"Microorganisms, primarily bacteria, are the only known organisms that manufacture B12. These bacteria often live in bodies of water and soil. Animals get B12 by eating food and soil contaminated with these microorganisms."
The reason we don't get B12 from soil and water is because we don't eat soil regularly (we wash our produce) and we don't drink untreated water directly from lakes and ponds.
In a natural world we'd get our B12 the same way the cow, pig, bird and fish do.
Who ever stated that small amounts of lean meat and fish in a whole foods diet results in greater morbidity and mortality?
The problem is the Standard American Diet that we've been exposed to (and probably consumed) most of our lives has damaged our health. To reverse the damage, a very strict cleansing diet is required.
The only diet that's been proven in several studies (not funded by food industries) to reverse heart disease and type 2 diabetes, and prevent/reverse progression of cancer is a whole foods plant-based diet with calories from fat kept below 15% (10% being ideal).
I had cancer, so I'm very strict in my diet. If I had heart disease or type 2 diabetes, I'd be just as strict. If your cholesterol is regularly above 150 or your blood pressure is regularly above 140/90, there's a strong chance you have heart disease. 35% of heart attacks occur in people whose cholesterol levels are between 150 and 200. In the decades-long Framingham Heart Study no one has yet had a heart attack with levels below 150.
If you have no heart disease, diabetes, cancer or other chronic lifestyle-induced diseases, then you can eat small amounts of meats/fish (though if I did, I'd only eat wild cold water fish and free range meats ordered in advance from a small organic farm).
But if you've eaten significant quantities of refined sugars, refined flour, fried foods, factory farmed meats, fish high on the food chain, and dairy products for more than a decade of your life, you have internal damage that needs to be reversed for optimal health, and reversal is not as easy as prevention (hence the saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."). Moderation won't do it.
The milk of other mammals is not designed for consumption by their own young past a certain age, much less for consumption by children or adults of other species. We don't drink human breast milk after a certain age, yet we somehow think it's healthy to drink the milk of another species and to create addictive high fat products from it. With enough $$$ and insidious USDA influence, corporate America can sell the sheeple just about anything.
Quote from macho grande:
The longest lived populations are not vegans, but those that include adequate meat/fish (Okinawan) in their diet.
Ask yourself where are all the vegan centenarians? It's the perfect way to eat so where are they??
[/B]
The long-lived Okinawans traditional diet was calorie-restricted (proven in study after study on mammals, including primates, to increase longevity in and of itself) and consisted mainly of vegetables (70% sweet potatoes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17986602
The recent generations of Okinawans eating a Western-style diet of nutritionally-void calorie bombs are developing the same chronic diseases that plague the majority of people who eat such a diet.
http://www.helium.com/items/1830610-dietary-influences-on-longevity-in-okinawa
Nutritionist Jeff Novick puts vegan/healthy in perspective in this blog post:
"Yes, there are no vegan populations. Most all long lived populations live on a plant based diet and the animal products are more like a condiment, usually only a small % of total calories. No long lived population lives on an animal based diet.
But, I don't see the hang up with this though it seems to get much attention.
Clearly, a small amount of animal protein/products has not killed anyone. We know that. If someone includes it or not is not an issue in regard to long life and health. Maybe in regard to their "philosophy" but not in regard to what we known from science. I never argue against that or even see that as an issue or the issue.
But as I stated, veganism is a philosophy that includes some dietary restrictions but veganism is not a guide to dietary excellence. Veganism tells you what someone does not eat, not what they do eat. However, those who are trying to follow an optimal diet can choose to be vegans. To me, that is a philosophical choice.
While I can not speak directly for anyone else, Dr McDougall (and Dr Fuhrman, Dr Ornish, Pritikin, etc) do not promote a vegan diet, but variations of a plant based diet. I do not think any of them will tell you that being vegan (in regard to this above discussion) is more important that following their overall guidelines. Dr Mcd's promotes a starch based diet with the addition of colored vegetables and fruits.
But, that is not the question. The question is, do people "benefit" from animal products. Benefiting is different than just "including" or "getting away with". Clearly, people can include some small amount of animal products and not be hurt by it and/or get away with it, but that does not prove in anyway that they benefit from it.
I do agree with you in regard to casein and dairy products, but I would not separate out the casein. I would easily say dairy products are the one food I would eliminate from the food supply, if I could. The implications of dairy are far reaching and effect many if not most all people who consume it.
However, I do not see the same implication for intact whole grains, though clearly, for those who are gluten intolerant, it is an issue, but only for the gluten containing grains."
