Infants, children, adolescents, and pregnant and lactating women have been described as groups with special needs. Regardless of diet chosen, these groups are at higher risk for nutritional deficiencies than adult males. Vegan diets can be safely used by these groups if foods, and in some instances supplements, are selected which provide a healthful and nutritionally adequate diet. Guidelines have been developed for those choosing to follow vegan diets. In many instances vegan diets offer health benefits. Studies of vegans are (...) limited by factors such as heterogeneity of diets, the size and extent of this type of study, and difficulty in subject identification. There is a scarcity of studies of newer vegetarians who are often more mainstream than the vegetarians of the 1960s and 1970s. In some instances this has led to assumptions about today's vegans which are based on out-dated information. Thorough scientific studies of today's vegetarians, especially of those in groups with special needs, are needed. (shrink)

: Kathryn Paxton George's recent publication, Animal, Vegetable, or Woman? (2000), is the culmination of more than a decade's work and encompasses standard and original arguments against the feminist-vegetarian connection. This paper demonstrates that George's key arguments are deeply flawed, antithetical to basic feminist commitments, and beg the question against fundamental aspects of the debate. Those who do not accept the feminist-vegetarian connection should rethink their position or offer a non-question-begging defense of it.

이 논문은 기존의 생태 유아 교육의 사상적 체계가 터를 잡고 있는 이론들의 문제점들을 분석하고, 사상적 체계가 어떤 방향으로 나아가야 하는지를 제시하여 그 ‘뿌리’를 튼튼하게 하는 데 목적이 있다. 생태 유아 교육의 사상적 토대가 올바르게 정립되어야 생태 유아 교육의 정체성이 올바르게 확립될 것이기 때문이다. 우선 생태 유아 교육이 기반하고 있는 환경 이론을 생명 존중 사상의 ‘생명 중심주의’와 생태계 전체에 관심을 갖는 ‘생태 중심주의’로 구분할 것이다. 그리고 각 이론이 갖는 문제점들을 환경 윤리학의 관점에서 분석하여 생태 유아 교육의 이론적 기반이 그리 굳건하지 못함을 (...) 지적한다. 이러한 비판적인 작업과 함께 맺음말에서는 생태 유아 교육의 발전을 위한 건설적인 제안을 합리적이고 실천성이 있는 환경 윤리학을 기반으로 제시할 것이다. (shrink)

In Use and Abuse Revisited: Response to Pluhar and Varner, Kathryn Paxton George misunderstands the point of my essay, In Defense of the Vegan Ideal: Rhetoric and Bias in the Nutrition Literature. I did not claim that the nutrition literature unambiguously confirms that vegans are not at significantly greater risk of deficiencies than omnivores. Rather than settling any empirical controversy, my aim was to show how the literature can give the casual reader a skewed impression of what is known about (...) the risks of a vegan diet. In this brief rejoinder, I illustrate how two essays by nutritionists in the same volume as George's and my essays, and a referee's report on my manuscript which was authored by a nutritionist, confirm the soundness of this basic insight. (shrink)

When presented with the claim of the moral vegetarian that it is wrong for us to eat meat, many people respond that because it is not wrong for lions, tigers and other carnivores to kill and eat animals, it cannot be wrong for humans to do so. This response is what Peter Alward has called the naive argument. Peter Alward has defended the naive argument against objections. I argue that his defence fails.