Summary
This article is part of a debate, where researchers argue the pros and cons of questions examining if humans should avoid animal products in order to decrease the risk for chronic disease. Although published in a peer-reviewed journal, debates are not subject to peer review.
In this article, one author (Leroy) presents the primary argument that a diet free of animal products is unable to prevent chronic disease and lacks highly bioavailable nutrients and depends on fortification and supplementation. Furthermore, the first author argues that animal products are not meaningfully associated with chronic diseases, and studies which seem to show this link have poor methodology. The opposing side (Barnard) refutes by arguing that these points are “common myths” and a healthful vegan diet is superior to an omnivorous diet to prevent chronic illness. Some strengths of this article are the direct responses towards arguments that were made by the other side and the coverage of a broad range of evidence from evolution to observational studies. Among the limitations of this article are the relative shortness due to which many points are presented as absolutes instead of nuanced and with due skepticism. In conclusion, the first author (Leroy) argues that a vegan diet is not sufficient to meet nutritional demands of individuals and the general population, especially not in children.
Cannot be posted