Well Fed Network

A vegan diet is extremely healthy and would not lead to the death of a baby. The American Dietetic Association even says, “Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.”

In the case of the baby in the article, the parents fed the child mostly soy milk and apple juice. The baby died by starvation, not veganism. If this article was about meat-eaters who starved the child, the title would not read, “Death by Carnivorism.”

Learn more about eating right at www.pcrm.org

This is nonsense! According to pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock in his book Dr. Spock’s Baby and Child Care, “Children who grow up getting their nutrition from plant foods rather than meats … are less likely to develop weight problems,diabetes, high blood pressure, and some forms of cancer.”

Dr. Frank Oski, former director of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University said, “There is no reason to drink cow’s milk [and presumably any dairy products] at any time in your life. It was designed for calves, it was not designed for humans, and we should all stop drinking it today, this afternoon.”

Vegetarian children grow up to be slimmer and healthier and live longer than their meat-eating counterparts. And so do adult vegetarian and vegans. Meat and dairy diets are unhealthy for everyone. Anyone who looks at the evidence of diease in this country and says otherwise is either ignorant of the facts, or in the pockets of the meat and dairy industry.

Nina Planck isn’t a nutritionist. She doesn’t have the knowledge to back up the irresponsible claims she is making. The American Dietetic Association (an association of nutritionists) states that a vegan or vegetarian diet is an acceptable diet for children.

Where’s the evidence that children cannot develop strong, healthy bodies on plant-based food? Anyone notice that the Op-ed piece fails to cite any? The single case mentioned, the baby of the recently sentenced parents, is obviously a case of starvation; not enough calories, vegan or otherwise. Would anyone argue that plant foods do not have calories? No, that would be illogical. And so is associating veganism with this case.

ps. If you eat fish you are not a a vegetarian.

Nina Plannk’s (and the mass media) treat this as a veganism issue. It’s not. It’s about a pair of bad parents. At 6 weeks old, no child is eating meat.

To blame veganism for the child’s death is the same as blaming Christianity for the Galvaston father microwaving his daughter. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4820131.html)

Ben

Please do more research into this. You are wrong.

Sensible people recognize
the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada as higher
authorities on the nutritional soundness of vegan diets than is Ms. Planck - who, among other things, touts lard as a health food. These esteemed associations state:

“Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for
all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
infancy, childhood and adolescence.”

From: VEGETARIAN DIETS
American Dietetic Association
June 2003 (Vol. 103, Issue 6, Pages 748-765)

Full abstract (and more) at: http://tinyurl.com/djodu

I think Nina didn’t go far enough. Maybe children should drink the milk of another species that’s closer in nutritional content to human breast milk, say, pig’s milk… or better yet, chimpanzee milk.

Wouldn’t that make more sense than drinking milk from a cow?

Many health experts agree that vegan foods are better for babies than animal products. The following quott from Michael Klaper, M.D., ther author of Pregnancy, Children, and the Vegan Diet, is on DumpDairy.com alond with other information about why milk and other animal products are unhealthy for childen and adults:

“Humans are the only creatures that drink milk from the mother of another species. It’s as unnatural for a child to drink the milk of a cow as it is for a dog to nurse from a giraffe! Human children have no nutritional requirements for cow’s milk and grow up healthy and strong without it. Cow’s milk and the products made from it are laced with foreign, frequently allergy-inciting bovine protein and often contain hydrocarbon pesticides and other chemical contaminants, as well as health-endangering saturated fat. Clinical experience suggests that cow’s milk is linked to numerous common health problems (runny noses, allergies, ear infections, recurrent bronchitis, asthma, etc.) that often keep people returning to their doctors’ offices instead of to their jobs or classrooms. Parents should feel good about giving their children the many nutritious, tasty alternatives to dairy products instead.”

And as Wiiam and Wordster poined out, the ADA and famous pediatricians like Dr. Spock say vegan babies can grow up healthy.

John McDougall, MD - Letter to the Editor - NY Times

The New York Times today (May 21, 2007) carried an Op-Ed piece about the dangers of a vegan diet, titled “Death by Veganism,” that deserves an immediate response:

For the original article see: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This article, written by Nina Planck, who is identified as a food writer and expert on farmers markets and local food, stems from the case of a recent murder conviction of parents who starved their 6 week old child to death by feeding him a diet of apple juice and soy milk. She writes on her web site, “Among many sources for this piece, I interviewed a family practitioner who treats many vegetarian and vegan families.”

For the story of the child’s death see: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F0DE0D71438F936A35757C0A9659C8B63

Here is the 150 word letter to the editor that I sent to the New York Times (chances of publication by the newspaper are obviously small):

Nina Planck’s article condemning vegan diet contains serious errors concerning the adequacy of plant foods. Plants do contain all the essential amino acids in adequate quantities to meet human needs, and even those of children (Millward). Vitamin D is not found in milk or meat, unless it is added during manufacturing. Sunlight is the proper source of this vitamin. Plants manufacture beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A. The original source of all minerals (including calcium and zinc) is the ground. Plants are abundant in minerals; and they act as the conduit of minerals to animals. The scientific truth is protein, essential amino acid, mineral, and vitamin (except for B12 which is synthesized by bacteria, not animals) deficiencies are never caused by a diet based on whole plant foods when calorie needs are met. Ms. Planck’s distortion of nutritional science is a serious matter that needs to be fixed.

Reference: Millward DJ. The nutritional value of plant-based diets in relation to human amino acid and protein requirements. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999 May;58(2):249-60.

Addition comments not sent to the newspaper.

Nina Planck writes: “You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.”

The scientific truth is: Babies at 6 weeks of age require human breast milk and any other diet means malnutrition. Imagine if the exact opposite approach killed an infant with a formula made of pulverized beef and cow’s milk, would this have received similar worldwide press? I believe the case would have been properly considered child neglect (intentional or not) and have gone unnoticed except for those intimately involved. “People love to hear good news about their bad habits” so the tragedy of the death of an infant caused by misguided parents who fed their infant apple juice and soy milk for the first 6 weeks of life has been used to justify eating meat and drinking cow’s milk.

Nina Planck writes: Protein deficiency is one danger of a vegan diet for babies. Nutritionists used to speak of proteins as “first class” (from meat, fish, eggs and milk) and “second class” (from plants), but today this is considered denigrating to vegetarians.

The scientific truth is: Confusion about our protein needs came from studies of the nutritional needs of animals. Mendel and Osborne in 1913 reported rats grew better on animal, than on vegetable, sources of protein. A direct consequence of their studies resulted in meat, eggs, and dairy foods being classified as superior, or “Class A” protein sources and vegetable proteins designated as inferior, or “Class B” proteins. Seems no one considered that rats are not people. One obvious difference in their nutritional needs is rat milk is 11 times more concentrated in protein than is human breast milk. The extra protein supports this animal’s rapid growth to adult size in 5 months; while humans take 17 years to fully mature. The world’s authority on human protein needs, Prof. Joseph Millward, wrote the following: “Contrary to general opinion, the distinction between dietary protein sources in terms of the nutritional superiority of animal over plant proteins is much more difficult to demonstrate and less relevant in human nutrition.” (References in my April 2007 newsletter.)
Nina Planck writes: The fact remains, though, that humans prefer animal proteins and fats to cereals and tubers, because they contain all the essential amino acids needed for life in the right ratio. This is not true of plant proteins, which are inferior in quantity and quality — even soy.

The scientific truth is: Proteins function as structural materials which build the scaffoldings that maintain cell shapes, enzymes which catalyze biochemical reactions, and hormones which signal messages between cells—to name only a few of their vital roles. Since plants are made up of structurally sound cells with enzymes and hormones, they are by nature rich sources of proteins. In fact, so rich are plants that they can meet the protein needs of the earth’s largest animals: elephants, hippopotamuses, giraffes, and cows. You would be correct to deduce that the protein needs of relatively small humans can easily be met by plants. (References in my April 2007 newsletter.)
Nina Planck writes: Yet even a breast-fed baby is at risk. Studies show that vegan breast milk lacks enough docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish.

The scientific truth is: Only plants can synthesize essential fats. Any DHA found in animals had its origin from a plant (as alpha linolenic acid). The human body has no difficulty converting plant-derived omega-3 fat, alpha linolenic acid, into DHA or other n-3 fatty acids, supplying our needs even during gestation and infancy.

Reference: Langdon JH. Has an aquatic diet been necessary for hominin brain evolution and functional development? Br J Nutr. 2006 Jul;96(1):7-17.

Mothers who eat the Western diet pass dangerous loads of environmental contaminants through their breast milk to their infants. Meat, dairy and fish in her diet are the source of 80% to 90% of these toxic chemicals. The cleanest and healthiest milk is made by mothers eating a starch-based vegan diet.

Nina Planck writes: A vegan diet is equally dangerous for weaned babies and toddlers, who need plenty of protein and calcium.

The scientific truth is: Infants should be exclusively breast fed until age 6 months and then partially breast fed until approximately 2 years of age. Starches, fruits, and vegetables should be added after the age of 6 months. The addition of cow’s milk causes problems as common as constipation and as devastating as type-1 diabetes. (See my May 2003 newsletter on Marketing Milk and Disease.) Adding meat to an infant’s diet is one of the main reasons all children raised on the Western diet have the beginnings of atherosclerosis by the age of 2 years.

Nina Planck writes: “An adult who was well-nourished in utero and in infancy may choose to get by on a vegan diet, but babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and fish oil.”

The scientific truth is: Babies are ideally built from mother’s breast milk initially and then from whole foods. Hopefully, parents will realize that the healthiest diet for the entire family (after weaning) is based on starches with the addition of fruits and vegetables. (Vitamin B12 is added to the diet of pregnant or nursing mothers and after 3 years of following a plant-based diet strictly.)

Nina Planck has been allowed by the New York Times to exploit the tragedy of a family and to spread commonly held, but scientifically incorrect, information on human nutrition. The author and the newspaper should be held accountable. Hopefully, the end result will be that people desiring the truth will take the trouble to look at the evidence. If this were to be the case, then this New York Times article could be the beginning of long overdue changes in the ways people eat. Write and tell everyone you know that the New York Times has done a sloppy job, and damage to the public, by allowing harmful lies to be spread—especially when you consider that Planck’s message promotes a diet known to cause obesity, type-2 diabetes, heart disease, and major cancers.

John McDougall, MD
www.drmcdougall.com
May 21, 2007
©2007 John McDougall All Rights Reserved
McDougall Wellness Center P.O. Box 14039, Santa Rosa, CA 95402

http://www.drmcdougall.com

You aren’t a vegetarian. You’re a pescatarian. Veggies don’t eat fish.

If its unfair to pin sketchy definitions on vegans its unfair to do the same for us omnivores. (Yes, omnivores, only eskimos qualify as carnivores.) That said, human beings are actually omnivores and can maintain very healthy diets as such. The key is moderation.

After all, the Japanese consistently rate as some of the healthiest societies and they are definitely fish-eating omnivores.

I personally believe processed, treated foods are more to blame for unhealthy tendencies than meat per se.

If you opt to be a vegetarian or vegan, that’s fine. Just don’t malign the rest of us balanced and healthy omnivores. They do exist!

Attack of the -tarians!

I am still very post-partum (third baby is 7 months old but I still feel that way) so its extremely difficult to even glimpse these sorts of headlines. Here in MA we have had parents starve their kids for religious reasons (I still don’t get it, death tends to put a damper on the propagation of one’s dogma so the starvation thing is counterproductive, but, hey, maybe I am not getting something here).

I see the passion in all these comments and I see very sensitive emotions. I see insecurities and egos and a huge boat load of baggage.

Most vegetarians, or any other self-proclaimed -tarian of any sort, should know this one thing - there will always be a much larger population of omnivores who have absolutely no CLUE why you are veg, care why you are veg, or even care about where their meat comes from. Many MANY people eat, get this, because they are hungry and they never put a thought into why or where it came from or if it had a face.

All this being known, it would be the healthiest thing to not be evangelical in one’s -tarianism but rather get on about the business of feeding yourself.

There is little to no cure for the mainstream ignorance that supports authors like Plank in the NYT.

People hate hearing childrearing advice from their own moms and in-law, they are certainly not going to listen to it from complete and utter strangers.

The very best way to be a caring and intelligent slightly evangelical veggie is to express it in your actions. Do not preach, cook and share. Raise your children to be kind to those who eat differently from them so that we all are impressed by their grace.

To quote Rodney - “Cant we all just get along?” and I think there certainly needs to be a whole lot more of agreeing to disagree.

I love Ben’s remark the best:

“Nina Plannk’s (and the mass media) treat this as a veganism issue. It’s not. It’s about a pair of bad parents. At 6 weeks old, no child is eating meat.”

The point that’s being missed here is that these particular vegan parents (and this has happened to more than one set of parents) made a choice to supplement their child’s diet with regular soy milk. Regular soy milk doesn’t interpret similar vitamins and minerals that are found in a mother’s milk. Had they opted for organic soy formula, which is infused with those vitamins and minerals, or even employed the services of a wet nurse, then their child wouldn’t likely to have been malnourished.

Whether you are vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, omnivore or whatever, the important thing here is that you take care of your baby’s health needs - even if that means using a processed formula to ensure your baby’s health.

Vegan is not the problem. Ignorance is.

With all due respect, you are not vegetarian if you eat fish and the occasional hot dog.

Now that that’s put aside, I must say that every vegan kid I’ve ever met has been strong and healthy and well-nourished. Sure, your average vegan kid tends to be thinner than your average meat-eating kid, but what does that mean when the latter is ten pounds overweight*? The kids we need to be worrying about are the ones who are fat, who are sedentary, who have a hard time breathing when they walk. I see many, many more of them than skinny kids, and the implications for their lifelong health are not good.

*Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index, United States 1960-2002. Advance Data No. 347. October 2004. PHS 2005-1250. www.cdc.gov

This is to Mary Finelli

Wow you really did your homework. I wonder if you would go onto my site and post some comments, or articles.
http://www.ourvegankitchen.com

Here’s the viewpoint of a nutritionist who testified at the trial.

This letter was published in The New York Times on May 23, 2007.

To the Editor:

Re “Death by Veganism,” by Nina Planck (Op-Ed, May 21):

I am a nutritionist who testified as an expert witness for the prosecution in the criminal trial of the parents of Crown Shakur. As the lead prosecutor in this case told the jury, this poor infant was not killed by a vegan diet. He was starved to death by parents who did not give him breast milk, soy-based infant formula or enough food of any kind.

Well-planned vegan diets are healthful for pregnant mothers and their infants, as well as for older children, according to a large body of scientific research. Contrary to Ms. Planck’s assertions, there are healthy plant-based sources of docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA; calcium can be absorbed about as readily from soy milk as from cow’s milk; and soy does not inhibit growth.

Studies have found that vegan children are within the normal ranges for weight and height, and I personally know vegan mothers and vegan children who are healthier than many of their omnivorous peers.

Amy Joy Lanou, Ph.D.

Amy Joy Lanou, Ph.D., is a senior nutrition scientist with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the author of Healthy Eating for Life for Children.

I wonder how Dr. Lanou can ignore the fact that -according to herself- “doctors and nutritionists agree that the best food for infants is mother’s breast milk”? I mean, isn’t human breast milk a food of animal origin? Aren’t mammals genetically designed to be best fed by milk from their mothers (which happen to belong to the animal kingdom, not the plant kingdom!)? I agree with Dr. Oski’s observation that cow’s milk and its byproducts were not designed for human consumption, and we should avoid them. But soybeans were not genetically designed to produce milk, either. The process to obtain ‘milk’ from soy is far from natural, Dr. Lanou. The Japanese, which are among the people with the longest life expectancy by nation, are the only people among the top twenty nations with longest life expectancy in the world that consume significant amounts of soybean and its byproducts. But they also include significant amounts of raw fish in their diet. All of the other nations ranked at the top 20 of the world’s life expectancy by nation charts include meats of different kinds in their diets.

The principles of veganism date as far back as 2000 BC, and they are rooted in spiritual and ethical beliefs found in Hinduism (an ancient Indian religion) and -some centuries later- Jainism. A Sanskrit word (Sanskrit is the oldest literary language of India), ahimsa, encapsulates the ethical essence of veganism: ahimsa stands for non-killing and non-harming. Ethically speaking, veganism is based on the belief that all forms of animal life are sentient and, in consequence, the use of any animal product or byproduct is ethically reprehensible because of the cruelty involved in obtaining these products. Vegans contend that sentient animals shouldn’t have to suffer or die for our enjoyment. If veganism were indeed a natural lifestyle for humans, why is it then that its origins can be traced to just a couple thousand years ago? I mean, aren’t we, the Homo Sapiens species, one that originated more than 200,000 years ago??? And isn’t it true that all fossil and archaeological evidence proves that human diets have been consistently omnivorous everywhere in the world for those 200,000 years (with the exception of certain regions in India for the last 2,000 years)? I mean, how can anyone argue that a vegan diet is healthier or more ‘natural’ for humans when the evolution of our species for 200,000 years shows that we have been eating meat forever?

The British Vegan Society states that: “[vitamin] B12 is NOT reliably available from modern unfortified plant foods in the amounts required for optimal health, so take no chances: use fortified foods or supplements and make sure you get at least 3 micrograms per day” (“Healthy Choices on a Vegan Diet,” para. 7)”.

Sure, if one knows how and what to choose, one can come up with a well-planned vegan diet that -with the addition of fortified supplements of vitamin B12, folic acid, and omega-3 fatty acids, among other nutrients- can meet all of one’s nutritional needs. But how ‘natural’ is this? How natural is it for anyone to have the knowledge of an expert in nutrition and, even more important, to have access to the wide combination of vegetable products required for a healthy vegan diet in one’s geographical location? No single location in the world meets the climatic requirements needed to grow all the vegetable products included in a well-planned vegan diet: how natural is it to have one’s vegan foods flown or brought in by a fleet of trucks and planes? (one needs to remember also that vegetable products have a lower weight-to-volume ratio, meaning that less food -by weight- can be transported at once).

Weiss, Fogelman and Bennett (2004) report on an infant’s severe vitamin B12 deficiency associated with a strict vegetarian diet. The abstract on their case study reads: “The authors present a case of severe megaloblastic anemia [anemia resulting from a deficiency of vitamin B12 and folic acid] and neurologic damage [damage to the nervous system] due to vitamin B12 deficiency in a 6-month-old infant. The cause of the vitamin deficiency was a maternal dietary deficiency because of a strict vegetarian diet and prolonged breast-feeding. The importance of early recognition of significant maternal vitamin B12 deficiency during pregnancy and lactation in vegetarians is emphasized so that appropriate supplementation can be given and irreversible neurologic damage in the infant prevented. (’Severe Vitamin B12 Deficiency in an Infant Associated with a Maternal Deficiency and a Strict Vegetarian diet’)”. Is this just another misunderstanding, Dr. Lanou? Dozens of similar well-documented cases of undernourishment due to vegan/vegetarian diets can be found on medical journals from all over the world.

Another fact that strongly contradicts the contention that a vegan diet is healthier than an omnivorous one is represented by the case of carnivorous plants. Thousands of years of evolution have allowed this type of plants to develop ingenious mechanisms to help them supplement their food with nutrients of animal origin that they would otherwise lack. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines a carnivorous plant as: “Any of about 400 diverse species of plants specially adapted for capturing insects and other tiny animals by ingenious pitfalls and traps and for digesting the nitrogen-rich animal proteins to obtain nutrients” (“Carnivorous Plant,” para. 1). If vegans argue that eating animal products is unhealthy, and eating only vegetables is healthy, then the existence of carnivorous plants constitutes a conclusive refutation of their argument. Carnivorous plants eat insects and other small animals to stay healthy and alive. If this type of plants were deprived of nutrients of animal origin, they would wither and die. How -I ask- can eating animals be healthy for some 400 species of plants but not for humans, when both have been doing it for more than 200,000 years?