Be careful; vegan's a bad word

Have you ever thought that meat-eaters think "vegan" is a bad word? I often think it's the equivalent to the word "shit" to them. A few years ago, my wife decided to do some vegan outreach by baking some tasty treats. She thought at least meat-eaters would come to the realization that vegans can eat good food. One day, she brings these incredible cupcakes to work and makes the announcement that they were for everyone to eat. Each co-worker asked her, "Are they vegan?" "Yes," Anita announced with some pride. Not one co-worker tried a cupcake. Not a nibble, not a lick. They just sat there. They were the "vegan" cupcakes. Perhaps they thought they had asked, "Are they shit?" Maybe that would be a good excuse for their repulsion. Anita's co-workers would always bring food to work, and they loved to eat. It's not like they had a repulsion to food. Then, she tried a different tact. She brought the food to work and just set it down were food is normally put. It worked. Now, her co-workers would wander the offices asking, "Who baked these cookies? They are incredible." It's the ultimate vengeance when the meat-eaters realize the vegan made them food, and they liked it. What's the world coming to? It's obvious that meat-eaters don't hate vegan food; they just hate the word "vegan." What gets me is that meat-eaters eat plenty of plant food. Yet, they always ask, "Is it vegan?" as if there is something in it that they find repulsive. It's not the same as a vegan asking if there are any animal ingredients in something. Vegans don't eat meat, thank you.

Talk about an insult

Gourmet magazine editor Julia Langbein demonstrates how to be a real asshole. I wouldn't normally use this word, but she really shows how not to be a friend in her blog entry titled "Sins of Flesh." She talks about how her vegan friend is such a good sport about her meat eating and that he never complains. Langbein just shoves it in his face over and over. She doesn't hesitate to offer him meat and even suggests he's a weakling. Here is a sample from the blog entry: "As one of my four friends, he comes to my many meat-centric dinner parties. When I unwrapped my gorgeous 9-lb bone-in leg of lamb for Easter lunch and discovered the leg joint was intact, he watched me dance it across the counter, puppeteering raw meat high-kicks and singing 'Luck Be a Lady.'" The vegan did eventually get upset, and what did Langbein do as a peace offering? She sent him a cheesecake. With friends like her, who needs enemies?

An appeal to The New York Times Op-Ed editor

Note: This is a letter I sent to New York Times Op-Ed Editor David Shipley regarding his comments to Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt (see post below) regarding the printing of the Op-Ed "Death by Veganism."

Dear Mr. Shipley,

I can't tell you how disappointed I have been in The New York Times' publishing of Nina Planck's "Death by Veganism" column on May 21, 2007, and the Times' reaction to complaints about the piece. I am also deeply troubled by your comments to Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt, who brought some reader concerns about the column to your attention. You replied that the science is sound that infants need animal protein. What science exactly? You were merely speaking out of your rear end without actually having looked anything up. The only thing infants need is mother's milk. Anything other than that is inferior, animal or plant. Beside that point, let's trust the actual nutrition experts to comment on nutrition science. The American Dietetic Association states "Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence." That is the consensus of the scientific community. Surely, the Times' Op-Ed page has some journalistic standards? Nina Planck did not cite one single source in her column. She did not quote a doctor or a nutrition scientist, nor did she refer to a scientific study. Planck also does not hold a nutrition degree. Why is someone being allowed to make declarative statements about a subject on the opinion page and being allowed to pass them off as being true? Does the Times bother to do any fact-checking? The Times has already published one correction on the column that Indian vegetarians don't normally eat eggs. That's a good start, but there are numerous items that need correction in the column. How about the absurd comment by Planck that babies are made of fish oil? I sent in an e-mail previously outlining all of the items that need correction. I also offered an Op-Ed reaction to Planck's piece. I attached both the Op-Ed offering and the letter concerning what items I believe deserve to be corrected. It would be helpful if the Times just retracted the column. As I wrote to Clark Hoyt, the Times wouldn’t just print anything on its Op-Ed page. Why would it allow the unsubstantiated remarks by Planck be printed? It’s equivalent to printing an Op-Ed piece detailing the superiority of the Aryan brain. After all, there is some Nazi science backing up the subject. Your reply to this e-mail would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Andrew --- (a loyal New York Times subscriber)
Harlingen, Texas

New York Times attempts to justify shaky "Death by Vegan" column

NOTE: I respond to an e-mail sent by The New York Times' public editor leter to Matthew Bate (pasted below).

Dear Matthew Bate,

Thank you for writing about the Nina Planck essay, “Death by Veganism,” published Monday (May 21, 2007) on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times. I don’t know that Ms. Planck’s comments are “inaccurate,” I do know that they are debatable. I asked David Shipley, the editor of the Op-Ed page, for his thoughts. He said, “I think Nina Planck is on firm ground in her Op-Ed. Her reading of the science is that it is indeed the case that children (and all of us) need animal-derived nutrients, and she’s able to summon studies backing up her assertion – just as the vegans are able to summon up studies showing that you can indeed survive on plants alone.” My own view, which I expressed to Shipley, is that, given how important and fraught with emotion the subject of children’s nutrition is, the Times owed its readers an Op-Ed by another contributor debating Planck. Because there is science to support another view, it should have been aired at the same time, or very close to the same time. David Shipley’s view is that, “Op-Ed readers understand that they are reading an argument and that there is almost always another side to the argument.” I’d feel better if the Times had actually presented that other side in this particular instance.

Sincerely,
Clark Hoyt
Public Editor


Dear Mr. Hoyt,

Regarding your letter to Mr. Bate, the point is Nina Planck in her "Death by Veganism" column did not back up any of her information with any studies that veganism is bad, not one single one. If you look at Nina Planck's own Web site justifying the information in her column, she says she got all of her information from a single family practitioner. She did not say she looked at any studies. She does not make simple opinionated arguments in her column. She makes declarative statements about veganism. The reality is that the consensus of the scientific community is that a vegan diet is healthy. It does not back up Planck's position. If a person is going to make allegations and assertions in his or her writing, it needs to have some citation. She provides none in the column. On her Web site, Planck says she had many sources, but the only one she lists is the family practitioner. She does not mention any sources in her column, not one. Planck does not have a nutrition degree of any kind, so we can not trust the declarative statements she makes about nutrition. We also know that medical doctors get little if any nutrition training in medical school. This family doctor, who was unnamed on Planck's Web site, could talk about tests he has performed and demonstrated the results of those, but he can not actually talk about nutrition. He does, however, make a serious accusation on her Web site: "I have seen cases of severe anemia and protein deficiency in vegan infants resulting in hospitalization and blood transfusion." Now, if this is true, it speaks poorly of those particular vegan parents, but because one doctor may have seen something that he is assuming has to do with veganism doesn't mean he can extrapolate that to make assumptions about all vegans. Why isn't this doctor (I hope he is basing his information on actual tests he performed.) documenting these cases and presenting his findings in a peer reviewed journal if he is so concerned about what veganism can mean for all vegan infants? I'm guessing he doesn't have the evidence to back him up. There is plenty of information out there about raising vegan children and plenty of documented evidence that infants can be raised in a healthy manner on a vegan diet, but any person (including meat-eaters) who gets pregnant needs to become informed about the child's nutrition needs. Doubt that the consensus among the scientific community that a vegan diet is healthy at all stages of life, then look at what the American Dietetic Association states: "Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence." The New York Times has every right to use its opinion pages to show a wide variety of opinions, but even the opinion pages should have some journalistic standards. By printing Planck’s column, the Times diminished its credibility. If I wrote an opinion piece about how black people are genetically inferior to white people, I would be way out of line. Planck was way out of line in her column. I do hope you can address this matter in one of your future columns.

Sincerely,
Andrew --- (a loyal New York Times reader)
Harlingen, Texas

Times corrects "Death by Veganism" -- sort of

Remember Nina Planck and her "Death By Veganism" op-ed in The New York Times? Well, the Times on Friday finally printed a correction, but it didn't go far enough: "An Op-Ed article on May 21, about veganism, mischaracterized an aspect of traditional vegetarian Indian diets. Generally, these diets are lacto-vegetarian; they do not include eggs." Duh. That was the least offense that Planck made. She mischaracterized veganism through and through. I'm still waiting on the Times to make a more thorough correction.

An animal rights victory

Every once in a while, there are little victories for animal rights. This one was in the Austin American-Statesman on Friday: "Leaving tethered or chained dogs outside alone will no longer be allowed in Austin. The City Council on Thursday approved the ordinance by a 7-0 vote. The new law also requires that any outdoor enclosure used as the primary living area for a dog have at least 150 square feet of space for each dog, age 6 months or older. City officials have acknowledged that the law might disproportionately affect lower-income residents. Critics have said dogs are often chained because fencing is expensive. Low-income families will get help complying with the new law; each address or family could get up to $250 in assistance. The law will become effective Oct. 1. Enforcement will start with warnings, said David Lurie, director of the city's Health and Human Services Department."
I can't tell you how many times I've seen a poor animal chained up in the neighborhood where I live. One man down the street keeps his dog chained up to a tree in the front yard. Why have a pet if you are going to be so cruel? I wish we could get a law in Harlingen like the one Austin passed. Bravo to the progressive folks in Austin.

Skinny vegans? Yeah, right

I guess I haven't been that good of a friend, but I haven't talked that much to one of my best friends in years. It's the distance thing. He lives in the Dallas area, eight or so hours from here. I certainly have never talked that much about being vegan to him. Maybe I was afraid to because I wasn't that knowledgeable about what being a vegan really was about. I don't know. In our conversation yesterday, he brought up a point that is a common misconception about vegans. He said I must be losing weight because I'm a vegan. I'm working hard on getting healthier these days, but my weight has nothing to do with being a vegan. I still consume too many calories. I didn't cut out the hamburgers and replace them with nothing. I found other things to eat. Some vegans are skinny, and some are fat. That's just how it is. Vegans fall into the same traps of over consumption as meat-eaters. It's true we probably consume less saturated fat, more fiber and less protein, but that doesn't mean we don't eat too much. I recently gave up drinking alcohol regularly, I started doing aerobic exercises for 30 minutes each morning, and I try really hard not to buy soy ice cream too much. I also try not to eat out too much, as well. That's not that hard of a thing to do when you live in such an unfriendly place for vegans as we do. Those things will help me lose weight. I've noticed I'm starting to look a little slimmer lately. My double chin is whittling down, as are my love handles. My beer belly is still there. I still weigh way too much, but like I say, "I didn't put on these pounds quickly, so why should I expect to lose them that fast?" Yo-yo diets are not the answer. It's about making lifestyle changes. You should work at make permanent changes so the weight stays off. At least, that's what I'm hoping for. Being vegan is one thing that will help with so many health problems, but it's not the be-all answer. Vegans still have to work for their health.