Rebuttal to the other article

[Guest guest]

Vegetarian diet is healthy

By Janson, MD (Copyright 2002)

The following is a rebuttal of an article found elsewhere in this issue of the newsletter. You can view the other article here.

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

First of all I want to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Janson for taking time out of his busy schedule to respond to this issue. He presents some valid points that are quite true.

I perceive this as primarily a philosophical issue. If one accepts that the present standards can not be changed then it makes logical sense to choose a vegetarian lifestyle, assuming that one addresses some basic concerns that will be established in this series.

This is especially true if one accepts the use of organic eggs that Dr. Janson has included in his own diet. This is a MAJOR source of animal protein. I am firmly convinced that we all regularly require animal protein to obtain optimal health and this is something that even Dr. Janson capitulates to.

If one agrees to accept large amounts of organic eggs into one's diet and refuse all meat, it is possible to obtain high levels of health, if one is not struggling with elevated insulin levels. This effort would require enormous effort and understanding of nutritional biochemistry.

However, healthy meat can be obtained in this country. I see many individuals who are European immigrants and their consistent story is that the meat in this country in no way resembles what they were used to back home where the animals were raised in small lots primarily on grasses, not grains.

I fully believe that in large part we create our own reality and we don't need to surrender to society and accept meat that is commercially raised on grains that are full of pesticides and sprayed with hormones and antibiotics to optimize the animals' growth.

Admittedly, it is more difficult to make these choices, but it is clearly possible. Although shipping costs make grass-fed beef a bit high, one can easily purchase that on this site.

If one lives in a rural community it is certainly possible to identify individuals who are raising animals in a healthy humane way that will optimize its nutritional value.

Dr. Janson's Rebuttal

Dr. Byrnes starts his argument against vegetarianism with an emotional anecdote that has no scientific merit, but is designed to "poison the well." This is a debating technique used by the first presenter to undermine the credibility of the opponent. Miscarriages happen all the time.

To suggest that they are commonly the result of vegetarianism, based on an unpublished, incomplete report that has had no peer review, does not reflect medical research.

It is an effort to create a myth that undermines Dr. Byrnes' credibility. To address one point in his case, essential fatty acids are readily available in a varied vegetarian diet from beans, whole grains, vegetables, and particularly seeds and nuts.

The world medical literature consistently shows that the healthiest diet is one that is high in vegetables, fruits, grains, and beans, and limited in land-based meat and dairy products.

I support this diet in my medical practice, and I eat this way myself, and have done so for 27 years. I do so because of the health benefits, not for some hidden agenda, even though I love animals.

I eat and recommend limited amounts of low-fat organic yogurt, organic eggs, and some wild fish. I refer to a "healthy" mostly-vegetarian diet, because no matter what diet you choose, it is unhealthy to eat fast foods, junk, sugar, hydrogenated oils, artificial flavors, sweeteners and colors, preservatives, and heavily processed foods.

If people choose to be strict vegetarians, or vegans, they do have to worry about sources of B12, although that can be found in dietary supplements in pill form or fortified foods.

Even proponents of a meat-based diet will tell you that the commercial meat from supermarkets is not the meat they recommend (because it is mostly feed-lot, grain-fed, and treated with hormones and antibiotics). They do this knowing that for the vast majority of the population commercial meat is all that is available in markets, and 99.9 percent of the time that is all they can get in restaurants, where Americans eat a large proportion of their meals.

No medical literature shows that meat is essential in the diet.

I am interested in medical literature that is based on clinical information, either through epidemiological or intervention studies, not speculation about the potential benefits of any one dietary philosophy or anecdotes from occasional observation.

A simple review of the medical research shows consistently lower mortality from all causes, and specific reductions in cancer, heart disease, stroke, hypertension, and diabetes. There is also no evidence that a whole, natural food, vegetarian diet causes pregnancy problems. Vegetarians even have better antioxidant defenses than non-vegetarians.

Yes, there are some myths about vegetarian diets, but for the most part these are myths suggesting risks or inadequacies from such a diet choice. There are real and serious environmental consequences of producing the world's meat supply as it is currently done, especially in developed countries. The small amount of meat in prehistoric diets was exclusively from wild animals, not farm-raised, grain-fed animals.

Aside from the nutritional consequences of this shift, environmental devastation has resulted. While Dr. Byrne maintains that much of the world's land is unsuitable for farming, this does not mean that animals are grazing on all of that land for food or that it is all accessible to people who would be raising animals.

In an article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the author, S. , says: "Debt-burdened countries are turning over agricultural land to raise cattle and grains for feeding the cattle.

These practices have resulted in less available land for the production of food, global warming because of the practices used for deforestation, exhaustion of the world's water supply, and other adverse effects on the health of the world."

The reality is that the meat and chicken for American consumption comes from feedlots and battery hen chicken "farms" where animals are confined, grain fed, and dosed with antibiotics and hormones. Byrne's reference to grazing land being used "properly" is from a book written by antagonists to vegetarian diets, not from scientific studies in the medical literature.

The reality is that much of the meat fed to Americans is from concentrated collections of animals in small areas, a situation that is rare in the wild. One result is the contamination of food and the environment with animal wastes.

To quote from the EarthSave website, "The overproduction and mismanagement of animal wastes may well be at the root of many of our problems with emerging pathogens. Animal waste, which carries most foodborne pathogens, can even contaminate plant foods-in the field, by the water supply, during transportation, in storage or in the kitchen."

Such was the case in a report in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports showing that lettuce was contaminated with fecal material by coming in contact with raw chicken. Another article shows common contamination of meat with fecal bacteria (resistant strains of Salmonella). And some bacteria, such as Listeria are resistant to heat, so cooking may not be adequate protection. Other studies have shown that "…intensive farming practices have been linked with the rise in foodborne illness in humans."

Research shows that worldwide more than 50 percent of cattle harbor hemorrhagic E. coli, and they transmit these bacteria through the fecal contamination of meat. Estimates suggest that about 30,000 Americans would get this infection annually. Consumers just don't have enough knowledge about food handling to protect themselves from these problems.Dr. Byrne chooses Oklahoma University ("cattle country") as his source for the environmental benefits of raising cattle, but he only refers to their website, not studies published in peer-reviewed journals (this would be acceptable if he also had some research journals to back it up). While it may be possible to raise some beef without damaging the environment, it is by no means the reality.

In fact, concentrated animal production requires vast amounts of petroleum fuel, water, and antibiotics, and it concentrates the pesticides that occur in the grains that the animals are fed.

One-third of the world's grain harvest is fed to animals raised for their meat; vast areas of rain forest have been clear cut to increase the area in which beef can be raised. The concern about mono-culture grain is far more serious when you realize how much grain is grown as animal feed.

Switching to vegetarianism for personal health does not imply an increase in mono-culture of grain. In fact, Byrne complains that there would be a decline in grain farming (which he laments because the land would be sold to developers). Using such speculative conclusions on either side of this equation is an unreasonable basis for choosing a diet for personal health.

In fact, there is not one scientific reference in Dr. Byrnes' entire analysis of environmental impact, or one to support the validity of his anecdote. Healthy vegetarians have successful pregnancies all the time, and the evidence is that they are even healthier than their meat-eating counterparts.

Vegetarianism is a wise choice for both your personal health and the health of the environment.

Dr. Brynes' Respone

Dr. Janson claims that I begin my piece with an "emotional anecdote." This is an interesting accusation seeing that vegetarian authors appeal to anecdotal data all the time, including Dr. Janson himself in the next to last paragraph of his rebuttal.

He further states that, "Miscarriages happen all the time." This may be true in the women Dr. Janson deals with, but it not true of women who eat a nutrient-dense diet that contains adequate vitamin A, the lack of which is a known cause of reproductive failure and birth defects. In the particular case that I cited, it was the distinct lack of vitamin A that led to that young woman's miscarriage, brought about by her low-fat, largely vegetarian diet which, of course, is deficient in vitamin A.

Dr. Janson claim that "essential fatty acids are present in beans, whole grains, vegetables, and particularly seeds and nuts," is, of course, true. I'm not sure, however, why he is bringing this up as I never said that EFAs were not present in these foods.

What Dr. Janson is failing to realize is that, while certain plant foods may contain small amounts of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), they do not contain EPA or DHA, two omega-3 series fatty acids that are derived from ALA. The point I was making at the end of my paper (yet to be posted) was that some people, because of genetic peculiarities, lack the ability to convert ALA into EPA or DHA, making vegetarian or vegan diets impossible for these people.

The claim, therefore, that vegetarianism is a dietary option for all people is false.

It should also be noted that the conversion of ALA into EPA and DHA can be interfered with by a number of factors and is not a "guaranteed" event. This emphasizes the need to have reliable sources of EPA and DHA in one's diet. While DHA is found in small amounts of some algae, EPA is only found in animal foods.

Dr. Janson writes that, "The healthiest diet is one that is high in vegetables, fruits, grains, and beans, and limited in land-based meat and dairy products." Readers should note right away that "the healthiest diet" as defined by Dr. Janson is NOT a vegetarian one, but an omnivorous one.

Secondly, Dr. Weston Price's seminal research into native people's diets (discussed further on in my paper) unequivocally showed that "the healthiest diet" was one that restricted plant foods, but included more animal foods and fats. These observations have been backed up by nutritional anthropologists and these data were also presented in my paper in later sections.

Dr. Janson's discussion of grass-fed vs grain-fed meat products is slightly misleading. While grass-fed animal foods are definitely preferable to commercially-raised ones, even commercially-raised meat will provide the body with the nutrients needed to help it detoxify hormonal and pesticidal residues that come along with the meat.

It should also not be forgotten that pesticidal residues, in varying amounts, are also found in commercially-raised plant foods. Some varieties of lettuce, for example, receive up to ten pesticide applications before being harvested.

Dr. Janson states that, "No medical literature shows that meat is essential to the diet." This may be true, but it is not something that I said in my paper. What I said was that animal foods and fats are required in our diets.

"Animal foods" can, and do, include full-fat dairy foods and eggs, as well as meat. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that, while meat is not essential for our survival, including it in one's diet does promote better health as Dr. Price's research showed.

Dr. Janson's contention that a "simple review of the medical research shows that [vegetarians have] consistently lower mortality from all causes, and specific reductions in cancer, heart disease, stroke, hypertension, and diabetes," and that, "Vegetarians even have better antioxidant defenses than non-vegetarians," are simply not true as I showed in various parts of my paper.

While some studies may show benefits to vegetarian diets, many others do not--these are the ones that need to be looked at by people interested in their health and the health of their children. The bottom line is this: despite all of the ballyhooing to the contrary, the "medical research" does not show that vegetarianism in and of itself offers no significant protection from the diseases Dr. Janson enumerates.

For example, in addition to the research I brought forward in my paper, the "medical research" has shown that vegetarians are more susceptible to contracting tuberculosis than omnivores (1).

Why do vegetarians consistently ignore "medical research" that flatly contradicts their dubious claims of better health?

Dr. Janson's claim that prehistoric diets contained only "small amounts of meat" is directly in conflict with a number of nutritional anthropologists (discussed later in my paper). There is no doubt, except in those who absolutely refuse to believe it, that our ancestors ate a lot of meat and fat and few plant foods, for reasons that will become clear as more of my paper is published in your newsletter.

Dr. Janson's attacks on commercial livestock farming could equally apply to commercial farming of plant foods which also require the use of toxic agrochemicals.

He also seems to be under the impression that only animal foods give rise to various food pathogens, when it is well known that plant foods carry the same risks.

As a matter of fact, ALL foods run the risk of contamination if improperly handled. Aflatoxin, a potent carcinogenic mold, is only found in grains and some legumes like peanuts--not meat. So plant foods carry their own risks as well.

Dr. Janson claim that "there is not one scientific reference in Dr. Byrnes' entire analysis of environmental impact to support the validity of his anecdote," is amusing given that the exact same thing could be said of his alternate position.

His claims that raising grains to feed animals contributes to world hunger are not well supported. In the Population Reference Bureau's report on world hunger, it was shown that the reason why people are starving is because of poverty, not because of food shortages (2).

This report also did not consider mass vegetarianism to be a solution for world hunger. We actually have a surplus of grain in the world right now. The problem is getting it to the people who need it.

There are certainly problems with commercial farming, whether of animals or plants, and I admitted this in my paper. But in his tirades against me, Dr. Janson does not consider the plausability of the solution I offered in my paper: mixed farming. As I showed, such a farming system does provide more food than "mono-cropping." But it should be remembered that the mixed farm includes the raising of plants AND animals.

As I pointed out in my paper, animal husbandry, when properly practiced, is not damaging to the environment. I would encourage readers, and Dr. Janson, to study the appropriate sections on these matters at http://www.beyondveg.com. I should also point out that the Beyond Vegetarianism website is run by a lacto-vegetarian.

Sincerely,

Byrnes

(1) Strachan D. P., K. J., Thaker A., Millard F. J. C., Maxwell J. D.. Vegetarian diet as a risk factor for tuberculosis in immigrant south London Asians. Thorax 1995; 50: 175-80.(2) W Bender and M . Population, Food, and Nutrition. Population Reference Bureau; 1997.

References To Dr. Janson's Article:

Frentzel-Beyme R, et al., Mortality among German vegetarians: first results after five years of follow-up. Nutr Cancer 1988;11(2):117-26.

Chang-Claude J, et al., Mortality pattern of German vegetarians after 11 years of follow-up Epidemiology 1992 Sep;3(5):395-401.

Ritter MM, Richter WO, Effects of a vegetarian life style on health. Fortschr Med 1995 Jun 10;113(16):239-42.

Key TJ, et al., Health benefits of a vegetarian diet. Proc Nutr Soc 1999 May;58(2):271-5.

Fraser GE, Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists. Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-8S.

DeRose DJ, et al., Vegan Diet-Based Lifestyle Program Rapidly Lowers Homocysteine Levels. Prev Med 2000 Mar;30(3):225-233.

Bairati I, et al., Dietary fat and advanced prostate cancer. J Urol 1998 Apr;159(4):1271-5.

Margetts BM, et al., Vegetarian diet in mild hypertension: effects of fat and fiber. Am J Clin Nutr 1988 Sep;48(3 Suppl):801-5.

Nicholson AS, et al., Toward improved management of NIDDM: A randomized, controlled, pilot intervention using a lowfat, vegetarian diet. Prev Med 1999 Aug;29(2):87-91.

Kjeldsen-Kragh J, Rheumatoid arthritis treated with vegetarian diets. Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):594S-600S.

Krajcovicova-Kudlackova M, et al., Levels of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in vegetarians. Eur J Epidemiol 1995 Apr;11(2):207-11.

S, An opinion on the global impact of meat consumption. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):1099S-1102S

Outbreak of Campylobacter Enteritis Associated with Cross-Contamination of Food -- Oklahoma, 1996. MMWR, February 27, 1998 47(07);129-131.

White DG, et al., The isolation of antibiotic-resistant salmonella from retail ground meats. N Engl J Med 2001 Oct 18;345(16):1147-54.

Doyle ME, et al., Heat resistance of Listeria monocytogenes. J Food Prot 2001 Mar;64(3):410-29.

ston AM, Animal health and food safety. Br Med Bull 2000;56(1):51-61.

Baljer G, Wieler LH, Animals as a source of infections for humans--diseases caused by EHEC Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr 1999 Aug;106(8):339-43.

Altekruse SF, et al., Consumer knowledge of foodborne microbial hazards and food-handling practices. J Food Prot 1996 Mar;59(3):287-94.