From: hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: talk.politics.animals
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:16:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


Russell Lawrence writes...

>Martin Hulsey writes:
>mh> ...  If vegans could eat their weight in food daily, they 
>mh> would STILL not get the necessary amount of B12 in their diet.  
>
>Russell Lawrence writes...
>rl> Would you consider gorillas and orangs to be "vegans"?  Do they get
>rl> the necessary amount of B12 in their diets?
>
>From article <1992Oct12.132605.6483@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by 
hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>mh> No, I consider the great apes to be omnivorous.  Didn't I see Clint 
>mh> Eastwood's sidekick Clyde eat a burger once?  I don't care to argue 
>mh> about orangutan nutrition in either case.  The issue here is 
whether 
>mh> information from the PCRM is bogus.  Can you not address this 
issue?
>
>No, the issue here is whether your claims were well-founded.  How 
>much animal material does the average gorilla or orang consume 
>each day?  

My claim that vegan dietary regimens are *fundamentally deficient* in 
vitamin B12, and *require* supplementation IS well-founded, and 
supported by the peer-reviewed references that I have already provided.

You are attempting to divert the discussion away from my main point 
(PCRM misinformation) because you are apparently incapable of addressing 
my main point.

>You said that vegans could eat their weight in food daily, but 
>still not get the necessary amount of B12 in their diet.  How do 
>gorillas and orangs get the necessary amount of B12 in their 
>diets?   By eating mock hamburgers on a Hollywood movie set
>perhaps???

I was being facetious about Clyde, but I stand by my original statement 
regarding human vegans.  You cannot disprove my statement regarding 
humans by diverting the argument to the nutrition of the great apes, for 
they *also* require a dietary source of B12.  See below.

>Can you think of any reason why B12 from bacteria in the soil would 
>not be available to humans?

Yes.  It could be due to the tendency of soil micelles floating in the 
gut to tightly bind cations, such as the cobalt in Methylcobalamine.  
Whether Co coordinated in the tetrapyrrole ring would be available for 
binding is pure speculation on my part (and a question best suited for 
physical chemists).

However, as I stated, the bioavailablity of B12 from soil has NOT been 
demonstrated.  It HAS been demonstrated that consumption of dirt 
compromises the bioavailability of other nutrients (get your own 
reference in any nutrition text).  Therefore, any advantage that eating 
dirt *might* convey to B12 status would be offset by disadvantages in 
compromised mineral status.  As I pointed out earlier, eating dirt in an 
attempt to get B12 would potentially expose you to the disease called 
Toxoplasmosis.

You might be confusing an earlier British report about vegans in India 
who obtained B12 from unwashed vegetables that were fertilized with 
human feces, and contained insect eggs and larvae.  The source of B12 
for these people was the feces and insect residues rather than dirt.

If you are trying to make a point about the nutritive value of dirt, you 
will never do so by asking questions of me.  If you are capable, go out 
and get some scientific references to support your position.

>I've heard that even the average city-dweller inadvertently 
>consumes four pounds of dirt each year.  I'm sure the amount is 
>far higher among those of us who don't peel our root crops.

What you have heard and cannot reference means nothing, so don't be so 
sure about anything.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to purchase unwashed vegetables in 
most areas.  It is not advisable to consume such (before washing) even 
if you can obtain them.  Is this a practice among vegans?  If so, 
it is yet another potentially harmful aspect of vegetarian folklore.

>Perhaps we could understand this potential source of B12 much
>better after you explain where gorillas and orangs get their B12.

First of all, there is no valid reason why *I* should have to explain 
this.  It was you who introduced the topic.  You need to spend less 
time at the keyboard and more time at one of the very fine science 
libraries in New Orleans (Tulane, UNO, LSU Med. School, etc.).  You 
might then become a network participant rather than a network irritant.

For this final instance, I will humor you:

It was once believed that the great apes were vegetarians, because their 
diets consist largely of fruits and vegetables.   Ethological studies, 
where apes were observed in their natural habitat, disproved this 
notion.

Jane Goodall, who I consider an animal activist, reported (In the Shadow 
of Man, Houghton-Mifflin, p 297; 1971) that chimpanzees make crude tools 
to "fish" for termites, and were observed killing and eating arboreal 
monkeys.

The Abrams article (J. App. Nutr. 32:53-87; 1980) that I cited a few 
posts ago (and that you have apparently not read) indicated "Covered is 
the dietary history of man and his closest relatives, the some 200 
species of living primates, all of which are omnivorous."

Here is another *peer-reviewed* reference that supports my position that 
great apes are omnivorous in captivity AND in the wild:

AU Cousins-D.
TI A review of the diets of captive gorillas (Gorilla gorilla).
SO Acta-Zool-Pathol-Antverp.  1976 Dec.  (66).  P 91-100.
AB It is clear that most zoos feed their gorillas a principally
frugivorous diet, while the diets of wild gorilla populations are
undoubtedly basically herbivorous.  The primary food plant of western
and eastern lowland gorillas is Aframomum, and Blancou (1955) even
maintains that these plants possess active parasiticidal qualities,
but this subscription is not borne out by recent research.  However,
it is possible that another plant food, combretum, could have some
propensities as a deparasitant.  Many captive gorillas accept cooked
or raw meat in their diets and there is some evidence that feral
gorillas may also occasionally consume matter of animal origin.

If you don't mind, can we discontinue this nonsense about "vegan 
gorillas?"  Your arguments are incredibly weak.  All that you can offer 
is that you "heard" (without providing a reference) that humans eat four 
pounds of dirt a year.  For this to be considered a legitimate source of 
dietary B12, you must also provide evidence that B12 from dirt is 
biologically available in humans.  I see no references forthcoming from 
you in this regard.  You have no data to support your position.  You 
expect others to dig for information, and you rely too heavily on your 
subscription to Scientific American (you have cited the October, 1992 
issue twice in separate threads).  You need more research and fewer 
trivial mind games.

>Please explain why it's ethically acceptable for dairy and cattle 
>groups to investigate transgenic cattle while still claiming that 
>their products are perfectly safe.   Why is it unethical, in your
>opinion, for PCRM to warn consumers about a danger that dairy industry 
>representatives apparently consider serious?

There is yet no solid evidence that dairy products are not safe.  As I 
stated previously, there are many reasons why the dairy industry would 
fund research on transgenic animals.  This is not a sinister, unethical 
plot.  For example, one transgenic project that I know of attempts to 
produce human insulin in cow's milk.  Insulin from milk would be easier 
to purify, and therefore less expensive.  With regard to these 
questions, see also my last paragraph below.

The reasons that I consider the actions of PCRM to be unethical are as 
follows:

1.  As far as I can discern, no one at PCRM, particularly the president, 
has any credentials in nutrition.  They are not, therefore, justified to 
make dietary recommendations to the public.

2.  They attempt to disguise the fact that they are an animal "rights" 
organization, and falsely suggest that they are a "physician's" group.  
If the public is deceived in these regards, they cannot accurately 
interpret information from this organization.

3.  They selectively cite scientific literature that supports their 
position, and ignore conflicting reports.  This gives their press
releases an undeserved scientific sense, and falsely suggests that a
majority of nutrition professionals would agree with their information.

4.  They imply that these *unproven* hazards about milk consumption 
would affect the entire population.  If true, these so-called hazards 
would be a problem for, at most, 0.16% of the population of INFANTS who 
are genetically predisposed for IDDM.

>You're evading the issue.

Though I (and many others) find your tactics questionable, I have made a 
sincere attempt to address all of your questions in this exchange.  I 
have evaded nothing.  You, on the other hand, continue to evade my 
question about the ethical implications of pseudo-nutritionists 
practicing nutrition.  This is yet another example of your double 
standard, as skillfully characterized and documented by Mary Otto.

I do not care to engage you further until you are able to stick to the 
topic at hand, and provide some references to support your outrageous 
positions.

>According to the _Scientific American_ article that I mentioned, the
>dairy and cattle groups were exploring the possibility of transgenic
>cattle because they were concerned about the link between cow's milk
>and diabetes.   Do you believe their concerns are less farfetched than
>the concerns of PCRM?
>
>[...]
>
>Permit me to quote from the _Scientific American_ article 
>mentioned previously (p. 26):

As though I could stop you.

>"...  Bovine serum albumin is in so many different products, it 
>would be difficult if not impossible to keep somebody off that 
>for years.  

Remember, we are talking about *potential, unproven* hazards for 
*infants*.  There would be no need to keep anyone "off that" for years, 
unless they were allergic to milk.  Again, among those allergic
individuals, we are talking about a small percentage of the 
population.

While you were in the process of citing this article why didn't you 
include the following (also from page 26)?

"Dosch, Atkinson, and other authorities all caution strenuously that the 
work is *too premature* to mandate a dairy-product ban for infants.  
'Cow's milk is a good source of protein,' Dosch emphasizes.  'It's 
cheap, it's affordable..."  (Emphasis mine)

If you compare the balance of this Scientific American article with the 
imbalance of the PCRM press release, you can see why I believe that PCRM 
is simply trying to scare people away from dairy products so that the 
"rights" of cows won't be violated.  The possible association between 
milk consumption and diabetes deserves much more research before making 
any recommendations to the public.

>"For these reasons, Dosch and other researchers are looking into
>other ways to apply their work.  One possibility is a vaccine that
>builds tolerance to bovine serum albumin.  'We have a vaccine now
>that prevents the disease (diabetes) in 80 percent of the rats.
>Unfortunately, the other 20% get the disease quicker and worse,'
>Dosch says wryly.  An alternative approach would be for genetic
>engineers to create transgenic cows that have bovine serum
>albumin not so similar to p69.  Changes at only a few amino acid
>positions would be sufficent, he explains, adding that several
>dairy and cattle industry groups in the U.S. and Europe have been
>in touch with him about this possibility."
>
>Please read the last sentence very carefully and make note of the 
>fact that the dairy industry folks were apparently concerned 
>about the relationship between bovine serum albumin and p69.  Are
>these considers legitimate or not?

"Apparently" is the key word here.  I do not accept your implication 
that the US Dairy Board is "concerned" about these allegations.  It is 
not a "fact."

I do not accept the implication that the dairy industry has contacted 
these investigators, and is begging them to remedy their "concerns."  To 
obtain funding from the US Dairy Board, for example, one must instead 
prepare and submit a proposal to them for consideration.  The article 
did not provide the names of these allegedly concerned "dairy and cattle 
industry groups," so its information is not verifiable.

I do not believe that, as vaguely described, the attempt to alter the 
immunogenic potential of milk from transgenic cows would succeed.  It 
would be imperative not only to incorporate and express one or more 
copies of the gene for the "altered" BSA, but *also* to completely 
suppress expression of the endogenous gene for BSA with an antisense 
construct.  Complete suppression is difficult to obtain.  Accomplishing 
both simultaneously would be quite a feat.  To my knowledge, this 
"double transfection" has not been accomplished in mammalian systems.  
If I hear otherwise, I'll let you know.

*If* the alleged hazards of milk consumption for those few with a 
predisposition for IDDM are later proven, and *if* it is true that the 
dairy industry is funding the sort of research you mention, it still has 
absolutely NO implications concerning the safety of dairy products for 
the population as a whole.  This is the fallacy that you, PCRM, and 
other vegans would like to perpetuate in order to advance your ethical 
agenda.

--
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