Talk:Veganism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

"Dietary Vegan"

The reason I found it necessary to edit the article to replace "dietary vegan" with "total vegetarians, strict vegetarians, or pure vegetarians" is that veganism is about a whole philosophy of life, not just a diet. Diet just happens to be an important aspect of this way of life. Calling a pure vegetarian a "dietary vegan" makes about as much sense as calling somebody that eats kosher foods a "dietary Jew." -Random Violin Guy 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with your sentiment, people do apply the term "dietary vegan." Obviously, people who fall into this classification do not subscribe to otherwise standard vegan positions. Kellen ^T 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we seem to agree that "dietary veganism" is poor term to describe a pure vegetarian, and since this is an encyclopedia, I hope you don't mind if I swap my change back in. I think it makes perfect sense, and I don't consider it a minor point at all. But, since I don't want to get into a revert war, I'll wait for a little feedback first. -Random Violin Guy 00:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be a poor term, but it is fairly commonly used. Though in my experience the term "strict vegetarian" is also often used to refer to a vegan diet. So I suggest that the article should say "dietary vegans or strict vegetarians". I think "total vegetarian" or "pure vegetarian" are less often used in this context, so I'm not sure if they should also be mentioned. --Vclaw 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I added "strict vegetarians" to it. Kellen ^T 08:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "Strict vegetarian" could be very misleading as it is often used by people who strictly follow a (non-vegan) vegetarian diet. We have a few Indian restaurants locally that are "pure vegetarian" but their dishes includes ghee, paneer, etc. I preferred "dietary vegan" alone.--Michig 11:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone has changed this again to just strict vegetarian which is totally misleading. I know a few strict vegetarians, none of which has a vegan diet. Face facts - some vegans choose the diet for reasons other than ethics. Dietary vegan is commonly used so let's keep it in.--Michig 08:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Veganism is a philosophy and way of life in which one avoids the use of ALL animal products, including leather and wool. Eating a diet free of meat-eggs-and-dairy doesn't make you vegan any more than eating only kosher foods makes you Jewish. The term "dietary vegan" is completely misleading because it implies being vegan, when in actuality, it only means you avoid certain foods. I understand that the definitions of the non-lacto non-ovo vegetarian diet are blurry, which is why I suggested listing "total vegetarians, strict vegetarians, or pure vegetarians" instead of just one of the three. Or perhaps it would be best to just leave out this whole labeling spree and say that "the vegan diet excludes any animal products (including meat, eggs, dairy, and honey)." ---RandomViolinGuy 10:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For you, yes. For me, yes. But not for everybody who applies the term "vegan." Kellen ^T 12:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, asserting that Veganism is a philosophy and way of life as if one had a personal and all-encompassing lease on the term is simply absurd. Many who practice ethical veganism do not regard veganism per se as a philosophy at all. For example, while some Preference Utilitarians and western Buddhists may practice veganism in the fullest and strictest sense (i.e., avoiding use or consumption of any and all animal products on a consistent basis), veganism is here not the philosophic root cause. Rather, veganism is in this case a practice which is a consequence of a larger philosophy in which vegan considerations are encompassed, even though it may be functionally indistinguishable from the practice of individuals who consider themselves ideological vegans (i.e., vegans who consider veganism "their philosophy and way of life"). Certainly, I do not consider veganism either my philosophy or my way of life. And yet this notwithstanding, considerations within my bioethical philosophy necessitate that I neither facilitate nor practice consumption of animal products or destruction of animal life at any time, thus causing me to describe myself as a vegan, but with this veganism as an aspect of a much larger ethical outlook in which veganism is merely a footnote. The distinction I tend to propose is between ethical vegans who practice veganism for bioethical reasons, whatever they may be, vs. dietary vegans who do not (at least chiefly) practice veganism for philosophic reasons. If one really wants to give a special status to individuals who consider veganism their all-encompassing life philosophy under which all other things are subsumed, I suppose I favour ideological vegan to signify that this is not merely an ethical tenet but rather a generalised philosophy for said persons --Yst 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between calling yourself vegan, and actually being vegan. Joanne Stepaniak wrote a good essay on the name game: http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm . I still think the best way to get around all this labeling and reverting is to take that part out, and replace it with a description of the diet, rather than a name for it. These terms are too muddy for us to authoritatively use one or the other. -RandomViolinGuy 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So just strike "People who avoid eating all animal products, but who otherwise use animal by-products (for example, leather shoes) are commonly referred to as strict vegetarians or dietary vegans." ? Kellen ^T 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. I'm gonna go ahead and take care of that. -RandomViolinGuy 04:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Some sources, such as airlines, treat vegan/strict vegetarian/pure vegetarian as one of the same. This should be noted on this article [1]. nirvana2013 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I think that it's mostly to make it easy for them, though. Airlines, in my experience, aren't exactly dietary experts, but if they make all Vegetarian meal options Vegan, then they don't have to deal with two different types of food for special diets. That also means they'll make them okay for folks with diabetes, and Kosher, among other things. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 05:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As concerns the flawed studies in the "health criticism" section

The "possible limitations" that I had in place will either stay, or the studies will be removed. It's obvious that throwing in two studies by the same group of German researchers, on less than 100 participants (in the case of the first study, less than 30), with no mention of duration (and no mention of "vegan" in the second study) serves no purpose but to baselessly attack veganism. Find some peer-reviewed studies that can't be so easily criticized, allow the limitations to be added in, or remove the studies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyle key (talk • contribs) 16:31, August 6, 2006.

Please look up the original articles, which contain the information you say is lacking. Abstracts typically don't contain all of the relevant details of a paper. B12 deficiency and homocysteine excess are well-documented problems with vegan, and to a lesser extent, vegetarian diets. The scientific literature is quite clear on the topic, and the passages in question were written by a medical doctor.

My feeling about adding explicatory content, especially when we comment on scientific articles, is that it should not be done unless there are glaring errors in the original paper. That is, if we want to criticize a scientific study, we should find a peer-reviewed article where the conclusions of the original study are criticized, and cite that article. Take a look at WP:NOR, where uncited explication is looked upon as original research, which is unencyclopedic. So, my opinion is that we should either cite the articles, or not cite the articles, but not include uncited criticism. B12 deficiency can be remedied by vegan-grade supplements derived from yeast (I'm not sure about how to deal with elevated homocysteine levels), but it is a big enough problem that it should be mentioned, and the reader should be informed about how to avoid the risk while staying vegan. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Luke, Homocysteine levels are inversely-related to B12. People with low blood B12 have elevated homocysteine levels, so effectively both are manifestations of the same problem, which is insufficient intake and/or absorption of dietary B12.

The fact of the matter is that many issues with non-vegan vegetarianism apply to veganism as well, but (as I've noted above) there are few studies which are written specifically about veganism. Since this is the case, having some such studies included is appropriate. Kellen ^T 09:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Meat bad for health

I have updated the entry about the study by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin. I have tried to make it fair and neutral in tone, as I believe that their conclusion that meat is unhealthy, with regards to the diseases they cite, is based upon the studies they have included and should be in the article as their opinion as well as a generally accepted view. I think the entry is now more specific and conforms to NPOV. I would like to gain a consensus if User:Rotten still feels the entry should be reverted.

For details please see page 15 of Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin's paper: "Meat-Eaters Aiding Global Warming?: New Research Suggests What You Eat as Important as What You Drive" - Solar 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Generally Accepted" that meat is bad for you? Nonsense. Show some evidence that it's "generally accepted". I'm deleting that section. Thanks.--Rotten 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Rotten's edits are appropriate. Solar, you may want to create a new article about the relationship between meat eating and health. —Viriditas | Talk 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to leave the change from 'is generally accepted' to 'claimed', although it should be pointed out that "Rotten's" eloquent response is not an accurate quote. The edit did not say "meat" is bad for you, it said that animal fats are generally considered to have adverse effects on health. A statement that is quite true. I think generally the section is more specific and is an improvement on the original edit. I will consider creating an in-depth article on meat and its effects on health, but this section needs to mention health, as it is important to the paper the paragraph is dealing with. Thanks - Solar 10:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe saturated fat (which is BS IMO but it is claimed by the mainstream media that it's bad for you). But how about fish oil? That's generally accepted to be quite good for you. You vegans need to show some restraint.--Rotten 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Studies have proven that a plant based diet is far healthier than an omnivorous diet" is false. It is cited to PETA India, one of the LEAST reliable sources for objective, unbiased info. There are people who are very long lived and healthy on a primarily meat based diet, as well as people who are long lived and healthy on a plant based diet. Simply saying veg*nism is inherently healthier than an omnivorous, or even carnivorous diet is just plain stupid. JesseG88 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

More cites added. Do you have a cite for your claims? I'm not a Vegan, but a diet consisting of meat and dairy products is far less healthy (and problematic) than a plant based diet. There's a considerable amount of research on the subject proving the claim.--Scribner 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also research that suggests the exact opposite. Here are some sources: [2], [3], [4] - JesseG88 11:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The "eco eating" reference is exceedingly poor and POV. Please replace it with something better, or remove the sentence that it supports. Kellen ^T 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn you hippies! Hempeater 03:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Help with Animal rights links?

A while back I tried unsuccessfully to defend the addition of a couple of external links that I thought were high quality and relevant. Since there are editors here who are super-strict about external links, can I call upon such editors to help me trim the massive list of external links in the Animal rights article? I have tried many times to trim that huge list of links to animal rights orgs. to a reasonable number, but SlimVirgin insists on keeping them all in, even though there exists an entire separate article devoted to that topic: List of animal rights groups. Thanks, -MichaelBluejay 14:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's a crapload of unnecessary links. In principle, I agree that those links should be harshly pruned. However, I am hesitant to enter in an edit war with the user you refer to. S/he has squatted the vast majority of animal rights-related pages and refuses to listen to legitimate criticism even from editors sympthetic to her viewpoint (as i gather from reading your contributions on Talk:Animal rights). Sh/e also interprets such legitimate criticism as a personal attack, as you have probably realized, and seems to have enough free time and "cabal" standing to revert edits at will, soon after they are made. We would need a "bipartisan" group of editors (e.g. more than just you and me, and consisting of editors who typically approach the subject from a pro and anti direction) to effect the changes you desire. I am willing to help, but we will need several more volunteers. Cheers, Skinwalker 03:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps propose a completely new, culled set of links on the Talk page. Then other users will probably have some additions, but since you're starting from a positive (proposing something new) rathr than a negative (cutting away what exists), you might have more success. Also, since you can propose a very short initial list, it's less likely it'll end up looking like the current one, which I agree is far too long! WP:ISNOT a web directory. Kellen ^T 09:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the above comments related to the links and SlimVirgin's conduct. I think a vote would be a good idea, this way we can find a consensus and no one user has more power. - Solar 09:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

article length

thie length of the article has now exceeded 51 kb so it should be tageed as very long.--Lucy-marie 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't it just go here? It's not a helpful thing for readers of the article to see and doesn't really deserve the space devoted to it. In any case, the first thing that should get pruned is the nutrition section, which several people have expressed an intent to move to Vegan nutrition, but nobody has ever done so. Kellen ^T 09:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The tag needs to be clearly visible to all ediors, so that editors know the article may be getting out of control in length and requie pruning in certian areas. Adding the tag conforms to the MOS on article length.--Lucy-marie 12:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

sigh..

Many people here and on google, say it is also a diet. The first sentence should change and include a dietary definition as well. --fs 22:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While veganism is considered by many to be a lifestyle, it is first and foremost a diet. "Diet" meaning a system of eating, not a method of weight loss. Unfortunately "diet" has both meanings, but the former primary definition. American Heritage: "diet: (1) The usual food and drink of a person or animal." -MichaelBluejay

This may be a true definition of the word diet but changing the first sentence to that kind of defintion could result in ambiguities. People could not be wrong in thinking it was almost a fad people undertake. This kind of diet is very close to a detox diet which has the primary purpose of weight loss. So if the word diet is to be used then the word diet need giving a specific meaning or an alternative word shold be used. I am vegan and do not consider it a diet but consider it my diet based on ethical and environmental concerns rather than weight loss so a definition of the word diet is essential.--Lucy-marie 11:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

the problem is without any conclusion on that matter on the talk page the sentence remains and it was reverted to its previous state after I changed it to a "either a philosophy+diet etc. or a diet". --fs 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Don´t confuse diet (what you decide to put in your mouth generally) with dieting (short term objective). I too am a vegan and would consider it a dietary choice. I became a vegan because of nutritional and health benefits. The ethical part of veganism followed as secondary for me. 201.240.171.215 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry, ye, that's what i mean, english is not my native. --fs 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Difficulty section

Obtuse quote taken from criticism: Many health supplements (vitamins, minerals, herbal alternatives, etc.) are placed inside capsules made of animal-based gelatin [1] [2]. Though online retailers have emerged selling vegan alternatives to such products, and vegan-friendly multivitamins and supplements can now be found in most health food stores, it is legally available only in the developed world.

Huh? What is only available in the developed world? Can someone who understands this sentence rejig it a bit? Cheers! Mujinga 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty section is not written well. I'm making it a Discussion section of it's own. ilsott

Shortening an overlong article

This article is good and overlong. I would suggest:

1 Moving more nutritional info to the vegan nutrition page

2 Sorting out the introduction, which is a bit unwieldy at present .. i would suggest moving the stats about us and uk vegans to its own section

I am happy to help with these changes, but I thought I would broach the subject here as I dont recall making any edits on this page before today .. Mujinga 21:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Iodine

I have seen reference to the UK having low levels of iodine in the soil due to the last ice-age, this reference comes from the Vegan Society. I have recently contacted them to see where they got this information, I received the following reply: "According to Stephen Walsh PHD in his book 'Plant Based Nutrition and Health' (The Vegan Society, ISBN 0-907337-27-9) "The iodine content of plant foods depends on the iodine content of the soil, which varies greatly from one part of the world to another. Iodine in the soil is low in many areas, including most regions that were covered by ice during the last Ice Age". (p106)". I have not been able to find an independent reference that confirms this. Due to conversations I have had recently with scientists I am inclined to be sceptical, does anyone have a link to a scientific paper or other research that confirms that there are low levels of Iodine in the UK soil. Thanks - Solar 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whitehead, DC (1979). "Iodine in the U.K. Environment with Particular Reference to Agriculture". Journal of Applied Ecology. 16 (1): 269–279. doi:10.2307/2402746.

Sorry, I dont have access to the full article. --Mig77^(t) 10:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm skeptical as well. These two references[5][6] state that in some parts of the UK iodine is deficient in the soil (causing local effects such as "Derbyshire neck", lol), but that it is normal in the rest of the country. Since these articles deal with a local study of iodine concentration, I wouldn't treat them as definitive on the country-wide concentration, but they probably cite something that does directly study the national concentration. I am not aware of a mechanism by which iodine is removed from soil or blocked from entering soil by glacial ice, but I am a chemist and not a geologist. A related Pubmed search suggests that regional differences in iodine consumption are caused by eating foods that interfere with iodine uptake.[7]Cheers, Skinwalker 10:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a 'Not verified' tag to the Iodine section until we can find clear information supporting the Vegan Society's position or some information with a different opinion that can be added to make the section more balanced. - Solar 10:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Less Bias?

In the next major edit/reworking of the page, could an attempt be made at providing a more balanced perspective? I have nothing against veganism, but this reads like a "20 Reasons You Should Be Vegan" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdrickgr (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you missed the giant criticism and controversy section, which is almost half the length of the article. Kellen ^T 15:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism and veganism

I have added a citation request regarding the reference to Hinduism. As far as I am aware most Hindus eat cheese, yoghurt and ghee/clarified butter (lacto vegetarianism). To include their reference under veganism seems unnecessary, and even misleading. nirvana2013 19:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, didn't miss it. I was hoping for a balanced treatment, not "Section 1: Be Vegan, it's cool," and then an added "Section 2: Don't be vegan, you'll cause birth defect and other bad stuff". It's as though the article is written by two seperate people/groups. Which I guess might be accurate.

I have re-worded the sentence. Let me know if it is not satisfactory. nirvana2013 01:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've every reason to believe that this is exactly what's happened, over time. On another note, most hindus don't eat cheese, just because Cheese is a relatively western food item. Most hindus eat rice, naan, and curry, because most Hindus are poor Indians. That's not racist, that's not looking down on them, that's just the state of things in large portions of India, from what I've seen/heard. Jains, on the other hand, are ideally vegan, the monks/nuns of which going further, sometimes into fruitarianism, sometimes just refusing to eat. Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are all very closely linked, something like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism; all coming from the same place, being different interpretations of the same basic beliefs. That's my take, anyway, and now I'm rambling. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Veganism is indirectly implied by the requirement that Hindus should only eat satvic foods. Since cows are not treated to Hindu standards in western society, most if not all dairy products are unsuitable for Hindus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satvic Modern days Hindus, like myself, have incorporated veganism as an extension of the philosophy of ahinsa (non-violence).

Vitamin B12

I have removed the sentence "It must be pointed out that vitamin B12, in a form usable by humans, only occurs in animals." which was added today. Since B12 is available in fortified foods and in (vegan) tablet form, the statement clearly is not true. It would be more accurate to say that plants do not contain B12, but in my view the article already made this clear.--Michig 12:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is untrue that B12 only occurs in animals. It is found (unreliably) on organicaly grown vegetables, where it is produced by bacteria. These bacteria are also the source of commercial B12. Vitamin B12 article. I also read somewhere that Granny-Smith apples contain B12 (german research) --Mig77^(t) 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read, plants themselves don't contain B12, but it can be found in traces in the dirt that may still be left on some vegetables if they are not washed too thoroughly. Either way, the statement that was added today (and has now been re-added) is wrong and should be removed.--Michig 15:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the statement since it is wrong, and directed the user to this page. Kellen ^T 17:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Since B12 is available in fortified foods and in (vegan) tablet form." Um, where exactly are you thinking that B12 is coming from? It's either coming from animal products, or human feces, both of which aren't vegan. Bacteria are not plants. - MSTCrow 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your (MSTCrow) original argument was that B12 only occurs in animals. Since you are now arguing that bacteria are not plants (duh) (I notice that you altered your previous comment on this page), does this mean that you now admit that you were wrong? Or are you just trolling?--Michig 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice you are a newer user. You might want to take a look at the Wikipedia Policy regarding personal attacks and general civility. - MSTCrow 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The commercial source for the B12 found in vegetarian supplements, fortified foods, etc is bacteria. Consuming bacteria or the product of bacteria is not a concern for vegans.

Streptomyces griseus, a bacterium once thought to be a yeast, was the commercial source of vitamin B12 for many years.8,9 The bacteria Propionibacterium shermanii and Pseudomonas denitrificans have now replaced S. griseus.10 At least one company, Rhone Poulenc Biochimie of France, is using a genetically engineered microorganism to produce B12.11 [8]

Kellen ^T 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that the statement "vitamin B12, in a form usable by humans, only occurs in animals" is false, and seriously misleading (it suggests that being truly vegan is impossible). Perhaps there is a misconception here that bacteria, if they are not plants, are necessarily animals. Actually, bacteria are neither plants nor animals. David Olivier 07:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section stating that B-12 is synthesized in the colons of humans and other animals. While it is true, it is misleading in the extreme. We can dispense with the "other animals", as it is not pertinant to the discussion (unless vegans will eat cow poo ;). As for humans, yes, bacteria in the colon do produce B12, which then goes in the toilet -- your body does NOT absorb any of it. One study had vegans consuming capsules containing the B12 extracted from their own stools, which worked, but is, in my POV, quite gross. I'm guessing they were college students... :) Mdbrownmsw 17:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Studies suggest and or found and shown?

Hello Skinwalker, do you have a cite for your claim? Countless studies refer to findings using both "found, suggest and show".show,shown,shown,found,found,suggest and found. Even this: Thousands of scientific studies document this. The Dr. is not referring to comparison study, interesting language.--Scribner 00:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Equating correlation with causation is a common logical fallacy, unfortunately even in scientific papers. Also, some of the papers you cite (the penguin one especially) are not correlational, but tie specific microDNA patterns with microevolution in penguins. As for a cite, I'd start here. Correlational studies are useful in suggesting further avenues of research, but are not conclusive in demonstrating causation.

As a compromise, I suggest we use the language "strongly suggest" or "strongly correlate" (since the study DOES suggest a statistically strong correlation). Language like "proves" or "overwhelmingly shows" is inapplicable to correlational studies since it implies a causal relationship and therefore misrepresents the study in question. Cheers, Skinwalker 03:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for advising the compromise and making the edit. Cheers,--Scribner 03:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Health criticism section

Tagged "disputed" because of the three claims in the first paragragh I read were pov, all three claims are false. I haven't checked the entire section, yet. I checked this paragragh at random. Don't remove the tag until a check is done. Here's the paragraph:

"Related studies note 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.[37] Critics also point to studies which show that a Vegetarian diet is linked to genital defects.[38] They also cite that a vegan diet carries an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke.[39]"

Two sentences are lies, one, the last is ridiculous misrepresentation.--Scribner 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph (checking cites), this section is not factual, is pov and contradicts itself.--Scribner 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

I don't recall when the last time I was on this article was, but god damn folks, what happened? The article at least used to look half-way decent. Now it's so filled with tags and prose (unwikified, unsourced pov nonsense) that I don't know what they hell's been going on. The hell of it all is, most of the text in the top half seems to be precisely the same. I don't mean to just complain, but I don't want to get myself too-far into this article again. Nothing good came out of it last time was. That said, is there anything small that I can do to help? Give me a message if y'all ever need an outside voice on it; I know how helpful that can be sometimes. Two-three people get so wrapped up in arguing over an article, they forget everything else, and that's no good. It almost seems like this article could be better if it were entirely re-written, from the ground-up. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Length; Nutrition

It looks to me like the two big problems with length are the Nutrition section (which is more sepcific than the main article Vegan nutrition, and two widely-unsourced & unwikified sections, Criticism & Controversy and "Levels of Adherance". Both of these sections at least need to be organized better.

I'm off for tonight, but I'd suggest moving the bulk (meaning all of the subsections) of the Vegan Nutrition section over to their main article, and having at most a one-sentence mention of each vitamin/mineral/chemical/whatever. What do others thing of the nutrition plan? File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts.--Scribner 16:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already moved the nutrition section as it has been talked about for a long time. It will need some merging on Vegan nutrition. Go help. Kellen ^T 17:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kudos, Kellen! I'm sorry for coming off like that; I haven't bothered to read any of the talk, as I've had bad experiences arguing over this article time and time again. I will now, though, as I think I might end up getting more involved in the article again. I remember you coming in as quite a sound editor, just before I left this article; I'm glad to see you're still here. I'll try to help out at the Vegan nutrition article, though I must admit I don't know much about it. My health has stayed quite good without paying attention close attention to nutrition. Anyway, this is getting off-topic.

I didn't check the edit history, but a great thank you goes out to whoever implemented these ideas! File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Last line in the study

"In conclusion, an inhibitory effect of SAH on whole-genome methylation was found, but from our data no interaction between vegetarian lifestyle and DNA methylation could be determined.

This is another B12 deficiency study. The study does NOT support the section, not at all.--Scribner 16:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops; you're correct. The section quotes the hypothesis of the researchers in a way that makes it sound like it is their conclusion. Their conclusion is actually ... inconclusive. I'll remove the section as it is unsupported. Kellen ^T 17:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What Dr. Fuhrman said:

OK, Idleguy, you cherry-picked this: "low-fat vegan diet is the increased risk of hemorrhagic (vessel rupture leading to bleeding) stroke."

• NOTE: Here's the whole paragraph:

"Although a low-saturated-fat vegan diet may markedly reduce risk for coronary heart disease, diabetes, and many common cancers, the real Achilles heel of the low-fat vegan diet is the increased risk of hemorrhagic (vessel rupture leading to bleeding) stroke. Apparently the atherosclerotic (plaque building) process that creates a local vascular environment favorable to coronary thrombosis (clot) and intravascular embolism (traveling clot) may be protecting the fragile blood vessels in the brain from rupture under years of stress from high blood pressure. Admittedly, hemorrhagic stroke is a very small percentage of the deaths in modern countries. It still is worth noting that if strict vegetarians are to have the potential to maximize their lifespan, it is even more important they avoid a high salt intake because salt intake increases blood pressure. Almost all of the soy based meat analogues and many other health food store (vegan) products are exceptionally high in sodium."[9]

• Dr. Fuhrman is saying, watch your sodium intake, right?--Scribner 05:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you read sources twice before jumping to underline statements that are aimed to resolve the problem? "the real Achilles heel of the low-fat vegan diet is the increased risk of hemorrhagic (vessel rupture leading to bleeding) stroke." Does that make it clear? The issue first, then the cure. You jumped into the cure stating low salt intake before learning the problem. Not dissimilar to someone mentioning the prognosis before the diagnosis.

Additionally large swathes of information related to difficulty section have been pruned (probably to keep things short) but it now reveals a half baked difficulty section even though much of what originally existed a couple of days back were properly sourced or cited (internal links with sources in Wikipedia articles). If the bulk of it isn't restored here, then atleast a new article for the statements must be created. Simply deleting information that doesn't suit one person isn't the way to go about it. Idleguy 06:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is about sodium in the Vegan diet, specifically Vegan products. The author is warning Vegans to watch their sodium intake, and he explains why. A compromise is to include the truth.--Scribner 07:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Does truth involve deleting sourced statements and calling them as pov. btw, look at Wikipedia:Verifiability official policy. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Given that the source states that high sodium diet (as in soy porotien) etc. and "less animal products" is associated hemorrhagic stroke, it was not right to remove them outright. Idleguy 07:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Soy protein has zero sodium. Regarding the edits that were false, take it to medcab. FYI, your "study" doesn't exsist, it's one doctor's claim.--Scribner 08:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Idleguy, another Wikipedia policy talks about Good Faith. That means that we, as editors, should contirbute to Wikipedia in Good Faith. I consider that to mean, among other things, not including information which we know to be false, even if we can provide a link to someone telling the lie. I'm not saying that your information is neccessarily wrong, because I haven't read it. This is just a friendly reminder. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Soy protein was just an example given by me; it's not in the citation which merely mentions soy based foods. I've reworded to Dr. Fuhrman who gave that statement. It was introduced in good faith btw. The source is reliable. Infact Scribner has gone and deleted ifnormation on genital defects hosted on the BBC! Idleguy 08:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy recognizes that there is rarely 100% consensus on a given topic, and expects editors to go with the nearly-universal expert view about a position when one exists. In cases where a minority view has sufficient expert proponents it can be presented as well, **as a minority view**. It is certainly a mistake to fail to qualify it as such. Fuhrman's opinion about vegan diets leading to stroke is just that -- opinion. He cites no source. One doctor's opinion is insufficient to merit inclusion in an article. If his opinion is shared by many other experts, then certainly those positions will be easy to find and then we report that scientific consensus as such. But if such support does not exist, then Fuhrman's lone opinion has no place in this article. As such I will remove it. I will examine the pesticide claim as well, applying the same standard, and may remove it too for the same reason. -MichaelBluejay 09:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice that Fuhrman is using that site to sell his books. Do we have a policy regarding commercial sources? File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 04:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources violate WP:RS, here. He may meet the except to the rule, but it's still a sodium issue, as with any diet.--Scribner 06:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Now I've read through the paragraph. I completely agree it is a sodium issue; This is a misquote/misleading quote, taken out of context. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 09:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He's saying "watch your sodium intake" because as a vegan/vegetarian you've created an environment in your body where an increased sodium intake can do more damage (than if you have plaque buildup in your blood vessels, which provides greater protection against high blood pressure). This is a valid thing to note. Kellen ^T 11:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct. As I said: "The paragraph is about sodium in the Vegan diet, specifically Vegan products. The author is warning Vegans to watch their sodium intake, and he explains why. A compromise is to include the truth."--Scribner 02:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethical criticism

Some scientists dispute the assumption that a vegan lifestyle prevents unnecessary death of animals. Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, claims that the number of wild animals killed in crop production is greater than those killed in ruminant-pasture production.[29] Gaverick Matheny wrote a rebuttal in which he claims that Davis' reasoning contains several major flaws, including the notion that vegans generally eat at a lower trophic level.

Davis does not seem to be disputing that vegan lifestyles prevents unnecessary death of animals. Maybe this wording is just misleading. To me, it looks more like Davis is saying that even though Dietary Veganism may lead toward the prevention of some death, it does not address the fact that industrialized crop production kills animals and insects as well. What do you all think?

According to one scientist of the US Agricultural Research Service, it is "unethical" to put children on a vegan diet in some cases since it could harm their development.[31] Later, the same scientist added that "vegan diets were unethical unless those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods."

Is it really neccessary to have two different quotes? It looks like the first quote is half of a thought, and the second quote is a full thought. Could we not rephrase it to be:

According to one scientist of the US Agricultural Research Service, "vegan diets were unethical unless those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods."

I don't have the page in front of me, but something along those lines. What do you all think? File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Davis is asserting that a vegan diet leads to more unnecessary death than a nonvegan diet insofar as it primarily relies upon industrialized agriculture. You can read the article [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972951/posts here] (on FreeRepublic, so beware the trolling and idiocy). As for your second point; yeah we should combine those bits -- the scientist in question specified that he originally made a statement with the whole "unless" clause, but that it was left out by a sensationalist reporter. Kellen ^T 10:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. That makes more sense, even if I don't agree that Veganism must rely on industrial agrciulture. One step closer to understanding these citations, File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we really be citing something from that site? All those comments at the bottom make the thing sound like a joke. It looks like a blog. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

FR is a well known "conservative" blog/news/community site. No, we probably shouldn't link there. Kellen ^T 11:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

birth defects issue

I would like to bring this to everyone's attention. User:Scribner is accusing me for mentioning his name in the edit summary. My edit summary was "rm tag inserted by Scribner. See Wikipedia:Disputed statement. sourced statements citing studies aren't dubious." I hardly find any personal attacks there. If using one's username in edit summary if it is considered as personal attacks then any summaries like "rv edits by User:xyz to version by User:123" would also be considered as an attack.

I merely used his username since I wanted to point out the editor who added that tag. Further I have gone and added another journal as a source for the genital/birth defect issue. I find that the said user is taking this personally and trying to start a personal attack for edits. If the "Dr. Fuhrman" issue is controversial, I have no issues that until a few others have a source on the link between haemmorhage and vegetarianims is proved, it need not be readded. But to brand someone as "by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic." is a blatant attempt to humiliate someone. Idleguy 07:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears first the user contacts me to "warn" about launching personal attacks when it is clear from edit summaries i haven't. Then when i reply in the user's talk page, hinting that his comments aren't civil, he deletes the messages, then asks me not to respond in his talk page and to keep all communication in the article talk page. Then, why bother coming to my talk page in the first place? If he didn't wish to initiate a dialogue via user talk pages, the user should have come here first, instead of my talk page. Idleguy 08:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Idleguy, it appears that you are developing personal issues with Scribner that need to be worked out. If you would like, I will volunteer my services as a mediator, and we can talk about any personal issues on another page. I would be happy to create a subpage in my own userspace, perhaps at User talk:Canaen/Conflict resolution/Idleguy-Scribner. Otherwise, I trust that you and scribner can work your problems out on your own, or through another source. In either case, this is not the place to voice whatever your concerns over Scribner may be. Please cease these comments, as they are neither contructive to the article, or conducive to fostering good faith. Thanks, File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Scribner is misusing the dubious tag. The fact of the matter is that you have cited two different sources for the statement. If he wants to propose another, clearer wording, he may, but the statement as you wrote it was correct. Kellen ^T 11:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A well cited study presented in a false or misleading manner is dubious. The "...haemmorhage and vegetarianims...[sic]" was neither a study, nor was it correct as a stand alone comment. That's history.

I also tagged this study with a "dubious" tag. An editor misread the study and posted exactly what the study disproved, that a Vagan diet causes cancer and heart disease. That's a large error, I should have deleted it on sight, to hell with a dubious tag.--Scribner 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pesticides, Chemicals, Industrial Agriculture

Hi everyone. I think that we should be very clear about claims we make, and qualify all of them. Let's get one thing clear: A Vegetable is indeed vegetarian, but it is nto a specifically vegetarian food. Most humans, being omnivores, eat vegetables. When we make claims about vegetables grown as part of modern industrial agriculture which makes use of pesticides, we should be clear that we are talking about vegetables which are grown with modern industrial agricultural techniques including the use of pesticides and other chemicals.

Omnivores consume the same fruit and vegetables, and suffer from the same health concerns. The problem here is with spraying pesticides on the crop, not with vegetarianism. For example:

A study has shown that boys born to vegetarian mothers were more likely to suffer from a specific genital defect, called hypospadias. The study implicates Pesticide residue or possibly naturally occurring chemicals called phytoestrogens, found in vegetarian foods, especially soya as the cause.

Here, the point is that pesticide residue and phytoestrogens can be dangerous if consumed in large amounts. If we insist on using this source, perhaps we could say:

A study has shown that, when mothers consume large amounts of pesticide residue and/or phytoestrogens may be more likely to have children with a specific genital defect, called hypospadias. Phytoestrogens are commonly found in soya, which is commonly found in meat analogs such as tofu.

If not that exact wording, that idea. The point of the BBC article, is:

They believe that a vegetarian diet alone is unlikely to cause hypospadias. But they think vegetarians are probably eating more of something that is to blame - soya is a suspect.[10]

The entire Criticisms & controversy section is riddled with misleading facts like this, impropperly qualified, if at all, and quotes taken out of context. I fear I shall have to go through each one individually. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Health & Quoting sources

All of the health claims made in the criticism section, such as:

The US Food and Drug Administration in its report states that vegetarian women of childbearing age have an increased chance of menstrual irregularities, and that vegetarians are the risk of not consuming enough micronutrients like copper, iron and zinc in their diet.

should be qualified, to make clear that the risk factor only comes into play when said vegetarian women do not obtain adequate nutrients. Otherwise, we are being misleading, and doing readers a disservice. And if we are going to make many claims like this, we must qualify every one. Otherwise we run the risk of misquoting, and misleading. When we quote sources, we must be sure to preserve the context which the quote was originally in. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Africa Study

I'm questioning a source here, again. The National Cattleman's Beef Association's sponsored African study, referenced in the Health crticisms section. Should we really be presenting information from such an obviously partisan organization? Granted they didn't conduct the study themselves, but they were a major financial backer, and influenced the results. Excuse me for questioning aspects of the article more than I am actively contributing to it. I just don't usually see articles with this much criticism. I think that Wikipedia articles are meant to present a neutral view of an article, not volleys back and forth. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Another B12 study. Slam dunk for the beef industry. The dairy industry is guilty too.--Scribner 08:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, indeed. I just feel guilty, as an editor at Wikipedia, spreading the claims made by such a dubious source. I mean, what they're saying is that starving African children, when fed adequate amounts of food, show signs of improvement in their health. To present that as saying that Meat & Dairy improve health is absolutely ludicrous and unscientific. It just makes our article look bad, even if we do counter the claim with further counter-criticism. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, this is a well-known, well-publicised study. The author works for the UC Davis and the Agricultural Research Service, part of US Department of Agriculture. That the study was partially funded by the Cattleman's association is fine to mention, but the research is fine. Kellen ^T 11:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's well-known, and well-publicised. Hell, I've heard about it (though that doesn't make the research fine in my book, I won't press the matter). I just don't really see how relevent it is to Veganism. From what I've read about it, they basically took starving african children living in a rural community, and started feeding them large amounts of food. I haven't read the actual study itself, though. Just secondary sources on it. But if they're accurate, then this criticism would be much better as a criticism of starvation, or malnourishment. Have you read the study, or could you give more insight?File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant (a) because it's a B12 study and vegans are notoriously low in B12, (b) the author made vegan-specific criticisms which (c) vegans and vegan organizations publicly criticised. We're here to represent the views surrounding veganism, not judge validity of the research itself. Kellen ^T 10:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources policy: Self-published articles

Reposted from Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-publishedsources

Policy

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously.

However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

Reports by anonymous individuals, or those without a track record of publication to judge their reliability, do not warrant citation at all, until such time as it is clear that the report has gained cachet, in which case it can be noted as a POV.

Analysis and application

I believe we may have many references which should not be in the article. I have not read through all of our 40-50-some-odd references. I have seen a few. I'd like to hear what others have to say. The following may not be reliable sources, based on the above policy.

• The Davis least-harm-principle interpretation
• The Fuhrman quotes; this may already be taken care of
• ^ Robert I-San Lin. Nutritional Requirements of Vegetarians. Retrieved on 2006-10-31.

The Davis criticism is interesting and valid and widely cited (as in the Time article in the introduction). The stuff relating to Fuhrman is still applicable in my opinion -- the guy's a nutritionist FFS -- but the wording should probably describe the situation more thoroughly . As for I-San Lin; I'm indifferent to the actual source but the sentence the citation supports could use some better citations. Kellen ^T 11:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In theory or in practice?

This post is only to resolve a confusion in the lead para and not to be mistaken as singling out/attacking anyone. In this edit, User:Kellen` removed "almost all" stating that in theory they commit to abstaining from all of them. But the article line begins with "In practice, a vegan..." So if the abstention is in theory, the the article ought to reflect that, or if it is in practice, then "almost all" should be readded. Idleguy 12:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, you're right about that being confusing and I hadn't considered the "in practice" clause at the beginning. The "in practice" clause, to my mind, refers to the "practice" of the "philosophy and lifestyle" of veganism; commiting to abstain from all animal products. Where the (semantic) problem comes in is that one could read "practice" as "realistic ability to adhere to the philosophy" in which case your addition of "almost all" make sense. I think every vegan implicitly or explicitly accepts that they can't do away 100% with animal products (since many ingredients in many, many things are unlabelled, ingredients have multiple sources, etc), but the point of the sentence is to establish how adherence to the philosophy of veganism manifests in real life; that is attempted avoidance of all animal products. All that said, perhaps there is a better way to phrase the intro that avoids both of these problems: removing the "in practice" bit. This information is included later in the Definition section; the UKVS definition basically spells out what you are trying to express. Kellen ^T 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That is, the "theory" is "live without harm to animals", the "practice" is avoiding animal products. Convoluted! Kellen ^T 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually added in that "in practice" bit, because of a similar argument awhile back. It boils down to the philosophy and belief that we should be without animal exploitation, and the practice which is that we avoid animal products. Most Vegans, from a western-centric view, don't go as far as Jains, many of whom wear masks so as not to inhale micro-organisms, sweep the ground in front of them before taking a step so as not to crush anything, and some ever starve themselves to death (though this is quite rare), to avoid consuming because they see so much wrong in just living and consuming. Most vegans, to retain their sanity and their comfy lifestyles, draw a line at what they consume; what they buy at the grocery store. That's sort of what the in-practice part refers to. Others do go further, but that's not the main body of Veganism. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Idleguy, the problem with adding "almost all" is that Vegans do not attempt to avoid "almost all" products of animal exploitation. The point of veganism (excluding the health nut reasons) is to stop contributing to industries which exploit animals, and to attempt to bring those industries and practices to a hault. The point is not to come close to stopping animal exploitation. Maybe you could add a line in the criticism section, mentioning that very few vegans stop contributing to animal exploitation entirely, or that very few vegans use absolutely no animal products. However, it remains that the point of veganism, which is what should be presented in the introduction, is to achieve the goal of doing away with animal exploitation, not simply coming close. "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades," so they say. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Should I attempt to rectify the ambiguity of the sentence by removing "in practice" or are there better suggestions for phrasing? Kellen ^T 16:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Food Standards Agency Report

User:Mdbrownmsw and I appear to be reading the same information in totally different ways.

My version:

Also in 2002, the UK Food Standards Agency reported that 5% of respondents self-identified as vegetarian or vegan. Of that 5%, 29% said they avoided "all animal products."<ref name="Food Standards Agency"/>

Mdbrownmsw's:

Also in 2002, the UK Food Standards Agency reported that 5% of respondents self-identified as vegetarian or vegan. Though 29% of that 5% said they avoided "all animal products" only 5% reported avoiding dairy. Based on these figures, approximately 0.25% or less of the UK population follow a vegan diet.<ref name="Food Standards Agency">{{cite web| url = http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/ndnsprintedreport.pdf| title = National Diet and Nutrition Survey| accessdate = 2006-11-06| work = Food Standards Agency}}</ref> <!-- See page 23, 95% said they ate dairy, so, at most, 5% of 5% (0.25%) are vegans. -->

Besides the fact that he has introduced a second citaiton which appears earlier in the article, I assert that he is incorrectly reading the data. Page 23 of the report has a table with the following:

Table 2.9: Types of food avoided by respondents who said they were vegetarian or vegan

Those who said they were vegetarian or vegan	Percentages
Types of food avoided	all
Red meat	100
White meat	92
Fish	48
Eggs	21
Milk	5
Other dairy products (e.g. butter/cheese)	10
All animal products	29
Other	7
Base, number of vegetarian or vegan respondents*	106

Note: * Percentages add to more than 100 as some respondents reported avoiding more than one type of food.

Mdbrownmsw's edits reflect (I think) a reading of this table as saying "only 5 percent avoided milk" and therefore "95 percent are not vegan." I believe he has mis-read the data to be exclusive when it is actually inclusive, and provides no additional information about those not explicitly included in each group. That is; some of the 29 percent who marked that they "avoid all animal products" may also have marked that they avoid red and white meat, eggs, dairy, etc or they might have only marked that they avoided all animal products.

I would like some other readings of this data since it makes a significant difference in the possible percentage of vegans. Kellen ^T 13:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your version also includes this:

Based on these figures, approximately 1.45% or less of the UK population follow a vegan diet.

In order for your reading to make sense, the 29% reporting that they avoid "all animal products" must be skipping the milk, other dairy, and eggs when told to select all that apply. In other words, you believe that at least 24 of 29 (over 80%) of the purported vegans reported avoiding red meat, but felt that reporting avoiding "all animal products" meant they did not need to report avoiding milk. You believe a significant number did this for all three categories, but NONE made this mistake for red meat.

My reading requires that they interpret "all animal products" to mean all food made from animals.

Your reading has a monumental difference in the % of vegetarians who are vegans in the UK vs the US 29% vs 5%.

My reading says its about 5% in both countries.

Mdbrownmsw 14:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another FSA source, says there are 3.5 million vegetarians and 0.25 million vegans in the UK. This gives us a figure of roughly 6.6% of vegetarians being vegans (0.25/3.75) -- much closed to 5% than 29%.

Mdbrownmsw 14:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went and read the survey given, and you are right that it says to "code all that apply." How do we account for the 29% of people that coded that they avoided "all animal products"? Ignorant vegetarians? Kellen ^T 14:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, vague wording. The 29%, I guess, had a different understanding of "animal products".

Mdbrownmsw 01:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Carl Lewis and Veganism

I went through the cite given, i.e. this one. He actually says he went vegan in 1990 and not prior to the world record breaking Olympics in 1988 seoul. and his "best year" came as he says later in the article 1991. Maybe he personally thought it was his best year but actually he had performed better in 84 and 88 olympics when he wasn't vegan, atleast not according to what he says. And there have also been accusations of his drug abuse. See Carl_Lewis#Drug_accusations so comparing him with Ben Jonson is also pointless. So i've reworded it to what is actually in the source. Idleguy 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well there are a few points that are unclear with regards to Carl Lewis, but the statement that he had his best year after becoming vegan is backed up by his performances in 1991, for example, his best 100 m time was 9.86 s and his best long jump was 8.87 m, w 8.91 m, both in 1991 after becoming vegan. So the 1988 Olympic final was not his best performance. Ben Johnson was also striped of his win in that race, Lewis has never been striped of any medals as it was fairly clear he had simply taken a normal over the counter remedy. It is relevant to mention Johnson as Lewis was the fastest man in the world after Johnson was found to have been cheating. The article on him calls 1991 his best year, so it seems this is generally considered fact not simply how Lewis 'feels'. - Solar 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Eco-Eating

Since the link apparently is considered spam, here are more for cleanup, if anyone is so inclined: Linksearch: *.brook.com/veg/ --Femto 11:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC), Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

Thanks, I've removed them. Kellen ^T 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Famous Vegans

Wouldn't it make sense to consolidate the bare-bones "List of Vegans" article into this main page and re-title the section "Famous Vegans" or "Notable Vegans"? I realize space is a consideration, but a list of notable adherents is usually pretty standard on pages dealing with a particular philosophy or lifestyle. Atlantawiki 01:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Supplements

I have added a source (Vegan Society) for the statement that supplements are recommended for vegans. I removed the section stating that supplements are recommended for everyone, vegan and non-vegan alike, because the source cited did not state that IN RELATION TO VEGANS. Per WP:OR "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say". Mdbrownmsw 15:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction tag removed

to Mdbrownmsw: i removed the contradiction tag for a couple of reasons:

1. there was no explanation on the talk page (here) explaining the nature of the contradiciton with Vegan nutrition. without at least some indication of where you find the contradiction to be, how can wikipedians fix it? if you feel the need to re-insert the contradiction tag, please be specific on the nature of the problem. or, better yet, fix it!
2. the whole vegan nutrition page is a mess to begin with! i wouldn't be surprised if it contradicted itself!

thanks! frymaster 07:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ischemic heart disease

I have removed the following: "The evidence is overwhelming that vegetarians have lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease, and that non-meat eating reduces all-cause mortality by 50%.[20]"

Actually, the source cited (which is not "overwhelming evidence", nor does it claim such evidence exists) says, in reviewing previous results:

"it was suggested that the exclusion of meat from the diet might result in a 15–25% reduction in risk for ischemic heart disease."

Then, it's study results: "These large reductions in the apparent effect of diet group may be because the healthy volunteer effect was more pronounced in the vegetarian subjects, who were likely to have been more strongly motivated and, therefore, generally healthier than the nonvegetarian subjects at recruitment. It is also likely that there was some crossover among diet groups during the first 5 y of the study, which would dilute the apparent benefits of a meatless diet."

Finally, this article is about veganism, not vegetarianism. The study found NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER accross several mortality rates for fish eaters, who are, of course, not vegans. Mdbrownmsw 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Great Article

This article is great. It perfectly sums up what vegans stand for and the downsides to this lifestyle choice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vegen8tor (talk • contribs) 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

template for deletion

Editors may be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 8#Template:Pet Species. Please keep the discussion to the encyclopedic merits of the template, not ideology. — coelacan talk — 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

UN report on livestock & environment

This report from the UN might be of interest here, as well as at Environmental vegetarianism. It's about the UN's conclusions on the environmental impact of livestock. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 02:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation templates

I'd like to encourage the regular editors of this page to please always use an appropriate citation template when adding references. This is usually {{cite journal}} or {{cite web}}. Most of the article is properly cited in this fashion and it would be nice (structurally, visually and functionally) to have it consistent. Kellen ^T 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Levels

I was looking for more information on the different levels of veganism, I was wondering if someone who knew about the subject could add a section on what each level means.JW 00:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there really levels? There's that joke from the Simpsons where a guy says he's a level five vegan - he doesn't eat anything that casts a shadow, but I don't think that joke is based in any real levels of being vegan. The only think I'm aware of is that some vegans are okay with eating honey, while others are not. The diet is fairly straightforward. Sparsefarce 00:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole "levels" thing stems from what different Vegans know. Ideally, Veganism is the abstention from any and products of animal exploitation. Things like Meat, Milk, and Eggs are real obvious animal products, but things like Refined Cane Sugar, Condoms, and Molasses are quite a bit less obvious. It takes a level of experience (either through research or friends or whatever) to learn of those latter three and other more obscure animal products. As well, some Vegans do voluntarily eat things like Honey, and Refined Cane Sugar, conscious of the fact that they are products of animal exploitation, or possibly disagreeing as to whether all commercial animal products are also products of exploitation (i.e., whether or not getting Honey from Bees is cruel or not). File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 01:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a joke and does not deserve inclusion in the article. Kellen ^T 10:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"properly sourced criticism being removed"

Skinwalker, what criticism was removed? It looks like you just reverted a response to criticism. (Note that I'm not involved/invested in whatever's been going on in that section.) --Joehaer 05:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Skinwalker probably misunderstood the edit history, but ultimately the edit he made was correct in that it removed a unnecessary, poorly written, and uncited response. Kellen ^T 11:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

crit

further on that subject there doesn't seem to be much criticism of veganism in this page at all. just the ethical crit. portion and a few bits about how to avoid health problems. there are many more arguments against veganism that just a few paltry health concerns and some abstract ethical arguments. where the comprehensive criticism section that appears in almost every other article on these sorts of subjects? furthermore much of the information quoted in this article specifically refers to vegetarian diets, and does not necessarily carry over to a vegan diet. for example: vegetarian diets are linked to higher IQ, vegan diets however are linked to lower IQ. this fact is listed in the vegetarian article, but curiously omitted here. in short the article is poorly constructed and badly biased. its set up to say as few bad things about veganism as possible, as opposed to offering a balanced/objective look at the subject. 24.185.239.254 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think the article is lacking in criticism (I disagree), provide some sources to back this up. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Kellen ^T 20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on the vegetarian page linking veganism to low IQ test scores. Can 24.185.239.254 please provide a source for this alleged fact? Speaking purely from personal experience as a second generation vegan, I can say that I have never seen evidence of such a link between the diet and low IQ but would be very interested to see any research on the matter. - Hyperflux 12:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the original poster, although maybe for slightly different reasons. As someone who has no real view on the vegan lifestyle either way and was just reading out of interest, I got the impression that the article is very supportive of the notion. Not that this is a bad thing at all, but I can understand how it can be perceived as unbalanced. There is a large section that lists many many reasons why veganism is beneficial and I initially felt this was clearly not NPOV, until I noticed that the section is the 'Motivations' section, so of course it will be this way. However, this is not clear and is not mirrored by a 'Criticisms' section that most wiki articles have. IMO this is the source of the confusion. Just my 2 cents. 85.210.209.35 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's all very well to say that an article lacks criticism, but you have to take into account the possibility that certain subjects don't support the same amount of well cited, encyclopaedic criticism as others. I'm not saying that there's no more criticism to add to this article, but I am encouraging people to judge each case on it's on merits, rather than thinking along the lines of "This article has less criticism that some others, so it needs more!". Which I feel would be a mistake. Hyperflux 11:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is not much crtisism of Veganism because there are very few things negative associated to being Vegan. It is good for the environment and one's health. What is there to critisize?

The point about vegan IQ has now been removed as it was based on a study of 9 people, which is obviously not enough to make a scientific evaluation. - Solar 11:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cattlemen's study should be removed

Scientific studies about the vegan diet are welcome, but the section on the study funded by the American Cattlemen's Association is very misleading. If one had read the study or even the critical articles in the news about it (no, not the ones where the Beatle comments - he's not a scientist), one would find that the study is an almost comically biased ploy to promote beef consumption and make meat eaters feel better about themselves. The children in the study had diets consisting mainly of corn and some beans - hardly what someone who chooses a vegan diet would eat. Some groups received mince, others milk, and others oil - and some of these already malnourished children received nothing - to supplement the "diet", all with the same caloric value, but without the other nutrients in the meat. Supplemented soya mince could have been used and compared to the beef; instead, there was a gaping hole in the diets of the "meat-free" groups. This does not apply to veganism in any way. The only thing this study suggests is that when starving, malnourished children get ANY food with vitamins they aren't already getting, they are healthier. Well, duh.

Instead of trying to hold a candle to the vegan movement, we should be questioning the ethics of those who would use impoverished children as tools to promote food products. They withheld food from groups of children in this study - living people - knowing it would stunt their physical and mental growths and perhaps deny them much-needed opportunities in life. These people have no right to call vegans "unethical."

That said, I'm a new wikipedia user (and a very long-time reader), so I would rather the section be removed by a more experienced user, so as not to appear I am vandalizing. I would very much appreciate input on this. Noxic 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. The point has been brought up before. Vert et Noir^talk 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section after reading the talk page archives and seeing that the majority of users commenting feel it should be removed. I have, of course, left everything else in the section on B12, as they use neutral wording and make important points (b12 is not a vitamin to overlook). Noxic 21:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with mentioning the study, especially with the critique that was offered. I think anyone with a brain would realize that the study was clearly biased and extremely flawed. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 21:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If "anyone with a brain would realize that the study was clearly biased and extremely flawed", it doesn't belong in there. The b12 section already cites 2 studies that are specifically about B12. The Cattlemen's study was not even about B12, as non-control groups other than the mince group were not given B12 supplements. Noxic 22:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading the removed section, I would suggest replacing it. It is fairly well balanced, most of the questionable findings in the study are challenged and the section arguably promotes caution when planning to adopt a vegan diet, in order to avoid nutrient deficiencies. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I wont take any action myself, but I welcome any discussion here or on my talk page. - Hyperflux (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism for the sake of criticism looks childishly argumentative. The B12 factor is commonly cited by opponents of veganism as though it is an insurmountable challenge, when in actuality it can be dealt with using a simple, affordable vitamin which is available in just about any health or "natural foods store", and widely available online (even at amazon.com), where anyone with the ability to read wikipedia could order it. It is a small problem, easily fixed, and deserves an equally small and rationally constructed section. In fact, the importance of B12 is mentioned multiple times in the article aside from the section in question. I have even link-ified "vitamin b12" in this section again, so that anyone skipping down to the criticism may read the full article on the vitamin and learn of its importance himself.

Although opponents of veganism seem to thoroughly enjoy reciting "vegans need to supplement and watch their diets", we ought to remember that every major dietary association recommends multivitamins for the general public (and especially A and C vitamins), as the "normal" American and western diets are also tend to be lacking in certain vital nutrients. Should a critique of meat-eating on wikipedia feature a disproportionately large section on the pitfalls of vitamins often missing in the American diet? How many average Americans keep track of their Vitamins A and C intake? Potassium? How many of them count grams of Fiber? How about Vitamin K, Magnesium, Zinc, and Selenium - how many people know which foods contain rich amounts of these? How many know Molybdenum even exists? Yes, the red-blooded barbeque chef may be missing out on a few - or many - of these nutrients, but we have the modern miracle of the vitamin pill. When the problem is so easily fixed in the vegan diet through reasonable eating and supplementation, there's no real reason for making a huge fuss and waving around irrelevant child-experimentation data. Simple education on the importance of the vitamin will do.Noxic 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I agree. - Hyperflux (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to re-add the section because it was published by an author employed by a reputable institution; the study's backers were identified in our article; a reply to the study was offered by the BDA. Kellen ^T 17:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now done this. Kellen ^T 11:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Ethical Man

Saw this on Newsnight last week ethical man kills turkey as he believes people should see the animals they eat being killed. then goes on a month long vegan diet to find out what difference cutting animal products from his diet would make to "carbon footprint".

carbon-guru Professor Tim Jackson calculates that 18% of the carbon emissions created by the average diet are from meat and a further 10% are from dairy products. only counting carbon dioxide would be a woeful underestimate no-one has calculated the contribution methane and nitrous oxide emissions make to the climate cost of the food meaties eat. he it is safe to double the figure for carbon dioxide which means 60% of the global warming potential of the average diet is from animal products.

Just something interesting to chew over for Veganism meet daisy the cow Whackorobin 07:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your link refers to the recent UN report "Livestock's long shadow" which is cited in this article. Kellen ^T 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

One sided.

This is rather one sided. Just from reading the opening paragraph, it seems like everyone who is a vegan is automatically a card carrying PETA supporter. Vegan doesn't nessicerily mean someone who avoids animal products all together, although some might, just one who doesn't have any animal products *in their food*. Unless someone can support the original view, i'm going to change this -- feb^talk 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This topic has been well discussed, please view the achieve for the debate on whether Veganism is purely a diet or a wider philosophy, the Vegan Society for example don't agree with your definition, they define Veganism as "ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." Thanks - Solar 12:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This article, however, is not about what the Vegan Society thinks, it is about the term in general. At the very least, the use of it solely as a diet should be mentioned -- feb^talk 12:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you, then, find a source as reputable in the vegan community as the Vegan Society which defines vegans as people who remove animal products from their diet alone? The Vegan Society, as a group of vegans, make the most commonly agreed upon definition public. Your view that vegans may abstain from animal products in the area of diet alone is an opinion, and not one that is common in the vegan community. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Further - Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson, who created the word "vegan" would certainly not share the view that vegans may include animal products in areas other than diet. They created the word "vegan" after becoming frustrated that the definition of "vegetarian" had become too lax. And as a vegan myself, I am deeply opposed to the word "vegan" going the same way and becoming a looser term. By all means, dietary vegans may call themselves "dietary vegans" but they are not true adherents of veganism as a philosophy, as defined by it's adherents and it's founders. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 13:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it the Vegan Societies definition, but they invented the word. While the meaning of words change, when you invent a word your original meaning is going to carry a lot of weight. I have yet to see a reputable sight discuss the non-dietary use of animals as still being vegan. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 13:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that the definition of vegan should not be modified to include "dietary vegans" or other non-vegans (though I do applaud anybody who reduces their use of animal products). The intentions of those who coined the word are well-documented and used throughout the movement. But I would also like to point out that many vegans (including myself) would never join or support PETA (see Gary Francione's blog for details) -- Trent 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree 100% that "dietary veganism" should not be mentioned. Veganism is a way of life more than a "diet". The word "vegetarian", however, once meant something close to "dietary vegan" (with terms like ovo-lacto-vegetarian covering what vegetarian has come to mean). If anything, it should only be mentioned that someone who eats a vegan diet but contributes economically to animal husbandry through purchases of items like fur, leather, down, etc is a "vegetarian" in the traditional sense.

The word was invented with a specific group of people in mind because the def. of "vegetarian" was getting too lax. Even now, I see many people my age on dating/networking sites saying "I'm vegan but I eat dairy/sushi/whatever I want" and these myths need to end. Noxic 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This has all been discussed previously in the archives. While you or I might disagree that someone who calls themselves a "dietary vegan" has any claim to the word, it is used and therefore is encylopedic. Here's an example on the International Vegetarian Union webpage. Kellen ^T 12:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I seems to me that "dietary vegan" is a different term, the original point I replied to referred simply to "Veganism", which is more than a diet without qualifying words attached to it. So the definition of Vegan should not include other forms, that should be in a sub-section showing deviations from the original meaning and purpose of the word. - Solar 12:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 14:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a sentence about "dietary veganism" in the intro, but it appears to have been removed. This dealt with the issue right off the bat, and it did not need to be mentioned again. It doesn't need a whole section; just a short to the point definition of the term. Kellen ^T 16:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to make a seperate article for Dietary Veganism? Avoids debate over the meaning of the word, and still allows for info on just the food products and such. Would be easy to add a For the practice of exluding animals from food products only, see Dietary Veganism, although that line sounds slightly off -- feb^talk 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there's any need for a "Dietary Veganism" page. It would probably end up being little more than a dictionary entry with a link to the main veganism page. If anything, it should be mentioned here that people who abstain in the area of diet alone sometimes self-title themselves "dietary vegans" and leave it at that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyperflux (talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Not necessary. I am going to re-add the sentence about "dietary veganism" to the intro or definition section as appropriate to do away with this matter once again. Kellen ^T 10:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vegan IQ

I am rather reluctant to bring this issue up, but the issue of vegan IQ is misrepresented in the article. Vegans actually scored the lowest in the paper IQ in childhood and vegetarianism in adulthood: 1970 British cohort study. There are of course numerous problems with this study, firstly vegans were actually only 0.1% of the study sample, which in my view is far too low to get an accurate average, and secondly there are numerous problems with the cultural biasing of IQ tests. In my opinion it is unfortunate that many vegetarian groups feel it is useful to draw on this kind of study as a piece of propaganda. I will change the entry to reflect the issues with the sample size and the actual vegan IQ levels reported. - Solar 15:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire section about IQ scores should be removed, as the study was specifically about vegetarians, not vegans. And also, comments such as "Vegans were shown to have low IQ scores but vegans only made up 0.1% of the test group so this probably needs more research" do not belong in an encyclopaedia. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There were 8170 people included in the study. 0.1% suggests that there were only 8 vegans in the study. This isn't anywhere near enough to produce meaningful statistics, so it should be removed from the article.--Michig 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed, I did consider removing it but thought it might be better to clarify as this study has been quoted quite a bit, but as others think it should go I think that is best. - Solar 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked with the authors of the study and only 9 vegans were in the study, hardly enough to be scientifically relevant or be included in this article. - Solar 12:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This study shouldn't be included here. Kellen ^T 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Unshellaced fruits

I'm sorry, but the statement that "all unshellaced fruits are vegan" is untrue, and ridiculous. A fruit that had been covered with whale oil is no more vegan than a fruit covered in insect lac. Further, materials not made from insect lac, are often referred to as shellac, anyway, despite not fitting the exact definition of shellac. Can't we just have a picture of fruit and say "fruit is vegan?" Huh? this is ridiculous the way it is, and sound like something a non-vegan would say to try and convince people that vegans are obsessed with minutia and are petty.--Nomenclator 17:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll change it then.--Nomenclator 05:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Known As, or Is?

yes, veganism is sometimes described as strict vegetarianism. But that is NOT precisely what veganism is. The claim that it is is a popular myth, not a fact. To be accurate, an encyclopedia should tell us what something is not what something is known as. The later sentences in the article even acknowledge that veganism is much more than strict veganism. And that fact should be emphasised, not obscured. I propose we drop the part about "known as." And change the first sentence to something more like "Veganism is a philosophy and lifestyle that involves the avoidence of using animals and animal products for food, clothing and other purposes." In that sentence I've also fixed a grammatical problem of subject predicate agreement in number. Further down, we should add that "veganism is more than strict vegetarianism..." Do we want to tell the facts or do we simply want to propogate popular myths?

Also, adherent is too formal a word for someone who simply practices veganism. Yes, veganism has its adherents. But the word is still too formal. Beubg a vegan doesn't require any kind of announcement or proposal of adherence. So it has adherence to it, but saying it has adherents is too formal. The term should not be part of its definition.

I am going to persist on the subject of testing on animals, too. Find be a good citation for this being a fact, and I'll let it stay. Otherwise, I want it changed. --Nomenclator 13:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Veganism referred to as "strict vegetarianism": [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

In other places, strict vegetarianism is differentiated from veganism, but we can at least say that veganism is "sometimes" referred to as strict vegetarianism without any doubt. Kellen ^T 13:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The vegan society defines a criteria for something to be vegan [17]:

"NO ANIMAL TESTING

The development and/or manufacture of the product, and where applicable its ingredients, must not involve, or have involved, testing of any sort on animals conducted at the initiative of the manufacturer or on its behalf, or by parties over whom the manufacturer has effective control."

Kellen ^T 14:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

One could adhere to the philosophy of veganism without any contradiction (the philosophy itself need not have some dogmatic authority). However, the term "practices" is simpler and clearer, so I've changed it. Kellen ^T 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Item number 8 is not the definition of what is required about a product, for it to be used by vegan, but rather refers only to the stricter standard of what products may be licensed by them to be called vegan, by commerical enterprises. While you cannot get their approval to call your product vegan if it has been tested on animals, the definition of a vegan, and of what you are required to do to meet the definition, is on other pages, such as http://www.vegansociety.com/html/people/lifestyle/. In additon Vegan Outreach has spoken out against requirng such minutia of someone, ie, the avoidence of animal-tested products, in order to justifiably call themselves a vegan, and someone here has even pointed that out with a citation somewhere here.

Veganism referred to as "strict vegetarianism." Yes, it is not incorrect to describe veganism as strict vegetarianism, among other things, but it is not correct to put this in the first defining sentence. As to reference 2, that supports my position. It says "veganism can aslo be called strict vegetarianism." Emphasis mine. As an informal alternative description, lacking precision, that works fine. But it does not belong in the very first sentence, in the subject of that sentence. Rather it should be stressed that veganism is much more than strict vegetarianism, even tho popularly, informally, and without trying to be precise, people may truthfully describe it as strict vegetarianism. This is why I say vegans should be writing the article, not people who have an axe to grind against veganism. They report the popular mythology, instead of the facts. As does the general press.In any case, reference 2 does not say veganism is called strict vegetarianism, it says vegan diet is called strict vegetarianism.

Ref 3 doesn't support your contention either. It merely uses the phrase strict vegetarianism parenthetically. It does not purport to be defining veganism, merely reporting on the not-for-profit status of vegan outreach. We should not expect it to be exactly accurate as to such details. Go to the source, Vegan Outreach. Ref 3 I'm sorry but in order of primary meaning and secondary meaning, Merriam Webster has the definitions reversed. The American Heritage dictionary is more highly regarded than Webster's, and their definiion http://www.bartleby.com/61/32/V0043200.html is different. Even so, a better source is the Vegan Society, whose founder's coined the word, and the American Vegan Society.

Ref 5 fully supports MY contention. They say "Veganism is a way of life for some people, you can call it strict vegetarianism. The definition of vegan is simple. They will not eat or wear any animal product or use any product that is derived from or tested on animals."

You can call it strict vegetarianism. If you want. But that is not precisely what it is. Then they give the definition, which says "they will not use any product that is derived from or tested on animals." Emphasis mine. Despite the fact that they support my view on the issue of whether strict vegetarianism is a precise definition, they refute my view about testing. They clearly have made an error here. And they appear to be an individual, and not a citable group. Please site definitive sources, not sources comparing veganism to strict vegetarianism in passing. Again, it is not wrong or mistaken to say this. It just is not encyclopedic to put it in the first sentence and imply it is definitive. --Nomenclator 14:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one reason people equate veganism with diet is because for all practical purposes, changing your diet has more of an effect than anything else. The page http://shakahara.com/donreq2.html gives some statistics. If you just give up animal foods, you prevent much more suffering than if you give up fur, animals killed in animal shelters, and animals killed in research or testing laboratories - combined. By an order of 980 to 4. Fur is EASY to give up. Avoiding prescription medicines tested on animals -- that could easily harm humans. So almost all vegans, even if they themselves avoid tested products, are willing to accept people who buy products tested on animals, as being vegans, as long as they eat vegan and avoid fur. Almost all vegans are also willing to accept someone as being vegan, if they say, well, I'm a firefighter, and I need leather shoes to comply with company policy for fire retardence, or because I have an allergy to the synthetic leather used in water resistant shoes I need for winter wear. If someone wore a leather belt and said "I like the way it looks better" it would be hard for most any vegan to agree that they are vegan. Vegans have a bit of commonsense and tolerance even tho some non-vegans would like to characterize us as (added later) petty and obcessed with minutia. --Nomenclator 15:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This section is rather confusing to read. I wish people would use the indent feature properly, in order to create a properly flowing dialogue. Anyway, I have no problem with veganism being referred to as strict or pure vegetarianism. I have frequently encountered people who use those terms in order to explain veganism to non-vegetarians more easily. And after all, the word "vegetarian" originally meant what the word "vegan" means today, so, in a way, it's taking it back to it's roots. Nomenclator, I agree with you that not all vegans are 100% strict or anal about removing ALL animal products from their lives... But I'm sure you agree that pursuit of veganism would ideally lead one to a totally animal-free life, and I believe that "pure" vegans have to exist, in order to prove the viability of the animal-free lifestyle model. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was using the indent properly. Hyperflux wrote "I have frequently encountered people who use those terms in order to explain veganism to non-vegetarians more easily." That suggests that the terms are oversimplifications. Vegans are strict vegetarians, but they are much more than that. All vegans are strict vegetarians, but not all strict vegetarians are vegan. Period. That is why the terms should not be interchanged without further explanation. A vegan is a kind of strict vegetarian who 1. is a vegetarian for reasons of avoiding harm to animals (as opposed to primarily for his/her own better health or primarily for any other reason), and 2. Carries their avoidance of harm to animals to all aspects of their life, as far as they themselves evaluate as reasonably possible. Which brings us to the subject of "pure" vegans. Equating pure vegans with all vegans gives people the impression that we are obcessed with minutia. Indeed, this is a frequent characteristic of vegans, including myself. However it is not part of the definition of vegan. It also makes us seem petty. Frankly, I am trying to avoid being "penny wise and pound foolish" even though my natural tendency is to be penny wise and pound foolish - searching for every drop of gelatin, or inquiring of one manufacturer after another whether the stearic acid at the end of an ingredient list, is animal or vegetable in origin. It we spend so much time on details like this - which I admit I personally love to do, even tho I am improving in this regard and doing it less - we miss the big picture, and we have less time for presenting the big picture to others. For example if in the past I had worried about the fraction of a millimeter of gelatin covering my photographic film, I could not have shown dozens of people photos of my wonderful vegan garden, and impress them with how impressive it was. I tended to obsess about it, but I eventually made a decision for just myself, personally, that it wasn't worth obsessing about the few milligrams of gelatin, and that showing the pictures would do more good. That is not the same as saying I buy Jell-o - which I estimate contains 100 if not thousands of times as much gelatin as a roll of 35 mm film.--Nomenclator 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Veganism and Agricultural Efficiency

I think it's very important for this page to examine the environmental implications of vegan farming. I have been writing a personal examination of "Veganism and Agricultural Efficiency" which looks at aspects such as energy transference in food chains and land area required to support vegan diets compared to animal based diets, but it is currently nowhere near encyclopaedia standard.

I am especially interested in the food chain angle. The transference of energy from one level of a food chain to the next involves a 90% loss of energy, according to the ecological pyramid.

It makes far greater sense (in terms of logic, efficiency and productivity) for humans to be the primary consumer in their food chain than to massively reduce efficiency by adding cattle or other animals into the food chain and consequently become secondary consumers.

If anyone has any ideas on how to bring this angle to Wikipedia, I'd be happy to discuss it in detail.

Hyperflux 11:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw a lot of mention of that when researching world hunger last summer. Info on that isn't too hard to find, even in mainstream examinations of hunger issues. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 21:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

confusing details that don't belong in encylopedia article

I removed the section about some vegans avoiding toothpaste with calcium from bone sources and whatever. This are minutia that may be interest to vegans having a discussion with each other about exactly how far to go, in being vegan, but is not of interest to the general public and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. --Nomenclator 01:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Excess Soy

I removed the part about excess soy being harmful. It is totally irrelevant. Many vegans use very little soy. Some use absolutely none. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I replaced the soy content - soy is a very common ingredient in vegan cuisine. Can you provide a reputable source that states otherwise? Cheers, Skinwalker 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The section about the dangers of soy would be far better placed on the wiki page about soy itself, rather than on a page about a philosophy who's adherents may or may not eat it in quantities worthy of a warning. I support it's deletion from this page. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"soy is a very common ingredient in vegan cuisine"

There is no single "vegan cuisine." Vegans in different parts of the world often tend to eat what is available in their part of the world, and may have extremely different diets in various parts of the world.

Personally, I have been a vegan for 40 years, and only occasionally use soy ingredients. Probably whole years have gone by where I ate none. Not even soy oil.

Avoiding products tested on animals is NOT typical of most vegans. It seems we have some non-vegans here, who are doing their best to try and lump all vegans together with those vegans who go to certain extremes, in order to try and characterize all vegans as extremists. I say we hang 'em. And then eat their livers with fava beans and chianti.

Your edits are really not helping the article. It seems like you are using this "most vegans don't do X" argument as a straw man to eliminate properly sourced material that conflicts with your personal experience as a vegan. If you provide reliable sources that support your claims, we can talk, but your isolated anecdotes do not meet encyclopedic standards for a source for or against the inclusion of material in the article. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Soy is a very common ingredient used in Western vegan dishes. However, the highly processed forms of soy's proteins and fats, as well as GM soy, are more likely to be found in omni foods - in fact, it's hard to find any fast food or prepackaged item without highly processed (and probably low-quality) soy ingredients. I think that the "some people say soy is maybe sorta dangerous so veganism is invalid" argument is just grasping at straws, but a short mention and a link to the article on soy dangers shouldn't be a problem, provided it is also mentioned that soy products are in most processed omni foods anyway.

As far as the comment "Avoiding products tested on animals is NOT typical of most vegans", uh, yes, it is typical of every vegan I know. The vegans/vegetarians who make convenient exceptions, on the other hand, tend to be the ones who need something interesting to say about themselves on Myspace, until they tire of their newfound trend in a year or so. Then again, this is just my 10 years of experience, which I guess is not an encyclopedia-worthy source. Noxic

I am not sure that the soy entry is worth including either. As pointed out already, soy is prevalent in the typical Western omni diet, but it is in no way descriptive of the way all vegans eat. It was requested for a source showing that Skinwalker vegans don't necessarily eat a lot of soy... but shouldn't it be the other way around as well? There is no reliable source indicating the significant amounts of soy are eaten by vegans. The anti-soy argument seems to me to be a red herring -- if it is popular in both omnivorous and vegan diets, it is not a "special" warning for vegans, nor is there any proof that vegans consume more (or less) soy than omnivores. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs)

The Soy entry is just chaff. At worst, it exists in this article only to tar vegans as somehow defective. It belongs in a Soy article. Abe Froman 06:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the soy entry, skinwalker seemed to be the only person who thinks it's appropriate for this article. Soy is not a requirement of a vegan diet and therefore any issues with soy should be kept to a seperate soy article. Muleattack 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahimsa and Veganism

Sorry English is not my native language but I am trying my best to correct myths about veganism that are not true. I hope you will please correct my english but leave the facts that are true the way I said they are to be true.

I also like to note that The American Vegan Society was founded in 1960 and has been in continuous power since then and is the most important vegan org in the united states and probably in the whole all the americas. It has publishes a quarterly magazine, Ahimsa, for about 44 of those years that it is now renamed the American Vegan since the last few years. The connection between ahimsa in the east and veganism has been mentioned by writers such Albert Sweitzer and Leo Tolstoy.

Whiel Vegan Outreach has been very influential, it owes much to those that have gone before. Jay and Freya Dinshah and the American Vegan Society are really the founding parents of the vegan movement in the US. there is absolutely no doubt about that. The people at Vegan Outreach will themselves tell you that. --Tonguebutcher 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, tonguebutcher, that the article contains popular myths about veganism, rather than the facts. There appears to be a conspiracy to erase attempts at any changes, no matter how small, toward the facts. With regard to the 3-revert rule, if one person goes up against a group of 2, they one person has no chance, as the group of 2 can each do one revert for every 2 reverts done by the group of one. This is rule by the majority, rather than rule by the truth. The truth is the truth; the truth is not whatever the majority thinks is the truth. The 3-revert system does not work well.

I made 2 small changes, to the second sentence. Changed commits abstention to abstains. If you want to change it back to commits to abstention, I suggest you please cite a reputable source that says vegans commit to going vegan, rather than just do it, go vegan. I am not aware of any. Everything suggests the opposite. Many vegans just gradually change from ordinary vegetarianism, to veganism, without even giving it much thought, much less "committing" to veganism. I also corrected a gramattical error. In most cases, adhere takes the preposition to, not of. So does its noun (and adjective) derivative, adherant of.

--Nomenclator 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You have completed a useful edit. Good job. Kellen ^T 13:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vegan majority or vegan leadership: which defines the truth about veganism?

While veganism has always been an informal development, it has also always had a strong leadership. People are not adherants to what the leadership says. They are simply educated by the leadership, and perhaps also gently guided by the leadership. Thus, comes the question is a vegan what the majority of people who say they are vegan, is; or is a vegan what the leadership says veganism is; or is it somewhere inbetween. It is certainly not the first choice. Because many people who claim to be vegan, are clearly not. There are 1000's of people who say they don't use dairy or eggs - but in actuality really use them.

This goes to my claim that vegans only occasionally avoid products that are "tested on animals." My claim keeps getting erased, but without any citation to back it up. The fact is, while a few vegans eschew products tested on animals, the vegan leadership does not require that one do so, in order to define the person as a vegan. I have already cited the american vegan society re this. Yet my claim keeps getting reverted. Also my claim that veganism sprouts from ahimsa and eastern thought or owes a debt to eastern thought, keeps getting erased, despite the fact that I have provided citation for my claim, and there has been no citation for the obverse claim other than that Vegan Outreach better represents veganims than the Am erican Vegan Society. But they did not cite source for this claim, and I cited the much longer existence and history of publications of the Am Vegan Society. Even so, Vegan outreach does not say my claim is untrue. And vegan outreach acknowledges the work done by the Am VEgan Society.

I think we have a conspiracy here to promote popular myths about veganism, rather than the truth, about veganism. --Nomenclator 13:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You will do much better in convincing other editors of the superiority of your changes if you don't accuse them of particpating in a "conspiracy." The giant rants are not particularly helpful, either. Cite some reliable sources, discuss the appropriate changes with the other editors, then everything will be okay. Don't engage in a revert war, and assume good faith on the part of other editors. Kellen ^T 13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

All, most, many, or some

All, most, many, or some. At first it was claimed all. Now the article says most. In my opinion, unless you can cite specif reliable source that indicates that more than 50% avoid products that have been tested, it is best to say that "some" vegans avoid products that have been tested on animals. Indeed, some take veganism to this extreme. I might myself, if I had more time and money to spend on tedious research. But I don't think most do. I have heard many vegans say they simply can't afford the higher prices that are usually charged for products labeled as being not being tested on animals. And again, if you are going to eschew products that have been tested on animals, you are going to be eschewing most prescription drugs, and many non-prescription drugs, and all of the new drugs developed in the last 25 to 50 years, since which time governments have required testing, by law. This includes ibuprofen, humulin, Nexium, Lyrica, gabapentin, diphenhydramine, oxycodone (but not morhpine), hydrocodone (but not codeine), birth control pills, synthetic steroids (to relieve asthma, allergies), drugs used to relieve too much urine, too little urine, drugs used to relieve sore eyes, to control herpes, all antibiotics, drugs used to anesthesize people for surgery. Or are you going to avoid just cosmetics that have been tested on animals, but be willing to take prescription drugs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Every single vegan I know (and that's dozens) tries to eliminate using products that were tested on animals. Obviously this isn't always possible, especially in terms of medical drugs etc. However, many cosmetic/household products are marked as not having been tested on animals. (at least, this is the case in the UK) and every vegan I know chooses those over products that do not make such claims. As a vegan, I admit I have probably used products that were been tested on animals. However, it is my opinion that animal testing should be abolished, and I think that everyone calling themselves vegan should feel the same way. So I think the page should say "although vegans are against animal testing, most/many realise/feel that boycotting all animal tested products is currently impractical or impossible.". - Hyperflux ^(talk) 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest possibly replacing;

Most vegans refrain from supporting industries that use animals directly or indirectly, such as circuses and zoos, and will not use products that are tested on animals.

With something like;

Although vegans are against animal testing, some feel that boycotting all animal tested products is currently impractical or impossible, especially in medical areas, where many life-saving drugs are tested on animals. Vegans refrain from supporting industries that use animals directly, such as circuses and zoos.

- Hyperflux ^(talk) 20:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You will need some citation to back this up. Something from Vegan Outreach might fit the bill as they tend to be pragmatic. Kellen ^T 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vitamin A, Carotene and retinol

Please present a citation that shows that vegans are more susceptible to vitamin A deficiency, or remove the sentence or sentences that makes this claim. There is no support of this idea anywhere, as far as I know. It is mere speculation.

I am trying to bring this article out of the swamp of repetition of absurd rumors, and popular mythology. --Nomenclator 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the part about vegans being in danger of a vitamin A deficiency. The source cited for this, http://www.purifymind.com/NutritionalVege.htm, is not a reliable source. This is someone at a company, Nutrition International Company, perhaps selling vitamin supplements, not someone you would rely on to have a neutral point of view. Please find a peer-reviewed study if you want to return this claim. All the info I have seen shows that beta-carotene, the chemical most frequently found, and found in abundance, in plant material, is easily converted into retinol, except by a few people with rare metabolic disorders. Further, beta-carotene is in such huge abundance in yellow and green vegetables that anyone who eats even a fraction of the recommended number of servings is sure to get much more carotene than they need. Vegans tend to eat more vegetables than many non vegans. Also, once converted to retinol, retinol is stored for long periods of time, so you do not need to eat vegetables every day to get sufficient retinol into storage. That source was just ridiculous. In any case the article cited does not say that vegans are at risk of vit a deficiency. It says that "Some individuals with adequate intake of beta-carotene [emphasis mine] experienced vitamin A deficiency because consumption of insufficient amount of fat together with carotene-rich vegetables, and dietary deficiencies in iron and zinc. Thus, vegetarians are urged to consume dark colored leafy vegetables with some fat, also inactivated yeasts, spices, peas..." Vegetarians and vegans are likely to be consuming leafy greens, and fat. In re to leafy greens, more so than average.--Nomenclator 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Vitamin A, carotene, citation

Acc to Dr. William Harris, from The Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism, on the web here, http://www.vegsource.com/harris/sci_basis/CHAP1.pdf avail from page here http://www.vegsource.com/harris/book_contents.htm

"Beta-carotene is usually called pro-vitamin A and retinol is called "Vitamin A". I believe this is an error on the part of the nutritional establishment. Two molecules of retinol, an essential hormone-like metabolite required for skin, vision, and reproduction, are formed in the body by enzymatically splitting one molecule of beta-Carotene, a photosynthetic plant pigment interacting with chlorophyll and found in green leafy vegetables. This being so retinol fails the definition of vitamin. Beta-carotene should be called the true Vitamin A. It is synthesized only by plants. Retinol is synthesized only by animals, but there can be no retinol in the animal kingdom unless somewhere in the food chain there is an animal eating plant beta-Carotene.

--Nomenclator 17:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nomenclator, the article currently implies that vitamin A is only found in animal products. That is simply untrue. Palm oil, for example, is an excellent vegan source of vitamin A... There are plenty of vegan sources of vitamin A, as shown here -- [18] - Hyperflux ^(talk) 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me but that's not what I said.--Nomenclator 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is misleading and incorrect to say that retinol is the "true" form of vitamin a. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 13:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is controversial. It is better to avoid using the misleading term "vitamin" altogether and use organic micronutrient, co-enzyme. --Nomenclator 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is also incorrect to say that plants do not contain vitamin A, as the link I provided earlier explains. Retinol may be easier to absorb, but it's not "the true form" of vitamin A. The whole section about vitamin A is erroneous. I am going to remove it. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Again, which is the "true" form is more a matter of semantics, than fact. More a matter of ascription, than description. It is best to avoid the term vitamin. --Nomenclator 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the section said "despite consumption of such provitamin A rich foods there might be vitamin deficiencies", which is un-encyclopeadic. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 13:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) You are not making any sense. --Nomenclator 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the last reference to vitamin A on the page as [19][20][21] all note that needs can be met by plant foods. Kellen ^T 12:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reword of B12 study

"In a recent laboratory study, 60% of the strict vegan participants' B12 and iron levels were compromised, as compared with the lacto- or lacto-ovo-vegetarian participants (who were able to acquire vitamin B12 from these animal sources).[46]"

This sentence was missing to what the 60% was being compared. I've removed the "60%" it and the parenthetical comment. If someone has access to the article, perhaps they can fill out the values, but I wasn't able to find specific numbers in the abstract. Kellen ^T 12:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I put in a link to Nutritional Yeast, and now I can't find it. I know that my choice of words may have not been the best, but doesn't anyone think that with all this talk about B12 in the article, nutritional yeast should be mentioned at least once? When I read the article I felt that everything relating to B12 was so negative, and as a vegan I know how hard it is to get B12, so maybe it is negative, but I think there should at least be one positive link in there. Heck, maybe even adding in an external link would be good, to Red Star Nutritional Yeast Vegetarian Support Formula...

Yes, it does say in the internal yeast link I added that not all Nutritional Yeast contains B12. So, maybe that was a downfall for that comment. Doesn't anybody think though, that if a new vegan was wandering around these parts reading this article to try and become a healthier, smarter vegan, that there should be a mention of Nutritional Yeast, as it may not be as good as a B12 supplement, sometimes it's the closest that someone can afford, and it tastes pretty damn great too.Eddie mars 06:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nutritional yeast which contains B12 is covered by "fortified foods" as is any soymilk or cereal which contains B12. Nutritional yeast hardly deserves singling out. Fortified soymilk is likely a more important source of B12 than nutritional yeast. Kellen ^T 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"impact of vegetarianism" study

I'm removing this from the article:

In addition, lower counts of lymphocytes (the white blood cells responsible for immune system responses) and platelets (responsible for blood coagulation) and alterations in the iron metabolism and transport, were demonstrated.

Because my reading of the abstract seems to indicate that these counts were used to diagnose B12 deficiency, which has already been mentioned and cited by this study. If this is wrong, somebody can add the sentence back in; it uses the "vegparameters" reference. Kellen ^T 06:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sketchy bit

This part of the article is suspect:

Some studies show that vegetarian women are much more likely to have female babies. A study of 6,000 pregnant women in 1998 "found that while the national average in Britain is 106 boys born to every 100 girls, for vegetarian mothers the ratio was just 85 boys to 100 girls."[78] The high amount of oestrogen balancing chemicals (the majority of which are soya ‘isoflavones’) contributes to this effect, as well as to stimulate early pubescence among females, and delay male pubescence.[79]

The first sentence cites a BBC news source, but even inside that article the study is criticized as being flawed (by not including what men ate, since men determine the gender of a child). The second sentence cites the weston a. price foundation, which has been criticized (notorious?) for railing against vegetarian diets, without the WAP foundation citing any other source. Kellen ^T 12:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a bit sketchy! Eddie mars 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is sketcy too. One study. And it didn't even postulate anything about the sex of the fathers, even tho we know that sex is largely determined by sperm characteristics and not egg characteristics. Are veg mothers more likely to get knocked up by veg men than non-veg mothers? Or do veg mothers have a prediliction for flesh-eating fathers? Maybe it is the diet of the fathers that affected the outcome? Too much conjecture and not enough fact. Drop the whole thing.

--Nomenclator 00:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hypospadias

I think the section on hypospadias should be removed. The citation isn't very convincing. Diet was based on answers to survey, not observation. The comment "As vegetarians have a greater exposure to phytoestrogens than do omnivores" is not supported with citation. Vegetarians often consume more dairy products than people with a "standard" diet. We don't know that it isn't hormones in dairy products that caused hypospadias. Vegan diet is often different than a typical vegetarian diet. The article has too many assumptions to be at all useful. Even if it wasn't, I would need to see more than one study. The cited study should suggest further reasearch. It does not produce enough resulte to draw any conclusions. I should add that the grammar is wrong in, and affects the meaning of, the following sentence fragment: "...phytoestrogens, found in soya products, nutrient deficiencies, or exposure to pesticide residues." The fragment tells us that phytoestrogens are found in nutrient deficiencies and found in exposure to pesticde residues. The error could be fixed by changing the punctuation, but I recommend that the entire sentence simply be removed. Uness someone can point to additional studies that produce the same results.

--Nomenclator 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support removal of this section. The findings of the research relate to a vegetarian diet rather than a vegan diet, so this would be more suitably included in the vegetarianism article if anywhere - I can find no mention of 'vegan' anywhere in the paper. Also, the conclusions are based on a relatively small number of cases, so further research would be helpful. If I am reading the results correctly, the authors are basing their conclusions regarding a vegetarian diet on only 7 cases, which seems rather dubious to me. --Michig 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The results were statistically significant:

Significant differences were detected for some aspects of the maternal diet, i.e. vegetarianism and iron supplementation in the first half of pregnancy. ... The only other statistically significant association for hypospadias was with influenza in the first 3 months of pregnancy

As for the grammar; it's different than Nomenclator quoted, with correct puntuation, but it's still slightly ambiguous due to the way english functions. Deal with it or write a clearer sentence. And I don't understand how people can honestly claim that things which apply to "vegetarians" can't possibly be relevant here as vegans are a subset of vegetarians. Kellen ^T 21:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No Kellen, I quoted it precisely. Someone later removed a comma after "phytoestrogens." Did a copy and paste as a matter of fact. Geez. The sentence, the way it is, is still ambiguous, even with the comma removed. --Nomenclator 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for a better phrasing, if the sentence is kept in the article? Kellen ^T 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclator, do not edit your comments after you have posted them. This is doubly important when it changes the meaning of your post (as in this case), and triply important when someone has already replied to it. As mentioned on your talk page, this is considered unacceptable behaviour. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to Kellen's "And I don't understand how people can honestly claim that things which apply to "vegetarians" can't possibly be relevant here as vegans are a subset of vegetarians", at the risk of stating the obvious, many who describe themselves as 'vegetarians' have diets containing high amounts of dairy products, eggs, and even fish or chicken, so it's very unsafe to say that research based on subjects who are 'vegetarians' also applies to vegans. My personal opinion is that a larger number of subjects needs to be studied somewhat more rigorously to determine whether there is a link. I don't feel that a study based on 7 cases of children of vegetarians is sufficient, although as the research was published in a reputable journal it's reasonable to include this study. I feel that best approach, however, would be for studies which do not relate specifically to vegans to be included in the vegetarianism article only, with a 'see also' in this article. Otherwise, we're just going to get a lot of duplication. --Michig 09:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My comment was less directed at you and your comment specifically than an attitude I've observed here for some time, which is that people don't want information that seems critical of veganism and will use the fact that something doesn't explicitly study vegans or mention vegans to exclude it. In my opinion this is disingenuous as there is good reason to believe that many things which afflict vegetarians also afflict vegans.

I agree that the numbers are small, but the study included 7000 people and the defect is rare, and given that the researchers suggest the link is to soya, nutrient deficiencies or pesticides, it's probable that the risk is higher for vegans. Kellen ^T 10:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Probable schmobable. This is one study. It is based on filling out a questionaire about diet rather than observing diet. Until there are at least 3 studies, I don't think it deserves any place anywhere, in any encyclopedia article. The same goes for studies that show positive effects for vegetarianism. The fact that the authors postulate three possible reasons for their findings, suggests that they really don't know what is going on here. Is it soy, pesticides, or nutrient deficiencies? The particular 3 suggested - and it may be something else entirely - suggest that we don't even know if the hypospadias is due to something the vegetarian mothers ate, or something they "neglected" to eat. I think we are overwhelming readers with minutia, by including this study. Perhaps there are some studies on subjects that have had dozens or 100's of studies, that we could include. The overwhelming majority of editors seems to want to remove this particular study. --Nomenclator 11:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The researchers suggest a link to soya, nutrient deficiencies or pesticides, as an explanation of the results, but there doesn't appear to be evidence to support this. Vegans could be more, or less, susceptible and the only way to determine this is through further research - I don't think we, as editors, should make assumptions on issues like this. I would argue that information showing vegetarianism in a good light should also not be included here unless vegans were also studied, or unless there is a clear link to the exclusion of animal products from the diet, since such effects may also be due to elements of a vegetarian diet not present in a vegan diet. --Michig 11:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we could safely remove some of the unproven "positive" info about veganism such as " Vegans note additional health benefits are gained by not consuming artificial substances such as growth hormones and antibiotics, which are often given to farmed animals." I don't think this has been proven, and the citations given to support it are not regarded as scientific. This includes Robert Cohens rather flaky "not milk" site.

--Nomenclator 12:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I also want to remove "Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, although there was no significant difference in blood pressure rates." as vegans are a subset of vegetarians with probably lower blood pressure than either vegetarians in general or the general pop of heavily meat-eating countries.--Nomenclator 13:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to object so I am going to make the above changes.--Nomenclator 19:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No controversy over leather and wool

The person was right to add leather and wool. I think the details he-she included were too much for the introductory paragraph. There is no controvery among vegans as to the idea that, ideally, products such as leather and wool should not be used, and to the idea that sometimes, in order to be pragmatic, and live well, things can't go precisely according to ideals, and leather and wool may be acceptable where alternatives are much more expensive, difficult to find, or even non-existant. Fur is usually considered totally off limits, as are ostentatious leather garments. --Nomenclator 19:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. Their edits were not acceptable where they were placed, and indeed, are mentioned later in the article. Kellen ^T 21:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So is meat, fish, poultry, eggs, and dairy products, mentioned later in the article. Why repeat some things, and not others, such as pearls, and nacre? Why go into so much detail re different kinds of meat in the former sentence (meat, fish, poultry) when you can use the latter sentence to add these details. --Nomenclator 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Because these are the notable things, as specified. Pearls and nacre are hardly as notable as meat and dairy. Later, everything is listed. Kellen ^T 15:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Headings and subheadings are confusing

Similar topics are found in the "health claims," and in the "nutrition" section. Probably these 2 sections should be made into one section with perhspa 2 subsections, and the sentences re-organized. The way the markup code and text is, this is going to be difficult to do. It is hard to find what you are looking for, in the editing screens. --Nomenclator 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

there is a "health" subsection under the motivations section. Then, there is another section, a main section, called health effects. Some way to merge these into one, should be found. Perhaps the motivations section should be limited to just listing the motivations, then separate sections for going into pros and cons of health, environment, etc, should be made.--Nomenclator 20:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved things around to try and get better organization of topics. I did not remove anything during these list few edits.--Nomenclator 20:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because they were sloppy and among other things messed up the meaning of the subsections. I agree things should be merged, however. See my earlier post on Reorganization. If you want to give this another try, please have the patience and care to do it correctly; our work is potentially seen by many people. Kellen ^T 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you found some problems can't you just fix them, instead of reverting the whole thing? I don't see where the problems are. It looked good to me. I made a separate section for what were previously subsections of Motivations. Then I made a small motivations section that just listed the motivations, instead of going into detail. I don't see the problem. Organization of topics can never be perfect. I think my changes, tho not perfect, were an improvement, rather than something that made the article worse. --Nomenclator 22:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Skinwalker can you please wait till i'm finished re-ordering the sections, before you revert them? I'm having trouble doing it all in one edit. So I am moving one section at a time, since it is hard to see how the format looks, when looking at the editing window. Then I am checking to see if things turn up in the place I expected, or not. Sometimes this will make the order temporarily worse. --Nomenclator 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not perfect, but I think it is better than it was before. I've got all the b12 risks in one unbroken segment. I've separated vegan benefits from vegan risks. I removed a sentence about veganism and pregnancy that duplicates information abt veganism pregnancy mentioned earlier. If I bungled some stuff, can you please try to improve it, rather than revert it? --Nomenclator 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Your edits are again rather sloppy. The B12 info does not need to be all together; for one thing, you've destroyed the grouping of subsections for "pregnancy" which is a logical and helpful distinction since it is all related information. Instead, you've spread this into a bunch of different subsections without a common header. Your additions to the intro are again unwelcome and unnecessary. I specifically removed the giant list of things from the intro and added the word "notably" to show this. Finally, your motivations section is not an improvement over the current version.

The reason you get reverted is that you have taken an ordered, if imperfect, article and turned it into a mess. It's not my (or anybody else's) responsibility to figure out what you meant to do over a series of 10 changes and sort out what you left behind. Kellen ^T 07:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the article was not ordered and I turned a mess into a document ordered by topic. If by "left behind" you mean "removed," I removed nothing behind except one sentence, "The American Dietetic Association says that a well-planned vegan diet is appropriate in all stages of life, but "individual assessment of dietary intakes of vegetarians is required."[26]" because it simply repeated the facts mentioned in the sentence: "The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada state that "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." If you wanted you could have added the pregnancy sentence footnote to this sentence. I'm sorry, but the b12 info belongs all together.--Nomenclator 13:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ethics and ethical criticisms

Perhaps the ethical criticisms section should be moved up near to, or sub to, ethics, with an added section for ethical pros. In other words and ethics section with ethical pro subsection and ethical con subjection. Or better choice of words for pro and con.--Nomenclator 03:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideally there would be one "Ethics" section which integrates both. The ethical foundation for veganism and criticisms of this standpoint. However, the current "Ethical criticism" section is more of a "health criticism" section than anything. Kellen ^T 07:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

soy products and genital teratogenicity

I would suggest changing this to

A study has shown that boys born to vegetarian mothers were more likely to suffer from hypospadias, a genital defect. The authors of the study hypothesized that perhaps this is a result of maternal diet, specifically, consumption of soy products (which contain substantial levels of phytoestrogens), or that it may be due to nutrient deficiencies, or exposure to pesticide residues.

Whaddayathink? --Nomenclator 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh. It would be better to have it all in one sentence so we can eventually merge all of the bits on pregnancy into a single section with a concise summary of health concerns. Kellen ^T 07:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How would having it in multiple sentences preven merging "all of the bits on pregnancy into a single section." ?? That just doesn't make sense. I could easily put the same meainng into a single sentence, but it should be easier for readers to understand my meaning if I use a couple of sentences. For example I could have said it in one sentence like this:

A study has shown that boys born to vegetarian mothers were more likely to suffer from hypospadias, a genital defect, and the authors of the study hypothesized that perhaps this is a result of maternal diet, specifically, consumption of soy products (which contain substantial levels of phytoestrogens), or that it may be due to nutrient deficiencies, or exposure to pesticide residues.

Or like this:

A study has shown that boys born to vegetarian mothers were more likely to suffer from hypospadias, a genital defect hypothesized by the authors of the study as perhaps being the result of maternal diet, specifically, consumption of soy products (which contain substantial levels of phytoestrogens), or as perhaps being the consequence of nutrient deficiencies, or of exposure to pesticide residues.

There is always more than one way to say something. I generally try to do my best to find the way of saying something that I think will make it easiest for readers to grasp. It is often easiest to grasp things when they are presented in small steps, rather than dumped on you all at once. Hence, several smaller sentences instead of one sentence with dependent clauses.

--Nomenclator 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would take it a little further:

A study has shown that boys born to vegetarian mothers were more likely to suffer from hypospadias, a genital defect. While a specific cause has not been isolated, the authors of the study hypothesized that perhaps this is a result of maternal diet, specifically, consumption of soy products (which contain substantial levels of phytoestrogens), or that it may be due to nutrient deficiencies, or exposure to pesticide residues. Further research into the exact causes is necessary.

--Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Do it! Although saying "a specific cause has not been found" is sort of redundant, since the fact that the authors were busy hypothesising causes instead of proving them, already implies that. Nevertheless, I find your change to be acceptable.--Nomenclator 14:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Weston A. Price Foundation

Weston A. Price has a well known bias against vegetarianism. It is a less than ideal source. Much like quoting from notmilk.com.

Perhaps we should be quoting the references used by the Weston A. Price foundation to make their statements? I am thinking specifically wrt the article on soy and puberty. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, that part of their article was not backed up with a source. But you should look again. Kellen ^T 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I will double check that. If there is no scientific source, then I think we should consider removing the section that relies on it as a source. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed no reference given on the Weston A. Price foundation website wrt this subject. I am going to tag that entry as requiring a source, and if no one can find one in the next week or so, I am going to remove it. I will try to dig through the universities library on my break, but I can't promise anything. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Abstinance

Many, if not most, vegans, do not view the fact that they do not eat flesh, dairy products, or eggs, as "abstaining" from them. The term abstain implies some kind of innate desire or need that is voluntarily being thwarted. In actuality, vegans, especially long-time vegans, and life-long vegans, don't even think about the things that are missing. Would you say that most people in North America "abstain" from eating insects, or would you simply say that they just don't usually eat insects? Do various Chinese nationalities abstain from dairy products, or are such products simply not part of their culture?

This includes my own point of view. I don't abstain from animal products. It just doesn't generally occur to me to buy any. I have little need to read ingredient labels and "abstain" from products with animal ingredients as I make most of my food from scratch. I buy single-ingredient items, not prepared foods. I make my own "frozen dinners." This means I barely have to think of having to "avoid" anything. I buy dry legumes, not canned. I don't obsess over the source of things present in minute amounts, like the vitamins added to flour or rice.

For example make almost all my food from things I buy such as dry legumes, wheat flour, rye flour, fresh or frozen vegetables and fruits. When I had land, I also grew many of my own fruits and vegetables. It simply does not occur to me to buy the flesh, bones, or organs, eggs, or secretions of vertebrate or invertebrate animals. I don't "abstain" from these. I barely even think about them, much less abstain from them.

--Nomenclator 13:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So, in short: Vegans do not abstain from animal products. They just don't consume them. I agree with this 100%. I have had similar arguments with omnivores before, where my position is that I will eat any food -- we just define food differently. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with both of you about the meaning of "abstain":

to hold oneself back voluntarily, esp. from something regarded as improper or unhealthy (usually fol. by from): to abstain from eating meat. [22]

a word like "avoid" is fine. If we cut down on the essay-writing here, we could maybe make some progress. Kellen ^T 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"to hold oneself back" Exactly. And many if not most of us are not doing any "holding back." We don't have cravings for animal products and we aren't holding ourselves back against some innate tendency to buy or consume them. "Avoid" is only a slight improvement. Both terms have denotations that are not necessarily accurate for many vegans. The correct word is the simplest: we "do not use" animal products.

--Nomenclator 17:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I "hold myself back" from eating meat about as much as I hold myself back from eating glass or rocks. There is no "holding back", because I wouldn't consume those things anyway.

And yes, we should be holding back on the essay-writing. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

'Avoid' is a much better word to use than 'Abstain', good job! And to Cpoupart, "we just define food differently", I love that as a conclusion to your statement. While I feel it is the absolute truth for myself, it is a sentence which at first seems so docile but could be so very offensive to many people. As if we're saying what they eat is not food at all. It gives me a great tingling sensation, like I'm giving 'them' a 'one over'. Eddie mars 06:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stearic Acid and Soap

While stearic acid and other fatty acids are a possible "ingredient" in soap, fatty acids are also used to make soap, which can be made by chemically reacting a fatty acid with lye. There are 2 ways to make soap, the traditional method of saponifying a fat with a strong alkalai, to produce soap and glycerine, or the modern factory method of first separating a fat into individual fatty acids, then saponifying each fatty acid with an alkalai, one at time, to produce soap and glycernine, then blending various soaps, glycerine, fats, and fatty acids, back together, to precisely adjust the properties of a "soap product." It is explained here http://shakahara.com/soap3.html Instead of saying "soap with ingredients which may have been extracted from animal fat (e.g. stearic acid) is avoided" it would be better to day, soap made from animal fats rather than vegetable fats, may be avoided." Although soap products made from vegetable fat may have added animal ingredients, such as glycerine produced from animal fat, or unsaponified animal fats or fatty acids added (added in small amounts). --Nomenclator 14:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Better would just be to say "some soaps" and not get overly held up with the details; let a reference do that work for you. Having a huge list of animal products and the things which includes them in this article (as we do now) verges on the idiotic, in my opinion. Kellen ^T 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sayin it verges on "idiotic" is a thinly disguised way of calling me an idiot; it is name-calling. And you are mistaken. And people are entitled to have a difference of opinion from you, without being called idiots. --Nomenclator 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with you. The listing of ingredients existed before you started editing this article, and you didn't contribute to it, except for to replace things previously taken out of the intro. If you want a complete list of dogmatic non-vegan ingredients, these are plentiful on the web. Having a list here is not only redundant, but confusing, unnecessary, and an invitation to every last vegan newbie on the planet to add their own ingredients. Kellen ^T 18:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A small sample list of common ingredients is one thing, providing that it is labelled as such. But this isn't the place for a comprehensive list. If one is really desired, perhaps it should go in it's own article? It could then be linked to from this article. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And I never provided a comprehensive list. In fact, I shortened the actual length of the list. Go an take a look. And since I created the list that you said was "idiotic" it has "everything to do with me."--Nomenclator 08:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization

Reorganization suggestions:

1. Eliminate "motivations" as a section and instead use its subsections as the main article sections
2. Eliminate "criticism and controversy" as a section and merge its subsections into the other sections
3. Merge "Ethical criticism" and "Ethics" from "Motivations" if appropriate (it appears this would not actually be appropriate)
4. Merge "Ethical criticism" and "Resources and environment" from "Motivations" (this seems more appropriate)
5. Merge "Health concerns" and "Health" from "Motivations"
6. Merge "Similar diets and lifestyles" with the "Definition" section

Kellen ^T 10:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If anyone were to do it, it's you Kellen. Maybe something this big should be tried first, then compared? Vert et Noir^talk 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

When I have a few spare hours perhaps =) Kellen ^T 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-contradictory

This section seems to contradict itself:

The American Dietetic Association says that a properly planned vegan diet presents no significant nutritional problems.[26] Vegans are potentially at risk for being deficient in nutrients such as vitamin B12,[47] vitamin D,[48] calcium,[49][48] iodine[50] and omega-3 fatty acids.[51] These deficiencies can have potentially serious consequences, including anemia,[52] rickets[53] and cretinism[54] in children, and osteomalacia[53] and hyperthyroidism[54] in adults. Supplementation, particularly for vitamin B12, is highly recommended for vegans.[55]

--Nomenclator 08:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict itself. ADA says properly planned vegan diets are ok. Paragraph goes on to say that an improperly planned vegan diet is more likely to lead to these deficiencies, which have these results. Kellen ^T 08:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No it does not "go on to say that an improperly planned vegan diet is more likely to lead to ... deficiencies." It just flatly states that vegans are at risk for being deficient in certain nutrients. You have poor reading comprehension; you are confused about how English, or language in general, works.

It also implies (as opposed to states directly) that vegans are more likely to have a deficiency in omega-3 fatty acids than others. This is may or may not be true, depending upon who you are comparing vegans with. In places where fish is rarely on the menu, vegans are not any more likely to be at risk for an omega-3 f.a. deficiency. Same thing goes for all the vitamins except B12. Sun exposure is the major source of vit D. Vegans are no less likely to get sun exposure than anyone else. In fact, since most vegans are health-concious and educated, logic would tell us that they are more likely to sunbathe.

--Nomenclator 08:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen, you've been warned numerous times. Read WP:NPA. If you can't edit without attacking other editors, you should stop editing wikipedia. If you want to clarify the sentence to say "An improperly planned diet..." then do so. Kellen ^T 09:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And the part about omega-3 fatty acids still needs clarification. The deficiency risk is not specific to vegans, it is a deficiency risk for the industrialized world in general. And I am tired of people who revert my attempts to change things so that they are are more accurate, simply because they didn't like the precise way I worded it. If I improved something, but didn't improve it "enough", you should leave it, or perhaps improve it a little more, not revert it back to being totally inaccurate.--Nomenclator 08:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This brings up a problem I see with this article. The ADA says a vegan diet is healthy, in one passage. Yet multiple paragraphs that follow claim the contrary. I believe the ADA, as a whole, carries more weight in dietetic matters than individual detractors voluminously covered in the criticism section. As such, the ADA's finding should be given precedence and the detractor's criticismsm condensedm and put into context as minority opinions in the dietary community. Abe Froman 06:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There apparently needs to be clarification in the article. The following paragraphs aren't arguing against the ADA; rather, they illustrate (a) how and why vegans are susceptible to certain deficiencies (b) what the effects of these deficiencies are. What the ADA says includes proper supplementation, which is not undertaken by all vegans, nor indeed known about by all vegans. Some of these things should be condensed, the deficiencies (vit B, A, calcium, etc) and the effects of these deficiencies should also be included. There's not really many detractors on the health front ... maybe the UC Davis study author, though, like the vegan society, all he says is that vegans need to responsibly supplement. Also, blanking large sections of the article isn't the proper way to fix the perceived ambiguity, so please don't do that again. Kellen ^T 09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'deficiency' argument for supplementation is repeated at least 12 times. I believe this, among the other criticisms that are repeated ad nauseam, is subtle Discrimination aimed at creating a view of vegans as deficient. This Discrimination is also obvious in the section that covers genital defect. The study in question does not single out veganism as a cause of genital defects, but the editor who inserted the claim makes that jump. This is indicative of the POV bias that permeates the criticism section and seeks to marginalize vegans as sexually and nutritionally defective. Abe Froman 16:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quite mistaken. The conclusion of the article on genital defects reads:

As vegetarians have a greater exposure to phytoestrogens than do omnivores, these results support the possibility that phytoestrogens have a deleterious effect on the developing male reproductive system.

. Vegans, being a subset of vegetarians, can be included as being at risk according to this study. It might be worth noting that the researchers considered the problem to be high soy (phytoestrogen) levels in the first trimester, but the article is quite clear on the risk. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick thought about a List

I just finished exploring one of those brilliant 'List' articles around, and I was thinking, would it be relevant (and forgive me if it's been done, I did a search I swear!) to create a list of animal ingredients, and include a link in this article? I know that many of you would agree that one's non-vegan friends and family are constantly saying "that's not vegan/vegetarian!?". Maybe a list would be really helpful to help people understand the scope of a vegan diet. As a very new Wikipedia member I feel it is not my place to create it myself, besides the fact that all the wiki-skills are a bit beyond me at this point. Anyone interested in doing this with me, or think it's totally pointless? Eddie mars 07:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's pointless. There's lists available from the vegan society and elsewhere on the web. Kellen ^T 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Kellen here. The list shouldn't be ON this page, but linking to one? Especially if we take the opportunity to shorten the existing list to obvious examples (animal flesh, eggs, milk, textiles/leather/fur and "precious" materials like ivory and pearls). I would even go so far as to say that it might be a good article, such as "Animal ingredients found in food". --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's reasonable to link to one, I just don't know that it's very productive to make an article on WP about it as it will essentially be a full mirror of the vegan society list and (probably) nothing more. Kellen ^T 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hum. I just had a good look at the Vegan Society's list, and it is more thorough than I first suspected. I think that you are correct, and that linking to that site would be sufficient. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 15:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Clear Discrimination

Summary: The Health Effects Section of this article is written in a discriminatory tone against vegans. The POV tone, and oft-repeated information on nutritional deficiency and sexual defect seek to marginalize vegans as a class. This violated Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. The section on health effect should be condensed, and rewritten in a NPOV tone that does not cast all vegans as nutritional and sexual freaks.

Specific Passages In Dispute:

• "Vegans are potentially at risk for being deficient in nutrients such as vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, iodine and omega-3 fatty acids. These deficiencies can have potentially serious consequences, including anemia, rickets and cretinism in children, and osteomalacia and hyperthyroidism in adults. Supplementation, particularly for vitamin B12, is highly recommended for vegans."

This passage must be rewritten. The American Dietetic Association claims veganism is safe, but the next few sentences undermine that claim by making it appear all vegans are deficient in these nutrients. A WP:NPOV tone is needed, explaining that supplementation is recommended.

• Specific Nutrients Section

This passage is a straight repeat from the previous paragraph in the section. It's repetition merely reinforces a POV argument that all vegans are nutrtionally deficient. It should be removed, as it is redundant to the argument made in the previous section in the article.

• Vitamin B12 deficiency Section

Yet another repeat of the section on nutritional deficiency. This section should be removed for the same reason the Specific Nutrients Section needs removal, it is redundant and seeks to enforce a POV argument that all vegans are nutrtionally deficient.

• Mineral deficiencies Section

Yet another repeat of the section on nutritional deficiency. This section should be removed for the same reason the Mineral Deficiency Section needs removal, it is redundant and seeks to enforce a POV argument that all vegans are nutrtionally deficient.

• Soy products and genital defects Section

This study cited does not link vegetarianism to genital defect. It claims more study is needed. Yet the editor who inserted it makes the jump to claim vegans produce sexually deficient offspring. This is not what the study says. The section should be reworded or removed as scurrilous.

Abe Froman 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It may need re-writing, and clean-up, but as stated previously, blanking it is not the way to do that. While the ADA and Dieticians of Canada both say that Veganism can be perfectly OK, they are clear to point out that it must be properly balanced. The trust truth is that working with a smaller subset of foods does put you at higher risk for missing some nutrients. This is an important message, and not at all biased against Vegans. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to the above: Listing sourced articles that are against Veganism is important to achieve a NPOV on the article. These are genuine concerns. If you wish to make it more clear that they do not concern a well planned vegan diet, or even a vegan diet that is widely varied and supplemented (specifically for B12), then find some counter sources and add them to the article. That will make it even more NPOV. Removing the sections that you don't like, when they are well sourced, is not the way to do it. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Abe. The nutritional and health sections specifically state that a vegan diet is perfectly healthy, as long as appropriate nutrition is maintained. The material that follows discusses nutritional deficiencies common to vegan diets. There is a vast informational difference between stating "all vegan diets are healthy" and stating "vegan diets can be healthy, but here's the stuff you should be sure to supplement". Leaving the page with a unqualified endorsement does potential vegans a disservice by not educating them about how to do it right. I'm reverting the blanking. Skinwalker 16:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You both miss the point. I left the supplementation and deficiency argument in, in one place. Repetition is the problem with the section. Repeating the same deficiency argument a dozen times, in different places, violates WP:NPOV, as it pushes a vegans-are-defective motif. I dispute the revert, and believe you are both aiding the marginalization of this minority. Abe Froman 16:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of assuming bad faith and accusing us of anti-vegan prejudice (which is silly, considering that all of the active editors of this page, excepting myself, are vegans IRL), why don't you try consolidating the B12 section as a positive start? That's much more preferable to wholesale blanking. Cheers, Skinwalker 17:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, try consolidating the "Vegan pregnancies" section instead. Or citing it reliably. Kellen ^T 17:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The existing section in no way violates NPOV. The sources are the ADA and the vegan society. If you think the language implies that all vegans are deficient in these things, I'm sorry. I wrote the section as it stands now (I'm vegan, if you care), and intended it to be as clear and specific as possible.

You appear to have misunderstood the section breaks. The paragraph you are most annoyed about is an introductory paragraph to the rest of the subsections. The "specific nutrients" section is an expansion and specification of what is stated in the introduction, and should therefore stay. Then there is the "vegan pregnancies" section which itself has 4 subsections; these should probably be merged as they appear to be causing confusion. First, though, it would be helpful to reliably cite the material in the vegan pregnancies section. Kellen ^T 17:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The section does not in my opinion in any way violate NPOV but it would perhaps be helpful in this section to include details of how great the identified risks are (ideally compared to the level of risk in other diets), since as far as I am aware, the majority of vegans have generally good diets and serious dietary deficiencies are rare. The sources cited may well quantify the risks, but it would be good to have some more detail in the article itself.--Michig 18:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stating the deficiencies once is NPOV. Repeating them a dozen times, in difference places in the article, is not NPOV, it is POV pushing. Abe Froman 18:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Abe Froman here.

Specifically regarding the section saying

"Vegans are potentially at risk for being deficient in nutrients such as vitamin B12,[1] vitamin D,[2] calcium,[3][2] iodine[4] and omega-3 fatty acids.[5] These deficiencies can have potentially serious consequences, including anemia,[6] rickets[7] and cretinism[8] in children, and osteomalacia[7] and hyperthyroidism[8] in adults. Supplementation, particularly for vitamin B12, is highly recommended for vegans.[9]"

As I've said before , omega=3 fatty acid deficiency is not specific to vegans, but the sentence implies it is. It is specific to people in the industrialized west who don't have a good balance between sea animals and warmblooded animals. Same goes for vit d, it is deficient in all people who don't get enough sunshine. And milk does NOT naturally contain vitamin D. Essentially, milk packers add "a vitamin D tablet" to you quart of milk. Vegans can just as easily supplement with vit d and milk-drinkers can. And other dairy products don't have any vitamin d, just whole vit D fortified milk. So it isn't really the milk that is providing milk drinkers with vit D, it is the "vitamin D tablet" added to it - something that vegans can do just as easily as milk drinkers.

Furthermore, calcium is not a problem for vegans either. It is just a matter of eating things like dark leafy green. Brocolli, kale, collards, even spinach and romaine lettuce. Plus sesame seeds, often eaten by vegans, are loaded with calcium. How many vegans don't eat hummus (with sesame tahini in it). A few. But most vegans know about the leafy green business. Almonds are high in calcium too.

And again, vitamin D does not come from milk. Vegans and non vegans get it from the same sources - sunlight, or supplementation. Perhaps we should petition makers of tofu to add vit d2 to tofu. I am just kidding. I don't think we need paternalistic protection. --Nomenclator 14:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cpoupart "they are clear to point out that it must be properly balanced." I wouldn't be at all surprised that they say the exact same thing about ANY population. For example, if they don't say a well-planned French-Canadian diet can be healthful, provided French-Canadians make make an effort to get a balanced diet, and that French-Canadians are potentially at risk for shortages of a small number of nutrients - I'll eat someone's leather shoes. And veganism isn't about diet, it is about not harming animals. So vegans can have a wide variety of totally different diets, and still be vegan just as the general population of any particular place can have a wide variety of diets, good or bad, and still be part of the general population. Some vegans get a balanced diet, some don't, just as is true of any population or any individual. No-one who just "eats whatever they see advertised on television" or whatever they pick up off of supermarket shelves in a hurry, gets a proper diet. --Nomenclator 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is this: Just because we point out areas where a vegan diet is most at risk for deficiency does not make it "anti-vegan". I would rather new vegans be well aware that they need to make sure that their soy/rice/other-non-dairy milk is fortified with vitamin D if they are no longer drinking milk (sunlight isn't really that great an option for people who live this far north), than for them to get sick. Same goes for B12. This section needs to be here, and it needs to be made as clear as possible. If you feel that it is necessary to point out that sources of Vitamin D are essentially the same for omnivores as for vegans, please do. It is a good point. I just don't agree with the massive blanking that Abe was doing that included removing sections on soy (as a potentially dangerous food). Soy in particular is in the press a lot these days with both positive and negative stories. It would be good to put some more citations there addressing people's concerns, which is what I have been doing. (Btw: I am not French Canadian, and the traditional French Canadian cuisine is incredibly unhealthy (it is very high in saturated fats and sugar. Very.) --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 02:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro (please just leave it alone)

The intro paragraph currently reads:

Veganism (also known as strict vegetarianism or pure vegetarianism), as defined by the Vegan Society, is "a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." A vegan (one who practices veganism) does not consume or use animal products, notably meat, fish, poultry, eggs and dairy products. People become vegans for a variety of reasons, including ethical concerns for animal rights or the environment, as well as more personal reasons such as perceived health benefits and spiritual or religious concerns.

Nomenclator (talk · contribs) has repeatedly changed it to various different things including larger lists of non-vegan items, extra commentary from uncited vegans, etc, etc. Most recently he changed it to read (diff):

Veganism (also known as strict vegetarianism or pure vegetarianism), as defined by the Vegan Society, is "a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." A vegan (one who practices veganism) does not consume or use animal products, notably meat, fish, poultry, eggs and dairy products. People become vegans for a variety of reasons, including ethical concerns for animal rights, concern about the environment, concern about frugal use of limited natural resources to feed the world's population, as well as more personal reasons such as perceived health benefits, spiritual or religious concerns, and the esthetic values related to the appearance, smell, and sound, of slaughter and slaughterhouses. Said one vegan: animal husbandry and slaughter are ugly things. (highlight added, of course)

I want this to stop. I'd like to take a poll of the editors of this page, to settle on an intro that is the most salient, verifiable summary of veganism/the article. Please sign below, with reasons. Kellen ^T 17:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I want people to make it possible for me to be able to tell what noun it is, that the pronoun they use, refers to. --Nomenclator 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean? What noun, what pronoun, and where? Y'know Nomenclator, for someone who routinely accuses people of lacking basic English skills, you certainly produce some incomprehensibly tortured grammar yourself. Skinwalker 22:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Kellen asks "what noun." That is what I asked you. What noun? Kellen asks "what pronoun?" The pronoun "this" in the sentence "I want this to stop." To phrase my question another way: just exactly what is it that you want to stop? I can't read minds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

I didn't ask anything, but to answer your question: I want you to stop changing the intro. Kellen ^T 06:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Kellen ^T needs to review WP:OWN. Kellen ^T is not the owner of this article, and changes need not be approved by him or her. Abe Froman 20:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the double comment! Awesome! Kellen ^T 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the current intro OK?

Yes

• I think it's good. It succinctly defines veganism, lists the most important things which vegans avoid, and the notable reasons for people to be vegan. It's cited and verifiable. The only bit I might change is the "also known as" to be "variously known as" or some other less authoritative set of words. Kellen ^T 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• The intro is fine. I think it's best if anyone wishing to change it reaches consensus on the talk page before doing so.--Michig 17:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 19:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Intro is great - concise and cited. Laundry lists of items to avoid are questionable at best anywhere in the article, but especially in the introduction. Skinwalker 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: I made the language even more succinct, yet it covers more. No need to specify "dairy products" as in some cultures, dairy products aren't used anyway. So vegans don't leave them out of their diet. Secretions nicely covers dairy products, and anything else animals might secrete, that might be used, such as musk. Hides covers fur AND leather. If you'd like, I could add bones. Then it will be about the same length as it was, but cover more. And I could remove organs, as flesh sort of covers organs. Or I could just say tissues, organs, and secretions. Yea. That is what I think I'll do. That covers everything, yet it isn't a laundry list. As uit was, hides and musk had been left out. --Nomenclator 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes. You have been asked not to change the intro unless you previously reach consensus with other editors on this page. Kellen ^T 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Kellen ^T needs to review WP:OWN. Kellen ^T is not the owner of this article, and changes need not be approved by him or her. Abe Froman 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers; there are, however, other editors here whose opinions are listed above. Kellen ^T 20:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kellen ^T here. The introduction should be frozen until a consensus is reached. So far, more editors have voted to keep it as it is than to change it. 4 out of 6 is a good reason to keep it as it is for the moment. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 03:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No

Please include what needs to be added/removed/etc so we can improve it

• The list of reasons that people go vegan is too short. It barely begins to cover them. By limiting the list of things that vegans don't use to just food products, it implies that veganism is mostly just a diet, rather than a way of life. Something about skins, fur, wool, etc, needs to be added. I had a succinct way of putting a description about a bunch of items (for example I included both leather, and fur, into one item, skins) but it kept getting reverted. --Nomenclator 17:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• The intro needs to be expanded. Abe Froman 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  How and why? Kellen ^T 00:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• One thing is missing and that is the scientific definition of autotroph and heterotroph. It is a clear border between the plant kingdom and those that thrive on it. It would be wise to make use of educated perspectives. While many "vegans" will take issue with the line, it is none-the-less the most accurate one to follow. Some will say that yeast have "no nervous system", yet they must consume sugars, must respire oxygen turning it into carbon dioxide (like all animals) and thus are completely dependant on the autotroph sources of "food" and clearly on the "animal" side of science! Wiki has good articles covering both of these science based terms (autotroph and heterotroph). "A heterotroph (Greek heterone = (an)other and trophe = nutrition) is an organism that requires organic substrates to get its carbon for growth and development. A heterotroph is known as a consumer in the food chain. Contrast with autotrophs which use inorganic carbon dioxide or bicarbonate as sole carbon source. All animals are heterotrophic, as well as fungi and many bacteria." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.202.223 (talk • contribs)

  You think this should be in the first paragraph? To me, that seems a bit excessive as everybody is familiar with the terms "plant" and "animal" and for the most part a hyper-specific distinction isn't useful. Kellen ^T 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Not only should it not be in the first paragraph, but it is scientifically wrong. This is making the assumption that "fungus" is a part of the "animal" kingdom. However, if you look at the standard six kingdom classification system, fungi are in their own kingdom. They are not plants, but they are certainly not animals, and scientifically, no one classifies them as such. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  First off, My opening is "a clear border between the plant kingdom and those that thrive on it" does not indicate that I meant to include fungi in the animal kingdom. As for placing this in the first paragraph and it being "hyper-specific", it is because vegitarians made such wild use of the intended definition of their label that vegans splintered into their own domain. Also, if people read the Wikipedia articles on autotroph and heterotroph (which can be directly linked in the opening paragraph since "everbody is familiar with the terms "plant" and "animal"" implying that they do not know the terms autotroph and heterotroph, Wikipedia is here to help educate), they might be inclined to understand the peaceful nature our movement so dearly cherishes and attempts to formulate in the world around them (at least it is part of my attempt). To me, it is important to understand the words "producer" and "consumer" (autotrophs are producers and heterotrophs, including fungi, consume them), to make allowances for all consumers to gain their nutrients over the long haul (when the whole earth goes vegan - smile) from producer sources solely. A clear mission concept brings the potential for success. Fungi are being found useful (though I'd have to look up my sources anymore - most of this is off the top of my head) for environmental cleanup and other important balances in nature. I feel they are non-plant certainly, and, further, because of their consumer needs, animal when the only choices are "plant" and "animal" which is what you two have proposed. For further consideration, under religion, some vegans cite the Genesis story and its diet which gives "the fruits of the trees, seed bearing crops, and green vegetation" as vegan (I believe it is Genesis 1:20 something) which excludes fungi. The Genesis story is the taught practice (as I have been told) of Christians, Muslims, and Jews and impacts a large group of relegious vegans. P.S. Thanks for responding, both of you! I was difficult in the beginning of my vegan lifestyle to know where the boundary was for me. I trully doubt I am alone in this. While I do not eat honey, I grew up with a grandfather who tended bees for the agricultural needs of those around him. I still look at honey, knowing is comes from bees and think I'd like to tend bees, but I feel torn with the excess honey dilema and my vegan desires (if you follow). I can't see that tending bees and enjoying their demanding ways (be gentle or be stung) and finicky nature (maintaining beehive temperatures and supplying food when resources are low) and sharing the honey as if I were the "king bee" - giggle with the true freedom that the bees enjoy as the same thing as taking cows milk (which I find abhorant in thought, and find disgusting and mean in the tending practices of the milk agriculure and the cows confinement), but, I also understand that the bees would be better balanced in their own uninterrupted cycle. This stuff is not easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.202.223 (talk • contribs)

  Using "autotroph" and "heterotroph" as boundaries for veganism is not something for which I could find any sources. You may personally do this, but it's certainly not common, and IMHO doesn't make any sense. Kellen ^T 06:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you Kellen for your thought. I am puzzled that you could not find the reasoning in it - it seems clear. Fungi and yeast need the same nutrients we do. They must have autotrophs, and, if we continue to fight the good fight and protect those animal and world resources from extinction, Fungi and yeast need to be considered in this as well. It would be comparable to producing human rights for whites, but not blacks because "it's certainly not common" and "IMHO doesn't make any sense." Starve a monkey, it will die. Starve Fungi or Yeast from plants, and they too will die. The conservationist in me relishes the thought that by the time mankind slows down the madness of ignorance and trys to capture diversity in the living ecosphere, that along with it will be as many species and varieties of living things as possible. The scientific world has no problem comprehending the autotroph-producer, heterotroph-consumer link, and neither should you!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.202.223 (talk • contribs)

  I will make one more argument for inclusion of this in the definition, then clearly state my proposed change, and quit posting unless requested to. I want others to be clear what defending the status quo holds. Perhaps twenty years ago, I read a book about early toolmaking of men. In it, it stated that anthropology studies had suggested that the order of domestication of animals could be determined based on the number of diseases that humans shared in common with the animal. The cow had something in the mid fifties, suggesting that it came first. Then the pig and the chicken had something in the mid forties, suggesting that they had come next. The dog had something in the thirties, and, as I recall, the book suggested that this was the point where man was full enough to start simply befriending animals instead of solely eating them. The reason I include this is that I feel certain that everytime a primary consumer (one who eats directly off autotroph sources) becomes a secondary consumer (one who eats other consumers who eat autotroph sources) a health risk ensues. It is no co-incident that a Seventh-Day Adventist Church I once attended stated that vegans live on average 12 years longer than non-vegans and that their quality of life is considered higher because they are less diseased than non-vegans. Yeast provide a very concrete example. The History Channel made a documentary of drugs in human kind, in which they cited a reputed person as stating that "alcohol was the first drug that scurged mankind, opium was the second. The third was morphine." Besides the "yuk factor" (alcohol is the waste of the yeast dietary change, ie the urine and feces in which the contained yeast eventually die in, presumably similarly to enclosing a human in a room and forcing them to live with their fecal materials), there are a number of people who have "yeast alergies" and "infections". I am not capable of citing other diseases humans have in common with the yeast or that are traceable to yeast derived material, but these are enough. Alcoholics Anonymous, I read, suggests one in ten people will become addicted to alcohol (a physical and emotional disease, which, by the way, their are four substances in the common American meat eating diet that were announced in our papers some years back as being as physically addictive as nicotine and heroine - helps explain the difficulties of giving up animal diets). The number one killer of drivers in the U.S. is drunk driving (no matter how good the educational campaing) and cirrhosis is typically caused by excessive, uncontrolled alcohol consumption. Alcohol is also believed to be a factor in as high as 90% of all crime (I'd have to verify sources). It is also one of the leading causes of mental illness. During the U.S. failed prohibition era, the general health of the population far exceeded the norm of the drinking years. To not see the connection between heterotrophs eating one another and its inclusion in the definition in the word vegan is to proverbally stick ones head in the sand. To end, as stated, my belief is that this definition needs to be changed in the following way. "A vegan is a primary consumer (link to heterotroph article) who strives to live a lifestyle that promotes the fair distribution of producer sources (link to autotroph article) and to encourage all secondary consumers to do likewise." From there, tying in the history of the Vegan Society and the wobbling of ideologies can be brought into the light. THAT is a clear definition, scientifically reproducable, religously sound, rooted firmly in good, healthy medicine, and repudiates all the fear, uncertainty and doubt the ill meat eaters try to through at us (if you include the anthropoly study and the life lengthening information, which I will seek citations of any and all my information should it be requested). The knowledge is here. What one does with it is that which defines character. May you know that the most important words in our lives are Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-Control. May you have them all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.202.223 (talk • contribs)

Veganism specifically defines animals, not heterotrophs. People knew what heterotrophs were when the Vegan society was founded, and yet that is not how they chose to define their movement. I am not sure that the purported evils of alcohol are a good reason for vegans not to eat bread, or mushrooms, or nutritional yeast, etc, since people's choice to consume alcohol is frankly non of my business (and vice versa), not to mention that moderate drinking has been shown to have health benefits. Lastly, there is no reputable sources that back up a definition such as the one that you have proposed. With some sources, it is certainly something that could be included in the body of the article, but I do not think that it has a place in the introduction. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 12:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the original Vegan society did consider heterotroph/autotroph scientific nomenclature. Frankly, I am inclined to disagree, since they were in revolt against the mudding of the term vegetarian when they formed. I believe their intent was to draw a firm line that could be compared readily. Also, if the purported evils of alcohol are not relevant, neither is the purported abuse of animals in our movement. One cannot whole feel the suffering of other, only ones own suffering in having the focus of our senses directed towards what seems to be anothers suffering. It is one of the more noble characters of humans that they try to care about life outside themselves. Truthfully, if you have made a decision to consume animals, or drink/eat yeast, soy sauce and other fungi produced products, I argue that none of it is my business. But, I will still disceminate the information I collect in as neutral and truthful method I can. At this time, it is the scientific method, ie. thought coupled with observation and dissemination, though perhaps, future generations will find a better method. The passion of vegans is only a forceful as their focus. Lastly, I thank you for refering to me indirectly as "no reputable source" to back up my definition, as well as the Bible as "no reputable source" (see Genesis 1:29,30), and the scientific communities definition. Before you complain that you mean the term "vegan", take a look at the vegan opening here on Wikipedia, "Veganism (also known as strict vegetarianism or pure vegetarianism)" and try to convince me and others that "pure vegetarianism" and "strict vegetarianism" doesn't mean plants, ie. autotrophs. Vegan can mean what is written. In fact, thanks to the many things purported on Wikipedia's web page concerning what a vegan is and what other vegans have fought to keep in their definition, I personally no longer introduce myself as vegan, but rather a "primary consumer" and I don't care if I am the only one in creation currently who does. Future generations who may pick up on it will at least have a clear concept to further to work of human primary consumers living in harmony with life outside themselves. Fight to protect living with one foot in the non-cruelty world of animal rights, but let slip the occational pizza, or shoe purchase and it is "okay" by you. Even the thoughts portrayed in the article that living without any product produced with animals is too expensive for vegans, and I'll know you spin wool (are crazy). Without fail, every advancement I have made in knowledge that has given me autotroph products where once they were secondary consumer products has given me a cost benefit in my favour. Even as I try to use coin currency or electronic currency for all my transactions as U.S. currency is made stiff with animal sizing, I know that the mints of other nations have found it profitable to not have to replace paper currency on the 5-7 year rotation while metal currency gives them upward of 20 years, and I realize I am esoteric in my concerns. I just will not let the lies I have been taught be a part of my future while I can open my mind and discipline change into myself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.202.11 (talk • contribs).

"I realize I am esoteric in my concerns." It's good that you are self-reflective enough to realize that you are esoteric in your concerns. You would be well served to also realize that this article, like any other encyclopedia article, is not a soapbox for these concerns or for any others. There are lots of places on the Internet to engage in advocacy, debate, arguments, and attempts to raise the profile of unpopular or little known viewpoints on subjects. Wikipedia, and this article and this talk page for that matter, are not one of them. —mako (talk•contribs) 13:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Soy products and genital defects

I do not think this passage should be in the article. The research study does not make a direct link between veganism and genital defects, saying "more research is necessary." Leaving this passage in the article makes it appear the book is closed on this allegation. Abe Froman 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Looking through articles on Friday to add to the "soy" issue, there do seem to be some clear links between high phytoestrogen levels and various diseases, but that article left a lot to be desired. I will see what I can do this week to put some of them up here. However, a couple of things still need to be made clear:

1. Not all vegans consume any significant quantities of soy.
2. High levels of soy only seem to cause problems in very young (ie: still developing) children. There seem to be positive results for adults.

--Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 03:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The part about soy was a hypothesis by the researchers. They also hypothesized that the cause might be nutrient deficiencies or exposure to pesticides. These are certainly related to vegans, regardless of their soy consumption. Kellen ^T 14:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How are pesticides directly related to being a vegan? The genital defects passage as it was written went much further than the citation supported. It's removal was justified. Abe Froman 15:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The study found that the genital defect was related to vegetarian diets. I responded to Cpouart raising the question about how much soy vegans consume. I pointed out that the researchers suggested several possible causes for the defects, including two that would apply to vegans regardless of their soy consumption. The passage, as written after I revised it accurately stated what the study reported:

A study has shown that boys born to vegetarian mothers were more likely to suffer from hypospadias, a genital defect, possibly as a result of high levels of phytoestrogens found in soya products, nutrient deficiencies, or exposure to pesticide residues.[78]

This is 100% accurate. Whether it belongs here, or in the Vegetarianism article is another matter, but its phrasing was fine. Kellen ^T 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I specifically brought up soy as a counter to that argument because the conclusion of the referenced article focuses on soy:

As vegetarians have a greater exposure to phytoestrogens than do omnivores, these results support the possibility that phytoestrogens have a deleterious effect on the developing male reproductive system.

The hypothesis that chemical (pesticide) contamination was to blame was deemed "interesting but not statistically significant", as was the issue of possible nutrient deficiencies. The only potential causal link is that with phytoestrogens, and researchers are even then unwilling to make the link until more research is done. I think that the article has a place here, but I think that we need to find more sources to back it up. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 15:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what article you're reading. The full text of the linked article is here. The only part which says "interesting but" is about soy consumption. Later it says:

An alternative explanation for the association of hypospadias with vegetarianism might be related to the 'unnatural' chemicals ... present in many fruits and vegetables. ... A further aspect of the vegetarian diet which warrants investigation is a possible deficiency in one or more essential nutrients.

So did I miss something? Kellen ^T 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The study does not make a direct link. It says "more research is needed." Assuming more than the study supports is Wikipedia:Original Research and does not belong in the article. Abe Froman 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The study does indeed link vegetarianism and the defect. What it does not determine is the cause, thus use of the word "possibly." Kellen ^T 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC) You are correct that it does not make a "causal" link between vegetarianism and the defect, but it does assert that they are "associated." Kellen ^T 16:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We are indeed reading the same article. The section that you quoted about 'unnatural' chemicals and possible nutrient deficiency is in the "discussion". Essentially, they point out those two issues because they are interesting, but with the information that they have, they are statistically non-relevant. You are correct, that the researchers also mention that reported soy consumption differences were statistically insignificant, but also point out that it wasn't a focus point on the surveys. In concluding, they appear to be more prepared to indicate a causal link with increased soy consumption than with the other factors.

Either way, you are quite correct that there is a displayed association (not a causal link) between vegetarianism and increased hypospadias found in this article. I still maintain however that some more sources should be added to this. This article was published in 2000. There have to have been more studies done on the matter since then. I am putting this on my todo list. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

pregnancies section cleanup

I cleaned up the pregnancies section, which has been the focus of a lot of complaints. It's significantly smaller now.

• merged: intro sentence with ADA recommendations in "mineral deficiences" section
• merged: 2 cites of severe B12 deficencies reported leading to neurological damage in the child
• removed for now: cattleman's study. not really relevant to pregnancies. semi-relevant to children's health. uproar over comments somewhat relevant to criticism, though the point of the researcher is just that vegan mothers need to be especially careful about what they eat as they also affect the life of another; the controversy basically centered around a partial reporting of her comments. Maybe pare down to "Lindsay Allen, of blah balh, thinks feeding children an improperly supplemented vegan diet is unethical" to some vague "health" section that appears in the future.

  Another B12 study was conducted in rural Africa, partially backed by the U.S. based National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which demonstrated a dramatic improvement in the health of individuals who had, prior to the study, been on diets completely lacking in animal products. The study concluded that the added nutrients, especially vitamin B12 contained in the meat and milk improved the health of the children in the study. The author of the study, Professor Lindsay Allen of the United States Agricultural Research Service, declared: "There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans, unless those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods." However, the British Dietetic Association contended that the findings of the study were not applicable to vegan children in the developed world. They note that B12 (produced by fermenting carbohydrates with specific strains of bacteria) is now included in many fortified foods generally available. Noting that the impoverished children in the study had diets deficient in zinc, B12 and iron, they concluded, "There is no evidence that our vegan and vegetarian children in this country suffer impaired development." They did note, however, that young children, pregnant and nursing women are vulnerable as vegans, urging parents to review their children's diets to be sure that they have a well-balanced diet.

• removed and replaced: really old FDA article claiming particular deficiences as this information is rather outdated. Copper, for example, is not mentioned in the ada position on vegetarian diets, and zinc is not significantly mentioned. Iron is already included in our article.

  The US Food and Drug Administration in its report states that vegetarian women of childbearing age have an increased chance of menstrual irregularities, and that vegetarians run the risk of not consuming enough micro-nutrients like copper, iron and zinc in their diet.

• removed: sketchy "more girls" study which nobody here has read the text

  Some studies show that vegetarian women are much more likely to have female babies. A study of 6,000 pregnant women in 1998 "found that while the national average in Britain is 106 boys born to every 100 girls, for vegetarian mothers the ratio was just 85 boys to 100 girls." And while it is the male which determines the sex of the embryo, female fetuses are known to be more robust -- thus environmental stressors also influence viability differently for each gender.

• removed: westonaprice citation and the response, which essentially cancel each other out. These could be useful in the soy article if they're not there already.

  It is a concern amongst some groups that high levels of oestrogen balancing chemicals (the majority of which are soya ‘isoflavones’) may contribute to early pubescence (precocious puberty) among females, and delay male pubescence.. Scientific research however, does not seem to back this up.

Kellen ^T 12:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

sections needing work

With the cleanup of the vegan pregnancies section, the entire "health effects" section is now cited and pretty much clean. Some of the prose probably needs tweaking for it to be "beautiful," but I don't think it shows any POV problems. One concern I have about this section is that it could easily come to be a mirror of the "ada position" article. Summarizing things rather than detailing every single study should probably be a goal of editors of this section. Similarly, the introduction, vegan cuisine, and similar diets and lifestyles sections are concise and cited.

The first part of "definition" is pretty good, but as soon as the "animal products" part starts, it goes to hell. What nees major work, though, is actually honestly evaluating the ethics section, which implies some things, but doesn't really cite anything or bring in the objections of major vegan organizations. The "health" section also needs cleanup for clarity and WP:RSes. Kellen ^T 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BMI, blood pressure

I am posting my comment about the faulty scientific document presented in the article to support a position that a vegan diet has no effect on blood pressure. If the editors of this article agree with my reading of the material, then please remove the offensive passage and citation (#27). Thank you. Barnacleben 08:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me Kellen for posting a suggested change within the article itself about the link between blood pressure and a vegan diet. You deleted my parenthetical revision, so I am reposting my argument here for the benefit of those concerned: "(Edit: Preceeding claim is certainly wrong and potentially dangerous. It should be deleted because the "proof" given does not establish a credible scientific basis for the claim that a vegan diet has no effect on lowering blood pressure. Moreover, the poorly-constructed "study" cited to support this claim confesses that its "findings" are contradictory to the results of prior--and more credible--studies. Furthermore, the authors have chosen not proofread their [there, they're] own material, and by extension we can infer that it was neither reviewed by the scientific community. Get rid of it.)" I have also taken the liberty of deleting the offensive sentence and feel quite confidant that my reading of the material is correct. Do you disagree? Barnacleben 08:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed section was:

Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, although there was no significant difference in blood pressure rates.

Kellen ^T 08:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not vetted that section at all yet, but that study is pretty suspect. The BMI claim has support from some ADA-cited studies:

Among Seventh-day Adventists (SDA), 40% of whom follow a meatless diet, vegetarian eating patterns have been associated with lower body mass index (BMI). In the Adventist Health Study, which compared vegetarians and nonvegetarians within the Adventist population, BMI increased as the frequency of meat consumption increased in both men and women (4).

As for blood pressure:

Many studies show that vegetarians have both lower systolic and diastolic pressures with differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians generally falling between 5 and 10 mm Hg (29). In the Hypertension Detection and Follow-Up Program, blood pressure reduction of just 4 mm Hg caused marked reduction in mortality from all causes (174).

In addition to having lower blood pressures in general, vegetarians have markedly lower rates of hypertension than meat eaters ([175], [176]). In one study, 42% of nonvegetarians had hypertension (defined as 140/90 mm Hg) compared with only 13% of vegetarians. Even semivegetarians are 50% more likely to have hypertension than vegetarians (4). Even when body weights were similar between subjects, vegetarians had lower blood pressures. Placing nonvegetarian subjects on a vegetarian diet led to reduced blood pressure in normotensive (177) and hypertensive subjects (178).

So, the claims they made were essentially accurate, but their study was pretty bad. Better to use the ADA-cited material or the ADA itself as a reference. Kellen ^T 08:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

However it fails to mention that Adventists do not generally smoke, drink alcohol or contract sexually transmitted diseases at the same rate as the general population, so any studies into perceived Adventist health superiority cannot rely totally on their diet being meatless. Perhaps more enlightening research could be cited, such as traditional Masai peoples in Africa who eat few vegetables and live mostly on milk or blood, are tall, lean and healthy, and their neighbouring Yoruba people who are vegetarian, short and pot bellied, and live much shorter lives than their carnivorous neighbours --MichaelGG 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not really relevant to the BMI claim. If you have some useful studies to cite, bring them here or integrate them into the article as appropriate. Kellen^T 17:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

source of nutrient

moved improperly placed comments from above Kellen writes "The truth is that working with a smaller subset of foods does put you at higher rsk for missing some nutrients"

That is basically incorrect. The fact is, that all the nutrients needed by animals, are produced by micro-organisms, and green plants. As a human animal, you can either eat the micro-organism or green plant directly, or eat an animal that has eaten the micro-organism or green plant, or an animal that has eaten such an animal, etcetera. This is basic junior high-school biology or junior high school health studies. None of the nutrients that we get from animals, cannot be gotten also - and more directly - from micro-organisms or green plants.--Nomenclator 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you put this here, or why you've misattributed Cpoupart's comments to me. Please be more careful. Kellen ^T 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, you're literally correct, but Cpoupart meant that it's more difficult to obtain necessary amounts of certain nutrients (B12, D, calcium, etc) by eating strictly plant foods, which is also correct. If I ate oily fish, obtaining omega-3's without supplements would be much easier. Kellen ^T 16:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

end moved comments

Cpoupart (not Kellen as I mistakenly said before) writes "The truth is that working with a smaller subset of foods does put you at higher rsk for missing some nutrients"

That is basically incorrect. The fact is, that all the nutrients needed by animals, are produced by micro-organisms, and green plants. As a human animal, you can either eat the micro-organism or green plant directly, or eat an animal that has eaten the micro-organism or green plant, or an animal that has eaten such an animal, etcetera. This is basic junior high-school biology or junior high school health studies. None of the nutrients that we get from animals, cannot be gotten also - and more directly - from micro-organisms or green plants. None of the nutrients that we need are actually synthesised by animals. They are all synthesised by micro-organims and green plants.

For examples we do not really need protein. Proteins are polymers of amino acids. We need the amino acids or precursors to amino acids, that make up proteins. Animals get all these amino acids, or partial amino acids, from green plants. Then they string them together into polymers. Humans, when we eat either plants or animals, break apart the protein polymers, and in some case partially disassemble the amino acids, then put them back together again into different amino acids, and different protein polymers. There is no material in animal proteins, that we need, that we can't also find in green plants.

Same goes for the fatty acids we need, and the carbohydrates we need. In some cases, animals will concentrate micronutrients. So we can get the micronutrients in concentrated form, that we can't get from green plants. This is not true for any macronutrients. But is probably true for vitamin B12. However animals will also concentrate toxic matter found in plants, or in the air, that can't be rapidly excreted. They will store it in their fatty tissues. Thus animals become a better source of dioxins, or mercury, than green plants will be. Same is true for iodine (if we eat animal thyroid glands). Iodine is one of those chemicals that we need in tiny amounts, but in larger amounts becomes toxic to us. It is absorbed from the soil by green plants, even though green plants have no use for it. In other words, something can be both a nutrient and a poison, depending on quantity.

Contrary to popular belief, when measuring grams of protein per gram of substance, and measuring at the same level of hydration, animals do not have more protein in their muscle tissue than is found in plant tissues. Dehydrated collards, for example, actually have a higher percentage of protein than dehydrated muscle tissue.

--Nomenclator 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that was my quote, not Kellen's ^T. To address it however, you are misinterpreting what I am saying. At no point did I say that a person needs to consume animal products to get a full range of nutrients. I simply said that eating less variety of food puts you at greater risk for missing out on nutrients. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. However the question is not whether eating less variety puts you at risk for missing out on nutrient; the question is whether leaving out animal products in general puts you at risk for missing out on nutrients. You said eating a "smaller subset of foods" puts you at risk for missing out on nutrients. That is true in general, and it is true if subset you leave out, is a certain kind of vegetable, but is not true if the subset you leave out is all animal-origin foods. It may be true, however, if you leave out certain kinds of animal food. For example if you leave out animal livers, you are at risk for missing out on B12; if you leave out eating animal thyroid glands, you are at risk for missing out on iodine. But if you leave out animal foods altogether, you are not at risk for missing out on any nutrients.--Nomenclator 18:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, it doesn't make sense that if you leave out part of an animal, you would be at risk, but if you leave out all of the animal, you wouldn't be. At this point, I am not even sure what the point of this discussion is. "Higher risk" doesn't even necessarily indicate that it is a high, or even a significant risk. Just that the risk is greater. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Shellac

Not everything that is described as "shellac" is really the traditional formulation of lac dissolved in alcohol, that was the original "shellac." Do you think that "latex paints" contain latex? Not in 50 years. The first latex paints contained latex. Gradually various other elastic resins began being used. Today, there is not a single "latex paint" on the market that truly has latex in it. And lots of things called shellac, just do not have any lac in them. Fruits can, however, be covered with beeswax, or whale oil.--Nomenclator 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional Health Benefits?

Says "Vegans note additional health benefits are gained by not consuming artificial substances such as growth hormones and antibiotics, which are often given to farmed animals." However what proof for this is there? Not "note" this but claim this is what a few vegans do. Evidence supporting their claims is at best not a lot of it. So to Are there really enough growth hormones in milk to affect milk drinkers? The dairy industry it says no. As a controversy this should not be in encyclopedia where we are wanting facts not controversies, unless they are labeled as controversies. Controversies should not be presented as facts, as here they are presented. No? I'm sorry my English is not good so someone you want to write the changes be else, not me, it would be better. --Tonguebutcher 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That whole section is sketchy and poorly cited. I am working my way towards it and intend to merge it with the "health effects" section into a single "health" section. Kellen ^T 22:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Singer

There is some dispute about weather or not Peter Singer is a vegan, or simply a vegetarian. His wikipedia page categorizes him as an Australian Vegan and articles like this one from The Guardian [23] also describe him as such. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 19:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He's vegetarian:

'Q: There's been some question about your vegan "purity."'

'A: Oh, there's no question about that, I'm impure.' [24]

He goes on to say he'll eat free-range eggs and he won't quibble about unseen animal products like ghee. He also says that veganism is "fanatical". More critiques here: [25] Trent 22:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He says he shops vegan, but that he makes reasonable exceptions.

"When I’m shopping for myself, it will be vegan. But when I’m traveling and it’s hard to get vegan food in some places or whatever, I’ll be vegetarian. I won’t eat eggs if they’re not free-range, but if they’re free-range, I will. I won’t order a dish that is full of cheese, but I won’t worry about, say, whether an Indian vegetable curry was cooked with ghee."

The "fanatical" bit is not characterizing veganism as fanatical, but the promotion of veganism as fanatical over the more achievable goal of getting people to eat less meat or meat from more ethically treated animals. Kellen ^T 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't prove this, but for informational sake, I emailed Peter Singer at Princeton a couple of years ago and we talked about veganism and he advocated it heavily. I think saying you're an "impure" vegan doesn't mean you're a vegetarian. I can relate to what he's saying - he's a vegan most of the time but doesn't do it perfectly. GingerGin 04:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've heard him say, on video, he's a vegetarian. It's either in the Singer-Asch debate or the Princeton University Food, Ethics and the Environment Conference at. Here are the links http://realserver.princeton.edu:8080/ramgen/special/19991012singer_ashTV7220K.rm and http://realserver.princeton.edu:8080/ramgen/special/20061116foodconference-session1VN350K.rm

I heard him say, in person, that he was vegan fall 2007 at the Boston Vegetarian Society food festival. He claimed that veganism was "not a religion" for him and admitted that, when it was very inconvenient for him, he would sometimes consume products that contain egg or dairy. I tend to agree with GingerGin, being an "impure Vegan" doesn't make you vegetarian. —mako (talk•contribs) 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to Porphyry piece

I came across the following on the Tertullian site (www.tertullian.org and www.tertullian.org/fathers) - there are several sections

Porphyry (philosopher), On abstinence from animal food: [[26]] - if someone wishes to put in the links. Jackiespeel 18:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Vegans and Shell Fish

There is a popular myth(?) that vegans can eat certain kinds of shell fish, such as mussels, as they lack a nervous system and are incapable of suffering. Is this true? One way or the other, should mention be made of it in the article? Thefuguestate 10:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, vegans generally do not eat shell fish. This myth is not really notable (I've never heard it), so it does not deserve mention. Kellen ^T 11:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Better sources

I just glanced at the references and literally laughed at how bad they are. I don't care enough about the topic to do it myself, but if any self-respecting vegan wikipedians read this may I suggest using sources not from websites such as notmilk.com lol. Cheers. Rothery 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL! But you're right that the references for that section are crap; the section needs serious work. Kellen ^T 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-referenced references

Moved unreferenced sources from main page. Kellen ^T 16:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• C. de Haan et al. Livestock and the Environment: Finding a Balance FAO, USAID, World Bank, 1998. Provides evidence of environmental damage caused by animal farming, mainly factory farming.
• Keeton, W.T. et al. Biological Science, 5th Ed., Publishers: W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London., ISBN 0-393-96223-7 (hardback)
• Langley, G. Vegan Nutrition: a survey of research, The Vegan Society 1988, ISBN 0-907337-15-5
• Marcus, Erik. (2000) Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
• Moore Lappe, F. Diet for a Small Planet. Ballantine Books, 1985.
• Moore Lappe, F. & Lappe, A. Hope's Edge: The Next Diet for a Small Planet. Jeremy P. Tarcher Publishing, 2003.
• Saunders, Kerrie (2003) The Vegan Diet As Chronic Disease Prevention: Evidence Supporting the New Four Food Groups
• Smil, V. Rationalizing Animal Food Production, in Feeding the World: A Challenge for the 21st Century, MIT Press, London, 2000. This provides evidence for the amount of grain required to raise livestock.
• Stepaniak, Joanne. (2000) The Vegan Sourcebook
• Torres, B. and Torres, J. Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World. Tofu Hound Press. 2005. ISBN 0-9770804-1-2 (paperback).
• Walsh, S. Plant Based Nutrition and Health, The Vegan Society 2003, ISBN 0-907337-26-0 (paperback), ISBN 0-907337-27-9 (hardback).
• "Non-vegan prescriptions?" by Jo Stepianak, Grassroots Veganism, retrieved October 26, 2005
• "Anger over 'pig' secret of prescribed drug by Martin Shipman, The Western Mail, December 27, 2002, retrieved October 26, 2005
• FAQ, Vegan Resource Group, retrieved October 26, 2005
• Campbell, Colin T. and Campbell, Thommas M. The China Study, page 179, Benbella, 2005, ISBN 1-932100-38-5

What is an unreferenced source? —mako (talk•contribs) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

These were listed as "sources" on the page, but were not used as inline references to support any specific statements. I suspect older editors of this page (a) used some of these sources in constructing parts of the page (b) just added books on the topic of veganism, but which have no direct bearing on what is written here. These might be useful for extracting supporting references for some parts of the article, but are not particularly useful just as a list at the end of the article. Kellen ^T 00:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of vegans

I think the data related to # of vegans should be moved elsewhere in the article, with a summary in the intro. I'm not 100% sure of what the title of the section should be; perhaps "Demographics". Comments/concerns? Kellen ^T 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I did this. Kellen ^T 01:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Note on picture

As a subheading for the picture next to 'health' it says "A fruit stall in Barcelona. All fruit is vegan."... should this not make the exception for some apples which are coated with shellac? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.184.202 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

No, probably not. I have changed the caption in any case so this issue doesn't keep coming up. Kellen ^T 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Famous" vegans

Do we really need some section that will inevitably be filled with non- or poorly sourced material? Can the fact that these people are vegan be mentioned on their own pages if it is notable enough rather than here? Kellen ^T 08:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not needed here. There is already a List of vegans article which has done a nice job of keeping this sort of list off this article.--Michig 11:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Gestation crate caption

I don't think the "gestation crate" picture really needs an extended explanation of what's going on; there can be a link to an article about the crates rather than having that info here. It doesn't significantly add to the "ethics" section, imho. Kellen ^T 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've trimmed it heavily. Better now? mako (talk•contribs) 03:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's how I would have had it written. Kellen ^T 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The image seems unfairly biased without an explanation of the background. Perhaps a truncated explanation would work: that gestation crates are necessary to protect piglets. (Also, this is the heart of the ethical issue with the crates: do you protect the piglets or do you provide the sows with more room to roam?)Jav43 22:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Demograhics and the Harris Interactive poll

The conclusion in this paragraph doesn't sound correct:

A 2006 poll conducted by Harris Interactive in the United States listed specific foods and asked how often respondents never ate those items, rather than asking respondents to self-identify. The results found that, of the 1,000 adults 18 and over polled, 1.4% never eat meat, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy products, or eggs. They were, in other words, vegan except for possibly honey.

The definition of Vegan in the article includes not using animal products such as leather and wool. If the poll didn't ask respondents about non-food uses of animal products, then the conclusion "They were, in other words, vegan" doesn't hold. At best, 1.4% is an upper bound on the number of vegans - the actual number could be considerably lower. 192.171.3.126 13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording a bit, to indicate that we're just talking about food consumption with regards to this survey. Cheers, Doctormatt 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What About Predators?

Hi Vegans. I can understand not wanting to cause undue suffering to animals, but if that's the reason for one's veganism, how does one feel about the eating habits of carnivores? Are lions murderers? and as far as the health concerns go, well, it seems like one has to have ample time and money to be able to maintain this diet without problems - also, if it's so healthy, why can I not think of any society in the history of the world that was 100% vegan? It seems to me that people should be concentrating more on advocating the responsible eating of meat - which would entail eating much less meat(in places where it is eaten not in moderation, like Chicago, for example)and ensuring that animals utilised by people are treated in a humane, respectful way. If you think that's a contradiction, well, a deer being eaten by a wolf is no less ethical than a clean shot from me (and I get a useful skin out of it). It just seems to me that if veganism were the dominant paradigm, which is what I assume vegans want, it would actually throw things just as out of balance as they already are. 76.173.124.88ModerateMeatEater

While your statements about the humane treatment of animals seem reasonable to me, this article is meant to cover the facts of the vegan diet -- while notable advocacy and criticism of veganism warrant inclusion, neither the article nor the talk page are the place for personal arguments for or against vegan philosophy. (This is true of all wikipedia articles, not just this one, wikipedia is not a forum for personal opinions.) Madeleine 16:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that talk pages are to talk about the article, NOT the subject of the article. And in general, no, most vegans disagree with eating meat because it's unnatural, not because it's inhumane. Although I don't think anyone is expecting civility out of a carnivore, I'd rather like to see it out of a land owner -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 03:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation?

The IPA pronunciation of "vegan" has been changed a bit, from [ˈviːgən] to [viːgən] ... from reading the IPA chart, it appears that the first is more correct than the second (since it indicates the "primary stress" is on the first bit), but I can't really tell if I'm reading everything correctly. Anybody? Kellen^T 00:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm no language expert, but your interpretation looks right to me and agrees with http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/vegan. -- Madeleine 00:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegan which has an IPA pronunciation and it indeed has the leading 'ˈ'. I have put this back in the article. Kellen^T 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Honey

I know the original and strict definition of veganism says that honey is not vegan. Nevertheless, some vegans eat honey and still consider themselves to be vegan. A recent edit to Vegetarianism tried to add this information. My impression is that wikipedia pages need to cover all viewpoints, and a significant subset of vegans do consume honey. I feel something to the effect "Although the original definition of veganism excluded honey and insect products, some vegans consider these to be vegan." should be added. some outside sources: http://www.veganmeat.com/honey.html and http://www.vegan.org/FAQs/index.html#7 -- Madeleine 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia pages need to cover all viewpoints, just those that are notable and well-substantiated by reliable sources. I don't think those two sources are very good; if they were wikipedia articles, they'd have major problems with weasel words and lack of citations. Perhaps better sources can be found, since I do believe that vegan attitudes toward honey are worth mentioning. The sentece you suggest sounds great, with an appropriate reference. I'll keep an eye out. Cheers, Doctormatt 19:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh... I thought the second source sounded okay, since it came from a group that calls itself "Vegan Action" and has the www.vegan.org website, but I'm no expert in the field. Thanks. Madeleine 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say the second source is fine and that the article should cover "the honey debate" as most if not all the self-identified vegans I know do not strictly abstain from eating honey (myself included). This could be in the "animal products" section. If you don't get to it first, I may write it myself. Kellen^T 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)