Talk:Veganism

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hlc63 (article contribs).

other areas of their lives

I'm not convinced that this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veganism&diff=0&oldid=1039150396 is an improvement. I think that the original version is clearer. The key point is that veganism is not only applicable to food, but also to for example clothing, furniture, i.e. other areas of their lives. Jan Vlug (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I will change it to the original. RBut (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Veganism and COVID

In regard to this [1], the media actually slightly misrepresented the study for example [2]. The study can be found here [3]. The study does not use the term "vegan" but "whole foods plant-based" but they combined those results with the vegetarian diet.

To increase precision, we analysed three dietary patterns after combining dietary patterns that are similar in terms of dietary intake. We combined ‘whole foods, plant-based’ diets and ‘vegetarian’ diets into one category (‘plant-based diets’, n=254). Then, we combined ‘whole food, plant-based’ diets, ‘vegetarian’ diets or ‘pescatarian’ diets into another category (‘plant-based diets or pescatarian diets’, n=294) to test if a spectrum of plant-based diets which include animal products are associated with COVID-19 severity. Due to the small number of cases (nine cases of moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 40 COVID-19 cases), we could not analyse pescatarian diets separately. We used plant-based diets to encompass plant-based diets and vegetarian diets, given that vegetarian diets are considered a subset of plant-based diets which minimise consumption of animal products (meat, fish, dairy).

In regard to the results the study found that "participants who followed plant-based diets had 73% lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19... Similarly, participants who followed either plant-based diets or pescatarian diets had 59% lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 compared with those who did not follow these diets." But the study basically lumped whole food plant based diet (vegan) with vegetarian diet (who consume eggs or dairy). Because of the combined results I don't think we can say that vegans were exclusively 73% less likely to develop severe symptoms from COVID-19 because that is original research. I don't doubt that vegans and vegetarians are less likely to develop severe symptoms of COVID because as the study reported these diets are higher in vegetables, legumes and nuts and its advocates are not eating shite like processed meats but not enough research has been done on this topic to separate the diets, they have not been isolated. I suspect the results would be similar for flexitarians or those who eat the Mediterranean diet. These results are not exclusive to veganism so I don't think they should be reported on this article, especially when some of the media sources have misrepresented the study. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps with the appropriate changes this material can be moved to the Plant-based diet article. Thoughts?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Vegan Logo in infobox

The current logo used for veganism in the infobox is the symbol used for vegetarian products (used by EVU for their trademark V-label). Why would we support one trademark instead of another. Some profit economicly from this. I would argue there is not one symbol for veganism and would leave it out of the article. I don't know how to change the infobox. If someone could, thank you. Timelezz (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Timelezz: they look different to me:

Vegan_friendly_icon.svg

File:European Vegetarian Union Logo.svg If you want a new image in the {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}}, what would you propose to replace it? --awkwafaba (📥) 11:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the image necessarily needs a replacement. If there is no suitable symbol which widely and properly represents veganism than no symbol should be used at all. Using a incorrect or non-representative symbol on something as widely used and referenced as wikipedia risks influencing the way the public sees these things. If we don't have a neutral, representative symbol than no symbol is certainly preferable. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I also do not think we need to change the symbol, it may well be one of several Vegan certifying organisations internationally, with similar logos, I do not think the is a problem with selecting one. If folks think the is then this could be a radical alternative.

V for Vegan

~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well-planned versus appropriately planned

{Edit semi-protected}} I wanted to quickly make a correction in the article, but as it is semi-protected I must bring it up here first. This section of the article is referencing the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. In the abstract the phrase used is "appropriately planned," not "well-planed." There is an important difference in connotation here as as "well-planned" implies a high degree of difficulty, when in reality this is simply not the case. Anyone who is vegan will tell you that it really is hardly any different from being non-vegan. We should update the article's phrasing to more accurately reflect the source material being cited. ReasonVEVO (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Intro to section on health

I have tried to make the intro more balanced. It used only half of the abstract of the cited paper (only the cons, leaving out the pros). If we cannot decide to give a balanced view I will delete this intro as all nutrients are dealt with in the following sections anyways. Tischbeinahe (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I think WP:NOABSTRACT applies here, as that paper's abstract is not a proper summary of its content - in particular in blending correlation and causality. I am also concerned about WP:CLOP, and - even more - why we are using a paper from 2009 for this. Surely there's newer and WP:MEDRS directs us to look for stuff within the last five years. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I have taken the time to think it through a little and here are some points we can discuss. The vegan nutrition profile differs from other diet forms and so do the health benefits and risks respectively; as does the amount of evidence. This cannot be summarized with either "a vegan diet has health benefits" nor "has no health benefits". So I would suggest not to give any such summary at all.

However, if we think we need a summary it should at least make the following points

• A vegan diet composed of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds
• that is low in unhealthy ... fats, processed foods etc...
• is considered to be a healthier option than the standard american diet
• if supplements for vitamins/minerals ... are taken.
• However there is no evidence that a healthy vegan diet is more healthy than a diet low in red meat and saturated fats.

This would reflect the current literature that more and more tries not to talk about "the vegan diet" but about healthy eating patterns measured in indices. Anyways, I think it's to hard a task to sum this up in a good way. So my suggestion is to not give an overall summary. Tischbeinahe (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow the sources, is what I say. If they think it can be summed-up, that good enough for Wikipedia, which operates by reflecting what reliable sources say, not the POV of editors! Alexbrn (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(Add) Oh, I see you are now revert-warring to remove the content.[4] Let's see what others say. I have posted at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's look into some more detail here.

• The sentence I deleted goes: "Few studies have reported the health benefits of vegan diets and therefore no conclusive evidence can be proposed. here. The authors refer to this and this to support their claim. To be honest, I cannot see, how the latter articles support the claims of the authors, as these articles do in fact see evidence for health benefits.

• On the other hand we have the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada. For them the evidence is clear since 18 years and they claim: "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." here

All I'm saying is, we cannot use the first claim and leave out the latter. In my view no general claim should be made at all, because health benefits and risk depend on the nutritional profile, which will leave you with health benefits for one thing but health risks for another. Tischbeinahe (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The statement is not particularly contradictory since "certain health benefits" are accepted knowledge and discussed in this very article, as are the various health disadvantages. The overall modern conclusion cannot be deleted based on a synthetic over-interpretation of a source from 2003! Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The authors refer to this and this to support their claim. To be honest, I cannot see how the latter articles support the claims of the authors, as these articles do in fact see evidence for health benefits. Tischbeinahe (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia follow, the views of reliable sources or the view of editors who "cannot see" (because of bias?) ? Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The point I am making is that the source you quote is not very reliable to make such a huge claim that contradicts a position that the American Dietetic Association holds since 18 years. Your source deals very briefly with vegan diets and makes a claim that it only backs up very shaky with other sources. If you want a big claim, you need big sources, that's what Wikipedia's principles say. Tischbeinahe (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Science moves forward, and WP:MEDRS directs us to ensure our content is up to date. As I already said, in any case, the sources are not contradictory. If you going to claim a recent review article in a reputable MEDLINE-indexed journal is "not very reliable" you will need some objective evidence. It seems to me you are just POV-pushing and casting around for sources to push a POV, and this is pretty much your MO here. Alexbrn (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The ADA statement is up to date, because it was not updated. That's how dietetic associations operate. If there is no new and conflicting evidence these associations do not change their positions. Tischbeinahe (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Except a later version takes[5] the more cautious view that such diets only "may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases". Why are you deleting recent sources on the basis of over-readings of what outdated, 18-year-old, sources said? Alexbrn (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We can use the updated version and thus latest position of the ADA as intro summary. Tischbeinahe (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

So long as we also include the recent science clarifying there's no good evidence of overall benefit, that's fine. Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the title of the paper it only looks into CVD. The authors look into different dietary patterns and their health benefits for CVD. So if you want some general summary on all health benefits that is more up to date than the ADA, what do you suggest we use? Tischbeinahe (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The title of the paper is CVD, but the content is wider-ranging. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Have mentioned this discussion at the veganism-vegetarianism WikiProject. Hopefully editors there know of relevant sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• As of 2021 the medical literature on CVD and vegan diets is lacking. Recent Cochrane review "There is currently insufficient information to draw conclusions about the effects of vegan dietary interventions on CVD risk factors" [6] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Dietetic associations have been misrepresented on this article

The article contains the following text "The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Dietitians of Canada state that properly planned vegan diets are appropriate for all life stages, including pregnancy and lactation.[252] The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council similarly recognizes a well-planned vegan diet as viable for any age,[26][253] as does the New Zealand Ministry of Health,[254] British National Health Service,[255] British Nutrition Foundation,[256] Dietitians Association of Australia,[257] United States Department of Agriculture,[258] Mayo Clinic,[259] Canadian Pediatric Society,[260] and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.[261]

This is a name drop of various dietetic and government associations but if you take a closer look and examine some of the references they do not support vegan diets for all life stages nor mention anything to do with age. Just two examples (we can go through them all), Mayo Clinic is sourced to this link [7] which is on vegetarian diets, not vegan. It does mention vegan diets but it does not recommend them or mention anything to do with age and vegan diets, it even says "Vegans may not get enough iodine and may be at risk of deficiency and possibly even a goiter."

New Zealand Ministry of Health is sourced to this leaflet on vegetarian diets [8]. The leaflet is not on veganism and only mentions vegan a few times such as "Vitamin B12 deficiency is a serious condition with non-reversible effects. This is most likely to occur in periods of rapid growth, in pregnancy and when breastfeeding. Vegans are advised to have their vitamin B12 status assessed regularly by their doctor." Remember both these sources are cited on the Wikipedia article as "recogniz[ing] a well-planned vegan diet as viable for any age". This is completely false, they do not such thing. From what is cited on the article if you actually read the sources, few of the dietetic associations advise a vegan diet for any age or all stages of life.

In the above discussion there has been strong mention about the American Dietetic Association (ADA) supporting vegan diets for all stages of life. I would point out the ADA statement does not represent every dietetic association in the world and much of the paper is on vegetarianism, not just vegan diets. The 2009 version appears to be the most 'recent' (over 10 years out of date) and it is online in full [9]. If you scroll down to the bottom to see who actually wrote the paper it was Reed Mangels. This is not a neutral party. Mangels is a well known vegan activist who writes vegan cookbooks. She is listed as a "nutrition adviser for the national, non-profit Vegetarian Resource Group and the nutrition editor and columnist for Vegetarian Journal. She is the co-author of Simply Vegan (with Debra Wasserman)", she currently works for the website "vegan health" [10]. The other co-author is Winston J. Craig he is a well known vegetarian activist. Now look at the section below at the "reviewers" of the paper which lists about 7 names. You can Google search these names and they are vegan or vegetarian activists. For example Cathy Conway is an adviser for the "Vegetarian Resource Group" [11], Mary Hager worked as a consultant for the Vegetarian Times, Tamara Schryver describes herself on her blog as a vegetarian [12]. None of this conflict of interest is disclosed. You would have thought they would have gotten some neutral reviewers but it didn't happen.

The source seems to have been cherry-picked because it supports vegan diets for any age but it needs to be known that this is a highly biased source with a massive conflict of interest. The authors and reviewers of the paper are all vegans and vegetarians, they are hardly going to present a balanced overview of the subject are they? In conclusion there is misinformation, misrepresentation and dishonesty in the "Positions of dietetic and government associations" section on the article. The deeply biased ADA do support vegan diets for all stages of life but many of the others cited do not. I suggest we go through these one by one, because most of the references cited in this section are on vegetarian diets, not specifically vegan. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

How could any nutritional authority claim that *any diet that depends upon how it is practiced* would always (regardless of how wisely it is practiced) bring better health (to the practitioner)? I think that the core variable is how the diet is practiced. Someone consuming adequate nutrition through health supporting foods but adding lots and lots of desserts and 'recreational foods' (albeit vegan-compliant foods) would overconsume calories (a macronutrient) and have the results of overconsuming calories. Further, the exercise variable is not often included in describing dietary types. What we can see is that are no shortages of illustrations of the feasibility (proof of concept) of doing well and maintaining individual health on well-designed vegan diets; there are also (I believe) many illustrations of persons doing poorly on diets described as fully 'plant-based' which don't follow the best guidance on how one can live wisely and well. Avoiding tobacco and alcohol may contribute toward health; better health on vegan diets may or may not correlate with educational and professional/vocational achievements. Using 'may' could be cautionary. Further, that one can live on totally plant-based diets without damaging the ecosystem as much is an interesting line of argumentation that may emerge in the shadow of frustration with 'health only arguments' for such diets. MaynardClark (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact the new source pmid:31250769 has a fair bit on environmental considerations. If an important aspect which should be covered (if not quite on point for the current discussion). Alexbrn (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

United States Department of Agriculture is sourced to this link [13] which is on vegetarian diets. Again, I believe this is a failed citation. It does not support the claim that a vegan diet is suitable for all ages and stages of life. My understanding of this topic is that there is a lot of medical literature of vegetarianism but much less on veganism. Most of the dietetic associations or health organizations have acknowledged benefits of vegan and vegetarian diets but they have not all endorsed a vegan diet for all ages. We need to update the article and clarify this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(a) Secondary research (the kind used by journalists and authors and preparers of graduate theses) may be in order to see what has already been studied on this topic. If there is nothing, we can state that; however, I don't see how we could possibly state that something does not exist without our looking for it.

(b) Second, concerns for dietary superiority are not identical to concerns ethical vegans have about how far they could safely 'live by humane values'. Maybe the topic needs to be reorganized and the section rewritten.

(c) Finally, comparing WFPB (whole food plant-based diets, NOT the average dietary practice of professing vegans) with 'the alternative' (SAD or MAD - Standard American Diet or Modern American Diet) as the public 'practices' eating is likely to be more statistically relevant, I would (tend to) think.

(d) 'Can it be done - wisely and well' is IMO a more relevant ethical concern - IF the destruction of unconsenting sentient beings - FOR socially constructed human purposes (often socially constructed social purposes - holidays, recreational food, etc. - seldom evidence-based as the general public has received them) is defensibly a reasonable TYPE of moral consideration. Rewriting the article would need to better digest the intellectual profundities and sprawling intellectual diversity of its moral concerns. (MaynardClark (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"I don't see how we could possibly state that something does not exist without our looking for it." ← you're aware of core policy on this, presumably? Alexbrn (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you suggest? MaynardClark (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Simply that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic of veganism. I'm not even sure what you are saying doesn't (or does) "exist". Alexbrn (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn & Psychologist guy are both anti-vegans, they wrecked the macrobiotic article and the vegan society, they should be blocked for ruining vegan articles with their POV 82.132.234.189 (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)