RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500

Talk:Vegetarianism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

Er...vegetarian is considered an eccentricity? Maybe in MacDonalds-heavy North American culture, but it's a huge part of global diet patterns, and even in the advertising-saturated US you can still count vegetarians in the millions. --Kels 16:38, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

  • It is in some quarters. I'd say overall it's fairly mainstream in most of Europe and urban America, but still considered quite odd in rural areas. Hey, there's only so much I can write in one sitting... Anyway, it's very common in south and east Asia, yes, but I know there are quite a few Muslim and Christian authorities who consider it sinful, as well as quite a few Muslims and Jews who consider it the only acceptable way to eat when there is no halal or kosher food available. All in all it's quite complicated. EVDebs 16:57, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, I'm not currently a vegetarian, although I have been in the past. I like vegetarian dishes, and I'd rank some of it pretty high just on culinary value alone. Hard to beat a good couscous. --Kels 17:02, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
A KLT is always good, but for the true connoisseur, only kitten foie gras will do. :P --Robledo 17:33, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
It's not a KLT, but close enough --Kels 18:35, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Dunno about US/Canada but the test for a true vegetarian over here (UK) is to make a bacon sandwich within smellshot, and then consume it with relish (possibly relish out of a bottle). If the target can resist salivating then they are a true vegetarian. Keepon truckin' 14:32, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

Bacon is a vegetable! --Kels 14:36, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
Oink! Oink. Keepon truckin' 14:44, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
Aaaaargh - bacon, the vegetarian's nightmare! Resist! Ressssiiiisssttttt!!! Totnesmartin 16:37, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
Just today I went past a kiosk selling bacon sandwiches. I used the image of huge slabs of slowly, invisibly putrefying flesh untimely ripp'd by force from the still-cooling bodies of the piglets to keep me on the straight and narrow path. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Mmm. My stepson worked for a time at a pork abbatoir; for about 5 years after he told me of the way the animals were treated I was vegan, but it was the smell of a bacon sarnie ina 'greasy spoon caff' that turned me from the ways of righteousness to the dark path. Keep out of my HAIR 17:00, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

Diet for a Small Planet[edit]

I've actually got that on my recipe book shelf, the latter half of the book actually has some good stuff in it. Interesting to note that since the book was published, more research into the vegetarian diet has revealed you didn't have to put your grains and beans at the same meal, just in the same day, so some of the more awkward combinations in the book aren't necessary after all. Good food, though, I use her recipe for hummus (which she uses for filling in her Mid-Eastern Tacos), and the tomato soup recipe is one of the best I've tried. --Kels 14:48, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

Really[edit]

It cannot be denied that, assuming humans can live long & prosper on a veggie diet, it is the only way for the earth's population to be fed. One cow consumes enough vegetable matter in one year to support a family of five but eating one cow will feed said family for less than 1/12th of a year. With 6 billion people on the planet and less than 1 billion supported mainly by animal protein - say no more. Either

a) choice becomes tripartite:
all become veggies;
meat supported proportion decreases (drastically);
a percentage of the world's population's life expectancy diminishes;
b) worldwide birth control.
a third option occurs to me: culling: Darfur style genocide or HIV/AIDS allowed to run riot.

The above paragraphs are unsupported by hard facts but are not far off.

Keep your distance, punk! 17:33, 4 August 2007 (CDT) (5 gins & 2 pints Guinness later)

Given that daily meat intake is a very recent development in the human diet, there's no good reason why it couldn't be cut back. The trouble is convincing people to actually do it. --Kels 17:47, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
I'm not anti-veggie, but I do think some veggie arguments are a bit disingenuous. First, not all land is suitable for cultivation of food for humans. Second are we going to turn the Inuits into vegetarians? Let's ship them a load of rice and cabbage. By getting rid of animals from farming we create a lot of different problems. How do we fertilize the land if there are no animals - petrochemicals? OK green manures can help but that means reducing the turnover from a given patch of land. The reason so many people live on a vegetarian diet is that they can't afford meat. And in many places fish is actually a staple. Although daily meat consumption is a recent development for the majority, humans are omnivores and have enjoyed meat for hundreds of thousands of years. Let's face it we need to reduce our overall numbers but with no major religion advocating radical birth control we may need to cut down on meat consumption. Personally, I pay the extra for organic meat and don't eat it every day. Genghis Khant 18:36, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
I recognize your edit summary. =D
"But people have always eaten people, what else is there to eat? If the Juju hadn't meant for us to eat people, he wouldn't have made us of meat!"
As to meat consumption, humans have consumed meat for that long or longer, but it wasn't common in the diet like it is now, and we're not really built for it. Nor is the planet, seeing what we've done in order to manage that many cattle, for instance (rainforests, water consumption, etc.). I dunno about going vegan, but if people in the more prosperous countries would cut meat consumption by half, that's still a lot of meat, but it would take a lot of the pressure off. --Kels 18:41, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
@GK, fertilizer can come from animals that are not intended to be food - draft animals (!) and critters kept for milk and eggs, etc. The real issue for society at large is not a meat/veg dichotomy, so much as "how much meat?". A little goes a long way, whether it's a small amount in most meals or the occasional treat. Also, there is the issue of exactly how some "meat products" are prepared - grass fed cow is much easier on the environment that the corn-fattened version America has fallen in love with (cows don;t digest corn well and fart a lot, contributing to GW, as well!). Free range chickens are good (awesome eggs, too!), and there is the ubiquitous goat, on which I hear there is some good eating... humanUser talk:Human 12:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)


Kels: That's simply wrong: Paleolithic humans depended heavily on meat. It was simply a very compact and effective energy source, necessary for large mammals with energy-hungry big brains. Worse even, it is often pointed out that after the transition to agriculture, human diet impaired considerably and agriculturalists were a lot unhealthier, to the point of malnourishment, than their foraging ancestors. (Brian Hayden has developped the idea that agriculture essentially started with big neighbourhood bring-your-own-food BBQ parties involving liberal amounts of beer, the "Feast Theory", so agriculture didn't start as a reaction to climate changes and famines but simply fun, though this seems to conflict with the observation of the deterioration of dietary habits and health, but then, supplementary hunting would have been the obvious solution. I have no idea what exactly was going on back then, but one thing is certain: giving up meat wasn't such a brilliant idea after all.)
(A gem I picked up from German Wikipedia: Perhaps the oldest hunting method involved simply running after the game until it collapsed of exhaustion. Even earlier, humans depended on scavenging, which is, of course, entirely unproblematic from an ethical and environmental point of view.)
Also, feeding seven billion humans without meat, keeping in mind that most of the planet's land surface isn't suitable for agriculture, means (even more) intensive, industrial-scale agriculture and having to turn even more unsuitable arid land into agricultural land using heavy irrigation and fertiliser, plus pesticides, having to get rid of even more forests, depleting, degrading and contaminating the soil even more quickly, leading to even quicker desertification, a nightmare from an ecological point of view: universal vegetarianism, or even veganism, would make things only worse rather than better. Intensive agriculture is no more efficient, sustainable or ecologically sensible than intensive livestock keeping, and certainly it's much, much worse than extensive animal husbandry, which is the absolutely most efficient and sustainable way to use most of the planet's surface for human subsistence. To put it succinctly, "organic" farms absolutely cannot put up with the demand of seven billion vegans, much less vegetarians – they couldn't even come close. So you're stuck with industrial agriculture, which is exactly what environmental vegetarians or vegans oppose. No wonder that some of the more radical vegans fantasise about killing off most of the human population so that they can go back to good old idyllic farming, in harmony with nature and all that, as if it's 8000 BC all over again.
Effectively, if you do away with (effectively outlaw) any sort of livestock keeping and hunting and undo the Green Revolution (which is what all this boils down to), which allowed human population to grow so unprecedentedly, you're facing (apart from the problems arising out of all the uncontrollably multiplying grazing animals with no predators around to keep their numbers down) the Malthusian catastrophe, and you have to either commit mass murder on an unprecedented scale (there's some utterly ugly racism lurking here) – which I can't imagine how to do in practice – or let billions of people die miserably out of hunger. Not sure which is worse.
Of course, you can simply decide for yourself that you don't want to consume all that (allegedly) horribly ineffective meat or even animal products in general (which is more consistent), but you shouldn't fool yourself into thinking that you could make any big difference, unless you can persuade a majority of the planet's population to go veggie, which you won't.
Bottom line is that we just have to put up with killing animals (and sensibly, eating them too or making other use of their corpses), even if it's not nice to think about, at least in the case of "cute" animals, especially mammals and birds. Vegetarians tend to get a lot less riled up about fish and invertebrates especially, for some curious reason, not to mention microscopic animals. Phylum/class-ism? Also, I've often seen veggies refer to only animals as living beings, while conveniently ignoring that plants and mushrooms (fungi are very closely related to animals, by the way) are alive too and have to be brutally murdered only so that you have something to eat. In case you're going to brush this off by "oh well, plants are much more primitive and don't feel pain", check Wikipedia's articles on "plant perception", "plant neurobiology" and "plant intelligence". I'm not joking. What I'm seeing here is, well, regnum-ism. Plants can't scream, defend themselves or run away, so it's OK to kill them. And if you think they can't feel pain or at least be aware of distress/emergency/life-threatening situations (and sometimes actually do defend themselves against herbivors by releasing toxins, so it's clear that plants have an actual interest not to get eaten whether wholly or in part, as in their leaves), think and again and research plant communication. Those heads of cabbage (which aren't at all dead yet; it's more like lobsters in tanks in restaurants) in the supermarket probably sense and communicate more distress than you could ever imagine greenery doing. If you accept that lobsters and octopuses should not be killed and eaten because there is a possibility that they might feel pain, but don't give a second thought about killing and eating plants, you're being utterly hypocritical, because just because a living being is so different from you that you can't empathise with it or compare your idea of "pain" to something analogous it might conceivably have (and while plants may have no awareness, they can certainly sense attacks and have self-preservation instincts), you can't simply treat it as fundamentally different. Where do you draw the line? Is the criterion "presence of pain receptors (more correctly nociceptors)"? It's totally arbitrary to make all that fuss about animals as different from you as crustaceans are (and even for animals that are much more similar to us, it's very hard to be sure about what they feel), but refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of suffering in more "alien" life forms.
Oh, there's the magic trick of "inevitability", but it's a quite cheap cop-out as virtually everything can be excused that way. Face it, ethical vegetarianism is far less rational than you think it is, and driven by naïve and very questionable assumptions that people never think properly through (not saying that the idea that "it is healthier", despite its apparent obviousness, fares a lot better, either, if you really investigate it). It's just a refusal to accept the fact that whatever you do, you are part of the problem of overpopulation as long as you consume resources. There's a lot of truth to the old snark: "Save the planet – kill yourself!" --84.151.185.90 (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
It's sad that so many people actually equate plants (no brain) with animals (brain). Absurdity of plant pain--KreJ (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
That's just handwaving the issue away without actually answering it and your link is to someone's blog, not to any actual evidence.— Unsigned, by: 82.14.21.167 / talk / contribs 09:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It's sad that so many people actually equate animals with brains and equate brains with intelligence, especially when numerous species of animals do not even have brains and multiple animals have brains that are so primitive that they cannot detect when they are being boiled alive (lobsters) or are primitive enough that most actions are handled exclusively by the nervous system (frogs). Crow7878 (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
According to you, can cats and dogs feel pain?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 15:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about the environmental stuff, but the appeal to nature ("Meat is a natural part of the human diet") and the claim that plants can feel pain just like animals don't seem very convincing. OK, so maybe thousands of years ago "Human diet impaired considerably and agriculturalists were a lot unhealthier, to the point of malnourishment, than their foraging ancestors," but that was then. Now, we have access to not only synthetic supplements to provide any vitamins/whatever that might be deficient in a meat-free diet, but also a much wider variety of (nutrient-containing) foods than before. If you're going to argue that vegetarianism is unhealthy, it would make much more sense to cite medical studies rather than archaeological finds.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 14:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Which ignores the very valid points made that the earth's ecosystem simply could not support mass vegetarianism/veganism. — Unsigned, by: 82.14.21.167 / talk / contribs 09:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"... closely associated in many minds with a politically liberal mindset. As a result, many restaurants in the US do not make any special effort..."[edit]

Not that I disagree, but do you have some sort of evidence to back up the cause-and-effect relationship described in this part? PFoster 22:37, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Yea, wheres you evidence? Elassint Throw things at me

Insect parts and rodent hairs[edit]

I had a biology professor who theorized that vegetarians avoid deficiencies in certain vitamins, minerals and trace elements by virtue of the fact that they consume a significant quantity of insect parts and rodent hairs in grains and other vegetarian foods - such as an "Average of 4 or more rodent hairs per 100 grams of apple butter" legally permitted by the [FDA]. Rational Edevidence 11:28, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Apple butter? SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:32, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
They make it up the road from me where there's a large apple orchard. A spread made from pureed cooked apple and cinnamon. Wonderful on toast. BTW, looking through the document I linked to above, I was struck by the following that is allowed in frozen broccoli: "Average of 60 or more aphids and/or thrips and/or mites per 100 grams". Rational Edevidence 11:36, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
When I left school (1962) my first job was at Thorntons (of chocolate & toffee fame for the Brits among us) I always used to joke (?) that the crunchy bits were cockroaches. (The building was v old & there were a lot of roaches around) SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Hehe, I remember back when I used to read my parents' Consumer Reports, and they judged how "clean" the jam factories (etc.) were by the amount of insect residue in the product. At least insects aren't poisonous, I'd rather be eating "Crunchy Cockroach and Cranberry" jam than "Salmonella and Strawberry" preserves. I never got a straight answer from any veggies or vegans I've known on the insect issue, by the way. humanUser talk:Human 12:08, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Out of sight, out of mind. Rational Edevidence 12:13, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
I do believe that some Hindu sects disallow eating after dark, so you don't eat insects accidentally. Although I would imagine that the thought of partial and/or miniscule insects never entered into the thinking. --Kels 16:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
The little bits are due to processing facilities never being able to be 100% "clean". Ironically, the rat hairs and poop in processed food ought to make a vegan feel better - it means the l'il ole Rattus rattus are being fed well. ;) humanUser talk:Human 13:55, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Meat eaters fart more?[edit]

Is this for real? Meat-eaters individually emit 1.5 more tons of emissions a year than vegetarians or vegans? I'm afraid I'm not going to buy that considering the effects of such foods as beans and cabbage. Rational Edevidence 16:09, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I think that it's to do with the quantity of gases produced in the production of the foods - not the amount emitted from the eater's own orifices. --Bobbing up 16:21, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, the wording is incorrect in both the original and as copied to this article. Those who eat meat don't emit more gases. Production and transportation of the meat they eat involved a greater emission of greenhouse gases - which includes production of the grain the animals are fed. They are factoring in the fuel used to plow fields, produce fertilizer, harvest crops, etc.Rational Edevidence 22:09, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
OK, I've expanded the CNN quote to: "Going vegetarian, or vegan, therefore is being increasingly suggested as one of the best ways to slash our carbon contributions. A University of Chicago study found, for example that meat-eaters individually emit 1.5 more tons of emissions a year than vegetarians or vegans; and according to the OCA, it takes 8 times as many fossil fuels to produce animal protein than their plant equivalent."--Bobbing up 03:17, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Of course, that takes into account local production vs import? For example, having salmon in the pacific northwest (not this season) or beef from the free range local ranch, or even venison from one of the deer herds in the area compared to eating out of season fruits and vegetables that have been imported from another continent. Right? I can give you the average carnivore who buys a McDonald's quarter pounder - but not the person who gets their food as localy as possible (and that goes for vegetarians too - things like tomattos in California from Flordia? Is that less carbon than market squid caught off the coast?) Think global - eat local. --Shagie 03:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
I understand these calculations are based on the idea of the amount of protein produced by an equivalent amount of farmed land including the fertilizer, water, energy input and whatever. That is, under these circumstances it takes eight times more energy resource in general to produce meat than plants in terms of what actually leaves the farm gate. In countries with intensive farming, such as the UK and most of Europe using farmed land makes a good comparison. I am not sure how you would make the appropriate comparison for shooting a wild deer and eating it - however I have my doubts that game animals make up a significant proportion of the average meat-eater's diet. As far as the international energy transport cost for vegetables, I'm not sure. But these costs would need to be pretty exorbitant to make up for the starting eight to one deficit. Notwithstanding this, I of course agree that one should buy as locally as possible. (Finally, perhaps I should mention that I am not a vegetarian, though I think they make a good greenhouse warming argument.)--Bobbing up 14:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, they hold up whether one is a localvore or not. Long distance meat = 8x long distance plant; local meat still = 8x local plant. (Even if they are free range deer/chickens/squirrels, they consume more resources from the environment. Although, the squirrel are yummy when popped.) humanUser talk:Human 16:59, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

An LT without the B?[edit]

An LT is lousy without the B. Can someone explain to me how bacon can be soooo delicious if we are not supposed to eat it? In either of the best known models (evolution and creation) does it make any sense? Of course not. And if you get the chance to eat sausages from wild swine, that would be QED for you. Those dangerous creatures (i have bow-hunting friends) have no idea how tasty they are. Not to mention almost no grease -- definitely less than 10% of that of store sausage.

-- RemBeau 09:25, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

See fun:delicious. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:51, 15 January 2009 (EST)

a number of points[edit]

1) "Flexitarian" is a made up term for people who only eat meat when they feel like it. To me that sounds like a hip new word for "the average diet for most people in the world." It is not vegetarian, nor are anything involving fish or chicken. You simply cannot by any stretch of the imagination consider yourself a vegetarian if you're eating animals. The proper term for that would be "somebody who prefers to not eat beef."

  • The fact remains that there is in fact a term for it. So we use it. EVDebs 03:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

2) You've obviously missed the science over at CP:

"Most non-religious vegetarians are college students or teenagers, for whom the vegeterianism is usually a short-lived fad or mode of rebellion from their parents and other adults. Once their idealism becomes tempered with maturity, they often return to eating meat."

If that's not a well-reasoned argument, I don't know what is.

  • You're right -- you don't know what is. It's a pretty useless thing to generalize about. And frankly i wouldn't even trust a weather report from CP.

3) I would go so far as to say that there is no woo to a good percentage of peoples reasoning to go vegetarian. Mine isn't based on new-age quackery or religious crap or anything like that. I just think that eating meat is weird. If you can live a healthy life without eating animals, then eating animals becomes a choice, and canine teeth or not it's really just a matter of preference.

  • I'm pretty sure the article addresses this. Vegetarianism itself is not woo; it states that explicitly. EVDebs 03:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Meat Wheat is Murder[edit]

My hero Maddox debunks those PETA people who think eating meat is unethical simply because it kills animals. The Goonie 1 02:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Like that's a genius leap of logic. There may be other reasons... and tagging PETA (who do embarrass themselves, of course) with a straw man (the only reason eating meat is unethical...) is lame. Oh, and I went to your link out of curiosity. Was not curious enough after cartoon to keep reading. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but I only target people, like PETA, who claim meat is murder. As a former (but never really devout) Buddhist, I fully understand there are other reasons for being a vegetarian. I was once one simply for the purpose of losing weight. So, yeah, I wasn't targeting ALL vegetarians.The Goonie 1 04:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Why do you hate vegetarians? "Meat-hating fascists"? WTF? --90.179.235.249 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, animals must be fed, so you have to grow plants in any case.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, someone replied to a post of mine from over a year ago. Amazing. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 19:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

True vegetarianism not possible[edit]

What is the source for this? While it is likely that insects are present, this seems far too much.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I found it, it's above that. But these are legal limits, the average will be lower.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If you're lucky, yes. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Irony[edit]

This made me think...it's an issue we don't address anywhere. According to Google, cats are definitely carnivores, and dogs can eat vegetarian but they won't live as long as dogs with a balanced, normal canine diet.

Furthermore, PETA members that have cats are therefore almost automatically hypocrites (in addition to being mostly insufferable)...and if they have a dog, they are likely being cruel to the dog by not giving it the proper nutrition! And if they have other pets that ARE naturally herbivorous (rabbits, hamsters, chinchillas, etc)...how do they justify keeping it in a cage? -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The official platform of PETA is vehemently anti-pet ownership. They compare it to slavery, etc. Animals adopted by PETA from shelters, or those given to PETA are typically euthanized. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 18:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yup, I doubt there are many owners of carnivorous pets who believe all "meat is murder", although there are many who oppose human consumption of meat. I'd also like to point out that "according to Google" is one of the dumbest phrases in modern parlance. You might as well say "internet says" or just "it is written"; it's about as specific. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Your description of saying "According to Google" was exactly the type of FIIK uncertainty I was trying to convey. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, so if they say meat is murder, and animals are our peers, why are animals not held on trial for murder? Not anti-vegetarian, just anti-bad-logic.±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 19:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Peta types freak me out. the whole "adopt pets with the intent to euthanize them" is just sick and wrong. How is a dead animal (even if it's a slave) better than a living one. In Colorado, it is animal abuse to feed a cat or dog an exclusively vegetarian diet. Green mowse.pngGodotQu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons 19:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Knight: who said animals were our peers? I don't think even PETA makes that assertion.--ADtalkModerator 22:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

External link[edit]

The article linked in the External Links section ("Richard Carrier debunks common arguments in favour of vegetarianism, veganism and animal rights") is complete crap - whether you're a meat eater or not it's easy to see that it's full of bullshit arguments, willful ignorance and opinion masquerading as truth. "But it’s irrational to say “we should just get rid of it,” and doubly irrational to think you’re ever going to get rid of it, and triply irrational to think that a meaningless protest behavior (not eating meat) is ever going to make one whit of difference to anything." There's so much wrong with that statement and the rest of the article is not much better. I say we remove the link.

Your criticism of the article is very weak. I don't accept your assertions. Brianpansky (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Medical Vegetarianism - raw food enzymes[edit]

The article states:

the idea that raw foods are healthier for the human body due to the presence of more active enzymes. In practice, these enzymes, having evolved to work in a plant environment, do little or nothing in the human body, and are also destroyed in the digestion process.

Which is utter unsubstantiated bullshit. For example, the proteolythic enzyme bromelain (pineapples) has been shown here and here to be absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract in a functionally intact form in significant amounts. Approximately 40% of labeled bromelain is absorbed from intestine in high molecular form. Bromelain was also detected to retain its proteolytic activity in plasma. You may dislike raw veggies but that doesn't entitle you to deny the proven benefits.106.187.37.189 (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Regarding the statement:

cooking and other forms of processing actually destroys significant amounts of toxins ... and lectins in legumes...

the author should be informed that nobody actually eats dry legumes raw (!) and that simple soaking destroys both protease inhibitors and lectins. It would be appreciated if contributors knew what they write about.106.187.37.189 (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't say how much was removed, could be 100% or .1% since the study doesn't tell you. You are reading what you want to into this study. The other is a straight view if the raw concentrated chemical is absorbed (nearly zero but a little from your studies), coming from pineapple STEMS (which I don't eat), which has zero scientific research supporting it for anything useful. Pharma companies have investigated it because it had a possibility to be used as a medicine...as well as patented and sold to great profit. They wasted their money and dropped it. Makes a great marinade, but take a bit of time to read what you are citing. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Vegetarian diets by foods allowed[edit]

Perhaps it should be made clearer that vegetarians do eat honey (rather than just vegans not eating it).

There is also 'practical vegetarianism' - unless it states it is not vegetarian (including E120), it is assumed that it is (ie the vegetarian end of Flexitarian). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

For everyone who is vegetarian there is a different version of what they practice. I am not sure cataloging every variation of foods people eat is extremely productive. I might be incorrect, but just leave people to eat what they wish and there can be a basic definition of what it is. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
As vegans not eating honey does not necessarily mean that vegetarians do, it should be made more explicit. (E120 is 'crushed insects' if anybody is interested). And every time we breathe/swallow sea water we consume 'what can be defined as animal life.'
Chaque a son gout as they say. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Minute definitions of small movements like that are perfect at Wikipedia and does not fit the mission well of RW.
Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes: (copied from front page - added)
1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
Wikipedia would be a better location for that since it's within their mission, and gets more exposure. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Basically 'persons not eating some or several combinations of fish, flesh, fowl and other fauna' (not being part of the allergic population) can be divided into three groups - those who are cooperative/do not impose on others/assume it is unless it obviously isn't ('social flexitarianism/practical vegetarianism'); the passive-aggressive-suffering for friendship; and those who are at various points on the (more widely applicable) activist equivalent of the Scoville scale.

My point was for a mere tweaking of the description. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems like some pretty broad stereotypes based on your opinion. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Or, more succinctly, 'I am a flexitarian at the vegetarian end of the scale, you are sulking, he/she is a Scoville-scale-equivalent activist.' (And stereotypes can be useful.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
More succinctly, those scales are just your opinion. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
An irregular verb - and a spoonful of honey makes the discussion go round :)

Those of the non-fauna-consuming persuasions who 'live and let live/have their quirks' are not the subject of RW: those who are 'do it this way or you are doomed, I tell you, doomed'/go in for crackpot theories are. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Vegetarianism may be possible for the well to do and in warmer climes but...[edit]

There are a number of places in the world where vegetarianism has historically not been possible because of lack of digestible plants. If the sole crop is grass, you need an animal to make it digestible. Hence the correlation between cool climates and meat eating. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There's few places where no other plant grows apart from grass (much of what is now grassland in NW Europe was formerly home to a far wider ecosystem; in many places peasant farmers would once have had little meat; while in other areas such as Australia natives survived without livestock). Hardy cereals such as barley, certain vegetables, and perennial shrubs and trees are all possible depending on local conditions; plus seaweed; even grass can be consumed by people, although it's not ideal as human food (hard to chew and digest)[1]. Certainly in some areas it's far more economical to rear meat than grow vegetables, and it may cause less damage to the landscape to let sheep roam than conventional arable farming. But e.g. the popularisation of the potato transformed agriculture in parts of NW Europe where previously livestock would have been the main option, and if we did want to move away from rearing animals, there are doubtless other crops. Annquin (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Carnivorous plants[edit]

Are they consumable by vegetarians? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There's not a central authority that tells vegetarians what to eat, and a vast amount of variation about what vegetarians will or won't eat, so your question is probably unanswerable. Except to say that in general nobody seems to eat carnivorous plants, and they're not viable food crops (in general; it's much harder to feed an insectivore than something that eats chemical fertiliser). It's also worth noting that some plants eat animal products such as feces (which would make them vegetarian but not vegan)[2] while some fungi and possibly some (pitcher) plants "eat" dead animals but don't kill them. Annquin (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
One can eat wild plants ('though some are only edible once') - and there is at least a perceptual difference between 'plants that make use of animal byproducts (including carbon dioxide)' - being vegetarian and 'plants that actively consume insects' (and figs probably come into the argument somewhere). Sometimes 'opinions have been expressed' (and some foods have a high squick factor - how many non-vegetarians find 'E120 is crushed insects' slightly offputting?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Learned from a Vegan[edit]

I guess eggs are dairy? — Unsigned, by: 170.185.147.17 / talk / contribs

Not in the literal sense, but they're often in the dairy section of a grocery store, and fit similarly to Vegan moral precepts. Being technically correct offers little value if the intention is clear. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
According to the USDA, eggs are not diary, but rather part of the "protein foods group". Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Remember - seeds are plant eggs (especially from egg plants). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I would imagine that different vegans will have different ideas about whether or not eggs are acceptable. But they are the ones who label themselves so its going to be down to them.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Wow, what if the title of this page were a term for a person who like vegans, didn't eat meat, but did eat eggs. Crazy if there's a word specifically for this. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Ovi-veganism? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)