>BTW, it is personal experience which makes me avoid dry-feed, antibiotic,
>etc cattle, chicken, lamb, and pork:

Keep in mind I don't discount the possibility of problems with modern
grain- and antibiotic-fed meats.  I am merely not willing to jump to the
conclusion that they are a major threat.  Partly that is personal
experience since my health improved dramatically once I started eating a
lot more of that kind of food.  Partly it is also a sort of wearying
effect; there is only so hard I'm willing to work on making my diet
"perfect."  If I am healthy and I feel good and I enjoy what I am eating
and I'm not going to the poorhouse to afford it, I'm happy.  Take away any
one of the above and I'm more likely to think hard about a change.

I don't doubt that hand-raised meats taste better.  I can't imagine that
they wouldn't.  If nothing else the mass production and refrigeration and
shipping and etc. can't do much for the taste.  Just look at the difference
between the seafood you get if you live near the coast vs. what you get if
you live in the midwest.

I'd love to have my own farm and raise my own meats.  Some day I may do
exactly that, but it won't happen for a few more years at least.

> ...but I have
>never seen a comparison of toxin concentrations in the average
>slaughterhouse meats/organs vs wild game vs pasture-only meat/organs.

I'd very much like to see this myself.

>Perhaps if we want to be as healthy as our paleolithic ancestors we need to
>dive deeper into truly paleo-foods to whatever extent possible...

Keep in mind that our paleolithic ancestors by and large were dead by the
age of 35 or so.  While that made them longer-lived than their neolithic
descendants, they were hardly long-lived.  There may be some room to argue
that no matter what you do you're likely to have some problems as you age.
Maybe not because hunter/gatherers who do live to old age are usually
pretty healthy, but still...

Also, here's some philosophy for you (and after all my philosophy bashing,
too! ;-): the price I'll willingly pay for more and more ideal health will
be proportional to the benefit I expect to see.  At my current rate I can
reasonably expect to see the age of 70 and beyond, which is more than twice
as much as I could have reasonably expected 10,000 years ago, regardless of
how I ate back then.  I am currently eating a diet fairly close to
"paleolithic" ideals and I am healthier and feel better as a result (well
not the last month, my pregnant wife and her cravings are making sticking
to any dietary regimen tough, but we'll get through it.  ;-).  My current
diet has improved my quality of life significantly and has probably
extended my likely lifespan.  How much extra benefit will I get from going
further?  How hard do I want to work to get there?  Tell me that if I work
twice as hard and spend twice as much money, I'll live another 5 years, and
frankly I'll probably let you keep them; I'm happy where I am and have no
desire to work -that- hard just to get a few inches more.

I guess a short way of saying it is that I suspect there is a law of
diminishing returns on these things.  Of course I may be wrong.

 ---

Disclaimer: I have no credentials, I just read a lot. I probably do not
know what I am talking about. Take any advice I give on any subject with a
grain of salt and always use your own best judgement.--Dean
(www.syndicomm.com/esmay)