Re: Dr. Byrnes: Vitamin b-12 discussion

[Guest guest]

I should finish my thought: in a discussion with a vegan recently, she referred

me

to the source of the extra B12 in nutritional yeast. The source is yeast--a

particular strain of yeast that is prolific in B12 production. So clearly, as

one

strain of yeast is able to produce a great deal of B12, it is not a true

statement

that plants do not produce or contain B12.

Or am I missing something here?

son schrieb:

> I have read this article before, but I did not manage to understand the basis

of

> the statement. Perhaps I'm just not getting it. Are you suggesting that

enriched

> nutritional yeast--the staple and foundation of the vegan diet--does not

provide

> B12?

>

> " Dr. Byrnes " schrieb:

>

> > See the B12 section in my veggie paper at

> > http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm. There is no true B12 in

> > plant foods, only B12 analogues which the body cannot utilize.

> >

> > SCB

> >

> > >From: Ecmillerreid@...

> > >Reply-

> > >

> > >Subject: Vitamin b-12 discussion

> > >Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 04:12:59 EST

> > >

> > >I am presently a graduate student in nutrition and one of my texts _

> > >Present

> > >Knowledge in Nutrition 8th edition (2001) ed. by Bowman and say

> > >that

> > > " Only microorganisms retain the ability to synthesize cobalamins and

> > >microbial synthesis pathways have been recently elucidated in a series of

> > >elegant studies. Because plants do not use cobalamins, the source of

> > >cobalamins in all higher animals is the product of microbial synthesis ...

> > >All animals require vitamin B12 and obtain it ultimately from the products

> > >of

> > >microbial synthesis. Ruminant animals carry bacteria that synthesize

> > >cobalamins in their rumen. Other vegetarian animals appear to obtain

> > >vitamin

> > >B12 from eating feces or feces-contaminated vegetable food. Omnivorous

> > >animals including humans obtain vitamin B12 from the products of animal

> > >origin, including meats, dairy products and eggs. It is possible that

> > >human

> > >also obtain vitamin B12 from sewage-contaminated foods. In the last 30

> > >years,

> > >synthetic vitamin B12 has been added to many cereals and other foods in the

> > >Western world, so fortification is a major source of the vitamin.

> > >

> > >In Krause's Food, Nutrition and Diet Therapy, 10th edition (2000) they

> > >state

> > >that " Food of plant origin contain the vitamin only through contamination

> > >or

> > >bacterial synthesis. Many people believe that fermented foods contain

> > >sufficient vitamin B12 to meet their needs; however, this theory is not

> > >supported by analysis. ... In contrast, some cooked sea vegetables

> > >contained

> > >vitamin B12 in the same range as beef liver (through sewage

> > >contamination??)

> > >Individuals consuming strictly vegetarian diets, particularly after 5 to 6

> > >years, typically show lower circulating levels of vitamin B12 unless they

> > >supplement with the vitamin ... and elsewhere in the book... " Vegans of

> > >long

> > >standing may develop megaloblastic anemia because of vitamin B12

> > >deficiency,

> > >inasmuch as the vitamin occurs only in foods of animal origin. Curiously,

> > >this is less of a problem in areas where sanitation is poor because

> > >contaminating bacteria can serve as a source of the vitamin. The hazard of

> > >vegan diets is that the presence of high levels of folate may mask the

> > >neurologic damage of B12 deficiency. " They recommend that vegan take

> > >supplements.

> > >

> > >That such a necessary vitamin is rarely found on plants and then seemingly

> > >only because of contamination, it stands to reason that Mother Nature must

> > >have expected us to get this most precious vitamin from more plentiful and

> > >more reliable foods -- namely animal foods. Even if cooked sea vegatables

> > >might have some vitamin B12 - there is no guarantee -- and just how

> > >prevalent

> > >would contaminated sea vegetables have been during our evolution? There's

> > >always feces I suppose. But would feces be considered animal food by a

> > >strict

> > >vegan.

> > >

> > >Namaste, Liz

> >

> > All the best,

> >

> > Byrnes, PhD, RNCP

> > http://www.PowerHealth.net

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " son " <hjacobson@...>

< >

Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 9:17 AM

Subject: Re: Dr. Byrnes: Vitamin b-12 discussion

> I should finish my thought: in a discussion with a vegan recently, she

referred me

> to the source of the extra B12 in nutritional yeast. The source is

yeast--a

> particular strain of yeast that is prolific in B12 production. So clearly,

as one

> strain of yeast is able to produce a great deal of B12, it is not a true

statement

> that plants do not produce or contain B12.

Technically, yeast isn't a plant.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:25:43 -0800 " Berg " <brberg@...>

writes:

Hillary:

I should finish my thought: in a discussion with a vegan recently, she

referred me

> to the source of the extra B12 in nutritional yeast. The source is

yeast--a

> particular strain of yeast that is prolific in B12 production. So

clearly,

as one

> strain of yeast is able to produce a great deal of B12, it is not a

true

statement

> that plants do not produce or contain B12.

:

Technically, yeast isn't a plant.

ME:

This is correct, yeast is not a plant but rather classified as fungi,

single celled organisms of many stripes. The fact that many vegans use

nutritional yeast as part of their program only underscores the fact that

can't get true B-12 from *plant* foods.

Wow! I have an unbelievable amount of messages in my inbox!! Do you folks

ever take a break :-))))

My apologies if I answer some of the earlier threads late and someone has

already spoken to the substance of the threat.

Also my apologies to the lateness of my replies to the numerous private

posts I have received. But when the weekend comes I leave cyberspace

behind :-).

Bianca

[Guest guest]

< Technically, yeast isn't a plant. >

Yes, but if you read Dr. Byrne's site, you'll see that he refers to yeast as one

of the 'plants' that supposedly provide yeast but in fact really don't, and

therefore have to be enriched with B12 from 'outside' sources.

That yeasts provide B12 is a myth, according to Dr. Byrne and I suppose also

Sally Fallon since she makes the same statement in NT.

But is it a myth--if the B12 added to nutritional yeast actually is produced by

a prolific strain of yeast?

What I am saying is that before one says that vegans are suffering from delusion

if they think that nutritional yeast will provide B12 because yeast cannot make

real B12, one should be sure that the statement is absolutely true. I am not yet

convinced.

There is a wide consensus that the B12 in nutritional yeast is true B12, and

that if taken everyday will keep the body's store of B12 up to par. I'm

interested to hear the argument that convinces me otherwise. Up until now, I

have not heard one.

Berg schrieb:

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: " son " <hjacobson@...>

> < >

> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 9:17 AM

> Subject: Re: Dr. Byrnes: Vitamin b-12 discussion

>

> > I should finish my thought: in a discussion with a vegan recently, she

> referred me

> > to the source of the extra B12 in nutritional yeast. The source is

> yeast--a

> > particular strain of yeast that is prolific in B12 production. So clearly,

> as one

> > strain of yeast is able to produce a great deal of B12, it is not a true

> statement

> > that plants do not produce or contain B12.

>

> Technically, yeast isn't a plant.

[Guest guest]

< This is correct, yeast is not a plant but rather classified as fungi,

single celled organisms of many stripes. The fact that many vegans use

nutritional yeast as part of their program only underscores the fact that

can't get true B-12 from *plant* foods. >

Bianca,

It is finally getting through to me, thanks. Yeast is not a plant, so the

statement, plants do not make B12 excludes yeast.

Problem: most people's brains distinguishe broadly between animal and plant

products. (For me, a mushroom is a plant, ie, it is not an animal.) I

believe the vegan who reacted so strongly to the statement that B12 is not

found in plants also sees yeast as a plant--as contrasted to an animal.

The good thing about these lists is that we can learn not only factual

information, but also about language and communication. There must be ways to

talk about B12 that are easier to understand and that do not make hairs

bristle.

BTW -- a friend sent me this, from a cookbook that gives recipes for

nutritional yeast:

" Red Star derives its primary grown nutritional yeast from pure strains of

Saccharomyces cerevisiae grown on mixtures of cane and beet molasses. When

the fermentation process is complete, the yeast is harvested, thoroughly

washed, pasteurized and dried on roller drum dryers. "

Thanks,

J.

bianca3@... schrieb:

> On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:25:43 -0800 " Berg " <brberg@...>

> writes:

>

> Hillary:

>

> I should finish my thought: in a discussion with a vegan recently, she

> referred me

> > to the source of the extra B12 in nutritional yeast. The source is

> yeast--a

> > particular strain of yeast that is prolific in B12 production. So

> clearly,

> as one

> > strain of yeast is able to produce a great deal of B12, it is not a

> true

> statement

> > that plants do not produce or contain B12.

>

> :

>

> Technically, yeast isn't a plant.

>

> ME:

>

> This is correct, yeast is not a plant but rather classified as fungi,

> single celled organisms of many stripes. The fact that many vegans use

> nutritional yeast as part of their program only underscores the fact that

> can't get true B-12 from *plant* foods.

>

> Wow! I have an unbelievable amount of messages in my inbox!! Do you folks

> ever take a break :-))))

>

> My apologies if I answer some of the earlier threads late and someone has

> already spoken to the substance of the threat.

>

> Also my apologies to the lateness of my replies to the numerous private

> posts I have received. But when the weekend comes I leave cyberspace

> behind :-).

>

> Bianca

>

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:54:00 +0100 son

<hjacobson@...> writes:

< This is correct, yeast is not a plant but rather classified as fungi,

single celled organisms of many stripes. The fact that many vegans use

nutritional yeast as part of their program only underscores the fact that

can't get true B-12 from *plant* foods. >

Bianca,

It is finally getting through to me, thanks. Yeast is not a plant, so

the

statement, plants do not make B12 excludes yeast.

Problem: most people's brains distinguishe broadly between animal and

plant

products. (For me, a mushroom is a plant, ie, it is not an animal.) I

believe the vegan who reacted so strongly to the statement that B12 is

not

found in plants also sees yeast as a plant--as contrasted to an animal.

<<<<<<<ME: This is true, although I am not convinced that even

nutritional yeast provides B-12 unless supplemented in some way. Even

then I'm not convinced it is a *reliable* source. IMHO, vegetarianism in

general and veganism in particular is a disease of the intellect, one

that has no real historical pedigree, and appeals to people who live in

relatively prosperous animal food eating societies that allows them the

free time to think up such stuff.

But at least vegans are consistent, lacto-ovo and other types of

" vegetarians " just *ain't* :-). They do consume animal products, just not

red meat. So the common parlance does not distinguish broadly between

animals and plants, in fact it serves only to confuse the issue.

for whatever its worth,

Bianca

>

[Guest guest]

>

> IMHO, vegetarianism in

> general and veganism in particular is a disease of the intellect,

I was thinking about that. But really, you can't read any mainstream

nutrition info without being chastised about fat. They are not saying

something like, " while americans do eat too much fat, its still

important to consume animal products for good overall health. "

Instead they are going the other way and giving the approval to

vegetarian diets. The vegetarians are the only ones following

mainstream nutrition advice.

> But at least vegans are consistent, lacto-ovo and other types of

> " vegetarians " just *ain't* :-). They do consume animal products,

just not

> red meat.

That annoys me too. My new (and as yet unused) tactic for dealing

with vegetarians is not to tell them to eat meat for protein, but

rather to point out that eggs and dairy have all that same fat and

cholesterol as meat. If they really believe what they say about meat,

they should go vegan.

[Guest guest]

Bianca,

< This is true, although I am not convinced that even

nutritional yeast provides B-12 unless supplemented in some way. >

I don't know. It's the big web-secret. No one writing about this that I

could find.

The consensus seems to be that Red Star nutritional yeast is great.

< IMHO, vegetarianism in general and veganism in particular is a disease of

the

intellect, one that has no real historical pedigree, and appeals to people

who live in

relatively prosperous animal food eating societies that allows them the free

time to

think up such stuff. >

Humans have always been thinking up stuff. Here is where I differ from many

here.

Although I think, yes, that uncovering traditional ways to make food highly

digestible, and fostering sources for healthy animal foods and organic, or

bio-dynamic

vegetables and fruit is the best way to go, I also think that people have the

right to

create *new* traditions, as it were, in eating, and that vegetarianism and

veganism

are okay. People have the right to experiment and find out what works for

them. As Bieler and Fallon point out, some people need a diet that excludes

meat products as part of cleansing. (What I would like to see on the site of

Dr. Byrnes is an example of a vegetarian who healed arthritis by eating

meat--something unusual and totally unexpected.)

In my opinion, humanity has one consistent characteristic: changefulness, ie,

flexibility and adaptability. We re-invent ourselves--our diets, our social

structures, our beliefs.

Some re-inventions are more successful than others. Some are more 'true' than

others, more just, more healthy. But to say that one of these inventions is a

disease of the mind, fostered by prosperity, is to miss the point that

culture itself is based on people having time on their hands to fiddle around

with things, invent and re-create.

In this framework, vegetarianism has its place and validity. There are enough

aspects of our society that I find reprehensible and dangerous. Vegetarianism

isn't

one of them. I don't think the issue is worth the effort of all this

criticism. Am I missing something? As far as I know, veg*ans have a far

better diet than the average American. And their breastmilk does contain far

fewer toxins.

I have to remember to write Dr. Byrnes for that article on the various

cancers and vegetarianism. This review seems to say the opposite:

http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm

In fact, there is a host of such reviews on the web saying the opposite. I'm

very curious now. It certainly makes sense to me that if pesticides and

herbicidal toxins are lower in the b-milk of veg*ans, cancer rates should

overall be lower.

Anyway, yes--trends are away from healthy fats, and misinformation is out

there, and this doesn't serve health and isn't good. But I rather suppose

this is because of financial interests than the work of those dratted

vegetarians. I would think the vegetarian slogan has been misappropriated by

various food businesses.

Or am I mistaken?

< But at least vegans are consistent, lacto-ovo and other types of

" vegetarians " just *ain't* :-). They do consume animal products, just not

red meat.

So the common parlance does not distinguish broadly between

animals and plants, in fact it serves only to confuse the issue. >

This is true and to the point. Makes me feel better about missing the

yeast-not-plant

issue <S>.

[Guest guest]

>

>

>> But at least vegans are consistent, lacto-ovo and other types of

>> " vegetarians " just *ain't* :-). They do consume animal products,

>just not

>> red meat.

>

>That annoys me too. My new (and as yet unused) tactic for dealing

>with vegetarians is not to tell them to eat meat for protein, but

>rather to point out that eggs and dairy have all that same fat and

>cholesterol as meat. If they really believe what they say about meat,

>they should go vegan.

>

>

You dietary Darwinist! <g> somedays I too think it proper to let the

closed-minded continue to malnourish themselves. If only people

didn't go so crazy on a sugary no-SF diet...

--

Quick

www.en.com/users/jaquick

" One of these days someone smarter and younger and more articulate

than I is going to get through to the American people just how really

messed up it has become. And when that happens, the American people are

going to rise up like that football crowd in Cleveland and run both

teams off the field. " --Sen. Zell

[Guest guest]

>

> aspects of our society that I find reprehensible and dangerous.

Vegetarianism

> isn't

> one of them. I don't think the issue is worth the effort of all this

> criticism. Am I missing something? As far as I know, veg*ans have a

far

> better diet than the average American. And their breastmilk does

contain far

> fewer toxins.

Veganism is not better than the SAD, its worse, as many people here

will personally testify. And still worse for children who don't have

the B12, vit A, EPA/DHA etc... stores to draw upon. Its a dangerous

diet, even when done healthfully.

Vegetarianism is probably worse also. Most vegetarians I know

exercise more than the average person and don't smoke, and yet are

only of about average health, would be my anecdotal assessment. And

vegetarian athletes *definitely* underperform their more carnivorous

counterparts.

There is more to nutrition than avoiding toxins. You need the raw

materials that build good health too. You may want to browse

beyondveg.com - they have a great discussion of fear of toxins drives

people more and more extreme and unhealthy diets.

[Guest guest]

I'm with on this one. My vegetarian friends have small, sickly,

moody children, about whom I worry much more than their SAD counterparts (I

worry about them, too!).

The problem is intensified, too, because the vegies are thinking they are

doing the right thing, and so are fairly immovable.

To me, there is something dangerous about veg*ism, although perhaps not

reprehensible due to the large part that misinformation plays in the story.

" justinbond "

<justin_bond@ho

tmail.com> cc:

Subject: Re:

Dr. Byrnes: Vitamin b-12 discussion

03/27/2002

03:13 PM

Please respond

to

native-nutritio

n

>

> aspects of our society that I find reprehensible and dangerous.

Vegetarianism

> isn't

> one of them. I don't think the issue is worth the effort of all this

> criticism. Am I missing something? As far as I know, veg*ans have a

far

> better diet than the average American. And their breastmilk does

contain far

> fewer toxins.

Veganism is not better than the SAD, its worse, as many people here

will personally testify. And still worse for children who don't have

the B12, vit A, EPA/DHA etc... stores to draw upon. Its a dangerous

diet, even when done healthfully.

Vegetarianism is probably worse also. Most vegetarians I know

exercise more than the average person and don't smoke, and yet are

only of about average health, would be my anecdotal assessment. And

vegetarian athletes *definitely* underperform their more carnivorous

counterparts.

There is more to nutrition than avoiding toxins. You need the raw

materials that build good health too. You may want to browse

beyondveg.com - they have a great discussion of fear of toxins drives

people more and more extreme and unhealthy diets.

[Guest guest]

At 04:17 PM 3/27/2002 -0600, you wrote:

>The problem is intensified, too, because the vegies are thinking they are

>doing the right thing, and so are fairly immovable.

I'm on " your " side (non-vegetarian) but step back for a moment and put the

shoe on the other foot. We, too, are fairly immovable in our beliefs. The

" watch-cry " that means a lot to me goes something like this: " Go forward

in all your beliefs and convince me that I am wrong in mine. " - Doctor

Who?. Personal education is the key - with an open mind study, study, and

study some more. And experiment like the sages did to see what " works " and

what does not. Many have tried vegetarianism and found, ultimately, that

it does not work for all. And I've heard the other side of the argument

too - that " ancestral diet " eaters have run into troubles and sought other

diet possibilities. In the end, we will probably have to admit that " one

size does not fit all " .

Best regards,

-=mark=-

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:01:47 +0100 son

<hjacobson@...> writes:

< IMHO, vegetarianism in general and veganism in particular is a disease

of

the

intellect, one that has no real historical pedigree, and appeals to

people

who live in

relatively prosperous animal food eating societies that allows them the

free

time to

think up such stuff. >

Humans have always been thinking up stuff.

>>>>This is true. My point is that prosperity allows for many trends and

fads that otherwise would not appear because prosperous societies tend to

have many more people involved in pursuits that do not require physical

labor, its where we get our term " the liberal arts " which is an

expression of being liberalized (freed) from physical labor.

Vegetarianism is something that shows up in prosperous meat eating

societies nearly without fail and is generally absent from cultures which

are not so prosperous but spend the bulk of their time working for and

gathering food.

Here is where I differ from many

here.

Although I think, yes, that uncovering traditional ways to make food

highly

digestible, and fostering sources for healthy animal foods and organic,

or

bio-dynamic

vegetables and fruit is the best way to go, I also think that people have

the

right to

create *new* traditions, as it were, in eating, and that vegetarianism

and

veganism

are okay. People have the right to experiment and find out what works

for

them.

>>>>>>As a philosophical approach veganism is indeed " okay " in that it

has a right to exist and people certainly have a right to experiment with

whatever dietary approach catches their fancy, but as a tool for building

and nourishing health vegetarianism has been weighed in the balance and

found wanting. That is not to say that particular individuals might not

seemingly prosper on such a regimen, but it is to say that *in the

aggregate* no such prosperity seems to exist over several generations.

As Bieler and Fallon point out, some people need a diet that excludes

meat products as part of cleansing. (What I would like to see on the site

of

Dr. Byrnes is an example of a vegetarian who healed arthritis by eating

meat--something unusual and totally unexpected.)

>>>>>>I can't vouch for cooked meat but I have certainly seen people beat

arthritis using raw milk. And despite the popular lingo, drinking raw

milk disqualifies one from being a vegetarian.

And yes a vegan/vegetarian cleansing diet can be beneficial. But by

definition cleansing diets are *short term* in nature and might be better

described as temporary fasts from animal foods.

<snip>

Some re-inventions are more successful than others. Some are more 'true'

than

others, more just, more healthy. But to say that one of these inventions

is a

disease of the mind, fostered by prosperity, is to miss the point that

culture itself is based on people having time on their hands to fiddle

around

with things, invent and re-create.

>>>>>Huh? Prospering cultures give people the free time to come up with

things - some good, some good. I don't see how that misses the point, in

fact that is precisely my point. We see no situation where people

concerned with survival adopt vegetarian or vegan ways. It just ain't so.

Some " isms " that result from such relative prosperity are bad - of which

I would classify vegetarianism as one such " ism " .

In this framework, vegetarianism has its place and validity. There are

enough

aspects of our society that I find reprehensible and dangerous.

Vegetarianism

isn't

one of them.

>>>>>>>Reprehensible? No. Dangerous? Yes

I don't think the issue is worth the effort of all this

criticism. Am I missing something? As far as I know, veg*ans have a far

better diet than the average American. And their breastmilk does contain

far

fewer toxins.

>>>>>>Nothing scientific for sure, but most of the non animal food eaters

I have met over the years do not have a better diet than the average

American and do not appear to be enjoying better health.

And I do think that crusading vegetarianism is certainly worth the

criticism, and should be resisted at every point possible, to keep them

from making some of the terrible inroads they have made on topics such as

our children's diets.

I have to remember to write Dr. Byrnes for that article on the various

cancers and vegetarianism. This review seems to say the opposite:

http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm

In fact, there is a host of such reviews on the web saying the opposite.

I'm

very curious now. It certainly makes sense to me that if pesticides and

herbicidal toxins are lower in the b-milk of veg*ans, cancer rates should

overall be lower.

>>>>>Only if you think these things are the primary or major cause of

cancer.

Anyway, yes--trends are away from healthy fats, and misinformation is out

there, and this doesn't serve health and isn't good. But I rather suppose

this is because of financial interests than the work of those dratted

vegetarians. I would think the vegetarian slogan has been misappropriated

by

various food businesses.

Or am I mistaken?

>>>>>I think various food businesses *and* certain vegetarian influences

have much to be accountable for in the misappropriating of language and

slogans. God bless their souls, but they are wrong.

For whatever its worth,

Bianca

<