Tag: VegSource.Com

Are Vegan Diets Unethical?

Nutrition researcher Lindsay Allen certainly found herself in the middle of a firestorm in February after numerous news reports quoted her as dismissing vegan and vegetarian diets. For example, according to the BBC, Allen said,

There’s absolutely no question that it’s unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans.

That brought Allen a lot of grief from vegetarians and vegans, but Allen claimed she was misquoted. In a written response posted on VegSource.Com, Allen aid,

The news reporter ‘hyped’ my concern about vegan diets for pregnant/lactating mothers and infants/children by not adding the sentence I was emphatic they keep in, namely that vegan diets were unethical UNLESS those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods.

Allen’s research does have interesting things to say about the common animal rights claim that the entire world would be better off if vegetarianism were universal. Allen’s research has looked at the effect of supplementing the diets of poor Kenyan children with small amounts of meat. Previous research she participated in found that supplementing the diets of Kenyan children with meat increased plasma vitamin B-12, but had little effect on other micronutrient deficiencies.

In the research she was reporting on where she was misquoted, Allen found that children given just 60 grams of minced beef daily showed up to an 80 percent greater increase in upper-arm muscle development than a control group that was un-supplemented. Children whose diets were supplemented with milk rather than meat saw a 40 percent greater increase. Allen said of the children,

The group that received the meat supplements were more active in the playground, more talkative and playful, and showed more leadership skills.

But, of course, we see animal rights activists angered when someone dares to give people in the developing world access to animal agriculture, such as through charity Heifer International.

If anything, the main criticism of Allen’s research should be why she’s bothering to study the obvious. I wouldn’t think the hypothesis that malnourished children could be helped by supplementing their diets with meat would be considered controversial or non-obvious by anyone except the vegan and vegetarian extremists.

Source:

Kenyan school children have multiple micronutrient deficiencies, but increased plasma vitamin b-12 is the only detectable response to meat or milk supplementation. Jonathan H. Siekmann, et al, Journal of Nutrition, 133:3972S-3980S, November 2003.

UCD professor’s comments on vegan diet hotly debated. Christian Danielsen, The California Aggie, March 2, 2005.

Children ‘harmed’ by vegan diets. Michelle Roberts, The BBC, February 21, 2005.

Meat diet boosts kids’ growth. Michael Hopkins, Nature, February 22, 2005.

Judge Rules on Final Makeup of McDonald's Settlement

Cook County Circuit Judge Richard Siebel ruled in late May that 24 groups would divide a $10 million McDonald’s settlement. The settlement was agreed to by McDonald’s to settle lawsuits that it used a beef extract for the flavoring in its french fries after telling consumers that the french fries were vegetarian.

In April, Siebel removed The National Ramah Commission, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha America, and The Department of Nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from the original list of 26 groups due to conflicts of interest with each of those groups. In his final ruling Siebel added the Hillel Jewish campus organization to the settlement.

McDona’ds attorney Peter Hecker was pleased with the ruling, but Jeff Nelson and other opponents of the settlement were left steaming mad. Nelson and others are angered that some of the settlement monies will go to groups that are not sufficiently vegetarian.

In a commentary on the decision, Nelson wrote,

As part of the settlement McDonald’s issued an apology and promised to donate $6 million to “vegetarian organizations” that are “dedicat[ed]” to the “values” of
“vegetarianism.” Instead, working in league with plaintiff attorneys who were supposed to represent vegetarians, McDonald’s made recommendations that much of the settlement money should go to non-vegetarian groups, or to groups which are in fact hostile to vegetarianism.

In documents filed last week in the case, McDonald’s and plaintiff attorneys argued to the court that many vegetarians “eat fish and fowl.” They argued that for the purpose of giving away settlement money, a “vegetarian organization” could be an organization that promotes meat and has a longstanding financial relationship with McDonald’s, so long as that organization promised to use settlement money to “benefit vegetarians.”

. . .

Many in the vegetarian community are outraged that McDonald’s (in league with plaintiff lawyers, who seem to be more eager to collect huge legal fees than properly represent their clients) has succeeded in duping the judge into believing non-veg groups are veg ones.

Of course Nelson conveniently forgets that many animal rights groups lump meat eaters in along with true vegetarians when it fits their propaganda purposes. PETA, for example, routinely maintains that there are about 10 million vegetarians in the United States. That figure is based on a poll conducted by Time Magazine. The problem, of course, is that 6 million of those “vegetarians” in fact had eaten meat, poultry or seafood in the previous 24 hours.

Other groups often included much higher inflated figures that also included “vegetarians” who are really meat eaters. So if PETA and others are willing to include meat eaters in their classification of vegetarians, why shouldn’t a Circuit Court Judge do so as well?

Nelson concludes his article, however, by suggesting that further litigation is in the offing, writing that, “It seems likely that vegetarians concerned about justice will appeal this verdict, and at a minimum make a final effort to stop McDonald’s from once again defrauding the vegetarian community.”

Hey, don’t let us stop you from enriching your lawyers.

Sources:

Ten groups to split settlement. Associated Press, May 2003.

McDonald’s Case: Final Chapter? Jeff Nelson, VegSource.Com, May 22, 2003.

Disposition of McDonald's Case Delayed Until End of March

Judge Richard Siebel was to have ruled on the division of a $10 million settlement between McDonald’s and vegetarian groups on February 25. Instead, Siebel decided to delay his ruling until March 25 after questions were raised about some of the groups seeking funds.

The funds can only go to tax-exempt groups, but the tax status of two of the groups — the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America and the Hindu Student Council — were still in limbo. Siebel delayed his decision to allow time for plaintiffs attorneys to determine the tax status of those two groups.

Some vegetarian groups have objected to the proposed division of the settlement and have hired Chicago attorney Michael Hyman to represent them. At the February 25 hearing Judge Siebel apparently ignored the concerns of those objecting to the proposed division.

The Associated Press quoted Hyman as saying that Siebel did not ask any questions regarding the objectors concerns. “He’s made up his mind, it sounds like,” Hyman said.

Hyman said that his clients would likely appeal the division of the settlement if there are no changes, and a story posted at VegSource.Com said that, “A consortium of a wide number of celebrated vegetarian individuals is forming which will likely appeal any decisions which are counter to the interests of the vegetarian class.”

Sources:

Judge Delays Dispersal in McDonald’s Case. Associated Press, February 25, 2003.

Judge delays ruling another month. VegSource.Com, February 25, 2003.

Dispute Over McDonald's Lawsuit Settlement Gains Momentum

The dispute over how to spend $6 million McDonald’s agreed to pay to non-profit vegetarian organizations gained steam and national coverage with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals weighing in against a proposed award to a University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill researcher.

Those opposed to the current settlement have petitioned the court to reject the current disbursement plans. For its part, McDonald’s has filed briefs with the court overseeing the settlement that attacks the characterizes the animal rights groups leading the charge against the proposed settlement as “zealous radicals.”

Much of the national media coverage focused on opposition to UNC nutrition researcher Steve Zeisel. Here’s how Jeff Nelson of VegSource.Com sums up the case against Zeisel,

VRG [Vegetarian Resource Group] submitted the only declaration in support of the proposal, even endorsing the money earmarked to go to the anti-vegetarian animal researcher at University of North Carolina — a researcher who seeks to prove his personal hypothesis that the vegan diet is very unsafe for pregnant women who need to eat eggs when pregnant in order to get sufficient choline.

PETA’s Hannah Schein told the Associated Press that,

The money is supposed to be earmarked for vegetarian groups. He doesn’t represent a vegetarian gruop. If anything, he recommends that pregnant women not be vegetarian.

What exactly are Nelson and PETA afraid that Zeisel might find?

Zeisel wants to use the money he would receive to study whether or not pregnant vegetarian women receive enough choline.

Choline is a vitamin-like substance that is crucial in the body’s production of an important nerve messenger chemical. In 1998 the National Academy of Sciences? Institute of Medicine recommended choline be recognized as a crucial human nutrient.

Choline is found mainly in eggs, meat and milk, so it would hardly be surprising to find choline deficiency in pregnant vegetarian and vegan women. You’d think that VegSource.Com and PETA would want such a study (especially since adequate choline can probably be obtained from vegan sources). As Zeisel told the Associated Press,

Pregnancy is a time that women have to be careful about their diet and be sure they are well-balanced. This is not a time to be a careless vegetarian. If we’re going to learn something about the science of this, you need to go to the places that can do the science.

Of course neither PETA nor VegSource.Com have ever been particularly careful about vetting their statements to ensure scientific accuracy. Much better to simply push the ideology and hope nobody notices the man behind the curtain.

Sources:

McDonald’s Attacks Vegetarian Leaders. Jeff Nelson, VegSource.Com, January 6, 2003.

Grant for UNC researcher riles animal activists. Associated Press, January 10, 2003.

Lawyer hits McD on suit settlement process. Sandra Guy, Chicago Sun-Times, January 10, 2003.

Jeff Nelson Attacks McDonald's Lawsuit Settlement

This summer McDonald’s decided to settle a class action lawsuit brought against it by vegetarians upset that the fast food chain had claimed its french fries were free of animal products when, in fact, the flavoring added to the fries used a small amount of a beef byproduct.

The lawsuit was started by Seattle attorney Harish Bharti, but when the settlement was announced Bharti complained loudly about how it was being developed. Although the judge order the plaintiffs attorneys to work with McDonald’s to craft a settlement proposal that the court could consider, Bharti complained that the other plaintiff’s lawyers were working on just such a settlement. Bharti was angry that groups he wanted to receive settlement money were excluded from the settlement.

Now Jeff Nelson is attacking the proposed settlements on similar grounds and going after the Vegetarian Resource Group and the North American Vegetarian Society charging them with “sleeping with the enemy” because both groups are likely to receive substantial sums as a result of the settlement (VegSource itself is ineligible since it is not a nonprofit).

Nelson writes,

What most vegetarians don’t know is that the settlement is more offensive than McDonald’s original deception of its vegetarian customers — because McDonald’s is attempting to steer millions of dollars of the settlement monies to animal researchers and anti-vegetarian organizations by simply calling them “vegetarian organizations.”

. . .

Most vegetarians are also unaware that a few vegetarian organizations like the Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) and the North American Vegetarian Society (NAVS) have acted out of such extreme self-interest that they are aiding and abetting the attorneys who are perpetrating this outrage. Why would they do that? Because these few organizations — with McDonald’s blessing — stand to receive millions of dollars from McDonald’s themselves. They are upset that anyone is now rocking the boat and might endanger their hopes to become enriched.

Nelson’s anger comes on the heels of the attorneys in the case releasing a proposed list of the groups who will receive the $10 million. The breakdown for the $6 million earmarked for vegetarian groups looks like this,

Group

Proposed Award
Vegetarian Resource Group
$1,400,000
North American Vegetarian Society
$1,000,000
Tufts University
$800,000
Preventative Medicine Research Institute
$500,000
American Dietetic Association Foundation
$500,000
The American Vegan Society
$500,000
Sound Vision Foundation
$350,000
UNC, Chapel Hill, Dept. of Nutrition
$250,000
Vegetarian Vision, Inc.
$250,000
Loma Linda University
$250,000
IFANCA
$150,000
Muslim Consumer Group for Food Products
$50,000

Nelson’s wrath is directed squarely at NAVS. According to Nelson, the settlement agreement required an announcement to be placed in NAVS’ magazine, Vegetarian Voice, announcing the settlement and explaining how vegetarian groups could apply to receive settlement money. According to Nelson, NAVS director Brian Graff admitted that the announcement had never been placed in Vegetarian Voice due to “deadline problems.” Nelson writes,

As already noted, Brian Graff of NAVS kept to himself the information about how to apply for monies. This is more than unethical; it dishonestly takes advantage of privileged — “insider” — information. He had a responsibility to the class of plaintiffs to share this information, but his failure to disseminate it widely made it very difficult, if not impossible, for many vegetarian organizations to apply. McDonald’s now proposes to reward this behavior by giving him $1 million.

Oddly enough, Nelson then follows that up by trying to claiming that “NAVS is an organization with a very small membership that represents a miniscule proportion of the nation’s vegetarians. In addition to a magazine of limited circulation that is published irregularly . . . ” which seems to undercut his claims of how essential an ad in Vegetarian Voice was.

Nelson is also unhappy that both NAVS and the Vegan Resource Group will substantially benefit from the settlement even though both groups were opposed to the filing of the lawsuit in the first place. He accuses VRG of being in bed with McDonald’s,

It also has a close relationship with McDonald’s, promoting their products, and VRG has the same public stance on “natural flavors” for which McDonald’s was sued — namely, erring on the side of declaring products “vegetarian” when they know that “natural flavors” might mean they contain animal products. . .

In their magazine, VRG also disparaged the lawsuit and people who sue fast food chains, asserting in their editorial that such lawsuits do harm to the vegetarian cause. Additionally, VRG aided McDonald’s in 1997 after McDonald’s informed them the fries had beef product in them, and VRG did not inform the public for several months.

The rest of Nelson’s complaints largely boil down to Nelson disliking a particular group and so arguing it shouldn’t receive any funding. For example, Loma Linda University is slated to receive $250,000 which it plans to use to expand circulation of its Vegetarian Nutrition and Health newsletter as well a develop a web site with vegetarian nutrition information. Nelson complains,

Just how Loma Linda plans to “expand circulation” of a newsletter using $250,000 is not stated. But this lawsuit was not filed so that some university could reap a windfall for a newsletter which they already charged people to subscribe to.

Nelson is also unhappy that Tufts University is slated to receive $800,000. Tufts Nutrition Department evaluates nutrition information and criticizes individuals and groups it finds wanting. Nelson, therefore, accuses them of being anti-vegetarian because they’ve pointed out some of the more nutty claims of John McDougall.

Nelson also doesn’t want to see The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, receive $250,000 for a study of pregnant vegan women. Nelson thinks UNC professor Stephen Zeisel doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and he’s got proof — animal research contradicts Zeisel. Nelson writes (emphasis added),

Zeisel has been quoted in multiple publications stating he believes that vegan women should go off the vegan diet when pregnant, and eat eggs, drink milk and perhaps eat beef liver. Those are foods rich in choline, and Zeisel knows from his lab experiments that when you remove chlorine from the diet of rats, the rats produce babies with birth defects.

That’s right folks, even Jeff Nelson now apparently recognizes the importance of animal research in evaluating the dietary requirements of human beings.

Finally, Nelson complains that the three Muslim groups included — the Muslim Consumer Group for Food Products, IFANCA, and Sound Vision Foundation — are not really vegetarian since they include information about the humane slaughter of animals (halal). But earlier in his essay Nelson claims there are 16 million vegetarians in the United States. The only way there are 16 million vegetarians is if you include those “vegetarians” who tell pollsters that they occasionally eat meat. Here Nelson is trying to have his tofu and eat it to, using one definition of vegetarian when it suits his purposes and another definition when it doesn’t (shocking coming from Nelson — not!)

Source:

Sleeping with the enemy. Jeff Nelson, VegSource.Com, December 11, 2002.

VegSource.Com About Face

Last week I noted that VegSource.Com was promoting its upcoming “Vegetarian Super Stars!” weekend with the claim that it would teach people how to “Make yourself heart attack proof” (see this article for more details.)

VegSource.Com has now altered the text to read as follows,

Maybe instead of banning me from his site, Jeff Nelson should hire me to find all of the errors and unjustified claims on VegSource.Com. Oops, that’s right — there are still only 24 hours in a day. Not nearly enough time.