"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.
Mateo3112 wrote: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.
Mateo3112 wrote: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.
