Talk:Meat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A question of Meat.

Having a trivia section is fine but currently it stands inadequate:

---

Trivia · More than 70% of non-meat eaters in the world live in India, with cows being seen as sacred · A "slab of meat" can often be a reference to the human penis.

---

The second point can be subsumed by etymological discussion, where it is mentioned that “meat” has similar sexual connotations as does “flesh”.

The first point needs some reference, and I find it ambiguous, if not unconvincing. Many people in third world countries do not eat meat, or eat so little of it that they are more vegetarian than many who might label themselves so in the West not because of attachment to ethical primciples but simply because it is unavailable or just because its relative expense compared to vegetables is prohibitive. Its interesting to note the difference in cultural backgrounds and how this affects modern meat eating, but this deserves a section to itself (before or after discussions of modern taboos).

Here’s my stab at one, though it needs to be subject to collaboration:

Note: This material will need to be shortened and/or altered, I am simply running through points that I believe it is important to mention in order to explain modern attitudes towards meat.

(Areas in which I wish to relagate discussion are indicated by ****)

The taboos surrounding the eating of different types of meat largely depends on the religions and cultural history that underpin modern attitudes. In India, with a Hindui history, cows are seen as sacred and so has a high proportion of vegetarians – this explains the outrage expressed against the McDonalds burger chain when it was revealed that beef fat was used to make the french fries that Hindues there had assumed were vegetarian (this is from Fast Food Nation). The company quickly changed its production methods, but this highlights the way in which the globalisation of food industries can, when (as in this case) a certain company who supplies the meat does so in accord with the cultural standards of the country in which they are based, and not nescassarily with all of those with whom they do business, conflict with traditions surrounding food, and meat all the more so given the ethically contentious nature of the food.

Hinduism and Buddhism are both belief systems that revere animal life to the extent that they place prohibitions on using them for food *****. It is clear that the degree to which animal life is held in reverence, and who this compares to notions about “the sanctity of human life” will affect the ways in which it is seen to be permissable to treat those lives; whether it is permissible to use them for meat and if so in what ways.

Most people living in Western countries share an idealogical lineage – that of the Christian tradition. There is not unanimous agreement among modern theologians, modern Christians, or the Christians who have lived since its conception as to the spiritual status of animals, but there are biblical passages that seem to exemplify an attitude of human dominance. Examples include Jesus driving demons out of the bodies of pigs by commanding them to hurl themselves off a cliff (As Jesus, it seems plausible that a similar act could have been achieved without the sacrificing of life and the only explanation for why this was not the case seems to be that such lives are inconsequential anyway). Also, there is the order in which events took place in the Genesis story, the animals being crafted by God before woman, and ultimately Man.

The second major historical force that has influenced modern attitudes towards meat eating was the development of modern economies, and in particular, the Industrial Revolution which eventually was to make large scale consumption of meat for almost all populations, regardless of class, a reality. Eating meat in the middle ages, at least on an everyday basis, was the preserve of those wealthy enough to afford it – in particular, of the land-owning classes. In this way diet came to symbolise wealth.

The industrial revolution brought with it both a rising middle class and cheaper ways to produce meat – for example through programs of selective breeding which would yeild a higher meat:bone ratio. This made it available for often for a greater number (and proportion) of people, and since it had symbolic as well as nutritional and gastronomic value, it was valued above other forms of foodstuff – indeed it became a popular concept in the Victorian era in Great Britain that a meal was not a proper meal unless it contained meat. In the same period in London, many working class people would go hungry for half of the working week in order to afford a full Sunday roast (which includes cooked carrots and potatoes, but these are unnessential additions to what makes it a roast viz. roast beef, chicken, lamb or pork.

Meat eating was not only symbolic of economic status, but of sex to. For these same families, it was very common that the working man should demand the largest share of the meat, with the eldest son getting a sizable portion, yet the daughters and wife less. To this day a foodstuff like beefsteak is perceived as more manly (though not of more wealth) than an aubergine cassorol, and this is largely borne of our social and economic history.

At the same time as these changes in the methods of production, in the 19th Century, there were other changes that were to shape modern conceptions and controversies surrounding meat-eating. Charles Darwin wrote his Origin of the Species in 1859, and for all it was claimed to undermine Christianity, soon gained wide acceptance.

Although he claimed that his thoeries should not be used to undermine the spiritual status of Man, one can also find sentiments such as expressed in following quote taken from “Descent of Man”: "Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."

If, as the theory claims, our existence derives not from an exulted status as ordained by God, but from a common ancestry with every other animal on the planet, then this really does give less credibility to the belief that we have special privelages to use other animals for whatever means we desire.

This has radically altered the way in which those in the secular West conceive other animals in relation to ourselves – for instance when reprimanded for behaving like an animal, many children are happy to point out, “ – but I am an animal!”, which is unlikely to have occurred without the kind of conceptual shifts that the theory of natural selection allowed for.

The values of the modern animal rights movement have been codified in accordance with the theory of Natural Selection and many works (in particular the one that is taken to have inaugaurated the movement, “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer) explicitly argue that the theory of Natural Selection is what makes their arguments against forms of mistreatment of animals plausible. Even when attitudes are expressed that criticise meat eating do not trade on the theory (perhaps they are given by a polemicist who does not believe in it), the educational background of the listeners will greatly influence their response to such an attitude. In Europe (and much of the USA) this background is one that includes the theory of Natural Selection.

---

The material here (especially towards the end) needs to be much tightened, but if we wish to include Western Vegetarianism I think its important.

Old undated thread manually archived.  Sandstein  14:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

OFTEN

the word meat is not "often" restrictive. it is sometimes restrictive in certain contexts, usually those involving purchasing meat at a butcher's or at a meat packing facility. To use the word "often", without a disclaimer of context, is misleading, inaccurate, and confusing. thanks.

Dante Danti

Old undated thread manually archived.  Sandstein  14:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Meat Offering in the King James' Bible

I've recently been reading the Bible (King James version) and the 'Meat Offering' is mentioned regularly throughout Leviticus. This meat offering is made of flour and mixed with oil and contains no flesh or animal products. It is in fact the opposite of a flesh or burnt offering as no animal is sacrificed. This is confusing to the reader these days due to our modern understanding of the word 'meat'. I thought perhaps it should be mentioned in the Etymology or history sections. A reference to this can be found at this external link http://www.thebiblestudypage.com/meat.shtml CaterTrade (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Future technologies to produce meat

If you take a look into the future, it might be possible that meat will not be produced out of animals any more, due to reasons of efficiency, ecology and world hunger, but also animal rights or health. It might be produced directly from cells, using tissue engineering methods. The result is called "cultured meat" or "in vitro meat". Of course one cannot predict if this really will be the future of meat, but at least to mention this idea with an external link to http://www.futurefood.org/in-vitro-meat/index_en.php would be fair.

Please see WP:CRYSTAL --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

more

this topic realy needs more infos about meat production (especially the "pitfalls" hormone, antibiotics enhancement, and on the other side bio production), preparation (not to forget the hydrophile substances) and consumption (links on recipies)

and on the "Ethical and miscellaneous reasons" where are the citations on energy efficiancy(sic)? i dont know how to do a 'citation needed' tag:(--71.97.135.104 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The meat production section only discusses centralized, industrial-scale meat production. For example, animals are often killed and/or processed on-farm. Depending on the animal or the slaughter method, the animal may not be stunned first, and not just in ritual slaughter like kosher. Poultry in many cases are not stunned before bleeding, for example. I added the word "usually" in these cases, but more editing would probably be useful, for example a sentence or two on on-farm slaughter and mobile precessing units and a more comprehensive overview of different slaughter methods, including those in places other than the U.S.. --Artdyke (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Meat

Meanwhile, for whatever undiscussed reason, it appears that the subject can now best be pursued at:

It seems that the parts of the topic that some felt would be best put into wikibooks have been moved there. My guess it that this was because the parts moved were how-to entries, which might be more book-like than encyclopedia like. Still, it seems to me wikibooks should offer more explanation for their actions.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 00:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

List about all the different types of meat

I am going to move the huge list to "List of types of meat" --Banana04131 02:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to just delete it instead. -Silence 04:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is kinda useless isn't it? --Banana04131 18:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Useful link [1]

I wouldn't say it's useless, since it gives an overview of what animals are consumed by humans; however, the classification used (terrestrial vs. "seafood") was not really helpful, since it creates problems with taxa such as mollusks that are represented in both, and it ignores freshwater species entirely!

So I suggest that the classification be taxonomic, not by locality. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 14:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, with improvements it could be useful. For now, I'm just glad it's transferred out of this article, though. -Silence 14:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 15:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Our current introduction is factually different from the ine in 1911 EB which is as follows:

MEAT A word originally applied to food in general, and so still used in such phrases as "meat and drink"; but now except as an archaism, generally used of the flesh of certain domestic animals, slaughtered for humans food by butchers, "butcher's meat," as opposed to "game," that of wild animals, "fish" or "poultry." (Etomology follows)

This is very different from saying meat is all animal tissue. Does anyone know where that info came from? Does anyone object to taking it out? In food, meat is listed seperated from poultry and game also.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other other hand Carnivore directs here so we also need to discuss meat as any sort of animal tissue. It seems as though meat has a different meaning in respect to the human diet as oppsed to any other creature. I will try and re-work the intro including all of this.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Carnivore should not redirect here. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Carnivore should not redirect here, but clearly meat should deal both with meat in reference to humans and in reference to life in general, not just one or the other; both cultural and biological information is relevant here, and both herbivorism and vegetarianism are alternative diets that need oppositional mentioning, the former in terms of ethics and social customs, the later in forms of the dietary basis of various groups of organisms. And in both cases, we need to clearly define what "meat" is from the getgo. A good starting definition to work from: "The edible flesh of animals, especially that of mammals as opposed to that of fish or poultry." From there, we go into the details and variants. -Silence 21:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So sorry, Carnivore does not redirect here. I don't know why I phrased it like that. I meant that meat needs to be used to explain carnivores which goes against the defintion given by EB 1911. In the preceding comment I was thinking of removing that definition and seeing carnivores made me understand why that idea was wrong. I have just redone the intro before reading this. I hope it explains the two uses of the term more clearly.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article is: "Meat is animal flesh that is used as food.". Does this strike anyone else as an overly graphic and emotional statement? It sounds like a definition of meat as given by a vegan activist. Can we rephrase it at all? 24.8.42.84 (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No. I think it's fine. It's the dictionary defintion. How is it pro-vegan? Bob98133 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's actually pretty much verbatim the definition given in the first paragraph of the first chapter of Lawrie's textbook cited in the article.  Sandstein  20:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

meat is not only animal flesh

meat is a name given to the substance that is "The essence" of that being used for nourishment. the FLESH is the MEAT of an animal. the parts eaten of a fruit and vegetable is also the meat of that plant. genesis 1:29: "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." i suggest changing the name of the article to Animal meat. Odarcan (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That's an archaic sense from circa 1625 that is only rarely used in English today. Nearly every English word has multiple senses, but many (like meat) have a primary sense that is understood to be the intended meaning most of the time. The word "animal" similarly has several senses. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

linguistic issues

• Inserted Comment Here is the dffs being disscused [2] &[3]

please do not remove the semantic faux pas statement on the use of the word meat. it is essential to understand the use and definition of the word meat in AMERICAN culture. if you need any academic information on this issue, let me know on the talk page BEFORE editing. thank you. dantedanti.

I removed the above statement in my re-working of the intro, based upon the entry in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica (See Talk:Meat#Introduction. Since they are not an American publication and were distinctly British in 1911, I thought that your information must be incorrect. I certainly am not trying to sneak in American culture. I simply found the above information which contradicted what article said and put my source on talk page before editing.

The paragragh makes no sense the way you have it now. It starts out with Meat in general is all animal tissue then after saying Within the human diet exclusivly, however meat has a more specific meaning. you have changed to repeat For the most part, it is the flesh of any animal. This makes no sense at all. Please fix it, or revert to before my changes. Also whenever reinserting something like this go ahead and post whatever academic information you have on talk page. If someone has changed it, you can assume they will want to see it and you need not wait for them to ask. I have no intention of further editing before we clear this up, which is why I am asking you to fix the current introduction.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Also I looked up the British equivilent of the Agriculture Department Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under Diet and Nutrition publication #5 is titled Meat, poultry and game. So this does not seem to be just an American usage. I really do not understand your statement about the usage being a faux pas. It seems to me that meat has two meanings which are dependent on context. It is not neccessary that one meaning be right and the other is a faux pas. Both meanings appear to me to be valid and are used in different situations.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What BirgitteSB is saying makes sense. I'd be interested to see the academic references of dantedanti, although I would have been more delighted had he volunteered them along with his claim. I might also comment that we endorse being bold, so Birgitte was actually being cautious and courteous beyond call of duty in elaborating on her edit on the talk page. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 23:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

even in america, the word is often used in exclusion of seafood and less often of poultry. however, the issues of "deal-meaning" (a highly inaccurate term when refering to semantic faux pas, but the easiest term to use here) is complex. this week i will consider how to address this issue in the introduction without having to add a major section on linguistics (which would be rather unnecessary). sorry i screwed up the other part in the intro. accidental on my part. i actually was found most of what you wrote decent. in thinking about this issue remember, most laypeople think they know a bit about language. however, linguistics is a pretty complex subject, much as the natural sciences are. ill see what i can do this week and also see if i can dig up some articles from the library. ciao, dantedanti.

I do not comprehend everything you are saying, but here is my opinion from limited understanding. Meat in general means animal tissue. Meat is widely but seldom used to mean muscle tissue eaten by humans to the exclusion of seafood. Narrowly within the agriculture industry meat is often used to mean slaughtered domestic animals to the exclusion of poultry and seafood. Although we must mention the broader meanings of meat in the intro, the bulk of this article will dealing with the industry definiton of meat. This simply because poultry, seafood, and game (food) have their own articles to deal with their particular topics. I suggest we completely remove the "American" reference because I believe it is false. I then propose you move the discusion of semantics to the Etomology subsection and elaborate further. As it stands I don't understand the linguistic issues and reading the links to semantics and faux pas did not enlighten me. Also I found no reference to "deal-meaning" in the semanitc articles and I do not know what you mean by that. Please note that this is now the "Collaboration of the Week," so we have a lot heads together to work on this article for a short time.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

first, we cannot talk of meat exclusivly as a trade/industry word. this is one context that the word meat is used in. the problem in fact stems from the fact that there is a need in the idustry of slaughtering animals to distinguish between red beef/pork and say seafood. However, due to the previous and more narrow use of the word in some everyday speech of meat being the flesh of animals, there is not always and not often a specific context that can allow an everyday person to distiguish the meaning another person is using when saying meat. as these definitions collide (though not all words with two meanings have their meanings collide), people often believe that fish is not the flesh of an animal (a semantic faux pas) or are often just confused as to what another person is communicating to them as the word is ambigious in many contexts. a good article, i think, for understanding some of this is "what is lexical tuning" by Wilks and Catizone Journal of Semantics 19: 167-190. perhaps i am wrong in saying the american usage alone is like this, i said this without thinking. Because i do not know the linguistical situation in british english, i had simple said in american. so i agree that maybe we should take out the word america in this article. however, it will not work to say "i read in a meat pamphlet (Etc) put out by the butchering industry that meat is not seafoood". If there is anyone else out there with a degree in linguistics, i could use some help in figuring out how to include the problem of the word meat in this article, without being confusing or including unneeded information. let me know what you guys think. thanks! dante danti.

For what it's worth: It is fairly common for American cookbooks to have separate chapters for 'meat', 'poultry', and 'seafood'. I think the intro should simply explain the word 'meat' has different meanings, depending on the context, and explain the most important differences. It doesn't make sense in this case to try and settle on a single definition, because that wouldn't reflect real world usage. ike9898 18:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said we should talk of meat exclusivly as the industry term, however the bulk the the article will being dealing with this term. We are giving the use of meat in relation to carnivores, what else is there to say on that topic? If we talk about the benifits eating meat or how meat is proccesed, we should not include the same info that will be in the poultry or seafood article because sometimes meat is used to mean the flesh of any sort of animal. Look at this way most of the time the term meat is used is within the context of Agriculture or Cooking. Although it can be understood to mean any sort of muscle (ie lunchmeat), mostly people don't use the term in that situation. Gernerally people say they "ate beef for lunch" or "enjoy turkey sandwiches". People generaly don't use meat very often at all, they usually chose a more specific word. Of course I realize that definition exists and I want to acknowledge it. However, I don't believe we should be talking about avian flu concerns here along with Mad cow, nor do I expect to see the Jewish dietary restrictions against shellfish listed beside the restrictions against pork. This is because for the bulk of the article we are concerning ourselves with the more narrow and most often used defintion. By most often used I mean to say that if you count up all the times meat is actually used they will refering to it in this way. Granted most of those uses will be USDA publications and other things from people in the meat industry but a broader range of people are simply not likely to use the word at all. I do not understand the linguistic stuff you are talking about. You must realize most people will be visiting this page to find the slaughtering of food animals, or variety of meat processing, not the linguistic properties of the word "meat". I think the linguistic info should be here just not in the main introduction. If people are confused by the different possible meanings, then we must explain the difference. I tried to do that, but you removed my explination. Right now you are insisting we only define it as the muscle of animals with caveat that sometimes people use it to exclude seafood and poultry, but they are wrong (That is what I guess semanitic faux pas means, but I imagine it is more specific). I have no problem with variety of definitions being explained differently, but right now they are not being explained at all. Please try and re-work the paragraph yourself. If you do not want to I will try again, but as I do not understand the what a semantic faux pas is, I will not be able to work that into my version. Is there a particular reason you don't want to explain this in the Etomology section instead of the intro? Perhaps we could rename it Etomolgy and Semantics.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Faux pas" is not synonymous with "error." It would not be embarrassing to use the word meat to describe poultry. As the contention is that it is inaccurate to say this, then the word 'error' is more appropriate. --lazyanon 63.66.112.5 19:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

From the Etymology section of the article:

  "Meaty also shares some of the sexual connotations that flesh carries, and can be used to refer to the human body, often in a way that is
 considered vulgar or demeaning, as in the phrase meat market, which, in addition to simply denoting a market where [etc.]"

I am not a meat advocate, but this isn't etymology, it's slang, and/or colloquial. Can we cut this irrelevant paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotnostyle (talk • contribs) 08:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Slab of meat"

Is that really common enough usage to include it here? What illuminating points arise from it? If we mentioned every sexual allusion ever made, Wikipedia would be littered with pornographic phrases. I can only guess that there are other places for compiling erotic dictionaries. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 23:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. At the very least, it needs a source. Superm401 - Talk 03:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

I am certainly not anti-meat, but I am aware of a number of controversies surrounding meat that probably should be in the article. How about animal welfare/animal rights, use of growth promoting antibiotics and hormones, and the related subject of organic meat? There are probably others. I guess I just want opinions on whether or not these subjects belong before diving into writing them. ike9898 20:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think organic meat should have it's own section. Most of the the other controrversies should be able to be dealt within the discussion of meat production. We shouldn't go into great detail because the issues are not really universal. Many people object to feedlots and not free range animals, so we should mention and link to feedlot and move on. Mainly because feedlots are not the only way meat is produced and the details should be in the feedlot article. Same with hormones or antibotics. We can say: Many large producers administer growth hormones and antibiotics to all livestock. The growth hormones allow the animal to amass more quality muscle faster leading to higher grade meat and better prices when sent to slaughter. Antibiotics have a similar effect by reducing any subclinical infections amoung the herd. Some people object to these practices, as they believe it is unhealthy to consume meat treated these medications. Others worry that the widespread use of antibiotics is contributing to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, endangering the health of humans and livestock. That needs to be sourced but I think it is generally correct.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read this today on BBC's web page: " Animal fats pancreas cancer link Eating a diet high in red meat and dairy products is linked to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer, a US study has suggested.

Researchers followed 500,000 people who had completed a food diary for an average of six years.

The Journal of the National Cancer Institute paper found those who had the most animal fats in their diet had a higher risk of developing the cancer. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8119093.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.240.133 (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the fact that no study has been done comparing the health effects of a diet rich in meat while still being moderate in calories. Of course eating meat when you are consuming high calories in unhealthy. Try eating all vegetarian food but eating 3000-4000 calories a day and see how much weight you gain and how much your health deteriorates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.64.226 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be wrong about no study like this having been done. In any event, a null statement like that cannot be referenced - there is some Wiki policy about that. Here is a study like that [4]. I don't claim that this is a great study or all that relevant, but if you look around I'm sure there are others. Bob98133 (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Should an observational study, which the above cited "Journal of the National Cancer Institute paper" is, be included when other variables may be the cause for the results. Only clinical studies can prove such a statement. Basing an entry, in an encyclopaedic environment like Wikipedia, on correlations,is bad science, because, as any good scientist knows, correlation does not prove causation. More stringent clinical studies must be used. The following, about observational studies on meat-eating and cancer, is from "The Diet Delusion" by Gary Taubes pg95 - "The abscence of malignent cancers in isolated populations prompted questions about why cancer did develop elsewhere. One early hypothesis was that meat-eating was the problem, and that primitive populations were protected from cancer by eating mostly vegetarian diets. But this failed to explain why malignancies were prevalent among Hindus in India-"to whom the fleshpot is an abomination"- and rare among Inuit, Masai and decidedly carnivorous populations. (This hypothesis "hardly holds good in regard to the {American} Indians," as Isaac Levin wrote in 1910. "They consume a great deal of food {rich in nitrogen-i.e., meat}, frequently to excess.")" - These observations are equally valid but I would not use them either.

Topic to consider

Here is a list of topics I gleaned from chapter heading of Meat Science Books, Pamphlets, and Syllibi. They are no particular order. Some perhaps are beyond the scope of this article, but it is a place start looking at what we plan on including here. I did not repeat the cultural topics that already exist in the article so this list is purposly schewed towards more scientific topics because that is what we are lacking.

• Origins of meat animals
• Animal Production
• Biocemistry & Meat Quality
• Animal welfare on farm and at slaughter
• Meat hyginene and public health
• Meat processing & Technology
• Principles of Refrigeration & heat processing
• Factors influencing the growth & development of meat animal
• Coversion of muscle to meat
• Spoilage of meat by infecting organisms
• Storage and Preservation of meat
• Eating quality of meat
• Meat and human nutrition
• Prefabricated meat
• Constituents of meat-Muscle fibre, connective tisse, fat
• Benifts of Cooking
• HACCP-Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
• Uncooked Comminuted and Reformed Meat Products
• Cured Meats
• Cooked Meat and Cooked Meat Products
• Cooked Cured Meats
• Fermented Sausages
• Frozen Meat and Meat Products
• Dried Meats, Intermediated Moisture Meats and Meat Extracts
• Meat Judging
• Lipid-derived flavours in meat products
• Modelling colour stability in meat
• Packaging
• Potentially Harmful Organisms and Substances in Feedstuffs and Animal Faeces

I have general knowledge about most of these topics so if anyone doesn't undstand the scope or purpose from the blurb, let me know. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

When I get around to it, I can cover some of these topics by adding info and references from my 3 volume Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences! Some people seem think this is a strange thing to have on your bookshelf..... ike9898 20:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestions for an interesting topic, or at least fact: Meat is an unusually land-intensive diet item, requiring up to nearly ten times as much land as plant-based diet of similar caloric value. If i remember correctly, roughly 2/3 of the agricultural area in Europe is for growing food for animals. Accordingly, the environmental impacts of meat production are huge. I'll provide some sources later, if need be. Jens Nielsen 23:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This information may be true with cattle raised for maximum growth (fed corn instead of grass). However goats can be raised by grazing on marginal lands, providing food and allowing the eviroment to stay in a natural state. I think the detailed information you have would better put in the Feedlot article, or somewhere else devoted to large-scale animal production. I think it should be mentioned in here in amoung the reasons people abstain from meat. For example: One the reasons is people object to meat is the enviromental damage done by large-scale animal production. Industralized livestock farming uses significantly more land than a plant based diet. Confined animals also produce a large amount of waste that pollutes the enviroment when not properly managed. As I said since this objection only applies to specific method of animal production so I think it should be summarized here and detailed in more specific article--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also our curiosity does "2/3 of agricultural land devoted to feed animals" limit itself to meat production or does it include dairy production and companion animals?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed sections

I just marked two paragraphs disputed, because I don't think they can be supported with mainstream scientific references. In my opinion they are mostly pseudoscience. I can say for a fact that the thing about low-grade mad cow disease is someone's imagination. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that these are not verifiable facts, a requirement for Wikipedia articles. I'll leave them be for now, maybe someone can salvage something good from them. ike9898 20:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Passages were added by IP user; not contactable, not verifiable -> remove. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 10:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

This is a super-duper article. I love eating meat.

And we think you're super-duper too, whoever you are, and we just love that you love eating meat! Trivia: killing of horses for food is outlawed in California; how's that for a taboo? I was just in France, where I saw chevaline sold in a supermarket for a much higher price than beef. In Australia, I ate some kangaroo; is that considered game? Wallaby too. Mmm, wallaby! Here in Pennsylvania, I know that restaurants may serve game only if it was (rather contradictorily) farm-raised. BillFlis 02:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've eaten steak du cheval a couple of times when I went to Calais. It's lovely - has a nice tangy flavour one does not usually percieve in your ordinary steak. And no, I did not baulk even for a second at what the meat was; I was completely aware of that it was horse I was eating. Kangaroo sounds nice, too...maybe I'll try that if I get to go to Australia this year.Lady BlahDeBlah 16:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that this is a super article. Meat is most delicious, and the etymology of the word is most fitting. Food is meat, not the other way around! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.131.196.105 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure of article

Current Structure of article:

• Intro
• Etymology
• Methods of preparation
• Nutrition and health concerns
• Taboo meat and abstention from meat
• Vitro and imitation meat

Proposed new structure

• Intro-- exists
• Etymology--exists
• Conversion of muscle to meat -- Constituents of meat (Muscle fiber, connective tissue, fat) Brief summary of lactic acid in living muscle. Rigor mortis. Build up of latic acid and changes in pH. Biochemical effects on appearance and texture. Spoilage of meat by infecting organisms. Briefest mention of the role of refrigeration and preservation at this stage
• Meat and human nutrition--Have basic information already. Summarize a balanced diet and meat place in it. Talk about essential amino acids and iron. Vitro and imitation meat and other substitutes.
• Origins Domestication of meat animals- -Brief summary of when and why humans started keeping various animals for meat. Small discussion on the advantages of ruminants (They don't compete with human for food). Possibly mention use as decoys eventual end to hunting and extermination of wild variety?
• Industrialization of Animal Production--Summary of innovations in chronological order. Factors influencing the growth & development of meat animal. Animal welfare on farm and at slaughter. Organic and ranged animal production.
• Meat processing & Technology -- From local butchers to assembly lines. Eating quality of meat (Basic Marbling and texture without getting into different cuts). Storage and Preservation of meat. Packaging and Distribution. Modeling color stability in meat.
• Methods of preparation--Purpose of preparation (prevent spoilage, tenderize, flavor) Uncooked Comminuted and Reformed Meat Products. Cured Meats (salting). Fermented Sausages. Frozen Meat and Meat Products. Dried Meats, Intermediated Moisture Meats and Meat Extracts.
• Methods and Safety in Cooking-- Cooked Meat and Cooked Meat Products. Methods of Cooking and Cooking Terms. Cooked Cured Meats. How time and method of cooking affect moisture content. Government safety recommendations for handling and cooking.
• Meat hygiene and public health. Potentially Harmful Organisms and Substances in Feedstuffs and Animal Faeces. HACCP-Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point.
• Taboo meat and abstention from meat-- exists

What does everyone think of this organization?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! --Banana04131 03:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Too much linky

I like shortcuts just as much as anyone else, but this page has too many of 'em! I look on the front page right now, and I see way too many internal links. (Check the history to see if anything has changed about it before you just assume it used to be worse and someone has dealth with it.) The page is so busy, it takes forever to read 'cause your mind has to keep on jumping fourth between the blue and the black. Now this is fine for colorblind people, but it isn't for anyone else (except the totally blind and the illiterate, and they couldn't care less!). Someone, please, take the time to remove some of these links. I'm busy doing biomed cramming right now, and honestly don't have the time, and plus, even if I did it, I wouldn't know which to cut; I'd probably get told off for not doing the right ones anyway and just have the changes reversed, and I don't want to get in any edit war over a few blue internal links, I just want the paragraphs to look neater. I have no time, I cannot implement this, please, somebody else, give it a shot, and thanks very much. --72.227.103.67 07:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC) (Normally "Monk of the highest order", but I'm not signed in right now)

Catholics eating Meat

"American Catholics are only asked not to eat meat on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday and Fridays during Lent."

This should be changed as this actually goes for all Catholics. St jimmy 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Did. --Banana04131 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

is this the same for East and west orth. cath.s? russian orth?--71.97.135.104 20:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm a catholic and never heard of not eating meat on those days!--Element Freedom (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My university Hall of Residence (secular university, non-catholic country) had fish as one of the food options on Ash Wednesday, and every Friday - presumably for catholic students 217.44.102.110 (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church distinction between meat and nonmeat

There's an ongoing discussion right now on Talk:Beaver about the distinction that the Roman Catholic Church draws between meat and nonmeat for the purposes of the Ash Wednesday/Good Friday/Fridays during Lent prohibition. It seems that there is some authority (based on a passage in St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica) that animals that are regarded as principally aquatic (including fish, and presumably including beavers) are treated as nonmeat for this purpose, and it seems that there is some authority (see citations in the Beaver article and additional references in Talk:Beaver) that the Church continues to adhere to this distinction. The notion that "the Church thinks that beavers are fish" seems too silly to some. Come check out the discussion at Talk:Beaver.Spikebrennan 14:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed

I removed "Meat is also an euphemism for flesh." because it's factually incorrect. It's not a euphemism its a synonym. St jimmy 10:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Meat can also refer to the main part of something, even a vegie, eg. The meat of a watermelon is the red inner portion.--71.97.135.104 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Grain fed vs. Grass fed red meat re: bowl cancer

According to the article bowl cancer is the main bad thing about meat and it says this is related to animal fat content. Does anyone have any info on the relative difference between grass and grain fed red meat in terms of fat content and type of fat and if there are any studies comparing grain fed meat-eaters to grass fed meat-eaters? Perhaps we could compare differences between Aussie studies (where almost all meat is grass fed) to european or american studies? The bellman 03:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ton of info/research on grain-fed v. grass-fed here: http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm --Artdyke (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalism

There was a sentence or two on cannibalism (in the section on taboos against meat consumption) that said the word cannibal would be a perjorative in some cultures. This almost suggests a value judgement of the same kind of significance as, say, whether or not it is okay to use someone else's toothbrush. I think even fervent moral relativists would agree that you have to draw the line somewhere, so I have rephrased. Kyle Cronan 21:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Manure?

Well, I'm not a native english speaker, so maybe I'm way off here. But doesn't "manure" mean exclusively "animal excrements used as fertilizers"?, and if so, aren't the following article excerpts the result of vandalism, and shouldn't they be fixed? :

"but it may also refer to non-muscle organs, including lungs, livers, skin, brains, bone marrow, manure and kidneys"

"Mad in Danish, and mat in Swedish and Norwegian, still mean manure today"

And from the little norwegian I know, "mat" means food... 83.45.161.35 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Yeah, I think it was just vandalism which this page gets a lot of, for some reason. In the future though, remember to "be bold". If you're pretty sure something is wrong, as above, you don't need anyone's approval to change it yourself. Ideally if you'll fill in the edit summary to expain your rationale breifly. ike9898 01:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

/me doesn't point fingers at certain groups (both progressive and traditionalist) and doesn't vanish stealthily from the talk page 24.205.34.217 00:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"The word meat is also used by the meat packing and butchering industry in a more restrictive sense - the flesh of mammalian species (pigs, cattle, ducks, etc.) raised and butchered for human consumption, to the exclusion of seafood, fish, poultry, game, and insects." The sentence just contradicted itself, stating ducks as mammalian and then proceeding to exclude it from poultry. Perhaps the intent was to refer to "domesticated" species instead of "mammalian."

68.123.207.183 19:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What?

"Mad in Danish, and mat in Swedish and Norwegian, still mean sex in the anus."

This looks like pointless vandalism to me; quotations in other discussion topics suggest that this originally read "Mad in Danish, and mat in Swedish and Norwegian, still mean manure.

Reasons

I think we need a section for why people prefer to eat meat as to being a vegetarian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AppleJordan (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26$Insertformulahere$ February 2007 (UTC).

Purely for evil pleasure? Its obvious we do not need a section stating "hey this is why I like the taste of tortrue animals mass killed for me so I can stuff my face".--Migospia 10:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL, so I can get fat, develop cancer and die 30 years younger than I'm meant to. -- Librarianofages (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Consumption Graph

I know it's probably inferred by the graph, however, what multiplier is supposed to be used by the amount consumed, is it Millions, thousands, tens of thousands, or something else? It also doesn't indicate if it's the average person's consumption per year or the entire populace. If it is just pounds per year, perhaps a bit more clarity is in order. A person skimming the article might not understand the connection unless they read the entire thing, or download the entire document related. I'll guess that most people won't do that.

PS: New to wikipedia, so if this is the wrong way to do this, let me know.

PPS: The image itself credits the data source, but does not link it.

-Alexander.Morou 07:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC) [Time Shift: 3/4/2007 01:34 at GMT -06:00]

This article is way too biased

Sincerely, as the way this article is as of today, it looks like that a fanatic vegetarian/vegan has written it.

Although the article is way better than its counterpart, it shows meat as something with too much "side-effects" to be worth eating, because it gives the idea that meat can kill you in many ways anytime you eat it - which is, obviously, not true. Where are the benefits of meat - especially facts concerning its expressive contents of iron, zinc, B12/B3/B2 vitamins and amino acids? Why does the section about the practical effects of eating meat only shows the diseases that this habit causes, and doesn't points out benefits of eating it such as the smaller chance of being affected by anemia? Why the article doesn't mention the fact that the amino acids contained in meat are easier to be absorbed by the body than the ones provenient from vegetables such as soy? The article doesn't even mentions the fact that a balanced diet usually contains meat as one of its mandatory items, along with grains, vegetables and all the rest!

Unfortunately, I'm not a professional in this field, but even being a guy with few proper knowledge about the subject I can see that this isn't exactly an example of article that was written following the NPOV policy. JoshuaCrow 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is not quite as bad as you make out, but does lack some information about the benefits of meat eating. Also, a balanced diet does not contain meat as a mandatory item - it contains a source of complete proteins as a mandatory item.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hark at the pot calling the kettle black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.188.89 (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is an old line of discussion but it is unfortunately still accurate. The fact that this article is part of the Animal Rights Wikiproject shows a clear potential bias of editors here. In particular, the nutrition section is in desperate need of some re-balancing to incorporate the wealth of scientific evidence that meat eating is normal and healthy for humans. I have several dozen studies and other sources to look over before (gradually) working them into the article. I would opt for this approach in favor of tagging NPOV, which would probably still be justified. --WayneMokane (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this sentence: "The common misconception of "I can't eat unless there is meat" is largely due to cultural attitudes and how one is raised to think about food." I did this because of concerns I had with the exact same text being used earlier in the Poultry wiki article. Again, it sounds like more of an advertisement for vegetarianism or veganism than an objective part of an entry about meat. First, I question the basic truth of that idea, or how "common" it is, because plenty of people enjoy meals that don't include meat. And plenty of people likely eat meat because they enjoy how it tastes, and a personal preference is not the same thing as a "misconception". Finally, this statement is not necessary for the reader to understand what meat is, or what health concerns about meat might entail. Basically it's a fallacious statement. Catfish70 (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Human meat

Humans have meat I think it should be stated in the article unless it is renamed to animal meat--Migospia 10:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Humans are animals. Kellen ^T 06:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncited statement incorrect?

From the meat article, "All muscle tissue is very high in protein, containing all of the essential amino acids."

The page on essential amino acids doesn't agree, or the statement that meat contains all essential amino acids is deceptive. It lists phenylalanine (or tyrosine) as limiting amino acids. 171.71.37.103 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The actual article on Tyrosine lists it as a non-essential amino acid. So what exactly is the problem? --WayneMokane (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Human Meat

Any word on the nutritional value of a human? Writtenbythevictor 13:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably simular to most other mammels :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.218 (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt we could get reliable references for this. -- Librarianofages (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes & Ext Links

I will be removing the Notes section since there are none. Also, all of the External Links in this article are worthless. Some are ads for machinery to process meat, to a blog-like sight with no references and no contact info, to a quaint wiki-like site, etc. These links are about the meat business, not meat. Let me know if you have problems with these being removed; or also place some good links re. meat. Bob98133 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing Urban Dictionary

This page cites Urban Dictionary for one of its "facts". Urban Dictionary is little more than a collection of what lots of random users think they know and half-remember. As an admin for Wiktionary, I've had to deal many time with information posted into Wiktionary entries without any backing other than Urban Dictionary. In almost all such cases, further research of the word reveals with UD is incorrect or unsupportable by any evidence. Though I'm sure some of it must be correct, there's no way to tell which bits have any value. I wouldn't trust a single bit of information I found there for accuracy. See WP:CITE. In this case, it turns out that the cited "fact" isn't even mentioned at UD, so I have restored the {{fact}} tag removed by User:Librarianofages. --EncycloPetey 13:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, it was silly for me to put that up. -- Librarianofages (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Correlation is not Causality

The sentance " In particular, meat has been found to be a direct cause of cancers of the lung, esophagus, liver, and colon, among others." needs to be changed. It is an example of cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Also, it is important to note that the study cited does not support that meat was the cause. It only found a correlation. The sentance would be apropriate if it was changed to say "In particular, there is strong correlation between eating meat and occurences of cancers of the lung, esophagus, liver, and colon, among others." 128.146.93.38 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, and normally I would agree (and maybe I still do), but I ask you to re-read the source thoroughly. Quote from source: "Meats can cause cancer by several routes, the researchers noted. 'For example, (red and white meat) are both sources of saturated fat and iron, which have independently been associated with carcinogenesis,' the researchers wrote. Meat is also a source of several chemicals known to cause DNA mutations, including N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)." Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

deletion of 'new pyramid' external link

I checked out this web site and basically it doesn't add much to this article, although it is interesting. It is also not referenced at all - there are links to usda sites, but just as 'see also'. It looks more like a blog, which aren't very reliable. It is also just marginally related to the topic. So I have to agree with Okiefromokla that it doesn't belong. For this article, which is often disputed, it's probably a better idea to cite better sources, otherwise the external link section ends up being a grocery list of questionable links. Bob98133 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, now that I look more deeply into the website. Thanks for the discussion. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Blood and tissue

Meat" means edible parts of the animals referred to in points 1.2 to 1.8, including blood.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_139/l_13920040430en00550205.pdf

Could tell you what law you found meat is a tissu, not FAO, not OIE, not Europe , so where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bc789 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a law; it's the biological definition. There is a difference between the biological meaning of "meat" and the legal definition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate information in the nutritional benefits/concerns section

I edited the following inaccurate or misleading information from the article:

• "However, meat is very high in fat, low in carbohydrates, and contains no fiber." - Fat content depends on preparation and type of meat; low in carbohydrates and no dietary fiber may be appropriate, but I don't think it is a valid criticism considering that meat is intended to be part of a balanced diet
• "...despite the increased danger of exposure to chronic wasting disease." (in reference to venison) - This is inflammatory; CWD has never been transmitted to humans.
• "Animal fat is the only dietary source of cholesterol" - this is directly contradicted by the article on cholesterol: "Plants have trace amounts of cholesterol, so even a vegan diet, which includes no animal foods, has traces of cholesterol." Even if you change the wording to "the only significant dietary source of cholesterol," it is still misleading because it is in the meat article, and eggs generally are not considered to be meat (and do not fit the definition of meat in this article).
• "Experts say that well planned vegetarian diets can satisfy all nutritional requirements, including protein and essential amino acids,[5] and aid in keeping body weight under control while substantially reducing risks of obesity[6] and a wide range of other common and potentially fatal ailments.[7][8]" - This is an article about meat, not vegetarianism. Criticisms of meat are valid, but I don't believe promotion of a vegetarian diet belongs in the article.

I was attempting to remove some of the obvious bias from this article, and I believe these changes were legitimate. They were reverted with no comment by the reverter. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You removed cited information and the citations before giving this commentary. I reverted because your edits did not justify the removal of content.

• Meat is high in fat compared to other types of food. Yes, it can be processed to reduce the fat content, but meat is still naturally high in fat, and certainly more so than fruits, vegetables, and grains.
• IF CWD has never been transmitted to humans, then a cite backing that up would be a welcome addition. However, the fear of contracting CWD is still a real phenomenon, and people do have concerns, even if those concerns are not founded on any scientific basis.
• It is only slightly misleading to say that meat is the only dietary source of cholesterol. The key piece of information is that plants contain trace amounts. So the statement should be edited to say that meat is the only significant dietary source.
• The statements about a vegetarian diet are not promotional, they are factual. Concerns about meat consumption, and concerns about a lack of meat in the diet are both legitimate topics for an article about meat.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing a source does not make the information pertinent to the article; I gave reasons for each of my edits in the edit comments. Much of the information I removed was not even supported by the citations. The sentence about meat being "very" high in fat and lacking in carbohydrates and dietary fiber was supported ONLY by a link that says that meat is lacking in dietary fiber. The word "very" is ambiguous. What does "very" high in fat mean? If it means it has more fat than an apple, the article should say that. (edit: the article already contains a table listing typical fat content of different types of meat - is that not sufficient, and MORE informative than saying meat is "very" high in fat?) Listing its lack of carbohydrates and fiber makes as much sense as criticizing sugar for lacking protein. Meat is not intended to be a source of fiber or carbohydrates. No one eats meat for its fiber or carbohydrate content. It is irrelevant to the article. It would be relevant to the article on the Atkins Diet. I don't need to cite a source to support my claim that CWD has never been transmitted to humans - it is right in the link that was cited already by whomever added that FUD to the article. And are you really saying that Wikipedia should be used to spread unfounded fears? Is "only slightly misleading" the standard that you hold Wikipedia to? As I said before, it is still wrong to say that meat is the only significant source of cholesterol in a diet, because eggs are not generally considered to be meat, nor do they fit the definition of meat as given in this very article. It is more than slightly misleading, it is just plain wrong. The article does not make the claim that a diet lacking in meat is lacking in any way, so I don't see how it is relevant to bring up a vegetarian diet at all.

Please stop editing the article to include information that you admit is misleading or inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugsywwiii (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the pot calling the kettle black. All I did was restore information you deleted from the article, and this discussion has shown that deletion was not the appropriate action. Please look at your recent edits; you have added the unsourced claim that "meat should be eaten as part of a healthy diet", yet you say that "The article does not make the claim that a diet lacking in meat is lacking in any way". Those two statements are at odds with each other. You need to cite a source to support your claim that meat should be eaten by people, and (in accordance with WP:NPOV) allow for the counterargument that vegetarianism is a viable option. Articles should be balanced and present all widely-held and valid viewpoints, rather than pushing one over another. Also, please don't mark all of your edits as "minor", because they aren't. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of your insistence on including the lack of carbohydrates and dietary fiber in meat, I felt it needed to be made clear that this means that meat should not be a person's sole source of food - thus it should be part of a diet balanced with other foods. I reworded that sentence to make it clear that meat is not a necessary component of a balanced diet, but rather that if meat is consumed it should only be as part of a balanced diet. I linked to the page for healthy diet which explains this in more detail. Sorry for the confusion, I hope the new wording is more agreeable. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that bringing this information up in this section is appropriate. There are valid concerns about cholesterol and fiber content of meat. I don't think that these should be given undo stress, but I see no problem with it if it is well-referenced, as the existing sections about disease, etc. are. The point isn't whether meat is the only source of cholesterol, just that it is a major source which is of concern to many people.Bob98133 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with the article saying that it is a significant source of cholesterol. I have an issue with the article saying it is the ONLY source of cholesterol when it is not. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Another instance of clear bias: "In response to health concerns about saturated fat and cholesterol, consumers have altered their consumption of various meats. A USDA report points out that consumption of beef in the United States between 1970–1974 and 1990–1994 dropped by 21%, while consumption of chicken increased by 90%." This was taken from a report titled Price and Income Affect Nutrients Consumed From Meats. Not surprisingly, the report deals primarily with economic factors that caused the shift from beef to chicken. I've edited the article to reflect this. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Meat-eating and Human Evolution

Does anyone have any sources for the belief among many anthropologists/archaeologists/biologists that the high levels of protein from increased meat-gobbling was responsible for brain development in early hominids? Seems like that would be well within the scope of this article. Mmm...meat...***salivates*** MosKillinest (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

broadest definition

This is ambiguous at best. Do we mean 'most common, main or general' or do we mean 'widest, most liberal'? Obviously in the case of meat we're referring to the former. But with no prior knowledge of the definition of meat one would not know (or assume otherwise). This ambiguity is inherent in the improper use of 'broadest definition' generally and is not specific to its usage in the article meat.

Strictly 'broadest definition', if one were to go on the meanings of the words, should (and does) refer to the 'widest, most liberal definition' since were using the adjective 'broadest' (widest) to modify the word 'definition' (meaning). (This interpretation makes the opening statement in the 'meat' article false since meat has a much wider/more liberal definition than the one stated. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meat.)
However in this article 'broadest definition' is referring to 'the most common definition' but it should really be 'most broadly used definition' since were talking about the broadest (widest) usage, not the broadest definition.

Put simply it is the usage that is broad not the meaning.
Example of correct usage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Broadest_definition:_reality_and_probability
User responsible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silence First instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meat&oldid=41658775
I would propose changing the opening sentence to 'Meat, in its most broadly used definition' or similar. 121.209.116.42 (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The current phrasing is correct for what it says. The subject of the article is one sense of the word meat, and within that context, the definition given is the broadest. In an encyclopedia, the base units are subjects or senses, not the words themselves. The is the purview of a dictionary. No definition of a word includes all of the senses of that word. Think of it this way: An article about the moss Costesia that talked about the "broadest definition" of Costesia would obviously refer to the delimitation of the moss taxon, and not the word. No one would beleiev that the definition would include both the moss by that name and the insect by that name. After all, no single definition of any word actually includes all possible meanings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your explanation EncycloPetey. My initial comments can be considered invalid. 121.209.116.42 (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition claims

Editor's note: renaming this section to cover all such claims, not just those related to heart disease

This claim Animal fat is one of the only dietary sources of saturated fat, which have been linked to various health problems, including heart disease is very different from what appears in the given citation. First, at least the abstract doesn't talk about saturated fat at all, so it's not clear how it could be used unless the full article contains more information. Second, the last sentence of the given citation even says Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the absence of meat.. Therefore this citation has little, if anything, to do with the claim in this article regarding heart disease. --WayneMokane (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

From your comments, it sounds as if you looked only at the abstract, and not the compete cited reference. However, I did check the whole reference for any statement that saturated fat consumption has been tied to heart disease or other health problems, and your suspicion is correct that no such connection is made in the cited reference. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on the actual article. I should have been more careful because I've made this mistake before (using FV template because the abstract didn't contain the claim but the full article did). But while we're at it, I've added the template to another claim in that same sentence (for atherosclerosis). This study is widely cited for similar arguments. However it is actually not relevant to any claims about meat in the human diet. It discusses a study where rabbits (which are decidedly herbivores) are force fed meat in conjunction with a synergy of allergic injury to arteries. Thus, even as the abstract admits, the best the investigators can conclude is Results of this investigation support the hypothesis that the synergy of allergic injury to arteries and lipid-rich diet can lead to athero-arteriosclerosis (again, in rabbits). --WayneMokane (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla (talk · contribs) made several improvements based on my suggestions to him regarding nutritional claims added to this article. However, I still have several lingering concerns regarding claims and references for this section. Specifically, several of the references for the claims are for studies that examined a much narrower domain than that which is claimed. In the sentence beginning with The saturated fat found in meat has been associated with significantly raised risks of

• colon cancer - the reference for this claim is an article about a study that looked at eating red meat (beef, pork, lamb, and processed meats such as cold cuts and bacon) more than once a day over several years. Furthermore there is no reference to saturated fat in the article discussing the study. Can we find the actual study (at least an abstract) instead of this CBS article so we can investigate more closely? As it stands the claim is not supported by this reference.
• prostate cancer - the reference for this claim appears to be a UK-based animal rights website, which is again inappropriate for this article. It talks about a 1998 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, so let's try to find an encyclopedic source for that and use it instead.
• breast cancer - the reference for this claim is a study which covers young women who eat more red meat and full-fat dairy products. Again we have a study covering red meat specifically and in conjunction with full-fat dairy products so it cannot be used as a reference for the claim asserted in this sentence. Again it's a newspaper article instead of the actual study and again there is no mention of saturated fat.

We'll start with these for now; thanks. --WayneMokane (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these problems. I'll get some different sources. Although, I am not quite sure there is a problem with the colon cancer statement. Perhaps the sentence could be reworded to exclude saturated fat as a reason for the increased risk, and just keep it at meat. Nevertheless, colon cancer risk associated with meat is well documented so it wouldn't be hard to find additional sources if need be. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to work on this. I've got a lot of wikistuff going on right now. I'll go through the concerns point by point and what I've done.

• Colon cancer: I replaced this source with 2 others that each reference the saturated fat in meat. One is from the American Caner Society, which says "A high-fat diet, especially one that includes a lot of animal fat and red or processed meat, can raise a person's risk of developing colon cancer." The other is an MSNBC article that talks about studies done on the issue, which says "Frequent consumption of red meat or processed meat is a risk in many studies. Processed meat contains substances that can develop into carcinogenic compounds. Fatty red meat is high in saturated fat, which is the most damaging type of fat. Even lean red meat, however, can be high in cancer-causing substances called heterocyclic amines (HCAs), if well done or cooked at high temperatures, like frying, broiling or grilling." While not in these particular quotes, both sources say that saturated fat is a large factor in colon cancer.

• Prostate cancer: Replaced source with one from the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center. It says "Several studies indicate a positive association between saturated fat intake from meat and dairy products and prostate cancer" (No implication that this association is limited to meat and dairy when used in conjunction). However, I also found a source from the Prostate Cancer Foundation that says a recent study "provides no evidence that eating a lot of fats and meat substantially affects a man's risk of developing prostate cancer." I've added this to the article as well.

• Breast cancer: I found 2 sources to replace the previous one. One source was a BBC News article reporting on a study that found that "Eating red meat significantly increases a post-menopausal woman's chance of breast cancer" although the article goes on to say that researchers found the same, although smaller, consequence in pre-menopausal woman and that breast cancer risks are increased by the saturated fat in any meat, not just red meat. Another source, published by breastcancer.org, said "Women who eat a lot of meat, particularly red or processed meats, may be more likely to develop breast cancer, according to a large study of British women. Researchers found that among 35,372 women between the ages of 35 and 69 years old who were followed for 8 years, those who ate the largest amount of meat were more likely than non-meat eaters to develop breast cancer before or after menopause." These appear to be two articles about the same study, but that's fine as long as we're not being redundant. One article talked to researchers, the other was more thorough in detailing the results.

I'd also like to add that I'm not sure if you're objecting to news articles being used here, but there is no problem with citing reliable news organizations who have reported on a study. In many cases, this is better than citing the study itself, as news articles are written to summarize and break down the findings for the average person to understand. Sources one step removed from the origin of the information, such as news articles, are actually preferred over the alternatives (see WP:PSTS). I also wanted to say that I appreciate the effort you've put into making sure the refs wholly cite the claims. I know it takes some time, but it is invaluable to the project. Let me know if you find anything wrong with the recent additions. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, things are already looking a lot better - thanks for your effort. I'll go over this in more detail within the next week or so when I catch a few minutes free. And I definitely don't object to secondary sources and completely support Wikipedia policy on that. However, from a personal perspective, I actually tend to find meta-studies or analyses better secondary sources than newspaper articles. I've seen newspaper articles that contradict the abstract of the study they're talking about. Hell, I've seen studies where the abstract contradicts itself, so I don't know what to believe anymore. Of course we should still use these sources of course after checking them out. Primary sources, especially with medical research, are troublesome for the reasons you've outlined, plus the whole selection bias thing. --WayneMokane (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Newspapers can and do get a lot of things wrong, not just on studies! I'd love to have some secondary sources that aren't newspaper articles, if possible, but it's hard to find anything else that meets Wikipedia reliability standards on Google — if you're looking for secondary sources that have reported on something like a study, that is. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the best place to search for true secondary studies will probably be on (surprise) PubMed. An editor who is a doctor had a good suggestion for me on a different talk page for actually finding these. I have played around with it some (just by entering "[majr]" in the search box after the other terms) but I'm not sure how to interpret the results yet. Further meta-research required.  :) --WayneMokane (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)