On the matter of vegan babies.

[keith_hendrix]

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.

Fair enough.

The science coming from the US at the moment is not of a particularly high standard - probably because of the ridiculously competitive and ridiculously low paying post-grad programs. A lot of it is very questionable.

That's not to say that the consensus is bad or anything because it's excellent.

Japan and Australia probably lead the world in parts of biomedical research - in particular Immunology. China, Singapore, Taiwan, Brazil are making huge strides.

It just makes sense to judge the science on the science, not on the country.

[brimstoneSalad]

It just makes sense to judge the science on the science, not on the country.

IF you are capable of doing that, that's great. But most people aren't. They're trusting in scientific authority, because they can't evaluate the science for themselves, and I was explaining that some countries (particularly when it comes to government and bodies of scientists and the political entanglement that may entail) are not as credible as others.

If you had no other information other than a statement of consensus, one from the U.S. scientific body, and one from let's say Kazakhstan (a country whose scientific authorities deny climate change, from what I can gather) -- which would you guess is more credible?

[keith_hendrix]

It just makes sense to judge the science on the science, not on the country.

IF you are capable of doing that, that's great. But most people aren't. They're trusting in scientific authority, because they can't evaluate the science for themselves, and I was explaining that some countries (particularly when it comes to government and bodies of scientists and the political entanglement that may entail) are not as credible as others.

If you had no other information other than a statement of consensus, one from the U.S. scientific body, and one from let's say Kazakhstan (a country whose scientific authorities deny climate change, from what I can gather) -- which would you guess is more credible?

Well I'm not going to argue about Kazakhstan.

But the list of acceptable sources you gave was limited to the US, Canada and the UK, which is ridiculous. I reckon Japan, NZ, Australia, many European countries, Singapore and a few more probably have at least as credible, if not more credible advice than those three. Hell, even China, for example, has committed to a far greater reduction in meat consumption than most Western countries are prepared to, under the basis of both emissions and public health. Their consensus in that case is quite credible.

I would bet that most countries other countries have nutrition advice that lines up reasonably closely to that of the ADA - either because they base their advice on ADA guidelines or they have their own perfectly competent public health researchers.

[brimstoneSalad]

But the list of acceptable sources you gave was limited to the US, Canada and the UK, which is ridiculous.

I said there may be others, and I mentioned some others. But those are the sources that I personally know to be most credible. I can only comment positively on credibility when I'm familiar with a source.

I would bet that most countries other countries have nutrition advice that lines up reasonably closely to that of the ADA - either because they base their advice on ADA guidelines or they have their own perfectly competent public health researchers.

I can't recommend countries that I'm not that familiar with. That's why I gave some tools like those visualizations. If a country denies global warming, it's right out in terms of credibility (they may be occasionally right on some things, but I can't recommend them as a credible source).

Australia, based on what I've read, is... adequate, but I can't give a glowing endorsement based on their comments on vegetarianism and veganism.
I know little about NZ. Japan's guidelines mostly look OK, but again, not done a lot of research into the state of their health authorities. I did mention Japan.
I would be very surprised if Singapore was credible given their draconian laws against free speech, but who knows; maybe they're just socially oppressive but have excellent science.

Hell, even China, for example, has committed to a far greater reduction in meat consumption than most Western countries are prepared to, under the basis of both emissions and public health. Their consensus in that case is quite credible.

If so, that's good news. I'd love to hear more about it.
I only know that the Chinese population is consuming ever more meat, and there are a lot of government-industry entanglements supporting animal agriculture there, with fast food spreading like wildfire.

[keith_hendrix]

...

Sorry, what comments have you read from Australian public health sources that weren't kind to vegetarianism or veganism?
Singapore does indeed have excellent science.

Ah- see China. What you're actually seeing here is just a reflection of the growing middle class. They still eat way, way less meat than the US per capita. As for government-industry entanglements supporting animal agriculture - well I really don't think the US, Britain or Canada can talk at all there. Far, far worse.

[brimstoneSalad]

Sorry, what comments have you read from Australian public health sources that weren't kind to vegetarianism or veganism?

It's when I was looking into the national consensus from different countries (in the flat earth thread, I think).

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1829

Wherein I convince this guy the Earth is "round", and then he becomes skeptical of veganism because his country doesn't agree with it (once I convinced him to accept authority when he doesn't understand something). Unintended consequences. I had to convince him that his country wasn't great on science or education, and that blind nationalism was a bad thing.
UK and US were good. Australia was mediocre at best, in the recommendations I could find. They were too heavy handed on the cautions, light on the benefits. I only looked into English language sources because I'm not proficient enough in most other languages to search easily in them.

I'd try to find them, but it's a little late and I have to go for now. I may have looked at the wrong source, though. If you know of something more positive I'd be glad to hear it.

Ah- see China. What you're actually seeing here is just a reflection of the growing middle class. They still eat way, way less meat than the US per capita.

There's also a culture of waste, right? Like gratuitous. They leave huge plates of food at restaurants. Although that has less to do with dietary consumption, since they aren't eating it.

As for government-industry entanglements supporting animal agriculture - well I really don't think the US, Britain or Canada can talk at all there. Far, far worse.

Yes, but different degrees of "corruption" in government. Although China is improving on this on a national level, the provincial level is still another matter. Entanglement means a very different thing in China, and could more easily bias the science through censorship, etc.

Anecdote time:
I've talked to some vegans from China who worked in the restaurant industry, and apparently local authorities were very hostile to creation of vegan restaurants in China. Basically, to the extent that you couldn't open a vegan restaurant (as it was reported to me). This could easily be a misunderstanding, though. Maybe why they like to move to the West, in part.

[keith_hendrix]

...

Forgive me but I'm not going to take your word for it RE: Australia's public health guidelines.

re: culture of waste

- seriously, do I need to bring up the US again here?

Government-industry entanglements.
- We don't even need to talk about corruption. Just look at US corn subsidies, as a small yet massively important example. Consider industry protectionism in UK dairy farming, and Canada of late too.

Those policies aren't even corruption, but they're massively irrational and supportive of animal agriculture at the expense of health, the environment and ethics.

[brimstoneSalad]

Forgive me but I'm not going to take your word for it RE: Australia's public health guidelines.

This is what put me off, giant scary caps lock warning about veganism:

ANY DIET THAT EXCLUDES NUTRITIOUS FOOD GROUPS NEEDS CAREFUL PLANNING TO ENSURE NUTRITIONAL NEEDS ARE MET. WHETHER YOU ARE CURRENTLY FOLLOWING A VEGAN DIET, OR ARE CONSIDERING CHANGING TO A VEGAN DIET, IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO CONSULT AN APD WITH SPECIAL INTEREST IN THIS AREA. AN APD WILL HELP TO ENSURE YOU ARE RECEIVING ADEQUATE NUTRITION TO MAINTAIN GOOD HEALTH. VISIT THE ‘FIND AN APD’ SECTION TO FIND AN APD NEAR YOU.

http://daa.asn.au/for-the-public/smart-eating-for-you/nutrition-a-z/vegan-diets/

Read that, and tell me you don't get the impression they're trying to discourage people from trying it because it's so dangerous and difficult.

re: culture of waste

- seriously, do I need to bring up the US again here?

Amazingly, the habits of the Chinese middle and upper class seem to be even worse; only counterbalanced by the poor who outnumber them. About the same overall proportion of food (about 1/3rd) seems to be wasted in China and the U.S.

Chinese have a habit of leaving food on their plates deliberately to signal that they've had enough to eat, and don't give a second thought to waste because they see it as a status symbol. A much larger percentage of their garbage is food waste (they just produce less garbage per capita because a substantial portion of the population is in poverty).

Anyway, it's irrelevant to their nutritional recommendations.

Those policies aren't even corruption, but they're massively irrational and supportive of animal agriculture at the expense of health, the environment and ethics.

I agree that these policies are a very serious problem, but they aren't corruption, and they don't seem to influence the national Scientific consensus. The same way the oil lobby doesn't change the national consensus on global warming.

My concern for that influence in countries with a higher corruption index is more relevant to the reliability of the scientific and government health authority consensus we're talking about.

[keith_hendrix]

...

The third sentence on that page:
DESPITE THESE RESTRICTIONS, WITH GOOD PLANNING IT IS STILL POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ALL THE NUTRIENTS REQUIRED FOR GOOD HEALTH ON A VEGAN DIET.

You can read it how you like, but at this point I disagree with you. I think what they've said is very sensible, especially coming from the point of view of omnivores transitioning to a vegan diet.

re: the other stuff - at this point I think we can agree to disagree.

[brimstoneSalad]

The third sentence on that page:
DESPITE THESE RESTRICTIONS, WITH GOOD PLANNING IT IS STILL POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ALL THE NUTRIENTS REQUIRED FOR GOOD HEALTH ON A VEGAN DIET.

You may take that as a glowing endorsement, I do not, and I don't think any unbiased observer would. It's not just scientists, but mostly ordinary people who will read this and come away with an impression of veganism and their government's attitude toward it.

Based on what they say, it's only "possible". They are verging on fear mongering about the restrictions, with that one reluctant caveat, and they mention nothing of the potential benefits along side those claims to counteract the cautions (which is something the ADA at least does). They all but tell people they need to see an expert in order to go vegan -- who is going to do that? People will just keep eating meat rather than follow that advice.

The whole thing comes off so biased that committed vegans will probably ignore it entirely -- including the mostly good advice that isn't being shouted at them in capslock.

You're seriously standing behind that as equal to the ADA's position paper?

I didn't say they were terrible or "unkind".

UK and US were good. Australia was mediocre at best, in the recommendations I could find. They were too heavy handed on the cautions, light on the benefits.

Australia, based on what I've read, is... adequate, but I can't give a glowing endorsement based on their comments on vegetarianism and veganism.

If they had not said that it was at least possible to get all the nutrients required for good health, my comments would have been very different.

For comparison, here's the ADA:

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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

The wording, and the mention of benefits, makes a huge difference. The closest the DAA comes is jumbling in some weasel words next to and after religion as people's "reasons".

The main reasons why some people choose to follow a vegan diet include: religious reasons, environmental and health concerns and animal rights.