Gibb, who was only 62, died last week of colon cancer. It’s unfair when anyone dies of cancer at such a relatively young age, but especially so when they are doing all of the right things—Gibb didn’t drink alcohol either—that should protect against this disease.

I’ve lost three friends to colon cancer. Two were vegetarians who died in their early 50s, and one was a vegan who died in his early 40s. It definitely feels a little surprising when vegans die from this disease, since there is very good evidence that diet affects colon cancer risk. Red and processed meats and excessive alcohol all increase risk while fiber appears to decrease it. The environment of vegetarians’ colons—the types of bacteria that live there, for example—is significantly different in ways that protect against cancer.

One reader of this blog brought to my attention a study linking low vitamin B12 to increased risk for colon cancer. Depending on where Gibb was getting his nutrition information, this might have been a factor, although there is very little research on this.

Alternatively, it’s possible that Gibb’s diet was low in calcium, which might have placed him at increased risk. Calcium regulates cell growth in ways that are thought to lower risk for certain cancers. There is evidence to support a protective effect of dairy foods on colon cancer risk, which is most likely due to the calcium content of these foods. It doesn’t mean that vegans should start drinking milk to reduce their colon cancer risk, but it does mean that it’s important to make sure you’re getting enough of this nutrient. (And, aside from the ethical considerations, I’d opt for leafy greens and soyfoods over cow’s milk as calcium sources since they have other cancer-protective effects.)

The bottom line though, is that some vegans—including those who are doing all the right things as far as we know—get cancer. It’s popular to say that a vegan diet will make you “bullet proof” against disease.  And it’s possible that some vegans become complacent because of this. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested that removal of polyps through colonoscopy (advised for everyone after the age of 50) could reduce colon cancer risk by as much as 50 percent. Vegans who erroneously believe that their diet guarantees that they won’t get colon cancer might not bother with this exam, thereby increasing their risk.

I have no idea whether any of these considerations affected Robin Gibb. Sometimes despite following every recommendation for reducing cancer risk, people get cancer anyway. It is, after all, a hard disease to pin down. It develops over decades, and there is evidence that it’s what you ate 20 or 30 and 40 years ago that matters the most, not what you are eating now. I doubt that Gibb was a vegan for all of his life (although at least one article said he had been vegan for decades).

Even in late adulthood, of course, diet changes may affect the progression of cancer. Compounds in certain plant foods affect enzymes that allow tumors to spread, for example. So it’s never too late to start eating more healthfully. (That’s especially true for things like heart disease and hypertension which are more sensitive to current dietary habits.)

At any age, we vegans can expect that our compassionate diet has the added advantage of lowering our risk for certain diseases. But, vegan diets are not “miracle” cures or guaranteed prevention and it’s a mistake to ever believe that they are. As always, the only true promise that comes with veganism is that it will remove your contribution to the use and abuse of animals.

References cited in this article:

 Zimmer J, Lange B, Frick JS, et al. A vegan or vegetarian diet substantially alters the human colonic faecal microbiota. Eur J Clin Nutr 2011.

 Dahlin AM, Van Guelpen B, Hultdin J, Johansson I, Hallmans G, Palmqvist R. Plasma vitamin B12 concentrations and the risk of colorectal cancer: a nested case-referent study. Int J Cancer 2008;122:2057-61.

 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012;366:687-9

At the center of the discussion was food writer and farmer’s market expert Nina Planck, who excels at making sweeping, unsupported observations about nutrition. She is woefully uninformed and spectacularly unconcerned about her lack of knowledge and credentials.

Planck believes that we have “extraordinary needs for nutrients not found in plants,” –including vitamins A and D, omega-3 fats, and carnitine–which translates to a need for what she refers to as “synthetic supplements.” I imagine that in referring to these supplements as “synthetic,” she’s hoping to convince us that they’re somehow inferior to the “real nutrients” found in food.

But let’s look at that. Vegan sources of the long chain omega-3 fats DHA and EPA aren’t synthetic; they’re derived directly from microalgae.  The DHA in fish ultimately comes from exactly the same source.

It’s the same with vitamin B12. Whether it ends up in a pill or a pork chop, it was produced by bacteria. The big difference is that the B12 in pills isn’t bound to protein, which turns out to be a good thing for bioavailability. In fact, the Institute of Medicine recommends vitamin B12 supplements for all people over the age of 50 since, in older people, B12 is better absorbed from pills than from animal foods. So much for the “supplements aren’t as good as food” argument.

I’ve written before about animal products versus plants for vitamins D and A. Vitamin D is very poorly supplied by foods and although you could technically get enough from fish, it’s not realistic or sustainable to do so. As a result, all of us, vegan and meat-eater alike, have to depend on fortified foods (the vitamin D added to cow’s milk is no more “natural” than the vitamin D in almond milk) or sun exposure or supplements. Vitamin D is an issue for everyone, not just vegans.

And since Americans get between a quarter and a third of their vitamin A from plant foods, they’d be in trouble if plant sources weren’t effective. The Institute of Medicine affirms that vitamin A needs can be met completely from plant foods. (But hey—these are just the world’s leading vitamin A researchers, so you can’t really expect them to know as much as a farmers’ market expert!)

Planck’s big concern is about babies and children, though, and she says that the breast milk of vegetarian women is dramatically lower in DHA than that of omnivores and also doesn’t provide adequate carnitine. Carnitine is an amino acid, but not an essential one since humans can manufacture it. There is no reason to think that vegan or vegetarian women would produce breast milk that is low in carnitine.

Some research shows that milk of vegetarian women is lower in DHA, though, which is not surprising.  But it’s higher than what has been provided by the infant formulas that have nourished generations of healthy babies. And, breastfeeding vegetarian mothers can easily raise DHA levels of their milk with supplements.

Planck says “The most risky period for vegan children is weaning. Growing babies who are leaving the breast need complete protein, omega-3 fats, iron, calcium and zinc. Compared with meat, fish, eggs and dairy, plants are inferior sources of every one.”

Yes, weaning is a critical period in infant feeding, and yes some animal foods do contain more protein, omega-3 fats, iron, calcium, and zinc. But does it matter? We don’t need “as much as possible” of every nutrient; we just need enough. So, if plant foods can provide enough, who cares whether some animal products have more?

If she wants to make the case that it’s easier to meet needs for some of these nutrients with animal foods, I can’t argue with that. That doesn’t mean that vegan kids can’t or don’t get enough. It’s unfortunate that we don’t have great data on the nutrient intake of vegan children. But we do know that vegan diets can indeed meet the nutritional needs of children. And it’s not as though omnivore children never have nutrient deficiencies.  In fact, excessive consumption of cow’s milk places toddlers at risk for iron deficiency anemia. Many U.S. children also don’t consume enough calcium, iron, zinc, magnesium, folate, or vitamins A, C and E.

There is so much misinformation and confusion wrapped up in Planck’s two sentences about soy, that I’m not entirely sure how to decipher them. She says: “Soy protein is not good for a baby’s first food for the same reason that soy formula is not good for newborns. It’s a poor source of calcium, iron and zinc — and much too high in estrogen. It also lacks adequate methionine which babies and children need to grow properly.”

First, who says soy formula isn’t good for newborns? Babies grow and develop just fine on soy formula which has been around for nearly 100 years. And it’s fortified with all of the things—calcium, iron, zinc, methionine (and carnitine)—that Planck believes is missing from it.

As for soy protein as a “first food,” does she mean a first solid food? I’m not sure whether she’s confused or is just trying to confuse, because nobody recommends tofu or other soy products as a first solid food for young infants. First solids are nearly always enriched cereals. And as babies are weaned, they are introduced to a mixed diet of grains, legumes and veggies, making concerns about individual amino acids irrelevant.

Her information on vitamin B12 seems to come exclusively from an online article by a licensed acupuncturist who says that “studies consistently show that up to 50 percent of long-term vegetarians and 80 percent of vegans are deficient in B12.”  The “studies that consistently show” this turn out to be one study of 66 vegetarians and 29 vegans in Germany and the Netherlands. Other research doesn’t come close to confirming those percentages. The fact is that vegans who don’t supplement with B12 run the risk of deficiency. Those who take a supplement don’t.

There’s nothing new here. Nina Planck doesn’t like vegan diets and she doesn’t know nutrition science. That’s always a dangerous combination. The Nina Plancks of the world can’t be stopped from writing what they like, but it’s deplorable that the New York Times would provide them with a platform.

Edited to add: Thank you to Dr. Reed Mangels, author of The Everything Vegan Pregnancy Book for giving me feedback on this post before I published it. Reed is THE expert on vegan nutrition for children and pregnant women.

In particular, she focused on the taste and experience of familiar foods, saying “Giving up favorite foods is never easy, food scientists say, for it means overriding taste preferences imprinted on the brain during a lifetime of eating.”

No doubt that’s true, but I’m not sure that we have to override those taste preferences. I wonder if the people interviewed in this article have ever had Isa Moskowitz’s Mac and Shews. The genius of this recipe is that Isa uses sauerkraut to achieve the aged/fermented essence of cheese. And because of that—and perhaps the reason I am so in love with this dish—it’s packed with umami.

Understanding umami might help meat-eaters who struggle with a transition to vegan meals. The word is derived from the Japanese term for “deliciousness.” It’s been dubbed the “fifth taste” (the other four being sweet, sour, bitter, and salty). Discovered over 100 years ago, umami has more recently become a respectable area of research.

The taste/experience of umami is imparted by high levels of the amino acid glutamate. While certain vegetables have umami, it’s especially abundant in protein-rich animal foods. Foods that are very high in umami include aged cheeses—especially Parmesan cheese, which has a very high content of free glutamate—and also anchovies and fish sauce.

One theory about the appeal of umami is that, because breast milk is high in glutamate, we might develop a lifelong desire for this taste beginning within hours of birth. Another is that we evolved to favor umami-rich foods because they delivered all-important—and sometimes scarce—protein. (While that might not serve us well in a world ruled by McRib sandwiches and 20-ounce porterhouse steaks, once upon a time it was probably an advantage.)

Regardless of the reason for this taste preference, it’s important to recognize that a penchant for meat and cheese may be innate or due to early experience. It’s about taste. And research consistently shows that taste is the primary driver behind food choices.

But that’s not as dismal for vegan diets as it sounds, because we can add umami to vegan recipes. In her cookbook World Vegan Feast, author Bryanna Clark Grogan notes that “Umami elements can add a powerhouse of flavors in meatless dishes, where it supplies the robust element that meat or poultry often give non-vegan dishes.” Chef Robin Asbell also talks about umami in her cookbook Big Vegan. She says that animal foods “concentrate all sorts of chemicals into complex constructs” so that “cooks can fall back on the fats, amino acids, and browned sugars from a piece of beef to flavor a whole dish.” But, she says that we vegans can “layer flavors and use plant-based chemistry to give the palate well-rounded flavors and sensations.”

Bryanna and Robin both give suggestions for adding umami to vegan meals. Fermented foods have umami, so wine, tamari and miso are good additions to dishes. Ripe tomatoes are loaded with umami and so is ketchup. (If you know someone who has the annoying habit of putting ketchup on everything, it turns out that he or she is an umami trendsetter).

Dried sea vegetables, marmite, nutritional yeast, mushrooms, olives, balsamic vinegar, dried mushrooms, and sauerkraut are other umami-rich vegan foods. Roasting, caramelizing, browning and grilling all boost umami because they free glutamate from proteins.

People who falter on vegan diets because they find themselves craving protein could very well be craving umami—and they might feel like something isn’t quite right without it. Interestingly, some research suggests that a subset of the population may be impervious to umami. Rice and beans versus grilled chicken? It’s all the same to them. And maybe these people have an easier time going vegan (which could also mean that they have less patience with those who struggle with giving up animal foods).

In the vegan community, there is a pervasive belief that animal foods are “addictive.” Along with the idea that you’ll “detox” when you go vegan, this suggests that adopting a vegan diet is some horrible ordeal, akin to spending a month in rehab. Instead, I think the fact that a preference for animal foods is probably more about taste than anything else is good news. Adding umami-boosting ingredients to foods can be an easy way to help people find what they think is missing in vegan diets.

Edited to add: Several comments below have suggested other  good sources of umami and I’ll add them here: Umeboshi plums, umeboshi vinegar, beer, sun-dried tomatoes, and MSG–which was developed over a century ago by the scientist who identified umami

The “tongue-in-cheek” commercial suggests that airline passengers should be allowed to pay $10 to sit next to a “trim and fit” vegan.  For those who don’t opt for this perk, there is the risk of “getting squeezed by a more ample neighbor.”

I have a great deal of admiration for PCRM’s advocacy on behalf of animals. I also have reason to be personally grateful to them. They gave me my first job in vegan nutrition back in 1992, which was a big turning point in my career. During the years I worked for them, I was also exposed to a new-to-me animal rights culture that had a profound and life-changing impact on me.  And for the past 10 years or so, they’ve generously allowed me to be on their advisory board. But this weekend, after thinking a lot about these two obesity campaigns, I resigned from the board. It was certainly no skin off their nose, but for me, it was a hard decision.

Body shaming is nothing new to the vegan community, of course. But, there are two things about this particular commercial that make it different and especially sad to me. First, this ad goes well beyond health and even appearance considerations by suggesting that overweight people are an unpleasant annoyance and that others should be willing to pay money to avoid them. It elevates body shaming to an entirely new level.

Second, this doesn’t come from PETA, it comes from a group of doctors and dietitians. I think that was the thing that truly knocked the wind out of me when I saw it. Because in my 30 years as a dietitian, it would never have occurred to me—absolutely not ever—that it was okay to make someone feel ashamed of their body. Health professionals don’t do that. It’s unprofessional, unkind, and completely ineffective. People who struggle with their weight are often already ashamed and sad about their bodies. Nobody needs those feelings reinforced.

The point of these PCRM media pieces is to establish some type of positive association between “vegan” and “thin/attractive.” But it’s awfully hard to imagine that happening with a message that provokes feelings of guilt and embarrassment.

In her response to the PCRM commercial,  VeggieMightee blogger Kasey Minnis noted that overweight people feel real angst about air travel. She says that one of the most commonly-asked questions in the popular Fatshionista community is “how will the airline treat me?” (Imagine feeling afraid that you’ll be humiliated every time you get on an airplane.)

These “skinny vegan” messages are simplistic and exaggerated, too; we all know very well that a vegan diet is not an automatic weight loss diet. This sets veganism up for failure since many people will indeed find out that going vegan doesn’t live up to a promise of weight loss.

But these messages don’t just alienate those people we want to reach with a vegan message, they also alienate overweight vegans. In a 2008 newsletter, physician John McDougall suggested that “fat vegans” aren’t good animal advocates because people are likely to be “so distracted by their appearance” that they won’t hear their message. The overall effect of this kind of callous judgment is to shame and silence vegans who end up believing they are poor role models. (In fact, people are actually more likely to be open to a message when it comes from someone who is like them—which suggests that vegan advocacy is well served by people of all sizes.)

A number of twitter and facebook comments suggested that the PCRM commercial was “funny” and people should “lighten up.” But laughing at and shaming people about their body isn’t lighthearted humor. It’s bullying. And when we advocate for animals, we’re supposed to stand against the bullies, not adopt their culture of unkindness, disrespect, and mean-spiritedness.

Unny Nambudiripad, who is the Executive Director of Compassionate Action for Animals—one of my favorite animal rights and vegan education groups—said this on his facebook page last week in response to the PCRM ad: “Let’s be sure to demonstrate a compassionate approach to helping animals by being respectful, understanding that veganism isn’t a cure-all for any health or weight issues, and by using good science to back up our claims. We can do this by leading the way.”

Let’s all of us who stand for kindness, compassion, and an ethic of justice lead the way. We need a community where everyone feels accepted and valued. And we need a world where people learn to recognize vegans by their super-sized hearts and unshakeable commitment to justice and integrity—not by what size jeans they wear.

Edited 4/3/12 to add: The following is a comment sent to me by PCRM’s president Dr. Neal Barnard, printed here with his permission.

From Dr. Barnard:

The question seems to be this: Everyone likes PCRM’s research studies, books, lobbying, litigation, Food for Life classes, online Kickstart program in North America, Europe, India, and China, etc., etc. So why would we want to post controversial advertisements? And are the ads fair?

The short answer is that Americans are still eating a million animals per hour, the population is in terrible shape, animal industries are taxing the environment, and these problems are rapidly spreading to other countries. Because not everyone reads medical journals, we present simple messages in other forms. Our past advertisements have hammered McDonalds, the dairy industry, hot dog manufacturers, etc., and we explore various ways to try to reach people.

The billboards that linked cheese to obesity were well received by the media, but did generate some upset responses from people who felt that, beyond linking cheese to obesity, we were making some sort of comment about obese people.

About the images: One was a large abdomen and the other was a large thigh. They depicted obesity exactly as it is and nothing more. However, some people called them “disgusting,” “ugly,” or even “pornographic,” reading all manner of values into these everyday images. The airplane ad used humor to present an everyday problem in an obviously ridiculous light, making the point that vegans are, on average, considerably slimmer than other people, an important medical fact.

So how should we view obesity? The answer, of course, is to view it as a disease risk factor, like high blood pressure or elevated cholesterol. When it occurs in children, it should be a particular cause for alarm.

A healthy plant-based diet is nearly always effective at preventing obesity, and helping people understand that is a major goal.

Losing weight is harder than preventing weight gain. So in dealing with obesity, a low-fat vegan diet should be the first step, and some people need to go further, dealing with an elevated appetite set point or addictive behavior, which can take many forms. But we are not doing anyone any favors by ignoring the foods that cause problem.

In the midst of all this, PCRM commissioned a survey on colon cancer. The context is that colon and rectal cancers are strongly linked to processed meats (eg, hot dogs, sausage, bacon, etc.), and health organizations have tried various ways of getting the word out, to no avail. Our survey showed that 39 percent of Americans did not know where their colon is, and 70 percent had no idea of what foods would increase the risk of colon cancer. So we erected billboards around the country with a cartoon image of a man holding a hot dog, with the text, “Hot dogs cause butt cancer” and the subtext, “Processed meats increase colorectal cancer risk.” The hope is that this blunt language will force parents and their hot-dog-eating adolescent children into a useful conversation that might ultimately stem the tide of a disease that attacks 140,000 Americans annually and is untreatable in about half the cases.

We assess each one of these campaigns for its effectiveness as we go along, welcome comments about them, and use that assessment to plot the smartest course ahead. It is vital not to lose sight of the problems we are trying to tackle and to be as creative as we can in trying to address them.

In fact, if I couldn’t go whining to Jack every time I have a problem with my blog, I don’t think I could even have a blog. So if you find any of the material here helpful or interesting, please consider making a donation to Vegan Outreach. Or you could buy yourself some treats from Pangea through Jack’s blog since it generates a little bit of income for him while also supporting a vegan business.

And while you’re over in his neck of the woods, take a peek at Jack’s new online resource PeaCounter. This is a nutrient analysis website that puts the bulky USDA food database into a user-friendly format. You can look up individual foods or calculate your daily intake of whichever nutrients you like. If you want to know whether you’re getting enough zinc or magnesium or calcium, this is an easy way to find out.

In other news, a new study from researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health suggests that red meat is associated with a shorter lifespan, adding to the evidence that eating lots of red meat is probably not too good for you.

I’ve written before about why a focus on red meat isn’t a good message for veganism, and this study reinforces my belief about this. The researchers concluded that replacing red meat with other sources of protein would reduce risk for chronic disease and early death. The best protection was seen when people ate nuts instead of meat. But this study also found that replacing red meat with poultry was more protective than replacing it with legumes.

Now, I don’t believe at all that eating chickens is better for you than eating beans. This is just one study, after all, and it’s the type of research that shows associations, not cause and effect. But, we can’t pull what we like out of this research and ignore the rest. There is no reason to expect people to decrease their total intake of animal foods based on this particular study when it doesn’t suggest a benefit of doing so. Instead, it encourages a consumption pattern that could increase animal suffering.

Detecting baloney is no easy thing. Resources on veganism are packed with good and not-so-good information, and how are you supposed to know the difference? (It can even be difficult for health experts. If the critical evaluation of research isn’t part of your college curriculum–and it sure wasn’t part of my dietetics program–it can be hard to learn these skills unless you have good mentors in your professional life.) Add in the fact that evidence-based nutrition tends to be kind of unexciting, and it’s no wonder that vegan nutrition sometimes seems overwhelmed by exaggerated health claims, nonchalant dismissal of nutrition concerns and recommendations that are based more on stories and belief than evidence.

Someone asked me recently why it matters whether vegans understand how to interpret different types of research and claims about diet. If vegans want to believe that cow’s milk causes osteoporosis or vegetable oils clog your arteries, or all processed foods are evil and disease-promoting, who cares?

But I think those misconceptions matter. As I’ve written about before, there is plenty to lose when vegans are given inadequate health information. And from an advocacy standpoint, I can’t imagine a good future for a movement based on inflated and unsupported claims, no matter how attractive they sound.

Back in the mid-1990s—when the internet was young, and I don’t think there was even such a thing as a blog—I was part of a group involved in the creation of an email list called sci-veg. It was a forum for  those devoted to scientific understanding regarding vegetarian and vegan issues. The list attracted a diverse group of participants—vegan dietitians and nutritionists, experts in other fields related to veganism, and those who simply wanted to discuss the issues in a factual, evidence-based way.  Sci-veg was successful in bringing a solidly scientific perspective to the various topics. It’s really too bad that it’s not still around, because I don’t think there has ever been another place on the internet where a group of people so carefully evaluated claims about nutritional, environmental and ethical aspects of veganism.

There are, however, a number of blogs that fill the gap, written by ethical vegans who are committed to critical thinking and scientific integrity.  They aren’t afraid to question the prevailing vegan dogma or ask unpopular questions. You may not always agree with them, but they produce some of the most thoughtful and provocative reading on the vegan internet. The authors of these blogs would have been right at home, and extremely valuable voices on sci-veg.

Paleo Veganology

Pythagorean Crank

Say What Michael Pollan

Skeptical Vegan

Speciesist Vegan

The Rational Vegan

Vegan Skeptic

Vegan Scientist

And it goes without saying that Jack Norris RD  is on this list, right? There is absolutely no place on the internet to find a more unbiased treatment of the research on vegan diets.

In case you haven’t seen them, here are a couple of blog posts from the past week that struck me as worth sharing. One is Jack’s discussion of the safety of cyanocobalamin, a cyanide-containing B12 supplement. Some vegans are choosing to seek out supplements that provide methylcobalamin due to fears about consuming too much cyanide. Jack’s post provides some perspective on this. The bottom line is that there isn’t enough cyanide in these supplements to be worrisome.

Also, take a look at this comment from TheVeganScientist, and you’ll see that if you want to be scared of something, it should be flaxseeds, not cyanocobalamin. (I don’t think you should be scared of either, though.)

The other important issue is that methylcobalamin appears to be less stable than cyanocobalamin, so it may not be as reliable a source of the vitamin. If you choose to use it, you may need much, much more than the 25 micrograms of cyanocobalamin that I recommend. Some are advocating use of methylcobalamin without pointing out this important difference in dosage requirements.  

The other blog post that caught my eye this past week is from Gena Hamshaw. It asks important questions about how we market veganism, and looks at the potential downside of campaigns that employ simplistic, unsupported, and sometimes hurtful messages. It’s a long post, but well worth reading.   

Finally, I’ve posted an updated speaking schedule for the Vegan for Life team (that would be Jack and me). If it’s convenient for you, I hope you’ll try to attend one of these talks. (Jack’s presentation on what the science says about vegan nutrition is probably the single best overview of this topic.) We’ll be updating the schedule as needed.

The findings from these types of studies may or may not always be relevant to vegans, though. Although fiber isn’t an issue for us—we get plenty of it—vegans still need to emphasize whole grains because these foods are important sources of zinc in plant-based diets. Even so, a few refined treats—like regular pasta or fresh ciabatta bread from the bakery—are okay. And for many people, these occasional deviations from a “whole foods” diet make it easier to eat healthfully overall or to be vegan.

I’ve written before about the importance of acknowledging people’s fears and perceived barriers about going vegan. Our job as change makers on behalf of animals is to put those fears to rest by making dietary change as easy and realistic as possible—without promoting practices that compromise health, of course.  And the nice thing about nutrition research, as opposed to popular nutrition dogma, is that it shows us that a healthy vegan diet is less challenging than most people imagine.

The other good news is the growing availability of vegan choices in stores and restaurants. We still have a long way to go in that regard—often there is only one vegan offering on a restaurant menu—but it’s getting better all of the time. In a post last month, for example, blogger Erik Marcus pointed out the ease of finding vegan fare at fast food restaurants.

Many other blogs are endeavoring to make veganism less forbidding and more appealing by lifting barriers and emphasizing easy practices. For example, Chicago vegan Christine Cook is posting daily tips and menu ideas on her blog It’s Easy Being Vegan, and Daelyn Fortney has posted a Guide to Going Vegan (The Realistic Method) on This Dish is Veg.

Whether or not everyone will find it truly easy to go vegan, it’s definitely getting easier all the time. That’s the news that we need to share with new and potential vegans.

Reference:  Williams PG. Evaluation of the evidence between consumption of refined grains and health outcomes. Nutrition Reviews 2011 Epub ahead of print.

And if you’re looking to maximize nutrient intake with attention to just a few details, take a look at my post on the 7 Habits of Healthy Vegans on One Green Planet. (This is a very condensed version of a talk I’m giving in Chicago next week. Hope you can be there if you live in the area!)

This study was funded by the National Dairy Council and administered by the Dairy Research Institute. Two of the researchers work for the Dairy Research Institute. I don’t generally get too excited about sources of funding for nutrition research because they don’t affect the findings. They can affect how those findings are interpreted, though. Needless to say, I have a pretty different perspective from these researchers. But even so, I feel confident that the data fall in favor of plant sources of calcium.

Using both the USDA’s MyPyramid (the research was done before the release of MyPlate), and data from the NHANES study (a national survey of food intake), the researchers looked at what happens when you replace a serving of a dairy “composite” (a mixed serving of milk, cheese and other dairy foods) with a nondairy “composite” that provides an equivalent amount of calcium. The nondairy composite consisted of 71% fortified orange juice, 18% fortified soy milk, 10.5% leafy greens, and 0.5% fish with bones, reflecting average contribution of these foods to American diets.

So what happens when you replace dairy with this assortment of foods? Intake of protein, certain B-vitamins, phosphorus, and zinc drop. However, all were still high enough to meet the RDAs, with the exception of zinc which was marginally low. (Vitamin D was low in both the dairy-rich and dairy-free diets.)

Here are some other things that happened when dairy products were replaced with nondairy foods. The amount of saturated fat and sodium both dropped. And the amounts of vitamin A, potassium, and magnesium all increased. The study didn’t analyze vitamin C, vitamin K, iron or fiber, none of which are found in dairy products and all of which would be provided by the nondairy composite.

So we can flip this around and look at the effects of replacing plant sources of calcium with dairy foods: Doing so causes a drop in fiber, vitamins A, C, and K, and in the minerals potassium, magnesium and iron. Vitamins C and K, and potassium and magnesium are all important for bone health, by the way.

Had the study been done in lacto-ovo vegetarians it would have shown that those who remove dairy foods from their diet need to identify good sources of zinc and vitamin B12. But we know that, and we all—hopefully—make sure we are finding other ways to include these nutrients in our diets.

This research confirms that milk and other dairy products have nothing to offer that you can’t get elsewhere. And so there is never any reason to participate in the suffering that lies behind milk production.

Reference: Fulgoni VL, 3rd, Keast DR, Auestad N, Quann EE. Nutrients from dairy foods are difficult to replace in diets of Americans: food pattern modeling and an analyses of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2006. Nutr Res 2011;31:759-65.