Vegetarian bits in the media

The American Chronicle features a writer's first-hand account of her journey to vegetarianism, away from it, and back again. It's pretty straightforward -- the sort of story you hear often in newbie forums on online vegetarian message boards. The only information offered up in it that made me feel uneasy was in her description of vegans. She described them as the ''elite'' of vegetarianism, and that just sounds sort of bitter. It perpetuates (whether deliberately or not) the stereotype of vegans as actually viewing themselves as morally superior to other vegetarians.

The thing is that this us vs. them mentality is the exact same thing that leads to a lot of omnis' defensive knee-jerk reactions to all vegetarians (i.e. any variation thereof), when they assume that vegetarians view themselves as morally superior to those who eat animals. I hate seeing that sort of divisiveness within the vegetarian community, and hope that I'm just overreacting to it. Another thing that may be confusing to some folks reading the article who may be unfamiliar with vegetarian terminology is that she lumped together ''vegans'' (who consume no animal products -- i.e. either eating them, wearing them or otherwise) and ''strict vegetarians'' (who generally don't eat any animal products, but may buy non-edible animal products like leather, et al.). Aside from that, though, it was a neat story of one person's journey.

Hawaii's KITV (ABC) lists the top ten reasons switching from an animal-based diet to a plant-based diet is environmentally friendly. It's a good list from that angle, for sure.

The New York Times' Mark Bittman had a piece a week and a half ago that describes, step by step, how to minimize one's consumption of meat, regardless of the reasons one wants to do so (e.e.g nutrition, to save money, animal suffering, the environment, et al.). It's positive, and I like it. There's no finger wagging, no stance-taking -- it's just straightforward piece on how to eat less meat. I sent it to a few omni friends who've been telling me over the past few months that they'd like to cut back, for a wide range of reasons.

Oprah? Are you falling off your temporary vegan wagon?

The online vegetarian community has been buzzing for the past few weeks over the news of Oprah's 21-day vegan cleanse. Yes, it was only meant to be temporary cleanse, and not a permanent lifestyle change. However, it was bringing some ok attention to the reality that vegan food can be nutritious and tasty (and if any of her loyal followers were going along with her on this cleanse, it also meant that for 21 days, there'd be a little less animal consumption going on in the world). My biggest eye-rolling over the whole thing had to do with the fact that Oprah had her own personal chef preparing all of her dishes. Hey, I'd be a more-than-happy vegan too if I had someone preparing all of my meals, even (as per Oprah's blog) fed-exing them when I was traveling... So? I think there may be trouble in Oprah-land.

Oprah's last blog post on Saturday reported that her personal chef left. Her reaction: "Tal left…the void is immense. I'm in New York trying to make do."

That's the last time she posted about her cleanse, after posting daily since its beginning. I don't watch the show, so I dunno if she's commented on it on television at this point. Anyone? I'm thinking that it shouldn't be all that hard for someone that rich and connected to find another spectacular vegan-friendly chef to step up and fill Tal's shoes (heck -- I'd go cook for her myself for a fraction of what Tal must have cost, except that I somehow suspect that my ordinary old lentil chilli or chickpea salad wraps probably wouldn't impress her all that much), but the lack of further blog posts leads me to suspect that the 21-day cleanse may very well be on the skids. Which of course, would send out this big old message to her legions that following a vegan diet is just too hard for regular folks. And for this reason alone, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Oprah's lack of blogging has more to do with her busy schedule than it does her abandoning her project.

Wow. For the first time in my life, I'm sending supportive vibes out to Oprah. Kinda leaves me feeling a little warm and fuzzy inside.

The protein myth

AlterNet has a short article today by Kathy Freston of The Huffington Post; it's about the "protein myth". For most vegetarians (and even more so for vegans), the question "But where do you get your protein?" always seems a bit perplexing as it comes up again and again (and again). It's as if by eschewing that ol' ribeye steak, vegetarians or vegans (or veg*ans) face some sort of inevitable and well-known nutritional deficiency purportedly common to their ilk, even though most of the folks like me who live in North America live in a world where most diseases have to do with excessive consumption.

Freston points out that only 10 percent of most people's daily caloric intake needs to be protein-derived and that it's almost impossible to not meet this requirement by simply eating a varied plant-based diet. She discusses Dr. Dean Ornish's article that links common cancers, heart disease and other illnesses to high protein -- and especially animal-derived -- foods (she's right that his article is well-worth the read) . She also mentions T. Colin Campbell's famous The China Study, which also links cancer to excessive animal protein consumption.

The Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) has a well-researched section on its website about daily protein requirements and vegan sources of protein. It also addresses the still widely-perpetuated myth (kick-started -- and long-since repudiated -- by France Moore Lappé in her famous work Diet for a Small Planet) of the supposed need to combine different types of protein to get a "complete" protein. PCRM also has a great article on protein for vegans and breaks down protein requirements by body weight (as well as throwing in a couple of protein-rich recipes to boot). It's almost embarrassing how ridiculously easy it is to get the minimum amount of protein you need day to day.

Taylor Clark's ''Meatless Like Me'' and some ramblings on it

Tricia Woolfendon from The Grand Rapids Press' MLive.com wrote a short opinion piece about vegetarianism in response to Taylor Clark's recent piece for Slate called ''Meatless Like Me''. (Actually, if you do a line count, around a third of her piece is actually just a quote from Clark's.)

Woolfendon agrees with Clark's point that vegetarians don't really judge meat-eaters for eating meat. I agree with this to a limited extent. I mean, I don't see how most vegetarians or vegans could walk around in the world, otherwise. All of us are parts of social networks -- friends, family, coworkers, et al. -- that consist mostly of people who consume an omnivorous diet, and regardless of this, we love and like them for the sum of the individuals they are. We deal with it every single day and it's the status quo; that being said, it doesn't mean that we have to like that it's the status quo, or that we should even resign ourselves to it. And it shouldn't have to mean that not liking it or not resigning ourselves to it makes us ''bad'' vegetarians and vegans. It's especially disheartening to me to see vegetarians judging and shaming other vegetarians for having ethical convictions and for not pretending that they don't process and filter life around them (to a certain extent) according to what they value.

Woolfendon also takes it further by saying that she doesn't really care what meat-eaters consume. I think that anyone with real ethical concerns about animal consumption, whether willing to admit it or not, does indeed care about the big picture. We do wish that people would minimize their meat consumption. Less meat consumed means less animals spending lives of suffering until they're slaughtered; less meat consumed means less water and cropland wasted, and less havoc wreaked on our environment. And when it comes to family members, whose health and longevity we cherish, less meat consumed means lower cholesterol, lower rates of obesity and less cancer. You don't have to be preachy to care, and not being preachy doesn't mean that you don't care; not judging does not equate not caring. And although Woolfendon may think that bringing this out in the open (see her link to PETA's factsheets) means you're wagging a finger at others, it doesn't; it just means that you're stating facts. When PCRM publishes an article about the negative health effects of eating meat, they're not judging; they're reporting findings from scientific studies.

Woolfendon does take issue with Clark's assertion that vegetarians '''know' that meat tastes good''. I second Woolfendon's exception to that. I get this from one of my well-meaning omni friends all the time -- her voice takes on a complicit purr and she tries to elicit a confession out of me that surely I must have overpowering memories of the mesmerizing deliciousness of this or that piece of meat and that I just don't want to admit it. The thing is that I really don't. Many vegetarians or vegans find the very sight or smell of meat repulsive, just by virtue of having come to terms with the realization of what's done to animals to serve them up on a plate. It's called association. (And even Clark ends up touching upon this in his Slate article, mentioning how certain types of meat have become gross to him after years of vegetarianism; he only does so, however, after overstating his visceral attachment to the smell and taste of bacon.)

Clark brings up the existence of so many meat analogs on the market as some sort of proof that other vegetarians also crave the taste of meat. Sure, there are a lot of fake meat products on the market, but the thing is that there are actually a lot of non-vegetarians buying them, too. For instance, I have friends who feed their kids soy-dogs rather than meat-based hot-dogs, because of the sodium, preservatives and fat content of the meat-based ones. I try to avoid meat analogs, since although some of them are nicely fortified with vitamins and minerals (like B12), most seem to be high in sodium and are often made using GMO soy. I ate more of them while living with my omni spouse (who adored them).

Woolfendon ends her article echoing Clark's call to chefs everywhere to provide more inventive (i.e. vegetarian dishes in restaurants that are more than leafy greens on a plate). I have to say that over the past couple of years, I've found more and more places -- even a lot of the local pubs in my small city -- offering a wider diversity of vegetarian options. It's not uncommon to find grilled or raw vegetable wraps, pasta dishes, stir fries or veggie-burgers anymore. Interest in meat-free products is on the rise in the mainstream, and this is being reflected in restaurant options. Vegan options are still a dismally altogether different story, however...

With regards to Clark's article itself, I was glad to see him address the issue with folks who refer to themselves as vegetarians, although they still eat fish or chicken. He points out -- and rightly so -- that ''unless we're talking about the kind of salmon that comes freshly plucked from the vine, this makes you an omnivore''. On the other hand, I was disappointed that he chose to marginalize vegans, limiting what he says about them to: ''they call themselves vegan, which rhymes with 'tree men' These people are intense.'' It's funny how an article that seems to diminish perceived differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians would segregate one type of vegetarians in that manner.

The overall tone of the article seems almost apologetic. ''Hey guys, I'm just like you -- I even wear leather shoes! See?'' It's as if in purportedly attempting to demystify the relationship between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, Clark also attempts to portray an image of vegetarians as being indistinct from non-vegetarians, and although in most ways they are, I think that in some significant and more weighty ways -- the underlying reasons to what's on their respective plates -- they aren't. And although blurring that over may make dinner conversation a bit more light, it leaves me with a sense that the only good vegetarian is a closet vegetarian, or a vegetarian who shuts up and keeps his vegetarianism to himself, and I'm certain that won't benefit any cow or pig destined for the slaughterhouse in the long run and in a sense, I feel it's being a bit hypocritical in how one presents oneself to the world. As a lovely vegan friend once said to me when I'd mentioned my reluctance to out myself at work: ''There's no shame in being a vegetarian!'' I'm pretty well sure that lecturing and proselytizing aren't the way to go, but I'm even more sure that pretending that one's reasons for becoming a vegetarian should be kept private under fear of social ostracism. I think there's important gray area that should be explored when it comes to how we walk around in the world as vegetarians or vegans, without shame or fear of reprisal and least of all, fear or reprisal from your fellow vegetarians. And I can't help but feel an underlying sense of that from both of these aforementioned articles. Just a whiff of it...

Andrew Weil and animal-derived supplements for vegans

So, I just read an article by Dr. Andrew Weil, the portly quasi-Santa-lookalike nutritional guru. It's called ''Becoming a Vegan''. In it, Weil perpetuates some iffy information that more or less amounts to saying that you cannot thrive on a completely vegan diet. He brings up two instances where, in his opinion, animal products are necessary. First, with regards to Vitamin D, he writes the following:

I recommend a daily supplement of 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 -- cholecalciferol -- for everyone (vegan or not).

He asserts that your body can produce enough Vitamin D from exposure to sunlight, but states that most people don't go outside enough, hence the need for a supplement. The thing is that cholecalciferol (D3) is generally derived from sheep's wool -- definitely not vegan. Oddly, he makes no mention at all of Vitamin D2, which isn't derived from animals and which is commonly used in vegan vitamins.

Then, with reference to omega-3s, he writes:

Be aware that the vegetarian sources of omega-3s are not as good as oily fish. Consider taking a fish oil supplement or, at least, an algae-derived supplement of DHA.

Why would someone write an article about becoming a vegan and recommend taking an animal-based supplement as an option? The article seems mistitled. It would be more accurate for it to maybe refer to issues Weil finds inherent in a vegan diet; it's not about how to adopt a vegan diet if he suggests -- twice -- consuming animal products as necessary? I mean, is the definition of veganism now purportedly open to tweaking. too? (OK, my crankiness is showing, I'll admit...)

According to the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), fish-derived sources of omega-3 are at the very least unnecessary, and on top of that, that

omega-3s in fish oils are highly unstable molecules that tend to decompose and, in the process, unleash dangerous free radicals. Research has shown that omega-3s are found in a more stable form in vegetables, fruits, and beans. (See referenced text here.)

With regards to Vitamin D, the Vegan Society has information on animal-free ways to meet your daily requirement. The Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) has a blurb on the differences between Vitamin D2 and D3. Both are used to fortify milk and other dairy products and Vitamin D3 isn't always animal-derived (but usually is). I haven't seen anything to indicate that one form is superior to the other, really. I'll see if I can dig up some more information about this in my copy of Joanne Stepaniak's Vegan Sourcebook, but it seems to me that Dr. Weil's opinion left some pretty serious blanks to fill and that since he writes as an authority on nutrition, most reading his article wouldn't even think to second-guess what he says. Thankfully, groups like PCRM and VRG exist to set the record straight.

Veganism in the news -- a recipe and more!

The Canadian Press issued a recipe from Laura Mathias' ExtraVeganZa -- Quinoa Three Bean Salad w/ Toasted Almonds.

The Weymouth News featured a guest article -- accurate and concise -- about the cruelty inherent in the production (and associated consumption) of eggs.

Perhaps most significantly, there are reports all over the news this morning about a recent study that shows that a gluten-free vegan diet raises natural antibodies and lowers bad cholesterol (no surprise!), and may help sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis by reducing what is currently their elevated risk of having a stroke or heart attack.