My take on meat is probably neutral. I haven't been eating meat nor fish for 45 years now. But I'm aware of the limitations of other people.
I also agree that a meal with meat plus an abundance of vegetables is far healthier than a meal of vegan junk food.
The ethical issue underlined by Steve has its importance but, again, I believe that we can only mildly suggest something to other people, never forcedly.
By the way, processed meat and 'red' meat (mammalian's meat?) are officially carcinogenic foods according to the IARC, the agency on the research on cancer.
But the issue is probably far more complex.
Dr. Hyman suggests eating meat in moderation, as a side dish, together with many vegetables and plant products. Purely on the nutritional side, I don't see much damage with this kind of diet.
Let's remember that there is a trend presently called the carnivorous diet, which means eating only meat or fish. Nothing else. That's patently crazy and against the dietary common sense, potentially very detrimental to health and surely not in favour of longevity.
i read your entry several times mccoy. My take on it is that when we 'mildly' suggest eating meat as 'healthy' We are promoting a lifestyle that encourages violence towards other creatures. In this sense i am not talking about health but rather ethics and ecological disaster. So in a sense encouraging meat eating on a site like this is antithetical to the sites spiritual purpose and can be construed as encouraging unprovoked violence towards animals. Also if we read the writings of Sri Yukteswar he clearly says that human beings are not even anatomically built to digest meat in their bodies as for instance a tiger or bird of prey would be.
