I agree that it is important to refrain from claiming that a vegan diet is the optimal choice for overall health.
It is crucial to emphasize the need for careful planning and the inclusion of necessary supplements when making people vegan.
Points of disagreement:
I don’t see conclusive evidence that a vegan diet is less healthy than some other diet. While it is plausible that consuming small quantities of animal products could be more healthy compared to a strictly vegan diet, the evidence supporting such claims doesn’t seem conclusive to me. The studies I have encountered predominantly compare average meat eaters with average vegans. My conclusion from the existing body of evidence is that “whole foods plant-based diets are sufficiently healthy. We don’t know yet what precise diet is optimal for most people”
I do not agree that we are obligated to highlight the non-health-related costs of veganism. The inconveniences associated with this lifestyle are already apparent to most individuals based on their firsthand experiences. Furthermore, my personal experience suggests that people generally overestimate the difficulties involved and often find it easier than anticipated after trying it. Reiterating the challenges may actually lead to further misconceptions.
In other contexts, such as promoting alternative diets or lifestyles, it does not strike me as dishonest if people omit mentioning the non-health costs. For instance, consuming berries is healthy, despite them being among the more expensive fruits. If someone doesn’t mention the costs of berries when they say “you should eat 1 portion of berries everyday” that seems OK to me.
In that context it seems more important to not deny the costs rather than actively bringing them up.
Things I’m not sure whether we agree about:
We should stick precisely to the statement of Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and keep mentioning this in our conversations about veganism:
“It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”
Thanks for laying out your cruxes so clearly, let me respond individually.
I don’t see conclusive evidence that a vegan diet is less healthy than some other diet. While it is plausible that consuming small quantities of animal products could be more healthy compared to a strictly vegan diet, the evidence supporting such claims doesn’t seem conclusive to me
I think this is a reasonable state to be in. The data isn’t conclusive, except for people who have other constraints that render veganism impossible (godspeed, bear diet guy). My best guess is small amounts of animal products are helpful even above the perfect vegan diet, and that allowing them makes planning easier, but I could definitely be convinced otherwise- that’s why this is “change my mind” and not “agree with me right now”.
In other contexts, such as promoting alternative diets or lifestyles, it does not strike me as dishonest if individuals omit mentioning the non-health costs
I mostly agree with this, with a few caveats. The larger one is “okay, but don’t shout people down when they bring it up” (which was a common thing in EA for a while).
The other is that, while I agree no one person is obligated to take cost into consideration, I think vegan advocacy would in general benefit from considering a wider variety of people with a wider variety of constraints. This doesn’t mean trumpeting “it’s very expensive!!”, but it might mean not assuming fake meats are a trivial solution for everyone. No one document can be for everyone, but if you only produce one work for one demographic you can’t be surprised when others don’t listen very hard.
We should stick precisely to the statement of Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and keep mentioning this in our conversations about veganism:
“It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”
I think it’s true as written, but “appropriately planned” is an important caveat many people ignore to their detriment, and “adequate” is a low bar. I also wish they caveated “for many people”, instead of the implied “literally everyone”.
Points of agreement:
I agree that it is important to refrain from claiming that a vegan diet is the optimal choice for overall health.
It is crucial to emphasize the need for careful planning and the inclusion of necessary supplements when making people vegan.
Points of disagreement:
I don’t see conclusive evidence that a vegan diet is less healthy than some other diet. While it is plausible that consuming small quantities of animal products could be more healthy compared to a strictly vegan diet, the evidence supporting such claims doesn’t seem conclusive to me. The studies I have encountered predominantly compare average meat eaters with average vegans. My conclusion from the existing body of evidence is that “whole foods plant-based diets are sufficiently healthy. We don’t know yet what precise diet is optimal for most people”
I do not agree that we are obligated to highlight the non-health-related costs of veganism. The inconveniences associated with this lifestyle are already apparent to most individuals based on their firsthand experiences. Furthermore, my personal experience suggests that people generally overestimate the difficulties involved and often find it easier than anticipated after trying it. Reiterating the challenges may actually lead to further misconceptions.
In other contexts, such as promoting alternative diets or lifestyles, it does not strike me as dishonest if people omit mentioning the non-health costs. For instance, consuming berries is healthy, despite them being among the more expensive fruits. If someone doesn’t mention the costs of berries when they say “you should eat 1 portion of berries everyday” that seems OK to me.
In that context it seems more important to not deny the costs rather than actively bringing them up.
Things I’m not sure whether we agree about:
We should stick precisely to the statement of Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and keep mentioning this in our conversations about veganism:
“It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”
Thanks for laying out your cruxes so clearly, let me respond individually.
I think this is a reasonable state to be in. The data isn’t conclusive, except for people who have other constraints that render veganism impossible (godspeed, bear diet guy). My best guess is small amounts of animal products are helpful even above the perfect vegan diet, and that allowing them makes planning easier, but I could definitely be convinced otherwise- that’s why this is “change my mind” and not “agree with me right now”.
I mostly agree with this, with a few caveats. The larger one is “okay, but don’t shout people down when they bring it up” (which was a common thing in EA for a while).
The other is that, while I agree no one person is obligated to take cost into consideration, I think vegan advocacy would in general benefit from considering a wider variety of people with a wider variety of constraints. This doesn’t mean trumpeting “it’s very expensive!!”, but it might mean not assuming fake meats are a trivial solution for everyone. No one document can be for everyone, but if you only produce one work for one demographic you can’t be surprised when others don’t listen very hard.
I think it’s true as written, but “appropriately planned” is an important caveat many people ignore to their detriment, and “adequate” is a low bar. I also wish they caveated “for many people”, instead of the implied “literally everyone”.