Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 13

Absorption interference from supplemental B12
A sentence in the Vitamin B12 section currently reads: "The recommendation of taking supplements has been challenged by studies indicating that exogenous B12 may actually interfere with the proper absorption of this vitamin in its natural form." To verify this, I found a scan of the source cited here. It is long and I didn't read the entire thing, but I think the relevant passage is from page 853: "Cyanocobalamin is not vitamin active for humans until the cyanide is removed within the body. This fact is dramatically illustrated in the rare infant born with a defect in the ability to enzymatically remove cyanide from various substances. Such infants are unable to use cyanocobalamin as vitamin B-12 because they cannot remove the cyanide from it (8). In fact, such infants, when they have a vitamin B-12 deficiency, are made worse by giving them cyanocobalamin because for them it acts as an anti-metabolite. This was demonstrated by Rosenblatt and his group at Yale Medical School (8) in studies of children with genetic defects in vitamin B-12 metabolism." Cyanocobalamin is the type of B12 used in supplements. What this means to me is that, for people with certain rare genetic defects, cyanocobalamin supplements are useless. There is a jump from this to "The recommendation of taking supplements has been challenged by studies indicating that exogenous B12 may actually interfere with the proper absorption of this vitamin in its natural form." It is only relevant for people with certain specific genetic defects, not the general population as the current wording seems to imply.

So, unless I'm missing something, it really should be something like "Individuals with certain rare genetic conditions cannot metabolize cyanocobalamin, the form of Vitamin B12 used in supplements and fortified foods. In addition, for these individuals, B12 supplements may actually disrupt B12 absorption by acting as an anti-metabolite." Thoughts? -kotra (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct, its like saying because coeliacs can't tolerate gluten then its bad fore everyone. This is deffinitley WP:OR or WP:SYNTH so I have removed it -- Q Chris (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Section heading
wp:MOS - The section heading should describe the contents of the section. Not push a point of view. Please stop.- Sinneed  21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no reference in the section on B12 that would indicate that lacto-vegegtarians and lacto-ovo vegetarians might be more exposed to B12 deficiency than regular meat eaters. This fact has to be reflected in the section. You are pushing an implicit POV that B12 is a problem for lacto-vegetarians while in fact nobody ever claimed that. I also think that there should be a rule on Wiki that those people who mostly never add any content nor reference, but mostly delete and disrupt, should be paced based on the actual contributions, because deleting and blocking does not require any judgment. Atmapuri (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reference in the section on B12 that would indicate that lacto-vegegtarians and lacto-ovo vegetarians might be more exposed to B12 deficiency than regular meat eaters. This fact has to be reflected in the section, and it is.
 * No one at this moment is pushing the POV that B12 is a problem for lacto-vegetarians.
 * Leave the section head in its current form, please, rather than adding a POV push to it.
 * The rest is a borderline personal attack. Focus on the content, not the editors.-  Sinneed  12:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Idly, I don't think you will find much support for a claim that "Vitamin B12" is PoV... "implicitly" or otherwise.- Sinneed  13:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Teeth
On review, I believe we can safely remove the bit about teeth. It appears to have been specious, and providing enough detail to avoid being VERY MISLEADING makes the section unreasonably long. Support? Opposition? Thoughts?- Sinneed  02:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed that section. It was pointless and had very little to do with the subject. Bob98133 (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

milk/eggs hormones, sources
Edits by Atmapuri about hormone problems due to consuming milk and eggs is not relevant to this article, but would be relevant in the vegan article since these products are considered to be part of a vegetarian diet, as well as a non-vegetarian diet, so they are neither an advantage nor disadvantage as regards vegetarianism. Using a question and answer website in which internet users respond to questions is not a reliable source. The answer alleges that the Vegetarian Resource Group is the source so the direct source should be cited instead of a site to which anyone can post an "answer." Bob98133 (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Eggs and milk are not consumed by vegans and eggs and are not consumed by lacto-vegetarians. Lacto-vegetarians is what is normally considered "vegetarian". The fact that giving children addtional testosterone results in prematurely awakened sexual maturity I believe is common knowledge. You are free to find a better references. I consider the current one fairly good. Atmapuri (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The wp:burden is on the editor seeking to add content. This makes 3 editors who have removed this. It is not encyclopedic, as I see it. wp:RS, wp:BALANCE - only one view presented, and in such a way as to seem to be the only view. Needs to attribute the opinions and conclusions to those who make them. I formally oppose its inclusion in its current state. - Sinneed (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming the current state is what would be liked by everybody. You are free to modify it. There were two editors who kept it, but three who removed it. If you count, you can see that for every remove there has to be one who adds it back. Despite the removal, you did not provide any reasons for it.Atmapuri (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The correct modification is removal.
 * There are 3, today, who removed your edit. There is 1, today, who restored it, 4 times.  Atmapuri  This is edit warring.
 * The reasons for the removals are given here and in the edit summaries.
 * The edit you are adding to the article is a combination of true things that don't tie to this article, please see wp:SYNTH, and outright incorrect statements not covered by the source at all.

- Sinneed (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sinneed, this article is in general a hot topic and confrontations between people trying to defend their way of thinking are frequent. It all depends upon who comes along first. The first user Bob always deletes additions and disputes all changes by anybody. There is no scrutiny in such actions and thus can not be taken seriously. This brings the undo's to one more person and you (You have also reached 3 undo's). You are saying that things do not tie to this article. Why? Clearly consumption of eggs is an important topic for vegans and lacto-vegetarians. You can not dispute the fact that small children can easily eat one egg per day, but will definitely not consume 2 liters of milk and 1 kg of meat, which in terms of testosterone would be equal. According to the first reference, there is a clear desire and concern and wish by the authors to research this topic more. Namely, how much do the default levels of hormones in our food affect the hormone level in children and what are health and behavioral consequences of this. Even though, we dont have a firm reference stating the exact consequences, there is enough evidence to express what exactly those "concerns" are. The "citations" flags that you added, really simply try to confuse the reader, because references are present 100% for all the text and there are no conclusions made by me and therefore WP:SYNTH does not apply. Can you please specify exactly which claims you find to be incorrect and I can provide you with direct citation and paste it in here, if you can not find it. There are not more than 4 sentences in the article. I really do not understand, what exactly is the problem with content, other than being in favor of vegetarians. If this is the reason for your actions, then this would be WP:POV and even if there would be 50 editors trying to violate Wiki rules, that should not and would not be tolerated. Atmapuri (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Had you read the article flags, you would have your answers. I encourage you to restore them and heed them. You are wp:edit warring. - Sinneed (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, Atmapuri, how did this article get to be so long if I dispute all changes by anybody? The idea of the talk page is to discuss the article, not to attack editors with whom you might not agree. Your additions to this article were in the wrong article and not properly referenced. If they had been, you would not be meeting so much resistance. Bob98133 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There you go, Atmapuri, I've clarified your references so it is clear that these studies had to do with finches, mice, etc. and were inconclusive. No need for you to take these edits seriously. Bob98133 (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"For milk they measured to contain 50-85ng/l and eggs 900-1500ng/kg of testosterone." I tried to translate this in to something more readable. Specifically: "When considering the weight of one egg to be 75g, the natural levels of testosterone would be approximately equal in 2 liters of milk and 1kg of red meat", but also left the original. Most people will not be able to imagine what ng/kg means and making a unit conversion of this type would definitely be considered helpful. If you don't agree with the actual sentence or numbers, you can modify it to fit to make it more balanced, if you feel so. This is from the article and not manipulated. It gives the reader an idea about the relative levels of hormones in eggs and milk. About the studies on mice, yes it is true. I don't know any doctors who would do such tests on children. The topic of this section is to show that "natural" levels of hormones in food could possibly have the same effect although not as pronounced as increased levels. To see what is the effect of something, you increase its levels and then you see what it comes out. Then you know, the direction in which something is working. What stands out here, is the level of natural hormones present within eggs, which are 10x or so higher than those found in milk and meat.

It appears that this is one of the reasons for the research plans of the University of Nantes.

The FDA allows 1% of increase of natural hormone levels due to food intake for humans. This however is designed for "normal" eating. We know most people eat much more than they should. Another thing is ADHD. There are various reports on the internet that vegetarian and vegan diets actually do reduce the symptoms by "a lot" if not completely. There is no research on this topic though, something like: we "compared ADHD frequency between vegetarian and non-vegetarian children". There are reports however that some diets suggesting substantial reduction of meat helped. There are estimated 10% of US children today which are diagnosed with ADHD and use drug called Ritalin to suppress the symptoms. The symptoms of ADHD could be related to the food, specifically hormones, which affect development of children most. The link between, hormones, children and behavior is very wide. We know for example that it is the hormone levels which determine our sex in the womb. The more the things are defined, the lower the effect of changes later on. Atmapuri (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hormones:Proposing deletion of section
"Vegetarianism" - Section relies on a complicated set of unreliable sources and reliable sources that are not related to the article. Making it related to the article appears to require unpublished wp:SYNTHesis. I propose to remove the section entire. However, as User:Atmapuri declined to accept wp:consensus against its addition last time, I will only undertake this if there is adequate support. I ask all editors interested in this article to review this section and comment, whether they support removal or support keeping of the content. Thank you in advance, either way.- Sinneed  14:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely support removal. The section is a textbook example of what WP:SYNTH is supposed to prohibit. +Angr 14:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The section provides information based on which EU took on even WTO and decided to finance a wide range of research projects. The topic is clear example about how big money can push aside medical precaution. The references about the problem of hormone levels in food from animal sources can not be discarded out of thin air, if there was (and still ease) world wide conflict based on this issue. The quality of sources can not be a ground for deletion of such an important topic. The connection between effect of hormone levels in meat on development of children is clearly defined in the sources and not related to WP:SYNTH. What you refer to as synthesis is related to an expanded layout of facts to put the conflict in perspective. Atmapuri (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole section looks like WP:Synth. Regards --Sikh- History 19:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The section begins by describing how much testosterone is found in meat. It then says that in people (well, mostly it says other animals actually), increased testosterone in the bloodstream causes behavioral and developmental changes. If we ignore the reliability of the sources and take these two statements as true, that still does not say increased testosterone in food leads to increased testosterone in the bloodstream. Much of the stuff in our food goes straight through us, unused, including many hormones. Therefore, it's misleading to imply testosterone in foods like beef will have an effect on behavior or development... unless, of course, a reliable source says it.
 * The rest of the section is about added hormones in food, especially beef and dairy, like rBST. That's fine, but it's not about vegetarianism, or even beef and dairy inherently. It's about foods that contains added hormones. This is a good thing to discuss in an article like Bovine somatotropin, but it's not relevant to vegetarianism unless all meat has added hormones (and that's far from the case, even if we're just talking about beef).
 * For these reasons, I agree with the others, the section should be removed. There is enough consensus now, I think, so I have done so. -kotra (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hormones:Continued discussion of removed section
Here is a direct link which links all these to vegetarianism: Spiritual Nutrition, Page 257

What is sad here about the attitude of editors, is that you are becoming the judges of what vegetarians think of themselves and that even an "Administrator" considers such suggestions even if in direct contradiction with WP:NPOV as viable. Mocking the views of vegetarians and making fun out of their beliefs. "Therefore, it's misleading to imply testosterone in foods like beef will have an effect on behavior or development... unless, of course, a reliable source says it." This comment only shows that you did not read the references. Animals have default levels of hormones. It has been shown that added hormones cause problems, which was the reason for WTO case. The reference about Spiritual nutrition shows that eating hormone rich animal products is in fact the problem and also the base for the WTO complaint and it is written in the book about vegetarianism. Since you deleted the section, now please reorganise it and add it back. Atmapuri (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Atmapuri need I remind you again WP:AGF. Not that I need to say this, but I am a vegetarian, as are many Editors here, but a meat eaters opinion is just as valid. Thanks--Sikh- History 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. The section should be removed. Bob98133 (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)agre

Wiki rules are not up for voting. Atmapuri (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing in Wikipedia is up for "voting", though sometimes we do use "!voting" which resembles "voting". Each editor's interpretation of the wp:policy, wp:guidelines, wp:essays and wp:consensus, are.  In this case there is clear consensus at this point that the section as written does not belong in the article.  Perhaps an interested editor that feels the consensus is less than ideal will present arguments to sway editors interested in the article.  Another idea is to seek ideas from the broader community with an RfC.-  Sinneed  13:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The section under discussion has never made any sense. It was put there by one editor and who is now the only voice for keeping it. Unless there are other editors who feel it is necessary to the article, I say it should be removed. Bob98133 (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (response to Atmapuri) I think you have misunderstood me. I said the section's implied connection between testosterone in food and testosterone in the bloodstream was not supported by the citations. You are correct that the citations say that added hormones in food (like rBST) have an effect, and have lead to developments like the WTO case, but unless I'm missing something, testosterone is not one of those hormones.
 * As for my attitude, please be assured I was not making fun of vegetarians' views. I am a strict vegetarian and have been one for 11 years. The problem is that I and others here (mostly vegetarians as well, I believe) do not feel that section is well-supported enough for inclusion. -kotra (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * edit: my mistake, testosterone may be one of those added hormones (this was not claimed by the section's text, but one of the citations seems to imply it at one point). However, the fact remains that the section was only relevant to foods with added hormones, not meat in general. This article is about (in part) the nutritional differences in meat-inclusive and meat-exclusive diets, not hormone-added-food-inclusive diets and hormone-added-food-exclusive diets. There is a distinct difference. -kotra (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The section also states that FDA allows 6x higher level of hormones in compare to what is found by default in red meat, which considering that most people do not eat organic meat, "is" about meat inclusive or meat exclusive diet. Hormone treated meat in USA is the "normal meat" for some 30 years now. It gives further examples, that default levels of hormones in one egg is higher than default level of hormones in 1kg of meat. If you assume that default levels have other consequences than those added artificially is of course wrong. It is not WP:SYNTH to conclude that smaller amounts of hormones will have same but smaller effect. Those effects are only better masked because everybody feels the consequences and it is what is considered "normal" state. That "normal" state however in reality is not normal and if you compare vegetarian and non-vegetarian children, you would find that difference. If you hide information like this from the article, you are misleading the reader that vegetarians do not consider these facts, which in reality is not true, because you can read about it in the section about Veganism in the book from Gabriel Cousens. Atmapuri (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, you are talking about beef from non-organic, non-hormone-free American cattle. There is a big jump from that to all meat, everywhere. Perhaps a brief mention would be appropriate in Vegetarianism in specific countries, but not here. As for your eggs statement, it seems logical at first glance to conclude that the smaller amount of hormones in beef will have the same but smaller effect than the larger amount of hormones in eggs. However, nutrition is more complicated than this, and so yes, it is original research. Eggs and beef are very different in composition, and factors that block absorption may exist in eggs, or factors that encourage absorption may exist in beef. For example, let's not forget that eggs contain much Vitamin B12, but they also contain a factor that blocks its absorption. The point is, we cannot say for sure that eggs cause worse hormonal effects than beef. Besides, even discussing eggs like this is missing the point. The article is about the broader topic of vegetarianism, not beef-eating or egg-eating. Such discussion belongs in the articles of diets that center on the use or non-use of each, or in the articles beef and egg themselves. On the other hand, if you have a reliable source that shows that hormone levels are different in vegetarians and non-vegetarians, I would be more than happy to add it to the article myself. Unfortunately, the reliable sources you have supplied so far do not say this.
 * Since you continue to mention it, let me confirm that I have read page 257 of the Gabriel Cousens book, Spiritual Nutrition: Six Foundations for Spiritual Life and the Awakening of Kundalini. Firstly, simply because something is written by an MD does not mean it is a reliable source; this book comes from an overtly stated religious bias, and the focus of it is religious and spiritual teachings, only devoting a few chapters to purportedly science-based nutrition (I say "purportedly" only because I have not been able to verify most of it). Secondly, the brief mention of hormone levels is based on an obscure report in the "Puerto Rico Medical Association Journal", a publication I have been unable to find any traces of, so I cannot verify the accuracy of the statement, nor would a publication that has seen so little attention or peer review probably be considered a reliable source. Thirdly, the situation described in the book is an anecdote, not a study. It is the sort of anecdata that is useful for encouraging actual studies, but not for being cited as proof of a broader statement.
 * There are dozens, if not hundreds, of reasons to be vegetarian, and to not be vegetarian. What we are trying to do with this article is keep the arguments for and against vegetarianism verifiable by reliable sources, notable enough for inclusion, and, if not represented by facts, at least presented transparently that they are not represented by facts. That is the best we can do. It's my opinion that this approach also happens to be the best basis for choosing to become a vegetarian or not: it is firmly grounded and less easy to dismiss. -kotra (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

About "beef from non-organic, non-hormone-free American cattle." There is no american cattle or any other cattle that is hormone free. It has to have hormones in order to exist. The levels in US cattle are elevated as are those in many other countries also. But we are moving way off the target here. Encyclopedia is not a scientific board of directors giving out judgments about what is true or not. Any article is to present the accurate state of things in the culture of our time, may this be beliefs, black magic or other. There are many things which vegetarians claim, but may not be true. However, this does not change the fact that they claim it and that this is the part of the culture and theirs (ours) beliefs. "this book comes from an overtly stated religious bias" Exactly. You see it as bias, but it is part of our existence and this is exactly what this dispute is about: prejudice. Trying to make scientific conclusions about what is true or not. Now THAT is original research. The very fundament of vegetarianism, the root from which it came, is religion. Vegetarianism is a "belief system". Some claims are more scientifically supported and some are less. Trying to proove which claims of vegetarinism are true or not is the wrong way to approach the article.

You focused on eggs, which were mentioned only for the purpose to give the reader a clearer perspective of what is being discussed and idea of what are default levels of hormones and what are elevated level of hormones. No conclusion was made about the absorption levels and thus no WP:OR can be claimed. If I would read an article on such a topic, I would like to see such information.

About "Puerto Rico Medical Association Journal". Again, there was sufficient evidence on that topic, for EU to start WTO dispute. This shows that whatever they had in their hands, was big enough to put all of their weight behind it. Trying be the judge of quality of references on which vegetarians base their beliefs, may belong in a separate section of the article, called Criticism, but such arguments can not used to prevent presenting vegetarian culture as it is.

What you could be disputing, is if certain beliefs are wide spread enough so that they do not represent a minority not worth mentioning. On this topic I have to say that I never heard of a vegetarian, that did not know about problems related to hormone levels in the meat and eggs.

"What we are trying to do with this article is keep the arguments for and against vegetarianism verifiable by reliable sources, notable enough for inclusion, and, " I beg your pardon. Read this sentence again and think about it. This is how a scientist would describe his new research (WP:OR) paper. The section about "for" should be separated from those "against", where the "for" section would describe the vegetarians views (true or false) and the "against" section would describe views of notable sources against it.

In this way you would avoid the need for the editors of the encyclopedia to do the research figuring out what is the truth on each separate topic thus presenting a monolithic text, which in its core nature is WP:OR.

If there is a printed book and widely discussed topic among vegetarians, with true or false statements (not ours to judge (!!!)), those views have the right to be presented, if notable enough (in the sense of being spread widely enough to be known by enough vegetarians, and NOT necessarily supported by many notable scientists). Wiki editors do not have a job figuring out if, where and how much the vegetarians are right or not, however we can put things in to perspective to make vegetarian views easier to understand for the reader. In the section on Hormone levels, this perspective was given with relation to showing the relative values of hormones in question to give a basic idea of what the issue (according to vegetarians) is about.

We can consider ourselves lucky that figuring out who was right was not the base for editing the articles on Iraq War, The Crusaders, or if the muslim woman have a scientific right to wear a scarf.Atmapuri (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hormones:random subsection to make editing easier
WP cannot assess who is right. WP can only assess whether the content is based on information that appeared in generally wp:reliable sources, whether it meets WP's rules, and whether there is wp:consensus to include it. The wp:burden is on the editor adding the content that is opposed.- Sinneed  21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, response to Atmapuri) I'm afraid there are so many misunderstandings of what I have written in your post that I cannot begin to address them all. Instead, I will just address one: determining what sources are reliable is ours to judge. We have an entire policy to guide us in doing this essential task. You are correct that what is true is not ours to judge. I have not done this. For example, I do not believe vegans have the same mortality rate as regular meat eaters, as a study we cite in the article implies. As a Wikipedian, I cannot let my own beliefs cause me to add "this study is wrong" to the article, or remove it because I think it's wrong. We can, however, judge if the study is reliable enough for Wikipedia by our policies, and if the study actually says what we say it says, and if it is relevant at all to the article. For that study, we have determined that it is, and does, and is, so it stays. Unfortunately, we have also determined that the section you added is made up of sources that are not, and/or do not, and/or are not. I regret that I do not have time to state the details again, so I ask that you re-read what has been said above if you doubt me on this. If you wish for me to address more of what you have said above, just ask and I will try to respond. I will, however, be mostly unavailable from tonight onward until next week's Thursday, so I may not be able to until then. -kotra (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Found some further notable sources as requested:
 * http://www.preventcancer.com/press/editorials/march24_97.htm
 * http://www.goveg.com/lettuce_meat.asp
 * http://www.goveg.com/lettuce_meat2.asp
 * http://www.gan.ca/lifestyle/vegetarian+guide/the+downside+to+consuming+animal+products/how+hormones+could+affect+your+health.en.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmapuri (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While those are interesting, They don't help... the preventcancer, goveg and GAN warn about stopping hormone additions and other chemicals to beef/meat. The goveg site does add the POV that chemicals aren't used on vegetables... I think we can safely accept that that doesn't match other sources.  None of this helps your case.  All but the POV bit about only meat having added chemicals or contaminants would be offtopic to this article, and it conflicts with VERY reliable sources.-  Sinneed  19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"determining what sources are reliable is ours to judge". That is not disputed, but we have to account for "Volume". This means that if there is 1% of US citizens vegetarian, then you can not have for them receive 20% of public attention in the media. The attention they get is approximately proportional to the size of the social group. If we now look at individual topics within vegetarianism, the list of sources what you would call "reliable" sources is further diluted, simply due to the size of the group. This in turn would mean, that certain topics within vegetarianism can not be addressed, because there is not sufficient generally "notable" sources to cover them.

The problem of hormone levels in the animal sourced food is currently covered by:

1.) One book directly linking vegetarian diet to it. 2.) This source, is said to be copy of article from Los Angeles Times taken on March 24th 1997: http://www.preventcancer.com/press/editorials/march24_97.htm

Los Angeles Times is reliable source. It notes that: "However, confidential industry reports to the FDA, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal high hormone residues in meat products even under ideal test conditions. Following a single ear implant in steers of Synovex-S, a combination of estradiol and progesterone, estradiol levels in different meat products were up to 20-fold higher than normal. The amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten in one day by an 8-year-old boy could increase his total hormone levels by as much as 10%, based on conservative assumptions, because young children have very low natural hormone levels."

This provides additional information already linked to vegetarianism before. The same information is repeated here: http://www.goveg.com/lettuce_meat.asp. And once again linked to vegetarianism. Further information provided on the page says:

"The negative consequences of feeding meat to children were clearly shown in the early 1980s when thousands of children in Puerto Rico experienced premature sexual growth and developed painful ovarian cysts; the culprit was meat from cattle who had been treated with growth-promoting sex hormones.[8] Meat-based diets are also blamed for the early sexual development of young girls in the United States—nearly half of all black girls and 15 percent of all white girls in America now enter puberty when they are just 8 years old. "

The references which you claim are not notable: 8 L.W. Freni-Titulaer, J.F. Cordero, L. Haddock, G. Lebron, R. Martinez, and J.L. Mills, “Premature Thelarche in Puerto Rico. A Search for Environmental Factors,” American Journal of Diseases of Children 40 (1986): 1263-1267.

9 Becky Gillette, “Premature Puberty: Is Early Sexual Development the Price of Pollution?” E: The Environmental Magazine Nov. 1997.

Another information said to be from Miami Herald: 26 Walter Lippmann, “Brain Food: Student Vegans See Boost in Grades, Energy,” The Miami Herald 4 Jun. 2001.

"According to an article published in The Miami Herald, some students experienced substantial increases in their grades after they went vegetarian—one former carnivore saw his G.P.A. leap from a 1.6 to a 3.4!26 Speaking about his new meat-free diet, one student says, “I’d look at a rib, and I’d look at a vegetable, and I’d think, ‘Why is my mind picking the vegetable?’” Another student at the school noted that his vegetarian diet gave him the energy to wake up earlier, adding, “I never knew chickens and cows had so many hormones. Now, everything I eat is natural.”

This also affects the part where you deleted the "humorous" remark about vegan kids being smarter. This may be humorous to you, but higher IQ is generally accepted to be the consequence of the food among vegetarians. There is therefore 1 book and 1 news paper saying the same thing. This assumption therefore deserves to be mentioned not as the truth, but as something that vegetarians believe in.

3.) This link:
 * http://www.gan.ca/lifestyle/vegetarian+guide/the+downside+to+consuming+animal+products/how+hormones+could+affect+your+health.en.html

Further links together vegetarians and points to the next link

4.) The Real Dope on Beef Hormones

"This article was originally written in 2001 and appeared in the Calgary Herald and Montreal Gazette"

Explicitly stating: "Children most vulnerable"


 * European Commissions 's Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating To Public Health: Assessment of Potential Risks to Human Health from Hormone Residues in Bovine Meat and Meat Products (April 30, 1999), On the web at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scv/out21_en.pdf
 * The Globe and Mail (July 30, 1999), "Breast cancer linked to beef"

Stating: "Early onset of puberty with its raging hormones translates into higher risk of breast cancer" and it is "very likely" that hormone residues in North American beef is a contributing factor in the early onset of puberty among girls observed in recent decades.(6) "There is no other reason to explain it," stated Sonnenschein. According to Annie Sasco, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, it makes sense that hormone-treated beef could trigger an earlier onset of puberty."

Not notable references? Which part of the article no vegetarians has more and more notable references?? Atmapuri (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hormones:random subsection to make editing easier - v2
Please avoid irony, it does not communicate well in writing (I rewrote that), and does not lend itself to reaching a wp:consensus that is not against you. If the non-reliable or/and non-related sources refer to other reliable and related sources, referring to them would have been good. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scv/out21_en.pdf is a dead link. http://www.healthcoalition.ca/hormones.html focuses on the dangers of chemicals added to animals, which is a concern, and has its own article, and has nothing to do with vegetarianism. Identical concerns apply to non-animal foods... and rainwater... and air.

You also seem to zoom around to other subjects. I also must tell you that the mighty-wall-of-text-with-a-zillion-subjects is unlikely to cause other editors to read with interest and be swayed to your views.- Sinneed  19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC) edit for clarity - -  Sinneed  19:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX) - April 9, 2007 - B5 Metro - SENIOR NOTES:"Breast cancer linked to beef, processed meat Older women who eat beef and processed meat about once a day may have a higher risk of developing breast cancer, a British study found. Researchers at the University of Leeds reviewed data from more than 30,000 participants in the U.K. Women's Cohort Study, established in 1993 to investigate links between diet and cancer. The women, who were 35 to 69 at the start of the study, filled out questionnaires about their eating habits. Women..." - Now *THAT* is a straight link of beef to breast cancer and may conceivably merit a mention. But not in a hormones section, if the rest of the article has useful information... but since it is weak on wp:V, a quote of the specific data backing the article content would probably be needed in a quote="whatever" param.- Sinneed  04:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Such arguments, intentionally or not, protect the commercial interests of big business. (The same big business that took EU to WTO court for this reason in 1997). The section of the topic has not changed. It is about the effect of hormones on children, at default or increased levels in animal sourced food. These hormone levels have been shown to have influence (also at default levels) on the development of children in the sense of: intelligence, sexual maturity (and related thoughts in the mind of a person), cancer, other forms of disturbances to otherwise normal development of the child. Currently you are positioning yourself as the biggest protector of small girls to have the right for the first period at the age of 8. The trick with girls is that you can have a physical proof that something is different. With boys you can have the same situation, but no direct indication. I know, that hormone levels in animal sourced foods do have a big influence out of my own personal experience and that those sources which claim that there is a smoking gun, are right. Saying that omission of animal sourced foods is not related to vegetarianism is a contradiction by itself. Saying that other types of food have the similar kind of safety issues is not applicable to vegetarianism, because vegetarianism deals with "omission of meat". If we would be frutarians, then we could talk about problems with vegetables. The most tragic conclusion here is that you yourself will start to look out and watch out for these effects, but do not have the possibility to allow this insight (in the scope of Wikipedia) also to others. Atmapuri (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * wp:talk, wp:soapbox, wp:NPA, wp:NOT... so many things. Focus on the content.  Avoid straw man fallacy ("you are positioning yourself as the biggest protector of small girls to have the right for the first period at the age of 8" - Warning you on that one, don't do it again.  Ever. "you yourself will start to look out and").  Remove your focus from me entirely.  You need not convince me.  These appeal to emotion arguments are not generally useful ("the tragedy").-  Sinneed  04:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Atmapuri - perhaps you could move this discussion to your personal talk page. Bob98133 (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will normally discuss article content here. Exceptions would be, for example, NPOV board and similar.-  Sinneed  13:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

deleted edit, "vegan, or total vegetarianism"
vegetarian poem I don't call people who eat flesh disgusting. Although I'd never eat it,I don't consider you weak for it. I just think it's sad.

I'm not vegetarian because I respect animals more than ppl. I am one bc I love animals AND ppl && ppl are also animals. And I'm a veggie-tarian because I don't consider animals inferior to me.So who's doing the disrespecting now?

I don't always like PETA. I may not like them because some women in PETA use their bodies instead of their minds.

I'm not trying to defy nature. Who said that it was natural to eat meat? How do you know you're right?

I do not have an eating disorder. Why not? Because veggie foods(ie fries, popcorn, pizza) can be just as fattening, if not more, than meat.

I'm not holier than you. I want to be true to myself.

I'm compassionate, empathetic, and hate bloodshed..even if it's for a good cause. That's why I'm vegetarian. I get sad when I see someone cry. I've got strong feelings.

I live up to my ideals. And I'm not afraid to stand up for what I believe in. Go ahead and make fun of me. Put a steak in front of me. There is a 100% chance I will not want it.

I'm a true vegetarian. If there was a pig and me on an island and a banana and we had no food, I wouldn't kill the pig. I'd give him half the banana instead.

My brain won't shrink. On the contrary I will live longer and get my fatty acids(for the brain)from walnuts and the like.

I don't eat raw grass. There are so many ways of cooking stuff that isn't meat. And FYI i'd rather eat grass than flesh. That doesn't mean I'm better than you.

I may not be mainstream in the USA. But I am in India and other asian countries.

No I never crave a "good" steak. I crave a good stir-fry tofu instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.89.63 (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sineed- I know why you deleted the edit "vegan, or total vegetarianism" or something along those lines I think, but all I want to say is that I found a source, http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4777; article: Vegetarian Diets and it says that "The vegan or total vegetarian diet includes only foods from plants: fruits, vegetables, legumes (dried beans and peas), grains, seeds and nuts". Therefore, I believe that the vegan is the same thing as a total vegetarian. If you don't believe me, then you are more than welcome to go to the site yourself. I am sorry if I keep insisting, and you have every right to delete my edits and/or prove me wrong. I won't be offended. I'm just telling you that this is where my information came from. It's a credible source. Sorry again if it causes any inconvenience. Turquoise 101 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remove your focus from me. The wp:burden is on the editor adding the content.  Idea: Consider suggesting the content for the lead of the Veganism article.  If it belongs in the lead here, it surely belongs in the lead there.  The source quoted there that supports the "total vegetarian" diet is .  You would, I think, be attempting to add this version to "Vegan diets (sometimes called strict or pure vegetarian diets) are a subset of vegetarian diets."  I don't think we would need to echo that much of the content here, though, as we don't even have the "strict or pure"... though it has made it into the lead before, as I recall.
 * If you do strongly want to add it here, please consider scrolling up and joining the lead section discussion.- Sinneed  00:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

vegetarian poem
I don't call people who eat flesh disgusting. Although I'd never eat it,I don't consider you weak for it. I just think it's sad.

I'm not vegetarian because I respect animals more than ppl. I am one bc I love animals AND ppl && ppl are also animals. And I'm a veggie-tarian because I don't consider animals inferior to me.So who's doing the disrespecting now?

I don't always like PETA. I may not like them because some women in PETA use their bodies instead of their minds.

I'm not trying to defy nature. Who said that it was natural to eat meat? How do you know you're right?

I do not have an eating disorder. Why not? Because veggie foods(ie fries, popcorn, pizza) can be just as fattening, if not more, than meat.

I'm not holier than you. I want to be true to myself.

I'm compassionate, empathetic, and hate bloodshed..even if it's for a good cause. That's why I'm vegetarian. I get sad when I see someone cry. I've got strong feelings.

I live up to my ideals. And I'm not afraid to stand up for what I believe in. Go ahead and make fun of me. Put a steak in front of me. There is a 100% chance I will not want it.

I'm a true vegetarian. If there was a pig and me on an island and a banana and we had no food, I wouldn't kill the pig. I'd give him half the banana instead.

My brain won't shrink. On the contrary I will live longer and get my fatty acids(for the brain)from walnuts and the like.

I don't eat raw grass. There are so many ways of cooking stuff that isn't meat. And FYI i'd rather eat grass than flesh. That doesn't mean I'm better than you.

I may not be mainstream in the USA. But I am in India and other asian countries.

No I never crave a "good" steak. I crave a good stir-fry tofu instead.

I never had to struggle to be a veggie-tarian. It came naturally, just like teenage hormones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.89.63 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)