George Guimarães, nutritionist specializing in vegetarian and animal rights activist

This month the Journal of Vegetarians complete 4 years and, considering publishing a vehicle of utmost importance for the spread of vegetarianism in Brazil *, I've been reflecting on the evolution of the acceptance of the theme by the public, media and academia. To summarize the elements that came to mind during this reflection, I will limit myself to two recent episodes, putting them into perspective with two old episodes.

Was 1995 I was banned by a teacher of nutrition course to replace the theme of my group in a classroom technique dietary (something like a class focused on techniques of food preparation) to one that utilizes only plant foods and not so conventional, como o tahine, the alfalfa sprouts and sprouted grains. Her response was that I did that when I founded my sect. I am a good student, was what I did and today I serve these and other "forbidden" foods in units VEGETHUS Vegan Restaurant daily for more than 200 people.

Much has happened in the meantime on the acceptance of the theme of vegetarian nutrition in academia and I must say that there is much to be followed until the vegetarian nutrition is addressed satisfactorily in the curricula of colleges of nursing. However, there are already good signs of change. Among the many opportunities that have emerged in recent years to speak to dietitians and nutrition students at their universities, bring the recent example of August of that year, when I was invited to speak at an event sponsored by the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, where 250 students were gathered to discuss the theme. I asked one of the teachers responsible for the event the reason for choosing the theme and she answered: "I'm protovegetariana". The correct use of the term, I confirmed that it is also a reader of the Journal of Vegetarians, since the new term had been discussed in a recent edition.

Have to illustrate the evolution of the acceptance of media and public, I remembered I was in 1996 that attended my first live debate on TV about it. Since, have been dozens of these and it is remarkable the change that took place in the focus of these discussions. Contrasting this first debate with the latest, that occurred in October 2010, promoted by a radio program, I can see that not only the topics for discussion have changed, but was changed the whole dynamic of the discussion. In the first (and in all that time), the imperative was to question where the vegetarian draws its proteins and other issues with the assumption of a possible nutritional deficiency among fans. On the other side of the debate, experts from diverse backgrounds brought these issues with the property and to refute them was necessary to start with the Beaba of vegetarian nutrition, stripped from the most remote of the myths, what deixava little Espace for deepening the debate.

With many variations in the mean time, what was seen in the example of the episode this month (and all more recent) was a question about the gastronomic possibilities vegetarian, why they enjoy better health and what are the ethical and environmental motivations for choosing. Nothing about protein, iron or calcium. Nothing specialists. Moreover, has been rare to find an expert willing to discuss the issue. When we find one that is available, it usually makes the line of the middle way, not opposed to the ideas of vegetarianism, stating that it is suitable for those who choose to practice and criteria, but arguing that it may not be for everyone. Naturally, know that vegetarianism is yes to all (is not only suitable, but also the minimum to be practiced by any individual who applies ethical). What I notice here is that the more radical opposition is now limited to adopt a discourse that is no more than moderate.

For this episode, the best opponent they achieved was an ex-protovegetariana reported that the reasons did not succeed in his attempt to stop the consumption of animal flesh, admitting repeatedly be too attached to your taste. Not just this episode, but very commonly in recent times, defense by the consumption of meat and other animal products has been based, much more than for his alleged need, the pleasure of consumption or the difficulty by abandoning him. I consider this to be a perfect sign that the debate is not over the adequacy of vegetarian diet, but the individual's ability to practice it. Even when we go beyond the issue dietary, entering the field of ethics, discussants have merely stated that they admire the stance vegetarian, but do not have the same determination to translate his convictions into practical actions.

What I want to illustrate with the example of how they have been presented discussions on vegetarian nutrition is that there is a clear paradigm shift in the way the public and experts perceive and accept vegetarianism, which now leave the list of eccentric practices to configure the list of mere options, going to be seen as a legitimate expression of diversity. Although not exempt from questioning, this implies that legitimacy is accepted and respected. At this moment this acceptance of vegetarianism is already evident in the media and academia, there is no need to speak of "acceptance" or "inclusion" of the individual vegetarian. What may be a difficulty in accepting a small social circle or family, but with the advantage that it is accepted and mirrored by society as a whole, has been increasingly easier to break down the barriers that may still exist in small circles.

In addition, from the moment in which ethics becomes a constant in the option argument for vegetarianism, there have to expend energy to vegetarians claiming any privilege or need to include, it becomes even more obvious position that the purpose of our actions is not facing ourselves, but for the Animas , which makes irrelevant any distress or claim arising from the difficulty of putting into practice vegetarianism.

They are, animals, being oppressed, exploited and excluded by the millions every day. Diverting speech to claim any right to vegetarians or need is to take the focus of animal rights (who are the end) to put it in the rights of vegetarians (which are mere means). Unlike other social movements, not us who have benefited with the results of our actions, but other. In this case, Another from another species. Are nothing more than their spokespersons and, the good of the animal rights movement, we should never pretend to be more than that.

Being vegan is the minimum that an individual can do and complain that this creates a lack of acceptance (especially in a time when the acceptance is vastly greater than it was 30, 20 or 10 years) is to declare total lack of ability to put into perspective the size of oppression against which we struggle, oppression that led to the animals at a rate far greater than the discomfort that can be experienced only by either being vegetarian to enjoy your choice today.

The struggle for acceptance of our option may have been important in the past, but she was never thought of as an ultimate goal, may have been, no max, a means to allow the entry of new members. Having won this benefit the acceptance (yes, agree, it has been achieved) with hard work and that of many generations over the centuries, Now continue on. Now that more people can now be housed in this place we learned to build, and without ever thinking that this is where relent, continue to work to raise awareness regarding animal cause, because even in these times of change, there are still many changes that they have long waiting.

* According to the new definition that conceptualizes how protovegetarianos individuals who maintain the consumption of animal products (eggs and dairy), the terms 'vegetarian' and 'vegetarian' are used here to classify an individual that feeds exclusively on plant foods. The vegan is a vegetarian option that goes beyond food and excludes animal products in other aspects of their way of life.