hello, californian here

Vegans and non-vegans alike are welcome.
Post an intro here first to have your account authenticated by a mod, then you'll be able to post anywhere.
Even if you're here to lurk, please drop a short intro post here to let us know you're not a spammer so you aren't accidentally deleted.

Forum rules
Please read the full Forum Rules
Post Reply
avocadobreath
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:57 pm

hello, californian here

Post by avocadobreath »

hello! i am here to hopefully discuss some of the things that i still cannot reconcile about veganism and some things that seem overly simplified, or dogmatic. i went vegan about a year ago, my son had just turned one and i kept telling myself i would not introduce animal products until he was one, then i realized i didnt want to at all. and if he wasnt going to be eating them, neither was i.

i used to be a huge grass-fed meat and milk supporter (even had my own sheep and milk goats for a few years) but decided to go vegan because of some huge problems with both - grass fed milk didnt make me any less congested and gross feeling than regular milk, and grass fed, pastured meat still made me sick to my stomach whenever i saw it raw or cooked it myself. also raising my own animals was disgusting, heart breaking, and completely futile. i treated my animals better than anyone else i know and they were still miserable, and i couldnt handle that. eggs and honey i was and still am on the fence about, provided they come from local, ethical, and properly nourished bees and chickens.

i went vegan essentially because i could not think of any logical reasons, ethical or health related, not to. i had a constant conversation in my head asking myself questions to try and convince myself that meat and dairy are OK, and i could not convince myself in the end.

now i am having the same conversation in my head about whether to stay vegan. i guess i could say i already "gave up" - i am eating locally laid, free range eggs from a farm that i know and trust. i dont plan on eating meat or dairy again because they disgust me but i still cannot find suitable answers for some of the questions i have. things like the tooth decay issue, why do vegans never approach weston a price's work and research, why are there no "true" vegan native cultures, why are paleo people so healthy too, arent the grass-fed people just trying to solve the same problems but in a way that feels genuine to them and what is wrong with that, why does so much of the science behind vegan nutrition seem old and outdated and never take grass-fed or organic into consideration in terms of health? all of my questions and doubts are health related, not moral or ethics.

not looking for answers here or even to start a discussion since this probably isnt the right place for it. this is just to say the reasons why i am here :)
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: hello, californian here

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Welcome!
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 am eggs and honey i was and still am on the fence about, provided they come from local, ethical, and properly nourished bees and chickens.
I think honey can probably be ethical and reasonable as long as you don't take so much that it has to be replaced with sugar and commercial pollen. I think there's good reason to believe nutritional stress is a major causative factor in colony collapse. You'd have to talk to your local apiaries about their practices. Or maybe keep your own bees.

That said, "sugar is sugar", and the supposed health benefits of honey are pseudoscience, and honey poses bacteriological risks to the young, elderly, and immune compromised. I do not recommend it on health grounds. I don't recommend sugar either, of course. ;)
Best to reach for your favorite low-calorie sweetener or fruit.

But if you really like honey for its taste and get it from a good source, I wouldn't be the one complaining.

Eggs hypothetically could be ethical if you treated the chickens very well, but like bulldogs and other animals bred for certain traits, I do not believe it's ethical to breed modern chickens who have serious problems with getting egg bound and the suffering that results in.
There's also an issue with the grinding up male chicks alive and such... but you can sex eggs much earlier than that (before they hatch) for a chicken abortion. Assuming you get them early enough, it could be OK.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/may/02/laser-spectroscopy-determines-sex-of-a-chicken-egg
This is really new technology, and I'm not sure if chicks sexed like this are available yet. But it's good news.

Then if in addition to that, if you kept a more traditional variety of hen which laid far fewer eggs (and had better health) as a back yard hen or a no-kill egg farm, and the hen wasn't broody, then you're basically just dealing with a pet who leaves eggs lying around sometimes -- no strong ethical reason not to eat them.

There are strong health reasons not to eat egg yolks, but I'm not convinced that there are very strong health reasons not to eat egg whites in moderation. The amino acid composition may not be very good, but if you have an otherwise low methionine diet you could compensate for it.

Does that help a little?

avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 ami guess i could say i already "gave up" - i am eating locally laid, free range eggs from a farm that i know and trust.
If you found a no-kill farm that treats its hens very well, that's great progress. If you can convince them to keep a healthier less-mutant variety of hens that don't suffer as many health problems from high egg production, and to get eggs sexed with the latest technology instead of killing male chicks, you might have a winner.

There are still concerns over creating antibiotic resistant bacteria, which is an issue of human welfare too. But well cared for chickens without egg laying issues would probably need fewer antibiotics.
Chickens can also be fed on insects from fields, acting as natural pest control. And they can be fed worms and other things grown on waste products (commercial kitchen scraps, etc.) which is a good form of food recycling, instead of growing feed for them.

There are some environmental arguments for chickens due to the pest control and recycling aspects, if they're kept and fed the right things. It might possibly compensate for the risks.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 amthings like the tooth decay issue, why do vegans never approach weston a price's work and research,
Weston Price stuff is some of the worst pseudoscience. Even anti-vegans don't take it seriously.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sbm-weston-prices-appalling-legacy/

Harriet Hall, the writer of that piece, is certainly biased against veganism, but summarized the issues fairly well with Weston Price. Please read that article.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 amwhy are there no "true" vegan native cultures,
Primitive agriculture technology and lack of global trade made veganism virtually impossible due to poor access to the necessary variety of food stuffs year-round.
People needed animals to do farm work anyway (before modern farm equipment).
Also, B-12 was only produced commercially from non-animal sources in the 1950s. So that's when strict veganism became possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#History

We have had multiple generations of vegans since then, though, so if there were any health problems we would know them. We also know all human nutrition requirements from TPN.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 amwhy are paleo people so healthy too,
By comparison with the Standard American Diet?
Probably because they're eating more vegetables and nuts, and less overall calories. There are vegan products that are unhealthy too, like sugar.

There's no reason to believe paleo people are healthier than vegans. Saturated fat consumption does come with increased heart disease risk, and they likely have slightly increased cancer risk too. A reduction in calories does a lot to reduce total risk vs. the general population, though.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 amarent the grass-fed people just trying to solve the same problems but in a way that feels genuine to them and what is wrong with that,
Because they have their facts wrong.

If you try to save a fish from drowning by pulling it from the water and putting it in the grass, that may feel genuine to you, but the fish will die where it would have lived just fine in the water. Facts matter. Reality matters. Good intentions, when guided by incorrect facts, can cause harm.

In this case, grass fed meat is not a viable solution to any of the problems it aims to solve. There's no significant health difference, and it's probably worse for the environment.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 amwhy does so much of the science behind vegan nutrition seem old and outdated and never take grass-fed or organic into consideration in terms of health?
Grass fed meat is not significantly different from any other meat to be expected to have substantial differences in health outcome.
If you make a doughnut with organic sugar and organic virgin coconut oil, it's still a doughnut. Slightly tweaking a few components should not be expected to result in drastically different outcomes.

There has been significant research on organic, and the meta-analyses say that it's not any healthier than conventional food. Insignificant differences in nutrition. Organic food still has pesticides on them (organic pesticides are still harmful).
What matters is eating more vegetables, whether they're organic or not. Pesticides (organic or conventional) are not unhealthy enough to overcome the health value of vegetables.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 amnot looking for answers here or even to start a discussion since this probably isnt the right place for it. this is just to say the reasons why i am here :)
Oop, sorry. :D
Most of them are pretty easy for me to answer for you (because I've spent time researching/answering them in the past), but if you have any concerns about some of these answers you are welcome to start a thread about it and we can discuss it in more depth, and I can give you more links to follow.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: hello, californian here

Post by Jebus »

Welcome to our forum. Brimstonesalad did a good job replying to your concerns, but just go ahead and start a new thread in the vegan section if you want something to be discussed (or debated) in detail. What does your son's other parent think about him growing up vegan?
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
avocadobreath
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:57 pm

Re: hello, californian here

Post by avocadobreath »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:38 am Welcome!
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 am eggs and honey i was and still am on the fence about, provided they come from local, ethical, and properly nourished bees and chickens.
I think honey can probably be ethical and reasonable as long as you don't take so much that it has to be replaced with sugar and commercial pollen. I think there's good reason to believe nutritional stress is a major causative factor in colony collapse. You'd have to talk to your local apiaries about their practices. Or maybe keep your own bees.

That said, "sugar is sugar", and the supposed health benefits of honey are pseudoscience, and honey poses bacteriological risks to the young, elderly, and immune compromised. I do not recommend it on health grounds. I don't recommend sugar either, of course. ;)
Best to reach for your favorite low-calorie sweetener or fruit.

But if you really like honey for its taste and get it from a good source, I wouldn't be the one complaining.

Eggs hypothetically could be ethical if you treated the chickens very well, but like bulldogs and other animals bred for certain traits, I do not believe it's ethical to breed modern chickens who have serious problems with getting egg bound and the suffering that results in.
There's also an issue with the grinding up male chicks alive and such... but you can sex eggs much earlier than that (before they hatch) for a chicken abortion. Assuming you get them early enough, it could be OK.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/may/02/laser-spectroscopy-determines-sex-of-a-chicken-egg
This is really new technology, and I'm not sure if chicks sexed like this are available yet. But it's good news.

Then if in addition to that, if you kept a more traditional variety of hen which laid far fewer eggs (and had better health) as a back yard hen or a no-kill egg farm, and the hen wasn't broody, then you're basically just dealing with a pet who leaves eggs lying around sometimes -- no strong ethical reason not to eat them.

There are strong health reasons not to eat egg yolks, but I'm not convinced that there are very strong health reasons not to eat egg whites in moderation. The amino acid composition may not be very good, but if you have an otherwise low methionine diet you could compensate for it.

Does that help a little?

avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 ami guess i could say i already "gave up" - i am eating locally laid, free range eggs from a farm that i know and trust.
If you found a no-kill farm that treats its hens very well, that's great progress. If you can convince them to keep a healthier less-mutant variety of hens that don't suffer as many health problems from high egg production, and to get eggs sexed with the latest technology instead of killing male chicks, you might have a winner.

There are still concerns over creating antibiotic resistant bacteria, which is an issue of human welfare too. But well cared for chickens without egg laying issues would probably need fewer antibiotics.
Chickens can also be fed on insects from fields, acting as natural pest control. And they can be fed worms and other things grown on waste products (commercial kitchen scraps, etc.) which is a good form of food recycling, instead of growing feed for them.

There are some environmental arguments for chickens due to the pest control and recycling aspects, if they're kept and fed the right things. It might possibly compensate for the risks.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 amthings like the tooth decay issue, why do vegans never approach weston a price's work and research,
Weston Price stuff is some of the worst pseudoscience. Even anti-vegans don't take it seriously.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sbm-weston-prices-appalling-legacy/

Harriet Hall, the writer of that piece, is certainly biased against veganism, but summarized the issues fairly well with Weston Price. Please read that article.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 amwhy are there no "true" vegan native cultures,
Primitive agriculture technology and lack of global trade made veganism virtually impossible due to poor access to the necessary variety of food stuffs year-round.
People needed animals to do farm work anyway (before modern farm equipment).
Also, B-12 was only produced commercially from non-animal sources in the 1950s. So that's when strict veganism became possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#History

We have had multiple generations of vegans since then, though, so if there were any health problems we would know them. We also know all human nutrition requirements from TPN.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 amwhy are paleo people so healthy too,
By comparison with the Standard American Diet?
Probably because they're eating more vegetables and nuts, and less overall calories. There are vegan products that are unhealthy too, like sugar.

There's no reason to believe paleo people are healthier than vegans. Saturated fat consumption does come with increased heart disease risk, and they likely have slightly increased cancer risk too. A reduction in calories does a lot to reduce total risk vs. the general population, though.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 amarent the grass-fed people just trying to solve the same problems but in a way that feels genuine to them and what is wrong with that,
Because they have their facts wrong.

If you try to save a fish from drowning by pulling it from the water and putting it in the grass, that may feel genuine to you, but the fish will die where it would have lived just fine in the water. Facts matter. Reality matters. Good intentions, when guided by incorrect facts, can cause harm.

In this case, grass fed meat is not a viable solution to any of the problems it aims to solve. There's no significant health difference, and it's probably worse for the environment.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 amwhy does so much of the science behind vegan nutrition seem old and outdated and never take grass-fed or organic into consideration in terms of health?
Grass fed meat is not significantly different from any other meat to be expected to have substantial differences in health outcome.
If you make a doughnut with organic sugar and organic virgin coconut oil, it's still a doughnut. Slightly tweaking a few components should not be expected to result in drastically different outcomes.

There has been significant research on organic, and the meta-analyses say that it's not any healthier than conventional food. Insignificant differences in nutrition. Organic food still has pesticides on them (organic pesticides are still harmful).
What matters is eating more vegetables, whether they're organic or not. Pesticides (organic or conventional) are not unhealthy enough to overcome the health value of vegetables.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:57 amnot looking for answers here or even to start a discussion since this probably isnt the right place for it. this is just to say the reasons why i am here :)
Oop, sorry. :D
Most of them are pretty easy for me to answer for you (because I've spent time researching/answering them in the past), but if you have any concerns about some of these answers you are welcome to start a thread about it and we can discuss it in more depth, and I can give you more links to follow.

thank you for your thoughtful response, you have given me a lot to reflect on.

to be honest, when i think about it i dont really care about or even like honey any more. i prefer coconut sugar for my sweetener, but am trying to reduce or eliminate added sugar completely.

i agree with everything you said about chickens/eggs. the eggs i buy come from heritage breed chickens on a very small farm, i do think that they came initially from a hatchery though. i dont know, i go back and forth about eggs. sometimes they disgust me, sometimes i love them. i still have a weston-a-price-ish attitude about egg yolks from pastured eggs being super duper healthy, with all the right balance of omega 3's and 6's and all that. i remember some study i heard about but did not look into myself that said pastured eggs have the "good" kind of cholesterol or something like that. i feel like in order to enjoy my eggs, i have to turn a blind eye to my gut feeling that tells me they are unhealthy and unethical, even from my small farm.

thanks for the article about weston a price. i bought into that whole idea haaaard a few years ago and i still have a lot of lingering biased opinions on things because of it. that is a good point about primitive cultures and veganism too. i have thought about that in the past but, having studied anthropology in college, i am very vulnerable to the "appeal to tradition" :)

it is a good point that organic pesticides are still unhealthy for us. i have only looked at the pro-organic research and of course buying organic gives me those nice warm fuzzy feelings so i never gave it much thought.

thanks again, you have made me realize some ways that i have continued to be affected by my old grass-fed dogma without having any real info to back up my feelings and opinions. to be honest, i made eggs for breakfast this morning and i cant stomach them. they are going to the dog. im a pretty emotionally-led person and when i lock on to a belief based on emotion, it is very hard for me to let it go. i have a lot of thinking and reading and reflecting to do about all of this.
avocadobreath
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:57 pm

Re: hello, californian here

Post by avocadobreath »

Jebus wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:00 am Welcome to our forum. Brimstonesalad did a good job replying to your concerns, but just go ahead and start a new thread in the vegan section if you want something to be discussed (or debated) in detail. What does your son's other parent think about him growing up vegan?
thank you. my husband is 100% supportive, he was vegan on and off before we met, and was very happy when i decided to go for it last year. he ate meat when i cooked it in past years but was never too happy about it. we both feel strongly that we should not feed our son animal products until he has the mental capacity to understand what "beef" "pork" etc. really is and make that decision for himself. although we've slipped up in social situations a few times - a cupcake at a birthday party, that sort of thing.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: hello, californian here

Post by Jebus »

avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:28 pmmy husband is 100% supportive, he was vegan on and off before we met, and was very happy when i decided to go for it last year. he ate meat when i cooked it in past years but was never too happy about it. we both feel strongly that we should not feed our son animal products until he has the mental capacity to understand what "beef" "pork" etc. really is and make that decision for himself. although we've slipped up in social situations a few times - a cupcake at a birthday party, that sort of thing.
That's great. Obviously it is impossible to completely shield a child from non vegan curiosities. Probably the best a parent can do is to teach the child of the consequences of their dietary choices and eventually/hopefully the ick factor will kick in when the child is tempted with ice cream or a whopper with cheese.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
avocadobreath
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:57 pm

Re: hello, californian here

Post by avocadobreath »

Jebus wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:51 pm
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:28 pmmy husband is 100% supportive, he was vegan on and off before we met, and was very happy when i decided to go for it last year. he ate meat when i cooked it in past years but was never too happy about it. we both feel strongly that we should not feed our son animal products until he has the mental capacity to understand what "beef" "pork" etc. really is and make that decision for himself. although we've slipped up in social situations a few times - a cupcake at a birthday party, that sort of thing.
That's great. Obviously it is impossible to completely shield a child from non vegan curiosities. Probably the best a parent can do is to teach the child of the consequences of their dietary choices and eventually/hopefully the ick factor will kick in when the child is tempted with ice cream or a whopper with cheese.
yes, that is what i am hoping for. i do not want him feeling bad or guilty for something he doesnt understand yet. i also feel like if i am too rigid or dogmatic about veganism, he will of course rebel against it. i'd like him to have all the information and make a wise choice, i dont care if he ends up eating meat, after all i did for 30 years, but i dont want him to have the typical american attitude about it, not knowing where it comes from. and if i am not prepared with alternative snacks, i am not going to deprive him of a cupcake at a birthday party when all the other kids get to have one. i dont want him to feel outcasted.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: hello, californian here

Post by brimstoneSalad »

No problem. :)
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:21 pm i prefer coconut sugar for my sweetener, but am trying to reduce or eliminate added sugar completely.
What do you sweeten with sugar? We may be able to suggest some alternatives. Banana works really well for oatmeal, I think.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:21 pmthe eggs i buy come from heritage breed chickens on a very small farm, i do think that they came initially from a hatchery though.
The hatchery is a problem, yes. I don't think there are a lot of alternatives yet.

I would ask how many eggs they lay a year. A heritage breed may not actually be that old, and is still probably bred for very high production.
Red Jungle Fowl will lay about 15 eggs a year max, only in spring. If you take them away and don't replace them with fakes, they might lay another smaller batch right after that (but that's not normal for them, so it may be stressing the animal too much).

The chickens are probably also killed when egg production drops, which is a big ethical concern.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:21 pmi still have a weston-a-price-ish attitude about egg yolks from pastured eggs being super duper healthy, with all the right balance of omega 3's and 6's and all that.
Egg yolk don't have so much polyunsaturated fat in them that the ratio actually matters. It's only 0.7 grams per egg.
Even if they did have a perfect ratio, that's overwhelmed by 1.6 grams of saturated fat.

Compare to Walnuts, which are a good source and a good ratio (about 1:4 ratio of omega 3 to 6).
In a third of a cup, for the same 1.6 grams of saturated fat you get 9 grams of polyunsaturated fat -- more than ten times as much good fat for the same amount of bad.

As it turns out, though, eggs do not have a good Omega 3:6 ratio. From what I can find, it's something like 1:15 omega 3:6. That's terrible.
It may be better if you feed the hens a bunch of flax seeds.... but why not just cut out the middle man and eat the flax seeds yourself, which have a number of health benefits?

The FDA rejected the health claims of Omega 3 enriched eggs in 2006 (from a flax diet for the chickens, I believe):
https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/labelingnutrition/ucm073226.htm
It's a substantial position piece worth reading if you're interested.

They basically say:
Based on FDA's consideration of the scientific evidence submitted with your petition, FDA concludes that there is no credible evidence to support a qualified health claim for Belovo omega-3 PUFA enriched eggs and reduced risk of heart disease and sudden fatal heart attack. Further, Belovo omega-3 PUFA enriched eggs are disqualified from bearing a health claim under 21 C.F.R. 101.14(e)(3), and FDA does not believe that a qualified health claim about these eggs and reduced risk of CHD would assist consumers in maintaining healthy dietary practices, given the amounts of cholesterol and saturated fat found in the eggs. Thus, FDA is denying your petition for a qualified health claim.
The issue is that eggs are so rich in saturated fat and cholesterol, and have so little Poly Unsaturated Fatty Acids in them in general, the better ratio of that trace of PUFA is pretty meaningless relative to the bad things they contain.
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:21 pmi remember some study i heard about but did not look into myself that said pastured eggs have the "good" kind of cholesterol or something like that.
That doesn't make any sense. I've researched this before, and I just did again for about half an hour.
As far as the chemistry goes, I can't find any evidence that there's any such thing as "good" dietary cholesterol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol#Plasma_transport_and_regulation_of_absorption
As an isolated molecule, cholesterol is only minimally soluble in water; it dissolves into the (water-based) bloodstream only at exceedingly small concentrations. Instead, cholesterol is transported within lipoproteins, complex discoidal particles with exterior amphiphilic proteins and lipids, whose outward-facing surfaces are water-soluble and inward-facing surfaces are lipid-soluble; i.e. transport via emulsification. Triglycerides and cholesterol esters are carried internally. Phospholipids and cholesterol, being amphipathic, are transported in the monolayer surface of the lipoprotein particle.

There are several types of lipoproteins in the blood. In order of increasing density, they are chylomicrons, very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL). Lower protein/lipid ratios make for less dense lipoproteins. Cholesterol within different lipoproteins is identical, although some is carried as its native "free" alcohol form (the cholesterol-OH group facing the water surrounding the particles), while others as fatty acyl esters, known also as cholesterol esters, within the particles.
As a molecule, cholesterol is cholesterol, it's only the lipoproteins that carry the cholesterol that can be good or bad, and I have never seen any evidence that these survive digestion, which is a bath of acid and lypase and protease among other enzymes evolved to tear all of these things apart into their base components, while the digestive system is designed to only absorb very very small substances (otherwise we'd be absorbing all kinds of bacteria and viruses through our food). I don't think it's possible to absorb liproproteins from the diet, and I don't think liproproteins can even survive digestion.

Your body produces and determines how much HDL (the protein that carries cholesterol) or LDL you have; it's that which will scavenge the free cholesterol you absorb from the eggs. The cholesterol in the eggs will increase your total cholesterol, and the saturated fat in the eggs will increase your LDL (basically tell your body to make more).
avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:21 pmi feel like in order to enjoy my eggs, i have to turn a blind eye to my gut feeling that tells me they are unhealthy and unethical, even from my small farm.
Gut feelings aren't always right, but in this case I think yours is.
I think if you only ate egg whites from pet chickens who are rescues (and not from a hatchery) and weren't broody (just left their eggs) then that would probably be fine.

That seems like a lot of trouble for egg whites, though, when we can just eat a tofu scramble which is probably healthier anyway. :) A little black salt can make it taste eggy too.

avocadobreath wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:21 pm it is a good point that organic pesticides are still unhealthy for us. i have only looked at the pro-organic research and of course buying organic gives me those nice warm fuzzy feelings so i never gave it much thought.
Organic is a huge industry, and there's a lot of marketing (and government funding too, from the USDA) to get people to think that and pay more for it.

The truth is that most organic farming is unfortunately worse for the environment, because it uses more land.

Compare:
A. Two acres of conventional farm and one acre of forest
B. Three acres of organic farm

These produce the same amount of food, but the organic farm means clearing another acre of forest to do it.
It's counter-intuitive, but sometimes more intense farming means more room for nature.
There are a bunch of other complex reasons (like organic causing more erosion) I won't get into details on here, but the main issue is yield. If I remember correctly, Organic would need to increase its yield by 9% to match conventional farming on environmental issues.

I can give you some links and more info if you want. There are some good things about Organic too (like integrated pest management), but they don't quite outweigh the bad things.
I hope in the future we'll be able to drop the organic marketing and use the best of both words to improve yield and manage pests and soil in better ways with limited pesticides and veganic fertilizer (and maybe agroforestry and some permaculture).
avocadobreath
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:57 pm

Re: hello, californian here

Post by avocadobreath »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:26 pm What do you sweeten with sugar? We may be able to suggest some alternatives. Banana works really well for oatmeal, I think.
The one thing I have not been able to give up sugar for is tea. I can do fruit-only as a sweetener for everything else, but sometimes I just love a nice hot chai with sugar and cashew milk. My ultimate comfort food. i drink rooibos most of the time now though since it is naturally sweet.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:26 pm
I would ask how many eggs they lay a year. A heritage breed may not actually be that old, and is still probably bred for very high production.
Red Jungle Fowl will lay about 15 eggs a year max, only in spring. If you take them away and don't replace them with fakes, they might lay another smaller batch right after that (but that's not normal for them, so it may be stressing the animal too much).

The chickens are probably also killed when egg production drops, which is a big ethical concern.
Yeah, they are definitely killed and eaten when production drops. and I don't know exactly what breed they are but I am sure that the farmer does not think twice about getting the hens to lay as much as possible, all year round. Honestly I think half of the reason I want to be vegan is out of pure laziness. I don't want to have to worry about these things, and I am not willing any more to turn a blind eye, so I am just going to feed the rest of my carton of eggs to my dog!
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:26 pm The FDA rejected the health claims of Omega 3 enriched eggs in 2006 (from a flax diet for the chickens, I believe):
https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/labelingnutrition/ucm073226.htm
It's a substantial position piece worth reading if you're interested.
Thank you, I will read it.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:26 pm As far as the chemistry goes, I can't find any evidence that there's any such thing as "good" dietary cholesterol.
Yeah I am definitely remembering this wrong. I think it was actually something saying that pastured eggs raise HDL and lower LDL. compared with SAD of course. Another one of these little factoids that I attached my beliefs to without any evidence or real thought behind it, because it made it OK for me to eat eggs when I knew deep down that it was not the best decision.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:26 pm
Organic is a huge industry, and there's a lot of marketing (and government funding too, from the USDA) to get people to think that and pay more for it.

The truth is that most organic farming is unfortunately worse for the environment, because it uses more land.

Compare:
A. Two acres of conventional farm and one acre of forest
B. Three acres of organic farm

These produce the same amount of food, but the organic farm means clearing another acre of forest to do it.
It's counter-intuitive, but sometimes more intense farming means more room for nature.
There are a bunch of other complex reasons (like organic causing more erosion) I won't get into details on here, but the main issue is yield. If I remember correctly, Organic would need to increase its yield by 9% to match conventional farming on environmental issues.

I can give you some links and more info if you want. There are some good things about Organic too (like integrated pest management), but they don't quite outweigh the bad things.
I hope in the future we'll be able to drop the organic marketing and use the best of both words to improve yield and manage pests and soil in better ways with limited pesticides and veganic fertilizer (and maybe agroforestry and some permaculture).
Sure, I would love more links, thank you. I am definitely on the fence about organic these days. I don't think that the certification means much any more, but I still would rather buy organic for most things because it still seems like organic farmers are the only ones concerned with things like soil health, crop rotation, etc. Of course not all organic farmers care, and not all farmers who care are organic! I live near the central valley in CA and I know farmers who grow organic almonds for the increased profits, but buy all of their own food from Sav Mart. Also their farms are right next door to the ones using chemical fertilizers and pesticides, so of course there is going to be some contamination. So I definitely see that something labeled "organic" does not mean it was grown in perfect conditions by people who give a damn.

It is hard for me to care about increased yields after seeing statistics on how much food is wasted worldwide. This is an interesting site - http://www.stopthehunger.com and this article really sticks out in my mind - http://www.ibtimes.com/80-rice-produced-southeast-asia-wasted-report-1442564

I do not have a clue how to solve this problem, other than of course not eating meat since so much grain goes to feeding meat animals. I always go back to thinking that small organic farms in their own communities combined with people growing some of their own food at home in gardens or hydroponics would be great....but is never going to happen on a large scale. I don't see greater yields as a solution to anything other than more profits for the big, million-acre corporate farms like you see on the west side of the central valley, they ones who reeeally don't care about their environmental impact at all because they are so far removed from it.

I definitely agree about hopefully dropping organic as marketing scheme and finding better ways to manage pests and soil than large farms, organic or conventional, are using right now. Our biggest local farm is no-till, and I dont think they are certified organic. We are working on growing some of our own food with permaculture techniques and moving towards more veganic products when we fertilize.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: hello, californian here

Post by brimstoneSalad »

avocadobreath wrote: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:18 am The one thing I have not been able to give up sugar for is tea.
Have you tried any low calorie replacements?
There's stevia and monkfruit extract which are super sweet plant extracts, and then sucralose which is slightly chemically changed sugar to make it hundreds of times sweeter.
avocadobreath wrote: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:18 amHonestly I think half of the reason I want to be vegan is out of pure laziness. I don't want to have to worry about these things, and I am not willing any more to turn a blind eye, so I am just going to feed the rest of my carton of eggs to my dog!
I can understand that. I think that's true for many people. It's just more trouble than it's worth to ensure animal products are ethically produced, easier just to use alternatives. :)
avocadobreath wrote: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:18 amYeah I am definitely remembering this wrong. I think it was actually something saying that pastured eggs raise HDL and lower LDL. compared with SAD of course.
Possibly, the SAD is pretty bad.
If somebody is having eggs for breakfast, they may be less likely to have sausage/bacon or sugary cereal/pastries (or less of those things). Eggs are also more filling than cereal, and could help people with weigh loss since they're fairly low in calories (and weight loss has huge benefits on its own, regardless of anything else).

That's why epidemiological studies are so poor; no controls, too many correlations.

In my understanding, eggs increase total cholesterol (usually a little, but more particularly in hyper-responders who are genetically prone to absorb more from diet), and don't change the HDL/LDL ratio. So, they are increasing both HDL and LDL, which is still harmful (it would only probably be harmless if they only increased HDL).
There's been argument about the size of the LDL, but none of it is very conclusive as far as I can tell. It's reasonable to assume they have overall negative health effects -- maybe not compared to bacon, but compared to the vegan alternatives like scrambled tofu, and protein options like beans and fat options like nuts.
avocadobreath wrote: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:18 am Sure, I would love more links, thank you. I am definitely on the fence about organic these days.
Actually, here's a very good comment (linking a bunch of meta-analyses) pinned on one of Unnatural Vegan's recent videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu6qcNZvrUE&t=5s
Xenon 93 wrote:Having looked at pretty much every meta-analysis on the topic a couple of months ago I figured I'd share my summary for anyone here who needs the references (please update me if I've missed some these past few months):

Most notably, genetically engineered (GE) crops have seen increased yields by 22% and reduced pesticide use by 37%. [1] Meanwhile, organic has seen a 26% yield reduction compared to conventional crops and hence significant increases in rates of emissions, erosion, and deforestation as a result. This has rendered organic no more beneficial for the environment than conventional crops. [2] Although some meta-analyses on biodiversity paints organic in a positive light, these have unfortunately not accounted for the drastic differences in yields and hence may have misleading results. [3] Lastly, meta-analyses/reviews have found no health benefits with organic food according to 50+ years of research now. [4] So at best, organic provides little to no benefits over conventional (especially with regards to GE crops). At worst, it may degrade the environment even further. Hence, I see no valid reason in general for choosing organic at this time.

[1] Meta-analysis on GE: "On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%."

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111629

[2] Meta-analyses/reviews on environmental aspects:

"There is scientific evidence for lower nitrous oxide emissions from organically managed soils when scaled to the area of cultivated land but higher emissions when crop yield-scaled. This discrepancy is due to the observed yield gap of 26% less crop yield under organic management. For equalizing the nitrous oxide emissions per yield a yield increase in the organic systems of 9% would be necessary."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713010255

"This meta-analysis has showed that organic farming in Europe has generally lower environmental impacts per unit of area than conventional farming, but due to lower yields and the requirement to build the fertility of land, not always per product unit. There is not a single organic or conventional farming system, but a range of different systems, and thus, the level of many environmental impacts depend more on farmers' management choices than on the general farming systems."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479712004264

"These results demonstrate that the absence of agricultural chemicals, especially herbicides, in organic farming systems can reduce soil erosion for row crops due to the development of weeds in the furrows. However, our results also show that a reduced crop yield associated with crop–weed competition or herbivory outbalances the positive effects of weeds, and can therefore produce higher erosion rates in organic farming systems."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706114000020

"However, from the 34 reviewed LCA studies, which compared products from organic and conventional farming systems, it is not yet possible to draw a conclusive picture on the general environmental performance of the different farming systems."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479714004964

[3] "Our updated meta-analysis shows that organic farming on average increases biodiversity (measured as species richness) by about one-third relative to conventional farming." [Misleading, as these results are not yield-scaled, see "The Organic Controversy" section and how this is still subject of debate]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4299503/

[4] Meta-analyses/reviews on health aspects:

"On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods."

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2009/07/29/ajcn.2009.28041.abstract

"From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20463045

"The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685
avocadobreath wrote: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:18 am I still would rather buy organic for most things because it still seems like organic farmers are the only ones concerned with things like soil health, crop rotation, etc.
I don't think that's so, particularly because organic farming isn't really the best for the environment. I believe no-till conventional farming is probably better, but the yield gap is very important.
Organic certification is also very expensive, a lot of farmers just can't afford it. It's the people with family farms who really care about their soil, organic or otherwise, because this is their inheritance.
avocadobreath wrote: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:18 am It is hard for me to care about increased yields after seeing statistics on how much food is wasted worldwide.
Reducing food waste is very important, but the fact is that the higher yield you get the fewer acres you need to farm. Waste is an independent issue.
With or without food waste, improving yield means we can leave more land to go wild or become forest and use less land to produce our food.

What we want to know is the environmental harm per tomato, or per loaf of bread, or per pound of beans. That's what we consume as consumers.
With organic, the harm per unit of food is higher. And I don't think there's any reason to think there's less waste with Organic. Look at Vegan Gains' food haul; most of the stuff in that dumpster was organic.

If you created something like a tomato that was resistant to spoilage and could sit on the shelf twice as long without going bad, then you might have a big impact on food waste. I don't see organic accomplishing anything like that.
avocadobreath wrote: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:18 am I do not have a clue how to solve this problem, other than of course not eating meat since so much grain goes to feeding meat animals.
If we just stopped eating meat, we'd have so much extra land to farm that we probably could grow everything organic and have enough farmland. But if we stopped eating meat and ate conventional vegetables, then we could use even less land and return most of it to nature, allowing forests to grow up which capture huge amounts or carbon and clean the air and water.
avocadobreath wrote: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:18 am I always go back to thinking that small organic farms in their own communities combined with people growing some of their own food at home in gardens or hydroponics would be great....but is never going to happen on a large scale. I don't see greater yields as a solution to anything other than more profits for the big, million-acre corporate farms like you see on the west side of the central valley, they ones who reeeally don't care about their environmental impact at all because they are so far removed from it.
A lot of these farms are only getting higher yields for profit, but that doesn't make it bad for the environment. You can accidentally do something good for the environment while having selfish motives -- just like you can accidentally do something bad for the environment with good intentions.

These massive farms being better for the environment is more just a matter of corporate greed and efficiency. They spend a lot of money finding out how to cut corners and produce more food. They don't want to use a drop more fertilizer or pesticide than they need to, because that stuff is expensive, and they want to get the most out of a little land. It's a happy accident that this means we can devote more land to going wild.

The small organic farms which are trying their best to do good for the environment inadvertently end up using more land, and it just happens that land use is the most important variable in figuring out environmental efficiency.
It's kind of the same as the counter-intuitive fact that it's more environmentally friendly to live in a high-rise of glass concrete and steel in the city than to live out in the country side. The resources required to support each person, and the land footprint, are much smaller.

At first glance, our intuitions can be misleading. We look at the motivations and we assume corporate greed always has bad outcomes, and that caring about the environment has good ones... but if the corporate greed results in more efficiency and lightening man's footprint to save money, and the good intentions result in using up more land it doesn't always work out that way.

Now to widen the gap even more, all we need is some kind of carbon tax. Industry will respond by increasing environmental efficiency in ways we never imagined through innovation, and all for selfish reasons. If we can make saving the environment the profitable thing to do, we don't have to fight against the current of capitalism to do it.
avocadobreath wrote: Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:18 am Our biggest local farm is no-till, and I dont think they are certified organic. We are working on growing some of our own food with permaculture techniques and moving towards more veganic products when we fertilize.
That's great! No till is amazing. :)

I think permaculture is great for urban farming, since the plants are very low maintenance once they're established and you don't need a lot of farm equipment.
Post Reply