Maybe it wasn't clear in my above comment, but I am not in favor of the status quo. My example was just to show how our current view is limited and we should very much strive for progress, since we don't know what is possible.

@RollingStone

Arguing the company’s primary “motive is profit” and “maximiz[ing] financial gains,” the suit goes on to say Meta “repeatedly misled the public about the substantial dangers” of its various social media platforms, especially when it comes to “its most vulnerable consumers: teenagers and children.”

This feels more like a criticism towards capitalism, of which Meta is just a product. Centering society around profit will always lead to the same outcome, no matter how many Metas you hit in the regulation whack-a-mole.

Did peasants in the middle ages believe in a constitutional democracy?

Look I'm not telling anyone what they NEED, I said that they can consider a vegan diet because X, Y, Z reasons. You keep twisting my words and offering zero interesting arguments. But since you seem to be a little insecure little troll on an anti vegan campaign judging by your post history, I will not waste any more time responding to you.

So it was the same position since '87 to '21 through 5 renewals, but since there isn't a new one since 2021 it's not valid anymore? Did they state this position was not valid anymore?

This is the exact same thing I linked in the post above. What is your point?

Of course. I have a friend who is allergic to most vegetable protein. She would be in ER if she ate a tomato. Of course she can never be vegan. But most people have no health risks of the sorts. I don't have any data on this, but I would bet on 90% of the population having absolutely no issue with a vegan diet. The "not all people can" argument is moot.

The AND paper from 2016 doesn't seem expired, just removed from some site redesign: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/ The fact that the position hasn't changed in more than 13 years should be an indication that it still holds. You don't need to prove that water is wet every few years to make sure it's still a valid stance.

The NHS respects your life choices, and makes recommendations for nutrients based on those choices.

Any talk about nutrition will be prefaced about getting certain nutrients. If omnivore diets had no risk of deficiencies we wouldn't need dietitians. Any talk about an omnivore diet will be prefaced with talk about fiber, which is easier to be lacking in that diet.

I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I was just challenging the outdated notion that you NEED to be an omnivore to have a healthy diet.

Vystopia is just a side effect. If I had a cent for every depressing thing in life I would be a millionaire. Dealing with depressing shit is just part of life. Suggesting that someone shouldn't become vegan because they might get depressed is ridiculous. The same could be said about politics, gay rights, abortion rights etc, etc. Just live in a monastery, don't care about anything worldly and you won't be depressed.

https://www.nmcd-journal.com/article/S0939-4753(17)30260-0/fulltext
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/how-to-eat-a-balanced-diet/the-vegan-diet/
https://www.jandonline.org/article/S0002-8223%2803%2900294-3/fulltext
https://web.archive.org/web/20190708160222/https://www.eatrightpro.org/~/media/eatrightpro%20files/practice/position%20and%20practice%20papers/position%20papers/vegetarian-diet.ashx
And many more on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Positions_of_dietetic_and_government_associations

But you're probably not going to read any of that and were just hoping for some gotcha moment