Posted on 02/21/2005 2:06:27 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative
Lindsay Allen, of the US Agricultural Research Service, attacked parents who insisted their children lived by the maxim "meat is murder".
Animal source foods have some nutrients not found anywhere else, she told a Washington science conference.
The Vegan Society dismissed the claims, saying its research showed vegans were often healthier than meat eaters.
'Development affected'
Professor Allen said: "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."
| There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans Professor Lindsay Allen, US Agricultural Research Service |
"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."
She was especially critical of parents who imposed a vegan lifestyle on their children, denying them milk, cheese, butter and meat.
"There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans," she told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Missing nutrients
She said the damage to a child began while it was growing in the womb and continued once it had been born.
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.
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.
|
HAVE YOUR SAY A wide-ranging mixed diet with exercise is essential for any child James, Cornwall, UK |
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.
They also became more active, talkative and playful at school.
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.
No quick fixes
Professor Allen stressed that although the study was conducted in a poor African community, its message was highly relevant to people in developed countries.
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."
In Africa, good results had been obtained from giving people a dried meat on a stick snack which proved both nutritious and appealing.
Professor Montague Demment, from the University of California at Davis, said more emphasis should be placed on animal source food to combat global malnutrition.
Vegan defence
However, the claims have been dismissed by the Vegan Society in the UK.
In a statement, it said increasing numbers of people were opting for a plant-based diet.
Kostana Azmi, the chief executive officer, said: "The vegan diet can provide you with more energy, nutrition, and is bursting with goodness."
She said plant sources were sometimes a safer, and cheaper source of nutrients.
For instance, animal sources of omega-3 oils, needed for the development of the brain and nervous system, were often contaminated with pollutants, such as mercury in fish.
In addition, the vegan diet was often a healthier alternative. She said dairy and meat products were rich in saturated fat, while plant based diets were low in it.
The society does recommend that vegans supplement their diet with vitamin B-12 pills.
The US Agricultural Research Service is part of the US Department of Agriculture.
In this case, I'd draw the line at trying to outlaw the practice - but telling people the consequences of their legal choices is important. Informed consent matters, IMO.
"in the case of the pet, unable or unknowlegable in the ramifications of what there being forced to consume."
It is REALLY asinine to force it on a canine, a KNOWN undisputed carnivore!
Hardyharhar.....saw that 1 already!
Too bad I'm "skinny as a rail"!
BTW, big difference: your "meat-eaters" don't claim not to eat vegetables.
I'm sure there are "meatatarians" somewhere, but they are so few as to be unimportant. Most of us do what omnivores do - eat everything.
Vegetarians and vegans (the former actually being the sensible English word) claim not to eat meat at all - or at least, mammal meat.
Following your "logic", the government shouldn't intervene if you physically abuse your kids because, you know, it's a slippery slope before they ban corporal punishment.
No, this is just too invasive. Keep the goverment out of our homes.
We aren't talking about dubious studies on second hand smoke, we are talking absolute facts that withholding proper nutrition from children is abusive.
Funny, but then meat eaters cite to the most extreme examples to show how unhealthy it is to be a vegetarian...
There are a couple of reasons that "vegtarians" look healthy. First of all, to be a vegitarian, you have to be very serious about your diet. And the fact of the matter is that ANYBODY who watches their diet that close, whether they eat meat or not will usually be healthy. The difference is that meat eaters can attain that health without supplements, which should be a clue as to which is best right there. Second, those vegitarians who are healthy never let anybody forget it, so you are more likely to associate vegitarianism with health when you only see the successes. The final reason is that there is such a small percentage of vegitarians around that "meat eaters" are all lumped in together so for every heathy omnivore, you've got a dozen Michael Moores whose problem isn't that they eat meat, it's that they eat so much of it.
ping
Did he also give you the desire to eat meat in it's natural state, i.e.: raw and bloody as it would be when freshly killed? Does your mouth start to water when you see an animal opened up with blood spurting everywhere?
I know that every cat I ever owned loved to eat a freshly killed animal in it's natural state and love to eat the entrails.
Does this describe you, too? If not, then maybe you're not a true carnivore.
The presence of "meat chewing" teeth is a physiological aspect of our anatomy while the pavlovian reflex is a conditioned response. One that has been bred out of us over the millenia.
Looking at the state of our dentition, we have actually evolved smaller mouths. So much so that it has become necessary to cook our food and use utensils on it in order to better eat it.
Scientific fact or personal opinion? Proof?
Looking at the state of our dentition, we have actually evolved smaller mouths. So much so that it has become necessary to cook our food and use utensils on it in order to better eat it.
And yet despite all these eons of evolution, we still desire to and are able to eat the fruits of the trees and the grains of the fields in their natural state.
Everything I learned about this I learned out of my dental school texts. But this is a bit of an explanation, althought I'm sure it won't suffice.
And yet despite all these eons of evolution, we still desire to and are able to eat the fruits of the trees and the grains of the fields in their natural state.
Did you ever look at the human dentition compared to a cow's or a dog's? It represents a convergence of both. The anterior incisors and canines are closely related to carnivores, for tearing and ripping meat, while the posterior molars are better suited to grinding and mashing fruits and grains. We have developed to eat both. Of that there can be no doubt.
It's that pile of "veggies" and that cup that is most likely filled with HFCS loaded soda.And the bun that the "meat" was on.
Hey man, all I know is that I saw "Dances with Wolves", and those Indians sure seemed to enjoy taking a big bite out of a freshly killed buffalo's liver. Thank God that's not part of my "conditioning" :) I'll take my meat cooked thanks.
And the fact that they ate too much of both, AND the fact that they probably sit on their fat butts watching TV when they're not eating. (And probably when they are, too.)
LOL. One's man's delicacy is another man's......uh, LIVER.
UGH. You can cook it and it's still liver.
And let's not forget genetics. Some people have to work harder to stay fit.
Which is why all these anecdotes on this thread are stupid. They prove nothing other than the fact that the human body is extremely adaptable.
No, the human body is SPECIFICALLY made to eat a wide range of foods. To do otherwise, while certain an individual right, is silly.
You are of course correct. But I do tend to believe the statistics that suggest that we are getting fatter as a nation, and I can't help but think it is tied far more to activity level than nutrition.
While expecting our first child we read an interesting book about feeding children. The author advocated a division of labor whereby parents decide what and when to eat, and children decide how much to eat. Her thesis was that people are quite capable from birth of regulating their food intake but that we tend to screw things up by interrupting that self-regulation ("you can't leave the table until you clean your plate", "my you look skinny", etc.).
But her thesis depends on moderation in nutrition and at least some physical activity. One of the studies she cited was conducted in a factory in India, where they studied the relationship between activity level and food consumption. There was a very strong correlation between food intake and the physical demands of the jobs---the more activity, the more food consumed. Only the most sedentary folks deviated---and tended to be overweight. But even the next activity level up did just fine.
I think that technological advancement and social evolution have combined to give us all quite sedentary lives and many of us are suffering the consequences.
This is in conflict with the article you linked above.
The article claims that man originally was a plant-eater, but then a couple of million years ago 'switched' and added meat to his diet and as a result the teeth adapted to the new chewing requirements.
Which is to say, that we originally weren't designed as carnivores, but herbivores.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.