Wikipedia

Talk:Vegetarianism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.72.151.150 (talk) at 01:49, 13 April 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 12 years ago by Mihaiam in topic Vitamin B12
Learn more about this page

Well, you have clearly been raised eating meat. This has created a strong bias that means you will only seek information for why your way of life is right, and all others are wrong. It is, of course, human nature, to search for justification for your own actions only rather than an honest search for the truth. I have read Diet for a New America, in which the author, John Robbins, tells that any animal protein consumed regularly will cause severe health problems, such as heart disease, cancer, osteoperosis, and kidney stones. The sources you cite which have said such anti-vegetarian, pro-meat things are obviously written by people who share your bias or have been forged by the meat industry. Dr. Jane Goodall has said, "Today it is generally accepted that although the earliest humans probably ate some meat, it was unlikely to have played a major role in their diet. Plants would have been a much more important source of food" and many health experts and journals list the positive helath benefits of a vegetarian diet. 

I'm sorry if I am rash, but eating animals is such a different way of life that makes little to no sense to me that I can not quite understand why people follow this. Thank you, for reading my opinion, and I suggest you read Diet for a New America if you want to further understand why we feel this is the best style of life.





Bold text

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 9, 2006Peer reviewReviewed

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Environment and Diet

Latest comment: 12 years ago16 comments1 person in discussion

This section of the Wikipedia article contains considerable misinformation: much of the content is erroneous, unverifiable or misleading in its context.

  • The Wikipedia article states. "In addition, animal agriculture is a large source of greenhouse gases. According to a 2006 report it is responsible for 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all of the world's transportation (including all cars, trucks, buses, trains, ships, and planes) was said to emit 13.5% of the CO2. " However, in a peer-reviewed paper, that comparison with transportation has been shown to be erroneous (Pitesky, M. E. et al. 2009. Clearing the air. Adv. Agron. 103: 1-40). One of the co-authors of the 2006 report has acknowledged the error, as reported in news media, e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html). Later in the Wikipedia article, the 18 percent figure is given again in a statement by Rajenda Pachauri. The repetition appears unnecessary. Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The FAO estimate of 18 % included carbon dioxide emission associated with deforestation attributed to livestock production, which primarily relates to land use issues in Central and South America. Regional estimates differ greatly. Livestock sources (including enteric fermentation and manure) account for about 3.1 percent of US anthropogenic GHG emissions expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents. This figure (for 2009) is from data of EPA (2011. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2009. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-11-005. 459 pp.). The EPA data are based on methodologies agreed to by the Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC, with 100-year global warming potentials from the IPCC Second Assessment Report used in estimating GHG emissions as carbon dioxide equivalents.Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The Wikipedia article states: "But according to a later study, at least 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions [GHGs] are attributable to the life cycle and supply chain of livestock products, and this means all meat, dairy, and by-products, and the transport of them. " This figure is the result of a badly flawed analysis and the paper from which it is taken was not subject to peer review. Its authors distort methane data and arbitrarily include some GHG source and sink terms while omitting others, to inflate the percentage of emissions that they claim is attributable to livestock. As a result, their emission percentage estimate is meaningless, and uncritically citing it is inappropriate and misleading. Editors of the article should note Wikipedia's verifiability precept that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The article further states "Methane has about 21 times more Global Warming Potential (GWP) than carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide has 296 times the GWP of CO2." The GWPs of 21 (methane) and 296 (nitrous oxide) are still used for purposes of national GHG source and sink inventories because of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (in order to facilitate comparisons between different years). However, these GWP estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report have since been modified. Current estimates are somewhat higher, as noted in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Also, for completeness, it should be stated that these are 100-year GWPs.Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The Wikipedia article states: "Animals fed on grain, and those that rely on grazing, need far more water than grain crops. " The statement fails to meet the verifiability requirement for Wikipedia information. It is from a media quote of a WHO representative, not from a reliable source on water use in agriculture. Moreover, the statement is erroneous. Per unit food mass produced, animals need far less water than grain crops do. This can be demonstrated, for example, by comparing data on water need by livestock (e.g. Forbes. 1968. Br. J. Nutr. 22: 33-43) with wheat crop transpiration data (e.g. Zhang et al. 1998. Plant and Soil 201: 295-305), expressing the data per unit mass of food produced. Additional peer-reviewed publications could be cited, confirming that the quoted statement from the Wikipedia article is incorrect. Perhaps the person quoted actually meant to refer not to animals fed on grain, but to animal production systems (including production of animal feed), which do need more water per unit mass of food produced. Also, for comparison of an animal production system with grain crop production, the statement is problematic in terms of water use per unit land area. That is, for an unirrigated parcel of land, water use for a livestock production system will be roughly similar to that for growing grain crops, assuming similarity of the Priestley-Taylor alpha coefficient. Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The Wikipedia article states "According to the USDA, growing the crops necessary to feed farmed animals requires nearly half of the United States' water supply and 80% of its agricultural land." The cited source does not support the allegations regarding water use or cropland. In fact, total cropland amounts to only about 44.1 percent of US census farmland (USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. United States Summary and State Data. Vol. 1. Geographic Area Series. Part 51. AC-07-A-51. 639 pp. + appendices). The reference to "water supply" is ambiguous, as it does not specify whether it refers to withdrawn water sources or all water sources. Moreover, if it is to be retained, it needs support from a reliable source, not attribution to a source which does not contain this kind of information at all.Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The Wikipedia article states "Additionally, animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and a total of 70% of its grain." Elsewhere, citing the same source, the Wikipedia article repeats that: "Currently, 70% of all the wheat, corn and other grain produced is fed to farmed animals." Computer search of the cited source reveals that it does not support the statement. The statement's figures appear bogus, for the following reasons:
  • According to USDA Agricultural Statistics 2010, grain fed to US livestock and poultry in 2008 amounted to 158.7 million tons, i.e. about 144 million metric tons, and grain production amounted to 400.3 million metric tons. Thus it appears that US livestock and poultry consume about 36 percent, not 70 percent, of grain produced in the US. (Exports accounted for about 20 percent of the US grain crop in 2008. The USDA estimates that in 2010, about 27 percent of US corn, the principal US grain, was used for ethanol production. Seed, food and other uses together also comprise an important fraction of US grain production.)
  • According to USDA Agricultural Statistics 2010, 33.83 million tons of soy meal was fed to US livestock in 2008, and an additional 3 million tons of soybeans were accounted for as feed, seed and residual. Thus the total amount of soybeans and soybean meal fed to US livestock amounted to not more than 40 percent, not 90 percent, of the US soybean production of 91.41 million tons. (Production of soybean oil, used for human consumption, biodiesel, etc., amounted to 9.37 million tons. Exports accounted for 42 percent of US soybean disappearance.) Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The Wikipedia article states: "When tracking food animal production from the feed through to consumption, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from 4:1 up to 54:1 energy input to protein output ratio." The statement does not make sense, because animal production ends at the farm gate, not at consumption. From the farm gate to consumption, there is considerable energy input for processing, packaging, transportation, wholesale, retail, food service and home storage, and cooking. The cited source, a press release referring to a 1997 presentation by Pimentel, indicates that the 54:1 ratio applies to beef. However, citing the same 1997 presentation, Pimentel and Pimentel (2003) indicate 40:1. Moreover, studies of Heitschmidt et al. (1996), Pimentel et al. (1980) and Cook et al. (1980) are in relatively good agreement with regard to energy use in beef production, but all disagree greatly with the 54:1 ratio. Also, the ratios of energy input to protein energy output cannot reasonably be described as inefficiencies of energy use, insofar as protein energy accounts for only a fraction of food energy in meat (e.g. about 31 percent of food energy output in beef meat), and it excludes non-food outputs and non-energy output values derived from the input. The egregiously problematic sentence, usupported by peer-reviewed research publications, should be deleted from the article, because of Wikipedia's verifiability precept that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The Wikipedia article states: "This firstly because the feed first needs to be grown before it is eaten by the cattle, and secondly because warm-blooded vertebrates need to use a lot of calories just to stay warm (unlike plants or insects).[186] " In its context, the statement is misleading. Under conditions of thermoneutrality, heat requirements of cattle are met by the difference between metabolizable and net energy; additional energy requirements for warmth commonly account for a small fraction of energy intake. This is evident from data of National Research Council (2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. National Academy Press, Washington) and National Research Council (Subcommittee on Environmental Stress. 1981. Effect of environment on nutrient requirements of domestic animals. National Academy Press, Washington). In its context, the Wikipedia statement exaggerates the significance of energy requirements for warmth in relation to energy use in livestock production. The dietary energy used by cattle for warmth is derived by photosynthetic capture of solar energy. However, energy use in the context where the Wikipedia statement occurs includes energy from fossil, nuclear, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, technological solar, and wind sources. It excludes solar energy captured by photosynthesis.Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The Wikipedia article states: "To produce animal-based food seems to be, according to these studies, typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits." A meaningful comparison would be production vs. production or harvesting vs. harvesting, not production vs. harvesting.Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The Wikipedia article states: "According to the theory of trophic dynamics, it requires 10 times as many crops to feed animals being bred for meat production as it would to feed the same number of people on a vegetarian diet." This does not make sense. Human vegetarians might eat a diverse diet involving more than 20 different crops. A meat-producing animal might consume as few as 1 to 4 crops. Even if the intent were to refer to the mass of dry matter consumed, rather than the number of crops, comparison would have to identify the kind animals involved. The amount of dry matter fed to a dozen meat-producing rabbits, for example, is much less than the amount needed "to feed the same number of people on a vegetarian diet." Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The Wikipedia articles states "Animal farming produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide and 37% of all human-induced methane. Methane has about 21 times more Global Warming Potential (GWP) than carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide has 296 times the GWP of CO2. " Of the three references cited at the end of the second sentence, none appears to support the numbers given. The 21 and 296 are from the IPCC Second Assessment Report; however, these estimates have been modified in the more recent Assessment Reports. Regarding the percentage of anthropogenic methane attributable to livestock globally, see the IPCC Third Assessment Report, which tabulates several estimates by various investigators. Regarding the percentage attributable to livestock in the US, see EPA (2011. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2009. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-11-005. 459 pp.) Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The Wikipedia article states: "Ecology professor David Pimentel has claimed, 'If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million.'" If a sufficiently low percentage of grain in the diet is assumed, the grain fed to US livestock would be sufficient to feed 6 billion people a little bit of grain each. Alternatively, one might consider whether the energy content of grain fed to US livestock would be equivalent to the energy requirements of 800 million people. USDA Agricultural Statistics 2010, Table 1-75 indicates that grain fed to US livestock and poultry in 2010 amounted to 154.1 million tons, and assuming a somewhat higher-than-average metabolizable energy content of 3.2 Mcal/kg, this would amount to 447 billion Mcal for the year. Divided among 800 million people, this is an allocation of about 1,530 kcal per day. For 1997-99, the FAO estimated per capita food energy consumption for sub-Saharan Africa at about 2,195 kcal per day, and for a global average, 2,803 kcal per day (http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/AC911E/ac911e05.htm). Clearly, the energy contained in the grain fed to US livestock is far less than the caloric intake requirement of 800 million people. We are not told what assumptions Pimentel made in arriving at his estimate. it would seem prudent to seek independent confirmation of Pimentel's figure before presenting it in Wikipedia. Schafhirt (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The Wikipedia article states: "An index which can be used as a measure is the efficiency of conversion of ingested food to body substance, which indicates, for example, that only 10% is converted to body substance by beef cattle, versus 19–31% by silkworms and 44% by German cockroaches. " This information is problematic. Feed conversion efficiency of beef cattle varies greatly, not only with the stage of development of the animal, but also with metabolizable energy content of feed, which is less than 2 Mcal/kg DM (dry matter) for some roughages, e.g. grain crop residues, and as high as 3.2 Mcal/kg DM for corn grain. There is abundant review and research information on this, e.g. NRC (2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. National Academy Press), numerous peer reviewed papers and university extension bulletins. For a 400-kg steer on feed with a TDN of 80 %, the feed conversion ratio would be about about 5.7 kg feed DM per kg gain. With a TDN of 50 %, the feed conversion ratio for this steer would be about 29 kg DM per kg. Schafhirt (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Article edits addressing the above issues were removed by someone, restoring the previous version. Restoring erroneous and unverifiable content and bogus attributions to sources damages the article's credibility. If this action was a matter of honest belief, rather than vandalism, the editor restoring that content should address the issues on this talk page. Pending resolution of the issues, a "Disputed" tag should appear on the article, for the benefit of readers.Schafhirt (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Issues associated with content of the above paragraph have been resolved.Schafhirt (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Physiology

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Some edits by User:Mrt3366 are affecting POV. The qualifier to the human classification as an omnivore lacks references. Some opinions are not enough to challenge this clasification. It is to be expected for omnivores are not as well adapted to a particular food as a specialised animal. The editor also implied ("some") that are nutritional experts contesting that humans evolved to eat meat, but there are no references for this change. The paragraph about some particular early hominids, australopithecines, don't belong here, maybe in their Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecine The reference for plant food diet comes from a promoter of his own diet, not a reliable source: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/nov/b12.htm Dr McDougall is quite criticised: https://www.enlita.com/node/50 The last paragraph is redundant, it just repeat the information in the first one. Since there is hardly any worthwile information in this edit I propose to revert it. BTW, yesterday there was a dispute with this editor about the reclassification of humans as herbivores on the Herbivore page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Herbivore#Humans.27_similarity_to_Herbivores --Mihaiam (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply


Statements like, "Some edits by Mrt3366 are affecting POV.

The qualifier to the human classification as an omnivore lacks references." are flagrantly inaccurate.

Please check my edits honestly before getting swayed by the lies of this user.

Mihaiam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) —this user has been stalking me and reverting all my comparatively larger edits without providing enough reason. One example, just because one of my sentences contained one slightest (but I'm not too sure if it was incorrect at all) scientific inaccuracy he rashly reverted the whole edit when he could have enriched the article by simply correcting the inaccuracy with good sources.
I sincerely think he is starting multiple edit wars at once. He thinks just because I don't have many administrator friends he could revert my changes. His primary claim is that none of my sources are reliable but his/her sources are. Just look at his contributions. His contributions are mostly deletions of the edits he doesn't like. Also his activity is mysteriously sporadic. He might as well be a sock (he also claims that whoever supports my position is my sockpuppet).
I'm really flabbergasted by this sort of behaviour. Please someone help me. :) --"DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" (Talk?) 03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. You have to offer reliable sources (such as published scientific papers) for your contributions, especially when said contributions run contrary to the scientific consensus. If a disputed concept is not accepted in an article is not a good ideea to slip it in another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaiam (talk • contribs) 07:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Vitamin B12

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Some edits by User:Mrt3366 lack proper references and are factually incorrect. The claim that "Bacteria are the only sources of [[vitamin B12|vitamin B12]" is false, it is produced by a unicelular alga by example, Pleurochrysis Carterae. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11453796

Fortified breakfast cereals don't offer vitamin B12 from plants, they have it added as a supplement. It is recommended for vegans to take supplements as such, as a minimum dosage can be reliably maintained.

"The human gut also contains B12-synthesizing bacteria, living from the mouth to the anus" looks false. The old 1980 reffered study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7354869) only reffered to small bowels and it was falsified since. http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7c.shtml "Claims of intestinal B-12 production may be based on insufficient evidence. Albert et al. [1980] is sometimes cited as evidence that B-12 producing bacteria can exist in the small intestine. Sometimes explicit claims are made, e.g., that intestinal bacteria allegedly can produce adequate B-12. Baker [1981] and Nutrition Reviews [1980] are related citations that comment on Albert et al. [1980]. However, a careful reading of Albert et al. [1980] shows that it used bacteriological assays, which are of lower reliability, to measure B-12 levels. Specifically, the most accurate bacteriological assay they used is Ochromonas malhamensis. Note that Ochromonas is the most accurate bacterial assay method for B-12; however, even it may report values for some analogues as part of its "B-12" results [Schneider and Stroinski 1987, Tables 3-2, 5-3 to 5-5, pp. 56-57, 119-123]. Herbert and Das [1994, p. 405] apparently regard all the bacterial assay methods as being less reliable than differential radioassay; also see Herbert et al. [1984] and Herbert [1988] for related information. Additionally, the data obtained in Albert et al. [1980] comes from isolated bacterial cultures. Therefore, it is unclear whether the bacteria would produce similar amounts of B-12 under the conditions present in the intestines. This point is discussed in Albert et al. [1980], but is sometimes ignored by dietary advocates with an ideological interest in minimizing the requirement for B-12 in the diet. The bottom line in the paper of Albert et al. [1980] is that it shows certain intestinal bacteria might produce B-12, but it is unclear whether/how much might be produced (and absorbed) under actual conditions in the small intestine."

The last paragraph contain only straight propaganda from 2 MD personal pages contradicting the necesity of the vitamin, without any reference to reliable sources.

The editor was also part of a dispute on the Vitamin_B12 article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vitamin_B12#POV_issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaiam (talk • contribs) 20:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mihaiam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -This user significantly lacks knowledge in this field. He claims, "The last paragraph contain only straight propaganda from 2 MD personal pages contradicting the necesity of the vitamin, without any reference to reliable sources.", and I ask what factors prove that they are propagandist (a tremendously derogatory remark against living people) apart from Mihaiam's own predilections? The fact is Neither plants nor animals are independently capable of constructing vitamin B12.[note 1] Only bacteria have the enzymes required for its synthesis. The total synthesis of B12 was reported by Robert Burns Woodward.[note 2] and Albert Eschenmoser in 1972,[note 3][note 4]
Algae acquire vitamin B12 through a symbiotic relationship with bacteria.
Individually, algae and bacteria make interesting organisms to study. Bacteria are organisms that can be found living in a range of different environments. Besides being organisms capable of causing disease in humans, they are also vital to the cycling of nutrients within the environment. Algae are organisms capable of fixing carbon through photosynthesis within aquatic systems. At the same time they are important to study because with increased nutrient loads to bodies of water can cause algal blooms, which can lead to eutrophication. This reduces the amount of dissolved oxygen available for use by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Bacteria and algae can coexist within biofilms. Biofilms can help reduce the effects of external factors to produce areas that can allow for growth of specific bacterial populations and make conditions favorable for certain bacterially mediated processes such as denitrification.
NCBI source no1 however, didn't exactly say that B12 is produced by a unicelular alga. It said "A unicellular coccolithophorid alga, Pleurochrysis carterae, contained 125.4 +/- 1.2 microg of vitamin B12 per 100 g dry cell weight of the lyophilized algal cells."
NCBI source no2 didn't in fact contradict M.D. McDougall's claim, "The human gut also contains B12-synthesizing bacteria, living from the mouth to the anus", ncbi source article says,
"In man, physiological amounts of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) are absorbed by the intrinsic factor mediated mechanism exclusively in the ileum."
no study has thus far been able to disprove that "The human gut also contains B12-synthesizing bacteria, living from the mouth to the anus" they just doubted it. I have not found anything concrete that completely falsifies the claim. Yes, a variable to consider is that there are over 400-500 species of bacteria in the average human's colon and these bacteria have not all been delineated. It is plausible that some humans have B12-producing bacteria in significant amounts while other humans do not. Some bacteria in the digestive tract absorb B12 for their own use, further complicating this situation.
Albert et al.[note 5] (1980) measured B12 production of bacteria in the small intestines of people in India using a Euglena gracilis Z assay. Results were confirmed by an Ochromonas malhamensis assay, which is thought to be specific for active B12. They determined that some active B12 was produced by members of the bacteria genera Klebsiella and Pseudomonas. Further confirmation using chromatography and bioautography showed a molecule with similar properties to cyanocobalamin. Albert et al. speculated that when Indians migrate to the West, their digestive tracts become like those characteristic of people in Western countries: with little or no bacteria in their upper small intestines. An article in Nutrition Reviews[note 6] (1980) suggested some alternative causes of Indian immigrants to Britain having more B12 deficiency than Indian natives:
  • In India, water is contaminated with various bacteria, including those from human and animal feces.
  • The practice of defecating in open fields and lack of proper sewage.
  • The mode of toilet hygiene where water is used instead of toilet paper.
    • It should also be noted that B12 deficiency is not uncommon in India (see Table below)[note 7], especially in lower income, lacto-ovo vegetarians[note 8]
    Number Average serum B12 serum B12 < 203 MMA > .26 µmol/l HCY > 15 µmol/l
    Non-VegA
    Lacto-OvoB    		 36
    27    		 216 46% 70% 81%C
    A - Tended to eat only small amounts of animal products | B - 1 person was vegan | C - A low folate status could have contributed to the high HCY levels7 | HCY - homocysteine | MMA - methyl malonic acid
    Iranian Villagers
    Halstead et al. reported[note 9] that some Iranian villagers with very little animal product intake (dairy once a week, meat once a month) had normal B12 levels. None had megaloblastic anemia. Their average B12 level was 411 pg/ml which was quite high considering their diet. The authors speculated this could be because their diets, which were very low in protein, allowed for B12-producing bacteria to ascend into the ileum where the B12 could be absorbed. They also speculated that because they lived among their farm animals and their living areas were littered with feces, they picked up enough B12 through contamination.
    Halstead et al.'s 1960 report was in contrast to Wokes et al.'s 1955 report[note 10] in which numerous British vegans were found to have neurological symptoms of B12 deficiency.
    Conclusion
    B12 production by bacteria in the small intestine is possible. Some vegans can ward of overt vitamin B12 deficiency, and even mild B12 deficiency by remaining cautious. Now people like mihaiam may choose to doubt all these scientific findings hinging on their favourite anti-vegan blogs.

    Note

    1. ^ Loeffler, G. (2005). Basiswissen Biochemie. Heidelberg: Springer. p. 606. ISBN 3-540-23885-9.
    2. ^ Khan, Adil Ghani; Eswaran, S. V. (2003). "Woodward's synthesis of vitamin B12". Resonance. 8 (6): 8. doi:10.1007/BF02837864.
    3. ^ Eschenmoser A, Wintner CE (1977). "Natural product synthesis and vitamin B12". Science. 196 (4297): 1410–20. doi:10.1126/science.867037. PMID 867037. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    4. ^ Riether, Doris; Mulzer, Johann (2003). "Total Synthesis of Cobyric Acid: Historical Development and Recent Synthetic Innovations". European Journal of Organic Chemistry. 2003: 30. doi:10.1002/1099-0690(200301)2003:1<30::AID-EJOC30>3.0.CO;2-I.
    5. ^ Albert MJ (21). "Vitamin B12 synthesis by human small intestinal bacteria". Nature. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    6. ^ "Contribution of the microflora of the small intestine to the vitamin B12 nutriture of man". Nutrition Reviews. 1980. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    7. ^ Refsum H (2001). "Hyperhomocysteinemia and elevated methylmalonic acid indicate a high prevalence of cobalamin deficiency in Asian Indians". Am J Clin Nutr: 233-41. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    8. ^ Sarode R (1989). "Pancytopenia in nutritional megaloblastic anaemia. A study from north-west India". Trop Geogr Med. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    9. ^ Halsted JA (1960). "Serum vitamin B12 concentration in dietary deficiency". Am J Clin Nutr. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    10. ^ Wokes F (1955). "Human dietary deficiency of vitamin B12". Am J Clin Nutr. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

    I hope these information helps anybody who is interested.

    --DrYouMe (Talk?) 02:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Your sources don't support the implication you made in your edit, that B12 intake is rarely necessary. Such a suggestion is dangerous to make.

    The most likely source of B12 cited in your studies is lifestyle choices, not small intestine production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaiam (talk • contribs) 08:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vegetarianism&oldid=487100372"