On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:54:29 -0800, Wally Day (and Norm) wrote:

>> is it desirable to use the fewest 'animal products'

There are circumstances where this is definately true.
Very much discussed here now as Germany was not "save" from BSE as believed.
Pesticides, hormones, heavy metals, fat composition?
This is a question to members of the society of today.
Even to those dreaming from  stone age eras (me too).
No question for inuit.

>> is it possible for some people to be healthy
>> vegetarians

I can assure you that I know a number of long time vegetarians with
excellent health.

>> is it possible for all people to be healthy
>> vegetarians
>
>I believe not.

Not all, or not easily all, because there are some diseases that
cause ill reactions on the usual vegetarian gems.
Here on the paleo list a lot could be learned about ways
to eat vegetarian and paleo.
Even for celiacs and certain allergies.

However this question should better be
"if all people turned vegetarian, would general health improve?"
My answer is yes. Because the common way to eat meat has a couple of health
risks which can be avoided.
Many who try so (or try "health food") end up in a trap of
improperly processed grain food.
I consider it an important task to spread knowledge about this.
And this betrays vegetarians as well as 90% of the meat eaters.

>> what's the difference between a dog and a cow

From a viewpoint of nutrition, dog is better,
because they are not so often "fattened".

More important for the one who asks would be IMO:
Which is friend and which is ...not mattering, food.
The distinction between friend and food is different between cultures.
Dogs and horses are "friend" somewhere, food elsewhere.
Similar pigs.
The case about humans as friend or food is not decided everywhere.
Everybody's own decision.
My own borderline is between mosquito and other animals.
But i needn't eat every "not mattering", fortunately.

Regards, Amadeus