Is it the same Pain?

[VGnizm]

I fully agree that even if we can measure the direct pain that is felt as a sensory perception it is probably much more difficult to measure the degree of suffering that animals feel but we do know that they experience and express grief.

I have noticed that arguing the case that we do not need meat or the degree of animal suffering are both not very productive with meat consumers.

But what i have noticed as making a dent is explaining to them that as a personal choice i have noticed that i have more self-satisfaction by substituting meat consumption pleasure with the well being of another being regardless of meat being healthy or not and regardless of animals suffering less than us or not.

[Lay Vegan]

The evidence you're using here is really just an appeal to authority, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is a trade group and not a scientific authority on nutrition. Also there are other similar groups (in other countries) that have more skeptical positions on vegan diets.

Appealing to authority is valid when the "authority" is actually a legitimate authority on the relevant issue. Citing a group of nutrition professionals on nutrition-related claim does not render my argument invalid.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is North America's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals. The position of nearly every dietetic ogrnaziation, including the Dietitians of Canada and British Dietetic Association is that well-planned vegetarian (and vegan) diets are healthy and suitable for all stages of life. Whole foods plant-based diets have even been shown to treat symptoms for certain preventable diseases (like type 2 diabetes). Dietetic organizations publish these position papers through critical analysis of current data and peer-reviewed research literature.

https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=179

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12778049

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/

Since you clearly know more than the world's largest dietetic organizations, I'd like to see your counter-evidence.

Also the issue isn't just about "animal protein," but rather animal products as a whole which are a source of various nutrients some of which aren't found in plant-based products.

How far back did you read in the thread? I addressed only animal protein because that's specifically VGnizm brought up. But since you mentioned it, all nutrients found in animal products can be obtained through either plant-based alternatives, fortified foods, or vitamin/mineral supplements. For example, B12 can be absorbed in vitamin tablets in the form of cyanocobalamin, as too can Iodine, Calcium, Vitamin D, and Zinc. Plant-based milks like Almond and Soy are also often fortified with B12 and D. Even minerals like EPHA and DHA can be supplemented if needed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5188422/

http://www.todaysdietitian.com/pdf/courses/PBDNutritentsofConcern.pdf

Of course, different diets can affect people differently, but under the guidance of a trained professional, he/she can help you to construct a vegan diet that is well-balanced and encourages nutrient absorption.

There is a lack of good long-term longitudinal studies on vegan diets on various ethnic groups and there are many people reporting that vegan diets "don't work for them". For example the faunalytics study on ex-vegans found that the top reason for giving up the diet was related to health.
irrelevant. It wouldn't be moral if I killed and ate a random human on the street because I think he's tasty.

Would you mind linking those studies? I'm not confident in your ability to relay or interpret research.

Also even if one assumes that, in theory, everyone can thrive on a "well-planned" vegan diet that doesn't mean that its a practical option. Chicken is a ubiquitous option where as plant-based alternatives are not.

So are tofu, beans, and legumes (like chickpeas), which are also protein-rich cheap foods.

Few people would claim its just "taste pleasure", instead they have serious doubts about the long-term consequences of vegan diets and doubt they can execute the diet in their life.

If this is the case, then these are legitimate concerns. I'd suggest meeting with a nutrition consultant or dietitian to discuss some of the pitfalls to avoid in adopting a vegan diet. In my experience, many people have acknowledged that they could become vegan, yet reject going vegan simply because they enjoy the taste of meat and dairy products too well.

And pleasure is not morally irrelevant, if that was the case how would you justify driving of flying for a leisure or just about anything we do in modern society? A plane trip contributes to both pollution and (wild) animal suffering, so how could you ever justify it unless it was some how critical to your survival?

You misunderstood my point. Taste pleasure is not valid justification to cause unnecessary harm to others. Nor is it a valid trait from which to morally devalue another. It would be irrational to exclude non human animals from the scope of moral concern based on taste, because taste is not relevant to their moral value.

You exclude animals from the scope of moral concern because animals taste good to you. Tell me, why is tase relevant to moral consideration? If I felt that human flesh were tasty, would this be a valid reason to exclude other humans form the scope of moral concern? What is relevant for moral consideration?

Leisurely plane trips and car rides should reduced to what is reasonable for most people, because they indirectly cause some harm to animals and humans. No action can cause no harm, but vegans aim to reduce animal suffering to what is reasonably possible. Veganism should not infringe on the well-being of the vegan himself. Some people need the occasional leisurely travel, which is good for maintaining physical and mental health, and is known to improve work performance.

Again, the goal of veganism is to reduce harm to what is reasonably possible, without infringing on your own well-being. Which is why it is morally permissible to eat animals if you must eat them to stay healthy. However, most of us do not need animal products to stay healthy.

[brimstoneSalad]

Someone argued to me that meat is important for our health and a chicken does not suffer very much since it is not very evolved. Therefore it does not make sense that i should sacrifice my health benefits for such a reason.

Its really hard to compare and evaluate the experiences of various animals, but the idea that chickens are "less evolved" than other common farm animals is decidedly unscientific. Birds followed a different evolutionary trajectory than mammals but their brains are just as sophisticated and some of the most intelligent animals are birds.

I think it comes down to the fact that people just relate more to mammals due greater common ancestry, that is, mammals express themselves in ways that are just more familiar to humans.

I was going to say this.
Interesting paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/113/26/7255 (Birds have primate-like numbers of neurons in the forebrain)

Although I don't believe chickens equal to a pig or even a cow in intelligence, it's wrong to say they're less evolved or not at all intelligent animals. Some people make this assumption on brain size alone. They aren't corvids, but they're capable of learning fairly sophisticated behaviors and they have complex social lives.

The prejudice is much like racism, where we have an innate tendency to favor those who look more like us, whether it's ingrained or due to socialization and upbringing. Mammals have fur, they have "live births" (viviparity, most of them anyway), they have mouths more like us rather than beaks (most, anyway).

It's not speciesism really. Do we call is Class-ism? I think that's something else already.

The reality of farming is, unfortunately, influenced by this and chickens tend to receive much worse treatment than cows or pigs with whom most people empathize more.

[carnap]

Appealing to authority is valid when the "authority" is actually a legitimate authority on the relevant issue. Citing a group of nutrition professionals on nutrition-related claim does not render my argument invalid.

Actually, no, its an appeal to authority regardless whether you you deem the "authority" legitimate or not and its particularly egregious in matters of science because science isn't a matter of authority but instead evidence.

You'll notice that I spoke of the lack of evidence and your response to that wasn't to cite evidence but instead to double-down on your appeal to authority.

Also in this case its really a false authority as well, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics isn't a scientific group but instead a trade group. The group exists to regulate and maintain the trade of dietetics. Now I'm not trying to suggest they don't employ science, they certainly do, but the group has no authority on matters of science. Questioning the scientific basis of their recommendations or comments is entirely appropriate.

Since you clearly know more than the world's largest dietetic organizations, I'd like to see your counter-evidence.

This is just a more smarmy appeal to authority, but counter-evidence for what exactly? The only claim I made about vegan diets is that they aren't sufficiently researched to make strong conclusions about them. Its up to those claiming vegan diets are sufficient for "all stages" and everyone that need to conduct research and provide evidence. Unfortunately the position papers by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics you mentioned doesn't provide good evidence for their claim.

How far back did you read in the thread? I addressed only animal protein because that's specifically VGnizm brought up. But since you mentioned it, all nutrients found in animal products can be obtained through either plant-based alternatives, fortified foods, or vitamin/mineral supplements. For example, B12 can be absorbed in vitamin tablets in the form of cyanocobalamin, as too can Iodine, Calcium, Vitamin D, and Zinc.

You're assuming that the supplements are metabolized just like the nutrients found in animal products and that isn't the case, that is something you have to demonstrate as well as their overall safety. B-12 supplements are well researched but there are some people that have issues with them, for example, B-12 supplements promote acne in some individuals and there is some relationship to cancer. These issues are primarily linked to higher intakes, but all readily available B-12 supplements are mega-doses. So in this simple case that is relatively well researched we see that the issues with supplementation are complex.

But even if we assume that any issues seen with vegan diets today can be addressed with synthetic nutrients (and I think that is likely) that requires that we know the issues, how to safely utilize the supplements and so on. This all requires a good deal of research that we just don't have.

Of course, different diets can affect people differently, but under the guidance of a trained professional, he/she can help you to construct a vegan diet that is well-balanced and encourages nutrient absorption.

Undoubtedly a dietitian or similar professional can help people plan vegan diets based on what they know but this doesn't make up for gaps of knowledge in the underlying science. Its also a clear barrier for people as many don't have the resources to see such professionals.

So are tofu, beans, and legumes (like chickpeas), which are also protein-rich cheap foods.

These aren't readily available foods, at least not in most western cultures. You can get them at most grocery stores but you actually have to know how to prepare them into reasonable meals. Also the vast majority eat a good deal of prepared foods and you won't find many prepared foods made with plant-based proteins.

You exclude animals from the scope of moral concern because animals taste good to you. Tell me, why is tase relevant to moral consideration? If I felt that human flesh were tasty, would this be a valid reason to exclude other humans form the scope of moral concern? What is relevant for moral consideration?

I'm not sure why you're telling me what I think but I by no means exclude animals from the "scope of moral concern". Also pleasure is just the flip side of suffering, if suffering is morally relevant why wouldn't pleasure be as well? I think pleasure is relevant because the goal should be to maximize the well-being and pleasure (as well as limiting suffering) is relevant to that.

The reason you'd exclude humans, at least in general, is because your pleasure wouldn't offset their suffering.

Leisurely plane trips and car rides should reduced to what is reasonable for most people, because they indirectly cause some harm to animals and humans. No action can cause no harm, but vegans aim to reduce animal suffering to what is reasonably possible.

That is a funny justification because the average person would say the same thing about meat, that is, eliminating meat isn't "reasonable" to most people.

Tell me, how is avoiding a trip not reasonably possible? People spend considerable money doing it and its by no means required for our survival. And if the goal of veganism was really to avoid suffering when "reasonably possible" why is there such a lack of attention to such situations?

[brimstoneSalad]

There is a lack of good long-term longitudinal studies on vegan diets on various ethnic groups and there are many people reporting that vegan diets "don't work for them". For example the faunalytics study on ex-vegans found that the top reason for giving up the diet was related to health.
irrelevant. It wouldn't be moral if I killed and ate a random human on the street because I think he's tasty.

Would you mind linking those studies? I'm not confident in your ability to relay or interpret research.

It wasn't a study into their health, it was a survey of self-reported reasons for quitting.
That is, average people diagnosing themselves, with no dietary controls or professional assessment.

https://faunalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Faunalytics_Current-Former-Vegetarians_Full-Report.pdf

Health
Former vegetarians/vegans were asked if they began to experience any of the following when they were eating a vegetarian/vegan diet:
depression/anxiety, digestive problems, food allergies, low cholesterol, an eating disorder, thyroid problems, protein deficiency, B12 deficiency,
calcium deficiency, iron deficiency, iodine deficiency, vitamin A deficiency, vitamin D deficiency, zinc deficiency. The findings show that:
- 71% of former vegetarians/vegans experienced none of the above. It is quite noteworthy that such a small proportion of individuals
experienced ill health.
- All of the conditions were experienced by some participants, though only rarely. In each case, less than 10% of lapsed vegetarians/vegans
experienced one of these issues, except iron deficiency (experienced by 11%).
- Respondents who indicated they began to experience at least one of the conditions were asked if it improved after they started eating meat.
82% of these respondents indicated that some or all of the conditions improved when they reintroduced meat. The most typical timeframes
for improvement were: within 2–6 days (20%), within 1–3 weeks (33%), and within 1–3 months (22%).
In terms of vitamin B12, a far greater proportion of former (76%) than current (42%) vegetarians/vegans say they have never had their B12
levels checked while they were adhering to the diet. Further, 26% of former and 16% of current vegetarians/vegans indicated that none of the
B12 foods listed in the survey were a regular part of their diet. These included: fortified meat alternatives, fortified non-dairy milk, fortified
breakfast cereals, multivitamin, fortified nutritional yeast, and B12 supplements. (Note: these foods were asked in a list with other “distractor” foods to
mask the purpose of the question.)

It's abundantly clear that these people were not following well planned vegan diets, so there are no real controls here, a full 26% were not even consuming a reliable source of B-12, and yet only 29% reported health problems.

You might regard those 16% of current vegans without a regular B-12 source to be genetically gifted if you want, it's very plausible that some people can do well on lower amounts of certain nutrients due to genetics, but no evidence that there are a significant number of people who need special sources in any significant way in excess of mainstream recommendations.
There's no evidence of anybody having experienced ill health on a properly planned vegan diet, and no evidence that people who have lapsed in any way related to health reasons were following anything like a properly planned diet.

It would be amazing if we identified some common genetic defect and could just give those people carnitine supplements or something and have them do fine.
But existing evidence suggests it's a matter of food availability and people being lax in dietary planning. We need a cultural shift in more availability of fortified and nutrient rich foods to make meal planning easier, and that's much harder.

Also even if one assumes that, in theory, everyone can thrive on a "well-planned" vegan diet that doesn't mean that its a practical option. Chicken is a ubiquitous option where as plant-based alternatives are not.

So are tofu, beans, and legumes (like chickpeas), which are also protein-rich cheap foods.

They are, but they also have different ratios of vitamins and minerals. For example, they're lower in many B vitamins, have very little vitamin A, and if you're not eating something like Avocado or Mushrooms for B vitamins and something like carrots for A, you can end up with nutritional gaps that leave you under the RDI. Some people will get along just fine with far under the RDI, but some people may need very near the RDI for most vitamins and minerals to feel good.

It wouldn't matter if people were eating more nutrient rich vegetable foods overall, but unfortunately many people choose to make things like rice and sweet fruits staples in their diets, and aren't very keen on filling up on broccoli.

For many people, chicken is easier because they don't know how to properly replace it, or they don't enjoy leafy vegetables enough to easily get the nutrients they need in its absence.

There's an easy fix to this in multivitamin and mineral supplements, which are cheap and readily available pretty much everywhere, but quality can vary and people are not always reasonable: like with the organic thing, many people are under the "natural is best" delusion that it's inherently better to get everything from food (and some doctors echo this, despite no evidence of it).

Leisurely plane trips and car rides should reduced to what is reasonable for most people, because they indirectly cause some harm to animals and humans. No action can cause no harm, but vegans aim to reduce animal suffering to what is reasonably possible.

The criticism of that is typically that "reasonable" is subjective.
It's best to understand it in the cultural context of the perfect being the enemy of the good due to optics.

BUT travel is very significant in terms of harm (more to humans through environmental harm than non-humans), I think we need to take things like long distance plane rides for vacation very seriously. Plenty of people go their lives without it, and it's hard to say they'd really suffer from it.

Veganism should not infringe on the well-being of the vegan himself. Some people need the occasional leisurely travel, which is good for maintaining physical and mental health, and is known to improve work performance.

Why do they need that? Why can't they play video games, watch a movie, go to the gym, take a jog around a local park?

I don't think there's any credible physiological or psychological reason why people couldn't stay pretty local and limit travel for entertainment.

These may technically be "beyond vegan" issues, but they are certainly important moral considerations.

[carnap]

There's no evidence of anybody having experienced ill health on a properly planned vegan diet, and no evidence that people who have lapsed in any way related to health reasons were following anything like a properly planned diet.

This doesn't mean anything if we lack research on the topic, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. We lack good longitutual studies on vegan diets and there is almost no research on the impact of vegan diets on pregnancy and child development.

Without this research we can only guess why some people have trouble. There are a large number of genes, many of which vary in the population, that could potentially impact people's ability to tolerate vegan diets.

Though you can certainly point to some cases where people were clearing not "doing it right", that doesn't mean that is always the case. This is something that needs to be studied.

But let's assume that there is *some* form of vegan diet that can work for everyone, but that doesn't mean people can easily discover it and discovering it would involve dietary experimentation that could easily have negative health consequences.

[VGnizm]

I think that the issue about nutrition easily extends beyond being vegan because the nutritious content of foods has been negatively affected by commercial farming techniques. Whether it be plant or animal farming.

Personally i agree that the most common sense approach is to supplement ourselves or enrich some foods so as to at the least have an RDI intake of vitamins and minerals while avoiding toxicity levels.

I believe this is valid for omnivores as well as vegans. Actually omnivores have to attend to additional problems such as the hormone, antibiotic and pathological risk of meats as well.

For technical information it might be useful to look into any research conducted in India on vegetarian populations. It is true they consume dairy but it is not in very large amounts and proportions so it could provide very reliable historical and observational results data.

Just some personal ideas

[carnap]

I think that the issue about nutrition easily extends beyond being vegan because the nutritious content of foods has been negatively affected by commercial farming techniques. Whether it be plant or animal farming.

Those issues are typically exaggerate and don't appear relevant to any potential issues with vegan diets. The type of nutrients and how they are packaged in plants isn't changed by soil quality, at best the plants will have a bit higher nutrient content.

For technical information it might be useful to look into any research conducted in India on vegetarian populations. It is true they consume dairy but it is not in very large amounts and proportions so it could provide very reliable historical and observational results data.

I think that is very useful but also of limited value. Firstly they are vegetarian and not vegan and secondly it a genetically isolated population, that is to say, they may have specific adaptations that make them more tolerate of plant-based diet. Another issue is that, health-wise, this population doesn't do well in comparison to western populations. Now access to quality health care and poverty are very likely factors here, but still referring to a population with a noticeably lower life-expectancy doesn't exactly provide a compelling argument. On the other side this population doesn't suffer from selection bias like studying western vegetarians, that is, when you grow up in a vegetarian community (or family) in India you don't have much option other than to be vegetarian. Where as western vegetarians have no barriers to becoming ex-vegetarians and when you study them you are only studying the "survivors".



In fact just recently such a gene was discovered, it impacts the way people metabolize fats and the gene variant is much more common in populations that traditionally consumed more plant oriented diets. Since the gene was positively selected it seems clear that it provided some advantage for the population, the flip side of that of course is that those without the gene may have a more difficult time with plant-based diets. There is also another variant of the gene that has the opposite impact seen in groups that consume high amounts of meat (e.g., Inuit) which may mean these populations cannot easily maintain a vegan diet as typically understood (i.e., they may need a collection of fatty-acid supplements for it to even work).

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/03/eating-green-could-be-your-genes

[Lay Vegan]

They are, but they also have different ratios of vitamins and minerals. For example, they're lower in many B vitamins, have very little vitamin A, and if you're not eating something like Avocado or Mushrooms for B vitamins and something like carrots for A, you can end up with nutritional gaps that leave you under the RDI. Some people will get along just fine with far under the RDI, but some people may need very near the RDI for most vitamins and minerals to feel good.

Mushrooms and avocado aren't even the best sources of B vitamins. You'd probably get a higher amount through through potatoes, greens, fortified cereals etc. for B6, B1, and folate. And of course no plant food is a reliable source of B12. They often contain inactive B12 analog compounds that can't be absorbed by the body. And even if they are available, it would probably be far below the RDA of 2.4 mcg.

It wouldn't matter if people were eating more nutrient rich vegetable foods overall, but unfortunately many people choose to make things like rice and sweet fruits staples in their diets, and aren't very keen on filling up on broccoli.

Most vegans probably supplement rice with vegetables or a multivitamin. I agree that rice probably isn't the best to fill up on because it's so low in vitamins and protein.

For many people, chicken is easier because they don't know how to properly replace it, or they don't enjoy leafy vegetables enough to easily get the nutrients they need in its absence.

There's an easy fix to this in multivitamin and mineral supplements, which are cheap and readily available pretty much everywhere, but quality can vary and people are not always reasonable: like with the organic thing, many people are under the "natural is best" delusion that it's inherently better to get everything from food (and some doctors echo this, despite no evidence of it).

I agree. Though there's also the problem with coffee and other foods inhibiting nutrient absorption from multivitamins. What's more, vitamin C taken with B12 in the form of a supplement likely inhibits B12 absorption. If the supplement contains a large dose (like 1000 mcg) it probably wouldn't negatively affect the person. The multivitamin I'm currently taking only has 6mcg of B12, which is far below the RDA for supplements, so I take an additional B12 supplement about an hour after I take my multi.

[brimstoneSalad]

Appealing to authority is valid when the "authority" is actually a legitimate authority on the relevant issue. Citing a group of nutrition professionals on nutrition-related claim does not render my argument invalid.

Actually, no, its an appeal to authority regardless whether you you deem the "authority" legitimate or not and its particularly egregious in matters of science because science isn't a matter of authority but instead evidence.

Carnap, the fallacy is "appeal to unqualified authority", "appeal to [any] authority" isn't broadly recognized as fallacious, but sensible practice on empirical matters.

It's particularly important in science, because the body of knowledge is so deep and complex that the interpretation of experts, and particularly a broad array of experts, is much more meaningful than that of a layman.

You can very well argue that on some topics, like religion, there is no true authority because positions are arrived at through faith or reason, and complex empirical knowledge like historical context is less important (although appeal to an authority on the meaning of scripture IS, and in that sense is important because it is better interpreted by a linguist and historian of the era).

Unless you are yourself an expert and have the time to familiarize yourself with the breadth of existing knowledge, scientific matters are the most important to refer to authority on, because they are not simply reasoned and are in no sense derived from faith.

You'll notice that I spoke of the lack of evidence and your response to that wasn't to cite evidence but instead to double-down on your appeal to authority.

Lay Vegan is correct: the burden of proof is on you if you want to argue against consensus of professionals.

It can be done, sometimes consensus is wrong. There are good arguments to be made against the existing consensus on sodium, for example, and that restricting salt is over-emphasized in public health messages. However, if making those arguments, again, we need to respect the position we put ourselves in to bring a lot more evidence to the table than somebody who is just citing consensus.

Questions and speculation probably isn't going to do it.

Also in this case its really a false authority as well, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics isn't a scientific group but instead a trade group.

A trade group of experts with pretty extensive scientific education in nutrition.
You could argue similarly about groups like the AMA.

It's fine to question it, but you should remember that "questions" aren't an argument, and that just because somebody can question something (e.g. as another user is "questioning" the moon landings at present) doesn't mean it isn't credible - it's more likely the Dunning Kruger effect at play.

Since you clearly know more than the world's largest dietetic organizations, I'd like to see your counter-evidence.

This is just a more smarmy appeal to authority, but counter-evidence for what exactly? The only claim I made about vegan diets is that they aren't sufficiently researched to make strong conclusions about them.

And professionals disagree. Either you're smarter than they are, know something they don't, or they're engaged in a conspiracy for some reason.

Unfortunately the position papers by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics you mentioned doesn't provide good evidence for their claim.

It's based on the well established fact that people need nutrients, not particular sources of nutrients, and established RDI for those nutrients based NOT on self selecting populations but on random samples.
People with good "vegan" genes may be able to eat well under the RDI (and we see that reflected in the broad range of nutrient requirements that research shows when we study what human needs are for different vitamins and minerals) and be healthy due to better absorption or conversion of different nutrients. Being critical of a well planned vegan diet which meets or exceeds the RDI on all essential nutrients isn't a sensible position, and that's what's reflected in consensus.

You CAN argue that most vegan diets in practice do not meet the RDI on many nutrients, and as such a typical (and poor) vegan diet may only be suitable for people who have certain genes, but that's a very different argument.

That's a large part of what Jack Norris if working toward, in helping vegans improve their nutritional status so fewer people experience problems on the typical vegan diet.

However, the only argument that presents against going vegan (or near vegan) personally is if you believe you aren't capable of keeping track of your diet for a few days here and there and achieving adequate nutrition, and/or can not afford supplements.
There are people with, for example, eating disorders for whom that is very hard. Also, people who are not English speakers and/or do not have internet access, and can't afford visiting an RD, supplements, etc.

B-12 supplements are well researched but there are some people that have issues with them, for example, B-12 supplements promote acne in some individuals and there is some relationship to cancer. These issues are primarily linked to higher intakes, but all readily available B-12 supplements are mega-doses. So in this simple case that is relatively well researched we see that the issues with supplementation are complex.

You can buy and take lower dose supplements. You can also use a pill splitter on higher dose supplements or take less of a liquid.

The cancer link is only in smokers.
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/Nutrients_of_Concern#B-12_.26_cancer

This all requires a good deal of research that we just don't have.

Professionals disagree with you, and believe our knowledge of nutrition is adequate to make those claims.
You're going against consensus to claim that, as I explained.

Practicality issues, and problems with "typical" vegan diets are much more reasonable concerns.
But if you're still not convinced, why not go ostrovegan to retain some animal products in the diet in line with a Mediterranean or Okinawan diet?

Its also a clear barrier for people as many don't have the resources to see such professionals.

That's a legit concern, and I almost mentioned that to Lay Vegan myself (didn't have time).

I don't think it's so much an issue for intelligent English speakers with internet access, though, provided they aren't taken in by Freelee or other nutty vegan gurus' pseudoscience and instead follow sound recommendations like http://www.veganhealth.org.

You can get them at most grocery stores but you actually have to know how to prepare them into reasonable meals. Also the vast majority eat a good deal of prepared foods and you won't find many prepared foods made with plant-based proteins.

There's more available than you think, but there is a learning curve where it's important to discover some easy to prepare vegan staples and explore your grocery store for good options and learn about the offerings at restaurants.

This is likely why people who transition over weeks or months are more successful.

Also pleasure is just the flip side of suffering, if suffering is morally relevant why wouldn't pleasure be as well? I think pleasure is relevant because the goal should be to maximize the well-being and pleasure (as well as limiting suffering) is relevant to that.

In an altruistic context, the pleasure of others is relevant, just not your personal pleasure.
However:
1. Long term thinking, tastes change and you learn to enjoy new foods, so you're not really missing out on much (temporary sacrifice for long term gain)
2. When we look at the consequences of animal agriculture, it's hard to argue that more good than bad is coming out of it in any sense, even for humans.

Tell me, how is avoiding a trip not reasonably possible? People spend considerable money doing it and its by no means required for our survival. And if the goal of veganism was really to avoid suffering when "reasonably possible" why is there such a lack of attention to such situations?

Lay Vegan, I think he has you on that one.