Here's a quote from the thread. Silly newspapers...
"Made by a MP from Forza Italia to seek for popularity after some recent cases of child abuse over wrong vegan diets."
It should be noted that one of the two Italian "vegan" children that was widely reported about in the media as being a neglected vegan child was:
not fed a vegan diet,
was breast-fed by a mother who followed a non-strict vegetarian diet (including dairy, eggs, and occasional meat), and
was suffering from a congenital condition (that had nothing to do with diet).
Whether this was ignored out of malice, or incompetence, I don't know, but at the very least, the media is keen to dole out unwarranted criticism of veganism. I suppose, "Non-vegan child hospitalised for congenital condition" probably won't generate as many clicks as "Child fed a neglectful vegan diet".
I'd say right wing media (e.g. Daily Mail in the UK) will have a bias in the context that anything that shows vegan diets as unhealthy panders to their readers who enjoy meat and basically want an excuse to continue with a cleaner conscience. Whereas other media (e.g. Guardian in the UK) would be more open minded about something like this. It depends on the publication.
Journalists look for a headline that will get attention. "Vegan child dies" is a headline. Whatever gets clicks. If a famous Olympian announces he is vegan tomorrow, that will also get attention to be fair, because it is also headline worthy. But in general bad news gets more headlines, because bad news happens more suddenly.
"Another vegan child still alive another day" is really not a story is it. At the end of the day "Bridge still standing another day" is good news but not news. "Bridge falls down" is bad news and is news. Good news can happen too slow to be a headline.
What I really cannot understand about people trying to justify eating meat is that they do not see how savage it is. We are always seen as the freaks because we have good morals and love animals. It is so annoying that killing is the norm -everything and anything just to satisfy these peoples taste buds and they have to find reasons to do this.
It's an interesting topic... And one that has foundations in some sense, but is too inflexible.
"Centre-right MP says she wants law aimed at protecting children from diets that can leave them lacking in iron and other vitamins"
Sure - I agree with that. Parents should be responsible for their children's health. If the parent cannot provide a balanced vegan diet - I would agree to not impose a dangerous and incomplete lifestyle on their child.
Although I cook only vegan food in my home right now - I am completely open the the company Ahimsa which is a slaughter-free milk company. (I believe Winter.Frost mentioned this in another post).
Personally I think there is a future where we can have ethical milk integrated into our lifestyles... and I hope that happens in our future worldwide.
What I do not agree with is the blanket response on vegan diets... If the parent can prove that a balanced diet is achieved AND if the child is willingly adopting a vegan lifestyle - there is no sense of imprisoning anyone. That is a violation of freedom...
Mentioned, yes, but I'm not a total advocate of Ahimsa. But I've covered that in other threads.
Ahimsa has other issues that I'm not fond of, besides the fact that I'd rather avoid the mammary secretions of another animal. I did bring it up because it is, at the moment, the highest industry standard I can see.
My husband has always disliked milk so did not eat cereal as a child or adult, the only milk he has is a little in tea. He's hasn't given any indication of suffering for this 'lack' in his diet. He's 52 now. He doesn't like red meat either, that's not caused him any health issues either. Our bodies are far more resilient than we give them credit for.