Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook      Sign In   
  • Create Account       

Photo

It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target

Discrimination prejudice symbolic threats vegans vegetarians

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 AlPater

AlPater
  • Member
  • 773 posts
  • Website URL:https://www.crsociety.org/index.php?app=core&module=global&section=register

Posted 22 April 2017 - 04:58 PM

[The second below paper is pdf-availed. Just think what prejudices there might be against CRers.]
Sorry, vegetarians. A new study says eating green won’t lower your risk of early death
Sharon Kirkey | April 20, 2017
http://news.national...ower-risk-death
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Vegetarian diet and all-cause mortality: Evidence from a large population-based Australian cohort - the 45 and Up Study.
Mihrshahi S, Ding D, Gale J, Allman-Farinelli M, Banks E, Bauman AE.
Prev Med. 2017 Apr;97:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.12.044. Epub 2016 Dec 29.
PMID: 28040519
https://www.crsociet...0519#entry20178
https://www.crsociet...0519#entry20481
Abstract

The vegetarian diet is thought to have health benefits including reductions in type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Evidence to date suggests that vegetarians tend to have lower mortality rates when compared with non-vegetarians, but most studies are not population-based and other healthy lifestyle factors may have confounded apparent protective effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between categories of vegetarian diet (including complete, semi and pesco-vegetarian) and all-cause mortality in a large population-based Australian cohort. The 45 and Up Study is a cohort study of 267,180 men and women aged ≥45years in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Vegetarian diet status was assessed by baseline questionnaire and participants were categorized into complete vegetarians, semi-vegetarians (eat meat≤once/week), pesco-vegetarians and regular meat eaters. All-cause mortality was determined by linked registry data to mid-2014. Cox proportional hazards models quantified the association between vegetarian diet and all-cause mortality adjusting for a range of potential confounding factors. Among 243,096 participants (mean age: 62.3years, 46.7% men) there were 16,836 deaths over a mean 6.1years of follow-up. Following extensive adjustment for potential confounding factors there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality for vegetarians versus non-vegetarians [HR hr=1.16 (95% CI 0.93-1.45)]. There was also no significant difference in mortality risk between pesco-vegetarians [HR hr=0.79 (95% CI 0.59-1.06)] or semi-vegetarians [HR hr=1.12 (95% CI 0.96-1.31)] versus regular meat eaters. We found no evidence that following a vegetarian diet, semi-vegetarian diet or a pesco-vegetarian diet has an independent protective effect on all-cause mortality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target
Cara C. MacInnis, Gordon Hodson
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, First Published 6 Dec 2015.
Abstract
Vegetarianism and veganism are increasingly prevalent in Western countries, yet anecdotal expressions of negativity toward vegetarians and vegans are common. We empirically tested whether bias exists toward vegetarians and vegans. In Study 1 omnivores evaluated vegetarians and vegans equivalently or more negatively than several common prejudice target groups (e.g., Blacks). Bias was heightened among those higher in right-wing ideologies, explained by heightened perceptions of vegetarian/vegan threat. Vegans (vs. vegetarians) and male (vs. female) vegetarians/vegans were evaluated more negatively overall. In Study 2 omnivores evaluated vegetarians and vegans more negatively than several nutritional outgroups (e.g., gluten intolerants) and evaluated vegan/vegetarians motivated by animal rights or environmental concerns (vs. health) especially negatively. In Study 3, vegetarians and especially vegans reported experiencing negativity stemming from their diets. Empirically documenting antivegetarian/vegan bias adds to a growing literature finding bias toward benign yet social norm-challenging others.
Keywords discrimination, prejudice, symbolic threats, vegans, vegetarians
The voluntary abstention from consuming animal flesh dates back to prehistoric times and has continued throughout human history (Spencer, 1996). As of 2012 roughly 5% of Americans self-identify as vegetarians (i.e., those who do not consume meat or fish but might consume dairy or eggs), and 2% as vegan (i.e., those who do not consume meat, fish, dairy, eggs, or any animal by-products; “In U.S., 5% Consider,” 2012). Although these represent small segments of society, these proportions match those of minority groups such as homosexuals (e.g., Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994) or Muslims (“Table: Muslim Population,” 2011) in the Western world, making vegetarian/vegans similarly worthy of attention. Moreover, vegetarianism and veganism are receiving increased public interest and attention. To illustrate, Vegetarian Times’ print circulation increased 30%, and online traffic increased 70%, from 2010 to 2013 (“Vegetarian Times Now Measured,” 2013); two vegan cookbooks currently appear on the New York Times’ best sellers list in the Food and Fitness category (“Best Sellers: Food and Fitness,” 2015); and Google searches for the word “vegan” have steadily increased since 2004 (Sareen, 2013). This rise in interest may be due to recent enthusiasm for vegetarian/vegan diets by celebrities such as Bill Clinton and Ellen DeGeneres (Christian, 2011), studies linking the consumption of meat and animal by-products to negative health (Barnard et al., 2006) and environmental (Herrero et al., 2013) outcomes, and popular media coverage of animal cruelty on factory farms (Kennedy, 2012; Schecter, 2014). As vegetarians and vegans become more visible and politically active, intergroup conflicts between vegetarians/vegans and omnivores are increasingly likely.

These conflicts can range from moderate annoyances to serious maltreatment. As examples of the former, both Paul McCartney (The Canadian Press, 2013) and a Canadian purse manufacturer (“No Meat on Menu,” 2010) have received criticism from omnivores for requiring staff to only eat vegetarian meals while working. In examples of more serious conflicts, a Wall Street trader reported enduring repeated verbal abuse and eventual dismissal by his employer due to his vegetarianism (Gregorian, 2009), and a firefighter reported ostracism and assignment to more dangerous tasks after revealing his vegetarianism to coworkers (Messing, 2012). Moreover, an American celebrity chef has even remarked that “Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit” (Bourdain, 2000, p. 70). Anecdotally, therefore, bias against vegetarians and vegans appears to exist. Indeed, the potential for discrimination on the basis of vegetarianism or veganism has recently been recognized by legal experts. In Canada some argue that veganism should be considered a human right (“Veganism a Human Right,” 2012), and in the UK vegetarians and vegans are protected from discrimination under the United Kingdom’s Equality Act (Jamieson, 2010). Heeding Crandall and Warner’s (2005) call for psychologists to broaden the study of prejudice to include targets considered relatively “acceptable” by society, we examine potential bias (e.g., avoidance, prejudice, discrimination) by omnivores toward vegetarians and vegans. With rates of meat consumption decreasing and rates of vegetarianism increasing in Western countries (Ruby, 2012), this examination is culturally timely, in addition to addressing theoretical questions about intergroup biases.

Vegetarians/Vegans as Symbolic Threats
The previous anecdotal examples suggest that vegetarians and vegans are targets of bias. Needed at this point are empirical examinations of not whether but why vegetarians and vegans are targeted. We propose that, at least in Western society, vegetarians and vegans represent strong threats to the status quo, given that prevailing cultural norms favor meat-eating. Specifically, vegetarians and vegans can represent symbolic threats. As outlined by intergroup threat theory (W. S. Stephan & Stephan, 2000) symbolic threats are intangible threats to an ingroup’s beliefs, values, attitudes, or moral standards. These threats originate from the perception that an outgroup’s beliefs, values, attitudes, or moral standards are in conflict with those of one’s own group. As such, symbolically threatening groups can be perceived as undermining the cherished values of the ingroup (Biernat, Vescio, Theno, & Crandall, 1996). Across various target groups (e.g., immigrants, Costello & Hodson, 2011; W. G. Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999; Black people, W. G. Stephan et al., 2002; gay men and lesbians, and fat people, Biernat et al., 1996), perceiving an outgroup as symbolically threatening predicts negative attitudes toward the group (for meta-analytic evidence, see Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006). We propose that vegetarians’ and vegans’ voluntary abstention from meat-eating, which conflicts with the omnivore majority’s values, represents a symbolic threat in ways that contribute to negative attitudes toward these targets.

If this is the case, those most threatened should express the most bias. Theoretically, those endorsing right-wing ideologies such as political conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA, i.e., conventionality, submission to authority, aggression toward norm violators; Altemeyer, 1996, 1998), or social dominance orientation (SDO, i.e., support for group dominance and group hierarchies; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) are particularly susceptible to such threats. After all, those endorsing right-wing ideologies support the status quo and resist social change (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). Further, heightened conservatism (Jost et al., 2007), RWA, or SDO (Costello & Hodson, 2011; Hodson, Hogg, & MacInnis, 2009), are associated with heightened outgroup threat perceptions. Critically, perceiving an outgroup as threatening mediates the relation between RWA or SDO and prejudice (Hodson et al., 2009), with value threats explaining associations between SDO and prejudice (Esses, Hodson, & Dovidio, 2003). In the current context, those higher in right-wing ideology may express more negative attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans, in large part, due to the threat that these groups are seen to pose.

Recent work seeking to explain meat-eating and animal exploitation behaviors demonstrates that those endorsing right-wing ideologies (heightened RWA or SDO) are indeed more threatened by vegetarianism (Dhont & Hodson, 2014), with vegetarian ideologies considered threats to cultural customs, identity, and general way of life. Further, Dhont and Hodson demonstrated that perceived vegetarianism threat, along with beliefs in the supremacy of humans over animals, largely explained the heightened meat consumption and animal exploitation by those higher in RWA or SDO. As such, vegetarianism threat may serve as a legitimizing myth (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) to justify behaviors that harm and exploit animals. Although previously untested, this research suggests that vegetarianism threat may similarly explain an association between heightened right-wing ideology and more negative attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans themselves, a previously untested proposition.

Bias Toward Those Resisting Mainstream Ideologies and Practices
Outgroups can be considered threatening because of their actions and behaviors. For example, gay men or lesbians may be perceived as threatening because they engage in “taboo” sexual behavior; immigrants may be perceived as threatening by speaking different languages; religious groups may be perceived as threatening by wearing other religious symbols (e.g., turban, hijab). Interestingly, vegetarians and vegans do not fit this category. Instead of engaging in antinormative behavior, vegetarians and vegans fail to engage in normative behavior. Thus, vegetarians and vegans may be viewed as threatening in a unique way, enhancing their potential to be targets of bias given their resistance to cultural norms that sanction eating meat.

Other recent work on bias toward groups who abstain from mainstream behaviors are informative here. Asexuals, those who do not experience sexual attraction and do not engage in sexual behavior, are targets of strong bias (Hoffarth, Drolet, Hodson, & Hafer, 2015; MacInnis & Hodson, 2012). Asexuals’ defining lack of desire to engage in behaviors often considered fundamental to human life (i.e., sexuality) renders them targets of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination (MacInnis & Hodson, 2012). Atheists do not endorse religious beliefs or believe in god(s) and are similarly targets of bias (Gervais, 2013; Gervais, Shariff, & Norenzayan, 2011). These forms of bias are theoretically unique from antivegetarianism/veganism in many ways (e.g., antiatheist prejudice is predicted by mistrust), however, empirically confirming bias toward vegetarians and vegans can add to a growing body of work demonstrating bias toward social norm-challenging others who are characterized by a failure to endorse mainstream ideologies and behaviors. Such groups are generally targeted for bias by the socially dominant (Duckitt, 2006; Hodson, Rush, & MacInnis, 2010) often due to perceived threats they pose to the status quo.

The Current Research
We conducted three studies to empirically examine whether vegetarians and vegans are targets of systematic bias. Overall, we expected that vegetarians and vegans would be targets of bias by omnivores (Studies 1–2), and that vegetarians and vegans would report bias experiences (Study 3). Drawing from previous work establishing bias toward a previously unexamined target group (asexuals; MacInnis & Hodson, 2012), in Study 1 we suggest several criteria to confirm bias toward vegetarians and vegans. First, attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans should approximate, if not be more negative than, attitudes toward other groups that are commonly targets of prejudice (e.g., gay men and lesbians, immigrants, Blacks). Second, those predisposed toward negative evaluations of outgroups generally should be more negative toward vegetarians and vegans (i.e., demonstrating more negative attitudes, avoidance, and discrimination intentions). As suggested in the previous lines, those higher in right-wing ideology and vegetarianism/veganism threat are expected to display heightened bias. Further, stronger ingroup (meat-eating) identification was also expected to predict stronger bias toward vegetarians and vegans given that ingroup identification is typically associated with heightened bias generally (Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1996; Lindeman, 1997). Third, there should be positive associations between attitudes toward vegetarians/vegans and attitudes toward other stigmatized outgroups, consistent with the concept of generalized prejudice, whereby outgroup prejudices intercorrelate (Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, & Zakrisson, 2004). In Study 2, we compare evaluations of vegetarians and vegans to evaluations of other nutritional and social norm-challenging groups, test whether vegetarians/vegans are evaluated differently based on the motivation (e.g., animal rights, environment, health) behind their vegetarianism/veganism, and examine vegetarian/vegan bias in terms of the stereotype content model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002).

With regard to the target’s perspective, in Study 3 we include some additional criteria. To the extent that vegetarians/vegans are targets of bias, a substantial proportion of vegetarians/ vegans should report: (a) that friends/family decreased contact after learning of their vegetarianism or veganism (i.e., avoidance); (b) anxiety about disclosing vegetarianism/veganism to others; © fearing discrimination; (d) experiencing discrimination; and (e) engaging in behaviors to cope with discrimination.

Although we predicted that vegetarians and vegans would be targets of bias overall, the magnitude of this bias was expected to differ systematically across targets: the more the target is perceived as deviant, the more bias predicted toward the target. Thus, we expected that vegans (vs. vegetarians) to be evaluated more negatively by omnivores (Studies 1–2), and to report experiencing more bias (Study 3) given their absolute eschewing of animal consumption. Additionally, we expected that male (vs. female) vegetarians/vegans will be viewed more negatively by omnivores (Studies 1–2) and report experiencing more bias (Study 3) given that meat consumption is generally associated with masculinity (Adams, 1990; Gelfer, 2013; Kramer, 2011) and “feeling manly” (Rothgerber, 2013). As such, men who do not consume meat may violate gender role expectations, and pose a double threat to the status quo relative to female vegetarians/vegans. We also expected that male (vs. female) omnivores would be particularly biased against male vegetarians and male vegans, but that there would be no sex differences on bias toward female vegetarians and female vegans. This pattern would parallel well-established findings that gay men are not only evaluated more negatively than lesbians in general, but that gay men are evaluated more negatively by male (vs. female) heterosexuals (Herek, 2002; Kite & Whitley, 1996). In general, men (vs. women) subscribe to traditional gender roles and gender bias (Aosved & Long, 2006; Black, Oles, & Moore, 1998; Davies, 2004; Sakalli, 2002). Akin to how conservative gender role attitudes explain the sex difference in bias toward gay men (Kerns & Fine, 1994), we expected gender bias to explain the sex difference in bias toward male vegetarians/vegans.

Study 1
To empirically test whether vegetarians and vegans are targets of bias, we first examined omnivores’ perceptions of vegetarians and vegans forwarding the hypotheses listed next.

Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
Vegetarians and vegans will be targets of bias. Specifically, at the mean level, attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans will be similar to (or more negative than) evaluations of common prejudice target groups (e.g., Blacks); vegetarians and vegans are also expected to be targets of discrimination.

Hypothesis 2
In terms of associations, attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans are expected to positively covary with attitudes toward common targets of prejudice.

Hypothesis 3
Exaggerated bias toward vegetarians and vegans will be displayed among the prejudice-prone (e.g., authoritarians).

Hypothesis 4
Associations between right-wing ideology and prejudice toward vegetarians and vegans will be mediated (i.e., explained) by heightened vegetarianism threat.

Hypothesis 5
Vegans, challenging social norms to a greater extent, will be evaluated more negatively than vegetarians.

Hypothesis 6
Bias toward vegetarian and vegan men will be stronger than bias toward vegetarian and vegan women.

H6a
Vegetarian and vegan men (vs. women) will be more negatively evaluated and avoided.

H6b
Omnivore men (vs. omnivore women) will evaluate vegetarian and vegan men more negatively.

H6c
Sex differences on evaluations of vegetarian and vegan men will be explained by gender bias (i.e., ascription to traditional gender roles and modern sexism).

Method
Participants and procedure
Amazon Mechanical Turk workers living in the United States completed a 15- to 20-minute survey for $.50. Those missing data on one or more measures were excluded, as were nonmeat eaters, leaving 278 omnivores for analysis (Mage = 35.75, SD = 12.79, 55.4% women, 82.4% White, 84.2% with postsecondary education, 71.9% employed, 86.0% nonstudents).

Materials
Materials are described in what follows. For all multi-item scales confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated single-factor solutions.1

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)
The 12-item RWA scale (Altemeyer, 1996) was employed using scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Ratings were averaged after reverse-scoring appropriate items. Higher scores indicated greater RWA (α = .94).

Social dominance orientation (SDO)
The 16-item SDO scale (Pratto et al., 1994) was employed using the same 7-point scale noted before. Ratings were averaged after reverse-scoring appropriate items. Higher scores indicated greater SDO (α = .96).

Conservatism
Three items tapped political orientation generally, regarding social policy, and regarding economic policy (Skitka, Mullen, Griffin, Hutchinson, & Chamberlin, 2002), on scales ranging from 1 (very liberal) to 7 (very conservative). Ratings were averaged; higher scores indicated greater conservatism (α = .92).

Gender bias
Swim Aikin, Hall, and Hunter’s (1995) old-fashioned (five items, α = .76) and modern (eight items, α = .91) sexism scales were used on 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scales. After reverse-scoring appropriate items, each set of ratings were averaged. Higher scores represented greater ascription to traditional gender roles or modern sexism.

Ingroup (meat-eating) identification
If indicating meat consumption, participants rated three items: (a) the importance of being a meat-eater for their identity; (b) perceived similarity to meat-eaters; and © attachment to meat-eaters (on 1 [not at all] to 7 [very much] scales; following Hodson, Harry, & Mitchell, 2009). After averaging, higher scores represented stronger ingroup identification with meat-eaters (α = .87).

Vegetarianism/veganism threat
Eight items from Dhont and Hodson’s (2014) Vegetarianism Threat Scale (e.g., “Eating meat is part of our cultural habits and identity and some people should be more respectful of that”) were adapted to assess threat from both vegetarianism and veganism. We also added one additional item (“Vegetarians/vegans think they are better than meat eaters”)2 and reverse-keyed two of Dhont and Hodson’s items. All items were assessed on scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). After reverse-scoring appropriate items, items were averaged. Higher scores represented heightened vegetarianism/veganism threat (α = .87).

Attitude thermometers
Evaluations of vegetarian women, vegetarian men, vegan women, vegan men, lesbians, gay men, immigrants, asexual women, asexual men, atheists, drug addicts, Black women, and Black men were each tapped with widely used attitude thermometers (MacInnis & Hodson, 2012). These scales, divided into 10° range increments, ranged from 0–10° (extremely unfavorable) to 91–100° (extremely favorable). Vegetarians were defined as those not consuming meat or fish but may consume dairy and/or eggs; vegans were defined as those not consuming animal products or byproducts (e.g., no meat, fish, dairy, eggs). For gay men and lesbians, asexual men and women, and Black men and women, ratings were averaged into an overall evaluation of the group in question (i.e., homosexuals, asexuals, Blacks). Higher scores indicated a more positive evaluation of the group.

Discrimination intentions
Comfort with renting to and hiring a person belonging to each of the groups listed before were tapped on scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much; MacInnis & Hodson, 2012).

Avoidance of vegetarians/vegans
The extent to which participants avoid eating around and interacting generally with vegetarians/vegans were each tapped on scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Openness to making friends with a vegetarian/vegan man, openness to making friends with a vegetarian/vegan woman, and openness to having a vegetarian/vegan romantic partner, were each assessed on the same scales. Each was assessed through a single item.

Familiarity with vegetarians/vegans
Participants indicated familiarity with vegetarians and vegans on a 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) scale: “What is your knowledge of the group [insert] (i.e., do you know what it means to be [insert], have you heard of this group before, etc.)?” Participants also indicated how many vegetarians or vegans personally know.

Results and Discussion
Hypothesis 1: Vegetarians and vegans as targets of bias
As predicted, attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans were equivalent to, or more negative than, evaluations of common prejudice target groups. As displayed in Table 1, both vegetarians and vegans were evaluated equivalently to immigrants, asexuals, and atheists, and significantly more negatively than Blacks. Vegetarians were evaluated equivalently to homosexuals, whereas vegans were evaluated more negatively than homosexuals. Strikingly, only drug addicts were evaluated more negatively than vegetarians and vegans. In terms of discrimination, however, omnivores did not indicate any less willingness to hire or rent to vegetarians or vegans relative to other groups. Participants actually indicated more willingness to hire vegetarians than immigrants, atheists, or drug addicts, more willingness to hire vegans over immigrants and drug addicts, and more willingness to rent to vegetarians or vegans than all other target groups. Results were equivalent if excluding ethnic minority participants (except that evaluations of vegetarian and Black targets did not significantly differ). In terms of experiencing bias, therefore, vegetarians and vegans are clear targets of relatively more negative attitudes, but not more hiring or housing discrimination. Thus, we confirm H1 with regard to evaluations but not discrimination.

Table
Table 1. (Study 1). Bias as a function of target group.

Table 1. (Study 1). Bias as a function of target group.


Note. N = 278. Within rows, means sharing a subscript do not differ significantly from one another; means not sharing a subscript differ at p < .05. No significant differences were observed when separating bias toward homosexuals, asexuals, and Blacks by sex.

***p < .001.

View larger version
Hypothesis 2: Positive associations with attitudes toward other prejudice target groups
Evaluations of both vegetarians and vegans were positively associated with evaluations of all target groups evaluated (rs .29–.62, ps < .001), supporting H2.

Hypothesis 3: More negative evaluations among prejudice-prone persons
Consistent with H3, exaggerated bias toward vegetarians and vegans was displayed among prejudice-prone persons (see Table 2). Stronger right-wing ideology (RWA, SDO, or conservatism), gender bias, ingroup identification, and vegetarianism/veganism threat were associated with more negative attitudes toward both vegetarians and vegans. Further, right-wing ideologies (RWA, SDO, or conservatism) were associated with lower willingness to rent to a vegetarian, hire a vegan, or rent to a vegan; stronger gender bias was associated with lower willingness to rent to a vegetarian, hire a vegan, or rent to a vegan; stronger ingroup identification was associated with lower willingness to hire a vegetarian, rent to a vegetarian, or rent to a vegan; and higher vegetarianism/veganism threat was associated with lower willingness to hire a vegetarian, rent to a vegetarian, hire a vegan, or rent to a vegan (see Table 2). Stronger right-wing ideology (RWA, SDO, or conservatism), gender bias, ingroup identification, and vegetarianism/veganism threat were also each positively associated with the avoidance of vegetarians/vegans, and negatively associated with openness to relationships with vegetarians/vegans.

Table
Table 2. (Study 1). Associations between bias toward vegetarians and vegans and bias-relevant individual difference variables.

Table 2. (Study 1). Associations between bias toward vegetarians and vegans and bias-relevant individual difference variables.


Note. N = 278. Partial correlations controlling for familiarly with vegetarians and vegans are largely equivalent to those presented here. For attitude thermometers, results are presented collapsing across target sex given that correlations did not vary as a function of target sex with two exceptions: the correlation between attitudes toward vegetarians and ingroup identification was of greater magnitude for vegetarian men (r = −.40) than vegetarian women (r = −.34) targets, z = −2.68, p < .001, and the correlation between attitudes toward vegans and old-fashioned sexism was of greater magnitude for vegan men (r = −.37) than vegan women (r = −.31) targets, z = −2.65, p < .01.

*p < .05. **p < .01.***p < .001.

View larger version
Hypothesis 4: Vegetarianism/veganism threat as mediator
We tested six models whereby right-wing ideology (RWA, SDO, or conservatism) predicted evaluations of vegetarians or vegans through heightened vegetarianism/veganism threat. We used maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS 20.0, including all paths (df = 0) and employing bootstrapping (N = 1,000) to estimate the indirect effect significance (IE; Kline, 2011). In all cases, right-wing ideology (RWA, SDO, or conservatism) predicted vegetarianism/vegan threat, and vegetarianism/vegan threat predicted more negative evaluations of vegetarians and vegans. Critically, the zero-order relations between right-wing ideology and evaluations of vegetarians or vegans (see Table 2) were substantially diminished with inclusion of vegetarianism/veganism threat in the model (see Figure 1). The indirect effects of RWA, SDO, or conservatism on evaluations of vegetarians (IE βs = −.29, 95% CI [−0.22, −0.37]; −.26, 95% CI [−0.19, −0.33]; −.25, 95% CI [−0.18, −0.33], respectively, ps ≤ .002) or vegans (IE βs = −.29, 95% [CI −0.21, −0.37]; −.24, 95% CI [−0.18, −0.32]; and −.24, 95% CI [−0.17, −0.32], respectively, ps = .002) were significant, accounting for 60–100% of the total effects. Associations between right-wing ideology and prejudice toward vegetarians and vegans were fully (for RWA or conservatism) or partially (for SDO) explained by vegetarianism/veganism threat. Thus, if not for being more threatened by vegetarianism/veganism, those higher in RWA or conservatism would not express more negative attitudes toward vegetarians or vegans, and those higher in SDO would not express as negative attitudes toward vegetarians or vegans.

figure
Figure 1. (Study 1). N = 278. Standardized estimates are shown. Note that separate models were run for each type of right-wing ideology, but estimates are presented together in figures for brevity. Estimates for RWA as the exogenous variable appear first, estimates for SDO as the exogenous variable appear second, and estimates for conservatism as the exogenous variable appear third. Values in parentheses are those after controlling for the mediator.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Hypothesis 5: Greater bias toward vegans than vegetarians
Consistent with H5, evaluations of vegetarians and vegans were positively correlated (r = .91, p < .001) but differed significantly at the mean level, with vegans evaluated more negatively than vegetarians (see Table 1).

Hypothesis 6: Greater bias toward vegetarian and vegan men (vs. women)
As displayed in Table 3, omnivores overall evaluated vegetarian men more negatively than vegetarian women, but more positively than vegan men and women. Vegan men were evaluated most negatively, with vegetarian men, vegetarian women, and vegan women evaluated more favorably. Participants overall also indicated more openness to making friends with a vegetarian/vegan woman, M = 5.59, SD = 1.92, than man, M = 5.46, SD = 1.99, t(277) = −2.09, p = .038, supporting H6a. Clearly, omnivores are more favorable toward female (vs. male) vegetarians and vegans.

Table
Table 3. (Study 1). Bias toward vegetarians and vegans as a function of target sex.

Table 3. (Study 1). Bias toward vegetarians and vegans as a function of target sex.


Note. N = 278. Within rows, means sharing a subscript do not differ significantly from one another; means not sharing a subscript differ at p < .05. Mean differences for discrimination should be interpreted with caution as omnibus.

Fs were not significant.

***p < .001.

View larger version
Additionally, supporting H6b, omnivore men evaluated vegetarian men, M = 6.35, SD = 2.38 significantly more negatively than did omnivore women, M = 6.94, SD = 2.43, t(276) = −2.02, p = .044. Omnivore men, M = 5.99, SD = 2.70 also evaluated vegan men marginally more negatively than did omnivore women, M = 6.59, SD = 2.60, t(276) = −1.88, p = .060. No sex differences were observed on evaluations of vegetarian or vegan women (ts < |1.36|, ps > .176).

To examine our hypothesis that the sex difference on evaluations of vegetarian and vegan men would be explained by heightened gender bias (H6c), we tested a model whereby participant sex (man = 1, woman = 0) predicted evaluations of male vegetarians through both old-fashioned and modern sexism. Using maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS 20.0, all possible paths were included (df = 0) and bootstrapping (N = 1,000) was employed to estimate the significance of the indirect effect (IE; Kline, 2011). Participant sex predicted both old-fashioned (β = .31, p < .001) and modern sexism (β = .38, p < .001), and both old-fashioned (β = −.29, p < .001) and modern sexism (β = −.19, p < .01) predicted more negative attitudes toward male vegetarians. The relation between sex and evaluations of male vegetarians (r = −.12, p < .05) was reduced to nonsignificance upon inclusion of old-fashioned and modern sexism in the model (β = .04, p = .519). The indirect effect of sex on evaluations was significant (IE β = .16, p = .002) and represented 100% of the total effect. Follow-up analyses based on 1,000 bootstrapped samples using Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS macro revealed that the IE operated through both old-fashioned (IE 95% CI [0.21, 0.71]) and modern sexism (IE 95% CI [0.09, 0.64]).

Results were similar when testing this model with evaluations of vegan men as the criterion. Here the relation between sex and evaluations of male vegans (r = −.11, p = .060) was reduced with old-fashioned and modern sexism included in the model (β = .05, p = .435). The indirect effect of sex on evaluations of vegan men was significant (IE β = .16, p = .002), found to be operating through both old-fashioned (IE 95% CI [0.21, 0.77]) and modern sexism (IE 95% CI [0.15, 0.76]) in follow-up analyses (Hayes, 2013). Thus, gender bias accounts for the sex difference on evaluations of vegetarians and vegans.

Summary
Overall, Study 1 confirms that vegetarians and vegans are indeed targets of bias. Attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans were equivalent to (or more negative than) attitudes toward several commonly stigmatized groups, and attitudes toward all stigmatized targets were positively correlated. Further, vegans (the group most challenging social norms) were evaluated most negatively. In general, those especially prone to prejudice reported more bias toward vegetarians and vegans, and associations between right-wing ideology and negative attitudes toward veg(etari)ans were at least partially explained by perceptions of vegetarians/vegans as threatening. Finally, male vegetarians and vegans were evaluated more negatively than female vegetarians and vegans, respectively, and male (vs. female) omnivores evaluated vegetarian and vegan men more negatively, with this sex difference explained by gender bias.

Study 2
To further understand bias toward vegetarians/vegans, we conducted a second study of potential biases among omnivores. We were interested in evaluations of vegetarians and vegans relative to other nonnormative nutritional groups (e.g., gluten intolerants) as well as other groups challenging social norms (e.g., feminists). Given that a variety of motivations can underlie vegetarianism/veganism, we also assessed whether evaluations differ based on the motivation behind one’s vegetarianism/veganism (e.g., animal rights, environmental concerns, personal health). Finally, we examined bias toward vegetarians and vegans within the stereotype content model (Fiske et al., 2002). According to this model, key dimensions of group stereotypes involve warmth and competence, with different combinations of warmth and competence serving distinct intergroup functions. Groups characterized by low warmth and low competence are targets of contempt, disgust, anger, and resentment; groups characterized by low warmth but high competence are targets of envy and jealousy; groups characterized by high warmth/low competence are targets of pity and sympathy; and groups characterized by high warmth/high competence are admired. Thus we assessed omnivores’ perceived warmth and competence of vegetarians and vegans to better understand the nature of the prejudice involved within a broader intergroup context. Based on anecdotal reactions to vegans/vegetarians, we had no reason to posit that they would be considered incompetent, but they were expected to be rated low in warmth (i.e., smug, seemingly superior, and judgemental).

Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
Attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans will be more negative than attitudes toward the ingroup (omnivores), as well as more negative than attitudes toward other nutritional minority groups (gluten-free, lactose intolerant, those with religious-based diets).

Hypothesis 2
Attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans will be equivalent to (or more negative than) attitudes toward other groups challenging social norms (feminists, environmentalists).

Hypothesis 3
Attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans will be more negative when the motivation behind vegetarianism/veganism is animal rights (vs. personal health or environmental motivations).

Hypothesis 4
Vegetarians and vegans would be viewed lower in warmth than competence.

Method
Participants and procedure
Amazon Mechanical Turk workers living in the US completed a 10-minute survey for $0.35. Nonmeat eaters were excluded, leaving 280 omnivores for analysis (Mage = 33.90, SD = 12.30, 51.1% women, 75% White, 89.3% with postsecondary education, 67.9% employed, 78.6% nonstudents).

Materials
Materials are described next. For all multi-item scales confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated single-factor solutions.3

Attitude thermometers
Evaluations were tapped toward: vegetarian women, vegetarian men, vegetarians for animal rights reasons, vegetarians for personal health reasons, vegetarians for environmental reasons, vegan women, vegan men, vegans for animal rights reasons, vegans for personal health reasons, vegans for environmental reasons, people who eat gluten free by choice, people who eat gluten free due to celiac disease, lactose intolerant people, people who follow a diet for religious reasons, omnivore women, omnivore men, feminist women, feminist men, and environmentalists (with similar scales as Study 1). Ratings separated by sex were averaged into an overall evaluation of the group in question; for example evaluations of vegan men and vegan women were aggregated into evaluations toward vegans in the interest of brevity.

Stereotype content
Participants rated both vegetarians and vegans on competence (using a 5-item scale) and warmth (using a 4-item scale), ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely; Fiske et al., 2002).

Results and Discussion
Hypothesis 1: Bias toward vegetarians and vegans relative to other nutritional groups
As displayed in Table 4, attitudes toward both vegetarians and vegans were more negative than attitudes toward omnivores. Attitudes toward both vegetarians and vegans overall were also more negative than attitudes toward those eating gluten free due to celiac disease, lactose intolerants, and those following a diet for religious reasons. Attitudes toward both vegetarians and vegans were more positive, however, than attitudes toward those eating gluten free by choice. Surprisingly, this group was evaluated most negatively of all groups. As in Study 1, vegans were evaluated more negatively than vegetarians.

Table
Table 4. (Study 2). Bias as a function of target group.

Table 4. (Study 2). Bias as a function of target group.


Note. N = 280. Omnibus F(14, 2906) = 47.42, p < .001. Means sharing a subscript do not differ significantly from one another; means not sharing a subscript differ at p < .05. When separating by target sex, both vegetarian and vegan men were evaluated more negatively than vegetarian and vegan women, respectively, ps < .001. No significant differences were observed when separating attitudes toward omnivores or feminists by sex. If excluding all “nutritional” minority participants leaving N = 214, results were equivalent with the exception that the following pairs of attitude thermometer ratings did not differ significantly: vegetarian for animals and vegan for animals, vegetarian for health and vegan for health, vegan for animals and vegan for the environment, vegan for animals, feminists.

Vege = vegetarian; Vege- anim = vegetarian for animals; Vege- health = vegetarian for health; Vege- enviro = vegetarian for environment; Vega = vegan; Vega- anim = vegan for animals; Vega- health = vegan for health; Vega- enviro = vegan for environment; GF- by choice = gluten-free by choice; GF-celiac = gluten-free celiac disease; LI = lactose intolerant; Diet relig = diet for religious reasons; Fem = feminist; Enviro = environmentalist.

View larger version
Hypothesis 2: Bias toward vegetarians and vegans relative to other groups challenging social norms
In terms of overall evaluations, both vegetarians and vegans were evaluated more negatively than environmentalists, vegetarians were evaluated more positively than feminists, and vegans were evaluated equivalently to feminists.

Hypothesis 3: Motivations behind vegetarianism/veganism
As expected, those who are vegetarian for animal rights reasons, were evaluated more negatively than those who are vegetarian for health reasons or environmental reasons. Those who are vegetarian for environmental reasons were also evaluated more negatively than those who are vegetarian for health reasons. The same pattern was observed for vegan targets (see Table 4). It appears that omnivores evaluate vegetarians/vegans more negatively when their motivations concern social justice rather than personal health.

Hypothesis 4: Stereotype content
Not unlike many group stereotypes (Fiske et al., 2002), the content of vegetarian and vegan stereotypes was mixed. That is, both vegetarians and vegans were perceived to be lower in warmth, vegetarian M = 3.50, SD = 0.82; vegan M = 3.20, SD = 0.93 than competence, vegetarian M = 3.64, SD = 0.75; vegan M = 3.59, SD = 0.79, ts(279) > 3.49, ps < .001. Fiske et al. (2002) suggest that groups stereotyped along these lines (e.g., Asians, educated people, men, professionals, and rich people) are targets of envious prejudice. These groups are generally perceived as high status, better off than others, and hostile in intent. This is consistent with a symbolic threat-based account of vegetarian/vegan prejudice and the common perception that vegetarians/vegans believe that they are better than others. See Figure 2 for our findings (integrated with those of Fiske et al., 2002). Vegetarians were viewed as both more competent and warmer than vegans, ts(279) > 2.30, ps < .022, consistent with our assertion that the greater the deviation from cultural norms the greater the bias.

figure
Figure 2. Figure and data are based on Fiske et al. (2002, Figure 3), with exception that vegetarians and vegans are added to the figure based on data from Study 2.

Summary
Study 2 further demonstrates vegetarians and vegans as targets of bias, revealing additional nuances regarding the nature of this bias. Vegetarians/vegans are evaluated negatively relative to the omnivore ingroup and several other nutritional groups and environmentalists. Vegetarians and vegans were evaluated equivalently to those following a gluten-free diet by choice or feminists. Evaluations of vegetarians and vegans certainly differ, however, based on motivation behind vegetarianism/veganism, with animal rights motivations evaluated most negatively. Why one abstains from eating meat, it appears, is relevant to the degree of prejudice expressed. Finally, Study 2 demonstrated that both vegetarians and vegans are perceived as higher in competence than warmth, likely rendering them targets of envious prejudice (Fiske et al., 2002).

Study 3: Target (Vegetarian/Vegan) Experiences of Bias
Upon establishing that omnivores demonstrate bias toward vegetarians and vegans, we next examined vegetarian and vegan experiences of bias. Such convergent evidence is valuable in identifying prejudice toward a previously unexamined target group. We propose three hypotheses consistent with the findings of Studies 1 and 2 to establish this convergent evidence.

Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
Vegetarians and vegans experience negativity as a result of their target membership.

Hypothesis 2
Vegans (vs. vegetarians) will report more negative experiences.

Hypothesis 3
Vegetarian and vegan men (vs. women) will report more negative experiences.

Method
Participants and procedure
Participants recruited through classified websites (e.g., Craigslist, Kijiji), vegetarian/vegan online groups (e.g., vegweb, veggieboards), a lab Facebook page, and vegetarian/vegan Facebook groups (e.g., Vegetarian, Vegan, Vegan Planet) completed an online survey with participation entitling access to two draws for CAN $50.00. Those missing data on one or more measures were excluded as were meat-eaters, leaving a sample of 371 participants, Mage = 34.41, SD = 12.23, 62.8% vegan (35.8% vegetarian; 1.3% indicated that they do not eat meat but did not identify as vegetarian or vegan), 76.5% women, 82.7% White, 92.2% with postsecondary education, 77.6% employed, 74.9% nonstudents, 91.1% residing in Canada or the United States. Most participants were vegetarian or vegan for a year or more (92.5% of vegetarians and 84.5% of vegans).

Materials
Materials are described in what follows. For all multi-item scales confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated single-factor solutions,4 with the exception of anxiety about revealing vegetarianism/veganism (see following lines).

Contact decrease
Participants indicated (yes/no) whether any family members or friends decreased or ceased contact upon revealing their vegetarianism/veganism.

Anxiety about revealing vegetarianism/veganism
Participants indicated the extent to which they felt awkward, self-conscious, happy, accepted, confident, irritated, impatient, defensive, suspicious, and careful at the prospect of revealing their vegetarianism/veganism to an omnivore, on scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much), a modification of the Intergroup Anxiety Scale (W. G. Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Factor analysis revealed a two-factor solution, with negative emotions loading on one factor (loadings .51–.77) and positive emotions loading on another (loadings .49–.82). Negative items were averaged with higher scores indicating higher anxiety (α = .86). Positive items were reversed-scored (for ease of interpretation) and averaged with higher scores indicating higher anxiety (α =.73).

Fear of discrimination
Four items adapted from Carvallo and Pelham’s (2006) Perceptions of Personal Discrimination Scale, and three adapted from Sjoberg, Walch, and Stanny’s (2006) Gender-Related Fears subscale of the Transgender Adaptation/Integration Measure, were rated on 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) scales to assess fear of discrimination due to vegetarianism/veganism (e.g., “I fear [or have feared] that I will be treated unfairly because of my vegetarianism/veganism”). After reversing appropriate items, items were averaged. Higher scores represented higher fear of discrimination (α = .93).

Everyday discrimination
Participants rated 10 items (three new, seven adapted from Williams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997) assessing the frequency of experiencing everyday discrimination, on a 6-point scale with the following anchors: 1 (never), 2 (less than once a year), 3 (a few times a year), 4 (a few times a month), 5 (at least once a week), 6 (almost every day; e.g., “As a result of your vegetarianism/veganism you are treated with less courtesy than other people”). Items were averaged; higher scores represented more frequent experience of everyday discrimination (α = .90).

Heightened vigilance
Six items measured the frequency with which participants experience heightened vigilance regarding potential discrimination (Williams, 2014) on scales with the following anchors 1 (never), 2 (rarely), 3 (sometimes), 4 (most of the time), 5 (always; e.g., “How often do you try to prepare for insults before leaving home?”). Items were averaged; higher scores represented more frequent experience of heightened vigilance (α = .83)

Coping with discrimination
Seven items (adapted from McNeilly et al. [1996] and Krieger [1990]) assessed different ways of coping with discrimination on scales with the following anchors: 1 (never), 2 (hardly ever), 3 (not too often), 4 (fairly often), 5 (very often), 6 (does not apply because I have never had any negative experiences to respond to; e.g., “Tried to do something,” “Accepted it as a fact of life”). For those selecting between 1 and 5 on the items (given that choosing 6 indicated that the item did not apply), items were averaged. Higher scores indicated more frequent use of discrimination coping mechanisms (N = 292, α = .68).

Major discrimination
Participants indicated (yes/no) whether they have experienced four types of major discrimination (losing a job or promotion, not being hired for a job, being prevented from moving into a home, being denied a bank loan) as a result of their veg(etari)anism (based on Sternthal, Slopen, & Williams, 2011). Higher scores represented more reported discrimination.

Results and Discussion
Hypothesis 1: Negativity from vegetarianism or veganism
Overall, a substantial proportion of participants experienced negativity from their vegetarianism/veganism (see Table 5). Most notably, almost one quarter of vegan participants reported that a friend decreased contact after the participant revealed their veganism, over one third of both vegetarian and vegan participants scored above the scale midpoint on anxiety about revealing vegetarianism/veganism (negative emotion items), and over 40% of vegetarian participants and over half of vegan participants reported experiencing at least some everyday discrimination, engaging in activities to prepare for potential discrimination, and engaging in discrimination coping mechanisms. A small proportion of vegan participants even reported experiencing major discrimination. Many negative experiences were also intercorrelated, such that experiencing one form of negativity was associated with experiencing another form of negativity (see Table 6).

Table
Table 5. (Study 3). Proportion of vegetarians/vegans experiencing negativity due to vegetarianism/ veganism.

Table 5. (Study 3). Proportion of vegetarians/vegans experiencing negativity due to vegetarianism/ veganism.


Note. Vegetarian N = 133; vegan N = 233.

View larger version
Table
Table 6. Correlations among vegetarians’ and vegans’ negative experiences (Study 3).

Table 6. Correlations among vegetarians’ and vegans’ negative experiences (Study 3).


Note. Vegetarian N = 133; vegan N = 233, except where noted. Vegetarian correlations are presented above the diagonal, vegan correlations are presented below the diagonal. For these analyses, dichotomous scales (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12 in the table) were coded such that higher values denote a response of “yes.”

1Coping with discrimination analyses include only those participants for whom the variable was calculated (vegetarian N = 95; vegan N = 193). Given null variability, major discrimination regarding housing and bank loans were excluded. There was also null variability for major discrimination regarding jobs among vegetarians. Given high correlations between the fear of discrimination, everyday discrimination, and heightened vigilance scales, an exploratory principle components analysis (with direct oblimin rotation, given anticipated correlation among factors) of the items from the three scales was performed. This revealed three components with eigenvalues greater than 1: everyday discrimination (loadings ranging from .53 to .81), heightened vigilance (loadings ranging from .64 to .80), and fear of discrimination (loadings ranging from .51 to .92).

*p < .05. **p < .01.***p < .001.

View larger version
Hypotheses 2 and 3: Vegans (vs
vegetarians) and men (vs. women) will report more negative experiences.

To test Hypotheses 2 and 3, a series of regression analyses were conducted. Each criterion variable (see Table 7) was regressed on vegetarian type (vegetarian vs. vegan) and participant sex (man vs. woman) on Step 1, and their product on Step 2. As expected, vegans reported more negative experiences than vegetarians on several measures. For instance, more vegans than vegetarians reported having friends or family decrease or cease contact with them upon revealing their veganism or vegetarianism, respectively. Vegans (vs. vegetarians) also reported experiencing greater anxiety (more negative emotions) about revealing group membership, greater fear of discrimination, more everyday discrimination, and more heightened vigilance. More vegans than vegetarians also reported not being hired for a job due to their group membership. These findings partially support Hypothesis 2.

Table
Table 7. Regression analyses (Study 3).

Table 7. Regression analyses (Study 3).


Note. Vegetarian N = 133; vegan N = 233; men N = 87; women N = 284. Given null variability, major discrimination regarding housing and bank loans was not included in these analyses.

1Coping with discrimination analyses include only those participants for whom the variable was calculated (Vegetarian N = 95; vegan N = 193).

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

View larger version
Hypothesis 3 received little support. Men did not report more negative experiences than women with the one exception: more men than women reported being unfairly denied a job or promotion due to their vegetarianism/veganism, supporting the notion that for men the perceived consequences of their diet is greater than for women. There were also no significant interactions between vegetarian type and sex. Therefore, although omnivores reported more negativity toward male (vs. female) vegetarian and vegan targets in Studies 1 and 2, male (vs. female) vegetarians and vegans in Study 3 did not report feeling more targeted.

Summary
Employing a large community sample we confirm that vegetarians and vegans experience notable bias. A sizeable proportion report bias-relevant experiences as a result of their vegetarianism/veganism and vegans report more negative experiences than vegetarians. Contrary to expectations and Study 1 and 2 findings, however, male (vs. female) veg(etari)an targets did not consistently report more negative experiences.

General Discussion
Across three studies, examining bias sources (i.e., omnivores) and bias targets (i.e., vegetarians and vegans), the current work empirically confirms vegetarians and vegans as targets of bias. Unlike other forms of bias (e.g., racism, sexism), negativity toward vegetarians and vegans is not widely considered a societal problem; rather, negativity toward vegetarians and vegans is commonplace and largely accepted. Consider the finding that 73.4% of references to vegans in the UK newsmedia in 2007 were negative (Cole & Morgan, 2011), with many mainstream television advertisements derogating vegetarianism (“Taco Bell Nixes,” 2013; Taibi, 2013). However, we share Crandall and Warner’s (2005) position that highlighting a bias before its expression becomes socially unacceptable is critical. This allows for greater understanding of the overall psychology of bias, and can generate bias interventions. With attention toward vegetarianism and veganism growing steadily, strategies to promote harmonious relations among omnivores and vegetarians/vegans are imperative.

We demonstrate that vegetarians and vegans are targets of envious prejudice (envy, jealousy) based on stereotype content (i.e., competent but unfriendly). This may represent the recognition that vegans/vegetarians are “right” to not exploit animals, but demonstrate restraint that many meat-eaters are personally unwilling to attempt. Overall, attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans are equivalent to, or more negative than, attitudes toward common prejudice target groups, and bias toward vegetarians and vegans is associated with these other biases. However, it appears that vegetarians and vegans are less likely to be targets of discrimination relative to these groups. Study 1 participants actually reported greater willingness to rent to vegetarians or vegans than all target groups examined, and greater willingness to hire vegetarians or vegans than both immigrants and drug addicts. This suggests that, although omnivores relatively disliked vegetarians and vegans, they nonetheless recognize positive qualities in vegetarians/vegans when it comes to protecting investments such as companies or property. Perhaps on account of their “restrictive” diets vegetarians/vegans are stereotyped as disciplined and/or responsible, qualities that may be desirable in hiring or renting scenarios. Of course, this does not mean that vegetarians/vegans are immune to discrimination. Indeed, heightened right-wing ideology was associated with heightened intentions to discriminate against vege-tarians/vegans, and some vegetarians/vegans themselves reported experiencing real discrimination in Study 3. Although our findings suggest that vegetarians and vegans face less severe and less frequent discrimination than that experienced by other minority groups, they nonetheless are targets of (and experience) meaningful bias.

Bias Toward Benign Yet Social Norm-Challenging Others
By following a vegetarian/vegan diet, vegetarians and vegans commit less harm to animals, the environment, and their own health. It is somewhat paradoxical that by objectively doing less harm, vegetarians and vegans become targets of bias. In doing less harm in these domains, however, vegetarians and vegans are perceived as doing harm in another: they undermine the integrity of prevailing social values and traditions that exploit animals. Vegetarian/vegan values may therefore be viewed as undermining the current way of life, rendering vegetarian/vegans targets of negativity. Environmentalists and feminists, other groups who do little objective harm but threaten the status quo, are likewise evaluated by omnivores (see also Bashir, Lockwood, Chasteen, Nadolny, & Noyes, 2013), presumably for similar reasons.

Intergroup threat is central to understanding bias toward vegetarians and vegans, especially for those higher in right-wing ideology, either fully or partially explaining associations between right-wing ideology and negative attitudes toward vegetarians or vegans. Although intergroup threat is well-established as an explanation of right-wing bias toward a variety of outgroups (e.g., Blacks, women, AIDS patients; Riek et al., 2006), rarely has it been established as an explanation of right-wing bias toward a group where outgroup membership is chosen. Building on Dhont and Hodson (2014), where vegetarian threat predicted greater animal exploitation, the present evidence suggests that bias toward vegetarians and vegans is part of a larger picture: right-wing adherents support ideologies and practices that harm animals (i.e., meat consumption, animal exploitation), and do not support people who resist exploiting animals. In each case, vegetarianism/veganism threat serves as a legitimizing myth that “justifies” bias. With social norms espousing the use of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, and research, vegetarians and vegans are evaluated negatively for their resistance to norms, especially by those higher in right-wing ideologies. Indeed, vegetarian or vegans motivated by animal rights are evaluated most negatively (relative to environment or health motivations), and vegetarians/vegans motivated for environmental reasons are evaluated negatively relative to vegetarians/vegans motivated by personal health. These motivations directly challenge prevailing social norms. This newly established form of symbolic threat explaining attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans warrants further investigation. With the consumption of animals identified as a major contributor to climate change (McKnight, 2014), reducing vegetarianism/veganism threat may aid us in managing a major challenge of the 21st century.

Limitations and Future Directions
We examined bias toward vegetarians and vegans in a (largely) North American context where vegetarians and vegans are in the minority. Where vegetarians are more prevalent (e.g., 40% in India; “The Food Habits,” 2006) bias may be less strong (or be based in religion opposition). An interesting subgroup to examine in future research involves vegetarians and vegans who are stigmatized along other dimensions. For example, India represents one of the top three source countries for immigrants in both Canada (Chui, 2014) and the US (Whatley & Batalova, 2013). As such, many immigrants in Canada and the US are likely to be vegetarian. These individuals may be viewed especially negatively due to their crossed-categorization as a double outgroup member (Crisp & Hewstone, 2006). Vegetarian status may be viewed as justification for overall bias toward such individuals, facilitating expression of bias that is not directly attributable to racial or ethnic factors (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998). On the other hand, consistent with the black sheep effect, social norm-challenging (e.g., vegetarian) outgroup members may be evaluated more positively than social-norm challenging ingroup members, given that ingroup members are particularly expected to abide by social norms and maintain the group’s positive identity (Pinto, Marques, Levine, & Abrams, 2010). For example, omnivores might be particularly negative toward other omnivores who experiment with veg(etari)anism. Future work can explore this potential.

We relied on self-report measures of discrimination, which may differ from actual discrimination given that vegetarians/vegans may be unaware of or underreport bias experiences. Future researchers might examine discrimination using more subtle measure or observation. Future work might also examine bias toward vegetarians/vegans in other contexts. Given the rising popularity of vegetarianism/veganism, attitudes toward vegetarians/vegans may shift from admiration in some contexts (e.g., a healthy living talk show) to animosity in others (e.g., a family holiday dinner). Further, although we have at times combined our assessments of vegetarians and vegans, vegetarians and vegans are distinct groups. Future researchers are encouraged to examine prejudices between vegetarians and vegans. Future researchers might also consider further examining bias toward those gluten-free eaters by choice, the nutritional group most negatively evaluated in Study 2.

Conclusion
Scholars in other fields have suggested the existence of “vegophobia” (Cole & Morgan, 2011), but we provide the first social psychological evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans, from both the source and the target. As interest in vegetarianism and veganism continue to grow, this form of bias is likely to become increasingly unacceptable to express. With this knowledge in hand, the field can now recognize and explore this bias (Crandall & Warner, 2005) to better understand not only the nature of prejudice more generally and to develop means to reduce bias.

#2 Gordo

Gordo
  • Member
  • 441 posts
  • Website URL:http://gordosoft.com

Posted 23 April 2017 - 07:57 AM

Regarding "Vegetarian diet and all-cause mortality" I don't see anything new there, most non meat eaters seem to make up for the lack of meat calories by eating more junk food. Some do not supplement important missing components of their diet (B12, DHA). Still the longest lived large cohort out there are the vegetarian CA Adventists. I'd like to see a mortality study focused on plant based whole fooders but maybe there aren't enough out there for a study.

#3 TomBAvoider

TomBAvoider
  • Member
  • 423 posts

Posted 23 April 2017 - 09:00 PM

Okinawans were not for the most part strict vegetarians. They did eat small amounts of meat, especially seafood. 



#4 mccoy

mccoy
  • Member
  • 786 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 12:28 AM

Okinawans were not for the most part strict vegetarians. They did eat small amounts of meat, especially seafood. 

 

Maybe that's what prompted Longo to include fish 2 or 3 times per week in his longevity diet.

 

I do wonder though, if the Okinawans were so longeve because of the modest amounts of fish or in spite of it.

 

Also, the adventist study would suggest a smaller mortality in the pescetarian group, but we have seen that this group is under-represented (small sample) hence statistically not very extrapolable to general population.

 

There would be a longevity rationale though in eating modest fish, that is people who have genetic polymorphisms unfavourable to some aspects of a vegan diet would be granted some non-plant sources. Also, modest fish means mods mercury, cadmium, PCB and so on....

 

Dairy products and eggs, ditto. Modest is probably the keyword here.


"Data speak for themselves" -Reverend Thomas Bayes 1702-1761
P(Ai|E)=(P(E|Ai)P(Ai))/P(E)


#5 Burak

Burak
  • Member
  • 72 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 03:30 AM

Fish complements very well otherwise a balanced vegan diet. It contains great amount of B12, DHA, iodine, selenium, and easy protein for elderly. Plus, in the past oceans were clean hence no pollutants. I would say fish most likely improved their diet rather than undermining. 

 

Addition to fish, I don't think dairy products would add much and even be harmful because of now unnecessary protein, saturated fat, natural hormones which can deal significant cancer risk and other problems, and not to mention it is not designed for humans to eat especially for adults.

 

High quality egg might be OK in moderation for elderly and physically active adults. 



#6 mccoy

mccoy
  • Member
  • 786 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 05:07 AM

.... and not to mention it is not designed for humans to eat especially for adults.

 

 

 

We might say the same for every other animal-derived foods. Milk is designed for babies as an exclusive food, but adults rarely ingest only milk and nothing else.

 

Cheese is a form of processed milk which is usually pretty digestible. It does contain a lot of Leu, Meth and Trypt and it does contain estrogens, although in which amounts I do not know (how significant?).

 

My point here is not that fish may not constitute a valid addition to plant-based diets if ingested in moderate amounts, rather than it seems not to be an ideal, longevity boosting food if not considered as a preventive measure against possible deficiencies in vegans with specific genetic polymorphisms. Of course now fish is like farmed cattle if farmed or is often full of pollutants if wild. In the past it might have been the carrier of parasites and infection. Far from an ideal food to be necessarily  included in longevity diets.

 

Same thing applies to milk and derivates and to eggs. 

 

 

https://nutritionfac...rg/topics/fish/

 

Many individuals consider fish a superior source of protein to animal products or poultry. But like meat, fish is low in antioxidants and phytonutrients and contains cholesterol. It is also high in methionine, an amino acid that appears to aid in cancer tumor growth, and may contribute to longevity-related oxidation in the body.

Fish is a leading source of industrial pollutants such as mercury, dioxins, neurotoxins, arsenic, DDT, putrescine, AGE’s, PCB’s, PDBE’s, alkylphenol endocrine disruptors and even prescription drugs that end up in rivers and streams. Smoked food products amplify cancer-related dangers, with smoked salmon being the worst of all tested smoked foods.

Medical Conditions Linked to Fish Consumption

Fish consumption has been linked to a wide range of conditions including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), type 2 diabetes, kidney stones, atrial fibrillation, lower IQs among children, smaller infant brain size, shortened telomeres, which are a sign of aging, lower sperm counts, lower testosterone, more symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress, and earlier puberty.

Fish consumption is also responsible for parasitic fish worm allergies, gold dust retinopathy, mad fish disease, food poisoning from fish toxins, chemical obesogens that may cause obesity, neurotoxic substances that are magnified when farmed fish are fed animal products, fish-induced keriorrhea, a form of amnesia, cataracts, ciguatera poisoning and the fecal contamination of sushi. 

Is there a safe alternative?

Eating organic or even wild caught fish may not significantly lower industrial pollutant exposure. Analysis of fish oil capsules has revealed toxic contaminants, which may counteract the benefit of the omega-3 fatty acids. So advice to eat oily fish or take fish oil capsules to lower risk of heart disease, stroke or mortality is no longer supported by the balance of available evidence.

Plant-based diets that depend on plant-derived omega-3 supplements provide the benefits without the contaminants. Long-chain omega 3s, found in golden algae, are bioequivalent to fish DHA; they’re also a far more sustainable, affordable and environmentally friendly way to get one’s omega 3s.

 


"Data speak for themselves" -Reverend Thomas Bayes 1702-1761
P(Ai|E)=(P(E|Ai)P(Ai))/P(E)


#7 Burak

Burak
  • Member
  • 72 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 06:27 AM

Most of the people, unlike us, are not nutrient freaks and it is hard to recommend supplements to general population than some specific foods groups such as fish and dairy. In France, average iodine intake is around 120mcg and it is done by heavy dairy consumption. If you are eating near vegan in here where iodine content of plant sources are near zero, it is just matter of time you develop some deficiencies. I know this so I can take measures (iodized salt which is not so common, fish sometimes, supplements etc.) but most people don't.

 

I am also a bit biased against dairy due to some hormonal problems (around breast area) and skin problems (acne) that I have encountered for the last couple of years, and I had to give up dairy 3-4 months ago, which was still low in quantity like 1-2 servings a week. I still rarely eat them and in small quantities with food if I have to because the side effects are also dependent on the product, i.e. raw products and cheese are worse and goat milk is less stimulating than cow's milk in general etc.

 

Some people are OK with dairy but just because you don't have any negative symptoms doesn't mean it doesn't cause you any harm on the long term. I would like to see high quality studies that investigate this issue but considering the heavy influence of industry over science, all we will have is some observational and association base studies where it is hard to find meaningful results if everyone is eating that stuff.

 

Considering the general population, I think people having problems with dairy are way more than people who have no problems.



#8 Sibiriak

Sibiriak
  • Member
  • 231 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 06:27 AM

https://nutritionfac...rg/topics/fish/

 

Long-chain omega 3s, found in golden algae, are bioequivalent to fish DHA

 

 

On the subject of EPA / DHA supplementation,  here's something to consider:

 

 

 

Dietary intake of fish vs. formulations leads to higher plasma concentrations of n-3 fatty acids
 

--------------------------------

Abstract

 

The n-3 fatty acids from fish appear to be more efficacious, in terms of cardioprotection, than equivalent amounts provided as capsules. Volunteers were given, for 6 wk, either 100 g/d of salmon, providing 383 mg of EPA and 544 mg of DHA, esterified in glycerol lipids, or 1 or 3 capsules of fish oil/d, providing 150 mg of EPA and 106 mg of DHA or 450 mg of EPA and 318 mg of DHA, as ethyl esters. Further, we reevaluated data from a previous study carried out with the same design, i.e., with 3 and 6 capsules/d of fish oil, providing 1290 and 2580 mg/d EPA and 960 and 1920 mg/d DHA. Marked increments in plasma EPA and DHA concentrations (microg/mg total lipid) and percentages of total fatty acids were recorded at the end of treatment with either n-3 capsules or salmon.

 

Net increments of EPA and DHA in plasma lipids were linearly and significantly correlated with the dose after capsule administration. Further, increments in plasma EPA and DHA concentration after salmon intake were significantly higher than after administration of capsules.

 

 The same increments would be obtained with at least two- and ninefold higher doses of EPA and DHA, respectively, if administered with capsules rather than salmon. We provide experimental evidence that n-3 fatty acids from fish are more effectively incorporated into plasma lipids than when administered as capsules and that increments in plasma concentrations of EPA and DHA given as capsules are linearly correlated with their intakes.

 

PMID: 12848287

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/12848287

 

 

 Enhanced incorporation of n-3 fatty acids from fish compared with fish oils

 

-------------------------------------------

Abstract

 

This work was undertaken to study the impact of the source of n-3 FA on their incorporation in serum, on blood lipid composition, and on cellular activation. A clinical trial comprising 71 volunteers, divided into five groups, was performed. Three groups were given 400 g smoked salmon (n = 14), cooked salmon (n = 15), or cooked cod (n = 13) per week for 8 wk. A fourth group was given 15 mL/d of cod liver oil (CLO) (n = 15), and a fifth group served as control (n = 14) without supplementation.

 

The serum content of EPA and DHA before and after intervention revealed a higher rise in EPA and DHA in the cooked salmon group (129% rise in EPA and 45% rise in DHA) as compared with CLO (106 and 25%, respectively) despite an intake of EPA and DHA in the CLO group of 3.0 g/d compared with 1.2 g/d in the cooked salmon group.

 

 No significant changes were observed in blood lipids, fibrinogen, fibrinolysis, or lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced tissue factor (TF) activity, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFalpha), interleukin-8 (IL-8), leukotriene B4 (LTB4), and thromboxane B2 (TxB2) in whole blood. EPA and DHA were negatively correlated with LPS-induced TNFalpha, IL-8, LTB4, TxB2, and TF in whole blood. In conclusion, fish consumption is more effective in increasing serum EPA and DHA than supplementing the diet with fish oil. Since the n-3 FA are predominantly in TAG in fish as well as CLO, it is suggested that the larger uptake from fish than CLO is due to differences in physiochemical structure of the lipids.

 

PMID: 17269556

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/17269556


Edited by Sibiriak, 24 April 2017 - 06:37 AM.

To assume the responsibility of one's decisions means that one is ready to die for them. It doesn't matter what the decision is. Nothing could be more or less serious than anything else. In a world where death is the hunter there are no small or big decisions. There are only decisions that we make in the face of our inevitable death.  


#9 mccoy

mccoy
  • Member
  • 786 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 06:40 AM

Burak, I agree with what you say and again we get back to individual diverstities.

 

I'm an example of an individual who is very tolerant of dairy products, less tolerant to liquid milk, above quantities of 1 cup (digestive stress, probably lactose-caused).

 

Notwithstanding my tolerance, I've drastically decreased the total amount of dairy products ingested in the conceptual framework of caloric restriction and protein- BCAAs moderation. Also, the estrogens issue is a potential hazard and it makes sense to drop the probability of occurrance of PCa.

 

I'm still adverse to eliminating totally dairy products though, even as you are adverse to total elimination of fish. For the same reasons, I presume.

 

I also presume that a longevity diety might include modest quantities of any animal-based foods, if there are not ethical reasons to avoid it and providing of course that meat is not grilled, swordfish is not contemplated, and so on and so forth.

 

Even Dr. Fuhrman, whose dietary rules are pretty strict, allows for a 5-10% animal food, if desired.


"Data speak for themselves" -Reverend Thomas Bayes 1702-1761
P(Ai|E)=(P(E|Ai)P(Ai))/P(E)


#10 mccoy

mccoy
  • Member
  • 786 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 06:54 AM

Sibiriak, interesting example of yet more studies showing that natural food is far superior to supplements.

 

Also, AlPater's citation include a study where n3s supplements do not appear to contribute to CVD prevention. Should we expect the same about cognitive faculties? Is the role of n3s overestimated maybe similarly to other nutrients like K2 vitamin? Or maybe that specific study has some bias into it? Dietary decision makingbased on nutrition science has become almost a gamble.

 

 

 

Does Supplementation with Omega-3 PUFAs Add to the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease?
Rizos EC, Elisaf MS.
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2017 Jun;19(6):47. doi: 10.1007/s11886-017-0856-8. Review.
PMID: 28432658
http://sci-hub.cc/10...1886-017-0856-8
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW:
Omega-3 fatty acids are increasingly used for the protection of cardiovascular disease. The main but not the sole mechanism of action is the reduction of triglyceride levels. In this review, we summarize the effect of omega-3 supplements on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke from the relevant randomized controlled trials.
RECENT FINDINGS:
Twenty-one randomized controlled trials assessed omega-3 supplementation on mortality and cardiovascular-related outcomes. From these studies, as well as from the relevant meta-analyses, we found that omega-3 supplements do not exert a consistent benefit for cardiovascular protection. There is uncertainty of a clear profit from omega-3 supplementation in cardiovascular disease.
KEYWORDS:
Cardiovascular; Death; Fish oil; Myocardial infarction; Omega 3; Polyunsaturated fatty acids

 

Since I do not eat fish for ethical reasons, my intake of n3s for the latest 40 years has been restricted exclusively to the vegetable kingdom, and only since joining this forum I made a conscious effort to increase my ALAs consumption by flaxseed and walnuts. Before, I didn't even know the food content of omega 3s.

 

I'm pretty sure that for the latest 40 years there have been relatively long periods when I did not consume walnuts nor other sources, so my anedoctal, n=1 experience shows that not everyone needs with regularity the n3s amounts today taken as reference.  I may also be a good ALA → EPA converter, since I never took ALAs nor  EPA-DHA supplements. My hunch is that people without negative genetic polymorphism do not need many n3s, or that there is some unknown food source or some unknown so far metabolic mechanism producing n3s out of other lipids or molecules.


Edited by mccoy, 24 April 2017 - 07:00 AM.

"Data speak for themselves" -Reverend Thomas Bayes 1702-1761
P(Ai|E)=(P(E|Ai)P(Ai))/P(E)


#11 Sibiriak

Sibiriak
  • Member
  • 231 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 07:20 AM

McCoy,

 

Since I've moved to Siberia,  I've been eating a vegetarian diet (more "Nordic" than "Mediterranean"), supplemented with  small amounts of oily red fish once or twice a week and a daily small glass of kefir (and occasionally ryazhenka [ряженка],  a very tasty fermented baked milk product). [My interest in EPA/DHA has been more in relation to cognitive function/neurodegenerative diseases than CVD.]

 

  I've been thinking of cutting out the fish for ethical reasons,   and perhaps also to reduce methionine intake.  I do, however, feel instinctively-- and my research seems to support the idea--that a small amount of select oily fish in my diet is healthy for me.


Edited by Sibiriak, 24 April 2017 - 07:43 AM.

To assume the responsibility of one's decisions means that one is ready to die for them. It doesn't matter what the decision is. Nothing could be more or less serious than anything else. In a world where death is the hunter there are no small or big decisions. There are only decisions that we make in the face of our inevitable death.  


#12 Sibiriak

Sibiriak
  • Member
  • 231 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 07:36 AM

 

mccoy:   only since joining this forum I made a conscious effort to increase my ALAs consumption by flaxseed and walnuts.

 

 

I recently discovered Camelina oil (a traditional Russian product) as an interesting source of ALAs. 

 

http://oilhealthbene...m/camelina-oil/

 

http://www.trnres.co...91044LP A84.pdf

 

6905d1fb2cadf245fb40e712276c694e573120_l

 

It doesn't have as much ALA as flax oil, but is apparently  more stable:
 

 

  • Omega-3 ( Alpha – Linolenic Acid ) is 35 %
  • Omega- 6 ( Linoleic Acid ) is 17 %
  • Omega-9 ( Oleic Acid ) is 17 %

----------------

 

Camelina oil is very resistant to both rancidity and oxidation. It has an amazing shelf life of about 18 months and even up to 24 months.


Edited by Sibiriak, 24 April 2017 - 07:50 AM.

To assume the responsibility of one's decisions means that one is ready to die for them. It doesn't matter what the decision is. Nothing could be more or less serious than anything else. In a world where death is the hunter there are no small or big decisions. There are only decisions that we make in the face of our inevitable death.  


#13 Gordo

Gordo
  • Member
  • 441 posts
  • Website URL:http://gordosoft.com

Posted 24 April 2017 - 12:46 PM

Vegetarian CA Adventists had average lifespans of 87 (men) and 90 (women).. That is far better than the traditional Okinawans (77.6 for men and 86.0 for women).  More info in this thread.

 

Interesting study there on EPA/DHA supplements vs. Salmon.   I wish they would repeat the study using vegan DHA (algae based) which some believe to be superior to fish oil caps (in fact I don't even think fish oil caps are recommended by most experts anymore, there are many noted problems with quality and perishability).  I get all my EPA from plant foods so I'm not concerned about that, but not completely sure I'm getting enough DHA.  Bernando LaPallo (supposedly lived 114 years) was a "vegan + salmon" guy, in the California Adventists, WOMEN who were (vegan + fish) lived the longest, but in MEN the vegans lived longest (however vegan + fish was not far behind).  It is notable how much eating fish seemed to help women though.

 

See:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...91896/table/T4/



#14 mccoy

mccoy
  • Member
  • 786 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 03:07 PM

Gordo, however, in teh table you posted, I couldn't see the subset numerosity (how many pescetarian women). That's a basic element. If they were few, the results are not overly extendable to reality.

 

From this table

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...91896/table/T3/

 

pescovegetarians are 10% of whole population studied, whereas women-pesco might be as a tentative estimate 5%, hence they are underrepresented. Ditto for vegans and semivegetarians.

 

Also, teh definition of pesco-vegetarian includes amount as small as ingesting fish once per month, and that's maybe too little to make a difference.


Edited by mccoy, 24 April 2017 - 03:44 PM.

"Data speak for themselves" -Reverend Thomas Bayes 1702-1761
P(Ai|E)=(P(E|Ai)P(Ai))/P(E)


#15 mccoy

mccoy
  • Member
  • 786 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 03:27 PM

McCoy,

 

Since I've moved to Siberia,  I've been eating a vegetarian diet (more "Nordic" than "Mediterranean"), supplemented with  small amounts of oily red fish once or twice a week and a daily small glass of kefir (and occasionally ryazhenka [ряженка],  a very tasty fermented baked milk product). [My interest in EPA/DHA has been more in relation to cognitive function/neurodegenerative diseases than CVD.]

 

  I've been thinking of cutting out the fish for ethical reasons,   and perhaps also to reduce methionine intake.  I do, however, feel instinctively-- and my research seems to support the idea--that a small amount of select oily fish in my diet is healthy for me.

 

Sibiriak, I would really trust instinct, or body intelligence. Steered by discrimination. I do not trust very much dietary science because it is clearly still in a very rudimentary stage, although it is pretty fun to read it.

 

It's interesting to know that you are living in Siberia, only now I'm connecting your moniker with your whereabouts. I too use only fermented milk products, yogurt in the past, now especially kefir, and also the Icelandic skyr, nonfat and slightly tangy. First time I hear about ryazhenka, sounds absolutely delicious but here it's also absolutely unknown.

 

Camelina oil: I'm not sure it's sold here in Italy but am going to search now that I know of its existence.


"Data speak for themselves" -Reverend Thomas Bayes 1702-1761
P(Ai|E)=(P(E|Ai)P(Ai))/P(E)


#16 Saul

Saul
  • Supporting
  • 502 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 12:46 PM

What is a "pesco-vegetarian"?  The definition is not given, and therefore unclear.

 

Possibilities:  (1) Eats fish, no land animals, no diary, no eggs.

                       (2) Eats all of the above, plus dairy.

                        (3) Eats all the foods in (1), plus eggs

                         (4) Eats all of the above.

 

Unfortunately, definition (4) is, I would guess, what's meant; but it may mean (1).  ((4) is how how wikipedia defines it.)

 

  ???

 

    --  Saul



#17 mccoy

mccoy
  • Member
  • 786 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 02:32 PM

Saul, that's a legitimate doubt. In the cited article, it's generically specified that pesco-vegetarian have fish at least once a month, that's all. not too precise as a definition.

 

 

 

Thus, vegans consumed eggs/dairy, fish, and all other meats less than 1 time/mo; lacto-ovo–vegetarians consumed eggs/dairy 1 time/mo or more but fish and all other meats less than 1 time/mo; pesco-vegetarians consumed fish 1 time/mo or more but all other meats less than 1 time/mo;

"Data speak for themselves" -Reverend Thomas Bayes 1702-1761
P(Ai|E)=(P(E|Ai)P(Ai))/P(E)


#18 wise

wise
  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 10:47 PM

Since I do not eat fish for ethical reasons, my intake of n3s for the latest 40 years has been restricted exclusively to the vegetable kingdom, and only since joining this forum I made a conscious effort to increase my ALAs consumption by flaxseed and walnuts. Before, I didn't even know the food content of omega 3s.

 

I'm pretty sure that for the latest 40 years there have been relatively long periods when I did not consume walnuts nor other sources, so my anedoctal, n=1 experience shows that not everyone needs with regularity the n3s amounts today taken as reference.  I may also be a good ALA → EPA converter, since I never took ALAs nor  EPA-DHA supplements. My hunch is that people without negative genetic polymorphism do not need many n3s, or that there is some unknown food source or some unknown so far metabolic mechanism producing n3s out of other lipids or molecules.

 

There is good evidence that as a vegan, after prolonged periods of time when you don't consume DHA/EPA, your body becomes more adept at converting ALA to DHA/EPA. There's a study here: http://dx.doi.org/10...ajcn.2010.29457showing that vegans and vegetarians have similar blood levels of DHA/EPA despite not eating fish as omnivores do. Also, there's evidence that our fat can store DHA/EPA and release it over time so you may have stored those fatty acids in times when you ate walnuts and flaxseeds to accommodate times when you didn't. Very interesting data point though. I supplement but am considering stopping and switching to solely flax and walnuts. Also, what really matters, is brain levels, and we can't measure that for obvious reasons. Serum levels are just a proxy.

 

Vegetarian CA Adventists had average lifespans of 87 (men) and 90 (women).. That is far better than the traditional Okinawans (77.6 for men and 86.0 for women).  More info in this thread.

 

Interesting study there on EPA/DHA supplements vs. Salmon.   I wish they would repeat the study using vegan DHA (algae based) which some believe to be superior to fish oil caps (in fact I don't even think fish oil caps are recommended by most experts anymore, there are many noted problems with quality and perishability).  I get all my EPA from plant foods so I'm not concerned about that, but not completely sure I'm getting enough DHA.  Bernando LaPallo (supposedly lived 114 years) was a "vegan + salmon" guy, in the California Adventists, WOMEN who were (vegan + fish) lived the longest, but in MEN the vegans lived longest (however vegan + fish was not far behind).  It is notable how much eating fish seemed to help women though.

 

See:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...91896/table/T4/

 

As long as you're getting enough ALA to create sufficient levels of DHA or EPA, your body can convert between the two. If you supplement, you only need to worry about the total between the two, not individual amounts.

 

Edited for duplicate content


Edited by wise, 29 April 2017 - 12:05 PM.


#19 Sibiriak

Sibiriak
  • Member
  • 231 posts

Posted 28 April 2017 - 08:02 PM

Michael Rae has advised against eating many walnuts (and sunflower seeds etc.) because of their high Omega 6 content.

 

"Nuts: Which are best"

 

https://www.crsociet...which-are-best/

 

 

[Michael Rae:]   Hempseed: way too high in n6 for my taste (ditto for walnuts and definitely sunflower seeds!). What are you targeting? The IOM "Adequate intake" for linolenic acid omega-6 (meaning, not the mimimum you actually need, but a level that is confidently judged to be more than enough cover whatever the as-yet-undetermined real requirement) is 17 g LA/d for young men and 12 g/d for young women, but there's epidemiological and mechanistic reasons to want it to be lower, particularly if you get your n3 from ALA rather than fish (oil); the World Health Organization (WHO)  recommendations for fats and fatty acids posit an acceptable macronutrient distribution range (AMDR) of 2.5-9% of energy, with av'g requirement at 2% of energy and an individual nutrient level  ("the recommended level of nutrient intake for all healthy people in the population, which is set at a certain level x above the mean requirement") of 2.5% of energy.(6) At 1850 Calories, eg, that's just 5 g! Again, arachidonic acid counts "extra" because it's already metabolized.

I am to get no more (and not much less) than 12 g/d.    [emphasis added]

 

See discussion here:

 

Omega-6 PUFA the Healthiest Fat?

https://www.crsociet...healthiest-fat/

To assume the responsibility of one's decisions means that one is ready to die for them. It doesn't matter what the decision is. Nothing could be more or less serious than anything else. In a world where death is the hunter there are no small or big decisions. There are only decisions that we make in the face of our inevitable death.  


#20 Sibiriak

Sibiriak
  • Member
  • 231 posts

Posted 28 April 2017 - 08:15 PM

wiseThere's a study here: http://dx.doi.org/10...jcn.2010.29457 showing that vegans and vegetarians have similar blood levels of DHA/EPA despite not eating fish as omnivores do.

 

 

That study found a significant difference between men and women:

 

The precursor-product ratio of ALA to circulating n23 PUFAs was significantly greater in women than in men and in non-fish-eaters than in fish-eaters, which indicated a potentially greater estimated conversion.

 

 

Table 5 shows, if I'm not mistaken, that  for  vegan men plasma DHA levels were significantly lower than those of fish-eaters --but not so with vegan women.


Edited by Sibiriak, 28 April 2017 - 08:16 PM.

To assume the responsibility of one's decisions means that one is ready to die for them. It doesn't matter what the decision is. Nothing could be more or less serious than anything else. In a world where death is the hunter there are no small or big decisions. There are only decisions that we make in the face of our inevitable death.