She begins with
"I have no argument with people who adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet for
health, religious, environmental or ethical reasons. " (How big of her.)
"But I object
vehemently to proselytizers who distort science ..."
I
object vehemently to these people and their distortions too, and she gives an
example that screams out, "Peer review???"
It's from the Netflix documentary "What the Health" and it says that eating an egg a day is as bad as smoking five cigarettes.
But
the rest of her article or column is just so obvious or contradictory, and when she does cite
studies of eating and health, they support a plant-based diet.
Also,
when she says, "The protein in plants is not complete and must be balanced
by consuming complementary sources, like beans and grains." Aren't
beans and grains plants? I always think of them as part of a plant-based
diet, and it doesn't seem so difficult to me to include them! I trust she
isn't talking about how you have to have beans and rice together to create a
complete protein. That's been disproved.
She
also says she doesn't endorse inhumane treatment of farm animals (etc.), but
acknowledges that it goes on because regulators don't force commercial
operations to improve the situations; meanwhile she eats meat "in
reasonable amounts."
She
ends with the suggestion that meat-eaters add one or more new plant-based
recipes each week. "I bet you'll be pleasantly surprised at how much
more delicious and varied your meals will be."
So...it's
almost as if she should have begun her column/article with an
"Although..." "Although I hate distortions in
proselytizing by vegans, I see evidence that a plant-based diet..."
She's
holding on to meat, of course, and makes that clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment