[slowpoke]

>Would you not agree that vegetarian people are likely to be more conscious of their nutritian than the average person?

That's certainly true, and actually a necessity for vegetarianism to be healthy in the first place (just removing meat from your meals isn't going to magically be more healthy, it's actually the opposite). It's still pretty much impossible to supply a growing child with the needed nutrients on a purely vegetarian basis. While it's of course possible for children to grow up into healthy adults this way, it's still not without heavy risks to the child's physical development.

[svensson]

People who say it's a dangerous diet without any sources are only spreading FUD. Of course you don't just remove the meat, you replace it and get your nutrients elsewhere. I have a three-year old vegan daughter that is thriving, and we spent New Year's with two families, each with vegan one-year olds.

If the above children are still too young for the alleged negative health effects, read up on older vegan children at [1]. If you want the American Dietetic Association guidelines [2]:

"Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life-cycle including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence and for athletes."

Instead of "pretty much impossible", I would say it's quite easy to provide all needed nutrients. All parents, not just vegan parents, should read up on childrens' nutritional needs. But it doesn't matter if the protein comes from meat or kidney beans, or if the B12 and calcium come from cow's milk or fortified oat milk.

[1] http://veganhealth.org/articles/realveganchildren

[2] http://www.eatright.org/Media/content.aspx?id=1233

[outworlder]

All of the above assumes parents are very well educated (and can properly monitor) about the needs of their vegetarian kids.

It seems to me that that kind of diet is not appropriate for the majority of the population.