Author Nina Planck, a self-proclaimed reformed vegan, wrote an OpEd piece in yesterday's New York Times declaring that a vegan way of eating is "irresponsible" for devloping babies, infants, and growing toddlers.
By now we've all read the story of the vegan couple who was recently tried and convicted of starving their six-week-old baby to death by feeding it nothing but soy milk and apple juice. This is the third or fourth time a "calamity" like this has happened in as many years. In my mind, these tragedies have less to do with veganism and more to do with the parents being stupid, selfish, a-holes.
Says Planck:
I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants. Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.
And for those that argue that vegans can breastfeed their children (although do vegans consider breastmilk an animal product?) Planck responds, "Studies show that vegan breast milk lacks enough docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development."
Though not a medical professional, she makes a strong case that babies need a range of nutrients to develop properly. And I'm sure many medical professionals would agree with her. Seasoned vegans will probably poke holes in her arguments and chime in with all kinds of reasons why a vegan diet for babies is perfectly fine, but I wouldn't be willing to risk it.
