>No doubt manyprimitive peoples had varying amounts of animal meat or eggs
>in their diet but 64%!?!

This is not really that unusual, Sandy. Among recent hunter gatherers
(those "primitives" living in preagricultural ways in this century--very
few remaining at present however), there is a great variance in the
animal/plant ratio. It ranges from 90/10 to 10/90 but more commonly tribes
come in at 60/40 or 40/60, not so extreme. There is no hunter gatherer
vegan culture known. Nor any which doesn't fire a portion of their food,
for that matter.

Neither could Dr. Price, on his famous trips around the world earlier in
this century, find a "traditional" (incl farming, often more of a
horticulture situation) culture of vegans. It is interesting that he
initially set out to prove that a vegetarian diet was "best". However, he
found that according to his health "markers" (largely dental
characteristics; he was a dentist) the more seafood included in the diet
the stronger the teeth, dentation, etc.

This, along with proof positive of wild primates eating (relishing! the
young begging for it !) animal foods, and the attraction of human toddlers,
(even infants, before "vegetarian conditioning") to eat, digest perfectly,
and thrive on a diet including raw undenatured animal foods, and the clear
taste-changes observed in animal foods (I can't speak for dairy)--all of
which to my mind, pretty much settles the question of a vegan diet as the
"natural" diet for humans.

Now, none of this means that a vegan diet isn't best for philosophical,
ecological, spiritual, etc. reasons--none of which I'm prepared to argue
about. To each his/her own. My point only being that there is scant
scientific/anthropological support that humans are vegans, and _none_ that
we are fruitarians.

The physiology/anatomy "proofs" often sited by hygenists and vegans are
_very_ questionable as well. I'll leave you to read Ward's interview in H&B
for the sorry details (I _assume_ they will be there in living color, eh
Ward?)

I don't intend to start (or participate much in) a battle on veg-raw about
the rightness/wrongness of eating animal foods, but any vegan (aspiring or
otherwise) would do well to know that the "nutritional arguments" for a
100% vegan diet are often much more philosophical/idealogical than
scientific. Many vegans who have seriously considered the information, find
they have been duped by well-intentioned agruments of less-than-rigorous
merit.

There are many reasons to eat particular plant or animal foods, fired or
raw. Each of us is very different, and I second Douglas' recommendation
about reading Roger Williams' books. They may startle you as they did me.

Cheers,
Kirt