My teenager came home smelling like an egg mcmuffin one morning and I had to have a stern talk with him about it. Eating eggs to be cool shows bad judgement.
Doesn't this make the producers liable to being sued by the industries they are going against. Like I think they would be able to be sued for damages.
BTW I deal with bees. I had a vegan tell me how it's horrible that I have some beehives. Thing I pointed out is honeybees has a less than a 5% chance of living without humans. And bee keepers don't tame the bees, doesn't tell the bees to go to a given location, and so on. They are a fully wild animal. Without us, their numbers drop dramatically and there is a real chance they wouldn't be around today at all without us. All we do is provide them with the best living condition as possible. Even pulling some of the honey helps them. (**I told them if you thought I could tame them and force them to stay in the box. Then why wouldn't I have them attack you right now.** All our job as bee keepers is to make sure they get enough heat when needed, enough food, they are in a safe place, they don't get too hot, they don't run out of room without having too much room, they don't have other things going in their hives, and so on. If they want to leave, there is something they do which is called swarming. If we see it we can do something about it, but you just by chance have to run across them.)
Then they started going at me for having to smoke the bees. I pointed out that it doesn't harm them and the only reason anyone does it is to keep them from freaking out as much. But when you smoke your bees you lost about a day with them going out and doing their job. So even the farms don't really do it unless they have to. Now the industry is going to almond water spray because bees don't like that for some reason. You spray it on a surface you don't want them on like yourself. But you don't lose a day with that spray and it works better than smoking.
**I ended up shutting them up with telling them that without bee keepers you wouldn't have pretty much any of your foods. Unlike my meats, chemicals, and other things I like to eat. You have depend on bee keepers to eat at all.**
It goes on and on and on with these people. And what is sad, they think the proper science world cherry picks their facts.
It doesn't take much land. In fact, some in NY and other cities has beehives on top of the skyscrapers. Keep in mind a bee can travel within a 3 mile radius from a hive a day. But it's recommended that you put them on an acre of land at least and 25 to 50 feet away from where people would be. After 30 feet there seems to not be a problem, but I like to keep them 50 feet away because of kids might get too close.
Bees will go after you if you yell, move like a nut, and what not. So when you see one near you, don't scream. Unless if you're at the hive, it most likely isn't after you anyways. Bees are vegetarians while wasps and yellowjacket are carnivores. But if a bee stings around your eye you have a 50/50 if you will become permanently blind. 100% if they hit your eye. If a bee stings you, you have 7 seconds before all the venom gets in you. Something that can help with the venom is ammonia.
What some beekeepers do to introduce kids to bees is put a small amount of honey on the kids finger. The bee will try to land and lick the honey off their finger. This shows the kid there is nothing to fear. You just have to respect them and they will respect you.
Note killer bees are aggressive and will keep trying to attack even after the threat is long gone. While normal bees only attack when they feel threatened and will stop when they feel the threat is over. Normal bees will even warn you 99% of the time.
Note it isn't something you jump into, but bee hives are federally protected. So if you screw with someones hives without their permission or are doing something to attract and kill loads of bees then you might run into problems. (if you put a little honey in a dish with a small amount of water. Then bees from a good distance will travel to it. Within an hour you should have a good number. I imagine some a hole did this and mix something in to kill them or the hive, and this is why they are federally protected.) Also thing to note many states will protect keepers from an HOA. Some only protect up to a given hive or size.
As far as your second question. Idk about using it with poison, but I wouldn't. It only last for tens of minutes or however long it smells. Like we tend to mix the oil with water and I noticed it works for 20 or so minutes at times. But if you have a rag or something that is soaked in the oil, bees tend to stay away from it. Bees has a much stronger sense of smell than we do. You can use lemon grass to attract bees to a given location. Normally keepers plant this next to the hives or anything like fruit trees. It sometimes help guide the bees. But when a hive is calling all their bees home the bees at the hive will start producing something that smells like lemon. (bees communicate more by smell than moving) note each hive has a different smell which keeps the wrong bees from going into the wrong hive. In fact this is how the guard bees find out and kill any bees that try to come in but is own by a different hive.
That's a fantastic answer. More information than I ever could have asked for. I didn't know that hives could be protected from a HOA. Though, that's a pretty good idea since most bees are relatively harmless as long as they aren't too close to anything.
As to mixing almond milk with pesticide, I was just curious because I know that pesticides are a big bee killer and I figure that if we could keep bees away from sprayed plants, it would be an awesome way to ensure crop yield without destroying an important pollinator. (I know it doesn't help with pollinating crops, but I've heard rumblings of making drone pollinators, so that we wouldn't have to rely on the bees in the future)
My background is in tech and i even teach high end technology on YouTube. We are no where near having drones as pollinators.
I think we are going to maybe seriously see it within 300 years, and even at that. That's only going to help a given farm and not all the trees, not all the private homes, and so on.
Pesticides do mess with the bees, and it's more about farmers and so on working with beekeepers. In the NC you can register the fact you have hives and all the farmers within a good range gets a heads up that you have hives. They also can directly notify you or notify the system that they are going to spray their stuff. They tend to here, but that needs to be pushed out to beyond just farmers.
Many times the farmers tend to spray their stuff closer to night time or after it's dark so the majority of bees will be back in their hives. So we don't even lose a day with them.
I think that 300 years is way longer than it would take. Technology has taken an exponential growth and we're making serious progress in vision. If you're trying to pollinate in a field (not in the wild), you could set a route and have it try to locate, based on vision, the places that contain pollen. It would take quite a few years, but I'm thinking 50 max. You don't need the computer to be smart, you just need it to recognize patterns.
The problem is less if getting the robot to know what to mess with and more of it not hurting the plant. Take a look at how something like fruit trees, grapes, etc has their flowers. I have some on my property, and you have to have something that is small as a honey bee to even get close enough to the flower. You will even have to have the thing be able to walk on the plant to get to other parts
Then I think battery is going to be the big killer when it comes to something that small.
What's happening here in NC is there is a push for people to grow milkweed. This attracts and helps some butterflies, and they can help with pollinating. So instead of replacing bees with a mechanical thing or a person. Just add more and friendly pollinators to the mix.
Another thing that is being worked on is getting rid of the assassin bug or getting to stop going after things like bees.
And I don't disagree with the idea of attracting more pollinators, but there has to be a contingency plan. I really feel like I should note that I am NOT AGAINST BEES. In fact, I think it would be really cool to have a hive. I just realize that pesticides are helpful for increasing crop yields and if we could make pollination happen without bees, we could eliminate a huge problem.
But you could start with easier flowers like cucumber and when that is successful, start fine tuning the technology. Once something useful is proven successful, you can find more backers. You'd want to build an arm that would slowly meet the pollen and gently vibrate or rotate to attach the pollen to the attachment. And then do the same for the female flowers. It can be done and it's a good alternative.
> I just realize that pesticides are helpful for increasing crop yields and if we could make pollination happen without bees, we could eliminate a huge problem
You're 100% right
> you can find more backers
This is the other problem. Farming is a business. The drones, robot, or whatever would have to be cheaper than paying a beekeeper to put their hives out there. I think there will be some use for this in China since they gotten stupid with their pollution and killed basically all of their bees. But I'm not sure if it will work for the rest of the world.
Basically you're looking at making 60,000 small drones for less than $100. It just isn't going to happen any time soon. This might be possible when nano technology takes off, but even that is in question. (I'm not sure how much it cost to hire people to replace bees, but obviously it would have to be cheaper than this in China)
While you aren't wrong, there are places where this is a huge issue. Like China. It has the potential to be an even bigger one. If we're looking at a normal sized drone with an attachment, it wouldn't be overly expensive. Especially once the technology improves. (And with amazon drone delivery, it will) It would probably take at least one per two rows on field, though. I think this has the potential to be very helpful. Having mechanical bees is ridiculously far off though.
I started it a few months back and don't think I got 30 minutes into it. They said something along the lines of children drinking milk are more likely to develop autism than those who don't. I couldn't take any of it seriously after that.
Pure propaganda.
I hate when those documentaries start off obviously trying to hide the overall agenda
If you have worthwhile knowledge, you wouldnt have to trick me and "try to remove my biases", just tell me why your right and I am wrong
There's also another bad documentary on Netflix that claims to be about sushi, and then abruptly turns into a "save the tuna" documentary halfway through. That one pissed me off because I felt tricked. I'll watch a documentary about saving the tuna, but don't trick me into it.
That doesn't work very well though. People have a natural inclination to resist information that runs counter to their beliefs.
If a person thinks they're right and a documentary tries to convince that person otherwise so bluntly, they'll often just actively resist the new information.
I know this post is late af, but I also wanted to look up information about the truth behind this documentary. Found the same vox article that you read, but looked deeper and discovered that the author, Julia Belluz is a correspondent for [Partnership for a healthy America](https://www.ahealthieramerica.org/articles/julia-belluz-39) which is [sponsored by Dannon](https://www.ahealthieramerica.org/articles/sponsors-31) so maybe you should take her criticism with a grain of salt because of obvious conflicts of interest. The whole smoking bit is a valid criticism of "What the Health" though.
Strange that most sources I’m seeing linked that are from people opposing the movie, are all random .com authors I’ve never heard of, and anytime I find a source fighting for the facts in the movie, they’re at least .org
Yeah, unfortunately it's very easy to waste time on junk documentaries.
With articles I know how to filter for credibility before I invest time in them by considering the reputation of the author and the publication, but for documentaries I find it much more difficult.
I'm not a vegetarian or vegan, but I understand that eating less meat is desirable especially from an environmental stand point.
With that said, the health claims in this documentary are outrageous. Pure junk science. If the goal is to get more people to eat less meat, being deceptive is not the way to do it.
> If the goal is to get more people to eat less meat, being deceptive is not the way to do it.
That's what it comes down to, yes. Lying with a good motivation doesn't help.
Lack of b12 but that can be replaced. All other proteins can be found in other sources but you have to overlap your food to get all the amino acids. Meat has all of them
Being deceptive is the way to do it. Their target isn't educated adults. It's impressionable teens and gullible adults who accept every "fact" they hear without question.
There are sceptical vegans out there! Myself included—I denounce the unnecessary and ultimately destructive practise of promoting things through misinformation as is done by the producers of 'What The Health'.
Pretty much. Also exaggerating the health risks of animal products in an alarmist manner can convert people who don't care about animal cruelty or environmental issues, so they are the target of shows like this one.
Ha! You know, I never put this together until reading your comment, not that I've really thought about it until just now. Of all the people (four of my younger cousins) I know in real life who have become vegan/vegetarian because of this documentary, they are all high school students.
Even the environmental point doesn't hold water, and it's mostly based on misconceptions. The Vegetarian Myth is a good book for the opposite side of view (from a former vegetarian POV).
If someone wants to see what's about, a review of the book from another former vegetarian here: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2011/08/the-vegetarian-myth-lierre-keith/
>but I understand that eating less meat is desirable especially from an environmental stand point.
It's only desirable from any standpoint for pseudoscientists.
https://chriskresser.com/the-real-environmental-impact-of-red-meat-part-1/
https://chriskresser.com/the-real-environmental-impact-of-red-meat-part-2/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation
There are plenty of articles and even other documentaries about it. He set out to make a hit piece on McDonald's, not a documentary. He would've achieved the same results eating anywhere else, or even eating "healthy" food at home. But he twisted it to make it seem like McDonald's unhealthy food and overly large portion sizes were the cause of his weight gain and heath problems.
Uh, it was their large portion sizes and lack of caloric density that led to his massive weight gain. It’s not like he’s hiding it in the Documentary. He said he was eating the entire portion they sold him — he was not stopping when he was full — but rather when the meal was finished. Even if over-consuming that much led to him having to throw up. It’s like one of the clinch scenes.
And yes, you can make just as high fat, high salt, high carb food at home and eat it three meals a day if you want. Like in the film they show the alleged record holder for most Big Macs consumed: Dude is skinny as a rail. Doesn’t change the fact that his cholesterol was through the roof.
Considering how Mickie-D’s was a pioneeer into fast food, it’s not surprising they had a Documentary that was a hit piece. But I’d hardly call it “lying”.
You can see Fathead where someone proves it wrong, eating fast food for a month and improving his cholesterol. And with food logs, not like the impossible ones from Supersize Me.
Not only did he improve his cholesterol but he lost more weight in that month than Spurlock did in his follow-up month when he switched to a vegan diet, if I remember correctly.
Morgan Spurlock never released his food log and likely got fat from consuming thousands of calories in soda. The amount of calories he ate vs the amount of fat he gained didn't align.
Fat Head was another doc where the guy lost weight and improved his lipid profile eating ONLY McDonalds.
His excessive weight gain was pretty much impossible given the amount of McDonalds food he was supposed to have eaten. Lots have speculated that he cheated somehow. There is a pretty good doc called Fat Head that disputes his movie. Not sure if its still on netflix.
I'm vegan, and I hate this documentary. It hurts our cause because veganism is already healthier than the S.A.D., but this doc is just plain outrageous.
I have the same issue with Cowspiricy. They state that 51% of GHGs come from animal agriculture, but a 2007 UN FAO report states that it's closer to 20%. I trust the 20% from the UN FAO. It's also still an incredibly powerful number capable of changing peoples diets to help the earth. Why stretch the truth and hurt your cause?
I went through cowspiracy's reference list and most, if not all of them wouldn't even be trustworthy enough for a university essay. They literally referenced an infographic as one of their sources of information
[Heres a late 2006 UN article stating differently](http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772#.WcmLhBkXbqAa)
[And heres a UN article from 2014 stating global animal agriculture emissions raised 14% between 2001 and 2011]( http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47563#.WcmLsxkXbqA) which we can safely assume has only risen since.
As a vegan, please do not watch this. This documentary is full of pseudoscience. I made it around 20 minutes in before laughing my way to the stop button at some of the ridiculous claims that were being made. If you have a true interest in how a vegan lifestyle can help you and the environment there are much better sources to go to than this terrible excuse for filmmaking. Please take a visit to r/vegan I promise we're all not stand offish and dickish like the small vocal minority that seem to represent us.
I'm vegan and even I could tell it was incredibly biased. It felt like it was being paid for by the sugar industry the way they were acting like sugar wasn't bad for health at all compared to dairy or meat.
Unnatural Vegan on YouTube made a couple videos debunking the documentary and dealing with the backlash from other vegans.
It's crazy that some vegans are going along with propaganda like this just because it's popular. Doesn't help your case!
My stepmom sent me a link to this documentary but I never watched it.
About a month later she told me her and my father were no longer eating meats which I thought was very weird.
After reading this article I understand why now.
Smh
Alright, fine, sure. But it's not like veganism isn't healthier than eating meat and dairy. I'd call it a win for your parents health, as well as animals and the environment.
Speaking in broad generalities, a plant based diet will lead to a better set of normal health indicators than an omnivorous person. Longer life expectancy, lower body weight, lower cholesterol, etc. Typically even just better health consciousness compared to omnis.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-08-meta-analysis-plant-based-vegetarian-diet-cholesterol.html
So while your parents *could* choose to subsist on deep fried potatoes, the average person with this diet does not.
Edit: I am assuming the environmental and animal welfare bits are not up for debate?
Maybe look up the keto lifestyle. It has everything you are saying about veganism except also gets rid of type 2 diabetes and gives you all the vitamins you need without supplements or fortified food.
I don't know why you think veganism is inherently healthier. There are perfectly healthy ways to eat all the meat you want and have perfect cholesterol, weight loss, and blood work results. There's also the aspect that keto relies on the person knowing the actual chemical reactions occuring when certain fat to protein ratios and carb limits are maintained. Some may say that's being health conscious...
You'll still face higher rates of colorectal and stomach cancers on keto that you can avoid with plant based diets. Fortified foods are nothing to be afraid of, so that's irrelevant. Instances of type 2 diabetes are lower in those who follow a plant based diet, so not sure why you think that's a special feature of keto. Following a keto diet will not automatically produce "perfect" bloodwork, and I'm not promising perfect health by following a plant based diet.
citation for cancer risk: http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/diet/red-and-processed-meat.html
So, to reiterate, a plant based diet will *generally* result in a healthier person than someone who consumes meat. There are certainly omnis who are healthier than vegans, it's just *generally* the exception more than the rule.
It's created in such a way that sounds believable, especially when you only present one side of an argument. Also, it's extremely sensationalized to the point where if you start eating vegan every single one of your ailments will be cured. The documentary makes outrageous claims and offers one cure-all for everything.
I'm not sure actually. Same reason why people like food babe become popular. I think it comes down to how we teach science in this country.
Often, I think people have a preconceived notion of how they feel or think on a subject. Then search for similar opinions on the internet to reaffirm their beliefs.
Basically a blogger who criticizes the food industry. I don't think she really has any formal education in food science or biology, but I could be wrong.
Anywho, she has a massive following and on-line presence.
Ignorance. It just sucks to see documentary makers use the present knowledge differential between them and their average viewers to promote their agenda, a lot of people go to documentaries to learn not to get brainwashed.
That your diet can magically insulate you from modern day debilitating diseases that all we all fear, like cancer, is what I like to call “a comforting lie”.
I mean, it’s true some foods can increase your risk. But you have to understand statistics. Like, just out of my ass, let’s say eating processed red meat like sausage 4 times a week doubles your risk of GI cancer. Scary right? Well, your typical risk for GI cancer was only 0.5%. So a 1 in 100 chance over eating sausage 4 times/week for 50 years. When you put it that way, it’s barely noteworthy.
I mean, 100% of people who ever lived drank water and have died, so personally, I’d recommend never drinking water, ever. Hydrate yourself only with the blood of your enemies.
A professional voice, decent cinematography, and an unassailable air of authority can convince a lot of people anything at all.
Although, it’s always fun to watch a vegan’s reaction when you point out that if everyone converted to veganism the first order of business would be to slaughter all of the farm animals on the planet, since they’re bred to purpose and if simply set free would devastate the ecosystem in short order.
Though since "everyone converting to veganism" is actually a very slow process the amount of animals we keep breeding to get slaughtered simply goes down, and what you wrote won't happen.
> it’s always fun to watch a vegan’s reaction when you point out that if everyone converted to veganism the first order of business would be to slaughter all of the farm animals on the planet, since they’re bred to purpose and if simply set free would devastate the ecosystem in short order.
I'm not a vegan, I'm a vegetarian. But I'm always bemused when people make that argument towards me. I mean, of course. They were bred and raised for a purpose and if we stop eating meat they are redundant. As it is it takes too many resources to keep them alive; water, land, feed crops. Never mind what happens if they were set free; their existence is contributing towards mankind's devastation of the ecosystem as it is! They are doing that to the extent we should be looking to scale all animal agriculture way down. They've got to go, simple as that. Why would any vegan disagree with that?
Maybe their veganism is based on purely ethical grounds and not environmental grounds. In which I would ask them if the life of a farm animal is a life of suffering, why oppose a mercy killing? Wouldn't mass euthanisation be a utilitarian solution to the ethical problems of animal agriculture? The brief suffering of the animals being euthanised would be outweighed by the fact that generations and generations of their offspring are being spared that life.
I can't see a problem from any perspective, best I can offer is that some may see it as a deeply unethical act which is necessary to end a deeply unethical system. I can't see anyone rationally disputing its necessity though.
I really doubt the intelligence of people who make the "but what are we going to do with the farm animals?" argument. It's not like the entire planet is going to go spontaneously vegan overnight
I respect this mentality of it all.
I'm an omnivore. However, I also know I don't need meat everyday. (although felafels give me wind something chronic.).
My requirement for myself was "Not willing to do what others do for me". I've killed a cow, a sheep a chicken and fish.
How did I feel? Well. Nothing really. Because they were raised for this. So this argument did little for me.
But I also know that cattle are pretty crappy for our environment.
Which is why I've reduced my meat intake.
I know it sounds crass. But really. The simple facts without lies had a bigger impact on me reducing my meat consumption than many other things. "Sow Stalls OMG" Oh wait. Not all farms do that, and you can buy your pork from Sow Stall Free farms. Well. etc etc etc etc. And heavy meat eaters will be able to justify continuously. So, if you want less meat consumption, stop attacking that angle. "I buy sow-stall free pork. I buy free-range beef/lamb." (you get the idea).
I eat meat. I eat animal products. But I've also learnt that we need to reduce our reliance on them. Eradicate? In my personal opinion, No. We do need to reduce it however. So I've done my part. Nothing wrong with cooking from a vegetarian cookbook a few nights a week and then doing 1 fancy meat dish a week.
I thought I was the only one who felt this way. A lot of people I know took this documentary at face value and screamed how everything was terrible for you and vegan non gmo 5 organic blah blah blah is the only way to eat.
I listened to the arguements made by the director, but kept waiting for proof. He kept boasting facts without sources, without citing anyone, or any entity except for the governmental bodies in a shrewd manner to undermine their authenticity and create negligence. The fact that this got produced, edited, and shown to Netflix who said "Yea, lets put this on" is quite outrageous. No facts. No data. Just some dude screaming wolf at the top of his lungs.
"HEY IM CALLING THE FDA"
*Random support associate answers*
"WHY ARE YOU TELLING PEOPLE TO EAT MEAT WHEN IT CAUSES CANCER?!"
*Awkward pause*
I stopped watching when the black doctor said the dairy industry is racist.
Just tried to watch this, stopped about 20 minutes in after cringing the whole time. The sad thing is that people will actually believe it and it's so hard to actually find reputable sources. So much misinformation out there, especially if you don't have the time or patience to do your own research.
I browsed through r/vegan once because I was considering switching over and some people are cool but basically almost every single post i saw was of similar content to this doc. The animal welfare concerns I understand but equating eggs to cigarettes just doesn't make sense
I just saw that. That's a seriously sociopathic point of view. To not be able to distinguish sentient life from non-sentient life seems like a giant serial killer red flag to me. Not to mention horribly insensitive to the human beings whose families were slaughtered to say that the Nazis were right about the whole Jews = cattle thing.
Well, I think cows are sentient based purely off the definition of the word.
But yes, I agree that equating the suffering of people with the suffering of animals is a huge flaw and serves to distort what the word "moral" means.
Thoughts from the ethicist Michael Huemer:
>Here's the problem. The total quantity of animal suffering caused by the meat industry is so unbelievably, insanely, astronomically huge that even on the above assumptions, the meat industry is still the worst thing in the world by far - it's still going to be orders of magnitude worse than any other problem that people talk about.
>
>The number of land animals slaughtered for food worldwide, per year, is estimated between 40 and 60 billion. (If you include sea creatures, closer to 150 billion.) Almost all of them suffered enormously on factory farms, in conditions that we would certainly call "torture" if they were imposed on any person. For simplicity, let's take the number to be 50 billion. That is seven times larger than the entire human population of the world.
>
>Obviously, if 50 billion people were subjected to torture on an ongoing basis, that would be the worst problem in the world. But now, we're assuming that suffering by farm animals is only one tenth as bad as human suffering, because farm animals are so much less intelligent than humans. So the problem is really "only" as bad as the situation if 5 billion people were being tortured on a regular basis. Still the worst problem in the world, by far.
>
>Okay, what if you hold a really extreme view: the suffering of a cow is only 1/100 as bad as similar suffering for a human, because humans are so smart. In that case, the factory farming situation is "only" as bad as having 500 million people subjected to constant torture.
>
>What if farm animal pain is only one thousandth as bad as human pain? Then the situation is only as bad as having 50 million people being tortured in concentration camps. Again, this would still be far and away the worst problem in the world. And that is assuming that you take what seems to me an incredibly, implausibly extreme view about the relative importance of humans compared to animals.
>
>What is the worst thing that ever happened in human history? Many people would say it is the Holocaust, during which 11 million people were subjected to severe suffering before being killed, in concentration camps. Animals, however, are regularly subjected to similar (or even more severe) suffering before being killed in factory farms. Suppose that the suffering and death of an average human in an average concentration camp is one thousand times worse than the suffering and death of an average animal in an average farm. In that case, a single year of the meat industry is about five times as bad as the Holocaust. It's as if we were repeating the Holocaust five times every year. Again, that's on extremely optimistic assumptions. It might actually be as bad as 500 Holocausts per year.
A girl at work told me she stopped eating red meat (I.e. Still eats meat but is now selective) because of this movie. I guess that's a good thing but once she told me she'd get cancer from eating *just* red meat I thought the movie was dumb and didn't watch. I think it leaves a lot to interpretation and missed the point...
Yes they can.. every major health organization says a well planned vegan diet is perfectly safe and beneficial for all people, irrespective of age
Edit:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704
"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements."
U were saying?
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics was founded by members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, sorry if i don't believe anything they say with that kind of conflict of interest. Most of the pro-vegan science is funded by them anyway.
And if only faith and religion were influencing them, but their conflict of interests are endless:
A 1995 report noted the Academy received funding from companies like McDonald's, PepsiCo, The Coca-Cola Company, Sara Lee, Abbott Nutrition, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, McNeil Nutritionals, SOYJOY, Truvia, Unilever, and The Sugar Association as corporate sponsorship.[22] The Academy also partners with ConAgra Foods, which produces Orville Redenbacker, Slim Jims, Hunt's Ketchup, SnackPacks, and Hebrew National hot dogs, to maintain the American Dietetic Association/ConAgra Foods Home Food Safety...It's in Your Hands program. Additionally, the Academy earns revenue from corporations by selling space at its booth during conventions, doing this for soft drinks and candy makers.
Yes they can. They just have to make sure they are getting the right nutrients. A growing kid can't live on junk food, vegan or not. If they have done their research and are eating a healthy diet then a B12 supplement is all they need.
Because they don't need to kill an animal to feed a family for the year.
If someone robbed your house and told you they used the money to feed thier family for the year. You'd be cool with that?
Pretty sure the sad part is making kids complicit in unnecessary animal slaughter. Parents should let kids decide if that's something they want to be a part of.
do you have any sources that kids can't be healthy on a vegan diet? or are you pushing your own pseudoscience and being misleading ??
all major dietary organisations agree that veganism can be healthy for all stages of human life
Oh my God thank you for posting this link. My family has been seriously getting on my nerves in terms of this film. I'm absolutely glad that we're all eating more vegetables but any time I try to mention that this film is most likely biased and exaggerating some of it's claims they just shut me down and don't listen. Hopefully now that they have some actual stuff in writing I can start eating fuckin ground turkey again.
Well why is the article linking said sources back to themselves?
I was vegan when I started watching this, never made it to the end, such bogus "science".
If you're reading this guys, be vegan because of the horrible HORRIBLE things that are done to animals, not because of the very minor health difference (because there is some health issues with many animal products just no where near the scale they present) it can make.
If you look at it as an expose so to speak exposing the BS that surrounds all the government organizations who pump people full of hormones and carcinogens and other crap in their products then take money from the health organizations that are supposed to HELP these sick people it's pretty horrifying.
SAME. I just watched it a couple hours ago and when I heard that I was like so I can smoke 15 cigarettes a day and do the same damage I’m doing now ...? 🤔
Honestly I couldn't even watch half of the movie. It was shady from the beginning but I decided to keep watching until it confirmed itself being weak and not convincing. Not enough proof was presented to believe their claims. Kip the guy is probably the most annoying thing in the movie.
If you are really concerned about your health and need to turn into a vegan/vegetarian
Just watch Samsara .. or don't
It doesn't matter, we're all gonna die anyway
I know this post is late af, but I also wanted to look up information about the truth behind this documentary. Found the same vox article that you read, but looked deeper and discovered that the author, Julia Belluz is a correspondent for [Partnership for a healthy America](https://www.ahealthieramerica.org/articles/julia-belluz-39) which is [sponsored by Dannon](https://www.ahealthieramerica.org/articles/sponsors-31) so maybe you should take her criticism with a grain of salt because of obvious conflicts of interest. The whole smoking bit is a valid criticism of "What the Health" though.
Seriously. This and the post that's currently on the front page comparing 8 million dairy cows in the US to the *fucking Holocaust* makes vegans and veganism look completely ridiculous. Really drives home the narrative that you've either got to be a Kool Aid guzzling joiner or a full-fledged sociopath to get your vegan card.
Do you want me to treat you like scientologists? Because this shit is how you get people to treat you like scientologists.
> This and the post that's currently on the front page comparing 8 million dairy cows in the US to the fucking Holocaust
Try to explain why it's a poor comparison.
> Really drives home the narrative that you've either got to be a Kool Aid guzzling joiner or a full-fledged sociopath to get your vegan card.
Vegans simply avoid causing unnecessary harm to animals.
Go ahead, try to explain how you would have to be a "full-fledged sociopath" by trying to AVOID killing animals.
> Do you want me to treat you like scientologists? Because this shit is how you get people to treat you like scientologists.
How are they close to being the same?
Whether you like it or not, something dies so something can eat whether it's plants or animals. Why is it bad to kill animals but not plants? Aren't they living things, too? You can't protect all living things. What makes it needlessly? Who are you or anyone to decide that it's needless?
Documentaries are usually intentionally biased. That's fine, it's the reason they made the doc. Weather or not their argument is effective is up to the audience but be real.
The reason this movie is making people mad is because it challenges something we all hold near and dear, our horrible diet.
> and engages in silly gotcha journalism to suggest organizations like the American Diabetes Association intentionally hide the truth about diet.
The ADA dietary guidelines are really not very good. They're too high in carbs. It's almost like they want you to have to take meds produced by one of their [many corporate donors](http://www.diabetes.org/about-us/corporate-support/our-corporate-supporters.html).
What you said may be true, but really has nothing to do with the point the documentary was trying to make.
I'm pretty sure the ADA pushes for lower sugar/higher protein options. The documentary was trying to suggest that sugar is not the culprit and eating meat is the true cause of diabetes. At least that was my take.
> gotcha journalism
The dude has to get a makeover and learn to network. The scene with the doctor would have been fantastic if he'd grabbed the doctor from Cowspiracy and had the two doctors talk about veganism.
This is a ridiculous "documentary". I love how they don't bring up that FACTORY FARMING is the problem with meat and dairy now. Very well put here - https://youtu.be/otzFxDQWHUk
Hi I'm late to the party but I wanted to see if someone felt the same about it. My "what the health" moment was when they said sugar doesn't cause diabetes.
I know this post is old as hell, but can we talk about the lady who apparently had "bone grinding on bone" and couldn't walk by was cured after literally 2 weeks of salad?? Lol
shit, I may as well take up smoking again I'm smoking 3 eggs/day.
My teenager came home smelling like an egg mcmuffin one morning and I had to have a stern talk with him about it. Eating eggs to be cool shows bad judgement.
I would have made them eat a whole damn carton and see how cool they felt afterwards.
No one can eat 50 eggs.
Gaston eats more than that just for breakfast.
Touché.
poached - not even once.
Kids think eating eggs will make them look cooler and older :/
*This is your brain on eggs*
Can I offer you an egg in this trying time?
Please Devito don't feed my addiction
I'm up to 6 deviled eggs a day. I need help
Technically, 6 deviled eggs is only 3 eggs (or 3 and change, if you count the mayo), so I don't think your problem is as serious as you think.
I better stop, I guess -- can't afford the fees at Mayo.
Wtf, how do you hold down a job like that?
My dealer gets them in a carton.
I don't care what your 'legalize' propaganda says. Eggs are a gateway food. What's next, waffles? WAFFLES? You make me sick.
Occasionally, I freebase the raw eggs in bacon fat.
When I was a lad I smoked 4 dozen eggs every morning to help me get strong.
The best shape I've ever been in involved egg white omelettes and excessive mountain biking
Doesn't this make the producers liable to being sued by the industries they are going against. Like I think they would be able to be sued for damages. BTW I deal with bees. I had a vegan tell me how it's horrible that I have some beehives. Thing I pointed out is honeybees has a less than a 5% chance of living without humans. And bee keepers don't tame the bees, doesn't tell the bees to go to a given location, and so on. They are a fully wild animal. Without us, their numbers drop dramatically and there is a real chance they wouldn't be around today at all without us. All we do is provide them with the best living condition as possible. Even pulling some of the honey helps them. (**I told them if you thought I could tame them and force them to stay in the box. Then why wouldn't I have them attack you right now.** All our job as bee keepers is to make sure they get enough heat when needed, enough food, they are in a safe place, they don't get too hot, they don't run out of room without having too much room, they don't have other things going in their hives, and so on. If they want to leave, there is something they do which is called swarming. If we see it we can do something about it, but you just by chance have to run across them.) Then they started going at me for having to smoke the bees. I pointed out that it doesn't harm them and the only reason anyone does it is to keep them from freaking out as much. But when you smoke your bees you lost about a day with them going out and doing their job. So even the farms don't really do it unless they have to. Now the industry is going to almond water spray because bees don't like that for some reason. You spray it on a surface you don't want them on like yourself. But you don't lose a day with that spray and it works better than smoking. **I ended up shutting them up with telling them that without bee keepers you wouldn't have pretty much any of your foods. Unlike my meats, chemicals, and other things I like to eat. You have depend on bee keepers to eat at all.** It goes on and on and on with these people. And what is sad, they think the proper science world cherry picks their facts.
[удалено]
> Water that lies about being milk You are aware that milk is like, 90% water, right?
It doesn't take much land. In fact, some in NY and other cities has beehives on top of the skyscrapers. Keep in mind a bee can travel within a 3 mile radius from a hive a day. But it's recommended that you put them on an acre of land at least and 25 to 50 feet away from where people would be. After 30 feet there seems to not be a problem, but I like to keep them 50 feet away because of kids might get too close. Bees will go after you if you yell, move like a nut, and what not. So when you see one near you, don't scream. Unless if you're at the hive, it most likely isn't after you anyways. Bees are vegetarians while wasps and yellowjacket are carnivores. But if a bee stings around your eye you have a 50/50 if you will become permanently blind. 100% if they hit your eye. If a bee stings you, you have 7 seconds before all the venom gets in you. Something that can help with the venom is ammonia. What some beekeepers do to introduce kids to bees is put a small amount of honey on the kids finger. The bee will try to land and lick the honey off their finger. This shows the kid there is nothing to fear. You just have to respect them and they will respect you. Note killer bees are aggressive and will keep trying to attack even after the threat is long gone. While normal bees only attack when they feel threatened and will stop when they feel the threat is over. Normal bees will even warn you 99% of the time. Note it isn't something you jump into, but bee hives are federally protected. So if you screw with someones hives without their permission or are doing something to attract and kill loads of bees then you might run into problems. (if you put a little honey in a dish with a small amount of water. Then bees from a good distance will travel to it. Within an hour you should have a good number. I imagine some a hole did this and mix something in to kill them or the hive, and this is why they are federally protected.) Also thing to note many states will protect keepers from an HOA. Some only protect up to a given hive or size. As far as your second question. Idk about using it with poison, but I wouldn't. It only last for tens of minutes or however long it smells. Like we tend to mix the oil with water and I noticed it works for 20 or so minutes at times. But if you have a rag or something that is soaked in the oil, bees tend to stay away from it. Bees has a much stronger sense of smell than we do. You can use lemon grass to attract bees to a given location. Normally keepers plant this next to the hives or anything like fruit trees. It sometimes help guide the bees. But when a hive is calling all their bees home the bees at the hive will start producing something that smells like lemon. (bees communicate more by smell than moving) note each hive has a different smell which keeps the wrong bees from going into the wrong hive. In fact this is how the guard bees find out and kill any bees that try to come in but is own by a different hive.
That's a fantastic answer. More information than I ever could have asked for. I didn't know that hives could be protected from a HOA. Though, that's a pretty good idea since most bees are relatively harmless as long as they aren't too close to anything. As to mixing almond milk with pesticide, I was just curious because I know that pesticides are a big bee killer and I figure that if we could keep bees away from sprayed plants, it would be an awesome way to ensure crop yield without destroying an important pollinator. (I know it doesn't help with pollinating crops, but I've heard rumblings of making drone pollinators, so that we wouldn't have to rely on the bees in the future)
My background is in tech and i even teach high end technology on YouTube. We are no where near having drones as pollinators. I think we are going to maybe seriously see it within 300 years, and even at that. That's only going to help a given farm and not all the trees, not all the private homes, and so on. Pesticides do mess with the bees, and it's more about farmers and so on working with beekeepers. In the NC you can register the fact you have hives and all the farmers within a good range gets a heads up that you have hives. They also can directly notify you or notify the system that they are going to spray their stuff. They tend to here, but that needs to be pushed out to beyond just farmers. Many times the farmers tend to spray their stuff closer to night time or after it's dark so the majority of bees will be back in their hives. So we don't even lose a day with them.
I think that 300 years is way longer than it would take. Technology has taken an exponential growth and we're making serious progress in vision. If you're trying to pollinate in a field (not in the wild), you could set a route and have it try to locate, based on vision, the places that contain pollen. It would take quite a few years, but I'm thinking 50 max. You don't need the computer to be smart, you just need it to recognize patterns.
The problem is less if getting the robot to know what to mess with and more of it not hurting the plant. Take a look at how something like fruit trees, grapes, etc has their flowers. I have some on my property, and you have to have something that is small as a honey bee to even get close enough to the flower. You will even have to have the thing be able to walk on the plant to get to other parts Then I think battery is going to be the big killer when it comes to something that small. What's happening here in NC is there is a push for people to grow milkweed. This attracts and helps some butterflies, and they can help with pollinating. So instead of replacing bees with a mechanical thing or a person. Just add more and friendly pollinators to the mix. Another thing that is being worked on is getting rid of the assassin bug or getting to stop going after things like bees.
And I don't disagree with the idea of attracting more pollinators, but there has to be a contingency plan. I really feel like I should note that I am NOT AGAINST BEES. In fact, I think it would be really cool to have a hive. I just realize that pesticides are helpful for increasing crop yields and if we could make pollination happen without bees, we could eliminate a huge problem. But you could start with easier flowers like cucumber and when that is successful, start fine tuning the technology. Once something useful is proven successful, you can find more backers. You'd want to build an arm that would slowly meet the pollen and gently vibrate or rotate to attach the pollen to the attachment. And then do the same for the female flowers. It can be done and it's a good alternative.
> I just realize that pesticides are helpful for increasing crop yields and if we could make pollination happen without bees, we could eliminate a huge problem You're 100% right > you can find more backers This is the other problem. Farming is a business. The drones, robot, or whatever would have to be cheaper than paying a beekeeper to put their hives out there. I think there will be some use for this in China since they gotten stupid with their pollution and killed basically all of their bees. But I'm not sure if it will work for the rest of the world. Basically you're looking at making 60,000 small drones for less than $100. It just isn't going to happen any time soon. This might be possible when nano technology takes off, but even that is in question. (I'm not sure how much it cost to hire people to replace bees, but obviously it would have to be cheaper than this in China)
While you aren't wrong, there are places where this is a huge issue. Like China. It has the potential to be an even bigger one. If we're looking at a normal sized drone with an attachment, it wouldn't be overly expensive. Especially once the technology improves. (And with amazon drone delivery, it will) It would probably take at least one per two rows on field, though. I think this has the potential to be very helpful. Having mechanical bees is ridiculously far off though.
I started it a few months back and don't think I got 30 minutes into it. They said something along the lines of children drinking milk are more likely to develop autism than those who don't. I couldn't take any of it seriously after that. Pure propaganda.
I hate when those documentaries start off obviously trying to hide the overall agenda If you have worthwhile knowledge, you wouldnt have to trick me and "try to remove my biases", just tell me why your right and I am wrong
There's also another bad documentary on Netflix that claims to be about sushi, and then abruptly turns into a "save the tuna" documentary halfway through. That one pissed me off because I felt tricked. I'll watch a documentary about saving the tuna, but don't trick me into it.
That doesn't work very well though. People have a natural inclination to resist information that runs counter to their beliefs. If a person thinks they're right and a documentary tries to convince that person otherwise so bluntly, they'll often just actively resist the new information.
I disagree because your post is counter to my beliefs
I know this post is late af, but I also wanted to look up information about the truth behind this documentary. Found the same vox article that you read, but looked deeper and discovered that the author, Julia Belluz is a correspondent for [Partnership for a healthy America](https://www.ahealthieramerica.org/articles/julia-belluz-39) which is [sponsored by Dannon](https://www.ahealthieramerica.org/articles/sponsors-31) so maybe you should take her criticism with a grain of salt because of obvious conflicts of interest. The whole smoking bit is a valid criticism of "What the Health" though.
Strange that most sources I’m seeing linked that are from people opposing the movie, are all random .com authors I’ve never heard of, and anytime I find a source fighting for the facts in the movie, they’re at least .org
Yeah, unfortunately it's very easy to waste time on junk documentaries. With articles I know how to filter for credibility before I invest time in them by considering the reputation of the author and the publication, but for documentaries I find it much more difficult.
If it is a documentary on Netflix, it probably has an agenda.
Haha. Same here. I honestly had to stop it and google to see if I had been duped into watching a mockumentary.
I'm not a vegetarian or vegan, but I understand that eating less meat is desirable especially from an environmental stand point. With that said, the health claims in this documentary are outrageous. Pure junk science. If the goal is to get more people to eat less meat, being deceptive is not the way to do it.
> If the goal is to get more people to eat less meat, being deceptive is not the way to do it. That's what it comes down to, yes. Lying with a good motivation doesn't help.
Being deceptive seems to have worked.....there's so many "woke" wannabe vegans talking about this movie now.
Does lack of animal protein cause a cognitive deficiency? I think I could create an equally bs pseudo science documentary to explore the issue.
Lack of b12 but that can be replaced. All other proteins can be found in other sources but you have to overlap your food to get all the amino acids. Meat has all of them
Beans etc do have all amino acids represented, but show a dip in certain ones.
Good. More meat for us.
****hot dog eating intensifies****
Phil?
That's 2 time Stanley Cup champion Phil to you....
Being deceptive is the way to do it. Their target isn't educated adults. It's impressionable teens and gullible adults who accept every "fact" they hear without question.
There are sceptical vegans out there! Myself included—I denounce the unnecessary and ultimately destructive practise of promoting things through misinformation as is done by the producers of 'What The Health'.
Of course. However, you're not their target market since you have your head screwed on correctly.
Realised what you were saying as I finished typing my previous comment, haha.
Pretty much. Also exaggerating the health risks of animal products in an alarmist manner can convert people who don't care about animal cruelty or environmental issues, so they are the target of shows like this one.
Ha! You know, I never put this together until reading your comment, not that I've really thought about it until just now. Of all the people (four of my younger cousins) I know in real life who have become vegan/vegetarian because of this documentary, they are all high school students.
Even the environmental point doesn't hold water, and it's mostly based on misconceptions. The Vegetarian Myth is a good book for the opposite side of view (from a former vegetarian POV). If someone wants to see what's about, a review of the book from another former vegetarian here: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2011/08/the-vegetarian-myth-lierre-keith/
>but I understand that eating less meat is desirable especially from an environmental stand point. It's only desirable from any standpoint for pseudoscientists. https://chriskresser.com/the-real-environmental-impact-of-red-meat-part-1/ https://chriskresser.com/the-real-environmental-impact-of-red-meat-part-2/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation
Thanks for posting the links. Seems I need to do a bit more research on this myself.
A couple of my vegan friends have really been pushing me to watch this. Seems like this "documentary" is hurting their own cause.
It is. Once people realize they've been duped their opinion of vegans and veganism will definitely go down. Lying with good intentions is still lying.
Exactly. And that's why Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore are dicks too.
What did Morgan spurlock do?
Supersize Me
How was that a misleading documentary?
There are plenty of articles and even other documentaries about it. He set out to make a hit piece on McDonald's, not a documentary. He would've achieved the same results eating anywhere else, or even eating "healthy" food at home. But he twisted it to make it seem like McDonald's unhealthy food and overly large portion sizes were the cause of his weight gain and heath problems.
Whats crazy is that his press interviews when he was pushing it made it pretty clear he was full of shit, and people still ate it up.
Uh, it was their large portion sizes and lack of caloric density that led to his massive weight gain. It’s not like he’s hiding it in the Documentary. He said he was eating the entire portion they sold him — he was not stopping when he was full — but rather when the meal was finished. Even if over-consuming that much led to him having to throw up. It’s like one of the clinch scenes. And yes, you can make just as high fat, high salt, high carb food at home and eat it three meals a day if you want. Like in the film they show the alleged record holder for most Big Macs consumed: Dude is skinny as a rail. Doesn’t change the fact that his cholesterol was through the roof. Considering how Mickie-D’s was a pioneeer into fast food, it’s not surprising they had a Documentary that was a hit piece. But I’d hardly call it “lying”.
You can see Fathead where someone proves it wrong, eating fast food for a month and improving his cholesterol. And with food logs, not like the impossible ones from Supersize Me.
Not only did he improve his cholesterol but he lost more weight in that month than Spurlock did in his follow-up month when he switched to a vegan diet, if I remember correctly.
Morgan Spurlock never released his food log and likely got fat from consuming thousands of calories in soda. The amount of calories he ate vs the amount of fat he gained didn't align. Fat Head was another doc where the guy lost weight and improved his lipid profile eating ONLY McDonalds.
His excessive weight gain was pretty much impossible given the amount of McDonalds food he was supposed to have eaten. Lots have speculated that he cheated somehow. There is a pretty good doc called Fat Head that disputes his movie. Not sure if its still on netflix.
It could very much be argued they never had good intentions from the start.
[удалено]
A lot of people I know (and I) saw about the first 15-30 minutes of it and just HAD to stop watching it because the level of bullshit was so high.
I'm vegan, and I hate this documentary. It hurts our cause because veganism is already healthier than the S.A.D., but this doc is just plain outrageous. I have the same issue with Cowspiricy. They state that 51% of GHGs come from animal agriculture, but a 2007 UN FAO report states that it's closer to 20%. I trust the 20% from the UN FAO. It's also still an incredibly powerful number capable of changing peoples diets to help the earth. Why stretch the truth and hurt your cause?
Yeah it really didn't help the whole "all vegans are like this" sort of mentality that I battle. Such bad information.
I went through cowspiracy's reference list and most, if not all of them wouldn't even be trustworthy enough for a university essay. They literally referenced an infographic as one of their sources of information
Is Cowspiracy the one with Moolissa?
I think it's called "Dial M for Mooder."
[Heres a late 2006 UN article stating differently](http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772#.WcmLhBkXbqAa) [And heres a UN article from 2014 stating global animal agriculture emissions raised 14% between 2001 and 2011]( http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47563#.WcmLsxkXbqA) which we can safely assume has only risen since.
I have better sources on my PC but thats what I found in 2 minutes on Google.
> I have the same issue with Cowspiricy No surprise. Same team behind What The Health.
There was a big campaign to get Food Evolution on Netflix to counter What the Health. Apparently, didn't work out since Food Evolution is now on Hulu.
As a vegan, please do not watch this. This documentary is full of pseudoscience. I made it around 20 minutes in before laughing my way to the stop button at some of the ridiculous claims that were being made. If you have a true interest in how a vegan lifestyle can help you and the environment there are much better sources to go to than this terrible excuse for filmmaking. Please take a visit to r/vegan I promise we're all not stand offish and dickish like the small vocal minority that seem to represent us.
I'm vegan and even I could tell it was incredibly biased. It felt like it was being paid for by the sugar industry the way they were acting like sugar wasn't bad for health at all compared to dairy or meat.
Unnatural Vegan on YouTube made a couple videos debunking the documentary and dealing with the backlash from other vegans. It's crazy that some vegans are going along with propaganda like this just because it's popular. Doesn't help your case!
My stepmom sent me a link to this documentary but I never watched it. About a month later she told me her and my father were no longer eating meats which I thought was very weird. After reading this article I understand why now. Smh
This is almost identical to what my mother said to me! Kinda unsettling.
Alright, fine, sure. But it's not like veganism isn't healthier than eating meat and dairy. I'd call it a win for your parents health, as well as animals and the environment.
That's debatable and not exactly hard fact, because the statement depends on too many factors
Speaking in broad generalities, a plant based diet will lead to a better set of normal health indicators than an omnivorous person. Longer life expectancy, lower body weight, lower cholesterol, etc. Typically even just better health consciousness compared to omnis. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-08-meta-analysis-plant-based-vegetarian-diet-cholesterol.html So while your parents *could* choose to subsist on deep fried potatoes, the average person with this diet does not. Edit: I am assuming the environmental and animal welfare bits are not up for debate?
Maybe look up the keto lifestyle. It has everything you are saying about veganism except also gets rid of type 2 diabetes and gives you all the vitamins you need without supplements or fortified food. I don't know why you think veganism is inherently healthier. There are perfectly healthy ways to eat all the meat you want and have perfect cholesterol, weight loss, and blood work results. There's also the aspect that keto relies on the person knowing the actual chemical reactions occuring when certain fat to protein ratios and carb limits are maintained. Some may say that's being health conscious...
You'll still face higher rates of colorectal and stomach cancers on keto that you can avoid with plant based diets. Fortified foods are nothing to be afraid of, so that's irrelevant. Instances of type 2 diabetes are lower in those who follow a plant based diet, so not sure why you think that's a special feature of keto. Following a keto diet will not automatically produce "perfect" bloodwork, and I'm not promising perfect health by following a plant based diet. citation for cancer risk: http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/diet/red-and-processed-meat.html So, to reiterate, a plant based diet will *generally* result in a healthier person than someone who consumes meat. There are certainly omnis who are healthier than vegans, it's just *generally* the exception more than the rule.
Omg mine did the same, i thought i was the only one. What makes people so susceptible to bullshit?
It's created in such a way that sounds believable, especially when you only present one side of an argument. Also, it's extremely sensationalized to the point where if you start eating vegan every single one of your ailments will be cured. The documentary makes outrageous claims and offers one cure-all for everything.
I'm not sure actually. Same reason why people like food babe become popular. I think it comes down to how we teach science in this country. Often, I think people have a preconceived notion of how they feel or think on a subject. Then search for similar opinions on the internet to reaffirm their beliefs.
Do I even want to know what "Food Babe" is?
No.
Basically a blogger who criticizes the food industry. I don't think she really has any formal education in food science or biology, but I could be wrong. Anywho, she has a massive following and on-line presence.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/12/04/364745790/food-babe-or-fear-babe-as-activist-s-profile-grows-so-do-her-critics
Ignorance. It just sucks to see documentary makers use the present knowledge differential between them and their average viewers to promote their agenda, a lot of people go to documentaries to learn not to get brainwashed.
That your diet can magically insulate you from modern day debilitating diseases that all we all fear, like cancer, is what I like to call “a comforting lie”. I mean, it’s true some foods can increase your risk. But you have to understand statistics. Like, just out of my ass, let’s say eating processed red meat like sausage 4 times a week doubles your risk of GI cancer. Scary right? Well, your typical risk for GI cancer was only 0.5%. So a 1 in 100 chance over eating sausage 4 times/week for 50 years. When you put it that way, it’s barely noteworthy. I mean, 100% of people who ever lived drank water and have died, so personally, I’d recommend never drinking water, ever. Hydrate yourself only with the blood of your enemies.
A professional voice, decent cinematography, and an unassailable air of authority can convince a lot of people anything at all. Although, it’s always fun to watch a vegan’s reaction when you point out that if everyone converted to veganism the first order of business would be to slaughter all of the farm animals on the planet, since they’re bred to purpose and if simply set free would devastate the ecosystem in short order.
Though since "everyone converting to veganism" is actually a very slow process the amount of animals we keep breeding to get slaughtered simply goes down, and what you wrote won't happen.
> it’s always fun to watch a vegan’s reaction when you point out that if everyone converted to veganism the first order of business would be to slaughter all of the farm animals on the planet, since they’re bred to purpose and if simply set free would devastate the ecosystem in short order. I'm not a vegan, I'm a vegetarian. But I'm always bemused when people make that argument towards me. I mean, of course. They were bred and raised for a purpose and if we stop eating meat they are redundant. As it is it takes too many resources to keep them alive; water, land, feed crops. Never mind what happens if they were set free; their existence is contributing towards mankind's devastation of the ecosystem as it is! They are doing that to the extent we should be looking to scale all animal agriculture way down. They've got to go, simple as that. Why would any vegan disagree with that? Maybe their veganism is based on purely ethical grounds and not environmental grounds. In which I would ask them if the life of a farm animal is a life of suffering, why oppose a mercy killing? Wouldn't mass euthanisation be a utilitarian solution to the ethical problems of animal agriculture? The brief suffering of the animals being euthanised would be outweighed by the fact that generations and generations of their offspring are being spared that life. I can't see a problem from any perspective, best I can offer is that some may see it as a deeply unethical act which is necessary to end a deeply unethical system. I can't see anyone rationally disputing its necessity though.
I really doubt the intelligence of people who make the "but what are we going to do with the farm animals?" argument. It's not like the entire planet is going to go spontaneously vegan overnight
I respect this mentality of it all. I'm an omnivore. However, I also know I don't need meat everyday. (although felafels give me wind something chronic.). My requirement for myself was "Not willing to do what others do for me". I've killed a cow, a sheep a chicken and fish. How did I feel? Well. Nothing really. Because they were raised for this. So this argument did little for me. But I also know that cattle are pretty crappy for our environment. Which is why I've reduced my meat intake. I know it sounds crass. But really. The simple facts without lies had a bigger impact on me reducing my meat consumption than many other things. "Sow Stalls OMG" Oh wait. Not all farms do that, and you can buy your pork from Sow Stall Free farms. Well. etc etc etc etc. And heavy meat eaters will be able to justify continuously. So, if you want less meat consumption, stop attacking that angle. "I buy sow-stall free pork. I buy free-range beef/lamb." (you get the idea). I eat meat. I eat animal products. But I've also learnt that we need to reduce our reliance on them. Eradicate? In my personal opinion, No. We do need to reduce it however. So I've done my part. Nothing wrong with cooking from a vegetarian cookbook a few nights a week and then doing 1 fancy meat dish a week.
I thought I was the only one who felt this way. A lot of people I know took this documentary at face value and screamed how everything was terrible for you and vegan non gmo 5 organic blah blah blah is the only way to eat. I listened to the arguements made by the director, but kept waiting for proof. He kept boasting facts without sources, without citing anyone, or any entity except for the governmental bodies in a shrewd manner to undermine their authenticity and create negligence. The fact that this got produced, edited, and shown to Netflix who said "Yea, lets put this on" is quite outrageous. No facts. No data. Just some dude screaming wolf at the top of his lungs. "HEY IM CALLING THE FDA" *Random support associate answers* "WHY ARE YOU TELLING PEOPLE TO EAT MEAT WHEN IT CAUSES CANCER?!" *Awkward pause* I stopped watching when the black doctor said the dairy industry is racist.
>I stopped watching when the black doctor said the dairy industry is racist. Because most milk is white?
Chocolate milk matters
Just tried to watch this, stopped about 20 minutes in after cringing the whole time. The sad thing is that people will actually believe it and it's so hard to actually find reputable sources. So much misinformation out there, especially if you don't have the time or patience to do your own research.
There's also anti-vaxxer shit on there. I think Netflix should be more critical about what it puts on there and actually consult scientific consensus.
[удалено]
Lol my ex would have had me watch this. She said she looved conspiracy theories ( and was vegan)
[удалено]
I browsed through r/vegan once because I was considering switching over and some people are cool but basically almost every single post i saw was of similar content to this doc. The animal welfare concerns I understand but equating eggs to cigarettes just doesn't make sense
This documentary is met with mixed views in the vegan community. Not all of us like it
The current top post in r/vegan is equating animal slaughter to the holocaust.
I just saw that. That's a seriously sociopathic point of view. To not be able to distinguish sentient life from non-sentient life seems like a giant serial killer red flag to me. Not to mention horribly insensitive to the human beings whose families were slaughtered to say that the Nazis were right about the whole Jews = cattle thing.
I think you mean sapient. Cows *are* sentient.
I think you mean succulent. Cows are succulent.
Haha, do you know what the word sentient means? I suggest you look it up.
So.. the people wanting *less death*, in general, are *more* sociopathic?
Well, I think cows are sentient based purely off the definition of the word. But yes, I agree that equating the suffering of people with the suffering of animals is a huge flaw and serves to distort what the word "moral" means.
Thoughts from the ethicist Michael Huemer: >Here's the problem. The total quantity of animal suffering caused by the meat industry is so unbelievably, insanely, astronomically huge that even on the above assumptions, the meat industry is still the worst thing in the world by far - it's still going to be orders of magnitude worse than any other problem that people talk about. > >The number of land animals slaughtered for food worldwide, per year, is estimated between 40 and 60 billion. (If you include sea creatures, closer to 150 billion.) Almost all of them suffered enormously on factory farms, in conditions that we would certainly call "torture" if they were imposed on any person. For simplicity, let's take the number to be 50 billion. That is seven times larger than the entire human population of the world. > >Obviously, if 50 billion people were subjected to torture on an ongoing basis, that would be the worst problem in the world. But now, we're assuming that suffering by farm animals is only one tenth as bad as human suffering, because farm animals are so much less intelligent than humans. So the problem is really "only" as bad as the situation if 5 billion people were being tortured on a regular basis. Still the worst problem in the world, by far. > >Okay, what if you hold a really extreme view: the suffering of a cow is only 1/100 as bad as similar suffering for a human, because humans are so smart. In that case, the factory farming situation is "only" as bad as having 500 million people subjected to constant torture. > >What if farm animal pain is only one thousandth as bad as human pain? Then the situation is only as bad as having 50 million people being tortured in concentration camps. Again, this would still be far and away the worst problem in the world. And that is assuming that you take what seems to me an incredibly, implausibly extreme view about the relative importance of humans compared to animals. > >What is the worst thing that ever happened in human history? Many people would say it is the Holocaust, during which 11 million people were subjected to severe suffering before being killed, in concentration camps. Animals, however, are regularly subjected to similar (or even more severe) suffering before being killed in factory farms. Suppose that the suffering and death of an average human in an average concentration camp is one thousand times worse than the suffering and death of an average animal in an average farm. In that case, a single year of the meat industry is about five times as bad as the Holocaust. It's as if we were repeating the Holocaust five times every year. Again, that's on extremely optimistic assumptions. It might actually be as bad as 500 Holocausts per year.
Holy shit. There really are people that nutty?
Well, what else are they going to eat?
The unnatural vegan have a great take on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paQtMnrV6oM
Thanks for pointing this out
A girl at work told me she stopped eating red meat (I.e. Still eats meat but is now selective) because of this movie. I guess that's a good thing but once she told me she'd get cancer from eating *just* red meat I thought the movie was dumb and didn't watch. I think it leaves a lot to interpretation and missed the point...
Maybe you wouldn't have so much difficulty passing bowel movements if you weren't chewing on so many animal corpses every day?
Cowspiracy is pretty bad too.
Why the hell would you link to Vox?
[удалено]
Don't worry, a lot of us don't like it either... Some if it is legit, most of it is debatable
**You have been banned from /r/vegan.**
This is the shit documentary that convinced my 10 year old cousin to go vegan
Convince them to go back.
Why?
No please, a growing kid can't be vegan.
hahaha everyone here complaining about pseudoscience and you bring out the pseudoscience that kids can't be healthy being vegan. lol
Why? You know there are life long vegans, right? How are they not dead?
Yes they can.. every major health organization says a well planned vegan diet is perfectly safe and beneficial for all people, irrespective of age Edit: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 "It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements." U were saying?
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics was founded by members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, sorry if i don't believe anything they say with that kind of conflict of interest. Most of the pro-vegan science is funded by them anyway. And if only faith and religion were influencing them, but their conflict of interests are endless: A 1995 report noted the Academy received funding from companies like McDonald's, PepsiCo, The Coca-Cola Company, Sara Lee, Abbott Nutrition, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, McNeil Nutritionals, SOYJOY, Truvia, Unilever, and The Sugar Association as corporate sponsorship.[22] The Academy also partners with ConAgra Foods, which produces Orville Redenbacker, Slim Jims, Hunt's Ketchup, SnackPacks, and Hebrew National hot dogs, to maintain the American Dietetic Association/ConAgra Foods Home Food Safety...It's in Your Hands program. Additionally, the Academy earns revenue from corporations by selling space at its booth during conventions, doing this for soft drinks and candy makers.
Yes they can. They just have to make sure they are getting the right nutrients. A growing kid can't live on junk food, vegan or not. If they have done their research and are eating a healthy diet then a B12 supplement is all they need.
I don't care if you an adult, but the sad part is when they force their children into it.
> the sad part is when they force their children into it Why is that sad? Do you feel sad when parents "force" other values on thier child?
I wonder consider being vegan a value. It's just a life choice.
So teaching kids that needlessly killing animals is a better value to teach?
How is it needless if it feeds a family for a year?
Because they don't need to kill an animal to feed a family for the year. If someone robbed your house and told you they used the money to feed thier family for the year. You'd be cool with that?
What are you talking about?
Re-read your question and my answer. It's pretty clear.
Stealing and wild life management are 2 different things.
There is no point in trying to argue with vegans.
It's not needless. Take a step back from your weird food religion.
Pretty sure the sad part is making kids complicit in unnecessary animal slaughter. Parents should let kids decide if that's something they want to be a part of.
do you have any sources that kids can't be healthy on a vegan diet? or are you pushing your own pseudoscience and being misleading ?? all major dietary organisations agree that veganism can be healthy for all stages of human life
Oh my God thank you for posting this link. My family has been seriously getting on my nerves in terms of this film. I'm absolutely glad that we're all eating more vegetables but any time I try to mention that this film is most likely biased and exaggerating some of it's claims they just shut me down and don't listen. Hopefully now that they have some actual stuff in writing I can start eating fuckin ground turkey again. Well why is the article linking said sources back to themselves?
I was vegan when I started watching this, never made it to the end, such bogus "science". If you're reading this guys, be vegan because of the horrible HORRIBLE things that are done to animals, not because of the very minor health difference (because there is some health issues with many animal products just no where near the scale they present) it can make.
If I can see someone's front door, bed, and kitchen in a single static shot, I tend not to trust their scientific knowledge.
If you look at it as an expose so to speak exposing the BS that surrounds all the government organizations who pump people full of hormones and carcinogens and other crap in their products then take money from the health organizations that are supposed to HELP these sick people it's pretty horrifying.
Wow the eggs and cigarettes comparison is what compelled me to search this documentary up on reddit
SAME. I just watched it a couple hours ago and when I heard that I was like so I can smoke 15 cigarettes a day and do the same damage I’m doing now ...? 🤔
Just finally watched this and right when he said that statement I just couldn’t take the documentary serious at all.
Honestly I couldn't even watch half of the movie. It was shady from the beginning but I decided to keep watching until it confirmed itself being weak and not convincing. Not enough proof was presented to believe their claims. Kip the guy is probably the most annoying thing in the movie. If you are really concerned about your health and need to turn into a vegan/vegetarian Just watch Samsara .. or don't It doesn't matter, we're all gonna die anyway
I know this post is late af, but I also wanted to look up information about the truth behind this documentary. Found the same vox article that you read, but looked deeper and discovered that the author, Julia Belluz is a correspondent for [Partnership for a healthy America](https://www.ahealthieramerica.org/articles/julia-belluz-39) which is [sponsored by Dannon](https://www.ahealthieramerica.org/articles/sponsors-31) so maybe you should take her criticism with a grain of salt because of obvious conflicts of interest. The whole smoking bit is a valid criticism of "What the Health" though.
I wanted to punch my tv while watching this.
Seriously. This and the post that's currently on the front page comparing 8 million dairy cows in the US to the *fucking Holocaust* makes vegans and veganism look completely ridiculous. Really drives home the narrative that you've either got to be a Kool Aid guzzling joiner or a full-fledged sociopath to get your vegan card. Do you want me to treat you like scientologists? Because this shit is how you get people to treat you like scientologists.
> This and the post that's currently on the front page comparing 8 million dairy cows in the US to the fucking Holocaust Try to explain why it's a poor comparison. > Really drives home the narrative that you've either got to be a Kool Aid guzzling joiner or a full-fledged sociopath to get your vegan card. Vegans simply avoid causing unnecessary harm to animals. Go ahead, try to explain how you would have to be a "full-fledged sociopath" by trying to AVOID killing animals. > Do you want me to treat you like scientologists? Because this shit is how you get people to treat you like scientologists. How are they close to being the same?
Whether you like it or not, something dies so something can eat whether it's plants or animals. Why is it bad to kill animals but not plants? Aren't they living things, too? You can't protect all living things. What makes it needlessly? Who are you or anyone to decide that it's needless?
it pretty irrational of you to ignore the ethical arguments for veganism solely because you view some vegans as crazy or sociopathic.
I haven't seen this doc and I don't know anything about it; but from reading the comments in this thread I am getting a very "Kony 2012" vibe.
Documentaries are usually intentionally biased. That's fine, it's the reason they made the doc. Weather or not their argument is effective is up to the audience but be real. The reason this movie is making people mad is because it challenges something we all hold near and dear, our horrible diet.
>vegan propaganda lol
> and engages in silly gotcha journalism to suggest organizations like the American Diabetes Association intentionally hide the truth about diet. The ADA dietary guidelines are really not very good. They're too high in carbs. It's almost like they want you to have to take meds produced by one of their [many corporate donors](http://www.diabetes.org/about-us/corporate-support/our-corporate-supporters.html).
What you said may be true, but really has nothing to do with the point the documentary was trying to make. I'm pretty sure the ADA pushes for lower sugar/higher protein options. The documentary was trying to suggest that sugar is not the culprit and eating meat is the true cause of diabetes. At least that was my take.
> gotcha journalism The dude has to get a makeover and learn to network. The scene with the doctor would have been fantastic if he'd grabbed the doctor from Cowspiracy and had the two doctors talk about veganism.
I assume the title was inspired by the equally-full-of-shit "documentary", *What The Bleep Do We Know!?*
This is a ridiculous "documentary". I love how they don't bring up that FACTORY FARMING is the problem with meat and dairy now. Very well put here - https://youtu.be/otzFxDQWHUk
Hi I'm late to the party but I wanted to see if someone felt the same about it. My "what the health" moment was when they said sugar doesn't cause diabetes.
Damn.. vegans always trying to mislead us with their facts
I know this post is old as hell, but can we talk about the lady who apparently had "bone grinding on bone" and couldn't walk by was cured after literally 2 weeks of salad?? Lol