Dean Esmay wrote:
> There can be no support whatsoever for vegetarianism as a "natural" diet
> for humans.  The foods you eat as a vegetarian may be "natural" in that
> they are organically grown or whatever, but as far as being natural to
> humans, it isn't.  At all.  And there's a good bit of evidence that
> vegetarianism is, long-term, a potent health hazard to many people,
> although there is also some indication that short-term excursions of a few
> weeks or months into vegetarianism may be healthy for some individuals.

I just want to make a few observations, which Dean is no doubt aware of.
I just think they might be worth stating.
(a) It remains to be established, as far as I know, that eating a
'natural' diet is in fact the best thing for humans to do. Using
antibiotics and vaccines is hardly natural, but is healthier than
not using them. It makes intuitive sense, but it is an empirical
question.
(b) Food is the sum of its parts. I think it is important to note
that a natural diet should be able to be analyzed in terms of
macronutrients,
micronutrients, fibre, fatty acids, additives, etc etc. If one could
theoretically construct a vegetarian diet that was chemically
equivalent to a 'natural' diet, why not eat that way?
(c) I don't know if I'd say that vegetarianism isn't 'at all' natural.
Hunter-gatherers have no doubt had periods of poor hunting, etc. I would
tend to characterize diets as more or less natural, since there really
is no SINGLE natural hunter-gatherer diet.

Couple of quick questions Dean: can you point me to any of the evidence
that vegetarianism is a potent health hazard, or anyway mention what
specific health problems tend to develop and why?

Thanks,
Toby (not a vegetarian, in case you're wondering)