Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Por que?

Why is there a section called "Animal-to-human disease transmissions" on an article for vegetarians?129.139.1.68 (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably because the incidence of these diseases are greatly reduced in those who eat only limited or no animal products. TheLastNinja (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That depends. If the sources cited discuss the material in relation to vegetarianism, it's because the material is relevant to the article (though the size of the section looks like a WP:WEIGHT problem, at first glance). If the sources are not discussing vegetarianism, the material was added as original research/synthesis and should be removed. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Creatine

I'm a bit shocked that this wiki still doesn't say anything about the fact that vegetarians lack creatine. Creatine basically makes it easier to use ATP-molecules at a high speed which is beneficiary for tasks which require a lot of energy in a short timespan: intensive muscle-training and cognitive functions. Research (double-blind, placebo controlled) from an Australian scientist has shown that vegetarians get a higher IQ and a better memory when they take creatine-supplements (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691485/?tool=pmcentrez) while other research from the American army has shown that soldiers who are in the early twenties don't have any benefit from taking creatin-supplements, the probable explanation for this is that it doesn't influence the soldiers because most of them eat meat. Someone should write a section about creatine:

• a short description of its physciological role
• a notion that vegetarians intake much less creatine since the main source for creatine is meat
• an explanation about the effects of that: to what extend, if any, does the body synthesize more creatine because you eat less of it
• an overview of articles which explains the influence of more/less creatin on a person's performance

I would be willing to start this section but I prefer that someone writes it whose motherlanguage is English (mine isn't) and who has a mastersdegree in biochemistry. 82.170.40.166 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

B12 not naturally in plant foods, per NIH

An editor has removed the NIH statement claiming it is selectively quoted and contradicts itself. The source in question says, "Strict vegetarians and vegans are at greater risk than lacto-ovo vegetarians and nonvegetarians of developing vitamin B12 deficiency because natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to animal foods [5]. Fortified breakfast cereals are one of the few sources of vitamin B12 from plants and can be used as a dietary source of vitamin B12 for strict vegetarians and vegans." Any ideas? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Vitamin B12 is generally not present in plant foods" - Same article. Muleattack (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Generally not present in plant foods" vs. "natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to animal foods". The article, from the U.S. National Institutes of Health repeatedly mentions fortified plant foods with B12. The whole section of the article seems to be trying to downplay B12 as a possible issue. Why is "clinical evidence of B12 deficiency ... uncommon"? Heck, B12 deficiency is often mistaken for early signs of dementia or Alzheimer's disease. The lack of "clinical evidence" reflects how rarely serum B12 levels are run. "The body can preserve stores of the vitamin for up to 30 years without needing its supplies to be replenished." Where did those "stores" come from? "Can"? For "up to"? What's the alternative? Well, based on an article from the miraculously neutral journal "Vegetarian Nutrition", we don't need to worry about that. Clinical B12 deficiency may arise in one year if initial stores are low, sooner than that in infants. Several studies gathered by the IVU [1] found the average vegan was clinically deficient. Heck, let's just whip out the vegan sources saying people can get B12 from their own ilium and be done with it. Also from the IVU, "Vegan sources of B12 Claimed sources include: Tempeh (no effect) Nori (adverse effect if dried; neutral effect if raw) Spirulina (probable adverse effect) Klamath lake algae (no demonstrated or likely effect) Barley or wheat grass (no demonstrated or likely effect) Gut bacteria (no effect) Organic vegetables (no or minimal effect) Mushrooms (no or minimal effect) Dirt (little effect) Warm washed carrots (not a chance) Raw vs cooked food (no effect) Practical sources include: Fortified foods." (same source) Basically, they find that our "modern" food leaves B12 out of your vegies by stripping the "dirt, insects and faeces". So, we have a section that vaguely (and falsely) reassures that B12 deficiency is no big deal. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't really need that diatribe. The first sentence you wrote was fine. I'm reverting my reversion. Muleattack (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Introduction is wrong

Vegetarianism involves the practice of following a diet that includes fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products or eggs.

• But eating those things is not part of the definition of vegetarianism. If it was, fruitarianism would not be a a subset of veganism (and thus a subset of vegetarianism

Patch 4.0.3a (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Standard American Diet also "includes fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products or eggs." Vegetarianism is defined by what it excludes. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

fruitarianism is a subset of veganism (and thus a subset of vegetarianism). By the current definition in this page, they are not.

While I get what the definition is going for, I also see that it is rather confusing. Even the source phrases it as an "or" situation -- eats this stuff or doesn't eat meat. Perhaps this line should be rephrased to reflect what the source actually says or instead of "includes" it could read "may include" (since as the OP states a fruitarian would not be a vegetarian according to this definition). SQGibbon (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"Includes" means "includes." It means vegetarianism includes these things, not that all vegetarians eat these things. I'm not sure what the problem is. Furthermore, the definition is sourced. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Vegetarianism edits

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patch_4.0.3a&diff=410504296&oldid=410503762

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SQGibbon&diff=prev&oldid=410504708

Patch 4.0.3a (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition

Vegetarianism is:

• "a diet excluding all meat and fish"[wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]
• "someone who eats no meat or fish or (often) any animal products"[wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]
• "vegetarian - A person who does not eat animal flesh, or, in some cases, animal products."[en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vegetarian] note: not a reliable source
• "There are several categories of vegetarians, all of whom avoid meat and/or animal products"[www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/appendixC.htm]
• "A diet in which no meat is consumed."[www.yoga-free.com/content/glossary] note: not a reliable source
• "dietary choice which excludes the consumption of animal flesh or by-products, but may include eggs and dairy"[greenmeetings.travelportland.com/greenmeet101/greenGlossary.html] note: not a reliable source
• "vegetarian - Food that contains no animal meat (which includes poultry, game, fish, shellfish and crustaceans) or its byproducts."[www.vansfoods.com/home/glossary-links] note: not a reliable source

Suggestion:"Vegitarianism is a diet which excludes meat and fish and, in some cases, animal products like eggs and dairy." - SummerPhD (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I like it. It's interesting that the Vegetarian Society also gives a positive definition "A vegetarian is someone who lives on a diet of grains, pulses, nuts, seeds, vegetables and fruits with, or without, the use of dairy products and eggs" but that's the only one so I've ever seen so it might not be worth including especially since it's still confusing. (After that they go on to say "Or A vegetarian does not eat meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, or by-products of slaughter." SQGibbon (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly they aren't being definitive. I doubt anyone would argue that vegetarians, by definition, do not eat fungi (mushrooms, yeast, etc.), minerals (salt, etc.), artificial ingredients, etc. In the intro to this article we are trying to be definitive. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. I like your suggested phrasing. SQGibbon (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Any other opinions? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the current phrasing. As I stated above, I'm not seeing the problem with stating what vegetarianism includes. "Includes" means vegetarianism includes these things, not that all vegetarians eat these things. Initially defining it by what it excludes has been a problem many times over in the past, due to what some people consider vegetarianism and some don't. For example, on that exclusion note, saying "in some cases, animal products like eggs and dairy," gives the impression that people who eat those things are not vegetarians to some. And, really, most vegetarians eat eggs and dairy. The lead makes clear what vegetarianism is right after the opening sentence anyway. But since some people, like Patch, take "include" to mean "all vegetarians eat this," I suggest this wording:

Vegetarianism comprises plant, vegetable and fruit-based diets, with or without the inclusion of grains, nuts, seeds, dairy products or eggs.

Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I like SummerPhD's definition. Semantically, it's much clearer than the current one, and while Flyer22's suggestion is also clear, it's unnecessarily verbose. Jgr2 (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding SummerPhD's definition, there is the fact that some dictionary and encyclopedia definitions include fish as vegetarianism. This is why we use the Vegetarian Society as the definitive source. See the Pescetarianism article for how some definitions of vegetarianism include fish, or the bottom of this article's lead. Not going by the Vegetarian Society's definition (mostly or in part just to source the plant, vegetable and fruit-based diets aspect) leaves the lead open even wider to say "Some definitions state this," because what makes one dictionary or encyclopedia source more authoritative over another? Or any of those web sources more authoritative over each other? Not to mention, some of them include fish as vegetarianism as well. At least the Vegetarian Society is seen as an authoritative source on the matter. There is also the fact that defining vegetarianism as someone who does not eat "meat and fish" leaves out the issue of other seafood. Vegetarians don't eat other seafood either. "Fish" does not necessarily cover all seafood. And, finally, look at how meat and fish are separated as though fish is not meat; that has been one of the most debated things at this talk page -- Is fish meat? And if it isn't meat, how can someone not be considered a vegetarian if they eat it? Enough dictionaries separate fish from meat or include fish as vegetarianism. So, again, I feel that it's best to start off with what vegetarianism is...not with what vegetarianism is not. What it is not is covered in the second line. If we are going to start out with what vegetarianism is not, then that second line (about what vegetarians do not eat) needs to be incorporated into the first line. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Questionable Sources

This article's sources page is just chock-full of questionable sources as per WP:SOURCES, especially self-published books and websites. These are the ones that stand out the most to me, with a short explanation about why I feel they are WP:NRS:

98. "Shattering The Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians". Huffington Post. 2009-06-11. Retrieved 2010-02-21.

• First, it's basically an Op-Ed piece; second, it's HuffPo, not exactly known for the quality of its fact-checking

102. Stanley, Tyler (1998). Diet by Design. TEACH Services, Inc.. p. 14. ISBN 1572580968. Retrieved 2009-04-26.

• Self-published

122. Kochhal, M. (2004 October). "Vegetarianism: jainism and vegetarianism (ahisma)".

• Some comp sci grad student's personal viewpoint?

139. Life as a Vegetarian Tibetan Buddhist Practitioner

• Again, personal views from a non-expert

156. "They Shall Not Hurt Or Destroy" and the Essenes". All-creatures.org. Retrieved 2009-08-09.

• And again.

• These and numerous other cited websites interpreting religious views on vegetarianism seem like OR or SPS. I'm not sure what the RS guidelines are for religious views, though, so for the most part I'm leaving them out, but I'm pretty certain the citation section from 122-174 would benefit from some paring down

178. "Greenhouse gas neutral". Yogaindailylife.org.au. Retrieved 2009-10-04.

• This one's just lazy; the fact cited is actually cherrypicked from this: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop3/07a01.pdf by this vegetarian website

185. Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters (it does!)

• More personal views from a non-expert

I'm sure I've missed some, but the sheer number of personal viewpoints being used as sources in this article point to a pretty serious POV problem. I hate to point it out, but not one of the WP:NRS is even critical of vegetarianism only one source is tangentially critical, and I'm not sure it counts as NRS, as it is a column from a Canadian newspaper. Here it is anyway.

119. Katherine Dedyna, Healthy lifestyle, or politically correct eating disorder?, Victoria Times Colonist, CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc., 30 January 2004. Retrieved 10 January 2010.

• On second thought, I don't think this is NRS - it's not an Op-Ed piece and it's from a largish newspaper. I'll try to find it on the newspaper's website instead of this reprinting, though.

I'm going to come back in a week and try to re-source some of this, but much of it is just not worth it. Thoughts? Jgr2 (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources issue has been brought up before. And the lack of criticism regarding vegetarianism has been brought up many times, usually by IPs. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So has anyone actually done anything about it, or has consensus been reached that these standards don't apply to this article? This was mostly just a statement of intent to try to fix things 168.7.248.231 (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops, IP was me. Jgr2 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not much, as you can see, LOL. I've always felt some criticism should be in this article. But this article is also big enough as it is. Some stuff should probably be cut before criticism is added. If you go through the archives, you'll find some instances where there are complaints about this article portraying vegetarianism too positively. I would search myself, but I'm a bit lazy at the moment, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

[Outdent]Agreed. I think since a Vegetarianism and Religion article has already been spun off, we could significantly cut that section down (much like the ethics section, which has been reduced to a single pithy sentence). Also, the longevity section could be significantly cut down - lots of repetition there that could be pared down and still get the point across. As I have time, I'll make it happen. Jgr2 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Looking forward to see what you do. Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

High IQ Link

This statement is in the current health benefits and concern section;

"A reasearch study conducted on more than 8,000 people and published in the British Medical Journal, found that there was a high IQ link to being vegetarian. [36]"

Although there's nothing much wrong with the statement itself (perhaps the wording could be better) it is neither a benefit or concern as the link says that children with a high IQ are more likely to go vegetarian. Muleattack (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead: "with or without the inclusion of grains, nuts, seeds"

I made this change to the lead:

Vegetarianism is the practice of following plant, vegetable and fruit-based diets, with or without the inclusion of grains, nuts, seeds, dairy products or eggs, and with the exclusion of meat ...

on the grounds that grains, nuts, seeds are plant-based (ie "vegetables"). However, Ashmoo reverted the change with the comment that "the pythagoreans did not eat pulses". I am not a vegetarian, nor do I claim any particular knowledge of vegetarianism or Pythagoreanism#Vegetarianism, so I'm happy to accept that some vegetarians may not eat grains, nuts, seeds (or beans). However I think some elucidation is required because:

• There appears to be no mention elsewhere in the article about some vegetarians not eating grains, nuts, seeds; in particular it is not covered in Vegetarianism#Varieties of vegetarianism, but probably should be.
• Given that grains, nuts, seeds are "vegetables", the sentence as it stands doesn't appear to make sense - some rewording may be required.
• A citation may be required - probably attached to the paragraph that needs to be added to Vegetarianism#Varieties of vegetarianism.
• A link to Pythagoreanism#Vegetarianism may be appropriate.
• According to our article, the Pythagorean diet specifically excludes beans - not grains, nuts, seeds. To the casual reader (our target audience) these are not the same.

Perhaps someone more familiar with the topic (eg Ashmoo) could update the article accordingly. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that someone is being a little silly and saying that because one vegetarian did not eat grains, etc. it is necessary to define it as optional. I think that this is wrong, because:

• Nobody claims that nuts and grains are not vegetable.
• I have not heard anyone claim that a diet of nuts and seeds is non-vegetarian.
• If we include this we would have to add lots of other exclusions, for example many Jains don't eat root vegetables, some Hindu groups avoid "hot" (rajistic) foods such as chili, pepper, mustard, etc.

I will restore your edit. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased that Mitch made the "grains, nuts, seeds" removal, because it was making the sentence unnecessarily crowded. In redesigning the lead-in, I was only trying to maintain that part, per it being in the lead for so long, by including it in the "with or without" part...and because it is clear that some people do not know that a nut is a fruit or don't think of a nut as a fruit, for example...and because grains, nuts and seeds were only in the lead in the first place because the Vegetarian Society mentions grains, nuts and seeds, even with saying "vegetables and fruits" afterward. I can see how it leaves one wondering what category grains, nuts, seeds falls into. Either way, like Chris stated: "I have not heard anyone claim that a diet of nuts and seeds is non-vegetarian." And that is exactly why I kept being tempted to remove it from the lead; the three are obviously vegetarian. Just as much as water or bread (though some vegetarians/vegans look out for what type of bread they eat due to their vegetarian/vegan beliefs). Flyer22 (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We have chased our collective tails on this one before. As I've said before, we cannot define vegetarianism based on what it does include, because there are always exceptions. Fruitarians are clearly vegans who are clearly vegetarians. They don't eat most vegitables. There are certainly vegetarians who do and do not eat eggs, milk, wheat, whatever. They are still vegetarians. The only thing they have in common is what none of them deliberately eat: animals and animal parts (meat, poultry, insects, fish, shellfish, cephalopods, etc.). - SummerPhD (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I redesigned the lead-in partly due to that discussion. And as I stated there, we should definitely define vegetarianism by what it includes first and foremost as "plant, vegetable and fruit-based diets" is what vegetarianism is. Yes, vegetarians do not eat meat. But to only define vegetarianism as "a diet that excludes meat" and leave it at that is wholly inadequate. Saying "is the practice of following plant, vegetable and fruit-based diets, with or without the inclusion of dairy products or eggs, and with the exclusion of meat" takes care of everything. Of course not every vegetarian eats the same thing; that is common sense. We could even include "or," as in "is the practice of following plant, vegetable or fruit-based diets" if there is concern that some people are going to assume that all vegetarians eat any vegetable and fruits all the time. Or "Vegetarianism comprises plant, vegetable and fruit-based diets" (and then the "with or without" and "no meat" mentions), as I first suggested and thought about implementing when I was redesigning things yesterday. All vegetarians have "plant-based" diets in common, unless they live off some kind of non plant-based food. When people think of vegetarians, they think of how "they eat lettuce and other plant stuff" just as much as they think "those people don't eat meat." The lead-in is now concise, to the point, and accurate. Different kinds of vegetarians are covered in the lead and a little lower in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, you have a nice clear and concise introduction and details and variations are left until later. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. Just trying to do the lead justice, per past and recent discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

One can have a "plant-based diet" that includes pepperoni, bacon, the occasional cheeseburger... However, they would not be a vegetarian. "Plant, vegetable or fruit" is redundant and misses several foods. First, vegetables and fruits are both "plants" to the extent that anyone eats most "plants" (no one eats an apple tree). Second, it leaves out eggs, dairy, honey, mushrooms, algae, edible clays, soils and minerals... Would a diet comprised almost entirely of milk, supplemented with corn and clay be vegetarian? If someone is joining you for dinner, dietary considerations usually revolve around what the person will not (or cannot) eat: "He's a vegetarian. He doesn't eat meat." not "He's a vegetarian. He eats fruits, vegetables, eggs, dairy, fungi, algae, minerals..." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The "with the exclusion of meat" part makes clear that there is no "pepperoni, bacon, the occasional cheeseburger." Further, "plant, vegetable or fruit" is not redundant, as they (with the exception of "plant") are not always the same thing. If they were, fruitarians would not exclude some vegetables, now would they? "Plant, vegetable or fruit" covers all types of vegetarians, unless there is some vegetarian who lives solely on mushrooms, algae or clay. Whatever food the words "plant, vegetable or fruit" miss is not the point, as not all vegetarians eat the same thing, just as not all meat-eaters eat the same thing. True, vegetables and fruits are plant-based, but the word "plant" is also often separated from "vegetable" and "fruit" to simply describe "lettuce" and the like. Furthermore, the lead could state "is the practice of following plant-based diets (fruits, vegetables, etc.), with or without the inclusion of dairy products or eggs, and with the exclusion of meat" or simply "is the practice of following plant-based diets, with or without the inclusion of dairy products or eggs, and with the exclusion of meat." And I'll tweak that now. I'm not sure why you brought up the meat bit when the sentence clearly excludes it. And dairy and eggs is covered by "with or without the inclusion of dairy products or eggs." As for algae... Last time I checked, algae are plant-like, even if not technically plants. And edible clays? It does not matter. The bottom line is that vegetarianism comprises plant-based diets and no meat-eating, which is what the lead states. If mushrooms and algae must be mentioned because they are not considered plants, then we can do that, or even add "generally," if you feel that there are vegetarians out there who do not include plant-based foods anywhere in their diets. Varieties of vegetarianism is touched on in the lead and covered lower in the article. If there is some aspect of vegetarianism that needs to be covered there, then we can do that. Just because we cannot reasonably name all the preferences for vegetarianism in the lead...doesn't mean that the definition should not say "plant-based, with or without dairy products, and no meat-eating." The lead is supposed to summarize, per WP:LEAD, not go into every detail about what some vegetarians eat and don't eat. The current definition is accurate and is more adequate than simply saying "no meat-eating, with or without dairy products or eggs." Vegetarians clearly are not simply defined by "no meat-eating," and to say the definition should only say that is... Well, I've already stated my reasoning on the matter. "'He's a vegetarian. He doesn't eat meat." doesn't take care of the problem either, as there may be things he won't eat because they contain animal ingredients (typical cheese, for example). Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked the lead to this. The word "encompasses" should suffice, as it clearly does not state "vegetarian is this" but rather "vegetarianism is this and may be other things." Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible unbalanced article - Only beneficial effects of vegetarian diet, not harmful

Is the article balanced. I noticed there are a lot of parts of the entry about the clear positive benefits of vegetarian diet, but not of the possible negative ones. If someone is not careful, they can be missing out on essential nutriants. Now while it is quite easy to obtain all your nutriants from a cruelty-free diet, I think there could be scope for a chapter about the negative effects, for the purposes of balance. 165.12.252.114 (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're suggesting. You say it's quite easy to obtain all your nutrients from "a cruelty-free diet" [sic] so what negative effects are you referring to? Muleattack (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not completely clear on what the IP is saying either, but I get the gist of what he or she is mostly saying, and he or she is not the first (and surely will not be the last) to bring up issues with there not being any negative effects of vegetarian diets, or substantial criticism of vegetarian diets, in this article. It was just brought up by Jgr2 in the section right before this one. I would help on that front, but I'm just not compelled enough to do that (look for whatever negative effects and criticism there is) at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Put the ethics down to one side, and I agree completly with this IP, i.e. this article needs WP:Balance with regard to detrimental effects of a vegetarian snd vegan diet. Thanks--SH 18:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This artcile still sounds like vegetarian propaganda. We really need to be careful about the headings. Thanks--SH 12:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you make your criticism a little more constructive? Saying you think the article is biased and then offering no way to improve it doesn't help at all. What about the headings? How could they be improved? Muleattack (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Sikh-history made these changes to the headings, as you might have seen: [2][3] And then I tweaked Sikh-history's changes. Flyer22 (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the headings which I changed are a prime example. It just gives ammunition to people who do not agree with Vegetarianism. I will try to be more positive in future. Thanks --SH 15:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable sources cleanup time

I promised I'd come back and fix this a while ago when schoolwork calmed down, and so here I am with a brand-spankin'-new B.S. and nothing better to do. I fully expect some edit warring to arise, but if I delete a source or sentence in the article it'll be because it's sourced to a self-published book or a blog. Wish me luck! Jgr2 (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A new college grad in this economy? Good luck! Oh, wait, you mean on the article... yeah, good luck. I'll be watching, FWIW. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - first round done. A few questions: First, the BLV/BIV Vegetarianism#cite_ref-hill_101-7 information appears to be outdated or just plain wrong, but there is no denying it appears in the sole cited source. Should I just delete it or leave as is and add stuff disproving it? I think this might fall under WP:SECONDARY... Jgr2 (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.142.137.222, 24 June 2011

It's written here that: "A 2011 study published in the Journal of Agricultural And Food Chemistry stated that Vegetarians tend to have a lower body weight, less incidence of high blood pressure and lower overall cholesterol but have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease."

But the link provided doesn't confirm it: "meat eaters have a cluster of thrombotic and atherosclerotic risk factors higher than" vegetarians, and as well about vegetarians: "their generally low risk of cardiovascular disease"

Actually, it's not said neither in this link nor in the study published in the Journal of Agricultural And Food Chemistry that vegetarians have an increased risk of CVD compared to omnivores etc., but vice versa. Still SOME vegetarians (especially vegans) can have a high risk of CVD (that's GENERALLY LOWER than in other groups) if they "don't eat right".

82.142.137.222 (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethics of eating meat

I think this section needs more than just one sentence. I've copied in a summary of the main points from the larger article (excluding religion and environment, as they have their own sections here.) I'll add more later.Steve3742 (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition of vegetarian: The inclusion of veganism?

Anything referring to a diet of no animal products should not be on this article. A diet that contains no animal products is vegan not vegetarian. --Jimv1983 (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

All vegan diets are vegetarian, though more restrictive. You wouldn't say "raw vegan" isn't "vegan", right? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

SummerPhD is right. It's funny, because we had one IP constantly changing the lead because he believes all vegetarians exclude animal products. And now we have you saying all vegetarians include animal products.

On another note, you need to refrain from changing sourced material, as you did to this article. We had to revert you on that. Unless your changes are only rewording that gets across the same message, the material should not be changed. I see you've also been warned about this more than once on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

demographics and intro

why does the intro to Veganism have some info about the percentage of the population that eats vegan and this article does not? The information is present here Vegetarianism by country. I suggest to add a sentence: "The percentage of people following a vegetarian diet ranges from country to country; in India 31% of the population follows a vegetarian diet, in Europe and the Americas the percentage is between a few up to 10%". --hroest 12:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Two problems:

1) Why specifically mention the highest number available (India 31%) but the dodge of lumping 3 continents together for the lowest? The lowest number given is 2.3% for Switzerland.

2) We cannot present this (as you do) as implying that these are the highest and the lowest (we do not have data from much of the world).

In the end, you're facing an uphill battle to present the highest we know of and the lowest we know of as possibly-maybe-perhaps being somewhat-kinda-sort of "highish" and "lowish". - SummerPhD (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, why mention the percentage of people who are vegans in the lead, but not the percentage of people who practice other types of vegetarian diets there as well? It's mentioned in the lead of the Veganism article because that article has to do with veganism. I was going to say the only percentage information I could see being good for the lead of this article is simply mentioning the number of people who are estimated to be vegetarians. But even that is not "simple," unless there is a worldwide estimation, instead of just mentioning a few countries. I don't see mentioning statistics in the lead of this article as, say, important as mentioning them in the lead of the Rape article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new external link

Would any object if the website address of the Vegetarian Resource Group (www.vrg.org)were added to this article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with it, especially since we use them as a source in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We do not include sites under the external links section if they are already listed in the refs. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

SummerPhD, is that a formatting guideline? If so, it must be one that I never paid much attention to. Or it simply became lost to me due to so many people disregarding it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a specific guideline, but the idea seems to spring from several ideas: keeping the EL section short, not giving excessive weight to one source, etc. While the VRG is reliable as a source of vegetarian practices and beliefs, it is clearly an advocacy group. Adding them as an EL certainly brings in balance questions (come to think of it, a few that are already there are of questionable merit). - SummerPhD (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed for the main image's description?

I'm not understanding this edit by Jeff79. The description is accurate in saying the image does not include "meat, poultry, and fish." And we know that vegetarianism excludes these things, unless we are talking semi-vegetarianism.

I'll ask Jeff79 to explain here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I improved the wording and added a citation. DaveinMPLS (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I tweaked it.[4][5][6] But I'm still not seeing why Jeff79 added that citation tag. Citations are not needed for descriptions that accurately describe an image. We must sometimes use WP:Common sense. No citation can really back up that image as "a vegetarian image," because the source of the image is not about vegetarianism. Thus, your source for the description is not about the image, DaveinMPLS. It's about describing what a vegetarian diet includes, which just so happens to be somewhat represented by the image. But oh well. I appreciate your attempt to make this better. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I might know the issue Jeff79 saw with the caption, but I'm not sure how a citation would have fixed it. (And I won't speculate beyond that.) DaveinMPLS (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymology of 'vegetarian' is almost assuredly wrong. The 'vegetus' claim has been being made and debunked since the late 19th century. I know WP is supposed to cite what sources say true or not, but can we at least edit the wording so it doesn't imply the OED is wr1ong leaving it to the reader to decide? The OED does cite an incorrect first use of 1839 (actual first used in 1842) but the etymology is probably correct. Wikipedia shouldn't be editorializing about sources. DaveinMPLS (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the more thorough discussions of vegetus you're likely to see: http://polyglotveg.blogspot.com/2009/06/vegetus.html Not for sourcing anything in the WP entry, just FYI DaveinMPLS (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide an OED link that backs your claim Arjun^codename024 13:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

On the inaccuracy of the 1839 claim: http://www.ivu.org/history/kemble.html General source on the 'vegetus' claim: http://www.vegsource.com/john-davis/the-vegetus-myth.html

DaveinMPLS (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have a better reference supporting the vegetus claim than a handout for elementary school students? DaveinMPLS (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The question was put on an edition of the quiz programme QI recently, and then it was said that the Vegetarian Society declares that the term comes from vegetus, as the article states. I think that the QI programme did point out that dictionaries have a different etymology - as the article states.ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So on the one hand there is a 'fun facts' sheet for students and a quiz show. On the other side we have historians, dictionaries, amateur linguists, and folks who write regularly on topics pertaining to vegetarian history. (My own study reading period documents backs up the critics, but original research doesn't really count.) I searched the VS website, but outside the fact sheet I can't find anything about the issue. See the problem I'm having with the one take being portrayed as potentially correct, while the views of authorities being qualified with 'despite this'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveinMPLS (talk • contribs) 02:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology, Definition Lacking Edition Citation

The OED is cited as source, but which edition? We find even that authority to be variable. The 1986 edition defined "vegetarian" as "one who abstains from animal foods". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.181.157 (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The Oxford sources in the article give the dates of their editions. Anyone else know what the IP means? Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeast is a fungus

This is cited correctly, but the source got it's wording wrong:

According to the US National Institutes of Health "natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals."[49]

The only way that this statement could be true would be to claim that yeast is not a "natural" food source, or to go against the Linnean system and call yeast an animal.

I propose removing the whole sentence. Wikipedia can do better then the NIH on this one I guess.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.243.128 (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeast is not a source of B12. Nutritional yeast is not a natural source of B12. Nutritional yeast, when fortified with B12, is an unnatural source of B12. If you'd like to cite a reliable source that says otherwise, I'm certainly willing to consider whether it is more reliable than the National Institutes of Health (which, BTW, the Vegan Society, Vegan Outreach and the American Dietetic Association agree with). (See also Talk:Fruitarianism#B12_claims.2C_again_and_again....) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant inclusion of "Bovine spongiform" sentence, in Food Safety section

I question and request to either move, expand or remove a sentence in the contents section "Food Safety" [[7]]. Here is the irrelevant (both to the page and paragraph) statement that is located in the third paragraph concerning salmonella: "Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease, is linked by the World Health Organization to Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease in humans.[96]" --Jdmumma (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Health benefits and concerns

I removed the word "no" in this edit from this sentence:

"Other studies have shown no significant differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer."

The table associated with the reference seems to show quite the opposite. I'm no expert, so please revert if I'm wrong. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

5 days later and somewhat alarmed

I see nobody has reverted the change. Does this mean that the article, for a long time, contained content which was opposite to the truth?

With all the stats that now show animal protein is related to cancer, one would think that this article would get the facts straight, especially one so close to the reasons for vegetarianism. If I'm out of line here, please tofu-trout me back to the stone age. (By the way, this articles has 635 watchers, and 2,500 visitors a day.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of people have lost the will to do work on this article that could be argued over. I know I have. Neutrality on this article seems to be that anything positive with regards to vegetarianism requires a counter-argument. For instance - The food safety section where it's just become a list of foods that have had contamination issues (vegetarian or otherwise) because avoiding meat contamination doesn't seem to count if it's possible for plant contamination to happen as well.Muleattack (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, it could have been sneaky vandalism. Like many other Wikipedia articles, we have gotten a lot of different types of vandalism (sneaky included). Some vandalism can go unnoticed when none of the main editors/watchers of this article are here to catch it and it is then lost in the edit history with other reverts and such. I have been good at spotting and reverting sneaky vandalism at this article, but maybe that was added before I was regularly watching this article. Maybe it was intentionally added by a registered editor who is otherwise decent in their editing; we'd have to check through a lot of edits in the history to see.

Do either of you or others have any thoughts on this removal from the Religion and diet section? Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Muleattack: I know what you mean. I think there are groups with interests and passions, determined to shift the flavour of these sorts of articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22:

• The false statement was added in this edit. That incorrect information has been in the article of about a year and a half.
• The religion link looks like garden variety IP removal of content without explanation. I don't know what else to make of it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you went searching through the edit history for that? Is that how you found it?

I used wikiblame. Easy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, since the IP wasn't reverted, though, it left me wondering if that removal was valid. Maybe others simply missed seeing it? Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What IP? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP we were just commenting on above -- the one who removed information from the Religion and diet section (linked above). Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I see. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

[undent] Actually, the initial sentence (with the "no") was correct. The table shows that there is no significant difference in mortality rates between the different categories. In fact, they're quite a long way away from being statistically significant. I'm replacing the "no." Jgr2 (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Jgr2 is correct. In fact, the authors of the paper stated exactly the same at the end of their abstract. 98.114.4.26 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

NYT resource

• Meatless in the Midwest: A Tale of Survival by A. G. Sulzberger published January 10, 2012

99.181.131.214 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Source 58 Doesn't work

Just pointing that out. Bonfire89 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Bonfire89 Jan 15, 2012

Environment and Diet

This section of the Wikipedia article contains considerable misinformation: much of the content is erroneous, unverifiable or misleading in its context.

• The Wikipedia article states. "In addition, animal agriculture is a large source of greenhouse gases. According to a 2006 report it is responsible for 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all of the world's transportation (including all cars, trucks, buses, trains, ships, and planes) was said to emit 13.5% of the CO2. " However, in a peer-reviewed paper, that comparison with transportation has been shown to be erroneous (Pitesky, M. E. et al. 2009. Clearing the air. Adv. Agron. 103: 1-40). One of the co-authors of the 2006 report has acknowledged the error, as reported in news media, e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html). Later in the Wikipedia article, the 18 percent figure is given again in a statement by Rajenda Pachauri. The repetition appears unnecessary. Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• The FAO estimate of 18 % included carbon dioxide emission associated with deforestation attributed to livestock production, which primarily relates to land use issues in Central and South America. Regional estimates differ greatly. Livestock sources (including enteric fermentation and manure) account for about 3.1 percent of US anthropogenic GHG emissions expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents. This figure (for 2009) is from data of EPA (2011. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2009. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-11-005. 459 pp.). The EPA data are based on methodologies agreed to by the Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC, with 100-year global warming potentials from the IPCC Second Assessment Report used in estimating GHG emissions as carbon dioxide equivalents.Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article states: "But according to a later study, at least 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions [GHGs] are attributable to the life cycle and supply chain of livestock products, and this means all meat, dairy, and by-products, and the transport of them. " This figure is the result of a badly flawed analysis and the paper from which it is taken was not subject to peer review. Its authors distort methane data and arbitrarily include some GHG source and sink terms while omitting others, to inflate the percentage of emissions that they claim is attributable to livestock. As a result, their emission percentage estimate is meaningless, and uncritically citing it is inappropriate and misleading. Editors of the article should note Wikipedia's verifiability precept that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• The article further states "Methane has about 21 times more Global Warming Potential (GWP) than carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide has 296 times the GWP of CO2." The GWPs of 21 (methane) and 296 (nitrous oxide) are still used for purposes of national GHG source and sink inventories because of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (in order to facilitate comparisons between different years). However, these GWP estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report have since been modified. Current estimates are somewhat higher, as noted in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Also, for completeness, it should be stated that these are 100-year GWPs.Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia article states: "Animals fed on grain, and those that rely on grazing, need far more water than grain crops. " The statement fails to meet the verifiability requirement for Wikipedia information. It is from a media quote of a WHO representative, not from a reliable source on water use in agriculture. Moreover, the statement is erroneous. Per unit food mass produced, animals need far less water than grain crops do. This can be demonstrated, for example, by comparing data on water need by livestock (e.g. Forbes. 1968. Br. J. Nutr. 22: 33-43) with wheat crop transpiration data (e.g. Zhang et al. 1998. Plant and Soil 201: 295-305), expressing the data per unit mass of food produced. Additional peer-reviewed publications could be cited, confirming that the quoted statement from the Wikipedia article is incorrect. Perhaps the person quoted actually meant to refer not to animals fed on grain, but to animal production systems (including production of animal feed), which do need more water per unit mass of food produced. Also, for comparison of an animal production system with grain crop production, the statement is problematic in terms of water use per unit land area. That is, for an unirrigated parcel of land, water use for a livestock production system will be roughly similar to that for growing grain crops, assuming similarity of the Priestley-Taylor alpha coefficient. Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia article states "According to the USDA, growing the crops necessary to feed farmed animals requires nearly half of the United States' water supply and 80% of its agricultural land." The cited source does not support the allegations regarding water use or cropland. In fact, total cropland amounts to only about 44.1 percent of US census farmland (USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. United States Summary and State Data. Vol. 1. Geographic Area Series. Part 51. AC-07-A-51. 639 pp. + appendices). The reference to "water supply" is ambiguous, as it does not specify whether it refers to withdrawn water sources or all water sources. Moreover, if it is to be retained, it needs support from a reliable source, not attribution to a source which does not contain this kind of information at all.Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia article states "Additionally, animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and a total of 70% of its grain." Elsewhere, citing the same source, the Wikipedia article repeats that: "Currently, 70% of all the wheat, corn and other grain produced is fed to farmed animals." Computer search of the cited source reveals that it does not support the statement. The statement's figures appear bogus, for the following reasons:

• According to USDA Agricultural Statistics 2010, grain fed to US livestock and poultry in 2008 amounted to 158.7 million tons, i.e. about 144 million metric tons, and grain production amounted to 400.3 million metric tons. Thus it appears that US livestock and poultry consume about 36 percent, not 70 percent, of grain produced in the US. (Exports accounted for about 20 percent of the US grain crop in 2008. The USDA estimates that in 2010, about 27 percent of US corn, the principal US grain, was used for ethanol production. Seed, food and other uses together also comprise an important fraction of US grain production.)
• According to USDA Agricultural Statistics 2010, 33.83 million tons of soy meal was fed to US livestock in 2008, and an additional 3 million tons of soybeans were accounted for as feed, seed and residual. Thus the total amount of soybeans and soybean meal fed to US livestock amounted to not more than 40 percent, not 90 percent, of the US soybean production of 91.41 million tons. (Production of soybean oil, used for human consumption, biodiesel, etc., amounted to 9.37 million tons. Exports accounted for 42 percent of US soybean disappearance.) Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article states: "When tracking food animal production from the feed through to consumption, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from 4:1 up to 54:1 energy input to protein output ratio." The statement does not make sense, because animal production ends at the farm gate, not at consumption. From the farm gate to consumption, there is considerable energy input for processing, packaging, transportation, wholesale, retail, food service and home storage, and cooking. The cited source, a press release referring to a 1997 presentation by Pimentel, indicates that the 54:1 ratio applies to beef. However, citing the same 1997 presentation, Pimentel and Pimentel (2003) indicate 40:1. Moreover, studies of Heitschmidt et al. (1996), Pimentel et al. (1980) and Cook et al. (1980) are in relatively good agreement with regard to energy use in beef production, but all disagree greatly with the 54:1 ratio. Also, the ratios of energy input to protein energy output cannot reasonably be described as inefficiencies of energy use, insofar as protein energy accounts for only a fraction of food energy in meat (e.g. about 31 percent of food energy output in beef meat), and it excludes non-food outputs and non-energy output values derived from the input. The egregiously problematic sentence, usupported by peer-reviewed research publications, should be deleted from the article, because of Wikipedia's verifiability precept that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article states: "This firstly because the feed first needs to be grown before it is eaten by the cattle, and secondly because warm-blooded vertebrates need to use a lot of calories just to stay warm (unlike plants or insects).[186] " In its context, the statement is misleading. Under conditions of thermoneutrality, heat requirements of cattle are met by the difference between metabolizable and net energy; additional energy requirements for warmth commonly account for a small fraction of energy intake. This is evident from data of National Research Council (2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. National Academy Press, Washington) and National Research Council (Subcommittee on Environmental Stress. 1981. Effect of environment on nutrient requirements of domestic animals. National Academy Press, Washington). In its context, the Wikipedia statement exaggerates the significance of energy requirements for warmth in relation to energy use in livestock production. The dietary energy used by cattle for warmth is derived by photosynthetic capture of solar energy. However, energy use in the context where the Wikipedia statement occurs includes energy from fossil, nuclear, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, technological solar, and wind sources. It excludes solar energy captured by photosynthesis.Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article states: "To produce animal-based food seems to be, according to these studies, typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits." A meaningful comparison would be production vs. production or harvesting vs. harvesting, not production vs. harvesting.Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article states: "According to the theory of trophic dynamics, it requires 10 times as many crops to feed animals being bred for meat production as it would to feed the same number of people on a vegetarian diet." This does not make sense. Human vegetarians might eat a diverse diet involving more than 20 different crops. A meat-producing animal might consume as few as 1 to 4 crops. Even if the intent were to refer to the mass of dry matter consumed, rather than the number of crops, comparison would have to identify the kind animals involved. The amount of dry matter fed to a dozen meat-producing rabbits, for example, is much less than the amount needed "to feed the same number of people on a vegetarian diet." Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia articles states "Animal farming produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide and 37% of all human-induced methane. Methane has about 21 times more Global Warming Potential (GWP) than carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide has 296 times the GWP of CO2. " Of the three references cited at the end of the second sentence, none appears to support the numbers given. The 21 and 296 are from the IPCC Second Assessment Report; however, these estimates have been modified in the more recent Assessment Reports. Regarding the percentage of anthropogenic methane attributable to livestock globally, see the IPCC Third Assessment Report, which tabulates several estimates by various investigators. Regarding the percentage attributable to livestock in the US, see EPA (2011. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2009. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-11-005. 459 pp.) Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia article states: "Ecology professor David Pimentel has claimed, 'If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million.'" If a sufficiently low percentage of grain in the diet is assumed, the grain fed to US livestock would be sufficient to feed 6 billion people a little bit of grain each. Alternatively, one might consider whether the energy content of grain fed to US livestock would be equivalent to the energy requirements of 800 million people. USDA Agricultural Statistics 2010, Table 1-75 indicates that grain fed to US livestock and poultry in 2010 amounted to 154.1 million tons, and assuming a somewhat higher-than-average metabolizable energy content of 3.2 Mcal/kg, this would amount to 447 billion Mcal for the year. Divided among 800 million people, this is an allocation of about 1,530 kcal per day. For 1997-99, the FAO estimated per capita food energy consumption for sub-Saharan Africa at about 2,195 kcal per day, and for a global average, 2,803 kcal per day (http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/AC911E/ac911e05.htm). Clearly, the energy contained in the grain fed to US livestock is far less than the caloric intake requirement of 800 million people. We are not told what assumptions Pimentel made in arriving at his estimate. it would seem prudent to seek independent confirmation of Pimentel's figure before presenting it in Wikipedia. Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia article states: "An index which can be used as a measure is the efficiency of conversion of ingested food to body substance, which indicates, for example, that only 10% is converted to body substance by beef cattle, versus 19–31% by silkworms and 44% by German cockroaches. " This information is problematic. Feed conversion efficiency of beef cattle varies greatly, not only with the stage of development of the animal, but also with metabolizable energy content of feed, which is less than 2 Mcal/kg DM (dry matter) for some roughages, e.g. grain crop residues, and as high as 3.2 Mcal/kg DM for corn grain. There is abundant review and research information on this, e.g. NRC (2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. National Academy Press), numerous peer reviewed papers and university extension bulletins. For a 400-kg steer on feed with a TDN of 80 %, the feed conversion ratio would be about about 5.7 kg feed DM per kg gain. With a TDN of 50 %, the feed conversion ratio for this steer would be about 29 kg DM per kg. Schafhirt (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Article edits addressing the above issues were removed by someone, restoring the previous version. Restoring erroneous and unverifiable content and bogus attributions to sources damages the article's credibility. If this action was a matter of honest belief, rather than vandalism, the editor restoring that content should address the issues on this talk page. Pending resolution of the issues, a "Disputed" tag should appear on the article, for the benefit of readers.Schafhirt (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues associated with content of the above paragraph have been resolved.Schafhirt (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Vitamin B₁₂

Some edits by User:Mrt3366 lack proper references and are factually incorrect. The claim that "Bacteria are the only sources of [[vitamin B12|vitamin B₁₂]" is false, it is produced by a unicelular alga by example, Pleurochrysis Carterae. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11453796

Fortified breakfast cereals don't offer vitamin B₁₂ from plants, they have it added as a supplement. It is recommended for vegans to take supplements as such, as a minimum dosage can be reliably maintained.

"The human gut also contains B₁₂-synthesizing bacteria, living from the mouth to the anus" looks false. The old 1980 reffered study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7354869) only reffered to small bowels and it was falsified since. http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7c.shtml "Claims of intestinal B-12 production may be based on insufficient evidence. Albert et al. [1980] is sometimes cited as evidence that B-12 producing bacteria can exist in the small intestine. Sometimes explicit claims are made, e.g., that intestinal bacteria allegedly can produce adequate B-12. Baker [1981] and Nutrition Reviews [1980] are related citations that comment on Albert et al. [1980]. However, a careful reading of Albert et al. [1980] shows that it used bacteriological assays, which are of lower reliability, to measure B-12 levels. Specifically, the most accurate bacteriological assay they used is Ochromonas malhamensis. Note that Ochromonas is the most accurate bacterial assay method for B-12; however, even it may report values for some analogues as part of its "B-12" results [Schneider and Stroinski 1987, Tables 3-2, 5-3 to 5-5, pp. 56-57, 119-123]. Herbert and Das [1994, p. 405] apparently regard all the bacterial assay methods as being less reliable than differential radioassay; also see Herbert et al. [1984] and Herbert [1988] for related information. Additionally, the data obtained in Albert et al. [1980] comes from isolated bacterial cultures. Therefore, it is unclear whether the bacteria would produce similar amounts of B-12 under the conditions present in the intestines. This point is discussed in Albert et al. [1980], but is sometimes ignored by dietary advocates with an ideological interest in minimizing the requirement for B-12 in the diet. The bottom line in the paper of Albert et al. [1980] is that it shows certain intestinal bacteria might produce B-12, but it is unclear whether/how much might be produced (and absorbed) under actual conditions in the small intestine."

The last paragraph contain only straight propaganda from 2 MD personal pages contradicting the necesity of the vitamin, without any reference to reliable sources.

The editor was also part of a dispute on the Vitamin_B12 article http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Vitamin_B12#POV_issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaiam (talk • contribs) 20:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Mihaiam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -This user significantly lacks knowledge in this field. He claims, "The last paragraph contain only straight propaganda from 2 MD personal pages contradicting the necesity of the vitamin, without any reference to reliable sources.", and I ask what factors prove that they are propagandist (a tremendously derogatory remark against living people) apart from Mihaiam's own predilections? The fact is Neither plants nor animals are independently capable of constructing vitamin B12. Only bacteria have the enzymes required for its synthesis. The total synthesis of B12 was reported by Robert Burns Woodward. and Albert Eschenmoser in 1972,

Algae acquire vitamin B12 through a symbiotic relationship with bacteria.

Individually, algae and bacteria make interesting organisms to study. Bacteria are organisms that can be found living in a range of different environments. Besides being organisms capable of causing disease in humans, they are also vital to the cycling of nutrients within the environment. Algae are organisms capable of fixing carbon through photosynthesis within aquatic systems. At the same time they are important to study because with increased nutrient loads to bodies of water can cause algal blooms, which can lead to eutrophication. This reduces the amount of dissolved oxygen available for use by fish and other aquatic organisms.

Bacteria and algae can coexist within biofilms. Biofilms can help reduce the effects of external factors to produce areas that can allow for growth of specific bacterial populations and make conditions favorable for certain bacterially mediated processes such as denitrification.

NCBI source no1 however, didn't exactly say that B₁₂ is produced by a unicelular alga. It said "A unicellular coccolithophorid alga, Pleurochrysis carterae, contained 125.4 +/- 1.2 microg of vitamin B12 per 100 g dry cell weight of the lyophilized algal cells."

NCBI source no2 didn't in fact contradict M.D. McDougall's claim, "The human gut also contains B₁₂-synthesizing bacteria, living from the mouth to the anus", ncbi source article says,

"In man, physiological amounts of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) are absorbed by the intrinsic factor mediated mechanism exclusively in the ileum."

no study has thus far been able to disprove that "The human gut also contains B12-synthesizing bacteria, living from the mouth to the anus" they just doubted it. I have not found anything concrete that completely falsifies the claim. Yes, a variable to consider is that there are over 400-500 species of bacteria in the average human's colon and these bacteria have not all been delineated. It is plausible that some humans have B12-producing bacteria in significant amounts while other humans do not. Some bacteria in the digestive tract absorb B12 for their own use, further complicating this situation.

Albert et al. (1980) measured B12 production of bacteria in the small intestines of people in India using a Euglena gracilis Z assay. Results were confirmed by an Ochromonas malhamensis assay, which is thought to be specific for active B12. They determined that some active B12 was produced by members of the bacteria genera Klebsiella and Pseudomonas. Further confirmation using chromatography and bioautography showed a molecule with similar properties to cyanocobalamin. Albert et al. speculated that when Indians migrate to the West, their digestive tracts become like those characteristic of people in Western countries: with little or no bacteria in their upper small intestines. An article in Nutrition Reviews (1980) suggested some alternative causes of Indian immigrants to Britain having more B12 deficiency than Indian natives:

In India, water is contaminated with various bacteria, including those from human and animal feces.

The practice of defecating in open fields and lack of proper sewage.

The mode of toilet hygiene where water is used instead of toilet paper.

It should also be noted that B12 deficiency is not uncommon in India (see Table below), especially in lower income, lacto-ovo vegetarians

	Number	Average serum B12	serum B12 < 203	MMA > .26 µmol/l	HCY > 15 µmol/l
Non-VegA Lacto-OvoB	36 27	216	46%	70%	81%C

A - Tended to eat only small amounts of animal products | B - 1 person was vegan | C - A low folate status could have contributed to the high HCY levels7 | HCY - homocysteine | MMA - methyl malonic acid

Iranian Villagers

Halstead et al. reported that some Iranian villagers with very little animal product intake (dairy once a week, meat once a month) had normal B12 levels. None had megaloblastic anemia. Their average B12 level was 411 pg/ml which was quite high considering their diet. The authors speculated this could be because their diets, which were very low in protein, allowed for B12-producing bacteria to ascend into the ileum where the B12 could be absorbed. They also speculated that because they lived among their farm animals and their living areas were littered with feces, they picked up enough B12 through contamination.

Halstead et al.'s 1960 report was in contrast to Wokes et al.'s 1955 report in which numerous British vegans were found to have neurological symptoms of B12 deficiency.

Conclusion

B₁₂ production by bacteria in the small intestine is possible. Some vegans can ward of overt vitamin B₁₂ deficiency, and even mild B₁₂ deficiency by remaining cautious. Now people like mihaiam may choose to doubt all these scientific findings hinging on their favourite anti-vegan blogs.

---

Note

I hope these information helps anybody who is interested.

--DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 02:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your sources don't support the implication you made in your edit, that B12 intake is rarely necessary. Such a suggestion is dangerous to make.

The most likely source of B12 cited in your studies is lifestyle choices, not small intestine production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaiam (talk • contribs) 08:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)