Posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2005, at 17:03:35
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 14:56:28
> > I'm confused about one bit of your argument. On one hand you argue that getting the nutrients you don't get from meat by taking supplements is more moral.
>
> I would argue that we are morally obliged to refrain from eating meat and dairy, yes.Dairy? Surely drawing off milk does not pain or injure a cow/goat/camel/whatever. In fact, failing to do so might be rather hurtful.
> > On the other hand you express a distrust of getting anything useful from supplements.
>
> Oh yes. But that isn't part of my argument. I am not a nutritionist. That bit is just my ignorant opinion!Gotta love those ignorant opinions! ;-)
> Well... It seems that the following is true:
> IF you buy into the American RDA as a measure of what nutrients and what amounts of nutrients humans *need* THEN you cannot get all the nutrients you need in either a meat eating or a vegetarian / vegan diet.
> If that is so then it would follow that everyone would have to take suppliments to get the nutrients they *need*.Not all deficiencies lead to death. Most, in fact, lead to lesser quality of life, via e.g. coronary artery disease, or peripheral neuropathy, or cancer (as I showed in my lengthy first post). "Need" is a term quite subject to interpretation.
> My issue is with the American RDA.
> I would like to see how the English RDA compares.I didn't search high and low, but here are some values from two tables I found. The first value is the US Daily Reference Intake (which is replacing the RDA). The second value is the UK Reference Nutrient Intake. Both values refer to a male of the 25-50 year age range. n.e. means "value not established". n.l. means "not listed".
vitamin A 1,000 mcg 700 mcg
" D 5 mcg n.e.
" E 10 mcg n.e.
" K 80 mcg n.l.
" C 60 mg 40 mg
" B6 2.0 mg 1.4
" B12 2.0 mcg 1.5
folate 200 mcg n.l.
niacin 19 mg 17 mg
riboflavin 1.7 mg 1.3 mg
thiamine 1.5 mg 1.0 mg
calcium 1000 mg 700 mg
phosphorus 700 mg n.l.
iodine 150 mcg 140 mcg
iron 10 mg 8.7 mg
magnesium 420 mg 300 mg
zinc 15 mg 9.5 mg
selenium 70 mcg 75 mcg
fluoride 3.8 mcg n.l.
copper 2 mg 1.2 mgNote: I had a lovely formatted table, but the blank spaces were removed by the Babble software. :-(
I don't mean to sound rude in saying this, but one cannot conclude that British men do not need any vitamins E,D,K, folate, phosphorus, or fluoride. There are limitations to all tabulated statistics. Inherent assumptions that limit the utility of the value expressed.
> Apparantly according to the English RDA it is possible to get all the nutrients one needs from a balanced diet (both vegetarian / vegan and meat eating). So I would like to know why the American RDA is supposed to be superior to the English RDA.
If you listen to American authorities, you'd probably hear identical claims. It is my own conclusion that all the nutrient needs expressed in these RDA/DRI/RDI values cannot be met by any diet. Period. I went to the nutrient/food databases, and did the calculations. I have proclaimed my conclusion many places on the net, and I have never found any evidence for any diet that actually meets the RDAs, while simultaneously meeting calorie targets.
The balanced diet is a myth. The food pyramid is a hoax. It is actually a creation of an advertising agency seeking to find markets for excess grains produced on American farms due to government subsidies, circa 1960. Some myths die hard.
> > So, an ethical question. Is it moral to deny that source of needed nutrients to children?
>
> If we have fairly good reason to suppose that we do in fact need suppliments in order to remain healthy then we would be morally obliged to provide that for dependants yes. (I wonder if members of other species need suppliments in order to remain healthy too... We might be morally obliged to provide them for our pets as well...)Ah, but we do. Veterinary food products are under quality control legislation that require them to be supplemented. Human food is under no such regulation. It is far more nutritious to eat the doggy version of beef stew than it is to eat the similar product intended for human consumption.
> But given the differences between the American and English RDA's the jury still seems to be out...
Not to this jury member.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/466085.html