Talk:Meat/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Meat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Meat history section

I think this new section is promising but I question the use, so far, of just one source by a book called Meat Science. The first online reference that I pulled up [1], admittedly only an excerpt, seems to contradict some aspects of Lawrie's book. I appreciate editor Sandstein's additions, but caution that the section should be balanced or qualified as scientific opinion rather than fact unless there is wide agreement of several sources. I look forward to promised additions. Bob98133 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've continued this a bit. I'm not a food scientist, but Lawrie's book appears to be the standard university-level textbook in this area in the UK, and as such cites and synthesises the publications that (I assume) reflect the scientific mainstream. See e.g. [2], [3].

With respect to the article you mention, could you tell me where you think it contradicts the information I've paraphrased from Lawrie? Sandstein 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This section below from the ref I cited seems to indicate that changes took place at some point to accomodate increased meat eating (I think!), which might contradict "Meat constituted a substantial proportion of even the earliest humans' diet..." It seems unlikely that the "earliest humans" would have had the ability or tools to provide themselves with that much meat. I guess it depends on how you define earliest humans, too.

I don't think it's a big deal, but it seems that a book devoted to Meat Science might be biased. If there are other cited references that differ, they should at least be acknowledged to avoid the appearance of being POV. That said, I appreciate the additions you're doing - I think they are a positive addition to the article.

Changes in cranio-dental features
Early hominid fossil remains already show clear cranio-dental changes which indicate a move away from a specialised structure suited to coarse foliage mastication to a more generalised structure indicative of dependence on fruits and hard nuts but also incorporating changes that indicate meat consumption. Such changes included a decrease in molar teeth size, jaws/skull became more gracile, front teeth became well buttressed and shearing crests appearing on teeth, all indicative of less emphasis on grinding and more on biting and tearing of animal flesh....

Bob98133 (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's the pertinent passage from Lawrie:

"By 2–3 million years ago the species of human beings to which we belong (Homo sapiens) and the wild ancestors of our domesticated species of sheep, cattle and pigs were probably recognizable. Palaeontological evidence suggests that there was a substantial proportion of meat in the diet of early Homo sapiens. To tear flesh apart, sharp stones – and later fashioned stone tools – would have been necessary. Stone tools were found, with the fossils of hominids, in East Africa (Leakey, 1981). [Footnote: Rixson (2000) presented convincing arguments showing how the development of butchery skills, deriving from the use of stone tools, promoted a settled communal life; and, thereafter, led to civilized societies.]"

I don't see much of a contradiction here; both sources roughly say that early humans ate meat. We can edit the text to make it more precise, if needed, of course.

Incidentally, why and how do you think the book could be biased? To my untrained eye, it is simply a food science textbook. The principal chapter headings are: Introduction - Factors influencing the growth and development of meat animals - The structure and growth of muscle - Chemical and biochemical constitution of muscle - The conversion of muscle to meat - The spoilage of meat by infecting organisms - The storage and preservation of meat: I Temperature control - II Moisture control - III Direct microbial inhibition - The eating quality of meat - Meat and human nutrition - Prefabricated meat - Bibliography - Index. Sandstein 21:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, there isn't that much difference. What throws me a bit, and what makes me think the ref might be biased, is the first sentence about meat being a substantial proportion of earliest man's diet. I might just be unclear about the development of homo sapiens. If tool use occured early on, then your ref sounds correct. But without tools, it seems unlikely that meat could have had this substantial a role. I'd still like to see some other sources cited besides the one you use. When I have a chance I'll check around online. Bob98133 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Balance tag for NPOV

I've tagged this article as I feel it lacks balance on the subject; especially in the "Nutritional Benefits and Helth Concerns" section, it seems to be written from a very pro-vegetarian POV, skipping on the importance of meat in a balanced diet, and then waxing verbose on all sorts of studies which finds a correlation beween meat eating and some disease as if meat eating was the csause of all these diseases. I believe the section on benefits could be expanded and the section on concerns summarized. This would much improve POV balance.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely a need for protein in a balanced diet, but this can be sourced from non-meats such as cheese, beans etc. Beans on toast actually has more protein than a steak. There is definitely a link between overt meat consumption and some cardio-vascular and digestive diseases. I appreciate what you're saying but I don't think this is an issue that should be viewed as Veggie vs. Meat-eaters. The human body seems to be geared towards a vegetarian diet far more than towards a meat-heavy diet. Our rounded, blunt jaws and longer digestive tracts are unfit for a meat-heavy diet, since we absorb far more unhealthy fat than, say, a dog. If we're talking about lean meats such as chicken or fish then yes they are great foods, red meat just isn't. I'm not a vegetarian, I just think it's counterproductive to see this as a war between two sides. Autonova (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So true! This is not omnivores versus vegetarians, it is simply a presentation of the downsides of eating meat. Realize the whole top section lauds the benefits of the subject.--Gniniv (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also tried to clearly divide both sides of the issue by catagorizing the benefits of meat consumption at the top and having the arguments against it at the bottom...--Gniniv (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this

Red meat, such as beef, pork, and lamb, contains many essential nutrients necessary for healthy growth and development in children but US study has suggested that eating a diet high in red meat and dairy products is linked to an increased risk of pancreatic cancerMedia:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8119093.stm. These nutrients include iron, zinc, and protein.

If you feel that this claim should be put back in the article please do so. I felt it a bit misplaced and possibly POV-influenced. Also the source article states that many studies on the case have provided different information - why would this one be so important in particular? But since I'm no expert, I'l leave it up to someone who is. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits to Nutritional benefits and concerns

I have been editing the page recently, mostly to give accurate citations, and accurate descriptions of those citations.

I now realize that there is a huge problem with quality of citation. The bar is set entirely to low. Why are news articles about published studies being cited instead of the actual study? This practice really should be banned. Most of the news articles made claims that were not supported by the studies, and these claims ended up being used in this page. Even now that all of the citations are against journal articles, they are still of low quality. What needs to be emphasized is that a study finding a correlation doesn't prove anything, it is mostly useful for generating a hypothesis. We should be looking to cite meta-analysis and other more comprehensive studies whenever possible.

It could be argued that these principles are implicit in [Wikipedia:Verifiability], but it is obvious that they need to be made very explicitly.

I would like to cleanup this talk page, can anyone give me guidance to what should be archived?

Gregwebs (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with the poor quality of the references, I am trying to clean up the mess as I go along-keep up the good work--Gniniv (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing language

I request editing in order to add the Haitian creole equivalent to the list of languages in the left-side column. Rajkiandris--Rajkiandris (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That column is only for WP:Interwikis, that is, links to the same article in other Wikipedias. Is there a Haitian creole Wikipedia article about meat? If yes, what URL does it have? Sandstein 06:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Benefits of Meat Consumption?

My apologies if this topic is already up, but just wanted to comment on the fact that this section should be changed to something more neutral like "Nutritional Information about Meat", or something to that effect. While there are nutrients and protein in meat, there are also substances - like cholesterol - that are cause for concern, and there are scientists who question whether we should refer to meat as something that is healthy at all. It's kind of like having a section "Benefits of Candy Bar Consumption" - a chocolate bar with nuts would contain protein, but it hardly qualifies as health food.

All of the nutrients mentioned here can be found in plant foods, with the exception of vitamin B12, and without the risks of meat consumption. A more objectively written section would not encourage meat consumption by implying that meat consumption is beneficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.50.216 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the point of the article is to promote or disparage meat consumption. However, reading the benefits section, I am struck by the fact that there are not really any benefits mentioned, except perhaps the concentration of nutrients in meat. The fact that meat contains certain nutrients in certain proportions may be relevant, but since these nutrients are readily available elsewhere in sufficient quantities to sustain a healthy life, it seems that the only real benefit of eating meat might be as a source of B12, or for someone who prefers or is unable to eat a varied diet. Bob98133 (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as you can see I changed the title to be more neutral....--Gniniv (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Other types of meat

I have added a line and a photo about other types of meat which are not common or well-known in western countries. I plan to write a bit more about these types of meat in the coming days. I'm not sure whether the History-section is the best place, or whether I should make a separate section. I think it could stay in the History-section, as the flesh of these different animals has been eaten for a long time, and some animals are, in certain countries, no longer being eaten. Open to constructive suggestion.--Khpd (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

An image of dog meat adds nothing of value to this article. Probably should go in dog meat instead. —Stephen (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why would an image of chicken meat add any value? No mention in this article is made about meat from animals not typically eaten i western countries, but which has been eaten in other cultures for centuries. If the Meat article is to be complete, it certainly should mention these types of meat.--Khpd (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In English-speaking countries, it is not seen as food. It is not needed to fill out the meat article. It might be used to round out the articles that are about the countries or peoples that do consider it food. —Stephen (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

From an objective point of view, it "is" meat, and therefore food. Wikipedia is to be objective, not to have an 'english-speaking'point of view. Whether a dog, a horse or a pig is considered food or not is subjective and has nothing to do with language. An american vegetarian would probably not consider a chicken as food, for example.--Khpd (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not seen as food by our society. There are people who eat poop, but we don’t need or want any poop recipes in cakes and pies. Poopivore images belong in an article like coprophagia. Pictures of dog meat belong in dog meat, or possibly if the articles that cover the countries or peoples who eat cats and dogs (I doubt that your pictures will be welcome in the articles about those peoples). —Stephen (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"Our" society? What society does the english Wikipedia represent? US? UK? African countries with english as official language? Where has objectivity gone? And I'm sorry, but you can't compare coprophagia with dog meat eating. Coprophagia is rarely seen in human beings and is more a disease, whereas dog (or cat, or horse, etc) meat eating is a widespread phenomenon, which is or has been practised in many parts of the world. Actually, if you take a look at the spanish article for meat (which is a featured article), you will see that these for us uncommon types of meat are mentionned. (And by the way, it is not "my" pictures, they are part of Wiki Commons.)--Khpd (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Kphd, having carefully looked at the page with your suggestion in mind, I'm not sure any more pictures of meat are necessary. Agree with Stephen, the pictures that are already up are fairly generic in nature and I think that putting a plate of dogmeat up, however legit it is, would be unnecessarily inflammatory. I mean, heck, where do we draw the line? Aren't there still some cannibals out there? That said, I see no reason why a well-sourced graph about the different kinds of animals raised around the world for meat could be added. Bob98133 (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Bob, dog eating is not cannibalism. The only difference between eating a dog or a pig is cultural. But if you think the picture is too graphic, it is surely possible to find another one. But with or without picture, the meat article should mention the other types of meat, whether or not they are considered food by western people.--Khpd (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It should only mention meats that we consider food in our culture. I think most of us do equate dog eating with cannibalism, except that it’s felt to be even more immoral than cannibalism since dogs are our better halves. The only place it can fit in this article is in the "See also" section along with bushmeat and roadkill cuisine. —Stephen (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"We"? "Our" culture? Wikipedia does not belong to "your" culture, as I said it has to be objective. Whether or not you think dog eating is immoral, that is a personal point of view. Please, stop telling me what you think of dog eating, that is not the point. The point is: Why should dog meat not be mentionned in an objective article about meat? The only answer you can come up with, is that dog is not considered food in "your" culture. That's not good enough! That's not an objective answer.--Khpd (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Kphd, I apparently wasn't clear. I wasn't equating dog eating with cannibalism. I was putting it on a sliding scale of possibilities and wondering at what point we would say "no, that's unnacceptable". I have no issue with adding text about what other cultures eat, as long as it's verifiably sourced and respects NPOV. I also personally have no issue with pictures of any kind of meat, and I respectfully request that you not imply that I do. What we personally think or believe is irrelevant. As editors, I would hope that we might be mindful of ALL who use this source. My question is simply this: WHY do we need more pictures of meat on this page? So far, I'm not convinced that we do. As to the text addition, I've already delivered my two cents on that. Bob98133 (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I did not imply that you had any issue with the picture, I said "If". But I am glad to see that you agree with me that other kind of meat can be included in this article; that is what I understand when you say that you "have no issue with adding text about what other cultures eat, as long as it's verifiably sourced and respects NPOV". That should settle it. As for the picture, I can see that another picture of meat may be superfluous, even if it is a kind of meat unknown to many people; so I will think about it.--Khpd (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

2 year+ lede rewrite tagging

Addressed this, removing redundancy, etc., adjusting per the current body content. It's not appropriate to have a discursus in the lede on a word, one which is likely to have ardent partisans of various viewpoints in the lede here. Lycurgus (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Meat and Cancer

Information given in the article regarding meat and cancer appears biased, giving excessive weight to the study of Cross et al. (2007). There would be no problem with reporting their findings, if those findings were accompanied by others' findings, to provide some balance on these matters. The conflicting findings among peer-reviewed research papers indicate that cherrypicking of results from a few studies is inappropriate. For example, although the article cites Key et al. (1999), it fails to indicate their finding that "There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer or all other causes combined." A few other examples of different findings are summarized below.

Truswell (2002) reviewed numerous studies, concluding that the relationship of colorectal cancer with meat consumption appeared weaker than the "probable" status it had been given by the World Cancer Research Foundation in 1997. A study by Chao et al. (2005), involving a cohort of 148,610 adults, found an apparent association of colorectal cancer with red meat consumption after adjustment for age and energy intake. However, after further adjustment for body mass index, cigarette smoking and other covariates, no association with red meat consumption was found. (Various authors of this study are affiliated with the American Cancer Society, Emory University and the National Cancer Institute.) Norat et al. (2005) carried out a prospective study involving 478,040 persons from 10 European countries, among whom 1,329 incident colorectal cancer cases were identified over an average period of 4.8 years. (These authors are affiliated with IACR, i.e. the International Agency for Cancer Research, and other agencies and institutions.) Although a somewhat higher incidence of colorectal cancer occurred among those with the highest red meat consumption than among those with the lowest red meat consumption, the calibrated hazard ratios per 100 g of red meat consumption failed to show a statistically significant (P<0.05) trend. (See their Table 4.) In their analysis of multivariable hazard ratios, a statistically significant (P<0.05) difference in colorectal cancer incidence with high versus low intake of red and processed meat was found only where fibre intake was low. (See their Figure 3 and its accompanying footnote, and note that this result was obtained not with red meat alone, but by combining processed meat and red meat consumption.) Alexander (2009) conducted a meta-analysis which found no association of colorectal cancer with consumption of animal fat or protein. Based on European data (EPIC-Oxford study), Key et al. (2009) found that incidence of colorectal cancer was somewhat lower among meat eaters than among vegetarians.

Alexander, D. D., C. A. Cushing, K. A. Lowe, B. Sceurman and M. A. Roberts. 2009. Meta-analysis of animal fat or animal protein intake and colorectal cancer. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89: 1402-1409.
Chao, A., M. J. Thun, C. J. Connell, M. L. McCullough, E. J. Jacobs, W. D. Flanders, C. Rodriguez, R. Sinha and E. E. Calle. 2005. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 293: 172-182.
Key, T. J. , G. E. Fraser, M. Thorogood, P. N. Appleby, V. Beral, G. Reeves, M. L. Burr, J. Chang-Claude, R. Frentzel-Beyme, J. W. Kuzma, J. Mann and K. McPherson. 1999. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 70 (suppl.): 516S-524S.
Key, T. J., P. N. Appleby, E. A. Spencer, R. C. Travis, A. W. Roddam and N. E. Allen. 2009. Cancer incidence in vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89 (suppl.): 1620S-1626S.
Norat, T. et al. 2005. Meat, fish and colorectal cancer Risk: The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. The Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 97(12): 906-916.
Truswell, A. S. 2002. Meat consumption and cancer of the large bowel. E. J. Clin. Nutr. 56: S19-S24. Schafhirt (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In a study within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (Gonzalez et al. 2006. J. National Cancer Inst. 98: 345-354) it was found that the association between esophageal cancer risk and total and processed meat intake was not statistically significant. De Stefani et al. (1999. Int. J. Cancer 82: 33-37) reported somewhat increased risk of esphageal cancer with consumption of some kinds of meat, but reduced risk with consumption of beef. If readers are made aware of such findings. they may put the findings of Cross et al. into better perspective. Schafhirt (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Unverifiable Statement re USDA Claim

The article states: "USDA claims (see Dietary Guidelines for Americans) that consumption of meat as a source of protein in the human diet is crucial,[36] have been resoundingly contradicted by recent studies.[87][88][89] " However, Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010, found by using the Wikipedia article link, has been subject to a computer search for examination of each occurrence of the word "meat", revealing no such claim. For this reason, the quoted Wikipedia statement should be removed.Schafhirt (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Environmental Impact

This section of the article lacks NPOV, presenting only negative, misleading statements containing errors.

The article states: "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that direct emissions from meat production account for about 18% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. The FAO figure accounts for the entire meat production cycle - clearing forested land, making and transporting fertiliser, burning fossil fuels in agricultural machinery, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep."

In fact, the FAO's 18 percent figure (calculated by Steinfeld et al. 2006) includes indirect emissions (such as those associated with land use change for feed production) in addition to direct emissions. Moreover, it pertains to global livestock, including poultry. That is, only some fraction of it is assignable to meat production; the remainder is assignable to production of milk, eggs, leather, wool, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, bone products, fertilizer, animal power, etc. derived from the world's domestic livestock (including poultry). The estimate includes methane from enteric fermentation of all domestic ruminants, not just cattle and sheep; it also includes methane from manure and nitrous oxide from manure and from agricultural soil, in addition to the sources listed.

The article states: "In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of grain fed meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1, according to a report by ecology professor David Pimentel."

The statement was apparently copied uncritically into this article from another webpage. It does not make sense, because animal production ends at the farm gate, not at consumption. From farm gate to consumption, there is considerable energy input for processing, packaging, transportation, wholesale, retail, food service and home storage, and cooking (Canning et al. 2010). The source cited for the quoted statement, a press release purporting to describe a 1997 presentation, claims to give ratios of input energy to protein output energy, not of input energy to protein output. The 54:1 ratio refers to beef. However, citing the same 1997 presentation, Pimentel and Pimentel (2003) give a very different figure for beef. Data of Heitschmidt et al. (1996), Pimentel et al. (1980) and Cook et al. (1980) are in relatively good agreement with each other with regard to energy use in beef production, but all disagree greatly with the very high 54:1 ratio. Moreover, the ratios of production energy input to protein energy output cannot be interpreted as inefficiencies of energy use, insofar as protein energy accounts for only a fraction of food energy in meat (e.g. about 31 percent of food energy output in beef meat, according to USDA data), and it excludes non-food outputs and non-energy output values derived from the input energy. The egregiously problematic sentence should be deleted from the article, because of Wikipedia's verifiability precept that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Schafhirt (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Meat statistics

Hi, I would like to add some international statistics on the topics. Which section is good for these? SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Statistics about what aspect of meat? Sandstein 14:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Meat consumption and production etc SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend adding them to the corresponding sections, though it should be made clear in the text how they are relevant to the understanding of the topic - merely dumping numbers into an article without an explanation would be problematic in light of WP:IINFO: "Articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Sandstein 06:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What about a separate article like this: List of countries by GDP (nominal) ? UN FAO has data available for most if not all nations online:http://faostat.fao.org/site/535/default.aspx#ancor There are lots of information. Tables are better presentation for large amount of information. SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What's with this?

Not about the article per se but I don't really know where to put this. At the end of the article is a drop down menu titled "Meat". Listed are several conventional meats and there are a few more... unconventional meats listed as well. The problem I've got is that "Dog" is listed in that section but not "Cat". There is an article on Cat Meat, I've read it, so I was wondering should someone add Cat to this drop down box? I have no idea how to do this my self. 212.250.138.33 (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"really poor article"

Most of this article is barely literate, and the rest seems to be scientifically lacking. Who wrote this junk? I might delete more than I already have soon. Huw Powell (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote part of it. Can you please state more specifically what it is you think is deficient in the material whose removal by you I reverted? Your edit summaries say "remove veggie garbage", That's not a footnote, that's bullshit", "what vegetariam/piscivore wrecked this article" and "removing sheer garbage". But that's just invective, not any understandable objection to the content at issue. Could you please elaborate? Sandstein 09:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be about 150 references to "Lawrie", who is listed in the references section. Poor referencing in my opinion. This whole article - and some really bad parts I deleted - seems to be based on one book. Huw Powell (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Lawrie’s meat science is a leading textbook on the food science aspects of meat. See e.g. its description on Amazon. The author is descibed there as follows: "Ralston Lawrie was one of the world’s leading authorities on meat science. Formerly Emeritus Professor of Food Science in the University of Nottingham, he was also the founding editor of the journal Meat Science." THis is exactly the sort of academic source Wikipedia articles should be based on. Sandstein 09:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the section about all the diseases and cancers meat and animal fats supposedly cause sounds way to PETA-esque to not have been written by some stereotypically extreme vegan, or at least someone in the ever-deceitful health boards and diet industry, as do the similar parts in the red meat and saturated fats articles. 70.49.234.160 (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Animal flesh / human meat

Per this 2007 discussion I'm removing the word animal from the first sentence of the lead. To predators on humans, our flesh is their meat. The word "animal" often refers to non-human members of kingdom Animalia in everyday colloquial usage, as defined by Merriam-Webster. -- Trevj (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've undone this change as misleading. In any relevant sense of the term, meat refers to the flesh of animals in the non-human sense. The change incorrectly implies that non-animal (i.e. human) flesh is also regularly referred to as meat, or regularly eaten. When predators eat humans, what they eat is referred to as flesh, not meat. Also, the definition is verbatim per the cited source. Sandstein 19:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Rarely eaten animals as image choices

I removed two photographs of rarely eaten animals, especially as these seem to be chosen as "pet" animals, possibly in an effort to make a WP:POINT. Choosing to have pictures of dogs and guinea pigs and not of other animals which are much more frequently eaten is just bizarre. This has nothing to do with US centrism, even in the countries where dog or guinea pig is eaten, the consumption of pork, chicken or beef is vastly larger. The images should be of globally representative meat animals, not the fringe. --Daniel (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Fish flesh

Is really fish flesh usually refered as meat? Really? If I tell you "today I've eaten meat", will you ever assume I've eaten fish? Or does animal in some weird sense not refer to fishes? --95.120.80.238 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Christianity

How come on Meat#Religious_traditions there's no mention of Christianity? --95.120.80.238 (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What should be mentioned there? On the basis of which sources? Sandstein 09:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

History

The evidence for the statements in the first paragraphs is debatable. The sentence "Paleontological evidence suggests that meat constituted a substantial proportion of the diet of even the earliest humans." should be quoted, because it's an exact copy from the referenced book, except that in the book it's "of the early Homo Sapiens", instead of "even the earliest humans". Even the referenced book hardly puts any evidence forth as to how much meat early Homo Sapiens actually ate. It only provides further references. It does say that sharp stones were found alongside early fossils of huminids, but this is no evidence for the amount of meat that they ate. I think that it can be safely assumed that hunting animals was not a priority, if they weren't an easy target or provided enough calories for the hunt to pay off.

Better sources should be provided for this period, which is commonly referred to by meat eating advocates as the "earliest evidence of how humans ate a lot of meat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.147.167 (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable scholarly sources that contradict what the source we now use says? Basically we may only reiterate what such sources say, see WP:V. We may not engage in original research, see WP:NOR. Sandstein 10:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Environmental impact of meat production

This paragraph reads like a love letter to meat consumers, when clearly it is the most environmentally destructive personal choice an individual can make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.125.232 (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Meat Consumption

There should be a section in this article about global trends of Meat Consumption. There is evidence that meat consumption in industrialized countries is declining – while meat consumption in developing countries is rising.

The NY Times blogs [4]: “The department of agriculture projects that our meat and poultry consumption will fall again this year, to about 12.2 percent less in 2012 than it was in 2007. Beef consumption has been in decline for about 20 years; the drop in chicken is even more dramatic, over the last five years or so; pork also has been steadily slipping for about five years.” The Meat Atlas summarizes:

(page 46) Meat consumption in most industrialized countries is high, but has stagnated. In some countries, meat consumption has even gone down for the first time in decades. In the United States, the meat industry is alarmed by a 9-percent drop in consumption from 2007 to 2012. The industry feels threatened by what it sees as “a propaganda war on meat”. In Germany, in 2012, meat consumption went down by more than 2 kilograms per person a year.
(page 46) One reason for this trend may be a series of meat scandals, including the use of meat that is well past its sell-by date in pre-prepared fast foods, the presence of dioxin in chicken feed, and horsemeat marketed as beef.
(page 48) Economic growth in the BRICS […] is reflected in their meat consumption. Together, they account for 40 percent of the world’s population. Between 2003 and 2012, their meat consumption rose by 6.3 percent a year. It is expected to rise by another 2.5 percent a year between 2013 and 2022.
(page 48) The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations assumes that by 2050, emerging markets will cover only 46 percent of their caloric intake with grains; another 29 percent will come from meat, eggs, milk and cheese.
(page 48) To keep up with such demand, the world’s farmers and agricultural firms will have to boost their meat output from currently 300 million tonnes to 470 million tonnes by 2050.
(page 48) “Non-veg”, as it is called in India, has become a status symbol among parts of the population.

There are also to graphs that visualize the development in the industrialized countries [5] and in the developing countries [6] NewJohn (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Meat

Cyberbot II has detected links on Meat which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.sgs.com/en/Our-Company/News-and-Media-Center/News-and-Press-Releases/2013/02/EU-Wide-Meat-Testing-Proposed-For-Horse-DNA.aspx
Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Meat

Cyberbot II has detected links on Meat which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.sgs.com/en/Our-Company/News-and-Media-Center/News-and-Press-Releases/2013/02/EU-Wide-Meat-Testing-Proposed-For-Horse-DNA.aspx
Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Meat

Cyberbot II has detected links on Meat which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.sgs.com/en/Our-Company/News-and-Media-Center/News-and-Press-Releases/2013/02/EU-Wide-Meat-Testing-Proposed-For-Horse-DNA.aspx
Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks bot. removed it, and the tag. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Eating live animals

User:Mrsmartypantser wants to see the phrase "corpse flesh" or "deceased animal flesh" in the lede with the edit summary explanation that "live animals are not eaten by humans". But Wikipedia has a full article on the subject of eating live animals. These are still "meat". --McGeddon (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Fish

When it comes to human consumption, if the flesh from animals is called meat, what is the flesh of fish called? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Fish". --McGeddon (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Humans are omnivorous"

I strongly believe this statement should be modified or adjusted. I feel that this statement is biased. In actuality, there is a lot of debate and controversy whether humans are omnivores. Many believe that humans are herbivorous because humans share more characteristics with herbivores than omnivores and carnivores, and that humans have merely been *conditioned* to be omnivorous.

In addition, one of the references for this statement is a cheap-looking site that looks like it was made in the 90s. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

All three sources that are cited for this statement are reliable, including the old looking website, which is adapted directly from a talk by an academic who is an authority on this subject. As we have reliable sources confirming that humans are omnivores, could you provide a reliable source that contradicts this? ~ Rob^Talk 10:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Authority is almost always synonymous to "corrupt" in my eyes. Authority is NOT synonymous to "truth". The New World Order government funds "authority" and "authoritative figures" to keep the masses brainwashed and deluded. I will NEVER surrender to "authority".

A great rebuttal to that article (which was last updated in 2000, which is older than 9/11 to make you realize how old it is) can be found here.

Sources explaining why humans are herbivorous:

So yeah. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but with this approach you won't be able to contribute to Wikipedia. Without wanting to judge your personal beliefs, we as a community have made the clear decision to "surrender to authority" in that we have agreed to reproduce only knowledge published in reliable (normally academic) sources, as described in WP:V and WP:RS, and to avoid self-published sources such as the ones you propose. If you do not agree with this, you must find somewhere else on the Internet to publish your views. Sandstein 10:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources selected by this article are clearly CHERRY PICKED. I feel like this article is regurgitating bullshit. The first two sources are two books and the third source is a cheap-looking 90s site last updated in 2000. The first source is a book published in 2000 and the second is a book published in 2009. They don't even go into DETAIL, they just say "Humans are omnivores" and that's it. That's how retarded and idiotic this is. You'll listen to anyone who has a degree or a PhD as if anything they spew is factual. You'll listen to ANYTHING just because it's in printed in paper and that's what gullible people do.174.2.98.24 (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That's because those with PhDs have significantly more training than most people in the discipline that they're writing about. Anyone can go on the internet and write things. For instance, I could make a website right now and write that the sky is normally red. This does not make it true, which is why we only use reliable sources on Wikipedia (see WP:RS). Your sources are not reliable in the sense that they are not published by any reputable publication and are not written by anyone who would be expected to be knowledgeable in this topic (i.e. with academic credentials). When you disregard all "proof" as a conspiracy, you can just believe whatever you want to be true. Same as Sandstein, I won't judge your personal beliefs or the basis on which they're determined, but they are not publishable on Wikipedia due to our policies on verifiability (see WP:V). You're welcome to publish your beliefs elsewhere, either on someone else's site that allows you to do so, or on your own site. ~ Rob^Talk 11:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your blind adherence to authority instead of truth is ridiculous. It doesn't change the fact that the sources are CLEARLY OUTDATED *cough* from 2000 *cough*, UNRELIABLE and BIASED. This article is spreading misinformation and lies and promoting a certain viewpoint. The statement "Humans are omnivores" should modified or removed entirely from this article. Can we at least try acting like it's 2015? Jesus Christ.

I Googled "Robert E. C. Wildman" and get zero information on him. I Googled "Denis M. Medeiros" and get almost no information on him, other than the fact that he's an old white guy in a business suit (what a surprise). I Googled "Robert Mari Womack" and get no information. I Googled "John McArdle" and get almost no information, and what a surprise, yet another old white guy. ಠ_ಠ 174.2.98.24 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A source on this matter from 2000 is not at all outdated; a species does not undergo an evolutionary change to its dietary patterns in 15 years. WP:RS would say the sources in the article are reliable and yours are not, and that is the definition of "reliable" used on Wikipedia. And these sources are only biased in the sense that they disagree with your personal beliefs. ~ Rob^Talk 12:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A lot can change in a day, let alone 15 years. For example, look at the way people think of the LGBT community. Gay marriage went from being banned to being approved in all 50 states. Old beliefs can die quickly (spoiler alert: Earth isn't flat). And yes, species CAN undergo dietary changes. Eating meat is an optional choice. Those sources are not enough evidence to prove humans are omnivores. They're SOLELY based on the notion that "A guy with a PhD once said so in a book.", disregarding the fact that published information can be wrong (whether it be in news articles or books), and people with PhDs are not the ultimate authority, word of God and truth. Again, you are blindly adhering to authority, not truth. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It may surprise you, but we strive for Verifiability, not truth. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nah, we strive for truth as well, which is why the WP:Verifiability, not truth essay begins speaking in past tense for the "verifiability, not truth" mantra. And the truth is that humans are omnivorous. And like I told the IP, I state that as a vegetarian. Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"And the truth is that humans are omnivorous." You have no proof and you are just one human in an overpopulated world. There are TONS of non-meat eaters who believe humans are not naturally omnivorous. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll basically leave it at what Storkk said, but here's more info on the authors, to ensure that it is well-documented that they are reliable sources. Based on some searching, Robert Wildman holds a PhD in the field of nutrition and is a faculty member at Texas State University. Denis Medeiros also holds a PhD, has published over 120 articles in the field, and is a Vice Provost at the University of Missouri-Kansas City as of 2011. Mari Womack (who is a woman, and does not appear to go by Robert at all; I will correct that in the article) has a PhD in anthropology and taught at UCLA. John McArdle also holds a PhD in the field, although info on him is more scarce. He's possibly no longer around, as that source is from 1991. All of these people represent reliable sources. ~ Rob^Talk 12:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Meat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101117142920/http://cronicaviva.com.pe/index.php/regional/costa/3749-carapulcra-de-gato-y-gato-a-la-parilla-sirven-en-fiesta-patronal- to http://www.cronicaviva.com.pe/index.php/regional/costa/3749-carapulcra-de-gato-y-gato-a-la-parilla-sirven-en-fiesta-patronal-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Size of meat production

I think it is interesting to have a section about the size of the meat consumpution/production. I found a nice article on it here and the Meat Atlas is informative as well. What do you think? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"See also" links

I moved the following out of the "see also" section and am posting it here to allow for integration into the article where these links make topical sense. Sandstein 21:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I mean, this see also list is perfectly normal. It is not absurdly long or anything. You probably know that already, but the see also section must not contain links that are already in the article, so they really have to be different. Huritisho (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Our guideline WP:SEEALSO says: "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. It is also not mandatory, as many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section". The present selection is just a random assortment of links vaguely related to meat. THese links should be integrated into the article if they are significant to the topic, or else discarded. Sandstein 10:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Hm sure. The thing is that meat is a very vague and broad topic, and that opens space to lots of possibilities for See also items. We sure can remove some items and leave others. The ones we most definitely should remove are Meat-free day, Alligator meat, Roadkill cuisine and a few of others; but that is just a matter of opinion. Anyway, I don't think it's right to remove the entire section. Thanks, Huritisho (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have seen See Also sections hugely longer than this so space is not a problem here. The major problem here is that there will be differences of opinion in which articles are important enough to be included. I've just skimmed the article and see there is a strong attempt to restrict it to mammals. I have no problem with this whatsoever, although I did see a few pesky birds do get their beaks in ;-) However, if we are excluding some animals, I feel the See Also section is a place to include these to give the reader the opportunity to broaden their reading about non-mammalian meat - I am thinking specifically here about Alligator meat. It is meat (flesh of an animal) so I do not really see why this should not have a place here.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, which links do you (both) think should remain? Sandstein 11:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thread mode

There's a lot of thread mode in this article. -- Ríco 00:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Processed Meat?

can somebody add a section to clarify what is PM? Is fried meat considered PM? 117.208.192.114 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External link that's also used as a citation referenced in the article

Since http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf is already in the article, I deleted it from the External links section — explaining that it was "In article."[7] However, Achim Hering put it right back — declaring it a "legitimate link."[8]

Per Wikipedia:External links,

Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section.

Wikipedia:External links#References and citation

Per WP:ELBURDEN, "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them."

Per Wikipedia:External links#Minimize the number of links, "Choose the minimum number of links". WP:NOTLINK provides additional information. — Ríco 21:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Health Concerns

we now have health concerns under 3 different articles meat, red meat & beef. This is ... insane. There is a risk of contradictory statements in 3 separate instances and also any clean-up needs to be done thrice testing the patience of volunteer editors. I suggest a single separate page health effects of Meat which can merge the sub-sections from those 3 articles into the new page J mareeswaran (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to other uses template at start of article

I am proposing a change that would replace the template

For other uses, see Talk:Meat/Archive 2 (disambiguation).

with

This page is about animal flesh eaten as food. For protein from plants, see Meat analogue. For other uses of the word, see Meat (disambiguation).

This would be similar to what is currently used on the milk Wikipedia page. I would like to get everyone's thoughts now, in order to prevent an edit war. Daylen (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Meat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519225348/http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out154_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out154_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Problem with Text

This paragraph under the header "Consumption"

"According to the analysis of the FAO the overall consumption for white meat between 1990 and 2009 has dramatically increased. For example, poultry meat has increased by 76.6% per kilo per capita and pig meat by 19.7%. However, on the contrary, bovine meat has decreased from 10.4 kilograms (23 lb)/capita in 1990 to 9.6 kilograms (21 lb)/capita in 2009."

The way it reads it seems to imply Pork is a white meat. Surely that's wrong? 195.59.155.166 (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the text is right; pork, especially pork loins, is often marketed as "white meat". You can read all about it here. FourViolas (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I totally accept that certain cuts of pork prepared in a certain manner are indeed marketed as white meat due to the health concerns of consuming excessive amounts of red meat but, from my understanding it's actual designation as a white meat is quite complex and controversial and that overall several organisations around the globe, such as the US Department of Agriculture for example, classify pork as a red meat. Perhaps this should be mentioned? 86.10.252.189 (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know that, it certainly sounds worthy of inclusion. It would be great if you could find a good source (see WP:Identifying reliable sources), such as a meat science textbook, and incorporate that information. FourViolas (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Under the article red meat, it says that pork is red meat or white meat depending on two different definitions, one is the "common" one and that says it is white meat. --Bod (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with user Bod.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Meat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This feels a bit biased

Maybe I'm being silly, but it feels like the article is very biased in favor of veganism. The entry mentions little about the health benefits when eaten properly.49.151.27.223 (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's the Meat#Nutritional_information section, which lists the nutrients for which meat is usually a good source. It might be a good idea to combine that with Meat#Health, though, to facilitate integrated analyses of hazards and benefits such as those found in recent reviews like Wolk, Wyness, and Salter. FourViolas (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)