Lynton said:
> Meat can be toxic in at least four ways:
> 1       Lectins in it could be reactive to certain blood types:
>         eg beef is good for O, bad for A,AB and 'neutral' for B.
>         (incidentally, the only meats suitable for A's are suggested
>         as chicken, turkey and cornish hens).
>
> 2       it can be associated with parasites.
>
> 3       Certain ways of cooking (yikes!) can generate cancer-producing
>         chemicals in the meat (eg grilling, cooking on fire). According
>         to the source (I forget who ) you can burn meat in a frying pan
>         and not produce those chemicals (though what do you produce?)
>
> 4       It tends to concentrate toxins (as do large fish) from the
>         environment and applied by humans.

So the question is, aside from ethical considerations, do the
potentially
beneficial effects outweigh the negatives you list (some of which also
apply to plant foods)? Answer - it depends. In some cases it may be
just
a small or moderate amount of some co-factor in a meat that can make a
big difference greatly outweighing the addition of pollution with the
food source (I've heard from vegans getting a temporary boost of
energy
from coenzyme Q-10 or carnitine supplements suggesting not just
protein
deficiency from lack of animal foods).

As far as 4, it is not a big concern to me. Chances are the tissues
from a
source animal that ate a natural diet, and was not loaded up with
hormones
and drugs, are MUCH much less polluted than the tissues of the human
consumer, especially if the consumer has any kind of chronic ailment
(the
consumer usually has a long history of living on unnatural foods and
taking drugs). If some large predator hunted me down and decided to
have
my liver for dinner, I don't think he would find it too appetizing at
this
point in time :)

Paul