Biologically we are not carnivores, and we are not herbivores, we are omnivores. This can be determined by our dentition, our biochemistry and our alimentary canal. This has been complicated because we have been cooking our food for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. There is plenty of evidence that Homo erectus used fire in various ways and this probably included cooking. If we were herbivores, our intestines would be much longer. If we were carnivores, they would be much shorter. Instead we have the middle of the road intestines of the typical omnivore. While large mammal protein was probably not part of our diets to any large extent except as scavenged material, small mammals, birds, lizards, molluscs, fish and insects certainly were.
Even today, primitive peoples, while they do eat a lot of vegetation, supplement a large part of their diet with these, especially insects. Only where 'English' Culinary sensibilities have been imposed, do people not ingest large quantities of insects and molluscs. It has been estimated that up to 80% of some ancient peoples diets were derived from molluscs, fish and insects. That's a large amount of protein in anyone's book. Large mussels and oyster maddens showing evidence of roasting in fires found along the coast of Africa that have been carbon dated as far back as 120,000 years show anatomically modern humans have been eating these proteins for a long time.
This is confirmed by our biochemistry, we are the only primates to have the ability to handle large amounts of protein. We can process uric acid while not as well as dogs or cats, better than most other omnivores. Just as the ability digest lactose as adults has been genetically selected in humans in some regions of the earth, this ability to handle large amounts of protein had to also be selected, and as all humans, throughout the world have this biochemical ability, and our closest primate relatives, the Bonobo chimpanzee does not it occurred sometime after our ancestors went their separate ways. Our brains require large amounts of specific omega-3 and other oils for proper development, and the easiest way to get these, especially for primitive peoples, is to eat seafood, insects, certain types of seeds, free range mammals, (such as sheep, goats, pigs and grass fed cattle) and free range birds or their eggs. Or in other words animals that are allowed to eat their natural foods, not intensively farmed as we do today.
Vegetarianism for humans was only possible when we started to cook and/or process our food and or use foodstuffs that were not available for the vast majority of people throughout history. There are few staples that provide the correct combinations of amino acids humans require in the correct proportions. Sesame seeds and potatoes are the only two that spring to mind. All others need to be combined in the correct proportions. Only our modern world do we have access to all the foodstuffs that primitive peoples developed over millennia, and can actually embrace a complete vegetarian diet without harm
I have no problem with vegetarianism, enjoying the many vegetarian meals that I do, but as soon as I start hearing the catch phrase that that those who eat meat are poisoning themselves with toxic materials, from experience I have to immediately reject their statements as the result of not understanding human biochemistry, plant biochemistry, genetics and medicine. Of course there are lots of doctors have their theories and preach this what I can only call, religious material, but I'm sorry, like many evangelist preachers, they seem to be in it for the money.
The only toxic chemicals you find in meat, apart from the uric acid produced from processing the protein, are those that are put in it as preservatives. Plants on the other hand, are full of toxic chemicals. The cooking process destroys many of these, but there are many are not destroyed. Healthy human livers fortunately are capable of handling these toxic materials, and as healthy human kidneys are capable of removing excess uric acid and other toxic chemicals from our blood.
Another catch phrase that turns me off, is the quote, "The average man contains 10 pounds of undigested meat in their intestine" or "(corpse rotting in your gut)", as the father of modern vegetarianism, Sylvester Graham, invented both phrases as he later admitted later in his life, with no medical or biological evidence, as he needed a way to shock people into giving up meat. Indeed, if meat were to 'rot' or sit undigested in the intestine, it would quickly promote the growth of bacteria that are present in all of us, and would quickly kill the individual.
The third catch phrase that turns me off is when someone starts telling me that I am ‘murdering animals’ by eating meat. This emotional blackmail doesn't sit well with me, as neither does the suggestion that I should be willing start eating my own children, if I am willing to eat animal protein. Modern Vegetarianism does provide all the required proteins, oils, minerals, complex and simple carbohydrates that the modern human requires. Why not just state the case without the blackmail?
There has only ever been one complete scientific study to show the effects of a meat and fat only diet, that was called off after a year and the individuals who took part in the study were completely healthy through the experiment, and lived a long and healthy lives. There have been scientific studies on several groups of people, who just eat meat, milk, cheese and fat for large portions of the year, the Inuit are one such group who have traditionally just eaten fish, seal and blubber for up to nine months of the year, but there are others, such as the Sami, who live on reindeer meat and fat for again up to nine months of the year. There are others if you care to look, and many of them also live long and healthy lives on most of their lives on animal protein.
If non-intensive farming could support the human population, I’d be happy. But it isn't. And there are large tracts of land that will never be able to produce more than grass or trees without resorting to intensive fertilisation. But grass fed cattle, sheep, rabbits, chickens, guinea pigs or goats can be successfully raised in these areas, deer can more than successfully live in the margins of woodlands, and there are other animals that can thrive in woodland. All of these can be culled and used for meat without affecting either the environment or reducing the farming footprint.
If we really wanted to reduce our ecological footprint, we should be growing fruits and vegetables in our front, back and side gardens, and growing small animals such as rabbits or guinea pigs to use the scraps of vegetables we produce while preparing our food. But we tend to look at these as pets these days, instead of the valuable resources that they actually are.
