August
2002
Vegetarian
Advocate: Yes, Virginia, Vegetarians Are Healthier
By Jack Rosenberger
|
|
|
What a surprise! Time Magazine, the country’s
leading weekly news magazine, published a cover story last month on
vegetarianism—and
it wasn’t totally undercooked. Titled “Should We All Be
Vegetarians?”,
the nine-page article lacked sufficient insight and intellectual vigor.
Which is hardly surprising considering that its subtitle was “Millions
of Americans are going meatless. Is that a healthy thing?”
Duh.
What I liked about the July 15 cover story was its ability, despite
Time’s writing style that emphasizes cutesy wordplay over
thoughtful reporting, to occasionally articulate the ethical vegetarian
point of view. After all, it’s rare to read a mainstream magazine
like Time, let alone an alternative national paper, and encounter
statements like “for many [vegetarians], meat is an obscene cuisine.”
Unfortunately, what is most remarkable about the Time cover
story is what it fails to mention. Or painfully neglects. The ethical
arguments
for being a vegetarian, for instance, could be an entire cover story
by itself. Yet the article devotes a mere two paragraphs to the subject.
The pitiful lives of farmed animals—the facts of their confinement,
treatment, and slaughter—is apparently a taboo subject: the article
never mentions it. Regarding the environmental aspects of a vegetarian
diet as opposed to a meat-based diet—well, that warrants a single
paltry paragraph.
The article actually asks, “Can it be that vegetarianism is bad
for your health?” It also contains daffy statements such as “There
are meat eaters who eat more and better vegetables than vegetarians,
and vegetarians who eat more artery-clogging fats than meat eaters.”
I have no doubt that statement is true, but it seems like a case of
citing the exception to the rule. I mean, how many vegetarians really
“eat more artery- clogging fats than meat eaters”?
The article is supposed to be about the health of vegetarians and carnivores,
yet it never once cites a specific medical study that compares the
two
groups. Too bad it didn’t quote, for instance, the British Medical
Journal study that followed some 6,000 vegetarians and 5,000 carnivores
(mean age, 39) for 12 years. The 1994 study found the vegetarians were
about 40 percent less likely to die from cancer and about 20 percent
less likely to die for any reason, for the study period.
Likewise, among the 20 persons quoted in the article by name, none were,
strangely enough, named Neil Barnard, M.D., president of the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), who is arguably the leading
proponent of vegetarianism in America. Nor does the article cite the
PCRM study, published in Preventive Medicine in 1995, which found that
healthcare costs attributable to meat consumption in the U.S. might
exceed $61 billion.
Contact: letters@time.com; Time
Magazine Letters, Time & Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New
York, NY 10020; Fax: (212) 522-8949.
The Vegetarian Child Who Wasn’t
Journalists across the country recently revealed how little they understand
vegetarianism when they wrote about a New York City couple whose allegedly
malnourished 20-month-old daughter was seized by law enforcement authorities.
Under the headline “Authorities Say Strict Vegan Diet Endangered
Life of Queens Baby,” the New York Times reported: “A
Queens couple who kept their infant daughter on a strict vegan diet,
feeding her fruit juice, herbal tea, and ground nuts, has been accused
of nearly starving the baby to death, the authorities said yesterday.” In
the Midwest, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, in an article
headlined “Vegetarian Diet for Child Brings Charge,” reported
that “A couple who put their young daughter on a strict vegetarian
diet were charged with child endangerment after authorities found the
girl last year weighing only half her normal weight, prosecutors say.” And
the Time Magazine cover article (see above) also gave many
of its readers the impression that the infant was a vegetarian.
There’s one major problem with all of these news accounts: the
child in question isn’t a vegetarian. As both the Milwaukee
Journal-Sentinel and Time noted, one of the foods the girl’s
parents fed her is cod liver oil. Which, of course, isn’t vegetarian,
let alone vegan.
Such misleading headlines and the attendant articles do vegetarianism
a bruising disservice. It’s wrongheaded articles like these that
cause educators, parents and grandparents, and others to question the
wisdom of raising children on a vegetarian diet. Multiple studies have
shown that vegan children are as healthy or healthier than carnivorous
tots.
For more information about vegan diets for children, visit the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine’s Web site, www.pcrm.org,
or call (202) 686-2210.
Fred’s Guilty Feelings?
I have a friendly, jazz-loving neighbor (let’s call him Fred) who
is a veterinarian. Fred’s medical practice specializes in small
animals, and although he seems like a caring individual, and particularly
passionate about dogs, Fred is not a vegetarian. On the few social occasions
when my wife and I have talked with Fred and mentioned that we’re
vegetarians, he immediately asserts, “You must really hate vegetables.”
My wife believes that Fred, because he routinely deals with animal
companions, feels guilty about eating animal flesh, and his knee-jerk
reply is an
attempt (albeit an inept one) to deflect attention from his meat-based
diet. I’ve considered how to reply to Fred the next time he tells
me that I “must really hate vegetables.” For now, my response
will be “I don’t hate vegetables. I love animals. That’s
why I don’t eat them.”
