutrients - I'll eat someone's leather shoes. And veganism isn't about diet, it is about not harming animals. So vegans can have a wide variety of totally different diets, and still be vegan just as the general population of any particular place can have a wide variety of diets, good or bad, and still be part of the general population. Some vegans get a balanced diet, some don't, just as is true of any population or any individual. No-one who just "eats whatever they see advertised on television" or whatever they pick up off of supermarket shelves in a hurry, gets a proper diet. --Nomenclator 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is this: Just because we point out areas where a vegan diet is most at risk for deficiency does not make it "anti-vegan". I would rather new vegans be well aware that they need to make sure that their soy/rice/other-non-dairy milk is fortified with vitamin D if they are no longer drinking milk (sunlight isn't really that great an option for people who live this far north), than for them to get sick. Same goes for B12. This section needs to be here, and it needs to be made as clear as possible. If you feel that it is necessary to point out that sources of Vitamin D are essentially the same for omnivores as for vegans, please do. It is a good point. I just don't agree with the massive blanking that Abe was doing that included removing sections on soy (as a potentially dangerous food). Soy in particular is in the press a lot these days with both positive and negative stories. It would be good to put some more citations there addressing people's concerns, which is what I have been doing. (Btw: I am not French Canadian, and the traditional French Canadian cuisine is incredibly unhealthy (it is very high in saturated fats and sugar. Very.) --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 02:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro (please just leave it alone)

The intro paragraph currently reads:

Veganism (also known as strict vegetarianism or pure vegetarianism), as defined by the Vegan Society, is "a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." A vegan (one who practices veganism) does not consume or use animal products, notably meat, fish, poultry, eggs and dairy products. People become vegans for a variety of reasons, including ethical concerns for animal rights or the environment, as well as more personal reasons such as perceived health benefits and spiritual or religious concerns.

Nomenclator (talk · contribs) has repeatedly changed it to various different things including larger lists of non-vegan items, extra commentary from uncited vegans, etc, etc. Most recently he changed it to read (diff):

Veganism (also known as strict vegetarianism or pure vegetarianism), as defined by the Vegan Society, is "a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." A vegan (one who practices veganism) does not consume or use animal products, notably meat, fish, poultry, eggs and dairy products. People become vegans for a variety of reasons, including ethical concerns for animal rights, concern about the environment, concern about frugal use of limited natural resources to feed the world's population, as well as more personal reasons such as perceived health benefits, spiritual or religious concerns, and the esthetic values related to the appearance, smell, and sound, of slaughter and slaughterhouses. Said one vegan: animal husbandry and slaughter are ugly things. (highlight added, of course)

I want this to stop. I'd like to take a poll of the editors of this page, to settle on an intro that is the most salient, verifiable summary of veganism/the article. Please sign below, with reasons. Kellen ^T 17:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I want people to make it possible for me to be able to tell what noun it is, that the pronoun they use, refers to. --Nomenclator 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean? What noun, what pronoun, and where? Y'know Nomenclator, for someone who routinely accuses people of lacking basic English skills, you certainly produce some incomprehensibly tortured grammar yourself. Skinwalker 22:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Kellen asks "what noun." That is what I asked you. What noun? Kellen asks "what pronoun?" The pronoun "this" in the sentence "I want this to stop." To phrase my question another way: just exactly what is it that you want to stop? I can't read minds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

I didn't ask anything, but to answer your question: I want you to stop changing the intro. Kellen ^T 06:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Kellen ^T needs to review WP:OWN. Kellen ^T is not the owner of this article, and changes need not be approved by him or her. Abe Froman 20:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the double comment! Awesome! Kellen ^T 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the current intro OK?

Yes

• I think it's good. It succinctly defines veganism, lists the most important things which vegans avoid, and the notable reasons for people to be vegan. It's cited and verifiable. The only bit I might change is the "also known as" to be "variously known as" or some other less authoritative set of words. Kellen ^T 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• The intro is fine. I think it's best if anyone wishing to change it reaches consensus on the talk page before doing so.--Michig 17:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 19:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Intro is great - concise and cited. Laundry lists of items to avoid are questionable at best anywhere in the article, but especially in the introduction. Skinwalker 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: I made the language even more succinct, yet it covers more. No need to specify "dairy products" as in some cultures, dairy products aren't used anyway. So vegans don't leave them out of their diet. Secretions nicely covers dairy products, and anything else animals might secrete, that might be used, such as musk. Hides covers fur AND leather. If you'd like, I could add bones. Then it will be about the same length as it was, but cover more. And I could remove organs, as flesh sort of covers organs. Or I could just say tissues, organs, and secretions. Yea. That is what I think I'll do. That covers everything, yet it isn't a laundry list. As uit was, hides and musk had been left out. --Nomenclator 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes. You have been asked not to change the intro unless you previously reach consensus with other editors on this page. Kellen ^T 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Kellen ^T needs to review WP:OWN. Kellen ^T is not the owner of this article, and changes need not be approved by him or her. Abe Froman 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers; there are, however, other editors here whose opinions are listed above. Kellen ^T 20:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kellen ^T here. The introduction should be frozen until a consensus is reached. So far, more editors have voted to keep it as it is than to change it. 4 out of 6 is a good reason to keep it as it is for the moment. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 03:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No

Please include what needs to be added/removed/etc so we can improve it

• The list of reasons that people go vegan is too short. It barely begins to cover them. By limiting the list of things that vegans don't use to just food products, it implies that veganism is mostly just a diet, rather than a way of life. Something about skins, fur, wool, etc, needs to be added. I had a succinct way of putting a description about a bunch of items (for example I included both leather, and fur, into one item, skins) but it kept getting reverted. --Nomenclator 17:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• The intro needs to be expanded. Abe Froman 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  How and why? Kellen ^T 00:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• One thing is missing and that is the scientific definition of autotroph and heterotroph. It is a clear border between the plant kingdom and those that thrive on it. It would be wise to make use of educated perspectives. While many "vegans" will take issue with the line, it is none-the-less the most accurate one to follow. Some will say that yeast have "no nervous system", yet they must consume sugars, must respire oxygen turning it into carbon dioxide (like all animals) and thus are completely dependant on the autotroph sources of "food" and clearly on the "animal" side of science! Wiki has good articles covering both of these science based terms (autotroph and heterotroph). "A heterotroph (Greek heterone = (an)other and trophe = nutrition) is an organism that requires organic substrates to get its carbon for growth and development. A heterotroph is known as a consumer in the food chain. Contrast with autotrophs which use inorganic carbon dioxide or bicarbonate as sole carbon source. All animals are heterotrophic, as well as fungi and many bacteria." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.202.223 (talk • contribs)

  You think this should be in the first paragraph? To me, that seems a bit excessive as everybody is familiar with the terms "plant" and "animal" and for the most part a hyper-specific distinction isn't useful. Kellen ^T 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Not only should it not be in the first paragraph, but it is scientifically wrong. This is making the assumption that "fungus" is a part of the "animal" kingdom. However, if you look at the standard six kingdom classification system, fungi are in their own kingdom. They are not plants, but they are certainly not animals, and scientifically, no one classifies them as such. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  First off, My opening is "a clear border between the plant kingdom and those that thrive on it" does not indicate that I meant to include fungi in the animal kingdom. As for placing this in the first paragraph and it being "hyper-specific", it is because vegitarians made such wild use of the intended definition of their label that vegans splintered into their own domain. Also, if people read the Wikipedia articles on autotroph and heterotroph (which can be directly linked in the opening paragraph since "everbody is familiar with the terms "plant" and "animal"" implying that they do not know the terms autotroph and heterotroph, Wikipedia is here to help educate), they might be inclined to understand the peaceful nature our movement so dearly cherishes and attempts to formulate in the world around them (at least it is part of my attempt). To me, it is important to understand the words "producer" and "consumer" (autotrophs are producers and heterotrophs, including fungi, consume them), to make allowances for all consumers to gain their nutrients over the long haul (when the whole earth goes vegan - smile) from producer sources solely. A clear mission concept brings the potential for success. Fungi are being found useful (though I'd have to look up my sources anymore - most of this is off the top of my head) for environmental cleanup and other important balances in nature. I feel they are non-plant certainly, and, further, because of their consumer needs, animal when the only choices are "plant" and "animal" which is what you two have proposed. For further consideration, under religion, some vegans cite the Genesis story and its diet which gives "the fruits of the trees, seed bearing crops, and green vegetation" as vegan (I believe it is Genesis 1:20 something) which excludes fungi. The Genesis story is the taught practice (as I have been told) of Christians, Muslims, and Jews and impacts a large group of relegious vegans. P.S. Thanks for responding, both of you! I was difficult in the beginning of my vegan lifestyle to know where the boundary was for me. I trully doubt I am alone in this. While I do not eat honey, I grew up with a grandfather who tended bees for the agricultural needs of those around him. I still look at honey, knowing is comes from bees and think I'd like to tend bees, but I feel torn with the excess honey dilema and my vegan desires (if you follow). I can't see that tending bees and enjoying their demanding ways (be gentle or be stung) and finicky nature (maintaining beehive temperatures and supplying food when resources are low) and sharing the honey as if I were the "king bee" - giggle with the true freedom that the bees enjoy as the same thing as taking cows milk (which I find abhorant in thought, and find disgusting and mean in the tending practices of the milk agriculure and the cows confinement), but, I also understand that the bees would be better balanced in their own uninterrupted cycle. This stuff is not easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.202.223 (talk • contribs)

  Using "autotroph" and "heterotroph" as boundaries for veganism is not something for which I could find any sources. You may personally do this, but it's certainly not common, and IMHO doesn't make any sense. Kellen ^T 06:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you Kellen for your thought. I am puzzled that you could not find the reasoning in it - it seems clear. Fungi and yeast need the same nutrients we do. They must have autotrophs, and, if we continue to fight the good fight and protect those animal and world resources from extinction, Fungi and yeast need to be considered in this as well. It would be comparable to producing human rights for whites, but not blacks because "it's certainly not common" and "IMHO doesn't make any sense." Starve a monkey, it will die. Starve Fungi or Yeast from plants, and they too will die. The conservationist in me relishes the thought that by the time mankind slows down the madness of ignorance and trys to capture diversity in the living ecosphere, that along with it will be as many species and varieties of living things as possible. The scientific world has no problem comprehending the autotroph-producer, heterotroph-consumer link, and neither should you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.202.223 (talk • contribs)

  I will make one more argument for inclusion of this in the definition, then clearly state my proposed change, and quit posting unless requested to. I want others to be clear what defending the status quo holds. Perhaps twenty years ago, I read a book about early toolmaking of men. In it, it stated that anthropology studies had suggested that the order of domestication of animals could be determined based on the number of diseases that humans shared in common with the animal. The cow had something in the mid fifties, suggesting that it came first. Then the pig and the chicken had something in the mid forties, suggesting that they had come next. The dog had something in the thirties, and, as I recall, the book suggested that this was the point where man was full enough to start simply befriending animals instead of solely eating them. The reason I include this is that I feel certain that everytime a primary consumer (one who eats directly off autotroph sources) becomes a secondary consumer (one who eats other consumers who eat autotroph sources) a health risk ensues. It is no co-incident that a Seventh-Day Adventist Church I once attended stated that vegans live on average 12 years longer than non-vegans and that their quality of life is considered higher because they are less diseased than non-vegans. Yeast provide a very concrete example. The History Channel made a documentary of drugs in human kind, in which they cited a reputed person as stating that "alcohol was the first drug that scurged mankind, opium was the second. The third was morphine." Besides the "yuk factor" (alcohol is the waste of the yeast dietary change, ie the urine and feces in which the contained yeast eventually die in, presumably similarly to enclosing a human in a room and forcing them to live with their fecal materials), there are a number of people who have "yeast alergies" and "infections". I am not capable of citing other diseases humans have in common with the yeast or that are traceable to yeast derived material, but these are enough. Alcoholics Anonymous, I read, suggests one in ten people will become addicted to alcohol (a physical and emotional disease, which, by the way, their are four substances in the common American meat eating diet that were announced in our papers some years back as being as physically addictive as nicotine and heroine - helps explain the difficulties of giving up animal diets). The number one killer of drivers in the U.S. is drunk driving (no matter how good the educational campaing) and cirrhosis is typically caused by excessive, uncontrolled alcohol consumption. Alcohol is also believed to be a factor in as high as 90% of all crime (I'd have to verify sources). It is also one of the leading causes of mental illness. During the U.S. failed prohibition era, the general health of the population far exceeded the norm of the drinking years. To not see the connection between heterotrophs eating one another and its inclusion in the definition in the word vegan is to proverbally stick ones head in the sand. To end, as stated, my belief is that this definition needs to be changed in the following way. "A vegan is a primary consumer (link to heterotroph article) who strives to live a lifestyle that promotes the fair distribution of producer sources (link to autotroph article) and to encourage all secondary consumers to do likewise." From there, tying in the history of the Vegan Society and the wobbling of ideologies can be brought into the light. THAT is a clear definition, scientifically reproducable, religously sound, rooted firmly in good, healthy medicine, and repudiates all the fear, uncertainty and doubt the ill meat eaters try to through at us (if you include the anthropoly study and the life lengthening information, which I will seek citations of any and all my information should it be requested). The knowledge is here. What one does with it is that which defines character. May you know that the most important words in our lives are Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-Control. May you have them all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.202.223 (talk • contribs)

Veganism specifically defines animals, not heterotrophs. People knew what heterotrophs were when the Vegan society was founded, and yet that is not how they chose to define their movement. I am not sure that the purported evils of alcohol are a good reason for vegans not to eat bread, or mushrooms, or nutritional yeast, etc, since people's choice to consume alcohol is frankly non of my business (and vice versa), not to mention that moderate drinking has been shown to have health benefits. Lastly, there is no reputable sources that back up a definition such as the one that you have proposed. With some sources, it is certainly something that could be included in the body of the article, but I do not think that it has a place in the introduction. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 12:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the original Vegan society did consider heterotroph/autotroph scientific nomenclature. Frankly, I am inclined to disagree, since they were in revolt against the mudding of the term vegetarian when they formed. I believe their intent was to draw a firm line that could be compared readily. Also, if the purported evils of alcohol are not relevant, neither is the purported abuse of animals in our movement. One cannot whole feel the suffering of other, only ones own suffering in having the focus of our senses directed towards what seems to be anothers suffering. It is one of the more noble characters of humans that they try to care about life outside themselves. Truthfully, if you have made a decision to consume animals, or drink/eat yeast, soy sauce and other fungi produced products, I argue that none of it is my business. But, I will still disceminate the information I collect in as neutral and truthful method I can. At this time, it is the scientific method, ie. thought coupled with observation and dissemination, though perhaps, future generations will find a better method. The passion of vegans is only a forceful as their focus. Lastly, I thank you for refering to me indirectly as "no reputable source" to back up my definition, as well as the Bible as "no reputable source" (see Genesis 1:29,30), and the scientific communities definition. Before you complain that you mean the term "vegan", take a look at the vegan opening here on Wikipedia, "Veganism (also known as strict vegetarianism or pure vegetarianism)" and try to convince me and others that "pure vegetarianism" and "strict vegetarianism" doesn't mean plants, ie. autotrophs. Vegan can mean what is written. In fact, thanks to the many things purported on Wikipedia's web page concerning what a vegan is and what other vegans have fought to keep in their definition, I personally no longer introduce myself as vegan, but rather a "primary consumer" and I don't care if I am the only one in creation currently who does. Future generations who may pick up on it will at least have a clear concept to further to work of human primary consumers living in harmony with life outside themselves. Fight to protect living with one foot in the non-cruelty world of animal rights, but let slip the occational pizza, or shoe purchase and it is "okay" by you. Even the thoughts portrayed in the article that living without any product produced with animals is too expensive for vegans, and I'll know you spin wool (are crazy). Without fail, every advancement I have made in knowledge that has given me autotroph products where once they were secondary consumer products has given me a cost benefit in my favour. Even as I try to use coin currency or electronic currency for all my transactions as U.S. currency is made stiff with animal sizing, I know that the mints of other nations have found it profitable to not have to replace paper currency on the 5-7 year rotation while metal currency gives them upward of 20 years, and I realize I am esoteric in my concerns. I just will not let the lies I have been taught be a part of my future while I can open my mind and discipline change into myself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.202.11 (talk • contribs).

"I realize I am esoteric in my concerns." It's good that you are self-reflective enough to realize that you are esoteric in your concerns. You would be well served to also realize that this article, like any other encyclopedia article, is not a soapbox for these concerns or for any others. There are lots of places on the Internet to engage in advocacy, debate, arguments, and attempts to raise the profile of unpopular or little known viewpoints on subjects. Wikipedia, and this article and this talk page for that matter, are not one of them. —mako (talk•contribs) 13:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Soy products and genital defects

I do not think this passage should be in the article. The research study does not make a direct link between veganism and genital defects, saying "more research is necessary." Leaving this passage in the article makes it appear the book is closed on this allegation. Abe Froman 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Looking through articles on Friday to add to the "soy" issue, there do seem to be some clear links between high phytoestrogen levels and various diseases, but that article left a lot to be desired. I will see what I can do this week to put some of them up here. However, a couple of things still need to be made clear:

1. Not all vegans consume any significant quantities of soy.
2. High levels of soy only seem to cause problems in very young (ie: still developing) children. There seem to be positive results for adults.

--Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 03:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The part about soy was a hypothesis by the researchers. They also hypothesized that the cause might be nutrient deficiencies or exposure to pesticides. These are certainly related to vegans, regardless of their soy consumption. Kellen ^T 14:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How are pesticides directly related to being a vegan? The genital defects passage as it was written went much further than the citation supported. It's removal was justified. Abe Froman 15:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The study found that the genital defect was related to vegetarian diets. I responded to Cpouart raising the question about how much soy vegans consume. I pointed out that the researchers suggested several possible causes for the defects, including two that would apply to vegans regardless of their soy consumption. The passage, as written after I revised it accurately stated what the study reported:

A study has shown that boys born to vegetarian mothers were more likely to suffer from hypospadias, a genital defect, possibly as a result of high levels of phytoestrogens found in soya products, nutrient deficiencies, or exposure to pesticide residues.[78]

This is 100% accurate. Whether it belongs here, or in the Vegetarianism article is another matter, but its phrasing was fine. Kellen ^T 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I specifically brought up soy as a counter to that argument because the conclusion of the referenced article focuses on soy:

As vegetarians have a greater exposure to phytoestrogens than do omnivores, these results support the possibility that phytoestrogens have a deleterious effect on the developing male reproductive system.

The hypothesis that chemical (pesticide) contamination was to blame was deemed "interesting but not statistically significant", as was the issue of possible nutrient deficiencies. The only potential causal link is that with phytoestrogens, and researchers are even then unwilling to make the link until more research is done. I think that the article has a place here, but I think that we need to find more sources to back it up. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 15:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what article you're reading. The full text of the linked article is here. The only part which says "interesting but" is about soy consumption. Later it says:

An alternative explanation for the association of hypospadias with vegetarianism might be related to the 'unnatural' chemicals ... present in many fruits and vegetables. ... A further aspect of the vegetarian diet which warrants investigation is a possible deficiency in one or more essential nutrients.

So did I miss something? Kellen ^T 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The study does not make a direct link. It says "more research is needed." Assuming more than the study supports is Wikipedia:Original Research and does not belong in the article. Abe Froman 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The study does indeed link vegetarianism and the defect. What it does not determine is the cause, thus use of the word "possibly." Kellen ^T 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC) You are correct that it does not make a "causal" link between vegetarianism and the defect, but it does assert that they are "associated." Kellen ^T 16:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We are indeed reading the same article. The section that you quoted about 'unnatural' chemicals and possible nutrient deficiency is in the "discussion". Essentially, they point out those two issues because they are interesting, but with the information that they have, they are statistically non-relevant. You are correct, that the researchers also mention that reported soy consumption differences were statistically insignificant, but also point out that it wasn't a focus point on the surveys. In concluding, they appear to be more prepared to indicate a causal link with increased soy consumption than with the other factors.

Either way, you are quite correct that there is a displayed association (not a causal link) between vegetarianism and increased hypospadias found in this article. I still maintain however that some more sources should be added to this. This article was published in 2000. There have to have been more studies done on the matter since then. I am putting this on my todo list. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

pregnancies section cleanup

I cleaned up the pregnancies section, which has been the focus of a lot of complaints. It's significantly smaller now.

• merged: intro sentence with ADA recommendations in "mineral deficiences" section
• merged: 2 cites of severe B12 deficencies reported leading to neurological damage in the child
• removed for now: cattleman's study. not really relevant to pregnancies. semi-relevant to children's health. uproar over comments somewhat relevant to criticism, though the point of the researcher is just that vegan mothers need to be especially careful about what they eat as they also affect the life of another; the controversy basically centered around a partial reporting of her comments. Maybe pare down to "Lindsay Allen, of blah balh, thinks feeding children an improperly supplemented vegan diet is unethical" to some vague "health" section that appears in the future.

  Another B12 study was conducted in rural Africa, partially backed by the U.S. based National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which demonstrated a dramatic improvement in the health of individuals who had, prior to the study, been on diets completely lacking in animal products. The study concluded that the added nutrients, especially vitamin B12 contained in the meat and milk improved the health of the children in the study. The author of the study, Professor Lindsay Allen of the United States Agricultural Research Service, declared: "There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans, unless those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods." However, the British Dietetic Association contended that the findings of the study were not applicable to vegan children in the developed world. They note that B12 (produced by fermenting carbohydrates with specific strains of bacteria) is now included in many fortified foods generally available. Noting that the impoverished children in the study had diets deficient in zinc, B12 and iron, they concluded, "There is no evidence that our vegan and vegetarian children in this country suffer impaired development." They did note, however, that young children, pregnant and nursing women are vulnerable as vegans, urging parents to review their children's diets to be sure that they have a well-balanced diet.

• removed and replaced: really old FDA article claiming particular deficiences as this information is rather outdated. Copper, for example, is not mentioned in the ada position on vegetarian diets, and zinc is not significantly mentioned. Iron is already included in our article.

  The US Food and Drug Administration in its report states that vegetarian women of childbearing age have an increased chance of menstrual irregularities, and that vegetarians run the risk of not consuming enough micro-nutrients like copper, iron and zinc in their diet.

• removed: sketchy "more girls" study which nobody here has read the text

  Some studies show that vegetarian women are much more likely to have female babies. A study of 6,000 pregnant women in 1998 "found that while the national average in Britain is 106 boys born to every 100 girls, for vegetarian mothers the ratio was just 85 boys to 100 girls." And while it is the male which determines the sex of the embryo, female fetuses are known to be more robust -- thus environmental stressors also influence viability differently for each gender.

• removed: westonaprice citation and the response, which essentially cancel each other out. These could be useful in the soy article if they're not there already.

  It is a concern amongst some groups that high levels of oestrogen balancing chemicals (the majority of which are soya ‘isoflavones’) may contribute to early pubescence (precocious puberty) among females, and delay male pubescence.. Scientific research however, does not seem to back this up.

Kellen ^T 12:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

sections needing work

With the cleanup of the vegan pregnancies section, the entire "health effects" section is now cited and pretty much clean. Some of the prose probably needs tweaking for it to be "beautiful," but I don't think it shows any POV problems. One concern I have about this section is that it could easily come to be a mirror of the "ada position" article. Summarizing things rather than detailing every single study should probably be a goal of editors of this section. Similarly, the introduction, vegan cuisine, and similar diets and lifestyles sections are concise and cited.

The first part of "definition" is pretty good, but as soon as the "animal products" part starts, it goes to hell. What nees major work, though, is actually honestly evaluating the ethics section, which implies some things, but doesn't really cite anything or bring in the objections of major vegan organizations. The "health" section also needs cleanup for clarity and WP:RSes. Kellen ^T 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BMI, blood pressure

I am posting my comment about the faulty scientific document presented in the article to support a position that a vegan diet has no effect on blood pressure. If the editors of this article agree with my reading of the material, then please remove the offensive passage and citation (#27). Thank you. Barnacleben 08:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me Kellen for posting a suggested change within the article itself about the link between blood pressure and a vegan diet. You deleted my parenthetical revision, so I am reposting my argument here for the benefit of those concerned: "(Edit: Preceeding claim is certainly wrong and potentially dangerous. It should be deleted because the "proof" given does not establish a credible scientific basis for the claim that a vegan diet has no effect on lowering blood pressure. Moreover, the poorly-constructed "study" cited to support this claim confesses that its "findings" are contradictory to the results of prior--and more credible--studies. Furthermore, the authors have chosen not proofread their [there, they're] own material, and by extension we can infer that it was neither reviewed by the scientific community. Get rid of it.)" I have also taken the liberty of deleting the offensive sentence and feel quite confidant that my reading of the material is correct. Do you disagree? Barnacleben 08:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed section was:

Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, although there was no significant difference in blood pressure rates.

Kellen ^T 08:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not vetted that section at all yet, but that study is pretty suspect. The BMI claim has support from some ADA-cited studies:

Among Seventh-day Adventists (SDA), 40% of whom follow a meatless diet, vegetarian eating patterns have been associated with lower body mass index (BMI). In the Adventist Health Study, which compared vegetarians and nonvegetarians within the Adventist population, BMI increased as the frequency of meat consumption increased in both men and women (4).

As for blood pressure:

Many studies show that vegetarians have both lower systolic and diastolic pressures with differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians generally falling between 5 and 10 mm Hg (29). In the Hypertension Detection and Follow-Up Program, blood pressure reduction of just 4 mm Hg caused marked reduction in mortality from all causes (174).

In addition to having lower blood pressures in general, vegetarians have markedly lower rates of hypertension than meat eaters ([175], [176]). In one study, 42% of nonvegetarians had hypertension (defined as 140/90 mm Hg) compared with only 13% of vegetarians. Even semivegetarians are 50% more likely to have hypertension than vegetarians (4). Even when body weights were similar between subjects, vegetarians had lower blood pressures. Placing nonvegetarian subjects on a vegetarian diet led to reduced blood pressure in normotensive (177) and hypertensive subjects (178).

So, the claims they made were essentially accurate, but their study was pretty bad. Better to use the ADA-cited material or the ADA itself as a reference. Kellen ^T 08:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

However it fails to mention that Adventists do not generally smoke, drink alcohol or contract sexually transmitted diseases at the same rate as the general population, so any studies into perceived Adventist health superiority cannot rely totally on their diet being meatless. Perhaps more enlightening research could be cited, such as traditional Masai peoples in Africa who eat few vegetables and live mostly on milk or blood, are tall, lean and healthy, and their neighbouring Yoruba people who are vegetarian, short and pot bellied, and live much shorter lives than their carnivorous neighbours --MichaelGG 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not really relevant to the BMI claim. If you have some useful studies to cite, bring them here or integrate them into the article as appropriate. Kellen^T 17:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

source of nutrient

moved improperly placed comments from above Kellen writes "The truth is that working with a smaller subset of foods does put you at higher rsk for missing some nutrients"

That is basically incorrect. The fact is, that all the nutrients needed by animals, are produced by micro-organisms, and green plants. As a human animal, you can either eat the micro-organism or green plant directly, or eat an animal that has eaten the micro-organism or green plant, or an animal that has eaten such an animal, etcetera. This is basic junior high-school biology or junior high school health studies. None of the nutrients that we get from animals, cannot be gotten also - and more directly - from micro-organisms or green plants.--Nomenclator 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you put this here, or why you've misattributed Cpoupart's comments to me. Please be more careful. Kellen ^T 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, you're literally correct, but Cpoupart meant that it's more difficult to obtain necessary amounts of certain nutrients (B12, D, calcium, etc) by eating strictly plant foods, which is also correct. If I ate oily fish, obtaining omega-3's without supplements would be much easier. Kellen ^T 16:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

end moved comments

Cpoupart (not Kellen as I mistakenly said before) writes "The truth is that working with a smaller subset of foods does put you at higher rsk for missing some nutrients"

That is basically incorrect. The fact is, that all the nutrients needed by animals, are produced by micro-organisms, and green plants. As a human animal, you can either eat the micro-organism or green plant directly, or eat an animal that has eaten the micro-organism or green plant, or an animal that has eaten such an animal, etcetera. This is basic junior high-school biology or junior high school health studies. None of the nutrients that we get from animals, cannot be gotten also - and more directly - from micro-organisms or green plants. None of the nutrients that we need are actually synthesised by animals. They are all synthesised by micro-organims and green plants.

For examples we do not really need protein. Proteins are polymers of amino acids. We need the amino acids or precursors to amino acids, that make up proteins. Animals get all these amino acids, or partial amino acids, from green plants. Then they string them together into polymers. Humans, when we eat either plants or animals, break apart the protein polymers, and in some case partially disassemble the amino acids, then put them back together again into different amino acids, and different protein polymers. There is no material in animal proteins, that we need, that we can't also find in green plants.

Same goes for the fatty acids we need, and the carbohydrates we need. In some cases, animals will concentrate micronutrients. So we can get the micronutrients in concentrated form, that we can't get from green plants. This is not true for any macronutrients. But is probably true for vitamin B12. However animals will also concentrate toxic matter found in plants, or in the air, that can't be rapidly excreted. They will store it in their fatty tissues. Thus animals become a better source of dioxins, or mercury, than green plants will be. Same is true for iodine (if we eat animal thyroid glands). Iodine is one of those chemicals that we need in tiny amounts, but in larger amounts becomes toxic to us. It is absorbed from the soil by green plants, even though green plants have no use for it. In other words, something can be both a nutrient and a poison, depending on quantity.

Contrary to popular belief, when measuring grams of protein per gram of substance, and measuring at the same level of hydration, animals do not have more protein in their muscle tissue than is found in plant tissues. Dehydrated collards, for example, actually have a higher percentage of protein than dehydrated muscle tissue.

--Nomenclator 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that was my quote, not Kellen's ^T. To address it however, you are misinterpreting what I am saying. At no point did I say that a person needs to consume animal products to get a full range of nutrients. I simply said that eating less variety of food puts you at greater risk for missing out on nutrients. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. However the question is not whether eating less variety puts you at risk for missing out on nutrient; the question is whether leaving out animal products in general puts you at risk for missing out on nutrients. You said eating a "smaller subset of foods" puts you at risk for missing out on nutrients. That is true in general, and it is true if subset you leave out, is a certain kind of vegetable, but is not true if the subset you leave out is all animal-origin foods. It may be true, however, if you leave out certain kinds of animal food. For example if you leave out animal livers, you are at risk for missing out on B12; if you leave out eating animal thyroid glands, you are at risk for missing out on iodine. But if you leave out animal foods altogether, you are not at risk for missing out on any nutrients.--Nomenclator 18:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, it doesn't make sense that if you leave out part of an animal, you would be at risk, but if you leave out all of the animal, you wouldn't be. At this point, I am not even sure what the point of this discussion is. "Higher risk" doesn't even necessarily indicate that it is a high, or even a significant risk. Just that the risk is greater. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Shellac

Not everything that is described as "shellac" is really the traditional formulation of lac dissolved in alcohol, that was the original "shellac." Do you think that "latex paints" contain latex? Not in 50 years. The first latex paints contained latex. Gradually various other elastic resins began being used. Today, there is not a single "latex paint" on the market that truly has latex in it. And lots of things called shellac, just do not have any lac in them. Fruits can, however, be covered with beeswax, or whale oil.--Nomenclator 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional Health Benefits?

Says "Vegans note additional health benefits are gained by not consuming artificial substances such as growth hormones and antibiotics, which are often given to farmed animals." However what proof for this is there? Not "note" this but claim this is what a few vegans do. Evidence supporting their claims is at best not a lot of it. So to Are there really enough growth hormones in milk to affect milk drinkers? The dairy industry it says no. As a controversy this should not be in encyclopedia where we are wanting facts not controversies, unless they are labeled as controversies. Controversies should not be presented as facts, as here they are presented. No? I'm sorry my English is not good so someone you want to write the changes be else, not me, it would be better. --Tonguebutcher 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That whole section is sketchy and poorly cited. I am working my way towards it and intend to merge it with the "health effects" section into a single "health" section. Kellen ^T 22:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Singer

There is some dispute about weather or not Peter Singer is a vegan, or simply a vegetarian. His wikipedia page categorizes him as an Australian Vegan and articles like this one from The Guardian [1] also describe him as such. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 19:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He's vegetarian:

'Q: There's been some question about your vegan "purity."'

'A: Oh, there's no question about that, I'm impure.' [2]

He goes on to say he'll eat free-range eggs and he won't quibble about unseen animal products like ghee. He also says that veganism is "fanatical". More critiques here: [3] Trent 22:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He says he shops vegan, but that he makes reasonable exceptions.

"When I’m shopping for myself, it will be vegan. But when I’m traveling and it’s hard to get vegan food in some places or whatever, I’ll be vegetarian. I won’t eat eggs if they’re not free-range, but if they’re free-range, I will. I won’t order a dish that is full of cheese, but I won’t worry about, say, whether an Indian vegetable curry was cooked with ghee."

The "fanatical" bit is not characterizing veganism as fanatical, but the promotion of veganism as fanatical over the more achievable goal of getting people to eat less meat or meat from more ethically treated animals. Kellen ^T 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't prove this, but for informational sake, I emailed Peter Singer at Princeton a couple of years ago and we talked about veganism and he advocated it heavily. I think saying you're an "impure" vegan doesn't mean you're a vegetarian. I can relate to what he's saying - he's a vegan most of the time but doesn't do it perfectly. GingerGin 04:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've heard him say, on video, he's a vegetarian. It's either in the Singer-Asch debate or the Princeton University Food, Ethics and the Environment Conference at. Here are the links http://realserver.princeton.edu:8080/ramgen/special/19991012singer_ashTV7220K.rm and http://realserver.princeton.edu:8080/ramgen/special/20061116foodconference-session1VN350K.rm

I heard him say, in person, that he was vegan fall 2007 at the Boston Vegetarian Society food festival. He claimed that veganism was "not a religion" for him and admitted that, when it was very inconvenient for him, he would sometimes consume products that contain egg or dairy. I tend to agree with GingerGin, being an "impure Vegan" doesn't make you vegetarian. —mako (talk•contribs) 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to Porphyry piece

I came across the following on the Tertullian site (www.tertullian.org and www.tertullian.org/fathers) - there are several sections

Porphyry (philosopher), On abstinence from animal food: [[4]] - if someone wishes to put in the links. Jackiespeel 18:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Vegans and Shell Fish

There is a popular myth(?) that vegans can eat certain kinds of shell fish, such as mussels, as they lack a nervous system and are incapable of suffering. Is this true? One way or the other, should mention be made of it in the article? Thefuguestate 10:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, vegans generally do not eat shell fish. This myth is not really notable (I've never heard it), so it does not deserve mention. Kellen ^T 11:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Better sources

I just glanced at the references and literally laughed at how bad they are. I don't care enough about the topic to do it myself, but if any self-respecting vegan wikipedians read this may I suggest using sources not from websites such as notmilk.com lol. Cheers. Rothery 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL! But you're right that the references for that section are crap; the section needs serious work. Kellen ^T 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-referenced references

Moved unreferenced sources from main page. Kellen ^T 16:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• C. de Haan et al. Livestock and the Environment: Finding a Balance FAO, USAID, World Bank, 1998. Provides evidence of environmental damage caused by animal farming, mainly factory farming.
• Keeton, W.T. et al. Biological Science, 5th Ed., Publishers: W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London., ISBN 0-393-96223-7 (hardback)
• Langley, G. Vegan Nutrition: a survey of research, The Vegan Society 1988, ISBN 0-907337-15-5
• Marcus, Erik. (2000) Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
• Moore Lappe, F. Diet for a Small Planet. Ballantine Books, 1985.
• Moore Lappe, F. & Lappe, A. Hope's Edge: The Next Diet for a Small Planet. Jeremy P. Tarcher Publishing, 2003.
• Saunders, Kerrie (2003) The Vegan Diet As Chronic Disease Prevention: Evidence Supporting the New Four Food Groups
• Smil, V. Rationalizing Animal Food Production, in Feeding the World: A Challenge for the 21st Century, MIT Press, London, 2000. This provides evidence for the amount of grain required to raise livestock.
• Stepaniak, Joanne. (2000) The Vegan Sourcebook
• Torres, B. and Torres, J. Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World. Tofu Hound Press. 2005. ISBN 0-9770804-1-2 (paperback).
• Walsh, S. Plant Based Nutrition and Health, The Vegan Society 2003, ISBN 0-907337-26-0 (paperback), ISBN 0-907337-27-9 (hardback).
• "Non-vegan prescriptions?" by Jo Stepianak, Grassroots Veganism, retrieved October 26, 2005
• "Anger over 'pig' secret of prescribed drug by Martin Shipman, The Western Mail, December 27, 2002, retrieved October 26, 2005
• FAQ, Vegan Resource Group, retrieved October 26, 2005
• Campbell, Colin T. and Campbell, Thommas M. The China Study, page 179, Benbella, 2005, ISBN 1-932100-38-5

What is an unreferenced source? —mako (talk•contribs) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

These were listed as "sources" on the page, but were not used as inline references to support any specific statements. I suspect older editors of this page (a) used some of these sources in constructing parts of the page (b) just added books on the topic of veganism, but which have no direct bearing on what is written here. These might be useful for extracting supporting references for some parts of the article, but are not particularly useful just as a list at the end of the article. Kellen ^T 00:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of vegans

I think the data related to # of vegans should be moved elsewhere in the article, with a summary in the intro. I'm not 100% sure of what the title of the section should be; perhaps "Demographics". Comments/concerns? Kellen ^T 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I did this. Kellen ^T 01:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Note on picture

As a subheading for the picture next to 'health' it says "A fruit stall in Barcelona. All fruit is vegan."... should this not make the exception for some apples which are coated with shellac? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.184.202 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

No, probably not. I have changed the caption in any case so this issue doesn't keep coming up. Kellen ^T 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Famous" vegans

Do we really need some section that will inevitably be filled with non- or poorly sourced material? Can the fact that these people are vegan be mentioned on their own pages if it is notable enough rather than here? Kellen ^T 08:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not needed here. There is already a List of vegans article which has done a nice job of keeping this sort of list off this article.--Michig 11:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Gestation crate caption

I don't think the "gestation crate" picture really needs an extended explanation of what's going on; there can be a link to an article about the crates rather than having that info here. It doesn't significantly add to the "ethics" section, imho. Kellen ^T 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've trimmed it heavily. Better now? mako (talk•contribs) 03:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's how I would have had it written. Kellen ^T 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The image seems unfairly biased without an explanation of the background. Perhaps a truncated explanation would work: that gestation crates are necessary to protect piglets. (Also, this is the heart of the ethical issue with the crates: do you protect the piglets or do you provide the sows with more room to roam?)Jav43 22:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Demograhics and the Harris Interactive poll

The conclusion in this paragraph doesn't sound correct:

A 2006 poll conducted by Harris Interactive in the United States listed specific foods and asked how often respondents never ate those items, rather than asking respondents to self-identify. The results found that, of the 1,000 adults 18 and over polled, 1.4% never eat meat, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy products, or eggs. They were, in other words, vegan except for possibly honey.

The definition of Vegan in the article includes not using animal products such as leather and wool. If the poll didn't ask respondents about non-food uses of animal products, then the conclusion "They were, in other words, vegan" doesn't hold. At best, 1.4% is an upper bound on the number of vegans - the actual number could be considerably lower. 192.171.3.126 13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording a bit, to indicate that we're just talking about food consumption with regards to this survey. Cheers, Doctormatt 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What About Predators?

Hi Vegans. I can understand not wanting to cause undue suffering to animals, but if that's the reason for one's veganism, how does one feel about the eating habits of carnivores? Are lions murderers? and as far as the health concerns go, well, it seems like one has to have ample time and money to be able to maintain this diet without problems - also, if it's so healthy, why can I not think of any society in the history of the world that was 100% vegan? It seems to me that people should be concentrating more on advocating the responsible eating of meat - which would entail eating much less meat(in places where it is eaten not in moderation, like Chicago, for example)and ensuring that animals utilised by people are treated in a humane, respectful way. If you think that's a contradiction, well, a deer being eaten by a wolf is no less ethical than a clean shot from me (and I get a useful skin out of it). It just seems to me that if veganism were the dominant paradigm, which is what I assume vegans want, it would actually throw things just as out of balance as they already are. 76.173.124.88ModerateMeatEater

While your statements about the humane treatment of animals seem reasonable to me, this article is meant to cover the facts of the vegan diet -- while notable advocacy and criticism of veganism warrant inclusion, neither the article nor the talk page are the place for personal arguments for or against vegan philosophy. (This is true of all wikipedia articles, not just this one, wikipedia is not a forum for personal opinions.) Madeleine 16:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that talk pages are to talk about the article, NOT the subject of the article. And in general, no, most vegans disagree with eating meat because it's unnatural, not because it's inhumane. Although I don't think anyone is expecting civility out of a carnivore, I'd rather like to see it out of a land owner -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 03:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation?

The IPA pronunciation of "vegan" has been changed a bit, from [ˈviːgən] to [viːgən] ... from reading the IPA chart, it appears that the first is more correct than the second (since it indicates the "primary stress" is on the first bit), but I can't really tell if I'm reading everything correctly. Anybody? Kellen^T 00:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm no language expert, but your interpretation looks right to me and agrees with http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/vegan. -- Madeleine 00:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegan which has an IPA pronunciation and it indeed has the leading 'ˈ'. I have put this back in the article. Kellen^T 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Honey

I know the original and strict definition of veganism says that honey is not vegan. Nevertheless, some vegans eat honey and still consider themselves to be vegan. A recent edit to Vegetarianism tried to add this information. My impression is that wikipedia pages need to cover all viewpoints, and a significant subset of vegans do consume honey. I feel something to the effect "Although the original definition of veganism excluded honey and insect products, some vegans consider these to be vegan." should be added. some outside sources: http://www.veganmeat.com/honey.html and http://www.vegan.org/FAQs/index.html#7 -- Madeleine 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia pages need to cover all viewpoints, just those that are notable and well-substantiated by reliable sources. I don't think those two sources are very good; if they were wikipedia articles, they'd have major problems with weasel words and lack of citations. Perhaps better sources can be found, since I do believe that vegan attitudes toward honey are worth mentioning. The sentece you suggest sounds great, with an appropriate reference. I'll keep an eye out. Cheers, Doctormatt 19:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh... I thought the second source sounded okay, since it came from a group that calls itself "Vegan Action" and has the www.vegan.org website, but I'm no expert in the field. Thanks. Madeleine 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say the second source is fine and that the article should cover "the honey debate" as most if not all the self-identified vegans I know do not strictly abstain from eating honey (myself included). This could be in the "animal products" section. If you don't get to it first, I may write it myself. Kellen^T 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Davis section

A little while back, User:Viriditas changed the "ethical criticisms" section from:

Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, claims that the number of wild animals killed in crop production is greater than those killed in ruminant-pasture production and therefore eating meat causes less harm to animals than a vegan diet.

To a previous version:

Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, argues that the number of wild animals killed in crop production is greater than those killed in ruminant-pasture production. Whenever a tractor goes through a field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, and harvest, animals are killed. Davis gives a small sampling of field animals in the U. S. that are threatened by intensive crop production, such as: opossum, rock dove, house sparrow, European starling, black rat, Norway rat, house mouse, Chukar, grey partridge, ring-necked pheasant, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, gray-tailed vole, and numerous species of amphibians. In one small example, an alfalfa harvest caused a 50% decline in the gray-tailed vole population. According to Davis, if all of the cropland in the U. S. were used to produce crops for a vegan diet, it is estimated that around 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually.

with the edit summary "Restoring Davis' argument. Please stop removing it." I think I was the one who changed it to the first version with the intent of making the entire article more concise. I believe the longer version of this section is unnecessary; particularly the giant list of animal species, the specific actions done by tractors, and the uber-detailing of Davis' argument. I propose reverting to the more concise version that doesn't have all the fluffing up of Davis' position, yet still retains the essential force of his argument. If readers want the full details, they can read the cited articles. Kellen^T 11:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the long lists of the abilities of tractors or the various and sundry species threatened by these multi-capable tractors. I think the rest of the information is interesting and useful, though. I'd propose eliminating the "field sample" sentence and condensing the bit about tractors to read something like "Animals are killed when a tractor is used in a field". Ultimately, it's not a big deal - as you note, interested parties can read the cited articles. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I find that sentence completely redundant with "wild animals killed in crop production." Previously, I believe this section about Davis was even longer and the rebuttal bit by Mathenny was longer as well; the extended bits didn't really do a better job of communicating the fact that (a) Davis asserts that veganism is not necessarily more ethical due # of deaths based on his calculations (b) other people think Davis is miscalculating and that veganism (or whatever) still comes out on top of standard meat eating. If we detail Davis' specific numerical claims, we end up having to put in Matheny's specific numerical counterclaims and we get into obsessing over this one exchange of articles rather than getting to the point of the respective articles and giving them relative weight to the entire article we're writing. Kind of like how the cattleman's study section got out of hand because there was a tiny little media frenzy and the section here covered (a) misreported statement (b) angry response 1, 2, 3 (c) corrected statement; in the end the whole section was removed because the point of the statements (both by cattleman's author and responders) was "vegans should make sure they and their children get their vitamins." Kellen^T 18:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh, you're probably right. This article is in good shape currently, and I'd hate to have it degenerate into angry number-tossing yet again. I endorse your version. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Davis' argument requires at least some of these examples, and the conclusion is essential to quantify the problem; Kellen's version removed it. And, I don't see it as "fluffed" up any more than the rest of this article. Let's face it, testimonials by Carl Lewis sourced to a vegetarian book aren't exactly neutral, and I can find dozens of other problems with the article. I'm surprised we are talking about removing scientific data published in peer-review journals. I can see that the entire criticism section has now been buried in the article, so the casual reader will not be able to find it. I also see this as a pretext to splitting the sections off of this article and then claiming that we can find the criticism on the related pages, but not this one. I've seen it done before. Finallly, I do not see a redundancy but the description of an argument that represents a valid criticism of the Vegan philsophy. Due to this repeated removal of criticism, I intend to restore a separate criticism section to this article with the best sources I can find, and if that section gets too large, I'll split it off to Criticism of Veganism or some such title. I hope that solves the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Please do not add a separate "criticisms" section or create a separate "criticisms" article; what we should have is an article with integrated subjects. The existing criticisms have not been buried; they have been moved to their relevant sections -- the davis crit to the section on resources, the jarvis bit to the "ethics" section. Please also see Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section on this point.
2. As for the Carl Lewis bit, I totally agree. I have been working through the article slowly (if you have it on your watchlist, you'll see that) and adding cited material for each and every statement. The bits to do are to clean up is the (awful) "health" section, and the bottom half of the "resources" section.
3. I agree that Davis' criticism is a valid angle from which one might want to examine veganism. However, I disagree that the specifics are actually essential to his argument. His point is "vegans think they're harming fewer animals but they're wrong." This is what my version concisely communicates.

Kellen^T 01:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Integrated subjects are wonderful on their own, but criticism articles exist on their own as well. Please peruse Category:Criticisms for a brief sample of philosophical criticism. There will always be overlap between a criticism section and generalized subject headings. Regarding Davis, have you read the two articles cited: Davis, 2001, Proceedings of the Third Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics and Davis, 2003, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics? And just so you are aware of the situation, I am also responsible for including Matheny's rebuttal. I don't recall if you were editing the article at the time, so you may not understand that I attempted to present both sides fairly. In any case, a new criticism article is perfectly acceptable, and if it is created, a new, separate section entitled "Criticism of Veganism" written in summary style and with a link to the main article, will be added to Veganism. This will, I hope, solve the problem of editors repeatedly hiding, burying, and removing criticism of this subject. Your "version" removes important aspects of Davis' argument, fails to quantify his conclusion, and robs it of its full meaning. If you had read the papers, you would have realized that it is already in a generalized form. What you are proposing is actually a violation of guidelines concerning qualifying and quantifying information, which is essential for good, encyclopedic style. And this is an encyclopedia first and foremost, not an advertisement or platform for philosophical, religious, and political beliefs. Now, with that said, let me also congratulate you on your work. I upgraded the article rating from "Start" to "B-Class" mostly due to your hard work. I think it is important to recognize that you (and others of course) are responsible for improving this article. —Viriditas | Talk 03:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the submission to Environmental Ethics as reproduced here. I don't understand what "important aspects" of his argument you think I'm removing. The specific species threatened by intensive agriculture aren't important to his general point that some animals are threatened, his specific calculations themselves aren't important to his general point that more animals are killed in intensive crop production (according to him) than in pasture-based production. Can you clarify what I'm missing here? I do realize that his argument is presented in summary form; that's how it's supposed to be. Kellen^T 03:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS recommends using "accurate measurements whenever possible" and using "specific information".[5] And, the particularly important introductory material that you also propose removing is sourced to the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, not to EE. I think it is necessary to represent Davis' argument with the accurate specifics of "how" and "how many". Direct blockquotes can be used as well, although I thought my version was preferable to taking up so much space. If you would like me to quote Davis directly, I will do so. —Viriditas | Talk 03:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If the "particularly important introductary material" is this:

Whenever a tractor goes through a field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, and harvest, animals are killed.

I strongly disagree that it's important. In fact, I would say that it's blazingly obvious, and also that it's included in a much less pedantic way in the first version. However, having re-read the Davis piece, I realize that we've misrepresented his argument here. A better way to phrase it might be:

Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, claims that up to 450 million more wild animals would be killed if all US cropland was converted to producing vegan food than if half was converted to ruminant-pasture production and the other half used for crop production, and therefore that eating meat in this case would cause less harm than eating a vegan diet.

Would this be a more acceptable version? It includes the greater of the numbers that Davis presents, and is more precise as to his argument than even the original version of the paragraph. Kellen^T 17:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what you consider "obvious" may be based on your own personal beliefs. We need to to remain true to arguments by presenting them clearly and without bias. I have no objection to generalizing the list of field animals to let's say, birds, mammals, and amphibians, as long as we reduce the other obvious lists in the article, like 'Notable animal products include meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, dairy products, honey, fur, leather, wool, and silk. Common animal by-products include gelatin, lanolin, rennet, whey, beeswax and shellac." We can also reduce the obvious statement from The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada regarding "well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets", which states that they "are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer." Davis' example is important ("alfalfa harvest caused a 50% decline in the gray-tailed vole population) and his conclusion is essential: "According to Davis, if all of the cropland in the U. S. were used to produce crops for a vegan diet, it is estimated that around 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually." It is important to summarize Davis' position accurately with numbers. I don't understand why you keep trying to remove it when the rest of the article represents facts and figures to illustrate points in every single section, like "Polls have variously reported vegans to be between 0.2%[3] and 1.3%[5] of the US population, and between 0.25%[4] and 0.4%[6] of the UK population...A 2002 Time/CNN poll found that 4% of American adults consider themselves vegetarians, and 5% of self-described vegetarians consider themselves vegans.[3] This suggests that 0.2% of American adults are vegans. Also in 2002, the UK Food Standards Agency reported that 5% of respondents self-identified as vegetarian or vegan. Though 29% of that 5% said they avoided "all animal products" only 5% reported avoiding dairy.[4] Based on these figures, approximately 0.25% of the UK population follow a vegan diet. In 2005, The Times estimated there were 250,000 vegans in Britain, which suggests around 0.4% of the UK population is vegan..." So, if you want to remove the information from Davis' argument because you feel it is too long, we can remove the information about Vegan animal products, diets, and other statistics. —Viriditas | Talk 02:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody else feel free to jump in here. Obviously Viriditas and I have differing opinions on how this should be approached, so hearing from other editors is probably the only way this will get resolved. Kellen^T 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jarvis criticism

I would like to remove this "criticism of vegetarianism" from the article:

Other critics have questioned the validity of the ethical claims put forward by vegans, stating that "the belief that all life is sacred can lead to absurdities such as allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria, or vipers to run loose on one's premises."

Not many vegans or vegetarians ever argue that "all life is sacred" and it seems to me that the entire Jarvis attack on what he calls "ideologic vegetarianism" is based upon misunderstanding or conflation and that his critique is not really relevant to veganism, but possibly only to something like Jainism (I don't know if even that would be accurate). Kellen^T 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you would like to remove all criticism of veganism from this article. This tells me that the only solution is to create Criticism of Veganism and add a subsection summary on this page. I don't see any other alternative. —Viriditas | Talk 02:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in removing "all criticisms" but this particular argument is attacking a straw man. Kellen^T 05:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms clearinghouse

Some "criticisms of veganism." Can basically be broken down as arguments against each of the "motivations." My comments in italics.

Health:

• "Vegans don't have a balanced diet" or "vegans can't get enough of vitamin/mineral X" Dealt with in the "health effects" section
• Lindsay Allen comments. See cattlemen's section above for the full text. Summary: eat a "well planned" diet. Dealt with in "health effects" section
• "Vegan diet harms children" 2 cases: (1) vitamin deficiency is dealt with in "vegan pregnancies" (2) cases where vegan parents basically starved their children are not currently included in article; this generally not due to veganism but to non-feeding, still possibly deserves mention

Resources:

• Steven Davis crit. Basically attacks premise that a vegan diet causes less harm than a theoretical diet including meat. Included in article, haggling about wording above.

Ethical:

• William Jarvis crit attacking idea that vegans think "all life is sacred." I contend this is a strawman, but this is currently included in the article.
• Standard responses to "animal rights" or "animal welfare" ideas; animals have no ethical standing, eating animals is natural, etc Not currently included in article.

If there are other major criticisms, please add them here so they can be included. Kellen^T 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted repetition of the criticisms. The paragraph on possible deficiency already contained the information repeated 2 or more times below the graph'. Abe Froman 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't understood the structure of the article. The para under "health effects" is an intro summary paragraph of the "specific nutrients" subsection below. Kellen^T 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hypocrisy; vegans don't actually eliminate all animal products. This criticism isn't actually advanced, but it is responded to by vegan outreach quote in 'animal products' section. Kellen^T 23:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nutrition

we need something like this:

The Vegan Six Food Groups

kel len, judging by the above dialogue (and our recent editing conflicts), you seem to aggressively control this article, are you vegan?

Main article: Vegan nutrition: Pure and Simple, by Michael Klaper M.D.

"sufficient amounts of all the essential nutrients" required for human health are easily obtained from the following vegan food groups
1. whole grains and potatoes: 2 - 4 (4oz) servings daily
2. Legumes: 1 - 2 (3-4oz) servings daily
3. Green: 1 - 2 (4oz) servings daily for water-soluble vitamins, and Yellow vegetables: 1 or 2 (4oz) servings every other day for fat-soluble vitamins
4. nuts and seeds: 1 - 3 (1oz) servings daily
5. Fruits: 3 - 6 servings daily.
6. Vitamin B12 and trace mineral foods: a.) root vegetables (such as carrots, beets, turnips), b.) mushrooms, c.) sea vegetables. 1 serving of each a.), b.), and c.) three times weekly

and a reliable source of B12 [see below]

this information comes from the book: Vegan Nutrition: Pure and Simple by Michael Klaper M.D. published by gentle world, inc. maui, HI 1998 vegans eat a larger variety of foods than our omni-friends, i think its important that people understand what vegans are supposed to eat. its also important that people dont think vegans are calcium deficient. the china study is sufficient proof of the fact that good vegans get all the calcium they need. we need something in there backing that scientific evidence. maybe we can talk about protein-induced hypocalciurea and dairy? i wanted to add this: "Numerous medical studies have shown that the intake of calcium on a vegan diet is entirely adequate." Following the vegan food groups , "an average of 800 to 1200 milligrams of calcium is easy to obtain" according to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, "the true calcium defieiency on a vegan diet has never been reported" according to Dr. Michael Klaper of the book Vegan Nutrition Pure and Simple. Good sources of calcium include collards, kale (1 cup of either of these greens, cooked, has approximately the same usable calcium as milk), broccoli, mustard greens, swiss chard, chick peas, lentils, green peas, brazil nuts, almonds, peanuts, sunflower seeds, seasame tahini, pumpkin seeds, oats, tofu, "leafy green vegetables, watercress, and dried fruit. will somebody use this information for the page since i'm obviously not editing correctly. (starfish2)

I have been 'aggressively' referencing the article and as I am often tied to the computer for other reasons, also watch this article. I am vegan. You were reverted mainly because you (a) blanked sections, which is common of vandals (b) later added a large chunk of poorly formatted text to the article, which is common of people with good intentions, but without an understanding of how wikipedia works. Also, if you are Michael Klaper, you should know that referencing your own work can be construed as a conflict of interest. I'm not sure why you blanked out the calcium bit, as it is referenced (click the little number, read the cited article). Also, please please use the preview button so you can work out the kinks in your comments/posts before they are shown to the rest of the world. I've fixed your broken </ref>, so your comments should show up now. Kellen^T 07:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you for helping me with my comments. no, i'm not dr. michael klaper. my name is genevieve and i live in california, if you have not heard of his research please look it up. like dr. ornish, dr. klaper has been a major contributor to vegan nutrition research. (by the way, you do not need to take supplements or fish oil for omega fatty acids. walnuts, flaxseeds, and hempseeds have the omega 3s 6s and 9s the human body needs for optimum health) anyway, the point is, that the above information belongs, properly cited, on the veganism page. thats all i'm fighting for. (Starfish2 07:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Okay, well you don't have to fight for anything, you have to discuss and persuade other editors that your changes are beneficial if they don't appear to be at first. I have not read Klaper's book, but including his "food pyramid" smacks to me violating wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (specifically the "instruction manuals" section). In any case, our references already cite several vegan nutrition guides, provided by the Vegan Society, among others. Kellen^T 07:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Simplifying nutritional requirements into a set of food groups can be done many ways, it feels to me that lists like this oversimplify nutrition in a manner that necessarily reflects a particular POV. That is not to say the list isn't healthy -- I am saying that there are a lot of lists out there that are healthy, it's not like any single list exists as a scientific fact. If these are included, the list should be particularly notable (eg. BRAT diet) and/or arise from more general sources like government agencies (eg. the American food guide pyramid), and I don't think this one meets that criteria. If this isn't notable then, as Kellen says, it is an indiscriminate inclusion of information. -- Madeleine 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

References

References listed here so we can check up the citations. Please do not archive this section. Kellen ^T 08:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Health effects-from userpage

I believe the health effects section in the veganism article is discriminatory toward vegans, and what you wrote seem to go against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. It has been proven you can be a healthy vegan with B12 deficiency the only issue, so I have reverted your edits, I feel on Wikipedia the most factual information should be displayed your edit[6] to health effects on veganism was not and more anti-vegan bias--Migospia☆ 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. (a) I'm vegan. (b) The material cited is from vegan advocacy organizations. Kellen^T 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You cited out of context is what I am trying to say, because many vegan websites say the only health concern is B12--Migospia☆ 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)