|
“Death by Veganism” Begins Its Slow Demise
On June 24, 2007 the Public
Editor for the New York Times started a long
overdue correction of the public’s
misconceptions about a vegan diet. This came
about largely because of the letters many of you
wrote to the Public and Op-Ed editors of the New
York Times about the Nina Planck article called
“Death by Veganism.” Consider these recent
events as a good start for a diet revolution
that will change everything.
(See the
May 2007 McDougall
Newsletter for the beginning of this
story.)
Published: June 24, 2007
The Danger of the One-Sided
Debate
By CLARK HOYT
“We look for opinions that are
provocative,” said Andrew Rosenthal, the editor
of the editorial page. “Opinions that confirm
what you already thought aren’t that
interesting.”
But some opinions provoke more
than others. Two very different columns by guest
contributors, one last week and one last month,
caused enormous reader outcries and raised
important questions. Are there groups or causes
so odious they should be ruled off the page? If
The Times publishes a controversial opinion,
does it owe readers another point of view
immediately? And what is the obligation of
editors to make sure that op-ed writers are not
playing fast and loose with the
facts?...(Deleted is a section on Ahmed Yousef,
a spokesman for Hamas.)
Rosenthal and Shipley (the op-ed
editor) said that, over time, they try to
publish a variety of voices on the most
important issues…This wasn’t the case, however,
with a May 21 op-ed by Nina Planck, an author
who writes about food and nutrition.
Sensationally headlined “Death by Veganism,”
Planck’s piece hit much closer to home than
Yousef’s. It said in no uncertain terms that
vegans — vegetarians who shun even eggs and
dairy products — were endangering the health and
even the lives of their children. A former vegan
herself, Planck said she had concluded “a vegan
pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create
and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from
plants.”
Her Exhibit A was a trial in
Atlanta in which a vegan couple were convicted
of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty
in the death of their 6-week-old son, who was
fed mainly soy milk and apple juice and weighed
only 3.5 pounds. The column set off a torrent of
reader e-mail that is still coming in — much of
it from vegans who send photos of their healthy
children or complain bitterly of being harassed
by friends and relatives using Planck’s column
as proof that their diet is dangerous.
If there was another side, a
legitimate argument that veganism isn’t harmful,
Planck didn’t tell you — not her obligation,
Rosenthal and Shipley say. But unlike the Middle
East, The Times has not presented another view,
or anything, on veganism on its op-ed pages for
16 years. There has been scant news coverage in
the past five years.
There is another side.
Rachelle Leesen, a clinical
nutritionist at the Children’s Hospital of
Philadelphia, told me that Planck’s article “was
extremely inflammatory and full of
misinformation.” She and her colleague Brenda
Waber pointed me to a 2003 paper by the American
Dietetic Association, the nation’s largest
organization for food and nutrition
professionals. After reviewing the current
science, the A.D.A., together with the
Dietitians of Canada, declared, “Well-planned
vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are
appropriate for all stages of the life cycle,
including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy,
childhood and adolescence.”
Planck said she was aware of the
A.D.A.’s position but regarded it as “pandering”
to a politically active vegan community.
I won’t rehash the scientific
dispute in a case in which Planck has her
experts and the A.D.A. paper cited more than 250
studies, but I think The Times owes its readers
the other side, published on the op-ed page, not
just in five letters to the editor that briefly
took issue with her.
I even question Planck’s Exhibit
A, poor little Crown Shakur, who was so
shriveled at his death that doctors could see
the bones in his body. His death, she wrote,
“may be largely due to ignorance. But it should
prompt frank discussion about nutrition.”
Maybe, if by nutrition you mean a
discussion about whether you feed a baby
anything at all.
The prosecutor argued — and the
jury believed — that Crown’s parents
intentionally starved him to death. News
coverage at the time said that the medical
examiner, doctors at the hospital to which
Crown’s body was taken and an expert
nutritionist testified that the baby was not
given enough food to survive, regardless of what
the food was.
Charles Boring, the Fulton County
prosecutor who handled the case, told me it was
“absolutely not” about veganism. Planck and
Shipley said they were aware of the prosecutor’s
contention. Shipley said, “We were also aware,
though, that the convicted couple continues to
insist that they were trying to raise their
infant on a vegan diet.”
But the jury didn’t believe them,
and leaving that out put Planck’s whole column
on a shaky foundation.
Op-ed pages are for debate, but
if you get only one side, that’s not debate. And
that’s not healthy.
The public editor serves as the
readers' representative. His opinions and
conclusions are his own. His column appears at
least twice monthly in this section.
You might write to Clark Hoyt,
Public Editor, The New York Times and thank him
for his attention to this matter:
public@nytimes.com.
|
