Baby dies from Vegan diet

[Free Palestine]

Baby who died was fed on diet of raw vegetables

Richard Luscombe in Miami
Saturday October 22, 2005
The Guardian

The vegan parents of a baby who died after being fed a diet of liquidised raw vegetables and wheatgrass had four other children who resembled "starving Ethiopians from a Save the Children appeal", a Miami court heard.

Joseph Andressohn, 36, and his wife Lamoy, 30, who face up to 30 years in jail for manslaughter, told investigators they sought advice on feeding from a supermarket specialising in natural foods.

A raw food diet left the surviving children - aged from nine to four - looking like famine victims, their aunt, Mary Andressohn, told the court.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1598099,00.html

[Urban Guerrilla]

Children's diet require milk until they are around 3-4 years old :che:

[Xvall]

Ho-ly shit.

[Xvall]

Vegan Credibility loses 20,000 XP.

[Master Che]

Healthy good food my ass.

[drain.you]

Jeez. Theres a reason female mammals create milk after childbirth.

[rioters bloc]

eh, people are stupid. children need fat in their diet. and also, of course, milk - but what happened to breastfeeding/soy milk?

i found this interesting:


A raw food diet left the surviving children - aged from nine to four - looking like famine victims, their aunt, Mary Andressohn, told the court.

i've never seen someone say aged from -higher number- to -lower number-. bwahaha.

[TC]

Thats not a typical vegan diet though. A typical vegan diet involves stuff like tofu, grain, rice, beans, soy products, fruit, ect and probably more of it.

They were on a bizzaro raw food diet.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:11 AM
Thats not a typical vegan diet though. A typical vegan diet involves stuff like tofu, grain, rice, beans, soy products, fruit, ect and probably more of it.

They were on a bizzaro raw food diet.
exactly

raw vegetables just aren't enough

peanut butter alone would have done wonders - fat and protein in one.

[Commie Rat]

you have to love it how they twist it to make vegan look liek crazy bumfucked hippies

just plain raw vegtables would kill you

you body need fats (milk fats, monounsaturated(vegtable fats) saturated ( animal fats) proteins ( normally gained from meat often replaced by peanuts, tofu nuts ect)
the vitamins and minerals from vegtables as well as carbohyrates ( basic ( bread ect) and complex (bran, oats ect)

i would be extermly supries if the kids did live on a raw vegtable diet

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Personally I'd die without full-fat butter, milk chocolate and cream pies.

[FleasTheLemur]

Gawddamn liberal bougoises(sp) non-sense. If I hear anyone exclaim save the animals without "save the humans" some where in their proclaimation, I'm going to start cock-slapping rampage.

Taste MY meat, vegan bastards!

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 22 2005, 11:51 PM



A raw food diet left the surviving children - aged from nine to four - looking like famine victims, their aunt, Mary Andressohn, told the court.

i've never seen someone say aged from -higher number- to -lower number-. bwahaha.
The Guardian is known for it's typos, its even got it's own name wrong a few times.

[bombeverything]

How is that a vegan diet? This sounds more like something people would eat to lose wait. Duh!

[ComradeOm]

No milk? I've said it before and I'll say it again - people are stupid. This is a prime example.

[Che NJ]

I heard about a story like this a couple years ago. The government took action before the kids were dieted to death. the kids were taken away and put in an orphanage, thank god. It's scary that people who know nothing about children are raising children right now.

[BANANARAMA]

THIS KID IS A VEGAN TOO!

THIS IS GETTING SERIOUS FOLKS, WTF WILL WE DO?

[farleft]

I thought it was common knowledge that children need meat in their diet?

It's not as important later on in life but for kids it is very important.

Fucking vegeterians and vegans piss me off.

[Black Dagger]

Fucking vegeterians and vegans piss me off.

Why do vegetarians piss you off?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 11:37 AM
I thought it was common knowledge that children need meat in their diet?

It's not as important later on in life but for kids it is very important.

Fucking vegeterians and vegans piss me off.
:o im a vegeterian and ive never eaten meat and im as healthy as can be.

[Vallegrande]

It is quite obvious that babies need ample amounts of fat for their bodies to thrive, mainly saturated fats for lungs, brain, heart, and bones. Raw cow milk is close to mother's breast milk in fatty acid composition, especially lauric acid. That's what babies really need for their immunity against viruses. Yet all Americans have grown up to avoid All Fats because of health issues, and so their babies are put through this fat scare. I get angry at the hair-brained scientists who propose how bad saturated fat is. Just remember that whoever is badmouthing saturated fat is working for these scabs who want to keep people confused on overall fat and health.

[idealisticcommie]

<_< Eat meat...don&#39;t eat meat. What pisses me off is that the animal rights folk don&#39;t realize that they have to change the system of human relations first if they are going to make any headway in changing the system of human-animal relations. :angry:

Animal Rights? Sure&#33;&#33; But we have more immediate goals&#33; All that revoultionary and spiritual energy wasted on a secondary issue. :(

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 09:59 AM
All that revoultionary and spiritual energy wasted on a secondary issue. :(
i assure you, not eating meat really doesn&#39;t take up any of my &#39;revolutionary and spiritual energy&#39;.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Oct 31 2005, 12:34 AM--> (rioters bloc @ Oct 31 2005, 12:34 AM)
[email protected] 31 2005, 09:59 AM
All that revoultionary and spiritual energy wasted on a secondary issue. :(
i assure you, not eating meat really doesn&#39;t take up any of my &#39;revolutionary and spiritual energy&#39;. [/b]
You&#39;d have to have some first. :lol:

just kidding. ;)


I used to be a vegan for four years - but even then I knew only a nutter would raise a baby that way. wtf? :o

[h&s]

Feeding a baby on an adult Vegan diet is unbelievably irresponsible and stupid. However, that does not mean that children can not be brought up as vegans - it just has to be done in a way that meats (sp mistake, but I&#39;ll leave it in&#33; :P ) their needs.


I thought it was common knowledge that children need meat in their diet?

No, its a common old wive&#39;s tale. I&#39;ve never eaten meat in my life, and I am the healthiest person I know.

[Redmau5]

Fucking vegeterians and vegans piss me off.

You piss me off. Do you know every single vegetarian and vegan, and have they all successfully managed to piss you off?


it just has to be done in a way that meats (sp mistake, but I&#39;ll leave it in&#33; ) their needs.

That was a horrendously bad pun.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Oct 31 2005, 12:34 AM--> (rioters bloc @ Oct 31 2005, 12:34 AM)
[email protected] 31 2005, 09:59 AM
All that revoultionary and spiritual energy wasted on a secondary issue. :(
i assure you, not eating meat really doesn&#39;t take up any of my &#39;revolutionary and spiritual energy&#39;. [/b]
I think he meant those PETA nuts who protest against people wanting to enjoy a steak. Also, is your signature sarcastic or what? This part scared me though:


told investigators they sought advice on feeding from a supermarket specialising in natural foods.

[Invader Zim]

People who say that in order to be thin and healthy you have to moderate your diet are full of shit.

I am around 11 stone and 6 foot three, and I eat loads of meat. Can&#39;t get enough of the stuff. I also drink too much and do hardly any exercise, other than football (proper football, that is, the one played in most nations) practise.

Its not meat thats the problem, its sugary rubbish like Coke.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

For the record, a "raw-food" healthstore diet is different than a vegan diet.

Coincidently, there are far more cases of babies dying of malnutrition on not-vegan diets than vegan diets. An isolated case of stupid "vegan" parents is hardly a real argument against veganism. Stupid parents are stupid, regardless.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Matthijs+Nov 1 2005, 07:44 AM--> (Matthijs @ Nov 1 2005, 07:44 AM)
Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 31 2005, 12:34 AM

[email protected] 31 2005, 09:59 AM
All that revoultionary and spiritual energy wasted on a secondary issue. :(
i assure you, not eating meat really doesn&#39;t take up any of my &#39;revolutionary and spiritual energy&#39;.
I think he meant those PETA nuts who protest against people wanting to enjoy a steak. Also, is your signature sarcastic or what? This part scared me though:


told investigators they sought advice on feeding from a supermarket specialising in natural foods. [/b]
who&#39;s sig...mine??

[4514]

i have heaps of respect for your sig,
1 out 4 rapes are gang rapes.
the majority of sexual violence is commited by someone the victim knows or is related to, usually mum dad.


feeding your baby only raw veges isn&#39;t a vegan diet, its stupidity.
4514

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 1 2005, 10:45 AM

who&#39;s sig...mine??
Yes. Why "womyn"? WHY?&#33; Not "she is a womyn" or "they are wimmin", what&#39;s the point?

She is a WOMAN.
They are WOMEN.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Matthijs+Nov 3 2005, 12:07 AM--> (Matthijs @ Nov 3 2005, 12:07 AM)
rioters [email protected] 1 2005, 10:45 AM

who&#39;s sig...mine??
Yes. Why "womyn"? WHY?&#33; Not "she is a womyn" or "they are wimmin", what&#39;s the point?

She is a WOMAN.
They are WOMEN. [/b]
firstly, why would you think i was being &#39;sarcastic&#39; when my sig is clearly about the oppression and marginalisation of womyn around the world?

secondly, the reason i oppose the use of the word &#39;wo[b]man&#39; is because historically, &#39;man&#39; was used as a synonym for &#39;human&#39;, and the word woman was developed to mean &#39;wife of a human&#39;. implying that womyn weren&#39;t human themselves, but only existed in relation to a man; specifically as his wife. so not only is it sexist, but hetrosexist as well.

thirdly, why are you being so aggressive about this? does my spelling of the word disturb you? does the fact that i&#39;m using language which subverts and distorts mainstream english offend you in some way?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

secondly, the reason i oppose the use of the word &#39;woman&#39; is because historically, &#39;man&#39; was used as a synonym for &#39;human&#39;, and the word woman was developed to mean &#39;wife of a human&#39;. implying that womyn weren&#39;t human themselves, but only existed in relation to a man; specifically as his wife. so not only is it sexist, but hetrosexist as well.

Bullshit. In the anglo-saxon, "man" was the gender-neutral term for humans. A human male was a werman and a human female was a wifman. How does being a wife (Or for that matter, female) make one less of a human being?
The word human comes from the latin and is not gender-specific. The fact it ends in "man" is a coincidence.


thirdly, why are you being so aggressive about this? does my spelling of the word disturb you? does the fact that i&#39;m using language which subverts and distorts mainstream english offend you in some way?

Personally I&#39;m disgusted whenever someone tries to butcher the English language for political ends. This isn&#39;t about equal rights, this about scoring points via semantics.

[h&s]

That was a horrendously bad pun.
I know, but it was a mistake...... :unsure:

[Atlas Swallowed]

My wifes aunt is a vegetarian, she has two sons, 10 and 12 years old. She subjects them to her vegitarian diet. Those poor boy are so scrawny, I sneak them in some candy when we visit, they are not allowed candy either :angry:

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:04 PM
Bullshit. In the anglo-saxon, "man" was the gender-neutral term for humans. A human male was a werman and a human female was a wifman. How does being a wife (Or for that matter, female) make one less of a human being?
The word human comes from the latin and is not gender-specific. The fact it ends in "man" is a coincidence.
Thanks, I was going to say this. The sad fact of the matter is that these "womyn" lovers will never acknowledge this obvious little fact. Hell, one could say that a "woman" without the "wo" is only a "man" and thus less worth than "woman". OMG PLZ SAY "MYN" AND "MIN" OR ULL BE SEXZIST&#33;1&#33;11&#33;1

http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-590.png

[Black Dagger]

Matthijs, don&#39;t be so patronising in your poST plZ&#33; (<-) It&#39;s not necesasry.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:04 AM

secondly, the reason i oppose the use of the word &#39;woman&#39; is because historically, &#39;man&#39; was used as a synonym for &#39;human&#39;, and the word woman was developed to mean &#39;wife of a human&#39;. implying that womyn weren&#39;t human themselves, but only existed in relation to a man; specifically as his wife. so not only is it sexist, but hetrosexist as well.

Bullshit. In the anglo-saxon, "man" was the gender-neutral term for humans. A human male was a werman and a human female was a wifman. How does being a wife (Or for that matter, female) make one less of a human being?
The word human comes from the latin and is not gender-specific. The fact it ends in "man" is a coincidence.


cool. i&#39;m impressed. but it seems that through time, the wer has dropped off and just become man, which as you said was the term for humans. why not keep both werman and wifman then? why make man the &#39;human&#39; and make woman exist only in relation to man?

being a &#39;wife&#39; does not make anyone less of a human. but it does define a womyn by her status in relation to a man. what if she didn&#39;t want to marry? what would she be then?

you say it&#39;s coincidence, i say it&#39;s design.


Personally I&#39;m disgusted whenever someone tries to butcher the English language for political ends. This isn&#39;t about equal rights, this about scoring points via semantics.

bwahaha. there are no &#39;political ends&#39; here. you take offence to my usage of the word womyn because it&#39;s something that feminists [not the middle-class white feminists but radical feminists] came up with themselves, for themselves, and it doesn&#39;t fit into your conventional paradigm surrounding language.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Matthijs+Nov 3 2005, 08:11 AM--> (Matthijs @ Nov 3 2005, 08:11 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 02:04 PM
Bullshit. In the anglo-saxon, "man" was the gender-neutral term for humans. A human male was a werman and a human female was a wifman. How does being a wife (Or for that matter, female) make one less of a human being?
The word human comes from the latin and is not gender-specific. The fact it ends in "man" is a coincidence.
Thanks, I was going to say this. The sad fact of the matter is that these "womyn" lovers will never acknowledge this obvious little fact. Hell, one could say that a "woman" without the "wo" is only a "man" and thus less worth than "woman". OMG PLZ SAY "MYN" AND "MIN" OR ULL BE SEXZIST&#33;1&#33;11&#33;1

http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-590.png [/b]
hurray, a dinosaur cartoon has shown me the error of my ways, something which barney was never able to do.

so condescending. i never claimed you were sexist, i never claimed anyone was sexist if they used &#39;woman&#39;. basically, my friend, you talk shit, and try to hide that by attempting to demean me. you saw my sig and automatically made assumptions about me. which word i use to describe myself is not up to your chauvinistic self.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

cool. i&#39;m impressed. but it seems that through time, the wer has dropped off and just become man, which as you said was the term for humans. why not keep both werman and wifman then? why make man the &#39;human&#39; and make woman exist only in relation to man?

Linguistic laziness. It happens all the time. Rather than use the full word, people use contractions in everyday speech. Like don&#39;t.

Also, the word woman itself is not offensive - people use it everyday in a non-derogatory manner. Words like nigger and spic are always used in a derogatory manner, and as such constitute hate speech.


being a &#39;wife&#39; does not make anyone less of a human. but it does define a womyn by her status in relation to a man.

Except that the word is no longer used in that way (today it simply refers to females), and most people are not aware of it&#39;s roots and cannot possibly be oppressing females by using the word woman - It&#39;s origins may be sexist, but most people now simply use in everyday speech.

Words evolve. You&#39;re getting yourself hung up on Old English thought, in a time when nobody uses the English language like the Anglo-Saxons did.


what if she didn&#39;t want to marry? what would she be then?

She would still be a woman, since that&#39;s how we use the word today&#33;


you say it&#39;s coincidence, i say it&#39;s design.

And until you come up with some actual proof of this, I and everybody else have absolutely no reason to believe you.


bwahaha. there are no &#39;political ends&#39; here.

Liar. Your goal is (Correct me if I&#39;m wrong) equality for both sexes, and as part of working toward that goal you include "womyn" in your political language.


you take offence to my usage of the word womyn because it&#39;s something that feminists [not the middle-class white feminists but radical feminists] came up with themselves, for themselves, and it doesn&#39;t fit into your conventional paradigm surrounding language.

I take offence because it&#39;s partisan bullshit that makes feminists look like men-hating fanatics, when they are not. I also dislike language control, especially in this case when there is no reason for it.


hurray, a dinosaur cartoon has shown me the error of my ways, something which barney was never able to do.

Style over substance fallacy. Just because an argument comes in the form of a cartoon does not make the argument invalid.


so condescending. i never claimed you were sexist, i never claimed anyone was sexist if they used &#39;woman&#39;.

So why change it?


basically, my friend, you talk shit, and try to hide that by attempting to demean me. you saw my sig and automatically made assumptions about me. which word i use to describe myself is not up to your chauvinistic self.

So he&#39;s not sexist, but you call him chauvinistic?

[rioters bloc]

Linguistic laziness. It happens all the time. Rather than use the full word, people use contractions in everyday speech. Like don&#39;t.

since wifman ends in exactly the same word, why wasn&#39;t it contracted instead?


Also, the word woman itself is not offensive - people use it everyday in a non-derogatory manner. Words like nigger and spic are always used in a derogatory manner, and as such constitute hate speech.

i don&#39;t find it offensive if someone writes woman instead of womyn. if i did, i&#39;d be going off at people in every single thread. but it&#39;s the word i use, and my friends use, and i don&#39;t see what right you have to tell me not to use it.


And until you come up with some actual proof of this, I and everybody else have absolutely no reason to believe you.

that&#39;s nice, because &#39;coincidence&#39; is something that&#39;s not able to be proved or disproved, the burden falls on me. language, particularly from that era, was dominated by males, i doubt that womyn would have wanted themselves to be regarded simply as &#39;the wife of a man&#39;.


I take offence because it&#39;s partisan bullshit that makes feminists look like men-hating fanatics, when they are not. I also dislike language control, especially in this case when there is no reason for it.

it&#39;s not about feminists hating men, its about feminists trying to have a part in a language that was largely created and built without them. and it&#39;s not just about patriarchy, it&#39;s also about challenging the assumptions that womyn [or men] are going to only engage in hetrosexual relationships. which is why the term womyn was mostly used by lesbian feminists, and which is another reason i use it.


So why change it?

it&#39;s not sexist in that it&#39;s not derogatory towards womyn. i use it because it raises the consciousness of people around me who aren&#39;t familiar with it, and then i get to have great feminist discussions.



So he&#39;s not sexist, but you call him chauvinistic?

i called him chauvinistic not because he uses the word woman but because he felt the need to attack me because [i]i[/b] as a queer womyn used it. i was not forcing it upon him, and everyone else on this board has respected my decision to use this word. and then he also mocks feminists as too &#39;pc&#39; by saying "OMG PLZ SAY "MYN" AND "MIN" OR ULL BE SEXZIST&#33;1&#33;11&#33;1"

[drain.you]

Stumbled off topic but its interesting anyway...
Gotta say that I&#39;m on Rioters bloc&#39;s side on this one. And her using the word &#39;womyn&#39; has raised my consciousness.
I think the word &#39;woman&#39; is quite sexist. &#39;Man&#39; is associated with males, we even say &#39;mankind&#39; instead of &#39;humankind&#39; because of how dominate males are in society. And why do people have a problem with people using the word &#39;womyn&#39;? Scared that womyn are going to become equal or something?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 09:54 PM
Stumbled off topic but its interesting anyway...
Gotta say that I&#39;m on Rioters bloc&#39;s side on this one. And her using the word &#39;womyn&#39; has raised my consciousness.
I think the word &#39;woman&#39; is quite sexist. &#39;Man&#39; is associated with males, we even say &#39;mankind&#39; instead of &#39;humankind&#39; because of how dominate males are in society. And why do people have a problem with people using the word &#39;womyn&#39;? Scared that womyn are going to become equal or something?
You have just presented the exact same arguments other people have raised in this thread. Please try to keep up.

[Alice in Ganjaland]

Wow some people can make a big issue out of a little thing. So what if rioter&#39;s bloc has womyn instead of women?....christ.

[spartafc]

The bad parenting of ONE COUPLE does not mean you can apply this to all vegan parents - though people will generalise on this one isolated case despite it&#39;s unrepresentativeness of course.

[drain.you]

Sorry comrade NoXion, I just wanted to express my beliefs, heaven forbid that I happen to agree with things already said.

[bombeverything]

I agree with Rioters Bloc, although I must admit that I haven&#39;t really thought about it enough. I will try to use it from now on.


Personally I&#39;m disgusted whenever someone tries to butcher the English language for political ends. This isn&#39;t about equal rights, this about scoring points via semantics.

That part of the English language should be butchered. Scoring points for what "evil" purpose?


Linguistic laziness. It happens all the time. Rather than use the full word, people use contractions in everyday speech.

Yeah but isn&#39;t this example is a bit different? It is a word related to an issue that is highly politicised.


So why change it?

It is better.


Also, the word woman itself is not offensive - people use it everyday in a non-derogatory manner.

I have heard it used in a dereogatory manner numerous times. The word refers to a specific gender, which carries with it cultural assumptions about what it means to be a womyn.


She would still be a woman, since that&#39;s how we use the word today&#33;

Wasn&#39;t she asking where and why this idea originated in the first place?

[RevolverNo9]

&#39;Mankind&#39; is a most correct, anglo-saxon term - it means quite literally the human species. No gender specification.


being a &#39;wife&#39; does not make anyone less of a human. but it does define a womyn by her status in relation to a man.

Except the Old English noun wif doesn&#39;t mean wife - it mean woman. It came to mean wife in the same way that the a French man&#39;s wife is his femme. There is no dependeny on a female relation to the man for the word&#39;s meaning.

So the question that should be looked at is not how the female became dehumanised, but how the male became universalised. For this reason there is evidence of patriarchy but, without wishing to debate this right now, I have yet to be convinced by any argument for altering the social conventions of language. Language is gifted meaning and significane by the social economic base of a given society. To take a subjective saw to those words which we all use is therefore an act of idealism.

[encephalon]

The word "Slave" comes from "Slav", because the Romans frequently enslaved the slavic people. Should we start calling them slivs instead? Should the spanish stop using the word negro? Should we stop using the terms communist and anarchist because they&#39;ve both been given bad names over the centuries (unjustly, nonetheless)?

Seriously.. language evolves on its own. Until recent times, no group was even able to exert control over language (which is why we have so many dialects of English; a dialect is the beginning of a new language). Whether or not you like the fact, NoXion is entirely correct on this point. The term "man" had nothing to do with male or female. It&#39;s simply a case of words changing meaning over time.

That said, I&#39;m not sure what the hell the problem is with replacing the *a*with a *y* in woman. We all still know what the word means, and we also know the intent behind changing the word. It&#39;s at the writer&#39;s liberty to spell it one way or another.


I also dislike language control, especially in this case when there is no reason for it.

There&#39;s a paradox. You&#39;re telling people not to control language; which means you&#39;re attempting to control the use of language.

-=-=-

Vegetarians have canines. Our bodies have evolved over millions of years to eat meat. And so we eat it.

There are also a few key proteins that can only be found in meat (not even in nuts) that are integral to processing energy; they act as catalysts in the enzyme process. Also, there are fats that are found only in vegetables (some more than others, but almost all vegetables have them) that your body can&#39;t absorb or excrete; it just sits there in your body forever. This is one of the reasons why there are obese vegetarians, even though meat and sweets are blamed most of the time.

The reason vegetarians tend to be healthier isn&#39;t because they eat less meat, but because they eat less period. Lab tests have shown that longevity and health are more dependent upon eating less, not simply what you eat.

[pandora]

I would say it was the raw fruit and veggie thing. Most kids I know don&#39;t eat meat till nearly three, and milk till two. They do breast milk, and then oat milk. In fact in Nicaragua most of the kids had a formula that was rice milk.

Yes it sucks, but fact is no one gives a shit about millions of kids starved in Nicaragua because their moms don&#39;t have enough money for formula or rice milk after they&#39;ve stopped breast feeding. Yes we don&#39;t give a shit about that.

Raw fruits and veggies can be dicey for babies better to steam them and creme them. Then if you want to go veggie either do breast milk, or a mineral rich fortified rice milk with maybe some oatmeal in there and make sure you give them infant vitamins of B-vitamins, and make sure you have them tested by a nutritionist or pediatrician as kids can get undernourished easily as they are growing and running around a lot. It&#39;s hard actually to keep enough food in them.

But when you compare a wealthy nation like the US&#39;s kids diets to Nicaragua, you wonder how they survive on a meal a day of rice and beans, some rice milk tortilla and maybe a spoon full of cheese if they are lucky.

Most disgusting most of the kids had low vitamin C leaving them open to malaria, and fruits like papaya and mango grow wild, but they don&#39;t have money to buy them and they aren&#39;t on the land anymore.

[encephalon]

thanks, actually, for putting that into perspective. I think people get more disgusted about this case because it&#39;s the parents that are causing the kids to suffer, not the system.. but nonetheless, there are far more children than those of vegans that starve to death.