well, i did say i was quite sure the seaweed claim is wrong, and good
luck
investigating it further.  so i don't think i was being overly
dogmatic.

for what it's worth, i haven't just researched this on the web.  i've
read
(somewhere, i can't recall where) that vegans on sea vegetables still
get
pernicious anemia.  to me, that's conclusive.

(incidentally, i don't agree that most science is paid for by
industry, at
least in the US.  the National Science Foundation pays for a ton of
it, and
doesn't benefit from it.)

could you summarize what cousens says that makes his minority opinion
sound
persuasive?

as for advocating certain positions, well, i don't claim to have spent
much
time absorbing the culture of this list, so if i'm being offensively
sure of
myself, i apologize.  i know that when it comes to food, all kinds of
weird
tribal allegiances come into play.  food seems to be a marker for the
Other,
who is generally suspect.

there are serious financial and health consequences to the dietary
choices
one makes, and many contesting claims to validity that need to be
weighed.
one has to choose something - one obviously can't defer about what to
eat
forever, so one is reduced to making the best judgement one can given
incomplete and biased information.  so, i've gathered that as a mostly
vegan, it's in my best interest to make sure i'm getting some
artificial
b12.  but i'm certainly open to new information that would affect that
decision.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Hovila" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Licorice

> Joel,
>
> > The chemical test is inaccurate because it measures both active and
> inactive
> > forms of B12.  The inactive form interferes with the active form.
> > Bottom line: vegans that eat sea vegetables still get pernicious anemia.
> >
> > This page looks reasonable: http://vrg.org/nutrition/b12.htm, and has
> > references at the end.
> >
> > As a general principle, I wouldn't take positive research paid for and
> > presented by companies that benefit from the results as necessarily
> > objective science.
> >
> > It's like the milk industry pushing the myth that "milk builds strong
> > bones" - a pet peeve of mine.
>
> I think it's best to keep an open mind about issues like this, especially
> when they involve hard science that most of are not capable of doing
> ourselves.  You don't really KNOW that the chemical test is inaccurate.
You
> read some stuff on a web site with nice looking references that says that.
> You're right to be skeptical about a study paid for by a sea vegetable
> company.    But let's be realistic - most studies are paid for by someone
> who stands to benefit in some way or another.  Otherwise, they probably
> wouldn't get done.  I mean, who is going to fund a sea vegetable study as
a
> hobby?  One of the references in the web site article you liked is from
the
> Food and Nutrition Board.  What do you think the odds are that they get
> money from the food industry?  That doesn't mean that all industry funded
> research is necessarily bad.  But it is good to be aware of the potential
> conflict, and I'm glad Cousens made it clear in his book who paid for the
> study.
>
> I realize that Cousens's view is a minority one.  But if you read his
> thirteen page chapter on B12, I think you'll agree that it sounds pretty
> reasonable, too.  I have reads lots of stuff about the B12 issue before,
> including the book from which that web page was taken.  I still don't know
> who's right.  My point was not to be an advocate for one position or
> another, but to bring out some additional information to consider.
>
> Mark
>