Veganism, Vegeterianism, Omnivorism

[The Noble Savage]

The onus isn't on me to prove that eating meat is ethical; I'm not asking you to eat meat.

You must demonstrate that not needing to eat meat ethically demands that I choose not to.

These aren't "my" rules for debating, and if you can't see that, I think this is the end of the conversation for me.

 

[mousey]

Yes I don't think there is any moral defence to eating animals or their produce, unless it's necessary to do so for your health...

Previously TNS pointed issues to the studies of vegan diet vs ASD, as basically not being a fair comparison. One group may be super healthy and into watching what they eat, so yes they will be healthier than the other. If compared a vegan and meat eating diet where both are super healthy and ultra interested in what they eat, would the vegan option really be the overridingly healthy option? has anyone done such a study?

 

[Prophecy]

It's important because you're admitting that you did draw the equivalence that I suggested, after insisting that you had not done so, and furthermore, had been careful not to. You accepted my apology for misunderstanding you, only to later agree that you did what i thought you did.

Why accept my apology, then, and insist that I had you wrong? Merely to deflect the argument that I made contra holding animals and people as moral equals?

And that suggests that you are indeed not arguing in good faith.

No, I didn't once suggest that humans and animals should be of equal status, regardless of my opinion. I don't need to. The mention of humans in the place of animals was simply a way for me to try to take the blinkers off in order to draw compassion which has been suppressed through lifetimes of indoctrination.

I think the problem is that you see that as some kind of dishonest appeal to emotion, and so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Veganism is a stance for compassion after all.

 

[The Noble Savage]

Mousey,

To my knowledge, no. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

 

[Prophecy]

Previously TNS pointed issues to the studies of vegan diet vs ASD, as basically not being a fair comparison. One group may be super healthy and into watching what they eat, so yes they will be healthier than the other. If compared a vegan and meat eating diet where both are super healthy and ultra interested in what they eat, would the vegan option really be the overridingly healthy option? has anyone done such a study?

Yes it hasn't gone unnoticed on my end. I understand TNS's comments and I have to agree with them, essentially conceding my point as far as 'science shows veganism is the best diet' etc.

I would say though on a very basic level, if you have a 'good' animal-inclusive diet vs a 'good' vegan diet, then surely the risk factors of heart disease, diabetes and all the other diseases linked to eating meat (red and processed) are minimised. Wouldn't that result in a healthier diet by default?

Try to find a flaw in my logic, if you will.

 

[The Noble Savage]

Mousey,

You could take a very close look at the results for pescatarians vs vegans in the study I discussed:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967195/

While not designed to measure your question, both groups were health conscious and the differences between them, if any, might illustrate the effect of adding fish to one's diet.

 

[mousey]

Well, is there a minimum amount of eating meat [non- mass farmed or pumped with nasty stuff / processed, of course] which has negligent risk of heart disease etc?

I would argue that a small amount of meat [be it red or otherwise] which has been properly reared and feed good stuff is no more likely do give you all those nasty health issues. But I can't find any scientific evidence to back this up - it is only my thought.

 

[The Noble Savage]

Mousey,

This study--http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957 suggests that some red meat seems not to cause issues.

The researchers note that, "studies from Japan and other Asian countries have not shown such associations with red meat intake. This difference is thought to exist mainly because of low red meat intake in many Asian countries, where seafood is a main source of animal protein (34-85% of per capita total meat intake compared with 15% in the US). We also showed a reduced risk of overall and most specific causes of death associated with both fish and poultry intake in our study. The risk reductions were stronger in the substitution models (compared with the addition models), which means that a large part of the observed benefits for mortality are due to replacing red meat with white meat, particularly unprocessed white meat, without changing the total meat intake."

And this review essay comes to a similar conclusion: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182351

But reducing red meat intake seems to be a good idea. Fish and other seafood and poultry seem not to have the same effect.

 

[The Noble Savage]

Mousey,

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1108492

From the article: "The pooled analyses of cohort studies showed that an increased consumption of alcohol (RR [95% CI] for heavy consumption, 0.69 [0.64-0.75]; for light/moderate consumption, 0.71 [0.67-0.75]), dietary beta carotene (0.73 [0.65-0.82]), fiber (0.78 [0.72-0.84]), fish (0.81 [0.70-0.92]), total folate (0.68 [CI, 0.57-0.79]), dietary folate (0.62 [0.50-0.79]), fruits (0.80 [0.66-0.93]), marine ω-3 fatty acids (0.86 [0.75-0.97]), monounsaturated fatty acids (0.80 [0.67-0.93]), nuts (0.70 [0.57-0.82]), vegetables (0.77 [0.68-0.87]), total vitamin C (0.82 [0.71-0.92]), dietary vitamin C (0.80 [0.68-0.91]), total vitamin E (0.77 [0.66-0.89]), dietary vitamin E (0.77 [0.55-0.99]), and whole grains (0.81 [0.75-0.86]) and increased Mediterranean (0.63 [0.53-0.72]) and high-quality diet patterns (0.63 [0.45-0.81]) were each associated with a significantly lower risk of CHD. Conversely, an increased consumption of trans–fatty acids (RR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.16-1.48]) and foods with a high glycemic index (1.32 [1.10-1.54]) were associated with a significantly higher risk of CHD (Table 2).

Higher intake of α-linolenic acid, eggs, meat, milk, polyunsaturated fatty acids, saturated fatty acids, total fat, and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and vitamin E supplements and prudent and western diet patterns were not significantly associated with CHD (Table 2). Among studies of higher methodologic quality, prudent (RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.62-0.83]) and western (1.55 [1.27-1.83]) diet patterns were each associated with CHD. In keeping with previous information, fish intake was protective against fatal CHD (RR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.71-0.94]), but marine ω-3 fatty acids (0.88 [0.66-1.11]) and α-linolenic acid (0.98 [0.60-1.36]) were not."

I take that to mean that, at least in this study, thoughtful consumption of meat wouldn't hurt you, while consumption of fish is good for you.

I wouldn't take any one study at face value, but this and the other survey of the literature I mentioned before suggest that thoughtful omnivorism is perfectly healthy, at least insofar as we consider heart disease.

 

[The Noble Savage]

And it's worth emphasising, from the perspective of supplementation, that "In keeping with previous information, fish intake was protective against fatal CHD (RR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.71-0.94]), but marine ω-3 fatty acids (0.88 [0.66-1.11]) and α-linolenic acid (0.98 [0.60-1.36]) were not."

Unless I'm mistaken, that means that eating fish helps prevent fatal heart disease, while merely taking omega-3 supplements doesn't.

That's food for thought!

 

[santaman2000]

Well, is there a minimum amount of eating meat [non- mass farmed or pumped with nasty stuff / processed, of course] which has negligent risk of heart disease etc?.....

It's likely that in most (if not all) of the studies the "red meat" most often eaten was fast food burgers. Indeed, more than half of all meals eaten in the US come from fast food chains. It's also clear if all studies are taken as a whole rather than individually, that the fat in red meat such as commercial hamburger is the real culprit for the majority of health issues (cancer would be the exception) Likewise most dietetic advise used to warn against pork until they realized that said advise was predicated on the assumption (usually true) that "pork" consumption was largely confined to the fatter items (bacon ans sausage) rather than the lean cuts and even the lean cuts are usually eaten as a processed (nitrate cured) dish such as ham.

 

[Prophecy]

There's some concern about soy, but further study is needed.

https://search.proquest.com/openvie...7bff4566c732/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=32528

From that article's abstract, "The evidence on male fertility and reproductive hormones was conflicting; some studies demonstrated a deleterious impact caused by soy consumption and others showed no effect. Soy supplementation also appears to affect thyroid function in an inconsistent manner, as studies have shown both increases and decreases in the same parameters of thyroid activity."

http://www.pcrm.org/health/medNews/soy-has-no-effect-on-mens-testosterone

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524224

Unrelated to soy but may be of interest to someone:

Cow-milk contains estrogen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19496976

Beer contains estrogens thousands of times stronger than the phyto-estrogens found in soy.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ective_phytoestrogen_present_in_hops_and_beer

https://www.researchgate.net/public...toestrogen_in_Hops_Humulus_lupulus_L_and_Beer

Meat contains phthalates which is linked to low testosterone.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920922/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19059903 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874619/pdf/nihms-158991.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280349/ http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/125/1/e122.full.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920903/pdf/ehp-118-1027.pdf

 

[santaman2000]

But we don't all have to debate according to your standards and your set of debating rules. You're stating ethics like they're a science but they're not, they're subjective......

I stand by my statement that eating meat is unethical for the vast majority of us, on the basis that a vegan diet is at least just as healthy hence killing sentient beings is unnecessary.......

Exactly. Ethics isn't a science. The very idea of sentience is an ethical (philosophical) concept. Yet you continue to try to insert "scientific" studies proving sentience. I reject that outright and without apology.

 

[The Noble Savage]

It's likely that in most (if not all) of the studies the "red meat" most often eaten was fast food burgers. Indeed, more than half of all meals eaten in the US come from fast food chains. It's also clear if all studies are taken as a whole rather than individually, that the fat in red meat such as commercial hamburger is the real culprit for the majority of health issues (cancer would be the exception) Likewise most dietetic advise used to warn against pork until they realized that said advise was predicated on the assumption (usually true) that "pork" consumption was largely confined to the fatter items (bacon ans sausage) rather than the lean cuts and even the lean cuts are usually eaten as a processed (nitrate cured) dish such as ham.

Santaman, you could be right, I can't say. It is interesting to note, though, that this study http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957 found that consumption of unprocessed red meat increased mortality risk.

They defined these terms like this: "Items included in the red meat intake were unprocessed red meat (beef and pork, hamburger, liver, steak, and meats in foods such as chili, lasagna, and stew) and processed red meat (bacon, beef cold cuts, ham, hotdogs, and sausage). White meat included unprocessed chicken, turkey, and fish, canned tuna, and processed white meat (poultry cold cuts, low fat sausages, and low fat hotdogs made from poultry). We classified pork as red meat in line with the US Department of Agriculture’s definition, as, similar to other livestock, it contains a high level of myoglobin."

I can't speak beyond the studies, but at least this one pointed to heme iron as the culprit, not fat.

 

[santaman2000]

Because we're not killing animals unnecessarily.

When you fish you're hooking a sentient, innocent being round the lip and pulling it out of the water whilst all the force is on his mouth. Sometimes so fast that internal organs are ruptured, so that even if return it, it might well die or suffer further.

How is that morally justified?.........

It's justified so they grow up normally rather than indoctrinated into the very philosophy you advocate. The one in which you are apparently already indoctrinated.

 

[santaman2000]

Santaman, you could be right, I can't say. It is interesting to note, though, that this study http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957 found that consumption of unprocessed red meat increased mortality risk.

They defined these terms like this: "Items included in the red meat intake were unprocessed red meat (beef and pork, hamburger, liver, steak, and meats in foods such as chili, lasagna, and stew) and processed red meat (bacon, beef cold cuts, ham, hotdogs, and sausage). White meat included unprocessed chicken, turkey, and fish, canned tuna, and processed white meat (poultry cold cuts, low fat sausages, and low fat hotdogs made from poultry). We classified pork as red meat in line with the US Department of Agriculture’s definition, as, similar to other livestock, it contains a high level of myoglobin."

I can't speak beyond the studies, but at least this one pointed to heme iron as the culprit, not fat.

The idea of iron being the culprit is interesting. If true you'd think that vegetables high in iron (green leafy vegetables usually touted as healthy foods) would cause a similar result?

 

[The Noble Savage]

Prophecy,

In yet another example of your disingenuous argument, the direct quote from the article I posted about soy reads "The evidence on male fertility and reproductive hormones was conflicting; some studies demonstrated a deleterious impact caused by soy consumption and others showed no effect."

That you then follow this up with two studies indicating no effect of soy on male fertility means that either you don't understand what "conflicting" means--which is unlikely--or that you think that pointing to one side of that conflict makes the other side go away.

In any case, that'll be my last response to you.

 

[The Noble Savage]

Santaman,

I think--think mind you--this is not my area of expertise, that the iron in animal flesh and blood is chemically different to the iron in plants.

http://hemochromatosishelp.com/heme-iron-vs-non-heme-iron/

And at least according to this site--http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?tname=dailytip&dbid=347-- there's a difference in absorption. Maybe that's the issue?

From that site, "Plant foods are definitely different from animal foods when it comes to their iron content. In animal foods, iron is often attached to proteins called heme proteins, and referred to as heme iron. In plant foods, iron is not attached to heme proteins and is classified as non-heme iron. Heme iron is typically absorbed at a rate of 7-35%. Non-heme iron is typically absorbed at a rate of 2-20%.

You can see that even though there is better overall absorption of heme iron, there is also a fairly large range for absorption regardless of the iron form involved. This absorption range is large because iron absorption is influenced by many different factors. For example, our bodies absorb more iron when we are iron deficient, and they cut back on iron absorption when plenty of iron is already available. Dietary factors are among the many factors that affect iron absorption. However, dietary factors appear to play a greater role in non-heme iron absorption from plant foods than they do in heme iron absorption from animal foods."

 

[Janne]

Well, is there a minimum amount of eating meat [non- mass farmed or pumped with nasty stuff / processed, of course] which has negligent risk of heart disease etc?

I would argue that a small amount of meat [be it red or otherwise] which has been properly reared and feed good stuff is no more likely do give you all those nasty health issues. But I can't find any scientific evidence to back this up - it is only my thought.

that has been my previous points on the health issues.

Eating "proper' red meat in small amounts is in fact good for us.
Several Amino acids are plentiful and easily absorbed, Iron, plus a good source of joint healthy Glucoseamine and Chondroitin.

 

[Prophecy]

Prophecy,

In yet another example of your disingenuous argument, the direct quote from the article I posted about soy reads "The evidence on male fertility and reproductive hormones was conflicting; some studies demonstrated a deleterious impact caused by soy consumption and others showed no effect."

That you then follow this up with two studies indicating no effect of soy on male fertility means that either you don't understand what "conflicting" means--which is unlikely--or that you think that pointing to one side of that conflict makes the other side go away.

In any case, that'll be my last response to you.

I don't see any harm in adding more science to the discussion, especially when it shows there's more than one result to be shown. Yours said there was possible evidence for negative effects of soy, and the article I posted altogether found no negative effects of soy.