I agree that it is important to refrain from claiming that a vegan diet is the optimal choice for overall health.
It is important to emphasize the need for careful planning and the inclusion of necessary supplements when making people vegan.
Points of disagreement:
I donât see conclusive evidence that 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 doesnât seem conclusive to me. Vegan diet might actually be the healthiest diet. The studies I have encountered predominantly compare average meat eaters with average vegans. My conclusion from the existing body of evidence is that âwhole foods plant-based diets are sufficiently healthy. We donât know yet what precise diet is optimal for most peopleâ
I do not agree that we are have to to highlight the non-health-related costs of veganism. People already know the difficulties immediately from their firsthand experiences. Furthermore, my impression is that people generally overestimate the difficulties involved and often find it easier than anticipated after trying it. Repeating the challenges may actually lead to further misconceptions.
In other contexts, 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 doesnât mention the costs of berries when they say âyou should eat 1 portion of berries everydayâ that seems OK to me.
In that context it seems more important to not deny the costs rather than actively bringing them up.
Things Iâm 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:
âIt 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.â
Thanks for laying out your cruxes so clearly, let me respond individually.
I donât 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 doesnât seem conclusive to me
I think this is a reasonable state to be in. The data isnât 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- thatâs why this is âchange my mindâ and not âagree with me right nowâ.
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 âokay, but donât shout people down when they bring it upâ (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 doesnât mean trumpeting âitâs very expensive!!â, 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 canât be surprised when others donât 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:
âIt 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.â
I think itâs true as written, but âappropriately plannedâ is an important caveat many people ignore to their detriment, and âadequateâ is a low bar. I also wish they caveated âfor many peopleâ, instead of the implied âliterally everyoneâ.
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 important to emphasize the need for careful planning and the inclusion of necessary supplements when making people vegan.
Points of disagreement:
I donât see conclusive evidence that 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 doesnât seem conclusive to me. Vegan diet might actually be the healthiest diet. The studies I have encountered predominantly compare average meat eaters with average vegans. My conclusion from the existing body of evidence is that âwhole foods plant-based diets are sufficiently healthy. We donât know yet what precise diet is optimal for most peopleâ
I do not agree that we are have to to highlight the non-health-related costs of veganism. People already know the difficulties immediately from their firsthand experiences. Furthermore, my impression is that people generally overestimate the difficulties involved and often find it easier than anticipated after trying it. Repeating the challenges may actually lead to further misconceptions.
In other contexts, 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 doesnât mention the costs of berries when they say âyou should eat 1 portion of berries everydayâ that seems OK to me.
In that context it seems more important to not deny the costs rather than actively bringing them up.
Things Iâm 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:
âIt 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.â
Thanks for laying out your cruxes so clearly, let me respond individually.
I think this is a reasonable state to be in. The data isnât 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- thatâs why this is âchange my mindâ and not âagree with me right nowâ.
I mostly agree with this, with a few caveats. The larger one is âokay, but donât shout people down when they bring it upâ (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 doesnât mean trumpeting âitâs very expensive!!â, 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 canât be surprised when others donât listen very hard.
I think itâs true as written, but âappropriately plannedâ is an important caveat many people ignore to their detriment, and âadequateâ is a low bar. I also wish they caveated âfor many peopleâ, instead of the implied âliterally everyoneâ.