The CDC conducted a study and found that 0.5% of U.S. kids are vegetarian. The article continues for an eternity while trying to build on that topic. The first half accomplishes it presentation of introductory information. Vegetarians don't eat meat, although some self-described vegetarians eat fish and poultry. It's the usual stuff. Then, this:

Eating vegetarian can be very healthy — nutritionists often push kids to eat more fruits and vegetables, of course. For growing children, however, it's important to get sufficient amounts of protein, vitamins B12 and D, iron, calcium and other important nutrients that most people get from meat, eggs and dairy.

You think that's going to be a way to introduce vegan nutrition with facts. Beans and nuts contain protein. Many vegan foods, such as soymilk, are fortified with B12. Broccoli contains calcium. Those are all factual statements that support vegan nutrition.

Instead, the AP writer follows with this:

Also, vegetarian diets are not necessarily slimming. Some vegetarian kids cut out meat but fill up on doughnuts, french fries, soda or potato chips, experts said.

It's a good thing omnivore kids don't fill up on doughnuts, french fries, soda or potato chips. That alternative universe might require the writer to research alternate, plant-based sources for protein, vitamins B12 and D, iron, calcium and other important nutrients that people can get from healthy food that 99.5% of kids eat. You know, foods like bologna, fried eggs, and ice cream. That's where protein, vitamins B12 and D, iron, calcium and other important nutrients come from, right? As long as they're eating meat, eggs and dairy, they're healthy?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via a friend's tip, a few anti-gay bigots are protesting McDonald's for some reason or other. Sometimes the idiocy - something about exposing McDonald's sinful bowing before the Homosexual Agenda™, I think - is so ridiculous that it just isn't worth my time to investigate closely. As evidence, consider the statement by the protest's organizer, Peter LaBarbera, as reported by Good As You:

"The people involved in this boycott of McDonald’s are good family people — not vegans, America-hating leftists, or some other fringe group."

Wow. I see that LaBarbera has been so busy investigating the Homosexual Agenda™ that he doesn't understand a few things about vegans. One, I have a family, although I'm about as indifferent as I can be to any concern over whether Peter LaBarbera thinks I'm a good family person. Especially if being good means hating people for who they are, as opposed to liking a person who chooses to be an ass.

Two, some vegans might hate America, but those vegans do not hate America because of veganism. But if LaBarbera took a quick (non-gay) stroll around Rolling Doughnut, he'd figure out have all the information necessary to know that I love America and its ideals. Not enough to endorse everything America does, which naturally makes me a pinko, I know. Still, I love it enough that it's hardly plausible to lump me in with people who hate America. If I want to be embarrassingly stupid, I might suggest that LaBarbera is an America-hating terrorist because his dietary choices match those of Osama bin Laden. But I won't because I'm not a complete moron.

Three, "fringe" is a very subjective term. I would think that, of course, since if I thought veganism was wrong, I'd change. I don't because I think I'm right. Many fringe opinions in American history have become the norm. So, fringe doesn't mean bad. Also, forgive me if I don't take my ideas from the popularity contest view of what is acceptable rather than a reasoned consideration of principles.

Four, McDonald's is not exactly vegan-friendly. The french fries aren't even vegetarian. The key difference, though, is that McDonald's ignores me because I am not in it's large, core market. I am on its fringe, but it doesn't feel compelled to express complete contempt for me. I didn't think that was noble, but LaBarbera makes me wonder if I set the bar too high.

Post Script: I suspect I belong to at least one other group LaBarbera despises as part of the "anti-American fringe".

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I overheard a conversation yesterday in which this was offered:

1. Humans need protein.
2. Meat has protein.
3. Humans need meat.

Who am I to argue with that irrefutable logic? Still, I'll offer my own example:

1. Humans need protein.
2. Peanuts have protein.
3. Humans need peanuts.

Even those individuals who are allergic to peanuts, they're humans. They'd better start eating peanuts or they're going to die!

If you like meat, defend it (or don't) with facts. But be honest about it. If you like the taste and think that is more important than the negatives (death of the animal, adverse health effects), say so. I can respectfully disagree. With logic like the above, I just disagree.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Via Veg Blog, I like this clip from Hell's Kitchen with Gordon Ramsay. Like Ryan I was not much on Ramsay because of stories I'd encountered. But he gets it correct in this video.

You don't have to be vegetarian or vegan; most of us would like you to adopt our choices but we realize that a mass conversion isn't coming any time soon. Still, it's not too much to expect a basic level of respect. Personally, it doesn't bother me when people eat meat in front of me. But it's not funny when people wave meat in front of me while asking if I want some. Nor is it funny when people joke that they'll slip meat in to my food to help me out.

I would be merely annoyed in this situation since it appears accidental, whether through incompetence or indifference. (The latter would probably make me angry.) Kudos to Gordon Ramsay for understanding that and demanding that these chefs respect their customers.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

The linked article is amusing enough, although I have disagreements. But this FARK headline sent me into a minor fit of giggles, a not-fun predicament as I go through the coughing phase of a brief cold. It was worth it.

The US has 10 million vegetarians and 290 million normal people

In a bitter mood, I'd probably file this under Ranting and discuss the definition of "normal". I'm not in a bitter mood. You're welcome.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

The New York Times editorial board has an interesting reaction to PETA's announcement of a $1 million prize to anyone who can produce commercially-viable in vitro chicken-meat by June 30, 2012. (The requirements are strict; it's unlikely anyone could possibly meet this deadline.) Consider:

We are disgusted by the conventional meat industry in this country, which raises animals — especially chicken and pigs — in inhumane confinement systems that cause significant environmental damage. There is every reason to change the way meat is produced, to make it more ethical, more humane. ...

So far, so good. But there has to be a "but".

... But the result of the technology that PETA hopes to reward could be the end of domesticated farm animals. This has often seemed as if it were the logical conclusion of some radical animal-rights activists: better for animals not to exist at all if there is a chance that they would suffer.

I doubt seriously we'd see the end of domesticated farm animals, even in a world where everyone went vegan. Existing endangered-species legislation suggests we'd take an unkind view to complete extinction. And given that such a world will never exist, this fear is particularly worthless.

Nor is it particularly radical to suggest that it's better for an animal not to exist than for it to suffer. I'll temporarily pretend that the inevitable slaughter of the animal does not qualify as suffering. The "happy meat" argument in favor of Humane-Certified is different from the majority of animal agriculture in the United States today. Assuming "happy meat" animals will suffer only at their end, most animals raised for food will suffer throughout their lives. That warrants a discussion, even if the eventual answer is to default to the status quo.

This is not an adequate defense:

We prefer a more measured approach. Ensure the least possible cruelty to animals, by all means, and raise them in ways that are both ethical and environmentally sound. ...

Again, so far, so good. Even for those who disagree because they prefer an abolitionist approach, this is better than nothing. But there has to be a "but".

... But also treasure the cultural and historical bond between humans and domesticated animals. Historically speaking, they exist only because of the uses we have found for them, and preserving their existence means, in most cases, preserving the uses we have made for them. ...

This is a ridiculous defense, but I'll defer to Erik Marcus, where I found the link:

You know: the cultural and historical bond that involves one party cutting the other party’s throat. Yeah, let’s treasure that. ...

As I implied earlier, treasuring the bond does not require death. For other species, we requires letting the species live, to the detriment of nearly every other consideration. That may be right, or it may be wrong. In the debate the costs of protection must be considered. But existing evidence undermines the "slaughter or extinction" nonsense.

At least they didn't say that animals want us to eat them.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the New York Times Magazine:

I wondered how [26-year-old Capt. Dan] Kearney was going to win back his own guys, let alone win over the Korengalis. Just before I left, Kearney told me his biggest struggle would be holding his guys in check. “I’ve got too many geeking out, wanting to go off the deep end and kill people,” he said. One of his lieutenants wanted to shoot every Afghan in the face. Kearney shook his head. He wished he could buy 20 goats and let the boys beat and burn them and let loose their rage. He tried to tell them the restraints were a product of their success — that there was an Afghan government with its own rules. “I’m balancing plates on my goddamn nose is what I’m doing,” he said. “All it’s gonna take is for one of these guys to snap.”

My initial reaction to this is disgust, given the indifference to the idea of inflicting suffering and death on goats. I understand (and agree with) the desire to save people before animals, but that's not the call here. The either/or scenario here is self-imposed. Yes, the soldiers are a victim of circumstance. No, that doesn't matter. They're professional soldiers.

After that thought passed, this quote indicates the problem with our military strategy. Take an invading force and turn it into an peace-keeping force and this sort of challenge seems inevitable. Afghanistan was a legitimate war. From the moment the Taliban's involvement in permitting attacks on the United States was clear, it was always reasonable to plan to oust it from Afghanistan. But we also needed to prepare for the rebuilding aftermath of invasion, both in infrastructure and government. Capt. Kearney's concern reveals a flaw somewhere in the chain of command if a problem can fester long enough to create this type of rage. How badly has the transition been managed? How prevalent is this in Iraq? How significant will this be when these soldiers return to civilian life in the U.S.?

War is chaotic. Outcomes are unpredictable. I accept that, and some uncomfortable level of challenge in multiple areas is not a sign of extraordinary behavior. But this is ridiculous. The manner in which the Bush administration drove us into two simultaneous wars with seemingly little concern for these long-term outcomes and consequences displays a mind-boggling level of incompetence.

Link via Slate, via Ben Casnocha.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

From various sources, I'd seen this article on Kansas City Chiefs tight end Tony Gonzalez, titled "The 247 lb. Vegan". Now that I've read it, one fact is clear: Tony Gonzalez is not a vegan. I'm not sure that he specifically calls himself a vegan now, although the article makes clear that he has in the past. But the presence of meat in his diet demonstrates that he is an omnivore, however limited his consumption of animal products may be.

Contrary to what some want to believe, I don't care. So we "lost" one. I don't judge the worth of my veganism on its popular acceptance. Having celebrities among our numbers is momentarily fascinating but ultimately irrelevant. Save the glee over Tony Gonzalez.

And the excuses for meat. From Debbie Schlussel:

Lots of vegan, vegetarian, and animal rights sites around the Net are buzzing about today's Wall Street Journal feature, "The 247 Lb. Vegan*". They're claiming that this article, about the diet of 247 lb. Kansas City Chiefs Tight End Tony Gonzalez, proves that an animal products-free diet is sustainable for anyone regardless of the lifestyle, physique, or profession.

But it's a lie. There's a reason there is an asterisk in the title of the article. Gonzalez's diet includes 1,120 calories of broiled salmon for dinner. ...

Ooooooh, we are so busted. Or as Schlussel points out with the title of her entry:

Weekend Read: Can a 247 lb. NFL Lineman Be a Vegan?
(Subtitle: Vegans Are Lying)

Presumably she's referring to the "lots of vegan, vegetarian, and animal rights sites around the Net" that are "buzzing" about the article's claim. Strangely, she doesn't link to a single site - vegan, vegetarian, animal rights, or otherwise - that discusses this article. She merely makes her unsupported statement, excerpts a bit from the article from one expert about the non-viability of a vegan diet for an elite athlete, and offers a "suck it" to vegans because we're allegedly too stupid to realize that chicken is meat and fish oil is an animal-based product. They are? For real? Wow, I learn something new every day.

Allow me to demonstrate a little logic and honesty by going one step further. In the video associated with the article, Mr. Gonzalez makes a smoothie. He states (at 3:08):

You put, uh, your rice milk on there. Or almond milk or, or regular milk.

I think he means cow's milk, which is not vegan. There is your definitive proof that I lie about my diet. Tony Gonzalez calls himself a vegan, but he eats meat and maybe milk. I call myself a vegan because I don't eat meat or milk. The label matters; the action does not. We are both lying.

I'm not surprised by her thinking, having read Schlussel's entry. She offers this in response to her question in her title:

So, the answer is no. One cannot be an NFL lineman and be a vegan. You need animal protein to maintain the weight. And looking at the photo of Gonzalez, he looks on the small and thin side for an NFL lineman. He'd probably be much bigger and stronge [sic]--a prized advantage in an NFL line--if he ate meat and protein and drank cow's or goat's milk. ...

Before ridiculing her scientific method, it should be noted that 247 pounds is not an atypical size for an NFL tight end. A tight end is not a lineman in the traditional sense, so he is not as big as the guards, tackles, and center. For example, Redskins Pro Bowl tight end Chris Cooley is 6' 3" and 249 pounds. This year's Pro Bowl starters at tight end are Jason Witten (6' 5", 266) and Antonio Gates (6' 4", 260). Schlussel's reasoning, if it can be called that, is empty of any knowledge of her subject matter. But there's no need to let that be an impediment, I suppose.

But to the proof of her thesis statement, the first reported attempt by an NFL player to be a vegan "failed". There's no question of whether he received incorrect advice from his nutritionists. There's no examination of how an actual vegan might approach a dietary need for more than 3,000 calories per day. This one example of a player who may not actually self-identify (I think he does) as vegan is enough. This is definitive; it's impossible to be a vegan lineman in the NFL. Next up, her proof that God exists.

If Mr. Gonzalez calls himself a vegan, he is mistaken. If Mr. Gonzalez does not call himself a vegan, the article is mistaken. One of those two statement is fact. The answer is not clear, so The Wall Street Journal reporter (and/or editor) botched the article by not clarifying this point. That, and maybe Debbie Schlussel's disregard for facts, is the only takeaway from the article.

Hat tip to Elaine Vigneault for the heads up on Schlussel's nonsense.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

On so many things, I'm always amazed at the ways people manage to rationalize away facts so that they're not threatening. For example, in response to a request for clarification on how sugar can be considered not vegan, a reader writes to Jonathan Zasloff:

Some super-strict vegans will not use sugar if the activated charcoal used in the filtration process was or might have been made from bones. (To give some idea how far-removed it is from an actual animal, it's kosher pareve.)

That's a very interesting concept of far-removed. Kosher pareve only means the food contains no dairy or meat. Bone char is not meat. But it is not "far-removed" from an actual animal. It is a direct, immediate connection. If we were playing Six Degrees of Separation from an animal, bone char's number is zero.

I choose veganism. You choose to be an omnivore, if you wish. Just don't pretend that what you're consuming isn't directly from an animal. Be honest about your choice.

Link via Megan McArdle, as she contemplates going (temporarily) vegan.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I have two angles on this story:

Two days after naming its mascot "PorkChop," the Philadelphia Phillies' new Triple-A affiliate abruptly dropped the moniker after receiving complaints from Hispanics that it was offensive.

The Lehigh Valley IronPigs, whose mascot is a large, furry pig, had selected PorkChop from more than 7,300 fan submissions. The team, which begins play in 2008, announced Monday that the mascot will be named "Ferrous" instead.

I had no idea of the derogatory implication. I don't have an opinion on changing it in response to complaints, other than to say it's probably the smartest business decision. I also think that Ferrous is a better, if not particularly original, name for a mascot. And it permits this kind of sticky-sweet blech:

Ferrous can be described as a portly, affable IronPig wearing the IronPigs home uniform and jersey number 26 – the atomic number for Iron (Fe).

How precious.

My second point is to remember how complaints about vegans typically accuse us of irrationally anthropomorphizing animals. Um, no. That's what omnivores do.

But PorkChop? Seriously? Who looks at an animated pig, a walking, jersey-wearing mascot created to interact with children, and thinks "Mmmmmm, you're so awesome, you remind me of dinner, your name shall be...PorkChop!"?

Post Script: I still love the name IronPigs.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've never enjoyed local news because of its propensity for a brainless lack of questioning and reflexive embrace of feel-good sentimentality incompatible with common sense. Watching the local news last night only because someone wanted possible new indications of a snow day, I suffered through this story on new food allergies in children. The important bits:

Margaret has eosinophilic esophagitis, a severe food allergy in which white blood cells build up in the esophagus, causing swelling and narrowing, making it difficult to swallow....

To control the disease, Margaret must stick to a strict diet -- a tough task because she can only eat very few foods. Staples include pork, potatoes, rice and most vegetables. She has to avoid most other foods, like those with wheat, gluten and dairy.

How does being able to eat most vegetables equate to being able to eat very few foods? Is it too hard to comprehend that something beyond macaroni-and-cheese will provide sustenance to a child?

"It's hard to feed a 2-year-old, anyway, but take away Cheerios, take away cake, take away milk, take away cheese, take away so many foods that normal toddlers eat and it makes it more difficult," Julia Schifflian said.

Possibly, it appears. This indicates a lack of imagination, which, to be fair, is widespread in America. I see no reason to believe that wouldn't be rectified rather quickly as these parents seek what's best for their daughter as they deal with her illness. But when cake is the second item mentioned as how this disease hampers your efforts to fill out your child's diet, that's an unreasonably low starting point.

P.S. Listening to the radio this morning, Howard Stern mentioned that he doesn't eat meat, only chicken and fish. Okay.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

In what can only be counted as a P.R. "win" for vegans, this story:

An art teacher removed from the classroom for encouraging pupils not to eat meat vowed Monday not to return to Fox River Grove Middle School until it eliminates milk and all other animal products from the lunch menu.

I heard about this when it first appeared last week. My opinion was and is that the story is about insubordination, not veganism. But that wouldn't sell. Remember Nina Planck?

As much as I agree with his message (and it isn't 100% agreement, as you'll see in a moment) and what I'm sure are good intentions, turning this into a debate on food choices will ultimately hurt vegans by making us look irrational and weird. For example:

Dave Warwak, 44, also said he plans to ask the McHenry County state's attorney to file child-endangerment charges against the school district because the school continues to promote milk and other animal products as part of a healthy diet.

With friends like these...

In other clichéd "vegans are weird" news, most freegans are vegans. Most vegans are not freegans.

(First story via FARK. Second story via Hit & Run.)

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

I don't know how clear I've made it in the past, but I don't consider myself an animal "rights" advocate. I understand enough political philosophy to realize that the word rights has specific meaning, and in that context, it's difficult to defend its use apart from humans. However, that shouldn't imply an acceptance of animal cruelty, as too many are willing to accept. Basically, I try to approach any such discussion in a rational, intellectual manner. That makes reliance on stupid stereotypes more frustrating. From FARK:

World's fattest pig sacrificed at religious ceremony in Taiwan. Naturally, animal rights groups are losing their minds (w/ pic of one fat pig)

The headline refers to this article:

The world's heaviest pig has been sacrificed as part of a religious ceremony, sparking fury among animal welfare groups.

I hope it's apparent why an animal sacrifice as part of a religious ceremony is ridiculous enough to warrant at least an eye-roll and a sigh. Defenders of such a practice will generally rely on an argument that the animal will be eaten after it is sacrificed killed. We could debate the merits of that, but contrary to what the FARK headline implies, that's not at stake here. The next paragraph of the article:

The animal, which was force fed sand and metal to reach its record breaking weight of 908kg (143 stone), could not even stand as it had its throat slit at the ritual in Taiwan.

Right, look at those animal rights groups losing their minds. What could they possibly be thinking? They're lunatics out of touch with reality.

In defense of the normally indifferent FARK commenters, many have said that they have no problem with killing animals, but force feeding an animal sand and metal is too much. Even a pig, which will eat almost anything.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Like every vegan, I've encountered the "I couldn't live like that" response, as in this story from Ryan at VegBlog. Explain veganism to someone and it's always "I couldn't", usually followed by rambling about deprivation (and protein). Ryan has the right take on this:

... You say “I couldn’t live like that!” to someone who’s living in squalor with cat feces piled on top of decade-old newspapers. You don’t say it to someone who simply chooses not to consume animal products (including cat feces piled on top of decade-old newspapers).

Veganism isn’t about deprivation. It’s not about sacrifice. ...

I choose to be a vegan because I've weighed the factors to the best of my intellect and determined that it's right for me. I've chosen a specific path. I have not denied myself anything.

Contrary to popular disbelief, I do not crave meat. (Nope, not even steak hamburger beef.) I don't secretly sneak off to McDonald's for a Big Mac/fish sandwich/chicken nuggets combo, with a milkshake chaser. And I don't feel like my life is lacking anything.

It's hard to believe that I could have a different opinion and act on it, but I do.

P.S. You aren't the first person to offer me "just one little bite" of your steak when we're at a restaurant. It wasn't funny the first time it happened. It gets less funny every time. But thanks.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

There's an animal rights discussion raging at Megan McArdle's new digs at The Atlantic. The background is too detailed, and probably too boring to those not interested in the topic, to rehash. However, this statement from Ms. McArdle in response to earlier arguments offers an excellent glimpse at a common fallacy among omnivores.

But I'm still battling with the question of whether animals should have rights. I'm a utility maximizer for animals: I think that eating certified humane meat is a positive moral good, because it causes the creation of additional happy animals (insofar as animals can be understood to be happy). ...

There's a term within the animal rights movement that better explains the ridiculous notion of humane meat. It's "happy meat", as in, as long as I believe the animal lived a content life on a farm with ample room to move around and received proper handling and medical treatment, contributing to that animal's eventual, gruesome death becomes trivial. That's too simplistic.

The argument is not specifically that animals are treated horribly, making "humane" treatment hunky-dory. Basic laws should cover cruelty, regardless of whether it's food production or dogfighting. Animals have an identifiable central nervous system. It's rational to assume that they feel pain. How they process that, we can't really know, but assumptions and observation indicate that their response differs little from that of humans. Hence, we have a reasonable starting point for laws prohibiting animal cruelty, even in a libertarian model.

The argument rests with the death of an animal. From Certified Humane:

Under the system, growth hormones are prohibited, and animals are raised on a regular diet of quality feed free of antibiotics. Producers also must comply with local, state and federal environmental standards. Processors must comply with the American Meat Institute Standards, a higher standard for slaughtering farm animals than the Federal Humane Slaughter Act.

The American Meat Institute's recommended animal handling guidelines include this:

AMIF’s audit guidelines recommend that companies conduct both internal (self-audits) and third party audits using the following criteria:

Effective Stunning – Cattle and sheep should be rendered insensible with one shot at least 95 percent of the time. For pigs, electrical wands should be placed in the proper position at least 99 percent of the time. For gas stunned pigs, no more than 4 percent of gondolas may be overloaded.

Hot Wanding (Pigs only) – No more than one percent of pigs should vocalize due to hot wanding. Hot wanding is defined as the application of electrodes that are already energized.

It continues further, although it doesn't get better. There is an acceptable level of inhumane slaughter within the "humane" standards. We needn't worry about a potential 5% of cattle who are not effectively stunned on the first shot, making them insensible and unaware of what's happening to them? I don't accept that.

The certified humane label is merely a feel-good tool for omnivores. I'm not saying that's enough to outlaw meat. The argument is more detailed than that, and can't be summed up in one quick dismissal of non-vegans. I'm even willing to accept that "humane" meat is a positive moral good, as Ms. McArdle claims. The basic welfarist argument that a life ended (barbarically) after being spent not in complete agony is better than a life ended (barbarically) after being spent in complete agony is valid. But that positive gain is neither deep enough nor compelling to solve the full issue (animal death) or to ignore the blatant contradictions in animal cruelty laws that do seem to center more on a "fluffy/cute" test than any sort of principle.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

This article on the rising price of milk is a week old, but I'm just getting to it now. It shows the unintended consequences of stupid government policies, although it doesn't try to do that. But that's not what I want to focus on. Instead, I'm amused by the lede.

Record-high milk prices are stinging Americans at the dairy case, just as millions of thirsty school children are returning to classes.

First, that's a quaint indirect use of "for the children". I'm just frustrated that the basic economic truth doesn't show up. These thirsty children have many options to satisfy their thirst. Some are good, some are bad, but there is a plethora of choices. Those who can't afford or don't want to pay for higher-priced milk can drink something else¹. This is basic economics, which is probably why it's so readily ignored.

¹ We're not going to delve into the myth that cow's milk is the only, or even best, source of calcium, among other nutrients. Right?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Finally, someone at the New York Times figured out that Nina Planck's irrational diatribe is one-sided and full of mis-leading information, which I discussed here. From the Public Editor at the Times:

Her Exhibit A was a trial in Atlanta in which a vegan couple were convicted of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty in the death of their 6-week-old son, who was fed mainly soy milk and apple juice and weighed only 3.5 pounds. The column set off a torrent of reader e-mail that is still coming in - much of it from vegans who send photos of their healthy children or complain bitterly of being harassed by friends and relatives using Planck's column as proof that their diet is dangerous.

If there was another side, a legitimate argument that veganism isn't harmful, Planck didn't tell you - not her obligation, [editor of the editorial page Andrew] Rosenthal and [head of the op-ed page David] Shipley say. But unlike the Middle East, The Times has not presented another view, or anything, on veganism on its op-ed pages for 16 years. There has been scant news coverage in the past five years.

There is another side.

Bingo. I agree that the op-ed page does not need to be balanced on presenting information. Sometimes, a bias is appropriate. (Obviously.) But it's good to see someone at the New York Times stand up for truth in this case because Planck provided misinformation. She lied as a result of her bias. That is different than analyzing facts and declaring one stance correct.

The editorial provides further explanation as to why Planck's article was flawed. I challenged in my original entry most of what the Public Editor now challenges about Planck's claims. Still, the entire editorial is worth reading to fully demonstrate how ridiculous Planck's essay was, given the facts she misrepresented and omitted.

Enjoy Ms. Planck's reply to the furor. Obviously, I disagree with her and find much of her reply laughable. However, I don't feel like rebutting any of her claims today. Read it and judge for yourself.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm not ashamed to have voted against Bush for Kerry-Edwards in 2004, but it gets harder every day.

Responding to a question at a bookstore here, John Edwards said he has never heard of PETA, the animal rights group.

"I can honestly say I have never heard of PETA," said Edwards. "They don't want people to eat meat? Well I am not in favor of that."

Can he possibly be that moronic? If he is so unaware of the news to not know who PETA is, he's clearly not capable of ever being fully informed about our world. We have a president like that now, we don't need another.

On a more fundamental note, is he really be such a dunce that he thinks somehow meat-eating versus vegetarian/veganism is going to become a campaign issue requiring a public stance? Alright, now I'm a little ashamed.

Link via Elaine Vigneault.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

The subject of yesterday's example on the derogatory use of "ginger", Jeremy Clarkson, popped up on my radar today with an anti-vegan essay. (He's apparently basing his attack on a foundation offered by EarthSave.)

The facts it produces, however, are intriguing. Methane, which pours from a cow’s bottom on an industrial scale every few minutes, is 21 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. And as a result, farmed animals are doing more damage to the climate than all the world’s transport and power stations put together.

What’s more, demand for beef means more and more of the world’s forests are being chopped down, and more and more pressure is being put on our water supplies.

Plainly, then, EarthSave is encouraging us to go into the countryside at the first possible opportunity and lay waste to anything with more than one stomach. Maybe it wants me to shoot my donkeys. Happily what it’s actually saying is that you can keep your car and your walk-in fridge, but you’ve got to stop eating meat.

In fact you’ve got to stop eating all forms of animal products. No more milk. No more cheese. And if it can be proven that bees fart, then no more honey either. You’ve got to become a vegan.

It's worthwhile and intellectually honest for both sides to debate the impact of factory farming on land and its consequences. It may be devastating or it may be managable, but this method of food production produces a negative. That is simply not open for debate.

After much gnashing of teeth on how dull and uninteresting a world of only plant foods would be for him, he offers this "tough" question:

There are wider implications, too. Let us imagine that the world decided today to abandon its appetite for sausage rolls, joints of beef and meat-infused Mars bars. What effect would this have on the countryside?

Where now you find fields full of grazing cows and truffling pigs, there would be what exactly?

Going vegan alone will not solve global warming¹. And going vegan without a rational transition period to accommodate the existing animal population and redevelopment of factory farm land into other productive uses would be a mistake. So, while I harbor no fantasies that the world will soon see a mass switch to veganism, I also understand that benefiting from such a miracle wouldn't be an overnight reality. Not all vegans are "free-range communists and fair trade hippies," to use Mr. Clarkson's term.

He then informs us that a much less radical solution may be possible:

So plainly the best thing we can do if we want to save the world, preserve the English countryside and keep on eating meat, is to work out a way that animals can be made to produce less methane.
...

... We all know that the activity of our bowels is governed by our diet. We know, for instance, that if we have an afternoon meeting with a bunch of top sommeliers in a small windowless room it’s best not to lunch on brussel sprouts and baked beans.

There are more negatives from animal agriculture than just methane, but Mr. Clarkson is actually thinking a little. There may be more than one solution. I have no problem admitting as much because my preferred solution is obviously open to subjective challenge. Working the argument down to a core issue helps.

If only his facts were completely correct:

So if we know – and we do – that diet can be used to regulate the amount of methane coming out of the body, then surely it is not beyond the wit of man to change the diet of farmyard animals.

At the moment, largely, cows eat grass and silage, and as we’ve seen, this is melting the ice caps and killing us all. So they need a new foodstuff: something that is rich in iron, calcium and natural goodness.

He then suggests feeding vegetarians to cows to get those nutrients. I laughed, because it's a joke. But do you remember his pleasant story about "fields full of grazing cows and truffling pigs"? It's nice to imagine, especially if we throw in a few rolling hills and a pretty violet sunset. With or without my embellishment, it's also not generally true. Cows raised in industrial settings generally get less grass and more silage. Their bodies are not designed for the large quantities of grains we feed them to fatten them up and make it easier to raise more cattle in less space. Surely this factors into the debate.

How much will new drugs to reduce methane production help? Even if we can decrease the methane, what would result from actually creating Mr. Clarkson's idyllic world of cattle grazing in open fields? What happens to the economics of grain and other foods as a result of using land to grow food to raise animals?

Link via Fark, where you can find the usual commentary that not eating animals places you lower on the food chain because animals are ours to do with as we see fit, and besides, humans need protein and that only comes from animals. Oh, and not eating meat means you're a "sackless nancy" who is also a hypocrite because, come on, we all know that vegans kill many varieties of living beings, like bugs and algae and bacteria. Probably on purpose.

¹ For the sake of this entry, assume global warming is a serious problem that man can halt and reverse.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

PETA is often absurd and ridiculous, more interested in publicity - no matter how negative the result - than actually furthering its cause. For example:

Citing the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is calling on congressional leaders to give vegetarians a tax break.

In a letter sent Wednesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), PETA President Ingrid Newkirk stated, “[V]egetarians are responsible for far fewer greenhouse-gas emissions and other kinds of environmental degradation than meat-eaters.”

The letter added that vegetarians should receive a tax break “just as people who purchase a hybrid vehicle enjoy a tax break.”

The flaws are many and obvious, so I won't bother with them here. What's important to remember is that, while every member of PETA is a vegan or vegetarian¹, not every vegan and vegetarian is a member of PETA or agrees with its tactics. Assuming that a dietary choice would automatically align someone with a specific group is intellectually shallow. Just so that's clear, since some commentary doesn't.

Link via To The People, with additional commentary at Hit & Run.

¹ The vegetarian/vegan debate is sometimes abbreviated to veg*n to include both without the cumbersome use of both words. I don't know if PETA has any vegetarian employees or activists, or if everyone is vegan. I assume there are a few vegetarians, which is why I included them.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Here's an interesting twist on a bad idea, this time from England:

Secret plans to encourage the nation to give up eating meat are being examined by the Government.

A leaked e-mail expresses sympathy for the environmental benefits of a mass switch to a vegan diet - a strict form of vegetarianism which bans [sic!] milk, dairy products and fish.

The change would need to be done "gently" because of a "risk of alienating the public", according to the document.

The extreme [sic!] policy is being examined on the basis it could make a major contribution to slowing climate change.

Success from this campaign would help, for various reasons. And as a vegan, I'd love such success. People going vegan would help, for various reasons. And as a vegan, I'd love a mass conversion to veganism. I'm not cheering, though, because diet isn't the government's business.

But how is this any different than the advocacy we have in the United States, where the government pushes meat and dairy through its ridiculous food pyramid and subsidies for those favored industries?

The majority doesn't want their tax dollars used to promote my diet. They should understand that I don't want my tax dollars used to promote their diet. Simply being in the majority does not validate an opinion.

Via Arkanssouri by way of A Stitch in Haste

Update (06/03/07): I've struck two sentences that made my aversion to government involvement in promoting specific diets unclear. The new sentences better say what I meant.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

And so the irrational attacks on vegansim continue, this time in the New York Times, courtesy of
Nina Planck, author of Real Food: What to Eat and Why. Consider:

When Crown Shakur died of starvation, he was 6 weeks old and weighed 3.5 pounds. His vegan parents, who fed him mainly soy milk and apple juice, were convicted in Atlanta recently of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty.

This particular calamity — at least the third such conviction of vegan parents in four years — may be largely due to ignorance. But it should prompt frank discussion about nutrition.

As I wrote when this story first appeared earlier this month, was that story about veganism or ignorance? It wouldn't have mattered if the parents fed their son cow's milk and chicken broth, such a limited diet still would've been inappropriate and insufficient for anyone, much less a six-week-old child. That's where the story ends. Or should end, if there isn't an agenda to push. So we get this:

I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.

And what support does Ms. Planck offer?

Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.

I'm being simple because I don't realize that people have always done it. That means it's good. Or I can reiterate something I wrote earlier today and apply it to the last sentence: it sounds correct so it must be correct. It's a little too simple to say a vegan diet isn't adequate, so that's why no vegan societies exist. For example, what about this?

... Cornell University study finds that it is primarily people whose ancestors came from places where dairy herds could be raised safely and economically, such as in Europe, who have developed the ability to digest milk.

Do people from areas where that evolutionary development didn't occur still need milk?

Ms. Planck provides more incomplete analysis throughout. She often hits upon the correct problem - improper nutrition - while trying to maintain a cohesive narrative against vegansim, even though veganism can provide proper nutrition. When she states that vegans tend to use soy too much in feeding their children because it reduces protein absorption, she blames veganism rather than poor nutritional sources of protein. I could use the same logic she does and end with is fact: cow's milk can leech calcium and minerals from bones, which is quite different than the desired, advertised result. But I won't, because relying on such simplicity leads to conclusions like this:

An adult who was well-nourished in utero and in infancy may choose to get by on a vegan diet, but babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and fish oil. Children fed only plants will not get the precious things they need to live and grow.

Cholesterol is a fascinating subject. Vegans never develop high cholesterol because they don't consume cholesterol in their diet. That would be nice if it were true. It's not. But it's equally untrue that vegans have no source of cholesterol. As long as they have a functioning liver and decent nutrition, cholesterol isn't a problem.

The fish oil nonsense is the winner, though. Pretending that it's fish oil and not the nutrients in fish oil demonstrates how Ms. Planck whiffed in her argument. Sufficient nutritional intake is the issue. It always has been and always will be, regardless of whether or not we're discussing veganism. If critics of veganism can demonstrate that proper nutrition isn't possible, they should do so. Trotting out the stories of a few children who died from ignorant parenting isn't proof.

Original link via Glenn Reynolds, where he offers this damning indictment against veganism:

I had a girlfriend who was on a vegan diet. She came down with Kwashiorkor. Luckily, the folks at Cornell Student Health diagnosed it quickly, even though it's a protein-deficiency disease normally found in starving third-world children, because they had seen it so often among women on vegan diets.

Everyone always knows someone. So, let's see, college-aged adults, surely the most rational, informed people around, eat a diet with insufficient protein, despite all the sources of protein found in nature, and veganism is to blame. Gotcha. Potato chips and lettuce would be a vegan diet, but it's not a rational vegan diet. Can we please focus on rational and not vegan? Would an omnivore who subsists on chicken tenders and mozzarella face nutritional deficiencies? No, which identifies the true problem here.

Ms. Planck provides sufficient fodder for link goodness. Read her original essay on the irresponsible parents who fed their son soy milk and apple juice. Or read the background information on her New York Times article, offered at her home page, which includes this from a family practitioner she interviewed:

'... Most breast-fed vegan children will do okay until solids are introduced, as long as the vegan mother is well nourished. Most commonly you see Vitamin B12 and iron deficiencies in vegan children. Vegan families must place close attention to protein sources, calcium, Vitamins D and B12, and iron. Often this can be achieved via fortified foods, but I've seen that not all vegan parents want to choose these types of foods. ...'

The doctor explicitly states that veganism isn't dangerous, but poor nutrition is. This is not news. And anecdotal evidence that "not all vegan parents want to choose these types of foods" is different than the claim that veganism is to blame. Do all omnivorous parents choose the types of foods with sufficient nutrition for their children? Maybe I'll theorize instead that omnivorous parents are lazy because they don't want to put any thought into nutritional planning for their families, so they just throw a few slabs of meat on the table since the animal most likely got all of its nutrients from plants. I could argue that, and I'd be on roughly the same illogical level as the article Ms. Planck wrote, but I won't. I have a functioning brain.

Finally, perhaps you'd like to read the description of her book, which portrays the book as more of a polemic against the industrialization of food. I haven't read the book, but I probably agree with her argument if she's saying the processed nature of the modern diet is harmful. Again, that's more about proper nutrition than veganism.

Update (1:47pm): Sherry Colb has an excellent take-down of Ms. Planck's article, including a legal flaw in Ms. Planck's use of Crown Shakur's death to further her anti-vegan message. Thanks to Kip for the link.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Find the mistake in this logic defending milk:

We're pretty darn sure that how much calcium you consume up to a certain age is a key factor in your life-long bone density. More calcium, denser bones, less chance for osteoporosis. All available evidence shows that milk still has a bunch of calcium in it.

Sentence one, no problem. Sentence two, no problem. Sentence three, no problem. But putting them together requires more than those three sentences. Just because milk has a bunch of calcium does not automatically mean it's effective or efficient at building stronger bones. This is shallow analysis getting a free pass because it's commonly accepted.

Link courtesy of Veg Blog.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm always amazed at how little people understand vegetarianism and veganism. Not so much that people don't grok it to the point of adopting it. I can't fathom how "consume no flesh" and "consume no animal products" is particularly complicated. Fish is not vegetarian. Chicken is not vegetarian. Cheese is not vegan. These aren't complicated ideas. Still, the way people persist in being shocked to learn these basic truths demonstrate how little people think about what they eat.

In that context, the journalist charged with telling this story either doesn't get it, or isn't thinking about the meaning of the words, only that the word count meets the editor's need.

Vegetarians who have learned to live without roast beef dinners and bacon sandwiches were yesterday forced to make another major sacrifice: chocolate.

Learned to live without and major sacrifice. Vegetarianism can't be about choice, because that doesn't make sense. It must be about willful deprivation.

It came after the makers of Britain's most popular chocolate bars, including Mars, Snickers, Maltesers and Milky Ways, admitted that they now contain an ingredient derived from a cow's stomach.

This month, Masterfoods began using animal rennet to produce the whey needed for its products, rather than a vegetarian alternative. Rennet is extracted from the stomach-lining of slaughtered newborn calves, and is used in traditional cheese production in central Europe. In Britain a microbial alternative made from mould is used.

Food manufacturers cheating on their ingredients is nothing new. McDonald's uses beef and dairy in making its fries. It's not common sense to think it includes those ingredients. But surprising? No. As long as major chocolate makers include dairy products in their dark chocolate¹, it's clear how little concern they have for vegetarian/vegan needs.

Here's the best part, though, courtesy of the journalist:

The admission by Masterfoods presents the country's three million vegetarians with an ethical dilemma over whether to consume more than 20 best-selling products.

What ethical dilemma? It contains an ingredient derived from an animal's stomach. That's not vegetarian.

Paul Goalby, the corporate affairs manager at Masterfoods, told the Mail on Sunday: "Since changing the sourcing of our ingredients we are no longer able to ensure our chocolate will be animal rennet-free. So we made the principled decision to admit it was not guaranteed to be vegetarian. If the customer is an extremely strict vegetarian, then we are sorry the products are no longer suitable."

They're admitting it before someone inevitably drags it out. Bravo. That's an honest move and gives vegetarians full information. But Mr. Goalby fell into the same bizarre non-grasp of what vegetarians choose to eat. He's off in believing this change only affects the "extremely strict vegetarian". That term is like saying someone is "a little bit pregnant." Either you are or you are not.

Link via Fark.

¹ From the Hershey's website for Special Dark:

Dark chocolate, also known as sweet or semi-sweet chocolate, typically has a higher percentage of cacao solids (cocoa, chocolate liquor and cocoa butter) than milk chocolate.

Well, duh. Dark chocolate shouldn't have milk. Hershey's own glossary of chocolate products reflects this. So why does it include milk in Special Dark? I'd guess milk is cheaper than cocoa.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Andrew Sullivan links to this story and states that the data suggest that vegetarianism is peaking. From the article:

A number of both positive and negative factors have impacted on growth in the vegetarian foods market over the past 7 years (since 1998/1999). ...

On the negative side, the number of vegetarians in the population has been in decline since 1999, after peaking in 1997. Nevertheless, continued growth in vegetarian foods sales supports the fact that the market has become more mainstream with maturity, with such foods purchased and eaten by many people who would not describe themselves particularly as being vegetarian. They might see themselves as meat reducers, or might be seeking healthier and more varied diets. Vegetarian foods are claimed to be lower in saturated fat, and contain higher levels of dietary fibre, minerals and vitamins.

Perhaps the data suggest, as a whole, that vegetarianism is decreasing. But is the sales volume of manufactured (i.e. processed) vegetarian foods a sufficient indicator, sans any other data? The sale of a banana is the sale of vegetarian food. The same applies to a cucumber. Even eggs, milk, and yogurt are vegetarian and could be considered applying to the data on vegetarianism. If they're increasing because people are swapping bacon for eggs at breakfast, that could imply an increase in vegetarianism, or "meat reduction".

Consider my pattern of grocery purchases. In the past, I've relied heavily on manufactured processed vegetarian foods. Over the years I've reduced my consumption of those types of foods. Part of that change has been my full evolvement to veganism, but I've also focused on consuming less sodium and chemicals necessary to create such processed foods. As such, I purchase more from the corner of the supermarket and less from the middle.

Does this imply that my vegetarianism has decreased because I buy fewer processed vegetarian food than I purchased in the late '90s? Or is it proof that one data point does not sufficiently represent the market? Again, maybe vegetarianism is in decline. But such a trend, if occurring, can't be confirmed by this research alone.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

There is no need to be specific in placing blame when it's possible to place guilt by association for those who are unacceptably different.

A Superior Court jury in Atlanta convicted a vegan (VEE-gun) couple of murder and cruelty to children today in the death of their six-week old, who was fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice.
...

Defense lawyers said the first-time parents did the best they could while adhering to the lifestyle of vegans, who typically use no animal products. ...

I can accept that veganism is relevant to this story as it pertains to the parents' approach to feeding their child since the child died of malnutrition. But this child did not die because his parents are vegans. Without a varied diet full of nutrients, a human will die on any diet. Feed a child nothing but shrimp and eggs and he will become malnourished. This is not complicated. These parents were stupid and incompetent. Their son died as a result.

To the reporting, it's helpful that the reporter included a simple definition¹ of veganism for readers, with a handy-dandy pronunciation guide to go along with it, but veganism expects more than soy milk and apple juice. Anyone capable of stringing two words together should be able to figure this out. Implying that vegans condone such nonsense is irrational.

This story is tragic, of course. A boy is dead who should and could be alive. But the reporting on this story amounts to little more than intellectually lazy voyeurism. "Hey, look at the freaks. This is what happens if you're a freak. Don't be a freak." Please. Try harder or don't bother.

¹ The word typically makes this definition wrong. Strike it from the sentence.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I didn't expect to be away for this many days. I've been pre-occupied, so Rolling Doughnut has taken the hit. You know the rest, so I'll just get to a recap of some news items of interest lately.

I first read about proposed changes to chocolate standards via this entry at A Stitch in Haste. From a few days later than the original story Kip linked, the Washington Post summarizes the changes, which would allow "chocolate" to include other vegetable fat in place of cocoa butter and still be called chocolate. (There's a story in the FDA's regulation of such, and the politics of this apparently rent-seeking change, of course.) If enacted, this change doesn't bother me because I like dark chocolate exclusively, even before I limited myself to it through veganism. It simply tastes better. And I care enough to look at ingredients. To the people like me who care, this change will mean little.

For example, it doesn't harm me as a chocolate lover/buyer if Hershey's can start calling Whoppers "chocolate", even though they already contain no cocoa butter. I'm not their customer. I'll venture a guess that most chocolate buyers don't have an especially refined palette for the difference. I'm not judging in that; I don't have a refined palette for many things, so little nuances escape me.

We're all different. The market for fine chocolate, or real chocolate, will determine how important this change is if it's implemented. That's enough. Besides, I'm more up in arms about the fact that companies like Hershey's advertises its products as "dark" chocolate when it has milk in it.

Next up, following the recent pet food scare, several thousand hogs destined for human consumption appear contaminated with the same chemical (melamine) because they consumed the contaminated pet food. The risk to humans is allegedly small. I don't eat pork, so I don't care, mostly. I do find this fascinating:

A maximum of about 300 of the animals may have already entered the human food supply, but the rest of the hogs have been quarantined and are slated to be euthanized, Agriculture Department officials said.

It's good to know that if animals become tainted, they'll be euthanized. Humane treatment for the sick is decent. What about the millions of hogs who aren't sick? Here's an example showing how hogs are slaughtered. (Warning: Link has graphic pictures.)

Officials emphasized that the human health risks of eating pork from animals fed the contaminated food are very low. The decision to keep those animals off the market -- and to reimburse farmers for the losses -- was made in the interest of extreme prudence, they said.

If the hogs ate contaminated feed, that sounds like a tort in which whoever bought the tainted feed could sue the feed producer for the damage done to the hogs. Why should the government taxpayers foot the bill for such negligence?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

So that I show my contradictions on this morning's post, consider this decision by Burger King:

In what animal welfare advocates are describing as a “historic advance,” Burger King, the world’s second-largest hamburger chain, said yesterday that it would begin buying eggs and pork from suppliers that did not confine their animals in cages and crates.

The company said that it would also favor suppliers of chickens that use gas, or “controlled-atmospheric stunning,” rather than electric shocks to knock birds unconscious before slaughter. It is considered a more humane method, though only a handful of slaughterhouses use it.

The goal for the next few months, Burger King said is for 2 percent of its eggs to be “cage free,” and for 10 percent of its pork to come from farms that allow sows to move around inside pens, rather than being confined to crates. The company said those percentages would rise as more farmers shift to these methods and more competitively priced supplies become available.

This is invariably good. Less animal suffering while they're alive is the correct action. Welfarist animal policy can promote a valid marginal gain.

But the animals will still die. Does it matter significantly to the chicken that it's gassed¹ before it dies? Of course it suffers less, but it still dies. And how significant will the change be if we're talking 2 percent of Burger King's eggs and 10 percent of its pork? That still leaves 98 percent and 90 percent of animals, respectively, facing the same amount of suffering. Will this be a one-time improvement, or will there be a continual push to reduce the amount of suffering? The answer isn't clear.

I found the link to this story at the Daily Dish, where Andrew Sullivan wrote this about the decision:

I'm a McDonalds fan, but I'm switching. The more of us do it, the more likely it is that the rest of the food industry will follow Burger King's lead.

In the past, Mr. Sullivan wrote about the moral implications of using animals for food. He was honest about the qualm he has with how animals are treated, specifically pigs because of their intelligence. Yet he's also stated that "it should be possible to remain carnivorous and more humane than we currently are." Now we see the effect of the welfarist approach. How likely is Mr. Sullivan to align² his views and habits further now that he has a way to ease his moral qualm? I'm not suggesting that guilt is appropriate, but there are consequences to providing such moral escape clauses.

I appreciate what the welfarist approach can do. I'm just not overly thrilled at such half-measures. For example, with routine infant circumcision, anything that reduces suffering should be implemented. But I will not cheer increased use of analgesic creams and dorsal blocks, which should be standard even though they are insufficient. The case against routine infant circumcision is not that the child suffers during the surgery and the healing time after. It is important in the debate, but it is not primary. What the child is being denied for the rest of his life, without his consent, is the problem. No amount of compassion diminishes this. The drawbacks of the welfarist argument allows parents to feel better about "their" decision, and consequently think less about the lifelong consequences. Kids will suffer who may not have faced the knife if their parents had been forced to confront the full ramifications of their actions.

Positive changes are useful and should not be abandoned solely because the results won't live up the hope. They're just not enough and should be seen as incomplete.

¹ If you eat that chicken, wouldn't you then eat some of that gas? Consider this article titled Beef diet 'damages sons' sperm' discussing the impact of pregnant women eating beef raised with "growth promoting chemicals". (Link via Julian Sanchez.)

² I'm not trying to pick on Mr. Sullivan on this. This rationale is not exclusive to him, nor am I perfect in this in the ways it applies to my life.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Kip I learned of this brief essay by Michael Dorf. Here are the first two of its three paragraphs:

In my FindLaw column yesterday, I argued that Al Gore undermines his ability to act as a spokesman for combating global warming by living in a very large house and jetting around the world --- even though he "carbon balances," i.e., pays green causes to plant trees, cover landfill and take other actions that compensate for his own generation of greenhouse gases. I compare these compensating measures to the purchase of papal indulgences and the payment of substitute soldiers by Civil War draftees. (I go on, however, to praise Gore's policy proposals.)

Here I want to add another example. Suppose I think that it's wrong to eat animals and animal products (as in fact I do) but that I really like the taste of meat. Could I discharge my moral obligation (as I see it) to be a vegan by continuing to pack away the hamburgers and steaks but pay a carnivore to convert to veganism so that I "meat balance?" The very idea seems absurd.

Such a transaction is far too utilitarian-at-the-expense-of-principles for me personally, but I don't think it's absurd to consider this.

Animal rights vegans, of which I am one only tangentially¹ through my primary health justifications for being vegan, tend to fall into two camps: welfarists and abolitionists. The distinction isn't perfectly applicable here because the distinction has more to do with approach to the treatment of animals, but it's useful anyway. Welfarists believe that marginal improvements in how we treat animals is useful. Free-range chickens and cage-free hens, for example, reduce the suffering of animals while they're alive. If a pig has the ability to stretch her legs in her gestation crate, that's better than her being pinned to the floor by the constraints of her crate. The treatment may still be despicable, but the animal suffers less.

Abolitionists view this distinction more as a black-or-white issue. It does matter how compassionately you treat the animal, the animal still suffers. It doesn't matter how compassionately you slaughter the animal, dead is still dead. Since humans do not need meat and alternatives exist for animal products, there is no justification that renders the use and abuse of animals acceptable.

I tend to side with the abolitionists. There is value in the welfarist approach when it exposes people to the horrible practices involved in animal "agriculture". Every change must begin somewhere. But I agree that such concessions may lead to as much or more animal consumption. I've had discussions where a carnivore will say "but I buy only free-range meat". So? The animal still suffers, although that's not apparent in the marketing. (How many singing cows do we need to see to believe something untrue?) Again, dead is dead.

Which gets back to the question at hand. Would a barter of money for veganism work? I don't think it discharges the buyer's moral obligation, but it could work to reduce animal suffering. For every new vegan, n animals will not die or suffer. That's the beauty of capitalism. Reduced demand will lead to reduced supply. Over a lifetime, that could be a tremendous individual impact.

There are drawbacks, of course. The buyer may now consume more meat because he is "offsetting" his consumption. The buyer may be a large man with a vociferous appetite, while the seller may be a petite woman with a small appetite. The balance falls heavily against significant improvement. The net effect from the person with a moral qualm is potentially less than if he had the character to act according to his beliefs.

I suspect this drawback is more likely than the optimistic outcome from buying veganism. A bit like Al Gore's energy consumption for his home, for example.

¹ I care about animals rights enough to do the basics. I don't buy animal products such as leather. I don't buy products tested on animals. You just won't find me actively protesting and agitating for change. I care about it, but I'm not passionate enough. I'd get in the way.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Some interesting science news today:

Providing a kaleidoscopic upgrade to creatures that are largely colorblind, scientists have endowed mice with a human gene that allows the rodents to see the world in full Technicolor splendor.

The advance, which relied on imaginative tests to confirm that the mice can perceive all the hues that people see, helps resolve a long-standing debate about how color vision arose in human ancestors tens of millions of years ago. That seminal event brought a host of practical advantages, such as the ability to spot ripe fruit, and unveiled new aesthetic pleasures -- autumn foliage, magenta sunsets and the blush of a potential mate, among them.

This is fascinating to me. I can't imagine what it would be like to be colorblind. I'd assume that, if this pans out, many colorblind people would seek out a genetic improvement. That's only a guess, of course. Still, the capability of the human mind fascinates.

One line in the story made me chuckle.

The work also points to the possibility of curing some of the millions of colorblind Americans -- and even enhancing the vision of healthy people, allowing them to experience a richer palette than is possible with standard-issue eyes.

A bit like combat boots or a new company laptop. Are we obligated to discuss who/what issued them as standard? So many questions.

Disclaimer: As a vegan, I'm supposed to be opposed to animal testing in all its forms. For the most part I am. My exceptions are practical and beyond what I care to discuss in this post. In not discussing them, I am offering no approval or disapproval for the animal testing in the article, from which many questions arise. Blah, blah, blah.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

I don't write much about vegan issues because there are only so many non-mainstream issues I can discuss before I give the impression that I'm ready to abandon society, live in a hut and forsake showering. Sometimes an issue worth mentioning hits the news.

The largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday [01/24] that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming.

Activists hailed the decision as perhaps the most significant voluntary improvement ever made in animal welfare, but they said the stage had been set by the recent passage of two state initiatives that would ban the use of the crates.

That's indeed overdue but significant. I accept that my dietary choices will remain the minority in my lifetime, barring some unanticipated development. But I'm still amazed that even a minimal shift like this has taken so long. Any basic awareness of the issue should reveal exactly how cruel this is. It seems only someone with a complete indifference to the suffering of farmed animals could deem cheaper meat more important than a small level of decency. Basically, I'd be curious to hear how this could be considered humane or defensible:

While they defended the use of the crates -- which are so narrow that the animals cannot turn around and some have to lie uncomfortably on their chests -- they said their own research had concluded they could be replaced by group pens without any long-term problems or cost increases.

Remember, these are pregnant pigs that cannot turn around and may be forced to lie on their chests. I'm not going to jump on the animal rights soapbox because I know most people see that as extreme. I don't think it is, although I'll grant that some activists take that to its extreme. But actions such as this don't need to be motivated by any notion of rights for animals. Actions like this are about the humans who care for and consume these animals in a time when it isn't necessary for survival. We don't think it's acceptable to mistreat "cute" animals like cats and dogs, so why is it acceptable to mistreat other animals? Because we decided they taste better? That can't be enough.

For what it's worth, I think the seriousness with which this will be undertaken and to which it will be adhered is explained by the implementation timeline of this decision. Smithfield expects all of its pig nurseries will be converted to group pens within 10 years. Many animals will suffer over the next decade.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Speaking of science and kooks, too much soy will allegedly make you gay (Source):

The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.

I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.

Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally.

With such claims, a few citations of medical data might help. They're nowhere to be found. But that's okay. Proof is unnecessary when a child's sexuality is at stake:

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.

And so it goes. Instead of scientific proof, or even theories with a scientific basis, we get the basic statement that "homosexuality is always deviant." Note that the author discusses medical blame rather than explanation. Even if soy is as dangerous as the author claims, his real concern is not physical health. Moral health trumps any reality we face here. Of course, a reasonable person might just as easily attribute the alleged rise in homosexuality to reduced stigma that allows gays to come out of the closet rather than pretending to be straight. Incidence and reporting are different.

Finally, I wonder how the author would explain lesbians? I understand that the real disgust is aimed at gay men, but I wouldn't expect the bigotry to be this obvious.

Afterthought: As a vegan, I have no stance in this argument. Avoid soy or don't. I eat soy products and I'm fairly certain it hasn't made me gay. But I'm just one guy. Here is some information about soy that challenges a few claims. I make no claims about it's accuracy, but there are citations. That's instantly an improvement over the WorldNet Daily nonsense.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

For anyone thinking of visiting Seattle, here are a few tidbits of knowledge I picked up:

1. Mighty O donuts makes the greatest vegan donuts doughnuts the planet has ever known. In eight days, Danielle and I inhaled 2½ dozen doughnuts. Granted, I consumed more, but they were good. Like crack, even. Every time we were in our hotel room, they called our name. So. Good.
2. The locals refer to the city as the People's Republic of Seattle. I don't know if this is meant affectionately, but you can imagine I'd never live there. It's a wonderful place to visit, though.
3. The common perception that it rains a lot is a myth. I lugged a rain jacket and umbrella across this continent based on this lie. Don't believe it. We encountered zero drops of rain on our vacation, including more than five days spent in Seattle.
4. I've never been to San Francisco, but I imagine it feels like Seattle. I'd never ridden on roads that slope at an 88° angle before, but now I know what it's like.
5. Not Seattle-specific, but taught by the aforementioned hills, I can report that the Saturn Vue is possibly the worst car ever designed. How can an automatic transmission require two feet to operate the pedals to avoid slamming into cars behind you? (Side note: The hills weren't really 88° angles. The engineers at Saturn inspired that bit of exaggeration.)
6. As a DC resident I was susceptible to Seattle's hatred of jaywalking. I obeyed all the signals to avoid the $55 ticket, which police will apparently issue at 7am Sunday morning on an empty road.
7. Mount Rainier is big.

Now you know.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

As a vegan, testing or not testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (Mad Cow Disease) isn't a particular concern. One cow with the disease, or one billion cows, my brain is going to continue functioning nicely. (Open to interpretation, of course.) And the politics involved, through subsidies for meat and dairy production, preclude my "Save the cows" pleas from making any headway. So, instead of complaining or applauding the wisdom of the Agriculture Department's decision to cut testing for BSE, I'll highlight this quote from the story about the possible impact of the decision:

"It surely will not encourage consumers in the U.S. or Japan to rush to the store to buy more beef," said Carol Tucker Foreman, food-policy director for Consumer Federation of America.

The government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging consumers to buy more beef. Or less beef. Or chicken instead of beef. Or beets instead of chicken. Or... you get the point.

If consumers want beef, they'll buy it. If they deem BSE or any other possible contamination to be a risk, their inevitable decision to stop buying beef will suggest responses from beef marketers. They could stop selling beef. This might be necessary if the cost of testing proved prohibitive to what consumers are willing to pay. More likely, they would test their beef, which would raise their costs. They would pass that increase to their consumers. Taxpayers like me, who do not consume the beef we're all paying to protect, would no longer be forced to artificially support the carnivorous habits of everyone else.

Capitalism. It's what's for America.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reading this post at A Stitch in Haste caused me to seek out a bit of information on milk. I don't regularly research milk, but I was intrigued by a point that Kip made regarding New York City removing whole milk from public schools due to childhood obesity. He pointed out that the chocolate skim milk that's still available has only 20 fewer calories per serving, so the effect is mostly a move to do something for the kids show, instead of a thought-out (and appropriate) action. As I commented on his post, the sugar content of chocolate skim milk is more than twice that of whole milk. Is it really better to encourage diabetes over obesity? Of course not, but misguided policies always have unintended consequences. Such is life when parents let government raise their children.

In my searching, though, I found an interesting "fact". Consider:

Got chocolate milk? You may want to after you hear this. Research suggests that chocolate milk may be an ideal exercise recovery drink to refuel exhausted muscles � allowing for future enhanced performance.

A study conducted at the University of Indiana found that chocolate milk effectively helped athletes recover from an intense workout. The researchers gave cyclists commercial sports drinks and chocolate milk after exercising to the point of exhaustion. They found that chocolate milk was nearly twice as effective compared to a commercial sports drink as a recovery product, and the athletes liked the taste of chocolate milk a lot better.

The researchers conclude that chocolate milk contains an ideal carbohydrate to protein ratio to make it an effective fuel for recharging muscles after exercise. So, the next time you�re cooling down after a big game or a tough workout, why not take chocolate milk to the training table?

I have no idea about the details of this study, but what idiot finishes a vigorous exercise and thinks "Hmm, I could really use some chocolate milk to recharge"? Especially on a hot day. Although that seems apparent to me, it's worthwhile to comprehend what that statement really compared. Your choices are chocolate milk or a commercial sports drink. Water is good only if something else is in it and that something is sugar, apparently. Brilliant.

Marketing can overcome anything, I suppose.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

I sent this to Subway on Wednesday. I'm posting it here to further publicize it.

I'm writing to inform you that I purchased my last Subway sandwich today.

As a vegan, I've always appreciated Subway's menu. In fast food, it's virtually impossible to find vegan options. Although your vegan-friendly options are limited, the food is still substantial. Rather than being limited to a bag of chips or a bottle of water, I can get a full sandwich with real vegetables. (Although, iceberg lettuce is more the nutritional equivalent of a penny in American currency than it is a real vegetable.) That should be enough, and for a long time, it was. No longer.

This afternoon, I purchased a Veggie Delite� as I have many times in the past. However, a recent bad experience left me leery of the Subway process. As a vegan, it's not enough that my sandwich be free of animal-products. Subway employees violate this every time they prepare a vegan sandwich. Cutting the sandwich with an unclean knife leaves inevitable remnants on the formerly vegan sandwich.

For example, a few weeks ago, an employee cut my Veggie Delite with a knife encrusted with tuna and mayo (and who knows what else). I hope you're not surprised to hear that chunks of tuna and mayo remained on the bread.

Today, to avoid that, I asked the employee not to cut my sandwich. He complied, but used an unclean knife to hold the vegetables in place while he folded the sandwich. With the sandwich folded, he pressed down and dragged the knife from the middle. Whatever was on the knife saturated my sandwich. I would like to reassure you that this is an isolated incident at one franchise, but that isn't true. This occurs at every Subway at which I've ever eaten. This is a fundamental flaw in your process.

Suppose that I was a vegan because of allergies instead of general health/ethical reasons. Would Subway enjoy the outcome of me eating crab meat with my Veggie Delite�? For a company that speaks of nutritious eating and health, this does not reflect well. Veganism is not a fringe, hard-to-understand cult. As a food service company, you have an obligation to be aware of this accepted concept and how it impacts your business and, more importantly, your customers.

In my case, consider that former customer.

I wonder what response I'll get.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

It's rare that I venture to restaurants that business people use for "power lunches", but today some co-workers and I went to American Sea Grill in D.C. to celebrate a co-worker's birthday. I don't hate these restaurants because they are "power lunch" establishments, though it contributes to the hatred. These restaurants don't serve food, they serve creations. Naturally this precludes any sort of vegetable-based dish because real, powerful men eat meat. On those rare occasions when they don't eat meat, damnit if they don't expect some form of animal product to be in the meal. I guess it comes from some mental need to feel superior to their food, as well as their lunch companion(s). Ain't commerce grand?

Anyway, because I'm so perfect, I don't need that feeling of superiority. I derive it in other ways, thank you. Yet that irrational, closed-minded superiority is what I find on nearly every one of these menus. Every restaurant has that superiority, of course, but the simple rule is, the fewer pages the menu has, the more densely the superiority is packed into the selections. When the menu is one page, like the menu at American Sea Grill, the waiter won't understand the concept of veganism, so any vegan option expectation would be stupid. When the waiter handed me the menu, with its stiff cardboard back to add weight and powerfulness, I reviewed the dishes out of curiosity, not the wishful hope of ordering directly from the menu. In this, they confirmed all that I imagined.

Consider this "Cliffs Notes®" version of my conversation with the waiter:

Me: What can you do that's vegan?

Waiter: (Looking at the menu) Let's see, what can we do that's vegetarian?

Me: Not vegetarian. Vegan. No meat, but also no dairy, cheese, or eggs. (Side note: you'd be amazed at how many people don't realize that cheese is dairy.)

Waiter: Hmmm, I don't think we can do much. Maybe the mixed greens. (They have cheese in them.) What kind of meats do you eat?

Me: No meat.

Waiter: We can do the fettuccine without the cheese.

Me: fettuccine has eggs in it.

Waiter: Then I don't know. We have a veggie wrap.

Me: I saw that. Does it have any other vegetables on it than the lettuce listed in the description?

Waiter: Yes.

Me: Ok, I'll have that, but leave off the cheese and the pesto. (Pesto should be vegan, but it isn't always, so it's gone.). (Turning to my co-worker after the waiter left) That's going to be wrong when it arrives.

Co-worker: You think so?

Me: I know it will.

When it arrived, this is what it looked like:

Waiter: It has caesar dressing on the lettuce although I don't know if it has egg in it.

I'd like to give a pass on the caesar dressing because I guess not everyone knows what's in it. I'm not inclined to do so for two reasons. First, it's a creamy white food. How often does that occur in nature? Second, he's a waiter at a restaurant. He should know what it's in the food he's serving. But since he didn't, allow me to offer this ingredient list for caesar dressing:

4 tablespoons red wine vinegar
2 egg yolks
1 tablespoon Dijon mustard
3/4 cup lemon juice
6 garlic cloves
2 tablespoons Worcestershire
1 tablespoon hot red pepper sauce
6 anchovy fillets
2 cups extra-virgin olive oil
1/4 cup Parmesan

Even the Worcestershire isn't vegan (or even vegetarian). There are vegan alternatives, as there are for most animal products, but there's no chance a mainstream restaurant knows offers that. So I had to eat my roasted over-cooked, limp veggie wrap without the lettuce. Sad vindication, of course, but there it is.

This coincides with virtually every vegan's restaurant experience in America. Consider this recent entry from Ryan at The Veg Blog:

Now, IHOP. It's the International House of Pancakes. And while pancakes are fine for lacto-ovos, they ain't kosher for vegans (well, they can be, but you know they're not at IHOP). Still, though, I figured they'd have a few vegan options, even if I had to opt for a plate of fresh fruit.

(If you have any doubt about the outcome of his experience, which you shouldn't, read the rest of the entry. Hell, even if you know how it ends, read his blog. It will enlighten you.)

There isn't really much more I feel I must add; the lesson in this seems obvious. I don't expect every restaurant to cater exclusively to vegans. That's unrealistic and not going to happen in my lifetime. I do expect a restaurant to accommodate me. Veganism is not an unreasonable request from a customer. Offer substitution options for dishes already on the menu and everyone is happy. If you offer burgers and fries, offer a veggie (vegan!) burger, as well. If you offer a chicken stir-fry, offer a tofu stir-fry. If you offer fettuccine with sun-dried tomatoes and broccoli, keep some angel hair or spaghetti on hand to satisfy the few folks who won't consume eggs. It's not that complicated and it makes business sense. When you don't do that, it informs me exactly what you think of me as a customer.

And I shouldn't have to explain to you that fish is meat.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

KipEsquire at A Stitch in Haste points to this article concerning New Jersey's newly announced ban on junk food in school lunches (to take effect on Sept. 1, 2007).

Under the New Jersey plan, soda, candy and foods listing sugar as the first or principal ingredient will be banned from school cafeterias. Snacks and drinks with more than eight grams of total fat per serving and two grams of saturated fat will be banned, and cafeterias will have to restrict amounts of foods with trans fats.

The only beverages that can be served in amounts of 12 ounces or more will be water or milk with 2 percent fat or less.

I'm not going to focus on the merits of this proposal because I don't really care much. It's a noble goal that will go horribly wrong because the government wishes to dictate that people make responsible choices where they don't wish to do so. It's especially absurd because it involves the state's power over minors, a group that obviously has no political power to object. Also, parents form their child's eating habits, so anything that doesn't influence the prior learning before forcing the change, and I can think of little government intervention that would, will fail. I suspect the typical reaction will mimic this (not surprising) response:

"I think it's whack," Malcolm Jones, 13, an eighth grader at South Orange Middle School, said while munching on a baked chicken patty sandwich. A carrot stick sat untouched on his plate. "They took away French fries, pizza, all the good stuff. A lot of students aren't happy."

Anyone believe that kids won't find a way around this? Administrators and teaches will spend more time confiscating junk food contraband than educating kids. So, no, I have nothing to add to that debate that isn't obvious.

I do wish to comment on this quote, though:

Robert Earl, senior director of nutrition policy for the Food Products Association in Washington, D.C., said there were flaws with the plan because it excluded many foods that children want and need as part of a whole diet.

"Things like cheeses, nuts, peanut butter, flavored milks and normal foods that are part of a healthful diet could be excluded," Mr. Earl said. "It seems like the better objective is perhaps having a lot of variety instead of restrictions."

Education and choices? Oh, why would we do that? We don't put children in school to learn to think. They're in school to learn how to take directions. Duh.

But again I digress. What really bothers me is that Mr. Earl mentions flavored milks as "part of a healthful diet". How are they healthful? Aside from the obvious arguments that humans are the only species to drink the milk of another species and milk does bad things to the human body, how is adding flavors to milk going to keep make it healthy? Consider this explanation of flavored milk by the National Dairy Council:

In general, flavored milks are milks to which a sweetened flavors such as cocoa or cocoa powder, strawberry or vanilla extract has been added, along with a sweetener such as sucrose or high fructose corn syrup.

No doubt every nutritionist recommends a minimum daily intake of high fructose corn syrup. That's why we're being propagandized marketed flavored milk from many different angles. Consider:

Besides the great taste, pediatricians agree that flavored milk is a nutritious beverage for children. This same survey also revealed that 100% of pediatricians agree calcium is important for children's growth and development and 93% said that children are not consuming enough calcium in their diets. Many children agree that they would drink more milk if it were flavored, and a recent study shows that children who drink milk with their lunch consume more calcium for the entire day! Not just for kids, milk, including flavored milk, has an excellent nutrient profile, and, along with other dairy products, is the major source of calcium in the diet. Government data indicates that most of us fail to meet our daily calcium recommendations as set by the National Academy of Sciences. This can lead to bone fractures early in life and eventually osteoporosis. Why shouldn't we add a little "flavor" to our lives!

That's a hard-hitting study. 100% of pediatricians agree calcium is important for children's growth and development. Who knew? Blah, blah, blah. There's more debunking I could do on the facts, as presented so far, but that's for another day. What I will do is a little experiment, based on this comment from Dayle Hayes, a registered dietician:

Flavored milk does contain added sweeteners. However, the amount of sugar in most flavored milk is significantly less than the amount in regular soft drinks.

Really? That's good. We should make flavored milk the staple liquid to quench every thirst. But just to be sure, let's look at the labels, okay? Okay. Here is the nutrition label for Horizon Organics Vanilla Milk. Here is the nutrition label for Nesquik Vanilla Milk.

One has 29 grams of sugar, the other has 30 grams. They're basically even. And to get that fine flavor, they both use sugar. And Nesquik is better because it uses the high fructose corn syrup and artificial flavors. Mmmmmm. Nutritious. At least they're use considerably less sugar than soft drinks. I hesitate to even think of the sugar content of soft drinks. But I must suffer for my art, so I purchased a 12 oz. can of Coca-Cola to read the nutrition label. (Coca-Cola doesn't make it available on the web. Wonder why?) I took this picture of the Coca-Cola nutrition label.

Right, the less sugar argument is true because that can of soda has 39 grams of sugar. And yet, I don't feel like that's true. Why is that? Could it be that the soda's 39 grams of sugar is in 12 oz. of soda, versus the 30 grams of sugar in 8 oz. of flavored milk? I didn't major in calculus, but I think I can do this math. The soda has 3.25 grams of sugar per oz. The flavored milk has 3.75 grams of sugar per oz.

I haven't had a soda in years, so I'm not promoting soda as an alternative to milk. But the argument that flavored milk is a good choice is absurd. For example, a serving of flavored vanilla milk has the same sugar content as a Snickers® bar. Yet, it's so much easier to believe the marketing from the government and dairy producers that milk is a great food. Really, they wouldn't market lies. They wouldn't pay legislators to legislate milk over soda water. Would they?

So, no, I have no faith in the state of New Jersey to get this plan right.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (5)

Sometimes a news item comes along that makes me angry. I may rant at many stories, but this article's nonsense is beyond anything imaginable. So, even though the article is more than three months old, I'm still going to comment on it.

I'm a vegan. I've written a little about that in the past, but not much because I don't care to preach to anyone. I think it's the right choice, but I know most won't agree. So be it. If you're interested, I'm more than happy to give you information about why I choose veganism. Basically, I subscribe to the "Don't tell, unless asked". Most carnivores don't want to know, believing that ignorance is bliss. Fine, enjoy. However, I expect the same because yes, I can get enough protein and no, I don't really want a burger. I don't even sneak them when no one is looking, even though I know many don' t believe that. Somehow, I survive.

A few months ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science held its annual meeting. One topic was veganism and whether or not its healthy, appropriate, or ethical for children. Professor Lindsay Allen, a US scientist with the US Agricultural Research Service. (The ARS is part of the US Department of Agriculture.) Those credentials seem impressive, but this is what she had to say:

"There have been sufficient studies clearly showing that when women avoid all animal foods, their babies are born small, they grow very slowly and they are developmentally retarded, possibly permanently."

Really? Hmmm, maybe she's on to something. I've read the exact opposite in almost every book I've read in the last eleven years, but perhaps she's studied more. I want to know more.

"If you're talking about feeding young children, pregnant women and lactating women, I would go as far as to say it is unethical to withhold these foods [animal source foods] during that period of life."

Unethical? That strong? What would be better? Blue Kool-Aid® drinks? That occurs naturally in the wild. Chocolate milk? Ditto. I can't count the number of times I've driven by a pasture only to witness three, sometimes four children suckling the teat of some grateful dairy cow. She nurses them so well, it's stunning to think that, not only did she not give birth to those children, they're not even the same species. Yet she cares so much. Cows are cool.

Professor Allen's studied enough to know this. She's even done studies. Consider:

Research she carried out among African schoolchildren suggests as little as two spoonfuls of meat each day is enough to provide nutrients such as vitamin B12, zinc and iron.

The 544 children studied had been raised on diets chiefly consisting of starchy, low-nutrition corn and bean staples lacking these micronutrients.

This meant they were already malnourished.

Time to interrupt this just to emphasize that point. The children were already malnourished. Remember that as the story continues.

Over two years, some of the children were given 2oz supplements of meat each day, equivalent to about two spoonfuls of mince.

Two other groups received either a cup of milk a day or an oil supplement containing the same amount of energy. The diet of a fourth group was left unaltered.

The changes seen in the children given the meat, and to a lesser extent the milk or oil, were dramatic.

These children grew more and performed better on problem-solving and intelligence tests than any of the other children at the end of the two years.

Adding either meat or milk to the diets also almost completely eliminated the very high rates of vitamin B12 deficiency previously seen in the children.

Look at how completely the oil aspect dropped from the conclusion, but no matter. The point is obvious. Eat more meat and dairy. It gives the kids what they need. Damn, what an amazing elixir meat is. I'm just stunned. I would've never guessed that any adjustment to a nutrient-poor diet would make a difference. Who knew that consuming a variety of foods could make a difference? And I won't mention how happy I am that Professor Allen concluded that it's unethical to feed a young child a vegan diet consisting of vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, and oils, but it's ethical in the name of science to deliberately withhold nutrition from a group of children known to be malnourished. I have so much to learn.

Professor Allen did make a concession.

She accepted that adults could avoid animal foods if they took the right supplements, but she said adding animal source food into the diet was a better way to tackle malnutrition worldwide than quick fixes with supplements in the form of pills.

"Where feasible, it would be much better to do it through the diet than by giving pills," she said. "With pills it's very hard to be certain that the quantity of nutrition is right for everybody and it's hard to sustain."

Right. It's too hard to take B-12 supplements, so let's just go to the easy answer. That's how civilization achieved every advancement until this study, so it must work. Oh, and it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the National Cattleman's Beef Association partially supported the study.

One final revelation in the story shows how generous developed, carnivorous nations can be. Consider:

In Africa, good results had been obtained from giving people a dried meat on a stick snack which proved both nutritious and appealing.

In two hundred years of economic and scientific advancement, the best we can do is export corn dogs?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)