Become a Sustainavore!

Eat for your health, the planet, and your values.

Become a Sustainavore!

Eat for your health, the planet, and your values.

Is the Vegetarian Diet Healthy for Kids?

It may seem perfectly harmless to feed kids a meat-free diet. In fact, many parents feel that it’s “cleaner” and “more pure” to eliminate meat (vegetarian) or eliminate all forms of animal foods like eggs milk & cheese (vegan).

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), says a correctly planned vegan or vegetarian diet can be “appropriate for all stages of the life cycle including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes” in their 2016 position paper. The AND and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) recommend that fortified soy products replace animal products as “healthy alternatives”.

But what are these organizations basing their recommendations on? What does the evidence show?

There have been several long-term epidemiological studies that have shown that vegetarian or vegan diets may lower the risk of certain diseases IN ADULTS. But, focusing specifically on children, who are most dependent upon high quality nutrition for proper growth, is there actual evidence that exists that vegetarian diets are safe?

A new paper by Nathan Cofnas published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition takes a deep look at the existing research on children and meat-free diets. I know a lot of my readers don’t have time to read the entire article, so I’ve highlighted some of the best nuggets in this post. I want to make it clear that the author did NOT state that a meat-free diet is unhealthy, but after reviewing the research, his conclusion is the evidence showing a vegetarian diet is healthy for children is weak, and further states the AND is not in a position to recommend it as “safe” without more research.

Vegetarian diets and pregnancy

Growth starts with a healthy pregnancy, which allows the fetus to develop appropriately. One of the markers of healthy pregnancies and adequate nutrition is male to female sex ratio, which is usually 105:100. In stressed populations, for example during times of war, there tends to be an increase in miscarriage of male fetuses, resulting in a lower sex ratio. Malnutrition and lack of adequate calories during pregnancy has been identified as one cause of lower sex ratios. A 2000 study of over 6,000 pregnant women found that those who followed a vegetarian diet had a considerably lower sex ratio when compared to those who followed an omnivorous diet and were 23% less likely to give birth to a boy. The low birth ratio of vegetarian women may be an indication of physical stress caused by this eating pattern and impact fetus viability. There is no mention of this study, nor the risk of spontaneous abortion of male fetuses in the AND 2016 position statement referenced earlier.

[Tweet “In a study of over 6,000 pregnant women, vegetarians were 23% less likely to give birth to a boy”]

Milk vs. Meat in Children

The AND recommends substituting meat with dairy, soy, or other vegetarian sources of protein, stating that these are nutritionally adequate and comparable substitutions for children. There has only been one controlled study to date that examines the exchange of milk for meat. This 2014 study evaluated the impact of the addition of meat, milk, or just additional calories to the diet of largely vegetarian children in Kenya and compared them to a control group, who received no additional food.

The results were fascinating. When measured for growth, intellectual ability, behavior, and academic performance, after two years, the meat group had by far the best outcomes. The milk group showed the least improvement on Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM—a measure of fluid intelligence), even when compared to the children that didn’t receive any additional calories. The meat group showed remarkably more physical ability, leadership, and significantly more physical growth during the study period. Those who only received milk, lagged behind the meat group in every aspect. Researchers believe that these results may be related to the impact milk has on iron absorption, which influences cognitive ability. They also suggest the improvements in performance in the meat group could be due to the intake of high quality protein, vitamin B12, zinc, and iron in the children’s diet all of which positively impact development.

Although this is only one study with some limitations, it’s the ONLY controlled study on milk vs. meat in children, and basically, it shows milk can’t replace meat. It’s completely reasonable to question how the AND can definitively say that milk is an adequate substitute for meat in a child’s diet.

Additionally, milk has been shown to have a huge connection to acne. What teen wants acne? The paper cites several studies showing an association between milk and acne, so substituting milk for meat, especially in teens, could lead to worse skin and all of the stress that comes along with a teen dealing with acne.

What About Soy and Kids?

The AND also recommends soy as a substitute for meat and a quality source of protein for vegetarians. The concern with a high intake of soy for children is the impact that phytoestrogens may have on their development. Phytoestrogens are naturally occurring substances in legumes and soy that may disrupt how hormones function in the body. Endocrine (hormone) disruption may be of particular concern for children, especially during periods of development.

A 2010 review of the available evidence on the impact of phytoestrogens found that a high intake may lead to malformations of sex organs, infertility, abnormal hormonal cycles, and problems with ovarian function. One study evaluated in this review found that males born to vegetarian mothers were 3.5x more likely to have malformed genitalia. Most of the studies reviewed in this particular article were animal studies, which may or may not translate to humans, but further research is still needed to determine the impact of encouraging children to eat more legumes and soy, instead of meat.

[Tweet “Study found males born to vegetarian mothers were 3.5x more likely to have malformed genitalia”]

Legumes and soy are high in an anti-nutrient called phytate, which inhibits the absorption of minerals such as iron and zinc. Deficiencies in these two minerals can have a serious impact on the cognitive and reproductive development of children. Additionally, plant-based sources of iron are not as bioavailable as animal-based, leading to an even greater risk of deficiency in children.

How About Eggs for Protein?

The paper criticizes the idea that eggs alone can meet the nutritional needs of pregnant women and children because of their relatively low content of protein, iron and zinc and high ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 fatty acids. Omega 6’s are pro-inflammatory, and although our bodies need some, we generally get way too much as it is. Typical eggs have a ratio of 15:1.

Other Nutrient Deficiencies from Avoiding Meat…

The AND seems to minimize the impact of missing nutrients and the evidence pointing to how it may affect the growth and development of children following vegetarian diets. In addition to the phytates in soy blocking absorption of certain minerals, other nutrients are often deficient in populations that avoid meat.

Vitamin B12 is a concern for vegetarian children as it is the only vitamin that is only found in animal sources. 52% of adult vegans have been found to be deficient in B12, as well as 26% of vegetarians, so this deficiency likely translates to children following these diets as well. A deficiency in B12 can lead to irreversible consequences for children including delayed cognitive development, lower academic performance, nerve damage, and failure to thrive.  Due to the severity and long-term impact of these symptoms, the AND does recommend supplementation of B12 via fortified foods or supplements (I like this one) for all vegans and vegetarians. But, is it realistic to expect children to supplement this vitamin their entire lives? Is a diet that requires supplementation a biologically appropriate diet for growing kids?

Creatine is low in vegetarian diets and may also influence healthy brain development. Creatine supplementation has been shown in one study to improve cognitive performance (by a significant level) in vegetarians. Similar improvements were not seen in omnivores, suggesting that vegetarians were performing lower on the tests due to existing low creatine levels.

The results of this study suggest that a creatine deficiency may lower fluid intelligence and working memory by up to one standard deviation, approximately 15 IQ points. The decrease in cognitive function is reversed with supplementation of creatine. This particular study was with adults and there have not been any long-term studies on the impact of creatine intake and brain development in children, therefore we cannot determine what the effect might be.

Here’s a great quote from the article:

“It is possible that, although vegetarianism appeals to people with higher intelligence, becoming vegetarian reduces fluid intelligence and working memory… People may not notice a reduction in cognitive functioning when they become vegetarian if fluid but not crystallized intelligence is affected. (That is to say, becoming vegetarian may impair one’s ability to solve problems without causing one to forget what one has learned, so the effect may not be noticeable.)”

Taurine

Taurine works in the body as a neurotransmitter and impacts central nervous system development. This amino acid is traditionally low in vegetarian diets and absent in vegan diets. It is unclear what impact this has, but it is known that low taurine levels in infancy can impair long-term brain development.

EPA and DHA for Growing Brains

Lastly, eicoaspentaeoic acid (EPA) and docosahexanaenoic acid (DHA), the essential omega-3 fats found primarily in fish, are generally low or absent in vegetarian diets. DHA in particular is critical for normal brain, retina, and cell development. Low intake of EPA has been associated with depression and low meat intake with an increased risk of suicide in teenagers. To date are no studies on the long-term effects of inadequate intake of these particular nutrients during childhood, therefore the risks are unknown. Chris Kresser has a great post here on why vegans and vegetarians should supplement with DHA, (I like this supplement for DHA).

So, Is a Vegetarian or Vegan Diet Safe for Kids?

Again, Nathan Cofas did an excellent job combing through the literature and presenting a strong case that we just can’t be sure that it’s safe for kids to avoid meat. I know many that feel a well-planned vegetarian diet is better than a Standard American Diet, which could be so depending on what nutrients are being consumed, but considering the possible harm, and especially when B12 deficiency can cause permanent damage, I personally feel that the dangers of excluding meat are very real. Making a blanket statement about safety of vegetarian diets for the entire life cycle by simply extrapolating evidence from epidemiological adult studies is, in my opinion, irresponsible. There is simply not enough evidence to say a vegetarian or vegan diet is safe for kids, and it’s time that parents learn about the risks.

[Tweet “Is there evidence to prove that vegetarian and vegan diets are safe for kids?”]

 

My posts may contain affiliate links, which means you don’t pay any more, but I may make a small commission, which helps me continue to bring you great new posts. Read my full disclosure/disclaimer here.

Enjoy This Post? Share It With Friends!

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

13 thoughts on “Is the Vegetarian Diet Healthy for Kids?”

  1. Interesting read, thank you.
    I just want to point out that, contrary to what is written in your article, the 2014 study found that the children who received milk instead of just extra calories (oil), meat, or nothing, also showed great improvements in several subjects, just like the meat group did.
    Also, the children in this study were all undernourished and malnourished, so I’m not sure it is a valid point of comparison for ‘healthy’ vegetarian or vegan diets.
    Still interesting to consider.

    1. The study compared children in the control, vegetable oil, milk, and meat group for 2 years. Of course all children made improvements. The point is that those in the milk group made much less improvement (in terms of physical/mental/emotional development) than those in the meat group. Consuming dairy rather than meat won’t make children stop developing, it just makes them develop less than their potential (or so the study suggests).

  2. As a grassfed raw milk producer, I had to read the whole study that you summarized as having shown milk to be a negative influence on malnurished children. It was a little shocking that the study doesn’t say that at all.

    The study actually showed that the milk group did better than the vegetable oil group and came pretty close to the meat group as far as improvements. And that was ultra-pasteurized milk, I’m assuming coming from a conventional dairy (i.e. poor quality compared to grassfed raw).

    It’s a little bit annoying to get picked on by vegans AND those who are purporting to support regenerative agriculture and truly healthy diets that include animal products. Why did you misrepresent the study in a way that makes milk look worse than vegetable oil? Your readers take that stuff seriously, and not every weekend health warrior is going to read the actual study before deciding milk is going to make their kid dumb and cutting it out of their diet. It’s already a struggle to get through the vegan anti-farmer media misrepresentation of milk and milk products.
    As a super-small scale dairy and meat producer, I’m disappointed.
    Melissa Tregilgas

    1. I’m sorry you find the results of the study disappointing. I didn’t design the study, and it’s the ONLY one we have comparing milk to meat in children, and the results are that meat is much better than milk. I’m not saying milk is worst than vegetable oil. Nobody is saying that. I’m also NOT saying milk has a negative influence on health – wow. Please re-read what I actually wrote here. I’m not anti-milk. I’m simply saying milk is not equivalent to meat. The AND is trying to say that milk is a fine substitute for meat and there’s simply NO EVIDENCE that this is true. That is the whole point of the study and this post. I actually give my kids milk, but I also feed them lots of meat. Again, please re-read the post and leave your emotions out of it – read the science. It’s a good thing to question our assumptions and look at the studies available to us.

      1. I absolutely don’t find the study disappointing, I find your description of it disappointing. I commented because I read the whole study, and it contradicted one of your key sentences describing it.

        I totally agree that milk is no substitute for meat. But by saying that the milk group had “the lowest scores, even when compared to the children that didn’t recieve any additional calories, ” you are misrepresenting the findings of the study. The milk group did way better than the control group, not worse.

        I love your blog and am a big supporter of your work. I’m not just out trolling. But you wrote something that will potentially confuse people, and it’s contradictory to the study you are using to back you up. Maybe it’s just worded wrong and you didn’t mean for it to sound like the milk group did worse than the control group?

        1. You’re misquoting me. I actually only say the milk group lagged behind the MEAT group. Please consider reading what I wrote carefully and stop giving me such a hard time. We’re on the same page and it take a lot of energy both for you to continue to criticize me and for me to respond. I do a lot of work for FREE, and to have to defend myself to someone who is also a producer, who is misreading my post is not a good use of my time. Have a great day.

          1. Please reread what you wrote and notice what it says and how the first two folks (myself and the prior comment) understood it. It does NOT just say the milk group lagged behind the meat group. I wish the comments had an underline option so you could see what I am talking about. Instead I am going to caps it for emphasis. . .

            “When measured for growth, intellectual ability, behavior, and academic performance, after two years, the meat group had by far the best outcomes, whereas the milk group had the LOWEST SCORES, EVEN WHEN COMPARED TO THE CHILDREN THAT DIDN’T RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL CALORIES.”

            That is what you actually said. That is also my limit for time spent on something apparently completely pointless. I’m still going to keep supporting your stuff. Have a great day too.

          2. I went back to the initial study and found that according to Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM—a measure of fluid intelligence), the Milk group showed the least improvement, significantly below the other three groups (including the Control). I’ll add that to the post.

            Here is the rest from the Cofnas review:

            “While all groups started off with roughly the same RPM scores, Meat ended up approximately 0.65 standard deviations higher than Milk (Hulett et al. 2014 Hulett, J. L., R. E. Weiss, N. O. Bwibo, O. M. Galal, N. Drorbaugh, and C. G. Neumann. 2014. Animal source foods have a positive impact on the primary school test scores of Kenyan schoolchildren in a cluster-randomised, controlled feeding intervention trial. British Journal of Nutrition 111 (5):875–86. doi:10.1017/S0007114513003310.
            [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
            ), corresponding to a difference of around 10 IQ points. The Meat and Energy groups showed significantly more improvement on arithmetic tests than the Milk and Control. The Meat group showed a significantly larger percentage increase in end-of-term test scores compared to the others, with the greatest increase being in the arithmetic subtest. Over the course of the study, the Meat group had the highest levels of physical activity during free play, the greatest increase in leadership activities, and the greatest increase in initiative behavior. The Milk group had the lowest level of physical activity and leadership and initiative behavior among the three intervention groups. Regarding growth: Only children in the Milk group who were below age 6 or had stunted growth experienced a greater rate of height increase. All three intervention groups experienced an improvement in weight gain relative to the Control. Children in the Meat group gained approximately 50% more mid-upper-arm muscle area than those in the Milk group, and 100% more than those in the Energy and Control.”

      2. I was raised a vegetarian, and now, at 47 have severe bipolar disorder (my mother was anorexic – I started showing signs of bipolar at age 10). I also have multiple fibroids and a suspected grain intolerance.

        I had early puberty (age 7), was 2 years younger than the oldest in my class, and was expected to outperform at every level. By the time I was a teenager, I was bloated constantly (too much consumption of grains?) with permanent brain fog, and could not concentrate on academia, as I was permanently uncomfortable. BTW, I had loads of tests done over the years, and they all confirmed I was non coeliac – although, I was always sure I had a grain intolerance. Now, as a last resort, I’m trying out dietary guidelines from, I.e. Ron Rosedale, in an effort, to some extent, to try to redress the bad choices, and irresponsibility of my mother when I was young.

  3. “Compared with the Control group, the Meat group showed significant improvements in test scores in Arithmetic, English, Kiembu, Kiswahili and Geography. The Milk group showed significant improvements compared with the Control group in test scores in English, Kiswahili, Geography and Science.” The abstract sums up that while meat definitely had the best results, milk came in second and showed big improvements as well.
    Maybe we should be arguing that milk is a good raw supplemental source of nutrients and energy, it just can’t replace red meat.

    1. See my other reply to the comment before. The point is milk =/= meat, but the AND claims milk is a good substitute. It’s not. I’m not saying milk is BAD. Please consider the context of this post and the relevance of the study here to the point of the post.

  4. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] 20 Ways EAT Lancet's Global Diet is Wrongfully Vilifying Meat - Sustainable Dish

  5. Very interesting, I think the milk, egg, and cheese group different from meat, soy group because a lot of people have allergies to milk, cheese, and eggs, my family have allergies to soy bean oil, eggs, cow milk, and cheese

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles

Stay Up To Date

Join 60,000+ advocates just like you!

Stay Up To Date

Join 60,000+ advocates just like you!

Scroll to Top

Sign Up for my newsletter Below, and You'll Receive Instant access to all my Free Monthly Downloads!