Ffs, the page you linked: "This Position was approved in January 2025 and will remain in effect until December 31, 2032"
And the page about childhood nutrition: "This position is in effect until December 31, 2025."
Everything that I've cited is still in effect. Seriously, are you delusional?
Dude, the first article I quoted is literally from the exact link you sent, and the second article I quoted comes from this link that you just sent now, which is where I found it in the first place. Also, you keep talking about the old paper "expiring." You know they have to explicitly state when removals are made, and why they're made, right? Here is from the page about it:
"This article has been removed at the request of the Academy Positions Committee (APC) of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The APC became aware of inaccuracies and omissions in the position paper that could affect recommendations and conclusions within the paper. After further review, the APC decided it was appropriate to remove this paper for major revision."
So as you say, unless removed, everything on that page is still considered valid - including everything I quoted. Seriously, just stop. This is getting ridiculous.
You cannot draw that conclusion from that one article, particularly when the article says explicitly, "... and is outside the scope of this Position Paper." Presumably they either have, or will be, writing more specific guidelines for children and pregnant women on plant-based diets, but so far this is what I've found on their paper on nutrition benchmarks for children:
"Some children may also require dietary modifications for certain cultural or religious preferences, including vegetarian diets,4 which may also have added benefits. A recent study of one child-care center in South Carolina found that adding vegetarian meals to the menu improved the nutrient content of foods provided while keeping total energy, saturated fat, sodium, and cholesterol relatively low.11"
To read that paper and infer that it's claiming plant-based diets are unsafe for children and pregnant women requires such a thick degree of bias it's just desperate. Especially in the context of every other health authority around the world affirming that a properly implemented plant-based diet is safe and adequate for all stages of life. You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you're trying so hard to lie about this.
Where does it say that?
If anything I want to try going as quiet as possible. I find deeper tones more pleasant than sharp ones, but overall I still want the least noise I can get.
And it also discussed benefits, such as lower risk of certain diseases.
Even the new paper (the very one you linked to) says that the subject of pregnant women and people under the age of 18 are simply out of the scope of the paper. To interpret that as meaning in anyway that they're saying people need to eat animal products to be healthy is factually incorrect.
"This Position Paper addresses vege- tarian dietary patterns in adults aged 18 years or older who are not pregnant or lactating. Facilitating vegetarian di- etary patterns in individuals younger than age 18 years and/or for those pregnant or lactating requires specific guidance that considers how vege- tarian dietary patterns may influence these crucial stages of growth and development and is outside the scope of this Position Paper. The target audi- ence for this article is RDNs, NDTRs, and other health care practitioners."
Not a single comment with an ideal alternative, despite best efforts. We need a fediverse Amazon alternative. 😞
Wage stagnation is absolutely heartbreaking.
But even if I were making a livable wage, Nintendo's prices and other AAA are still ridiculous. The Steam wishlist sale life is the good life.
It's not really individual approaches that my comment is about. I was a cashier in a state where they had banned single use bags, and that seemed to make things worse. Instead of thin single-use plastic bags getting everywhere, there are now nearly as many thicker multi-use usually plastic bags being treated like single-use ones and also getting everywhere. My point was that it's a system that needs more circularity.
Dude, the expired paper doesn't matter. It has no relevance. And what do you think dietary authorities around the world are doing, just blindly parroting this one organization? No, they follow their own processes, use their own research, and come to their own conclusions based on what they consider to be the best available evidence.
Like, what are you even trying to accomplish here? You're going so far out of your way just to miss the point, to what, feel like you've won even some tiny crumb of an argument? Get your priorities straight.