Humans have the capacity to reason, and the ability to obtain all essential nutrients on an entirely plant-based diet if they simply make the decision to do so. If one is in a survival situation where one must eat meat to survive, then that’s one thing. But by and large, people do not need to eat meat. They choose to. To assert otherwise is dishonest.
> Humans [can] obtain all essential nutrients on an entirely plant-based diet
You need supplementation on a vegan diet for a reason. Entirely plant-based diets are not nutritionally complete. Even with proper supplementation, bioavailability is extremely low in plants compared to animal foods.
It is okay to be a vegan for your own moral reasons, but to push it on others as it being an intelligence choice (it is not) is to be inconsiderate of one's fellow human beings and their long-term health.
I’m not saying it’s an intelligence choice in that you’re stupid if you eat meat. I’m saying that it is possible to have a nutritionally complete diet without including meat, and that that is a decision that we can make as humans.
Your sources don’t even refute this. Yes, supplementation for things like B12 and omegas are required. We eat a variety of fortified foods in the modern age anyway and supplementation is trivial. Yes, you need to eat a diverse range of foods to obtain a balance of essential nutrients. That doesn’t mean you cannot maintain long term health on a vegan diet.
Vegan diets are not nutritionally complete, even with supplements.
The sources do refute your point; I can tell that you have not read them, as you ignored addressing the part of my comment about bioavailability (which two of these sources mention).
Second comment following up on my other one. Your own links undermine your own argument.
From your second source:
> Carefully constructed vegan diets could provide adequate amounts of all six priority micronutrients for the general population, except vitamin B12, which would need to be consumed through fortified foods or supplements.
Further, the opening paragraph of your third link undermines your entire argument as well
> Diets that limit the consumption of animal source food to very low levels require careful fortification or supplementation, and the inclusion of specific nutrient-dense plants. If these cautionary measures are neglected, vegetarian and, especially, vegan populations risk to suffer from deficiencies in some key animal source food-associated nutrients."
It specifically says that vegan populations risk deficiencies when not including nutrient-dense foods and fortification/supplementation. It specifically does not say that full nutrition is impossible without animal products.
Event the title implicitly supports my argument: "Not all (micro)nutrients are easily obtained from plants." Emphasis on "easily."
The word "cannot" only appears alongside B12. The phrase "does not" doesn't appear alongside any nutrients intake. And the word "impossible" doesn't show up at all.
Are you sure that you read the articles you're claiming that I did not read?
I did look at your sources. They describe lower bioavailability and nutrient density, and have advisements for supplementation and a diverse diet. Low density and bioavailability does not mean non-existent. Low bioavailability does not mean not at all bioavailable. Can you point to a specific line that says it is impossible to obtain a nutrient in sufficient quantities on a vegan diet, even with supplementation? The third link seems to be the most related to your point, but I don’t think it says what you’re arguing, from what I can see. I’m sorry to say that the links are long and I going to need you to point me to lines that support your thesis.
You said, "But by and large, people do not need to eat meat" so I must conclude that plants are just dummy food put in nature by God for humans to eat (divine intervention)
When you say vegan stuff like that, you should be more precise: people do not need to eat meat to survive. Survival and good health are on the opposite end of the spectrum.
> so I must conclude that plants are just dummy food put in nature by God for humans to eat (divine intervention)
Honestly no idea what you’re talking about, here.
> When you say vegan stuff like that, you should be more precise: people do not need to eat meat to survive. Survival and good health are on the opposite end of the spectrum.
I needn’t be more precise. Meat is not required for survival or for good health. Exception being if one’s situation demands eating meat. For somebody reading/commenting on HN, eating meat is almost certainly a decision, not a requirement of any sort.
