Talk:Veganism

Possible contradiction

Doesn't saying, "As well as following an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals." contradict with the 'dietary vegan'? I could be wrong.

Recent reversions

What's up with recent comments by Joseph2302? I think you are being strangely harsh with Vegan Bug who might be wrong but doesn't deserve the vituperation of your recent comments. Am I missing something here?

TonyClarke (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@TonyClarke:, maybe I was a bit harsh, but it was caused by repeated edits like this on another page. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks. But just reverting with POV and unsourced might have been more in keeping with civility policy? TonyClarke (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes probably, it was probably uncivil. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Veganism and cancer

I made an edit after looking at the sources cited and finding out that they say the opposite to what is said in the article.
What the article says is "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people".[126][11]

• A quote from "Health effects of vegan diets" by Winston Craig:
  "Vegans consume considerably more legumes, total fruit and vegetables, tomatoes, allium vegetables, fiber, and vitamin C than do omnivores (14–16, 20, 23). All those foods and nutrients are protective against cancer (25)"
• In "Beyond Meatless, the Health Effects of Vegan Diets: Findings from the Adventist Cohorts", Table 4 puts the risk of cancer for non-vegetarians at 1 (100%), then in Table 7 shows that for vegans the risk of all types of cancer is 0.86 (86%).
  

Reverting my edit and saying "this is an article about veganism not vegetarianism" is a straw man argument, as I never said anything about vegetarianism, nor did the parts of the article I referred to. --Rose (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no general agreement that veganism has any beneficial effects regarding cancer. To state this in the article we must find a quality secondary source wich makes that statement. Editors here cannot select primary sources in order to promote their cause. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The Nutrients review says

Not so clear patterns are observed for cancer outcomes. While lacto-ovo-vegetarians have lower risk of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract, vegans experience a higher risk for cancer of the urinary tract. For other-cancer sites, the risk is slightly but not significantly lower for both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared to non-vegetarians. Subsequent reports with longer follow-up time and more cancer cases will help clarify the role of specific vegetarian diets with cancer outcomes. [my bold]

Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

None of what you both said directly addresses what I said here or proves that the sentence I mentioned is based on the sources and not the imagination of the editor that put it there.
Moreover, the next sentence refers to the same source as mentioned in my second point above, yet it uses completely different words: "Compared to non-vegetarians vegans may be at greater risk of urinary tract cancers"
By this logic, the preceding sentence must say "Compared to non-vegetarians, vegans may be at reduced risk of multiple types of cancers". Again, see Table 7 for proof, which is also what the "urinary tract" quote is apparently based on. --Rose (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Forget Table 7. The reason we use review articles is that they contain expert assessment of the raw data. We use that expert assessment as the basis for encyclopedic content. We must not perform an amateur reinterpretion of that raw data as that would be WP:OR and is specifically prohibited by WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying I shouldn't look for evidence backing up a statement in the sources cited for that very statement? And if I should, then it's not there. Which would mean you have to use a different source or change the sentence in accordance with the references. --Rose (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's not your place to re-write the conclusions reached by the authors of a reliable source and offer your own inexpert "peer review". Alexbrn (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The conclusion is this: "Overall, vegans experienced modest risks reduction (14%) for all-cancer". Taken from that "Beyond Meatless" article that's currently used to back up the part of the sentence we're discussing. Quite far from the truly inexpert "There is no good evidence" that has appeared out of nothing. --Rose (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not a conclusion, that is a description of one of the data points (your Table 7 again). I quoted the conclusion above: overall, the risk is slightly but not significantly lower. That is what the source concludes. Alexbrn (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how whatever is in the section "Abstract" has more (or less) weight than what's in the section "Results" from the same article. The authors are the same too. --Rose (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Rose is right, those fighting quackery and pseudoscience have yet again failed to understand the difference between a slight but non-significant health effect, and a non-existent effect. This statement does not imply that veganism significantly reduces cancer risk, but it also does not imply that veganism has no effects on cancer whatsoever. Whether the evidence is good or bad is not addressed by the authors here. The most neutral statement would be "Although cancer risk may be slightly lower in vegans, the of specific role of vegetarian diets has not been fully elucidated." -A1candidate 14:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an article about vegan diets, not vegetarian diets - and the text does not mention a "non-existent effect": that's a straw man (or are you yet again leaping in with a contrary position before becoming familiar with the text at hand?). We say "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people" which is a good summary of the source(s) -- the evidence of effect is not "good" because there aren't "clear patterns" in it as a basis for drawing a conclusion. Saying it is slight but insignificant is wordy and confusing, especially since significant is a problematic word. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest something like "A vegan diet provides a moderate reduction in general cancer risk, although compared to non-vegetarians vegans are at greater risk of urinary tract cancers". The word "moderate" comes from "modest", from the source. --Rose (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I see original research and using lower quality sources being used to refute a secondary review; the failed verification tag should be removed, and primary and lower quality sources should not be used for text covered in higher quality or more recent secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Both of the sources being brought up (at least by me) are directly from the article, from the brackets right next to that problematic statement. --Rose (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Table 7 shows a relative risk of 0.86 for cancer overall, with a confidence interval of 0.7 to 1.00. Thus the study clearly finds a "statistically signficant" reduction in all cancers relative to the control group. On the other hand, this study exclusively includes non-randomized studies, and MEDRS speaks to the lower reliability of non-randomized studies. (Those who chose a vegan diet are probably less likely to smoke and probably make other healthy choices). The article explicitly discusses this limitation of the study, and asks whether the results are applicable to non Adventists. It is far from a ringing, highly certain endorsement that veganism has cancer benefits. I'd characterize the study overall as suggesting "a possible benefit". I certainly would not try to quantify any possible benefit from a non-randomized study conducted solely in Adventists, and I don't think the article's authors are encouraging that at all. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 15:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone change that sentence and word it differently, based on the discussion above? If I try to do it, I'm afraid my edits will be reverted once again. --Rose (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
And in doing the above, I think we should avoid mentioning vegetarianism altogether if there's evidence of vegans being at reduced risk of cancer, and based on that, we obviously should not have the article say "there's no good evidence". --Rose (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest a wider view of cancer and veganism. I think that the issue is not simply whether veganism protects from cancer. Instead, the cancer problem has arisen because of a huge increase in animal and high fat, high sugar products in our diets, as our western (and some eastern) countries have become more prosperous and less labour-oriented, and because of a reduction of plant based foods. So we are less active (cars, supermarkets, TVs, social media) and have more saturated fats, sugar and cholesterol circulating in our bloodstreams, so we have more cancer: and more high blood pressure, and diabetes, etc.. Veganism is not the main answer, although it is part of the answer. We need to eat less, be more active, eat more plant foods as our ancestors used to do, and reduce high fat foods. Veganism goes some way towards that, but it is misleading, for all these reasons, to say that veganism protects against cancer, since so much more is needed. One implication of this is that we will never be able to prove that veganism reduces cancer - so we are always going to have the kinds of arguments here if we focus on veganism alone. MHO, End of rant TonyClarke (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, 99% studies about risks of developing cancer aren't worth befuddling encyclopedia readers with. Correlation guesswork. The other 1% are theoretical, because every rule has potential exception. Even if the most solid study ever done shows vegans/Mormons/Jacksons have a "significantly" increased risk for an unlikely thing (say, even by 200%), and it somehow holds absolutely true for people outside the study group, too, even in future cases (virtually impossible), the difference in actual risk is still too slight for a human mind to comprehend.

No specific advice here, just ignore all studies. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia in this matter--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Too much of an OR battleground.

The current state of knowledge on the subject of the vegan diet seems to be that there is no generally acceped opinion on whether a vegan diet is beneficial or harmful. That is what this article should say. At present it is something of a battlground in which various editors quote selected studies to try to prove something (that the diet is a good one, or a bad one). To draw and suggest to our readers conclusions of this sort by assessing the evidence ourselves is original research. Summaries from independent high quality secondary sources showing what is the generally accepted opinion on the vegan diet are what is needed here. If there are no such sources then we should say very little or nothing on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Martin Hogbin:I am truly sorry to get involved in this mess but I think you are way out of line. Your perception that there is no scientific consensus on the health effects of veganism is not a substitute for a reliable source saying so. Indeed, there are reliable secondary sources saying otherwise, and it is not up to you to decide that an exceptionally high standard of "quality" is required in this specific case. Moreover the version of this article as I found it contains a fabrication which you have been strongly pushing for: "there is no clear evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer." Leaving aside the question of whether a vegan diet does prevent cancer, the source cited does not say this. In fact, it explicitly lists a lot of clear evidence that a vegan diet may be cancer protective, then comments that the *degree* of cancer protection was less than expected, and notes the lack of epidemiological studies showing veganism to be "significantly" cancer protective as of 2009. I will update the article to reflect this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not at all out of line. Quality secondary sources are always preferred in WP. What secondary source do you says states that there is a significant health benefit for a vegan diet.

The two sources on cancer (including, bizarrely, the one you cited to say that there is no benefit) both say this. Other sources say there is a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes, but this is a bit off-topic as we are talking about cancer. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to add that there is a , 'lack of epidemiological studies showing veganism to be "significantly" cancer protective as of 2009'. Refrence to insignificant findings is positively misleading.

It must also be pointed out that the reports all refer to well-designed and implemeneted vegan diets with supplements where necessary. There is undisputed, clear, and well documented evidence that poorly designed or implemented vegan diets have significant negative health effects. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What you are saying may or may not be true, but it's OR. Anyway, the many negative health effects of poorly planned vegan diets are already mentioned. (B12 deficiency, low bone density, etc. It's all there.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys - Uploaded some pics

More on the way ! Ben :), Ben-Yeudith (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have uloaded some images to the article but sadly my contribution has been reverted by User:Flyer22. It's a long article so I do it in stages... I don't know how to put here what we call in the Hebrew WIKI "Tavnit Aricha" ("Under construction" template); I just put the image now... I have yet to make small fixes and finishes and hence the Sandwhiching problems User:Flyer22 spoke about - I am ready and waiting to fix these problems also. The article is in desperate need of New images and sexier\more piquant images. Please tell me how to add this "Under construction" template... I need that time to work on the article. If there is no such template in the English Wiki, I'll just continue the work on a MS Word document and then upload it to here and make the finishes directly. Thank you, Ben-Yeudith (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ben-Yeudith, yes, I reverted your image additions, per what I stated when reverting you. Those are too many images and they caused problems that are noted at MOS:IMAGELOCATION or elsewhere at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Why does this article need all those images, or "new" images? In this edit, you stated that you were trying to make the article sexier; I don't follow that logic, even if you were joking. And then there was this edit. Your edits compelled me to seek out a different editor, one who is mostly responsible for the state of this article, so that I can get her input on some of the latest changes made to it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That stated, I was already planning on her asking her if she'd abandoned this article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, I have taken these comments seriously and I will create another edit. Will glad if you would tell me what photos or galleries seem to you surly excessive in he edit? Ben-Yeudith (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see the picture of figs, captioned "Figs", retained. Beyond that, no opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:31, May 2, 2015 (UTC)

One thing. The purpose of this article and any associated pictures is to give our readers accurate and up-to-date information about veganism; it is not to promote veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Martin, did any of the photos seemed to you as promoting Veganism?... It is indeed important for me to here as much feedback as possible... Thank you, Ben-Yeudith (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I just want to make sure that we maintain a NPOV. The female pigs picture might be considered as supporting the vegan cause. The rest are all OK in my opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope that you actually do keep what I stated above in mind. If you re-add so many images, so many unneeded images that mess up the text (for different readers, depending on their screen formats) when the main point of Wikipedia articles is that they should be readable and WP:Verifiable with WP:Due weight, then I am likely to revert you again. If no one cares, however, or if editors seemingly do not care by letting your edits stay in, then I might ignore it. I might also de-watch this article. I don't like seeing articles deteriorate unless the deterioration is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I hope you don't have any intention of threatening me. Do as you like, but please "Sweet up your voice a bit". Ben-Yeudith (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I stand by what I stated above. And if someone is editing WP:Disruptively, I generally will reply to them in a stern manner. There is no need whatsoever to sweeten up "my voice" with regard to you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Health effects reversion

I have reverted this to a previous version as some problematic changes had happened, chiefly:

• The split into "advantages" and "disadvantages" brings too much editorial judgement to the table, when the sources make no such split - in some cases it isn't that clear cut.
• The "advantages" have been beefed-up and are principally asseted in Wikipedia's voice; the disadvantages are more attributed (at one point even referring to "one review") which bring a WP:YESPOV neutrality issue.
• On cancer, good sources have been downplayed/removed and a bold assertion - "Vegetarian and vegan diets are generally considered to be cancer-protective" moved to depend on a relatively a poor-quality source, PMID 21407994 (which was previously only used for providing some context to the better studies). Alexbrn (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Alexbrn (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm here because the cancer issue was brought up on the NPOV notieceboard. I have reviewed the source cited for the assertion, in your version, that "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people" and found that, not only is there no such statement in the source, the source actually says the opposite. This is explained in my comment above. I don't care about your restructuring of this section, but I've reverted part of the section to the previous version to reflect the what the sources actually say. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well that is what has been discussed at the noticeboard, and the good sources used do say there is no clear or conclusive evidence (which I have paraphrased as "good"). Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

(Add) To recap again, the two on-point reviews have the following in their conclusions (my bolding):

• To date, epidemiologic studies have not provided convincing evidence that a vegan diet provides significant protection against cancer. Although plant foods contain many chemopreventive factors, most of the research data comes from cellular biochemical studies.

• While lacto-ovo-vegetarians have lower risk of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract, vegans experience a higher risk for cancer of the urinary tract. For other-cancer sites, the risk is slightly but not significantly lower for both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared to non-vegetarians. Subsequent reports with longer follow-up time and more cancer cases will help clarify the role of specific vegetarian diets with cancer outcomes.

Also, Lanou should be used only for context as it's a weak source. You're putting way too much weight on it. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify these quotes are from this 2014 review [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

But the key word there is "epidemiologic." As the same sources note, besides the limited amount of epidemiologic evidence, there are other types of evidence which strongly suggest that vegetarian/vegan diets are cancer-protective. The article that quote is from itself lists a substantial amount of such evidence. To take a suggestion that more epidemiologic studies should be done out of context and paraphrase it as saying "there is no good evidence" is inaccurate. Again in the Adventist review, the fact that that epidemiologic result only showed a slight reduction in cancer does not mean that there is no other evidence that vegetarian diets are cancer-protective. There is certainly no source in our references which can be accurately paraphrased as saying "there is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer." --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The section in question is entitled Health effects - relying on laboratory research here is OR and misleading. The text you have removed is "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people" (my bold) which is both fair to the sources and pertinent. If you wanted to start a separate section of "health research" that would be a different matter. You have also copy/pasted text from Lanou, which is not a good idea. Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have bolded another section of one of the quotes which seem to be being ignored. The quote actually says that vegans have a higher risk of cancer. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: It does not. Urinary tract cancers are rare, and it is completely clear that vegetarians experienced a slight reduction in cancer rate overall. The other sources say the same thing.

For vegans the quote only mentions an increase in urinary tract cancers and an insignificant effect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that's how you read it. I'm sure you can figure out why it's fallacious to conclude from those two things that cancer risk increased overall. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Regarding the plagiarism issue, it was one short sentence, not a word of which could have been changed without being debated here, and I think it is de minimis and will not cause a problem. I find your distinction between "Health Effects" and "Health Research" a little bit nitpicky, and including laboratory research in the same context as it appeared in review articles about cancer rates in vegetarians, where it was explicitly used as evidence that vegetarian diets may be cancer-protective, is obviously not OR. All that being said, I understand you have tried to enlist other more knowledgeable people into the discussion and I'd like to wait for their opinions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Anmother point which is often overlooked when considering dietary studies of this subject is that the data generally applies to well-designed and well-controlled vegan diets (with supplements where necessary. In practice, there is a considerable health risk from bad vegan diets. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to where it says this in the sources, or is it your opinion? --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Strict vegetarians, such as vegans (who eat no animal products at all), must be careful to eat enough protein. Other nutrients that may be missing from some vegetarian diets include vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and iron (see Calcium, Vitamin B, Vitamin D, and Zinc). Some health care professionals consider vegan diets potentially risky, especially for infants, toddlers, and pregnant women.

— cancer.org

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

See also American Dietetic Association. Position of the ADA: Vegetarian Diets. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109:1266-1282. Accessed at www.eatright.org on March 2, 2010. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

While there is a trend to less cancers it was not significant per [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Vegetarians tend to have an overall cancer rate lower than that of the general population, and this is not confined to smoking-related cancers. ... Although there is such a variety of potent phytochemicals in fruit and vegetables, human population studies have not shown large differences in cancer incidence or mortality rates between vegetarians and nonvegetarians (99,152).

— Position of the ADA: Vegetarian Diets., p. 1274

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Too promotional

I am not anti-vegan in any way but this article still reads like a promotional article for the Vegan Society. For example, we have, 'From the late 1970s a group of scientists in the United States – physicians John A. McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Neal D. Barnard, Dean Ornish, Michael Klaper and Michael Greger, and biochemist T. Colin Campbell – began to argue that diets based on animal fat and animal protein, such as the standard American diet, were detrimental to health'. That is, no doubt, true and well sourced but there is no mention of whether there were any papers published criticising the group of physicians or proposing a contrary view.

I have removed a section which uses WP based data to provide content for WP. This is used for promoting veganism and in my opinion sets a dangerous precedent. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If there are no "papers published criticising the group of physicians or proposing a contrary view" for that matter, there is nothing we can do about that. Not every pro-vegan statement in the article needs an anti-vegan statement, especially not for some type of false balance. As for what you removed, it's this paragraph, not a section. Flyer22 (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that there are no sources expressing a contrary view to that expressed in the section (or whatever you prefer to call it) that I removed. It is quite clear from other discussions here that there is no general agreement in mainstream science that a vegan diet has significant overall health benefits, therefore that is the balance that this article should have. At present, the article refer mainly to benefits of veganism.

Regarding the 'section' which refers to Wikipedia readership, I think it sets a dangerous precedent for articles in WP to refer to WP. It could lead to a self-reinforcing effect, though in this case it is not completely obvious how such an effect might occur. It would be interesting to see what others think on this principle. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You didn't remove the "From the late 1970s a group of scientists" material. It's still there, in a subsection of the History section. And I don't see a problem with that material; all that it is doing is documenting history and what scientists argued. Note the word argued. You are making a big deal out of nothing as far as that text goes. The Health effects section or other parts of the Vegan diet section are for countering health claims; again, not every pro-vegan statement in the article needs an anti-vegan statement. We shouldn't be countering a pro-vegan statement at every turn, as if that's an appropriate way to write a Wikipedia article; it isn't. Flyer22 (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to balance every piece of pro-vegan material with some anti-vegan piece, in fact I think it would be bettet not to have either but just a summary, with the existing sources as references, saying that there is no generally accepted advantage or disadvantage in a vegan diet. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)