Seitan's Lair

Veganism can really ruffle some feathers. If one mentions the ominous 'V' word, or addresses blatantly false stereotypes (like veg*ism makes you pale/skinny/anaemic/weak/anorexic),-the howling begins. One lone howler is soon joined by others until you find yourself surrounded by a pack of snarling carnivores. What do they howl? "Stoooooop judging uuuuuuuuuuus! We have the riiiiight to eat as we pleeeeeeease! Youuuuuuuu are a crazy persoooooooonnnn!" (that's an approximate translation,-I don't speak carnivore so I may be incorrect).

So, to address the howlers with the same levels of respect as I have been shown;

" Has anyone stopped to think about the environmental impact of factories created to produce soy milk, tofu and "not meat" products? These things aren't plucked from the ground in this form yet the damage caused by this process is ok because they don't contain meat?"

No, I have never read a comparative scientific study on the aformentioned. I am an unreasonable fanatic with absolutely no scientific basis for my nutritional/enviromental decisions. Of course the damage cause by this process is OK....sheeesh, I don't care if we wreck the planet, just as long as the cute fluffy animals are OK.

BUT....Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices1,2,3
Lucas Reijnders and Sam Soret
1 From the Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics: Center for Sustainable Development, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands (LR), and the Department of Environmental & Occupational Health, Loma Linda University School of Public Health, Loma Linda, CA (SS). The journal picked soy studies for a comparison, lucky for you. Meat production took more land (6 to 17 times as much), water (4.4 to 26 times), fossil fuels (6 to 20 times), and biocides (a lumped-together category of pesticides and chemicals used in processing -- 6 times as much). In fact, meat lost in every category. When processing and transport is factored in to the equation, the difference becomes less extreme, but it's still there. Meat-based diets use about twice as many environmental resources as soy-based diets. Despite concerns about deforestation and genetic engineering, soy appears to be the winner here.

Mind you, that's only one study. It's probably wrong.

"For people who don't want to be picked on or judged for their life choice they generally spend alot of time trying to convince others that their way is right"

So, if someone believes something strongly they should expect to be picked on? It wasn't so long ago that 'Environmentalists' were tarred with a similar brush (clearly labelled 'for use on lunatic fanatics'). You can't win this one (I've tried). If you never mention you're a vegan, people attack you when they find out for not having strong enough conviction to speak up. If you tell people straight up, you're'shoving it in their face'. If you respond to a vegan-themed blog and it's comments you're 'trying to convince others that your way is right'

"Some people need more [iron] than a vegie diet can provide, including an aneamic friend of mine who was ordered by her doctor to eat liver and kidney"

I am still seraching for the mysterious study that confirms this oft-trotted-out urban myth.

Some might expect that since the vegan diet contains a form of iron that is not that well absorbed, vegans might be prone to developing iron deficiency anemia. However, surveys of vegans 2,3 have found that iron deficiency anemia is no more common among vegetarians than among the general population although vegans tend to have lower iron stores 3.
The reason for the satisfactory iron status of many vegans may be that commonly eaten foods are high in iron. In fact, if the amount of iron in these foods is expressed as milligrams of iron per 100 calories, many foods eaten by vegans are superior to animal-derived foods. (1) For example, you would have to eat more than 1700 calories of sirloin steak to get the same amount of iron as found in 100 calories of spinach.
Another reason for the satisfactory iron status of vegans is that vegan diets are high in vitamin C. Vitamin C acts to markedly increase absorption of non-heme iron. Adding a vitamin C source to a meal increases non-heme iron absorption up to six-fold which makes the absorption of non-heme iron as good or better than that of heme iron 4.

1. Haddad EH, Berk LS, Kettering JD, Hubbard RW, Peters WR. Dietary intake and biochemical, hematologic, and immune status of vegans compared with nonvegetarians. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;70(suppl):586S-93S.
2. Obeid R, Geisel J, Schorr H, et al. The impact of vegetarianism on some haematological parameters. Eur J Haematol. 2002;69:275-9.
3. Hallberg L. Bioavailability of dietary iron in man. Ann Rev Nutr 1981;1:123-147.
4. Gleerup A, Rossander Hulthen L, Gramatkovski E, et al. Iron absorption from the whole diet: comparison of the effect of two different distributions of daily calcium intake. Am J Clin Nutr 1995;61:97-104.

" Give me a scientific study that shows how bad meat is and I'm sure I could find one that says the contrary"

Of course you can. Might want to check out who is funding said studies too. The MLA has put out some fabulously positive studies on the benefits of red meat. They also use Sam Neill in their adds (a qualified dietician).

There, I hope that answered a few nagging howls. Now, run off and bury a bone somewhere.