Infamous Italian politician Elvira Savino’s recently drafted proposal whipped up quite a controversy. On the surface, the entire idea seems ridiculous. Banning veganism, an entire way of life, on the grounds of negative stigma or a common Italian’s love for cheeses and meats seems unnecessary. But a careful examination of the facts may prove otherwise.
In July, a one year old on a vegan diet in Milan was taken to the hospital and found to be severely malnourished. He weighed as much as the average 3 month old, attained low calcium levels, and had a congenital heart condition. Shortly after, the parents lost custody of the child. While two similar high profile cases had risen in the months before, this wasn’t the first time the credibility of the vegan lifestyle had come under inspection.
Crown Shakur, a child native to Atlanta died at a very young age, weighing only 3.5 pounds. His parents, who had only fed him apple juice and soy milk for six years, were charged of involuntary manslaughter and cruelty. The decade old New York Times article “Death by Veganism” denounces the lifestyle, saying “children fed only plants will not get the precious things they need to live and grow,“ which strongly mirrors the language used by Savino in his law, which describes veganism as “devoid of elements essential for healthy and balanced growth.” And according to the op-ed, plants and soy are “inferior in quality” in terms of protein, and that the lack of Vitamin A, D, E and B-12, as well as calcium and zinc, which causes “retarded growth, rickets and nerve damage.”
Despite instances of malnutrition that have sprung up, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics described veganism as safe as long as the diet is “thoughtfully planned out.” A developing child may not be able to survive on the nutrient intake of an adult vegan, but can certainly survive with appropriate supplements and iron, calcium, and Vitamin B12 fortified foods. The organization has made it very clear that veganism is a viable option for children, as long as it is done right. So Savino’s drastic 1-year sentence for these type of parents and 4-year sentence for those whose kids develop a serious health problem seem misinformed and misdirected. Couldn’t better public health education solve the problem just as effectively? To answer this question, let’s look at a parallel example.
If a vegan lifestyle leading to malnourishment becomes child abuse under this law (if it passes), then why shouldn’t an omnivorous lifestyle leading to obesity be deemed child abuse as well? After all, a child is a product of his or her environment; even with genetic factors controlled, certain lifestyles correlate with higher levels of obesity than others. Examining the long term effects of malnutrition versus obesity in children, it is clear that both have serious consequences. A malnourished kid may have stunted growth, a lower IQ and lackluster social skills while an obese kid may grow up and suffer from coronary heart disease, Type II diabetes, and hypertension. Countless individuals have been hospitalized due to these conditions, yet only a couple malnourishment cases have already pushed an Italian lawmaker to action.
Is this because malnourishment manifests itself a lot earlier in children than obesity does? Or is it because as a society, we have become too complacent with obesity? After all, public health efforts in the US have at best kept obesity levels constant. Radical proposals aimed at controlling obesity would be ridiculed and gunned down by the public before they even left the author’s desk. With modifications, Savino's proposal may actually be effective in helping malnourished children. And before knocking his intellect, Americans should take a good look at their own health problem.
