Pseudoscience Within the Vegan Community

[Ajay]

It seems like there's an above-average amount of pseudoscience and misinformation within vegan circles regarding certain things like GMOs, vaccines, raw foods, alternative medicine, etc. It's sad to see vegans railing against GMOs, talking about the dangers of vaccines, and promoting potentially dangerous nutrition myths (like saying vegans don't have to worry about B12). For example, I was reading something by Dr. Michael Greger about the benefits of vaccinations and the comments section was filled with anti-vaccination nonsense. It's also seemingly hard to find a vegan who isn't rabidly anti-GMO (despite the fact that there's no evidence that genetically modified foods are any more of a risk than non-GMO foods, despite being under much more intense scrutiny).

Even if it's just a vocal minority of vegans who think like this, these patterns are disturbing and are probably a hindrance to vegan activism. I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head.

- When vegans promote nutrition myths, alternative medical therapies proven not to work like homeopathy, and other nonsense, it promotes the dumb hippie stereotype and makes us all look bad, particularly among the atheist/skeptic community. For example, if someone uses a common meat eater fallacy and claims that humans are naturally herbivorous and therefore need to adopt a vegan diet, many people will dismiss this as crazy talk and be much more distrustful of the more rational vegan arguments.

- It makes veganism look like a privileged elitist lifestyle. Promoting exclusively organic non-GMO food, expensive herbal supplements, and detoxes may have a negative effect on low-income vegans who already find it difficult to find affordable vegan substitutes.

-Nutrition myths can be potentially dangerous and damaging to the vegan cause. Telling new vegans to go on an extremely restrictive raw food diet, to not take any supplements or to rely on alternative medicine probably leads to bad health outcomes. Many new vegans who follow poor diet advice may blame veganism for health problems, and this perpetuates the idea that vegan diets are unhealthy.

It seems like many of these things are deeply ingrained in some people's minds. Whenever someone talks about "toxic GMOs" or "dangerous vaccines" I try to correct him or her and often and I get called a Monsanto/Big Pharma paid shill. Arguing with these people often worse than debating a meat-eater on ethics.

So, how can these problems be addressed? How can we promote veganism from a more rational, science-based approach?

[Jebus]

Do you really think vegans on average believe these myths more than non-vegans? I doubt it as vegans tend to be better educated than non-vegans. I did hear Gary Yourofsky say that b12 is not important so this might be one myth believed by some vegans.

[brimstoneSalad]

In the West, it's extremely common in new-age circles, which is also where a large portion of vegetarians are.
Usually the "spiritual" ones. Atheists are usually more pro-real-science and don't balk at GMOs.
Raw vegans also make up a sizable portion of the visible vegan community, and they advocate that stuff very aggressively.

It might be a good start to just map out the different attitudes, and the communities that have them.
Some kind of tree, or venn diagram.

Ajay, would you be willing to do some of the legwork on surveys?
We can help here with questions, and analyzing the results.
Identifying the problem clearly is an important step toward solving it.

[TheVeganAtheist]

I think the problem is that a many vegans and vegetarians became so because of some new age nonsense. The whole "cleanse" fad has brought in a lot of non-skeptical people into the movement. They have brought their baggage with them.

[PrincessPeach]

Gmo's and pesticide use go hand in hand and in my community in Florida we are really feeling the affects of pesticide use from the demand for GMO's.
High bacteria and blue and green algae in our rivers.
Pesticide run-off is one of the many culprits.

"17. What is "nutrient pollution" and where does it come from, and how does it affect our rivers?
Many forms but primarily from Agri/Dairy Business’s fertilizers/runoff; residential septic tanks and fertilizers"


http://riverscoalition.org/

[brimstoneSalad]

Gmo's and pesticide use go hand in hand and in my community in Florida we are really feeling the affects of pesticide use from the demand for GMO's.
High bacteria and blue and green algae in our rivers.
Pesticide run-off is one of the many culprits.

That's from fertilizer, not pesticide.
Organic food uses manure, which contains much more harmful bacteria, funds the animal agriculture industry, and can also run off into the waterways.

In terms of pesticide, Organic food has to use more pesticide than conventional food, because the "natural" pesticides they use are less effective at targeting pests (and incidentally, often more dangerous for human consumption). The industry is not properly regulated. I don't trust organic food. At least conventional food has pesticide levels regulated, and the new pesticides thoroughly tested, rather than sliding by under the radar under grandfather legislation.

[Volenta]

In terms of pesticide, Organic food has to use more pesticide than conventional food, because the "natural" pesticides they use are less effective at targeting pests (and incidentally, often more dangerous for human consumption).

What do you mean by more? More diverse range of different types of pesticides, or the amount being used? My understanding has always been that organic food is using pesticides only in limited amounts (and with natural ones, which self-evidently doesn't say much).

PrincessPeach is right that GMOs are often used to make vegetables pesticide resistible. Pesticides are used in huge quantities on GMO soybeans and corn (produced for factory farming) for example. Whether used on conventional or organic food, it has plays a major factor in the damage of biodiversity and weakens the ecosystem. Also lots of the soil fertility (which we should promote—you are right about fertilizer) has been destroyed because of our current practices (the discussion is much wider than just pesticides of course). Already forgotten about Silent Spring?

The industry is not properly regulated. I don't trust organic food. At least conventional food has pesticide levels regulated, and the new pesticides thoroughly tested, rather than sliding by under the radar under grandfather legislation.

Well, you are right that organic food isn't as innocent as it looks. But I do think you know that there is much more potential for the future of farming in organic and traditional methods when done right rather than the conventional methods.

It might be the case that new pesticides are thoroughly tested as you say, but that doesn't take away the fact that some of the established synthetic ones (just like the natural ones by the way) aren't all that good. Besides, resistance isn't only achieved by using GMO; insects and bacteria (etc.) will also evolve resistance—it is an arms race, which doesn't go without (ecological) damage.

[brimstoneSalad]

What do you mean by more? More diverse range of different types of pesticides, or the amount being used? My understanding has always been that organic food is using pesticides only in limited amounts (and with natural ones, which self-evidently doesn't say much).

I think we have to distinguish between herbicide, and other pesticides here (those that target insects mostly). I don't think Organic farmers use much if any herbicide, if only because there just aren't any available (that I know of). Insecticides are another matter entirely, though.

The engineered pesticides that target insects target their nervous systems and eggs, usually either as specialized neurotoxins, or agents that prevent eggs from developing. These are used in extremely small quantities compared to "natural" pesticides, and they're mostly just toxic to insects (due to different biochemistry). Many target chitin, a protein insects structural components (shells, etc.) are made of. We don't have chitin, so chemicals that interfere with its production are pretty much harmless to us.

A lot of these engineered chemicals also have short half lives, and are vulnerable to breaking down under UV light, so they dissipate over time, ending up on the food only in extremely minute quantities. Thus the wonder of science, in making a thing that kills or prevents the development of pests, but is harmless to humans or breaks down before it ever even reaches us.

"Natural" pesticides do not do this (at least not well). "Natural" pesticides are broadly and more or less equally toxic to humans and other animals (sometimes even more so) than to insects. Due to the way they work, they have to be used in very high concentrations, and many of them are exceptionally stable, reaching your dinner plate in-tact to do you harm too.

There aren't many sources discussing this.
You might like the bullshit episode on organic food:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaDfP_HKNPI

And then there's this:
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.

Anyway, just look into some of the most popular "organic" pesticides, and the most popular engineered ones; the probable effects on human health and the environment (although organic ones are quite poorly studied), and you'll start to appreciate more the hard work chemical engineers have done to improve the engineered pesticides and make them safer (and those ARE studied well to make sure they're safe).

PrincessPeach is right that GMOs are often used to make vegetables pesticide resistible.

And now we reach the subject of herbicides. Like roundup ready crops, which are resistant to Glyphosate. You have to make plants resistant to herbicides, because herbicides are designed to kill plants (or inhibit their development). Herbicides are also pretty much harmless to humans, insects, and just about anything else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human_toxicity

Glyphosate, which is the most used herbicide, is quite benign at the levels it's used at.

Yes, those are used in large quantities, but herbicides are also what I least mind eating.
They increase yield without the tedious human effort required to weed fields for competitive plants. Current generation herbicides have little affects on the environment because they break down so quickly.

Also lots of the soil fertility (which we should promote—you are right about fertilizer) has been destroyed because of our current practices (the discussion is much wider than just pesticides of course). Already forgotten about Silent Spring?

DDT was banned, and the U.S. EPA was created as a result of that. We now test the effects of these things upon the environment before they are allowed to be used, and carefully monitor them.

Completely irrelevant to modern context. That's like saying "We have to keep those Sadducees under control! Already forgotten about Jesus?"

Well, you are right that organic food isn't as innocent as it looks. But I do think you know that there is much more potential for the future of farming in organic and traditional methods when done right rather than the conventional methods.

What do you think "conventional" is?

Conventional farming, as it is, is evidence based and maximizes yield within the bounds of government regulation, using any and all tools and innovations available to that end -- we just need to continue what we're doing, in tightening environmental and health regulations to encourage advancement through normal competition and innovation with science.
Organic farming is not founded on science or reason, but paranoia and superstition; the "evolution" of organic farming is biodynamic farming -- that's not a quirk of extremism within the industry, that's just how these people think.

Conventional farmers have no problem with traditional methods, and they use them when they work.
But they don't sacrifice yield by using them when there's something better.

Besides, resistance isn't only achieved by using GMO; insects and bacteria (etc.) will also evolve resistance—it is an arms race, which doesn't go without (ecological) damage.

Bacteria and fungi are handled mainly through cultivation of resistance.

In terms of insecticides and herbicides, this fact is well known by regulators. Which is why regulations require reservoirs of unsprayed areas and methods of cycling of usage to maximize efficacy while minimizing development of resistance.

The "arms race" isn't harmful to the environment, it's just expensive to researchers and engineers, but there's no economical way around it. When they have to switch methods, they switch to a different product with the same environmental and safety standards. Switching them up now and then causes the resistance to not build up, or be lost, for insects.

Look into the EPA's regulations. You might be surprised by how competent they are.

My main criticism of current farming practices isn't the active ingredients, but the stuff they mix the active ingredients with (surfactants and such) to spray them on crops. These ingredients are problematic not because they were engineered, but because they're old, and they haven't been updated or improved for decades or longer.

[EquALLity]

And now we reach the subject of herbicides. Like roundup ready crops, which are resistant to Glyphosate. You have to make plants resistant to herbicides, because herbicides are designed to kill plants (or inhibit their development). Herbicides are also pretty much harmless to humans, insects, and just about anything else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human_toxicity

Glyphosate, which is the most used herbicide, is quite benign at the levels it's used at.

Yes, those are used in large quantities, but herbicides are also what I least mind eating.
They increase yield without the tedious human effort required to weed fields for competitive plants. Current generation herbicides have little affects on the environment because they break down so quickly.

I'm confused about this one.
Here, apparently, glyphosate is safe even at higher doses.
And then here, it isn't safe, even at extremely small doses.

What?

[brimstoneSalad]

Try to use the transcripts to quote, so we can see what you mean.

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/gmo-soy ... st-cancer/

This study found glyphosate can activate estrogen receptors at a few parts per trillion, increasing the growth of estrogen receptor positive human breast cancer cells in a petri dish.

That is true for pretty much every chemical that activates estrogen receptors (many of which are very healthy), which are a lot of plant and synthetic chemicals. Hormone sensitive cancers grow faster in the presence of anything that activates the hormone receptor.

This would only be a problem if you have an estrogen sensitive cancer. It's also not clear how strong the effect is (and it could have just been an error in the study -- has the study been repeated?). May or may not be the case in the body, too, just because it was in a petri dish. I don't think there have been any correlations for people who are exposed to even large amounts of it.

It might be something to keep an eye on, but I'm skeptical.