Talk:Veganism

"non-human"

The use of "non-human" in the lead is confusing. Does this imply that cannibalism is an acceptable vegan diet (obviously it's not), or is it there simply to rule-out breast milk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.129.183 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The latter. And also, donated blood, etc. Gabbe (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that it's confusing so much as questionably necessary. In some contexts 'non-human animal' may be legitimately preferable to 'animal', but I'm completely agnostic about its use here. Either way reads correctly to me. DaveinMPLS (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've restored this, because it's only non-human animal products that are in question. No one is objecting to a woman breastfeeding, or using milk from another woman, or blood donations, etc. It's products from other species that vegan object to. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And because "non-human" was just removed again, I'll just point out that Bree Olson considers herself a vegan and has won awards from PETA although she has almost certainly consumed human byproducts. SilverCityChristmasIsland 22:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a controversial one but I don't think eating freely given human placenta would be considered non-vegan. Might have trouble finding sources for that though. Muleattack (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PETA says she's a vegan and they know their stuff so-oh, I've gone cross-eyed. SilverCityChristmasIsland 22:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think "non human" was most likely put there by someone wanting to remind readers that humans are animals. I think the current version of the lead, without "non human", is fine. sorsoup (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

PETA knows their stuff? I disagree with you. PETA's ad campaigns show celebrities supporting their fight against animal abuse, yet these same celebrities wear fur. It's terrible to think that PETA would consider these celebrities role models for their mission. (Celebrities such as, Heather Mills, Pamela Anderson, Charlize Theron) Brb94 (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree "non-human" does not merit inclusion in the opening sentence. It reads as if vegans say no to animal products but yes to cannibalism (if/when the need arises). A section on vegan infants/breast feeding should be included later in the article (new section?). See Vegan babies and children. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is no further discussion over the next few days, I will go ahead and remove "non-human" from the introduction. Nirvana2013 (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a well established term within critical animal studies as well as philosophy or science that concerns itself with questions of human-nonhuman relations. And i also don't understand what is supposed to be confusing about the term. --goiken 15:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Animal product is defined as "a term used to describe material taken from the body of a non-human animal." Why then do we need to say non-human animal product? By definition an animal product is non-human. Non-human animal product is not a well-used term. Also the few times it is used, it is to differentiate breast milk from other animal sources. The article introduction does not mention breast feeding. Nirvana2013 (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed non-human from intro and added breastfeeding reference to Veganism#Pregnancy, babies and children. I personally have not heard anyone question whether it is against vegan ethics to receive human blood transfusions and organ transplants. Of course, xenotransplantation is a different matter. However feel free to add a reference, if you deem it necessary. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

[Definging "animal" as "an animal organism other then a human being"] is political. Segregating humans from all other species legitimizes a human monopoly on moral and legal rights. When we say "animals and humans" we deny that we are too animals. The verbal ruse preserves the speciesist fantasy that chimpanzees, snails and tree frogs are more alike then chimpanzees and humans

— Dunayer, Joan (2001-05). Animal Equality : Language and Liberation. Ryce Publishing. ISBN 0970647557. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help).

An analogous critique may also be found in Derrida, Jacques. For What Tomorrow . . .: A Dialogue (1 ed.). Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804746273. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) To use "other animal(s)", "nonhuman animal(s)" or anything other then just "animal(s)" when speaking of "animal organism(s) other then (a) human being(s)" is a well established practice even in non-vegan modern literature on animal ethics. --goiken 20:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 7

The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. as appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle, though they caution that poorly planned vegan diets can be deficient in vitamin B12, iron, vitamin D, calcium, iodine, and omega-3 fatty acids.[7} But the cited page says "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Since there is a difference between vegetarian and vegan the sentence should be changed or removed. I'm not going to be bold because I don't know if removing entirely or amending "The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada regard such a diet..." to "The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada regard planned vegetarian diets..." is better. Nitpyck (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The ADA explicitly lists veganism as a type of vegetarianism. Kellen^T 09:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

But conflating vegan to mean the same as vegetarian is not supported by this footnote. Nitpyck (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You are probably looking at the abstract. The full version includes statements such as:

A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients.

where the ADA explicitly includes veganism as a type of vegetarianism in the context of their article. Kellen^T 16:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

neutrality or ideologic!

It seems to me this article is so non-neutral especially in the health section. Every where there is some report of problem with the vegan diet there is also some phrase that wants to say those vegans where not planing their diet adequately. For example I looked at the reference of one part : "Several cases of severe infant or child malnutrition, and some infant fatalities, have been associated with poorly planned, restrictive vegan diets, often insufficient in calories." as I looked at the reference : at telegraph report and also at NY times there was no indication of "poorly planned" or like that in the reference! This is self made. I fix this and I hope others have time to fix other mistakes. thanx Amidelalune (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit you made, Amidelalune, because it seems to remove some of the nuance of those articles. In particular, both of the cases cited are self-apparently extreme cases: The NYTimes article, for example, notes that the deceased child's parents "fed him mostly soy milk and apple juice." Overlooking the horrible travesty of this event, the NYT article is an op-ed, which by definition is not subject to the same editorial standards as other reporting that appears in the times. As you noted, the Telegraph article doesn't provide any detail whatsoever about the diet the child was eating, but the other citations in the main wikipedia article, from leading health organizations and authorities, seem to agree that a "well-planned" vegan diet can be healthy. Ergo, it seems very reasonable to note that the very few outlier cases mentioned here were a result of doing something horribly wrong. The plural of "news item" is not "scientifically sound supporting data". :)66.93.60.187 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My name is Jimmy Snyder. Isn't it the case that if meat were not consumed, then there would less acreage under cultivation for food, not more? Animals eat grain and we eat the animals. But it is not efficient. You get more nourishment per grain by eating the grain directly. What am I missing? 173.61.117.8 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. There are a lot of situations where food-producing animals don't eat food suitable for human consumption. Fish don't eat grain. In many parts of the world, animals graze in areas that are unsuitable to be used for growing food. In addition, animals all over the world are being fed food that are unsuitable for human consumption (e.g. waste material from food processing, parts of corn husks, excess human food that may no longer suitable for humans). In some parts of the world, eating food that is "local" means eating meat, as opposed to eating many vegetable-based protein products means buying "imported" and "non-local" food.

In addition, you state that you get more nourishment by eating the grain directly. That's not necessarily true. If you look at the range of amino acids (building blocks of protein) that you get in meat compared to grain, then meat wins out. DivaNtrainin (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what he meant was closer to "stuff we could grow instead of animal feed that would be used for incredibly wasteful meat production", not a comparison between the nutritional values of grain and meat specifically. --83.142.5.112 (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)