>
> It has always been my understanding that disgust for animal products is
> a natural state, which is unlearnt by us children as we are brought up
> to eat certain (safe) parts of certain (safe) animals.

infants come to the world with no judgments but a strong curioisity , they
will put anything in their mouths to try it out .
the instinctive knowledge of what is good or bad to eat is hard wired after
millions of years of evolution in relationship with the environement . the
sense of taste and smell can recognise safely what is good or bad to eat as
long the food is presented in the same state it is extracted from nature
without any processing .the same way foods have been presented to us the
longest thru our evolution .
fire and so possible  appearing around 400 000 years ago is still a very
recent phenomenon compared to the 6 millions years as hominids .

this instinctive regulation is not written in stone ( saying this food is
good and this other is bad ) but is a fluctuating perception in accordance
with the  ever changing metabolic needs of the organism .

there is also a learning part of this regulation as for ex : food eaten by
the mother during pregnacy will determine the preferences later on for it .
basically imitating adults is also hard wired .
a conflict can arise for the childrens when the parents themselves are not
eating in accordance with the original diet of their species  .

>
> If the latter is true, I can't help but wonder what stopped us eating a
> lot of poisonous plants when starvation pushed us to try new foods.

it is simple for any species presented to foods in their natural state,
poisonnous plants  will taste repulsive unless needed by the body as
medecine in small quantities .( chimpanzees and other animals have been
recognised using normall toxic plants as a means to cure themselves of
ailments ).

now in the context of denatured and mixed foods nothing above will apply and
endless studies done by pretentious cortex , of what is good or bad to eat
becomes necessarry.

jean-claude