Janic wrote:
I cannot consider the notion of "moderate quantity" even at the level of quantification; like: one it's okay, three hello the damage
It is completely exaggerated!
You seem to regard meat as a poison out and it's history, many human beings owe their survival through the consumption of this one (hard to find something else to spend some latitude).
That is why we must distinguish a company obliged to eat animals to survive and our modern societies where this has gone, but not used.
Otherwise, the meat n 'is no poison, no more mushrooms are poisonous, they are certain of their components that are poisonous in quantity more or less important depending on the product. Some fungi are very toxic, even fatal, other low-toxicity and other do not cause obvious signs. This is where the concept of dose and composition of the toxic alkaloid. So what is in question is the alkaloid such as coffee (caffeine) tea (caffeine) and in this case the meat ptomaines. http://www.kousmine.com/prod04.htm
Quote:
while scientifically damage start one.
Source?
No scientific studies indicate that meat causes damage to moderate consumption.
The damage term is used relatively, the individual does not die on the spot as if he had swallowed a poison.
So the problem is that for independent scientific studies are carried out, we need significant financial support VG no group has the means to support. So the few existing studies are done the studies supported by the lobbies of meat and therefore does not go in the opposite direction to their interests.
There are some very general American studies, nevertheless, that underline the difference.
Moderate consumption of any food will not present specific clinical signs since the food of most people is diverse which makes it difficult to draw conclusions. For that you need to classify each food to measure the advantages / disadvantages (and it is forbidden to do on humans). So you will not find quasimment nothing on the subject. For the rest it is measured by comparing the experiences of certain target groups (when possible because the VG are eParts and in small quantities in the territory)
Quote:
For the "VG diet" (it is not a diet but a way of life)
Being a vegetarian since I was young, I consider it as a system and not as a way of life.
Of course, since this is not a personal choice, thought, measured, compared, it is a culture comparing themselves to another culture. (In this case we can say that all food diets modes.)
A lifestyle induced an ideology, which is not always the case.
Un changement lifestyle, food or not, is always linked to an "ideology" although the word itself be diverted from its meaning most of the time
Origins of ideology [edit]
Etymology [edit]
From ancient Greek ἰδέα (idea), "idea", and from λόγος (logos), "science, speech". Ideology is therefore, etymologically, a discourse on ideas. In ancient Greek, the noun ἰδέα related to the verb ἰδεῖν, "to see", would rather suggest the meaning of "image". Ideology is commonly interpreted as:
• the logic of an idea from its constraint ... (The strain or its opposite?)
• the logic of vision.
• the logic of a developed image to the groupthink.
A child or adult who is just following the choice of his parents or society is actually not in ideology but in a culture.
My children and grandchildren are VG but the subject does not interest them more than that, it has become a culture for them!
By cons if they have to make a choice contrary to that culture maybe they will be interested in the subject and their choice will be ideological THEN.
Finally, and this is important if each consumer, even moderate, was to kill these animals for food: how much do?