Abstract
In “Use and Abuse Revisited: Response to Pluhar and Varner,” Kathryn Paxton George misunderstands the point of my essay, “In Defense of the Vegan Ideal: Rhetoric and Bias in the Nutrition Literature.” I did not claim that the nutrition literature unambiguously confirms that vegans are not at significantly greater risk of deficiencies than omnivores. Rather than settling any empirical controversy, my aim was to show how the literature can give the casual reader a skewed impression of what is known about the risks of a vegan diet. In this brief rejoinder, I illustrate how two essays by nutritionists in the same volume as George's and my essays, and a referee's report on my manuscript which was authored by a nutritionist, confirm the soundness of this basic insight.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Sources Cited
Dwyer, Johanna, and Franklin Loew. 1994. Nutritional Risks of Vegan Diets to Women and Children: Are They Preventable?Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7: 87–109.
George, Kathryn Paxton. 1994. Use and Abuse Revisited: Response to Pluhar and Varner.Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7: 41–76.
Mangels, Ann Reed and Suzanne Havala. 1994. Vegan Diets for Women, Infants, and Children.Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7: 111–122.
Varner, Gary E. 1994. In Defense of the Vegan Ideal: Rhetoric and Bias in the Nutrition Literature.Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7: 29–40.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Varner, G.E. Rejoinder to Kathryn Paxton George. J Agric Environ Ethics 7, 83–86 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01997225
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01997225