History

Gastroenterologist Walter L. Voegtlin was one of the first to suggest that following a diet similar to that of the Paleolithic era would improve a person's health.^[6] In 1975, he published a book^[5] in which he argued that humans are carnivorous animals and that the ancestral Paleolithic diet was that of a carnivore — chiefly fats and protein, with only small amounts of carbohydrates.^[29][30] His dietary prescriptions were based on his own medical treatments of various digestive problems, namely colitis, Crohn's disease, irritable bowel syndrome and indigestion.^[5][31]

Roger MacDougall was diagnosed with MS in 1953 and later began to follow a paleolithic style diet. By 1975 he made a recovery from the symptoms and a neurologist pronounced his reflexes among other body functions to be normal after many years of not even being able to stand. ^{[32] [33]}

In 1985, S. Boyd Eaton and Melvin Konner, both of Emory University, published a key paper on Paleolithic nutrition in the New England Journal of Medicine,^[34] which caused the concept to gain mainstream medical attention.^[35] Three years later, S. Boyd Eaton, Marjorie Shostak and Melvin Konner published a book about this nutritional approach,^[36] which was based on achieving the same proportions of nutrients (fat, protein, and carbohydrates, as well as vitamins and minerals) as were present in the diets of late Paleolithic people, not on excluding foods that were not available before the development of agriculture. As such, this nutritional approach included skimmed milk, whole-grain bread, brown rice, and potatoes prepared without fat, on the premise that such foods supported a diet with the same macronutrient composition as the Paleolithic diet.^[29][37][38] In 1989, these authors published a second book on Paleolithic nutrition.^[39][40]

Starting in 1989, Swedish medical doctor and scientist Staffan Lindeberg, now associate professor at Lund University, Sweden, led scientific surveys of the non-westernized population on Kitava, one of the Trobriand Islands of Papua New Guinea. These surveys, collectively referred to as the Kitava Study, found that this population apparently did not suffer from stroke, ischemic heart disease, diabetes, obesity or hypertension. Starting with the first publication in 1993,^[41] the Kitava Study has subsequently generated a number of scientific publications on the relationship between diet and western disease.^[42] In 2003, Lindeberg published a Swedish language medical textbook on the subject.^[43] In 2010, this book was wholly revised, updated and published for the first time in English. The 2010 book^[27] is geared towards both professionals and interested laypeople alike, cites more than 2000 references, and provides a comprehensive resource for the scientific foundation for the Paleolithic diet and the relationship between what humans eat and western diseases.

Since the end of the 1990s, a number of medical doctors and nutritionists^[44][45][46] have advocated a return to a so-called Paleolithic (preagricultural) diet.^[7] Proponents of this nutritional approach have published books^[31][47][48] and created websites ^{[49] [50][51]} to promote their dietary prescriptions.^{[52][53][54][55][56]} They have synthesized diets from modern foods that emulate nutritional characteristics of the ancient Paleolithic diet, some of which allow specific foods that would have been unavailable to pre-agricultural peoples, such as some animal products (i.e. dairy), processed oils, and beverages.^[31][57][58]

Practices

Raw Paleolithic-style dish: sashimi (raw fish) dinner set

The Paleolithic diet is a modern dietary regimen that seeks to mimic the diet of preagricultural hunter-gatherers, one that corresponds to what was available in any of the ecological niches of Paleolithic humans.^[1][4] Based upon commonly available modern foods, it includes cultivated plants and domesticated animal meat as an alternative to the wild sources of the original preagricultural diet.^[1][3][59] The ancestral human diet is inferred from historical and ethnographic studies of modern-day hunter-gatherers as well as archaeological finds, anthropological evidence and application of optimal foraging theory.^{[10][60][61][62]}

The Paleolithic diet consists of foods that can be hunted and fished, such as meat, offal and seafood, and can be gathered, such as eggs, insects, fruit, nuts, seeds, vegetables, mushrooms, herbs and spices.^[1][3] Some sources advise eating only lean cuts of meat, free of food additives, preferably wild game meats and grass-fed beef since they contain higher levels of omega-3 fats compared with grain-produced domestic meats.^{[1][3][59][63]} Food groups that advocates claim were rarely or never consumed by humans before the Neolithic (agricultural) revolution are excluded from the diet, mainly grains, legumes (e.g. beans and peanuts), dairy products, salt, refined sugar and processed oils,^[1][3] although some advocates consider the use of oils with low omega-6/omega-3 ratios, such as olive oil and canola oil, to be healthy and advisable.^[59]

Paleolithic-style dish: roast pork with cooked and raw vegetables and fruit

More moderately, Kurt G. Harris recommends avoiding fructose, linoleic acid, and gluten grains as the primary Neolithic agents responsible for modern diseases, and "the rest is just tinkering around the edges." ^[64][65]

On the Paleolithic diet, practitioners are permitted to drink mainly water, and some advocates recommend tea as a healthy drink,^[59] but alcoholic and fermented beverages are restricted from the diet.^[3][59] Furthermore, eating a wide variety of plant foods is recommended to avoid high intakes of potentially harmful bioactive substances, such as goitrogens, which are present in some roots, vegetables and seeds.^[1][60][66] Unlike raw food diets, all foods may be cooked, without restrictions.^[1][67] However, raw Paleolithic dieters exist who believe that humans have not adapted to cooked foods, and so they eat only foods which are both raw and Paleolithic.^[68][69]

According to certain proponents of the Paleolithic diet, practitioners should derive about 56–65% of their food energy from animal foods and 36–45% from plant foods. They recommend a diet high in protein (19–35% energy) and relatively low in carbohydrates (22–40% energy), with a fat intake (28–58% energy) similar to or higher than that found in Western diets.^[59][70][71] Furthermore, some proponents exclude from the diet foods which exhibit high glycemic indices, such as potatoes.^[3] Staffan Lindeberg advocates a Paleolithic diet, but does not recommend any particular proportions of plants versus meat or macronutrient ratios.^[1][60]

According to Lindeberg, calcium supplementation may be considered when the intake of green leafy vegetables and other dietary sources of calcium is limited.^[1]

Rationale and evolutionary assumptions

According to S. Boyd Eaton, "we are the heirs of inherited characteristics accrued over millions of years; the vast majority of our biochemistry and physiology are tuned to life conditions that existed before the advent of agriculture some 10,000 years ago. Genetically our bodies are virtually the same as they were at the end of the Paleolithic era some 20,000 years ago."^[72]

Paleolithic nutrition has its roots in evolutionary biology and is a common theme in evolutionary medicine.^[8][9][73] The reasoning underlying this nutritional approach is that natural selection had sufficient time to genetically adapt the metabolism and physiology of Paleolithic humans to the varying dietary conditions of that era. But in the 10,000 years since the invention of agriculture and its consequent major change in the human diet, natural selection has had too little time to make the optimal genetic adaptations to the new diet.^[1] Physiological and metabolic maladaptations result from the suboptimal genetic adaptations to the contemporary human diet, which in turn contribute to many of the so-called diseases of civilization.^[4]

More than 70% of the total daily energy consumed by all people in the United States comes from foods such as dairy products, cereals, refined sugars, refined vegetable oils and alcohol, that advocates of the Paleolithic diet assert contributed little or none of the energy in the typical preagricultural hominin diet.^[10] Proponents of this diet argue that excessive consumption of these novel Neolithic and Industrial era foods is responsible for the current epidemic levels of obesity, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis and cancer in the US and other contemporary Western populations.^[10]

[edit] Physical activity

The evolutionary rationale has also been applied by researchers into the paleolithic lifestyle to argue for high levels of physical activity in addition to dietary practices. It has been proposed that human genes "evolved with the expectation of requiring a certain threshold of physical activity" and that sedentary lifestyle results in abnormal gene expression.^[74][75] Compared to ancestral humans, modern humans often have substantially less lean muscle, which is a risk factor for insulin resistance.^[76] Human metabolic processes were evolved in the presence of physical activity-rest cycles, which regularly depleted skeletal muscles of their glycogen stores.^[77] S. Boyd Eaton estimated that ancestral humans spent one-third of their caloric intake on physical activity (1000 kcal/day out of the total caloric intake of 3000 kcal/day), ^[78] and that the paleolithic lifestyle was well approximated by the WHO recommendation of the physical activity level of 1.75, or 60 minutes/day of moderate-intensity exercise.^[79] L. Cordain estimated that the optimal level of physical activity is on the order of 90 kcal/kg/week (900 kcal/day for a 70 kg human.)^[75]

[edit] Opposing views

The evolutionary assumptions underlying the Paleolithic diet have been disputed.^{[18][21][22][37]} According to Alexander Ströhle, Maike Wolters and Andreas Hahn, with the Department of Food Science at the University of Hanover, the statement that the human genome evolved during the Pleistocene (a period from 1,808,000 to 11,550 years ago) rests on an inadequate, but popular gene-centered view of evolution.^[22] They rely on Gray (2001)^[80] to argue that evolution of organisms cannot be reduced to the genetic level with reference to mutation and that there is no one-to-one relationship between genotype and phenotype.^[22]

They further question the notion that 10,000 years is an insufficient period of time to ensure an adequate adaptation to agrarian diets.^[22] For example, alleles conferring lactose tolerance increased to high frequencies in Europe just a few thousand years after animal husbandry was invented, and recent increases in the number of copies of the gene for salivary amylase, which digests starch, appear to be related to agriculture.^{[citation needed]} Referring to Wilson (1994),^[81] Ströhle et al. argue that "the number of generations that a species existed in the old environment was irrelevant, and that the response to the change of the environment of a species would depend on the heritability of the traits, the intensity of selection and the number of generations that selection acts."^[82] They state that if the diet of Neolithic agriculturalists had been in discordance with their physiology, then this would have created a selection pressure for evolutionary change and modern humans, such as Europeans, whose ancestors have subsisted on agrarian diets for 400–500 generations should be somehow adequately adapted to it. In response to this argument, Wolfgang Kopp states that "we have to take into account that death from atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurs later during life, as a rule after the reproduction phase. Even a high mortality from CVD after the reproduction phase will create little selection pressure. Thus, it seems that a diet can be functional (it keeps us going) and dysfunctional (it causes health problems) at the same time."^[82] Moreover, S. Boyd Eaton and colleagues have indicated that "comparative genetic data provide compelling evidence against the contention that long exposure to agricultural and industrial circumstances has distanced us, genetically, from our Stone Age ancestors"^[12] however they mention exceptions such as increased lactose and gluten tolerance, which improve ability to digest dairy and grains, while other studies indicate that human adaptive evolution has accelerated since the Paleolithic.^[83]

Referencing Mahner et al. (2001)^[84] and Ströhle et al. (2006),^[85] Ströhle et al. state that "whatever is the fact, to think that a dietary factor is valuable (functional) to the organism only when there was ‘genetical adaptation’ and hence a new dietary factor is dysfunctional per se because there was no evolutionary adaptation to it, such a panselectionist misreading of biological evolution seems to be inspired by a naive adaptationistic view of life."^[22]

Katharine Milton, a professor of physical anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, has also disputed the evolutionary logic upon which the Paleolithic diet is based. She questions the premise that the metabolism of modern humans must be genetically adapted to the dietary conditions of the Paleolithic.^[18] Relying on several of her previous publications,^{[86][87][88][89]} Milton states that "there is little evidence to suggest that human nutritional requirements or human digestive physiology were significantly affected by such diets at any point in human evolution."^[18]

Evidence suggests the diet of Stone Age humans did include, in some form, the refined starches and grains that are excluded from the Paleolithic diet. There is evidence that Paleolithic societies were processing cereals for food use at least as early as 23,000^[90][91] or 30,000 years ago,^[92] and possibly as early as 105,000^[93] or 200,000 years ago.^[94]

[edit] Plant-to-animal ratio

The specific plant to animal food ratio in the Paleolithic diet is also a matter of some dispute. The mean diet among modern hunter-gatherer societies is estimated to consist of 64–68% of animal calories and 32–36% of plant calories,^[71][95] with animal calories further divided between fished and hunted animals in varying proportions (most typically, with hunted animal food comprising 26–35% of the overall diet). As part of the so-called Man the Hunter paradigm, this ratio was used as the basis of the earliest forms of the Paleolithic diet by Voegtlin, Eaton and others. To this day, many advocates of the Paleolithic diet consider high percentage of animal flesh to be one of the key features of the diet.

However, great disparities do exist, even between different modern hunter-gatherer societies. The animal-derived calorie percentage ranges from 25% in the Gwi people of southern Africa, to 99% in Alaskan Nunamiut.^[96] The animal-derived percentage value is skewed upwards by polar hunter-gatherer societies, who have no choice but to eat animal food because of the inaccessibility of plant foods. Since those environments were only populated relatively recently (for example, Paleo-Indian ancestors of Nunamiut are thought to have arrived in Alaska no earlier than 30,000 years ago), such diets represent recent adaptations rather than conditions that shaped human evolution during much of the Paleolithic. More generally, hunting and fishing tend to provide a higher percentage of energy in forager societies living at higher latitudes. Excluding cold-climate and equestrian foragers results in a diet structure of 52% plant calories, 26% hunting calories, and 22% fishing calories.^[95] Furthermore, those numbers may still not be representative of a typical Stone Age diet, since fishing did not become common in many parts of the world until the Upper Paleolithic period 35-40 thousand years ago,^[97] and early humans' hunting abilities were relatively limited^{[dubious – discuss]}, compared to modern hunter-gatherers, as well (the oldest incontrovertible evidence for the existence of bows only dates to about 8000 BCE,^[98] and nets and traps were invented 22,000 to 29,000 years ago.)

Another view is that, up until the Upper Paleolithic, humans were frugivores (fruit eaters), who supplemented their meals with carrion, eggs, and small prey such as baby birds and mussels, and, only on rare occasions, managed to kill and consume big game such as antelopes.^[99] Jared Diamond described a hunt by a tribe in New Guinea, in which the day's total bag was two baby birds ("weighing about one-third of an ounce each"), a few frogs, and a lot of mushrooms. Although the men of the tribe frequently boasted of the large animals they had killed, when pressed for details, they admitted that large animals were killed only a few times in a hunter's career. Unlike Stone Age humans, these people did have bows and arrows, and their stone tools were far more advanced than the stone tools found on prehistoric sites. According to Diamond, it is unlikely that prehistoric hunters could have enjoyed a much higher success rate than present day hunter-gatherer tribes.^[100][101]

This view is supported by the studies of higher apes, particularly chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are closest to humans genetically, sharing more than 98% of their DNA code with humans, and their digestive tract is functionally very similar to that of humans^{[citation needed]}. Chimpanzees are primarily frugivores, but they could and would consume and digest animal flesh, given the opportunity. However, their actual diet in the wild is about 95% plant-based, with the remaining 5% filled with insects, eggs, and baby animals.^[102][103] Some comparative studies of human and higher primate digestive tracts do suggest that humans have evolved to obtain greater amounts of calories from high-quality sources such as animal foods, allowing them to shrink the size of the gastrointestinal tract, relative to body mass, and to increase the brain mass instead.^[88][104] Nevertheless, modern humans' digestive organs and mechanisms, such as dentition, stomach pH, and gut size, remain much closer to chimpanzees than to obligate carnivores or true omnivores such as bears and raccoons.^[99][105]

A difficulty with this point of view is that humans are established to require certain long-chain polyunsaturated fats (LCP), such as AA and DHA.^[106] Human LCP requirements are much greater than chimpanzees' because of humans' larger brain mass, and humans' abilities to synthesize them from other nutrients are poor, suggesting readily available external sources.^[107] Pregnant and lactating females require 100 mg of DHA per day.^[108] But LCPs are nonexistent in plants, and DHA is also almost nonexistent in most tissues of warm-climate animals.

The primary source of DHA in the modern human diet is fish. Despite the general shortage of evidence for extensive fishing, thought to require relatively sophisticated tools which have become available only in the last 30–50 thousand years, it has been argued that exploitation of coastal fauna somehow provided hominids with abundant LCP.^[107] Alternatively, it has been proposed that early hominids frequently scavenged predators' kills and consumed parts which were left untouched by predators, most commonly the brain, which is very high in AA and DHA.^[108] Just 100 g of scavenged African ruminant brain matter provide more DHA than is consumed by a typical modern U.S. adult in the course of a week.^[108][109] Other authors suggested that human ability to convert alpha-Linolenic acid into DHA, while poor, is, nevertheless, adequate to prevent DHA deficiency in a plant-based diet.^[110]

Nutritional factors and health effects

Fruits and vegetables, rich in vitamins, potassium and fiber, represent an important feature of hunter-gatherer diets.^[10]

Since the end of the Paleolithic period, several foods that humans rarely or never consumed during previous stages of their evolution have been introduced as staples in their diet.^[10] With the advent of agriculture and the beginning of animal domestication roughly 10,000 years ago, during the Neolithic Revolution, humans started consuming large amounts of dairy products, beans, cereals, alcohol and salt.^[10] In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the Industrial revolution led to the large scale development of mechanized food processing techniques and intensive livestock farming methods, that enabled the production of refined cereals, refined sugars and refined vegetable oils, as well as fattier domestic meats, which have become major components of Western diets.^[10]

Such food staples have fundamentally altered several key nutritional characteristics of the human diet since the Paleolithic era, including glycemic load, fatty acid composition, macronutrient composition, micronutrient density, acid-base balance, sodium-potassium ratio, and fiber content.^[10]

These dietary compositional changes have been theorized as risk factors in the pathogenesis of many of the so-called "diseases of civilization" and other chronic illnesses that are widely prevalent in Western societies,^{[4][10][111][112][113][114]} including obesity,^{[115][116][117]} cardiovascular disease,^{[118][119][120]} high blood pressure,^[121] type 2 diabetes,^[122][123] osteoporosis,^[124][125] autoimmune diseases,^[126] colorectal cancer,^{[127][128][129]} myopia,^[130] acne,^{[131][132][133][134]} depression,^[135] and diseases related to vitamin and mineral deficiencies.^{[126][136][137][138]}

[edit] Macronutrient composition

[edit] Protein and carbohydrates

"The increased contribution of carbohydrate from grains to the human diet following the agricultural revolution has effectively diluted the protein content of the human diet."^[139] In modern hunter-gatherer diets, dietary protein is characteristically elevated (19–35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrate (22–40% of energy).^{[70][71][140]} High-protein diets may have a cardiovascular protective effect and may represent an effective weight loss strategy for the overweight or obese.^[10] Furthermore, carbohydrate restriction may help prevent obesity and type 2 diabetes,^[141][142] as well as atherosclerosis.^[120] Carbohydrate deprivation to the point of ketosis has been argued both to have negative^[143] and positive effects on health.^[144][145]

Nuts such as walnuts (pictured above) are rich sources of protein and micronutrients.

The notion that preagricultural hunter-gatherers would have typically consumed a diet relatively low in carbohydrate and high in protein has been questioned.^[146] Critics argue that there is insufficient data to identify the relative proportions of plant and animal foods consumed on average by Paleolithic humans in general,^{[7][18][23][85]} and they stress the rich variety of ancient and modern hunter-gatherer diets.^[18][21][22] Furthermore, preagricultural hunter-gatherers may have generally consumed large quantities of carbohydrates in the form of carbohydrate-rich tubers (plant underground storage organs).^[17][21][22] According to Staffan Lindeberg, an advocate of the Paleolithic diet, a plant-based diet rich in carbohydrates is consistent with the human evolutionary past.^[1][4]

It has also been argued that relative freedom from degenerative diseases was, and still is, characteristic of all hunter-gatherer societies irrespective of the macronutrient characteristics of their diets.^{[20][147][148]} Marion Nestle, a professor in the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at New York University, judging from research relating nutritional factors to chronic disease risks and to observations of exceptionally low chronic disease rates among people eating vegetarian, Mediterranean and Asian diets, has suggested that plant-based diets may be most associated with health and longevity.^[16][23]

[edit] Fatty acids

Hunter-gatherer diets have been argued to maintain relatively high levels of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, moderate levels of saturated fats (10–15% of total food energy^[149]) as well as a low omega-6:omega-3 fatty acid ratio.^{[10][71][150]} Cows fed a grass-based diet produce significant amounts of omega-3 fatty acids compared to grain-fed animals, while minimizing trans fats and saturated fats.^[151] The diet does include a significant amount of cholesterol due to the inclusion of lean meat.^[152] These nutritional factors may serve to inhibit the development of cardiovascular disease.^[10] This high ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fats has been challenged. While a low saturated fat intake was argued for^[71] it has been argued that hunter-gatherers would selectively hunt fatter animals and utilise the fattiest parts of the animals (such as bone marrow).^[153]

[edit] Energy density

The Paleolithic diet has lower energy density than the typical diet consumed by modern humans.^[154] This is especially true in primarily plant-based/vegetarian versions of the diet, but it still holds if substantial amounts of lean meat are included in calculations. For example, most fruits and berries contain 0.4 to 0.8 calories per gram, vegetables can be even lower than that (cucumbers contain only 0.16 calories per gram).^[155] Lean game meat, such as cooked wild rabbit, is more energy-dense (up to 1.7 calories per gram), but it does not constitute the bulk of the diet by mass/volume at the recommended plant/animal ratios, and it does not reach the densities of many processed foods commonly consumed by modern humans: most McDonalds sandwiches such as the Big Mac average 2.4 to 2.8 calories/gram,^[156] and sweets such as cookies and chocolate bars commonly exceed 4 calories/gram.

There is substantial evidence that people consuming high energy-density diets are prone to overeating and they are at a greater risk of weight gain. Conversely, low caloric density diets tend to provide a greater satiety feeling at the same energy intake, and they have been shown effective at achieving weight loss in overweight individuals without explicit caloric restrictions.^{[157][158][159]} Even some authors who may otherwise appear to be critical of the concept of Paleolithic diet have argued that high energy density of modern diets, as compared to ancestral/primate diets, contributes to the rate of diseases of affluence in the industrial world.^[89]

[edit] Micronutrient density

Fish and seafood, such as salmon (pictured above), are significant sources of essential micronutrients.

Fruits, vegetables, meat and organ meats, and seafood, which are staples of the hunter-gatherer diet, are more nutrient-dense than refined sugars, grains, vegetable oils, and dairy products. Consequently, the vitamin and mineral content of the diet is very high compared with a standard diet, in many cases a multiple of the RDA.^[3] Fish and seafood represent a particularly rich source of omega-3 fatty acids and other micronutrients, such as iodine, iron, zinc, copper, and selenium, that are crucial for proper brain function and development.^[136] Terrestrial animal foods, such as muscle, brain, bone marrow, thyroid gland, and other organs, also represent a primary source of these nutrients.^[66] Calcium-poor grains and legumes are excluded from the diet.^{[160][161][162]} Two notable exceptions are calcium (see below) and vitamin D, both of which may be present in the diet in inadequate quantities. Modern humans require much more vitamin D than hunter-gatherers, because they do not get the same amount of exposure to sun. This need is commonly satisfied in developed countries by artificially fortifying dairy products with the vitamin. To avoid deficiency, a modern human on a hunter-gatherer diet would have to take artificial supplements of the vitamin, ensure adequate intake of some fatty fish,^[163] or increase the amount of exposure to sunlight (it's been estimated that 30 minutes of exposure to mid-day sun twice a week is adequate for most people.)^[164]

[edit] Fiber content and glycemic load

Despite its relatively low carbohydrate content, the Paleolithic diet involves a substantial increase in consumption of fruit and vegetables, compared to the Western diet, potentially as high as 1.65 to 1.9 kg/day.^[3][165] This leads to fiber intake which is significantly larger than either current or recommended values.^[3] Hunter-gatherer diets, which rely on uncultivated, heavily fibrous fruit and vegetables, contain even more. Fiber intake in preagricultural diets is thought to have exceeded 100 g/day.^[72] This is dramatically higher than the actual current U.S. intake of 15 g/day.^[72]

Fiber-rich root vegetables, such as beets, rutabagas, carrots, celeriac and turnips, maintain nutrient properties (low glycemic and insulin responses) characteristic of traditional hunter-gatherer plant foods.^[3]

Unrefined wild plant foods like those available to contemporary hunter-gatherers typically exhibit low glycemic indices.^[166] Moreover, dairy products, such as milk, have low glycemic indices, but are highly insulinotropic, with an insulin index similar to that of white bread.^[167][168] However, in fermented milk products, such as yogurt, the presence of organic acids may counteract the insulinotropic effect of milk in mixed meals.^[169] These dietary characteristics may lower risk of diabetes, obesity and other related syndrome X diseases by placing less stress on the pancreas to produce insulin, and preventing insulin insensitivity.^[170]

[edit] Sodium-potassium ratio

It has been estimated that people in the Paleolithic era consumed 11,000 mg of potassium and 700 mg of sodium daily.^[34] The modern Paleolithic diet includes neither processed foods (which often contains salt as a preservative) nor added salt as a condiment. The sodium intake of the diet (~726 mg) is lower than average U.S. values (3,271 mg) or recommended values (1,500 mg). Further, since potassium-rich fruits and vegetables compose ~30% of the daily energy, the potassium content (~9,062 mg) is nearly 3.5 times greater than average values (2,620 mg) in the U.S. diet.^[3]

The dominance of sodium over potassium in the U.S. diet adversely affects cardiovascular function and contributes to hypertension and stroke.,^[125][171] so the Paleolithic diet inverts this ratio.

[edit] Calcium and acid-base balance

Diets containing high amounts of salt or cereals and other foods that induce and sustain increased acidity of body fluid may contribute to the development of osteoporosis and renal stones, loss of muscle mass, and age-related renal insufficiency due to the body's use of calcium to buffer pH.^{[citation needed]} The paleo diet may not contain the high levels of calcium recommended in the U.S. to prevent these effects.^[152] However, because of the absence of acid yielding cereals and energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods in the hunter-gatherer diet - foods that displace base-yielding fruits and vegetables - the diet produces a net base load on the body, as opposed to a net acid load, which may reduce calcium excretion.^{[124][172][not in citation given]}

[edit] Bioactive substances and antinutrients

Furthermore, cereal grains, legumes and milk contain bioactive substances, such as gluten and casein, which have been implicated in the development of various health problems.^[4] Consumption of gluten, a component of certain grains, such as wheat, rye and barley, is known to have adverse health effects in individuals suffering from a range of gluten sensitivities, including celiac disease. Since the Paleolithic diet is devoid of cereal grains, it is free of gluten. The paleodiet is also casein-free. Casein is a protein found in milk and dairy products, which may impair glucose tolerance in humans.^[4]

Compared to Paleolithic food groups, cereal grains and legumes contain high amounts of antinutrients, including alkylresorcinols, alpha-amylase inhibitors, protease inhibitors, lectins and phytates, substances known to interfere with the body's absorption of many key nutrients.^{[4][112][126]} Molecular-mimicking proteins, which are basically made up of strings of amino acids that closely resemble those of another totally different protein, are also found in grains and legumes, as well as milk and dairy products.^{[4][112][126]} Advocates of the Paleolithic diet have argued that these components of agrarian diets promote vitamin and mineral deficiencies and may explain the development of the "diseases of civilization" as well as a number of autoimmune-related diseases.^{[4][112][126]}

Research

[edit] Archeological record

One line of evidence used to support the Stone Age diet is the decline in human health and body mass that occurred with the adoption of agriculture, at the end of the Paleolithic era.^[21][126] Associated with the introduction of domesticated and processed plant foods, such as cereal grains, in the human diet, there was, in many areas, a general decrease in body stature and dentition size, and an increase in dental caries rates. There is evidence of a general decline in health in some areas; whether the decline was caused by dietary change is debated academically.^{[7][173][174]}

[edit] Observational studies

Based on the subsistence patterns and biomarkers of hunter-gatherers studied in the last century, advocates argue that modern humans are well adapted to the diet of their Paleolithic ancestor.^[175] The diet of modern hunter-gatherer groups is believed to be representative of patterns for humans of fifty to twenty-five thousand years ago,^[175] and individuals from these and other technologically primitive societies,^[176][177] including those individuals who reach the age of 60 or beyond,^[41][178] seem to be largely free of the signs and symptoms of chronic disease (such as obesity, high blood pressure, nonobstructive coronary atherosclerosis, and insulin resistance) that universally afflict the elderly in western societies (with the exception of osteoarthritis, which afflicts both populations).^[4][12][175] Moreover, when these people adopt western diets, their health declines and they begin to exhibit signs and symptoms of "diseases of civilization".^[11][175] In one clinical study, stroke and ischaemic heart disease appeared to be absent in a population living on the island of Kitava, in Papua New Guinea, where a subsistence lifestyle, uninfluenced by western dietary habits, was still maintained.^[41][179]

One of the most frequent criticisms of the Paleolithic diet is that it is unlikely that preagricultural hunter-gatherers suffered from the diseases of modern civilization simply because they did not live long enough to develop these illnesses, which are typically associated with old age.^{[12][17][180][181][182]} According to S. Jay Olshansky and Bruce Carnes, "there is neither convincing evidence nor scientific logic to support the claim that adherence to a Paleolithic diet provides a longevity benefit."^[182] In response to this argument, advocates of the paleodiet state that while Paleolithic hunter-gatherers did have a short average life expectancy, modern human populations with lifestyles resembling that of our preagricultural ancestors have little or no diseases of affluence, despite sufficient numbers of elderly.^[12][183] In hunter-gatherer societies where demographic data is available, the elderly are present, but they tend to have high mortality rates and rarely survive past the age of 80, with causes of death (when known) ranging from injuries to measles and tuberculosis.^[184]

Critics further contend that food energy excess, rather than the consumption of specific novel foods, such as grains and dairy products, underlies the diseases of affluence.^{[17][21][185]} According to Geoffrey Cannon,^[17] science and health policy advisor to the World Cancer Research Fund, humans are designed to work hard physically to produce food for subsistence and to survive periods of acute food shortage, and are not adapted to a diet rich in energy-dense foods.^[186] Similarly, William R. Leonard, a professor of anthropology at Northwestern University, states that the health problems facing industrial societies stem not from deviations from a specific ancestral diet but from an imbalance between calories consumed and calories burned, a state of energy excess uncharacteristic of ancestral lifestyles.^[185]

[edit] Intervention studies

The first animal experiment on a Paleolithic diet suggested that this diet, as compared with a cereal-based diet, conferred higher insulin sensitivity, lower C-reactive protein and lower blood pressure in 24 domestic pigs.^[187] There was no difference in basal serum glucose.^[187] The first human clinical randomized controlled trial involved 29 people with glucose intolerance and ischemic heart disease, and it found that those on a Paleolithic diet had a greater improvement in glucose tolerance compared to those on a Mediterranean diet.^[13][188] Furthermore, the Paleolithic diet was found to be more satiating per calorie compared to the Mediterranean diet.^[189]

A clinical, randomized, controlled cross-over study in the primary care setting compared the Paleolithic diet with a commonly prescribed diet for type 2 diabetes. The Paleolithic diet resulted in lower mean values of HbA1c, triacylglycerol, diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference and higher values of high density lipoprotein when compared to the Diabetes diet. Also, glycemic control and other cardiovascular factors were improved in both diets without significant differences. It is also important to note that the Paleolithic diet was lower in total energy, energy density, carbohydrate, dietary glycemic load and glycemic index, saturated fatty acids and calcium, but higher in unsaturated fatty acids, dietary cholesterol and some vitamins.^[190] Two clinical trials designed to test various physiological effects of the Paleolithic diet are currently underway,^[191][192] and the results of one completed trial ^[193] have shown metabolic and physiologic improvements.^[14] The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a study^[194] of a trial of the Paleolithic diet in 20 healthy volunteers. In the study, in three weeks there was an average weight reduction of 2.3 kg, an average reduction in waist circumference of 1.5 cm (about one-half inch), an average reduction in systolic blood pressure of 3 mm Hg, and a 72% reduction in plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (which might translate into a reduced risk of heart attack and stroke.) However, the NHS Knowledge Service pointed out that this study, like most human diet studies, relied on observational data.^[195]

See also

History

The earliest recorded use of the term macrobiotics is found in the writing of Hippocrates, the father of Western Medicine. In his essay "Airs, Waters, and Places," Hippocrates introduced the word to describe people who were healthy and long-lived. Herodotus, Aristotle, Galen, and other classical writers used the term macrobiotics to describe a lifestyle, including a simple balanced diet, that promoted health and longevity.^[2]

[edit] Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland

Hufeland, a German physician, in his book The Art of Prolonging Human Life (1797), first used the word "macrobiotics" in the context of food and health. Hufeland was an influential doctor who was active in medical research and became a medical professor at Jena and, later, the first dean of medicine at the University of Berlin. Despite the title of his book, he also considered macrobiotics a science aimed at prolonging and perfecting life. According to Hufeland, macrobiotics is a medical philosophy on a higher level than the curative, preventative, or health levels of medicine. "The medical art must consider every disease as an evil which cannot be too soon expelled; the macrobiotic, on the other hand, shows that many diseases may be the means of prolonging life."

First edition of The Art of Prolonging Human Life", 1797

In his book, Hufeland refers to a life force which he claimed is present in everything and most easily detected in "organic beings" (live organisms), where it manifests in its response to external stimuli. This force can be weakened, as well as strengthened, through external influences. He believed that our life force would be depleted through physical exertion and increased with rest. Hufeland proposed that moral and physical health are intertwined and flow from the same source, both marked by an abundance of life force. In his view, illness was to be prevented primarily by pursuing a proper diet and lifestyle. In terms of using the word "macrobiotics" in relation to health, food, and energy or life force, Hufeland could be considered the founder of macrobiotics.^{[original research?]}

[edit] Sagen Ishizuka

In the late 1800s, Japanese military doctor Sagen Ishizuka, the founding father of shokuiku, had great success in helping people recover from their serious health problems. He carried out many clinical trials and published two large volumes of his works. His theory was that a natural diet, in which foods are eaten in season and attention is paid to the correct balance of potassium and sodium and acid and alkaline, leads to good health.^[3]

Philosophy

Followers of the traditional macrobiotic approach believe that food and food quality powerfully affect health, well-being, and happiness, and that a traditional locally-based macrobiotic diet has more beneficial effects than others. The modern macrobiotic approach suggests choosing food that is less processed.

One goal of modern macrobiotics is to become sensitive to the actual effects of foods on health and well-being, rather than to follow dietary rules and regulations. Dietary guidelines, however, help in developing sensitivity and an intuitive sense for what sustains health and well-being.^[4]

Japanese Macrobiotics emphasizes locally grown whole grain cereals, pulses (legumes), vegetables, seaweed, fermented soy products and fruit, combined into meals according to the principle of balance (known as yin and yang). Whole grains and whole-grain products such as brown rice and buckwheat pasta (soba), a variety of cooked and raw vegetables, beans and bean products, mild natural seasonings, fish, nuts and seeds, mild (non-stimulating) beverages such as bancha twig tea and fruit are recommended.^[4]

Some Japanese macrobiotic theorists, including George Ohsawa, stress the fact that yin and yang are relative qualities that can only be determined in a comparison. All food is considered to have both properties, with one dominating. Foods with yang qualities are considered compact, dense, heavy, hot, whereas those with yin qualities are considered expansive, light, cold, and diffuse.^[5] However, these terms are relative; "yangness" or "yingness" is only discussed in relation to other foods.^[5]

Brown rice and other whole grains such as barley, millet, oats, quinoa, spelt, rye, and teff are considered by macrobiotics to be the foods in which yin and yang are closest to being in balance. Therefore, lists of macrobiotic foods that determine a food as yin or yang generally compare them to whole grains.^[5]

Nightshade vegetables, including tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, eggplant; also spinach, beets and avocados are not recommended or used sparingly in macrobiotic cooking, as they are considered extremely yin.^[6] Some macrobiotic practitioners also discourage the use of nightshades because of the alkaloid solanine, thought to affect calcium balance.^[7] Some proponents of a macrobiotic diet believe that nightshade vegetables can cause inflammation in the body and osteoporosis.^[5]

Composition

Some basic macrobiotic ingredients

Some general guidelines for the Japanese style macrobiotic diet are the following (it is also said that a macrobiotic diet varies greatly, depending on geographical and life circumstances):^[8]

• Well chewed whole cereal grains, especially brown rice: 40–60%
• Vegetables: 25–30%
• Beans and legumes: 5–10%
• Miso soup: 5%
• Sea vegetables: 5%
• Traditionally or naturally processed foods: 5–10%

Fish and seafood, seeds and nuts, seed and nut butters, seasonings, sweeteners, fruits, and beverages may be enjoyed occasionally, 2-3 times per week. Other naturally raised animal products may be included if needed during dietary transition or according to individual needs.

Cooking according to the time of the year

In spring:

• Food with a lighter quality
• Wild plants, greens, lightly fermented food, grain species, fresh greens
• Light cooking style: steaming, cooking for a short time, etc.

In summer:

• Food with a lighter quality
• Large-leaved greens, sweet corn, fruit, summer pumpkins
• Light cooking style: steaming, quick cooking, etc.
• More raw foods
• Lighter grains, such as barley, and bulghur

In autumn:

• Food with a more concentrated quality
• Root vegetables, (winter) pumpkins, beans, cereals, etc.
• Heavier grains such as sweet rice, mochi and millet

In winter:

• Food with a stronger, more concentrated quality
• Round vegetables, pickles, root vegetables, etc.
• More miso, soy sauce, oil, and salt
• Heavier grains such as millet, buckwheat, fried rice, etc.

Balanced content of food

Japanese style Macrobiotic eating follows the principle of balance (called balancing yin and yang in China).

Japanese style Macrobiotics holds that some foods are overstimulating and can exhaust the body and mind. These are classified as extreme Yin (stimulating) in their effects:

• Sugar
• Alcohol
• Coffee
• Chocolate
• Refined flour products
• Very hot spices
• Drugs
• "Chemicals" and preservatives
• Commercial milk, yogurt and soft cheeses
• Poor quality vegetable oils

Foods that are considered to be concentrated, heavy and dense create stagnation. These have Yang (strengthening, but stagnating effects if over-consumed).

• Poultry
• Meat
• Eggs
• Refined salt

Whole grains, vegetables, beans, sea vegetables, fruit, nuts, and seeds are thought to create balance. Foods such as these are used in a macrobiotic way of eating.

Other factors

The composition of dishes and the choices of foods is adjusted according to

• the season
• the climate
• activity
• sex
• age
• health condition
• transition in one's diet

and any applicable personal considerations.

Japanese popularity and influence

The macrobiotic way of eating is thought by some to be Japanese. During the Edo period in Japan peasants were not allowed to eat meat and had a diet of primarily rice and soy beans to get their protein. According to macrobiotic advocates, a majority of the world population in the past ate a diet based primarily on grains, vegetables, and other plants. Because macrobiotics is popular in Japan, and many of its popular teachers are Japanese, Japanese foods that are beneficial for health are incorporated by most modern macrobiotic eaters. Some macrobiotic ingredients are also standard ingredients in Japanese cuisine. [1], [2]

Chinese macrobiotics

According to Chee Soo in The Tao of Long Life,^[9] natural dietary therapy, or ch'ang ming, has been developed in China since prehistoric times, along with a range of health arts that have become what we now know as traditional Chinese medicine, or TCM. Other than this, however, there is no real evidence that ch'ang ming predates the advent of macrobiotics in Japan.

Macrobiotics vs. vegetarianism

A macrobiotic diet includes many of the same foods as vegetarian diets, but in macrobiotics some types of fish and other animal foods are included according to individual needs. The two dietary styles share enough similarities that a vegetarian and even vegan version of macrobiotics is not uncommon.

The American Dietetic Association approves of carefully planned vegan diets. In the words of the Association, "Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.... It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."^[10] However, as part of their dietary guidelines, the association did not opine against meat consumption, recommending that healthy adults eat lean meat, poultry, fish or beans each day, as lean meat has many essential nutrients without excess fat or cholesterol.^[11]

On the other hand, according to the USDA's discussion of its current food pyramid, "Dry beans and peas are part of this [meat and beans] group as well as the vegetable group. ... Fish, nuts, and seeds contain healthy oils, so choose these foods frequently instead of meat or poultry."^[12] Under the heading "Why is it important to include fish, nuts, and seeds?" they say, "Many people do not make varied choices from this food group, selecting meat or poultry everyday as their main dishes."^[13]

Macrobiotics and cancer

Macrobiotics has long been advocated by some as a preventative and cure for cancer. Michio Kushi's book The Cancer Prevention Diet outlines the fundamental philosophy for the diet and cancer prevention. There is evidence that a diet high in whole grains and vegetables and possibly low in saturated fat, red meat, and preserved meat products can help to prevent many types of cancer.^[14] A study at the Tulane School of Public Health conducted by James P. Carter and others^[15] reported significant improvement in cancer patient longevity (177 months compared to 91 months) when patients practiced the macrobiotic diet, although an analysis^[16] stated about this paper, "Scientific evidence on the potential benefits of macrobiotic diets for patients with cancer is limited to two retrospective studies with serious methodologic flaws."

There have been no randomized clinical studies published in the available medical literature to show the macrobiotic diet can be used to prevent or cure cancer. One of the earlier versions of the macrobiotic diet that involved eating only brown rice and water has been linked to severe nutritional deficiencies and even death. However, low-fat, high-fiber diets that consist mainly of plant products that are believed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and some forms of cancer. The National Institutes of Health's, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine has funded a pilot study to determine whether a macrobiotic diet may prevent cancer.^[17]

Medical professionals do not consider that there is evidence that a macrobiotic diet is a cure for cancer. The American Cancer Society strongly urges people with cancer not to use a dietary program as an exclusive or primary means of treatment.^[18] Michio Kushi himself developed cancer and in 2004 had a tumor removed surgically from his intestines.^{[citation needed]} Roel Van Duijn reported in the Dutch national newspaper Trouw on September 5, 1998, and later in the quarterly Skepter of the Dutch organisation Skepsis that following advice of a macrobiotic counselor over conventional medical treatments resulted in the death of his wife.^[19]

Nutrition

Detailed information on the nutrients provided by a large range of foodstuffs is available in the USDA National Nutrient Database.^[20]

The following nutrients should be monitored especially in children, because of their importance in facilitating growth and function: calcium, protein, iron, zinc, vitamin D, vitamin B₁₂, riboflavin, vitamin A, omega-3 fatty acids.^[21]

Humans synthesize vitamin D with adequate exposure to sunlight; supplementation may be necessary during winter months for people who live far from the equator. Calcium is available from hard leafy greens, nuts and seeds. Zinc is available from nuts and seeds. Fish provides vitamin B₁₂ in a macrobiotic diet,^[22] as bioavailable B₁₂ analogues have not been established in any natural plant food, including sea vegetables, soya, fermented products, and algae.^[23] Although plant-derived foods do not naturally contain B₁₂, some are fortified during processing with added B₁₂ and other nutrients.^[24] Vitamin A, in the form of beta-carotene, is available from plants such as carrots and spinach.^[25] Adequate protein is available from grains, nuts, seeds, beans, and bean products. Sources of Omega-3 fatty acids are discussed in the relevant article, and include soy products, walnuts, flax seeds, pumpkin seeds, hemp seeds, and fatty fish. Riboflavin along with most other B vitamins are abundant in whole grains. Iron in the form of non-heme iron in beans, sea vegetables and leafy greens is sufficient for good health; detailed information is in the USDA database.^[26]

Criticisms

[edit] Complications

One of the earlier macrobiotic diets, which called for eating all grains, is severely deficient and has been linked to severe malnutrition and even death. Strict macrobiotic diets that include no animal products may result in nutritional deficiencies unless they are carefully planned. The danger may be worse for people with cancer, who may have to contend with unwanted weight loss and often have increased nutritional and caloric requirements. Relying on this type of treatment alone and avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer may have serious health consequences.^[17]

[edit] Children

Children may also be particularly prone to nutritional deficiencies resulting from a macrobiotic diet.^[17]

[edit] Pregnancy

Macrobiotic diets have not been tested in women who are pregnant or breast-feeding, and some versions may not include enough of certain nutrients for normal fetal growth.^[17]

[edit] Malnutrition

In 1971, the AMA Council on Foods and Nutrition said that followers of the macrobiotic diet, particularly the strictest, stood in "great danger" of malnutrition.^[27] On the other hand, in 1987, the AMA stated in their Family Medical Guide: "In general, the macrobiotic diet is a healthful way of eating."^[28]

[edit] Tobacco

Michio Kushi and George Ohsawa smoked cigarettes. Kushi states that lung cancer can arise from dairy food in the diet: "In combination with tobacco, dairy food can trap tars and other ingredients of tobacco smoke in the lungs, leading often to lung cancer."^[29] This is contrary to medical understanding of the connection between lung cancer and smoking.^[30]

Cookbooks and resources

[edit] Books

[edit] Web

See also

• Sanpaku
• Ch'i
• Shiatsu
• Traditional Chinese medicine

Background

[edit] Early history

An early ethical argument against eating animals was mounted by Pythagoras in the 6th century BCE.

Kerry S. Walters and Lisa Portmess write that the first Western ethical argument against eating animals can be traced to the Greek philosopher Pythagoras (c. 570–490 BCE). A believer in the transmigration of souls, Pythagoras warned that eating an animal might involve eating a human soul; therefore, he argued, human beings ought to regard all living beings as kindred souls.^[7]

The word "vegetarian" seems to have come into use in England in the early 19th century; The Oxford English Dictionary attributes one early reference to the actress Fanny Kemble (1809–1893) writing in 1839.^[8] In 1838, James Pierrepont Greaves opened Alcott House as a boarding school with pupils required to follow a vegetarian diet; understood as a vegan diet today. They used "vegetarian" to describe a 100 percent plant-based diet; a vegetarian was simply someone who lived on vegetation.^[9] The first Vegetarian Society, formed by supporters of Alcott House, readers of the Truth-Tester temperance journal, and members of the ovo-lacto vegetarian Bible Christian Church—held its first meeting on September 30, 1847, at Northwood Villa in Ramsgate, Kent. The meeting was chaired by Salford MP Joseph Brotherton (1783–1857).^[10]

In 1886, the society published the influential A Plea for Vegetarianism by the English campaigner Henry Salt (1851–1939)—widely known as the first writer to make the paradigm shift from animal welfare to animal rights.^[11] In it, Salt acknowledged that he was a vegetarian, writing that this was a "formidable admission" to make, because "a Vegetarian is still regarded, in ordinary society, as little better than a madman."^[12]

Vegetarians who avoided eggs and dairy products, as well as meat, were known simply as strict or total vegetarians.^[13] In 1851, an article appeared in the Vegetarian Society's magazine about alternatives to using leather for shoes, which the International Vegetarian Union cites as evidence of the existence in England of another group that wanted to avoid using animal products entirely.^[14]

[edit] Early 20th century

Mahatma Gandhi's call to vegetarians in 1931 to focus on morality was a precursor to the ideas of the Vegan Society in 1944.^[15]

The first known vegan cookbook, No Animal Food by Rupert H. Wheldon, was published in England by C.W. Daniel in 1910.^[16] In it, Wheldon argued that, "it is obvious that, since we should live as to give the greatest possible happiness to all beings capable of appreciating it and as it is an indisputable fact that animals can suffer pain, and that men who slaughter animals needlessly suffer from atrophy of all finer feelings, we should therefore cause no unnecessary suffering in the animal world."^[17]

Leah Leneman writes that in 1912 the editor of TVMHR, the journal of the Vegetarian Society's Manchester branch, started a debate among readers as to whether vegetarians ought to avoid eggs and dairy. He summarized the views of the 24 vegetarians who responded, writing: "The defence of the use of eggs and milk by vegetarians, so far as it has been offered here, is not satisfactory. The only true way is to live on cereals, pulse, fruit, nuts and vegetables." The journal wrote in 1923 that the "ideal position for vegetarians is abstinence from animal products," and that most of the society's members were in a transitional stage. In 1935 it wrote that the issue was becoming more pressing with every year.^[16]

In 1888, Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) arrived in London to study law. Before he left India, his mother asked him to swear an oath that he would eat no meat or eggs. He wrote that after reading Henry Salt's A Plea for Vegetarianism he was glad he had taken the oath, and that the spread of vegetarianism became his mission. He became friends with other leading vegetarian campaigners, including Anna Kingsford (1846–1888), author of The Perfect Way in Diet (1881), and in 1931 he addressed a meeting of the Vegetarian Society—attended by Salt—arguing that it ought to promote a meat-free diet as a moral issue, not as an issue of human health. Norman Phelps writes that this was a rebuke to those members of the society that focused on the health benefits. Gandhi argued that "vegetarians had a habit of talking of nothing but food and nothing but disease. I feel that this is the worst way of going about the business. ... I discovered that for remaining staunch to vegetarianism a man requires a moral basis."^[15]

Although Gandhi himself continued to drink cow's milk—calling it the tragedy of his life that he could not give it up—Phelps argues that his speech was a call for the society to align itself with Salt's views on animal rights, and a precursor to the ideas of Donald Watson and the first Vegan Society in 1944.^[15]

[edit] 1944: Coining the term "vegan"

Logo of the British Vegan Society

In July 1943 Leslie Cross, a member of the Leicester Vegetarian Society, expressed concern in its newsletter, The Vegetarian Messenger, that vegetarians were still eating dairy products. A year later, in August 1944, two of the society's members, Donald Watson (1910–2005) and Elsie "Sally" Shrigley (died 1978), suggested forming a subgroup of non-dairy vegetarians. When the executive committee rejected the idea, they and five others met at the Attic Club in Holborn, London, on November 1 to discuss setting up a separate organization.^[18] Suggestions for a concise term to replace "non-dairy vegetarian" included dairyban, vitan, benevore, sanivore, and beaumangeur, but Watson decided on "vegan"—pronounced "veegun" (/?vi???n/), with the stress on the first syllable—the first three and last two letters of vegetarian and, as Watson put it in 2004, "the beginning and end of vegetarian."^[19] The word was first independently published in the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary in 1962, defined as "a vegetarian who eats no butter, eggs, cheese or milk."^[18]

The same meeting in November 1944 saw the foundation of the British Vegan Society, with 25 members.^[19] Fay K. Henderson published Vegan Recipes the following year; it was the first recipe book with the word "vegan" in the title.^[16]

Donald Watson, creator of the term "vegan," and co-founder of the British Vegan Society in 1944.

The first vegan society in the United States was founded in 1948 by Dr. Catherine Nimmo of Oceano, California, and Rubin Abramowitz of Los Angeles. Nimmo had been a vegan since 1931, and began distributing the British Vegan Society's Vegan newsletter to her mailing list within the United States.^[20]

In 1951 the British Vegan Society broadened its definition of veganism to "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals." Leslie Cross, the society's vice-president wrote that veganism is a principle, that it is "not so much about welfare [of animals] as liberation." The society pledged to "seek to end the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection and all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man." Members were expected to declare themselves in agreement with this, and to live as closely to the ideal as they could, but without making specific promises about their own behavior.^[21]

In 1957, H. Jay Dinshah (1933–2000), the son of a Parsi from Mumbai, visited a slaughterhouse and read some of Watson's literature. He decided to give up all animal products, and, on February 8, 1960, he founded the American Vegan Society (AVS) in Malaga, New Jersey, incorporating Nimmo's society, and explicitly linking veganism to the concept of ahimsa, a Sanskrit word meaning "non-harming." The AVS called it "dynamic harmlessness," and to stress the connection with veganism named its magazine Ahimsa.^[22] Two key books explained the philosophy: Dinshah's Out of the Jungle: The Way of Dynamic Harmlessness (1965), and Victoria Moran's Compassion, the Ultimate Ethic: An Exploration of Veganism (1985), the latter first published as a series of essays in Ahimsa.^[23] Today the word "veganism" is still used to refer either to the plant-based diet or to a lifestyle that seeks to eliminate animal use entirely.^[1] Since 1994 World Vegan Day has been held every November 1, the founding date of the British Vegan Society in 1944.^[24]

[edit] 2000s: Demographics

In 1997, three percent in the U.S. said they had not used animals for any purpose in the previous two years.^[25] In 2005, The Times of London estimated there were 250,000 vegans in the UK, and in 2006 The Independent estimated 600,000.^[26] In a 2007 British government survey, two percent self-identified as vegan.^[27] The Netherlands Association for Veganism estimated there were 16,000 vegans in the Netherlands as of 2007, around 0.1 percent of the population.^[28] A 2008 survey for the Vegetarian Resource Group reported that 0.5 percent of Americans, or one million, identified as vegan.^[29]

Vegan diet, clothing, and toiletries

[edit] Avoidance of animal products

Lard from pigs

Ethical vegans entirely reject the commodification of animals. The Vegan Society in the UK will only certify a product as vegan if it is free of animal involvement as far as possible and practical.^[30]

An animal product is any material derived from animals, including meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, dairy products, honey, fur, leather, wool, and silk. Other commonly used, but perhaps less well known, animal products are beeswax, bone char, bone china, carmine, casein, cochineal, gelatin, isinglass, lanolin, lard, rennet, shellac, tallow, whey, and yellow grease. Many of these may not be identified in the list of ingredients in the finished product.^[31] There is disagreement among groups about the extent to which all animal products, particularly products from insects, must be avoided. Neither the Vegan Society nor the American Vegan Society considers the use of honey, silk, or other insect products to be suitable for vegans, while Vegan Action and Vegan Outreach regard that as a matter of personal choice.^[32]

Ethical vegans will not use animal products for clothing, toiletries, or any other reason, and will try to avoid ingredients that have been tested on animals. They will not buy fur coats, leather shoes, belts, bags, wallets, woollen jumpers, silk scarves, camera film, and certain vaccines, etc. Depending on their economic circumstances, they may donate such items to charity when they become vegan, or use them until they wear out. Clothing made without animal products is widely available in stores and online. Alternatives to wool include cotton, hemp, rayon, and polyester. Some vegan clothes, in particular shoes, are made of petroleum-based products, which has triggered criticism because of the environmental damage associated with production. In warmer climates, vegans tend to wear shoes made of hemp, linen or canvas.^[33]

[edit] Cuisine

Further information: Wikibooks Cookbook list of vegan recipes

A selection of tofu dishes

Panna cotta made with soya milk

Any plant-based dish may be vegan. Common vegan dishes prepared without animal ingredients include ratatouille, falafel, hummus, veggie burritos, rice and beans, veggie stir-fry, and pasta primavera. Ingredients such as tofu, tempeh, and seitan are widely used in vegan cuisine. Plant cream and plant milk—such as almond milk, grain milk, or soy milk—are used instead of cows' or goats' milk. Vegan recipes will use apple sauce, ground flax seeds, mashed potatoes, soft or silken tofu, or commercial starch-based egg-substitute products, instead of chickens' eggs.^[34]

Meat analogues, or "mock meats," made of soy or gluten—including vegetarian sausage, vegetarian mince, and veggie burgers—are widely available. Since, however, some meat-free vegetarian foods, including some vegetarian sausages, may include eggs or dairy products, they would be part of an acceptable diet for vegetarians but not for vegans. Cheese analogues made from soy, nuts, and tapioca are commonly used. Vegan cheeses like Teese, Sheese, and Daiya can replace the taste and meltability of dairy cheese in various dishes.^[35] Joanne Stepaniak writes that cheese substitutes can be made at home, using recipes from Vegan Vittles, The Nutritional Yeast Cookbook, and The Uncheese Cookbook.^[36]

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine recommends what they call the "Four New Food Groups." They suggest that vegans and vegetarians eat at least three servings of vegetables a day, including dark-green, leafy vegetables such as broccoli, and dark-yellow and orange such as carrots; five servings of whole grains (bread, rice, pasta); three of fruit; and two of legumes (beans, peas, lentils).^[37]

[edit] Health arguments

Wikibooks Cookbook has a recipe/module on Vegan cuisine Vegan substitutions

People on diets which include animal-based food have been shown to be more likely to have degenerative diseases, including heart disease.^[6] According to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a report issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a vegetarian diet is associated with lower levels of obesity and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.^[38] According to the EPIC-Oxford study, vegetarian diets provide large amounts of cereals, pulses, nuts, fruits, and vegetables, which makes them rich in carbohydrates, omega-6 fatty acids, dietary fiber, carotenoids, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, and magnesium. The vegan diet is more restricted, and recommendations differ. Poorly planned vegan diets may be low in vitamin B₁₂, calcium, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, iron, zinc, riboflavin (vitamin B₂), and iodine.^[5] The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada said in 2003 that properly planned vegan diets were nutritionally adequate for all stages of life, including pregnancy and lactation, and provided health benefits in the treatment and prevention of certain diseases.^[39] The Swiss Federal Nutrition Commission and the German Society for Nutrition do not recommend a vegan diet, and caution against it for children, the pregnant, and the elderly.^[40]

Dean Ornish is one of a number of physicians who recommend a low-fat vegan diet to prevent and reverse certain degenerative diseases.^[41]

Physicians John A. McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Neal D. Barnard, Dean Ornish, Michael Greger, and nutritional biochemist T. Colin Campbell, argue that high animal fat and protein diets, such as the standard American diet, are detrimental to health, and that a low-fat vegan diet can both prevent and reverse degenerative diseases such as coronary artery disease and diabetes.^[41] A 2006 study by Barnard found that in people with type 2 diabetes, a low-fat vegan diet reduced weight, total cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol, and did so to a greater extent than the diet prescribed by the American Diabetes Association.^[42]

The 12-year Oxford Vegetarian Study of 11,000 subjects recruited between 1980 and 1984 indicated that vegans had lower total- and LDL-cholesterol concentrations than did meat-eaters. Death rates were lower in non-meat eaters than in meat eaters; mortality from ischemic heart disease was positively associated with eating animal fat and with dietary cholesterol levels. The study also suggested that vegans in the UK may be at risk of iodine deficiency because of deficiencies in the soil.^[43]

Vegan version of the nutritional food pyramid (click to enlarge).

According to the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, diets that avoid meat tend to have lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants, such as vitamins C and E, and phytochemicals. People avoiding meat are reported to have lower body mass index than those following the average Canadian or American diet. From this follows lower death rates from ischemic heart disease, lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancers.^[5]

A 1999 meta-analysis of five studies comparing vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates in Western countries found a 6 percent reduction in mortality from ischemic heart disease in vegans compared to occasional meat eaters. The same study found that there were no differences between vegans and meat eaters in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined.^[44] It was found that the mortality rate due to ischemic heart disease was 26 percent lower among vegans compared to regular meat eaters, but 34 percent lower among lacto-ovo vegetarians (vegetarians that eat dairy products and eggs) and pescetarians (those that eat fish but no other meat). The lower rate of protection for vegans compared to pescetarians or lacto-ovo vegetarians is believed to be linked to higher levels of homocysteine, which is caused by insufficient vitamin B12, and it is believed that vegans that get sufficient B12 should show even lower risk of ischemic heart disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians. No significant difference in mortality was found from other causes.^[45]

A large 15-year survey that investigated in the United Kingdom the association between diet and age-related cataract risk found a progressive decrease in risk of cataract in high meat eaters to low meat eaters, vegetarians, and vegans. Vegans were found to have a 40 percent lower risk of developing cataract compared with the biggest meat eaters.^[46]

[edit] Vitamin B₁₂, iodine, choline

The Vegan Society and Vegan Outreach recommend that vegans eat foods fortified with B₁₂ or take a supplement. B₁₂ is a bacterial product that cannot be found reliably in plant foods, and is needed for the formation and maturation of red blood cells and the synthesis of DNA, and for normal nerve function; a deficiency can lead to a number of health problems, including megaloblastic anemia.^[47] Iodine supplementation may be necessary for vegans in countries where salt is not typically iodized, where it is iodized at low levels, or where, as in Britain or Ireland, dairy products are relied upon for iodine delivery because of low levels in the soil. Iodine can be obtained from most vegan multivitamins or from regular consumption of seaweeds, such as kelp.^[48] Vegans may also be at risk of choline deficiency and may benefit from choline supplements.^[49]

[edit] Iron, calcium, vitamin D

Pumpkin seed-crusted lentil patties with roasted garlic mashed potatoes and salad.

Iron deficiency may lead to anemia. Iron is less well-absorbed from vegetarian diets (10 percent absorption from vegetarian diets, versus 18 percent from an omnivorous diet); vegetarians that exclude all animal products may need almost twice as much dietary iron each day as non-vegetarians. On the other hand, the iron status of omnivores and vegans appears to be similar, and body absorption processes may adjust to low intakes over time by enhancing absorption efficiency.^[50] Molasses is a high-iron food source and many vegans take it in spoonfuls as an iron supplement.^[51]

Vegans are advised to eat three servings per day of a high-calcium food, such as fortified soy milk, almonds, and hazelnuts, and take a calcium supplement as necessary.^[5] The EPIC-Oxford study suggested that vegans have an increased risk of bone fractures over meat eaters and vegetarians, likely because of lower dietary calcium intake, but that vegans consuming more than 525 mg/day have a risk of fractures similar to that of other groups.^[52] A 2009 study of bone density found the bone density of vegans was 94 percent that of omnivores, but deemed the difference clinically insignificant.^[53]

Another study in 2009 by the same researchers examined over 100 vegan post-menopausal women, and found their diet had no adverse effect on bone mineral density (BMD) and no alteration in body composition.^[54] Biochemist T. Colin Campbell suggested in The China Study (2005) that osteoporosis is linked to the consumption of animal protein because, unlike plant protein, animal protein increases the acidity of blood and tissues, which is then neutralized by calcium pulled from the bones. Campbell wrote that his China-Cornell-Oxford study of nutrition in the 1970s and 1980s found that, in rural China, "where the animal to plant ratio [for protein] was about 10 percent, the fracture rate is only one-fifth that of the U.S."^[55]

Regarding vitamin D, Vegan Outreach writes that the only significant natural sources in foods are from fatty fish, such as cod liver oil, mackerel, salmon, and sardines; eggs, if the chickens have been fed vitamin D; and mushrooms if treated with UVB rays. Vegans are therefore advised to use supplements, though light-skinned people can obtain adequate amounts by spending 15–30 minutes in sunlight every few days. Dark-skinned people need significantly more sunlight to obtain the same amount of vitamin D, and sunlight exposure may be difficult in some parts of the world during winter, in which case supplements are recommended.^[56]

[edit] Pregnancy, babies and children

Vegan version of a salad popular in Russia, with wakame, root vegetables, avocados, and vegan mayonnaise.

The American Dietetic Association considers well-planned vegan diets "appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy and lactation," but recommends that vegan mothers supplement for iron, vitamin D, and vitamin B₁₂.^[5][57] The Vegan Society recommend that vegan mothers breastfeed to enhance their child's immune system and reduce the risk of allergies.^[58] Vitamin B₁₂ deficiency in lactating vegetarian mothers has been linked to deficiencies and neurological disorders in their children.^[59] Some research suggests that the essential omega-3 fatty acid ?-linolenic acid and its derivatives should also be supplemented in pregnant and lactating vegan mothers, since they are very low in most vegan diets, and the metabolically related docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is essential to the developing visual and central nervous system.^[60] Pregnant vegans may need to supplement choline.

A maternal vegan diet has been associated with low birth weight,^[61] and a five times lower likelihood of having twins than those who eat animal products, though the article cited concludes that it is the consumption of dairy products by non-vegans that increases the likelihood of conceiving twins, especially in areas where growth hormone is fed to dairy cattle.^[62] Several cases of severe infant or child malnutrition(resulting in spine malformation and fractures), and some infant fatalities, reported in families in which parents fed their child and themselves with strict vegan diet. ^[63] Dr. Amy Lanou, nutrition director of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and an expert witness for the prosecution in one case, wrote that vegan diets are "not only safe for babies; they're healthier than ones based on animal products." She wrote that "the real problem was that [the child] was not given enough food of any sort."^[64]

[edit] Eating disorders

The American Dietetic Association indicates that vegetarian diets may be more common among adolescents with eating disorders, but that the evidence suggests that the adoption of a vegetarian diet does not lead to eating disorders, rather that "vegetarian diets may be selected to camouflage an existing eating disorder."^[5] Other studies and statements by dietitians and counselors support this conclusion.^[65]

Dietary, ethical, and environmental perspectives

[edit] Dietary veganism

The athlete Carl Lewis adopted a vegan diet in 1990.^[66]

Dietary vegans eat an entirely plant-based diet—either for health reasons or out of concern for animal welfare—but may continue to use animal products for other purposes. Joanne Stepaniak, author of Being Vegan (2000), argues that to place the qualifier "dietary" before "vegan" dilutes its meaning—like using the term "secular Catholic" for people who want to practise only some aspects of Catholicism.^[67] She writes that people should not call themselves vegan simply because they have embraced the diet: "Practising a vegan diet no more qualifies someone as vegan than eating kosher food qualifies someone as Jewish."^[68]

The Associated Press reported in January 2011 that the vegan diet is moving from marginal to mainstream in the United States, with vegan books such as Skinny Bitch (2005) becoming best sellers, and several celebrities exploring vegan diets. According to the AP, over half the 1,500 chefs polled in 2011 by the National Restaurant Association included vegan entrees, and chain restaurants are starting to mark vegan items on their menus.^[69]

Oprah Winfrey went on a vegan diet for 21 days in 2008, and in 2011 asked her 378 production staff to do the same for one week.^[70] Former U.S. president Bill Clinton adopted a vegan diet in 2010 after cardiac surgery; his daughter Chelsea was already a vegan. His diet followed the advice of Dean Ornish, Caldwell Esselstyn, and T. Colin Campbell: mostly beans, legumes, vegetables, and fruit, and a daily drink of almond milk, fruit, and protein powder.^[71] In November 2010 Bloomberg Businessweek reported that a growing number of American CEOs were becoming vegan, such as Steve Wynn, Mortimer Zuckerman, and Russell Simmons.^[72]

[edit] Ethical veganism

Philosopher Peter Singer writes that personal purity is not the issue.

Ethical vegans see veganism as a philosophy, lifestyle, and set of principles, not simply a diet. Bob Torres, author of Vegan Freak (2005), writes that ethical veganism consists of "living life consciously as an anti-speciesist."^[73]

Philosopher Tom Regan argues that animals are "subjects-of-a-life."

The philosophical debate about the moral basis of veganism reflects a division of viewpoints within animal rights theory between a rights-based or deontological approach and a utilitarian/consequentialist one. Tom Regan, professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University, is a rights-theorist who argues that animals possess inherent value as "subjects-of-a-life"—because they have beliefs and desires, an emotional life, memory, and the ability to initiate action in pursuit of goals—and therefore must be viewed as ends in themselves, not a means to an end.^[74] He argues that the right of subjects-of-a-life not to be harmed can be overridden only when outweighed by other valid moral principles, but that the reasons cited for eating animal products—pleasure, convenience, and the economic interests of farmers—are not weighty enough to override the animals' moral rights.^[75]

Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, approaches the issue from a utilitarian perspective. He argues that there is no moral or logical justification for refusing to count animal suffering as a consequence when making ethical decisions, and that the limit of sentience is "the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others." He does not contend that killing animals is wrong in principle, but that from a consequentialist standpoint it should be rejected unless necessary for survival.^[76] He, therefore, advocates both veganism and improved conditions for farm animals to reduce animal suffering.^[77] Singer is not concerned about what he calls trivial infractions of vegan principles, arguing that personal purity is not the issue. He supports what is known as the "Paris exemption": if you find yourself in a fine restaurant, allow yourself to eat what you want, and if you're in a strange place without access to vegan food, going vegetarian instead is acceptable.^[78]

Feminist writer Carol J. Adams calls animals the absent referent.

Gary L. Francione, professor of law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, is a rights-theorist. He argues that "all sentient beings should have at least one right—the right not to be treated as property," and that adopting veganism must be the unequivocal baseline for anyone who sees nonhuman animals as having intrinsic moral value; to fail to do so is like arguing for human rights while continuing to own human slaves. He writes that there is no coherent difference between eating meat and eating dairy or eggs; animals used in the dairy and egg industries live longer, are treated worse, and end up in the same slaughterhouses. Francione is critical of consequentialist positions that admit of occasional exceptions to vegan principles; see below.^[79]

Carol J. Adams, the vegan-feminist writer, has used the concept of the absent referent to describe what she calls a psycho-social detachment between the consumer and the consumed. She wrote in The Sexual Politics of Meat (1990), described by The New York Times as a bible of the vegan community: "Behind every meal of meat is an absence: the death of the animal whose place the meat takes. The 'absent referent' is that which separates the meat eater from the animal and the animal from the end product. The function of the absent referent is to keep our 'meat' separated from any idea that she or he was once an animal, to keep the 'moo' or 'cluck' or 'baa' away from the meat, to keep something from being seen as having been someone."^[80]

Law professor Gary Francione opposes Singer's flexible approach.

External videos
	Francione on veganism, 2009

[edit] Debate about the "Paris exemption"

Singer's support for the "Paris exemption"—the acceptance of flexibility on special occasions, or when vegan food is hard to find—is part of a debate within the animal rights movement about the extent to which it ought to promote strict veganism without exception. The positions are reflected by the divide between the animal protectionist side—represented by Singer and PETA's consequentialist approach—which argues that incremental change can achieve real reform, and the abolitionist—represented by Francione's emphasis on rights—which argues that apparent welfare reform serves only to persuade the public that animal use is morally unproblematic. Singer said in 2006 that the movement should be more tolerant of people who choose to use animal products if they are careful about making sure the animals had a decent life.^[81] Bruce Friedrich of PETA argued in the same year that a strict adherence to veganism can become an obsession. Veganism should not be dogma, he wrote:

[W]e all know people whose reason for not going vegan is that they "can't" give up cheese or ice cream. ... Instead of encouraging them to stop eating all other animal products besides cheese or ice cream, we preach to them about the oppression of dairy cows. Then we go on about how we don’t eat sugar or a veggie burger because of the bun, even though a tiny bit of butter flavor in a bun contributes to significantly less suffering than any non-organic fruit or vegetable does or a plastic bottle or about 100 other things that most of us use. Our fanatical obsession with ingredients not only obscures the animals’ suffering—which was virtually non-existent for that tiny modicum of ingredient—but also nearly guarantees that those around us are not going to make any change at all. So, we’ve preserved our personal purity, but we’ve hurt animals—and that’s anti-vegan.^[82]

Francione writes that this position is similar to arguing that, because human rights abuses can never be eliminated entirely, we should not safeguard human rights in situations we control. By failing to ask a server whether something contains animal products, in the interest of avoiding a fuss, he argues that we reinforce the idea that the moral rights of animals are a matter of convenience. He concludes from this that the PETA/Singer position fails even on its own consequentialist terms, although this does not apply to all vegans.^[83]

[edit] Environmental veganism

[edit] Resources and the environment

Female pigs in gestation crates. Vegans see animal agriculture—in particular factory farming—as an infringement of the animals' rights and a threat to the environment.^[84]

People who adopt veganism for environmental reasons often do so because it consumes fewer resources and causes less environmental damage. Organizations such as PETA point out that animal agriculture is linked to climate change, water pollution, land degradation, a decline in biodiversity, and that a commercially available animal-based diet uses more land, water, and energy than a strictly vegetarian one.^[85]

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization released a report in November 2006 linking animal agriculture to environmental damage. The report, Livestock's Long Shadow, concluded that the livestock sector (primarily cows, chickens, and pigs) was one of the two or three most significant contributors to the planet's most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. According to the report, it is responsible for at least 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, as measured in CO₂ equivalents. Livestock sources (including enteric fermentation and manure) account for about 3.1 percent of US anthropogenic GHG emissions expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents.^[86] This EPA estimate is based on methodologies agreed to by the Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC, with 100-year global warming potentials from the IPCC Second Assessment Report used in estimating GHG emissions as carbon dioxide equivalents. In June 2010, a report from United Nations Environment Programme declared that a global shift towards a vegan diet was needed to save the world from hunger, fuel shortages and climate change.^[87]

Greenhouse gas emissions are not limited to animal husbandry. Plant-based sources such as rice cultivation cause similar problems.^[88] A 2007 study that simulated the land use for various diets for the geography of New York State concluded that, although vegetarian diets used the smallest amount of land per capita, a low-fat diet that included some meat and dairy—less than 2 oz (57 g) of meat/eggs per day, significantly less than that consumed by the average American—could support slightly more people on the same available land than could be fed on some high-fat vegetarian diets, since animal food crops are grown on lower-quality land than are crops for human consumption.^[89]Among environmental benefits of meat production is conversion of materials that might otherwise be wasted, to produce high-protein food. For example, Elferink et al. state that "Currently, 70 % of the feedstock used in the Dutch feed industry originates from the food processing industry."^[90] US examples of "waste" conversion with regard to grain include feeding livestock the distillers grains remaining from ethanol production. For the marketing year 2009/2010, dried distillers grains used as livestock feed (and residual) in the US amounted to 25.0 million metric tons^[91]. Much soy meal used as livestock feed is produced from material left after extraction of the soybean oil used in foods and in production of biodiesel, soaps and industrial fatty acids.^[92] Similarly, canola meal for livestock feed is produced from material left after oil extraction (for food and biodiesel) from canola seed.^[93] Examples with regard to roughages include straw from barley and wheat crops (feedable especially to large-ruminant breeding stock when on maintenance diets),^[94][95][96] and corn stover.^[97][98] There are environmental benefits of meat-producing small ruminants for control of specific invasive or noxious weeds (such as spotted knapweed, tansy ragwort, leafy spurge, yellow starthistle, tall larkspur, etc.) on rangeland. Small ruminants are also useful for vegetation management in forest plantations, and for clearing brush on rights-of-way. These represent food-producing alternatives to herbicide use.^[99]

[edit] Debate over animals killed in crop harvesting

Vegans at the Melbourne "Walk against Warming," December 12, 2009, during the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.

Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, argued in 2001 that the least-harm principle does not require giving up all meat, because a plant-based diet would not kill fewer animals than one containing beef from grass-fed ruminants. Davis wrote that cultivating crops also kills animals, because when a tractor traverses a field, animals are accidentally destroyed. Based on a study finding that wood mouse populations dropped from 25 per hectare to five per hectare after harvest (attributed to migration and mortality), Davis estimated that 10 animals per hectare are killed from crop farming every year. If all 120,000,000 acres (490,000 km²) of cropland in the continental United States were used for a vegan diet, then approximately 500 million animals would die each year. But, if half the cropland were converted to ruminant pastureland, he estimated that only 900,000 animals would die each year—assuming people switched from the eight billion poultry killed each year to beef, lamb, and dairy products.^[100]

Davis's analysis was criticized in 2003 by Gaverick Matheny and Andy Lamey in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. Matheny argued that Davis had miscalculated the number of animal deaths based on land area rather than per consumer, and incorrectly equated "the harm done to animals ... to the number of animals killed." Matheny argued that per-consumer, a vegan diet would kill fewer wild animals than a diet adhering to Davis's model, and that vegetarianism "likely allows a greater number of animals with lives worth living to exist."^[101] Lamey argued that Davis's calculation of harvesting-related deaths was flawed because based on two studies; one included deaths from predation, which is "morally unobjectionable" for Regan, and the other examined production of a nonstandard crop, which Lamey argued has little relevance to deaths associated with typical crop production. Lamey also argued, like Matheny, that accidental deaths are ethically distinct from intentional ones, and that if Davis includes accidental animal deaths in the moral cost of veganism, he must also evaluate [claimed] increased human deaths associated with his proposed diet, which Lamey argued leaves "Davis, rather than Regan, with the less plausible argument."^[102]\

See also

Find more about Veganism on Wikipedia's sister projects:
	Images and media from Commons
	Quotations from Wikiquote

Notes