Send them that news story about the vegan parents who were sentenced to life in prison for starving their baby to death with a diet of soy milk.

Come to think of it, I don't know of any vegan who supports the destruction of farms that produce dead chicken fetuses, who doesn't just as militantly defend clinics that produce dead human fetuses.

Real nice priorities they got there.

Scott,

Ms. Planck's article is packed with misinformation. Dairy and eggs are not necessary for a healthy diet.

Tatterdemalian,

The prosecutor in the case of the vegan parents sentenced for their baby's death specifically said the case wasn't about veganism, but about malnutrition through neglect. There's a big difference. You won't find any rational vegan who thinks that soy milk and apple juice is sufficient or appropriate for a six-week-old-child. If veganism was the problem, then it would be okay to feed a six-week-old baby nothing but cow's milk and chicken broth. But that would be equally stupid.

As to your last point, that's fascinating, but anecdotal at best because it focuses on one small faction. Can we find factions within any other belief system that are contradictory in their positions?

I'm a vegan and I don't support the "destruction" of animal farms. I certainly hope they go out of business, but I want that only through the free market in which people reject the product. And it's possible for vegans to accept pro-life arguments surrounding abortion.

I will have to disagree. In your own article on the subject, you state, "The doctor explicitly states that veganism isn't dangerous, but poor nutrition is." However, since the poor nutrition is the result of a vegan diet, I still agree with Ms. Planck's assertion that veganism is not compatible with healthy children.

Can vegans continue their lifestyle during pregnancy, and raise a healthy child on a vegan diet? The answer would appear to be yes, but only with what seems to be a very large amount of additional effort and care. Considering the enormous amount of effort and care that a new child *already* imposes on a family, any additional effort to support a specific lifestyle choice would seem to me risky and unnecessary.

In my opinion, veganism is much more about personal politics than health. This being a free country, I have no problem with someone choosing a more difficult lifestyle based on their personal politics. But I do disagree with those who place their personal politics above the health of a child.

For goodness sake, it seems to only require adding (free range organically raised!) chicken eggs to one's diet to avoid *all* the potential deficiencies. When presented with the choice of constantly and carefully balancing a wide range of dietary supplements, or eating scrambled eggs for breakfast every morning, the choice to me would seem to be obvious.

The point of any diet should be about balanced nutrition before any other type of consideration. I won't disagree with you on that. But you discredit veganism because it requires more effort. That's not a logical jump, at least without explaining the steps between those two points.

The quote from the doctor clearly indicates it is possible to raise a child vegan. That is not open to dispute. We clearly disagree on whether or not parents are capable and/or willing to put in the necessary effort, which is fine. If parents won't put in the effort, their first priority is the child. But, while veganism was a challenge for me in the beginning because I had to think about food again, but after a little early effort, it's no chore now. It's second nature.

And you're also using an assumption that somehow choosing animal products mean that parents guarantee their children complete nutrition. That isn't true, as a default position. "Just add eggs" won't suffice if the rest of the diet is low quality, processed, nutrient-poor food. If parents are already feeding their child a nutrient-rich diet, there are ways to get whatever might be missing without resorting to eggs or other animal products. Ultimately, if parents won't put in the work to provide proper nutrition, they shouldn't have kids. Vegan, vegetarian, or omni.

Which gets back to your position, that veganism is not compatible with healthy children. If a parent is willing to put in the work, it's unfair to indict the diet just because you wouldn't put in that work.

To the specific case, feeding soy milk and apple juice to a six-week-old child is not veganism, it is stupidity. Would we blame all meat-eaters if one set of parents fed their son nothing but chicken broth and cow's milk? Of course not, even though the child would surely die. Such a diet is simply not appropriate for anyone, much less a six-week-old child.

Ms. Planck could've discussed how best to meet nutritional needs. She didn't do that. She used misinformation and her personal bias to claim that veganism as a whole is to blame. The evidence, including from sources she interviewed, does not support anything in her essay.

(As an aside, I am a vegan for health reasons, not political. That's anecdotal, but it's true.)