In a message dated 6/25/03 6:41:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> In organs or animals eaten whole  you will find those nutrients .
>

But not necessarily in the amounts currently "recommended."  I'm getting
ready to just ignore what's currently recommended and go by how I feel.  Of
course, I could just be looking for an excuse not to eat organ meats which taste
disgusting to me.  Incidentally, on another forum I participate in, there was a
discussion about the necessity of organs for a healthful all-meat diet and one
poster responded with the following quote allegedly from Page 88 of
Stefanson's book, "The Fat of the Land":

Pg 88

"The way the Eskimos divide, for instance. a caribou between men and dogs has
been described with some detail; here the fact is emphasized that the organ
commonly spoken of as richest in vitamins, the liver, is nearly always given to
the dogs--as are the sweetbreads and, indeed, all things from the body cavity
except the heart and kidneys. The kidneys are usually given to the children,
somewhat as if they were candy.

So far as I know the Eskimos of northern Alaska and northwestern Canada, and
the forest Indians just to the south of them, the only condition under which
they ate nearly or quite te whole caribou was in time of famine. Ceasing to
give the dogs the parts which are normally theirs was that stage of famine which
imediately preceeded the killing and eating of the dogs themselves."


Anyone have Stefanson's book so we can verify the accuracy of the quote?