In response to Philip Boucher-Hayes' documentary

SinSim · 11-03-2018 5:57pm

markodaly wrote: »

Mentalmiss wrote: »

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to make a complaint about the above programme which violates the European Convention on Human Rights...

Stopped reading here...

Perhaps the Vegan movement would be taken with more credibility if they were not so sensitive?

How much credibility do they have now? Less sensitive how exactly? Is the woman who wrote the letter a good representation of vegans in Ireland?

SinSim · 11-03-2018 5:58pm

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

I haven't seen the documentary yet.There are a number of valid points in this mail. However, the notion that the European Convention on Human Rights would require that a documentary on food be taken down is so far-fetched as to be ridiculous.

Article 9 covers "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion". One could debate whether vegetarianism or veganism would fall into those categories (although it certainly isn't a religion). Even if it was a religion, the Convention doesn't appear to protect a religious belief from criticism or indeed mockery. It simply protects the right to hold and practice one's religion freely. Does the documentary prevent anyone from following a vegan diet?

I'm a card-carrying Vegetarian Society member (although my membership may have lapsed - they aren't the best at keeping in touch with members). I'm a supporter of vegetarian and vegan causes, but it is ludicrous to suggest that there is a human rights issue at stake here, particularly at a time when human rights abuses (including religious persecution) are so widespread.

What's veganism?

SinSim · 11-03-2018 6:00pm

UsedToWait wrote: »

jh79 wrote: »

The OP isn't the person who wrote the email. I don't think it was meant to be made public

I see..
Could the op please pass the question on to the esteemed Dr., now that it is in the public domain?

As someone who doesn't eat meat personally, I find the complaint frankly hysterical and almost certainly counter-productive, much like those 'baby cow stealing' billboards that have recently emerged..

Why don't you eat meat?

SinSim · 11-03-2018 6:02pm

tayto lover wrote: »

When did being a vegan become a movement?
I thought it was just a dietary choice.

I might start a movement myself like crispism. I like crisps.

What's veganism?

SinSim · 11-03-2018 6:02pm

tayto lover wrote: »

When did being a vegan become a movement?
I thought it was just a dietary choice.

I might start a movement myself like crispism. I like crisps.

What's veganism?

banie01 · 11-03-2018 6:05pm

SinSim wrote: »

How much credibility do they have now? Less sensitive how exactly? Is the woman who wrote the letter a good representation of vegans in Ireland?

Regarding whether the woman who wrote the letter is representative of vegans in Ireland,
In the opening paragraph of her complaint she confirms that

I am Chairperson of the Vegetarian Society of Ireland

This would strongly imply that she has a mandate to speak for a significant cohort of Vegetarians and Vegans.

The effect of the letter on their and by extension their organisations credibility as a result of the letter?
I would suppose each person would answer differently, but from a purely professional stand point, if I came across the mode of hysterical, reactionary and poorly grounded argument presented in the letter, in any pleading or missive that came my way...
Credible would not be a word that sprang to mind.

UsedToWait · 11-03-2018 6:07pm

SinSim wrote: »

Why don't you eat meat?

Personal choice really..

banie01 · 11-03-2018 6:19pm

The original Email has been posted publicly on the Vegetarian Society's Facebook page.

After browsing the comments there, it really is an eye opener to dangers of Echo Chambers and the effect that continuous confirmation bias can have.

The author of the letter also confirms that her stance regarding the EHRC breech is "the law" and that she is writing to RTE as a lawyer!

UsedToWait · 11-03-2018 6:29pm

banie01 wrote: »

The original Email has been posted publicly on the Vegetarian Society's Facebook page.

After browsing the comments there, it really is an eye opener to dangers of Echo Chambers and the effect that continuous confirmation bias can have.

The author of the letter also confirms that her stance regarding the EHRC breech is "the law" and that she is writing to RTE as a lawyer!

I wonder if anyone would care to email Dr O'Sullivan, and ask her to join the discussion here, and enlighten us on the finer points of the ECHR and equality legislation pertaining to dietary choices?

11-03-2018 6:30pm

banie01 wrote: »

The original Email has been posted publicly on the Vegetarian Society's Facebook page.

A warning to all,vegetarian, vegan or otherwise, reading the comments section on that facebook post will probably kill brain cells.

Mancomb Seepgood · 11-03-2018 6:31pm

banie01 wrote: »

The original Email has been posted publicly on the Vegetarian Society's Facebook page.

After browsing the comments there, it really is an eye opener to dangers of Echo Chambers and the effect that continuous confirmation bias can have.

The author of the letter also confirms that her stance regarding the EHRC breech is "the law" and that she is writing to RTE as a lawyer!

Much of what she says is fair comment and I don't necessarily disagree with it,but I'd find it disturbing that she'd challenge this on the basis of the ECHR. I'm no lawyer but article 9 is succinct and easy for anyone to understand. From my read it would protect someone's right to be a vegetarian or vegan, but not prevent criticism of a vegetarian diet. It's such a bizarre position for her to take.

And yes, Facebook groups tend to be echo chambers.

SinSim · 11-03-2018 7:24pm

I agree with the last post regarding article 9 but..

Is there a precedent of other groups protected under article 9 being subject to the same type of treatment by RTÉ? My point is, if there is a precedent we could compare and if there isn't, the question stands: Why hasn't RTÉ treated other groups protected by the same law this way? and, Would RTÉ treat other groups protected by the same law this way? and then, why not? Or how so? And that could lead us to asking if there is a prejudice towards different groups protected by the same law?

If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, read the original complaint and my first post.

I stand by what I wrote in my first post. Regarding the law I have no idea. But a complaint of some sort is deserved.

gozunda · 11-03-2018 7:25pm

SinSim wrote: »

What's veganism?

I think if you Google that - you will find plenty of definitions from vegans and otherwise...

fritzelly · 11-03-2018 7:27pm

SinSim wrote: »

If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, eat the original complaint and my first post.

Thats against my belief system I'm afraid

SinSim · 11-03-2018 7:28pm

fritzelly wrote: »

SinSim wrote: »

If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, eat the original complaint and my first post.

Thats against my belief system I'm afraid

ja ja

tayto lover · 11-03-2018 7:29pm

SinSim wrote: »

What's veganism?

I don't know as I didn't use the term.
#You might ask the good doctor who wrote the letter of complaint.

SinSim · 11-03-2018 7:29pm

gozunda wrote: »

SinSim wrote: »

What's veganism?

I think if you Google that - you will find plenty of definitions from vegans and otherwise...

I was specifically asking for your definition

banie01 · 11-03-2018 7:31pm

SinSim wrote: »

I agree with the last post regarding article 9 but..

Is there a precedent of other groups protected under article 9 being subject to the same type of treatment by RTÉ? My point is, if there is a precedent we could compare and if there isn't, the question stands: Why hasn't RTÉ treated other groups protected by the same law this way? and, Would RTÉ treat other groups protected by the same law this way? and then, why not? Or how so? And that could lead us asking if there is a prejudice towards different groups protected by the same law?

If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, eat the original complaint and my first post.

I stand by what I wrote in my first post. Regarding the law I have no idea. But a complaint of some sort is deserved.

What protection do you believe Article 9 offers that was impugned by the programme?

There has been no illegal action undertaken and the original complaints reliance on article 9 would be tenuous if attempted by a lay person but to be the foundation used by a qualified legal professional is frankly absurd.

Freedom of conscience is protected, however that does not mean alternative views, opinion or belief is at odds with that protection.
Indeed if it were, those taking the alternate viewpoint would surely be just as entitled to same protections under article 9 as the chairperson is claiming.

Skedaddle · 11-03-2018 7:39pm

Surely RTE presenters and anyone else also has freedom of conscience and can disagree with someone else's point of view?

Neither RTE nor the state nor anyone else is preventing anyone from being a vegan, discussing veganism, presenting their views on veganism, promoting a vegan lifestyle or anything else.

The documentary doesn't even look unbalanced. It just explored a topic.

If nobody can discuss anything, we might as well just shut down the media, the internet and ban from people from speaking in public.

SinSim · 11-03-2018 7:50pm

I've just had an epiphany... veganism hasn't anything to do with vegetables. I just read in Wikipedia that's it's got nothing to do with food! This is so weird. Veganism is about animals... ya wouldn't think by the name, wud'ya? I thought all the cranks were obsessed with their greens 'n' stuff. But actually it's an ideology.. go figure. The ol' veggies believe animals have a right to their own lives and their against any type of animal explotación. Another thing I read on Wikipedia is that, wait for it... we're animals too! - go figure. But we have rights already or at least most of us have the most important ones. Oh god, I'm beginning to feel really bad :-( why can't other animals have rights? I'd hate to live a life like theirs. Oh no, I wish I never thought of this, it feels horrible inside.. what have we been doing... we eat them. We eat other animals. That's so screwed up. What must it feel like to be animal? Hold on, I am an animal. I already know how it feels to be an animal.. oh my god.. what have I done ...............................

SinSim · 11-03-2018 7:52pm

Skedaddle wrote: »

Surely RTE presenters and anyone else also has freedom of conscience and can disagree with someone else's point of view?

Neither RTE nor the state nor anyone else is preventing anyone from being a vegan, discussing veganism, presenting their views on veganism, promoting a vegan lifestyle or anything else.

The documentary doesn't even look unbalanced. It just explored a topic.

If nobody can discuss anything, we might as well just shut down the media, the internet and ban from people from speaking in public.

What's your own personal understanding of veganism? It's a good base line for chatting about it here.

gozunda · 11-03-2018 7:58pm

SinSim wrote: »

I agree with the last post regarding article 9 but..

Is there a precedent of other groups protected under article 9 being subject to the same type of treatment by RTÉ? My point is, if there is a precedent we could compare and if there isn't, the question stands: Why hasn't RTÉ treated other groups protected by the same law this way? and, Would RTÉ treat other groups protected by the same law this way? and then, why not? Or how so? And that could lead us to asking if there is a prejudice towards different groups protected by the same law?

If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, eat the original complaint and my first post.

I stand by what I wrote in my first post. Regarding the law I have no idea. But a complaint of some sort is deserved.

That's a lot of supposition and to many "ifs" to be a serious question imo

Btw I am an ethical reader and it is against my beliefs to "eat" words.

Thanks

I don't believe there are any grounds for that complaint having seen the program ...

Skedaddle · 11-03-2018 7:58pm

SinSim wrote: »

What's your own personal understanding of veganism? It's a good base line for chatting about it here.

So basically you want me to justify my existence or exit the forum.

Fine.

I won't be back. It's reasons like this I don't bother engaging with political aspects of my diet.

gozunda · 11-03-2018 8:00pm

SinSim wrote: »

I was specifically asking for your definition

I think you were asking a number of posters but not specifically myself.

Why are you asking? - are you unsure what veganism entails?

SinSim wrote:

What's your own personal understanding of veganism? It's a good base line for chatting about it here.

As you're asking - perhaps you should start by giving your own understanding or definition ..

SinSim · 11-03-2018 8:04pm

banie01 wrote: »

SinSim wrote: »

I agree with the last post regarding article 9 but..

Is there a precedent of other groups protected under article 9 being subject to the same type of treatment by RTÉ? My point is, if there is a precedent we could compare and if there isn't, the question stands: Why hasn't RTÉ treated other groups protected by the same law this way? and, Would RTÉ treat other groups protected by the same law this way? and then, why not? Or how so? And that could lead us asking if there is a prejudice towards different groups protected by the same law?

If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, eat the original complaint and my first post.

I stand by what I wrote in my first post. Regarding the law I have no idea. But a complaint of some sort is deserved.

What protection do you believe Article 9 offers that was impugned by the programme?

There has been no illegal action undertaken and the original complaints reliance on article 9 would be tenuous if attempted by a lay person but to be the foundation used by a qualified legal professional is frankly absurd.

Freedom of conscience is protected, however that does not mean alternative views, opinion or belief is at odds with that protection.
Indeed if it were, those taking the alternate viewpoint would surely be just as entitled to same protections under article 9 as the chairperson is claiming.

None and I already said that. And since there was nothing that I could see that violated a protection in article 9, I was trying to look at it in a different way. I wanted to look at it from the point of view of precedents and how that in of and itself could establish at least prejudice. Prejudice in the way that "we" could be more liberal or generous with our protections towards one group than another and vice versa. I was just trying to get the intelligent people thinking, that's all. I haven't a clue about law.

UsedToWait · 11-03-2018 8:14pm

SinSim wrote: »

What's your own personal understanding of veganism? It's a good base line for chatting about it here.

Skedaddle wrote: »

So basically you want me to justify my existence or exit the forum.

Fine.

I won't be back. It's reasons like this I don't bother engaging with political aspects of my diet.

Ah I think you took offence a little easily there, if you don't mind me saying.
The poster, for reasons not entirely clear, asked the same question of several people..

No need to flounce out of the thread slamming the door after you..

SinSim · 11-03-2018 8:16pm

gozunda wrote: »

SinSim wrote: »

I agree with the last post regarding article 9 but..

Is there a precedent of other groups protected under article 9 being subject to the same type of treatment by RTÉ? My point is, if there is a precedent we could compare and if there isn't, the question stands: Why hasn't RTÉ treated other groups protected by the same law this way? and, Would RTÉ treat other groups protected by the same law this way? and then, why not? Or how so? And that could lead us to asking if there is a prejudice towards different groups protected by the same law?

If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, eat the original complaint and my first post.

I stand by what I wrote in my first post. Regarding the law I have no idea. But a complaint of some sort is deserved.

That's a lot of supposition and to many "ifs" to be a serious question imo

Btw I am an ethical reader and it is against my beliefs to "eat" words. Thanks

I don't believe there are any grounds for that complaint having seen the program ...

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to eat, I mean delete all the ifs and see how it reads. :-D

SinSim · 11-03-2018 8:18pm

UsedToWait wrote: »

SinSim wrote: »

What's your own personal understanding of veganism? It's a good base line for chatting about it here.

Skedaddle wrote: »

So basically you want me to justify my existence or exit the forum.

Fine.

I won't be back. It's reasons like this I don't bother engaging with political aspects of my diet.

Ah I think you took offence a little easily there, if you don't mind me saying.
The poster, for reasons not entirely clear, asked the same question of several people..

No need to flounce out of the thread slamming the door after you..

Did I just miss something?

banie01 · 11-03-2018 8:24pm

SinSim wrote: »

None and I already said that. And since there was nothing that I could see that violated a protection in article 9, I was trying to look at it in a different way. I wanted to look at it from the point of view of precedents and how that in of and itself could establish at least prejudice. Prejudice in the way that "we" could be more liberal or generous with our protections towards one group than another and vice versa. I was just trying to get the intelligent people thinking, that's all. I haven't a clue about law.

You asked for a precedent of other"protected groups" being treated the same way.
That would be for you to research and present as part of an argument, or rebuttal against the manner in which RTE presented the programme, not a question to be thrown out as a fishing expedition.

With regards your comment regarding prejudice and protections.
I have no care in the world if people are Vegan, Omni, Pesca...
It is not a matter of concern precisely because it is a freedom of conscience.
Comparing that documentary to actions that actually do contravene article 9 is disingenuous to say the least and is a reactionary and hysterical starting point to any discussion on the matter.

SinSim · 11-03-2018 8:27pm

Ah, I asked a couple of people about veganism because it was becoming clear that not everyone actually understands what it is. So, I just thought that it would be a better talking point than talking about article 9 and so on.

Sorry ðŸ˜

banie01 · 11-03-2018 8:30pm

SinSim wrote: »

Ah, I asked a couple of people about veganism because it was becoming clear that not everyone actually understands what it is. So, I just thought that it would be a better talking point than talking about article 9 and so on.

Sorry ðŸ˜

TBH it seems like you asked people about veganism to bait a trap that noone took.
Then you launched into your epiphany "animal" soliloquy.
Noone is doubting or questioning the Moral//Ethical choicw behind Veganism, yet you seem determined to ram it home.

What is your actual point?

Water John · 11-03-2018 8:31pm

Yes, Veganism is all about how humans treat other animal species. Not to exploit or injure them. Problem is, it seems to be about animals of a certain size. If I, or a vegan walk across a grass field, we both probably crush and kill hundreds of spiders, under our feet. Doesn't matter whether the shoes are leather or not.

SinSim · 11-03-2018 8:35pm

banie01 wrote: »

SinSim wrote: »

None and I already said that. And since there was nothing that I could see that violated a protection in article 9, I was trying to look at it in a different way. I wanted to look at it from the point of view of precedents and how that in of and itself could establish at least prejudice. Prejudice in the way that "we" could be more liberal or generous with our protections towards one group than another and vice versa. I was just trying to get the intelligent people thinking, that's all. I haven't a clue about law.

You asked for a precedent of other"protected groups" being treated the same way.
That would be for you to research and present as part of an argument, or rebuttal against the manner in which RTE presented the programme, not a question to be thrown out as a fishing expedition.

With regards your comment regarding prejudice and protections.
I have no care in the world if people are Vegan, Omni, Pesca...
It is not a matter of concern precisely because it is a freedom of conscience.
Comparing that documentary to actions that actually do contravene article 9 is disingenuous to say the least and is a reactionary and hysterical starting point to any discussion on the matter.

ðŸ˜

SinSim · 11-03-2018 8:38pm

I think I've had enough of this. When it stops feeling good, it's time to leave.

So happy I don't live in Ireland.

SinSim · 11-03-2018 8:42pm

Water John wrote: »

Yes, Veganism is all about how humans treat other animal species. Not to exploit or injure them. Problem is, it seems to be about animals of a certain size. If I, or a vegan walk across a grass field, we both probably crush and kill hundreds of spiders, under our feet. Doesn't matter whether the shoes are leather or not.

Well said. After all it's all about disproving the vegans. Forget about the animals.

Skedaddle · 11-03-2018 8:52pm

SinSim wrote: »

I think I've had enough of this. When it stops feeling good, it's time to leave.

So happy I don't live in Ireland.

Why?

People actually discuss things that they're uncomfortable with and we have television documentaries that we don't all agree with?

Good journalism is supposed to challenge and probe. It's not there to make anyone feel comfortable or re-enforce any belief. It's there to ask questions and explore.

Water John · 11-03-2018 8:57pm

Sim, I don't forget the animals, but a position must be logical. That is why vegans go beyond, just not eating meat, to wearing anything, derived from an animal.Don't bother with the distraction. Very used to debating points.

Escapees · 11-03-2018 9:08pm

SinSim wrote: »

I think I've had enough of this. When it stops feeling good, it's time to leave.

But sure didn't you only join boards.ie today?!!! I have to wonder at this point, what was your agenda?

Personally, for what it's worth, I did take issue with some aspects of the documentary. Especially PBH ignoring the advice on taking supplements etc. Mind you, I know of strict vegans who don't look at all healthy and so maybe there's a lesson after all to be taken from the program by such vegans... But it's the manner in which the original letter of complaint was written and the associating of the Dept of Law in NUIG etc. etc. that has wound me and many others up. That's the pity in all of this really...

Mancomb Seepgood · 11-03-2018 9:16pm

Water John wrote: »

Yes, Veganism is all about how humans treat other animal species. Not to exploit or injure them. Problem is, it seems to be about animals of a certain size. If I, or a vegan walk across a grass field, we both probably crush and kill hundreds of spiders, under our feet. Doesn't matter whether the shoes are leather or not.

I don't see where the problem is.If someone is a vegan for reasons of animal welfare,they are taking a conscious choice about their diet/apparel with the end of reducing harm and suffering of animals.All of our choices in life have impacts,some harmful,but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't reduce the harm we cause to others.

That assumes that someone has a vegan diet purely because of the animal welfare implications,there are other reasons (environmental impact,for one).

Water John · 11-03-2018 9:21pm

Well environmental aspect, of a vegetarian diet would be mainly concerned about, food miles. Better not eat the sugar snaps from Kenya or the grapes from South Africa.
I am simply pointing out, the logical extension of any such position.

Birdie Num Num · 11-03-2018 9:34pm

SinSim wrote: »

Fashionable diet? motivated by environmental concerns? purist vegetarianism? motivated by worries of animal welfare?, vegans get mad?, give an animal fresh air before you slaughter him?...What???

All of these were given to describe veganism either directly from Boucher-Hayes or through conversations. It's understandable then, that a lot of non-vegans would be confused and have misconceptions and are more likely to perpetuate both the confusion and misconceptions (on boards.ie for example). I'm sure RTÉ have good researchers. How could they get it so wrong?

....

We can do better than this, we ARE better than this. Do some good research, have a think, watch a video. Think about aligning your actions with your heart. This is only about the animals. Nothing and no one else. So when you do think about it, only think about the animals and what their lives are worth to them, not to you.

I know I have been selective in quoting you here but are you not being selective in your post regarding the programme? The programme did give a voice to veganism that you haven't mentioned. For example, there was an interview with a member of the Vegan Information Project in Temple Bar which also showed their virtual reality experience.

garancafan · 11-03-2018 10:24pm

The only conclusion I can draw from the foregoing is that I will not be sending any of my children to NUIG to study law.

jh79 · 11-03-2018 10:51pm

garancafan wrote: »

The only conclusion I can draw from the foregoing is that I will not be sending any of my children to NUIG to study law.

She's hardly unique in this regard i work with PhD level scientist that believes in alternative medicine ( the really wacky type). All the universities teach the same things , they are regulated after all. People are strange.

brendane · 11-03-2018 11:26pm

SinSim wrote:

This was done by reducing veganism to, and I quote: "a fashionable diet" at the off set, and putting it in a category with "other fad diets".

SinSim wrote:

I've just had an epiphany... veganism hasn't anything to do with vegetables. I just read in Wikipedia that's it's got nothing to do with food! This is so weird. Veganism is about animals... ya wouldn't think by the name, wud'ya? I thought all the cranks were obsessed with their greens 'n' stuff. But actually it's an ideology.. go figure. The ol' veggies believe animals have a right to their own lives and their against any type of animal explotaciÃ³n. Another thing I read on Wikipedia is that, wait for it... we're animals too! - go figure. But we have rights already or at least most of us have the most important ones. Oh god, I'm beginning to feel really bad :-( why can't other animals have rights? I'd hate to live a life like theirs. Oh no, I wish I never thought of this, it feels horrible inside.. what have we been doing... we eat them. We eat other animals. That's so screwed up. What must it feel like to be animal? Hold on, I am an animal. I already know how it feels to be an animal.. oh my god.. what have I done ...............................

Ya the program already dealt with this. The guy in temple bar (who worked with some vegan group) said that people become vegans but don't connect with the ethics and philosophy of it and end up falling away.

It's clear that to some people in Ireland veganism is just a diet. As uneducated as these people are in relation to veganism and it's true meaning, the programme done well in pointing out how these people can cause themselves harm by following such a "diet"

Tar.Aldarion · 11-03-2018 11:32pm

Too much nonsense and personal posting in here, if you can't talk to each other civilly this thread will just be closed.

Phibsboro · 11-03-2018 11:38pm

Cake of Tremendous Power wrote: »

A warning to all,vegetarian, vegan or otherwise, reading the comments section on that facebook post will probably kill brain cells.

You ain't kidding. I picked two supporting posters at random and one mixes in alternative medicine with a lot of anti-cheese stuff while the other has a few fascist BNP anti-immigrant posts. I would have thought the general idea of not eating animals was more mainstream than that. I wonder if the society has been waylaid by a militant right wing faction?

Mancomb Seepgood · 11-03-2018 11:46pm

Phibsboro wrote: »

You ain't kidding. I picked two supporting posters at random and one mixes in alternative medicine with a lot of anti-cheese stuff while the other has a few fascist BNP anti-immigrant posts. I would have thought the general idea of not eating animals was more mainstream than that. I wonder if the society has been waylaid by a militant right wing faction?

It's a Facebook group that's open to anyone who wants to join (you don't need to be a member of the society) so I wouldn't read too much into it.Most people who join the society probably do so because they read the magazine/newsletter,want to avail of some of the discounts available to members or want to show support for vegetarianism generally.Not to say that there aren't some kooks or cranks in it of course.

banie01 · 12-03-2018 11:13am

UsedToWait wrote: »

I wonder if anyone would care to email Dr O'Sullivan, and ask her to join the discussion here, and enlighten us on the finer points of the ECHR and equality legislation pertaining to dietary choices?

I'd hazard a guess that the good doctor has already engaged in the discussion here, given the sign up and posting history of a certain poster, along with their repeated insistence they know nothing of the law

weisses · 12-03-2018 11:40am

jh79 wrote: »

No , the facts are that not a single study has shown a benefit to a vegan diet / plant based diet over a balanced diet that contains an appropriate amount of red meat.

The book has over 200 pages dedicated to referencing the studies they are mentioning in the book

Maybe inform yourself first before making (yet) another sweeping incorrect statement

And no you don't need meat in a balanced diet ....

jh79 · 12-03-2018 1:31pm

weisses wrote: »

The book has over 200 pages dedicated to referencing the studies they are mentioning in the book

Maybe inform yourself first before making (yet) another sweeping incorrect statement

And no you don't need meat in a balanced diet ....

Never said you need meat in a balanced diet. I said that no study has shown that a plant based diet is better than a balanced diet with an appropriate amount of red meat.

If i am wrong put up a link to the study that says otherwise.

In response to Philip Boucher-Hayes' documentary

Comments