Dude, the expired paper doesn’t matter. It has no relevance. And what do you think dietary authorities around the world are doing, just blindly parroting this one organization? No, they follow their own processes, use their own research, and come to their own conclusions based on what they consider to be the best available evidence.

Like, what are you even trying to accomplish here? You’re going so far out of your way just to miss the point, to what, feel like you’ve won even some tiny crumb of an argument? Get your priorities straight.

Ffs, the page you linked: “This Position was approved in January 2025 and will remain in effect until December 31, 2032”

And the page about childhood nutrition: “This position is in effect until December 31, 2025.”

Everything that I’ve cited is still in effect. Seriously, are you delusional?

Dude, the first article I quoted is literally from the exact link you sent, and the second article I quoted comes from this link that you just sent now, which is where I found it in the first place. Also, you keep talking about the old paper “expiring.” You know they have to explicitly state when removals are made, and why they’re made, right? Here is from the page about it:

“This article has been removed at the request of the Academy Positions Committee (APC) of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The APC became aware of inaccuracies and omissions in the position paper that could affect recommendations and conclusions within the paper. After further review, the APC decided it was appropriate to remove this paper for major revision.”

So as you say, unless removed, everything on that page is still considered valid - including everything I quoted. Seriously, just stop. This is getting ridiculous.

You cannot draw that conclusion from that one article, particularly when the article says explicitly, “… and is outside the scope of this Position Paper.” Presumably they either have, or will be, writing more specific guidelines for children and pregnant women on plant-based diets, but so far this is what I’ve found on their paper on nutrition benchmarks for children:

“Some children may also require dietary modifications for certain cultural or religious preferences, including vegetarian diets,4 which may also have added benefits. A recent study of one child-care center in South Carolina found that adding vegetarian meals to the menu improved the nutrient content of foods provided while keeping total energy, saturated fat, sodium, and cholesterol relatively low.11”

To read that paper and infer that it’s claiming plant-based diets are unsafe for children and pregnant women requires such a thick degree of bias it’s just desperate. Especially in the context of every other health authority around the world affirming that a properly implemented plant-based diet is safe and adequate for all stages of life. You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you’re trying so hard to lie about this.

Where does it say that?

And it also discussed benefits, such as lower risk of certain diseases.

Even the new paper (the very one you linked to) says that the subject of pregnant women and people under the age of 18 are simply out of the scope of the paper. To interpret that as meaning in anyway that they’re saying people need to eat animal products to be healthy is factually incorrect.

“This Position Paper addresses vege- tarian dietary patterns in adults aged 18 years or older who are not pregnant or lactating. Facilitating vegetarian di- etary patterns in individuals younger than age 18 years and/or for those pregnant or lactating requires specific guidance that considers how vege- tarian dietary patterns may influence these crucial stages of growth and development and is outside the scope of this Position Paper. The target audi- ence for this article is RDNs, NDTRs, and other health care practitioners.”

Not a single comment with an ideal alternative, despite best efforts. We need a fediverse Amazon alternative. 😞

Wage stagnation is absolutely heartbreaking.

But even if I were making a livable wage, Nintendo’s prices and other AAA are still ridiculous. The Steam wishlist sale life is the good life.

It’s not really individual approaches that my comment is about. I was a cashier in a state where they had banned single use bags, and that seemed to make things worse. Instead of thin single-use plastic bags getting everywhere, there are now nearly as many thicker multi-use usually plastic bags being treated like single-use ones and also getting everywhere. My point was that it’s a system that needs more circularity.

That’s just your opinion.

No longer the position of a academy, post-Trump administration. As if anything can be trusted from US institutions anymore.

Even in spite of best efforts for good systems to remember mine, I still forget them often. The problem in the US is that the system is not complete. The bags need to be made of biodegradable and/or recyclable materials, and every store needs a convenient way to turn in old bags so they can go into a recycling system. There probably shouldn’t be a charge for them either.

That’s generally even worse, cause the shop-at-home people will automatically buy the cheapest bags at cost to you and they will add up with every grocery delivery.

Alright, if we’re in low-effort territory here, I’m just gonna quick-fire these off.

1. Why are you not using an adblocker?
2. Are you allergic to books? Okay, here’s the entire list of scientific studies cited in that book. All 8000+ of them.
3. It’s not a misquote, that’s just not relevant information for what the article was trying to convey, and the need for taking b12 is implied by “well planned.” Also, if you have a basic understanding of how b12 is formed, you’d be stupid not to be taking b12 supplements anyway. No diet in our present environment can reliably supply b12 from whole food sources - and odds are you are taking b12 supplements anyway, because in many cases the animals you eat were fed supplements themselves.
4. That’s really just your personal opinion of what you claim to have read about vegan diet studies, which doesn’t say much since you have already made it clear you’re extremely biased and don’t like reading. Also, “such as people who eat vegan carefully planning their diet and wanting to eat healthy” - so you’re admitting that a vegan diet is healthy? Also, you are clearly not familiar with any vegan communities, because junk-food vegans are prevalent.
5. Dietary science is incredibly complex, and there’s a vast amount to learn still, but no it is not unreliable. Nutritional science is imperfect, and deeply impacted by corporate corruption, but still very much has a solid core. What’s most unreliable is people actually following the recommendations of the scientific consensus, or even being able to begin learning what that is through all the noise of corporate propaganda which basically comes from the same stale playbook as the tobacco companies, and climate deniers, such as the garbage talking points you’re spewing right now. I hope you’re getting paid for this, because otherwise it’s just sad.
6. Umm, no they don’t do that? Science is how we understand edge cases like food allergies, lactose intolerance, celiac disease and other autoimmune disorders, and every other nutritional edge-case that sometimes needs to be accounted for. But yeah, sorry, but humans are all made of a very similar biochemical make-up - there is an overall dietary pattern that fits most of the human population. (To be clear, if we’re talking about nutrition alone, the scientific consensus leans most strongly in favor of the Mediterranean diet, which is not a vegan diet. But a vegan whole-food plant-based diet can fit that pattern just fine).
7. Aside from that fact that with enough volume of evidence, no you don’t necessarily need everyone to have the same genetics, there are other ways around those variables; same genetics? You mean like this study on twins which found that a vegan diet improves cardiovascular health?
8. Yeah there are often sample size problems in vegan studies, I’ll admit that. That can be worked around, but best way to solve that in the long term is for more people to go vegan.
9. Dude, are you indigenous to Australia? Cause if not, you are literally hundreds to thousands of miles away from your “ancestral” diet, smh. But aside from your diet probably not being healthy, considering it contains animal products, it sounds more like you would rather just keep your head buried in the sand and not care about the fact that your “ancestral” diet is dependent on the industrial-scale systematic confinement, forced genetic modifications, torture, sexual assault, and slaughter of billions of sentient beings every year; something that is also one of humankind’s most environmentally destructive endeavors, and continually creating conditions for one pandemic after another.

Giving up animal products is one of the most important, impactful, and meaningful decisions you have a chance to make, and the only thing getting in the way is your own prejudice and devaluing of other living beings.

This must be a sign from God that I need to pursue the American dream of monetized game streaming.

I’m ambivalent about mechanical keyboard. I hate touch-based interfaces. 🤮️

Because even if vegan shoes are made of synthetic materials, leather is still arguably worse. Anyway, having more plant-based materials to work with hypothetically means anything made of those materials should be more biodegradable. But you have a point, biodegradability almost kind of by definition means the product in question is one that’s not designed to last. There’s probably a middle ground that can be found, like shoes that break down into soil-enriching materials after 50-100 years.

Umm… what?

Did you watch the video?