nina planck and weston price

[Guest guest]

i knew it:

 

http://www.ninaplanck.com/index.php?article=nina_real_food

 

you can spot these people a mile away.

 

regards,

 

blake

[Guest guest]

hi blake,

 

here is a review of her book, by weston price.

http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/real-food-review.html

 

 

 

, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote:

>

> i knew it:

>

> http://www.ninaplanck.com/index.php?article=nina_real_food

>

> you can spot these people a mile away.

>

> regards,

>

> blake

>

[Guest guest]

ohmy fave..weston price

BLEH!

 

flower child May 25, 2007 9:00 AM Re: nina planck and weston price

 

 

 

hi blake, here is a review of her book, by weston price.http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/real-food-review.html--- In , Blake Wilson <mbw wrote:>> i knew it:> > http://www.ninaplanck.com/index.php?article=nina_real_food> > you can spot these people a mile away.> > regards,> > blake>

 

“The Earth is not dying - she is being killed. And those who are killing her have names and addresses.†— Utah Phillips

[Guest guest]

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/may/planck.htm

Update on "Death by Veganism" by Nina Planck:

 

The Public Editor of the NY Times was asked to comment; here is his

response on this matter:

 

I asked David Shipley, the editor of the Op-Ed page, for his thoughts.

He said, " I think Nina Planck is on firm ground in her

Op-Ed. Her reading of the science is that it is indeed the case

that children (and all of us) need animal-derived nutrients, and she's

able to summon studies backing up her assertion -- just as the vegans

are able to summon up studies showing that you can indeed survive on

plants alone. "

 

My own view, which I expressed to Shipley, is that, given how

important and fraught with emotion the subject of children's nutrition

is, the Times owed its readers an Op-Ed by another contributor

debating Planck. Because there is science to support another

view, it should have been aired at the same time, or very close to the

same time.

 

David Shipley's view is that, " Op-Ed readers understand that they

are reading an argument and that there is almost always another side

to the argument. " I'd feel better if the Times had actually

presented that other side in this particular instance.

 

Sincerely,

Clark Hoyt

Public Editor

The New York Times

 

The Public Editor says he (or an associate) reads all letters. You can

write to Clark Hoyt at: public

 

You can send your thoughts to the Op-Ed editor of the New York

Times, David Shipley, at: oped

 

Further background on Nina Planck:

 

Ms. Planck is a food writer and has no formal education in dietetics,

nutrition, health, or medicine. One of her claims to fame was her

position as the director of Greenmarket, New York's system of farmers

markets. She was dismissed after 5 1/2 months on the job. She is

solidly supported by the anti-vegetarian organization, the Weston A.

Price Foundation.

 

Sally Fallon, the president of the Weston A. Price Foundation writes

about Planck's book, Real Food: What to Eat and Why:

 

Much of her book is devoted to debunking the lowfat, vegetarian

message. She tackles the notion that meat causes cancer or that farm

animals are bad for the environment in her chapter on meat-- " Why

Even Vegetable Farms Need Animals. " Planck endorses what even the

grass-fed movement has denigrated--animal fat in the form of marbled

beef, bacon and schmaltz. There's more on the virtues of saturated fat

in a chapter called " Real Fats, " and paeons to butter and

cream in a chapter on " Real Dairy. " Planck extols the health

and economic benefits of raw milk as well.

 

Planck's love of food and robust optimism shine through every page of

this delightful book--of course she enjoys life, she eats plenty of

good fat. Egg-white omelets and skinless chicken breasts, those

darlings of the dietitians, those icons of food puritanism, get the

whacking they deserve--Planck calls them culinary abominations--as do

soy, vegetable oils, trans fats, farmed fish and corn syrup. Let's all

help her get on the best-seller list by buying a

copy.(http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/real-food-review.html)

 

Sally Fallon credits herself as: an author, journalist, chef,

nutrition researcher, homemaker, and community activist. She

lists no formal training in any health or nutrition field. The

punctuation and spelling errors in the above two paragraphs are

hers.

 

[Guest guest]

here's an opinion piece from a nonveg*n who mostly agreed with

NP's book but now will not read anything else she writes:

 

 

 

From the food blog Tigers & Strawberries:

 

a food blog by Barbara Fisher

Nina Planck Stirs the Pot; Vegans Get Steamed: Film At Eleven

 

You know, I used to like Nina Planck.

 

Now, I am not so sure.

 

I wrote a review of her book, Real Food, when it came out in hardcover

last year, and although I noted it was not perfect, I mostly agreed

with her premise and information. I did and still do have reservations

about some of her facts, because some of them come from outdated

sources, but in general, I agree that the best diets for humans

include mostly unprocessed whole foods, with emphasis on fresh

vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts with some pastured dairy, meat and

wild-caught fish.

 

But, I have to say that her diatribe against vegan parenting from the

May 21 edition of the New York Times Op Ed pages is not only

mean-spirited and filled with scare-mongering opinions, she plain old

gets many of her facts wrong. Prompted by the sentencing of two vegan

parents in Atlanta for the murder of their six week old infant whom

they fed on soymilk and apple juice, Planck goes on the warpath

against vegan parents, using this case of obvious parental neglect and

abuse as an excuse to vent her ex-vegan spleen against a group of

people, who on the whole, do their best to feed their families

ethically and well.

 

And as far as I am concerned, that is just uncalled-for, in large

part, because the fact that these parents were vegans was not the

issue. The fact was that they had no clue how to feed an infant was

the issue, and they starved him to death. Even the prosecutor in the

case said, " No matter how many times they want to say, 'We're

vegans, we're vegetarians,' that's not the issue in this case. The

child died because he was not fed. Period. "

 

The prosecutor knew the truth, which is that no responsible vegan

parent in the world would feed an infant, who was born three months

premature, a diet of apple juice and soy milk. (Note-have you ever

looked at a carton of soy milk? Somewhere on every carton of soy milk

I have run across is a statement something like the following:

" Not to be used as an infant food. " One cannot easily

misunderstand that, unless of course, one is illiterate, stupid, or a

murderer.)

 

The prosecutor got it, but Nina Planck did not, and she used this

tragic case of parental ignorance, neglect and cruelty, to step up on

her soapbox and paint all vegan parents as irresponsible kooks.

 

In her essay/article/screeching rant, entitled, " Death by

Veganism, " she states in her final sentence, " Children fed

only plants will not get the precious things they need to live and

grow. "

 

She also said, " A vegan diet is equally dangerous for weaned

babies and toddlers, who need plenty of protein and calcium. Too

often, vegans turn to soy, which actually inhibits growth and reduces

absorption of protein and minerals. That's why health officials in

Britain, Canada and other countries express caution about soy for

babies. (Not here, though -- perhaps because our farm policy is so

soy-friendly.) "

 

Actually, let's hear what the ADA, The American Dietetic Association,

has to say about the suitability of a vegan diet, which can include

soy formula for babies who are not breastfed, straight from their own

website.

 

The ADA's official position on vegetarianism reads thusly: " It is

the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of

Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful,

nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention

and treatment of certain diseases.ŠThis position paper reviews the

current scientific data related to key nutrients for vegetarians,

including protein, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin

B-12, vitamin A, n-3 fatty acids and iodine. A vegetarian, including

vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these

nutrients. In some cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be

helpful in meeting recommendations for individual nutrients.

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.

 

Did you notice that the ADA website specifically mentions that the

Dietitians of Canada concurred with their position? So, uh, which

Canadian health officials are expressing caution against the use of

soy in infant diets?

 

We'll never know, because Planck doesn't cite her sources.

 

And that, my friends, is why I am pretty well steamed, even if I am

not a vegan.

 

I am steamed, and I stand with all those steamed vegan parents who are

rightfully huffing about Planck's opinion piece, because she is not

only not a nutritionist or a pediatrician, she is stating her opinions

as facts, and is not backing up her assertions.

 

She is not an authority on nutrition or health, so her argument,

unless she appeals to a qualified authority, is unsupported.

 

When she does appeal to authority, such as the unnamed British and

Canadian health officials, she does not cite her sources, so we can do

some fact checking, in order to see if they really said what she says

they said.

 

If you go to her website, Planck does tell us that talked with

" many sources " in order to write her op-ed piece.

 

But she gives us no names; instead, she says, " Some readers asked

about my sources. Among many sources for this piece, I interviewed a

family practitioner who treats many vegetarian and vegan families. The

doctor's comments were useful but too long for the Times. Here they

are:

 

'The most significant issue with vegan infants is growth. I have

seen cases of severe anemia and protein deficiency in vegan infants

resulting in hospitalization and blood transfusion. Most breast-fed

vegan children will do okay until solids are introduced, as long as

the vegan mother is well nourished. Most commonly you see Vitamin B12

and iron deficiencies in vegan children. Vegan families must place

close attention to protein sources, calcium, Vitamins D and B12, and

iron. Often this can be achieved via fortified foods, but I've seen

that not all vegan parents want to choose these types of foods. Most

vegan families I've met don't understand the importance of fat intake

in the cognitive development of the baby.' The doctor also reiterated

what informed parents know: that soy milk is 'completely inadequate'

for babies. "

 

This unnamed physician could be a great source of information; he

could have done research that has been written up in a peer-reviewed

journal that supports Planck's assertions. However, we have no way of

knowing that, because he is not named. We cannot look him up and see

if he really is on the up and up, or is just some quack whom Planck

happens to know.

 

In fact, we don't know how many of her " many sources " she

talks about are really qualified authorities.

 

In fact, we don't even know if they are real or not; we just have to

take her word for it.

 

I'm sorry, but since she has made one blatantly fallacious statement,

which is the crux of her argument, that being that a vegan diet is

completely inadequate to feed infants, I am not going to just give her

the benefit of the doubt on the existence of her sources.

 

I mean, if a writer is going to go against the ADA's official stance,

it behooves her to get her facts straight on the issue she is on her

soapbox about.

 

The fact is, Planck is full of it on this issue. She is making it

sound like -all- vegan parents are as misinformed, incompetent,

negligent and cruel as the parents of Crown Shakur, the baby who

starved to death in Atlanta. She is making it sound like all vegan

parents are feeding their babies soy milk from cartons which

specifically state that it is not a proper infant food. She is making

it sound like all vegan parents are criminally negligent, just like

the two who have been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, when

the truth is, most vegan parents go out of their way to feed their

infant children the best food in the world for them: breastmilk.

 

What does the first sentence on the Vegan Society's webpage on infant

feeding say?

 

" Breast is best. "

 

Not, " Apple juice and soy milk is the way to go. "

 

Apple juice and soy milk don't even make it to the second sentence, or

the third, fourth of fifth. The next best choice cited by the Vegan

Society is soy-based infant formula, which is also deemed an

acceptable second-best to breastfeeding by none other than the

American Academy of Pediatrics.

 

The fact is this: no responsible parent, vegan or omnivore, would feed

their infant child a diet consisting of apple juice and soy milk. Such

a diet is not recognized by anyone as adequate or preferable, so why

is Planck trying to scare the New York Times readers into thinking

that vegan parents are a bunch of irresponsible dimwits who don't know

how to feed their kids?

 

Well, I hate to say it, but she probably did it to sell more copies of

her book, which is coming out in paperback next month.

 

Okay, maybe I am being too cynical.

 

Maybe Planck really believes that there are a bunch of vegan parents

out there starving their kids to death and she wants to warn everyone

to be on the lookout for babies being fed on diets of soy milk and

apple juice. Maybe she thinks she is doing some good by giving the

people who may never have met a vegan in their lives the idea that

they are all baby-killers. Maybe she thinks some vegan parents will

read her work and see the light and stop eating such a kooky, faddish

diet.

 

Or, maybe, she is just a bit of a kook herself.

 

I think I will go back to my first, albeit cynical, thought because I

don't like to think that she is a kook or a vegan-hating bigot.

 

Planck is just out to sell some books by engaging in a provocative bit

of yellow-journalism by slinging some mud at an easy target.

 

The problem is-at least in my eyes-is she aimed mud at the vegans,

but splattered herself thoroughly in her own muck by not citing

sources for her " facts " and for stating easily discovered

fallacies as truths.

 

I hate to say it, but I don't think that I will be reading her next

book, Baby Food, which she is researching now, on the subject of real

food for babies, a subject which all of my readers -know- I am

interested in.

 

I'd love to read it, but I just don't think I could stomach it.

Posted by Barbara on May 22, 2007 in Book Reviews: Non-Cookbook Food

Books, Food in the News, Essays, Rants and Reflections, Food Media,

Nutrition, Diet and Health, Food and Kids |

 

Read the responses (or leave yours) at

www.tigersandstrawberries.com/2007/05/22/nina-plan

ck-stirs-the-pot-vegans-get-steamed-film-at-eleven /