Vegetarianism seen through the skeptical eye

[Ron_Tomkins]

The reason I start this thread is because of the endless debates I have had with vegetarians who try to do nothing but appeal to my emotion and my morals, rather than provide me with serious evidence that vegetarianism is healthier than consuming meat products. Now, I consider myself to be neither a devoted carnivore nor the opposite. My opinion is that a balanced diet (one that involves both meat products and vegetables) is the really healthy choice. However, I'm not entirely closed to the possibility that some types of meat can be more harmful than others (although I do believe this is also dependant on the individual's metabolism).

Therefore, my question:

Is there any scientific evidence that meat (or certain types of meat) is harmful for human beings?

Also, an additional one:

Is there any evidence of this old claim that supposedly, the stress that the animal goes through when he is killed somehow remains in its flesh which we eat and thus, harms us?

[quarky]

Some people just aren't down with manipulating and killing animals for food, if they don't have to. Others are fine with it. My guess is that its best to feel good about what you eat.
Factory raised meat, to me, borders on cruelty to animals, as well as providing a somewhat degraded food. One needn't be crazy to not want to take part in it.

It is an emotional issue. Why dismiss that aspect?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It is largely a moral issue, not a scientific one. The vegetarians I know are better with their diet than most meat eaters, because they obviously have to focus on it more. But I don't think all vegetarians are saying that a vegie diet is inherently healthier than a meat diet.

[CapelDodger]

I'm sure there's a moral issue involved. I avoid its details by being vegetarian. If the day comes that it's the rabbiit or me, the rabbit gets it, but that's not this day. It's a nasty business, and I want no part of it.

M'dog gets meat, of course, because he doesn't give a f***, and why should he? He'd relish an environment where he could kill his own.

[Rat]

I don't think I've ever met a vegetarian who claimed to be so for health reasons. If you're arguing with them, then of course they will appeal to emotions, because it is a personal moral choice for most. If you don't feel that it's wrong to kill an animal for your pleasure, then you likely won't convince someone who feels otherwise, and neither will they likely convince you otherwise.

To your specific questions, I have little evidence. I am told that adrenaline will ruin meat, but I have no citations to support that. I don't believe that meat is, as such, harmful, but I suspect that the average vegetarian has a healthier diet than the average meat eater. There are some veggies who make up for the meat with copious cheese, but otherwise, it seems to work out well.

[Wowbagger]

I'm a vegetarian who used to believe in some of the health reasons. But, not for very long. It is hard to accept those arguments when people point out:

* The physiology of humans was clearly evolved to handle consumption of various food sources: including meat and vegetables, etc.

* Most vegetarians tend to live just as long as meat eaters, and sometimes even a shorter life span.

* Certain proteins, and other nutrients, are harder to come by in vegetable form.

Nowadays, I am still mostly vegetarian, out of personal preference, and not a very strict one, by any means.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Is there any evidence of this old claim that supposedly, the stress that the animal goes through when he is killed somehow remains in its flesh which we eat and thus, harms us?

I remember that one from way back. It's nonsense. Hormones and such are part of a highly-tuned signalling mechanism; they're not the sort of molecules that hang around. Let alone what the stomach and intestinal tract do between "what we eat" and "what we are" - it's brutal.

The idea that some sort of signal can survive all that is laughable. I've never heard it from anyone who has the slightest grasp of science.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I was a vegetarian, for moral reasons. My wife still is, again, for morals. In my case, I decided that I was not going to kill some animal to eat it, but if it is already dead, bring it on.

My wife is not convinced with that argument, but anyway, the point is that we never went for the "healthier" arguments.

The point with the last argument was about the stress increased the amounts of adrenaline in the body, is that healthier or not, does it reach all muscles or not, I have no idea.

[KateHL]

I know a few 'for-health' vegetarians who think that, since going veggie, even though they haven't lost weight, their weight has redistributed on their body - which they attribute to their diet. I'm pretty sure the only way that's going to happen is if you gain muscle mass/lose fat through exercise or develop a tumor.

But that being said I was a vegetarian (for moral reasons) for 5 years and felt good about it. I began eating meat again when I started having blood sugar issues and needed to be able to eat whatever was available the fastest. I still don't eat meat very often and when I do I tend to stick to seafood and chicken and game.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I'm a vegetarian who used to believe in some of the health reasons. But, not for very long. It is hard to accept those arguments when people point out:

* The physiology of humans was clearly evolved to handle consumption of various food sources: including meat and vegetables, etc.

Also worms, larvae, termites, and whatever came to hand, frankly. Time was that a balanced diet wasn't a life-choice.

Quote:

* Most vegetarians tend to live just as long as meat eaters, and sometimes even a shorter life span.

We may see that demographic change, with the obesity thing. That's yet to bite in a big way.

Quote:

* Certain proteins, and other nutrients, are harder to come by in vegetable form.

Even harder in burger or pizza form .

[Apathia]

Originally Posted by Rat

I don't think I've ever met a vegetarian who claimed to be so for health reasons.

I was a veg from age 16 for health reasons. I tried going vegan, but my body protested, so I included dairy products.
It seems to me I benefited from it. However at 51, I began to feel I needed pre-digested proteins, so to speak, as my digestive system wasn't as strong as it was in my youth. So I now have fish or chicken about once a week.

[Sickly Crypsis]

Well if you think about the way we prepare most meat in our diets its not exactly as lean as a strict vegetarians diet. We fry, bake, grill etc yet we rarely steam or boil it as we do mostly with vegetables (because I for one, feel that it tastes lousy) So having taken that step you can see a lot of fat taken out of the diet which is the main reason why it could be seen that meat could be unhealthy, being that high fat diets contribute to higher instances of diabetes, heart disease and so on.

At an evolutionary stand point we are built to live on a diet of various plants and meats, for a person to be healthy on a pure vegan diet usually requires a more careful selection of various plants to contain the minerals and proteins found in abundance in meat and even supplements to boost that particular vitamin/mineral or as a catalyst to extract it more effectively from the vegetables they eat which contain it but only in trace amounts.

To live on this diet when we were at a more primitive stage and remain healthy would be almost impossible because for starters, the wide variety of plants needed to make up the gamut of vitamins and minerals don't grow in the same place or in the same season and not to mention that even knowing what each plant contained couldn't be established.

http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps8l.html

Short but sweet fact sheet on red meat.

Benefits of living in an advanced society, we can choice to eat what we want, be healthy and with technology avoid what we were genetically programed to do and survive on.

[Tumbleweed]

Kind of anecdotal, but when I hiked the Pacific Crest Trail, I met and hiked with a Vegan for several weeks. After about 800 miles he had to drop out because he was simply too tired and was turning skeletal. I had merely gotten in shape and was more than willing to press on

[KateHL]

Originally Posted by Sickly Crypsis

being that high fat diets contribute to higher instances of diabetes

In monkeys. And considering the nature of diabetes it's easy to imagine it would be more harmful to ingest fats from processed foods and sugars than from meat, but maybe I'm wrong. The way I see it if you're eating a very high fat diet you're probably overweight which puts you at high risk for diabetes. And you're probably taking in lots of sugars as well. Not rocket science.

One good thing about vegetarianism is that is makes it difficult to eat fast food. So there's that.

I think a good diet is a good diet with or without meat. Outside of that it's a morality issue.

[Tumbleweed]

Originally Posted by KateHW

In monkeys. And considering the nature of diabetes it's easy to imagine it would be more harmful to ingest fats from processed foods and sugars than from meat, but maybe I'm wrong. The way I see it if you're eating a very high fat diet you're probably overweight which puts you at high risk for diabetes. And you're probably taking in lots of sugars as well. Not rocket science.

One good thing about vegetarianism is that is makes it difficult to eat fast food. So there's that.

I think a good diet is a good diet with or without meat. Outside of that it's a morality issue.

But I am so torn about eggs, the perfect food - except for the cholesterol. Mine is high, because of them I am sure, but I just had a sonogram done and my arteries are just fine!
Yes fast food is horrible stuff. Personally I think all deep fried foods are also really bad for you. I remember smelling the kitchen exhaust fan when working on a roof while someone was deep frying food and thinking, man that's something I don't want in MY body
My good friend is 57 and a veggie ( not a Vegan) and she gets along just fine without beef, pork or chicken. She does eat fish and dairy products.
As to the moral issue, I figure if Christ thought it was okie dokie to eat fish, who am I to argue about it?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Is there any scientific evidence that meat (or certain types of meat) is harmful for human beings?

Check out "The China Study". It's been discussed in another thread briefly.

[Sickly Crypsis]

Originally Posted by KateHW

One good thing about vegetarianism is that is makes it difficult to eat fast food.

Very good point. I can imagine having to exercise at least 1 day less if i didn't eat meat and didn't indulge in a 3am, Saturday night, post drinking kebab/burger/pizza/leg of ham.

Meat has been an essential contributer to our brain development but as it stands to day I would definitely agree that a good diet with exercise, is a good diet regardless how you get it.

[Tumbleweed]

My grandmother was a strict Seveth Day Advenist and a strict vegetarian. She ate plenty of dairy products and fish
As I remember it, it was a health issue with them, more than a moral one. Something about meat being "unclean" and therefore unhealthy
I say this because they also fasted one day a week, the purpose being to cleanse the body of excess " stuff" and to stay lean. Not a bad idea really. If everybody started reducing their caloric intake by one seventh, there would be far less obesity. Was my grandmother ahead of the curve? We now know that reduced caloric intake leads to longevity, and red meat clogs your arteries. Whoda thunk they'd beat science to the draw

[Ron_Tomkins]

Just as I thought.


In the 18 replies I have received, not one person has said "Yes, it's been proven to be unhealthy through this and this and this study".

I always find it amuzing that some vegetarians feel it's morally wrong to kill an animal, because it's a living creature and blablabla, but yet they don't seem to think that plants are also living creatures who are also being killed when you eat them. I think it has to do with the fact that we feel more empathy with creatures that look more like us. Therefore, we could feel great empathy for a dog, a pig or even a bird, but not too much empathy for a cockroach or a crab.

I remember this girl who's now going into vegetarianism and she keeps talking about how she turned to vegetarianism because of the animals and how she doesn't like them being killed... but she still can't stop eating fish and seafood. In fact, she didn't even mind eating tempurized crab and seeing the crab's little hands all fried up.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Check out "The China Study". It's been discussed in another thread briefly.

Where exactly is that?

Originally Posted by KateHW

One good thing about vegetarianism is that is makes it difficult to eat fast food. So there's that.

I don't see the correlation. I eat meat and vegetables and I avoid fast food at all costs. I don't see why eating meat forces someone to have to eat fast food. I like to eat healthy: That implies no fast food. With or without meat.

[KateHL]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I don't see the correlation. I eat meat and vegetables and I avoid fast food at all costs. I don't see why eating meat forces someone to have to eat fast food. I like to eat healthy: That implies no fast food. With or without meat.

Well, to be fair, you're arguing against what you think I said rather than what I actually said. I said being a vegetarian makes it difficult to eat fast food, meaning it's hard to find a meatless meal on a fast food menu. My argument was not that meat eaters are more likely to want to eat fast food, just that fast food caters to omnivores (burgers, hot dogs, fried chicken, burritos, etc.). In fact, my next sentence was "I think a good diet is a good diet with or without meat."

So we agree with each other except I recognize that fast food has fewer options for vegetarians.

As for your friend being a vegetarian who eats seafood, well, that's cheating, frankly.

[RecoveringYuppy]

@Ron Tomkins

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54306

It's also got a lot of stuff on the web. Use "The China Study" (the name of the popular book) or "The China Project" (the name of the study it was based on) at Google.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Is there any scientific evidence that meat (or certain types of meat) is harmful for human beings?

Beyond the obvious disease infested meat (Mad Cow comes to mind) or bacterial infected meat (salmonella) I was never really presented with any hard data to support that claim in the 7 years I was a vegetarian. There was some data in regards to hormones and atibiotics used on livestock having some negative impact on humans.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Is there any evidence of this old claim that supposedly, the stress that the animal goes through when he is killed somehow remains in its flesh which we eat and thus, harms us?

I've heard this as well. My usual response is: wild game, which is supposed to be better for us than livestock, must go through more stress during the hunt than the unsuspecting cow or chicken.

As with most vegetarians I've met, most of the harm from eating meat is a direct result of the physical or mental abuse inflicted by our vegetarian girlfriends.

[Tumbleweed]

So no studies have been done to show that the additional cholesterol added to the system from the consumption of red meat is unhealthy? It's just a myth?
Seems like a simple google search would reveal them

[Tumbleweed]

Look at it this way: If YOU had just had an angioplasty done who would you believe: your doctor and a dietician who tell you to avoid red meat for the rest of your life
OR
some skeptic who says its just fine to go down to Mickey Dees with him and have a double cheesburger

[Modified]

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

But I am so torn about eggs, the perfect food - except for the cholesterol.

I assume you mean your cholesterol and not the cholesterol in eggs, since it is a trivial amount. I don't think any food has a significant amount of cholesterol. Eggs do contain a moderate amount of saturated fat.

[Tumbleweed]

Originally Posted by Modified

I assume you mean your cholesterol and not the cholesterol in eggs, since it is a trivial amount. I don't think any food has a significant amount of cholesterol. Eggs do contain a moderate amount of saturated fat.

Trivial by what standard? Compared to what my body is making? Please explain.
It states on the carton that I get 71% of my daily cholesterol from one egg. I have been eating 2. So my solution is simple: I just eat one egg now instead of two
Unless, like you say, the amount is trivial anyway. Then eating no eggs would not help

[quarky]

Strange...
I just got back from tending my neighbor's sheep while he is away.
One of the pregnant ewes had a prolapsed uterus; a lovely site; huge mass of innerds hanging out. We sucessfully shoved it all back in, but it didn't work for long. Bullet in the head. Young ram needs to be castrated. I don't want to do it.

Feeling my inner vegetarian today.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by quarky

Strange...
I just got back from tending my neighbor's sheep while he is away.
One of the pregnant ewes had a prolapsed uterus; a lovely site; huge mass of innerds hanging out. We sucessfully shoved it all back in, but it didn't work for long. Bullet in the head. Young ram needs to be castrated. I don't want to do it.

Feeling my inner vegetarian today.

So I guess you don't covet your neighbours ass either today.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by KateHW

Well, to be fair, you're arguing against what you think I said rather than what I actually said. I said being a vegetarian makes it difficult to eat fast food, meaning it's hard to find a meatless meal on a fast food menu.

Acknowledged. Sorry for my strawman.

Originally Posted by KateHW

As for your friend being a vegetarian who eats seafood, well, that's cheating, frankly.

You said it. That's the word that it comes down to: Cheating.
She did say she's taking this new vegetarian diet step by step, though.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

@Ron Tomkins

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54306

It's also got a lot of stuff on the web. Use "The China Study" (the name of the popular book) or "The China Project" (the name of the study it was based on) at Google.

Thank you. I'm reading through it right now. It certainly has a lot of substance to suck into.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Doesn't raising animals for food require significantly more energy that a vegetarian diet?

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/pa...ri/nutriEI.pdf

[Modified]

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

Trivial by what standard? Compared to what my body is making? Please explain.

Gram for gram, eating cholesterol has much less effect on your blood cholesterol than eating saturated fat. A jumbo egg contains about 275mg of cholesterol and 2g of saturated fat. Unless I am mistaken, no food contains an amount of cholesterol that would be of concern. Also, dietary cholesterol may be helpful overall, because it increases HDL. Even if that is true, it might not be useful, because as far as I know there aren't any foods with a high ratio of cholesterol to saturated fat.

I do see that in a lot of places they recommend limiting cholesterol to 300mg a day or something like that, but there is never any explanation of the reason for it. It might help you by limiting the saturated fat that is associated with it, but that seems like a silly reason, since it could steer you to less healthy sources of saturated fat (assuming the cholesterol is an overall positive).

Quote:

It states on the carton that I get 71% of my daily cholesterol from one egg.

Nutrition labels in the US are fairly ambiguous. They don't state whether the amounts are minimums, maximums, or what. They just say "% Daily Value". According to the label, a glass of orange juice contains 207% of my daily vitamin C, but I am not worried that drinking a whole glass every day will do me harm.

[casebro]

My reading seems to indicate that most of your cholesterol is made in your own liver.

So Vegan or not, we all have adequate cholesterol.

I've got to credit my brother with giving me a deeper understanding of vegetarianism. He said that since their decision is not based on science, it is a matter of faith- it's a religious choice. My own beliefs tend towards the FSM and rare meat.

And having also looked into the statin/cholesterol/longevity thing, I also believe that heart disease is more a matter of inflammation than fats.

My cholesterol level is down to normal after quitting the wheat and going low carb. After three angioplasties with seven stents. Angina went away within a week of quitting the wheat. Lost 50 pounds too, eating became optional rather than my reason to be. Almost one year of wheatlessness, lets see if I can make more than two years before needing another heart procedure.

[volatile]

I became vegan because I examined diet sceptically.

First, I stopped asking why vegetarians were vegetarian and instead turned the question on myself. The real sceptical question seemed to be "Why did I eat meat?"

I found I couldn't really answer that question, as I had never given my dietary choices any serious thought. They were as ingrained, and as unquestioned, as my earlier, lazy theism was. I had simply never sat down and weighed up the relative benefits of each possible dietary choice, starting from a neutral position. I don't think many people have.

So, that's what I did. I started to list the reasons why I should choose meat eating over vegetarianism. I couldn't think of a single one, other than "Meat tastes good", and that wasn't enough. I'll guide you through my thought process:

1) Health. Is vegetarianism / veganism "healthier" than an omnivourous one? Even if it isn't, it's at least as healthy, according to the ADA. There are lots of studies pointing out the relative health risks of red meat, processed meat and all the rest, but dietary studies are notoriously unreliable, so let's leave that aside and assume that the ADA is right and cutting animal products out of your life is at least not harmful. Of course, you need to eat a balanced diet, but even omnivores don't always achieve this.

2) Environment. "Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation." and "70% of all grains grown in the US are fed directly to farm animals, unnecessarily adding enormous levels of pesticides, herbicides, and petrochemical fertilizers to the Earth year after year, and consuming more fresh water than any other human endeavor." (Source). It seems to me that meat consumption is more harmful to the environment than the alternative, plant-based diet. There are plenty of other ways this is borne out, particularly when you consider how wasteful it is to grow food to feed to cows to then eat! See also: over-fishing.

3) Animal suffering. I am not dogmatic or evangelical about this, and I do not believe that a) it is always wrong to kill animals, b) that animals and humans are equivalent or c) that killing animals for food is metaphysically, or morally, wrong. Nevertheless, I believe it is undoubtedly the case that animals do suffer in the production of food. Cows, pigs and chickens all feel pain. I wouldn't kill a cat or a dog or a horse for food, and so I believe that if avoiding animal suffering for other species is possible, it should be pursued wherever possible. This seems to be at least a generally tenable position given laws on animal cruelty etc. If I can live as healthily as I can on a meat based diet, but eliminate unnecessary suffering, then why shouldn't I? In this sense (and in many others), veganism just seems a sensible extension of my broader ethical stance.

4) Convenience. As I said, I am not dogmatic about my veganism, and I am certain that in some cases, having a small-holding and being self-sufficient is a "better" choice. Nevertheless, I buy my food at stores. I do not hunt, or grow my own vegetables. If the soy milk and the regular milk are right next to each other on the shelf, why should I pick the animal milk, given points 1, 2 and 3 above? If the dairy free and the real mayonnaise are right next to each other on the shelf and pretty much indistinguishable from each other, why pick the animal product given 1, 2 and 3 above?

Now, don't get me wrong - I love the taste of meat. It's just that, having considered the relative merits of both diets, I can't justify eating it. I also love driving my car really fast, but I don't because my personal preferences aren't always sufficient to justify potentially harmful behaviour. And in any case, I'm not starving or denying myself anything at all. There are vegan alternative and analogues to pretty much everything these days.

People always ask me why I'm vegan. I always turn it round and ask them why they eat meat, because when I asked myself that question I never had the answer. It's just about thinking about the way you live your life, and why you hold the beliefs you do. In my humble opinion, non-dogmatic veganism is the logical and rational dietary choice; though if anyone can make the case as to why I should eat meat, please do.

[Rat]

Originally Posted by casebro

I've got to credit my brother with giving me a deeper understanding of vegetarianism. He said that since their decision is not based on science, it is a matter of faith- it's a religious choice. My own beliefs tend towards the FSM and rare meat.

Yes. In much the same way, my not stealing from people, and not murdering people to further my gains, are also religious choices. Can you not see that some people feel that killing an animal, which they believe to be capable of suffering, for their own pleasure is not something they are comfortable with morally?

I am not a vegetarian.

[casebro]

Re: diet, weightloss, mortality, etc:

Heres a bit I copy & pasted from Wiki: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Obesity :

Mortality

" Two studies report decrease in mortality from bariatric surgery.[37][38] In the Swedish randomized controlled trial, patients with a body mass index of 34 or more for men and 38 or more for women underwent various types of bariatric surgery and were followed for a mean of 11 years. Surgery patients had 5.0% mortality while control patients had 6.3% mortality. This means 75 patients must be treated to avoid one death after 11 years (number needed to treat is 77).[37] In a Utah retrospective cohort study that followed patients for a mean of 7 years after various types of gastric bypass, surgery patients had 0.4% mortality while control patients had 0.6% mortality.[38] "

I use the gastric surgery angle because it is the only proven way to lose weight. And there seem to be studies, with controls of fatties who didn't lose weight. Anyhow, even the fantastic life change involved in losing about 100 pounds barely extends a patient's life. 77 patients for 11 years, that's 847 patient years to gain ONE year of patient life extension. So, compare that to any supposed benefit of any vegetarian diet, and you've got to be waisting you effort by skipping that rack of spare ribs.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

I'm sure there's a moral issue involved. I avoid its details by being vegetarian. If the day comes that it's the rabbiit or me, the rabbit gets it, but that's not this day. It's a nasty business, and I want no part of it.

My thoughts entirely.

As a vegan, people do tend to enjoy throwing all these weird hypotheticals at me as if to point out my hypocrisy or something: "If you were in a plane crash in the jungle and all there was to eat was monkey, would you eat the monkey?".

Yes, I'd eat the monkey, but it's entirely irrelevant to the way I buy and consume my food on a day-to-day basis.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by quarky

Strange...
I just got back from tending my neighbor's sheep while he is away.
One of the pregnant ewes had a prolapsed uterus; a lovely site; huge mass of innerds hanging out. We sucessfully shoved it all back in, but it didn't work for long. Bullet in the head. Young ram needs to be castrated. I don't want to do it.

Feeling my inner vegetarian today.

Ron Tomkins sees no difference between those sheep and two cabbages torn from the ground. For the record : I do see a difference, and I'm sure you do too.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

...and why should he? He'd relish an environment where he could kill his own.

Don't we all?!!!

Seriously, a large portion of my meat is killed and processed by me or people I personally know. This doesn't mean that I don't occassionally eat out at restaurants or other places where I most probably am consuming "factory" meat, but for me it isn't as much a moral issue as a health issue. I really feel that there are additives and toxins in these processes, which while not a serious issue in small occassional doses, are not something I'd be comfortable subjecting myself or my family to over a period of decades. I'm a firm believer that we are what we eat. (and btw, a bit of those "fear"/stress homones in prey does seem to make them taste better, or so it seems to me, but overdone, as in an animal that has lived its entire life under extreme stress is actually distasteful,...but this may all be in my perceptions rather than objective reality)

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by volatile

My thoughts entirely.

As a vegan, people do tend to enjoy throwing all these weird hypotheticals at me as if to point out my hypocrisy or something: "If you were in a plane crash in the jungle and all there was to eat was monkey, would you eat the monkey?".

Yes, I'd eat the monkey, but it's entirely irrelevant to the way I buy and consume my food on a day-to-day basis.

Weird hypotheticals hack me off, wherever they occur. If I survived a plane-crash hign in the Andes, would I eat the dead once the complementary peanuts had run out? Damn' right I would. I'd actually advocate stretching out the peanuts by eating the dead, thus balancing the diet. After all, we could be there for some time.

My life is a bit too staid to allow much chance of that.