Truth: The evidence shows that balanced vego diets are as healthy as meat-based diets, and healthier.

Everybody can find a vegetarian "horror story" about someone who tried to be vego and got sick. Normally it's a furphy in a couple of ways. Most commonly such "proofs" are wrong by ignoring statistical validity. For example, people who cite examples of miscarriages by vego Mums fail to cite the vastly greater number of miscarriages by non-vego Mums, or to provide any statistical evidence that there is any greater tendency for vego Mums to miscarry.

It's always easy to pick on the one thing that makes a person different. How many weak, pasty, unfit people do you know who are not vegetarian?

Yes, there are some pasty vegos, just as there are some pasty, pimply and weak meat eaters. Like the pasty meat eaters, the pasty vegos are likely to be people who don't eat a balanced diet. If you try to live on lettuce leaves alone, or 2 minute noodles or hot chips alone, you won't be healthy and that, although dietary, has nothing to do with the fact that your diet is vegetarian. It's just a bad diet, full stop. Alternatively, pasty vegos may be unhealthy because of reasons that have nothing to do with their diet (just as meat eaters may be).

The sick vego syndrome can also (HOWEVER, we stress, this is only a tiny number of cases) be because the person has tried to be vegan without due consideration of the issues around Vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 is a vital nutrient which we only need in tiny quantities, and we get extremely sick if we run out. It takes 5+ years to run out but some vegans do, with dire results. For reasons we explain elsewhere (see Vitamin B12: what every vego needs to know), Vitamin B12 must be added to a vegan diet through the use of either supplements or fortified foods.

Nobody is claiming that not eating meat is an automatic or magic key to health. All we are saying is that balanced vegetarian diets are not only completely adequate, but all else being equal, in health terms (and this is based on data which is statistically valid) vegetarian diets have better outcomes. For example, research has shown that vegetarians statistically suffer from lower rates of nasty conditions like diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, heart disease and obesity. Vegetarians also tend to live longer.

It's also important to point out that, contrary to popular belief, vegetarians don't experience iron deficiency any more than meat-eaters do.

References: see the references for our Health page

Truth: We are the living proof!

At the end of the day, the proof that vegetarians can be healthy - even healthier than meat eaters - is here in the flesh. We at Vegetarian Action and our supporters and friends and many other vegos we've met are bursting with health. Some of us have been vegetarian (and vegan) for over 20 years, even for a lifetime. We are healthy and strong and energetic and many of us notice we suffer less from common complaints (colds, flu, constipation, tummy aches) than our meat-eating friends. We barely know our doctors. We have thriving vegetarian kids some of whom have reached adulthood without ever having eaten meat.

You can make up your own mind, but we know the truth and for us it is indisputable - we are living it!

Still not convinced?

Check out these vegan bodybuilding websites:

www.veganbodybuilding.com

www.veganbodybuilding.org

And these gorgeous, healthy guys and gals:

www.lettuceladies.com

www.broccoliboys.com

Read more:

• Coming soon in Generation V & www.vegetarianaction.org.au - our profiles of local Vego Mums with healthy, vibrant, happy kids. Also, if you want to meet healthy vegetarians, come along to a Vegetarian Action event.

Truth: Healthy vegetarian diets do contain ample protein

Protein is everywhere. It's in every food, although there's not a lot in fresh fruit and vegetables. However there's plenty of protein in other vegetarian foods like legumes (eg dried beans, dried peas, chickpeas, lentils) and grains (eg wheat, rice, corn, barley, oats), nuts and seeds. It's not difficult for vegetarians to get enough protein, as long as they don't try to live on lettuce leaves.

Truth: More protein is not always better for you

The biggest trouble with the Protein Myth is that it's got it all backwards. The problem in our society is not too little protein, it's too much. Too much protein is associated with diseases like heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis, gout, and ulcers (to name just a few!) And on average, Australians eat nearly 3 times as much as we should.

References: see the references for our Health page

Read more:

• Veganism and the Issue of Protein - Factsheet from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Are vegetarians pale, weak, anaemic people who can hardly stand up straight? Not the ones I know!

Truth: Balanced vegetarian diets supply adequate iron

Iron is found in many vegetarian foods. Did you know, for instance, that dried apricots, spinach and chickpeas all have more iron per 100g than beef steak?

Truth: Not all iron is created equal... and too much can be as dangerous as not enough.

The type of iron which is found in plants is qualitatively different from the iron found in meat, and has been linked with diseases such as cancer.

In addition, it's important to know that eating too much iron is linked to health consequences.

References: see the references for our Health page

Read more:

• What's really wrong with the Red Meat ads? - from Vegetarian Action
• The Iron Myth - Why Plant Iron is Best - from the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation

Truth: You do not have the body of a meat eater!

Ideas about diet and body type or blood type are one of the handy excuses people cite for not being "able" to go vegetarian. Such ideas are often inculcated by popular diet books.

The truth is, if you were meant to eat meat, you would have claws and sharp canine teeth for catching animals and tearing flesh. You would have acid saliva to help digest animal protein. Your stomach would be a round, simple sack and would secrete 10 times more hydrochloric acid than the stomachs of plant eaters (including humans). You would have short intestines (3 times the length of your trunk), for rapid digestion of meat which putrefies, rather than long intestines (12 times the length of your trunk) for slow digestion of plant food. Your liver would eliminate 10 to 15 times more uric acid (the main metabolic waste produced by eating meat) compared with plant eaters, including humans. You would not produce adequate cholesterol in your own body - you would need to obtain it by eating other animals, whereas the human body produces all the cholesterol it needs and gets sick from the excess which results from eating other animals. And you would sweat by rapid breathing, rather than having pores, like other plant-eaters.

Further reading

This is just a very quick glance at a technical topic. For a more in-depth treatment, read the article:

The Natural Human Diet from GoVeg.Com
(Visit GoVeg.com, click on Health Issues, then Is Eating Meat Natural?)

Help dispel this myth

We invite you to read and distribute our flyer, Red Meat. Feel Good?, which helps to dispel the myth that the human body "needs" meat.

Yes, it's possible. For years some researchers have been looking into energy patterns within the plant world and coming up with surprising results. HOWEVER... there are still 2 issues with this myth.

Truth: Carrots may have feelings, but they have less feelings.

Carrots don't have nervous systems. The generally accepted concept of "pain" is inextricably associated with the nervous system since it is this system which carries pain signals to the brain, allowing humans and animals to feel pain. It may be that carrots do have some form of feelings, however they are physiologically not equipped to experience 'feelings' to the same degree which species with nervous systems - including animals and fish - do.

Generally, it is accepted that it's impossible to live as a physical being in this world without causing 'harm' (ie unless you become a 'breatharian', you're going to have to eat something to stay alive.) Therefore the guiding moral principle must be that of harm minimisation. If it's necessary to choose between inflicting pain on a being with a nervous system and on one without, most people would accept that less pain is inflicted by choosing the carrot.

Truth: Vegetarian diets kill less carrots.

The truth is, even if you are intensely concerned about the potential pain suffered by carrots, vegetarian diets always produce less suffering. This is because producing meat for food actually uses up more plants compared with eating plants directly. In order to grow (and become meat), animals must eat food - plant foods, like grass, soy beans, or carrots. For every kilo of meat produced, a large amount of energy is used up by the animal simply to stay alive. In fact, in terms of the energy in food terms that we get out at the end of the process, we get back less than 5% of what we put in.

So the reality is, by eating a vegetarian diet, you actually save plants.

References: see the references for our World Hunger page

Read more:

• Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation, Second Edition, London: Jonathan Cape, 1990, p.160.

Which God? Whose God?

Most religions that we know of preach compassion. Why should compassion apply only to human beings, and not to other species? Certainly, religions emphasise compassion towards other human beings - perhaps because we are so far from achieving compassion, that this seems like the logical first step. (If we can't respect and care about others like us, how can we care about beings who are different from us?)

The Christian bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill". This would seem to be a blanket statement against the taking of life. God is fairly specific. Surely if the intention of the commandment was limited to "Thou Shalt Not Kill Human Beings", then this would have been spelt out?

On the other hand, we defy anyone to produce a Scripture in which Jesus - or Mohammed, or any other bearer of God's word - is recorded as having said "Thou Must Eat Meat" or "Thou Shalt Not Be Vegetarian".

Scriptural interpretation is a messy business, and inevitably generates a huge variety of opinions. It is important to remember also that religious Scriptures are historical documents and as well as the timeless wisdom they contain, they also contain a multitude of references and instructions pertinent to the historical, social and geographical context in which they were recorded. Thus for example Islamic instructions about the hygienic killing of meat and the avoidance of 'unclean' foods (which in effect excludes omnivores from the human diet) may be interpreted as a compromise - a part-way measure to reduce the reliance on consumption of animals and to reduce the suffering of those animals which, given the time, place and social context, were inevitably still going to be killed. Yes - we acknowledge this is only one possible interpretation.

In the end, each individual must decide on the interpretation of God's will and intention which they accept as "true", and how this fits with their own sense of morality and choices about what they eat. For us, the question is: what sort of God would want over 53 billion animals each year to be bred, born, raised in torment and brutally slaughtered purely to feed human appetites? Is this a God you would want to put your faith in?

Read more:

• But Jesus Ate Fish! (article)
• Perspectives on vegetarianism: Spirituality
• Visit our Online Discussion Forum and join the discussion about spirituality & religion

Truth: Who says so? Do you really know this?

This argument is often trotted out by Christians as another excuse not to face the real issues inherent in meat eating - cruelty, waste, and environmental destruction.

However, such an argument often reflects a poor and superficial understanding of the Christian religion, as well as a failure to genuinely engage with the question of whether meat-eating can be reconciled with spirituality, what the real attitude of the founders of today's religions was to this issue, and why accepted religious Scriptures (Christian and otherwise) approach it in the way they do.

For example, do the words "meat" - as translated into English at numerous points in the Bible - really refer to the flesh of animals in the original Greek, or do they equate to more general terms such as "food", "nourishment" and "eating" (as "meat" used to do in older English)? Did Jesus really eat fish, or did this misconception come about because of a literal, rather than mystical or symbolic, interpretation of certain passages in the Scriptures?

If you dare to ask yourself genuine questions about Jesus (and other religious prophets') attitude to the consumption of animals, we invite you to read our article: But Jesus Ate Fish!