Bad Reporting: Mother Jones thinks we should eat meat

Oh, how it pains me to be calling out Mother Jones - the last bastion of the free press - for bad reporting. Alas, it's true. While the article was published nearly two years ago, it was linked in their Facebook feed today and deserves to have the glaring fault in the article pointed out.

In the article Steak or Veggie Burger: Which is Greener, Kiera Butler describes her decision to give up life-long vegetarianism in favor of meat. Her reasoning is that... well, honestly I can't make sense of her reasoning. She compares grass-fed beef to faux meats in terms of environmental impact, concluding:

So plant protein is usually the greener choice, as long as it's not overprocessed.

 And yet she decides to eat meat. I guess the basic reason is the premise she begins with:

But a girl can only eat so much roasted kale before she starts craving protein: tofu, veggie burgers, and the (okay, creepy) occasional piece of fakin' bacon.

And therein lies the flaw in Butler's self-justification. (And I don't mean her failure to recognize that roasted kale contains protein.) While she makes a convincing argument that processed faux meats are nearly as bad for the environment as real meat, she implies these are the only two options.

Want a veggie burger? Make one at home from whole foods. Want the protein from soy with less impact than tofu? Eat edamame. To imply that processed foods are the only option that vegetarians have when they want something protein-packed or "meaty" is just a sign of utter laziness. They're called "convenience foods" for a reason.

And honestly, who are the vegetarians or vegans that are eating faux meats at the same rate that carnists are eating real meat? Most carnists I know have meat at least twice a day. If Butler was eating faux meats twice a day, I'm completely certain she was in the vast minority.

This was shockingly shoddy reporting from Mother Jones, usually such a trusted source.

Bad Reporting Alert: NYT article asserts veganism is a bad choice for children

In the New York Times' Room for Debate feature on veganism, lard-advocate Nina Planck (not kidding - it's in her bio) asserts that veganism is "A Choice with Definite Risks" for infants and children.

Anjali Sareen does an excellent job of debunking the bad science in Planck's piece in a rebuttal article on Intellectualyst.So I'd simply like to address the heart of Planck's argument - that a vegan diet requires supplementation to meet all dietary needs, and that supplementation is inferior to nutrients obtained from food.

She begins her argument by saying:

The American Dietetic Association asserts that a “well-planned” vegan diet — by which the experts mean one with many synthetic supplements — can be adequate for babies; I disagree.

And concludes with:

Some things cannot be replaced. Real food is one.

Well, first of all, that the experts define "well-planned" as "must include supplements" is patently false. The ADA position statement says this (emphasis added):

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods. This article reviews the current data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, n-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12. A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, supplements or fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients. An evidence-based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. 

So the ADA clearly states that all nutritional needs can be met through a vegan diet. It states that supplementation may be useful, but not that it's necessary or even specifically recommended. In other words, all dietary needs for mother and child can be acquired through "real food." Since Planck seems aware of the ADA's position statement, I can only conclude this was intentionally misleading to support her pro-meat position.

But let's assume she's sincere in her anti-supplementation stance regarding pregnancy, lactation, and early childhood years. I'd be curious to see what the March of Dimes (who recommend supplementing folic acid for all potential moms-to-be) or the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (who recommend a prenatal vitamin for "most women", meaning those who aren't in danger of having too much of certain potentially harmful vitamins by doing so), or the Centers for Disease Control (who recommend vitamin D supplements for all breastfed children) have to say about that. The idea that pregnant or nursing mothers shouldn't supplement is contrary to all conventional medical advice.

I'm going to take a leap and assume that Planck is not opposed to all supplementing of vitamins during pregnancy and early childhood. I bet she'd be right on board with taking folic acid to prevent birth defects. So why is it okay for meat-eating mothers, but not okay for vegan mothers?

Vitamin deficiencies are fairly common in the general population. According to a CDC report, one in 10   Americans has a vitamin deficiency, the most common being B6, D, and iron. Who today has a doctor who hasn't told them to take a multivitamin daily, or checked their vitamin D and iron levels? If you do, it's time to get a new doctor. The fact is that vitamin deficiency is not a vegan issue, it's a human issue.

This isn't to say that there aren't genuine issues that vegans need to be aware of when it comes to their own nutrition and that of their child. But what do we do about those types of issues with meat-eating moms? Like the March of Dimes, the CDC, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, we educate. We get the information out there, we make people aware.

So why the choice to call for all hands to abandon the vegan ship, instead of educating folks to right the course? Because Planck's real concern is not health, but a pro-meat justification.

Bad Reporting: Grist says we should "shut up and drink" bug juice

In an article today on Grist.org, Why you should be glad there are bugs in your Frappuccino, Jess Zimmerman asserts that "vegans, corporation-haters, and bloggers who like writing about gross things you just put in your mouth" should "get off your high horse" and "shut up and drink your bug juice." Zimmerman bases these bold statements on three points:

1. the completely false assertion, copped from an entomologist, that the only viable alternative to cochineal is a petroleum-based food dye.

2. the fact that the production of cochineal provides income in impoverished areas

3. that the product in which the colorant is used is "not food" - i.e. unhealthy.

So let's look at the ways this is nonsense.

1. The fact that Starbucks made the change because they wanted to get away from artificial dyes automatically takes Red 40 out of the equation. You therefore cannot defend the change by saying it's better than Red 40 because the entire point was to choose a natural alternative to Red 40. As stated in the petition that moved Starbucks to reconsider their use of cochineal,

While it’s commendable to move away from artificial ingredients, there are other natural means to achieve the red coloring. Red beet, black carrot, purple sweet potato and paprika are all-natural alternatives to artificial dyes and safe for those with dietary restrictions. (And those who don’t want crushed bugs in their designer drink.)

If you're going to choose a natural alternative to Red 40, you don't choose the one with the highest potential for causing severe allergies, and which violates vegetarian, vegan, and possibly Kosher guidelines without telling your clientele.

2. Does cochineal provide income to impoverished areas? So would beet farming.

Yes, I'm being glib, but to suggest that the only solution to poverty is crushing bugs is spurious reasoning. Loss of jobs is propaganda often used against veganism, but food and dyes still need to be produced. We only want to see them produced from non-animal ingredients.

3. I am so tired of the 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' approach. This is an absurd justification. Because other ingredients aren't healthy, we should not care about one that can cause severe allergic reactions and violates the ethics of 10% of the US population (vegetarians and vegans) being introduced with no warning?

So as if it wasn't bad enough that Jess Zimmerman's article was offensive and rude, it's also complete bunk.

Bad Reporting Alert: DietsInReview.com

This one infuriated me.

Yesterday, DietsInReview.com published an article entitled Vegans at Risk for Heart Attacks and Strokes. Alarming headline, right? The article begins:

Doctors continue to remind us of the increased cardiovascular risk factors from eating red meat and other animal based products, and suggest we eat more vegetables to maintain good health. Environmentalists inform us how large production cattle ranches wreak havoc on the quality of our air and water, and urge us to go vegetarian. Animal rights activists protest the mistreatment of animals from dairy cows to egg laying chickens, in a concerted effort to promote total veganism.

With all of this anti-meat and animal rights campaigning, one might think eating animal products was just wrong, but new research suggests people who follow a vegan diet are at risk for developing blood clots and atherosclerosis, which are two conditions that can lead to a heart attack or stroke.

Basically, the author is indicating that all the people saying "Give up meat!" are wrong, because vegans are at risk for heart attack and stroke. Clearly, she's indicating that it's a greater risk than carnism right? WRONG.

The abstract that the author based this on - which wasn't even linked in the article, but she later linked to in the comments section - says this:

This review summarizes the effect of a habitual vegetarian diet on clinical complications in relation to chemistry and biochemistry. Omnivores have a significantly higher cluster of cardiovascular risk factors compared with vegetarians, including increased body mass index, waist to hip ratio, blood pressure, plasma total cholesterol (TC), triacylglycerol and LDL-C levels, serum lipoprotein(a) concentration, plasma factor VII activity, ratios of TC/HDL-C, LDL-C/HDL-C and TAG/HDL-C, and serum ferritin levels. Compared with omnivores, vegetarians, especially vegans, have lower serum vitamin B₁₂ concentration and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) levels in the tissue membrane phospholipids, which are associated with increased collagen and ADP stimulated ex vivo whole blood platelet aggregation, plasma 11-dehydrothromboxane B₂, and homocysteine levels and decreased plasma HDL-C. This may be associated with an increased thrombotic and atherosclerotic risk. It is suggested that vegetarians, especially vegans, should increase their dietary n-3 PUFA and vitamin B₁₂ intakes.

Did you notice the part where it says that omnivores have a significantly higher number of risk factors?

Basically what this abstract says is that while going vegetarian reduces your overall number of risk factors for heart attack and stroke, there are a few unique nutritional factors that vegans have to watch out for. Vegetarians and vegans need to increase their intake of omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin B12.

But if you're vegan, odds are you already knew that.