From: hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: talk.politics.animals
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:37:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


Russell Lawrence writes....

>From article <1992Oct14.021648.18726@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by 
hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>mh> My claim that vegan dietary regimens are *fundamentally deficient* 
in 
>mh> vitamin B12, and *require* supplementation IS well-founded, and 
>mh> supported by the peer-reviewed references that I have already 
provided.
>
>Yet there are millions of healthy, traditional vegans who do not suffer 
>deficiency diseases.  Why?

How do you know that they are not deficient?  Did someone make clinical 
measurement on each and every one?  Overt signs of B12 deficiency do not 
develop until long after clinical symptoms are manifest.  Due to their 
high intake of Folate, a major clinical symptom of B12 deficiency 
(megaloblastic anemia) is often masked in vegans.  

If a "traditional" vegan (whatever that means) is truly healthy, I would 
say that it is because he/she takes vitamin supplements or eats foods 
fortified with B12.  There is only a slim minority of all vegans (who 
are a slim minority themselves) who, like yourself, would suggest, 
despite all of the scientific evidence to the contrary, that they do not 
need to supplement their diets with vitamin B12.

This is why I call your kind "flat-earth" vegans.  Your minds are made 
up, and no one is going to confuse you with facts.

To their credit, even PCRM acknowledges that vegans need to ensure 
adequate intake of B12.  PCRM does not suggest that dirt is a reliable 
source of B12.  You should take the advice of PCRM, which you 
strenuously defend, and stop implying that vegans do not need to have a 
reliable dietary source of vitamin B12.

>mh> You are attempting to divert the discussion away from my main point 
>mh> (PCRM misinformation) because you are apparently incapable of 
addressing 
>mh> my main point.
>
>You're attempting to wage an attack on the character of an 
organization.
>I'm attempting to discuss issues directly related to nutrition.   Once
>we resolve the nutrition issues, we can determine if the organization
>in question has misrepresented the nutritional facts, as you allege.   

I am criticizing PCRM, and you are attempting to change the subject 
because you are incapable of rebutting my criticisms. 

The "nutrition issues" that you speak of are already resolved.  If you 
have something to contribute regarding PCRM's nutritional claims, or 
their qualifications to make such claims, I will be glad to discuss 
them.  So far, you have contributed nothing to dispute my allegations of 
PCRM misinformation.

If you start a thread on topic A, is it considered appropriate for me to 
burst in and engage you on unrelated topic B?  I think not.  If you want 
to discuss where apes get their B12, you should start another thread.  I 
do not think that the dietary habits of apes is even distantly related 
to the topic of PCRM's ethics.  You are simply trying to discredit me, 
and are doing a sorry job of it.

>rl> You said that vegans could eat their weight in food daily, but 
>rl> still not get the necessary amount of B12 in their diet.  How do 
>rl> gorillas and orangs get the necessary amount of B12 in their 
>rl> diets?   By eating mock hamburgers on a Hollywood movie set
>rl> perhaps???
>
>mh> I was being facetious about Clyde, but I stand by my original 
>mh> statement regarding human vegans.  You cannot disprove my 
>mh> statement regarding humans by diverting the argument to the 
>mh> nutrition of the great apes, for they *also* require a dietary 
>mh> source of B12.  See below.  
>
>Nor will your assertions oblige us to overlook the fact that 
>traditional vegans apparently have normal B12 status.

Apparently is again the key word.  It is difficult to find a population 
of vegetarians that does not take supplements.  When you examine such a 
population, as in the Millet et al. paper I cited earlier, you find an 
increased risk for B12 (and other) deficiencies.  These results dismiss 
your "dirt" theory unless you want to argue that these French 
vegetarians somehow did not eat enough dirt, or that French dirt is not 
as "nutritious."

Notice that Millet et al. did not distinguish between subclasses of 
vegetarians.  I submit that if the study population in the Millet et al. 
study had been exclusively vegan, the risks for B12 deficiencies would 
have been greater.

>See Immerman, AM.  "Vitamin B-12 status on a vegetarian diet: a 
>critical review". _World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics, 
>V37:p38-54, 1981.  Cited in Boyle and Whitney, _Personal 
>Nutrition_, West Publishing Company, 1989.) 

I am not familiar with this reference.  If it suggests, as you do, that 
vegans do not need to ensure that they have a reliable source of B12, it 
is wrong.

>rl> Can you think of any reason why B12 from bacteria in the soil would 
>rl> not be available to humans?
>
>mh> Yes.  It could be due to the tendency of soil micelles floating in 
the 
>mh> gut to tightly bind cations, such as the cobalt in 
Methylcobalamine.  
>mh> Whether Co coordinated in the tetrapyrrole ring would be available 
for 
>mh> binding is pure speculation on my part (and a question best suited 
for 
>mh> physical chemists).
>
>This makes no sense to me.

I was simply trying to answer your question by speculating about a 
mechanism whereby soil particles could tightly bind vitamin B12, and 
reduce its bioavailability.  There are no data to support my 
speculation, so it doesn't matter that you cannot understand it.

>Victor Herbert points out that soil is
>an excellent source of B12, and so do several other nutrition experts.
>Are they misinformed?

They could be.  I respect Herbert's work, but just because he suggests 
something does not make it so.  Like you & me, he must provide some 
evidence to support his claim or reference someone who did.  What 
Herbert and others must do before dirt can be accepted as a reliable 
source of B12, is to verify that the B12 content of soil is AVAILABLE to 
the organism that eats it. I know of no reference where this has been 
demonstrated, and you, us usual, have provided none.  Until then, we 
must assume that dirt is not a reliable source of B12.

Even if dirt is later shown to be a viable source of B12, we must 
encourage people to avoid eating dirt by washing their vegetables 
properly.

>I'm not suggesting that vegans should deliberately eat dirt.

Yes you are.  You suggested that vegans who did not peel their 
vegetables could exceed the 4 lb/year figure cited in your mysterious 
dirt reference, and implied that this would somehow be advantageous.  
Furthermore, you imply that people can get their B12 by eating dirt.

>[...]
>My statement was based on a paper
>by Victor Herbert stating that soil is an excellent source of B12, and
>that soil contamination may well explain why traditional vegans do not 
>typically suffer B12 deficiency diseases.

If you know of a Herbert paper that says this, why can't you give the 
reference?  This is one reason why I consider you irritating.

I checked all 200 of Herbert's citations (MESZ) just now, and found no 
reference to "soil."  Was this suggestion in Vegetarian Times or some 
such reference by chance?

>> ...
>rl> Perhaps we could understand this potential source of B12 much
>rl> better after you explain where gorillas and orangs get their B12.
>
>mh> First of all, there is no valid reason why *I* should have to 
explain 
>mh> this.  It was you who introduced the topic.  You need to spend less 
>mh> time at the keyboard and more time at one of the very fine science 
>mh> libraries in New Orleans (Tulane, UNO, LSU Med. School, etc.).  You 
>mh> might then become a network participant rather than a network 
irritant.
>
>You might spend some boning up on logic, in the hope of learning
>how to communicate truthfully without resorting to ad hominem 
fallacies.

There is no fallacy surrounding my statement.  It is truthful.  If you 
suggest that "apes are vegan" or that "one can obtain B12 by eating 
dirt," you should provide some references to support these positions.  
You have thus far failed to do so.

In this thread about PCRM's ethics (despite my error in naming it), you 
bring up irrelevant topics (ape nutrition), and demand that I answer 
your questions.  Simultaneously, you consistently ignore my question 
that was relevant to the topic of this thread (pseudo-nutritionists at 
PCRM practicing nutrition).

If there is truly a problem with my logic, you should have no problem 
indicating why.  I am not attacking you, but I expose your despicable 
tactics (ad tacticum?).  Many others agree with me.  Your tactics have 
few defenders on the net, and many critics.

>I asked you to explain where gorillas and orangs obtain their supply
>of B12, yet you've responded by describing Goodall's observations of 
>chimps.  Surely you're not expecting us to believe that the diets of 
>chimps and gorillas and orangs are identical.  

Are you now suggesting that chimpanzees would represent a special 
exception to your dirt eating theory?  The diets of primates are 
identical only in the sense that they are more accurately considered 
omnivores rather than vegans.  I never suggested otherwise.

>... "some evidence"?
>... "may occasionally consume"?
>
>Gee, this doesn't give me the impression that gorillas consume much
>animal matter apart from unavoidable insects.

If they consume ANY insects or "animal matter," then they are not 
vegans.  If they construct a tool to obtain termites, that is not 
"unavoidable."  You asked me a question.  I answered it, and provided 
supporting references.  Again, this thread involves the PCRM.  Let us 
stick to the topic if you are capable.

>In the strictest sense, there's no such thing as a "vegan".  There
>isn't a cow or horse alive that doesn't consume some animal material.
>Yet, it would be foolish to say that horses and cattle seek out 
>animal products for the sake of nutrients like B12 that are, like the
>microbes that produce them, ubiquitous in nature.   It would be 
>equally foolish to assert that cows, horses, chickens, gorillas, 
>orangs, and vegan humans are "omnivores", simply because they consume
>occasional insects and animal matter.

If a cow or other ruminant inadvertently consumes an insect, it truly 
has no dietary consequence with respect to B12.  Ruminants get their B12 
from the rumen bacteria.  If a monogastric animal such as an ape eats an 
insect, it *does* have a dietary consequence with respect to B12 status, 
and therefore answers the irrelevant question that you have been so 
adamant about.

This is simply a matter of semantics, and has absolutely nothing to do 
with the question of PCRM's ethics, which you so desparately want to 
avoid.

>mh> If you don't mind, can we discontinue this nonsense about "vegan 
>mh> gorillas?"  Your arguments are incredibly weak.  
>
>Let me repeat the question that you've failed to answer satisfactorily:
>
>       Where do gorillas and orangs get their B12?

If the references I gave you are insufficient, go find your own. If I 
have failed to answer your IRRELEVANT question to your satisfaction, too 
bad.  You have failed to answer my RELEVANT question AT ALL.  Don't 
continue to impose your double standard.  You are not impressing anyone 
with your idiotic gyrations.

>In a previous article, you seemed to be saying that we should accept
>the RDA specified by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National 
>Academy of Sciences (3 micrograms/day) as the "scientific" requirement, 
>in spite of the fact that many nutritionists (notably Herbert) 
>consider 1 microgram to be quite sufficient:

In 1990, the RDA for B12 was revised downward from 3 mcg/day, though not 
to Herbert's satisfaction.  Your gorilla calculations are therefore in 
error in addition to being irrelevant.

>You're still evading the issue.  One of the authors of the July, 1992
>NEJM article that dealt with the link between milk and diabetes
>has stated that representatives of the dairy industry were
>interested in creating transgenic cattle for the sake of reducing
>the similarity between p69 on the pancreatic islets and bovine serum 
>albumin.  Why would dairy industry officials be interested in
>pursuing such a plan if the similarity between p69 and bovine serum
>albumin isn't one of the triggers of diabetes?

I am evading nothing.  

First, there is no verifiable evidence that dairy officials are 
seriously pursuing such a plan.  Even if they are, there is no evidence 
that they are "worried," as you suggest.

Second, there is no evidence that the transgenic experiment Dosch 
outlines (expressing altered BSA in a transgenic cow) would accomplish 
the intended goal (avoiding alleged "hazardous" autoimmunity to native 
BSA).  There is no evidence that the experimental protocol that would be 
required to accomplish this goal (i.e., expressing altered BSA and 
*simultaneously* suppressing endogenous native BSA) is feasible.

Third, if the dairy industry wanted to pursue such research, they would 
not fund a clinical investigator at a hospital.  They would fund an 
animal scientist at an agricultural institution with a proven track 
record in transgenic experimentation.  This why I doubt that the dairy 
industry contacted Dosch with a *serious* interest in funding such a 
project.  They might have called Dosch to discuss his ideas concerning 
feasibility, but this again would not suggest that they are "worried."

Fourth, you should not consider it an unethical, sinister plot to 
continue to sell milk to the *majority* of individuals who have no 
genetic predisposition for diabetes, and who have no problems with milk 
allergies.

Even those researchers who suggest that there *might* be a link between 
milk drinking and diabetes indicate that it is not time to make public 
recommendations to avoid milk.  Why do you not consider it unethical and 
sinister for PCRM to make recommendations that exceed the suggestions of 
the scientists they cite?

>> ... [character assaults on PCRM deleted]

If you think that my statements are mere "character assaults," then why 
don't you provide some evidence to rebut them?  You obviously cannot.  

Why do you so strenuously avoid the intended topic of this thread and 
divert the discussion to ape nutrition and pica?  You obviously have 
nothing to contribute to the intended topic. 

>mh> 4.  They imply that these *unproven* hazards about milk consumption 
>mh> would affect the entire population.  If true, these so-called 
hazards 
>mh> would be a problem for, at most, 0.16% of the population of INFANTS 
who 
>mh> are genetically predisposed for IDDM.
>
>Are you confusing "risk" with "incidence"?
>
>According to the _Scientific American_ article that I cited 
>previously, approximately 25% of the population carries at least 
>one genetic marker for the disease, and 85% of the newly 
>diagnosed patients come from families with no history of the 
>disease.  This would lead me to conclude that the risk is far
>more widespread than you would have us believe.  

If 25% of the population has a "marker" for IDDM, and only 0.16% of the 
population develops the disease, then it isn't a very good marker is it?  
If a so-called risk factor is 156 times more prevalent than the disease, 
then it isn't a strongly predictive factor is it?

>If you were counseling the parents of 600 babies, would you advise
>them all to give milk to their kids... knowing that one of the
>children will develop insulin-dependent diabetes if the Dosch
>hypothesis is correct?

Decent question, but you ignore the fact that the PCRM press release did 
not exclusively concern "babies." It also indicated that dietary 
recommendations for school-age children and adults should not include 
dairy products.

I accept the advice to refrain from giving infants unmodified milk until 
their GI tract no longer allows large proteins to pass.  This occurs at 
3-12 months of age, depending on who you ask.  Breast feeding is best 
during this time period.  This is mainly because it conveys passive 
immunity to the infant.  Assuming Dosch's hypothesis is correct, this 
period of milk avoidance should also be sufficient to avoid immune 
reactions against milk proteins.

Thus, there was no valid reason for another PCRM press conference.  The 
PCRM press release Ferrell posted falsely suggested that, based on the 
NEJM paper, dietary guidelines with respect to milk consumption should 
be altered for school age children and adults.  According to the 
authors, there is no reason for doing this.  This is a clear example of 
Bambiphilic PCRM misinformation.

>If the research was too premature to justify warning parents, why 
>was it not also too premature for the dairy industry to worry 
>about transgenic cattle: 

There was no justification for warning parents because the authors of 
the study did not believe so, and because parents were already warned 
for other reasons.

Again, I reject your implication that the dairy industry is "worried."

>Dosch stated that he had been approached by several US dairy and 
>cattle industry groups.  Are you suggesting that he was lying?

No.  What I did say was that researchers usually solicit the dairy 
industry for funding, not vice-versa.  In either case, contrary to your 
suggestion, there are NO adverse ethical implications associated with 
the dairy industry's interest in research using transgenic cattle.  
Again, Dosch has no expertise in transgenic research.  If the Dairy 
industry were "concerned" as you suggest, would they not contact the 
right investigator for the job?

>Perhaps, but then again, your statements about the diets of gorillas 
>and orangs were also deficient in detail.

My statements and references were only sufficient to convince any 
reasonable person that the great apes are not vegans.  You are not a 
reasonable person.  Again, this topic is not related to this thread.  

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity