Vegan Ireland asks Matt Cooper and Joe Duffy to go vegan

by Yvonne Fri Jan 06, 2012 13:12

Way to go Vegan Ireland! See if they have the guts!

by Aubergine - Vegetable Liberation Front Fri Jan 06, 2012 13:18

Those nasty people eat tripe.

What about vegetable rights?

Cabbage is Carnage!

Tomato is Torture!

We'll have a demo and I bet there'll be a big turnip at it.

by Veganawesome Fri Jan 06, 2012 14:23

Yay! GO!, Vegan Ireland.

GO VEGAN, Ireland!

by anti-vegan Fri Jan 06, 2012 20:43

as somebody brought up vegan from birth and suffering serious health consequences as a result i find this really very irresponsible especially as children are most at risk from the spread of veganism-protein is for growth and the number one important nutrient for children-the very simple reason why they don't like veg. the only people veganism is good for is adults who have eaten too much meat and need to detox.

by uncle-vegan Fri Jan 06, 2012 22:17

Check out the link here about feeding children on a vegan diet. http://www.vegansociety.com/lifestyle/parenting/vegan-b...dren/ There's a good book on the topic too here http://shop.vegansociety.com/product_info.php?products_...d=242

by Veganawesome Fri Jan 06, 2012 23:04

I thought it was just the Americans who were obsessed with protein?

http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.htm

Were you on a bad vegan diet, then? There are such things, just as there are bad all-sorts of diets.

VA.

by Damien M - PW Sat Jan 07, 2012 14:49

...you add some meat to it." Charles Poliquin

by sean Sat Jan 07, 2012 19:44

as someone with a post graduate diploma in health promotion from the NUI Galway and as a farmer living in the west of ireland I would call on people to be very wary of what I believe are very false and misleading claims concerning the health benefits of a vegetarian or vegan diet. I would encourage people people to resource www.westonprice.org for some real education on this. veganism/vegetarianism will i believe weaken you both physically and mentally.

by You Cannot Be Serious Sun Jan 08, 2012 15:26

You cannot serious cite the industry mouthpiece Weston Price. If you want an organisation fitting the description "well dodgy," then this is it.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jan 08, 2012 16:48

I only eat vegans and vegetarians...never carnivours.

I'm all for animal welfare, but if we stopped eating them we'd be years burying them as they die in pain of old age.

Thats a luxury strictly reserved for our pensioners, now we're closing down all medical facilities(except the private ones) and cutting their fuel allowances.

by Damien M - PW Sun Jan 08, 2012 21:03

Weston Price passed away in 1948...not sure if he'd be a good 'industry mouthpiece'... His book, 'Nutrition and Physical Degeneration' remains one of the single most important books ever written on human health, and the link between western diets and chronic disease.

1,000s of photos contained..

by Weston Price Thu Jan 12, 2012 17:26

The Weston Price Foundation has little to do with Weston Price himself. This foundation is sponsored by the animal meat industry.

by Healthy Thu Jan 12, 2012 17:30

Veganism is supported by nutritionists and doctors. Science backs up that veganism is a healthy diet. This is referred to in the article itself. Veganism has been around for a while now.

by Damien M - PW Thu Jan 12, 2012 18:04

A lot of things are supported by nutritionists (gluten, MSG, hydrogenated vegatable oil) and doctors (psychotropic drugs for kids, mercury+aluminium in vaccines) - this doesn't make them right either. Anyone can get a certified nutritionist or doctor on board-as long as you have the right money...

by Weston Price Thu Jan 12, 2012 23:04

Science does support many things that are dubious. One Foundation that doesn't seem to be supported much by science is the Weston Price Foundation. It is important to look at the many studies rather than the few selective studies which support a view. Veganism has this support. Veganism is also supported by the day to day living of the many vegans out there over many generations.

by John SC Fri Jan 13, 2012 00:20

@opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party I've seen this pointed out that what will happen to the animals if we stopped eating them. I could never understand why this is a problem. If the world became vegan then I can only see it happening in 2 ways. 1) Immediately or 2) gradually over many many years. 1) If everyone became vegan tomorrow then it would probably be because of some crisis, peak oil, climate change etc. The mindset wouldn't be a concern for animals so the animals are killed as usual but no longer bred or replaced. After all the animals won't exist if we stop breeding them. If it did happen for animal reasons that people became vegan then I'd also imagine that our best minds might save some of them, it may be a stretch to expect every animal to live out their lives but who knows. No decision makers are thinking this way at the moment because there isn't the will to do so. 2) If veganism spread itself over many many years then the amount of animals bred would decrease as the amount of demand decreases. This has a better chance of following reasons for animals so the mindset may be more in tune with saving the animals. If a decision is made to stop killing animals altogether then more animals should stand a chance to live out their natural lives. This is a once off thing to happen as no more breeding will happen Whatever the views on veganism, this is an argument that is a no brainer in my opinion

by Rational Ecologist. Fri Jan 13, 2012 09:34

Check out Lierre Keith 'The Vegetarian Myth' for a discussion on the risks of a vegan diet. I was myself exclusively veggie for 20 years and I have found as I have aged that a bit of fish and a little meat does help.
Allen was and is selling a consumption lifestyle. She is product ambassador for Audi, hence the dead birds displayed on the gas-guzzler SUV. I think there may be a hen pheasant on the bonnet, which is illegal. Can someone verify that?
Vegan food is lovely, there's no doubt about that.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Jan 13, 2012 09:55

But my point was we need get our priorities triaged.

A billion people are malnourished and kids are dropping like mosquitos in a DDT blizzard from lack of clean water while our wealth is squandered to look for water on fucking Mars.

 As I say, I'm all for animal welfare, but it fades in proportion to many other issues; and the sentimental refusal of animal-rights enthusiasts to scale in other issues alienates this animal.

by wageslave - (personal capacity) Sat Jan 14, 2012 08:54

"the sentimental refusal of animal-rights enthusiasts to scale in other issues alienates this animal."

Thats not fair opus. Most people I know working in animal rights are also very vocal about human rights too.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat Jan 14, 2012 17:24

...who was the first to initiate legislation on the issue, W.
But that does not negate my point that the sentimentalising of animals is a fact which, as I stated, seems a wrong priority, and indeed through breeding programs for fluffy toy pedigree beauty points leads to considerable cruelty by people who class and preen themselves as animal lovers. Many pedigree animals have congenital physiological problems due to inbreeding for desired characteristics. Also psychological disabilities due to the well-known high-strung thoroughbred effect.
Our horse loving snots create rafts of inbred sick seconds for every thoroughbred. Meantime the succesful products of this taxpayer-subsidised racing industry enjoy better medical services than we do. Surely a more legitimate target than animals who are bred for healthy consumption rather than aesthetics and sentimental pet market-value?A Shergar with a sprained fetlock gets his own swimming pool and physio...we just limp on...till we find a trolly.

 I'm an omnivore, prefer fish, do eat and enjoy meat, and think its how we evolved to nourish ourselves. If people wish to go vegan, fine, if they wish to frequent McDs ok, not my biggest issue....as i said, triage indicates its not the most serious threat we face. And I believe the sentimental manipulation of this issue obfuscates more important issues. No better example than dog-lover Pat Kenny, pet propagandist for corporate theology. In fact such sentimentality often accompanies(and has historically)dubious social policies.

Its an opinion..as they say I may be cruel, but I'm fair, I try to be cruel to everybody(Monthy Python, I believe).

by wageslave - (personal capacity) Sun Jan 15, 2012 07:09

Opus, perhaps you need to educate yourself a little further on the horrors of large scale food production and factory farming. Human and animal welfare and quality of life are all closely related. High profile activities such as Horseracing or foxhunting are certainly cruel but in terms of actual numbers of animals involved, are largely symbolic compared to the real silent cruelty holocaust happening in our name at the hands of large corporations and food companies. That's the real animal welfare issue.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Unless you are very careful with your dietary choices, you are directly/indirectly supporting the indefensible. I'd be surprised if such an otherwise ethical person like yourself knowingly retained such a huge moral blind spot.

by JoeMc Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:17

The Vegan Ireland article quotes the American Dietetic Association (ADA) to substantiate its claims about the viability of a vegan diet . (The ADA upped its name to the Academy of Dietics and Nutrition at the beginning of this year ,by the way )

The trouble with quoting the ADA is that the institution is closely linked to the very same food industry that the Vegan Ireland so often rightly condemns .

“The ADA receives some percentage (approximately 10% according to its most recent annual report of its funding from food companies, including Abbott Nutrition, CoroWise, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, McNeil Nutritionals, Pepsico, SOYJOY, Truvia and Unilever. In addition, the ADA lists Aramark, The CocaCola Company, The National Dairy Council and the Hershey Center for Health and Nutrition as partners.”

I’m sure that the association would say that drinking Coca Cola and eating Mars Bars as part of a carefully planned diet would be quite healthy , which is probably true as well but not the whole story.. Ryanair never tires of promoting itself as the cheapest airline in Europe , and I'm sure that the Michael O' Leary Institute for Research into Low-cost Airlines would agree .

This site claims that the ADA “is not a reliable, unbiased source of information on good nutrition.”
http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/american-dieteti....html

It quotes a letter from Marion Nestle , Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University:
"Respected ADA colleagues: as long as your organization partners with makers of food and beverage products, its opinions about diet and health will never be believed independent (translation: based on science not politics) and neither will your's. Consider the ADA's Nutrition Fact Sheets, for example, each with its very own corporate sponsor (scroll down to the lower right hand corner of the second page to see who paid for the Facts). Is the goal of ADA really the same as the goal of the sponsors - to sell the sponsor's food products? Is this a good way to get important scientific messages to the public? ADA members: how about doing something about this!"

I’m sure that there are very well-qualified scientists working with the ADA , but isn’t this another example of non-experts’ trust in the scientific objectivity of research being undermined by powerful, vested interests ? Just as with climate science ,genetics , economics etc , surely research on such a vital issue as diet should be conducted by scientists whose salaries are not dependent on funding from profit-driven multinationals.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jan 15, 2012 13:22

She wouldn't happen to be a sprog of the notorious Nestle combine, long associated with pushing their powdered milk-formula on underdeveloped nations with pseudo-medical propaganda against 'unhygenic' breast feeding and the advantages of their 'enriched' EU milk-mountain disposal-unit??Now thats a can of worms. Given the lack of clean water to dilute the powdered milk the mothers mixed it with the local slurry and poisoned countless newborns. Even after condemnation by the UN they resumed business as usual, but outsourced the 'medical' teams to distance themselves from the mercenary pogrom.And wageslave, I'm not ignorant of the predations of mass-production methods on animal welfare, but i dont think vegan puritanism is the answer. Its more likely to deafen the public to the underlying issues with its proslytising vehemence.I stopped eating chicken decades back, for just that reason, and am selective in sourcing food. I did actually go vegetarian for a few years, mainly because my kids refused to eat meat at the time. No problem(I prefer fish anyway). And as a former offshore fisherman I am aware of that industry's crimes. I also worked with a vet for a summer, way back, and know how casually they administer antibiotics and other big-pharma products.

by JoeMc Sun Jan 15, 2012 14:09

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy."

Put a question mark after it and it makes it ok for some people I suppose .

As far as I know Marion Nestle is not a member of the Nestle family , but even if she is , it doesn't mean that she is necessarily prejudiced in her academic field . This is from her San Fransisco Chronicle column :

Q: I am so sick of food Nazis like Marion Nestle who make lots of money criticizing others. Kindly tell your audience when we can expect to see your financial disclosure telling us how much you make from writing books critical of the food industry.
A: Ordinarily I don't bother responding to unfriendly questions, but buried in this one is an important issue: Whose nutrition advice can you trust?
We are hearing a lot these days about conflicts of interest - and lack of trust - caused by corporate influence on medical research and opinion about tobacco and drugs. And now we must add food and nutrition to that list.
Underlying this particular question is whether my sources of income influence what I write or say. As I explain in my book "Food Politics," I have an unusual position as an academic nutritionist. I hold a tenured professorship at New York University that requires me to teach, do research and perform public service (of which this column is part). For this, NYU pays me a "hard-money" salary that gives me the freedom to write and speak as I think.
My research on food and nutrition policy requires a telephone, Internet access, library and occasional research assistance. I do not need to apply for or accept government grants, food-industry stipends or honoraria from food or other for-profit enterprises to do my work. I receive occasional royalties from sales of my books, and honoraria for some speaking and writing assignments (including this one).
All of this matters because the goals of food companies and nutrition professionals are not the same. The very purpose of food companies is to increase sales and profits. That is their job. My goal as a public health nutritionist is to promote more sustainable food production and to help people make better food choices so that they can live longer and healthier lives. In theory, these purposes do not have to be in conflict. But in practice, they often are.
Those who accept food industry funding argue that it has no influence on their work. Maybe, but evidence strongly suggests otherwise. For example, research sponsored by food companies almost invariably favors the health benefits of products sold by those companies. This is hardly a coincidence. Whether done consciously or unconsciously, it is all too easy to plan studies to give desired results. Indeed, the essential difference between good and bad science is the degree to which investigators account for and eliminate potential sources of bias in their experimental results.
Partnerships between nutrition professionals and food companies almost invariably favor the marketing interests of food companies, and not necessarily public health. The most recent case is the Smart Choices front-of-package labeling program that I discussed in my July 26 column. According to a report in Forbes, food companies spent $50,000 each, for a total of $1.67 million, to create the program in partnership with four nutrition and health organizations.
The result? The program's nutritional approval checkmark ended up on Froot Loops, a cereal containing no fruit but made with sugar as its primary ingredient by weight, accounting for 44 percent of the total calories. Some nutrition professionals who helped develop the program defend this choice on the basis of comparative nutritional quality - i.e., Froot Loops is better than a doughnut or sweet roll.
Perhaps, but in recent weeks, three of the participating nutrition organizations have withdrawn from the program, a member of Congress has called on the Food and Drug Administration to investigate, and the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have funded Institute of Medicine studies to recommend better standards for front-of-package labels. But the American Society of Nutrition remains the paid manager of the program, despite the evident conflict of interest.
Nutrition and health professionals are supposed to have scientific knowledge or public health as their goals. These examples demonstrate the need for caution when entering into partnership with food companies whose first priority is to increase sales of their products.
Like most academics, I make a comfortable salary that is higher - and far more secure - than that of a good share of Americans. This comes with responsibility, and I take this responsibility seriously.
I wish the income gap between rich and poor would get smaller, not larger. I wish my books were best-sellers so I could do more to help close that gap. I wish everyone would read what I write and think hard about food issues. I wish more of my nutrition and health colleagues could be independent of corporate influence.
I am fortunate to be paid to write and say what I think without having to worry about how my words will be received or whether they will help sell food products. This is an extraordinary privilege, and one for which I am most grateful.
Marion Nestle is the author of "Food Politics," "Safe Food" and "What to Eat," and is a professor in the nutrition, food studies and public health department at New York University. E-mail her at [email protected] and read her previous columns at sfgate.com/food.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/1...IonEV

by JoeMc Sun Jan 15, 2012 14:42

From a Salon interview with Ms Nestle in 2009

"Have been looking forward to this since I heard What to Eat was being discussed. Let me dispense with a thought I first had and then will not worry about it– Marion, are you part of the Nestle food family? Excuse if that is a rude question."

" Not rude at all. It’s a hilarious name for a nutritionist. In my book Food Politics I wrote about the boycott of Nestle products because of what the company was doing to push infant formula in Africa. I had two reasons for including that section: first, because nobody remembers the boycott and second, so I would have a chance to say that I’m not related, alas. But thanks for asking."

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jan 15, 2012 14:57

no questions allowed then??

At least, according to your follow-up, she saw the logical justification for what you, in ad hominem response, designate as fallacy.

That Nestle was not mentioned in your original comment prompted the question, given as she stated, the history of this corporate giant(who are not beyond such ploys). Yours is the logical fallacy, of not seeing the legitimate reason for the question.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jan 15, 2012 14:59

forgotten.

by JoeMc Sun Jan 15, 2012 16:01

Instead of responding to the substance of what Ms Nestle said in the quote I gave , you wrote back :

“She wouldn't happen to be a sprog of the notorious Nestle combine, long associated with pushing their powdered milk-formula on underdeveloped nations with pseudo-medical propaganda against 'unhygenic' breast feeding and the advantages of their 'enriched' EU milk-mountain disposal-unit??”

I thought that sounded pretty nasty .The questioner also thought that asking that question might have sounded a bit rude , so he posed it politely and got a polite reply back , which I in turn communicated to you - politely I thought . If you were just being curious I apologize , but you really could have looked up the answer yourself .

PS . Sorry to sound like the French Foreign Legionaire in the joke , but in your last comment you said that you hadn't forgotten something . Forgotten what ?

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jan 15, 2012 16:28

..you quote her as saying'..nobody remembers the boycott..'. Quite few of us do, even if we're nobodies.

She also confirms it not to be a rude question, finding the coincidence of names 'hilarious'..which I figure justifies my inquiry. I've other shit to be looking up and I think its fair enough to interrogate quotes and background from the quoter. From the look of her comments she shares my disgust with her family namesakes. And is unsurpised at the automatic association. If she doesn't take ad hominem umbrage how can you? Especially when your retort is precisely what you illegitimately accuse me of. That constitutes ideological reaction, dangerous territory.

But we stray from veganism, not in my opinion the response required. Health and nutrition ok, animal welfare fine, puritan abstinence I dont buy.
Nor do I think it will draw a large public hearing for the health and welfare argument, more likely alienate a potential audience for the larger issues. I do attempt to be constructive.

by JoeMc Sun Jan 15, 2012 19:14

Yes , let's stay constructive .My main point was the influence of vested interests in the science quoted in the notes to the original article . When interests like Aramark, CocaCola , The National Dairy Council and the Hershey Center for Health and Nutrition not only fund but are actually partners of the ADA what hope is their for objectivity from the association’s findings?

Mosanto also contributes to the ADA , which again doesn't mean that its findings on the vegan diet are necessarily wrong , but Vegan Ireland should surely have checked out the source they quoted.

In fiscal year 2000, the following companies contributed $10,000 or more to the ADA : BASF Corp., Bristol Myers/Squibb, California Avocado Company, The Catfish Institute, ConAgra Foods, DMI Management, EcoLab, Galaxy Nutritional Foods, Gerber Products Company, Kellogg, Knoll Pharmaceuticals, Lipton, Mars, Inc., Mead Johnson Nutritionals, McNeil Consumer Products Company, Monsanto, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Dairy Council, National Fisheries Institute, National Pasta Association, The Peanut Institute, Potato Board, Procter & Gamble, Roche Pharmaceuticals, Ross Products Division, Abbott Laboratories, Viactiv, Worthington Foods. (ADA/ADAF 2000 Annual Report, http://www.eat right.org/; November 11, 2000)

The following companies and organizations sponsored information sessions at the ADA’s 2002 Food and Nutrition Conference, held in Philadelphia, PA:
• Almond Board of California
• American Egg Board/Egg Nutrition Center
• Aramark
• ADM Kao LLC
• Balance Bar Company
• ConAgra Foods
• DuPont Protein Technologies
• General Mills
• Gatorade Company
• Gerber Products Company
• H.J. Heinz
• Hormel
• Internationl Food Information Council
• International Life Sciences Institute
• Mars, Inc.
• McNeil Nutritionals
• MET-Rx
• National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
• National Dairy Council
• Pharmavite
• Procter and Gamble
• Quaker Oats
• Ross Product Division
• Sodexho Health Care Services
• Sysco Corporation
• United Soybean Board
• United States Potato Board
• Wheat Foods Council
(http://www.eatright.org/fnce/sp

by Damien M - PharmaWatch Sun Jan 15, 2012 20:40

...a refreshing beverage."

So says the ADA, in conjunction with eatright.org/kids. Last time I checked Coca-Cola were actually training up dietitians to take this nonsense into schools. The Coca-Cola Beverage Company actually has an Institute of Health and Wellness. *scratches head*

Why Opus decides to denigrate the woman for having the same nomenclature, while throwing in his usual array of abscure latin verses beyond me...anyone with half a modicum, oops sorry, knows that Marion Nestle is fairly upstanding

Nestlé boycott is still ongoing-they've merely greenwashed the company.

http://www.newint.org/columns/applause/2010/10/01/nestl...aign/

BTW> don't ever argue with a registered nutritionist-They’ve been “trained” and you haven’t. They are trained, registered and certified.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:42

should be accused of 'denegration' for asking a legitimate question, which the woman herself endorsed as logical, defies reason.

And prompts the response that the ad hominems indicate a resentful ulterior agenda.

And when you gather a modicum of lexicography, so you can differentiate between nomenclature and patronymics, you might achieve a modicum of English, sans Latinate inverse snobbery generated by some infusion of inadequacy.

I've also searched back for that '..usual array of abscure(sic)latin verses..'. Non existent.
If its 'ad hominem' you refer to, you'll find I was replying to an accusation of the same.

I suggest you look up 'non sequitur'. It might help clarify your thinking. A useful thing if you are determined to express an opinion. No sense in putting both feet in your mouth, it tends to leave you without a leg to stand on.

by Damien M - PW Mon Jan 16, 2012 13:27

...mentioned something about having gotten used to being asked that. For someone as learned as yourself in absolutely everything, I thought you might have known that...

"Marion, are you part of the Nestle food family? Excuse if that is a rude question."

However, a comment such as "She wouldn't happen to be a sprog of the notorious Nestle..." is bordering on ridiculous.

No one cares for your Latin verses either.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jan 16, 2012 14:10

..and certainly into the rediculous.
But hardly because I ask a question regarding the coincidence of her name with one of the most blatant food-criminal corporations. For a pissed off vegan ya sure have a lotta beef.

And who the fuck qualified YOU to judge who is LEARNED?

Latin verses??I think you must be confusing me with Horace. And if 'no-one cares..', why the ultra-personalised fucking fuss?It just confirms your nonentity after all, you seeming particularly concerned.

And if I didn't happen to know that someone in the food business with a mega-corporate name was pure coincidence..well it just proves I aint infallible like you, so I dont qualify as a candidate for pope. Say hello to the cardinals for me.

And for a vegan, you sure can get cheesy.

by Damien M - PW Mon Jan 16, 2012 14:25

"For a pissed off vegan ya sure have a lotta beef."

If I defend Weston Price then I'm hardly vegan tbf. Drawing assumptions again.

"so I dont qualify as a candidate for pope. Say hello to the cardinals for me."
You don't half throw some straw in the air and then clutch at it. Zero time for Rome either. Didn't think you accepted Papal Infallabilty either? Opus Dei, perhaps?

"And for a vegan, you sure can get cheesy."
Again let go of that straw Opus, not now or ever have I been a vegan. Love my veg surely, and mostly raw too, but also love my chops and steak. You certainly draw inference from some morsels..

by Damien M - PW Mon Jan 16, 2012 14:59

"For a pissed off vegan ya sure have a lotta beef."

If I defend Weston Price then I'm hardly vegan tbf. Drawing assumptions again.

"so I dont qualify as a candidate for pope. Say hello to the cardinals for me."
You don't half throw some straw in the air and then clutch at it. Zero time for Rome either. Didn't think you accepted Papal Infallabilty either? Opus Dei, perhaps?

"And for a vegan, you sure can get cheesy."
Again let go of that straw Opus, not now or ever have I been a vegan. Love my veg surely, and mostly raw too, but also love my chops and steak. You certainly draw inference from some morsels..

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jan 16, 2012 15:00

...too much disinformation.

by Rational Ecologist. Mon Jan 16, 2012 16:22

Lads, can ye both address the topic at hand, rather than have this mildly amuzing but unenlightening exchange.
Maybe it's the hormones in the meat ye are eating!

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jan 16, 2012 17:40

But it is necessary to challenge distortions of comments. Especially when smart-arse false attributions are made.
I'm not bothered if its left or subtracted, but I can't very well leave it unanswered.

Methinx a subterranian agenda was operating. That last kiddy was flagrant.

My point, on the issue, is that puritanical proslytising for veganism undermines real welfare and health measures, and, as such, can be counterproductive. Obviously some dont accept that as a legitimate position, and are prepared to lapse into personal focus rather than address the point. I remain convinced its a valid point.
I expect someone will tidy out the garbage when time allows. I would though like someone to address the actual point made. Perhaps its wrong, but it remains unaddressed.