Polls Report that Five Percent of Americans are Vegetarians, 41 Percent of Adventists in the U.S.
by AT News Team
A new Gallup Poll conducted last month finds that five percent of Americans say they are vegetarians. This percentage has remained stable for more than a decade, Gallup reports.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church has been promoting a vegetarian diet to improve health for about 125 years. Repeated studies by a number of different research teams have show definite health advantages. Yet, internal surveys indicate that only 41 percent of American Adventists consistently follow a vegetarian diet. This is eight times the proportion among the general public in the United States and studies have shown that Adventists generally have a longer lifespan than other Americans.
Most Adventist congregations across the country follow the practice of a vegetarian menu for church dinners. About one in five Adventist local churches offer a vegetarian cooking class for the community about each year. These classes also help new converts to learn to prepare vegetarian meals for church potlucks and social events.
There is increasing interest in “vegan” diet, vegetarians who also do not consume eggs or dairy. This year the Gallup Poll asked specifically about vegans and found that only two percent of Americans claim to follow a vegan regime.
Internal surveys among Adventists reveal that 16 percent never eat cheese, 25 percent never eat eggs, and 38% never use drink milk of any kind. Overall, about one in eight American Adventists can be labeled vegans. This is six or seven times the percentage among the general public.
The survey data do not include trends because earlier surveys have not asked about vegan practices. This means it is impossible to know if the percentage of vegans is growing, either in the denomination or in the general public.
If the number of vegetarians has remained stable, what further proof do we need that the church has become ineffective, if not irrelevant, in North America?
Perfect non sequitor!
Why is it that New Agers and other are catching on to the benefits of a vegetarian diet, while so many Adventists are going the other direction? It can only mean that no more than 41% of Adventists are waiting for the Second Coming. Ellen White said that flesh foods would be abandoned by those waiting for the coming of the Lord. But, these figures may also indicate that at least 59 % of Adventists have rejected the SOP. No matter how cut it, it's a sad statistic.
Are you trying to saw eating meat is a salvation issue – with respect, that is riddiculous. I suspect Ellen White might have a few words to say to you Jean, and not all good. She might adopt the same counsel as in 1858 to the Haskells (Brother and Sister A) about being a dogmatic extermist (her words) and wrongly making counsels on health a 'test question'.
Jean,
What if most of those being translated turn out to be new agers? 🙂
I had to smile at that post Jean. Despite EGW's prediction and supposedly she was a vegetarian, like the rest of us will be in time, deceased. So much for the vegetarian diet maintaing one until the "2nd coming." Why not enjoy your diet and its health benefit while leaving the false advertising behind. You and I both will not make it alive to the 2nd coming.
By the way a healthy omnivoric diet with all of the food groups represrented including meat protein will produce the same results as the vegetarian diet. As for the Vegan's they can get away with their particular dietary lunacy because they can take B-vitamin supplements.
Do vegetarians eat dairy and fish? Or, do they eat only plants? How does one define "vegetarian"? Some indicate only no red meat, so there are different definitions.
I've been a life-long vegetarian, very rarely eating a little chicken when eating out. Salmon has been shown to be most beneficial, as have a few other fish, which Jesus ate, and of course he also ate lamb–both of which are still staples in that part of the world, AKA as the "Mediterranean Diet." Cheese is especially a good source of protein for vegetarians. The public has certainly been informed of the health benefits of less red meat and more veggies, but changing habits is a problem. My parents were SDA converts and no meat was the rule at home, but I believe they unnecessarily deprived themselves of an occasional piece of fried chicken–a staple in the southern diet.
My husband and I were both life-long vegetarians, having grown up SDA, and both were at least 30+ lbs overweight. Last November we watched the documentary Forks Over Knives about the health benefits of a vegan diet (the "knives" are scalples, as in heart surgery). Half way through the documentary we spontaneously decided to go for it. No milk, eggs, cheese, or any other animal product in any form. It is amazing how many natural foods are chock full of protein. Ten months later we have both lost at least 35 lbs., with no regrets. I have loved learning a whole new way of cooking. The food is absolutely delicious! There is an abundance of vegan cookbooks out there, as well as thousands of vegan recipes on the "Google machine." My favorite new cookbook is Vegan Fire and Spice, by Robin Robertson, best-selling author of Vegan Planet (and to think I used to hate cooking!). Forks Over Knives is available at the local ABC, in book and DVD. We. Feel. So. Much. Better! Not to mention having a closet full of new clothes. Cholesterol, blood sugar, blood pressure, lipids and other indicaters have dropped dramatically! Take a leap. Try a recipe or two. Like the Turkish-spiced Orange and Onion Salad on page 102. Trust me 🙂
The numbers will probably drop as time goes on. I ask my teens from time to time how many are vegetarian. Pretty consistently about a quarter of them are. That number may be different depending on the setting, but I've never had a result go too far either way from 25% among high schoolers
Please be careful Jean Corbeau. Even though EGW admonished vegetarianism, she ate meat often – even lobster! I believe this came directly from the White Estate in recent years. They don't have banners flying above proclaiming this, but now that the ban has been lifted, people are able to read this fact. You said, only "41% of SDA's are looking forward to our Lord's Second Coming".
I have the impression that Sister White said something on the order of "I was shown that God's people would not be flesh eaters at the time of the second advent," or something of that sort (others here will have the direct quote, no doubt). It seems to me that she did not say why that was to be so–whether the diet would be without meat for health reasons, or because meat was too scarce or had become excessively contaminated. Someone surely will be glad to correct this impression….
From the Official Ellen White Estate: http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-egw.html#faq-section-a7
Ellen G. White's Practice Regarding Vegetarianism
Did Ellen White eat any meat after her health-reform vision in 1863? What about that 1858 "pork" testimony?
Ellen White did not claim that after her 1863 health vision she never again ate meat. Prior to the vision, she believed that she "was dependent upon a meat diet for strength." Because of her weak physical condition, especially for her tendency to faint when weak and dizzy, she thought that meat was "indispensable." In fact, at that time she was "a great meat eater"; flesh meat was her "principal article of diet."
But she complied with advancing light. She cut meat out of her "bill of fare" immediately, and it was no longer a regular part of her diet. She practiced the general principles she taught others, such as that one must use the best food available under the circumstances. When away from home, either while traveling or camping in austere conditions, decades before convenience foods were invented, finding an adequate diet was often difficult. Not always able to obtain the best, for whatever reason, she at times settled for the good–the best under the circumstances.
Ellen White was not dogmatic regarding meat eating. In 1895 she noted, "I have never felt that it was my duty to say that no one should taste of meat under any circumstances. To say this . . . would be carrying matters to extremes. I have never felt that it was my duty to make sweeping assertions. What I have said I have said under a sense of duty, but I have been guarded in my statements, because I did not want to give occasion for anyone to be conscience for another" (Counsels on Diet and Foods, pp.462, 463).
In modern attempts to understand history, too frequently the past is judged by the present, most often unknowingly. Individuals of the past must be judged in the context of their circumstances, not ours. In a day without refrigeration, when obtaining fresh fruit and vegetables depended on where one lived and the time of the year, when meat substitutes were rarely obtainable before the introduction of peanut butter and dry-cereals (mid-1890s), on some occasions one either ate meat or nothing at all. In our day, in most circumstances meat eating is rarely a necessity.
While in Australia, she came to the place where she "absolutely banished meat from my table." For a time, she had allowed some meat to be served to workers and family members. From that time on (January 1894) it was understood "that whether I am at home or abroad, nothing of this kind is to be used in my family, or come upon my table" (ibid., p. 488). Many of Ellen White's strongest statements against meat were written after she had renewed her commitment to total abstinence in 1894.
Ellen White's major health visions of 1863 and 1865 encompassed all features of the health reform message that she emphasized until her death. Changes in certain emphases through the years only refined those principles, they did not add or subtract from them. As time passes, even prophets must take time to assimilate revealed principles–time for theory to become practice in their own lives. She constantly advocated the principle, in practice as well as in teaching, that everyone who is committed to truth will move from the bad to the good, from the good to the better, from the better to the best. Such was her experience.
What about her apparent reversal on the question of eating pork? In 1858 she wrote to the Haskells (Brother and Sister A) on a number of items, rebuking them for insisting that pork-eating should be made a "test question": "I saw that your views concerning swine's flesh would prove no injury if you have them to yourselves; but in your judgment and opinion you have made this question a test. . . . If God requires His people to abstain from swine's flesh, He will convict them on the matter. . . . If it is the duty of the church to abstain from swine's flesh, God will discover it to more than two or three. He will teach His church their duty" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, pp. 206, 207).
In the health reform vision of June 6, 1863, a broad array of health principles was revealed. The next year she published a fifty-page chapter entitled "Health" in Spiritual Gifts, volume 4. In reference to swine's flesh she said: "God never designed the swine to be eaten under any circumstances" (p. 124), and in her later books she continued to emphasize the injurious consequences of eating swine's flesh.
How does one account for this change in Ellen White's views between 1858 and 1863?
First, she had received no light from God on swine's flesh before 1863. Her vision in 1858 did not inform her as to the rightness or wrongness of eating pork. Rather, it reproved this brother for creating division among Adventists by making the issue a test question at that time. Second, she left open the possibility that if pork-eating ought to be discarded by God's people, He would, in His own time, "teach his church their duty." When the vision did come, nearly five years later, the whole church saw the issue clearly and never again was there division regarding this issue.
[Adapted from Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: the Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1998), pp. 157, 158, 312-319.]
I find it interesting that what finally led Ellen White to give up meat completely was a discussion with a Catholic vegetarian on the cruelty to animals inherent in meat eating. That is a lot more important to most vegetarians than any other reason. The same issues actually come up with dairy products. Something has to be done with non-milk producing animals and with chickens too old, or too male, to produce eggs.
MY WIFE AND I ALSO BEGAN A PLANT BASED DIET (USING AS LITTLE OIL AS POSSIBLE) AFTER READING DR ESSELSTYN'S BOOK "REVERSING HEART DISEASE" BOTH OF US HAVE LOST WEIGHT (ABOUT 25 POUNDS). MY CHOLESTEROL DROPPED FROM 230 TO 175 AND MY TRIGLYCERIDES ALSO DROPPED. MY WIFE HAS ALWAYS HAD A DIFFICULT TIME LOSING WEIGHT. SHE EATS SPARINGLY AND STILL HAS HAD A HARD TIME. SHE ALSO HAS HIGH CHOLESTEROL. SHE TOOK PROVACOL AND IT DID NOT REDUCE HER CHOLESTEROL. SHE IS NOW ON CRESTOR. FOOD IS DELICIOUS BUT YOU MUST COOK DIFFERENTLY.
A historic-style Adventist who owns a health-food store in an Adventist population center in a nearby state told me without a blush the other day that he can no longer stay in business on Adventist trade alone; his financial success now depends on keeping the local "New Agers" supplied with the vegetarian foods they favor. "It's a great mission field," he added.
He sees the stasis in vegetarianism and apparent growth of vegan eating as attributable less to the influence of Adventism, and more to changing ways among the aged and the growing popularity of Eastern religions in the US. Non-Adventist clients are often more observant of the chemistry and content of his products than his own church-mates. He sees his store as a "growth industry" that will not be put out of business anytime soon by the Internet. "People like to come and talk about what they buy, to compare labels and ask questions."
Were you aware that the Health Dept at the GC does not advocate veganism? You would think they would welcome the likes of Colin Campbell, Bernard, Fuhrman, etc. but instead they put them down. Why? Is it because they are not Adventists? It seems like it to me!
These non-Adventist advocates of veganism are doing a great job of changing America's diet for many, especially the educated and young people, and the church health leaders are not supporting it because it is promoted by "eastern religions" and "new agers."
The church talks about appealing to nonbelievers and secular people, but turns them away on the very topic where they could be reached. They never talk about animal cruelty (as did EGW) in this area, because again they are afraid of being aligned with some maverick group. This seems quite hypocritical of a people who want to use health as an "opening wedge."
Unfortunately AT magazine played right into this by printing its article about Colin Campbell and his research. We should be forever grateful to this man for bringing to the country's attention the diseases of meat eating, but instead have rejected him and his followers and those we should be talking with. You can see I am totally disgusted with the church's approach in this area. It seems more of the same "only we are right" and following the tradition of vegetarianism even when EGW said there would be a time to give up dairy and eggs and we would know when that time came. Maybe the GC Health Dept. expected a vision from God, but instead we have only research! This is especially true with dairy as it includes some university research and certainly observational/geographical studies. The only research for promoting milk is that paid for by the dairy industry and it lobbiests.
Ella, I am shocked to read that GC Health does not promote a vegan diet! That to me is inexcusable if indeed they rejected it for coming from nonAdventists (I do not wish to badmouth them and would like to learn the real reason). I am very happy to report that the book and DVD of Forks Over Knives is prominently available at the Southeastern California Conference ABC at conference headquarters in Riverside. It should be in every ABC. As I said above my health as a vegan is far better than it ever was as a vegetarian. God bless T. Colin Campbell and Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., MD. By the way, the Nutritionist at my local medical clinic (a vegetarian SDA) was thrilled with my new knowledge of veganism and the dramatic weight loss and improvement in my health that accompanied it. I have 28 lbs. to go and fully intend to reach it. The last pounds are always the hardest. Adventist Nutritionists and Dietitians should speak out about this. They have the credibility to convince people of its health benefits.
"Why? Is it because they are not Adventists? It seems like it to me!" ". . . the church health leaders are not supporting it because it is promoted by 'eastern religions' and 'new agers.'"
Why not ask GC Health the question? It appears that you've answered for them, but I haven't heard from them directly. Do you have a reference for how you know their stance – either an article in print or even what one of them told you in a conversation or meeting?
I eat an almost-vegan diet, and I was delighted by what I read in Colin Campbell's book, but I realized when I read it that it was describing correlation in a way that made it appear to be cause-effect. I like to see research where the conclusions support a vegan diet, but the AT article used statistics to criticize Campbell's book. If the GC Health Dept. is going by research, the AT article says that Campbell's book doesn't measure up. How is the Campbell critic wrong? What statements in his article are wrong or debatable? For all I know, the article is riddled with mistakes, but I haven't come across anything listing mistakes. If Campbell is using misleading statistics, informed people will have reason to question a GC Health Dept. that depends on his research.
The fact that I need a Vitamin B-12 supplement suggests that a vegan diet has its problems, even if it is better than other diets. I have started eating more greens since reading Fuhrman. I have only bought two e-books, and one of them is by Fuhrman.
I'm more concerned with the evidence for or against the vegan diet than I am with possible GC Health Dept. prejudice. As I see it, there is still plenty of good reason for a vegan diet even if Campbell's book is suspect. The more you can show me the problems with the AT article, the more likely I am to use Campbell, but for now I will rely on other material for deciding on the best way to eat.
Mark, here is some of what I thought about the AT article on The China Study.
To whatever degree T. Colin Campbell overstated his case, it is unfortunate. Even so there is a great deal of good in the book. It seems to me unfortunate that by giving Roger N. Trubey’s debunking of The China Study cover status (March-April 2012), AT thereby gave it total credibility and placed the full weight of Adventist Today behind it.
Near the beginning of his article, Trubey states that, “no one accuses Dr. Campbell of lying”; however, Trubey ends his report doing just that when he says he (Campbell), “…may well have accomplished his objective, albeit very deceptively.” In making that judgment call, likely Trubey himself overstated.
On page 6 (top left) of the article, Trubey takes issue with the proximity of two statements Dr. Campbell made on page 107 of the book, feeling it “a rather paradoxical—if not strange—juxtaposition of statements.” I see it quite otherwise. To me it is most logical that right after Dr. Campbell stated he felt there was enough evidence “to draw a valid conclusion” is the best place to add his qualifier that the China Study was important but by itself it did not “prove that diet causes disease.”
Truby commends Dr. Campbell for challenging the pharmaceutical and food industries. One can imagine the interest of those deep, deep pockets in the discrediting of this book. They surely must appreciate the help of such as Trubey and AT.
One thing I found interesting – which I don't expect the GC to promote given our work in health foods – is the connection between eating wheat and disease. As someone with gluten intolerance (not coeliacs disease) I can cast stones (gently) on this one 🙂 Perhaps we should focus on promoting eating fresh food with as little processing as necessary and leave it up to the individual to work out the details. Having problems with gluten and dairy products, and being allergic to peanuts, I certainly can't follow the tradtional SDA vegetarian diet with its heavy reliance on wheat, peanuts and dairy. I am not gloating – there is a considerable degree of regret in not being able to eat those things. But doing so is simply not worth the price I (and my family) pay
Ella,
I was going to post a similar caveat about veganism. They can get away with it by taking B-vitamin supplements. If they did not supplement they would end up with pernicious anemia. Animal sourced proteins provide B6, B1, B2 etc. Plants are notoriously deficient in these vitamins.
It's too bad the church at its highest levels appears to resist opportunities offered it openhanded on a cultural platter.
This seems to be a situation not dissimilar to the discussion in the apostle Paul's day regarding food offered to idols—some Christians vehemently preached against any contact whatsoever with pagan-blessed provisions; Paul argued that all food comes from God, and heathen gods simply do not exist—there is no God but One.
Interacting over cultural touchpoints with non-Adventists generally holds little risk. It's the surest pathway to evangelism and conversion, when people at long last are ready to make a spiritual transition in their lives. We must stop being so fearful of "the evil gods out there" and trust God to keep us out of spiritual harm's way as we interact on points of common interest, such as a commitment to physical health and a more protective attitude toward animal life.
I find it interesting that more than half of the adventists surveyed were not strictly vegetarian. Yet, it seems that generalizations about the health and longevity of adventists are often based on the assumption that all adventists are vegetarian or vegan. Even so, I imagine the lifestyle of adventists is pretty health, based partly on the fairly unusual degree of health awareness among adventists, and, over all, an emphasis on moderation in the consumption of flesh and dairy, as well as valuing and attending to needs for exercise and the Sabbath rest.
But not all adventists are as devoted to moderation. Some are quite attracted to eccentric positions on all sorts of things, and really thrive on being apart and peculiar. And pressing others to be as strange as they are. There is some sense in which this is a mental health issue, but it is not so clear whether it is a cause or consequence of the lifestyle choice.
As mentioned before, I think, I grew up in an adventist family on a ranch, where we grew much of our own food–all sorts of fruits and nuts and vegetables; but we also always had a cow or two for supply of fresh and uncontaminated dairy products, kept chucks for eggs and flesh, raised sheep for wool and occasional mutton, sometimes had calves reared for beef, and Dad and other family members were skilled and careful subsistence hunters–mostly for deer. We were all taught to be nature lovers and conservationists from the time we could walk, and were absolutely immersed in humane principles of animal care.
It certainly was no accident that I grew up into a career concerned with animal conservation and care.
For all the benefits of a plant food diet, I don't believe the G.C. or anyone else is qualified to recommend it wholesale, as it should not be followed by everyone; children, the elderly, and others have special dietary needs that sometimes cannot be met by a total plant diet.
At a family reunion yesterday, I saw a niece for the first time since she was a small child (now in her 30s) and when we ate (turkey or black bean burgers) it was discovered that she is a total vegan; with tatoos covering almost all areas of her exposed body and the ragged jeans. she may be called "New Age" but that is such a false judgment that I would not make. People make food choices for a variety of reasons.
If you wish to lose weight, it may be a beneficial diet, but I have maintained a healthy diet for more than 80 years that is meatless, but with dairy products and eggs, and see no reason to change. If it's working, why change it? Moderation in all things; occasional sweets (I have no craving for chocolates and prefer fruits for sweet things. Always whole grains are far more tasty.
Dr. Gott's diet is wonderful for losing weight and very simple: no flour, no sugar.
There you go again Joe suggesting that we use some reason! Indeed an omnivoric diet which includes fruits, nuts, grains, vegetables meat and dairy combined with the time tested concept of "moderation" yields optimal results. I have seen so many fat vegetarians gorging themselves on their vegetarian diet. I eat anything I want, 2 x per day and get exercise 5 x per week. Has worked very well.
Ella M
These non-Adventist advocates of veganism are doing a great job of changing America's diet for many, especially the educated and young people, and the church health leaders are not supporting it because it is promoted by "eastern religions" and "new agers."
I have read and heard Dr's Campbell, Bernard, and Dr Esselstyn speak. Their whole approach is from scientific measurement. they show how high protein, high fat diet results in Diabetes, Heart disease,and Cancer. They advocate no religion. Many people are seeing the limits of medicine, and are looking for other answers. Many of the younger ones understand and believe science. One only has to attend the "vegetarian potlucks" and look around at church members to see that manyAdventists are overweight, and suffer from many of these chronic diseases. Diet will not cure everything, but can reduce the odds of developing one at an earlier age.
It does seem that it is the "new agers" that are spreading vegetarianism/veganism throughout the US at least. Adventists seem to shy away from anything that does not have an official SDA stamp and that includes diet.
The SDA vegetarian diet is very different than that of these other veg groups. We seem to only be comfortable with our Midwestern diet with its meat analogs/dairy products that are cultural to us.
Most veg/vegan restaurants that I have been to have menus based on a wider "world cuisine".
As a generalization most 2nd and 3rd world SDAs don't seem to put much, if any, emphasis on being vegetarian. I have been told this by many different people of different cultures other than my own (Caucasian). It seems that we have managed to make it not important/relevant and has become more of a "white" diet thing but even that seems to be fading away each decade!
As an aside, I also think that earlier vegetarian generations equated practicing vegetarianism with godliness. We do not seem to be emphasizing this dietary choice with perfectionism as we once did. This could be explored further but it seems to be fading.
A person I know very well attended meetings at an SDA camp meeting where Handysides spoke. He clearly said that they were approaching health matters softly and there's your answer.
When it comes to health matters some have to be told quite frankly — do this and you will die. Others need a more congenial approach. In any case you will find that some of the Independents have stolen a march with respect to Handysides and company and serve only plant based food.
I believe that we cannot insist on the same dietary restraint for all areas of the world; that does not mean eating unlclean meat but circumstances may not permit, for one reason or another, optimal dietary pratices.
What pray tell is "unclean" meat? The Jewish laws were not health laws. They were religious laws.
Try reason. Moderation and diversity of food stuffs. You will live well and be free of vegetarian and vegan snobbery and alarmism.
The Mosaic civil or sundry laws are not morally binding on Christians but clearly contain universal principles of ‘general equity.’ A concept Roman Catholic readers might understand is to say that a healthy diet and lifestyle are in accordance with 'natural law' as established in Eden.
Even as officially acknowledged by the Roman Catholic Church:
“Many Adventists insist that, as a matter of discipline (not doctrine), one must not eat meats considered unclean under the Mosaic Law (many endorse total vegetarianism)” (emphasis added)
See: http://www.catholic.com/library/Seventh_Day_Adventism.asp
Firstly, it should be acknowledged that many other Christians are happy to quote Leviticus and other Mosaic Laws when it suits them, whether rightly or wrongly. This is especially the case with those passages that condemn homosexuality.
19.4 To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any further than the general equity thereof may require. (emphasis added)
See: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iv.xvii.ii.html
The principles found in many of these civil or sundry laws, especially as they relate to unchanging human bodies, such as regulations on infectious diseases (Lev 13) or the disposal of human excrement (Deut 23:12-14), clearly contain universal principles of ‘general equity’. For example, few would argue that as Christians in the liberty of Christ, people with highly infectious diseases should be free to roam the airports of the world – or that we should dispense with proper sanitation, leaving our feces in our living-room floors, on the sidewalk or wherever we may fancy!
Likewise, as noted on the official SDA theological website:
“Health laws are timeless and universal because human bodies continue to function in the same way.” (emphasis added)
See:http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Gane%20Gods%20moral%20law.pdf
God simply doesn’t say things for no reason. Similarly, Adventists believe scriptural instructions, regarding what animals mankind should and should not eat, have universal practical application as a matter of health – even today. For example, one will notice that most of the 'clean' animals are herbivores, whilst the 'unclean' animals are carnivores or scavengers. Scientific studies, such as Winston J. Craig, "Pork and Shellfish—How Safe Are They?" Health and Healing 12, No. 1 (1988), have noted the increased health risks involved in eating such foods:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork#Nutrition
Moreover, the oft-cited ‘proof texts’ of Mark 7, Acts 10 and Romans 14 are also of little assistance because these passages are not about consuming ‘unclean’ animal flesh at all. Mark 7 is addressing the Pharisee-imposed ritual of washing one’s hands before eating, Acts 10 is clearly a metaphorical vision about Jews mixing with Gentiles, and Romans 14 is about meat sacrificed to idols (i.e. ‘clean’ meat, such as lamb and beef).
For a further examination of these texts, see:
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/CleanandUnclean%20Meats.htm
Further to the whole point, whilst Jesus may have clarified that eating with unwashed hands was not sinful in a moral sense, few Christian parents (of any denomination) would allow their children to eat dinner with filthy hands as a matter of practical living. Jesus Christ was not some kind of Ronald McDonald, encouraging us to eat whatever we like whenever like. Even if something is not morally sinful in negative sense, this does not mean Jesus was advocating that behaviour in a positive, practical sense either. Rather, the human body is recognised as the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:20) and as such, "whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31).
The real ‘proof of the pudding’ of the SDA lifestyle is the scientific fact that Adventists are among the longest living people in the world, and the longest living people in the developed Western world:
See: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0511/feature1/learn.html
In conclusion, the distinction between a moral (doctrine) and practical (discipline) application of Mosaic civil and sundry laws is perhaps difficult for critics to understand. However, in defence of many outsiders, this issue is probably not well understood by many Adventists themselves.
http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/33-is-it-true-that-sda-church-teaches_11.html
If I am not mistaken, the study reported in National Geographic identified people living in Loma Linda as having exceptional longevity, not adventists in general. The large concentration of SDAs in Loma Linda was identified as an important factor–with reference to the "fact" that adventists refrain from drinking alcohol and eating meat, if I remember correctly. But, what if less than half of SDAs really do eat meat sometimes? Do we know from other evidence that the most dietarily extreme adventists live longer and/or healthier lives than the more moderate ones? Is there evidence regarding these issues from Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia, etc.?
Sorry, I meant to say, "what if less than half of SDAs actually refrain from eating meat?"
And there is nothing with sufficient cheese that cannot be made very tasty!
Stephen, you wrote:
"God recognized "clean" and "unclean" animals at the time of the Flood, long before there was a law of Moses."
Surely, you do not believe that the patriarchs were told to avoid "unclean" meats at Eden or any time until the flood. Where is that recorded in the Bible?
There was no message about this and we are to believe that they "knew" about it?
The terms "clean" and "unclean" were first delineated at Sinai; the flood story was not told the day after it occurred, but until Moses (for those traditionalists)
wrote some several thousand years later. It is an anchronism, plain and simple.
In addition, "clean" and "unclean" were never given by God as health instructions but as holiness and cleanness laws. It was not until Adventists discovered this tidbit that they began claiming theses laws were given for health reasons. No where is that mentioned in the Bible. It is a later revisionist idea.
Whether horse meat is "unclean" while beef is "clean" cannot be explained on health reason; ditto on others as listed in the Bible. Today, there is no comparison with the storage and preparation of food to keep it healthful, with those times with no refrigeration, no preserving other than salting and smoking, and they knew nothing of the health practices widely know and practiced today.
It could be that many of the "plagues" they suffered could have been food-borne poisoning as this was unknown at the time.
Choosing to be vegetarian today is usually for health reasons; for the Israelites it was never for that reason but to be separate and holy.
Mark, you stated:
"Why not ask GC Health the question? It appears that you've answered for them, but I haven't heard from them directly. Do you have a reference for how you know their stance – either an article in print or even what one of them told you in a conversation or meeting?"
Yes, Mark, I have correspondence from the GC Health Department that reveals what I have said about them. This was in reply to letters that I wrote to them. In the last one, Dr. H just said he didn't see any reason to carry on our conversation any longer. I had just sent him a newsletter from I think it was Harvard School of Health on milk usage. I had previously had a similar conversation with him about ten years ago or more concerning my visit to Weimar where I lost 30 lbs and was questioning why the denomination did not promote such preventive medicine. He debunked their work and the idea that diabetes could be "reversed"–now many are using that term. The GC also will not have CHIP programs for their employees (which uses a vegan diet).
Now I told him that I am not one to be rigid about diet and said that I sometime eat salmon. I thought it strange that he jumped on this as some type of failure on my part. I believe in being flexible when necessary, but am the first to promote a basically vegan diet. It does need supplementation with B12 if followed rigidly and perhaps zinc as well. Fish oil is a good choice or a vegetarian alternative. There are many books out there to guide us.
I prefer recognized sources such as Nutrition monthly from the government Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) for dietary information. While I don't eat salmon, it is of great benefit, especially for vegetarians. B-12 deficiency may result from vegan diets.
We have medical evidence that diabetes can be reversed: bariatric surgery as well as weight loss results in no more diabetes.
DoctorF, I joined this site to simply comment and respond to you, You seem to have a problem with Vegetarians/ vegans. it seems every comment has some defensive or attacking attitude.
You do not have to eat meat in order to get vitamin b12. Many foods are supplemented with more than the RDA which by the way is minute. 3micrograms per day. Also, it would take years for a person who today stops eating meat to become diffecient in b-12
Plants are notoriously deficcient in B-12, Notorius! Plants have so much more nutrion than meats.
There are only two items that you can get from meat that you can't get from a balanced whole plant food diet. Saturated Fat and Dietary cholesterol. Both which promote the 3 highest causes of deaths in Americans today.
Oh ya, The major protein found in meat actually has been found to inhibit the bodies ability to remove the bad cholesterol and that type of protein isnot found in vegetables.
Thank you for letting me speak my mind.