Do Vegan diets for children really need to be outlawed?

JenniferNoll

FrugalMomsRock75 wrote: »

chunky_pinup wrote: »

I would certainly hope not! My vegan 22-month old is taller than 4 and 5 year olds, eats like a champ, and her doctor thinks she's absolutely thriving and wouldn't change a thing. I think feeding a vegan diet to children gets a bad rap because you hear of parents restricting their childs diet to the point of starvation/malnutrition, which can happen on ANY way of eating...we make sure our child is getting enough of all her nutrients, and she will eat nearly anything we put in front of her...animal products aside.

This.

My children are not vegan though I eat vegan 99% of the time (sometimes I cheat; I am vegan only by choice for health reasons), and I prepare vegan family meals (supper). They eat meat, eggs, and dairy for their own meals (breakfast, lunch). I have several cousins who are vegan and raise their children vegan. They are very healthy and thriving. We also need to realize that the size/weight charts are based on kids that are NOT vegan. Most of them are having formula as babies and slim jims, twinkies, and kool aid for lunch by 1 1/2.

I am opposed to not nourishing your kids--that includes giving them so much garbage food that they have constant sugar highs. Kids are getting diabetes and heart disease! That is a bigger concern to me than whether someone's healthy vegan (perhaps smaller than the average non-vegan kid) kid is drinking milk from a plant rather than from a cow's boob... Vegan kids are MUCH less picky--eating lots of veggies, fruits, legumes, tubers, etc. Smaller in size doesn't necessarily mean less healthy. Also, most vegans don't give their babies some loopy substitute for formula (I have read of some crazies giving their infant soy milk or almond milk-not OK). They typically breastfeed them-also the healthier alternative.

There have been some awful, awful cases where infants have died from being fed plant milks or even flour mixed with water instead of breastmilk or formula. One mother didn't even want her baby to have breastmilk because human milk is still an animal product.

Those parents are idiots. There's nothing wrong with kids eating a vegan diet as long as all their nutritional needs are being met. I do think that perhaps closer monitoring by a pediatrician may be in order, simply because sometimes by the time the symptoms of malnutrition appear, damage has already been done.

Supplements are probably a good idea too, as certain vitamins and nutrients are difficult to get from a vegan diet.

Most things are okay when done in an educated and good sense manner. Some people carry things much too far. My late father-in-law died of untreated diabetes because his religion forbade him seeking medical care. My late mother-in-law suffered terribly from untreated paranoid schizophrenia for much of her life due to that same tenet of her religion.

My point is that you should do your research. Use your brain. Healthy children are more important than ideology of any kind, whether it be medical or dietary.

ladyreva78

lemurcat12 wrote: »

BillMcKay1 wrote: »

Don't most countries in the developed world already have "failure to thrive" laws in place? Why single out vegans?

It would be helpful if someone familiar with Italian law, with the cases that prompted this, and with the actual text of the law we are talking about to weigh in, but I don't think the proposed law does single out vegans.

I am not in favor of it still -- it seems to me the child welfare system should be able to handle it. But I know nothing about Italian law.

@lemurcat12 A few months late... and I am only passingly familiar with Italian law, but I quickly looked up the proposed text as submitted to the parliament and translated it to make this discussion a wee bit easier to follow. The text below is 1. the argumentation of Elvira Savino as to why such a law needs to be added (ideological bla bla bla at its worst, please refer to my disclaimer #1) and 2. the text she wants to have added (the very last little bit at the bottom, might want to start with that).

As per her argumentation, it actually seems as if there were already legal paragraphs in vigor which judges can use to punish any harmful behavior towards children (bad nutrition included if it causes the child harm).

To me, this stinks of a politician trying to garner attention and profile herself for a forthcoming election (I'll have to double check to see if there were actually forthcoming elections at the time )

I'll try to look up the cases that prompted this, but I'm a bit short on time right now and won't have time over lunch tomorrow and a busy hiking weekend ahead (weather permitting)...

Disclaimer:
1. I don't care how people eat. Let me eat what I want, I'll let you eat what you want. Militant anythings can go play on a busy railroad track for all I care. But for completeness sake: I've had several unpleasant run ins with militant vegans and would support such a law just to spite them... (very childish I know).
2. I am a technical translator specialized in automation and robotics. My legal terminology might not be spot on. If it bothers you, go translate it yourself.
3. I am not a native of Italian. I have been studying the language for 16 years and use in regularly at work, but some (if not a lot) of the nuances escape me.
4. I translated this extremely quickly over the course of 2 lunch breaks and in no way guarantee 100% accuracy in the content. I apologize if it's a bit unclear at times but the gist of it is there.

The proposal submitted to the Italian chamber of deputies, with Savino's argumentation.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES
PROPOSAL OF LAW
initiative of the deputy ELVIRA SAVINO

Introduction of the articles 572-bis and 572-ter into the criminal code, concerning the offence of imposing a diet devoid of those elements necessary for the growth of a child below the age of 16.

Presented 11th July 2016

HONORABLE COLLEGUES!

Since several years and, in particular, in the last decade, the belief that a vegetarian diet, also intis more rigid expression of a vegan diet, provides considerable benefits to an individual's health. Many chose to follow this type of diet, devoid of meat, fish and foods of animal origin and their derivatives, also for religious or ethical motives or in respect of the lives of animals. Many others do so to adapt themselves to a fashion. To further convince the followers of the vegetarian and vegan philosophies, the uncontrolled dissemination of news using electronic means is also used; there remarks and declarations, often lacking scientific foundation, which condemn without appeal the consumption of meat and which propagandize diets which exclude this, proliferate. There is nothing to object if those who chose this type of diet are adults able to take decisions and understand the consequences of their own actions and assume that responsibility. Problems arise, however, when those involved are minors. Often, in fact, especially for children of parents who follow a vegan or vegetarian diet, a diet which categorically and imprudently excludes foods of animal origin or their derivatives is imposed.

As is widely known, doctors specialized in nutrition unanimously support that to follow this type of diet, it is necessary to undergo a strict control by diet experts; these same experts, however, always advise against applying this kind of diet to children, teenagers, pregnant women and during breastfeeding.

Concerning children, in fact, it is reasonable to think that choosing a vegan or vegetarian diet might be too restrictive and entail potentially serious nutrient deficiencies which can impact the somatic and cognitive development of the child. The vegetarian or vegan diet is in fact deficient in zinc, heme-iron (contained in meat and fish), vitamin D, vitamin B12 and omega-3.

A child, to grow, needs high quality protein, the lack of which could cause such deficits as to compromise the child's development. Children, to grow healthy and well fed must also be fed - as explained by doctors - meat and fish in which it is also possible to find arginine, which is an essential amino acid for their growth. Not only. Growing, children need a larger share of saturated fats, which may be obtained from animal foods; now, although the intake of amino acids can be compensated by other foods, the open problem of vitamin B12 and heme-iron deficits remains, which can include important neurological and anemic problems.

Also many reported facts ring the alarm, showing the danger this type of diet can have for children. We have heard of various cases of children, also newborns, subjected to a vegan or vegetarian diet: children to which imprudently parents, convinced of and following a vegan or vegetarian diet, have decided, arbitrarily and with presumption, without even consulting doctors or nutritional experts, to administer even drinks obtained from simply boiling almonds, believing to also be able to make their children grow without causing them any damage. We have, unfortunately, heard news of children of tender age, for which, due to this improvised and improper diet, it was necessary to recover in the hospital because of serious dietary deficits (often detected in thanks to the intervention and the quick denunciation of pediatricians). These were cases of children literally undernourished, put in mortal danger by incautious parents which had decided to follow and to make follow a philosophical movement based on a style of life founded on the refusal of any exploitation of animals. The public authorities have the duty to intervene especially and every time that there is the danger of compromising the life and health of a minor, or a child. The same Constitution imposes on parents to maintain their children, care for their health as a fundamental right for every individual and protect the maternity, the childhood and the youth, requiring from the institutions of the Republic to favor the institutes necessary for such a scope. Therefore, starting from the said constitution in matters of health and care of the citizens and of the minors, this proposal of law has as goal to definitively stigmatize the incautious and dangerous dietary conduct imposed by parents or of whom fulfils this function, to the detriment of minors. Because, unfortunately this inevitably falls on those who have no fault and no possibility to choose freely, it is appropriate to integrate the legislation to adopt a special protection, also criminal penalties.

In the case of the imposition of a vegetarian or vegan diet on a child or adolescent, it will generally be found, in the parent or the person having the responsibility for the minor, the objective harm of the action, also if it derives from the subjective persuasion of how to best provide for the health and wellbeing of the same minor. Therefore, it would be opportune to assimilate such a conduct to the crime of mistreatment in family, foreseeing that, even if this does not include a criminal intention to submit the passive subject to a series of physical and moral sufferings, the consequences resulting thereof are no less damaging.

At the scope of expressing the negative value of a conduct, the danger of which should not be underestimated, the present proposal for a law is therefore presented to introduce a special criminal law provision which, in a mostly monitoring and preventive function, sets limits to behaviors which - only in absence of a conscious desire to violate the duties of maintaining and care of children which falls onto each parent - which impose a concrete danger of harm to the growth balance of a child. This does not prejudice in any way nor interfere with the protection measure for minors which the judge can always adopt based on articles 330 of the civil code, which disciplines the decadence of the parental responsibility in cases in which the parents violate or disregard the duties inherent to this or abuse of the relative power with grave injury of the child, and 333 of the same code, which consents proportionate and cancellable measures in less serious cases of detrimental conduct of the parents.

It is therefore proposed to introduce two special provisions, to be linked with articles 572-bis and 572-ter in book 2, title XI, chapter IV of the criminal code, which sanction the imposing of a diet lacking in essential elements for the growth of a minor.

The case in point is verified in cases in which the titular subject of the parental responsibility or to which the minor has been entrust for the purpose of education, instruction, care, vigilance or custody imposes or - also without having recourse to constraint - adopts with reference to the same minor a diet lacking in essential elements for his/her healthy and balanced growth. The legal asset to protect is therefore the health of the minor at the age of development and the norm seeks to sanction a conduct which - on the basis of the medical evaluation upon request - is estimated of putting in danger the integrity.
Article 572-ter foresees an aggravating circumstance in cases in which the conducts foreseen by article 572- bis are adopted towards a minor of less than 3 years of age. The formulation of the norm does not contemplate the motivation of the conduct, which is irrelevant - for the reason of the nature of the legal asset to protect - if that is founded on philosophical opinions or dogmatic believes. The measure is in fact not conceived to discriminate phenomenon of a philosophical or religious nature nor to limit the freedom guaranteed in these areas, but exclusively to protect the minors in respect to one fact - considered in its objectivity - the dangerous consequences for health and development of the minor during the age of growth.

PROPOSED LAW
__
ART. 1.

1. After article 572 of the criminal code will be inserted the following:

"ART. 572-bis. - (Imposing of a diet lacking the essential elements necessary for the growth of a minor). - whoever, outside of the cases expected by article 572, requires and adopts in respect to a child of under 16 years of age, who is subject to his/her parental responsibility or who is entrusted with the child's education, instruction, care, vigilance or custody, a diet lacking the essential elements necessary for the healthy and balanced growth of this same minor is punished a prison term of up to 1 year. If from the fact described in the first paragraph, results a permanent illness or personal injury, the prison term is from 2 years and 6 months up to 4 years; if death results, the prison term is from 4 to 6 years.

ART. 572-bis. - (Aggravating circumstance). - the prison terms of article 572-bis are increased by 12 months in cases the sanctions are imposed regarding minors under the age of 3".

T1DCarnivoreRunner

ladyreva78 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

BillMcKay1 wrote: »

Don't most countries in the developed world already have "failure to thrive" laws in place? Why single out vegans?

It would be helpful if someone familiar with Italian law, with the cases that prompted this, and with the actual text of the law we are talking about to weigh in, but I don't think the proposed law does single out vegans.

I am not in favor of it still -- it seems to me the child welfare system should be able to handle it. But I know nothing about Italian law.

@lemurcat12 A few months late... and I am only passingly familiar with Italian law, but I quickly looked up the proposed text as submitted to the parliament and translated it to make this discussion a wee bit easier to follow. The text below is 1. the argumentation of Elvira Savino as to why such a law needs to be added (ideological bla bla bla at its worst, please refer to my disclaimer #1) and 2. the text she wants to have added (the very last little bit at the bottom, might want to start with that).

As per her argumentation, it actually seems as if there were already legal paragraphs in vigor which judges can use to punish any harmful behavior towards children (bad nutrition included if it causes the child harm).

To me, this stinks of a politician trying to garner attention and profile herself for a forthcoming election (I'll have to double check to see if there were actually forthcoming elections at the time )

I'll try to look up the cases that prompted this, but I'm a bit short on time right now and won't have time over lunch tomorrow and a busy hiking weekend ahead (weather permitting)...

Disclaimer:
1. I don't care how people eat. Let me eat what I want, I'll let you eat what you want. Militant anythings can go play on a busy railroad track for all I care. But for completeness sake: I've had several unpleasant run ins with militant vegans and would support such a law just to spite them... (very childish I know).
2. I am a technical translator specialized in automation and robotics. My legal terminology might not be spot on. If it bothers you, go translate it yourself.
3. I am not a native of Italian. I have been studying the language for 16 years and use in regularly at work, but some (if not a lot) of the nuances escape me.
4. I translated this extremely quickly over the course of 2 lunch breaks and in no way guarantee 100% accuracy in the content. I apologize if it's a bit unclear at times but the gist of it is there.

The proposal submitted to the Italian chamber of deputies, with Savino's argumentation.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES
PROPOSAL OF LAW
initiative of the deputy ELVIRA SAVINO

Introduction of the articles 572-bis and 572-ter into the criminal code, concerning the offence of imposing a diet devoid of those elements necessary for the growth of a child below the age of 16.

Presented 11th July 2016

HONORABLE COLLEGUES!

Since several years and, in particular, in the last decade, the belief that a vegetarian diet, also intis more rigid expression of a vegan diet, provides considerable benefits to an individual's health. Many chose to follow this type of diet, devoid of meat, fish and foods of animal origin and their derivatives, also for religious or ethical motives or in respect of the lives of animals. Many others do so to adapt themselves to a fashion. To further convince the followers of the vegetarian and vegan philosophies, the uncontrolled dissemination of news using electronic means is also used; there remarks and declarations, often lacking scientific foundation, which condemn without appeal the consumption of meat and which propagandize diets which exclude this, proliferate. There is nothing to object if those who chose this type of diet are adults able to take decisions and understand the consequences of their own actions and assume that responsibility. Problems arise, however, when those involved are minors. Often, in fact, especially for children of parents who follow a vegan or vegetarian diet, a diet which categorically and imprudently excludes foods of animal origin or their derivatives is imposed.

As is widely known, doctors specialized in nutrition unanimously support that to follow this type of diet, it is necessary to undergo a strict control by diet experts; these same experts, however, always advise against applying this kind of diet to children, teenagers, pregnant women and during breastfeeding.

Concerning children, in fact, it is reasonable to think that choosing a vegan or vegetarian diet might be too restrictive and entail potentially serious nutrient deficiencies which can impact the somatic and cognitive development of the child. The vegetarian or vegan diet is in fact deficient in zinc, heme-iron (contained in meat and fish), vitamin D, vitamin B12 and omega-3.

A child, to grow, needs high quality protein, the lack of which could cause such deficits as to compromise the child's development. Children, to grow healthy and well fed must also be fed - as explained by doctors - meat and fish in which it is also possible to find arginine, which is an essential amino acid for their growth. Not only. Growing, children need a larger share of saturated fats, which may be obtained from animal foods; now, although the intake of amino acids can be compensated by other foods, the open problem of vitamin B12 and heme-iron deficits remains, which can include important neurological and anemic problems.

Also many reported facts ring the alarm, showing the danger this type of diet can have for children. We have heard of various cases of children, also newborns, subjected to a vegan or vegetarian diet: children to which imprudently parents, convinced of and following a vegan or vegetarian diet, have decided, arbitrarily and with presumption, without even consulting doctors or nutritional experts, to administer even drinks obtained from simply boiling almonds, believing to also be able to make their children grow without causing them any damage. We have, unfortunately, heard news of children of tender age, for which, due to this improvised and improper diet, it was necessary to recover in the hospital because of serious dietary deficits (often detected in thanks to the intervention and the quick denunciation of pediatricians). These were cases of children literally undernourished, put in mortal danger by incautious parents which had decided to follow and to make follow a philosophical movement based on a style of life founded on the refusal of any exploitation of animals. The public authorities have the duty to intervene especially and every time that there is the danger of compromising the life and health of a minor, or a child. The same Constitution imposes on parents to maintain their children, care for their health as a fundamental right for every individual and protect the maternity, the childhood and the youth, requiring from the institutions of the Republic to favor the institutes necessary for such a scope. Therefore, starting from the said constitution in matters of health and care of the citizens and of the minors, this proposal of law has as goal to definitively stigmatize the incautious and dangerous dietary conduct imposed by parents or of whom fulfils this function, to the detriment of minors. Because, unfortunately this inevitably falls on those who have no fault and no possibility to choose freely, it is appropriate to integrate the legislation to adopt a special protection, also criminal penalties.

In the case of the imposition of a vegetarian or vegan diet on a child or adolescent, it will generally be found, in the parent or the person having the responsibility for the minor, the objective harm of the action, also if it derives from the subjective persuasion of how to best provide for the health and wellbeing of the same minor. Therefore, it would be opportune to assimilate such a conduct to the crime of mistreatment in family, foreseeing that, even if this does not include a criminal intention to submit the passive subject to a series of physical and moral sufferings, the consequences resulting thereof are no less damaging.

At the scope of expressing the negative value of a conduct, the danger of which should not be underestimated, the present proposal for a law is therefore presented to introduce a special criminal law provision which, in a mostly monitoring and preventive function, sets limits to behaviors which - only in absence of a conscious desire to violate the duties of maintaining and care of children which falls onto each parent - which impose a concrete danger of harm to the growth balance of a child. This does not prejudice in any way nor interfere with the protection measure for minors which the judge can always adopt based on articles 330 of the civil code, which disciplines the decadence of the parental responsibility in cases in which the parents violate or disregard the duties inherent to this or abuse of the relative power with grave injury of the child, and 333 of the same code, which consents proportionate and cancellable measures in less serious cases of detrimental conduct of the parents.

It is therefore proposed to introduce two special provisions, to be linked with articles 572-bis and 572-ter in book 2, title XI, chapter IV of the criminal code, which sanction the imposing of a diet lacking in essential elements for the growth of a minor.

The case in point is verified in cases in which the titular subject of the parental responsibility or to which the minor has been entrust for the purpose of education, instruction, care, vigilance or custody imposes or - also without having recourse to constraint - adopts with reference to the same minor a diet lacking in essential elements for his/her healthy and balanced growth. The legal asset to protect is therefore the health of the minor at the age of development and the norm seeks to sanction a conduct which - on the basis of the medical evaluation upon request - is estimated of putting in danger the integrity.
Article 572-ter foresees an aggravating circumstance in cases in which the conducts foreseen by article 572- bis are adopted towards a minor of less than 3 years of age. The formulation of the norm does not contemplate the motivation of the conduct, which is irrelevant - for the reason of the nature of the legal asset to protect - if that is founded on philosophical opinions or dogmatic believes. The measure is in fact not conceived to discriminate phenomenon of a philosophical or religious nature nor to limit the freedom guaranteed in these areas, but exclusively to protect the minors in respect to one fact - considered in its objectivity - the dangerous consequences for health and development of the minor during the age of growth.

PROPOSED LAW
__
ART. 1.

1. After article 572 of the criminal code will be inserted the following:

"ART. 572-bis. - (Imposing of a diet lacking the essential elements necessary for the growth of a minor). - whoever, outside of the cases expected by article 572, requires and adopts in respect to a child of under 16 years of age, who is subject to his/her parental responsibility or who is entrusted with the child's education, instruction, care, vigilance or custody, a diet lacking the essential elements necessary for the healthy and balanced growth of this same minor is punished a prison term of up to 1 year. If from the fact described in the first paragraph, results a permanent illness or personal injury, the prison term is from 2 years and 6 months up to 4 years; if death results, the prison term is from 4 to 6 years.

ART. 572-bis. - (Aggravating circumstance). - the prison terms of article 572-bis are increased by 12 months in cases the sanctions are imposed regarding minors under the age of 3".

If that translation is correct, then it seems perfectly rational. The proposed law doesn't call out vegans specifically... just makes it an obligation to feed a proper diet to children in your care.

The only issue I can see is with evidence. Obviously if a child hasn't grown properly and physicians can show that to be the result of diet, then evidence is no issue. But from the way it is worded, the law could be used to prosecute parents feeding a diet viewed as unhealthy before it is shown whether there truly are any adverse effects.

ladyreva78

midwesterner85 wrote: »

ladyreva78 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

BillMcKay1 wrote: »

Don't most countries in the developed world already have "failure to thrive" laws in place? Why single out vegans?

It would be helpful if someone familiar with Italian law, with the cases that prompted this, and with the actual text of the law we are talking about to weigh in, but I don't think the proposed law does single out vegans.

I am not in favor of it still -- it seems to me the child welfare system should be able to handle it. But I know nothing about Italian law.

@lemurcat12 A few months late... and I am only passingly familiar with Italian law, but I quickly looked up the proposed text as submitted to the parliament and translated it to make this discussion a wee bit easier to follow. The text below is 1. the argumentation of Elvira Savino as to why such a law needs to be added (ideological bla bla bla at its worst, please refer to my disclaimer #1) and 2. the text she wants to have added (the very last little bit at the bottom, might want to start with that).

As per her argumentation, it actually seems as if there were already legal paragraphs in vigor which judges can use to punish any harmful behavior towards children (bad nutrition included if it causes the child harm).

To me, this stinks of a politician trying to garner attention and profile herself for a forthcoming election (I'll have to double check to see if there were actually forthcoming elections at the time )

I'll try to look up the cases that prompted this, but I'm a bit short on time right now and won't have time over lunch tomorrow and a busy hiking weekend ahead (weather permitting)...

Disclaimer:
1. I don't care how people eat. Let me eat what I want, I'll let you eat what you want. Militant anythings can go play on a busy railroad track for all I care. But for completeness sake: I've had several unpleasant run ins with militant vegans and would support such a law just to spite them... (very childish I know).
2. I am a technical translator specialized in automation and robotics. My legal terminology might not be spot on. If it bothers you, go translate it yourself.
3. I am not a native of Italian. I have been studying the language for 16 years and use in regularly at work, but some (if not a lot) of the nuances escape me.
4. I translated this extremely quickly over the course of 2 lunch breaks and in no way guarantee 100% accuracy in the content. I apologize if it's a bit unclear at times but the gist of it is there.

The proposal submitted to the Italian chamber of deputies, with Savino's argumentation.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES
PROPOSAL OF LAW
initiative of the deputy ELVIRA SAVINO

Introduction of the articles 572-bis and 572-ter into the criminal code, concerning the offence of imposing a diet devoid of those elements necessary for the growth of a child below the age of 16.

Presented 11th July 2016

HONORABLE COLLEGUES!

Since several years and, in particular, in the last decade, the belief that a vegetarian diet, also intis more rigid expression of a vegan diet, provides considerable benefits to an individual's health. Many chose to follow this type of diet, devoid of meat, fish and foods of animal origin and their derivatives, also for religious or ethical motives or in respect of the lives of animals. Many others do so to adapt themselves to a fashion. To further convince the followers of the vegetarian and vegan philosophies, the uncontrolled dissemination of news using electronic means is also used; there remarks and declarations, often lacking scientific foundation, which condemn without appeal the consumption of meat and which propagandize diets which exclude this, proliferate. There is nothing to object if those who chose this type of diet are adults able to take decisions and understand the consequences of their own actions and assume that responsibility. Problems arise, however, when those involved are minors. Often, in fact, especially for children of parents who follow a vegan or vegetarian diet, a diet which categorically and imprudently excludes foods of animal origin or their derivatives is imposed.

As is widely known, doctors specialized in nutrition unanimously support that to follow this type of diet, it is necessary to undergo a strict control by diet experts; these same experts, however, always advise against applying this kind of diet to children, teenagers, pregnant women and during breastfeeding.

Concerning children, in fact, it is reasonable to think that choosing a vegan or vegetarian diet might be too restrictive and entail potentially serious nutrient deficiencies which can impact the somatic and cognitive development of the child. The vegetarian or vegan diet is in fact deficient in zinc, heme-iron (contained in meat and fish), vitamin D, vitamin B12 and omega-3.

A child, to grow, needs high quality protein, the lack of which could cause such deficits as to compromise the child's development. Children, to grow healthy and well fed must also be fed - as explained by doctors - meat and fish in which it is also possible to find arginine, which is an essential amino acid for their growth. Not only. Growing, children need a larger share of saturated fats, which may be obtained from animal foods; now, although the intake of amino acids can be compensated by other foods, the open problem of vitamin B12 and heme-iron deficits remains, which can include important neurological and anemic problems.

Also many reported facts ring the alarm, showing the danger this type of diet can have for children. We have heard of various cases of children, also newborns, subjected to a vegan or vegetarian diet: children to which imprudently parents, convinced of and following a vegan or vegetarian diet, have decided, arbitrarily and with presumption, without even consulting doctors or nutritional experts, to administer even drinks obtained from simply boiling almonds, believing to also be able to make their children grow without causing them any damage. We have, unfortunately, heard news of children of tender age, for which, due to this improvised and improper diet, it was necessary to recover in the hospital because of serious dietary deficits (often detected in thanks to the intervention and the quick denunciation of pediatricians). These were cases of children literally undernourished, put in mortal danger by incautious parents which had decided to follow and to make follow a philosophical movement based on a style of life founded on the refusal of any exploitation of animals. The public authorities have the duty to intervene especially and every time that there is the danger of compromising the life and health of a minor, or a child. The same Constitution imposes on parents to maintain their children, care for their health as a fundamental right for every individual and protect the maternity, the childhood and the youth, requiring from the institutions of the Republic to favor the institutes necessary for such a scope. Therefore, starting from the said constitution in matters of health and care of the citizens and of the minors, this proposal of law has as goal to definitively stigmatize the incautious and dangerous dietary conduct imposed by parents or of whom fulfils this function, to the detriment of minors. Because, unfortunately this inevitably falls on those who have no fault and no possibility to choose freely, it is appropriate to integrate the legislation to adopt a special protection, also criminal penalties.

In the case of the imposition of a vegetarian or vegan diet on a child or adolescent, it will generally be found, in the parent or the person having the responsibility for the minor, the objective harm of the action, also if it derives from the subjective persuasion of how to best provide for the health and wellbeing of the same minor. Therefore, it would be opportune to assimilate such a conduct to the crime of mistreatment in family, foreseeing that, even if this does not include a criminal intention to submit the passive subject to a series of physical and moral sufferings, the consequences resulting thereof are no less damaging.

At the scope of expressing the negative value of a conduct, the danger of which should not be underestimated, the present proposal for a law is therefore presented to introduce a special criminal law provision which, in a mostly monitoring and preventive function, sets limits to behaviors which - only in absence of a conscious desire to violate the duties of maintaining and care of children which falls onto each parent - which impose a concrete danger of harm to the growth balance of a child. This does not prejudice in any way nor interfere with the protection measure for minors which the judge can always adopt based on articles 330 of the civil code, which disciplines the decadence of the parental responsibility in cases in which the parents violate or disregard the duties inherent to this or abuse of the relative power with grave injury of the child, and 333 of the same code, which consents proportionate and cancellable measures in less serious cases of detrimental conduct of the parents.

It is therefore proposed to introduce two special provisions, to be linked with articles 572-bis and 572-ter in book 2, title XI, chapter IV of the criminal code, which sanction the imposing of a diet lacking in essential elements for the growth of a minor.

The case in point is verified in cases in which the titular subject of the parental responsibility or to which the minor has been entrust for the purpose of education, instruction, care, vigilance or custody imposes or - also without having recourse to constraint - adopts with reference to the same minor a diet lacking in essential elements for his/her healthy and balanced growth. The legal asset to protect is therefore the health of the minor at the age of development and the norm seeks to sanction a conduct which - on the basis of the medical evaluation upon request - is estimated of putting in danger the integrity.
Article 572-ter foresees an aggravating circumstance in cases in which the conducts foreseen by article 572- bis are adopted towards a minor of less than 3 years of age. The formulation of the norm does not contemplate the motivation of the conduct, which is irrelevant - for the reason of the nature of the legal asset to protect - if that is founded on philosophical opinions or dogmatic believes. The measure is in fact not conceived to discriminate phenomenon of a philosophical or religious nature nor to limit the freedom guaranteed in these areas, but exclusively to protect the minors in respect to one fact - considered in its objectivity - the dangerous consequences for health and development of the minor during the age of growth.

PROPOSED LAW
__
ART. 1.

1. After article 572 of the criminal code will be inserted the following:

"ART. 572-bis. - (Imposing of a diet lacking the essential elements necessary for the growth of a minor). - whoever, outside of the cases expected by article 572, requires and adopts in respect to a child of under 16 years of age, who is subject to his/her parental responsibility or who is entrusted with the child's education, instruction, care, vigilance or custody, a diet lacking the essential elements necessary for the healthy and balanced growth of this same minor is punished a prison term of up to 1 year. If from the fact described in the first paragraph, results a permanent illness or personal injury, the prison term is from 2 years and 6 months up to 4 years; if death results, the prison term is from 4 to 6 years.

ART. 572-bis. - (Aggravating circumstance). - the prison terms of article 572-bis are increased by 12 months in cases the sanctions are imposed regarding minors under the age of 3".

If that translation is correct, then it seems perfectly rational. The proposed law doesn't call out vegans specifically... just makes it an obligation to feed a proper diet to children in your care.

The only issue I can see is with evidence. Obviously if a child hasn't grown properly and physicians can show that to be the result of diet, then evidence is no issue. But from the way it is worded, the law could be used to prosecute parents feeding a diet viewed as unhealthy before it is shown whether there truly are any adverse effects.

It's what my father calls an 'elastic paragraph': can be made to apply to anything one wants to apply it to. In the hands of the wrong person, it can cause quite a bit of damage as what is viewed as unhealthy is often a matter of point of view and personal preferences, especially with diet where there is so much choice and possibility available.

T1DCarnivoreRunner

ladyreva78 wrote: »

midwesterner85 wrote: »

ladyreva78 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

BillMcKay1 wrote: »

Don't most countries in the developed world already have "failure to thrive" laws in place? Why single out vegans?

It would be helpful if someone familiar with Italian law, with the cases that prompted this, and with the actual text of the law we are talking about to weigh in, but I don't think the proposed law does single out vegans.

I am not in favor of it still -- it seems to me the child welfare system should be able to handle it. But I know nothing about Italian law.

@lemurcat12 A few months late... and I am only passingly familiar with Italian law, but I quickly looked up the proposed text as submitted to the parliament and translated it to make this discussion a wee bit easier to follow. The text below is 1. the argumentation of Elvira Savino as to why such a law needs to be added (ideological bla bla bla at its worst, please refer to my disclaimer #1) and 2. the text she wants to have added (the very last little bit at the bottom, might want to start with that).

As per her argumentation, it actually seems as if there were already legal paragraphs in vigor which judges can use to punish any harmful behavior towards children (bad nutrition included if it causes the child harm).

To me, this stinks of a politician trying to garner attention and profile herself for a forthcoming election (I'll have to double check to see if there were actually forthcoming elections at the time )

I'll try to look up the cases that prompted this, but I'm a bit short on time right now and won't have time over lunch tomorrow and a busy hiking weekend ahead (weather permitting)...

Disclaimer:
1. I don't care how people eat. Let me eat what I want, I'll let you eat what you want. Militant anythings can go play on a busy railroad track for all I care. But for completeness sake: I've had several unpleasant run ins with militant vegans and would support such a law just to spite them... (very childish I know).
2. I am a technical translator specialized in automation and robotics. My legal terminology might not be spot on. If it bothers you, go translate it yourself.
3. I am not a native of Italian. I have been studying the language for 16 years and use in regularly at work, but some (if not a lot) of the nuances escape me.
4. I translated this extremely quickly over the course of 2 lunch breaks and in no way guarantee 100% accuracy in the content. I apologize if it's a bit unclear at times but the gist of it is there.

The proposal submitted to the Italian chamber of deputies, with Savino's argumentation.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES
PROPOSAL OF LAW
initiative of the deputy ELVIRA SAVINO

Introduction of the articles 572-bis and 572-ter into the criminal code, concerning the offence of imposing a diet devoid of those elements necessary for the growth of a child below the age of 16.

Presented 11th July 2016

HONORABLE COLLEGUES!

Since several years and, in particular, in the last decade, the belief that a vegetarian diet, also intis more rigid expression of a vegan diet, provides considerable benefits to an individual's health. Many chose to follow this type of diet, devoid of meat, fish and foods of animal origin and their derivatives, also for religious or ethical motives or in respect of the lives of animals. Many others do so to adapt themselves to a fashion. To further convince the followers of the vegetarian and vegan philosophies, the uncontrolled dissemination of news using electronic means is also used; there remarks and declarations, often lacking scientific foundation, which condemn without appeal the consumption of meat and which propagandize diets which exclude this, proliferate. There is nothing to object if those who chose this type of diet are adults able to take decisions and understand the consequences of their own actions and assume that responsibility. Problems arise, however, when those involved are minors. Often, in fact, especially for children of parents who follow a vegan or vegetarian diet, a diet which categorically and imprudently excludes foods of animal origin or their derivatives is imposed.

As is widely known, doctors specialized in nutrition unanimously support that to follow this type of diet, it is necessary to undergo a strict control by diet experts; these same experts, however, always advise against applying this kind of diet to children, teenagers, pregnant women and during breastfeeding.

Concerning children, in fact, it is reasonable to think that choosing a vegan or vegetarian diet might be too restrictive and entail potentially serious nutrient deficiencies which can impact the somatic and cognitive development of the child. The vegetarian or vegan diet is in fact deficient in zinc, heme-iron (contained in meat and fish), vitamin D, vitamin B12 and omega-3.

A child, to grow, needs high quality protein, the lack of which could cause such deficits as to compromise the child's development. Children, to grow healthy and well fed must also be fed - as explained by doctors - meat and fish in which it is also possible to find arginine, which is an essential amino acid for their growth. Not only. Growing, children need a larger share of saturated fats, which may be obtained from animal foods; now, although the intake of amino acids can be compensated by other foods, the open problem of vitamin B12 and heme-iron deficits remains, which can include important neurological and anemic problems.

Also many reported facts ring the alarm, showing the danger this type of diet can have for children. We have heard of various cases of children, also newborns, subjected to a vegan or vegetarian diet: children to which imprudently parents, convinced of and following a vegan or vegetarian diet, have decided, arbitrarily and with presumption, without even consulting doctors or nutritional experts, to administer even drinks obtained from simply boiling almonds, believing to also be able to make their children grow without causing them any damage. We have, unfortunately, heard news of children of tender age, for which, due to this improvised and improper diet, it was necessary to recover in the hospital because of serious dietary deficits (often detected in thanks to the intervention and the quick denunciation of pediatricians). These were cases of children literally undernourished, put in mortal danger by incautious parents which had decided to follow and to make follow a philosophical movement based on a style of life founded on the refusal of any exploitation of animals. The public authorities have the duty to intervene especially and every time that there is the danger of compromising the life and health of a minor, or a child. The same Constitution imposes on parents to maintain their children, care for their health as a fundamental right for every individual and protect the maternity, the childhood and the youth, requiring from the institutions of the Republic to favor the institutes necessary for such a scope. Therefore, starting from the said constitution in matters of health and care of the citizens and of the minors, this proposal of law has as goal to definitively stigmatize the incautious and dangerous dietary conduct imposed by parents or of whom fulfils this function, to the detriment of minors. Because, unfortunately this inevitably falls on those who have no fault and no possibility to choose freely, it is appropriate to integrate the legislation to adopt a special protection, also criminal penalties.

In the case of the imposition of a vegetarian or vegan diet on a child or adolescent, it will generally be found, in the parent or the person having the responsibility for the minor, the objective harm of the action, also if it derives from the subjective persuasion of how to best provide for the health and wellbeing of the same minor. Therefore, it would be opportune to assimilate such a conduct to the crime of mistreatment in family, foreseeing that, even if this does not include a criminal intention to submit the passive subject to a series of physical and moral sufferings, the consequences resulting thereof are no less damaging.

At the scope of expressing the negative value of a conduct, the danger of which should not be underestimated, the present proposal for a law is therefore presented to introduce a special criminal law provision which, in a mostly monitoring and preventive function, sets limits to behaviors which - only in absence of a conscious desire to violate the duties of maintaining and care of children which falls onto each parent - which impose a concrete danger of harm to the growth balance of a child. This does not prejudice in any way nor interfere with the protection measure for minors which the judge can always adopt based on articles 330 of the civil code, which disciplines the decadence of the parental responsibility in cases in which the parents violate or disregard the duties inherent to this or abuse of the relative power with grave injury of the child, and 333 of the same code, which consents proportionate and cancellable measures in less serious cases of detrimental conduct of the parents.

It is therefore proposed to introduce two special provisions, to be linked with articles 572-bis and 572-ter in book 2, title XI, chapter IV of the criminal code, which sanction the imposing of a diet lacking in essential elements for the growth of a minor.

The case in point is verified in cases in which the titular subject of the parental responsibility or to which the minor has been entrust for the purpose of education, instruction, care, vigilance or custody imposes or - also without having recourse to constraint - adopts with reference to the same minor a diet lacking in essential elements for his/her healthy and balanced growth. The legal asset to protect is therefore the health of the minor at the age of development and the norm seeks to sanction a conduct which - on the basis of the medical evaluation upon request - is estimated of putting in danger the integrity.
Article 572-ter foresees an aggravating circumstance in cases in which the conducts foreseen by article 572- bis are adopted towards a minor of less than 3 years of age. The formulation of the norm does not contemplate the motivation of the conduct, which is irrelevant - for the reason of the nature of the legal asset to protect - if that is founded on philosophical opinions or dogmatic believes. The measure is in fact not conceived to discriminate phenomenon of a philosophical or religious nature nor to limit the freedom guaranteed in these areas, but exclusively to protect the minors in respect to one fact - considered in its objectivity - the dangerous consequences for health and development of the minor during the age of growth.

PROPOSED LAW
__
ART. 1.

1. After article 572 of the criminal code will be inserted the following:

"ART. 572-bis. - (Imposing of a diet lacking the essential elements necessary for the growth of a minor). - whoever, outside of the cases expected by article 572, requires and adopts in respect to a child of under 16 years of age, who is subject to his/her parental responsibility or who is entrusted with the child's education, instruction, care, vigilance or custody, a diet lacking the essential elements necessary for the healthy and balanced growth of this same minor is punished a prison term of up to 1 year. If from the fact described in the first paragraph, results a permanent illness or personal injury, the prison term is from 2 years and 6 months up to 4 years; if death results, the prison term is from 4 to 6 years.

ART. 572-bis. - (Aggravating circumstance). - the prison terms of article 572-bis are increased by 12 months in cases the sanctions are imposed regarding minors under the age of 3".

If that translation is correct, then it seems perfectly rational. The proposed law doesn't call out vegans specifically... just makes it an obligation to feed a proper diet to children in your care.

The only issue I can see is with evidence. Obviously if a child hasn't grown properly and physicians can show that to be the result of diet, then evidence is no issue. But from the way it is worded, the law could be used to prosecute parents feeding a diet viewed as unhealthy before it is shown whether there truly are any adverse effects.

It's what my father calls an 'elastic paragraph': can be made to apply to anything one wants to apply it to. In the hands of the wrong person, it can cause quite a bit of damage as what is viewed as unhealthy is often a matter of point of view and personal preferences, especially with diet where there is so much choice and possibility available.

Yes, I agree. It is poorly phrased, but the idea isn't wrong. It just needs to be re-worded so it isn't so easily abused.

lemurcat12

ladyreva78 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

BillMcKay1 wrote: »

Don't most countries in the developed world already have "failure to thrive" laws in place? Why single out vegans?

It would be helpful if someone familiar with Italian law, with the cases that prompted this, and with the actual text of the law we are talking about to weigh in, but I don't think the proposed law does single out vegans.

I am not in favor of it still -- it seems to me the child welfare system should be able to handle it. But I know nothing about Italian law.

@lemurcat12 A few months late... and I am only passingly familiar with Italian law, but I quickly looked up the proposed text as submitted to the parliament and translated it to make this discussion a wee bit easier to follow. The text below is 1. the argumentation of Elvira Savino as to why such a law needs to be added (ideological bla bla bla at its worst, please refer to my disclaimer #1) and 2. the text she wants to have added (the very last little bit at the bottom, might want to start with that).

Thank you so much! This is really helpful.

As per her argumentation, it actually seems as if there were already legal paragraphs in vigor which judges can use to punish any harmful behavior towards children (bad nutrition included if it causes the child harm).

To me, this stinks of a politician trying to garner attention and profile herself for a forthcoming election (I'll have to double check to see if there were actually forthcoming elections at the time )

I'll try to look up the cases that prompted this, but I'm a bit short on time right now and won't have time over lunch tomorrow and a busy hiking weekend ahead (weather permitting)...

Yeah, this is what I suspected, and from what I noticed and some commentary elsewhere, my impression was that it was along the lines of ridiculous things that get proposed in Congress with no hope of being passed and are basically ignored except by those they are aimed at. It didn't seem like Italy was likely to enact it, and that most of the coverage were somewhat distorted commentaries in the UK (and from that, the US) press.

What I had also heard, and your translation seems to support, is that other than the prologue and reasoning the actual law was problematic just because it was duplicative of other laws (existing child welfare) and was not, contrary to the media reports, making a vegan diet in and of itself illegal for children.

janejellyroll

ladyreva78 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

BillMcKay1 wrote: »

Don't most countries in the developed world already have "failure to thrive" laws in place? Why single out vegans?

It would be helpful if someone familiar with Italian law, with the cases that prompted this, and with the actual text of the law we are talking about to weigh in, but I don't think the proposed law does single out vegans.

I am not in favor of it still -- it seems to me the child welfare system should be able to handle it. But I know nothing about Italian law.

@lemurcat12 A few months late... and I am only passingly familiar with Italian law, but I quickly looked up the proposed text as submitted to the parliament and translated it to make this discussion a wee bit easier to follow. The text below is 1. the argumentation of Elvira Savino as to why such a law needs to be added (ideological bla bla bla at its worst, please refer to my disclaimer #1) and 2. the text she wants to have added (the very last little bit at the bottom, might want to start with that).

As per her argumentation, it actually seems as if there were already legal paragraphs in vigor which judges can use to punish any harmful behavior towards children (bad nutrition included if it causes the child harm).

To me, this stinks of a politician trying to garner attention and profile herself for a forthcoming election (I'll have to double check to see if there were actually forthcoming elections at the time )

I'll try to look up the cases that prompted this, but I'm a bit short on time right now and won't have time over lunch tomorrow and a busy hiking weekend ahead (weather permitting)...

Disclaimer:
1. I don't care how people eat. Let me eat what I want, I'll let you eat what you want. Militant anythings can go play on a busy railroad track for all I care. But for completeness sake: I've had several unpleasant run ins with militant vegans and would support such a law just to spite them... (very childish I know).
2. I am a technical translator specialized in automation and robotics. My legal terminology might not be spot on. If it bothers you, go translate it yourself.
3. I am not a native of Italian. I have been studying the language for 16 years and use in regularly at work, but some (if not a lot) of the nuances escape me.
4. I translated this extremely quickly over the course of 2 lunch breaks and in no way guarantee 100% accuracy in the content. I apologize if it's a bit unclear at times but the gist of it is there.

The proposal submitted to the Italian chamber of deputies, with Savino's argumentation.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES
PROPOSAL OF LAW
initiative of the deputy ELVIRA SAVINO

Introduction of the articles 572-bis and 572-ter into the criminal code, concerning the offence of imposing a diet devoid of those elements necessary for the growth of a child below the age of 16.

Presented 11th July 2016

HONORABLE COLLEGUES!

Since several years and, in particular, in the last decade, the belief that a vegetarian diet, also intis more rigid expression of a vegan diet, provides considerable benefits to an individual's health. Many chose to follow this type of diet, devoid of meat, fish and foods of animal origin and their derivatives, also for religious or ethical motives or in respect of the lives of animals. Many others do so to adapt themselves to a fashion. To further convince the followers of the vegetarian and vegan philosophies, the uncontrolled dissemination of news using electronic means is also used; there remarks and declarations, often lacking scientific foundation, which condemn without appeal the consumption of meat and which propagandize diets which exclude this, proliferate. There is nothing to object if those who chose this type of diet are adults able to take decisions and understand the consequences of their own actions and assume that responsibility. Problems arise, however, when those involved are minors. Often, in fact, especially for children of parents who follow a vegan or vegetarian diet, a diet which categorically and imprudently excludes foods of animal origin or their derivatives is imposed.

As is widely known, doctors specialized in nutrition unanimously support that to follow this type of diet, it is necessary to undergo a strict control by diet experts; these same experts, however, always advise against applying this kind of diet to children, teenagers, pregnant women and during breastfeeding.

Concerning children, in fact, it is reasonable to think that choosing a vegan or vegetarian diet might be too restrictive and entail potentially serious nutrient deficiencies which can impact the somatic and cognitive development of the child. The vegetarian or vegan diet is in fact deficient in zinc, heme-iron (contained in meat and fish), vitamin D, vitamin B12 and omega-3.

A child, to grow, needs high quality protein, the lack of which could cause such deficits as to compromise the child's development. Children, to grow healthy and well fed must also be fed - as explained by doctors - meat and fish in which it is also possible to find arginine, which is an essential amino acid for their growth. Not only. Growing, children need a larger share of saturated fats, which may be obtained from animal foods; now, although the intake of amino acids can be compensated by other foods, the open problem of vitamin B12 and heme-iron deficits remains, which can include important neurological and anemic problems.

Also many reported facts ring the alarm, showing the danger this type of diet can have for children. We have heard of various cases of children, also newborns, subjected to a vegan or vegetarian diet: children to which imprudently parents, convinced of and following a vegan or vegetarian diet, have decided, arbitrarily and with presumption, without even consulting doctors or nutritional experts, to administer even drinks obtained from simply boiling almonds, believing to also be able to make their children grow without causing them any damage. We have, unfortunately, heard news of children of tender age, for which, due to this improvised and improper diet, it was necessary to recover in the hospital because of serious dietary deficits (often detected in thanks to the intervention and the quick denunciation of pediatricians). These were cases of children literally undernourished, put in mortal danger by incautious parents which had decided to follow and to make follow a philosophical movement based on a style of life founded on the refusal of any exploitation of animals. The public authorities have the duty to intervene especially and every time that there is the danger of compromising the life and health of a minor, or a child. The same Constitution imposes on parents to maintain their children, care for their health as a fundamental right for every individual and protect the maternity, the childhood and the youth, requiring from the institutions of the Republic to favor the institutes necessary for such a scope. Therefore, starting from the said constitution in matters of health and care of the citizens and of the minors, this proposal of law has as goal to definitively stigmatize the incautious and dangerous dietary conduct imposed by parents or of whom fulfils this function, to the detriment of minors. Because, unfortunately this inevitably falls on those who have no fault and no possibility to choose freely, it is appropriate to integrate the legislation to adopt a special protection, also criminal penalties.

In the case of the imposition of a vegetarian or vegan diet on a child or adolescent, it will generally be found, in the parent or the person having the responsibility for the minor, the objective harm of the action, also if it derives from the subjective persuasion of how to best provide for the health and wellbeing of the same minor. Therefore, it would be opportune to assimilate such a conduct to the crime of mistreatment in family, foreseeing that, even if this does not include a criminal intention to submit the passive subject to a series of physical and moral sufferings, the consequences resulting thereof are no less damaging.

At the scope of expressing the negative value of a conduct, the danger of which should not be underestimated, the present proposal for a law is therefore presented to introduce a special criminal law provision which, in a mostly monitoring and preventive function, sets limits to behaviors which - only in absence of a conscious desire to violate the duties of maintaining and care of children which falls onto each parent - which impose a concrete danger of harm to the growth balance of a child. This does not prejudice in any way nor interfere with the protection measure for minors which the judge can always adopt based on articles 330 of the civil code, which disciplines the decadence of the parental responsibility in cases in which the parents violate or disregard the duties inherent to this or abuse of the relative power with grave injury of the child, and 333 of the same code, which consents proportionate and cancellable measures in less serious cases of detrimental conduct of the parents.

It is therefore proposed to introduce two special provisions, to be linked with articles 572-bis and 572-ter in book 2, title XI, chapter IV of the criminal code, which sanction the imposing of a diet lacking in essential elements for the growth of a minor.

The case in point is verified in cases in which the titular subject of the parental responsibility or to which the minor has been entrust for the purpose of education, instruction, care, vigilance or custody imposes or - also without having recourse to constraint - adopts with reference to the same minor a diet lacking in essential elements for his/her healthy and balanced growth. The legal asset to protect is therefore the health of the minor at the age of development and the norm seeks to sanction a conduct which - on the basis of the medical evaluation upon request - is estimated of putting in danger the integrity.
Article 572-ter foresees an aggravating circumstance in cases in which the conducts foreseen by article 572- bis are adopted towards a minor of less than 3 years of age. The formulation of the norm does not contemplate the motivation of the conduct, which is irrelevant - for the reason of the nature of the legal asset to protect - if that is founded on philosophical opinions or dogmatic believes. The measure is in fact not conceived to discriminate phenomenon of a philosophical or religious nature nor to limit the freedom guaranteed in these areas, but exclusively to protect the minors in respect to one fact - considered in its objectivity - the dangerous consequences for health and development of the minor during the age of growth.

PROPOSED LAW
__
ART. 1.

1. After article 572 of the criminal code will be inserted the following:

"ART. 572-bis. - (Imposing of a diet lacking the essential elements necessary for the growth of a minor). - whoever, outside of the cases expected by article 572, requires and adopts in respect to a child of under 16 years of age, who is subject to his/her parental responsibility or who is entrusted with the child's education, instruction, care, vigilance or custody, a diet lacking the essential elements necessary for the healthy and balanced growth of this same minor is punished a prison term of up to 1 year. If from the fact described in the first paragraph, results a permanent illness or personal injury, the prison term is from 2 years and 6 months up to 4 years; if death results, the prison term is from 4 to 6 years.

ART. 572-bis. - (Aggravating circumstance). - the prison terms of article 572-bis are increased by 12 months in cases the sanctions are imposed regarding minors under the age of 3".

I've met some very unpleasant religious people, but I would never support a law restricting religious freedom just to spite them.

Any group is probably going to have some unpleasant people. Are vegans the only group you would regulate to punish individuals you dislike or are there other groups you would like to restrict also?

lemurcat12

misread, never mind

janejellyroll

Edit: confusion cleared up

lemurcat12

Yeah, I noticed that afterward and deleted, but too late.

siraphine

Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?

janejellyroll

siraphine wrote: »

Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?

If this question was directed at me, I was genuinely curious to know if vegans are the only group that she supports regulating for spite, yes. Given that this is a debate thread, I see no reason why it should cause a "shitstorm" to ask clarifying questions about someone's position.

WinoGelato

janejellyroll wrote: »

siraphine wrote: »

Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?

If this question was directed at me, I was genuinely curious to know if vegans are the only group that she supports regulating for spite, yes. Given that this is a debate thread, I see no reason why it should cause a "shitstorm" to ask clarifying questions about someone's position.

I don't have a dog in this fight but I'm just intrigued that "shitstorm" gets past the kitten filter... I wanted to see "kittenstorm" and then all the images that would come to mind...

ladyreva78

janejellyroll wrote: »

siraphine wrote: »

Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?

If this question was directed at me, I was genuinely curious to know if vegans are the only group that she supports regulating for spite, yes. Given that this is a debate thread, I see no reason why it should cause a "shitstorm" to ask clarifying questions about someone's position.

@janejellyroll I don't actually condone regulating groups out of spite. That was a rather inept formulation on my part arising from a rather uncomfortable situation I'm living through at work right now and I do apologize if it upset anyone. I often forget that you can't really convey tone that well over the internet and will take that as a reminder to be more careful in my formulations. It was meant as a joke and not a serious statement of my beliefs.

My basic philosophy is and remains "live and let live". I'm actually against the over-regulation running rampant as it assumes that we, as human beings with a modicum of reasoning ability, are incapable of taking a decision ourselves and judging the consequences of such decisions and of assuming such consequences.

Aaron_K123

I think that the government should protect against harm against children from neglect from their caregivers (be they parents or otherwise). I think lack of proper nutrition leading to malnutrition and health issues falls under that.

That said I think thats already in affect. Meaning if child protective services gets word that a child is only fed hotdogs and that child is severely vitamin deficient and is having severe medical issues as a result they can step in and do something about that. If veganism causes malnutrition in a similar way then again child protective services should already be able to step in.

If instead you personally decide that all vegan diets consitute malnourishment and therefore even calling a diet you are giving your child vegan is enough to call in CPS I don't think that is appropriate. The test should be whether or not the child is suffering from malnourishment...not what the diet happens to be or what it happens to be called.

I'm not vegan, I'm not pro-vegan, I don't really get veganism however I still think its wrong to paint it with such a broad stroke and claim that eating vegan is akin to abuse. Malnourishment is akin to abuse and if the particular vegan diet being given is malnourishing then sure, but I don't think you can claim that ALL are malnourishing to the point where intervention is required. If you did what about all the kids who subside on nothing but ham sandwiches and Kraft instant-mac.

lemurcat12

Just to be clear, no one was calling for laws against veganism. The discussion was prompted by (inaccurate or exaggerated) reports of a law in Italy proposed by one politician prompted by some child neglect cases. While the proposed law was motivated by this, it would not have outlawed veganism for kids, but only diets that lacked essential elements (i.e., were not supplemented or were inadequate on their face) or, of course, diets that led to malnourishment (which was already a matter for child protective services in Italy, as in the US).

I don't think the proposal was taken seriously or had a risk of passing in Italy, but it was one of those things that got picked up by foreign media as "isn't this outrageous!"

It was never a proposal in the US.

janejellyroll

WinoGelato wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

siraphine wrote: »

Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?

If this question was directed at me, I was genuinely curious to know if vegans are the only group that she supports regulating for spite, yes. Given that this is a debate thread, I see no reason why it should cause a "shitstorm" to ask clarifying questions about someone's position.

I don't have a dog in this fight but I'm just intrigued that "shitstorm" gets past the kitten filter... I wanted to see "kittenstorm" and then all the images that would come to mind...

I have noticed that compound words that include filtered words seem to make it past the filter.

janejellyroll

ladyreva78 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

siraphine wrote: »

Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?

If this question was directed at me, I was genuinely curious to know if vegans are the only group that she supports regulating for spite, yes. Given that this is a debate thread, I see no reason why it should cause a "shitstorm" to ask clarifying questions about someone's position.

@janejellyroll I don't actually condone regulating groups out of spite. That was a rather inept formulation on my part arising from a rather uncomfortable situation I'm living through at work right now and I do apologize if it upset anyone. I often forget that you can't really convey tone that well over the internet and will take that as a reminder to be more careful in my formulations. It was meant as a joke and not a serious statement of my beliefs.

My basic philosophy is and remains "live and let live". I'm actually against the over-regulation running rampant as it assumes that we, as human beings with a modicum of reasoning ability, are incapable of taking a decision ourselves and judging the consequences of such decisions and of assuming such consequences.

Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure if you were joking, which is why I asked. I'm sorry you have run into vegans who made such a negative impression on you. If I was in your area, I'd buy you a cup of coffee and try to make up for it.

ladyreva78

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Just to be clear, no one was calling for laws against veganism. The discussion was prompted by (inaccurate or exaggerated) reports of a law in Italy proposed by one politician prompted by some child neglect cases. While the proposed law was motivated by this, it would not have outlawed veganism for kids, but only diets that lacked essential elements (i.e., were not supplemented or were inadequate on their face) or, of course, diets that led to malnourishment (which was already a matter for child protective services in Italy, as in the US).

I don't think the proposal was taken seriously or had a risk of passing in Italy, but it was one of those things that got picked up by foreign media as "isn't this outrageous!"

It was never a proposal in the US.

I did a quick search on the case in question (too lazy to translate so I'll summarize):

A 1 year old boy in Milano was brought to a check up at the hospital by his grandparents. He was severely under nourished (weighing about as much as a 3 month old) and with calcium levels which were barely survivable. The parents were advised, but refused all help (possibly instruction, not sure on the terminology used) and took the boy home. Child services were advised and the prefect ordered the boy removed from the home and placed into state custody.

Source article

And yes. It wasn't taken too seriously as I've found no follow up articles on any of this. It was a bit of a 'storm in a water glass' (urg, languages interfering in thought processes... doesn't help)

ladyreva78

janejellyroll wrote: »

ladyreva78 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

siraphine wrote: »

Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?

If this question was directed at me, I was genuinely curious to know if vegans are the only group that she supports regulating for spite, yes. Given that this is a debate thread, I see no reason why it should cause a "shitstorm" to ask clarifying questions about someone's position.

@janejellyroll I don't actually condone regulating groups out of spite. That was a rather inept formulation on my part arising from a rather uncomfortable situation I'm living through at work right now and I do apologize if it upset anyone. I often forget that you can't really convey tone that well over the internet and will take that as a reminder to be more careful in my formulations. It was meant as a joke and not a serious statement of my beliefs.

My basic philosophy is and remains "live and let live". I'm actually against the over-regulation running rampant as it assumes that we, as human beings with a modicum of reasoning ability, are incapable of taking a decision ourselves and judging the consequences of such decisions and of assuming such consequences.

Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure if you were joking, which is why I asked. I'm sorry you have run into vegans who made such a negative impression on you. If I was in your area, I'd buy you a cup of coffee and try to make up for it.

I have no doubt about that and I would take you up on that in a flash! Just for the chance of having a sensible conversation with someone knowledgeable about the subject. I'm a bit fascinated by that which is other than me (not sure how else to explain it without making it sounds weirder than it already is). It opens up completely new worlds of thought that can be explored and I always find that amazing (reason why I'm working on languages number 8 and 9 right now...) and I'm left baffled by people's insistence on 'one right way'.