Taken from here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4087977.ece)

I'm going to go so far as to say that this is child abuse. Now I know some Vegans can live perfectly normal lives, but that should be an adult decision, not forced on a developing child.

A girl of 12 brought up by her parents on a strict vegan diet has been admitted to hospital with a degenerative bone condition said to have left her with the spine of an 80-year-old.

Doctors are under pressure to report the couple, from Glasgow, to police and social workers amid concerns her health and welfare may have been neglected in pursuit of their beliefs.

The youngster, fed on a strict meat- and dairy-free diet from birth, is being treated at the city’s Royal Hospital for Sick Children. She is said to have a severe form of rickets and to have suffered a number of fractured bones. The condition is caused by a lack of vitamin D, which is needed to absorb calcium and is found in liver, oily fish and dairy produce.

Dr Faisal Ahmed, the consultant treating the child, said he believed the dangers of forcing children to follow a strict vegan diet needed to be highlighted. “Something like this needs publicity,” he said. However, he refused to blame the parents, who are understood to be well-known figures in Glasgow’s vegan community: “We shouldn’t name and shame \. Mum feels guilty about the whole thing and feels bad about it.”

Jonathan Sher, head of policy at Children in Scotland, said: “If the consequence of parental behaviour is physical, mental or emotional harm to a child, then the child protection system should become involved.” Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, added: “If the youngster is coming to clinical harm, something must be done.”

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.

Veganism is becoming increasingly popular due to concerns about animal welfare. There are 250,000 adherents in the UK and the Vegan Society publishes a guide, Feeding Your Vegan Infant With Confidence. A spokesman said: “I would suggest that it is not the vegan diet itself \ but the parents.”

Professor Tom Sanders, head of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, warned that while most vegan parents give their children vitamin and mineral supplements, there was a core of hardliners putting their children’s health at risk.

He said: “Some of them think we’re still monkeys that can live on fruit and nuts.”

Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS board declined to comment. A spokesman for Glasgow city council said the matter had not been referred to its social work department

What else could it be but child abuse? Either the parents are total cretins who are actually dumb enough not to know the first thing about the development and nutritional needs of children (and you'd really need to live under a rock to not even know the basics), or they have forced their own diet on the child intentionally. Since that is almost certainly the case, their actions should be interpreted as criminal and their child taken away from them as they have obviously already harmed her far beyond what is expected to be the result of physical abuse in most such cases.

The real question is, however, how all the checks put in place to prevent such things (like regular medical check-ups for children) have failed to the point that it's taken 12 years for this abuse to come to light. Several other people besides the parents alone should be held accountable for the girl's ruined health.

“I would suggest that it is not the vegan diet itself \ but the parents.”

That's the point I see being made in the quote. For a Vegan Diet to work, I would assume that some research would need to be done. You need to know what nutrients you are giving up by cutting meat, eggs and dairy products out of your diet, and what you need to increase consumption of to make up for what you are losing by the changes.

That said, Ethical reasons for Veganism are :bs:. The Animal Cruelty that they piss and moan about is illegal in most civilized countries.

What Vegans can bring to the world is a better understanding of how we can change our diets. It's likely that the majority of us eat more meat than is healthy, and perhaps there are alternatives that would be healthy to reduce the meat intake. If the Ethical differences can be put aside and the practicality of the diet discussed, then even those that don't want to give up meat might learn something that leads them to a healthier life style. Wouldn't that lead to something positive?

Ridiculous. It is fine of the parents to be vegans, but to force it upon their child is ignorance, neglect, stupidity, or a combination of the above.

Even if they adhere to a vegetarian diet, they should still give the child appropiate proteins, perhaps through tofu or eggs. I don't recall last hearing a piece of bean being tortured before dying to provide tofu.

It appears that none of you folks know anything about veganism at all. A vegan diet can be just as nourishing or unhealthy as a meat based diet for kids, grown-ups, or the elderly. Don't take my word for it, though. Check out what the ADA (http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/adapaper.htm) (American Dietetics Association) has to say about it. As long as you manage your B12 intake and watch your calcium*, a vegan diet is perfectly healthy for children of all ages. D vitamins, it may surprise some of you to know, aren't normally found in milk, either. Milk is fortified with it. Any vegan who takes in a nominal amount of soy milk daily (or just takes a multi-vitamin) is already getting all the D vitamins he needs, since most soy milk is also fortified with vitamin D.

The bottom line, here, is that the results of not monitoring the nutritional intake of your child is no more or less dire for vegans than it is for meat eaters. Living on McDonald's and Mac and Cheese is just as likely - maybe even more likely - to kill you as eating a poorly balanced vegan diet.

* There are plenty of plant sources of calcium out there with a similar level of bio-availability to what is found in milk (the best sources usually being soy milk or Tofu, since Calcium is already used in their production, or Arugula, a leafy green vegetable). While American vegans tend to take in less calcium than the USRDA, so does everyone else. In fact, when they compared the calcium intake of American vegans to the rest of the country, they turned out to take in the exact same amount of calcium as the general public (despite the fact that vegans actually need a little less calcium than meat eaters, anyway).

That said, Ethical reasons for Veganism are :bs:. The Animal Cruelty that they piss and moan about is illegal in most civilized countries.Dude, you need to get out more. Google "de-beaking" or "beak trimming". Check out an industry site to make sure the information isn't "biased" when you do. Look up rennet. Look up how the US dairy industry disposes of the calves that are a necessary bi-product of Milk production (you have to periodically impregnate the cows if you want them to do milk and the calves are either sold to the veal industry or disemboweled for rennet). Take a look at the stun gun failure rates in a typical slaughter house (when the bolt fails, the animal is unfortunately slaughtered alive and fully conscious to avoid slowing down the line). You have the right to disagree about whether these practices are unethical (and I have no interest whatsoever in debating it, either), but not only are these practices legal, but they are also quite common.

The bottom line, here, is that the results of not monitoring the nutritional intake of your child is no more or less dire for vegans than it is for meat eaters. Living on McDonald's and Mac and Cheese is just as likely - maybe even more likely - to kill you as eating a poorly balanced vegan diet.

Perhaps not for you or your children, because you're well informed. However, I'm far from convinced you could say that about all vegans. I'm assuming that the parents were not deliberately malnourishing their child, and they clearly were monitoring her nutritional intake. However, what they probably did was just wing it when it came to veganism. There's lots of other parents who wing it when it comes to the nutritional needs of their children, but for non-vegans the results are likely to not be as dire (except for extreme cases, like living on McDonald's).

I have a 10 month old at home. I do not count calories for him, or count servings of fruits and vegeatables or anything like that. However, since we are offering him all types of food, he is likely getting a balanced diet and I don't worry about it. Yesterday alone, Jack ate three things this girl never would have eaten: chicken (cut into small pieces of course), cheese, and yogurt (not all at the same time, but throughout the day). Now if that's ALL he ate, his diet would have been just as unhealthy as the girl's diet, but it wasn't. He also, during the course of the day, ate some banana, squash, and mashed up strawberries. And lest I forget, when you're 10 months old, Cheerios are about the most fun food in the world, and he eats them every day (dry, with no milk). That probably isn't a fully balanced diet, but because it will vary again tomorrow, it's no big deal.

I have no doubt that it is possible, even relatively easy, for someone to eat a balanced vegan diet as Drew suggests. However, given how dumb the average person is, not everyone is going to be as well read and educated about the subject as Drew is and is bound to screw it up (although I can't believe they would be so uninformed as to not give soy milk). What we have here is child abuse through malnutrition - albeit likely unintentional.

Aldeth, the point from the ADA position paper (to which I linked) is that it is just as difficult - and just as easy - to provide a balanced, meat based diet as it is to provide a balanced vegan diet. Meat provides you with Iron, protein, B12, and essential fats. An increased legume intake will take care of the Iron and protein and it is actually quite hard not to take in enough fat, even as a vegan. The only thing that remains is B12 (which is really only an issue because of how sanitary our living conditions are). There are far more vegan kids out there than you think (a little under 1% of the US population is vegan), and most of them are perfectly healthy.

The vegan part has nothing to do with this; incompentence as parents is everything here.

These "parents" aren't even vegans. Idiots would be the right term. Bleeding-hearted idiots would be even more accurate. When and if they'd die of malnutrition, they'd deserve a Darwin award...

I find myself agreeing with Drew once more. If you are going to follow a diet that is non-mainstream, it makes sense for you to do a bit of reading before jumping in. Especially so if there is a child involved. The child was malnourished- but the problem is not that she was vegan, the problem was that the parents were ignorant. This is on the same level as child-obesity- an example of a poor diet based on more 'normal' foods. We seem to be getting upset over one example here of a poor diet when there are many more examples walking (or waddling in this case) around.


Ridiculous. It is fine of the parents to be vegans, but to force it upon their child is ignorance, neglect, stupidity, or a combination of the above.


If the diet is healthy (and as Drew showed, it can be), then I would argue it is in fact none of the above. It makes just as much sense to claim the above for a meat-based diet as a vegan one. The problem is not the diet itself, it is how parents apply it. Claiming that all vegan diets are ignorant, neglectful or stupid would be exceedingly ignorant of those that work fine.

Agreed Decados. Raising a kid to be a vegan can be extremely good for them, just like vegetarian and carnivorian, if it is done correctly. It's not neglect, stupidity, or ignorance; if anything saying so is either ignorance or stupidity.

Aldeth, the point from the ADA position paper (to which I linked) is that it is just as difficult - and just as easy - to provide a balanced, meat based diet as it is to provide a balanced vegan diet.

And that was the part that I agreed with you. My point is that if people do not take the time to do some research on this subject before deciding to become vegans (and that is apparently what happened) then they are setting themselves up for trouble. I called it child abuse not because they were vegans, but because they were malnourishing their child. I even went so far as to imply that if they were as well-versed in the subject as you were, then this wouldn't have happened.

I would probably term it neglect, rather than abuse. Either way, the parents are responsible. May God help the girl.

Whatever the reasons these idiots have for what they did, they need to be punished -- and severely. Not for being vegans -- I don't give a crap what other people eat as long as it isn't other human beings -- but for malnourishing their child. Didn't they bloody well notice her condition? They are extremist fools and the whole story disgusts me. Oh, and this line here:

Mum feels guilty about the whole thing and feels bad about it.
I can't express sufficiently how little I care about this moron's feelings. Will her feelings heal her child from the suffering SHE inflicted on the child? Her feelings should be written down carefully on a large sheet of paper, rolled into a tight tube, and rammed forcefully up her butt.

The article says she had rickets from vitamin D deficiency. So, really all they did wrong was not let her get enough sunshine.

It's interesting that the article says vitamin D is found in liver, oily fish and dairy produce, when in fact your skin makes far more vitamin D when exposed to the Sun than you take in from food.

My point is that if people do not take the time to do some research on this subject before deciding to become vegans (and that is apparently what happened) then they are setting themselves up for trouble. Ah. It appears I still haven't articulated my point well enough. My real point is that there are just as many (if not more) ill-informed meat consuming parents out there who's kids are malnourished due to ignorance. Most Americans sadly do not follow the food pyramid and the average vegan tends to do a better job of monitoring his children's nutrition than the average Joe - primarily because becoming vegan isn't exactly a minor lifestyle change. Most people don't wake up one morning and decide to stop eating any animal products, and the same sources that would have led them to become vegan also tend to be great sources of nutritional information out of simple necessity (since the most frequently asked questions from would-be vegans tend to center around nutrition).

Whatever the reasons these idiots have for what they did, they need to be punished -- and severely. Not for being vegans -- I don't give a crap what other people eat as long as it isn't other human beings -- but for malnourishing their child. Didn't they bloody well notice her condition? The obviously did notice, or they wouldn't have taken her to the doctor in the first place.

It's interesting that the article says vitamin D is found in liver, oily fish and dairy produce, when in fact your skin makes far more vitamin D when exposed to the Sun that you take in from food.Thanks for pointing this one out. I didn't specifically address this issue because sometimes it is infeasible or impractical to get enough sun (light sensitivity, living in certain parts of Alaska...) and I wasn't sure of this couples specific circumstances. I specifically addressed the fact that milk is actually fortified with vitamin D because most kids refuse to eat liver and fatty fish. Milk is fortified with it because it is a staple in most American's diets (except for 25% or so of us who are lactose intolerant and get their calcium and vitamin D from plant sources, vitamins, or the sun). In theory, this whole thing could have been avoided with the use of a mult-vitamin, but we are also ignoring the possibility that the kid might just have problems absorbing vitamin D. It happens.

Ah. It appears I still haven't articulated my point well enough. My real point is that there are just as many (if not more) ill-informed meat consuming parents out there who's kids are malnourished due to ignorance.

If that is the case, then the news stories of these parents are under-reported. Granted, there are very few cases as extreme as the one presented here, but I've seen far more reports (and seen with my own eyes) many more instances where parents who restirct* their own diet also restrict their children's diet, with occassional deleterious affects. One example is in my own neighborhood. A family decided to try out an Atkins-type diet, and thier child entered ketosis (which is a sign of starvation) from not getting enough glucose.

* By restricting one's diet I am talking about being a vegan, vegetarian, or following an Atkins program. I am not talking about people who are consciously trying to lose weight and thus eliminate things like nachos and Big Macs from their diet. While these could technically be described as dietary restrictions, I am talking about people who consciously decide to place further restrictions upon what would already be considered a healthy diet.

I am one of those people who do not follow the food pyramid. In fact, no one in my family or my wife's family does and none of us are malnourished. I would assert that it's much easier to get a balanced diet when you have a greater range of foods available to you - and having food from animal products would obviously increase your options.

Of course, I'm also someone who, through is own choice, eats a balanced diet. While I do eat some meat almost every day, I also eat fruits and vegetables every day. Also I'm not a frequent customer of McDonald's. In fact, in the past year I could probably count all my visits to fast food restaurants of any kind on one hand. To me eating a healthy diet is something I don't even think about - I do it automatically.

I'm not saying you can't eat a balanced vegan diet. You are living proof that it is possible, and relatively easy. However, your point that it is just as likely to be malnourished when including animal products is contradicted by cases like the one we see here (and I admit that other cases I have seen have been less severe than this one). The number of children I've seen who are malnourished due to dietary restirctions by their parents are very few. However "few" is a lot bigger number than "none" that I've heard about from people who do not restrict their diets.

They took too bloody long to notice it. They were too busy being sanctimonious nutjobs about the whole deal to notice their child had a serious health condition. I respect everyone's right to eat or not eat whatever the heck they want, but when their pretentious crap damages their own children because they are too stupid to do it properly, then they need to be set down HARD!

@Aldeth: All those kids with type 2 diabetes got it, for the most part, from improper diet. All those cases of morbidly obese kids likewise got there through improper diet. Why don't these cases make more headlines? Because they are that common.

They took too bloody long to notice it. They were too busy being sanctimonious nutjobs about the whole deal to notice their child had a serious health condition. Forgive me, but are you trying to imply that vegans are "sanctimonious nutjobs"? If you are, I take exception to that. I am neither a nut job nor am I particularly sanctimonious. Moreover, how exactly are you able to determine that you would have noticed the symptoms earlier than these parents from a single news article? How do you know that they hadn't taken their child to the doctor for those very symptoms on other occasions without attaining a proper diagnosis? The symptoms may well have not pointed to rickets until that final diagnosis was made, or the doctors may have made several incorrect diagnoses prior to finally getting it right. From the article, there is no way to know for sure.

My sister went to the hospital for what was thought to be appendix trouble when she was five. The first visit turned out to prove she didn't have appendicitis, and she was sent home. 2 months later, our 3 year old brother got angry and punched her in the stomach. She was in so much pain that she again had to be admitted to the hospital. After 3 days, they finally discovered that she had a stage 4 Wilms tumor which had already metastasized. Now, getting to stage 4 takes quite some time, meaning that my sister likely had Cancer for well over half a year. Does this failure to catch my sisters tumor before it hit stage 4 and before it metastasized constitute bad parenting?

If the diet is healthy (and as Drew showed, it can be), then I would argue it is in fact none of the above. It makes just as much sense to claim the above for a meat-based diet as a vegan one. The problem is not the diet itself, it is how parents apply it. Claiming that all vegan diets are ignorant, neglectful or stupid would be exceedingly ignorant of those that work fine.

Oh, no, I wasn't implying that. I did mean that the parents are neglectful and ignorant, etc, not vegans or vegan diet as a whole. It would be, I agree, exceedingly ignorant. Sorry if I inadvertently insulted anyone.

Drew, I am not implying that all vegans are sanctimonious nutjobs. But there are some vegans, vegetarians, or what have you that are so busy patting themselves on the backs about how brilliant/superior they are that they lose perspective on reality. Obviously you're not one of those, but those parents obviously weren't as educated about their lifestyle choices as you are.

Bottom line, it's their fault that she is sick, and no amount of sophistry can change my opinion about that.

As for your sister, I feel bad about what happened to your family. However, I believe that the two cases are quite different. The rickets was a direct result of their stupidity and lack of a sensible vegan diet. Cancer isn't.

As for your sister, I feel bad about what happened to your family. However, I believe that the two cases are quite different. The rickets was a direct result of their stupidity and lack of a sensible vegan diet. Cancer isn't.Worldwide, most people don't drink milk (which isn't even a natural source of vitamin D - we fortify it), eat liver, or even fatty fish, yet severe D vitamin deficiencies nearly never happen because, as BTA pointed out already, most people get their D vitamins from the sun. This deficiency is an easy one to overlook for anyone. More importantly, you sidestepped the main issue. I fully agree that the parents needed to pay more attention to their daughter's diet (or at least give her a multi). That much is obvious, but this idea that the parents ignored her symptoms because they were too busy patting themselves on the back is poorly thought out, at best.

You are assuming that the parents were too busy patting themselves on the back to notice that their daughter was sick. You assume far too much. I brought up my sister (who, if you're curious, survived her cancer and is now a sophomore in college) as a way of pointing out that doctors miss things. From the article, we have no way of knowing how many times this girl was taken by her parents to the hospital, but we do know from the article that she's been there at least a few times for fractures, so it's not like the doctors didn't have a few missed opportunities to spot a larger problem. You also have no way of knowing whether the parents weren't themselves clued into a potentially larger problem with their daughter. They may have brought such concerns to a doctor (as my parents did with my younger sister) only to have the doctor incorrectly diagnose their child or simply fail to recognize that there was even a problem. These things happen all the time. The first time Michael J Fox went to a neurologist (and he went to one of the best in the world) with Parkinson's symptoms, the neurologist concluded there was nothing wrong with him and he was a picture of perfect health. Just because you think there is something wrong with you or your child doesn't mean your doctor will agree and even if the physician does agree that something is wrong, that is no guarantee that the diagnosis will be correct.

Google "de-beaking" or "beak trimming". Look up rennet. Look up how the US dairy industry disposes of the calves that are a necessary bi-product of Milk production (you have to periodically impregnate the cows if you want them to do milk and the calves are either sold to the veal industry or disemboweled for rennet).

Why not raise them for Veal?

Take a look at the stun gun failure rates in a typical slaughter house (when the bolt fails, the animal is unfortunately slaughtered alive and fully conscious to avoid slowing down the line).

Bullets are more effective in this regard.

You have the right to disagree about whether these practices are unethical (and I have no interest whatsoever in debating it, either), but not only are these practices legal, but they are also quite common.

Let's take a closer look at the practices and see what's actually necessary...

Forgive me, but are you trying to imply that vegans are "sanctimonious nutjobs"?

How does that impression spread? It is precicely that impression that leads to the discounting of what they have to say on the topic. We want information (loading the link as I write this), not a sales pitch. We certainly don't want to be vilified for a less than total conversion. We just want a more balanced diet that might even be a little healthier...

I just looked at the link. It takes learning and planning to implement correctly, but what does this teach those of us that don't want to give up meat?

Why not raise them for Veal?Have you ever looked at the veal industry? I shouldn't have to explain to you why this industry is so universally reviled that most meat eaters won't eat veal.

Bullets are more effective in this regard.You apparently don't know what the stun gun is for. A bolt is shot into the cow's forehead to stun it so it isn't conscious while it is slaughtered. Bullets are expensive and shooting a cow (let alone 300 an hour) in the head is kind of messy. The bolt only fails a little under 5% of the time in a well run slaughterhouse (but only about 33% of slaughterhouses manage a failure rate of less than 5%), but that 5% is conscious during slaughter...and a flailing cow hanging by one leg from a hook tends to present a safety problem for the workers on the floor. If you want more humanely slaughtered meat, buy locally slaughtered Halal meat (larger Halal operations are less consistent and the slaughtering is often so ineptly done that you are better off going with the bolt) or buy directly from a butcher who does the slaughtering in-house. A butcher doesn't have to "knock" 300 cattle an hour, so he has the time to do it right.

I just looked at the link. It takes learning and planning to implement correctly, but what does this teach those of us that don't want to give up meat?That vegans aren't radical extremists who are killing their children, and that it takes just as much learning and planning to implement a proper vegan diet as it takes to implement a proper meat based diet. No more, and no less. The only real difference is that we auspiciously learn about conventional nutrition in school (although most people either don't remember what they were taught or they just can't be bothered to implement it).

That's funny drew as millions of pounds of veal are sold every year. I have to say i am skeptical of your 5% failure rate on the bolt gun as you are a vegan & have a (from your POV) justifiable bias.
Your comment on the larger Halal operations shows a bit of a lack of knowledge on your part though. If they were acting as you imply the food would be haram & unfit to eat, this isn't just a money thing for these people but a religious deal. They tend to be a bit more careful when it come to that.
Obviosly these people weren't well informed vegans, have you looked at how long it takes rickets to have that profound of an effect on an adolescent? It isn't something that just happens in a month or even several months time.

Taken from here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4087977.ece)

I'm going to go so far as to say that this is child abuse. Now I know some Vegans can live perfectly normal lives, but that should be an adult decision, not forced on a developing child.

Either that or gross negligence. Forcing a restrictive diet on a growing child is bad enough, but not checking - carefully - what effects this diet would have on it is failing as a parent, big time. And if you can't do that, then for the sake of the child someone else should. Oh, you feel bad about it? Aww, how nice. Guess the girl must be feeling better already - oh, wait, those were the extra nutrients that the doctors gave her.

BTW, can she be allowed to keep the girl on a provisional basis, i.e. if people check what the girl's diet is? Keeping a 10-year old away from her family can be stressful for the child as well, and she's been through enough already?

Drew, obviously doctors can miss things. At no point did I say that doctors are infallible. However, I just re-read the article and it's pretty obvious to me that it is a result of the parents' neglect / incompetence that the girl is sick.

I understand that you see this as an assault against all vegans everywhere but this is not true -- it is an attack on this partidcular set of vegans and their particular mindset, which can exist in people who follow all sorts of diets.

@Aldeth: All those kids with type 2 diabetes got it, for the most part, from improper diet. All those cases of morbidly obese kids likewise got there through improper diet. Why don't these cases make more headlines? Because they are that common.

Ah, but now you are changing my criteria. I said that the problem with this girl was she was malnourished. An obese child clearly has an improper diet and/or an eating disorder. However, I'd have a really hard time claiming such a child isn't reaching the recommended daily minimums for nutrition. (Again, unless he lives on McDonald's food.) In fact, by definition an obese child is not malnourished.

I have to say i am skeptical of your 5% failure rate on the bolt gun as you are a vegan & have a (from your POV) justifiable bias.
'They Die Piece by Piece' (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/5418/wpostart.html)
One finding was a high failure rate among beef plants that use stunning devices known as "captive-bolt" guns. Of the plants surveyed, only 36 percent earned a rating of "acceptable" or better, meaning cattle were knocked unconscious with a single blow at least 95 percent of the time.

I'm a meat eater, but I found the above article pretty disturbing.
An obese child clearly has an improper diet and/or an eating disorder. However, I'd have a really hard time claiming such a child isn't reaching the recommended daily minimums for nutrition. (Again, unless he lives on McDonald's food.) In fact, by definition an obese child is not malnourished.
Doesn't the last sentence contradict what you said immediately prior to it? As you say, an obese child can be malnourished if he/she lives on McDonalds food.

Throwing obesity in this discussion is rather silly, as an obese child can lose weight and consequently improve his or her health condition. A child with rickets can't just grow new bones, unfortunately. The damage in the first case is most of the time completely reversible, whereas in the second (to my knowledge) irreversible.

Doesn't the last sentence contradict what you said immediately prior to it? As you say, an obese child can be malnourished if he/she lives on McDonalds food.

The parenthetical reference was there as a caveat. Unless there is some unusual factor involved (like eating tons of junk food that is high in calories and nothing else) you're not going to be malnourished if you're obese. I know a lot of obese kids who don't live on McDonald's food. The only thing wrong with their diets is they eat to much and/or exercise too little.

That's funny drew as millions of pounds of veal are sold every year. I have to say i am skeptical of your 5% failure rate on the bolt gun as you are a vegan & have a (from your POV) justifiable bias.Check Splunge's link. I hope, martaug, that this helps you realize that maybe I'm not quite as biased as you think. I wasn't born a vegetarian, after all.
Your comment on the larger Halal operations shows a bit of a lack of knowledge on your part though. If they were acting as you imply the food would be haram & unfit to eat, this isn't just a money thing for these people but a religious deal. They tend to be a bit more careful when it come to that. What are you talking about? You rightfully point out that Halal is a religious standard, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten that Halal operations are for-profit businesses run by secular businessmen which sell to religious groups and the general population. Smaller Halal operations are more likely to ensure that their knife stays sharp and that the person who slits the animal's throat is well trained. They also don't usually slaughter as many animals per hour, so mistakes from fatigue or speed are less likely, but the larger operations are less consistent in that regard. If you are slitting a hundred throats an hour with a dull knife, screw ups are quite likely.

Ah, but now you are changing my criteria. I said that the problem with this girl was she was malnourished. An obese child clearly has an improper diet and/or an eating disorder. However, I'd have a really hard time claiming such a child isn't reaching the recommended daily minimums for nutrition. I beg to differ. Most morbidly obese children have morbidly obese parents. This isn't a coincidence. The reason that these kids are morbidly obese is that they eat the same foods their parents eat - junk. They aren't getting obese from too many carrots and potatoes, unless those carrots and potatoes are fried. There are far more morbidly obese people in this country than there are vegans (and morbidly obese vegans are almost unheard of), and there are also far more morbidly obese children than there are vegan children. Most vegan children are perfectly healthy. Morbidly obese children, almost universally, are not.

Taluntain argues that losing the weight can improve a child's health, and this is mostly true. Type 2 diabetes, on the other hand, doesn't go away, and morbidly obese children are more likely to have bone trouble than vegan children, anyway, since most vegans do know how to eat well and ensure their children do, too. Studies have failed to show that vegans have a higher rate of osteoporosis or other bone ailments as the general populace, so in practice, vegans aren't putting their children in any more jeopardy than the general population. The same cannot be said for the morbidly obese. We have 10 year old kids with high cholesterol (because their saturated or trans fat intake is too high) and having multiple heart attacks. We have kids with type 2 diabetes (which is almost always caused by improper diet) so bad that they are already insulin dependent or on dialysis. Many of these kids aren't even obese. They just have high cholesterol or developed diabetes from improper nutrition. Failing to watch your nutrition leads to poor results whether you eat meat or not.

Drew,

I don't know what else to say, other than to rehash the points I have already made, because I don't really think you have done much to refute anything that I've said. I have, in several threads now, conceded that it is possible to lead a healthy, vegan lifestyle. I have conceded - repeatedly - that I believe you do just that. However, I think I'm making a reasonable assertion that this girl's nutritional needs were not being met by her diet alone. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to conclude that if her diet were different, she would not have severe Vitamin D deficiency that have caused permanent damage to her spine.

A lot of kids I know - even the morbidly obese ones - eat cereal with milk in the morning for breakfast. (Note, I don't think it matters that the only reason milk contains vitamin D is because it is fortified with it. I don't really care how the vitamin D gets into milk, but I'm glad that it's there because most kids drink milk.) Of course, my argument isn't just about drinking milk. I simply asserted that the greater variety of food you consume the greater opportunity you have to meet your nutritional needs.

You then brought up childhood obesity, and claim that these kids are malnourished because all they eat is junk. I think this is a flawed stance to take because my argument was that people should eat a diverse selection of foods, and if all you are eating is junk food, then I'd say you don't have a whole lot of variety in your diet. Pointing to obesity as a counterpoint would be valid is I was saying that children should eat a greater quantity of food - but all I was saying is children should eat a greater variety of food. Besides - I've framed all my arguments up to this point around eating a healthy diet - not about eating junk food - so I'm really perplexed as to why you'd bring up obese children who gorge themselves on junk food as a reasonable counterpoint.

It's true that morbidly obese children aren't healthy. It's also true that vegans are not obese. But the majority of people are neither morbidly obese OR vegans, and that's the people I'm talking about.

I brought up obesity, type 2 diabetes and the like by way of pointing out that an improper meat based diet carries nearly identical risks to an improper vegan one, and that this nutritional ignorance is just as common with (and just as dangerous for) meat eaters as it is with vegans. Looking at obesity, high cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart attack, osteoporosis, and stroke rates leads me, at least, to believe that more people are ignorant to their own nutritional needs than not. Our government operates on the same principle. They mandate that Iodine be added to salt and that vitamin D be added to milk for the simple reason that nearly everyone uses salt and drinks milk (adding the vitamin D directly to milk also improved the bio-availability of its calcium since vitamin D is essential for its absorption), even if they don't know a damn thing about proper diet. By thus fortifying such foods, the serious ailments connected to inadequate Iodine or D vitamin intake become more rare.

Before we started fortifying dairy milk in the 1930's, rickets was an epidemic. Afterwards, it became nearly non-existent. Since soy milk is similarly supplemented and the vast majority of vegans drink soy milk, consume tofu products, and eat fortified cereals even if they know nothing about nutrition, D vitamin intake simply should not be a problem for vegans. In other words, being particularly well read isn't as necessary as I think you were trying to imply (although most vegans are well read about the matter, anyway, since they weren't always vegan).

This article was about one kid, not thousands, meaning that by far the vast majority of vegans never develop this problem. In other words, even if you don't know what you are doing, even if you are a sanctimonious nut job (not your words, I know) too busy patting yourself on the back to read up on nutrition, this deficiency shouldn't be happening to you just because you are vegan. If it does, you really, really screwed up. I absolutely agree with you that these parents did something very wrong with their child, but I take exception to the idea (which admittedly wasn't yours) that the reason that the child developed rickets was that her parents were vegan.

In an off topic side note pertaining to something you said about obesity, high BMI has been found to severely hamper vitamin D absorption. This is why the morbidly obese have such a high risk of vitamin D (and nearly any other mineral) deficiency even if they somehow are taking in a proper diet (which isn't bloody likely). Fat cells squirrel away and alter a lot of vitamins and minerals, depriving the body of them.

Drew, i stand corrected on the bolt gun stat & offer a sincere apology.
I still stand by my objection about your comments on the halal operations as these money-hungry businesses still shut operations down to pray at all of the proper times.

On BMI's they are such a joke for any serious athlete they aren't even worth discussing. If you have any signifigant muscle mass you will be labeled as overweight or obese. Just look at michael jordan who is skinny but muscular, he classifies as overweight(bmi of 25.4). Reggie bush, one of the fastest men in the nfl almost qualifies for obese(bmi of 29.3) You get into serious lifters & it skyrockets brock lesnar(33.1), john cena(31.7) most rugby players fall between 26-32

I still stand by my objection about your comments on the halal operations as these money-hungry businesses still shut operations down to pray at all of the proper times.I never said that. I said they weren't religious institutions and that the larger ones (and even some of the smaller ones) don't always follow all the Halal guidelines, like ensuring that the knife is sharp enough. Like the bolt gun, the problems with Halal slaughtering are also well documented. I'll get you a link later, but right now I'm taking my kids to the park.

Have fun, my kids(the dogs) are in the backyard chasing squirrels.

Here (http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2004/12/07/state/doc41b5469c7ce7f116392795.txt) is a good example of the kind of abuses that can happen in Halal or Shehita (the Jewish equivalent) slaughterhouses. Sadly, these types of issues are commonplace.

A snippet:
Temple Grandin, an associate professor of animal science at Colorado State University, consults on slaughter practices with some of the nation's top meatpackers. Her clients have included Swift, Excel, and IBP/Tyson as well as a number of kosher plants around the world.

She called the video showing AgriProcessors workers ripping the trachea out of cattle while they were still alive and conscious "horrific."

"I thought it was the most disgusting thing I'd ever seen. I couldn't believe it. I've been in at least 30 other kosher slaughter plants, and I had never ever seen that kind of procedure done before," Grandin said

"I've seen kosher slaughter really done right, so the problem here is not kosher slaughter. The problem here is a plant that is doing everything wrong they can do wrong," Grandin said.As I mentioned before, Kosher or Halal slaughter, when done right, is relatively quick and causes minimal suffering...but it isn't always done correctly by the larger operators.

Regarding BMI, martaug, they were specifically referring to the fact that subcutaneous fat robs your body of vitamins and minerals. High performance athletes are obviously a different story.

I'm sorry drew but i am leery of anything posted by PETA, as they have a habit of, um, shall we say exaggerating stories towards their viewpoint.

i'll pm about the bmi's as it is off-topic.

You obviously didn't follow the link. This wasn't posted by PETA. It was published in the Globe Gazette on December 7th of 2004. A kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa was ultimately shut down (after the article's printing) by the Iowa department of agriculture and a federal probe was launched because of a video captured inside the facility by a private investigator who was hired by PETA, who subsequently made it public.

Temple Grandin, who I quoted in the snippet, is hardly a friend of PETA, consulting as she does for companies like Swift, Excel, and IBP/Tyson. She is no animal rights activist and is often actually at loggerheads with PETA. She is also one of our country's most highly respected professionals in the field of Animal Science, so her words on this matter carry quite a bit of weight. Try actually following the link this time and then call it biased.

I read the link drew & nowhere did it say they were even fined let alone shutdown at the link you have posted. Is there maybe some other link you are thinking of?

They aren't shutdown as of now, as their website clearly shows :http://www.agriprocessor.com/agriprocessors_postville_home/kosher_slaughtering_plant.php
HOWEVER they have been up to no good : http://projectusa.org/library/postville/postville.php

All of this is totally off-topic of course:)

@martaug, the shutdown was temporary (just a day or 2 if I remember correctly). When Temple Grandin toured the facility on June 27th (3 weeks later), they had since cleaned up their act, and subsequently passed an audit of its then-current procedures (which they had changed after the video's release) by several private and government agencies and resumed full production.

Court proceedings regarding the incident are still under way.

Did you follow the second link i posted, they have apperently been in the illegal immigrant business.

Did you follow the second link i posted, they have apperently been in the illegal immigrant business.I already knew about that and, frankly, it was no surprise when I initially heard about it back in May. They also admitted discharging untreated sewage into the Postville system, in violation of Federal and Iowa State law and paid a $600,000 fine for violating waste-water regulation on August 31, 2006. Pardon my cynicism, but slaughter houses bring in illegals as cheap labor so often that you would think it was part of some sort of industry-wide SOP. :rolleyes:

Have you ever looked at the veal industry? I shouldn't have to explain to you why this industry is so universally reviled that most meat eaters won't eat veal.

No, I haven't, and frankly I don't want to. If there is any undue cruelty there, it's not on my head.

The bolt only fails a little under 5% of the time in a well run slaughterhouse (but only about 33% of slaughterhouses manage a failure rate of less than 5%), but that 5% is conscious during slaughter...and a flailing cow hanging by one leg from a hook tends to present a safety problem for the workers on the floor.

Still think bullets are an undue hassle? Get someone competent with the gun and the animal where they can't get away, one bullet finished the job with a vastly greater efficiency. Dead cows don't kick at the workers...

buy directly from a butcher who does the slaughtering in-house. A butcher doesn't have to "knock" 300 cattle an hour, so he has the time to do it right.

Those in smaller areas have that option. Many also might even know the farmer and can verify what the cows are fed and how they are treated. Spare me the horrors of the mass production of such meats. It's things like that which derail anything that we would otherwise learn from such conversation.

That vegans aren't radical extremists who are killing their children, and that it takes just as much learning and planning to implement a proper vegan diet as it takes to implement a proper meat based diet. No more, and no less. The only real difference is that we auspiciously learn about conventional nutrition in school (although most people either don't remember what they were taught or they just can't be bothered to implement it).

So can we get tot he content and not the horror stories. When the "activists" get off on such things, I really crave Veal Cutlet (although, after your Debeaking comments, Chicken McNuggets become tempting too).

So can we get tot he content and not the horror stories. When the "activists" get off on such things, I really crave Veal Cutlet (although, after your Debeaking comments, Chicken McNuggets become tempting too).Gnarff, industry practice isn't a horror story. It's industry practice. I staunchly refuse to debate the ethics angle with you and respect your desire to remain ignorant to industry practices, but I will step in and correct you when you say things that aren't true. Frankly, Gnarff, it isn't my job to walk you through industry practices on feedlots, in slaughterhouses, in battery cages, or in the veal industry. If you wish to learn about it, knock yourself out. The information is out there, but if you choose to remain ignorant to the hows and whys of these industries, I don't want to see you making absurd assertions about how all of the often easily corroborated claims from animal rights activists are untrue. Sometimes activists do make incorrect claims, but if you can be bothered to check their sources, you'll find out that most claims from activists come straight from industry documents about general industry practices. It isn't like the information is classified, after all.

I continue hearing about inhumane treatment of animals that are about to be eaten and can't help but think... "don't you people have more constructive things to do with your time." I mean, really, who cares what happens to the animals about to be eaten. I'm all for trying to make the "being eaten" process as painless as possible for the "eatee" but we're spending waaay too much time and effort on trying to positively make the process of being eaten pain free and without any emotional hardship on the food.

And Drew, sorry of being politically incorrect here, but most vegans I've met are nutcases (not all, and I don't consider you a nutcase -- hardcase maybe, but not nutcase). Vegan lifestyle is fine and dandy for adults whose bones and internal organs are fully developed, but it takes some serious dedication and work to ensure growing children get all the calcium and other nutrients they need to grow healthy -- most of the nutcases don't put that kind of time and effort into it. Seriously -- why would an adult prevent their child from having milk? It's just plain insane to prevent your own child from having the single, best item for proper development of bones. Fine, kids can be vegetarians, but give them their 4-5 serving of dairy each day to ensure healthy bones. IMO it's flat out stupid of a parent not to give a child dairy products (with very rare exceptions).

Vegan lifestyle is fine and dandy for adults whose bones and internal organs are fully developed, but it takes some serious dedication and work to ensure growing children get all the calcium and other nutrients they need to grow healthy -- most of the nutcases don't put that kind of time and effort into it. Seriously -- why would an adult prevent their child from having milk?Lactose intolerance? It's a lot more common than you think. Metrics don't bear out your idea that most vegans are nutcases that don't put in the necessary time or effort to make sure that they and their children are well nourished. The average American vegan takes in the same amount of calcium as the average American. Our rates of Anemia are the same, as well. Good data about bone ailments is admittedly hard to come by (since vegans comprise just under 1% of the population, and many of them don't become vegan until later in life), but what data we do have points to vegans having similar rates of bone ailments, as well. As I mentioned, this article is about one kid, not thousands.

It's just plain insane to prevent your own child from having the single, best item for proper development of bones. Fine, kids can be vegetarians, but give them their 4-5 serving of dairy each day to ensure healthy bones. IMO it's flat out stupid of a parent not to give a child dairy products (with very rare exceptions).Please. For starters, soymilk already has all the nutrients (more, actually) than are found in milk. Go grab a half gallon of silk the next time you go to a grocery store and compare the label to the milk. Calcium and vitamin D are available from multiple sources*. You also somehow forget that many people can't drink milk. 15-25% of Caucasians are lactose intolerant, as are 90-95% of Asians, 70% of Africans, 50-55% of Mexicans, 60% of Jews, and close to 95% of Native Americans. These people are already getting their calcium and vitamin D from somewhere else and, frankly, it isn't hard.

* Like arugulla. A 25 calorie serving provides 16% of your calcium needs, 47% of your vitamin A, 8% of your iron, and 25% of your vitamin C.

actually drew being lactose intolerent doesn't mean you can't drink milk. A lot of people that are LI can process up to 8oz. of milk without problems but it varies from person to person. LI is a self fulfilling condition, in that the primary cause is being raised in a non-dairy enviroment. The secondary & genetic causes are smaller reasons. You grow up not drinking milk, you can't drink milk. Doesn't explain the native americans though, most of the cherokees i know love ice cream & eat cereal so i wonder if it's a tribal thing?

And drew, if it is that easy to get all the vitamins needed how did she get in such bad shape if they weren't nutjobs? I know you don't want to admit that any vegans are but just like all groups you have a few wacko members.:nuts:

P.S. forgot check on those asian figures. aren't mongols considered asian? i know they consume massive quantities of goats milk. Saw it on discovery channel:)

actually drew being lactose intolerent doesn't mean you can't drink milk. A lot of people that are LI can process up to 8oz. of milk without problems but it varies from person to person. Eight ounces of milk doesn't even come close to fulfilling your daily needs for calcium or vitamin D. People who are lactose intolerant are either not going to get in enough calcium and vitamin D, get it from other sources, or constantly have the ****s.

And drew, if it is that easy to get all the vitamins needed how did she get in such bad shape if they weren't nutjobs? I know you don't want to admit that any vegans are but just like all groups you have a few wacko members.It's also easy to avoid developing type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and obesity. Are the people developing these lifestyle-based disorders all nut-jobs? Of course not!

I readily and happily concede that there are plenty of vegans out there worthy of that epithet, just as there are plenty of nut-jobs out there who believe the Bush administration staged 911, we faked the moon landing, LBJ killed Kennedy, or that aliens just happened to crash land on a secret military base in Nevada. Stupidity or ignorance are not the same thing as insanity, so there is no way to be sure from this article if these folks are really "nut-jobs" or if they just made a really rare and stupid nutritional mistake out of ignorance or foolishness. We simply don't have enough information to make such an assessment of these particular people.

Drew, just 8oz of milk provides 25% vitamin D & 30% calcium of your daily requirements. This cuts down what you have to get from other sources.

Yeah, martaug, I know that, but that still leaves 70-75% and assumes that the lactose intolerant individual is willing to deal with the more or less constant minor bowel trouble that they get from milk consumption. Most aren't, and would rather get their calcium and D vitamins from other alternatives like rice milk or soy milk, leafy greens like arugula, calcium rich nuts like almonds, or a multi-vitamin if at all possible.

I'm willing to believe that the majority of vegans are not nut jobs, but I ask you to remember that the nutjobs gather more attention than the regular people. In fact, we probably wouldn't know that the normal ones were vegans if they didn't tell you.

This story serves as a warning of the dangers of a poorly executed vegan diet, but also paints the parents as either bufoons or nut jobs. It does a disservice to the vegan community by driving home their differences. It's almost as bad as PETA in that regard. It does not solve problems, only creates them. Both sides are prone to problems in their diet without due vigilance, and it does not address what we ought to be eating.

Lactose intolerance? It's a lot more common than you think.

There are methods of reducing lactose levels of dairy products these days and lessening their impact on lactose intolerants. HYLA(hydrolysed lactose) products are basically safe game for everyone with lactose intolerance.

There are methods of reducing lactose levels of dairy products these days and lessening their impact on lactose intolerants. HYLA(hydrolysed lactose) products are basically safe game for everyone with lactose intolerance.Yes, but they are more expensive. Non-dairy methods are cheaper. There are also products on the market that can be taken to aid in the digestion of lactose, but you have to wait something in the area of half an hour before you can drink that chocolate milk or eat that ice cream. It's a lot easier and cheaper to just have a non-dairy equivalent instead, with no waiting necessary.

On a side note, none of those products help those with straight-up milk allergies (which are also quite common).

They are not very much more expensive around here, in fact some dairy products are HYLA by default and are not even available in other forms. A liter of milk costs about 1,10 euros while hyla milk costs 1,25. Not a very massive or even significant difference if you ask me.

morgoroth:nono: thats a meat product so by definition its more expensive & worse for you than a vegan solution. Have you not been listening to drew instruct you in the proper way to live in peace with the animals on the planet?

Sorry, my sarcasm meter had hit max & had to be relieved.

Drew, i'm glad you're happy being a vegan & enjoy a meat free lifestyle.I know(or at least i think) that you aren't intentionally trying to be sanctimonious but you are coming off that way.
I & many others ain't gonna do it, so quit preaching please. If god/higher power/nature didn't want us to eat animals they wouldn't be so tasty:yum:
:yot:
My personal favorites are chickens & pre-chickens(eggs), i eat enough that i should have feathers!! Having been on plenty of farms i have wrung plenty of chicken necks & whacked off heads with a knife or hatchet.

Like Gnarf mention, shooting the cow or pig, as we did when i helped my grandfather as a pre-teen on his farm slaughtering his own meat animals it was quick & over in an instant. Until you help process a pig, you would be amazed at how little is wasted. The old saying is " the only thing we don't use is the squeel"

Here's something interesting...

http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/food-entertaining/articles/recipes/greenliving/healthnutrition--the_perfect_burger

It suggests that farm raised cattle that are fed grain, hay and grass taste better and are healthier than factory operations that the "nutjobs" ***** about. So much for progress...

And here's something else:

http://www.greenlivingonline.com/HealthNutrition/corn-is-making-us-fat/

It mentions High Fructose Corn Syrop, likely okay for vegetarians and Vegans is actuall a leading contributor to obesity!

If god/higher power/nature didn't want us to eat animals they wouldn't be so tasty

You got that right!

I just have to butt in with one addition. While I can see myself cutting meat out of my diet (although it is farfetched and they seriously need to improve the taste and variation of the non animal based protein sources) I could never see myself cut milk or dairy products in general. I love milk, I drink about a litre a day and it is the best meal drink there is. It is refreshing, it is tasty and it is even healthy! Cheese is also very very very nice although not as essential as milk.

morgoroth:nono: thats a meat product so by definition its more expensive & worse for you than a vegan solution. Have you not been listening to drew instruct you in the proper way to live in peace with the animals on the planet?Putting words in my mouth again? Aside from the fact that Hyla milk isn't actually a meat product, I have never once stated that meat is bad for you...because it isn't. Meat is nutritious and can be (and often is) a beneficial part of your diet. It just isn't necessary. I have purposefully avoided the ethical side of this debate, and will continue to do so.

Drew, i'm glad you're happy being a vegan & enjoy a meat free lifestyle.I know(or at least i think) that you aren't intentionally trying to be sanctimonious but you are coming off that way.
I & many others ain't gonna do it, so quit preaching please.I have very purposely stuck to debating only the facts of this issue and avoided the ethical side of veganism, martaug, so I don't know where you get off accusing me of "preaching". You and Gnarff have both been intentionally taunting me and trying to draw me into some sort of ethical debate and I have refused the bait each and every time, yet I'm somehow being sanctimonious? Where?

Was it when I brought up the established fact that kids can be healthy on a vegan diet or was it when I argued that a 5 paragraph article that doesn't even name names doesn't provide enough information to pass judgment on the parents of that girl? All we know about them is that they were vegan, they are "prominent in the vegan community", and their daughter had a D vitamin deficiency. That really isn't enough information to come to the conclusion that they are sanctimonious nut-jobs too busy patting themselves on the back to recognize there was something wrong with their daughter.

You've known and crossed swords with me often enough to know that I always insist on reserving judgment in cases where there isn't enough information. The fact that the parents in this article just happened to be vegan had nothing to do with it. Had I enough information, I would have been suggesting we hang them upside down by their (likely weak and brittle due to a D vitamin deficiency) toe-nails right there with you! Martaug, I'm sure you and many others have had activists try to convince you that you are doing a "horrible thing" by eating meat, but I have made no such statement in this thread and take offense to your implying that I did.

Like Gnarf mention, shooting the cow or pig, as we did when i helped my grandfather as a pre-teen on his farm slaughtering his own meat animals it was quick & over in an instant.My point about using an actual gun had nothing to do with ethics. My point is that it simply isn't going to happen. Aside from being more expensive, more messy, and less safe than using a bolt, it's also completely unnecessary. Done right, Halal slaughter or the bolt are both reasonably humane, so they don't need to be replaced by messier, more expensive, less safe alternatives.

There's also the issue of putting a loaded weapon into the hands of an unskilled worker making 8 bucks (or less!) an hour. Most slaughter houses process 300-400 heads of cattle an hour. That's a lot of bullets, and a lot of opportunities for something to go wrong. The inevitable higher insurance costs that come with keeping and firing loaded weapons in a slippery, bloody room* will be passed on to the consumer, and so will the cost of new bullets. The bolt works quite well when done correctly. Halal slaughter works quite well when done correctly. The problem isn't the method.

* I didn't use those terms for shock value or to be "sanctimonious". The simple fact is that any room where you slaughter 300-400 cows an hour is going to be slippery from all the blood. Adding some guy firing a loaded weapon that will make an even bigger mess than the bolt to the mix isn't really a good idea when a few minor tweaks to how the stunning is conducted is all that's really needed.

If god/higher power/nature didn't want us to eat animals they wouldn't be so tasty

If god/higher power/nature didn't want us to do violence, it wouldn't be so fun.

Pretty weak arguments, are they not?

I've been incommunicado for a few days.

Drew, obviously you consider that I was too hasty in my condemnation of the parents. Fair enough -- on that score I guess we have to agree to disagree, as I think there was sufficient evidence in the article to conclude that the parents were at fault.

Like T2Bruno, all of the vegan / vegetarian activists I've met or read have come across to me like frothing, raging lunatics, so that's the direction I come from when I'm evaluating the relative merits of their claims. You and a few others have been reasonable in your arguments (you're one of the first I've seen who admits that meat CAN be a healthy food) Based on the majority of my experiences with vegans and animal rights activists (I know that one isn't necessarily the other, but they often are) I have a hard time taking them seriously, especially when a case like this girl's comes up.

That said, though, if a family that follows a traditional diet ended up having a kid with severe rickets, and there was any hint that they had malnourished the child either through malice or stupidity, my response and condemnation would have been just as severe.

Drew, i would like to offer you a public apology.
I (like LKD & T2Bruno) have never meet any other than the fringe side of the vegans. Even though we have had good reasonable discussions, i keep slipping up & putting you in that category. I think it's your responses to some of the posts on this thread that are doing it. Not necesarrily what you are saying but how they are phrased. Just read the first 2 lines of your answer in post #55 to Morgoroths post # 54. It came off as saying "you fool! non-dairy will ALWAYS be cheaper!!"
Now as far as that fringe side goes, if you know any of them, you might want to remind them that following a guy with a loaded weapon into the woods making lots a' noise isn't really smart. You're fairly safe from him however there are people out there who fire at sounds.

@ iku-turso, i'm assuming by your response that you have no idea what that smiley after my statement signified?

Fair enough -- on that score I guess we have to agree to disagree, as I think there was sufficient evidence in the article to conclude that the parents were at fault.Actually, I agree with you that the parents were at fault*. My point of contention wasn't your insistence that the parents were at fault, but with your contention that they were at fault because they were sanctimonious nut-jobs too busy patting themselves on the back to notice that there was something wrong with their kid. From the article, we don't know that the parents were unaware of a problem (being unaware of a problem and unaware of the solution are two very different things), we don't know that they were sanctimonious, and we don't know that they were constantly patting themselves on the back. All we know is that they were vegan, prominent in the vegan community, and that their kid wasn't getting enough vitamin D. PETA is not the vegan community, by the way (the vegan community is much, much larger), and many of their members aren't even vegan.

It may (though it probably shouldn't) surprise you that most vegans do not advertise their lifestyle. Only one of my co-workers and a few of my friends realize that I'm vegan (most eventually figure out that I don't eat meat, though). It isn't that I hide it - this just isn't something that I, or most vegans, for that matter - tell people. A lot of people automatically assume that you're judging them when they know you're a vegetarian.

They stop basing their opinions of you on the content of your character or the merits of your words and instead discount everything you say on the basis of what you (don't) eat. Before you call me a reactionary for saying this, I'd ask you to keep in mind that I was 19 when I became a vegetarian. I didn't become vegan until I was 24. When I became vegetarian (and, again, when I became vegan) I was able to see firsthand the difference in how people that knew about my diet treated me.

* With one caveat. A disorder that hampers the absorption of certain vitamins and minerals could also cause something like this. While such disorders are rare and diet is by far the most likely cause, I can't in good conscience say that the parents' culpability is absolute. (I'd peg it at about 99.9%, if I had to pull a number out of my ass.)

Drew are you just a dietary vegan or a full vegan ?

Full is a relative term, actually, since absolute veganism is impossible in this day and age. Sugar, tap water, and most bottled water is refined using bone-char activated charcoal. The glue holding together my non-leather shoes and found in the binding of my extensive book collection likewise has animal bi-products in it. The Motrin I take after a hard workout was probably tested on animals, the Flu vaccination my kids get every year is cultured with some sort of poultry product (as are most vaccinations), the strep medication I took 2 years ago and the INH I was on for 4 months after I popped positive for a PPD test was also tested on animals. Do I avoid, meat, dairy, honey, leather, silk, etc ad nauseum? Absolutely. Do I carry it to absurd extremes? No.

Well yes that was what i was asking & you answered very well thank you. As you pointed out it would almost be impossible in todays world to avoid all animal products unless you wanted to make just about everything yourself & that just isn't feasable with a lot of things.
But, oh man, how can you give up honey!? It's nectar of the gods(well the bee gods anyway:))

PS i've seen this stuff called sugar in the raw is it a less refined sugar? it looks like larger more irregular granules & is brownish.

i've seen this stuff called sugar in the raw is it a less refined sugar? it looks like larger more irregular granules & is brownish.It is. The molasses is still present in it, so it tastes quite different. I usually avoid it, though, since cane sugar has been found to be rather poor for the environment (it takes more from the soil than it gives in return), especially in Florida, where cane sugar production is ruining wide swaths of land in the everglades. Hawaii has the right environment for producing cane sugar and the damage to the land is fairly minimal, but the swamp lands of Florida are being ruined beyond repair from it.

Refined beet sugar tastes exactly the same as refined cane sugar and it costs less, too. In the US, any sugar that doesn't specify on the label that it's cane sugar is beet sugar. Another dead giveaway for beet sugar is that it is usually refined in the Midwest, while cane sugar is usually refined in Florida or Hawaii. If you're a cheapskate like me, you've probably been using beet sugar for years without even knowing. Beet sugar is also more vegan-friendly, since the refining process doesn't employ activated charcoal.

I now what you mean about being judged by your lifestyle. Just because i look like a brain-dead gym rat doesnt mean i am one. But it is funny the first time you try to get your buddies to eat tofu:)
They look at you like you have suddenly grown an extra head & started speaking martian!
What is this? soy bean what? I'm not gonna eat that! No! No! Hey that was pretty good Can i have some more?

Meat is nutritious and can be (and often is) a beneficial part of your diet. It just isn't necessary.

I'll go a step further and suggest that Meat is overconsumed. I want to look at other sources to see how to eat healthier (as part of dropping 50 plus pounds).

You and Gnarff have both been intentionally taunting me and trying to draw me into some sort of ethical debate and I have refused the bait each and every time, yet I'm somehow being sanctimonious? Where?

Back on page one, I criticized the deliberate portrayal of the slaughterhouses as cruel to animals, claiming that they are overblown and divert people from the information they may otherwise seek by looking at diets that work for vegans. You challenged my comments, describing the slaughterhouse proceedures and the Dairy Industry. I didn't want to bait you into anything, but rather you went where I was trying to avoid (at first anyway).

There's also the issue of putting a loaded weapon into the hands of an unskilled worker making 8 bucks (or less!) an hour. Most slaughter houses process 300-400 heads of cattle an hour. That's a lot of bullets, and a lot of opportunities for something to go wrong. The inevitable higher insurance costs that come with keeping and firing loaded weapons in a slippery, bloody room* will be passed on to the consumer, and so will the cost of new bullets.

Which should be more of an indictment of the corporate factory farm industry, rather than the people who eat meat. The article I posted abbove, suggests that the meat they produce is of a lower quality, Drew's information suggests that their methods are ineffective and unsafe. Perhaps several smaller scale operations might be the key to producing better quality meat for the population.

If god/higher power/nature didn't want us to do violence, it wouldn't be so fun.

I've heard the same logic about sex and drunkenness. Weak I admit, but I like the line...

A disorder that hampers the absorption of certain vitamins and minerals could also cause something like this.

But at what point should the parents realize there was something wrong?

Do I avoid, meat, dairy, honey, leather, silk, etc ad nauseum? Absolutely. Do I carry it to absurd extremes? No.

I'll go one step further and suggest that the absurd extremes or pure Veganism would be impossible. Isn't the best source of fertilizer manure? That's an animal by product...

@ Gnarff,

Try this http://www.nutrition.org.uk/upload/BNF%20Healthy%20Eating(5)(1).pdf

Doesn't tell you quantities but advises on how much of the plate it should make up. Note the amount of non-meat alternatives in the "Meat" category.

Key for dieting is to get rid of the fat - trim it off, remove skin, buy leaner cuts.

A quick question. How do vegans feel about a mother breastfeeding her child? I mean, it is an animal product, but there's hardly any cruelty and you can't get more natural (and would be hard pressed to find more safe food for the child).

I'd like to know how vegans feel about someone else than the baby drinking the mother's milk :hmm:

Feast your minds on that image :evil:

That image will scar me for the rest of the day, Iku-Turso!

I'm sure there are a lot of people who are vegan who don't make a big deal about it. I myself have some dietary restrictions due to my religious beliefs. I don't drink alcohol. But I'm not a zealot about it. When I associate with friends at a restaurant, I don't start going off, like this:

"oh, vodka is so BAD for you, you shouldn't drink it, do you know how many people die per year because of liver disease and anyway there's still a huge black market and do you know how little a Russian potato farmer MAKES and he works so hard and then he's forced by the Russian government to sell his potatoes for a PITTANCE and then the vodka makers just jack up the prices and the conditions in those Russian distilleries are just FILTHY and anyway over 34% of that stuff is smuggled, they didn't pay a penny in excise tax when they brought that stuff to Canada, and drunk drivers kill SO many people every year, I just can't imagine you can LIVE with yourself drinking knowing all the damage you are doing to yourself and the economy, not to mention the damage to your EVERLASTING SOUL and . . . ."

The previous ill-constructed rant, along with my attempt to reproduce the breathless, histrionic quality that goes with these sorts of people, is an example of the kind of person I want nothing to do with, and represents the midset of many vegans I have frequently interacted with in the past. It does NOT represent Drew, however, and I want to make that clear. So when you sense some lack of respect on my part toward vegans, remember that it is THIS kind of vegan to which I am referring.

A quick question. How do vegans feel about a mother breastfeeding her child? I mean, it is an animal product, but there's hardly any cruelty and you can't get more natural (and would be hard pressed to find more safe food for the child).Do I even have to answer this? Giving up animal products doesn't mean giving up your common sense.

Back on page one, I criticized the deliberate portrayal of the slaughterhouses as cruel to animals, claiming that they are overblown and divert people from the information they may otherwise seek by looking at diets that work for vegans. This wasn't the taunting I was talking about, and what you actually said was this:
That said, Ethical reasons for Veganism are :bs:. The Animal Cruelty that they piss and moan about is illegal in most civilized countries.This is, quite frankly, not true. The claims about industry practices coming out of animal rights groups like PETA are almost* always factually accurate. I specifically suggested that you look up the procedures to which I referred in industry manuals (rather than on animal rights sites) because I felt that seeing the procedures that animal rights activists complain about spelled out in industry manuals and publications would drive the point [that the complaints about industry practice coming from animal rights activists aren't being pulled out of their own asses] home much more effectively than I ever could. The presentation coming from animal rights activists is often over the top and melodramatic, but their facts are usually easily corroborated by simply consulting industry publications.

Gnarff, had you instead argued that there was nothing wrong with current industry practices, I would have left your argument alone (since that is an issue of subjective ethics and I have no desire to get into another such fruitless debate), but what you argued was that the claims about industry practice coming from animal rights activists weren't true.

* It would be disingenuous to say that they are always factually accurate because we do have a few genuine nut-cases out there who care more about shock value than accuracy. The animal rights community does its best to muzzle people like that (since libel suits aren't exactly helpful), but isn't always successful.

On animal industry practices it would be good to read what Temple Grandin writes about them. She works in the industry and she's good at it. Yet her perspective on the matter should be of special interest to everyone as she has a somewhat outsider's point of view into human concerns...

The claims about industry practices coming out of animal rights groups like PETA are almost* always factually accurate. I specifically suggested that you look up the procedures to which I referred in industry manuals (rather than on animal rights sites) because I felt that seeing the procedures that animal rights activists complain about spelled out in industry manuals and publications would drive the point [that the complaints about industry practice coming from animal rights activists aren't being pulled out of their own asses] home much more effectively than I ever could

Exactly what I hoped to avoid. How effectively has that derailed the topic at hand?

The presentation coming from animal rights activists is often over the top and melodramatic, but their facts are usually easily corroborated by simply consulting industry publications.

Exactly the point I wanted to make with the line in the first place. Animal rights groups derail the discussion with the exceptional melodrama...

had you instead argued that there was nothing wrong with current industry practices,

Which I no longer believe. It may be unsafe and produces lower quality product and increases the fat and corn content, making it unhealthier. Increasing the number of facilities and spreading out the production requirements would increase quality and reduce the incidents that these groups ***** about.

Caracoth: I've saved the PDF that the site offers so I can look at it later.

Exactly the point I wanted to make with the line in the first place. Animal rights groups derail the discussion with the exceptional melodrama...If that's the point you wanted to make, that that is what you should have said. I wouldn't have argued it. Instead, you said their claims weren't true.

Do I even have to answer this? Giving up animal products doesn't mean giving up your common sense.

Unfortunately, yes, you do. They may not equate to each other, but in my experience (and apparently those of many people on these boards) they have an unusually high correlation.

I'll admit that you seem to have avoided that daily ritual, Drew, and I'm not trying to say otherwise, but please realize that there are zealots out there. How do they feel about this

I will again re-iterate that giving up animal products doesn't mean giving up your common sense. That said, as long as the lactating mother isn't kept in a confinement pen, fed an unnatural diet, and routinely impregnated (to make sure they continue to lactate) only to have her children slaughtered at birth for an acid found in their stomachs or sold to a facility that deprives them of light, confines them so closely that they can't even turn around, puts them on an iron deficient diet, and slaughters them a year later, vegans aren't against breastfeeding. :rolleyes:

Sorry, NOG, but when you ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer.

Drew,

A cow very probably does not contemplate/resent it's confinement pen, nor it's iron deficient diet. A cow very probably does not mourn the loss of her child nor resent the quality of her accomodations or the frequency of her impregnations or the perpetuation of her lactation. Cows are very probably primitive enough that they absolutely could not care less if they could turn around or not. You are very probably lamenting a victimless injustice. You are defending a rootless foodstuff.

Until a cow learns sign language like Koko the gorilla and speaks ill or her plight I will continue to eat beef stew and not worry about her mindset or accomodations.

A cow very probably does not contemplate/resent it's confinement pen, nor it's iron deficient dietThis is entirely beside the point, given the context in which I made my statement. The larger point I was making is that vegans don't avoid animal products simply because they come from animals. They avoid them because they don't approve of the manner in which such products are acquired. A good many vegans would cease to be vegan if the industry changed enough of its practices (personally, if industry practice were to change to something I felt was sufficiently humane I would cease to be vegan, but would remain a vegetarian).

Regarding your statement about Iron deficiency, anemia is no laughing matter regardless of your species. Not all cows are on iron deficient diets. Only veal cows (dairy calves that aren't disemboweled after birth for the rennet in their fourth stomachs are sold to the veal industry) are purposely subjected to iron deficiency, confinement so close they can't even turn around, and light deprivation, all of which leaves them so weak and undernourished that their muscles atrophy to a point at which veal calves aren't even capable of standing, which is the goal. The low iron count and muscle atrophy give veal its distinctive taste (the light deprivation lowers their D vitamin levels, which is also supposed to affect the flavor). You may think that this is perfectly fine, and that's your prerogative, but vegans do not agree.

Child abuse. Make an example of the parents. Nothing to be said about, or to talk it wright.

Child abuse. Make an example of the parents. Nothing to be said about, or to talk it wright.That would be fine long as we also make an example of the (legion) parents of children who develop type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, melanoma, and (if the parents smoke) lung cancer, emphysema, asthma...

children who develop type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity

At least those kids get to enjoy their burgers. This girl was forced to graze AND she got ill - that is just unkind.

Forced? Not hardly. Most vegetarian children stay that way their whole lives. If they were only doing it because someone forced them, they would stop being vegetarian any time their parents weren't watching and they certainly wouldn't carry it into adulthood.

Drew, to the points that they severely impact the child's health, I completely agree with you. Realize, though, that not all of these are solely dietary problems.

Also, being a little chubby and suffering from extreme obesity are very different things, yet a lot of health nuts would group them together nonetheless.

I'm sorry drew but most of the vegans/vegetarians i've met treat it like a religion & indoctrinate their children just as bad as any cult. Your defense of this couple solely because they are vegans is bordering on the same. Someone mentions that they should be tried for child abuse & you respond by stating that we need to "make an example" of all the parents that allow their children to develop whatever ailments. We are talking about 1 documented case of legitimate abuse as this child will never get better not a bunch of hypothetical cases were they might get better. You are just making excuses for them & you are better than that. Stop & think about it for a minute.

I'm sorry drew but most of the vegans/vegetarians i've met treat it like a religion & indoctrinate their children just as bad as any cult. Or any religion. Parents indoctrinate their children into their religion (or their lack of it), value system, dietary habits, mode of dress, social patterns, and even their political party as a matter of course. We call it child rearing. Veganism, by the way, is not a religion. It is a philosophy.

Your defense of this couple solely because they are vegans is bordering on the same.No such defense has been made, especially not just because the parents were vegan. I already agreed that the mal-nourishment was their fault. My disagreement was with the idea that the parents are sanctimonious nut-jobs who were too busy patting themselves on the back to notice there was something wrong with their child, since we have no information (other than the fact that the parents are vegan, which appears to be enough for some) that would indicate that the parents are sanctimonious, crazy, unaware that there was a problem (we do know that they were unaware of the exact nature of the problem), or that they didn't seek help.

Someone mentions that they should be tried for child abuse & you respond be stating that we need to "make an example" of all the parents that allow their children to develop whatever ailments. Actually, someone suggested that we "make an example" of these parents. My suggestion was that, if we "make an example" of these particular parents, we must also "make an example" of all the other parents who's children have become sick, injured, or killed as a result of parental incompetence or negligence. It's called being fair. If we only "make an example" of these particular parents while letting all the non-vegan parents of malnourished children get off scott-free, that would constitute discrimination.

Thats why i don't think religion should be taught to children.
You are a parent & i'm fairly certain you have read up on the subject of rickets. If your child was exhibiting these symptoms would you stop taking her to the doctor before they figured it out & before it reached a point where it has caused irreversiblr harm?
Yeah, just saw that the make an example was the post above yours. My bad.

You are a parent & i'm fairly certain you have read up on the subject of rickets. If your child was exhibiting these symptoms would you stop taking her to the doctor before they figured it out & before it reached a point where it has caused irreversiblr harm?We don't know that they didn't. Doctors mis-diagnose, under-estimate, or even flat out miss ailments all the time, and not out of incompetence, either. Any set of symptoms can be caused by any number of ailments, so a lot of guess work can be involved. From the article, we don't know that the parents just sat on their hands until their daughter's condition became irreversible. You have to assume quite a bit to come to that conclusion, and we all know what happens when we assume...

Ponit is that the human body was designed for a specific diet. Not eating meat is something I respect and can get. But diary products are essential for the body.

And yes parents that overfeed, smoke during pregnancies etc etc are the same.

Forced? Not hardly. Most vegetarian children stay that way their whole lives. If they were only doing it because someone forced them, they would stop being vegetarian any time their parents weren't watching and they certainly wouldn't carry it into adulthood.


Or any religion. Parents indoctrinate their children into their religion (or their lack of it), value system, dietary habits, mode of dress, social patterns, and even their political party as a matter of course. We call it child rearing. Veganism, by the way, is not a religion. It is a philosophy.

Hmmm... I'm not so sure all those examples apply equally. Imposing a particular diet or religion is a lot more difficult to escape than say giving your kids a particular political slant. I saw it is Serbia in the 90s - young people tended to vote for the various opposition parties, while their parents would happily vote the government. And lets not even pretend that parents can influence their kids dress sense once they hit their teens.

Religion on the other hand, tends to stick (though of course not always) - probably because the indoctrination is a lot more emotional and revolves around quite basic concepts of good and bad, sin, guilt etc which can be taught to quite young children. (Unlike say politics where terms like 'fiscally conservative', 'liberal', 'pro/anti-european' tend to require that the child is quite a bit older. Of course, it can be simplified for quick indoctrination (godless liberals vs gun-toting rednecks).).

With diet, i feel indoctrination is more akin to religion - especially if it is based on ethical grounds. If a kid is taught that eating meat/milk/honey is wrong, they might never try it, never realise they have a choice in the matter. On the other hand, since there are lapsed vegeterians out there (bacon, bacon is the key) then I could be wrong in this.

Also, are there physiological aspects? How well is your digestive tract able to deal with meat and milk at 18 (when you leave home) if you never had them before?

The human digestive system is very flexible and can adjust (given proper time) to a wide variety of diets. I recently heard about a man who survived the last 17 years on nothing but chocolate (I don't know that he was terribly healthy, mind you). If you've never eaten meat before, you don't handle it well, nor milk, nor a wide variety of vegetables or grains. If you've grown up eating them, or things like them, on the other hand, you generally don't have any problems.

If they were only doing it because someone forced them, they would stop being vegetarian any time their parents weren't watching and they certainly wouldn't carry it into adulthood.

Just like abused children would never inflict the same kind of abuse that they've been victims of on others or their own children? And just like any abused spouse would get a divorce or move away the first (or the 100th) time their partner beat them? There are plenty of other examples which follow the same pattern.

Sorry Drew, but real life in such cases doesn't follow reason. Reasonably, no one who has been abused as a child would want to inflict the same kind of abuse on their children. Realistically, however, most adults who have been abused as children abuse their own children as well. This is a well known and proven fact (which I'm sure you're aware of). Veganism, religion and other deeply ingrained behaviours that are forced upon children during their formative years will be internalized by the wide majority of them and repeated throughout their entire lives unless something fundamentally shakes their beliefs to the core and makes them change their entire life philosophy, which is very rare. Those who manage to break away from such behaviours are exceptions to the rule, not the norm. It's never as simple as "oh, if they didn't like it, they just wouldn't do it any more". Human behaviour is much more complex than that and oftentimes irrational.

Veganism isn't a religion, nor is it child abuse. It is a diet, and requires every bit as much "indoctrination" as a meat based diet does. My sons have already both been "indoctrinated" into Veganism when they asked me why we don't eat meat. Once they realized that I wasn't lying (they initially thought I was pulling their leg, since I'm a bit of a kidder) when I told them that beef comes from cows, chicken comes from chickens, and pork comes from pigs, that was enough for them. I didn't try to convince them that there was something wrong with killing for food. It simply wasn't necessary, since my kids apparently thought that already.

Judging by the other vegetarian families I've known, this is the norm.

Ponit is that the human body was designed for a specific diet. Not eating meat is something I respect and can get. But diary products are essential for the body.Despite the fact that nearly 2/3 of all human beings are lactose intolerant, you are seriously positing an argument that the milk of another species is somehow essential to the human body? Beneficial for some, sure, but necessary? Come on.

Veganism isn't a religion, nor is it child abuse. It is a diet, and requires every bit as much "indoctrination" as a meat based diet does.

Just who exactly are you kidding here? In your view, is a "meat-based" diet any diet which includes meat? Because I certainly wouldn't call my diet meat-based. It includes meat, but it also includes everything else, from fruit to vegetables. My definition of that would be "balanced", because unlike veganism or vegetarianism, it doesn't purposefully exclude anything.

As for how this kind of diet requires indoctrination - that's a really odd perspective you have there. My sister and I didn't want to touch any meat for quite a long time. Then gradually we developed a taste for it, to the point where I today regularly eat meat, but my sister only sporadically, when she fells like it. And here's the key - no one's forced us to eat meat if we didn't like it. Why would they? In a normal, balanced diet, there's always enough of everything else on the table so that you can skip on the meat if you don't feel like eating it. Kids brought up on a normal diet know and understand that they have a choice - eat meat or not, it's up to you.

Now how about vegetarians or vegans? How many would prepare meat for their children on a daily basis if they wanted it? Not even most vegetarians, let alone any vegans.

If you are capable of stepping out of your shoes and looking at this issue objectively, you will see that e.g. veganism is as much an indoctrination as any strict religion is. Just like every "good" fundamentalist religion teaches that only it is the true one and that all others are false, so does veganism teach that its way is the only proper way. And just like religious fanatics for the most part raise their children to be equally fanatic about their parents' religion, so will vegans bring up kids who will view meat with as much disdain as your average Christian fanatic will a Buddhist. The central point of either extremes is that they promote the one and the only way, as far as they're concerned, and anyone who isn't on it is an unbeliever. They won't make an effort to represent any other religion to their children as anything else but a path to damnation. Just like the majority of vegans will not make any real effort to give their children the choice of whether they can eat meat or not.

So, sorry, but in this case, indoctrination really only goes on on your side of the fence. I don't much care about it unless it results in bodily harm to the children (like in the topic of this discussion), but when anyone tries to paint it as something other than it really is, I can only correct them.

As for how this kind of diet requires indoctrination - that's a really odd perspective you have there. My sister and I didn't want to touch any meat for quite a long time. Then gradually we developed a taste for it, to the point where I today regularly eat meat, but my sister only sporadically, when she fells like it.Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to be constantly offered meat - and occasionally eat it - in order to develop a taste for it. If you and your sister didn't want to touch meat for quite a long time, and your parents just stopped preparing it all together rather than preparing it offering it to you at every meal, how would you have developed a taste for it? In continually offering meat to you, your parents slowly but surely indoctrinated you into their way of eating. Please note that I don't see anything wrong with that, but it is what it is. There's a reason fitness or fatness, high cholesterol or low cholesterol, etc tend to run in families. They all tend to eat the same food and follow the same lifestyle, even into adulthood. Why do you think that is?

You are right to point out that I won't be preparing meat in my house, but that doesn't mean that my kids won't have plenty of opportunities to eat it. We don't live in a vegetarian society. Nearly everyone they meet is an omnivore*, so they are exposed to meat and meat consumption each and every day. They aren't with me every minute of every day, either, and especially as they get older and more independent, they will have more and more opportunities to eat meat if they so choose.

*Regarding the term "meat based", I didn't coin it and I have no attachment to it. If it bothers you, I won't use it.

Most vegetarian children stay that way their whole lives.

Habits learned in youth stay with you the rest of your life. But if they never try meat, what does swearing it off get them?

Parents indoctrinate their children into their religion (or their lack of it), value system, dietary habits, mode of dress, social patterns, and even their political party as a matter of course. We call it child rearing.

As it should be. When you bring a child into the world, be it planned or the consequence of fooling around, you have a responsibility to bring them up within society. The difference between you and the couple in the story is that you haver obviously done your research to train them in proper diets. The story doesn't tell us if they are nut jobs or just idiots. All it tells us is that they didn't teach their daughter about the right diet.

someone suggested that we "make an example" of these parents. My suggestion was that, if we "make an example" of these particular parents, we must also "make an example" of all the other parents who's children have become sick, injured, or killed as a result of parental incompetence or negligence.

I would say it's a warning, but I suspect that the keyword Vegan is being trotted out to make the parents appear as freaks. As such, it loses the right message--proper diet. That problem is much more common than this story indicates.

Thats why i don't think religion should be taught to children.

I disagree. Religion comes with a set of morals. It teaches ethical philosophy (when done right, that is). Religion is a positive force in society when done right...

The story doesn't tell us if they are nut jobs or just idiots. All it tells us is that they didn't teach their daughter about the right diet.Given the age of their daughter, it's more likely that the diet of the entire household was problematic, since 99% of the food she would have been eating at that age would have been chosen and prepared for her by her parents and her parents would have been eating the exact same stuff (I'm assuming a packed lunch for school, since few schools have vegan lunch options). I'm willing to wager that the parents had a substantial D vitamin deficiency, too (and if they do not, I would be inclined to wonder if something other than diet was causing their daughter's deficiency), and passed their poor dietary habits onto their child.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to be constantly offered meat - and occasionally eat it - in order to develop a taste for it. If you and your sister didn't want to touch meat for quite a long time, and your parents just stopped preparing it all together rather than preparing it offering it to you at every meal, how would you have developed a taste for it? In continually offering meat to you, your parents slowly but surely indoctrinated you into their way of eating.

Err, no, you got it quite wrong. You'd be correct if our parents had made a concentrated effort to prepare meat just for us all the time. But all that they occasionally did was to make sure that it was the kind and in portions that children could eat, so that we got an idea what meat even was. Once we grew up enough that we could eat meat in the same way that they did, there was no more baby-sitting. Meat was on the table and if you wanted it, you could have it. If not, no big deal, there's potatoes, salad and cooked vegetables if you'd prefer that. And in case of all-meat dishes that my sister never liked, she just got something else that she'd actually eat prepared. I don't think that there are many parents who would force their children to either eat meat or go hungry, considering that there are always alternatives available.

Please note that I don't see anything wrong with that, but it is what it is. There's a reason fitness or fatness, high cholesterol or low cholesterol, etc tend to run in families. They all tend to eat the same food and follow the same lifestyle, even into adulthood. Why do you think that is?

Heh, I know what it is, exactly what I'm trying to tell you. :) Your way is no different than anyone else's ways as far as indoctrination in general goes. There are merely degrees of it. Just like you can teach religion that is tolerant or respectful of other religions, or religion which teaches that the members of your Church are the only ones that will go to heaven and everyone else is a heathen that is going to hell and shouldn't be associated with.

You are right to point out that I won't be preparing meat in my house, but that doesn't mean that my kids won't have plenty of opportunities to eat it. We don't live in a vegetarian society. Nearly everyone they meet is an omnivore*, so they are exposed to meat and meat consumption each and every day. They aren't with me every minute of every day, either, and especially as they get older and more independent, they will have more and more opportunities to eat meat if they so choose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wherever there is an option for your child to get a vegetarian meal instead of one that includes meat, you'll make the decision for them that they should get the vegetarian one. When you continually and purposefully show children that meat (plus a bunch of other things) isn't a viable alternative, you force them to internalize that belief whether they like it or not. They will have opportunities to try meat, but even if they do they'll probably feel so guilty about eating it that they'll convince themselves that it tastes bad or stinks or some other funny excuse that I always hear from vegetarians as an argument over why they don't want to eat meat. By the time that they get to the point where they'll be able to decide for themselves, they'll have over a dozen years of indoctrination into a vegetarian diet behind them and it's very unlikely that they'll just switch to non-vegetarianism. It won't matter what their taste buds tell them, because the brain will (sub)consciously reject non-vegetarian food and make it unappealing for one reason or another. Not for everyone, but certainly for the majority.

So the choices that you think that they'll have will very likely be largely limited. Which, again, I don't really care about - nearly every upbringing results in that in many areas. It's only an issue when it is detrimental. And you can define that as only actual physical damage or simply as an outlook on life which shuns meat and dairy products. I'd consider that a great loss and unnecessary limitation and hence detrimental. But you wouldn't, so that's how you'll bring up your children. But telling yourself that it won't have long-term effects on them is simply unrealistic.

Your way is no different than anyone else's ways as far as indoctrination in general goes.That wasn't the impression I got from your earlier arguments, actually. It seemed to me that you were arguing that only vegetarians indoctrinate their children into their diet. I probably got that impression when you said this:So, sorry, but in this case, indoctrination really only goes on on your side of the fence. I must have misunderstood your meaning.:p


It's only an issue when it is detrimental. And you can define that as only actual physical damage or simply as an outlook on life which shuns meat and dairy products. I'd consider that a great loss and unnecessary limitation and hence detrimental. But you wouldn't, so that's how you'll bring up your children. But telling yourself that it won't have long-term effects on them is simply unrealistic. Agreed, except I never said it wouldn't have long term effects. In parenting, very nearly everything you say or do will have long term effects.

They will have opportunities to try meat, but even if they do they'll probably feel so guilty about eating it that they'll convince themselves that it tastes bad or stinks or some other funny excuse that I always hear from vegetarians as an argument over why they don't want to eat meat.Those excuses aren't as "funny" as you think. If you don't believe me, go vegan for a week. Cold turkey. When you end up sick and spending most of your time on the ****ter due to the fact that your body lacks the proper enzymes for such a diet - and when you get sick again from switching back - you should understand firs