Tasty Tidbits & Dastardly Dietary Dogma
                                                       By: Laurie Forti  

Most books, articles, and web sites on diet and nutrition, especially those on
"alternative" diets, are written by folks who, although quite possibly sincere,
could not pass an 8th grade science quiz.  

Thus, they generally are full of nonsense, errors of fact, faulty (or no)
logic, unsupported rumors, innumeracy, errors copied from other
credibility-challenged sources, or the unsupported belief systems of
various fad-diet micro cultures.  

Worse, most orthodox nutritional texts tout the orthodox party line,
conceptually sponsored by the USDA, which is nothing more than a trade
organization of the agricultural/meat/dairy/grain industries.  

"scientists" supporting the Big Four Food Group mythical paradigm,
although they may have some limited expertise in a narrow, restricted field,
are so ill-educated in the broader sense as to actually believe that animal flesh,
milk, eggs, and grains are useful 'foods' for our frugivorous ape species when
there is not one iota of scientifically credible evidence supporting these
traditional, profit-oriented beliefs.  

That humans are indeed frugivorous apes is evidenced by the fact that the
"genetic distance" between chimpanzees and humans is only a scant 1.6%,
and clearly, that difference is expressed in the physical differences, not in
inherent digestive and systemic biochemistry.  

In fact, all scientific evidence, not unsupported opinion, refutes these dogmatic
beliefs in the Big Four Food Groups.  Yes, even
"scientists" have been so
conditioned by their life-long cultural dietary programming, starting at birth,
that they have totally lost their objectivity in this most fundamental concept
of human diet.  

The Human "Omnivore": A Mythological Beast

One of the most ridiculous and persistent false claims made by armchair
nutritionists, meatarian propagandists, and even academics, who really
should know better, is that the human species is an
"omnivore" that is, it
should eat both plant and animal matter.  

In general, this error is based on the accidental, or perhaps intentional,
confusing of the verbs
"to be" and "to do".  If the human "is" a natural
omnivore, then we should have necessary to run down, kill with our bare
hands, tear asunder, eat, and properly digest, raw animal prey, just as all
natural omnivores, or carnivores, do.  

Just looking at our bodies will conclusively prove that we do not have the
claws or talons necessary to catch and hold animal prey, and we do not have
the sharp, shearing teeth necessary to tear, not chew, animal flesh.  

We are not fast enough to outrun and catch animals.  Natural omnivores or
carnivores do not chew their eaten flesh, they tear it into chunks and swallow
them whole.  We do not have the
"constant tendency for the last upper premolar
and the first lower molar to engage and form long longitudinal opposed shearing
blades (the carnassials)"
which are a common characteristic of natural
carnivores and omnivores.  

No human cultural-carnivore kills its animal prey with his/her natural
equipment, nor do they eat their animal prey raw.  I have challenged
countless meatarians to do so in the past 30 years, and none have shown
the courage of their conceptual convictions and done so.  

Why?  Simply because we are not an

In fact, we have strong anti-killing instincts.  Try to kill an animal with your bare
hands to demonstrate this.  

Any second-grader could differentiate between the verbs
"be" and "do" yet
this important distinction is totally ignored by cultural carnivores, and even
academics with PhD's, who foolishly claim that because humans have been
doing cultural-carnivorism for a long time, that somehow (never explained)
magically, we are

They want to believe that doing modifies being.  They fail to understand the
profound difference between Nature, and inviolable Natural Laws, and silly,
self-destructive local cultural customs.  

By their absurd and faulty logic: because some humans do murder, and
because murder has existed throughout human history, all humans are born

If one wanted to produce a logical test to see if the human was a natural
omnivore, the procedure would be:

1- Produce a detailed physiological and biochemical inventory of all animal
species that are natural omnivores.

2- List the commonalties among them.

3- Test this list against natural omnivores and other species to determine its
discriminative abilities; i.e. test the test, and finally, and only if the test has
been verified to be accurate and correct,

4- See if the human parameters fit this test or not.  

Of course, this quite obvious test mechanism has not been established, and
any unsupported references to human
"omnivores" regardless of the source,
are confirmations that only cultural whims are being reported, certainly not the
imperative physiological and biochemical attributes.  

For more detailed analysis of the human
"omnivore" mythology, and the
bizarre distortions of fact and logic necessary to make this false claim, we
can look to the always-amusing, misologistic BeyondVeg website.  

This site is produced by a crackpot who, apparently failing in his personal
efforts to become a raw-fooder, has stolen the title of one of my articles for
his web domain name, and has gone on a rampage to attempt to discredit
plant-based diets in general by applied pseudo-science.  

His state of mental dysfunction is demonstrated by his repeatedly claiming in
a vegetarian, vegan discussion list that he could read my
"emotions" with his
modem, and his bizarre claims that John Coleman and I are really the same
person.  This is quite a feat, as John lives in England, and I live in Florida.  

One hears hollow claims that since
"Paleolithic man" ate flesh, that modern
humans are somehow
"adapted" to do so.  In fact, a Paleolithic diet cult is
being developed.  

"Paleolithic argument" runs something like this: The proto-human was
indeed a frugivore (eating primarily fruit, such as modern chimps) 50 million
years ago (MYA) to 2 MYA, when the
"appearance of stone tools and cultures at
this time"
coincided with "increased meat-eating".  

Well, that's the end of the argument, as its fatal flaw is revealed: the fact is that
"increased meat-eating" occurred only because of tool use, and since tools,
including fire, are a product of culture, not Nature, cultural practices, such as
those powerful self-destructive cultural practices of today, are totally unrelated
to our natural nutritional needs, which are programmed at the genetic level.  

Anthropologists' fantasies that humans commonly 'scavenged' dead,
putrefying flesh left to rot by natural carnivores, or produced by the natural
death of animals, are totally absurd.  

I would challenge any such confused academics to test their own theory by
actually eating some rotting road-kill, raw, with their bare hands.  With this
simple test, said academic would immediately be forced to face reality instead
of being hopelessly lost in vague, unsupportable, academic speculation.  

Let a group of academics who propagate this silly theory actually go to the
field and fight off a pack of wild dogs or lions to get their leftovers, or chow
down on a putrefying corpse crawling with maggots.  

Yummy!!  The human is programmed at the genetic level to vigorously avoid
rotting protein, and is particularly sensitive to such repulsive odors which
produce instantaneous, powerful, gag and nausea reflexes in even the most
stalwart meatarian.  

Yet, even 'educated' academics with PhD's can not deal with this simple and
overwhelmingly obvious fact in their boundless zeal to reconstruct a long-lost
past from infinitesimally small amounts of data; and worse, massage this
virtually nonexistent data with their local culture's conditioned belief systems
to produce wildly imaginative, yet obviously false, claims about the human

Although some cultural human may have, post-tool, consumed rotting animal
flesh intentionally, the inherent repulsiveness of which was masked by the
destructive, pyrolytic effects of fire, the fact is that the natural human would not
have left any lingering evidence of its natural diet, just as the modern chimp
does not leave any trace of its existence.  

Eat some fruit, drop the seeds on the ground, eat some leaves, eat some nuts --
where is the physical evidence that lingers for 10's or 100's of thousands of
years?? None!  So, all so-called Paleolithic
"evidence" of human flesh eating is
merely a collection of self-selected, statistically insignificant cultural artifacts,
totally unrelated to our species' true nutritional needs.  

Further, such physical evidence of human flesh-eating, such as tool-scarred
bones or ancient fire pits, is found only in northern areas which are well
outside of the natural ecological niche for our tropical ape species; thus, any
evidence of cultural diets so remote from our proper ecological niche is totally
irrelevant to any understanding of what the natural diet for our species is.  

This ecologically relevant, and crucially important fact is universally, and
conveniently, ignored in any discussions of Paleolithic humans.  

Paleolithic (tool using) humans are not natural humans and are just as
irrelevant as any modern cultural group and their modern self-destructive
dietary practices.  

Further, because of the considerably harsher conditions and seasonal
variation in food supply, hunting became more important to bridge the
seasonal gaps, as well as the ability to store nonperishable items such as nuts,
bulbs, and tubers for the winter when the edible plants withered in the autumn.  

All of these factors, along with clothing (and also perhaps fire), helped enable
colonization of the less hospitable environment.  Clearly this demonstrates that
such humans were well outside of their natural ecological niche, which would
provide the proper nutrition for our species, thus they were forced to consume
highly foreign, non-natural
"foods" just to survive.  

So, it is obvious that any claims as to the applicability of the Paleolithic diet to
any understanding of the natural diet for our species are totally, and
unavoidably, bogus.  

They are shams firmly based on lies and intentional distortions.  They are
merely other examples of how
"curiosity killed the cat".  See the movie: The
Quest For Fire for a little insight into the perils created by abandoning our
ecological niche.  

If one can get a meatarian propagandist to actually admit that these incredibly
recent, human flesh-eating practices are only a cultural artifact, then the ruse
"Yes, it is not natural, but we 'adapted' or 'evolved' to eating animal
flesh and products".  

This is another blatant, yet annoyingly popular, lie, and it cannot be supported
by current evolutionary theory.  

Where Indeed Are Our Claws, Fangs, Beaks, Or Talons?  
Evolution happens because of small, infrequent, random mutations in the
genetic material: most mutations are neutral and are never expressed, some
very small number may be
"beneficial" in that they allow better functioning in
the environment, and some very small number may be deleterious, such as
those that produce
"genetic diseases".  

There must also be some "selective mechanism" to produce more survival
success in those with the
"beneficial" mutation, or it will not propagate
throughout the species to produce a species-wide

So, what are the "selective pressures" or "selective mechanism"
that would cause the numerous and large-scale changes in dozens of separate
biochemical pathways involved in human digestion, transport, and assimilation
of a diet so radically different in chemistry as an alleged
"adaptation" from plant
chemistry to flesh chemistry?  

Note that dozens of biochemical pathways must change simultaneously in the
same individual for such an
"adaptation" to occur.  There are none.  Because a
faulty diet does not kill its proponents outright before reproductive age, there is
simply no way to
"adapt" to a diet radically different in chemistry from the
natural one for that species, even if the dozens of required changes magically
occurred in one individual.  

This is admitted in the BeyondVeg site:

"The foods that humanity originally evolved to eat and those we now eat in
modern civilization are in many cases significantly different--yet our basic
underlying genetic inheritance remains basically the same as it was before, and
has evolved only very slightly since then.  Thus, many of the foods we now eat
are discordant with our genetic inheritance."  

Not surprisingly, all such claims as to the unsupported human 'evolution' from
frugivores to omnivores conveniently do not mention the fact that neither the
necessary sharp tools, teeth, claws, digestive biochemistry, fleetness of foot,
nor animal-killing instincts have co-evolved with the alleged 'evolution' to

Why did the concomitant, and quite necessary, tools not co-evolve?  People
distorting evolutionary theory to make the evolutionary omnivore argument fall
silent on those points.  

In bizarre self-contradiction, BeyondVeg uses this evolutionary analysis to
claim that modern grains and legumes are not a suitable food, with which I
firmly agree, but it simultaneously, and perhaps intentionally, does not apply
this understanding to the obvious fact that the human simply has not
to successfully consume animal flesh or other animal products.  

The epidemiological evidence that eating animal products causes
all the currently popular
"degenerative diseases" is conveniently overlooked in
the presentation.  

It gets even more amusing:
"humans are in a transitional state from omnivory
to obligate carnivory."  

This foolishly claims that humans are 'evolving' from frugivores, through
cultural (not natural) omnivores to pure (obligate) carnivores, like the cat, dog,
eagle, or alligator!  

This by a PhD, who most certainly does not kill and eat his/her animal prey raw
and with his own natural physiological equipment; but, perhaps, has the initial
appearances of claws and fangs, and is indeed on the cutting edge of
'evolution', such as to have such remarkable insight?  

On the B-12 issue, the self-contradictions continue.  

"Cats can neither synthesize B-12 nor absorb it from their gut; consequently
they have become wholly dependent upon animal flesh as their source for this
essential nutrient."  

Let's see, they can't absorb it from their gut, but eat flesh and then absorb it
from their gut?  

There is hope for the vegetarian, vegan, however.  Regarding possible B-12
synthesis in the small intestine above the ileum, the consensus of scientific
literature indicates any amounts that may potentially be produced are not
significant or reliable enough to serve as a dependable or sole source for most

Most individuals?  That means some individuals do produce and absorb their
own B-12; could it be that the cause in the ones who cannot is based on the
fact that their intestines are ravaged by the toxic byproducts of putrefying
meat, and that a healthy intestinal system in a healthy human is a reliable
source of B-12?  

The practical solution to any concerns about B-12 is a simple and inexpensive
supplement; which, given the precipitously declining quality of commercial
produce, would be useful insurance anyway.  

The claim:
"...demonstrates the human metabolic need for animal-based foods"
ignores the fact that B-12 producing bacteria are abundant in the exogenous


"In one study of vegans ... the [source of B-12] was due to eating unwashed
vegetables that had been grown in gardens containing intentionally manured
soils, from which the B-12 came.  

Ironically, the manure in this case was their own excrement, which as pointed
out above harbors bacteria that produce B-12 in the human colon--where B-12
cannot be absorbed.  Not unless, of course, it is reingested as in the
unintentional coprophagy occurring in this instance, so that it can pass back
through the small intestine again
to the ileum where B-12 is actually absorbed."  

Of course, it is unknown just how this study differentiated between the B-12
molecules coming from bacteria in the human colon and the B-12 coming from
bacteria in the soil.  

It also ignores the fact, known by olfactory experience among vegetarians,
vegans who are not eating huge excesses of protein, and totally unknown
among meatarians who are eating huge excesses of indigestible proteins, that
vegetarian, vegan feces
is devoid of the common, malodorous, toxic amino compounds commonly
found in meatarian feces: indole, skatole, putrescine,
and cadaverine.  

The BeyondVeg website goes on to say:

"In summary, the absence of the ability of humans to absorb bacterially
produced B-12 in the colon, and the evidence that strictly behaving vegans will
show negative TCII-carried B-12 balance even when total serum levels are in
the normal range, is indicative of the long evolutionary history of animal-based
foods in our diet."  

Actually, it is more likely an indication of the rather recent deadly cultural
practice of dousing commercial food with boundless amounts of toxic
pesticides and herbicides which will kill the normal B-12-producing bacteria,
and everything else, in the soil, coupled with the rather recent cultural sanitary
hysteria which, also, will eliminate exogenous B-12 from food.  

By: Laurie Forti

Article: Tasty Tidbits & Dastardly Dietary Dogma