http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050221/full/050221-5.html
Meat is a vital part of a child’s diet, according to a two-year study of Kenyan schoolkids. Without it, children grow up smaller, less strong and less intelligent, the results suggest.
Bad news for vegetarians, huh? So I read the details:
News
Published online: 22 February 2005; | doi:10.1038/news050221-5
Meat diet boosts kids’ growth
Michael Hopkin
Bringing up children as vegans is unethical, claims nutritionist.Meat contains important micronutrients.
© Getty Images
Meat is a vital part of a child’s diet, according to a two-year study of Kenyan schoolkids. Without it, children grow up smaller, less strong and less intelligent, the results suggest.
So clear are the benefits, in fact, that denying children meat or dairy products in the first few years of life is unethical, argues Lindsay Allen of the University of California, Davis, who carried out the research.
The 544 children in the study, who had an average age of seven years, were given two spoonfuls (about 60 grams) of minced beef each day to supplement their ordinary diet. Other groups were given a cup of milk, an equivalent amount of energy as vegetable oil, or no supplement at all.
Meat and other animal products such as milk contain nutrients that it is difficult to get elsewhere, Allen told the meeting. She pointed out that Kenyans’ diet often consists mainly of starchy, low-nutrition corn and beans that lack sufficient iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamins A, E and B12.
Why the real conclusion of this study isn’t “already malnourished children do better with added meat than they do with dumping more crap on them,” I have no idea.
Edit: Ah crap, it’s worse than I thought. Looks like the media totally misinterepted the study:
There has been an evolution in our understanding of the causes of undernutrition and of the nutrition intervention programs that should be prioritized. This article discusses why nutrition programs have shifted their primary emphasis from control of protein deficiency, to energy deficiency, and now to micronutrient deficiencies. It has become recognized by the nutrition community that micronutrient malnutrition is very widespread, and is probably the main nutritional problem in the world. The most commonly used strategies for micronutrient deficiency control are supplementation and fortification, because they are cost-effective and to some extent, relatively easy to deliver. They have important limitations, however. Relatively little emphasis has been placed on food-based approaches to control micronutrient malnutrition. Evidence from several past studies, including the Nutrition Collaborative Research Support Program (N-CRSP), indicated a strong pos. association between animal source food (ASF) intake, micronutrient status, and many human functions. This association motivated the intervention studies supported by the Global Livestock CRSP and described in this supplement, which found benefits of increasing ASF intake. In contrast to the common assumption that increasing consumption of ASF in poor communities is infeasible, and will only cause environmental problems, the articles in this supplement show the potential economic benefits of animal ownership in poor communities, and provide examples of innovative programs that have increased local production and consumption. Much more communication is needed among the nutrition, agriculture and development communities to achieve improved dietary quality for poor populations.
So in other words, “malnutrition policies should focus on this thing, not this other thing.” But in actuality, it’ll make the rounds as “vegan bad for you.” Bleagh.