Vaccinations - A repost of a letter sent to the California Legislature prior to passing the bill requiring school children to be immunized.

This came from a Weston A. Price post on Facebook. In all my studies, I have found the biggest thing lacking in making informed decisions is a lack of critical thinking skills and an unwillingness to have an open mind. The vaccination question is a tough question with many sides. The simple explanation provided by modern medicine is over-simplified and does not include a complete picture. The other extreme may not be correct either. Both sides should get together and hash this out as I believe there is a lot of evidence that indicates we may be doing more harm than good with vaccinations. My fervent prayer is that more people, especially parents, review both sides of the argument prior to allowing their children to receive vaccinations. Once armed with the information from both sides, then and only then should they be allowed to make a decision and receive respect for their decision no matter which way they choose. 

Here is the link.
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/harvard-trained-immunologist-demolishes-california-legislation-that-terminates-vaccine-exemptions/

Myths and Truths about THE CHINA STUDY

Myths and Truths about The China Study
I wrote this assignment to complete a requirement for a master's level class at Hawthorn University. It is a brief critical review of The China Study, a book written by Dr. T. Colin Campbell. If you are vegan or vegetarian, I encourage you to keep an open mind, but you probably won't like what you read!

Assignment for WISE 103 - Hawthorn University:  Choose one China Study-related topic that holds special interest for you. Write a focused essay of about 1,500 words on a way or ways Dr. Campbell uses or misuses science to support his point of view about your chosen subject. Be sure to credit Masterjohn, Minger or any other reviewers who help you think this through.

General: This book is very much like many of the nutrition guidance books presently available on bookstore shelves (a scary concept in itself). It is set up to sell a philosophy and if the book were read out loud, it would sound like an infomercial. This book always disturbed me. My friends read it; one even gave presentations at our local Whole Foods Market about the book. I bought it but could never bring myself to open it. I am glad I didn’t because I don’t think I would have questioned Dr. Campbell. To someone not familiar with statistics, he poses a compelling story to eat only plant foods and uses scare tactics to discourage any dissenting opinions.

Statistical Review: I am not a statistician. I never took a statistics class and I don’t understand statistics. The statistics in this book seem perfectly fine to me. I can’t critique them. I don’t know if they are valid or not. I read Chris Masterjohn’s and Denise Minger’s critiques of his data. Their responses covering the statistics also sound valid.

Based solely on the statistical evaluations, i.e., Dr. Campbell’s compelling presentation of them, and Chris’ and Denise’s compelling reviews, I would lean towards Chris and Denise, simply because my belief system is closer to theirs. So I had to dig deeper to decide who tells the better story based solely on the statistical evidence. I had to side with Chris and Denise because of the responses that were presented from Dr. Campbell to Chris and Denise and their responses back to him.

Dr. Campbell’s response to Denise was long, boring and confusing. He used a lot of what looked like eloquent phrases. He slammed her as a nobody that had no business questioning him since he has had such a long, award winning career doing research. He writes a lot but says little and never really addresses the specific issues. He insists she is taking everything out of context and doesn’t know what she is doing.

Dr. Campbell’s response to Chris was easier to understand, however, he did not address any of the meat of Chris’ comments. He attacks Chris as a nobody that is affiliated with Weston A. Price, a Foundation that encourages eating lethal animal products. He has some limited praise for Dr. Price but questions his data and ability to do research on anything other than dentistry, which has no bearing on real medical research.

Chris and Denise both came back with responses to Dr. Campbell addressing his concerns item by item. Dr. Campbell never responded back to them as far as I can tell. Since Dr. Campbell provided very little defense of his conclusions, it is hard to continue to believe anything except he has a strong belief and uses every means to convince others to join him in his belief.

Questionable tactics and other discrepancies: Dr. Campbell uses many tactics to get people to believe in his story. For example,

·      Campbell’s theory is that animal products cause all the problems and that the wealthier you are, the more animal-based foods you eat. However, much work has been done showing processed foods and sodas, as well as CAFOS animal foods, the highly processed animal foods and PUFAs are causing much of the disease processes. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer strike rich and poor alike in the U.S. If it was strictly a disease of affluence, the affluent would all have the labels and the poor wouldn’t and this isn’t the case. While more affluent people may eat more animal foods, poor people consume more processed foods and probably fast foods as they do appear to be less expensive. Grocery stores target the cheap processed foods to poor people (as shown in Marion Nestle’s research) and this shows up in the health statistics.

·      I believe the purpose of “Why Haven’t You Heard This Before”, is to provide convincing evidence that if anyone disagrees with his work, they are being influenced by big business, big government and self-interested groups intent on spreading a message for financial gain. His voice is angry and righteous, pointing fingers and blame at people and organizations. The tone of voice and the topics may be new to some of his readers, but I believe they will appeal to most of his readers. Vegans/vegetarians as a group seem quite righteous and Dr. Campbell’s information in this section, right or wrong provides ammunition to defend the vegan/vegetarian agenda.

·      I believe he is hypocritical – stating how evil someone or some study is because it conflicts with his belief when he could be accused of the same thing. Some of the points include:

o   Organizations with a mission or a hidden agenda selectively pull the science they need to support their agenda (which can be true!). To quote Campbell “Institutions also are a part of the dark side of science. Committees like the Public Nutrition Information Committee and the American Council on Science and Health generate lopsided panels and committees and institutions that are far more interested in promoting their point of view than debating scientific research with an open mind. (Page 267).” His belief that animal foods are dangerous, colors everything he is willing to consider. He condemns these organizations and people and yet has an agenda and promotes it at all cost. I agree that these organizations have names and apparent missions that strike charity and trust in people and may have a very dark side of misinformation and misuse of data – exactly like Dr. Campbell.

·      Campbell wants the reader to believe only him – “Only someone familiar with the inside of the system can distinguish between sincere positions based in science and insincere, self-serving positions. I was on the inside of the system for many years, working at the very top levels, and saw enough to be able to say that science is not always the honest search for truth that so many believe it to be. It far too often involves money, power, ego and protection of personal interest above the common good.”

·      Campbell talks about scientific reductionism and how harmful this can be but he focuses much of his information on protein – isn’t this reductionism?

·      He isn’t a fan of supplements but he recommends some for vegans.

·      He really slams Harvard and the Nurses’ Health Study and yet his China Study methods could be considered similar to this study. As a scientist he should be open to considering all sides, however he is quite convinced that animal products are so bad that he can’t conceive looking at a study like this.

These are just a few comments that could be discussed in depth from the book. The book is well-designed to create a fearful attitude and add fuel to the fire of vegan righteousness and the argument that animal products are evil.

More in-depth analysis of Part III – THE GOOD NUTRITION GUIDE

There are so many topics in this book that bother me and that I could discuss as holding a special interest for me, however the paper would become quite large! I am going to address a few of the topics in Part III – The Good Nutrition Guide. 

Introduction: Dr. Campbell introduces this subject by slamming the Atkins and South Beach Diets since these are diets high in animal products and low in carbohydrates – the opposite of his ideal diet. He equates the Atkins Diet to the “standard American diet, the toxic diet that has been shown to make us fat, give us heart disease, destroy our kidneys, make us blind and lead us to Alzheimer’s, cancer and a host of other medical problems.” This section is set up to be highly inflammatory. I object to this for many reasons, some of which are:

·      The Atkins Diet, if followed according to his book, would not necessarily include many of the highly processed foods causing problems in todays diet. It may not be ideal but could be way more beneficial than eating a vegan diet!

·      According to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, the Atkins Diet has not been shown to be harmful and may be beneficial in losing weight and keeping the weight off. It studies it has proven more beneficial than a low calorie or vegan diet!

·      A high carb diet, opposite of the Atkins Diet could also be considered a standard American diet, full of chemicals and inadequate nutrition that could be causing all the problems discussed by Campbell. This diet has been studied and shown to cause problems. While he says don’t eat processed foods, a high carb diet could be easily turned into a vegan diet fitting Campbell’s description and cause many health problems.

·      He ignores any data supporting a diet containing a large amount of animal foods such as Dr. Price’s research or the research done on the Masai nomads of Kenya or the mostly meat diet of many native populations such as the Aleuts. This research and the resulting vibrant health is worth considering as blowing a hole in Campbell’s hypothesis (or rigid belief).

·      He ignores the meat-eating county in The China Study (he gives a weak excuse why he excludes them).

·      I could go on and on!

Chapter 11 – Eating Right: Eight Principles of Food and Health. Dr. Campbell starts this chapter out using all the buzzwords people are looking for. It reminds me of a televangelist giving a sermon. Of course it is going to suck people in that want to be healthy and do the right thing. He tells them if they only change their ways by changing their diet, they can have vibrant health – basically guarantees it. I don’t believe anyone can provide this guarantee and it is a deceptive tactic.

Principle # 1 – Nutrition represents the combined activities of countless food substance. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

He explains, and I believe rightly so, that our food is complex and it is treated in the body much different when eaten as whole as possible, along with other foods during a meal than if we took supplements of each of the individual nutrients. He says “Our bodies have evolved with this infinitely complex network of reactions in order to derive maximal benefit from whole food, as they appear in nature. The misguided may trumpet the virtues of one specific nutrient or chemical, but this thinking is too simplistic. Our bodies have learned how to benefit from the chemicals in food as they are packaged together, discarding some and using others as they see fit. I cannot stress this enough, as it is the foundation of understanding what good nutrition means.” I agree with this, however, he uses this theory when it serves his purpose and discards it when it doesn’t.

He then shows a chart of the known nutrients in spinach. He doesn’t list the quantities of any of the nutrients, therefore making the chart look way more impressive than if you were to list the amount of these nutrients in the spinach. This is misleading. In addition, he doesn’t discuss the anti-nutrients in the spinach and how they would affect the absorption of minerals, or the fact that the spinach also has cellulose that can’t be digested by humans (he believes in large amounts of fiber so even if he did discuss the cellulose it would be in a positive light). He only uses spinach as a model, none of the other vegetables. I doubt that there are very many people that eat spinach daily, or even weekly!

Principle #2 – Vitamin supplements are not a panacea for good health.

He states “Isolating nutrients and trying to get benefits equal to those of whole foods reveals an ignorance of how nutrition operates in the body.” So far, I can’t argue with this, however, Dr. Campbell doesn’t adhere to this in his actual diet recommendations.

Principle #3 – There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants.

He presents the argument that plant-based foods are all similar to each other in their nutritional elements and animal-based foods are all similar to each other in their nutritional elements but animal-based foods and plant-based foods are very different nutritionally from each other. He then presents a table of a few well-selected nutritional elements and lists the nutrient composition of plant vs. animal-based foods based on 500 calories of energy.

This is highly misleading because:

·      Rather than list individual foods, the plant based food information is derived from equal parts of tomatoes, spinach, lima beans, peas and potatoes. The meat-based foods are equal parts of beef, pork, chicken and whole milk. Then he only looks at a handful of nutrients – nutrients that aren’t in large quantities in meat-based foods. This allows him to stack the deck so that the plant-based foods look amazing while the animal-based foods look incredibly weak. For example, beta-carotene in these plant-based foods is listed as 29,919 mcg while it is only 17 in the animal-based foods. He cites the US Nutrient Database for Standard Reference to obtain the  nutritional elements in this table but I could not recreate the numbers.

·      500 calories of plant-based foods is a huge amount of food where the animal based foods would be much smaller in quantity. Most people don’t sit down to eat 500 calories of just vegetables – especially on a low-fat diet – which is what he recommends. Eating 500 calories of vegetables with very little added fat would be boring and unfulfilling.

·      He has selected specific nutritional items and omitted others. For example, he doesn’t list Vitamin A, only beta-carotene. We know that there is a poor conversion of beta-carotene to vitamin A in the body. All that beta-carotene may be useless while the vitamin A in the meat may be quite necessary.

·      He lists 33 grams of protein in the 500 calories of plant food and only 34 in the animal based foods – I can’t recreate this from the database. This doesn’t seem right. In addition, much of his research has centered around protein as being something we don’t need much of and it may cause cancer. He doesn’t talk about all the essential amino acids and how they are only present in animal-based foods. He does indicate the protein in animal food is unhealthy while the protein in plant foods is healthy – something I don’t think he can substantiate without manipulating data.

·      He doesn’t use organ meats. He doesn’t list vitamin K2. He doesn’t list vitamin B12. He doesn’t list vitamin D. He doesn’t list carnosine or CoQ10 or any of the other nutrients primarily found in animal foods (and ones we don’t even know about yet) and fats that are turning out to be quite necessary to vibrant health. He doesn’t address the need for fat for the fat-soluble vitamins to work effectively and to be able to absorb all the minerals, etc.

·      He talks about the fats and protein in nuts and seeds as being better than the fats in animal foods. The fats in nuts and seeds are primarily PUFAs and are not necessarily better. In addition, there are lots of anti-nutrients in nuts.

·      He defines essential nutrients (chemicals) as:

o   “The chemical is necessary for healthy human functioning

o   The chemical must be something our bodies cannot make on their own, and therefore must be obtained from an outside source”

·       “There are four nutrients which animal-based foods have that plant-based foods, for the most part, do not: cholesterol and vitamins A, D and B12. Three of these are nonessential nutrients. As discussed above, cholesterol is made by our bodies naturally. Vitamin A can be readily made by our bodies from beta-carotene, and vitamin D can be readily made by our bodies simply by exposing our skin to about fifteen minutes of sunshine every couple days. Both of these vitamins are toxic if they are consumed in high amounts. This is one more indication that it is better to rely on vitamin precursors, beta-carotene and sunshine, so that our bodies can readily control the timing and quantities of vitamins A and D that are needed.”  There are so many things wrong with this statement. Cholesterol is beneficial in so many ways and as far as more recent research indicates, dietary cholesterol has little to do with cholesterol levels in the blood. Vitamin A can’t be readily made by beta-carotene. The conversion is sloppy and inefficient and many people can’t convert it anyway. Most people don’t spend 15 minutes in the sun every couple of days with a lot of skin exposed so they can’t produce vitamin D. This isn’t even possible in many areas of the world that fall above or below a certain distance from the Equator. The conversion from sun exposure to vitamin D doesn’t happen that readily and requires cholesterol. It is rumored by the press and encouraged by studies showing there is a serious vitamin D shortage in the US so we clearly aren’t getting it and it isn’t in plant based foods. He just stated the body can handle nutrients in food and now he says the body can’t handle it if eaten in huge quantities. You can’t have it both ways. He just got done talking about the synchronicity of food and how important it is and now claims we can get too much vitamin A and D from foods. The studies that show toxicity are based on supplements and he isn’t a fan of supplements.

·      “Vitamin B12 is more problematic. Vitamin B12 is made by microorganisms found in the soil and by microorganisms in the intestines of animals, including our own. The amount made in our intestines is not adequately absorbed, so it is recommended that we consume B12 in food. Research has convincingly shown that plants grown in healthy soil that has a good concentration of vitamin B12 will readily absorb this nutrient.” This was news to me so I did some research. I read some of the paper that this information came from and googled as much information about this as I could. I found that the research was completed on spinach, barley and soybeans. The soil used was amended with cow manure. The plants grown in the amended soil did indeed have a lot more vitamin B12 measured. However, it could not be determined if the B12 was an analogue or not. There were no studies done that I could find to see if humans could utilize this B12 in the plants. In addition, a human would have to consume the food raw or sprouted. One website www.beyondveg.com ran some numbers to indicate a person would have to consume roughly 5 to 10 pounds of soybean sprouts per day, or roughly 1 to 3 pounds of unhulled barley per day or roughly 3 to 7 pounds of raw spinach per day to obtain the daily requirements of 2 mcg of B12. In addition to this, it appears that amending the soil with a fertilizer high in active B12 would be very expensive. I can’t substantiate any of this, but I believe if this were all possible and we could obtain useable B12 from plants, it would be an active practice right now since it would be economically beneficial to the vegan agenda, the medical agenda and the engineered food manufacturers.

·      Dr. Campbell recommends taking a B12 supplement and potentially a vitamin D supplement. He slams supplements in his book in several locations and then recommends taking 2 of them. I don’t think either vitamin supplement work well for many people. Most of the commercially available supplements are so highly processed they aren’t readily bio-available.

 I am not going to cover the rest of his “Principles” as some of what he says makes sense with other things I have studied, some if it is presented quite simplistically and some of it doesn’t agree with other theories from respected scientists, however the overall intent is to convince people that diet matters.

I would like to comment on his list of recommended foods. My comments are as follows (I could provide extensive discussion so I’m only hitting the highlights!):

·      “Flowers” – more and more information is coming out about incorporating a lot of brassica vegetables into the diet including cauliflower and broccoli.

·      There is nothing said about raw or cooked. In just glancing at his diet, many of his recommendations would do well to be well-cooked and loaded with butter!

·      “Stems and leaves” – Many of these vegetables are high in anti-nutrients and cellulose. They need to be properly prepared.

·      “Legumes” – These all need to be properly prepared by soaking and cooking for a long time. These can be difficult to digest. Soybeans are included and these are quite toxic and harmful. Peanuts are included and can cause major problems, are highly sprayed and high on the list of common allergies.

·      “Nuts” – These can be difficult to digest and contain anti-nutrients. They primarily contain PUFAs and if eaten in excess can cause damage. They are also difficult to digest and are a common cause of allergies.

·       Whole grains (in breads, pastas, etc.) – grains need to be properly prepared and are rarely properly prepared! Wheat is causing major issues to growing numbers of people. Breads and pastas are highly processed and I believe are causing harm – I know I can’t eat most of these unless properly prepared. Also, on a vegan diet, grains are usually the filler for the diet and eaten in highly processed states and large quantities.

·      He recommends minimizing corn oil, peanut oil, and olive oil and doesn’t mention any fats in the recommended foods. Lard is included in the foods to avoid. Butter isn’t listed but all dairy is listed in foods to avoid. He encourages eating whatever you want from the approved category, limiting refined carbs the mentioned vegetable oils and limiting salmon, tuna and cod. He doesn’t list shell fish.

·      My interpretation of this is to eat as many vegetables, grains and fruit as I want to, eating very little added oils (dry salad vs. salad dressing, steamed or raw veggies without added fats, etc.). This eliminates all of the densely nutritious foods and the foods that are soothing and soul-satisfying. The diet eliminates most of the fat-soluble activators. It would affect the body’s ability to absorb and utilize nutrients. It could cause thyroid damage. And the list goes on! Basically he recommends eating the diet that Lierre Keith ate while practicing the vegan agenda. This is flat out wrong!

Conclusion. The biggest problems I have with his recommendations and this book are:

·      Prior to the invention of supplements, our ancestors could not have eaten a diet based almost exclusively on plant-based foods and thrived. They weren’t able to supplement B12 or vitamin D.

·      Banning any foods from a healthy diet that contain ESSENTIAL nutrients claiming they are bad for human consumption and cause all the dread diseases of our modern times is downright silly and makes no scientific sense. How can an entire food category be bad if they are the only foods containing essential nutrients? It doesn’t make sense no matter if you believe in intelligent design or evolution. If you believe in intelligent design – what intelligent “god” would put an essential nutrient in a potential food and then declare it evil to eat requiring the use of supplements? It doesn’t make sense in the evolutionary theory either. Evolution is basically a story of the human race getting better and smarter at what we do. Banning an entire food source that is the only source of an essential nutrient would mean disease suffering and death until at least some of the population developed the ability to live without that nutrient and this could take tens of thousands of years!

·      If animal foods cause cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, auto-immune diseases, Alzheimer’s, etc., and our ancestors ate animal foods (and we have lots of evidence that they did), why are these diseases only showing up in the last 100 or so years and only now becoming epidemic in numbers? Why are so many of these diseases unheard of in history? Why did Dr. Price not find these diseases in populations eating lots of animal products? There is no evidence to suggest that these types of diseases showed up or were a major problem in the hunter-gatherer societies or most societies up until modern times.

·      Finally – Dr. Campbell should know better. He prides himself on first and foremost being a scientific researcher that is supposed to question everything and be open to formulating new hypotheses. In practice he does none of this and openly criticizes other respected researchers. He has the potential to affect millions of people. I have to believe that he believes so strongly in his conviction that a vegan/vegetarian diet is the absolute answer to all of our problems that he can’t see any data that doesn’t support his belief (as it isn’t a hypothesis to him) and manipulates data to be able to baptize everyone else into his one-sided “religion” of the vegan agenda.

The Marketing of Vegan Nutrition Products

The Marketing of Vegan Nutrition Products

Introduction:  This assignment is to describe the marketing of a vegan product or product category. It is important to understand the food “science,” food culture and economic model that are driving the development of the food products and the marketing behind it. This section briefly discuss these factors. My description is over-simplified as this isn’t the forum to provide these arguments.

Present Food “Science:” Our present food science breaks what we put into our mouths into various elements such as calories, fat, protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals and many other elements. Most research is aimed at defining the effects – both “good” and “bad” – of each individual element. This allows an element of food to be defined as either healthy or not healthy and “nutritional food myths” are developed that profit industry. Examples include:

·      Fat, in particular saturated fat, causes heart disease and contributes to obesity and cancer putting low-fat on the label increases marketability

·      Antioxidants help prevent cancer therefore products that have added antioxidants are healthy and can be labeled as such

·      Vegan foods are naturally low in saturated fats, loaded with antioxidants and vitamins and therefore, are “healthy” for everyone and in fact a vegan diet is better for health and better for the planet.

Present “human body Science:” Our “science” has similarly broken down the human body into elements such as:

·      Organs

·      Bones

·      Glands

·      Muscles

·      Joints

·      Immune system

·      Blood chemistry

·      Hormones

For the most part, these elements are treated as if they are independent of each other. When describing the effects of a certain food element on the human body, often times the focus is on how it relates to a specific element in the human body. Little consideration is given to the effect the entire food product has on any element of the human body or how it may relate to the overall human body (whether this is a natural food such as a whole organic orange or a manufactured power bar doesn’t play into our science). The affects of food products on elements of the human body that aren’t related to the digestive system are pretty much ignored. For example, it is widely held that depression can’t possibly be related to the foods we eat – and the list goes on and on. Little consideration is given to the affects of:

·      How the food has been grown, prepared or processed

·      The synchronicity of how the elements of a food product interact in the body (for example, is there a cumulative or more profound affect of adding several colorings and preservatives to a product)

·      The necessity of synchronicity to be able to utilize various food elements (Most vitamins and minerals need the presence of other vitamins, fats and minerals to be utilized by the human body)

·      The digestibility of a food

·      The anti-nutrients in a vegan food that haven’t been neutralized

This approach supports an industry that engineers foods to appear healthy on a  label. If a food element’s “healthy” status changes, it is easy to quickly reformulate the product to remove the offending element, add a new element and/or redesign the product label to show that the product is really “healthy” after all.

Present Food Culture: Prior to modern communication, i.e., telephone, television, radio and the Internet, food wisdom was passed from generation to generation. At some point in time, the food wisdom of our elders was criticized and efficiently replaced by education from industry, doctors, dieticians and the U.S government. This has allowed “myths” concerning a “proper” diet to be assumed as “fact.” The “myths” support profitable industries and institutions. Because the information comes from sources (such as doctors, highly respected non-profits such as the American Cancer Society and highly esteemed researchers) our culture rapidly believes the “myths” to be true.

Readily accessible media has popularized the myths. Corporations have responded with increasing numbers of engineered foods. “Myths” continue to be developed when the opportunity to exert more influence, make a larger profit or provide an economic advantage over competitors is recognized. Fear, guilt and peer pressure tactics (sounds like a religion!) are used on a daily basis by the media, the government, food suppliers, the medical profession, non-profits and grocery stores.

As our culture gets farther away from our innate wisdom and nourishing foods, widespread medical maladies have sprouted that haven’t been documented in any other age in human history. “Remedies” for these maladies have popped up with little documentation as to their benefit, creating a vicious circle of misinformation leading to new engineered foods, new food “myths” with new fancy labels touting miracle “good-for-you” cures that people are purchasing in desperation to resolve medical maladies or to hopefully prevent new maladies from arising. As these miracle cures prove ineffective, new ones are created, creating demand for new, engineered foods – or “new and improved” versions of existing foods.

Economic Model: While the U.S. is thought of as a free-enterprise system, we have an economic model that is heavily influenced by government and stockholders. Supply and demand play into the picture but are highly driven by corporations, the medical community, the media and government policy. The U.S. government fosters various legislative regulations, supposedly to protect the consumer. Many of the regulations are sponsored by profit driven corporations and special interest groups that appear to have the best interest of the American public but may in fact be harmful or make it more difficult to obtain real food (like raw milk).

The U.S. approach to food “science” and the fractionated approach to the human body allows the food industry to quickly respond to emerging trends and “medical or nutritional breakthroughs.” This model has set up the perfect scenario to promote the idea that a vegan diet is extremely healthy, should be the diet of choice for everyone and that it will save the planet. The following list summarizes some of the events and beliefs that prevail to position a vegan diet as the ideal diet even though many of the beliefs have never been proven to be beneficial and may instead be harmful:

1.     Animal fat and animal foods are bad for humans, are the primary cause of heart disease and have a role in causing cancer, diabetes and obesity

2.     The bad reputation meat has developed due to large factory farms that mistreat animals, doctor the meat supply, cause food-borne illnesses, heavily pollute the environment and increase green house gases

3.     Vegetable agriculture is good for the planet and meat farming is harmful

4.     Vegan foods are high in necessary nutrients like vitamins, fiber and antioxidants and are naturally low in saturated animal fats, thus supposedly preventing cancer, heart disease and diabetes

5.     Vegan foods are beneficial for losing weight

6.     Whatever nutrient that may be missing from the vegan diet can be added to vegan foods or provided in supplements

7.     Vegan foods are less expensive than animal foods to produce and have more potential for profit

8.     Vegan foods are very easy for food corporations to manipulate, creating the perfect product label

9.     Selling vegan foods is highly profitable for the manufacturers and grocers

The Vegan Market: The size and potential of the vegan market is substantial. An article in the Huffington Post titled “Is There a Market for Vegan Food?” by Nil Zacharias dated 3/07/12 states that:

 “ A recent Harris Interactive study commissioned by the Vegetarian Resource Group found that approximately 5% of the U.S. is vegetarian (close to 16 million people) and about half of these vegetarians are vegan. While this may sound like a small number, what's amazing is that the number of vegans in the U.S. has doubled since 2009 to 2.5% of the population. This means that 7.5 million people in the U.S. now eat diets that do not include any animal products. The study also revealed that 33% of Americans are eating vegan/vegetarian meals more often, though they are not vegan or vegetarian. That is over 100 million people, or one third of the country consciously choosing more plant-based foods!”

I found other references from other sources that quoted similar statistics as well. All of the articles indicate people perceive vegan foods to be healthier than non-vegan foods, increasing the interest in and popularity of engineered vegan foods.

The Huffington Post article went on to say:

 “On the other hand, according to USDA forecasts, the average American will consume 12.2% less meat and poultry in 2012 than they did in 2007. Beef consumption has been in decline for about 20 years; the drop in poultry and pork has also been steady for about five years. And this phenomenon is not limited to meat. USDA statistics reveal that per capita egg consumption in the U.S. has been steadily declining for the past six years and average per-capita consumption of cow's milk fell from 24.3 gallons per person in 1994 to 20.8 gallons per person in 2008. At the same time, total retail sales of soy milk, almond milk, rice milk and other plant milks reached $1.33 billion in 2011. If you don't think the growing market for plant-based foods has anything to do with these declining statistics, ask the multi-billion dollar dairy industry! They took the trouble to recently launch an entire ad campaign attacking plant milks.”

Research indicates that vegans tend to be better educated, willing to spend more on food, more health conscious and primarily female. The market is thriving and gaining acceptance everywhere, including regular grocery stores. This trend continues to foster the development of vegan foods with trendy, politically correct nutrition labels that are highly profitable.

Marketing of Select Vegan Products: I had a very difficult time selecting one vegan product/class of vegan products to discuss. I think the vegan products play-acting as dairy and meat substitutes are the most harmful because vegan products can’t replace the benefits of real meat and dairy products but claim to be able to. These products are considered acceptable and healthier substitutes for their animal counterparts. Products include milk, cheese, cream, ice cream and yogurt for dairy substitutes and fake chicken, fish, beef, and pork for meat substitutes.

Marketing of these products attempts to entice, use buzzwords, cover the areas bulleted above, appeal to emotions and teach. Added nutrients like vitamin D, calcium and DHA are prominently displayed. The nutrition facts section looks low in calories, low in fat and especially saturated fats, low in sodium, high in fiber, low in added sugar and high in protein. The ingredient list looks as natural as possible.

Logos: The logos imply healthy and may include a graphic depicting a plant – many include stems and leaves. Here are some examples of brand names and logos for vegan items (some of these brands also sell non-vegan items):

·      Follow Your Heart 

 (promoting vegan and vegetarian foods)

·      Engine 2 Plant-Strong  (created by Whole Foods to promote vegan foods – the story on the website is appealing about a fire station and the experience of the firefighters that went on a vegan diet)

·      Simple Truth  (Kroger’s brand to promote organic and so-called healthy junk food products)

·      Organic Sunshine Burgers 

·      Dr. Praeger’s Sensible Foods (Blessed by Dr. Oz)

·      Beyond Meat (If you get on their website you get a live person trying to communicate with you! Great marketing ploy!)

Packaging: Packaging of fake meat and dairy products are made to look very similar in size and shape to their real counterparts as well as wholesome, recycled and “green.”

The milk substitutes in the refrigerated dairy section are packaged in typical cardboard cartons just like milk. Some brands are now packaged in what looks like old milk bottles.

Deli meat substitute packaging looks very similar to packaged deli meats. Frozen meat substitutes are packaged in similar ways to their frozen meat counterparts. The meat crumbles or nugget packages look very similar to Tyson meat product packaging. Imitation hamburger patty packages look very similar to their real meat counterparts.

Claims on vegan substitute packaging: Buzzwords and phrases are prominently displayed on the packages. The buzzwords include “low to nonfat”, “saturated or trans fat free”, “high in antioxidants”, vegan, all natural, heart healthy, high in fiber, non-GMO, low in calories or sugar, etc.

The fake dairy products have added calcium and vitamin D and proudly proclaim more vitamin D and calcium than milk. The word “enriched” may be large and prominently displayed as well. Labels will include “low in saturated fat and cholesterol”, “excellent source of vitamin D and riboflavin”, “reduced sugar”, “soy-free”, lactose-free, “50% more calcium than dairy milk,” all-natural, etc.

            The meat substitutes have vegan or meatless prominently displayed. They usually make claims that they taste delicious! Other claims include, naturally cholesterol free, GMO-free, high in protein, low in calories, heart healthy, simply made from grains and vegetables, meat free, fiber, etc.

What’s wrong with this? Some of the problems with all of this include:

1.     All vegan, processed foods have been highly processed and engineered to look healthy according to popular “myths.” This is misleading as many, if not all of the nutrients have been compromised and will provide little, if any value and may actually cause harm.

2.     Chemicals and colorings have been added to overcome the look, texture and unappealing taste due to the harsh processing. These additives may cause harm.

3.     Nutrients are added back as required by the latest food “myth” in unnatural quantity and quality causing potential harm. Since the body needs the synchronicity of various food elements to be metabolized, these unnatural quantities and substances can wreak havoc.

4.     As discovered by Dr. Price and other researchers, and as proven by many studies, saturated fat in our diet is critical for many processes as well as the fat-soluble activators (like A, B12, D and K2), known substances (like CoQ10), and as yet unknown substances found only in animal foods. Vegan foods can’t provide these. Some can be added back in but the sources are questionable at best and may cause harm. Some can’t be added back in. Saturated fat is required for many of these nutrients to work and vegan diets are naturally low in saturated fats and void of animal saturated fats.

5.     Many of the vegan dairy products are manufactured from foods that are high in anti-nutrients, like nuts and grains or high in unhealthy unsaturated fats like hemp milk or flax milk.

6.     Many of the vegan meat products are made from unfermented, isolated soy products, gluten, grains, nuts and beans. All of these may be harmful or contain harmful anti-nutrients if not prepared properly. In addition, there are harmful polyunsaturated oils and all sorts of excitotoxins and harmful food additives in these products. Widespread belief is that these products are perfectly safe to eat and can easily replace meat in the diet.

7.     Because vegan foods are highly profitable, corporations, marketers, grocers and medical “science” support the vegan diet and encourage Americans to switch to the vegan lifestyle.

Specific Vegan Product: I decided to look a little more in-depth at some of the meat products.

Market for vegan meat products: According to Delish.com, a website promoted by MSN.com, in an article titled “Where’s the Meat? Vegan Substitutes Gain Popularity” dated March 21, 2012:

“110 meat substitute products were introduced to grocery stores in 2010 and 2011. These added options are giving people who don't eat meat a lot more choices and increasing the likelihood that more people will go vegan in the future. In fact, a market research group called SymphonyIRI Group found that frozen meat substitute sales alone achieved a high of $267 million in 2011.

Better quality and diversified meat substitute options are also making the jobs of vegan and vegetarian animal rights activists easier. The Farm Animal Rights Movement (FARM) hopes to convince people to limit the amount of meat they consume. Typically the FARM uses graphic footage of the animal industries to persuade people to reduce meat consumption.”

According to Mintel.com, a market research company, in an article titled “More than one-third of Americans consume meat alternatives, but only a fraction are actually vegetarians” dated August 12, 2013:

“Only a few years ago, tofu, tempeh and seitan were barely known in the culinary world. Now, they are on grocery store shelves across America and being cooked up in the average (and often non-vegetarian) kitchen. In new research released today from Mintel, only 7% of consumers identify themselves as vegetarian, however 36% indicate the use of meat alternatives. What’s more, less than half of consumers who use meat alternatives are using the products in place of real meat, and 16% indicate using the products alongside meat offerings.

This data suggests that participation in the alternative meat category stretches far beyond necessity, and creates an opportunity for future growth based on the products’ ability to meet general consumer food interests, such as health, price, variety and convenience,” says Beth Bloom, food and drink analyst at Mintel. “The bottom line is that vegetarians and vegans aren’t the only people eating “fake” meat, meat eaters are also exploring this new found protein superpower.”

Other websites indicate the same types of statistics and trends. The vegan meat market is alive, healthy and growing.

Product I chose: I chose Boca Ground Crumbles because they have been around a long time, are well known and are proudly served as a meat substitute at some restaurants I have visited. Boca is owned by Kellogg, who also owns Morningstar Farms brand, another producer of popular vegan meat products. This provides Boca with a healthy budget for aggressive marketing.

I found a humorous situation that truly highlights marketing genius when I looked at their products and at their website. Here are some interesting facts about Boca Ground Crumbles:

1.     Boca Ground Crumbles are recommended by PETA on their website (http://www.peta.org/living/food/favorite-products/).

2.     Boca offers 2 types of Ground Crumbles, both intending to be substitutes for ground beef.

3.     The first, pictured here, is their Ground Crumbles. 

The ingredients listed on the resealable bag are: water, soy protein concentrate, wheat gluten, contains less than 2% malt extract, salt, wheat starch, yeast extract, sugar, natural flavor (non-meat), dried onions, garlic powder, spices. The label states the product is 90% less fat than ground beef, is an excellent source of protein and it is Weight Watchers endorsed 2 pointsplus value per serving.

When a discerning vegan customer reads the ingredients for this product, there appears to be no harmful chemicals and all of the ingredients are pronounceable and appear to be food based. In reality, the ingredients contain harmful soy products, wheat gluten, and excitotoxins all indicating a harmful product. In addition, there are no fat-soluble activators and no beneficial saturated fats.

The nutrition facts:

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size 57g
Servings per Container about 6
Amount per Serving
Calories 60	Calories from Fat 0
	% Daily Value*
Total Fat 0.5g	1 %
Saturated Fat 0g	0 %
Trans Fat 0g	0 %
Cholesterol 0mg	0 %
Sodium 270mg	11 %
Total Carbohydrate 6g	2 %
Dietary Fiber 3g	12 %
Sugars 0g
Protein 13g
Vitamin A 0 %	Vitamin C 0 %
Calcium 6 %	Iron 10 %

The nutrition facts look really good. The product could be interpreted to be low in calories, low in fat with no saturated fats, high in fiber and protein. The product actually contains essentially no valuable nutrition and potentially harmful products.

4.     Boca also contains a Ground Crumbles product that appears to be identical to the product described above, except with blue packaging and the statement “Made with Natural Ingredients” proudly displayed along the top of the package. When I first looked at the label, I interpreted it as “all-natural.” I had to read it twice to really catch the meaning. I am sure that is the intent of the label and that many people interpret this product as “all-natural.”

5.     Here is a picture of the product:

 
The ingredients are exactly the same and the nutritional information is exactly the same. This package does not include the Weight Watchers endorsement. Not sure why anyone would purchase the other product when this one is “natural!” I didn’t find these products together at any of the grocery stores I went to. Mostly I found the red labeled product.

What I have learned: This was a difficult assignment to cull down into a manageable report. It touches on so many problems with our cultural approach to nutrition. I visited a number of grocery stores, both “natural” like Whole Foods Market and “unnatural” like Kroger’s. I have traveled a lot lately and visited stores in Shreveport, Louisiana; Houston, Texas; Galveston, Texas; and many in the Kansas City metropolitan area on both sides of the state line where I live. I took numerous photographs of some of the stores. I analyzed the shelf real estate and how the stores were laid out. I subscribed to NutraIngredients and Food Navigator and read a number of their articles. I searched on line for the various products I found in the grocery stores and looked at their packaging. I read articles on Weston Price such as the article slamming Whole Foods for promoting a vegan agenda. Here are my conclusions:

1.     The article on Whole Foods didn’t really impress me at first because I purchase meat and vegetables there routinely. I don’t purchase the vegan products and rarely purchase any of their processed products and pretty much ignore all areas of the store that sell processed foods. So I thought maybe the article was blown out of proportion. However, when I analyzed the store, I realized that the vast majority of the shelf space is dedicated to vegan and/or vegetarian products (processed egg and dairy products are used in some of the products), implying that this must be where they make the bulk of their money. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that they would promote vegan products.

2.     Mainstream grocery stores either integrate vegan foods into the mainstream foods (and not very successfully nor do these types of stores carry many vegan products) or they put the “health” or “natural” foods in a separate location where they prominently display the vegan foods. Most of the shelf space contains “organic” processed products like chips, cereals, crackers and cookies most vegan or vegetarian. The freezer area is loaded with vegan meats and vegan ice cream. In addition, some of these stores carry organic produce and organic real meat, but for the most part, the sections are small to non-existent and the products very expensive. Even the bulk of most grocery stores are chips, sodas, and cereals, breads –almost exclusively vegan – that are promoted as healthy. Alternative milk products are pretty much available everywhere and have begun to take up larger shelf space. Vegan oils take up a large chunk of space and are promoted as healthy while saturated fats such as lard, tallow or duck fat are pretty non-existent. The space for butter is generally less than the space for butter substitutes. Some stores have also developed a color-coded rating system to rate products on a sliding scale as healthy or unhealthy based on sugar, calories, saturated fat, etc. based on politically correct recommendations. Vegan foods usually rate very high.

3.     The articles in the NutraIngredients and Food Navigator websites were not too surprising. They provide compelling information (to effectively perpetuate the popular food myths) based on what they consider legitimate studies and research to help their subscribers determine new nutritional trends, buzzwords and how to take advantage of marketing tactics. There are links to companies that have just the right additives to give your product a better taste, texture, color, feel, shelf life! They discuss potential drawbacks to chemical additives (such as causing diarrhea) and how to add the product and overcome the side effects. They discuss how to word your list of ingredients to appear more food based and more natural. Everything is driven to make your product look, taste, feel the best it can be to bring the largest profit back to your pocket while seeming to have human health as the ultimate driving force. The chemistry behind all this impresses me even as it makes me deeply sad.

4.     The culture we have created by distancing ourselves from innate wisdom and blindly believing in a science that splinters our foods and splinters the human body into fragments has set up an amazing system for corporate profits and new businesses. From a business perspective, it is genius! Corporations, the medical industry, non-profits are doing a superb job. I can’t fault them for this since our politics drive it. With the profit driven system we have, things aren’t going to change unless people change the products they consume.

5.     Encouraging a vegan diet is the ultimate in taking advantage of the culture we have in engineered foods. Using the raw materials of inexpensive grains, soy, nuts and beans allows an infinite number of products to be developed that can be marketed using the right words, the appearance of the ideal nutritional profile and ideal list of ingredients. With doctors and respectable non-profits blessing the vegan diet, the market outlook for vegan foods appears quite good.

6.     The culture we have created around nutrition and medicine (they can’t be separated) allows most people to distance themselves from being responsible for their health. We are taught that disease just happens, “you have bad genes,” it is your “lot” in life, it was my turn to get “cancer, heart disease, depression, diabetes, etc.,” The prevailing belief is that food may provide some input into preventing some of these diseases but isn’t all that important, especially if your diet is following the “myth” of the day and you are consuming products with a healthy looking label. The vegan diet has been popularized by claiming it can help prevent all of the big label diseases of our day.

7.     It was discouraging to complete this assignment. The concept of getting people to believe a vegan diet is harmful (and extend that to all processed foods) is going to take education outside of the normal methods. This includes word of mouth, social media, and innovative educational opportunities. I see more information being shared by social media and it seems to be making a difference. I am beginning to see more articles questioning some of the ingredients used to make vegan meats in mainstream publications like Men’s Journal, airline magazines, daily newspapers, etc. I found this article titled “Why Vegetarians are Eating Meat “ in foodandwine.com dated August 2007 with a tagline of “A growing number of vegetarians are starting to eat humanely raised meat. Christine Lennon talks to a few converts—including her husband and famed author Mollie Katzen.”

I really liked this excerpt:

 “Former vegetarians are some of the most outspoken proponents of eating meat. ‘I was vegan for 16 years, and I truly believed I was doing the right thing for my health,’ says the actress and model Mariel Hemingway, who is the author of Healthy Living from the Inside Out. ‘But when I was vegan, I was super-weak. I love animals, and we should not support anything but ethical ranching, but when I eat meat, I feel more grounded. I have more energy.

Even chef Mollie Katzen, author of the vegetarian bible the Moosewood Cookbook, is experimenting with meat again. ‘For about 30 years I didn't eat meat at all, just a bite of fish every once in a while, and always some dairy,’ she says. ‘Lately, I've been eating a little meat. People say, 'Ha, ha, Mollie Katzen is eating steak.' But now that cleaner, naturally fed meat is available, it's a great option for anyone who's looking to complete his diet. Somehow, it got ascribed to me that I don't want people to eat meat. I've just wanted to supply possibilities that were low on the food chain.’ Recently, when responding to the invitation to her high-school reunion, Katzen had to make a choice between the vegetarian and the conventional meal. She checked the nonvegetarian box. ‘The people who requested the vegetarian meal got fettuccine Alfredo,’ she says. ‘It's a bowl full of flour and butterfat. I'd much rather have vegetables and grains and a few bites of chicken."

           

The paleo and gluten free movements may not be perfect, but they are bringing more awareness to grains, GMOs and meat. The local food movement, at least in the Kansas City area has increased the visibility of small time farmers that raise animals on pasture similar to Joel Salatin and his Polyface Farm. I can only hope that these trends will become strong and quietly create a diet revolution.