FormicaLinoleum

Nicely put. The statement that plant proteins are "inferior" is a little misleading/vague. Sure, single plants sources have a less ideal balance of amino acids thans some single animal sources, but what's the point of considering the profile of a single plant when almost no one lives on a single plant? If one eats a variety of legumes, grains, vegetables, and seeds and nuts each day and gets enough of all amino acids this way, is that still inferior to getting those amino acids through animal sources? Or when people say that plant sources are "inferior" do they mean that it's inferior because it take a bit more thought to get all amino acids than it does through just eating some eggs? Regardless, it seems to me that as long as one can get enough of of all the amino acids, that's the important thing. However, I do also see the other side in that I think it is important that we vegans not deny such issues for fear it makes veganism "look bad". Some things do take a bit more thought in a vegan diet. Pretending this is not so can lead to health issues in oneself, or worse, in other vegans who believe you when you say not to worry about it. For example, it drives me crazy when vegans argue against the need to supplement B12, out of fear that acknowledging the need for a supplement will make veganism seem "unnatural" and will give anti-vegans ammunition, or because it goes against one's own beliefs against veganism (e.g., that veganism is the most "natural" diet for humans). I personally am a vegan for ethical reasons, so if I have to take B12 as a supplement, that has no bearing on my belief in my veganism. I don't care whether veganism is the most healthy diet, or whether it is "natural", or whether we evolved to eat it. These things have no relevance to my life. What matters is that I can survive and be healthy on a vegan diet in the here and now, using the resources available to me, which includes B12 sprays. Who cares if B12 spray didn't exist 1000 years ago so my ancestors couldn't use it? I don't live 1000 years ago. In other words, I think there is a middle ground in these discussions. I think we certainly should not deny issues with the vegan diet that are important to consider and take account for in planning what you eat. On the other, we can do this without going overboard and sounding anti-vegan ourselves. For example, on this topic I would say that plant proteins in single sources don't have ideal amino acid profiles, so we need to eat a variety of plant types to make sure we are getting a good balance overall. But this can be done while acknoledging that it is of course quite possible to do this. And I personally would avoid the use of "inferior" when referring to plant proteins, as within a well-rounded vegan diet, plant proteins aren't infererior in any practical sense--that is, it's certainly sufficient for our needs. (sorry for any typos--my screen is doing some weird thing where I can't see what I am typing at the bottom.)

I see it as quite different. The accidental killing and injuring of insects through harvesting is nearly impossible to avoid... you'd have to eat nothing harvested if you wanted to do that... grow 100% of your own food, pick it yourself slowly and carefully to avoid hurting any insect. It's not feasible. On the other hand, not eating/using bee products is obviously feasible and quite easy. We can't do everything, but we can do some things. The (practically) impossible shouldn't stop us from doing the possible.

I've never had that problem. My friends don't have a problem with my veganism. I have had co-workers and the like (people I have no choice but to be around) give me a little bit of a hard time about it (some teasing) but that's all. My actual friends go out of their way to be accommodating.

Our dog is vegan. The cat eats meat-based food that is cereal-free as she has an insensitivity to them. I would say that anything short of allowing your pet to go out and hunt/scavenge all of his/her own food is less than ideal. Packaged pet foods have their problems. At the same time, trying to cook for your pet can also be problematic, because unless you know the dietary requirements of your animal and ensure that what you prepare meets those requirements, you might be providing an insuffient diet. e.g., a cat would normally eat small animals, and eat most/all of them, so feeding a cat only flesh (and not bones and organs and so on) might not be meeting his/her needs. If you have an animal and are feeding it something, you're making some kind of compromise, no matter what type of food you choose.

Lots of luck for the show! Let us know how it goes... and post some pictures!

I don't think that's so strange--I think the two are kind of unrelated. Just look at the huge numbers of people who are totally soppy over cats and dogs and animals like that, yet eat meat. So it's not so surprising that the reverse could exist--that there could be vegans who are not like that.

Your show is right around the corner! How are things going?

The main true source of Vit D is exposure to sun. We aren't supposed to get Vit D from food, period. It's entirely reasonable to think that people get less exposure to sun now than they have in the past. We work indoors more, and in very recent times we have all been warned of the risks of skin cancer and many of us therefore actively avoid sun exposure. Wearing sunblock while out in the sun can prevent Vit D production. So it's not unreasonable, as far as I can see, to think that we do make less Vit D these days, and therefore need to supplement even though we haven't had to in the past.

That's so annoying! It's an old article, so there is no point leaving comments on the site now, I figure. But that article is quite misleading, referring to food sources of Vit D, when the true primary source is sunshine exposure, and most people in areas with little sunlight should supplement Vit D. The article makes it sound like if you aren't a vegan, you get plenty of Vit D through (unsupplemented) food, which is of course ridiculous. Another example of incredibly sloppy and anti-vegan-slanted writing from the article: "In 2001, British vegans Hazmik and Garabet Manuelyan, from Staines, were sentenced to three years’ community rehabilitation after they admitted starving daughter Arenai, 10 months, to death. She had been fed nothing but breast milk, raw fruit, vegetables and nuts." Um, and just what is a 10-month old supposed to be eating according to this writer? Hamburgers?? A 10-month old should be fine being fed nothing but breast milk, period! Obviously, they must not have been feeding her enough, which is an issue completely separate from veganism.

Wow, that's awesome!

Why wouldn't the disruption of hormone levels in itself be considered unhealthy and undesirable? If a major system of the body is messed up, that's not a neutral thing. If really low body fat in men messed up their hormone levels and made their testosterone drop and their reproductive systems stop working, would that really be seen as neutral and nothing to be concerned about?

I am pro-choice. I absolutely wish that people were careful enough to avoid the majority of unwanted pregnancies. However, even with great care, and unwanted pregnancy is a possibility. Basically, I trust that most people know whether they are ready or in a position to be parents. And if someone isn't ready, then they shouldn't be one. I don't think that life with a parent who never wanted you and can't care for you is actually preferable to never having been born. And yeah, there are people who are so irresponsible and selfish that they don't really give any thought to parenthood and actually do not know that they aren't ready or able to be parents. But whether or not they know it, they aren't ready either, and shouldn't be raising kids. I am sure that many people are thinking about adoption at this point. But that is is not a true alternative. There are already unwanted kids who will never be adopted and will spend their entire lives in foster care or group homes. Now, take the numbers of abortions there are each year and imagine if all of those were actually kids who were born and put up for adoption. Would they really all have loving homes or would the foster care system instead be overburdened and even more broken than it is? How many of the people who suggest putting a baby up for adoption instead of having an abortion actually take steps to making this a viable alternative by adopting kids themselves? People who have a pro-life (or anti-choice) bent seem to see the ideal as all conceptions being carried through to birth. I see the ideal as all kids who are born being wanted, loved, and cared for. I would love for this ideal world to exist due to everyone being responsible and careful, and for unplanned pregnancies to be the result only of the unavoidable small number of birth control failures. But that's not the current state of the world, and as it is I think that abortion is necessary to avoid kids being born with no one to want, love, and care for them, which I see as more important than just being plain old born.

I am starting an external fitness blog specifically for the next 90 days when I am going to try to be really good about my diet and exercise. http://mefitnessblog.blogspot.com/

Apparently, Rory and Skinny Bitch are the reason Ellen DeGeneres and Portia De Rossi went vegan.

This is ridiculous. I hate PETA with a burning passion. I have read about this ad on general boards. The general feeling is (1) PETA never intended for the ad to be aired as they could not afford a spot during the Super Bowl and instead purposefully made an ad that would be rejected so that they would get publicity from the rejection and (2) PETA sucks. One person actually said "the more I learn about PETA the more I hate the animal rights movement in general" and many other people expressed similar opinions. There was not a single positive comment about PETA on there. This so irresponsible of PETA that it seriously makes me furious. They cause meat-eaters to hate them and to then hate anything animal-rights, vegan, or veggie related. I literally have never, ever read a positive comment from a non-veggie about PETA and have read many incredibly negative comments about them. What is this supposed to be doing for our cause? It's hindering it! And no, I do not for a second buy that BS about how getting attention is a positive thing, even if that attention is strongly negative. It's not. It's a bad thing. Now, I agree that PETA does some good things, like informational videos. But that doesn't excuse the BS they continue to keep pulling and their contribution to giving all of us a bad name.

They also allow us to find the harmful threshold of otherwise harmless substances (Vit C, Iron, etc) without trying to get a sample of people to eat 100 oranges or 15 pounds of spinach or their own weight in soybeans. Without isolates we couldn't even control sufficient variables or perform blind studies. Wait, that's kinda circular... the only reason to worry about harmful thresholds is because isolates exist, as it's really quite hard to reach harmful thresholds without them. So isolates can't really be considered useful for addressing a problem that they caused in the first place.. What I meant is that isolates/supplements can be useful for preventing deficiencies in cases where people, for whatever reason, cannot get enough of the substance through "natural" methods.

Nobody is claiming that MSG should be consumed as a supplement to improve health. That's not the issue here. MSG is a flavour enhancer, and it does what it's supposed to--it enhances the flavour of food. I don't think anyone would say the body needs MSG. The question is just whether it is harmful to the body. And Tuc is saying that there is no evidece that it is. And it's not just that it hasn't been studied at all--it has been studied a bit and the studies that have been done have failed to find an adverse effect (excepting the correlation with higher BMI). Isolates are not necessarily bad for health in the right doses. Vitamin and mineral isolates can be very useful and important--for example, the B12 I take or the Vit D that people in dark areas/seasons should take. Sure, it's better to get vitamins and minerals from food as that means you're eating healthful food and getting other nutrients and benefits as well. But supplement or isolated forms are not necessarily harmful and will often fulfill the specific purpose they are meant for.

It's 2009 now, RobertSupreme. So his first post was from just over a year ago.

Vegetarian Survey Location (State/Province, Country): London, UK Date: January 13, 2009 Event (Seminar, Trade Show, etc.): veganbodybuilding.com This survey is being conducted by Dr. Peter R. Cheeke, Professor of Animal Science, Oregon State University. The purpose is to identify major reasons why people choose to become vegetarian. The survey will be completed anonymously. Please enter your demographic data here: Gender: Female Age (circle): more than 30 years Education (circle): Post-graduate Farm Background (circle): None Animal Experience (circle): Pets only Dietary habits: Vegan Please indicate your degree of consumption of these animal products: Beef: never Lamb: never Pork: never Chicken: never Turkey: never Milk: never Eggs: never Other (identify type and degree of consumption) : Fish/seafood never Please identify the importance of each of the following factors in your decision to not consume animal products: 1. I am opposed to the killing of animals. Extremely important 2. I am concerned with health issues (heart disease, obesity, cancer, etc.) related to consumption of animal products. Not important 3. I am concerned about residues of chemical feed additives and hormones used in animal production. Not important 4. I am opposed to intensive, confinement production systems (factory farming) used in livestock and poultry production. Extremely important 5. I am concerned with food safety issues (E. coli, mad cow disease, etc.) Not important 6. I believe that animal production competes with human needs for grains. Important 7. I am concerned about the environmental issues associated with animal production. Important 8. It is “cool” and trendy to be vegetarian. Not important 9. I became a vegetarian because of peer pressure. Not important 10. Other(s). Please identify. I am opposed to animals being bought, sold, controlled, and treated as products rather than living beings with their own instincts and desires for their lives. Extremely important Considering the above list, what was the single most important factor that led to your becoming vegetarian? I am opposed to animals being bought, sold, controlled, and treated as products rather than living beings with their own instincts and desires for their lives.

I would imagine that logic/reason flies out the window when you are starving to death. Considering people have been known to eat human flesh to stay alive, I would predict that I would indeed eat the meat in that situation.

Can I enter even though I'm not in the US? I like natural flavor poweder!

OK, so I am dogmatic, but am I any more dogmatic than anyone else posting on this thread is? Let's say someone came to this forum and started a thread asking if cow's milk is vegan. How many people would say 'sure it is' or 'it depends--if you think it's vegan, then it is'? Or how many people would simply say that cow's milk is not vegan? Is it any more dogmatic to say 'honey is not vegan' than it is to say 'cow milk is not vegan'? If so, why?

I think the "as far as is possible and practical" is important. It isn't possible to eliminate all animal products or avoid all things that could prevent harm. I think the idea is that one tries to be aware and that one elimiates what can be eliminated. Do you think that the opinions I have expressed in my posts are "overly dogmatic"? No one is forcing any of us to be vegan or to consider ourselves vegan. It's completely voluntary. If it makes sense to one to consider oneself a vegan, then one should do so. If the idea of adopting a label and its associated philosophy seems too restricting and suffocating, then one don't need to consider or call oneself a vegan. I do understand that there is room for diversity within veganism. Some vegans are animal rightists/abolitionists, others aren't. Some care about their impact on the environment, others don't. Some care about whether their vegan food has been cooked on the same surface as meat, others don't. Vegans can disagree with each other. That's fine. But there has to be some agreed-upon core ideas of veganism, or the term is completely meaningless. It just seems that some people are saying that making the statement "X product is not vegan" is overly dogmatic and judgemental, which frankly, is just baffling to me. Some products are vegan, others are not. I don't see any room to let go of that basic idea without abandoning the term altogether. I dunno, maybe people aren't even responding to my posts, but it seems like people are, because I seem to be the only person with a somewhat differing opinion in recent posts. It just seems to me that I'm saying completely reasonable things and then people are posting about how we shouldn't be dogmatic or judgemental and that we will drive people away by being crazy, hard-line, extremist vegans. Who are these judgemental, dogmatic, extremist vegans you are all talking about? Is it me? It just seems that there's a complete disconnect between what I'm posting and other people are posting seemingly in response. Are people just posting random thoughts on veganism now, or are you responding to/referring to me?

Exactly.... when it feels undoable for people, they often think they could never live by such "high standards". I think the answer here is not to say to people who want to 'test the lifestyle' things like "it's fine--you can keep eating cheese but still be a vegan" but rather to say things like "it's fine, you don't have to be vegan--if you give up other animal products other than cheese, that's still a great step". You can be supportive of people's desires to learn more and to take productive actions like cutting down on animal products without making the word "vegan" meaningless. I don't see the point of supporting loose definitions--I mean at what point does it become too loose? If someone wants to keep eating just a little beef, do you assure them that it's totally fine for a vegan to have a little beef now and then, just to avoid putting them off the idea? Or do you acknowledge that beef is not vegan but that it's totally fine if they aren't ready to become a vegan and explore what they are ready to do? I say, stand strong behind what "vegan" means. If the idea of veganism seems too hard for people or is off-putting, then just don't use the word "vegan" in the conversation at all. If people say "oh, I could never be vegan--that's far too hard!" don't say "it's really not that hard--the definition is pretty loose and you can make veganism whatever you want it to be", say something like "well, if you don't want to go vegan, you could make these changes (e.g., reduce consumption, give up some kinds of animal products) instead and that would still be really great". See what I mean? I think it's entirely possible to encourage people to make changes and not scare them with the big, bad "VEGAN" idea, without having to compromise on the understanding of what veganism is. Of course, I think it is also great to demonstrate that veganism actually isn't as hard and scary as many people perceive it to be. I think that being good vegan role models and letting people see vegans who are fit, healthy, happy, and non-a**hole and who enjoy eating a range of foods is a great way of doing that. Here is the Vegan Society definition. [T]he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals. I think that makes sense. It's a coherent philosphy that hangs together pretty well. As Richard suggested, if you start trying to change it or evolve it, it becomes less consistent and meaningful. I think that at the bottom line, we all pretty much agree. We agree that we should support people in doing what they can for animals or the environment. We agree that we shouldn't be judgemental of other for "not doing enough". We agree that trying to push people into going completely "whole hog" into veganism when they aren't ready could backfire and prevent them from making changes that they otherwise might have been ready to make. I simply believe that all that can be done while leaving the meaning of the word "vegan" intact and not making it fuzzy or loose.

This link isn't working any more, but did the article say that Ellen and Portia are vegans? 'Cause I'm just now learning that it seems that they are! I remember reading that their wedding was fully vegan and thinking that was weird as they weren't vegans. But apparently they are. Did everyone else know this and I am just behind the times? From http://www.newsweek.com/id/157556 : "What kind of cake did you have? Red velvet. It was vegan—we're both vegans."