On “Why Vegan is the New Atkins”
Call me crazy, but the title "Why Vegan is the New Atkins" (a post by Kathy Freston at The Huffington Post) tells me that vegan, whatever that is, is a way to lose weight quickly that will spread, as a trend, like wildfire, only to be proven unhealthy and fade away.
But that’s not the point.
Freston rehashes a handful of basics about why low-carb diets aren’t healthy and why eating animals, in general, isn’t good for you. There are links in the article, and for people for whom this is all news, I’m sure that’s helpful (until you get to the several links to PeTA pages. The pages themselves might not be a problem, but if they persuade someone to give money, not realizing the scope of the activities of PeTA, such as promoting animal products, that’s a problem).
I was pleasantly surprised to see that Freston uses "animal flesh" rather than "meat," here and there, and that in the penultimate paragraph she does say that veganism "is not a diet, it’s a lifestyle transition." Yeah, "transition" is odd, but I think I understand what she’s saying. Then again, the final paragraph says "it’s worth reading up a bit on how to maximize the health advantages of a vegan diet." So now it’s a diet.
I’m happy that Kathy Freston is able to reach millions of people and get some of them, including Oprah, to consider veganism. But comparing it to Atkins screams Look here! A strategy for quick weight loss! And that’s in addition to the post being ambiguous about whether veganism is a diet.
Finally, when you provide links in your posts, there’s an unspoken approval of the content and the host of the links, at least in my mind, unless you specifically provide a disclaimer. For instance, "I don’t agree with the way PeTA exploits women in their campaigns, and I certainly don’t agree that people interested in animal rights should promote animal products, which PeTA does, but they do have some helpful material on cooking" (or whatever. Cooking is actually a terrible example due to the many cooking sites that at no point endorse animal products, but you get my point, I hope.) So Freston’s links, including PCRM, which I don’t have a problem with, and PeTA, which I do, tell you about her and what she approves of (and whom she might give to), so the links aren’t just harmless suggestions (depending on how you feel about the hosts of the links).
Unfortunately, the subsequent comments include all the usual banter
about proponents of veganism distorting science; judgments that vegans
are lanky and not muscular; and of course, that humans were meant to eat animals. And what’s
a comment section without a vegetarian who thinks vegans are
superheroes? TheBlackCat says:
I have been a
vegetarian for most of my life and have tried to go vegan several
times, but I just can’t do it. I love cheese and dairy and the
substitutes for it just aren’t good tasting to me. I also live part
time in Holland, which is cheese capital of the world, and for a lover
of cheese to be SURROUNDED by cheese and not indulge is, for me,
impossible! Also I travel internationally all the time, often to remote
and undeveloped locales, and there are many places in the world where
it is plain IMPOSSIBLE, no matter how hard you try, to eat vegan.Going
vegetarian is one thing, but veganism is a whole other level of
difficulty that’s not even comparable to lacto-vegetarianism!I do limit my dairy to one serving a day, however, and I only buy locally produced, free range dairy products.
Hats off to you vegans! I sure as heck couldn’t do it!
There
it is, written by a vegetarian, the real reason why most people won’t
stop eating animals: the taste is too important to give up for any
reason. Only superheroes have the will to dispense with the consumption
of animal products. And evidently, only superheroes can plan ahead and
buy some Raw Revolution organic, live food bars (or insert your favorite) to travel with.
It’s a tough road when people who largely agree with you are your biggest PR obstacle.
Unfortunately, it's not just vegetarians calling vegans superheroes. The
dietary vegans at HSUS are essentially doing it as well. Here's a quote from their
president, Wayne Pacelle:
"I believe that people need options. If going vegetarian, or even reducing
meat consumption, is as a practical matter very difficult, I think you'll
only get the super-committed who will change."
So now even reduction of meat consumption is being lumped together with
veganism as being too hard for most people.
The person he said this to, interestingly, was Kathy Freston, who responded:
"I agree with you. But those who are super-committed will be the pioneers,
the alphas in the movement. They will be the ones informing their peer
groups, inventing new foods, and opening chic vegan restaurants. The more
those people request vegan options at events or ask for soy creamer on
planes or in hotels, the more the market will see that there is a desire for
these sorts of options. The change will, I think, happen synergistically in
that more products will be made available as it becomes more popular to eat
a plant-based diet. Just look at your local grocery store now as opposed to
10 years ago: there are great non-dairy ice creams, faux meats, and frozen
meals-to-go. It's just a matter of taking the time to familiarize ourselves
with what's out there, and then sort of making a sport of finding delicious
substitutes for old comfort foods."
Source: http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2008/07/kathy-freston.html
You know…. I eat my nuts and beans, my orange, green and purple veggies – My 5 servings of fruit and fortified Rice Dream too – just wish people would stop calling it a vegan "diet". I am not on a "vegan" diet -I AM Vegan. There is a major short-sightedness limiting a philosophy to the contents on one's plate. The health benefits are all well and good, (and not that hard to achieve) – but I wish there was more focus on the ethics (or lack thereof) of eating flesh….. Diets are often compromised or abandoned – you just don't do that to your morality.
the title "Why Vegan is the New Atkins" (a post by Kathy Freston at The Huffington Post) tells me that vegan, whatever that is, is a way to lose weight quickly that will spread, as a trend, like wildfire, only to be proven unhealthy and fade away.
That's exactly what it says to me too!
I was pleasantly surprised to see that Freston uses "animal flesh" rather than "meat," here and there, and that in the penultimate paragraph she does say that veganism "is not a diet, it's a lifestyle transition." Yeah, "transition" is odd, but I think I understand what she's saying. Then again, the final paragraph says "it's worth reading up a bit on how to maximize the health advantages of a vegan diet." So now it's a diet.
Sounds to me like a case of diet "food restriction regimen to lose weight" vs. diet "description of what people eat". Bea Elliott has a good point in that I am a vegan, not just a person who eats a vegan diet (non-weight-loss sense), but the health advantages probably come more from the diet (non-weight-loss sense) than the refusal to wear leather, etc.
I'm glad you remarked on Pacelle's comment, Jenny. My jaw dropped when I read that too. And Pacelle inserted himself into Freston's encouragement of a vegan diet to say it, as if he was disagreeing with her (her last remark before this being "With all of this [animals, health, and environment] to consider, eating in a vegan manner seems to be a home run"). Why Pacelle is now saying that even reducing meat consumption may be "very difficult"–why someone positioned as (and celebrated by some as) an animal advocate is validating people's "it's too hard not to" excuse for eating animals–is beyond my comprehension.
Back to the topic at hand–When discussing veganism with people, I actually stay completely away from the weight-loss discussion. I have no problem talking about the health benefits, but knowing that it's entirely possible to be a vegan, even a healthy-eating vegan, and still struggle with weight as well as entirely possible to be a healthy-eating omnivore and maintain healthy weight–and because die-hard omnivores can point that out as easily as I can–I don't consider potential weight loss, alone, to be a compelling reason for people to go vegan. If desired or needed weight loss ends up being a by-product of vegan eating undertaken for ethical and general health reasons, fantastic, but setting it up as a weight-loss plan, a la Atkins, is not something I'm comfortable with–because that also sets it up to be criticized and dismissed altogether, despite its other benefits, if it doesn't indeed provide weight loss.
Wayne Pacelle is a hypocritical fraud who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. IMO, he’s in the same moral category as Joseph Luter, the head of Smithfield Pork. The biggest difference between them is that at least Luter is honest about who he is and what he does.
To elaborate on my comparison of Wayne Pacelle and Joseph Luter as “in the same moral category”, I should state that they end up in the same general category but for different reasons.
Pacelle doesn’t run a multi-billion dollar animal exploitation and slaughter business, but by his confused message, he does encourage consumers to buy the end product of exploitation and slaughter businesses, and he does this *in a position of public trust* (however misguided that public trust is). Depending on the circumstances, Pacelle says he is “for the animals” or on the contrary, for the profitable (and oxymoronically “humane”) [exploitation and slaughter] of animals. Pacelle therefore lacks integrity, authenticity, consistency, and honesty to a deplorable degree and ends up in a low moral category as a result.
Joseph Luter runs a multi-billion dollar animal exploitation and slaughter business and he calls himself a “tough man in a tough business”. He is not in a position of public trust nor does he try to claim (to the best of my knowledge) that he is “for the animals”. Luter is in a low moral category for what he does, period, regardless of how honest, authentic, or consistent he is about what he does.
I take it Kathy Freston has read The Tipping Point…