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.”
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.
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.
every such position i’ve seen relies on the now-expired AND position. they should not be considered valid unless they have also been updated and no longer rely on an expired position.
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.
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.
their previous position was that a vegan diet could be healthy for children or pregnant or lactating people. that is no longer their position.
Where does it say that?
they let that position expire, and when they issued a new position, it specifically excluded them. the expired position is not their current position.
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:
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.
You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you’re trying so hard to lie about this.
every such position i’ve seen relies on the now-expired AND position. they should not be considered valid unless they have also been updated and no longer rely on an expired position.
the previous position expired. that is no longer the position of the academy. you can see all the current positions of the academy at https://www.jandonline.org/content/positionPapers
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:
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.
it’s written on the paper itself: it expired in december of 2021, and is no longer the position of teh academy.
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?