Nutrition & Diet Vegan-friendly diets

[allindogecoin]

Yes, of course.

By ‘poor’ do you mean those who live in ‘low income countries’ or those in ‘high income countries’ who are in poverty? Or both?

Either way, what can we do about it?

I ask this because you wrote that we needed to “consider” this, which is why I put forward what I thought.

Yes, apologies if my wording was imprecise or even insensitive. By "poor" I'm really referring to subsistence farming and people in subsistence farms relying on meat from animals who roam on degraded soil, so they have little B12 because the soil has little cobalt. My point is that it is not veganism itself that is to blame for poor people's inability to obtain B12 but rather it is, unfortunately, their poverty.

When people eat animal products, they tend to eat the nutrients that the animal eats, so e.g. if someone eats a cow that has eaten cobalt, then they will eat that cobalt. One benefit of animals is that they concentrate or mix various chemicals so e.g. if humans themselves consume the cobalt from the ground, they probably won't get much. The same applies to e.g. omega 3. Many eat fish or take fish oil supplements to get omega 3, but fish get it from algae. However, for someone who is poor, it may be easier for them to go fishing and catch a fish rather than dive to the bottom of the ocean to get the algae. For someone who has a lack of wealth to be able to get to the bottom of the ocean to get the algae, that would be hard. This is what I meant when I said, "something we need to consider is that a lack of wealth of power puts you at the mercy of the conditions you are born into, and this is not something unique to vegans."

But yes upon rereading what I said, it can be interpreted as an insensitive statement suggesting that poor people need to consider something. But I'm trying to say that it is the inequality that is the issue here and we need to consider that it is the inequality that is the problem, not necessarily veganism, and because of environmental degradation, eating animals to obtain nutrients is starting to become an ineffective strategy eg the soils are lacking in cobalt plus soils have lots of other pollutants such as e.g. mercury, and the same applies to the oceans e.g. fish consume not just algae (and get EPA and DHA) but also e.g. cadmium and other heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants, etc, so there is a benefit to getting the nutrient direct from the source.

 

[insomniac]

Vegan ethics aren't there in people who eat dead animals

I think you are talking about semi-vegetarians.

There are very very very few people with a legitimate reason for being "unable" to be a dietary vegan. Most either don't care very much or don't want to change.

I am certainly not speaking as someone who has a bunch of priviledges that allow me to be vegan.

People who are committed might take a bit of time to transition their diet but that's all. The knowledge of a balanced diet is *the* key factor.

It is incredibly annoying to see people continually using the word "vegan" as a desirable label for things that include animal products - the words you are looking for is OMNIVORE or VEGETARIAN. Not vegan.

(Vegans existed before fortified products and a package of expensive lifestyle stuff labelled "Vegan" ever existed. Most vegans do not even live in "Western" English-speaking countries.)

 

[Graeme M]

Vegan ethics aren't there in people who eat dead animals

That is rather my point. How can you make that blanket statement? It's very insulting to other people whose circumstances you cannot always know. No person is a true vegan, if by that you mean never supporting the use of, or cruelty to animals, but what matters is how far someone can reasonably go.

In my post, I pointed out that in some circumstances people may not be able to go without using or eating animal-sourced products. There are certainly many such situations, though I agree likely not commonplace. If someone is in jail or travelling somewhere that finding a healthy vegan diet is impractical, why believe that they suddenly abandoned their vegan principles if they eat a fish or wear a woolen garment?

Similarly, given the definition makes the injunction we must not use or be cruel to an animal for food, what about the vegans eating commercial plant-sourced foods who demand the cruel killing of wild animals to protect that production? Are they now bereft of vegan ethics?

 

[silva]

Honestly, I believe the best start is getting people to think about where they spend they money based on their ethics. There is so much besides animal rights---esp now in the US
If people would understand the power of the purse they would see how much eating plant based supports human rights

 

[insomniac]

Give me a concrete example.

You do realize that there are vegan activists in jail? Including those jailed for "crimes" related to animal rights activism?

And that those people would choose to die rather than eat flesh? Yet they don't die because yes you can be vegan in jail although sometimes you have to really for food it.

For decades the UK required all vegan prisoners to pay for their own food, toiletries etc, and those committed to ethical veganism had other vegans fundraise for them, and used their lawyers to advocate for appropriate food.

So you pretend to agree in your first lived but then you call me judgey - and without knowing my personal circumstances AT ALL you seem to think others have it worse.

I find your post ignorant about veganism and lacking in awareness about the ARA and vegan movements (I am far from an expert but these things are not had to find out about instead of jumping to conclusions about how "impossible" it is too be vegan.

 

[HappyVegan66]

i really dont think being vegan is expensive at all.

you can make most meals very cheaply. dhals, chickpeas, tofu, beans are all very inexpensive and you can make meals in one that can last you half a week

 

[insomniac]

The "benefits" of eating animals...?

Not everyone here is vegan but show some decency and don't promote your pro-animal abusing views on a vegan form.

You have swallowed the animal agriculture propaganda which suits pro-animal abuse views.

no plants = no animals

plant -> animal -> human causes a huge amount more environmental damage than plant -> human

more plants = less land degradation
more farmed animals = disproportionate increase in plants needed to sustain them

"Lifestock's long shadow" is one of a very large number of studies proving that plant-based diets would better feed the planet, while improving the environment, reducing water usages, reducing land degradation and desertification, reducing climate emotions, reducing chronic disease and cancer rates, and improving health.

Also cobalt? WTF? You are arguing a case for COBALT deficiency??? Cobalt is a mined metal... That's absolutely ridiculous.
Ahh did you mean cobalt itself but B12, which is in many plants. B12 is not the same as cobalt!
B12 is unusual in that the body stores it for a very long period of time (years) so it doesn't need to be consumed daily or even weekly.
B12 levels aren't consistent in specific plants which is why you might hear that there is "no reliable source of B12" but that doesn't mean that there is no B12 at all, and it doesn't mean that farming livestock is cheaper than buying B12. Livestock often have B12 injections because they can be deficient... B12 is generally less in vegans but B12 deficiency happens in people of all diets including meat eaters.

I find your reliance on a situation that you've never experienced in an area you have never lived, in a culture that you aren't familiar with being used to justify a blanket statement about the "expense" of practicality of being vegan to be deeply misleading and flawed.

The definition of veganism is about what's practical and possible for that specific person and since you aren't in that situation your justifications are based on a harmful Westernized stereotype, promoted to English speakers in a way that justifies your audience's biases against veganism.