The study referred to in the Spectrum article mentioned by Rosangela, of course assuming the preliminary results hold up as the data set are completed, shows that those participating vegan SDAs who are alive TODAY, fare no better than omnivore SDAs, also alive Today. Both of these groups are beaten hands down by those vegetarians who eat milk and eggs, and increasing the lead even further if fish is added to the diet. Therefore it seems a rather notional view to claim the time to stop eating milk, eggs and fish is now when our experience from those who have done so show that they do not gain any life expectancy related benefits from having done so.

It's our duty to prepare people for the time when milk and eggs will need to be wholly given up. There is nothing wrong with practicing a vegan diet for some meals. There is no reason one should eat milk and/or eggs for every meal. Some meals can and should be vegan meals. What we should NOT be teaching is that it is a sin to use milk and eggs and therefore forbid their use. I'm sorry if my statements on this have seemed confusing to you.

I won't speak for what the lesson may or may not be trying to suggest, but I think the whole concept of change requires of a knowledge of ones state before and after. If one is already eating only the clean meats, there is no change required to eat in accordance with Leviticus 11. If one is already eating a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet, there is no change required to continue doing so. If you feel, kland, that everyone should already be at the vegan stage, I beg to differ, and if you truly feel that way, I think you are, in Mrs. White's words, "an extremist." It is one thing to choose for yourself a vegan diet, and entirely another to prescribe it for everyone else.

Yes, in a sense, it is deciding on their own. Allow me to quote from inspiration to clarify what I mean here.

As she puts it, one must have "common sense." Some people may be able to give up milk and eggs before others will. In fact, some people may find it necessary to do so on account of their health.

kland, there is no need to be sarcastically speaking of fire from heaven. Paul also believed Jesus was coming soon. He spoke to others in his day saying, "then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds," and John quoted Jesus as saying "behold, I come quickly." Does this mean that 2000 years are "soon?" Obviously, "soon" is a relative word and does not define a specific time.

It would be more than tedious because I have quoted Mrs. White to back me up, and she says what she says on it. It is true.

It is possible that we will yet find a suitable substitute, and Mrs. White alludes to this in her writings. I do not know of a vegan source of B12 which would be adequate to supply my body's needs. I may be able to find a good substitute for milk in food recipes that will still render them nutritious and palatable, e.g. coconut milk/cream, cashew milk, almond milk, etc. And I might be able to find a suitable substitute for eggs which will likewise render foods nutritious and palatable. I am not arguing that a vegan diet is not nutritious. What I am saying is that it is insufficient. For example, avocados and tomatoes are nutritious. But if my diet were composed solely of avocados and tomatoes, I would soon become malnourished, in spite of the fact that avocados and tomatoes are very nutritious. They might give me all of the Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Vitamin K, fiber, linoleic acid, linolenic acid and lycopene that I need, but they would be insignificant sources of some of the amino acids, B-vitamins, etc. In the same way, a vegan diet cannot include certain essentials which are found in milk and eggs, no matter how nutritious it may otherwise appear.

Where do you find that milk and cream from healthy cows are declared harmful? I think Mrs. White is not speaking of things which she herself had identified as harmful, but things which others were saying were harmful.

I think I have already pointed out the lack of B12 in a vegan diet. Can you tell me a vegan source for it?

There's an old missionary joke that goes something like this...
* * * * *
You can tell how long a missionary has been in the mission field by how he eats.

A new missionary, when he finds a bug in his soup, discards the whole thing. A missionary with more experience will remove the bug and keep eating. A missionary with long experience in the mission field will ignore the bug and eat the soup anyway. And when a missionary has been abroad for too long, he will look for bugs to add to his soup!
* * * * *

I know eating "bugs" is not "vegan," and yet there is some nutrition there. I sometimes wonder if our age of pesticide is hurting our health in some practical ways that people do not realize. I have said for several years now that I'd rather find half a worm in my apple any day! (It would tell me this apple was good for food, and not soaked in pesticides.) But perhaps the worm would be a source of B12 as well?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, Vaster, we agree. I would, however, not recommend the fish option on account of the toxins from polluted waters. (And virtually all waters are polluted now.) If I were to eat meat, I think I would rather eat sheep than fish.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The land and air is polluted too. An argument of avoiding toxic food means less when you realise that it is virtually impossible.

Vaster, that is partly true. However, there is another fundamental truth related to the food chain which is well-illustrated in the conservation of energy from one trophic level to the next. A graph of this energy exchange will look like a pyramid in which the creatures at the top have consumed the energy from all of those organisms below them. Whereas up to 90% of the energy is lost from one trophic level to the next, the toxins are preserved and concentrated.

Example: Suppose we start with a field of tomatoes that has been sprayed with herbicide for the weeds, and fungicide to prevent root rot, but somehow missed the pesticide application. Pests begin feasting on the sprayed plants and fruits. Caterpillars and cutworms are picked up by sparrows. Kestrels (Sparrow Hawks) eat the sparrows. In the first level, the caterpillars might have 0.05% concentration of the chemical sprays present in their fat vacuoles. The sparrows might then have 0.5% concentration in their livers. The kestrels, assuming a diet limited only to these sparrows, might have 5% concentration in their livers and some major health problems...because it is as if they had consumed ALL of the plant matter eaten by the caterpillars which had been preyed on by the sparrows.

(I'll admit that is hypothetical in terms of the numbers, and is not meant for anything more than an illustration. The fact is, chemical poisons do concentrate up the food chain very much like this.)

Fish that people eat are rarely the primary herbivore consumers. Most fish have themselves consumed smaller fish, which in turn have eaten the copepods, mosquito wigglers, etc. which have in turn eaten the aquatic plants and algae. So fish are relatively high in the food chain, which helps to account for their increased levels of toxins. The other factor is, however, that once pollutants flow into the sea, many of them concentrate there, not evaporating back into the atmosphere as water does. So the waters are often more polluted than our air or land vegetation.

Again, it is far better to eat a toxic tomato than to eat the chicken that ate all the caterpillars that ate the toxic tomatoes.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm not sure you specified what Ellen White defined as an extremist.

So would you say your idea of health reform is to urge the people or prescribe them that there is "soon" coming a time where we'll have to give up things we enjoy, but as long as we are eating clean meats or a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet, no change is required. That what the health reform, what the health message is, is that there is "soon" coming a need to change our ways, to go against our desires, but it's not yet, and probably won't be in our lifetimes. I'm ok, you're ok, we're all ok. Peace and safety for everyone.

That's a relief. I thought I would have to change, but I can start eating what I desire, satisfying my pleasure. I mean, God wouldn't want us to sacrifice anything would He? I guess I misunderstood the health message. No wonder it's not preached from the pulpit as no change is required.

What would it mean if Jesus came soon in our terms? Isn't there something about Him delaying so that none need perish?

If you are going to make a comparison of "soon" with people perishing, how does that apply to what you are mapping it into?

I find it interesting that you did not answer how much B12 does one need, how is it determined?

But that is equating vegan with healthy. Can you think of a diet that is not healthy, but vegan?

How about some french fries, soda pop, beer, candy bars, the desert table at Adventist potlucks....

Well, except for the last item, aren't all of those vegan? Kind of along the lines of, isn't DDT organic?

Do you think some in the study are doing exactly what Ellen White was talking about when she said you must substitute for what you are giving up? As in, some people think being a vegetarian means just eating lettuce, some people think changing to vegetarian means just leaving the meat off the hamburger. By eliminating something from the diet, you have to put back in what you leave off. Being healthy is more than just eliminating things.

The study will eventually cover the life histories of 4000 adventist vegans. For the results to be wrong, you would have to postulate that a qualified majority of the adventist vegans who participate in the study are ignorant about the difference between being vegan and being healthy. DDT, bad for birds and it shares the tendency of everything we manufacture to stay around in the environment for a very long time. It also is the closest to a cure for malaria known to man. It is somewhat easier for us who do not see our family members die in malaria fever to make judgment on its use.

I am sure you can find some in the study who are SDA, live vegan and couldnt care less what Ellen has to say about it. But I do not think there would be many of them. In my experience, those adventist who eat vegan are among her more avid readers.

Matt 11: 28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

1 Cor 8: 8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

alt:

8But victuals do not commend us to God, for neither if we may eat are we in advance; nor if we may not eat, are we behind;

alt:

8But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.

There have been movements in the history of Christianity where the members have strongly believed in the need to sacrifice much to appease God. One example is self flagellation. They would agree with you. Certainly God expects a sacrifice from us to, well, something.

Why not leave such silliness behind and concentrate on what is important? Knowing Jesus and working for Gods Kingdom against Satans kingdom. This would involve "sacrificing your 'freedom' to sin", but would not involve "sacrificing your cultural habits I dont like". It is clear enough throughout the New Testament that food is not a sin question. Therefore it firmly belongs in the second category where kland is annoyed with Green Cochoa for having a food culture kland does not approve of. Oh well..

You do make a point there. However, since we are not (At least not in the churches I've been in) instructed in the health reform, I would say most have not a clue what health reform is. That and along with the majority of the population I am aware of think eating healthy to lose weight will be more expensive. I should qualify that in the developing world. The starving ones of the undeveloped nations would laugh at them.

I am in no way suggesting sacrifice is an appeasement to God. I am suggesting it is a cause an effect. If our bodies are temples of God, we should treat them with utmost respect. It has nothing to do with your food culture spin.

You are suggesting what you eat is not sin. I agree with you to a certain extent. However, is rebellion sin? For one to say, I don't care what Ellen White or the Bible says, I'm going to eat what I feel like? Unclean animals, too?

You also seem to suggest the health message is just a food culture. Is there a health message to you? Do you think health reform is just about personal choice of food or do you think there is a reason for it?

If the study is proper and accurate, I agree it does appear it adds nothing to health. Then the question becomes,
Why is it called the health message?