I think it is important and often neglected to take nutrition seriously in conversations on plant forward diets. In particular I think there is a lot of uncritical rejection of the very important nutritional role that animal products currently play in the lives of most people, by several prominent figures- and repeated uncritically by their followers.
However, the argumentation in this argument is pretty fundamentally flawed, This argument is framed as a rejection of an overly prescriptive pathway to improving sustainability and animal welfare (veganism), but rather than concluding with the nutritional challenges that need attention, it seems to present its own equally prescriptive, but far less accessible, diet in it's place. If this diet works for the author that's great, but for many people being vegan also works great. The extrapolation of the author's experience as a universal one seems unhelpful.
In the context of worsening climate change we will soon face significantly higher barriers to animal products (less output, higher prices etc.) and that to discuss this as a matter of choice misses the single point of failure animal products are in the vast majority of most people's diets for various nutrients (which they don't need to be). It is my firm belief that we urgently need to explore and expand processing techniques, diversify our vehicles for fortification, and explore novel sources of these nutrients to be able to meet these requirements much more easily without animals. We have seen countless times that approaches such as fortification and processing are very effective (and less cost and resource intensive than animal farming). While it is not my position that everyone could necessarily be vegan I think this post presents a compelling narrative but relies on pretty flimsy evidence, and has a myopic call to action. Bivalves can be a great source of nutrients but it can be hard to get people to eat them. If for one person its mussels, and another it's mycoprotein, it's fine for us to take different paths.
As a caveat to all this: i personally am vegan, have been for 8 years, have seen measurable improvements in diet quality, general health and wellbeing since doing so. I have a background in medical communication rather than nutrition specifically, but do a lot of sports and have consequently read and applied a lot on this topic. I don't say this as an anecdotal counter to your argument so much as to point out from the off that it sounds like our personal experience will likely be pulling us towards opposite conclusions.
However, relative to my understanding of the research i think many of these arguments on the health side are somewhat straw manned and not scientifically very informative.
A few examples:
First and foremost the ever present naturalistic fallacy in these conversations are loud and clear here. The levels of nutrients in animal products are highly dependent on the conditions of the animal. Many of the nutrients we take for granted in animal sources are there (and importantly are very consistent) because of fortification in feed. This inconsistency is worsened by climate change. If it's just a case of where to put the fortification, putting it elsewhere seems better (eg iodised salt better serves everyone than iodine fortification in milk as many people have lactose intolerance or allergy, and the longer input chain of milk means the prices are more volatile.)
The observational datasets in the adventist and counter example listed above are non standard populations and not representative of 'vegan diets' writ large (iirc they aren't actually a vegan cohort at all), it seems doubtful that the only difference between the outcomes of these two groups was meat, and versus average both significantly outperformed. This is important because to avoid navel gazing on the minutiae between two niche diets, we must consider the most important factors on a population level rather than looking at marginal gains between two already healthy groups.
Regarding fish and omega 3, the British nutrition society recently published a paper recommending algae oil as a source of long chain omega 3 in place of fish where available because of the fluctuations in content and struggling populations of actual fish.
Appeals to 'what our ancestors did' always wave a red flag for me, and I am very glad my life bares very little resemblance to that of my ancestors in almost every respect. Our diets look very different, and broadly much better across the board. Even ignoring this, we do have examples of people who have been largely or completely vegan or vegetarian for a very long time, eg some budhist sects, Jains, etc. In these places plant based foods that can meet more similar nutritional needs like tempeh emerged. This is unlikely to be a coincidence.
With regards to the mental health, there are lots of confounding factors that are not necessarily causal, most significantly that it's generally a self selecting group of people who are above average invested in animal welfare and climate change, so much so they radically changed their diets. Caring about those things gets pretty depressing pretty quickly.
Finally, this article gives the impression that veganism presents itself as some framework for minimising animal suffering. I don't think that is necessarily true. I personally don't want to pay for someone else to harm animals on my behalf, which means I don't want to eat animal products. That is my north star, and it simplifies navigating the massive moral maze of modern society. This works for me in a way that didn't work before I went vegan. Before I didn't want to be vegan because I liked animal foods, but I felt dissonance doing that while caring about animals and the environment. As a consequence, I struggled as I felt I 'should', and when I invariably failed I gave up and felt bad. Then one day my thinking pattern just kind of shifted and everything became very simple and easy.
Not everyone wants to be vegan and that's fine, but lots of people who aren't vegan but share similar values seem to find this difference in perspective some kind of threat. Veganism is one belief system that can help navigate and stick to better diets, and attacking one another when we have common goals seems counterproductive. .
I think it is important and often neglected to take nutrition seriously in conversations on plant forward diets. In particular I think there is a lot of uncritical rejection of the very important nutritional role that animal products currently play in the lives of most people, by several prominent figures- and repeated uncritically by their followers.
However, the argumentation in this argument is pretty fundamentally flawed, This argument is framed as a rejection of an overly prescriptive pathway to improving sustainability and animal welfare (veganism), but rather than concluding with the nutritional challenges that need attention, it seems to present its own equally prescriptive, but far less accessible, diet in it's place. If this diet works for the author that's great, but for many people being vegan also works great. The extrapolation of the author's experience as a universal one seems unhelpful.
In the context of worsening climate change we will soon face significantly higher barriers to animal products (less output, higher prices etc.) and that to discuss this as a matter of choice misses the single point of failure animal products are in the vast majority of most people's diets for various nutrients (which they don't need to be). It is my firm belief that we urgently need to explore and expand processing techniques, diversify our vehicles for fortification, and explore novel sources of these nutrients to be able to meet these requirements much more easily without animals. We have seen countless times that approaches such as fortification and processing are very effective (and less cost and resource intensive than animal farming). While it is not my position that everyone could necessarily be vegan I think this post presents a compelling narrative but relies on pretty flimsy evidence, and has a myopic call to action. Bivalves can be a great source of nutrients but it can be hard to get people to eat them. If for one person its mussels, and another it's mycoprotein, it's fine for us to take different paths.
As a caveat to all this: i personally am vegan, have been for 8 years, have seen measurable improvements in diet quality, general health and wellbeing since doing so. I have a background in medical communication rather than nutrition specifically, but do a lot of sports and have consequently read and applied a lot on this topic. I don't say this as an anecdotal counter to your argument so much as to point out from the off that it sounds like our personal experience will likely be pulling us towards opposite conclusions.
However, relative to my understanding of the research i think many of these arguments on the health side are somewhat straw manned and not scientifically very informative.
A few examples:
Finally, this article gives the impression that veganism presents itself as some framework for minimising animal suffering. I don't think that is necessarily true. I personally don't want to pay for someone else to harm animals on my behalf, which means I don't want to eat animal products. That is my north star, and it simplifies navigating the massive moral maze of modern society. This works for me in a way that didn't work before I went vegan. Before I didn't want to be vegan because I liked animal foods, but I felt dissonance doing that while caring about animals and the environment. As a consequence, I struggled as I felt I 'should', and when I invariably failed I gave up and felt bad. Then one day my thinking pattern just kind of shifted and everything became very simple and easy.
Not everyone wants to be vegan and that's fine, but lots of people who aren't vegan but share similar values seem to find this difference in perspective some kind of threat. Veganism is one belief system that can help navigate and stick to better diets, and attacking one another when we have common goals seems counterproductive.
.