Objections to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' Position on Vegan Diets
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is an American Trade organization that deals with the topics of nutrition and dietary advice. With over 100,000 members, mostly consisting of Registered Dietitians (RDs), it is a premiere authority on matters of nutrition in the United States.
Given that Veganism says the following of Vegan Diets:
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements.
Being the consensus of a reputable and relevant authority, it makes sense to adhere to its claims. Unfortunately however, there exist plenty of folks who object to this consensus, almost always of the anti-Vegan variety. This article will be addressing some of the criticisms of the consensus made by these people.
It's an appeal to authority
If you're a person who understands basic epistomology and often argue with people that dismiss the scientific consensus, you may have more than once been frustrated at the sheer number of people who refuse to listen to people who are objectively more knowledgable on the topic than them.
Since not everyone can dedicate their time to studying the intracies of many different fields of science, we rely on experts to figure things out for us, and, after surveying and debating all the available evidence, will come to a consensus on this matter.
Does it mean that the consensus is 100% without a doubt true? Of course not. But if 99% of experts agree that Vegan diets are healthful, you can say with a 99% certainty that Vegan diets are healthful. The consensus is arrived at by experts who analyzed the evidence, not just throwing their opinions. Other than the consensus, unless you're an expert yourself in the field, what else do you have to go off of exactly? The people who question the consensus are almost never qualified in their own right, and often tread up arguments thatare easily refuted by people who know what the experts say about it.
It was published by Vegans
If you look at the authors of the consensus and check their backgrounds, you'll see that they're all Vegans with ethical motivations, which calls into question the sincerity and validity of the stated consensus.
The publishers of the study are Vesanto Melina (MS, RD), Winston Craig, (PhD, MPH, RD), and Susan Levin (MS, RD, CSSD). While it's true that they're all Vegans with motives related to ethics and religion, that doesn't mean they aren't qualified experts on the matter; It isn't like they're a bunch of quacks who had their licenses revoked, they actually went to accreditted universities and received degrees and certifications in the field of nutrition.
And really, if they really wanted to enforce an agenda, they would've been a LOT more positive in their statement. Their position of Vegan diets being "nutritionally adequete" is a relatively conservative claim. This is because, in science, experts only make positive claims on what they know with absolute certainty. If you read an article on a recent scientific investigation, it will usually be full of phrases such as "this suggests X" or "we've noticed Y" or "we think this means Z." Stretching evidence or making more reaching, unconfirmed claims that the evidence does not indicate borders on unscientific conduct. The claims MIGHT be true, but should not be believed until there is better evidence. They make their claim based on 117 studies analyzing the various effects on the body of Vegan diets, and how they compare to the standard diet of a meat-eater, and they know for certain that Vegan diets provide enough nutrition, and are healthier than average. It isn't just them coming down and proclaiming it for no reason, they came to that conclusion based on an analysis of those 117 studies, which explored the nutrient profiles, dietary sources of minerals, affects on body weight, and many other characteristics of healthful Vegan diets. If anyone wants to go through each of them and see if they were all conducted by Vegans in a big conspiracy, they are free to do so.
And before any accusations of cherry picking are made, the statement was peer-reviewed (which is an essential in the scientific process), and as far as we can tell, no, not all of those who peer-reviewed it are vegans, and once more, just because they're Vegans doesn't invalidate anything they say. Plus, y'know, they could be Vegan and Vegetarian themselves because they see the evidence points to it being healthier and, since they're dietary experts, want to lead an example. Ever consider that? It's also not clear if they're doing it for ethical reasons either (though it isn't impossible that it plays a part, since a lot of people who go Vegan for health reasons sooner or later embrace the ethical arguments too).
If they were set on indoctrinating the public, they would've said something along the lines of Vegan diets being the ideal diet, extends life-span by over five years, and that any amount of meat, no matter how infrequently consumed, is detrimental to health. They don't do this because not only is it dishonest (and dishonesty only hurts the animal rights movement), but that would quickly be revoked by the organization since it isn't an accurate portrayal of the studies they've conducted.
Pointing out that the authors are Vegans also doesn't attempt to even refute the claim itself, nor does it even refer to any other authority (Are you really going to criticize a study that points out that black people don't inherently have lower IQs than white people by pointing out that the conducters of it are anti-racist?). If the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics had a problem with this position, it (again) would have been criticized and removed by them rather quickly (it has been their consensus since at least 2016, which is updated from their position from 2009 that pretty much said the same thing; a position on something as significant as this doesn't just fly under the radar for this long).
It talks about the environment
This is also a problem we have with the position; The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics of course focuses on nutrition, and the topic of the environment is a completely unrelated field with virtually no overlap. They do cite a study that supports their claim, so they refer to another authority which is qualified to discuss it, so it isn't as though they're just tacking that on baselessly.
So while it is objectively true that vegan diets are better for the environment, since that isn't the organization's area of focus, it probably would be better if it were left off. However, the statement on the healthfulness of vegan diets is something they certainly have authority to speak on, and is pretty much what the whole purpose of the statement as a whole is.
