this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
108 points (97.4% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6415 readers
366 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
their previous position was that a vegan diet could be healthy for children or pregnant or lactating people. that is no longer their position.
Where does it say that?
they let that position expire, and when they issued a new position, it specifically excluded them. the expired position is not their current position.
You cannot draw that conclusion from that one article, particularly when the article says explicitly, "... and is outside the scope of this Position Paper." Presumably they either have, or will be, writing more specific guidelines for children and pregnant women on plant-based diets, but so far this is what I've found on their paper on nutrition benchmarks for children:
To read that paper and infer that it's claiming plant-based diets are unsafe for children and pregnant women requires such a thick degree of bias it's just desperate. Especially in the context of every other health authority around the world affirming that a properly implemented plant-based diet is safe and adequate for all stages of life. You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you're trying so hard to lie about this.
You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you’re trying so hard to lie about this.
every such position i've seen relies on the now-expired AND position. they should not be considered valid unless they have also been updated and no longer rely on an expired position.
the previous position expired. that is no longer the position of the academy. you can see all the current positions of the academy at https://www.jandonline.org/content/positionPapers
Dude, the first article I quoted is literally from the exact link you sent, and the second article I quoted comes from this link that you just sent now, which is where I found it in the first place. Also, you keep talking about the old paper "expiring." You know they have to explicitly state when removals are made, and why they're made, right? Here is from the page about it:
So as you say, unless removed, everything on that page is still considered valid - including everything I quoted. Seriously, just stop. This is getting ridiculous.
it's written on the paper itself: it expired in december of 2021, and is no longer the position of teh academy.
Ffs, the page you linked: "This Position was approved in January 2025 and will remain in effect until December 31, 2032"
And the page about childhood nutrition: "This position is in effect until December 31, 2025."
Everything that I've cited is still in effect. Seriously, are you delusional?
I wasn't reading carefully. I missed this. it doesn't change whether the other paper expired, is the current position of the academy, or whether papers that relied on it should be considered reliable unless they update.
Dude, the expired paper doesn't matter. It has no relevance. And what do you think dietary authorities around the world are doing, just blindly parroting this one organization? No, they follow their own processes, use their own research, and come to their own conclusions based on what they consider to be the best available evidence.
Like, what are you even trying to accomplish here? You're going so far out of your way just to miss the point, to what, feel like you've won even some tiny crumb of an argument? Get your priorities straight.
some of that evidence was a paper which has since expired. if those organizations aren't updating their positions at least as frequently as the AND is, then we cannot believe that their positions are any more valid than the expired AND paper that they relied on
it's the exact paper linked in the initial comment to which I replied.