Vegetarian diet associated with worse health: study

[w1z4rd]

That's not what "vets" believe, that's what some vets believe. Any argument that is based on "going against their physiology" or "design" is just BS. Metabolizing the right set of input nutrients is just a chemical process, the source of those nutrients is completely irrelevant from a scientific and nutritional perspective.

Here's one, that suggests caution after a study, but indicated that it possible, and from a vegan perspective, a small risk is better than supporting all that harm to others:
http://m.petmd.com/blogs/nutritionnuggets/cat/jcoates/2014/jan/can-cats-thrive-on-vegetarian-diet-31187

Also, the reverse holds, horses can and do eat meat (certain mountain folk societies - google it) - once again, it's just chemistry.

I take it that any vegetarian cat has to basically live its entire life indoors? Dont think its possible to have such a thing as an outdoors vegetarian cat.

 

[cguy]

Well I dont think its that simple. If I eat too much meat, I know it can cause cancer.
I know feeding meat to cows can cause mad cow disease because of certain proteins. There are likely to be lots of side effects when changing a diet. I know with my snakes. Just changing them from eating frogs or geckos to changing them to eat mice can have serious side effects. Surviving does not equal thriving.

I am sure that if science really tried, it would be possible to create a vegan supplement that causes cancer and something akin to mad cow disease.

There is nothing magical about the source of the nutrients that help us survive and thrive - it's just chemistry - yes, the wrong proteins can cause cancer and disease, but the reason for these being there in the first place is usually due to some sort of contamination (as for MCD), or lack of control, since "production" (i.e., the entire bio-system of a complex animal and its environment) is far from controlled.

The only barrier I've seen with the vegan cat food is that some cats just don't have a taste for it, and refuse to eat it. I've never heard of anyone having a cat that actually eats the food having health issues. In terms of producing the right taste and texture, I am sure that this is just a matter of time.

 

[cguy]

In this I was thinking more along the lines of stop buying them. Stop breeding them. Stop owning them. Over time their numbers will decline naturally. Not kill all existing cats...

To simplify the argument (and without a poor cat losing its life). Pretend you are a PETA loving animal rights activist who doesnt eat meat because you cant stand how animals are treated on farms, etc. Now if you to to the shop and buy a cat, are you or are you not a hypocrite?

I don't know of any vegetarian or vegan that advocates breeding or buying cats. Owning cats is a different story if they come from a shelter. PETA explicitly states that they are against all forms of pet ownership apart from shelter adoption.

 

[w1z4rd]

I am sure that if science really tried, it would be possible to create a vegan supplement that causes cancer and something akin to mad cow disease.

There is nothing magical about the source of the nutrients that help us survive and thrive - it's just chemistry - yes, the wrong proteins can cause cancer and disease, but the reason for these being there in the first place is usually due to some sort of contamination (as for MCD), or lack of control, since "production" (i.e., the entire bio-system of a complex animal and its environment) is far from controlled.

The only barrier I've seen with the vegan cat food is that some cats just don't have a taste for it, and refuse to eat it. I've never heard of anyone having a cat that actually eats the food having health issues. In terms of producing the right taste and texture, I am sure that this is just a matter of time.

Those poor cats, shame. Even the vegan websites highlights some known health risks. http://www.vegancats.com/veganfaq.php

 

[cguy]

I take it that any vegetarian cat has to basically live its entire life indoors? Dont think its possible to have such a thing as an outdoors vegetarian cat.

My mother in law has a few cats (some on vegan diets, some one vegetarian diets and some on fish), all rescued. They're outdoors during the day and she watches them, and keeps them confined to her garden (yes, they listen, cats can be herded... to an extent).

Obviously, not everyone can spend as much time doing this as she does, but being kept mostly indoors, and having the occasional supervised romp outside, is better than euthanasia.

 

[cguy]

Those poor cats, shame. Even the vegan websites highlights some known health risks. http://www.vegancats.com/veganfaq.php

It's not a problem with "vegan cat food", "VeganCats" is just one brand, that has had a vast amount of success at this, but has also seen UTI's in a minority of cases, which are possibly caused by its products. Non-veg cat foods have similar issues, and cat owners change brand, dry vs. wet food, and fish vs. chicken vs. meat depending on how their cats react. If your cat sees issues, just take them off, try another brand or reduce it.

 

[STS]

*munches popcorn watching Ghoti getting owned in another debate involving science*

 

[liber8]

*munches popcorn watching Ghoti getting owned in another debate involving science*

better than the livers

 

[Lycanthrope]

*munches popcorn watching Ghoti getting owned in another debate involving science*

Just stumbled onto this thread again and wishing I hadn't.

I'd like to know when choosing a dietary lifestyle that minimises harm became some sort of black-and-white balancing act?

It is virtually impossible to eliminate harm--that's precisely what life is: for you to live, countless other things must die. Whether in the form of the viruses and bacteria our bodies continually destroy or the field mice, birds, insects and other animals that lose their territory (and, no doubt, lives) due to farming (whether industrialised or as simple as digging a hole in your back garden) and harvesting.

Not to mention the purported ethical "harm" you inflict by using electricity.

As I said, it is virtually impossible to eliminate the harm you inflict simply by existing without taking yourself out of existence.

So could someone tell me when, exactly, being a vegetarian/vegan/whatever became some kind of black-and-white law that prohibited us from taking care of a cat or, gods forbid, having children (you know, those other little things we also have a choice about raising and can't necessarily cage)?

What an utterly absurd argument.

Clearly some folk prefer to believe "Why bother, let's **** everything up instead" is the solution.

 

[w1z4rd]

So could someone tell me when, exactly, being a vegetarian/vegan/whatever became some kind of black-and-white law that prohibited us from taking care of a cat or, gods forbid, having children (you know, those other little things we also have a choice about raising and can't necessarily cage)?

Its a moral dilemma debate not some black and white rule. I think some people are taking it too literally. No one wants to take away your cats or your choice or anything.

I'd like to know when choosing a dietary lifestyle that minimises harm became some sort of black-and-white balancing act?

It is virtually impossible to eliminate harm--that's precisely what life is: for you to live, countless other things must die. Whether in the form of the viruses and bacteria our bodies continually destroy or the field mice, birds, insects and other animals that lose their territory (and, no doubt, lives) due to farming (whether industrialised or as simple as digging a hole in your back garden) and harvesting.

Not to mention the purported ethical "harm" you inflict by using electricity.

As I said, it is virtually impossible to eliminate the harm you inflict simply by existing without taking yourself out of existence.

yup, 100% right.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Its a moral dilemma debate not some black and white rule. I think some people are taking it too literally.

There is no moral dilemma. The stance of any (sane/rational) vegetarian/vegan is inherently dietary. Whatever ethical or moral nonsense a person wants to attach to that is entirely their own business.

However, in saying that, I would expect that any morality that is placed on vegetarianism/veganism/whatever by any "sane" person would be to minimise harm and not to try and accomplish the impossible by claiming that they've eliminated it.

Trying to claim that a vegetarian owning a cat is hypocrisy is ridiculous. By whose standards? Yours? People own pets for any number of reasons, not least of which is companionship. You'd deny them that because you believe for them to own a pet makes them hypocrites?

At the end of the day that vegetarian's cat could slaughter all the animals it comes across and it would still result in less harm than if its owner ate meat on top of it.

I'll never fathom the need for some people to get so emotionally invested in OTHER people's lives and choices.

 

[w1z4rd]

There is no moral dilemma. The stance of any (sane/rational) vegetarian/vegan is inherently dietary. Whatever ethical or moral nonsense a person wants to attach to that is entirely their own business.

Yes, that applies to you, I was talking about the people who do it out of morality. Not people who do it for dietary reasons.

Trying to claim that a vegetarian owning a cat is hypocrisy is ridiculous. By whose standards? Yours? People own pets for any number of reasons, not least of which is companionship. You'd deny them that because you believe for them to own a pet makes them hypocrites?

I was specific about the type of vegetarian. I dont care if a vegetarian owns a cat. Really I dont. It was an example in specific type of moral dilemma.

At the end of the day that vegetarian's cat could slaughter all the animals it comes across and it would still result in less harm than if its owner ate meat on top of it.

I got no problem with the circle of life. Im on the same page with you here.

I'll never fathom the need for some people to get so emotionally invested in OTHER people's lives and choices.

Im not emotionally invested at all. You are.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Yes, that applies to you, I was talking about the people who do it out of morality. Not people who do it for dietary reasons.

And yet, as I explained, it can still be argued as the morally preferable ground simply because it remains the lesser evil, pet or no pet. Any further attempts to determine an individual's morality would be done from your perspective and not necessarily theirs.

I was specific about the type of vegetarian. I dont care if a vegetarian owns a cat. Really I dont. It was an example in specific type of moral dilemma.

You seemed to go off at vegetarians as a whole. Perhaps I misunderstood then.

I got no problem with the circle of life. Im on the same page with you here.

Im not emotionally invested at all. You are.

The survey linked is flawed. It tries to imply that vegetarianism is the cause of the worse health of the vegetarian participants when correlated to their meat-eating counterparts; yet didn't bother to find out if they had those health problems prior to becoming vegetarians or if they became vegetarian because of those health problems.

Yet on the first page we already have "SEE! IT'S UNNATURAL! YOU'RE KIDDING YOURSELVES THAT IT'S HEALTHY!" and other such posts of similar mentality. I may have inadvertently read that into your posts as well, especially since you posted the thread linking to a sensationalist article that elected to ignore the study's flaws.

The emotional investment to believe that we aren't evil sons of bitches is very high and it's generally those in loudest opposition to vegetarianism that like to justify their lifestyle choices by trying to vilify the lifestyle choice of vegetarians. Calling us "hypocrites" is just one such way.

It's very difficult not to take a personal interest in such absurdity.

 

[saor]

There is no moral dilemma. The stance of any (sane/rational) vegetarian/vegan is inherently dietary. Whatever ethical or moral nonsense a person wants to attach to that is entirely their own business.

I think the case against battery farmed animals is a fair point if someone chooses to use that as the basis for their choice about what to eat. And it's sometimes just easier to go full vegetarian/vegan that to constantly wonder whether the meat you're being served is in fact free-range (or was raised and slaughtered in a way that did it's utmost to minimize any suffering).

When you consider how intelligent octopus, elephants, baboons etc. are, then again it's a valid stance when you choose to extend that recognition of sentience / intelligence to animals in general, and take a position of choosing not to raise and slaughter animals to feed ourselves.

I disagree with your point about a moral stance being moot. When people with money to spend support an industry that raises animals in such ridiculous conditions - where their lives are given the middle-finger so that we can have some nom nom KFC - I think there is a moral dilemma that extends beyond individual choice.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I think the case against battery farmed animals is a fair point if someone chooses to use that as the basis for their choice about what to eat. And it's sometimes just easier to go full vegetarian/vegan that to constantly wonder whether the meat you're being served is in fact free-range (or was raised and slaughtered in a way that did it's utmost to minimize any suffering).

When you consider how intelligent octopus, elephants, baboons etc. are, then again it's a valid stance when you choose to extend that recognition of sentience / intelligence to animals in general, and take a position of choosing not to raise and slaughter animals to feed ourselves.

I disagree with your point about a moral stance being moot. When people with money to spend support an industry that raises animals in such ridiculous conditions - where their lives are given the middle-finger so that we can have some nom nom KFC - I think there is a moral dilemma that extends beyond individual choice.

Certainly, I agree. But we're a long, long way from the average Joe in the street being prepared to give up his steak and boerewors because he suddenly grew a conscience.

There needs to be ethical and humane treatment of animals, always. I don't deny that. But I'd be ignorant to assume that everyone cares about "the greater good" as much as I do. So, I settle for people doing their best to buy cruelty-free products and lobbying for ethical and humane treatment of animals.

The statement I made, which you quoted, was to illustrate that vegetarianism is primarily just a dietary choice, the ethical/moral/emotional implications thereof are personal sentiments attached to it.

The dilemma which, as you say, extends beyond individual choice, is one that isn't easily solved. Whatever you do to survive, it will result in harm. Farming will result in animals, insects and life being lost so that we (and, no doubt our pets) might live. The number of rodents and small birds killed by combine harvesters every year are staggering--this is still a loss of life. It's not really easily preventable.

There are the large numbers of animals killed on the roads every year, the insects, arachnids, etc that we kill when they enter our homes. The marine life harmed by the fuel we use to power our cars or the life harmed to power our homes.

**** happens

Animals will eat animals and people will eat animals. It's normal, it's life. What's important to me isn't that people eat animals (but don't get me wrong, in an ideal world that wouldn't be acceptable any longer), but that the animals used for food are killed as humanely and painlessly as possible.

I also believe that there is something psychologically damaged about a person whose job it is to routinely kill animals (never mind someone who takes pleasure in it, such as for sport) and, certainly, I don't believe it's healthy to grow numb to the gore involved in killing, skinning, tanning, etc.

My frustration stems from the argument that vegetarians/vegans cannot own pets because of some purported moral code that cannot be broken once a person becomes a vegetarian. I just find the hyperbolic black-and-white perspective that either you can eat meat and do whatever you want with animals, or be a vegetarian and avoid them like the plague, an absurd and desperate attempt at discrediting what is inherently a very personal dietary/lifestyle choice for many.

 

[BCO]

So basically you are against pet ownership unless its to keep endangered species alive? (there is a "?" there, Im not putting arguments into your mouth, Im trying to understand your view) So in your ideal world, no one should own a pet (except for conservation requirements)? Cause without breeding animals, you cant have pets?... Trying to understand this view.

I am against breeding of "pets". I'm not against humans having companion animals if they are adopted from shelters or otherwise rescued from horrible conditions. In an ideal world, we would not be breeding dogs, cats, chickens, cows, pigs etc. for the sole purpose of our pleasure, gustatory or otherwise.

 

[BCO]

I don't know of any vegetarian or vegan that advocates breeding or buying cats. Owning cats is a different story if they come from a shelter. PETA explicitly states that they are against all forms of pet ownership apart from shelter adoption.

This.

 

[Garson007]

What's important to me isn't that people eat animals (but don't get me wrong, in an ideal world that wouldn't be acceptable any longer).

I disagree wholeheartedly; in an ideal world people would realize that the life of most animals are inconsequential.

 

[googoodoll]

I disagree wholeheartedly; in an ideal world people would realize that the life of most animals are inconsequential.

That must be the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever said

 

[cguy]

I disagree wholeheartedly; in an ideal world people would realize that the life of most animals are inconsequential.

The life and (more importantly) well being of the animal is consequential to it, so it is consequential to me. It's called empathy.