The vegan diet is not the most healthful. Those who study Mrs. White's writings carefully already know this. But why?

Something is either lacking in it, or something is out of balance with a vegan diet. This topic is created to explore the reasons that we are not counseled to return to an Edenic diet as soon as possible.

Mrs. White does say that at some future point we may need to have a vegan diet. There is controversy about when that point may be. Yet Mrs. White tells us not to have controversy about it, but that when the time comes, God will reveal it. She tells us that we should NOT go to this extreme diet until that time.

Ellen White clearly tells us that a vegan diet will cause premature death. The evidence is mounting that this is indeed the case. Numerous cases of vegans dying of cancer in their thirties, forties and fifties are coming up. They seem to have no resistance to it. There may be other premature deaths besides those from cancer as well.

It baffles the mind that vegans would have a mortality equal to that of meat eaters--so why is it this way?

I'll post some of Mrs. White's statements regarding the perils of veganism shortly. The term "vegan" did not exist in her day, of course, but she speaks of the milk and eggs, meat, flesh foods (meat), animals foods (meat), etc.

Mrs. White tells us not to teach people to give up milk and eggs.


She calls a diet devoid of milk and eggs "the strictest diet."


She tells us death is the cause of giving up milk and eggs.


She tells us we need to be moderate on the issue, and to let God reveal the time when we are to finally give up milk and eggs.


She calls a vegan diet "extreme."


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Very interesting.

Another statement from Mrs. White in which she draws the line between "health reform" and "health deform" over the use of milk and eggs is this one:


Eggs, she tells us, have the ability to counteract poisons (detoxify).


Now, if I am a vegan and I become exposed to elemental toxins such as arsenic, lead, cadmium or mercury, how will I have any resistance to these poisons? The element that works best to purge these from the system is sulfur. Meat contains a high amount of sulfur. But as a vegetarian, meat is not on the menu. Eggs are high in sulfur. But vegans eat no eggs.

A vegan's best option is garlic, followed by onions. But a little research would show that gram for gram, eggs contain nearly ten times as much sulfur as the garlic, which in turn contains several times as much as the onion. So if you want to get serious about removing toxins, eggs are nearly the best food one might find.

This may be a partial answer to the cancer question and to why vegans seem to have no resistance to it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Notice the caveats EGW gives:
1) "The milk used should be procured from healthy cows, and should be sterilized." {CD 202.4}
2) "to use eggs of hens which are well cared for and suitably fed. . . ." {CD 204.4}

Recently a dairy cow in California was found to have BSE, Mad Cow disease, vCJD in humans. The public was reassured that the food supply was save because this was a dairy cow and was not butchered, so it did not enter the food supply. Really? Milk from this cow did not enter the food supply. We are again reassured that milk can not pass on BSE.

When we buy commercial milk and eggs, we have no guarantee of the health of the animals that they come from. Yes, I know there are government protocols... If you raise your own chickens, and milk your own cow, that is different. Something to think about...

Yes, thank you for highlighting those considerations. Those are important. When I buy eggs in America, I happily pay double for the organic, free-range variety. For some people, those may be the best available, and their only option. For others, raising their own hens would be a sensible thing. In Asia, many chickens "free-range" around the home of their owner--though they don't always have access to good vegetation.

I raised nearly forty chickens this year, but having given most of them away already, presently have just twelve. I'm raising them without the typical scratch that contains animal products, hormones, antibiotics, etc. They are all very healthy. I also have them free-ranging in good grass.

Regarding BSE, I think the real issue there is with mercury. I believe the so-called "prions" are just a cover-word for mercury. Watch the video at this link or google "mercury calgary video" for yourself for an understanding of how it might turn brain tissue into "spongiform encephalitis." The cows have gotten mercury from all the vaccines they've been given and perhaps some comes in their feed as well.

We would get more mercury from dental amalgam fillings than from cow's milk, and meat eaters would get much more in the meat than from the milk, since mercury is not water soluble.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The point is, they should be healthy cows, and that may be impossible to assure these days, as demonstrated by the BSE cow in California.

"Free Range" - in the states, that can mean that they have access to the outside, it does not assure they get outside. The access to the outside may be very limited. At least with broiler hens. Many laying hens are confined.

I find it strange that after several years of study at Loma Linda about the longativity of vegans, that they haven't discovered that they die young. I have been part of that study for a while and being a vegan, myself, wonder how many more years I have after my 79th birthday.

Thank you Harold. May you live to see the second coming.

Green's conclusions from the SOP excerpts present a biased and erroneous viewpoint. This will be demonstrated at a later date - too occupied at present.

"Many vegans dying young" has no statistical relevance but is based on subjective observation. As already noted, vegans may consume a plethora of toxic 'food' and still bear the vegan label. Without knowing each history, one cannot ascertain if they are in fact health reformers or simply legal vegans.

Alimentation addresses but two or three of eight known health laws.

One might also argue that many vegans live very long, disease-free lives.

Many carnivores/omnivores have cancer and lifestyle diseases and die young or face lifetime debility.

Vitamin B12 should be considered.

_________________________

Two quick thoughts.

1) It is my understanding that most of the Loma Linda study was not based on vegans, but on vegetarians, which may have included some vegans as well but not limited to vegans.

2) There are some vegans who have no nutritional deficiency on account of the vegan diet and/or it does not affect them. Mrs. White speaks of this groups as the "small minority."

Be thankful if you are one of the privileged few who are in said minority and have no need for milk or eggs.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Gordon, B12 is an interesting topic. I've been totally plant based in my diet for 5+ years. I say my family practice doc for the first time in 15 years, and out of a whim had my B12 checked. It was just a little ABOVE normal. One does not need a lot of B12. Since studying the topic of diet and health, I know physicians that practice lifestyle medicine, treating disease with diet, who do not take B12 supplements, and do not have any deficiency, this after 30+ years or completely plant based diet. That said, it is an easy test to check B12 levels.

An interesting thing about many vegans, is that they changed to that lifestyle because of health issues. I do not believe that the Adventist Health Study 2 is capturing data on how long a person has been vegan, or at least not if they have been life long vegans. Too bad.

The evidence I've read convinces me that there is no longer a need to use milk and eggs for those that have access to a variety of fruits and vegetables.

And interesting website on the science of diet and health, check out Dr. Michael Greger.

APL,

Perhaps you are one of the small minority. Be very thankful. I have verified by experience that I am not one of them. That is why I must still use eggs. It would be a sin for me to discard that which is needful for my health. And I feel it is just as wrong for vegans to pressure other people into a vegan diet when God, through Ellen White, has instructed us specifically NOT to do this, even telling us that but a small minority of people can do well on a vegan diet.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm not sure it is a small minority. Coca-Cola and potato chips is "vegan" and not healthy. Many vegetarians eat way too much simple sugar. There are inborn errors of metabolism that may require MEAT

Ellen White has said, in her time, that SHORTLY, all animal produces will need to be dispensed with. Example:

That said, when I teach diet and health, I try to work with the people where they are, and make changes no faster than they are ready to adapt to them.

It is worth noting that vitamin B12 deficiency is a common thing, and even meat eaters can be deficient. Consumption of meat, dairy or eggs does not guarantee adequate uptake of B12. Other factors involved include intrinsic factor, and may involve microbial action within the intestinal tract.

Animals, like humans, do not make vitamin B12. The only reason they have it is that they harness a symbiotic relationship with bacteria in one form or another to receive their B12. Cows, for example, which chew their cud, have bacteria in their stomachs which break down the beta-chain fibers (cellulose) in the grasses and also produce vitamin B12 which the cow is then able to absorb. We don't chew our cud, and don't have the same bacteria that a cow does.

Vitamin B12 is a large molecule which cannot ordinarily be absorbed through the intestinal lining. It is so large, in fact, that the intestine has to open up a special hole to let it pass through. Such a hole might also permit entry to a host of undesirables, so the intestine will not do this without the prompting of intrinsic factor.

More on B12 later...

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, but "shortly" is a decidedly "relative" term. Jesus also has told us two-thousand years ago "behold I come quickly." "Shortly" does not give us a time, except to prepare us for the possibility of it happening soon.

Regarding the "small minority," these are the prophet's own words, not my own.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

yes, "shortly" is relative. do understand, that in her time, there was no refrigeration, so products were fresh, and you often "knew" the animals where they came from. That is no longer true with today's factory farming techniques.

Yes, B12 only comes from bacteria. B12 levels are easy to measure. More on B12 HERE and HERE

APL,

Veganhealth.org has a lot of good information, and I appreciate their balanced approach on the B12 issue that you linked. Dr. McDougall's opinions, on the other hand, do not resonate with me. Here is an example...


He's trying so hard to defend veganism that he cannot see the forest for the trees. In my experience, B12 deficiency is itself a disease--so 100% of people with severe deficiency are diseased, not just one in a million.

In my case, the disease had a clinical name: pernicious anemia. It had clinical symptoms like numbness and tingling in the hands, lack of taste, smell, and appetite, memory loss, low energy levels, etc. I began flunking my classes, as I was a student at the time, and the memory loss dramatically affected my scholastic ability. I was at that time very active, working four hours a day on the farm. I was eating a purely vegan diet, with just one teaspoon of honey a month, no sugar at all, ever, and plenty of variety of natural, whole foods. Fruits, grains, vegetables, and nuts comprised nearly the entire diet. I was eating no potato chips, no soda pop, no candy, no milk, no margarine, no eggs, no cheese, low oil, and moderate salt. It was a classic NEWSTART diet and featured NEWSTART-trained cooks who prepared it.

On account of some prior experience with this sort of strict diet within the family, at my parents' request I was receiving one vitamin B12 shot each week. In spite of this precautionary measure, it was found that my body was unable to utilize the B12 in that form, and within a matter of about six months, I developed anemia. Essentially, my liver had run out of stores.

The liver is able to store B12 on average for between six months and two years, depending on the individual. In my case, I was at the shorter end. It was only by eating several eggs a day for about three months that I was returned to normal.

Praise God for teaching me how to maintain my health! I learned that the B12 supplements were inadequate for my needs. Perhaps others are better able to benefit from them. Each person must learn for himself or herself what is necessary for optimal health.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

Pernicious Anemia is caused by a lack of "intrinsic factor", not just a lack of B12 in the diet. In fact, with pernicious anemia (PA), you may have plenty of B12 but you can't absorb it. PA can be caused by an autoimmune disease which destroy the cells that make intrinsic factor, or by some infections. The elderly can also loose the ability to make intrinsic factor.

I'm surprised that eggs along cured your B12 lack due to PA. Eggs are not that high in B12 and do not contain intrinsic factor. Oral replacement with high dose sublingual supplements or nasal sprays, or injections are often required. These routes of administration bypass the need for intrinsic factor. It is good that eggs work for you!

I had a doctor tell me that the reason vegetarians are short on B12 is because the first thing they do in the moring is rinse out their mouth with a mouth wash, destroying the bacteria that forms their B12. I drink a glass of water first, then mouth wash. No B12 shortage.

The pernicious anemia is directly related to vitamin B12. If one were to have plenty of vitamin B12, and no intrinsic factor at all (hypthetical case, probably impossible), he or she would not have the anemia. On the other hand, we might also find someone who has plenty of intrinsic factor, but no B12 for it to act upon in the diet, and the person would have the anemia, being short on B12.

Intrinsic factor is involved, certainly, but is not the only consideration. Vegans who consume no vitamin B12 are not necessarily helped by having intrinsic factor.

Regarding the B12 content in eggs, according to a few websites I just looked at, eggs rank in the top 10 sources for vitamin B12. Most of the others would all be off the list for vegetarians, half of them being unclean meats.

Eggs have about double the amount of B12 that is to be found in milk.

The eggs got me through the remainder of that school year, but I was not fully recovered until a couple of months at home, and during those months I was eating dairy products as well such as yogurt and ice cream. I had not given up dairy at that time, so it probably helped to catch me up from the deficiency.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Was your doctor a vegan?

I never use mouthwash. Ever. Tried it a couple of times as a student way back when. Never really liked it. It always left an aftertaste that I found unpleasant. I haven't touched the stuff in so long I can't remember when it last was. So mouthwash is no culprit in my case.

In fact, I only rarely brush my teeth. I probably brush about once every other month on average. My diet includes enough raw foods that I find brushing unnecessary. I've also hoped to provide a more natural pathway for B12 absorption. I think it helps.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green - - By definition, PA is a malabsorption problem with B12 caused by the lack of intrinsic factor. Not all B12 deficiencies are called Pernicious Anemia. Pernicious Anemia can also be inherited because of a genetic defect. Understand the whether it is a absolute lack of B12, or malabsorption of B12, the effect is the same. Megaloblastic anemia, nerve problems, depression, weakness, DNA issues, etc... But the treatment may be different.

Eggs - - An egg have about 0.5 micrograms +/- of B12. Daily requirements of B12 have been listed as between 1.5 and 5 micrograms/day. So, if 1.5 micrograms/day is the requirement, your 3 eggs will work IF, IF, you absorb all that you eat, which required Intrinsic Factor. And if you have the medical definition of Pernicious Anemia, you do not have Intrinsic Factor, thus my surprise at eggs along being effective. This is why the treatment of B12 deficiency, supplement tablets are often 1000 micrograms taken sublingually to aid in absorption, or via B12 injections. But what ever the cause, I'm glad you have found a solution.

Interesting, APL. I'm learning more about the terminology, I guess. It appears that pernicious anemia goes by other names, one of them being "megaloblastic anemia," and this is a larger category which also more accurately describes the condition I had. I contracted the disease about two decades back, however, and this term may not have been as commonly used at that time. The laboratory blood tests which were performed at that time showed that I had an elevated MCV level, a condition where the red blood cells are oversized due to their lessened ability to carry oxygen. This is what causes the tingling and numbness in the extremities, because the larger cells do not easily pass through the tiny capillaries in the joints.

So intrinsic factor may not have been my problem. The problem was lack of adequate B12 in the diet. Nevertheless, it seems there must still have been some issues with the intrinsic factor if I could so soon develop a B12 deficiency. It's a complex problem with no simple answers.

The simplest answer is that of Ellen White. She advocates the use of milk and eggs until such a time as the Lord clearly tells us to give them up. Giving them up too soon, for whatever reason, may cause us to lose our health and result in death. In other words, it is not a mark of sainthood to be a vegan. It is an extreme measure only to be taken when the circumstances demand it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

"Megaloblastic Anemia" means that the cell size is large - "Mega", so yes, your MCV (Mean Corpuscular (Cell) Volume) will be large. B12 deficiency is one cause of Megaloblastic Anemia. And repeating just to be clear, B12 deficiency can be caused by a lack of B12 in the diet, or an inability to absorb B12. The inability to absorb B12 is called Pernicious Anemia. Both the lack of B12 in the diet, and/or the inability to absorb B12 will cause a megaloblastic anemia, and neurologic issues, etc...

Note - the bias on diet can work both ways. MANY people eat a totally plant based diet and do very well. As a fraction of the total population, this number is small. And again, EGW is clear, all animal products will eventually need to be given up, and that time is very soon. That is my opinion, and I never knock people for eating what they want. I have seen a number of people recover health by going plant based.

Are you a health professional, APL?

So, if what you are saying here is true, it appears that "megaloblastic anemia" might be unrelated to a B12 deficiency. If it were caused by B12 deficiency, it appears there is no correct name for the problem unless it was also caused by lack of intrinsic factor. In other words, it appears that my specific condition, which was related to B12 deficiency, could not have been properly named by "pernicious anemia" if it had nothing to do with lack of intrinsic factor, and could not have been specific enough with "megaloblastic anemia" to indicate the cause. Furthermore, I don't think any tests were run, if indeed they were possible to do, to check my intrinsic factor levels. So the nearest diagnosis the doctor could have given would have been "pernicious anemia." Does that sound right?

The fact that the eggs cured it is what is most important. Before the school year finished, I was able to catch up enough on my studies to complete my classes. I won't ever ignore the slight tingle that I might get in my hands for no apparent reason again, because this is a classic symptom of B12 deficiency. When I begin to feel such a thing, which happens very rarely, I know I need to eat more eggs.

Anyone wishing to experiment with a strict vegan diet should minimally know and understand the symptoms of B12 deficiency.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

There are a number of causes of "megaloblastic anemia". B12 deficiency is one. If you are not getting enough B12 in your diet, this is called B12 deficiency. Simple enough. If you are getting B12 in your diet, and you still have insufficient B12, then one needs to consider intrinsic factor deficiency, which is called Pernicious Anemia. Folate deficiency can also cause megaloblastic anemia. Other things to consider include alcohol abuse. Some drugs and other systemic diseases can contribute to megaloblastic anemia, which usually affect B12 or folate absorption. Some surgical procedures and leave a person at risk for B12 deficiency.

Lots of eggs in the diet are not without their own issue. Have you tried a B12 supplement lately? Note that B12 supplements are often taken sublingually. This is so that absorption takes place there if intrinsic factor is missing. There are several forms of B12 you can take as a supplement. Perhaps the form you tried, perhaps cyanocobalamin, did not convert correctly. Using one of the other (more expensive) forms may work. Also note, many products are fortified with B12. And also note - just because a person is a dairy/meat eater, does not mean they can not be come B12 deficient!

Yes, cyanocobalamin was the form I was taking via IM shots, if I remember correctly. It's been a long time since then. If I were to attempt such a means of supplementation again, I would try hydroxocobalamin or some other form. But eating eggs has kept me out of trouble, and it seems a lot more natural to eat an egg than to get a shot. Those sublingual meds annoy me, for some reason. They taste weird and unnatural, and cause excess salivation which is uncomfortable.

No one knows all the reasons why Mrs. White recommends eating eggs, but she specifically mentions as one of the reasons their ability to counteract poisons. That is not a significant property of B12, so far as we know. Sulfur is far more likely the source of help in that department, as I have posted earlier. I also noted earlier that meat eaters can still be B12 deficient.



Again, there are reasons for Mrs. White's statements in favor of milk and eggs that go beyond vitamin B12. We may not know all of the reasons, and science may not yet be able to fully prove the prophet's words.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Our close and beloved friend who has been vegan all her life along with her family, was just given a diagnosis of cancer a little while ago. She immeadiately went to a center in Colorado for natural healing and just came back. I am at work so more later...

Yes, but why?
But why would they "know this"?
I study Mrs. White's writings carefully, but I do not know this.

Since you seem to be emphasizing "soon" and "time", or more of "not soon", would it be fair to give the dates of your quotes?

How will God reveal it? What are you looking for?

"Mounting"? Really? Do you work in marketing?

"Numerous". Another one.

Whether you work in marketing is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the reader has had experience in spotting such words and know there should be questions asked.

You know:
Our brand has "more".
New improved with 10% more.
Low sodium/fat/calories/etc.
Natural.
Choosy moms choose us.
Made with real wheat/oats/etc.

It should be noted, that I know of no 120 year old vegans, lacto/ovo vegetarians, lacto/pesco vegetarians, or carnivores. We all die. We live in the world. Toxins are everywhere. EGW puts it this way:We can not escape death on this earth. The only thing we can look forward to is the earth made new and the atonement which Christ has provided.

kland,

I work closely with a doctor who shares with me from time to time about the sad cases of mothers in their thirties and forties, vegan, dying from cancer. Due to patient privacy issues, I never hear their names, unless a patient happens to discuss it with the doctor in my presence, which happens now and then. (People who see a doctor at church, for example.... Glad I'm not a doctor sometimes!) Just in the last two years, I have personally become aware of a large number of vegans who are succumbing to cancer.

I don't think more vegans get cancer than non-vegans. At least, I don't have any special evidence regarding the cancer frequencies. The evidence that I do have, however, is that the vegans have insufficient ability to fight it off once they have it. A few escape. Many do not. It is a sad situation.

I have seen a study posted online somewhere, but cannot seem to find it just now, that gave statistics comparing meat eaters, lacto-ovo vegetarians, and vegans for all causes of death. Vegans and meat eaters were almost tied in their mortality rates, while lacto-ovo vegetarians had better longevity. If I find it again, I will post it.

What seems to help the meat eaters and the lacto-ovo vegetarians when they get cancer is to go vegan. But vegans, when they get cancer, seem to be already running behind and have no way of correcting their deficiency when they need it. It would be a bit like going on a fast when you have some extra weight to carry you through your illness, versus when you are already running lean. The lean person cannot afford to fast when he or she becomes sick, even if it might otherwise have been a healthful thing to do to let the body focus on the healing process.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Kind of makes one wonder if something else is going on, huh?

Here is a statement that expresses Mrs. White's position on the topic.



There are vegans who are becoming "weak and unable to work" as well. Generally speaking, such individuals do not advertise their disability, nor perhaps even connect it to their diet.

Interestingly, Ellen White says "God will interfere to prevent the results of these too-strenuous ideas."

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

Maybe your part of the world is different than in the states. In our church of about 200, there are only about 4 or 5 who could even be accused of being a vegan. And that's only if you don't watch what they eat.

I guess I'm saying that some of these so called vegans, even if they truly eat that way and not confounded as others have pointed out switched when they started having problems, that even then, they may be doing what Ellen White was cautioning people about eggs and milk in her day. That is, they did not replace the bad with something good, and then were damaging their health. It is better to keep the milk and eggs than to do what they were doing. But, it's best to switch your diet, to have true health reform.

When will this time of 100+ years "soon" come to give up milk and eggs. How will you know? Relating how Ellen White talks to how the Bible or Jesus talks does not seem relevant to me. Ellen White expected Jesus to come in her youth. "Soon" should mean something different. Look at the dates of your quotes.

When was this written?
Who cannot obtain in 2012?
Are you of those?

Well said.

But hey, enjoy eggs, enjoy milk, enjoy pork and octopi. For tomorrow we die.

For surely God will wink at our love of food
and not hold it against us
till it come out our nostrils...

Since this thread seems to focus on milk and eggs and what EGW has said about them, we need to be sure we see the spectrum of comments she has made. Here are 2:
I think this is clear. Let the people be taught how to eliminate milk and eggs. The time is coming, and hints are we are on the edge of that time now "in my opinion", that the animal creation is suffering more disease. Buying commercially provided milk and eggs, we have NO IDEA the health of the animals

So - there are those for whom eggs should NOT be eaten. And there are those, whose "blood making organs are weak", (Green?) should not give up eggs. BUT - GREAT CARE should be given in selecting the animals where eggs and milk come from. This can NOT be done if bought in the usual commercial venues.

It is clear, we need to teach people now, how to cook without milk and eggs, the "now" was true in EGW's time. We must not condemn those who can not give up their use, for health or economic issues. We must not condemn those that find it healthful to give these items. There are extremists on both sides! If we think that just because we give up meat and other animal products that we will be disease free, we are kidding ourselves.

APL,

I appreciate your balanced approach here. I think we should be doing more to teach people how to cook delicious vegan foods. The time will come when such knowledge will be very valuable. Even now, many non-vegans could benefit from vegan cookery at least part of the time. Mrs. White never stated that one must eat eggs or milk for every meal.

Since the liver can store B12 for a long time, there may not even be a need to use eggs or dairy products every week or every month. Of course, there are other reasons to use them besides B12. But many meals can be vegan and delicious. I eat vegan the majority of the time.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

A trend I have noticed among vegans is that they somehow connect their diet to sinless living. They frequently view eating an egg or using milk just as they would eating meat or even unclean meats. You are not the first one to bring up the extreme to vilify the moderate.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I notice that you missed the sentence in between that says "There are those who try to abstain from what is declared to be harmful." It is by abstaining from these things that are declared to be "harmful" that they "fail to supply the system with proper nourishment." And what are those things? Sugar? Candy? Potato chips?

Obviously not.

The context requires this to be the milk and eggs that she just spoke of a few sentences earlier. Those are frequently declared to be "harmful" but Mrs. White indicates that they are needful for proper nourishment.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It was written May 29, 1901.
Many cannot.
Yes, I think I am one of those in the great majority.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, I only quoted what I was underlining. Why would I quote something which you already quoted and everyone could read above if I had nothing to say about it? Sounds like you are accusing me of something.

That's just weird. So weird you'd say that.

I was not being extreme other than pointing out your unreasonableness of justification. Nothing about sinning or not sinning.
It does not preclude that Mrs. White isn't declaring them harmful, too. As said in the past, she says they (the harmful items) should not be discarded if you are going to fail to provide proper nourishment.

Over 100 years ago, some could obtain.

But you say many cannot today. Will they ever? If so, what will change to enable them to? Was Ellen White just talking without any meaning? Do you think "soon" will apply to you? Maybe you're one who needs it forever. But what about the "many"? Will "soon" ever come to them?

What was the conditions during the times 100 years ago when some could not obtain?

Could you give a brief tracing of the process from cow to glass of milk on the table 100 years ago and also of today?

So I gather from this that we should seek to eat healthfully -- that is to maintain the best of health possible.
This seems to include staying away from a heavy diet of animal products. I know that since I have a natural built in cholestrol high (inherited) it is imperitve to stay away from high cholestrol foods.

However, we shouldn't get dogmatic and declare "sinful" foods like milk and eggs. While I don't generally use them in home cooking, I don't make an issue of it when invited out or partake of food that others share. I don't consider it a sin to eat these, just don't think it wise to make them part of my regular diet.

I know my step father and my mother were/are strict vegans for at least 30 years. My step father was active and alert like a man much younger than his years until he got phnemonia at the age of 95, that affected his heart and he died two years later, but still mentally with it to the end. My mother, in her mid eighties is still living at home taking care of her yard, and small orchard and garden as well as holding several key positions in church.

The church which we attend -- the head elder and his wife are strict vegans, they are around 89-90 years of age, still leading in the church, organizing singing bands to the people in old folks homes (they themselves still live on their farm, while those in the old folks home are often much younger then they!!!) and helping with VBS and cooking schools.

I'm not sure that the premise of vegans dying young is correct.
True, proper nutrition is essential, to eliminate animal products and not replace them with nutritious foods would leave one nutritionally deprived. Some people have special needs that require special adaptions, but it seems there are advantages for the average person to get away from animal products.

It just appeared that you were trying to ignore the fact that the "what is declared to be harmful" was a reference to the milk and eggs.

I'm not sure why you think so. You have mentioned that vegans can eat such things, and have implied vegans are not healthy on account of such.

Have I ever advocated eating pork or octopi? Were those comments of yours not extreme in the least?

It is not a sin to eat pork or octopi?

The mind can choose to rationalize things in any manner desired. The wording is clear enough to anyone truly desiring to understand. If the milk and eggs were truly harmful, where are Mrs. White's statements to that effect? On the contrary, there are many statements to the opposite meaning from her own pen. She is alluding to the statements made by those who have chosen to abstain from milk and eggs, e.g. yourself.
She doesn't speak of the items being harmful. She speaks of them as being declared harmful. This is an important distinction. Her statement that they fail to supply the system with proper nourishment by trying to abstain from these so-called "harmful" things tells us that they are not harmful, but helpful.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Instead of "veganism causes premature death," perhaps it is more accurate to say "lack of necessary nutrients causes premature death." In EGW's day, very few people could get the proper nutrients without milk and eggs. But these nutrients may have become easier to acquire over the past 100 years, given that we can transport food across the continent within a couple of days.

Also, even in EGW's day, milk and eggs should be from healthy cows and chickens. The mass production of milk and eggs today might not allow for healthy cows and chickens. The only way may be to raise them ourselves. But my HOA won't allow that. So, maybe the "very small minority" today is composed of those who have access to healthy cows and chickens, while the vast majority must get those nutrients elsewhere.

Tell them that the time will soon come when there will be no safety in using eggs, milk, cream, or butter, because disease in animals is increasing in proportion to the increase of wickedness among men. {CD 366.1}

This tells me that milk and eggs are not necessary, assuming that God has made provision for the time when milk and eggs are no longer safe. And based on some of the reports on the health of these animals today, that time may very well be now.

Arnold,

The pen of inspiration says the "very small minority" of people can subsist without milk and eggs in their diet. Feel free to twist it around the other way on your own account and at your own risk.

Note that there is not one single vegan source for vitamin B12. People once thought that certain seaweeds had high levels of B12. I've even purchased some packages of dried seaweed for sale in Asia with the B12 nutrient information listed on it at attractive levels. Medical science may still be catching up on some of these things, but it has been discovered that what we formerly thought was a valid source of B12 in these seaweed is actually a different form of the molecule which offers us nothing. It is like the difference between alpha-chain carbohydrates and beta-chain. One is a good source of energy, the other is just so much cellulose. The molecules look identical except that one hydroxyl group is switched around, from one form to the other. The "B12" in seaweed is similarly rendered non-absorbable by humans with a small difference in molecular shape.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This tells me that children are not necessary, assuming that Jesus has made provision for the end times.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

As you said, "But why?" Did God design humans to require milk and eggs in their diet? Did Adam and Eve consume milk & eggs?

Is it possible that the nutrients only available in milk and eggs then are now available from other sources?

Actually, I know several people who do just fine without children. I even know some who are fine without spouses.

I found the information, so here is the info, and then I will make a table below it giving the data in a more readable format.

Dietary Group	Mortality Rate
Regular meat eaters [ate meat ≥1 time/wk (reference group)]	1.00
Vegans	1.06
This table based on information given in the preceding paragraph. Note that lower numbers are better.

Here's another chart, based on the same study, which presents a slightly different figure. It may have been looking at a more rigid set of criteria for accepting that people were vegan other than that they did not use dairy products. I'm really not sure why the text has the 1.06 rate for vegans and the companion chart has it at 1.00. Anyhow, here is the table with all five diet categories shown.

Dietary Group	Mortality Rate
Regular meat eaters [ate meat ≥1 time/wk (reference group)]	1.00
Occasional meat eaters (ate meat occasionally but <1 time/wk)	0.84
Fish eaters (never ate meat but did eat fish)	0.82
Vegetarians (ate dairy products, eggs, or both)	0.84
Vegans (did not eat any animal products)	1.00
This table based on information presented in chart form with the same study as shown above. Note that lower numbers are better.

Considering this is a broad study of well over 75,000 people, of which nearly 1,000 were vegan, the results have some significance.

The study shows that vegans and meat eaters have about the same life expectancy. Those with greater longevity are those vegetarians who add a little dairy, eggs, or fish to their diet.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

So? Did the vegans eat healthy or did they eat sugar, drink, etc. or are you making some assumptions here?

I make the assumption that, as with most people, and as manufacturers do, when they leave off meat, they add the sugar and fat to make up for it. Why would your assumption be any more valid than mine?

Suppose milk and eggs were not truly harmful. Why then, did she make the statements APL and others have quoted? Why should "soon" we need to give them up?

Again, if they were helpful, why would we need to soon give them up? Why should we tell "the people be taught how to prepare food without the use of milk or butter"? Why should we "Tell them that the time will soon come when there will be no safety in using eggs, milk, cream, or butter, because disease in animals is increasing in proportion to the increase of wickedness among men"? Why should the diet reform be progressive? How "progressive" has it been for 100 years? Why should "The people everywhere should be taught how to cook without milk and eggs, so far as possible, and yet have their food wholesome and palatable"?

If milk and eggs were truly healthful....
But if not, then it makes sense. How do you resolve the statements?

If you are emphasizing "just", then I would agree. Otherwise, a little reasoning would show it otherwise. You would agree that eating certain foods will make you sick. If we didn't eat those foods, we would not experience the sickness caused by them. If we replaced those harmful foods with wholesome foods, then it would stand to reason, we would not get sick.

Unless you are saying as some doctors tell patients to go ahead and eat whatever you want since diet doesn't affect your health.

Everything you put in your mouth either harms you or heals you. Also, what is going on in the videos about curing diabetes in 30 days, forks over knives, etc.? Sounds to me that eating the correct foods will not only cure disease, but prevent it, as many are finding out and experiencing. Unfortunately, as the video pointed out, the desire of appetite is strong, and some choose to die rather than give up their pleasure.

And that's not a correct statement based on the study.

I've met just about all the prime people in the movie, "Forks over knives". There is no question that many of our chronic diseases can be "cured" by diet, and that diet consists of plants. But do you know any 120 year old vegans? Any 120 year old lacto/ovo vegetarians? Any 120 year old carnivores? I don't. We ALL die. And do recall the quote above by EGW that "Even the air, upon which their life depended, bore the seeds of death. {Ed 26.3}"

What is the history in the Bible on diet? In Eden: plants. In the wilderness: manna, which was not animal! Remember what happened to the quail eaters. Daniel: Pulse and water; plants. John the Baptist: "purely vegetable" quoting EGW. Is there a pattern here? A type as it were? What is the anti-type?

The quote you quoted above was from the study. I didn't make any assumptions there; those are not my words.


Talking about the validity of personal assumptions sounds like a good way to make enemies fast. Assumptions are assumptions. They are not facts. Neither set of assumptions can logically be said to be more credible or "valid," if pure logic has only the assumptions themselves to look at.

But this is where the writeup of the study sheds some interesting insight. Look at the following observation which is made of the Oxford study.



Would this perchance be because those who are interested in participating in a study of this kind are already health-minded?

I would suggest that those who are vegan will also be those who have better lifestyle habits in general: exercise, no smoking, no alcohol, fewer candy bars and potato chips, no snacking between meals, and they probably buy more organic and non-GMO foods.

Naturally, this is a "stereotype." It will not hold true for every individual. But if it holds true for over half of those in the population group under study, it will affect the numbers accordingly, and this is why we look at averages.

Personally, I am not acquainted with any strict vegans who have blatant hypocrisies in their diet such as immoderate consumption of junk foods, etc. (I say "immoderate" because most vegans will, when presented with no other options as when travelling, etc., eat a few potato chips or a cookie.) I also am not acquainted with any obese persons whom I am certain are vegan. I know many lacto-ovo vegetarians who are obese. I cannot bring to mind any obese vegans. I know of one person who claims to be vegan, and is obese, but has been seen eating cheese, etc. at church potlucks. So I cannot safely conclude that said individual truly follows a vegan dietary.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Is it healthful to eat Brussels sprouts, tomatoes, spinach, lettuce, and cabbage? I'm sure most people class these among the healthful food options. But what if they are contaminated with Salmonella or E. coli? Are they then healthful? Multiple recalls and warnings have gone out in the past several years for these vegetables and more.

That is the same situation I see with eggs. There may come a time when the eggs themselves carry disease and cannot be safely eaten. This does not mean that an uncontaminated egg would be unhealthful, any more than that green leafy vegetables are unhealthful just because sometimes they have been contaminated.

In fact, Ellen White is clear about it.


Are you telling everyone to leave off milk, cream and eggs? If so, you risk running counter to God's instructions here. Mrs. White is basically telling us there is "harm" in giving up milk. That may be a type of "harm" that does not related to physical health. It might be a financial, emotional, or spiritual harm. In any case, we are told not to teach people to give it up. She has similar thing to say about eggs.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Please expand upon this. Why do you thus conclude?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I would say the anti-type is Heaven with its diet. We still don't have access to that Heavenly food. There is another side to this Bible history, too.



God saw at that point that man needed meat. Because man needed it, God permitted it. But did they need it later on?

A text that was brought out by a vegan church elder one day in the worship service rather startled me. I had never noticed it that way before. And it surprised me, too, that this gentleman, who is so strongly vegan, and is always promoting veganism, would acknowledge that God gave flesh meats regularly to the children of Israel.



The elder proceeded to expound upon the fact that God had daily supplied the people with both manna and quail regularly. I certainly had never noticed this before. The only occurrence of the quail that I had really noticed was the one that caused the plague outbreak after they had eaten it. In this passage, however, no mention is made whatsoever of a plague. We see that God is simply supplying the needs of the children of Israel, so that they are not left to hunger in the wilderness.

And then there is the passover lamb which the Jews were commanded to eat. And the priests, the spiritual leaders of God's people, were given careful instructions on how to feed themselves from portions of the animal sacrifices offered daily by the people.

Jesus also ate fish, and provided fish to others to eat by divine miracle on multiple occasions. It is interesting to note that the pescetarians have the best overall longevity according to the study. This appears to agree with the documentary done a few years ago showing the group in Japan who is among the most long-lived people groups in the world. They eat largely vegan with the addition of fish.

Many are looking at the omega-3 fatty acids as the reason fish are healthful. Perhaps there are other factors as well.

God wants us to be healthy and happy. He will withhold no good thing from those who ask Him in faith. Yet God has also asked us to be moderate, and to avoid extremes. He expects us to wisely use the reasoning powers He has given us, and to educate ourselves in the sciences of health and salvation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green,
I'm beginning to understand that you are a "radical moderate". :-) Have you compared your adjectives with those of EGW? Green, "most", "exception", etc. EGW, "some", "the poor", even "none" is some cases of eggs, etc.

Quail - you take the Bible account and extrapolate the giving of quail as a regular event, while the Bible only documents 2 events, Exodus 16 and Numbers 11. Why did God send the quail the second time and what was the result?

Psa 78:18 They deliberately put God to the test by demanding the food they wanted.
...
Psa 78:26 He also caused the east wind to blow, and by his power he stirred up the south wind;
Psa 78:27 and to his people he sent down birds, as many as the grains of sand on the shore;
Psa 78:28 they fell in the middle of the camp all around the tents.
Psa 78:29 So the people ate and were satisfied; God gave them what they wanted.
Psa 78:30 But they had not yet satisfied their craving and were still eating,
Psa 78:31 when God became angry with them and killed their strongest men, the best young men of Israel.

Psa 106:13 But they quickly forgot what he had done and acted without waiting for his advice.
Psa 106:14 They were filled with craving in the desert and put God to the test;
Psa 106:15 so he gave them what they asked for, but also sent a terrible disease among them.

1Co 10:5 But even then God was not pleased with most of them, and so their dead bodies were scattered over the desert.
1Co 10:6 Now, all of this is an example for us, to warn us not to desire evil things, as they did,

As for the anti-type, will it only be in heaven? I don't think so.God gave us laws on divorce. Therefore, it is OK, right? God gave the laws of divorce because of the the hardness of our hearts, Matthew 19:8 AKJV He said to them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. God permitted meat eating at the flood, even gave rules what should and should not be eaten. What happened to lifespan after the flood?

Yes. And?

And there it is.

And you just said the study was skewed. Vegan, vegetarian, or meat eaters.

Regarding the study, occasional meat eaters are not vegetarians. How does their score compare?

Needed?

Or was it permitted? And what did she say was the result to man's lifespan?

Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment. I'm not so sure but what it doesn't sound a bit like an oxymoron to be a "radical moderate," but the "moderate" part is just exactly what we are supposed to be.




I'm not sure what you mean here. Ellen White and I both use adjectives, and very likely they are similar ones. For example, Ellen White says "a very small minority" of people can subsist on a diet free of milk and eggs. She also has the following advice.

I am doing my best to avoid this "radical" extremism, seen with increasing frequency these days on all sides. I grew up among extremists on various sides of the diet question, and have founded my beliefs upon God's truth. In the above quote, Ellen White has commanded an extremist to reintroduce eggs into his diet.

If the eggs were not eaten in the Garden of Eden, and if that were the best diet for all of mankind, why would she do this? Why would she command someone to eat eggs? Why did she eat eggs herself to her dying day?


Regarding the quail, I recognize it is open to interpretation. But it is clear that God chose to feed them with the quail more than once.

Regarding marriage, let's address that in another thread. This thread is specifically for the issue of veganism and the reasons why it is not best for most people.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is something that we learned in science class. True scientists who are doing their best to follow scientific methods in their research recognize that the simple act of studying something may change its behavior. This is why we have the philosophical question of whether or not a tree falling in the forest makes any noise if one is not there to hear it. In other words, I am proposing that most every study is skewed. The authors of the study are being very honest and recognizing the shift from the ordinary statistical norms. It stands to reason that one who is inclined to participate in a study would be somewhat more self-conscious during the study of his or her behaviors. If that leads to more healthful eating, the results will show it. It appears that the actual deviation from expected mortality rates is not a large one, but the authors do recognize the shift nonetheless.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The results for both of those two groups were included in the table, so you can already see how they compare. The study counted any person as an "occasional" meat eater if he or she ate meat less frequently than once per week. So, for example, one might eat turkey at Thanksgiving and Christmas, fish at easter, and chicken with grandma on her annual visit, and be counted an "occasional meat eater." The maximum would be about three times per month, because any more than that would be about once per week, and would put them into the regular meat eating category.


Necessity = need

Ellen White tells us that "everything had been destroyed upon which man could subsist," which indicates there were at that time no other options for food.

Of course, one might wonder why God in His divine providence did not choose to feed Noah and his family with manna. I don't have that answer. But it is an interesting question.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The reason I mention marriage is that God permits that which is not the best because of the hardness of our hearts. Meat became necessary at the flood, but it was not ideal. The quail I see at in this category. And EGW is also clear that all animal products will need to be given up. Just today, a nurse I work, not an Adventist, said that you just can not trust where our meat comes from any more, and when on to mention some images she saw of sick animals going to slaughter, requiring a forklift to move them. It turned her stomach. And it should! Fortunately, I have an alternative to show her.

Philippians 4:5 AKJV Let your moderation be known to all men. The Lord is at hand.

Moderation - Greek - epieikēs, “yielding,” “gentle,” “kind,” here used as a noun meaning “the spirit of yielding,” “gentleness,” “kindness,” hence, “forbearance,” the opposite of a spirit of contention and self-seeking. The related word, epieikeia, is translated “gentleness” in 2Co 10:1.

One can be on the "extreme" but be gentle, kind, yielding, not self-seeking... Or so it seems to me.

Indeed. It sounds like she must have seen some of the "Mad Cowboy" materials. Pretty astonishing stuff.

But God allows many things that are not for our best good, and I don't want this thread to get sidetracked on those things. In terms of the diet question, for example, God never intended for us to eat vegetables originally. It might even be said that God never intended for us to cook our food. We were never going to need medicine nor medicinal plants. We would never have been sick! But do we need them now? We do, don't we? Bitter herbs. Leaves and vegetables.

If we were to go back to the original diet God gave Adam and Eve in Eden, we would also need to include some of the fruit of the Tree of Life. We would not be eating carrots, potatoes, honey, or lettuce. No spinach, no echinacea or goldenseal. No garlic, no onions. The original diet is not necessarily what God has in mind for us now. If we were to limit our food options to fruits, grains and nuts, as per the original diet, most folk would likely see us as a bit nutty.

And we would be, too. Ellen White would call such a model of "health reform" extreme, and even "health deform."

Balance is quintessentially important.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, moderation has an element of "yielding" and "gentleness" as opposed to rigidity and stubbornness. Ellen White uses this very verse to counter the "extreme" and/or "extremist" views that some people have on this diet question.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You leave my mouth hanging open.

All I can say is what I said before: Enjoy.
But don't lead others down the same path such as in the title of your thread.

No vegetables huh? As has been demonstrated in the past, though I believe with another, I doubt you can support that statement. No one ever has. You would be the first.

I suspect someone, not necessarily you, but whoever started it that everyone repeats, without reasoning, but with plenty of emotion, that someone doesn't like their vegetables.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, or why your mouth would be hanging open. The table shows that vegans and meat eaters have the same mortality rates, whereas lacto-ovo vegetarians fared better. I suppose if you choose to compare vegans against the average meat eater you might be able to construe the title of the thread as being misleading. But I have never attempted to say vegans die sooner than every other group, only that they die sooner than their lacto-ovo vegetarian counterparts. This is what the study shows.


As far as leading people down dietary paths, Mrs. White writes plainly that we should not be teaching people to avoid milk and eggs. Yes, she says we should prepare them for the time when this step of eliminating these foods from our diets will be necessary. She tells us to teach people how to cook without them. But she expressly says that we are not to require them or teach them to give these foods up.

As a conscientious Adventist believer, I feel it is my duty to respect the counsel Mrs. White has given us.


There are many similar quotes to these.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thank you, kland, for being so willing to check the facts. We should always have a firm basis for our beliefs, and if they are not supportable, we should be happy to accept the firmer truths we find.

Perhaps I will be your first person here, and I hope that everyone will have sufficient evidence upon which to support the truth.

I will start with the Bible. The Bible is the best witness on this question.


In this verse, God has assigned Adam his diet of seed-containing fruits/foods (meat means "food" here). The qualification of "bearing seed" or "yielding seed" applies to the things which are included in Adam's diet. This diet would certainly have included tree fruits and tree nuts. We may be somewhat less certain about grains, though they are seeds, as they do not come from trees, and God seems particularly focused upon the trees. But the vegetable portions of a plant, such as the root, the stem, or the leaf seem to be clearly excluded in this diet.

Now let's look at what God gives the animals in the next verse.

Here we see the "green herb" mentioned, and no seeds mentioned at all. All of the animals were assigned this "green herb" diet. They were not on the same regimen as mankind. Adam and Eve had the privilege of the delectable fruits, while the animals got the leaves, stems, and roots.

But, after the Fall, God cursed the ground for man's sake. As a part of this curse, God added the vegetables to man's diet.

As part of this curse, God has now added the "herb of the field" and even "bread" to Adam's diet. This is the first mention of bread in the Bible, and the Hebrew word implies grain. It can also be used to mean "food" in general, but note that this is not the same word as that translated "meat" in Gen. 1:29.

Ellen White comments on the animals' diet of vegetables and grains which was given to man as well at the time of this curse.


Notice also that according to that quote, God had provided "fruit" for Adam and Eve. Mrs. White sets the vegetables and grains apart, and acknowledges that they were for the animals originally.

Of the curse, Ellen White has written the following, confirming that these vegetable foods were not part of the original diet in Eden.

That last statement makes it abundantly clear that the "herb of the field" was not part of the original diet. It was given "under the curse of sin."

It is my belief that just as the thorns and thistles, and the sweat-of-the-brow labor were given to bless fallen man, so also the vegetables and grains were to be a blessing to us in our fallen state.

And by the way, I happen to like vegetables.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

A possible interpretation.

However, that's not exactly what your quoted verse says. Either: I have given you every herb (which bears seed) or I have given you every seed (from herbs).

Same with tree.

I would agree that there does seem to be an emphasis on "green" herb for animals. As opposed to brown herbs?

And that's what I'm asking you to support.

I agree, the "herb of the field" was "added". Context conveys something else than diet, though. What was main purpose of those verses?

But let's say that instead, the main purpose was diet. So, "herb of the field" was added. What about the "herb of the field" makes you think it is vegetables?

I must say that is a first I've seen that quote used. I'll have to look at it further. I do note that it does indeed have the word "vegetables". Not sure why you think it has something to do with distinction of between vegetables and fruit for our diet... I'll have to read it.

Yes, I agree that the "herb of the field" was not part of the original diet. But, we were talking about vegetables being added to our diet. What about that quote makes you think that?

This is talking about eating meat -- it's not talking about vegetables being added after the fall.

She is asking -- why eat meat and thus eat your vegetables secondhand THROUGH the meat. That is -- the animal eats it first, then we eat the animal.
It would be better to eat the plant based foods as they are grown.

That is a classic argument today.
If the world got rid of all their meat animals then the food that would have been used to feed all those meat animals would be more than enough to feed every person living on earth!

It's far more economic and nutritious to get our food from plant based sources rather than letting the animals eat it the plants first and then eating the animals.

Every plant produces seeds.
(Except those now genetically modified so people can no longer grow their own food, which is a tampering with God's creation)

But as God created plants he made each so they would have seeds to reproduce after their kind.

Gen. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So to say "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (Genesis 1:29)"
Why would that be limited to "tree fruits"?

Or perhaps a third option would be appropriate here, something in between the two you have specified.

Here's what comes to my mind, at least, when you specify your options above.

1) "I have given you every herb (which bears seed)."

This would be all plants of the world which have seeds, including all angiosperms and gymnosperms. It would, however, eliminate all plants which have no seeds, such as mosses and ferns, and, if defining "plants" loosely, all algae (seaweed).

That this definition could not be true is evidenced by the very fact that the "herb of the field" was not included, and this definition would be so broad as to encompass every "herb of the field."

2) "I have given you every seed (from herbs)."

This is a rather interesting concept. It would entail the consumption of only the seed portions of plants. So, Adam and Eve would consume the apple's seeds, the seed of the banana (it must have had seeds back then, right?), and the seeds of the figs (imagine taking the time to pick those out) and of the strawberry.

That this concept cannot have been the case can be demonstrated by the fact that Eve was not tempted to eat a seed by the serpent. The serpent did not pluck out the seed of the fruit to place in her hand, nor is any mention ever made of the fruit's seed, or the diet that she should follow. Such a conversation would have been inevitable if the serpent had attempted to get Eve to eat of the leaves of the tree, for example. But God had forbidden the fruit, and it was the fruit that had attracted Eve's eye.

I would interpret God's words, not being a Hebrew scholar mind you, as commanding that they eat the fruits of trees in which the seed was in the fruit. This would include the fruit of angiosperm trees, but would eliminate the gymnosperms which do not have fruit, only a protected seed.



I think the lack of mention of fruits and seeds is highly significant, along with the word "green." An "herb" which has no seeds or which has no fruit falls into the category of "vegetable" or "grain." The final clarifying feature here I address below.

Thank you, again! I'm learning myself as I study this. I never before realized that grains were not part of the original diet. I'm learning, now, that they were intended to be animal food.


Here is where we may have to define that mundane word "field." According to dictionary.com, the first definition is given as:



"Open" or "cleared" implies a lack of trees. We don't generally think of a "field" of apples. We think of an orchard of apples, and a field of corn. We don't run a tiller through an orchard, but rather through a field. So the "herb of the field" is something that is in a cleared area (free of trees).


The quote specifically mentioned that the food of animals included "vegetables" and "grain." Separately within the same statement Mrs. White speaks of "fruit" having been given by God to Adam and Eve (our first parents). While the passage may have been more directed toward the topic of meat consumption, these peripheral details are nonetheless accurate and helpful in understanding the Bible's meaning.



I think the above comments have hopefully clarified my understanding and answered this question.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

True. She addresses the food being added after the fall separately in another statement which I quoted earlier. But this passage also makes a dichotomy between the food of animals (vegetables and grains) and that given to our first parents: fruit.


Agreed. We should not be eating the meat unless we have no other way to sustain ourselves. (Some people are in that unfortunate situation, and I am thankful to not be one of them. I find meat absolutely repulsive and distasteful.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

To answer your last question, I wish I knew Hebrew. I feel the English grammar leaves the directive unnecessarily vague and ambiguous. The ambiguity has the potential for creating a contradiction in the scriptures. However, given the statements from Mrs. White, in conjunction with additional verses from the Bible that are connected to this topic, I feel it can be clear that God was giving Adam and Eve the fruits of the trees as their diet, and was not giving them such things as lettuce, carrots and potatoes, even if each of these plants can produce seeds.

(Note: God did not create potatoes, and potato seeds are almost never viable on account of the potato plant's tetraploidy condition.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

There it is again. Bible interpretation by emotion.

And in error.

Ge 2:16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Ge 3:1 ¶ Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Nothing about fruit nor seeds. The woman said fruit. The woman also said "touch". Continuing in an incorrect interpretation would be that the woman was punished because she ate the fruit instead of the seeds.


So, you would be saying the Bible language would distinguish between seeds and spores.
So, you would be saying the Bible language of "seed" means what you mean to mean seed.

Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Ge 4:25 ¶ And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
... (and many more)





So you would be saying some herbs don't have seeds.
So you would be saying (according to your definition), cows only eat ferns.

Assuming dictionary.com has the same definition as the Bible, you would be saying that fruits cannot grow in fields.
So you would be saying trees only have fruits.
So you would be saying vegetables cannot grow outside of fields.

Glad it clarified your understanding. Didn't address the problem, though.



wow

So, you would be saying lettuce, carrots, potatoes cannot produce seeds? !!!

wow

I have half a dozen potato plants I grew from seed, and have now set the tubers outside which have grown into bigger plants. I have many potato fruits that I dried from last year and planned on planting some more this spring, but have misplaced them. We have volunteer lettuce (and dill) growing from the tremendous amount of seed produced last year.


I just don't know where to start on you saying God didn't create potatoes! And that all potatoes are tetraploids! And that tetraploids cannot produce seed! (Could you have meant triploids? Of which I doubt any commonly grown potatoes are) I think you have enough to handle up to that point.

I must say, you have given me insight into why people continue to repeat such stuff. They just don't know about plants. Guess that's why we are instructed to have our own garden so we can learn about God's second book.

I would like to approach the topic question from a different angle.
40 years ago the Department of Agriculture published a report comparing the nutrient levels in foods at that time, and 50 years prior. Some trace elements had decreased by as much as 85%. So who can imagine what things are like now, another 40 years on? Might have some relevance as to why it is so hard to obtain sufficient nutrients from purely plant based sources.
But there is another factor that has come to light over the last 15 or so years. That is that our cells require 8 different sugars to communicate effectively, while only 2 are currently provided in our diet. And while the body can manufacture the missing six, it is via a lengthy and expensive process.
The vegans I know tend to be very low sugar and fat consumers and that may make it more difficult for their bodies to produce the six missing sugars. This seems to make sense to me. Though in spite of all our knowledge, we still seem a long way from knowing all the answers.

Why don't you just say you are a Mannatech salesman?

APL,

I had never heard of Mannatech before, and now I've looked it up and see why you might connect it with the prior comment. Nonetheless, your comment really does not address Geoff's thought. It is true that our bodies digest some foods more easily than others. Meat is generally harder to digest than vegetables, which are harder than fruits. But each gives a different proportion of "sugars". The energy in meat takes more time to break down, being that it is higher in protein and protein does take time to assimilate. The body would prefer to get energy from starches than from proteins. Even fats may be easier to digest, overall, than proteins, and they give more calories.

And it is true that there are multiple pathways of energy for a cell. I recently learned that coconut oil can be fairly easily converted to ketones in the body which can provide a secondary pathway to feed the brain in the event the primary sugar pathway has become blocked, basically a diabetes of the brain. We call it Alzheimer's. Fat can be converted to ketones as well, but perhaps coconut oil in the diet is a better source than trying to raid the fat cells for their stores.

In terms of sugars, however, I would need to see more evidence before I would accept that meat will have something more to offer than a vegetarian diet.

Mrs. White tells us that milk and eggs should not be put in the same category as meat, but even here, I would not be recommending the use of them for their sugars. Milk and eggs have other properties needed in the body that have little to do with calories. B12 is one of these. Sulfur is another. Enzymes and emulsifiers are some more. B-vitamins are high in eggs. And the protein can be important for some, particularly the amino acid lysine.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Hi Apl,

I thought the information I shared was relevant to the topic, regardless of my connection with Mannatech. I was not making a sales pitch, but highlighting some other factors which might throw some light on the question.
I feel priviledged to belong to a company that has endured years of ridicule from powerful interests, because they knew they could make a difference, and they are. It is not something I am ashamed of or try to hide. By the same token I didn't feel this forum was the place to promote the company, so I did not mention their name.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to infer that non-vegans were getting the building blocks for the missing sugars from meat, but that the lacto-ovo vegetarians probably had more sugars in their diet which made it easier for the body to engineer the missing ones.

See Green? I was right.

"Manna" tech. How can you go wrong? As one website said it, the link is now off the internet, “Mannatech was born out of a cry in the hearts of Sam and Linda Caster for a God-breathed technology that would touch and change the world for His glory”. How can you go wrong? Sam Caster was the CEO of Mannatech. Hmm, what did Sam do before Mannatech? He has an interesting history...

EGW's writings on health are simple, plain, and don't cost an arm and a leg to implement, and it is easy to implement in most lands of this planet. Let everyone be persuaded in their own mind.

I understood you to mean that, but I'd like more information as to what you mean by "sugars" and how are lacto-ovo vegetarians getting more in their diet.

Also, I would like information on the report regarding nutrient levels in agricultural foods. This would tend to discredit the idea that a fruit was wonderfully made by God and has the same nutrient levels grown on poor ground as on rich ground - just that there may be only one fruit as opposed to many fruits.

I'll have to give a more complete answer later. But why would a fruit wonderfully made by God have to have the same level of nutrients whether grown on good or poor soil? Another factor that comes into play is that many crops have been bred to give increased yield. But this also has come at a cost of a lower level of nutrients, regardless of soil type.
That report is fourty years old, I am sure there would be much more up to date figures available somewhere. Many researchers have concluded that we are not getting all we should from the usual diet.

I'll just mention one easily verifiable fact in passing. Their Nutriverus product is one of the most cost effective nutrient packages in the market, and for many would be the closest they get to fresh organic produce.

I had assumed you were speaking of agricultural soil conditions. Looking back, I see your comment does not require that. It could mean a change over time through breeding programs. I agree, that breeding plants is the same as having different plants with different nutrient levels. But, if you were speaking of only environment, I would stand with the plants were designed to produce a certain level or they would not produce. And I would qualify that by saying the plant manufactured nutrients since if you grew lettuce on a soil with no arsenic, that lettuce is not going to have arsenic in it.

I still would go with a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts and grains prepared in as simple manner as possible would be best diet.

Just going back to your previous comment. "This would tend to discredit the idea that a fruit was wonderfully made by God and has the same nutrient levels grown on poor ground as on rich ground."
Well, even in Bible times they knew it was good to "dung" the soil.
In earlier days when people used to eat more largely of local produce, certain areas were known for their soil deficientcies with the associated health problems they caused.
We are certainly fearfully and wonderfully made, but we suffer when we have a poor diet, would it not be the same for plants?
Why should we require that plants should be able to produce a perfect product under deficient conditions?

As to your last comment, certainly 100 years ago that would have been all that was necessary for health. Many years ago The Soil Association in England ran a trial growing five generations of barley on organic and chemically fertilised soil. They then planted the organic seed on the chemical plot and it produced a healthy plant. But the 5th generation seed from the chemical plot, still produced a poor crop even when grown on the organically fertilised soil. So there are other factors as well.

Doesn't your point about Arsenic indicate that if certain other nutrients were not in the soil, they would not appear in the plant?
Some of the major nutrients in the soil manifest their deficiency by the plants having yellow leaves etc. So would it not be possible for many of the trace elements to be deficient without necessarliy showing outwardly?

Then some speak of the ministry of weeds, that they able to synthesize elements that are deficient and so build up the soil.

I am wondering if we are getting a bit away from the topic? Do we
need to start a different thread?

Yes, it produces more.
But not related to my point.

Nice thought. But is it true? Show me.

Yes. Poor crop. Less.
But not related to my point.
And could be other factors such as epigenetic. Which is same as comparing different varieties or plants and about comparing non-related things.

Yes, that was my point.
Perhaps there's a misunderstanding of what elements are and molecules are (plant manufactured carbon compounds, specifically)? And if there is less or more. Which produces less or more crop.
But I was speaking of quality, not quantity.

Could be that it just produced more, but equally could be it produced better quality. It is well known that well fed plants don't just produce more fruit, but that fruit is also firmer and keep better, and are less prone to pests and disease.

We used to grow apples organically fifty years ago. The neighbours laughed and said you could not get a good crop without the sprays and super fertilizers. Yet when the agent came out from England, he phoned and asked why our fruit arrived in so much better condition than the other fruit they received.

The barley test was not only about quantity of yield, but also the health of the plant. There were several indicators for this, color, pest resistance, stem strength, and maybe others which I have forgotten. The test was certainly not about unrelated items.

"Nice thought" No, not just a thought, but life experience. I grew up in Tasmania where we tended to have a higher rate of tooth decay than the mainland. We were taught this was because Tasmanian soils were deficient in some minerals, I do not remember specifically which ones.

The fact that our produce does not contain anything like the nutrient levels that it used to is widely acknowledged and easily proven. I did not think it would still be questioned. As I mentioned before, I see that as no bad reflection on how good God made the plants in the beginning, but a natural result of how we are mis-treating the soil.

Where modern agricultural methods have dominated for decades there is a drastic reduction in topsoil depth and quality. Little organic matter to support microbial life, buffer amendments, etc. Blown away, washed into the rivers & seas. Rebuilding topsoil is beyond reason on a large commercial farm scale.

Plants, like people, are both dependent upon soil health, among other factors. People of today bear little resemblance to our original ancestors who lived for centuries. We are 'sickly and dwarfed', though often claim to be beautiful with superior intellect.

It's logical the plants, trees and animals have likewise degenerated.

As Geoff mentioned, quality differences may not be immediately apparent. But conservation (keeping quality), flavour, pest & disease resistance, and esp. important - viability of future generations - may all be affected.

Perhaps some soil can still produce apples, but instead of 100 varieties, maybe only ten. Few consumers consider the importance of maintaining plant diversity.

GMOs and the increasing radioactive pollution (Depleted Uranium weaponry, accidents like Fukushima) of soils are other concerns.

Many have destroyed the earth which waxes old like a garment.

____________________

Wouldn't you thinks, nice thoughts, consider ifs, speculations, assumed premises, and widely acknowledges aside, I'd be willing to read some research presenting facts. Because otherwise, it comes across as attempting to sell product. If the facts support the thoughts, imagine what that would do for backing up the claims!

I don't think we need scientific reports (facts) to tell us something is wrong with the food chain. But here is an interesting one that has just come to my notice.

In 1995 the recommended daily allowance for fruit and vegies was
5-7 serves.
Today, the figure is 7-13 serves.

Why should we have to consume nearly twice as many serves of fruit and vegies if their nutrient level is unchanged?

I did quote one factual report, but it was quite old, but why should we think things have got better instead of worse since then?
I remember one farmer telling me that in ten years they had to increase the amount of Super phosphate fertilizer used by 500%
to produce the same amount of crop. The farmer said the soil was dead and the fruit was not worth eating. That farm has since
changed to organic methods. But the greater part of our food supply still comes from chemical methods.

Recently my brother told me that whereas a few years ago the fish farms were using a few kilos of anti-biotics, now they are using tons of it.

If you prefer to believe that our produce still provides the same level of nutrients that it did a hundred years ago, maybe you could find some facts to sustain that belief. I think most of us have seen enough, that there is no doubt in our minds as to where the truth is. Is your belief based on evidence, or an assumed understanding.

As Sis. White says, we should never be afraid to discuss a different point of view. If we have the truth, it will stand any test. And if we don't have the truth, the sooner we find out the better.

I am just a little concerned that the topic has come to a point where it is not throwing any light on the question as to why veganism causes premature death. To this point my earlier remarks, at least to me, do seem to offer a plausible explanation. I am not saying that is the only possible explanation, or that it is necessarily correct, only that in the light of recent science, it does make some sense.

I have just come across another report released about ten years ago. Things may be worse than we think.

"In 1951 two peaches would supply a woman's RDA of vit. A.
Today (1999)she would have to consume 53 peaches."
Christian J Charts. Nutrient Changes in Vegetables and Fruits,
1951 - 1999. CTV News 2002.

Google: "In 1951 two peaches would supply a woman's RDA of vit. A."

What do you find? Mannatech. Are we to believe that we are all dying because we do not eat Mannatech products?

One Glycobiologist's work I am familiar with is Ajit Varki, M.D., from UCSD, and his work on neuraminic acid. What his work shows so very clearly, is that the advise giving to Adventists on diet from the Spirit of Prophesy is SPOT ON.

Quoting:
The opinion of independent glycobiologists is that the body cannot digest Ambrotose, as it lacks the enzymes needed.[10] Prominent glycobiologist Dr. Ronald Schnaar, PhD of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine[12] told 20/20 in a June 1, 2007 interview, "All of the sugar building blocks that we need in our body are made from the most common foods we eat."[13]

Hudson Freeze, PhD, leading glycobiologist at the Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute[14] said this about glyconutrients: "There are authentic, scientific studies that have looked at people drinking these kinds of materials, and it doesn't really do anything except increase flatulence."[13] Dr. Freeze is a member of the editorial board of Glycobiology, whose current editor-in-chief is Dr. Schnaar.[15] Schnaar and Freeze published a critique of Mannatech's products in Glycobiology in 2008, describing the lack of published clinical benefits of the "partially purified polydisperse plant polysaccharides" found in "Ambrotose Complex."[16]

In Glycobiology, another article described the potential for the public to be misled about the science of glycobiology by the nebulous "glyconutrient" term.[17] The authors' concern was that the public would be susceptible to the "scientific-sounding label" of glyconutrient, which may "generate a feeling of security and credibility...despite the lack of acceptance among many glycobiologists of the term." In November 2007, Science published an article in its "News Focus" section detailing the scientific controversy surrounding Mannatech.[18] It included criticisms and comments from glycobiologists, including Ajit Varki, Raymond Dwek, Gerald Hart, James Paulson, Hudson Freeze, and Ronald Schnaar.

[10]Sataline, Suzanne (May 11, 2007). "True Believers: Health Claims by Sales Force Boost Supplement Firm; Mannatech's Products Attract the Gravely Ill; Disclaimers on Labels". Wall Street Journal / Dow Jones & Company, Inc.. Retrieved July 8, 2007. Note that full article is available only to WSJ subscribers. "Some researchers say they doubt that Ambrotose offers any health benefits. Dr. Hudson Freeze, who studies complex carbohydrates as a professor of glycobiology at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research in La Jolla, Calif., contends the body can't digest Ambrotose because humans lack the enzymes necessary to break down the plant fibers it contains into simple sugars."
[12]"Ronald L. Schnaar, PhD". Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved May 21, 2010.
[13]Avila, Jim; Geoff Martz, and Andrew Paparella (June 1, 2007). "Cure for Your Disease or Empty Promise?". ABCNews Internet Ventures. Retrieved July 8, 2007.
[14]"Hudson Freeze, PhD". Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute. Retrieved May 21, 2010.[dead link]
[15]"Editorial Board". Glycobiology. Retrieved May 21, 2010.
[16]Schnaar RL, Freeze HH (2008). "A "Glyconutrient Sham"". Glycobiology 18 (9): 652–657. DOI:10.1093/glycob/cwm098. PMID 17855741.
[17]Torok CB, Murray TH (2008). "Wielding the sword of professional ethics against misleading dietary supplement claims". Glycobiology 18 (9): 660–663. DOI:10.1093/glycob/cwn060.
[18]Jocelyn Kaiser (2007). "Who Owns Glycobiology?". Science 318 (5851): 734–737. DOI:10.1126/science.318.5851.734. PMID 17975043.