Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 9

POV (December 2008)

I added a POV template to this article as Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view's rule against undue weight for a particular POV is broken. This article is almost entirely in favor of vegetarians and their lifestyle as the most healthy, ethical, moral, etc etc. All criticisms of any pro-vege statement is removed without due reason or discussion. No criticism section or article fork is present. Sincerely and truly yours, C6541 (T↔C) at 21:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I don't see anywhere that it says a vegetarian lifestyle is the most healthy, ethical, etc. In fact, the edit you made is the only thing that gave that impression to me. As for criticism, all statements need to be reliably sourced, and until now, very little criticism has survived in this article because of that reason (and that reason alone). Often an editor will come along, bring a poorly written, unsourced (and usually scientifically inaccurate) criticism, and it will be removed as such. Then the person complains on the talk page about "pro-vegetarian bias", but how can we solve the problem without addressing specific issues or introducing reliable sources? I'm not claiming this is the route you have taken, but if problems need to be addressed, please be specific. If criticism is needed, please provide reliable sources to back it up. Otherwise it will just be seen as original research. -kotra (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence on “humans, unlike herbivores” not being able to digest cellulose. First, because “humans, unlike herbivores” clearly presupposes that humans are not herbivores; second, because the sources cited do not say that all herbivores break down cellulose. Third, because it is out of place in the flow of the paragraph. David Olivier (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The last two reasons are okay, but there's nothing wrong with presupposing humans are not herbivores, since we aren't. —Angr 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The current text of the article states “Other arguments hold that humans are more anatomically similar to herbivores”. It seems that that implies that the qualification of humans as omnivores or herbivores is disputed. The expression “humans, unlike herbivores” implies that the dispute is settled. I personally believe that the issue of whether humans are herbivores or omnivores or whatever is completely without substance. If those terms are about what humans do in fact eat, then some humans are herbivores, others not. If they are about what “nature” “meant us” to eat, they presuppose an idea of natural teleology, which is a disputed idea at least since Darwin. I don't see any other meaning to the terms. But since the paragraph is there, with the usual arguments pro and con, then let them be stated as they are. David Olivier (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Even the strictest vegan or fruitarian can't digest grass, so whatever we are, it isn't herbivores (= "grass eater"). While I agree it's silly to speculate what nature "intended" us to eat, it can be determined what the earliest humans and pre-human hominids ate, and as far as I know, all the evidence indicates they were omnivores. Even the statement that humans' teeth and digestive tracts are "more similar to herbivores than to carnivores and most omnivores" doesn't imply that humans are herbivores. —Angr 20:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If “herbivore” really meant “grass eater”, there wouldn't be much dispute. In reality, “herbivore” is commonly used as meaning “exclusive plant eater”, the choice being between being a “carnivore”, an “omnivore” and a “herbivore”. The terms are not to be taken as their etymologies would literally imply. Otherwise “omnivore” would mean “who eats everything”; no one eats everything! (Including nails, rocks, human babies, computers, cardboard and... grass!)

Now concerning the ancestors of present-day humans: that they were, in fact, omnivores (= that they did, in fact, eat both animals and plants) is certainly of interest, but doesn't make present-day humans omnivores. Many present-day humans are omnivores, others are herbivores (in the sense that they only eat plants).

You're right that the statement that humans' teeth and digestive tracts are more similar to herbivores than to carnivores and most omnivores doesn't imply that humans are herbivores; but it is often used as if it did, and it seems to be in that sense that it is used in the paragraph.

Now as I said, disputes about whether we are or not herbivores or whatever are in my mind completely irrelevant, and I am not defending that paragraph. It's just that since that paragraph seems to be a discussion on that issue, a sentence that implicitly presupposes the issue as settled is out of place.

David Olivier (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether humans are omnivores (as a species, yes; as individuals, usually) or herbivores, I agree with David that it doesn't really matter; it didn't belong there anyhow. -kotra (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please - I'm reading all this, and as a vegetarian myself, I desperately want there to be criticism of the diet on this page. There needs to be, and if any other vegetarians are editing this page then you know that there is never exactly a warm reaction to the diet - this must have some place here. Every google blog link is one-sided - this should not be a polarizing concept, but if even Wikipedia looks politicized on it, then some might think it's an "issue" on which they must "take a side". Nutrition is not my expertise at all so I'll stay out of editing.

Another thing - the page seems to only recognize an ethical, philosophical, or medical justification for the diet. There are some vegetarians who simply realized they don't like the taste of meat in spite of growing up in a meat-heavy household, or athletes who find meat doesn't digest quickly enough for a comfortable after-lunch workout, or people who were dating a vegetarian and could no longer cook meals with meat, or people who found after becoming vegetarian that eating a tiny bit (50g maybe) of traditional sausage for Christmas that they couldn't digest it and threw up after an hour or two. All these are my own personal experiences, by the way, but I mention them to hopefully give a bit of notice that vegetarianism isn't always an ethical or psychological "choice". 68.255.24.149 (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is really probably no need for a separate "Criticism" section; these are generally discouraged anyway. Sourced information about possible risks is certainly welcome, but it should be incorporated into existing sections where it can be presented in context, rather than lumping all the negative info together into one section. But the fact is, there isn't going to be a lot of negative info to add, because a vegetarian diet that balances fat, carbohydrate, and protein correctly and contains the right amounts of vitamins and minerals is a healthy diet. (Obviously you can't live on peanut butter cookies, chocolate cake, and Coca Cola and expect to be healthy even though your diet is meatless!) If there is a POV problem in the article, it isn't that the article is not critical enough of vegetarianism, but that it is too critical of non-vegetarianism. We have to make sure the article never suggests that a vegetarian diet is healthier than a nutritionally equivalent diet that includes meat and fish, because there is no evidence that's the case. (By "nutritionally equivalent" I mean one that has the same proportions of fat, carbohydrate, and protein, and the same amounts of vitamins and minerals.) —Angr 11:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to criticism sections, I am used to those on other types of articles, such as fictional character articles (Todd Manning) and never really see them discouraged, but (like Angr) I don't really see the need for one in this article when we already have a section titled Health benefits and concerns. Any criticism can surely go there.

That said, IP, I really do get your point about that and the rest of your comment. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There is definitely a need for a criticisms section. Like Flyer22, I also don't see any discouragement regarding the use of a Criticism section. Why do I think it's necessary? Because I see nothing in there that addresses the physical, ethical, or spiritual beliefs counter to vegetarianism, nor do I see criticisms of any of the arguments made. Contrary to your stance Angr, there are plenty of reliable arguments against vegetarianism. Here's one source: http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html

I came to the article expecting to see a balanced discussion, to provide a resource for someone looking for arguments for and against, and was greatly disturbed to find the article so extremely biased. I provided it as a resource in the "for" side, and went elsewhere for against resources. That's not right. Graidan (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to a criticism section as long as it's reliably sourced. When we're talking about a POV, we need reliable sources backing it up. What those reliable sources might be, I have no idea. Personally, I've been vegetarian for 10 years and the only actual criticism I've come across is that, due to our incisors and canines, humans are biologically suited to eating meat. I'm not sure if that's a valid criticism (being biologically suited to do something doesn't mean you should do it), but I've heard it before. This is anecdotal, though. Reliable sources!

As for the other motivations to becoming vegetarian, "taste" and "aesthetics" are already mentioned in the lead. The others you mention are probably not cited by a large enough number of people... we can't list all of the thousands of obscure reasons someone might be vegetarian (how do you know for sure that burger isn't made out of babies, huh?). -kotra (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I will interject here that credible criticism of vegetarianism is not going to be easy to find. It’s getting few and far between and with less support from mainstream medical science. The general opinion of current mainstream medical science is that vegetarianism is healthier and aids in disease and cancer prevention. What used to be common criticisms of vegetarianism have really been discredited, and agencies like the American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association and Dieticians of Canada all recognize vegetarianism as completely healthy, if, like all diets, it is planned correctly. Keep in mind that the article is extremely well-sourced. If it appears biased, it is only because it reflects its sources, which come from a broad spectrum of credible mainstream science. Okiefromokla ^questions? 06:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Graiden - I hope you have a better reference than the one you cited for your criticisms section. The Weston A. Price Foundation, an advocacy group whose sponsors are primarily meat producers, is not very credible. i do notice that they supply references, so perhaps those are more accurate and less POV. Bob98133 (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the article makes the mistake (which is admittedly made by plenty of pro-veg sites too) of extrapolating from a basically unhealthy diet and then asserting that the presence or absence of meat in that diet (as the case may be) is what causes it to be unhealthy. It's as if a pro-Gatorade site pointed to cases of water intoxication to argue that drinking water is unhealthy. —Angr 19:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Clarification: By "the article" in the above comment, I didn't mean the Wikipedia article on vegetarianism, I meant the anti-veg article from the Weston A. Price foundation that Graiden linked to. —Angr 11:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

One has to start somewhere for a comparison. The Standard American Diet, or a diet proposed for health, like a heart healthy diet, can be compared to a vegetarian diet. Much of the peer-reviewed research about vegetarianism was done on populations such as Seventh Day Adventists, some of whom are vegan, some vegetarian, while others eat varying amounts of meat; so a comparison can be done with meat eating being the only variable, since otherwise the lifestyles of the members in the study are similar. I don't think this article claims that eating meat is unhealthy, it just claims that not eating meat is healthier, or at least minimizes risks of certain diseases. I would agree that attempting to extrapolate from solid data is frequently done by pro-veg and pro-meat groups which is why we check the references to make sure that they are not POV. Bob98133 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In my point of view, there is not a strong need to include a section including criticisms of vegetarianism. If we look at similar pages, such as Pescetarianism and Meat there are few criticisms. Why then does this page need any? No pages on cuisine (long list at Cuisine) include criticisms. Furthermore there are no criticisms on the pages for Muslims (Islamic_dietary_laws), the diets of followers of Christianity, or the diets of Jews (|Kosher_food). There is no need for criticism on a page that asserts that many people eat vegetarian for religious reasons, and furthermore I believe it is repugnant to the neutrality of Wikipedia to provide such judgement by claiming that the neutrality of the page is in question. Twocs (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hair protein sentence

I have deleted the sentence:

According to one research study, the choice of dietary protein of vegetarians and omnivores is reflected in their hair protein.

It was sourced on this ref.

When I went to that page, I was expecting something like a difference in amino acid composition, or at least some chemical difference. As the abstract shows, the difference is purely in the abundance of different carbon and nitrogen isotopes; something that may be of interest for forensics for instance, but of no dietary or physiological relevance at all.

That sentence is thus irrelevant to a paragraph about physiology; and is misleading, since I believe many readers, like me, would take it to imply the existence of some physiologically significant difference; perpetuating, in particular, the mythology that there is some deep difference between plant protein and animal protein.

David Olivier (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to visit that page and it just said I have cookies disabled (which I don't) and wouldn't load. So I can't comment on the study, although I do know scientists test for overall protein in food by the abundance of nitrogen. This does not, however, show any specific difference in amino acids, as far as I'm aware, nor have I heard of it being used to test for protein in the body. I'm not an expert, though, so I may be wrong.

Certainly there is a perceptible difference in bioavailability between protein from most plant sources and protein from most animal sources, but I would agree that it's not a "deep" difference, nor does it have any nutritional implications in standard western diets. Regardless, if the sentence is true, it may be relevant to a paragraph about physiology. But I haven't been able to review it myself, so I'll take David's word for it until I can. -kotra (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The title of the referenced article is: “Choice of dietary protein of vegetarians and omnivores is reflected in their hair protein ¹³C and ¹⁵N abundance”; i.e. is about different isotopic composition. Isotopic composition of biological matter is almost entirely devoid of physiological consequences (with the marginal exception of deuterium); so I don't see what the sentence I deleted has to do with physiology. It might be of interest, as I said, for forensics, or for archaeology for instance. So perhaps the information could be put back somewhere else in the article. But then it would have to be reworded, to make it clear that the difference is about isotopes, not something to do with different “kinds” of protein. David Olivier (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this shorter link will work better for you. David Olivier (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Both links work fine for me now for some reason, but thanks. Having read the article, I can see your unwillingness to have it be in that particular section. I think, however, this stems partly from a different understanding of the word "physiological". I think to you it means having to do with visible or otherwise practically significant effects on the body, like disease or skin color (or nutrition, in the case of this article). But to me it means anything having to do with the body, no matter how inconsequential or subtle. So for me, this study does technically have to do with physiology.

However, in either case, I'm also not convinced that it's informative to this article. This article is supposed to be a broad general discussion of vegetarianism, not random facts that have no consequence for 99.99% (+/- .001%) of readers (not to say that this one study, with only 15 ovo-lacto-vegetarians and 6 vegans studied, necessarily represents fact). I looked for an article on the study of hair in forensics, and the best I could find was Forensic toxicology#Hair sample, which is something completely different. I guess we don't have a place for something this obscure yet. So, I endorse the removal. -kotra (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Health

"and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, and other fatal diseases" - This statement is not supported by the referenced articles. IHD risk have found to be lower (~24%, all 3 references use the same data), however lower risks of cancer have not been found. The first two references (same data) conclude: "Comparisons within the cohorts suggest that the vegetarians have a moderately lower mortality from IHD than the nonvegetarians but that there is little difference in mortality from other major causes of death." Page 11 of the ADA report discusses various contradicting cancer research, but is inconclusive.

Until other references can be provided, I recommend narrowing the scope of the claim to: "and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of ischaemic heart disease" Xaviershay (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The above claim is also found at the end of the introductory section - Xavier Shay (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add something into the "health benefits and concerns" section. I see the benefits but I think it is important to put more emphasis on the concerns than what is currently listed. While many people don't like to hear the negative side, it is important for people looking to become vegetarians to know. Lsabram (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, as long as you provide good references for your edits. What sort of concerns were you planning to add? Bob98133 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Famous Vegetarians

Albert Einstien - Argurbaly the smartest person ever to live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.46.134 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

He's already mentioned on List of vegetarians, which is outside of the scope of this article, but thanks for the note. -kotra (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fit for Life. Badagnani (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Dramatic" risk of cancer

Individuals in the highest quintile, compared with those in the lowest quintile, of processed meat intake were at elevated risk for colorectal (HR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.09–1.32; p for trend < 0.001) and lung cancer (HR = 1.16; 95% CI = 1.06–1.26; p for trend = 0.001)

That is NOT a DRAMATIC difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.162.14 (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have an Idea

The whole debate over what diet is better - Vegetarian or Omnivoure is a giant debate probably almost as big as global warming. This debate will go on for a long time and as there are thousands of scientests, science does not have a clear answer to what is better. I think more beleive that Vegetarianism is better - but thats just what i beleive and the page on vegetarianism should be compeltly neutral and have no biasim either way. So please make sure the page is the way it should be - 100 percent neutral (or at least try!). So please make sure that everything that is either pro or against has its GOOD source mentioned next to it.

Thank you. Imatheocracy (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to maintain unbiased. I feel that a lot of the information does come off in a pro-vegetarian kind of way. Lsabram (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can be specific, it would help us improve the article. -kotra (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The only reason it looks as if it's pro-vegetarianism is because that is the results of hundreds and hundreds of studies. 99.140.223.43 (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

POV (March 2009)

I saw this article on my way through research, unfortunately I'm looking for a NEUTRAL standpoint and this article is horribly unbalanced. Shouldn't there be a flag up on this page? Valkuma (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What specifically do you consider unbalanced? —Angr 06:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For all reasons discussed above, this article fails to have a balanced viewpoint as it discusses purely positive aspects of the issue, much like what others have said. Although there is an article for vegetarianism, mostly filled with pro-vegetarian information, there is no complimentary article on omnivorism or mention of a different standpoint on the issue. Valkuma (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

addendum- I'm new to having a Wikipedia account, but I couldnt resist contesting this one. C6541 said above there is no "Controversy" section and suggests that everything about vegetarianism is whole and righteous. a complimentary "Omnivorism" article or mention of ANY opposing argument to vegetarianism should be included SOMEwhere... Valkuma (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding an article on "omnivorism" or whatever you want to call it wouldn't make this article more neutral, though. If you want to add information on the downsides of vegetarianism, that's fine, but it has to be cited to reliable sources (i.e. not studies funded by the meat industry!). The problem with attempts to make this article seem less pro-veg is that the vast majority of independent medical studies done really have come to the conclusion that a balanced vegetarian diet (especially a lacto or ovo-lacto vegetarian diet) is at least as healthy as an omnivore diet. AFAIK, the worst that can be said about a vegetarian diet is that it is not healthier than an omnivore diet, but there's no credible evidence that it's less healthy than an omnivore diet. The article does actually report findings that are not exactly pro-veg, though: in the Longevity section, it's reported that mortality is lowest among pescetarians (who aren't vegetarians) and highest among regular meat-eaters and vegans, and generally concludes that if vegetarians live longer, it probably isn't because of not eating meat, but because vegetarians as a group tend to live healthier in other ways (e.g. by not smoking) than omnivores as a group. —Angr 08:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So to support a counterargument to vegetarianism we should find sources that are NOT FUNDED by the meat industry, whereas a great deal of the sources found within the article itself are "Go Veg" or other pro vegetarianism organizations? Excuse me if I'm not supposed to notice the contradiction. Studies regarding omnivorism versus vegetarianism are undoubtedly going to have bias behind them because anyone funding this research would be attempting to "prove their point". How could this article possibly be neutral if only pro-vegetarian studies are accepted? ADDENDUM- And especially, after some digging through sources for my research, there ARE negative aspects to the vegetarian alternatives discussed in citation 158 and 159 that are simply ignored by the original writers Valkuma (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Valkuma, if you want to add "a counterargument to vegetarianism" (whatever that means), cite a reliable, published source to support your position. If you're not willing to do that, you're just wasting your own time and everyone else's here.

If there are dubious claims in this article that are supported by unreliable pro-vegetarian sources, the solution is to remove those claims or find better sources, not to add more dubious claims to the article. Polemarchus (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

CRITICISM!!!!

This article mentions none and there is a lot!!!!Undead Herle King (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Then find a reliable, published source that criticises vegetarianism and we can include it. Polemarchus (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Be bold, but yes, please also use reliable, published sources. TheLastNinja (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a critcism paragraph is badly missing from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.244.128 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Foods that are not really vegetarian

I would like to add something to the vegetarianism article about foods that people would be surprised to find out are NOT vegetarian. I have done a lot of research on the subject and think that it is an important idea to bring to the table. I feel that vegetarians should know what animal byproducts are contained in certain foods that they may not be aware of. I am not sure if I should add a new article or if this topic is necessary.Lsabram (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO most vegetarians are aware that small quantities of dead animal flesh derivatives find their way into many foodstuffs that they consume. Some care a lot about it, others don't care much. A comprehensive list of such products doesn't seem possible. Personally, I don't find the issue very interesting, and I don't think vegetarianism has to be construed as a religious purity thing. David Olivier (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about foods that contain gelatin, L-cysteine, which are animal-based, or items such as chocolate which by law are allowed to contain a certain volume of animal parts, then it might be of minor interest, but otherwise I tend to agree with Olivierd. Bob98133 (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What if something was added about soy products and meat alternatives? I know most vegetarians are familiar with these along with foods that are surprisingly not vegetarian but I think that people coming to the website that are looking to become vegetarians would greatly benefit. People who have been vegetarians for years and have researched the topic know about it but the people researching the diet could use this information in my opinion. Lsabram (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of vegetarians would not no about the bi products, i didnt know untill around 6 months of turning vegetarian. A list of bi-products is a good idea. A lot of vegetarians dont seem to care about gelatine in lollies etc. even though they know it has dead animals in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imatheocracy (talk • contribs) 08:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to make full list of non-vegetarian products on Czech Wikipedia: cs:Živočišný produkt. - UP3 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Teen vegetarians tripled in last 10 years

This text was recently added:

A 2007 study showed that the number of vegetarian teens has tripled in the last ten years and is continuing to rise.[1]

The cited article (or television transcript?) worries me. It's misleading and occasionally flat-out wrong (seitan is described as a soy product at one point). This leads me question the reliability of the source (a similar survey from two years before had a 3% margin of error, for example). It would be nice to evaluate the Harris survey directly and determine then if it's reliable enough, but so far I'm not finding it online. Instead, all we have to trust is this local television article, the reliability of which is questionable. Thoughts? -kotra (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably not particularly reliable. Whenever I see a TV report on a topic I actually know something about, they invariably get it appallingly wrong, so I have no reason to believe they get it right in other cases. If we can find the original survey, so much the better. I assume the assertion holds only for the U.S., not for the whole world, right? —Angr 06:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards removal of it unless we can find the survey and determine it's a reliable source. In the meantime, I've added "in the United States", since Harris polls are typically US only. -kotra (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree — Harris may be a reliable source for this stuff but local TV channels are not and that story has all the hallmarks of bad science reporting. I think it's pretty likely that some fool at WWAY compared two separate Harris reports (one from 1997 and one from 2007) and concluded that teen vegetarianism had tripled. Is there any evidence that the two surveys are directly comparable and that the apparent increase in vegetarianism is statistically significant? And where did that "and is continuing to rise" bit come from? I've removed the section; if anyone wants to restore it, please cite a reliable source. Polemarchus (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed section on vegetarianism and children

I would like to add a section on vegetarianism and children as well as its effects on growth and development. Also, I have information on when vegetarian diets are dangerous, for example, pregnant woman face many risks as vegetarians. Lsabram (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add it, as long as you cite reliable sources for any information you add. -kotra (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think its ok as long as its neutral. Mention how vegetarian children do get full potential growth but it can be delayed and that meat eaters can be taller because of the added hormones. Also dont say that it is dangerous just say like: Vegetarian Women must make sure they are getting proper nutrients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.176.173 (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism most definitely hampers normal growth. I´ve experienced several examples of this in my life. One famous example of this phenomenon is life-long vegetarian Natalie Portman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.244.128 (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

They are meat!

'Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes meat (including game and slaughter by-products), fish (including shellfish and other sea animals) and poultry.[1][2] There are several variants of the diet, some of which also exclude eggs and/or some products'

This is saying that fish and poultry isn't meat! What do you think of this:

Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes meat (including fish, poultry, game and slaughter by-products.[1][2] There are several variants of the diet, some of which also exclude eggs and/or some products'

I agree with the change. But with a closing parenthesis! An also with other sea animals put back in (“(including fish and other sea animals, poultry, game and slaughter by-products)”). David Olivier (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There was considerable discussion of this a few months ago. A consensus was reached after an RfC Perhaps you shouldn't change it without referring to that.Steve3742 (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Balance

I think that the place to balance this article is to expand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_(nutrition) to include a more general discussion of the types of human diets (omnivorism...), including pre-historical diets, diets of different cultures, affect of environment on diet, etc. This article should not be the primary place to compare and contrast different diets and their affects on human health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.9.8 (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism

Most of this section seems to be pure invention. The linked article gives a more sensible account. Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Carrionarian Article???

Not many people know what a carrionarian is, and it looks like there is no article in Wikipedia. I would love to write the article if I knew how and if I had the time to figure it out. I doubt it would fall under vegetarianism, more likely it would be in an omnivore page.

For those who don't know about carrionarianism... we believe that it is wrong to kill an animal. We don't, however, believe that it is wrong to eat dead flesh that hasn't died as a product of murder. Therefore, roadkill and meats found while dumpster diving are suitable for consumption. In other words, any meat that will otherwise be thrown out is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.228.69 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

But meat found dumpster diving was slaughtered; it just got thrown out since it didn't get sold on time. To be consistent, you'd have to only eat roadkill and animals that died of disease or old age. (And in all three cases, I think I'd rather just be a vegetarian.) +Angr 20:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a variety of Freeganism. How about human corpses from people that died of natural causes? Sounds like that would fit in. Bob98133 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)