Reconsidering the "Health Argument"
I searched and didn't find a post about this--if there already is one, please redirect me so I can read it! :)
I've gotten into the habit of brushing off uncomfortable potential arguments with omnis by saying over and over that my primary reason for going veg was for my health. And in reality, that was the first and most important reason for a long time. Obviously I then began learning about the positive moral and environmental effects, but I felt like insisting on the health benefits was enough to keep others off of my back.
But today my boyfriend showed me this article:
http://www.veganoutreach.org/articles/healthargument.html
So now I'm confused... I've read SO MANY books and articles promoting veganism for its health benefits, specifically the lowered rates of cancers and other deadly diseases. I really believed that a well-balanced vegan diet, in addition to lightening my conscience, was protecting me from cancer.
What do you think about this article? Do you think that other sources claiming the health benefits of veganism have been manipulated? Do you agree with the author of the article, who seems to suggest that we nix the health argument all together and redirect our focus?
I don't think the article says much. It's posted by a group that promotes animal rights activism, so it's basically saying that animal cruelty is a more important reason to go vegan than health. Whatever. Health, the environment, and animal welfare are all facets.
First of all, they compared tofu to animal protein. Tofu has saturated fat, but I don't know any who eats tofu as their main source of protein. I eat beans & grains - compare that to animal protein. And it doesn't matter what percent of protein each contain. Total protein over the course of the day is what counts and the average Amerian gets 300% of the recommended total, which isn't good for the kidneys.
Another point made is that a vegan diet is not inherently healthier than a well-planned omni diet and back that up by saying people could eat more fish and chicken. Fish farm fish are fed loads of antibiotics and chickens are fed growth hormones, among other things.
It's also ridiculous to say that it only really counts when young people adopt a plant-based diet and do so for animal welfare reasons.
Another health issue addressed is that vegans don't have a significantly different mortality rate. So what? It didn't address the quality of life while we're alive. That's more important to me.
I totally disagree with this article. I have read The China Study by T. Colin Campbell, PhD and the article is blatantly wrong when it states that the study found no correlation between meat consumption and heart disease and cancer. They absolutely did find that. Some of the confounding issues in the study, though, were 'diseases of poverty' such as parasite infections. These were clearly stated and accounted for.
In addition, the study found that the #1 promoter of cancer in both human and animal studies is casein. This accounts for similar cancer rates among vegetarians who continue to consume dairy products. The #2 promoter was animal protein in all forms, including fish. Vegetable protein was not found to contribute to cancer growth, even at the levels of protein normally consumed by omnivores in this country.
The mortality rate for vegans has, in the past, been similar, due in part, to vitamin deficiencies. Many long-term, older vegans feel that vegetable foods can provide all the nutrients necessary, but we all know know that B12 cannot be consumed in sufficient quantities without supplementation or by eating fortified foods. A lot of the current research also shows vitamin D plays a much larger role in health than previously thought. This, for example, does not vary between vegans or omnivores and also leads to many health issues. We also all know that not all vegans eat the same, or even healthily. It's absolutely possible to gain weight and be unhealthy as vegan, after all, potato chips and french fries are vegan.
All in all, I guess I would say that I totally discount the article. Although I absolutely believe that the eating of meat is morally wrong, that is by no means my only reason for being vegan. It is healthier.
Thanks for that reference, I'll have to read "The China Study." I know I've read many times, in many places, that Veganism fights off many cancers, but I guess when I read this, I couldn't think of any specific studies to reference that would contradict the results of this article.
The other tidbit of info that I wish I knew is, when they say "mortality rate," is that referencing the number of Vegan and Omni cancer patients--that is, the mortality rate among those who already contracted cancer--or the mortality rate among Vegans and Omnis in general, some of whom have cancer. Does that make sense? Because if they're only considering the death toll among those who already have cancer, that may have really altered the numbers. But if they're looking at Omni and Vegan populations as a whole, and then considering the death rate as it is caused by cancer, that may well show that being Vegan helps.
I have no idea how any of the information in this article is true. I have read "The China Study" and a number of other books related to adopting a vegan lifestyle (just about finished "The Face on Your Plate"). They make sense and back up their statements with research. Personally, I like to do my research before I make decisions that affect my life and others. Sounds like twisted bits of info in the article in question. Food manufacturers do this all the time - the meat and dairy industry as well (does milk really do a body good? I don't think so..)
Oh, please. Any diet can be healthy and any diet can be crappy. But I'll bet you that a vegan diet has a higher propensity for healthiness than the SAD.
<developmental psychologist>
I agree with HH that you really need to look here at who's putting this out. I guess it's a philosophical argument about whether there is a difference in WHY you choose to do what you choose to do--like a stage of moral reasoning specific to veganism. Is it less "moral" to do it because of a personal benefit to you (health) than it is to do it because of a greater benefit (animals, environment)? Or, does the end (veganism) justify the means? Also keep in mind that levels of moral decisionmaking don't necessarily lead to what we consider "moral" behavior; to contrast, you can behave very morally because of a "less developed" reason. So, what do we care about?
</developmental psychologist>
This is TOTALLY a "reasons for being vegan" article. First of all, the study they cite is from 1999. I didn't look into it for sure, but I'd be 99% confident that the China Study (published 2005) is a larger meta-study than this. Come on, the research to support the ill health effects of too much meat and dairy are very well-documented and common sense.
I think caroleena and hh are spot on. This is animal-right-based veganism propaganda. And I do think there is a place for discussing the reasons for going vegan (you know I love that!) but I think it's irresponsible to discredit health motivations. The article is misleading and pretty useless.
thanks guys! i feel better now that you've reassured me that the studies i read about previously are more weighty than findings like this one. i felt like my health argument was in danger of being discredited! whew! :)
you can watch the US get bigger and bigger!
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
Oh, now that's gross. I think they showed a similar clip in the film "supersize me." It's true that vegans can also come in any shape and size, and that there are plenty of fattening vegan foods, but still--I doubt vegans count for their "fair share" of those obesity rates!
In the beginning of the map sequence there were a lot of states that didn't have data. Do you think US residents gained that much weight in a decade or there's now better/more data?
Where I live, the tween/teen trend is emo, so they're as skinny as possible. Maybe in another decade the map will tip back the other direction.