You know the chart we have seen and so many of us use to prove a point regarding vegan nutrition? :
((***Am really, really looking for all possible info on the source of this chart, and that would back it as a factual and scientific.)) My understanding is this chart is based on information originally in the book The Tree of Life by Dr Issac Jennings? The thing is, one could say or might try to debate "that is not a very strong source". I mean, people would likely look for more, or maybe say this chart was made up by vegans or something.
(For an important project on vegan nutrition & making the point that humans are closest to Frugivores, in this project.) Especially any kind of hard scientific facts or more mainstream links, articles, etc. on this. Please, if anyone is able to help! SO much love and appreciation for all of you fellow vegans!!!!
Replies
Thanks for commenting everyone! Wow, I'm surprised I post this in here, and two of the responses are people still saying we are "Omnivores"? We are not technically Omnivores at all and have essentially no similarities in anatomy whatsoever with Omnivores. Pure Frugivores can consume small amounts of animal matter, but are still purely Frugivores. These are 4 separate categories of animals. Also to claim that "We are Omnivores" is *not* helping veganism in my full view - as again, this is a main justification for consuming animals. Also, there are a lot of people that are interested in this and respond quite a lot when this point is brought up. One of the main justifications for consuming animal products is the false claim that we are "Omnivores".
Jim, no people are convinced and change all the time regarding dietary information.
We have only adapted to eating an Omnivorous diet. Some true Frugivores occasionally eat small amounts of insects, but they are still Frugivores, not Omnivores.
Sorry to seem "snippetty" in my response and I thank you all for your comments!*
Yes we are omnivores. Vegans who are in denial about this are the ones not helping veganism. The people using this as a justification for consuming animals don't want to be vegan anyway. They would find another excuse if they had to. You can't replace established anthropology and archeology with wishful thinking and expect to be taken seriously. It makes veganism looks like quackery to the outside world.
Humans and their lineage have been eating omnivorously for 2 million years. The fact that we are omnivores doesn't mean that we should eat animals but that we can eat them and sustain ourselves long term if we had to. That's exactly what happened when we migrated from the equator into Europe, Asia and the Arctic as late as 50,000 years ago. That's why a large number of Nordic peoples (Finland, Norway, Sweden,Iceland,Russia, Greenland) are sucrose intolerant. Their ancestors ate very little fruit. Those same ancestors would have gone extinct if they were truly frugivores. We started making tools for hunting 2 million years ago and started cooking food regularly about 350,000 years ago mostly to cook animals. We did not adapt to an omnivorous diet. We adapted to an agricultural diet where we no longer had to forage or hunt. This is a recent development (12,000 years ago) and is probably the biggest factor in our dominance on the planet and ironically, our susceptibility to disease.
The health benefits of the vegan diet is strongly supported by science, as is the harmful effects of animal consumption. This information is slowly becoming common knowledge with each passing day. No need to reinvent the past.
Veganism is a philosophy of compassion. You have to choose it. The reason that it's a choice is because we are omnivores.
Did you even look at the chart? We have essentially no similarities in anatomy whatsoever with true Omnivores. Alright well if that is what you want to believe as a fellow vegan, I am not going to go back and forth with you over it. We are all in this together. However, I really thought that on this site at least people would understand that is not true. Anyways I mean only love and thank you for sharing your views!
Thanks Nicolas. I agree it could be difficult to put an official label on us, that is why I was asking. However, I don't agree that Frugivores would eat cooked food in nature - that is only a human thing.
Thank you Edd! No I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I just think strongly it would be great to trace the original source of it, to prove a point. And you are absolutely right, we completely lack the ability to take down an animal without weapons, as is the case with all TRUE Omnivores. <3
AS others have mentioned, it's best not to argue with people regarding diet. You won't change or convince anyone. Humans are omnivores, meaning to survive we have the adaptability to eat most anything. On the other hand, it is my belief that in most situations, fruit and vegetables provide the optimal diet for our health and wellbeing. In the end though, you are best to not argue with people regarding diet, politics or religion. No one has been convinced by logic in any of those areas.
This isn't a bad place to start: http://www.raw-food-health.net/Frugivores.html
'Frugivore' is a term that is often used to describe the diet that is optimal for us given our biological (natural) make up. It could also be used to describe the way one chooses to eat.
Likewise, one can use 'omnivore' in the sense that it is the diet we are physiologically best adapted to eat, or it can describe how one in fact eats.
The chart above makes sense when reading 'frugivore' in the first sense, not the second.
Humans are omnivores in the sense that humans eat animals and plants. I venture to say that they aren't in the sense that it is best (or even good), in terms of overall health, for humans to consume a diet of animals and plants (even if it contributes to our survival).
I think it is important to keep these different senses of the term clear. The chart above does a good job showing facts about our biological make up. This leads to the question as to whether these facts support the claim that a fruit diet is optimal for us. It might be argued that this is a naturalistic fallacy because we are moving from natural facts (about our physiology) to evaluative facts (facts about what's optimal for us). But I think this is wrong. We can learn many natural facts about things and make determinations about what is good for those things to flourish.
I hope this helps in some small way in this discussion.
Humans are omnivores. Frugivore is a subset of omnivore and herbivore. Frugivorous omnivores can and will eat animals for their survival if nothing else is available. We are not herbivores or carnivores.
That chart makes no sense.
Dr. Greger just put out a video on this on nutritionfacts.org