This is 100% and truly insightful. I've been vegan for thirty years now and it is a journey. Even today, I dislike being asked by people if I'm vegan (when they see what I order or what I eat). Generally after I've answered in the affirmative, a moment of silence follows (which I'm perfectly comfortable with), or remarks such as "no wonder you look so frail" (or fragile) or thin follow. I've never countered these remarks with any responses, since I've always believed that individuals have to discover their own journey and a polite smile and shrug is far better (and works for me) than anything I could possibly say. But, I think I'm also thirty years tired of the vegan bashing and put downs. So I'm always interested rather than surprised to read of militant vegans who are rude and aggressive. It's a no wonder. And let us not forget those vegetarians who actually have the gall to admit to consuming meat, fish and everything in between. They are omnivores, not vegetarians. The whole flexitarian thing has always been a faux, ersatz wanna be toward a dream by those who don't have the wherewithall to actually pick up a book to learn about veganism. Backlash is something that invades all areas of the human animal social world and this is one of them. Absolutely outstanding insight and research Ms. Rettig! This will be a reliable bible for vegans and non vegans alike.

Agree and abide by this. FOR NOW. However, like everyone else I'll soon be forced to purchase "health" insurance due to the new Health Care Initiative and am angry I'll be forced to do so since I don't participate in the vastly uncaring, unhealthy soley for profit "health" care system we have. Would love to see other opinions and comments on this.

It's an interesting window into veganism. What I found most interesting was
that, if you take out the meat is gross element to it, the whole foundation to
the validity of veganism seems to be based in an unquestioned belief that it's
better for animals & the environment. Whether that's actually true or not, for animals &
the environment as a whole, isn't considered at all (beyond the flip wildlife
killed growing all those soybeans comment).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hillary-rettig/vegan-lifestyle_b_1690352.html

It must be understood that "animal rights" vegans would benefit their cause more by promoting the health benefits of eating vegan. The ethical argument is not going to be won because "animal rights" activists do not have superior numbers on their side and they are not acknowledging the difference between wild/farmed/pet animals. However, the health benefits of a vegan diet have medical and scientific justification which affects the majority of people. This is a numbers game. Victory is achieved by getting the numbers.

The worst idea I have seen in veganism is the notion of eating "clean". Anyone who has a smattering of understanding of microbiology knows how absurd that idea is. Fruits and vegetables are not "clean" fuels for our body. Hopefully they have plenty of helpful bacteria on them to contribute to our gut population. Refined sugar and refined fats are "clean" fuels and should be avoided because of that fact.

The biggest problem with the idea of eating "clean" is that it seems to lead to delusional aversions. People think their diet has led them to a type of piety where they become more sensitive to "unclean" things. They then can't tolerate certain smells or be around certain things or become nauseated by certain tastes. This might spiral into debilitating neuroses (anorexia, bulimia, hypersensitivities, etc.). Eating "clean" or "pure" or "perfectly" is the first sign of an eating disorder. It is healthier to occasionally and intentionally break the spell of such thinking than to allow it to have a pathological stranglehold.