Huge sections of the eastern world would probably disagree with this. Outside of the industrialized world meat consumption is often a luxury, not a standard. India and China also have religious vegetarian subsets of their population which are larger than the entire American population.
I would probably not compare modern diets to one another. Look further back at our ancestry and see what humans ate (physical anthropologists and archaeologists know a lot about that--biochemists and geneticists can speculate, too, given the biochemical pathways we have developed or foregone through our evolutionary history.). The neolithic/agricultural revolution has had an enormous impact on human civilizations across the globe (even prior to more recent globalization). Eastern cultures have been affected, too... we are all now children of the Neolithic Revolution.
What is more telling is when you look at traditional hunter gatherers and examine their eating habits and health. There is some variation in traditional diet--yes--but consider what has been available (versus what had not been) to our ancestors over hundreds of thousands of years--millions, even. I can tell you that Morningstar Farms Faux-meat Sausage patties were not! Nor was Rockstar or Earth Balance blended oil spread.
Subbing meat out of a diet is probably one of the cheapest and easiest ways to improve your health. High cholesterol, blood pressure, obesity, heart disease and various cancers are all linked to regular meat consumption.
But, yeah. Humans don't need meat at all, and are probably worse off with it in the standard diet.
I would argue that the science is actually not there to support your strong statement, at least not when you look at consumption of 100% pasture-raised meats (animals raised in ways that are in harmony with their biology and natural history). I do agree with you--if I read you right--that 'standard diet' meat (which in my mind = feedlot/industrial-farming meat--a recent offering) might not be so beneficial. I wouldn't venture so far to say that we would be better off to not eat any meat if conventionally-raised meat were the only option, but avoided when given a choice?--yeah.
If you raise an animal on poor-quality food (that the creature is not even able to properly digest, leading to disease), in crowded and stressful/inhumane/unnatural conditions, (and add pharmaceuticals on top of it) you will be getting a product that is *chemically* distinct from the meat of a naturally-raised (ie; on the land) animal. It's only a short leap to surmise that our bodies will respond to this chemically distinct type of meat in a different way than it does to meat that is raised on pasture. It's pretty much all chemistry in your GI track. Consider that feedlot meat, 'modern meat,' was born of the 19th century. That's not a very long time that humans have consumed this very novel product.
🙄
There have been people over the past century who have raised concerns about modern agriculture/nutrition/declining health, but the science is only now really emerging to support their claims.
Will the government ever take heed? Eventually, sure. But40+ years of active campaigning of the food pyramid and nutritional guidelines, as well as lobbying by the giant food and ag. interests has unfortunately led to enormous momentum.
Anyways, please, everyone, be a skeptic and question things. We are fortunate in that there is plenty of information out there now. Use your knowledge of biochemistry, biology, statistics and study-design, and evolution to help you as you do your own research. Use your gut--literally--and figuratively--to help you weigh the contradictory claims out there.
Since when did humans spend so much of their time and brain power figuring out what to eat and what not to eat? That is certainly a new thing. It really isn't that hard. We humans have made it hard.
and
.
I should have known that! Now I want to cry...:cry:
