I won't ever regret going vegan, and getting all the animal cruelty out of my diet.  It's been more than 20 years now and has been the best decision I've ever made.

This is the email I sent to on May 26, 2007 to Clark Hoyt, the public editor of the New York Times,regarding the infamous Nina Planck article. Hoyt never responded, nor did the _Times_ issue a correction to the matters I presented to them. Dear Mr. Hoyt: Matthew Bate forwarded to me the email you sent to him. First of all, I want to thank you for giving this matter your attention, and writing up a carefully considered reply. I further want to thank you for taking up this matter with Mr. Shipley. There’s one sentence from your email that I wish to respond to: > I don't know that Ms. Planck's comments are "inaccurate,"  I do > know that they are debatable. There is certainly a great deal on the subject of nutrition that is open to debate. But many of the declarations made by Planck are not “debatable;” they are inaccurate, and indeed wildly and provably so. For the sake of brevity, I will confine my comments to just one of Planck’s declarations, the final sentence of her Op-Ed piece, which reads: “Children fed only plants will not get the precious things they need to live and grow.” If Planck’s claim is true, would not the following claim need also to be true? “If you feed your children a vegan diet, they are certain to either become sick from nutrient deficiency, or to have their mental or physical growth stunted.” But such a claim is patently false. There is clear documentation that at least _some_ children, vegan since conception, have enjoyed the healthiest of childhoods and have matured into tall, strong, healthy adults. This fact is unarguable and, all by itself, proves Planck’s claim as false. I hope you’ll re-read Planck’s sentence while visiting this page: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/realveganchildren I could go through the rest of Planck’s article, and point out numerous other errors of fact—her statements about DHA, for instance, are yet another instance, not of opinion, but of stating an incorrect assertion as if it were established fact. But out of respect for your time, I ask only that this issue be decided based on the final sentence of her Op-Ed. There are indeed numerous intelligent and well-researched arguments that can be made against veganism. Planck’s piece offered no such arguments—it is the product of a self-promoting author, lacking any nutrition credentials, either deeply dishonest or hopelessly misinformed, and apparently connected with a group with a clear anti-vegetarian agenda (the Weston Price Foundation.) The issue here isn’t whether both sides of a controversy ought to be represented in a given Op-Ed piece. The issue is whether, when matters of fact have been misrepresented in its pages, the _New York Times_ will choose to issue a correction. Like Jayson Blair before her, Nina Plack used the influence and good reputation of the _New York Times_ to distort the truth. The _Times_ ought to act decisively to protect its reputation and to set the record straight. All the best, Erik Marcus Author: _Meat Market-Animals, Ethics, & Money_ > Dear Matthew Bate, > > Thank you for writing about the Nina Planck essay, "Death by > Veganism," published Monday on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times. > > I don't know that Ms. Planck's comments are "inaccurate,"  I do > know that they are debatable. > > I asked David Shipley, the editor of the Op-Ed page, for his > thoughts.  He said, "I think Nina Planck is on firm ground in her > Op-Ed.  Her reading of the science is that it is indeed the case > that children (and all of us) need animal-derived nutrients, and > she's able to summon studies backing up her assertion -- just as > the vegans are able to summon up studies showing that you can > indeed survive on plants alone." > > My own view, which I expressed to Shipley, is that, given how > important and fraught with emotion the subject of children's > nutrition is, the Times owed its readers an Op-Ed by another > contributor debating Planck.  Because there is science to support > another view, it should have been aired at the same time, or very > close to the same time. > > David Shipley's view is that, "Op-Ed readers understand that they > are reading an argument and that there is almost always another > side to the argument."  I'd feel better if the Times had actually > presented that other side in this particular instance. > > Sincerely, > Clark Hoyt > Public Editor