Here's something I just wrote in another thread - and a poll. Please vote!
1) Reliable B12 info sources. They refer to veganhealth.org and related sites as a good source for info. This is confusing. While they agree with veganhealth.org that more studies are needed on possible vegan B12 sources, they disagree (at least publicly, currently) with the owner of veganhealth.org in a couple of essential topics like how much B12 we need and what the best way to test B12 in humans is.
2) Best B12 markers. They claim that the homocysteine test is the best way to test active B12 levels in humans bodies, and fail to mention that many experts disagree. Many insist that MMA tests - although they are also still being discussed - are more reliable, and some claim that a MMA test currently is the only test that should be relied upon as a B12 marker. Homocysteine can be influenced by much more than just B12, and is therefore disputable as a reliable B12 marker. But this isn't really about who is right and who is wrong: it's about letting their readers know that most experts insist that there is too little research on this, and that they only represent one of several, possible ways to look at B12/Hcy situation.
3) Treating symptoms? We know that taking vitamin supplements will lower homocysteine levels in the body, and that's not at all a bad thing - sometimes that's all a human needs. But there's an ongoing discussion - especially related to heart disease - if reducing the homocysteine levels as such will make us 'safe', and solve problems associated with high homocysteine levels. Maybe high Hcy sometimes is a symptom, and not a cause. Vegan Society's literature can create a false impression that as long as the Hcy levels go down, we should be happy - but - particularly when it comes to heart disease - there's a lot more to it than this.
4) Many ways to lower homocysteine. They definitely fail to emphasize the many nutrients and other factors which may be used to lower homocysteine levels. There are many ways to deal with high homocysteine levels in the body, but a small group of people sticks out in this discussion, and present B12 as some kind of wonder pill. To avoid solutions that may be false 'cure all' methods is important - and not only when it comes to heart disease. Unfortunately, some of Vegan Society's info can be categorized in the relatively small 'wonder pill' group. All vegans deserve to get more info about the other ways to deal with high homocysteine, especially in literature for vegans about homocysteine.
5) Cancer. Even if they won't, for some reason, focus on that many of the health problems associated with high-B12 diets, or that these problems actually may be associated with exactly that: the high B12 levels, they should IMO definitely mention the link between high B12 and prostate and esophageal cancer.
6) Be honest about disagreements about the homocysteine theory/studies - or tell people openly that they possibly could be wrong and that more research is needed. The homocysteine theory they promote, was considered controversial when it was presented - and not something commonly agreed upon when they published their book either. Although a number of new reports now suggest that the theory doesn't hold water, more research is needed. Some of the newest reports that more or less declare the heart/Hcy theory dead, but these studies may need to be verified as well. More studies will come, but if something is a little on the controversial side, they should let people know. If they inform about these disagreements, they are also more 'safe' if it shows up that their info is wrong.
7) Fail to inform about the disagreement re. B12 in some plants. It doesn't help their own cause to not mention that there are well respected sources out there who insist that useful B12 can be found in some plants. They don't need to even agree in these people's conclusions, but if they fail to properly mention that there may be reliable, plant based B12 sources out there, they push people away. If it shows up that these researchers are right - they have pushed people away for no valid reason at all.
8) They even disagree with themselves about B12 and plants. They claim on their site that they know that there are no reliable plant sources of B12 - which should suggest that no further studies are needed. In their book they write something else. This is confusing for their readers. And when they write that vegans generally get enough B12 to avoid anemia, they don't talk about vegans who take supplements. If vegans generally would get enough B12 to avoid anemia - where do they get it from? Are they refering to eg. these studies, when they discuss B12 sources in vegan food? More clarity would be good, and they shouldn't write that most vegans get enough B12 to avoid anemia without documenting it - which I doubt they can, since I don't think sufficient studies exist.
9) 3 mcg enough? Many also ask why they write "Alternatively a supplement can be provided. Daily amount: 3 micrograms" if they think that a daily 3 mcg B12 tablet isn't a good solution. Their book also suggests 3 mcg daily. There's no link in this text to other info suggesting that they think we should take multiple 3 mcg pills daily.
While most nations suggest that between one and three mcg B12 daily is enough, and sources suggest that this already is enough to compensate for the fact that not all consumed B12 is absorbed, Vegan Society suggests 10 mcg daily (if one should take one pill) elsewhere on their site. They should IMO focus a lot more on why they think the UK government and all other governments see it differently - in the same text where they state "Daily amount: 3mcg".
10) They seem to have forgotten that one minus one is zero. If people get some B12 from their vegan or non-vegan diet, but are exposed to all kinds of stuff which reduces/destroys or prohibits absorption of this B12, the result may be zero B12 absorption. This is very important - both for people who rely on supplements, and particularly important for eg. those who unfortunately assume that they'll get B12 from not washing their plants or by eating some random seaweed products. If plants would contain the small B12 amounts some sources claim they do, these small amounts probably wouldn't be enough if the amounts are destroyed by all those factors that Vegan Society barely mentions.
11) The megadose dilemma. In addition to the general concern about allergic reactions against B12, the cancer dilemma and other reasons - it's important to mention, clearly, that too much B12 isn't good. I've seen vegans who think that taking 1000 mcg daily, every day, means 'to be on the safe side'. With more info, Vegan Society could prevent problems people would get from such high amounts.
12) The unforgivable one. It's important that they provide vegans with info about what they need to pay attention to in order to remain healthy. But if they don't - in parallel - consistently mention how non-vegans' health are, how they do it in studies regarding nutrient deficiencies and much more, their visitors will get a very unbalanced impression about vegan nutrition. It will look like we - unlike them - need to do a lot to avoid getting sick, while studies show that we are doing really well. To not focus on this crucial topic is rather unforgivable.
I don't have any opinion eg. about how much they should recommend daily. Maybe we all need 100 mcg B12 daily in the future - so again - my point isn't who is right and who is wrong. It's about how this information is presented.
Bookmarks