Reinforcing Misconceptions: When Non-Vegans Weigh in on Being Vegan

I often stumble across articles in the media which are about vegans although written by non-vegans, and which don't appear at first glance to be fodder for any sort of lengthy or detailed post. Often, though, one of these articles will still contain something -- an assumption, a bit of misinformation, a certain tone -- that leaves me thinking about it long after I've moved on to read something else. I then return to it after some time spent mulling over whatever got under my skin and every once in a while, I'll try to tease it out into something I hope can lead to further discussion. This morning, it was an article by Coloradoan lifestyle columnist and chef Linda Hoffman called "Setting the table for all nutritional needs can be tricky task". Hoffman wrote the article after a neighbour approached her for vegan recipes, expecting the arrival of a couple of friends -- including one vegan -- who would be visiting for a week.

My first response to such a question would have been to suggest to her neighbour that she ask the friends in question for recipe ideas or information on their food preferences. When I visit others, I always offer to bring my own food and will often offer to fend for myself separately if my stay is prolonged. I'll even offer to cook a few meals for my hosts, mostly because I love to cook and enjoy any opportunity to share good food with others. One of my basic goals when visiting others is the same as any good guest's: To take all steps necessary to not become a pain in the ass so that the visit can be pleasurable for all. For a vegan, this often means doing a little bit extra to lighten the load and to fill in the blanks for my host so that there's no uncertainty or awkwardness during my stay. At least I try. I think it's because of this that I was disappointed that Hoffman didn't suggest to her neighbour that (s)he actually check with the forthcoming visitors to discuss meal arrangements.

Hoffman starts off on a considerate note that's actually a good general rule of thumb to follow when playing host to anyone, whether vegan or non-vegan. She states that when it comes to preparing food for a guest that

[i]t's one thing to provide food a friend can eat within the guidelines she's chosen and something else to serve food that can actually meet physical needs and makes the person feel cared for.

This is the sort of mindset that any host should hold when entertaining any guests, regardless of dietary restrictions or preferences. Unfortunately, she couches it in an initial presentation of hosting vegans as being "tricky" or "challenging". This needn't be the case at all, particularly if communication between guest and host is initiated and maintained on both ends. Hoffman makes it It's clear from the beginning, however, that she won't be facilitating this sort of communication.

Hoffman presents meal preparation during the visit as involving a need to balance options for the vegan guest as well as cater to the assumed needs of non-vegans who'll be at the table, and therein lies what I think is one of the main problems with asking a non-vegan for advice on how to deal with vegans at mealtime. In Hoffman's own words:

There is no need to impose a limited vegan diet on the rest of the group but it is important to serve a variety of foods that allows everyone to feel satisfied.

She views vegan food choices as "limited" and the attitude she conveys is that feeding vegan food to non-vegans is unthinkable -- that it would somehow leave them feeling unsatisfied. Of course, if you're reading this blog post, there's a really good chance that you're a vegan and that you've fed at least a few non-vegans at some point in your life and that you know from experience that this is bunk.

I think that given that she's an actual chef, Hoffman's suggestions for a week's stay of vegan meals are, in fact, embarrassingly "limited". She actually spends an entire third of the article discussing different variations on a bean and rice salad that can be served up as separate meals, insisting that "[b]eans and rice combine to provide complete protein". The thing is that there's no need to combine plant-based foods to obtain "complete protein"; this protein myth was discredited a very long time ago. Furthermore, it's just really disappointing that a chef -- a real honest to goodness chef -- would end up devoting an entire third of her article on what to feed vegans to suggesting variations of bean and rice salad. There are so many other equally simple ideas which could have been offered by anyone with far less expertise.

The other food options she brings up are "soy products" and grilled vegetables. At least she recommends serving the soy products with greens on the side, and she suggests allowing "the guest to choose" which ones to buy (remember -- communication between guest and host is key)... but she then suggests that the soy products can be "stir-fried or grilled next to steak or chicken breasts". I think that I speak for many ethical vegans when I say that I'd rather have a fourth or fifth (or sixth) meal of never-ending-variations-on-bean-and-rice-salad than eat meat substitutes fried up with animal flesh. What's sad, too, is that the idea that tempeh could possibly be served to non-vegans seems to escape her completely. She presents the same either/or scenario when discussing making open-faced sandwiches with soy cheese for the vegan but "real cheese for the others", as if somehow soy cheese is untouchable to anyone but a vegan.

The thing is that there are many dishes that non-vegans commonly eat which don't ordinarily (or always) contain animal products. These dishes can be shared by vegans and non-vegans alike at a meal without perpetuating this mistaken idea that every single meal enjoyed by non-vegans either does or should contain animal products (which then need to be substituted with soy replacements for vegans). How about pasta with marinara sauce alongside a garden salad and a grilled baguette brushed with olive oil, garlic and herbs? What about three-bean chili served with corn chips and guacamole? Or what about a gorgeous Middle Eastern mezze with raw vegetables and pita bread served with hummus and baba ganoush, rice-stuffed grape leaves (or other roasted vegetables like bell peppers, falafel, kalamata olives, marinated artichoke hearts and/or fava beans and tabbouleh? How about any number or variety of Asian stir fry served with rice or noodles or a scrumptious Thai curry made with coconut milk? These are all dishes my non-vegan friends have made at some point -- and not just when I was sharing the meal with them.

My point is that each meal need not be viewed as requiring the preparation of two separate meals, or of requiring any sort of special additional knowledge about vegan food that a non-vegan host might not readily have. Furthermore, each meal need not require the switching in or out of substitutes to cater to this idea that every single meal eaten by a non-vegan necessarily contains meat, dairy or eggs. Even when a vegan isn't sharing a non-vegan's table, vegan-friendly fare may be had from time to time. Add to this that any vegan guest would be happy to share his or her own meal ideas and to even cook something for his or her hosts that might be a little out of the ordinary, and I think that it would be difficult to agree with Hoffman's assertion that a host should view vegan food is "limited". I think it would be difficult to concur that that non-vegans would somehow be unable to leave the table satisfied or that they would feel "imposed" upon if fed any number of the things I listed above.

Still, as I wrote back in August, there are some non-vegans who do feel that they somehow need to consume a piece of flesh or a a mound of cheese to call something a meal. Hoffman would clearly fall into this camp. At least, her article would lead one to think so, which is why it's a shame that when mainstream media offers up bits of advice on vegans and non-vegans sharing a table that the point-of-view is always a non-vegan's. It invariably presents what a vegan would eat within the confined context of what the non-vegan writer imagines a vegan would eat; the general public ends up reading this and issuing a collective groan at the thought of ever facing the daunting task of hosting a vegan. Worse is that instead of providing them with useful advice, it reinforces any conclusions they may have been drawn from limited knowledge and experience and previous misinformation picked up through similar articles.

Wouldn't it have been a treat to read a piece which would have described how varied and delicious vegan food actually is? Wouldn't an article presenting the preparation of vegan meals as an opportunity to think outside the box -- to try something new without relying on animal products -- have left a more positive impression of veganism for Hoffman's readers? We need to get the word out any way we can that non-human animals aren't ours to use. In doing so, we need to knock down the barriers non-vegans set up for themselves when the message they're constantly and consistently delivered by other non-vegans in mainstream media is that going vegan is difficult, or that it's restrictive and tantamount to self-flagellation. We need to deliver a louder message that it's not, and that going vegan is, in fact, a joy.

Veganism in the Media

You'd think that with all of the misinformation readily available to most with the simple click of a mouse that advice columns with anonymous advice-givers would have become superfluous. A column in the Lifestyles section of today's Richmond Times-Dispatch ("What to feed a visiting vegan") illustrated that someone thinks this shouldn't be the case. A reader wrote in to ask: "A friend I haven't seen in a while is coming for a visit and is now a vegan. What should I have on hand for the visit?"

The response starts off defining veganism as a diet, offering up the following jumble of generalizations and erroneous "facts":

Some vegans also exclude honey and foods that are processed with animal products, including refined sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, gelatin and some wine and beer.

I guess that if a person subscribes to Vegan Outreach's school of the vilification and watering down of "veganism" that hearing that "some" vegans exclude honey (which is an animal product, which means that it is not consumed by vegans -- learn more here). As for gelatin, I'm not sure why the advice columnist lumped it in with "foods that are processed with animal products" since it is extracted from the bones, tendons, skin by boiling these animal parts (i.e. it is made of the tissue of non-human animals and, like honey, is an animal product). On the other hand, high-fructose corn syrup, which albeit of questionable nutritional merit, is actually free of animal products. The situation with refined sugar isn't as cut and dried as the advice columnists generalizes; only refined cane sugar is sometimes processed using bone char, while refined beet sugar actually isn't, and is safe for vegans.

The columnist asserts that vegans need to "properly replac[e] the nutrients found in animal-sourced foods" as if the primary source for them are animal products and as if plant-based sources are secondary or mere replacements. In discussing protein, he or she mentions commonly known sources of plant-based protein (e.g. legumes, nuts, seeds, whole grains) and then meat analogs, but then goes on to perpetuate the incredibly out-dated protein myth and to list off fortified soy-based milk substitutes as good sources of calcium. No mention is made of the many non-processed plant-based sources of calcium (e.g. collards and other greens, tahini, almonds, et al.).

There's no doubt that the individual asking what to feed a vegan would have likely fared better sifting through the information available online with a click or three of a mouse. Given the quality of the response to the question, it seems that the Richmond Times-Dispatch's respondent could have benefited from a Google search or two, as well.

The Speciesism of So-Called 'Ethical Eating'

"But It's Better Than Nothing."

Never has a sentence left me scratching my head in confusion as much as this one, which is oft-repeated by these recent trend-hoppers who omit one or a half-dozen items from their diets and insist: "It's better than nothing!" and go on to proclaim themselves 'conscientious consumers'. These are the same folks who will list off any number of reasons they simply "cannot" be expected to do more. Take, for instance, foodie writer Alicia-Azania Jarvis and her recent article in the UK's The Independent ("My year of eating ethically") in which she goes to great lengths to a) justify the moral "sufficiency" of her decision to continue to consume animal products, although readily admitting that she is aware of the suffering this consumption entails, b) insist that taking any sort of ethical stance when it comes to the consumption of non-humans or their products inconveniences other humans and leaves you perpetually socially embarrassing yourself, and c) make it clear that omitting any animal flesh from your diet at all will lead to serious nutritional deficiencies. Surely, wringing one's fingers while trying to make strong arguments against not eating animals is not "better than nothing" for those animals?

Is Hypocrisy "Better Than Nothing"?

While alternating between calling herself a vegetarian and a pescetarian (as well as a pescatarian), Jarvis makes it clear in her article that she feels that although there is really no justification for eating fish, she... er... has justification to do so.

The ethics of vegetarianism are far from straightforward – particularly for a hypocritical pescatarian like myself. There's no doubt that if your motivations are animal welfare-related, there's little defence: fish, as people endlessly remind me, have feelings too.

My first strand of reasoning is that it's a matter of degree. You do what you can; pescetarianism is an extension of buying all-organic or free-range-only. It's better than nothing. It's a convenient argument, but also one that I actually believe.

I suppose that one could easily agree that pescetarianism is indeed "an extension of buying all organic or free-range only" (assuming that by "organic", she is referring to animal flesh). After all, eating one species of animal is no different from eating another species. Taking an animal's life for the sake of human pleasure, whether that animal spent most of his or her life in a lake, in the ocean, in a stall or in a field is still taking a life for the sake of human pleasure. I suspect, however, that what Jarvis is trying to say is that consuming non-humans raised according to organic or free-range "standards" (i.e. "happy meat") is somehow more ethical than consuming non-humans who are not, and that consuming fish is more akin to consuming the flesh of "happy" slaughtered animals. Use is use, though, however you qualify it.

Although once upon a time I might have taken issue with a foodie's lumping in the eating of animals (i.e. fish) with vegetarianism, I think that in many ways, the time has come to shrug off that inclusion, since there is no moral distinction between eating animal secretions such as dairy and eggs and eating the flesh of others -- whether or not they spend their lives underwater. Basically, if I'm going to nitpick, I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue over the semantics of a word (i.e. "vegetarianism") that in most of its incarnations is essentially no morally different in describing one's consumption from the word "omnivore". As Jarvis, herself, points out:

[E]ating fish but not meat is no more hypocritical than eating neither but continuing to consume eggs and mass-produced milk.

She's right about that. However, does calling yourself a hypocrite really absolve you of the the problematic nature -- the inherent dishonesty -- of hypocrisy? I mean, it may show that you're not completely self-delusional (although even that's arguable), but is there really anything respectable about admitting that you're too self-important to care that you unapologetically indulge in behaviour that involves doing something you acknowledge knowing is morally problematic? Something you know involves harming other sentient creatures? People often say that ignorance is bliss; when did admitting that you know you're doing harm suddenly become worthy of earning the respect of others? When did people become convinced that admitting you've done something wrong changes that what you're doing is wrong? It doesn't.

The fallback position assumed by most who are called on this is to say that "it's better than nothing". In Jarvis' case, she dismisses the harms imposed on non-human animals with her admitted hypocritical consumption of their flesh and secretions by saying to those who make choices like hers: "[A]t least you're doing your bit for the planet."

On Martyrdom

I want to make a few things clear. First: There is no shame in taking a stand and refusing to participate in animal exploitation. Some, like the unfortunately misnamed Vegan Outreach's Matt Ball might try to convince you that authentically going vegan and actually being consistent about your everyday choices makes veganism seem too hard. Worse, you'll embarrass yourself in front of those who refuse to acknowledge the interests non-human animals have in not being used as things. Jarvis, essentially an omnivore who chooses not to eat the flesh of certain species of animals, steps forward as the spokesperson for the "social nightmare" (her words) of being either vegetarian or vegan:

Become a vegetarian, or pescetarian, or – in fact, especially – become a vegan and suddenly you find yourself Socially Awkward. As far as I was concerned, making some kind of public announcement (aside from via the informal channels of Facebook or Twitter) was not an option. It was too self-important by half and horribly embarrassing.

Obviously, though, you need to let people know – if at no other time then at least when they invite you for dinner. In the case of long-standing friends, it can all feel a bit ridiculous. "By the way," you nonchalantly add, while mentally running through all the times you have served them meat, "I'm a vegetarian these days. Um, you can un-invite me if you like." I did, once, neglect to do this.

The result was my only carnivorous divergence so far. At least I think it was; in the event, I decided it was best not to ask what else was in the suspiciously-bacon-y fishcakes my friend served.

So basically, according to Jarvis, it is (OMG!!!) embarrassing for people to evolve and to incorporate changes into their lives that both make them better people, and that make a difference for non-human animals? Furthermore, if you do end up with something on your plate that belonged to someone you've purportedly decided to refrain from eating, just turn a blind eye to it all and carve away? And yes, according to Jarvis, fish are plants and don't count as a "carnivorous divergence", but that's straying from my point...

Let's be Honest

We live in a society where there is a fair bit of familiarity with the concept of not eating animal products for ethical reasons. It's a bit melodramatic to present making it clear to family and friends that you've set boundaries for yourself with regards to your consumption habits as being akin to self-humiliation. I mean, we also live in a society where it's become commonplace for people to assert their food requirements with respect to their allergies and various intolerances (think peanuts, lactose, gluten -- those sorts of things). Those who cannot eat certain food items are not made to feel shame when asserting that they cannot eat those items. Why should someone be made to feel ashamed when asserting that he or she chooses to not eat those items? In Jarvis' case, I can see where there would be much confusion and much eye-rolling, since she identifies herself as both a vegetarian and an omnivore. I'd personally be feeling heaps of social awkwardness if I were Jarvis' friend and on the receiving end of this contradictory information and had to respond to her. But of course, self-flagellation and self-identification as a hypocrite somehow take care of this for Jarvis:

Fingers crossed, meanwhile, that no one finds out you eat fish. Not only have you become the difficult one at the party; the one that caused the chef all that trouble and then tried to convert the guests, but you're a hypocrite. The only solution here, I'm afraid, is full-on retaliation (see above defence of my ethical stance). Hopefully, by the time you've finished, conversation will be have been killed so thoroughly that no one will bother to argue. Or invite you out ever again. In a way, problem solved.

Maybe Jarvis could benefit from reading my blog post from this past February about how effective communication is actually how to avoid social blunders?

Shame, Shame!

Unfortunately, it's not just the fish-eating faux-vegetarians trying to lump themselves into some big ol' "animal people" family with vegans who seem bent on perpetuating the stereotype that talking to others about not using animals is socially unacceptable proselytizing. I can understand how completely emotionally twisted up inside someone like Jarvis must be; she uses animals while pretending to be making choices significantly different from any omnivore's and does so while publicly labeling herself a hypocrite. How could she not want to rip those who talk to people about not using animals a new one? She wears her speciesism like a badge of honour. What's sad, though, is when other vegans perpetuate stereotypes and try to shame their fellow-vegans into staying "in the closet".

Vegan Speciesism

I think that there needs to be acknowledgment and discussion of the fact that many of us, as vegans, are still dealing with our own speciesism. While comfortable on our own turf with our decisions not to participate in the cycle of animal exploitation, some of us are still uncertain of how--or if--that should extend outside of our own bubbles.

"It's a personal choice."

"I don't want to get laughed at."

"But I once used animals, so who am I to judge?"

The truth is that if someone at a social event asks you about your veganism, you're not left to "face the horrifyingly anti-social prospect of wittering on like some sanctimonious evangelist" -- you're answering a question. I find that sometimes the best thing to do while participating in a meal and when asked about being vegan is to keep my answers short and to the point and to suggest elaborating after the meal if the person asking is interested. It's not so much that (as Jarvis brings up) I would be afraid to put someone "off their food", but rather that people are generally less defensive hearing about why I choose to not use animals when they're not slicing into various animal parts at the time.

Let me say it again: There is no shame in taking a stand with regards to refusing to participate in animal exploitation. There is also no shame in communicating to others why it is that you refuse to participate in animal exploitation, or in talking to them about what it means to be a vegan. Given the misinformation that gets passed around by people, like Jarvis' fearmongering about nutritional deficiencies in the rest of her article (even though she consumes most animal products aside from the flesh of land mammals!) and her wishy-washiness concerning "compassionately-informed omnivorism" versus veganism, shouldn't someone be talking to non-vegans about not using other animals? Ideally someone who actually doesn't use animals?

If you won't, then who will?

Paying Attention to Detail

I was nosing around earlier this morning and came across a marketing website with a blurb on Quorn, and how its makers have apparently redesigned its packaging to appeal to more "mainstream" consumers while "retaining its core vegetarian and vegan customers".

I don't know which vegan customers the company is supposedly retaining, since Quorn's not vegan. According to the company's website, all of its products contain eggs, and most of its products contain milk ingredients.

-------------------

This next ramble's much more significant in terms of the need to pay attention to detail. A poster on the wonderful Vegan Freak Forums gave everyone a heads up today about the need to be careful when purchasing Red Star Nutritional Yeast from bulk bins. This person noticed a taste difference after buying some, which prompted her to check the fine print on the bulk bin's label and to discover that it was listed as an "NBC600" formula (now called LYNSIDE® FORTE Bmore). The Red Star Nutritional Yeast ordinarily used by vegans for its B12 content is the Vegetarian Support Formula™ (which used to be called T6635+).

When she contacted the company for clarification, she was told that the NBC600 / LYNSIDE® FORTE Bmore formula is only fortified with B1, B2, B3 and B6. So if you're relying on Red Star Nutritional Yeast as a B12 supplement and buying it from a store that keeps it in bulk, make sure that it's the correct formula. For more information on the vitamin content of the nutritional yeasts the company sells, visit this page on its website.

If It Comes From a Cow, It Ain't Vegan

I got a little excited over my lunch break after finding a Dallas Observer writer's blog post announcing a vegan 'cheese' taste-testing. Alexa Schirtzinger wrote yesterday that she gathered some coworkers and had them sample different purportedly vegan cheeses to see which one(s) came out ahead. They tried out:

• Rice Vegan in Pepper Jack, Cheddar and American Flavors (Galaxy Nutritional Foods)
• "The Original" Almond® in Cheddar Style (Lisanatti)
• Soya Kaas in American Cheddar

So, in her first comments about the results, Schirtzinger ends up writing of Lisanatti's almond cheese that "it tastes just fine--although it contains both casein (milk protein) and lactic acid, so I kind of think it should have been a better product". (Better?) Then in her final paragraph, she ends up writing that one of the Rice Vegan cheeses "won" the taste testing, since "Soya Kaas contains casein and lactic acid".

So in which Twilight Zone episode was this a vegan cheese taste-testing?

Insanity of Vegetarianism Has No Limits

I feel awful admitting it, but this article in Pravda about vegetarianism and veganism left me chuckling a little earlier this morning. The title of the article -- "Insanity of Vegetarianism Has No Limits" -- is about as subtle as a massive coronary. In it, Irina Shlionskaya examines what she calls six myths about meat eating (or eschewing meat and other animal products). I'm just going to share the entire article here, since it has too many gems for me to be able to quote from it without feeling I've left anything out.

It seems that the discussion of the good and bad of vegetarianism will never subside. The proponents of abstinence from meat claim that meat contains a whole bouquet of harmful substances. Their opponents say that the animal protein is absolutely essential for the human body. Who is right and who is wrong here? Below you will find the list of most talked-about statements about the vegan diet.

Myth No. 1. Meat contains toxins – by-products of the decomposition of the post-mortem poison, which gradually intoxicate the human body.

As a matter of fact, it is dangerous to eat only tainted meat, which indeed contains the products of decay. Many vegetarians do not eat meat, but they do eat fish assuming that there are no toxins in fish. Some others decline even eggs, in which there can be no vestiges of post-mortem poison found, of course.

Myth No. 2. Meat contains cancer-producing substances. Eating meat on a regular basis leads to the development of cancer.

As a matter of fact, carcinogens can be found in fried and smoked food. If you eat boiled, stewed meat or shashlik (shish-kebab) there is no danger posed whatsoever.

Myth No. 3. Meat makes one put on weight.

As a matter of fact, all sorts of meat differ. It is generally believed that meat adds more fat to the body because it is digested entirely. A person eating fatty meat all the time will definitely put on weight, but they have a variety of other sorts of meat to choose from – low-fat beef or poultry, for example.

Myth No. 4. Vegetarians live longer than non-vegans.

As a matter of fact, there are many factors that exert influence on longevity: genetic background, ecology, stresses and many other aspects. Many long-living individuals have never stuck to any diets at all. Many of them eat anything they want and whenever they want.

Myth No. 5. Vegetarians are generally healthier than those who eat meat.

As a matter of fact, meat contains protein and ferrum, which is a compound of hemoglobin. The shortage of ferrum develops general fatigue. Some sorts of fish, which vegans strongly decline, contain omega-3 aliphatic acids, which produce the anti-inflammatory effect. It has been determined that those excluding meat from their daily menus suffer from heart diseases a lot more frequently.

The shortage of useful substances shows a direct influence on vegans’ looks. As a rule, many of them look pale because of the disturbed blood circulation. In addition, they are more prone to cold-related diseases.

Myth No. 6. A human being is a herbivorous creature by nature.

As a matter of fact, many researchers say that humans are genetically capable of digesting meat food. Carnivorous beings cannot digest too much vegetable food and cannot live normally without the products of animal origin. Herbivorous beings cannot consume meat. If humans were not omnivorous, it would never occur to anyone to eat meat.

Researcher Barry Groves, the author of “Trick and Treat: How Healthy Eating Is Making Us Ill” said that diet food is mostly unnatural for humans because human beings are carnivorous by nature, and the human digestive system is made to digest fatty meat and other anti-vegan food. A healthy diet is a diet of no extremities

Where to start with this mishmash of errors and contradictions? She states that "many vegetarians" eat fish and that they do so because they think it contains no toxins? Vegetarians don't eat fish, and I'd guess that most people who do eat fish certainly don't do so because they think it contains less toxins. She states that carcinogens in meat are limited to smoked or fried meat, yet claims that "shish-kebabs" are exempt; unless I'm missing something, aren't "shish-kebabs" generally cooked over an open flame, thus exposing the meat to similar chemical reactions?. Her assertion that those who eschew meat suffer more from heart disease is especially laughable, considering that most mainstream sources of information on the matter indicate otherwise and less mainstream (yet still very sound and credible) sources state the exact opposite. And those are actually some of the least funny little bits in the article.

I guess that my reaction to the whole piece is likely strongly affected by my "disturbed blood circulation", which undoubtedly leaves me unable to pick up on any strong arguments she may have made in it. Thankfully, the ensuing light-headedness caused by my veganism has left me giddy enough to have a sense of humour about her article. Now, please excuse me as I go powder my pale nose and contemplate my diet of "extremities"...

B12 and More Scaremongering About Veganism in the News

There are articles spreading across the internet this week about a recent study in Ireland linking neural tube birth defects to vitamin B12 deficiency. The study pointed out that a) women who consume little or no animal products, as well as b) women who have intestinal disorders that prevent them from absorbing B12 properly, are at highest risk of being B12 deficient and that it's this B12 deficiency that increases the chance of the development of neural tube defects. At least some of the articles mention the B12 absorption issue, but not all of them do, which is unfortunate, since awareness should be raised of this condition. Furthermore, not mentioning the absorption issue leaves all of the negative attention focused on veganism.

One example of this is the UK Telegraph's article, which has me particularly irked since along with omitting the mention of the absorption issue, it states flat-out in its title that a "Vegan diet increases the risk of birth defects". Like some of the other articles I scanned, it makes a reference to supplementation, but fails completely to mention the wide range of foods that are fortified with B12 already. All of the 4-5 articles I scanned that covered the study emphasized that B12 can "only" be found in meat, eggs or dairy; few of them made more than a slight reference to supplementation, and none mentioned the absurdly high percentage of foods like soy products and cereals that are already fortified with B12 -- foods that aren't, in fact, animal-derived. (See this article from the Vegetarian Resource Group for more information on how to get B12 in your diet from non-animal sources.)

What concerns me even further is that Telegraph's article (along with a few others) fails to mention what this one does, which is that

[f]or the study, the researchers analysed stored blood samples originally collected during early pregnancy from three groups of Irish women between 1983 and 1990. During that time, pregnant women in Ireland rarely took vitamin supplements.

So, these articles are now going around, associating veganism with birth defects. This, in and of itself, is what's going to be kicked around in mainstream media for the next little while, since villifying veganism seems to be the trendy thing these days. This study, however, was conducted using women who weren't taking any vitamin supplements at all at a time when the B12-fortified foods so readily available and plentiful now were probably incredibly scarce. Vegans today live in a completely different context, yet if clarification of these significant facts in these articles about the study isn't provided, yet another myth about the (gasp!) dangers of being vegan will be perpetuated -- possibly for years to come.