Talk:Plant-based diet/Archive 1

(content put back on talk page; no reason to archive.)

Notability?

This feels like it's some kind of advert for this Plant-based Nutrition mob, masquerading as a real topic. Since just about every diet is plant-based to some extent, I say just merge it into vegetarianism if there is any real content to be had here. FlagSteward 10:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Add Vegetarianism, Veganism, and Raw Veganism to this page?

I'm proposing that this page be converted into a "disambiguation" page with the following links:

• Herbivore - class of animals that eat only plants - an animal that is adapted to eat plants and not meat.
• Veganism - plant-based human diet, no food from animal sources (ie: no meat, no dairy, no eggs, etc.)
• Veganism, Raw - same as veganism, but food is uncooked or only dehydrated to preserve nutrition
• Vegetarianism - plant-based human diet, no meat from animal sources
• Macrobiotics - same as veganism, but meals consist primarily of cooked grains, land vegetables and sea vegetables

--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This proposal has been up for a week without any objection or any additional suggestions. I will be making these updates today. Thanks.
--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fruitarian - Maybe?

I have no idea if this will stay up as a disambiguation page. I am neutral on the idea.- Sinneed 16:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Veganism - can refer to eating a strictly plant-based diet, with no food from animal sources (strict vegetarian diet); or eliminating the use of animal products entirely for ethical reasons to sentient animals.Xxxzenicxxx (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested change to Herbivore, original statement is an oversimplification that is misleading.- Sinneed 16:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful to rethink this stance on rating the page. Plant Based Diet is becoming an accepted term to group all types of diets that are primarily based on plants. I have recently seen Harvard Public School of Health (see point 3), articles, and informational sites use the term. In addition, the term is used in researchand here as well as common everyday usage by the media. Jmurry (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just came across another use of the term in a UN report - Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and production (see pages 79 & 80). Jmurry (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Convert to article plus reference

This DAB page should be converted to an article since none of the linking topics have the words "Plant-Based" in them. It is fair to say that the definition of "Plant-Based" is open to debate - which is what can happen in a WP page called "Plant-based diet." As a disambiguation page, however, there is no room to add references such as this article from Kaiser Permanente:

Nutritional Update for Physicians: Plant-Based Diets

http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/issues/2013/spring/5117-nutrition.html

The article offers a very recent discussion over the definition of the term (including the fact there are variations) and a useful bibliography. The best place for the reference is in an article called "Plant-Based Diet." -Classicfilms (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, most of those linked topics are plant-based diets, and it would be trivial and non-controversial to include the term "plant-based" in the lead sentence of any of them.

That said, There's nothing wrong with a disambiguation page including a short intro paragraph with a reference. Be bold and go for it. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be fine with me except for the following rule: WP:DABREF

"Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the articles linked from the disambiguation page, as needed."

This is an important and substantial article that I would like to see incorporated on this topic - "Plant based diet." If there is a way to overcome this rule, I'm fine with it. Otherwise, I think we should open the debate to converting the DAB into an article. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to add the dabconcept tag earlier and just did so now. That being said, my primary concern as I state above is the ability to add the above reference and other references that specifically use the term "plant based." If there is an exception to the rule I cited above that would allow us to use references, I would be open to keeping this page as a disambiguation page. Otherwise, I would like to open the discussion towards converting this topic to an article that is WP:VERIFY. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about that guideline. Remember though, it's a guideline, not a strict rule (the policies are our governing rules, guidelines define our best practices). A small introduction with a citation shouldn't be a problem, but if you have a larger article in mind with multiple references, it's best to adhere to the guideline.

OK, here's what I suggest:

1. Build the new article in your sandbox or in User:Classicfilms/Plant-based diet.
2. When you're satisfied it's done, ask me or another admin to move this disambiguation article to Plant-based diet (disambiguation) (you may not be able to perform the move because a redirect already exists there).
3. Ask me or another admin to move your draft article to the current title (if you are unable to perform the move due to something existing here already).
4. Put the appropriate {{for}} dab notices at the top of the other articles.

I believe there would be no controversy generated by that process. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the feedback. I've been chided in the past for placing references on DAB pages. Your suggestion is more than fair. I do have enough references to start an article though I am in real life very busy so I'll have to build a draft over time. I've removed the tag for now and added the single reference per your suggestion. Over time, I will build a draft and once it is complete, I'll contact you and have you take a look at it. Appreciate the help. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Collecting reliable sources for future article

It will be awhile before I can build an article of quality. Therefore, I would like to create a space here for editors to add articles on the topic of Plant-Based Diets. I will begin by adding articles and add more over time. Other editors are of course welcome to begin writing the article as well - I check in periodically so you can always leave a note on my talk page. All articles should adhere to: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and articles in peer reviewed scientific journals are of particular interest. Hard copy is of course always welcome. I would also like to see sources that can offer a history of the term "Plant-Based" as well as other terms such as "Plant - Strong" and "Plant - Perfect."

Nutritional Update for Physicians: Plant-Based Diets - Kaiser Permanente (already on DAB page)

Transitioning to a Plant-Based Diet - a number of articles posted on the T. Colin Campbell Foundation Site

Plant-Based Nutrition - Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn

Resolving the Coronary Artery Disease Epidemic through Plant-Based Nutrition - Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn

-Classicfilms (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as I said elsewhere, I think I would oppose creating a separate article under this title, because it's likely to be either repetitive or a POV fork. We already have articles on a number of plant-based diets, including vegetarianism and veganism. The way you've been using the term seems to follow the phraseology of a handful of celebrity doctors and others; phrases such as "plant strong" have even been trademarked. So there's a risk that the article will inadvertently promote certain books, films or authors, rather than simply describe dietary positions that we already describe elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

~Amatulić above indicated that this is something that we could consider. The Kaiser permanente article which is on the same topic appears in a peer - reviewed journal. The other doctors mentioned above all already appear in the Vegan articles. This is a subject that should be open to all editors to avoid Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. As I said, I'm not building it yet, but the option should be open based upon sources. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

How would the article be different from vegetarianism and veganism? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this article by Kaiser offers a model for how to think about the way in which the term is used.

http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/issues/2013/spring/5117-nutrition.html

There are literally thousands of links in GoogleScholar for the term "plant-based." So there are many ways to go about it. I'm not looking to supplant the vegetarian or vegan articles - both are excellent articles. "Plant-Based" is a term that is out there and thus fair game for a Wikipedia article. But again in the future, not in the present. That's it for today. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-vegetarianism

Not sure why this has been removed. Various individuals/groups follow a plant-based diet but are not vegan or vegetarian. These individuals still consume animal products, including meat, once or twice per week. Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

And some semi-vegetarians go much longer than once or twice per week without eating meat. Flyer22 (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. My point was many semi-vegetarians still class themselves as following a plant-based diet. They should be on the article and not have been removed. Nirvana2013 (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Doctors' names

ClassicFilms, if you want to include the doctors' names, it's not a problem, but it shouldn't be done by linking as though their diets have articles. Better to include their bios as a See also. Sarah ^(talk) 22:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:SlimVirgin. I'm actually not really interested in an either adding the names of doctors or in an edit war. I was simply restoring links that used to be on the page but I'm fine to take them off. And I want to stipulate here that I do not know these individuals and am not interested in WP:NOTADVERTISING. Per our conversation a few years back, you pointed out the problems with turning this topic into a full article because it might become a POV:FORK. We compromised by adding references. Since that time, the rules for MOS:DAB have changed to remove the use of references. That's fine. However, as it stands, the Wikipedia is ignoring the "Whole Foods Plant Based" movement which was inspired by the documentary Forks Over Knives and all of the people in it. Since in your initial edit, you removed the See Also section, I didn't restore it. However, it is odd for the Wikipedia to completely ignore either this documentary or the term "Whole Foods Plant Based" since it is quite common now. I am not personally opposed to the term vegan, either. However, like other terms on this page, "Whole Foods Plant Based" while similar to the concept of "vegan" is not exactly the same. I am not really interested again in debating this point, but I do think that somewhere on the page, we need to reference this. So I am going to restore the "See Also" section and restore just the documentary Forks Over Knives. I hope that will resolve the issue.-Classicfilms (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I meant to remove the See also section, so I don't mind restoring it (or if you do). What I'm trying to avoid is [[Dr. John Smith|Special new diet]]. MOSDAB says that readers have to see the title that they will be taken to, which makes sense. I don't mind how it's done so long as that's preserved. Sarah ^(talk) 22:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine and it makes sense. I restored the see also section.-Classicfilms (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A10 re Vegetarianism

The vegetarianism article specifically discusses semi-vegetarians - "Individuals sometimes label themselves "vegetarian" while practicing a semi-vegetarian diet,[10][29][30] as some dictionary definitions describe vegetarianism as sometimes including the consumption of fish, or only include mammalian flesh as part of their definition of meat,[9][31] while other definitions exclude fish and all animal flesh.[12] In other cases, individuals may describe themselves as "flexitarian".[29][32] These diets may be followed by those who reduce animal flesh consumed as a way of transitioning to a complete vegetarian diet or for health, ethical, environmental, or other reasons. Semi-vegetarian diets include:....". This article overlaps that one, completely. BD2412 will you please reconsider? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Vegetarianism is one subtopic of a plant-based diet. We would be no better off deleting Vehicle on the basis that the subtopic, Car, mentions other kinds of vehicles. bd2412 T 13:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to respond. We don't agree, and that's OK. I work on articles about food/diets a lot, and the vegetarianism article is set up to be the "vehicle" article that you are describing. I'll go ahead and nominate this for deletion the standard way. The community may disagree with me - we'll see! Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Vegetarianism does not include any meat, so the term "semi-vegetarianism" doesn't fit into any round peg/square hole of the term. No matter what new logic is being imposed or transposed into society. Either someone is a vegetarian or they aren't. Some people seem to think otherwise, which "does not compute". Randy Kryn 22:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Compute or not, there is an article titled Semi-vegetarianism. However, this article can not be mentioned on a "Plant-based diet" disambiguation page absent an indication in the article that it is "also known as" a plant-based diet. bd2412 T 19:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• BD2412, I've never heard of these rules that you cite, and when you refer me to guidelines I can't find what you're referring to. Sarah ^(talk) 19:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:DABMENTION. bd2412 T 20:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any uninvolved source that calls a plant-based diet a semi-vegetarian one. There are involved sources (people trying to sell various diets). If we have find an authoritative uninvolved source, we can add plant-based to the semi-vegetarian article; if not, we should redirect it to vegetarianism. By "authoritative," I mean one probably not influenced by Wikipedia's misuse of the term. Sarah ^(talk) 20:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've never considered Wikipedia's influence on the world relevant to what the world thinks of topics covered by Wikipedia, but then again I'm a Peter Berger fan. bd2412 T 20:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Plant-based does not mean vegetarian or vegan

From my understanding, plant-based diet is Meat-free, but that does not in any words mean it's Vegan. Am I right on this? I would like to learn more about that here. Thanks! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is meat-free (which it was defined as initially) then it does mean vegetarian, but not necessarily vegan. It could be vegan though, as cow's milk and cheese aren't plant based unless you go to the source point of the food that created them (cows are vegan, except for the baby cows who drink their mother's milk for a short period of time). So both fit the initial definition. Randy Kryn 11:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem with the existing definition, it depends on the readers perception about the word. Feel free to join Template_talk:Meat if you are interested. As I read about the origin of the word meat, is was just food. Depending on the religion or culture you will get different answers if you ask what people understand when they read/hear/see Meat. For some it's vegan and for some it's just red meat, but allows them to consume white meat, seafood etc. I'm interested in this topic, but could not find any simple explanation on this matter (probably because it's complicated). So back to "plant-based diet". It is more that you add plant-based foods on your plate, but it's not exclusively meant to be vegetarian or strict vegan. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What "plant-based diet" means is the subject of this article. bd2412 T 02:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I figured it out by now. Thanks! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course "meat" used to mean all food, you know that. And you also know, I presume from all of your edits within the meat articles, that it took a long long time for that to change but now that it has meat means the prepared and eaten corpses of animals. Plant-based diet used to mean a vegetarian diet. Up until just a few years ago, that's what it meant. It's taken, what, a couple of references from the last three years to change that on Wikipedia, and thus how it is defined to the world? The power of the pen indeed. Randy Kryn 3:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I don't know that it meant "vegetarian" before it meant anything else, or that sources support that belief. I have one source in the article for it meaning vegan, which is a 2011 source. In earliest source, which is the 2005 source, the author refers to people living on a "mostly" plant-based diet, which itself indicates a diet that is not always "plant-based". bd2412 T 04:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• see sources I just brought above. It is meant to mean "mostly plants, and less processed food and less sugar and less meat" Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Does this belong in the lead?...

...or even anywhere in the article: "As of 1999 it was estimated that four billion people live on a plant-based diet because of the absence of resources necessary to support a meat-based one.[4]" So Wikipedia now claims that the vast majority of the Earth's population at the time would have stopped their plant-based diet and switched to a meat-based one if they just had more money? Isn't the source itself crystal-balling (WP:CRYSTAL)? This is one which doesn't seem to me to belong in the article at all, let alone in the lead. Randy Kryn 3:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a sourced statement, leave it in. bd2412 T 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have now added the direct quote from the source stating this. It is not WP:CRYSTAL to quote a source, and particularly not to quote a source describing the state of affairs that actually existed in the past. bd2412 T 13:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Better. The way the page read, "As of 1999 it was estimated that four billion people live on a plant-based diet because of the absence of resources..." made it sound, by using the word because, like these four billion people were just itching to eat corpses but couldn't get their hands on them. The word "because" was entering into the realm of mind-reading (a fine realm, depending on the mind). This page really needs some balance, in many places. Randy Kryn 13:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of people in the world prefer to eat meat when meat is available. This is reflected in the numbers reported at Vegetarianism by country. bd2412 T 13:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That too is guesswork. The use of advertising, making meat eating look like a normal way of eating, trying to shape the cultures by promotions that claim eating meat is manly (gag), the family peer-pressure of eating meat in meals (you get used to it and don't question it until you do), and many other factors would push those numbers. But, again, the word 'because' implied that all four billion (and it should be written out as four, no?) would gladly switch to meat eating if only there were any animals left in their vicinity to kill. As I said, your edit works, or at last clarifies what the statement meant. Randy Kryn 14:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article remain a Disambiguation page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Leave the page as it is, with links to related topics, and references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Should this article remain a WP:MOSDAB page which prohibits references? If we transition it to MOS:LIST, then we can add references that will aid the reader in understanding the use of the term. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note the related discussion on Template talk:Veganism and vegetarianism under "Plant-Based" missing?-Classicfilms (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Leave as dab page for now. The difficulty is that sources use the term very differently to refer to a vegan, vegetarian or semi-vegetarian diet. There are several physicians and others selling particular "plant-based diets" that they say work miracles because of this or that ingredient, omission or combination, and very few MEDRS-compliant sources offering definitions. There was even someone who tried to trademark the term "plant strong." So I think this should remain a dab page until there are more MEDRS sources, or it should be redirected to semi-vegetarianism or vegetarianism, with a sub-section in one of those articles. Of those two options, I think a dab page would be most helpful to readers. Sarah ^(talk) 16:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This reference is an example of scholarship out there that is not "selling" but offering scientific research. A subject that has an article without references does not allow the reader to make up his or her own mind:

• Philip J Tuso, MD; Mohamed H Ismail, MD; Benjamin P Ha, MD; Carole Bartolotto, MA, RD. "Nutritional Update for Physicians: Plant-Based Diets." The Permanente Journal (Kaiser Permanente). 2013 Spring; 17(2):61-66.

-Classicfilms (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Are there any other MEDRS-compliant sources, i.e. secondary sources, for example in medical journals? At present we don't even have a working definition. Sarah ^(talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, as I mentioned in the related discussion, a simple Google Search of the term "Plant Based Diet" led to "About 13,800,000 results":

• https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Plant+Based+diet

The source above offers a perfectly respectable definition and is online. I am sure that if not online, there are many other scholarly sources which I do not have time to explore at this moment. I'd like to wait to hear from other editors on the subject and am signing off for today.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Can you post some sources here that are MEDRS-compliant? There is no point in looking at Google, because it will only confirm what I'm saying, namely that no one seems to know what it is. So I would want to see some MEDRS sources, sources written by nutritionists, physicians or others, who are not involved in making money out of this, so that we have a definition that is free of commercial interests. If you can produce some of those, that would be a step forward. Sarah ^(talk) 16:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, Kaiser Permante's journal is WP:MEDRS as you can see here:

http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/about-us.html

it is worthwhile to add, and a good place to start. I very much doubt that everyone of the millions of links out there are about making money. The point of the Wikipedia is to educate, that is what the goal of this discussion is. And now this really is my last edit for today.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Please post some MEDRS sources here. Here's a second one. This uses the term to mean semi-vegetarianism: "The health benefits of vegetarian diets are not unique. Prudent plant-based dietary patterns which also allow small intakes of red meat, fish and dairy products have demonstrated significant improvements in health status as well. At this time an optimal dietary intake for health status is unknown. Plant-based diets contain a host of food and nutrients known to have independent health benefits." PMID 22717188 Sarah ^(talk) 16:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Great! That is helpful and a reference I would like to see on the subject page. The point of the Wikipedia is to encourage debates exactly like this one - that is why WP:RS is a core principle of the WP. There are two other core principles that I would like to ask we adhere to as well - Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Consensus. The point of an RFC is to hear from other editors on this topic and that is what I would like to do. That being said, I did type the key words plant based diet into a search on JSTOR and came up with 43,360 Search Results. This will give us plenty of references to choose from. I have pasted two of them below:

• "The Garden of Eden: Plant-Based Diets, the Genetic Drive to Store Fat and Conserve Cholesterol, and Implications for Epidemiology in the 21st Century." David J. A. Jenkins and Cyril W. C. Kendall, Epidemiology Vol. 17, No. 2 (Mar., 2006), pp. 128-130.

• "Biofortified and Bioavailable: The Gold Standard for Plant-Based Diets." Jeeyon Jeong and Mary Lou Guerinot Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Vol. 105, No. 6 (Feb. 12, 2008), pp. 1777-1778.

As for the Kaiser reference above, I was simply trying to provide a source that is open and online here. I would also like to reiterate that I personally am not against or opposed to the term "vegan." I'm interested in creating an article on the phrase "plant based" as it is in common use. I have a busy week ahead in Real life so I will check back here in a few days or so. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Just did a quick search - Stanford University School of Medicine's medical journal published this article:

"The Effect of a Plant-Based Diet on Plasma Lipids": http://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/plant_based.html

Now I am really done for the day.-Classicfilms (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That study is here (it's a primary source; we need secondary sources to give us an overview). I can't see it all, but the part I can read doesn't define "plant-based diet." Sarah ^(talk) 18:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• MEDRS-compliant sources have to be secondary sources (review articles and similar). If you go to PubMed, and click on review, it will return the review articles about "plant-based diet". There are 39 that mention it, but most only in passing. What we need to do is extract a definition from those sources.

My concern is that Wikipedia has contributed to the confusion about the meaning of the phrase. I'll try to find the diffs showing how it developed. Sarah ^(talk) 17:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• (Answering a bot-made RfC request) IMO the title "Plant-based diet" is a self-evident self-descriptive title: "a diet that is based on plants". Per wikipedia:Verifiability, we don't have to provide references to such self-evident statements. And as such, it is perfectly normal to describe the subject in general terms. We will need a ref only of there are some schools which (a) define the term differently and (b) insist that theirs are one and truly correct definition of the term. The word "-based" specifically implies that the diet is not made exclusively of plants. Therefore it is only natural there may be variations as to the amount of non-plant component in the diet (I am not an expert; are algae plants?) - The previous question is not a confession of my stupidity: I can easily click "algae". It is a rhetorical example which shows that a difference in a diet may be based on different understanding what "plant food" is (Is honey a plant food?) And IMO it is meaningless to disambiguate these minor differences. It will be more useful to have a generic article on the subject. As a matter of gradual progress in its writing, it may start with the list of diet which describe themselves "plant-based". An example (not the best possible; just the first pick) of such common phrase would be "ball game" - basically any game with ball involved is a ball game, and I am sure most expert in sports find the term self-evident and don't bother to write a scholarly text of kind "ball game is a game of balls. Balls may be round, oval, pear-shaped, bull-balls-shaped or even squarely triangular". (buit I may be mistaken :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Staszek Lem is right on the money there! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • My SWIFT code and account number will be emailed to you momentarily :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Unless someone has some functional reason for a substantial change (such as changing the page to a wikipedia:Portal or wikipedia:Set index) I say leave it as it is. It is in a form that is helpful to the user and non-evaluative. The topic is reasonably coherent and meaningful in terms of cuisine and nutrition. It is one that might well be looked up and it is easy for the user to decide which links to select and explore; he even might glean what he needs to know from a quick scan of the entries in this article. That in itself is adequate justification both for the existence of the article and for its current form. Any argument about matters of opinion concerning the various topics should be left in the link targets. Fine distinctions such as whether algae (or FTM bacteria or fungi) really are plants or not, as Staszek Lem rightly questions, are neither confusing nor relevant here, any more than whether lungfish and herring both are fishes (they are not meaningfully so according to cladistics, but both are eaten as fish). Even the dilemma of whether fungi should be included when they have been cultivated on animal matter is not a show stopper; this is a page on foods, not taxonomy -- not even at the regnum level. Finer distinctions should be left to the target articles. Niggling about such matters is a waste of both editors' and users' time. Niggling about the precise format of entries is clearly dealt with at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation pages#When to break Wikipedia rules. JonRichfield (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Your advice is true both to the spirit of wikipedia and to the point. However "breaking the rules" is a rule prone to be broken just as well :-) In this case people feel that here a more detailed explanation is needed than a disambig page may allow, and stretching MOSDAB rules may reach the point when the page is seamlessly morphing into something new. Not to say that all food-based diets may have a common denominator. That said, I find reasonable @JonRichfield:'s suggestion to leave the page as it is, unless a substantial expansion is provided, which makes the change of the classification of the page self-evident. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This entire discussion seems to hinge on a faulty premise. A disambiguation page is a page for articles with matching titles (i.e. Mercury, Mercury and Mercury). It is not a list of concepts that are related. Note that, per WP:DABMENTION, we must police and remove any link on this page for which it can not be demonstrated that the subject is referred to by the phrase "Plant-based diet". For example, nowhere in Lacto vegetarianism does it say that "Lacto vegetarianism" is also known as "plant-based diet". Disambiguation page guidelines are very strict about that. If discussion of the subject requires variance from those guidelines, then it is not a disambiguation page, period. bd2412 T 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

BD2412, the term "plant-based diet" usually means vegan or vegetarian. Recently it has started to refer to diets with low amounts of meat in them too, i.e. semi-vegetarian diets. Personally I would redirect it to Semi-vegetarianism, but a dab page makes sense too. Sarah ^(talk) 19:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is, that's not what disambiguation is for. If it is possible to refer to the title of the page to cover the topics on the page collectively, then what you have is a topic with subtopics, not an ambiguity. These topics are difficult to write about, but believe me, papering over these difficulties by calling the terms "ambiguous" leads to much greater problems down the road. bd2412 T 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, BD2412. The term plant-based diet is ambiguous, so we have a disambiguation page for it. Unfortunately, I think it became ambiguous because of Wikipedia, but I'm in the process of collecting diffs and sources showing how it might have happened, so I can't say that with certainty yet. But regardless of how it happened, it is currently an ambiguous term. Sarah ^(talk) 20:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a collection of terms relating to a range of diets that are based on plants. Am I misreading that? Are there meanings of the term that do not fall into that general description? bd2412 T 20:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, BD2412, I don't understand what you're saying. It's not a collection of terms relating to something. It's a dab page for an ambiguous term, plant-based diet. I don't know how else to put it. Are there other meanings? No. Are there other diets that the term refers to? Not that I'm aware of, though of course lots of diets could be described as semi-vegetarian. Sarah ^(talk) 20:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I mean are there any other meanings of "plant-based diet" that do not fall into the general description of a diet based on plants. Let me explain it this way (from the discussion when establishing WP:BROADCONCEPT):

There are some common sense tests that I like to use when examining potential dabconcept situations. One of these is what I call the "I'm an expert" test. It goes like this: could a person reasonably represent themselves as an expert in [term], without having to be an expert in multiple fields of knowledge (i.e. without having degrees from different departments in the typical university)? Although there are many species of tuna that are called "bluefin tuna" person could be an expert in "bluefin tuna" without needing to specify a particular species. Compare that to a person claiming to be an expert on "Mercury", or a "battery" expert. The expert on "Mercury" would need to have both Roman mythology and astronomy in his knowledge base. The expert on "battery" would need both chemical engineering and law, as well as some military history and (depending how significant the subtopic was considered) baseball, too.

Now, if you came across an article that said "John Smith is an expert on Mercury", in order to fix that disambiguation link, you would most likely look to see whether John Smith was an astronomer, or a materials scientist, or a writer on Roman Mythology. If you came across an article that said "John Smith is an expert on plant-based diets", and you saw that John Smith's field was as a dietician, how would you fix that link? bd2412 T 21:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

BD2412 is right. This is NOT a dab page. Very easy to see why. A dab page is about articles sharing the same name, or being referred to by the same name, but still having a different meaning. Rugby is a good example. It could refer to a city, a surname, a film, a sport, etcetera. But that's not the case here. If "Plant based diet" would have different interpretations, let's say a diet, a company and a film, then you could make it a dab page. But it is not. It is a kind of concept for a diet, based on plants. And all entries listed on the page fall under that category of diet, but you couldn't refer to any of them unambiguously by just saying 'plant based diet'. So that's why it should be rewritten as a broad concept article, and then you can expand and add all the references you like, just like on any other article. --Midas02 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you BD2412 for the clarification. I am a bit swamped in real life this month but I will try to check in when I can to see the article that you propose. Classicfilms (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)-

• BD2412, I think we should wait until the RfC is closed by an uninvolved admin, and wait the full 30 days in case others comment. There is no difference between a plant-based diet and a vegan, vegetarian or semi-vegetarian one. Wikipedia is supposed to clarify confusion created elsewhere, not further it. The RfC question is whether this should be a dab page, a list, or a redirect. Pinging Jytdog. Sarah ^(talk) 17:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • First, the belief that there "is no difference between a plant-based diet and a vegan, vegetarian or semi-vegetarian one" has been thoroughly refuted both in the AfD that Jytdog started, and in the article, which now contains reliable sources that specifically distinguish a plant-based diet from the kind of dietary choices that you identify. Second, there is nothing wrong with improving an article while it is being discussed (particularly where that improvement was necessary to stave off deletion). Third, as to the question of whether this is an ambiguous term or a single concept, the sources now in the article state that it as a single concept that happens to encompass those terms, and other matters that are clearly beyond the scope of vegetarianism. We can argue semantics all we want, but we need to use reliable sources to do so. Can you find a source that says "there is no difference between a plant-based diet and a vegan, vegetarian or semi-vegetarian one"? I looked and found none that said that. bd2412 T 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • BD2412, you're an admin and you ignored an open RfC. You didn't create the article to save it from AfD; it was nominated for AfD because you created it. Please respect our dispute-resolution processes. Any article here is likely to turn into a poorly written POV fork, largely repetitive of the other three articles. Sarah ^(talk) 17:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • This is a concept, and the sources support that. You can call it a Featured article if you want, but that doesn't make it one. Your comments about "Whole Foods" on my talk page make it clear that you have become driven by a personal agenda here, and are ignoring reliable sources to suit your agenda. If you are unable to take a neutral and constructive view of this topic, or this discussion, then I sincerely suggest you step back from it. bd2412 T 18:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:DISENGAGE and Wikipedia:Consensus, I have stepped back from this debate and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion debate. After reading BD2412's post above, and the thread referenced on his talk page - and in line with Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I wanted to post something here since I have worked on the Forks Over Knives article and had this discussion recently on the FOK talk page - and this edit that I made to the Plant -based diet article was removed. I want to start by saying that I have reverted nothing on either page discussed above, nor do I plan to since I do not want to engage in an edit war. It’s really up to the community to decide how this works out. My interest in the Forks Over Knives article (besides the fact that it is a film article and I frequently write on film articles) - indeed any article on the Wikipedia - has been in fulfilling the tenants WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Certainly there may be debate as to the sources we use and I welcome that since working in collaboration as a community is one of the WP’s most important traits. This is an ideological difference, not a commercial one (and while I have said it before I will say it again - I do not know the people involved with Forks Over Knives, the doctors involved - and I am not sure how or why Whole Foods Market came into the conversation). I have worked on many, many film articles during my almost 10 years on the Wikipedia, particularly the Hindi film Lage Raho Munna Bhai, which a few of us brought to FA status. Part of the process of enhancing that article meant working on related articles, such as ones about the actors and the life of Mahatma Gandhi, which I did. The same worked in reverse with the Grendel's mother article which I worked on with a team. I thus became involved in editing related articles such as the the main Beowulf article as well as the articles on various Beowulf films. It has always been my understanding that developing one article on the Wikipedia meant working on related articles. That is why I was interested in a referenced discussion of the term “Plant - Based diet,” as it was related to the content of the film “Forks Over Knives.” That being said, as I wrote above, I will be stepping back from this discussion and will let Wikipedia:Consensus decide what to do.-Classicfilms (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• What do you see as the difference between a plant-based diet and a vegan/vegetarian/semi-vegetarian one? Sarah ^(talk) 18:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• This has been very well addressed by comments in the AfD. For example:
  • From User:CFCF: "a plant-based diet is distinctly different from vegetarianism or even semi-vegetarianism. Those are both practices rather than diets and much research equates low meat-intake diets with vegetarianism when looking at populations in countries with traditionally low meat consumption such as India or Ethiopia, but they are distinct";
  • From User:AndyTheGrump: "it needs expansion to better cover the significant proportion of the World population who follow a (largely) plant-based diet by necessity rather than choice";
  • From User:WhatamIdoing: "a person who eats sugar cereal for breakfast, egg salad on white bread for lunch, and macaroni and cheese for supper, with chocolate and full-sugar soft drinks in between, would be following a "vegetarian" diet but not a "plant-based" one";
  • From User:Pandeist: "people who eat meat and enjoy eating meat and do not consider themselves vegetarian and do not apply any vegetarian principles are in fact vegetarians? I'm fascinated to see such a source".
• I think these comments fully address the distinction at issue, which is that vegetarianism (or semi-vegetarianism) is a dietary choice, and one that does not necessarily even require that the chooser have a diet that is actually plant-based, whereas having a plant-based diet is a biological incidence that may have nothing to do with the choice of the subject. Consider, for example, a grizzly bear who for some period can't find much meat to eat, and therefore subsists primarily on nuts and leaves and berries for that period. It's obviously not a "vegetarian" bear, nor is it a herbivore, but it is clearly subsisting on a plant-based diet. bd2412 T 20:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• BD2412. None of those comments address my question, and some are inaccurate. Semi-vegetarianism needn't be a dietary choice. A semi-vegetarian diet is a plant-based diet that allows eggs, dairy and small amounts of meat or fish. You're confusing calling the bear a "vegetarian" with saying she lives on a vegetarian diet. You're confusing lots of issues, in fact, as does the article, and precision is unlikely to be forthcoming because the medical sources aren't precise either. This is why I oppose creating the article, because it's going to be difficult to create anything decent that doesn't simply repeat what's in one of the other articles. Sarah ^(talk) 21:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • So you're saying that semi-vegetarian diet is a type of plant-based diet, aren't you? My primary objection here is that this is not an ambiguous term. You (and Jytdog) seem to think that "Vegetarianism" and "Plant-based diet" are basically the same thing, in which case the solution would not be to have a disambiguation page here, but to merge "plant-based diet" to Vegeterianism, as the primary topic of the term. That, I would have no objection to. The hatnote at Vegetarianism conveniently already says For plant-based diets in non-human animals, see herbivore. bd2412 T 21:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• BD2412, what Jytdog says below, that this is a PR/marketing term, is correct. The overwhelming majority of sources (when I last looked) used the term plant-based to refer to a vegan diet – not veganism as a philosophy, but a vegan diet, i.e. one that is entirely plant-based. The term plant-based was popularized by (among others) T. Colin Campbell in The China Study (2005) to refer to a vegan diet. Several celebrity physicians followed suit, selling their own versions of plant-based diets, but they all amounted to "don't eat animals."

  At some point the sources got confused – and I believe Wikipedia contributed to that confusion – and started referring to non-vegan diets as plant-based too. It is now a PR term that is used loosely. It can mean a vegan diet (no animal sources); a vegetarian diet (no animal sources that require killing the animal – so eggs and dairy are okay, but not meat); or a semi-vegetarian diet (meat is included but not much). There is the added advice to minimize junk, but that was always an implicit part of the vegan/vegetarian diet anyway.

  Because of this confusion, it seemed sensible to leave it as a dab page and list all the diets that plant-based can refer to. But a redirect to one of the other articles would work too. Sarah ^(talk) 22:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If all the page is doing is to "list all the diets that plant-based can refer to" then it is really a list delineating the contents of an ill-defined set, and not resolving ambiguity. In that case, it should be a list at List of plant-based diets (or List of diets described as plant-based. bd2412 T 18:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

To put my comment in context: if this article is correct that a plant-based diet includes primarily whole grains, rather than refined starches, then it would also be possible to have a non-plant-based vegan diet. Soy milk and rice milk are processed foods, refined white sugar can be vegan, etc. None of that lives up to the healthful diet described at the top of this page. (Also, I want to know whether mushrooms are "plants" according to proponents of a "plant-based diet".  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Article should be article describing the various senses in which the term might be used. As the related articles currently stand, a simple disambiguation page is not appropriate. older ≠ wiser 17:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've spent the day reading about this. Here is my takeaway. "plant-based diet" is the following:
  • the latest/greatest way to talk about the the same kind of diet that mainstream medicine has been advising for a very long time - lots of veg, whole foods, little fat (emphasizes what it includes - lots of veg, whole foods) not what it excludes.
  • nondogmatic on purpose. "plant-based" does not exclude eating meat.
  • it very purposefully crafted away from 'scary" words for everyday people, like "vegetarian" or "vegan" but is happy to include those under its umbrella.
  • matches the 2010 US govt dietary recommendations very well, and the first draft of the 2015 update is going to place even more emphasis on eating 1) lots of veg and 2) whole foods (in other words, exactly this)
  • Hard to say what to do with this in WP. It is essentially a public health marketing phrase. It is not a "diet" like South Beach nor an ideology - it is just a way to market current mainsteam (not fad! really - not fad) recommendations about good eating. It would be like having an article called "exercise twenty minutes every day". Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• I just came to this page and have no understanding of why some are saying that a plant-based diet now includes eating animal corpses. A plant-based diet is just that - plants. Beans, grains, seeds, vegetables, and the other plants of the earth. From "back in the day" this always meant just plants, nothing else. Now it includes "meat"? Strange, to say the least. Randy Kryn 22:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Randy, I agree that this is curious. I'm wondering whether Wikipedia responded to the change in meaning or caused it, or whether it was always more fluid than I thought. The earliest reference to plant-based diet I can find on PubMed is T. Colin Campbell from 1986 (PMID 3538052), but I can only see the abstract, so I don't know how he defines it. Sarah ^(talk) 22:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• If it caused it that's pretty scary (shivers, me timbers). Full disclosure: I'm not neutral on this issue, and was a very active vegetarian activist, and proud to say that an action myself and a friend took eventually resulted in the idea and tactics of the "Beyond Beef" McDonald's campaign which, itself, has been called the beginning of the 'new' vegetarian movement. So my comments and edits come from a biased editor. Colin Campbell would have based it totally on plants, I'm fairly sure. Randy Kryn 22:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Plant-based, to my ears, does not imply an exclusively plant diet. It is a diet based on plants rather than meat or dairy. I think that is how it is most commonly used these days. It perhaps might have been used differently in the past, although with terms like vegan and vegetarian, I don't see how plant-based would also be used as a term of exclusion. older ≠ wiser 23:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• The common meaning of "-based" does not imply exclusivity. I would say the opposite, in fact, that to the layman, a "foo-based diet" sounds like something distinct from a "foo-only diet". By way of example, the Miami Heat are a indisputably "Miami-based" basketball team. Their training facilities are in Miami, and their home arena where their home games are played is in Miami. However, during the season they can be seen playing half their games in other parts of the country, wherever their away games take them. By way of comparison to the topic at hand, many sources refer to a "meat-based diet" or a "flesh-based diet", but none of those suggest that a person who has a "meat-based diet" eats literally nothing but meat, with no plant matter at all. I suppose such a person would have to rely on those KFC bacon "sandwiches" which substitute fried chicken for the buns. bd2412 T 17:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

BD2412, this is why there ought not to be an article on this. You're trying to work out what it means, rather than knowing, and if you try to find out how the term is used by consulting the RS, it will be time-consuming and you'll be little the wiser at the end of the process. (I know this because I have tried to do it.) Perhaps we can host an article about it in a few years' time, when the term has settled down to mean X and not Y, but for now it's too much in flux and, as Jytdog said, is mostly a marketing term. Sarah ^(talk) 18:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• As @SlimVirgin:, Sarah, mentioned, when the term was first brought to the public via Colin Campbell it may have had a specific meaning (it did, but sources, sources, sources) which was, incidentally, another name for vegetarian. Original research, but it had that meaning when I was aware of it and used it in the late 1980s and throughout the '90s. You had people like John Robbins, Howard Lyman, and, well, all of the other activists using it as another name for vegetarian. To say that it changed into something else (plants plus prepared animal corpses = plant based. Huh?) doesn't take into account the origin, the early and mid- usage, and probably the usage of most people now. Letting Wikipedia's article on plant-based diet meaning literally a plant-based diet, period, as the name both implies and as it existed (nobody back then even thought it could mean anything else), gives the most accurate representation of the term, the job of an encyclopedia. Randy Kryn 18:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• If that is the primary meaning then it should redirect to Vegetarianism, with a link out to a list of other meanings with reliable sources showing that the term is used in connection with those meanings. Per MOS:DAB a link can not appear on a disambiguation page unless it at least meets WP:DABMENTION. That is to say, for example, a link to Ovo-lacto vegetarianism can not appear on a disambiguation page for "Plant-based diet" unless there is a reliable source in the article, Ovo-lacto vegetarianism, indicating that this is considered synonymous with "Plant-based diet". Wikipedia has over a quarter million disambiguation pages, and it would be impossible to maintain them if they were not held to strict standards. As has often been observed, if an editor feels like an exception needs to be made to cover the topic, then they are probably not dealing with a topic that is actually ambiguous. bd2412 T 18:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sources are indeed needed when counter-intuitive claims about language are made. In contemporary usage, plant-based does not imply an exclusively vegan or vegetarian diet. Period. Whether there is any other single article that might be the primary topic (such as flexitarian or semi-vegetarian (which sounds like a neologism)) is another matter, but I think readers searching for "plant-based diet" would be ill-served by a redirect to vegetarianism. older ≠ wiser 18:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Classicfilms has strongly recommended the use of one source, this 2013 article by Philip Tuso of Kaiser Permanente, which defines (or redefines) plant-based diet as one allowing some meat, eggs and dairy.

Tuso is on the board of directors of the Plantrician Project, which has laudable health goals. He writes in the 2013 article: "Physicians should advocate that it is time to get away from terms like vegan and vegetarian and start talking about eating healthy, whole, plant-based foods (primarily fruits and vegetables) and minimizing consumption of meat, eggs, and dairy products. Physicians should be informed about these concepts so they can teach them to staff and patients."

The mistake Classicfilms has made is in trying to have Wikipedia lead from the front in this attempt to change the language. The result is that we have caused other sources to become confused, and their confusion is reflected back into Wikipedia, when editors not familiar with these issues rely on the confused sources. So plant-based diet now refers to a vegan diet, a vegetarian diet, and a semi-vegetarian diet (which can mean anything). That is why it makes most sense to stick with the dab page until uninvolved, authoritative sources have decided how to use the term. Sarah ^(talk) 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That is inherently not the description of a set of unrelated topics, as would be appropriate for a disambiguation page. It is a set of a range of concepts within a single broader concept. All of these can be described as diets that are to some degree based on the consumption of plants. This is precisely the circumstance that WP:DABCONCEPT addresses, where it says:

If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page.

The relationship between the various diets individually characterized as being a "plant-based diet" is capable of being described in an article. bd2412 T 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Leave as disambiguation for now. Looking over what's here so far, everything from the History section onwards isn't really needed here. You'll find that information at herbivory articles. I'd cut down the text the bare minimum for the list of actual pages and let the pages themselves do the explaining. I do have other concerns from an NPOV perspective that this seems to focus (as a DAB page) too much on the human categorizations for vegetarian, etc. I'd list pages included herbivory, etc. from the natural sciences end of things, include less formal links potentially for human diets that simply have a lot of plants rather than the exclusionary ones that was mentioned briefly below. Once those pages are scoped out, this might be worth expanding into a sort of centerpiece article. For now, I'd just look to shift all the semantics over to the respective pages and keep this bare bones. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would not be so hasty. I'm a long-time vegetarian (nonvegan) and was unaware of quite the controversy until this arose, and I like being enabled to read about it. Teach the controversy!! Let's leave the page as is (ie in its form as expanded into a full fledged sourced explanation) for now and see what happens. A sprout won't grow if it's beheaded every time it starts showing a hint of green!! Pandeist (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what controversy you're referring to, but I wasn't referring to one in my post. This is just a disambiguation page, so it's better to let the individual pages being linked to do all the heavy lifting. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Is that not the controversy right there? Some seem to think this phraseology is ambiguous while others seem to think he has a particular range of meaning. Let us let the reader of this page decide for themselves which of these possibilities sources most solidly support. Pandeist (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't getting into the phraseology at all. Just plain and simply if you are having a disambiguation page, you would have something sort of like this:

Plant-based diet" has been used to refer to:

Human diet

• Veganism: diet of vegetables, legumes, fruit, grains, nuts, and seeds, but no food from animal sources.
  • Fruitarianism: vegan diet consisting primarily of fruit.
  • Raw veganism: vegan diet in which food is uncooked and sometimes dehydrated.
• Vegetarianism: diet of vegetables, legumes, fruit, nuts, etc, that may include eggs and dairy, but no meat.
  • Ovo-lacto vegetarianism: includes dairy and eggs
  • Ovo vegetarianism: includes eggs but no dairy
  • Lacto vegetarianism: includes dairy but no eggs
• Semi-vegetarianism: mostly vegetarian diet with occasional inclusion of meat and/or poultry.
  • Macrobiotic diet: semi-vegetarian diet that highlights whole grains, vegetables, beans, miso soup, sea vegetables, and traditionally or naturally processed foods, with or without seafood and other animal products.
  • Pescatarian: semi-vegetarian diet with eggs, dairy and seafood.

Other

Herbivory

other potential articles . . .

That's all this entire page would be. All a DAB page does is list the name of the article and maybe an extremely brief few word summary of what the term means from the article. All the rest of the information goes to the individual articles instead and there's no need for any controversy at this time unless plant-based diet very concretely becomes it's own individual term (which it may be shown in sources someday) as opposed to a general catch all search term. What I've described is what is being suggested by making it a disambiguation page rather than an article linking to a bunch of others with more text and references. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And on which of these pages can I read about how the use of this particular phrase, "plant-based diet," has evolved over time, or perhaps been used as a marketing term? Pandeist (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Right now that doesn't matter. There isn't content on that. If an when plant-based diet has concrete enough content for it's own page, then that page should be developed and there can be a discussion on how to fit everything together. Right now though, the current content fits best just for a standard DAB page with links to the specific pages. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with having disambiguation page is that each of that linked articles has to support the claim that it is known as "plant-based diet". A disambiguation page is nothing more than a navigational device. It should not contain assertions that are not present in the linked articles. older ≠ wiser 02:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Bkonrad is exactly right. In order to keep our hundreds of thousands of disambiguation pages maintainable, they are strictly prohibited from containing links to articles that make no mention of the supposedly ambiguous term. Unless you can provide sources that enable you to add to these articles statements such as "Fruitarianism is also known as plant-based diet...", these links can not be included on the page. As it stands, a disambiguation page would be limited to:

Plant-based diet has been used to refer to:

• Veganism: diet of vegetables, legumes, fruit, grains, nuts, and seeds, but no food from animal sources
• Vegetarianism: diet of vegetables, legumes, fruit, nuts, etc, that may include eggs and dairy, but no meat
• Semi-vegetarianism: mostly vegetarian diet with occasional inclusion of meat and/or poultry

The others can not be linked because they fail WP:DABMENTION. A good rule of thumb is that if an exception to the MOS for disambiguation pages is needed to make a page completely informative, then you are dealing with something that is not actually a disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources

The best way to proceed is to list here completely uninvolved, authoritative sources (none of the celebrity doctors) and how they use the term. People should add here what they find:

• American Dietetic Association, 2009: uses the term plant-based to mean vegan or strict vegetarian, i.e. plant-based means "consisting of plants" as in "plant-based protein." [3]
• David Pimentel, Marcia Pimentel, "Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment", The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003: defines plant-based as lacto-ovo vegetarian.
• American Dietetic Association and Dietiticians of Canada, 2014: " ... plant-based diets, defined as diets that include generous amounts of plant foods and limited amounts of animal foods." They then list the views of other groups (American Institute for Cancer Research, and similar). [4]

adding some more reviews from the biomedical literature and statements from major medical/scientific organizations Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Scientific Committee report for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015 "The overall body of evidence examined by the 2015 DGAC identifies that a healthy dietary pattern is higher in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low- or non-fat dairy, seafood, legumes, and nuts; moderate in alcohol (among adults); lower in red and processed meat; and low in sugar- sweetened foods and drinks and refined grains." (top of page 4) and "Consistent evidence indicates that, in general, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in animal- based foods is more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact (GHG emissions and energy, land, and water use) than is the current average U.S. diet" (page 9)
• Tuso PJ, Ismail MH, Ha BP, Bartolotto C. Nutritional update for physicians: plant-based diets. Perm J. 2013 Spring;17(2):61-6. PMID 23704846 (free full text)
• McEvoy CT, Temple N, Woodside JV. Vegetarian diets, low-meat diets and health: a review. Public Health Nutr. 2012 Dec;15(12):2287-94. PMID 22717188
• USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 2 big messages (see p ix): 1) Maintain calorie balance over time to achieve and sustain a healthy weight. 2) Focus on consuming nutrient-dense foods and beverages (by this they mean whole foods, and lots of fruit and vegetables.
• American Dietetic Association, 2009. Adopting a Plant-Based Diet says: "Eating a plant-based diet does not mean that you have to become a vegetarian; it just means that you should try to select most of your foods from plant sources."
• Demark-Wahnefried W, Rock CL, Patrick K, Byers T. Lifestyle interventions to reduce cancer risk and improve outcomes. Am Fam Physician. 2008 Jun 1;77(11):1573-8. PMID 18581838 (free full text)
• USDA. Last Modified Oct 23, 2006 A Plant-Based Diet is a Healthy Choice

Discussion

• If this is just a list of things to which the phrase "plant-based diet" refers, then the reader will get no sense of the propriety of any of these uses. bd2412 T 22:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, do you see how I have incorporated the Canada cite in the "Variations" section? Rather than merely list out the things and say that "plant-based diet" can mean any of these, we explain to the reader why "plant-based diet" can mean any of these. bd2412 T 22:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• BD412, I'm about to take this off my watchlist, because the editing isn't good and I think it's pointless to continue. Before I go, the source you've quoted isn't Weil, but Ellen Jaffe Jones. Sarah ^(talk) 22:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• If it can be written better, make it better written, but let's not deceive our readers into thinking that there is no relationship and no historical development of this phrase. bd2412 T 00:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• above i said that i had read all day and come to the conclusion that "plant-based diet" is a term that the medical establishment is increasingly adopting to try to get people to eat more whole foods, more vegetables, more fruit, and less meat and less processed food and less sugar. I didn't share the sources I read that day. I just presented a bunch of them. The phrase is very purposefully used to not be the same as "vegan" or "vegetarian' - it is meant to be non-charged - not "anti" anything but rather reasonable - more X and less Y. I think it is smart as hell from a public health perspective. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence

Inquiry about adding a statement of the known health benefits of plant-based diets? While there are numerous sources pointing to the benefit of plant-based diets for overall health, an isolated example would include the recent 'talk' I entered on myocardial infarction. I feel strongly, as many medical professional do, that these evidence-based conclusions should be as well-known to the public as they are to clinically updated health professionals.

A 20-year nutritional study done by Dr. Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., a former internationally known surgeon, researcher and clinician at the Cleveland Clinic, explains in his book how myocardial infarction can be prevented, reversed, and even abolished. Dr. Esselstyn argues that conventional cardiology has failed patients by developing treatments that focus only on the symptoms of heart disease, not the cause. Dr. Esselstyn convincingly argues and produces convincing results that a plant-based, oil-free diet can not only prevent and stop the progression of heart disease, but also reverse its effects. http://dresselstyn.com/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf

As stated in the National Center for Biotechnology Information “Nutritional Update for Physicians” (which includes its own comprehensive list of citations), “Research shows that plant-based diets are cost-effective, low-risk interventions that may lower body mass index, blood pressure, HbA1C, and cholesterol levels.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concludes, “…substantial evidence indicates that plant-based diets including whole grains as the main form of carbohydrate, unsaturated fats as the predominate form of dietary fat, an abundance of fruit and vegetables, and adequate n−3 fatty acids can play an important role in preventing CVD. Such diets—which have other health benefits, including the prevention of other chronic diseases—deserve more emphasis in dietary recommendations.” http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/544S.full Karyn Swaney (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Have tried the one review from 2003 as it is a little old. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Health effects in animals

What can be provided about health effects in animals? I know some factory farmed cows are force fed cow meat for some commercial benefit, but I'd suspect to their ultimate detriment. And can carnivorous animals subsist on a diet of plants in some circumstances? Pandeist (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a separate term for this. I can't find it right now but there are definitely laws that limit cannibalism in the food chain, so you might find the term by searching for articles about that type of law or about mad cow disease. Great floors (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Diet for disease prevention

I think for this article to make progress we have to mark a separation between people who end up on this diet by need (third-world countries), by happenstance (vegans), and by those striving for optimal health (whole food plant based folk).

I think this separation is necessary because we can't attribute the health benefits (if they exist) of the latter group automatically to the other two, and we can't say that the health risk/benefits of refined oils are a controversy among all people on a plant-based diet, etc.

They also have a separate history. Poor people eating plants is older than our species, large-scale veganism is a little recent, and the whole foods approach to disease prevention is only a "movement" (trend?) since the 1950s at the earliest.

I don't have an elaborate plan, but wanted to explain a little of what I'm trying. Comments and edits very much appreciated. Great floors (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My current text lacks citations, and, while I agree some should be added, I hope others can agree that there's nothing controversial there, and it's all backed up by the linked Wikipedia pages and the existing references in the article. Great floors (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't add unsourced content to Wikipedia. Per WP:BURDEN don't restore it without citing reliable sources. Please keep in mind that for content about health, the sources need to comply with WP:MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing about health in the text I added, my text just says "Dr.X promotes Y and uses term Z, so do Dr.A and Dr.B", so MEDRS doesn't apply. No one could derive medical advice from that. Great floors (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't let people shill things in Wikipedia that way. If the content is about health, there needs to be MEDRS sourced content about it, either supporting what "the doctor says" or calling it out. (See WP:PSCI) Otherwise WP would be more of full of garbage and lies than it is. People who work for companies often try to add promotional content to WP that way, and nobody gets to do that. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

What sources are appropriate?

Can I use a Youtube video of Pritikin saying "I allow a little milk to make the diet more palatable" as a reference for the claim that Pritikin allows a little milk to make the diet more palatable?

I guess this escapes WP:MED because it's a matter of style and historical record rather than medical advice. Right? Great floors (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Problems: where to draw the line?

One issue I can see is what criteria to use. The people advocating this concept don't form a defined group. Should the DASH diet be discussed as a healthy plant-based diet? I've never seen it called such, so I'd say no. What about Joel Fuhrman? I don't know, I don't think he's contributed to the movement/trend/topic, but I can see how others would think he did. Hmm... We could use the criteria of "people who use the term 'whole food plant-based' to describe their work - plus the people they cite as inspiration"? Great floors (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Does this make sense?

Anyone who's read up on this topic will recognise that what I'm describing is a coherent, documented topic that exists, but I can also see how an indepenedent observer with good knowledge of WP policies could justify deleting the whole thing (and I don't know if I'd have counter arguments). Should it be discussed in this article? or in vegan nutrition? or in its own whole food plant-based diets article? Great floors (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's my proposal for text about whole food plant based diets

I think the article should have a section something like this:

==Diet for disease prevention==

In the mid 20^th century, plant-based diets with optional small amounts of animal products were promoted for prevention and reversal of chronic disease by doctors such as Nathan Pritikin, Walter Kempner (rice diet) and Denis Parsons Burkitt. The inclusion of small amounts of animal products was either to make the diet more palatable or to avoid deficiencies such as vitamin b12 (which wasn't widely available in supplement form at that time). Dean Ornish, although focussing on lifestyle changes much broader than diet, also inspired the later advocates of plant-based diets for disease prevention.

Toward the end of the 20^th century, advocates such as doctors Michael Greger, Caldwell Esselstyn, Colin Campbell, John McDougall and Neal Barnard promoted this approach with a focus on reducing animal products as near as possible to zero.

The term "whole food plant-based diet" is often used to distinguish their health-focussed diets from diets incorporating more processed food which they say are less nutritionally dense.

I added it, but it got deleted without discussion. I hope someone finds it useful as a starting point for adding to WP. My efforts just get reverted without discussion (or a curt link to policies which are sometimes relevant, sometimes not). Great floors (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

sourcing is poor. Roxy the dog. bark 16:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Cholesterol hypothesis

The sections below were removed from the article for discussion.

The human diet consisted of 95% plants for 90% of human evolution, which may explain why humans are dangerously susceptible to heart disease as a result of animal product consumption. Because for most of human evolution humans consumed little to no cholesterol, the human body evolved to both produce and conserve cholesterol, indicating why consumption of high-cholesterol materials commonly causes heart disease in humans.

Others point out that humans did not live long enough during this period (with average life expectancies of 25 years) to evolve long-term protections against chronic diseases caused by high cholesterol consumption. The period was characterized by consuming anything that would allow short-term survival. Experts have found that populations adhering to diets similar to what was consumed for the majority of human evolution (i.e. 95% plant-foods) have lower incidences of atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases.

References

Not only are the references outdated (2008 and before), but the collective quality does not meet scientific consensus per WP:MEDSCI. Mainly, the proposed new text and sources come together as soapbox speculations remaining unconfirmed and still under study, such as this 2017 systematic review, PMID 28938794, which concludes: "Plant-based diets are associated with decreased total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol". We can state this remains a preliminary conclusion from ongoing clinical research, and further details are yet to be established. --Zefr (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Note every remaining source left cited in the "Humans" section, except one, is from 2008 or earlier - as early as 1989 - and not only do not represent scientific consensus, but are contradicted by other peer-reviewed studies, yet have not been removed. Note indication of agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrality0000 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The cholesterol issue is discussed and referenced with two 2017 reviews under Health effects, and is adequately addressed now. It's not surprising the fossil evidence in the Humans section has not produced new research, as it was thoroughly studied decades ago. You'll have to propose the edit and strong sources you want here to gain consensus, WP:NOCON. --Zefr (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The phrasing "generally subsisting on a plant-based diet, but supplementing with meat when possible" would be more specific with the addition of: The human diet consisted of 95% plants for 90% of human evolution.

References

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrality0000 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding more info to Health Effects section

Would it be appropriate to add more info regarding health effects, citing a variety of studies and articles? I would appreciate if I could contribute to this part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KA9812 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Content about health needs to be sourced per WP:MEDRS - basically, recent literature reviews in high quality biomedical journals, or statements by major medical/scientific bodies. that sort of thing. We also need to keep overall WP:WEIGHT in mind. Within those parameters, sure. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Would citing a few randomized-controlled trials from reputable journals and reporting their specific outcomes be appropriate in this case? KA9812 (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that's research-in-progress, so is unencyclopedic per WP:MEDASSESS. --Zefr (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense Quotation

Is it just me or does this quote not really make any sense? I'm dumbfounded that noone has made any corrections until now..; "4 billion people live primarily on a plant-based diet", and that "shortage of cropland, freshwater, and energy resources requires that most of the 4 billion people live primarily on a plant-based diet" I think that, saying "4 billion people live primarily on a plant-based diet because of limits caused by shortages of cropland, freshwater, and energy resources" would give convey the same meaning, in a less weird and redundant manner. Or is this incorrect perhaps? I'd love a reply or two on this, and feel free to make the correction if you're certain it would be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:E6E3:0:C014:3682:D904:D9B4 (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Add to Health Effects Section

Plant-Based products and Plant-Based recipes are more economical as compare to others. Vegan or Vegetarian diet has major helth benefits to lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol, better blood sugar, lower rates of cancer and weight loss, reduced saturated fats, provide carbohydrates, high fiber diet to fight against colon cancer, absorption of calcium and magnesium, balaces water and acidity, generates red and white blodd cells, boost yuor immune system, prevent a number of diseases, eliminate all dietary cholesterol, maintains bone health and live an average three to six years longer as compare to those who do not followed vegan or vegetarian lifestyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranabilalinfo (talk • contribs) 09:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Would this appropriate to include in the Health Effects section (2 Paragraphs under Plant-Based Diets and Cardiovascular Disease)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KA9812/sandbox KA9812 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of material from the lede by Zefr

User:Zefr has removed the following from the lede, as "not lede material":

At various times in history, large populations have subsisted on plant-based diets. In 1999, it was estimated that four billion people live primarily on a plant-based diet because of limits caused by shortages of cropland, freshwater, and energy resources.<ref>David Pimentel, Marcia H. Pimentel, ''Food, Energy, and Society'', CRC Press, 2007, p. 67.</ref>

I find this removal perplexing. The fact of this trait being shared by four billion people, which was an even more substantial portion of the human population in 1999 than it is today, is one of the most important things we can report in the entire encyclopedia. I can see no good reason to remove it from the lede, and no legitimate reason whatsoever to remove reference to the actual number, or the contributing factors. I would ask Zefr to voluntary reverse his removal for discussion, per WP:BRD. If not I would propose that it be restored by consensus. bd2412 T 16:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The 2018 encyclopedia, especially the article lede, should not be relying on a 1999 non-peer-reviewed statement here; WP:MEDDATE. Please find a current WP:MEDRS-quality review. A medical source is needed to verify information on a subject relevant to human nutrition and health. --Zefr (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A statement on the proportion of the population relying on a particular food source says nothing about the nutrition or health of that food source. WP:MEDRS clearly does not apply to this claim. bd2412 T 17:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the need for a WP:MEDRS source for this proposition, I have provided one (it is also more recent), and have restored the material to the lede accordingly. bd2412 T 18:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE is more so about whether the material is up-to-date than how new the source is. For example, this was mentioned at Talk:Cervix/GA2#Comments from Snowmanradio. If it's the case that "In 1999, it was estimated that four billion people live primarily on a plant-based diet because of limits caused by shortages of cropland, freshwater, and energy resources.", that is something that is relevant to 1999. So I understand what Zefr means on that. If the text is only about 1999 and the source is reliable, I wouldn't see a need for a newer source. But the text stated "live" instead of "lived," indicating that this is still the case. So if we are reporting it as a matter that still holds true, I agree with Zefr. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that the wording has been changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I was asked to provide WP:MEDRS sources for the proposition, so I did, including one from 2017. bd2412 T 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I was simply explaining WP:MEDDATE. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Paleontolony?

Not in the OED, nor "palaeontolony". I see a few cryptic Google hits that could be consistent with usage in this article, but they all seem a bit musty and archaic, from the 19th century or so. Explication? Suggested subtitute(s)? Just plain Bill (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• That was probably intended to say "paleontology", but I have changed it to the plain English "Prehistoric life". bd2412 T 19:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Definition

Thank you. Bolding next to be removed, or I will not remove this hat. The bolding makes the page quite distressing to read, though I will not object if an experienced user feels differently. please read WP:TPG -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Tematice, regarding this, I reverted because the notion that a plant-based diet excludes all animal products is clearly is not true, given that the term/topic applies to vegetarians who are not vegans, meaning vegetarians who consume eggs and/or dairy. The article is clear about the term/topic's scope. Do stop editing the article in a non-neutral way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC) I agree with this assessment. Plant-based is not necessarily plant-exclusive. There are names for diets that are progressively more concentrated in that direction. bd2412 T 04:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn and bd2412, the definition of a plant-based diet is to eat plants and don't eat animal products. That's why it's named plant-based. Just by a search on google, all articles show that a plant-based diet is based on plants like fruits, vegetables,... and shouldn't contain any animal products. | If we search "plant-based" on Google, the: | First result from Google: "Plant-based means food that comes from plants and doesn’t contain animal ingredients such as meat, milk, eggs, or honey." https://www.forksoverknives.com/plant-based-primer-beginners-guide-starting-plant-based-die | Second result from Google: "Living a Whole Food, Plant-Based Life (...) AVOID animal products such as meat, fish, and dairy" https://nutritionstudies.org/whole-food-plant-based-diet-guide/ | Third result from Google: is this wikipedia article. | Fourth result from Google: doesn't state any defintion. | Seventh result from Google: "Did you know that while a plant-based diet and a vegan diet might appear to be the same thing, this might not necessarily be true! While both diets do not contain any animal products, when it come to other food types, the approach can be different."; "A whole food, plant-based diet is one that centres on whole, unrefined, and unprocessed foods. It’s made up of fruits, vegetables, wholegrains, beans, legumes, nuts, and seeds. Like a vegan diet, a whole food, plant-based diet excludes all meats, fish, dairy products, and eggs, however, it also steers clear of most refined and processed foods like refined white flours and grains, refined sugars and processed oils.‘Whole food’ and ‘plant-based’ are terms typically used to describe something that is made from whole, plant foods that have not been refined in any way." https://thehappypear.ie/the-difference-between-whole-food-plant-based-and-vegan/ | From another result: "At first glance, the term “plant-based” seems pretty self-explanatory – a commitment to eating a diet that focuses around whole, plant foods. However, plant-based eating isn’t just about the addition of whole, plant foods such as fruits, veggies, legumes, grains, nuts and seeds, but also the elimination of ALL animal products including meat, fish, eggs, dairy, gelatin and other animal byproducts from one’s diet. Due to the elimination of animal products in a plant-based diet, it’s easy to see why one may consider plant-based diets to be the same as vegan." https://eatbychloe.com/2015/06/plant-based-vs-vegan/ | And from another result: "A plant-based diet is any diet that focuses around foods derived from plant sources. This can include fruit, vegetables, grains, pulses, legumes, nuts and meat substitutes such as soy products. People often have different interpretations of what ‘plant-based’ eating looks like. Some people still include small amounts of animal products such as meat and fish, while focusing mainly on vegetarian foods – this is referred to as a semi-vegetarian or flexitarian diet. Plans that cut out meat but still include fish are referred to as pescatarian diets. People who don’t eat meat or fish but still include dairy and eggs are referred to as vegetarian, while those who cut out any animal derived products, including dairy, eggs, honey and gelatin are referred to as vegan." https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/what-plant-based-diet | As you can see, the plant-based diets that may contain small amounts of animal products is named flexitarian diet or semi-vegetarian diet. Why semi-vegetarian? Because the defintion of "vegetarian = a person who does not eat meat or fish, and sometimes other animal products, especially for moral, religious, or health reasons." Please stop reverting back the defintion as I've sourced my edits above and in the article. Also see [1] in the article. --Tematice (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC) There are already sources in the article that indicate that a plant-based diet is not necessarily exclusive of meat. Please obtain a consensus in this discussion before changing the article to this effect again. bd2412 T 14:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC) See, e.g., "Summerfield, Liane M. (2012-08-08). Nutrition, Exercise, and Behavior: An Integrated Approach to Weight Management (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning. pp. 181–182. ISBN 9780840069245. "A plant-based diet is not necessarily a vegetarian diet. Many people on plant-based diets continue to use meat products and/or fish but in smaller quantities". This is a published source. bd2412 T 14:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Please see this consensus I've linked: [Ostfeld, Robert J. "Definition of a plant-based diet and overview of this special issue". Journal of Geriatric Cardiology : JGC. 14 (5): 315. doi:10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2017.05.008. ISSN 1671-5411. PMC 5466934. PMID 28630607. "A plant-based diet consists of all minimally processed fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, herbs, and spices and excludes all animal products, including red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and dairy products."] in the article. What you've linked is outdated as it's from 2012. Please stop changing the definition as the [1] is from 2017 and that's how most people use the term "plant-based diet" nowadays. -–Tematice (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC) What you are linking is just a book from 2011. What I've linked as source for the definition is from the U.S. National Library of Medicine from 2017. Currently the definition of the plant-based diet excludes all animal products. Please link in here (Talk) a source from these years. Not something from 8 years ago. Thank you. -–Tematice (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC) That only shows that there are varying definitions of the term. Eight years is reasonably recent. bd2412 T 14:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Since you have requested it, here is a 2018 source that specifically states: "Plant-based or plant-forward eating patterns focus on foods primarily from plants. ... It doesn’t mean that you re vegetarian or vegan and never eat meat or dairy. Rather, you are proportionately choosing more of your foods from plant sources". What is a plant-based diet and why should you try it?, Katherine D. McManus, Harvard Medical School (September 26, 2018). bd2412 T 14:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Please check your source you've linked as it states that a Plant-based diet is based on plants and doesn't contain animal products: "Plant-based or plant-forward eating patterns focus on foods primarily from plants. This includes not only fruits and vegetables, but also nuts, seeds, oils, whole grains, legumes, and beans. It doesn’t mean that you are vegetarian or vegan and never eat meat or dairy. Rather, you are proportionately choosing more of your foods from plant sources." > Then Katherine D. McManus (the author of your source above) writes about about variation of the plant-based diet, like the Mediterranean diet: "What is the evidence that plant-based eating patterns are healthy? Much nutrition research has examined plant-based eating patterns such as the Mediterranean diet and a vegetarian diet. The Mediterranean diet has a foundation of plant-based foods; it also includes fish, poultry, eggs, cheese, and yogurt a few times a week, with meats and sweets less often. > Also based on the text above from your source, the Mediterranean diet is a variation of the plant-based diet. Plant-based diet = foods derived from plants: nuts, seeds, vegetables, fruits, legumes and on the other hand, Mediterranean diet = the diet above that also includes fish, poultry, eggs, cheese, and yogurt. > By your source, plant based diet = vegetarian diet: "Vegetarian diets come in lots of shapes and sizes, and you should choose the version that works best for you. * Semi-vegetarian or flexitarian includes eggs, dairy foods, and occasionally meat, poultry, fish, and seafood." > So what you've edited in the Plant-based article is not valid as the Plant-based diet = Vegetarian diet and as you can see above stated in your last source, it says that "Vegetarian diets come in lots of shapes and sizes", meaning that the plant-based diet/vegetarian diet comes in different forms like Semi-vegetarian/Flexitarian Diet (the diets that contain small amounts of animal products). > That's why I think your definition that you've currently changed to in the Plant-based diet Wikipedia article is invalid. --Tematice (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Agreed that plant-based diet means plant-based, sourced evidence presented makes a good case. And I've always written that there is no such thing as a 'Semi-vegetarian' diet (our article using that name is misleading even if sourced). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Aren't we really, then, discussing the meaning of "-based"? For example, the difference between an army and a navy is that the army is land-based and the navy is sea-based, but that doesn't mean that "army" excludes any operations on the sea, or that "navy" excludes any operations on land. bd2412 T 16:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Additional sources: Sarah Lienard, "What is a plant-based diet?", BBC (July 25, 2018): "People often have different interpretations of what ‘plant-based’ eating looks like. Some people still include small amounts of animal products such as meat and fish, while focusing mainly on vegetarian foods – this is referred to as a semi-vegetarian or flexitarian diet"; Catherine Saxelby , "A ‘plant-based’ diet isn’t a ‘PLANT-ONLY’ DIET!", (September 19, 2018); Christy Brissette, "5 steps to lowering your cancer risk, according to a dietitian", The Washington Post (March 30, 2018): "The remaining portion can include foods that come from animals such as fish, poultry, meat, eggs and dairy products". bd2412 T 16:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC) There's no such thing as eating animal products on a plant-based diet. The most concrete evidence is from the Wikipedia article: "A semi-vegetarian or flexitarian diet is one that is plant-based with the occasional inclusion of meat.". So Plant-based + animal products. Why would there be Semi-vegetarian or Flexitarian diets if you could say "I'm on a plant-based diet but I still have eggs, meat and dairy." That doesn't make sense. -- Tematice (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Apparently some people think there is, and some people think there is not. It is not Wikipedia's job to declare one side or the other to be right or wrong; we report both, dispassionately. bd2412 T 19:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sustainability

I have added a 'sustainability' section to the article in which I connect plant-based diets and their possitive effect towards the environment. Sources are provided.

--BluVegan (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Was reverted. I agree with the revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

No mention of

The term plant-based nowadays also refers to a diet that is mostly (say >75%) non-animal products, but still includes meat consumption, in the same vein as the old food pyramid, whereby plants would be at the base and meat would be at the top (where junk food used to be). I suggest mentioning this growing trend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.47.46.75 (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Strange emphasis on this article to redefining existing term

Nearly the entire body of this article seems completely out of sync with the plantbased community which recognizes it as a vegan diet without necessarily the ethos, and basically nothing else towards it of value. The earliest use in books from the 1970s and 1980s afaik, clearly started "plant-based" as a vegan diet and it seems over half this article is spent hard on diluting the term back to a normal diet and how one can eat animal products on it based on recent articles of dubious expertise on the direct subject. This is an entirely new development coming only from nonpractioners or newcomers.

Then it goes on to apply this redefinition to a non-existing historical usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.146.84 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is sourced; your assertions seem not to be. We follow what good sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

And then seems to promptly ignore what some of these "good sources" say, although I'm not sure how some of these source are "good", LiveScience really? The very first citation only talks in terms of vegetarian diet. Citation #8 is correct, which is quoted, says that the Vegan doctors developed the term to avoid using vegan back in the 1970s and 1980s.

Then the terminology section is just a listing of other diets that very clearly have an existing label. A list of how "plant-based" label has misappropriated or intentionally diluted by some parties in order to softball it to the public as it rises in popularity here and there over time. This documentation of misappropriations could be done with any other label in existence and such an emphasized article structure for all of wikipedia would make it boring indeed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466934/

"Definition of a plant-based diet

A plant-based diet consists of all minimally processed fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, herbs, and spices and excludes all animal products, including red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and dairy products."

And this source is at least better than the current second citation listed here, which seems to account for multiple lines, and a bulk of semi-vegetarian assertions, in that it's in a peer reviewed journal rather than just another PHD's book.

DrDoctorMD (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

An editorial in a weak journal is not a good source. This[5] from the BDA would seem more authoritative. If a plant-based diet were really identical to a vegan diet, this article would be deleted and redirected to veganism. Alexbrn (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Then let's go to the coiner of the term, T. Colin Campbell, Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, as I've wary of groups that had nothing to do with the coining nor growing the phrase trying to define it and at the same time softpedal it in order to umbrella other terms (why though, they have their own terms?). Here in his own words.

[6]

"Thus I believed that this ‘V’ idea had to be communicated in an objective, scientifically valid way. My solution was to choose “plant-based” for lack of a better word. I also thought that the idea had to rest on good solid science, if it were to survive. Still today, I avoid the ‘V’ words because most vegetarians consume too much animal based foods (such as dairy and fish) and total fat. Vegans tend to consume too much processed food and total fat. I added “whole” to my “plant-based” nomenclature a little later, in order to avoid the idea that isolated nutrients (as in supplements) and/or plant food fragments (refined carbohydrates sugar and white flour) conveyed health. My considerable experience in court testifying to the inappropriate use of nutrient supplements compelled me to add the word “whole” as in “whole food, plant-based.”"

This emphasis away from animal and processed products is something all plant-based doctors I have seen espoused and is critically missing from the article. Plant-based is not the same as vegan or vegetarian because of processed food (soda and oreas is vegan but not plantbased) and plantbased lacks the ethical emphasis many vegans have. For example, many of the strictest vegans will not eat non-vegan sugar because it has likely been processed by bone char while a plant-based eater is unlikely to fuss too much ethically although they'd try to minimize consumption nonetheless. Just as eating a Christmas meal with meat central to it wouldn't mean the person is no longer plant-based although that meal certainly isn't and should never be marked as such. In this way saying someone is 90% plantbased may make sense while someone being 90% vegan does not.

This misunderstanding is communicated in your last edit, saying "plantbased" is not "plantonly", trying to tie in too literal a meaning to "based" part of the phrase, otherwise we could also quibble about mushrooms and funghi not being in the plantkingdom. Terms cannot be treated like that, brevity and ease of speaking is a consideration. This is further communicated here by T. Colin Campbell although I'm not sure if that will be accepted as a source, although it is used in his wikipage currently.

https://vegparadise.com/24carrot92.html DrDoctorMD (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

A claim that Campbell coined the term in the mid 1980s would seem to be wrong since it was in use in vegetarian circles well before then (e.g.[7]). In any case these web sites are not good sources. We simply follow what reliable sources (like the BDA) say. Alexbrn (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

I request adding an additional section about plant-based medications. A surprising number of common medications are not plant-based, either due to filler ingredients, active, or something as simple as shellac (derived from insects) in the pharmaceutical dye used on capsules. I recommend adding the section after "Sustainability" and before "Health research" sections. Below is the suggested wording for a vegan medicines section.

Plant-Based Medicine

There are very few plant-based certifications for pharmaceuticals, leading most to rely on vegan certifications for medicine and supplements. Most vegan certifications for medicines and supplements ensure that the product does not contain any animal byproducts. However, many pharmaceutical ingredients can be derived from either an animal or animal-free source. This can create complications for plant-based diets that fall into a veganism category, from fruitism to raw veganism. For example, the most common inactive ingredient in tablets or capsules is magnesium stearate. Magnesium stearate can be derived either from animal fat or palm oil, but manufacturers do not often make the distinction on their packaging. Organizations, such as the Vegan Society, PETA, and VeganMed, offer certifications that provide clarity for consumers.Certifications that provide in-depth laboratory testing as a component of their certification can differentiate between animal-based and plant-based ingredients, providing consumers with peace of mind. A second concern for plant-based medicine is that the FDA regulatory process for ingredients or drug creation requires animal testing. As such, vegan certifications can only ensure that the medicine or supplement is free of animal products, but not necessarily animal testing. For this reason, terminology like animal-free is more accurate than vegan. Forest2020vision (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done - this is promotional, soapbox content, WP:SOAP, and WP:OFFTOPIC for this article. No WP:MEDSCI source is offered (or exists, to my knowledge). --Zefr (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Plant-Based Diets and Cardiovascular Disease

I think it is still early days as research is being conducted but I did find this 2019 review in the Current Atherosclerosis Reports, [8]. Is it worth adding that to the article, or should we wait for more sources?

There is another 2018 review in the Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine, [9] but I cannot get full access to it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request for Humans subsection of History

I request adding an additional section, “Philosophical Influence” in the “History” section, after the “Humans” subsection. A further expansion of this section will help connect the past to the present.

Philosophical influence

The history of plant-based eating goes back thousands of years. One significant rise in plant based diets occurred during the classical period with the Pythagoreans, namesake of the Greek philosopher Pythagoras. Roughly 100 years after Pythagora's death, Greek philosopher Porphyry wrote a book titled On Abstinence from the Flesh of Animals, which included some of the same arguments modern-day vegetarians use when selecting the plant-based diet. His book spawned the first vegetarian society in England, which in turn inspired the first vegetarian society in America. As momentum grew for plant-based diets, the influence of Porphyry’s writing spread into the literature of America. In 1906, the creation of the Pure Food and Drug Act and the US Food and Drug Administration was an unintentional result of Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle.

References

Gwnytheve (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now. Is this article's topic "American plant-based diet"? No, it isn't, it's just "plant=based diet", which is broad and not restricted to a single culture. The text above doesn't really reflect facts in the first source cited, which gives some space to countries such as India which are primarily vegetarian, and the second source is so western-centric (failing to mention any eastern influences at all) that I am skeptical it can be considered reliable. However, there is good information to be found in both sources, but I don't feel comfortable with the information selected from them to present in this proposed new section. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Motivations and/or Results/Consequences

A common theme in public discussing (and often criticizing or condemning) 'plant-based diets' is the seeming lack of evidence that practitioners' health is improved or that lives are better off. Contrasting that are numerous TYPES of physical beauty and athletic prowess and longevity and high achievement on plant-based vegan and/or vegetarian diets. I suggest that a few additional lists be developed: (a) plant-based athletes (that list is growing), (b) plant-based investors (e.g. Mort Zuckerman), (c) plant-based inventors and technologists (e.g. Steve Jobs), etc. Current lists seem to prioritize thinkers and media/entertainment celebrities - which features realized characteristics (that filtered through countless 'vetting' iterations, while famous athletes are also vetted by circumstance, but they are a distinct type of excellence when on vegan diets (which they often try to see what it's like, whether or not a condition clears or athletic prowess improves or endurance is enhanced). MaynardClark (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No one should care what athletes, investors, or celebrities eat. They are neither nutrition experts nor reputable sources for scientific topics in an encyclopedia. Interpreting any value in what they eat falls into an editor's opinion = WP:OR, which should be avoided. We should stick with nutrition facts supported by reliable secondary sources defined by WP:MEDSCI, a medical guide which applies to nutrition and human health. Zefr (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Point of the term with current definitions...?

What is the point of the term if it means virtually any diet containing plants?

Stephen Newport 21:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Newport (talk • contribs)

• Where in the article does it say that it means "virtually any diet containing plants"? I don't see that phrase. I do see "consisting mostly or entirely of foods derived from plants", which is very different from "virtually any diet containing plants", in the same sense that "Water-based paint" is not paint made of nothing but water. BD2412 T 21:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• "Mostly" is a muddy and unnecessary inclusion. The majority of world diets consist of 'mostly plants,' including the legacy [food pyramid] standard American diet , and the most recent [my plate] standard American diet [[10]]. Diets consisting of 'mostly plants' are typically simply labeled as a 'healthy' diet ["healthy food")]. Similarly, we already have a number of terms for this broad definition of indescript diets primarily emphasizing a rough percentage of plants over meat. Flexitarianism, for instance "centered on plant foods with the occasional inclusion of meat" [[11]]. Plant-based, under it's current description is redundant and is confusing in conversation when used in such a way, and this is documented:

"When asked to choose a definition for these terms, the majority agreed plant-based means, “a menu item that contains no animal products or byproducts, instead is solely plant-based, i.e., vegan” and that plant-forward means, “menu items that focus on plant-based ingredients but not necessarily exclude meats.” Plant-Based vs. Plant-Forward

The current wiki entry is more appropriate for the term "plant-forward," which is already established as a plant-centric diet, but not limited to it, While "plant-based" is broadly understood in normal conversation with normal people as food containing plants, as the literal definition of the words in the term denote. Stephen Newport 01:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Newport (talk • contribs)

The article already qualifies the term to include "with few or no animal products", which is supported by reliable sources. There is an entire section of the article on terminology which discusses the fact that some use the term to mean "plant-only", while others do not. BD2412 T 17:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

IF "plant based" definition is contentious then we would need to show that. So far on reading the referenced links they all specifically exclude meat entirely (except for one paper #3), and this is not at all clear in this article. We need to make people smarter after reading it not more confused.

(Is there a difference between what is considered a plant-based meal (which has no meat ever), and someone on a plant-based diet (which they may occasionally break by eating meat)? I don't think so, just thinking aloud).

Reading a bit further.. I have to think the person who wrote the terminology section was trying to make a point. It deliberately misquotes a reference in support of the claim that "several sources say"!! It cuts off the beginning of the American Institutes recommendation, so that instead of recommending a PREDOMINANTLY plant-based diet plus limited meat, they are saying a plant based diet INCLUDES limited meat. It's very different. "The American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund call for choosing predominantly plant-based diets rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, legumes, and minimally processed starchy staple foods and limiting red meat consumption, if red meat is eaten at all". Greg (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting looking at an old version of terminology. You can see where the "mostly plant-based diet" started to cross over to the "plant-based diet is mostly plants but some animals". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plant-based_diet&oldid=757390849

"Mostly plant-based" DOES include meat sometimes, but plant-based does not. Same as if we said a group is mostly men but does include women, that doesn't change the definition of man. 06:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

From The American Heart Association, which I think is clear but takes some educated reading :)

First, let’s define the terms:

• A vegan diet is entirely plant-based. It excludes meat, fish, dairy and eggs – basically anything that comes from an animal.
• Vegetarians also eat a plant-based diet, but their menu may include dairy and eggs.
• A flexitarian is a vegetarian that sometimes indulges in meat or fish but mostly sticks to plant foods.
• Plant-forward is a style of cooking and eating that emphasizes plant-based foods but is not strictly limited to them. Meat may be included but it’s usually not the main feature of the meal.

Note as example... Vegetarians eat plant-based BUT may add dairy and eggs. Greg (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Project Drawdown

Although this edit may have merit, it is not supported by a WP:SCIRS review, and so was reverted. Project Drawdown is an advocacy website, and is not a secondary source; WP:PROMO. Zefr (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a widely reputable organization for addressing climate change: its one of the most referred to tools for policy making and is based on a systematic review -- and is in line with the IPCC -- which is an even larger systematic review -- I don't know what you are talking about, Sadads (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is about a "diet", not anti-meat advocacy. Your emphasis on this topic and the sources provided are WP:OFFTOPIC and do not meet WP:BURDEN to include this information for a "plant-based diet". You have also engaged in WP:WAR and met WP:3RR. Zefr (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD - Moving the disputed paragraph from the lede to here. This paragraph is advocacy for "Project Drawdown" and is not specifically about a "plant-based diet". Further, the sources used are not WP:SECONDARY, but rather are part of the advocacy, however meritorious for policy they may be. Zefr (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed content:

Plant-based diets are important for mitigating climate change because of the outsized carbon impact of meat production and the smaller land area needed for vegetable crops, allowing for reforestation and rewilding. Project Drawdown describes a "plant rich diet" as one of the most actionable climate change mitigation strategies. Plant based diets also reduce the other environmental impacts of animal agriculture, such as water pollution and processes like deforestation, desertification and land degradation.

References

I think we can resolve this by rewording the first sentence as a claim rather than a statement. E.g., "Proponents of climate change mitigation have asserted that adoption of plant-based diets would reduce the outsized carbon impact of meat production". BD2412 T 16:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

That's better, although it's not lede material and would need a secondary WP:SCIRS review rather than policy sources, imo. Zefr (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

PCRA's definition

According PCRA the definition of "Plant-based diet is "A plant-based diet consists of exclusively plant foods, including fruit, vegetables, grains, and legumes, and avoids meat, dairy, and eggs."

This definition should be incorporated in the lead and elsewhere. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• There are multiple reliable sources with varying definitions. We can not choose one source as a basis to disregard other equally reliable sources. BD2412 T 20:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The terminology section, "In various sources, "plant-based diet" has been used to refer to" we have "Vegetarianism: diet of vegetables, legumes, fruit, nuts, and grains, that may include eggs and dairy, but no meat", the source used doesn't refer to "plant-based diet" as vegetarian. Then we have Liane M. Summerfield who muses to the effect that those on a plant based diet don't stick to it, unless they are highly motivated by health or ethical concerns. It would be a good idea to get a quotation from "The encyclopaedia of food sciences and nutrition" to check whether it supports the statement purportedly sourced from it that "plant-based" diet refers to xxx". The only clear definition that I found (I may not have looked hard enough, correctly me if I am wrong) is from Academy of nutrition and dietetics, that "Plant-based diets, (are) defined as diets that include generous amounts of plant foods and limited amounts of animal foods." apart from the PCRM one quoted above. I suggest that we have these two definitions. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The article currently says in the lede that "examples can be found of the phrase 'plant-based diet' being used to refer to vegan diets, which contain no food from animal sources". Does that not cover the range sought? BD2412 T 22:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The definition problem stems from two things, I think. Firstly, many articles talk about a the health benefits of a "mostly plant-based diet, which has little or no meat." The problem is that this is not a definition for "plant-based" but rather hangs on the word "MOSTLY". It was written using that easily mistaken word choice here in this wikipedia article a few years ago, which I think slid into the definition issues we're seeing.

Secondly, some researchers into 3rd world diets refer to poor people with a plant-based diet, because meat is far too expensive, but these people do seek out limited amounts of meat to add if they can. The term "based" in that scientific research sense may relate to a "plant foundation", rather than "plant-built" diet. Researchers in western countries when looking at heart disease etc generally lump "almost never eat meat" in with the "plant-based" group for research purposes. Not nefariously... their methods clearly say they include limited meat in the plant-based category, but it does lead to confusion in normal settings.

One reader problem is that there is a whole market for "plant-based food" in supermarkets, which is entirely plant-based. It is not "mostly" plant based, it's only plant based. (if a meal is made of "mostly plant-based food" then of course it's no longer plant-based).

Vegan food and plant-based food are the same thing, but vegan goes further into animal cruelty issues unrelated to food.

And add to all that, some of the sites we're citing are taking their definition from us. It's hard to tell who is citing who. Greg (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I see no basis for expecting that either the Summerfield piece or the Canadian dietician piece is taking cues from Wikipedia. BD2412 T 03:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It bothers me that throughout this discussion and article, searching for the actual quotes shows misquotes.

Like: Several sources use the phrase plant-based diet to refer to diets including varying degrees of animal products, defining "plant-based diets" as, for example "diets that include generous amounts of plant foods and limited amounts of animal foods", and as diets "rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, legumes, and minimally processed starchy staple foods and limiting red meat consumption, if red meat is eaten at all".

Which was actually: stating that "The American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund call for choosing predominantly plant-based diets rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, legumes, and minimally processed starchy staple foods and limiting red meat consumption, if red meat is eaten at all".

The meaning switch in the original was significant. Saying that several (two) sources supported it, where the second of the sources actually recommends predominantly plant-based (plant-only) and limiting red meat consumption. When the source used to support the idea that plant-based includes meat actually supports the definition that plant-based is plant-only (and that predominantly plant-based can include limited meat), then this article is getting it wrong. (Yes I changed it to the second one, but what I wrote is incorrect because it doesn't address it enough). Greg (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If I'm not clear. Quite literally, if this source thought Plant-based diet included meat, it would have said "calls for plant-based diet with limited red meat", rather than "calls for a predominantly plant-based diet, and limited meat". Greg (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is an unequivocal statement on the matter from Harvard Medical School titled "What is a plant-based diet and why should you try it?":

Plant-based or plant-forward eating patterns focus on foods primarily from plants. This includes not only fruits and vegetables, but also nuts, seeds, oils, whole grains, legumes, and beans. It doesn’t mean that you are vegetarian or vegan and never eat meat or dairy. Rather, you are proportionately choosing more of your foods from plant sources.

The existence of sources such as this one are why this article will never, under any circumstances, represent the phrase "plant-based diet" as uniformly excluding meat from inclusion in such a diet. BD2412 T 05:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

BD2412 you are quite literally quoting a site that defines "Plant-based or plant-forward eating patterns"... the problem is that plant-forward eating patterns do include meat. Your quote is not "unequivocal" in the slightest. We are doing a disservice by not defining this clearly. Greg (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Circular definition!

At the end of Nov 2019 we (Wikipedia) said: "A plant-based diet is a diet consisting mostly or entirely of foods derived from plants, including vegetables, grains, nuts, seeds, legumes and fruits, and with few or no animal products". Early in December 2019, Alexbrn defended keeping that definition and added a link to the Association of UK Dietitians updated web site. The BDA created their definition in September 2017, word for word copying what we had written here on Wikipedia.

Now the BDA quote of the wikipedia definition is used by editors here to justify the wikipedia definition being correct. This is circular.

Ours Aug 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plant-based_diet&oldid=928972539

Original BDA Food Facts pdf (created Sep 2017): https://web.archive.org/web/20200127205804/https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/plant-based-diet.html

Original BDA Food facts area: https://web.archive.org/web/20171112215442/https://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/home

Our wikipedia definition evolved over the years, you can see it slowly changing. Back at the end of 2014 we originally said here that: "A plant-based diet is one based on vegetables, whole grains, legumes and fruit, with little or no animal products" with 4 sources. 2 of those sources have since been removed, I don't know why.

Ours Dec 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plant-based_diet&oldid=636130506

Plant-based food in common usage does not include meat at all. Several of our sources list a "Mostly Plant-based diet" as containing some meat... but the emphasis is on the "mostly plant", it does not warrant the mistake. We are directly impacting dieting sites with our early misunderstanding. The fight to not try to be educative and helpful here surprises me. Greg (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ellen Jaffe Jones

In the "terminology" section I believe Ellen Jaffe Jones should be removed. It's not a very good source to be quoting. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Plant-based diet reversing cardiovascular disease

I am not sure about this edit [12]. The paper cited has a possible bias because it was authored by vegans i.e. Michael Greger. In regard to reversal of CVD it says "A lifestyle program that incorporates a whole, plant-based diet has been shown to reverse CVD, a feat largely elusive to medications and technologic advances. Numerous studies have demonstrated that lifestyle interventions can have a major impact on the development of, and even the reversal of, CVD" The sources linked to back up this statement are Dean Ornish and Caldwell Esselstyn, but they appear outdated, for example Dean Ornish papers were from 1998 and have never been replicated. The problem with Ornish and Esselstyn's studies is that independent clinical trials have not been done to replicate their results. This is noted by the British Heart Foundation [13] and others. The consensus view does not support the idea that a plant-based diet can reverse CVD, this may change in the future as more research is being done on this topic but we cannot put the cart before the horse and say that now because the current evidence does not support it. A plant-based diet can definitely lower the risk of CVD [14], [15] [16] so we could say it prevents it but this is obviously not the same as reversing it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This article has just been created Whole-food plant-based diet which states a whole food plant based diet can reverse cardiovascular diseases sourced to the same paper. This is clearly problematic and not the consensus view. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Plant-based meat substitutes

Can we add a tying source that connects the growing popularity of substitutes with the specific desire for a plant-based diet? BD2412 T 03:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

2022 January Update

I am currently preparing a German version of this article for WP:DE. While doing so I will go through this article, copyedit and update the sections with current sources that I use for the German article. I appreciate any help with style and language, as I'm not a native speaker. Tischbeinahe (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Intro section

I have deleted the following from the intro.

1. While a plant-based diet avoids or has limited animal products, it is not necessarily vegan. 

2. However, use of the phrase "plant-based diet" has changed over time and examples can be found of the phrase being used to refer to vegan diets (which only include plant-based food, none from animal sources), and vegetarian diets, which may include dairy or eggs but no meat, 

3. as well as diets that include limited amounts of animal-based foods, such as semi-vegetarian and authentic Mediterranean diets.

1. I will include "not necessarily vegetarian or vegan" in shorter form in the intro. 2. The HMS school does not give an account about how "the phrase has changed over time". This is just not backed up by the source. It doesn't even explicitly state that a vegan diet is categorized as plant-based diet. 3. The two sources do not back up the claim that commonly the Mediterranean diets is categorized as plant-based diet. The second source is a blog entry.

I do think, however, that the article should deal with the statements that the editors of this text tried to make. I will look for more reliable sources that do actually back up the claims made. CarlFromVienna (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Be aware, however, that this page has a history of editors trying to redefine "plant-based diet" to mean a diet that intentionally excludes all animal-based products. BD2412 T 19:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think I remember that a year ago or so the PCRM definition was included with something like "the term today refers to an exclusively vegan diet" or something like that. They clearly want to have their term back :-) But now its out in the wild and is mainly used as an umbrella term for all kinds of diets that are low in animal products. I have a long list of todos for this article and going back in the version history is on that list -- after I've cleaned up the most embarrassing things that accumulated in the article over time. CarlFromVienna (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

References

History section

I have deleted the "history" section, that violated WP:NOR. It was compiled from biology sources that do not deal with dietary or nutritional research. The plant-based diet that humans consume is a cultural technique that is learned and handed down. This has nothing to do with the natural history or evolution of insects and animals as it was described in section. There were some sentences about humans but again, the article describes a diet, which is a cultural technique. As with all cultural techniques the question if these are "natural" are meaningless. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The title of the article is not "Plant-based diet in humans" or "Plant-based human diet". See Diet (nutrition): "In nutrition, diet is the sum of food consumed by a person or other organism". All herbivores, by definition, have a plant-based diet. Some technically omnivorous animals have one as well. The term is not specieist. Perhaps this can be described more clearly in the article, but the "plant-based diet" originates with plant-eating animals, and all such animals can be described by such a diet. BD2412 T 19:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Non of the sources in the restored section does even include the phrase "plant-based diet". The phrase "plant-based diet" was coined in context of vegan/vegetarian diets, that is, in the context of human nutrition. This is not a term used in biology. The term only refers to human diets. CarlFromVienna (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you find some way, then, to indicate that obligate herbivores do not have a "plant-based diet"? The topic is related enough to mention. BD2412 T 19:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The general problem with the term is that it is rather new and it's definition is far from finished. As far as I can see the only disciplines that are currently using it (and working on improving the definition) is medical and nutritional sciences. I don't think we will find a paper in biology that uses the term and talks about plant-based diets in animals. Think about it, would you expect something about animal diets in the articles of veganism or vegetarianism? CarlFromVienna (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I get your point. Added this to clarify the scope of the article. Timelezz (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Fungi?

Might want to mention fungi somewhere in the article, since plant-based diets are often vegetarian or vegan in nature, but those diets still permit fungi. Hppavilion1 (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

That is an interesting point, and perhaps there is a source somewhere that also notes this distinction. BD2412 T 18:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The term "plan-based" diet is used in contrast to "animal based" diet. The term originates in nutritional science and as in everyday use "plants" include fungi, too. That's why nobody ever cared to explicitly state that fungi are included. CarlFromVienna (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It is an interesting point in the context of fungi being genetically more closely related to animals than to plants – sort of like the cultural distinction of tomatoes being considered a vegetable rather than a fruit. Of course, we would still need a source to indicate its significance to this article. BD2412 T 17:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Frontiers Media

Frontiers such as this paper is being cited [17] on the article. My understanding is that most of the stuff put out by Frontiers Media is unreliable. The Frontiers series is on the list of predatory publishers. According to this "Frontiers in Oncology has 1,560 online papers and a respected editorial board and field chief editor but doesn't have an impact factor as yet". [18]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Update, I see Frontiers in Oncology now has an impact factor [19] Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? Should we delete the study? Or ask someone at WikiProject Medicine? CarlFromVienna (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to remove it myself but all the Frontiers stuff and the Nutrients (published by MDPI) should be deleted off of Wikipedia in my opinion. There have been countless discussions about these journals but they are not high-quality journals. The Nutrients journal is still being used on many articles as is Frontiers. It could be raised at WikiProject Medicine but the same answer is always given that they are not generally recommended. Probably best to leave it for now until a consensus can be reached here with input from other editors. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand you are updating the article but here are 3 reviews that should be added to the article if you have not read them already, [20], [21], [22] Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I have these on my spreadsheet. There are about 70 more studies in total (I worked through 240 in total). I will add more studies bit by bit, so that other editors have time to check them and -- if needed -- we can have a discussion about them. CarlFromVienna (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it worth including vegan and vegetarian reviews on this article?

What's being added to this article is various systematic reviews of vegan and vegetarian diets, however we already have articles dedicated to these topics vegetarian nutrition and vegan nutrition which both need updating. To me, it makes more sense to only include reviews that have "plant-based" in the title on this article to keep the subject on topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rheaxx666 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rheaxx666 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

"Plant-based" is a diet, not a person

Reverting this illogical edit was necessary because - as the article title indicates - plant-based is a diet, not a person. The source used is a commercial advocacy website, WP:ADVOCACY, not a secondary WP:RS source. Zefr (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines

This global analysis [23] notes that most National Dietary Guidelines include information about plant-based diets. However, when you go looking deeply most do not mention the term "plant-based diets" but mention plant-based foods.

The Dutch food-based dietary guidelines have stated that a "general guideline to eat a more plant food-based dietary pattern and limit consumption of animal-based food and 15 specific guidelines have been formulated" [24] and "A shift in the direction of a more plant-based and less animal-based dietary pattern" [25]. The Danish Official Dietary Guidelines recommend a "plant-rich" diet [26]. Nordic Recommendations state that a "plant-based diet is preferable to one largely based on animal sources" [27]. Canada’s Dietary Guidelines state "Among protein foods, consume plant-based more often" [28]. These are just some examples.

The problem is a semantics issue about how to define "plant-based" as it does not mean vegan, vegetarian or pescetarian in this context although the guidelines do have separate recommendations about vegan and vegetarian diets (as mentioned on our on vegan nutrition). Based on what I have read although many of the National Dietary Guidelines are shifting towards what might be termed "plant-based", none are quite at that stage yet or exclusively advocating plant-based and in this context it really referring to something similar to a Mediterranean diet. The British Health Foundation have classified the Mediterranean diet as a "plant-based dietary pattern", as well as the "Nordic diet" [29]. From my reading of the National Dietary Guidelines around the world many are advocating an eaten pattern similar to the Mediterranean diet but I believe it is wrong to term this plant-based.

With what I have said here, we should not include National Dietary Guidelines about "plant-based diets", as it is bound to confuse readers and run into the problem of original research. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The American Institute for Cancer Research have specifically recommended plant-based diets [30], so this would not be original research to include mention of it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the profound work. I have included the AICR's statement. I think the term may be adopted in the future by more National Dietary Guidelines, but for now we should rather act with caution. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your take on that source, as witnessed by my revert before coming here and seeing this. It is just somebody saying that it might be a good idea, not a recommendation. Roxy the dog 07:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It may be only a blog post, but it's titled "Here’s AICR’s Take" and states "Almost 20 years ago, AICR defined and began promoting a plant-based diet for cancer prevention." Here it states "AICR’s New American Plate is an example of a plant-based diet created to reflect research on reducing cancer risk. It can include only plant foods if you want, or it can be a plant-focused diet that includes moderate amounts of animal-based foods." I kindly ask you to reverse your edit. We can also add the source that explains that the recommended eating pattern (New American Plate) is plant-based. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• America's New Plate is "1/3 (or less)" animal protein. So not plant-based in the sense this article uses. Constant problem here, does "plant-based" mean plant-centred (but with meat!) or pretty much vegan? Bon courage (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I have spent some time looking into this. Basically, it is indeed true that the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) are recommending a "plant-based diet" for cancer prevention. But the diet is not really plant-based (the standard definition), it is a repackaged Mediterranean style diet which includes a mixture of animal and plant foods. Here is what they say "AICR’s New American Plate is a plant-based diet created to reflect research on reducing cancer risk. It emphasizes choosing foods with plenty of fiber, nutrients and plant compounds that may help protect against cancer; limits foods that increase the risk of cancer; and helps reach and maintain a healthy weight, which research shows can play a major role in reducing cancer risk" [31].

When you actually look at what the AICR are recommending it is not pescetarian, vegan or vegetarian. They recommend that each meal consists of a "modest 3-ounce serving of meat (fish, poultry, or red meat)" with plenty of vegetables and a serving of whole grains. Photographs are included on the previous link. Also see their food cancer prevention page [32] it has a section "Diet and Cancer Prevention" which links to 5 diets (vegan, pescetarian, vegetarian etc). If you click on each of the diets, the AICR rejects all 5 for having "limited" evidence. So the AICR are not promoting vegan or vegetarian diets, they are promoting something which they call "plant-based", but it isn't really. This is going to confuse a lot of people. The World Health Organization are more accurate where their definition of plant-based diets. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

MD Anderson Cancer Center are also promoting a "plant-based diet" for cancer prevention [33], similar to AICR they say "Fill two-thirds of your plate with these plant-based foods. The remaining one-third should be a lean protein like chicken or fish, or a plant protein like tofu or beans." Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems the term is ambiguous "out there", so Wikipedia needs to decide how it's going to be treated here and then use hat notes and clear writing to manage the topic space. I personally think most people would be surprised to find a plate of food which was 51:49 veg to meat being called "plant-based", but that's one possible definition this article encompasses. Or maybe delete this article (if the concepts are dealt with elsewhere anyway)? Bon courage (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, I do not think these cancer prevention diets that are being promoted by AIRC and the other cancer organizations are "plant-based", they are promoting a healthy omnivorous diet just with more plants, not enough in my opinion to be term plant-based which would be more than 90% or 95% of the diet plants. Seems to be a trendy word that has been jumped upon. So not to confuse readers, I think we should leave the information off the article about cancer organizations using that term, at least until a consensus has been reached. I have done a big scan for "plant-based diet" and cancer organizations. Right now only AICR and the above university are using it. Not seeing any mention of it from Cancer Research UK or the others. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty much just Healthy diet consensus stuff. Bon courage (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but it's better marketing to use "plant-based". Not saying there is any conclusive proven conflict of interest but AICR teamed up with a vegan company [34] to make and deliver meals a few years ago. Only a few months after that was "plant-based" used to describe their diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so better leave out the AICR for now. My theory is that they are using the term strategically, as to nudge people to become more and more plant based. Here they even show the transition in photos. But as for now they indeed seem to stop short in terms of a "real" plant-based diet recommendation. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

So it's a whole foods diet? Because if is, nothing in the article makes that clear.

Countryboy603 (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Not vegan or vegetarian

Are you sure plant-based dieters can eat meat/dairy? I found another source saying otherwise: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466934 Countryboy603 (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The author of that paper is a vegan cardiologist [35] so of course he will define plant-based as 100% plants. This has been discussed many times. The criteria commonly accepted for plant-based is a diet mostly or entirely of plants. Vegan, lacto-ovo vegetarian and pescetarian are all considered plant-based. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a good fact sheet from the British Dietetic Association [36] Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Editathon June 17

Just a heads-up that as part of an editathon I'm leading on June 17, new editors might be making some edits to this article. I will be giving them specific MEDRS-compliant sources to use and advising them to be concise. I'll follow up shortly afterwards to check for copyright compliance and other quality issues and will clean up stuff if needed. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Vegan diets

I'm pretty sure plant-based diets are supposed to be more restrictive than vegan diets, not less. 132.194.13.184 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Plant based diets are plant based. Might have a thick juicy steak in there somewhere. Bon courage (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

We have had this discussion numerous times in the history of this page. Sources differ, so we cover the range of what sources say, including the many that say "some meat". Cheers! BD2412 T 16:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

132.194.13.184 is Countryboy603. The user has raised this issue several times on this talk-page and the veganism article going back 2 years. It is sometimes hard to assume good faith when we have had these same discussions several times from the same user. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)