Are you vegetarian ?

[strongvoicesforward]

I agree ! Both omnivore and vegetarian diets are healthy when gone about correctly. Simply eating non-animal products though will not secure you a healthy body just as much as simply eating animal products. I still believe an omnivore diet is the best way to go but i do not disagree that a vegetarian diet is very healthy too when gone about correctly- i think our only difference in opinion is that i prefer to advise omnivore diets while you prefer to advise vegetarian diets.
I am still reading the article you gave me, so i may still further discuss the benefets or negative aspects of a vegetarian diet.

Fair enough. Well worded.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Hmm...
With a vegetarian diet you are more likely to become malnutritioned as you cut out many large food sources/animal products. True, vegetarian diet can be very healthy if gone about correctly, i underline that "correctly", but you do put yourself at greater risk from malnutrition of various sorts i.e.;

"Breast milk DHA levels in vegan and lacto-ovo-vegetarian women appear to be lower than levels in nonvegetarians (144). Because DHA seems to play a role in the development of the brain and the eye and because a dietary supply of DHA may be important for the fetus and newborn, pregnant and lactating vegans and vegetarians (unless eggs are eaten regularly) should include sources of the DHA precursor linolenic acid in their diet (ground flaxseed, flaxseed oil, canola oil, soybean oil) or use a vegetarian DHA supplement (from microalgae). Foods containing linoleic acid (corn, safflower, and sunflower oil) and trans-fatty acids (stick margarine, foods with hydrogenated fats) should be limited because these fatty acids can inhibit DHA production from linolenic acid (145)."

none the less. The Vegan Society in the UK does recommend that vegans supplement their diet with vitamin B-12 pills for example as well.
Your link so far has proved very interesting, i would personally advise if you are going to advise anyone to go vegetarian you should give them that link so they have an indepth resource into going about the vegetarian diet correctly.
But what do you say about this controversy;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4282257.stm

If you had a child, would you raise them on a vegan diet and tell them "meat is murder"?
Many vegetarians complain their parents forced them to eat meat when they were under their care but had already decided they wanted to be vegetarian. I think this is no different with vegans forcing their children not to eat meat. Personally i think the child should be raised on a normal free range and organic omnivore diet and allowed to make up their own minds as they grow up and not be forced or emotionally blackmailed into taking either side.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi Toqis,

I just got back from walking my dogs and it is 3:30 a.m. now. I read your previous post and I will respond sometime tomorrow. Sorry, I have to get to sleep. As much as we vegetarians need good nutrition -- we also need enough sleep. Don`t want to be sleep deprived, you know.

You have a good day. This exchange has been fun and interesting. -- SVF

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Hi Toqis,
I just got back from walking my dogs and it is 3:30 a.m. now. I read your previous post and I will respond sometime tomorrow. Sorry, I have to get to sleep. As much as we vegetarians need good nutrition -- we also need enough sleep. Don`t want to be sleep deprived, you know.
You have a good day. This exchange has been fun and interesting. -- SVF

Good debating with you too, see you tommorrow . Eat & sleep well !

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hmm...
With a vegetarian diet you are more likely to become malnutritioned as you cut out many large food sources/animal products.

This statement is wrong for as far as it goes to proper nutrition. One can become malnourished even when consuming a largely meat diet as well, but I wouldn`t say that. The fact of the matter is, either one can lead to malnourishment if not done correctly and there is no research statement by a gov org, or professional association of high repute that singles vegetarians out as having demonstrated this in a large percentage of their diet group. I thought we already covered this so I am not sure why you are coming back to this. A proper modern vegetarian diet can satisfy all nutritional needs, and in fact has some advantages. I don`t want to have to requote what I already have (but I will if need be).

True, vegetarian diet can be very healthy if gone about correctly, i underline that "correctly", but you do put yourself at greater risk from malnutrition of various sorts i.e.;

And the same goes for an omnivorous diet that is not done correctly. As for "greater risk," again, please show me the research and positions of well reputed orgs that echo that statement.

The ADA outlines in its position paper on vegetarians far more advantages they enjoy over a range of desieses and risks that affect many more of the population as a whole than the negative risks.

As this thread advances, I will list more of them to drive that point home even harder.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

"Breast milk DHA levels in vegan and lacto-ovo-vegetarian women appear to be lower than levels in nonvegetarians (144). Because DHA seems to play a role in the development of the brain and the eye and because a dietary supply of DHA may be important for the fetus and newborn, pregnant and lactating vegans and vegetarians (unless eggs are eaten regularly) should include sources of the DHA precursor linolenic acid in their diet (ground flaxseed, flaxseed oil, canola oil, soybean oil) or use a vegetarian DHA supplement (from microalgae). Foods containing linoleic acid (corn, safflower, and sunflower oil) and trans-fatty acids (stick margarine, foods with hydrogenated fats) should be limited because these fatty acids can inhibit DHA production from linolenic acid (145)."

Yes, so what? Are you just agreeing with me that the requirements can be met and risks limited with no problem? The position paper you are citing above clearly explains they can.

Again, an improper omnivorous diet can also be dangerous to pregnant ladies, or anyone for that matter. If both are done so properly, there is no risk to pregnant ladies.

We have been talking about a subset part (i.e. pregnancy) of vegetarianism. There is no position paper by a well reputed group that says a proper vegetarian diet contains risks or that the population group of vegetarians as a whole had demonstrated worse health than flesh eaters. However, the paper, with many references to back its posititon up, sites study after study of numerous researches that point to the advantages of a vegetarian diet.

You keep hinting at improper or incorrect vegetarian diets having risks. Well, I won't argue that, just as I am sure you won`t argue the risks of improper omnivorous diet, so why keep talking about an "improper" or "incorrect" anything? Anything not done properly or correctly puts one at higher risk for sickness. That is a given. A proper vegetarian diet has no more risks than a flesh eating diet. But, its advantages are continuing to be uncovered with more and more research over the major desieses and factors (obesity, diabetes, cholestoral, colon cancer, prostate cancer, heart desiese, etc.... to just name a few) that are affecting the largest portions of the population.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

none the less. The Vegan Society in the UK does recommend that vegans supplement their diet with vitamin B-12 pills for example as well.

Taking one or two supplements and reaping the advantages of a vegetarian diet is a very small trade off for the returns.

That is what I mean by a "modern vegetarian" diet. A vegetarian diet perhaps 200 years ago would maybe lead to complications (though some Bhuddists and Hindus may disagree with that), but with today`s knowledge and B12 supplements, not only does it not lead to complications, it has advantages.

Your link so far has proved very interesting, i would personally advise if you are going to advise anyone to go vegetarian you should give them that link so they have an indepth resource into going about the vegetarian diet correctly.

Yes, it is a good link and for all those concerned about nutrition/health and interesting studies on health, should bookmark it for reference -- particularly those who are considering going vegetarian.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

But what do you say about this controversy;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4282257.stm
If you had a child, would you raise them on a vegan diet and tell them "meat is murder"?

Toqis, this quote, "meat is murder" is from an industry intent on attacking PETA. I want to stay on the issue of vegetarianism in this thread, so I won`t go into that "phrasology" highlighted in the article as it concerns Peta.

Would I tell my child "meat is murder," in effect using campaign cliche` slogans to educate them on the values our family adhere to? No, I wouldn`t. I would not sit them down on the sofa and say, "meat is murder." I don`t think most adult parents impart to their children their beliefs through campaign cliche`s.

I would say "our family does not eat flesh. We find it wrong to kill animals and eat them." Depending on their age, I would use words dealing with "ethics, philosophy, etc..." At a young age there are many ways to impart the ethics of not killing to children in a way that their empathy and respect for all life is nurtured -- without having to resort to campaign slogans.
Now, as for that article, the study was done in Africa. I have not seen the article and am not sure it has been accepted by journals of high medical research repute for publication and peer revue. Do you know if it has? Being done in Africa where there are just a host of nutritional problems causes one`s eyebrow to wise as to whether everything could have been properly controlled.

Also, accepting that research being done by "The Cattleman`s Beef Association" would be like accepting a research done by Ford citing its study that Ford cares are better and safer than Toyota cars. You would agree there is a conflict of interest in such research, wouldn`t you? Most would.

Furthermore, Allen Lindsey is an employee of the USDA. The USDA for years has gone out of its way to help and support the meat industry. There budget is tied to the success and growth of the industry and their employees are subject to intensive lobbying by the meat industry. There are a host of problems with the USDA that I will also go into furhter detail later.

I am sorry, but every part of that story is refutable or suspect, or shows linkage to corporate interests, or perhaps even prejudices. The person gave a speech on her research supported by agenda minded association built on proffits with an interest in protecting those profits, and another person, a professor gave a personal view statement. There is no reference to a position paper against vegetarianism or the advantages of a meat diet over vegetarianism by a professional association or org of high standing repute without an agenda or without ties to corporate interests.

Again, the ADA position statement references more than a hundred researches and studies on the topic and they are highly respected throughout the world for their unbiased and scientific professionalism. I would go with their words and the researches they cite on the issue rather than scour through BBC articles looking for comments by individuals. A large group/org of individuals having signed off on the wording of their position in an official paper is more trustable than quotes by individuals giving thier own views.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Toqis, this quote, "meat is murder" is from an industry intent on attacking PETA. I want to stay on the issue of vegetarianism in this thread, so I won`t go into that "phrasology" highlighted in the article as it concerns Peta.
Would I tell my child "meat is murder," in effect using campaign cliche` slogans to educate them on the values our family adhere to? No, I wouldn`t. I would not sit them down on the sofa and say, "meat is murder." I don`t think most adult parents impart to their children their beliefs through campaign cliche`s.

Ok so you wouldn't tell them popular slogans/phrases from campaigns or coperations etc.

I would say "our family does not eat flesh. We find it wrong to kill animals and eat them." Depending on their age, I would use words dealing with "ethics, philosophy, etc..." At a young age there are many ways to impart the ethics of not killing to children in a way that their empathy and respect for all life is nurtured -- without having to resort to campaign slogans.

On the other hand you would essentially rule out an omnivorous diet to the child by saying "we don't eat meat in this house" or "we don't cook animal products" and "we think killing animals is wrong, we don't support that"- so you are essentially forcing the child into a vegan lifestyle/diet.
Your beliefs on morality are just that, i don't think its wrong to force your beliefs onto children who don't know any better.
I used to know a girl ages ago whose parents were incredibly strict christians- they forced her to abide by their beliefs and morals throughout her life, not really giving her any options to do otherwise. Her parents forbid her to wear skirts for example, because they thought they were too revealing (she was 18yrs old by the way when i met her), and forced her to go to church almost every day.
Now the point of this story is that her parents thought they were doing the best thing for her by forcing their values on her whole life, but i think this was very wrong of them. I think she should have been allowed to live a normal life and then decide on what she wanted to do when she was old enough.
Do you think it was perfectly justified for the christian parents to force their beleifs on their daughter their whole life?
Some parents think arranged marriages are the best thing for their children, others think sending them off to the army to go to war is the best thing for them etc. When it comes down to it, its all about forcing or pressuring your beliefs onto other people- you may think you are right, but i still don't think that changes anything as to what you are doing.

Now, as for that article, the study was done in Africa. I have not seen the article and am not sure it has been accepted by journals of high medical research repute for publication and peer revue. Do you know if it has? Being done in Africa where there are just a host of nutritional problems causes one`s eyebrow to wise as to whether everything could have been properly controlled.

I have not seen the article either, but i think its fairly plausable that meat could help give a starving african a lot of energy/better health- during WW2 in england for example, millions of people depended on dried/preserved meat giving them the nutrients they needed to supliment their sparse diets for years on end. Meat is packed full of protein, protein is not only a hunger supressent but also a vital basic energy source.
Research aside, i think its pretty much common sense/obvious on the benefets of eating meat.

Also, accepting that research being done by "The Cattleman`s Beef Association" would be like accepting a research done by Ford citing its study that Ford cares are better and safer than Toyota cars. You would agree there is a conflict of interest in such research, wouldn`t you? Most would.

There would be some conflict of interest in research, but i think thats not a reason to take it with a pinch of salt so to speak- it would be no different than me doubting research on the benefets of vegetarianism done by vegetaraians or people trying to sell or incourage those products. Sure it might be a bit biased at tops, but its still research none the less and cannot be completely flawed.

Furthermore, Allen Lindsey is an employee of the USDA. The USDA for years has gone out of its way to help and support the meat industry. There budget is tied to the success and growth of the industry and their employees are subject to intensive lobbying by the meat industry. There are a host of problems with the USDA that I will also go into furhter detail later.

I havn't heard about that, but i'll take your word for it for now.

I am sorry, but every part of that story is refutable or suspect, or shows linkage to corporate interests, or perhaps even prejudices. The person gave a speech on her research supported by agenda minded association built on proffits with an interest in protecting those profits, and another person, a professor gave a personal view statement. There is no reference to a position paper against vegetarianism or the advantages of a meat diet over vegetarianism by a professional association or org of high standing repute without an agenda or without ties to corporate interests.

You cannot deny though that beef is an excellant source of protein. My point in this though is the subject/controversy of raising children on vegan diets.

Again, the ADA position statement references more than a hundred researches and studies on the topic and they are highly respected throughout the world for their unbiased and scientific professionalism. I would go with their words and the researches they cite on the issue rather than scour through BBC articles looking for comments by individuals. A large group/org of individuals having signed off on the wording of their position in an official paper is more trustable than quotes by individuals giving thier own views.

Their statistics seem good, but there is no harm in gaining other viewpoints or sources into this debate.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Taking one or two supplements and reaping the advantages of a vegetarian diet is a very small trade off for the returns.
That is what I mean by a "modern vegetarian" diet. A vegetarian diet perhaps 200 years ago would maybe lead to complications (though some Bhuddists and Hindus may disagree with that), but with today`s knowledge and B12 supplements, not only does it not lead to complications, it has advantages.

The fact that taking vitamin/mineral supliments though is strongly advised leads be to believe that the diet is otherwise flawed on its own in some respects. Not many soon-to-be-vegans invision taking loads of pills on a regular basis just to make their diet safe and workable.
If you did an experiement and left 2 people with no understanding or just a basis/average one of nutrition in an inclosed area for say a couple of months, and gave one an omnivorous diet consisting of vegetables, fruits, lentils/beans/cereals, red & white meat, fish, dairy products and eggs etc, and the second person a standard vegan diet consisting of nuts, lentils/beans/cereals, vegetables, and fruit and whatever else vegans can eat- i am sure the second person would be more malnutritioned and/or underweight after a certain period of time. Why? Because there's more room for error in a vegan diet because you are seriously limiting what you can eat to get your RDA of nutrition.

We both agree that both diets can be healthy when gone about correctly, but there's more room for error in a vegan diet especialy without artificial vitamin/mineral supliments and just a basis understanding of nutrition or none at all- i don't think you can deny this.

 

[Flashjeff]

Hey, if people want to be vegetarians, then, more power to 'em. That's their choice, and I respect them for that. As for me? I eat veggies, I particularly love corn, celery and green beans (raw), but I gotta have my meat! As far as I'm concerned, a day without a helping of dead animal is like a day without sunshine!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi FlashJeff. Nice to see your opinion and sharing your diet preference with us. Hope you keep on visiting the thread enter the conversation as it progresses. Everyone is welcome. -- SVF

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi Toqis,

Hope you`ve been having a good day/night. My wife and I just got from a movie and dinner. Read your two new posts above and they were thought provoking. Really am enjoying this discussion. Ok, let me address your points.

On the other hand you would essentially rule out an omnivorous diet to the child by saying "we don't eat meat in this house" or "we don't cook animal products" and "we think killing animals is wrong, we don't support that"- so you are essentially forcing the child into a vegan lifestyle/diet. ...

Yes, you are right. It is forcing. However, I will explain below why some forcing is quite justified.

I used to know a girl ages ago whose parents were incredibly strict christians- they forced her to abide by their beliefs and morals throughout her life, ... and forced her to go to church almost every day.

Now the point of this story is that her parents thought they were doing the best thing for her by forcing their values on her whole life, but i think this was very wrong of them. I think she should have been allowed to live a normal life and then decide on what she wanted to do when she was old enough.

Do you think it was perfectly justified for the christian parents to force their beleifs on their daughter their whole life?

You mean until she was old enough to stop living under their rules, in their house, and start making her own money? A part of me wants to say "yes," but I will say "no."

First of all, many teenagers who feel repressed like you have said do rebel and in many cases after strong resistance from the child, a child can have her will win out on "going to church" rules and doing the "christian things" that Christian parents try to force on their children. I am a good example of that as are many of my friends and cousins. We just rebelled at around 12 and trying to force us into a car just became too tiresome for our parents when we were larger and physically able to resist.

And guess what? -- vegetarian parents do report cases of their children not following their ethics and rebelling in their younger teens. When it comes to customs, there is always some attrition with the next generation refusing to carry the ball on.

But, I did answer "no" to your question why I felt it not right for Christians to force their religion on to their children. I answer that way simply because there is no empiracle evidence garnered through scientific research and studies for truth in what they believe (i.e. an afterlife with a God, Son of God, a book with names in them, die a martyre and get 40 virgins in the afterlife, etc...).

But I did answer "yes" to why I think it is right for children to be raised vegetarian before being given the choice or before they can rebel -- why? Because today we have research and studies done by professional scientists, dieticians, doctors, etc... which points to the health benefits based on empiracle science. Testable claims to a truthful message can be retested and confirmed by independent future studies. There is no fraud going on here and if there is, the scientific method is self correcting and fraudulent claims will be uncovered and the test will be modified and new data will be had to support or refute past and future tests.

Some parents think arranged marriages are the best thing for their children, others think sending them off to the army to go to war is the best thing for them etc. When it comes down to it, its all about forcing or pressuring your beliefs onto other people- you may think you are right, but i still don't think that changes anything as to what you are doing.

It only matters if we think we are right and can act on that thought if the data and research we have support our thoughts and opinions on the topic. If the data supports it, then it is ok to act on that by raising our children in a manner that is supported by reason and not just a hair brain idea that has been untested.

I don`t think data (or even if there is data like that from studies) supports those examples you gave, so I would not say it is right that parents do those things to their children.

On the other hand, data does support the health benefits of children raised on a vegetarian diet. Data does not support the health benefits of a child permitted to watch all the violent TV programmng and porn on the internet he/she wants, so therefore it is quite acceptable that parents force their rules/ethics about consuming violent images on kids by choosing them to not let them view those things. Even if most kids in school or the neighborhood are being permitted by their parents to watch those shows (i.e. being 'normal' for their subgroup), the parent still has the right, if not the responsibility, to prohibit practices that research and data have shown to hurt and or promote the activities that are shown to be beneficial.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I have not seen the article either, but i think its fairly plausable that meat could help give a starving african a lot of energy/better health- during WW2 in england for example, millions of people depended on dried/preserved meat giving them the nutrients they needed to supliment their sparse diets for years on end.

Of course it could. But, are we talking about survival in extreme situations or are we talking about a vegetarian diet for those not confronted with survival?

I am quite aware that people can`t have vegetable gargens in the far north and that they "survive" on seal meat for long stretches. "Survival" situations is not the topic, is it? or are you wanting to make that the issue? If so, I will be the first to admit that in life and death struggles for life, the diet readily available that presents itself to us is the one we will take.

It really doesn`t take any Einstein to figure out that meat for starving children could help them, BECAUSE they are STARVING! (emphasis not directed at you). However, meat for serving the starving masses is not practical -- and if the protein equivelant in meat of what they get from plant life were attempted to be switched, it would in all probability be a severe drain on recourses and impact the environment badly, creating a host of other problems.

Using the starving masses for justifying a flesh eating diet is not very sound. It would cause environmental problems and I will find you some data and figures on how "meat" is an inefficient means of converting plant callories for our use. The numbers are quite interesting and the implications for the environment and the poor people of the world are quite eye opening.

Meat is packed full of protein, protein is not only a hunger supressent but also a vital basic energy source.

It is but there still remains that a vegetarian diet is just as good and has some advantages over a flesh eating one. The advantages cannot be swept away. Btw, do you have any position statement that says African poor would benefit more if they were omniverous and not vegetarian? You do know that meat protein is much more expensive than plant protein, don`t you? With the same amount of funding used to purchase callorie recourses to feed the poor, it would mean less people being fed. What do you say to those that get nothing? You could purchase far more plant protein and callories by staying green and therefore feed more people. The world already knows that. That is why food assistance does not come in meat form. It is impractical and would be ineficient to do so. More would suffer if the fixed amount of funds were to be diverted to meat protein.

Research aside, i think its pretty much common sense/obvious on the benefets of eating meat.

Setting research aside is not a common sense thing to do. Doing so allows for myths to be carried on.

A vegetarian diet offers advantages. That has been born out in research with position papers on it. However, if someone is starving and meat is there, I would recommend consuming it. But, the discussion of vegetarianism is not one fixed on the severe situations and immediate dilema of survival. No UN programs when shipping grains to stave off starvation entertain the thought of providing the luxuries of meat.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

There would be some conflict of interest in research [Cattlemens Association sponsoring funding for research on the benefits of meat consumption], but i think thats not a reason to take it with a pinch of salt so to speak- it would be no different than me doubting research on the benefets of vegetarianism done by vegetaraians or people trying to sell or incourage those products. Sure it might be a bit biased at tops, but its still research none the less and cannot be completely flawed.

If those vegetarians sponsoring the research were the agribusinesses with large fields of brocali for selling to the market, then you would be and should be suspicious/skeptical of those findings. I would be and I wouldn`t fault you for being so. Vegetarian research however are not done by people with silo fulls of grain and fields of brocali.

When a multi-billion dollar international industry with large lobbying power is funding research for its product, one should take it with a pinch of salt until that research is peer reviewed by a well reputed independent org made up of professionals in that field.

I wouldn`t trust tobacco industries' research if they published studies about how deep inhaling from long drags helped asthma because it helps exercises the lungs by pushing them to full expansion capacity, would you? Now, I might if an independent org without ties came to that finding, or I may even do so if an independent org or several of them peer revued the research and endorsed it.

However, conflicts of interests are real, and when they are glaringly clear a pinch of salt is how they should be taken. Come on, Toqis, cede that point. Most would. I don`t think that is too big of a thing to admit.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

It really doesn`t take any Einstein to figure out that meat for starving children could help them, BECAUSE they are STARVING! (emphasis not directed at you). However, meat for serving the starving masses is not practical -- and if the protein equivelant in meat of what they get from plant life were attempted to be switched, it would in all probability be a severe drain on recourses and impact the environment badly, creating a host of other problems.

Do you have any research to back up your claims that feeding meat to starving masses is not practical in comparison to crops in africa? On the subject of africa, crop growing is even less practical than farming animals in many senses- take into consideration the yearly water shortages over there and then you will realise that many people are starving because their crops are failing.
Many animals like goats can live on plant matter that we cannot eat but can grow in sparse conditions like grass, and can survive on very little water- which is why goat farming is very popular in africa.

Using the starving masses for justifying a flesh eating diet is not very sound. It would cause environmental problems and I will find you some data and figures on how "meat" is an inefficient means of converting plant callories for our use. The numbers are quite interesting and the implications for the environment and the poor people of the world are quite eye opening.

Farming animal products is good for the economy just as much as crop growing is- in places like africa where you cannot be choosey about what you farm, where its more of a case of grab and grow whatever is posible, saying that farming animals is bad because it causes enviromental problems cannot be justified over crop growing because over there they suffer just as many issues as each other.

A small plot of wheat may fail before its even ripened due to the weather, and the energy that goes into growing and farming it is great. Growing crops in places like africa is incredibly difficult due to the poor weather/water shortages and the amount of energy that goes into growing the stuff- you need a whole family to plow the feilds, seed them, tend the crops, water them, protect them, harvest them and convert them into some sort of food source.

A cow on the other hand is pretty easy to manage- you just simply move it to places where it can feed and occasionally drink- only one person is needed to do this. The cow can provide milk for years on end. You only need one person to slaughter it, and its meat can feed a whole family for months on end- its cow pats can be used as fuel as well for fires.
This is one of the main reasons why a cow is far more valuble than a couple of sackloads of wheat, or pretty much any vegetable for that matter.

Trying to suggest that africans would all be better off if they gave up meat eating and farming animals and instead, all took their ploughs up and toiled the land for seasons on end to scrap in a tiny fat and protein source is just stupid IMO.

It is but there still remains that a vegetarian diet is just as good and has some advantages over a flesh eating one. The advantages cannot be swept away. Btw, do you have any position statement that says African poor would benefit more if they were omniverous and not vegetarian? You do know that meat protein is much more expensive than plant protein, don`t you? With the same amount of funding used to purchase callorie recourses to feed the poor, it would mean less people being fed. What do you say to those that get nothing? You could purchase far more plant protein and callories by staying green and therefore feed more people. The world already knows that. That is why food assistance does not come in meat form. It is impractical and would be ineficient to do so. More would suffer if the fixed amount of funds were to be diverted to meat protein.

Do you have any data to back up that starving africans would be better off on a vegetarian diet? (taking into consideration these people suffer regular water shortages, don't have a large variety of crops, and don't have pills to supliment their diets and so forth)

 

[strongvoicesforward]

You cannot deny though that beef is an excellant source of protein.

I don`t deny that at all. However, a plant based source of protein offers health advantages over a flesh source. In addition, meat callories are costlier, not only to our wallets, but also to the environment.

Converting callories from plant to meat adds a step in the process of production. Going directly from plant to human consumption cuts that uneeded step out.

The extra land needed to grow more feed for animals hurts the environment, encrouching already on little spare land that we have left. The extra water for irrigation of those large plots of grain destined for livestock puts a serious strain on water recourses (there are fears that the next large wars in the future may not be ideological or political, but rather "water wars"). Animal waste leaking into the water table has also been known to contaminate water sources for human use. Flatulance caused by cattle is being viewed as a large source for methane which is damaging our admosphere. In addition, transporting livestock from one station to the other as it is produced uses oil recourses along with the extra oil recourses used in transporting and cultivating the grain to support them.

Sure, if meat were discontinued a rise in human consumption of plant life would rise and that would cause an increase in production and consumption, but it would be a net decrease from the high of what it is in supporting livestock -- why??? -- because of the economics of value added by adding a step to the product (i.e. callories/protein).

My point in this though is the subject/controversy of raising children on vegan diets.

I thought we were talking about a vegetarian diet, weren`t we? Perhaps I am wrong, but I think this is the first time I have seen you bring up vegan. But, I will say a vegan diet while can be healthy, too, and offers some advantages, will require more diligence as one adheres to it. Diligence however, is not a negative thing if it increases awareness and attention to detail. But, remember Toqis, the title of the thread is addressing "vegetarianism" as the main subject matter. You might want to start a thread on "veganism" if you want to discuss that. I probably won`t enter the discussion though, simply because I am a vegetarian (though I am moving toward a vegan lifestyle).

Their statistics [from American Dietetics Association] seem good, but there is no harm in gaining other viewpoints or sources into this debate.

You are quite right. However, I do feel it necessary to point out the flaws or quite possible and very plausible flaws in those other views when they are present.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

If those vegetarians sponsoring the research were the agribusinesses with large fields of brocali for selling to the market, then you would be and should be suspicious/skeptical of those findings. I would be and I wouldn`t fault you for being so. Vegetarian research however are not done by people with silo fulls of grain and fields of brocali.
When a multi-billion dollar international industry with large lobbying power is funding research for its product, one should take it with a pinch of salt until that research is peer reviewed by a well reputed independent org made up of professionals in that field.

So you are only suspicious of people selling things then? Vegetarian organisations trying to pull people into their way of diet is no different than vicars and priests preaching to the unconverted to try and get them into their churches or religeon- neither are trying to sell anything, but both could be questioned for biased properganda or whatever.
If the vegan associating of the UK suddenly started farming crops would you start to take their teachings with a pinch of salt?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I don`t deny that at all. However, a plant based source of protein offers health advantages over a flesh source. In addition, meat callories are costlier, not only to our wallets, but also to the environment.
Converting callories from plant to meat adds a step in the process of production. Going directly from plant to human consumption cuts that uneeded step out.

The extra land needed to grow more feed for animals hurts the environment, encrouching already on little spare land that we have left.

Farming grazing animals at least keeps the feilds intact. Would you prefer people kept the fields nice with dozens of varieties of grasses and wild flowers growing on them, with large hedge boarders, and water troughs for all the animals to drink from- or have them ploughed up into thousands of acres of bleak landscaoe of crops?
Saying than farming grazing animals is worse than farming crops is stupid- go look at the damage crop farming is causing to the enviroment please.

The extra water for irrigation of those large plots of grain destined for livestock puts a serious strain on water recourses (there are fears that the next large wars in the future may not be ideological or political, but rather "water wars").

If we lived soley on crops then there would be even more water irregation. Crops are a far bigger drain on water supplies than animals are.

Animal waste leaking into the water table has also been known to contaminate water sources for human use.

Where do you think all those lovely veggies were grown off? Animal crap and chemicals! Without animal farming to supply the huge quantities of fertiliser, farmers would be forced to resort to using chemicals entirely to feed their crops off- no ****, no veggies.
By eating organic vegetables you are actually supporting animal farming in many senses as to do it you need vast quantities of animal poop which come from the animal farms. By supporting GM veggies you are only supporting farminsg pumping even more chemical fertilisers into the streams and stuff.
Your reasoning is very flawed.

Flatulance caused by cattle is being viewed as a large source for methane which is damaging our admosphere. In addition, transporting livestock from one station to the other as it is produced uses oil recourses along with the extra oil recourses used in transporting and cultivating the grain to support them.

Oh right, so we should just put a cork up all the cows arses or kill them all off? With more crops, the need for lorries/trucks as transportation is vastly increased.

I thought we were talking about a vegetarian diet, weren`t we? Perhaps I am wrong, but I think this is the first time I have seen you bring up vegan. But, I will say a vegan diet while can be healthy, too, and offers some advantages, will require more diligence as one adheres to it. Diligence however, is not a negative thing if it increases awareness and attention to detail. But, remember Toqis, the title of the thread is addressing "vegetarianism" as the main subject matter. You might want to start a thread on "veganism" if you want to discuss that. I probably won`t enter the discussion though, simply because I am a vegetarian (though I am moving toward a vegan lifestyle).

If you want to complain about me adressing vegans in a vegetarian discussion thread then don't talk about them with me.

You are quite right. However, I do feel it necessary to point out the flaws or quite possible and very plausible flaws in those other views when they are present.

And i'm pointing out the flaws in your arguements right now .

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

PS: please stop adressing me as "toqis". I would prefer it if you spell it at least half my forum name correctly i.e. "tokis" .
I am going to go out myself in just a moment with some friends, so sorry if do not post for a while.