So, Nina Planck, former head of the Greenmarkets and food guru, has decided that vegan babies are a contradiction in terms, and has written it up in the New York Times, under the subtle title "Death by Veganism." Thankfully, there have been some robust responses to this, including from Lantern's very own Zoe Weil, who should know something about vegan children, having raised one.

I came across another article, subtly entitled "My killer dinner: How a vegetable diet lead to organ malfunction," in the U.K.'s Independent. Here, a conscientious vegetarian who had had an allergic reaction to broad beans that nearly killed him had decided to become an omnivore, reasoning (if that is the word) that vegetables were dangerous and that he was much safer with meat. His conclusion:

The idealist in me feels like I'm letting the side down. To be sure, I'm no fast food meat head. I try only to eat meat that has been organically and humanely reared, but meat it is, and meat is what I now recognise my body needs.

Finding a balance between what we want to eat, our ideals, and what our body really needs, is not easy. As my experience shows, one man or woman's health regime, can easily be another's horror B-movie.

Now, people have to make their choices, and who am I to say that I wouldn't have an equally extreme reaction if I became allergic to cabbage? But what irks me more than the veggies will kill you or vegans are baby-killers nonsense is that too often this critique is coming from people who claim to be advocates for a compassionate, sustainable diet. So, why shoot the vegans when you are being outgunned and outflanked by big, corporate agriculture, and when the costs in health care and sick babies caused by the Standard American Diet are much more severe? Because cheap shots are much easier.