30 likes | 150 Views
IVU hosts an informal science discussion group IVU-Sci to allow discussion and debate about scientific topics of relevance to vegetarians. Occasionally, this provides a basis for producing guidelines on critical issues for wide circulation such as the 2001 B12 guidelines.
E N D
IVU hosts an informal science discussion group IVU-Sci to allow discussion and debate about scientific topics of relevance to vegetarians. Occasionally, this provides a basis for producing guidelines on critical issues for wide circulation such as the 2001 B12 guidelines. It also gives rise to reviews of controversial matters such as the 2009 discussion published on IVU Online News and on the IVU website on the Worldwatch magazine claims that livestock caused at least 51% of global warming.
What Every Vegan Should Know about Vitamin B12 *** An Open Letter from Health Professionals and Vegan Organizations *** Very low B12 intakes can cause anaemia and nervous system damage. The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 (including some plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals) and B12 supplements. Vitamin B12, whether in supplements, fortified foods, or animal products, comes from micro-organisms. Most vegans consume enough B12 to avoid anaemia and nervous system damage, but many do not get enough to minimize potential risk of heart disease or pregnancy complications. To get the full benefit of a vegan diet, vegans should do one of the following: Eat fortified foods two or three times a day to get at least three micrograms (mcg or µg) of B12 a day or Take one B12 supplement daily providing at least 10 micrograms or Take a weekly B12 supplement providing at least 2000 micrograms.
From IVU Online News interview November 2009 www.ivu.org/science/articles/climate_change.doc 1. In 2006, the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) published their Livestock's Long Shadow reportwhich attributed 18% of human produced greenhouse gas emissions to livestock. The year, an article in Worldwatch magazine put the figure at 51% percent. How do you explain this difference between 18% and 51%? Which figure do you think is more accurate? In terms of greenhouse gas emissions from all use of livestock measured on the standard 100-year time-scale (see the notes at the end of the interview for more explanation about time scale and measurement of greenhouse gases) the FAO estimate of 18% is reasonable on a global scale though there are some arguments that it may itself be slightly too high…. The 51% estimate in the Worldwatch article rests on four critical assumptions that do not stand up to scrutiny and this remarkable estimate risks bringing both WorldWatch and the authors of the article into disrepute along with any other organisations who rush to endorse it. If there was solid evidence that past estimates of drivers of global warming had been so dramatically miscalculated then the authors would be on the front page of Nature or Science. As they have not produced such evidence, they’re not.