Here's some information that may be new to you, joel. I suggest that you review it, not because it's "the truth" -- it's not -- but, because it's out there and it may be something that you would wish to consider. Bonne chance. ----- Original Message ----- From: joel strickland <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 2:23 PM Subject: Re: Licorice > 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 > > >