Talk:Vegetarianism

Milton, Katarine, "A hypothesis to explain the role of meat-eating in human evolution",Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews Volume 8, Issue 1, 1999, Pages: 11-21

Does anyone have access to this? It's cited in the Physiology section, and there have been several edits since it was added. New information has been inserted, and I'd like to be able to verify that this new information actually represents what is in the article. I can't find it on Google Scholar. Thanks! Djk3 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:

Milton K (1999). "A hypothesis to explain the role of meat-eating in human evolution" (PDF). Evolutionary Anthropology. 8: 11–21.

You can also find PDFs of many of her articles here:

Katharine Milton – Dietary ecology of Primates

Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot! I'll go through those when I have some extra time. Djk3 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. This one isn't PDFed on her site (follow pubmed link):

Milton, K. (2003). "The critical role played by animal source foods in human evolution". Journal of Nutrition. 133: 3893S – 3897S. PMID 14672286.

Regarding recent additions and modifications in the Physiology section

"The human physical attributes (near-total lack of claws, fangs, - etc...) also support that theory; for example, the human hand is ideally suited to picking - up berries, fruits, and the like."

I have reverted the addition of this sentence a few times. It is very poorly worded, and I am skeptical that it is supported by the source that it cites. The source was already present for information that was in the section before this addition, and after I suggested that the editor provide a citation before including it in the article, he or she added it back and provided the edit summary "Added statements related to physiology included in Katarine Milton's book." First, the source that is cited is an 10-page article, not a book. Second, "Katarine" is a misspelling of "Katherine," the author's real name. This leads me to believe that the editor simply chose to claim support from that already-present source, regardless of whether it actually does support or not. I will copy-and-paste an exchange I had on Power2084's (the editor) talk page below. Please discuss this issue with us. Djk3 (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, please find a citation for this statement and a better way to word it before adding it into the article again. It doesn't matter that it might be true. What matters is that the statement be supported by a respected publication. Look for articles published by respected news outlets (CNN, BBC, etc.) and scholarly journals (you may be able to find some supporting material at Google Scholar). Djk3 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, the wording is correct and the reference #74 is right after the text added; furthermore, humans did not EVOLVE into eating meat, that term is very wrong in this context, many vegetarians could consider this a de-evolution and this is why is corrected it. Power2084 (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The wording is poor. I do not believe that the information you have added is contained in Milton's article, particularly because you referred to it as a book in one of your edit summaries, while it is a 10-page article. The citation was present before you added that sentence. I don't have any reason to believe, then, that the information you added is supported by that article. Further, there is no such thing as de-evolution. And, interestingly, the very article that you claim supports what you've added is specifically about evolution and meat-eating. Please do not add this information again without a proper citation. I'm copying this exchange to the talk page to open it up to further discussion. Djk3 (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting from "Plant-based diet"

Why does "Plant-based diet" redirect to Vegetarianism? A plant-based diet isn't necessarily vegetarian. I think we need a separate article on this topic (see the article Nutrition in the "Longevity" section). -- Phenylalanine (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It should redirect to Herbivory, which basically means "plant-based diet". I've changed it accordingly. -kotra (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this redirect. I think that "Plant-based diet" would make an interesting separate article on human health and nutrition. No need to be vegan or vegetarian to reap the benefits of a plant-based diet. In my opinion, not having such an article creates a bias toward vegan and vegetarian diets (see the article nutrition mentioned above). --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Low-carbohydrate diets and Vegetarianism/Veganism

I'm moving this info here from the article "Low-carbohydrate diet" as it doesn't belong in there.

"Most non-animal foodstuffs are rich in carbohydrates and poor in fat and proteins, and it may prove difficult to build a dietary program based on vegetarian or vegan basis. Low-carbohydrate diets usually rely heavily on both animal fats and protein.

Yet it is perfectly possible to build a low-carbohydrate diet even on purely vegan ingredients. In such diets protein-rich legumes and tofu are a very important constituent. Vegetables and lettuce usually contain very little carbohydrates per weight, and fruits and berries are important for micronutrient intake. Other important foodstuffs on non-animal low-carbohydrate diet are various nuts, mushrooms and beans."

--Phenylalanine (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the references on this page are to completely unmoderated opinion only sensationalist websites - surely they cannot be used as references on Wikipedia. I refer in particular to reference 7, which seems to spout out a lot of rubbish without any supporting studies or facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.65.51 (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree! I hadn't seen that page but it's pretty funky, however, there are also two other references for this same info - the best one is the Vegan Society - since they should know, but the other one looks fair. Just the Vegan Society one should be sufficient though.Bob98133 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and homosexuality

Do you know some research, that gay man are more prone to become vegetarian than stright? I will try to find some references.

There might as well be something mentioning that environmentalists, liberals, New Age spiritualists, dieters, women, and pet owners are more likely to be vegetarian. But I don't see any of these as notable. -kotra (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention many Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Seventh Day Adventists - agree: sexual orientation is not revelant to vegetarianism.Bob98133 (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The statistics will tell that, nog political correctness.

If someone has solid evidence that the sexual orientation is of influence then give it, as long as there isn't it would be speculating. Pieter pietersen (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a tad... weird. But, I suppose if you can find the source and verify it, it's okay to add it. Mumblebot (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nori contains a lot of vitamins B12

nori(Seaweed) contains a lot of vitamins B12. (Vegans (pure vegetarians) and vitamin B_12 deficiency)

ALGAE from STANDARD TABLES OF FOOD COMPOSITION IN JAPAN Fifth Revised and Enlarged Edition 2005--58.81.64.138 (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Prison loaf?

In editing Prison loaf I've found it to be a vegetarian (but not vegan as it contains milk) diet which is imposed on prisoners under various circumstances, as in the case of John Malvo who requested it to comply with his food beliefs. Looking at the Vegetarianism article I could not find a good place to insert the information. Recommendations?Trilobitealive (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anywhere in Vegetarianism where it would be appropriate, because it's probably not notable to the broad topic of vegetarianism. If its notability to Vegetarianism is just because it's a vegetarian food, then we may as well include all vegetarian foods, which are too numerous to count, let alone describe in one article. Besides, since Prison loaf says there is no specific recipe for it (and that it may be just normal prison food blended and made into a loaf) leads me to wonder if it is always vegetarian. If it is in fact vegetarian, and there are sources to back that up, I think it's definitely good to mention it in Prison loaf, but probably not here. Mentioning it here would be sort of like mentioning Hillary Clinton in Woman. -kotra (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting source

• Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW (2006 March). "The garden of Eden: plant-based diets, the genetic drive to store fat and conserve cholesterol, and implications for epidemiology in the 21st century". Epidemiology. 17 (2): 128–30. PMID 16477249. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

--Phenylalanine (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

seems to pro to me

only seems to have one view -agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.116.230 (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Why are we using some POV definiton from some random website as if it were canon? The article should begin by saying that vegetarianism has various definitions. Eating shellfish is no different from eating fungi or plants, for a start (well, maybe to certain people who have an essentialistic idea of what an animal is and haven't done much zoology). In fact, many people who only avoid eating mammals would call themselves vegetarians. The lead should be written as a stand-alone; people shouldn't have to read the whole article to discover the first sentence is completely misleading. Richard001 (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The definition is not from "some random website." It is from the website of the The Vegetarian Society, which is a prominent organization. The definition is not "POV," it's just that... that's what it means to be vegetarian. Whether or not it's a proper moral solution is a separate issue. The fact is, according to vegetarian societies and dictionaries, vegetarianism is simply the exclusion of animal flesh from the diet. People just avoiding mammals and calling themselves vegetarians does not make them so. Djk3 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Djk3's comment, please review Animal (or check any textbook on biology). Shellfish are animals. I don't understand how you could possibly believe they are not animals. But if you can find any reliable source that states shellfish aren't animals, we can certainly amend the definition accordingly. And I'll eat my foot. -kotra (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I Think what Richard001 was getting at was that many shellfish (such as mussels) do not have a brain so cannot think. That makes it difficult to find a moral distinction between eating them and eating plants despite the fact they are animals. I disagree about the vegetarian definition, just because something is defined a way in dictionaries doesn't make it fact: if enough people use vegetarian to mean something else then that meaning is important for this article. If evidence can be found that it's a significant proportion then I think it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.102.181 (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look for that source and found this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm in that study more than 100 out of 366 people who called themselves vegetarians ate fish or chicken. I think that's easily significant enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.102.181 (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mussels may not have what we consider a brain, but they do have a nervous system comprised of three sets of ganglia - cerebropleural, pedal, and visceral - and it's still within the realm of possibility that some sort of thought exists in them. Besides, thinking isn't the only moral reason for being a vegetarian, many only care about the capacity for pain aspect. Mussels certainly have nerves and consequently, senses, but I don't know of any research that has tested their capacity for pain (in contrast to lobsters). There are other moral reasons for being vegetarian as well, like ecological reasons, which could apply to mussels. Regardless, I agree that if enough people describe themselves as vegetarians when they don't follow the definition strictly, it should be noted in this article. So I've added "While not technically correct, many individuals describe themselves as vegetarian despite consuming fish or chicken." with the reference. -kotra (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that belongs in the first couple sentences. It's a case of people self-describing as vegetarian while not actually being so. Thus, it's not really of direct enough importance to the article to merit being in the very very beginning. It is covered here, and I think that's the place to expand if we're going to do it. Djk3 (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The section you link doesn't actually cover it. As I understand it, it just says that some people use "vegetarian" as part of terms that describe semi-vegetarianism (like "semi-vegetarianism"), and that strict vegetarians might not like that. What my sentence describes is the use of "vegetarian" - by itself - to describe not-entirely-vegetarian diets. I understand that this subject has been discussed numerous times, but in prior discussions no consensus was reached because there wasn't a reliable source that actually documented such misuse of the word "vegetarian". Now there is, so I added an explanation of it, using as neutral and objective wording as I could. If this is a common usage of the word "vegetarian", shouldn't it at least be mentioned in the introduction? This isn't just a case of a few misguided people that can be dismissed as non-notable. It's (unfortunately) a large percentage - about a third, as per the UK study - of self-described vegetarians. I myself am a strict vegetarian (I don't consider myself a vegan though I avoid dairy and eggs also), and it greatly annoys me when people describe themselves as vegetarians when they still eat chicken or fish, but the fact remains: it's a pretty common occurrence, and worthy of mention. -kotra (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should've moved your addition to where I thought it should go instead of just undoing it and blabbing here. :) The reason that I think it shouldn't be mentioned in the first paragraph is that it's not about vegetarianism, but rather about the use of the word "vegetarian." It's not really a defining characteristic of vegetarianism at all, but misuse of the word. I think it fits in perfectly in the "Semi-vegetarian" section, since (almost) everyone that self-describes as vegetarian and is not vegetarian is practicing one of the diets in that section. It might be good to expand what I replaced in that section, but I feel pretty strongly that it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. Have a nice day! Djk3 (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think it would be better in the introduction, but I suppose it fits in that section too. Thanks for replacing it. I've added a couple words, and I think it's ok as it is now. -kotra (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it's very simple. The language authorities decide the definition of words and we have to follow that on Wikipedia. For example, in the Netherlands there is a "green book" which gives the definition of words and tell how you should spell them. Since this is het Englishlanguaged Wikipedia we should use the English definition of the word vegetarian.

Personally I'm also vegetarian in the strict sense of the word, I don't eat any meat or fish. I do eat mildproducts, otherwise I would be a veganist. And yes, as a vegetarian I find it a bit annoying because I have to explain all the time that I am a vegetarian in the strict sense of the word and not a semi-vegetarian. Because of this misunderstanding I've had the problem that they gave me fish, so let's use the official definition. I don't know if the words semivegetarian and meatreducer officially exist but these would be good definitions for the other group of 'vegetarians'. Pieter pietersen (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Longevity

I've removed the reference to longevity since there is no evidence, when all other factors are accoutned for, that vegetarianism improves longevity. It does improve health, but that doesn't necessarily mean lower rates of mortality.

See for example: http://www.drgreger.org/october2003.html

Rubisco (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement you removed is just a summarization of the discussion of longevity later in that section. So yes, there is evidence for it, it just isn't cited at that particular spot as it probably should have been. I've re-added it and added two citations there as well. -kotra (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Rubisco (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think it's a stretch to say "improves longevity". The only association found of significance was a 24% reduction of mortality from ischemic heart disease (in the meta-analysis, looking at individual studies it's iffy). And only in lacto-octo vegetarians vs. heavy meat eaters. Vegetarians (lacto-octo) compared to light meat eaters or fish eaters (no other meat) showed no advantage. Overall mortality comparing vegetarians vs. non-vegetarians is about the same in all the studies.

Thats far from conclusive in my opinion for making a blanket statement at the beginning of the article that vegetarianism "improves longevity". At best you could say meta-analysis of studies has shown a modest reduction in IHD mortality. Quote un Quote from meta-analysis "In conclusion, vegetarians had a 24% lower mortality from ischemic heart disease than nonvegetarians, but no associations of a vegetarian diet with other major causes of death were established.".Wits (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Both metastudies (the American and the British ones cited) compare vegetarians to non-vegetarians in general, and they did show an advantage. True, the American metastudy showed a more pronounced advantage against "regular" meat-eaters (not "heavy" meat-eaters as you describe) than light meat-eaters, and the results were equivalent between lacto-ovo-vegetarians and pescetarians, but on average vegetarians had a significantly lower mortality rate than non-vegetarians. Yes, the only significant disparity among specific types of death was found to be ischemic heart disease, but that doesn't mean the entirely mortality rate on average isn't significantly different between the two groups. Both metastudies show that vegetarians have a lower mortality rate, so I don't see how it's a "stretch" to describe the results in that way. It's less specific than saying "lower mortality from ischemic heart disease", but it's still perfectly true (by the way, I'm equating "lower mortality" to "longevity", because I think they basically mean the same thing, please correct me if I'm wrong). As for how it's "iffy" when looking at the individual studies, I don't see how you came to that conclusion. The same basic results appear to be represented in all the individual studies. -kotra (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You bring a fair argument Kotra. The British meta-analysis found "For all causes of death combined, the Health Food Shoppers Study and the Oxford Vegetarian Study show almost identical mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians; the preliminary analysis of EPIC-Oxford shows slightly, but not significantly, higher all-cause mortality in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians."

Ok, so British meta study shows overall mortality to be almost exactly the same in two of the studies, and slightly worse for vegetarians in one study. It did not show in any way that "vegetarians have a lower mortality rate" only that there was moderately lower mortality from IHD. A "non-significant" reduction in IHD doesn't equate a "significant" reduction in overall mortality (or increased longevity).

As to my off comment of individual studies being "iffy" on lower IHD mortality, I'll try to explain my opinion in a nutshell (I don't have time to extrapolate each study). I just don't think it should be said in certain terms since most of the studies concluded the reduction as "statistically insignificant". A minority of the studies found the reduction in IHD to be significant, which tips the meta-analysis to show a slight to moderate significance. Averages (as in meta-analysis) can be somewhat misleading in this case. Although I still say that the line of: "studies have shown a vegetarian diet may reduce IHD mortality" would be appropriate for the article (in lieu of definitely "increases longevity").

When many confounding factors are ignored, then the American meta-analysis shows a slightly lower overall mortality rate (which is surmised entirely of the lower mortality from IHD). Vegetarians tend to smoke less, drink less, be more educated, and exercise more. When you look at their best estimate with confounding factors figured in the DDR is 0.94. That DDR is within the margin for error. See for yourself at http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S/T8

Since vegetarians tend to be more health conscious and educated (on average, not a rule, see http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S/T2 for example), I would surmise that other confounding factors which are not being figured in would inch the DDR even higher up. The more confounding factors figured in the closer the number approaches 1.0.

This leads me to the problems with meta-studies, if you can call them that. They set the criteria for which studies to accept. Then they purposefully tend to emphasize findings supporting their confirmation bias, and de-emphasize those disapproving or neutral. Then media and PC medical professionals and researchers cherry pick parts of the study that support their view, perpetuating junk science. For these reasons I can understand why many people are duped into believing what are reputedly scientific facts.Wits (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the British meta-study again, I realize I misinterpreted the results. You're right that the British meta-study doesn't support overall lower mortality/increased longevity. The other meta-study doesn't seem to either, after further examination. I agree, neither of these studies specifically support an advantage in longevity, but they do support reduced mortality from ischemic heart disease.

As for getting statistically significant results by pooling many individually statistically insignificant results, this is a common result with meta-studies. As I understand it, when the study is smaller, it's harder to determine if statistically, any difference you see is not just a result of chance. So 9 out of 20 people studied isn't statistically significant, but 900 out of 2000 people probably would be. I don't think this is misleading at all. In fact, for this reason I lend more credence to meta-studies, which take the results of many smaller studies in order to reduce the influence of chance, than small studies, for example the one cited in this article of only 38 people.

I don't see any cherry-picking of studies in either of these meta-studies. On the contrary, in the first meta-study they say that "We believe that the 5 studies analyzed here are the only large, prospective studies that included a large proportion of subjects following a Western-style vegetarian diet". As a lay person, I admit I know very little about it The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition or its parent, the American Society for Nutrition, but I don't see any bias in either. That doesn't mean a bias doesn't exist, but I wouldn't doubt them because of that small possibility.

Anyway, I support amending the text to only describe ischemic heart disease instead of longevity. I still think these two meta-studies are valuable, but only for claims about heart disease. Thanks for being patient in your explanations. -kotra (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've went ahead and removed claims of longevity based on these two references, and added mention of ischemic heart disease in their place. -kotra (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome Kotra. You have been very reasonable in considering my viewpoints and explanations. I'm glad you agree in supporting "amending the text to only describe ischemic heart disease instead of longevity." My sentiments exactly, and that was my main point of discussion.

As for the pooling of insignificant information in numerous studies to come up with significant information, I do agree that this can lend more credence to results. I just personally think that when results shown are somewhat inconsistent, the results should be considered as highly probably but not absolute. Such as when the FDA allows claims such as "A diet high in cruciferous vegetable may reduce colon cancer". They use term may since this has not been show as absolute. Really this is a minor point and not something I feel very strongly about, but I felt I should detail my offhand comment of feeling "(iffy)" in response.

What I know is that many sources have cherry picked certain findings of these two meta-analysis and ignored others. Such as when I detailed that the confounded DDR is actually shown to be 0.94 (within margin of error) in the American study vs. the non-confounded DDR state of 0.84 which has been cherry picked (without considering other findings in same meta-analysises) by several articles (such as this one) and researchers to erroneously support that a vegetarian diet in proven to increase overall longevity.

I do not claim that they cherry picked the individual studies themselves for these meta-analysises, since I have not examined if there were other comparable studies excluded because of bias. That was more of a general observation I have seen for meta-analysis (not these two in particular), anecdotal evidence so to speak. But you're right Kotra, to question selection bias for the studies included. The last paragraph of my previous post was primarily a personal boderline rant on the general state of science reportings, and not confirmed to apply to these meta-studies particularly.

Well I hope all in all, our discussion will be helpful in ensuring a NPOV for this article. Hats off to you Kotra on the good discussion and article edit you made. Wits (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the further explanation. I agree with everything you say here. Your points are very reasonable, and I hope if you see any other NPOV issues in this article, you'll bring them up. Thanks! -kotra (talk)

Image Issue

That image which shows the signs used in India to denote Veg. and Non-Veg has a little problem. The Non-veg. sign should be brown and not red. Please see this highly reliable source [1] Thank you! Indianescence (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Though I'm not sure if the source you quoted could be considered reliable, what you say is supported by the official law concerning the labeling, which also says it should be brown, not red. I have left a note for the creator of the image, if they don't respond within a couple days I'll remake the image myself. -kotra (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no response, so I went ahead and remade the image, and I replaced the old one with mine. I'll be happy to make any changes to it that are needed. -kotra (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethics

Not every fact or section in an article needs a citation and I'm pretty certain that the statements in the ethics section are readily supported by a number of the 129 references already cited in this article.

If nobody has any specific challenge to this section, I think it's reasonable to remove the unreferenced section tag. If anyone disagrees, please speak up. Otherwise, I'll just delete the tag sometime in the next few days. Mmyotis (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. That section is pretty general info and could easily be referenced if needed.Bob98133 (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange sentence in article?

Quote from article: "Leather

Some vegetarians will choose not to wear leather. Because leather footwear and other accessories are expected in some workplaces, there are many specialist suppliers that sell belts, shoes, safety boots, jackets and briefcases that share the appearance of leather but are in fact made of synthetic materials generically known as Vegan leather. High-end fashion designer Stella McCartney is famed for her refusal to use leather, fur or other animal products in her range of clothes and accessories."

"Because leather footwear and other accessories are expected in some workplaces"? It seems quite odd to me that that would be the only reason for this market, which is being suggested here. First of all, only a small proporition of the empolyers needs to use leather for his/her job. Second, there are a lot of reasons why one could favour fake leather above real leather; for example because it's cheaper. I highly doubt that the market would be this big if it would be only for jobs, even stronger, it's quite doubtful that producents would even bother to fabricize this when that would be the only reason. Pieter pietersen (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)