On the matter of vegan babies.

[Mateo3112]

I found this article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864 which states "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."
I want to know to what extent this holds true, since i've talked to some nutritionists that do not recomend feeding a baby vegan or vegeterian.
Also, is it moraly ok to feed vegan a baby? Since the baby cannot choose, you're essentially forcing your ideals onto him, but you'd be doing the same by feeding him meat. This is a question that always bugs me.

[miniboes]

As you pointed out, you're always forcing your baby to eat what you think they should eat. A baby shouldn't be able to choose, just like a baby shouldn't be able to choose to drive a car. A baby that can choose what to eat will attempt to eat legos.

The truth is that a vegan diet can be much healthier for a baby than a carnist diet. Therefore, you're doing your baby a favor by feeding them vegan.

[brimstoneSalad]

"Nutritionist" is not a protected title. Anybody can wake up one day and decide he or she is a nutritionist.

A registered dietitian is a protected title, at least in the U.S. and Canada, and I think the U.K. and a few other places. Like a medical doctor, not anybody can just decide to bestow his or herself with the title RDN "Registered Dietitian Nutritionist".

"Nutritionist" alone is more like "reverend"; you can decide to be "reverend nutritionist Mateo" tomorrow. It means nothing in and of itself.

The American Dietetic Association is the scientific authority on the topic, and represents consensus. Anybody calling his or herself a "nutritionist" and disagreeing with that consensus is a quack. Might as well be a plumber or accountant or your grandmother for all the value his or her nutritional advice holds.

Also, is it moraly ok to feed vegan a baby?

Babies should receive breast milk, which is vegan if the mother is vegan. Otherwise, they should receive formula. Soy formula is perfectly fine.

They should not be fed apple juice or some nonsense like that. That's not vegan, that's malnutrition and abuse.

Since the baby cannot choose, you're essentially forcing your ideals onto him, but you'd be doing the same by feeding him meat. This is a question that always bugs me.

The suggestion is absurd on so many levels.

Meat eaters are forcing their carnist beliefs upon their children. That's absolutely true. Not feeding a child something that isn't necessary isn't forcing a belief, it's neutral. There is no force involved in not doing something.

Due to cognitive dissonance, when you force a child to eat something, you also force that child to believe that eating that thing is morally good as the child becomes habituated to it -- this is not an intellectual decision or a choice, the child must believe this. It's very difficult for a person to eat something and mentally accept that doing so is unethical.

When a child doesn't eat something, it doesn't force that child to believe that thing is morally bad. It just means the child doesn't form an opinion on it yet. It gives the child a choice to decide for his or herself later.

For example, most children don't ever have the opportunity to eat dragon fruit. Is this forcing upon that child the belief that eating dragon fruit is unethical? Of course not. Lack of exposure means a lack of opinion on the topic.
Vegan parents are NOT forcing their children to not eat meat -- they are not stopping their children from eating it -- the meat simply isn't available (like dragon fruit, for most children).

Most vegan parents allow their children to eat meat if they choose to, but this choice is only possible later as the child is exposed to it and understand enough to make an informed decision. Much like most carnist parents wouldn't stop their children from eating dragon fruit if they choose to, despite never having fed it to them.

The only force is involved in what IS fed to a child. That's the only place children are deprived of choice.

You could say most vegan parents force their non-fruitarianism on their children, and that would be true. Their children are forced to believe eating vegetables is morally acceptable without the opportunity to think about it and decide on their own. [I don't recommend a fruitarian diet for children or adults, to be clear.]

Force only goes one way when it comes to diet of young children. Only what is fed, not what is not fed. Only when children get older and meat is available for them does force become possible against it, and most vegan parents don't apply this force -- they let their children decide for themselves.

Beyond that, a parent can indoctrinate a child with beliefs once the child is older, by telling the child what they should believe without critical analysis or providing both sides. That's unrelated to diet itself, and extends to politics and religion.

[Mateo3112]

In my country, a nutritionist is, in fact, what you call a dietitian. I shouldn't have used Google Translator

[brimstoneSalad]

In my country, a nutritionist is, in fact, what you call a dietitian. I shouldn't have used Google Translator

Any country outside The U.S., Canada, and the U.K. is unlikely to have quality services or certification in dietetics. Germany probably does, and maybe France and the Nordic countries. Israel, Japan, and Taiwan are possible.

I would not trust anything from Central or South America, or Eastern Europe/Russia, Africa, or most of Asia. This goes for anything in science, not just nutrition.

This is not Anglo-centrist, it's science-centrist; the best science in health and nutrition comes from Western Europe, Canada, and the U.S., to my knowledge no community outside that has demonstrated itself reliable or credible in the nutrition and health sciences. Or really science in general.

[brimstoneSalad]

You can get a sense of the scientific credibility of countries by looking at statistics and some litmus markers.

Here's a simple litmus test:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NAS_Consensus.jpg
Anything in grey is scientifically illiterate in the extreme, for example (sorry if you live in any of those countries).

World map based on scientific research output:
https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/87311/width926/image-20150703-20487-98qpco.png

This is a bit old, India and china have improved a lot since this data:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/maps/world-top-ten-nobel-prize-winners-map.jpg
(most other countries have not)
This is newer, but not in convenient map form:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/10/nobel-laureats-pie-chart2.jpg&w=480

We can also consider things like corruption index, which is why I don't consider Russia, India, or really most of Eastern Europe credible.

For example, this guy from Algeria: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/
Total slime ball, corrupt as fuck. Not a surprise, with Algeria's score of 36. There's nothing genetic to it, but upbringing in societal attitudes contribute to human values of integrity, and many (not all, but enough to be a problem) "scientists" from corrupt countries often have none, doing whatever it takes to earn profit.

It's an unfortunate but necessary prejudice that we have to be more skeptical of the supposed science coming from different countries because of the states of their education systems and the levels of their societal corruption.

India is also particularly infested with Ayurvedic "medicine", which makes anything drawing similar conclusions coming out of India highly suspect.

[Mateo3112]

Yeah, my country doesn't embrace science the way it should be, which causes a lot of people who seek science related jobs to migrate to other countries.

[brimstoneSalad]

Yeah, my country doesn't embrace science the way it should be, which causes a lot of people who seek science related jobs to migrate to other countries.

In that case, I would suggest you take with a big grain of salt any advice from "experts" in your country. Look to credible authorities instead, like the American Dietetic Association. From those sources, the message is clear and the consensus is unambiguous: properly planned vegan diets are healthy for all stages of life.

[keith_hendrix]

Any country outside The U.S., Canada, and the U.K. is unlikely to have quality services or certification in dietetics. Germany probably does, and maybe France and the Nordic countries. Israel, Japan, and Taiwan are possible.

I would not trust anything from Central or South America, or Eastern Europe/Russia, Africa, or most of Asia. This goes for anything in science, not just nutrition.

This is not Anglo-centrist, it's science-centrist; the best science in health and nutrition comes from Western Europe, Canada, and the U.S., to my knowledge no community outside that has demonstrated itself reliable or credible in the nutrition and health sciences. Or really science in general.

lol what.

nope, nope and nope.

- actual scientist.

[brimstoneSalad]

lol what.

nope, nope and nope.

- actual scientist.

Welcome to the forum. Here we present actual arguments, not just negations and claims about how much of an authority we are without evidence. Please try again.