Vilifying vegans
I have seen countless versions of this headline over the past week, declarations that a couple who happen to be vegan have been sentenced in the death of their baby. The baby’s death could be attributed to the parents’ cluelessness about nutrition much more than it could be to their veganism, but the ‘vegan’ tag is what’s making the news. Are these headlines sensationalism? Irresponsible journalism? Just reporting the facts?
While diet is arguably relevant in a case where a child dies of malnutrition, the ‘vegan’ label oversimplifies things a lot. First of all, the vast majority of parents in cases of child abuse are omnivores, yet you never see that pointed out in a headline. Secondly, there are plenty of healthy children being raised by vegans. This case is quite clearly the exception, not the rule. And exceptions do make for interesting headlines.
Several other bloggers have commented on this case:
- VeggieDude points out that the baby’s diet wasn’t even vegan.
- A Humble Jedi responds with a quote from an op-ed piece on the subject.
- Herbivore illustrates how vegan children can be happy and healthy with some photos.
- And on the other side of the fence, a low-carb diet fanatic sees this article as further proof that vegans are stupid. I’m not going to dignify that one with a link.
What do you think about this story and the headlines?
I still think it’s more irresponsible that the couple is using their veganism as a justification for their malnourishment of their child than I am irritated by typical journalistic shorthand… Though the Common Voice article is just using the stories as fodder for its author’s own agenda.
It would be almost silly, even if more accurate, to add appropriate qualifiers to the headline such as “Ostensibly vegan couple” (they were simply irresponsible “vegans,” and it still doesn’t remove the focus on their diet) or “couple that used vegan diet to justify child abuse sentenced” (too long for most print headlines except for major stories). I’d prefer the latter headline to the typical “vegan couple sentenced” but it really only works on web-only media where there’s no physical balancing act. When I did some newspaper writing and editing many years ago, the editing process often compromised completeness in exchange for space to put something else.
It’s certainly possible for a baby to get enough nutrition from vegan sources, especially if breastfeeding was part of the picture, and it’s a reasonable expectation that parents of any dietary habit should take responsibility for recognizing their child’s poor health and deal with it by any means possible.
Very few of the journalistic stories on this actually blame the vegan diet as the source of the problem. The couple could have been rabidly South Beach or Atkins or whatever and it wouldn’t excuse their detachment from the health conditions of their child.
That Common Voice piece is intentionally inflammatory (the author says as much) and it isn’t a news story; it’s just a clumsy opinion piece. It’s mostly unworthy of attention.
I have been a vegetarian for 16 years…three of which I have been a vegan. I was so mad at the lack of follow-up on the story about that poor baby. Why weren’t any experienced parents and knowledgeable practicing vegans allowed to give their take on the issue. The story may have been just another “news piece”, but it still made being a vegan seem like an eccentric, rather than purposeful, life choice. Thank you for giving this story the attention it deserves!