Victim? Absolutely not!
I can express myself better in either Swedish or Czech, you tell me which language I should use!
Sensationalist only because it portraits how some Vegans behave? What about those largely false clips YOU have posted???
Veganism, Vegeterianism, Omnivorism
- Thread starter Janne
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
I can express myself better in either Swedish or Czech, you tell me which language I should use!
Sensationalist only because it portraits how some Vegans behave? What about those largely false clips YOU have posted???
The chemicals I refer to is the common Vitamin and mineral supplements we buy in pill capsule or liquid form, largely made by pure chemical processes.
Good if you need them as a medical emergency nutrient boost, but eating properly grown food is better I would say.
Good if you need them as a medical emergency nutrient boost, but eating properly grown food is better I would say.
I asked because vitamin E used to be produced from fish oils. I don't know if it or any other vitamin is still produced in a similar way.
I don't mean the newspaper sensationalised them, I mean you're sensationaling any link between the article and any vegans on this thread, in a weak attempt to smear the name of said vegans. Tricks like that are not in the spirit of the discussion and I think we're better off without that kind of behaviour in here.
But the videos I posted were pages and pages ago. Would you like to explain how their content was largely false?
To clarify a couple of points so that we're on the same page...
I principally advocate veganism because I believe it's morally superior to that of an animal-inclusive diet, based on the grounds of animal exploitation. Not morally superior like 'oh look at me, I'm morally superior to you', but because I think most decent human-beings tend to follow a path of good morals through their lifetimes. It should also be noted that just because someone is vegan doesn't mean that they are morally superior to any other person just because they're vegan. Veganism only speaks to one aspect of their life, albeit a big chunk of the moral pie.
Veganism isn't a diet - it can't be. The term doesn't speak to any particular diet. I could be a vegan and live off biscuits and chocolate and coca-cola. I'm guilty of using the phrase 'vegan diet' though, because I think that generally people understand what I mean by that. I mean eating healthily, without any consumption of animal products where feasible. Ie a diet of lots of fruit, vegetables, legumes and wholegrains, seeds, nuts. It might be
Your first link is related to a mostly raw vegan diet. I don't know if that was an oversight on your part, but anyway it might not make much difference. It's true - vegan diets have a good chance of lacking B12 unless a fortified milk or cheese or supplement is taken. Does that detract from it's 'healthy' status? I don't think so. Fortified milk is in most vegans' cupboards these days, I would think. I can't get anything fortified on this island, so I take one pill a day.
Every major dietetic organisation in the world states publicly that a vegan diet can be perfectly healthy. No, they don't say that they are healthier than an animal-inclusive diet, but at least that they can be perfectly healthy.
I would take issue with your claim that science does not support the idea that eating vegan is better for your overall health than eating an animal-inclusive diet. I think the science is out there, and the vast majority of it is peer-reviewed. I have listed some of the links below with some excerpts in bold.
'Healthy eating may be best achieved with a plant-based diet, which we define as a regimen that encourages whole, plant-based foods and discourages meats, dairy products, and eggs as well as all refined and processed foods. We present a case study as an example of the potential health benefits of such a diet. Research shows that plant-based diets are cost-effective, low-risk interventions that may lower body mass index, blood pressure, HbA1C, and cholesterol levels. They may also reduce the number of medications needed to treat chronic diseases and lower ischemic heart disease mortality rates. Physicians should consider recommending a plant-based diet to all their patients, especially those with high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or obesity.
A plant-based diet is not an all-or-nothing program, but a way of life that is tailored to each individual. It may be especially beneficial for those with obesity, Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, lipid disorders, or cardiovascular disease. The benefits realized will be relative to the level of adherence and the amount of animal products consumed.'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/
The Adventist Health Study 2 is a large cohort that is well suited to the study of the relation of vegetarian dietary patterns to health and disease risk. Here we review initial published findings with regard to vegetarian diets and several health outcomes. Vegetarian dietary patterns were associated with lower body mass index, lower prevalence and incidence of diabetes mellitus, lower prevalence of the metabolic syndrome and its component factors, lower prevalence of hypertension, lower all-cause mortality, and in some instances, lower risk of cancer. Findings with regard to factors related to vegetarian diets and bone health are also reviewed. These initial results show important links between vegetarian dietary patterns and improved health.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24898223
Vegetarian diets are associated with lower all-cause mortality and with some reductions in cause-specific mortality. Results appeared to be more robust in males. These favorable associations should be considered carefully by those offering dietary guidance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23836264
Significant benefits for diabetes prevention and management have been observed with vegetarian and especially vegan diets. This article reviews observational studies and intervention trials on such diets, and discusses their efficacy, nutritional adequacy, acceptability, and sustainability. Research to date has demonstrated that a low-fat, plant-based nutritional approach improves control of weight, glycemia, and cardiovascular risk. These studies have also shown that carefully planned vegan diets can be more nutritious than diets based on more conventional diet guidelines, with an acceptability that is comparable with that of other therapeutic regimens. Current intervention guidelines from professional organizations offer support for this approach. Vegetarian and vegan diets present potential advantages in managing type 2 diabetes that merit the attention of individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20425575
The aggregation of evidence in support of (a) diets comprising preferentially minimally processed foods direct from nature and food made up of such ingredients, (b) diets comprising mostly plants, and (c) diets in which animal foods are themselves the products, directly or ultimately, of pure plant foods—the composition of animal flesh and milk is as much influenced by diet as we are (31)—is noteworthy for its breadth, depth, diversity of methods, and consistency of findings. The case that we should, indeed, eat true food, mostly plants, is all but incontrovertible. Perhaps fortuitously, this same dietary theme offers considerable advantages to other species, the environment around us, and even the ecology within us (136).
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182351
The use of indexing systems, estimating the overall diet quality based on different aspects of healthful dietary models (be it the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans or the compliance to the Mediterranean Diet) indicated consistently the vegan diet as the most healthy one.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967195/
This is the largest study done so far to show increased mortality risks from different causes associated with consuming both processed and unprocessed red meat, and it underlines the importance of heme iron, nitrates, and nitrites in assessing the pathways related to health risks associated with red meat intake.
Given the findings, study scientists recommend that “physicians should encourage patients to limit animal products when possible, and substitute red meat and processed red meat with plant-based foods.
I have posted a lot of links, and I would encourage you to take your time to have a look at them and tell me if you would take issue with anything in them. I would encourage everyone to do the same if they're interested in following the discussion.
I'll counter that with a newer study by 7 years, with thousands of subjects as opposed to 20.
Our results show an increased risk of all cause mortality and death due to nine different causes associated with both processed and unprocessed red meat. Heme iron from both processed and unprocessed red meat, and particularly the nitrate/nitrite content of processed meat, accounted for a large proportion of this increased mortality risk. We also showed, for the first time, independent associations between the intake of heme iron and nitrate/nitrite from processed meat and mortality from almost all causes.
http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957
If you feel I've missed anything, just point it out.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182351
The use of indexing systems, estimating the overall diet quality based on different aspects of healthful dietary models (be it the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans or the compliance to the Mediterranean Diet) indicated consistently the vegan diet as the most healthy one.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967195/
This is the largest study done so far to show increased mortality risks from different causes associated with consuming both processed and unprocessed red meat, and it underlines the importance of heme iron, nitrates, and nitrites in assessing the pathways related to health risks associated with red meat intake.
Given the findings, study scientists recommend that “physicians should encourage patients to limit animal products when possible, and substitute red meat and processed red meat with plant-based foods.
I have posted a lot of links, and I would encourage you to take your time to have a look at them and tell me if you would take issue with anything in them. I would encourage everyone to do the same if they're interested in following the discussion.
I'll counter that with a newer study by 7 years, with thousands of subjects as opposed to 20.
Our results show an increased risk of all cause mortality and death due to nine different causes associated with both processed and unprocessed red meat. Heme iron from both processed and unprocessed red meat, and particularly the nitrate/nitrite content of processed meat, accounted for a large proportion of this increased mortality risk. We also showed, for the first time, independent associations between the intake of heme iron and nitrate/nitrite from processed meat and mortality from almost all causes.
http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957
If you feel I've missed anything, just point it out.
They showed the extreme, not the norm.
As has been said on several posts, the farmers take great care and do their outmost to give the animals a good life.
The ’mega farms/animal factories’ are not the standard. But that is what you refer to when you speak about animal husbandry.
Also you see as being stunned, bolted ( or othervise kilked), hung up and bled as something dreadful, fearful and painful.
This is not so.
(Even the kosher/halal way of killing animald is in fact humane. The sudden loss of BP kills the animal incredibly rapidly, info outside this thread)
As has been said on several posts, the farmers take great care and do their outmost to give the animals a good life.
The ’mega farms/animal factories’ are not the standard. But that is what you refer to when you speak about animal husbandry.
Also you see as being stunned, bolted ( or othervise kilked), hung up and bled as something dreadful, fearful and painful.
This is not so.
(Even the kosher/halal way of killing animald is in fact humane. The sudden loss of BP kills the animal incredibly rapidly, info outside this thread)
Nitrate/nitrite. Processed meat. Yes.
But the studies do not show any increased (premature) mortality if unprocessed, ethically farmed meat is eaten.
You know the Japanese have a 3-4 times higher incidence of gastric cancer than UK population?
Despite eating more healthy fish, fruit and veg? And far less unprocessed red meat, and far, far less processed?
It has been proposed that fermented soya products are partly to blame.
No doubt other factors influence too.
My point is that most research takes one or two factors and sees if there is a connection.
But the studies do not show any increased (premature) mortality if unprocessed, ethically farmed meat is eaten.
You know the Japanese have a 3-4 times higher incidence of gastric cancer than UK population?
Despite eating more healthy fish, fruit and veg? And far less unprocessed red meat, and far, far less processed?
It has been proposed that fermented soya products are partly to blame.
No doubt other factors influence too.
My point is that most research takes one or two factors and sees if there is a connection.
How can any lifestyle be considered morally superior when it automatically prevents teaching your kids to hunt and fish?
You speak about vegan principles but then talk about fortified cheese and milk?
Is that vegan cheese and milk?
I like the various not milks except soya. Wife loves soya milk, so I am having that in my coffee.
Tried vegan cheeses ( wife has hightened BP and Chokesterol) but nearly puked thrice.
First when I paid for it
Second time when I tasted it.
Third time when I read what it contains / made from.
Is that vegan cheese and milk?
I like the various not milks except soya. Wife loves soya milk, so I am having that in my coffee.
Tried vegan cheeses ( wife has hightened BP and Chokesterol) but nearly puked thrice.
First when I paid for it
Second time when I tasted it.
Third time when I read what it contains / made from.
A bit Off Topic, but ponder this:
Various researchers, pharma infustry, the states, are trying to minimize the various cause of death.
Accidents, heart disease, cancers, degenerative diseases and so on.
Ok? Good, is it not?
But, what are we supposed to die from then?
Suicide? No, they work on so people are not falling into a deep depression and doing that!
So what are we supposed to die from?
Various researchers, pharma infustry, the states, are trying to minimize the various cause of death.
Accidents, heart disease, cancers, degenerative diseases and so on.
Ok? Good, is it not?
But, what are we supposed to die from then?
Suicide? No, they work on so people are not falling into a deep depression and doing that!
So what are we supposed to die from?
Prophecy, hand on heart, have you and your family ( assuming all are vegan) had a full health screening?
Every value within the “normal” range for all of you?
Just wondering, as I am of the belief that as children have a different nutritional requirement than adults, and women different from men, it must be incredibly difficult to cook the meals?
This is not part of the discusdion, or an attempt to snare you, just something I wonder about.
Every value within the “normal” range for all of you?
Just wondering, as I am of the belief that as children have a different nutritional requirement than adults, and women different from men, it must be incredibly difficult to cook the meals?
This is not part of the discusdion, or an attempt to snare you, just something I wonder about.
Prophecy,
What your links demonstrate is that veganism/vegetarianism is healthier than the SAUD. I agree; it's impossible not to. They also demonstrate that veganism is an acceptable diet to professional dieticians and that with care and supplementation, is a healthy choice. Again, I agree; it's impossible not to.
What your links to do not demonstrate is that careful veganism is superior to careful omnivorism.
Unless I missed the link you offer that supports this claim, you're 'moving the goalpost' from "veganism is superior to all other ways of eating"--your stated claim--to 'veganism is healthy' or 'veganism is healthier than the standard American (or in this case Belgian) diet.'--the claim the research supports in fact.
Yes, eating lots of plants, especially leafy vegetables and a wide array of colour, too, is a good idea for health. I don't think anyone disputes that.
Now, to the science:
This study--http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957--was a fascinating read; thanks for pointing it out. I had no idea that they had, in fact, noted increased mortality with robust controls for red meat consumption. That's good to know. It's worth noting, however, a limitation discussed in the analysis.
As they say, "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."
As a result, their conclusion is not veganism or vegetarianism, but rather "Replacing the intake of red meat (and the associated compounds) with white meat, particularly unprocessed white meat, without changing total meat intake, was associated with reduced mortality risk." I think that's important in that they could very easily have said, "eliminating the intake of meat of any kind..." but the science doesn't support that. It does support that red meat is bad for you in large quantities, as per the cited studies in Asia.
Still, kudos on catching the red meat! You've changed my mind about that.
On the diet comparison--https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967195/--also interesting reading--there was a huge caveat buried in the discussion. As I've said, I wouldn't dispute that vegans as a whole are eating healthier than people who eat the standard diet (omnivores in the study). And as the authors note, when comparing vegans, vegetarians, pescatarians, etc. against a random sample of "omnivores," you're not comparing apples to apples. As they say, "when health conscious populations are studied—as is the case in our self-selected sample—this method may lose discriminative power." Again, in the conclusion, their wording is very precise: "In conclusion, results concerning body weight, nutritional intake, nutritional quality and quantity are in line with the literature on restricted and prudent diets versus unrestricted omnivorous diet."
If one group in a comparison is "health-conscious" and careful generally about what they eat while another is not, unsurprisingly, the latter is going to eat less healthy food--controlling for all other factors. The authors admit that the study uses a methodology that's problematic because they did not choose an equally "health conscious" 'control' sample of omnivores.
A final methodological problem for the study was that it didn't assess the health of the eaters but merely used the MDS criteria, BMI, etc. They discuss these limitations as well, which cut both ways, further problematising the results.
The authors admit, as indeed I would admit, that a restricted and prudent vegan is a healthier eater than the unrestricted and average omnivore--that's all the study says.
What your links demonstrate is that veganism/vegetarianism is healthier than the SAUD. I agree; it's impossible not to. They also demonstrate that veganism is an acceptable diet to professional dieticians and that with care and supplementation, is a healthy choice. Again, I agree; it's impossible not to.
What your links to do not demonstrate is that careful veganism is superior to careful omnivorism.
Unless I missed the link you offer that supports this claim, you're 'moving the goalpost' from "veganism is superior to all other ways of eating"--your stated claim--to 'veganism is healthy' or 'veganism is healthier than the standard American (or in this case Belgian) diet.'--the claim the research supports in fact.
Yes, eating lots of plants, especially leafy vegetables and a wide array of colour, too, is a good idea for health. I don't think anyone disputes that.
Now, to the science:
This study--http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957--was a fascinating read; thanks for pointing it out. I had no idea that they had, in fact, noted increased mortality with robust controls for red meat consumption. That's good to know. It's worth noting, however, a limitation discussed in the analysis.
As they say, "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."
As a result, their conclusion is not veganism or vegetarianism, but rather "Replacing the intake of red meat (and the associated compounds) with white meat, particularly unprocessed white meat, without changing total meat intake, was associated with reduced mortality risk." I think that's important in that they could very easily have said, "eliminating the intake of meat of any kind..." but the science doesn't support that. It does support that red meat is bad for you in large quantities, as per the cited studies in Asia.
Still, kudos on catching the red meat! You've changed my mind about that.
On the diet comparison--https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967195/--also interesting reading--there was a huge caveat buried in the discussion. As I've said, I wouldn't dispute that vegans as a whole are eating healthier than people who eat the standard diet (omnivores in the study). And as the authors note, when comparing vegans, vegetarians, pescatarians, etc. against a random sample of "omnivores," you're not comparing apples to apples. As they say, "when health conscious populations are studied—as is the case in our self-selected sample—this method may lose discriminative power." Again, in the conclusion, their wording is very precise: "In conclusion, results concerning body weight, nutritional intake, nutritional quality and quantity are in line with the literature on restricted and prudent diets versus unrestricted omnivorous diet."
If one group in a comparison is "health-conscious" and careful generally about what they eat while another is not, unsurprisingly, the latter is going to eat less healthy food--controlling for all other factors. The authors admit that the study uses a methodology that's problematic because they did not choose an equally "health conscious" 'control' sample of omnivores.
A final methodological problem for the study was that it didn't assess the health of the eaters but merely used the MDS criteria, BMI, etc. They discuss these limitations as well, which cut both ways, further problematising the results.
The authors admit, as indeed I would admit, that a restricted and prudent vegan is a healthier eater than the unrestricted and average omnivore--that's all the study says.
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?
Hunting. You mean brainwashing a child that we're a superior species so much so that we should trick innocent, sentient beings into close proximity and then shoot them? With no regard to their own lives or families or whether they could be mothering etc. And then cutting up their bodies and cooking it and eating it, when none of that was necessary?
I don't think those actions have any place in today's world apart from where people need to do it to maintain a good health, and for conservation purposes.
Prophecy,
As to the other studies:
You cite http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182351 as evidence for the superiority of veganism.
At no point in this article do the authors make that claim, and even in your quote they include animal protein and fat in their recommendation!
As they say, "The aggregation of evidence in support of (a) diets comprising preferentially minimally processed foods direct from nature and food made up of such ingredients, (b) diets comprising mostly plants, and (c) diets in which animal foods are themselves the products, directly or ultimately, of pure plant foods—the composition of animal flesh and milk is as much influenced by diet as we are (31)—is noteworthy for its breadth, depth, diversity of methods, and consistency of findings. The case that we should, indeed, eat true food, mostly plants, is all but incontrovertible. Perhaps fortuitously, this same dietary theme offers considerable advantages to other species, the environment around us, and even the ecology within us."
Had they found incontrovertible evidence of the superiority of veganism, they would certainly have said so. Instead, they include animal products--explicitly--in their recommendation.
For https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23836264, in which the Adventist Health Study is used for it's raw data, the same methodological problems apply. The sample of omnivores is unrestrictive and not particularly health-conscious; the sample of restrictive, prudent vegans and vegetarians is not. Once again, all it concludes is that veganism is healthier than the standard American diet (SAD).
We know this; no one disagrees with this finding.
And finally, in each case where measured health benefits result from swapping the SAD for veganism, this result has also been confirmed for the Mediterranean diet, Atkins, Paleo, DASH, etc. We know--incontrovertibly--that pretty much any restrictive, prudent diet is better than the SAD.
In short, I don't see any evidence in any of the scientific literature that you provide that supports your claim that veganism is the optimal diet.
What I find from your survey is that:
1. Veganism can be a healthy choice, if one eats with care and consumes supplements as needed.
2. The consumption of red meat, processed or not, should be in line with the Asian studies or lower.
3. A diet of mostly plants--grown responsibly--and sources of animal protein and fat--raised responsibly--is optimal for human health.
4. People who are conscious about their health eat better the average person.
5. Nearly any careful eater is going to eat better than the average person--irrespective of the particular choices of their diet.
If I've missed something or misinterpreted the evidence, methodology, or findings, please let me know.
As to the other studies:
You cite http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182351 as evidence for the superiority of veganism.
At no point in this article do the authors make that claim, and even in your quote they include animal protein and fat in their recommendation!
As they say, "The aggregation of evidence in support of (a) diets comprising preferentially minimally processed foods direct from nature and food made up of such ingredients, (b) diets comprising mostly plants, and (c) diets in which animal foods are themselves the products, directly or ultimately, of pure plant foods—the composition of animal flesh and milk is as much influenced by diet as we are (31)—is noteworthy for its breadth, depth, diversity of methods, and consistency of findings. The case that we should, indeed, eat true food, mostly plants, is all but incontrovertible. Perhaps fortuitously, this same dietary theme offers considerable advantages to other species, the environment around us, and even the ecology within us."
Had they found incontrovertible evidence of the superiority of veganism, they would certainly have said so. Instead, they include animal products--explicitly--in their recommendation.
For https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23836264, in which the Adventist Health Study is used for it's raw data, the same methodological problems apply. The sample of omnivores is unrestrictive and not particularly health-conscious; the sample of restrictive, prudent vegans and vegetarians is not. Once again, all it concludes is that veganism is healthier than the standard American diet (SAD).
We know this; no one disagrees with this finding.
And finally, in each case where measured health benefits result from swapping the SAD for veganism, this result has also been confirmed for the Mediterranean diet, Atkins, Paleo, DASH, etc. We know--incontrovertibly--that pretty much any restrictive, prudent diet is better than the SAD.
In short, I don't see any evidence in any of the scientific literature that you provide that supports your claim that veganism is the optimal diet.
What I find from your survey is that:
1. Veganism can be a healthy choice, if one eats with care and consumes supplements as needed.
2. The consumption of red meat, processed or not, should be in line with the Asian studies or lower.
3. A diet of mostly plants--grown responsibly--and sources of animal protein and fat--raised responsibly--is optimal for human health.
4. People who are conscious about their health eat better the average person.
5. Nearly any careful eater is going to eat better than the average person--irrespective of the particular choices of their diet.
If I've missed something or misinterpreted the evidence, methodology, or findings, please let me know.
Yes they did.
And I haven't seen any evidence to say soya is bad for our health. Maybe you'd like to present a piece of evidence?
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."
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."
I will get to your lengthier rebuttal, but to your comments on ethically fishing and hunting etc, I don't think it's ethical to diminish or take the life of another being merely in order to improve your own enjoyment. If you're obliged to do so for grounds based on health then that's a different matter, but for those of us in the world who live beside a Tesco Extra or any other humongous supermarket, then it's not necessary to kill these sentient beings.
Plus where is the line drawn? I'm a serial murderer and I take pleasure from killing other people so it's justified because it improves my life at the expense of another? Obviously that example doesn't get past anyones moral compass, so what changes when it's a bear or a fish or a boar or whatever?
Last edited:
That most professional ethicists, and most people, draw a distinction between human beings and other animals. Indeed, they draw a line between deer or rabbits and dogs and cats. One can generally be hunted; the other can't. That many serious, thoughtful professional ethicists disagree with you should suggest that there are a variety of possible ethical systems, starting points, and conclusions.
But as I've taken pains to explain, asserting that your ethical position is the only viable one isn't going to change anyone's mind. I provided three reasonable justifications.
Here's a fourth.
I have a friend, Dan. He's an indigenous person, and as part of his culture, participates in hunting, fishing, and trapping with his family and network of kin. For him, this is a way to preserve his heritage and culture, to strengthen the bonds of his community, and to actively engage in his unique way of life. While he recognises that these practices cause pain to animals, that is of less concern to him than these other concerns.
Simply put, there are a variety of consistent, moral positions that do not begin with 'I must minimise all voluntary pain to animals'.
But as I've taken pains to explain, asserting that your ethical position is the only viable one isn't going to change anyone's mind. I provided three reasonable justifications.
Here's a fourth.
I have a friend, Dan. He's an indigenous person, and as part of his culture, participates in hunting, fishing, and trapping with his family and network of kin. For him, this is a way to preserve his heritage and culture, to strengthen the bonds of his community, and to actively engage in his unique way of life. While he recognises that these practices cause pain to animals, that is of less concern to him than these other concerns.
Simply put, there are a variety of consistent, moral positions that do not begin with 'I must minimise all voluntary pain to animals'.
