Repeat after me: - Veganism is not affordable - Veganism is not cruelty free - Veganism is not the best choice for everyone
Repeat after me -I’m an idiot and wrong. -Veganism can be made affordable. -Veganism is fucking cruelty free. That’s what it’s all about. - Veganism is the best choice for everyone, if everyone did it. -I’m a fucking asshole for making this completely wrong text post and should shut the hell up now.
Exploiting undocumented immigrants, and other workers is cruelty free? Nearly 500,000 children as young as six harvest 25 percent of US crops.
But I guess brown people don’t fucking matter.
People are literally starving in South America because all the Quinoa crop is being exported mainly for white vegans who want to live “cruelty-free” but don’t care about brown people as much as they do about animals.
plus, 4 of the 8 most common food allergies (soy, wheat, peanuts, and tree nuts) are common vegan substitutes.
i would literally starve to death if i couldn’t eat cheese or meats because my body cannot process nuts as they are too rough on my intestines and cause inflammation
Veganism is incredibly expensive depending on where you live, mostly if there are no local farms near you. Plant food prices skyrocket, and food deserts exist. Veganism is not even close to cruelty free. You cannot be cruelty free in this country (USA) unless you 100% grow your own food because we use slave labor to pick it. Plus this doesn’t factor in all the harm being caused by the transport of your food, by the truck that carried it around. Veganism is not the best choice for everyone, because some people cannot survive off of a plant based diet. I had tried for a good while, and my chronic illnesses spiked from it. Plus the constant monitoring to make sure I was receiving adequate nutrients triggered my ED to hell and back. Veganism is a great way to start lowering your negative effect on the planet, but that is all it is, a starting place. Your work is not done just because you became vegan and you do not get to throw stones at others because you still live in a glass house. Furthermore - it is absolutely possible to lower your footprint while still consuming animal products - you just have to be selective about what kinds and where they are sourced from. I have a permaculture based garden planned out for when we get land that actually has a smaller footprint than the typical vegan who buys everything at a store does.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually, none of us can survive on a plant-based diet. We cannot manufacture B12, and the so-called “plant-based” sources of B12, it turns out, don’t produce it in a form we can digest.
B12 is found in all animal products.
Additionally, although humans can manufacture taurine (only found in meat), not all of us can manufacture enough taurine. This is why some people get sick when they go vegetarian.
To survive on a vegan diet you need to artificially supplement B12 and possibly taurine. Period.
A diet that requires artificial supplementation is, by definition, unhealthy. And while the cost of vegan B12 supplements is low, when you’re already paying more for your food… Taurine supplementation, if you happen to be one of the people who needs it, is another added expense and hassle. A few vegans have also found it necessary to supplement carnitine, which is considerably more expensive. Oh, and most vegans don’t get enough calcium and end up with bone problems. Many are also Vitamin D deficient, especially if living at high latitudes, if dark skinned, or if religiously using sunscreen. And Vitamin D2 (plant derived) is not as easily absorbed as D3 (which ONLY comes from animals), so you need even more of it.
Then there’s protein.
I personally cannot properly digest nuts. I react the way lactose intolerant people do to milk if I consume pistachios, walnuts, or pecans. Almonds are actively toxic to me. Hazelnuts mess with my brain.
Because I am on thyroid medication, I am not supposed to consume large quantities of soy, as it can make my thyroid worse, throwing off my dosage. I can have some, but I cannot use it as a major protein source. This is also true for trans men (the phytoestrogens intefere with testosterone therapy), cis men with low testosterone (same reason) and women with a family history of breast cancer (elevates risk). Excessive soy consumption has also been linked to early puberty in girls (Again, phytoestrogens) and reproductive/sexual problems in both sexes. Eating a bit of soy is fine, but tofu should not be used as a meat substitute except for the occasional meal.
This limits my access to non-animal proteins to beans and grains. If I was gluten intolerant as well (I’m not, but it’s in my family), it would be a real problem. The only dairy substitute available to me is rice milk (and rice causes many of the same problems environmentally as raising beef).
Oh, but it’s better for the environment, right?
Nope.
In addition to the already-mentioned quinoa, we’re cutting down rain forest in Mexico to grow avocados. Rice production is almost as bad for the environment as factory-based beef production for similar reasons. Also, plant-based foods, esp. fruit and fresh vegetables, are more likely to end up being wasted.
Studies indicate that if we all gave up meat tomorrow, all 7 billion of us gave up animal products forever, the good side would be the reduction in antibiotic use and greenhouse gas emissions.
How about the bad side?
1.3 billion people would lose their jobs overnight. 1.3 billion. 987 of them are poor.
Another thing that Ban Eating Meat Tomorrow types forget is that veganism is not necessarily the most effective use of farmland.
Uh, what?
The statement that if everyone switched to a vegan diet we would need a fraction of our current farmland assumes all farmland is created equal.
It simply is not.
I suspect that a lot of this perspective either comes from city dwellers who have no clue about farming or from people in the US breadbasket where there is a lot of high quality farmland suitable for raising food for humans.
The last global census in 2008 said that at that time, if all 6 billion people went vegan, it would need 3,068,444,911 acres of arable land. At the time there was about 3,212,369,959 acres of arable land: That is to say land suitable for raising crops humans can eat.
However, we’re building on, or otherwise destroying, arable land at the rate of about 1% a year and the population has grown.
We literally do not have enough arable land to feed everyone a plant-based diet.
And there are parts of the world that have a worse proportion of arable land to land only suitable for pasture than the US. Scotland comes immediately to mind. People in these places would have to import most of their food. I’m not sure Iceland could survive without eating fish.
If we all gave up eating meat tomorrow many of us would starve. I’m not exaggerating or being alarmist.
I’m also not criticizing people who choose not to eat animal products (just please make sure you get the required nutrients).
I am criticizing the “I don’t eat animal products and nobody else should either” crowd. Because it’s not that simple.
Also, bluntly, vitamin B12 deficiency can cause mood disturbances and paranoia…
But again, if you have to consume artificial supplements for whatever reason (unless it’s a personal absorption issue) your diet is not healthy.
Sorry, it’s just not.
Reblogging again for added info
Vegan leather is plastic
Vegan fur is plastic
Vegan wool is polyester, which is plastic
Leather, wool and fur are biodegradable. Plastics are overall worse for the environment and don’t go away for hundreds of years.
@thebibliosphere
I’m reblogging this, only because I see some straight up not true things, and I want the myths to go away. I’m not commenting about anything else right now.
This is also true for trans men (the phytoestrogens intefere with testosterone therapy), cis men with low testosterone (same reason) and women with a family history of breast cancer (elevates risk). Excessive soy consumption has also been linked to early puberty in girls (Again, phytoestrogens) and reproductive/sexual problems in both sexes.
This is what is said. And this is what research says:
The results of this meta-analysis indicate that neither soy pro-tein nor isoflavones affect reproductive hormone concentra-tions in men regardless of age or cancer status.
...These results suggest that consumption of soyfoods or isoflavone supplements would not result in the adverse effects associated with lower T levels
More research:
However, the clinical evidence overwhelmingly indicates thatthere is essentially no basis for concern. Isoflavone exposure atlevels even greatly exceeding reasonable dietary intakes does notaffect blood T or estrogen levels in men or sperm and semenparameters.
and everything else
the true effect of such compounds on the pathophysiology of the female genital tract remains unknown. The animal data suggest that the timing of exposure to such compounds is crucial, with neonatal exposure having the most pronounced effects.
For a typical consumer, alarm over soy products is likely unnecessary but so is the belief that a soy-rich diet will alleviate all ills.... . Moderation is likely key and the incorporation of real foods, as opposed to supplements or processed foods to which soy protein is added, is probably essential for maximizing health benefits.
Furthermore, a randomized trial of 224 postmenopausal women showed no significant difference in endometrial thickness or rates of endometrial hyperplasia or cancer in women receiving an isoflavone soy protein supplement compared to placebo-treated women... The rates of hormonal side-effects such as endometrial hyperplasia, endometrial cancer and breast cancer were no higher among phytoestrogen-treated women than placebo-treated women
5 years following treatment there was no association between soy isoflavone levels at diagnosis and either subsequent breast cancer recurrence or mortality in premenopausal women
it was once thought that soy foods increase the risk of breast cancer. However, eating a moderate amount of soy foods does not increase risk of breast cancer — or other types of cancer
Among women with breast cancer, soy food consumption was significantly associated with decreased risk of death and recurrence.
On the other hand:
In summary, our study yielded preliminary findings that exposure to soy products in early infancy may contribute to a small increase in risk of menarche in early adolescence. This study contributes to a growing literature on the potential for endocrine disruptors to affect pubertal onset, making use of a uniquely wide exposure contrast between those who were and were not fed soy products in infancy. However, additional research is needed given the limitations of our study, such as low prevalence of exposure and large loss to follow up in our study sample. Future studies in populations with higher soy formula prevalence, such as in the United States, will be informative.
(I couldn’t find much research about this)
So basically:
This is also true for trans men (the phytoestrogens intefere with testosterone therapy) No studies have been done, but this is unlikely because it doesn’t effect T in cis men, cis men with low testosterone (same reason) Doesn’t affect testosterone and women with a family history of breast cancer (elevates risk) Doesn’t elevate risk. Excessive soy consumption has also been linked to early puberty in girls It might do a little. Needs more research (Again, phytoestrogens) and reproductive/sexual problems in both sexes.
