|
THE MYTHS OF VEGETARIANISM
Stephen Byrnes, PhD, RNCP
Originally published in the Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients,
July 2000.
Revised January 2002
An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only
method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion.
Alfred North Whitehead
Bill and Tanya sat before me in my office in a somber mood: they had just lost their
first baby in the second month of pregnancy. Tanya was particularly upset. "Why
did this happen to me? Why did I miscarry my baby?" The young couple had come
to see me mostly because of Tanya's recurrent respiratory infections, but also
wanted some advice as to how they could avoid the heartache of another failed
pregnancy.
Upon questioning Tanya about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her infections, as
well as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in her diet and was also mostly a
vegetarian. Because of the plentiful media rhetoric about the supposed dangers of
animal product consumption, as opposed to the alleged health benefits of the
vegetarian lifestyle, Tanya had deliberately removed such things as cream, butter,
meats and fish from her diet. Although she liked liver, she avoided it due to worries
over "toxins."
Tanya and Bill left with a bottle of vitamin A, other supplements and a dietary
prescription that included plentiful amounts of animal fats and meat. Just before
leaving my office, Tanya looked at me and said ruefully: "I just don't know what to
believe sometimes. Everywhere I look there is all this low-fat, vegetarian stuff
recommended. I followed it, and look what happened." I assured her that if she and
her husband changed their diets and allowed sufficient time for her weakened uterus
to heal, they would be happy parents in due time. In November 2000, Bill and Tanya
happily gave birth to their first child, a girl.
THE EVOLUTION OF A MYTH
Along with the unjustified and unscientific saturated fat and cholesterol scares of
the past several decades has come the notion that vegetarianism is a healthier
dietary option for people. It seems as if every health expert and government health
agency is urging people to eat fewer animal products and consume more vegetables,
grains, fruits and legumes. Along with these exhortations have come assertions and
studies supposedly proving that vegetarianism is healthier for people and that meat
consumption is associated with sickness and death. Several authorities, however,
have questioned these data, but their objections have been largely ignored.
As we shall see, many of the vegetarian claims cannot be substantiated and some are
simply false and dangerous. There are benefits to vegetarian diets for certain health
conditions, and some people function better on less fat and protein, but, as a
practitioner who has dealt with several former vegetarians and vegans (total
vegetarians), I know full well the dangerous effects of a diet devoid of healthful
animal products. It is my hope that all readers will more carefully evaluate their
position on vegetarianism after reading this paper.
MYTH #1: Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's natural
resources.
Some vegetarians have claimed that livestock require pasturage that could be used
to farm grains to feed starving people in Third World countries. It is also claimed that
feeding animals contributes to world hunger because livestock are eating foods that
could go to feed humans. The solution to world hunger, therefore, is for people to
become vegetarians. These arguments are illogical and simplistic.
The first argument ignores the fact that about 2/3 of our Earth's dry land is
unsuitable for farming. It is primarily the open range, desert and mountainous areas
that provide food to grazing animals and that land is currently being put to good use
(1).
The second argument is faulty as well because it ignores the vital contributions that
livestock animals make to humanitys well-being. It is also misleading to think that
the foods grown and given to feed livestock could be diverted to feed humans:
"Agricultural animals have always made a major contribution to the welfare of human
societies by providing food, shelter, fuel, fertilizer and other products and services.
They are a renewable resource, and utilize another renewable resource, plants, to
produce these products and services. In addition, the manure produced by the
animals helps improve soil fertility and, thus, aids the plants. In some developing
countries the manure cannot be utilized as a fertilizer but is dried as a source of fuel.
"There are many who feel that because the world population is growing at a faster
rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less able to afford animal
foods because feeding plant products to animals is an inefficient use of potential
human food. It is true that it is more efficient for humans to eat plant products
directly rather than to allow animals to convert them to human food. At best, animals
only produce one pound or less of human food for each three pounds of plants
eaten. However, this inefficiency only applies to those plants and plant products
that the human can utilize. The fact is that over two-thirds of the feed fed to animals
consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuited for human
food. Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals
not only do not compete with the human rather they aid greatly in improving both
the quantity and the quality of the diets of human societies." (2)
Furthermore, at the present time, there is more than enough food grown in the world
to feed all people on the planet. The problem is widespread poverty making it
impossible for the starving poor to afford it. In a comprehensive report, the
Population Reference Bureau attributed the world hunger problem to poverty, not
meat-eating (3). It also did not consider mass vegetarianism to be a solution for world
hunger.
What would actually happen, however, if animal husbandry were abandoned in favor
of mass agriculture, brought about by humanity turning towards vegetarianism?
"If a large number of people switched to vegetarianism, the demand for meat
in the United States and Europe would fall, the supply of grain would
dramatically increase, but the buying power of poor [starving] people in
Africa and Asia wouldn't change at all.
"The result would be very predictable -- there would be a mass exodus from
farming. Whereas today the total amount of grains produced could feed 10
billion people, the total amount of grain grown in this post-meat world
would likely fall back to about 7 or 8 billion. The trend of farmers selling
their land to developers and others would accelerate quickly." (4)
In other words, there would be less food available for the world to eat. Furthermore,
the monoculture of grains and legumes, which is what would happen if animal
husbandry were abandoned and the world relied exclusively on plant foods for its
food, would rapidly deplete the soil and require the heavy use of artificial fertilizers,
one ton of which requires ten tons of crude oil to produce (5).
As far as the impact to our environment, a closer look reveals the great damage that
exclusive and mass farming would do. British organic dairy farmer and researcher
Mark Purdey wisely points out that if veganic agricultural systems were to gain a
foothold on the soil, then agrochemical use, soil erosion, cash cropping,
prairie-scapes and ill health would escalate. (6)
Neanderthin author Ray Audette concurs with this view:
"Since ancient times, the most destructive factor in the degradation of the
environment has been monoculture agriculture. The production of wheat in
ancient Sumeria transformed once-fertile plains into salt flats that remain
sterile 5,000 years later. As well as depleting both the soil and water
sources, monoculture agriculture also produces environmental damage by
altering the delicate balance of natural ecosystems. World rice production
in 1993, for instance, caused 155 million cases of malaria by providing
breeding grounds for mosquitoes in the paddies. Human contact with ducks
in the same rice paddies resulted in 500 million cases of influenza during the
same year."(7)
There is little doubt, though, that commercial farming methods, whether of plants or
animals produce harm to the environment. With the heavy use of agrochemicals,
pesticides, artificial fertilizers, hormones, steroids, and antibiotics common in modern
agriculture, a better way of integrating animal husbandry with agriculture needs to be
found. A possible solution might be a return to mixed farming, described below:
"The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring
about a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and
grains is combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is
efficient, economical and environmentally friendly. For example, chickens
running free in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality
eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows
grazing in woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk,
making these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal
cultivation that leads to hunger and famine, but unwise agricultural
practices and monopolistic distribution systems." (8)
The "mixed farm" is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more crops if managed
according to traditional guidelines. Mark Purdey has accurately pointed out that a
crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests a year, while a
"mono-cropped" one will only yield one or two (9). Which farm is producing more
food for the world's peoples? Purdey well sums up the ecological horrors of battery
farming and points to future solutions by saying:
"Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the
business-besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery
systems and beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their wastages, deplorable
cruelty, anti-ozone slurry systems; drug/chemical induced immunotoxicity
resulting in B.S.E. [see myth # 13] and salmonella, rain forest eradication,
etc. Our future direction must strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed
farms, resurrecting the old traditional extensive system as a basic
framework, then bolstering up productivity to present day demands by
incorporating a more updated application of biological science into farming
systems." (10)
It does not appear, then, that livestock farming, when properly practiced, damages
the environment. Nor does it appear that world vegetarianism or exclusively relying
on agriculture to supply the world with food are feasible or ecologically wise ideas.
MYTH #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.
Of all the myths, this is perhaps the most dangerous. While lacto and lacto-ovo
vegetarians have sources of vitamin B12 in their diets (from dairy products and
eggs), vegans (total vegetarians) do not. Vegans who do not supplement their diet
with vitamin B12 will eventually get anemia (a fatal condition) as well as severe
nervous and digestive system damage; most, if not all, vegans have impaired B12
metabolism and every study of vegan groups has demonstrated low vitamin B12
concentrations in the majority of individuals (11). Several studies have been done
documenting B12 deficiencies in vegan children, often with dire consequences (12).
Additionally, claims are made in vegan and vegetarian literature that B12 is present in
certain algae, tempeh (a fermented soy product) and Brewer's yeast. All of them are
false as vitamin B12 is only found in animal foods. Brewer's and nutritional yeasts do
not contain B12 naturally; they are always fortified from an outside source.
There is not real B12 in plant sources but B12 analogues--they are similar to true B12,
but not exactly the same and because of this they are not bioavailable (13). It should
be noted here that these B12 analogues can impair absorption of true vitamin B12 in
the body due to competitive absorption, placing vegans and vegetarians who
consume lots of soy, algae, and yeast at a greater risk for a deficiency (14).
Some vegetarian authorities claim that B12 is produced by certain fermenting bacteria
in the lower intestines. This may be true, but it is in a form unusable by the body.
B12 requires intrinsic factor from the stomach for proper absorption in the ileum.
Since the bacterial product does not have intrinsic factor bound to it, it cannot be
absorbed (15).
It is true that Hindu vegans living in certain parts of India do not suffer from vitamin
B12 deficiency. This has led some to conclude that plant foods do provide this
vitamin. This conclusion, however, is erroneous as many small insects, their feces,
eggs, larvae and/or residue, are left on the plant foods these people consume, due to
non-use of pesticides and inefficient cleaning methods. This is how these people
obtain their vitamin B12. This contention is borne out by the fact that when vegan
Indian Hindus later migrated to England, they came down with megaloblastic
anaemia within a few years. In England, the food supply is cleaner, and insect
residues are completely removed from plant foods (16).
The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal products,
especially organ meats and eggs (17). Though present in lesser amounts than meat
and eggs, dairy products do contain B12. Vegans, therefore, should consider adding
dairy products into their diets. If dairy cannot be tolerated, eggs, preferably from
free-run hens, are a virtual necessity.
That vitamin B12 can only be obtained from animal foods is one of the strongest
arguments against veganism being a "natural" way of human eating. Today, vegans
can avoid anemia by taking supplemental vitamins or fortified foods. If those same
people had lived just a few decades ago, when these products were unavailable, they
would have died.
MYTH #3: Our needs for vitamin D can be met by sunlight.
Though not really a vegetarian myth per se, it is widely believed that ones vitamin D
needs can be met simply by exposing ones skin to the suns rays for 15-20 minutes a
few times a week. Concerns about vitamin D deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans
always exist as this nutrient, in its full-complex form, is only found in animal fats (18)
which vegans do not consume and more moderate vegetarians only consume in
limited quantities due to their meatless diets.
It is true that a limited number of plant foods such as alfalfa, sunflower seeds, and
avocado, contain the plant form of vitamin D (ergocalciferol, or vitamin D2).
Although D2 can be used to prevent and treat the vitamin D deficiency disease,
rickets, in humans, it is questionable, though, whether this form is as effective as
animal-derived vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Some studies have shown that D2 is not
utilized as well as D3 in animals (19) and clinicians have reported disappointing
results using vitamin D2 to treat vitamin D-related conditions (20).
Although vitamin D can be created by our bodies by the action of sunlight on our
skin, it is very difficult to obtain an optimal amount of vitamin D by a brief foray into
the sun. There are three ultraviolet bands of radiation that come from sunlight named
A, B, and C. Only the B form is capable of catalyzing the conversion of cholesterol
to vitamin D in our bodies (21) and UV-B rays are only present at certain times of
day, at certain latitudes, and at certain times of the year (22). Furthermore, depending
on ones skin color, obtaining 200-400 IUs of vitamin D from the sun can take as long
as two full hours of continual sunning (23). A dark-skinned vegan, therefore, will find
it impossible to obtain optimal vitamin D intake by sunning himself for 20 minutes a
few times a week, even if sunning occurs during those limited times of the day and
year when UV-B rays are available.
The current RDA for vitamin D is 400 IUs, but Dr. Weston Prices seminal research
into healthy native adult peoples diets showed that their daily intake of vitamin D
(from animal foods) was about 10 times that amount, or 4,000 IUs (24). Accordingly,
Dr. Price placed a great emphasis on vitamin D in the diet. Without vitamin D, for
example, it is impossible to utilize minerals like calcium, phosphorous, and
magnesium. Recent research has confirmed Dr. Prices higher recommendations for
vitamin D for adults (25).
Since rickets and/or low vitamin D levels has been well-documented in many
vegetarians and vegans (26), since animal fats are either lacking or deficient in
vegetarian diets (as well as those of the general Western public who routinely try to
cut their animal fat intake), since sunlight is only a source of vitamin D at certain
times and at certain latitudes, and since current dietary recommendations for vitamin
D are too low, this emphasizes the need to have reliable and abundant sources of
this nutrient in our daily diets. Good sources include cod liver oil, lard from pigs that
were exposed to sunlight, shrimp, wild salmon, sardines, butter, full-fat dairy
products, and eggs from properly fed chickens.
MYTH #4: The body's needs for vitamin A can be entirely obtained from plant foods.
True vitamin A, or retinol and its associated esters, is only found in animal fats and
organs like liver (27). Plants do contain beta-carotene, a substance that the body can
convert into vitamin A if certain conditions are present (see below). Beta-carotene,
however, is not vitamin A. It is typical for vegans and vegetarians (as well as most
popular nutrition writers) to say that plant foods like carrots and spinach contain
vitamin A and that beta-carotene is just as good as vitamin A. These things are not
true even though beta-carotene is an important nutritional factor for humans.
The conversion from carotene to vitamin A in the intestines can only take place in
the presence of bile salts. This means that fat must be eaten with the carotenes to
stimulate bile secretion. Additionally, infants and people with hypothyroidism, gall
bladder problems or diabetes (altogether, a significant portion of the population)
either cannot make the conversion, or do so very poorly. Lastly, the body's
conversion from carotene to vitamin A is not very efficient: it takes roughly 6 units
of carotene to make one unit of vitamin A. What this means is that a sweet potato
(containing about 25,000 units of beta-carotene) will only convert into about 4,000
units of vitamin A (assuming you ate it with fat, are not diabetic, are not an infant,
and do not have a thyroid or gall bladder problem) [28].
Relying on plant sources for vitamin A, then, is not a very wise idea. This provides
yet another reason to include animal foods and fats in our diets. Butter and full-fat
dairy foods, especially from pastured cows, are good vitamin A sources, as is cod
liver oil. Vitamin A is all-important in our diets, for it enables the body to use proteins
and minerals, insures proper vision, enhances the immune system, enables
reproduction, and fights infections (29). As with vitamin D, Dr. Price found that the
diets of healthy primitive peoples supplied substantial amounts of vitamin A, again
emphasizing the great need humans have for this nutrient in maintaining optimal
health now and for future generations.
MYTH #5: Meat-eating causes osteoporosis, kidney disease, heart disease, and
cancer.
Oftentimes, vegans and vegetarians will try to scare people into avoiding animal
foods and fats by claiming that vegetarian diets offer protection from certain chronic
diseases like the ones listed above. Such claims, however, are hard to reconcile with
historical and anthropological facts. All of the diseases mentioned are primarily 20th
century occurrences, yet people have been eating meat and animal fat for many
thousands of years. Further, as Dr. Prices research showed, there were/are several
native peoples around the world (the Innuit, Maasai, Swiss, etc.) whose traditional
diets were/are very rich in animal products, but who nevertheless did/do not suffer
from the above-mentioned maladies (30). Dr. George Manns independent studies of
the Maasai done many years after Dr. Price, confirmed the fact that the Maasai,
despite being almost exclusive meat eaters, nevertheless, had little to no incidence of
heart disease, or other chronic ailments (31). This proves that other factors besides
animal foods are at work in causing these diseases.
Several studies have supposedly shown that meat consumption is the cause of
various illnesses, but such studies, honestly evaluated, show no such thing as the
following discussion will show.
OSTEOPOROSIS
Dr. Herta Spencer's research on protein intake and bone loss clearly showed that
protein consumption in the form of real meat has no impact on bone density. Studies
that supposedly proved that excessive protein consumption equaled more bone loss
were not done with real meat but with fractionated protein powders and isolated
amino acids (32). Recent studies have also shown that increased animal protein
intake contributes to stronger bone density in men and women (33). Some recent
studies on vegan and vegetarian diets, however, have shown them to predispose
women to osteoporosis (34).
KIDNEY DISEASE
Although protein-restricted diets are helpful for people with kidney disease, there is
no proof that eating meat causes it (35). Vegetarians will also typically claim that
animal protein causes overly acidic conditions in the blood, resulting in calcium
leaching from the bones and, hence, a greater tendency to form kidney stones. This
opinion is false, however. Theoretically, the sulphur and phosphorous in meat can
form an acid when placed in water, but that does not mean that is what happens in
the body. Actually, meat contains complete proteins and vitamin D (if the skin and
fat are eaten), both of which help maintain pH balance in the bloodstream.
Furthermore, if one eats a diet that includes enough magnesium and vitamin B6, and
restricts refined sugars, one has little to fear from kidney stones, whether one eats
meat or not (36). Animal foods like beef, pork, fish, and lamb are good sources of
magnesium and B6 as any food/nutrient table will show.
HEART DISEASE
The belief that animal protein contributes to heart disease is a popular one that has
no foundation in nutritional science. Outside of questionable studies, there is little
data to support the idea that meat-eating leads to heart disease. For example, the
French have one of the highest per capita consumption of meat, yet have low rates
of heart disease. In Greece, meat consumption is higher than average but rates of
heart disease are low there as well. Finally, in Spain, an increase in meat eating (in
conjunction with a reduction in sugar and high carbohydrate intake) led to a
decrease in heart disease (37).
CANCER
The belief that meat, in particular red meat, contributes to cancer is, like heart
disease, a popular idea that is not supported by the facts. Although it is true that
some studies have shown a connection between meat eating and some types of
cancer (38), its important to look at the studies carefully to determine what kind of
meat is being discussed, as well as the preparation methods used. Since we only
have one word for meat in English, it is often difficult to know which meat is
under discussion in a study unless the authors of the study specifically say so.
The study which began the meat=cancer theory was done by Dr. Ernst Wynder in
the 1970s. Wynder claimed that there was a direct, causal connection between animal
fat intake and incidence of colon cancer (39). Actually, his data on animal fats were
really on vegetable fats (40). In other words, the meat=cancer theory is based on a
phony study.
If one looks closely at the research, however, one quickly sees that it is processed
meats like cold cuts and sausages that are usually implicated in cancer causation (41)
and not meat per se. Furthermore, cooking methods seem to play a part in whether or
not a meat becomes carcinogenic (42). In other words, it is the added chemicals to
the meat and the chosen cooking method that are at fault and not the meat itself.
In the end, although sometimes a connection between meat and cancer is found, the
actual mechanism of how it happens has eluded scientists (43). This means that it is
likely that other factors besides meat are playing roles in some cases of cancer.
Remember: studies of meat-eating traditional peoples show that they have very little
incidence of cancer. This demonstrates that other factors are at work when cancer
appears in a modern meat-eating person. It is not scientifically fair to single out one
dietary factor in placing blame, while ignoring other more likely candidates.
It should be noted here that Seventh Day Adventists are often studied in population
analyses to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier and is associated with a lower
risk for cancer (but see a later paragraph in this section). While it is true that most
members of this Christian denomination do not eat meat, they also do not smoke or
drink alcohol, coffee or tea, all of which are likely factors in promoting cancer (44).
The Mormons are a religious group often overlooked in vegetarian studies.
Although their Church urges moderation, Mormons do not abstain from meat. As
with the Adventists, Mormons also avoid tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine. Despite
being meat eaters, a study of Utah Mormons showed they had a 22% lower rate for
cancer in general and a 34% lower mortality for colon cancer than the US average
(45). A study of Puerto Ricans, who eat large amounts of fatty pork, nevertheless
revealed very low rates of colon and breast cancer (46). Similar results can be
adduced to demonstrate that meat and animal fat consumption do not correlate with
cancer (47). Obviously, other factors are at work.
It is usually claimed that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than meat-eaters, but a
1994 study of vegetarian California Seventh Day Adventists showed that, while they
did have lower rates for some cancers (e.g., breast and lung), they had higher rates
for several others (Hodgkins disease, malignant melanoma, brain, skin, uterine,
prostate, endometrial, cervical and ovarian), some quite significantly. In that study
the authors actually admitted that:
"Meat consumption, however, was not associated with a higher
[cancer] risk."
And that,
|
