Reply to Adams, Donovan, and Gaard and Gruen Author(S): Kathryn Paxton George Source: Signs, Vol

Home , Greta Gaard

Reply to Adams, Donovan, and Gaard and Gruen Author(s): Kathryn Paxton George Source: Signs, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 242-260 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3175144 . Accessed: 19/11/2013 11:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Signs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Replyto Adams,Donovan, and Gaard and Gruen

Kathryn Paxton George

Marianneseemed much struck.... "Four months!- and yetyou loved him!"-"Yes. ButI did notlove only him." (JANEAUSTEN, Sense and Sensibility [(1811) 1990])

r H AVE A S K E D a question,and the answer I giveis unorthodox. JEach ofthose who here with answerattacks moral disagrees my my characterand thenclaims that my arguments are suspect. In ethics, theassumption seems to be thatan "immoral"opponent can have nothingcorrect to say.But if my moral character is deficient,my actions areto be judgedgood or bad on thebasis of independent considerations, thatis, on argumentsabout whether ethical vegetarianism is required or thevegan ideal is to be admired.Simple assertions, unsupported claims, and ad feminumappeals do notadvance resolution of the issues. Fortu- nately,some of mycritics have made efforts to readthe research and to respondto myarguments with arguments of theirown; someof their complaintsabout some issuesI could not coverin my Signsarticle (1994c) are importantconcerns. I shallanswer these. My critics'arguments still do not underminemy philosophical con- clusionthat the ethical vegetarian ideal discriminatesagainst children, women,the aged, and thosein economicallyless well offclasses and environmentallynonindustrialized circumstances. To demonstratethat claim,I firstwill reviewin skeletalform the argument of my"Should FeministsBe Vegetarians?"To an extent,the critics' comments indicate a needfor greater clarity on mypart. Therefore, I have restated the argumentin alternativebut essentially equivalent phrasing in hopesof eluci- datingthe connections of ideas that forced me to theconclusion I reach. Then,I shallrestate the critics' charges against my arguments. Finally, I shallexplain why their charges do notstand up to scrutiny.I shall leave it to readersto decideabout my character.

[Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1995, vol. 21, no. 1] ? 1995 by KathrynPaxton George. All rightsreserved.

242 SIGNS Autumn 1995

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPLY George

The question I address in my article is more completelyphrased, "Should feministsbe vegetarianson moral grounds?"My argumentin answer to that question blends factualconsiderations and certainvalue assumptions.Facts should not be considered "value-free,"but when properlysupported, facts are not whollyvalue-dependent either. Among the facts: Al. Scientificinquiry shows thatthe bodies of women,in general,differ significantlyfrom the bodies of men in theirrequirements for key vitaminsand minerals,particularly iron, calcium, zinc, vitamin B12, and vitaminD.1 Moreover,these differences vary with a woman's reproductivestatus, age, and health (National Research Council 1989; Instituteof Medicine 1990, 1991). A2. Likewise,research shows that the bodies of childrenand the old differfrom those of adults (Jacobs and Dwyer 1988; National ResearchCouncil 1989; Dwyer 1993a). A3. Some significantdifferences in geneticinheritance of some lines of humans ("races" and ethnicities)have been detectedthat affect absorptionof theseand otherkey nutrients(Patlak 1993). A4. Whole foods are the best sources for obtaining key nutrients (Wardlaw and Insel 1993). A5. Vegan and lacto-ovovegetariandiets are safe in industrializedcon- texts because of food abundance, variety,availability and fortification; unsupplementedvegan and vegetariandiets bar significant sources of iron, calcium,zinc, vitaminD and B12 nutrientsfrom availabilitythrough the diet, as shown by case presentationsand studiesof vegan and vegetarianchildren and women on such unsupplementeddiets (Dwyer 1991; Dwyer and Loew 1994). A6. Supplementsare partiallyeffective in replacingnutrients not available in thediet and in relievingand preventingvitamin and mineral

1 VitaminD is manufacturedby the body on exposureto ultravioletlight, and the vitaminD requirementcan be met if the skin is adequatelyexposed to sunlightor artifi- cial ultravioletlight of the correctwavelength (National ResearchCouncil 1989). Lati- tude, season, skin pigmentation,age, generalhealth, and culturalpractices affect vitamin D synthesis.Smith reports that "wintersunlight in northernlatitudes is useless forthe productionof vitaminD.... Thus, in Boston (at 42? North...) exposure of the skin to such sunlightas existswill not resultin any synthesisof vitaminD frombetween about 1st Novemberto 1st March, and in Glasgow (56? North...) mattersmust be far worse" (1990, 900). Women in some culturescover nearlyevery part of theirbodies even in warm weather;the aged and the ill oftenspend nearlyall of theirtime indoors. People with darkerskin need much longerexposures to lightto get the same degreeof synthesis as those with lighterskin (Clemens et al. 1982). With aging,the capacityfor skin synthesisof vitaminD declines,and Webb, Kline, and Holick 1988 reportthat "the capac- ityof skin to synthesizevitamin D3 in the elderlyis approximatelyhalf that of young people" (also cited in National ResearchCouncil 1989). Because so many factorsinter- act to limitskin synthesisof vitaminD, nutritionistsconsider vitamin D "an essential dietarynutrient" (National ResearchCouncil 1989; italicsadded).

Autumn 1995 SIGNS 243

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions George REPLY

deficiencies,but pills are not adequate substitutesfor food (Council on ScientificAffairs, American Medical Association1987). (More extensivecitations to supportthese factual claims appear in George 1994a, 1994b.) Some assumptionsor premisesare "mixed" in thatthe claim has a more significantvalue componentthan those labeled as "factual."Among the mixed claims: A7. Properlyconstructed studies of personswith apparentnutritional deficiencieshelp humans to understandthe natural processes of vitaminand mineraluptake. A8. Wheredietary intake is similar,if some groups,such as childrenor women,consistently exhibit deficiencies, whereas other groups do not, this patternis evidencefor physiological differences in mini- mum daily requirementsbetween or among the groups. A9. Reportsin clinicalnutrition show moredeficiencies among children than adults and in women than in men,where between the groups dietsare similar;these groups are sometimesreferred to as "nutritionallyvulnerable"; research shows thatadult males betweenthe ages of twentyand fiftyliving in industrializedcountries have the fewestnutritional problems on vegan and vegetariandiets (Dwyer and Loew 1994). Value assumptionsstated in my article: A10. Discriminationbased on age or genderis wrongfuland immoral; youngbodies are not morallymore ideal than older bodies; male bodies are not morallymore ideal than female bodies (prima facie).2 All. Requiring,by strengthof moral prohibition(on any acceptable theory,traditional or feminist),some personsof female,young, or older body typeto bear greatermoral and/or health burdens than persons of adult male body type is unfairand discriminatory (prima facie). A12. Virtuallyall feministand traditionalmoral argumentsfor ethical vegetarianismassume that the bodies of women and men, the youngand the old, are physiologicallyso similarthat any differences in nutritionalvulnerability among the groups is negligible forhealth and morality. A13. The vegan ideal is theview thatvegan and vegetarianways of life are morallybetter than ways of lifewhere meat and animal products are consumed; but the vegan ideal requiresa complex, in- dustrializedtechnology of agricultureand food science that is inconsistentwith environmental and ecofeministconcerns.

2 The claim is not axiomaticallyprima facie. Good argumentsand good reasonscan be givento supportthis claim and the one followingbut are not givenhere.

244 SIGNS Autumn 1995

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPLY George

A14. Grantingexcuses or exceptionsto women,children, and those of classes unable or less able to live as ethicalvegetarians relegates themto inferiormoral statusby nature. Fromthe above statementsone can see thata moralprescription to adopt vegan or even lacto-ovovegetariandiets violates assumptionsA10 and All if the claims A1-A9 and A12 are true,and we have good reason to thinkthat they are. Thus, the supportfor ethical vegetarianism is under- mined. Therefore,anyone who is apprisedof theseclaims and assentsto them and stillbelieves ethical vegetarianism is required,whether on traditional or feministgrounds, must reject assumptions A10 and All. But a tradi- tionalistcannot rejectthese assumptionsbecause to do so would be to rejectthe central canons of equityand impartialityupon whichtheir most importanttheories (rights or utilitarianism)are built. Feministscannot rejectassumptions A10 and All because caringabout and affirmingthe equal value of havinga femalebody or havinga child'sbody are central canons of all feministethics; feminists must object to anyethic that places greatermoral and healthburdens on women and childrenthan it does on adult males. The chargesagainst my argumentsare, in brief: C1. The nutritionalstudies cited are biased. C2. The nutritionalstudies cited are in dispute. C3. Other ecofeministreasons argue forethical vegetarianism; my ar- gumentssupport consumerist excess. C4. Animal-baseddiets include many risks; vegetarian diets are healthful. C5. My argumentscommit the "naturalisticfallacy." C6. The definitionof vegetarianused is incorrect. C7. No feministsargue for universalethical vegetarianism;my interpretationof Regan and Singeris incorrect,and feministsdo not base theirclaims on thesetraditional theories. C8. My discussion of feministethical theoryis incomplete,and my argumentsdo not includethe politicalimplications of food distribution,race, and class. Althoughother objections appear, I hope thatmy response to the above will redeemthe others. The most decisive attack on my argumentwould show that one or more of its premisesare false. Examiningthe above statementsshows that Al, A2, A3, and A4 are virtuallyunassailable because so much factualevidence has been accumulatedover the last centuryto support them.Let us assume thatno one wishes to abrogateA10 or All-or at least that you and I do not. StatementsA7 and A8 are foundational assumptionsin nutritionresearch. Below I provide an explanation of how a studyshould be "properlyconstructed" to minimizebias. Aside

Autumn 1995 SIGNS 245

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions George REPLY

fromexamining the studiescited for proper design, I have acceptedthese assumptionspragmatically; the criticspresent no objectionsto theseas- sumptions.Statements A5, A6, A9, A12, A13, and A14 remain,and thosewho are criticalof myarguments attack part or all of one or more of these six statements,3Nearly all criticsherein claim that the factual aspects of assumptionsA5, A6, and A9 are false or so biased as to be false,that A13 is implicitlyfalse, and thatA12 is truebut not objectionable because vegan and vegetariandiets are safe.Statement A14 seemsto be addressedonly tangentially,if at all. CriticismC1. Carol Adams (1995) appears to be saying that all nutritionalresearch is taintedby a Cartesian,male-dominated worldview; therefore,all conclusionsdrawn fromscientific studies are unreli- able. Alternatively,she could be makingthe weaker claim thatonly the researchI presentedin myarticle is biased in thisway. As she presentsno reason for supposingthat any of the researchersor any particularor generalstudy design held any special male bias or otherbias, I conclude she is makingthe former,stronger claim. But ifshe indictsall nutritional research,then she has no generalizablescientific knowledge about nutrition at all. In otherwords, if she cannot trustscience to assure her that some groupsare nutritionallyvulnerable and requireextra care, then she also cannot trustscience to assure her that vegan diets are safe in any context.She could stillclaim that one has a dutyto be an ethicalvegetarian.One possible groundwould be pacificismfounded on faiththat such a commitmentis rightno matterwhat the factsmay be. Greta Gaard and Lori Gruen (1995) and probablyAdams also bring up anotherkind of bias: feministphilosophers of science(Sandra Hard- ing,Evelyn Fox Keller,Donna Haraway,and others)have shownthat the perspectiveand values of womenhave been omittedfrom the structure of science.Exigencies of space did not permitme to addressthe questionat issuein thecontext of feministphilosophies of science,but concern about perspectiveand values are centralto my argument(see in particular George 1994c, 425). As Gaard and Gruenpoint out, male bias can enter scientificresearch on thelevels of who willconduct the research, who will be studied,the formulation of questionsfor study, assessing the adequacy of methods,and the interpretationof data. Notwithstandingany com- plaints about scientificresearch in general,good reasons exist to think that some types of nutritionalresearch tend toward a more feminist, feminine,or womanlyapproach to science.First, much of theresearch on deficiencieshas been done by women on women and children(see refer- ence list in George 1994c, and the bibliographiesof the nutritionalre-

3 Othersubsidiary assumptions and argumentsappear in thearticle. I inviteinter- estedinterlocutors to discover them and critiquethem.

246 SIGNS Autumn 1995

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPLY George views cited). Second, most of these women researchersare seniorscien- tistswho have designedtheir own studiesbased on theirown questions; theyare responsiblefor assessing the methodsand interpretingthe data. By contrast,studies on the benefitsof vegetariandiets (i.e., reductionin mortalityfrom coronary and ischemicheart disease, lower cancer rates, lower blood pressure;see Dwyer 1988) have largelybeen done on males by male scientists,and I have argued that these are unfairlybiased in assumingthat women (and children)will benefitequally (423-24). Bias may remainin the hierarchyof science,but would that be sufficient to negate all findingsof observeddeficiencies in infants,gestating and lactatingwomen, and othergroups? It would not. Althoughwomen studyingwomen would not absolutelyguarantee escaping a Cartesian scientificparadigm, two more considerationsargue for a reductionin such bias. First,feminists have argued that womanlyways of knowing and judgingthe world differfrom the moretypically masculine ways (see Harding 1991). These womanlyscientists would be at least as unlikelyto leave their unique interestsand ways of knowing outside the lab as masculinistscientists would be to leave theirpredominant worldview outside. Second, and most important,one should distinguisha philosophy of sciencefrom the aims of scientificmethod in studydesign. To say that science is prey to a Cartesian dualism is to claim that it operates undera falsephilosophy of science.The bias thusintroduced differs from what mightbe introducedby a faultystudy design. Because of prevailing philosophical, cultural, social, political, and scientificparadigms, all studiesare likelyto be subjectivelybiased, some worse than others.Can we say that all nutritionresearch is so biased by such paradigmsthat it has nothingtrue to tell us? No. And the criticshere present no evidence to supportsuch a claim. Objectionable or prejudicial bias could enterthrough study design. Procedures used to minimizebias in clinical studies are of relatively recentorigin in the historyof science. Some proceduresare specifically adopted to minimizeprejudice. In The Mismeasureof Man, StephenJay Gould (1981) relatesthat the methodof "blind" examinationof material fortesting was not necessarilystandard in the earlytwentieth century.4 Robert BennettBean was an influentialAmerican craniometrist whose main claim was thatblacks, women, and thoseof the "lower classes" are geneticallyless intelligentthan whitemales, based on comparativebrain measurements.In 1906, Bean publishedhis data. Aside fromthe faulty assumptionof directrelation between such measurementsand intelli- gence, Gould shows that Bean subtlymanipulated his data to get the

4 In thiscontext blind has an enablingconnotation and a technicalmeaning; using such a studydesign enables the scientistto minimizeany prejudicesshe may have; for those who findthe metaphoroffensive, I regretthat alternativeterms are not available.

Autumn 1995 SIGNS 247

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions George REPLY

resulthe expectedto prove.In 1909, FranklinMall repeatedBean's study, making"sure that he [Mall] did not knowwhich brains were from blacks and whichfrom whites until after he had measuredthem" (Gould 1981, 80; italicsin original).Mall foundno differencesamong the blacks and the whites.5 The primaryaims of studydesign are to ruleout bias as faras possible and to discovercausal relationshipsamong eventsin the world. Some designsyield better reliability than others(Giere 1991; Royall 1991; see Dwyer and Loew 1994 forreview of areas of bias in nutritionalstudy design). Their relativereliability, from most to least, is as follows: (1) double-blindtrials, (2) blind trials,(3) prospectivestudies, and (4) retrospectivestudies.6 All good studiesshould includea controlgroup. The firstthree types also use randomizedprocesses to selectand assign sub- jectsto theexperimental or controlgroups. Random selectionof subjects forstudy attempts to assure thatthe researcheris not gettinga groupof people or thingsthat exhibitsthe phenomenonin question more often thana largersample would. If a hypothesishas beentested and confirmed in studyafter study, then a causal relationshipis highlyprobable, even if a few experimentsdo not confirmthe hypothesis(see Copi and Cohen 1990; and Giere 1991). In humanclinical testing, ethical considerations oftenpreclude doing the mostreliable types of studies(Royall 1991). So prospectiveand retrospectivestudies are used, and manymore corrobo- rativereports and large samples increasethe reliabilityof the results. In their reports,scientists always review similar studies because a hypothesiscan only be testedin context.Review reports(such as Dwyer 1991) are oftenpublished to give scientists(and educatedothers) a sense of everythingthat has been done recentlythat is thoughtto contributeto knowledgeabout the problem.Reviews can be a good place fornonsci- entiststo look for a summaryof the most currentevidence about any particularproblem, but nonspecialistsshould realize theirprofessional

s See also Reid 1975 fora discussionof bias in Bean's work. 6 "A studyis blind if the subjectscannot tell whetherthey are in the experimentalor controlgroup.... A studyis called double-blindif the experimentersmaking the diag- nosis are also kept in the dark about which subjectsare in whichgroup" (Giere 1991, 253-54). Subjectsin the controlgroup are typicallygiven placebos (pills or procedures to matchwhat is done to the experimentalgroup) so that in everyoutward way each group is treatedthe same. Studiesshould be randomized.The studygroup is chosen froma randomsample of the whole populationof interest,and the sample membersare, in turn,randomly assigned to the experimentalgroup or to the controlgroup (Giere 1991, 227). Randomizationto each group is so standardthat it is sometimesassumed in reportsand may not be mentioned.It is usuallyreasonable to assume randomassign- mentto one group or the other,but it is always importantto look fora controlgroup. Other kinds of reportsare publishedthat are not studies,such as anecdotal reports (single-instancecase notes), reviewsof the literature,meta-analyses pooling data from severalstudies. Because of the likelihoodof confoundingfactors, meta-analyses have low reliability,but theyare sometimesused to propose a new hypothesisor buttressan old one so that furtherstudy may be encouraged.

248 SIGNS Autumn 1995

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPLY George

limitations.Every scientific discipline relies on specializedtesting procedures,each of which has its own relativereliability. For instance,nutrition studiesrely on excretionstudies of specificminerals such as calcium (in urine) and iron (in blood loss); reportsof daily food intakesover a specifictime period; the use of radiography,spectroscopy, and other instrumentsthat measure the uptake of vitaminsand mineralsinto the body; and manyother procedures, all offeringdifferent confidence levels forbelief. Attempting to analyze the meaningof particularstudies with- out a thoroughacquaintance with the methodologicalpitfalls of testing proceduresin a particularstudy area or withoutan understandingof the historicalcontext of the studiescan lead the untrainedreader into false assumptionsand conclusions.7 The media oftenmake muchof singlestudies that demonstrate simple correlationswith the tag that "furthertesting is required."Further con- firmationis needed to see whetherthe occurrencetogether of two events is significantlygreater than what could be expectedby chance. Innumer- able eventsoccur together,some of which are coincidentaland some of which are causally related. Even in causal relations,interactions and interveningsteps may mask the determiningcause.8 For moral arguments,a personmust know the factsbefore she can take theright action. One must be reasonablycertain that A causes (or does not cause) B.9 Requiringpeople to take moral action on the basis of sheerspeculation, simplecorrelation, anecdotal reports,poorly constructed studies, one or two disconfirmingreports in the face of othersubstantial confirmation, or hypothesisalone would oftenrequire taking contradictory and even harmfulactions. Past actionsbased on falsecorrelations include burning witchesand usingvarious kinds of "snake oil." Payingattention to studydesign does not guaranteea value-free,bias- freestudy. The designis intendedto minimizebias. When scientificevi- dence conflicts,as it often does, readers should study the conflicting reportsfor the reliabilityof the methodsused, the constructionof the experimentalgroup, the presenceof confoundingfactors, the likelihood

7 For thisreason I have had my scientificclaims in nutritionread and assessed for accuracy by threedifferent nutritionists. 8 Giere 1991 gives the examples that lung cancer is highlycorrelated with the use of ashtrays;if correlationwere as good as cause, one could conclude that ashtrayuse causes lung cancer.But it is the thirdfactor interacting with these-smoking-that is the real cause of lung cancer.Incidentally, these analogies are meantto illustratelogical con- cepts concerningcausality and should not be construedto be commentingon vegetarianism. I have purposelychosen otherexamples to avoid false implicationsby posited causal connections. 9 Absolutecertainty is not possible in inductiveor scientificreasoning about eventsin the world. It is always possible thatwe will findsome evidencethat dashes the best- warrantedbeliefs. To paraphraseDavid Hume, we have no certaintythat the sun will rise tomorrow.We mightfind out it will supernovainstead. But, of course,we are well warrantedin believingthat it will rise; it would be irrationalto believethat it will not, given all the evidencewe have to believethat it will.

Autumn 1995 SIGNS 249

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions George REPLY

of the resultsoccurring by chance (whetherresults are significant),the accuracy of statisticalanalyses, and so forth.Reading widely and in depth is the best way to assure yourselfthat you are gettingthe best all-things-consideredopinions. So, in lightof all of theways thatbias can enterresearch, do the researchreports that Gaard and Gruen bringup show thatmy assumptions A5 throughA9 are incorrect?No. Here's why. CriticismC2. As Gaard and Gruennote, deep disagreementsexist in the fieldof clinical nutritionabout necessarylevels and sources forcer- tain requirementssuch as calcium and iron. My argumentconcerns trade-offsbetween the productionof food supplementsin an industrialized food systemand the availabilityof adequate unsupplementeddiets. Nutritionaldisagreements do exist:Should premenopausalwomen, adolescents,and childrendrink milk or take calciumsupplements or both or neither?Will morecalcium help or be ineffective?Should we includemore supplementationor fortificationfor vitamins and mineralsin the diet,or are people alreadyusing too many?Such questionsare the basis foron- goingresearch, and at theedge of knowledgethere are no uncontroversial answers.But some factsare not in questionand theseare all I need formy argument;for example, that calcium is requiredfor skeletal growth and maintenance,that bone loss occursgradually after age thirty,that women have smallerskeletons than men,that many women of Asian and Euro- pean descenthave, on average,even smallerskeletons and are thusmore predisposedto osteoporosis,that calcium supplementation and milkcon- sumptiondo preventacceleration of bone loss. The questionis notwhether therecommended dietary allowances (RDAs) forcalcium are too high.The preponderanceof the controversycenters on how muchsupplementation and dietarysource calcium should be recommendedabove the RDA and, ultimately,whether the RDA should be increasedfor certain groups. The reason to cite thisresearch concerns whether one should be a vegan or a lacto-ovovegetarianin herparticular context. In fact,in citingthe Ameri- can DieteticAssociation's (ADA) 1993 report(Havala and Dwyer 1993), Gaard and Gruenconfirm rather than refute my claims about calciumand dairyproducts. They notethat "calcium deficiency in vegetariansis rare." Sincethe "vegetarians"referred to in theADA reportare milkconsumers, theirdiets have an abundantsupply of calcium. On the otherhand, re- searchshows thatthose who consumelower quantities or no dairyproducts have lower bone densities(Dawson-Hughes 1991; Hu et al. 1993). Similarly,with iron, scientists do not questionthe importanceof iron to pregnantwomen and infants;in largepart thatis the justificationfor fortifyingcereals, soy milk,and infantformulas with iron, as the source Gaard and Gruen cite confirms(Craig 1994, 1233S).10 In fact,Craig

10 Breast-feedingis the preferredsource of milkfor infants, with iron fortification comingthrough other foods that should be givenby age six months.

250 SIGNS Autumn 1995

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPLY George

(1994) repeatsagain and again his comparisonsbetween supplemented and unsupplementeddiets for children,noting that "the prevalenceof [iron deficiency]anemia in the United States has declinedover the past decade because of the increaseduse of iron-fortifiedfoods, the increased use of ironsupplements, the increased intake of vitaminC, and theuse of birth-controlpills" (1233S). In areas of our countrywhere infants do not get fortifiedformulas or cereals,studies show a muchhigher incidence of iron deficiencyin young children.In the United States,iron deficiency anemia in childrenis associated withsocioeconomic class. For example, Oski (1993) reportsa 19.7 percentincidence of irondeficiency and an 8.2 percentincidence of iron deficiencyanemia among inner-cityone-year- old infantswho did not receiveiron-fortified formula or foods. Infants fromthe same innercity who participatedin infantnutrition programs, such as WIC, had only a 1 percentincidence of iron deficiency.Craig's (1994) report,cited by Gaard and Gruen,that vegetarian infants are no more likelyto be iron deficientthan omnivorousinfants is nevertheless consistentwith Oski's report.Why? Craig's reportapplies to American and European vegans who follow a "well-balanceddiet," and that in- cludes consumingiron-fortified foods. In addition,most of the vegetarians studiedin the United States are middle-classand have more than adequate access to freshfruits and vegetablesand are well aware of the importanceof feedingiron-fortified formulas and cereals. The groups studieddo not live in circumstancesthat deprive them or theirchildren of such supplements,whereas those in Oski's (1993) studydo. Otherstudies confirmthe importanceof supplementationfor vegans and vegetarians, but as I show below,supplementation assumes a complex industrialized societyand its extensionto the restof the world. I thank Gaard and Gruen fortheir efforts to address the nutritional research,and I regardthem as makinga genuineeffort to understand.I see, though,that perhaps I have not been sufficientlyclear about why I presentedthe research.As I have said in myarticle (George 1994c, 425), theissue is not to warn about riskbut to illustratethe unwittingassump- tions some of us (I was among them)have made about the similarityof all human bodies to each other.In making these factual assumptions, many ethical vegetarians,whether on feministgrounds or traditional grounds,have boughtinto a moral argumentthat commits women, children,and the named othersto bearinggreater moral and healthburdens than adult males. That burdenis unfair.Nutritional studies illuminate importantdifferences in basic physiologicalneeds among these groups. So now, if anyonewishes to make moral judgmentsabout food practice, about what we should eat and why,from which of these perspectives shall she begin?The male?The female?The infant?The adolescent?Who is our ideal human?Why choose one and not the other?It seems clear thatwe cannotarbitrarily name any singleclass. Yes, in theUnited States

Autumn 1995 SIGNS 251

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions George REPLY

we can take supplements.But that factdoes not address my chargesof ageism, sexism,or culturalbias. For even if it is not too riskyfor an infant,child, adolescent, pregnant, lactating, perimenopausal, postmeno- pausal, or elderlyfemale to be a veganor vegetarianin the industrialized West,that judgment will surelybe made froma male-biasedperspective of assumingthat all thosewomen, children, and seniorscan fix,mend, or correcttheir imperfect bodies as necessary(by supplementation,fortified foods, or eatingin special ways) to meeta vegan ideal thatis much less burdensomefor men. Simplybecause risk may be equalized does not mean that burdens are equalized. For instance,iron supplementsare expensive,are best prescribedby a physicianto avoid overdose, are usually not covered by insurance,and add to one's psychologicaland physicalburdens. They oftencause constipationin thosewho use them, and theyare a frequentcause of poisoningsin youngchildren (Herbert and Subak-Sharpe1990).11 Ifthe adult wealthy male is not theparadigm, thenthe benchmarkfor the assessmentof riskwill be different.If women's bodies, or children'sbodies, are benchmarksinstead, then different kindsof assumptionswould be made, and thesewill affecthow we think about our bodies and our food. As I argue elsewhere(George 1994a), a valid contextualethic requires individualized assessments rather than any generalizedbenchmark. CriticismsC3 and C4. Gaard and Gruenquite rightlypoint out that the statusquo in fleshconsumption by Westernnations is excessiveand destructive.In the beginningof my articleI condemncurrent practices and throughoutI advocateeating in a patternconsistent with basic needs. Because I do not argue for "animal-baseddiets," but only for largely vegetarianor "semivegetarian"practices that include only small amounts of animal productsand fleshdepending on context,a long expositionon the health evils of eating too much meat was not of centralrelevance. Takingmy work as a whole and fromcomments within my Signs article, it should be clear thatI agree thatvegan and vegetariandiets are safe in Westernnations when individuals have access to education,medical care, and sufficientresources to buy properfoods.12 Unfortunately, in a single journal article,space limitationsprecluded anything beyond mentioning these points. My criticsclaim familiaritywith my otherwork fromthe

11"Since 1986, more than 110,000 children have been poisoned by iron supplements or iron-containingmultivitamins. More than 30 havedied, some after swallowing as few as fivetablets" (Center for Science in thePublic Interest 1994, 3; italicsin original). 12 Donovansuggests that I claima linkbetween vegetarianism and cancer,but in factI statein severalplaces that vegetarians in theUnited States have a lowerincidence ofcancer (George 1994c, 423, 424, n. 39). Nothingabout the analogy of harm from smokinglogically suggests similar probability for harm from unsupplemented vegan diets.Relative probability is determined by reliability of studydesign and consistencyof confirmationof results (see Giere1991 and myresponse to criticismC1).

252 SIGNS Autumn 1995

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPLY George

Journalof Agriculturaland EnvironmentalEthics (George 1990, 1992, 1994b, 1994d), some of whichis citedin myarticle and repeatedhere.13 In thatseries I linkmy argumentswith environmental concerns (see esp. 1994b, 1994d). In my Signs article,I was able to touch on myconcerns onlybriefly, and theseappear as claim A13 (1994c, 427). Vegan and vegetariandiets pose less riskin our culturelargely because of our industrialized food system-a systemthat also includesagricultural and environmental practicesinconsistent with ecofeministaims. The industrialized food systemhas alleviatedhuman sufferingon one hand and caused en- vironmentaldamage on the other.Much of our food is highlyprocessed and fortified.Vitamin D is added to milkand is perhapsthe singlemost importantfactor in thereduction of the incidence of ricketsin childrenand osteomalaciain womenand adolescents.14History shows that it is simply falsethat traditional diets in "obligatoryvegan cultures"are primafacie healthful,although many indigenous recipes do containnutritional knowledge that is being lost in Westernization.Clinicians continue to bring supplementsto cureberiberi, pellagra, rickets, scurvy, kwashiorkor, megaloblasticanemia, and irondeficiency in themany parts of theworld where these deficienciesare endemic (Scrimshaw1990).15 Althoughcommon earlierin thiscentury, these diseases are now rarein theWest, but they are stillregularly reported in the internationalmedical literature. Americans are so well-fedthat we take it forgranted that our foods will protectus againstthese diseases, but thatprotection depends on food preservation, transportation,fortification, variety, and plenty. Many nutritionistsbelieve that vegans in "developing"countries have a poor healthstatus attributable to "environmentalfactors (such as lack of medicalcare, vaccination, education and sanitation)rather than solely to diet" (Dwyer and Loew 1994, 88). That is, ifwe could improvethose

13 Donovan statesthat I do not mentionthe seriesof articlesconcerning my prior work, but in factI do. Referencesappear as "George 1992" and "George 1994." Any- one who consultsthem will findthe whole seriesof expositionsand replies. 14 Sandersand Reddy 1994, a source cited by Gaard and Gruen,reviewed the litera- tureon Asian vegetarianimmigrants in the UnitedKingdom. They note that "the Asian vegetarianpopulation has a higherincidence of iron-deficiencyanemia comparedwith the generalpopulation.... A prevalenceas highas 40% (hemoglobin< 110 g/L)was foundin Asian infantsaged 22 mo.... The incidenceof megaloblasticanemia resulting fromcombined vitamin B12 and folatedeficiency in Asian vegetariansis threetimes higherthan the UK national average.... 30% of Asian childrenhad clinicalrickets comparedwith 4% of white [sic] children"(S1177-S1178). S1Although whole foods offerthe best nutrition,some areas of the world simply cannot grow or toleratethe introductionof thesefoods grownlocally. The introduction of cattleto Africahas accelerateddesertification, and monocropped,chemical, and mechanizedagriculture has disenfranchisedmillions of peasants around the world (Lappe 1982; Durningand Brough 1991). Some conditionsof deficiencyhave been broughtabout by Westernization,but it would be a mistaketo assume that traditional recipesare automaticallybalanced to cope withlong-term vegan requirements.Space limitationspreclude further documentation and discussionof these importantconcerns.

Autumn 1995 SIGNS 253

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions George REPLY

conditionsto the level we have in the United States,then vegan diets would constitutelittle risk in those places, too. We mightconclude that therisks would thenbe equalized (althoughburdens would not be equalized) among the sexes and ages, at least in theory.My point is that exportingsafe vegan or vegetariandiets to the rest of the developing world requiresexporting our food systemwith its fortificationof cereals and other foods, processing of foods like egg substitutes,calcium- fortifiedsoy products,and so forth.But fortificationand food processing presuppose a complex, industrializedfood system,with researchbio- chemistry,food-processing plants, mines to producesupplements, quality- controlbureaucracies, food-preservation techniques, refrigeration, ship- ping,and perhapseven chemical-dependentagriculture. All of theseas- pects of our food systemshave environmentalconsequences, many or mostof whichare at odds withecofeminist ideals. If one arguesthat these institutionsshould be reduced,eliminated, or radicallyaltered as seems to be implied in many ecofeministarguments, then a returnto whole foods and unsupplementedor less supplementeddiets is impliedor may be a corollary.Eliminating or downscaling the industrializedfood- productionprocess may mean thatcereals and infantformulas may not be iron fortified,milk may not have vitaminD added (if dairyis consumed), soy milkmay not be calcium fortified,and vitaminB12 may be unavailable for vegans. Such circumstanceswould place even greater burdenson women,children, and otherscited in myarticle unless diet is adjusted to personal physiologyand consumptionof animal fleshand animal productscontinues in moderation.If diet is adjustedto personal physiologywith no particularassumptions about whose body is ideal, thenthe duty,obligation, or responsibilityto practicevegetarianism be- comes a privatedecision. Thus, deindustrializationof agricultureand the scientificfood-production process suggests that at least some animal agricultureand fishingshould be maintainedto assure that infants,children, adolescents,the elderly,and pregnantand lactatingwomen have good sourcesof iron,zinc, and vitaminB12 (meat/fleshof animals),calcium and B12 (dairy),vitamin D (eggsand fattyfish). And as I have said, even an industrializedfood systemplaces discriminatoryburdens on thesegroups, despite mitigation by supplementation.16 CriticismCS. JosephineDonovan (1995) assertsthat my arguments committhe "naturalisticfallacy." She offersno explanationor support 16 In the supplementissue to the AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition,cited by Gaard and Gruen,Joan Dye Gussow arguesthat agriculturalsustainability requires con- tinuationof animal production,although at a much lower level (1994). Her holisticout- look generallyaccords withthat of FrancesMoore Lappe, who had originallyargued for vegetarianismon ecological groundsin her 1971 work and laterproposed a modified positionin her 1982 work. See also Lewis 1994 in the above-mentionedissue fora brief recap of the ecological argumentagainst meat consumption.

254 SIGNS Autumn 1995

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPLY George for her claim. She apparentlyrejects my argumentconcerning the rela- tionshipof factsand values in moralargumentation (1994c, 421-22). By "naturalisticfallacy," I interpretDonovan to be claimingthat I derive moral conclusionsfrom facts alone. But I do not. Nutritionalfacts are importantto argumentsfor and againstethical vegetarianism. In a non- Cartesianworldview, the demarcationbetween "is" and "ought" is nec- essarilyblurred. The designationof "fact" cannot be value-free.Every- thingwe believestands or fallswithin a culturalcontext, and no one can rise (or fall?) to a standpointcompletely outside of human culture.Be thatas it may,some of our beliefsare morereliable than others. Donovan may be sayingthat even well-corroboratedbeliefs (facts) have no place in moral argumentation,but then all moral thinkingmust rely solely on a rationalisticor charismaticdeclaration of faith.In otherwords, ethical vegetariansmust be willingto say theiractions are rightno matterwhat thefacts are. If,on the otherhand, factsare importantto considerations of actingrightly or being virtuous(because factsabout harms and unequal burdensare morallyimportant), then referencing them in support of our intentionswill be obligatory.Notice that the ethical vegetarian relieson factualclaims to say thatthese diets are safe and pose littleor no risk.I simplyclaim thatthese diets nevertheless impose unequal burdens. If I am denied referenceto facts,then so will they be. Then, of course, a simplestandoff of faithsensues. CriticismC6. Adams claims I use an incorrectdefinition of vegetarian.17She rejectsthe source I citeand conductsher own surveyof indices to herpersonal library of seventyvegetarian cookbooks. Her surveyuses a biased sample and excludes a large body of other sources for data. Althoughthe informationshe gatherstells us somethingabout people who write vegetariancookbooks, does it tell us anythingabout the people who were studiedand describedas vegetarians?No. For that,one should look at the studies.Beardsworth and Keil (1991) did a sociologi- cal studyof people in the United Kingdom who definedthemselves as vegetariansand found that some people who occasionallyeat meat (as well as fishand animal products)may definethemselves as vegetarian- about 5 percentdid so. Another25 percentate fish,eggs, and dairy products;34 percent,"lacto-ovovegetarians," omitted the fish; 12 percentwere "lactovegetarians,"omitting all animal fleshand productsex- cept dairy;the remaining 24 percentwere vegans.For nutritionalstudies, researcherswant quantifiabledescriptions of how much people eat of studiedfoods. Each researcherlists the criteria by whichthose studied

17 Adams also claims that a fullcitation of my source is not given,but checkingthe footnoteand the referencesto my articleshows thatthe citationappears in full(Univer- sityof California1993).

Autumn 1995 SIGNS 255

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions George REPLY

were classified.For instance,Johanna T. Dwyer givesthe followingdefi- nitions:"Vegans, or totalvegetarians, consume no animalproducts. This is the rarestform of vegetarianism.... Lacto-vegetariandiets include plant foods, milk,and dairyproducts, but theyexclude all meat, fish, poultry,and eggs. This typeof vegetarianismis relativelyrare" (1993b, 174). Lacto-ovovegetariandiets add eggs to the lactovegetariandiet and are the most common formof vegetarianism.Dwyer continues:"Semi- vegetariandiets include plant foods,milk and dairyproducts, eggs, and some fishand poultry.They are increasinglycommon, probably more so than any otherform of vegetarianism,especially among young adults. Althoughmany vegetarians do not believethat semivegetarian diets are trulyvegetarian, those who eat themregard themselves as vegetarians. Red meat is avoided or eaten onlyoccasionally, and otherforms of flesh may also be limitedor eaten only in small amounts" (1993b, 175). Adams makes the generalizedclaim that the meaningof vegetarianis being"widened," but a look at descriptivedata rangingback overthe last severaldecades suggeststhat Adams's currentattempt is to narrowthe meaningto suit a particularview consonantwith her beliefs.It seems unfairto stipulatea definitionnarrower than common or scientificusage and thencondemn others for using its ordinaryand scientificmeaning. CriticismC7. AlthoughGaard and Gruenclaim that "nowherehas anyone issued a mandate for universalethical vegetarianism,"Adams argues categoricallyagainst meat eatingfor women in othercultures in her"Feminist Traffic in Animals"(1993). The toneof thecritics here also suggeststhat one mustfollow an ethicalvegetarian regime unless one has some valid excuse. The burden then falls upon the nonvegetarianto justifyher actions-she is assumedimmoral unless she offersan extensive list of her healthreasons forbeing granted a permissionto eat meat or consumemilk. It is difficultto see how Adams'sview, at least,represents a contextualethics that avoids actingfrom more or less categoricalrules thathave exceptionsin specialcircumstances, that is, thetraditional view of morality. Gaard and Gruen claim my interpretationof Regan and Singeris incorrect.Theirs is a simpleassertion, unsupported by explanation.My interpretationwas discussedin a public forumwith Tom Regan present; he appeared to agree with my interpretation,especially the rejoinderto Gruen. He also receivedan early version of my articleand made no complaintof misinterpretation.In fairness,critics should supporttheir claims,especially when questioningthe scholarshipof colleagues. Donovan claims that feministanimal vegetarianismis not based on traditionalmoral theory but on ahimsa. FromA10, All, and A12 above, you can see thatI do not relyon traditionalmoral theory as a foundation for feministclaims about ethical vegetarianism.Instead, I argue that

256 SIGNS Autumn 1995

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPLY George feministshave boughtinto the false"factual" assumptions of physiological interchangeabilityand in so doing are trippedup on discrimination- somethingno feministof any descriptioncan agree to. As forher claim thatfeminist animal vegetarianismis or may be based on ahimsa, I find no mentionof it in her 1990 work nor have I seen well-developedargu- mentslinking ahimsa to ethical vegetarianism.18Deane Curtin (1991, 1992a, 1992b, and personal communication)has begun work relating Buddhistconceptions of nonviolence(ahimsa) to feministvegetarianism. AlthoughJain interpretations of ahimsa ruleout fleshconsumption, Bud- dhist conceptionsof nonviolencedo not (Gier 1994). The theoryof ahimsa is a complex area of philosophicalinquiry (see Gier 1993, 1995) that is consideredin the contextof Curtin'swork, along with several othertheoretical concerns, in my recentwork (George 1994a). CriticismC8. It is true that I was not able to devote sufficient space to discussingthe politicalimplications of food distribution.These issuesare complex.In speakingwith a feministnutritional anthropologist colleague, I came to see that food distributioncannot be understood outsideof the family(see Sharmanet al. 1991). Nutritionalanthropolo- gists have studied the patternsof distributionin familiesboth in the United States and abroad. I franklydo not yet feel knowledgeable enough in that literatureto commenton the power structuresof food distribution,although I would not wish to diminishits importanceto global feministconcerns. Some discussionof these issues appears in another work (George 1994a), developingfurther the argumentsof my presentwork. The styleof my argumentationabove may seem too quintessentially "rationalistic"to incorporatethe qualities that are soughtin a feminist ethic.Yet, I regardit as an attemptat claritythat springs from a well of concern in my own life-what I shall feed my daughter?(See George 1994c, 405,416). LikeJane Austen's Elinor, I regardsense to springfrom caringabout the manypeople (and animals) who are a part of mylife. I also regardmy work as an attemptat unifying"sense and sensibility"in an imperfectworld. So forall the reasons statedabove, then,my critics should set aside theircharges and reflecton my argumentsonce again. Interestedreaders may also wish to consultthe entirespecial issue of the Journalof Agriculturaland EnvironmentalEthics (vol. 7, no. 1 [1994]). A valid contextualecofeminist ethics will requiremore thought about the relationof humans,animals, and food.

Departmentof Philosophy Universityof Idaho

18 Some feministwriters have used thisterm, of course. See, e.g., Ruddick 1989.

Autumn 1995 SIGNS 257

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions George REPLY

References

Adams, Carol J. 1993. "The FeministTraffic in Animals." In Ecofeminism: Women,Animals, Nature, ed. Greta Gaard, 195-218. Philadelphia:Temple UniversityPress. . 1995. "Comment on George's 'Should FeministsBe Vegetarians?'" Signs:Journal of Womenin Cultureand Society21(1):221-25. Austen,Jane. (1811) 1990. Sense and Sensibility.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beardsworth,Alan, and Teresa Keil. 1991. "Health-RelatedBeliefs and Dietary Practicesamong Vegetariansand Vegans: A QualitativeStudy." Health Edu- cation Journal50(1):38-42. Centerfor Science in thePublic Interest. 1994. "Iron-CladContainers." Nutrition Action Healthletter21 (December): 3. Clemens,T. L., S. L. Henderson,J. S. Adams,and M. F Holick. 1982. "Increased Skin PigmentReduces Capacity of Skin to SynthesizeVitamin D-3." Lancet 1:74-76. Copi, IrvingM., and Carl Cohen. 1990. Introductionto Logic. 8th ed. New York: Macmillan. Council on ScientificAffairs, American Medical Association. 1987. "Vitamin Preparationsas DietarySupplements and as TherapeuticAgents." Journal of the AmericanMedical Association257 (April 10): 1929-36. Craig,Winston J. 1994. "Iron Statusof Vegetarians."American Journal of Clini- cal Nutrition59 (suppl.): S1233-S1237. Curtin,Deane W. 1991. "Toward an Ecological Ethicof Care." Hypatia 6(1):60- 74. 1992a. "Food/Body/Person."In Cooking, Eating, Thinking:Transfor- mativePhilosophies of Food, ed. Deane W. Curtinand Lisa M. Heldke, 3-22. Bloomington:Indiana UniversityPress. . 1992b. "Recipes forValues." In Cooking, Eating, Thinking:Transfor- mativePhilosophies of Food, ed. Deana W. Curtinand Lisa M. Heldke, 123- 44. Bloomington:Indiana UniversityPress. Dawson-Hughes,Bess. 1991. "Calcium Supplementationand Bone Loss: A Re- view of ControlledClinical Trials." American Journal of ClinicalNutrition 54 (suppl.): S274-S280. Donovan, Josephine.1990. "Animal Rightsand FeministTheory." Signs 15(2): 350-75. .1995. "Commenton George's'Should FeministsBe Vegetarians?'"Signs 21(1):226-29. Durning,Alan B., and Holly B. Brough. 1991. Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the Environment.Worldwatch Paper no. 103. Washington,D.C.: World- watch Institute. Dwyer,Johanna T. 1988. "Health Aspectsof VegetarianDiets." AmericanJour- nal of Clinical Nutrition48:712-38. .1991. "NutritionalConsequences of Vegetarianism." Annual Reviews in Nutrition11:61-91.

258 SIGNS Autumn 1995

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPLY George

. 1993a. "Nutritionand the Adolescent."In Textbook of PediatricNu- trition,2d ed., ed. Robert M. Suskindand Leslie Lewinter-Suskind,257-64. New York: Raven. . 1993b. "Vegetarianismin Children."In Handbook of PediatricNutri- tion,ed. PatriciaM. Queen and Carol E. Lang, 171-86. Gaithersburg,Md.: Aspen. Dwyer,Johanna T., and FranklinM. Loew. 1994. "NutritionalRisks of Vegan Diets to Womenand Children:Are They Preventable?"Journal of Agricultural and EnvironmentalEthics 7(1):87-109. Gaard, Greta,and Lori Gruen. 1995. "Commenton George's'Should Feminists Be Vegetarians?'"Signs 21(1):230-41. George, KathrynPaxton. 1990. "So Animal a Human, ... Or the Moral Rel- evance of Being an Omnivore."Journal of Agriculturaland Environmental Ethics 1(3):175-92. .1992. "The Use and Abuse of ScientificStudies." Journal of Agricultural and EnvironmentalEthics 5(2):217-33. . 1994a. "Animal,Vegetable or Woman? A FeministArgument against EthicalVegetarianism." Unpublished manuscript, University of Idaho, Depart- mentof Philosophy. . 1994b. "Discriminationand Bias in the Vegan Ideal." Journalof Agri- culturaland EnvironmentalEthics 7(1):19-28. 1994c. "Should FeministsBe Vegetarians?"Signs 19(2):405-34. 1994d. "Use and Abuse Revisited:Response to Pluhar and Varner." Journalof Agriculturaland EnvironmentalEthics 7(1):39-76. Gier,Nicholas J. 1993. "Gandhi,Ahimsa, and theSelf." Gandhi Marg 15 (April- June):24-38. . 1994. "The Virtue of Nonviolence: A BuddhistPerspective." Seikyo Times (February),28-37. . 1995. "Ahimsa,the Self,and Postmoderism:Jain, Vedantist, and Bud- dhistPerspectives." International Philosophical Quarterly 35(1):71-86. Giere,Ronald N. 1991. UnderstandingScientific Reasoning. 3d ed. FortWorth, Tex.: Holt, Rinehart,& Winston. Gould, StephenJay. 1981. The Mismeasureof Man. New York: Norton. Gussow,Joan Dye. 1994. "Ecology and VegetarianConsiderations: Does Envi- ronmentalResponsibility Demand the Eliminationof Livestock?"American Journalof Clinical Nutrition59 (suppl.): S1110-S1116. Harding,Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?Ithaca, N.Y.: Cor- nell UniversityPress. Havala, Suzanne, and JohannaT. Dwyer. 1993. "Positionof the AmericanDi- eteticAssociation: Vegetarian Diets." Journalof the AmericanDietetic Asso- ciation 93(11):1317-19. Herbert,Victor, and GenellJ. Subak-Sharpe,eds. 1990. The Mount Sinai School of Medicine CompleteBook of Nutrition.New York: St. Martin's. Hu, Ji-Fan,Xi-He Zhao, Jian-BinJia, Banoo Parpia, and T. Colin Campbell. 1993. "Dietary Calcium and Bone Densityamong Middle-Agedand Elderly Women in China." AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition58:219-27.

Autumn 1995 SIGNS 259

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions George REPLY

Instituteof Medicine. 1990. Nutritionduring Pregnancy. Subcommittee on Nu- tritionalStatus and WeightGain duringPregnancy, Subcommittee on Dietary Intakes and NutrientSupplements during Pregnancy, Committee on Nutri- tional Status during Pregnancyand Lactation, Food and NutritionBoard, National Academyof Sciences.Washington, D.C.: National AcademyPress. . 1991. Nutritionduring Lactation. Subcommitteeon Nutritionduring Lactation,Committee on NutritionalStatus during Pregnancy and Lactation, Food and NutritionBoard, National Academyof Sciences.Washington, D.C.: National AcademyPress. Jacobs,Cathy, and JohannaT. Dwyer.1988. "VegetarianChildren: Appropriate and InappropriateDiets." AmericanJournal of ClinicalNutrition 48:811-18. Lappe, FrancesMoore. 1971. Diet fora Small Planet. New York: Ballantine. . 1982. Diet fora Small Planet. 10th ed. New York: Ballantine. Lewis, Stephen. 1994. "An Opinion on the Global Impact of Meat Consump- tion." AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition59 (suppl.): S1103-S1109. National ResearchCouncil. 1989. RecommendedDietary Allowances. 10th ed. Subcommitteeon the TenthEdition of the RDAs, Food and NutritionBoard, Commissionon Life Sciences.Washington, D.C.: National AcademyPress. Oski, FrankA. 1993. "CurrentConcepts: Iron Deficiencyin Infancyand Child- hood." New EnglandJournal of Medicine 329(3):190-93. Patlak, Margie. 1993. "Probingthe Link betweenEthnic Origin and Disease." National Research Council News Report43(2):18-20. Reid, Inez Smith.1975. "Science,Politics, and Race." Signs 1(2):397-422; re- printedin Sex and ScientificInquiry, ed. Sandra Harding and JeanE O'Barr, 99-124. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press,1987. Royall, RichardM. 1991. "Ethicsand Statisticsin RandomizedClinical Trials." StatisticalScience 6(1):52-88. Ruddick,Sara. 1989. MaternalThinking: Toward a Politicsof Peace. New York: Ballantine. Sanders, T. A. B., and Sheela Reddy. 1994. "VegetarianDiets and Children." AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition59 (suppl.): S1176-S1181. Scrimshaw,Nevin S. 1990. "Nutrition:Prospects for the 1990s." AnnualReview of Public Health 11:53-68. Sharman,Anne, Janet Theophano, Karen Curtis,and Ellen Messer, eds. 1991. Diet and Domestic Life in Society.Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Smith,Roger. 1990. "Asian Ricketsand Osteomalacia." QuarterlyJournal of Medicine 76:899-901. Universityof California. 1993. "The New Vegetarianism."Berkeley Wellness Letter9(6):4. Wardlaw,Gordon M., and Paul M. Insel. 1993. Perspectivesin Nutrition.2d ed. St. Louis: Mosby. Webb,A. R., L. Kline,and M. F Holick. 1988. "Influenceof Season and Latitude on the Cutaneous Synthesisof VitaminD-3: Exposure to WinterSunlight in Boston and EdmontonWill Not PromoteVitamin D-3 Synthesisin Human Skin." Journalof Clinical Endocrinologyand Metabolism67:373-78.

260 SIGNS Autumn 1995

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions