Monday, February 20, 2006

Venomous Vegan Threatens To Sue Low-Carb Blogger For Slander

Tensions are still running high over this blog post at the "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb" blog on Monday reviewing a new book written by a couple of vegans called "Skinny Bitch."

My book review, posted at this blog as well as at, and, has drawn quite a response from several upset vegan activists who believe my supposed characterization of vegans was misrepresented in the review and they went on to bash the Atkins diet as unhealthy and disgusting.

That's okay. They have the right to their opinion just as I do. I don't mind them sharing theirs, but that doesn't give them the right to have me respond in kind.

One follow-up response from another vegan was concerned with the part of the review that she interpreted my words as saying "vegans don't consume caffeine, sugar, or artificial sweeteners."

Here was my direct response to that criticism:

"I think you need to read my book review again a little closer because I never claimed that ALL VEGANS oppose artificial sweeteners. But these two authors who claim to speak for all vegans do and flaunted it in their book."

Despite the fact that I clearly explained that the description of veganism I used in my review was the one taken directly from the "Skinny Bitch" authors, I got yet another response from an upset vegan reader this evening who has now threatened to bring a lawsuit against me in court for what he thinks is "slander."

Here's what Simon wrote to me:

"I think it is fair that Mr. Moore retract his statements about the vegan diet ... implying that vegans don't drink coffee, soda, etc. or he will be defending himself in court for slander!

If he knew anything about the vegan diet he would know it is such a varible diet rich in taste, texture and nutrients and the best diet for the enviroment in general.

Please use quality articles with substance as people might soon lose interest in your articles."

Hey Simon, I won't be retracting ANYTHING because I simply repeated what Kim Barnouin and Rory Freedman asserted in their disgusting book.

Since you seem to have selective memory, let's revisit my review again to see what I actually wrote:

"But for Barnouin and Freedman (emphasis mine), none of that matters to them because they are radical members of the minority in this country who chooses to eat a vegan-only diet. No meat, no eggs, no dairy, no coffee, not even diet soda because they oppose artificial sweeteners, too -- NOTHING that even touches or comes close to meat! They're even boycotting "beets" because they sound too much like meats! LOL!"

Anyone who is even halfway conscious realizes that my comments were about the writings of BARNOUIN AND FREEDMAN, not ALL vegans as Simon contends. Those two ladies are the one who made those claims in their book and should be the recipients of your chastisement if you do not agree.

Personally, Simon, I don't give a rip about your vegan lifestyle because I don't see ANY good in it for me. That's just my opinion and I freely share it in a country that affords me the right to share my opinion. Your legal threats against me don't scare me one bit because I haven't done anything wrong to warrant such action.

If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine. Isn't that the beauty of the greatest country in the world where people can have an open debate of ideas without the risk of being silenced? While you and I will NEVER agree about which dietary approach we should take (although if vegan works for you, then DO IT just as low-carb works for me and I do it proudly!), this talk about lawsuits is just plain silly.

All I can say is BRING IT ON, buddy! My First Amendment right to free speech will NOT be trampled upon by any threats made by a venomous vegan or anyone else. I will NOT stop speaking my opinions about health, weight loss, and diet because I have a duty to share my low-carb weight loss success story with others so they can live a long and healthy life free from worries about their obesity just like I did.

I'm free from my bondage to food forever and happier than ever. Can't vegans just be happy for those of us who choose the low-carb lifestyle? Can we not celebrate that we are all different with a variety of needs to fulfill to reach our weight loss goals? It's time to stop this sophomoric bickering about this "my way is better than yours" mentality and simply state your case for why people choose low-carb, or low-fat, or the vegan lifestyle. I trust people to make the best choice for them!

I'm telling you, these vegans have gone absolutely berzerk! But, YOU GOTTA LOVE IT!


Blogger Newbirth said...

I think they need more fat in their diet. Their brains don't seem to be functioning correctly at all, lol!

2/20/2006 10:55 PM  
Blogger Lowcarb_dave said...

To sue someone for slander don't you have to

1. prove that a slanderous comment was made
2. prove that that comment caused a financial hardship as a result

Stick to your guns Jimmy! They can call us morons for eating the Atkins diet, but we are not allowed to critise their WOL ?


2/21/2006 12:51 AM  
Blogger Science4u1959 said...

NewBirth, you may very well be very close to the truth. Tightly controlled clinical research in the UK has shown that people on prolonged low-fat diets indeed are far more susceptible to mood swings and depression-dejection related violent (even anti-social) behavior than individuals on a relatively high-fat, carb-controlled diet... Dr. Atkins suggested the same thing, by the way.

These scientific results have been observed in both humans and animals. Quite interesting, but, at the end of the day, not so amazing if you realize that the human brain consists primarily of fat tissue, and that this same fat plays a paramount role within the cell membranes as an insulator...

Now what effect would a lack of insulation have? Precisely... short circuits.

2/22/2006 9:32 AM  
Blogger Cade said...

Just surfing around and found this blog as a link in Google. I'd say both sides, vegan and low carbers, need to evaluate their statements.

While the science today does confirm that the main culprit behind global warming is a meat centered diet because of it's ridiculously high methane output, there is an ethical factor not considered when Mr. Moore made the comment about how everyone should follow their own path and respect one another. That's great. But who respects that which is consumed for food? There is science supporting the complex social structure that exist for nonhuman animals, especially between parent and offspring.

Then there's the slander statement which is a bit out of hand. Also, I think the law generally states that once you threaten to sue, you must do so or there could be legal repercussions for not following through.

Then there's the whole Atkins thing. He's dead. And then there's the Harvard study which shows a low carb diet isn't what it's cracked up to be. It appears after injesting "meat", scientist found a rise in blood sugar no different from a bad carb. I'm surprised more low carb websites or books never bring that up, at least not to my knowledge.

When we all step back, there is fault on both sides and nothing being done to correct them.

1/12/2008 2:13 AM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

Cade, thanks for sharing your opinions. But there's so much that's convoluted about your answer that I barely know where to start. Let's just say the real science disagrees with you on virtually everything. Browse around my blog a little and you find out the truth for yourself. THANK YOU for stopping by!

1/12/2008 8:53 AM  
Blogger Cade said...

Thanks for your response and thanks for allowing me to post on my views on your blog.

The following is not meant to offend and I do apologize Jimmy for the length, but I didn't want
to give the impression that I was just some kind of instigator who had nothing of value to
contribute. So, let's begin:

Jimmy's quote: "there's so much that's convoluted about your answer that I barely know where to

I admit that I was in a hurry so my response is disorganized or "convoluted" as you said. I
apologize for that. As for where you should start in terms of your response, anywhere you wish to
start is fine.

Jimmy's quote: "Let's just say the real science disagrees with you on virtually everything."

I assume that you're making a distinction between the "real" science and "quackery" or some other
science. I'm not sure. And this so-called "real science" disagrees with me on "virtually"
everything, but which part in particular? Just saying it doesn't make it so. I know it can't be
about my comments on global warming. I'd like to think the science I'm using is legitimate and

My quote: "the science today does confirm that the main culprit behind global warming is a meat
centered diet because of its ridiculously high methane output . . . ."

As far as I know based on my research, this is the case. For example, the scientific literature
shows that global surface temperature has increased mostly because of the high output of
"methane" gas produced by cattle and other livestock. To be fair, methane is also produced by,
according to the EPA, "through anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition of waste in landfills,
. . . production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete
fossil fuel combustion . . . .” (EPA’s Terminology Reference System).

Moreover, there's additional evidence which shows that "ocean deposits" (oil and gases) which
flow from the seafloor up through the water until, released into the atmosphere, are another
source of methane. Geologist Tessa Hill, at University of California, Davis, is the one who
discovered that “more methane is released into the atmosphere from ocean deposits during periods
of warming than previously thought."

Out of the handful of methane producing sources I've listed here, the one that contributes the
most to the greenhouse effect is "animal husbandry", in terms of the waste excreted by cattle
that are bred for their meat. The process by which methane is produced by ruminant
(“cloven-hoofed, cud-chewing quadrupeds”) farm animals is called “enteric fermentation.” Enteric
fermentation is the digestion process whereby masticated plants are converted by bacteria in an
animal’s stomach into usable sugars and other nutrients that the ruminant uses to sustain itself.
The inevitable result of this is gas in the form of "methane" released into the atmosphere.

Published data in the journal Earth by assistant professors Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, at the
University of Chicago, show that the more damaging greenhouse gas, methane, can be considerably
reduced if people adopt a vegan diet. In order to come to this conclusion, Eshel and Martin had
to compare the “energy consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions” of five diets: “average
American, red meat, fish, poultry and vegetarian including eggs and dairy).”

The amount of calories consumed had to be the same for all diets in the study, which was “3,774
calories per day.” When the results came in they found that the most efficient of the diets in
relation to energy usage was the vegetarian one. After that, coming in at second place was
poultry followed by the “average American diet” with beef and fish coming in neck-to-neck as the
most inefficient of the lot.

In the end, Eshel and Martin discovered aside from the 17 percent fossil fuels that are burned in
the Untied States for food production, livestock waste from “manure lagoons” were the greatest
contributors of methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere.

The following I find the most shocking: the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
found that, and I quote, “the number-one contributor to global warming . . . was not
transportation or power plants; it was livestock.” Holy cow! Did the U. N. really come out and
address the world with such sacrilege? You betcha and it’s in their report entitled, “Livestock's
Long Shadow.”

The details within the U. N. report show that livestock is responsible for 18% of the effects
caused by global warming which is even greater than the figures for emissions put out by
worldwide transportation.

They then go on to state that the more potent gases of methane and nitrous oxide, which are
released into the earth’s atmosphere by livestock, are the main culprits for the current global
warming crisis."

If that's the case, why aren't the nations of the world alerted to this fact? Well, how do you
tell those who are in charge of their nations that they must tell their citizenry to eliminate or
drastically reduce their consumption of animal flesh. That to do so is good for the planet,
posterity, and all other life forms that help sustain us, but not so good for our global economy?

A USA Today article entitled "An Inconvenient Food: The Connection Between Meat and Global
Warming” reported that "Livestock's Long Shadow barely made a blip on the media's radar, perhaps
because it uncovered a truth that was too inconvenient for most Americans . . . .” It's plausible
when you think about it.

Another source to back up my claim of global warming and meat eating is a seminal report written
by physicist Noam Mohr in which he says the connection between global warming and carbon dioxide
has blinded environmental organizations from the real danger to our planet. Mohr refers to
information provided by Dr. James Hansen, “Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies
who has been called ‘a grandfather of the global warming theory’” where he states the focus on
CO2 emissions is misleading because “other greenhouse gases trap heat far more powerfully than
CO2, some of them tens of thousands of times more powerfully.”

Hansen’s main concern is animal agriculture’s worldwide output of methane. Methane as a non-CO2
gas is “21 times more powerful . . . than CO2.” All on its own, methane has contributed to almost
half of the earth’s warming problems and will continue to do so unless a radical change is
implemented in our diets. I can go on and on but I think my point has been made and I did cite my

My quote: "who respects that which is consumed for food? There is science supporting the complex
social structure that exist for nonhuman animals, especially between parent and offspring."

Maybe this has no real merit within this blog because your readers have on objective in mind and
that's to lose weight. However, you can still do that and extend your ethics to encompass
nonhuman animals such as livestock.

Scientist have published their findings on the complex social structure that exists within cow
herds. For example, in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, (2002, Vol. 5, No. 3, Pages
247-251),Viktor Reinhardt came to the conclusion that "allowing beef calves to stay in the
maternal herd beyond the age of natural weaning promotes animal welfare and may enhance the cows'
natural reproductive potential."

In Volume 78, Issue 1, August 2002, Pages 19-28. of Applied Animal Behaviour Science, entitled
"Responses of dairy cows and calves to each other’s vocalisations after early separation", Jeremy
N. Marchant-Forde, Ruth M. Marchant-Fordeb and Daniel M. Weary discovered "Dairy calves are
capable of individual recognition based on auditory cues at a very early age." Therefore, they're
not just some stupid animals that merely take up space. Nature has given them a social structure
that agribusiness denies them because of consumer demand for flesh.

My quote based on Jimmy's paraphrase of Simon's threat: "Then there's the slander statement which
is a bit out of hand. Also, I think the law generally states that once you threaten to sue, you
must do so or there could be legal repercussions for not following through."

First, I need to correct what I said. I should've written "libel" and not "slander" because the
first is written and the second is spoken. A mistake I sometimes make. Sorry about that. Second,
I want it to be clear that I thought, and never stated factually, that when you threaten to sue
someone, you have to carry it out or they can hire a lawyer and counter sue and win regardless of
your original threat, even if it's valid. I was kindly corrected by a lawyer at who
said, "You are never forced to sue someone just because you said you would. Even if you filed a
claim you could withdraw it." I stand corrected.

My quote: "Then there's the whole Atkins thing. He's dead." That was a stupid and meaningless
comment and I apologize for that. I used to live on the same block as the Atkins Institute and
exchanged "hellos" with Mr. Atkins. I'll put that down to keeping late hours.

My quote: "And then there's the Harvard study which shows a low carb diet isn't what it's cracked
up to be." That's true. "In 1997, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published data on
the insulin-stimulating effects of various foods, showing that high-protein foods often stimulate
more insulin release than do carbohydrates. Most vexing to protein proponents was that fish
produced a bigger insulin release than popcorn, and beef cause a bigger insulin release than

In fact, according to most of the studies out there concerning carbs and their affect on weight
loss, the only thing that can be said as a surety is that most foods cause a spike in insulin.
That's it. Nothing else.

The one thing that I found puzzling where it concerns low carb diets is how do they factor the
Asian demographic who eat phenomenal amounts of carbs in rice and starchy vegetables, and they are still the slimmest people on Earth? This is not some recent phenomenon this has been going on for quite some time.

I will say some individuals are carb sensitive and require more protein in their diets. These people exist but they are a very small amount of our population.

Just my thoughts on vegans and lowcarbers. I don't attack either side but I do read a lot and I wanted to offer another opinion and give a third perspective. I will say in closing that some vegans are very hot tempered and quick to threaten but I think that's because they come from a point of view of saving a living creature. It's different if you're just debating on who's a better philosopher, Aristotle or Socrates. This is about life and death to them and people tend to get very emotional.

On the other hand, there's a deep emotional scar left behind for most lowcarbers who were once overweight. They've gone through their share of psychological pain living in a you're-beautiful-if you're slim culture which can be depressing at times.

So, I leave you with that. Thanks again Jimmy for allowing me to post. Again, just wanted to give a third perspective between you and the vegans.

Happy New Year!

1/13/2008 2:48 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home