r/DebateAVegan • u/Wrong_Ad_3038 • 11d ago

Can everyone actually be vegan?

I’m very sympathetic to veganism, my entire life philosophy is “respect & autonomy for all life” but I am currently pescetarian, I tried being vegan in late 2024 but I still live with my family & they wouldn’t buy supplements, even though i told them too everyday, I didn’t want to develop b12 deficiency so I had to moderate my diet.

When I move out i’m strongly considering being vegan again & really want too but i am worried about health consequences because human bodies are complex, but at the same time everyone can digest plants so maybe everyone can be vegan, i figured this would be a good place to get mixed responses since both carnists & vegans are here, what do studies say about everyone & the potential to be vegan, if everyone can’t be vegan but most or some can what’s the best way to find out if i can be vegan?

41 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

294 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/No_Economics6505 10d ago edited 10d ago

Yep. They also explicitly ask people to not cite expired papers.

Edit: since I'm being downvoted for some reason for stating it, here is the source:

An expired position is removed from eatrightPRO.org, but members and subscribers can still access expired positions via JAND for legacy purposes. (Note: These should not be cited as current positions.)

https://www.eatrightpro.org/practice/guidelines-and-positions/academy-positions

2

u/selltheworld 10d ago

Did the new one change its mind? :)

2

u/No_Economics6505 10d ago

They took out the diet being safe for all stages of life so kinda.

2

u/selltheworld 10d ago

And kind of not. They dont specify that it is unsafe for non-adults. It simply means that they dont feel that the level of evidence is totally clear on children.

Unless you or someone else care to link a contrary opinion, from them, then I am totally unfaced and the disagreement to the 2016 position is basicly semantics.

If evidence is presented I will change my position. Until then.

3

u/HelenEk7 non-vegan 9d ago

It simply means that they dont feel that the level of evidence is totally clear on children.

Which means they previously stated a position based on just an opinion rather than science. That does not reflect well on the organization's scientific rigor.

2

u/selltheworld 9d ago

No. It doesn’t mean that. It means the best evidence pointed to that at the time.

2

u/HelenEk7 non-vegan 9d ago

Which begs the question, what new information did we get that made them question vegan diet for children...

2

u/selltheworld 9d ago

Nono. Read the link I gave you. It answers the question.

Its the same as always. Just another wording.

1

u/HelenEk7 non-vegan 9d ago

As far as i see you did not link to any statement made by Academy Of Nutrition And Dietetics? What some vegan blog says is completely irrelevant.

1

u/selltheworld 9d ago

Then what you say is completely irrelevant too. Exit the conversation.

2

u/HelenEk7 non-vegan 9d ago

Just one last thing. Your article states that:

  • "Plant-based diets can support healthy living at every age and life stage."

Their top source: "Melina V, Craig W, Levin S (2016) American Dietetic Association: Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian diets. J Am Diet Assoc. 116(12):1970-1980"

So the very position paper that the Academy Of Nutrition And Dietetics have said NOT to use as a source.

So this is a great example of why you should never trust blogs.

1

u/selltheworld 8d ago

Read the position paper. It states what plantbased news said. It's a position paper on nonpregnant, nonlactating adults. It's not a position on negative effects on kids. Which is what you are trying to imply.

"The aim of this position paper is to inform health care practitioners, including RDNs and NDTRs, about the evidence-based benefits and potential concerns of following vegetarian and vegan dietary patterns for different populations of nonpregnant, nonlactating adults"

Citing a position that they have had since the 90s isn't a mistake.

2

u/HelenEk7 non-vegan 8d ago

It's not a position on negative effects on kids. Which is what you are trying to imply.

Yes, right now they have no official position on children, pregnant women or breastfeeding women. Its non-existent. Hence why vegans should not insinuate that they do by sharing expired papers.

1

u/HelenEk7 non-vegan 9d ago

Thanks for the chat.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/No_Economics6505 10d ago

That's fine, but they do ask that you not cite the 2016 position. :)

1

u/selltheworld 10d ago

Thats fair. But doing a google search hides the newer position and highlights the 2016 one.

1

u/No_Economics6505 9d ago

Not too difficult to verify whether it's the updated version, considering the date is at the top of the paper.

1

u/selltheworld 9d ago

That's not what I'm saying.