Do Vegan diets for children really need to be outlawed?

OceanicMelody73 wrote: »

Do omnivorous diets need to be banned for children? Is it right to enforce your beliefs on your children? Deciding where they live, what they wear, what toys they can own, what religion they practice, who they can be around and when, where they go? Sounds like part of parenting to make the decisions you decide are best for your child and your family. Go ahead and make it illegal to give kids too much fruit, just make sure it's illegal to give them fast food as well.

cee134 wrote: »

I don't think any diet should be outlawed. It actually seems like it would be a form of discrimination to outlaw any diet. As mentioned earlier, it would be impossible to enforce. They would need to make a food police. Ha! Good luck with that one.

There is 0% proof that a vegan diet is unhealthy to kids.

12Sarah2015 wrote: »

Vegetarian is ok. Vegan is not ok for health reasons

12Sarah2015 wrote: »

Vegetarian is ok. Vegan is not ok for health reasons

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.

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".

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.

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".