Did you know that your version of Internet Explorer is out of date?
To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend downloading one of the browsers below.

Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

Rachel_McAdamsRachel_McAdams

Rachel McAdams Shares Why She Gave Up Vegetarian Diet

Like us on Facebook:
The current article you are reading does not reflect the views of the current editors and contributors of the new Ecorazzi

First Eva Longoria abandoned her vegan diet after nearly passing out while living entirely on salads. Now, Rachel McAdams confesses that she had to give up her vegetarian diet because she was too tired. Why? Because the girl just filled up on pasta. Feel free to shake your head.

She told Glamour, “I was one (a vegetarian) once, but it made me very tired. I just ate pasta – I was the most unhealthy vegetarian ever! I’d like to try it again now that I know about (popular meat alternatives) quinoa and bulgur. I think I’d be better the second time around.”

It’s amazing that these celebs with chefs and resources beyond belief at their disposal don’t do a bit of research first. But, it sounds like McAdams wants to try it again, so kudos to her. Perhaps she should check out our 8 vegan cookbooks worth devouring, or visit a few veggie restaurants. Perhaps ask Ellen or Natalie Portman for advice. I’m sure Alicia Silverstone would be happy to help her on the 21 day vegan kickstart. There is a world of resources out there. All a person has to do is look.

You can do it, Rachel! We believe in you!

Like us on Facebook:
0 Comments
  • Jim Corcoran

    Too bad she didn’t know how to do it right :( Here are two uplifting videos to help everyone understand why so many people are making this life-altering choice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKr4HZ7ukSE and http://www.veganvideo.org

  • gregoryblackburn

    Just found that “Get Official Samples” is promoting a wide variety of major brands by providing free samples. You’ll have to fill in your zip code to see if you can qualify to receive them. You can get all samples from one place. I think it is available for most of the zip codes and it worked for me.

  • legsdickson

    Someone should start by telling Rachel that pasta is NOT a vegetable.

  • Vic

    Well… sometimes even though they have chefs at their disposable at home and in films that shoot in LA or more convenient cities, many actors and actresses (like Rachel) go to places to film where only take out is available. And there is probably no time to cook. Sure, she could have made more of an effort but I don’t blame her for having to resort to pasta to fill her up.

  • http://www.vasumurti.org VasuMurti

    There must be a moral or an ethical basis for one’s vegetarianism, otherwise one is likely to backslide.

    The medical data keeps changing, which causes opponents of animal liberation to react with amusement. They liken it to a scene in Woody Allen’s 1973 movie, Sleeper, in which a natural food faddist placed unwillingly into suspended animation… wakes up two hundred years into the future, to find that what he’d thought would be the wave of the future, didn’t happen…

    …the foods that were thought to be unhealthy in the 20th century were found to be health-supporting in the 22nd century.

    In the ’70s, Dr. Tarnower’s Scarsdale Diet had a vegetarian option, and was practically vegan, as dairy products were excluded. But he permitted diet sodas without restriction, which nutritionalists now are saying should be consumed less frequently.

    In The MacDougall Plan (1983), Dr. John MacDougall advocated a plant-based diet, high in fiber and complex carbohydrates, with no animal products, oil or salt. And no intoxication.

    Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), similarly said:

    “Almost any vegetarian diet is an improvement over the typical Western diet, but the best diet of all would also eliminate refined and processed foods, as well as most (if not all) animal products — in short, a total vegetarian (vegan), whole foods diet. This is a fairly radical claim, and one which should not be accepted uncritically…”

    John Robbins’ Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America (1987) makes veganism seem as reasonable and mainstream as recycling.

    John Robbins shows in easy-to-read language, with charts and graphs, that most of the degenerative diseases plaguing the affluent West are self-inflicted wounds, and are virtually unknown in other parts of the world…

    …and migration studies show that when persons immigrate to the United States and begin eating animal products in excess, they’re plagued by the same diseases as everyone else. Genetics and heredity are not a discernible factor.

    My friend Greg and I heard John Robbins speak in Solana Beach, CA in July 1989, where John Robbins said he’d recently appeared on the television talk show Geraldo… indirectly indicating just how mainstream his views in Diet for a New America really are.

    John Robbins said the evidence continues to mount: autopsies on heart patients show saturated fat and cholesterol as the problem, not spinach and tofu! And that a diet high in fiber and complex carbohydrates, moderate in protein, and low in cholesterol is health supporting.

    The Atkins diet (popular over a decade ago) went against the mounting evidence, although the intent of the Atkins diet was not good health but quick weight loss.

    When Dr. Atkins passed away, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) said his death was indicative of the dangers posed by the Atkins diet.

    Peter Singer (author, Animal Liberation) himself admits his Introduction to Keith Akers’ A Vegetarian Sourcebook:

    “Despite all the books on vegetarianism, there is a need for a thoroughly reliable sourcebook covering all the main arguments for being a vegetarian of one sort or another. There cannot be a definitive book that will do this for all time, for new medical evidence keeps coming in, and the ecological situation and the treatment of farm animals are gradually changing.”

    At the World Vegetarian Day festival at Fort Mason in San Francisco, CA, in September 2000, Elliot Gang, a writer for the now-defunct Animals’ Agenda told Gaverick Matheny of Vegan Action and myself that advocating vegetarianism for health reasons is comparable to saying, “Rape is wrong, because you might catch venereal disease.”

    No. In each case the moral reason is the real reason to abstain. Because we live in such a narcissistic society, it’s not surprising people are won over by the health arguments first.

    Again: my understanding is there must be a moral basis for one’s abstaining from meat, fish, fowl, etc., just like abstaining from cannibalism, because otherwise it’s very easy to backslide.

    As an example, in the late ’80s, I met a woman volunteering with San Diego Animal Advocates. She said when she first became a vegetarian, she was doing so for health reasons, and didn’t think a piece of turkey at Thanksgiving or Christmas would hurt her. But she said when she learned about factory farming, animal abuse, etc. she won’t touch meat, period!

    Congressman Dennis Kucinich first went vegan in the ’90s, influenced by a past girlfriend. I’ve heard that Ingrid Newkirk (Executive Director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) encourages vegans to sleep around, convince their significant other to go vegan, and then move on to someone else, to increase the number of vegans!

    This could have adverse affects: if the break-up is less than pleasant, one of the partners might return to meat-eating out of spite!

    Again, a moral or ethical basis must be at the heart of one’s vegetarianism. The nutritional data keeps changing…

    …But as an ethic, vegetarianism or not harming animals, like pacifists or pro-lifers, has stood the test of time and has served as the basis for entire religious traditions. (Buddhism, Jainism, Pythagoreanism, and possibly early Christianity all immediately come to mind.)

  • http://twitter.com/tatysuniverse Tatiana

    Stupid woman… To go vegetarian, she just has to take away the meat. So if she ate only pasta when she was a vegetarian, it suggests that before she only ate pasta and meat. Which can’t possibly be the case.
    Again: stupid woman.

    • captaindash

      Yes, clearly of the two of you, it’s Rachel McAdams who’s stupid.

      “An ignorant person is one who doesn’t know what you yourself just found out”

      -Will Rogers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003585819203 Amanda Ruth

    how stupid – she should educate herself. If she did she would be FULL of energy. To me it is just a cop-out.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GGLIYA2EVLTQVGZAPHNYA5TUW4 Dragon

    What the heck? No wonder she only ate pasta! You need to eat other kinds of veggies. Well most people like that are kind of dumb…

  • Karenflahivee

    Biochemistry and anthropologic data shows that meat and saturated fat are not the demon. In fact grains (especially containig gluten), legumes and dairy are all extremely difficult to process and digest in our body. Diets like those talked about in Forks over Knives that have had success are not successful because of the absence of meat, it’s actually the confounding variables in these diets that are causing improvements in health. Quality of food is important but meatless diets are not necessary or healthy. Our bodies are meant to eat meat and some plant life. Not whole grains and not beans. Check the science then make the claims.

    • tomislav

      And science is always right, right?

    • Prolibertate4

      Dear Dr. Pam: I do not want to be disrespectful or arrogant, but how can educated people, particularly health professionals, buy into and recommend diets like the Paleo Diet, endorse the Weston Price Foundation, or think systems like Functional Medicine are a good idea?

      You’re not being disrespectful, and this is a legitimate question. How do intelligent people (both healthcare professionals and lay people) become enamored with bad ideas?

      For many years, health professionals have been slowly realizing that traditional approaches to healthcare are ineffective and that some are actually harmful to patients. They have also become increasingly unhappy with how healthcare is delivered (short office visits, insurance companies and third party payers dictating practice guidelines, low reimbursement rates, etc.). This has caused great dissatisfaction, and many doctors, nurses, and dietitians have become receptive to new ideas about diet, health, and medicine. They are reading books, attending continuing education conferences, and speaking with colleagues as they search for better options.

      Patients and members of the public are equally dissatisfied. They are put off by healthcare professionals who seem remote and sometimes even disrespectful; thanks to the internet and other readily available sources of information, they are aware of the side effects of commonly prescribed drugs; they are sickened by the conflicts of interest that are pervasive in the diet and health businesses; and they want better outcomes.

      While the dissatisfaction is understandable and the search for alternatives is admirable, the problem is that many people tend to latch onto the first option they find that appears to be different. If the first exposure to something new is Forks Over Knives or one of the health professionals in that film, they become enthusiastic about plant-based nutrition. If the first new idea encountered is Functional Medicine, they become enamored with certain forms of diagnostic testing and the prescribing of supplements. If it’s the Paleo diet, a meat-based diet is adopted.

      The tendency to latch onto organizations, beliefs, diets, and protocols that are not supported by solid research is based on many factors. The first is that even the worst of the alternative diet and health programs have positive attributes which seem appealing. Many of the diet plans, even if they are not ideal, are better than the Standard American Diet; the approaches seem patient-centered; the focus is on the whole person; and the treatments appear to be more “natural.”

      Research shows that healthcare professionals, including doctors, notoriously lack skills for properly evaluating research concerning diagnostic testing, drugs, and procedures. Shannon Brownlee wrote extensively about this in her book Overtreated. One recent example is reflected in a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine which showed that most doctors surveyed were unable to correctly evaluate the efficacy of cancer screening tests like mammography and PSA testing based on statistical evidence. This inability to interpret data is concerning, and most certainly contributes to bad decision-making when looking at diet and health programs.

      Low expectations are another factor. Most patients and practitioners do not know that it is possible to stop and reverse disease, and instead think that the best that can be expected is to mitigate symptoms while diseases progress. On this basis, the idea that symptoms can be addressed with dietary supplements instead of drugs and surgery, for example, becomes an exciting concept for many patients and their doctors.

      Both practitioners and patients are driven by the same dissatisfaction with the existing medical system and the American diet. They want and need to find better alternatives. And they both get excited as soon as an alternative presents itself. We can forgive a lay person for latching on to a new idea that seems to offer less potential for harm and more hope for a better outcome. But we should be able to expect better from practitioners; they need better training and also to be held to a higher standard (evidence) when making recommendations to patients.

      In the meantime, we must be committed to telling the public that better outcomes are possible – that disease and obesity are food-borne conditions that can be prevented and treated with the right diet and lifestyle changes. The answer to our current healthcare mess is not to try to find alternative diagnostic tests and more natural pills; it is to throw out our existing framework and adopt a new one in which diet and lifestyle are the basis of care.

      Wegwarth O, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. “Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States.” Ann Intern Med. 2012 Mar 6;156(5):340-9.

    • GOLDENFLYWARRIOR .

      YOU ARE TOTALLY INCORRECT AND NEED TO DO MORE FACT CHECKING. READ THE CHINE STUDY FOR STARTS. DR. NEAL BERNERD HAS SCIENCE WITHOUT A INTEREST IN PROMOTING MEAT INDUSTRY. ALSO, HOWARD LYMAN OF ‘MAD COWBOY’ SPEAKS FACTS ALSO. A 4TH GENERATION CATTLE RANCHER THAT IS NOW VEGAN. MANY LIKE YOU STAY IN DENIAL DUE TO SELFISH REASON TO RATIONALIZE OR JUSTIFY. YOU ARE VERY IGNORANT TO THE GREED MACHINES OF AMERICA. YOU’LL ‘THINK’ DIFFERENT WHEN YOUR HEALTH FAILS. YOU HAVE BEED BRAINWASHED AND USDA NOW HAS A VEGAN PLATE. MANY BETTER WAYS TO GET PROTEIN WITHOUT THE HOLOCAUST OF ANIMALS.

      • captaindash

        Shhhhhhh. I’m trying to imagine you in a library, full volume, haha. I CAN YELL TOO!!! GRRRRRRRR!!!! BE HUMANE OR I’LL KILL YOU, ARRGHH!
        I bet your face is red all the time.

  • vegan

    idiots

  • GOLDENFLYWARRIOR .

    READ ‘THE CHINA STUDY’ ALSO ELLEN SURE COULD GUIDE HER INB THE REIGHT DIRECTION. BEING VEGETARIAN IS NOT JUST ELIMATING MEAT FROM DIET, IT’S ABOUT BALANCED MEALS AND GOOD SNACKS. EVEN VEGETARIANS HAVE ISSUES IF DAIRY PRODUCTS ARE PART OF THEIR DIET. BEST TO BE AS CLOSE TO VEGAN AS POSSIBLE. GOTTA WATCH THE TYPES OF SOY PRODUCTS ALSO. I HAVE 4 AUNTS THAT ARE VEGETARIAN AND THE 2 THAT HAVE DAIRY PRODUCTS HAVE HEART ISSUES DUE TO FOODS LIKE BUTTER & BUTTERMILK. THERE ARE GOOD FATS & BAD FATS. I RATHER SEE HUMANS NEVER GET MAMMALS OR FOWL. EVEN MY DOGS THAT ARE VEGAN ARE IN GREAT HEALTH. JUST GOTT ADO YOUR HOMEWORK. TAKE A WELLNESS COURSE. MY FOOD PLATE & FOOD PYRAMID IS VEGAN AND IT IS USDA APPROVED. FACTS PEOPLE.
    LEARN THE HISTORY OF THE USDA FOR STARTS.

  • deskjockie

    She wasn’t a vegetarian, she was a carbotarian. A whole-food, plant-based diet includes so many more foods than just pasta!

    • Susan J Caldwell

      absolutely!!

    • Liz

      Good one! People who only eat pasta, baked goods, and mock meats then call themselves vegetarian are totally missing the mark.

      • captaindash

        ? Being vegetarian has nothing to do with eating healthy. It’s about not eating meat. Period. Eating healthy is a whole ‘nother thing entirely, so yeah, mock meats and pasta etc are vegetarian. If you ate nothing but sugar cookies you’d get fat, sick and die, but you’d die a vegetarian.

  • Paul York

    If she had done it right, she would be healthier than ever. Some vegans / vegetarians do not study nutrition. All the protein, iron, B12, etc. that a human body needs is in a plant-based diet. This person above, by going backwards, is actually endangering her health all the more. See Forks Over Knives, the movie – based on the China Study. It’s sad that some people choose veganism / vegetarianism for the wrong reasons and then do it poorly and then misrepresent it in the popular press, misleading others. The right reason is ethics first and foremost (it is wrong to murder other sentient beings when you don’t have to), and then health and the environment. Had she studied it more, and learn what to eat or not eat, she would not have had any problems. Now she has endangered her health more, she is back to harming animals and causing global warming and water pollution, and on top of it she has misrepresented the single best life-choice that a human being can make.

    • Guest

      it’s not just protein, but humans NEED Saturated fat to make hormones, including sex hormones. many vegetarians are deficient in cholesterol that they can get from Coconut oil and if allergic, eggs. Because many people have gene defects including MTHFR now a days disrupting their methylaton pathways, neurons and their natural liver detox pathways, ONE DIET IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. People need to realize this and get off their pedestals and stop judging them for listening to THEIR body. Focus on YOUR own. Low cholesterol symptoms can be depression, anxiety, aggression, biploar, anger, judgement, OCD, low libido etc… and more.

    • crosswind

      it’s not just protein, but humans NEED Saturated fat to make hormones,
      including sex hormones and alter brain nerve communication. many vegetarians who come in our local holistic clinic are deficient in cholesterol
      that they can get from Coconut oil and if allergic, eggs. Because many
      people have gene defects including MTHFR now a days disrupting their
      methylaton pathways, neurons and their natural liver detox pathways, ONE
      DIET IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. People need to realize this and get off their
      pedestals and stop judging them for listening to THEIR body. Focus on
      YOUR own. Low cholesterol symptoms can be depression, anxiety,
      aggression, biploar, anger, judgement, OCD, low libido etc… and more.

      • Susan J Caldwell

        hillarious, Im vegi 29 years and vegan one year and people keep asking me what I put on my skin and why im never sick etc. its not what i put on my skin but what i put into my body that is the key, as for judging, cruelty is never a good option and it most people saw where there plastic filled corpses that they buy came from, they would be horrified. Abbatoirs are never a choice for the animals, who are sentient beings, like ourselves. Wanting equality for all beings is the opposite of being on a pedastal.

        • Jonathan T.

          “Wanting equality for all beings is the opposite of being on a pedastal.”

          Yes and no. I’m all for animal rights, myself, but there are zealots in every camp and there are some uncompromising, tactless vegans out there ready and willing to villify the rest of the world. They are VERY MUCH on pedestals they build for themselves.

          Remember, communication is the biggest key to understanding, and YES, no one diet works for everyone. So long as people are properly educated about their options, as well as where their food comes from, then we can all move toward a better brighter future for all involved (and not just humans). That also means reigning in the self-righteous, undiplomatic vegan extremists just as much as shutting down torture farms.

          • dyani

            True that some vegans act self-righteous, but I honestly come across WAY more self-righteous meat-eaters… Why are the vegan ones isolated as acting so when there are so many more meat-eaters who consider their diets superior? I can’t get over society’s blatant bias in the dietary high horse debate…

          • PokerRay

            You asked a constructive question and I’m going to give you a constructive answer, even though we both know I’m going to get my head bashed in for doing it.
            “Global” vegans (who think this is the way the world should operate) refuse to accept that there would be serious consequenses. They refuse to accept that habitat loss is the biggest threat to land based animals. They think that if all animals stopped dying tomorrow, that everything would be hunky-dory. They refuse to listen to the other side of the story.
            As a meat-eater, I understand that my choice comes with consequences, both to myself and to the world-at-large. I’m willing to work within that framework. I have yet to see the vegan community do the same.
            Understand that my above comments do NOT apply to vegan/vegetarians who merely have made a personal choice and allow others to do the same.

          • dyani

            lol, that’s the price we pay for expressing our opinions on such open platforms… 😉 I like it though, because we share a wealth of perceptions that expand our understandings… :) It’s easier to send & receive when we let go of our ego, too. 😉

            I disbelieve that ‘global’ vegans refuse to accept the consequences of diets… It is precisely because they are so concerned about consequences that they adopt the vegan diet…

            I’ve never come across one ignorant to the subject the toll of farming takes on the environment… In fact, I’ve only come across quite the opposite: they are all too concerned about the environment and the respective deforestation that takes place as well as the agricultural resources necessary for the livestock industry…

            I’ve never heard one ignorant on the topic of the human over-population of the Earth and how we will soon run out of resources to feed ourselves should we continue expanding at such a rapid rate and also how it will contribute to the expansion of deforestation for livestock farming and the increase in price of meat because it will be so expensive to procure… Habitat loss is increased by livestock farming, not the other way around… Not only do we require the space to grow the monumental amount of food needed for the animals, but we also require the space to raise them…

            And I’ve never heard a vegan express that they wished animals to simply stopped dying… The ones I’ve known are quite spiritual and view death as a beautiful part in the circle of life… Though, that’s not to say that they endorse the unnecessary suffering of livestock for the short and painful durations of their lives… And I speak of factory farming, not necessarily small organic farming…

            Forgive me, but I question how much you’ve actually spoken to the vegan community given your limited understanding of vegan values, so, it boggles me when you claim you have never seen the vegan community question the consequences of farming and “work withing that framework”… I guess it may be that because I’ve never come across a vegan who did force their own diets on others and not respect others’ free will that I have never heard of the authoritarian vegans you speak of? I’ve heard rumours of them by meat-eaters on the internet quite frequently, but have never actually spoken to one myself yet (and I frequent online vegan communities)…

            EDIT: Also wanted to add that though I haven’t ever felt forced or heard of others being forced to adopt a vegan diet, I all too frequently am shamed and intimidated to eat meat or by-products by others… Literally, about every other day…

          • PokerRay

            One of the consequences you don’t address is where all these animals are supposed to go. I have dealt with many vegans who deplore and condemn hunting and would see it banned. This is a HUGE consequence. Taking the deer population by itself, how do we do this? If the deer population of the US and Canada were to be left untouched, we would have an ecological disaster within 5 years, in most regions. Overpopulation, overgrazing, disease, soil erosion, damage to watersheds due to said soil erosion, damage to other animal life that is dependent on these watersheds. These are not theories. This would happen and happen quickly.

            Habitat loss happens due to ALL farming, so let’s stop kidding ourselves. And speaking of crop farming, there’s a thread somewhere in here where the vegan posters overwhelmingly deplored the “exploitation” of honey bees and refuse to use their products. So OK, lets not support the honey industry, lets not incentivize the honey industry, lets not support more hives and more bees. It’s OK because we have GMO to fall back on (sarcasm). Another consequence.

            You’ve never heard of “authoritarian” vegans like I spoke of? OK. I guess you’re a little late to the party around here. We used to have a particularly hysterical example of just what I speak of named Herwin. I don’t know what happened to him but assume that he lost his one remaining shred of sanity and ran into the ocean. His rants well and truly crossed the border into the embarrasing and even his fellow vegs didn’t touch him with a 10-foot pole. And take a look at some of the threads concerning celebrities who are or aren’t vegans, or were and stopped, and look at some of the responses. I think you choose to see what you want to see.

          • dyani

            I tried posting this about 40 mins ago, but it must have not
            been approved by moderation due to links included…

            “One of the consequences you don’t address is where all these animals are
            supposed to go.”

            As in livestock? I see you are still of the opinion that most vegans expect the
            whole world to follow their lifestyle? To entertain your question (though you
            are most wrong in your assumption), farmers would simply stop force breeding
            the livestock… Puzzle solved! Within a few years (maybe even only 1), the
            livestock population would be gone (perhaps the species even reintroduced to
            the wild to preserve them, if at all possible (though unlikely).

            “I have dealt with many vegans who deplore and condemn hunting and would
            see it banned. This is a HUGE consequence. Taking the deer population by
            itself, how do we do this? If the deer population of the US and Canada were to
            be left untouched, we would have an ecological disaster within 5 years, in most
            regions. Overpopulation, overgrazing, disease, soil erosion, damage to
            watersheds due to said soil erosion, damage to other animal life that is
            dependent on these watersheds. These are not theories. This would happen and
            happen quickly.”

            Again, I only entertain your question being that you are of the belief that
            vegans like to dictate how others live… The deer population is indeed already
            crowded, but this is a direct result of hunting and scaring off the larger game
            that are the deer’s natural predators… This has, of course, been done as a
            result of expanding development into rural areas which comes from drastic HUMAN
            overpopulation. The further we stretch out, the more big game is scared away
            and hunted when found in proximity to ensure safety to our communities. So, on
            one hand we complain about curbing deer overpopulation yet fail to even attempt
            to limit our own exponential breeding… And our hasty habit of multiplying
            like so has far greater consequences than simple deer overpopulation, as I have
            no doubt you

            know…

            That being said, even if we were to curb our human population expansion today,
            the deer problem would still exist for some time as a result of our past
            mistake. I myself, in this given situation, see no problem with curbing the
            deer population so long as they are killed humanely (one bullet, quick death)
            and we do something about, and take responsibility for, our own grave
            contribution this ecological disaster (as well as hope that the hunted deer’s
            remains are used in full, leaving no waste).

            “Habitat loss happens due to ALL farming, so let’s stop kidding
            ourselves.”

            Of course it is – only a fool would insinuate otherwise – I had pointed out
            that you are equally kidding yourself to say that factory farming creates less
            deforestation than agriculture when agriculture takes up nearly HALF the land
            area necessary to farm compared to factory farming… Way to misconstrue words
            or otherwise gloss over the argument… I’ve even fetched a pretty quote for
            you:

            ‘Livestock issues’

            “A senior UN official and co-author of a UN report detailing this problem,
            Henning Steinfeld, said “Livestock are one of the most significant
            contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems”.[104]
            Livestock production occupies 70% of all land used for agriculture, or 30% of
            the land surface of the planet. It is one of the largest sources of greenhouse
            gases, responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured
            in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of
            the CO2. It produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide (which has
            296 times the global warming potential of CO2,) and 37% of all
            human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2. It also
            generates 64% of the ammonia emission. Livestock expansion is cited as a key
            factor driving deforestation, in the Amazon basin 70% of previously forested
            area is now occupied by pastures and the remainder used for feedcrops.[105]
            Through deforestation and land degradation, livestock is also driving
            reductions in biodiversity.–[ http://

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture#Contemporary_agriculture]

            “And speaking of crop farming, there’s a thread somewhere in here

            where the vegan posters overwhelmingly deplored the “exploitation” of

            honey bees and refuse to use their products. So OK, lets not support the

            honey industry, lets not incentivize the honey industry, lets not

            support more hives and more bees. It’s OK because we have GMO to fall

            back on (sarcasm). Another consequence.”

            Are you kidding me? DO you have any idea what honey-keeping does to wild bee
            populations? ERADICATES THEM…

            “Sometimes whole colonies are killed off

            to save feeding them over the winter.

            When they are kept through the

            winter, the honey is often removed and

            replaced with sugar candy or syrup,

            which are cheaper, though less healthy

            for the bees.

            “Beekeepers often transport their

            colonies to areas of flowering crops

            where the bees pollinate the flowers,

            increasing crop yields and earning fat

            fees for the beekeepers. However, this

            is to the detriment of local wild bees

            and other pollinating insects, which are

            swamped by the temporary visitors.

            “As with all intensively farmed animals,

            commercial bee colonies are prone to

            the rapid spread of disease. The Varroa

            mite is rife among both commercial

            and “hobby” bee colonies and is

            threatening the few remaining wild

            honey bee colonies.”–[http://www.

            vegansociety.com/uploadedFiles/User_Hubpages/Education/Education_Resources/Honey.pdf]

            ‘CITIZEN SCIENCE UPDATE: Feed the Bees, Harm the Bees?’

            “As a continuing part of the partnership between the Insect News Network,
            YourGardenShow.com

            and their support of Citizen Science and the Great Sunflower Project, we will
            bring you a series of posts about the breaking news regarding Colony Collapse
            Disorder.

            “In an ironic twist, the poisoning of the bees could come as a result of
            farmers and beekeepers trying to feed them. The industrial usage of the bees on
            an annual basis requires farmers to feed them substitutes tothe nectar they
            gather in the fields. When the bees arrive at a monocultured pasture, there are
            few abundant sources of the nectar. The commercial beekeepers often feed them
            high fructose corn syrup, which, as a recent study suggests, could contain
            trace amounts of pesticides, especially the neonicotinoid class pesticides.

            “As posted in a Wired online article, the study by a Harvard researcher
            examined a dietary exposure to imidacloprid, a commonly used neonic made by
            Bayer. Even though the amounts were higher than what might be found in the
            wild, the study showed a dramatic increase in the CCD in the colonies exposed
            to the chemical.

            “The topic has international implications. The debate of the use of certain
            toxic pesticides – in particular the neonics – have caused a massive division
            between Europe and the United States. In fact, the very chemicals indicated in
            study are outlawed in a number of European countries.

            “Stranger yet, the suggestion the corn syrup might carry trace amounts of
            the pesticides after the processing beckons the question of whether humans
            could be exposed in some capacity.”–[ http://

            artsciencefusion.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/citizen-science-update-feed-the-bees-harm-the-bees-4/]

            Further, how can you ever even claim to speak with vegans when you insinuate
            that they actually endorse GMO? I’ve NEVER heard from ANY vegan that they felt
            anything other than disgust about GMO and are instead one of the groups MOST
            concerned about shopping organic… Where do you get these proposterous ideas
            from?

            “You’ve never heard of “authoritarian” vegans like I spoke of?
            OK. I guess you’re a little late to the party around here. We used to have a particularly
            hysterical example of just what I speak of named Herwin. I don’t know what happened
            to him but assume that he lost his one remaining shred of sanity and ran into
            the ocean. His rants well and truly crossed the border into the embarrasing and
            even his fellow vegs didn’t touch him with a 10-foot pole. And take a look at
            some of the threads concerning celebrities who are or aren’t vegans, or were
            and stopped, and look at some of the responses. I think you choose to see what
            you want to see.”

            Lol, this Herwin sounds like quite the charming fellow 😉 jk ;p I hope that you
            are not basing your judgments of all vegans off of one individual… If I based
            my judgement of Australians based off of one I met and didn’t like, wouldn’t
            that make it a narrow-minded judgement? Even if I judged all Aussies by a small
            group I met, it would still be a prejudice stereotype… True that I haven’t
            been to this site before I

            first responded to the comments in this article and I’ve yet to come back but
            to respond to your arguments, so I’ll have to browse sometime this mysterious
            community where there Nazi vegans have been hiding…

          • dyani

            Ok, I tried replying twice last night but my replies weren’t approved from moderation likely due to being too long in length, containing links or quotes. So, I’m chunking it down into smaller individual replies to see how that works… Here’s the first bit:

            “One of the consequences you don’t address is where all these animals are supposed to go.”

            As in livestock? I see you are still of the opinion that most vegans expect the whole world to follow their lifestyle? To entertain your question (though you are most wrong in your assumption), farmers would simply stop force breeding the livestock… Puzzle solved! Within a few years (maybe even only 1), the livestock population would be gone (perhaps the species even reintroduced to the wild to preserve them, if at all possible (though unlikely).

            “I have dealt with many vegans who deplore and condemn hunting and would see it banned. This is a HUGE consequence. Taking the deer population by itself, how do we do this? If the deer population of the US and Canada were to be left untouched, we would have an ecological disaster within 5 years, in most regions. Overpopulation, overgrazing, disease, soil erosion, damage to watersheds due to said soil erosion, damage to other animal life that is dependent on these watersheds. These are not theories. This would happen and happen quickly.”

            Again, I only entertain your question being that you are of the
            belief that vegans like to dictate how others live… The deer
            population is indeed already crowded, but this is a direct result of hunting and scaring off the larger game that are the deer’s natural predators… This has, of course, been done as a result of expanding development into rural areas which comes from drastic HUMAN overpopulation. The further we streach out, the more big game is scared away and hunted when found in proximity to ensure safety to our communities. So, on one hand we complain about curbing deer overpopulation yet fail to even attempt to limit our own exponential breeding… And our hasty habit of multiplying like so has far greater consequences than simple deer overpopulation, as I have no doubt you know…

            That being said, even if we were to curb our human population
            expansion today, the deer problem would still exist for some time as a result of our past mistake. I myself, in this given situation, see no problem with curbing the deer population so long as they are killed humanely (one bullet, quick death) and we do something about, and take responsibility for, our own grave contribution this ecological disaster (as well as hope that the hunted deer’s remains are used in full, leaving no waste).

          • PokerRay

            Well, I think it goes without saying that you just experienced the joys of “Disqus” that Ecorazzi decided to go with some time ago. Things used to be much easier to post around here.

            First of all, you completely misinterpreted my remark concerning GMO, even though I added a (sarcasm) tag to it. Of course vegans are disgusted with GMO, as we all should be. And that was my point.

            Wild honeybees aren’t getting the job done. It’s been posted on this site and elsewhere that America is suffering a drastic shortage of honeybees. This needs to be rectified or GMO is going to be what we’re stuck with.

            One of your above comments seems to have a tolerant view of hunting. OK, cool. You are an exception. Your overall views are also an exception to what most vegans think.

            I disagree that the deer population is “already crowded”. It’s being kept in manageable numbers thanks to regulated hunting. If it was overcrowded, that fact would refute that predator species are having a tough time living off them. But again, we seem to agree on the subject of concientious hunting so there’s no need to belabor the point.

            If domestic livestock were set free and factory farms were eliminated, this would not stop these individual species from breeding. Quite the opposite. Their breeding would be unchecked by man-made factors. I am talking (unfortunately) of systematic castration of the males to improve meat quality (as a male, I don’t like to spend too much time dwelling on it). Again, take this away, breeding increases with all the attendant problems that I outined in my previous post.

            Let me be clear: I don’t like factory farms. I hope for a better way. But there are millions of people that need to be fed, their numbers are only going to increase, and it’s an imperfect world.

            I stand by my original comments. Most vegans/vegetarians don’t accept that there are consequences to their beliefs. What to do with animals left unchecked and un-intervened with is a big one. You are trying to refute that point where, in YOUR original post you said, “True that some vegans act self-righteous,”. In effect, you are arguing with me for agreeing with you. Your well-thought and well-presented points indicate to me that you are an exception to what I was saying. And in fairness to me, I did point out that there were exceptions. Again, your views on hunting are proof-positive to me that you are not one of the people that I was referring to, when I said, “Global vegan”. I’m glad that you see the world with clear eyes.

          • dyani

            “First of all, you completely misinterpreted my remark concerning GMO, even though I added a (sarcasm) tag to it. Of course vegans are disgusted with GMO, as we all should be. And that was my point. Wild honeybees aren’t getting the job done. It’s been posted on this site and elsewhere that America is suffering a drastic shortage of honeybees. This needs to be rectified or GMO is going to be what we’re stuck with.”

            Then you suggest that we need GMO as a replacement to honey? Why is it that you believe we are so heavily dependent on honey that we actually require it as a necessity in our diets and would therefore need to rely on a GMO alternative with its absence? I completely fail to see why honey is such a dire necessity to ANY diet considering its lack of health benefit and high sugar content… And are you really willing to continue the honey-keeping industry at the expense of bee endangerment (therefore gravely damaging wild pollination and all the consequences that come with THAT)?

            “One of your above comments seems to have a tolerant view of hunting. OK, cool. You are an exception. Your overall views are also an exception to what most vegans think.”

            Make no mistake – I do not agree with it, though that is not to say that I would force my own values on others and I honestly have never met a vegan that did… I’ve met plenty of tree-huggers (no offense to any), politically-enthralled individuals, religious or anti-religious zealots, and meat-eaters who incessantly try to force their own values or opinions down my/others’ throat(s), yet NEVER a vegan… It boggles me, therefore, why you are so adamant on claiming that all (or even some significant percentage of) vegans do and that I am an ‘exception’ to the general rule… In all irony, it very much seems as though it is YOU who is actually intimidating others to agree with YOUR values, opinions, or beliefs…

            To further my reasoning behind thinking so, I’ll mention what I find perplexing is that you are so adamant on desperately trying to uncover unexisting consequence of proper vegan diet yet fail to even mention (or acknowledge) any of the consequences involved in livestock farming, human overpopulation, or even bee keeping… Such issues present FAR greater consequences than any of those you have tried to unsuccessfully validate…

            “I disagree that the deer population is “already crowded”. It’s being kept in manageable numbers thanks to regulated hunting.”

            Isn’t it? There are 60,000 (estimation made in 2008) Canadian deer-related collisions reported annually, while in the U.S., there are 750,000 annually (estimation made in 2003). Are those numbers not evidence enough of over-population?

            “Deer-vehicle accidents resulted in more than $3.8 billion of insurance claims and driver costs in the year ended June 30, according to State Farm Insurance. Such collisions resulted in about 140 human deaths, according to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Serious stuff.

            “We’re not even including the financial and social cost of Lyme disease, the expense of hauling away deer carcasses, and the cost in money and time protecting vegetation and crops from voracious deer predation.

            “State Farm estimates that in the 12 months ended June 30, there were 1.1 million deer-vehicle accidents nationwide that resulted in $3.8 billion of insurance payouts and driver costs. The total exceeds $4 billion when we throw in the cost of accidents in which no claims were made because drivers had no comprehensive insurance on their vehicles, or no insurance at all.

            “The costs in the adjacent chart combine State Farm’s estimate of an average $3,103 per claim paid by insurers with the estimated deductible, $250, absorbed by drivers. We’re using a $3,353 cost per accident in all states, because State Farm doesn’t provide state-by-state data.”—[see Washington Post ‘Deer overpopulation taking economic toll’]

            Also, see NPR’s ‘Growing Deer Population Hurts Survival Of Forests’:

            “The white-tailed deer was a rare creature along the East Coast a hundred years ago. Now they seem to be everywhere. Across the country there are some 20 million white-tailed deer and many states are seeing record populations, populations that are expected to grow. That has had big implications for road safety and gardens. Now new warnings about the implications for bio-diversity and the long-term survival of forests.

            “Sabri Ben-Achour has the story.

            “SABRI BEN-ACHOUR: Back in 1990, scientists with the Smithsonians Conservation Biology Institute in Front Royal, Virginia closed off about 10 acres behind an eight-foot tall wire fence. Its called an exclosure. Its a world without deer and it doesnt really exist anymore anywhere else.

            “Bill McShea is a wildlife ecologist with the Smithsonian. And after passing through a rickety wire door…

            “(Soundbite of a metal door)

            “BEN-ACHOUR: …he is standing in that world.

            “Mr. BILL MCSHEA (Wildlife Ecologist, Conservation Biology Institute, Smithsonian Institution): So here were inside this deer exclosure, right at the fence line here. And this fence has been up now for 21 years. So we’re comparing inside the fence to outside the fence. And there’s two things to notice. One is, its green on both sides of the fence. But in here, its a lot more diverse than out there.

            “BEN-ACHOUR: That is an understatement. The deer side of the fence has a carpet of grass, a shrubby looking thing, and some large trees – things that are either too big for deer to eat, or are among the very few plants they dont like to eat. Inside it is practically a jungle. Dozens of different almost exotic looking plants are tumbling over one another. Many of them are young trees.

            “Mr. MCSHEA: In here, I can see white ash and hickory and red maples and service berry. Were looking at 20, 30 species. If you look out there, its a much simpler world.

            “BEN-ACHOUR: And that simpler world is an aging world. Really, its a dying world, as far as forests go.

            “Mr. MCSHEA: The future is not good. Theres no teenagers here. There’s no young adults. Everybody is a mature individual. Whereas inside this fence, you have the complete profile of ages. You have youngsters. You have teenagers you have middle-aged adults. You have the old trees. And when the old trees go, there is something here to take its place. Out there, I dont see anything out there thats a small tree.

            “BEN-ACHOUR: One of the surprising things theyve found with this experiment is that deer allow invasive species to flourish. And with fewer native plants, there are fewer birds who depend on them for nests and food. There are fewer mice and fewer chipmunks here when they have to compete with deer. It wasnt always this way.

            “A hundred years ago deer were nearly extinct in Maryland and extremely rare in Virginia. Newly minted state game departments rushed to the rescue, banning or regulating hunting and setting up parks.

            “Mr. MCSHEA: They went and got deer from Arkansas and brought them here to repopulate that area. So growing the deer population was intentional. Its a conservation story and it went just like they planned. And now the flipside has happened.

            “BEN-ACHOUR: Deer arent evil, McShea is quick to emphasize, but they dont have any natural predators anymore and they need to be managed. States rely on hunters and even hired sharpshooters. But McShea says in order to protect the long-term health of forests, a wider, more aggressive approach is necessary.

            “Mr. MCSHEA: We have time in that we dont have to make a decision this year.

            BEN-ACHOUR: But he says, we dont have decades – trees dont live forever.”

            And, like you said before: “If the deer population of the US and Canada were to be left untouched, we would have an ecological disaster within 5 years, in most regions. Overpopulation, overgrazing, disease, soil erosion, damage to watersheds due to said soil erosion, damage to other animal life that is dependent on these watersheds. These are not theories. This would happen and happen quickly.” Though, it is already here & happening.

            “If it was overcrowded, that fact would refute that predator species are having a tough time living off them.”

            You are very disillusioned to even suggest that the deer population is not overpopulated by implying that the severe decline in predatory population is a result of a lack of deer… It is the result of HUMAN overpopulation with suburban sprawl that drives predators away into whatever remains of the wild forests & prairies in North America, declining in population as they live solitarily or in packs that require significant territorial distance from others of their specie else there is challenge that results in death or banishment (spawning further challenge elsewhere for territory that results again in either outcome)…

            “If domestic livestock were set free and factory farms were eliminated, this would not stop these individual species from breeding. Quite the opposite. Their breeding would be unchecked by man-made factors. I am talking (unfortunately) of systematic castration of the males to improve meat quality (as a male, I don’t like to spend too much time dwelling on it). Again, take this away, breeding increases with all the attendant problems that I outined in my previous post.”

            You assume when I said “farmers would simply stop force breeding the livestock… Puzzle solved! Within a few years (maybe even only 1), the livestock population would be gone (perhaps the species even reintroduced to the wild to preserve them, if at all possible (though unlikely)” that such would entail integrating all current livestock to the wild? Are you nuts?… We would simply not BREED them and use their by-products or flesh as before and within a few years, there would be none left (save that former 2% which would hypothetically be reintroduced into the wild and, contrary to your assumption, would not breed like crazy there (those that even survive the transition), but be exposed to the aforementioned predators (given that WE would indeed curtail our own overpopulation and rapid expansion) and extreme challenges of living in the wild…

            Further, I fail to see how the castration of certain livestock negates the force breeding involved in livestock farming… Sure, many are castrated, though just as many more are inseminated… And, it’s funny that the topic of castration would make you queasy when the nature of a factory farm animal’s life at any given time is just as especially painful… Just sayin’ 😉

            “Let me be clear: I don’t like factory farms. I hope for a better way. But there are millions of people that need to be fed, their numbers are only going to increase, and it’s an imperfect world.”

            Because it is an imperfect world, I suppose you feel we should just continue with our ways and watch it get worse? Sounds pretty counter-evolutionary… You seem to also be of the opinion that the millions of hungry mouths are incapable of being fed and kept healthy on plant-based diets (which, as I had already established, takes up 70% less land area to farm than livestock and is eminently cheaper than meat or by-products). In truth, MORE mouths could be fed should
            there ever be a shift towards limiting livestock farming…

            “I stand by my original comments. Most vegans/vegetarians don’t accept that there are consequences to their beliefs.”

            I really wish you would provide a valid example of any such consequence(s) as I have negated every one of your arguments thus far…

            “What to do with animals left unchecked and un-intervened with is a big one.”

            Which I have just pointed out the logical fallacy of…

            “You are trying to refute that point where, in YOUR original post you said, “True that some vegans act self-righteous,”. In effect, you are arguing with me for agreeing with you.”

            Yes, vegans can act self-righteous just as any other person, but you can’t by any means pretend they are any MORE prone to doing so than meat-eaters or persons with any other type of diet (which you have time & time again suggested). I am arguing where I see you misinterpret my words & comments or otherwise lack insight or introspection into the aforementioned issues…

            “Your well-thought and well-presented points indicate to me that you are an exception to what I was saying. And in fairness to me, I did point out that there were exceptions. Again, your views on hunting are proof-positive to me that you are not one of the people that I was referring to, when I said, “Global vegan”. I’m glad that you see the world with clear eyes.”

            Again, am I really an exception to the rule when so few of these Nazi vegans exist that I have yet to even come into contact with one? I won’t pretend that there may not be any vegans of such descriptions, but can you honestly pretend that the majority or even a significant number of us are? If so, please provide me some the evidence as I don’t really have the time to go fishing for it (I shouldn’t even be taking the time to write these responses :s)…

          • PokerRay

            Dyani, I never said “Nazi” and again I feel the need to point out that my original post was in agreement to yours. Letting your terminology get so far out of hand is what causes disagreements like ours, it doesn’t rectify them. And the evidence you want is all over this site. I’ve been coming here for three or four years. I’ve read the topics and the replies, I’ve taken part in the debates. The evidence is right at your fingertips.
            You again choose to misinterperet what I said about honeybees. I never said that honey was essential to anyone’s diet. I said that bees are essential to our environment and we need more of them. If they are the same breed as your wild bees, then I don’t see the problem. Either way, we need more bees. Again, there is a page on this site where the vegans clearly stated their lack of support for the bee keeping industry.
            You mention human overpopulation. OK. How do we address that? I’ve done my part. I’m 47 and have no kids. What next? What is your plan to end overpopulation?

          • dyani

            I use the term ‘Nazi’ to jest at your idea that any significant number
            of vegans feel themselves so superior to force their own values unto
            others in the authoritarian fashion so famous by Nazis… I’m sorry
            PokerRay, but I missed where it is you were in agreement other than with
            ‘ethical’ hunting… Care to point out what I missed? Is there more
            terminology I’ve used you feel I let get out of hand besides the term
            ‘Nazi’?

            And I hope you don’t get the wrong idea that I mean to
            personally attack you or anything… I aim only to expand each of our
            understandings and point out logical or factual inaccuracies within this
            debate (and I, personally, have no problems with disagreements (note
            distinction between disagreements & disrespect – which, if I have
            been guilty of, I’m truly sorry) as they broaden our perspectives when
            we talk about them). One of my favourite quotes for this very reason
            is: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”–Martin Luther King, Jr.

            Fair
            enough: I’ll do some digging in the next few days and report back with
            what I find 😉 (just hoping it doesn’t take 3 or 4 years, ;p jk…).

            If
            you are in agreement that we need more honey bees, how in good
            conscience can you support the bee-keeping industry when it is rapidly
            endangering the species (domestic & wild alike)? “If they are the
            same breed as your wild bees, then I don’t see the problem.” I’m sorry,
            but did you even read those quotes I included about bee-keepers
            preferring to let entire colonies die to save money instead of feeding
            them over winter, the spread of disease through the Varroa mite, or
            Colony Collapse Disorder?

            “You mention human overpopulation. OK.
            How do we address that? I’ve done my part. I’m 47 and have no kids.
            What next? What is your plan to end overpopulation?”.

            Well,
            PokerRay, considering I am a 23yr old student with no formal education
            or training on national or international laws, policies or planning, I
            can only throw out a wild idea like child-restriction policy which would
            cause an influx of both children in orphanages and abortions (where
            permitted) (therefore necessitating more laws and policies regarding the
            states of orphanages, qualifications for abortions, and enticement for
            adoption (also therefore necessitating closer monitoring of child
            welfare). Honestly, I don’t have a good answer but ignoring the problem
            won’t make it go away (and will only make it worse a hell of a lot
            faster)… And the problems that the livestock industry poses for the
            entire planet (environmentally and in terms of food costs (think back to
            those hungry mouths you brought up earlier that could actually be
            satiated if livestock farming were replaced by agriculture) are only
            going to get worse with continued overpopulation when things are already
            in the danger zone…

            The thing that I still find funny is that I
            can’t see any consequences proper vegan diets pose (with the exception
            of business for the livestock industry) though you seem convinced that
            there are several… I’d love to hear about those if there are truly
            any valid consequences.

          • dyani

            Also, I think I should remind you that my initial argument was that it is a complete social bias that vegans are isolated as being self-righteous when I’ve yet to ever speak with one like such online or in person despite being literally surrounded by meat-eaters who intimidate myself on a daily basis… And how can you not consider yourself self-righteous when straight off the bat, you claimed vegan lifestyles to be riddled with inexistent consequences in attempt to disuade a vegan from embracing their own lifestyle?

          • dyani

            Pot calling kettle ‘black’ 😉 I hope you are not ill like I was… :(

          • dyani

            Part #2 😉

            “Habitat loss happens due to ALL farming, so let’s stop kidding ourselves.”

            Of course it is – only a fool would insinuated otherwise – I had
            pointed out that you are equally kidding yourself to say that factory farming creates less deforestation than agriculture when agriculture takes up nearly HALF the land area necessary to farm compared to factory farming… Way to misconstrue words or otherwise gloss over the argument… I’ve even fetched a pretty quote for you:

            ‘Livestock issues’
            “A senior UN official and co-author of a UN report detailing this
            problem, Henning Steinfeld, said “Livestock are one of the most
            significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems”.[104]
            Livestock production occupies 70% of all land used for agriculture, or 30% of the land surface of the planet. It is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases, responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2. It produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2,) and 37% of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2. It also generates 64% of the ammonia emission. Livestock expansion is cited as a key factor driving deforestation, in the Amazon basin 70% of previously forested area is now occupied by pastures and the remainder used for feedcrops.[105] Through deforestation and land degradation, livestock is also driving reductions in biodiversity.” –[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture#Contemporary_agriculture]

          • dyani

            Part #2 😉

            “Habitat loss happens due to ALL farming, so let’s stop kidding ourselves.”

            Of course it is – only a fool would insinuated otherwise – I had
            pointed
            out that you are equally kidding yourself to say that factory farming
            creates less deforestation than agriculture when agriculture takes up
            nearly HALF the land area necessary to farm compared to factory
            farming… Way to misconstrue words or otherwise gloss over the
            argument… I’ve even fetched a pretty quote for you:

            ‘Livestock issues’
            “A senior UN official and co-author of a UN report detailing this
            problem, Henning Steinfeld, said “Livestock are one of the most
            significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems”.[104]
            Livestock
            production occupies 70% of all land used for agriculture, or 30% of the
            land surface of the planet. It is one of the largest sources of
            greenhouse gases, responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas
            emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all
            transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2. It produces 65% of human-related
            nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2,)
            and 37% of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as
            CO2. It also generates 64% of the ammonia emission. Livestock expansion
            is cited as a key factor driving deforestation, in the Amazon basin 70%
            of previously forested area is now occupied by pastures and the
            remainder used for feedcrops.[105] Through deforestation and land
            degradation, livestock is also driving reductions in biodiversity.”
            –[link posting seems to be preventing the reply, so wiki ‘Agriculture’]

          • dyani

            Part #3 :)

            “And speaking of crop farming, there’s a thread
            somewhere in here where the vegan posters overwhelmingly deplored the
            “exploitation” of honey bees and refuse to use their products. So OK,
            lets not support the honey industry, lets not incentivize the honey
            industry, lets not support more hives and more bees. It’s OK because we
            have GMO to fall back on (sarcasm). Another consequence.”

            Are you kidding me? DO you have any idea what honey-keeping does to wild bee populations? ERADICATES THEM…

            “Sometimes whole colonies are killed off
            to save feeding them over the winter.
            When they are kept through the
            winter, the honey is often removed and
            replaced with sugar candy or syrup,
            which are cheaper, though less healthy
            for the bees.

            “Beekeepers often transport their
            colonies to areas of flowering crops
            where the bees pollinate the flowers,
            increasing crop yields and earning fat
            fees for the beekeepers. However, this
            is to the detriment of local wild bees
            and other pollinating insects, which are
            swamped by the temporary visitors.

            “As with all intensively farmed animals,
            commercial bee colonies are prone to
            the rapid spread of disease. The Varroa
            mite is rife among both commercial
            and “hobby” bee colonies and is
            threatening the few remaining wild
            honey bee colonies.”–[google ‘vegan society honey’ (it should be the first link and in pdf format)]

            ‘CITIZEN SCIENCE UPDATE: Feed the Bees, Harm the Bees?’

            “As
            a continuing part of the partnership between the Insect News Network,
            YourGardenShow [dot com] and their support of Citizen Science and the Great
            Sunflower Project, we will bring you a series of posts about the
            breaking news regarding Colony Collapse Disorder.

            “In an ironic
            twist, the poisoning of the bees could come as a result of farmers and
            beekeepers trying to feed them. The industrial usage of the bees on an
            annual basis requires farmers to feed them substitutes to the nectar
            they gather in the fields. When the bees arrive at a monocultured
            pasture, there are few abundant sources of the nectar. The commercial
            beekeepers often feed them high fructose corn syrup, which, as a recent
            study suggests, could contain trace amounts of pesticides, especially
            the neonicotinoid class pesticides.

            “As posted in a Wired online article, the study by a Harvard
            researcher
            examined a dietary exposure to imidacloprid, a commonly used neonic
            made by Bayer. Even though the amounts were higher than what might be
            found in the wild, the study showed a dramatic increase in the CCD in
            the colonies exposed to the chemical.

            “The topic has
            international implications. The debate of the use of certain toxic
            pesticides – in particular the neonics – have caused a massive division
            between Europe and the United States. In fact, the very chemicals
            indicated in study are outlawed in a number of European countries.

            “Stranger yet, the suggestion the corn syrup might carry trace
            amounts
            of the pesticides after the processing beckons the question of whether
            humans could be exposed in some capacity.”–[google ‘citizen science
            update feed the bees harm the bees’]

            Further, how can you ever
            even claim to speak with vegans when you insinuate that they actually
            endorse GMO? I’ve NEVER heard from ANY vegan that they felt anything
            other than disgust about GMO and are instead one of the groups MOST
            concerned about shopping organic… Where do you get these proposterous
            ideas from?

          • dyani

            Part #4 and final 😉 wish I didn’t have to break it up like this… I
            now realize that it was most likely because of the links that were
            involved…

            “You’ve never heard of “authoritarian” vegans like I spoke of? OK. I guess you’re a little late to the party around here. We used to have a particularly hysterical example of just what I speak of named Herwin. I don’t know what happened to him but assume that he lost his one remaining shred of sanity and ran into the ocean. His rants well and truly crossed the border into the embarrasing and even his fellow vegs didn’t touch him with a 10-foot pole. And take a look at some of the threads concerning celebrities who are or aren’t vegans, or were and stopped, and look at some of the responses. I think you choose to see what you want to see.”

            Lol, this Herwin sounds like quite the charming fellow 😉 jk ;p I
            hope that you are not basing your judgments of all vegans off of one individual… If I based my judgement of Australians based off of one I met and didn’t like, wouldn’t that make it a narrow-minded judgement? Even if I judged all Aussies by a small group I met, it would still be a prejudice stereotype… True that I haven’t been to this site before I first responded to the comments in this article and I’ve yet to come back but to respond to your arguments, so I’ll have to browse sometime this mysterious community where there Nazi vegans have been hiding…

          • dyani

            Ok, as I said before, my reply last night was not accepted by moderation for containing links and I had just tried chunking it down into smaller bits to see if it would help in getting them published but am unhappy with the fragmented lines so I hope that this one makes it through and is easier to read (it is the original whole reply (aside from a few spelling corrections)- no chunking 😉 ) And I really hope those fragmented lines will be gone…

            “One of the consequences you don’t address is where all these animals are supposed to go.”

            As in livestock? I see you are still of the opinion that most vegans expect the whole world to follow their lifestyle? To entertain your question (though you are most wrong in your assumption), farmers would simply stop force breeding the livestock… Puzzle solved! Within a few years (maybe even only 1), the livestock population would be gone (perhaps the species even reintroduced to the wild to preserve them, if
            at all possible (though unlikely).

            “I have dealt with many vegans who deplore and condemn hunting and would see it banned. This is a HUGE consequence. Taking the deer population by itself, how do we do this? If the deer population of the US and Canada were to be left untouched, we would have an ecological disaster within 5 years, in most regions. Overpopulation, overgrazing, disease, soil erosion, damage to watersheds due to said soil erosion, damage to other animal life that is dependent on these watersheds. These are not theories. This would happen and happen quickly.”

            Again, I only entertain your question being that you are of the
            belief that vegans like to dictate how others live… The deer population is indeed already crowded, but this is a direct result of hunting and scaring off the larger game that are the deer’s natural predators… This has, of course, been done as a result of expanding development into rural areas which comes from drastic HUMAN overpopulation. The further we stretch out, the more big game is scared away and hunted when found in proximity to ensure safety to our communities. So, on one hand we complain about curbing deer overpopulation yet fail to even attempt to limit our own exponential breeding… And our hasty habit of multiplying like so has far greater consequences than simple deer overpopulation, as I have no doubt you
            know…

            That being said, even if we were to curb our human population expansion today, the deer problem would still exist for some time as a result of our past mistake. I myself, in this given situation, see no problem with curbing the deer population so long as they are killed humanely (one bullet, quick death) and we do something about, and take responsibility for, our own grave contribution this ecological disaster (as well as hope that the hunted deer’s remains are used in full, leaving no waste).

            “Habitat loss happens due to ALL farming, so let’s stop kidding ourselves.”

            Of course it is – only a fool would insinuate otherwise – I had pointed out that you are equally kidding yourself to say that factory farming creates less deforestation than agriculture when agriculture takes up nearly HALF the land area necessary to farm compared to factory farming… Way to misconstrue words or otherwise gloss over the argument… I’ve even fetched a pretty quote for you:

            ‘Livestock issues’
            “A senior UN official and co-author of a UN report detailing this problem, Henning Steinfeld, said “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems”.[104]
            Livestock production occupies 70% of all land used for agriculture, or 30% of the land surface of the planet. It is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases, responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2. It produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2,) and 37% of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2. It also generates 64% of the ammonia emission. Livestock expansion is cited as a key factor driving deforestation, in the Amazon basin 70% of previously forested area is now occupied by pastures and the remainder used for feedcrops.[105] Through deforestation and land degradation, livestock is also driving reductions in biodiversity.” –[link posting seems to be preventing the reply, so wiki ‘Agriculture’]

            “And speaking of crop farming, there’s a thread somewhere in here where the vegan posters overwhelmingly deplored the “exploitation” of honey bees and refuse to use their products. So OK, lets not support the honey industry, lets not incentivize the honey industry, lets not support more hives and more bees. It’s OK because we have GMO to fall back on (sarcasm). Another consequence.”

            Are you kidding me? DO you have any idea what honey-keeping does to wild bee populations? ERADICATES THEM…

            “Sometimes whole colonies are killed off to save feeding them over the winter. When they are kept through the winter, the honey is often removed and replaced with sugar candy or syrup, which are cheaper, though less healthy for the bees.

            “Beekeepers often transport their colonies to areas of flowering crops where the bees pollinate the flowers, increasing crop yields and earning fat fees for the beekeepers. However, this is to the detriment of local wild bees and other pollinating insects, which are swamped by the temporary visitors.

            “As with all intensively farmed animals, commercial bee colonies are prone to the rapid spread of disease. The Varroa mite is rife among both commercial and “hobby” bee colonies and is threatening the few remaining wild honey bee colonies.”–[google ‘vegan society honey’ (it should be the first link and in pdf format)]

            ‘CITIZEN SCIENCE UPDATE: Feed the Bees, Harm the Bees?’

            “As a continuing part of the partnership between the Insect News Network, YourGardenShow [dot com] and their support of Citizen Science and the Great Sunflower Project, we will bring you a series of posts about the breaking news regarding Colony Collapse Disorder.

            “In an ironic twist, the poisoning of the bees could come as a result of farmers and beekeepers trying to feed them. The industrial usage of the bees on an annual basis requires farmers to feed them substitutes to the nectar they gather in the fields. When the bees arrive at a monocultured pasture, there are few abundant sources of the nectar. The commercial beekeepers often feed them high fructose corn syrup, which, as a recent study suggests, could contain trace amounts of pesticides, especially the neonicotinoid class pesticides.

            “As posted in a Wired online article, the study by a Harvard researcher examined a dietary exposure to imidacloprid, a commonly used neonic made by Bayer. Even though the amounts were higher than what might be found in the wild, the study showed a dramatic increase in the CCD in the colonies exposed to the chemical.

            “The topic has international implications. The debate of the use of certain toxic pesticides – in particular the neonics – have caused a massive division between Europe and the United States. In fact, the very chemicals indicated in study are outlawed in a number of European countries.

            “Stranger yet, the suggestion the corn syrup might carry trace amounts of the pesticides after the processing beckons the question of whether humans could be exposed in some capacity.”–[google ‘citizen science update feed the bees harm the bees’]

            Further, how can you ever even claim to speak with vegans when you insinuate that they actually endorse GMO? I’ve NEVER heard from ANY vegan that they felt anything other than disgust about GMO and are instead one of the groups MOST concerned about shopping organic…

            Where do you get these preposterous ideas from?

            “You’ve never heard of “authoritarian” vegans like I spoke of? OK. I guess you’re a little late to the party around here. We used to have a particularly hysterical example of just what I speak of named Herwin. I don’t know what happened to him but assume that he lost his one remaining shred of sanity and ran into the ocean. His rants well and truly crossed the border into the embarrasing and even his fellow vegs
            didn’t touch him with a 10-foot pole. And take a look at some of the threads concerning celebrities who are or aren’t vegans, or were and stopped, and look at some of the responses. I think you choose to see what you want to see.”

            Lol, this Herwin sounds like quite the charming fellow 😉 jk ;p I
            hope that you are not basing your judgments of all vegans off of one individual… If I based my judgement of Australians based off of one I met and didn’t like, wouldn’t that make it a narrow-minded judgement? Even if I judged all Aussies by a small group I met, it would still be a prejudice stereotype… True that I haven’t been to this site before I first responded to the comments in this article and I’ve yet to come back but to respond to your arguments, so I’ll have to browse sometime this mysterious community where there Nazi vegans have been hiding…

          • PokerRay

            Well Dyani, I wasn’t expectiong an immediate response, but the lack of any response does not surprise me at all. Hence my original point, which you have proven.

          • dyani

            Don’t you worry, PokerRay :) I’ve been swamped and sick but I’ll have a response by tonight 😉

      • Chris

        I’ve never met someone with “low cholesterol”. What is low for an American is totally average for a lot of Asians. Also, I stopped thinking your post was valid when you said coconut oil has cholesterol….only animal products have cholesterol. Animals make it…. and we humans don’t need to consume it.

  • Jill Scott

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to pick up a vegan book and learn about nutrition. Geez. It’s simple. Six years for me, and I’m growing “young.”

  • Peter Fortus

    smelly

  • crosswind

    Some of the most angry bitter people I’ve met & seen posting on-line are vegetarians and animal rights. People who do vegetarian for HEALTH reasons and learn how to balance getting the right essential amino acids that make protein, not just eating non-essential aminos are Educated!!! and Get it. Without essential Aminos you have NO protein made.

    Plus, vegetables have NON-Heme Iron and Meat has Heme iron. Non-Heme is much harder and taxing on our Gut digestive system to absorb, especially if you have GI disturbances and imbalances which is most of our country right now due to the pesticides and GMOs in food &water.

    It is much harder to get those essential Aminos if you do not eat nuts, soy, eggs etc… and have numerous allergies from digestive issues. If people would ALKALIZE their diets and add some saturated fats (from eggs or coconut oil) that might improve their moods & outlook on life and the world. Ask yourself, if your diet is working for you, then why are you so angry & mean? Our moods are linked to what we eat and how we assimilate. Soy is 90% GMO and does affect hormones, not great for men seeing that’s it’s estrogenic.

    • Z*

      “Ask yourself, if your diet is working for you, then why are you so angry & mean?”
      People against animal cruelty are not “angry & mean” in general. Forums are not a logical way to judge a person’s overall temperament, since people go on forums to discuss topics they are passionate about. People against rape, child abuse, and genocide are not necessarily “angry & mean” people, but they may not feel inclined to respond “cheerfully & nicely” when faced with someone who goes against or diminishes their ethics especially when it strikes a nerve.

      That said, I agree with you that anyone attempting a plant-based diet needs to consider their health at least as much as their ethical reasons. It’s like learning a foreign language because most people are not brought up this way. Fortunately, there is so much information available today to help people learn how to get all of the nutrients they need. There are also many more healthy vegetarian options in grocery stores (such as Non GMO soy products! – BTW I have been concerned about soy being “bad for men” but it seems to have been disproven or not as conclusive as people thought according to livestrong.com. Apparently soy doesn’t add estrogen, it just bonds to estrogen already in the body and it is recently theorized that it helps regulate it).

      I am also interested the idea of alkalizing a diet, something that Brendan Brazier, vegan ironman triathalete recommends in his book Thrive.

      It seems that like others have said, we are constantly getting new information and there doesn’t seem to be any diet without some kind of cautionary footnote. People come out against veganism, but then there are people who are extremely healthy on a vegan diet. Me, I would rather err on the side of veganism. If I don’t have to eat animals, I don’t see any reason why I should. You know? If I find I do need to eat animals (rather than just want, or find it easier) I will do what is necessary to survive, but not until then.

    • Chris

      The idea of “combining proteins” has already been disproven. Most plant foods have all the amino acids needed…this myth just won’t stop. GMOs, GMOs, GMOs, I sure hope people that are so riled up about GMOs don’t consume factory farmed – growth hormone pumped animals/dairy. Also, if you are actually concerned about estrogen, you probably should drop the dairy which is FULL of it! Constantly pregnant animals = estrogen filled milk!

  • Leena

    It isn’t the vegetarian/vegan diet that it unhealthy it is the person that makes unhealthy decisions. As mentioned below many unhealthy people simply lived on meat and carbs and just got rid of the meat. They weren’t any healthier to start with.

  • travel lightly

    She did not eat a vegetarian diet. She just ate stupid.

  • lindabadham

    Being a vege or a vegan is the easiest thing in the world if you have compassion in your heart. Also i think if slaughter houses had cameras in then the majority of people would not eat animals ever !

  • Former Pasta Veg

    The many comments posted here calling Rachel McAdams “stupid” are mean-spirited. She admits to having been unwise in her past attempt at going vegetarian and expresses interest in trying again, armed with new knowledge and smarter choices. Why the harsh words?

    I first became a vegetarian as a thirteen-year-old picky eater in the suburban midwest before the internet existed. I ate a lot of pasta then, too! According to some on this board, I was not a “real” vegetarian. i may have been “missing the mark,” but I was doing my best in less-than-ideal circumstances. I eat a far more balanced, whole-food diet now, but I try not to judge my younger self — or other people who are making good-faith efforts.

  • IndyStacey

    so disappointed to read all the remarks calling her stupid. She admitted she didn’t do it right! There’s no need to scold her.

    • $2633449

      Sure there is a reason, because then they can feel surperior to her because they did it right.

    • Mandy

      Agreed!

  • http://www.NaturalLivingHowTo.com Raven Hannah

    She and Eva Longoria should start a club for stupid celebrities. God knows that there are plenty of them. People like this give us vegans a bad name . . . as if we don’t have enough idiots to contend with already. Sigh.

  • Vegan4life

    Give her a break people. She admitted she did it wrong and will give it another go. I did the same 10 years ago and piled on the wight. Now it’s been a gradual thing eliminating one thing at time until I was vegan nd didn’t rely even think about. It’s not an easy process to give up everything your used to and everything the meat and dairy industry with advertising has brainwashed us with. And truthfully it’s also an evolution of ourselves growing and understanding our emotional relationship with food. Keep at it Rachel. It’s well worth it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rheynklaw Rheyn Kimberly Lim Allen-Willi

    At least she admits she wasn’t smart about it the first time around: she accepts responsibility for the shortcoming instead of blaming it categorically on vegetarianism, which is more than can be said of most formerly veg celebrities.

  • Amanda Spalt

    i’ve been veg for god knows how long, seems like my whole life (but actually about 17yrs) & i’m always amazed how people go about becoming veg. they don’t do any research & eat shit. there’s nothing wrong w/ pasta, i lived on it in middle school, but there are so many other things out there. either people don’t care or they don’t explore. i’ve been vegan about 9yrs now, it def helps weed out the not so good for you foods. I’m kind of a little spoiled since i moved to NYC in 2006. There are so many options, not to mention there are so many more options now then when i first went veg. My sister was veg and started eating meat again because she was always sick. This is not because she was veg, it was beacause she wasn’t eating the right food. This isn’t a veg/vegan prob. This is a nutrition problem. Most people only know how to get the things they need my eating meat, but one doesn’t need to eat meat to be healthy.

  • Amanda Spalt

    Also i don’t think these people are stupid, they just aren’t that interested in going veg. They seem to give it a weak chance and then make excuses. If they really did wanna make changes, they would make more of an effort, no?

  • http://www.facebook.com/sheila.schulman.3 Sheila Schulman

    What idiot lives solely on salads?? Of course she passed out. She wasn’t eating a well balanced diet. In this day and age of readily available data on good nutrition you’d have to have lived under a rock to think a salad-only diet was a good option. Sorry, my comment wasn’t about Rachel McAdams but about Eva Longoria who claims she only ate salads.

  • KathleenW

    This woman clearly does not know what a vegan eats. Pasta is not a vegetable. It can be part of a vegan diet, but not the main part. Maybe she should go get a booklet at http://www.goveg.com and learn how to make healthy veg meals filled with veggies, fruit, beans, etc.

  • Debbie

    These morons who say they were too weak on a veggie or vegan lifestyle are crazy. Eva Longoria eating only salads…Well anyone with a brain would know that is NOT healthy. Vegans have more stamina than carcass munchers anyday…Check out Mike Tyson, Arian Foster, Venus and Serina Williams., just a few athletes who are vegan…You don’t see them passing out now do you…These women, Eva, Hayden and Rachael were only in it for the diet and nothing else.Being skinny is more important to them then health

  • Geoff Aucoin

    While it is true she definitely could have gotten more help with her diet the simple truth is that vegetarianism isn’t all it’s cracked up to be and, outside of a major health issue, isn’t great long term.

  • 1bestdog

    Los Angeles has more vegan restaurants than any city in the USA. Do a bit of research actors!

  • hfhf

    i love rachel mcadams but seeing that she is a celebrity, maybe she could have spoken to a nutritionist or a dietitian for helping her transition into a vegetarian diet. I think a lot of people have the right values for becoming vegetarian, but it is so important that they learn about HOW to do it before going about it. Not only that, I think it’s critical for your body to get used to the plant-based diet slowly and eventually you will be able to feel the hang of it.

  • jayjunillier

    i love rachel mcadams but seeing that she is a celebrity, maybe she
    could have spoken to a nutritionist or a dietitian for helping her
    transition into a vegetarian diet. I tihnk a lot of people have the
    right values for becoming vegetarian, but it is so important that they
    learn about HOW to do it before going about it first. Not only that, I
    think it’s critical for your body to get used to the plan based diet
    slowly and eventually you will be able to feel the hang of it.

  • captaindash

    For people that are supposed to be about love and respect for all living creatures, a lot of you are complete assholes! So much anger. Seriously, it’s okay for people to have opinions that differ from yours. It’s okay to hear other peoples opinions, even if you vehemently disagree.

  • Doug

    Her story is one of many reasons as to why I shake my head when I hear people say they eat vegan or vegetarian because it is better… The untold part of that sentence being that those that eat another way eat worse. There is no such thing as a bad food group. But there are certainly people that choose poor ways to eat them… all of them… and there are good ways to eat them… all of them…

  • anon

    You need to eat BIG if you are a vegan or vegetarian like REALLY BIG. Think 5 banana smoothies and salads big enough for 8 people…but for 1! All the fibrous, nutrient rich fruits/veggies fill you up. Eating a tiny salad is retarded. Ditto on the pasta only vegetarian. It’s all about carbing up on plant foods in huge quantity. Check out Freelea’s youtube channel.

  • http://www.recklesscognition.tumblr.com/ Reckless Cognition

    You could drink soda and eat chips all day and be vegan. It’s not just about stopping the consumption and accumulation of products made with animals, it’s about eating a healthier, more well-rounded diet.

  • tallsmile28 .

    You were born with incisors for a reason.

  • Guest

    why do you use vegan/vegetarian interchangeably? they are not the same….it does make a difference…

  • MstrJames

    Mother nature must be a complete moron to waste 2 million years evolving us as omnivores, when she really wanted us to be herbivores. I mean what was she thinking to create a system where EVERYTHING dies? Eat or be eaten?
    When you think about it she is a blood thirsty witch.

  • Amy Veloz

    She wasn’t eating the right foods. There are endless possibilities in a vegetarian diet…..beans, vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, soy products…All the stuff that is full of nutrition and fiber.

  • Whitney

    I ate a whole foods, well-rounded, healthy vegan diet for two full years… and have never had more health issues than I did during that time. I got more cavities, had more skin breakouts, and had worse digestive upset and brain fog than I even knew were humanly possible. When I added meat back in and ditched grains, my symptoms completely cleared. You really need to educate yourself on bioindividuality. And for the love of everything pure and holy, ditch the condescending tone. Judge much?

    • Chris

      Wow, you are certainly in the minority, because most of us on a whole-foods, plant-based diet are thriving, with better skin, more energy, and certainly no digestive upset. Maybe you were consuming something you were allergic to? Could it be gluten? There is nothing wrong with whole grains unless your body cannot handle them.

  • Jessica McGrath

    It’s really easy to be a vegetarian. Hell, I went veggie at age 12 and ate healthfully, and with a poor family to boot. I went vegan at age 16 and still was able to do it. Kind of hard to believe a celeb with chefs at her disposal had a hard time.

  • Mandy

    Change the tone, please! This article sounds judgy and quite offputting. We are never going to win hearts and minds by being smug to those who try and admit defeat.

fight

Verbally abusing your vegan friends isn’t edgy, it’s just being a bully

If you’re a vegan who has had to deal with this, and especially if you come from a background of being abused in other ways, you are absolutely not alone

dandy

Vegan restaurant opening is so popular, police shut it down

You know people are hungry for vegan restaurants when…

Vegan1

If you are on a plant based diet, stop calling yourself Vegan!

How the Green Health Movement has hijacked the Ethical Vegan Movement.