Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

IQ

The IQ stuff just seems gratuitous. This is peripheral, tendentious, and not meaningful. It's sort of a form of bigotry these days to claim people you don't like have lower IQs. Can we agree that both vegetarians and omnivores have perfectly adequate IQs and be done with it? Or maybe we could add a study about comparitive penis size between the two groups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.217.119.185 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2008

Ha, yeah as long as you get the basic nutriants and shit, it doesn't matter where you get it from and both vegetarians, meat eaters or people who eat a mix of the both are average people, IQ has other factors that it gets affected by, not food. 68.45.219.63 (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The IQ study is about the greater likelihood of children with higher IQs growing up to be vegetarians, not the other way around (vegetarianism giving one a higher IQ). Regardless, it doesn't appear to be described in this article anymore. -kotra (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a pretty big problem with any study that says someone with a higher IQ is more likely to do this or that. It has been shown over and over again that people with higher IQs are more critical thinkers and therefore more apt to try or do something that isn't considered "normal". One famous study of cult members showed that almost all the members had higher than average IQs. It showed that people with higher IQs have the ability to consider abstract ideas, including the ideology of cults, whereas people with lower IQs cannot comprehend something that isn't a norm in the society. It would completely make sense that people with higher IQs would be among the most likely to consider a diet that isn't the norm within their society. People with higher IQs are more able to "think outside the box" which allows them to consider choices that people with lower IQs can't (or won't). Whether or not the choices those with higher IQs make is — in the long run — the wisest choice is completely another matter. Point being, just because a person with a higher IQ makes a certain choice, doesn't necessarily mean it is the *right* choice, as proved by the plethora of people with higher IQs involved in destructive cults. I suppose it would be difficult to add that disclaimer with any study that showed people with higher IQs end up being vegetarians, but some mention seems appropriate. Supertheman ^(talk) 23:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article seems very POV in favor of vegitarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.224.146 (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? -kotra (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, for one, it says that it has only a little less protein than a diet without meat, which isn't true. Vegie diets have much less protein than diets with meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.224.146 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

True, the current wording — "Protein intake in vegetarian and vegan diets is only slightly lower than in meat diets" — is certainly too general, because there are many different vegetarian diets, some which are certainly lacking in protein. However, your own blanket statement, that vegetarian diets have much less protein than diets with meat, is certainly no better, and in fact much more misleading, giving the false impression that protein is a serious problem for vegetarian diets. Which it isn't. Or perhaps you can substantiate your claim?

Or perhaps you could give us other examples of POV in the article?

David Olivier (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but the article itself makes it sound like a vegitarian diet is the most healthy diet there is, and it isn't. If you compare three people, someone who eats nothing but meat, a vegitarian, and someone who balances both, the one who balances both is the healthiest of the three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.58.143 (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you are going to have show some sources for that if you want people to believe it. Personally, my diet has plenty of protein in it without meat, but it takes work. You can't just eat cheese pizzas all day and expect to be healthy. --134.131.125.50 (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article makes it sound like a vegetarian diet is the most healthy diet there is. Whenever it mentions the pros (and cons) of vegetarian diets healthwise (i.e. for the health of the eater, rather than that of the chicken), the term of comparison is the currently standard diet, which contains a lot of meat. There is no mention of “all” diets. If I say “walking is good for you”, I'm not stating that walking is the absolute best thing that you ever can do for your health. Any other objections? David Olivier (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Insects

Insects also must be excluded from the diet I believe? It should be mentioned in the article because many non-vegetarians consume them on a daily basis (see carmine for example). --V111P (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I had also thought of whether some vegetarians think of insects as meat. But whether or not some do, no doubt that insects are living creatures, thus what we call true vegetarians would be against eating them. As a vegetarian, I certainly do not eat anything that is or was once living (unless you feel that lettuce and the like should count). But insects never truly come to my mind when thinking about eating (except for now, and it was more of a passing thought before).

I really do not feel that insects need to be mentioned in the lead of this article. No offense to anyone, but I feel that that is a non-issue and would only make the lead a little weird to some people, I'm sure. I'm not opposed to a section about insect-eating and how vegetarianism excludes it, though. But is insect-eating really a valid concern of vegetarian societies? I have researched a lot on vegetarianism over the years, but am unsure about that one. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean, insects are animals. Saying they're "living creatures" isn't helpful since plants are living creatures too. As for insects, I imagine it's a non-issue in the West, since even meat-eaters virtually never eat insects. It might be an issue in Africa, India, China, and Southeast Asia though. One would have to look for sources dealing with those areas rather than just Britain, Europe, and North America. —Angr 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't mean insects are animals. I cannot imagine many calling them animals (even though, technically, they are). I used the wording "living creatures" because most people do when referring to vegetarianism. Notice that in parentheses I stated unless you feel that lettuce and the like should count. I still don't feel that insects should be in the lead of this article. And, again, I'm not against a section on insects in this article...if valid references can be found showing them as an issue in regards to vegetarianism. Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some sources from vegsoc.org: google search for "Cochineal" at vegsoc.org. --V111P (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, searching for "cochineal" is a good idea; that's one of the few ways in which Westerners do (unwittingly) eat insects. Flyer, for purposes of this article, we need to stick to biological definitions, not your gut feelings, and biologically insects are animals and lettuce (before it's cut) is living. I do agree there's no particular need to put insects into the lead, unless it turns out that the non-consumption of insects is a significant issue for non-Western vegetarians. —Angr 05:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When do you ever hear a person refer to a cockroach as an animal? That's my point. And I'm not disagreeing with you about lettuce being or having been living, which is why I sometimes smirk when a vegetarian says, "I don't eat anything that was living." Some get around that by saying they don't anything with a face or that has had a face. As I stated, I used the wording "living creatures" because most people, when they think of "living creatures"...do not think of lettuce or plants in general in that sense. As for whether or not to put insects into the lead, apparently you and I are also in agreement about that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone were to ask me if a cockroach is an animal, I'd say yes. But if I were a stricter vegetarian than I am, I'd just say I don't eat anything belonging to the kingdom Animalia. —Angr 05:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, besides the ick factor some people have about eating insects, I do not know why a vegetarian would be against eating them when most vegetarians (at least from what I have seen) are not against killing them. For a lot of vegetarians, it is about not directly taking a life, even though eating plants is, well, taking lives. So it seems to be more about the level of intelligence the life being taken has. I'm not saying cockroaches are never intelligent, but many vegetarians feel the same way about them as most people do -- that cockroaches are pests; they get rid of them in the same way society often does -- by killing them.

The other thing about vegetarianism is not wanting to eat something that has felt or can actually feel pain. Thus, I suppose if cockroaches can feel pain, that, besides the ick factor for some, is the main reason they would not eat them.

Personally, as I noted on your talk page, I became a vegetarian more so due to hearing that it was/is possibly a healthier diet than eating meat. That, and it just stuck when I did become one; I got used to not eating meat and realized that I did not need meat to mostly have delicious food. So either way, I have never been on the "it is wrong to eat meat" bandwagon, and that is sometimes what I mean when I say "elitists vegetarians" (it was not just about that regarding fish consumption, though, seeing as some people really do not see fish as meat and vegetarianism has been defined as including fish in some valid sources). It is just that I am not often preaching to people about vegetarianism being better and how meat-eaters, like my family, are wrong or whatever. I usually do not mean any offense to vegetarians who became vegetarians due to what they perceive as being morally right or wrong.

I am definitely confused as to whether most vegetarians would preceive eating insects, like cockroaches, as morally wrong/inhumane. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If I ever become a vegetarian, it would be both because of moral reasons and because of the "ick factor" about eating animals. The introduction of the article already talks about shellfish not being allowed, and I don't see why insects should be considered different. I just don't know how to include this information in the article because there is only one insect we know many people in America and Europe consume (cochineal) so it would really be strange to list the general "insects" along with meat, poultry, and fish. It must be mentioned though, because it is important for those vegetarians who would care about that. --V111P (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

From my experience (anecdotal, I'm afraid), I can say that none of the vegetarians I know eat insects and that they all make an effort to avoid cohineal. As for why, I've never asked them, but I suspect that it's because insects are animals and that they can see that. As for whether they assign a sort of moral hierarchy of things to not eat - meat being the most important, then fish, shellfish, then insects, etc. - again i couldn't say. i suspect most of them do.

Given the rarity of insects in European diets (cochineal being the only one, really) I don't think it rates a mention in the lead paragraph. Further down, perhaps.Steve3742 (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But there are cultures where eating insects is common, and some of those cultures also have significant numbers of vegetarians. (I'm think of Southeast Asia in particular.) I think omitting insects merely because Westerners generally don't eat them anyway is an example of systemic bias. —Angr 12:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And do the vegetarians in those insect-eating countries eat insects? Is it the same sort of problem for them as fish is with us?

If there are large numbers of vegetarians in insect-eating coutries, perhaps it should go in the lead. Add a sentence onto the end of the first paragraph, perhaps? We could also mention that vegetarians usually avoid animal products such as gelatine there.Steve3742 (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what we need reliable sources to find out, but I'm pretty sure they don't. Ahimsa is supposed to extend to insects and even to bacteria. —Angr 13:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I still find it weird to include insects in the lead when a lot of vegetarians have no problem stomping on a cockroach, unless we are saying that cockroaches are okay to kill, but killing pretty insects like butterflies is horrible, mainly because butterflies are pretty and do not typically invade our homes. I mean, I doubt that stomping on cockroaches is just a Westerner thing. It is like a vegetarian saying that they do not eat meat...but then going out and hunting animals (creatures we typically think of as animals) for sport. I wonder if there are really any vegetarians like that, who object to eating meat...but will go out and hunt an animal "for fun" or whatever. With fish, while that involves killing, there are people who do not see fish as meat (as stated enough times now) or even as an animal (I suppose), and are often not involved in having killed the fish themselves (not that that makes too much difference; though in the case of eating a slaughtered chicken's eggs, it often seems to).

But, still, like has been said...if there are reliable sources showing that insect-eating is a significant problem for vegetarians, then a mention in the lead is only fair. Flyer22 (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All vegetarians I have come across at least acknowledge that killing cockroaches or ants is a problem. On the French Yahoo! mailing list vegetarien_fr there are regularly discussions about non-cruel ways to solve problems posed by ants, for instance. True, vegetarians generally still walk on the grass and that certainly means killing insects, spiders, etc. Vegetarians are not perfect, but it is simply untrue to say that vegetarians generally just don't care about insects.

Insofar as vegetarianism means refusing to eat sentient beings, and insofar as insects and other bugs are, or at least may be, sentient, it seems clear to me that vegetarianism implies not eating insects either. Now no one is a "perfect" vegetarian, and there will always be some midgets caught on the lettuce we eat. That doesn't change the basic principle.

David Olivier (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just that I see vegetarians swat at flies, just like anyone else (not that they are all trying to kill them). I suppose I should not generalize in this case, though. I mean, vegetarians who did not become vegetarians for moral reasons are probably the most likely type of vegetarians to stomp on a cockroach without at all feeling that they were/are wrong for doing so. But again, I probably should not generalize in this case.

And, LOL, David Olivier, where you say "there will always be some midgets caught on the lettuce we eat". Too funny...and true!! Goodness knows how I doublecheck to make sure that I have thoroughly washed the lettuce I am about to eat or serve to anyone else; not because of any moral stance, though, but rather due to preferring not to eat insects. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Since insects are not kosher, observant Jews have to be very careful about washing the vegetables they eat to make sure they don't get any uninvited guests on their lettuce and spinach. —Angr 20:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a side-note, most people, including many vegetarians, do not consider insects to be sentient (based on the simplicity of their nervous system). They are, however, still animals, therefore by definition they are not part of a vegetarian diet (at least, not intentionally). -kotra (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I also want to mention that, concerning this article, it doesn't really matter whether or not vegetarians kill insects or not. It's about whether they eat them. We humans kill each other all the time, but eating each other is extremely rare. -kotra (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I stated what I did about killing insects because a lot of vegetarians are vegetarians due to the fact that they feel that killing animals for food is wrong when you have other options available. In fact, some would say that most vegetarians feel that way. If you ask a vegetarian why they are one, they are more likely to state that they are a vegetarian because they do not feel that animals should have to die so that they can eat; it's all based on not taking that animal's life. Thus, yes, I found/find it ironic that some vegetarians would be so against eating insects but not against killing them. It seemed only natural for me to bring that up. Flyer22 (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article lists 7 reasons for becomming vegetarian, so I think that it is OR to assume that most are vegetarian to avoid killing. My impression is that more vegetarians are concerned about their health or religion than killing animals, but I don't have any refs to back that up, but it probably isn't important in terms of the article. You're right that most vegetarians probably don't eat insects, but most non-vegetarians probably don't either.Bob98133 (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just stating what I felt/feel is relevant to this discussion. It's not my merely assuming but rather what I have witnessed, what others have stated, and how most vegetarian organizations are clear in their stance on not killing animals for food when it can be avoided. But I get your point. Flyer22 (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarian food gudie pyramid... included???

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/ntr311/nutinfo/pyramid/vfp.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.192.130 (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

On spelling

To whoever wrote this page on vegetarianism:Do you even know that you spell organization with a "z" not an "s"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.56.172 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 23 September 2008

"Organisation" is correct in British English, which is the variety this article is written in. Please see WP:ENGVAR. —Angr 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In section "Health benefits and concerns", subtopic "Nutrition", there is a typo: "High levels of dietary FIBRE,...", in the last sentence. Could someone please change that? Sharovar (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The comment I made above holds here too. "Fibre" isn't a typo, it's British spelling, which is what this article uses. —Angr 14:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"a variety of vegetarian food ingredients"

I always get a little peeved when I see pictures with captions like this. A "vegetarian food ingredient" is anything that hasn't been made using the processed body of an animal. Isn't it a wee bit obvious that apples are, in fact, not animals? I mean seriously, its so patronizing. If it's an animal, it isn't vegetarian. If it isn't an animal, it's vegetarian. Why must this be explained using an image with examples and a caption? 76.100.63.36 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the photo provides a good illustration of foods a vegetarian may eat. I've commonly encountered the question "well, what on earth do you eat", as if to imply vegetarians have an extremely restrictive diet. On the contrary: there's far more grains, vegetables, fruits, and nuts to choose from than typical types of meat. This picture provides a good example of the kind of variety available to vegetarians, even if it doesn't show everything we eat. --Sylvank (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarian cat food

There seems to be a discussion going on in the edit summaries about whether it is appropriate to include a “see also” link to vegetarian cat food. I think it is appropriate. Ethical vegetarians are divided on the issue of whether we should, in principle, feed vegetarian food to companion animals. Many feel that we should, as a logical consequence of why we are vegetarians ourselves. The issue is also frequently brought up (as a tentative reductio ad absurdum) by opponents to vegetarianism. I think that at least we should leave the link on the page. It would be even better to write a whole section on the issue. David Olivier (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume ethical vegetarians could also say people should not feed dogs and cats vegetarian food, also as a consequence of why they are vegetarians themselves, namely that doing so imposes a human being's will on an animal that is essentially unable to defend itself against the human being. The strictest animal rights proponent ought to offer animal companions a choice of vegetarian and non-vegetarian food and let the animal decide. (My tomcat likes lettuce and French fries, but I doubt he would choose to eat them exclusively.) As for the link, not to mention a separate section in this article on the issue, my original point stands: the hatnote at the top of the page clarifies that this article is about vegetarianism in humans, not in animals. —Angr 10:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The “hatnote” is not Gospel and can be changed. But even as it is, there is plenty of room for interpretation about what should be in an article on vegetarianism as a diet chosen by humans.

You believe that the logic of vegetarianism should lead to allowing cats and dogs the choice to eat animals who don't have the choice to refuse to be eaten; I believe that the logic of vegetarianism is to respect the lives of those who would be eaten over the tastes of those who would eat them. This is not a place to debate that, but just to acknowledge that, as I already noted, vegetarians are divided on the issue, and that it is an issue that is relevant to vegetarianism. It certainly would be worth a section in this article, and probably also a separate article. In the meanwhile, I think that the link should stay.

David Olivier (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying I believe that myself, I was just saying the opposite point of view could also flow from the logic of human vegetarianism. (I personally am a mostly-vegetarian purely for health reasons relating to hyperuricemia and have no ethical qualms about eating animals.) —Angr 13:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why there shouldn't be a link to vegetarian cats. I have read that vegetarians who want their cats or dogs to be vegetarian do so because they don't want to support the meat industry, or they believe it is healthier for their pets. Whatever the reasoning, whether right or wrong, it does seem related enough to deserve a link.Bob98133 (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The reasons for or against vegetarian cat food are irrelevant here, so let's not get into a debate over it. The link is relevant, and probably would be incorporated into a theoretical "perfect article", so while it's not in the article prose now, it belongs in the See also section, as per WP:SEEALSO. -kotra (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

why isn't there a separate criticism section

Hi, I was going to ask this, why isn't the criticism section separate but then I started to read the article called "Health benefits and concerns" and it's just that before and after any "issue" is raise, the writer is making sure the reader "knows" this isn't an issue and that he shouldn't be concerned and as far as I'm concerned the "facts" are severely cherry picked and anything negative is profusely down-rated and dismissed before even acknoledging the issue

take these phrases for example

"Vegetarian diets typically contain similar levels of iron to non-vegetarian diets, but this has lower bioavailability than iron from meat sources,"

the issue is iron deficiency, before we're even told that we're told they have "the same level of iron as non-vegetarian" ok , first it's not called "non-vegetarian" it's called normal alimentation ask any dentist seriously if we're herbivore, carnivore or omnivore, to eat meat is the normality, not the other way around but I'm getting off subject, iron deficiency is a real issue and it's being downplayed here, the message should be "if you're not going to eat meat, then you have to be real careful you get enough of everything your body need, you can't do a month of just salad and apples like you could do a month of just chicken a milk"

the longevity section presents a whole mash-up of studies with the more text going to the most positive ones when the message should be that longevity may be increased by little more than a statistically insignificant amount, also this says nothing of quality of life after a lifetime punctuated with short term deficiencies if various essential nutrients

this article is not even close to neutral, someone who thinks wikipedia shouldn't be a vehicule for propaganda should fix this

72.0.195.194 (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want your remarks to be taken seriously, please attempt to support them with more than just your opinion, and leave out your value judgements about vegetarians being abnormal. David Olivier (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Add to the list of famous vegetarians.... Osho in India!!!

Whoever is able, please add to the list of famous vegetarians from India: Osho (very famous spiritual teacher).

Also, the following famous Indian mystics are all known to be practicing vegetarians: (confirm at www.ivu.org)

Ramana Maharshi

Mahavira (founder of Jainism)

Yogi Bhajan

Jiddu Krishnamurti

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

Paramahansa Yogananda

Swami Satyananda Saraswati

Paramahansa Yogananda

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Xango2001 (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The list is at List of vegetarians, not here. —Angr 16:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

E.Coli Outbreak

Isn't it worth mentioning that the 2006 E.Coli outbreak referenced in the article was organically grown spinach and not subjected to modern day cultivation and processing methods - such as irradiation? Traditionally grown food would have had a significantly lower chance of becoming contaminated with E.Coli.--24.15.235.157 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that this outbreak, although associated with spinach, was caused by run off or contamination from animal agriculture since plants do not normally harbor e.coli, so I don't see that it was a question of organic or traditional plant agriculture that were to blame. I do not believe that irradiation was routinely used on spinach, at least prior to this outbreak. Claiming that this outbreak is related to organic/traditional agriculture would really be OR, unless it can be reliably referenced.Bob98133 (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, why would we add this to the vegetarianism article, which is only tangentially related to organic produce? Djk3 (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)