When people become parents, it is expected of them to be conscious of their children’s diet, as they grow and develop. When vegans become parents, it is expected of them to continue their restrictive lifestyle, as well as implement their diet within their children’s life. Typically, practicing veganism is seen as an attempt to better ones health and increase ones lifespan; but when parents raise their children under this lifestyle, it causes concern, because the diet lacks nutritional value that is necessary for development. On the other hand, when people feed their children “regular” food, little to no concern is drawn, despite the several risks that exists. “Natural News”, an online health source, covers a particular case detailing the death of an 11 month year old baby girl, who suffered from food deprivation, and vitamin deficiency. As the girls death was a result of a restrictive diet, the vegan parents were charged and sentenced to jail, for they were convicted as murderers. Though this case consists of several conflicting issues, the main issue covered in this article asks why certain diets are permissible and others are not. Specifically, Mike Adams (2011), author of this post, questions why authorities deem vegan parents as criminals, despite the great lengths they take to “protect the health and safety of their children”. Based on his ethical and logistic approach, Adams targets society, because he feels that vegans are being attacked, while “normal eaters” go unpunished.

In American society, obesity, diabetes, and other extreme health problems, exists because of people’s poor diets; so it is understandable why people choose diets such as veganism, as way of life for them as well as their family. Because diets such as veganism, require a lot of nutritional monitoring and supplementing, it is common that people suffer the risks of the practice: malnutrition, vitamin deficiency, and other severe abnormalities. In knowing this information, vegans should be aware of these casualties when deciding to start a family; but in fear of harming their child’s health, they disregard the risks to avoid serving processed animal and junk foods. In continuing this diet, certain Sates classify vegans as criminals, because they are depriving children of industry food and causing deficiencies. In response to these accusations and the mentioned case, Adam’s states argues that “If having a vitamin-deficient baby is a crime, then virtually all the parents who consume mainstream processed food diets are criminals”. Furthermore, he explains his standpoint and beliefs when he states, “The State believes that if you don’t conform to the cancer-causing junk food diet that’s advertised on television, then there’s something “weird” about you, and there’s probably something wrong with your baby, too. They will call the police and have you investigated.” Circumstances and cases such as these, should appeal to the society, especially families, because the issue at hand effects the youth. Deciding whether to raise children as strict dieters, or gluttonous eaters, is merely a parents decision; however, those who choose to follow a healthy lifestyle should not be punished, because their intentions are obviously not cruel.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.