this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
107 points (97.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6395 readers
255 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Having this issue makes me aware ADIs can't be maintained for an average person, for a single nutrient, so I am not convinced it'd be healthy long term or during development. Looking at other nutrients like amino acids would probably be a similar story
So really, you just have anti-vegan bias. In actuality plant-based diets consistently show themselves to be among the most health promoting, and longevity promoting. Also, multi-generational vegans exist now days. It's established that plant-based diets are entirely appropriate for all stages of life, even pregnancy and childhood.
If even body builders have no problem meeting their nutritional needs on plants, do you really think it would be so hard to get all your choline and tmg on plants? Plenty of people here have shown you there is no shortage of options. In your dismissals of these attempts to help, one of the major factors you're ignoring is that no one eats a single ingredient as their food source. So even if you're not quite eating enough soybeans to reach a benchmark, you also have to keep in mind that these nutrients are in a wide variety of foods, and you'd most likely be getting doses of it from virtually everything you eat.
And also as pointed out, supplements are readily available. Like if I had your condition, I would not trust any diet to meet my choline needs, and would supplement anyway. And if I did, then why not make it a plant-based supplement?
So you can do this, and frankly quite easily. Here's the thing: you're getting hyperfocused on raw numbers. You can't actually know that a thing works until you put it to the test. When I went vegan I was also really nervous that, what if there is something in animal products that I need to live, and I'll die if I stop eating them?! I tried anyway, found out through real experience that plants do meet all my needs, and made me feel significantly better in the process at that.
That was when I understood the sheer amount of societal animal ag propaganda that had been drilled into me all my life, that it was all nonsense, and that experience was a liberation in and of itself.
Oh, and you said in another comment that you don't have factory farming where you live? Judging by your server, are you from Australia? Then you should definitely watch Dominion, because you absolutely do have factory farming, and you are definitely contributing to it.
There are so many popups on your "US News" source I can't even read it. The second link is just selling a book. The third link completely misquotes the Australian source that states b12 supplementation is necessary and careful planning is required to meet basic nutritional needs. B12 is an essential component of the folate cycle so that's another negative for me.
All the studies I have read on veganism's benefits have been impacted by serious inconsistencies between the vegan and control groups, such as people who eat vegan carefully planning their diet and wanting to eat healthy. Control groups essentially always contain people who eat shit and don't care. Additionally, practically all consider lower or loss of body fat a core focus or benefit which is a clear indicator populations are not being compared correctly. Of course health conscious people will have lower bodyweight, lower fat. As would people getting inadequate nutrition.
Dietary studies are the most unreliable field of science. Broad generalisations are made, even single food items are difficult to study and worst of all, everyone is assumed to react the same to a given diet
We have all these diverse people who come from long lineages of specialised genetics for eating specific local foods. There is no single diet appropriate for everyone.
To even begin to have a useful study, you'd need to compare people of similar genetics, who eat planned, considered and healthy diets. Even then it's going to be problematic with supplement use and other factors needing correcting.
I have seen a few good Nordic diet studies, again applicable to only their genetics, but vegan diets were not compared.
Vegans are a very small subset of the population who are health conscious and meticulous, very difficult to find a fair control. Same with microplastics and nanoplastics, we don't have valid control groups as everyone has been exposed.
I'd much rather continue consuming a healthy, balanced ancestral diet.
Alright, if we're in low-effort territory here, I'm just gonna quick-fire these off.
Giving up animal products is one of the most important, impactful, and meaningful decisions you have a chance to make, and the only thing getting in the way is your own prejudice and devaluing of other living beings.
this is a bare faced gish gallop
That's just your opinion.
Thanks for the discussion but I am done
this is no longer the position of the academy.
No longer the position of a academy, post-Trump administration. As if anything can be trusted from US institutions anymore.
even the old position paper mostly discussed risks associated with a vegan diet.
And it also discussed benefits, such as lower risk of certain diseases.
Even the new paper (the very one you linked to) says that the subject of pregnant women and people under the age of 18 are simply out of the scope of the paper. To interpret that as meaning in anyway that they're saying people need to eat animal products to be healthy is factually incorrect.
their previous position was that a vegan diet could be healthy for children or pregnant or lactating people. that is no longer their position.
Where does it say that?
they let that position expire, and when they issued a new position, it specifically excluded them. the expired position is not their current position.
You cannot draw that conclusion from that one article, particularly when the article says explicitly, "... and is outside the scope of this Position Paper." Presumably they either have, or will be, writing more specific guidelines for children and pregnant women on plant-based diets, but so far this is what I've found on their paper on nutrition benchmarks for children:
To read that paper and infer that it's claiming plant-based diets are unsafe for children and pregnant women requires such a thick degree of bias it's just desperate. Especially in the context of every other health authority around the world affirming that a properly implemented plant-based diet is safe and adequate for all stages of life. You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you're trying so hard to lie about this.
You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you’re trying so hard to lie about this.
every such position i've seen relies on the now-expired AND position. they should not be considered valid unless they have also been updated and no longer rely on an expired position.
the previous position expired. that is no longer the position of the academy. you can see all the current positions of the academy at https://www.jandonline.org/content/positionPapers
Dude, the first article I quoted is literally from the exact link you sent, and the second article I quoted comes from this link that you just sent now, which is where I found it in the first place. Also, you keep talking about the old paper "expiring." You know they have to explicitly state when removals are made, and why they're made, right? Here is from the page about it:
So as you say, unless removed, everything on that page is still considered valid - including everything I quoted. Seriously, just stop. This is getting ridiculous.
it's written on the paper itself: it expired in december of 2021, and is no longer the position of teh academy.
Ffs, the page you linked: "This Position was approved in January 2025 and will remain in effect until December 31, 2032"
And the page about childhood nutrition: "This position is in effect until December 31, 2025."
Everything that I've cited is still in effect. Seriously, are you delusional?
I wasn't reading carefully. I missed this. it doesn't change whether the other paper expired, is the current position of the academy, or whether papers that relied on it should be considered reliable unless they update.
Dude, the expired paper doesn't matter. It has no relevance. And what do you think dietary authorities around the world are doing, just blindly parroting this one organization? No, they follow their own processes, use their own research, and come to their own conclusions based on what they consider to be the best available evidence.
Like, what are you even trying to accomplish here? You're going so far out of your way just to miss the point, to what, feel like you've won even some tiny crumb of an argument? Get your priorities straight.
some of that evidence was a paper which has since expired. if those organizations aren't updating their positions at least as frequently as the AND is, then we cannot believe that their positions are any more valid than the expired AND paper that they relied on
it's the exact paper linked in the initial comment to which I replied.
they let that position expire in 2021 and didn't write a new position until this year, and it's specific to adult nutrition.
https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(25)00042-5/pdf