Children 'harmed' by vegan diets

The Beeb ^ | 21 February, 2005 | Michelle Roberts

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Putting children on strict vegan diets is "unethical" and could harm their development, a US scientist has argued.

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

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.

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.

 

[TomB]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am saying that we are now omnivores. The only reason that we don't have a pavlovian reflex to raw meat is that it has been bred out of us (we have "outgrown" it).

The concept seems pretty simple to me.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am saying that we are now omnivores. The only reason that we don't have a pavlovian reflex to raw meat is that it has been bred out of us (we have "outgrown" it).

Why did you post a link to the article that discussed how we started eating meat and how our dentition evolved to adapt to the changing environment?

What does that article have to do with pavlovian reflexes and the craving of raw meat?

If the article has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make, then why did you post a link to it?

[TomB]

I think you proved my point when I said:

But this is a bit of an explanation, althought I'm sure it won't suffice

If the article has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make, then why did you post a link to it?

The fact of the matter is that we developed over thousands of years AWAY from eating raw meat and TOWARD eating cooked meat. The article proves that fact.

I find it ironic you can make up a statement out of thin air but I am the one who has to conclusively prove mine.

There is NO REASON for someone to have a pavlovian reflex to a situation they haven't been exposed to in thousands of years.

Now, do you still want to say that the fact that we don't salivate over raw meat is proof that we aren't carnivores???

[JLO]

Thanks as always for the ping. I'd probably say, if God hadn't meant for us to eat meat, they wouldn't be in the food chain, lol.

[mcg1969]

Which is to say, that we originally weren't designed as carnivores, but herbivores.

Even though I am not a young-earth creationist, I do find it interesting that this is consistent with the Biblical evolution of our diet.

Back to science, though: even if what you say is true, it is not in itself an argument to return to vegetarianism, because our bodies have now adapted to meat eating. The question remains: has it adapted to tolerate meat eating, or to prefer it.

[TomB]

Back to science, though: even if what you say is true, it is not in itself an argument to return to vegetarianism, because our bodies have now adapted to meat eating. The question remains: has it adapted to tolerate meat eating, or to prefer it.

That was the point of the link I posted, alas it seemed to soar right over Ol' Dan's head. Over the millenia humans have developed the need to not only eat meat, but cooked meat, which is why the carniverous side of our dentition is much more sedate than, say, a dog's. In addition, this switch from herbivore to omnivore happened probabaly before we became our current version of homo sapiens. And that would be well over 200,000 years ago. (but don't hold me to that)

[TomB]

Ooops. Forgot to ping you to 206.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

The fact of the matter is that we developed over thousands of years AWAY from eating raw meat and TOWARD eating cooked meat. The article proves that fact.

That is but one point raised in the article. You may have read the article, but it's clear you didn't assimilate it's entire contents. In your zest to prove me wrong, you overlook key points in the article which support what I say.

I quote (from paragraph 1, no less):

Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

-- And --

When humans switched to meat-eating, they triggered a genetic change that enabled better processing of fats, said Stanford, who has worked extensively with gerontologist Caleb Finch of USC.

The article is perfectly clear to anyone with half a brain. Man did not originally eat meat. After he started, his body adapted to the changing conditions.

Sheesh!

[TomB]

And here is my original statement:

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.

Is there something in that statement that isn't true?

It seems to me that the article proves it rather well.

[TomB]

Man did not originally eat meat.

BTW, men also originally didn't walk on 2 feet, are you advocating we go back to quadripedal motion?

[MoochPooch]

But I see a chicken or the egg question. Does a vegan diet hinder children's growth? Or is it the nuttiness of the (vegan) parents?

Not to generalize -- but I can't help wondering. Would the kind of people who gravitate to a vegan diet have neurological problems to begin with, which they pass on their kids (genetically)?

I know vegetarianism is practiced in certain societies (Indian, Buddhist). I notice, though, that these people are off slighter build than Africans or Europeans. (Are these people really vegans? Maybe they do eat eggs & dairy.) It sounds like the vegan/vegetarian diet might be all right for some people but not all right for others.

Me? I just finished eating a roast beef dinner. Yum.

[SquirrelKing]

You're right.

[little jeremiah]

I've had cats get a rabbit, a snake, and of course lizards. And one great hunter who'd bring me the snouts or tails of 2-3 large rats a day.

[aruanan]

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.

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."

Bursting with goodness. Gimme an effing break. Nutrients feed us, not goodness. And the poor fool, apposing energy with "nutrition." Except for the micronutrient aspect of food, most easily (and tastily) satisfied by eating the flesh of animals, daily energy requirements are what food is all about. And notice how often these folks use words like "often" and "can".

I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised that spokesmen, or spokesbeings, for veganism, if they're being true to their religious calling, cannot be expected to engage in a reasoned argument because they've more likely than not undermined brain function by malnutrition. And what little they have left has been nullified by cant.

The vegans I've known here at the University of Chicago have been pale, wan, listless things, usually female.

[JoethePirate]

The vegans I've known here at the University of Chicago have been pale, wan, listless things, usually female.

And my vegan sister is a board certified doctor and her vegan husband started a company that creates managed health care organizations. Neither of them is pale, wan or listless and my brother-in-law is definitely not female.

[aruanan]

And my vegan sister is a board certified doctor and her vegan husband started a company that creates managed health care organizations. Neither of them is pale, wan or listless and my brother-in-law is definitely not female.

And people have written novels without using the letter 'e'. Note what I wrote, what you wrote, and then tell me how you drew the wrong conclusion.

[JoethePirate]

Note what I wrote, what you wrote, and then tell me how you drew the wrong conclusion.

If you can't make the obvious connection between what you asserted about vegans and my evidence to the contrary...

[TomB]

Must be a quart low on "goodness".

[aruanan]

If you can't make the obvious connection between what you asserted about vegans and my evidence to the contrary...

I did make the obvious connection. You apparently still haven't picked up on how what you think I said doesn't match what I actually said. And, just to put things into perspective, I am an expert in nutrition. I've seen the amount of nutrition coursework that med students are required to take, having helped in them as a teaching assistant--and this was in one of the few medical schools that require a formal course on the subject of human nutrition. Most of the med students had no time for it.