Talk:Veganism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Veganism article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Good article Veganism was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article was reviewed by WP Update Watch On: Sep 26 2007

You can help by keeping updated and reliable articles, integrating newly available information
Archive
Archives
  1. August 2003 – May 2005
  2. May – September 2005
  3. October 1 – November 18, 2005
  4. November – December 2005
  5. December 2005 – July 2006
  6. July 2006 – December 2006
  7. January 2007 – March 2007
  8. March 2007 – May 2007
  9. May 2007 – July 2007
  10. July 2007 – September 2007
  11. September 2007 – February 2008

References

Contents

[edit] Regarding the edit discussing mortality in vegans compared with meat-eaters

The edit changed "A 1999 metastudy of five studies on vegetarian mortality rates in western countries found equivalent mortality rates for vegans and meat eaters" to "A 1999 metastudy of five studies on vegetarian mortality rates in western countries found equivalent mortality rates for vegans and regular meat eaters. These two group had the highest mortality rate of 1.0 while vegetarian and infrequent meat eater performed better in term of mortality scoring 0.84, while those who only eat fish did best in term of mortality scoring 0.82."

A small question first: Does this remark in general belong in the Benefits section? I would say no, since it doesn't really address any beneficial aspect of a vegan diet. It doesn't really seem to be appropriate for the Precautions section either, but I think it would fit in there better, at least.

Second: I don't think that the new edit is phrased well. It's not obvious what the numbers mean, exactly, in the context of this article, and I don't think they're needed. If a reader would like to know more precise information, they can follow the link to the study. Additionally, I think that "performed better," "scoring," and "did best" aren't exactly right for this piece of information. Those phrases and words convey a sort of competition or contest. I do agree that the original sentence didn't really express enough, so I won't just revert the edit.

How does this sound: "A 1999 meta-study of five studies comparing vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates in western countries found equivalent mortality rates for vegans and those who eat meat regularly. The study also found equivalent and lower mortality rates for vegetarians and those who eat meat infrequently."

Thoughts? Djk3 (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree - your phrasing is good. Bob98133 (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Your phrasing is better than the changed one.
  • The "benefits"/"precautions" section should ideally just be one section, but while the "precautions" section has been heavily edited, the "benefits" section still contains fluff and messiness.
  • The vegan-related results should be interpreted with caution, so say the authors:
"The number of vegans was small (n = 753 subjects, 68 deaths)" ... "This increased the number of vegans to 1146, of whom 165 died before age 90 y. However, the numbers of deaths from individual cancers among vegans remained small (range: 3–8)." ... "However, these death rate ratios should be interpreted with caution because of the uncertainty of the dietary classification of subjects in the Health Food Shoppers Study." ... "Mortality from ischemic heart disease among the vegans was slightly higher than among the fish eaters and the vegetarians, but the number of vegans was small."
KellenT 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It took me a minute to find the numbers the editor was quoting. They're in this table, which uses the smaller number of vegans before adding those from the Health Food Shoppers Study. I'm going to add this edit, but I'm going to leave it where it is right now if the ultimate goal is to merge the Benefits and Precautions sections. It might be worth it to mention that the study says to interpret the death rate ratios with caution, but I'm not sure. The study says that we should do that because of the uncertainty of the dietary classification of subjects in the Health Food Shoppers Study, and the table that we're drawing information from doesn't include that data. Djk3 (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone is keep eliminating information which clearly indicate that vegan do pretty bad in term of longevity and that people who eat fish but no other meat live longest among sample groups. Isn't this a typical example of censorship? Vapour (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

by the way, I'm the one who originally digged out this various clinical studies and added in the vegetarian article. I'm more amused than annoyed that someone keep deleting this "Inconvenient Truth". Surely, vegan diet seems bad for one's longivity is relevant info. Vapour (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for finding those studies, they're really great. I have not deleted the information, I've just removed words that imply a sort of contest. The section as I've edited it clearly says that vegans and regular meat eaters have equivalent mortality rates, and that vegetarians and occasional meat eaters also have equivalent mortality rates, and that they're lower. Beyond that, the reader can follow the citation and read the study. Regarding the second edit you made, adding "5 out of 5 studies indicated that adults who followed a low meat, high plant-food diet pattern experienced significant or marginally significant decreases in mortality risk relative to other patterns of intake," that may be read to directly contradict the preceding sentences. Veganism is a low meat, high plant-food diet. Additionally, since I assume that that is supposed to refer to standard vegetarianism, I don't think it's really merited on this page. Thanks again for finding those studies. Djk3 (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't happy about the repeated deletion of the fact that the edit which indicate the lowest mortality for people who eat fish but no other meat. Anyway, it is so much simpler if we write down the mortality rate for respective diet. Vapour (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, this article is about veganism, not about pescetarianism or the mortality rates of different diets. It's sufficient to say that the mortality rate of those following a vegan diet is equivalent to the mortality rate of those following an average meat-eating diet, and that the mortality rate of vegetarians and occasional meat-eaters is lower. It's not simpler to write the mortality rates. It's not obvious to me what those numbers represent, and we shouldn't make an assumption that someone reading this article will know; this isn't a technical article, and we can't expect someone reading it to have technical knowledge. Djk3 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is acceptable to censor the fact that vegan as well as regular meat eater has the highest mortality rate while people who eat only fish has the lowest mortality rate. I will keep reverting if this crucial info is deleted or obscured. Vapour (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your edit. "I will keep reverting if this crucial info is deleted or obscured." is not acceptable on wikipedia. KellenT 10:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It is acceptable. Do you care to give a reason why you are so eager to obscure the fact that vegan (along with regular meat eater) has the highest mortality rate? It is a blatant biased edit given that original article give precise numerical data on the mortality. Vapour (talk)
Plus, all of you seems to be involved in vegan, vegetarian and animal thingy. Biased wikipedia edit by ideologues seems to be getting quite a bad press recently. It is interesting to see how this thing will turn out. If you don't make valid policy argument for obscuring the vegan's highest mortality rate result (which I doubt there is one), then I will revert. Vapour (talk)
The argument for not including "the highest" is this: it is equivalent with the average diet. Referring to it as "the highest" is putting undue weight there; it is not a particularly high mortality rate. The argument for not including the note about the fish-only diet is this: this is an article about veganism, not pescetarianism. The important notes are that vegan diets provide an equivalent mortality rate with average meat-including diets, and that vegetarian and low-meat diets have a lower mortality rate. Mentioning that pescetarianism is a more specific comment about that second note, and this is the wrong article in which to do that. Wikipedia is not based on policy, but on consensus. The consensus is clearly against the phrasing you provide. Djk3 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
A false argument there. My original edit was an import from vegetarian article.
"A 1999 metastudy[51] compared six major studies from western countries. The study found that the mortality ratio was the lowest in fish eaters (0.82) followed by vegetarians (0.84) and occasional meat eaters (0.84) and which was then followed by regular meat eaters (1.0) and vegan (1.0) [6]."
There was no emphasis on vegan being the worst diet. The edit based on raw citation was censored to support POV that "it (vegan mortaility) is not a particular high mortality rate" and "Vegan equivalent to regular meat eating is the most important aspect of the info" POV. We should let the original content of the source material speak for itself. We should not dictate what reader should interpret from such data. Anyway, given that almost everyone knows that regular/average diet in the West is unhealthy, it is not a flattering data for vegan diet but hey, that is my POV/(inconvenient truth) right? Vapour (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked, but I'd be most surprised to find that the WP articles on kashrut find it necessary to point out that “ah but a kosher diet is not the most healthy one possible, since this and that diet that includes fish without scales has been proven to have a lower mortality rate”. That would be ridiculous. If the point behind veganism was that it was the most healthy diet possible, a discussion of that claim could be relevant, but that is not its point, so not only is data about the healthiness of a diet containing the flesh of dead fish irrelevant, but it is also misleading, since it tends to make it appear that the point of veganism is the health issue.
The fact is that veganism has been often attacked as being a particularly unhealthy diet; correcting those allegations is the only reason, in my mind, health aspects should be discussed at all in the article.
David Olivier (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
ah, may be, vegan diet is unhealthy. Having mortality equivalents to super-size-me diet of the general population is pretty bad. General population tend to drink more, smoke more, do less exercise, less educated than people who are vegetarian. And every long term vegan I know looks famished. Anyway, whatever I or you think about veganism is irrelevant to wikipedia editing. Can I restore the mortality data without spin. Vapour (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The precise diet of meat-eaters varies, and so does that of vegans. To state that on the average a vegan diet is as healthy, or unhealthy, as a meat-eating diet doesn't imply that it is unhealthy. It implies very little. I am for keeping that kind of vegan-bashing out. David Olivier (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, sample varies. It is called variance. And then there is things called standard variance. The studies quoted state that vegetarian, vegan, irregular meat eater and fish eater, statistically speaking, smoke less and drink less, do more exercise and are generally belong to higher socio economic group, all scientifically proven to confer longer life span. The paper specifically stated that large part of longer life span of vegetarian can be attributed to other life style choice unrelated to their diet. These things are not prejudice. It is a opinion based on scientific data. When intelligent design are excluded from school science class, it is not bible bashing. You are free to promote moral and possibly environmental aspect of vegan. It is irresponsible to promote health aspect of vegan which does not have scientific basis. Vapour (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I edited the content relating to Chinese study. I accept that content is slightly heavy with my interpretation. I don't like to delete content if it is sourced from verified source so I tried to salvage it. Feel free to trim it. Vapour (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that studies cited in the "health" section be about vegans (that is, they should be one of the studied populations), and that the cited conclusions be statistically significant. If not, they ought to come with very clear disclaimer (to the effect that they're not really applicable). I just made some changes to try to effect this. (Personal note: I am quite interested in negative results on veganism that pass these criteria.) Mkcmkc (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vegan activism

Since vegans are very outspoken and seem to be very active in bringing their philosophy to others, would a section on vegan activism be germaine to the article? Bugguyak (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health effects of going back to eating meat?

I've heard claims of adverse effects when a person goes omnivore after a period of veganism. People say that some sort of meat-processing bacteria in your digestive system dies or somehow becomes inactive if you don't eat meat, so that you can't go back to eating meat after being a vegan.

Is there a Wikipedia article in which this claim is discussed? I've tried a little searching but I've found nothing on WP. I've heard this claim several times, so if (as I believe) it's not supported by the facts, shouldn't this myth be debunked in (for example) this article? 88.112.7.166 (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've not seen any research on this, and I'd say it's probably bunk. KellenT 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspect this is an urban legend. Humans acquire their gut flora maternally (see Intestinal_flora#Acquisition_of_gut_flora_in_human_infants), and it is not substantially altered by diet, except in cases of outright food poisoning or heavy antibiotic use. Also, intestinal bacteria play a much more substantial role in breaking down carbohydrate-rich food rather than protein-rich food, so if this theory is correct it would be more difficult (digestively speaking) to shift from a long-term carnivorous diet to a vegan diet. This is just speculation on my part, and I don't think we need to mention this in the article. Skinwalker (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I can personally attest that if you're eating healthy and low-fat, or fasting, if you suddenly resume a standard American diet, you will feel like crap and probably experience severe digestive distress for a few days. Aside from that, the claim sounds bogus to me. Mkcmkc (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Honey

I removed:

The controversial term may be here a distinction between organic certified or naturally gathered honey, in comparison to honey originating from mass production (which involves mass breeding queen bees and removing their wings to suppress the natural migration, feeding the bees on sugar syrup after their honey outcome was taken away or even killing the entire population during winter).[1]

I removed this because (1) the issue of honey is already covered by the previous sentence, (2) the citation doesn't support the "controversial term" sentence (3) this doesn't address why some vegans find honey acceptable (e.g. because they don't view bees as passing the threshold for sentience or what have you). Basically it's unnecessary. KellenT 09:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. That sentence was mostly speculation anyhow.Bob98133 (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PETA link dispute

I think that the PETA web site is a bit too general as a link for this article, however a link to the PETA vegan website http://www.goveg.com/ might be appropriate.Bob98133 (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Pairadox - you're supposed to wait for Kellen or other editors to reply too, then go with the concensus! Any thoughts on adding the PETA vegan site?Bob98133 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say neither. External links should be to sites that give people more information about veganism than they can find in the article. I don't think the PETA site or the goveg.com (not specifically about veganism) are suitable.--Michig (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the PETA link should stay. It's a similar organization in its general purpose to some of the others listed (Friends of Animals, etc.), and it's probably the most visible of those. I think the reason there's a dispute isn't its relatedness to the article; I think it's probably because PETA is so opposed by so many people. I also think that if we remove it because it's too general, we're going to have to slide down a slippery slope and remove the whole "Ethical" section. That would be unfortunate and misguided, since the most frequent motivation for veganism is the ethical concerns, and the groups listed there represent those concerns. There's my two cents!  :) Djk3 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
WRONG!! The reason for removing it is exactly because it's not really about veganism - any of the others that aren't should also be removed. If ethical concerns are the "most frequent motivation for veganism"[citation needed] then it should be rather easy to find relevant websites. Pairadox (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I just visited all the links in the "ethical" section and the only one that is specific to veganism is the Movement for Compassionate Living. I think that since the article is clear that veganism is usually an ethical stance so having websites, or even that Ethical section, isn't really necessary. I would say to move the Movement for Compassionate Living to the General links and ditch all the others. Besides, there are links to all sorts of orgs and other relevant articles in the category box.Bob98133 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, as I said in my edit summary PETA is an AR organization which also promotes veganism. Also in my edit summary; see google search: "site:peta.org vegan", where you can find such things as:
While "cage-free" and "crate-free" don't mean "cruelty-free" (the best way to be cruelty-free is to go vegan)
And:
Adopting a vegan diet means saying “no” to cruelty to animals and environmental ...
So, yeah. KellenT 06:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If one has to resort to a google search to find a rationale for including PETA as a EL it's obviously not specific enough to be included. Pairadox (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that "ethical" category could be changed to "Organizations that support veganism" or "pro-vegan organizations" if there is still a point having the links then? Bob98133 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
PETA is the highest profile animal rights organization in the world; they promote veganism; they're cited in several places in the article. How are they not relevant to ELs? You'll have to justify yourself better than complaining that I used a google search. KellenT 18:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I think it's worthwhile to note that searching "site:peta.org" gets 25,300 hits (i.e. there are 25,300 pages under peta.org) and that searching "vegan OR veganism site:peta.org" gets 7,430 hits. That means that about a third of the pages on the PETA website mention veganism. Djk3 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the Peta link should say as that is one of PETA's main goals.-Localzuk(talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what about the economical and ecological ethics?

does any vegan think about what would happen if everyone drops animal oriented foods and starts consuming vegetables. Please dont take this as an insult, these are the points i am curious of as an engineer, these are only resource problems for me, We mankind are the most consuming animals on the planet and the assumptions i have made are about the usage of the resources and the effects, thanks for reading :)

first assumption: the wastes of plant farming( esp wheat) as source of animal will collapse which will increase vegetable prices that even poor people will get poorer,
second assumption: the increase in vegetable consumption will cause loss of lands dedicated to wild life as well as the lands in 3rd world countries will be used to feed rich countries ... means we do not have sufficient lands to feed us all(even today africa suffers starvation)
third assumption: animal farming does not consume much water as plant farming, water is the rarest resource in most of the fertile lands, and global climate change makes it even harder, we do not have enough water,
fourth assumption: the animals once fed for their milk, meat and leather will be under danger of extinction although today they are the most successful animals with respect to the evolution( biomass of cattles sheeps pigs etc are much more than any wild species),

if someone has any different views please inform me these are only my thoughts and do not need to mention medical and human evolution issues... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas (talk • contribs) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your first point. To your second - remember that every animal consumed also has to eat plant food, and it has to eat many, many more calories of plant-origin food than the number of calories it will provide after slaughter. To your third - again, remember that the animals are fed plant crops, so any inefficiency with water use in plant farming is only magnified by animal farming. To your fourth - what is the ethical problem with a species going extinct? I would not say that they are the most successful species simply because they have a high biomass. Their biomass is high because we like to eat them, there are a lot of us, and we figured out how to make a lot of them. It looks to me like you just made these up off the top of your head, so they can't go into the article. Djk3 (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Djk3's point is valid: animal farming requires vast amounts of plant farming for feed. From en ecological perspective, animal farming — in terms of calorie content, nutrient content, etc — is far less efficient in terms of not only land and water resources but also man-hour resources than plant farming alone is. The only exception would be livestock that is only sustained by grazing on existing pastureland, but due to shrinking pastureland, that is becoming increasingly rare and brings ecological concerns of its own (particularly evidenced by the loss of Sub-Saharan Africa to desertification caused by overgrazing, but elsewhere as well).
As for your first point, I do not quite understand your wording either, but if I understand you correctly, you are saying that higher demand for plant-derived foods will increase their price, causing serious problems for poor people. However, that scenario would only occur in the unlikely event that animal-derived foods were done away with suddenly, with farms not being able to adjust their production methods in time to supply the new demand for plant-derived foods. A far more likely scenario would be for the change to occur gradually over time, which would allow farms to keep up with the increased demand for plant foods and decreased demand for animal foods. In fact, the end result would probably mean that plant foods would be cheaper than they are now, due to economies of scale.
As for your fourth point, I disagree with Djk3 that there is no ethical problem with species going extinct. However, I don't think that would happen in this case. Already there are thousands of endangered species that do not serve any direct practical use to humans, but are nevertheless protected from extinction, for many legitimate reasons. Many of these reasons would also extend to livestock species, and some new ones would arise. For example, humans may adopt some species as full-blown pets or companion animals (as many already do with pigs). If it somehow happens that humans have no other reason to keep them around, they would probably adapt to the wild, as most domesticated animals have shown the ability to do. But even without these reasons, at the very least, they would survive in zoos, as many other endangered species do.
Anyway, as Djk3 mentioned, your ideas here, unless drawn from a reputable source, would not be admissible in Wikipedia, due to the original research policy. It's an interesting topic to think about, though. -kotra (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The ecological aspect is a little more nuanced than that. Eating locally can be better for the environment than eating only plants. Take a look at the last paragraph here. Depending on where you live, it is more environmentally friendly to eat a small amount of meat (still much less than the average American consumption) than an exclusively plant-based diet. Marginally fertile land can support more people if used for animal farming. If you don't live near highly fertile farmland, you have to package and transport vegetables in from elsewhere - which leads to more greenhouse emissions.
At any rate, I agree that we need to see reliable sources for any of these ideas. Until then, it's a moot point. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That paragraph you mention is confusingly worded. It starts off saying that vegetarian diets (which do not include meat) require the least amount of land. Then it says that a diet that has a small amount of meat and dairy can support more people on the same amount of land - essentially saying that such a (non-vegetarian) diet requires even less land to produce the same amount of food. Unless I'm mistaken, these two sentences conflict... I think that text should be clarified.
As for eating locally, I understand that it in some situations it may be more ecologically sound than eating a vegan diet that isn't local, but in my mind these are two separate issues. Ecologically speaking, the best diet would be a locally-grown vegan diet, right? True, in arid or extremely rocky places such a diet may not be available, and in those cases I might agree with you. But keep in mind that in those places, grazing often leads to erosion and desertification.
Land does not need to be highly fertile to support plant crops; the reason we see livestock on fertile land instead of plant crops is simply the great demand for animal products, not because livestock are the only suitable use for the land. -kotra (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an interesting topic, but we shouldn't go into any depth discussing it here. We should focus on talking about how much of this can be be incorporated into the article. As it stands, I think the answer is none. I wonder if there is any real scientific research into this. Djk3 (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree. This is interesting but the focus of this should stay on topic - veganism may or may not be more ecological than some other diet, but that is not its defining characteristic. This might be a claim made by vegans, or there might be references to support it, which could merit a mention in the article, but it is a minor point. Bob98133 (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Sorry for getting off track. However, I still think the paragraph in question is confusingly worded and should be explained. If no one else gets to it, I'll take a look at the references sometime within the next few days to see if I can find out the intended meaning. -kotra (talk)


[edit] Peter Singer is NOT a vegan!

Peter Singer calls himself a "flexible vegan" which is, *not* a vegan. According to the definition on which the wikipedia and vegan society has agreed, Singer does not meet this quality.

"I don’t eat meat. I’ve been a vegetarian since 1971. I’ve gradually become increasingly vegan. I am largely vegan but I’m a flexible vegan. I don’t go to the supermarket and buy non-vegan stuff for myself. But when I’m traveling or going to other people’s places I will be quite happy to eat vegetarian rather than vegan. " (My bad about not signing, still learning) http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2006/04/peter_singer.html Ajkochanowicz (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, we've talked about this before at Talk:Veganism/Archive08#Peter_Singer. Ultimately, why do we care? He explicitly advocates veganism. KellenT 11:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
If it's a matter of being pure, no one is a vegan; so we could cite no one in the article as being vegan, if we were held to that standard. If the issue is that Peter Singer himself admits not being a perfect vegan, while others do not, that something about what they say, not what they are, and may not be very relevant.
This isn't an article about Peter Singer, and the article only mentions Peter Singer's being vegan when it gives his reasons in favor of veganism. It seems perfectly natural in this context to qualify him as a vegan, without going into details about how perfect he is (versus how perfect others are).
David Olivier (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intor: health effect of vegan is not same as vegetarian

It appear that vegan advocate are insinuating that favourable health effect vegetarian automatically apply to vegan. This is not the case. Plus, some details of the quoted paper seems to be funked. There is no mention of reduced risk to cancer in the cited paper. A separate study which incorporate the same cited article also show that your mortality rate rise if you switch from vegetarian to vegan, to the level equivalent to regular meat eater. Vapour (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that vegan is different from vegetarian. The 2003 British study, for example, should be omitted here, as vegans were not one of the studied populations. Mkcmkc (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vegan advocacy site

Please stop using info from vegan advocacy site. These site is no where considered as neutral or verifiable. Info from academia or media is the rule. Vapour (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed your comments on this page. There are a lot indicating that you were not happy with the vegan mortality rate being "overlooked" since the data you present says that it is equivalent to non-vegetarians. Fine. However, your recent removal of sources was not discussed. While PCRM is definitely an advocacy group, the info you deleted from HSUS was well documented and did include the original source for the info. Instead of just insisting that you are right and will revert your edits no matter what, it would be prefereable for you to discuss all edits likely to be contentious on the talk page prior to making such sweeping changes. I will eventually revert the HSUS info if no one else does, but can you reconsider your changes and discuss them first? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I also think your edits are are lacking in justification. Yes, PCRM is an advocacy group, but that fact alone doesn't prevent us from citing them. You also seem to have blanked a lot of other stuff, not all of which I've reviewed, but, for example, the intro is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, but you have now used it to cite mortality for heart disease. So, basically, you need to review your edits ASAP or you'll likely be reverted. KellenT 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I too believe that advocacy groups are ok to cite as long as the text mentions that the cited material is from an advocacy group. For example, "The Humane Society of America, an animal welfare/rights advocacy group, says...". Let the informed reader decide if they want to believe an advocacy group or not. If we use such wording, I believe this controversy would be easily resolved.
Also, I agree, large-scale blanking (except to revert vandalism) should always be discussed on the talk page. It goes a long way to showing good faith and reducing edit wars. -kotra (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of wikipedia verification policy is to set the threshold of inclusion. Advocacy site is not a verifiable source. What prevent, say, KKK, using wikipedia as a platform. Plus, Wikipedia edit could easily degenerate into nothing more than forum flame war.
Citation of advocacy groups is allowed when they are quoted in verified site (i.e. media and academia). That is why we see copious amount of quote from, say, Amnesty International or Green Peace. Published books are grey area as some publisher are reputable while others are not so. If you find your content from advocacy site quoted in media or academia, feel free to add it here. Vapour (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you are misinterpreting WP:V. It says nothing about media and academia being the only places one can reference. The only restriction is that references must be reliable sources, and for finding a notable view of veganism, the Humane Society of America and the PCRM are very reliable and relevant sources on that subject. Please also note that I am all for presenting these views as "views", but I am certainly opposed, as you are, to presenting them as "fact". If the statements these advocacy organizations support were presented as fact, I too would have a problem with it. However, none of the statements referenced using PCRM or the HSA present anything as fact, instead "The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine recommends..." or similar. -kotra (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And I corrected misquote of China study. Some Chinese are Mahayana Buddhist and are vegetarian but they are not vegan. The medical studies I have quoted established that all overall gain one make from vegetarianism or reduced meat intake is lost once one switch to veganism. Vapour (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human society

I removed:

The Humane Society of the United States on the subject of a vegan diet as prevention of cancer:

"An exhaustive report on diet and cancer was released by the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund. Ten years in the making, reviewing more than 7,000 scientific studies, this 500+ page report is being considered the most comprehensive review ever published on the causal role of diet in cancer. The good news is that cancer is largely preventable. In addition to stopping smoking, exercising daily, and attaining a healthy weight, the expert panel recommends an overall limit on meat intake, and specifically singles out processed meat—bacon, hot dogs, ham and cold cuts—as a "convincing cause" of cancer. In general they conclude: "Eat mostly foods of plant origin". By choosing to eat a more humane, plant-based diet we can simultaneously attend to our own welfare, that of the animals, and that of our planet."[2].

I followed the source link (which is a link to a blog, not the report), found the main site for the study, searched here for "vegan," searched in the result PDFs for "vegan" and found mentions of vegan only in the context of defining what the diet is. Maybe the "plant-based diet" quote could be used somewhere else, but it borders on WP:SYN. KellenT 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed singer fragment

I removed:

Vegans like Peter Singer follow veganism for other reasons. Singer, who does not believe that all animal life is sacred, advocates veganism for utilitarian reasons, stating that the benefit caused by a good taste for the human who consumes animal products is more than negated by the pain felt by the beings who are consumed.[3]

Because there's already a section on Singer and this paragraph mainly seemed to be used to rebut the Jarvis' argument, which gets into tit-for-tat POV in the text of the article, which we would be better off without. KellenT 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] opening lines error.

"Vegans do not use or consume animal products of any kind" is wrong for all practical reasons as animal products and their consumption by vegans (knowingly or unknowingly) is too large a list to retype here given that it was already in the article earlier with sources. I suggest it be reworded or something. Idleguy (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone has now addressed this issue. -kotra (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Francione link removed

I find it strange that PETA is still in the link section, while Gary Francione has been removed. PETA does not advocate veganism as its moral baseline, and usually uses the word "vegetarian" in its literature. It is an animal welfare organization, not a vegan organization. I am not suggesting that the link to Francione's blog should be restored. However, since PETA advocates vegetarianism and welfare reforms, and only tangentially advocates veganism, it should not be included in the external links either. --Nick, 15:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand what PETA is if you think they are an animal welfare org. They are an animal rights organisation, they promote veganism through campaigning against milk, leather, eggs, etc... They use the terms vegetarian and vegan interchangably - look at this page for an example.
However, I would agree with the Gary Francione link being re-instated.-Localzuk(talk) 15:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
PETA is an AR organization, which promotes veganism (see previous discussion above). Francione also promotes veganism but my feeling is that he's less important overall than PETA, linking to his blog directly is a bit unnecessary (one can follow the reference links), and doing so will encourage creeping external links growth. KellenT 20:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Francione may not be as well-known or influential as PETA, but he represents a major, distinct viewpoint. Along with Singer and Regan, he is one of the three most important philosophers on animal issues. Perhaps we shouldn't link to his blog, but the abolitionist strand of veganism is significant, and this should be pointed out. --Nick, 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I wrote the paragraph which includes his POV in the "ethical concerns" section. KellenT 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benefits of animal-based Diets

I just removed the following from the "Benefits":

Conversely, based on a study in Japan, researchers suggest that increased consumption of some animal products coincided with a decrease in risk for some forms of cerebrovascular disease and stroke mortality.[4]

While those findings are certainly noteworthy, it's too lengthy a reference to put right in the first paragraph of a section that deals with the benefits of a vegan diet. It really disturbs the flow of the paragraph. Maybe this would fit in somewhere else in the article (thought I couldn't find a proper place). Lodp (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Vegan Nutrition?

I suggest we delete the vegan nutrition article, which was a fork of a section of this article back in the day, but which has retained sections that we've excluded from this article, retained lots of bad writing, has poor citations, and overall is unnecessary since the major (i.e. encyclopedic) issues of a vegan diet are addressed here, and the minutiae is better left to the vegan advocacy websites (the vegan society, and vegan outreach's veganhealth.org). I'll put it up for AFD if there's some agreement here. KellenT 18:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


I agree, even the first line is badly written, "Vegan nutrition encompasses the nutrients vegans require for a balanced diet. It is an important part of a vegan's life" If there's no 'omnivorous nutrition' article and how it's an important part of an omnivores life then there should be no vegan equivalent. Muleattack (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We've got a couple. I am indifferent about the vegan nutrition article. Djk3 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should delete that article. nk, 19:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody else have an opinion on this matter? KellenT 10:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watson Image

I added a photo of Donald Watson to the "Definition" sectoin of the article, since he is the one (or half of two) that coined the term "vegan", only to be reverted by User:Kotra, who argued that illustrating the diet was more important than Watson. The photo there now is the generic "cornucopia" image used all over. In my opinion, Watson is much more relevant to that section than a food image, especially considering the fact that we have additional food images later in the article. Opinions? KellenT 05:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see any need for a picture of Watson in this article. In Donald Watson, surely, and maybe also Vegan Society, but in this article, his name is just briefly mentioned. Do we need to have pictures of every person that's mentioned, however briefly?
As for the "cornucopia" image, it's only used in two other articles, Vegetarianism and Food. I see no problem with using it here as well, it's the only image that illustrates the wide variety of foods that can be found in a vegan diet. -kotra (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see any need for a picture of a cornucopia in this article. In Food, surely, and maybe also Vegetarianism, but in this article it's not even mentioned. Do we need to have pictures of every food that's mentioned, however briefly?
As for the "watson" image, it's only used in two other articles, Donald Watson and Vegan Society. I see no problem with using it here as well, it's the only image that illustrates the inventor of the word "vegan" and founder of the world's first vegan society. (apologies for the sass) KellenT 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel a picture of Watson would be appropriate. I also have mixed feelings about the “cornucopia” picture. It looks a lot like a cliché to me. I mean, the cliché that vegans necessarily eat a great number of fresh, raw or unprocessed vegetables and fruit. I'm vegan but I don't eat like that at all. I eat a lot of spaghetti, soy milk and breakfast cereals, bread, bottled fruit juice, soft drinks, soy cheese, chips, pizzas and so on which are all vegan but not at all represented in that picture. Also, let's face it, the concept of veganism is a negative on, and we should not be ashamed of it. Vegans are defined by what they do not eat, not by what they eat, and it makes no sense trying to disguise that fact and turning it into a positive one, like “look here all the delicious stuff we eat”. David Olivier (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(response to David Olivier) The basic ingredients for all the foods you mention are pretty much all present in the "cornucopia" image. They're just in their pre-processed form. I agree that vegans don't always (or even usually) eat these foods as they are pictured (whole and raw), but I don't think that's what the image would convey to readers. I think it conveys that these are the basic ingredients a vegan can eat. I see no problem with illustrating what vegans can eat as opposed to what they can't. A common question vegans (and vegetarians) get is "What can you actually eat? Salads?" I agree that vegans are defined more by what they don't eat, but it makes more sense to me to illustrate what they can eat, instead of a picture of meat, eggs, dairy, honey(?), etc. I'm not sure why that makes more sense to me, but it probably has something to do with balance. Most of this article seems preoccupied with discussing what veganism excludes and why, but very little attention is given to what veganism includes. Maybe this is a case of me advancing POV, though I'm not entirely sure what that POV is. I certainly would find soy ice cream, potato chips, and soda more appealing than a bunch of raw vegetables, nuts, and grains. -kotra (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(response to Kellen) The sass was well done. My compliments. However, if you are putting forth these arguments seriously, here's my response:
This article is (mainly) about a diet. As I see it, the food one can eat in such a diet should surely be illustrated, perhaps more than anything else in the article. I don't understand what you mean by "it's not even mentioned". Are you referring to the food one can eat in a vegan diet? If so, keep in mind that the intention of the image is not to illustrate every specific food that is mentioned in the article, but the diet in general. Concerning your comparison to its use in Vegetarianism, I see no difference between the image's relevance in Vegetarianism and Veganism. If anything, it's less relevant in Vegetarianism, because vegetarianism often includes dairy and eggs as well as the plant foods illustrated. Therefore, if it's useful in Vegetarianism, then wouldn't it be just as useful, perhaps even more so, in Veganism?
Concerning the "Watson" image, I still don't see it as that important. He may have been one of the founders of the first vegan society, and one of those who came up with the term "vegan" (according to this article anyway, the Vegan Society website is currently down), and I'm not disputing his large role in the early formation of veganism, but I certainly don't think his picture takes greater precedence than the other image. It's not like he's the creator of veganism or some sort of revered figure amongst vegans (at least, not that I know of). Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I hadn't even heard of him until this article (and I'm vegan myself, or nearly so). I wouldn't have a problem with us including both images, though. -kotra (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of a cornucopia-style image, but the current one is hideous. I know that's entirely subjective, but I think a lot of people would agree. And I see absolutely no problem including an image of Donald Watson. I don't me an to compare veganism to religion, but consider this: there's a picture of Jesus in the article on Christianity and a picture of Buddha in the article on Buddhism. There's a picture of Harriet Tubman in the Underground Railroad article, and her name only appears once in the text. It makes sense to have important figures of the movement pictured. And Donald Watson is the single most important one since he made up the word "vegan." --nk, 03:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The "cornucopia" image doesn't look hideous to me. It looks nice to me, actually. Not nice as in "this makes me hungry", but nice in terms of design. Could be just me, though.
I'm not convinced Watson is the most important person in the history of veganism. Even if he did come up with the word "veganism" (which isn't clear from this article or the Vegan Society website, which only says the word was coined in a meeting of a group of six), that doesn't mean he's the most important person in veganism, or that he should have a picture in the article. After all, there's no need to have a picture of Raphael Lemkin in Genocide or Michael Young in Meritocracy. One could argue that Watson is important also because he helped found the first vegan society. That may be so, but I still wouldn't consider him a figurehead or leader of veganism, as those examples you mentioned would be. To me it's a borderline case though, so like I said, I wouldn't object to including his picture in addition to the other image. (It is odd though that Harriet Tubman isn't mentioned more in Underground Railroad) -kotra (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Read source 14:
VIP: We understand that you are responsible for creating the word "vegan." How did that occur? Why did you feel the word was needed?
DW: I invited my early readers to suggest a more concise word to replace "non-dairy vegetarian." Some bizarre suggestions were made like "dairyban, vitan, benevore, sanivore, beaumangeur", et cetera. I settled for my own word, "vegan", containing the first three and last two letters of "vegetarian" -- "the beginning and end of vegetarian." The word was accepted by the Oxford English Dictionary and no one has tried to improve it.
If you look at featured articles, and many good articles, portraits of founders and proponents of certain philosophies are often shown. So yes, the person who coined the term "vegan," and founded the first vegan society is awfully relevant to the section of the article about the term vegan. In any case, Watson is certainly more notable to veganism than Dennis Kucinich, whose photo is shown in the section below. KellenT 08:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What vegans eat is about food, not botany

A discussion about the appropriateness of the “cornucopia” image was started in the last section, but it is off-topic there so I'll continue it here.

I said: “the cliché that vegans necessarily eat a great number of fresh, raw or unprocessed vegetables and fruit. I'm vegan but I don't eat like that at all. I eat a lot of spaghetti, soy milk and breakfast cereals, bread, bottled fruit juice, soft drinks, soy cheese, chips, pizzas and so on which are all vegan but not at all represented in that picture.”. Kotra answered: “The basic ingredients for all the foods you mention are pretty much all present in the "cornucopia" image. They're just in their pre-processed form. I agree that vegans don't always (or even usually) eat these foods as they are pictured (whole and raw), but I don't think that's what the image would convey to readers. I think it conveys that these are the basic ingredients a vegan can eat. I see no problem with illustrating what vegans can eat as opposed to what they can't.”

If I ask an average meat-eater what ey ate at lunch, the response will not be: “I ate cereals, legumes and pig muscle”. Rather it might be “pork with beans and bread”. True, vegans are often questioned about what they do eat; but just as often the answer comes as something like “grains, legumes, roots, nuts...” That is really strange. It's like confusing food with botany. Botanically, carrots may be roots, but as a food, carrots are carrots, and everyone knows carrots.

If we are to represent the foods vegans eat, I think we should start out with the foodstuffs that everyone knows. Bread, spaghetti, pizzas, French fries, water, soft drinks, sauerkraut, salads, biscuits, carrots and peas, wine and beer and other commonplace things. Then also the vegan equivalents to other commonplace items: soy milk, soy yoghurt, vegan ice cream, margarine, pastry... And then the vegan specifics like tofu, tempeh and so on.

Veganism is not about being aliens from Vega. Some vegans may eat only raw wild roots, or whole organic local-grown grains. But that's just one particular form of veganism, and I don't think the article should promote that as being what veganism is about.

David Olivier (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think an attempt should even be made to try and represent in a picture the food of a vegan diet. There's so many different things that it's foolish to try imho and from my experience one persons vegan diet can be radically different from anothers. E.G. raw foodists and junk foodists :P Muleattack (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, except that a vegan diet might appear even more strange if no picture can adequately describe it. It might be good to get rights to, or find an image like this one [1]that shows that many "normal" foods are vegan. Bob98133 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I know this isn't universally the case, but all of the vegans I know (including myself) do in fact eat a lot of organic fruits, vegetables, etc., as pictured in the cornucopia image. Then again, there are lots of "junk-food vegans" who live off oreos and pop-tarts. The huge range of things vegans eat cannot be encompassed in a single image. Perhaps it would be better not to have one at all. This point is also relevant in the section on vegan cuisine, which currently describes meat substitutes and ignores most everything else. This section should be expanded. nk 19:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is so much about what actual vegans eat (and trying to determine (or quibble over) which of them are more “typical”), as about what defines veganism. Actual vegans may all wear yellow sweaters, but that doesn't mean that yellow sweaters is part of veganism.
Take an average American diet, and you make it vegan by taking out the foods that have animal products, and leaving in the others. That leaves in bread (including white non-organic bread), spaghetti, pizza, french fries, soft drinks and so on. You then add in commonplace vegan substitutes for commonplace animal products; in other words, soy milk, soy yoguhurt, seitan and so on. Then you get a vegan equivalent of the typical American diet.
To then make it organic, raw-foodist, wheatgrassish and alfalfa-sproutish, is to do something else, that has no logical connection to being vegan. Even if all actual vegans did it (they don't, not all), that wouldn't make it relevant to what veganism is.
I like the idea of the page linked by Bob98133, it's exactly what I'm trying to express. Except that the picture doesn't seem very good to me. OK, where does that leave us? I don't know :)
David Olivier (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)